Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

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

  • A couple more things, Julia had told Amy that Wallace had business in the "Calderstone's district", which heavily suggests Wallace's "total stranger in the district" line was a complete lie.

    He also ignored the tram conductors recommendation for the #7 tram and boarded the 5A. It would seem he already knew where he was going.

    Comment


    • Ive been looking through the thread but couldn't find it but I remember it mentioned that a non Wallace killer did some things to "frame" Wallace. does anyone hold this opinion?
      "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 been looking through the thread but couldn't find it but I remember it mentioned that a non Wallace killer did some things to "frame" Wallace. does anyone hold this opinion?
        I thought that... But Wallace effectively did more to implicate himself than anyone else did. Lots of lies, retractions, and slip-ups in his statements and on trial, as well as unnatural behavior on his trip to Menlove.

        Telling Julia it was in the Calderstone's district shows he knew where he was going. Ignoring the tram conductor's advice proves he knew where he was going and how to get there.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

          I can believe an altered version of Rod's theory where the motive is murder.

          In other words, someone who wanted Julia dead had "Qualtrough" admitted into the home to kill her.

          I don't buy that it was a burglary at all. IMO it was really obviously staged...

          By the way I'm about 200 pages into Gannon's book. A few things stood out to me... First of all that Lily Hall's testimony gave a description of what Wallace was wearing, which matched perfectly with what others who saw him that night had described him as wearing. Is there any reason this shouldn't hugely corroborate the accuracy of this sighting?

          Also apparently the timings of the trams to the chess club were taken, and given when the call came in at the booth, it was apparently shown that it would have been impossible for Wallace to have arrived at the chess club at 7:45 that night (or whenever it was, I forget). And that Caird knew Wallace's address - and it appeared meticulously timed so that Caird would not be there in order to supply the address. The significance of why the caller would need to request the address is unknown to me.
          Antony researched tram times and found that it was certainly possible for Wallace to have gotten there by 7.45. Murphy even suggestedthat there was a bus available which Wallace might have taken. I questioned why Wallace (who had obviously been to the club numerous times) would have left it so late that he got to the club exactly on the match deadline? Was it due to the fact that the call took longer than expected? Antony brought up the fact that earlier in the evening there had been a problem (I can’t recall exactly but I think it was something like a collapsed bridge which would have affected the trams) and so this could have accounted for why Wallace cut it so fine.

          Wallace would have known roughly when Caird usually arrived because I believe that it was Caird’s habit to go straight to chess after closing up his shop.

          The question of why the caller would ask for Wallace’s address is curious. It was first mentioned in Murphy’s book and then repeated in Gannon. None of the books before them mention it. When I mentioned it a few months ago Rod appeared to feel that Murphy just made it up but I couldn’t see it. I tried to contact Murphy through his publisher but they had lost contact. I then asked Antony who checked his research and found that it was mentioned in Beattie’s statement so we know that the question was asked. We don’t know why though as it’s completely unnecessary as ‘Qualtrough’ wanted Wallace to come to him not the other way around. So we can’t come up with an obvious reason why either Wallace or Parry would ask it. So who would be least likely to ask it? Surely Parry? Wallace alone knew that Beattie didn’t know where he lived and that the only member that did, Caird, wouldn’t have arrived yet. Parry couldnt have known that Beattie wouldn’t have told him the address which, at the very least would have caused suspicion. Beattie might even have asked “why did you want Mr Wallace’s address if you need him to come to your house?” Why would Wallace ask it? Maybe he was trying to give the impression that Qualtrough was trying to be certain that he had the right house? Who knows? Antony considers that this point slightly points toward Wallace rather than Parry.
          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Antony researched tram times and found that it was certainly possible for Wallace to have gotten there by 7.45. Murphy even suggestedthat there was a bus available which Wallace might have taken. I questioned why Wallace (who had obviously been to the club numerous times) would have left it so late that he got to the club exactly on the match deadline? Was it due to the fact that the call took longer than expected? Antony brought up the fact that earlier in the evening there had been a problem (I can’t recall exactly but I think it was something like a collapsed bridge which would have affected the trams) and so this could have accounted for why Wallace cut it so fine.

