Walter Dew: The Man Who Caught Crippen

by Connell, Nicholas

  When Crippen learned that he was to face the ferocious and daunting Richard Muir, he said despairingly, ‘It is most unfortunate that he is against me. I wish it had been anyone else but him. I fear the worst.’3 Thorough, grim and remorseless, Muir worked relentlessly in preparing his cases, leaving nothing to chance. Samuel Ingleby Oddie worked in Muir’s chambers, as well as acting as a coroner for West London. He described Muir as

  an indefatigable worker. His work was his life. He had no amusements and no relaxation. He always took work home every night, and after his evening meal and a short snooze over the paper, he drew up his chair to the table and set to work on his briefs, at which he continued nightly up to one and two in the morning. Yet he was always the first to arrive in the chambers and the last to leave.4

  Muir was sure that Crippen was guilty, and built up an impression of the man:

  He is not the ordinary type of man one would expect to commit a murder and then to cut up the body of his victim and dispose of it. Rather is he the sort of man I would expect to find running a successful swindle. He has a certain amount of craftiness and cunning, as well as considerable self-assurance.

  There is no doubt that his life with his wife had been one of unending misery, and apparently he found a good deal of relief and a certain stolen happiness with Ethel Le Neve.

  I suppose one cannot look upon the cutting up of his wife’s body as being such an outrageous or aggravating feature as it might have been with anyone else. He had more than a passing knowledge of medicine and surgery and to such a person, no doubt, the dissecting of a body would not create such a revolting impression as it would in an ordinary individual.5

  Travers Humphreys was on holiday in Filey with his wife and two sons when he was summoned back to London by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Humphreys was certain that Crippen had murdered his wife, yet he ‘could not help feeling something almost like pity for the henpecked

  little doctor’.6 He believed that Le Neve may have had ‘an inkling that something serious had happened’ when she was asked to disguise herself as a boy, but thought that had she known the full facts she would have

  immediately left Crippen.7 Despite the incredible public interest the case was creating, Humphreys thought that the evidence against Crippen was so overwhelming that, from a legal point of view, it would be ‘of little interest for the lawyer’.8

  Ingleby Oddie was given the junior brief for the Crown, chosen over Cecil Mercer because of his medical experience. As it was a poisoning case he did not rate Crippen’s chances, for his attitude was that ‘the average Englishman is a decent sort of fellow who does not like homicide and looks upon secret poisoning as a low-down dirty game, and indeed it is’.9

  Muir was unhappy that the police had allowed Crippen to flee England in the first place, and felt that since Dew had brought his prisoners back he had been less than energetic in helping to put together the case against them. He went so far as to suggest Dew ‘must be suffering from sleepy sickness’. This view was echoed by Travers Humphreys, who recalled, ‘We made more than one attempt through Dew to obtain further information, but without success.’ One of Humphreys’ biographers wrote that Muir and Humphreys ‘did much of the work usually done by the police’. Another wrote that the detective was suffering from an inflated ego upon his return to England.10

  Humphreys explained his grievances with Dew’s investigations. He began by complimenting Dew on his enquiries before Crippen’s arrest. The initial statement he had taken from Crippen was admirably done, and was ‘thorough and complete; in fact, it took the form of a very effective cross-examination. Moreover, it was probably the fear that further investigation by this highly inquisitive officer would lead to a thorough search of the premises that caused Crippen to lose his nerve and flee the country.’ However, Dew’s ‘subsequent lack of energy must be animadverted upon’.11 Humphreys visited 39 Hilldrop Crescent, and was surprised to see that Cora Crippen’s furs had remained at the house rather than being removed as evidence, and made exhibits for the trial. Humphreys was unsatisfied with Dew’s explanation of why he had left the furs at the house, and instructed him to take away the furs, as he was convinced that the jury would see them as evidence that Cora had not left for America, in the middle of winter.12

  The accusations of Dew’s tardiness were disputed by the Director of Public Prosecution’s office, who sent Macnaghten a letter on 26 October thanking Dew and Mitchell for ‘the unfailing and valuable services which they rendered to my staff, and to my Counsel, both in the investigation of these cases before the Magistrate, and at the trial of them at the Central Criminal Court’. But as both Muir and Humphreys commented on the accusations about Dew’s tardiness and supplied specific examples, there may have been something to them.

  Acting for Crippen’s defence were Alfred Tobin, Huntley Jenkins and Mr Roome, who were instructed by Crippen’s solicitor Arthur Newton. Tobin had been called to the Bar in 1880 and joined the Northern Assize circuit. He was clever, industrious and experienced. His ‘cheerful and plausible manner made him an effective defender of prisoners’,13 but he was now facing a difficult task in arguing that Crippen was not guilty of the murder of his wife.

  As ever, the case was causing huge public interest and excitement. The court had been overwhelmed by applications for tickets to attend the trial. Several thousand letters were received, most requesting two tickets, but as only about one hundred seats were available each day the majority of applicants were disappointed. Among the hopeful applicants were many titled and theatrical people who claimed to have known Cora Crippen.14

  Crippen and Le Neve were tried separately, and Crippen stood trial first. Day one of the trial began with the Clerk of the Court reading out the charge. ‘Hawley Harvey Crippen, you are indicted and also charged on the coroner’s inquisition with the wilful murder of Cora Crippen on the 1st February last. Are you guilty or not guilty?’ Crippen replied, ‘Not guilty, my lord.’

  Richard Muir made the opening statement for the Crown. Muir’s biographer described him as ‘essentially a logician: he had no patience with high-flown rhetoric, and he made it an invariable practice to open his cases so that a man of the meanest intelligence could easily understand what they were about’.15 In his opening speech the plain-speaking Muir suggested a financial motive for the murder, in addition to a ‘romantic’ one:

  The position, therefore, was this – his affection fixed upon Ethel Le Neve, and himself desirous of establishing closer relations with that young woman; the physical presence of his wife an obstacle to those relations; the fact that he had no money another obstacle. If Belle Elmore died both those obstacles would be removed, because Belle Elmore’s money, and property which could be converted into money, would enable him to keep Ethel Le Neve, which at that time he was unable to do.

  Muir continued:

  Her friends said she was a good correspondent; but from the moment that Mr. and Mrs. Martinetti left the house in the early morning of 1st February she passed out of the world which knew her as completely as if she were dead. She left behind her everything she would have left if she had died – money, jewels, furs, clothes, home, and husband. The prisoner made up his mind that she had left never to return. He at once began to convert her property, and on 12th March Ethel Le Neve, who had been seen wearing a brooch and furs belonging to Belle Elmore, went permanently to live with him at 39 Hilldrop Cresent. Crippen was therefore quite certain that his wife would never return.

  Muir then raised the question of why Crippen felt the need to flee the country if his statement to Dew had been correct, and his wife were still alive. Crippen had not so far offered any explanation. Then there was the question of who, other than Crippen, had the opportunity to bury the remains in the cellar, and why they would have been buried there if the death had been a natural one.

  Most of the first three days of the trial consisted of evidence for the prosecution. An uncomfortable Bruce Miller had been given a first-class passag
e from America to England. He testified that he had not seen Cora Crippen since April 1904, but that they corresponded occasionally. Tobin hoped to establish that Cora and Miller had been lovers, thus making it seem feasible that she would have left Crippen to join Miller in America:

  Tobin Did you ever tell her that you loved her?

  Miller Well, I do not know that I ever put it in that way.

  Tobin Did you indicate to her that you did love her?

  Miller She always understood it that way, I suppose.

  Tobin Then you did love her, I presume?

  Miller I did not mean to say that. I did not exactly love her; I thought a great deal of her as far as friendship was concerned. She was a married lady, and we will let it end at that. It was a platonic friendship.

  Tobin Do you know the difference between friendship and love?

  Miller Yes.

  Tobin Were you more than a friend, sir?

  Miller I could not be more than a friend. She was a married lady and I was a married man.

