She sounded a right loon and if that's what the prosecution were relying on for evidence against Wallace (even though talking to someone near your house isn't a crime anyway) then it backfired.
She sounded a right loon and if that's what the prosecution were relying on for evidence against Wallace (even though talking to someone near your house isn't a crime anyway) then it backfired.
Serpico - at 6"2 it could be argued that 'Q' would recognise Wallace. There is also the point that 'Q' didn't even need to keep all corners covered - Wallace always used the back door until late at night. I know this cannot be guaranteed but old habits die hard, especially in those days. Proof of that was when John Johnston went to Dr Dunlop on Lower Breck Road. It would have been quicker for him to use the front door but he used the back...
Ian re: Rochester. I think that is an error on Rowland's part. As you know, Priory is directly behind the viewer on that photo. It was originally called Rochester (as you rightly point out) then it was changed to Lower Breck Road. Not sure the reason why they changed the name...Probably because it forks off to the left where the houses continue.
Regarding Lily Hall: I genuinely believe that she was mistaken. The Waterhouse book is fact (although that could be argued!!). Of course, it is his speculation but 'fact'.
Yes Ged. As Goodman (and others) stated. It wouldn't have been suspicious really if WHW was seen talking to someone in Richmond Park on the 20th. It could be said although he wanted to get back home, it wouldn't have stopped him from speaking to somebody he knew if they got talking to him.Originally Posted by Ged
It is Accomplished
Thanks very much for that MARK..I'm sure the caption on the photo. is just a simple error. I'll look out for that WATERHOUSE book as I've never come across it! I'm sure you are probably also right about the LILY HALL enigma...its a puzzle to wonder why the prosecution required her to give her evidence in court at all..as they were trying to prosecute WHW & her evidence AT BEST suggested someone else was maybe involved & greatly took the spotlight OFF WALLACE..not on him(?) Having said that the poor girl sounds like she was absolutely terrified when she was giving evidence in court..& I don't blame her for that!!
How are you progressing with your book on the case? Cheers IAN(FJumble)
Yes, I agree Ian. I can imagine a Criminal Court to be something of quite an ordeal to have to give evidence in. And people have been judged by their demeanour in giving evidence in them...I think it would be a nerve wracking experience to say the least. The Waterhouse book is more of a 'booklet'. Only 48 pages and no photos.
I'm currently working on the book thanks. I have to profess that it won't be any of this 'I think it was...because....' It will hopefully be more of a photographic account with text.
Regarding coincidences - here are a few more:
1) Both policemen Wallace encountered on 20th January 1931 were called James Edward - Rothwell & Serjeant.
2) Two triangles of land were of central importance to the case.
3) Sydney Hubert Green - the 23 year old who met Wallace at the junction of Menlove Gardens West/Dudlow Lane on the 20th January died exactly 50 years later - 20th January 1981.
It is Accomplished
Another is the bobby who was at Atkinson's garage reporting the goings on at Wolverton Street (as mentioned by Parkes). Little did he know at the time that the garage played a part in it and wasn't the bobby named Wallace?
Another Lily as well Mark. Lily Fitzsimons
Yes Ged - Ken Wallace. You're right, and yes, another Lily as well but I think that might just stump a few!!
ps another Lily - my great aunt who used to pay Wallace - Lilian Cann
It is Accomplished
A non-coincidence was Winifred Duke naming the killer as "Harris" in 1934...
Celeriter Nil Crede
They'll have to wait for your book and fantastic research involved in it Mark
Ah yes, which is Parry.
They'll have to wait for your book and fantastic research involved in it Mark
It is Accomplished
On this day - 2nd February 1931.
The Director of Public Prosecutions relents at the second time of asking and agrees there is a case against Wallace to answer as put forward by Hubert Rory Moore. Bernard Pearce telephones one of Moore's team, J.R. Bishop with the news and he in turn informs Everett, Glover and Moore.
It will lead to his conviction.
Yes, and today in 1931 Wallace appeared at the Police Court (Magistrates' Court) in front of Stipendiary Magistrate Stuart Deacon.
It is Accomplished
Mark & Ged, you should go on mastermind with this as your specialist subject !
As long as I can bring my books with me
You must be a mind reader Lindylou - I had actually thought of going on itMark & Ged, you should go on mastermind with this as your specialist subject !
It is Accomplished
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks