| Author |
Message |
    
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 24
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 5:02 am: | 
|
Tom Slemen notified me that he plans on bringing a book out maybe next year, covering the Wallace Case from the Johnstons angle. Tom told me that some strange things went on in the Johnstons house post-murder. Should be interesting... |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 25
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Whatever "strange" things happened post-murder (and the Johnstones were only there for a few days after, weren't they ?), what will it prove ? What were the sources for this information and when did they reveal it ? Remember, TS already has a Johnstone-hypothesis (which he's trying to 'find' evidence to support ?). I wonder would he stake his 'integrity' on the Johnstones having done it ?
You'd think if he really had solved this so-called "Perfect Murder" he'd have done rather more about publicising the fact and wallow in having us all admire his investigative 'prowess' over the last four years. And yet, he hasn't. He's rather quiet about it.
The best he can do is to cite a previously-unpublished collator of a 240-page historical compendium about Liverpool (see my October 13 post above) where she "credits him with solving the case". Who amongst us is impressed ?
We know nothing of this mystery "Stan" who alledges that J.S. Johnstone made a deathbed confession - only that, according to TS and his partner-in-crime-studies, Keith Andrews, "Stan" was "seriously ill".
The written piece containing the tale of this "confession" also claims that J.S. Johnstone was suffering from senile dementia when he made this claim to Julia's murder.
You know, the more I think about it the more I wonder if the tram drivers were all in collusion that night. One bore a grudge over an unpaid insurance claim and wanted to get back at William over it. I'm going to claim that a reliable source, who's currently being held - unjustly - in a lunatic asylum told me that it's 'deffo' true and not provide any supporting evidence whatsoever. Just claim I've solved it. Might even get some unknown scribe to credit me in next month's "Pie-Eaters Monthly Amateur Digest". Yeah, I can even see it as a film: Confessions of a Tram Driver ("They drove him away so they could make him pay").
FADE OUT:
(Message edited by Rigby on October 21, 2005) |
Stephen Miller
Sergeant
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
Mike what about this for a crackpot theory: The Cleaner did it!
Best Wishes
Steve
|
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 26
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 11:54 am: |
|
...and wiped away the evidence.
You're on to something 
|
Stephen Miller
Sergeant
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Maybe so Mike and she also may have wiped all the fingerprints from the nursery at Hopewell thus allowing the Lindbergh Baby kidnappers to escape justice
Best Wishes
Steve
|
Granger
Police Constable
Username: Granger
Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 8:43 am: |
|
Having now read all four, of what I consider the important reference books on Wallace (Bridges, Goodman, Wilkes and Murphy) I am bewildered at some the major irregularities of important evidence. here are but a few to begin with:-
1. Did Qualtrough give a time of 7.30pm for his appointment? Unless I have missed it, Murphy, so precise with his details, does not include the time when referring to the telephone conversation.(page 23). If Wallace was Qualtrough, surely it would have been in his interests not to stipulate an appointment time for the evening of the murder. Surely it was imperative to his 'alibi' that he must give himself as much time as he could before leaving No 29, particularly, as, according to one theory, it was vital that Julia had to be seen by the milk lad, Alan Close, whose exact time of delivery time Wallace must have guessed could be flexible. So was 7.30pm stipulated in Qualtroughs 'phone conversation with Sam Beattie?
2. The photograph of the front parlour clearly indicates the chair, complete with violin case, that JW was supposedly sitting on when she was first attacked, as being to the left of the fire. Goodman states that it was on the right of the fireplace(page 38).
3. Goodman criticises MacFall for not carrying out a test on the contents of JW's stomach.(page 73). However, Murphy clearly indicates that such a test was carried out, and gives details of the contents. (page 57)
4. The much quoted line 'Whatever have they used?' was, according to Murphy, uttered by Flo Johnstone. Goodman and Wilkes state it was Wallace.
5. How do you spell Johnston(e)? Take your pick, or be like Goodman, spell Florrie's with an 'e' and John's without.
As if this case isn't difficult enough!!!!!
PS Sorry about the edits!!
(Message edited by granger on October 23, 2005)
(Message edited by granger on October 23, 2005)
(Message edited by granger on October 23, 2005)
(Message edited by granger on October 23, 2005)
(Message edited by granger on October 23, 2005) |
Stephen Miller
Sergeant
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
Hi Granger hope you are well.
