Talk:Hawley Harvey Crippen

Very poorly written

This is like a high school C- essay, full of contradictions and inconsistencies (e.g. some of the names), confused sequence of events and gaps in the storyline. One of the most absurd statements is that the torso was found but not the skeleton. Where does the author imagine that the skeleton is located? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.247.115 (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

minor thing

"Furthermore, the new DNA tests do not in any way affect the fact that the body, regardless of whether it was Crippen's wife or not, was, in fact, poisoned and dismembered. However, if the body parts did not belong to Mrs. Crippen, her husband would be absolved of the specific charges against him."

These two lines seem unnecessary and a little argumentative. This isn't a persuasive essay, it's an encyclopedia article. There's no need for the emphasis and support of the original verdict that the first sentence provides, nor for a statement attempting to refute it. I'd vote for both sentences being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.197.1 (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Needs an infobox to truly be a "B" -- but otherwise it's well beyond a "Start" rating.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 12:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What year was he actually born? 1862 or 1885? 150.101.157.197 12:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Other sources say he graduated in 1885 and was born in 1862. These seems consistent with him being married when arriving in Britain in 1900 and him being referred to as 48 years old in 1910 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.40.71 (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?

Why is the popular culture section marked as trivia? Several other people and objects have similar sections, often to the extent that they grow into whole separate articles. Rpeh 09:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone being overzealous. I'll delete it. Nick Cooper 13:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

With the "In Media"-section being as large as it is, I'd just like to mention that Douglas Adams has his character Dirk Gently mention "Dr Crippen" in chapter 18 of Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, with protagonist Richard MacDuff expressing the usual public opinion of Crippen's guilt, and Gently hinting at a much more skeptical view.
That being said, I don't think this passing mention needs to be in the article, and probably neither should the Kate Bush item be in there.
--BjKa (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Dr Crippen is also mentioned in Agatha Christie’s The Mystery of the Blue Train, but I do not think it is substantial enough to be include in that section, unless someone wants to add it. Jhurley85 (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

remains in cellar

This article mentions cora's remains were found in many packages in the cellar.

Is this correct?

I though that Inspector Dew found some human remains (minus all bones, head, feet and hands), and that Crippens defence was that the remains were not those of his wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.248.99 (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The skin was found in pieces under the bricks of the coal cellar floor, with lime that Crippen had intended would destroy it. Dry quicklime would have done so, but he added water and so created slaked lime, which preserved it. The piece with the scar, used for identification at the trial, was found on top; it may have been that Crippen had intended to dispose of it separately and was in some way disturbed at his task and so threw it in with the rest.

It has been suggested that if he had ordered a delivery of coal to fill the narrow cellar the police might not have been as willing to examine it in detail and might never have found the remains. RGCorris (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

Apparently PBS believes he was innocent. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/episode-home/executed-in-error The show airs tonight... Bouncehoper (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.247.115 (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Danish phrase?

How did the phrase "Asger er sej" get in here? I do not know Danish but it seems to mean 'Asger (a proper name meaning God's spear) is tough'

Spockvondeutschland (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)spock

Doubts regarding the verdict

"There remains some dispute over whether Dr Crippen did, in fact, murder his wife. One theory, which was first propounded by Edward Marshall Hall (who had initially been engaged to lead Crippen's defence, although he later gave up the brief)...

Marshall Hall (the pre-eminent defence barrister of his day) was never engaged to defend Crippen. His clerk refused the brief when it became clear that no money would be available to pay for MH's services until Crippen had sold his story to a newspaper. [source: "Marshall Hall": a biography that I cannot consult at present because it's in my home in the UK and I'm in Hong Kong. 58.153.85.103 (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Body"?

I've changed all references to what was found in the cellar from "body" to "remains". What was found by police contained no bones, limbs or head. They found skin, organs and muscle tissue. This cannot be considered a "body" by any definition of the word. Kingadrock (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversial new evidence

This section is basically a refutation of the new evidence (POV) instead of a neutral presentation.157.182.98.231 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If the new "evidence" has been refuted, as it has via proper cites and info, then removing it and misleading people into thinking that this "evidence" is accepted as accurate, meaningful and undisputed by the world at large would be pushing a POV. DreamGuy (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the behaviour of Dr Crippen and Ethel le Neve it is clear that they were aware that "something dubious" had happened; nobody came forward with evidence of a female relative's disappearence which could be linked to Dr Crippen or his household; Cora did not resurface on hearing of the trial. If "the proverbial someone" wishes to pursue it - what lodgers (if any) were in the house during the period in question. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Disposal of the remains

Concerning the disposal of the remains of Cora Crippen the article states, "Crippen's trial revealed the meticulous manner in which the body had been disposed of. After death, Cora Crippen's bones and limbs were professionally removed and burned in the kitchen stove. Her organs were dissolved in acid in the bathtub, and her head was placed in a handbag and thrown overboard during a day trip to Dieppe."

