The BBC have started shooting a 3 part drama on the infamous Christie - Evans case.
Starring Tim Roth and Samantha Morton.

I must say the film starring Dickie Attenborough will take some beating.

I wonder if it will it take the miscarraige of justice view that Evans was innocent or take the revisionist take that Ludovic Kennedy's book is full of basic inaccuracies and that Evans could well have killed his wife and daughter.

BIB - based on what? What 'revisionist' view? Do you have any links? I searched and I couldn't find any. Certainly not recent enough to call it a 'revisionist' view.

Of course Evans could have killed his wife and daughter (just as he could have assassinated JFK) but IIRC, there's simply no evidence that he did. I suspect the BBC will take the official - and IMO, correct - view that he's innocent.

I never see the point of these remakes - what next, a remake of Citizen Kane ?

The whole aspect of the film was spot on...the deprived backcloth of the area....the chilling creepy brilliance of Attenborough....the sheer horror of Christie himself - the serial killer. These remakes usually disappoint as the comparisons are inevitable regardless of how good the performances are.

Many people today will not have seen the film "10 Rillington Place" so will probably be new to a TV drama based on the story.

OK, maybe not revisionist, call it a alternative view of the case.

Google the writers, Rupert Furneaux and John Eddowes.

It helped the atmosphere of the film beacuse it was filmed in Rillington Place. Or Ruston Close as it was renamed after the events. Though it was not filmed at number 10 but number 7 as the family that lived there would not move out for the filming. A few years later the whole area was demolished.

Some more information:

http://deadline.com/2016/02/rillingt...ma-1201695567/

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-...llington-place

You didn't look hard enough. The case was debated by myself and others on DS just a few weeks ago!.

Here is the link:

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...php?p=81161535


There have been three books written on the case, by Rupert Furneaux in 1961, John Eddowes in 1994 and historian Dr Jonathan Oates, all of which greatly question the notion of Evans's innocence, cemented as it is in the public mind by the famous Dickie Attenborough film. Oates and Eddowes in particular.

http://www.johneddowes.com/index.php

http://www.amazon.co.uk/John-Christi.../dp/1781592888

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/Bo...aux%2520rupert

That's interesting, that film was brilliantly atmospheric, and hard to imagine anyone else playing Christie.
I visited Madam Tussauds in the early 80s, the chamber of horrors section had a reconstruction of Christie's kitchen. On the table was the actual gas bottle that he had used to gas his victims, it was on loan from the Crime Museum in London. It was behind a glass panel for security reasons, fascinating to see it though, if a little disturbing if you thought about it.

Hmm. Furneaux's book was published in 1961. I haven't read it, but I think we can probably safely discount most of his arguments that Evans was guilty. The Brabin review into the case didn't come until four years later, so Furneaux would have been coming from the position that the original police investigation was all proper and above board, which the Brabin review proved not to be the case.

Eddowes was published in '94, so whilst recent enough for it to possibly contain many valid points, it's still just one man's opinion. The fact that nothing came from his claims suggests there was no hard facts on which to re-consider the case.

I have actually contacted Eddowes and Oates, the two most recent and best writers on the case (Furneaux is long dead), and both have confirmed to me that they had not been contacted by the BBC or production company. Which imo I find shocking.

I fear we are just going to get an inferior remake of the film. With no attempt to look into the case and take into account the 'revisionist' studies of Furneaux, Eddowes and Oates, including crucial recent evidence uncovered by Dr Oates.

DS is hardly The Washington Post ! Google 'Timothy evans actually guilty', as I did. I don't wish to damage your ego, but that thread doesn't appear on the first page.

I'll check out the Oates book. Does it contain any real evidence that makes the case worth re-investigating, or is it more speculation over a dead man?

ETA - it's also worth bearing in mind that in any case, Evans was never officially found innocent. IIRC, his conviction is considered to be 'unsafe'.

Some of us have read all three and are 'fans' of the case. Some of us have read just about everything there is to read on the case. Have you read any of the three 'revisionist' books?.

Furneaux actually lays out the facts and allows the reader to make a judgement. If he suggests a personal opinion, its that the two men worked together.

