Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

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

  • Notice how close the door from the kitchen to the hallway is to the Parlour door. And yet an Ďinnocentí man, in fear for his elderly wifeís safety (absolutely convinced that there was no innocent explanation) and desperate to find her, walked straight past it without taking the 5 seconds that it would have taken to check. Itís difficult to see how any honest observer can not find this suspicious.
    Regards

    Herlock






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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MoriartyGardensEast View Post

      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?
      HI MGE
      all that makes perfect sense I agree. but not enough to rule out an unsub.

      a couple of things-ive never thought the caller from that box had to be stalking or waiting to see Wallace leave for the club. he could have made it from anywhere just knowing when Wallace game was. so this q call box location points squarely to Wallace as the Q caller on the way to the club.


      also, the unsub idea dosnt rule out an accomplice either-perhaps because of logistics/circs we just don't know about it-it had to be the night it was done.
      Last edited by Abby Normal; 02-06-2019, 07:32 PM.
      "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 Herlock Sholmes View Post
        Notice how close the door from the kitchen to the hallway is to the Parlour door. And yet an Ďinnocentí man, in fear for his elderly wifeís safety (absolutely convinced that there was no innocent explanation) and desperate to find her, walked straight past it without taking the 5 seconds that it would have taken to check. Itís difficult to see how any honest observer can not find this suspicious.
        To be honest Herlock, look at how close the stairs are. Someone coming out of the kitchen is almost on the bottom stair. Surely, it's just as easy to go up the stairs especially if you are not expecting anyone to be in the parlour? In other words, Wallace is not "walking straight past it" as he would be if he were going to the front door. What does everyone else think?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

          HI MGE
          all that makes perfect sense I agree. but not enough to rule out an unsub.

          a couple of things-ive never thought the caller from that box had to be stalking or waiting to see Wallace leave for the club. he could have made it from anywhere just knowing when Wallace game was. so this q call box location points squarely to Wallace as the Q caller on the way to the club.


          also, the unsub idea dosnt rule out an accomplice either-perhaps because of logistics/circs we just don't know about it-it had to be the night it was done.
          Hi Abby

          I would go further than you. The fact that the call was made from that specific call box at that particular time pretty much leaves only two possibilities that make sense to me:
          1. Wallace made the call - or
          2. Whoever made the call wanted to frame Wallace (for murder) and hence the messing about with Buttons A & B and going through the telephone exchange.

          I cannot find any compelling explanation for a burglar to make the call. There is no reason a robbery could not take place on the Monday night. If the cash box was the target, the crime could have been committed in the time it took to make the call, so I do not believe time was the issue. I also do not find it likely that a burglar would pass on a perfect opportunity in order to rely on a plan which may not work (ie wallace may not go to MGE especially if he had known the address did not exist). That strategy could lead to a missed chance. As for needing the Qualtrough name to gain entry - there's no way for the criminal to know Julia would recognise the name, or let him in even if she did.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

            To be honest Herlock, look at how close the stairs are. Someone coming out of the kitchen is almost on the bottom stair. Surely, it's just as easy to go up the stairs especially if you are not expecting anyone to be in the parlour? In other words, Wallace is not "walking straight past it" as he would be if he were going to the front door. What does everyone else think?
            This is a man desperate to find his wife. Heís mentioned about beginning to be concerned about Julia when he finally concedes that MGE doesnít exist. He gets home and for the first time ever canít get inside (heís later forced to concede that he was allegedly thinking that someone might be inside the house.) As soon as he sees the Johnstonís the first thing he asks is if theyíve heard anything suspicious. He gets inside and finds the lights off. Then when he gets in the kitchen he sees that a cupboard door has been wrenched off (removing his last hope of an innocent explanation.) Why would he then ignore a door that was in touching distance (that would have taken less than 5 seconds to check) to go upstairs? It makes absolutely no sense.

