19
Retirement and Libel Cases
… an absolute lie from beginning to end.
The Times, 1 April 1911
Walter Dew was now probably the best known and most celebrated detective in the world, and it came as a surprise to many when he announced his retirement from Scotland Yard after ‘nearly 29 years’ strenuous and exciting service’,1 which received wide press coverage, coming as it did on the day that Crippen’s appeal failed. The popular tabloid Lloyd’s Weekly News paid Dew the following tribute:
On the Continent, as in this country, his astuteness and tact have won him fame. His quiet, unassuming disposition secured him considerable popularity among his colleagues, and the intimation of his ensuing resignation has been received with universal regret.
The newspaper stated that the fact that Dew had announced his retirement immediately after the conclusion of the Crippen case was merely a coincidence, because ‘[h]e had already seriously considered his resignation before he was concerned in [the Crippen case], but consented to remain in office until its completion’.2 Dew himself described it as ‘a fitting moment to retire’, adding that the decision came as a surprise to his superiors and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Charles Mathews, who asked Dew to reconsider.
Dew would not be turned, as there were unspecified ‘special private reasons which compelled me to stick to my resolution’. He was quite content with the achievements of his career. As he would later recall, ‘Looking back at my nearly 30 years’ service in the police, and forgetting the black side of it, I could well describe it as a life of thrills and adventures rarely given to one man to experience.’3
Dew noted a ‘strange and gruesome coincidence’ at the end of his career:
As a young officer, just appointed to the Criminal Investigation Department, I was stationed in the Whitechapel Division. This was at the height of the ‘Jack the Ripper’ terror. My inquiries in connexion with that unsolved mystery brought me to the notice of the higher authorities at Scotland Yard, and helped my advancement.
My last job as a chief inspector at the ‘Yard’ was the capture of Crippen.
Mutilation of the bodies was a feature of both crimes.
In the course of his career, Dew had received some 130 commendations and rewards from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, judges and magistrates.4 He left the Metropolitan Police on 5 December 1910 with an exemplary certificate,5 indicating that not a single complaint had ever been made against him. Dew’s pension papers revealed that he was 47 years old, and had served a total of 28 years and 176 days, during which he had only spent two or three weeks off sick with influenza and other minor complaints. He was entitled to an annual pension of £238 5s 8d (as opposed to his previous weekly wage of £6 14s). He was 5ft 9in tall, had brown hair which was turning grey, grey eyes and a fresh complexion.6
Detective Inspector Tom Divall was transferred from Bethnal Green Division to fill Dew’s position at Scotland Yard.7 Coincidentally, Divall was also a former railway employee, who had worked on the Whitechapel murder investigations.8
Just before his departure Dew played a small part in the sale of 39 Hilldrop Crescent to the Glaswegian comedian Sandy McNab. The frugal Scot had correctly guessed that the owner of the property would be keen to be rid of it, as it now had a gruesome reputation. He may also have taken into account the publicity value of the story of his purchase, which saw his photograph splashed across the front page of a weekly tabloid with a circulation of over 430,000. McNab’s letter to the house’s owner had been returned undelivered, so he wrote to Dew, who passed on the letter to the property’s agent, who subsequently agreed to the sale. McNab was well satisfied with the property, having acquired a house worth more than £1,000 for £500.
McNab described his new property as follows:
When I went through it as I did from top to bottom, I felt fully convinced that the authorities had left not the slightest trace of the terrible crime behind them. Every wall had been stripped of its wallpaper and here and there the plaster and lath had been removed. Floor boarding had been taken up, and ceilings had been pierced during the search for clues.
On my first visit I made my way all over the premises, and at last I came to the fatal cellar. I will not attempt to hide the fact that as my foot stepped upon the concrete floor, hardly yet dried, I felt a queer sensation at the pit of my stomach and a choking sensation in my throat. In my mind’s eye I could see again the culprit working with feverish haste to bury the last trace of the crime from the eyes of man. Then I imagined the officers of the law examining the dark, damp, dungeon-like cellar, while the culprit stood calmly upon the steps behind them. The detectives were probably wise to leave the cellar at that time without making farther examinations, and I felt I could do no better than follow their example.9
McNab exploited his connection to the Crippen case, billing himself as ‘The Man Who Made Crippen’s Cat Laugh’.10
Walter Dew’s pension was soon to be substantially supplemented. In 1911 he would bring libel actions against nine newspapers for comments they had made about him during the Crippen investigation. Some of the cases were settled out of court, but others were not. At the end of March 1911 the High Court of Justice heard the case of Dew v. Edward Lloyd (Limited), the publishers of the Daily Chronicle. Dew’s grievance against the Chronicle related to the following passage published on 4 August 1910, which claimed Dew had informed their correspondent that Crippen had confessed to the murder of his wife:
Crippen Tells Police the Whole Story [From Our Special Correspondent]
There is no longer any doubt that Crippen has made a confession to Inspector Dew regarding the crime of which he is charged, and the news which I sent you as a rumour last night can now be stated as a fact.
