news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7050714.stm

He didn't kill his wife after all. Sometimes the truth is a long time in coming...Crippen protested his innocence right up to his final moments on the gallows.

And my friend Bob Woffinden has said this for years.

It gets more and more frightening and says a lot about society.

Alas while they're sloppy to convict now,they were even worse then.
His behaviour was suspicious though,fleeing like that.I wonder if he was connected to another murder in some way?
Still with all that press gang coverage he hadn't a hope,he was tried by mass media while still onboard that boat.

I think there are a lot of comparisons with other cases. He may have fleed, the fact is he was convicted of killing his wife. Now we understand the body under his floor wasn't that of his wife. So one has to question all of the 'evidence' against him. I also hark back to JK's Shipman video...(it takes a while for it to sink in) but the demonisation of a single man...a name. Speaking with a colleague at work they assumed Crippen was some serial killer synonymous with the likes of Christie, Jack The Ripper. Seems we were just as proficient at 'demonising' people back then as we are now. It's all fitting into place isn't it?

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;)

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!!!

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.

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.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7050714.stm

Latest link