Originally Posted by
Ged
I know it's only his opinion but he had Wallace hanging for this.
He said it took a chess players mind to think of the Qualthrough and Menlove Gdns East plan.
He brushed aside a motive, had Wallace in the nude when he commited the murder but for the overcoat that Julia was found with. (could have a point)
Said he knocked at the Johnson's (who he said were friends of his grandparents) but weren't they on their way out for a night out when they bumped into Wallace in the entry?
He didn't mention Milk Boy, Alan Closes' statement about him seeing Julia at a time that put WHW out of the frame.
He didn't mention that the judge practically implied that the jury should find him not guilty - though they didn't.
div>
He didn't mention the 'bloodied glove' belonging to Parry nor his motives or part in the story.
Will we ever know
He was on between 9am and 9.30am if you want to use the listen again facility.
Only saw this post now...Yes Ged, was it Stephen Guy on Radio Merseyside? I missed it but was informed of it...All of your points are correct of course.
Wallace was not wearing the overcoat. Julia was lying on it, so he is wrong about that and yes, Wallace met the Johnston's in the entryway by chance. He certainly didn't knock at no.31. Why it would take a chess player's mind to conceive the Qualtrough plan and the sojourn to MG area is anybody's guess...Wallace wasn't even that great a chess player...I suppose to quote Peter Gabriel;
Looks are deceptive but distinctions are clear...I suppose the broadcaster is as prejudiced as the jury were.
That is the problem (and always has been) with this case - too many facts are critically error strewn by so-called 'experts'. There was some activity on the JTR Casebook recently and Stewart Evans has taken it upon himself to state that the Wallace Case is not a mystery at all and that Goodman's TKOJW is outdated and that it is now widely regarded that Wallace was guilty because the jury found him guilty...Sheesh...
I made the point that there isn't a scrap of evidence to justify 100% the verdict reached by the jury. While I am not doubting there is a possibility that WHW committed the murder, there is also extremely strong evidence to point to him being innocent of the crime as well...
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=141&page=5
As to your point
Will We Ever Know? I don't believe we ever will for sure - we certainly won't whilst rubbish is still being written and broadcast about it
Bookmarks