As usual you have all been taken because you watch movies labelled as "true" when of course they are not.Kennedy wrote a book in order to raise his status.He omits many facts, facts that would have made a different movie, in which Evans would have been portrayed as the murderer of his wife and then some days later his daughter.You all annoy me with your gullibility " the movie said this so it must be true"
shareYou are so right! The film DIDN'T tell us he had two middle names and one of them was Halliday!
In case you took the extra time to listen to the movie with John Hurt's narrative, you would have heard that if Timothy Evans had, in fact, strangled his wife, there would have been two stranglers living in the same building. That would have amounted to 43 coincidences. And for the British High Court to move Evan's body to consecrated ground was not something done casually in a country that does not believe in the separation of church and state.
Anytime someone uses either the term 'all' or 'none' you can assume it is an exaggeration. That is what annoys me.
Timothy was not tried for the murder of his wife, no-one was.Evans was tried and convicted for the murder of the baby. Christie denied killing the baby, get some facts man
shareFor someone like David Maxwell-Fyfe to order a review of the case makes your comments seem somewhat daft. Remember, Sir David was a such a believer in capital punishment that he refused to overturn the death sentence of Derek Bentley even though the jury recommended mercy. Evans was an illiterate who Christie was able to manipulate. By the way, what "facts" did Kennedy (not a particular favorite of mine) omit? Be specific and then I might consider your argument.
shareSeveral, here are two. At the post mortem of Mrs Evans no trace of semen was found in her vagina yet the film clearly shows him achieving orgasm.I understand that Kennedy wrote that if they had taken a swab of her vagina semen would have been found. Kennedy conveniently omits that Tim was a difficult child and was violent to his wife at times.The violence verged on the maniacal and Kennedy makes no mention of the testimony of FOUR people who saw this.
What about Beryl's flirtation with the painter? Ok three the bruising to her legs.Four Evans was a heavy drinker, no mention.Ill go for a nap hand here==no mention that Beryl left the house on the morning of the murder with baby,pram and friend.And one last one of many ---Beryls body was wrapped differently from christies other victims, but that the wrapping was similar to that of Setty's.OK?
I don't believe Christie killed the Evans child, I believe it was Evans. Evans admitted this in prison to Hume.
I don't get this "its too much of a coincidence" stuff, surely there is a possibility of two killers at the same address, unlikely,yes, but impossible, no.
So do you agree with me that Evans killed wife and baby?
shareNope, I speculate that Evans killed Geraldine and Christie killed Beryl
shareOh that has to be one of the most ridiculous statements.Fact:Christie only killed women who were untraceable.Beryl lived at the same place as he did.And why would a father kill his baby daughter for no reason? He strangled her because she was supposed to have left the house with her mother but she kept crying and he didnt know what to do.Look Evans was not very bright and he thought that he could just get rid of things, including people, and then everything would be ok.
You are quite a hostile Knob splash arn't you. I feel it is pointless to continue this discussion with someone who's arrogance transcends his judgement, what is the point of debate if you are always correct.
shareNo you dont want to continue this discussion because ,old-timer, you dont know the facts. So you chickened
shareI love you....
shareSo you are an attractive busty blonde, am I right on this matter?
shareWell I am blonde with a forty six inch chest and I did a bit of modelling several years ago....
shareok so tell me the names of the magazines you appeared in.Oh and I think I know where you live MR troughboss its Ohio isnt it?
shareNo magazines, I'm afraid, only stills for a Judo instruction book. You're very close with my location as I do, indeed, live in The Northern Hemisphere. Happy Crimbo Mr. Investideal.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
You have no idea what you're talking about. Ligature use was Cristie's trademark, it shows premeditation. Beryl Evans was strangled with a ligature, as were 6 other women in that house, but in your narcissistic, wet dream, fantasy world it's just a coincidence right? Evans MUST be guilty because the establishment says so, not because there is any physical evidance to support you.
Serial killers do not change their MOs. What were the clippings of the torse murder get in the apartment when Evans couldn't read? Cristie was the only one in that building who kept clippings. Cristie admitted killing Beryl and all the evidance supports that FACT.
How did the body get in the wash house with the workers discovering it? How did a little runt like Evans move the body without anyone noticing? The only thing that retard Evans was capable of was acting in a moment of passion. Cristie was left with the child and he murdered the poor thing.
I don't know what your agenda is, but it is clear you don't know what you're talking about. You're probably related to the morons who put Evans to death for a crime he didn't commit.
Smarter people than you have tried to pin the murders on Evans and it didn't stand the test of history or decades of scrutiny. Evans may have been an illiterate, retarded, wife beater, but he didn't kill his wife or child and you dishonor the victims and the criminal justice system by asserting otherwise.
John Reginald Cristie would be proud of you.
My God I have only just read this. Evans could read somewhat, his job was a delivery man he would need to read road names.The film shows Christie raping Beryl - no traces of semen were found in her at the PM. I have looked at copies of the workmens timesheets to work out the various dates etc. Beryl was not even at home when she was supposed to have been murdered. The couple had been seen and heard fighting on a number of occasions - Evans threatened to kill her. Evans killed the baby, basically because he didnt know what to do with it.She was strangled with a sash cord whereas Christie had his own equipment.If I were you I should check things out before you make sweeping statements just because you have seen a stupid movie. Next you will be telling Braveheart was all true as well. Ah well at least you have learned something today
shareThe baby had a man's tie round her neck when her body was found in the wash house (not Christie's trade mark), and Timothy Evans eventually told the Police that the baby's crying had got on his nerves.
