HomeFactopediaBrainoffsRankingsCommunityLog In
You know 0 facts





Sat 24 Nov 12 #1 
jmaxg
Contributor


One of the most famous murder cases in history. In fact, it was the first "trial by media" case in history, period.

For the record, Hawley Harvey Crippen, a self proclaimed doctor of homeopathy, was accused of killing and dismembering his wife, Cora Crippen, in one of the most sensational crime cases of the 20th century.

It became sensational because of a fluke of timing.......the accused was making his way back to the US by way of boat, and the accusing officer, a Scotland Yard detective shadowed him on a faster ship. Chief Inspector Walter Dew arrested Crippen onboard the Montrose in the St. Lawrence River, Canada, at that time still a British dominion.

The enabling technology in this case was radio. The first time such technology was used to capture a fleeing suspect.

Was the accused fleeing the crime scene back in London? Possibly, actually, most probably he was fleeing because of some perceived animosity between himself and Scotland yard.

Why? Because friends of the missing Cora Crippen contacted Scotland Yard and Inspector Walter Dew attended her last known address. After interviewing "Dr." Crippen, the rest seems like a frenzy of press and the first occasion of "Get me a suspect! Anybody!".

One of the things that pointed to foul deeds, and why Dr. Crippen is so famous, is because Inspector Walter Dew, upon going back to the apartment, found human remains in the cellar. Awful remains that seem to resemble bits and pieces cut off arms and legs.....almost like the victim was filleted. Forensics of the time claimed in court that the victim was poisoned prior to be being filleted even though the technician had no technology to prove so.

In any case, Dr. Crippen was found guilty and sentenced to be hanged, which he was.

In recent times, his likeness has been included in Madam Tussaud's London Wax Museum in the "Gallery of Horror" section.

The trouble is that recently, upon DNA study of the evidence, problems have been incurred linking whoever was the source of the remains to known relatives of the supposed deceased. In other words, it seems that whatever was discovered was NOT Cora Crippen.

Now, Wikipedia has mentioned this DNA challenge and answered thusly:

"In October 2007, Michigan State University forensic scientist David Foran claimed that mitochondrial DNA evidence showed that the remains found beneath the cellar floor in Crippen's home were not those of Cora Crippen. This research was based on genealogical identification of three matrilineal relatives of Cora Crippen (great-nieces, located by US genealogist Beth Wills), whose mitochondrial DNA haplotype was compared with DNA extracted from a slide with flesh taken from the torso in Crippen's cellar, carefully preserved in a London hospital museum (see slide picture above). This has raised new questions about the actual identity of the remains found in the cellar, and — by extension — over Crippen's guilt.

One theory is that Crippen may have been carrying out illegal abortions; it may be that one of his patients died and that he disposed of the body in the way he was accused of disposing of his wife. However, the remains were also tested for sex at Michigan State, using a highly sensitive assay of the Y chromosome. On this basis, the researchers found that the body parts were those of a man.

The research team also argued that a scar on the abdomen of the body, which the Crown Prosecution interpreted as a scar consistent with one Mrs. Crippen was known to have, convincing the jury that the remains were Mrs Crippen’s, was incorrectly identified, due to the tissue's having hair follicles, whereas scars do not (a point which Dr. Crippen's defence argued at the time).

These recent arguments for Crippen's innocence have been disputed by some commentators, although in no instance has it been disputed by actual scientists. It has been argued that the DNA sample could have been tainted or mislabelled, or alternatively that the alleged relatives were not actually blood relatives of Mrs. Crippen. However, the research has since been published in the January 2011 issue of the premiere Journal of Forensic Sciences, following careful peer-review by highly qualified forensic scientists."

For a start, I would just like to point out that no forensic analysis has ever been done by scientists in this case, more's the pity.

Except for the mitochondrial DNA evidence of the remains relative to gender.

Now, Wikipedia noted this and stated that the results were disputable. I think they are out-of-touch.

Repeated CURRENT tests of the remains found at the site that resulted in a warrant for Dr. Crippen's arrest and trial for the murder of Cora Crippen reveal this.....

