Talk:John Christie (serial killer)

Christie is stated to be the landlord of 10 Rillington Place, but the article on the house says he illegally sublet his flat when he went on the run, and the real landlord ejected the new tenants. There are some other inconsistencies between the accounts at the two pages; I think they should probably be combined, but my own knowledge of the case is limited to the Attenborough film. Deadlock 14:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reg?

Why on earth is this page called "Reg Christie"? Maybe some of his friends called him that, but he's universally known as "John Christie" now. A Google search agrees with me - 81,000 matches for John, only 700 for Reg (and very few of them about the murderer). Can we move the page? Edbrims (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Change the title. Peterlewis (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wedding ring/Wedding band

The article states that Christie sold his wife's wedding ring and her wedding band They are one and the same thing. Lion King 03:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Geraldine

Who precisely is Geraldine? I removed "and that he did not kill Geraldine", if we can find out who she is it should be replaced. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As the article says, Geraldine Evans, the daughter of Timothy and Beryl Evans, born October 1949. -- Arwel (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it was a really unclear introduction to who she was but is now fixed. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

It is really ridiculous to suggest that my added comments are POV when I cannot find a single example of anyone who would disagree after all these years that a mass killer did not murder Evans wife and daughter. Please provide details of any authorities who think otherwise. Peterlewis (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the onus is on you to provide citations to back up your insertion. Also, did you mean to imply above that nobody thinks that Evans's wife and child were killed by a mass murderer (ie Christie)? If so, who does everybody think did kill them? Your wording is rather convoluted and unclear. 160.9.95.5 (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Substantial Controversy"

To say that there is "substantial controversy" as to whether Christie murdered the Evans' victims is wrong for the following reasons:

1. Roy Jenkins, when home secretary, pardoned Evans. He didn't have to; in fact, he shouldn't have done so because the Brabin report suggested that Evans may be guilty of one of the murders.
2. The Brabin report is regarded as wrong, and a "slur". Evans' family was given compensation and this was acknowledged.
3. Evans is therefore regarded as being innocent. His conviction was not quashed; he was pardoned. A conviction is quashed if it is unsafe, a person is pardoned if they are believed to be innocent.
4. So if Evans didn't kill them, who did? The only person in the frame is Christie.
5. If other sources say Christie did not commit the Evans' murders, please supply the evidence.
6. Even if "some sources" say Christie was not guilty of their murders, plainly that is not the same as "substantial controversy"

See (paragraph 13 in particular): http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/2779.html&query=westlake&method=boolean

Richardhearnden (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Some replies to your points:

1) Roy Jenkins's pardon of Evans was based solely on Brabin's finding him innocent of murdering Geraldine. Even if Evans's guilt in the murder of Beryl remained, Jenkins did not dispute the Brabin Report's conclusions.

2) What's your basis for alleging the Brabin Report is a slur? Evans's family was awarded compensation, but this is in keeping with its conclusions, that Evans's conviction for the murder of his daughter was a miscarriage of justice. If the Brabin Inquiry was flawed, no formal review has been made to correct it.

3) Yes, if Evans didn't kill Beryl and Geraldine then the most likely suspect is Christie. However, that line of reasoning is not in dispute. What's disputed is whether everyone is unanimous in holding Evans innocent. This is not the case, which leads to the next point.

4) Several important sources dispute the view that Evans was innocent of both murders, which is known as the Standard Version of the case. Read the sources listed at the end of the article. John Eddowes's Two Killers of Rillington Place and of course the Brabin Report both show how Evans could have been guilty of one or both murders. Another important reference is Keith Simpson, whose work is also listed, who defends the Brabin Report's conclusions. And of course there are the views of the professionals who worked on both cases, which are covered in the sources above, who upheld Evans's guilt in the murders. Any objective encyclopedia article must take these into consideration. Wcp07 (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The comments made in Parliament are highly relevant:

Lord Brennan concluded as follows:

i. The conviction and execution of Timothy Evans for the murder of his child was wrongful and a miscarriage of justice.

ii. There is no evidence to implicate Timothy Evans in the murder of his wife. She was most probably murdered by Christie."

In paragraph 6 of his conclusions Lord Brennan said this:

I have considered the history. I have concluded that no reliance can be placed on the Scott Henderson report in particular because of the later pardon. I do not accept the conclusions of the Brabin report that Evans was probably not guilty of his child's murder but probably was guilty of his wife's murder. Having regard to Christie's confession and convictions I consider that the Brabin report conclusion should be rejected."

