• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Dr Crippen

Cochise said:
I'm pretty certain he was 'framed' - planted evidence? But I'm not entirely sure that means he didn't in fact kill her.

Except, given his bizarre escape plan, was he clever enough to have killed her and dispose of the body without it ever being found?

We'll never know. A more recent 'we'll never know' is the A6 murder. I personally am sure Hanratty was guilty, but was his trial fair? It seems to me that if he hadn't changed his alibi he'd never have been convicted. Many are still convinced - despite modern (ish) DNA evidence - that he was innocent.

Complicated stuff.
Click to expand...
In 1995 i became fascinated by the Hanratty case because of this documentry

 
Cochise said:
A more recent 'we'll never know' is the A6 murder. I personally am sure Hanratty was guilty, but was his trial fair? It seems to me that if he hadn't changed his alibi he'd never have been convicted.
Click to expand...
The DNA evidence seems to say he did it. The judge summed it up very well;
The Court concludes that this number of alleged coincidences mean that they are not coincidences, but provide overwhelming proof of the safety of the conviction from an evidential perspective.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hanratty#DNA_evidence_and_appeal_in_2002
 
My daughter with a PhD in genetics suggests that (in the Crippen case) the test that 'proved' the remains were male may have been inaccurate. It seems to have been taken from a histology slide, rather than a bulk tissue sample. If this slide was contaminated by handling, the result may have simply shown the sex of the last person to handle it. Modern samples are generally better conserved than samples from 1910.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top