He did not know of the Armstrong connection when he bought the house (remember it did not have the same name as it had done in the early 1920s).

I find it very strange that he ended up in the house?

Everyone in Cusop and Hay used to know of the house, I used to live opposite it . We have a lot of newer people in Hay now who perhaps wouldn’t know the location but I’m sure if Martin Beales didn’t know it’s history when he bought it, he certainly was keen to discover as much as possible about the case once he did. He even had Armstrongs’ desk.

@@sophiesutherland3779 It's simply inconceivable to me that a man who's working in the same lawyer's building and in the very same office as Armstrong - a famous murderer - would have bought his old house without knowing about its history.

Do YOU know who was living in your house 40-50 years ago before you moved in ???? did you ask or get a list of prior tenants names before you moved in ? if you move to a new town 200 miles away and you move into a house, how would you know who lived there before you ???

I just wonder if katherine did it to herself to get back at Hebert and set him up??

*All* the doctors not just Spilsbury concurred that Mrs Armstrong had taken a massive dose of arsenic no more than 24h before her death. At the trial, the family GP Dr Hincks who saw Mrs Armstrong daily during her final illness along with the nurses who attended her, stated it was absolutely impossible in her final hours for her to have eaten or drunk anything unassisted, by which point she could no longer stand or walk and was nearly paralyzed. One of the maids Miss Rosser stated later (although not at the trial) that Armstrong would often take Mrs Armstrong's tray of soup from Miss Rosser saying he would feed his wife himself. She then noted that Armstrong would not go upstairs immediately, but would go into his study where she could just overhear a sound of stirring. Rosser said she mentioned it to the housekeeper, saying "I'm sure the Major is helping Mrs Armstrong out." The housekeeper told Rosser to hold her tongue and never to mention it again. See *Robin Odell:* _Exhumation of a Murder: The Life and Trial of Major Armstrong_ London.1975

It is a good film, but 100% bias against Armstrong.

Me too yesterday

It's got to be better than this.

I agree Gav. I watched that and enjoyed it so much that I wanted to watch any documentaries that were made on the subject.

You can always count on Micheal Kitchens for a good performance.

Gav Tatu I watched that too. Recommendable indeed.

Me too. It's first class. However, it avoids any suggestion that Armstrong was innocent. It shows him administering the arsenic to both Katherine and Martin and provides motives which are not mentioned here.

Me too. Just saw it yesterday.

Records show Pearson died in Durham in 1976 and I kept looking and finding no record that the older daughter Eleanor had died (around the time or before the mother's death as insinuated), found a death record for her in 1989 also in Durham.

Alan Young just came from that, was really good

I've just finished watching Dandelion Dead -- it was brilliant.

v good analysis

Here's some reasons. Ambitious new lawyer in town. Married Chemists daughter almost apon arriving in town. Who benefited from his arrested and death. No proof the new lawyer was even poisoned. The chemist put that idea forward and fingered Armstrong as he had sold him some. If you were going to poison people in your our town surely you'd go elsewhere to buy the poison. It makes no sense for Armstrong to have done it.

@@robcall5182 Hi Rob, I would respectfully question your analysis and I'm basing this on the full transcript of the trial and of the appeal court hearing, which make for absolutely fascinating reading. Apologies in advance for a long post here! The person who made the connection between the lawyer's illness and the death of Mrs Armstrong was not the chemist - it was Dr Hincks. He also was the instigator of the subsequent investigation, not the rival lawyer or his father-in-law. This is made absolutely clear in the trial transcripts. Dr Hincks was called to treat the sick lawyer Oswald Martin. He tried to find out what Mr Martin had eaten that might have made him so violently ill. The lawyer's wife was fine and so the only suspect food was what he had eaten at Armstrong's home the day before at tea. It was then that Dr Hincks made the connection with the death of his former patient Mrs Armstrong and the realisation that her symptoms could also be construed as poisoning. It was Dr Hincks who oversaw the collection of a urine sample to see if there were traces of poison and the confirmation at an independent laboratory that it contained a significant level or arsenic. Dr Hincks had absolutely no motive to smear or damage Herbert Armstrong's reputation. In fact, if he was wrong in making the allegation he was running a very great risk of damaging his own reputation and medical practice. It was the realisation that evidence pointed to Armstrong as a poisoner that pushed his hand. Anyway apologies again for the long post. This case does absolutely fascinate me!

@@johnneville403 interesting indeed, however, there is the possibility that Oswald poisoned himself mildly as he recovered fully, to frame Armstrong. It all seems to obviously pointing to Armstrong, he wasn't a stupid man, surely he would have covered his tracks a bit better than that. It was all very fortunate for the Martin family,, new lawyer comes into town,... marries 'chemists' daughter, and inherits all of Armstrongs' clients, once he has been convicted. The random box of chocolates,.. there's no evidence that Armstrong did any of it, other than he was found carrying around a small paper wrap of Arsenic for the weeds,.. surely if you were going around poisoning people you wouldn't walk around with it on your person,.. it could just have easily been Martin who did it all, as after all was said and done,.. who benefits from it all,,..not Armstrong. As pointed out by other Dr's Mrs Armstrong took arsenic daily as a medicine, as did lots of people back then, the Chemist would have also known that.. i 'm still not willing to put the rope around Armstrongs neck.

