This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
