transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] Audible subscribers can listen to all episodes of British Scandal ad-free right now. Join Audible today by downloading the Audible app. I'm Alice Levine, and I'm Matt Forde. And this is British Scandal, an Audible original. So Matt, in summary, we've met Dr Crippen, found a corpse, followed him and his typist over the Atlantic, heard him deny murdering his wife, and then he got hanged. What have you learned?

Speaker 2:
[00:37] Oh, a number of things. Stick with the NHS, stick with my wife, stick with my natural teeth.

Speaker 1:
[00:44] And are you an all time stan of Inspector Dew?

Speaker 2:
[00:49] I do question some of his choices. I mean, dressing up as Sherlock Holmes while undercover on a boat wasn't his greatest moment, but all things considered, he caught Crippen. Yes, I'm a fan.

Speaker 1:
[01:00] A shining star in the force. But telling the story, I think you will agree, opened up a lot of questions, not a straightforward one. One of them being, are we 100% sure that Crippen actually did it? Was Dew right? So I thought we could enlist an expert who knows this story probably better than anyone else in the whole world. We're speaking to historian and author Hallie Rubenhold after this.

Speaker 3:
[01:27] This message comes from Betterment. Dan Egan, VP of Behavioral Finance and Investing, explains how Betterment's Tax Impact Preview tool can help you make smarter investment decisions.

Speaker 4:
[01:39] Tax Impact Preview is a preview of what taxes you would owe if you sold out of a position today. Often, when individuals are investing, there's a disconnect between when they sell something and when they pay the taxes on it. You might sell it in February and the IRS comes calling in April. What we wanted to do is make people aware of the consequences of their decisions before they made them. People might forget that short-term capital gains are taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains. We wanted to make that information salient and give it to them at the point in time so they can make more informed decisions before they go through with them.

Speaker 3:
[02:11] Learn more about Tax Impact Preview and all the other helpful investment tools at betterment.com. The Tax Impact Preview tool provides an estimate of tax implications. Betterment does not provide tax advice. Investing involves risk, performance not guaranteed.

Speaker 5:
[02:29] This ad is brought to you by AT&T. You know what makes the Masters so special? It's not just the legendary shots or the roar of the crowd. It's being connected to every single moment as it happens. Whether you're tracking your favorite golfer's round or sharing that unbelievable eagle with your buddies, when the connection matters, it has to be AT&T. AT&T keeps you connected to the game you love, because connecting changes everything. Visit atnt.com/connect to change to learn more.

Speaker 1:
[03:07] So, I have to ask, what got you interested in the Crippen case in the first place?

Speaker 6:
[03:13] Well, it's such an interesting story, and it occurred just at this time in both the history of Britain and the United States, where everything was really sort of at this point of change. And this whole case seems to reflect this, this sort of exciting moment, you know, just before the First World War, when people felt very positive about the future, about technology, about scientific discoveries, all of these things happening, and rights for women and social change. This crime and looking at this crime is a really good way of taking the temperature of what this era was about.

Speaker 2:
[03:55] I know I'm diving in very early with this, but do you think Crippen murdered his wife?

Speaker 6:
[04:01] There's no doubt that Crippen murdered his wife. Why would you ask that?

Speaker 2:
[04:05] Well, because, you know, some people, not me, but other people may say that, you know, there's sort of elements of doubt hung over it.

Speaker 6:
[04:13] There was never any doubt that hung over it. There was never any doubt. A jury of his peers found him guilty in less than 30 minutes. The evidence was overwhelming. They found his pajama jacket wrapped around the remains in the grave site. Actually, there was so much evidence. I would suggest that anybody who ever said, oh, well, there's some doubt. And I know the history behind this. I know why people say, oh, well, there is some doubt. This is because in 1920, Alexander Bell Filson Young wrote an introductory essay to the trial transcripts of the Crippen trial. And he made Belle Elmore into this monster. And he turned Crippen and Ethel into these kind of poor, pathetic characters and suggests that Crippen was driven to kill his wife because he was such a nice man. And a nice man couldn't have done this. Alexander Bell Filson Young was an extraordinary misogynist and stated before he even wrote this. This was, I mean, in 1910, when they were fleeing on the Montrose, that no matter what Crippen and Ethel had done, their love was the most important thing and should be respected. Killing another human being was less important than romantic love. This is the position that he's coming from. So he invents this absurd notion that Crippen was bullied by his wife, which he wasn't. Every single thing that was written from that point on referenced Filson Young's story and built a fiction on top of this, that he was somehow this little harmless man, and his wife was this terrible, shrewish, unfaithful alcoholic. I have done four years of research and I have found absolutely no evidence of any of this. To the contrary, I have found tons of evidence that Crippen was a fraudster, was a practised con man and a criminal and highly capable of killing his wife.

