Offence: Killing > murder
Verdict: Guilty > no_subcategory
Punishment: Death > no_subcategory
Mr. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Oddie prosecuted; Mr. Tobin, K.C., Mr. Huntly Jenkins, and Mr. Roome defended.
to continue from year to year. The rent was very regularly paid. On March 16 of this year he gave me notice that he would leave at the June quarter, saying that he had had some property left him in America, that he was unable to go, and that his wife had gone out to attend to the business for him. Between June 17 and 20 he called on me, and it was arranged that he should stay on till September 29; at this interview I asked him how his wife was, and he told me she had died, I think he said in New York—somewhere in America.
Cross-examined. There was never any undue delay in payment of the rent. At our interview in March prisoner showed no signs of agitation or of being harassed or having anything on his mind. At the June interview he did seem a little bit agitated.
DR. JOHN HERBERT BURROUGHS , 169, City Road. I first met prisoner in 1902; he was living with his wife in Store Street; I knew her as Mrs. Crippen, and also by her professional name, Miss Belle Elmore; she had occasional engagements on the music-hall stage. Having lost sight of them for a time, I again met them in 1904. They moved to Hilldrop Crescent in 1905, and I and my wife visited them there. Mrs. Crippen was a stoutish woman, about 30 years of age, vivacious, bright and cheerful, a very pleasant woman generally, and enjoying the best of health; she was fond of dress and jewellery; she and the prisoner always appeared to be on good terms. I last saw her in the beginning of January last at a meeting at Albion House, Oxford Street, of the Music-hall Ladies, Guild, of which I am honorary physician. I produce, a photograph of her taken in September, 1909, and another taken some time before; both are good likenesses. I first heard of her death in March last, from Mrs. Martinetti. I wrote to prisoner on April 4 offering condolences, and asking for details of the death. In reply, I received a letter from prisoner on the 5th on black-edged paper (Exhibit 31), stating "I have been nearly out of my mind with my poor Belle's death so far away from me. She was not with her sister, but out in California on business for me, and, quite like her disposition, kept up when she ought to have been in bed, the consequence being that pleuro-pneumonia set in and proved fatal. Almost to the last she refused to let me know that she was in danger, so that the cable came as an awful shock to me. I am afraid I have sadly neglected my friends. Pray forgive me. Even now I feel I am not fit to talk to my friends." I did not see prisoner after that letter until I saw him at Bow Street.
Cross-examined. I had conversation with prisoner at times upon professional matters. He told me that he had not acted as a general medical practitioner, but made a speciality of the ear, the eye, and the nose. He always appeared to be kind and courteous to his wife; I have noticed occasionally that she was somewhat hasty in her manner towards him.
CLARA MARTINETTI , wife of Paul Martinetti, a retired music-hall artist I first made the acquaintance of the Crippens about 18 months ago. Mrs. Crippen was hon. treasurer of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild, which had an office In Albion House. Prisoner had his business
in separate offices in the same building. Mrs. Crippen was a regular attendant at the weekly meetings of the Guild. My husband and I and prisoner and his wife were on visiting terms. I last saw Mrs. Crippen on Monday, January 31, when my husband and I joined the Crippens at dinner at 39, Hilldrop Crescent, nobody else being present, no servant being kept. After dinner we went upstairs to the parlour on the first floor and had a game of whist. I and my husband left the house at about 1.30 in the morning. We spent a pleasant evening, and there was no quarrel of any sort. Mrs. Crippen came to the top of the steps and wished me good-bye. She was in quite good health. I never saw her again after that night. On the next day, February 1, prisoner called at my flat and inquired after the health of my husband. I told him, and asked him "How's Belle?" Prisoner said, "She is all right, "and I replied, "Give her my love." Prisoner aid he would. The next thing I heard was from Miss May, who told me that she had heard that Mrs. Crippen had gone to America. About a week afterwards prisoner called at my flat. I complained that he had not informed us of his wife's departure, so that I might have seen her off. 'He said there had not been time; that a cable had arrived saying that one of them must go to America, and that as she wanted to go he had let her go. I asked what clothes she had taken; he said, one basket. I said that would not be enough, going all that way; he replied that she could buy more over there. A little later prisoner called again. I said, "Belle has not sent me a postcard; I suppose she will write from New York"; he said, "She does not touch New York; she goes straight on to California." On February 20 I was present at a ball of the Music-hall Benevolent Fund; prisoner was there, with his typist, Ethel Le Neve; she was wearing a brooch similar to one I had seen Mrs. Crippen wearing. Shortly afterwards I saw prisoner again, and asked if he had heard of his wife. He said, "Yes; I cannot make it out; I have had a letter from my friends to say that she is very ill—something the matter with one of her lungs; and at the same time I had a letter from her telling me not to worry, that she is not as bad as they say." I received a letter from him dated March 20 (Exhibit 32): "Dear Clara and Paul,—Please forgive me not running in during the week, but I have already been so upset by very bad news from Belle that I do not feel equal to talking about anything, and now I have jest had a able saying she is so dangerously ill with double pleuropneumonia that I am considering whether I had not better go at once. I do not want to worry you with my troubles, but I felt I must explain why I had not been to see you. I will try to run in during the week and have a chat. Hope both of you are well. Love and best wishes. "On March 23 I saw him at Albion House, when he said he had had a cable to say that Belle was very dangerously ill, and he expected another cable every minute to say that she had gone; he added that if anything did happen he should go to France for a week, as he wanted some change of air. On the morning of March 24 I received a telegram from him from Victoria Station, saying, "Belle died yesterday six o'clock. shall be away a week." On March 30 I called at his office, and, after condoling with him, asked where his wife had died;
he said, "In Los Angeles, with my relations. "I asked for the address, so that we might send a wreath; he gave me the address of his son, who he said was with his wife when she died. In a later conversation when he called at our flat I said something about Belle's funeral; he said, "She is not going to be buried, but cremated, and I am going to have the ashes sent over." At another interview, when I asked him in what boat his wife had left for America, he said it was the La Tuve or La Tourraine. I identify the furs produced as similar to those worn by Mrs. Crippen; after her disappearance I saw Le Neve wearing these furs. I think only once. (Mr. Tobin here stated that there would be no dispute that Le Neve wore jewellery and furs which once belonged to Mrs. Crippen.) In the summer of last year Mrs. Crippen stayed with me at my house, "The Bungalow." I noticed a mark in the middle of her abdomen, which looked to me like an old cut; it was a little darker than the rest of the skin and about six inches in length.
Cross-examined. I believe I said before the magistrate that it came from the navel downwards. I saw her navel. Prisoner and his wife often came to my flat and we went to their house; we were on very friendly terms. I formed the opinion from the many opportunities I had of seeing him that prisoner was a kind-hearted and good-tempered man. I did not notice anything unusual in prisoner's manner at the party on January 31. My husband, who had been under the doctor's hands, had occasion to go to "the lavatory, and he went by himself. He did not say, "I feel rather unwell", but I know he was. The next day when prisoner called his manner was just the same as usual; I did not think it strange of him to call. I noticed no sign of anxiety, fright, or agitation. He called on several occasions between the party and Easter, and I never noticed any sign of agitation; it did not look as if he wanted to avoid me. Prisoner would know that Le Neve would meet at the Guild ball a good many of Mrs. Crippen's friends. The brooch was worn quite openly on her bodice. Prisoner's manner at the ball was the same as usual. I never saw Mrs. Crippen doing her hair at "The Bungalow." She told me she dyedit, that she used some stuff to bleach it. Her hair when dyed was what I should call to myself golden, but it is really called auburn. Her natural hair was darker. She was very particular indeed about it and proud of it. On one occasion her hair was a bit untidy from taking her hat off, and I saw that it was darker at the roots. She drew it over her head and left it with a puff.
To the Court. I knew Le Neve before the ball; I had seen her in the office. I might have heard her name, but I always called her "the typist." Mrs. Crippen had a dressing gown on or something of the sort when I saw the scar. I had never seen it before. I said to her, "Does that sometimes hurt you?" and she put her hands to it and said "No."
LOUISE SMYTHSON . I have known prisoner and his wife 15 months. I am a member of the Committee of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild. I attended a meeting on January 26 at which Mrs. Crippen was present in her perfect health and spirits. I attended the dinner and ball of
the Music Hall Benevolent Fund on February 20, where I saw prisoner with Le Neve, whom I knew was his typist, and who was wearing the brooch produced. (Mr. Tobin said he did not disputed that this had belonged to Mrs. Crippen.) In the course of the evening I asked prisoner if he had heard from his wife lately, and he said "Yes." I asked him for her address, and he said she was right up in the wilds of the mountains of California. I asked him to let us know when he got to hear of her, and he said, "When she has a settled address I will let you know." I saw an announcement of her death in the "Era" of March 26, and on the Wednesday following, I think it was, I went with Mrs. Martinetti to prisoner's office. We offered him our sympathies and asked him to give us the address where she had died. He said it was quite unnecessary as she was now dead and none of her friends in America knew of the Ladies' Guild. We said we were very anxious to send some little token, and asked him where she was to be buried. He said that was also unnecessary, as they thought of having her cremated; and the ashes would be brought here and we could have a little ceremony here. Mrs. Martinetti then spoke to him for a few minutes, and I again asked him for the address, and he said, "I will give you the address of my son." He wrote out this address in pencil, "H. O. Crippen, 1,427, Van Good Street, Rural Delivery, Los Angeles, California," and gave it to me. I wrote a letter and a postcard to that address, and on May 24, during my absence from the Guild, Miss May received a letter. We asked particularly at the interview with prisoner who was present when his wife died, and he said his son. On May 18, I think it was, I saw him in a shop in Tottenham Court Road with Le Neve, who left him and went out when she saw us. I asked him if ho had heard any more about his wife's funeral, and he said "Yes; it is all over, and I have her ashes at home."
Cross-examined. I saw prisoner and his wife together about eight times. He always seemed a good-tempered and kind-hearted man.
TERESA HUNN , Newport, Rhode Island, America. I am known as "Tessie," and am the younger sister of Belle Elmore, whose maiden name was Kunigunde Mackomatzki. She was known at home as "Cora." The first time I saw prisoner was about 18 or 19 years ago when he came to my father's house with her. She showed me a wedding card and introduced him to our parents as her husband. I see by the card that they married on September 1, 1892; they came to us soon after. My father lived then near Brunswick, Long Island. She went to New York and from there to Philadelphia; they had then been married a few months. She returned to New York and from there she came to our house. At that time I noticed a scar on her stomach; it was not all healed; it was fresh. I saw it again seven years ago and it was healed much better than the first time I saw it. It was between four or five inches long and about an inch wide. The flesh outside it was paler, more of a cream colour, than the center scar. On April 15 of this year, my half sister, Mrs. Mills, got this letter (Exhibit 71) from prisoner: "My dear Louise and Robert,—I hardly know how to write to you my dreadful loss. The shock to me
has been so dreadful that I am hardly able to control myself. My poor Cora has gone, and to make the shock to me more dreadful I did not even see her at the last. A few weeks ago we had news that an old relative of mine in California was dying, and to secure important property for ourselves it was necessary for one of us to go and put the matter in the lawyer's hands at once. As I was very busy, Cora proposed she should go, and, as it was necessary for some one to go there at once, she would go straight through from here to Cali-fornia without stopping at all, and then return by way of Brooklyn, when she would pay all of you a long visit. Unfortunately, on the way out my poor Cora caught a severe cold, and, not having a chance to take proper care of herself while travelling, it settled on her lungs, and later developed into pi euro-pneumonia. She wished not to frighten me, and said it was a slight matter, and the next I heard was she was dangerously ill, and two days later, after I had cabled to know should I go to her, the dreadful news came that she had pasesd away. Imagine, if you can, the dreadful shock to me; never more to see my Cora alive, nor hear her voice again. She is being sent back to me, and I shall soon have what is left of her here. Of course, I am giving up the house. In fact, it drives me mad to be in it alone. I don't know what I shall do; probably find some business to take me traveling for a few months until I can recover from the shock a little. It is so terrible to me to have to write this dreadful news. Will you please tell the others of our loss? Love to all. I will write again and give you my address—probably next in France." The letter was signed "Doctor," and the envelope is postmarked "London, W.C. 10.30 a.m. 7 April '10." My sister brought the letter to me; I had seen it previously in my father's house.
Cross-examined. Belle Elmore was my full sister. Our father, who married twice, was a Pole.
To the Court. I could not judge whether the scar was the scar of an operation or not.
BRUCE MILLER , real estate agent, East Chicago, Indiana, U.S.A. I was formerly engaged in the music-hall profession and I came to England to follow it. In December, 1899, I met Belle Elmore. I saw her for the last time at 37, Store Street, about the first part of April, 1904. I am now living in Chicago with my family. I have not lived there since 1904, only during the past four years. I traveled when I first went there. There has never been any proposition that Belle Elmore should come out to me; I never heard of such a thing.
To the Court. Since April, 1904, she wrote to me three or four times a year, and always at Christmas, New Year, and my birthday.
Cross-examined. Next December I shall have been four years an estate agent. I took up that profession because I was tired of the show business and thought I could make more money. I was not a failure on the stage. I first met Mrs. Crippen at a house in Torrington Square. I understood her husband was then in America. He returned about four or five months after I was first introduced to her. During his absence I very often visited her at Her house; I think it
was in Guilford Street. I do not know how many rooms she had there, as I only went into one. I would sometimes visit her two or three times a week and sometimes I would not see her for two or three weeks. I would visit her sometimes in the afternoon and sometimes in the evening. When I first met her I was on my way to the Paris Exposition, where I had some music hall attractions. I was in Paris eight to twelve weeks. I was not on the stage during the time prisoner was away; I was in a sort of partnership with some people in an undertaking connected with the Paris Exposition. I wrote to her from Paris often enough to be sociable. I was not writing to her as a lover. I was fond of her; I do not know that I even put it in that way to her, but she always understood it, I suppose. I thought a great deal of her as far as friendship was concerned, but she being a married lady it was platonic. I could not be more than a friend, because she was a married lady and I was a married man. There were no improper relations between us. I often wrote very friendly letters to her; I might say they were affectionate. Some others, it is true, ended “Love and kisses to Brown Eyes.” I consider, under the circumstances–prisoner knowing all about it–that they were proper letters to write. I cnnot say when I wrote them; it is such a long time ago. I wrote them about the time I was away in Paris. Prisoner knew all about it when he came back in May, 1900; I do not mean that he knew of them at the time they were written. I do not agree now that they were improper letters. I have never been with her to any house in London for the purpose of illicit relationship. All I have done is to kiss her–no more. The last time I wrote to her was some time after Easter Sunday of this year, and I got no answer. I wrote to her on January 5; I do not remember that it was an affectionate letter, but it was very short, because it was a reply to a card of hers, I think. I may have written letters to her in 1909 saying, “Love and kisses to Brown Eyes”; sometimes I wrote to her in that way and sometimes I did not. I should be still very fond of her if she were here. We have always been very good friends and I should not stop now. She wrote letters back to me; they were perhaps not quite so endearing; they were friendly and usually very short. My wife has read them. Mrs. Crippen did not discourage the expressions I used in my letters; she said nothing about them in her letters.
Re-examined. A friend of mine and I were occupying apartments in Torrington Square. I was out to dinner and returned about 7 p.m. for something I had forgotten, when I found her dining with this friend who introduced me to her. I have visited her both at Store Street and Guilford Street when prisoner has been there. These are two of my photographs that I gave her (produced), one of which I remember she put on her piano. At the time I left two other photographs of mine which were larger were hanging in her parlour; prisoner was in London then. Nothing was kept secret from him.
To the court. There were never improper relations between us. I never actually met prisoner between May, 1900, and April, 1904. I always called on Mrs. Crippen whenever I thought I would. I never
tried to avoid prisoner. On several occasions I had reason to believe that he was in the house as well as I. I would always have been glad at any time to have met him, and was expecting to do so. The photograph produced I gave her the first year I met her, and the larger ones a short time before I left for America.
MELINDA MAY , secretary of the Music Hall Ladies, Guild. I knew Mrs. Crippen; she was treasurer of the Guild for two years and attended every Wednesday at the meetings. I last saw her at the meeting on January 26, when she was in her usual good health and spirits—quite bright. I have known prisoner over two years; I have visited them at their house in Hilldrop Crescent. There was a meeting of the Guild on February 2 at which I should have expected Mrs. Crippen to attend, but she did not come. At 12.50 p.m. Miss Le Neve came with the pass book, paying-in book, a cheque book, a letter to myself and one to the committee. The letter to myself (Exhibit 33) ran: "Dear Miss May,—The illness of a near relative has called me to America on only a few hours, notice, so I must ask you to bring my resignation as treasurer before the meeting to-day, so that the new treasurer may be elected at once. You will appreciate my haste when I tell you that I have not been to bed all night, packing and getting ready to go. I shall hope to see you again a few months later, but cannot spare a moment to come to you before I go. I wish you everything nice until I return to London again. Now good-bye, with love. Hastily yours—BELLE ELMORE. Per pro., H.H.C." That is not in her writing. The letter to the committee (Exhibit 34) ran: "Dear Friends,—Please forgive me a hasty letter and any inconvenience I may cause you, but I have just had news of the illness of a near relative, and at only a few hours, notice I am obliged to go to America. Under the circumstances, I cannot return for several months, and I therefore beg you to accept this as a formal resignation from this date of the honorary treasurership of the Music Hall Ladies, Guild. I am enclosing the cheque book and the deposit book for the immediate use of my successor, and, to save any delay, I beg to suggest you should vote to suspend the usual rules of election and elect to-day a new treasurer. I hope, some months later, to be with you, and, in the meantime, wish the Guild every success, and I ask my good friends and pals to accept my sincere and loving wishes for their own personal welfare—Believe me, yours faithfully, BELLE ELMORE." That letter also is not in her writing. I know her writing well. A fresh treasurer was elected that afternoon. On about February 17 I saw prisoner in the corridor of the Guild at Albion House, and I said to him that I trusted he would not think me bold if I mentioned that his wife's subscription had become due, and I asked him to let me have her address. He said she was right up in the mountains in California, and if I would hand him the letter be would forward it on and no doubt she would authorise him to pay me the guinea. I wrote a letter and left it in his office to direct and send on to her. I saw him several times in March. On March 23 he told me she was very ill indeed and he was waiting for worse news. (Witness identified several articles of jewellery, furs, etc., as having
been worn by Mrs. Crippen; these included the jewellery found by Inspector Dew in prisoner's possession when he was arrested.)
