![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
This article makes several strong claims which lack citations (and constitute original research in my opinion). Here are some problematic statements from the article:
Wcp07 ( talk) 08:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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))
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)
To say that there is "substantial controversy" as to whether Christie murdered the Evans' victims is wrong for the following reasons:
See (paragraph 13 in particular): http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/2779.html
Richardhearnden ( talk) 19:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bmurderuk\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Although the majority of the article lacks reasonable citations yet manages to draw more than a handful of conclusions about the case, this section is particularly leading. There are no citations and sweeping allegations that, had the police done their jobs properly, 4 lives could have been saved, etc., etc., etc. This is Wikipedia, not amateur hour. Unless you can quote reliable sources for having made such statements, they have to go. No original research.
If you want to speculate, write a blog. If you want an encyclopaedic article, clean up the melodramatics and present the facts. Any speculation about the case must be properly cited. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It appears that
WP:POV,
WP:WEASEL,
WP:PEACOCK,
WP:EDITORIALIZING has been resurrected in this article. While I've grown weary of trying to keep on top of these issues, the lead is glaringly violating policy and guidelines. Use of loaded language and editorialising in not acceptable for the purposes of Wikipedia. "It is now generally accepted"
, "Police mishandling of the original enquiry, as well as their incompetence in searches at the house allowed Christie to escape detection and enabled him to murder four more women."
is a load of
WP:BOLLOCKS. Please bring
WP:RS to back up these sweeping allegations, and remember that this is a Wikipedia article,
not original research expressing the personal opinions of contributors, and is
WP:NOTGOSSIP. I don't like pulling out huge tracts of Wikipedia policy, but contributors who have worked in the self-same elements editors have worked hard at removing and keeping out are deserving of having the riot act read at them. --
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
22:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I think these matters are now generally accepted. There is some uncertainty about his birthplace, the online index at [2] just gives it as the registration district of Halifax. PatGallacher ( talk) 13:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Christie (murderer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
Christie was born in 1899; I've seen his birth certificate. And the evidence indicates that Evans murdered his wife, and quite likely the baby too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.24.157 ( talk • contribs)
Within the article: 'After being pinioned for execution, Christie complained that his nose itched. Pierrepoint assured him that "It won't bother you for long".'. That seems to be apocryphal. 109.150.43.54 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The article states "Nevertheless, it was established that all three victims had been exposed to carbon monoxide". I can't check the ref as I don't have the book, but carbon monoxide is the by product of burnt gas. If you just open a gas tap you would inhale gas and be poisoned by it but you wouldn't have carbon monoxide poisoning. 86.178.88.213 ( talk) 23:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The Google Maps link in External links doesn't work for me. But manually looking it up Bartle Road seems to be quite near Ladbroke Grove tube station. Is " Notting Hill" a more correct location, however? Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Please clarify the following: "... In late 1949 Evans informed police that his wife was dead.[31] A police search of 10 Rillington Place failed to find their bodies [whose bodies, if Evans did not mention his daughter to the police?], but a later search revealed the dead bodies of Beryl Evans, her daughter Geraldine, and an unborn 16-week old male child [a fetus is not a "child"; do you mean a 16-week fetus?][32] in an outdoor wash-house. The unborn child sic had not been harmed [if still in the womb, unlikely that it would be!]." Autodidact1 ( talk) 23:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure his sentence also included being "buried in the precincts of the prison". -- 96.38.105.38 ( talk) 21:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
... is subtitled, "The True Story of a Serial killer, The Great London Smog, and the Strangling of a City." The book's premise is that, in the chaotic aftermath of the killer smog of December 1952, another killer (Christie) was stalking the streets, using the fog as a cloak for his crimes. 73.146.6.14 ( talk) 00:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
What, in 1953, was a "hysterical personality"? Martinevans123 ( talk) 09:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Re: "... all he had in his possession were some coins, a wallet, his marriage certificate, his
ration book, union card and an old newspaper clipping...
" Which union was this? A police union? Also note that the
Radio Times
here says something slightly different: "At the time of arrest Christie was carrying an identity card, a ration book, his Union card, an ambulance badge and, oddly, an old newspaper clipping about the remand of Timothy Evans."
