Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Crippen Documentary 1 July 2008
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Debra A View PostMaria
As far as the Belle Rose research goes,that's it in a nutshell! This identification wasn't anything to do with the DNA testing obviously, but one only has to google "Belle Rose" and Crippen together to see how far this speculation about Belle Rose has spread and what it has become!
As Jonathon pointed out right at the beginning, and Chris has commented on throughout, the crucial thing missing from Beth Wills' research ( that which has been made known so far) is proof of a definite maternal blood link between Cora Crippen and the females involved in the mtDNA testing.
I can understand BW not wanting all her research made public, but that evidence is one element that is essential if these people really want us to believe their claims surely?Originally posted by Chris View PostThe other curious thing is that many people - including the executive producer of the TV documentary, in an article in the Times - are claiming that Belle Rose was living with Cora's sister in 1920.
Whoever this Bertha [?Mersinger] is, on the information provided by Beth Wills, she can't be Cora's sister Bertha, who - according to Wills - had married Arthur Baum and had a child who was born in 1912. Beth Wills described the woman in the census rather precisely as "a female with the same name as Cora’s younger half-sister Bertha Mersinger".
The irony is that if the woman in the census were Cora's sister, it would mean that Wills had traced the marriage and descendants of the wrong Bertha Mersinger, and that Trestrail and his colleagues had used the wrong mitochondrial DNA in their tests!
So due to the botched genealogical research this means the wrong people have been tested for the mitochondrial DNA tests. Its like a dog´s dinner.
On the 1901 Census in England, Cora appears as Corine Crippen ( wife ) with her husband Hawley Crippen. She gives her age as 20.
Chris, Peter sends you his regards.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Maria View PostDebra & Chris
So due to the botched genealogical research this means the wrong people have been tested for the mitochondrial DNA tests. Its like a dog´s dinner.
On the 1901 Census in England, Cora appears as Corine Crippen ( wife ) with her husband Hawley Crippen. She gives her age as 20.
Chris, Peter sends you his regards.
From what I can make out, I don't think she actually traced the modern day descendents herself however. Judging from a message I saw made by Beth Wills on a rootsweb message board in 2002, she had become stuck at a certain point and couldn't get any further (1900 census). She was appealing (desperately, due to a movie? company about to visit to make a film about the Crippen case very shortly!) for descendants of Cora's sisters to contact her. The family of Bertha Mersinger did contact her, as did a few others and hopefully Beth would have checked out all their genealogy to make sure it was correct, but without her making any of this known we just don't know.
And as both Chris and Jonathon have said,and I agree with, the thing that Beth hasn't really proved (and she may have this evidence but just not produced it) is that Cora and Theresa, who were full sisters, definitely had the same mother as Bertha (Cora's half sister) and the other later children of Frederick Mersinger and Mary.
Comment
-
Debra:
Then I´m completely confused.
The newspaper article says that Cora or Corine went on to live to New York with her sister, that she did not die at the hands of her husband. When you looked at that entry, it did not read SINGER but DESIGNER and the age given as 48 in reality is not 48 but aged 29. That seems to me like the wrong person. We see it all the time in our line of work.
Maria
Comment
-
Maria, I took this quote from Chris from post #109 which might explain:
Beth Wills described the woman in the census rather precisely as "a female with the same name as Cora’s younger half-sister Bertha Mersinger".
As you say, she did get the age and the singer ocupation wrong....and I really have no clue why Beth mentioned her at all when she must have known, going by her own research alone, and the Baum marriage, that this was not Cora's sister.
Comment
-
[QUOTE=Deb
As you say, she did get the age and the singer ocupation wrong....and I really have no clue why Beth mentioned her at all when she must have known, going by her own research alone, and the Baum marriage, that this was not Cora's sister.[/QUOTE]
Debra:
Precisely !
Besides that, she had better give the evidence of her research rather than just her word about it, as this is a very common name, and as you can see yourself a glaring mistake has been made. Most people won´t check, just take her word for it as " the expert´s "
Maria
Comment
-
Originally posted by Maria View PostBesides that, she had better give the evidence of her research rather than just her word about it, as this is a very common name, and as you can see yourself a glaring mistake has been made. Most people won´t check, just take her word for it as " the expert´s "
Maria
JM
Comment
-
In my email exchange with her yesterday I pointed out some of the questions raised and discrepancies discovered (Antoin & Belle Rose), I linked to the thread at place of the Belle Rose census record, and in her reply she expressed in no uncertain terms, one might even say rudely, her intention to completely avoid participating in this discussion.
I was nice to her, too...
JM
Comment
-
That's unfortunate Jonathon. I am afraid in my mind at least that takes this business out of the "simple human error" category and places it rather firmly in "deliberate deception".
A shame. I do hope Debs you contact the major media outlets who are blaring the inaccurate "research" and inform them of your findings. It would be a shame of this fraud kept getting trumpeted as fact.
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.
Comment
Comment