Deterrence (Part Nine)

An Unwanted Place in History:

Former Major and respected solicitor, Herbert Rowse Armstrong, was a pillar of the community in Hay-on-Wye in the early twentieth century. Armstrong was a free-mason, but he held important positions in the judicial world. In addition to his practice, Armstrong had been appointed Clerk to the Justices at Hay, Bredwardine and Paincastle. He was, however, seen as dominated by his wife Katharine until her death in February 1921.

The investigation into the poisoning of rival solicitor Oswald Martin was conducted secretively for just over two months. The chemist who sold the poison to Armstrong, Fred Davies, also had access to it and a motive. He was Martin's father-in-law and had a grudge against Armstrong. But the main cause for concern was Katharine's death. Had she been murdered by her seemingly mild-mannered and caring husband?

After Armstrong's arrest on December 31st her body was exhumed. The post-mortem examination was conducted by the then eminent Professor Sir Bernard Spilsbury, who declared that death had been caused by arsenic poisoning, rather than natural causes. Spilsbury was then the top pathologist in the country – world even – but his reputation would suffer greatly later.

Trial:

The ten-day trial began on April 3rd 1922. The main issue, decided by Armstrong's lead barrister Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett KC, was whether Mrs Armstrong had committed suicide or he had administered the fatal dose. Spilsbury insisted that Mrs Armstrong could not have got the arsenic and taken it herself. Her nurse told the court that on the day of her death she had been worried about dying and did not want to leave her husband and children, but Mrs Armstrong had been suicidal during her last illness. A previous nurse had quit over it.

The case against him was circumstantial. His possession and use of arsenic to control rogue dandelions was an issue, which the judge said was evidence only of possession. Consequently, the crucial issue was murder versus suicide. A weak case was supported by evidence that Martin had suffered arsenic poisoning. So had Katharine.

Armstrong had not spent much of the money that he received as a result of Katharine's death and there was no comprehensive proof that the arsenic purchased by Armstrong had been used to poison either of his alleged victims. It was taken as read, and her own doctor disagreed with Spilsbury. He believed that Katharine Armstrong could have taken the poison herself.

Tactics:

Even if Spilsbury was right that Mrs Armstrong could not have administered the fatal dose herself, there was another possibility – one that was not considered by the court. She committed suicide by proxy. There were others present that could have given her the arsenic that took her life.

Armstrong made a big mistake with his choice of lawyer. The once-able Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett KC was hired because he was a fellow Cambridge graduate and Cambridge never loses. Curtis-Bennett failed to persuade the jury that there was reasonable doubt at the trial, which took place in Hereford in April 1922.

He could have attacked the credibility of the Martin family evidence far more effectively. Martin's father-in-law had a grudge against Armstrong and Martin was a professional rival. They had plenty to gain from Armstrong's fall from grace. Instead the errors of judgement, perhaps seen with the benefit of hindsight, cost the former Major dear, helping to send him to the gallows – the only solicitor to pay the ultimate penalty for murder in the twentieth century.