DR CRIPPEN: CONSISTENCY AND INCONSISTENCY
BUP Copyright Material: Individual use only. Not for resale.
After the judge’s summing up, the jury retired for just 27 minutes and returned with a unanimous verdict of guilty. Asked if he had anything to say, Crippen replied ‘I am innocent’. He was sentenced to death and executed by hanging on 23 November 1910.8 As we will outline at the end of this chapter, several factors probably contributed to his conviction, but the one that we wish to focus on here is Crippen’s failure to tell a consistent story, not only about what he claimed had happened to his wife but also about more minor aspects of the case, such as who purchased his pyjamas. Inconsistencies can significantly weaken the perceived reliability of testimony given by defendants and witnesses.
Exercise 1: Now that you have read our overview of the case and trial, it should be clear that Crippen created significant problems for himself by changing the story about Belle’s disappearance, from one in which she had died to one in which she had left him for another man. It did not need the prosecution to accuse him of lying about Belle’s death, because he readily admitted that he had lied. Therefore, an important question to consider is: why did Crippen change his story when interviewed by Inspector Dew? When thinking about answers, it is also interesting to reflect on why lawyers advise their clients to tell one story and ‘stick to it’. (Pardieck, 2006)
Inconsistency, reliability and credibility When Richard Muir and the Lord Chief Justice pointed to Crippen’s lies and inconsistencies as indicators of his lack of credibility, they were echoing both common sense and the views of legal scholars. For example, in 1904 the American legal scholar John H. Wigmore had written a very influential text about evidence (reprinted in 1970) in which he stated ‘a prior selfcontradiction shows a defect either in the memory or in the honesty of the witness’9 (1970: 993; cited in Fisher et al, 2009: 123). And this opinion has persisted. For example, Fisher et al (2009: 123) noted that instructions to the jury in many contemporary US trials include a guideline about inconsistency such as the following in New York State Courts: ‘You may consider whether a witness made statements at this trial that are inconsistent with each other. You may also consider whether a witness made previous statements that are inconsistent with his or her testimony at trial’ (New York Criminal Jury Instructions 2d, Credibility of Witnesses-Inconsistent Statements, 2007; cited in Fisher et al, 2009: 123). Similarly, legal practitioners recommend focusing on inconsistencies in testimony. For example, Australian barrister 55
