Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
    Regarding defamation of character, from memory any witness in a court room enjoys qualified privilege at the discretion of the judge. He cannot be sued afterwards for any opinion given or accusation made. He could of course later be charged with perjury if he knowingly gave false testimony.


    Absolute privilege is what politicians have within the parliament.
    I figured it has to be that way . . . the U.S. Constitution has a similar line for protecting representatives from civil suits.

    ". . . and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
      There was a case in the 1980s, where IIRC, a guy [a former policeman] deliberately didn't pay his rates[taxes], so he would be summoned to court, whereupon he accused a British Ambassador of murder, and Maggie Thatcher of complicity...
      [his daughter had died in suspicious circumstances in Saudi Arabia, and he was convinced there was a cover-up]
      This was the Helen Smith case - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Smith_(nurse)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gallicrow View Post
        Yes, a good guy who never gave up. Even if he didn't get closure, he sparked a change in the law, which may have helped others.
        "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
        Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
        The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
        https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

        Compendium of Resources
        https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

        Comment


        • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
          Since we have attracted new posters, with a thirst for information, here's a little compendium of good resources:-

          Brief

          Intermediate
          Dorothy L, Sayers (1936)
          https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet..../n165/mode/2up

          Edgar Lustgarten (1950)
          https://archive.org/stream/verdictin...e/162/mode/2up

          John Brophy - The Meaning of Murder (1966), chapter "The Liverpool Classic"

          The unmissable spine-tingling Radio City drama-documentary from 1981, with people who were actually there in 1931
          https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....8&postcount=79
          https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....0&postcount=82
          https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....7&postcount=85
          https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....1&postcount=94

          In A City Living, 2011 blogspot [illustrated with photos]
          https://inacityliving.blogspot.com/2...rder-case.html


          In-Depth
          W.F. Wyndham-Brown - The Trial of William Herbert Wallace (1933) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet...220695/page/n7
          John Rowland - The Wallace Case (1949)
          F.J.P. Veale - The Wallace Case (1950)
          Yseult Bridges - Two Studies in Crime (1959)
          Jonathan Goodman - The Killing of Julia Wallace (1969 & 1987)
          Robert F Hussey - Murderer Scot-Free (1972)
          Roger Wilkes - Wallace: The Final Verdict (1985)
          Richard Waterhouse - The Insurance Man (1994)
          James Murphy - The Murder of Julia Wallace (2001)
          John Gannon - The Killing of Julia Wallace (2012)
          Ronald Bartle - The Telephone Murder (2018)
          Antony M Brown - Move to Murder (2018)
          I think that's the lot!
          Last edited by RodCrosby; 01-26-2019, 02:11 PM.
          "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
          Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
          The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
          https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

          Compendium of Resources
          https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

          Comment


          • Miscellaneous


            an excellent site for those final pieces of both insight and trivia, not covered elsewhere, together with snippets of most of the above, and many good photos...
            Last edited by RodCrosby; 01-13-2019, 04:03 PM.
            "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
            Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
            The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
            https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

            Compendium of Resources
            https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

            Comment


            • Just a few points on the neighbour theory. I’d heard of it but never really read any of the details about it. I’m afraid that I find myself in very disturbing territory....that of, on the face of it, agreeing with Rod.

              Johnston had Senile Dementia at the time of his alleged confession which is hardly the best guarantee of authenticity.

              According to the ‘neighbour’ theory Johnston saw Julia go into the alley to look for her cat and Johnston thought that she’d accompanied Wallace to MGE. The problem is that Wallace said that Julia went only as far as the gate, closing it after him.

              Johnston knew nothing of Wallace’s business and so wouldn’t have felt it worthwhile or necessary to get Wallace away from the house on any particular day. So why the plan when he could have gone in any time that Wallace was out?

              How would Johnston have known of the Wallace’s chess club when he barely knew him?

              How would he have known that Wallace was actually going to the chess club on that Monday night?

              Why would the Johnston’s have slipped inside number 29 using his key? Julia surely wouldn’t have bothered locking the back door as she was only walking a few yards to the gate?


              Why would Johnston have returned the cash box to the shelf if he’d believed the house to have been empty and he had intended to be out of there before the Wallace’s returned?

              If he’d gone upstairs looking for the ‘nest egg’ that he’d believed to exist why was there no sign of any kind of search?

              Apart from the cash box and the cupboard door, and with Johnston expecting the Wallace’s to be away for a considerable time, why no other evidence of a search downstairs?

              Johnston would have taken no precautions against blood spatter so why no blood contamination outside of the Parlour?

              If he expected the Wallace’s to be out for some time why bolt the front door?

              Why would he have bothered turning off the lights?

              If the Johnston’s daughter had said that she wasn’t expecting them it doesn’t mean that they weren’t intent on visiting her.

              Why after being neighbours for 10 years or so did the Johnston’s suddenly turn into Bonnie and Clyde?


              This was only after 10 minutes I’m sure that we could think of more objections. It doesn’t ring true to me I have to say.
              Regards

              Herlock






              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

              Comment


              • Right, I don't see the Johnstone's as a solution either.

                Just listened to the three, 'Radio City broadcasts from '81

                Chief superintendent Ray Jackson ,from the Liverpool C I D ,one of the guests, had a couple of interesting pieces of information.(a) Rather than there being blood all over the room (which he attributes to authors of the various books on the subject, )in actual fact there were pools of blood under and next to Julias head and a splash across towards the corner of the room to the left of the fire place, and onto the wall about 4 feet high plus a few spots above about 7 feet high. So not as messy as were lead to believe.(b) Amy Wallace in her police statement did not say anything about being at 29 Wolverton on the 20th .This was argued by others on the show , but the chief super. just reiterated, a visit by Amy on that day was not in her statement!(c) The Parlour was pitch dark when Wallace entered the room, even with the aid of a match, how did he avoid falling over the body lying across the floor? on his way to lighting the gas mantle, unless he knew it was there.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by moste View Post
                  Right, I don't see the Johnstone's as a solution either.

                  Just listened to the three, 'Radio City broadcasts from '81

                  Chief superintendent Ray Jackson ,from the Liverpool C I D ,one of the guests, had a couple of interesting pieces of information.(a) Rather than there being blood all over the room (which he attributes to authors of the various books on the subject, )in actual fact there were pools of blood under and next to Julias head and a splash across towards the corner of the room to the left of the fire place, and onto the wall about 4 feet high plus a few spots above about 7 feet high. So not as messy as were lead to believe.(b) Amy Wallace in her police statement did not say anything about being at 29 Wolverton on the 20th .This was argued by others on the show , but the chief super. just reiterated, a visit by Amy on that day was not in her statement!(c) The Parlour was pitch dark when Wallace entered the room, even with the aid of a match, how did he avoid falling over the body lying across the floor? on his way to lighting the gas mantle, unless he knew it was there.
                  (a) To my knowledge, no one has claimed there was blood all over the room. The killer pulled Julia into the centre of the room by her hair and almost certainly would have had blood on his hands (or gloves), if nothing else.

                  (b) Amy Wallace gave a police statement (21.1.31) in which she said she visited Julia at 29 Wolverton Street at 3:30 pm on 20.1.31 and that Julia mentioned the telephone message.

                  (c) Wallace said he always lit a match before entering a darkened room. The flare from the match showed the body, he crouched down and then stepped over it to light the gas.
                  Last edited by ColdCaseJury; 01-14-2019, 01:30 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    Just a few points on the neighbour theory. I’d heard of it but never really read any of the details about it. I’m afraid that I find myself in very disturbing territory....that of, on the face of it, agreeing with Rod.

                    Johnston had Senile Dementia at the time of his alleged confession which is hardly the best guarantee of authenticity.

                    According to the ‘neighbour’ theory Johnston saw Julia go into the alley to look for her cat and Johnston thought that she’d accompanied Wallace to MGE. The problem is that Wallace said that Julia went only as far as the gate, closing it after him.

