Murder. Mystery and My Family

[Herlock Sholmes]

For anyone who isn’t aware of this new BBC series it’s well worth watching. It’s on early in the mornings when most are at work or taking kids to school so you may need to record them or alternatively watch them on the BBC IPlayer. There have been 4 so far (I’ve watched three.)

Descendants of those executed look back at the case, along with two Barristers, one for the defence and one for the prosecution. Forensic experts, psychologists and other descendants of people connected to the case all contribute before the evidence is placed before a judge who gives his opinion on whether there is cause for doubt and possible appeal.

It’s fascinating to look into these largely forgotten cases and it’s a sobering fact that in all three cases that I’ve seen so far I can see many causes for doubt (that’s my own opinion of course so there’s no need of a ‘spoiler alert.’) Even more sobering is the fact that those found guilty were all hanged.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi Herlock, sounds like something I would be interested in. I'll see if I can catch it on YouTube or somewhere else online. I have always been for the death penalty in theory but against it in practice because of the risk of an innocent being executed. While there are cases that I believe are proven 100 percent, in most cases they are not and I do not think any risk is acceptable. It says something about a society that believes such a risk is acceptable IMO. Even though I do believe capital punishment is the correct justice for certain crimes, we have to be sure we have the right person 100 percent and I'm not sure how that can be perfected across the board.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AS,

I’ve just checked and the 4 episodes screened so far are available to watch on YouTube. This is the first one:

https://youtu.be/p6gN93hJxVE

I have the same opinion as you on the death penalty. We can all think of people that we’d accept that the world would be a better place without. I can never shake the ‘human fallibilty’ part though. How many innocent people have been hanged? I’d rather some people face life behind bars rather than the death that they might deserve than have to speak about the innocent that were killed as ‘a price worth paying for the majority of correct decisions.’ Take Wallace. We both lean toward him being guilty but I don’t think either of us are confident enough to have seen him hang (or even to have spent life in prison to be honest.) But he could have hanged. Given Rod’s misguided certainty that Parry was guilty I assume that he’d be quite happy about opening the trap door?

[AmericanSherlock]

Thanks for that Herlock. I'll give it a viewing this weekend. Should be interesting.

Yes, I wouldn't convict WHW for life in prison even . I'd have to acquit even though I do think he was probably guilty but it isn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.

Rod thinks he's a defender of Wallace but his absolute conviction in his, let's face it, far out there conspiracy theory is quite frightening. He'd have Parry go down for whatever accomplice role penalty there is and pressuring him to give up "Qualtrough". He could easily have some casual buddy of Parry hang and think it was correct.

People like that are the reason innocents have been executed. God Forbid he's ever on a jury if I stand trial for anything

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for that Herlock. I'll give it a viewing this weekend. Should be interesting.

Yes, I wouldn't convict WHW for life in prison even . I'd have to acquit even though I do think he was probably guilty but it isn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.

Rod thinks he's a defender of Wallace but his absolute conviction in his, let's face it, far out there conspiracy theory is quite frightening. He'd have Parry go down for whatever accomplice role penalty there is and pressuring him to give up "Qualtrough". He could easily have some casual buddy of Parry hang and think it was correct.

People like that are the reason innocents have been executed. God Forbid he's ever on a jury if I stand trial for anything

No problem AS.

It’s his certainty that bothers me ( along with his general obnoxiousness of course). At this distance of time, unless some new evidence surfaces, the case will remain unsolved.

So many ripper documentaries but why hasn’t this fascinating case merited 1 or 10?

[AmericanSherlock]

No problem AS.

It’s his certainty that bothers me ( along with his general obnoxiousness of course). At this distance of time, unless some new evidence surfaces, the case will remain unsolved.

So many ripper documentaries but why hasn’t this fascinating case merited 1 or 10?

I agree, the Wallace case very likely will never be solved. I think it is the best unsolved murder mystery ever, but for whatever reason it is not that popular compared to some others. Certainly not in America. Most people I've mentioned it to have never heard of it.

I do think Rod suffers from certain "disorders". I'm starting to feel a bit bad because I don't think he can help his behavior. On the other hand, his claim to have "solved" the Wallace case is worthy of derision. Luckily, there is the 2 of us to put him in his place.

[OneRound]

I'm enjoying this series. Interesting cases highlighting individuals who were all convicted and paid the ultimate price.

I particularly like each programme containing a prosecution slant. Too often, programmes of this ilk set out to primarily demonstrate technical breaches with the prosecution and end up lacking balance. The approach here comes across as open and - as should be expected with two QCs and a Judge at centre stage - realistic as to the chances of a conviction being overturned. Indeed, the QCs agreed that one historic case didn't even merit being considered by the Judge.

My main criticism is that at 45 minutes a programme - including features with a current day relative - there, perhaps inevitably, isn't always sufficient time to thoroughly explore all aspects of the case. I especially thought this for Burns & Devlin, particularly wanting more detail as to their 'alibis' and also the involvement of the much derided Chief Inspector Bert Balmer.

Given Balmer's current reputation following the Court of Appeal's fully merited destruction of his character in the Cameo Murders appeal of 2003, I could understand the Judge ruling in favour of Burns & Devlin. However, I wasn't convinced this programme fully supported the reason for his decision.

