Self-Study

The cross-examination of Dr Crippen

The following is an edited version of the cross-examination of Dr Crippen, who was
charged with the murder of his wife, Cora Crippen (also known as Belle Elmore). This
extract is taken from Notable Cross-Examinations by E. W. Fordham.
 
The background
Mrs Crippen disappeared from the matrimonial home at 39 Hilldrop Crescent at the
end of January 1910. In the course of that month, Dr Crippen had bought (for his
practice) five grains of hyoscin hydrobromide, a drug used only in minute proportions
by the medical profession. He alleged that his wife had gone to America. Shortly
after his wife’s disappearance, he pawned jewellery of hers for £195. He gave some of
her jewellery to Ethel Le Neve, a girlfriend who came to live with him in March 1910.
Shortly afterwards, he announced that he had received a cable informing him of his
wife’s death.

Suspicion was aroused and Dr Crippen was interviewed by the police. He admitted
that he had not, in fact, received any news of his wife’s death and had not seen her since
February 1910. A description of Mrs Crippen was circulated describing her as ‘missing’.
Two days later, Dr Crippen and Miss Le Neve sailed for Montreal under the disguise of
a father and son named ‘Robinson’. A warrant was issued for Dr Crippen’s arrest, which
was effected on board the ship.

Number 39 Hilldrop Crescent was thoroughly searched and human remains were
found under the floor of the cellar. Death had resulted from hyoscin poisoning. A scar
on part of the remains was one such as would have been caused by an operation that Mrs
Crippen had undergone.

Two issues concerned the jury: were the remains those of Mrs Crippen? If so, was she
murdered by her husband?

The cross-examination
In reading the cross-examination of Dr Crippen by R. D. Muir, you will see that he followed
a distinct plan, progressing logically from one subject to another. The underlying
purpose of his cross-examination was to show that Dr Crippen knew his wife was dead.
He therefore directed his questions to exposing (a) the implausibility of Dr Crippen’s
assertion that his wife was still alive, and (b) the inconsistencies between Dr Crippen’s
account and his conduct at the time of and subsequent to both his wife’s disappearance
and his arrest. Note Mr Muir’s courteous manner and his use of short questions, each
containing
only one fact at a time. Note also Dr Crippen’s tendency to give evasive answers.

Q: ‘On the early morning of the 1st February you were left alone in your house with
your wife?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘She was alive?’
A: ‘She was.’

1
Q: ‘And well?’
A: ‘She was.’
Q: ‘Do you know of any person in the world who has seen her alive since?’
A: ‘I do not.’
Q: ‘Do you know of any person in the world who has ever had a letter from her
since?’
A: ‘I do not.’
Q: ‘Do you know of any person in the world who can prove any fact showing that
she ever left that house alive?’ (Note: This is central to the prosecution case.)
A: ‘Absolutely not; I have told Mr Dew exactly all the facts.’ (Mr Dew was the Police
Inspector who arrested Dr Crippen.)
Q: ‘At what hour did you last see her on February 1st?’
A: ‘I think it would be about between two and three some time that we retired; that
would be the last time I saw her.’
Q: ‘Did you breakfast at home?’
A: ‘I did.’
Q: ‘Who prepared your breakfast?’
A: ‘I prepared my own breakfast; I nearly always did.’
...
Q: ‘We have heard that you were a kind and attentive husband?’
A: ‘I was.’
Q: ‘Preparing the breakfast in the morning, did you usually take her a cup of tea?’
A: ‘Not often; once in a great while I took her a cup of coffee, but very seldom.’
(Note: Line of enquiry unfruitful—Not pursued.)
...
Q: ‘What time did you come home on that night when you say you did not find
your wife there?’
A: ‘The nearest I should say is, it would be my usual time, about 7.30.’
Q: ‘Do you not recollect on that momentous night what time it was you came
home?’
A: ‘I would not like to say. It was somewhere near 7.30, it might have been 7.25, it
might have been 7.35, but it was close to 7.30.’
Q: ‘Did you tell Inspector Dew that you got home between 5 and 6?’ (Note: Previous
inconsistent statement being put to the witness.)
A: ‘I do not remember telling him that hour.’
Q: ‘Listen: “I came back to business the next morning, and when I went home
between 5 and 6 pm I found she had gone.” Is that right?’
A: ‘If I said that to him, that was probably right. I cannot trace it back.’
Q: ‘That was a Tuesday?’
A: ‘A Tuesday, yes.’
Q: ‘The 1st February?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Where did you think your wife had gone?’
A: ‘I supposed, as she had always been talking about Bruce Miller to me, that she
had gone there. That was the only thing I could make out.’ (Dr Crippen alleged
that his wife had been friendly with this man who, at the time of her disappearance,
had returned to America.)
Q: ‘That is to America?’
A: ‘To America.’
Q: ‘Have you made enquiries?’

