Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

ah... so it's all just ad hominem and personal inadequacy. Who'd have thunk it?

It is the Correct Solution, based on the available evidence.I've said many times something new could [in theory] upend it.

Until then...

Parkes

[Herlock Sholmes]

ah... so it's all just ad hominem and personal inadequacy.Who'd have thunk it?

It is the Correct Solution, based on the available evidence. I've said many times something new could [in theory] upend it.

Until then...

And this from someone who feels compelled to constantly boast childishly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
I've listed the evidence many times. And the logic is impeccable

Hopefully my last post of the night because I’m bored of listening to unreasoned boasting.

1. You claim that Parry planned the crime.

2. When you plan anything you don’t plan (you can’t plan) for a huge slice of luck.

3. There is absolutely, categorically no way, at all, however you try and twist it, that Parry could have expected or even hoped that Wallace would mention the name Qualtrough or even Menlove Gardens East to a wife who took absolutely no interest whatsoever in her husband’s business affairs. By your own admission (the scenario) Julia had to have heard of Qualtrough to have been willing to admit her eventual killer into the house. This is a central part of your theory - the explaination for why Julia let him in. Even then it’s by no means certain that Julia would have wanted to risk being seen letting a strange man in to her house after dark whilst her husband was out though.

Therefore - no one goes to all the trouble that our planner apparently did - to find an accomplice willing to take 100% of the risks whilst Parry remained in safety. To come up with a plan where a message ( and a strange one considering the request for Wallace’s address) is passed via a third party using a disguised voice. To check tram times so that he would have at least a reasonable idea how long Wallace would be out of the house. Then to watch Wallace on the Monday night (following him along Breck Road in his car) to ensure that he actually went to the chess club. - and yet he leaves the most important part of the plan (the part about Qualtrough actually getting admitted to the house) entirely down to luck.

It simply doesnt work Rod. There is an utter absence of logic.

QED

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...

I follow the real Great Detective, and pay no heed to his green-eyed, obsessive, anti-matter manqué...

"I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they
are, and to underestimate one's self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one's own powers."
Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of The Greek Interpreter

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn...

I follow the real Great Detective, and pay no heed to his green-eyed, obsessive, anti-matter manqué...

"I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they
are, and to underestimate one's self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one's own powers."
Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of The Greek Interpreter

A pathetic personal insult

[RodCrosby]

A pathetic personal insult

Only if you imagine you are something you are not.


Oh, I forgot - you really DO......


Solz...

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock,

although I can readily understand and even appreciate why people think Wallace's behavior was contrived and suspicious (and thus he was guilty) I am intrigued by the possibility that our own suspicions are leading us astray.

I've known a few of the 'absent-minded professor' types. They can be very analytical, but at the same time quite naïve when it comes to human matters. My old friend, JK, for instance. Highly intelligent but at the same time foolish about the 'ways of the world.' I can readily imagine JK wandering around the streets of Liverpool looking for a non-existent address and quizzing a dozen people, never imagining for a minute that someone was 'messing him about.' I certainly don't know if Wallace fits 'this type,' but from what I've read, it strikes me as a possibility. It's a classic case, because much of the so-called 'evidence' really boils down to psychology and how we perceive Wallace's character and behavior. Meanwhile, we have Parry lurking in the shadows, never fully explained.

On the other hand, there is one snippet from the trial that sticks in my mind. For the 'Wallace dunnit' theory, it's difficult to ignore.

James Edward Rothwell, examined by Mr. Hemmerde.
I am a police constable of the Liverpool City
Police Force. I have known the accused as a collector for
the Prudential for about two years. I saw him on January
20th, about 3.30, in Maiden Lane.

How was he dressed ? — He was dressed in a tweed suit,
and a light fawn raincoat, a mackintosh.

Mr. Justice Wright — raincoat? — Yes, my Lord.

Mr. Hemmerde — What was he doing ? Did you notice
anything about him ? — His face was haggard and drawn,
and he was very distressed — unusually distressed.

What signs of distress did he show ? — He was dabbing
his eye with his coat-sleeve, and he appeared to me as if
he had been crying.

The prosecution's argument, of course, was that this strange scene took place only a short time after Wallace left Julia. (At lunch, but not when he supposedly beat her to death). The defense, as you know doubt know, suggested that Rothwell misinterpreted the event, and Wallace was simply wiping his eyes because of the cold. Regards, RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

Only if you imagine you are something you are not.

Oh, I forgot - you really DO......

No debating the unarguable logic I see.

’Surprise, surprise

[RodCrosby]

Hi Herlock,

although I can readily understand and even appreciate why people think Wallace's behavior was contrived and suspicious (and thus he was guilty) I am intrigued by the possibility that our own suspicions are leading us astray.

I've known a few of the 'absent-minded professor' types. They can be very analytical, but at the same time quite naïve when it comes to human matters. My old friend, JK, for instance. Highly intelligent but at the same time foolish about the 'ways of the world.' I can readily imagine JK wandering around the streets of Liverpool looking for a non-existent address and quizzing a dozen people, never imagining for a minute that someone was 'messing him about.' I certainly don't know if Wallace fits 'this type,' but from what I've read, it strikes me as a possibility. It's a classic case, because much of the so-called 'evidence' really boils down to psychology and how we perceive Wallace's character and behavior. Meanwhile, we have Parry lurking in the shadows, never fully explained.

On the other hand, there is one snippet from the trial that sticks in my mind. For the 'Wallace dunnit' theory, it's difficult to ignore.

James Edward Rothwell, examined by Mr. Hemmerde.
I am a police constable of the Liverpool City
Police Force. I have known the accused as a collector for
the Prudential for about two years. I saw him on January
20th, about 3.30, in Maiden Lane.

How was he dressed ? — He was dressed in a tweed suit,
and a light fawn raincoat, a mackintosh.

Mr. Justice Wright — raincoat? — Yes, my Lord.

Mr. Hemmerde — What was he doing ? Did you notice
anything about him ? — His face was haggard and drawn,
and he was very distressed — unusually distressed.

What signs of distress did he show ? — He was dabbing
his eye with his coat-sleeve, and he appeared to me as if
he had been crying.

The prosecution's argument, of course, was that this strange scene took place only a short time after Wallace left Julia. (At lunch, but not when he supposedly beat her to death). The defense, as you know doubt know, suggested that Rothwell misinterpreted the event, and Wallace was simply wiping his eyes because of the cold. Regards, RP

it was BEFORE.

Read Lustgarten, for the unbridled ridicule and scorn which he pours on the abject methods of the "Jiggery-Pokery Brigade" in this regard.

Sayers too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

although I can readily understand and even appreciate why people think Wallace's behavior was contrived and suspicious (and thus he was guilty) I am intrigued by the possibility that our own suspicions are leading us astray.

I've known a few of the 'absent-minded professor' types. They can be very analytical, but at the same time quite naïve when it comes to human matters. My old friend, JK, for instance. Highly intelligent but at the same time foolish about the 'ways of the world.' I can readily imagine JK wandering around the streets of Liverpool looking for a non-existent address and quizzing a dozen people, never imagining for a minute that someone was 'messing him about.' I certainly don't know if Wallace fits 'this type,' but from what I've read, it strikes me as a possibility. It's a classic case, because much of the so-called 'evidence' really boils down to psychology and how we perceive Wallace's character and behavior. Meanwhile, we have Parry lurking in the shadows, never fully explained.

On the other hand, there is one snippet from the trial that sticks in my mind. For the 'Wallace dunnit' theory, it's difficult to ignore.

James Edward Rothwell, examined by Mr. Hem-
MERDE — I am a police constable of the Liverpool City
Police Force. I have known the accused as a collector for
the Prudential for about two years. I saw him on January
20th, about 3.30, in Maiden Lane.