            Wallace would have known roughly when Caird usually arrived because I believe that it was Caird’s habit to go straight to chess after closing up his shop.

            The question of why the caller would ask for Wallace’s address is curious. It was first mentioned in Murphy’s book and then repeated in Gannon. None of the books before them mention it. When I mentioned it a few months ago Rod appeared to feel that Murphy just made it up but I couldn’t see it. I tried to contact Murphy through his publisher but they had lost contact. I then asked Antony who checked his research and found that it was mentioned in Beattie’s statement so we know that the question was asked. We don’t know why though as it’s completely unnecessary as ‘Qualtrough’ wanted Wallace to come to him not the other way around. So we can’t come up with an obvious reason why either Wallace or Parry would ask it. So who would be least likely to ask it? Surely Parry? Wallace alone knew that Beattie didn’t know where he lived and that the only member that did, Caird, wouldn’t have arrived yet. Parry couldnt have known that Beattie wouldn’t have told him the address which, at the very least would have caused suspicion. Beattie might even have asked “why did you want Mr Wallace’s address if you need him to come to your house?” Why would Wallace ask it? Maybe he was trying to give the impression that Qualtrough was trying to be certain that he had the right house? Who knows? Antony considers that this point slightly points toward Wallace rather than Parry.
            I have finished Gannon's book now.

            It actually aligns with one of my initial thoughts on the case, except I suspected homosexual behavior as the motive (lmao). If we believe ALL the witnesses, then it has to be said Wallace and Parry were both involved, and that someone else who resembled Marsden also was. Another forum poster also seems to follow gayness (the one who got me into this case), based on a blog post comment, Parry's cryptic accusation, and more.

            The call box, I agree based on the evidence and testimonies presented, was almost certainly legitimately faulty. But Parry's actual lies about where he was when the call was made do make me question his innocence.

            I was curious why Marsden and his pathetic alibi wasn't investigated further, he really was basically erased out of the case despite the crap alibi, the R M Qualtrough name, and the testimony of Lily Hall. This book explains how he had police connections to some Duckworth guy.

            It's amazing how much information is not easily accessible online for free.

            I had always felt Lily Hall should be given more attention, but now her testimony seems a lot more iron clad considering she correctly identified the outfit he was wearing that night in her statement (corroborated by other witnesses he had spoken to) - and the proof that she knew him by picking him out of a lineup. Is there any known reason why this should not be taken as confirmation of her account as being accurate? Like I said, Wallace was also very obviously evasive when discussing if he had spoken to anyone on the way home, before he'd even been told he had been spotted by Lily Hall.

            I remember disagreeing with a few things in the book... First of all using Julia's stomach contents to show when she died, this is the same inaccurate method that caused Mark Lundy to almost get away with murder, she could have eaten earlier. A few more things.

            I did not until now realize how dodgy Wallace's outing to Menlove was. From blatant lying about not knowing the district (despite Julia having relayed to Amy it was in the Calderstone's district), to refuting the tram conductor saying he was told to get on the 5A tram (he was told to get on the 7). I'm quite sure he knew where he was going... Wallace being totally clueless seems hard for me to believe, given the huge amount of lies, contradictions, and alterations of his statements.

            Comment


            • As for asking for the address, there's two things:

              1) I think it's a good way to make it seem as though the caller is unknown to Wallace.

              2) It establishes a reason for why they would have to call the club in the first place (if they knew his address, they'd just go talk to him there!!!)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                As for asking for the address, there's two things:

                1) I think it's a good way to make it seem as though the caller is unknown to Wallace.

                2) It establishes a reason for why they would have to call the club in the first place (if they knew his address, they'd just go talk to him there!!!)
                Good points. Both points could apply to Parry too of course but in trying to get Wallace out of the house on the following night (something that he couldn’t be certain of achieving) he would have needed, above all, for the phone call to have been believable to Wallace (and to a lesser extent Beattie.) Wallace might already have had doubts after hearing the message - How did the caller specifically want Wallace to the exclusion of all other insurance agents? - How could the caller know that Wallace attended the chess club? - Why didn’t the caller visit Wallace at home or even call the Prudential? - And then to add to these, why ask for his address when he wanted Wallace to go to his own house?

