Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

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

  • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

    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.

    Or alternately they might have felt that because he was a man of ill repute he might have been just the kind of person who would make a dodgy phone call to facilitate an extr marital liaison. Also, because of Parry’s alibi for the night of the murder his denial that he wasn’t involved would have carried considerable weight especially as the police showed no sign of looking at a two man job.

    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.

    Possibly But it’s still a bit of a leap to consider Marsden killing Julia or anyone.

    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.

    I’ve always wondered why Wallace became convinced of Parry’s guilt only after he was acquitted? What more information could he have discovered and how?
    It will be interesting to see what you come up with going down the Gannon route. You might come up with a more convincing scenario than he did.
    Regards

    Herlock






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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      It will be interesting to see what you come up with going down the Gannon route. You might come up with a more convincing scenario than he did.
      I would like to see more evidence first before forming an opinion. What is the motive in your mind? You probably have said before but I forgot - just that he was sick of her?

      In the series of events we see that the Johnstons heard two loud thuds coming from the Wallace home at around 8.25 to 8.30 (they thought it could be coming from their own parlor, but it's something to consider). Lily Hall claims to have seen Wallace (with a correctly described outfit) talking to a man at the entry at around 8.35 - a conversation he was evasive about and denied - like his denial of the conductor telling him to take the #7 tram. The Johnstons come out of their home at 8.45 and see Wallace calmly walking up the entry.

      Those are the rough time estimates but I believe the Johnstons had actually checked their clock before leaving the home, so assuming the clock is accurate then that point of time is fixed.

      Another woman saw two men running at what she said was at 8, closer to 8.15. That doesn't fit the timeline in my view so if connected I'd assume the time is inaccurate (but you may be able to figure out a way so that it does fit), but I have no reason to doubt she saw what she saw. I think someone else had claimed to have seen a man running as well.

      We know little to nothing about Marsden as he appears to not have been investigated thoroughly, we don't even have a statement from him AFAIK, so I don't know we can say that he wouldn't kill anyone. But there's no saying it was Marsden at all. Just a man who was around 5'7 and stout.

      As for blaming Parry... Wallace was practically outcast from society like Lizzie Borden, he probably wanted people to think anyone other than himself was involved, and Parry, a man known in the community to be dodgy to say the least, makes for a good scapegoat...
      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-16-2019, 09:41 PM.

      Comment


      • I suspect that it was just a case of the marriage not being the happy one that most people felt. Those that said that they seemed happy are often quoted. The Johnston’s for example. But the reality is that they were just acquaintances. Mrs Johnston had only been in the Wallace’s house 3 times in 10 years ( and its likely that those occasions were during the day whilst William was at work.) She didn’t even know Julia’s first name. The Caird’s were no more than very occasional visitors. In those days, far more so than today, people were more determined to keep up appearances; to avoid gossip or scandal so it’s not surprising, if they weren’t so happy, that they would put on a front when in company. Although some try to dismiss them we have the testimony of Nurse Wilson who stayed at their house for three weeks and Dr Curwen who regularly attended both of them. Even Wallace’s sister-in-law said that William was condescending toward Julia and his former colleague Alfred Mather called Wallace the most soured man he’d ever met and a bad tempered fellow. It’s not a difficult stretch to think of the intelligent, well-read, scientifically minded, chess playing, classical music loving Wallace as possibly someone who might have felt that life had dealt him a poor hand. A boring job with no promotion after all that service and a wife who was regularly ill and was starting to show her true age. A wife who wasn’t even particularly clean. Wallace had a serious illness and so might have suspected that he didn’t have many years left. He might have felt that it was worth the risk for a life of freedom. His illness might have given him a fatalistic view of life.

        We can’t say any of this for certain of course but I just think that it’s dishonest (of some) just to point out those who said that the Wallace’s appeared happy whilst dismissing those that said the opposite. There is room for doubt that the Wallace’s weren’t the happy couple that most people thought they were.

        From memory what we do know about Marsden was that he was about to marry in to a very well-to-do-family.

        I understand and accept your final point about why Wallace might have pointed the finger at Parry but it’s difficult to see why he would if he and Parry were working together in some way.
        Regards

        Herlock






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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          I suspect that it was just a case of the marriage not being the happy one that most people felt. Those that said that they seemed happy are often quoted. The Johnston’s for example. But the reality is that they were just acquaintances. Mrs Johnston had only been in the Wallace’s house 3 times in 10 years ( and its likely that those occasions were during the day whilst William was at work.) She didn’t even know Julia’s first name. The Caird’s were no more than very occasional visitors. In those days, far more so than today, people were more determined to keep up appearances; to avoid gossip or scandal so it’s not surprising, if they weren’t so happy, that they would put on a front when in company. Although some try to dismiss them we have the testimony of Nurse Wilson who stayed at their house for three weeks and Dr Curwen who regularly attended both of them. Even Wallace’s sister-in-law said that William was condescending toward Julia and his former colleague Alfred Mather called Wallace the most soured man he’d ever met and a bad tempered fellow. It’s not a difficult stretch to think of the intelligent, well-read, scientifically minded, chess playing, classical music loving Wallace as possibly someone who might have felt that life had dealt him a poor hand. A boring job with no promotion after all that service and a wife who was regularly ill and was starting to show her true age. A wife who wasn’t even particularly clean. Wallace had a serious illness and so might have suspected that he didn’t have many years left. He might have felt that it was worth the risk for a life of freedom. His illness might have given him a fatalistic view of life.