According to the transcript of the trial, published by William Hodge & Co. Ltd. in 1920, nothing was said in court about the exact method employed in the dismembering of the corpse. It is merely stated that the bones, limbs, and head were not present. As for the dissolving of the organs in acid, the trial transcript makes it clear that some organs were preserved — heart, liver, lungs.

Some rewriting is required here with better referencing.Grobblakk (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is PBS a reliable source

There are several citations to [PBS series "Secrets of the Dead" "Executed in Error" Original United States broadcast October 1, 2008]. Is this a reliable source? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable in the sense that the WP:RS policy uses (can be used to cite an indisputable fact or to backup that a specific source holds a certain opinion), yes. If you mean reliable in the sense that what it says is ultimately true and the opinions presented in it must be accepted as ultimate truth, no. DreamGuy (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Scopolamine and hyoscine

These are the same drug, described as a calming drug first, then as a toxic compound later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.145.159 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: (Hawley Harvey Crippen → Dr. Crippen)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hawley Harvey Crippen → Dr. Crippen – His name for encyclopaedic purposes is simply "Dr. Crippen"—it certainly is in the Country of his crimes and also his Country of Death and surrounding areas, being the then United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Islands—and in particular in the City, County and Metropolis of London, Middlesex and England. Full stop. The present title of "Hawley Harvey Crippen" (or such variants as "Hawley H. Crippen" (64)/(59/65) or "H. H. Crippen" (11,700)) is never (15,000) in common and general use without Wikipedia as the proposed title (77,600). Be that as it may, it is now certainly at variance with either one of the principles of Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:STAGENAME.


Other than in high academic circles, the present name is perhaps—in my of course wholly unscientific opinion—only more commonly used in North America in general, and in his native Country, or, his Country of birth and nationality in particular, being the United States of America, perhaps for the benefit of unfamiliar American and Canadian readers and listeners. My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, I most humbly crave your indulgence, and I beg leave to move the Motion. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC) 212.50.182.151 (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose without a clearer rationale; what I can make out of the nomination above appears to be an argument that American English is a terrible, horrible thing. For the record, Dr. Crippen is well-known enough in the land of his birth that I don't see any particular national ties in play. He's usually known here as just "Hawley Crippen", though; I don't know why we use the middle name when there aren't any other Hawley Crippens to disambiguate. I would support a move to Hawley Crippen on those grounds, but I can't support the move nomination above. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, he is usually referred to as "Dr Crippen". However, his full name is actually well-known as well (and in the UK at least, it is his full name that's usually used, not just "Hawley Crippen"). To compare with another case, Margaret Thatcher is also usually referred to as "Mrs Thatcher" (and no, I'm not making any comparison between the two individuals!). But our article on her is still at her "full" name. There are instances where WP:COMMONNAME can be taken too far, and this is one of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Canada is *still* a dominion.

The article says: "Canada was then still a dominion within the British Empire.", as opposed to the current situation: Canada is now still a dominion within the British Commonwealth.

I don't think there is any significance (to this article) that the Empire later became the Commonwealth.

Someone that knows the actual legal situation regarding extradition from Canada should rewrite that sentence to explicitly say what it currently only hints at. (Or at least simply remove the misleading "then still".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1CA0:66:474:5146:37A0:84E0 (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hhcrippen.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

EngVar

The article has had a mixture of British and American styles since its early post-stub days, most obviously in date formats. WP:ENGVAR and MOS:CONSISTENT call for internal consistency. A case for either could be be made on MOS:TIES grounds, but Crippen's notability and the article itself are predominently about the events in the UK. I propose that British English be adopted. Davidships (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Media portrayals

I think that this is good choice of wording for this section, but suggest that it be limited to substantive portrayals of the man or the case, including fictionalised or derivative ones. Brief passing allusions or mere mentions of the name, especially where unreferenced, should be removed. Davidships (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of any objection, I have removed the most obvious ephemeral and unreferenced entries in the list. Davidships (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)