  Miller did admit to having kissed Cora, but insisted that he ‘always treated her as a gentleman, and never went any further’. While it is quite possible, or even probable, that Cora and Bruce Miller had an affair, there does not appear to be any explicit proof of the true nature of their relationship. One early writer on the Crippen case neatly explained their friendship, ‘which, if not proved guilty, at least never was proved to be innocent’.16 There was, of course, no question about Dr Crippen’s infidelity with Le Neve.

  Walter Dew had again been the first of the witnesses to arrive at the Old Bailey on the second day of the trial, when he was called to give evidence.17 A watching journalist described Dew in the witness box as ‘a slim, but well-built man, with fresh complexion, rather deeply-set eyes, iron-grey moustache and hair’.18 Dew spent more than two hours in the witness box, and began by detailing the visit to Scotland Yard of the Nashes, continuing up to his interviews with Crippen and Le Neve on 8 July. At this point Travers Humphreys read out to the court the lengthy statements that Crippen and Le Neve had given to Dew and Mitchell.

  As Dew’s testimony continued, he explained how he had searched 39 Hilldrop Crescent in the presence of Crippen, and later, in his absence, how further searching had led to the discovery of the human remains in the cellar. A press observer described Dew’s performance as ‘very suave, perfectly cool, and self-possessed. Mr. Dew is scrupulously fair to the prisoner. He not only assents to Mr. Tobin’s suggestion that he was not anxious to conceal anything, but he adds to it the perfectly voluntary statement that he did not attempt to.’19 Dew concluded by briefly mentioning his chase and arrest of Crippen and Le Neve. He felt ‘intense relief’ when the time came for him to stand down; he had been gently questioned by Travers Humphreys. Despite the fact that he thought Dew had been resting on his laurels too much on his return to London, Humphreys was not about to say anything in court that disparaged the CID or Dew. He said nothing to contradict Dew’s testimony, ‘which suggested sleepless energy on his part and the highest efficiency’.20

  Much of the trial was taken up by the detailed discussion of medical evidence – primarily, whether a piece of skin found upon the remains bore the mark of a scar or otherwise. This was a vital point, as it could go towards identifying the corpse as being Cora Crippen, who had an operational scar on her abdomen. This specimen was shown around the court, and was seen by a totally impassive Dr Crippen:

  The hideous moment in which the pieces of his dead wife’s skin were handed round in a soup plate for inspection left him, alone of all the people in that crowded Court, quite unmoved. He peered at them with an intelligent curiosity as though they had been mere museum specimens. Not by one word or tremor did this frail little man betray any sign of his terrible position.

  The first doctor to give evidence was Dr Pepper. Pepper thought that the remains had been buried in the cellar shortly after death, and that they had lain there for between four and eight months. When asked whether they could have been there prior to 21 September 1905, Pepper emphatically replied, ‘Oh, no, absolutely impossible.’ That was the date when the Crippens had moved into 39 Hilldrop Crescent, and would prove to be crucial later in the trial.

  Pepper thought that the piece of skin in question was from the lower front part of the abdomen. He was convinced that the mark upon it was a scar, and a microscopic examination of it had confirmed his view. Tobin cross-examined Dr Pepper, and tried to establish that whoever dismembered the body was possessed of great anatomical and medical skill – perhaps to suggest that Crippen would not have had the requisite skill to have undertaken such a task. But Pepper would not allow himself to be led:

  Tobin As to the great dexterity you have already told us that was required to remove these organs in the way they were removed, it would require a really practised hand and eye, would it not?

  Pepper Certainly.

  Tobin A man frequently accustomed to dissect bodies or to conduct post-mortem examinations, or matters of that kind?

  Pepper No, a person who had previously done it, but not necessarily continuously. If a person had once learned how to do it he could do it.

  Tobin Suppose a student in the hospitals learnt it, and then there was a long lapse of time afterwards – fifteen years or so – surely the hand and eye have to be pretty well accustomed?

  Pepper I think he could do it quite as well after ten years as he could at the time. It is not a minute dissection; it is a particular kind of work.

