Why Would Dew Know Kelly By Sight?

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha,

By the time he wrote the memoirs, Walter Dew was one of the best known Scotland Yard inspectors, because he was the man who caught and brought back Dr. Crippen in 1910. It was front line news of the day. In face, the memoirs are called "I Caught Crippen". He doesn't need to advertise his credentials - they're known. He was also involved, in 1907, in the conclusion of the Druce-Portland identity mystery. Why try to build up any reputation on being a humble constable involved in a minor way at best in a prominent, but unsolved mystery of half a century earlier?

From what I understand of Dew, he was not a bad sort of fellow. He had no apparent chips on his shoulders against other Scotland Yard types (like Anderson and MacNaughten against each other). So he is not likely to mention anything that was negative regarding them.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I agree, I can't see why he would lie.

Also people have said there is no record of him being there when discovering Kelly, but he does say the following:

The girl's clothing had nearly all been cut from her body in the mad process of mutilation.
All these things I saw after I had slipped and fallen on the awfulness of that floor.


As we know 'Bonds' report says she was naked, when in fact she had a chemise on or the like.

I'm not sure weather it is known who returned the bond report and some of the Crippen letters, but I think that perhaps Dew was in possession of them, simply because of the Crippen letters.
If we assume that he was in possession of the Bond report, then he must have been telling the truth about Kelly.

[Rosella]

I agree that Dew was well known as the man who arrested Crippen. However, there is a bit of a gap between 1910 and 1938, when Dew wrote his memoirs. I do know that Crippen was a well-known character to generations of Britons. (I remember seeing his waxwork in Madame Tussaud's, as a child in the late 1950's.)

Nevertheless, in Dew's retirement in the years between the wars he was often consulted by newspapers about famous cases. (Nowadays I suppose he'd be a 'talking head' or 'expert' appearing regularly on TV.) That also kept his name in the public eye.

[Mayerling]

I agree that Dew was well known as the man who arrested Crippen. However, there is a bit of a gap between 1910 and 1938, when Dew wrote his memoirs. I do know that Crippen was a well-known character to generations of Britons. (I remember seeing his waxwork in Madame Tussaud's, as a child in the late 1950's.)

Nevertheless, in Dew's retirement in the years between the wars he was often consulted by newspapers about famous cases. (Nowadays I suppose he'd be a 'talking head' or 'expert' appearing regularly on TV.) That also kept his name in the public eye.

Hi Natasha and Rosella,

It would not surprise me if Dew did return the letters of the Doctor with any other papers. One of the sad things about the Crippen case was that on the trip back to England Dew and Crippen became friends. As a result of the Doctor's trial, condemnation, and execution Dew decided to retire - his heart was not in the job anymore. Not that he regretted doing his job and duty, but he probably hoped there would be some reason to give the Doctor a reduced sentence.

Interesting point about Dew suddenly being a kind of unofficial "Detective" talking head on matters like the disappearance of Agatha Christie in 1926. The British public had begun lionizing certain figures in the police and forensic worlds at the time of the Crippen Case. The same case introduced the public to forensic whiz Bernard Spilsbury, who frequently would be the crown specialist witness in one major homicide after another (besides Crippen, the Seddon Case, the Brides in the Bath Case, the Voisin Case, the Thorne Case, the Mahon "Crumbles" Case, the Sidney Fox Case). Also gaining a reputation as an expert was gunsmith Robert Churchill, who also was frequently a crown expert on firearms. Dew was not called to court after his retirement, so his opinion could be asked in the newspapers. This was also the period that the "Flying Squad" and the "Big Four" of Scotland Yard were frequently discussed in the British newspapers. Same thing happened in other countries - France had had Bertillion in the 1890s to 1914, and Lacassagne (I think that is how his name was spelled) in the Vacher and Eyraud-Bompard-Gouffe Murders. In the early twentieth century it was Dr. Edmond Locard.

Jeff

[Rosella]

Yes, I have Spilsbury's biography by Browne and Tullett, published in the 1950's. Also Andrew Ross's book on Spilsbury, Lethal Witness. Quite a contrast! I think it can safely be said that Ross is not a fan of Sir Bernard or Robert Churchill!

[Mayerling]

Yes, I have Spilsbury's biography by Browne and Tullett, published in the 1950's. Also Andrew Ross's book on Spilsbury, Lethal Witness. Quite a contrast! I think it can safely be said that Ross is not a fan of Sir Bernard or Robert Churchill!

