Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
    Hi WWH,

    Back to our evaluation. This is a theory-free examination of the evidence (as far as that is possible). We make one key assumption: the caller is either Parry or Wallace. I placed No. 2 at 5, based on your feedback, because Wallace had fewer options than Parry, but a phone call was a good option for Parry as I explained. Let's move on to the next three for Wallace?

    4) A phone call serves him well in setting up an alibi, as he then has someone to corroborate the facts given on the call.

    I believe you are saying Wallace had the greater need for the call. I think this is a small pointer to Wallace. Score: 3.

    5) Unless staking out his home (a possibility), the caller couldn't have known Wallace would definitely go to the chess club. Agree. This has to be a pointer to Wallace. Score: 6.

    6) The voice was described as "older". This is the one I've added, not least because I included in my book, but also HS draws attention to this fact. I've done some research on voice-only determination of age. We are good at inferring young people by their voices alone; the younger the person the more easily we can tell age by the voice (especially children). This effect tends to vanish if the speaker is age 30 or above (we are also good at determining age by listening to the voices of people aged 65 or more). However, the key aural cue in some studies appears to be that younger people speak more quickly (remember Qualtrough spoke rapidly and confidently). Also, according to at least one study, disguising your voice to sound older is relatively easily and effective: "Apparently individuals can also effectively disguise their voices to influence perceived age; when individuals were asked to manipulate their voices in attempt to sound older than they were, Lass et al., (1982) found that age estimates were consistent with the intended disguise." So, I am prepared to give a score here that points to Wallace but it cannot be that high. Score 3.

    What's your view?
    Yeah I can agree with that and the scores. Beattie had assured the caller Wallace would arrive there soon so I should imagine the caller felt reassured he would turn up and take the message.

    Though if we imagine this whole scenario is totally accurate, when Wallace left home the next day, the attacker wouldn't actually know for sure whether he was even going to MGE, or just making a short trip to a local off license or post box or whatever. It was a leap of faith. Unless the caller had said MGW and had less reason to believe Wallace wouldn't go (in other words, Beattie f'd up), which seems quite plausible considering nobody really benefits from a fake address.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
      I am struggling to think of what possible motive Julia Wallace would have to expose her husband were he homosexual. She would presumably have known or become aware of this at some point in the marriage, and there was just as much social shame in her situation as there would have been in Wallace's. That is before we consider the affect it would have had on her financial life.
      Based on Wallace's weeping, if true, it may have been quite a recent discovery. Look at Eugeni Felleni, she got away with not only being homosexual, but actually pretending to be a completely different gender altogether! And she got away with it for 5 years! I'm sure you can imagine how it'd be much harder to hide literally having the wrong genitals in a marriage lol.

      The tipping point for Eugeni was that the wife was discussing divorce. She hadn't told anyone but Eugeni feared it would come out in divorce proceedings.

      Julia may have been unaware Wallace was seeing men until very close to the day of murder (maybe even totally unaware he was sexually attracted to men). This could cause Wallace to become paranoid about his secret getting out, especially if she mentioned anything like divorce.

      I'd be keen to find out as much evidence as possible for if the rumors of his sexuality are true, to see if the theory holds any water. If it's true, I believe it could provide a compelling motive, in what otherwise struck police and prosecutors as a motiveless killing.

      I'd love to see the full case files and particularly the full diary for any clues.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post


        I'd love to see the full case files and particularly the full diary for any clues.
        There's nothing extant in either to give any credence to this 'homosexual' theory.

        Just a nasty remark from Parry in 1966, who in 1931 had described them as "a very devoted couple"...

        In fact, checking the sources Goodman says Parry described Wallace as a "very strange man", and implied he was sexually odd. [no quotes]

        So it's not even certain he used those words. He might have just said 'queer', and Goodman has construed a 1966 meaning, which Parry may not necessarily have meant...

        I don't think 'queer' was firmly established as meaning 'homosexual' in 1931.
        Last edited by RodCrosby; 02-05-2019, 08:34 PM.
        "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
        Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
        The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
        https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

        Compendium of Resources
        https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

        Comment


        • RC,

          Correct. The homosexual angle is armchair psychology of the crassest kind, since there is not a scintilla of evidence to even suggest this from Wallace's life or the judgment of those who knew him. It reads very like a post permissive society 'take' on a crime of many years previous, and seems to me to be moribund. We should respect the distinction between being open minded and being credulous. Intelligent assumption is a world away from idle speculation.

          The police witness who claims he saw Wallace in distress the day before the murder- or was it the very afternoon?- seems totally unreliable. Remember that the police had nothing more than circumstantial evidence against Wallace, so anything to bolster the case would have been helpful. It reads along the lines of one of these prison cell confessions which have contaminated UK justice for many a year.
          None of the clients who Wallace visited either prior to or after this policeman's fortunate observation reported him as being anything other than his normal self. Therefore I think it is reasonable to dismiss this policeman's observation, along with the notion of Wallace being a latent homosexual, as utter hogwash.

