Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

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

  • I just had to google ‘Mulligan.’ Never heard that one before.
    Regards

    Herlock






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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      My issue with saying “Parry made the call” is that I believe that the caller was the killer. By saying that Parry making the call I’d have to accept that Parry was involved in some way and I don’t think that he was. For me one of the least believable suggestions about the case (apart from MacFall’s suggestion that Wallace might have answered the door to Alan Close dressed in Julia’s clothes) is the suggestion that Wallace took advantage of a prank call made by Parry to kill his wife.
      Forget that for now. Reverse engineer it later once the nature of the crime is established.

      The call is a neverending road if you start at that point and refuse to move on to further evidence, it's a distraction that stands in the way of progress. I can promise that by sticking to the call, it will still be in debate on this thread 20 years from now.

      CCJ can legitimately PROVE Wallace was innocent AND not the caller if he can show convincing evidence it was a robbery.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        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”
        Who said £4 was taken apart from Wallace? Was this ever confirmed by Pru records? I would actually think it pretty foolish if he didn't make some sort of discrepancy, like it'd be VERY damning, and make me think less of his intelligence.

        And let me bring you to another point right now... In fact I'll go 2 for 1 with compelling points:

        1) What I've already brought up, that money was left inside that cash box by the robber. A clear sign pointing away from a robbery motive.

        2) Look at the discovery of the money in that vase upstairs. Do you remember the constable's testimony? It was the CONSTABLE who noticed money in that vase, and Wallace very quickly grabbed it and put his hands on the money.

        Now why might he do that?

        For the obvious reason that, if he knows there's blood on the notes, he needs to quickly touch them so there can be an excuse for it, and it can be used as defence in court - WHICH IT WAS. That EXACT idea that the blood got on there when Wallace fingered the money...

        But wait a second, if there was blood on his hands when he fingered that cash, why didn't it get on the handle when he let the police in? Why didn't it get on anything else he touched? Why did the police officer state Wallace had no blood on his hands? Why didn't Wallace notice there was blood smeared all over the money extending over the top of the bill when he fished it out?

        Comment


        • Wallace said that in the cash box there was “About four pounds has been stolen from the box, which included a one pound treasury note; three, ten shilling treasury notes; and about thirty or forty shillings in silver; a postal order for four shillings and sixpence from WL Springer of 41 New Road, and a cheque on The Midlands Bank, Dale Street, for five pounds seventeen shillings, payable to me and crossed. That was my company’s money. That is all missing except for the four stamps which I have.”

          Its difficult to see why Wallace would have tried to provide a reason for how the blood could have been transferred by him after the murder when he would have known that he had no blood on him and that the police were likely to check him for this at any time. They actually checked him at the station but they could have checked him over at the house.
          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            I just had to google ‘Mulligan.’ Never heard that one before.
            I had to google sock puppet and mulligan, so you're one ahead of me.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

              Who said £4 was taken apart from Wallace? Was this ever confirmed by Pru records? I would actually think it pretty foolish if he didn't make some sort of discrepancy, like it'd be VERY damning, and make me think less of his intelligence.

              And let me bring you to another point right now... In fact I'll go 2 for 1 with compelling points:

              1) What I've already brought up, that money was left inside that cash box by the robber. A clear sign pointing away from a robbery motive.

              2) Look at the discovery of the money in that vase upstairs. Do you remember the constable's testimony? It was the CONSTABLE who noticed money in that vase, and Wallace very quickly grabbed it and put his hands on the money.

              Now why might he do that?

              For the obvious reason that, if he knows there's blood on the notes, he needs to quickly touch them so there can be an excuse for it, and it can be used as defence in court - WHICH IT WAS. That EXACT idea that the blood got on there when Wallace fingered the money...

              But wait a second, if there was blood on his hands when he fingered that cash, why didn't it get on the handle when he let the police in? Why didn't it get on anything else he touched? Why did the police officer state Wallace had no blood on his hands? Why didn't Wallace notice there was blood smeared all over the money extending over the top of the bill when he fished it out?
              It is unlikely that the money in the ornament was taken from the cash box, even if Wallace's math was out. Collecting premiums is likely to mean coins and a mix of notes, whereas the money in the ornament was all £1s.