Generally, the Judge seems on the money although - just a personal opinion - I thought he was a little generous in ruling in favour of both Edith Thompson and William Burtoft.

Thompson clearly lied to the police immediately following her husband's murder whilst unfairness in the trial judge's summing up as to her character needs to be seen in the context of the time and was capable of being pursued at her original appeal if considered a worthy avenue.

As for Burtoft, I wasn't as convinced as those fronting the programme that his written confession had been unfairly obtained and thought his defence counsel might have had valid reasons for keeping him out of the witness box rather than it being 'negligence' as stated.

Anyway, three more programmes to come in this series and I'll be watching them.

[Graham]

I haven't been able to watch many of the progs so far, but I did see the one concerning Edith Thompson and I very much agreed with the decision. I always thought she had a very rough deal and should at least have been reprieved. Basically the legal concept of common purpose was the only route to her being charged and found guilty. She was quite open about her affair with Bywaters, and as she had taken no part in the murder was understandably appalled, and protested her innocence right up to the very end.

Graham

[OneRound]

Hi Graham - although it wasn't an overwhelming one, there was enough in my opinion for a case to be made against Mrs Thompson and particularly given that she lied to the police at outset, I could understand the judge and jury not being overly sympathetic towards her.

As regards the matter of a reprieve and whilst none was ultimately granted, I found it interesting that a public campaign was mounted to try and save Bywaters but not Thompson. Presumably, it was felt at large that the young man's actions had been dictated by the elder woman.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

Hi OR,

I'm not sure if the programme actually got that bit right, as in fact after the trial a public campaign gained over 1 million signatures in favour of reprieves for both of them. That, of course, was never going to happen. I haven't read a lot about this case, in all fairness, but it seems to me that the feeling amongst most commentators is that Edith Thompson should not have been sentenced to death in the first place; or at least should have received a reprieve. On the other hand, you could say that she was almost the architect of her own downfall.

Graham

[OneRound]

Hi again Graham - my comment about the public campaign to gain a reprieve was based totally on the programme. Disappointing that the makers seem to have gone wrong there.

Your comment about Edith Thompson being ''almost the architect of her own downfall'' seems most apt.

Best regards,

OneRound

[AmericanSherlock]

Does anyone know why the William Herbert Wallace thread was closed? Sorry this isn't the appropriate forum, but I don't know where else to ask and OP was a big contributor there. That is unfortunate since one troll was ruining an excellent discussion... now apparently for good, for everyone else.

Anyway, I caught a few episodes on youtube and love this show. I found particularly interesting the Burtoft one and how it can relate to other cases, as it was insisted he would have had to have blood on him, but the reenactment showed this to be inaccurate.

[miss marple]

No way should Thompson have been hanged, She was punished for committing adultery, she did not murder her husband, the judge made a moral judgement on her,also she was possibly pregnant, she was carried to her execution, which by accounts was horrific, I believe one of the wardresses who witnessed her execution committed suicide later.
Compare her treatment to that of an aristocratic woman, Elvira Barney, who shot and killed her lover in 1932, she was treated with a lot more compassion that the' lower class ' Edith. Barney was lucky to have the great advocate Patrick Hastings defending her. She was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter.
Mystery murder and family is an interesting concept, I have watched all of them and have tended to agree with the judge's conclusions. The programme is not long enough to go into detail. For instance there is a lot more circumstantial evidence linking Dickman to the murder of Nisbit than came out in the programme. He had a motive for stealing the money. Dickman was in debt, betting badly on the horses and had borrowed twenty pounds off a money lender with an interest rate of 60%. His wife had no housekeeping money, they had four pounds in the bank. Dickman had a separate address at a shop where he collected mail under the name of Black. The last thing Dickman collected from the shop was a parcel containing a revolver. He also lied about not knowing the location of the Isabella pit where the abandoned money bag was found. There is a lot more. On the whole he appears to have been guilty. Money troubles can make people desperate.


Miss Marple

[caz]

Does anyone know why the William Herbert Wallace thread was closed?

Hi AS,

I was surprised it hadn't been closed much sooner. It seemed to me that site rules were being broken all over the place with practically every new post. And not just by one individual.

In my experience it's always wiser not to rise to the bait and add to the risk of having a really interesting thread like our Wallace one closed - or worse, having one's posting privileges for all topics cut off in their prime.

Love,

Caz
X

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

I was surprised it hadn't been closed much sooner. It seemed to me that site rules were being broken all over the place with practically every new post. And not just by one individual.

In my experience it's always wiser not to rise to the bait and add to the risk of having a really interesting thread like our Wallace one closed - or worse, having one's posting privileges for all topics cut off in their prime.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz,

I'm sorry but I feel despite whatever rules were broken from reactive, frustrated posts, and I was certainly guilty of that myself, that the root cause was a particular poster. And whenever that poster contributed en masse, it essentially shut down the conversation and made it impossible to not reply, since there would always be others who did reply, so you would be ignoring most of the posts.

The same pattern played itself out about a year ago and basically destroyed the fabric of the thread until the poster temporarily left, regardless of whether other poster took the bait or not. This time, I didn't hold back in terms of reactivity since the ignoring tactic did not seem to work in the past.

I think it's unfair that everyone be punished be for the actions of 1 person, when the thread was just fine without them.