  On the third day of the trial Dr Bernard Henry Spilsbury, a pathologist at St Mary’s Hospital, gave evidence. Spilsbury was later knighted and as Sir Bernard Spilsbury gave medical testimony at many important criminal trials. Spilsbury had also had his holiday interrupted by the Crippen case. He remained in London while his wife and baby went to Minehead without him.

  Even from this early court appearance Dew gained the impression that Spilsbury ‘was a man who knew what he was talking about’. He was ‘a new, dominating voice in the courts of justice … Tall, handsome, well-dressed, a red carnation in his buttonhole, his bearing in his first capital case was as detached, imperturbable, and confident as it was when he was at the height of his fame.’21 Spilsbury had made notes on the case, and concluded that Crippen had ‘Skill in evisceration – acquisition of hyoscine – access to textbooks.’ Cora Crippen was ‘American. 35. Vivacious – good company – attractive – dressed well – jewellery – fast life. Private: very overbearing – bad temper.’ As well as being the case that made his name, the Crippen case would be the one that made the most lasting impression on Spilsbury. Years after the trial he read, reread and annotated his copy of the Notable British Trials Crippen volume until the spine broke and the pages became loose.22

  Spilsbury had been a student of Dr Pepper, but emphatically stated that this would have no bearing upon the evidence he was about to give. Spilsbury also thought the skin was from the lower abdomen, and he clearly stated: ‘that mark is undoubtedly an old operation scar.’ Spilsbury’s opinions did differ from those of Pepper on the matter of the killer’s anatomical skill. He answered Tobin’s questions coldly and unemotionally:

  Tobin Dealing with the question of the remains, must the person who removed the viscera have been a person of very considerable dexterity?

  Spilsbury He must certainly have had considerable dexterity, yes.

  Tobin And must that removal have been done by somebody with a very considerable anatomical knowledge, or somebody accustomed to evisceration?

  Spilsbury Certainly some one having considerable anatomical knowledge.

  Tobin And accustomed to evisceration?

  Spilsbury Yes, one who has done a considerable amount of evisceration.

  Next to testify was Dr Marshall, the police surgeon for the Kentish Town Division, which contained Hilldrop Crescent. He concurred that the skin was from the lower part of the abdominal wall, and stated, ‘I formed the opinion that it was a scar mark, and that is still my opinion.�
�

  Crippen’s defence produced their own medical experts, who contradicted those who had testified that the mark on the skin was a scar. Dr Gilbert Maitland Turnbull, the Director of the Pathological Institute at the London Hospital, emphatically stated, ‘it cannot possibly be a scar’; but he conceded that the skin was from the lower abdomen. Another expert for the defence, Dr Reginald Cecil Wall, said: ‘In my opinion it is not a scar.’

  The medical evidence turned to the issue of the cause of death. Dr William Willcox, the senior scientific adviser to the Home Office, had tested the viscera of the corpse for poisons, eventually finding traces of the alkaloid poison hyoscine. Willcox had ‘no doubt it was hyoscine’, which was ‘gummy syrupy stuff’, but used medicinally in the salt form of hydrobromide of hyoscine. He had found two-fifths of a grain of the drug in the organs he had examined, which he estimated would mean that there would have been more than half a grain in the whole body – easily a fatal dose. Willcox had never known hyoscine to have been used in a murder case before, but thought that in this instance it would have been taken by mouth, and that the victim would have lived for at least one hour but no more than twelve. Dr Arthur Pearson Luff, the honorary scientific adviser to the Home Office, had repeated Willcox’s tests for hyoscine and come up with the same results.

  The next task for the prosecution was to connect Crippen with large quantities of hyoscine, and this proved a simple task. Charles Hetherington, a chemist who, like Crippen, worked in New Oxford Street, was acquainted with Crippen, who was a customer at his shop. Around 17 or 18 January 1910, Crippen had called in at the chemist’s shop and ordered five grains of hyoscine hydrobromide, which he said he wanted for homeopathic purposes. Hetherington had to order the drug, which Crippen collected on 19 January. He signed the reason for purchase column in the poisons register as ‘homeopathic preparation’. Crippen had often bought drugs from the chemist, including cocaine (for preparing dental anaesthetic), morphia and mercury, but never before hyoscine.