Reading the 20th Century discussion

Welcome to our February 2025 buddy read of....




The Peepshow: The Murders at 10 Rillington Place (2024)

by

Kate Summerscale


Everyone is welcome to join in


*

More about The Peepshow: The Murders at 10 Rillington Place (2024)....

'Once more, Kate Summerscale shatters our preconceptions of a classic crime' Val McDermid

From Britain's top-selling true crime writer and author of Sunday Times #1 bestseller THE SUSPICIONS OF MR WHICHER...

London, 1953. Police discover the bodies of three young women hidden in a wall at 10 Rillington Place, a dingy terrace house in Notting Hill. On searching the building, they find another body beneath the floorboards, then an array of human bones in the garden. But they have already investigated a double murder at 10 Rillington Place, three years ago, and the killer was hanged. Did they get the wrong man?

A nationwide manhunt is launched for the tenant of the ground-floor flat, a softly spoken former policeman named Reg Christie. Star reporter Harry Procter chases after the scoop. Celebrated crime writer Fryn Tennyson Jesse begs to be assigned to the case. The story becomes an instant sensation, and with the relentless rise of the tabloid press the public watches on like never before. Who is Christie? Why did he choose to kill women, and to keep their bodies near him? As Harry and Fryn start to learn the full horror of what went on at Rillington Place, they realise that Christie might also have engineered a terrible miscarriage of justice in plain sight.

In this riveting true story, Kate Summerscale mines the archives to uncover the lives of Christie's victims, the tabloid frenzy that their deaths inspired, and the truth about what happened inside the house.

'A forensic reappraisal of a grimy episode in postwar British history ... Shocking, impeccably researched, lucidly written and always utterly compelling' Graeme Macrae Burnet

Americans will have to wait till May to join. (At least, those of us who cannot afford to order hardbacks from overseas will.)

Yes, that's a real shame but we love it when a dormant thread is revived so just join in as and when you can

I’ve started listening to this

A great snapshot of the era complete with appalling prejudice

Reporter Harry Procter is a great way in too

I read this a while ago so, while I won't re-read so quickly, hopefully I can join in the discussion.

Great news Susan


I’m still working my way through it. As so often with these kinds of books, it’s extremely detailed and goes off on all kinds of related tangents. I am learning a lot about life in London in the immediate post war era, particularly for marginalised groups

I haven't started yet but am planning to read this.

I'm trying to decide, I've seen a couple of screen adaptations and found them quite disturbing so not sure if I'm up to reading more about the case or not. So I'll see what the rest of you think first!

I'm planning to read this but I'm not sure how soon I'll get to it.

It’s certainly not salacious so far and is victim-centric


It’s as much about the era as about Christie

Still early days though

Good to know you will be joining at some point

Ah, just read the blurb in relation to the F. Tennyson Jesse link from another thread. I was surprised to learn Christie was an ex-policeman as I thought he was a doctor - I'm clearly getting mixed up with another C20th mass murderer!

Roman Clodia wrote: "Ah, just read the blurb in relation to the F. Tennyson Jesse link from another thread. I was surprised to learn Christie was an ex-policeman as I thought he was a doctor - I'm clearly getting mixed..."

Think you might be confusing Christie with Crippen? Crippen a darling in comparison!

Nigeyb wrote: "It’s certainly not salacious so far and is victim-centric


It’s as much about the era as about Christie

Still early days though"

I know it was an important case in other ways, presumably this will bring in Ludovic Kennedy and how his coverage in Ten Rillington Place, and the adaptation of that, contributed to the abolition of the death penalty.

Also some interesting overlaps with cases like Pelicot, given the use of substances to render rape victims unconscious. Although I get the sense that the murder aspect was more to do with Christie's sexual predilections than a convenient way to cover up the crimes.

Oh this is sounding more interesting by the moment, if gruesome! I'm going to try to make a start tonight.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Oh this is sounding more interesting by the moment, if gruesome! I'm going to try to make a start tonight."

Gruesome, grisly, harrowing, tragic on so many levels...

Just started and this is already so creepy with the dead bodies so close to the surface of walls.

Also, 1953 and there's no electricity in the house! I can see I'm going to have lots of 'wow' moments in terms of social history.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Just started and this is already so creepy with the dead bodies so close to the surface of walls.

Also, 1953 and there's no electricity in the house! I can see I'm going to have lots of 'wow' mom..."

