Crippen Documentary 1 July 2008

[Debra A]

Are there any detailed reports as to precisely what was unearthed in that basement?

These paragraphs on the remains found are taken from A text-book of medical jurisprudence and toxicology. 4th ed. Edinburgh, 1921 by John Glaister.


[the scar]
In the notorious Crippen case, the identification of the much mutilated remains of the body found buried beneath the floor of the cellar occupied by Crippen was materially assisted by the discovery of a scar on a portion of the remains. At the inquest in London in September 1910, Mr Pepper stated that one portion of the remains, measuring 11 inches by 9 inches, was from skin of the upper part of the abdominal wall, and another portion, measuring 7 inches by 6 inches, was from the lower part of the abdominal wall. On the skin of the latter portion was a mark. practically vertical in direction and a little over 4 inches in length, seven eighths of an inch wide at the bottom, half an inch in the middle, and quarter of an inch at the top. This mark was darker in tint than the surrounding skin, and showed some fine transverse lines. It was, in his opinion, from its situation and length, the mark of a scar caused by an operation. This opinion was arrived at from microscopic as well as visual examination. This view was supported by Doctors Spilsbury and Wilcox. It was proved at the trial later that the deceased woman, who was missing,
had undergone, some years prior to her disappearance, an abdominal operation of a kind likely to have produced such a scar.

[description of remains]

On the following day, Mr Pepper, continuing his evidence, stated further particulars. he said that one portion of skin measuring 11 inches by 9 inches, was from the upper part of the abdominal; another consisted of the coverings of the lower part of the back and buttocks; another from the upper part of the back; another, measuring 7 inches by 6 inches, from the lower part of the abdominal wall, on the skin of which was a mark; another, of skin, 15 inches long, with fat and muscle attached, from the hip; and another, a piece of skin with fat and muscle from the thigh. There were several other smaller pieces. There was nothing except the hair which could be identified as coming from the scalp, or from the forearms, from the leg below the knee, from the hands, or from the feet. There was no trace either of the genital organs or of bone. There was one large mass which comprised the liver, stomach, gullet, the lower 2 and a half inches of the windpipe, both lungs, the heart intact, the diaphragm, the kidneys, the pancreas, the spleen, all the small and the greater part of the large intestines. All the mass had been removed in one piece. He had no doubt at all that the remains were those of a human being. the longest portion of the hair, found in the Hinde's curler, was 8 inches, and the shortest 2 and a half inches. The colour of the hair in the curler was light brown in different shades, and showed signs of partial bleaching. The hair not in the curler was dark brown in colour. In his opinion the natural colour of the hair was dark brown. He said it was impossible from what was found to say whether they were those of male or female on anatomical grounds, as practically all signs of sex were absent, He thought, however-although his conclusion was not absoulutely reliable-that the disposition of the hair on the piece of skin from the lower part of the abdomen pointed to the sex being female. Dr. Marshall held the same views.

[also found with the remains]

Other things dug up a hinde's curler with a small piece of hair adhering to it, a small piece of hair in part of a man's handkerchief, two of the corners of which were tied in a sort of reef knot, a part of a female's undervest encrustd with hard cement like material, a pice of coarse string 15 inches long, another piece 11 inches long, two pieces of cloth, and a sheet of brown paper with bloodstains on it. The clothing then discovered consisted of part of a lady's woollen undervest and woollen combinations, and also part of a man's shirt or pyjama bearing the name Jones Bros. Holloway Road.There were no bones, simply masses of human flesh, the largest piece of which was no bigger than about 12 inches by 4 inches. Someone had carved the flesh off the bones and buried it in quicklime.


[Also noted was that the muscle of the thigh and buttock very much pointed to a female and also that one part of the remains were thought to have been part of a female breast but it could not be proven either way]

[Celesta]

Wickerman and Jonathon,

I didn't mean to imply it was a fetus. Surely they would have recognized it if that were the case.

I missed the part about the pubic hair. What kind of surgery was she supposed to have had? I don't recall them specifying.

They told enough of everything to tantalize!

[jmenges]

The skin tissue that contained the scar included the flesh that reached the pubic hairs of the victim. There was no hair follicles in the scar itself, I don't believe. I'd have to check the record.

Him practicing abortion is used to account for the hyoscin, which it is claimed was used as an abortificant.

JM

[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?

[Celesta]

The defense said it was a crease, you mean

JM

Yep! Whatever I said about creases, reverse it!

[jmenges]

The defense said it was a crease, you mean

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]

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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.