Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Other cases => Topic started by: Steve_uk on October 04, 2020, 08:27:PM
-
As the nights draw in and families hunker down by the fireside my thoughts turned to the murder of Julia Wallace in Liverpool in January 1931. Was the spouse responsible, carefully crafting the crime like one of his chess games with several premeditated moves, or was this in fact rather a sloppily executed murder which was bound to come back to haunt? Masterfully narrated by author Mark John Maguire with his authentic local accent this is far and away the best analysis of the case. https://youtu.be/1ner5Cfuz68
-
Actually, Maguire is full of it. He's a 'storyteller' and nothing else.
I count 25 factual errors in his story. He can't even pronounce 'Qualtrough' correctly, and his tale is pure Prejudice and Fancy.
Wallace had his conviction quashed because there was literally no evidence against him, as the Court of Criminal Appeal uniquely found..
"The Court will quash a conviction founded on mere suspicion". [headnote] R v Wallace (1931) 23 Cr App R 32
-
Actually, Maguire is full of it. He's a 'storyteller' and nothing else.
I count 25 factual errors in his story. He can't even pronounce 'Qualtrough' correctly, and his tale is pure Prejudice and Fancy.
Wallace had his conviction quashed because there was literally no evidence against him, as the Court of Criminal Appeal uniquely found..
"The Court will quash a conviction founded on mere suspicion". [headnote] R v Wallace (1931) 23 Cr App R 32
Maybe you could elucidate on the 25 errors. Do you believe Wallace made the Qualtrough call?
-
Maybe you could elucidate on the 25 errors. Do you believe Wallace made the Qualtrough call?
..and whilst you're about it please introduce yourself in the Foyer.
-
Maybe you could elucidate on the 25 errors. Do you believe Wallace made the Qualtrough call?
Do I have to? I thought people might like to discover his dumb errors for themselves, rather than be spoon-fed.
But I will attempt this somewhat tedious task, when I can save my work from computer crashes, hangs, etc.
Of course Wallace didn't make the Qualtrough call.
There was no evidence that he did, and evidence both factual [Beattie, the recipient, was unshakeable that it's not Wallace] and logical [hmm, make the call from the nearest box to his house, when everyone in the district knows him, the Man from the Pru, the "peculiar-looking", "immensely tall", "elongated walking-stick"] that he didn't. The box was located in the centre of Anfield, at the intersection of no fewer than five busy roads.
Plus, the Police made no effort to prove Wallace was the caller. Or if they did, they kept the results of their enquiry to themselves. By the time it reached trial it was just a "hypothesis."
When it reached the Court of Criminal Appeal, the three Judges gave a collective snort, and turned Wallace loose...
-
Maybe you could elucidate on the 25 errors.
It was more than I thought...
1. Qualtrough is pronounced “Kwol-tro”, not “Kwol-troff” [1:20]
2. Wallace had called at 25 Menlove Gardens West and at Crewe’s house before speaking to the policeman, and before visiting the Post Office and newsagents. [3:49]
3. Wallace tried the front and back twice, not “several times” [4:55]
4. Wallace and Mrs. Johnston did not light the fire in the parlour. Mrs. Johnston lit the “range” fire in the middle-kitchen. [6:25]
5. The hospital is not “St. Guy’s”, but “Guy’s”, named after Thomas Guy. [7:25]
6. The Wallaces moved to Liverpool in March 1915, not 1914. [7:40]
7. The Wallaces’ maid stated that an iron bar was missing from the parlour, and a poker from the kitchen. [9:45]
8. Wallace made four statements, not two, in the following days. [11:10]
9. There were 14 Qualtrough families in Liverpool, not four, and there was no phone-book, but a directory, kept in libraries, etc. Most people didn’t have phones in 1931. The few that did would have their directory entry annotated with their phone-number [11:45]
10. The Wallaces had been married for sixteen years, nearly seventeen, not 18. [12:50]
11.Wallace did not tell the Police he had posted a letter in the vicinity of the phone-box. Nor that he had boarded the tram there. He told them that he may have posted a letter some 270 yards away, where the post-box was situated, on his route to a different tram stop, no-where near the phone-box. [14:50]
12. Wallace had not caught a tram from the area of the call-box. That was Police supposition. [17:25]
13. In 1931 the court was known as the Assizes. Crown Courts did not come into being until decades later. [19:10]
14. Wallace did not try to insinuate a reason why Julia might have worn the mackintosh. Neighbour Mrs. Johnston later, in Court, suggested it might have been for warmth.[20:50]
15. The picture captioned “Inspector Gold” is actually Detective Superintendent Hubert Moore. [21:30]
16. The date of Wallace’s execution had been scheduled for 12th May, but was vacated because of his appeal. No further date had been set at that point. [23:05]
17. John Parkes was not a garage-owner, but a night cleaner at a garage.[24:20]
18. Parkes didn’t come forward, but was tracked down by Roger Wilkes and Michael Green to a hospital bed. [24:30]
19. The Johnstons did not have a key that fitted Wallace’s door, nor did they admit any such thing. They had offered to try their key when Wallace was struggling with the lock, more in support than in any real expectation it might work. [25:10]
20. Not only is the evidence against Wallace certainly not complete, there in fact was no evidence whatsoever, only suspicion, as the Court of Criminal Appeal found. [26:44]
21. James Caird had told Wallace he thought he had come across the name ‘Qualtrough’ once before. [26:52]
22. Others could certainly benefit from the name ‘Qualtrough’, as I show in my solution in ‘Move to Murder’ [27:20]
23. Wallace did not spend his life travelling around Liverpool collecting insurance. He had spent 16 years travelling around the small Clubmoor district, far from Menlove Gardens. Until he actually arrived at Menlove Gardens, and discovered East didn't exist, numerous people had told him where to find Menlove Gardens East; Wallace had followed Beattie’s suggested route to the letter. Wallace did not have a directory. [28:25]
24. Wallace was advised by the Policeman to continue his search, and try 25 Menlove Avenue. [29:55]
25. There was every reason why another person would have used the phone box if they had been waiting to see Wallace emerge nearby, heading for the chess-club. Not only is there reasonable doubt, there is no evidence whatsoever that Wallace was passing the phone-box at the precise time the call was made, or passed it at all. The Police offered no evidence, and had seemingly made no efforts to trace Wallace’s movements on the Monday night. It was just a theory. [34:50]
26. Another person would know there was little chance of gaining admittance from Julia on the Monday night. Also, a person familiar with Wallace’s insurance collections would know there would be more money in the house on the Tuesday night. [35:25]
27. The Police traced Wallace’s route on the Tuesday night, minute by minute. They combed waste-ground, searched grids, etc. And of course no-one on the trams saw Wallace carrying an iron-bar! [36:45]
28. Wallace was not familiar with Menlove Gardens, although he had heard of Menlove Avenue, like most people in Liverpool. He had never done business there. His violin lessons had taken place at Crewe’s house, on four or five occasions, and Wallace had travelled there via Allerton, an entirely different route. This had occurred two years prior to the murder. [37:00]
29. There is no evidence Wallace ever disguised his voice, or was capable of doing so. [45:35]
30. Julia did not have words with the paper boy. He simply pushed the paper through the letter box, and saw nothing. She spoke to the milk-boy, and took the milk in, as was her usual practice, since it required transferring milk from the boy’s can to her own can.[46:32]
31. Modern forensic investigators who have studied this scenario think it 'absurd'. [47:10]
32. Wallace did not speak to anyone on the first tram. He did not start enquiring until the second tram, when he was far away from his own district. [48:55]
33. There is no evidence Wallace threw clothes around the bedroom. The likeliest explanation was Julia had taken a bedsheet off to darn it. It was found on the kitchen table with her sewing things. [52:50]
34. The Court of Criminal Appeal judges explicitly rejected this false logic – and reiterated the entire lack of evidence - in exchanges with Prosecutor Hemmerde KC. [54:20]
35. Our system provides that a jury’s verdict may be overturned. It was overturned because they had returned a verdict contrary to law, without any evidence whatsoever to support it. There was evidence of bias. One juror before the trial had pointed out Wallace in a newspaper article “That’s him. He did it all right.” Another juror was said to be asleep during the trial, and there was an allegation of bullying by some jurors to bring in the guilty verdict inside an hour. [54:40]
-
You seem well-versed in the crime. I would like to read the sources you used if you could furnish them? May I hazard a guess that you're in your twenties and have not become hardened and cynical to life, marital or otherwise? I see this man as being resentful for his lot, having very little in common with his wife, who belittled him if not in words then in her glance and neglect of him. He also felt inferior at the chess club, which at least afforded him an excuse to get out of the house of an evening. Due to the customs of the time they were stuck with each other, bound together in misery to avoid the social scandal of divorce and pariah status amongst the neighbours.
