Tweet
The following website argues a good case against Evans being guilty of either murder. It has an excellent explanation of the wash house scenario and explains why Christie is much more likely to have killed both Beryl and Geraldine.
-
-
Was Evans innocent?
There are two books concerning the murders at 10 Rillington Case with similar titles:-
The Two Stranglers of Rillington Place by Rupert Furneaux was published as a paperback in 1961 by Panther Books. Furneaux argues that while Evans strangled his wife Beryl in the course of a row over their debts, Christie strangled Evans' daughter Geraldene. Furneaux also suggests that the two men worked in collusion, and that Christie was aware that Evans had strangled Beryl, and encouraged him to leave London, telling him that he would arrange for Geraldene to be looked after by a non-existant couple in East Acton. Christie then strangled Geraldene to get her out of the way, while Evans genuinely believed that she was still alive. Furneaux also believes that Christie placed both bodies in the wash-house, and hints that being in possession of Beryl's body for a short while gave Christie further opportunities to indulge his necrophiliac perversions.
Interestingly, the Brabin inquiry of 1966 also concluded that whilst Evans killed his wife, he did not kill his daughter. As he had been tried and executed for the murder of his daughter and not his wife, he was granted a free pardon.
The Two Killers of Rillington Place by John Eddowes was published in 1994 by Little, Brown and Company. Eddowes argues that Evans killed both Beryl and Geraldene, and that Christie was probably aware of the murders but kept silence so that his own crimes would not be discovered. Eddowes writes very scathingly about Ludovic Kennedy's "standard version" of the case, and I believe that Kennedy actually took legal action against Eddowes for this, which was settled out of court, and which also led to the first hardback edition of Eddowes' book being withdrawn from sale.
I also believe that John Eddowes was the son of Michael Eddowes, who wrote "The Man on your Conscience", published in 1955 by Cassell and Company, which was the first full-length book to argue the case for Evans' innocence.
Another work about the case which does not seem to be particularly well-known is "The Crimes at Rillington Place" by John Newton Chance, which was published in 1961 by Hodder and Stoughton. Chance describes the murders of Beryl and Geraldene in the form of a short novel, and also argues that Evans was responsible for both of them.
regards
SHERLOCKComment
-
Hi Sherlock,
Both of these scenarios seem plausible except that the timescale of events at 10 Rillington Place, borne out by builder's timesheets and the movement of materials to and from the outhouse where the bodies were found, seems to suggest that Christie placed the bodies there. He also had previous and subsequent form as a strangler.
However, your contribution is interesting, as it presents two different scenarios against Christie being the killer of both Gerladine and Beryl.
I still remain convinced that Christie killed both of them, partly because i do not believe Evans would have strangled his wife with a ligature, but is more likely to have beaten her and I also believe he could not have hurt his child, whom he adored.
Youre respectfully
LimehouseComment
-
Hi Limehouse
The case of Christie and Evans is indeed a complex one, and I still haven't come to any definite conclusion as to which of the two men comitted either or both of the murders of Beryl and Geraldine.
I suspect that Evans' claim that Christie offered to perform an abortion on Beryl is probably true; I believe that it was rumoured in the neighbourhood that he was an abortionist, and I think I read in one book that official documents which have fairly recently come to light revealed that the police themselves actually suspected that abortions took place at 10 Rillington Place. However, as far as I am aware there is no evidence that Christie actually performed any abortions, or that he had the knowledge to do so. It is therefore more likely that he merely claimed to be able to do so in order to murder or sexually assault women.
It is my understanding that the body of Beryl Evans was exhumed in 1953 for further examination after Christie had confessed to her murder, but that no evidence of carbon monoxide poisoning was found, despite Christie's claim that he had administered gas prior to killing her. Moreover, the bruising on her face which had been noted at the original post mortem in 1949 would appear to be alien to Christie's method of killing, and therefore might suggest Evans as her killer. However, it is perhaps worth remembering that Christie did have a previous conviction for violent assault in 1929, when he hit the woman with whom he was living at the time over the head with a cricket bat.
As far as is known, there is nothing in Christie's history prior to 1949 which might suggest that he had the motivation to attack a child. In fact, he claimed to be very fond of children, and I think it has been said that he was sometimes very kind to them. At the same time, he also claimed to love his wife, but this did not prevent him from murdering her.
Interestingly, Professor Keith Simpson recorded in Forty Years of Murder
that Christie was asked after his arrest whether he might have been responsible for the murder of a little girl in Windsor which had occurred some time previously. He apparently told the police that he thought that he was not responsible as he had never been to Windsor.