1 There are a few differences regarding Qualtrough's telephone conversation with Beattie
eg some writers mention "Girl's 21st" and others "my daughters 21st"
2 It may depend on which way you view the fireplace whether or not chair is on left or right.
Now if JW was sat on the chair/settee how would a killer approach her with presumably an iron bar and she does not notice it.
3 Don't remember the criticism about stomach contents but Goodman lambasts McFall for not using thermometer to obtain time of death.
Instead he relied on advance of Rigor and did not even make notes whilst he was doing this.
Steve
You can't argue with a sick mind
|
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 28
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:09 am: |
|
1. You're saying that if the plotter was WHW then by not stipulating a time he's got some inbuilt flexibility in his scheme, yes ?
Yet do you not think that a time would *have* to be given ? Else Wallace would be on his way to a meeting the next night at an uncertain time. Whilst people might often say 'pop round tomorrow night' informally to friends etc, you'd think that for a more formal meeting with an insurance agent to discuss what is essentially a business agreement, people would tend to try to appear 'businesslike' and state a time (even if it didn't matter). No ? And they'd probably be wearing their best bib and tucker for the 'meeting' too.
If the caller in the phone-box was Wallace then he'd have had to at least thought about a time, in case Beattie/whoever asked "What time ?". If I had been taking that message for William I'd have asked exactly that question. Not all Chess Players are so socially-introverted and backward enough to not be able to take something like a telephone message properly (though I don't doubt that many are  ).
And if it wasn't William making/faking the call then the caller wouldn't want any flexibility on Wallace being there, would he ? Surely he wants him as far away as possible ? And here's an odd thing to my mind: if Julia is attacked between 6:35pm and 7pm (probable) then that assailant is striking whilst Wallace is still within a few hundred yards of the house (should he have forgotten something and need to return). Why not wait until he was the optimum distance away (i.e. maximum time to return) ?
Perhaps Murphy made an oversight in not stating the time or perhaps it's not in the Police Court/Assizes transcripts ? And came from a later interview ? I'd find that hard to believe though. I'm not sure where it comes from.
2. & 3. Look like Goodman oversights and testify to his un-thoroughness.
Another (obvious) observation which springs to mind: What if some unknown event had happened that night ? Such as an unexpected caller at 6:45pm or a visitor who is let in and who then stays while WHW leaves for his 'meeting'. In that instance a cursing WHW would never be able to use that plan again, would he ? (Or any other ?) It's all so "now or never", IYSWIM.
Mike. |
Granger
Police Constable
Username: Granger
Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Hi Steve, Hi MTR
The point I was trying to get across has been a little lost. The discrepancies I mentioned were not suppositions, but plain facts, facts which somewhere along the line have got distorted, or dare I suggest, made up to support whoevers theory. Papers and documents must still exist verifying the truth. Why can't these writers at least get those facts correct. OK we only have Beattie''s testimony as to exactly what was conveyed to him over the 'phone, but what he said, in sworn evidence, must be on the court transcript. (or is it?).
Yes Steve, the 'daughter' or 'girls' 21st is another example. It really doesn't matter which, but again, Beattie must have said one or the other, so why was it not relayed into a book correctly.
Sorry Steve, 'depends on which way you view the fireplace'!! Surely as a viewer looks at it, not from the fireplace's point of view. If this is so you will have to 'hand' a lot of evidence! (LOL)
I agree a given appointment time is probably totally irrelevant, but as your replies suggest, whether or not a time was quoted is extremely relevant to any theories we all might have. We have to see it as Wallace would want it to seem. Would he, or would he not have said it? At present I would like to know was an appointment time given, or has it, over the years just got included as part of the telephone conversation to make Wallace's journey to Mossley Hill more exacting.
|
Granger
Police Constable
Username: Granger
Post Number: 6
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
I think I read somewhere that Wallace had not visited the chess club for three months prior to the eve of the murder. Presumably he did not play any of his fortnightly 2nd Class Championship chess games displayed on the notice board. If so it's a wonder he was still welcomed!!! |
Stephen Miller
Sergeant
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Hi Granger whether or not the caller said Girls 21st or Daughter's 21st is IMO important in that it brings Parry into the equation one way or the other with his girlfriend being 21 around that time but that is just a theory of mine or it may be that the caller had Parry in mind when he was setting up the plan
Like a lot of things in this case whether or not a time was stipulated can be argued for and against WHW--- Personally I take Goodmans version mainly because the phone call is given a lot more attention than in later books. I'll have to take a look at Yseult Bridges version later if I can find it as all my books are stuffed in a cupboard at the moment sacrilege I know but we need the room at the moment due to frequent visits of our 6 week old Grandson.
