Main Menu

Home » Features Index

THE TRIAL of Miss Ethel Le Neve

At the Central Criminal Court

On Tuesday, 25th October, 1910.

The trial of Ethel Le Neve on the charge of being an accessory after the fact in the murder of Cora Crippen at 39 Hilldrop Crescent, for which Hawley Harvey Crippen was sentenced to death, took place at the Central Criminal Court before the Lord Chief Justice of England, The Right Hon. Lord Alverstone, Lord Chief Justice of England.

Counsel in the case were:

For the Crown:

Mr. R. D. Muir
Mr. Travers Humphreys
Mr. S. Ingleby Oddie

For the Defence:

Mr. F. E. Smith, K.C., M.P.
Mr. Barrington Ward

Mr. R. D. Muir, in opening for the Crown, said:

The prisoner is a typist by occupation, some twenty-seven years of age. She is charged in this indictment, in effect, with assisting Hawley Harvey Crippen to escape from justice at a time when she knew that he had been guilty of the murder of his wife. The facts of the case are for the most part undisputed. My learned friend, Mr. F. E. Smith, does not rest any part of his case upon there having been no murder committed, or upon any question with regard to Crippen having committed the murder, or the murdered person being Crippen's wife.

Therefore the great part of this case rests upon undisputed facts. The issue to which the evidence for the prosecution will be directed will be - what was the state of knowledge that prisoner had, and what was her intention with regard to the acts which she undoubtedly committed?

Guilty knowledge and guilty intention are issues in this case, and upon such issues a jury can rarely have direct evidence at all. It hardly ever happens that the state of a person's mind can be judged by anything but that person's actions, and, therefore, you will look at the facts in this case with a view to discovering what was the knowledge of the prisoner at the time that the acts in question were done, and what was her intention with regard to the acts which she herself did.

Bearing in mind that that is the real issue to which you must direct your attention, I will state very shortly the facts:

Crippen, an American citizen, was carrying on business in this country in a quasi-medical capacity. He was in 1909 and 1910 either manager to, or agent for, a firm of patent medicine vendors called Munyon's, and their business was carried on at Albion House, New Oxford Street. His wife had been on the Music Hall stage, and was known by the name of Belle Elmore among her friends. They were living together at one time on perfectly good terms.

They had been putting money in the bank and there was about £600 on deposit either in their joint names or in Belle Elmore's name at the Charing Cross Bank in December, 1909. There seems to have been a change in their financial position about that time, because notice had been given to withdraw the £600 in the bank and it is quite clear that, at the end of January and the beginning of February, Crippen had got into monetary difficulties and was in urgent need of money.

Crippen had been carrying on an intrigue with the prisoner Le Neve extending over some three years or so. She was a typist in his employment, or in the employment of the firm for which he worked, she being a woman ten years younger than Crippen's wife. It is quite clear that the prisoner was the motive for the murder by Crippen of his wife. It was for the prisoner that he committed that murder, in order that he might possess himself of her to a greater extent than he had been able to do up till then, and in order also that he might possess himself of his wife's property and money and be able to keep the prisoner.

Gentlemen, you will have to be satisfied and I submit there will be no difficulty on that point-that Crippen, in fact, murdered his wife. They had been living together at 39 Hilldrop Crescent for some four and a quarter years in January of this year. They had a dinner party on 31st January, to which they invited two friends, Mr. and Mrs. Martinetti, and the party lasted till half-past one the following morning. The husband and wife were apparently on the best possible terms when Mr. and Mrs. Martinetti left. Cora Crippen was never seen alive by any person outside the house after that day.

Crippen and she were left alone in the house and the next that was found of Mrs. Crippen was that on 13th July her remains were dug up in the cellar of that house, mutilated beyond recognition by any ordinary means - mutilated with a skill which indicated that the person who had done it was trained in anatomy. It was found upon analysis of the organs remaining that she had died of hyoscine poisoning.

On 19th January, a fortnight or so before his wife disappeared, Crippen had purchased an enormous quantity - five grains - of that deadly poison. Upon these facts being proved simply to you and those facts being undisputed, the question then arises as to the prisoner's knowledge of that matter.

For about three years Le Neve had been connected with Crippen in an intimate way, meeting him in the daytime, but always going home at night to her lodgings with a Mrs. Jackson in Camden Town. She had lodged with Mrs. Jackson from September 1908 until March 1910, and there can be no question that as between Mrs. Jackson and prisoner there was real affection and that the prisoner looked to Mrs. Jackson as a daughter would look to a mother, and Mrs. Jackson as a mother would look to a daughter. That is a very important fact when you are considering Mrs. Jackson's evidence.

Mrs. Jackson says that about 1 January last prisoner began to look ill and troubled and that one night towards the end of January - or in the beginning of February she did not fix any date - prisoner came home very ill. She would take no supper and went to bed. Her appearance, according to Mrs. Jackson's description, was the appearance of somebody who had suffered a great shock, who was stricken with horror at something that had happened. Prisoner was asked for an explanation but little or none was forthcoming that night. The next morning, again, this young woman was in the same condition. She was practically unable to eat her breakfast, and her condition was such that Mrs. Jackson saw she was quite unfit to go to her work as a typist, and persuaded her to remain at home.

That was no ordinary illness. It was something which seemed to strike the prisoner with horror. Whatever it may have been, it was contemporaneous or nearly contemporaneous with the murder of Mrs. Crippen. That is a fact which cannot be disputed. She was pressed to explain in the course of that day and she gave one or more explanations. One was that she felt her position in regard to Crippen while Mrs. Crippen was the lawful wife and that she could not bear to see Mrs. Crippen in lawful possession of the man for whom the prisoner had this affection. If that were the true explanation, it would fix the date of this extraordinary fit of horror at a time when Mrs. Crippen was alive. It speaks of Mrs. Crippen as if she were then alive but you will have to consider whether it is a true explanation or an adequate explanation of the state of the prisoner on the night and the morning of which Mrs. Jackson speaks. The explanation, so-called, of this extraordinary state of horror was one which would have applied to any day of the preceding three years on which no such state of horror existed, so far as the prisoner is concerned.

You will have to ask yourselves whether the true explanation of that state of horror was that the knowledge had come to her in some way or other that Crippen had murdered his wife and that no explanation such as she offered could explain such a state of things, because the explanation refers to a state of things which had existed continuously for some three years.

Almost immediately after that another change takes place. The prisoner becomes cheerful. She says that 'the doctor' has promised to marry her. She comes home wearing Mrs. Crippen's clothes and jewels, and makes presents to Mrs. Jackson of enormous quantities of the clothing that Mrs. Crippen had left behind her. She says that Mrs. Crippen has gone to America, and she and Crippen visit Mrs. Jackson on more than one occasion. She also had the knowledge that Crippen for a large sum of money had been pawning some of Mrs. Crippen's jewellery.

You must ask yourselves, 'What is the explanation of this?' Is it likely that any woman would suppose that the wife was going away from the husband leaving behind her furs, jewels, and everything practically that she had in the world, to be worn by any woman to whom Crippen liked to give them? Is that a story which, in your judgment as men of the world, any woman would be Iikely to believe? That is the story which the prisoner put forward as the one which she believed as explaining the absence of Mrs. Crippen. You must apply your common sense and knowledge of the world to that, and say whether that is an explanation which, in your judgment, any woman would believe.

According to prisoner, Crippen never told her - so far as she could remember - whether Mrs. Crippen was coming back or not. But immediately she began to wear Mrs. Crippen's jewels and go out in public in them, wearing the brooch at a dinner and ball of the Music Hall Artistes' Benevolent Fund - a place where all Mrs. Crippen's friends would be gathered together. You will have to ask yourselves whether there was not in her mind such knowledge that Mrs. Crippen would never come back as this indictment imputes to her, otherwise she never would have gone about with Mrs. Crippen's husband, wear Mrs. Crippen's clothes and jewels, and give away some of Mrs.Crippen's clothing to friends.