Eddowes is more partisan, but frankly shreds the Kennedy version (which btw I believed until 1995 when I read the Eddowes book) to bits. He also uncovered new evidence on witnesses and timelines which proved only Evans was in the house when Beryl was killed. I think you are wrong to state that his book is flawed, we don't simply know if his work was included in the recent appeal.

Dr Oates is perhaps the best of all three. Not only is he an impartial historian, but as such, he undertook probably the most exhaustive study of the case. In doing so, he has uncovered long forgotten evidence after 60 yrs. Evidence that again discredits the Kennedy version and puts the focus of guilt squarely back on Timothy Evans.

The government accepted Evans was innocent and pardoned him. The odds against two murderers living in the same house and being unaware of each other must be billions to one.

Well, the Washington Post is probably even less relevant than DS!

OTOH, DS isn't the Guardian or the Times.

Not really. John Wayne Gacy shared a house with a man who would go onto be a serial killer himself (Robert Guest). Not common, but not impossible.

And as I have said, the evidence from the authors might even show collusion.

In 1966, Evans was pardoned for the murder of his child, but not his wife. It upheld the conviction of the murder of Beryl Evans.

That's not entirely accurate.

Evans was tried and convicted of murdering his daughter, Geraldine Evans, although Evans's wife, Beryl Evans had been murdered and the two bodies had been found at the same time. The legal practice at that time was that on an indictment for murder there should only be one count or charge and the prosecution charged Evans with the murder of his daughter, anticipating that this would be the stronger case.

Evans was therefore convicted and executed for the murder of his daughter, Geraldine Evans. At the time it was assumed by all that whoever murdered Geraldine had also murdered Beryl.

It was subsequently discovered that Christie, whom Evans had blamed for the murders of Beryl and Geraldine, had killed two women before the deaths of Beryl and Geraldine and FOUR women (including his own wife) after those deaths. This obviously put a different slant on the allegations by Evans that Christie 'wot done it'.

To resolve this, in the 1960s the Labour Home Secretary of the day commissioned a report from a High Court Judge, Sir Daniel Brabin, to investigate whether there had been a miscarriage of justice. Brabin's report surprised many, including me, when he articulated the view that it was more likely than not that Evans had NOT killed baby Geraldine, but it was more likely than not that he HAD killed his wife, Beryl.

As if was only for the murder of Geraldine that Evans was convicted, Roy Jenkins, the then Home Secretary recommended a posthumous pardon for Evans.

So the official line according to the last government report, is that Evans probably did not do the murder for which he was executed, but that he probably did commit the murder of his wife.

3 parter, starting 27th nov.

not sure if roth looks like him but neither did attenborough, so doesnt matter really.

looks like they are taking the accepted line that evans was not guilty of anything.

should make for an interesting thread when the crime buffs get going.

'Guilt' is a very elastic word here. The fact that Christie was already a murderer and also murdered again after Evans had been hanged is a slap into reality. Evans's 'guilt' seemed much more certain when Christie was thought to be just a seedy, old hypochondriac landlord.

It's quite a coincidence that Evans would end up murdering his wife in the house of a serial killer. At best I imagine Christie convincing him to assist in one of his mad 'operations' and then letting him take the blame.

I'm not surprised the BBC didn't contact the two authors for their 'new evidence'. There's loads of quack theories in cases like these. Usually from people trying to make a name for themselves.

It''s not a remake. Are you suggesting that in the whole of history there should only ever be allowed one drama (film or TV series) based on a story?

There's no limit on making another version of a story, but there has to be more than mere imitation. Have you not seen the trailer snippets? Roth is more made up to look like Attenborough in the film than like the real Christie.

However, I suppose it's best to reserve judgement until after the broadcast to see how it turns out.

evans was no angel, a drunk , a wastrel, braggard, fantasist and wife beater. however even he would be smart enough to dispose of his wife's body in a better place than the communal wash house, he had access to a van i believe.

in the meantime i will scour the library for the revisionist theory books.

I recommend they find the film, shot and black and white it had a chilling portrayal of Christie played by Richard Attenborough that will take some beating.

it was in colour, but the griminess of the locale, the awful characters and labour's post-war drabness makes it seem as if it were in monochrome.