MTR if JW was murdered between 6-35 & 7pm yes of course the killer ran the risk of WHW returning for something but if he left it later he ran the risk of WHW returning having found that the address he had been given was bogus.
Now in Murphy's book the autopsy report is given and the first sentence says: I found the body to be of a normal 55 year old woman
Surely it would have been noticed if she was 70 and not in her 50's?
all the best
steve
You can't argue with a sick mind
|
Stephen Miller
Sergeant
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Hi Granger Have just had a quick look at Yseult Bridges book Two Studies in Crime and 7-30 is mentioned in the telephone conversation.
I feel like MTR does that if it was Wallace he would have needed a time to be stipulated for the appointment so that he had an excuse for leaving the house at a particular time of night.
I still can't get away from what Stewart P Evans said on the old boards when he said the clue lies in the phone call or words to that effect and he thoght WHW guilty.
Anyone got any thoughts?
Steve
You can't argue with a sick mind
|
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 29
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Was Stewart saying that the clue lied in the actual spoken content of the phone call ? If someone would kindly dredge their CD out ...
Stephen Miller Wrote:
MTR if JW was murdered between 6-35 & 7pm yes of course the killer ran the risk of WHW returning for something but if he left it later he ran the risk of WHW returning having found that the address he had been given was bogus.
What I was saying was that there was an "optimum" time to kill Julia with William far away and perhaps 'inbetween trams' for his return journey.
Is it known if any buses were a more direct - or even a quicker - route to the Allerton Road area ? And was a tram significantly cheaper than a taxicab ?
Mike. |
Granger
Police Constable
Username: Granger
Post Number: 7
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Mike: James Murphy devotes some pages to the Liverpool tram and bus services. Very, very complicated to a non scouser, but he comes up with a extremely good case for Wallace having used a bus after after making the Quantrough 'phone call, stating also that the bus route was quarter mile shorter. I also understand that the police checked out car hire/ taxi companies. Wallace could not have used a bus on the evening of the murder, (at least inwards) because his journey was well alibied, almost to the minute from when he boarded the first tram. I am not so sure about his return journey, and have a gut feeling that his return trip, and time before he entered No 29, has flaws.
PS: You are a clever boy if you didn't know about Murphy's bus theory! I gather no one else has ever thought of it. |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 30
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
What I'm trying to understand is why William used the trams at all (weren't there two - or was it three ? - on the outward leg towards Menlove Gardens ?) ? That is, why did he take a tram if a bus or a cab might have been more appropriate (cheaper ?, quicker ?, less changes ?). Because, as we know, he made certain that he was witnessed on those trams whereas on a bus or via a single cab he might have been just another anonymous, forgettable passenger. So besides any other considerations, and with the theory of "Williamdunnit" in mind, did he purposely choose the most 'visible' form of transportation that he could ?
Mike. |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 31
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Do any of the books postulate possible 'triggers' for William wanting to do away with Julia ? I don't simply mean motive; I'm wondering if there were any significant recent events or dates which might have caused this fifty-two year-old man who was (let's ignore his defence team's presentation of him and speculate) going through a "mid-life crisis" to want to rid himself of an ageing, burdensome wife ?
Mike. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 782
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
MTR,
I don't know much about this case, only having read a couple of articles, so I won't presume to offer any informed opinions.
But, in so far as your query about why he used the tram at all, even in famous cases sometimes the answers are quite mundane. That is, some people are confirmed users of one form of transportation only despite the occasional delay or inconvenience. I know that is quite true in New York City in regard to bus and subway travel.
I have no idea if that applied to Wallace and only throw this out as a possibility.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 32
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Thanks Don,
And of course you're quite right. Perhaps the tram was simply his preferred way to travel about the city. But then again perhaps it wasn't. In which case his choice of transportation that night appears all the more intriguing.
Mike. |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 25
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
WHW outward journey on the night of the 20th January. He used 3 trams. He took the no.26 tram from Belmont Road to Smithdown Lane, then the 5a from Smithdown Lane to Penny Lane, then the no.7 from Penny Lane to Menlove Avenue. The return journey (according to WHW) he took the no.8 tram from Allerton Road, and the same route back. Incidentally, the no.26 bus is still used on the same route, with the no.27 returning (as in WHW day!) If taxis were anything then like they are now (cost) I think I would have used a tram! I think a taxi driver would have remembered taking WHW to Menlove Gardens (as an alibi, if he had have used that method). Also, WHW would have had enough 'witnesses' in M.G.N/S/W, to corroborate him being there.
