The murder of Julia Wallace

[RodCrosby]

o you think wallae was guilty rod

I'm certain that he wasn't, and I believe I can demonstrate that beyond reasonable doubt to reasonable people.

As the Court of Criminal Appeal found, there was no evidence that he had committed the crime, and consequently the jury had delivered a guilty verdict contrary to law, which must be quashed.

Moreover, there is now significant evidence from which to abduce the correct solution to the Wallace mystery. I first identified this evidence in 2008, and it is the solution selected by Antony Brown, in his 2018 book, as being "on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history"

[nugnug]

I'm certain that he wasn't, and I believe I can demonstrate that beyond reasonable doubt to reasonable people.

As the Court of Criminal Appeal found, there was no evidence that he had committed the crime, and consequently the jury had delivered a guilty verdict contrary to law, which must be quashed.

Moreover, there is now significant evidence from which to abduce the correct solution to the Wallace mystery. I first identified this evidence in 2008, and it is the solution selected by Antony Brown, in his 2018 book, as being "on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history"

ihear that hersisterhad acused of haing somthing to do with it that acusation may be baseless  for all i know but im she was accused im not sure by who though.

[RodCrosby]

Julia's sister Amy Dennis has never been accused. She lived in Brighton.

Everyone else, more or less, has been fingered as a suspect in some baseless, half-hearted, theory or other.

Once or twice the name of Wallace's brother's wife, Amy Wallace, has been mentioned. Tying-in with the clucking tongues, who tried to insinuate Wallace was having an affair with her. No evidence whatsoever.

They're all blind alleys. The only way any case can be solved is by analysis of hard evidence. (including circumstantial)

[nugnug]

Julia's sister Amy Dennis has never been accused. She lived in Brighton.

Everyone else, more or less, has been fingered as a suspect in some baseless, half-hearted, theory or other.

Once or twice the name of Wallace's brother's wife, Amy Wallace, has been mentioned. Tying-in with the clucking tongues, who tried to insinuate Wallace was having an affair with her. No evidence whatsoever.

They're all blind alleys. The only way any case can be solved is by analysis of hard evidence.

ahyes maybe iwas tinking of her sister in law

iant see wallce a sa womaniser e ient seem the type and he was hardly a catch

[nugnug]

just foun this site https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/

[RodCrosby]

just foun this site https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/

Interesting. That's a new one!
It seems to endorse and repeat most of the points Antony Brown and myself have made over the years. We visited the Liverpool police station and examined its files in 2017. Antony also has the files from the Public Record Office in Kew.

[nugnug]

imwonering about the guy wo was supposed to be playing chess with wallece that night aperantly he never turned up.

hes name was chanler i belive.

[RodCrosby]

imwonering about the guy wo was supposed to playing chess with wallece that aperantly he never turned up.

hesname was chanler i belive.

Yes, Chandler failed to show, so Wallace played McCartney, in a match which was outstanding from 24th November 1930, when I believe McCartney failed to show.

[it was impossible to tell from just looking at the lazily filled-in schedule, who had actually failed to show for any uncompleted fixture]

[Steve_uk]

Yes, Chandler failed to show, so Wallace played McCartney, in a match which was outstanding from 24th November 1930, when I believe McCartney failed to show.

[it was impossible to tell from just looking at the lazily filled-in schedule, who had actually failed to show for any uncompleted fixture]

I've read that he wasn't as regular a feature at the club as was claimed heretofore.

[RodCrosby]

I've read that he wasn't as regular a feature at the club as was claimed heretofore.

There was a flu epidemic raging in Liverpool at the time. Beattie testified that Wallace usually attended once or twice a week, although he had not seen him since "before Christmas."

It appears Wallace had missed his match, with Walsh, on 5th January 1931. He had had a "bye" on the previous match date of 15th December 1930.

[Steve_uk]

There was a flu epidemic raging in Liverpool at the time. Beattie testified that Wallace usually attended once or twice a week, although he had not seen him since "before Christmas."

It appears Wallace had missed his match, with Walsh, on 5th January 1931. He had had a "bye" on the previous match date of 15th December 1930.

Dorothy L. Sayers remarked that so many pieces of evidence could be interpreted both ways and his comparative absence from the chess club in the preceding weeks is one of them. I would only question the innocent brigade: if Wallace wanted to murder his wife committing the act himself whilst establishing an alibi was there an alternative method of accomplishing the feat?