Cross-examined. The two letters just read are not in the least like Mrs. Crippen's handwriting. I was shown three jars containing hair (Exhibits 44, 45, and 46) by Sergeant Mitchell, and he asked me if it looked like her hair. Two lots were in long pans, and I said I did not recognise one sample, it was darker than hers, and the fair one was rather like hers. I had been told they came from Hilldrop Crescent.
Re-examined. Exhibits 44 and 46 I said were darker and 45 was rather like hers. I was shown them the Thursday previous to Mitchell going away.
EMILY JACKSON , wife of Robert Jackson. In 1908 I was living at 80, Constantine Road, Hampstead. In September of the year Miss Le Neve came as a lodger. She slept there every night till March, 1909, when she went away. She returned in August, and continued living with me up to March 12 of this year. Some time in February she began to sleep away from home, and then shortly afterwards she slept away altogether. Previous to February she slept away occasionally—at her sister's she told me. In January or the early part of February I noticed that she began wearing jewellery that she had not been wearing before, particularly some rings, bracelets, and a watch (similar to articles produced). She wore a plain gold gentleman's ring on the wedding ring finger. I produce a list of the clothes which she gave me at different times. She had previously only given me a few odd clothes of her own—nothing to speak of. On one occasion she and prisoner brought some things in a dress basket. Once before March 12 I visited her at Hilldrop Crescent, and twice since. She was by herself the first time; with a French maid the second time; and with prisoner and the French maid the third time. I saw her for the last time the night before Inspector Dew's first visit to Hilldrop Crescent.
Cross-examined. I was very friendly with her. I saw prisoner several times, and he always gave me the impression of being a goodtempered and kind-hearted man. I said at the police-court that he was one of the nicest men I had ever met.
FREDERICK PEDGRIFT , manager, "Era" Newspaper Company. On March 24 a letter came to the office (which has since been destroyed), in consequence of which we inserted in the "Era" of the 26th, under the heading of "Deaths," the announcement of Belle Elmore's death. A postal order for 10s. accompanied it. The price for the announcement being 1s. 6d., we returned 8s. 6d., and received this letter (Exhibit 51): "Dr. H. H. Crippen, 59 and 61, New Oxford Street. March 20, 1910. Dear Sir,—I beg to thank you for the return of the balance, 8s. 6d. for the 10s. sent for announcement.—Yours faithfully, H. H. Crippen E.L.N." It was all typewritten. (Mr. Tobin admitted that the announcement was inserted on prisoner's instructions.)
ERNEST WILLIAM STUART , manager, Attenborough, Limited, pawnbrokers, 142, Oxford Street. On February 2 a person, whom I believe to be prisoner, brought a diamond marquise ring and a pair of diamond earrings and pawned them. I lent £80 on them, and he signed the
contract note in my presence, "H. H. Crippen, 39, Hilldrop Crescent." On February 9 he came again bringing a diamond brooch and six diamond rings, and I advanced £115. He signed the contract note "H. H. Crippen" in my presence. I do not know whether I paid him in notes or gold, but we usually pay large amounts in notes. Our bankers are the London and County Bank, Oxford Street.
Cross-examined. I have heard that prisoner was quite well known at our shop by both name and address. I have not heard that he has had several articles of jewellery pawned; he has had them repaired. He may have pawned several things, but I do not know. There was no difficulty in giving his name and address when the police called.
To the Court. I should think the things he pawned would be worth altogether £230.
CHARLES JOHN WILLIAMS , clerk to Bank of England. I produce a £100 Bank of England note, No. 52688 (Exhibit 52) issued to the London County and Westminster Bank on February 4,1910. I see on the back, "M. L. Kernow."
FREDERICK HALES , cashier, London County and Westminster Bank, Berners Street. Messrs. Attenborough and Company, Limited, have an account with us. This note, No. 52688, was issued by us to them on February 9.
MARIN LOUISA KERNOW , manageress, Munyon's Remedies, Albion House. For some time before and up to November, 1909, prisoner was manager at £3 a week. Between that time and January 31 of this year he was agent on commission and no salary, I on February 1 becoming manageress in his place. His connection with us ceased on that day. I generally spoke to Mrs. Crippen when she came into the office. I did not know her well. About the end of February I heard through the telephone that she was away from London. I spoke to prisoner about it and he said, "She has gone for a trip to America." I heard at Easter time that she was dead. I asked prisoner, who had been away, if he had enjoyed his holiday, and he said as well as he could under the circumstances. I said, "Then is it true that Mrs. Crippen is dead V and he bowed his head. Miss Le Neve was employed in the same building with the Yale Tooth Specialists. I do not know where she was at Easter time. On February 3 I changed some small notes for prisoner. On February 9 I changed for prisoner this £100 note (Exhibit 52), which bears my endorsement. At the beginning of March he asked me to put two envelopes, one marked "Dr. Crippen" and the other "Dr. Crippen, personal," in our safe, and I put them there. About 4 or 4.30 p.m. on July 8 he asked me if anybody knew I had anything of his in the safe, and I said "No." He said, "If anyone should ask you, say nothing, and if anything happens to me please give what you have there to Miss Le Neve." I said, "All right." I opened them on July 11 and in one I found nine deposit notes on the Charing Cross Bank amounting in all to £600, and some other papers, and in the other I found some jewellery. On the morning of July 9 prisoner asked me if I would let him know what he owed me and he would settle up. There was an outstanding account of £5 which he paid me. This cheque (Exhibit 61) bearing
his and Belle Elmore's signature, dated July 9, he filled in in my presence. It had already Belle Elmore's signature. He asked me to cash it for him, and he produced me the pass-book to show there was £37 odd in the bank. I cashed it for him. Munyon's Remedies do not make any of their remedies or purchase any drugs in this country. On January 19 last I was working with prisoner. I was keeping the books. I know nothing about the purchase of hyoscine on that date; no cash was paid out for such a purpose, nor is there any entry in any book. Exhibit 71 is in prisoner's handwriting, as are also Exhibits 33 and 34, with the exception of Belle Elmore's signatures.
Cross-examined. I have known prisoner about 12 years, and I have been in contact with him endless times. I have always thought him a kind-hearted and amiable man. He used to compound all the prescriptions that went by post. I do not know that he had to buy drugs for the purpose. If he bought drugs it had nothing to do with Munyon's; it was for his own private patients. He had a room of his own in Albion House, where he was generally alone. I do not know what he kept there. I did not notice any cupboard; I do not think there was one. I do not know that he had a general medical practice; but I knew he was a specialist in the eyes, ears, throat, and nose. He continued compounding prescriptions after he ceased to be agent for Munyon's, but I do not know if he had to buy drugs for the purpose. He then became connected with the Yale Tooth Specialist business; he used to come in almost every morning to see me; it was on the same floor as Munyon's, but it had nothing to do with it. In the first week of February and the following fortnight he came in regularly every day, and I cannot say that I noticed any sign of agitation or terror in his face; there was nothing unusual about him.
Re-examined. I think he had patients as a general practitioner besides being an expert in certain things.
GILBERT MERVIN RYLANCE . I now carry on business in my own name as a surgeon-dentist at Albion House. About the middle of 1907 I met prisoner for the first time. In 1908 we started business at Albion House in the name of "The Yale Tooth Specialists." Between March and April this year there was an agreement by which he put £200 into the business, I contributing my experience and skill, and we were to share profits. On about January 26 I saw Mrs. Crippen. On about February 1 or 2 prisoner asked me whether I had not noticed that he was lonely, and said that his wife was half-way across to America, where she was going on legal business in connection with his mother's death. About March 24 a lady came to my place with a telegram saying that Mrs. Crippen was dead. Prisoner was away at Dieppe with Miss Le Neve. He had told me that he was going there with her and her aunt a few days before Easter. When he returned I asked him after his wife; he told me that she was dead, and said that he had not sent a telegram so as not to spoil my holiday. On July 9 I got to business about 11 a.m.; I saw prisoner for the last time that day between 12 and 1. I did not see him again till he was
at Bow Street. On the Monday morning I received this letter, dated July 9, headed on our own paper: "Dear Dr. Rylance, I now find in order to escape trouble I shall be obliged to absent myself for a time. I believe the business as it is now going on you will run on all right so far as money matters are concerned. If you want to give notice you should give six months' notice in my name on September 25, 1910. I shall write you later on more fully. With kind wishes for your success, yours sincerely, H. H. Crippen." I kept on the business in my own name. I had seen Inspector Dew in the office on July 8 and on the 9th I asked prisoner who he was. He said he was a Scotland Yard officer, and he had come to find out if Mrs. Crippen had any estates on which she had to pay taxes. About a week after he returned from Dieppe prisoner told me he had married Miss Le Neve; that would be a fortnight after the announcement of Mrs. Crippen's death.
Cross-examined. I knew prisoner was making up private prescriptions.
WILLIAM LONG , dental mechanic. I have known prisoner since 1896, and have been in various businesses with him since then. It was about 1901 or 1902 that I first met Miss Le Neve; she was then a typist at the Douet Institute, to which prisoner was the consulting specialist. As far as I know she has been in the same employment as prisoner ever since. His usual time to come to the office was between 10 and 10.30 a.m. Between 9.15 and 9.30 a.m. on July 9 of this year when I arrived he was there. I asked him if there was any trouble, and he said, "Only a little scandal." He gave me a list of things to buy, and I bought the articles produced—a boy's brown tweed suit, a brown felt hat, two shirts, two collars, a tie, and a pair of boots—all for a boy. I took them to the back room on the third floor of the Yale Tooth Specialists, and prisoner told me to take them to another room of the company on the fourth floor, and I did so. I saw Miss Le Neve about 11 o'clock that morning. She was wearing a hat, but I could not describe it. I saw her for the last time that day at 11.30 a.m. and prisoner at 1 p.m. I did not know that he was going to leave. On the evening of July 9 I got this letter from him; the time of posting is 4.15 p.m.: "Dear Mr. Long, Will you do me the great favour of Winding up as best you can my household affairs. There is £12 10s. due to my landlord and the past quarter's rent, and there will be also this quarter's rent. The total due to him is £25, in lieu of which he can seize the contents of the house. I cannot manage about the girl. She will have to get back to Paris. She should have sufficient saved from her wages to do this. After the girl leaves kindly send the keys with a note explaining to the landlord. Thanking you in anticipation of fulfilling my wishes, I am, with best wishes for your future success and happiness, your faithfully, H. H. Crippen." The letter enclosed a key, and with it I went the same evening to Hilldrop Crescent and took possession of the goods there. It was too late to do anything with them then, but on the Monday afternoon some of the things were pawned by my wife; she went round there to give the French maid some food. The police came there. I went round in the
evening, and saw my wife find on the sofa this slip of paper (Exhibit 41) in prisoner's handwriting, "Mackomatzi. Will Belle Elmore communicate with H. H. C. or authorities at once. Serious trouble from your absence. 25 dollars reward to anyone communicating her where-abouts to." I found there a hat I had seen Miss Le Neve wear and a suit of clothes. The police sent the French maid back to France. On two occasions between February 1 and that date I moved things from there to Albion House in a van. Amongst other things there was a wooden box in which I saw found after prisoner had gone away this ermine jacket and this white fur. About two or three months before he went away prisoner gave me some of his clothing, some old theatrical clothing, and a few feminine vests and stockings.
Cross-examined. I have always found him a kind-hearted and an amiable man. I cannot say whether he had a general practice, but I know he always used to make up special prescriptions for which he would have to buy drugs. He used to buy bottles; I cannot say where he kept them up to November, 1909, but between that time and February 1 he kept them in a cupboard in the room that was used as an office. Early in February he came to the office just the same as usual; he did not omit a single day. He showed no trace of uneasiness, and his appearance was not worried; there was no trace of abruptness; he was as kind as ever.
Re-examined. In the business he carried on he had books which Miss Le Neve kept.
EDGAR BRETT , assistant manager, Charing Cross Bank, Bedford Street, Strand. On September 20, 1903, a current account was opened in the joint names of "Belle Elmore and H. H. Crippen, Store Street, Tottenham Court Road" (certified copy produced). On January 31, 1910, it was in debit £2 7s. 8d. and on the next day that was increased to £2 13s. 11d. On that day £17 13s. 9d. was paid in in cash and on February 3 another £40 was paid in in cash. For the rest of the time the account remained in credit. On June 30 there was a credit balance of £37 19s. 4d., which continued to July 11, when we honoured a cheque or £37. On March 15, 1906, a deposit account was opened in the joint names of "Belle Elmore and H. H. Crippen" by a payment in of £250. (Certified copy produced.) That could be drawn out by one signature, but we should want the authority of the other. On September 20, 1906, £50 was paid in in the sole name of Belle Elmore and on May 27 another £100. Eventually £600 was paid in-£270 in the two names and £323 in Belle Elmore's name. That money bore interest at 7 per cent, and was subject to a twelve months' notice of withdrawal, which we got on December 15, 1909, signed by Belle Elmore only, which not with-standing that we accepted; on the expiry of the notice we should have paid without prisoner's signature. He has never attempted to draw any money out or to raise any loan upon it.
Cross-examined. It is quite common, where husband and wife have a joint current account, for the wife to sign a cheque and the husband to put in the amount afterwards. The £600 would not be payable till December 11, 1910. Prisoner sometimes himself paid in money
to the deposit account in the joint names, and I believe he also paid in to the Belle Elmore deposit account. I have one form signed by him. He signed a good many of the receipts for interest on both deposit accounts; he came for the interest himself. We had verbal authority from the wife to hand him the interest. We should require both their signatures on the current account cheques.
(Wednesday, October 19.)
Chief Inspector WALTER DEW. On June 30 a Mr. Nash called at Scotland Yard and made a statement, and I was instructed to make inquiries with reference to the disappearance of Mrs. Crippen. On July 8 I went to 39, Hilldrop Crescent and there saw Le Neve; prisoner was not in the house. Le Neve accompanied me to Albion House and I there saw prisoner; he was then wearing a heavy moustache. On telling him that his wife's friends were not satisfied with what he had told them as to his wife's disappearance, and that after making inquiries I also was not satisfied, he said, "I suppose I had better tell the truth. The stories I have told them about her death are untrue; as far as I know she is still alive." He then made a statement, which was taken down by Sergeant Mitchell and signed by prisoner.
(The statement was read. In it prisoner said that he was a doctor, that he took the degree of M.D. at the Hospital College at Cleveland, United States, that he came over to England in 1883, that he was married in New York to a lady named Bell, who died in 1890 or 1891, and that in 1893 he met Belle Elmore, whose name at the time was Cora Turner, and who at that time was only 17 years of age and was living under the protection of a man. Prisoner said that he found her very attractive, that she told him she was going to run away from the man under whose protection she was living, and that rather than she should do that he married her in Jersey City in 1893. Prisoner then gave a description of various places in which he and his wife lived, and said that eventually, about 1900, he came to England alone, his wife coming shortly afterwards and taking up her residence with him. She used to go in for music hall sketches, although he objected to her doing so. He went to America from November to June, and when he came back he found that an American music-hall artist named Bruce Miller had been a frequent visitor to her at their house. She told him that this man had taken her about, that he was very fond of her, and she of him. Prisoner said that he had seen letters to his wife from Bruce Miller ending "With love and kisses to Brown Eyes." When his wife came to England from America her manner towards him had entirely changed; she had developed a most ungovernable temper, and seemed to think he was not good enough for her. She boasted of a man in a good position who had made a fuss of her. He never saw the man Bruce Miller, but Miller called when he was out and took her out in the evening. She and prisoner continued to live together apparently happily, but there were frequent occasions on which she got into violent tempers,
and threatened to leave him, saying she had a man she could go to. Some time after this he ceased to cohabit with her, but never interfered with her movements. They were of no interest to him. On January 31, the day before he wrote the letter resigning her position from the Guild, Mr. and Mrs. Martinetti came to their place to dinner, and after they had left his wife abused him and said she would not stand it any longer; she would leave him next day and he would not hear of her again, and he might cover up the scandal with their mutual friends and the Guild the best way he could. On returning home from business on the evening of February 1 he found she was gone. He sat down to think how to cover up the scandal, and wrote a letter to the Guild saying she had gone away. He afterwards told people that she was ill with bronchitis and pneumonia, and had died in California. What-ever he had said to other people regarding her death was wrong, and he was giving this as an explanation. It was not true that she went away on legal business or to see relatives in America. He did not receive any cables to say she was ill, and it was not true that she was cremated in San Francisco, or that the ashes were sent to him. Prisoner further stated that when his wife went away she took some of her jewellery, but left four rings behind. He had never sold or pawned anything belonging to her. Le Neve was then living with him as his wife at Hilldrop Crescent. He had been intimate with her for three years. After he had told people that his wife was dead he and Le Neve went to Dieppe for five days and stayed at a hotel there in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Crippen. His belief was that his wife had gone to Chicago to join Bruce Miller.)