2
A: ‘No.’
Q: ‘As to what steamers were going to America on or about that date?’
A: ‘No, I have not.’
Q: ‘At no time?’
A: ‘At no time.’
Q: ‘Not since your arrest?’ (Note: Counsel showing the inconsistency between Dr Crippen’s
assertion that his wife was alive and his behaviour, that is, his lack of effort to substantiate
it.)
A: ‘Not at all.’
Q: ‘What?’
A: ‘Not at any time.’
Q: ‘Not to find out whether there was some steamer sailing for America in which
there was a woman answering the description of your wife?’
A: ‘I have not.’
Q: ‘Nobody has made those enquiries?’
A: ‘No.’
...
Q: ‘Going to America on the 1st February, did your wife take any of her furs
with her?’ (Note the use of a point of reference to make a transition to another
topic.)
A: ‘That I could not say. She had any quantity of furs—any quantity of dresses.’
Q: ‘Did she take any of her boxes with her?’
A: ‘I believe there is one missing. There were a lot of trunks and boxes in the house;
I do not know how many, because she bought several lately—well, not lately,
but early last fall. I believe she bought two or three boxes.’
Lord Chief Justice:
‘You must kindly listen to the question; it is a very important one. You are not
asked whether she bought them. Are you able to say whether she took any boxes
with her?’ (Note: Judge admonishing the witness for an evasive answer.)
A: ‘I am not able to say definitely.’
Q: ‘Is there a cabstand near your house?’
A: ‘There is one round the corner somewhere—round in York Road there is a
cabstand.’
...
Q: ‘Did you go to the cabstand to enquire whether any cabman had come to take
away a box for your wife?’ (Note: Counsel asks a series of questions designed to
highlight Dr Crippen’s failure to seek proof that his wife was alive.)
A: ‘I did not.’
Q: ‘At any time?’
A: ‘At no time.’
Q: ‘Not since your arrest?’
A: ‘No.’
Q: ‘Had you any neighbours at 39 Hilldrop Crescent on either side?’
A: ‘Yes, we had neighbours on either side.’
Q: ‘Have enquiries been made of the neighbours to know whether a cab or box was
seen to leave your house on the 1st February?’
A: ‘I have made none.’
Q: ‘And, as far as you know none have been made?’
A: ‘Not as far as I know.’
Q: ‘You do not suggest that your wife, on a voyage to America in February, would

3
walk away from the house?’
A: ‘I am sure I do not know what she would do. She was a very impulsive woman.’
Q: ‘But you have made no enquiries?’
A: ‘I have made no enquiries.’
...
Q: ‘Have you enquired of the milkman whether he saw your wife alive after you
had left the house on that morning of the 1st February?’
A: ‘I have already said that I made no enquiries.’
...
Q: ‘It would be most important for your defence in this case on the charge
of murder if any person could be found who saw your wife alive after the
Martinettis saw her alive; you realise that?’ (The Martinettis dined with the
Crippens on the evening of 31 January.) (Note: This is central to the theme of the
prosecution case.)
A: ‘I do.’
Q: ‘And you have made no enquiries at all?’
A: ‘I have not conducted my own defence.’
Q: ‘Of tradesmen, or neighbours, or cabmen? You say you have not conducted your
own defence?’ (Note: Counsel picking up on the witness’s answer.)
A: ‘I have not.’
Q: ‘You have been consulted about it, I suppose.’
A: ‘Certainly.’
Q: ‘Did you suggest enquiries of that kind?’
A: ‘I did not.’
...
(Note: The following is a series of questions, designed to show that Dr Crippen knew his
wife was dead.)
Q: ‘Have you made any suggestion to Mr Newton or anyone as to enquiries being
made anywhere?’ (Mr Newton was Dr Crippen’s solicitor.)
A: ‘That is a point that did not occur to me, so I have not made any such suggestions.’
Q: ‘Did you know that any such enquiry would be fruitless?’ (Note: Counsel ‘putting
his case’ in a very subtle manner.)
A: ‘I know nothing of the kind.’
Q: ‘Supposing that your wife had written for her furs and jewels, what would have
happened?’
A: ‘I would have kept them. I paid for them, and I should not have given them
up—after (her) leaving me.’
Q: ‘Did you know that she would not write for them?’ (Note: Again, Counsel ‘putting
his case’.)
A: ‘I did not.’
...
Q: ‘Where do you suppose your wife was going to get the money to pay her passage
to America?’
A: ‘She always had plenty of money, apparently.’
Q: ‘Did you give her any?’
A: ‘I did not give her any, no; I asked her if she was provided with money, if she
wished any, and she said, “No, she wanted nothing off me”.’
Q: ‘You asked her if she wanted any money?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘When did you ask her that?’

