Talk:Herbert Rowse Armstrong

Article tags
I added tags related to missing footnotes and inappropriate tone. The tone makes me think that some or all of the text may have been copied/pasted from the sources. I'm going to investigate whether there are any copyright violations.  momoricks   (make my day)  04:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the sources is available online so I was unable to verify the text. Without citations, parts of the article appear to be original research and I'm tagging it as such.  momoricks   (make my day)  10:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a pity that the author of the article did not have access to two important sources, the Notable British Trials series, and Martin Beales' rival theory of Armstrong's innocence "Dead Not Buried". "Exhumation of a Murder" is cited but I am not sure it has been read either. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Velinewydd
Is this the Felin Newydd estate that was sold to Baron Swansea in 1923 ? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr Bernard Spilsbury
The Credibility of Dr Bernard Spilsbury as an expert witness in many trials in which he took part is now subject to question. Take for example the case of Dr Crippen. Spilsbury asserted that the discovered torso was that of Crippen's former wife. It is now the case that DNA investaigations carried out in the USA have proved that the torso was not from his former wife's family and indeed it was that of a man, not a female. Thus his expert witness is now seriously questioned. The basic problem at the time was that there was no one of an equal stature who could be called to question his assertions. I intend to look into this matter further and so may have more to say when I have completed my research. 86.190.104.135 (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The investigations of conspiracy theorists do not 'prove' anything, and are remarkably silent on the fairly important question of whose body it was if it was not Cora Crippen's. The same applies to Armstrong. True, Spilsbury was dogmatic about the arsenical poisoning the size of the dose and the timings of its administration. At the time, he had reason to be because his knowledge was incomplete but was based on methods that showed what appeared to be consistent results. In our greater state of knowledge, it is unlikely a pathologist would commit himself so forcefully. But the question of his competence is unrelated, again, to the basic question of if Mrs Armstrong killed herself - the only realistic alternative hypothesis - who poisoned Martin and why? Or are we to conclude that he shortened his life considerably and subjected himself to a dreadful physical ordeal simply in order to do down a professional rival? Do enjoy your researches, but I would strongly advise not letting an anxiety to shock people to blind yourself to the facts. Incidentally, if you want a lucid and detailed account of the events from somebody who knew Armstrong well and didn't for a second doubt his guilt, may I recommend LTC Rolt, Landscape with Machines? His conclusion was that Armstrong was 'mad as a hatter.'31.54.55.90 (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)