1953 - we had electricity but I don't think we got a telephone until at least 1955. I think we had to go to the volunteer fire station next door for telephone calls. Of course, I was only 3.

Looking forward to May.

There is another true crime book out soon by another excellent author Story of a Murder: The Wives, the Mistress and Dr Crippen by Hallie Rubenhold

On 1 February, 1910, vivacious musichall performer, Belle Elmore, suddenly vanished from her north London home, causing alarm among her circle of female friends, the entertainers of the Music Hall Ladies’ Guild who demanded an immediate investigation.

They could not have known what they would provoke: the unearthing of a gruesome secret, followed by a fevered manhunt for the prime suspect: Belle’s husband, medical fraudster, Dr Hawley Harvey Crippen.

Hiding in the shadows of this evergreen tale is Crippen’s typist and lover, Ethel Le Neve – was she really just ‘an innocent young girl’ in thrall to a powerful older man as so many people have since reported?

In this epic examination of one of the most infamous murders of the twentieth century, prizewinning social historian Hallie Rubenhold gives voice to those who have never properly been heard – the women.

Featuring a carnival cast of eccentric entertainers, glamorous lawyers, zealous detectives, medics and liars, STORY OF A MURDER is meticulously researched and multi-layered, offering the reader an electrifying snapshot of Britain and America at the dawn of the modern era.

Out on the 27th March.

In addition to the lack of electricity all the tenants are sharing one toilet in the garden which was, and as you’d imagine, pretty disgusting.

I was fascinated to learn that the landlord was black and the greatest boxer of the era. So good other boxers wouldn’t fight him.

Needless say Christie is fearful of his black neighbours and an out and out racist.

He stays at the house because his rent is ring fenced. I know someone in Brighton who still has her rent protected she’s been in her rented flat so long

Susan wrote: "There is another true crime book out soon by another excellent author Story of a Murder: The Wives, the Mistress and Dr Crippen by Hallie Rubenhold"

Ah yes, as Alwynne pointed out, I was getting my misogynistic serial killers mixed up! I'll be looking out for this.

Nigeyb wrote: "In addition to the lack of electricity all the tenants are sharing one toilet in the garden which was, and as you’d imagine, pretty disgusting."

I'm constantly amazed, as some of you know, at how quickly post-war British society moves in terms of amenities and social ideas. The fifties sound almost medieval! Bathrooms, fridges, heating - Is this what was meant when whoever said 'you've never had it so good' in, I think, the 1970s?

Obviously, I know that it was common for people to advertise their racial segregation thoughts when letting rooms etc. but it's still always shocking to read.

More positively, I love the picture of Fleet Street and the idea of crusading and investigative journalists. It seems a profession of social mobility?

As Nigeyb says above, there are all kinds of diversions, so I'm doing a little judicious skimming - didn't really need the entire family history of Harry Procter and want to get back to the main story. This is gripping!

Aw, the Smell Society, set up by the lawyer Applebe, HG Wells and George Bernard Shaw 'which aimed to promote pleasant smells'! 🤩

'a toxic smog had covered London, killing thousands of people' - I googled this and learnt about the Great Smog of 1952:

https://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/colle....

Seems so weird that initiatives like ULEZ for cleaner London air are now vilified and used as a stick to punish Labour and Sadiq Khan.

You're racing through this RC


Yes, some of the digressions feel superfluous but they pass quickly and then we're on to another nugget

I know, this is such a compulsive read for me.

It's horrible how racism is part of what allows the early murders to be covered up - people attribute the smell of decomposing bodies to the Black neighbours!

And the creepiest, most grisly thing so far - I'm on ch. 4 - (view spoiler)[is Reg Christie offering to perform an abortion on Beryl Evans (hide spoiler)].

One of the diversions I found fascinating was the number of married women who did sex work in the hours while their husbands were at work because they were bored and wanted some money of their own, beyond scrabbling with the housekeeping money they were given.

That social attempt to put women back in their places after the work so many had done during WW2 is so interesting. It feels particularly subversive of women rejecting the effects of this by turning to sex work.

Ew yes to that spoiler


His hint of relative respectability and general anonymity seems to have inspired trust in many he met

Have you got to his wife’s tale? Very instructive and filled with little tragic details

Looking forward to this read.

Like you I was fascinated by the sex work section especially the part about married women

The court case was completed at lightning pace compared with modern standards

Hmm - I'm finding this second section quite messy without a clear thread to follow. The first section had me completely in its grip with so many questions raised.

