Talk:Alfred Rouse

Untitled
what a strange story. There must be much of it missing. Also, the car couldn't have been a Morris Minor, it was not launched until 1948


 * All sources I have seen say it was a Morris Minor. This is not the same as the famous rounded model introduced in 1948, but an earlier car of the same name. Sam Blacketer 17:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the plot of (pointless spoiler alert!)Nabokov's novel Despair - does anyone one know whether VN cited/acknowledged it as a source? (NM 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.161.125 (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Guilt?
This case has long fascinated me, and I am convinced neither of Rouse's guilt or the justice of the verdict given the evidence, or that Rouse got a fair trial.

1. Rouse was stopped by a Police constable in the vicinity, shortly before the alleged crime, who clearly saw two men in the front seat, and spoke to Rouse about his lights being off. Would Rouse have had the ice-cold nerves to immediately continue with the "plan." I doubt it.

2. The body was found in such a position that it would immediately arouse suspicion that it was not the body of the driver. Rouse would surely not have made such an obvious error, if he was truly the ice-cold premeditated murderer with the cunning plan.

3. Much was made of the wooden mallet. However, no forensic evidence was adduced to show ether the victim had suffered any injury, or that the mallet had caused any injury. A single (unidentified) hair was found attached to the mallet.

4. Rouse unnecessarily drew attention to himself, by shouting about a bonfire, after he had passed the two men in the lane. Hardly the actions of a clever ice-cold killer.

5. There was a vast amount of prejudicial material produced at the Magistrates hearings. Rouse's tangled love-life was well-publicised, and produced a ready-made, if unconvincing motive. But why the need to kill someone to disappear? Why not simply disappear?

6. The Daily Herald were prosecuted for "Contempt of Court" for running a story about "Another Burning Car Murder" while Rouse awaited trial. A woman's body had been found in a burning car in an unrelated incident, the clear implication being that Rouse's case was one of murder, when his defence was that it was a case of accident. The paper was let off with an apology, but the damage had been done.

7. The Police botched the forensics, allowing the car to be interfered with for hours by press photographers and others.

8. The victim is usually described as a tramp, although the evidence of the constable who saw him moments before his death, together with fragments of quality clothing recovered after the fire indicates otherwise. But who was he? Why was ne never identified? Could he have been identified? Is it possible the police preferred that he remain "unknown" to support their case against Rouse?...

I feel all in all, there was insufficient evidence against Rouse to justify a guilty verdict. Perhaps he was just a victim of circumstances, whose socially-unacceptable love-life, panic and initial lies conspired to put the noose around his neck. RodCrosby 20:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

'''Response to the above. '''

1. Rouse made a confession that was published in the Daily Sketch (now defunct) the day after he was executed. The confession conformed almost exactly to the case presented by the prosecution. A few days after that The News of the World published a letter written by Rouse's wife in which she said that Rouse had told her after the trial that the verdict was the correct one and that he was guilty.

2. Leaving the confession aside, Rouse certainly got a fair trial. Every effort was made to demonstrate that the car might have caught fire accidentally or that the fire might have been caused by Rouse's passenger. The judge, in his summing up to jury, went to great lengths to impress upon the jury that their duty was to assess the case only on what they had heard and seen in court. Even prosecuting counsel reminded the jury, right at the end of his concluding address, that if they were not satisfied with the prosecution's case it was their duty to acquit.

3. Rouse's statements to the police, the magistrates, and to the judge and counsel at his trial were so full of contradictions and of transparent spontaneous inventions, and his behaviour after the crime so erratic and so inconsistent with those of an innocent person, that it beggars belief that any right-minded person could think for a moment that he was not guilty as charged.

I do not see how there can be any doubt about Rouse's guilt. Grobblakk (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Birds and bees
"...at least two of whom would get pregnant from the experience of knowing him."

Is that what they mean by "social intercourse"? PrivateSponge (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Re. "Murder" — Rouse's motivation
The article states, "At just what point Rouse decided on his scheme is not settled, nor how he arrived at it". This statement is not accurate. Rouse made a confession shortly before he was executed, which was published in the Daily Sketch on the day after the execution. In that confession he explained what his motivation was and how he went about realizing it. There is no reference in the confession to burning car murders nor to The "W" Plan.Grobblakk (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Morris Minor
The Morris Minor was not manufactured until 1948 (according to Wikipedia) so how could the vehicle be one?194.72.120.131 (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * His Morris was also called Minor: Morris_Minor_(1928) - a competitor to Austin 7 in the small car market. They were produced 1928-33, in 1948 the name came in use again on another car.Hepcat65 (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)