No announcement yet.

DNA Proves Crippen Innocent

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Spilsbury undoubtedly knew his subject. His entire life was dedicated to his work. At the time of the Crippen murder Spilsbury was way ahead of the other pathologists and his 'speciality' was scar tissue.

    Spilsbury performed over 1,000 autopsies per year - far more than any other, he even worked Christmas Days.

    I think this is why Spilsbury was held in such high esteem by his peers, the only dissenting voice was that of his main rival.

    It is very easy nowadays to dismiss Spilbury's findings because we are not in that era. Spilsbury had examined the 'scar' tissue from the body and had examined it well.

    Spilsbury was known for stating the facts as he found them. If he did not know the answer to a question or he didn't know precisely how a person died (very rare) then he would say so. Unlike some of the pathologists of his time, he was not a guesser.

    All the other facts in the Crippen case point to the fact that Hawley Harvey Crippen was the murderer. As the murder had been committed during the Crippen's time of residence at Hilldrop Crescent, then who exactly is the dead person?
    This is simply my opinion


    • #17
      No one is suggesting Spilsbury was not an eminent pathologist - it is just that his word was not law and should never have been taken as law.

      Who is the dead person at Hilldrop Crescent indeed...Who knows? I personally cannot understand why a guilty Crippen would dispose of Cora Crippen's remains only to leave fragments of it there. I think in all probability he did kill Cora but disposed of her body away from Hilldrop Crescent. Who the body parts belonged to found at 39 is anybody's guess. There was talk that maybe it might have been a victim of an abortion that Crippen conducted gone wrong but the more recent findings that the remains were those of a male rendered this assumption inaccurate.
      Last edited by Marko; 08-09-2011, 10:02 PM.
      "It is Accomplished"


      • #18
        And we're meant to believe that Cora did a moonlight flit, leaving her furs, clothes and expensive jewellery behind her? I don't think so!

        Cora knew that her husband was having an affair with Ethel. Cora was hardly likely to leave her jewels etc., for the mistress to wear. No way would any woman do that.

        I feel certain that if Cora had been alive she would have contacted somebody from her former life. She had a lot of friends in England and in the USA. The murder was a big big thing back then so she would have heard about it.

        On a slightly different subject - I found it amazing that after Crippen had been hanged, Ethel Le Neve went to Canada, re-married and had children. One of her grown up children was interviewed after Ethel died. He said that his mother never ever told her husband or her children that she was the famous Ethel Le Neve. Her husband went to his grave not knowing.
        This is simply my opinion


        • #19
          DNA Proves Crippen Innocent

          And what pray tell is the provenance of this DNA sample? Are we really supposed to believe that a tissue sample from the torso found in Crippen's cellar was meticulously and scientifically preserved, in tact and without contamination in 1911, such that accurate modern tests could be performed on it?!
          And when we are told that there is not only no DNA link to Cora Crippen, but that the victim was male- oh dear That should be a big clue that something is amiss-- either this "sample" comes from somewhere or someone else, or it's a bad case of contamination.
          And even if Spillsbury's identification of the remains as Cora based on a scar might be called into question, I certainly think he could tell a man from a woman. Particularly given that he had the internal organs to go on. At any rate, I don't think Mr. Foran's purported findings would hold up in court, and Crippen would still hang!


          • #20
            A good post, Penny

            My problem with the theory that Crippen was innocent is this:

            Would an innocent man go on the run to the extent of crossing the channel with his mistress disguised as a boy? No he wouldn't. He would stay at home and clear his name, by waiting for Cora to show up to collect her jewellery and furs.

            Crippen wasn't even suspected of murdering his wife until he went on the run. Which means he went on the run simply because he had been asked a few questions (concerning the disappearance of his wife) by the police.

            The police returned to Hilldrop Crescent in order to ask a few more routine questions and found he had done a moonlight flit. This is when they got really suspicious.

            In all the old and great murder cases there is always somebody trying to prove the verdict was wrong, probably in order to sell a few books. DNA surely can't be trusted after so long a time lapse?
            This is simply my opinion


            • #21
              I have believed for some time now that the Crippen case needs a thorough review. Too many questions have arisen.
              Crippen was convicted by Press and Public before he set foot in Court. The amount of evidence they had was minute. The Press campaign against him was outstandingly biased.
              Whatever you believe about his guilt the man did not get a fair trial.


              • #22
                He was Guilty - as charged.

                Just reading the timeline of events will show that Crippen was definitely the murderer of his wife.
                This is simply my opinion


                • #23
                  Can you prove that?


                  • #24
                    The facts of the case prove it.

                    We're meant to believe that his materialistic wife Cora, disappeared without taking a single item of clothing, furs or jewels with her. As if!

                    The pyjama top found on the body had a Jones Bros. label sewn into it. Jones Bros. only started putting labels in their clothes AFTER the time the Crippens moved into the house.

                    Crippen hadn't been accused of anything when he 'did a runner' (as we say in the UK) with his mistress - who just happened to be dressed as a boy.

                    At the time Crippen and Ethel went on the run, the police only wanted him for questioning. When the police found that Crippen and his mistress had disappeared - THAT is when their suspicions became aroused and they went on the hunt for them. During this manhunt, the cellar was dug up, and the rest, as they say, is history.

                    Would a mistress REALLY start wearing her husband's wife's clothes and jewellery (she gave some to her sister) on the strength of 'my wife has gone away'? For all anybody knew, Cora could return at any time.

                    Crippen and Ethel knew they were safe from that ever happening.
                    This is simply my opinion


                    • #25
                      While no one is suggesting Spilsbury was not an eminent pathologist, the same could be said of the modern forensic pathologists that tested the remains. As I said in an earlier post, I think Crippen was in all likelihood guilty. What I cannot understand and what just does not make any sense is that he would dispose of practically all of his wife's remains only to bury fragments in his cellar...
                      "It is Accomplished"


                      • #26
                        From my own point of view:

                        DNA testing is currently in it's infancy, and I believe some mistakes have been made against trial defendants and for convicted prisoners. Also those screaming loudest for it frequently scream against the results when they tend to support the results of a criminal trial (i.e. the DNA testing a couple o years ago regarding James Hanratty's A6 Murder coniction. It proved that Hanratty did it, and now the people who clamored for it - and were shocked when the result was not what they wanted - are screaming the police did something to hurt the results of the testing!).

                        Crippen is one of that small group of sympathetic killers whose victims are unlikeable (or so we are told). He was (on a personal level) a nice guy who killed his wife (how ironic to say that). But Belle, bossy towards Hawley, and frequently having affairs right in front of him, was well liked by the women who worked with her in her charity work. Hawley, by the way, was perfectly capable of being less than careful about the health of others. He did sell patent medicines and ran some "questionable" health "clinics" - one for ear problems was actually the subject of a newspaper expose. He could be quite callous in pursuit of an income.

                        There is only one killing that has ever been really tied to Crippen - Belle once did a bit of scab work during a strike of music hall artists in 1906 or so. It did not hurt her with her fellow music hall friends because she was so awful the public would leave the theatre rather than hear her vocalize. But one of her scabs at the theatre was a has-been music hall performer and actor named Weldon Atherston. Atherston was killed in an unsolved murder in a flat in Battersea in July 1910, the week Crippen fled with Ethel, and the police discoveriesss broke the case to a fascinated public.



                        • #27
                          The Crippen murder could have received sympathy from the public because it was a love story, and people had drab lives, especially in those days. However, everything points to his guilt.

                          I have read that there is no scientist in the world could can say that DNA testing is 100% foolproof.

                          With reference to the Hanratty case, in 1961 DNA testing had not been heard of. All the items from the victim and from Hanratty were stored together in the same box. (There is even a photo on Getty Images of a policeman carrying Michael Gregsten's holdall and Hanratty's pigskin case in the same hand). Nothing was kept separate. A small piece of the victim's (Valerie Storie) underwear was analysed for DNA. Just a piece. What happened to rest of the garment? This could have contained DNA from the other suspect - Peter Louis Alphon.
                          This is simply my opinion


                          • #28
                            Wrong thread, Louisa.

                            Check out the A6 thread and you will find little factual support for what you are claiming here about the handling, storage, testing and disposal of the vital material evidence in the case.

                            Sometimes, despite the worries about DNA evidence in general, there is no reasonable way round what it shows - or doesn't show.


                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            • #29
                              Hi Caz

                              I've read every single post on the A6 thread and I still stand by what I said in my above post.

                              The A6 thread was the reason I joined these forums but unfortunately I'm not yet qualified to post on it. I think I need to achieve the rank of Superintendent - or something?
                              This is simply my opinion


                              • #30
                                Hi Louisa,

                                I never heard that you had to have the rank of Superintendent on this board to post on it. Double check it out but I am sure you can post on it as a constable.