Crippen Documentary 1 July 2008

[jmenges]

Thanks Debs,

I'll keep you posted.

There was more in that PM that was intriguing, wasn't there?

I too am confused what a 'Bella Rose' in the 1920 census would mean. My guess is that this person is not listed as living with a Mersinger but appears in the NY census as living with someone else, and they are two different people rather than the same individual counted twice. Hopefully we'll know more about this soon.

And I do wish to point out that when I first posted on this thread after the Channel 5 documentary aired, I stated that Beth Wills did not appear, nor was she named, in this production. I do realize that the version (of what I believe to be essentially the same program) that aired in the US this past week did have Ms. Wills in it, and she was identified. I'll rewatch the UK show today to make sure I was not horribly mistaken when I first stated that about the missing Ms. Wills, and I'll attempt to track down a copy of the PBS version to see if there are any other differences.

JM

[jmenges]

Well, look at what someone posted on the PBS message boards about the Crippen show:

The 1910 census shows a Belle Rose, age 29, born in PA, single as a border with Samuel and Cora Bloom, at 415 E. 79th St, Manhattan. Her father born in Germany, mother PA. Occupation is milliner. This census was taken 15 Apr 1910.

The 1920 census, also shows Belle Rose at the same age, born in PA, both parents born in Germany. Occupation is designer, as previously noted. She is probably a designer of hats.

Given the above information and the fact that census takers sometimes made mistakes, I believe that these two persons are the same and that the Belle Rose living with Bertha Messinger is not Cora.

Interestingly, there is a female Crippen, age and first name unknown, who travelled from England to Gibraltar in 1910. The Belle Rose who came to NY in 1910, came from Bermuda on the ship Bermudian. The Bermudian did not sail from England in 1910. So did Cora travel under the Crippen name to Gibraltar, then travel to Bermuda and then using the name Belle Rose sail onward to NY. The passenger list does not provide any details as to contacts on either end of the voyage.

edit- which is a reply to this:

Although I was intrigued by the show and do feel that there are huge descrepancies in the original case, I am irritated at the genealogist who worked on the case, as of late. She stated that in the New York 1920 census, that Bertha Messinger (supposedly sister to Cora) and Belle Rose may very well be Cora Crippin (with her stage name) and her sister, Bertha Messinger, since Belle’s occupation was “singer”…….but it is untrue. First, Bertha is listed as Belle Rose’ cousin and secondadly, but most emphatically, Belle’s occupation is NOT “singer”, but rather, “Designer”. I was wondering WHY a genealogist for the PBS would tell such a tale, or are her eyes that bad?
I do feel however, that there are enough other circumstantial evidence questions, which point to the fact that the original investigation was not ample enough. Also, when doing female DNA testing, it must be of the two females for the samples to match. IF this sample was of a male, how on earth did it match to Cora’s great niece?
Haunting questions need real answers.
**

So Debs, it looks like the 'milliner' came from the 1910 census?

JM

[jmenges]

I'll rewatch the UK show today to make sure I was not horribly mistaken when I first stated that about the missing Ms. Wills, and I'll attempt to track down a copy of the PBS version to see if there are any other differences.

No Beth Wills in the Channel 5 show. Her name appears in the credits under 'With Thanks To'.

JM

[Debra A]

Well, look at what someone posted on the PBS message boards about the Crippen show:

The 1910 census shows a Belle Rose, age 29, born in PA, single as a border with Samuel and Cora Bloom, at 415 E. 79th St, Manhattan. Her father born in Germany, mother PA. Occupation is milliner. This census was taken 15 Apr 1910.

The 1920 census, also shows Belle Rose at the same age, born in PA, both parents born in Germany. Occupation is designer, as previously noted. She is probably a designer of hats.

Given the above information and the fact that census takers sometimes made mistakes, I believe that these two persons are the same and that the Belle Rose living with Bertha Messinger is not Cora.


So Debs, it looks like the 'milliner' came from the 1910 census?

JM

Ah, I think I get it now Jonathon.
The 1910 Bella Rose, milliner was 29 in 1910 though, the same age as the Belle Rose living with a Bertha Mersinger in 1920....not impossible that a mistake was made in age, I agree, but there is also a discrepancy with the place of birth of her mother. It's also possible their 1910 Bella Rose was married by 1920 and therefore does not show on the 1920.
I think the important thing in all this is that the Bertha Mersinger living with Belle Rose in 1920 is NOT Cora's sister, and this is the only reason Beth Wills was drawn to the entry in the first place.
Belle Hecht of 1930 was b in Pensylvania of German born parents, the same as the 1920 entry and we know she was married between 1920 and 1930 census and that her previous surname was Rose. If they believe the 1910 entry is the same woman it in no way rules out Belle Hecht as far as I can see.


Wickerman,
I did email Dr Foran to ask if the declaration that the remains were male, based just on the fact that an x and y chromosome were present, could be considered conclusive. He declined to comment on the question.
I wasn't aware watching the programme that they stated the gender tests had been repeated twice, but like Jonathon I would need to go back and watch again to be sure. I did post much earlier on in the thread about what the actual dialogue was on this subject in the programme.