How was he dressed ? — He was dressed in a tweed suit,
and a light fawn raincoat, a mackintosh.

Mr. Justice Wright — raincoat? — ^Yes, my Lord.

Mr. Hemmerde — ^What was he doing ? Did you notice
anything about him ? — His face was haggard and drawn,
and he was very distressed — unusually distressed.

What signs of distress did he show ? — He was dabbing
his eye with his coat-sleeve, and he appeared to me as if
he had been crying.

The prosecution's argument, of course, was that this strange scene took place only a short time after Wallace left Julia. The defense, as you know doubt know, suggested that Rothwell misinterpreted the event, and Wallace was simply wiping his eyes because of the cold. Regards, RP

Hi Roger,

Youre right of course. Wallace’s behaviour on his MGE does appear strange, suspicious even, but we can’t go anywhere near as far as saying it’s proof of guilt. It might have been in character for him. The only point that I’d make is that he was told, for the second time, by a policeman, that the address didn’t exist but still continued. Wouldn’t a Wallace of the type you describe be more likely to go with the opinion of an authority figure like a policeman. Certainly not black and white though.

I also think the testimony of Rothwell is far too easily dismissed as inconvenient (cue for Rod to cut and paste the testimony of those who said he appeared normal to them) Rothwell was very specific ‘he was very distressed, unusually distressed.’ If he was ‘upset’ in any way naturally he’d have composed himself before knocking on a door. He’d have then acted normally which is what he did.

Could he have lied and bern a part of a police conspiracy to convict Wallace? We have no reason to believe that.
Could he have been mistaken and that Wallace was just wiping his eyes? Possibly but I don’t recall Wallace ever admitting doing so (then again why would he recall something so apparently trivial.) Or was this the result of Wallace contemplating what he was about to do?

We can’t know for certain but we can’t just dismiss because it may be inconvenient.

[Herlock Sholmes]

it was BEFORE.

Read Lustgarten, for the unbridled ridicule and scorn which he pours on the abject methods of the "Jiggery-Pokery Brigade" in this regard.
Sayers too.

Why do Lustgarten and Sayers carry any more weight than anyone else?

oh yes...they suit your argument so they must be correct.....sorry I forgot the rules.

[RodCrosby]

Could he have lied and been a part of a police conspiracy to convict Wallace? We have no reason to believe that.

"The Liverpool City Police Force - known affectionately at the time as 'The Jiggery-Pokery Brigade'"
Merseyside Police Wallace File (!)

or Google a little...

[RodCrosby]

Why do Lustgarten and Sayers carry any more weight than anyone else?

oh yes...they suit your argument so they must be correct.....sorry I forgot the rules.

Nope. They are acknowledged independent expert criminologists....

[Herlock Sholmes]

"The Liverpool City Police Force - known affectionately at the time as 'The Jiggery-Pokery Brigade'"
Merseyside Police Wallace File (!)

or Google a little...

Final post of the night and hopefully the last time that I’ll need to make this childishly obvious point...

Rod....please at least try and understand....everyone else can.

Just because there was corruption in the Merseyside Police we cannot assume that every single action that they took was corrupt or that even every single bobby on the beat was corrupt. This is self-serving nonsense.

Evenin’ all.

[RodCrosby]

"It was an episode without point, without bearing, without force; it defies connection with reasoning and logic; it detracts by its almost imbecile irrelevance from the dignity with which the trial was otherwise invested...

The notion is farcical, and I doubt whether Hemmerde relished the job of presenting such a witness. He was never afraid to criticise police follies, and one can imagine the blistering comment he would have made if this particular episode had occurred in a case which he had been trying in his capacity as Recorder of the city.

'I wonder,' Oliver said, 'if it occurred to you that your eyes could water with the cold?'

The constable assented.

'And you might rub them?' '

Quite possible.' "

Verdict in Dispute, Edgar Lustgarten (1950)