On 12th March she left her lodgings to take up her residence with Crippen at the house in Hilldrop Crescent; on 24th March she went with Crippen to Dieppe; and on 30th March she returned. It was then, she says, that she first learned that Mrs. Crippen was dead, although up to this date and after she had been acting as if there was no such person in the world. The friends of Mrs. Crippen were making inquiries. The stories Crippen told to account for his wife's disappearance were untrue, and they had found them untrue.

Inspector Dew went to Hilldrop Crescent on 8th July and found the prisoner in possession. He said he had come to make inquiries about Crippen's missing wife. The prisoner, after some show of reluctance, took him to Albion House where, after an interview had taken pace between Crippen and the inspector, prisoner made a short statement to the inspector.

It is the only account prisoner has ever given of her connection with Dr. Crippen, or with his subsequent flight.

She says: I am a single woman, twenty-seven years of age, and am a shorthand typist. My father and mother reside at 17b Goldington Buildings, Great College Street, Camden Town. My father is a commercial traveller. Since the latter end of February I have been living at 30 Hilldrop Crescent with Dr. Crippen as his wife. Before this I lived at 30 Constantine Road, Hampstead. I have been on intimate terms with Mr. Crippen for two or three years but I have known him for ten years. I made his acquaintance by being in the same employ as he was. I know Mrs. Crippen and have visited Hilldrop Crescent. She treated me as a friend.

In the early part of February I received a note from Mr. Crippen saying Mrs. Crippen had gone to America, and asking me to hand over a packet he enclosed to Miss May. About four p.m. the same day he came to our business place, Albion House, and told me his wife had gone to America. He said she had packed up and gone. I had been in the habit for the past two or three years of going about with him and continued doing so.

About a week after she had told me she had gone to America I went to Hilldrop Crescent to put the place straight, as there were no servants kept, but at night I went to my lodgings. I did this daily for about a fortnight. The place appeared to be all right and quite as usual. He took me to the Benevolent Fund dinner, and lent me a diamond brooch to wear. Later on he told me I could keep it.

After this he told me she had caught a chill on board the ship and had got pneumonia. Afterwards he told me she was dead. He told me he could not go to the funeral as it was too far and she would have been buried before he got there. Before he ever told me this, I had been away with him for five or six days at Dieppe and stayed at an hotel with him in the names of Mr. and Mrs. Crippen. When we came back he took me to Hilldrop Crescent and I remained there with him. The same night, or the night after, he told me that Belle was dead. I was very much astonished, but I do not think I said anything to him about it. I have not had any conversation with him about it since. He gave me some furs of his wife's to wear and I have been living with him ever since as his wife.

My father and mother do not know what I am doing, and think I am a housekeeper at Hilldrop Crescent.

When Mr. Crippen told me his wife had gone to America I don't remember if he told me she was coming back or not. I cannot remember if he went into mourning.

That statement was made on 8th July and next morning Crippen came to the office and gave instructions to a man named Long to buy a quantity of boy's clothing. Long afterwards found that the boy's clothes had been taken away from the place where he had left them by Crippen's orders and that a hat - which he recognised as having been worn by prisoner at some time - was left in the office.

The police went to Hilldrop Crescent and found that Crippen and prisoner had disappeared. On 13th July the human remains were found in the cellar and a hue and cry were at once set up.

It is plain beyond dispute from the facts that I am about to state that Crippen and prisoner were flying from justice. They went to Antwerp and there they left for Canada on 20th July by the 'Montrose'. Between 9th July - and certainly between 15th and 20th July - the newspapers were full of descriptions both of Crippen and the prisoner, and their photographs. It is incredible that accused should not have had the curiosity to look at the English papers at Antwerp and have seen that there has a hue and cry after Crippen and herself. They booked on the 'Montrose' under false names and disguised.

What could have induced the prisoner to take those steps on and after 9th July? What was it the prisoner knew which induced her to cut off her hair and masquerade as a boy, and condemn herself practically to perpetual silence because she dare not speak in public in the hearing of any person lest her voice should betray her?

The explanation which lies on the surface of those facts is that the prisoner knew that Crippen was flying from justice for the murder of his wife. What other explanation is there? Absolutely none. When the prisoner was charged on board the 'Montrose' with being a party to willful murder she became faint and made no reply to the charge. She also said she had neither seen nor knew anything about the letter of appeal from her father, published in the newspapers. Prisoners were brought back on the 'Megantic' and while on that vessel Le Neve was charged with murder and also with being an accessory after the fact.

All she said then was 'Yes', indicating that she knew what the nature of the charges was. Again, at Bow Street Police Station she made no reply and before being committed by the magistrate for trial upon the present charge she was given the opportunity of going into the witness box, and again made no answer at all.

Gentlemen, is there any explanation which she can offer, except that she was flying from justice with Crippen? If there is any other explanation, why has it not been put forward?

It is useless to speculate whether she, being a woman, may not have accompanied this man for some other reason. Can she, the person who knows whether such an explanation exists, choose to let opportunity after opportunity go by and leave the facts unexplained altogether?

You are left now with the plain explanation lying on the surface of those facts and nothing else. Crippen was flying from justice accompanied by the prisoner at the bar, she assisting him to evade pursuit by disguising herself. For some reason - it matters not what - it was decided that Crippen was not to fly alone and she - being a source of danger to him unless she disguised herself - she made the sacrifices involved. She cut off her hair, dressed as a boy, and passed as his son with a false name, flying to a foreign country by a circuitous route. All these things for what reason? For no reason that she offers at all and I submit that, unless and until you get from her - or from somebody else - some explanation, the only interpretation you can put upon these acts is the interpretation that she knew of Crippen's crime and she assisted Crippen to escape.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

Mr. FREDERICK LOWN, examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS:

I am the owner of the house at 39 Hilldrop Crescent. Crippen was tenant of that house from September 1905 to July 1910. I knew Mrs. Crippen who was living in the same house with her husband but I did not know the prisoner.

Dr. J. H. BURROUGHS, examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS:

I am a registered medical practitioner at 169 City Road. I have known Mrs. Crippen since 1902. I last saw her on a Wednesday early in January. I also know Mrs. Martinetti. I have attended her professionally. I saw her last night. She is suffering from influenza with high temperature and is quite unable to attend here this morning. She has been ill since last Tuesday, the day when she gave evidence in this case. The first I heard about Mrs. Crippen was that she was dead. I also heard at the same time that she had gone away and that she had died abroad.

Chief Inspector DEW examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS:

I was at Bow Street Police Court when Mrs. Martinetti gave evidence. She afterwards signed the depositions, and I now identify her signature.

Mr. Humphreys then read extracts from the depositions in question that bear on the present case, including mention of the dinner party at Hilldrop Crescent on 31st January; also the statement of Mrs. Martinetti that on 20th February she saw prisoner wearing a brooch which she believed Mrs. Crippen had worn.

Mr. Smith next read the material passages from the cross-examination of Mrs. Martinetti, as follows:

At the ball I did not speak to Miss Le Neve. Afterwards, we sat at the same table with Dr. Crippen between us. Other friends at the gathering knew her quite well. Miss Le Neve, I thought, was very quiet. At the dinner I did not see her much. The brooch she was wearing she wore without any attempt at concealment. Miss Le Neve would naturally expect to meet many of Mrs. Crippen's friends at the dinner.