          Comment


          • The homosexual suggestion is baseless of course. But it’s harder to dismiss the ‘crying’ bit so easily. Wallace could easily have composed himself before knocking on a clients door. Why do we have to assume the policeman was mistaken or lying just because it’s inconvenient to the ‘innocent Wallace’ point of view?
            Regards

            Herlock






            "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post

              There's nothing extant in either to give any credence to this 'homosexual' theory.

              Just a nasty remark from Parry in 1966, who in 1931 had described them as "a very devoted couple"...

              In fact, checking the sources Goodman says Parry described Wallace as a "very strange man", and implied he was sexually odd. [no quotes]

              So it's not even certain he used those words. He might have just said 'queer', and Goodman has construed a 1966 meaning, which Parry may not necessarily have meant...

              I don't think 'queer' was firmly established as meaning 'homosexual' in 1931.
              Queer became a derogatory word to describe homosexuals in late victorian times, gaining greater currency as a result of Oscar Wilde's trial. It was certainly a common insult in the 1960s.

              I don't put much store in the remark made by Parry - like Parkes, it was only made public some time after the event.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
                If...if...if...if...

                There are a million wild theories we could come up with.

                Not a shred of evidence for any of them.
                Like there’s not a shred of evidence linking Parry to the events at 29 Wolverton Street.


                Regards

                Herlock






                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                  Queer became a derogatory word to describe homosexuals in late victorian times, gaining greater currency as a result of Oscar Wilde's trial. It was certainly a common insult in the 1960s.

                  I don't put much store in the remark made by Parry - like Parkes, it was only made public some time after the event.
                  Yes, I'm sure it did. But I'm curious as to when it became unambiguously associated with 'homosexual'. I remember people of my grandparents' generation describing people as queer, and they certainly could not be talking about sexual orientation to us, as children...
                  "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
                  Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
                  The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
                  https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

                  Compendium of Resources
                  https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

                  Comment


                  • If he said "did you know Wallace was queer?" I think that even more explicitly states he was calling him gay. But like you said it doesn't prove anything, could just have been a snide remark for sure. I only suspected he might be gay based on a combination of things like the rumor I read about him hiring rent boys, the fact Julia was so old and probably not putting out (gotta be getting it somewhere?!) especially with incontinence, etc. on top of that statement.

                    I don't want to say it's true or that even if it is, it necessarily had anything to do with the crime. Just wanted to raise it.

                    Just wondering, does anyone know where I can see a complete timeline of the events? From the time Wallace left home on the night of the call, and every event up to when the police arrived?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post

                      Yes, I'm sure it did. But I'm curious as to when it became unambiguously associated with 'homosexual'. I remember people of my grandparents' generation describing people as queer, and they certainly could not be talking about sexual orientation to us, as children...
                      In order to be able to think, one must risk being offensive.

                      Comment


                      • I'm working on a timeline, would anyone care to update any inaccuracies or add new evidence/details to make it as comprehensive as possible? For example, the time Parry arrived at his girlfriends home (Parry and Marsden are not mentioned even once in the trial):

                        19th January

                        19:15 - Leaves home. [ Self reported ]

                        19:20 - Call logged to the City Cafe from phone booth Anfield 1627, 400 yards from the home of Wallace.

                        ? - Parry visits his girlfriend's home, which is close to the phone booth.

                        19:45 - Wallace arrives at the City Cafe.

                        ~19:55 - Beattie delivers the phone message to Wallace.

                        22:10 - Chess game adjourns.

                        ---

                        20th January

                        10:20 - Wallace leaves home to do his rounds.

                        ~13:50 - Wallace finishes his round at 177 Lisburn Lane.

                        14:10 - Wallace arrives home and has dinner.

                        15:18 - Wallace continues his collections.

                        15:30 - Policeman claims to have spotted Wallace dabbing his eyes and looking "bereaved". [ May have been cold weather ]

                        17:55 - Finishes his rounds at 19 or 21 Eastman Road.

                        18:05 - Wallace returns home. [ Self reported ]

                        18:37 - Alan Close spots Julia Wallace alive and well.

                        18:45 - Wallace leaves home. [Self reported]

                        19:06 to 19:10 - Wallace boards the tram.

                        19:15 - Wallace boards a tram from Penny Lane.

                        19:20 - Wallace asks a clerk for directions to MGE (is told it does not exist).

                        19:30 - [ Scheduled time of meeting with Qualtrough ]

                        ? - Wallace calls at 25 Menlove Gardens West.

                        ? - Wallace is advised of directions by a resident of Menlove Garden North.

                        19:40 - Wallace calls at Mr. Crewe's home (he is not in) [ Self reported statement made only after learning Crewe was out ]

                        19:45 - Wallace asks a policeman for directions to MGE (is told it does not exist).

                        19:45 to 20:00 - Wallace calls at a post office and newsagents and confirms there is no such address.