@@robcall5182 Hi Rob, Thanks for the reply. I'm still not convinced by the theory that Armstrong was framed. Let me explain why. Another lengthy reply I'm afraid! First to answer your question, why would a poisoner be carrying around poison? Firstly, Armstrong would have had absolutely no idea that he was going to be arrested and searched by the police on December 31, 1921 and the incriminating evidence found. His wife had died in February that year and as far as he was aware there was absolutely no suspicion on him about her death. However, when the police came to question him in his office amid private concerns over the rival lawyer poisoning, his luck ran out. They didn't just caution him, they also arrested him on the spot and told him to turn out his pockets while they searched the office. They then found the small packet of arsenic. Armstrong said later he was in the habit of carrying arsenic in his pockets because he used it to kill dandelions in his garden. I'm sure he did use it for that purpose, but as the prosecution said it also allowed him to administer it to people. It's also worth noting there is a suggestion in the trial transcripts that it was the first time he had worn that Norfolk jacket since June and he probably wasn't aware what was in the pockets. As for the idea that the rival lawyer Martin would poison himself to frame Armstrong to be the only lawyer in town, there are several problems here and the main one in my view is this. Analysis was made of Martin's urine after his going to tea at Armstrong's home. The expert witness produced by the prosecution - the country's foremost expert on arsenical poisoning - estimated that the lawyer had been given a dose of at least three grains of the drug. More than two grains of arsenic is usually considered fatal and the expert added that Martin was highly lucky to still be alive after days of violent vomiting. It's inconceivable to me that Martin would put himself in such huge danger to simply increase his client list at a country solicitors office. Anyway, that's my 10 cents worth. There's other evidence I think that incriminates Armstrong over the alleged Martin poisoning, but I've probably rambled on enough.

I guess you didn't notice that Martin Beales died in 2010.

beales died in 2010 read it properly...

The Guardian carried an obituary...easily found online. He died in the same house. What a twist on this story and the video

Too much weight is attached to forensic evidence - what nonsense did I just read????

Yes at one point Spillsbury became ti think he was a god of sorts. Thus was his downfall.

I think not one remendy would contain enough. But she had money to purchase many remendies. So all together i think she was, unbeknownst to her, poisoning herself. Self medicating.

Nothing wrong with good old-fashioned English cooking, provided you leave out the arsenic.

Sounds like a disgusting concoction!

also Catharine was dismissed as unstable and manic right from the start. I wonder whatever has happened to two of those poor kids that disappeared :-(

i agree

Hehe..he's probably not following this because he himself is probably dead by now..it was about 50yrs ago when he moved there.

Innocence.

especially the roots

Right. And i believe so much more of the story is missing.

That is actually a very valid point.

There was no other woman , or the tabloids would have been all over her.

I think the daughter was referring to having to lie about being related to Armstrong. There's a stigma attached to someone who was hanged for murder.

@@maggiesmith856 Hi Sandra, Two months after Mrs Armstrong's death, in May 1921, the Major proposed marriage to a lady who was an old friend of the family living in Dorset. She gave evidence at Armstrong's trial in Hereford the next year, but her name was not given in court with the agreement of both sides of lawyers and the judge. The prosecution and defence agreed and stated publicly there was no question of her ever having had an affair with Armstrong and that she had only said she would consider the marriage offer. However, the Major's desire to marry her was cited by the prosecution as one motive for Armstrong to want to kill his wife.

@@johnneville403 by the movie its clear Armstrong wanted companion and sex. This does not make a murderer.

She was loaded. Rich family background. In the movie Dandelion Dead, she accuses Herbert of spending her money.

@@petronillatauro2038 Divorce was very difficult at that time.

She was the one with the money, that's why.

Grow them in patches. It's a flower we have been taught to dislike, but they feed the bees.

I do the same thing, and it feels good, at least. But the plants can live 10 years or more. The seeds are viable for up to 5 years, under the right conditions. Sorry.

@@pattismithurs9023 Eat them, they are very healthy, my grandfather loved them. They will bother less, as a salad.

Patti Smithurs most weed seeds can live thousands of years. I have seen a complete removal of these buggers from my yard. The flower is it’s powerhouse. It creates the energy to make seeds. Remove the power house and the plant becomes weaker.

The Velinewydd Estate sale is a very complex affair - essentially the estate itself owed Armstrong a lot of money, which was due to be paid by tenant farrmers for whom Martin was acting. The farmers had paid a deposit and were in possession rent-free until the sale completed, and land prices were dropping which gave them a further incentive to delay. At the point of the tea invitations, Martin on behalf of the farmers threatened to rescind the sale and demand the return of the deposit (which Armstrong could not afford) if the formal conveyance of the land wasn't ready for completion immediately. It wasn't, and Martin then tried to cancel the sale, while Armstrong sought to force the farmers to complete. So at different times each was refusing to complete.