Miss MELINDA MAY, examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS:

I am secretary of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild. Meetings of the committee were held every Wednesday at Albion House. Mrs. Crippen was a member of the Guild. Belle Elmore was present at the meeting on 26th January. The next meeting was on 2nd February. She was not then present.

On that day the prisoner came to me and gave me the passbook, cheque book, and the paying-in book in an open envelope. She also gave me two letters.

(Shown a quantity of jewellery, a brooch, a pair of earrings, and six rings.)

I have seen Belle Elmore wearing similar jewellery.

Cross-examined by Mr. SMITH:

Q: Did you hear that Belle Elmore had gone to America and had died?
A: Yes.

Q: Was there talk about getting a wreath?
A: Yes.

Q: You were in favour of sending a wreath?
A: Yes.

Q: Then you accepted the statement that she was dead?
A: Yes.

Inspector DEW (recalled), examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS:

Mr. Nash called at Scotland Yard on June 30, and from that date inquiries were made with a view to tracing Mrs. Crippen. On 8th July I went to Hilldrop Crescent. The French maid opened the door and I asked for Dr. Crippen. She sent for Miss Le Neve and I told her that I wanted to see Dr. Crippen. She told me he was not in so I told her I was Inspector Dew and asked who she was. She said she was the housekeeper. I then asked if she were Miss Le Neve and she said she was. I told her that I wanted to see Dr. Crippen with regard to Mrs. Crippen's disappearance and she said she would telephone to the doctor. Then, after some demur, she agreed to come with me to Albion House. There she made a statement, which was taken down and read over to her. She then signed it.

(Mr. Humphreys read the statement, which is given in Mr. Muir's opening speech.)

Miss Le Neve, Dr. Crippen, Sergeant Mitchell and I went to Hilldrop Crescent. Miss Le Neve remained in the kitchen while we went round the house. Except that some things were packed up, the place was in perfect order. While in the house Dr. Crippen showed me some jewellery. Dr. Crippen had a rather heavy moustache. He was wearing gold-rimmed glasses. The next day I circulated a description of Mrs. Crippen. On 11th July I went to Albion House but failed to see Dr. Crippen. I then went to Hilldrop Crescent and, as I did not find him there, I circulated descriptions of Dr. Crippen and Miss Le Neve. These descriptions were circulated all over the world.

On 13th July I went to Hilldrop Crescent again. On digging up the floor of the cellar I came on the human remains. I sent for Dr. Marshall. The remains were left there that night and the next day were removed to the mortuary. I found some clothes in the house. They were in three baskets and a box. I identify the furs which are produced. I also found a box under the bed in one of the rooms, containing two suits of pyjamas and a single pair of pyjama trousers. I also identify Dr. Crippen's medical degree which I found. Warrants were issued on 16th July. Subsequently, I received certain information and went to Canada.

On 31st July I boarded the 'Montrose' and arrested Dr. Crippen. He had shaved his moustache and had discarded glasses. I then went into cabin No. 5 and saw Miss Le Neve. She was dressed in a brown suit of boy's clothes. I said to her 'Miss Le Neve?' and she replied, 'Yes'. I told her that she would be arrested and charged with Dr. Crippen with the murder and mutilation of Mrs. Crippen. She made no reply. Before reading the warrant to her I cautioned her. When told the charge she became faint. I then went back to Dr. Crippen and when he was searched we found upon him two cards and the articles of jewellery which he had shown me on 8th July at Hilldrop Crescent. Cabin No. 5 was also occupied by Dr. Crippen. They went under the names of 'John Philo Robinson' and 'John Robinson.' I was present when the captain spoke to Miss Le Neve. He said he would do all he could for her. He asked, 'Have you not seen the letter from your father in the papers?' She said ' No, I have not seen any papers since I left London. I know nothing about it. If I had known anything about it I should have communicated at once.'

Later on she said, 'I assure you, Mr. Dew, I know nothing about it. I intended to write to my sister when I got to Quebec'. On 21st August, I again read the warrant to her and she replied, 'Yes.'

When the charge was read over at the police station she made no reply. The warrant charged her with murder as well as with aiding and abetting.

Cross-examined by Mr. SMITH:

Q: Have you inquired about her past life?
A: Yes. For ten years she has been a shorthand typist. I understand that she has not been living with her father and mother for some years.

Q: What is her father's position in life?
A: He is of the lower middle class. He is a canvasser for coal orders.

Q: You know he wrote some articles for a paper called Answers?
A: He did but I did not read them. On 8th July the prisoner showed me all over the house. She volunteered the suggestion that I should go over the house and see if Dr. Crippen were there. I accepted her word that Dr. Crippen was not there.

Q: How was the statement at Albion House made? Did you ask her questions?
A: On some points and her answers were incorporated in her own words. I supplemented her statement in this way. It was a very lucid statement. Dr. Crippen told me that the prisoner knew nothing about it. He said, 'It is only fair to say that she knows nothing about it. I never told her anything'. After my conversation with Dr. Crippen in July, I circulated a description of Mrs. Crippen. I knew the state of the wardrobe which she left behind, Although I knew that she had not carried any of her clothes and jewellery away, I circulated this description. I circulated the description as that of a missing person. Dr. Crippen told me she had taken some jewellery and a basket of clothes.

Q: How did you circulate the description?
A: We do it consequently. We send it round to all the Metropolitan Police Stations, so that the attention of every constable is drawn to it. Frequently, we get information that way. We do not send them by post. We have a system of our own. We send them by cart to the head stations and they are then circulated. The 'Montrose' left Antwerp on 20th July.

Dr. AUGUSTUS JOSEPH PEPPER, examined by Mr. Muir:

I am a Master in Surgery at the London University and a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. I was called to 39 Hilldrop Crescent, some remains having been found there. In addition to the remains there were some Hinde's curlers, a woman's under vest and a piece of a pyjama jacket. I found all the organs except those of sex. I examined the organs to see if there was any natural cause of death but could find none. The head, arms, legs, and bones had been taken away. I found amongst the pieces of flesh a piece with a scar on it such as I have frequently seen. The remains and the articles found were put in jars and sealed up. I found that the hair had been bleached. The remains were those of an adult person in middle life and rather stout. I should think the length of time they had been in the ground would be between four and eight months. The organs of the chest had been removed in one piece, attached one to the other as they would be in the body. That indicated considerable skill on the part of the person who removed them.

Mr. HAROLD KIRBY, examined by Mr. Muir:

I am an assistant of Messrs. Lewis & Burrows, and I knew Dr. Crippen as a customer of the firm. On 19th January January Dr. Crippen purchased five grains of hyoscine hydrobromide. He had never or since purchased hyoscine. He signed the Poisons Register, stating that he required the hyoscine for homeopathic purposes. Ever since I have been with the firm, have they stocked such a large quantity of hyoscine.

Dr. WILLCOX, examined by Mr. Oddie:

I am senior analyst to the Home Office. I examined the viscera, hair, under vest and piece of pyjama jacket found in the cellar. I saw a piece of flesh with a scar on it. I examined the organs for poison and I found hyoscine. A quarter to half a grain would be a poisonous dose. In my opinion, death was caused by hyoscine poisoning. After the drug was administered death would take place probably within twelve hours, without any recovery. It had been administered by the mouth. It is rather bitter in taste and it must be taken in something with a pronounced flavour such as beer, coffee, or sweet tea.

(A jar was produced from which witness took the piece of pyjama jacket which was found with the remains.) This piece of pyjama jacket is similar to the single pair of pyjama trousers.

Mrs. EMILY JACKSON examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS:

I am Miss Le Neve's landlady. Miss Le Neve came to live with me at Constantine Road, Hampstead, in September, 1908, and, except for a break between March and August 1909, stayed at that address until 12th March, 1910. She had a bed-sitting room. I used frequently to go up to Miss Le Neve's bedroom and talk to her there. During the latter part of January I observed that there was something strange about Miss Le Neve's manner. She became very miserable and depressed. Upon one occasion in the latter part of January Miss Le Neve came home looking very tired and strange. She was greatly agitated and went to bed without supper. I went into the bedroom after her. I could see that her whole body was trembling, and that she was in a terrible state. I asked her what was the matter but she did not seem to have strength to speak. I asked her again, and she said she would be all right in the morning. She lay down in her bed and I sat beside her awhile and finally left her when I thought she was asleep. That was about two o'clock in the morning. Next morning, between eight and nine, I took her a cup of tea.

The next time I saw her was after nine o'clock. She was then dressed to go out to business. She had only eaten a sandwich. She tried to eat but she could not. She appeared very ill and was trembling. She picked up a cup of tea and tried to drink it, but could not. I said to her, ' I can't let you go to Albion House like this. There is something the matter with you. I will go and tell them you are unfit to go to business to-day'.

She said, 'You will ring up the doctor, won't you?' I rang up Albion House and then went back to Miss Le Neve and said to her that she must tell me what was the matter. I said to her that I was sure there was something dreadful on her mind, and that if she did not relieve her mind she would go absolutely mad.

She said, 'I will tell you the whole story presently'.

'A little while afterwards she said, ' Would you be surprised if I told you it is the doctor?'

I said, ' What do you mean; do you mean he was the cause of your trouble when I first saw you?'

She said 'Yes'.

I said, 'Why worry about that; it is past and gone?'

She burst into tears again, and said, 'It is Miss Elmore'. Up to that time I had never heard the name of Miss Elmore in my life. I wondered what she meant, and asked her, and she said, 'She is his wife, you know. When I see them go away together it makes me realise what my position is.'

I said, 'My dear girl, what is the use of worrying about another woman's husband?'

And she said, 'She has been threatening to go away with another man and that is all we are waiting for, and when she does that the doctor is going to divorce her and marry me.'

I said, 'Are you sure he will marry you? It seems to me that it is most unfair what he is asking.'

I said to her when she spoke of realising her position, 'Why don't you tell him what you have told me as regards position?' She said she would and she afterwards informed me she had told the doctor and that he had said he was very glad she had done so. I don't think she referred again to her illness and agitation. From August, 1909, Miss Le Neve came home regularly, excepting when she spent the weekend away with her sister. She began to stay away in the early part of February. It would be about the second week. She only came home in the mornings. She came home about a week after the illness looking very happy and said somebody had gone away at last. That was before she began to stay out at night. She said she had been at Hilldrop Crescent searching for a bank book. In the course of the search certain jewellery had been found, some of which had been sold by Crippen and the money put into his business.

I received a number of articles of clothing from prisoner. Miss Le Neve first began to bring clothing to me during February and continued to bring me articles till the time she left. The articles included a fur coat, a black feather boa, a long green coat, a long brown coat, a long black coat, blouses, skirts, nightgowns, hats, stockings, etc. The things were brought in cardboard boxes excepting on one occasion when Miss Le Neve came with Crippen and brought some things in a dress basket. Miss Le Neve left my house on 12th March. I visited her at Hilldrop Crescent.

Cross-examined by Mr. Smith:

A: I became very intimate with Miss Le Neve and we were on quite different terms from the ordinary lodger and landlady. Miss Le Neve called me 'mother.' The ordinary routine of the evening was that Miss Le Neve came home at six o'clock, had tea with me and my husband, sat with us till nine, and then we all had supper.

Q: By long and frequent conversations with her you acquired an intimate knowledge of her?
A: Yes.

Q: Did she seem to you to be of a gentle and retiring nature?
A: Yes. She was lovable and affectionate to me always.

Q: Her character generally was sympathetic and kind?
A: So far as I know.

Q: And you saw a great deal of her?
A: Yes. Miss Le Neve suffered from neuralgia and anemia and on several occasions was unable to go down to business. She suffered at irregular intervals considerable pain and weakness.

Q: When you give us dates it is a matter of guesswork?
A: I cannot fix dates.

Q; You did not try to recollect any of these dates till July? You did not attach much importance to them?
A: I never gave them another thought.

Q: When the police came in July you began to think of them?
A: Yes.

Q: You had read, naturally, every word of the Crippen case?
A: I had not. I was overwhelmed by it. I had not finished reading the paper when the police came. I could not read it. It seemed too horrible.

Q: You had mastered the fact that there had been a disappearance and that remains were found in the cellar?
A: Yes.

Q: Also that Belle Elmore had not been seen by any one alive since 1st February?
A: Yes.

Q: When the police came, you began to try to recall what you could of your conversation with Miss Le Neve?
A: Yes.

Q: Who saw you on behalf of the police?
A: Sergeant Cornish.

Q: Did he ask you whether you had ever seen anything strange in her manner about the end of January?
A: I hardly remember. He asked me whether I had seen anything strange about her manner.

Q: Are you prepared to tell us now, definitely, that this strangeness of manner which you have described did not extend to the whole of January?
A: I do not think she became strange till the early part.

Q: I suppose you mean the 5th, 6th, 7th and that kind of thing?
A: Something like that.

Q: From 5th, 6th, and 7th January, you began to notice something queer?
A: She began to be miserable and unhappy.

Q: Did that, as far as you can recollect, react at all on her physical health?
A: It made her look very ill.

Q; So that I may take it that almost the whole of January she was depressed and looked very ill. Did you notice anything about her eyes?
A: They were strange and very haggard.

Q: The same kind of look as you saw on the occasion which you have described her as being very ill?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you ask her, before that conversation you have described, what was the matter?
A: Yes.

Q: A dozen times?
A: Quite a dozen.

Q: What did she say?
A: That she was worried with the accounts in the office.

Q: For all you know she may have been?
A: Yes.

Q: How did you fix the date of this occasion on which you say she was very ill? You told my learned friend it was during January - towards the latter part. Would you be prepared to say on oath that it may have been as far back as 25th January?
A: I could not fix a date.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: It may have been as early as that?
A: It may.

Cross-examination continued:

Q: You have stated that she came home one night more 'pleasant' than you had seen her and said that somebody had gone to America. If it is correct that she came back and said this at the beginning of February, it would suggest the other conversation when she was so agitated would be about 25th January?
A: Somewhere about that.

Q: You mean she was in high spirits at the beginning of February when you say she came back 'pleasant'?
A: Yes.

Q: No trace of anxiety, no depression, no sign of physical ill health?
A: No.

Q: She seemed a really happy woman and, by way of a joke, you asked her if some one had died and left her money?
A: Yes.

Q: And she replied that some one had gone to America?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you know what she meant?
A: She had told me previously that was what she was waiting for.

Q: You knew that Crippen had told her his wife had been threatening to go and it did not surprise you very much?
A: No.

Q: There was no doubt in your mind that she was genuinely relieved?
A: No.

Q: You will not in any way bind yourself to a date?
A: No.

Formal evidence was given as to the pawning of jewellery by Crippen and his insertion of the advertisement in 'The Era' of Belle Elmore's death.

WILLIAM LONG, who was Crippen's Dental Mechanic, repeated the evidence he gave at the Crippen trial as to purchasing, by Crippen's orders, a boy's suit, tie, shirts, &c.

In reply to Mr. Smith, witness said he had known Miss Le Neve for nine years. She was a gentle and inoffensive girl.

THIS CONCLUDED THE CASE FOR THE CROWN.

Mr. F. E. Smith announced that he did not propose to call any evidence for the defence.