Re: Johnstons - I would like to know if they had an alibi for the dates when the 'Anfield Housebreaker' was at work. According to Tom Slemen that was who The Johnstons were. I find it a bit too much just to take the word of someone suffering from senile dementia - if he said he was Napoleon Buonaparte would we believe it? Barry made a good point though, when he stated to me that at least four of the Johnstons lived next door, and with very thin walls, NONE of them heard anything (with the exception of Florence Johnston who claimed she heard two thumps at approximately 8.25).
Mark  |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 33
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:39 pm: |
|
In retrospect, WHW did have enough 'witnesses' in M.G.N/S/W to corroborate him being there but from a planning POV the tram journey maximised his chances of being seen en route. Incidentally, I assume that this was also the cheapest way to get there and back but I don't know for sure (or by how much). Nor if it mattered. Would 'The Pru' have reimbursed WHW his travelling expenses for such trips around the city ? In which case, on a wintry night in January a taxi would be have been a far more sensible (and professional) way to go about it. But, again from a planning POV, you can't guarantee that a single driver is going to remember you.
Mike. |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 26
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 4:54 am: |
|
The trams WHW took were:
Belmont Road - Smithdown Lane: No.26
Smithdown Rd - Penny Lane: No.5
Penny Lane - Menlove Avenue: No.5a
Mark |
Granger
Police Constable
Username: Granger
Post Number: 8
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:07 am: |
|
Actually I was incorrect saying WHW having an almost minute by minute alibi throughout his journey to Mossley Hill. The police appeared to have no sightings of him on the No 26, and I believe no one came forward to confirm he was seen walking, or whatever, to the No 26 tram stop. Curious this, as I would have thought WHW (if it be he) would have gone out of his way to give himself an alibi ASAP when he left No 29. Can someone also tell me how they knew WHW was on that tram at exactly 7.06. I gather there was some sort of timing system on the Liverpool tram network at that time. Murphy says somewhere that if only Wallace had kept his tickets.(but then that's probably the reason he didn't keep them)
Goodman intimates that once the the police heard about the Qualtrough phone call they didn't really want to find anyone who could prove Wallace's innocence!!! At that point, they had become so frustrated with the case, that was it, they would have Wallace.
Goodman certainly did not think much of the Liverpool police at that time, saying that because of the 1919 police strike, local criminals, overnight, joined the police force, and in some instances were investigating their own crimes!
|
SPE
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 2:26 am: |
|
It is pretty obvious that Wallace murdered his wife. The main points to be considered are -
(a) The telephone call.
(b) The motive.
(c) The method of killing (the real key to what took place).
|
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 36
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 8:56 am: |
|
Perhaps you could expand on that, SPE ? (!)
What is it about (a), (b) and (c) which you find to be so compellingly indicative of William having done it ?
Mike. |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 27
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
I don't know exactly what makes it "pretty obvious" to WHW guilt in the three suggestions. A) Nothing cast-iron to prove it WAS WHW making the call.
B) As far as I'm aware, there is NO motive.
C) Method: If Julia would have been poisoned maybe point C) would be more valid (as WHW was into chemistry/sciences).
Mark |
Granger
Police Constable
Username: Granger
Post Number: 9
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Nothing cast iron. What about the missing poker...LOL!!?? |
Granger
Police Constable
Username: Granger
Post Number: 10
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 1:15 pm: |
|
Murphy, I believe, wrote on the case, that you don't need a motive to murder. I am not sure whether or not I can agree with this statement. If Julia was killed because of someone's split second moment of anger, could that be construed as a motive? ie. he lost his temper.. motive? But here we go again, as always with the Wallace case, if he was the killer, then it was quite obvious, it was meticulously planned by him.
