Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

HEMMERDE KC: You had taken it down as R. M. Qualtrough, 25 Menlove Gardens East, Mossley Hill ?
BEATTIE: Yes, quite.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And of course, the alibi - according to the Police case itself - did not depend on the red-herring of the trams and the mythical Menlove Gardens East, anyhow.

It depended on...

a milk-boy randomly arriving at precisely the time to permit Wallace to launch a traceless homicidal attack with superhuman rapidity and efficiency, and yet still arrive at the corner of Menlove Gardens West at exactly the same time he would have arrived if he was entirely innocent...

Savour that IMPROBABILITY...

And the sheer malice and incompetence of the Liverpool Police...

Misinformation alert! - the milk boy didn’t arrive at precisely the time, he arrived late, and Wallace still killed her.


“And the sheer malice and incompetence of the Liverpool Police”

Accept for when they searched for the weapon of course. Then they were meticulous and scrupulous of course

[Herlock Sholmes]

Correct, moste. He tried 25 Menlove Gardens West [the lady answered the door], then traversed North and South, discovering there were only even numbers there...

EXACTLY!

So why, on so many occasions, have you kept going on about Constable Serjeant suggesting Wallace try Menlove Avenue as an argument against the FACT that he’d told him that there was categorically no MGE. You’ve always claimed that the Menlove Avenue suggestion gave Wallace a believable reason for continuing his search.

But he didn’t check 25 Menlove Avenue!!!!!

So the justification for Wallace’s continued search after being told by a Police Officer that there was no such place crumbles to dust.

Ok....you can start wriggling now.

[Herlock Sholmes]

OK, so his badgering was quite extensive and at multiple locations; I take it then for those that think him guilty his behavior is judged as over-kill.

Especially since he wasn’t a complete stranger in that area. He didn’t know of MGE but he’d been in the vicinity over a dozen times.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For an insurance agent, with a scent of a hefty commission?

Well...

in a unique act (one of several in this case), after he was arrested, Wallace's insurance trade union held a secret mock trial in London, heard all the evidence for prosecution and defence, held a secret ballot, and unanimously decided to defray the cost of Wallace's legal defence with union funds...

We might suppose that they, in 1931, had a good handle on what sounded like a plausible or implausible story...

Unlike the jury.

So you’re now claiming that Wallace’s trade union are acceptable arbiters of justice in such a complex case? It’s not exactly unheard of for friends, family and acquaintances to believe that someone was capable of such a horrible crime.

[RodCrosby]

EXACTLY!

So why, on so many occasions, have you kept going on about Constable Serjeant suggesting Wallace try Menlove Avenue as an argument against the FACT that he’d told him that there was categorically no MGE. You’ve always claimed that the Menlove Avenue suggestion gave Wallace a believable reason for continuing his search.

But he didn’t check 25 Menlove Avenue!!!!!

So the justification for Wallace’s continued search after being told by a Police Officer that there was no such place crumbles to dust.

Ok....you can start wriggling now.

Nope....

when Wallace spoke to PC Sargent, and the policeman suggested 25 Menlove Avenue, he was on Allerton Road, some third of a mile from 25 Menlove Avenue (which is close to where he had got off the tram some 25 minutes previously).

Wallace then asked where he might see a directory, and the policeman pointed along Allerton Road, mentioning the post office.

Wallace then walked in that direction, which is also in the direction of 25 Menlove Avenue. The post office did not have a directory, so Wallace crossed the road to try at Alldays Newsagents, who did have a directory.

While flicking through the directory, Wallace would have noticed the following....

[RodCrosby]

Ergo...
Wallace might well have decided to try 25 Menlove Avenue, but the directory revealed it was pointless. By now Wallace had spent nearly 40 minutes on this wild-goose chase and not unreasonably decided to call it a night, and go home...

So once again, you demonstrate ignorance of the basic facts of the case, and have nothing to offer but disinformation, prejudice and fancy.

[RodCrosby]

Unlike the jury.

