Julia Wallace Murder Case

Quote:

---

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.

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Evans has taken it upon himself to state that the Wallace Case is not a mystery at all and that Goodman's TKOJW is outdated and that it is now widely regarded that Wallace was guilty because the jury found him guilty...Sheesh...:PDT_Xtremez_42: I made the point that there isn't a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 :)

Yes, that was him Mark, Stephen Guy on his villans slot on I think Andy Ball's programme.

Radio Merseyside has recently (re)released (as a tribute to Vincent Burke) Burke's Law. It is the DVD and has a running time of nearly two hours. Included are the accounts of Lock Ah Tam, The Maybrick Case, The Wallace Case and the Cameo Murders. It is ?12.99.

Got that 2 years ago, they must have re-hashed it after Vincent's death. He does have a new book out too, ironically and sadly dedicated to his wife who died in 2007, the Wallace case is in it, hopefully in better fashion than that dvd which is very open ended and doesn't even touch on Parry. There are a few pics in it I hadn't seen before too from private collectors.

There is an article in tonight?s Echo about the Wallace murder.

Another book coming out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ged

Got that 2 years ago, they must have re-hashed it after Vincent's death. He does have a new book out too, ironically and sadly dedicated to his wife who died in 2007, the Wallace case is in it, hopefully in better fashion than that dvd which is very open ended and doesn't even touch on Parry. There are a few pics in it I hadn't seen before too from private collectors.

---

Yes Ged - the DVD has been released as a tribute. Yes, Parry isn't even mentioned...I think I might have mentioned it before but there are some errors in the Wallace chapter in Vincent's book.

For a local crime historian, to get so many things wrong and to leave a prime suspect out of possibly the most high profile Liverpool murder ever is unforgivable really, especially as so much more about the case is now known and for me, is almost on a par with the errors in the Cameo murder book discussed on another thread here. I liked to listen to Vincent's accounts of trials on Radio Merseyside but if doubts of his accounts are cast so readily in this case, it doesn't breed confidence in the other lesser known cases.

Whatever happened to Tom Slemen and his sidekick revealing all about the real murderer in this case, didn't they point the finger at the Johnson's?

Yes. We still await Tom Slemen's Wallace book...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samp

There is an article in tonight?s Echo about the Wallace murder.

Another book coming out!

---

Yes. I've just found it online...If I am correct he has used many of my ideas (to be diplomatic...) He has been researching it for 2 years. If what I believe is correct, I mentioned this 7 years ago...:disgust: Mind you, good luck to him for finding a publisher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark R

Yes. I've just found it online...If I am correct he has used many of my ideas (to be democratic...) He has been researching it for 2 years. If what I believe is correct, I mentioned this 7 years ago...:disgust: Mind you, good luck to him for finding a publisher.

---

Well, MarkR. YES you have been on this case forever.. Waiting for YOUR book.. Get out and find that publisher before he does... and best of luck to you.. Don't let your work just fade away into someone elses hands.. get a move on matie... I will buy your book...

Actually I managed to track down a copy of the Echo article in the library yesterday. I would have to say that after reading it I don't agree with his theory. If I am correct, the protagonist he says committed the act was Marsden (hardly original...) Marsden has been a suspect from day one and although I said that he could have been the murderer, there is still NO definite proof that it was him. I am not a big fan of condemning somebody who cannot defend themselves. If/when the book gets published, I await a backlash from Marsden's relatives a la Johnston/Slemen, Parry/Wilkes...:PDT_Xtremez_42:

GED,
which of the Cameo books you mentioned, had errors, and what where they, specifically? I know the Shortall one did but dont think the Skelly one did.

Mark,
I agree with you. If Wallace organised the murder with Marsden and Parry, why would he name them as likely suspects to the police. (which is not to say they both may have been culpable without Wallace's knowledge). As for the Slemen rubbish about the Johnsons - that's exactly what it is, Rubbish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Dick

GED,
which of the Cameo books you mentioned, had errors, and what where they, specifically? I know the Shortall one did but dont think the Skelly one did.

---

Yes, the Shortall one did so I binned it. I think there is a list of them on the Cameo thread.

Which Cameo thread Ged? And whereabout or who by?
I know Shortall had Livermore pleading at the Assizes when solicitors weren't allowed to! And referring to the judges, "Judge Cassels" etc, when they were known at the time as "Mr Justice..." And of course the ambiguity of the planning of the crime originating in the Beehive which suddenly and magically turned into the Boundary! But any more Shortall howlers?