Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[moste]

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?

Hi etenguy. Something like this.

Rod , This is more like it ,good post , I’m still of the opinion Wallace was guilty.
I do believe he had a means of transporting himself from the Allerton newsagents to his home in approx. 15 minutes,with time to murder his wife, (‘Taxi”?)and prepare the scene for the Johnston’s and the police.
I will now copy and paste your ‘judges recommendation’and ‘jury guidance’
Paragraphs ,particularly the 1958 one , for the Hanratty Thread.

[moste]

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?

Good question , and since Wallace had to mastermind this whole affair, from beginning to end meticulously, how to hide the weapon was probably high on his priority list . Wallace most likely considered a couple of options , unlike Wallace we don’t have the advantage of being thoroughly familiar with his immediate neighbourhood.I think he must have had a perfect hiding place around the back lanes that he felt comfortable with .On the other hand.
A brief story I can share just to demonstrate how you may think It’s an impossible task to hide something in a house never to be found again .
When I was a kid I climbed up into our loft and noticed that there was a brick wall between our loft and our next door neighbours ,high up there was a loose brick , I tried to hide my older brothers air pistol behind this loose brick but to my dismay the pistol disappeared down the cavity of the two brick walls dividing the two houses , I heard it rattle it’s way either down to the foundations, or possibly wedge itself part way down. The gun was gone forever . It’s still there , to this day, rusting away , it could never be retrieved .No one else ever knew, and that was 61 years ago in the suburbs of Manchester. In the suburbs of Liverpool there is a 4LB lump hammer resting inside the cavity of the walls between two houses and a loose brick up near the slate roof of 29 wolverton street.Perhaps.

[RodCrosby]

Mid-terraced houses built in 1910 did not have cavity walls...

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Did you manage to keep a straight face when typing this?

Who was it that said that Parry and Qualtrough threatened Parkes into silence when no such thing occurred?

Inventing evidence!

Your whole theory is an invention.

[RodCrosby]

It's a perfectly obvious inference, for anyone who can read...

And award-winning journalists who interviewed Parkes do draw that inference from Parkes's own words.

Parry and another came round to the garage after the murder. Parkes was advised to change his route to work by the Atkinsons.

Carry on trolling if you like. The world has moved on.

I'm more interested now in who the other chap - and killer of Julia Wallace - was.

I have some candidates in mind.

[moste]

Your blue print is only showing one house!

[RodCrosby]

with party walls...

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's a perfectly obvious inference, for anyone who can read...

And award-winning journalists who interviewed Parkes do draw that inference from Parkes's own words.

Parry and another came round to the garage after the murder. Parkes was advised to change his route to work by the Atkinsons.

Carry on trolling if you like. The world has moved on.

I'm more interested now in who the other chap - and killer of Julia Wallace - was.

I have some candidates in mind.

You hope the world has moved on because for ages you’ve been leading us to believe that Parry threatened Parkes when he did no such thing.

Busted Rodders.

[harry]

The evidence,as it was,and the decisions made ,did not die with the participants.The summary and closing speech of the prosecution is as it was given word for word,and for those that seem not to understand circumstantial evidence,take a look around the internet,there is plenty of information to guide you.

Wallace was convicted on circumstantial evidence.The conviction was overturned because that evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt.What that doubt amounted to will never be known.The deliberations between the appeals judges were not recorded.No legal judgement has ever surfaced that sugests Wallace didn't kill his wife.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The evidence,as it was,and the decisions made ,did not die with the participants.The summary and closing speech of the prosecution is as it was given word for word,and for those that seem not to understand circumstantial evidence,take a look around the internet,there is plenty of information to guide you.

Wallace was convicted on circumstantial evidence.The conviction was overturned because that evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt.What that doubt amounted to will never be known.The deliberations between the appeals judges were not recorded.No legal judgement has ever surfaced that sugests Wallace didn't kill his wife.

True Harry, there’s nothing that precludes Wallace from murdering his wife. The main ‘doubt’ that’s usually used is the time Wallace had to kill Julia/clean up etc. But we can’t know how much blood Wallace got on him. We can’t know that if he used the mackintosh to shield himself that he wasn’t lucky enough to avoid blood at all.

