Talk:Timothy Evans/Archive 1

Facts
I have checked the people you mentioned. Honeycombe is not an investigator but an ex TV presenter, and misrepresents the facts of the case in his book on the Black Museum. Simson does not state that Evans murdered his wife. Another author, Colin Wilson, also misrepresents the facts of the case (and also changed his opinions between books!). Brabin ignored much of the evidence, especially the clear evidence presented by Kennedy of police malpractice in obtaining the false confession from Evans at Notting Hill. Brabin stated that Evans probably killed his wife but not his child, a ludicrous position given that both were strangled, both parcelled up in the same way and dumped together in the wash house at Rillingtopn Place. I have amended the article accordingly. Peterlewis (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added further comment about the case and links to recent articles regarding the innocence of Evans. There could not be a clearer example of a miscarriage of justice based on a bungled police investigation, forensic failures and forced confessions. The judiciary must also be partly to blame in the way they accepted police evidence without hesitation or criticism, and neglected any serious discussion of the missing forensic evidence, such as the briefcase found in Evans flat with the newspaper cutting about the Hume case (both of which were likely planted by Christie to frame Evans). Why were no fingerprints taken from either item, for example? Why were no fingerprints taken from the wash house where the bodies were found? Why didn't the police conduct a thorough search of the whole house (and garden) when they had several chances? Why didn't counsel raise these and many other issues at the trial of Evans? Peterlewis (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted inconsiderate deletions without any discussion. The current consensus among authors is supportive of the deleted text. Peterlewis (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This paragraph is POV:
 * "The case was one of the first major miscarriages of justice perpetrated by British Courts after the end of the second World War and was followed by many more, such as the cases of the Birmingham Six, and the Guildford Four, among numerous others. If the lessons of the Evans case had been heeded by the authorities, then many more injustices would have been prevented."
 * The wikipedia is not the place for unreferenced sermons on the iniquities of British justice. Colin4C (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, you have violated the Three-revert rule by doing four reverts within a 24 hour period. Colin4C (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
Please read this article if you have not already. There are many declarations of Evans' unequivocal "innocence" and that his trial WAS, in fact, a "miscarriage of justice". Do you feel that this article needs to be touched-up so that the POV is more neutral? --Schmendrick (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone disputes that this case was a miscarriage of justice, so POV is irrelevant. The neutrality tag should be deleted unless you want to claim otherwise. In fact it is the miscarriage of justice case which swung the public behind the abolition of capital punishment. If you still feel that he was guilty, please bring your facts or POV to this discussion page! Peterlewis (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that there's no conclusive evidence for Christie's guilt enough to make claims otherwise POV? While my hunch is that Christie was the murderer of Evans's wife and baby, the fact that it can't be definitively proven means we must be careful what we say about him. Strong assertions of Evans's innocence will I think violate NPOV because of the remaining uncertainty in the case.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Circumstantial evidence such as the forensics point quite clearly to Christie as the one and only killer. Is there any other evidence that points to Evans at all? The alleged confession was forced and thus false.Peterlewis (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The evidence is not conclusive. It would only be conclusive if someone had filmed all the murders with a camera as they were happening. We are dealing with probabilities here not absolute definate facts. Two murderers living in the same house at the same time IS improbable but not impossible or inconceivable. For this alternative view see John Newton Chance's 'The Crimes At Rillington Place' (1961). As no wikipedia editors were in the house at the time of the murders I do not think it our place to tell the readers what we believe to be true. The reader can make up his or her own mind based on the evidence rather than us telling them what they should think. Colin4C (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be conclusive enough for any jury I think. Indeed, the clear miscarriage of justice swayed the country to abolish the death sentence, so the evidence obviously swayed public opinion and politicians. Thats enough for me. Peterlewis (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We can say that there is a reasonable doubt as to Evans' guilt and that therefore there was a miscarriage of justice. But it is not an open and shut case but rather an exceedingly puzzling one. A lot of what went on in that house remains a mystery. As both Christie and Evans were both inveterate liars we have a hard task on our hands to figure out the truth...What I am saying is that we shouldn't claim on the wikipedia to know things for certain if we don't know things for certain. The reader can judge based on the evidence. Colin4C (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. While Evans is probably innocent both he and Christie were executed before investigators were able to get to the bottom of the matter.  