I'll be very interested in Ben's take on the legal process. No-one bothered by conflict of interest that a daily tabloid is involved in paying for the defence? The rule that you can only be tried for one murder at a time? The official 'defence' that any man would be driven to insanity by having to live with 'coloured creatures' (i.e. Black Afro-Caribbean men) - and before anyone points out to me that racism was 'normal' at the time, I shall just pre-empt that by saying that one of the complaints is that Black men are going out with and marrying white women so clearly those women didn't subscribe to the same racist views. Cf. Sam Selvon

But that's not my criticism, it's that I feel the author has lost the thread and is no longer in control of the material. I fear we're not going to get a handle on Christie's psyche, the complicity or not of his wife, and that's what I'm here for. Hope I'm proved wrong!

I'm close to the end now. The timeline is all over the place and I agree that some sections could have usefully been removed and others reconfigured to make it flow better.

There are no absolute answers but I feel we do get more of a handle on both Christie's psyche and his wife's complicity.

I finished: 3-stars from me:

www.goodreads.com/review/show/7291039406

The first section was compulsive reading but then I felt the author lost control of the material and was just jumping around from topic to topic.

I agree, it's not possible to have absolute answers given the sources but I was left confused: Ethel defended Christie publicly but did she know about the earlier killings? Was she involved in them or just silently complicit - or oblivious? What was going through her head when their marriage wasn't consummated for three years? What was it like living with this man?

I just didn't understand what the point was of bringing Fryn Tennyson Jesse into the book at all - and I certainly didn't need to know her life story. I'm afraid I took against her quite violently for her racism (despite being friends with Paul Robeson - but was that because he was famous?) and her disdain for the working class, desperate women who were Christie's victims: her comment to her editor riled me: "I suppose you have to have the faces of each of the murderees, but after all one murdered woman, especially if a prostitute, looks much like another!"

And Christie himself was left a mystery to me: did he actually perform abortions or was that just a ploy to get desperate women into the flat? Tim Evans seemed to think he could as he left Beryl in his hands (I think?) - was part of his sexual excitement from torturing these women while pretending to a medical knowledge he didn't have? If not, why was Beryl left bleeding - violent rape or something additionally sinister?

The speculation about him being gassed was just that - speculation. And the idea of him being impotent was floated but then the forensics discounted that. He's suggested as being psychologically impotent as a reason for him wanting total power over these women but then there's that odd scene when he's in the bath in prison, waving his penis at the guards and saying that's why women all came to Rillington Place - I don't know, it just all felt muddled to me. I'd have preferred if the text had embraced the contradictions and discussed them openly rather than just leaving them there.

The third section felt like the author needed to hit a word count and throw in a lot of unnecessary stuff - the book is actually short without the notes, my edition only about 230 pages, and that was including all the filler.

I'm glad I've read it as I didn't know anything about these cases and the first section gave me the information I needed but way too much extraneous stuff there and some decisions that leave me perplexed.

I have just finished and found it more satisfying than you RC, though I share some of your reservations.

I come away with the conviction that Christie probably did kill Beryl and Geraldine but that Tim was also culpable as he was in cahoots with him to an extent.

It seems highly likely that Christie was an abortionist. He seemed to take every opportunity to be with women (e.g. photography, buying drinks in pubs, his time as wartime policeman)

I am also convinced Ethel knew about some if not all of his activities but she was cowed by his personality

As you suggest, it was an unflattering portrait of Fryn Tennyson Jesse who is, at best, a contradictory character but I cut her a bit of slack. Those attitudes were so widespread in the era which is not to excuse her but it does explain her ignorance and prejudices. And she was worth including given how she brought a new perspective to crime reporting and crime writing.

Overall really glad to have read this and, as always, a joy to share the experience.


Four stars...

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...


I'm hoping we get a few more readers and opinions

Roman Clodia wrote: "And Christie himself was left a mystery to me: did he actually perform abortions or was that just a ploy to get desperate women into the flat? ..."

This is quite informative about that aspect of the case, it's open access:

TEN RILLINGTON PLACE AND THE CHANGING POLITICS OF ABORTION IN MODERN BRITAIN*
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...

Roman Clodia wrote: "The speculation about him being gassed was just that - speculation. And the idea of him being impotent was floated but then the forensics discounted that. He's suggested as being psychologically impotent as a reason for him wanting total power over these women ..."

