Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you agree, HS, I will merely chair the discussion, and ask questions, but I will not press my opinion. Fair?

Thanks also to John G, who has always struck me as a very reasonable poster. I also hope we can get Caz, Abby and Rod to participate. And anybody else reading this. I would also like to get AS re-invited to the forum. He may not wish to participate, of course, but he has been involved from the start, and it would be a little like the Beatles going on stage without Lennon (get the Liverpool metaphor here!). BTW, I believe John Lennon lived in Menlove Avenue, and The Tavern was around the corner from the City Cafe! I'm sure Rod will confirm.

Absolutely fair Antony.

I’d certainly like to see AS back on the thread.

[RodCrosby]

the philosopher Bertrand Russell said, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt". So, can we have a more collaborative approach, here? No annoying icons, no talking over each other, but just a discussion of the evidence?

Therein lies the fundamental problem. This is such a delicious case because the evidence is so complex and so subtle, and individually each piece is open to interpretation.

But, perhaps understandably, people start interpreting before they have got a firm grasp of all the evidential pieces, either singly or collectively.

So they end up arguing against the evidence. And people don't like being corrected, so more arguments ensue.

Then, even if the facts are straight, there is the issue of how the mind generally deals with complex data. It tries to simplify, and it often gets it wrong, as a result. See Ornstein; Kahneman and Tversky for how the mind actually works, most of the time...

"The mind is a squadron of simpletons. It is not unified, it is not rational, it is not well designed—or designed at all. It just happened, an accumulation of innovations of the organisms that lived before us. The mind evolved, through countless animals and through countless worlds.

The mind evolved great breadth, but it is shallow, for it performs quick and dirty sketches of the world. This rough-and-ready perception of reality enabled our ancestors to survive better. The mind did not evolve to know the world or to know ourselves. Simply speaking, there has never been, nor will there ever be, enough time to be truly rational...

There isn't time for the mind to go through the luxurious exercises of examining alternatives.

We piece together the results of a small set of probes to judge the world, picking up a few signals and making quick assessments of what is outside, in the case of marauders, and inside, in the case of memories and dreams.

Since the mind evolved to select a few signals and then dream up a semblance, whatever enters our consciousness is overemphasized. It does not matter how the information enters, whether via a television program, a newspaper story, a friend's conversation, a strong emotional reaction, a memory—all is overemphasized. We ignore other, more compelling evidence, overemphasizing and overgeneralizing from the information close at hand to produce a rough-and-ready reality..."
THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS, Robert Ornstein

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

And then people get emotionally attached to their own [flawed] ideas. See religions, and political movements for where that often ends....

And then there is the internet. A playground where anything can be said, by anyone, just for the hell of it, anonymously, with impunity, with malice or mayhem in mind...

And before anyone can 'collaborate', we have to fix an agreed starting point.

Despite reams of books and theories, which of course like to hint otherwise, the starting point is there was no evidence that Wallace killed his wife.
If there was no evidence then, there is no evidence now [unless it is new evidence]...

That is not opinion. Or conjecture. That is the very fact why his conviction was overturned.

The statute under which the conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal spelt it out.
The verdict will be set aside if it is "unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence"
Unreasonableness, like pregnancy, is an either/or test. Something is either [wholly] unreasonable, or it is not [wholly] unreasonable.
Likewise supported. If something is supported, it holds up. If it cannot be supported, it collapses.

Those who were there in 1931 understood that.

"[30 MAY 1931, To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The case of Mr. William Wallace, whose appeal against the sentence of death passed upon him at Liverpool was allowed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on May 19th, raises several disquieting problems.
At his trial no positive evidence was brought forward against Mr. Wallace by the prosecution, and the case against him was far more like the ingenious efforts of a modem detective story writer than a serious indictment based upon evidence. The Judge told the jury that "not a trace remained which would point to anyone as the murderer," and it was "very difficult to say that it can be brought home to anyone in particular." Yet the jury returned their verdict of guilty.