CLOSING SPEECH FOR THE CROWN

Mr. Muir addressed the jury on behalf of the Crown. He said, I stated the facts of this case to you so short a time ago and the evidence has occupied so short a space that it will be quite unnecessary for me to repeat them, except in the most summary fashion. There is, first of all, the three years' intrigue between the prisoner at the bar and Crippen, the murderer, culminating in January, or the early part of February, so far as Le Neve is concerned, in the remarkable scene in her bedroom, as described by Mrs. Jackson. Mrs. Jackson did not, and could not, fix a date; but is it not plain that about the time this murder was unquestionably committed, namely, somewhere near the early morning of 1st February, this remarkable attack of horror and prostration seized the prisoner?

That was the state of things that Mrs. Jackson spoke to. Within a week of it, Le Neve has a complete change of demeanour. She comes home happy and relieved, bringing Mrs. Crippen's jewels, furs, and clothes, going about with Mrs. Crippen's husband, and going to live at Mrs. Crippen's husband's house. So the thing goes on. She went to Dieppe with Crippen and came back and stayed at Hilldrop Crescent with him, and was there found on 8th July when the police came to inquire about the missing Mrs. Crippen. She knows what the object of their inquiry is. She goes with them to Albion House. An interview takes pace between Crippen and Chief Inspector Dew, and then between her and Chief Inspector Dew. She knows that Chief Inspector Dew is inquiring after the missing woman.

The very next morning she and Crippen are in flight, both disguised, both under false names. Flying from what? From the remains which are buried in that cellar; from the accusation against Crippen of the murder of his wife.

Le Neve was arrested on 31st July. She was told of the charge made against her-the charge of murder, and the charge of being accessory after the fact. She made no reply. On 21st August on her way home she was told the charge, and made no reply.

On 27th August, at Bow Street Police Station she was told of the charge, and made no reply; and when committed for trial, with every opportunity for making a statement she made none.

Gentlemen, it is left to you to apply your common sense to the facts, and see whether any other reason than knowledge on her part that Crippen had murdered his wife can account for her silence. I do not think I should be justified in taking up your time further. It is for you to say, on these facts, what inference, either for or against the prisoner, you will draw from them.

SPEECH FOR THE DEFENCE.

Mr. F. E. SMITH, addressing the jury on behalf of the prisoner, said:

I have not had an opportunity of addressing you till now, and it will be necessary for me to lay before you the circumstances on which I shall rely at some greater length than was necessary for my learned friend in addressing you for the second time.

I think it very essential that you should clearly understand what is the nature of the charge here, and what is the proposition - I shall venture to say before I finish the astounding proposition - to which the prosecution in this case stands committed. It is, to put it shortly, that in this murder committed by Crippen - a murder callous, calculated, cold-blooded, a murder which, I say, in the whole annals of crime it would be hard to match for cold-blooded deliberation the prisoner in the dock was privy to that murder, that she became privy to it after its commission with or without all its details. That, and that alone, is the issue which you have to determine.

Did the prisoner, either before she went away with Crippen or at the time she went away with him, become aware that Crippen committed this murder? Let me repeat here a caution that is very familiar to those of us who practise in these Courts, and very necessary to be borne in mind. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to come here and say, ' We are an agency for eliciting explanations. We come here to invite explanations. We complain that explanations have not been forthcoming.'

It is for the prosecution to convince you beyond all reasonable doubt of the truth of the fundamental proposition to which they are committed, and that proposition is that this woman became aware that Crippen had killed his wife.

It is for my learned friend not to invite explanations from me, not to indicate as a matter of interest that there is a point obscure here, or a detail in regard to which I can assist him by offering an explanation. It is for him to discharge the onus, and to discharge it fully.

The law places it on him, and says, ' You shall prove that this woman knew that Crippen murdered his wife.' It is for you, with the very scanty assistance which my learned friend has been able to give you, to ask yourselves the question, 'How far have the prosecution proved their case?'

And in a case in which knowledge of murder is concerned one does not, I apprehend, expect a lower standard in the character of the proof than in a less important case. Remembering the tremendous character of the charge here, remembering the onus which the prosecution are bound to discharge, I ask you this question : ' Taking the case as a whole, how far has my learned friend, in the course of his two speeches, in the course of the evidence which in any way affects this prisoner, discharged the onus?'

It is a question which cannot be answered in a perfunctory manner. I suppose no observation in ethics is more familiar than that no one suddenly becomes very base. Bearing this in mind, I invite you to consider what is the evidence, so far as it goes, about this young woman's antecedents, in order that you may have some guidance when you consider how far you can conceivably accept the suggestion which the prosecution, on grounds so slender, asks you to accept. What has been the history of this young woman before she came into the dock? We have indications here and there in the inquiries made by Inspector Dew, in the evidence given by Mr. Long, and in the statement by Mrs. Jackson as to the life which Le Neve had led for several years before the events which form the subject of this inquiry. We know, for instance, that ten or eleven years ago, at the age of sixteen or seventeen, an age when I need hardly remind you young girls in happier circumstances are going to a finishing governess, it became necessary for her to earn her own living as a typist.

You know what are the temptations to which, under normal conditions and with normal employers, a young and attractive girl is exposed going to the city as a typist. You know that the road of life is steep and dangerous enough for her under normal circumstances. What was the misfortune of this girl, little more than a child, when it became necessary for her to earn her living? She had the extreme misfortune to come across the path, at the age of seventeen, of one of the most dangerous and remarkable men who have lived in this century; a man to whom in the whole history of the psychology of crime a high place must be given as a compelling and masterful personality. Carry your minds back ten years. Conceive to yourselves the two people who became acquainted. Crippen, imperturbable, unscrupulous, dominating, fearing neither God nor man, and yet a man insinuating, attractive, and immoral.

That is one of the two people. The other was, as I have said, a schoolgirl aged seventeen, an age when most of you would be shielding your daughters in happy homes from the world. She was the girl who, Mrs. Jackson was able to tell you, years afterwards was a gentle, retiring, sympathetic girl.

What do you conceive the mutual relations of those two, in their origin, were? There is no reason whatever to suppose that the intrigue between them has lasted more than three years. There is no reason to suppose she was other than chaste during the first seven years of her struggle with the world. Then, in measuring the moral blame which you rightly assign to the intrigues which were undoubtedly carried on in the last three years, you would, I suggest, be doing wrong if you excluded from your consideration the circumstances that Crippen was the one really important figure looming so largely in her life.

He was the doctor, and she was the typist. Their relative positions were very likely those of the centurion in the Bible who said to his servant, 'Do this, and he doeth it'. Those were the positions. For seven years she was under that influence. I ask you to think of the seven years, and how they were spent, and contrast them with the lives that you give to your daughters; seven years of drab and dreary toil by day as a typist; by night a gloomy lodging house and this in the very dawn of womanhood!

When you are forming your judgment on the whole of the case, I ask you not to lay undue weight upon the circumstances of the intrigue. No one can doubt that Crippen soothed her conscience by telling her either that his wife, Mrs. Crippen, did not love him, or that she loved another man, and was threatening to go away with another man. It maybe true or false, but it is not material. Whether true or false, representations of the kind must have been made by Crippen and they might have been reasonably believed by her at this time.

I come to the time during which Miss Le Neve was staying with Mrs. Jackson. What was Mrs. Jackson's description of bar? That she had an attractive disposition, no wickedness, no dissolute habits, no levity or wantonness of conduct, so far as she saw, with the exception, of course, of the attraction which Dr. Crippen had for her. At the same time we know that she was neuralgic, delicate, and a little hysterical. Under such circumstances, I want to ask, 'Is it the prosecution's case that Le Neve became aware immediately after the murder that the murder had been committed?'

