The Detroit times., 1910-11-07

hardly have been anything more in
expressibly shocking than the man
ner in which, from first to last, the
Crippen trial was conducted. About
everyone believes that the doctor kill
ed his wife, so there is little fault
found with the way the verdict was
reached. What happened to Crippen
might just as easily happen. however,
and undoubtedly has happened a
great many times, to innocent men.
What the Crippen case really proved
was that when an English Judge and
jury make UP, their minds that an ac-
cused man is guilty, they will find
him guilty without the slightest re-
gard for evidence. It also proved that
English criminal trials are conducted
more rapidly than such trials are
conducted in America. Considering
the way they are conducted in Eng
land this is not surprising.
No Questioning Of Jurors.
To start with, there is the matter
of the selection of the jury. No doubt
the challenging of jurors Is overdone
in American courts. At the same
time, il doesn't seem to be going too
the jurors enough questions to satisfy
the Judge that their minds are not
made up in advance to convict him.
There was no questioning Of the
Jurors at all in the Crippen case.
Three of them were. indeed. chal-
lenged, and others were substituted
for Them This challenging of three
jurors. was one of the sensations of
The caseA-it is so unusual a thing In
England And in challenging so
many the defense strained the Judges
patience very severely. About one
more challenge and he would have in
terfered to stop it as an unnecessary
waste OF the courts time.
The next thing was to identify the
human fragments found in Crippen's
cellar as portions of his wife's re-
mains Under English law a man
cannot be convicted of murder unless
enough of his victim can be produced
TO be identified There is case on
record of a woman who was seen
throwing her child into the ocean, but
could not be convicted Of numbering
il because the prosecution could not
produce the body.
uC SOIkoC 10 F1CTC9
This may be unreasonable, but it
S the law, and certainly, while II re-
mains the law, accused persons are
ntitled to the benefit of It, The
prosecution had to idenGfy the re-
mains offered in evidence as those OF
Mrs. Crippen. The prosecutions own
experts we're unable to say positively
whether they were those OF a man or
4 woman.
The conclusion was reached, how
ever, that the remains were Mrs
Crippen's. This conclusion simply
to this: I'VE need Mrs. Grip
pens corpse as a preliminary to find
ng her husband guilty OF killing ner.
Ne have no corpse. Very well, let
these fragments represent one" It
would have done just as we'll TO have
said Let X equal a corpse"
This point disposed of. the lord
chief justice entered just as enthusi-
astically into the examination of the
witnesses as did any OF the lawyers.
He evidently made up his mind very
early in the trial that Crippen was
guilty. In all probability he was right,
but what is a Judge? A Judge, or a
prosecutor? From the moment he
made up his mind, the lord chief JUS
lice managed the case for the prose
eution.
The courts have been pretty busy
ever since the Crippen trial was fin
lshed in ining newspaper editors for
their comments on II.
English lawyers do not dispute that
Crippen's counsel are guilty. perhaps
not quite OF the murder. but at least
OF the manslaughter of their client
It is' impossible to imagine a defense
more disgustingly mismsnaged.
II is unlikely that any other one
thing had more 20 do with resulting
in a conviction than the fact that
Crlppen had never made an effort TO
find his missing wife. IL would have
been. easy enough for his lawyers 10
have made some show OF looking.
Amazement was written upon every
s@oo ~ 80 ~~urtroorn- whom " we