Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS
Posted: October 1st, 2008
Executed in Error
David Foran

David Foran in the labDavid Foran is the DNA expert that re-opened the Crippen case 100 years later, using DNA found on one of the original slides used in the trial to prove that the remains found in the basement were not those of Cora Crippen. Secrets of the Dead talked to David about his involvement in the Crippen investigation featured in “Executed in Error.”

SotD: How did you become involved in your role on re-examining the Crippen case?

Foran: I first became aware of the Crippen case when John Trestrail gave a talk at an American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting several years ago. I have many years of experience working on these types of materials, including historical work of interest, such as our DNA analyses in the Boston Strangler case or the missing Lindbergh baby a few years ago. They are always fascinating.

When Beth Wills located maternal relatives of Cora Crippen, we were more than happy to test them. By the time we finished our DNA analysis on the Spilsbury slide, almost two years had passed, so it was not a quick undertaking.

Please briefly explain your lab’s role in providing the DNA analysis for Crippen’s criminal case.

The DNA analyses in the Crippen case was conducted in the Forensic Biology Laboratory at Michigan State University, which I direct. As is our norm for historical cases, this work was done pro bono.

The first samples we analyzed, in 2005, were from Cora Crippen’s grand-nieces and great-grand-niece, located by Beth Wills. All of these produced identical mitochondrial DNA sequences, which indicated (as expected) that the women were all maternally related.

The next challenge was obtaining samples from the burial in the Crippen house. An early request to the Scotland Yard Museum and The Royal London Hospital Archives and Museum (Barts and the London NHS Trust Archives and Museum) for the samples was pretty much rejected by both. So I contacted the same entities via email, letting them know what I and my lab could potentially do through DNA analyses with the hair and tissue (respectively) they had. Both groups had doubts, but after numerous back and forths, Scotland Yard said they would be willing to analyze a hair from the grave, for a fee. When I received the quote, the price was way over the top. So I continued working with Mr. Evans at the Archives and Museum, and he and his board agreed to send one of the Spilsbury slides to me as a museum loan. Knowing DNA work is destructive, it was an extremely nice gesture on their part. That slide made everything possible, and changed what had been assumed about the Crippen burial for the previous 100 years.

My lab’s mitochondrial DNA work, showing that the remains were not Cora, was released to the press by MSU in October of 2007, and it made a somewhat controversial splash in the U.K., as well as receiving a lot of interest from the U.S. to Norway to South Africa.

But, I and my lab had one more test we wanted to do—sexing the remains—using some new tools we have developed and perfected over the past few years. Those tests showed unequivocally that the remains were male (remember, all identifying features, including the sex organs, were missing). I decided to withhold that piece of information for the PBS film, so that they would have new material to include.

Is this the first time you’ve researched DNA this old? What are the challenges with samples like these?

I and my graduate students regularly work on biological material as old and much older than the Spilsbury slide. We have conducted a large amount of research on skeletal remains dating as far back as 1000 B.C. So the tissue on the slide was relatively fresh by our standards. And, since the tissue was housed in a museum, it was wonderfully preserved.

One tricky part was that the tissue on the slide had been treated with formaldehyde by Spilsbury, which preserves (‘fixes’) it, but makes DNA harder to recover and analyze. We have worked out specific techniques for obtaining DNA from tissues treated in this manner, so that problem was overcome.

Also, the adhesive Dr. Spilsbury used on the slide cover slip was a bit troublesome. He probably used pine resin (sap), given its yellowish color, and that made cover slip removal tricky. But once it was off, the ‘scar’ tissue was in fine condition.

From then on, it is the standard forensic DNA testing we regularly perform in the lab, with all the sundry controls and redundancy. As you might imagine, there was a lot more DNA work than what is portrayed in the film. I and my laboratory co-workers ran a battery of tests to prove to ourselves that the DNA came from the tissue on that slide, and nowhere else, for instance. Only when everything works exactly as it should, when we have repeated the testing and obtained the same results, and when we are as convinced and confident in them as is scientifically possible, do we release our results.

How long can a DNA sample be preserved?

DNA preservation is very dependent on where and how tissue or a sample is stored. In warm, wet conditions, tissue and DNA will degrade fairly quickly. Stored cool and/or dry, DNA can last a very long time. We have worked on skeletal remains just a few years old that are awful, and remains thousands of years old that are in quite good shape. And, the appearance doesn’t always predict DNA typing success. We have conducted research on the appearance (level of weathering) of bone and how that relates to DNA typing. Somewhat surprisingly, there is no correlation. So you cannot just look at a sample and know whether or not it harbors DNA.

For the Crippen work, a slide in a museum is a pretty nice way to preserve DNA. Compare that to bones that have been in the ground for thousands of years – you can guess which ones we would prefer.

How has forensic science progressed since Crippen’s time?

Obviously the techniques we have today far surpass anything that Dr. Spilsbury had available. Biologically, ABO blood typing was new then, and DNA hadn’t even been discovered. Dr. Spilsbury could not have performed tests similar to ours; it just wasn’t possible at the time. Today, remains such as those in the Crippen home would almost automatically be subjected to DNA testing. And in this case, the trial would have had a far different outcome.

In the same way, many individuals in the U.S. over the past few years have been exonerated of crimes they did not commit, based on new DNA evidence. People wrongly imprisoned for 10, 15, 20 years or more have been released, because DNA testing showed the prosecution, judge, and jury had the wrong person. It is very similar to the Crippen case, except now we can do something about it, at least sometimes.

I do need to remind everyone that the remains in the Crippen cellar were human, though we now know they were not Cora. Someone placed the remains there, maybe Dr. Crippen, maybe someone else. There is still a mystery out there.

What is the “next big thing” in DNA research?

I assume you don’t mean all DNA research, as that would include about a million different things.

The forensic sciences have really progressed over the past several years, both in the science itself, and in the professionalism with which that science is undertaken. Training and education are much better, as is oversight and quality control. That doesn’t mean there are not still problems, but today any problems are more and more likely to be caught.

DNA testing is now standard in the crime laboratories, but it continues to evolve. There is a push for processing samples faster and easier, which will lead to more robotics, automation, and miniaturization. Likewise, physical characteristics can be gleaned from DNA, such as hair and eye color. These can help reduce the pool of suspects.

Another new aspect of forensic DNA work is the sensitivity of testing. Not long ago a good blood stain or similar was required to get DNA results. Today we can sometimes obtain results from objects people have only handled (so-called “touch samples’”). In my laboratory we are conducting research on identifying individuals who assemble improvised explosive devices. IEDs have become well-known in Iraq, but they are also widely used in the U.S. We work with the Michigan State Police bomb squad, and after volunteers mock-assemble a device, it is armed and deflagrated. We collect the shrapnel and attempt to determine who assembled it based on remaining DNA. And you know what? We are getting pretty good at it.


  • Bookmark
  • comments (6)
6 responses
valerie -- October 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 am

What this researcher fails to mention, in his assertion that the torso found buried in the basement of Crippin’s home was male, is that the hair he sought for testing was found with the torso and was identified as Cora’s hair by it’s hideous color and treatment. It was wrapped around one of Cora’s hair curlers, having been ripped out of her head by the murderer complete with pieces of her scalp.
I am not suggesting that the tissue offered “free” to this researcher was not male. I am suggesting the tissue offered for “free” to this researcher was not from the murder scene. It may very well have been a slide from another case mixed in with the Crippen case evidence by a careless person as long as 100 years ago, at the time of the trial.
I would very much like to see DNA analysis on the hair that was wrapped around Cora’s hair curler that was found in the “grave” and let us discover whether this researcher finds that the scalp tissue and hair come from a male. Males of that time did not keep their hair long or use women’s curlers.
Also, women of the time would undergo surgery to remove the last ribs on either side. It was a dangerous surgery and purely for fashion, but Cora had it done. She bore the scars from this surgery and those tell-tale scars of a woman having healed for a long period of time after rib removal were on the torso remains found in the “grave”. Males of that time did NOT have their ribs removed.
I believe this researcher began his work with a mind toward disproving Crippin’s guilt. A scientist MUST remain objective or the science breaks down. Just as soon as the researcher realized that his DNA came from a male, he should have paid for a hair sample from Scotland Yard to verify that it was a woman’s DNA, establish a DNA profile for the woman who belonged to the curler, and check THAT against Cora’s female relatives. At that point, he could have gone back to the drawing board with the Museum and informed them that their tissue samples could possibly be mismarked or mixed in with another case.

George Carlson -- October 2nd, 2008 at 9:20 am

There was soft tissue from dinosaurs bones recovered using a diluted acid was, any DNA found? Is Jurassic park around the corner and, what is the oldest DNA found?

Thank you,

George L. Carlson

StephanieHalbert -- October 9th, 2008 at 12:02 pm

I believe I did see the whole video, and it was mentioned that the original samples of the tissue and hair were requested from Scotland Yard, however Scotland Yard would not release them for additional testing…
I agree with the prior comment about the necessity of being objective in the examination of scientific samples. I do not see where the DNA researcher had prejudged the outcome of the sample he was given. I’m also not sure how the torso-rib connection could have been determined if there was only tissue and no bones found in the burial site in the basement.

pearl -- November 9th, 2008 at 11:24 am

i agree thst the slides obtained couldve been a mix up as 10 years is a looong time to keep record of where the slides where held.. though the presence of jus few pieces of flesh along with a curler wit strands of hair that resembled cora’s is pretty suspicious… if the rest of the body jus disappeared theres no way the muderer would be as foolish to place few bits of flesh with the ’scar’ and the CURLER WITH HAIR in a ‘grave’!! its ridiculous! there is a possibility that the wrong slides were tested and also a possibility that there was contamination when the slide itself was prepared! it couldve been a deliberate planting of evidence by the police to convict crippen as he’d ‘run away’ (most probably with the plans of eloping with his gal)! guess the secret was buried along with crippen. i wouldve loved to see the actual report that they got on dna analysis though…

Ignacio Rodriguez -- March 10th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

wack!!!!!!!

PW -- September 7th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

Valerie, where did you hear that the police found a head with hair like Cora’s? I have never heard that. In fact, the remains were headless. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawley_Harvey_Crippen — “Their disappearance led Scotland Yard to perform another three searches of the house. During the fourth and final search, they found the remains of a human body, buried under the brick floor of the basement. Sir Bernard Spilsbury found traces of scopolamine, a calming drug. The corpse had to be identified from a piece of skin from its abdomen, because the head, limbs, and skeleton were never recovered.”

post a comment
Please note that the THIRTEEN editorial staff reserves the right to not post comments it deems to be inappropriate and/or malicious in nature, as well as edit comments for length, clarity and fairness. No solicitations or advertisements will be allowed. Users may link to other Web sites relevant to discussion, but most often links to commercial Web sites will not be permitted.

Produced by THIRTEEN © 2009 Educational Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved. PBS Privacy Policy