Talk:Alfred Rouse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Military work group. | ||
| This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
|
WikiProject Crime To-do:
|
|
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)
[edit] 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)
