Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

Rod’s ‘scenario’ is that after Wallace left for MGE the Accomplice turns up at the door claiming to be Mr Qualtrough. The idea is that there had been a mix up with the message. Qualtrough then asks if he can come in to await Wallace’s return. Julia was know to be very reluctant to let people in when Wallace wasn’t there. Wallace gave a list of people that Juliawould have let in because she knew them (Parry was on the list of course.) And so, as Wallace himself said that Julia would have only allowed someone in that she knew, Parry needed Wallace to have specifically mentioned the name Qualtrough to her so that when he arrived at the door she’d have at least heard of him and might have let him in.

If Wallace hadn’t mentioned the name Qualtrough to Julia....and there was absolutely no reason to suspect that he might....then she wouldn’t have let a stranger into the house.

But I've just exploded this claim as both unfounded and illogical, even allowing for the entirely speculative "If...."

[Herlock Sholmes]

The guy turns up.
"Hello, I'm Qualtrough. I telephoned the chess-club last night to arrange a meeting with Mr. Wallace tonight."
We know for certain Julia would have recognised the last two facts (she told Amy so only three hours before), and we have no evidence she would have not recognised the first (just hopeful theorising)...

Wriggling Rod Crosby strikes again!

We are talking about an alleged plan.

Plans categorically do not rely completely on luck. I’ll repeat...they do not!

Parry could have absolutely no reason to assume or even suspect that William would have gone into any details about his evenings business. Whether about mentioning Qualtrough or MGE.

There was every chance that he might just have said “oh by the way, I have to go out on business tonight dear. I shan’t be long.”

Therefore it’s not a plan.

It’s a fingers crossed hope for a big chunk of luck. And when we combine that with all the other effort made in the preparation of the plan we can see it for what it is.

Simply not believable!

[Herlock Sholmes]

So there was no known motive, as accepted by the Police and Prosecution.

To attempt to offer one (still less demand that there was some unknown motive) is mere prejudice and fancy...

Like the invention of an accomplice that you can neither name or even prove existed.

Give up Rod.

[RodCrosby]

but we already know...

a) Wallace did tell Julia a lot more
b) the Cambridge-educated Judge told the Jury your protestations are nonsense...

[Herlock Sholmes]

But I've just exploded this claim as both unfounded and illogical, even allowing for the entirely speculative "If...."

I must have missed it.

The obvious logic of my point could be understood by a toddler. You explained or exploded nothing. Ever.

No one would have come up with a plan as stupid as Parry’s.

Based on Wallace mentioning to Julia SPECIFICALLY about QUALTROUGH and MENLOVE GARDENS EAST.

[Herlock Sholmes]

but we already know...

a) Wallace did tell Julia a lot more
b) the Cambridge-educated Judge told the Jury your protestations are nonsense...

You can’t even claim ‘me no understand’ here Rod. Your simply not being honest and not for the first time.

Point a) it’s completely and utterly irrelevant that Wallace actually did mention the evenings business trip (but not Qualtrough) the whole of my point is, as you well know, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY PARRY COULD HAVE EVEN HOPED, SUSPECTED OR RELIED ON WALLACE TELLING JULIA ABOUT QUALTROUGH OR MENLOVE GARDENS EAST.

Point b) I refuse to waste time with your endless and feeble recourse to the opinions of judges and lawyers as if they are holy writ. It’s pathetic, pointless and tedious. It’s also noticeable how you have to snobbishly add in Cambridge educated as if even historical figures need the same kind of constant ego boosting that you appear to do.

[RodCrosby]

for the hard of hearing

but we already know...

a) Wallace did tell Julia a lot more
b) the Cambridge-educated Judge told the Jury your protestations are nonsense...

"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...Human nature is very strange. You may have a man send a bogus message, and having sent the bogus message, even if he did not see the prisoner actually leave the house, he might go to the house, ring the bell or knock at the door, and be admitted by Mrs. Wallace. If she had been told, as the prisoner said, that the prisoner was seeking an interview with Qualtrough, and if he was admitted, he would soon find out where the prisoner was, and find out that he was not in the house : on the other hand, if he found he was in the house he could go away..."
Mr. Justice Wright, summing-up in Rex v Wallace

[moste]

You would only carbon date the ink if you suspected it to be significantly more recent than it purported to be...

That clearly was not at issue in 1931. And the (unrequired) techniques were not yet invented anyhow.

Why not focus on the facts, instead of inane theories and cracks that can only boomerang back on you?

forgive my mirth, trying to keep things light.