Speaker 1:
[06:36] And what do you think it tells us about wider society, that rewriting of the narrative and the eagerness of people to accept it?

Speaker 6:
[06:46] Because people want to believe that women push men to kill them. And really that has been with us from the beginning of time. People want to believe that Eve was the one who tempted Adam. Women make men do terrible things. Well, I don't think so. I think we're all human beings and men are completely capable of making their own decisions. They don't need women to tempt them into things. And so this is just something that plays out really well. And unfortunately, a lot of people have bought into this because people don't question true crime. A crime that happened in the past is a historical event and should be interrogated as a historical event. You know, it's not just a good story to tell.

Speaker 2:
[07:35] So you think it's as well as the sort of underlying misogyny that there's an issue with effectively the genre of true crime, creating a sort of illicit thrill around alternative narratives around all sorts of criminal cases?

Speaker 6:
[07:47] Well, one of the problems is with historical true crime in particular is a kind of, you know, it's a freeze frame of an era and an era's values. The way it's reported, the way it's prosecuted and defended is about an era's values. And all of those values tend to be kind of frozen in aspect. And that aspect is newspaper reports. You know, the newspapers reflect back to us what we want to see. They reflect ourselves back to us and our own values. So if we're talking about a crime that happened in 1910, what we're just doing, if we don't ask questions about who's telling this story, we are parroting back the values of 1910. And we're all familiar with what the values of 1910 were, you know, and they're not very savoury in 2026.

Speaker 1:
[08:38] To move on from who's writing the narrative, it's also interesting to look at whose point of view we're looking at these stories from. Your area of interest is the women in these stories. Why are the victims of murders always such a minor part in the narrative?

Speaker 6:
[08:55] Well, you know, that's a really interesting question. Again, it's about how we tell these stories because we are fascinated more with the killer than we are with the weaker party, as it's believed, who just happened to get caught up in the killer's machinery. We are fascinated with the psychology of the killer. We're fascinated with the idea that a killer can outsmart ordinary people, that a killer is sometimes superhuman. I think the focus is on the killer because the killer is thought to be extraordinary, whereas the victims are very ordinary. And sometimes, the way in which the narrative is always spun is that the victims had to have done something to have asked for it. So they were deserving of it. So they're less deserving of being remembered. And you know, this is completely untrue.

Speaker 2:
[09:50] Do you think part of it, as well as, you know, different power dynamics playing out around gender and class and race and everything, is that there is something in human nature that in a way wants to understand killers so that we can avoid getting killed ourselves?

Speaker 6:
[10:05] Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that plays a huge role in it. And I think this particularly speaks to this very female interest in true crime. Women listen to true crime. They're drawn to true crime. There are all sorts of statistics that show, you know, that women listen to true crime podcasts, they read true crime books and watch documentaries. There is a desire to actually see who this type of person is and how we can avoid them.

Speaker 1:
[10:34] I have to say we've done it. We've fallen into the perpetrator trap. This series is called The Notorious Dr Crippen and not The Murder of Belle Crippen. The women are victims and lovers. I feel like I want to know so much more about them. What can you tell us, Hallie, about Belle Crippen?