                These combined doubts might have increased the chances of Wallace deciding not to go trudging around out of working hours.
                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Good points. Both points could apply to Parry too of course but in trying to get Wallace out of the house on the following night (something that he couldn’t be certain of achieving) he would have needed, above all, for the phone call to have been believable to Wallace (and to a lesser extent Beattie.) Wallace might already have had doubts after hearing the message - How did the caller specifically want Wallace to the exclusion of all other insurance agents? - How could the caller know that Wallace attended the chess club? - Why didn’t the caller visit Wallace at home or even call the Prudential? - And then to add to these, why ask for his address when he wanted Wallace to go to his own house?

                  These combined doubts might have increased the chances of Wallace deciding not to go trudging around out of working hours.
                  Yes that's correct. I'm of the impression that Wallace had involvement in his wife's death myself, although I don't discount Parry being in that box and calling on orders of Wallace.

                  If this happened, I expect Parry ****ed up lol. I think he was meant to say west and said east (I now realize Beattie couldn't have got it wrong, because he repeated the address back to the caller), which would be why Wallace was strongly expecting west. I also believe he would have told Parry to wait a little bit, and was expecting that the call would have come a bit later.

                  My friend you are in contact with and I are aboard the Gannon train but with a different angle on the motive. We're trying to get a copy of the "Under a Mask" book by J Leys as the title sounds suggestive. I feel he wouldn't have fudged the authors name and publishing date unless on purpose but I don't know. I know about the "birds beasts and animals" book (or w.e. it's called) but the date is 1886. 1889 matches more with Under a Mask as a switch of the last 8 and 9. I admit the term "fascinating" does tend to suggest non-fiction but still... Could also be:

                  "At the sign of the Golden Horn . George Newnes, London 1898."

                  It's a sketchy lead but worth exploring IMO. The Lindsay's was popular but all 3 volumes came out in 1888.

                  Since Gannon's book, I no longer see how Lily Hall's testimony can be disputed given she accurately described the way he was dressed (as well as picking him out of the lineup to prove she knew him - but moreso describing his clothing accurately). And I now believe with certainty that Wallace knew where he was going (he had told Julia it was the Calderstone's district, but told tram conductors he was a "stranger to the district"), and ignored the tram conductor who told him to get on the #7 tram because he KNEW he needed the 5A. I think that is very strong proof his act of not knowing where he was going was completely untrue. On trial when Calderstone's was discussed his answers were unusual.
                  Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-15-2019, 05:35 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                    As for asking for the address, there's two things:

                    1) I think it's a good way to make it seem as though the caller is unknown to Wallace.

                    2) It establishes a reason for why they would have to call the club in the first place (if they knew his address, they'd just go talk to him there!!!)
                    But a third thing and even more telling .If Wallace was told by Beattie that the stranger had actually said 'could you tell me his address'? Well! I for one wouldn't be heading over to the other side of Liverpool the next night. Did Beattie tell Wallace this or did it come out later? maybe Wallace was only given part of the communication .Regardless , the whole thing smacks of a 'set play'
                    Last edited by moste; 02-15-2019, 07:49 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by moste View Post

                      But a third thing and even more telling .If Wallace was told by Beattie that the stranger had actually said 'could you tell me his address'? Well! I for one wouldn't be heading over to the other side of Liverpool the next night. Did Beattie tell Wallace this or did it come out later? maybe Wallace was only given part of the communication .Regardless , the whole thing smacks of a 'set play'
                      Currently myself and another forum member are of the belief that Parry probably made the call and ****ed it up.

                      I think Wallace had told him to say west. When Beattie relayed "east" Wallace was confused and had expected west - which only makes sense if he'd engineered the call or KNEW there wasn't an east. I don't think Beattie got it wrong because he said he repeated back the address to the caller who confirmed it. This is also possible if Wallace had made the call himself and was just faking cluelessness. But Parry lied about his alibi so I'm not sure.

