King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: Crippen...an innocent man?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
JK2006	news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7050714.stm Latest link
veritas	Anyone have a link to a good report on this story ?. They were the days of course when whatever the police said was sancrosant-the general public would never have accepted that the police would manipulate or outright lie to convict an innocent person. How many more of these cases are there ?. I'm thinking about the great investigative work done by the late journalist Paul Foot who covered so many suspect convictions in his days on Private Eye magazine including the Carl Bridgewater murder. When an innocent is convicted-image the suffering that continues. Family , relatives all pay a price, the victims of crime are dishonered along with the memory of the murdered. And the guilty gets off scott free. Overturning a conviction with the might of the establishment behind you is an almighty task. Now it's getting like that again. The police have become experts in PR-manipulating the public's perception of an accused whether they are guilty or not. And the media is a willing participant.
zooloo	The DNA was verified via her nieces which could equally mean she was adopted. The shame of illegitimacy at the time sometimes lead to children being brought up unaware of their true parentage. As the children were not her direct descendants I think "reasonable doubt" is a strong possibility. Given the fact the author has invented a "victim" suggests lack of any real evidence regarding the true identity of the body. It may or may not have been Mrs Crippen.
chrissy	He maybe 'fled' (prosecutions words?) for a number of reasons. Perhaps he was being blackmailed....who knows? Fact remains he was done for killing his wife, as they presumed it was her body under the floorboards. Now we learn it wasn't his wife. We are left with many unanswered questions...other than it would seem from the outset he didn't stand a chance. The judiciary made up its mind on 'evidence' which was evidently weak. The main flaw in the case for me is that the body wasn't his wife!!!
Solihull Exile	The difference though is that he fled the scene of the crime.That will automatically cast doubt on your innocence.Why would he flee in disguise if he was completely innocent? Maybe he murdered someone else? Maybe it was an unfortunate abortion accident? But a body is found,decapitated on his premises,and he's found fleeing??? OK it probally wasn't his wife,so a technical miscarriage of justice.But he added to it by his own hand.Still he was tried by the press,and as such that is wrong.But I do feel no sympathy as such for him due to his own actions. They never did find his wife,that's the biggest mystery...where did she go? Perhaps she was the real murderer? Oh how the plot thickens for the historical detective;)