The remains, whoever they belonged to, were male.

That means, conclusively, that unless Cora Crippen was a male drag queen, Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen was executed for a crime he did not commit.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Mon 26 Nov 12 #2 
Ajax
Contributor

meh, you can write whatever you like in Wikipedia. Go and change it to something you agree with.

;)


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Mon 26 Nov 12 #3 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Strange that Mrs Crippen was never seen again and that he fled the country with his girlfriend isn't it ??
The science may say one thing but common sense says another.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Mon 26 Nov 12 #4 
southshoregirl

I know nothing about this. All I can say is to say is that things are seldom what they seem.


like | send message


Tue 27 Nov 12 #5 
TABBYTOES
Contributor

mrs c may have vanished on purpose to drop him in it [oops no pun inended] did i read something about the body being that of a man or am igoing crazy.....SHURRUP KEV!


Knows 35147 facts
like | send message


Tue 27 Nov 12 #6 
southshoregirl

You are right about Wiki, Ajax.


like | send message


Tue 27 Nov 12 #7 
jmaxg
Contributor

Sorry kev, she was seen again. Or at the very least, recorded again......coming into the United States under her stage name after the murder date. And later records have her doing business as a singer in Chicago.

But I think the bottom line is....

Dr. Crippen was hanged over the death of his wife Cora Crippen (alias Belle Elmore) based on remains discovered by Inspector Dew. Some of those remains have now been released to independent investigators (not all - Scotland Yard have refused to release all) and via DNA analysis, shown to be entirely male.

Dr. Crippen was executed for murdering a female.

I don't think it gets simpler than that.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 27 Nov 12 #8 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Err...

If she was seen again and doing the rounds of Chicago clubs...why bother doing mitochondrial DNA tests? Doesn't that strike you as needlessly complicated and expensive if there was categorical evidence that she was alive after her alleged murder?


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Thu 29 Nov 12 #9 
jmaxg
Contributor

That is circumstantial. The hard evidence comes from the DNA of the remains found by Inspector Dew.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 11 Dec 12 #10 
Leo McKern
Member

Jmax,THe Doctor has a good point...Other things that condemned Crippen were that he ordered five grains of hyoscin hydrobromide ( a poison) from Lewis and Burrows shop in New Oxford Street. It was so large an amount that it had to be ordered from the Wholesalers. Crippen collected it on January the 19th. Cora Crippen was last seen in the early hours of 1st February. Also, Among the objects found in the grave and sent in jars from the coroners office were 3 portions of a pyjama jacket including the collar which had on it the retailers label.Crippen was found to possess two IDENTICAL pyjama suits. and the trousers of a third suit. When on the stand, Crippen said that he purchased the pyjamas in 1905 or 1906 and was warned that the statement might be disproved but persisted with these dates. The Buyer of Jones Brothers of Holloway proved beyond any doubt that the pyjama material was not acquired by his firm until the end of 1908, and that three suits made of this material were supplied to 39 Hilldrop Crescent (Crippens residence ) in January 1909. This begs the question Who else during the intermittent period could have buried the parts of the pyjamas along with the body parts, in the grave in the cellar of that house. Crippen also began pawning his wife's clothes and some of her jewellery the day after she was last seen. He also gave a lot of his wife's clothes to Ethel le Neve (His mistress) and established her in the house. This doesn't prove that the remains were that of his wife but it does put him in a very sticky position as to the murder of whoever was in the grave in his cellar. Incidently , the hair of the body was held in place by a Hinde's curler, hardly the hair adornment of a male..There was also the question of the scar.. Didn't have any Brainoffs to do as the site isn't showing any today.


Knows 31533 facts
like | send message


Fri 14 Dec 12 #11 
Tazing
Contributor

Thats interesting info jmaxg

I guess if he was innocent then fleeing London with his mistress (disguised as a boy, if memory serves) and him under a flase name, was possibly not the best thing to do as it would appear to show guilt. I don't recall what his defense was at trial regarding the remains though?