My understanding from various reports on the case is that Timothy Evans was semi-illiterate, not totally illiterate. He also had a speech impediment.
It has been suggested that the newspaper article on the torso murders (whatever they were) found in Evans' flat was planted by Christie since Timothy Evans probably wouldn't have been able to read them.
[deleted]
It appears to me that I may have got some people thinking about this case. I recomend reading the book called "The two killers of Rillington Place" I have a copy.
shareThe women were killed for sexual thrills. The baby was killed to get rid of her. That would explain the MO being different with the baby. False confessions are not uncommon, especially if the person who confesses has the disadvantage of youth or low intelligence. It's possible Evans killed them, but I doubt it.
sharei did not think that Christie climaxed. it just seemed that he was enjoying the act, but never came, because the friend of Beryls came to the door.
sharewell if you've read it in a book it must be true right?. Isn't that your argument with the people who believe the film is true? but obviously its OK when you do the same thing as them, right?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I read The Two Killers of Rillington Place some years ago and as a result have always kept an open mind on this case. I agree that the debate here has become unnecessarily intemperate - we're not discussing The Dark Knight, we're talking about actual murders that occurred around sixty years ago.
Hurt's performance is brilliant, but in my opinion not accurate. The Evanses are depicted as a sweet-natured, simple minded couple - Timothy Evans, at least, was a drunk with a liking for violence towards women. We sympathise with Hurt's portrayal, therefore we are more disposed to believe he was innocent.
I don't know the truth, and am not convinced by either argument. I do believe it's a fascinating topic, worthy of a calmer discussion than is going on here.
"The Evanses are depicted as a sweet-natured, simple minded couple"
Really? Maybe you should watch it again...
I read about this case before seeing the film so I do not base my opinions on it. My view has always been it was an unsafe conviction but nobody could ever know for certain what happened. I'm aware of Evans domestic violence but that was nothing unusual in those times and a violent man can still be wrongly accused of a crime Gary Dotson being an example of this.
The book arguing Timothy Evans is guilty sounds interesting and I might read it someday but an Evening Standard review of it seemed to be saying that the main reason to think he was guilty was that he confessed and "No one could sound so precise and circumstantial if he was innocent". People with learning disabilities have been pressured into confessing to crimes they didn't commit before now and if he sounded that precise it is likely the wording was by police officers as one thing nobody disputes about Evans is that he was inarticulate.
The only statement on this thread that casts doubt on Evans innocence is the different wrapping of the body but that is made by someone who also says that Christie only killed untraceable women when he killed his wife and the wrapping similar to settys could just be coincidental.
I welcome differing viewpoints from the accepted truth and debates about cases like these but the "everyone who thinks differently from me is stupid" attitude of the OP is childish and unnecessary.
Also its a few years since I watched the film so I may be incorrect but I remember Christie forcing a kiss on Beryl not raping her.
And Christie confessed to murdering Beryl and Geraldine.
shareI read through the Crime Library article of the Evans murders and although no conclusive evidence seems to exist either way, it is clear that the conduct of both the investigating police as well as Evans´s legal defence was so superficial as to essentially amount to professional neglect. Had they done their job properly, it´s likely Evans would have escaped the conviction, considering how many contradictions and unexplained loose ends existed.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
what planet are you currently residing on?
[deleted]
I'll always think vile Christie killed mother and baby.
shareThe only person Evans might have killed was the baby... because he was left alone without his wife due to Christie's murder of Beryl, however, I do not think this is so even if Evans was sometimes violent (which is depicted in the film, as he slaps his wife and roughly handles his wife's friend). Christie admitted to killy Beryl, there should be no debate on that, though he never admitted to killing Geraldine, though I think it is because he didn't want to appear as a baby-killer as well as a murderer of grown women.
The claim that Christie only killed untraceable women is nonsense as has already been pointed out. He killed his wife, a female coworker and the partner of a friend, as well as Beryl by his own admission. Also Christie acted very suspicious when Beryl's friend Joan Vincent turned up asking for Joan, not only did Christie tell Joan that Beryl and Geraldine went away, but Joan could see Geraldine's chair and pram in Christie's livingroom. After this Christie told her that she shouldn't come back. This does fit with the idea that not only did Christie kill Beryl, but also Geraldine, though he was obviously uncomfortable with killing Geraldine. He also later reported a very real back pain to his doctors that was likely to have been caused by moving the bodies of Beryl and Geraldine from a neighbour's (a Mr. Kitchener) kitchen to the washhouse. Also the wood used to hide the bodies was asked for on the eleventh of November by Christie, not by Evans, who was said to have killed his wife and child between the tenth and the eighth. Infact the wood used in front of the sink was pulled up by a carpenter on the 14th for Christie's use. Christie lied and claimed wood had been taken up and was available for Evans use early than it had been taken up, this would have meant that if Evans did hide the bodies in the washhouse (which was also still filled with workmen's tools which they would collect a few days later after clearing the washhouse out) he would have had to drag them over floors with no boarding, in other words a massive hole.
Formerly KingAngantyr
There's also the issue of why on earth would Evans try to implicate Christie? Because then not only would Evans be trying to pin the murders on an innocent man (at least in his own mind), but he just happened to pick a guy who unbeknownst to him was actually a killer. That's coincidence city that is.
share