Speaker 6:
[10:52] Well, first of all, I called her Belle Elmore in my book because that's how she chose to be known. Her name was Cora Crippen. She had a number of different names. She changed her name throughout her life. Her stage name was Belle Elmore and that's how her friends knew her and that's how she wanted to be remembered. I think she's quite an extraordinary person, really. She was born to immigrant parents into a Polish-German family in Brooklyn in the 1880s, and grew up in a tenement and got a pretty good education, education for Americans at that time, much better than what was available here. So she grew up and at about the age of 16, 17, 17 went to work and worked as a domestic servant. And we don't know exactly what happened, but she ended up getting pregnant by the man who employed her, and his wife at the time was in an insane asylum. He had put her there. So God knows he has an interesting past with women. Belle ended up having an abortion and her abortion doctor, and abortion was illegal at the time, was actually Dr. Crippen and a colleague of his. And weirdly, the relationship between them blossomed from there. Crippen had only recently become a widower. His wife, Charlotte, died under mysterious circumstances in Salt Lake City, and they were quickly married. They were not very well suited to one another. Belle had a very vivacious personality. I mean, she was a performer, and she was much younger than him. And he decided he didn't want any children, and so he had her sterilized. He had her ovaries removed when she was about 21. And I mean, that's pretty shocking, because if you're a woman in the Victorian era, the one thing you were told you're supposed to be is a mother and a wife, and she couldn't be a mother. So as a real testament to who she was, she could have really wilted under that major disappointment in her life. Instead, she decided to reinvent herself as an opera singer. And she took opera lessons and she fashioned herself into an opera singer. And then when they moved to London, she decided to again reinvent herself as a musical performer. Because that part of her life didn't take off, she didn't become as successful, famous as she wanted. She then threw herself into charity work and became the treasurer of the Musical Ladies Guild and devoted her life to fundraising for poor women and children in the music hall. And raised an enormous amount of money. And to the point where she was actually recognized by the Music Hall Ladies Guild. And there was a big celebration held in her honor. And there were photos of her in the newspaper.

Speaker 2:
[13:50] What do you think she saw in Crippen?

Speaker 6:
[13:52] I think she saw a man who had all the makings of what would be an ideal husband in the Victorian era. So, you know, Crippen may not be too appealing to women today. I mean, at least I hope he isn't appealing to women today. But he was cosmopolitan. He was educated. He was a doctor. Therefore, he would earn a good salary and a good income. And for young women who were of the working class or lower middle class, this was a pretty steady man. And women were looking for steady men because women didn't technically have careers. They weren't supposed to. So they saw Crippen as quite a nice looking meal ticket.

Speaker 1:
[14:40] And would that have been an unusual pairing in Edwardian Times, a music hall star and a doctor?

Speaker 6:
[14:47] Not in the least. In fact, there were many such combinations. When they lived on Store Street, there was another couple who they knew who were also similar in their match. Musical performers could lead completely normal lives. I mean, they often led bohemian lives as well, and they were noted for that. People were always rather suspicious of performers and their so-called morality as well, and the rackety lives that they led. But a lot of them lived in the suburbs like the Crippins did.

Speaker 2:
[15:22] How was Belle portrayed in the media after she disappeared?

Speaker 6:
[15:26] Well, she wasn't portrayed in the media after she disappeared. She was portrayed in the media after her remains were uncovered, because Scotland Yard was not interested in investigating her disappearance. In fact, it took her friends at the Musical Ladies Guild months before they could get inspected due interested at all in investigating this case. Because here's this musical floozy, as they would think, and God knows what these people get up to, and she's probably run off with somebody or she's gone somewhere, and she probably hasn't really disappeared. Then it was down to the Musical Ladies Guild to actually start the investigation. They hired a private investigator, so nobody really cared that she had disappeared. The media only started to care once her body had been uncovered or parts of her body had been uncovered.

Speaker 1:
[16:22] The Guild's proactivity is really incredible.

Speaker 6:
[16:26] Yeah, it is. Again, this speaks to this really damaging lie that has always been put out about Belle Elmore by Filson Young and others, which is, nobody liked Belle Elmore. She was just a rotten piece of work. She was just disgusting, useless, nasty woman. She had no friends. That's completely untrue. The women of the musical Ladies Guild fought for her. They adored her. They loved her. They were her friends. And they took every aspect of this case to the furthest point it could go. I mean, they didn't even let it rest after the trial. They wanted to make sure that Ethel didn't inherit any of Belle's personal belongings through Crippen. And so they had the law changed, inheritance law in Britain changed. They paid for Belle's funeral. They testified at the trial. They testified at the coroner's inquest. They sacrificed their own health to help their friend. Many of them found this really, really traumatic and had to take time off work. It cannot be underestimated just how loved she was and just what lengths these women went to, to ensure that justice was met.