              I think Wallace forgot the money was there and to keep up the pretence of a burglary, he was going to take it away. Didn't get a chance though. As for the blood on the note, it was dry (else it would have stuck on other notes also). I don't think it is Julia's blood but that of someone who had handled the money in the past.

              Comment


              • Another poster on this forum and I are both of the train of thought that a guilty man would certainly want to touch bloodstained notes before anybody else saw them. It was in fact used as defence:

                With regard to the notes, do you say the accused
                fingered them to this extent, that he withdrew them
                wholly or in part from the ornament or pot?— The
                accused got hold of the ornament with his right hand. He
                took hold of it like that and partly extracted the notes,
                and, as he did so, I requested him not to do so, and put it
                back again. [The witness illustrated.]

                But his fingers had touched the notes ? — Yes, his fingers
                had touched the notes.

                And they were partly withdrawn, so if there was any
                blood on his hands it would have got on the notes ? — Yes,
                it is quite possible.
                Here is how the event played out on that night:

                What did you find in the middle bedroom? — In the
                middle bedroom the gas jet was lit. I asked the accused
                if this light was burning when he entered the house. He
                replied : “ I changed myself in this room before leaving,”

                Did you notice anything on the mantelpiece ? — On the
                mantelpiece I noticed an ornament from which five or six
                £i notes were protruding.

                Mr. Roland Oliver — Let me see the notes. [Same
                handed to learned counsel.]

                Mr. Hemmerde — Meanwhile, what did the accused
                do ? — The accused took hold of the ornament and partly
                extracted the notes, and said, “ Here is some money
                which has not been touched.”

                What did you do ? — I requested the accused to replace
                the ornament and the notes in their original positions, and
                this he did.
                I can say absolutely, if I was guilty, and I knew there were bloodied notes in that vase, I would put my hands on them ASAP. Once a crime scene has been tampered with, it calls into question whether the blood was already left there by the intruder, or by the person who handled it accidentally, which was used by the defence as I quoted above.

                If it had been left by an intruder, it casts severe doubts on the likelihood of a robbery, considering a burglar would obviously have taken it if he'd had it in his hands. More on this matter:

                There were four £1 notes ? — Yes.

                Did you find any blood upon them ? — I found blood on
                the one which is right in the middle of the bundle.

                Was there any blood on the outer one ? — No blood on
                any of the others.

                A suggestion was made today that somebody, by pick-
                ing them up, might have put blood upon them ; anybody
                who had blood on their hands, picking them up fiom the
                mantelpiece. You heard that?— Yes, but they did not
                put this blood on.

                That blood extended over the note ?— Yes ; it extended
                right the way up to the top. It is a smear which might be
                caused if you had blood on your thumb and you opened
                them like that.
                And:

                With regard to these notes, you have very fairly said,
                since they were first given to you, they have been handled
                and handled ? — Yes.

                When you saw the smear, it was quite obvious ? —
                Yes.

                So the position is this, is it ? If it was done in life by a man with a bloody finger, he would have seen it, would
                he not ? — Yes, he ought to have seen it.
                FYI Wallace, in trial, claimed that he had counted the notes at the scene AFTER it was suggested the blood could have gotten upon those notes if they had been opened like that. He had not previously mentioned this to anyone, and it took Roland Oliver by surprise. It also does not seem to match what the constable saw, which is that he simply partly extracted them. The notes were folded. To count them would require unfolding, not just partial extraction.
                Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-11-2019, 07:49 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                  It is unlikely that the money in the ornament was taken from the cash box, even if Wallace's math was out. Collecting premiums is likely to mean coins and a mix of notes, whereas the money in the ornament was all £1s.

                  I think Wallace forgot the money was there and to keep up the pretence of a burglary, he was going to take it away. Didn't get a chance though. As for the blood on the note, it was dry (else it would have stuck on other notes also). I don't think it is Julia's blood but that of someone who had handled the money in the past.
                  I very strongly refute that it wasn't Julia's blood.

