Author: stephen miller
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 03:45 am |        |
Hi Simon
I take your points about Armstrong not getting a fair trial but equally I don't think he got a very good defence
The covering up of finding Arsenic in his bureau was a big mistake
from steve |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 08:10 pm | |
Although Rowse-Armstrong was a bit odd in having arsenic in individual sachets , it doesn't mean he was a murderer.
It would be interesting to see how anyone could view the case nowadays without believing it to be a miscarriage of justice !
I think Robin Odell wrote something about the Rowse-Armstrong trial , but I discovered it through Beale's book ' Dead not Buried ' which very effectively puts the case for HR Armstrong's innocence. |
Author: stephen miller
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 12:33 am | |
Hi Simon I too have read Beales book and while I'm not fully convinced of Armstrongs innocence a good case for it is indeed made I just think having arsenic in his bureau was suspicious and his defence not telling the police of the finding of it was a mistake
He did have something to gain by his wifes death ie her will but I agree with Beale he had nothing to gain if Mr Martin died
There is a case for his innocence but I can't quite make my mind up
all the best
steve |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 07:07 am | |
I must look out for this Beale book. How does he cover the total hen-pecking of the tiny Major alleged by all previous authors as a partial motive? How does he make out that Oswald Martin's death was of no advantage to Armstrong in the light of Martin's dunning him for money the Major had (if I remember rightly) made improper use of while it should have been in escrow?
Writing books alleging that famous murderers never dunnit is a very popular pastime these days, and though I have always held this peculiar view of Frederick Seddon, I think the right response to yet another claim that some historic villain was fitted up should be greeted with suspicion and (probably) a yawn.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: stephen miller
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 07:28 am | |
Hi Martin
You will find the book by Martin Beales under two titles Dead Not Buried & The Hay Poisoner
If I remember correctly the hen pecking is not really mentioned
As for Armstrong having no need to poison Martin well I'll leave you to read about it
I obtained my copy from Clifford Elmer Books
www.truecrime.co.uk
Now tell me is someone trying to say that Seddon was innocent now that would be difficult.
all the best from steve
 |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 07:55 am | |
Hi Steve,
And many thanks for the tips.
Nobody's said in print that Seddon was innocent. But I have long believed it. Do you know how many people believed it at the time? there ws a huge petition for his reprieve.
Cf William Herbert Wallace for another coldly factual insurance agent whose factual approach (thought lacking Seddon's irritating cockiness) turned the jury off and led to an innocent man's conviction. Read the editor of the Notable Trials expressing his doubt - it was on reading that through when I was 14 or 15 or so that I first thought the case really hadn't been proved.
Do I think Mrs Seddon was an innocent woman - I very much doubt it! She at least stole fivers! But Seddon was, poor man, Lupin Pooter grown up and shown up, yet not nearly the miser that is usually claimed. See the children's evidence, and note the sussiness of Miss Barrow's relatives who wanted to inherit - (not sussiness as murderers, of course, but as pretty dreadful people who really were first and foremost interested in the money. Seddon wanted to pay for the orphans' schooling, and the kids said he was always nice to them - unlike the Hooks et al)
Ah well, I could go on a long time about the ways in which people with "vulgar suburban lower-middle-class" attitudes and outlooks (like my own family on my mother' side) are treated with superiority and contempt by everyone else, and in Seddon's and Wallace's case, easily believed guilty of murder because their manner doesn't suit better educated people, and because owning and strictly accounting for a little money seems to them the only defence they have against the world. Nobody's really known and loved us as a group since Arnold Bennett - and he, Wells and Dickens were always a small minority among writers.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: stephen miller
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 08:30 am | |
Hi Martin
I am going to have to read up on Seddon it is a long time since I read anything about the case but his supposed miserlyness did strike me as suspicious money of course was the alleged motive and from what I remember there was Arsenic at hand to him and his wife weren't they using it to kill flies?
Do you believe that the judge cried when pronouncing the death sentence because of the Masonic link or that he believed Seddon innocent or maybe both.
apart from the british trials series are there any more books relating to this case.
As for Wallace I used to be convinced of his innocence until Stewart P Evans told me to read the book by James Murphy I'm still not convinced by it but I do admit there are more reasons to suspect him than I originally thought
best wishes
steve |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 08:54 am | |
Hi Steve,
Yes, there was arsenic being soaked in saucers in the Seddon case. There was also a quite disgraceful police and prosecution attempt to fit Seddon up by claiming that he had used his young daughter to buy it for him secretively, when in fact, she had been sent by his defence after his arrest to make a test run of buying it fromthe local chemist. (If anyone's read books saying something different, in this case I hold firm, having checked the sequence of events from contemporary local and national newspaper reports).
All accounts say the judge was shaken by Seddon's using the Masonic sign (presumably the very dramatic throat-clutching desperation one). And his referring to it in passing sentence supports this. From the way he passed sentence I doubt whether he believed in Seddon's innocence, however.
I don't know of any other worthwhile books on Seddon. Keith and I started a little preliminary work on him at one time, and were fascinated to discover that the family, like me, still believe in his innocence, but do not think Mrs Seddon was rightly cleared.
As for Wallace, I haven't read Murphy's book, but while I don't imagine the Liverpool Police, (even inadequately manned after the Police Strike), were quite so incompetent as some subsequent writers have suggested, I think the excellent work done by an array of subsequent writers - notably Jonathan Goodman and Roger Wilkes - leaves no serious doubt that Parry dunnit. The Appeal Court has to be challenged really hard to step beyond its technical brief and overturn a jury on facts!
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: stephen miller
Tuesday, 11 June 2002 - 12:07 pm | |
Hi Martin you are jogging my memory all the time with Seddon I can remember reading about the setting up of his daughter I have not read an awful lot about this case and what I did read was some years ago I will have to keep a look out for some material on him
Now for Wallace I have posted a message on the appropriate thread.
from steve |