A few more things struck me or bothered me. I know a professional pianist who claims that looking at the keyboard is similar to chess, and he is proficient in both pursuits. Could it be as Wallace stared at the four corners of the chess board he devised the "Menlove Gardens East" ruse? The choice of Qualtrough is a bit of a red herring because if it wasn't Wallace making the call the person with malice aforethought would hardly use their real name to convey the message, and if it was one of the fourteen Liverpool Qualtroughs he would have been traced. Why would this person wish to purchase insurance anyway by this means: if he had Wallace's business card surely he would contact him through the normal channel? Why was nothing stolen in the house, why was the mackintosh underneath the victim and why did Wallace strive so hard to gain witnesses throughout that evening?
-
You seem well-versed in the crime. I would like to read the sources you used if you could furnish them? May I hazard a guess that you're in your twenties and have not become hardened and cynical to life, marital or otherwise? I see this man as being resentful for his lot, having very little in common with his wife, who belittled him if not in words then in her glance and neglect of him. He also felt inferior at the chess club, which at least afforded him an excuse to get out of the house of an evening. Due to the customs of the time they were stuck with each other, bound together in misery to avoid the social scandal of divorce and pariah status amongst the neighbours.
A few more things struck me or bothered me. I know a professional pianist who claims that looking at the keyboard is similar to chess, and he is proficient in both pursuits. Could it be as Wallace stared at the four corners of the chess board he devised the "Menlove Gardens East" ruse? The choice of Qualtrough is a bit of a red herring because if it wasn't Wallace making the call the person with malice aforethought would hardly use their real name to convey the message, and if it was one of the fourteen Liverpool Qualtroughs he would have been traced. Why would this person wish to purchase insurance anyway by this means: if he had Wallace's business card surely he would contact him through the normal channel? Why was nothing stolen in the house, why was the mackintosh underneath the victim and why did Wallace strive so hard to gain witnesses throughout that evening?
I'm actually 56, and possibly the most hardened and cynical person around ! My family motto is "Celeriter Nil Crede".
Aside from your final questions, I'm sure you can see that the rest of your remarks are imaginative theorizing.
But, since you seem interested in exploring the evidence, I can help.
In 1981, on the 50th anniversary of the crime - to the hour - an independent Liverpool radio station 194 Radio City and presenter Roger Wilkes produced an extraordinary drama-documentary. It was the last to interview people alive in 1931; material witnesses, or people who knew Wallace. [It's also a useful social document, to see how the Liverpool accent has changed over the years - not for the better!] They simply don't make 'em like this any more...
I listened to the show, as a fifteen-year-old, and recorded it, and subsequently lost the tapes. In 2008, I met a nice gentleman, Mr. Fryer, on another forum who also had the tapes, by now on CD, and he let me copy them. I posted them here and there on other forums, and they have subsequently 'escaped into the wild' [without attribution]
This recording was from from the re-broadcast, five weeks after the first, but is identical, save for being split into two episodes.
Who killed Julia? [episode 1]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoVz82MW_AY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoVz82MW_AY)
Who killed Julia? [episode 2]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3VVJSWgJcY
-
Immediately following the original broadcast, there was a live round-table discussion and phone-in. [telephones in 1981 seemed little-improved since 1931 !]
Who killed Julia? [round-table and phone-in]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrMEfdxBwyE
-
The reason that the original broadcast was re-broadcast was because of a sensational development in the case.
You can and should read about it in Roger Wilkes's book "Wallace, the Final Verdict" (1984), [at that time] the best and most accessible book on the case. [an edge-of-the-seat "detective story" within a "detective story"]
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wallace-Final-Verdict-True-crime/dp/0586064524
In a nutshell, Wilkes and Michael Green had used their own detective skills, against all odds, to track-down an important elderly, sick, witness to a hospital bed, where he gave spontaneous, startling, tape-recorded bedside testimony, not long before he died.
Conspiracy of Silence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scG08cL7rTU
-
But Wilkes and Green [and Goodman] were wrong, although understandably so, given the intransigence of the Liverpool Police in releasing their files. [I examined the files in 2017]
But, nevertheless, not terribly wrong...
As always, the TRUTH will out.
-
The Man from the Pru (1990) - a dramatisation of the case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rDwxrS1HeE
-
Rod,
Thank you for the links to the BBC broadcasts. I doubt something as intelligent as that could be made today. I have renewed respect for Roger Wilkes now, though still have reservations about him.
-
i never saw a real motie for her husband to kill her he dident stand to gain any money there was no other woman and they seemed to get on all right so he had no real reason to.
-
I have two questions at this point. I'm particularly aiming this at Rod, but anyone who knows should feel free to answer:
(i). When Wallace was going round asking for the whereabouts of the fictitious street, did he hand anybody the note given to him by whoever it was at chess club, or did he hand them his own note?
(ii). In either case, was the name 'Qualtrough' spelt correctly on that note?
-
The Man from the Pru (1990) - a dramatisation of the case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rDwxrS1HeE
Pros: standout performances from Pryce (Wallace), Tom Georgeson (Supt. Moore) and Gary Mavers (Parry). The period detail is absolute perfection, and actually filmed in and around Wolverton Street, Calderstones Park, Sefton Park and St. George's Hall. The 'facts' which are definitely facts, are generally presented accurately.
Cons: too many flashbacks/flashforwards, the jarring Chinese execution scenes, and the suggestion of sexual intrigue between Wallace/Amy and Parry/Julia, for which there is absolutely no evidence. [They didn't know in 1989 that Julia was touching 70 at the time of her death]
-
I have two questions at this point. I'm particularly aiming this at Rod, but anyone who knows should feel free to answer:
(i). When Wallace was going round asking for the whereabouts of the fictitious street, did he hand anybody the note given to him by whoever it was at chess club, or did he hand them his own note?
(ii). In either case, was the name 'Qualtrough' spelt correctly on that note?
(i) Beattie wrote the call details down on the back of an envelope [presented in court], and "gave" the envelope to Wallace, who, Beattie saw, wrote them down in his own memorandum book.[presented in court]. There is no record, AFAIK, of Wallace handing his book, or the note, to anyone on his journey.
(ii) There is no allegation that it wasn't, although in the Police Files there were I think two references to the name "Qualthorp", but, from memory, these were in very early memos from one officer to another.[simple Police/typist errors, probably] No issue of the spelling, by Wallace or anyone else, was ever taken in Court.
The Roger Wilkes radio station was independent, not BBC, btw.
-
Why would this person wish to purchase insurance anyway by this means: if he had Wallace's business card surely he would contact him through the normal channel? Why was nothing stolen in the house, why was the mackintosh underneath the victim and why did Wallace strive so hard to gain witnesses throughout that evening?
We need to know something of the social mores of the time, and the geography of Liverpool
I suspect Wallace was an early victim of 'social engineering' and 'scam by telephone', which of course continues today.
Few people had telephones in 1931. Wallace certainly didn't. From Sherlock Holmes through 1920s detective fiction it was a commonplace plot device to "leave a message at his club", or "ring up his club", although Wallace agreed it had never happened to him before.
Perhaps he felt great pride in being singled-out as the "go-to" man for insurance, in front of his peers. Perhaps he presumed a fellow-member had recommend him to someone "there's a fellow down my club who does insurance. Wallace is his name." Several members, Beattie and Deyes at least, lived near Menlove Gardens in the far more swanky southern end of Liverpool, as did Wallace's supervisor Crewe.
£4 [about £267 today] was stolen from the house, although the thief probably expected ten times that amount.
We'll come to the mackintosh later, if I may.
Again social mores. There was a commonplace phrase of the times "Ask a Policeman !", and people were generally more open, communicative and helpful than they are today. Wallace was by nature a methodical, insurance-peddler, determined to demonstrate he had left no stone unturned. [What if Qualtrough complained to the Pru "your man never turned up for his appointment!" ?]
When his fellow insurance-peddlers [the Prudential Staff Union] held an unprecedented secret mock-trial in London, hearing the evidence, for and against, the verdict was unanimous acquittal, and the defraying of his defence costs in his forthcoming murder trial. So nothing sounded strange to these people!
In any event, it's one of the great myths of the case that any of this was supposed to provide an 'alibi' for Wallace. His 'alibi' hinged entirely on the fortuitous arrival of milk-boy Alan Close at 29 Wolverton Street.
-
We need to know something of the social mores of the time, and the geography of Liverpool
I suspect Wallace was an early victim of 'social engineering' and 'scam by telephone', which of course continues today.
Few people had telephones in 1931. Wallace certainly didn't. From Sherlock Holmes through 1920s detective fiction it was a commonplace plot device to "leave a message at his club", or "ring up his club", although Wallace agreed it had never happened to him before.
Perhaps he felt great pride in being singled-out as the "go-to" man for insurance, in front of his peers. Perhaps he presumed a fellow-member had recommend him to someone "there's a fellow down my club who does insurance. Wallace is his name." Several members, Beattie, Deyes and Bethurn at least, lived near Menlove Gardens in the far more swanky southern end of Liverpool, as did Wallace's supervisor Crewe.
£4 [about £267 today] was stolen from the house, although the thief probably expected ten times that amount.