David Boothroyd I see! Thank you for your response.

Oh, yes, me too, it's lovely.

Spilsbury's stellar reputation has suffered a severe bruising after death, in particular from Andrew Rose's biography "Lethal Witness" which shows how he exaggerated his evidence. He did have a few embarrassments in his lifetime (look up the case of Harold Loughans). Notable that in Scotland, where the official Home Office writ didn't extend and he appeared for either side, he was rather less successful in his cases.

What stands out to me is, If Armstrong was guilty he would have deposed of any evidence, he was a lawyer. Yet he is walking around with poison in his gardening jacket. Trial by media it seems. Hanging Judge etc no was fitted into the frame without doubt. It was a miscarriage of justice which ever is the truth as the judge basically told the jury to find him guilty. 40 mins isn't sufficient time to go over the case, but that's how long the jury took to deliberate.

Spillsbury was a genuis. Genuis are human and are not 100% correct 100% of the time.

I agree.

yes

I disagree . She sounded like she only had days to live anyway

@@robcall5182 She was sent to the Barnwood Asylum, where she completely recovered from her "illness" and was in good health. When Armstrong collected her on 22 January, her "illness" strangely returned and on 22 February she was dead. Her body was found to be riddled with arsenic

@@splinterbyrd I heard in that she weighed 6 stones 6 lbs when released from hospital that's not healthy. She might have been mentally healthy as it was an asylum not a general hospital. The guy was a lawyer, if he was guilty he would have destroyed the evidence and been a bit cleverer than buying it from his local chemists. Don't jump to the easy answer.

I think that's not the same Pearson. I think he was Reginald Pearson (b. 20 February 1912) who died in February 2000 in Hereford. That matches with the birth record for Pearson R Armstrong, born in Hay-on-Wye in Q1 1912.

I saw an interview with Margaret Armstrong in _Time_ magazine, I think about the time this film was made. Margaret's facial resemblance to her mother Katherine is striking.

I'm reading 'The Poisonous Solicitor' by Stephen Bates which covers this case. It was never proven who poisoned the chocolates or even if the were linked in any way to Herbert Rowse Armstrong.

The name is derived from its Norman times, it means to be enclosed. If you look it up there is a much fuller explanation.

David Copperfield, don't feel bad, I thought the same thing!

There is a town called Hay in the state of Victoria in Australia.

Barton in the Beans, in Nuneaton. 😃

Us locals call it Hay but it’s actually called Hay-on-Wye and is the first bookshop town, we also have a huge Literary Festival here so its very much ‘on the map’.

As I recall, they got other doctors to dispute Spilsbury's findings at the trial. But such was Spilsbury's reputation it was difficult for a jury of that period to contradict him, especially as when summing up the judge praised Spilsbury to the skies.

Maybe but there was no physical evidence. There was a doubt.

Oh no he didn't

Mia Cat - I think you're utterly right.

you are right

Pearson Rowse Armstrong was renamed 'Reginald Pearson', and his sisters were given the surname Pearson. Relatives of Armstrong's friend Arthur Chevalier brought them up in Birkenhead and Colwyn Bay. Reginald Pearson (b. 1912) died in 2000 in Hereford.

@@DBIVUK Their maternal grandfathers middle name was Pearson.

@@DBIVUK thank you

I say not framed but a sequence of incidents the fault fell on Armstrong.

@@didarden cute theory.. ..

Visiting Hay just as it was being filmed, one of the bookshop owners told me the producers wanted to film in some of the original buildings but were refused by their then owners.

​@@DBIVUK I visited Cusop recently. The Armstrongs' house Mayfield is still there unchanged. To my surprise the house has a happy feeling about it, not at all forbidding. The village is pretty.

Hi Neil, Yes, this was made absolutely clear at the trial. Neither the defence or prosecution thought her medicine had anything to do it. The point of contention was the weed killer. Did the husband administer it? Or did she sneak downstairs to take it herself?

The case of Herbert Rowse Armstrong has not been referred to the Court of Appeal so the conviction stands. I am not sure if the case was ever submitted to the Criminal Case Review Commission which examines possible miscarriages of justice. (Should say I am not myself convinced that the conviction is unsafe.)

I wish.

He wasn't for the first few years when he arrived in Hay-on-Wye which was explained clearly enough! :)

Gee whizz, you are so clever,hahahaha not

@@SuperHazel9 Martin Beales died in 2010 and being disrespectful to someone who can't respond is sickening. At least he did his best to prove the injustice of it all and he explained quite well why he was where he was.

@@hildashaw213 First of all I can read very well and know when he died, don't you dare call me disrespectful, we all know why he was there because we are all watching his documentary and don't forget he did make money for it.

Whats your point?