Knows 21099 facts
like | send message


Fri 21 Dec 12 #12 
jmaxg
Contributor

And oh.....sorry.......it took me a while Stu. I guess I was wrapped up in the whole "justice" thing.

Yes, it was also weird that she was seen doing the rounds of Chicago clubs under her pseudonym.

Pretty hard to execute someone for killing a person that seems to be still alive, right? Apparently not.

The bottom line is, we have to get better. We have all the tools we need these days to solve crimes.....particularly if you leave all the "hunches" out and let the science in.

The class of "forensics investigator" is close to being an actual tertiary discipline these days instead of an "ITT" course. We are that close to making it so. Let's make it so.

The years and years of English inspectors and Australian detectives who think they know better, and the law enforcement traditions in America, including the lazy, corrupt and inbred version of the previously much vaunted and respected Texas Rangers, well, hopefully, their reign of bloated authority may be at an end.

Science will be the last word.........not "you're gut".


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 21 Dec 12 #13 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

How exactly does this tie in with your comments in the Forensics on Trial discussion?

In there you say you've always believed that there's no such thing as forensic science. What changed your mind?


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Fri 21 Dec 12 #14 
Leo McKern
Member

Jmaxg.. Your gut feeling tends to be right about 50% of the time.


Knows 31533 facts
like | send message


Mon 24 Dec 12 #15 
jmaxg
Contributor

Leo, there is no survey on that and if there was, I bet it wouldn't turn out in the way your statement suggested.

Stu, not sure what you are asking, or saying. There has, actually, never been any such thing as "Forensic Science". There has been "Forensics" and that's my point. It could be a science if it wanted to be. We are close to that now.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Mon 24 Dec 12 #16 
Leo McKern
Member

Jmax..Look in the case notes and forensic findings of the case .If you can't get access to them then look in "Bernard Spilsbury" by Browne and Tullet pages 35 to 58.
The main damning evidence was a scar identified as such by a number of medical personnel. The importance of the Pyjama jacket was realised once it had been established that the corpse had been placed there whilst Crippen had lived at the house and not before.Then the pieces of the jacket became more important. This evidence was first highlighted by Sir Richard Muir and corroborated by Sir William Willcox, MR. Bentley Purchase, Dr. A Pepper, Bruce Miller and Cora Crippen's sister (Both from America), Dr. A Luff, and a number of others all helped to convict Crippen. Three defence Doctors changed their opinions whilst in the witness box, to a position of support for the Crown. I am not going into the scar as it is too near Christmas and would take far too long to explain and describe the evidence. Incidently, his appeal was dismissed on Bonfire Night....A Merry Christmas to you, be sure to have a good'un


Knows 31533 facts
like | send message


Mon 24 Dec 12 #17 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Go get him Leo, tear him to pieces !!


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Fri 28 Dec 12 #18 
southshoregirl

Were dead body parts found in HIS cellar? Doesn't that make you wonder why he had a corpse in HIS cellar? Not many people do so I would say the fickle finger of fate points in his direction. Whether it belonged to his wife or a man isn't that important. Wikipedia be damned. Even I don't use that.


like | send message


Thu 3 Jan 13 #19 
jmaxg
Contributor

Leo, you're doing it again. As everyone does.

Scars and stuff are circumstantial.

The point is WHO's remains are in that pit?

Here is a short cut.........the remains do not correlate to the evidence that Crippen was hanged for.

Not matter WHAT all the above says, none of it says that Crippen was responsible for the demise of his wife.

AND....

The Scotland yard released DNA says that the victim in that gelatinous heap was male. Crippen was hung for killing a female.

It's called The Law and they got it wrong.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 3 Jan 13 #20 
Leo McKern
Member

Forensics dictated that the body wasn't there when he bought the house. I didn't state that he killed his wife, but that he killed the body in the cellar. I'm informed tha the DNA test was not totally conclusive. Her sister (Who was not estranged)and Bruce Miller (A friend of Cora) came over to England for the trial. This must cast doubt on the sitings, which at best are Iffy.The scar is important because it was particular enough to be identified (Mind you, if the DNA was correct then quite obviously it wasn't). It's called JUSTICE and they got it right. Anyway it is good enough for me and I'm the Lawyer...