We'll come to the mackintosh later, if I may.
Again social mores. There was a commonplace phrase of the times "Ask a Policeman !", and people were generally more open, communicative and helpful than they are today. Wallace was by nature a methodical, insurance-peddler, determined to demonstrate he had left no stone unturned. [What if Qualtrough complained to the Pru "your man never turned up for his appointment!" ?]
When his fellow insurance-peddlers [the Prudential Staff Union] held an unprecedented secret mock-trial in London, hearing the evidence, for and against, the verdict was unanimous acquittal, and the defraying of his defence costs in his forthcoming murder trial. So nothing sounded strange to these people!
In any event, it's one of the great myths of the case that any of this was supposed to provide an 'alibi' for Wallace. His 'alibi' hinged entirely on the fortuitous arrival of milk-boy Alan Close at 29 Wolverton Street.
We don't really know that a sum of money was stolen from the house; we only have Wallace's word how much was there before he left. He could well have asked his wife to have a word with the milk delivery boy on some pretext or other. The fact is after the smoke and mirrors of the case have been removed the wife was killed. The feature of the putative attentive husband murdering the wife is the central plot of Agatha Christie's Mysterious Affair at Styles, which he and his spouse may well have read for entertainment in the days before television.
His colleagues may have rallied round along with the Establishment due to his previous role in the provision of uniforms for the armed forces in India, which explains why the latter intervened to prevent him from being hanged.
-
i never saw a real motie for her husband to kill her he dident stand to gain any money there was no other woman and they seemed to get on all right so he had no real reason to.
I believe there was a sister whom Wallace seemed attracted to. The motive was in any case to get rid of a woman whom he came to despise and move to a more salubrious area, which he did.
-
We don't really know that a sum of money was stolen from the house; we only have Wallace's word how much was there before he left. He could well have asked his wife to have a word with the milk delivery boy on some pretext or other. The fact is after the smoke and mirrors of the case have been removed the wife was killed. The feature of the putative attentive husband murdering the wife is the central plot of Agatha Christie's Mysterious Affair at Styles, which he and his spouse may well have read for entertainment in the days before television.
His colleagues may have rallied round along with the Establishment due to his previous role in the provision of uniforms for the armed forces in India, which explains why the latter intervened to prevent him from being hanged.
His accounts were always in order, according to his supervisor's testimony at Trial, and the books proved it. Unless it's some weird theory that Wallace destroyed the £4. If so, we might wonder why he didn't choose a night when he had much more money in the house, to appear "more convincing." Only Wallace knew there was such an unusually small sum that night, because he had been ill the previous weekend, and been unable to work his round.
There was no need for pretexts, etc. Julia spoke to Alan Close as usual, telling him to "run along home because he had a cough." She had one too. A physical exchange of milk-cans had to occur, as normal, to receive the milk. She had to open the door for the milk-boy, if she wanted milk. Close called every day, but crucially, this day he was very late. Even if it was a "pretext" how is that supposed to help the case against Wallace? Julia is seen alive, either way !
People read all kinds of books all the time. They don't all follow through with their plots to murder. I can't think of one who has. In fact, Wallace wasn't into that stuff. A man of science, his shelves were filled with Stoic philosophy, Botany, Chemistry, the Armchair Scientist, etc. He was fond of the wireless, listening to Ibsen plays. No evidence Julia was into pulp fiction either. She spent her time with painting, and tinkling the ivories, and household chores...
The Pru members from all over the country who gathered in London had no knowledge or interest of his past. They were all strangers to him, and focused entirely on the charge against him, and the lack of evidence.
-
I believe there was a sister whom Wallace seemed attracted to. The motive was in any case to get rid of a woman whom he came to despise and move to a more salubrious area, which he did.
Amy [Wallace's sister-in-law] spent more time in the company of Julia. She was there on the afternoon of the day of the murder, and was invited to stay to tea by Julia, which she declined.
"In fact, so far as the happiness of this household is concerned, the Crown knows nothing to the contrary of the view that these two people were very happy together." Hemmerde KC, opening speech for the Prosecution.
You know better?
The only way that Wallace managed to move to a more salubrious area was via libel settlements he received from idiots who continued to insinuate he had murdered his wife...
-
Ibsen plays, eh? Good that he liked those. I'm warming to him now. That may tilt it towards Not Guilty.
I don't know much about the case, though I feel certain I have read about it in the past and simply forgotten. I like this case anyway because of the chess association and the whole chessic connotation in the murder plot.
The Qualtrough name is already known to me, for unrelated personal reasons that I need not expand on here. (Your pronunciation is correct). This personal factor caused me to home in (and hone in) on the name itself.
It seems to me that if the name was spelt correctly when written down, that establishes nothing one way or the other. An innocent Wallace should not be punished because he is sufficiently literate to know how the name is spelt.
But if the name was spelt incorrectly by Wallace himself (whether or not copied down from someone else), this would tend to point to innocence, because if he has concocted the whole thing, it is more likely than not that the name would be spelt in the correct way.
A further question in the same vein would be whether the name was spelt out for Beattie by the caller, as that clearly affects this line of deduction.
Another way of asking the question: Was the spelling 'Qualtrough' established only after the incident?
Qualtrough is a patronymic Gaelic name (in fact, Scottish) meaning 'son of Walter'. There are variations of the name, the closest being 'McQualtrough' and 'MacQualtrough', but there are no orthographic or phonetic variations of the specific derivation 'Qualtrough'.
I accept this is not conclusive, and it's a minor point perhaps, but what made my think of this is that, from a distant memory about this case, I distinctly remember Wallace handing the note to a policeman, partly due to understandable confusion on the policeman's part about the address, but also perhaps due to a need for an abundance of emphasis on the part of Wallace (especially if Wallace is guilty). Would he go to the length of deliberately misspelling the name?
Overall, he does look guilty, but that does not make him guilty in law. As with many of these cases, the tentative (and provisional) view I take is that it is quite likely the police got the right person, but the evidence was not there to convict.
-
His accounts were always in order, according to his supervisor's testimony at Trial, and the books proved it. Unless it's some weird theory that Wallace destroyed the £4. If so, we might wonder why he didn't choose a night when he had much more money in the house, to appear "more convincing.".Only Wallace knew there was such an unusually small sum that night, because he had been ill the previous weekend, and been unable to work his round.
There was no need for pretexts, etc. Julia spoke to Alan Close as usual, telling him to "run along home because he had a cough." She had one too, A physical exchange of milk-cans had to occur, as normal, to receive the milk. She had to open the door for the milk-boy, if she wanted milk. Close called every day, but crucially, this day he was very late. Even if it was a "pretext" how is that supposed to help the case against Wallace? Julia is seen alive, either way !
People read all kinds of books all the time. They don't all follow through with their plots to murder. I can't think of one who has. In fact, Wallace wasn't into that stuff. A man of science, his shelves were filled with Stoic philosophy, Botany, Chemistry, the Armchair Scientist, etc. He was fond of the wireless, listening to Ibsen plays. No evidence Julia was either. She spent her time with painting, and tinkling the ivories, and household chores...
The Pru members from all over the country who gathered in London had no knowledge or interest of his past. They were all strangers to him, and focused entirely on the charge against him, and the lack of evidence.
If Wallace is guilty he has mental health issues to say the least, like Holden Caufield in J.D . Salinger's book The Catcher in the Rye. The book has been claimed to be responsible for motivating Mark David Chapman and John Hinckley Jr.
-
Rather than me answer point by point, which I'm happy to do, if you are really interested we might get there quicker if you do a little reading... [directed to all, not only the last poster]
I recommend, in order of reading.
Edward Winter
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/wallace.html
Excellent background precis, focusing somewhat on the Chess aspects, but many other key quotes are gathered together. One wag said "if Wallace ought not to have hanged for the murder, he ought to have hanged for his chess..."
Dorothy L. Sayers (1936) "The Anatomy of Murder" [chapter]
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.220696/page/n165/mode/2up?view=theater
Sceptical, I would say, and quite witty. [a couple of minor errors, such as (James) Allison Wildman being a girl]
Edgar Lustgarten (1950) "Verdict in Dispute" [chapter]
https://archive.org/details/verdictindispute00lustuoft/page/162/mode/2up?view=theater
Sceptical, I would say.
W. F. Wyndham-Brown (1933) "The Trial of William Herbert Wallace"
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.220695/page/n3/mode/2up?view=theater
abridged Trial Transcript, the go to reference for the fine detail.
Roger Wilkes (1985) "Wallace - The Final Verdict"
mentioned up-thread. Immensely readable. Spellbinding. Strong case against Parry, but ultimately flawed conclusion.
Jonathan Goodman (1969, 1987) "The Killing of Julia Wallace"
did much of the spade-work for Wilkes. A landmark book at the time.(1969).
James Murphy (2001) "The Murder of Julia Wallace"
standard "Wallace did it", containing many errors of fact and logic. A point, though, for researching Julia's true age and background. Unknowingly, Murphy first published the evidence which points to the Correct Solution. (Hard to find the book now. Expensive. Probably best obtained via a library, if that is possible.)