After taking this statement from prisoner and also a written statement from the Neve I suggested to prisoner that I should accompany him back to 39, Hilldrop Crescent and go over the house; he agreed readily. We went back, and he showed me into every room in the house, and the cellar. I asked to see the jewellery his wife had left behind her, and he showed me Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. I fold him, "Of course, I shall have to find Mrs. Crippen to clear this matter up" He said, "Yes; I will do anything I can; would an advertisement be any good?" I said I thought it an excellent idea; he wrote out the draft advertisement (Exhibit 41), and said he would insert it in various American newspapers; I left the draft advertisement with him. I continued my inquiries, and on July 11 (having first found that prisoner was not at Albion House) I went to 39, Hilldrop Crescent; there was no one in the house. I found on a table Exhibit 41. I searched the house and the cellar, and dug up portions of the garden. That day I circulated a description of prisoner and Le Neve to various ports in England and abroad. On July 12 and 13 I further examined the house; on the 13th I determined to closely examine the cellar. It had a brick floor: I probed about with a poker; at one place I found that the poker went rather easily in between the crevices, and I got a few bricks up. I then got a spade and dug the clay immediately beneath the bricks. After digging about four spadesfull down, that is, about nine inches below, I came across what appeared to be human remains. I sent for Dr. Marshall, the Divisional Surgeon, and for Sir Melville Macnaghten, the chief of the Criminal
Investigation Department. On the 14th Dr. Marshall came with Mr. Pepper, and on their instructions the remains were put into a coffin and removed to the mortuary. On searching the house itself I found a quantity of woman's clothes and jewellery. In a bedroom I found a box containing two suits of pyjamas (Exhibit 76), and one odd pair of pyjama trousers (Exhibit 48). I looked for, but could not find, any jacket to correspond with the odd trousers. I found prisoner's diploma from the Cleveland Hospital College. On July 16 a warrant was issued for prisoner's arrest, and was entrusted to me for execution. Having received certain information, I proceeded to Canada, [It should be recorded that the "certain information" was conveyed to the authorities by wireless telegraphy from the captain of the "Montrose," at see, enabling the officer to proceed to Canada by a faster vessel, and meet the "Montrose" on its arrival in the St. Lawrence.] On July 31 I boarded the "Montrose" (the vessel in which prisoner and Le Neve had travelled from Antwerp) on her arrival at Father Point. On deck I saw prisoner; he was then clean shaven. He was brought into the captain's cabin. I said to him, "You will be arrested for the murder and mutilation of your wife in London about February 2." Chief Inspector McCarthy, of the Canadian Provincial Police, cautioned him, and he made no reply. On searching prisoner I found upon him four rings and two brooches, also two cards. I went to another cabin, where I found Le Neve; she was dressed as a boy, with her hair cut short. After speaking to her, I returned to prisoner. He said, "I am not sorry, the anxiety has been too much." I read the warrant in detail to him; he made no reply. McCarthy then handcuffed prisoner; I said to him, "We must put these on, because on a card found on you you have written that you intend jumping overboard." He said, "I won't; I am more than satisfied, because the anxiety has been too awful." The two cards have upon them in print, "E. Robinson and Co., Detroit, Mich. Presented by Mr. John Robinson." On the back of one (Exhibit 2) is written, "I cannot stand the horrors I go through every night any longer. As I see nothing bright ahead, and money has come to an end, I have made up my mind to jump overboard to-night. I know I have spoilt your life, but I hope some day you can learn to forgive me. With last words of love, yours, H." On the other card (Exhibit 3) is written, "Shall we wait until to-night, 10 or 11 o'clock; if not what time." I believe this writing to be that of the prisoner. Prisoner and Le Neve had occupied one two-berth cabin; their passages were booked in the name of John Robinson aged 55, merchant, and John C. Robinson, aged 16, student; they passed as father and son. While prisoner was being further searched he said to me, "How is Miss Le Neve?" I said, "Agitated, but I am doing all I can for her." He said, "It is only fair to say that she knows nothing about it; I never told her anything." On August 20 I left Canada for England with prisoner and Le Neve in custody. During the voyage, on August 24, while I was taking prisoner for deck exercise, he said, "I want to ask you a favour. When you took me off the ship I did net see Miss Le Neve, and do not know how things will go; they may go all right or they may go all wrong with me, and I
may never see her again. I want to ask you if you will let me see her, but I won't speak to her. She has been my only comfort for the last three years." On being formally charged at Bow Street prisoner made no reply. (Witness identified a quantity of clothing and two photographs of Bruce Miller found at 39, Hilldrop Crescent.)
To the Court. On the occasion of my finding the remains, the bricks were held together very firmly by the clay; I do not think mortar had been used.
Cross-examined. I have no doubt that my first visit to Hilldrop Crescent was a surprise visit to Miss Le Neve, and equally my visit to prisoner, escorted by her to the place of business in Albion House, was a surprise visit. At that interview I put a number of questions to prisoner, who answered every one of them quite readily. He also readily agreed to go back with me to Hilldrop Crescent. We went into every room; prisoner did not attempt to conceal anything. I said I would like to go into the cellar, and prisoner came with me; he showed not the slightest trace of worry or anxiety, but was perfectly cool. The remains were found about the middle of the cellar floor, the spot being covered by some coal—not much—and rubbish. At that time I had not seen sufficient ground for arrest, but I told prisoner that I was not satisfied. When I said to him, "I must find Mrs. Crippen," he indicated no alarm or fright. The remains were close packed, with clay above them; but the clay was looser there than what was found in other parts of the cellar, where there were no remains. It was a heavy soil. The remains were found over an area about 4 ft. 1 in. in length and 20 in. wide. It was pretty regular. The remains were all mixed up in a mass with lime. The lime was all round the remains, over them, under them, and at the sides, but not placed between the pieces in the sense of layers. The bits of skin and so forth were all jumbled up together. I could not make a sufficiently close examination to say whether some portions of the skin was folded over others. With regard to Exhibits 2 and 3, I am quite satisfied that the cards had been written before I boarded the "Montrose." From my inquiries I found that up to within the last four years Mrs. Crippen earned some money, not much, at suburban and local music-halls. So far as I know, it is the fact that at the time of his flight prisoner left no unpaid debts.
Re-examined. At the time of his arrest and on the voyage back to England prisoner appeared to be quite calm and collected and not at all dejected; there was no difference in the manner after his arrest to what it had been before. In the hole where' the remains lay the earth was very firm, as if it had never been disturbed. It was only at this one place that I found the bricks had been loosened. I had previously tested round the sides of the cellar and at each end, and it was when I came to this spot that I found the bricks loose; the othere were quite firm. In my judgment, the area of loose bricks almost corresponded with the hole.
Police-constable DANIEL GOOCH, 501 Y, spoke to placing the remains in a shell for removal by Leverton.
AUGUSTUS JOSEPH PEPPER . I am a Master in Surgery, London University, F.R.C.P., consulting surgeon to St. Mary's Hospital, and have been in active practice as a surgeon for about 35 years. On July 14 I went with Dew to 39, Hilldrop Crescent and met Dr. Marshall there. In the cellar I found that part of the floor had been pulled up, and in a hole in the ground I saw what appeared to be animal remains. I looked at the soil to see what it was composed of, and found it was partly loam and partly clay. Mixed with these there was lime. The remains were removed to the mortuary in a shell. They included, besides some tufts of hair, a large piece of flesh composed of skin, fat, and muscle from the thigh and lower part of the buttock of a human being, and another small piece. The head was missing, and there was no bone or part of a bone, but, except the organs of generation, all the internal organs were found. On July 15 I found a piece of skin with some fat attached to it measuring 11 in. by 9 in. that came from the upper part of the abdomen and lower part of the chest. I found another piece of skin 7 in. by 6 in. which came from the lower part, the front portion of the abdomen. A mark upon it attracted my attention, and I afterwards examined it with great particularity, spending several hours on the examination; I came to the conclusion that it was the mark of a scar. The scar would have been visible upon the skin. When that piece was in position on the human body it would be in the middle line in front; it may have been a little to the left; it began just above the pubes and extended for 4 inches or a little over. The whole scar was complete, there being a piece of flesh beyond it. It was quite an old scar. I found no trace of genitals at all; there were no certain anatomical indications of sex. There was pubic hair upon the piece of flesh. There were also found with the remains fragments of a woman's cotton combinations and a portion from the neck part of a pyjama jacket; the latter bore the maker's label, "Shirt makers, Jones Brothers (Holloway), Limited, Holloway, N." The same label appears on the jackets of the two suits (Exhibit 76). Judging by the way in which the viscera had been extracted, I think it must have been done by a person skilled in removing viscera—skilled in dissection; I do not say skilled in dissection of human beings, but in evisceration of animals; there was no cut or tear in any part, except where it was necessary for the removal; all the organs were connected together; he diaphragm or the septum between the chest and the abdomen had, of course, been cut round; such an operation would certainly require skill. There were none of the organs of generation; some of these may have been removed during life; the scar I saw was such as would be occasioned by an operation for the removal of the pelvic organs, or the ovaries, or both combined. I am of opinion that the remains had been buried for from four to eight months; in forming that opinion I take into consideration the place where they were buried, the surrounding materials, and the depth, and the fact that they must have been buried very shortly after death. It is quite impossible
that they were buried there before September, 1905. (Witness spoke to placing in glass jars various fragments and articles, including some hair in a Hinde curler and a tuft of hair in a handkerchief.) I measured the hair found in the Hinde curler. The longest hairs were 8 inches and the shortest 2£ inches; of course, there are intermediate lengths. In my opinion, being of that length and bleached partly, the hair would be a woman's; I mean the dark brown, the part not in the curler, and light brown in the curler. The ark brown was the hair of the root. The roots were present. The hair placed by me in the third jar is now decidedly darker than when I first saw it; I am referring particularly to that part in the curler. The portion of hair I found in the handkerchief I think also is slightly darker now. This is in both cases partly due to the drying, and being more compressed together; possibly also the bleaching effect has gone off somewhat. On August 5 I examined some hair at St. Mary's Hospital; the greater part was two to three inches long; the longest six inches. The colour was dark brown, shading off to light brown. All the specimens of hair are somewhat darker now than when first discovered. On August 8 I examined two loose hairs at the mortuary. They were lying loose on a part of the abdominal wall; one was 5£ inches and the other 8 inches. They were of the same colour as the other hair—dark brown. It was a woman's hair. I also examined some hair that I believe to be pubic hair. Those hairs were twenty in number; some were free from the surface, others were still fixed; by "free" I mean not attached to the skin. They were dark brown in colour, corresponding with the undyed hair. They were from half an inch to one inch in length; they showed the roots at one end, and the other end tapered off. In all the other specimens the hair, of course, had been cut—roots at one end, cut at the other. This showed roots at one end, and the other end tapered. I found the stomach and the kidneys and the heart and the liver and the pancreas all healthy as far as one could tell. There was no sign of disease nor anything to account for death. The spleen was very soft, as one would expect from decomposition. The intestines were healthy. The lungs were more advanced in decomposition than the other organs, except the spleen, but there was no consolidation and no sign of there having been pleurisy—no marks on the surface. Prom the remains I examined I should say that the person in life was an adult, young or middle-aged, and of stout figure. The kidneys were in an exceedingly good state of preservation. On September 9 I was present at St. Mary's Hospital when a piece of the skin, bearing the mark which I have said is an old scar, was removed for microscopical examination. I was also present when that piece was microscopically examined on September 13 by Dr. Spilsbury. I examined it in that way myself, and my examination confirmed me in my previous opinion that it was a scar, although I had not the slightest doubt about it, even apart from microscopical examination.
Cross-examined. Taking a mass of human remains like these by themselves, it is quite impossible to tell sex except upon anatomical grounds. To remove these organs in the way they were removed would
require a practised hand and eye. I will not say that it would require someone accustomed to dissection; if a person had once learnt how to do it he could do it. It was not a minute dissection; it was a particular kind of work. I first formed an opinion as to the length of burial on July 15. When I went to 39, Hilldrop Crescent on July 14 Dew was there, but I do not remember that I was told that the woman was said to have disappeared about February 15 of this year. I agree that I would have heard that very soon after if not on the 14th. I agree that it is quite beyond the reach of science to determine with accuracy the period of death from the progress of putrefaction, and that "two different bodies buried in the same soil and under apparently similar conditions frequently present such differences as to baffle all attempts at generalisation." As to whether putrefaction would be retarded by the presence with the remains of lime or clay, I say that there are two kinds of decomposition taking place in dead bodies—one where the body is freely exposed to the air and warmth, and the other where it is damp and largely excluded from the air. That is what happened in this case. Lime and clay would retard the common form of putrefaction, but the presence of damp clay would favour the change which happened in this case. It was not putrefaction in the ordinary sense. It was a peculiar change; the tissues became converted into a kind of soap, the technical name of which is adipocere. I agree that, buried in clay, adipocere would be created more quickly, and ordinary putrefaction would be retarded. Taking a person of Mrs. Crippen's age and build, the normal weight of the kidney of a woman like that would vary from 3 to 4 oz.; it might be as much as 4 1/2 oz.; it is subject to considerable variation. I think the weight of the kidney in this case was 2 3/4 oz. That would be due largely to the removal of moisture from the kidney—desiccation. There was some change in the kidney; I did not want to use the word "putrefaction." I do not accept the suggestion that there was ordinary putrefaction; there was very decided formation of adipocerous. Before I formed an opinion that the mark on the skin was a scar I had already heard that Mrs. Crippen had had an operation. I cannot pledge myself as to the date. It may have been close on a week after I first saw the remains. It is the fact that running at right "angles to the navel there are what are called tendinous intersections or white fibres at right angles to the vertical axis of the body, that is to say, to the perpendicular line up the stomach. There are also tendinous intersections at right angles in that sense on a level with the bottom of the breast bone, and also as a rule three tendinous intersections at right angles between those two points—the navel and the bottom of the breast bone. There may be also tendinous intersections a little below the navel, but that varies very much; it is not so common as the other. I believe a navel must originally have been upon that piece of skin. It is possible, of course, that it was not. If my opinion is right, it must have been removed from that piece of skin. There is no trace whatever there for the tendinous intersections running at right angles to the navel. I think the navel was originally at the top of the scar, or what you call a horseshoe depression. I
must not be taken to say that it is actually the shape of a horse-shoe, because one side is nearly straight. I should say that the scar is not so long as the wound of the operation would have been. I should not necessarily expect to find tendinous intersections at right angles to what was originally the site of the navel; they might not be found, because tendinous intersection does not involve the skin; it only involves the muscles underneath, and there the muscles have been cut away. The linea alba is a thin white vertical line from the chest running down to the pubic bone. Of course there is no line to be seen on the surface of the skin; it indicates where the tendons underneath are joined. One never sees the linea alba on the chest. It is underneath the surface. There is not enough there for the linea alba to exist if the flesh really did come from the lower part of the abdomen, because there is only one muscle on one side there. I can hardly express an opinion as to whether very great dexterity would not be required to remove the peritoneum; I never saw any one attempt to remove it. There is no trace of the peritoneum here. I agree that it must have been removed, but not by itself; it is simply left with some of the fat; the body has been cut up, and it has been taken out evenly in the whole thickness, with considerable quantities left behind, as shown by the preparations. It was there originally underneath that skin, and it is not there now. I very much doubt if one would recognise it clearly in this condition, but assuming one could see it, of course it would tell one that it was from the abdomen. It was removed during the cutting up of the body. Instead of pieces being taken out at right angles they were cut obliquely. There are on the piece of skin some hairs visible, which I believe to be pubic hairs. They are on one side only of the piece of skin, namely, the right side, as on the body. I agree that, if those are pubic hairs, those on the left side must have fallen out; if they had fallen out on the left side there might have been hairs over other portions of that piece of skin that had also fallen out. There was only one place where pubic hairs were found in this substance, and that was in a line at the bottom. The removal of the navel is an exceedingly common operation. I came to the conclusion that this was a scar within a quarter to half an hour at my first examination. I have not the slightest doubt it is a scar. Before that I had heard that Mrs. Crippen had had an operation there. On July 15 I and Dr. Marshall examined the remains at the mortuary for two hours and three-quarters or three hours. On that occasion I did not see the mark, and the question of scar did not then arise. I do not agree that the condition of that piece of skin made it very difficult to say whether that mark was a scar at all. The left limb of what you call the horseshoe depression was undoubtedly due to a folding of the skin. The scar begins at the lower part, where it is cut across. It is practically straight, slightly curving at the upper part. As to whether that would be as high as the navel would have been, or not as high, or above it, the navel varies exceedingly. The scar being 4 1/2 in. long, one might easily allow an inch for contraction; that would take it to 5 1/2 in. I can hardly say that that would be the distance between the navel and the pubic bone;
I do not know the stoutness of the woman, or her age, and it depends upon whether one starts from the surface or the bone. My contention is that the scar runs on the right side, nearly straight, and that the left limb and the curve of the so-called horseshoe are formed by the fold. I examined microscopically a small piece that was cut out of the centre of the scar. There are on the right side of the scar little groups of transverse lines, four lines in each, at regular intervals. I cannot say whether or not these lines are exactly similar to the pattern on the elastic material of the fragment of underclothing found with the remains. If they are, that might be a clear indication that those marks were caused by the pressure of the materials on the left side, but not on the right. The scar is not a line; it is 7/8 in. wide at the lower part. The marks in groups are on the left side of that. I should say that the marks do not go beyond the area of the scar. Supposing one limb of the horseshoe mark was due to folding and the other side of it due to an operation, and, therefore, a scar, I would not necessarily expect that if a piece was cut across the folded depression and a piece cut across the area of the so-called scar, the cut edges of the piece cut from the so-called scar would be different from the cut edges of the piece of the groove where there never had been a scar at all; because the folding over would attenuate the skin at that part—the continued pressure of it. Both limbs of the so-called horseshoe were cut across. I would not necessarily expect the cut edges of that piece that were originally within the scar to be different in appearance from the cut edges of the skin just outside the area of the so-called scar on each side, because the superficial area of the skin has entirely gone, and this has become hardened and horny; the whole skin on the surface is almost like leather now. I examined, both with the naked eye and with the miscroscope, the bit of skin cut by my directions across and beyond the area of the so-called scar. In the part which I say is the scar the fibres are more densely placed than the fibres forming the skin. A very important point is that there were glands of the skin still remaining in the skin on each side of the scar; there were no remains of glands in the part which I say is scar. An operation would not necessarily cause an alteration in the size, number, and arrangement of the fibres in the part immediately below the surface. A wound going through the entire wall of the abdomen of a woman might unite very accurately indeed, so that afterwards one could not tell really that an operation had been done, except from the line of the scar. That is not a very unusual thing. There must be new tissue which unites the two edges of the wound, of course; one cannot get a scar if there is not new tissue; but it may unite, and frequently does, so accurately that a long time after the operation one could not tell, except by the line on the surface, that an operation had been done. If the scar is not stretched there is a continuous white line. If a scar is stretched, it does not necessarily stretch in a lozenge shape—wider in the middle. A scar at the lower part of the abdomen often does not, because the tendons are frequently separated during the operation, allowing the scar to be wider at the lower end than
at the top; it would be somewhat triangular in shape. This scar is 7/8 inch at the lower part, 1/2 inch at the middle, and 1/4 inch near the top—narrowest at the top and widest at the bottom. It is exactly the scar that I have many times seen after an operation in this part. In the majority of cases, but not in every case, there are marks of stitches visible after an operation. There are here no marks that I can clearly identify as stitches; there are some marks which are doubtful, and, therefore, I am quite ready to admit that they are not marks of stitches. They suggest stitches, but do not prove it; but where there is a scar which has become broad like this, very often the stitch marks become merged in the margin of the scar. Even apart from that, stitch marks frequently disappear altogether.