            If any any of us put ourselves in that position what would we do? Can any of us honestly say that we would stand there making calculations like ď well statistically speaking, apart from my laboratory, the Parlour is used less than other rooms in the house so itís numerically perhaps more like that......etcĒ Of course not. Iíd strongly suggest that anyone would check the possible places that Julia might be in the order that they arrived at them.

            For me, the fact that Wallace ignored the parlour is a pretty strong pointer to his guilt. As Iíve posted before he might simply have wanted a last look around to check that heíd made no stupid errors. Iíve also made the suggestion that what if Wallace had to clean his hands before leaving and that he used some kind of chemical from his lab and when he got home he saw that heíd left the container in the back kitchen and so had to take it back upstairs to his lab.
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 02-06-2019, 09:32 PM. Reason: missed a bit
            Regards

            Herlock






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

            Comment


            • . I cannot find any compelling explanation for a burglar to make the call. There is no reason a robbery could not take place on the Monday night.
              hi Eten,

              The reason suggested is that the thief knew that Wallace was, under normal circumstances, likely to have considerably more cash in the cash box on a Tuesday than on a Monday - pointing to someone familiar with Wallaceís business dealings - ie Parry.

              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • Hs,

                Where is woman murdered? Name please the first two rooms in a house?

                I would suggest: 1. The kitchen 2. The bedroom.

                That is the first place any man would look. The parlour? Maybe for Agathe Christie.

                I any case, what advantage did Wallace gain by delaying the discovery of his wife?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                  Hs,

                  Where is woman murdered? Name please the first two rooms in a house?

                  I would suggest: 1. The kitchen 2. The bedroom.

                  That is the first place any man would look. The parlour? Maybe for Agathe Christie.

                  I any case, what advantage did Wallace gain by delaying the discovery of his wife?
                  Anyone looking for his wife, deeply worried for her safety, would automatically check each room as he came to them. Absolutely no doubt for me. Iím afraid that itís your suggestion that makes no sense. People in that situation simply donít think like that. They donít start weighing up percentages or most visited rooms. The door was in touching distance. Anyone in that position would have checked the Parlour before venturing all the way upstairs.

                  Reason for delaying?

                  As I said in my post he might simply have wanted one last look around to check that he hadnít made any obvious blunders. Also, as Wallace was Ďthinkingí that there might have been someone still in the house this might explain why he didnít ask Mr Johnston to go inside with him for safety in numbers (does Wallace strike anyone as the Bruce Willis have-a-go-hero type?)

                  I genuinely find it Ďstrangeí that people are intent on turning a blind eye one this one. Iíd suggest that 999 out of a thousand people would check all of the downstairs rooms first before going upstairs.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    hi Eten,

                    The reason suggested is that the thief knew that Wallace was, under normal circumstances, likely to have considerably more cash in the cash box on a Tuesday than on a Monday - pointing to someone familiar with Wallaceís business dealings - ie Parry.
                    Hi Herlock

                    I'm familiar with this explanation and have to say on first reading it sounds compelling. However, on closer scrutiny I find it unconvincing. That someone, Parry, might target a Tuesday knowing it is the day with greatest cash in the box is entirely covincing if robbery is the intent. However, to then rely on a plan which has so many opportunities to go wrong (Wallace may not get the message, Wallace may know or discover MGE does not exist, Wallace may decide not to go, Wallace may not mention details to Julia) when there is a perfect opportunity on the Monday night does not seem a good choice. By waiting and hoping Wallace takes the bait, they risk losing their opportunity completely.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      I genuinely find it Ďstrangeí that people are intent on turning a blind eye one this one. Iíd suggest that 999 out of a thousand people would check all of the downstairs rooms first before going upstairs.
                      I think there are a great many of Wallace's actions that night that seem unusual or strange. Going upstairs first is not necessarily one of them. I don't know what I would do in that situation. I have a pretty much unused room in my house. It is downstairs and I might describe it as a dining room - rarely used. If I came home at night, worried for my partner, I think I would be likely to check the upstairs bedroom before the dining room. I think I would not be thinking especially logically and would automatically head for the room I thought most likely to find them. I've never been in that situation, so not sure, but I tend to forget about the dining room because it is used rarely. I think I find this a little less unusual than you do.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                        Hi Herlock