Antony M. Brown (2018, 2021) "Move to Murder"
Examines ALL the theories, first evidentially and logically, then "reconstructing" what might have happened with fictional narratives, before plumping for a new theory. Mine. Some interesting original research in this book.
There are other, lesser works, which I can list later.
-
Rather than me answer point by point, which I'm happy to do, if you are really interested we might get there quicker if you do a little reading... [directed to all, not only the last poster]
I recommend, in order.
Winter
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/wallace.html
Excellent background precis, focusing somewhat on the Chess aspects, but many other key quotes gathered together. One wag said "if Wallace ought not to have hanged for the murder, he ought to have hanged for his chess..."
Dorothy L. Sayers (1936) "The Anatomy of Murder" [chapter]
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.220696/page/n165/mode/2up?view=theater
Sceptical, I would say, and quite witty. [a couple of minor errors, such as (James) Allison Wildman being a girl]
Edgar Lustgarten (1950) "Verdict in Dispute" [chapter]
https://archive.org/details/verdictindispute00lustuoft/page/162/mode/2up?view=theater
Sceptical, I would say.
W. F. Wyndham-Brown (1933) "The Trial of William Herbert Wallace"
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.220695/page/n3/mode/2up?view=theater
abridged Trial Transcript, the go to reference for the fine detail.
Roger Wilkes (1985) "Wallace - the final verdict"
mentioned up-thread. Immensely readable. Spellbinding. Strong case against Parry, but ultimately flawed conclusion.
Jonathan Goodman (1969, 1987) "The Killing of Julia Wallace"
did much of the spade-work for Wilkes. A landmark book at the time.(1969).
James Murphy (2001) "The Murder of Julia Wallace"
standard "Wallace did it", containing many errors of fact and logic. A point for researching Julia's true age and background. Unknowingly, Murphy first published the evidence which points to the Correct Solution.
Antony M. Brown (2018, 2021) "Move to Murder"
Examines ALL the theories, first evidentially and logically, then "reconstructing" what might have happened with fictional narratives, before plumping for a new theory. Mine. Some interesting original research in this book.
There are other, lesser works, which I can list later.
Thank you, Rod. Your knowledge and expertise are greatly appreciated.
-
Some more...
Daily Telegraph, (2001)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/4814433/Inside-story-29-Wolverton-Street.html
entertaining short article by Roger Wilkes
Yahoo!Groups, (2003)
https://archive.ph/20130105185113/http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/unsolvedbritishmurders/message/27
Another entertaining article, from a Crime Compendium, in Wallace's favour
F. Tennyson Jesse, (1953), essay "Checkmate"
https://www.dropbox.com/s/og96f9012qelpni/CHECKMATE.pdf?dl=0
Thinks Wallace guilty, on nothing more than a hunch. Bizarrely proposes that Wallace disposed of the murder weapon in the River Mersey. Anfield is three miles inland...
In A City Living, (2011) blogspot [illustrated with many photos]
https://inacityliving.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-wallace-murder-case.html
a neutral recitation of the case, in great detail
Robert F Hussey - Murderer Scot-Free (1972)
basically endorses and develops Goodman's theory [either Mr "Y", OR another, "Mr "Z", acting alone, who correspond to Marsden and Parry, respectively]
Hargrave Lee Adam - Murder Most Mysterious (1932) [chapter]
https://archive.org/details/murdermostmyster00adam/page/261/mode/1up?view=theater
Wallace probably didn't do it; a commentary on the trial and appeal.
John Brophy - The Meaning of Murder (1966), [chapter] "The Liverpool Classic"
Wallace didn't do it.
John Rowland - The Wallace Case (1949)
Wallace was innocent
John Gannon - The Killing of Julia Wallace (2012)
Wallace, Parry and Marsden conspired to kill Julia. Wallace "blackmailed" the boys into killing her because he discovered they were shagging Julia. Aside from the silly theory, there is a lot of [over-]detailed research on just about every aspect of the case, although very disorganised.
Yseult Bridges - Two Studies in Crime (1959)
Wallace did it. Biased and error-strewn. Tries to compare Wallace with the murderer Courvoisier, a century earlier.
Ronald Bartle - The Telephone Murder (2018)
Wallace did it. The first edition was ludicrously error-strewn.
Mark Russell - Checkmate: The Wallace Murder Mystery (2021)
Wallace did it. Biased and hugely intemperate in making his case.
Richard Waterhouse - The Insurance Man (1994) [very short and self-published, I think]
Wallace and Parry did it together.
Winifred Duke - Six Trials (1934) [chapter]
Possibly thinks Wallace innocent (I'm not sure, it's a very difficult book to find)
F.J.P. Veale - The Wallace Case (1950) [another short pamphlet]
I don't know what Veale thinks. The work is essentially unobtainable.
-
i seewhy the police thought wallace was guilty hes behavior does look uspicious but at the same time i cant see that he had motive or means very short time rame for him to hae one it and cleaned up
-
Some more...
Daily Telegraph, (2001)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/4814433/Inside-story-29-Wolverton-Street.html
entertaining article by Roger Wilkes
Yahoo!Groups, (2003)
https://archive.ph/20130105185113/http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/unsolvedbritishmurders/message/27
Another entertaining article, from a Crime Compendium, in Wallace's favour
F. Tennyson Jesse, (1953), essay "Checkmate"
https://www.dropbox.com/s/og96f9012qelpni/CHECKMATE.pdf?dl=0
Thinks Wallace guilty, on little more than a hunch. Bizarrely proposes that Wallace disposed of the murder weapon in the River Mersey. Anfield is three miles inland...
In A City Living, (2011) blogspot [illustrated with many photos]
https://inacityliving.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-wallace-murder-case.html
a neutral recitation of the case, in great detail
Robert F Hussey - Murderer Scot-Free (1972)
basically endorses and develops Goodman's theory [either Mr "Y", OR another, "Mr "Z", acting alone, who correspond to Marsden and Parry, respectively]
Hargrave Lee Adam - Murder Most Mysterious (1932) [chapter]
https://archive.org/details/murdermostmyster00adam/page/261/mode/1up?view=theater
Wallace probably didn't do it, a commentary on the trial and appeal.
John Brophy - The Meaning of Murder (1966), chapter "The Liverpool Classic"
Wallace didn't do it.
John Rowland - The Wallace Case (1949)
Wallace was innocent
John Gannon - The Killing of Julia Wallace (2012)
Wallace, Parry and Marsden conspired to kill Julia. Wallace "blackmailed" the boys into killing her because he discovered they were shagging Julia. Aside from the silly theory, there is a lot of [over-]detailed research on just about every aspect of the case, although very disorganised.
Yseult Bridges - Two Studies in Crime (1959)
Wallace did it. Biased and error-strewn. Tries to compare Wallace with the murderer Courvoisier, a century before.
Ronald Bartle - The Telephone Murder (2018)
Wallace did it. The first edition was ludicrously error-strewn.
Mark Russell - Checkmate: The Wallace Murder Mystery (2021)
Wallace did it. Biased and hugely intemperate in making his case.
Richard Waterhouse - The Insurance Man (1994) [very short and self-published, I think]
Wallace and Parry did it together.
Winifred Duke - Six Trials (1934) [chapter]
Possibly thinks Wallace innocent (I'm not sure, it's a very difficult book to find)
F.J.P. Veale - The Wallace Case (1950) [another short pamphlet]
I don't know what Veale thinks. The work is essentially unobtainable.
Extremely grateful - thank you, Rod!
-
o you think wallae was guilty rod
-
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"
-
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.
-
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)
-
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
-
just foun this site https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
He didn't. It was only on the second tram (of three) that he started asking the clippie where to change next, which tram, etc, once he was already quite far from his home.
I'm not sure you grasp the significance of Close. Without Close, Wallace would not have had any alibi at all, and "time" enough to kill five people, and been left with just a shaggy-dog story about Qualtrough and Julia dead on the rug...
-
He didn't. It was only on the second tram (of three) that he started asking the clippie where to change next, which tram, etc, once he was already quite far from his home.
I'm not sure you grasp the significance of Close. Without Close, Wallace would not have had any alibi at all, and "time" enough to kill five people, and been left with just a shaggy-dog story about Qualtrough and Julia dead on the rug...
Not at all. He had made sure his cronies at the chess club knew the details of the strange telephone call request, or just as much information as he wanted them to have. I assume the milk delivery was on the same night each week. Might I question also why the occupants of 29 Wolverton Street had to have milk delivered in this way and how long this custom had endured, when I would bet that most other houses on the row would have a regular morning delivery of milk bottles left on the doorstep, as was conventional at the time.
-
Not at all. He had made sure his cronies at the chess club knew the details of the strange telephone call request, or just as much information as he wanted them to have. I assume the milk delivery was on the same night each week. Might I question also why the occupants of 29 Wolverton Street had to have milk delivered in this way and how long this custom had endured, when I would bet that most other houses on the row would have a regular morning delivery of milk bottles left on the doorstep, as was conventional at the time.