                  Have you ever received a heavily blood-stained note in your entire life (this wasn't just a little spot, this was a massive smear that extended over the top)? I haven't. I don't know anyone who has. And if you did, you would damn well know it. If it was dry as you say then I guess that would mean it was already there, not left by someone at the scene. That's a big hit to Wallace, because he claimed to have counted them and said they hadn't been touched - yet managed to miss the huge bloody smear on it?

                  As for the money in the cash box, maybe I was hasty to assume the Crown's statement as correct (I am extremely surprised the defence didn't challenge that statement, because it's completely condemning and a jury buying into it would be heavily swayed). However, apart from the extreme suspiciousness of money being left in the cash box (which in and of itself is a HUGE hit for a burglary theory) I'd like to make another point:

                  Only one note had blood on it, hidden in the middle of the pack, and this was the statement about the money missing from that box:

                  About £4.
                  has been stolen from that box, which included a £1
                  Treasury note
                  One one pound treasury note was missing from that box, and only one in the vase had blood smeared on it.
                  Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-11-2019, 07:51 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                    I very strongly refute that it wasn't Julia's blood.

                    Have you ever received a heavily blood-stained note in your entire life (this wasn't just a little spot, this was a massive smear that extended over the top)? I haven't. I don't know anyone who has. And if you did, you would damn well know it. If it was dry as you say then I guess that would mean it was already there, not left by someone at the scene. That's a big hit to Wallace, because he claimed to have counted them and said they hadn't been touched - yet managed to miss the huge bloody smear on it?

                    As for the money in the cash box, maybe I was hasty to assume the Crown's statement as correct (I am extremely surprised the defence didn't challenge that statement, because it's completely condemning and a jury buying into it would be heavily swayed). However, apart from the extreme suspiciousness of money being left in the cash box (which in and of itself is a HUGE hit for a burglary theory) I'd like to make another point:

                    Only one note had blood on it, hidden in the middle of the pack, and this was the statement about the money missing from that box:



                    One one pound treasury note was missing from that box, and only one in the vase had blood smeared on it.
                    I think we both believe it highly likely that a robbery did not take place. I have no strong view about the origin of the notes or the blood stain. I think we cannot be sure the notes were transferred. And you're right, blood stained money is rare, so it would be a coincidence that one should turn up at a murder scene.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                      I think we both believe it highly likely that a robbery did not take place. I have no strong view about the origin of the notes or the blood stain. I think we cannot be sure the notes were transferred. And you're right, blood stained money is rare, so it would be a coincidence that one should turn up at a murder scene.
                      That was the stance of everyone at the trial too, including the defence - I don't believe anyone tried to claim it was a robbery. I think it is quite clear it is not.

                      The fact one £1 note was taken from that box, and one mysteriously blood soaked £1 note appears in the vase upstairs, is highly suspicious.
                      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-11-2019, 09:37 PM.

                      Comment


                      • I may be following a false lead here about the smeared note... I don't think the stain was already there. But not sure when it was left.

                        I'm just thinking if someone handled it and put that smear there, I think they would have noticed. Also if it was put on there while someone was counting them, the blood should be wet to allow transfer, and then it should have got on the others or other things around the house?

                        What do you think?

                        Why do you think a dollar was left in the cash box?

                        Could the coins in Julia's handbag have been from the box?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                          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.
                          He might Rob his own house , in fact I'm surprised noone has picked up on the idea that if Wallace was going to plan his wife's murder, why would he not arrange it so that his call was made directly to the Pru. at a time when he had over a hundred pounds in the house , a 'fully fledged' if you will ,murder burglary ? Something along the following lines
                          "Hello I'm a good friend of one of Mr. Wallace's customers and I would like him to call by my house to discuss an insurance policy..........."

                          I don't see the reason for his using the chess club , the telephone caper ,or the staging of the scene in his home, unless it was purely to confound the authorities. His only real concern was to commit the crime right after the paper and milk boys had been and still make the tram by
                          6 past 7 . Believing that the pathologist wouldn't have been able to set time of death accurately enough, he certainly couldn't have wished for a more helpful report than Mcfalls .I believe in Wallaces guilt , a big reason being the 'over the top alibl's' and the whole Allerton fiasco, but he probably reasoned the more alibl's' the merrier, they won't hang me for that.