Hi Rosella,

It is fairly easy now to be critical. Browne and Tullett did discuss the issue of the Thorne Case with the jury seemingly swayed by Spilsbury's testimony over "overwhelming" evidence by the defense. Actually, while an error can easily be suspected on the part of Spilsbury (people are fallible), the fact is that the defense team's efforts did depend on Dr. Bronte, who was (at best) a dubious asset to any forensic effort* (Edgar Lustgarten also was critical of Spilsbury's effect on the jury in the Thorne case, and referred to Bronte as "the "Spilsbury" of Ireland". It was Bronte who managed to refer to himself that way (Spilsbury thought him an idiot), and that Lustgarten uses this as proof, is an example of wanting his cake (disqualifying Spilsbury here) and eating it too! (having Bronte claim he's just like Spilsbury!!!).).

What is more interesting is that Browne and Tullett kept Spilsbury's personal life to a minimum in their biography. They mention the death of two of his sons (one in the Blitz) and his increasingly weakening abilities in the early 1940s, leading to his suicide. They don't mention a quarter century love affair with a lab assistant or secretary of his, who died in the late 1930s. Obviously this must have put a strain on his marriage.

*Years ago, when I was having Jonathan Goodman over at my home as a guest, we were talking about his first book, "The Murder of Julia Wallace". In that case the forensics for the police were handled by a teacher of the subject at the local university at Liverpool, Professor MacFall. MacFall was something of a blow-hard and faker, and Jon (in that book) referred to him in the phrase, "more of a plackard than a person". We were discussing him and Dr. Bronte, and I said to Jon, "Imagine if there had been a homicide case with them as the prosecution and defense experts on forensics." Jon thought a moment, smiled, and said, "Yeah, really!!" We both broke up laughing at the image of that scene.

Jeff

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha and Rosella,

It would not surprise me if Dew did return the letters of the Doctor with any other papers. One of the sad things about the Crippen case was that on the trip back to England Dew and Crippen became friends. As a result of the Doctor's trial, condemnation, and execution Dew decided to retire - his heart was not in the job anymore. Not that he regretted doing his job and duty, but he probably hoped there would be some reason to give the Doctor a reduced sentence.

Hi Jeff,

Yeah that is really sad, even more so seeing as some scientists etc have said that the dna taken from the slide with the scar tissue may actually be male.

There was, if I remember correctly, talk that Cora was still alive and living in America, I think there was a witness who could testify to that, he never made it to the stand. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Yeah that is really sad, even more so seeing as some scientists etc have said that the dna taken from the slide with the scar tissue may actually be male.

There was, if I remember correctly, talk that Cora was still alive and living in America, I think there was a witness who could testify to that, he never made it to the stand. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hi Natasha,

Crippen always maintained that Belle had fled to America with a lover and died there. However, although plausible the problem with it was she left her jewelry and dresses behind, and that never really made sense. Dew almost bought the story, and was actually returning to # 10 Hillside Crescent to ask a couple of more questions to Crippen - the reason for the new batch of questions was that Ethel Le Neve (Crippen's girlfriend) had moved into the house and was seen wearing some of the jewelry and clothing by Cora's friends at some social occasion. It looked odd.

It's been said that had Crippen just sat tight at his home for a month more Dew would have talked to him, gotten some answers that might have settled these issues, and the Doctor and his girlfriend would have been safe. I frankly see it would have been too difficult for Crippen to explain his wife leaving her valuables and possessions, and Ms Le Neve using them. It didn't matter - Crippen and Le Neve had fled the house by the time Dew returned. Suspicious he had the house thoroughly searched and found those remains in the basement.

I have serious questions on the DNA research that is trying to vindicate poor Crippen now (a century after he was hanged). It is (to my way of thinking) as hard to pin down after all this time as the business of the shawl with Kosminsky in the recent Ripper book - after awhile, during which the item that might have DNA on it has been kept helter-skelter by the authorities, because they did not even know of DNA at the time of the crime (here 1910, and with Kosminski 1888) how do we know the results are accurate? I don't think they are. What is accurate (although the pro-Crippen group dismisses it as part of a vast police conspiracy) is the remains were found in a pair of the Doctor's pajamas that were traced at the time of the trial. I think it was Belle's remains. Crippen's denial's in court are meaningless - he could hardly have admitted any wrongdoing if he'd want to hold onto any chance for acquittal. As it was, once he was doomed he pulled out all stops to help Ethel escape the gallows, and succeeded. It is for his efforts to save Ethel (and for Belle's overbearing and selfish nature) that people still feel bad for Hawley.

No doubt someone will bring up some of the Spilsbury controversies of the future (such as the Norman Thorne Case) but he did put modern forensic testimony on the map - and I don't think he did it lightly sacrificing Hawley Crippen on the way.

Jeff

[Monty]

Transfered

Dew was transferred to F Division Paddington on 22nd December 1888.