It was Beattie who asked around the club where Menlove Gardens East was, not Wallace. Everyone asked thought it existed, and offered suggestions of how to get there. No-one said it didn't.
You can bet what you like. You'd still lose. Close explained in some detail at trial, his milk-round and his many customers.
And, some history. http://catecollection.com/2021/08/01/the-history-of-milk-delivery-in-the-uk/
-
It was Beattie who asked around the club where Menlove Gardens East was, not Wallace. Everyone asked thought it existed, and offered suggestions of how to get there. No-one said it didn't.
You can bet what you like. You'd still lose. Close explained in some detail at trial, his milk-round and his many customers.
And, some history. http://catecollection.com/2021/08/01/the-history-of-milk-delivery-in-the-uk/
The point about the milk delivery was that it was a regular occurrence and the milk boy's presence at the doorstep at that particular hour could be counted upon.
-
ivve allway had a false impresion of this case becouse i thougt there were only 2 creible suspects but now it there are sevral people who coul of one it.
-
The point about the milk delivery was that it was a regular occurrence and the milk boy's presence at the doorstep at that particular hour could be counted upon.
It was entirely fortuitous that Alan Close arrived and saw Julia when he did, most likely around 6.38pm.
He stated that he was running up to half an hour late that night because his bike, which he normally used, was out of action, so he had to do his round on foot. He would normally have arrived much earlier.
But Wallace did not arrive home from work until 6.05pm. He had even stayed chatting with a client and had a cup of tea with her.
In other words, if Close was supposed to be Wallace's 'alibi', Wallace deliberately ran the risk that Close and the 'alibi' would have been and gone even before he arrived home !
Wallace would have then had time to kill five people and no alibi at all.
If Close had arrived earlier, around his usual time, Wallace would have had the following problems:
a) no alibi, because he arrived home after Close had gone, or
b) Wallace would have had to leave the house suspiciously early, immediately after killing Julia (to make it seem he didn't have the time to do it), and arrive at Menlove Gardens suspiciously early. Or, more likely, if Wallace was guilty he would have arranged the fictitious appointment for 7pm, not 7.30pm, to "close the time gap", based on Wallace's assumption that Close would arrive a lot earlier than he did, in fact, arrive.
Alternatively, if Close had arrived later still, Wallace would have had the following problems:
c) he would have had to wait for Close to arrive to have an alibi, then kill Julia, and then arrive suspiciously late for his appointment at Menlove Gardens, or
d) abandon his one-time plan to kill Julia altogether, as too risky for the above reason.
As a matter of fact, it was established that William Herbert Wallace stepped off the tram at the corner of Menlove Gardens West at 7.20pm, at exactly the time an innocent man would have, with 10 minutes in hand to find what he thought would be an address in an adjoining street...
What are the chances that Alan "Goldilocks" Close would arrive just at the right time, not too early, not too late, to allow a guilty Wallace to seem like an innocent man with such perfect timing? For that is what happened.
And who in their right mind would base anything on such a plan working out?
-
ivve allway had a false impresion of this case becouse i thougt there were only 2 creible suspects but now it there are sevral people who coul of one it.
There was only ONE credible suspect: Richard Gordon Parry. [this was confirmed by the son of the DS on the case to Roger Wilkes in the early 1980s]
Except that Parry didn't kill Julia Wallace [but he knew who did]. The Police, desperate for a conviction, were forced to turn away from Parry, and pursue a fantastical case against Wallace, which ultimately crashed and burned at the Court of Criminal Appeal.
There was no evidence against Wallace, as the Judges of Appeal agreed, and the Prosecutor, Hemmerde KC, finally conceded. A jury of prejudiced idiots had brought in an unlawful verdict, and Wallace was set free and acquitted.
-
Whether the milk-boy (in some accounts it's the paperboy) was late or not had no bearing on the crime. Wallace's alibi was the abortive meeting with R.M Qualtrough, who was one and the same man. We know this because the original telephone call to the Chess Club made on the evening of 19th January 1931 was made from the Anfield 1627 telephone box, some 370 metres distant from the domicile of the accused, 29 Wolverton Street. It's almost inconceivable that R.M. Qualtrough would be making a telephone call at the same time Wallace had left his house and passing by en route to the Chess Club.
Richard Gordon Parry had an alibi corroborated by two witnesses for the evening in question.
-
Whether the milk-boy (in some accounts it's the paperboy) was late or not had no bearing on the crime. Wallace's alibi was the abortive meeting with R.M Qualtrough, who was one and the same man. We know this because the original telephone call to the Chess Club made on the evening of 19th January 1931 was made from the Anfield 1627 telephone box, some 370 metres distant from the domicile of the accused, 29 Wolverton Street. It's almost inconceivable that R.M. Qualtrough would be making a telephone call at the same time Wallace had left his house and passing by en route to the Chess Club.
Richard Gordon Parry had an alibi corroborated by two witnesses for the evening in question.
As I have explained, unless Close arrived at precisely the time he did arrive, Wallace would have either:-
a) had no alibi at all
b) had to arrive at Menlove Gardens either suspiciously early or late. The Police themselves established that Wallace arrived on the corner of Menlove Gardens West at 7.20pm, for his 7.30pm appointment. No-one can deny that that is perfectly normal timing, consistent with Wallace's innocence.
c) had to abandoned his one-time plan to kill Julia, because of a).
It is far from "almost inconceivable" that an "R.M. Qualtrough" would be making a telephone call at the crucial time, especially if Qualtrough was in fact waiting to observe Wallace heading to his tram (in the opposite direction from the telephone box). If you stand on that very spot, as I have, you can see that it's perfectly plausible that Qualtrough & Accomplice would see the "immensely tall", "elongated walking-stick" emerge from Richmond Park, turning left - away from them - towards his tram at the Belmont Road crossing, to head for the Chess Club. They would then know that the first piece of the plot had fallen into place, and proceeded to make the call from the phone-box, just yards away...
Parry did indeed have a watertight alibi for the time of the murder. But I have never said Parry killed Julia...
His accomplice did !
The Court of Appeal, uniquely, found there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace, and turned him loose.
Clearly, your claims to the contrary can only be based on Prejudice and Fancy.
-
As I have explained, unless Close arrived at precisely the time he did arrive, Wallace would have either:-
a) had no alibi at all
b) had to arrive at Menlove Gardens either suspiciously early or late. The Police themselves established that Wallace arrived on the corner of Menlove Gardens West at 7.20pm, for his 7.30pm appointment. No-one can deny that that is perfectly normal timing, consistent with Wallace's innocence.
c) had to abandoned his one-time plan to kill Julia, because of a).
It is far from "almost inconceivable" that an "R.M. Qualtrough" would be making a telephone call at the crucial time, especially if Qualtrough was in fact waiting to observe Wallace heading to his tram (in the opposite direction from the telephone box). If you stand on that very spot, as I have, you can see that it's perfectly plausible that Qualtrough & Accomplice would see the "immensely tall", "elongated walking-stick" emerge from Richmond Park, turning left - away from them - towards his tram at the Belmont Road crossing, to head for the Chess Club. They would then know that the first piece of the plot had fallen into place, and proceeded to make the call from the phone-box, just yards away...
Parry did indeed have a watertight alibi for the time of the murder. But I have never said Parry killed Julia...
His accomplice did !
The Court of Appeal, uniquely, found there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace, and turned him loose.
Clearly, your claims to the contrary can only be based on Prejudice and Fancy.
Isn't this somewhat of an elaborate ruse to kill someone, who, after all, is a rather nondescript individual?
-
Yes, although there have been stranger ones.
Here's the thing.
Murder was NOT the plan.
It was an ingenious distraction burglary, which happened to end in a murder...
-
Yes, although there have been stranger ones.
Here's the thing.
Murder was NOT the plan.
It was an ingenious distraction burglary, which happened to end in a murder...
Then why not take all of the money on the premises in one go?
-
The perps didn't realise there was only perhaps 1/10th of their expected haul on the premises - since Wallace had been ill, and he had not collected as usual the previous week/weekend.
If you mean why didn't he ransack the house, for a few extra pounds/shillings, well
a) he hadn't planned to ransack the house - he came for the collection-box in particular
b) once murder was committed, he wanted to make himself scarce.
-
The perps didn't realise there was only perhaps 1/10th of their expected haul on the premises - since Wallace had been ill, and he had not collected as usual the previous week/weekend.
If you mean why didn't he ransack the house, for a few extra pounds/shillings, well
a) he hadn't planned to ransack the house - he came for the collection-box in particular
b) once murder was committed, he wanted to make himself scarce.
But there was no need to leave the mackintosh had it been an unknown intruder. Wallace had to wear the mackintosh (he was naked underneath) to avoid blood spatter, then leave it in situ. He wore the mackintosh at the start of the day, instead of the overcoat, which is a giveaway in itself on a cold Liverpool January morning, for easy retrieval later in the day.