Based on all the facts we have available, this case is still inconclusive and it would be misleading to state otherwise. Wikischolar1983 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So why did the High Court say that he did not murder his wife and daughter? Peterlewis (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true that the High Court accepted that Timothy Evans's convictions should be overturned but that's not the same as definitive proof of his innocence. We've got to understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and final proof.  While there are a lot of holes in the case against Evans which point to his innocence, we simply don't have the direct evidence needed for proof of that, especially when the only people who could provide that for us - Christie and Evans - are both dead.  It's a leap too far to say that Evans is undoubtedly innocent because of the inconclusive nature of the case. Wcp07 (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC) [Note that I have changed my username from Wikischolar1983 to this one]


 * You advocate a nihilist and absolutist philosophy which, if adopted, would lead to total inaction since making decisions would be impossible. The same absolutist ideas lead some historians to question whether Hitler ordered the Holocaust, for example. Since he never signed a piece of paper which ordered the extermination opf the Jews, we can nevr be sure of his personal involvement. Absolute certainty is impossible in most criminal cases, but that doesn't prevent juries taking realistic decisions. Unfortunately, the police mismanaged the Evans case by not probing it more deeply, as they should have done. But that is no reason to question his innocence. Peterlewis (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read John Newton Chance's 'The Crimes At Rillington Place' (1961)? He questions Evans's innocence. Ludovic Kennedy in his book (also published in 1961) takes the now more mainstream view that Evans was innocent (as also seen in the the very creepy film of the book: "10 Rillington Place"). I think he probably was, but it is not an open and shut case and pretending it is is original research. It would be very strange co-incidence if two killers lived in the same house together but it is not impossible. Stranger things have happened. As the article shows, Evans has not been declared innocent of all charges. For a wikipedia editor to declare Evans is innocent is original research which is not allowed according to wikipedia guidelines. Colin4C (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter, you're conflating two different things; we don't have any issues on whether or not Hitler ordered the Holocaust because we have a vast array of background information that says he almost certainly did. But the same is not the case with Evans; because of the poor police investigation, we are left with a lot of missing facts.  Based on what we do know, it's probable but not certain that Evans was innocent.  For instance, Evans was a compulsive liar and prone to unexpected bouts of rage, making it possible that he could have killed his wife and child.  We've got to respect the facts that we are left with in this case and they point to Evans's probable but not certain innocence. Wcp07 (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Compulsive lying and a temper a murderer do not make, especially a wife and child. Christie was a cold psychopath who also killed and killed again and again. There is just no comparison. This was a gross misacrriage of justice, which everyone (with very few exceptions) recognised at the time, and led directly to the abolition of capital punishment in Britain. I find your attempts to rewrite history incredible and Orwelliaqn. Peterlewis (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Evans also had a motive: I seem to recall he had lost his job just prior to the killings, making his wife and child financial burdens for him.  It's not true that everyone recognised his innocence at the time; the official Brabin Report held that he was only innocent of murdering his daughter but still guilty of the murder of his wife.  As for rewriting history??  You're the one leaping to illogical and unsupported conclusions; try to be objective and respect what's actually known about this case. Wcp07 (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I remember the case well and the furore when Christie was unmasked. Losing one's job is hardly a motive for murder. Having been a juror several times I can distinguish between spin and reality. Peterlewis (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read anything on the case? E.g. Kennedy and Chance's books or the Brabin report? Wiikipedia articles are based on sources not on personal experiences or impressions or confessions of faith unsupported by references. Colin4C (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem essentially is with the line "There can be no doubt that the conviction and execution of Evans was a most serious miscarriage of justice..."; as I've said earlier, it's too strong an assertion based on what we know about the case and to end this neutrality dispute it should be removed. Wcp07 (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's