Re-examined. The presence of the aponeurosis proves absolutely that this part came from the lower abdomen in front. My knowledge, or want of knowledge, as to the date of Mrs. Crippen's disappearance had no effect whatever upon the opinion I formed as to the time those remains had been in the ground, nor had the information that an operation had been done on Mrs. Crippen any effect on my opinion that this is a scar. The fact that the kidney found weighed about 2 1/2 ounces was, in my opinion, due to loss of moisture. This loss of moisture would be very largely due to the presence of the large quantity of lime there; that would abstract the moisture from the parts. Absolute quicklime destroys flesh by abstracting the moisture, becoming converted into hydrate. The presence of damp clay round quick-lime would tend to convert quicklime into slaked lime. It would make he action of the lime less strong. Where there is a moist ground the moisture is abstracted by the lime. When it becomes slaked it does not corrode flesh; a great deal of carbonate of lime is formed, and the carbonate of lime facilitates the formation of adipocere. With regard to the protection or otherwise of the tissues, the slaked lime would practically be inert. It is quite possible that the navel may have been outside the area of this piece of flesh. The distance varies in individuals. In my experience it has varied from about 4 1/2 inches to 6 inches; of course in a very tall person or a very stout person, if one took the curve it might quite easily extend to more than that. I think it most probable that it was within the area of that piece of skin—possibly beyond it. The part of the wall of the abdomen containing the tendinous intersections was not present. Their absence from this piece of flesh does not in any way tend to show that it was not a part of the wall of the abdomen. I am confident that it is part of the wall of the abdomen, and of the lower part of the front of the abdomen. The same observation applies to the linea alba. I have performed many hundreds of abdominal operations. The scar here is such as I have frequently found in my actual practice. Examining these remains on September 9, one could not form an opinion of any value as to how long they had been in the ground, because at that date they had been largely exposed to the air, and the ordinary putrefactive process—decomposition—had attacked them. The piece of skin and flesh we have been examining to-day has, of course, been preserved.
I have examined the section made by Dr. Spilsbury, and I find no glands in the part which I say is a scar. There are glands on each side. There are also glands in the left limb of the so-called horseshoe where the fold was.
To the Court. The appearance of this scar is in accordance with my experience as to the shape of a scar when it becomes a dried and old scar in an abdominal operation. It is bigger at the bottom than at the top; that is the case repeatedly in this situation. One frequently finds, when it does take place between the navel and the pubic region, that that is the shape the scar assumes. I have many times performed operations which involved the removal of the navel; the presence or absence of the navel after operation is not conclusive one way or the other. I have no doubt that this is a scar. The reasons why I say it is in the lower abdominal region, that is, between the navel and the pubes, are these. In the first place, the scar is wider at the bottom than at the top; and, secondly, there is this line of hair which, in my opinion, is pubic hair. The pubic hair goes higher up in some individuals than it does in others. I see no indication of hair in this specimen above the region which I think is the pubic region. I say absolutely that this cannot be a piece of flesh from above the navel. The most common operation in which the middle line between the navel and the pubes is the seat of the scar is operation for removal of the ovaries or uterus, or, in the male, removal of stones from the bladder—taking tumours from the bladder. It is frequently performed there on male subjects. The scar there would be of the same appearance; it would be less likely to be so wide in a male subject, because, as a rule, there is not so much distension. The width at the bottom would point more to a female than to a male subject; the scar usually stretches more. Asked on what he based his opinion that the remains could not have been in the ground longer than eight months and not less than four months, witness said he should have thought they might have been in the ground for eight months if he had paid attention to some parts where the decomposition or change was much more advanced; but, looking at certain parts of the skin and the heart, and the kidneys and the liver, he should have said that, if anything, the time was under four months; they were so exceedingly well preserved. Looking at the general conditions of the organs as they were, he came to the conclusion that they could not have been buried more than eight months; that was allowing a wide margin.
(Thursday, October 20.)
BERNARD EDWARD SPILSBURY , Bachelor of Surgery, Oxford, Pathologist at St. Mary's Hospital. I have on several occasions examined the piece of skin and flesh, the first time on September 9. It comes from the lower part of the wall of the abdomen, near the middle line. I base that opinion upon the presence and the arrangement of certain muscles. There is the rectus muscle, and on one side of that there is an aponeurosis, attached to which are other pieces of muscle. Confirmation
of my opinion is afforded by the existence at the lower margin of the piece of a row of short, dark hairs; those are pubic hairs. On September 9 I made a section across the middle of what I regard as a scar and examined it under the microscope. There was no epidermis on the surface of the mark, but I found a small mass embedded deeply in it at one spot. This indicates to me the line of incision of the skin at the operation which caused the scar. At each end of the section on either side of the scar there were glands, but there were no glands in the scar itself. On the other hand, there were glands in the groove which has been described as a horse-shoe mark on the skin. The tissue at the place I call a scar was denser than elsewhere. The mark is undoubtedly an old operation scar.
Cross-examined. I commenced medical work at Oxford University, and went to St. Mary's Hospital about eleven years ago. Mr. Pepper was a lecturer there then; I was associated with him for the first five or six years, but since then I have been entirely independent. The person who removed the viscera must have had considerable dexterity and considerable anatomical knowledge, and must have done a considerable amount of evisceration. If it were established that there was in the scar a sebaceous gland or a hair and a hair follicle it would be conclusive that it was not a scar. I thought the mark was a scar, even when I looked at it with the naked eye on September 9. I believe I had already heard, when I first saw the skin, that Mrs. Crippen had had an operation. It was more difficult to tell if the scar was a scar when I saw it than it would have been had it been fresh.
Re-examined. I was only associated with Mr. Pepper by attending his lectures and acting as a surgical dresser; that fact had absolutely no influence on my opinion; nor did hearing of an operation having been performed on Mrs. Crippen. It is beyond doubt that this is a scar. I have searched the scar carefully for glands or hair follicles, and must have found them if there were any. There was nothing which could conceivably be mistaken for a gland except the small mass of included epidermis which I have mentioned. By included epidermis what I mean is this: in a surgical operation, when the edges of the skin are brought into contact it is common for at least one side to turn in a little, and, as the scar forms, some of the surface material covering the skin may become enclosed in the scar and embedded in it. There is, in my opinion, no room for doubt that the mark was a scar. It is quite possible for the inturned edge of the cut to contain both hair follicle and sebaceous glands, though there are none in this instance. The arrangement of muscle and aponeurosis I have described is inconsistent with the piece of flesh and skin being from any part of the body except the lower abdomen.
THOMAS MARSHALL , M.B., Divisional Surgeon, Kentish Town District. I have heard Mr. Pepper's evidence as to what took place on the occasion of our collecting the remains, and I agree with it. I was with Mr. Pepper on August 8 and saw the piece of flesh bearing a mark. I formed the opinion that it was from the lowest part of the abdominal wall. I noted the mark and regarded it as a scar. In none
of the organs found could I see any indication of disease which might cause death.
Cross-examined. I agree that some bodies remain in an excellent state of preservation for some years if buried in lime and in a soil like clay, which practically excludes all air, and that the possibility of giving a certain opinion as to the length of time that a body has been buried in the earth depends on many circumstances, as put to Mr. Pepper. Before I examined the skin and flesh I had heard that there had been an operation. It was on August 8 that I noted the scar; that was the first time I had really examined the skin and flesh. Before then I had merely handled it and other remains when taking them from the cellar and placing them in jars, and for other purposes. I then saw the skin, but did not examine it.
Re-examined. The fact that I had heard that Mrs. Crippen had had an operation had no effect upon my forming the opinion that this was a scar. My opinion as to the length of time the remains had been buried was stated at the inquest before any other witness had expressed an opinion and without consulting Mr. Pepper; I placed the time at several months. On first observing the remains, buried where they were, I was somewhat surprised with an appearance of freshness, a redness, not the appearance of corruption that one would have expected; but when I examined them in detail at the mortuary I found the presence of adipocere; forming an estimate to the best of my ability of the time that would be required for the formation of that adipocere, I reckoned it as a matter of several months—four, five, or six, I would say, perhaps up to seven.
ARTHUR ROBINSON , lately keeper of the Islington Mortuary Chapel, spoke to receiving the shell containing the remains, together with glass jars containing various specimens. On July 19 he placed carbolic powder on the remains in the shell.
Police-constable ROBERT THOMPSON, 520 Y, said that he was handed by the last witness five glass jars, which he handed to Dr. Willcox.
Police-constable CHARLES FITTS said that on July 13 he purchased a bottle of Neville's disinfecting fluid; this was diluted with water and poured round the walls of the cellar; at that time the remains were still in the hole.
WILLIAM WILLCOX , M. B., B. Sc, F. R. C. P., lecturer on forensic medicine at St. Mary's Hospital, senior scientific analyst to the Home Office. On July 22 I received from the coroner's officer five jars covered and sealed, which I numbered forthwith. In the first was a small portion of liver and one kidney. In the second, a pair of combinations. In the third, hair in a hair-curler, a handkerchief, undervest, and some hair in a piece of paper. In the fourth, a piece of pyjama jacket, and in the fifth two other pieces of pyjama jacket. One piece had a button on it and a neck-piece bearing a tab. These pieces are of flannelette, as also are the two complete suits (Exhibit 76). The buttons are also the same, though one is a little smaller, having shrank perhaps a little. It was a circular button with a depression in the centre, from which threads radiated. On July 25 I received from Dr. Marshall another jar; it contained some intestine, another curler
with hair in it, and a portion of liver, which, together with the other portion, completed the whole liver. On August 8 I received from Mr. Pepper a piece of skin. That is a piece of skin from the lower wall of the abdomen, and shows a horse-shoe mark, of which one limb is a scar—an old scar—and the other limb is a fold. On August 14 I received from Dr. Marshall a seventh jar containing some soil and lime, and the same day an eighth jar containing lungs, a portion of intestines, a piece of muscle, and another piece of hair; also a box of carbolic powder. The lungs were in a condition of advanced putrefaction when I received them. The kidney, which I had received much earlier, was comparatively fresh, except that it had undergone the process of decay with the formation of adipocere, but there was very little ordinary putrefaction present in it when I received it. The greater putrefaction in the lungs was due to the fact that a longer time had elapsed between their removal from the ground and their being brought to me. Organs removed from burial in the ground and exposed to a warm atmosphere decompose and putrefy very rapidly. On August 14 I received an unopened bottle of Neville's sanitary fluid, and on the 16th an open bottle containing a smaller quantity On August 23 I visited 39, Hilldrop Crescent and procured some specimens of the soils from the excavation, which I put in jars and labelled. On July 23 I commenced examining the stomach, the kidney, and a portion of the liver, first looking for mineral and organic poisons. I found traces of arsenic in the intestines and liver, and traces of creosol (the chemical name for commercial carbolic acid) in the stomach and kidney, and intestines and liver—small traces. I attach no importance to those; they were due to the disinfectants. I began the same day to examine for alkaloidal poisons. Such an examination requires two or three weeks before the final tests can be applied. I took weighed portions of the stomach and intestines and kidney and liver, and treated them by the usual process for extraction of alkaloids, and found an alkaloid present in all the extracts. I then applied further tests for all the common alkaloids—morphine, strychnine, cocaine, and so on—and I found that a mydriatic alkaloid was present; that is, an alkaloid the solution of which if put into the eye of an animal causes the pupil to enlarge and dilate. Having found a mydriatic alkaloid I applied a further test and found that it was a mydriatic vegetable alkaloid. There are three mydriatic vegetable alkaloids: atropine, hyoscyamine, and hyoscine. I found that one of those three was present. I applied further tests and found that the alkaloid that I got in the extracts corresponded to hyoscine. I have no doubt it was hyoscine. That was proved in two ways; one by examining the residue with a lens and microscope; it was gummy; there were no crystals there. Another way was by adding to a solution of the residue some bromine solution—hydrobromic acid—and I got round spheres but no crystals. Hyoscine gives spheres exactly like I have got. Atropine and hyoscamine both give needle-shaped crystals. As to the amount of hyoscine, there was (calculated out on the whole organs) in the stomach one-thirtieth of a grain; in the one kidney one-fortieth of a grain; one-seventh in the intestines, one-twelfth
in the liver; in the lungs there was the merest trace. The total amount of hyoscine in all the organs submitted to me was two-sevenths of a grain. Hyoscine is not used medicinally in the form of hyoscine. It is gummy, syrupy stuff, which it would be impossible to handle, and a salt is used. The salt which is used is the hydrobromide of hyoscine. That is the preparation given in the "British Pharmacopoeia." In the whole of the organs submitted to me the amount was two-fifths of a grain of the hydrobromide. In the whole body that would certainly correspond to more than half a grain, which would be a fatal dose. A fatal dose is from a quarter to half a grain. Hyoscine hydrobromide is a drug which is a powerful narcotic poison. If the fatal dose were given it would perhaps produce a little delirium and excitement at first; the pupils of the eyes would be paralysed; the mouth and throat would be dry; and then quickly the patient would become drowsy and unconscious and completely paralysed, and death would result in a few hours. The time within which the drowsy and unconscious state would be reached would depend on the amount given and on the condition of the stomach. Assuming to have been given the dose which I think could be traced, the drowsy, unconscious state might come on in probably under an hour, and paralysis and death in hours-probably something under twelve hours. The patient would not recover at all during that twelve hours if the dose was a fatal dose; assuming a fatal dose, there would be the dryness of the mouth and so on, then unconsciousness, and then death, all in one continuous sequence, without recovery. Hyoscine is not a commonly used drug. When used it is, if given internally, administered practically by hypodermic injection. It is used as a powerful sedative for cases of delirium, mania, meningitis (inflammation of the brain), also for delirium tremens, and very occasionally as a hypnotic for insomnia; sometimes it is given in combination with morphine for sedative purposes. In all these cases it is given hypodermically. The proper dose for hypodermic injection is from a two-hundredth to one-hundredth of a grain. As far as I know, hyoscine is not used as a homoeopathic remedy. I have looked through the English and the American homoeopathic pharmacopoeias, and the drug is not mentioned. In this case, in my opinion, the drug was taken by the mouth. It is rather salt and bitter, but it could be administered without the patient knowing if given in something with a pronounced flavour and sweetish taste such as stout, beer, spirits, sweetened tea, or coffee. The cause of death in this case was, in my opinion, poisoning by hyoscine. I know of no legitimate use for hydrobromide of hyoscine, except in the doses I have mentioned, for internal administration. After this drug was taken, I think the patient probably lived for an hour or more—not more than twelve hours. The remains would have been buried, I should say, for from four to eight months.
