Isn't a Crime of 'Attempted Murder'Committed?

I don't know, we should really get a lawyer in here to answer those questions.

I think the difference is that he's already dead. Attempted murder is a crime, but only if the person is alive. I don't know if attempted murder on a corpse really is a crime, even if the would be murderer thought the person was alive at the time.

There was a murder case in Sweden in the 70's, where a man bludgeoned his wife to death. He said he was drunk, and that she "fell on the kitchen stove, hitting her head very badly". Because they couldn't prove otherwise, he got off on it. Though, he had mutilated her body and hacked it up in little pieces and put them in plastic bags and had them thrown away. And he wasn't even punished for it, because mutilating a body after the fact wasn't even a crime in those days. Or if it was counted as a misdemeanor and he got a couple of month in the can, or whatever. The point is, if it's not counted as a criminal offence, there will be no punishment.

[Isn't Robert Parks Guilty of the Crime of 'Attempted Murder'?]

It’s called the Impossibility Defence and it breaks down into two types Factual Impossibility and Legal Impossibility. Factual Impossibility is a defence that tries to assert that a crime was not committed because it was factually impossible to commit the crime. For example, let’s say that someone attempts to kill you by discharging a gun but it is not loaded. The argument would be that because it is impossible to kill someone with an unloaded gun there is no attempted murder.

That type of defence is generally considered not valid when applied to Attempt. In fact it is expressly prohibited as a defence for Attempt in a number of jurisdictions.

In New York for the case of People v. Dlugash (1977) the court ruled that a man who shot a corpse was indeed guilty of attempted murder because he believed at the time that it was a living person.

Thus if Robert Parks were prosecuted today and all the facts were known he would most likely be found guilty of attempted murder (plea bargain manoeuvrings for lesser sentences aside). Whether it is first or second degree attempted murder might be tipped by the fact that it was a corpse: while there was certainly premeditation (which would indicate first degree) there was no actual harm done (which would indicate second degree). A judge/jury would have to make a subjective decision on the sentencing, but it would likely be years in prison if not life.

It likely would be a very similar situation during the period the film was set. So his mother didn’t help him too much but what she did take off the table for him though was hanging. They’re not going to stretch your neck for Attempted Murder, unless of course it’s also treasonous.

SPOILERS!!!!!!

The movie seems clear that it was Mary that saved Mr. Parks from jail. She was aware he must have stabbed Sir William.
Mrs. Wilson’s only flaw was that she waited too long to do the deed. In effect she was not effective enough to prevent Mr. Parks from being culpable to a crime. He did not know Sir William was already dead, and so Mr. Parks stabbed him.
The movie gives Mary an out, that Mr. Parks didn’t commit the actual murder. Also, neither Mrs. Wilson nor Mr. Parks admit guilt to Mary. And in the end Mary repeats Lady Trentham’s conclusion that testifying in court would be unthinkable. Mary replies by asking 'what good would it do?'
To me it all seemed quite tidy and flawless.

OP: How can you attempt to murder someone who's already dead?

Here's a better case: a man pushes another man off the roof of a tall building. While he falls, screaming, he's shot by someone on a passing floor. Who's legally responsible for his death?

Good point. I agree with you. Mrs. Wilson has only ascertained that her son is likely to get a lesser sentence than murder. He isn't off the hook entirely.

______
How was your day, Paul?
Yes, I also had a pleasant day.
I went working and shopping.