I've recently seen another documentary on this case- short stories, the Hay poisoner, filmed in the 70's. the experts opinion of Spillsbury isn't particularly flattering. one said he was dogmatic & inflexible, a dangerous man. another expert claimed that after the exhumation of Mrs Armstrong after 10 months, it would have been impossible for Spillsbury to be so certain of his conclusions at the post mortem. specifically, the distribution of arsenic found in the various organs at the pm, would have been vastly different if they had been tested immediately after death. it really can't be overstated how charismatic Spillsbury was, & how much of an effect he had on jury's at the time. he was regarded by many as the real life Sherlock Holmes. other things are revealed which aren't mentioned in this particular video, so I'd recommend watching it
In another documentary about this case it was brought up that Kitty had a habit of taking a lot of patent medications. Arsenic was used in patent medications at the time.
So glad I found this video. I have seen many account on this murder trial and conviction and a film about the case, all slanted towards him being guilty. In particular, the film "Dandelion Dead" (1994), (Michael Kitchen as Major Herbert Rowse Armstrong, Sarah Miles as Catherine Armstrong), well acted and well produced, based on this account, had two glaring omissions. One that Oswald Martin's father was the chemist who sold arsenic to Armstrong, so they possibly had access to arsenic.. The second, that Herbert served in First World War & rose to the rank of Major, which was not mentioned to support his upstanding character.
The film mentioned did mention that he had served in the war, he went to a reunion and was addressed as major! I also got the impression that he chemist shop in the film was the one he got his arsenic from, and we know that it was run by Martin's father in law, and that is where Martin met his wife.
A continual cause of disquiet to this day about murder cases of this period, is the Cult of Personality at the time regarding Bernard Spilsbury. With the attitude of deference at the time, and the lack of knowledge of the general public no adequate cross examination was ever carried out.
I always wondered if Armstrong really did it. His wife was addicted to patent medicines most of which contained small amounts of arsenic. Now one dose of one shouldn't hurt you. But taking many a day multiple times could easily build up enough to kill. Also Armstrong always carried arsenic as he hated dandelions and pre-made pouches of arsenic to bury under them. It doesn't explain how his rival ended up being poisoned, but of he were tried on such circumstantial evidence today he'd likely be acquitted if he were facing a death sentence.
So really the case was unsafe on a technicality rather than Armstrong being exonerated - which is something the modern judge made clear but also that had the summing up been more accurate the same conclusion may still have been made
Excellent programme. The conviction was unsound and the trial perhaps bungled, but does the evidence still point to the Major's guilt in killing his wife? Also, it makes you wonder whether the chemist and his son-in-law suspected the Major's guilt and the whole scones/chocolate poisoning idea was created by them to point suspicion and police attention at Herbert Armstrong. The chemist, remember, knew Armstrong had purchased large amounts of arsenic. Anyway, very good piece of TV.
Very plausible theory. It seems to me quite strange that Armstrong was thought to have poisoned a rival lawyer, but the rival lawyer (who lived to tell the tale of the arsenic poisoning), could have been the one responsible for the death of Armstrongs wife, if it was indeed due to arsenic. And then used a non-lethal dose on himself, knowing that the arsenic in the wives body, would should a pattern. This would allow him to get rid of Armstrong... a rival lawyer. It seems strange that he would be able buy large amounts of arsenic, and succeed in poisoning his wife, but not poisoning someone else... there's a lot that doesn't add up. I feel sometimes Sasha Wass appears to blatantly ignore evidence to the contrary of the prosecution at times. Like for example in this case, she acknowledged there was mental health issues, but no thoughts, behaviours or track record of considering suicide... but if she has mental health issues and was sectioned, it's far more plausible to believe suicidal thoughts could have been in her mind at times, that not being considered at all! Great show though, and always two really compelling arguments.
