The Christie Case

[Honest John]

My initial thought was the title 'John Christie: The Facts', but the publishers went with 'John Christie: Serial Killer of Rillington Place'.

Some of the missing parts included a discussion of the political and legal issues following the Scott-Henderson report and beyond, the ballad of John Christie by Alexander Baron (1998, I think), some material on the family; one member claims one of Christie's sisters was a prostitute but I have found no evidence to support this, and so on.

[Sherlock]

Would it be possible for you to say anything about any additional information you coudn't put into the book due to the restriction on length?

[contrafib]

That would be great if it's this year. Don't worry about offering a verdict. I think people will respect your opinion (if not the mainstream press) if they feel it's been arrived at, as with Furneaux's book, rather than the book being written to fit the original view.
Have you got a title? I can suggest 'Christie' (sorry!)

Good luck

[Honest John]

Reply

The publication date has been brought forward to this autumn.

Whether it will be definitive, I don't know. I certainly could not include all I wanted as it was restricted to 80,000 words. However, it does contain a lot more about Christie the man, his victims and his family throughout his life (and afterwards). It probably won't please everyone, but I hope it isn't as extreme in its message as Kennedy on one side or Eddowes junior on the other (by that I mean that both state their views constantly and does so rather strongly). I was going to fence sit but decided to go with what I think is most probable.

Thanks for the votes of confidence, however.

[Sherlock]

I'm sure your book will be the definitive work on the case and a must-have for any serious historian of crime.

I would put in an advance order for it just now if that was possible!!

[contrafib]

Well, a better quote than 'Christie done it!' perhaps. So, is it still set for July 2013 or will it be this year?
I wonder, is it hard to imagine what it takes to get a book written and published if you've never done it? I imagine it is.

[Honest John]

New flash

Just to let you know, my embryo book is now at the publishers, so although there may well be minor tweaks, it is on its final stage towards publication. A great load off my mind, to quote Evans.

[Honest John]

Literacy Issues

Black reported to finding four cuttings about the Hume case in a cupboard in Evans' rooms. This was a major murder case at the time and was heavily reported. The Evanses took a daily newspaper.

Evans made conflicting statements about his literacy. At one time he said he read a letter and at other times he was illiterate. He certainly would not have had to read signs when van driving because the driver's mate, one George Williams, would have done so. He asked one Mr Heaney, a prison warder, to read for him, and so probably had asked Beryl to do so, too. Jennings thought that the fact that Evans did the football pools indicated a level of literacy.

My feeling is that he could read a little, but needed help with anything else.

His only known comment about Hume is 'you have to watch Hume', which doesn't indicate he would have confided in him. That said, as Brabin famously remarked, nothing Evans or Christie says can be taken as fact unless supported by other evidence. Yet much of the case rests on their evidence and theirs alone.

[contrafib]

Was it not a cutting about Hume's murder of Setty that was found in Evans's apartment?? If it was his, it might indicate he was a 'fan' of his (sorry, bad choice of word). John, i wonder if it's been established that Evans couldn't read at all. There seems to be some doubt about how mentally deficient he was.

[Honest John]

I'm not certain I would trust anything Hume said unless supported by strong evidence. I find it difficult to imagine a father allowing another man to strangle his baby daughter in his presence. And I do not think Christie would have committed this murder to help out Evans. Malcolm Morris, incidentally, suggested that Beryl may have killed her baby, but its not clear how serious this statement should be made.

Evans said that Hume was a man to avoid, so would he have really have taken him in to his confidence?

Hume was very scathing about Kennedy's book, incidentally.

[Honest John]

The book is certainly interesting and Chance argues a very plausible case against Evans. Of course, Christie's intervention early on in the novel is pure supposition - there is no evidence whatever to support it. This apart, Chance makes some very valid points which have not been dealt with or invalidated by subsequent writers. Much better as a book than A Capital Crime.

[Sherlock]

Does anyone think it possible that Christie murdered Geraldine in Evans' presence, as Donald Hume claimed he was told by Evans when they were both on remand in Brixton Prison? Furneaux considers this as at least a possibility on page 169 of his book.