Cross-examined. I believe this is the first case where the question of murder by hyoscine has arisen. I have tested for hyoscine before, but have never found it in extracts from dead bodies before this case. There are both vegetable and animal mydriatic alkaloids. The latter are produced after death by the action of bacteria when the organs
have reached an advanced stage of putrefaction. I did not discover in the remains sufficient alkaloid to apply the melting point test. I identified the alkaloid as hyoscine about August 20. On August 2 I had been informed that Dr. Crippen had bought some hyoscine. My first test, to ascertain whether there was any alkaloid at all, took me about a fortnight. As the result of that, I found in the liver one-twelfth of a grain, in the intestines one-seventh, in the stomach one-thirtieth and in the kidney one-fortieth of a grain; that is calculating out on the whole of the organ; I did not actually find that amount. There was less in the stomach and kidney as compared with what I found in the liver and intestine. Having ascertained that there was an alkaloid I next tested to find out whether it was mydriatic. The physiological test is conclusive on that point. I put a drop of the solution into a cat's eye, and then exposed the cat to a very powerful light. One pupil was widely dilated. This test was conclusive with all the four extracts, the stomach, the intestines, the liver, and the kidneys. The three vegetable mydriatics that I have specified are hyoscine, hyoscyamine, and atropine. There is a fourth—cocaine—and perhaps there are several others. Cocaine is not quite the same as the other three; cocaine causes the pupil to enlarge, just as the others do, but if the eye is exposed to a powerful light the pupil contracts; it does not paralyse it; we can quite fairly eliminate cocaine. The three main vegetable mydriatics are hyoscine, hyoscyamine, and atropine. Hyoscine and hyoscyamine are produced by the plant called henbane, and atrophine from belladonna. Hyoscine and hyoscyamine are produced by the plant called henbane, and atropine from belladonna or the "deadly nightshade." These three vegetable mydriatics, hyoscine, hyoscyamine, and atropine, have not the same chemical composition and exactly the same chemical formulae. Up to a few years ago it was thought they had, but in the "British Pharmacopoeia," the last edition (about eight years ago, I think) a different formula was given for hyoscine, and all the recent work on these alkaloids points to the fact that hyoscine has a slightly different formula from the other two. The latest formula is, hyoscine C17. H21. NO4. atropine and hyoscyamine C17 H23 and NO3. The difference is two parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen. Until about eight years ago it was always recognised that those three had the same chemical formula. For a number of years it was recognised in the profession that the formula for all three was exactly the same. Putrefying bodies give off carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, or compounds containing those elements. To that extent, the constituents of a vegetable mydriatic alkaloid exist in animal mydriatics, but the combination is different. In order to find out which mydriatic it was I applied what is known as the Vitali test. In that test a purple violet colour is produced which fades away to a brownish colour. I do not agree that that is characteristic of animal as well as vegetable mydriatics; it is of vegetable mydriatics. I know the work of Giotto and Spiecke; they are well-known Italian chemists; I have read that they say that certain homatropines give Vitali's reaction, but I have looked at their original works, and have failed to find proof of it.; I do not
accept that; it does not agree with my experience. The Vitali reaction is common to hyoscine, atropine, and hyoscyamine. The melting point test is an important test, but not the important test. It is a test which can only be applied when one has a considerable quantity of the alkaloid to deal with. The most important test, I consider, is the careful observation, with a lens and microscope, of the alkaloid itself as to whether it is crystalline or syrupy—gummy—and also the bromine test which has already been mentioned—the obtaining of crystals. This gumminess is characteristic of hyoscine, while hyoscyamine and atropine are crystalline. I arrived at the gumminess when I found out that it was an alkaloid, but before I had applied any test to find out whether the alkaloid was mydriatic; in other words, before I applied the physiological test to the cat's eye. The gumminess was the result of these extractions, which resulted in my ascertaining that it was an alkaloid. Supposing that the alkaloid had, in fact, been hyoscyamine or atropine, I think most probably there would have been some crystals there. There might possibly have only been gumminess, but, on recrystallization, crystals would have appeared. The gummy extract could not possibly be hyoscyamine or atropine if the extracts were fairly pure. If the extracts were impure and had other materials in, then a gummy residue might have been obtained with atropine and hyoscyamine. I applied the bromine test after the Vitali test—the test for vegetable mydriatic alkaloid. The bromine test is only of value in discriminating between the three vegetable alkaloids in question. Other things besides hyoscine give the spheres of which I have spoken. The melting-point test is only of value where a large amount of the alkaloid can be obtained; in toxicological work such an amount never can be obtained; it would mean an enormous dose. I agree that the different mydriatic alkaloids have a melting point of widely different degrees, providing that they are in a very pure condition. The melting point of hyoscine is 658, that of hyoscyamine 1058, that of atropine 1158: hut I should explain with regard to hyoscine that it is a gummy syrup, and it is very difficult to say what the melting point is. I agree that another very valuable test is the gold chloride test, the alkaloid being dissolved in diluted hydrochloric acid, chloride of gold added, and crystallization allowed to take place. That is a valuable test, as the melting points of the different crystals are very different; atropine 1488, hyoscyamine 1608, and hyoscine 1998. I also agree that it is perhaps the most valuable differentiating test between the three alkaloids, always providing that there is sufficient alkaloid for its application.
Re-examined. The gold chloride test was the first process I contemplated applying, but I found my solutions were not strong enough, and that if I applied it I would waste all my material unsuccessfully. According to my experience there is never, in a case of criminal poisoning, enough material for the melting-point test. For the purpose of a poisoning investigation the tests used must of necessity be tests which apply to very small quantities. The tests which I have applied are real tests; I mean, I can absolutely distinguish this substance from the other substances that I was looking for. I tried all these tests on
the pure alkaloids themselves before I applied them to extracts from the viscera, and found that they were reliable and gave corresponding results. As the result of my tests I am able to say that this substance was not an animal alkaloid. As I have explained, mydriatic animal alkaloids are produced in decaying bodies at an advanced stage of putrefaction. In this case the lungs were the most putrefied of the organs. I tested them most carefully for animal alkaloids, and I found the least trace—not enough to paralyse the pupil, but just to weaken it. The traces of mydriatic alkaloids in the lungs were so slight that I could not say whether they were animal or vegetable, and I have excluded them from my calculation of the amount of alkaloids present in the organs examined. The tests I have described I have undertaken hundreds of times, and they present no difficulties with which I am not accustomed to deal. In all my investigations I have never found a ptomaine, an animal alkaloid, which gave a purple colour with the Vitali test. I have tested several hundreds of times, and recently on some viscera several years old, and I have been unable to obtain it in any single case. Animal alkaloids never correspond to Vitali's test. I have never found one, and I have tested specially for that hundreds of times. This kind of investigation is no novelty to me.
The Lord Chief Justice. You told Mr. Tobin, very fairly, that animal alkaloids are produced in what you call the advanced stages or late stages of putrefaction. Apart from your examination, were there any organs in such a state of putrefaction that you would expect to have alkaloids produced?—No; not those that I examined for alkaloids first. The lung, which I examined two or three weeks later, was in such a state that there might have been some animal alkaloid there. In that I found only a trace of any alkaloid—not sufficient to test whether it was animal or vegetable. I have no doubt that it was vegetable alkaloid that I discovered, and that it was hyoscine also.
I am asked by the jury to put this question. You have stated that hyoscine in the form of hyoscine hydrobromide is in the Pharmacopoea. Have you ever heard of it being given by the mouth?—No; as far as I know the medical internal use of it is limited to hypodermic use. I have never heard of a prescription containing two-sevenths of a grain of hyoscine for internal use. If intended to be taken by the mouth, I know of no medicine in which hyoscine is used.
ARTHUR PEARSON LUFF , M.D., B. Sc, F.R.C.P., Physician to St. Mary's Hospital, said that for seventeen years he had been Scientific Analyst to the Home Office and resigned about six years ago. He had heard Dr. Willcox's evidence and had repeated his tests with pure lrugs. They were absolutely the right tests, and he agreed with Dr. Willcox's results. The poison present was undoubtedly hyoscine, judging by those tests. He had often tested for animal mydriatic alkaloids in toxicological cases during his period of office, but had never found them in a corpse. Before that he had conducted a long series of investigations upon animal alkaloids, and had once found a mydriatic animal alkaloid in some meat which he had put to putrefy in circumstances very favourable to putrefaction. He had applied the
Vitali test to the mydriatic found in this meat, and it proved negative. The distinction between the animal and vegetable mydriatic alkaloids was absolute if the Vitali test was applied.
Cross-examined. I am the author of a text-book on forensic medicine, published in 1895. I there wrote: "It is impossible to give any certain opinion as to the length of time a body has been buried in the earth. The reason is that many conditions may modify the progress of putrefaction after burial; such as, the character of the coffin and soil, the depth of the grave, the time that has elapsed before burial, and the cause of death. Different bodies undergo putrefactive changes with very different degrees of rapidity, even when they have been buried under similar conditions. For instance, three bodies were buried at the same time, side by side, wrapped in cloth of the same texture, and in coffins of the same kind of wood; in connection with one of these bodies it was found at the end of nine months that the abdominal walls had quite disappeared; in another the disappearance of the abdominal walls did not take place until an interval of thirteen months from the time of burial; in the third one, at the end of twenty-three months the abdominal walls were almost entire." I absolutely adhere now to those views. If a mydriatic alkaloid is produced in putrefied meat, I know of no scientific reason why it should not be produced in putrefying human remains, except that the latter are not as a rule exposed to the conditions in which I exposed the meat in the case I refer to. I have never met it in human corpses.
Re-examined. I did not see the remains in this case, and I did not ask to see them—for a very good reason. They had been exhumed for several days; and as such things change so rapidly no opinion of any value could then be formed as to how long they had been buried. Had I seen them at the time Mr. Pepper saw them, I could certainly have given an opinion. This is not contradictory to anything I have written in my book.
CHARLES HETHERINGTON , qualified chemist, of Lewis and Burrows, 108, New Oxford Street. On January 17 or 18 prisoner called and ordered five grains of hyoscine hydrobromide; I think he said he wanted it for homoeopathic purposes. We had not that quantity in stock and I ordered it from a wholesale house. During the four years I have been with Lewis and Burrows they have never had that quantity of hyoscine hydrobromide in stock.
Cross-examined. I had known prisoner as a customer for three years; he has from time to time purchased drugs of us, including cocaine, morphia and mercury. He always signed the poisons register book quite willingly. Hyoscine is used as a sedative in nervous cases; it is a narcotic and a mydriatic.
To the Court. Prisoner could not have got hyoscine without signing the poisons register book.
To the Jury. As far as I know, this is the only occasion on which prisoner purchased hyoscine from us.
entry in the poisons book: "Name of purchaser, Munyons, per H. H. Crippen; address of purchaser, 57-61, Albion House; name and quantity of poison sold, five grains hyoscine hydrobromide; purposes for which required, homeopathic preparations; signature of purchaser, H. H. Crippen." I produce a list of drugs which we have supplied to prisoner, chiefly poisons; the poisons book is not signed in every case; we do not require a person we know to be a doctor to sign for every purchase of poisons.
Cross-examined. Prisoner made no objection to signing the book for this hyoscine.
Detective-sergeant WILLIAM HAYMAN. On August 18 I received from Dr. Willcox Exhibits 44, 45, 46, and 47 (four jars containing hair): also a camisole; these I showed to Mrs. Harrison.
Mrs. ADELINE HARRISON. I knew Mrs. Crippen for 12 or 13 years. When I first knew her her hair was dark brown; afterwards it was bleached. On August 18 I was shown the four specimens of hair; it resembles Mrs. Crippen's hair as I have seen it in the morning before she was dressed. She wore an undergarment similar to the camisole shown to me.
Cross-examined. Prisoner always struck me as being a very kind and amiable man and a good husband. These were the only specimens of hair put before me for identification. There is nothing by which to identify the curlers in which the hair is; thousands of women use similar curlers; the same remark applies to the camisole. Mrs. Crippen began to dye her hair about six or seven years after I knew her; she used to wear golden curls; she told me that prisoner bleached her hair for her in the first instance. When her hair was down in the morning I had opportunity of seeing the original colour of the hair by the parts nearest the roots.