Knows 31533 facts
like | send message


Thu 3 Jan 13 #21 
jmaxg
Contributor

Well, let's nip that one before it starts.

You, Leo McKern, are NOT a lawyer. Your username suggests that you once played "Rumpole of the Bailey" but we should all know that is not you.

Leo McKern was born in Sydney, Australia and I am sure you would not admit to that.

As for your evidence above, the fact remains.

And that fact I stated above. Up to you if you acknowledge it or not.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 3 Jan 13 #22 
Leo McKern
Member

I got the handle Leo on a technicality when I questioned the legitimacy of an answer in a Brainoff on my first visit to the sight, but that's not why I said i was a Lawyer.


Knows 31533 facts
like | send message


Thu 3 Jan 13 #23 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

There are several possibilities...

Crippen was completely innocent and convicted on misinterpreted evidence.
Crippen was guilty of killing his wife and convicted correctly.
Crippen was guilty of killing his wife and convicted on misinterpreted evidence.

If the new DNA tests are correct then the evidence at the time was misinterpreted. That doesn't mean Crippen was innocent, of course, but I'm fond of the presumption of innocence.

Of course, if it'd happened today they'd have done the DNA tests and then started asking questions of Crippen about the remains. Historical analysis doesn't have that luxury.

So, it's possible that Crippen was executed for a crime he didn't commit. It's possible that he may have committed other crimes for which he wasn't punished. There's nothing conclusive.

In the light of all that, I'd recommend just keeping an open mind and remaining agnostic. There's no point in arguing over it. Nobody knows the facts.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Thu 3 Jan 13 #24 
Leo McKern
Member

Now you're talking... There is also the possibility that Cora Crippen killed the MAN? in the cellar and to coin a phrase ..Done a runner, and maintained an alias back in America, and that her sister and a good friend came over to ensure that Crippen was blamed. However, I would at this time state that eminent doctors must have made massive mistakes in order to identify the body of a male as that of Cora Crippen.


Knows 31533 facts
like | send message


Thu 3 Jan 13 #25 
JMK
Editor

Sometimes you see what you want to see.


Knows 47482 facts
like | send message


Sat 5 Jan 13 #26 
jmaxg
Contributor

So that's the argument? Ok, so the stuff that was found may not have been Cora Crippen, but it had to be somebody so therefore it stands that Crippen killed somebody, right?

WRONG!

Ya see, there is this little procedural annoyance....it called "The Law"!

I am pretty sure, somewhere along the line, that it says if you are charged, found guilty and executed for a crime, that the evidence found at the scene has to support the hypothesis being made by the prosecutors.

In the case of the "Government vs Dr. Crippen", it should be supposed that there is evidence to suggest that the victim, Cora Crippen, is actually dead.

Now, if the "The Law" was sufficiently pliable that the charge was "The Government vs Dr. Crippen in the case of the wrongful death of Cora Crippen or whoever it was that we found", then we wouldn't have a problem, would we?

But that is not the case. The Law is quite specific. There is extremely overpowering evidence to suggest that Dr. Crippen was executed for a crime he did not commit.

I never said Dr. Crippen didn't kill and then try to dispose of anybody. What I said was that it looks like Dr. Crippen was executed for killing his wife, when it may well be that he didn't kill his wife.

C'mon guys.....it's called "habeas corpus".


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 5 Jan 13 #27 
JMK
Editor

Or in this case "wrongus corpus"


Knows 47482 facts
like | send message


Sat 5 Jan 13 #28 
jmaxg
Contributor

A particularly witty and poignant retort.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 5 Jan 13 #29 
Ajax
Contributor

Ah well. Easy come, easy go.

Next!


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Sat 5 Jan 13 #30 
jmaxg
Contributor

But this is a forum about this.

You want "next", create you're own damn forum!

Respectfully speaking, of course.

:-)


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 5 Jan 13 #31 
Ajax
Contributor

I'm Judge Judy. :D


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Sat 5 Jan 13 #32 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

It isn't called habeas corpus.

