The Christie Case

[caz]

I believe Arthur Shawcross was another convicted serial killer who could never bring himself to admit to the children who were among his victims.

The reason was possibly that he had claimed his mother had sexually abused him as a child, as if that would somehow excuse him - if true - for turning into an evil adult. He also claimed that his victims had provoked him into killing them by coming onto him and then backing off or threatening to tell when he took things further.

So he could hardly then admit to abusing and killing children who were too young to have done anything of the sort. It would be like saying he had provoked his own mother into abusing him. His childhood sexual abuse excuse wouldn't wash if he had to admit to doing stuff to little kids that was a hundred times worse.

It was all nonsense of course, but there does seem to be some rudimentary need in these people to justify what they do, either to themselves or to society, or both. They can appreciate what makes babies and small children hardest of all to get around, so if it's easier, or makes them feel better to deny a particular victim, you bet your life that they will. That's all that counts in their tiny world.

If Christie had convinced himself that the women he killed were all better off dead than 'in trouble', or had even died accidentally while he was 'helping' them (and once they were dead, what would it really matter if he had his way with them), none of it could comfortably be applied to a helpless baby who was just in the way.

Love,

Caz
X

[apricot]

I believe Arthur Shawcross was another convicted serial killer who could never bring himself to admit to the children who were among his victims.

The reason was possibly that he had claimed his mother had sexually abused him as a child, as if that would somehow excuse him - if true - for turning into an evil adult. He also claimed that his victims had provoked him into killing them by coming onto him and then backing off or threatening to tell when he took things further.

So he could hardly then admit to abusing and killing children who were too young to have done anything of the sort. It would be like saying he had provoked his own mother into abusing him. His childhood sexual abuse excuse wouldn't wash if he had to admit to doing stuff to little kids that was a hundred times worse.

It was all nonsense of course, but there does seem to be some rudimentary need in these people to justify what they do, either to themselves or to society, or both. They can appreciate what makes babies and small children hardest of all to get around, so if it's easier, or makes them feel better to deny a particular victim, you bet your life that they will. That's all that counts in their tiny world.

If Christie had convinced himself that the women he killed were all better off dead than 'in trouble', or had even died accidentally while he was 'helping' them (and once they were dead, what would it really matter if he had his way with them), none of it could comfortably be applied to a helpless baby who was just in the way.

Love,

Caz
X

Excellent post Caz.

KR Angie

[belinda]

It seems to me you are saying the two men were equal if you think they would have behaved and responded in the same way under interrogation, which is simply not the case. My point about Tim being a van driver was to emphasise he was a straight forward working man whereas Christie was a serial killer. For you to say Christie had no reason to lie seems an absurd assumption. If you believe that you might as well say Evans had no reason to turn himself in at the police station in Merthyr Tydfil and tell police he had disposed of his wife down the drain. Beryl was never down any drain so why would Evans say that? You might also just as well say Christie had no reason to murder women.
Let's get real shall we?

You are putting words in my mouth again and not making a lot of sense.

The Green River Killer was a Van/Truck Driver by the way.

[Delboy58]

Timothy Evans

Belinda. Hello, been away for a few days. Please have a look at the excellent post from Caz. He sums up the way many killers think, especially child killers. I am not sure what you mean by me putting words in your mouth and not talking sense but I will have one last attempt to make you see some! The question of who was guilty in the Christie case is no longer being asked. That matter was resolved half a century ago; too late of course to undo the terrible wrong done to Tim and his family. It seems the entire world knows Christie carried out the killings except you. Will you and Contrafib and those of a similar mnd do me a great favour by answering me one simple question? And would you be so kind as to attempt to answer it directly, putting aside any personal prejudice you may or may not have? Call it humouring me if you like. Considering all the evidence that is known about this case today, do you honestly believe, hand on heart, that a modern day jury would convict Evans?

[belinda]

I do not know what a modern jury would do.

Are you aware that a 1965 inquiry came to the conclusion that it was probable that Evans killed his wife but not his daughter.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rillington-Place-1949-Hon-Mr-Justice-Uncovered/dp/0117024171/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1

[Delboy58]

Timothy Evans

As I suspected Belinda, you did not answer my question. I did not really think you would but I was hoping to be refreshingly surprised. Of course we all know about the bungled Brabin inquiry of 1965 (that was me answering your question by the way) but surely you do not mention that as evidence in support of your beliefs? Tim received a free pardon in 1966 and, for the record, subsequent inquiries found no evidence implicating him in the death of his wife or child. You seem to be clutching at straws in a bid to avoid telling me what you really think. Interesting that you have many opinions regarding who did what in this tragic story and yet you are not prepared to hazard a guess as to what a modern day jury would say. I hope I never have to face trial in court with you on my case!

