Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

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

  • I certainly donít feel that Parry made the call.
    Regards

    Herlock






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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

      I am not sure this has been established, but have nothing to add to the posts already made on this subject at this point.
      Trust me just say it's Parry so we can move on... I mean 150 pages deep still "debating the call".

      You could debate the call for 5000000 pages and you STILL won't have established who was in that box, because you CAN'T.

      Can you rule out Wallace being in there? No. Can you rule out Parry being in there? No. Can you rule out Marsden being in there? No. Can you rule out a random unknown who someone paid to make the call being in that box? No. Can you rule out someone else from the Pru or chess club being in that box? No (unless Wallace was the last to arrive).

      But what if we establish the nature of the crime. If it's a burglary can we rule out Wallace being in that box? YES. Because he wouldn't rob his own house.
      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-10-2019, 06:44 PM.

      Comment


      • The kitchen cabinet door; was it said to have been locked, prior to being ripped off, or just closed?

        In any event, it occurred to me it might have been used as a leg-up, but couldn't take the burglars weight,

        and the hinges gave way . The only person that knew of the cash box location was Parry,

        and Wallace ,(according to Wallace )so, the only reason an unknowing burglar would have for scaling the cupboard would

        be if he had the luxury of an empty house, this wasn't the case ,so zooming in on the insignificant

        metal box, is odd , so forget the Anfield burglar, or any other burglar for that matter. Wallace guilty

        to my mind, was killing two birds with one stone, murdering his wife, and framing Parry.

        All things seem to point in that direction for me, He really believed he had every reason to get

        Away with it ,and he did! Just.
        Last edited by moste; 02-10-2019, 07:37 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

          One slight weakness with this theory is that the culprit appears not to have stolen much. About four pounds was missing from the cash-box (less the coins found on the hearth) but nothing else of value taken, despite money and Julia's handbag being in full view. Not a very proficient burglar.
          Just a thing about this, ever suspicious me, we only have Wallace's word about cash movement . It goes without saying we must guard against believing it is so, just because Wallace said it was so.
          Last edited by moste; 02-10-2019, 07:51 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by moste View Post
            The kitchen cabinet door; was it said to have been locked, prior to being ripped off, or just closed?

            In any event, it occurred to me it might have been used as a leg-up, but couldn't take the burglars weight,

            and the hinges gave way . The only person that knew of the cash box location was Parry,

            and Wallace ,(according to Wallace )so, the only reason an unknowing burglar would have for scaling the cupboard would

            be if he had the luxury of an empty house, this wasn't the case ,so zooming in on the insignificant

            metal box, is odd , so forget the Anfield burglar, or any other burglar for that matter. Wallace guilty

            to my mind, was killing two birds with one stone, murdering his wife, and framing Parry.

            All things seem to point in that direction for me, He really believed he had every reason to get

            Away with it ,and he did! Just.
            The door was pulled off intentionally. Unless it's shown it was locked, then it was definitely intentional (I've never seen a kitchen cupboard with a lock on it by the way). Very stealthy of "Mr. Qualtrough"!

            If Wallace had Parry in mind he made a grave error, should have put a chair over next to it, so it looked like the "burglar" was too short to reach.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

              One slight weakness with this theory is that the culprit appears not to have stolen much. About four pounds was missing from the cash-box (less the coins found on the hearth) but nothing else of value taken, despite money and Julia's handbag being in full view. Not a very proficient burglar.
              Actually the culprit stole NOTHING. The same amount of "missing money" from the cash box was found in a vase upstairs, smeared in blood no less. LOL.

              Can you even believe that?! This was some Three Stooges tier job.
              Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-10-2019, 10:23 PM.

              Comment


              • Hi WWH,

                Im not at home at the moment so I have no books with me for reference and my memory isnít always great but I donít think that itís been proven that the cash in the vase upstairs was exactly the same amount as was in the cash box. One point I think I recall (memory again) is that the note with the blood on it was in the middle of other notes so we might ask why the blood didnít transfer from one note to another?

                Apologies for being a bit vague but someone might have the details to hand.
                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  Hi WWH,

                  Im not at home at the moment so I have no books with me for reference and my memory isnít always great but I donít think that itís been proven that the cash in the vase upstairs was exactly the same amount as was in the cash box. One point I think I recall (memory again) is that the note with the blood on it was in the middle of other notes so we might ask why the blood didnít transfer from one note to another?