Speaker 1:
[17:52] It's really amazing. We should talk about Ethel then, because you sort of can't talk about Belle really without talking about Ethel. Yeah. She was young. She was naive. I think we can all agree she had terrible taste in men. Do you have any sense of who she was beyond this scandal?

Speaker 6:
[18:08] Ethel is such a complex and fascinating person and was absolutely intertwined in this crime in every way. As much as Belle has been depicted as this kind of heredon, Ethel has been portrayed as her foil, really like this meek, wilting violet. And she just like Belle, she was nothing like that. Ethel was as strong of a character as Belle was, but she learned how to play into the Edwardian expectations of being a meek and quiet little woman who stared at her shoes and did what she was told. Ethel came from an impoverished background, much like Belle as well. And she was born in Dis in Norfolk, in a basically a two room cottage with a dirt floor. And her father who had some foresight, he was quite progressive, which is pretty amazing for a Victorian man, decided that his children were going to make something out of their lives in the way that he had because he was a railway clerk. And it meant that he had a slightly better life than everyone who came before him who were agricultural laborers. And so he took his kids to London, he took his family to London, and he put his daughters into secretarial college, which was, as I said, quite progressive for the 1890s. And it allowed Ethel and her sister to enter into white collar work. They didn't have to be shop girls or domestic servants or work in a factory. By this means, they were able to make what was believed that they would be able to make good marriages. Ethel was, I hate to use this term, but she was very avaricious. There's nothing wrong with wanting a better quality of life, which she did want. But even her parents described her as very materialistic, quite covetous, quite secretive, quite jealous. And all of these things kind of turn up later in life when she's with Crippen. And I think, to be honest, the two of them bring out the worst in each other. And it was a kind of perfect match. Really, if he had never met Ethel, Belle Elmore would have died of natural causes. I'm sure of it.

Speaker 2:
[20:32] And did Crippen really get her new teeth?

Speaker 6:
[20:35] Yeah, he did. I mean, this was some weird thing. You know, Crippen was a homeopathist. And first of all, Ethel was a hypochondriac. And even her children in later life commented that Ethel was a hypochondriac. Crippen, as a homeopath, thought that the way of curing Ethel's neuralgia was to remove her teeth. This must have been common practice, because I can't imagine that he just invented this as a cure for that. But yes, she did have false teeth. But so did a lot of people. You know, dental bills were expensive and people had their teeth extracted sometimes before they got married. So they wouldn't have the added expense of paying for dental bills. If you just have dentures, you don't have to worry about tooth decay.

Speaker 1:
[21:20] Easy breezy.

Speaker 6:
[21:21] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[21:22] The guilt of Crippen as discussed should be under no question. But should we have any question marks around Ethel?

Speaker 6:
[21:30] Oh, we should absolutely have question marks around Ethel. I mean, Ethel was acquitted. And her barrister gave the most extraordinary speech about this innocent girl who was seduced by this kind of Spengali and was completely ignorant of everything and was helpless. And, you know, all the evidence pointed to exactly the opposite. I mean, Ethel was absolutely involved in this. She knew this was going to happen. Crippen bought her an engagement ring, which she hid away and she showed her landlady, Emily Jackson, who she was quite close with. But other than that, she kept it hidden away until the week before Crippen murdered Belle and then she brought it out at her birthday party and showed everybody that she was engaged and she was getting married. But she wouldn't say to whom. But the timing was quite amazing because Crippen at that point was buying the Hyacin Hydrobromide. So obviously she knew what was going on. She had this total nervous breakdown about Belle Elmore around the time of her murder. I have no doubt that she was there. She would not have been there during the poisoning, but she would have been there for the cleanup. Because Crippen couldn't have done it himself and he couldn't have done it in that short span of time. And he would have needed Ethel's help. And there was plenty of evidence of some pretty extreme cleaning going on in the wake of this murder. You know, the dustmen were all interviewed and said they were taking away piles and piles of ashes, which both Crippen and Ethel were burning in the garden at Hill Drop Crescent. Wowee. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[23:15] What happened to Ethel after the Crippen trial?