Did Wallace have any idea how old Julia really was? Could there have been another woman? Or, had he just had enough of his predictable lifestyle.
|
Stephen Miller
Sergeant
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Hi MTR I presume Stewart was referring to the words spoken in the telephone conversation and I do remember he said he might publish something on the case one day--hope he does
Also he had a theory that they were in the having an argument in the parlour so that they would not be overheard by the neighbours presumably if he is correct WHW contrived the argument and killed JW during it.
all the best
steve
You can't argue with a sick mind
|
Stephen Miller
Sergeant
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Hi Granger you don't need a motive to prove someone murdered another but for us discussing the case a motive helps
Murphy if I remember correctly thought that WHW had come to resent JW due to her not being interested in the same things as he was also he may have found out about her real age and his resentment grew over a period of time.
all the best
steve
You can't argue with a sick mind
|
Stephen Miller
Sergeant
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Hi Granger regarding your point about WHW establishing his alibi as quickly as possible his first opportunity would have been on the no. 26 tram but he made no enquiries about Menlove Gardens East.
This of course has been used to argue the case for his innocence but as with most things in this case it can be argued the other way
eg. if he had been told on that first tram journey that Menlove Gardens East did not exist he would not have had much of an excuse to continue looking for it so therefore bringing himself back to the murder scene too soon.
However on his later tram journeys he had been told this enough time would have elapsed before he got back home.
all the best
steve
You can't argue with a sick mind
|
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 28
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Hi Stephen
He asked for Menlove Gardens East though at Smithdown Road - a mere twenty minutes from 29 W.S. Someone there could have told him it didn't exist. If WHW was the killer, wouldn't it have been safer for him to just ask for Menlove Gardens? He took a big risk by asking for 'East' at that stage. Okay, it could be argued that WHW would have gone anyway and stated the address might have been 'West.'
Mark |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 29
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
James Murphy states in his book that (amongst others) neither baker's boy Neal Norbury or Amy Wallace mentioned Julia having a cold. In fact, Neal Norbury stated that he spoke to Julia on the evening of the 20th and that she said she thought she had bronchitis (and that she was wearing a scarf-like garment around her neck). Amy Wallace said when she visited Julia that afternoon that 'she was in good health apart from a slight cold'
Mark |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 37
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Mark Bloch wrote:
He asked for Menlove Gardens East though at Smithdown Road - a mere twenty minutes from 29 W.S. Someone there could have told him it didn't exist. If WHW was the killer, wouldn't it have been safer for him to just ask for Menlove Gardens?...
Good point. Whose word do we have that this is what he asked for ? William's ? The tram driver ? Other ?
Mark Bloch wrote:
James Murphy states in his book that (amongst others) neither baker's boy Neal Norbury or Amy Wallace mentioned Julia having a cold. In fact, Neal Norbury stated that he spoke to Julia on the evening of the 20th and that she said she thought she had bronchitis (and that she was wearing a scarf-like garment around her neck). Amy Wallace said when she visited Julia that afternoon that 'she was in good health apart from a slight cold'
Might JM have had a reason to discount Neal Norbury ? Or is this an oversight on his part ?
Mike. |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 30
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Mike-
Apparently conductor Thomas Phillips said WHW asked for Menlove Gardens East at Smithdown Lane.
Re: Neal Norbury & Amy Wallace - Murphy book - who knows? |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 39
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
What's your source for the Neal Norbury/Amy Wallace info, Mark ?
|
Granger
Sergeant
Username: Granger
Post Number: 11
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:10 am: |
|
Sorry can't get the hand of how to quote previous postings!
Mark: James Murphy does in fact state that Julia Wallace did tell Neil Norbury that she had a 'slight touch of bronchitis'}. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1645
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
|
Hi all
While the supposed site of the fictitious "Menlove Gardens East" was only twenty minutes away by tram from Smithdown Road, coming as I do from Liverpool, and knowing the myriad of roads in the Penny Lane area and off Menlove Avenue, I believe that Wallace could probably count on there not being anyone in earshot who might know the truth. Probably most of the passengers would have been going to other locations in Allerton or Garston and would not be familiar with the geography of Menlove Gardens.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 42
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
You Wrote:
...Wallace could probably count on there not being anyone in earshot who might know the truth. Probably most of the passengers would have been going to other locations in Allerton or Garston and would not be familiar with the geography of Menlove Gardens.
If you're planning a murder surely you'd want as few 'probablies' in your plan as possible ? I'm not currently planning any murders myself but I imagine the foregoing to be 'probably' quite reasonable 
Wallace apparently asked a tram driver for MGE; do you not agree that it would have been a reasonable assumption that a person of that occupation would 'probably' have been au fait with the Liverpool streets on and around his tram-route ? Any one of the three tram-drivers to whom he spoke could have stopped the entire plan there and then. Allegedly, Wallace gambles that his plan will not succumb to any such geographically-aware driver and boards the tram like someone who isn't staking his life on it. When, if he's just killed Julia, that's exactly what he is doing.