HAWLEY HARVEY CRIPPEN (prisoner, on oath). I am 48 years of age: I am an American, and a doctor of medicine of the Cleveland Homoeopathic Hospital in America; I have not been through a practical course of surgery but a theoretical course. I have never performed a post-mortem examination in my life. I have made certain organs of the body my special study, the eye especially, and also the nose. I have been married twice. I met my second wife in New York: Cora Turner was the name she gave me, but her real name was Clara Mackamotski; she was living under the protection of a man named Lincoln. I married her 17 years ago. We first of all went to live at St. Louis. I came to this country for the first time before I married her, and again about 12 years ago; she did not come with me; I came in April and she followed in August. Our first apartments were in South Crescent, just off Tottenham Court Road, which is now pulled down. I should think we lived there just under a year. In 1905 we went to live at Hilldrop Crescent. I paid a visit to America while I was living in Guilford Street; I left my wife at a boarding house in Guilford Street; I was away from November
to the middle of April or May 1. Up to that visit to America I had lived on friendly terms with my wife, but she was always rather hasty in her temper. When I came back I joined my wife in Guilford Street. I did not notice any change in her manner at first, but very soon after that we lived at Store Street, and I began to notice it; she was always finding fault with me, and every night took the opportunity of quarrelling with me, so that we went to bed in rather a temper with each other. A little later on, after I found this continued, and she apparently did not wish to be familiar with me, I asked her what the matter was, and she told me that she had met Bruce Miller and he had been taking her out while I was away, and that she had got very fond of him and did not care for me any more; this would be about 1904 I think; it was before we lived at Hilldrop Crescent; it was perhaps further back than that. I think it was 1902 or 1903 that we moved from Guilford Street to Store Street; I noticed a change at the beginning, but it was about six months afterwards I found out what the trouble was; she mentioned the name of Bruce Miller and told me that he was a music-hall artist and had some kind of automatic orchestra; she told me he was still visiting her. I have never met him. I told her I thought it was very strange, although I had seen this coming for a long time, from the previous trouble we had had before I moved from South Crescent. After that we still lived together, but not as man and wife. At Hilldrop Crescent we occupied different rooms. Before our friends and strangers as well it was agreed that we should treat each other as if there had never been any trouble; I hoped that some time she would give up these ideas of hers. I first became connected with Munyon's about 15 or 16 years ago; I was first in a position in their employ and afterwards became general manager. While general manager I acted as advisory physician and had charge of the chemical laboratory. I was in that capacity for about five or six years. That ceased at the time I went back to America from here and stayed till the time I mentioned. I have not been in the habit of purchasing drugs for them in this country, but I have for myself and for other firms I have been with. Among the drugs I have purchased a considerable amount of poisons, aconite, belladonna, rhustox, gelsemium, and others, some from Keen and Ashwell, some from Lewis and Burrows. I have never purchased any drugs from other chemists. I have been familiar with the drug hyoscine for years; I first heard of it when I came to England in 1885; I learned the use of it at the Royal Bethlem Hospital for the Insane. It is a drug that is greatly used in America, especially in the insane asylums; it is also used in ophthalmic clinics. I have used it myself as a nerve remedy in homoeopathic preparations, that is, reduced to extremely minute doses. I remember purchasing some hyoscine on January 19; I had used hyoscine before, but not in this country. I purchased it in the form of crystals for the treatment of nervous diseases. I dissolved the five grains in alcohol; then I dissolved it in an ounce of water, making 480 drops. One drop would be 5-480th of a grain. Of this preparation I used, in conjunction with another mixture, consisting of gelsemium, assofetida,
and some other homoepathic preparations, four drops, which would equal 20-480ths of a grain. This, with a drachm of the other mixture, I used for medicating about three hundred small discs, to make one bottle of the preparation sent out to the patient. That would be about 150 doses, two tablets to the dose. It would be equal to 1-3,600th of a grain to a dose. The bottles would be sent out in a small paste-board case. On the bottle would be a label giving two tablets as a dose, eight doses a day. The doses would be in the form of small sugar discs, homoeopathic discs, made of cane sugar, to absorb the alcoholic preparations. The actual amount of hyoscine in two discs would be approximately 1-3,600th of a grain, extremely minute. Of this hyoscine I purchased on January 19 I dispensed about two-thirds. It is extremely difficult for me to recall the names of patients to whom the preparations would be sent, because in addition to Munyon's I was attending to another business in which I handled large numbers of letters daily, but I remember the name of MacSweeney as being one of the persons I required it for. I remember the dinner party on January 31. Before this my wife had often threatened to leave me; when she was in a temper it was a very frequent threat of hers. The tempers that she got into were over very trivial matters; she was always finding fault about trivial things. On January 31 Mr. and Mrs. Martinetti came to dinner with us between six and seven, at the request of my wife. While they were there she picked a quarrel with me upon a most trivial incident. During the evening Mr. Martinetti wanted to go upstairs; as he had been to the house many times and knew the place perfectly well, I let him go up by himself; when he came down he seemed to have caught a chill. When the Martinettis had left, my wife got into a great rage about this; I do not recollect all she did and said, she said a great many things; she abused me, and said some very strong things; she said that if I could not be a gentleman she had had enough of it and could not stand it any longer and she was going to leave. That was similar to her former threats, but she said besides something she had not said before; she said that after she had gone it would be necessary for me to cover up any scandal there might be by her leaving me, and I might do it in the very best way I could. I came back the next day at my usual time, which would be about half-past seven or eight o'clock, and found that the house was vacant. I did not see my wife on the morning of February 1; we had retired very late the night before and, as was the usual thing, I was up and out of the house before she was up. I went to business as usual that day. Some time during the day I called on Mrs. Martinetti and I asked her how Paul was and she answered, "No better": I was anxious as to the chill he had caught. I admit that I told the witnesses, Mrs. Martinetti, Miss May, etc., that my wife had left me and that she afterwards became ill, and that subsequently her death had taken place. I made those statements because she particularly told me that I must do the best I could to cover up the scandal. I wanted to hide anything regarding her departure from me in the best way I could, both for my own sake and hers. I recollect the
visit of Inspector Dew and the statement I made to him; that statement is quite true. Dew was very imperative in impressing on me that I must produce my wife or I should be in serious trouble; he also said that if I did not produce her quickly the statement I had made would be in the newspapers. It was the next morning that I made up my mind to go to Quebec. On the second day before we arrived at Quebec I was sitting by the wheelhouse; a quartermaster came to me and said that he had a letter he wanted to give me about three o'clock in the afternoon. I then made an arrangement with the quartermaster to hide me; he told me the captain knew who I was and who Miss Le Neve was, and I was to be arrested by the police at Quebec. He also told me that I must leave a note behind, saying that I had jumped overboard, and in the middle of the night he would make a splash in the water and tell the captain I had gone. I wrote the two cards, Exhibits 2 and 3; Exhibit 2 I wrote the same day. That night the quartermaster took me downstairs, but somebody came along and prevented us going on; they saw us. I kept the card and the quartermaster said he would put me down the next day. I wrote Exhibit 3 the next morning, a short time before Dew came on board. It had been arranged that Exhibit 2 was to be placed on my pillow in my berth. The quartermaster told me that there was no charge against Le Neve and they did not want her; accordingly I arranged with her that when I got safely ashore she was to write to me at an address which I gave her in the States, when everything was all right, and she was to join me. I expected to arrive at Quebec at one o'clock at night. Dew coming on board at Father Point was a surprise to me; I did not expect him at all. I thought there would be a cable to the Quebec police. When I said to Dew, "I am not sorry; the anxiety has been too much," I was referring to the fac that I expected to be arrested, because the lies I had told would cast such suspicion on me, and they might hold me for I do not know how long, perhaps for a year, in prison, until they found the missing woman. I did say to the inspector, "It is only fair to say that she (Le Neve) knew nothing about it; I never told her anything." By that I meant that I had never told her about my talking with my wife before she went away about the scandal; I had only told her that my wife had gone, and afterwards told her that she was dead. Those were the only two things I told her, and she knew nothing about the letters and lies I had disseminated. I never told Dew anything about those two cards, because while Dew went downstairs to see Le Neve one of the Canadian police officers told me that they dealt very differently with people in Canada to what they did in England; that in Canada people who were arrested were told to say nothing; and he said to me, "Now, don't say anything; cut your tongue out." As to the money that I put into the Charing Cross Bank, my wife had no money of her own; all the money that ever went into the bank was what I paid in for her. The jewellery that she had I bought when I was in America, as an investment; besides that, I think she had a watch and some rings which she had before we were married, probably given to her by the man she was living with. I
supplied the money for all her clothes and all her furs. I never knew what she did have; I gave her money with a free hand and she bought what she liked. After she went away I was surprised to find what she and have. In January of this year I had plenty of money coming in. I always paid my rent regularly and I never ran any tradesmen's bill or bills of any kind. I do not think my wife was aware of my relations with Le Neve, because she always treated her with the greatest courtesy when she came to my office. There was no obstacle put in my way if I wanted to go and see Le Neve; my time was my own and I went as I liked. I often stayed away from business for whole days at a time. I told Le Neve that if ever my wife went away and there was a divorce I should marry her. She seemed perfectly satisfied and happy with the position she occupied My wife had a scar on the lower part of the abdomen, from the pubic bone upwards, towards the navel, in the middle line. It was from an operation for ovariotomy; that was done about twelve years ago, I believe, shortly before we came to England for the first time. The scar was about 4 1/2 inches long; it was a small scar, because only the ovaries were removed; it came very close to the navel. My wife used to bleach her hair; I sometimes helped her to bleach it; she was very particular over it; she applied the bleaching fluid about every four or five days. She was very anxious that nobody should ever know she had any dark hair at all. She was very particular about her hair. I noticed that only the very tiniest portions of her hair near the roots were dark, after they began to grow. I did not at any time administer hyoscine to my wife. I have no idea whose remains they were found at my house in Hilldrop Crescent. I knew nothing about them until I came back to England.
(Friday, October 21.)
Cross-examined. On the early morning of February 1 I was left alone in my house with my wife, then alive and well; I know of no person in the world who has seen her alive since, no person who has ever had a letter from her since, no person who can prove any fact to show that she ever left that house alive. The last I saw of her would be between two and three in the morning, when we retired. I breakfasted at home that morning; I prepared breakfast myself; I nearly always did; my wife seldom came down to breakfast; we were usually very late retiring, and I was off probably at 8.30 in the morning. Occasionally I would take her up a cup of coffee in the morning, not often. In the evening of February 1 I returned home at my usual hour, about half past seven; it might have been 7.25 or 7.35. If I said in my statement to Dew, "I came to business the next morning, and when I went home between five and six p.m. I found she had gone," that was probably right; I cannot trace it back. As she had always been talking to me about Bruce Miller, I thought she had gone to him in America; that was the only guess I could make. I have made no inquiries as to what steamers were going to America about that time, or whether any woman answering to the description of my wife had
about then taken passage to America. I cannot say what clothing my wife took with her; she had a lot of trunks and boxes in the house; I believe one was missing; I do not know whether she took any box with her. I have not inquired at the cabstand near the house to ascertain whether a cabman had called to take away a box from my house; I have not inquired of the neighbours as to whether my wife was seen to leave the house, nor of tradespeople as to whether they called at the house on that day; so far as I know, no such inquiries have been made since my arrest. I recognise the importance to me of finding anyone who saw my wife alive after the Martinettis left, but I have made no inquiries; I have not conducted my own defence. There have been no inquiries made, as far as I know; this is a point that did not occur to me, and I did not suggest any inquiries to my solicitors. (Q. Did you know that any such inquiry would be fruitless?—I knew nothing of the kind.) If my wife had written to me for her furs and jewels I should have kept them; I paid for them, and I should not have given them up, after her leaving me; it is not the fact that I knew she would not write. I did not allow my wife any special money; I gave her a free hand for what she wanted at any time; I gave her sums like £2, £3, £4; I once gave her as much as £35; that was to buy an ermine cape; it was about three years ago. The last time I placed money in the bank on deposit was in March, 1909. I am told that notice of withdrawal of our joint deposit was given in December last; I did not know that until my solicitor discovered it on applying to the bank. In November my weekly drawings of £3 from Munyon's ceased, but my commissions amounted to pretty nearly the same thing, possibly more, but I am not sure. As to where I supposed my wife would get the money to take her to America, she always had plenty of money; when she had threatened to leave me I asked her if she wanted any money, and she said no. I was not in want of money. Most of the £80 and £115 that I got from pawning my wife's jewels I used in paying for the advertising of a new preparation I was putting on the market and in the purchase of new dental instruments. I had had this new scheme in my mind for a couple of months; it involved expenditure, but this I could have raised at the bank, and I had other businesses from which I could have drawn money. The complaint that my wife made about my conduct to Mr. Martinetti at the dinner party I considered most unreasonable, but that was the only reason she gave me for leaving me. I will not be sure whether, at the time I wrote Exhibit 32, Le Neve was living with me at 39, Hilldrop Crescent. The first time she came there was the Wednesday night, February 2. From that night on she was with me probably two or three nights, perhaps more, out of the week, but when she came to stay permanently with me I should not like to say. All I know is that it was shortly before Easter. When she brought her clothes from Mrs. Jackson's to my house was some time before Easter. I am sure that Le Neve slept at Hilldrop Crescent on the night of February 2. When I wrote Exhibit 32 I believe I had arranged to go to Dieppe with Le Neve for Easter. There was no question of my "wanting to wipe ray wife off the slate before I went"; I felt that
something was necessary to stop all the worry that I was having with inquiries; I do not know whether I had at that time fixed the date at which I would announce that I had heard that my wife had died. I did not consider the pain that the announcement of her death would give to her intimate friends. I cannot say when I put on mourning dress; it would be soon after the announcement of the death—soon after my return from Dieppe. (Questioned as to the letter to Dr. Burroughes of April 5 (Exhibit 31), and asked as to his imagination being equal to the "awful shock" mentioned in the letter, witness said, "I don't see why you keep on asking these questions, because I am not denying any of this; I am willing to admit that these were all lies right through.") I did not think that my wife would write to Mrs. Burroughs or Mrs. Martinetti, because she herself had told me to cover up any scandal; she would not have said that if she had intended writing to her friends. I believed she had gone to Bruce Miller at Chicago. To get to Chicago she would go via New York or Philadelphia or Boston or Quebec. In New York there were living her two sisters and her step-sister and some intimate friends; for al I knew she might have called upon them, but I did not think she would: if she had run off with another man she would not have the face to call on them. My letters were not written in the certainty that she would never be seen again alive; they were all in the sequence of lies that I was carrying on. I was carrying on this deception for the sake of both of us; for my own part, I did not wish friends here to think that I had treated her so badly that she had left me. True, I was with Le Neve, but not going about with her publicly, except the one occasion of the ball. The "scandal" I was covering up was the scandal of the separation from my wife; I can give no further explanation. I had been living at 39, Hilldrop Crescent for five and a half years; during all that time the floor of the cellar had not been disturbed to my knowledge; I was not always at home, and there were many times when my wife was out of the house for hours. I have been in the cellar; we had gas fires upstairs and only used coal in the kitchen range at times; occasionally I brought coal from the cellar. I know that these remains were found in the cellar; I was told so by my solicitor when I was brought back to England. So far as I know they were not put there during my tenancy; I do not say that it is impossible, because there were times when both I and my wife were away; I admit that it is improbable that without my knowledge or my wife's the remains could have been put there during our tenancy, but there is the possibility. The two suits of pyjamas (Exhibit 76) are mine; I bought them myself at Jones Brothers in September, 1909; I usually had three pairs at a time; the odd trousers, Exhibit 48, is part of a suit I had before I bought Exhibit 76, probably a long time previously, but after I went to Hilldrop Crescent: it would be shortly after I went there. I usually had at one time a set of three suits: there should be another suit belonging to Exhibit 76 to complete the set; Exhibit 48 is the only remains of the set of three I had previously purchased. My wife never bought pyjamas for me: I bought my own. It is not the fact that
my wife bought the suit of pyjamas of which Exhibit 48 is the trousers at Jones Brothers' winter sale on January 5, 1909; (on being pressed) I won't say she did not buy them; she bought me some; I do not know whether she bought these or not; when I said just now that she never bought any for me, I should not have put it so positively. I will not swear that Exhibit 48 is not part of a suit bought by my wife on January 5, 1909, but I think this is not a recent pair of trousers at all. (Looking at the fragments of a pyjama jacket in the jars, Exhibits 79 and 80, witness admitted that they appeared to be a similar pattern to Exhibit 48.) At almost every sale, say in September, January, and midsummer, there were pyjamas bought either by me or my wife; I cannot say what lot this comes from. (Q. I put it to you that these three suits, one of them incomplete, were manufactured in November, 1906, and that the cloth of which they were made never came into existence before November, 1908?—I can only say that I do not think it is possible that this one is part of the set, for the reason that it is so much worn, and the others are not.) I first made up my mind to leave London the morning after Dew called on me, July 9; after what he said to me I thought, well, if there is all this suspicion and I am likely to have to stay in gaol for months and months and months, perhaps, until this woman is found, I had better be out of it. I really thought that I might be kept in prison for months, on suspicion. Dew had told me that the woman had disappeared and must be found. I did not understand the law enough to say on what ground I could be kept in prison; I have read or heard of people being arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the disappearance of other people; I cannot put it in legal phrase; I cannot define the charge, except that if I could not find the woman I might very likely be held until she was found; that was my idea. No other idea than that entered my head; if I could not produce the woman Dew had told me that I should be in serious trouble. That was the reason why, after seeing Dew, I contemplated fleeing from the country—that, and the idea that I had said that Le Neve was living with me; she had told her people that she was married to me, and it would put her in a terrible position. The only idea I could think of was to take her away out of the country, where she would not have this scandal thrown upon her. I had not made up my mind to go when I said to Miss Kernow, "If anything should happen to me, give the envelopes to Miss Le Neve." After Dew left me on the 8th I studied the whole matter over and consulted Le Neve as to what she would like to do, and on the following morning I made up my mind to leave. I thought I was in danger of arrest and I fled the country, in a false name, shaving off my moustache, leaving off wearing glasses in public, taking Le Neve with me, also in a false name, posing as my son; we went to Brussels and Antwerp, staying at hotels together as Mr. and Master Robinson. When Dew boarded the "Montrose" at Father Point I recognised him at once, although he was disguised as a pilot; I had not expected to see him. Up to that time I had not thought about what charge would be made against me. Dew said, "Good morning, Dr. Crippen, I am Inspector Dew"; I said, "Good morning, Mr.
