Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crippen- Almost 100 Years

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    dna

    Until very recently (2 yrs ago) no extraction of dna from hair was possible. The dna from hair samples came from an attached set of skin cells at the root. The dna provided by these cells is nuclear dna, it is the same as the nuclear dna in flesh,because it is the dna in the nucleus of most cells. They are in fact the same strand of nucleotides, and yeild exactly the same level of prescision in terms of identification. Dave
    We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

    Comment


    • #32
      Hair is less susceptible to contamination in the lab than tissue and therefore preferred to tissue in mtDna testing.
      This should be specially so in this case, given the amount of chemical contamination poured on the remains at the time, the treatment (gluing the slides shut with pine adhesive) of the slides in 1910, and the questionable storage facilities for these slides. When there was hair available, they should have used it.

      JM

      Comment


      • #33
        Hello Jon, this brings up the issue of who hired the lab for what services. The lab has no control over securing the samples, and only operational control on the methodology used. I suspect this might be an issue if the lab did not what standard the test they performed where to be held to. If full disclosure of intent and use of the results were not supplied to the lab prior to testing, they are perfectly justifiable in distancing themselves from the result. The situation being analogous to a firearms salesman not selling a weapon to someone who says "I need it to shoot my wife". The intent of the contractor can and does effect the validity of the contract. Dave
        Last edited by protohistorian; 07-13-2010, 11:32 PM. Reason: speling
        We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

        Comment


        • #34
          Many murderers are caught because they aren't able effectively to dispose of a body or behave in a way that draws attention to them. It isn't a sign of innocence. In many cases, the murder is done in a panic, and hasn't been thought out and of course the murderer hasn't had any practice in sorting it out.

          In some cases, if the murderer hadn't panicked and decided to cover up his/her crime, he/she may have been able to get the murder charge lessened to that of manslaughter. The actual killing of someone often seems to cause less revulsion than cutting up the body.

          Comment


          • #35
            Panicing and running isn't a sign of guilt either.It's a sign of fear innocent people get frightened.

            Why do people find it so hard to be even remotely open to the possibilty that maybe there is something wrong with the Crippen Case?

            A complete review of the trial and investigation would be beneficial to both sides of this argument.

            Point To Ponder

            Crippen was a Homeopathic Doctor not a medical doctor poisons such as Arsenic are used in small amounts in Homeopathy

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by protohistorian View Post
              Hello Jon, this brings up the issue of who hired the lab for what services.
              John Trestrail hired Dr. Foran and his lab at MSU to prove his long-held belief that Crippen was innocent. All Foran required was first solid genealogical data, next a sample of the remains, and then a sample of the descendants DNA. Since Beth Wills failed to provide the solid genealogical data required for any mtDNA test results to be taken seriously, IMO the testing should have never commenced. Nevertheless it did, and the results were trumpeted all over the media, with no white paper, no published report stating that the lab followed all the procedures to insure lab contamination did not occur (3rd party inspection prior to testing), and they have allowed no peer review of their tests or invited any other non-interested lab to replicate their results. They themselves "replicated" the initial tests, for the TV cameras using the same tissue sample slide, and on this second pass- lo and behold not only are the remains not Cora, but they are male.

              Originally posted by protohistorian View Post
              The lab has no control over securing the samples, and only operational control on the methodology used.
              This is true. Although in this case Dr. Foran was well enough aware of Trestrail's work to secure the slides that he was able to tell me that no effort was made to acquire any other existing DNA sample of Cora's. Not the hair, not a licked stamp (which also exists), nothing.

              Originally posted by protohistorian View Post
              If full disclosure of intent and use of the results were not supplied to the lab prior to testing, they are perfectly justifiable in distancing themselves from the result.
              In fact in my opinion the exact opposite occurred. Trestrail approached Foran's lab, Foran said he required genealogical data, Trestrail approached Beth Wills for this whom immediately posted on an ancestry website that her research involved a television production. IMO proving that this lab experiment was a media exploitation scenario from the get go.

              Beth Wills mentioning booked media publicity before her work on Cora's family has even begun + The "scientific" results released not as a scientific finding but as a media press release and major newspaper story + not one, but two international television documentaries staring Trestrail, Wills and Foran = IMO a total understanding from the very beginning by all parties involved on the full intent of what was being cooked up here.

              I hope you are well, Dave. I'll be sure to meet you in Larryville the next time I'm there.

              All the best,

              JM
              Last edited by jmenges; 07-14-2010, 04:46 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Nice to hear from you Jon, I hope your son is getting better. I think I speak for the class when I say "do a damn podcast already!" Let me know if you come to Lawrence and I will find a way to get down there, I am back in LV now,looking for a job. I felt compelled to mention the lab because as I was leaving KU one of my genetics profs was being hassled by the Mormons over his published data on Amerind Mtdna. They were wanting him to say the possibility exists for Amerinds to be a "lost tribe". In this case they were not a party to the testing at all, just someone who had an agenda that was impacted by the results. I hope I am not shaking anyones faith by saying, Amerinds are NOT a lost tribe, and came from Siberia. Dave
                We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Chris & JM:

                  I find it more than a little questionable that Sir Bernard Spilsbury couldn't make any positive identification of the remains at all (and still have question marks over it 100 years later), yet something as minute as pajama jacket or strand of hair could be used - especially with police technology in 1910.

                  Having said that, if we assume it was Crippen, where did he cut the body up, and how did he dispose of the evidence of having done this? Presumably it wasn't in the house, or else the police would/should have spotted something, unless Crippen was the greatest cleaner of all time. And why go to all the trouble of disposing of the remains in the cellar when, as said before, he could have just made a trip to the Thames? Or use his position as a doctor to hide the remains?

                  It just doesn't make sense. And if it doesn't make sense, it doesn't fit.

                  Cheers,
                  Adam.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    He did have five months to clean up, Cora was last seen 1st Feb, police not involved til end of June.

                    I think the bath is best bet as to where body was dismembered.

                    KR Angie

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Dr Buck Ruxton, who killed his wife and their maid in 1934 in Lancaster, dismembered them in the bath. Of course he had medical knowledge to help him. But he made mistakes in parcelling up their bodies with a local newspaper which connected the bodies to Lancaster, though he dumped them in Scotland, and in material which connected them to his household. The forensics on them proved beyond all doubt they were his wife and the maid, including superimposing a photo of his wife's skull onto a photo of her face.

                      As for Crippen, he comes across as a meek, mild, timid chap whose only concern after his arrest was to protect his lover Ethel. I would love to know what Ethel knew about Crippen's wife's fate.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Hyoscene is used in Homeopathic Medicine.Crippen was a Homeopathic Doctor.
                        You can buy it here

                        --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Boiron Hyoscyamus Niger Multi-Dose (3x - 30x)
                        [Boiron Hyoscyamus Niger Multi-Dose (3x - 30x)] Boiron Homeopathic Single Remedy OTC Medicine: Multi-Dose (80 granules) 16 Doses
                        Stock# BRN-755221x
                        Multi-Dose (3X to 30X)
                        List Price: 8.32
                        Sale Price: 6.32 / You Save: 2.00 each!

                        It's uses include

                        # Primary:

                        * Treatment of nausea and motion sickness
                        * Treatment of intestinal cramping
                        * For ophthalmic purposes.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Ethel Le Neve was alive until 1967....did she not do any of those "tell all" interviews for big $$$ later in life like most people do these days?

                          Cheers,
                          Adam.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Adam Went View Post
                            Ethel Le Neve was alive until 1967....did she not do any of those "tell all" interviews for big $$$ later in life like most people do these days?

                            Cheers,
                            Adam.
                            Ethel Le Neve Post Crippen

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Thanks for that Belinda. Very interesting....and surprising!

                              Cheers,
                              Adam.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Does anyone know where Ethel is buried?

                                C

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X