Monty

[jmenges]

Hi Natasha,

Crippen always maintained that Belle had fled to America with a lover and died there. However, although plausible the problem with it was she left her jewelry and dresses behind, and that never really made sense. Dew almost bought the story, and was actually returning to # 10 Hillside Crescent to ask a couple of more questions to Crippen - the reason for the new batch of questions was that Ethel Le Neve (Crippen's girlfriend) had moved into the house and was seen wearing some of the jewelry and clothing by Cora's friends at some social occasion. It looked odd.

It's been said that had Crippen just sat tight at his home for a month more Dew would have talked to him, gotten some answers that might have settled these issues, and the Doctor and his girlfriend would have been safe. I frankly see it would have been too difficult for Crippen to explain his wife leaving her valuables and possessions, and Ms Le Neve using them. It didn't matter - Crippen and Le Neve had fled the house by the time Dew returned. Suspicious he had the house thoroughly searched and found those remains in the basement.

I have serious questions on the DNA research that is trying to vindicate poor Crippen now (a century after he was hanged). It is (to my way of thinking) as hard to pin down after all this time as the business of the shawl with Kosminsky in the recent Ripper book - after awhile, during which the item that might have DNA on it has been kept helter-skelter by the authorities, because they did not even know of DNA at the time of the crime (here 1910, and with Kosminski 1888) how do we know the results are accurate? I don't think they are. What is accurate (although the pro-Crippen group dismisses it as part of a vast police conspiracy) is the remains were found in a pair of the Doctor's pajamas that were traced at the time of the trial. I think it was Belle's remains. Crippen's denial's in court are meaningless - he could hardly have admitted any wrongdoing if he'd want to hold onto any chance for acquittal. As it was, once he was doomed he pulled out all stops to help Ethel escape the gallows, and succeeded. It is for his efforts to save Ethel (and for Belle's overbearing and selfish nature) that people still feel bad for Hawley.

No doubt someone will bring up some of the Spilsbury controversies of the future (such as the Norman Thorne Case) but he did put modern forensic testimony on the map - and I don't think he did it lightly sacrificing Hawley Crippen on the way.

Jeff

The "Belle Rose" living in America was identified as not being the same woman as Cora Crippen, though that did not stop the MSU/Trestrail team from bringing her up again during their TV show and press release as a possibility (even while having a genealogist, albeit not a very good one, as a member of their team). One of the things that no one ever mentions is that after Crippen's execution, Ethel Le Neve attempted to be made Executrix of his estate, which she claimed would also include Cora's possessions, since they passed from Cora (deceased) to Crippen (deceased) to Ethel (via Crippen's will). Now, why would Ethel try to gain control of all of Cora's earthly possessions if there was any question in her mind that she was not dead? The only logical view IMO is that Ethel of course knew Cora was dead because Crippen told her he had killed her. They lived in the house together with her body in the cellar and she paraded around in her clothes and jewelry.

JM

[Natasha]

Hi Jeff, Monty & JM,

Thanks for the info guys

Wasn't there a letter that was sent to Churchill in regards to Crippen? I can't remember exactly what the letter was about weather it was asking for a pardon or something.

[Rosella]

I think that the Crippen remains (which IMO are Cora's) could be contaminated with all kinds of male DNA from police, doctors, who knows but from Spilsbury himself! I agree that though Spilsbury undoubtedly made mistakes British forensic science still owes him an enormous debt.

I know Churchill was supposedly friendly with Colonel Luard, the husband of the victim in the famous Edwardian Luard shooting case. Gosh, we are getting off-topic here!

[Natasha]

That is a good point about Cora's possessions JM. Makes me wonder weather Ethel had more of a motive than Crippen.

[Rosella]

Yes, Ethel appeared, with Crippen, at an evening function organised by the ladies of the Music Hall Guild with a distinctive brooch of Cora's on her chest. Raised eyebrows all round!

'Supper with the Crippens' (an excellent book) states that Ethel (who was lodging elsewhere at the time) might even have been at the Crippens' home on the night of the murder!

[Natasha]

Yes, Ethel appeared, with Crippen, at an evening function organised by the ladies of the Music Hall Guild with a distinctive brooch of Cora's on her chest. Raised eyebrows all round!

'Supper with the Crippens' (an excellent book) states that Ethel (who was lodging elsewhere at the time) might even have been at the Crippens' home on the night of the murder!

I wouldn't be surprised if she was. I mean if she was and knew about it wouldn't it be very silly to wear Cora's clothes? Unless she planned on getting Crippen charged with the murder.

[jmenges]

According to Philip Gibbs, the ghost author of Ethel Le Neve- Her Life Story Told By Herself she confessed to him that she knew Crippen had murdered his wife, saying "He was mad when he did it- and mad for me."

That may have been in Supper with the Crippen's. It's been years since I've read that book but I agree it's a great one.

JM