Dew." If he then said, "You will be arrested for the murder and mutilation of your wife, Cora Crippen, in London on or about February 2," I would not say that I took that in; I did not pay much attention to what he said, because I was in such a confusion; I was so very much surprised and confused that I did not quite have my right senses. The Canadian officer, McCarthy, cautioned me. I realised that I was being arrested for the murder of my wife; I remember hearing that. Up to that time I believed that she was alive. I did not question Dew as to how he knew that she was dead: I put no question at all; I made no reply. Just later I did say to him, "I am not sorry, the anxiety has been too much"; I meant the anxiety of thinking that I might be pursued from London; I still say that I did not understand the nature of the charge which would be brought against me, yet I had felt anxiety. When the handcuffs were put on me because as I was told I had written that I would commit suicide, and I said, "I won't, I am more than satisfied, because the anxiety has been too awful," I meant the same thing. When I said to Dew, "It is only fair to say that Le Neve knows nothing about it," that was after the warrant had been read to me, and I knew, by the warrant, that she was charged jointly with me with the murder. I did not mean by "nothing about it" that she knew nothing of the murder; I meant that she knew nothing about any of the circumstances beyond what I have already said that I had told her. By "it" I referred to the disappearance and the lies that I had told, which I knew would throw me under suspicion, from what Dew had told me; I had never told her about my lies or my letters or the suspicious circumstances which brought about my arrest. As to how I induced her to disguise herself as a boy and cut her hair short, I told her that Dew had said that there would be serious trouble if I did not find Mrs. Crippen. Le Neve told me that she had made a statement, the same as I had; I explained to her that that statement involved her in describing that she lived with me, and that my statement gave the same, and that there would be a scandal which would turn her folks against her, and that Dew had said that if I did not produce Mrs. Crippen there would be trouble for me, and the only way I saw for us would be to escape this by going away to another place where we could be alone and start a new life together; that is all I told her to persuade her to do that. As to Exhibit 2, the quartermaster suggested that I should leave something to show that I was going to jump overboard; it was his suggestion, but it was my idea to put it as I did on this card; the language was entirely my own. I wrote the card on the day before Dew arrived. The first communication from the quartermaster came without any invitation from me. About noon on July 30 he told me he had a letter to give me at three o'clock. At that hour I went to the wheelhouse and he handed me a letter which stated that the captain knew who I was, and that the police were coming to arrest me at Quebec; then he said that if I liked he would stow me away and smuggle me ashore at Montreal. The letter was not signed, and I returned it to the quartermaster; he seemed afraid to trust me with it. There were
four quartermasters on the ship; this one was a rather taller man than I am, very thick-set, dark, and wore a moustache. I should have no difficulty in distinguishing him if I saw him. He did not tell me what I was going to be arrested for; I had no idea, beyond the suspicions I have mentioned. I intended Exhibit 2 to be found in my berth, and that Le Neve should say she found it the next morning; the idea was that when it was handed to the police they would believe it and understand what it meant. As to the phrase, "I cannot stand the horrors I go through every night any longer," I had the fear of arrest, but I was not going through any "horrors"; it was purely imaginative. I meant the police to understand that by "horrors" I referred to the dread of arrest. It was not the fact, as stated on the card, that "money had come to an end"; I had 70 dollars left and about £90 worth of diamonds. The words at the end of the card are all pretence. I should not put upon the card the interpretation that I was confessing guilt and had in consequence of guilt jumped overboard; I can hardly answer as to what interpretation the card would bear to the police. This explanation of the cards I gave in the box for the first time yesterday; I could not give it before because I was not previously in the witness box. I got into communication with the solicitor now defending me by a cablegram from him to me at Quebec on August 2 and 3; I saw him the day after I arrived in London, and he has been conducting my defence ever since. I do not remember being asked, before the magistrate, whether I desired to make a statement or to give evidence. At my first interview with my solicitor I told him my story about the quarter-master and I left it entirely in his hands. I do not know that since then the "Montrose" has been twice in England; I read in the papers that she was here once. So far as I know, no effort has been made to bring this quartermaster here. I quite understand that if my wife could be found I should be at once acquitted. I have not taken any steps to find her; so far as I know no steps have been taken. I have left myself entirely in my solicitor's hands; I could not make any efforts myself. While I was detained in Quebec I saw Mrs. Ginnett, a great friend of my wife's; she came into the room where I was and sat quite near to me; I heard her speak to Inspector McCarthy; I understood her to ask him if she could speak to me, and I thought he said no; she did not speak to me, and I did not speak to her because I thought I should not be allowed to do so. Mrs. Ginnett is an American, with her headquarters in New York; if my wife is alive and in America, I suppose Mrs. Ginnett could try to find her, but I did not speak to her, because I supposed I could not. There are also living in New York my wife's step-father, half-sister, and sister; no application was made to them to find my wife. I did suggest to Dew, when he was with me in Hilldrop Crescent, whether he could not find her by applying to the police in Chicago; that was when the advertisement, Exhibit 41, was prepared, which was left behind by me Miss Lilian Hawthorne (Mrs. Nash) was a great friend of my wife's; I have not seen her since my arrest. I saw her on June
28; at that time I was representing that my wife had gone to America and had died there; I do not know that I affected to be much distressed when I gave this information; I was not "sobbing with grief." It was early in January this year that I first thought of prescribing hyoscine for my patients; I had first known of it in 1885. Here in London I had been prescribing for patients for a very long time; I mean, I had been prescribing Munyon's remedies. I had been treating patients chiefly for ear troubles for a long time, but not in a general way. Before January, 1910, I had patients for whom I prescribed; I only made it an occasional rule of doing so for three or six months before then. I did it through the post, getting into touch with the patients through the letters answering Munyon's advertisements. I saw very few patients personally; mostly it was by correspondence. The remedies were sent off by a girl called Maggie, the despatching clerk; she would get the addresses from the letters, which would be kept and be in existence now. I think my solicitor has been in communication with Munyons, as to producing these letters. I was prescribing for these patients hyoscine, as a medicine, to be administered through the mouth; that would be for nervous diseases, coughs of a septic character, and asthmatic complaints. (Q.—Is there any pharmacopoeia or medical work that you can refer to which advises the administration of hyoscine through the mouth for any disease whatever?—I think in Hempel and Arndt's Dictionary of Homoeopathic Therapeutics you will find mention of hyoscyamine as being used for nervous diseases in homoeopathic quantities.—Q. Hyoscine and hyoscyamine are two different things; I am asking about hyoscine 7—I—I think you will find it in Hempel and Arndt; I have not seen the book for ten or fifteen years; it is in several volumes. The Lord Chief Justice pointed out that this was a vital part of the case, and suggested to Mr. Tobin that, if there was any book in which hyoscine was prescribed as a medicine to be administered through the mouth, it should be produced.) Of the five grains of hyoscine that I bought on January 19 I made up as I have described about two-thirds; the remainder I left in the office, and it should be there now; I think my solicitor went there to look for it, but he told me he could not find any of the bottles I left behind me. I left the hyoscine in a cabinet in my private room, Room 58, Albion House. Up to about three weeks before I left no one but myself used that room; then a dental chair was put in, and it was occasionally used as an extra room for dental patients by an assistant, Mr. Coulthard. I purchased this hyoscine for perfectly legitimate purposes. Looking at Lewis and Burrows' Poisons Register, I see the "name of purchaser" is given as "Munyon's, per H. H. Crippen." Munyon's were not the purchasers; I was the purchaser, but I always bought my drugs in that way. The "address of purchaser" is given as "Rooms 57-61, Albion House"; that includes my own offices as well as Munyon's. The "purpose for which required" is given as "homoeopathic preparations." I have none of these "preparations" left; they were all sent out as they were made. I do not know whether there is anyone here to whom I sold the preparations; my solicitor has been looking to that matter.
Re-examined. From the time of my arrival in England I have been in prison. I saw my present solicitor the day after I arrived, and since then he has had the entire conduct of my defence, and looked after my interests; I have left everything to him. I have been making up prescriptions for patients, off and on, for 17 or 18 years. (A number of graduated glasses and tubes were handed to witness, and he said that they were similar to those he had been in the habit of using.) One of the preparations I used to send out was called "Ohrsorb"—a combination of the German word "ohr" (ear), and the English word "absorb"; it was a prescription for deafness; "ohrsorb" did not contain hyoscine. I communicated with patients in writing, and received letters from them. The letters in the bundle now handed to me are from patients; they would not necessarily refer to "hyoscine," but there should be plenty referring to preparations containing hyoscine, for instance, "Special Nerve Remedy." (Witness picked out a letter from a Mr. Mac Sweeney, dated August, 1909; on the back of it, in the writing of the despatching clerk, was "4s. 6d. Spl. Blood and Nerve Tonic." That, said witness, was the "Special Nerve Remedy" he referred to, which contained hyoscine; there should be many other letters.) I did not buy hyoscine in England before January 9, 1910; I then bought it because I wanted to prepare some special nerve remedies for very obstinate cases of nerve diseases—spasmodic ailments.
To the Court. I agree generally with the description of my wife given by the witnesses here; to the outside world she was an amiable and pleasant and popular woman, bright and vivacious; occasionally she had quarrels with her friends, and would not speak to them for a bit; the "skeleton in the house," her quarrel with me, was not known to her friends. She was very anxious to wear jewellery and fine clothes. I had no idea of her leaving me until on February 1 I came home and found she had gone; she had threatened it so often before in her temper that I thought this was the same as usual. I went through the house, and in the back bedroom where she kept most of her things there were clothes strewn around. I was not able to tell what clothes she had taken away; she had an immense quantity of clothes; I could not swear that she had taken away any trunk; I did not miss any trunk or any quantity of clothes. Except for a few rings and the watch that she had before we married, she had left behind in her bedroom all her jewellery. I did not take any steps to find out where she had gone, because she had so often threatened to go. Up to July 8 I had no idea of changing my name, or of disguising myself or Le Neve. I had no reason to think that any charge had been made against me. Except the series of wicked lies I had told I had nothing to disturb my mind in any way. All that occurred to alarm me on July 8 was Dew's telling me that if I could not find my wife there would be very serious trouble in store for me. He repeated that in two or three different forms, but that is the gist of what he said to me. I do not know that there is anything uncommon in a woman who has gone wrong or got into relationship with another man leaving her husband, but I am very sensitive to any censure or any scandal of that kind. I did
not think of any specific charge that would be brought against me, except that I might be arrested and held on suspicion. I do not know law at all, but I have been a reader of romances to a great extent, and I had an idea that I might be arrested and held on suspicion till she was found; that was my motive in going away. Up to Dew's coming into ray office I had no suspicion or fear of any kind. As to the pyjamas (Exhibits 79 and 80), if they were bought after 1905 I cannot explain how they could have got into the cellar; I have not the slightest idea. I never kept a prescription book or wrote out prescriptions; homoeopathic physicians do not do that. When I speak of prescribing for patients, I mean preparing and sending out medicines; "prescribe" is a wrong word. I never bought hyoscine in England until January 19, nor since. I have still some left, although I was going on prescribing hyoscine between January 19 and July 8. The cabinet in my private room was not kept locked (except that the offices were locked up at night). In the cabinet there would be other poisons, aconite, gelsemium, belladonna, etc. Of the money obtained by pawning jewellery I spent the greater part on advertisements; the accounts would be found in my office. I have none here. None of the people to whom I paid money after January 31 are here. The first I heard of my present solicitor was by a cablegram from him to me in Quebec; I had known him previously only by repute. One of my friends here, whom I can name, had asked him to cable to me. I immediately replied asking him to defend me; since then I have told him everything I could, and left myself in his hands. When Dew saw me on July 8 I realised the importance to me of finding my wife; I then believed her to be alive. The advertisement I prepared (Exhibit 41) I left behind because, as I was going away, I thought it no use my bothering. I dropped the matter at once when I went away. I thought that when I was out of England the police would not trouble any more about the matter; I did not think the case was of sufficient importance to them for that. The reason I went to Canada via Antwerp was that I could get a cheap trip that way; I had been that way before, but I did not know the time the boat sailed until I got to Antwerp.
To the jury. I do not remember the contents of Hempel and Arndt's book as to the quantities of hyoscine recommended.
The Lord Chief Justice. Can you point to any book which tells people the safe quantity of hyoscine, as distinguished from the dangerous quantity, that can be administered by the mouth?—I will deal with it in this way; there are two classes of medicines, allopathic and homoeopathic—Will you first answer the question?—I cannot answer it.
Can you mention any book which tells the safe quantity to be used?—The British Pharmacopoeia tells the safe quantity. The allopathic books give a specific dose; the homoeopathic books simply say "an infinitesimal dose," meaning a very minute dose, like a ten-thousandth of a grain.
Will you call attention to any book which recommends hyoscine as a drug to be taken internally?—Hempel and Arndt's is the only one I can think of at the present time.
GILBERT MAIKLAND TURNBULL . I am director of the Pathological Institute at the London Hospital and a member of the Pathological Society of Great Britain. The Pathological Institute is the largest in the United Kingdom. Under my supervision in 1907, 1908, 1909, the average number of post-mortem examinations was 1,251, and under my supervision complete microscopic investigations are carried out. I devote my time to that work and the microscopical examination of material sent down by the surgeons. I saw the piece of skin and flesh on September 9 and on October 15 and 17. On the first occasion a cut had been made from one side to the other of the horseshoe mark, including the so-called scar. Three slices had also been made. My microscopical examination of the specimens enables me to say that what has been called a scar cannot possibly be one. The grounds of my opinion are that I find certain structures which have never been found in a scar before. There are two groups of hair follicles or sheaths in which the hairs are visible in cross section. There are also in two of the sections in relation to these hairs a small piece of a sebaceous gland, and another larger piece of the same sebaceous or fatty gland in another section. A bay of subcutaneous fat is also found within the area described as a scar. This bay, or the upper process of the fatty tissue, which lies below the true skin, is an important landmark, because it is found in all the slices. What is described as a scar is due to the skin having been folded over and something having been between the fold, and thus producing pressure, which dried the skin at the fold. The marks of the pattern of some material can be seen even by the eye—without the microscope. Examining the cut edges of the two grooves, one finds the same appearances. There would be no reason for a scar having this clear, transparent, horny appearance which both these cut surfaces have; it is not the appearance of a scar in section at all; it is due to drying from the folding.
Cross-examined. I am a qualified surgeon, but I never do any surgery. I cannot say definitely what part of the body the piece of skin and flesh under discussion comes from, but I have a very good idea. After my last examination, I consider that the origin from the lower part of the abdomen is the most satisfactory. I do not disagree that it comes from the lower part. With my experience, and to the best of my honest judgment, I would say that it comes from the abdomen. When I first examined that piece of flesh I formed a different opinion as to the part of the body it had come from, or, rather, I did not give a definite opinion. I put my opinion in writing. I have not been present during the evidence of the medical witnesses on the other side; it was not quite because I did not wish to be present; I was not asked to come. I had said at the very beginning, when I was asked to undertake this examination, that I hoped it would not mean having to give evidence. I was promised that I would not be called at all as a witness. I went to see these remains on that understanding. Before I gave my first opinion I was promised I should not be called as a witness. The medical witnesses for the prosecution have been cross-examined on what I stated in my report to the defence. I only know of the reasons they have since given for their
opinions from seeing a copy of the depositions. I did not hear the questions put or the answers given. I admit that I altered my opinion after I had seen the reasons they gave for their opinions. In the opinion which I first gave I said that I thought there was an absence of the aponeuroses characteristic of the abdomen. There are aponeuroses there, or there were. My opinion now is that this is the lower part of the abdominal wall. I did find present the rectus abdominis; that muscle is in life attached to the pubic bone by a tendon. I do not find there part of the tendon which attached that muscle to the pubic bone. (Dr. Spilsbury was then asked to point out to the witness what was suggested to be the tendon in question, and did so.) It is not where I should expect it from the dissections I have made.
Your last answer is that the abdominal muscle is attached to the pubic bone by the tendon. Do you say that it is there or not?—I do not think this is it.
You say you do not find it?—There is a tendon there, and, if the muscle is the rectus, it is.
Do you find that tendon there or not?—Yes.
Have you any doubt that this piece of skin is part of the abdomen?—Yes.
What part of the body do you suggest it comes from if not from the abdomen?—I have told you, but I do not think you can have a better explanation.
What part does it come from if not from the abdomen?—From the upper part of the thigh.
Will you read what you said in your original report about this piece of flesh not coming from the abdominal wall?—"We are of opinion that that skin does not come from the abdomen for the following reasons." (The reasons given were that it was too coarse and the sebaceous glands were too large and too prominent; that the structure of the muscles and the arrangement of their fibres would not be easily accounted for, and that the aponeurosis was not present.) That was the joint opinion of Dr. Wall and myself. Our examination of the specimen before expressing this opinion occupied about twenty minutes.
And you now tell us that the characteristic aponeurosis is present in that piece of skin?—Yes. I find there some transverse muscles on the left side on the deepest surface of the specimen. If these correspond with the fibres of the internal oblique muscle and the transversalis muscle of the abdomen, that would show beyond question that they came from the abdominal wall; it is really impossible to say whether they do correspond. There are several methods of stitching the abdominal wall used in America by which the stitches do not come to the surface except at the beginning and at the end. There would be only one stitch there if that method of operation were used. I do not find the mark of a stitch there. It is not a common thing for part of the epidermis to be enfolded when the abdominal wall has been divided and sewn up again, but I have seen it happen in a few cases. The surgeon always takes some instrument and turns
the edges up to prevent that after he has put in the suture. It is not common, but I have seen the edges turned in.
The result of the edges being turned is that a bit of the epidermis gets enfolded or below the folds of the scar?—I have only read of that. I have never seen it. I am familiar with the appearance of such a case, but not from operation; from accidents it is very familiar.
Are you familiar with the appearances of a scar where the epidermis has got enfolded below the folds of the scar?—Yes; but not an operation scar—an accident scar. The appearances are similar. I have never seen that at all in the case of an operation scar.
Then you cannot tell me what takes place when such a wound heals?—Yes, I have seen the phenomena when, for instance, a man has fallen upon his hand here and cut his hand, causing an incision like an operation, and it has been allowed to heal, and he has got such an included epidermis—from an accidental incision, not an operation incision. That is the nearest I have ever come to seeing such a case.
I put it to you that the inclusion of epidermis in the incision made for the purposes of an operation might be easily mistaken for sebaceous glands?—For one it might be, but not easily; I disagree from what I have read, and I think we must learn. It might be mistaken for one sebaceous gland, but not for more.
I do not quite see why if it may be mistaken for one it may not be mistaken for two, if there happen to be two included in the piece of flesh?—I know the appearance of these inclusions, because I know that the accidental ones are similar to those in operations. I have never seen one in an operation scar, but I have read, of course, about them; and such an inclusion might be mistaken by somebody unaccustomed to the microscope.
Do not talk about people unaccustomed to the microscope; we are talking about people like Dr. Spilsbury. I am suggesting to you that persons accustomed to the microscope might be deceived?—No, I will not agree to that.
Epidermis is composed of cells called epithelial cells. May those cells be mistaken for sebaceous glands?—I think not.
Or for hair follicles?—Yes; the cells binding hair follicles have a similar appearance.
Might the one be mistaken for the other if included in a clean scar?—Would you repeat the question to me.
Mr. Muir. No, sir, I won't.
Continuing, witness said. The horny appearance is due to drying.
The first occasion we saw it was on September 9. It had been out of the grave since July 14. The skin might have dried between those two dates.
Re-examined. From start to finish I have never wavered in my opinion that the mark is not a scar.
The Lord Chief Justice. You said in your first report that you and Dr. Wall were of opinion that the aponeuroses so characteristic of the abdominal wall were not present. When did you change that
opinion?—After I had done a great many dissections and had macerated certain portions of the abdominal wall to see whether these aponeuroses would lose what I thought were their characteristics. I definitely wrote a different opinion after the second examination on October 15.
Up to that time you had let the defence be under the opinion that what you thought was the absence of aponeuroses was conclusive against its being the lower part of the stomach?—I had asked if we could not see the specimen again to confirm our opinion.
You have read out a statement in your report that the skin and attached flesh came not from the lower part of the abdomen but from what you call the root of the thigh. When did you first communicate to the defence that that opinion of yours had changed?—On October 15.
