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 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.
    I agree. On the time of death I think it's important to cover both the very earliest possible time and the very latest possible time to avoid bias or ruling out any real possibilities, so I have put down 6:40 to 8:40 on file.

    There's actually a case VERY similar to the Wallace case in which inaccurate methods were used to determine the time of death, look into Mark Lundy:

    http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/index.html

    An "impossible" time frame (uni students tried to beat his 3 hour trip time, calling it the "Lundy Three Hundy" lmao - police also could not beat the time). The attack was "overkill" suggesting it was personal. Only one thing was stolen from the home. The murder weapon was never found. Witnesses who arguably saw him and his car. There's a question of how he avoided blood. Logged telephone locations. And an inaccurate method used to determine time of death:

    http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/areas-of-doubt.html

    Because of modern forensic evidence, he was implicated more heavily because they found brain matter with DNA of his wife on one of the t-shirts in his car. But there's still doubt. The difference though, is that Lundy was not acquitted on appeal.

    It's almost a 1:1 modern replica! Interesting case for sure.

    P.S. Wallace was a keen chemist. Did they ever check the wife for poison? He could've used a poison in her food or drink that would kill her after a certain time frame, then made the wounds when he got home. Too far out? Almost certainly looool.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-06-2019, 11:06 AM.

    Comment


    • I'd also like to raise another more valid point though (not crackpot ideas). Why was it said in the trial that she "had no enemies"? The more I read about her the worse of a person she seems.

      She was a total liar and fantasist, with a fake age and family tree, who thought her husband was beneath her, accusing him of malingering roflll. Even her own FAMILY didn't attend her wedding or funeral which should tell you something about her TRUE character. The idea that she was this beloved woman seems absolutely ridiculous. I bet a lot of people had motive to want her dead. I wouldn't be surprised if someone who was never even named as a suspect went over there and bludgeoned her to death.
      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-06-2019, 11:27 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

        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.
        You are right that we cannot be absolutely certain about the latest possible time of death, we only have suggestive indicators which even when combined amount to less than definitive proof. Even the state of the blood and its consistency is not helpful because of the time it took MacFall to be called, arrive and undertake his observations.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
          I'd also like to raise another more valid point though (not crackpot ideas). Why was it said in the trial that she "had no enemies"? The more I read about her the worse of a person she seems.

          She was a total liar and fantasist, with a fake age and family tree, who thought her husband was beneath her, accusing him of malingering roflll. Even her own FAMILY didn't attend her wedding or funeral which should tell you something about her TRUE character. The idea that she was this beloved woman seems absolutely ridiculous. I bet a lot of people had motive to want her dead. I wouldn't be surprised if someone who was never even named as a suspect went over there and bludgeoned her to death.
          There is a possibility it was someone other than Parry or Wallace, but if the phone call was part of the crime set-up, we need to find someone that knew that Wallace would be likely at the Chess club and who had taken some effort to establish the phone number of the café. Wallace was clear he had told no-one of his chess match and it is only because Parry attended the café for a drama club that we can surmise he might have known. A person from Julia's past intent on murder, and not robbery, would have no reason to phone the chess club, they could commit the murder on Monday night. They would have no reason to wait until Tuesday.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

            There is a possibility it was someone other than Parry or Wallace, but if the phone call was part of the crime set-up, we need to find someone that knew that Wallace would be likely at the Chess club and who had taken some effort to establish the phone number of the café. Wallace was clear he had told no-one of his chess match and it is only because Parry attended the café for a drama club that we can surmise he might have known. A person from Julia's past intent on murder, and not robbery, would have no reason to phone the chess club, they could commit the murder on Monday night. They would have no reason to wait until Tuesday.

            I would agree unless the motive was to frame Wallace for his wife's murder, which seems unlikely (but not impossible)

            I do think the answer to this case lies in the characters of William and/or Julia and stuff we may not know about either or both of them

            Comment


            • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

              There is a possibility it was someone other than Parry or Wallace, but if the phone call was part of the crime set-up, we need to find someone that knew that Wallace would be likely at the Chess club and who had taken some effort to establish the phone number of the café. Wallace was clear he had told no-one of his chess match and it is only because Parry attended the café for a drama club that we can surmise he might have known. A person from Julia's past intent on murder, and not robbery, would have no reason to phone the chess club, they could commit the murder on Monday night. They would have no reason to wait until Tuesday.
              Ive often felt that there is too much attention on wallace or parry, and not someone else. I actually leave about a 25% chance it was someone else. Of course the q caller is the killer but all they would need to know was that wallace attended the chess club there... as in someone else who went to the club/cafe. Why is this such a hard concept to accept?!?
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                Ive often felt that there is too much attention on wallace or parry, and not someone else. I actually leave about a 25% chance it was someone else. Of course the q caller is the killer but all they would need to know was that wallace attended the chess club there... as in someone else who went to the club/cafe. Why is this such a hard concept to accept?!?
                Hi Abby because there would be also be no need for this person not to strike that very Monday night of the call (if they were so sure Wallace was heading to the chess club, where he would be presumably for hours) in that case instead of waiting for a speculative following night journey by Wallace.