                  Apologies for being a bit vague but someone might have the details to hand.
                  Here:

                  from 7 ft. 2 ins. high a cash-box with a broken lid, he had left in it a dollar bill, and had taken some other things, and apparently, having gone upstairs, had put the same amount of money in a vase on the mantelpiece, which does not look very much as though his object was robbery.

                  Comment


                  • Where is that quote from WWH? It does sound familiar?
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      Where is that quote from WWH? It does sound familiar?
                      From the full trial mate:

                      https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet....Trial_djvu.txt

                      Trust me man, just say Parry made the call and then everyone can move on. It's an unwinnable debate for ALL sides, literally anyone could have been in that booth. There is a good case for Parry being in there, I wouldn't even doubt it or be surprised if it was him - but really it could be anyone, there's absolutely no way to prove it one way or another. I do wonder if CCJ is insistent on discussing the call because it's the only part of his book's theory he can make a rational argument for?

                      It's MUCH easier to reverse engineer the crime and crime scene itself to determine who might have been in that box.

                      A true robbery motive would exonerate Wallace entirely. If CCJ and RodCrosby are so sure it was a robbery, they should focus on proving that, because if they can, Wallace is completely out of the question. They're obviously intelligent people and well read on this case, so they must understand that this makes more sense. I just can't buy the theory presented by CCJ. And it has nothing to do with me doubting Parry made the call, but everything to do with the crime scene.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                        Yes, from the opening speech for the Crown, which doesn't make it the truth. £5 (in £1 notes) was found in the vase, whereas Wallace claimed that "about £4" was missing from the cash box, this consisting mostly of 10 shilling notes and silver.


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by gallicrow View Post

                          Yes, from the opening speech for the Crown, which doesn't make it the truth. £5 (in £1 notes) was found in the vase, whereas Wallace claimed that "about £4" was missing from the cash box, this consisting mostly of 10 shilling notes and silver.
                          Pru records would show how much should have been in that box exactly. If the Crown was wrong in their claim I'd expect it to have been challenged.

                          By the way, leaving money in the box is just as condemning for the idea of theft. Not that there isn't already mountains of evidence against that theory (some making particular theories borderline impossible). You could write a whole book on why it obviously wasn't a robbery.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                            From the full trial mate:

                            https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet....Trial_djvu.txt

                            Trust me man, just say Parry made the call and then everyone can move on. It's an unwinnable debate for ALL sides, literally anyone could have been in that booth. There is a good case for Parry being in there, I wouldn't even doubt it or be surprised if it was him - but really it could be anyone, there's absolutely no way to prove it one way or another. I do wonder if CCJ is insistent on discussing the call because it's the only part of his book's theory he can make a rational argument for?

                            It's MUCH easier to reverse engineer the crime and crime scene itself to determine who might have been in that box.

                            A true robbery motive would exonerate Wallace entirely. If CCJ and RodCrosby are so sure it was a robbery, they should focus on proving that, because if they can, Wallace is completely out of the question. They're obviously intelligent people and well read on this case, so they must understand that this makes more sense. I just can't buy the theory presented by CCJ. And it has nothing to do with me doubting Parry made the call, but everything to do with the crime scene.
                            There is a discrepancy though.

                            “4 had been taken fiom a small cash-box. But in one of the rooms upstairs five Treasury £1 notes were discovered in an ornament”
                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • My issue with saying ďParry made the callĒ is that I believe that the caller was the killer. By saying that Parry making the call Iíd have to accept that Parry was involved in some way and I donít think that he was. For me one of the least believable suggestions about the case (apart from MacFallís suggestion that Wallace might have answered the door to Alan Close dressed in Juliaís clothes) is the suggestion that Wallace took advantage of a prank call made by Parry to kill his wife.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Hi all, and sorry once again for breaking into your flow. Because of the recent sock puppetry that has run rampant on this thread, we are going to be doing a deep dive on EVERYONE who is currently posting on this thread to check and see if they have a second (or third, or fourth) sock account. If you have created a second account, even if you have not used it, you have one shot at remaining active on the boards: Send me a Private Message and say, "Sorry, I screwed up" and you will be given an infraction and will suffer no further penalty and be allowed to continue posting with no hard feelings, as we are all human and prone to foolish impulse on occasion. We've all been there. If you make me come to you, you will be banned. If you've created a sock puppet, this is your one shot at a Mulligan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X