-
The witness Florence Johnston suggested it was Julia who was wearing the mackintosh (to admit a visitor to the house, who then quickly attacked and killed her)
I suggest it is equally likely that Julia put on the mackintosh to LEAVE the house. (once she had discovered her visitor was a thief). But she was killed before she could leave...
Anyways, the Court of Criminal Appeal determined that none of this amounted to a hill of beans against Wallace. The Prosecution theory of a naked Wallace under the mackintosh was just a far-fetched theory...
The Court of Criminal Appeal would have none of it, and uniquely quashed his conviction and turned him loose...
-
My analysis, posted on a Facebook group dedicated to the case.
THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE
Until 1907 there was no formal method of overturning a miscarriage of justice in this country. The wrongfully-convicted had to hope either for commutation (of a death sentence, by the Home Secretary), early release, or very rarely, the King's Pardon. There had been a sort of court of appeal - the Court for Crown Cases Reserved - but these were strictly on points of law, never fact, and only the Trial Judge could submit the case (essentially suggesting that HE might have made a mistake!), which rarely happened. Questions of fact were left to the Jury and could never be reviewed.
Public disquiet grew, however, towards the end of the 19th Century, with convictions such as those of Florence Maybrick, Adolf Beck, and George Edalji being viewed as either unsafe or even clearly wrong, with no possibility of redress.
Parliament responded in 1907 with the Criminal Appeal Act. For the first time, anyone could appeal their conviction to a higher court, and the Judges could look at the facts as well as points of law.
The relevant part of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907, S4(1) reads:-
"The Court of Criminal Appeal ... shall allow the appeal if they think that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence..."
The judiciary, however, were not at all happy with the change, and showed marked reluctance still to intervene. They did not want to become a 13th Juror unless the case overwhelmingly demanded it...
This was made crystal-clear by the Judges when the first cases of appeal came before them, and subsequently. [until a somewhat more flexible "unsafe or unsatisfactory" test replaced the 1907 law in 1968 in a new Criminal Appeal Act.]
"It must be understood that we are not here to re-try the case where there was evidence proper to be left to the jury upon which they could come to the conclusion at which they have arrived. The Appellant must bring himself within the words of section 4 (1). Here there was evidence on both sides, and it is impossible to say that the verdict is one to which the jury could not properly have arrived."
R v Williamson (1908) 1 Cr App R 3
"This Court has said that it does not proceed on such lines as these – look at the evidence, see what conclusion the Court would have come to, and set aside the verdict if it does not correspond with such conclusion. There have been cases in which the Court has thought fit to set aside a verdict of a question of fact alone, but only where the verdict was obviously and palpably wrong. Such cases are rare."
R v Hancox [1913] 8 Cr App R 193
"the verdict of a jury which has been properly directed on the law, and has not been permitted to hear inadmissible evidence, is, in practice, almost unassailable. If there is something more than a scintilla of evidence to support it, it will stand."
Lord du Parcq, speech, 1948
"Where there is evidence on which a jury can act, and there has been a proper direction to the jury, this Court cannot substitute itself for the jury and re-try the case. That is not our function. If we took any other attitude it would strike at the very root of trial by jury."
R v McGrath [1949] 2 All E.R. 497
“...the fact that some members or all the members of the Court think that they themselves would have returned a different verdict is again no ground for refusing to accept the verdict of the jury, which is the constitutional method of trial in this country. If there is evidence to go to the jury, and there has been no misdirection, and it cannot be said that the verdict is one which a reasonable jury could not arrive at, this Court will not set aside the verdict of Guilty which has been found by the Jury.”
R v Hopkins-Husson [1950] 34 Cr App R 47
The "bible" of the criminal law stated:-
"it is not sufficient to show merely that the case against the appellant was a very weak one... nor is it enough that members of the Court feel some doubt as to the correctness of the verdict... If there was evidence to support the conviction, the appeal will be dismissed" (Archbold, 1922 ed., p. 377)
In analysing the wording of the 1907 Act (which British Empire/Commonwealth and Dependencies had written into their own legislations), the New Zealand Supreme Court stated in 2007:-
"Section 385(1)(a) [the NZ equivalent to the 1907 Section 4(1)] contains two distinct, albeit overlapping, concepts. The first concerns a verdict which is unreasonable. A verdict will be unreasonable if, having regard to all the evidence, the jury could not reasonably have been satisfied to the required standard that the accused was guilty. The second concept concerns a verdict which cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. That will be so when there is no evidence capable of supporting it. Although they are distinct, the two limbs of s 385(1)(a) overlap because a verdict of guilty based on no evidence must necessarily be an unreasonable verdict. On the other hand a verdict of guilty based on some evidence is not necessarily a reasonable verdict...An “unsupported” verdict must necessarily be an unreasonable verdict. An unreasonable verdict has insufficient evidence to support it. A verdict with no evidence to support it is simply at the outer end of a continuum."
Kurt John Owen v The Queen SC 25/2007 [2007] NZSC 102
Therefore, schematically, we have, with an approximate percentage weight of evidence against an accused.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 "Cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
10
15
20
25 "Unreasonable, having regard to the evidence"
30 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70 Area where the Appeal Court still would probably NOT intervene
75 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
80
85 Area where the Appeal Court would definitely NOT intervene
90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95 "Guilty, beyond Reasonable Doubt"
100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord Chief Justice Hewart, in quashing Wallace's conviction, stated:-
"Suffice it to say that we are not concerned here with suspicion, however grave, or with theories, however ingenious. Section 4 of the Criminal Appeal Act of 1907 provides that the Court of Criminal Appeal shall allow the appeal if they think that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it cannot be supported having regard to the evidence."
The headnote to the case makes it doubly explicit.
"The Court will quash a conviction founded on mere suspicion"
R v Wallace (1931) 23 Cr App R 32
And yet... silly people, ignoring Lord Hewart, continue to write silly books, based entirely on their own prejudices and fancies, that Wallace somehow committed the crime...
There was no evidence in 1931. There is no evidence now. Please get over it !
-
its lazy writers its much easier to write a book adirming the police version of events and comfirming somones guilt than finding out facts yourself its easy money to be a guilter
-
Yes, dunderheads who don't even understand the Legal System, or the meaning of the Court of Appeal verdict in 1931.
"But it was Wallace, obviously !"
Nope, there was not a scintilla of evidence against him, as the Court of Appeal found.
And there was more evidence against Parry (although he too, was not the killer).
The Police simply couldn't get their heads around the possibility that TWO people were involved.
-
There was no evidence in 1931. There is no evidence now. Please get over it !
It was a circumstantial case. Wallace had no alibi, he was in the vicinity of the telephone box when the telephone call was made. The following evening he made every effort to be remembered by police and other members of the public.
He feigned inability to enter the property, until he had witnesses seeing him do so. The mackintosh is suggestive of a protective garment to minimize blood spatter. Burglars and thieves want to enter and exit a property as fast as possible, not hit someone over the head with a poker.
-
Nope.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and the same Lord Hewart had declared it "often the best evidence" only three years previously, in dismissing an appeal in a murder case. R v Taylor, Weaver & Donovan 21 Cr App R 20
In the Wallace Case, the Court of Appeal found there was NO evidence. "cannot be supported having regard to the evidence" means NO evidence, including no circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence was governed by "The Rule in Hodge's Case" (1838), which required that for circumstantial evidence to be of value, not only must it be consistent with the accused's guilt, but it also must be inconsistent with any alternative reasonable explanation.
The Trial Judge explained this to the Jury on three occasions, and told them the evidence was consistent with there being a third-party perpetrator.
The Prosecuting Counsel, Hemmerde KC, finally agreed in front of the Appeal Judges that there was no evidence against Wallace, only suspicion.
The Court of Appeal unanimously agreed there was no evidence against Wallace, and quashed the conviction.
As for your still inaccurate musings:
"Wallace had no alibi, he was in the vicinity of the telephone box when the telephone call was made."
According to the first Police theory, Wallace had the perfect alibi. He was documented by numerous witnesses four miles away at the time of death (8pm) ! Only when their attention turned to him, did the Police change the time of death, which made the pathologist look a fool on the stand. But then up popped the milk-boy, who had spoken to Mrs. Wallace only 4 minutes before Wallace had to have left for his tram (by the Police's own timings). So they pressured the milk-boy to move forward his timing to expand the four minute window. Nevertheless, Wallace, supposedly after battering his wife in a frenzied attack, emerged calm and blood-free and boarded the tram. The murder weapon was missing, and Wallace didn't have it. The Police checked his route methodically for any possible hiding place.
There was no evidence that Wallace was in the vicinity of the phone-box, and the Police didn't even try to offer any evidence. It was just a theory, which the Appeal Judges tore to ribbons.
"The following evening he made every effort to be remembered by police and other members of the public."
