The film does not tell the truth
-
melora72 — 16 years ago(December 07, 2009 12:26 PM)
The 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.
-
PurpleProseOfCairo — 15 years ago(July 21, 2010 06:05 AM)
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. -
lornamd-1 — 14 years ago(May 11, 2011 07:40 AM)
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. -
franzkabuki — 12 years ago(April 09, 2013 02:11 PM)
I 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 Evanss legal defence was so superficial as to essentially amount to professional neglect. Had they done their job properly, its likely Evans would have escaped the conviction, considering how many contradictions and unexplained loose ends existed.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
ContinentalOp — 12 years ago(February 02, 2014 11:09 PM)
The 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 -
SconeHead — 11 years ago(April 09, 2014 10:30 AM)
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.