                        I'm familiar with this explanation and have to say on first reading it sounds compelling. However, on closer scrutiny I find it unconvincing. That someone, Parry, might target a Tuesday knowing it is the day with greatest cash in the box is entirely covincing if robbery is the intent. However, to then rely on a plan which has so many opportunities to go wrong (Wallace may not get the message, Wallace may know or discover MGE does not exist, Wallace may decide not to go, Wallace may not mention details to Julia) when there is a perfect opportunity on the Monday night does not seem a good choice. By waiting and hoping Wallace takes the bait, they risk losing their opportunity completely.
                        I certainly agree that itís not convincing to go to all the trouble of a) getting an accomplice whoís prepared to take all of the risks. b) Employ a ruse involving a phone call and a disguised voice. c) Watch and follow William to ensure that he goes to the chess club in the first place. d) Probably checking out tram times so that they would have a reasonable idea of when the accomplice needed to be out of there. e) Then for the Accomplice to be convincing enough to talk his way into the house past an extremely retiring and reticent Julia. - All of that and the plan could fail in so many commonplace ways. Including of course the central plank of the plan which was the Wallace had to mention the name Qualtrough to Julia (a woman who Parry would have known took absolutely no interest in Williamís business dealings.)

                        Theres nothing convincing about any of this.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Anyone looking for his wife, deeply worried for her safety, would automatically check each room as he came to them. Absolutely no doubt for me. Iím afraid that itís your suggestion that makes no sense. People in that situation simply donít think like that. They donít start weighing up percentages or most visited rooms. The door was in touching distance. Anyone in that position would have checked the Parlour before venturing all the way upstairs.

                          I genuinely find it Ďstrangeí that people are intent on turning a blind eye one this one. Iíd suggest that 999 out of a thousand people would check all of the downstairs rooms first before going upstairs.
                          The usual prejudice and fancy and, above all, SHEER IGNORANCE of the time and the place of this crime...
                          Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot at 2019-02-06 23-35-11.png Views:	0 Size:	49.6 KB ID:	701326


                          The Home and Social Status (1955) By Dennis Chapman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Chapman
                          https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9Z6AAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA58&dq=parlour%20rarely-used&pg=PA58#v=onepage&q&f=false



                          "...the parlour as a rule being a mere storehouse of possessions, rarely, if ever, used."

                          Why would anyone check a storehouse, behind a closed door, before checking more reasonable places?
                          Last edited by RodCrosby; 02-06-2019, 11:44 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


                          • Thanks for posting those diagrams, Rod.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post

                              The usual prejudice and fancy and, above all, SHEER IGNORANCE of the time and the place of this crime...
                              Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot at 2019-02-06 23-35-11.png Views:	0 Size:	49.6 KB ID:	701326


                              The Home and Social Status (1955) By Dennis Chapman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Chapman
                              https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9Z6AAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA58&dq=parlour%20rarely-used&pg=PA58#v=onepage&q&f=false



                              "...the parlour as a rule being a mere storehouse of possessions, rarely, if ever, used."

                              Why would anyone check a storehouse, behind a closed door, before checking more reasonable places?

                              You might want to watch your tone

                              Your "niceguy" act is slipping.

                              Let's see more charts and diagrams

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
                                Why would anyone check a storehouse, behind a closed door, before checking more reasonable places?
                                I agree with the main point that you make, about a rarely used room being by-passed for a room where Julia is more likely to be found. However, to be fair to Herlock's point, we know the parlour was not used as a store room by the Wallaces and they did use it for guests and their music evenings.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X