[belinda]

I did answer your question I also provided a link to the book on the 1965 .Inquiry.

Would a modern jury convict? I don't know.

Can you say for certain what evidence a modern jury would be presented with?

If I were on a Jury I would not be able to give a verdict on this as there is not in my opinion enough evidence either way.

[Delboy58]

Timothy Evans

If we reply to a question with “I do not know” then it is not an answer. I don’t mean to sound harsh but anyone who comes to these forums arguing against known facts must be prepared to state their opinion. If not, then they have no opinion. In any murder inquiry we should first look at the known evidence and there is plenty of clear cut evidence, not just simply conjecture, in this case available to anyone who cares to research properly. Then we should consider our verdict. Guess work and invented theories are all very well in the class room, but if they are to be taken seriously in the court room they must be supported by some solid corroborative evidence. If we allow complete fantasy to rule our heads, denying all the certainties and considering only the implausible, then complete madness would reign and yes, anything becomes possible. Maybe the world is flat after all! Contrary to your last sentence Belinda, there is certainly enough clear cut evidence here for any jury to convict Christie, none whatsoever to convict Evans.

[Supe]

Delboy,

If we reply to a question with “I do not know” then it is not an answer.

In fact, Belinda's answer was an honest one to your question--who can accurately say what a jury will decide?--and all your huffing, puffing and bullying won't change that.

Don.

[Delboy58]

Timothy Evans

Supe if you have nothing intelligent to say then keep it closed. A little understanding of the evidence in a case can give a person a good insight of how a jury may or may not think. Huffing, puffing and bullying?!! There's a saying you would be well to learn about kettle, pot and black...

[Supe]

DelBOY,

An apt posting name, since I would suggest you need to grow up and learn to take it as well as dish it out. And by the way, Caz is a rather lovely SHE.

Don.

[Delboy58]

Timothy Evans

There I was thinking I was having an interesting converstation about Timothy Evans and somebody called Supe comes along. And your name is not very apt for a person so ill informed. I'm sure Caz is a lovely lady but is that relevant? Her post was excellent by the way. Before we go any further I should point out that these forums are for discussion, not dishing it out as you call it. Please, please do us all a favour and leave this particular discussion board for people who want to have an intelligent debate about murder. I'm sure there are plenty of the more loutish forums you can find. Name calling and childish postings belong in the playground. I apologise to those reading this who are genuinely interested in these topics. Some people are not my friends, they just gate crashed the party.

[belinda]

Delboy your argument has certainly not been based on anything like solid evidence.

You state Christie was mad and a liar.

He was considered sane enough to stand trial. Mad is not a diagnosis it is a generalistion.What form of psychiactric disorder are you specifically saying Christie suffered from?

Liars do not always lie.

You argument for Evans innocence is even more outrageous.

He was a humble van driver therefore this renders him incaplable of murder.

That is ridiculous.Again I point out the Green River killer. Peter Sutcliffe also drove Trucks.

I asked you what kind of evidence a modern Jury would be presented with you did not answer this.

Your argument is based on emotion not logic.

As you made the playground analogy I will make it clear now I do not play with bullies.

End

[Delboy58]

Timothy Evans

That comment was not aimed at you Belinda, sorry if you thought it was. We were discussing sensibly I thought.

[Supe]

Dellboy,

Let us get a few things straight. We have all been members of Casebook for many years and don't need you to lecture me, or Belinda, or many of the other posters on proper deportment on these boards. Nonetheless, you have suddenly shown up and disparged, hectored and, yes, bullied, those who don't agree with you. Indeed, the mere suggestion that someone may disagree with your opinions (and they are nothing more) about the available evidence causes you to belittle them.

You don't want discussion, you want abject agreement with your views. Continue with your current attitude and you will quickly find yourself arguing solely with yourself, which may be what you actually covet.

As for your mistaking Caz for a male, its mention was relevant to the extent that it was an unwarranted assumption on your part. Perhaps it was prompted by sexism, but in any case must make one wonder if your assumptions and opinions about Christie/Evans are equally erroneous.

I would hope that you can engage in serious discourse on this thread and that includes the acceptance that your assessement of the evidence involved may, at least in part, be faulty and that those who disagree may be right in some particulars.

Don.