                    Johnston knew nothing of Wallace’s business and so wouldn’t have felt it worthwhile or necessary to get Wallace away from the house on any particular day. So why the plan when he could have gone in any time that Wallace was out?

                    How would Johnston have known of the Wallace’s chess club when he barely knew him?

                    How would he have known that Wallace was actually going to the chess club on that Monday night?

                    Why would the Johnston’s have slipped inside number 29 using his key? Julia surely wouldn’t have bothered locking the back door as she was only walking a few yards to the gate?


                    Why would Johnston have returned the cash box to the shelf if he’d believed the house to have been empty and he had intended to be out of there before the Wallace’s returned?

                    If he’d gone upstairs looking for the ‘nest egg’ that he’d believed to exist why was there no sign of any kind of search?

                    Apart from the cash box and the cupboard door, and with Johnston expecting the Wallace’s to be away for a considerable time, why no other evidence of a search downstairs?

                    Johnston would have taken no precautions against blood spatter so why no blood contamination outside of the Parlour?

                    If he expected the Wallace’s to be out for some time why bolt the front door?

                    Why would he have bothered turning off the lights?

                    If the Johnston’s daughter had said that she wasn’t expecting them it doesn’t mean that they weren’t intent on visiting her.

                    Why after being neighbours for 10 years or so did the Johnston’s suddenly turn into Bonnie and Clyde?


                    This was only after 10 minutes I’m sure that we could think of more objections. It doesn’t ring true to me I have to say.
                    Excellent points, HS. I also think the caller had to have known something about the insurance industry (e.g. that an agent could call out of his collection area for an endowment). I find it implausible that John Johnston could have known this (especially as he seems not to have spoken to Wallace much in 10 years). To my mind, the caller is Wallace or Parry. And, knowing your devilish sense of humour, no - I do not think Johnston was Parry's accomplice either!
                    Last edited by ColdCaseJury; 01-14-2019, 01:33 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by moste View Post
                      Right, I don't see the Johnstone's as a solution either.

                      Just listened to the three, 'Radio City broadcasts from '81

                      Chief superintendent Ray Jackson ,from the Liverpool C I D ,one of the guests, had a couple of interesting pieces of information.(a) Rather than there being blood all over the room (which he attributes to authors of the various books on the subject, )in actual fact there were pools of blood under and next to Julias head and a splash across towards the corner of the room to the left of the fire place, and onto the wall about 4 feet high plus a few spots above about 7 feet high. So not as messy as were lead to believe.(b) Amy Wallace in her police statement did not say anything about being at 29 Wolverton on the 20th .This was argued by others on the show , but the chief super. just reiterated, a visit by Amy on that day was not in her statement!(c) The Parlour was pitch dark when Wallace entered the room, even with the aid of a match, how did he avoid falling over the body lying across the floor? on his way to lighting the gas mantle, unless he knew it was there.
                      It was barrister Robert Montgomery who raised the point about Amy Wallace's statement, and he was simply wrong.
                      (the statement is reproduced on Antony's website http://www.coldcasejury.com/case03/amywallace.asp)

                      In 1977, Montgomery had led the prosecution against Wallace in a mock-trial held before Mr. Justice Lawson at the Merseyside Medico-Legal Society.

                      Unsurprisingly, Wallace was acquitted...
                      "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
                      Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
                      The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
                      https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

                      Compendium of Resources
                      https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
                        Excellent points, HS. I also think the caller had to have known something about the insurance industry (e.g. that an agent could call out of his collection area for an endowment). I find it implausible that John Johnston could have known this (especially as he seems not to have spoken to Wallace much in 10 years). To my mind, the caller is Wallace or Parry. And, knowing your devilish sense of humour, no - I do not think Johnston was Parry's accomplice either!
                        What about Wallace and the Johnston’s? (Sounds like a movie.)
                        Regards

                        Herlock






                        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                        Comment


                        • If nothing else comes of raising the ‘Johnston as suspect’ theory, I feel facilitating agreement between Rod and Herlock over the Wallace case accomplishment enough.