The result of the appeal has proved beyond question that this verdict was absolutely unjustified, for the Court of Criminal Appeal has repeatedly ruled that for the success of an appeal on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, "it is not sufficient to show merely that the case against the appellant was a very weak one," or that "members of the Court feel some doubt as to the correctness of the verdict."

"If there was evidence to support the conviction, the appeal will be dismissed" (Archbold, 1922, ed. p. 377).

Surely the right lesson to draw from this case is not—as some would have us believe—that the Court of Criminal Appeal has proved itself a satisfactory protection against miscarriages of justice, but that, since a jury can be so irresponsible, there is urgent need for that Court to take a much less restricted view of its own powers...
I am, Sir, &tc. E. ROY CALVERT, 1 Queen's Rise, Richmond, Surrey."

The Court of Appeal also told us what they were not interested in...
"Suffice it to say that we are not concerned here with suspicion, however grave, or with theories, however ingenious."

So, bearing in mind all of the above, feel free to discuss the EVIDENCE, available in 1931, and which has subsequently come to light.

And see where it leads...

[there's actually a book out which has done an admirable job, come to think of it...]

[Herlock Sholmes]

End of debate

This is what we’ve had to put up with for the past year Antony.

[RodCrosby]

End of debate

On the contrary, the start of a really good one, we hope.

[RodCrosby]

I'll start you off then...

EVIDENCE: Wallace arrived at Menlove Gardens with 10 minutes in hand for his appointment.

[if anyone disagrees, on the EVIDENCE, shout, or we'll move on to another piece of EVIDENCE]

[Herlock Sholmes]

If we have to agree that there was no evidence for Wallace’s guilt then we have to agree that there’s no evidence for Parry’s involvement and by association no evidence of the existence of an unnamed associate

[RodCrosby]

are you playing this game, or playing another one?

[ColdCaseJury]

Burden of Proof

Let's see if we can mediate here.

I think Rod is correct if the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". So, if anyone thinks that Wallace is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then there must be evidence or cumulative evidence that the judges missed in 1931. And remember that judges were more than likely to uphold a conviction in those days - the British legal system being seen as infallible, especially by those involved in it.

If the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities (what most likely happened) then I suggest the appeal verdict (and that of the Assizes) can be set aside and we are free to look at everything again. And I suggest that is precisely what we are doing.

The appeal verdict is a cautionary warning not to be certain that Wallace is guilty. But, as I say in my book, there is no contradiction in thinking Wallace is more than likely guilty but still refrain from holding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

My only criticism of Wallace Theorists is that they often appear to be certain (or almost certain) that Wallace is guilty. If we interpret Rod's post in saying this cannot be the case without new evidence, I think it is a fair point.

[RodCrosby]

I'm happy for Wallace to be considered a potential suspect, as if his conviction and its subsequent overturning can be completely ignored.

After all, husbands do sometimes murder their wives, and vice versa.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's see if we can mediate here.

I think Rod is correct if the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". So, if anyone thinks that Wallace is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then there must be evidence or cumulative evidence that the judges missed in 1931. And remember that judges were more than likely to uphold a conviction in those days - the British legal system being seen as infallible, especially by those involved in it.

If the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities (what most likely happened) then I suggest the appeal verdict (and that of the Assizes) can be set aside and we are free to look at everything again. And I suggest that is precisely what we are doing.

The appeal verdict is a cautionary warning not to be certain that Wallace is guilty. But, as I say in my book, there is no contradiction in thinking Wallace is more than likely guilty but still refrain from holding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

My only criticism of Wallace Theorists is that they often appear to be certain (or almost certain) that Wallace is guilty. If we interpret Rod's post in saying this cannot be the case without new evidence, I think it is a fair point.

Antony we’ve had a year of Rod telling us it’s game over. The Wallace case is solved. How’s that for certainty?

All that Caz, AS and myself have said is that we believe that Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest suspect though none of us would be willing to send him to the gallows on the strength of the evidence.

Which side would you say is the more reasoned and fair minded?

[RodCrosby]

Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest suspect though none of us would be willing to send him to the gallows on the strength of the evidence.

