Talk:William Herbert Wallace

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Recent deletions

There has recently (since User:Marktreut's edit of the 15th July, at least) been a spate of deletions to this article, and we have lost headings and references. I would like to reinstate those sections, unless anyone has any concerns regarding reputations of the living. If you have, an anonymous note here would be useful!

To my understanding all the persons named in this article as suspects, alternative suspects or victims are dead, so this article does not fall under the rule of WP:LIVING.

Arguably, case details, book references, and popular culture references should be moved to a separate page.

Ecobun 18:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I changed my entry on Willam Herbert Wallace because it had been vandalised by another user. The entry dealt with the known facts surrounding Wallace and the murder he was acquitted of in 1931. The vandal who altered it did so by laying the page out in a different style - which I did not object to - but then saw fit to add his own and other people's theories, which implicated another person, now dead, who cannot defend himself. This is grossly insulting to the man's descendants, who have made their displeasure known publicly and, tired of the continued refrerences to the dead man, are in the process of sueing two authors who have published books on the case. It ill suits Wikipedia to permit this slander of a deceased person to appear on it's pages. My 'vandalism' consisted of removing the references to the deceased person and left the article as I had originally written it - a statement of the known facts of the Wallace murder and his later acquittal, nothing more. I have several other articles on Wikipedia, none of which the genius who altered the Wallace one has yet interfered with, though I await this with interest. For Wikipedia to permit factual articles to be supplemented by bar-room theories cobbled together by hack authors and immature contributors with too much time on their hands says much about it's aims and accuracy. I have no interest whether I am banned from contributing or not. There does not seem to be much point in making factual entries, which are then left open for other people to alter with non-proven facts and the changes made permanent by Wikipedia. -- User_talk:86.130.136.240 17:37 (or later), 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Telephone voice masking

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)[reply]

Not enough notice was taken of this alleged attempt by Wallace to 'set-up' an alibi process. The Prosocution claimed that Wallace phoned his friend in the chess club and altered his voice to make the 'Qualtrough' bogus appointment for the following night. However it is virtually impossible for somebody to alter their voice while phoning a friend. Anybody can try this experiment so it is certain that Wallace did NOT make the call. It can only have been the murderer. Another lost opportunity by the Defence.

The Killing of Julia Wallace

Jonathan Goodman, the author of The Killing of Julia Wallace (1969), died recently. In his obituary notice in The Guardian, Wednesday 126 March 2008, James Morton writes that Goodman became convinced that William Wallace was indeed not responsible for his wife's violent death. Together with his friend and fellow crime writer Richard Whittington-Egan, he challenged the man he believed to be guilty.

Mr Morton goes on, 'Although subsequent evidence has shown that Wallce probably was the killer...'

I should be very interested to know what this evidence is since, with my very limited knowledge of the case, I find it inconceivable that William Wallace battered his wife to death with a blunt intrument, having first set up an elaborate alibi so as to escape the consequences.

In addition, I have always clung to the cas and its outcome - Wallace's vindication and release - as a rare example of the English judicial system responding to a self-evident truth.

Wallace

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)[reply]

Archangel42 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The above earlier reference is to a comment, not evidence, made by Liverpool journalist Roger Wilkes in his book, The Final Verdict published twenty years before that of Murphy. Wilkes had the benefit of actually speaking to Munro not long before his death, as well as other witnesses then still alive, something modern authors or those who speculate on the case did not enjoy and who are therefore considerably less qualified to comment on.

Miscarriages of Justice ?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]