Wallace only conversed with anyone when he was on the second tram, already far from his own district. A person unfamiliar with a district, or lost, is entitled to ask for directions. Most of the people he spoke to gave him directions to the non-existent address. Only the Policeman finally told him it didn't actually exist...
"He feigned inability to enter the property, until he had witnesses seeing him do so."
It was entirely accidental that his next door neighbours bumped into him in the alley. They were going out for the evening.
"The mackintosh is suggestive of a protective garment to minimize blood spatter. Burglars and thieves want to enter and exit a property as fast as possible, not hit someone over the head with a poker."
That is just a theory. A person may carry a mac' because they are about to go out, or have just come in. Distraction burglaries quite often end in murder, if the perpetrator is startled or rumbled.
-
Nope.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence, and the same Lord Hewart had declared it "Often the best evidence" only three years previously, in dismissing an appeal in a murder case. R v Taylor, Weaver & Donovan 21 Cr App R 20
In the Wallace Case, the Court of Appeal found there was NO evidence. "cannot be supported having regard to the evidence" means NO evidence, including no circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence was governed by "The Rule in Hodge's Case" (1838), which required that for circumstantial evidence to be of value, not only must it be consistent with the accused's guilt, but it also must be inconsistent with any alternative reasonable explanation.
The Trial Judge explained this to the Jury on three occasions, and told them the evidence was consistent with there being a third-party perpetrator.
The Prosecuting Counsel, Hemmerde KC, finally agreed in front of the Appeal Judges that there was no evidence against Wallace, only suspicion.
The Court of Appeal unanimously agreed there was no evidence against Wallace, and quashed the conviction.
As for your still inaccurate musings:
"Wallace had no alibi, he was in the vicinity of the telephone box when the telephone call was made."
According to the first Police theory, Wallace had the perfect alibi. He was documented by numerous witnesses four miles away at the time of death (8pm) ! Only when their attention turned to him, did they change the time of death, which made the pathologist look a fool on the stand. But then up popped the milk-boy, who had spoken to Mrs. Wallace only 4 minutes before Wallace had to have left for his tram (by the Police's own timings). So they pressured the milk-boy to move forward his timing to expand the four minute window. Nevertheless, Wallace, supposedly after battering his wife in a frenzied attack, emerged calm and blood-free and boarded the tram. The murder weapon was missing, and Wallace didn't have it. The Police checked his route methodically for any possible hiding place.
There was no evidence that Wallace was in the vicinity of the phone-box, and the Police didn't even try to offer any evidence. It was just a theory which the Appeal Judges tore to ribbons.
"The following evening he made every effort to be remembered by police and other members of the public."
Wallace only conversed with anyone when he was on the second tram, already far from his own district. A person unfamiliar with a district, or lost, is entitled to ask for directions. Most of the people he spoke to gave him directions to the non-existent address. Only the Policeman finally told him it didn't actually exist..
"He feigned inability to enter the property, until he had witnesses seeing him do so."
It was entirely accidental that his next door neighbours bumped into him in the alley. They were going out for the evening.
"The mackintosh is suggestive of a protective garment to minimize blood spatter. Burglars and thieves want to enter and exit a property as fast as possible, not hit someone over the head with a poker."
That is just a theory. A person may carry a mac' because they are about to go out, or have just come in. Distraction burglaries quite often end in murder, if the perpetrator is startled or rumbled.
There was time for him to have committed the murder and still catch the tram. He would have known the neighbours' routine, which involved going for an evening walk. Strange that in a row of terraced houses nobody witnessed the assailant enter or egress. The maid said a fire poker was missing.
-
There was time for him to have committed the murder and still catch the tram. He would have known the neighbours' routine, which involved going for an evening walk. Strange that in a row of terraced houses nobody witnessed the assailant enter or egress. The maid said a fire poker was missing.
The usual false logic. "I think he could have done it. Therefore he did do it."
The premise is unsupported. No blood on Wallace, and he is calm and composed after supposedly battering his wife 11 times in a frenzy which left blood all over the room. The evening paper was opened at the middle pages on the dining table, suggesting the wife was interrupted and murdered a considerable time after the husband had left.
The conclusion is false, even if the premise was supported. Even if somehow he could have done it, it doesn't follow that he did do it. There are other more plausible possibilities, as the Trial Judge warned the Jury.
The Johnstons were not operating to any routine. They were going out to make a special visit to their daughter, who lived a mile away.
If you have ever been to Wolverton Street, it is very dark and quiet. A former resident said it had a "strange magnified silence" about it. I've been there many times in the evening, and never seen anyone, and no doubt no-one has seen me either... People then, like the Wallaces, lived in the back of the house. It seems like they still do.
The maid said a poker and an iron bar were missing. No-one on the trams saw Wallace carrying such a heavily-bloodstained item, and all the places where he could have secreted it on his route were thoroughly searched by the Police. There was not a speck of blood on Wallace or his clothes.
-
The usual false logic. "I think he could have done it. Therefore he did do it."
The premise is unsupported. No blood on Wallace, and he is calm and composed after supposedly battering his wife 11 times in a frenzy which left blood all over the room. The evening paper was opened at the middle pages on the dining table, suggesting the wife was interrupted and murdered a considerable time after the husband had left.
The conclusion is false, even if the premise was supported. Even if somehow he could have done it, it doesn't follow that he did do it. There are other more plausible possibilities, as the Trial Judge warned the Jury.
The Johnstons were not operating to any routine. They were going out to make a special visit to their daughter, who lived a mile away.
If you have ever been to Wolverton Street, it is very dark and quiet. A former resident said it had a "strange magnified silence" about it. I've been there many times in the evening, and never seen anyone, and no doubt no-one has seen me either... People then, like the Wallaces, lived in the back of the house. It seems like they still do.
The maid said a poker and an iron bar were missing. No-one on the trams saw Wallace carrying such a heavily-bloodstained item, and all the places where he could have secreted it on his route were thoroughly searched by the Police. There was not a speck of blood on Wallace or his clothes.
But the elephant in the room is the mackintosh. No need for any burglar to use it in the crime.
-
But the elephant in the room is the mackintosh. No need for any burglar to use it in the crime.
The mackintosh was found under the body of the victim, which strongly suggests she was carrying it when attacked.
Neighbour Florence Johnston suggested in Court that the victim had put it round her shoulders to answer a knock at the door.
It is just as likely she was holding it because she wanted to go out, after confronting her killer as a thief.
-
The mackintosh was found under the body of the victim, which strongly suggests she was carrying it when attacked.
Neighbour Florence Johnston suggested in Court that the victim had put it round her shoulders to answer a knock at the door.
It is just as likely she was holding it because she wanted to go out, after confronting her killer as a thief.
Wasn't it tucked under the victim, suggesting placement rather than random happenstance? If Parry were the perpetrator there would be no need for the charade of the telephone call to the chess club. All he would need to do is watch the house until Wallace exits, then once the latter is on the tramcar proceed with his robbery plan on the Monday evening.
-
Wasn't it tucked under the victim, suggesting placement rather than random happenstance? If Parry were the perpetrator there would be no need for the charade of the telephone call to the chess club. All he would need to do is watch the house until Wallace exits, then once the latter is on the tramcar proceed with his robbery plan on the Monday evening.
The first witness on the scene, neighbour Florence Johnston said in her witness statements:
"She looked as if she was lying on it." and "...it was almost hidden under her body..."
Parry would know that, since he was known to Mrs. Wallace, if he somehow gained admittance on the Monday night and stole the money he would be immediately arrested. A pointless plan, unless he intended to murder her.
Murder carried the death penalty in 1931.
Julia Wallace was not murdered on the Monday by Parry, so we may suppose that murder was not intended.
Also, Parry would know that there would be more money in the box on the Tuesday, since the normal paying-in day at the Prudential was Wednesday.
I believe logic and the evidence points to the following plan by Parry:-
He sees the chess schedule at the chess club, and that Wallace is due to play a match on Monday 19th January 1931. If a bogus message can be left for him, luring him out on the Tuesday to Menlove Gardens East, Parry's accomplice can enter the house posing as 'Qualtrough' and rifle the cash box. Parry will pick him up in his car and they will split the spoils.
But something went terribly wrong, and the accomplice murdered Julia. Parry picks the accomplice up as planned, and learns the awful news. He drops his accomplice off at his home nearby.
Parry believes he might swing as an accomplice to murder (in law, doubtful, but Parry isn't a lawyer), and he later panics and takes his car to Atkinsons Garage to be hosed down, inside and out, to remove any trace of his bloodstained accomplice.
-
The first witness of the scene, neighbour Florence Johnston said in her witness statements:
"She looked as if she was lying on it." and "...it was almost hidden under her body..."
Parry would know that, since he was known to Mrs. Wallace, if he somehow gained admittance on the Monday night and stole the money he would be immediately arrested. A pointless plan, unless he intended to murder her.
Murder carried the death penalty.
Julia Wallace was not murdered on the Monday by Parry, so we may suppose that murder was not intended.