Anyone trying to exonerate Wallace also tends to point to the time that Alan Close arrived and left. ‘Police corruption’ is yelled although there’s absolutely no evidence of this. I always tend to trust adults rather than children on issues of time. Mr Johnston said that she had her milk delivered at 6.30 and we know that Close delivered her milk whilst Julia was taking her milk jug inside. The Holme’s on the other side reported hearing the Wallace’s door close at 6.35 I believe. This ties in. Of course these times could be a couple of minutes either way.

Also, getting carried away with the ‘happy couple’ viewpoint is to ignore very valid testimony to the contrary.

Parry has an alibi for the time of the murder and yet still people are desperate enough to involve him to exonerate William. They cling to Parkes ‘evidence’ surely one of the least believable testimony’s in the history of crime. Eliminate Parkes and there’s nothing to connect Parry to the case. He was only suspected in the first place because of William.

Every aspect of this case, when you break it down, favours William as the culprit and no matter how many ‘scenarios’ are created that won’t change. A while ago, just for the sake of it, I created a ‘scenario’ where Julia was killed by someone from her past. It answered the questions that are asked about the case - why Julia let the killer in - the viciousness of the crime - why the phone operators said that it was the voice of an older man - but do I say that it solves the case? Of course not. A scenario is not a solution but that’s something Rod refuses to acknowledge or understand.

[RodCrosby]

No legal judgement has ever surfaced that sugests Wallace didn't kill his wife.

None is required. We have the presumption of innocence.

He was innocent at the start.

He was innocent at the end.

Because the entirely perverse verdict of the jury was QUASHED.

It had been founded on mere suspicion, which of course is nowhere near sufficient.

There was no evidence against him.

[harry]

Presumed innocence.The correct wording is considered innocent until proven guilty.Considered means open to argument,therefor the guilt or innocence of Wallace is/was open to argument.He was not proven innocent.The trial was about guilt,the appeal was about the value of the circumstantial evidence against him,not that there was no evidence.Circumstantial evidence is allowable evidence.Many cases are decided by it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

None is required. We have the presumption of innocence.

He was innocent at the start.

He was innocent at the end.

Because the entirely perverse verdict of the jury was QUASHED.

It had been founded on mere suspicion, which of course is nowhere near sufficient.

There was no evidence against him.

It wasn’t a perverse verdict. The jury heard the cases for the Prosecution and the Defense and decided for the Prosecution.

Today as we look at the case we weigh up the circumstantial evidence and interpret events. We then draw our own conclusions. Some, like you, are biased in favour of a pet theory. Others come to their conclusions by taking a balanced overview and not by ‘invention.’

You are desperately clinging on to Parry despite his alibi for the night of the murder. Everything points to Wallace. Motive, opportunity, the plan, the execution, the suspicious behaviour. For Parry - he’s only mentioned because Wallace names him (possible as a scapegoat) and then we have Parkes and the less said about that drivel the better.

And so, over the past year or so what do we have. We have Rod ‘letting us believe’ that Parkes was threatened by Parry because it strengthens his theory when he wasn’t. We have Rod ducking uncomfortable questions (he used to disappear from the thread when that happened in the past) We have Rod virtually ignoring me because he’s carrying an empty sack. We have the childish parroting of ‘misrepresentation and disinformation.’ We have blatent attempts to get me censured by the adoption of a ‘victim’ mentality. We have the reliance on ‘cutand paste’ quotes in place of reasoned debate. And for the second time to my knowledge we’ve had a pointless graph.

In the meantime the rest of us can discuss the case (whichever side of the debate were on.) Its what adults do.

[NickB]

I agree that I don't think it was a perverse verdict.

In 1989 a book was published called 'The Blake Escape: How We Freed George Blake - and Why' by Michael Randle and Pat Pottle. As a result they were charged with aiding and abetting Blake's escape and, although they admitted quite freely that they had dunnit, they were found not guilty. That was a perverse verdict.

(Incidentally, Randle and Pottle were in prison with Blake as a result of a trial at the Old Bailey while Hanratty was being tried in Bedford.)

[RodCrosby]

The Randle/Pottle case is an example of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

The Wallace jury verdict was perverse in the sense it was unreasonable, or cannot be supported by the evidence, as the Court of Appeal decided.