Can Anyone Recommend a Good Book on the Crippen Case?

[John Wheat]

John Trestrail had been crusading on behalf of Crippen’s innocence for decades until he finally found a deeply flawed forensic scientist in Dr David Foran who’s main expertise had been sea urchins and blowflies to test an undoubtedly contaminated slide and announce his findings. Which coincidentally were exactly the findings Trestrail asked him for and which have never been peer reviewed or replicated. Dr Foran was later forced to resign from Michigan State University in disgrace. I’d recommend examining the sources of the claim of Crippen’s innocence before drinking their kool-aid.

Crippen murdered his first wife by administering an overdose of hyoscine and with the help of a fellow quack doctor colleague successfully covered it up. He then murdered his second wife using the same method, buried her in his cellar, but with Ethel Le Neve as his accomplice, he failed to cover that one up.

Crippen was guilty. Case closed.

JM

So the opposite of Charles Lechmere then. With a band of buffoons claiming Lechmere was guilty of the Ripper murders, the Torso murders and several other murders when he is clearly innocent of all these murders.

[c.d.]

JM,

Do you think Le Neve participated in the actual murder? I couldn't make up my mind on that after reading the book. I have to believe she was aware of what took place unless she was extremely naive or so overwhelmed by love that she simply refused to believe. But participating in it? Just don't know.

What are your thoughts?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Yeah cd, or possibly the body of a woman who died as the result of a botched abortion.

As for the case itself, I agree that it's a complicated, tangled mystery.

Personally I think that Crippen was probably innocent.

Can you give your reasons for reaching a conclusion of innocence?

c.d.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Can you give your reasons for reaching a conclusion of innocence?

c.d.

Hi cd, be gentle with me.

It seems strange to say the least that Crippen managed to dispose of the limbs and head, and buried the torso under the cellar floor.
If he was mentally strong enough to dismember the limbs and head, why not dismember the torso into smaller manageable pieces and successfully dispose of these also?

Also, why did the judge refuse to let Crippen's defence have a copy of the affidavit used to issue the arrest warrant?
What was he trying to hide?

I won't go into detail about the disputed DNA evidence relating to the corpse, which may have indicated that the corpse was not female, because any DNA evidence can lead us down a rabbit hole.

Also the rush to a guilty verdict by the jury, thirty minutes or so, does seem a tad hasty.
No jury can go over all the evidence in a complex murder case in thirty minutes, Crippen deserved an unbiased jury, I don't think he got one.

Was he guilty?................possibly/probably (delete where applicable)

I just don't think it's a slam dunk!

[c.d.]

Hello barn,

Thanks for your response.

I shall try to be as gentle as possible. While it is possible to poke a few holes in the case you still have the major problem of a corpse (be it his wife or not) buried in your basement as well as the record of him purchasing the particular poison found in the remains. To me, those are two big hurdles to overcome. His explanation of well maybe the corpse was there when I purchased the house is simply laughable.

c.d.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hello barn,

Thanks for your response.

I shall try to be as gentle as possible. While it is possible to poke a few holes in the case you still have the major problem of a corpse (be it his wife or not) buried in your basement as well as the record of him purchasing the particular poison found in the remains. To me, those are two big hurdles to overcome. His explanation of well maybe the corpse was there when I purchased the house is simply laughable.

c.d.

I can't really argue with anything you have said cd, it is just that some aspects of the case feel a bit "off".

If you were to put a synopsis of the case in front of 100 fair minded people today, I think that a high majority of them would find Crippen guilty.
But there is still something that feels a bit wrong to me in the rush to judgement.

[c.d.]

Understood. Not trying to beat a dead horse. I would only make the observation that a rush to judgment is just simply that. A rush. It doesn't necessarily indicate that that judgment was wrong.

c.d.

[jmenges]

JM,

Do you think Le Neve participated in the actual murder? I couldn't make up my mind on that after reading the book. I have to believe she was aware of what took place unless she was extremely naive or so overwhelmed by love that she simply refused to believe. But participating in it? Just don't know.

What are your thoughts?

c.d.

She knew in advance that Cora would be murdered- if you believe a biologist named Prof William Wright, who was scheduled to give evidence that he had seen Ethel researching books in a library on poison. Ultimately the professor wasn’t called at trial. What’s more apparent is that she knew Cora was dead, and hadn’t fled to the United States (as his defense had suggested, a baton picked up by Foran, Trestrail & Wills in their quickly disproven claim that Cora was a Brooklynite named Belle Rose) as soon after his execution she applied to be the Executrix of his estate. She maintained that Cora was dead and she and Crippen had married, making herself heir to their combined estates.

My belief is that Ethel was a co-conspirator but probably wasnt physically present when the murder took place.

JM

[c.d.]

All good points. Thanks.

c.d.