So you’re now claiming that Wallace’s trade union are acceptable arbiters of justice in such a complex case? It’s not exactly unheard of for friends, family and acquaintances to believe that someone was capable of such a horrible crime.

The jury's verdict, as we know, was set aside in a unique decision, because it was "unreasonable, and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence."

And there is no need to add straw-man arguments to your bulging catalogue of logical fallacies. I am not claiming anything of the kind...
For the record, there is no suggestion that any of the insurance men who gathered in London knew Wallace personally.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ergo...
Wallace might well have decided to try 25 Menlove Avenue, but the directory revealed it was pointless. By now Wallace had spent nearly 40 minutes on this wild-goose chase and not unreasonably decided to call it a night, and go home...

So once again, you demonstrate ignorance of the basic facts of the case, and have nothing to offer but disinformation, prejudice and fancy.

Nice try Rod

You have no way of knowing or even guessing that Wallace intended to go to Menlove Avenue.

What obviously happened was that Serjeant told Wallace that there was no such place as Menlove Gardens East but as he wanted to get on with his rounds he suggested that he might try Menlove Avenue. Quite naturally, for anyone with a modicum of intelligence and common sense, Wallace would have thought ‘well that would be a complete waste of time and energy as Beattie was quite specific about the address being Menlove Gardens East. When I said ‘west’ he said ‘no East.’ It was a very simple message which he wrote down. Beattie is an intelligent man who couldn’t possibly have confused Menlove Gardens East with Menlove Avenue.’

With that, Wallace asked about a directory, indicating that he had no intention of going to Menlove Avenue.

Your wriggling again Rodders. Take off the blinkers.

[RodCrosby]

You have no way of knowing or even guessing that Wallace intended to go to Menlove Avenue.

I don't need to know.

I merely have to demonstrate that your assertions to the contrary are founded on disinformation, prejudice and fancy.

Which I have no difficulty in doing...

[Herlock Sholmes]

The jury's verdict, as we know, was set aside in a unique decision, because it was "unreasonable, and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence."

And there is no need to add straw-man arguments to your bulging catalogue of logical fallacies. I am not claiming anything of the kind...
For the record, there is no suggestion that any of the insurance men who gathered in London knew Wallace personally.

We might suppose that they, in 1931, had a good handle on what sounded like a plausible or implausible story...

More wriggling

Why mention this at all if you were not implying that the union’s opinion was a valid assessment of whether Wallace was guilty or innocent?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't need to know.

I merely have to demonstrate that your assertions to the contrary are founded on disinformation, prejudice and fancy.

Which I have no difficulty in doing...

Feeble.

I’m bored with exposing your biased and inept interpretations.

At least when Antony discusses the case (and this is a man that favours your ‘theory’ let’s remember) he will concede points. He accepts that Wallace could have been guilty. He accepts that your theory might not be true. He accepts that some aspects of the case point to Wallace over anyone else.

You are the only person in the world who laughably claims infallibility on this case and for that you expose your obvious limitations. You are a collater of information...nothing more. Your knowledge of the facts of the case is excellent after many years of looking into it and researching it. Your interpretations though are woefully blinkered and biased by your preconception of Wallace’s innocence. The problem is you have deluded yourself into thinking that you’ve come up with THE brilliant solution and your inflated ego has run rampant.

You are rapidly becoming a laughable figure.

[RodCrosby]

More wriggling

Why mention this at all if you were not implying that the union’s opinion was a valid assessment of whether Wallace was guilty or innocent?

Because I choose my words more carefully than you do...

I said 'plausible'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because I choose my words more carefully than you do...

I said 'plausible'.

To leave yourself a little chink to wriggle out of things you mean.

[OneRound]

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...

Rod - thanks for your consideration and answer.

Whilst some suspect Wallace did it (I appreciate you definitely don't), there was never justification for the jury's verdict. I see some parallels with past discussions over on the A6 thread although the defendant there was particularly handicapped by police non-disclosures and his own lies.

Regards,
OneRound