Talk:William Herbert Wallace

message: * I'll be removing the following text for non-NPOV, non-citation reasons. The text is verbatim at this Talk: page revision. It reads too much like somebody's private opinion to be part of an encyclopaedic article, and I don't want to be weasel-wordy and dress it up with "some modern commentators feel" phrasing, so I'll just say WP:PROVEIT for now and hope that someone can :) Ecobun (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telephone voice masking 

message: Wallace's Liverpool solicitor, Hector Munro eventually set up a very successful practice in London. He was interviewed not long before his death by a Liverpool journalist who asked him what his views on Wallace were forty years after the case. He replied that he had a great deal of doubt on Wallace's innocence. See: The Final Verdict. Roger Wilkes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.75.41 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unaware of such "evidence." Perhaps he is referring to James Murphy's recent (2001) book, which I find highly speculative... RodCrosby (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wallace

message: Not sure it can really be described as such, as Wallace made legal history with the almost instant quashing of his conviction by the Court of Appeal RodCrosby (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be charged and then found guilty counts as a miscarriage of justice surely. The fact that the conviction was overturned later shows that it was originally a miscarriage. Peterlewis (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fine line, I agree. But the fact he wasn't hanged tips it to my way of thinking, and appears consistent with the article Miscarriage of justice, in that no punishment was inflicted on Wallace. It could in fact be perceived as a Triumph of Justice, rather than a miscarriage! RodCrosby (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscarriages of Justice ?

message: I don't think his article is objective at all, I believe the author is biased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Stop reading articles on Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.235.28 (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Do some bloody work, Tim

message: The article describes the case as "officially unsolved" following the reversal of Wallace's conviction. I am not an expert in English law, but I believe that claim, which has no citation, is incorrect. "Unproven" and "unsolved" are not equivalent legal terms. For example, the Los Angeles police consider the O.J. Simpson case to be solved; his acquittal in court does not mean they have to pretend it is still a mystery and go find someone else to arrest. It appears that similarly, in this case, the police were quite sure they had "officially solved" it, though they did not ultimately win a conviction. Jtcarpet (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, the Liverpool City Police website http://liverpoolcitypolice.co.uk/#/julia-wallace-murder-1931/4552924276 (a tribute site) says "This murder is still recorded as 'undetected'" RodCrosby (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of conviction versus unsolved 

message: I have added this to :Category:1930s in Liverpool due to the significance of the case in the history of the city.  Dunarc (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories