Talk:John Christie (serial killer)

Old discussion

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/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/2779.html

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SBennettgermany (talk • contribs) 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Christie's date of birth was 8 April 1899. The birth was registered by his mother on 19 May 1899 (birth cert: http://www.10-rillington-place.co.uk/html/documents.html). The National Archives page correctly reflects this. He was 54 at the date of his execution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.43.169 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2010 (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))

Over-reliance on a single source

I notice that this article relies almost entirely on the book Kennedy, Ludovic (1961). Ten Rillington Place. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd. Whilst I realise that not a lot of work has been written on the subject of Christie, I question why this book has been quoted so extensively. If I simply wanted to read Kennedy's book, I would borrow it from the library. By focussing so singly on one source, this article adds very little of interest to the debate. MysteryMailer (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy's book is probably the most comprehensive one on John Christie and 10 Rillington Place, and it covers details and issues of the case to a considerably higher degree than other texts. Kennedy interviewed some of the people connected to the case to gain further relevant information, something that other writers have not done nor have had the opportunity to do so. However, the article does refer to other sources, notably a published version of Justice Brabin's findings (Rillington Place) and John Eddowes's Two Killers of Rillington Place, which provide alternative conclusions to those presented by Kennedy in Ten Rillington Place. Because of the no original research rule, this article is restricted in terms of coming up with new conclusions on Christie and the 10 Rillington Place controversy. By all means include other relevant information from other sources, however, if you can locate some. Wcp07 (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But might I suggest possibly including a section in the article entitled "Sources relating to Christie" (or similar)? In this section, you could include an explanation of why Kennedy's book has been used so heavily, and why this source is preferable to some of the other works on the subject. Such a discussion on the validity of the different sources would make the article appear more scholarly, and show an appreciation of the fact that information on the subject varies in quality. I think this would greatly improve the article.MysteryMailer (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Pentonville image

I am not convinced that this image adds anything at all to the article. This is not my problem (see article history), I think it's inclusion is an obstacle to this FA candidate's promotion. The image is just an old drawing of the prison. Please explain to me:

1. How does the inclusion of this drawing help our readers to understand the article?
2. What text in the article does it illustrate and, more importantly, add to?
3. Why is is not more than a (poor) decoration? Graham Colm ^Talk 21:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The image puzzled me when I came across it as well, just don't see what it adds. On the general subject of this article's FAC, which I see that SandyG has now (quite properly) archived, the overwhelming problem seems to be in reaching the required "professional ..." standard required of FAs. With all due respect to those who've spent time in copyediting it, it just didn't cut the mustard.

Now that it's been archived, there's a couple of weeks before it can be renominated, time that could be well spent polishing this up. Copyediting at FAC level isn't just a matter of a quick look through for obvious grammatical or spelling errors, it's about creating a coherent whole that hangs together and flows nicely, while still maintaining the original editors voice where possible. I've made a few of the kinds of changes that I think need to be made throughout the article if it's to have any chance at its next FAC. If they're thought acceptable then I'd be happy to continue along the same lines. If not, then I'm equally happy to leave the job to someone else. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I did not like opposing this article at FAC, because clearly hours of hard work have been spent on this. I also saw that Sandy has just archived the nomination, but I think this is a blessing in disguise. This is a damn good article—it just falls a little short of FA standards mainly because of the stagnant prose. I agree entirely with you in that Copyediting at FAC level isn't just a matter of a quick look through for obvious grammatical or spelling errors, it's about creating a coherent whole that hangs together and flows nicely, while still maintaining the original editors voice where possible. If you are prepared to help turn this article into a masterpiece that is Moors murders, I would consider your help more than acceptable—indeed a gift. Now this article is no longer an FA candidate there is time to to work on it so it has a good chance at its next FAC. Happy New year, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you Graham. I was quite pleased with what we managed to do with the Moors murderers, and I'd be happy to help do what I can with John Christie as well. I don't have any sources on him though, so it would have to be copyediting (in my sense of the word) only. Like you, I think the article is basically there, it just needs to be made to sparkle. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated the article for FA, and I've largely worked on it on my own over the last year. I'd very much appreciate others' contributions, particularly with copyediting. The consensus from the FA review was the problems in the prose, which are difficult to see when you have read the article over so many times. I'm fine for people to make changes to the article as they see fit so that its readability is improved. Having looked at some of the other FA candidates, this article may need some further details on Christie to make it more informative, and I'll try to add those too when I have the time. Wcp07 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a relief. OK, let's get on with it then, ready for another FAC in a couple of weeks. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Few bits missing, plus some context