@@PeteP16472 How on earth could Martin have poisoned Armstrong's wife? He never visited the house and Armstrong's wife rarely left the house, and certainly was not on visiting terms with the chemist. The mental hospital stated that she was not suicidal, and she got better while there, relapsing the moment she got home! Don't forget that Martin's sister in law got much sicker than her sister after eating the chocolates, as she ate more of them, no doubt if Martin's wife had eaten all of them she might not have survived. Although Martin and Armstrong were both lawyers, there had always been two firms operating before Martin took it over, and Armstrong had to find a lot of money to give to Martin in one of their law suits, money Armstrong did not have.
@janetpendlebury6808 There are many ways in which people can poison someone, without visiting their house. As mentioned in the video, chocolate can dosed with poison... he could have delivered them to her... there's also no evidence that he never went to the house, so that's purely speculation. Relapsing the moment she got home, could also mean that she got worse too. As a volunteer in a mental health charity, I've lost count the amount of times professionals have said someone isn't suicidal, only to need the help of the charity for it a short while later... so to say she's wasn't suicidal, despite suffering from mental health issues, is shaky at best! There's also no evidence as to her mindset when she did relapse, was she suicidal then? A lot of circumstantial evidence.
great show but hardly objective (legal arguments have modern defence but the prosecution was 100 years old) - according to other sources, Kitty Armstrong often embarrassed her husband publicly. Herbert Armstrong had affairs and was in financial ruin because he owed hundreds of pounds to his business rival. None of this is mentioned. His business rival was invited for tea to arrange repayment and was allegedly poisoned then. There are cracks in all old trials that can be highlighted using modern legal techniques and is easy for modern experts to discredit. I've just read nicholas gerrish comments below and I believe he explains it better
If you were given a piece of gum you'd probably need instructions and help on how to chew it. You didn't pay attention. Your statement the docudrama was hardly objective makes me think you didn't even watch it. It is irrelevant to guilt or innocence regarding evidence Mrs. Armstrong embarrassed her husband in public. Unless of course you think, yes, you, it's a motive. It is mentioned Armstrong was unfaithful and also mentioned he did not touch his wife's legacy despite what you call financial ruin. Perhaps if you watched and listened more closely what you think isn't mentioned actually is and it's your narrow comparative opinion which obscures what you feel is your objective viewpoint. People like you are always quick to share what you think are earth shattering opinions when they are in fact irrelevant and meaningless.
Hi, No, there weren't. This may partly be because the original main grounds for appeal after the murder trial was the same argument that the trial judge had misdirected the jury and so Armstrong did not receive a fair trial. As this programme shows, that's a very convincing grounds for appeal. The Appeal Court in London, however, rejected this and the death sentence was later carried out.
This program is a rather uglier miscarriage of justice than anything for which the Hay poisoner might be responsible. Unfortunate - its a very intriguing story.
Mightn’t it have been, that Armstrong, finding himself in a situation whereby his Business was beginning to fail, and saddled with a tiresome Wife and the possibility of a more satisfactory relationship elsewhere, came to the conclusion that Kitty Armstrong had to go?
This is an outstanding series. The barristers are highly skilled. The Judge is basically Jabba the Britt. His chins ripple. His voice rumbles. A nice Dickensian touch. It would be entertaining to watch him put on the black hat and sentence a starving waif to the gallows. Armstrong was guilty. As a purely practical matter, when you have two people plausibly complaining about being poisoned by him and his wife's corpse is full or arsenic, he is actuarially guilty. Either he did it or he is the victim of the most unfortunate concatenation of bizarre circumstances in the history of British jurisprudence and if so - well, who's fault is that? How would a reasonable early 20th century country with backbone not be expected to execute him? If he was guilty, he got what he deserved. If not, the only thing to do was to be a good sport about it which he apparently was. Sorry for the family. Bad show. Bad business.