Speaker 6:
[23:19] Actually, interestingly, this was the part of writing my book that I thought I was going to find quite dull. And in fact, I found quite fascinating. Because Ethel tries to reinvent herself. And it's kind of hard to reinvent yourself when you were once the most scarlet woman in the world. She was in every newspaper around the world, as this woman who ran off with Crippen. And she changed her name to Ethel Harvey. And she had to go back to being a lady typist again. But I think there was something about this murder, this period of her life, which was the most awful and also the most exciting thing ever to have happened to her. And also, you know, she's carrying the burden of what she knew with her in secret. And she goes and tries to move to Canada, and she has a nervous breakdown when she's in Toronto. Literally has an episode of what is called Disassociative Amnesia, which is when you can't even remember who you are. Apparently, this is quite common with people who have committed murder. And she was carrying a lot of stuff with her and then has to return to England, lives with her sister for a while and just is in a state of complete nervous collapse and total nervous breakdown, can't even leave her room. And eventually she gets better. She has several episodes of paranoia, where she believes people are trailing her, where she believes the police are going to come and arrest her at any moment. Bearing in mind, she also stole money from Belle's bank account. She posed as Belle Elmore and took about nearly 200 pounds out of a bank account, drained a bank account. This was a profound act of fraud, which would have seen her in prison doing hard labor. Ethel never, ever forgets this, but at the same time, eventually quietly just disappears into anonymity and becomes Ethel Smith. She marries a man called Stanley Smith, lives in South London, and every once in a while pops up to give an interview, which is so odd about her life. Until her children get too old and would not figure out what was going on, and then she never says anything again. It's such a weird coda to this story.

Speaker 1:
[25:39] That's extraordinary, isn't it? To just never talk about it ever again. If you could correct one misconception, of which I imagine there are many, about the Crippen case, what would it be?

Speaker 6:
[25:50] The only misconception that seems to be in the ether is this idea that somehow the remains found in the basement of Hill Rock Press were not Belle's. That is just rubbish. In the back of my book, there is an appendix and Professor Tury King, who was involved in the identification of the Richard III remains, has looked at the white paper produced by this scientist in Michigan in, I believe it was 2007, who had tested a skin sample that had remained from the remains that were taken out of Hill Rock Crescent, and somehow miraculously found that the DNA seemed to indicate that this was neither a female body nor was it of any relation to Belle Elmore. Professor King looked at this and said, the white paper doesn't make sense. The techniques they used are not the normal techniques that would have been used for the identification of this. Not only that, but if you pour bleach on a grave site on remains, you're going to break down the DNA. You're not going to be able to get a reliable test sample from it. So the very idea of even going back and testing these remains, there was no doubt that Crippen was guilty. But it's been a kind of legacy of misogyny that has led to this point. The absurdity of this is that the result of these spurious test results is that we've now got to the point in the story where we've turned Crippen into the victim and Belle into the killer because she was then questioned for well, why didn't she come forward and stop his execution? She was alive. That wasn't her body in the basement. She's the killer. He's the victim. Ridiculous.

Speaker 1:
[27:45] Some incredible mental gymnastics, isn't it?

Speaker 6:
[27:47] I get that. It starts with women hatred. It starts with a desire to turn a woman who was bold and strong and outspoken into a villain. About 100 years later, this is the apotheosis of that. This is the apex of that. That's where we get to.

Speaker 1:
[28:13] You won't be surprised to hear that this is a theme of almost all British Scandals actually.

Speaker 6:
[28:18] Really?

Speaker 1:
[28:19] It just comes up over and over again. This sort of attempt to villainize the women at the center of these stories who clearly have been victimized.