Martinevans123 (
talk)
23:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
This article makes several strong claims which lack citations (and constitute original research in my opinion). Here are some problematic statements from the article:
Wcp07 ( talk) 08:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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))
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)
To say that there is "substantial controversy" as to whether Christie murdered the Evans' victims is wrong for the following reasons:
See (paragraph 13 in particular): http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/2779.html
Richardhearnden ( talk) 19:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bmurderuk\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Although the majority of the article lacks reasonable citations yet manages to draw more than a handful of conclusions about the case, this section is particularly leading. There are no citations and sweeping allegations that, had the police done their jobs properly, 4 lives could have been saved, etc., etc., etc. This is Wikipedia, not amateur hour. Unless you can quote reliable sources for having made such statements, they have to go. No original research.
If you want to speculate, write a blog. If you want an encyclopaedic article, clean up the melodramatics and present the facts. Any speculation about the case must be properly cited. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It appears that
WP:POV,
WP:WEASEL,
WP:PEACOCK,
WP:EDITORIALIZING has been resurrected in this article. While I've grown weary of trying to keep on top of these issues, the lead is glaringly violating policy and guidelines. Use of loaded language and editorialising in not acceptable for the purposes of Wikipedia. "It is now generally accepted"
, "Police mishandling of the original enquiry, as well as their incompetence in searches at the house allowed Christie to escape detection and enabled him to murder four more women."
is a load of
WP:BOLLOCKS. Please bring
WP:RS to back up these sweeping allegations, and remember that this is a Wikipedia article,
not original research expressing the personal opinions of contributors, and is
WP:NOTGOSSIP. I don't like pulling out huge tracts of Wikipedia policy, but contributors who have worked in the self-same elements editors have worked hard at removing and keeping out are deserving of having the riot act read at them. --
Iryna Harpy (
talk)
22:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I think these matters are now generally accepted. There is some uncertainty about his birthplace, the online index at [2] just gives it as the registration district of Halifax. PatGallacher ( talk) 13:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Christie (murderer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
Christie was born in 1899; I've seen his birth certificate. And the evidence indicates that Evans murdered his wife, and quite likely the baby too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.24.157 ( talk • contribs)
Within the article: 'After being pinioned for execution, Christie complained that his nose itched. Pierrepoint assured him that "It won't bother you for long".'. That seems to be apocryphal. 109.150.43.54 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The article states "Nevertheless, it was established that all three victims had been exposed to carbon monoxide". I can't check the ref as I don't have the book, but carbon monoxide is the by product of burnt gas. If you just open a gas tap you would inhale gas and be poisoned by it but you wouldn't have carbon monoxide poisoning. 86.178.88.213 ( talk) 23:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The Google Maps link in External links doesn't work for me. But manually looking it up Bartle Road seems to be quite near Ladbroke Grove tube station. Is " Notting Hill" a more correct location, however? Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Please clarify the following: "... In late 1949 Evans informed police that his wife was dead.[31] A police search of 10 Rillington Place failed to find their bodies [whose bodies, if Evans did not mention his daughter to the police?], but a later search revealed the dead bodies of Beryl Evans, her daughter Geraldine, and an unborn 16-week old male child [a fetus is not a "child"; do you mean a 16-week fetus?][32] in an outdoor wash-house. The unborn child sic had not been harmed [if still in the womb, unlikely that it would be!]." Autodidact1 ( talk) 23:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure his sentence also included being "buried in the precincts of the prison". -- 96.38.105.38 ( talk) 21:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
... is subtitled, "The True Story of a Serial killer, The Great London Smog, and the Strangling of a City." The book's premise is that, in the chaotic aftermath of the killer smog of December 1952, another killer (Christie) was stalking the streets, using the fog as a cloak for his crimes. 73.146.6.14 ( talk) 00:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
What, in 1953, was a "hysterical personality"? Martinevans123 ( talk) 09:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Re: "... all he had in his possession were some coins, a wallet, his marriage certificate, his
ration book, union card and an old newspaper clipping...
" Which union was this? A police union? Also note that the
Radio Times
here says something slightly different: "At the time of arrest Christie was carrying an identity card, a ration book, his Union card, an ambulance badge and, oddly, an old newspaper clipping about the remand of Timothy Evans."
Martinevans123 (
talk)
23:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)