[Celesta]

Debra,

I remember specifically that they ran it twice. The analyst didn't believe the results the first time because they came out X-Y. The second time, the results were the same.

[jmenges]

If they ran it twice then they were using tissue from the same slide. When the question I'm raising concerns the possibility that the slide was contaminated, they can run the same tests on the same sample as many times as they want and it would still produce results open to question. Besides, as long as no tests are peer reviewed, and they do not comment on whether or not the procedures they used were up to snuff (having the lab inspected for contaminants prior to testing, another lab replicating their results etc.) then at best IMO the only thing we can do is have an open mind as to whether their tests are accurate or not.

mtDNA testing is above a standard lab test. We're talking about people's lives. It requires that certain procedures are followed to ensure the correct results. With no 'white paper' and no peer review, then what we are witnessing is a press release and publicity campaign that has yet to rise to the level of science.

JM

[Celesta]

Hello Jonathon,

Precisely. The same slide was used. The results, as things stand at this moment, are not reproducible. Not a very scientific approach to this in my opinion.

People have been accused or implicated and now there's no follow-up? Are we all supposed to just let it lie there now?

I've noticed some other mistakes, or, at least, one-sided approaches, in some recent documentaries that worry me because they are misleading. It's led me to believe that there are too many producers in the mix in some of these programs. Makes them somewhat more about entertainment and less about education.

[Celesta]

Oh, gosh, I just realized the title of the thread was the July 1 documentary. I'm sorry. I saw the one that was shown this week. That's the one that said the tests were done twice.

Sorry about that.

[jmenges]

Hi Celesta,

The programs were nearly identical, we should feel free to discuss either show as they contained much of the same footage, including the statement you were referring to about the two tests.

Except, as I said above, Beth Wills did not appear by name or in person in the UK version.

JM

[Debra A]

Debra,

I remember specifically that they ran it twice. The analyst didn't believe the results the first time because they came out X-Y. The second time, the results were the same.

Hi Celesta,
Thanks, I just couldn't remember them saying it, that's why I said i'd have to watch the programme again to be sure what was said. I's been a while since the programme aired in the UK and Iwasn't sure if the US version had gone further. I see from your and Jonathon's posts that it was essentially the same show.


Jonathon,
Te miliner mentioned in the 1910 census is also in the 1900 census with her parents, she was definitely b c 1880/81 on both.
I wonder if your correspondent is saying that the Belle Rose in 1920 living with Brtha Mersinger is the same girl,and that her age is wrong in the 1920 census? Making her 10 years older than stated in 1920. Then she couldn't be the lady who became Belle Hecht.

[jmenges]

I do believe it was essentially the same show. Granted, I didn't watch the PBS show that aired in the US as closely as I watched the UK program a few months ago since my impression from when the show started was that it was the same and on top of that, daily life intervened. Regardless, I think we collectively have all the information available from both shows.

Debs,

I honestly don't know what my mystery correspondent suggests by pointing out the milliner in the census, all I can do is wait for more information, which will hopefully come today.

Debs: I think the important thing in all this is that the Bertha Mersinger living with Belle Rose in 1920 is NOT Cora's sister

I'll look back to try to locate the post that addresses this, as I agree that it is very important to keep in mind if it makes this discussion of the NYC Belle Rose moot.

Thanks,

JM

[Celesta]

Jonathon and Debra,

Thanks. Good to know that I wasn't off the track.

Wickerman,

The documentary would have us believe that 90+% of the 'body' (whosever it was) is missing. IF this is true, we must question why Crippen would successfully dispose of 90% of her remains, only to then lift up basement stone flags and dig a hole to deposit less than a bucket full of flesh?
Where's the sense in that, indeed, where is the sense in posing such a scenario? (I acknowledge c.d. points this out too).

This bothers me, too. I had thought that all of her was there, neatly wrapped up, but I was very mistaken in that, wasn't I. I know the slides are supposed to be of a scar that Cora had, but the program raised doubts that it was actually scar tissue, claiming that the doctors for the prosecution said it was a crease. I also wonder if Crippen might have been doing some abortions.

[jmenges]

The defense said it was a crease, you mean

JM

[Celesta]

The defense said it was a crease, you mean

JM

Yep! Whatever I said about creases, reverse it!

[Wickerman]

I know the slides are supposed to be of a scar that Cora had, but the program raised doubts that it was actually scar tissue, claiming that the doctors for the prosecution said it was a crease. I also wonder if Crippen might have been doing some abortions.

Someone pointed out that there were hair folicles in the 'scar', and that as hair cannot grow in scar tissue then, the scar is not a scar, it must have been healthy skin perhaps just folded so mistaken for a scar.
As far as I know this observation holds true.

Abortions?, so you mean the tissue may be of an unborn male child?
Wouldn't the skin cells of a baby be of a different size to those of an adult?, plus there was no skeletal remains noted.
Are there any detailed reports as to precisely what was unearthed in that basement?