                      We're also of the belief that Lily Hall's sighting is genuine, given the fact she accurately described what he was wearing and picked him out of a lineup. To me that verifies her statement... Wallace would have no reason to lie about speaking to someone on the way home unless it was someone involved in the crime. He had no problem identifying everyone else he'd spoken to... If it was an innocent conversation, it would also again corroborate his story that he went down that entry back to his house, which would be a good thing for him. Nobody came forward either which slightly suggests they were up to no good.

                      If ALL witnesses are telling the truth, then Parry is involved in some way (Parkes), and someone who looks like Marsden but may not be him is also involved (Lily Hall). And by Wallace's own proveable lies and retracted statements and slip ups, e.g. claiming to be a "stranger in the district" when he'd told Julia earlier that it was in the "Calderstone's district", an area he was familiar with, he almost definitely knew something too. This to me makes the most sense.

                      Perhaps the pathologists ****ed Wallace over. Maybe he was expecting a more accurate time of death that would completely exonerate him.

                      Comment


                      • Something that I’ve talked about recently is Parry’s Monday night ‘alibi.’ It’s something that I do have a problem with. Why would Parry give such an easily disprovable alibi? One that he couldn’t have failed to have known would be revealed? If Parry was acting as part of a plan, even one that he might have created himself, wouldn’t he surely have sorted himself out with a false alibi? His accomplice perhaps or one of his dodgy mates?

                        I know that Antony felt that I was being more than a little ‘defend Parry at all costs’ on this and yes, I can perhaps understand someone saying that, but that’s honestly not how I’m thinking. I’m always wary of seeing or hearing someone, of otherwise reasonable intelligence, doing something incredibly stupid. And that’s the case for me with Parry’s Monday night ‘alibi.’ It just seems too stupid for me.

                        He appears not have asked the Lloyd’s to provide him with a false alibi so isn’t it possible that the reason was - that he simply didn’t feel the need to. He just assumed the Lloyd’s would back him up because he genuinely believed that he was being truthful. Maybe his ‘explained’ actions for the Monday night where what he usually did. Or what he often did.

                        Basically it boils down to two questions:

                        1. Is it possible that an innocent Parry might simply have mis-remembered his exact actions on the Monday night?

                        and,

                        2. Knowing that he was being questioned in regard to a hanging offence is it likely that Parry would have given himself an alibi that he would have known would have been shown to be a lie as soon as the police interviewed the Lloyds?
                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment


                        • Well if he was the caller then he couldn't have an alibi so just had to make something up real quick. He did burst in on someone's music lesson or something IIRC, or was that the night after? I forget...

                          The night of the murder he knew all his random movements down to the T.

                          I don't think there was an attempt made to scam a call though - even the switchboard operators had problems connecting it. I think there were genuine unexpected issues with the booth.

                          I think Wallace was most certainly involved, murder most certainly the motive... But the question is why? I believe Wallace may have genuinely cared for Julia in a friendly way based on his diary entries but we'll never know for sure. I doubt they were sexually active, Julia was described as virginal on examination. I believe he was seen crying like the officer was so adamant about. For me I would think along the lines of a romantic/sexual motive. E.g. infidelity or homosexuality.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                            Well if he was the caller then he couldn't have an alibi so just had to make something up real quick. He did burst in on someone's music lesson or something IIRC, or was that the night after? I forget...

                            The night of the murder he knew all his random movements down to the T.

                            I don't think there was an attempt made to scam a call though - even the switchboard operators had problems connecting it. I think there were genuine unexpected issues with the booth.

                            I think Wallace was most certainly involved, murder most certainly the motive... But the question is why? I believe Wallace may have genuinely cared for Julia in a friendly way based on his diary entries but we'll never know for sure. I doubt they were sexually active, Julia was described as virginal on examination. I believe he was seen crying like the officer was so adamant about. For me I would think along the lines of a romantic/sexual motive. E.g. infidelity or homosexuality.
                            I don’t really see Parry having to make something up quickly. Whether he planned events or was just involved through the phone call he would surely have expected to be asked where he was and so would have either had to prepare an alibi or at the very least not come up with an easily disprovable one which would immediately set alarm bells ringing for the police?

