Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[OneRound]

The only 'goggles' I wear are those worn by Justice Wright.

a Cambridge Tripos prize-winning esteemed Judge?
versus
some random obsessive nonentity on the internet...

Tough call....NOT !

Rod - you clearly have a high regard for Wright J. No problem with that but wasn't it open to him to stop the trial and direct the jury to bring in a Not Guilty verdict on the grounds of a lack (you suggest a total lack) of evidence against Wallace? Why didn't he? Furthermore, why didn't Wallace's counsel approach the Judge to do so?

Genuinely interested.

Thanks,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please cut and paste us the quote where they say that Wallace was innocent.

Thanks

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m an obsessive?

Remind us again how long you’ve been obsessing over this case compared to my twelve months?

Remind us again who filmed himself driving around the streets of Anfield at night?

[RodCrosby]

OK, OneRound

it's complex. Hector Munro (Wallace's solicitor) had indeed urged counsel, Roland Oliver KC, to make a "no case" submission.

But there was a risk. If the Judge refused, it would look bad to the jury. And Oliver KC declined to take the risk.

Oliver KC, at the Court of Appeal, stated that he was hoping the Judge himself might dismiss the case of his own volition. Lord Hewart nodded, in apparent agreement.

That was very rare, however. Instead, Mr. Justice Wright had "summed-up for an acquittal", making it clear to the jury, among other things, that:-

"you have a murder so devised and so arranged that nothing remains which would point to anyone as the murderer..."

"a man cannot be convicted of any crime, least of all murder, merely on probabilities, unless they are so strong as to amount to a reasonable certainty. If you have other possibilities, a jury would not, and I believe ought not, to come to the conclusion that the charge is established..."

"Indeed, the evidence is quite consistent with some unknown criminal, for some unknown motive, having got into the house and executed the murder and gone away..."

"..it is no use applying tests to evidence if none of them excludes really the possibility of the innocence of the prisoner. If every matter relied on as circumstantial is equally or substantially consistent both with the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, the multiplication of those instances may not take you any further in coming to a conclusion of guilt..."

"the whole crime was so skilfully devised and so skilfully executed, and there is such an absence of any trace to incriminate anybody, as to make it very difficult to say .. that it can be brought home to anybody in particular..."

But the jury simply didn't like or understand Wallace, and had already made their minds up, based - quite seriously - on the idea that he had impersonated his wife to the milk boy! One of the jurors also claimed that he and three others had been intimated by the rest into bringing in the verdict asap, without any discussion...

[RodCrosby]

Please cut and paste us the quote where they say that Wallace was innocent.

Thanks

I'm happy to post more than one. It's a very ancient principle, it's part of our Constitution, and it's taken as read for every person, including Wallace...

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—"Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies"
Justinian, Digest of Roman Law, 6th Century

"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt... No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."
Viscount Sankey, House of Lords, 1948

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial..."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, 1948

Do you have anything other than disinformation, prejudice and fancy, or are you done?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm happy to post more than one. It's a very ancient principle, it's part of our Constitution, and it's taken as read for every person, including Wallace...

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—"Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies"
Justinian, Digest of Roman Law, 6th Century

"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt... No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."
Viscount Sankey, House of Lords, 1948

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial..."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, 1948

Do you have anything other than disinformation, prejudice and fancy, or are you done?

Nice try

Please post the quote where a member of the judiciary in an official capacity specifically states that William Wallace was now innocent.

And while your at it remind us all of the details of the police’s ongoing investigation into finding the ‘real’ culprit for Julia’s murder?

[RodCrosby]

Nice try

Please post the quote where a member of the judiciary in an official capacity specifically states that William Wallace was now innocent.

As I have shown, no such statement was required.
Wallace was born with that presumption as a Constitutional entitlement, just like any Englishman...

As for the Police, well the trail often runs cold when they've wasted their time on the wrong man...

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I have shown, no such statement was required.
Wallace was born with that presumption as a Constitutional entitlement, just like any Englishman...

As for the Police, well the trail often runs cold when they've wasted their time on the wrong man...

Pathetic even by your standards.

Wallace wasn’t proven innocent and no one ever said that he was.

The ‘trail’ doesn’t run cold that quickly! Moriarty/Parry was still around.
The police didn’t look for anyone else because they knew that the real murderer had gotten away with it.

[RodCrosby]

I’m an obsessive?

Remind us again how long you’ve been obsessing over this case compared to my twelve months?

Remind us again who filmed himself driving around the streets of Anfield at night?

I've never obsessed over it. I posted the Correct Solution almost 11 years ago on another forum. Then that discussion petered out, and I got on with the diverse activities in my busy life...

Discovering this forum in 2017, I posted the solution again, and was immediately noticed by an author in the process of compiling a book on the case. He invited me to discuss the theory privately, we then met, and - finding the theory worthy of merit - he decided to include it in his book. Subsequently, he decided to endorse the theory - after comparing all the others - as being, on balance, "the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history."

I don't follow your other point. Have you ever heard of a serious researcher who has not visited the scene of the crime, and undertaken re-enactments, etc. ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have no problem with you being the only person on the planet to state that the case is solved. Your wildly wrong of course but so what you’re used to it by now.

I can’t help noticing, for the umpteenth time, that when you can’t respond properly to a post you change the subject, this time by dipping back to an old post that you’d previously ignored but now feel suddenly compelled to respond to.

[RodCrosby]

I'm a busy guy. I do try to answer all.

Particularly where they contain disinformation or misrepresentation...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course you do

It’s just a pity that you interpret anything that disagrees with you as ‘misrepresentation and Disinformation.’

You need to come up with a new catchphrase. The old ones are becoming tiresome.

[APerno]

absolutely-planned murder alibi establishing 101

Hi!

I am not at all familiar with this murder, but the posts are teasing me into buying the book.

Just my two cents:

Is badgering transportation service personnel really a good way to establish an alibi?

If we go to the extreme, a New York Gangster would have been having lunch with his parish priest at the right time. Granted this guy is in no position to act that 'professionally,' but badgering a few conductors and hoping they will step forward and ID you seems to me a risky alibi; I would expect a well planned murder to create an alibi that would guarantee a witness.

[RodCrosby]

Is badgering transportation service personnel really a good way to establish an alibi?

Welcome!

Just one of the, oh, so many internal contradictions in the delightful case of Wallace, the chess genius who contrived to commit "the perfect murder."

‘The Wallace case is the nonpareil of all murder mysteries...

I call it the impossible murder because Wallace couldn’t have done it, and neither could anyone else...

The Wallace case is unbeatable; it will always be unbeatable.’
Raymond Chandler, in Raymond Chandler Speaking, 1962

[etenguy]

Hi!

I am not at all familiar with this murder, but the posts are teasing me into buying the book.

Just my two cents:

Is badgering transportation service personnel really a good way to establish an alibi?

If we go to the extreme, a New York Gangster would have been having lunch with his parish priest at the right time. Granted this guy is in no position to act that 'professionally,' but badgering a few conductors and hoping they will step forward and ID you seems to me a risky alibi; I would expect a well planned murder to create an alibi that would guarantee a witness.

Hi APerno

Wallace did not rely on tram conductors, he also sought out a policeman and (over?) explained his situation to him and made a point of explaining his situation with a shopkeeper too. Part of the reason his behaviour is considered suspicious, and why some think him guilty, is the sheer number of people he approached and the level of detail he went into with each of them. This, some suggest, smacks of trying to establish an alibi - particularly as it was spread across the whole time he was in the Menlove Gardens area, thus being able to demonstrate how long he was away from his house.