Cranborne Road Murder

[Ged]

I very much agree with you. But in case you think i'm a sad case, I was a little lost at the time and had unknowingly driven past the community centre twice in my search for it, a sign on it would be good. That's when I spotted him and his sign. I asked him if he knew Vincent Burke, a real criminologist, he looked a bit blank and said after a while 'Oh Yes'



I know of course that Slemen's 'revelation' of John Johnstone (sp) being the wallace murderer has been looked at before, as I say, i'm not holding my breath of those two finding anything new.

[AntiPathos]

I very much agree with you. But in case you think i'm a sad case, I was a little lost at the time and had unknowingly driven past the community centre twice in my search for it, a sign on it would be good. That's when I spotted him and his sign. I asked him if he knew Vincent Burke, a real criminologist, he looked a bit blank and said after a while 'Oh Yes'

I know of course that Slemen's 'revelation' of John Johnstone (sp) being the wallace murderer has been looked at before, as I say, i'm not holding my breath of those two finding anything new.

Don't worry Ged mate. If it helps, I know you're not one of the soft ones Evidently, there's something of a feud 'twixt Slem/Andrews and Burke so Andrews' face must have been priceless when you asked him had he heard of Vincent Pity you (probably) didn't add the "real Criminologist" bit in real life, for extra effect. I would have done...

The Slem/Andrews theory of the Johnstones killing Julia Wallace is of course completely true because they are "credited with solving the case in Arabella McIntyre Brown's book, Liverpool: The First 1000 years." And this feat of enormous accreditation now ranks them above "other historians and crime fiction writers such as Agatha Christie, Dorothy L Sayers and Raymond Chandler." (Link)

Also on that page you'll see this inconspicuous gabble (which I'm reminded that I've mentioned before on here):

"He is currently writing a feature on a crime historian's past, and an in-depth article on a failed one-book 'pulp crime writer' who writes nothing but anonymous emails to famous people. Keith is also working with a television screenwriter on a script about the Cameo Murders, based on the landmark book by Barry Shortall."

Which seems to be a dig at none other than Mr. Burke and then a double (or does it count triple ?) dig at Mr. George Skelly. Baffling...

...except of course they're in something of a minor panic knowing that he has a Rimmer Murder book in the works (back 'on thread' at last !) and they've hinted at one of their own in the pipe-line (or should that be -dream ?).

Be very assured that there is not the remotest chance that Slem and Andrews would (or even could) publish anything on the Cranborne Road murder first as they're palpably worried that George might know a lot more than they do and would rather have the opportunity to piggyback onto his research once his book is out anyway. And then accuse a dead neighbour...

[Ged]

Thanks for the link, very interesting. If I didn't know better, i'd say the wiki page was written by the old chap himself - he certainly didn't look anything like his bouncer pic

So there was I, talking to such a famous crime solver - not - ha ha.

I like the way they mention Parry was a main suspect then almost as an aside then mention WHW was also blamed.

[AntiPathos]

Thanks for the link, very interesting. If I didn't know better, i'd say the wiki page was written by the old chap himself - he certainly didn't look anything like his bouncer pic

So there was I, talking to such a famous crime solver - not - ha ha.

...

Just as surely as Slem writes his own Wiki page, Andrews surely has touched his own up from time to time. The editing history of both is fascinating and sometimes hilarious.

Just to explain my 'rock-stars and gateposts' accusation further up:

http://www.xprojectmagazine.com/arch...ge/jlface.html

Just the kind of thing you'd expect from a serious criminologist, eh ?

Google his name and Jonbenet Ramsey for some very interesting reading.

AP.

[SteH]

Ged - does Andrews really have that big moustache, or is it just a false one he uses to make people take notice of his articles.

[birdseye]

Looking at Wikipedia last year, I noticed that there was no mention of the Wallace case anywhere in it's pages and decided to create an entry. It sat there unmolested until quite recently when, checking on it I noticed two lines had been added at the bottom by someone unknown. They referred to a theory by a Keith Andrews that the person responsible for the murder of Julia Wallace was none other than her next door neighbour. I had finished my entry by saying that nobody else had been charged with the murder, other that the reprieved Wallace and that therefore the murder remained unsolved.
I was pretty irritated at this addition of an unproven theory ( which is a long way from new) because it implied that this Andrews character had solved the murder. I found an entry for him in Wikipedia and he has attempted to confirm his theory by quoting it's inclusion in a book by someone called Arabella McIntyre Brown, whoever she is.
As this is simply a theory and not sustainable by evidence or a signed confession, it has no place in an entry based on known facts and I attempted to remove the offending lines, but the entry has been padlocked by the admin. I wonder why. I have done a couple of other Wikipedia entries on Liverpool murders and await their re-editing by whoever did the Wallace one.

