THE CRAWFORD-DILKE SCANDAL.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 771, 10 December 1886, Page 19

THE CRAWFORD-DILKE SCANDAL.

A NEW LIGHT.

Some very remarkable new points in connection with this extraordinary case have (according to the London correspondent of the Dunedin Star) been brought out by a writer in a West of England paper. It exposes some extraordinary discrepancies in Mrs Crawford’s evidence, which, it is asserted, would have been discovered at the time could Sir C. Dilke have been represented by counsel. The following are the chief points urged : 7 “ It is pretty certain that the point in Mrs Crawford’s evidence which went further than anything in the direction of sustaining her case, was her ability to describe the room in ‘ the house off Tottenham Court-road,’ where as she alleged, she was in the habit of meeting Sir CharlesDilke. It will be remembered that, at the suggestion of one of the jury, she drew a plan of the room. This was not disputed, and the presumption was that its accuracy was admitted by Sir Charles Dilke. The amazing statement is now made for the first time that the plan was never seen until after the summing-up by anyone who had ever seen the room itself ! So far from being an accurate description it was at fault in manyjimportant particulars. For example, the door was put on the wrong side of the room, and the stairs ou the wrong side of the house. The most prominent object in the room, a large Roman Catholic image, was not mentioned. Even if the plan had been correct, it did not prove the case, for it is stated that a detective named Clarke, engaged on behalf of Mrs Crawford, visited Warren-street in November. “ Not less striking testimony is forthcoming upon Mrs Crawford’s statements with respect to the rooms in Sloane-street. It will be remembered that one of the most revolting passages in the confession described three persons in Sir Charles Dilke’s bed. It is now stated as a matter of fact that Sir Charles Dilke’s bed is a single camp bed, in which it is physically impossible for three persons to have congregated. Mrs Crawford also described this room, though not accurately, and the mistake she made.isvery significant. Before Mrs Crawford went into the box, and whilst she sat listening in the Court, Ellen Drake, one of the servants at Sloane-street, was examined as to the appearance of the room. Subsequently when Mrs Crawford was put in the box, she was asked to describe the room, and followed Ellen Drake’s description so minutely that she even adopted a mistake made by the girl. Ellen Drake said the room was painted all white, whereas the cupboards, which form prominent objects in the room, are not white, bnt yellow. It is suggested that if Mrs Crawford had ever seen the room she would have corrected this slip on the part of the housemaid. “ Another important discrepancy in Mrs Crawford’s testimony with respect to Warren-street is pointed out for the first time. In her confession to her husband, communicated to the Court at the first trial,- Mrs Crawford said : 4 Sir Charles Dilke took a piece of paper out of his pocket and wrote down the address with a pencil, and gave it me in the morning.’ At the second trial she said : ‘ He would not let me write it down. He made me repeat it over several times and learn it by heart. These are only a few of the points dealt with in this statement, the appearance of which just now in its present form is on all fours with the general conduct of the case. Had it appeared as the speech of Sir Charles Dilke’s counsel addressed to the jury, and had the cross-examina-tion been conducted upon the lines it follows, the issue of the trial might have been different. Not the least effective portions of the notes are those which

show how, owing to an unfortunate sequence of circumstances, beginning with the fatal abstention from' the wit-ness-box in the first trial, Sir,Charles Dilke was practically undefended whilst his life and his character were being wrecked.’