Deterrence (Part Ten)

Misfortune:

Former Major and once respected solicitor Herbert Rowse Armstrong had several misfortunes to contend with when on trial for his life for the murder of his wife Katharine. The late Mrs Armstrong had died from arsenic poisoning in 1921. That was proved almost a year later after her body was exhumed and samples examined by Professor Sir Bernard Spilsbury.

The 'Father of Forensic Pathology' was untouchable at the time, but Spilsbury was a very controversial expert. He committed suicide in the 1940s. By then both his expertise and methods were starting to be questioned. Further research has exposed him as a very dangerous expert – one who was prepared to allow his prejudices to trump evidence.

None of this was known when Spilsbury gave damning evidence against Armstrong in April 1922. But this was not the only misfortune Armstrong suffered on a journey that would take the former solicitor to infamy in Madame Tussaud's Chamber of Horrors. Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett KC was the wrong choice as lead barrister. Undoubtedly a great jurist in his prime Sir Henry made mistakes that cost Armstrong.

He concentrated all his energies on proving suicide. The judge had admitted weak similar fact evidence, relating to the poisoning of Oswald Martin and his sister-in-law. There was circumstantial evidence linking Armstrong to them, but this was not probed sufficiently. The motivation of chemist, Fred Davies, Martin's father-in-law and Martin himself were never tested by Curtis-Bennett.

Poisonous Bias:

Mr Justice (Sir Charles) Darling, hearing his last murder case, aged 73, took over questioning Armstrong and did the Attorney General's job for him, bolstering the prosecution case. He made a great deal of Armstrong's decision to separate the arsenic into individual portions for each dandelion rather than doing it from one batch. Armstrong could not explain why he had done this, but why did that matter?

Armstrong was obsessive about tackling weeds and had used arsenic for that purpose before. His method of tackling individual plants was a matter for him. It hardly proved that the portions were intended for sinister use. Nevertheless, Darling believed that he had scored points over Armstrong. Perhaps he had, but that was not or should not have been the function of the judge. Sir Ernest Pollock was an able lawyer, perfectly capable of presenting the case to the jury himself.

Darling was far from finished. The judge told the jury that if he had been wrong to admit the evidence of similar fact – the Martin poisoning – the Court of Appeal would correct it if Armstrong was found guilty. That invited the jury to convict if they had doubts as it would be sorted out later, but couldn't be if he was acquitted. Darling had reversed the burden of proof.

Less than two years earlier another Welsh solicitor, Harold Greenwood, had stood trial for murdering his wife through arsenic poisoning. Greenwood was acquitted even though the jury believed that Mrs Greenwood had been poisoned. Darling would not allow that to happen again.

Controversies:

Sir Bernard Spilsbury committed suicide in December 1947, aware that his reputation was under a cloud. His practices and involvement in several controversial cases have since been exposed. He was a crucial witness against Armstrong. Spilsbury's suicide occurred a quarter of a century after Armstrong died.

Darling got his wish and had the black cloth placed on his wig as he told Armstrong that he would be executed. His appeal was dismissed on May 16th 1922. He had just over two weeks to live. By now Armstrong knew that he was going to be executed. The once respected solicitor was now vilified as a monster, but was he?

Armstrong told the Reverend de Winter: "I realise that the end has come and I am prepared for it. I have no confession to make. I am an innocent man." The trap opened and Herbert Armstrong plunged to his death on May 31st 1922 – the only solicitor ever to be hanged in Britain in the twentieth century.

The case against was far from compelling, but there was an interesting aside to the Armstrong case – one that may explain Darling's hostility towards the officer of the court and why the Attorney General Sir Ernest Pollock prosecuted the case himself. Eighteen months earlier Greenwood stood trial and was acquitted of poisoning his wife in circumstances that suggested the jury believed she had indeed been murdered. Both judge and prosecutor wanted the public to see that lawyers were not above the law.

The poisonous conduct of the judge ensured a guilty verdict. Whether it was the right verdict remains contentious even now. If Herbert Armstrong was innocent, the death penalty could not be a deterrent and if he was guilty, then capital punishment failed to deter a solicitor from committing murder. Guilty or innocent hanging proved to be no deterrent at all in this case.