Speaker 6:
[28:29] Yeah. It's really interesting. But having said that, it's a really important thing to point out also, that although women have been victimized, it doesn't mean that women can't also be villains. Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[28:42] There's lots of rotten ones for goodness sake, Hallie.

Speaker 6:
[28:44] Absolutely. And I think that Ethel is one of them. And I think Ethel should be known for her involvement in this murder. Ethel shouldn't have been acquitted.

Speaker 7:
[28:59] I'm Leon Nefock, best known as the host and co-creator of podcasts, Slow Burn, Fiasco, and Think Twice, Michael Jackson. I'm here to tell you about my show, Final Thoughts, Jerry Springer, whose name is synonymous with outrageous guests, taboo confessions, and vicious on-stage fights. But before the Jerry Springer show became a symbol of cultural decline, its namesake was a popular Midwestern politician and a serious-minded idealist with lofty ambitions. Through dozens of intimate and revealing interviews with those who knew Springer best, I examined Springer's lifelong struggle to reconcile his TV persona with his political dreams and aspirations. Named one of the best podcasts of the year by The New Yorker and Rolling Stone, Final Thoughts Jerry Springer is a story about choices, how we make them, how we justify them to ourselves, and how we transcend them or don't. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or binge the whole series ad-free right now on Audible. Start your Audible subscription in the Audible app.

Speaker 2:
[30:03] Okay, let's think about the policing for a moment. Sure. Do you think, with what he had, Inspector Dew did a good job?

Speaker 6:
[30:12] I suppose, yeah, he did. I mean, I think he made some errors. First of all, I think one of the major errors with this was they should have pursued Ethel. There was so much evidence that Ethel was guilty, and they just decided not to pursue it because they wanted Crippen. They figured this was the sort of crime a man would commit, get rid of his wife so he can be with the young mistress. Let's not overcomplicate it. Let's not get her involved. A decision was taken to separate out the two trials, and the DPP eventually decided, Ethel isn't that important, we'll just go for Crippen, with the evidence they had. But that whole process really started with due, and really started with the way in which he treated Ethel. There is this one moment which I just think is just anybody who watches crime stories on television, who reads them, who's in any way involved with policing, will look at this one error that Inspector Dew made, and just kind of facepalm. Because after going to Hilltop Crescent, and meeting Ethel at the door, and then questioning her about whether Crippen was there, no, they decide to go down to the office at Albion House. Ethel says, can I call him on the phone and tell him you're coming? And he said, absolutely not, because he didn't want her to warn him that the police were on the way. And then, you know, they go down together. And then as they get close to Albion House, Ethel says, oh, oh, I don't think he's here. He's probably at the office in Kingsway, and tries to get them not to go into the office. And still Dew says, no, let's go into the office. And then they get to the foot of the stairs at Albion House. And Ethel says, oh, I should just go up and warn him that you're coming. Now, there are a number of accounts of what happened. I mean, it's kind of two accounts of what happened. And in Inspector Dew's memoirs, he said, he let her go and tell Crippen that the police were there. So, you know, she could forewarn him after trying to stop her from doing that all the way through. And in another version, he says that she escaped from him and basically charged up the stairs and warned Crippen that they were coming. That, I mean, was a catastrophic error because they had obviously between the two of them. It's so obvious in the statements they give and everything they say from that point on was so well rehearsed. And it was like, OK, pull the emergency lever. You know, the police have arrived. Let's do this. And they were concerted in their responses and everything they did. And they said from that point, God, I mean, he should never have let her run up those stairs.

Speaker 1:
[32:56] That is just a schoolboy error.

Speaker 6:
[32:59] Really?

Speaker 1:
[33:00] It feels like the Crippen case was very new age compared to something like Jack the Ripper, which considering it's only 20 years later is a huge leap. So international manhunt, new tech, forensics. Did this sort of signal the arrival of modern policing?

Speaker 6:
[33:16] Well, I think modern policing was in a state of evolution. I don't think there's any one point where modern policing arrives. It's in a state of constant flux and refining and changing. Obviously, Scotland Yard is the police are getting better resourced, technology comes in, it makes things a bit easier. But also the police respond to the law and the laws that are passed and how those laws are implemented. So I don't think there was anything particularly tricky about this case, other than the fact the one thing that this case is very famous for is of course, the use of Marconi Wireless and Inspector Dew getting on the Laurentic and beating them into port. And in that sense, it is, you know, that is quite modern, that is quite a step forward. But I think that's more of an accident. It wasn't something which profoundly changed policing.