The Lord Chief Justice here asked Mr. Pepper to go to the witness-box and show Dr. Turn bull the dimensions of what he called the scar. Mr. Pepper said that at the bottom the scar measured 7/8 inch. About 1 3/4 inch higher up it measured 1/2 inch, and 1/4 inch at the top of such part of the scar as the skin found showed.
The Lord Chief Justice. Now, Dr. Turnbull, is it in accordance with your experience that the mark of a scar from ovariotomy is wider at the lower part of the abdomen than higher up?—No.
Have you read that one of the witnesses here said that he had performed many hundreds of operations, and that the scar, as a rule, was wider at the bottom than it was at the top?—I read that, but do not agree with it. I have never performed any operation myself, but I have examined a great number. In my experience it is untrue to say they are generally wider at the bottom than at the top. The fact that there is that difference of breadth in this scar does affect my judgment. If it is said to be a stretched scar I should have thought it would be stretched to its widest in a different position.
I am talking about the scar on the lower part of the woman's stomach?—It might be stretched 1 inch. The fact that the mark is wider at the bottom is, in my opinion, an argument against its being a scar.
Do you say that a mark of that kind could be caused by folding—that is to say, a mark which is wider at the bottom and narrows up?—Yes.
REGINALD CECIL GLYNE WALL . I am an M.A., M.D. of Oxford, F.R.C.P. Lond., and M.R.C.S. I obtained the Andrew Clark prize in medicine and pathology at the London Hospital. I am an assistant physician there, and at the Brompton Hospital for Consumption. Until the beginning of this year I was one of the pathologists at the London Hospital, and I am one of the examiners in materia medica at the Apothecaries' Hall. I am also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine and of the Medical Society of London, and the author of various medical works. For two years I have been Demonstrator of Physiology at the London Hospital. I saw the piece of skin and flesh in question, first on September 9, secondly on October 15, and thirdly on October 17. I was present when the incision was made across each limb of the so-called horseshoe, the site of what was said to be a scar, but not when the pieces were removed for examination. My examination
of the skin on October 15 commenced at 11.30 and finished at 4.15. It was not a microscopical examination, simply with the eye and a hand Jens. At the second examination on October 17 I and Dr. Turnbull saw the piece of skin for a short time to identify certain points that we wanted to confirm, and the remainder of the time we were present we were examining the microscopic sections prepared by Dr. Spilsbury. The time spent over that examination was a little over two hours. As the result of my examination I concluded there was no scar. I could not see on inspection by the naked eye or with the hand lens such an appearance as I should have expected to find if there had been a scar in that situation. I found appearances which I could explain much more easily on the supposition that the skin had been folded in that region. Secondly, after the incision which had been made by Mr. Pepper, I did not on examining the cut surfaces of the edges of the skin find such an alteration in structure as I should have expected had there been originally a scar, and on comparing the cut surface at the site where the scar was alleged to be I did not find that the appearance of the cut surface differed from the appearance of the cut surface of the other part of the flesh, where it is admitted there is no scar. As to the differences one would have expected to find, that is a very different question to answer. The different new tissue may assume various appearances in different circumstances. All that I should have expected would be that it presented a different appearance—not the same appearance. On examination with the naked eye I saw no structures which could not occur in a scar, but on microscopical examination I observed in the region called a scar traces of hair follicles, five in number, and a sebaceous gland; outside that region there were other hairs and other sebaceous glands, similar in appearance to those in the so-called scar. The skin appears to have been rolled over twice, perhaps accidentally. I think that between part of the fold there must have been some substance, some fabric, and that something must have prevented the skin unrolling.
If rolled over twice, as has been described, what would keep it in that position until the superincumbent weight comes upon it?—It might have been rolled over by something falling upon it.
You think it could have been rolled over twice by something?—I think it is very easy to explain it in that way. I have not been in, attendance at this trial, nor read the official shorthand notes; but I have been supplied with the depositions taken at the police-court and with a very full newspaper report of the evidence here.
Cross-examined. For the medical details given by the expert witnesses for the Crown, either at the police court or here, I have been dependent on newspaper reports. I have heard Dr. Turnbull to-day examined and cross-examined; I agree with what he said, practically entirely; there is no essential detail—I think no detail at all—in which I disagree with him. I believe that at the police court questions were put to the Crown experts which were based upon the joint report of Dr. Turnbull and myself. In that report we stated that the aponeuroses characteristic of the abdominal wall were not present; I do not agree that that is equivalent to saying that aponeuroses were entirely absent, because there are aponeuroses in all parts of the body.
I will admit that we modified our opinion as to the absence of the characteristic aponeurosis. At the time I was asked to make an examination of the remains, nothing was said as to my giving or not giving evidence. There was a further examination at the joint request of Dr. Turnbull and myself, after we had read the evidence of Dr. Spilsbury, Mr. Pepper, and Dr. Willcox. We were asked to give evidence on October 15; this was after we had made the second examination, but before we had made the third. We made a fresh report, a verbal report, not a written one, in which we said that we were not so certain that this piece of skin did not come from the abdominal wall. My opinion now is that it may have come from the abdominal wall; there is not sufficient evidence to say definitely where it comes from, but I think it does come from the abdominal wall, probably. The two parts of the body from which it may be derived, as we thought when we first saw the piece of skin, were the lower part of the abdomen and the upper part of the thigh on the inner side. We reported that in our opinion it probably did not come from the abdominal wall. That opinion we have modified. With all our present lights, with what we now know about the aponeurosis, I cannot say I have no doubts that it came from the abdominal wall; I am not absolutely certain.
Dr. ALEXANDER WYNTER BLYTH, member of the Royal College of Surgeons, a Fellow of the Institute of Chemistry, Fellow of the Chemical Society, etc. I am the author of a work entitled "Poisons, their Effects and Detection." Referring to the statement made by Dr. Willcox yesterday that going through the ordinary processes he at last extracted a gummy substance, I do not agree that a gummy substance is characteristic of hyoscine and not of hyoscyamine, atropine, or any animal alkaloid. You can have a gummy substance in extracting various alkaloids. Often the slightest impurity—especially with regard to hyoscyamine—causes it not to crystallise. By the term "gummy substance" I presume is meant something that is not crystalline—a sticky substance. Dr. Willcox said that hyoscyamine might crystallise, hyoscine did not; I disagree with that emphatically. Hyoscyamine may crystallise. Hyoscine is very difficult to crystallise under any circumstances.
It is said that atropine crystallises and hyoscyamine crystallises, but hyoscine does not. Do you agree with that or not?—I do; that would be in a pure state. I agree that Vitali's test is characteristic of the vegetable alkaloids, but I have had no experience of a mydriatic alkaloid obtained from animal tissues. Whether those alkaloids react to the test or not I do not know. No one knows. It does give the purple colour in the three vegetable mydriatic alkaloids, but I have had no experience of its giving it in animal alkaloids.
Dr. Willcox said that small round spheres were produced. Are those round spheres characteristic of hyoscine alone, or are they also found with hyoscyamine and atropine?—I have not been able to get them. I have attempted to get what Dr. Willcox has stated, but I must confess that I have not been able to distinguish between
atropine, hyoscyamine, and hyoscine by hydrochloric acid, as Dr. Willcox has done. No one knows whether those round spheres may be produced at last in the case of animal alkaloids.
Dr. Willcox told us that in the lungs, which were most decomposed, he found a trace only of any alkaloid—so small a trace that he could not say if it was animal or vegetable. If it was animal, would you expect that he would find most of the animal alkaloid in the most decomposed part, the lungs?—I should not have expected go, because animal alkaloids arise, it is well known, at a particular stage of putrefaction, and when that stage is passed any animal alkaloid that has been produced becomes more or less destroyed, so that in the same decomposing tissue at different times of its putrefaction you would never expect to find the same amount. It has gone a stage beyond the time of production.
Cross-examined. I have never tested a mydriatic animal alkaloid. I have read Dr. Luff's evidence; he says that he has himself found a mydriatic animal alkaloid in putrefied meat and tested it, and that it did not give the purple colour on Vitali's test. I dare say he is quite correst. I do not dispute for a moment that there may be many mydriatic alkaloids. Metaline is one of the animal mydriatic alkaloids that have been investigated, but there are others that have not been thoroughly investigated. I know of no others by specific names, only under the name of mydriatic alkaloids. There was one that was separated in 1869 by Sonschein, and he gave it no name, but it seems not to have agreed with metaline. I cannot give any name to any other animal mydriatic alkaloid but metaline, because they are unnamed. I have had no practical experience of them at all.
In your opinion, is it possible to make a mistake between animal mydriatic alkaloids and vegetable mydriatic alkaloids?—You would like me to answer "Yes" or "No," but that would not be fair. In my opinion some of them are identical, therefore it is possible to make a mistake between the two.
The following extract from his book on "Poisons" was put to the witness: "A ptomain may be considered as a basic chemical substance derived from the action of bacteria in nitrogenous substances. If this definition is accepted, a ptomain is not necessarily formed in dead animal tissue; it may be produced in the living, and in all cases is the product of bacterial life. A ptomain is not necessarily poisonous; many are known which are in moderate doses quite innocuous. When researches were first published there was some anxiety, since the existence of ptomains would seriously interfere with the detection of poisoning generally, because some were said to be like strychnine, others like alloxantine, and so forth. Further research has conclusively shown that at present no ptomain is known which so closely resembles a vegetable poison as to be likely in skilled hands to cause confusion." Asked whether that was correct, witness said: No, not absolutely so; I have altered my opinion since I wrote that book. I have not published my alteration of opinion; I have not yet had an opportunity, not even in a paper read before any society. I have
altered my opinion lately, during this month, in reading up the various papers—foreign papers; in connection with this case, of course, obviously; I will say for the purposes of this case. I think there is strong evidence that there is in putrefying tissues a substance very much resembling the mydriatic alkaloids produced. I have read that Dr. Luff said that it was impossible to mistake vegetable for animal alkaloids if you properly applied Vitali's test. I disagree with that entirely, because some of the Italian chemists declare that they have got different reactions. I forget the names of the chemists; there is one Giotti; I have not searched their original papers; I have only seen extracts.
The Lord Chief Justice. Can you refer to any book, up to any date you like, which says that animal alkaloids will give the purple colour under Vitali's test?—I have no book.
The jury having desired an opportunity of examining more minutely than was possible in their box the piece of skin and flesh, the Lord Chief Justice and the jury went into an adjoining court for that purpose; there were also present the prisoner, Mr. Oddie, Mr. Tobin, Mr. Pepper, and Dr. Turnbull, with the shorthand-writer to the Court.
Mr. Pepper pointed out what he declared to be the mark of a scar, and further a white line in the very centre of the scar, from bottom to top, which in his opinion was absolutely the mark of a knife. Dr. Turnbull disagreed; in his opinion this was simply the apex of the fold, a sharp depression, similar to what was to be seen on the other side. Mr. Pepper said that the scars of cuts tended to get shorter with age, up to the actual closing up of the stitches; a scar then about four inches long would represent a wound originally about six inches long. Dr. Turnbull agreed that scars would tend to shorten, but not to that extent; they would not stretch, but they would get a very minimum amount of shortening. Asked to explain how the portion of the skin could have been rolled over twice, Dr. Turnbull said it might have been done in the throwing of earth over the remains; the elasticity of the flesh would quite permit of that explanation. Mr. Pepper adhered to his opinion that it was quite impossible that this could have been folded over twice.
The proceedings in the public court were resumed.
Mr. Muir applied for leave to call additional evidence upon two points. With regard to the pyjamas, no statement at all was made as to when prisoner had acquired them until he went into the witness box; before that stage of the trial it was impossible for the prosecution to deal with the question of data. The prosecution now desired to call evidence as to the date of sale, and also evidence as to the manufacture of the material from which the pyjamas were made.
The Lord Chief Justice. As to the date of sale to the prisoner, I shall allow you to call evidence. I shall not allow evidence as to manufacture unless it bears directly upon the question of sale.
Mr. Muir. It does. The second point is as to prisoner's story of his arrangement with the quartermaster on the "Montrose." I desire to call evidence as to the dates on which the "Montrose" has been in English ports since prisoner's arrest, to show that he had opportunities of getting the quarter-master here.
The Lord Chief Justice. I think that is a little too remote. Prisoner has said that he knew she was here once.
Mr. Tobin objected to the calling of fresh evidence as to the pyjamas. The information the prosecution now sought to get in was, he presumed, in their possession before this trial began; if notice had been given to prisoner's advisers they would have had opportunity of inquiring into the matter.
The Lord Chief Justice. I am quite sure that if it had been in their possession you would have had notice of it. In my judgment the point now raised as to the possible date of purchase of the pyjamas was not put to the witnesses for the Crown, and this evidence is clearly admissible. I think it right to say—because there is sometimes a misunderstanding about this—that the question of notice is never conclusive as to whether evidence is admissible. It is the practice of our law always to give the prisoner every notice possible; but, in every case in which the point arises as to whether evidence is material, it is for the judge to say whether or not he thinks it admissible. It does not depend on notice being given. I am quite sure that, having regard to the practice of our law and the practice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, if this point had been foreseen notice would have been given.
Mr. Tobin. My point was rather that the evidence ought not to be given at this stage when they could have given the evidence as part of their case.
The Lord Chief Justice. In my judgment the point made by Dr. Crippen—I will not say throughout his evidence, but in part of it—was not developed, in the cross-examination of the Crown witnesses either here or at the police court. It is Dr. Crippen's own evidence that makes it material.
WM. JAMES CHILVERS , buyer to Jones Brothers, Ltd., Holloway. I have seen the two pyjama suits and the pair of trousers (Exhibits 76 and 48) and recognise the material of which they were made. They were sold to us on—Mr. Tobin. I understood your Lordship to limit this additional evidence to the point whether the wife bought them on a certain date.
The Lord Chief Justice. I limited it to the question of date; this is as to the date before which they could not have been sold. I cannot exclude it.
Examination continued. They were sold to us three or four weeks before December, 1908. They were sold by us between December 29, 1908, and the end of January. 1909. I have here a sale duplicate dated January 5, 1909. On that date 17s. 9d. was paid by the purchaser in respect of goods described in the duplicate; the 17s. 9d. applies to pyjamas; the duplicate also bears items of £2 5s. 4d. and 4s.; all the goods were delivered at 39, Hilldrop Crescent. Looking at Exhibit 48, the pattern of that odd pair of trousers is different from that of the suits Exhibit 76. Looking at the fragments in the jars, Exhibits 79 and 80, they are part of a viama jacket sold by us with the trousers, Exhibit 48. The tab on 79 and 80 bears the words "Jones Brothers (Holloway), Limited, Holloway, N." Jones Brothers first became a limited company in 1906.
The witness was not cross-examined.
Mr. Tobin addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner.
(Saturday, October 22.)
Mr. Muir, in reply to the Lord Chief Justice, said that the prosecution were unable to produce the volume of Hempel and Arndt referred to by the prisoner. There was such a work; the first volume had been obtained; it only went up to the letter C. The subsequent volumes were not procurable.
HAWLEY HARVEY CRIPPEN (prisoner, on oath), recalled by the Court. I did not mention Hempel and Arndt's book to my advisers, or at all before yesterday. I was at the Bethlem Royal Hospital for the Insane. I studied there for three months. I have known hyoscine administered there. In the case of insane people there is sometimes great difficulty in swallowing, and hyoscine is given hypodermically in very small doses. I treated most of my patients by correspondence. My particular practice was in the eye, throat, nose, and ear; I also took nervous cases. I have not had cases of paralysis agitans, but I have had cases of locomotor ataxy in London, and of violent mania in America, not in London. I never saw the man MacSweeney; I sent him one of Munyon's Remedies books. I understood that he was suffering from nervous debility.
Do you know from your own practice whether in cases of paralysis agitans, locomotor ataxy, violent mania, cerebral excitement, or epilepsy, hyoscine is prescribed?—In cases where there is considerable excitement it is administered by hypodermic injections. It is given in very minute doses for relieving the irritable condition of the nerves. For nervous debility or nervous irritation it is given by the mouth.
The Judge (addressing the jury). I think, gentlemen, that that will show that this question of hypodermically or by the mouth is not of such great importance.
Prisoner then returned to the dock.
Mr. Tobin handed his lordship a book entitled "Braithwait's Retrospect of Medicine," and referred to an article in it by Dr. J. Mitchell Bruce, of Charing Cross Hospital.
The Lord Chief Justice, after reading the article, said it certainly seemed to say that in cases of hydrophobia, maniacal excitement, acute pneumonia with wild delirium, cardiac disease with wandering delirium and attempts to get out of bed, chronic Bright's disease with refusal to take food, or acute double pneumonia with delirium, one-hundredth of a grain of hyoscine was given subcutaneously (that was hypodermically), and on another page it was stated that the preparation of hyoscine might be given subcutaneously or by the mouth. "His own experience," said the writer, "was decidedly in favour of administration under the skin, which, besides being more practicable and perhaps the only method with delirious patients, was the more effective." This seemed to establish, said his lordship, that these minute doses of hyoscine were known to medical men to be given in these diseases either by the mouth or subcutaneously. It was a minor incident in the case, but it rather indicated that the question put by the jury had been perhaps too positively answered by Dr. Willcox.
Mr. Muir. Of course, Dr. Willcox was only referring to his own experience.
Mr. Muir then addressed the jury on behalf of the Crown, and the Lord Chief Justice summed up.
Verdict, Guilty of wilful murder.