|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | 
|
A rather strange documentary on the Crippen case was shown by Channel 4 in the UK tonight.
The final quarter or so consisted of attacks on the reliability of links in the chain of prosecution evidence (whether the piece of skin found in the cellar showed a scar or only a fold, whether hyoscine poisoning was established as the cause of death, the accuracy of the estimate of how long the remains had been there and so on). Credence was given (or implied to be given) to a letter purporting to be from the victim, received just before Crippen's execution. The conclusion was that Crippen should probably not have been hanged on the evidence.
Unfortunately it wasn't made clear whether it was really being argued that he might have been innocent - or that the remains might have belonged to anyone else but his wife. In any case, no explanation was offered of whose the remains were, and though it was hinted that Mrs Crippen really had fled to the USA with a known lover, evidently no trace had been found of her subsequent history (and it wasn't clear whether the makers of the documentary had even looked).
Doubt was cast on the vital piece of evidence - the pyjama jacket found with the remains, matching one missing from Crippen's wardrobe, and known to have been made while he was living at Hilldrop Crescent - in a very indirect way. A reconstruction was shown of the police sloshing disinfectant around in the cellar, it was pointed out that this had contaminated the scene, and it was concluded that what with all the confusion the pyjama jacket might not have been found with the remains as the police claimed (?????).
Sadly I got the impression that the programme's makers had "sold" it on the basis that elements of the prosecution case were flawed, and hadn't felt any responsibility to admit how strong the rest of the case remained.
Chris Phillips
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 416
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 12:28 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I saw this documentary on U.S. television (on the History channel) last year. I was amazed to hear that based on a letter that was not given to a body of experts to review, it was announced that Cora Crippen has written this letter to exonerate her husband.
I am sure that given it's early date (1910) the forensic work of Wilcox and Spilsbury would strike many people as primative, but forensics has to begin at some point or other. The best accounts of the Crippen Case I ever read were CRIPPEN: THE MILD MURDERER by Tom Cullen, and THE CRIPPEN FILE by Jonathan Goodman. While both are fair minded towards Crippen (possibly the most sympathized "great" murderer in British criminal history), both are pretty certain that the total evidence proved his guilt. To assume that he is innocent does lead to a curious problem (as you mentioned) of asking whose cut up remains were left in the floor of the house (and why did Crippen, if he had no reason to fear the police, flee Inspector Dew's questions, and try to get to Canada with Miss Le Neve, his girlfriend).
I do feel a little sorry for "Dr." Crippen - his background was from an American college that stressed homeopathic medicine - because of his being henpecked. But I discovered that Crippen made a good living in various shady medical businesses, and as a patent medicine dealer. He was capable of being very unsympathetic to the real medical problems of his fellow citizens.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 5:35 am: |
|
Hi all,
Yes I saw this programme as well. I did think it could have done with an extra half an hour to explain if they meant that the remains were not Mrs Crippen and if they weren't exactly who it was and who murdered them.
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Christopher Lowe
Police Constable
Username: Clowe
Post Number: 1
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 2:26 pm: |
|
The documentary seemed to imply that Dew was slightly dodgy and fitted Crippen up |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 2:58 pm: |
|
I thought it was a very poorly presented programme and obviously sold on the discovery of "exciting new evidence" which seemed to have evaporated when screened.
There is very little doubt that Crippen did kill his wife, and in my opinion good riddance!
Crippen always behaved in a perfectly honourable manner, he knew that if he pleaded guilty to the murder or to a charge of manslaughter, Miss Le Neve would of course be implicated as well. That is why he stuck to his plea of not guilty even though it guaranteed him a hanging.
Its interesting to note that after he was hanged Dew resigned in disgust.
My mother used to visit a very old gentleman back in the mid sixties. He was a retired policeman and he often used to show her a brightly coloured silk scarf which was given to him by Ethel. He was one of the escorting officers from Liverpool to London and tried to do the job in a humane way. Ethel appreciated his kindness and gave him the scarf as a keepsake. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 602
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 7:23 am: |
|
Hi,
What I didn't understand about this documentary was if they were saying his wife wasn't dead. whose body parts were they exactly in the cellar, and who killed that person.
It was all very well to say he had been fitted up but no alternative was offered.
regards
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 9:27 am: |
|
I notice a rather deplorable trend in American documentary television, where the purpose of the programming seems to be solely to refute established fact with pure nonsense, presumably with the sole purpose of attracting the sizable chunk of the population which is only semi-literate. Of course, this is not an entirely new phenomenon, but it does seem to be becoming more blatant. Nowhere was this more evident than the execrable "Were the Moon landings a hoax?" tripe on Fox. Inevitably these "exciting new theories" involve some sort of massive conspiracy. I think this trend started with the JFK assassination and have ballooned into an entire industry. After all, the reasoning goes, who would watch a documentary that comes to the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone or that Lizzie Borden axed her father and stepmother?
If I were you, my British friends, I would beware this sort of thing taking over your airways--that is, if it's not too late already!
Regards, Vincent |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