unreferenced as well. Colin4C (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to add that the Brabin report (which doesn't hold Evans innocent) was republished as a cheap paperback in 1999: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rillington-Place-1949-Hon-Mr-Justice-Uncovered/dp/0117024171/ref=pd_sbs_b?ie=UTF8&qid=1218558231&sr=8-1 I might add that Professor Keith Simpson in Forty Years of Murder (1978) and Gordon Honeycombe in The Murders of the Black Museum (1982) also think that Evans was guilty of the murder of his wife. Colin4C (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Having re-read much of the evidence, there can be aboslutely no doubt that this was a very serious miscarriage of justice caused by police incompetence. Read Camps and Kennedy for the truth, not the judicial enquiries based on false and forced confessions from Evans ( apractice the police continued for many years after until the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 cases and many others. To maintain that Evans killed his wife and daughter is so wrong, and misleading in a serious wikipedia article. Peterlewis (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The situation is complex. Evans was convicted for the murder of his daughter not his wife. Brabin reckons that as he probably didn't kill his daughter, that therefore there was a miscarriage of justice. Nobody is arguing that there was not a miscarriage of justice. However the question about whether he killed his wife or not, something he was never charged with, is open to question. Brabin, Honeycombe and Simpson think he did. All these authors wrote their books after Kennedy by the way. Evans has not been proclaimed an 'innocent' man with regard to the murder of his wife. You or I might think he is innocent but it is not our job as wikipedia editors to proclaim that our original research speculation represents absolute truth. The reader can make up his or her mind, it is not our job to tell him or her what to think. Colin4C (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The situation is very clear: Christie was a serial killer who was the main prosecution witness against Evans. He lied and lied again on the witness stand, as Kennedy shows very clearly. The police bungled the first examinations of the house and garden at Rillington Place, missing a thigh bone from one of Christie's previous murders actually in view and propping up the fence. They prepared Evans's later statement by writing it themselves (Evans was totally illlerate), with faulty information provided by Christie. They pressured other witnesses (especially the workmen in the house at critical times) to change their statements to fit the police theory, and such statemenst are the basis for the later quite flawed judicial reviews. Even the forensic evidence was twisted and distorted to support their theory. For example, Tearne in the post-mortem detected signs of vaginal penetration on Mrd Evans's body, evdience which was deliberately suppressed in the trial. The police and judicial failure in this "investigation" and "trial" not only led to an innocent man being killed, but it led directly to the murder of three more women by Christie. The reader should be presented with the real evidence, and not the fantasies of the police at the time. Peterlewis (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot that there was a fourth victim of the bungled trial: Mrs Christie, who was buried under the floor of the front room. Peterlewis (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Brabin, Honeycombe and Simpson were not police indulging in fantasies but serious and distinguished investigators who, inter alia, criticised the police. They wrote their books after Kennedy. All of them accept that there was a miscarriage of justice and that Christie was a serial killer. That latter fact does not rule out the possibility that Evans also was a killer. Maybe Kennedy is right and they are wrong, however it is not our place as wikipedia editors to assert that one viewpoint represents absolute truth and that three other, later viewpoints, are absolutely wrong. That is original research and POV. We are editors of an encyclopedia not amateur detectives. Colin4C (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Honeycombe was a serious investigator. Brabin was a lawyer and like all lawyers obsessed by written evidence, and not forensic evidence. Simpson had a long running feud with Camps, who wrote up an excellent description of the examination of the bodies. I think Marston reviews the evidence which survives very fairly. If you are an editor then you have to mention the latest conclusions. I will ignore the comment about amateur detectives, which is supoerfluous. Peterlewis (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not written in a neutral fashion. While the preponderance of sources say that Evans was innocent, it has to be presented dispassionately.--Stetsonharry (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham Six and Guildford Four
I don't believe that these cases are relevant to Evans. While it is quite clear that the police acted illegally in forcing false confessions from the convicted in the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four, this hasn't been demonstrated in the same way with Timothy Evans. Ludovic Kennedy alleges some inappropriate conduct by the police and that Evans's interrogation went longer than was reported but he does not directly claim that a confession was forced from Evans. In any case this is just Kennedy's allegation.

The Brabin Inquiry specifically addressed the allegation of improper conduct by the police and dismissed it, clearing Jennings and Black, the principal officers involved, of any wrongdoing. The Inquiry noted that Evans himself did not report any police misconduct to his legal team during his trial. If Evans did make a false confession - and I am prepared to accept there are grounds for holding this - then it is more likely that he falsely confessed to the murders on his own accord. I therefore cannot see how this relates to the above-mentioned cases. Wcp07 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your analysis is naive. One argument used by Kennedy relates to the language used in the confession, which was far too sophisticated for Evans. The police were in other words, writing the "confession" and forcing Evans to sign: just the same technique used against the alleged IRA bombers in the later cases (ande there are many others too). Brabin was the usual whitewash from the judiciary at the time, and came to absurd conclusions. Evans was in a highly distressed state at the time, having lost both his wife and his daughter at the hands of a mass murderer, Christie, and the police clearly exploited him to get an easy result. As is also well known, they were incompetetent in examining the house, missing visible bones in the back garden etc. The prosecution at Evans trial ignored any counter-evidence, such as the testimony of the workmen in the house. What more do you want to show this gross miscarriage of justice (as was accepted by our modern courts)? Peterlewis (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument is WP:OR and specifically WP:SYN. We are not permitted to attempt to interpret the reasons behind Evans's false confession - if indeed he even made a false confession.  The very act of drawing analogy between Timothy Evans and the other cases without a reference itself is original research.  While Kennedy makes certain allegations against the police - and I am not convinced that he is saying the police acted to the same extent as they have done in B6 or G4 - it must be remembered that this is only Kennedy's interpretation, which has been disputed by other commentators on this case.  If you want to maintain your allegation that the Brabin Inquiry was a judicial whitewash - which is a serious charge to make - you're going to have to get a source saying so.  As it stands, the Brabin Inquiry raised the issue of police misconduct and dismissed it and nothing has been raised since to suggest that this was an incorrect decision to make.
 * I would also ask you not to make changes to the article while in the middle of a content dispute. Wcp07 (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Validity of "confessions"
I have added the word "apparently" to the discussion of Evan's confessions because Kennedy questions that Evans ever wrote them, suggesting instead that they were actually drafted by the police. So anything Evans is alleged to have said must be questioned. Peterlewis (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:10 Rillington Place backyard.jpg
The image File:10 Rillington Place backyard.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ – ukexpat (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Miscarriage of Justice
I have reverted deletion of thios link twice now. No explanation has been received of why this link has been deleted at all. The case is listed under miscarriages of justice, so the link is important. Or does the deleter suggest otherwise? Peterlewis (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The category is a red link. It was deleted after a recent CfD. From WP:CAT - "An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it." Please do not continue adding the deleted category.  APK  coffee talk  06:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This was definitely a miscarriage of justice. However to write that "The judge was prejudiced against Evans from the start, and his summing-up biased against the defendant" is, I suggest, a step too far. It is certainly POV, and without any evidence to support what must be accepted to be a serious (and defamatory) accusation.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I have deleted attacks on Ludovic Kennedy twice now, attacks quite unjustified given the facts of the case. I have seen no arguments presented here that demand any changes in the article as it stands now. Peterlewis (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
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:


 * http://www.murderuk.com/serial_john_christie.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If 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 15:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Confessed to murder to 'protect Christie'?
Why? He hardly knew Christie. He wasn't related. Abortion was then illegal. The film, I think tries to explain that Christie had told Evans that he would hang for murder as he had arranged the 'abortion'. Was he really that simple. He didn't even mention Christie in his confession. He stated that he alone was responsible for the murder of his wife. What kind of a psychological hold did John Christie have over Evans, or, was there more to this. 86.169.93.166 (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)