Combines 2 of my interests-true crime and family history. Great concept
I've recently seen another documentary on this case- short stories, the Hay poisoner, filmed in the 70's. the experts opinion of Spillsbury isn't particularly flattering. one said he was dogmatic & inflexible, a dangerous man. another expert claimed that after the exhumation of Mrs Armstrong after 10 months, it would have been impossible for Spillsbury to be so certain of his conclusions at the post mortem. specifically, the distribution of arsenic found in the various organs at the pm, would have been vastly different if they had been tested immediately after death. it really can't be overstated how charismatic Spillsbury was, & how much of an effect he had on jury's at the time. he was regarded by many as the real life Sherlock Holmes. other things are revealed which aren't mentioned in this particular video, so I'd recommend watching it
Great show the barristers really take pride in their investigations
I really like these kinds of videos. Are there more of them and if so, where can I find them?
In another documentary about this case it was brought up that Kitty had a habit of taking a lot of patent medications. Arsenic was used in patent medications at the time.
Love this series and the barristers.
So glad I found this video. I have seen many account on this murder trial and conviction and a film about the case, all slanted towards him being guilty. In particular, the film "Dandelion Dead" (1994), (Michael Kitchen as Major Herbert Rowse Armstrong, Sarah Miles as Catherine Armstrong), well acted and well produced, based on this account, had two glaring omissions. One that Oswald Martin's father was the chemist who sold arsenic to Armstrong, so they possibly had access to arsenic.. The second, that Herbert served in First World War & rose to the rank of Major, which was not mentioned to support his upstanding character.
The film mentioned did mention that he had served in the war, he went to a reunion and was addressed as major! I also got the impression that he chemist shop in the film was the one he got his arsenic from, and we know that it was run by Martin's father in law, and that is where Martin met his wife.
Thank you for uploading - it's almost impossible to find any episodes online from Series 3 or 4 of this excellent show:)
Love Victoria murders and history it's amazing never boring
A continual cause of disquiet to this day about murder cases of this period, is the Cult of Personality at the time regarding Bernard Spilsbury. With the attitude of deference at the time, and the lack of knowledge of the general public no adequate cross examination was ever carried out.
I always wondered if Armstrong really did it. His wife was addicted to patent medicines most of which contained small amounts of arsenic. Now one dose of one shouldn't hurt you. But taking many a day multiple times could easily build up enough to kill.
Also Armstrong always carried arsenic as he hated dandelions and pre-made pouches of arsenic to bury under them.
It doesn't explain how his rival ended up being poisoned, but of he were tried on such circumstantial evidence today he'd likely be acquitted if he were facing a death sentence.
So really the case was unsafe on a technicality rather than Armstrong being exonerated - which is something the modern judge made clear but also that had the summing up been more accurate the same conclusion may still have been made
Great show,
Excellent programme. The conviction was unsound and the trial perhaps bungled, but does the evidence still point to the Major's guilt in killing his wife? Also, it makes you wonder whether the chemist and his son-in-law suspected the Major's guilt and the whole scones/chocolate poisoning idea was created by them to point suspicion and police attention at Herbert Armstrong. The chemist, remember, knew Armstrong had purchased large amounts of arsenic. Anyway, very good piece of TV.
Very plausible theory. It seems to me quite strange that Armstrong was thought to have poisoned a rival lawyer, but the rival lawyer (who lived to tell the tale of the arsenic poisoning), could have been the one responsible for the death of Armstrongs wife, if it was indeed due to arsenic. And then used a non-lethal dose on himself, knowing that the arsenic in the wives body, would should a pattern. This would allow him to get rid of Armstrong... a rival lawyer. It seems strange that he would be able buy large amounts of arsenic, and succeed in poisoning his wife, but not poisoning someone else... there's a lot that doesn't add up. I feel sometimes Sasha Wass appears to blatantly ignore evidence to the contrary of the prosecution at times. Like for example in this case, she acknowledged there was mental health issues, but no thoughts, behaviours or track record of considering suicide... but if she has mental health issues and was sectioned, it's far more plausible to believe suicidal thoughts could have been in her mind at times, that not being considered at all!
Great show though, and always two really compelling arguments.