Speaker 1:
[34:11] And do you think that the public had already decided Crippen was guilty before the trial started?

Speaker 6:
[34:17] Yes, I believe that the public thought that Crippen probably was guilty. Most of the coverage seemed to indicate that if your wife goes missing, and then some remains are found in your basement in a state of decomposition, that's kind of a no-brainer.

Speaker 2:
[34:34] Let's move on to the legacy of Crippen and the trial and the crimes. Do you think men are effectively always going to be the protagonists when retelling the stories of past murders?

Speaker 6:
[34:44] Men won't always be the protagonists. However, in this case, all the lawyers who were involved in the case, you had Inspector Jew, you had members of the press, all sorts of people, even performers writing their memoirs and writing about their interactions with Crippen, what they thought of him, how they judged him, what the experience was like being involved in the trial, what the experience was like of the manhunt, all of these things. So, you know, this is all very much told from a male perspective. But that's very, very unique to this particular case.

Speaker 1:
[35:21] So why do you think it is that as the years go on, we forget the grizzliness of these murders and cases like Crippen, and it becomes so much more titillating, like on British Scandal, we don't really cover murders, but we do cover murders from a hundred years ago.

Speaker 6:
[35:39] I think there seems to be enough distance between ourselves in the past. It's something that we do as human beings. We tend to kind of disassociate from things that we can't immediately relate to. It feels distant and therefore we perhaps have less empathy, less ability to connect. I think if we pause and really think about it, then that changes. When we're dealing with historical murder, I think that's a really important thing to do, because these people are still people. And how we respond to death and tragedy and stories of death and tragedy really says something about us as human beings.

Speaker 2:
[36:19] You know so much about how criminals cover their tracks after committing terrible crimes. So you know all the tricks of the trade. So would you be the ideal criminal?

Speaker 6:
[36:30] No. Absolutely not.

Speaker 1:
[36:36] That's exactly what the perfect criminal would say.

Speaker 6:
[36:39] No. I wouldn't get very far because I'm married to a King's Council criminal lawyer and he would sniff me out instantly.

Speaker 1:
[36:47] Or defend you.

Speaker 6:
[36:48] No. No. He's far too principled.

Speaker 2:
[36:51] For money?

Speaker 6:
[36:53] Not in criminal law.

Speaker 1:
[36:54] You've got all the answers haven't you Hallie? This is very tough. Thank you so much for talking to us about this. It's completely fascinating and it's been brilliant to have you on.

Speaker 6:
[37:03] You're welcome.

Speaker 1:
[37:09] Matt, my love, my life. What do you have for me next time?

Speaker 2:
[37:12] Okay. I want you to think crowns, think banquets, think big time squabbles.

Speaker 1:
[37:18] My 30th birthday.

Speaker 2:
[37:20] You need to go back a little further, although that was very long ago. You need to go back to when England and Scotland were separate kingdoms.

Speaker 1:
[37:29] No comment.

Speaker 2:
[37:30] So I have for you the most exciting fight for the throne in British history, the battle between two queens, Elizabeth I and her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots.

Speaker 1:
[37:40] Oh my god, this is such a great story. And then of course, it ends with a behemoth.

Speaker 2:
[37:44] Don't ruin it.

Speaker 1:
[37:45] Oh, okay. Don't bite my head off. Ding. From Audible Originals and Samizdat Audio, this is the fourth and final episode in our series, The Notorious Dr Crippen. British Scandal is hosted by me, Alice Levine.

Speaker 2:
[37:57] And me, Matt Forde. For Samizdat, our series producer was Chica Ayres. Our assistant producer was Louise Mason. Our senior producers were Joe Sykes and Dasha Lisitsina. Our engineer was Jai Williams. Executive producers for Audible were Theodore Leloudis and Estelle Doyle.