Am I asking too much when I say that the prosecution should at least understand their own theory, and at least tell you clearly and not in the alternative, what their theory is?

I cannot for the life of me, having heard Mr. Muir's two speeches, tell you whether the Crown's case is that Le Neve became aware of the murder at or near the time it was committed or whether it is that she became aware of it immediately before she fled. There is not the slightest doubt that, in his opening speech, the case that Mr. Muir intended to make was that this woman became aware the murder had been committed at or near the time it was committed, and that it was because of her agitation on receiving that horrible news that Mrs. Jackson was able to found the observations which it was supposed she was going to make in the witness box.

When I contemplate the position as it has been left now that Mrs. Jackson has given evidence with the position when Mr. Muir opened the case, and the manner m which he has perfunctorily abandoned it, I am shocked that a charge of that character should be brought forward and proceeded with. You have had the advantage of seeing Mrs. Jackson in the witness-bog. She has told you that almost daily during January she noticed the same signs of depression and physical ailment.

What is the suggestion my learned friend makes now as to the cause of the depression?

Why did not my learned friend, at any rate, give us some little guidance on this point?

During the whole of January, a month before anything happened to Belle Elmore, and during which, according to all the evidence, husband and wife were living on apparently friendly terms, those same symptoms in Le Neve had been diagnosed by the kind hearted, officious and somewhat garrulous landlady, who for the whole month had been asking questions as to what ailed Le Neve.

Mr. Muir has said it would be wrong to claim for Mrs. Jackson exact precision in the matter of dates. That observation bears very much more on the case for the prosecution than on the case for the defence. Mrs. Jackson said, not only here but before the coroner, that it was in February that the prisoner came home looking happier than she had for some time, and announced that 'somebody had gone to America.'

Mrs. Jackson, after going, through that scene with Le Neve, probably thought nothing more about it until July. She was then interviewed by the police. By that time she had read all the details of the Crippen case in the papers. It is obvious that at that time she knew what was the critical part of this case. She was thoroughly steeped in all the melodrama and the horror of it. She was asked this question, Did you notice anything strange about Le Neve's manner?'

I derived the impression of Mrs. Jackon that she is a lady who would never be defeated by a question of that kind and, thereupon, in answer to the leading question, she described the scene which there is every reason now to believe took place before the murder. She described it in language by no means inconsistent with the view, that the illness of Miss Le Neve was largely physical, exaggerated no doubt by depression.

Unless the prosecution withdrew Mrs. Jackson's evidence altogether, it means that at or about this time Le Neve knew that Crippen had murdered his wife. I would ask, is there any one of you who is absolutely certain whether the case for the prosecution is that Le Neve knew at that time, and if so, by what evidence is it supported? Is there one other witness except Mrs. Jackson, or one other shred of evidence, to satisfy you that Le Neve became aware of the murder at or near the time of its commission?

How could Le Neve have known about the murder? In two ways only. The first would be that she found it out and the second that Crippen told her. No one will suggest that it is likely that she found out. There is not a vestige of evidence that she could have done so.

That being the case, the prosecution is necessarily committed to the view that Crippen told the young woman that he had killed his wife.

If that is so he must have told her either in broad outline or with a wealth of hideous and filthy detail which has occupied this Court for a week. A more monstrous and stupid suggestion was never made in a Court of justice. What is the position? Crippen had risked his neck; he coolly weighed every chance; he did his terrible work on 1st February with no accomplice, no witness and, as he fondly thought, leaving behind him no trace. It is suggested that the man who had done all this - who with fiendish and detailed calculation had covered up every trace which might reveal and betray his hideous secret - told this young, nervous woman that he had committed the murder.

In other words, he gave this enormous hostage to fortune - he told a woman that he had killed his wife. If the teachings of human psychology have any value, the odds are prodigious that any young woman not belonging to the criminal classes, having this horrible statement made to her, would receive it with aversion, revulsion and disgust.

Does any one suggest that this would not be a possibility which Crippen would bear in mind; that he would realise that a woman, innocent up to now, was to be asked by him to become an accomplice to a crime so horrible that to-day it is spoken of in the whole world almost with bated breath?

My learned friend's case is really this - that Crippen would say to Le Neve, 'This is how I treated the woman who last shared my home, and I invite you to come and share it with me now'.

He ran such risks as men do not run even on the wild assumption that when Le Nave was told of the crime she acquiesced and agreed to remain silent - a wild and incredible proposition. But even supposing that Crippen put his neck at the hazard of a woman's constancy and self-control, safe, as he thought, by the precautions he had taken, he put his life in the hands of a nervous and hysterical woman. He knew her temperament, and yet we are asked to believe that he put his life on the chance that in a fit of emotion, in her sleep, in fright, to a friend, or aghast at the sheer horror of it, she might have told something of the dark and terrible secret which Crippen kept to himself and to himself alone.

From first to last not a single inaccuracy of the slightest importance has been found in her statement. She said that Crippen had told her early in February that his wife had gone to America, and it is asked whether it is to be supposed that in that event she would have left behind all her clothes. It is said it is impossible that she believed Mrs. Crippen had gone to America, and yet Inspector Dew, an experienced police officer, a man of the world, a man with a wide knowledge of the seamy side of life and of human nature, was so able to believe it that he circulated a description of Belle Elmore.

If there can be one circumstance which suggests innocence more than another, it was the way in which prisoner dealt with the clothes and jewellery. It is incredible that if she had known of the murder she could have gone about distributing the clothes as she did. If she believed that Mrs. Crippen had gone away with another man, she knew perfectly well that Mrs. Crippen would not dare to come back. Is the suggestion that she wore the brooch at the Benevolent Fund ball consistent with the suggestion that she knew a murder had been committed?

If she had known, would she have gone to the ball, where many of Mrs. Crippen's friends were, appeared with Crippen, and worn the very brooch that belonged to the dead woman? Now, I come to the last point made by the prosecution - the point insisted upon by Mr. Muir - that Le Neve fled in disguise with Crippen. What do you suppose Crippen said to her before she went away? You may well ask yourselves that.

Not only have the prosecution not shown that she was told before she went away, but I have shown you that she was not told before. The prosecution say that if she was not told before she must have become aware of it when she fled in disguise.

Before you can draw that conclusion you must satisfy yourself that there was nothing else which Crippen could have said to her to induce her to flee in disguise. I reject in toto that there is nothing else which Crippen could have told her consistent with her innocence in the matter which would have been of sufficient weight and urgency to induce her to go away with him. Consider the influence, the dominating influence, which a character like Crippen's would exercise over her.

Suppose Crippen had said something like this to her: 'Inspector Dew, as you know, has asked me some nasty questions about my wife. She had gone away and I do not know where she is and if she does not turn up it may be very awkward for me, and I may be liable to arrest'.

Supposing, for the sake of argument, that Crippen had said that. Would not that be a circumstance in which one can well understand an inexperienced girl would have gone away?

You cannot consider this as being a case of two adults of equal age dealing with one another. They were very different persons. Crippen had acquired this enormous power over her and she was utterly ignorant of the laws of England. She was confronted with the problem as to whether she would stay in England or go with him.

Already I have ventured to suggest to you that Crippen had not told her before and, now I ask you, if I am right in saying that Crippen had never told her before, would he tell her now if he could possibly help it?

Must not the answer here be precisely the answer which I think I have shown you must be the answer to the first question: Would it have made him safer, even if she had been willing to become his accomplice?

I say to you that the prosecution have not even explained what is their theory on this, which is the very fundamental point of their case.

If she was aware of this matter, when do they suggest that she became aware of it? On what evidence do they satisfy themselves that she was aware of it?