                            It’s also worth asking, if Wallace and Parry were jointly involved (with Parry making the call) why would Wallace have pointed the police so heavily in Parry’s direction? When he gave the police a list of those people that he believed that Julia would have let in Wallace mentions a few names and their occupations with no their details. He also gave a small paragraph on Marsden but a virtual essay on Parry even down to where his girlfriend lived. If Parry was involved with Wallace I’d have expected him to mention Parry in case his name came up later but I can’t see why he would go into such detail, pretty much making Parry the likeliest culprit? After all, if the wheels had come off the plan and Parry was put under serious pressure from the police he might conceivably have admitted to the phone call but removed any sinister aspect. He might have said something like “Wallace paid me to make the call because he wanted an excuse to go out on the Tuesday night and he didn’t want Julia knowing where he was off to. I assumed that he was seeing another woman so I thought nothing of it at the time then when I heard about the murder I panicked, thinking that the police might suspect me.”

                            We also have to ask why Wallace pointed the finger at Parry after he was acquitted and whilst Parry was alive to potentially respond?

                            On the crying. If the Constable was correct it might have been just the result of the enormity of what Wallace was planning to do? He might have been thinking back to happier times? We can’t know either way of course.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              Ive been looking through the thread but couldn't find it but I remember it mentioned that a non Wallace killer did some things to "frame" Wallace. does anyone hold this opinion?
                              Hi Abby,

                              Sorry I missed your post.

                              As far as I’m aware no one holds that view with any conviction although like most things with the case it’s not impossible. I did post a scenario on the other thread a few months ago postulating a killer as someone from Julia’s past who revenged himself on Julia by killing her and then taking the opportunity of a double-whammy by implicating her husband. Especially if the killer was an ex-suitor of Julia’s.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                I don’t really see Parry having to make something up quickly. Whether he planned events or was just involved through the phone call he would surely have expected to be asked where he was and so would have either had to prepare an alibi or at the very least not come up with an easily disprovable one which would immediately set alarm bells ringing for the police?

                                It’s also worth asking, if Wallace and Parry were jointly involved (with Parry making the call) why would Wallace have pointed the police so heavily in Parry’s direction? When he gave the police a list of those people that he believed that Julia would have let in Wallace mentions a few names and their occupations with no their details. He also gave a small paragraph on Marsden but a virtual essay on Parry even down to where his girlfriend lived. If Parry was involved with Wallace I’d have expected him to mention Parry in case his name came up later but I can’t see why he would go into such detail, pretty much making Parry the likeliest culprit? After all, if the wheels had come off the plan and Parry was put under serious pressure from the police he might conceivably have admitted to the phone call but removed any sinister aspect. He might have said something like “Wallace paid me to make the call because he wanted an excuse to go out on the Tuesday night and he didn’t want Julia knowing where he was off to. I assumed that he was seeing another woman so I thought nothing of it at the time then when I heard about the murder I panicked, thinking that the police might suspect me.”

                                We also have to ask why Wallace pointed the finger at Parry after he was acquitted and whilst Parry was alive to potentially respond?

                                On the crying. If the Constable was correct it might have been just the result of the enormity of what Wallace was planning to do? He might have been thinking back to happier times? We can’t know either way of course.
                                Parry was a man of ill repute. They likely would not have believed him if he said Wallace had paid him or anything else of that nature. Wallace played up the connection between Parry and Marsden while downplaying his own connection to Marsden.

                                If Parry had admitted to the call, I think the police would have assumed Parry had Marsden go and kill Julia and rob the insurance money or something of that nature.

                                Wallace feeling the noose tighten around his own neck may have tried to throw his accomplices under the bus to absolve himself of the crime. And they conceivably could have been convicted. It would be their untrustworthy word against his that he was behind it all.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X