Here is a possible scenario for what really happened; I do not know if it is a realistic one or not, it is merely a suggestion:-
Christie offered to perform an abortion on Beryl in order to murder or sexually assault her, but to his frustration this was turned down by Evans. Some days later, Evans had a violent row with Beryl over their mounting debts and hit her on the face, knocking her out. He then panicked and fetched Christie, fearing that he had killed her and knowing that Christie claimed to have medical knowledge. Christie came upstairs and found himself confronted with an unconscious female, whom he had in fact hoped to murder himself. He then persuaded Evans to leave the room on some pretext while he attended to Beryl's injuries and then proceded to strangle and possibly sexually assault her. When Evans returned Christie informed him that although he had tried to save her, Beryl had died of her injuries and that Evans would possibly hang for it, as he could not prove that he had not intended to kill her. He then persuaded Evans to leave London, telling him that he would arrange for Geraldine to be looked after by a couple in East Acton - interestingly, Christie had worked at the Ultra Radio works in Acton after leaving the War Reserve Police, and it was here that he had met is second known victim, Muriel Eady. When Evans had departed for Wales, Christie strangled Geraldine and hid both bodies in the wash-house.
As I said, I do not know if this scenario is at all probable, and no doubt it would not answer all the questions arising from the case, but it would be interesting to hear other people's views on it.
Rupert Furneaux states in The Two Stranglers of Rillington Place that Ethel Christie informed another tenant in 1951 that she felt that her husband had been involved with the Evans murders, as his manner had been strange ever since then. Christie himself then entered the room and became very angry, saying that he did not to want hear the matter discussed again. Unfortunately, Furneaux does not say from whom he obtained this and a good deal of other interesting information which he records in his book, so it may well be apocryphal.
regards
SHERLOCKComment
-
Well, Sherlock, it is certainly possible, and there is nothing outrageous about it, but...
It doesn't fit with Evans' first statement to the police. (Essentially: Beryl died of a self-induced abortion and I put her body in the drain).
It doesn't fit with Evans' second statement to the police. (Beryl died when Christie aborted her and Christie put her body in the drain.)
It doesn't fit with Christie's confession.
It doesn't fit with Evans' confession, which has all the hallmarks of a false confession anyhow (impossible claims such as the one that he put the bodies in the wash house immediately).
A person can come up with all sorts of possible and believable scenarios, some of which have Evans killing Beryl and Geraldine, but by far the most likely scenario is the "standard" (Kennedy) scenario. It explains Evans' initial false statement, it has the second statement being the truth, it explains the false confession, and it fits Christie's final confession.
If we dismiss the Evans' false confession (it is proved impossible and has the hallmarks of a classic false confession) we have a scenario that fits two of the remaining three statements, explains the discrepancy with the third statement, and fits all the concrete evidence. And this doesn't even begin to mention the fact that Christie was a known killer.
One thing I'm not sure about is whether Beryl Evans was actually gassed. Christie claimed that he gassed her, but this doesn't seem to be confirmed by the evidence.Comment
-
Sherlock,
Interesting and possible scenario you described,but if Evans ran away ,on Christies advice, till things "blew over" why did he later,not only give himself up but also confess to the crime?Ive never found the "he confessed to protect Christie" line very convincing,in fact far from it.Evans actions werent those of an innocent man in my opinion,now whether he killed one or both is up for argument, but I doubt that issue will ever be resolved.My feeling ,for what its worth ,is that he probabley killed both mother and daughter.
regardsComment
-
I would say that it is equally possible that Christie killed both Beryl and Geraldine or that Evans killed both of them.
The main points against Christie killing Beryl are perhaps the following:-
1) Despite Christie' s claim that he gassed Beryl prior to raping and strangling her, no trace of carbon monoxide was found in her body either during the first post-mortem in 1949 or after the exhumation in 1953.
2) John Eddowes claims in The Two Killers of Rillington Place that Beryl was not in the house at the time Christie claimed to have murdered her.
3) As Rupert Furneaux states in The Two Stranglers of Rillington Place:-
If Christie had strangled Beryl at lunchtime on November 8th, and was going to tell Evans she had died from an abortion, it was essential to the plot that Christie should be in the house when Evans returned home from work, to frighten him into concealing his wife's death.
Christie left the house at 5.25pm to visit his doctor and on the way back he called for his wife at the Public Library. As Dr. Odess's surgery did not start until 6.0pm, Christie could hardly have got home much before 6.30pm.
Evans did not come home until about 6.30pm, according to his first and final statements...Thus, the house was empty for nearly an hour.
Christie would not have dared to take the appalling risk that Evans might come home early, find his wife dead and rush out and tell someone, his mother or the police. The true cause of Beryl's death, strangulation not abortion, would have been disclosed, the time of death established and Christie, who had been at home all day, would have been the obvious suspect.