                        ? - Wallace rides home on the trams [ Self reported ]

                        ? - A thud is heard coming from inside Wallace's home.

                        20:35 - Lily Hall reports to have seen Wallace speaking to a man, around 5'7 and stout. [ Possibly unreliable ]

                        20:45 - Wallace arrives home.

                        ---

                        Also please if updated don't put any skew on the timings. For example anti-Wallace people saying Julia was last seen at 18:30, and pro-Wallace people saying 18:45 (for example lol).

                        Please also add necessary notes to any of the events.

                        Having all the information down in the order it happened might be useful.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                          Also please if updated don't put any skew on the timings. For example anti-Wallace people saying Julia was last seen at 18:30, and pro-Wallace people saying 18:45 (for example lol).

                          Please also add necessary notes to any of the events.

                          Having all the information down in the order it happened might be useful.
                          Could I suggest a broad time for Julia's murder as between 6.37 and 8.00pm for the following reasons:
                          * Julia last seen alive at 6.37
                          * Despite Macfall's issues, time of death would be at least two hours before MacFall examined her (rigor mortis minimum time two hours)
                          * Kitchen fire nearly out at 8.45 suggesting it had not been attended for some time



                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                            Could I suggest a broad time for Julia's murder as between 6.37 and 8.00pm for the following reasons:
                            * Julia last seen alive at 6.37
                            * Despite Macfall's issues, time of death would be at least two hours before MacFall examined her (rigor mortis minimum time two hours)
                            * Kitchen fire nearly out at 8.45 suggesting it had not been attended for some time


                            I'd assume at least 6.39, as she took the milk, and then would have had to walk casually into the parlor, get out the matches, and bend down. Also was 6.37 the time Julia was seen opening the door, or when she closed it? As she apparently spoke to the milk boy about their colds, which might add another minute.

                            Critical when dealing with something so tight.

                            Respectively, is there any chance she was killed after 8? I get the point about the kitchen fire (btw is that a fireplace, lamp, or a cooker? These old timey contraptions all using gas is so confusing!) but I don't know that it's absolute proof of anything.

                            We know she was dead before Wallace went into the home (well, it's VERY unlikely he went in with the Johnston's outside and wacked her then LOL, for many reasons). But according to Wallace he even thought the killer was still in the home at the time. If that actually turned out to be true - that the killer was still in the house - I'd think he killed her quite a bit after 8, as people would flee quickly after committing a murder, and not much was swiped (so if it was a burglary gone wrong, it would probably mean Wallace coming home interrupted him and he dashed out the back when Wallace went back for the front door).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                              I'd assume at least 6.39, as she took the milk, and then would have had to walk casually into the parlor, get out the matches, and bend down. Also was 6.37 the time Julia was seen opening the door, or when she closed it? As she apparently spoke to the milk boy about their colds, which might add another minute.

                              Critical when dealing with something so tight.

                              Respectively, is there any chance she was killed after 8? I get the point about the kitchen fire (btw is that a fireplace, lamp, or a cooker? These old timey contraptions all using gas is so confusing!) but I don't know that it's absolute proof of anything.

                              We know she was dead before Wallace went into the home (well, it's VERY unlikely he went in with the Johnston's outside and wacked her then LOL, for many reasons). But according to Wallace he even thought the killer was still in the home at the time. If that actually turned out to be true - that the killer was still in the house - I'd think he killed her quite a bit after 8, as people would flee quickly after committing a murder, and not much was swiped (so if it was a burglary gone wrong, it would probably mean Wallace coming home interrupted him and he dashed out the back when Wallace went back for the front door).
                              I take your point about the earliest time - 6.39 seems reasonable to me.

                              As for the latest time, I think it had to be before 8.00pm as when Macfall examined the body at 10.00pm he noted rigor mortis had started (arm and shoulder from memory but would need to check). The normal time range for rigor mortis to start after death is two to six hours. You are right, the kitchen fire being mere embers at 8.45 does not prove anything but is suggestive of an earlier rather than later death.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                                I take your point about the earliest time - 6.39 seems reasonable to me.

                                As for the latest time, I think it had to be before 8.00pm as when Macfall examined the body at 10.00pm he noted rigor mortis had started (arm and shoulder from memory but would need to check). The normal time range for rigor mortis to start after death is two to six hours. You are right, the kitchen fire being mere embers at 8.45 does not prove anything but is suggestive of an earlier rather than later death.
                                Hi etenguy and WWH

                                My analysis shows the door closed between 6:38 pm and 6:42 pm. The details are in an earlier post. So, a 6:39 death is consistent with that. The problem with rigor mortis, as you know, is that it is affected by muscle mass, ambient temperature etc. Indeed, had the fire been left on (by Wallace) it would have speeded up rigor. So unfortunately time of death is 6:40 - 8:40 pm. In my view, the kitchen fire being embers at around 8:50 pm is not suggestive of an earlier death if Julia had left the kitchen to spend some time in the front room during the evening.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X