Julie Wallace

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ignoring the obvious...

I just received my copy of Checkmate which I’m looking forward to reading. Congratulations to Mark Loads of new photographs here. Very impressively presented. Worth getting just for the photographs IMO.

[RodCrosby]

OLIVER KC: "What I am putting to you is that everything in that room is consistent with a knock at the front door, and the admission of someone, and the visitor being taken into the parlour ?"

Supt. MOORE: "It is quite possible."

"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... If there was an unknown murderer, he has covered up his traces."
Mr. Justice Wright in Rex v Wallace


Lord Justice Branson asked Mr. Hemmerde KC:
''Assuming the murder was not committed by the appellant, what evidence is there that the telephone call was put through by him?"

The Lord Chief Justice asked Mr. Hemmerde KC
"Are you not really saying that if it be assumed that this man committed the murder, other circumstances fit in with that?"

"Suffice it to say that we are not concerned here with suspicion, however grave, or with theories, however ingenious. Section 4 of the Criminal Appeal Act of 1907 provides that the Court of Criminal Appeal shall allow the appeal if they think that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it cannot be supported having regard to the evidence."
Lord Chief Justice Hewart

"The Court will quash a conviction founded on mere suspicion" [headnote]
Court of Criminal Appeal 19 May 1931(1932) 23 Cr. App. R. 32


Why on earth anyone would waste their time writing a book that ignores all of the above, ending in a raging screed of their personal suspicion, assumption, theory, unbacked, now just as in 1931, by any scintilla of evidence, and only their own prejudice and fancy? [a book that has already been (as badly) written by Murphy, Bartle et al) Yawn...

While ignoring, and even attempting to suppress, actual evidence that does point to the Correct Solution?

(just for starters)
Dolly Atkinson
Gordon Atkinson
Harry Bailey Jnr
Ada Cook
Les Hill
Richard Gordon Parry.... “I have promised my father I will never speak about it – not even for two thousand pounds...”

[RodCrosby]

Factual errors too, like the Police never had any other suspect than Wallace. They later had Parry, obviously, but, even the day after the murder, they were not looking at Wallace.

"Superintendent Moore told our correspondent that the dead woman's injuries were of such a nature that the murderer could not escape without bearing considerable bloodstains. 'Indeed,' said this officer, 'I should think he would be dripping with blood'"
Belfast Telegraph, 21st January 1931

And we know they sent out officers looking for just such a bloodstained man in shelters, pubs, etc.

"All through the night the Liverpool C.I.D. Flying Squad, assisted by every branch of the police service, have been scouring the Merseyside area for the murderer of Mrs. Julia Wallace..."
Belfast Telegraph, 21st January 1931

[RodCrosby]

And the author goes as far as to insinuate Dr. Robert Coope (among others) a liar, just because...yawn... his testimony doesn't suit his pet theory....

Really woeful stuff... No doubt Wallace-ite cranks will lap it up.

[Marko]

Ignoring the obvious...

I just received my copy of Checkmate which I’m looking forward to reading. Congratulations to Mark Loads of new photographs here. Very impressively presented. Worth getting just for the photographs IMO.

Thanks! Hope you enjoy the book!

[Marko]

Well, Marko, you've joined the club of Wallace authors. I'm sure your book will be a welcomed edition to the canon. Personally, I think it is probably the ultimate real-life whodunit, although I think the world divides into roughly three camps: one third believe it was definitely Wallace, one third believe it was definitely not Wallace and one third don't know. To this day, I am plagued by doubts. Wallace cannot be eliminated, yet there has to be doubt that he did it. I would welcome your views - and anybody else's - on the following:

a) Mackintosh - does its burnt presence point more to Wallace as the killer or not?
b) Lights and gas off in the parlour - point more to Wallace or not?
c) Phone call - what was said and timing - more to Wallace or not?
d) Phone call - would Wallace risk being seen by someone near to the phone box and potentially by the conductor and passengers getting on the bus by the phone box and not where he said he got on?
e) Blood splatter and heavy staining on the floor - could Wallace bludgeon his wife and not get some blood on him? And, if he did, how problematic would it be to clean himself up in the time he had?

I suspect you cover these points in your book, but we might as well start the debate now.

AMB

Thanks! I'll address your points when I can (y)

[Herlock Sholmes]

And the author goes as far as to insinuate Dr. Robert Coope (among others) a liar, just because...yawn... his testimony doesn't suit his pet theory....

Really woeful stuff... No doubt Wallace-ite cranks will lap it up.

And delusional, boring Parry obsessives will no doubt hate it.

The ego has landed so I wonder when the thread will be closed. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

[RodCrosby]

And delusional, boring Parry obsessives will no doubt hate it.

The ego has landed so I wonder when the thread will be closed. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

You may recall that it was your late, unlamented, shape-shifting, drug-taking, stalking, hate-spewing, one-time "brother-in-arms" (until you turned on each other in your play-pen) that caused the moderators to intervene. (was it four or five occasions, resulting in thread closure and/or banning of sockpuppets? Remind me...)

NOT me.

But then, I have always noted that facts are not your strong suit...