My impression, at least from the versions of his story I've encountered, is that this was likely more about power and control - which might also have been part of the dynamic of his marriage, at least some form of coercive control. But introducing the notion of 'psychological impotence' would bother me, it suggests that there's a reliable norm when it comes to the expression of heterosexual male sexuality and then attempts to position Christie in relation to that so he becomes reassuringly 'abnormal.' But from accounts of the Pelicot case and others involving similar kinds of sexual violence, it's clearly not that unusual for a number of men to fantasise about sex with unconscious women, and sex that includes other forms of violence. The men "recruited" in the Pelicot case were responding to ads on a website devoted to just that, which suggests not an uncommon desire.

Alwynne wrote: "But introducing the notion of 'psychological impotence' would bother me, it suggests that there's a reliable norm when it comes to the expression of heterosexual male sexuality and then attempts to position Christie in relation to that so he becomes reassuringly 'abnormal.'"

I think it was more about the fact he appeared meek and disempowered in a social sense, and so had the urge to compensate by taking that sexualised power over women - at least, that's the way I read it. He was weakened by his WW1 experience, apparently, which affected him psychosomatically as well as biologically. But, you know, I'm not sure how reliable this book is on anything!

Agree completely about not giving that get-out clause of 'abnormality' - I see there's a book by one of the Pelicot children I'll Never Call Him Dad Again: By the daughter of Gisèle Pelicot: Turning our family trauma of Chemical Submission into a collective fight.

And there was the supposed incident when he couldn’t get an erection and the girl he was with mentioned it so that the word got out and he was taunted by his peers.

As you say RC there’s unsurprisingly no clear evidence to provide a definitive explanation for his crimes.

Kate Summerscale has to speculate I suppose and share what she has uncovered whilst researching

Nigeyb wrote: "And there was the supposed incident when he couldn’t get an erection and the girl he was with mentioned it so that the word got out and he was taunted by his peers.

As you say RC there’s unsurpri..."

It's difficult to assess though, correlation isn't causation, and in any case a very high proportion of men have ED either sustained or sporadic. I'm not sure if research into it was very developed during Christie's lifetime but imagine it was likely not uncommon then either. Yet we don't see vast numbers of men with ED engaging in ritualistic, violent crimes of this nature. So what was it that made Christie different? There's also the possibility that the ED was linked to appropriate - for him - stimulation so it might be that only certain sexual scenarios resulted in arousal? Similarly being 'meek and disempowered' doesn't necessarily link to sexual violence. Possibly unfair but doesn't sound as if she has a terribly sophisticated take on things. Also sounds a bit conservative/unthinking when it comes to assumptions about masculinity, gender roles etc

In the version of his story starring Richard Attenborough he's portrayed as 'puffed up' and officious, someone who enjoys passing themselves off as an authority on various forms of medical treatment. His use of the gas designed to mimic the ways in which it was commonly deployed in dentistry at the time.

Alwynne wrote: "There's also the possibility that the ED was linked to appropriate - for him - stimulation so it might be that only certain sexual scenarios resulted in arousal?... Possibly unfair but doesn't sound as if she has a terribly sophisticated take on things."

Not unfair at all, that was my disappointment with this book - I didn't feel it ever really got to grips with Christie other than at the most superficial 'look at what he did' level. The journalist and Fryne TJ kept the wheels of the story going but so much about the heart of the case remained unexplored.

Thanks for the abortion article link, will read it tomorrow.

Alwynne wrote: "In the version of his story starring Richard Attenborough he's portrayed as 'puffed up' and officious, someone who enjoys passing themselves off as an authority on various forms of medical treatmen..."

I didn't get any of that from this book.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Alwynne wrote: "In the version of his story starring Richard Attenborough he's portrayed as 'puffed up' and officious, someone who enjoys passing themselves off as an authority on various forms of ..."

That version was based on Ludovic Kennedy's interpretation of events in Ten Rillington Place Christie's depicted as a bit of a mansplainer who holds forth on all things medical. It made Evans's belief that Christie was a competent, backstreet abortionist much more credible.

All good points


In defence of KS, surely all she can really do is to chronicle her research findings. Ultimately no one can definitively know why a serial killer is, or becomes, a serial killer.

Or am I being overly simplistic?

KS goes into a bit of detail about Ludovic Kennedy’s take and how that became the received version of the story in the popular imagination particularly his being an abortionist, and v fussy and officious