4
A: ‘I asked her at the time she said she was going to leave me.’
Q: ‘How many times had she said she was going to leave you?’
A: ‘Numerous times.’
Q: ‘Did you always on those occasions ask her if she wanted money to go away
with?’
A: ‘I never paid any attention because she had never carried it out to such an
extent.’ (Note the evasive answer.)
Q: ‘She said she did not want money from you?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Were you in want of money?’ (Note: Counsel prepares to expose an inconsistency in
the witness’s conduct.)
A: ‘I was not.’
Q: ‘What did you do with the money that you got from pawning your wife’s jewels?’
A: ‘I used it for advertising a new scheme I was starting—a new preparation I was
putting on the market.’
Lord Chief Justice:
‘Do you mean the whole £200—the £80 and the £115 [sic]?’
A: ‘Yes, probably I used most of it.’
Lord Chief Justice:
‘You are not asked “probably”; you were asked what you used the money for.’
(Note: Judge again admonishing the witness for an evasive answer.)
A: ‘For paying for the advertising.’
Q: ‘Anything else?’
A: ‘Well, I also bought some new dental instruments with it.’
...
Q: ‘Why were you in such a hurry to pawn your wife’s earrings and marquise rings?’
A: ‘Because when I contracted for the advertising I would have to pay cash.’
...
Q: ‘On the 2nd February you began to raise money (for this scheme) on your wife’s
jewels.’
A: ‘Quite so.’
Q: ‘Had you never pawned jewellery of your wife’s before?’
A: ‘I never pawned my wife’s jewellery before.’
Lord Chief Justice:
‘Had you ever pawned jewellery before?’
A: ‘I had pawned jewellery before, yes.’
Q: ‘Of your wife’s?’
A: ‘No, of my own.’
Q: ‘Were February the 2nd and 9th of this year the only two occasions on which
you ever pawned jewellery of your wife’s?’
A: ‘I refuse to accept the idea that it was my wife’s.’
...
Q: ‘Did you say this to Inspector Dew, “I have never pawned or sold anything
belonging to her before or after she left”?’ (Note: Previous inconsistent statement.)
A: ‘I did, but I did not consider it was her property. I considered myself justified in
answering in that way.’
Q: ‘You told the truth (to Inspector Dew) according to your view about the property?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Did you account for your wife’s jewellery by producing those exhibits which
you showed to Inspector Dew at the house?’

5
A: ‘I showed him some she had left.’
Q: ‘That she had left behind?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘And did you tell the Inspector that she had other jewellery, and must have
taken that with her?’
A: ‘She did have some, as I have already said; she had some rings and a watch that
belonged to her before she was married.’
Q: ‘Did you intend the Inspector to believe that you were accounting for the whole
of your wife’s jewellery?’
A: ‘Certainly.’
...
Q: ‘When you found your wife had gone you say you sat down to think how you
could cover up the scandal?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘You did your best to cover up the scandal?’
A: ‘I did.’
Q: ‘Is that your letter written on March 20th at 39 Hilldrop Crescent?’ (Letter handed
to Crippen.)
A: ‘It is.’
Q: ‘At that time was Ethel Le Neve living with you at that address?’
A: ‘I would not be sure whether she came permanently to live with me at that time
or not, but she had been on and off there.’
Lord Chief Justice:
‘When do you say Miss Le Neve came to live at 39 Hilldrop Crescent?’
A: ‘The first time she came there was 2nd February, the Wednesday night. From
that time on she was with me probably two or three nights or perhaps more out
of the week, but when she came permanently I would not like to say, except that
it was shortly before Easter.’
Q: ‘On the night of February 2nd did Ethel Le Neve sleep at Hilldrop Crescent?’
A: ‘She did.’
(Counsel now read out Crippen’s letter to Mr and Mrs Martinetti of the 20th March:
‘Dear Clara and Paul, Please forgive me for not running in during the week, but
I have been so upset by very bad news from Belle that I did not feel equal to
talking with anyone. And now I have just had a cable saying she is so dangerously
ill with double pleuro-pneumonia that I am considering if I had better not go at
once. I don’t want to worry you with my troubles, but I felt I must explain why
I had not been to see you . . .’)
Q: ‘Had you, when you wrote that letter, arranged to go to Dieppe with Ethel Le
Neve for Easter?’
A: ‘Yes, I believe I had.’
Q: ‘And did you want to wipe your wife off the slate before you went?’
A: ‘It was not a question of that kind. It was that I felt something was necessary to
stop all the worry I was having with the enquiries.’
Q: ‘Did you want to announce your wife’s death before you started for your holiday
with Ethel Le Neve on the following Thursday?’
A: ‘I do not think that follows a logical sequence.’ (Note the evasive answer.)
Q: ‘That is what you intended to do at the time you wrote that letter?’
A: ‘I do not know whether I had at that time fixed the time when I would say that
the other cable had arrived or not.’
Q: ‘You prepared an advertisement of your wife’s death for the Era?’

6
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘When did you do that?’
A: ‘I cannot tell you.’
Q: ‘On the 24th March you sent a telegram to Mrs Martinetti saying that you had
had a cable that your wife had died the previous night.’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘You sent that from Victoria Station on the eve of your departure with Ethel Le
Neve?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Then you went off and took your holiday with her?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘And you came back?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘And you had to play the role of the bereaved husband?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Did you do it well?’
A: ‘I am sure I could not tell you that.’
(A letter from Crippen to a friend on black-edged paper is put to the witness, recording
his sorrow for his wife’s death.)
Q: ‘Sheer hypocrisy?’
A: ‘I am not denying any of this.’
Q: ‘Do you ask the jury to believe that, not knowing that your wife might write
to those people, you told them she was dead?’ (Note: Counsel showing the
implausibility of Dr Crippen’s position.)
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Where did you think she was?’
A: ‘I thought she had gone to Chicago where Bruce Miller lived.’
Q: ‘If she were alive she might call at any moment on her sisters?’
A: ‘I did not think she would. If she went off with some other man I did not think
she would have the face to go there.’
...
Q: ‘You had been a tenant of 39 Hilldrop Crescent for five and a half years?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Had the floor of the cellar of that house been disturbed during the whole of that
time?’
A: ‘Not to my knowledge.’
Q: ‘You were familiar with the cellar; you knew where the place was?’
A: ‘I have not said that I was not.’
Q: ‘You know, of course, that those remains were found in the cellar?’
A: ‘I was told when I returned to England by my solicitor.’
Q: ‘So far as you know, they could not have been put there while you were tenants?’
A: ‘Not that I know of; of course . . . I would not say it was impossible, because there
were times when we were away.’
...
Q: ‘When did you make up your mind to go away from London?’
A: ‘The morning after Inspector Dew was there—the 8th or 9th.’
Q: ‘Had you the day before been contemplating the possibility of your going away?’
A: ‘I would not like to say that I had made up my mind. When Inspector Dew
came to me and laid out all the facts that he told me, I might have thought,
well, if there is all this suspicion, and I am likely to have to stay in jail for