We already agree he was a suspect.
By "overwhelmingly the likeliest", well yes, if it's just a numbers game. But we don't have trial by numbers, or trial by ordeal, or trial by combat, etc. any more.
We have trial by EVIDENCE.
On the "strength of the evidence", then, and not wishing to "send him to the gallows", etc. you'd be voting "Not Guilty" then?

Or do I misunderstand?

[you can wait until you've heard the rest of the EVIDENCE, if you like. There's really no need to jump the gun]

[ColdCaseJury]

Antony we’ve had a year of Rod telling us it’s game over. The Wallace case is solved. How’s that for certainty?

All that Caz, AS and myself have said is that we believe that Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest suspect though none of us would be willing to send him to the gallows on the strength of the evidence.

Which side would you say is the more reasoned and fair minded?

In my opinion, it's not game over. I think you and others have made some strong arguments. But these need to be balanced, of course.

But to all parties, I would appeal to this fact. If the verdict was clear, one way or the other, surely there would be a preponderance of opinion endorsing that view. And this convergence has been lacking in this case for over nearly 90 years.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We already agree he was a suspect.
By "overwhelmingly the likeliest", well yes, if it's just a numbers game. But we don't have trial by numbers, or trial by ordeal, or trial by combat, etc. any more.
We have trial by EVIDENCE.
On the "strength of the evidence", then, and not wishing to "send him to the gallows", etc. you'd be voting "Not Guilty" then?

Or do I misunderstand?

[you can wait until you've heard the rest of the EVIDENCE, if you like. There's really no need to jump the gun]

Yes, we can’t convict anyone of the murder with the level of confidence (on the actual evidence) that would be required to send a man to the gallows or even a lengthy prison sentence. We can only way up what we know, we can interpret events and incidents (but only to our own satisfaction) and come to our own conclusions that on balance ‘x’ is the likeliest suspect (or ‘x’ and ‘y’ working together.) So how do you square this, or something like this, with you telling us that it’s case closed. You’ve hardly hedged your bets.

[RodCrosby]

Yes, we can’t convict anyone of the murder with the level of confidence (on the actual evidence) that would be required to send a man to the gallows or even a lengthy prison sentence. We can only way up what we know, we can interpret events and incidents (but only to our own satisfaction) and come to our own conclusions that on balance ‘x’ is the likeliest suspect (or ‘x’ and ‘y’ working together.) So how do you square this, or something like this, with you telling us that it’s case closed. You’ve hardly hedged your bets.

Oh, I was probably just teasing you. I'm sorry you got upset. I know you're a decent guy, really.

But I always said I had only 'closed' the case, based on the available EVIDENCE. And more than once I publicly recognised the possibility that something new might emerge - completely from left field - upending my conclusion. But it would be a long time in coming, I think we'd agree...

But anyhow, back to the EVIDENCE, and where it might lead.

Do you have anything you'd like to offer?

[etenguy]

I'll start you off then...

EVIDENCE: Wallace arrived at Menlove Gardens with 10 minutes in hand for his appointment.

[if anyone disagrees, on the EVIDENCE, shout, or we'll move on to another piece of EVIDENCE]

I am new to this case, and think this approach of collecting the known evidence is a good way to understand the case better. So, not to be a freeloader, I'll add what I think is established fact:

Liverpool central chess club captain, Samuel Beattie, stated he received a call for Wallace on January 19th, from someone calling himself R. M. Qualtrough, stating he wished to meet Wallace at 7.30 on 20th January at 25 Menlove Gardens East to discuss insurance business. The call was received about 25 minutes before Wallace arrived for a scheduled chess game.

Questions which arise from this:
1. Who made the call?
2. How did the caller know Wallace played chess at the cafe?
3. How did the caller know Wallace was playing chess that night?
4. Neither R M Qualtrough nor 25 Menlove Gardens East appear to be real - Beattie's error or a false call?
5. Was Beattie lying about the call?

Answers to these questions are best left until all the evidence is collected together.