Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[moste]

Further to the newspaper article.Wallace I think was 3 inches taller, than the police description and had a moustache. I believe this is also a case of misinterpretation, ‘I’m in a hurry, get me there quickly ‘. Followed afterwards by
‘You won’t kill me will you ‘ is obviously, and I mean OBVIOUSLY. Alluding to the speed and way the car was being driven.

[moste]

Are we supposed to believe the Police didn't check the return tram or whether Wallace had somehow conned them, by taxing a taxi or a personal gyrocopter?

They checked every other damn thing Wallace said he did that night...

Please site any or all references that was available regarding Wallace’s trip home ,after 8. 00 pm . I can’t find anything.

[RodCrosby]

Yes, but Nick's and my point is exactly that. The Police left no stone unturned to find something to pin on Wallace.
They even trawled alehouses for the ramblings of random winos. I've seen the Police file.

If there was any doubt about Wallace's movements they would have latched on to that.
But the idea Wallace killed Julia on his return has even more insurmountable difficulties that the idea Wallace killed her before he left!

Not least the forensics...

[moste]

Yes, but Nick's and my point is exactly that. The Police left no stone unturned to find something to pin on Wallace.
They even trawled alehouses for the ramblings of random winos. I've seen the Police file.

If there was any doubt about Wallace's movements they would have latched on to that.
But the idea Wallace killed Julia on his return has even more insurmountable difficulties that the idea Wallace killed her before he left!

Not least the forensics...

Please site any or all references that was available regarding Wallace’s trip home ,after 8. 00 pm . I can’t find anything. SO ... Nothing then?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to remind everyone.

Post #573

[moste]

Yes, but Nick's and my point is exactly that. The Police left no stone unturned to find something to pin on Wallace.
They even trawled alehouses for the ramblings of random winos. I've seen the Police file.

If there was any doubt about Wallace's movements they would have latched on to that.
But the idea Wallace killed Julia on his return has even more insurmountable difficulties that the idea Wallace killed her before he left!

Not least the forensics...

He only had a few minutes before he left . He had a full 1/2 hour when he got back. By the way I can’t share your enthusiasm for the performance of the police force in 1931 Liverpool.Their numbers had been cut by half due to strike action and wholesale sackings . Consequently there performance in general was very poor if not inept. ( something I have no doubt the future Chief Superintendent Herbert Balmer would have been crying himself to sleep over, every night.

[RodCrosby]

Please site any or all references that was available regarding Wallace’s trip home ,after 8. 00 pm . I can’t find anything. SO ... Nothing then?

OLIVER KC: And he told you what time he got on the tram ?
SUPT. MOORE: Yes.

OLIVER KC: And that was very nearly right within minutes ?
SUPT. MOORE: Yes.

is the only thing I can find.

Wallace's statement that he got the return tram from near the Plaza cinema on Allerton Road, changing once at Lodge lane, has never been controverted by anyone in 87 years.

I don't see why we should start now...

[moste]

OLIVER KC: And he told you what time he got on the tram ?
SUPT. MOORE: Yes.

OLIVER KC: And that was very nearly right within minutes ?
SUPT. MOORE: Yes.

is the only thing I can find.

Wallace's statement that he got the return tram from near the Plaza cinema on Allerton Road, changing once at Lodge lane, has never been controverted by anyone in 87 years.

I don't see why we should start now...

I see a reason to controvert that , right now.

It was accepted that Wallace couldn’t get home that quick. I say he could!

What do the others think on the thread?

[RodCrosby]

He only had a few minutes before he left . He had a full 1/2 hour when he got back. By the way I can’t share your enthusiasm for the performance of the police force in 1931 Liverpool.Their numbers had been cut by half due to strike action and wholesale sackings . Consequently there performance in general was very poor if not inept. ( something I have no doubt the future Chief Superintendent Herbert Balmer would have been crying himself to sleep over, every night.

The Liverpool Police (aka "the Jiggery-Pokery Brigade") were renowned in the 20th Century for inventive ways in which they could 'fit someone up'.

They were not simultaneously renowned for overlooking... inventive ways in which they could 'fit someone up'....

[RodCrosby]

I see a reason to controvert that , right now.

It suits a pet theory, for which there is no evidence, and tons of evidence against?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see a reason to controvert that , right now.

It was accepted that Wallace couldn’t get home that quick. I say he could!

What do the others think on the thread?

One issue with the suggestion that Wallace killed Julia on his return would be the weapon. What opportunity would Wallace have had to dispose of it?

[etenguy]

It was accepted that Wallace couldn’t get home that quick. I say he could!

What do the others think on the thread?

I would struggle to understand how he might have got home more than a few minutes before he stated. How do you propose that he managed the journey more quickly?

[harry]

No one is disputing there were no other possibilities,or that the case was decided in the main, on other than circumstantial evidence.My, and I believe Herlock's,and certainly the police, prosecutor, and juries reasonings, is that the weight of that circumstantial evidence,taken as a whole,was enough to convict Wallace.He was convicted.Certainly the conviction was overturned,but not on the grounds that there was no evidence,or that he didn't kill Julia,but that the evidence did not reach the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

[etenguy]

No one is disputing there were no other possibilities,or that the case was decided in the main, on other than circumstantial evidence.My, and I believe Herlock's,and certainly the police, prosecutor, and juries reasonings, is that the weight of that circumstantial evidence,taken as a whole,was enough to convict Wallace.He was convicted.Certainly the conviction was overturned,but not on the grounds that there was no evidence,or that he didn't kill Julia,but that the evidence did not reach the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

Regardless of the legal reasoning for upholding his appeal - I am at a loss to find any evidence that Wallace committed the murder. Or any evidence of who committed the crime, with the exception of Parkes' testimony which I think cannot be relied upon as it was never investigated.

[RodCrosby]

No-one today can recreate the circumstances of a legal trial to decide the matter conclusively. That opportunity has been lost forever, as everyone is long dead.

But we can go through the motions of one, as best we can, on the available evidence, being as fair-minded as Justice Wright. INVENTING evidence is not allowed, of course.

Neither is attempting to rewrite history.

Digest of English Case Law: Containing the Reported Decisions of the Superior Courts, and a Selection from Those of the Scottish and Irish Courts, 1931
Sweet and Maxwell, 1931