7
months and months, perhaps until this woman is found, I had better be out
of it.’
Q: ‘What crime did you understand you might be kept in jail upon suspicion of?’
A: ‘I do not understand the law well enough to say. From what I have read it seems
to me I have heard of people being arrested on suspicion of being concerned in
the disappearance of other people.’ (Note the evasive answer.)
Q: ‘You thought you were in danger of arrest?’ (Note now the effective use of short,
leading, concise questions to highlight Dr Crippen’s conduct and its consistency with
guilty knowledge.)
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘And so you fled the country.’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Under a false name?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Shaved off your moustache?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Left off wearing your glasses in public?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Took Le Neve with you?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Under a false name?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Posing as your son?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Went to Antwerp?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Stayed in a hotel there?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Stayed indoors all day?’
A: ‘Oh no . . . we went to the Zoological Gardens and walked all over the place.’
Q: ‘Enjoying yourselves?’
A: ‘Certainly.’
Lord Chief Justice:
‘What name did you give at the Hotel?’
A: ‘If I gave any name anywhere it would be Robinson.’
Q: ‘The second description (in the hotel register) is that of Miss Le Neve?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Disguised as a boy?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Passing as your son?’
A: ‘Yes.’
...
Q: ‘When you got to Quebec on board the steamer, or near Quebec, Inspector Dew
came on board?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘You were much surprised to see him?’
A: ‘I did not expect to see Inspector Dew.’
Q: ‘Did you recognise him at once?’
A: ‘Yes . . . but not until he came into the cabin.’
Q: ‘Did the Inspector say “Good morning, Dr Crippen, I am Inspector Dew”?’

8
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘And did you say, “Good morning, Mr Dew”?’
A: ‘Good morning, Mr Dew.’
Q: ‘Did the Inspector then say, “You will be arrested for the murder and mutilation
of your wife, Cora Crippen, in London, on or about February 2nd last”?’
A: ‘I would not say that I took that in, because I was so very much surprised and
confused that I did not quite have my right senses.’
Q: ‘Did a Canadian officer, Mr McCarthy, caution you?’
A: ‘He did.’
Q: ‘And you realised you were being charged?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘With what?’
A: ‘I realised I was being charged.’
Q: ‘With what?’ (Note: Counsel repeats the question which the witness has evaded.)
A: ‘Well, I realised that I was being arrested for murder; I remember hearing that.’
Q: ‘The murder of your wife?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Up to that time did you believe she was alive?’
A: ‘I did.’
Q: ‘Did you put any question to Inspector Dew as to whether she had been found?’
(Note: Counsel showing the inconsistency in Dr Crippen’s behaviour.)
A: ‘I did not put any question at all.’
Q: ‘As to how he knew she was dead?’
A: ‘No.’
...
Q: ‘As you left the cabin did you say to the Inspector, “I am not sorry, the anxiety
has been too much”?’ (Note: Counsel ‘putting his case’.)
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘Anxiety for what?’
A: ‘Anxiety thinking I might be pursued from London.’
Q: ‘For what?’
A: ‘For the same reason that I ran away.’
...
Q: ‘Of course you understand that if your wife is alive there is no foundation for
this charge at all?’ (Note: Counsel reinforcing his previous examination to show that
Dr Crippen knew his wife was dead.)
A: ‘Decidedly not.’
Q: ‘And that if she could be found you would at once be acquitted of it?’
A: ‘Oh, rather.’
Q: ‘What steps have been taken by you to find your wife?’
A: ‘I have not taken any steps.’
...
(Note: Change of subject—Counsel showing that Dr Crippen had the means to kill his
wife.)
Q: ‘When did you first think of prescribing hyoscin for your patients?’
A: ‘The first I knew of it was in 1885.’
Q: ‘Here in London?’
A: ‘Yes, it was early in January this year I first prescribed it for patients.’
Q: ‘You can give the names and addresses of the persons to whom you sent your
remedies?’

9
A: ‘If I went and looked them up.’
Q: ‘Were you prescribing hyoscin for any of those patients?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘As a medicine?’
A: ‘Yes.’
Q: ‘To be administered through the mouth?’
A: ‘Decidedly.’
Q: ‘For what disease?’
A: ‘Nervous disease—coughs of a septic character and asthmatic complaints.’
Lord Chief Justice:
‘If there is any book in which hyoscin is prescribed for use in this way, you had
better produce the book.’ (No such book was ever produced.)
...
Q: ‘Will you answer this question, have you got anywhere left any homeopathic
preparation into which you put this hyoscin?’
A: ‘They were all sent out as they were made.’
Q: ‘You have none left?’
A: ‘I have none left.’
Q: ‘Have you got any patient to whom you sent such homeopathic preparations?’
A: ‘Mr Newton has been looking the matter up; I do not know.’
The skill of Mr Muir’s cross-examination was such that he made it appear easy! It is no
surprise that the jury found Dr Crippen ‘guilty’.

10