You know the way this whole case is a complete mystery , accepted as such by ' the best investigative writers, for the last 88 years. This is because the facts as we know them are completely exhausted and are of little use in trying to come to a decision one way or another, when it comes to an agreeable solution.
One thing is pretty certain though, to my mind. The perpetrator of this crime is neither a sneak thief, Richard Parry ,or the Anfield burglar, by reason of the intense malice and hatred exhibited by the culprit.
P.S. Try and lighten up, have another glass of red!

[Herlock Sholmes]

for the hard of hearing

"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...Human nature is very strange. You may have a man send a bogus message, and having sent the bogus message, even if he did not see the prisoner actually leave the house, he might go to the house, ring the bell or knock at the door, and be admitted by Mrs. Wallace. If she had been told, as the prisoner said, that the prisoner was seeking an interview with Qualtrough, and if he was admitted, he would soon find out where the prisoner was, and find out that he was not in the house : on the other hand, if he found he was in the house he could go away..."
Mr. Justice Wright, summing-up in Rex v Wallace

And so goes your final chance to salvage a shred of integrity.

But he didn’t mention Qualtrough. Amy never mentioned Qualtrough or MGE. And we know from Wallace himself that Julia would only have admitted someone that she knew. That’s why Wallace gave the police the list in the first place.

[RodCrosby]

Point b) I refuse to waste time with your endless and feeble recourse to the opinions of judges and lawyers as if they are holy writ. It’s pathetic, pointless and tedious. It’s also noticeable how you have to snobbishly add in Cambridge educated as if even historical figures need the same kind of constant ego boosting that you appear to do.

Yes, if only we had more judges who cannot grasp facts, who do not have a logical faculty, who cannot recognise a 'non sequitur', who substitute prejudice and fancy for objectivity, and who have weird obsessions, the justice system would be so much the better, I'm sure !!

[Herlock Sholmes]

And another thing.

Why didn’t Parry, this consummate actor and man of a thousand voices simple wait until Wallace was at the club when he made the call. Only then would he have had any level of certainty that Wallace was going to go to MGE the following night?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, if only we had more judges who cannot grasp facts, who do not have a logical faculty, who cannot recognise a 'non sequitur', who substitute prejudice and fancy for objectivity, and who have weird obsessions, the justice system would be so much the better, I'm sure !!

Your wriggling again.

My point is black and white. Beyond debate. Cannot be argued with. Utterly logical and based on your plan and it’s objectives.

Keep wriggling.

Might be time for a graph

[RodCrosby]

But he didn’t mention Qualtrough. Amy never mentioned Qualtrough or MGE.

As I've demonstrated, that's just your desperate theorising, argumentum ad ignorantiam...

Not fact.

[RodCrosby]

And another thing.

Why didn’t Parry, this consummate actor and man of a thousand voices simple wait until Wallace was at the club when he made the call. Only then would he have had any level of certainty that Wallace was going to go to MGE the following night?

And Wallace, likewise, would have had a "level of certainty" that...

a) this was bullshit
b) he knew the voice

Did you not read Dorothy L. Sayers from 1936 ?

She, like many authors, agrees with me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I've demonstrated, that's just your desperate theorising, argumentum ad ignorantiam...

Not fact.

It’s a fact.

Amy never mentioned Qualtrough or MGE so it’s entirely reasonable to assume (especially as its such an unusual name) that Wallace hadn’t mentioned it to Julia. It’s called reason and basic intelligence.

And for the last time, hopefully, whether he mentioned it or not, I’ll stress this for you Rod.....

No pretence at not understanding.....

No wriggling or avoiding........

Ready.....?

RICHARD GORDON PARRY COULD HAVE HAD ABSOLUTLEY NO REASON TO HOPE, SUSPECT, BELIEVE OR EVEN PRAY THAT WILLIAM WOULD GO ON TO MENTION SPECIFICALLY THE NAME QUALTROUGH OR THE ADDRESS MENLOVE GARDENS EAST TO JULIA. AND WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION, ACCORDING TO WALLACE AND TO YOUR SCENARIO, THE PLAN FAILS. YOU CANT DENY THIS BECAUSE THE WHOLE CRUX OF YOUR ‘SCENARIO’ IS THAT THE ACCOMPLICE GOES TO THE HOUSE AND ALLEGES TO BE QUALTROUGH. SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MEANINGLESS IF WALLACE HADNT HAVE TOLD HER ABOUT HIM.

I appeal to any fair minded and reasoned poster to tell me that there is any fault in anything I’ve said here. It is exact and perfect truth as per Rod’s scenario.

Rod’s embarrassingly desperate wriggling is there for all to see in black and white. Not for the first time you’ve exposed your lack of integrity here tonight. Your complete unwillingness to admit the obvious if it doesn’t fit in with your ‘scenario.’