                          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          Just a few points on the neighbour theory. I’d heard of it but never really read any of the details about it. I’m afraid that I find myself in very disturbing territory....that of, on the face of it, agreeing with Rod.
                          I have given much thought over ColdCaseJury’s challenge to the theory over the past day – that the telephone call must be explained as part of any theory that has credibility. In relation to Mr Johnston as killer, I propose but one reason he would invent Qualtrough and make the call in order to get Wallace out of the house. I appreciate that there are other challenges to the theory (thank you Rod and Herlock) but they are not worth considering if the theory falls at the first hurdle.

                          If, as the Johnston theory would have it, he had a key and was intent on stealing premiums, he could wait until the house was empty (and there are reports of Julia and Wallace out together, so this would be possible). If he snuck into the empty house when they were both out, he would have found the cash box empty – since Wallace stated they took the cash with them when both were out of the house. He might, therefore, reason he needed to get Wallace out of the house but leave Julia at home alone, in order that he could sneak thief the contents of the cash box. However, being disturbed, he ended up killing Julia.

                          I can see the problems with this scenario:
                          a) We have no evidence Johnston knew of Wallace’s habit of leaving the cash box full when Julia was home alone.
                          b) We have no evidence Johnston knew of the chess match, nor the telephone number of the café. Though if he knew a) above, he might well have been able to find out about the chess match and telephone number with a little snooping around.
                          c) There is the possibility the telephone call and murder were not connected (a la P D James) – but I find this difficult to accept.
                          d) There is no evidence of criminal behaviour by the Johnston’s at any other time, so to suggest this scenario as a one-off crime, Bonnie and Clyde style, appears to me to be an outrageous slur on their character when there is no evidence to support it – as well as highly unlikely in the extreme.

                          As a result of the above, I feel I have given enough thought to the theory to be able to agree with Rod, ColdCaseJury, Moste and Herlock that it has no basis for further consideration unless new evidence is discovered to the contrary. It was self-evident to other posters – but I needed to go through the process to get there.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                            If nothing else comes of raising the ‘Johnston as suspect’ theory, I feel facilitating agreement between Rod and Herlock over the Wallace case accomplishment enough.

                            I have given much thought over ColdCaseJury’s challenge to the theory over the past day – that the telephone call must be explained as part of any theory that has credibility. In relation to Mr Johnston as killer, I propose but one reason he would invent Qualtrough and make the call in order to get Wallace out of the house. I appreciate that there are other challenges to the theory (thank you Rod and Herlock) but they are not worth considering if the theory falls at the first hurdle.

                            If, as the Johnston theory would have it, he had a key and was intent on stealing premiums, he could wait until the house was empty (and there are reports of Julia and Wallace out together, so this would be possible). If he snuck into the empty house when they were both out, he would have found the cash box empty – since Wallace stated they took the cash with them when both were out of the house. He might, therefore, reason he needed to get Wallace out of the house but leave Julia at home alone, in order that he could sneak thief the contents of the cash box. However, being disturbed, he ended up killing Julia.

                            I can see the problems with this scenario:
                            a) We have no evidence Johnston knew of Wallace’s habit of leaving the cash box full when Julia was home alone.
                            b) We have no evidence Johnston knew of the chess match, nor the telephone number of the café. Though if he knew a) above, he might well have been able to find out about the chess match and telephone number with a little snooping around.
                            c) There is the possibility the telephone call and murder were not connected (a la P D James) – but I find this difficult to accept.
                            d) There is no evidence of criminal behaviour by the Johnston’s at any other time, so to suggest this scenario as a one-off crime, Bonnie and Clyde style, appears to me to be an outrageous slur on their character when there is no evidence to support it – as well as highly unlikely in the extreme.