@@PeteP16472 How on earth could Martin have poisoned Armstrong's wife? He never visited the house and Armstrong's wife rarely left the house, and certainly was not on visiting terms with the chemist. The mental hospital stated that she was not suicidal, and she got better while there, relapsing the moment she got home! Don't forget that Martin's sister in law got much sicker than her sister after eating the chocolates, as she ate more of them, no doubt if Martin's wife had eaten all of them she might not have survived. Although Martin and Armstrong were both lawyers, there had always been two firms operating before Martin took it over, and Armstrong had to find a lot of money to give to Martin in one of their law suits, money Armstrong did not have.
@janetpendlebury6808 There are many ways in which people can poison someone, without visiting their house. As mentioned in the video, chocolate can dosed with poison... he could have delivered them to her... there's also no evidence that he never went to the house, so that's purely speculation. Relapsing the moment she got home, could also mean that she got worse too. As a volunteer in a mental health charity, I've lost count the amount of times professionals have said someone isn't suicidal, only to need the help of the charity for it a short while later... so to say she's wasn't suicidal, despite suffering from mental health issues, is shaky at best! There's also no evidence as to her mindset when she did relapse, was she suicidal then? A lot of circumstantial evidence.
He was set-up.
Did he, at some point in the trial, say the world is round.
💯💯💯👍👍👍
great show but hardly objective (legal arguments have modern defence but the prosecution was 100 years old) - according to other sources, Kitty Armstrong often embarrassed her husband publicly. Herbert Armstrong had affairs and was in financial ruin because he owed hundreds of pounds to his business rival. None of this is mentioned. His business rival was invited for tea to arrange repayment and was allegedly poisoned then. There are cracks in all old trials that can be highlighted using modern legal techniques and is easy for modern experts to discredit.
I've just read nicholas gerrish
comments below and I believe he explains it better
If you were given a piece of gum you'd probably need instructions and help on how to chew it. You didn't pay attention. Your statement the docudrama was hardly objective makes me think you didn't even watch it. It is irrelevant to guilt or innocence regarding evidence Mrs. Armstrong embarrassed her husband in public. Unless of course you think, yes, you, it's a motive. It is mentioned Armstrong was unfaithful and also mentioned he did not touch his wife's legacy despite what you call financial ruin. Perhaps if you watched and listened more closely what you think isn't mentioned actually is and it's your narrow comparative opinion which obscures what you feel is your objective viewpoint. People like you are always quick to share what you think are earth shattering opinions when they are in fact irrelevant and meaningless.
Were there any legal consequences to the case being deemed unsafe by the modern judge?
Hi, No, there weren't. This may partly be because the original main grounds for appeal after the murder trial was the same argument that the trial judge had misdirected the jury and so Armstrong did not receive a fair trial. As this programme shows, that's a very convincing grounds for appeal. The Appeal Court in London, however, rejected this and the death sentence was later carried out.
This program is a rather uglier miscarriage of justice than anything for which the Hay poisoner might be responsible. Unfortunate - its a very intriguing story.
800 people were wrongly hanged no justice 😡
That is why the death penalty is wrong in any circumstances.
Mightn’t it have been, that Armstrong, finding himself in a situation whereby his Business was beginning to fail, and saddled with a tiresome Wife and the possibility of a more satisfactory relationship elsewhere, came to the conclusion that Kitty Armstrong had to go?
This is an outstanding series. The barristers are highly skilled. The Judge is basically Jabba the Britt. His chins ripple. His voice rumbles. A nice Dickensian touch. It would be entertaining to watch him put on the black hat and sentence a starving waif to the gallows.
Armstrong was guilty. As a purely practical matter, when you have two people plausibly complaining about being poisoned by him and his wife's corpse is full or arsenic, he is actuarially guilty. Either he did it or he is the victim of the most unfortunate concatenation of bizarre circumstances in the history of British jurisprudence and if so - well, who's fault is that? How would a reasonable early 20th century country with backbone not be expected to execute him?
If he was guilty, he got what he deserved. If not, the only thing to do was to be a good sport about it which he apparently was. Sorry for the family. Bad show. Bad business.
Herbert Armstrong’s Granddaughter has blue eyes, like her Grandfather……..
sad to see weeds and filth.