[RodCrosby]

Dorothy L. Sayers remarked that so many pieces of evidence could be interpreted both ways and his comparative absence from the chess club in the preceding weeks is one of them. I would only question the innocent brigade: if Wallace wanted to murder his wife committing the act himself whilst establishing an alibi was there an alternative method of accomplishing the feat?

Wallace was a man of science, and an amateur chemist. He later "stated" in his ghost-written John Bull articles that he had "untraceable" things at hand that he could have used, if he had wished to murder his wife.

I'll say again. There was no "alibi", nor would have there been anything resembling one, without the entirely fortuitous arrival of Alan Close to deliver the milk.

The only way the Police could possible put Wallace in the frame was by :

a) changing the time of death from around 8pm to 6pm.
b) working on Alan Close to put back his arrival slightly from the 6:45 he told the other kids, and initially told the Police.

When it got to court, the Prosecution pathologist looked an ass, because a) still was not compatible with b).

[Steve_uk]

Wallace was a man of science, and an amateur chemist. He later "stated" in his ghost-written John Bull articles that he had "untraceable" things at hand that he could have used, if he had wished to murder his wife.

I'll say again. There was no "alibi", nor would have there been anything resembling one, without the entirely fortuitous arrival of Alan Close to deliver the milk.

The only way the Police could possible put Wallace in the frame was by :

a) changing the time of death from around 8pm to 6pm.
b) working on Alan Close to put back his arrival slightly from the 6:45 he told the other kids, and initially told the Police.

When it got to court, the Prosecution pathologist looked an ass, because a) still was not compatible with b).

Yet the jury convicted him and as Matthew MacDonald described Jeremy Bamber so Wallace came across in the witness box as "a cold fish." He tried desperately to establish an alibi by talking to all and sundry during those hours and minutes. Didn't one witness claim she saw him off the route he claimed to tread? This could have been where he dumped the poker. I'm not sure whether her testimony was used at trial.

[RodCrosby]

Yet the jury convicted him and as Matthew MacDonald described Jeremy Bamber so Wallace came across in the witness box as "a cold fish." He tried desperately to establish an alibi by talking to all and sundry during those hours and minutes. Didn't one witness claim she saw him off the route he claimed to tread? This could have been where he dumped the poker. I'm not sure whether her testimony was used at trial.

The Court of Criminal Appeal acquitted him because the the Jury had made an error in law. There was no evidence against him, and a jury is not permitted to convict without any evidence.

Yes, Wallace was a bit of a "cold fish". But not a murderer.

Once again, where was the "alibi" without Alan Close?

Wallace was a dogged insurance-peddler. There was nothing intrinsically suspicious about him trying to find "Qualtrough". A helpful Policeman even suggested he try one more possible address, which Wallace didn't, in fact. After checking the directory at the newsagents, he discovered there was no Qualtrough at 25 Menlove Avenue, or indeed anywhere in the district, and he caught the tram home.

There was nothing at trial to challenge Wallace's account of his Tuesday-night movements. Indeed, it was all verified by the Police and the witnesses, almost minute-by-minute.

There were some "crank" letters to the Police and the papers, claiming they had seen "a man who looked like" Wallace [with a woman] in Scotland Road, miles away, on the other side of Liverpool, which was frankly loony-toon impossible.

[Steve_uk]

The Court of Criminal Appeal acquitted him because the the Jury had made an error in law. There was no evidence against him, and a jury is not permitted to convict without any evidence.

Yes, Wallace was a bit of a "cold fish". But not a murderer.

Once again, where was the "alibi" without Alan Close?

Wallace was a dogged insurance-peddler. There was nothing intrinsically suspicious about him trying to find "Qualtrough". A helpful Policeman even suggested he try one more possible address, which Wallace didn't, in fact. After checking the directory at the newsagents, he discovered there was no Qualtrough at 25 Menlove Avenue, or indeed anywhere in the district, and he caught the tram home.

There was nothing at trial to challenge Wallace's account of his Tuesday-night movements. Indeed, it was all verified by the Police and the witnesses, almost minute-by-minute.

There were some "crank" letters to the Police and the papers, claiming they had seen "a man who looked like" Wallace [with a woman] in Scotland Road, miles away, on the other side of Liverpool, which was frankly loony-toon impossible.

I suppose that he would make himself known to people on the tram as soon as possible after the killing. He knew that Julia would come to the door with a milk jug anyway to meet the milk boy on that particular evening so it wasn't much of a risk.