If so, could this explain why Evans felt responsible for the death of his daughter and confessed to killing her, then later retracted his confession and blamed Christie?

I do not know if this is a plausible scenario or not. What do others think?

[contrafib]

I've just read with great interest John Newton Chance's 'The Crimes At Rillington Place'. Chance was a very profilic and versatile writer and here he provides a 'novelist's reconstruction' of what he believed were the events at the famous address. First of all, i should say that Chance is undoubtedly a good writer and has a skill at creating a visual image of scenes and conveying the feelings of his characters.

For those who don't know the book, and treating it as a novel, it's mainly the story of Tim and Beryl, with Mr and Mrs Christie as supporting characters in a sorry saga. Tim is a dreamer and a fantasist, a simpleton who has a child's instinct for his own wants and needs and lacks the maturity to see reality as it actually is, particularly in times of stress. He likes the simple pleasures of the pub, not least after long days at work, and has a type of religious faith that 'things will be alright for Tim'. Beryl is a 'strong woman' but also young and naive, and possibly has a bit of the party spirit about her. She copes badly with the responsibility of having a child, and her second pregnancy and the prospect of 'the relentless forward march of nature' bringing another mouth to feed and the permanent prison-like existence she sees as the future, lead her to a deep despair. Mr Christie is a sickly man with constant ailments, at least partly psychosomatic, who lives under the constant shadow of someone discovering his 2 secrets buried in the garden. He can't move house or even leave the house for too long and so he shares the sense of being trapped. He spends a lot of time in the garden, in a sense guarding his secret, often looking out at the world outside, 'meditating' (though not in the formal sense. I think musing might have been a better word). He makes frequent reference to his former life as a policeman and seems to be a man who 'knows things'. He also has a religious sensibility, occasionally reciting the Lord's prayer quietly to himself. Mrs Christie is passive, a kind soul and concerned about her husband's health. Her husband is occasionally sharp with her. Geraldine....cries a lot! i.e. does what babies do, though perhaps portrayed as not particularly passive.

Chance gives us a picture of people struggling in a cramped house with little money, (in the words of John Eddowes) 'living lives of deprivation hard to imagine from the perspective of today'. In Chance's story, Beryl becomes hysterical and nags Tim continuously until his head rattles. She also starts to attack him physically and he seems in fear of her, Chance rather exaggeratedly having Tim thinking that he should kill her before she kills him. Conversations are quoted from real statements or imagined, and one of the more bizarre early on is Christie vaguely telling Evans he should frighten Beryl with a rope, and then denying it later. Evans tells lies so often that he can't remember when he's lied or told the truth. As for the murders, Evans kills his wife on Tuesday 8th November 1949 with a rope that he had at work, and then kills Geraldine on the same day, not 2 days later, when her loud, piercing crying also starts to tear his head apart. Christie involves himself and protects Evans, seemingly to Evans as a kind, neighbourly act, and Evans only starts to blame Christie when he convinces himself that it is somehow Christie's fault (anything to avoid blaming himself). Chance's descriptions of the strain on Evans, his wife's hysteria and his befuddled mind do make the murders seem plausible and even understandable (if not justifiable).

Those who've also read the book, what did you think of it?

[contrafib]

It makes sense because Christie had a vested interest in the general concealment of crimes in R Place (i.e the 2 bodies in the garden) even if he wasn't involved in Beryl's murder. If he took control of the situation, maybe he killed the baby because Evans couldn't face it.

[Honest John]

A very good point re Evans' lack of reaction, which goes against what we know of his character. Likewise, after receiving a death sentence and his appeal being turned down, he diesn't seem to be angry at all.

Joan Vincent had poor memory and was being treated for it; sher gave several different dates for her visit to number ten, so I don't think she's a reliable witness.

Furneaux's book isn't bad, but if you believe as he does that Evans killed his wife, then why should Christie kill Geraldine. It doesn't make sense to me and I feel that whoever killed one, killed both.