Interesting info all. :handclap:
Printable View
Interesting info all. :handclap:
Right, read a bit more of this today in the bookshop. I'll eventually finish it. ;)
TS states that the 18ft escape route from the Wallaces to the Johnston's next door accounts for the lack of eye witness accounts as to the whereabouts of the murderer that night. The Johnston's grandchildren maintain there were 6 people in their house though that night.
It is mentioned too that residents in Wolverton Street has keys that fitted each others door locks. It is known that a drunken Mr Cadwallader once startled Julia when mistakenly entering the Wallaces by this method. As we know, William Wallace was confronted with his doors being locked against him upon his return from Allerton. Jack Johnston asked him to go around to the front door to try again 'while we wait here'. Mysteriously the back door opened for Wallace when he got back around to the back - was this because Jack Johnston opened it with his key while he was around the front?
Was it only the front door yale locks that some neighbours keys fitted though?
Does Slemen say that Johnston said that Ged? That is wrong. When they were standing by the backyard door Johnston said to Wallace to have a look inside and they would wait. Wallace didn't go back around to the front. He walked up to the scullery door, looked over his shoulder and said "She won't be out. She has such a cold." He then tried the door which opened quite easily according to the Johnston's testimony.
I'll have to make sure, he makes large of the duplicate keys and it suddenly being able to open. The trouble with reading it in the shop is, the assistant keeps looking over as much to say 'Are you going to buy that book or what' ha ha.
I think it was mentioned before in the thread, that if the back door was unlocked, and Wallace tried to use his key to unlock it he may have locked it himself, so when he tried again with Mr and Mrs Johnston by his side he then unlocked it and gained access.
:PDT11
The problem with that Prefab is that both Jack and FloJo said that Wallace didn't open it with his key - they claimed he just walked up, turned the handle and said; 'It opens now.' (although it could be argued that he did use his key and they just didn't see him use it!) I'm sure Slemen would say he wouldn't believe either of the Johnston's testimony :slywink:
:)
lol I can just picture it ! :lol:
Has this case been solved ?
You should be arrested for posing a man of means, I mean, a dressing gown, have you no shame !:rolleyes:
Goodman does not mention some relevant issues. Am I right in thinking he was not privy to everything back then?
Also, I think Goodman's 2nd edition of his book in 1987 was just a re-print of the first so there isn't 2 editions - ie different books.
I wonder how things would have panned out if this had happened these days?.........with CCTV, mobile phones, forensics etc..........and William Wallace would have had to settle for a desk job in the Pru, not sure there are any insurance collectors nowadays.
And possibly - a more stringent police force these days, not the one knocked up in 1931 that made glaring errors.
Thanks for clearing that up Ian and John. So I take it Murphy's book holds no credence with yourselves. Not suggesting it should but what do you think of it. Obviously John, your book comes to a different conclusion altogether than all 3 mentioned so i'm wondering why praise would be heaped on any previous books reaching what must be in your mind, an incorrect conclusion :ninja:
Mark. It goes without saying I look forward to your publication. John, can't wait for your offering either and already, you've highlighted the full Parry, Lily Lloyd and her mother's statements which i've not seen before. :handclap:
Hi John. Thanks for that. Didn't know about the other book that you will be vying against though I might end up with them both. Both close on the heels of Tom Slemen's version of events too. Just like the buses along Scottie when waiting to go the match one time. None, then 3 all at once.
My sentiments exactly GED...you wait ages for a bus.... Thanks very much JOHN for bringing the R.BARTLE new book to our attention. The publisher's informaton gives no indication about which aspect of the case the author concentrates on..but it would appear to be a legal treatise. However, the title,encouragingly suggests emphasis on the MURDER itself rather than the TRIAL(?). It may perhaps,not add any new theories/facts,but I for one will buy anything new on the case...I even bought TOM SLEMEN's latest fantasy. l was pleased with the MURPHY book at the time ..if only for the bomb-shell about JULIA'S age..though I could never agree with his conclusion that WHW personally killed JULIA & then coolly set off on his abortive tram journey! I'm still convinced this is impossible for all the many reasons we've stated previously!! Though,nowadays,as you know,I cannot rule out WHW's involvement in his wife's killing using R.G.PARRY as Qualtrough & possibly J.MARSDEN as the hit-man(perhaps clearer when I've read John's book!!) Maybe by the time the 81st anniversary comes around, we will all have a new view on who killed Julia & WHY!! FJumble
I too have just bought Tom Slemen's book - Murder on Merseyside, published by regular Yo Contributor Colin Wilkinson of Bluecoat Press.
There are 24 murder cases covered. Not sure you can do the Julia Wallace one justice in such a short amount of pages but reading it now.
A couple of things ive notice right away is that TS says WHW attended the chess club almost every week though he had missed several weeks before the murder which may prove to be vital (as in would Qualthrough had known he was definitely going that night and thereby receive his message. The chess tie he was due to play meant nothing as he'd missed previous ones and was playing catch up. However, I wonder if this tie HAD to be played by that night or he'd forfeit his place?
TS also says the phone box is in Breck Road which of course it wasn't.
I will report back. What did you conclude of it Ian, I notice you call it a fantasy.
Just to clear one thing up Mark. TS did not say JSJ sent WHW around the front of the house again, that was my mistake.
The final fixtures for the championship were February 21st so I would have assumed the members had up to then to resolve their sequences of matches. Wallace wasn't the only erratic member to visit the club. Others also missed some games.
It was on the corner of Rochester Road and Breck Road so technically he is half right!
Thanks Ged
[QUOTE=Ged;375366]I too have just bought Tom Slemen's book - Murder on Merseyside, published by regular Yo Contributor Colin Wilkinson of Bluecoat Press.
A couple of things ive notice right away is that TS says WHW attended the chess club almost every week though he had missed several weeks before the murder which may prove to be vital (as in would Qualthrough had known he was definitely going that night and thereby receive his message. The chess tie he was due to play meant nothing as he'd missed previous ones and was playing catch up. However, I wonder if this tie HAD to be played by that night or he'd forfeit his place?
I will report back. What did you conclude of it Ian, I notice you call it a fantasy.
Hi Ged.. YES as a pure "pot-boiler" its not a bad read..I'm actually interested in one or two of the other murders covered(ie.The Hanging-Boy Case in Edge Lane in 1948) With his WALLACE chapter, I wish he'd have just covered the case with as much as is known at present..instead of trying to solve it...especially fingering the JOHNSTON's..with no evidence whatsoever... he might just as well as "fingered" poor Alan Close the milkboy or Hubert Moore ..hence in my opinion... "FANTASY"!! Your point about WHW not being too regular at the Chess Club in the previous weeks is a good one.You know I feel PARRY is QUALTROUGH(he ticks all the boxes!)...but if he was in league with WHW,then he must have had prior knowledge that WHW would be presnt about 7.45..& so the alibi begins.... FJumble
Has Rochester Road been renamed? Having a look at the area on google maps and no Rochester road nearby.