                Unless, the goal was to frame Wallace or Rod's Accomplice theory, in which the goal is to have an "open sesame" for a man posing as Qualtrough (someone Julia didn't know so he couldn't be identified, yet was also able to gain entrance under the Qualtrough pretext)

                Both of these theories that mitigate the bold appear far fetched to me.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                  Ive often felt that there is too much attention on wallace or parry, and not someone else. I actually leave about a 25% chance it was someone else. Of course the q caller is the killer but all they would need to know was that wallace attended the chess club there... as in someone else who went to the club/cafe. Why is this such a hard concept to accept?!?
                  I don't think it's certain the Qualtrough caller is the killer. I can see a chance, for example, that someone paid a guy to make the call who had no idea what the implications would be (and may not want to come forward - after all the police concluded that the caller certainly committed the murder). I also see it could legitimately have been a prank or deliberate red herring to attempt to draw police away on a false trail.

                  In the case of a simple murder, police are going to zero in on the crime itself and not waste valuable police time investigating the call. Besides that, the caller, when ringing the club, did not know whether or not Wallace would turn up according to the dialogue. If they gave a real address (west) and Beattie messed up, they may have more reason to think he'd definitely go to Menlove, but be iffy on whether he'd go to chess.

                  People hate on PD James's theory. And it does seem a bit of a stretch (e.g. who would go to all that effort of staking out the house etc for such a basic practical joke?)... But there's a small amount of supporting evidence: Wallace's expectation of "west", if he did not make the call and was not involved at all, strongly implies he knows there's no east IMO either way.

                  I tend to believe the caller was likely involved in the scheme. And also find it super likely that the motive here is murder. I'd be surprised if it really was robbery based on various evidence.

                  As for the cafe, probably many people went there, and according to Rod many people knew of Wallace. Or anyone who knew him personally (not just Parry) would likely have known he attends the chess club and could easily then find out when he would be attending.
                  Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-06-2019, 01:59 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MoriartyGardensEast View Post

                    Hi Abby because there would be also be no need for this person not to strike that very Monday night of the call (if they were so sure Wallace was heading to the chess club, where he would be presumably for hours) in that case instead of waiting for a speculative following night journey by Wallace.

                    Unless, the goal was to frame Wallace or Rod's Accomplice theory, in which the goal is to have an "open sesame" for a man posing as Qualtrough (someone Julia didn't know so he couldn't be identified, yet was also able to gain entrance under the Qualtrough pretext)

                    Both of these theories that mitigate the bold appear far fetched to me.
                    I agree. Unless the unknown man was a hitman and then it would make more sense.

                    The motive being burglary is more farfetched IMO. It's not farfetched to think it was murder even if it wasn't Wallace. Julia obv had a shitty character based on her estrangement and lies etc.

                    I tend to believe Wallace knew something was going to happen when he left for MGE that night. Just based on his rather erratic behavior and changing of his story under hard questioning.
                    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-06-2019, 01:53 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MoriartyGardensEast View Post

                      Hi Abby because there would be also be no need for this person not to strike that very Monday night of the call (if they were so sure Wallace was heading to the chess club, where he would be presumably for hours) in that case instead of waiting for a speculative following night journey by Wallace.

                      Unless, the goal was to frame Wallace or Rod's Accomplice theory, in which the goal is to have an "open sesame" for a man posing as Qualtrough (someone Julia didn't know so he couldn't be identified, yet was also able to gain entrance under the Qualtrough pretext)

                      Both of these theories that mitigate the bold appear far fetched to me.
                      Hi MGE
                      It could be a simple reason like they couldn't do it that night?
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        Hi MGE
                        It could be a simple reason like they couldn't do it that night?
                        Hi Abby, my logic tells me if he this person had enough time to stalk Wallace that night, then make the call, all in the vicinity of 29 Wolverton he could have also paid a visit right there and then .

                        Assuming not however for whatever reason, I still fail to see the point of the highly unreliable call. Why not come another time, any time Wallace was out.. At work for example. Wallace returned around 6 apparently . At that time of year in Liverpool, the sun sets at 4 ish so also time to come in darkness if that was a consideration.

                        the extra single day to maximize presumed insurance takings implies someone who knows the Prus ins and outs or thought they did. And is 1 extra day worth all the uncertainty when there were more certain times to go to 29 Wolverton and have Wallace not be there?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post


                          As for the cafe, probably many people went there, and according to Rod many people knew of Wallace. Or anyone who knew him personally (not just Parry) would likely have known he attends the chess club and could easily then find out when he would be attending.
                          The only issue with this is that Wallace was an irregular attender. If I recall correctly he hadn’t been to chess for 2 or 3 weeks so even if someone looked at the notice board they still couldn’t be certain that Wallace would be attending.

                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            The only issue with this is that Wallace was an irregular attender. If I recall correctly he hadn’t been to chess for 2 or 3 weeks so even if someone looked at the notice board they still couldn’t be certain that Wallace would be attending.
                            Dw I'm wrong
                            Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-06-2019, 03:07 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Hi Herlock, Do you (or anyone else) have a diagram of the house's interior, or is there one in any of the standard books on the case? I am not readily seeing one on-line. Thanks.

                              That Julia didn't scream out seems like a rather insubstantial argument. I can see why someone would be puzzled by it, but couldn't one theorize that a burglar entered thru the back door when she was in the lavatory and he simply ducked around the corner when he heard her coming, and then stunned her with a blow?

                              Comment


                              • Click image for larger version  Name:	Plan%20of%2029%20Wolverton%20Street-min.jpg Views:	0 Size:	167.4 KB ID:	701304
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	bloodstains.v2.jpg
Views:	42
Size:	147.8 KB
ID:	701305
                                Last edited by RodCrosby; 02-06-2019, 07:00 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

                                Working...
                                X