On the other hand, there are also indications which might point to Christie as Beryl's murderer, such as the following:-
1) Christie had taken risks before; it was known that he was a friend of Muriel Eady, his second victim, and therefore might well have been connected with her disappearance in 1944, although this did not seem to happen at the time. Moreover, it seems that he actually used her thighbone to mend his garden fence when it came away from the soil! It is interesting that this was not discovered when the police searched the house and garden in 1949. He also claims that his dog dug up her skull at around this time, which he subsequently threw into a bombed house neraby.
2) Apparently, the body of Beryl Evans did not have any underwear when it was discovered in 1949; this was also the case with the bodies of Christie's last three victims in 1953. This could suggest that she had removed her underwear in preparation for Christie's bogus abortion, or that Christie himself had removed it after killing her, which seems unlikely if Evans had been her killer. Christie probably did the same thing to satisfy his sexual fetishes with his victims in 1953.
3) Ludovic Kennedy records in 10 Rillington Placethat when the house was put up for sale in 1950, one prospective purchaser asked Christie how the bodies of Beryl and Geraldine had remained in the wash-house for such a long time without his dog smelling them. Christie was apparantly very annoyed at the question. This could just possibly suggest that Christie himself had placed the bodies in the wash-house and had made sure to keep his dog away from the area so as not to draw attention to their presence there, or at least that he knew they were there.
4) It seems unlikely that Evans could have seen one of Christie's medical books as he stated unless Christie himself had shown it to him. This, coupled with the fact that Christie was apparently suspected of being an abortionist, could suggest that Christie had indeed offered to perform an abortion on Beryl, although whether he actually pretended to do so in order to kill her is open to question.
It seems pretty clear that, whoever was responsible, Evans would not have been found guilty of the murder of his daughter Geraldine in 1950 had the jury known that Christie had already comitted two murders in the house and had buried the bodies in the garden.
regards
SHERLOCKComment
-
I agree,because the Jury would have jumped to the conclusion that Christie must have been guilty of geraldines murder because he had murdered said women before.Its a natural assumption to make, but not neccesarilly the correct one.Originally posted by Sherlock View Post
regardsComment
-
As an interesting side issue to this thread, would Christie still have been executed if he had been found guilty of capital murder under the terms of the Homicide Act of 1957?
It is my understanding that he would not have been executed if he had been tried for the murder of his wife alone as he was in 1953, as he had not killed her with a firearm or killed her in the course of a robbery.
On the other hand, I believe that the Homicide Act allowed for the death penalty in cases where a person was found guilty of more than one murder on seperate occasions, so if he had been tried for all of the murders he comitted at the same time and been found guilty of two or more of them, he would still have been executed.
Similarly, if Evans had been convicted of the murder of Beryl alone after 1957 he would not have been subject to the death penalty, but would have been if he had been convicted of the murders of both Beryl and Geraldine.
I also understand that prior to 1957 anyone charged with more than one murder in England was only tried for one of them at a time, as Christie was in 1953. Did the act of 1957 then provide that someone could be convicted of more than one murder at the same trial?
Could someone clarify these points?
regards
SHERLOCKComment
-
Anyone interested in a copy of Ludovic Kennedy's Ten Rillington Place (the only major book on the case), the hardback edition no less, including all photographs, in almost pristine condition for only a fiver + postage, he or she is invited to send me a PM.Comment
-
Graves of Christie's Victims
Whilst trawling around the Christie case I came across the details of the last resting places of Beryl and Geraldine Evans (In Gunnersbury Cemetery London)
I was wondering what happened to the remains of Christies other victims after the post-mortems. Were funerals held for each or any of the victims or were they merely interred/cremated anonomously by the local authority.
Any information especially with regard to the final resting place of Ethel Christie would be welcomeComment
-
Christie
Christie said he dident kill the baby but then he said he was a respectable married man and that wasnt exactly true. since when has word of a serial sex killer counted for anything they are by there nature psychopathec liars petter suttclif claims to have killed only 4 women but we know he killed more.
why would Christie deny it i dont know only he could no that maybe he was just playing a sick game with everyone you can never know what goes on in a killers mind. but all the facts point to Christie killing the baby.Comment
-
With all due respect to the link above, if you read John Eddowes book 'The Two Killers of Rillington Place,' the author makes a very good case for Evans being a murderer, and shreds much of the evidence presented by Ludovic Kennedy in his book for there having been a miscarriage of justice.Comment
-
I wonder if John was in any way related to that other Eddowes?Originally posted by Rosella View PostG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
Comment