                            As a result of the above, I feel I have given enough thought to the theory to be able to agree with Rod, ColdCaseJury, Moste and Herlock that it has no basis for further consideration unless new evidence is discovered to the contrary. It was self-evident to other posters – but I needed to go through the process to get there.
                            Hi etenguy - I agree with your post, including getting HS and Rod to agree!

                            Here's something for you - and everyone on this thread. I value your opinions. Take a look at this image of the kitchen table.

                            1. Julia's sewing material (something from the front bedroom, perhaps) is covering the Liverpool Echo.

                            2. It appears Julia started sewing after the Echo was delivered (from 1)

                            3. The Echo was delivered at 6:35pm.

                            Even if Julia did not read the Echo at all, surely it would have taken at least five minutes or more to get everything arranged, as in this image. Indeed, it looks like she was in the middle of sewing when she was called away from the table.

                            To me, this images suggests Julia had moved the tea things and got the sewing out after the echo had arrived. Would she have done this while Wallace was in the house or waited till he had left? To my knowledge, Wallace was never asked what Julia was doing when he departed.

                            This, of course, proves nothing; there's no need for anyone to tell me that. But what does it say to you, if anything?
                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
                              Hi etenguy - I agree with your post, including getting HS and Rod to agree!

                              Here's something for you - and everyone on this thread. I value your opinions. Take a look at this image of the kitchen table.

                              1. Julia's sewing material (something from the front bedroom, perhaps) is covering the Liverpool Echo.

                              2. It appears Julia started sewing after the Echo was delivered (from 1)

                              3. The Echo was delivered at 6:35pm.

                              Even if Julia did not read the Echo at all, surely it would have taken at least five minutes or more to get everything arranged, as in this image. Indeed, it looks like she was in the middle of sewing when she was called away from the table.

                              To me, this images suggests Julia had moved the tea things and got the sewing out after the echo had arrived. Would she have done this while Wallace was in the house or waited till he had left? To my knowledge, Wallace was never asked what Julia was doing when he departed.

                              This, of course, proves nothing; there's no need for anyone to tell me that. But what does it say to you, if anything?
                              Interesting observation Antony It certainly gives pause for thought. Is it possible that initially the sewing was on the table but not on top of the newspaper and that a police officer picked it up to check it and then put it back down overlapping the paper?

                              Or might the sewing have been on a chair for example and after the newspaper had been placed on the table Julia transferred the sewing onto the table in anticipation of working on it after William had left?

                              Might William have put the paper on the table and then Julia placed her sewing on top of it?

                              It would definitely need to be included in any proposed timeline though. Even if it did weigh against Wallace in any way.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                Interesting observation Antony It certainly gives pause for thought.
                                I second this.

                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                Is it possible that initially the sewing was on the table but not on top of the newspaper and that a police officer picked it up to check it and then put it back down overlapping the paper?
                                This is certainly possible, but because of the position of the scissors, I think it is more likely Julia placed the sewing there.

                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                Or might the sewing have been on a chair for example and after the newspaper had been placed on the table Julia transferred the sewing onto the table in anticipation of working on it after William had left?
                                I think this can safely be inferred - that Julia had expected to sew during William's absence.

                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                Might William have put the paper on the table and then Julia placed her sewing on top of it?

                                It would definitely need to be included in any proposed timeline though. Even if it did weigh against Wallace in any way.
                                Extrapolating from the inference that Julia had planned a night of sewing in the kitchen, what does this tell us about the move to the parlour? I think we can infer that the move to the parlour was not anticipated by Julia and was in response to some external stimulus (for example, either Wallace suggesting a music evening instead of his trip at the last minute or in response to a visitor calling).

                                It looks to me as if the sewing has been placed but not yet started (or she had finished for the evening). It does not seem to be in progress. I think that suggests she was attacked not long after Wallace left (or before Wallace left) or she was attacked not long before Wallace returned - ie one end or the other of the time Wallace was out, not in the middle. However, the picture is not extremely clear and so this may be an inference too far.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X