Consider whether or not they have satisfied you. They will have to give you one good reason why Crippen should have told Le Neve and I ask you and I am content that my case should be judged by your ability to give an answer to this question: Why should Crippen tell Le Neve?

If she found out, then I quite agree. But there is not a vestige of proof that she found out. If she had not found out, then why in the name of conscience, in the name of security, should Crippen have told her? The suggestion is so grotesque that you cannot for a moment believe it. Does any one believe that the girl went back to live at Hilldrop Crescent towards the end of February, the month that this murder was committed - went to live in this house knowing that its last tenant had been murdered by the man she was going to live with?

Such is the suggestion put to you. Was woman ever known so wicked and so abandoned?

I say, in all history, there have been very few women capable of such wickedness.

Every vestige of evidence that you have in this case as to the character of Le Neve shows that if there had been such women in history she is not one of them. You have heard her described as a gentle, sympathetic girl. A defenseless child, she maintained herself at the age of seventeen in the struggle for life without any indication of moral obliquity and you are asked to say that she went back to live in this house in the immediate contiguity of these gruesome remains. Another point of evidence is the statement made by Crippen to Inspector Dew. What does Crippen say: 'Miss Le Neve knows nothing at all about it; I never told her anything'.

So far as that statement made by Crippen supported any inference in his own case it was against him. It is one of those points against Crippen which the prosecuting counsel would rely upon. He knows well enough he is charged with murder, and yet what does he say to the police officer? `I never told Le Neve anything about it'.

Therefore, it is against himself, as it assents partly to the view that there was some charge which could properly be brought against him but of which Le Neve did not know. I would not accept Crippen's word very much unless there were other. reasons supporting it. I say there are other reasons in this case. Crippen, though incriminating himself, helped Le Neve.

There is another point. On the ' Montrose ' a statement was made by Le Neve to the captain in the presence of Inspector Dew. The captain said, `Did you not see your father's letter in the newspaper?' Le Neve says, 'I have not seen any newspapers since I left London'.

My learned friend says she could have seen English papers in Antwerp. Of course, you can see English papers in Antwerp if you know where to get them. It is clear that if she did not see the English papers she did not know about it, because she cannot read a foreign language. And don't you think Crippen took good care that she did not see any English papers?

I will ask you to picture to yourselves what her life has been for the last six months or more. I Imagine what her life has been - hunted, harassed, arrested, and charged with the crime of murder, brought face to face with the full details of the charge formulated against Crippen. From that day to this her life has been one long horror, culminating in this trial and in the knowledge that the man she loved and trusted committed one of the most odious and bloody murders in the history of crime. Imagine what she has gone through.

The prosecution say they want an explanation. That is a wholly novel conception in our criminal law. It is for the prosecution to prove the fact and I am not prepared in a case like this - and I have the full responsibility for the decision, which is my own - I am not prepared, I say, after what that woman has gone through, in the state of health m which she is, to submit her, on facts like these and on evidence such as that which has been presented, to the deadly cross-examination of my learned friend.

It would be different in a case in which the prosecution had brought forward massive and weighty evidence, but I have to deal here with this case and with this prosecution, and I say that they have not proved their case. We are asked to infer that Crippen must have told her about the murder.

Never in the history of our law has a prosecution asked a jury to draw an inference so crazy and so cruel on such facts. Knowing that she is a young and inexperienced woman, without any knowledge of the world, that she is dazed and shattered, I have taken the responsibility upon myself, and I am content to support it.

When she leaves this dock acquitted by your verdict the prospect which opens out to her is not one of happiness. She will be known all over London and all over England, as one who has been the mistress of this murderer.

When she leaves the dock, in any event, there must be a most unhappy future for her.

Let her at least have the satisfaction of knowing that she leaves it with the assent of twelve jurymen who have heard this case, and who, though not blind to her faults, acquitted her. I do not ask you for mercy. I only ask you for justice and I am content you will judge her in her hour of agony with that consideration that you would wish shown to a daughter of your own if she were placed in the same position.

SUMMING UP

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, said:

Gentlemen of the jury, I must ask you to listen to me for a few moments in this case. It is a case which you must approach with very great care. We have just listened to a very able speech from Mr. Smith, and some of his arguments you must consider carefully. Let me caution you not to act on anything except evidence. If there was ever a case in which it was necessary to steel your minds against prejudice it is this case.

You must fix your consideration upon what is found to b e proved, on what will leave no reasonable doubt in our own minds. If there is any doubt in your minds, the prisoner is entitled to the benefit. The Crown have to make out their case and, unless in your judgment they have made it out beyond all reasonable doubt and to your satisfaction so that you would adopt it and act upon it, in an event in your own lives, then the prisoner, Ethel Le Neve, is entitled to have your verdict of not guilty.

The only matter upon which you have to concentrate our attention is, 'Did Ethel Le Neve know when she fled with Crippen that he was a murderer and had murdered his wife?'

You are not to judge Ethel Le Neve because she was his mistress. This is not a Court of morals; this is a Court of law.

You are not to judge the woman because she has fallen. It would not be right for any one to judge the woman from the standard of morality. You must consider the case just as if she had not had that history to which reference has been made. In so far as immorality and misconduct have bearing on the evidence you must consider them but you are not to allow any prejudice to enter into your minds because this poor woman was seduced and was the mistress of this man.

Further, you are not to assume anything against this woman because of the wickedness of which Crippen has been guilty. You must sweep from your mind anything in the nature of prejudice arising from the fact that she was an immoral woman and that she was associated with Crippen.

I told you I would state to you the one question on which she is charged and I repeat it. 'Did she know, when she assisted Crippen in his flight, that he had murdered his wife?'

Now, you need not trouble your minds as to whether she assisted in the flight. That is not seriously disputed. She joined in, so far as she disguised herself, so that she might pass as a boy, instead of as a woman, as Crippen's son.

Therefore, if you think she knew of it, you will probably have no doubt that she did in fact harbour and assist Crippen. Of course, no one is allowed to assist the flight of a person who has committed a crime. That a murder was committed on or about 2nd February is beyond doubt. Therefore, I say, concentrate your minds and apply your consideration to the question. Did she know about it? Again, I say the Crown must satisfy you by evidence, and not by suspicion, that she knew of it.

It is quite true, as Mr. Smith put it to you, they have no right to call for an explanation unless there is evidence which leads you to the conclusion that she knew Crippen to have committed the murder.

Now, the affirmative evidence requires to be very carefully examined, and examined from a slightly different point of view than was suggested either by Mr. Muir or Mr. Smith. It centres mainly upon what has been described as the Jackson incident. It is said that on or about the end of January or the beginning of February, the prisoner was in such a state that, as Mr. Muir put it, she must have been under the influence of some horror. Her eyes were staring, and her condition such that she could not speak or explain herself. Mr. Muir very properly called your attention to that, and if he could have proved that at the time she could have known of the murder it would have been a strong piece of evidence. You must consider carefully what Mr. Smith addressed to you upon the point, when be said that the evidence was not established.

I think in his remarks he could have gone a little further.

There are certain facts which are established. The murder took place between one or two o'clock on 1st February and twelve o'clock on the morning of the 2nd. That we know. You remember Mrs. Martinetti stated that she left about 1.30 in the morning and that was the last time she saw Mrs. Crippen alive. On the 2nd Le Neve told Miss May that Mrs. Crippen had gone to America. The 2nd of February is the first date when Le Neve could have first known of the murder, and when, according to herself, she first knew that Belle Elmore, who was undoubtedly her rival, had gone away. In the light of that it is very important to consider Mrs. Jackson's evidence. Mrs. Jackson says in her cross examination by Mr. Smith that early in February Le Neve said that someone had gone to America. She could not have stated that till 2nd February. It is to be said in favour of the prisoner that Mrs. Jackson said that very early in February Miss Le Neve was in the highest spirits, 'higher than I have ever seen her before. I think some one must have left her some money'.