I not only have the very best authority for saying this, but I also have the admission of Inspector Dew, made to me this afternoon, that Crippen has told him the complete story of the killing of Belle Elmore. Inspector Dew said when I asked him: ‘Yes, Crippen has now told me the complete story of the crime and how her body was disposed of. He also related to me exactly how the murder occurred.’
This is all the inspector would say, and when asked for further particulars said: ‘I cannot say any more. If you want to know any more about the case I must refer you to Scotland Yard.’
I asked him if he would confirm or deny the report that Crippen also said that he was not a murderer and would escape conviction. Mr Dew replied: ‘I would be very glad to oblige you, but I cannot. My mouth is closed for the present.’
In the next column the correspondent added:
She [Le Neve] is unaware that Crippen has made any confession, and Inspector Dew has told the Canadian police that he is firmly convinced that she has been kept in ignorance of all the facts of the murder.
Dew contested that
the words imputed to the plaintiff [Dew] that he was guilty of grave misconduct as a police officer; that he had deliberately violated his duty, and was no longer fit to remain a police officer or to be placed in any position of confidence or responsibility.
The Chronicle readily admitted that they had published the words (for how could they deny it?), and conceded that the words were indeed libellous, but denied that they should be interpreted as severely as Dew had. The paper had already faced action for contempt of court for the article the previous year. They had published a lengthy apology to Dew in mitigation of damages, which ran thus:
On August 4 last year there was published in the Daily Chronicle a cable from our Special Correspondent at Quebec in reference to the Crippen case. In it our Correspondent made a statement to the effect that Crippen had confessed to Inspector Dew that he had killed Belle Elmore and that the inspector had stated that Crippen had told him the complete story of the crime, how the murder occurred, and how the body was disposed of. The message also gave an account of an alleged interview with and alleged statements by Inspector Dew relating to the matter.
/> At the time this was published in our columns we had no intention of casting any reflection whatever upon Inspector Dew.
We had always considered, and still consider, that Inspector Dew was a capable and zealous officer, and that he had performed his extremely difficult duties in connexion with the investigation of the Crippen affair with ability and discretion.
Recently our attention has been called to the original publication, and it has been pointed out to us that the words which were published were capable of being read as casting a reflection on Inspector Dew in the performance of his duties.
In these circumstances we desire to state publicly that we did not intend to publish anything derogatory to Inspector Dew. We printed the cable in good faith as an item of news, believing it to be true. We now fully withdraw the statements in question and offer to Inspector Dew an apology and an expression of our deep regret that we should have been the means of circulating such statements or have been the cause of any annoyance to him.11
But the apology was not enough. Dew’s lawyer, Mr Charles Gill, said that as a libel had already been admitted the issue now was the amount of damages Dew was entitled to. Gill pointed out that the press’s hunger for information about the Crippen case had made them troublesome and hampered Dew’s investigation. The Daily Chronicle in particular had ‘made themselves notorious’.
Dew had been under orders from his superiors and ‘had to carry out obvious instructions that he was not to betray the trust and confidence reposed in him. He was not authorised to make any communication to any members of the public, least of all to members of the press. Those instructions were well known, and a breach of them would bring upon the man serious consequences.’ Gill pressed this point home to the jury. He told them, ‘On no account was he to give information with regard to the progress of a case. He had express instructions to make no communication, except as a witness, upon the trial of the case.’
Then Dew’s career was reviewed. It was explained that there ‘was never a suggestion against his conduct’. Dew jealously guarded his reputation, for ‘he contemplated that when the time arrived, and with the very exceptional character he had earned, he might get employment by banks and other public authorities’.12 Dew was at this time working as a confidential enquiries agent, and successfully carried on in this profession for some years.13
Mr Gill really made the most of the opportunity to build up a case against the Chronicle and the extent of their libel. He continued by saying that if Dew had spoken about the case to the press, he would have been ‘absolutely unfit for his post. For a man to make a disclosure of a confession would [make him] guilty of the grossest misconduct and contempt of Court.’ The libel had been ‘an absolute lie from beginning to end, and the defendants dared not say there was a word of truth in it’.
Gill concluded with the following tirade against the Chronicle:
… the words meant that [Dew] was not fit to remain a member of the force or to be placed in any position of confidence or responsibility. How could the plaintiff at 47, if he had been guilty of misconduct, be entrusted with any work in which an honourable man had to be trusted? The imputation upon him was that no one would have been guilty of such misconduct unless money had been paid to him.
To finish off, Gill explained that Dew had delayed the libel action because he could not have taken it while still a serving police officer, and had to tie up the Crippen case before he could sue for damages. Dew then gave evidence, saying that he had never made any communication to either the press or the public with regard to Crippen.
The Chronicle defended itself as best it could. It considered that its earlier apology had been action enough, as ‘the plaintiff was not injured and there was no need to bring this action’.14 The jury disagreed, and their verdict was in favour of Dew. He was awarded a hefty £400 in damages.
Another libel case soon followed, this time against the weekly newspaper M.A.P. (Mainly About People). The offending article was one published on 13 August 1910, ‘which cast reflections upon the capability of the plaintiff [Dew] in dealing with the Crippen case’.15 This was an understatement. The piece, quoted here in full, was an outrageous vilification of Dew’s character and his handling of the Crippen case:
Dew, the Sleuth-hound
SOME PLAIN QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS LATEST CASE
There are various amazing figures in the Crippen case.
