Crippen Documentary 1 July 2008

[Sam Flynn]

Ha Ha Sam, no so great minds think alike

I have little dewbt that they do

[Suzi]

Any second now the truth will be known!!!! hehe!!
(I'm sure there's a man in there bearing a pair of pyjama bottoms!)
Was that taken at Dewdrop Crescent??

Anyway......seriously!!!!....where were we with the prog??

[Observer]

Reckon we're at the back of the fescue as far as comedy is concerned

[Observer]

that'll be Foggy Dewhurst Suzi


OMG I'm getting out of here.

[Suzi]

OK me too- But I did think the programme was quite interesting and sort of made me feel a little happier about HHC being innocent...seriously complicated and I just can't help but think that B.Spilsbury may have just have been wrong.......but who was the fellow in the cellar?? and where did Walter Dew fit in??????

Suz x

[Sam Flynn]

It will be interesting to see whether the vaunted posthumous pardon will actually materialise. If that ever happened, then one would have to conclude that the evidence apparently gathered will have been submitted to a level of scrutiny denied to television viewers, and declared admissible. As it is, compelling though the TV evidence appears to have been, it would be sensible to reserve judgment on the matter.

[Ash]

It was an interesting program. I'm going to put a review on the Ripper Notes Extra site in the next day or two. They brought up a lot of good points, but steered entirely clear of the huge elephant in the room, that being that if Cora was still alive, why didn't she just say "um, no, he didn't murder me actually, here I am!"

Incidentally, in my new book (out in December folks!) I've got a prime example of a case where Spillsbury buggered it up immensely, so I'm now immediately suspicious when I see his name attached to anything.

BTW, the programme on Friday is the one that accuses Freddie Mercury of being the Ripper. You have been warned.

[anna]

Maybe I'm wrong then Suzi,but the story bears a striking resemblence to another story which I remember reading about in the 80's.
If I were to guess by comparing the two,which have differences in some details,but are basically very similar,I'd say it was the wife's lover under the floor,and Crippen did it.
But that's just me comparing notes,and recognising similarities.
By the way,deep joy...was not "deep joy,oh goodee"...it was Oh,blindmy,another "Most Haunted" type of effort on the way.
Like you,I fear the worst.

[anna]

Actually Ash,I thought the same as you did,if Cora were alive,think of the money she could have got from the newspapers for her story.On both sides of the Atlantic.And the fame that she didn't achieve as an actress.

[Celesta]

OK me too- But I did think the programme was quite interesting and sort of made me feel a little happier about HHC being innocent...seriously complicated and I just can't help but think that B.Spilsbury may have just have been wrong.......but who was the fellow in the cellar?? and where did Walter Dew fit in??????

Suz x

Hi Suzi,

Maybe Dew was going on the information given him. Who the heck was the character buried in the Pajamas? Did they miss a set of bones down in that basement? The article has a point though. Poison is usually used to simulate natural death. So why hack up Cora's body in the first place?

Like you, I intend to keep an open mind on this one. I hate to see Dew's thunder stolen and others made to look bad, but innocent is innocent. If Crippen was innocent then he may well have been framed.

Maybe we'll get to see that documentary over here, some day soon.

If Cora wasn't killed and didn't come forward and let it be known she was alive, then I hope the hag had a misery of a life.

Toodles, Celesta

[joelhall]

the facts which surface, whilst not absolutely conclusive, gives grounds for a pardon. regardless of whos remains they were, there is now evidence of a wrongful conviction for the case he was tried for.

it is a puzzle why cora did not come forward (perhaps she had a hand in it, perhaps dead, perhaps she never heard of the case, we simply dont know), but now the conviction is no longer solid.

fact is, the evidence has now good grounds to be refuted, (not least as these are not the remains of the alledged victim) and this gives grounds for retrial (impossible) or pardon.

[Sam Flynn]

the facts which surface, whilst not absolutely conclusive, gives grounds for a pardon. regardless of whos remains they were, there is now evidence of a wrongful conviction for the case he was tried for.

Not quite - a gentleman claims to have found evidence which has been aired in a television programme. Let them submit their evidence to the appropriate authorities, and we'll see what transpires. Until that evidence is given due independent scrutiny, there can be no grounds for a pardon. We hear much about "trial by media", and it is generally, and rightly, criticised as being potentially prejudicial to a case. The same degree of caution should apply to "exoneration by media".

[Celesta]

Joel and Sam,

Good points, both of you. We will have to wait and see.

[joelhall]

Not quite - a gentleman claims to have found evidence which has been aired in a television programme. Let them submit their evidence to the appropriate authorities, and we'll see what transpires. Until that evidence is given due independent scrutiny, there can be no grounds for a pardon. We hear much about "trial by media", and it is generally, and rightly, criticised as being potentially prejudicial to a case. The same degree of caution should apply to "exoneration by media".

no i mean the evidence itself suggests grounds. if it is not submitted obviously there is no chance for a pardon.

though having seen other documentaries on crimes, including the whitechapel murders, very rarely is all the evidence found shown in a documentary program. just what makes good television for the average viewer. the more mundane parts are edited out or omitted.

they also include as you see only evidence of such a certainty, that public opinion is void with regards to influence (such as dna matchings) the rest, such as a fit up was of course surmise.

it will be interesting to see how this turns out, and what else is included in the pardons application.

joel

[Sam Flynn]

no i mean the evidence itself suggests grounds.

Fair enough, Joel. "Suggests grounds for a pardon" is fine - "Gives grounds for a pardon" is a different matter