Mrs. Jackson went on to say, ' I know whom she meant when she said that some one had gone to America, because she had told me that Mrs. Crippen had threatened to go away.'

You must consider the agitation spoken of by Mrs. Jackson. You must remember that Mrs. Jackson said that about a week after she was so ill she was in the best of spirits. She had a long conversation with Mrs. Jackson when she was ill. She would not tell her what it was, but if it was a week before 2nd February it could not have anything to do with the murder, because on 26th January Belle Elmore was alive and attending the committees of the Music Hall Guild.

On 31st January, she was alive and it is not suggested by anybody that she is dead or disappeared till the morning of 2nd February. A week before she was in good spirits, she has a conversation with Mrs. Jackson who asks her to tell her what is the matter and she says she cannot. She goes to bed, and the next morning she has a further conversation, and finally said, ' Would you be surprised if it were the doctor? ' Then this woman, who is a sensible woman, says, ' Was it he who got you into trouble before? ' Le Neve says it was.

'Do not mind about that, it is long past,' Mrs. Jackson said. Le Neve said, 'I cannot bear to see them together. When I see them I feel my position'.

It may be that this girl had deep twinges of conscience and felt her position as being the mistress of a married man. Then comes the statement that Le Neve had told her that Belle Elmore had threatened to go to America with some other man, and that if she did the doctor would divorce his wife and marry her. And then this kind hearted woman says, 'Surely you won't. Are you not giving up too much for him? '

If there is nothing but her agitation on a date before 2nd February, then there is an end of the case and I am bound to tell you that you are not to convict the prisoner on suspicion. You are to take into consideration the evidence relating to events after the time of the murder.

The evidence is supported by the other fact that Mr. Smith elicited. Mrs. Jackson says that in the latter part of January Le Neve was in a bad state of health but she would not say anything about the actual date. If her story is true, that on 2nd February Ethel Le Neve came to her and told her, 'She has gone to America,' it must have been because Le Neve had been told the same story. This scoundrel was telling the story to everybody else, therefore you are entitled to ask yourselves the question, 'If he was telling other people that story, what reason have you to doubt that he would tell her the same story? Why, should he tell her a different story?' There was no motive for telling her a different story.

I have to see that you act on the evidence and if you come to the conclusion on the evidence before you that her agitation did not occur after 2nd February, on that evidence you are satisfied that it occurred a week before she came back in good spirits, there is no other evidence that in that time she was in a state of agitation or ill-health.

The Crown are bound by their evidence and the evidence of Mrs. Jackson is that it was before 2nd February.

You want to consider very carefully what is the probability of this scoundrel having told her. So far as the evidence is concerned, it stands in this way. When he was arrested he said, 'It is only fair to say she knows nothing about it. I never told her anything.'

It is perfectly plain that that was a most serious statement so far as he was concerned. There is no secret about it. Crippen was most seriously cross-examined upon it and he was asked to what it could refer except his wicked deed towards his wife. I put it to you that it was a statement strongly against himself, although I agree that with such a man as Crippen you won't care very much what he says, still you must look at it in so far as it relates to this girl. He is saying some thing to shield her and says it in terms which reflect on himself. He says, 'I did not tell her anything about it.'

That he had told her that his wife had gone to America and had died you need have no doubt, because of the advertisement which he put in 'The Era'.

I am bound to say that you must ask yourselves if you believe that he would have told the woman he wanted to have as his wife if he had never told anybody else. Of course, he did not tell anybody else.

If the story was 'My wife has gone to America and subsequently died', here is the explanation for Le Neve's conduct which in our wicked world was a ready and reasonable one, although it may not be one of which you think highly.

Mr. Muir has asked you if it is not proved that the prisoner knew of Mrs. Crippen's death, as she wore the dead woman's jewellery. You have heard Mr. Smith upon that point, and I think you must consider very carefully what he has said. Do you think that the fact that she wore the jewels and clothes was consistent with the fact that she believed that Crippen had cruelly murdered his wife a few hours before?

As you are asked to draw an inference I must tell you that you should only draw an inference that is hostile to the prisoner if you are forced to it by an act.

Now, gentlemen, it is pointed out that she gave a considerable amount of things to Mrs. Jackson. I can only say you must be very careful how you act on your suspicions, as she appears to have been very much under the control of Dr. Crippen, and you must draw no inference unless you believe that she was in some way concealing guilt.

You are asked to judge of her conduct, and I want here to make some observations in reference to what Mr. Smith said. You know it is no good concealing from you, as you know perfectly well, that a prisoner can give evidence and possibly you may have wished - I should not be at all surprised - that she had gone into the box and said whether or not she knew about the crime. I think it is just to her to say these is no obligation on a person to go into the witness box unless there is affirmative evidence against them, and you must not draw a hostile conclusion unless you are satisfied that there is an affirmative case to answer. That is to say that if you think the incident to which Mrs. Jackson's referred to took place before the murder, then there is no reason for her to go into the box.

As to her disguising as a boy, you must draw your own conclusions but you must be a little careful that you do not think you know too much of what that scoundrel may have told her. As Mr. Smith has told you, Crippen may have said that he was afraid of being arrested. She undoubtedly was very much attached to him, and undoubtedly thought she was going to be his wife, or at any rate his mistress. That is one part of the case only, and you may think that some further explanation is required. All I can say is that you must be satisfied before you draw any inference.

I must say that another point made by Mr. Smith must not be rejected in the summary way suggested by Mr. Muir. Le Neve said on the boat that she had not seen the papers since she left London. Mr. Muir went a little too far when he said she must have seen the papers in Belgium. You do not know where she was when she was in Antwerp. You do not know how far Crippen would keep her under his hand and prevent her seeing the papers. There is no evidence that she did see the papers. It is said she must have seen the English papers at the hotel. Well, the Crown know at which hotel they stayed, and they could have called evidence to show if there are English papers taken at that hotel.

If you come to the conclusion that she did not know that Mrs. Crippen was murdered when she evinced that agitation referred to by Mrs. Jackson, then you must wipe that from the slate altogether. Then you must ask the question, when could Crippen have told her, and why should Crippen have told her at all, until the actual moment of flight?

Why should he have told her a story different from what he told everybody else between 2nd February and 8th July, when Inspector Dew came to see him? The fact of this woman living with him and going with him to Dieppe, wicked and immoral as it is, is not evidence that he told her that he committed the murder. Upon that part of the case you are entitled to take into consideration what Mr. Smith has said to you about her being gentle, sympathetic, and loving and affectionate towards Crippen. If he had told her, not only might it have been dangerous to himself, but do you not think that it might have changed her feelings towards him?

Gentlemen, I have called your attention to the parts of the evidence which can be said to be evidence against the prisoner. I caution you that you are not to judge her upon a standard of morality. You must be satisfied that the Crown have made nut 'their case and that Crippen told her he had murdered his wife and, until you are satisfied of that, she is entitled to your verdict.

You must not allow your minds to be influenced by what you have heard outside, or by the feeling that the prisoner was an immoral woman, and that she had lived as she ought not to have lived. She is charged with having assisted her paramour, and unless the evidence is there to satisfy you, you must find a verdict for her, but if you are satisfied you will do your duty.

At twelve minutes past four the jury returned to the Court and resumed their places in their box.

When Lord Alverstone had taken his seat on the bench, the Clerk of Arraigns made the formal inquiry as to whether the jury had agreed upon the verdict and what the verdict was.

The foreman replied that the jury were agreed upon a verdict of Not Guilty.

Accordingly the prisoner was immediately liberated.

 

Home » Features Index