Is theer anything more to be said regarding the innocence of Timothy Evans?Peterlewis (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wcp07: my reply to your points:

1. The Brabin report did not find Evans innocent of murdering Geraldine - it said he probably did not do it. It went on to say that he probably did murder his wife. There is no way that in the ordinary course of events he would have been pardoned if there was a belief that he was guilty of another murder. A pardon is not the same as an acquittal or the quashing of a conviction - in this case it was an admission that Evans was innocent of all wrongdoing.

2. The Criminal Cases Review Commission called Brabin a "slur" - see paragraph 17 of the judgment.

3 / 4. I am not aware of Eddowe's work, and cannot comment on it. However, one book does not make a substantial controversy; it is simply a minority opinion. As far as the argument about legal professionals are concerned, I think that is slightly suspect. Of course, prosecuting counsel will have convinced himself that the innocent man whom he had hanged was guilty; defence counsel likewise; in fact the whole of the British establishment contrived to avoid criticism of it by producing 2 reports which stated that Evans was guilty, and therefore was properly hanged. But the overwhelming consensus is that Evans was innocent and that Christie did it. The article should reflect this. Perhaps the source to which you refer can be incorporated. Richardhearnden (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Peterlewis - the remarks by Lord Brennan were not made in Parliament; Lord Brennan is a leading QC who acts as an independent assessor determining the amount of compensation to be paidto those wrongly convicted. He was not speaking in a personal or political capacity, but on behalf of a government body. His remarks are therefore much more authoritative than had he spoken as a parliamentarian. Richardhearnden (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It was the Brabin Report that precipitated Jenkins' pardon. Jenkins would not have been able to recommend a pardon if Brabin had upheld Evans's guilt, nor for that matter if there had not been a second inquiry at all. A pardon is indeed an admission that the convicted person was innocent, and Jenkins may not have had sufficient grounds for recommending one according to the conditions set out in paragraph 10. That is a criticism of Jenkins's decision, however. Surely the emphasis is on the conclusions of the Brabin Report, which allowed Jenkins to make any decision in the first place. And they, while pointing to Evans's innocence in the murder of his daughter, indicate that it is not possible to get to the final truth of the matter, which is why I believe an attempt to do so will be controversial.

True, the CCRC does refer to Brabin's findings as a slur. However, it also points out that it is not within its jurisdiction to make an amendment to the report. That would require another inquiry, I believe. The court cases from 2004 and the Home Office's compensation are obviously important to this case and need to be mentioned. But they're not formal inquiries of the same kind as the Brabin Inquiry; they do not review any of the evidence like Brabin did so you can argue that their conclusions aren't as rigorous. Of particular significance is that Brabin looked at many of the arguments for Evans's innocence - ones Kennedy relies on in his book, which in turn is referred to in the summary of the Westlake case - and found that some of them did not stand up, such as the charge that the police forced a confession from Evans and that there was evidence of post-mortem sexual intercourse on Beryl Evans.

I'm not attempting to say that this proves or disproves Evans's guilt but I do think that based on everything we know about the case and taking into account all the different perspectives, it would be controversial to make a definite pronouncement on it, that Evans was clearly innocent. An attempt to do so would become speculative and there are several sources which argue against that and should be taken into account. Wcp07 (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am just wondering why the main article still states that Evans was convicted of murdering his wife. I have just had a university lecture regarding this case - and the professor for this particular lecture series - Forensic Linguistics - is incredibly good and a real stickler for correctness - and she made it quite clear that Evans was only convicted for the murder of Geraldine and not his wife. Secondly, it has been asserted that Christie immobilized his victims through gas, although we were told that when he confessed he claimed that he used tea laced with poison to knock his victims out. In fact he supposedly approached Evans' sister when she was alone in the apartment trying to help set it up for the family to move in when Christie approached her and tried to insist she drink a cup of tea he had made for her (she said he made her skin crawl) until she asserted that her brother would be home soon and would not like her to be alone with a strange man. Christie allegedly fled. As said, however, this is from a lecture earlier this afternoon. SBennettgermany

Inconsistencies

The article states that the Brabin report indicates that Evans probably killed his own wife Beryl. This conflicts with accounts elsewhere, which leave virtually no doubt that Beryl was killed by Christie not Evans. What was in doubt was whether Evans' daughter Geraldine was killed by Christie or by Evans. Evans was only prosecuted for the murder of his daughter, not his wife, so he was eventually pardoned only for the crime for which he had been prosecuted, but that does not mean that he 'probably' killed his wife.

A second point, if this is not a daft question, is why would Christie have frequented prostitutes if he was impotent? If he was impotent then prostitutes would not have been of much use to him.  ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.183.242 (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While for the most part impotent, Christie at times was able to perform sexual intercourse, eg with his wife, prostitutes, and with Beryl's corpse (presumably) - Christie's visits with prostitutes are documented in Kennedy's book. Re the Brabin Report, we can perhaps look at it as a face-saving exercise for the British legal system, much like the earlier Henderson Report (its conclusion was that though wrongfully convicted, Evans was still guilty of a crime and so not entirely innocent). I think its conclusion was included by WP editors to emphasise the point that though Christie is commonly assumed to have murdered both Beryl and Geraldine, there's still no definitive proof for this and the case is still open-ended.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The case is far from "open-ended". Evans was clearly innocent of murder and was framed by Christie at his trial. Christie was a serial killer who hoodwinked the police, who themselves were incompetent in not examining the house in detail. They took no fingerprints for example, and failed to observe bones which were visible in the tiny garden at Rillington Place. The case is one of the most important miscarriages of justice in recent times, and because the authorities failed to change the system, led directly to many more miscarriages, such as those of the Guildfoird Four and the Birmingham Six (among many others). Peterlewis (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Christie's Date of Birth

Christie's date of birth is in fact the original one that was listed, 8 April 1898. The weblink for 8 April 1899 (which actually refers to June 1899) is referring to when Christie's birth was officially registered. The national archives webpage explicitly points this out - ie, that Christie was born on 8/4/1898 and did not have his birth registered until June the following year.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. I had assumed that as the official records had the birth registered in the quarter ending June 1899 (ie any time in April/May/June, not specifically the month of June), and that the legal requirement is (and I believe was at the time) for a birth to be registered within six weeks (which could further have allowed for a date in March or late February), that there had simply been a mistake in entering the year in the article - though why it should have been the subject of numerous reversion was at that point a mystery to me. Out of curiosty - has anyone here checked what the actual certificate says? 160.9.95.5 (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Research and Lack of Citations

This article makes several strong claims which lack citations (and constitute original research in my opinion). Here are some problematic statements from the article:

• "it is now accepted by the High Court that Evans was entirely innocent of the crimes of which he was accused" - do we have a court transcript of this? This article (which is from the Timothy Evans article) only states that an appeal was lodged in the High Court against the Criminal Cases Review Commission; it doesn't report the result of the appeal (presumably it failed) nor the reasoning of the judges involved. It would be good to know to what extent they unequivocally accept Evans's innocence. The fact remains moreover that no formal judgement on Evans's innocence has been made, so we can't presume otherwise.

• "The case sparked massive public outrage, and contributed to the suspension and eventual abolition of the death penalty for murder in Britain in 1965 (though it still had the death penalty for espionage, piracy, and treason until 1972, 1981 and 1998 respectively)" - again, what's the evidence for this? An example of the "massive public outrage" would be good. Something is needed to support the claim that Evans's execution directly led to the abolition of capital punishment. Did the British Government acknowledge this in their official decision to end capital punishment?

• "Brabin neglected much of the critical evidence on the "confessions" and believed the police evidence." - this is a controversial claim, as the Brabin Report was an official government report from the time. What's the actual evidence that proves it was so fallacious? Has anyone written on this?

• "the Metropolitan police failed to preserve crucial evidence from the crime scene, such as the newspaper in Evans's flat and a briefcase which had apparently been stolen" - the stolen briefcase is a minor point which doesn't prove much. Kennedy's book accounts for it by explaining it belonged to a friend of Evans, which Evans claimed he was minding. It was listed as stolen because it didn't belong to Evans. That the police didn't investigate it further doesn't seem to be particularly damning. If they should have, this needs a citation to explain why.

• "The lessons of the case are important for forensic investigation, especially the need to perform diligent searches for evidence, and having obtained that evidence, preserve it for other investigators. The police accepted Christie's statement without question, and he went on to become a key witness for the prosecution at the trial of Evans." This reads like original research.

Wcp07 (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of Christie

It would be beneficial to include some photographs of Christie, so that readers can gain an idea of his appearance. Although there is a photograph of Evans' grave included, there is no picture of Christie himself. If a non-copyright image or images could be found, it would be extremely useful to include it on the page. Helsta (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit

No major changes, just a few wording changes for clarity, flow and correct usage and a couple of DAB fixes. – ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

John Eddowes's Two Killers of Rillington Place

This was the first book I read on the Rillington Place murders (proposing that Evan's murdered his wife); frankly, it was unconvincing and was more of a diatribe against the author's father! Tony S 79.72.33.137 (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Michael Eddowes's The Man On Your Conscience (John Eddowes's father. John Eddowes's, and others, comments about the opinions of the pathologists is irellevant, pathologists ought to confine themselves as to causes of death not guilt or innocence of the accused. Simpson being the worst offender on these lines in other cases he was involved in. Tony S 79.72.33.137 (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC))