Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Boards

Quick Search

Single word search

Tools

Findmypast DNA Banner

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

So Crippen was innocent!

Login to Add Reply Watch This
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Al M

Al M Report 19 Oct 2007 11:49

I can't believe this isn't bigger news... Is there any reason to doubt these new findings perhaps (Me not being a scientist type I don't understand how solid / not solid they may be)?

MargaretM

MargaretM Report 18 Oct 2007 23:24

Ozi, you have to read the article. It says:
"Working from a sample kept at the museum of the Royal London Hospital Archives, a team of American forensic scientists compared mitochondrial DNA from the remains presented at the trial with samples taken from Cora Crippen's surviving relatives."
The site is here. I've taken out the brackets so you can just cut&paste:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2192866,00.html

Researching:
Great grandmother Dorothy Bean nee Abbott (1858-1908)

Ozibird

Ozibird Report 18 Oct 2007 23:20

How did they get a comparison so they know that woman's DNA is not hers?

Ozi.

MargaretM

MargaretM Report 18 Oct 2007 22:59

Hi again Paul,
I can't get this case out of my head now. Surely we GR researchers could solve this cold case file.
So many new questions! Whose body was it? Is Belle Elmore really his wife? If so, why wouldn't she come forward and tell the authorities that she was his wife? It was a well-publicized case, she must have known about it but she stayed silent and let her husband be hanged?
I remember reading a book about the case many years ago. I'll have to go to the library and get that book and re-read it now that I know it wasn't his wife's body. I do remember having doubts about his guilt when I first read it.
Oh, you've opened up a can of worms, Paul!
Margaret

Researching:
Great grandmother Dorothy Bean nee Abbott (1858-1908)

~Summer Scribe~

~Summer Scribe~ Report 18 Oct 2007 18:02

Fascinating. DNA could really turn a lot of convictions on their head if people had the inclination and samples to persue them.

Roy, it means he's innocent of the crime he was convicted and hanged for, since his wife wasn't murdered. I wonder what evidence they had against him other than that they thought it was his wife?!

It is possible that his wife killed the woman and framed him. Too much of a coincidence that a woman using her stage name travelled to the US that year and was living with her sister later on.

Jenny

Jenny Report 18 Oct 2007 16:39

and.....what did happen to his wife?

Roy

Roy Report 18 Oct 2007 16:25

That doesn't mean he didn't murder this woman though?

MargaretM

MargaretM Report 18 Oct 2007 16:06

How interesting!
Just a note, Paul, we no longer have to put brackets around our dots before co. We can now cut & paste addresses.
Genes finally made an improvement that works!
Margaret

Researching:
Great grandmother Dorothy Bean nee Abbott (1858-1908)

Paul Barton, Special Agent

Paul Barton, Special Agent Report 18 Oct 2007 15:37

Apparently DNA analysis has shown that the dismembered body for which Doctor Crippen was hanged was not his wife after all.

http://www.guardian(.)co(.)uk/crime/article/0,,2192866,00.html

(remove brackets)