Mike. |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 31
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
MTR:
I was scanning some of the papers on microfiche here in Liverpool and both Amy Wallace and Neal Norbury state it in (I believe) the Evening Express.
Granger:
I think I recall Murphy stating that neither Amy Wallace nor Neal Norbury mentioned JW having a cold. You state that Murphy mentions NN saying JW had bronchitis? This is a contradiction by Murphy then...
Mark |
Granger
Sergeant
Username: Granger
Post Number: 12
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
MTR
Murphy. page 26:
'.......He (Neil Norbury) comments that Julia does not look very well., and she smiles at his concern. telling him she has a touch of bronchitis...'
Mind you this has no relevance to the actual murder, other than to reinforce my point that not even the basic reported evidence in the case can be taken as being correct. |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 43
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 6:09 am: |
|
...but it may also point to Julia's general health decline (?) Was she a smoker ?
Mike. |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 44
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 6:13 am: |
|
Which reminds me, nobody tacked my earlier question about triggers so allow me to offer it again  :
Do any of the books postulate possible 'triggers' for William wanting to do away with Julia ? I don't simply mean motive; I'm wondering if there were any significant recent events or dates which might have caused this fifty-two year-old man who was (let's ignore his defence team's presentation of him and speculate) going through a "mid-life crisis" to want to rid himself of an ageing, burdensome wife ?
Mike. |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 32
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
MTR-
I can't say I've read of any 'triggers'. He wasn't too bad financially, there doesn't seem to have been another woman (although as you probably know Hayhurst (Lancashire Murders) does make reference that he could have befriended another woman). Some of the books stipulate that WHW might have thought Julia was 'intelligently inferior' as the time they went to see an Ibsen play and Wallace wrote in his diary that Julia 'couldn't seem to grasp the idea'. Could he have done it just to spice up an otherwise tedious life? That is the idea I get from some sources, but I am not convinced.
Mark |
Granger
Sergeant
Username: Granger
Post Number: 13
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
MTR: I have read totally conflicting descriptions of JW. In one reference she is reported to have been highly intelligent, speaking fluent French etc etc. Another descibes her as being quite the opposite.
I cannot find any obvious 'triggers'. Checked birthdays, wedding anniversary. Sorry, but as to whether it was a full moon!!!.
I have just read a short chapter on WHW from a book entitled 'Murders and Mysteries' edited by John Canning.
The article was written by Colin Wilson, and in places is extremely inaccurate (The Wallace's lived in Wolverton Crescent!). However it contains a remarkable report that a certain Kenneth Gunnell, parliamentary candidate from Redruth , said that Amy wallace, Julia's sister in law, was a dominant lady, and when in Malaya with her husband in the 1920's, indulged in 'beating black boys'. Mr Gunnell went on to speculate that the murder weapon was the metal handle of a riding whip. Curiously a dog's lead was found at No 29. |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 47
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
Cheers Mark/Barry,
I wondered if there'd been a birthday or an anniversary which could have helped to concentrate William's mind in some way (either just past or imminent).
Mike. |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 33
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Hi Granger -
Yes, I have that essay by Colin Wilson, and if I remember correctly it states that Amy was into 'flagellation', and the idea that it was possibly Amy who murdered Julia. I also recall that someone stated that WHW would 'run a mile' from someone like Amy, never mind having an affair with her!
Mark |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 34
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
John Parkes stated that on the night of the murder, he was notified of the killing by PC Ken Wallace - how ironic.
Mark |
alec timmins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
does anyone know the location of Julia Wallaces grave |
Alexandra
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
If Wallace would have taken a taxi (and been innocent of the crime) and struck up a conversation with the driver concerning Menlove Gardens East, and the driver would have said that it didn't exist, Wallace could have returned home earlier and caught the murderer in the act.
On the other hand, if Wallace was guilty, I think the cab driver COULD remember Wallace (establishing an alibi) - Wallace could bring up the name of 'Qualtrough' and Menlove Gardens, and even possibly give him a generous tip.
 |
Robert J. McLaughlin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 1:24 am: |
|
Hi Steve,
I keep trying to reach you via e-mail but the message keeps bouncing back to me. Could you contact me through my home address if you still have it, or my public one lacassagne@email.com
Thanks,
Robert |