Habeas corpus is a requirement to bring someone under arrest before the court. It's a basic principle of law intended to prevent unlawful detainment.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Sat 5 Jan 13 #33 
soupy
Member

JMAXG don't be mean to AJAX she's one of the few friends I have,including u of course!


Knows 25333 facts
like | send message


Sat 5 Jan 13 #34 
Ajax
Contributor

He's not being mean. He's trying to make his topic interesting.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Sat 5 Jan 13 #35 
soupy
Member

otay buckwheat


Knows 25333 facts
like | send message


Mon 7 Jan 13 #36 
Honey Badger
Member

There was a sliced up body buried in this guys cellar so what's that all about? Whose body was it? Someone must have been killed in the good Doctor's house and buried the body, male or female, there so if it was the doctor does it matter if he killed his wife or someone else? There was a very stange and sordid thing going on. That's what I picked up from what jmaxg said. Interesting? I don't know. Maybe. The fact is that his carefully couched language is meant to get people going over a case which doesn't matter. A murder was committed and Crippen did it so he paid the price. Next!


Knows 4346 facts
like | send message


Mon 7 Jan 13 #37 
Ajax
Contributor

Wouldn't be the first doctor to be a serial killer.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Mon 7 Jan 13 #38 
Leo McKern
Member

jmax...read your own entries..you start off talking about justice then you drop that altogether and start talking about the law, but only as it suit your argument. The DNA results have never been scrutinised or allowed to be reviewed by any independent body, but you take those results as sacrosanct and declare Crippen to be innocent. Therefore, All of the people who convicted him were completely wrong including all of the Police, the lawyers, the jury, The medical evidence for the Crown prosecution, the three defence doctors who changed their testimony, the Crown Barristers, the Judge, the Appeal judge, All of the witnesses, Everybody was wrong except for the Iffy DNA test. You talk of evidence where is it? Her sister and her lover both stated they had not seen her since the date of the alleged murder, you don't believe the evidence they gave in court, yet you are willing to believe hearsay evidence of unknown people who supposedly saw her in Chicago. Get real....


Knows 31533 facts
like | send message


Tue 8 Jan 13 #39 
jmaxg
Contributor

Actually Stu, my use of "habeas corpus" was a bit of a joke.

A joke as in "you have the body" but I am saying "the body...THE body!" in the evidentiary sense. Get it? No matter.

I know that habeas corpus relates to the right of the accused to face the accuser. Or more importantly, for the accused to be brought before the court that is dealing with him or her. There is another side to that actually which has nothing to do with the Crippen case. The implication is, of course, that if a writ of habeas corpus is applied and the accused is brought before the court that is empowered to deal with the case, that the accused should have a right to challenge that court's credentials.

I have noticed in some viral videos recently that it is actually happening in the UK. Some individuals, or maybe only one, are appearing before a court and then demanding credentials to be shown and this is causing some havoc. The accused cites precedent seemingly going back to the Magna Carta.

What's up with that Stu? It certainly seems interesting and even valid. Could ya give me a heads up on that?

Leo, you are right in that the bulk of the Crippen cellar evidence has not been released for analysis except, well, some of it was actually released and even Wikipedia confirmed that.

But besides the DNA testing, could it have been that all those people you quoted above were wrong? Yes.......it could have been. Both you and me have to concede that given what we now know.

But I perceive that you think that I just plain hate cops. This is not so.

There are different categories of cops. There are adequate police, good police, excellent police and even superb police. There are also many, many bad police.

Some countries recognise this and build systems that minimise police impact on court decisions. They see police in a role that is immediate enforcement of the law. They are NOT involved in the process that adjudicates guilt or innocence. I just happen to like that system. It seems logical to me. Obviously it doesn't to you.

Recently, I watched a movie that I remember loving from years ago when my mind wasn't as sophisticated. It was called "The Untouchables".

The thing I remember loving about that movie all those years ago was that it was uncomplicated and the message was clear........wrong is wrong and right is right and that's all there is to it. That film is as black and white as it comes.