Also, Parry would know that there would be more money in the box on the Tuesday, since the normal paying in day at the Prudential was Wednesday.
I believe logic and the evidence points to the following plan by Parry. He sees the chess schedule at the chess club, and Wallace is due to play a match on Monday 19th January 1931. If a bogus message can be left for him, luring him out on the Tuesday to Menlove Gardens East, Parry's accomplice can enter the house posing as 'Qualtrough' and rifle the cash box. Parry will pick him up in his car and they will split the spoils.
But something went terribly wrong, and the accomplice murdered Julia. Parry picks the accomplice up as planned, and learns the awful news. He drops his accomplice off at his home nearby.
Parry believes he might swing as an accomplice to murder (in law, doubtful, but Parry isn't a lawyer), and he later panics and takes his car to be hosed down, inside and out, to remove any trace of his bloodstained accomplice.
Under joint enterprise he would hang. Look at Derek Bentley. There's no guarantee Wallace would set off on his wild goose chase. Why not mug him on Wolverton Avenue if it's as deserted as you claim? If there are two assailants he would be overpowered. No need for murder.
-
Under joint enterprise he would hang. Look at Derek Bentley. There's no guarantee Wallace would set off on his wild goose chase. Why not mug him on Wolverton Avenue if it's as deserted as you claim? If there are two assailants he would be overpowered. No need for murder.
It's an interesting legal point. I believe that it would be very difficult to pin a murder charge on Parry under joint enterprise.
a) it was intended as a distraction burglary, not murder or assault.
b) the murder weapon seems to have originated in the house (the missing poker or bar), and that was not something reasonably forseeable by Parry.
c) Parry was sitting with friends about 1.5 miles away at the time of the murder.
I think the most the Police could have pinned on Parry was burglary, and conspiracy to burgle.
But whether I'm right or wrong is irrelevant. Parry, like you, believed he was at risk of the noose.
Of course there was no guarantee. What crime ever is guaranteed? But there was a reasonable possibility, which is enough for most crimes to be commissioned. Once the accomplice saw Wallace head for the tram on the Tuesday, he would know that in all probability the bait had been taken.
Wallace didn't carry a large amount of money with him. Parry would have known this from his time working with Wallace. The money (maybe £4000 in today's money) was kept in a box on top of the bookcase in the middle kitchen. Actually, the crime was in vain, and there was only a tenth of that sum, because, unknown to the perps, Wallace had been ill with flu and been unable to work his round the previous week.
-
It's an interesting legal point. I believe that it would be very difficult to pin a murder charge on Parry under joint enterprise.
a) it was intended as a distraction burglary, not murder or assault.
b) the murder weapon seems to have originated in the house (the missing poker or bar), and not reasonably forseeable by Parry.
c) Parry was sitting with friends about two miles away at the time of the murder.
I think the most the Police could have pinned on Parry was burglary, and conspiracy to burgle.
But whether I'm right or wrong is irrelevant. Parry, like you, believed he was at risk of the noose.
Of course there was no guarantee. What crime ever is guaranteed? But there was a reasonable possibility, which is enough for most crimes to be commissioned. Once the accomplice saw Wallace head for the tram on the Tuesday, he would know that in all probability the bait had been taken.
Wallace didn't carry a large amount of money with him. Parry would have known this from his time working with Wallace. The money (maybe £4000 in today's money) was kept in a box on top of the bookcase in the kitchen. Actually, the crime was in vain, and there was only a tenth of that sum, because, unknown to the perps, Wallace had been ill with flu and been unable to work his round the previous week.
Parry had an alibi from two sources. One girlfriend reneged, but the other remained resolute. I don't buy the burglary plan as you state. Why not just wait for Wallace to leave and break a window at the back of the property and enter and egress that way?
-
Parry had an alibi from two sources. One girlfriend reneged, but the other remained resolute. I don't buy the burglary plan as you state. Why not just wait for Wallace to leave and break a window at the back of the property and enter and egress that way?
I don't believe that Parry's girlfriend (Lily Lloyd) reneged. I believe Wilkes and Goodman mistakenly convinced themselves of this factoid in 1981, before they or anyone had sight of the witness statements (not released until 2001).
We discovered in 2001 that the person who gave Parry his unshakeable alibi was not a girlfriend, but Mrs. Olivia Brine, the aunt of one of his friends. [Oddly, the friend was missing from the household that night...]
Criminals probably come up with different plans, and evaluate which is most likely to succeed, with the minimum risk.
Breaking-in through the back was problematical:-
a) they would first have to clamber over the 7-feet back wall (the alley gate was always bolted from the inside).
b) this, and breaking a window, etc. would risk alerting neighbours, who all lived in the back rooms of the small terraced properties.
c) Wallace and his wife seldom went out together. There was a good chance the house would be occupied, especially in the evening.
d) at night, Wallace took the cash box up to bed with him. Parry would know this, from working closely with Wallace previously, including working at his bedside when Wallace was ill.
-
To believe Wallace guilty, you have to:-
a) believe the three Appeal Judges [including LCJ Hewart] were idiots when they said there was NO EVIDENCE against him and turned him loose. (Please show the evidence. And there has been no new evidence against Wallace since 1931)
b) ignore the actual new circumstantial evidence against Parry: his comments to Goodman in 1966, the testimony of John Parkes in 1981, and the release of Parry's and his associates' witness statements in 2001.
The case is closed, as far as the available evidence permits. (and it's unlikely there will be any new revelations after 94 years)
Conclusions:
a) Wallace was obviously innocent.
b) Parry was the brains to a distraction burglary which was supposed to be little more than a prank.
c) Parry's unknown accomplice murdered Julia when he panicked after being rumbled by Julia.
There is a suspect for c), but it would be unfair to name him without further evidence (which will never come). I was the first person to identify that suspect in a private email to author Antony Brown in August 2018...
-
To believe Wallace guilty, you have to:-
a) believe the three Appeal Judges [including LCJ Hewart] were idiots when they said there was NO EVIDENCE against him and turned him loose. (Please show the evidence. And there has been no new evidence against Wallace since 1931)
b) ignore the actual new circumstantial evidence against Parry: his comments to Goodman in 1966, the testimony of John Parkes in 1981, and the release of Parry's and his associates' witness statements in 2001.
The case is closed, as far as the available evidence permits. (and it's unlikely there will be any new revelations after 94 years)
Conclusions:
a) Wallace was obviously innocent.
b) Parry was the brains to a distraction burglary which was supposed to be little more than a prank.
c) Parry's unknown accomplice murdered Julia when he panicked after being rumbled by Julia.
There is a suspect for c), but it would be unfair to name him without further evidence (which will never come). I was the first person to identify that suspect in a private email to author Antony Brown in August 2018...
It was a circumstantial case. Members can read the respective arguments for and against in the thread. I always look for an Establishment connection in these cases of quashing a jury's verdict, and lo and behold he was a clothier to H.M Armed Forces in Manchester and Calcutta. Maybe the King or someone high up petitioned the legal establishment on his behalf. He was unlikely to repeat a similar offence.
I'm quite sure in my own mind he was guilty.
-
It was a circumstantial case. Members can read the respective arguments for and against in the thread. I always look for an Establishment connection in these cases of quashing a jury's verdict, and lo and behold he was a clothier to H.M Armed Forces in Manchester and Calcutta. Maybe the King or someone high up petitioned the legal establishment on his behalf. He was unlikely to repeat a similar offence.
I'm quite sure in my own mind he was guilty.
Hilarious.
And as I've explained, you don't appear to understand what circumstantial evidence is. Or even the facts of the case.
The only thing that you're sure of are your own baseless prejudices and fancies...
-
Hilarious.
And as I've explained, you don't appear to understand what circumstantial evidence is. Or even the facts of the case.
The only thing that you're sure of are your own baseless prejudices and fancies...
Circumstantial evidence is like a rope. One thread in itself is not sufficient to support a weight, but several threads working together may do so.
When the smoke and mirrors are removed from this case we have a dead spouse, a husband still very much alive, who had a dubious alibi and moved to a nicer area on the Wirral to spend the rest of his days alone.
Call me an old cynic.
-
Circumstantial evidence is like a rope. One thread in itself is not sufficient to support a weight, but several threads working together may do so.
When the smoke and mirrors are removed from this case we have a dead spouse, a husband still very much alive, who had a dubious alibi and moved to a nicer area on the Wirral to spend the rest of his days alone.
Call me an old cynic.
As previously explained, Wallace only managed to move to the Wirral off the back of libel settlements he won against fools who continued to insinuate he had murdered his wife...
The Court of Appeal ruled there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace, which includes no circumstantial evidence.
Lord Chief Justice Hewart knew exactly what circumstantial evidence was, having described it as "often the best evidence" only three years previously, in dismissing an appeal in a murder case, based on circumstantial evidence. He knew what he was talking about. You obviously don't...
Prosecutor Hemmerde KC even belatedly conceded there was no evidence, when the Judges demanded "Where is the evidence?"