[Herlock Sholmes]

You may recall that it was your late, unlamented, shape-shifting, drug-taking, stalking, hate-spewing, one-time "brother-in-arms" (until you turned on each other in your play-pen) that caused the moderators to intervene. (was it four or five occasions, resulting in thread closure and/or banning of sockpuppets? Remind me...)

NOT me.

But then, I have always noted that facts are not your strong suit...

And looking in the mirror obviously isn’t yours.

[RodCrosby]

And looking in the mirror obviously isn’t yours.

Guy wants to go *splat* for the.... wait for it.... 8061st time...

Now he's even recycling my witty criticisms of him, from 2 years ago !

That's all he has....

Bugs on my windshield. How to discourage? Reddit?

[RodCrosby]

The ego has landed so....:

And - as I have demonstrated many times - the ego can take-off again - unlike you...

I am, as you know, a qualified pilot.

Whereas you are trapped, obsessively trying to collect silly, worthless, "magic internet points" - day-in, day-out - as a substitute for any real-life achievement....

Yawn...

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s like Groundhog Day.

Same old tedious, childish boasting and schoolyard insults.

Forget the flying Rod and get a new hobby. Buy a metal detector and go hunting around the streets of Liverpool and see if you can find yourself a life.

Drink your Horlicks and off to bed with you and maybe you’ll have a nice dream about Richard Gordon Parry

[RodCrosby]

Buy a metal detector and go hunting...

Don't need metal, when I have crypto. Only 1-in-200 crypto-holders in the world have more crypto than me...

You see, while you've been wasting your life collecting silly, worthless, "magic internet points" [8062...and counting], I've been busy, and very profitable. Think seven figures.... Oh, and mostly tax-free.

Now, if I really wanted to "boast", I could mention solving the Wallace Case, which defeated everyone for nearly ninety years. I'd almost forgotten that one!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your certainly full of crapto.

No one cares how much money you say that you have Rod because no one believes you. Your like a big toddler. My dad’s bigger than your dad.

Yes your theory was a great cut, edit and paste version of Hussey’s theory. Well done. Originality obviously not your strong point.

Oh and yes you’ve been so ‘busy’ that you’ve spent the last few days skulking around the Forum without posting (except one short post about the Titanic) even though there was no Wallace discussion going on. At least I have a reason to be here....posting. Not lurking......but yes I recall you did a lot of lurking around Liverpool at night didn’t you? Why does it annoy you how many posts I’ve made? You just can’t stand anyone having more than you of anything can you? Pretty sad.

People might wonder why such a fabulously wealthy, property owning genius spends his time being disowned by everyone? Why he wastes his ‘valuable’ time on Forums where he just turns up to throw trolling insults (and getting booted for his extremist looney views) Why he absolutely adores wasting time altering Wikipedia entries just so that he can get a much needed boost in self esteem by seeing his name online? Surely Sir Alan Sugar is always looking for your advice?

You’re just an unpleasant Walter Mitty type. A fantasist. A bad joke

[RodCrosby]

Your certainly full of crapto.

No one cares how much money you say that you have Rod because no one believes you. Your like a big toddler. My dad’s bigger than your dad.

Yes your theory was a great cut, edit and paste version of Hussey’s theory. Well done. Originality obviously not your strong point.

Oh and yes you’ve been so ‘busy’ that you’ve spent the last few days skulking around the Forum without posting (except one short post about the Titanic) even though there was no Wallace discussion going on. At least I have a reason to be here....posting. Not lurking......but yes I recall you did a lot of lurking around Liverpool at night didn’t you? Why does it annoy you how many posts I’ve made? You just can’t stand anyone having more than you of anything can you? Pretty sad.

People might wonder why such a fabulously wealthy, property owning genius spends his time being disowned by everyone? Why he wastes his ‘valuable’ time on Forums where he just turns up to throw trolling insults (and getting booted for his extremist looney views) Why he absolutely adores wasting time altering Wikipedia entries just so that he can get a much needed boost in self esteem by seeing his name online? Surely Sir Alan Sugar is always looking for your advice?

You’re just an unpleasant Walter Mitty type. A fantasist. A bad joke

Hilarious!

I told you your fortune (lack-of, actually) several years ago.

And all you've proved, among your multiple non-accomplishments, is that you can't read the English language !

Hussey simply replaces Goodman's Mr.X (Parry) with Mr.Z (Parry) OR Mr.Y (Marsden)


Whereas, I was the FIRST person in the world in 2008, to identify the TRUE SOLUTION...

TWO people; One, Parry, who DID NOT kill Julia, and A.N. Other (NOT Marsden), who DID !

Hussey DOES NOT proffer that solution. [And in any case, I had NOT read Hussey's book in 2008...]

So you can't read, or simply LIE to suit, as you have been called out on - just like your now neutralised sockpuppet-stalker onetime friend - many times before.

And, as true students of the crime will know, my solution was SO original and SO correct that it was actually "lifted" by another author and embellished fantastically into his own execrable theory on the case... But that is another story.

It doesn't annoy me how many posts you make. You are welcome to your surfeit of stupidity, your abundance of asininity... I love your posts...

I get a buzz from vaporizing them... When I've nothing better to do.