There are the principals themselves, a commonplace man and a commonplace girl who suddenly become the centre of the world’s attention.
There is Captain Kendall, of the s.s. Montrose. Or, at least, Captain Kendall would be an amazing person had he said or written a tithe of the things attributed to him. But then no sane person for a moment believes that any British sea captain would be guilty of the melodramatic boasting, the inhuman crowing over a man who is down that has been foisted upon Captain Kendall by journalists of the baser sort.
But one figure stands out supreme. The solitary unapproachable figure of Detective-Inspector Dew.
With Inspector Dew in his private capacity the public is not concerned. The information recently given to the world that he is domesticated and musical leaves the world still breathing. But Inspector Dew stands for the Criminal Investigation Department, New Scotland Yard, and their methods, and as such he is an absorbing picture, the more so that he has cost the country almost the price of an Old Master.
Very briefly to recapitulate the facts of the case, Mrs. Crippen disappeared on or about January 31st 1910. To her friends, her husband told an unconvincing story of her death in America.
On June 28th [sic] these friends communicated their suspicions to Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard apparently were not much impressed. Anyway, the actual conduct of the case was handed over to Inspector Dew, an officer of good record but of no particular distinction.
Acting with almost dazzling rapidity, Inspector Dew calls on Crippen on July 8th – ten days later.
To an ordinary man the advantage to be gained by putting Crippen on his guard is not quite plain. A sense of fair play is all very well, but to indicate to a man that he is suspected of murder is, perhaps, carrying our idea of ‘giving a man a chance’ too far.
Crippen has a pleasant chat with Dew, tells him another, and a more plausible tale to account for ‘Belle Elmore’s’ disappearance, shows him over the house, and even takes him down to the fatal cellar, where the eagle eyes of the sleuth-hound of the law – do sleuth-hounds have eagle eyes? – detect nothing suspicious.
Crippen promises not to run away, but, in a very caddish manner, breaks his word and bolts next day, accompanied by Miss Le Neve.
Crippen bolted on July 9th; it was not until July 11th that Inspector Dew, by a brilliant piece of detective work, discovered that the bird had flown.
Apparently the police had a touching faith in Crippen, and expected him to return.
Then, nearly a week after Crippen had disappeared, the hue and cry was raised.
Meanwhile, Dew, the indefatigable, was here, there, and everywhere that the wanted couple were not.
It does not seem to have occurred to the authorities that Brussels, during Exhibition time, would be a likely hiding-place for a fugitive.
Crippen played the game. He did everything that untrained intelligence might expect him to do. He went to Brussels.
It is an axiom in criminology that a hunted man usually makes for the scenes of his childhood.
Crippen followed the rule, and tried to return to his native America by way of Canada, and he very nearly succeeded.
True, he came on board at Antwerp; but a mere layman may be pardoned for thinking that within two days Scotland Yard might have had every port by which Crippen could join a boat bound for North or South America effectively watched. Then the captain of the Montrose sent a message to the effect that Crippen was on board his ship.
At last Inspector Dew got going. Apparently acting under the instructions, he hurled himself into a train and caught the Laurentic. H
undreds of business men do this sort of thing every week; but Scotland Yard detectives are not business men.
‘Dew’s dash’ for Liverpool stirred the country. The public felt that they were getting their money’s worth out of the C.I.D.
Crippen had hoodwinked Dew; obviously therefore, Dew was the man to send after him. If there be any flaw in this logic, I can’t find it – I am not a detective-inspector.
Sherlock Holmes could hardly have effected the capture in neater fashion. The pilot disguise was worthy of the highest moments of Arsene Lupin; but here, again, the credit of it is due, not to Dew, but to Captain Kendall.
Crippen has now been caught (thanks mainly to his own stupidity), after an expenditure of some £5,000 of public money, all of which could have been saved if Inspector Dew had taken the very ordinary precaution of having Crippen shadowed when he was first suspected. Why such precautions were not taken must be explained, or public faith in the capacity of Scotland Yard will be seriously shaken.
The newspaper conceded that Dew’s grievance against them was justified; unlike the Chronicle they did not argue. They ‘desired to withdraw in the fullest possible way any and all imputations upon the character of the plaintiff’. They further expressed regret for having published the article, and paid Dew an undisclosed sum in damages.
The case ended with some light-hearted banter between the judge, Mr Justice Darling (who had rejected Dr Crippen’s appeal) and M.A.P.’s barrister, Mr Hugh Fraser, after Fraser had apologised for his client’s actions:
Darling They will exercise more care in the future?
Fraser No doubt every one who has figured as a defendant in a libel suit becomes more careful.
Darling I express no opinion on Mr Fraser’s latest dictum.16
Shortly afterwards Dew took action against John Bull and others for stories which included the words, ‘Inspector Dew has resigned’. Dew was once again represented by Mr Gill, who argued that the words suggested that Dew ‘had been compelled to resign and that he had not entered into voluntary retirement’.
Walter Dew: The Man Who Caught Crippen Page 21