[AntiPathos]

Looking at Wikipedia last year, I noticed that there was no mention of the Wallace case anywhere in it's pages and decided to create an entry. It sat there unmolested until quite recently when, checking on it I noticed two lines had been added at the bottom by someone unknown. They referred to a theory by a Keith Andrews that the person responsible for the murder of Julia Wallace was none other than her next door neighbour. I had finished my entry by saying that nobody else had been charged with the murder, other that the reprieved Wallace and that therefore the murder remained unsolved.
I was pretty irritated at this addition of an unproven theory ( which is a long way from new) because it implied that this Andrews character had solved the murder. I found an entry for him in Wikipedia and he has attempted to confirm his theory by quoting it's inclusion in a book by someone called Arabella McIntyre Brown, whoever she is.
As this is simply a theory and not sustainable by evidence or a signed confession, it has no place in an entry based on known facts and I attempted to remove the offending lines, but the entry has been padlocked by the admin. I wonder why. I have done a couple of other Wikipedia entries on Liverpool murders and await their re-editing by whoever did the Wallace one.

The W.H .Wallace page is in a state of "semi-protection", (disables editing from anonymous accounts and those accounts fewer than four days old). So register, wait 96 hours and edit it as much as ye see fit. If you want, you could even consider yourself as it's gatekeeper

Incidentally, now that you've made me go look at Wiki again (I generally don't bother because I'm there all night when I do), I note with some sadness that Oliver Hardy is up for possible deletion and meanwhile, Stan Laurel just got himself banned from editing after barely being registered for two hours. But is one of his edits quite telling though ? He edited out a mention of his moustache-faced buddy on the W.H. Wallace page but was happy to leave the last paragraph as "Despite much theorising as to the identity of the murderer, the case remains unsolved." Hadn't he 'cracked' this one ? Surely world-renowned crime expert Arabella McIntyre-Brown couldn't have made a bad call in her book on Liverpool's first thousand years ? How could it be ? Uh-oh, there goes my sarcasm again. I really should get that looked at...

[Ged]

Ged - does Andrews really have that big moustache, or is it just a false one he uses to make people take notice of his articles.

Ste. He did have a moustache but it wan't black anymore. How did he ever drink soup with that, that's the real mystery here.

[PhilipG]

Ste. He did have a moustache but it wan't black anymore. How did he ever drink soup with that, that's the real mystery here.

With a straw?

[OldieButGoodie]

Just found this via GOOGLE- Met Mr. George Skelly last week and had a good ol' natter about the old times. I know him from way back - from the Cavern days. I listened to him talk about this case for a half an hour or so and he's adamant that he knows who the real killer is and that he's going to name him in his upcoming book. Eventually he told me the name - via a whisper! - but I'm not sure I should say anything on here! In fact I'm quite sure that I should not! I actually met this bloke personally on a few occasions and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he had ever bludgeoned someone to death. Just such a bloody shame he was never caught for this one before he went on to do what he did subsequently. George said his research was "spine-tinglingly" lucky - I think he'd had a few bevvies by then as that can't be a real word. But I think it might be worth hanging on for a Second/Updated edition as there are some things which he won't be able to say while certain individuals are still alive. I suggested he should just publish the lot and see what happens but he's in promises to people who he interviewed and who have confided major stuff so there you go. Whether this one goes back to the court of appeal for a re-adjudication remains to be seen but if it does it'll be a proud day for the truth. The two hanged are still buried at Walton - in the same grave would you believe - so ultimately a Christian burial good and proper would be about the best 'happy ending' this story could get. Amen to that.

Hello to all on the forum anyway.

[Kev Keegan]

Hello to all on the forum anyway.

Hello

[chippie]

Hello

Hey oldie, you,ve given me goose pimples.