I think a little bit more about the aftermath of Christie's crimes could be added. For instance, Rillington Place was renamed Ruston Close, but number was 10 wasn't demolished, as was 16 Wardle Court, the home of Brady and Hindley. Also, filming of the 1970 film starring Richard Attenburgh actually took place in number 7, as the three families then living in number 10 refused to move out.

I personally am very unhappy with In popular culture sections in general, but particulary so in articles on dreadful crimes such as this one. In fact we refused point blank to include one in Moors murders, for instance. What's important to say ought to be able to be woven into the fabric of the article, and its importance explained, not just be included in a list of arbitrary trivia. For instance, the account of the 1970 film could elaborate on Attenburgh's reluctance to take the part, which he only did because he believed Christie's case made a devastating statement about capital punishment. This report from a contemporary Times article may help. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This website suggests that 10 Rillington Place was demolished in the 1970s and the street was rebuilt as Bartle Road. There was a section originally in the article about what happened to Rillington Place after Christie was arrested but I removed it because it was largely sourced from the above website and that wasn't considered WP:RS in an earlier FA nomination. I haven't had a chance to look at the Times article yet but I think contemporary newspaper reports should be both useful and reliable for getting further information on the aftermath of Christie's crimes.

I'm not entirely happy with the "In popular culture" section either and I left it in only because anons keep adding popular culture info on Christie. But I agree that what it says shouldn't be an arbitrary list of trivia but relevant to the spirit of the article as a whole. Wcp07 (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It could well be that Rillington Place was demolished in the 1970s, but we'll never get that source past FAC. I'll have a look through some newspaper archives. I'll also see what I can do with that trivia section. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture

Popular culture's gone, and I've weaved the Attenborough film into the end of the Later developments section. I'd be very much against reintroducing any such similar pop culture section in the future for two reasons. First they just serve as trivia magnets, but more importantly they seem to to me to be verging on the disrespectful. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that as well. Wcp07 (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Evans

I think there's way too much on Timothy Evans (who has his own article) in the last couple of sections of this article, which is supposed to be about Christie after all. Any objections to some pruning? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been careful to not include too much information on Evans but I do think that some of the events involving him should be mentioned in Christie's article. He plays a big part in Christie's life and the later controversy about Evans when Christie's crimes were discovered was quite substantial. What kind of things did you want to remove? I'd accept the "Later developments" section being summarised (while still mentioning the court cases and the judges' decisions) but I think what's covered in the "Controversy and pardon" section is relevant and wouldn't need to be changed much. Wcp07 (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking pretty much along those lines. The controversey is clearly relevant, as it's linked to Christie's crimes, but there seems to be just a bit too much detail on Evans in the Later developments section, which I'm thinking can perhaps be folded into the controversy section. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Evans deserves substantial treatment in view of the discovery of the numerous bodies and body parts at Rillington place, the flawed investigation by police in the Evans case and the subsequent confessions by Christie. The two characters are linked forever, both by circumstances and in the public mind. Peterlewis (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Evans has his own article. This is an article about Christie, not Evans, although Evans's situation does of course need to be covered. The question is simply in what level of detail. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mrs Probert (Evans's mother) was granted licence to have her son's mortal remains for reburial soon after the enactment of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act and the reburial took place in November 1965 – nearly a year before the grant of his royal pardon in October 1966 (i.e. not after or as a result of it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.63.32 (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A few concerns

I'm concerned about some omissions and discrepancies between what this article says and what Christie's ODNB entry (written by Ludovic Kennedy) says. For instance:

In 1948 an illiterate van driver, Timothy Evans, who was twenty-three, and his pregnant wife, Beryl, moved into the upstairs flat. In 1949 Beryl found that she was pregnant again, but did not want a second child. Christie offered to abort the baby, impressing the Evanses with his first-aid certificates. Later, Christie told Evans that the abortion had failed and that his wife had died. He warned Evans that they were both guilty of a criminal offence, and advised him to leave London; Christie would dispose of Beryl's body and have the baby, Geraldine, adopted. Evans agreed.

That both ties in with Timothy Evans's own article, and goes some way to explaining why Evans went to the police in Merthyr Tydfil, not in London. Also, this article claims that Christie served with the Royal Corps of Signals, whereas the ODNB article says that he joined the 52nd Nottinghamshire and Derby regiment, and was seconded to the Duke of Wellington's (West Riding) regiment as a signalman. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've checked with Kennedy's Ten Rillington Place and Marston's book and they both say the same thing - that Christie enlisted in the 52nd Notts and Derby Regiment and then was later seconded to the Duke of Wellington Regiment. Neither mentions the Royal Corps of Signals (which in WW1 was known as the Royal Engineers Signal Service, according to its wikipedia article) so it may be erroneous to say he was a member of that division. I've therefore changed Christie's enlistment details to reflect this new information.

I agree that the details about the abortion offer should remain in Evans's article as they need to be read in the context of the three statements he gave to the police, and that aspect of the case doesn't belong in Christie's article. Wcp07 (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think we need the abortion offer in this article as well, otherwise the story doesn't quite seem to hang together. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. The lead still says that Christie was in the Royal Corps of Signals. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm fine to have the abortion offer included if you think the article needs it. I've corrected the lead as well regarding the RCS. Wcp07 (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

DOB

I should point out that there is conflicting information on Christie's DOB. Ten Rillington Place and Marston's book both report it as 8/4/1898 but Michael Eddowes's book says it was 8/4/1899 and this is also what the National Archives website reports it as. But because the latter is a wiki that can be edited by anyone, it may not be reliable (even though it is run by the National Archives) and it doesn't provide a copy of Christie's birth certificate (which should settle the matter). When I noticed the discrepancy, I decided to side with what was in Kennedy's and Marston's books as they seem to be the most authoritative on Christie. Has anyone come across other sources which could shed more light on the matter? Wcp07 (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Time for a second shot at FAC?

What does the panel think? I'm not terribly happy about that list of victims at the start of the Murders section, and no doubt we need to read through the whole thing again to make sure that the prose objections during the last FAC have all been addressed, but it looks about ready to me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile putting it through a Good Article Review first, to get it exposed to more readers and to pre-empt any potential problems that will get raised at Featured Article level. The article is getting there, but further input from others could be useful too. Wcp07 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you'd get much from a GA review, a peer review might be a better idea. Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus. I think it is close to ready, and a peer review could be very helpful. Graham Colm (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just joined Wikipedia so please forgive any novice procedural/protocol mistakes - I am the author of the 10-rillington-place.co.uk Website and am continuing to refine and hopefully improve it so should be pleased to contribute and assist if the John Christie article is to be worked on. I link to it from my site and am therefore keen to see it made as full and accurate as possible. Thanks JLC2011 (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an aim we all share. The article's prose had quite a bit work done on it since the the last effort at FAC, as that was the significant objection to it then. Beyond that the key things are to make sure that the article is comprehensive, so we're looking for important stuff that's missing, and that everything is attributed to reliable high-quality sources. Easy peasy really. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 14:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Error: sequence of events

Innocence of Timothy Evans Jenkins announced the granting of Evans's pardon to the House of Commons on 18 October 1966.[73] It allowed authorities to return Evans's remains to his family, who had him reburied in a private grave.[72]

In fact, the article on Timothy Evans contradicts the order of events. His remains were released to his family in 1965 for reburial in consecrated ground prior the official pardon. See Hansard: [1].

Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Iryna

Recent edits by User:Speravi

I have reverted all of this user's recent changes as they are unexplained and go against the long established text. I have invited the user to justify those changes here.--ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Christie complaining to Pierrepoint after being pinioned that his 'nose itched'

Questionable authenticity.

109.150.43.54 (talk)