Now I am somewhat more experienced, I found myself thinking more sophisticated thoughts and ya know what? That film STILL says the very same thing.

Eliot Ness was righteous, Alphonse Capone was not. The City of Chicago was in the pocket of organised crime. The ENTIRE Chicago police force were, in effect, an arm of evil. It took an outsider to crack the vice. I am not sure if Chicago will ever live that down.

But it taught me to be prudent. Not all cops, in reality, give a crap about my rights or the law. And the reasons for that are as human as I am.

So it all leads to what I think a policeman should be.....

I think a policeman should be right ALL the time BUT be aware that it is entirely possible that ANYONE being pulled over might know more than them. I expect ANY adequate police officer to adjust and correct accordingly AND immediately. Humility should be part of a police officer's day to day job.

I think he or she can suffer a bad day, but not let it effect the correct application of their job. I expect a police officer to be above that.

I feel that a policeman should always remember that they are a servant of the people and be cognisant of any situation when that relationship might be threatened.......including the aforementioned "bad day".

I feel a policeman should apply sufficient force in the application of his duty, but be mindful of excessive force and expect retribution if such force is applied. "Sorry, I lost it" should result in valid punishment.

I expect ANY police officer to apply deadly force if they feel their life or the life of any bystander or associate is in danger and I also feel that that police officers need to be COMMENDED and AWARDED when they have done so.

But I expect that they should also accept ANY investigation of that incident and be prepared to stand their ground and defend their action. That should come with the job.

I expect courts, any courts, to publicly admonish police for proven or perceived bad conduct and I expect police to accept this and be glad that all they are getting is a "verbal rogering".

Whilst it might be impossible to prosecute due to departmental policy, I expect courts to instruct departments of how close they are coming to infringing on human rights and remind Chiefs or Commissioners that they will be held responsible ultimately.

This is not "rocket science", so, I'll just say it....

In short, I expect ALL police to be better than me.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Tue 8 Jan 13 #40 
Leo McKern
Member

I also believe that people no longer join the Police force for the right reasons, and I further believe that there are a lot of lazy buggers who just can't be bothered, and are there just to pick up the paycheck. I live in Cumbria, and I go daily to the town centre. I can go a couple of weeks without seeing a policeman. They travel about in cars, but very few walk a beat, even the town centre. The Police react to crime rather than help prevent it. People are getting away, through police apathy, with an awful lot of crimes, and are being minimally punished even when caught. Some people think they have a right to live well without any contribution to society, and if Benefits are capped they will use other sources to retain their lifestyle. I can see that in my grandchildren's lifetime (Due to the erosion in values of society and the Politically correct protection of the criminal's rights at any cost squad) that most families in Britain will possess at least one firearm. I'll stop now, as I'm even boring myself.


Knows 31533 facts
like | send message


Thu 10 Jan 13 #41 
jmaxg
Contributor

You're not being boring Leo.

Your points are valid both on the police side and the policed.

And the scare is about weapons, that countries like yours will fold under public pressure and allow softer gun laws. I hope not.

One of your expatriates that does a show on CNN, Piers Morgan, challenged a pro-gun, right wing radio commentator (regarding the Sandy Hook tragedy) the other day and the guy literally went feral on his ass on live TV rabbiting on about how we need guns to protect us from government. I hope that chilled normal thinking people as it did me. But unfortunately it empowers others that love their guns and I sincerely hope it doesn't inspire any groundswell in England.

Australia is getting mentioned a lot during these weeks in the USA. Australia is the enemy because of our post "Port Arthur" gun law changes as far as the gun lobby is concerned. We (Australia) are weak and shouldn't have allowed the sweeping firearm law changes that took place.

I say, in the name of Port Arthur and Britain's Dunblane, screw you American gun lobby! You guys have recused yourselves from speaking for the people. You speak for gun makers and gun sellers and that's all.

NRA? It's time for you to take a huge hit.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 11 Jan 13 #42 
soupy
Member

I won't elaborate but I totally agree with u JMAXZ !!!


Knows 25333 facts
like | send message


This topic is now closed.






   About - Terms - Privacy Log In