                          Comment


                          • The problem with him potentially burgling his own home is the pitiful payload. If he'd done it when there'd been £100 in there it's more believable.

                            I think anyone other than Wallace would have left a note. I remember someone earlier said it was because they didn't wanna show they knew where his address was, and I bought into that... But duh silly me, the police obviously found out they had the address when they went back the following day!

                            Btw there's no saying some of the burglary staging didn't take place after he got home. He went into the house alone and wentinto each room.
                            Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-12-2019, 01:03 AM.

                            Comment


                            • For me, the question is ‘is it reasonable to suggest that Wallace unwittingly transferred blood on to one of the notes as he transferred them to the vase upstairs?’

                              Wallace wouldn’t knowingly have left a bloodstained note in the jar because it would have told the police that the killer had handled the cash and so they would naturally have asked ‘why didn’t he take it?’

                              So we are left with an accidental transferral. We now ask ‘wouldn’t Wallace have been really careful about having blood on his hands? Wouldnt he have felt the wet blood on his hand especially as he touched the note?’ Wouldn’t wet blood have transferred from one note to another as they appear to have been rolled up in the vase?

                              An an additional question might be (and I can’t remember if there is an answer...Antony might recall) was the ‘blood’ ever checked? Was it blood or might it just have been a stain that looked like blood?
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                For me, the question is ‘is it reasonable to suggest that Wallace unwittingly transferred blood on to one of the notes as he transferred them to the vase upstairs?’

                                Wallace wouldn’t knowingly have left a bloodstained note in the jar because it would have told the police that the killer had handled the cash and so they would naturally have asked ‘why didn’t he take it?’

                                So we are left with an accidental transferral. We now ask ‘wouldn’t Wallace have been really careful about having blood on his hands? Wouldnt he have felt the wet blood on his hand especially as he touched the note?’ Wouldn’t wet blood have transferred from one note to another as they appear to have been rolled up in the vase?

                                An an additional question might be (and I can’t remember if there is an answer...Antony might recall) was the ‘blood’ ever checked? Was it blood or might it just have been a stain that looked like blood?
                                Well, we have to assume, whoever left it there, they likely had a very minimal amount of blood on their hands. If it was a lot, we could have expected other things in the house (such as door handles, the vase itself, etc.) to have blood upon them. But then again also consider that blood can be easily wiped off of things such as handles, but you cannot wipe or wash blood off of a note. I think that's important to keep in mind, because anything else covered in blood could have been easily cleaned by the culprit.

                                Because of Lily Hall, we mustn't rule out the possibility that even a guilty Wallace had someone kill Julia for him and make it look like a robbery gone wrong.

                                A twist on Rod's novel theory could involve an unknown "hitman" being admitted under the name Qualtrough, and making short work of Julia, before poorly staging a robbery.

                                Is it possible, that when Wallace went into that home, he found the £1 note with blood upon it, and transferred it into the vase upstairs as he went? It seems like it's reaching a bit, I don't know that I buy it... But for me the idea that the note was already stained is also hard to believe. For a start, had Wallace have seen there was a smear of blood on the note (or knew that it had been there all along) I think he would have said so to the police or at his trial, because it seems pretty incriminating.

                                If it was put there by someone else in the home (who didn't have incentive to clean stained handles etc.), then they would have had wet blood on their hands, so I would have expected transfer elsewhere (and for them to notice the stain they created), and also like you said, for blood to be transferred onto other notes. I think it had somehow gotten blood upon it, been left somewhere in the home, and then noticed and transferred later on after it had dried.

                                By the way, does anyone know how long Wallace was inside the house before finding Julia's body? You would expect a terrified husband (particularly after seeing a wrenched off cupboard door) to search at quite a pace, and be very vocal in calling for his wife, as soon as he got into the kitchen in fact. If it was a slow meandering around the home, it is more reasonable to assume staging could have possibly taken place during that search.
                                Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-12-2019, 11:08 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X