          We can’t say any of this for certain of course but I just think that it’s dishonest (of some) just to point out those who said that the Wallace’s appeared happy whilst dismissing those that said the opposite. There is room for doubt that the Wallace’s weren’t the happy couple that most people thought they were.

          From memory what we do know about Marsden was that he was about to marry in to a very well-to-do-family.

          I understand and accept your final point about why Wallace might have pointed the finger at Parry but it’s difficult to see why he would if he and Parry were working together in some way.
          Yes you are right I don't discredit the doctor's opinions etc. I believe them. But going by diary entries it does seem they had at least some good times together, and their musical duets. I think if there was frequent trouble the Johnstons would have heard SOMETHING. Alfred Mather seemed to have a personal vendetta against Wallace so I DO slightly discredit him, seems like they just didn't get along for some reason - though I totally buy Wallace was a bitter man.

          If Marsden was about to marry into money, I guess that casts shade at the idea of him killing for cash. With that said, there's no proof at all Marsden was involved. A **** alibi yes, and a sighting of someone who matched his description. But she never picked him out of a lineup. There are lots of 5'7 stout men.

          I disagree entirely that he wouldn't have put blame on them if they were working together. Who is going to believe scoundrel Parry's word over Wallace? Or scoundrel Marsden? Two men trying to save their necks... They were actually the perfect scapegoats. He KNEW Parry couldn't have an alibi for the call, and KNEW Marsden couldn't have a solid alibi for the murder - if it was indeed those two working for him. He also had the fact that both knew where he kept his cash box... So the law would quickly have came down upon those two. I think Wallace would've been let go and Parry and Marsden sentenced to death (or at least Marsden, if he was the killer) in his place.

          Who else could he try and implicate? Anyone not involved at all would probably have an alibi or other ways of proving they couldn't have had anything to do with it...

          Wallace also didn't immediately give them up. It was only once he realized the law was coming for him that he tried to throw them under the bus.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

            Yes you are right I don't discredit the doctor's opinions etc. I believe them. But going by diary entries it does seem they had at least some good times together, and their musical duets. I think if there was frequent trouble the Johnstons would have heard SOMETHING. Alfred Mather seemed to have a personal vendetta against Wallace so I DO slightly discredit him, seems like they just didn't get along for some reason - though I totally buy Wallace was a bitter man.

            I don’t recall that there was any evidence that Mather had any kind of vendetta against Wallace?

            The diary entries do suggest happier times but if Wallace did kill Julia it would be interesting to know when he first decided upon murder? Would there have been any unintentional clues in the text? Apologies for stating the obvious WWH but Wallace would hardly have been likely to have written “ Monday 14th - Julia is really p*##*@g me off. She has to go!”


            If Marsden was about to marry into money, I guess that casts shade at the idea of him killing for cash. With that said, there's no proof at all Marsden was involved. A **** alibi yes, and a sighting of someone who matched his description. But she never picked him out of a lineup. There are lots of 5'7 stout men.

            I disagree entirely that he wouldn't have put blame on them if they were working together. Who is going to believe scoundrel Parry's word over Wallace? Or scoundrel Marsden? Two men trying to save their necks... They were actually the perfect scapegoats. He KNEW Parry couldn't have an alibi for the call, and KNEW Marsden couldn't have a solid alibi for the murder - if it was indeed those two working for him. He also had the fact that both knew where he kept his cash box... So the law would quickly have came down upon those two. I think Wallace would've been let go and Parry and Marsden sentenced to death (or at least Marsden, if he was the killer) in his place.

            It would have been a huge risk to take for Wallace to have played the ‘pillar-of-the-community vs local rogue card.’ You’re right of course that Wallace would have been a more believable witness but, whatever happened Wallace would have known that, as a suspect, the police might suspect that he might simply have been trying to save his own neck by throwing Parry under the bus.

            Who else could he try and implicate? Anyone not involved at all would probably have an alibi or other ways of proving they couldn't have had anything to do with it...

            It’s not certain the he would have tried to implicate anyone but I certainly feel that it’s far from impossible that he had Parry in mind. It couldn’t have been a cast iron plan though because Wallace had no way of knowing if Parry had an alibi or not. Therefore Wallace had nothing to lose by pointing the police towards Parry.

            Wallace also didn't immediately give them up. It was only once he realized the law was coming for him that he tried to throw them under the bus.

            He mentioned them as soon as the police asked him. It couldn’t be more noticeable that apart from Parry and Marsden the rest of the list are just names and occupations.
            I’ve rarely known the thread so quiet. Where is everyone?
            Regards

            Herlock






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

            Comment


            • Yes I want Rod and Antony. Where have they gone?!

              Just as I get hugely into a case everyone vanishes. Typical!

              Anyway I realize he could have frauded happy entries as cover up, and wouldn't write she has to go or w.e. but even after being found innocent he continued to mention her lovingly. And the Johnstons did hear them play music together regularly. His diary is in fact almost suspicious in its lack of entries about arguments etc. ALLLL couples argue at least sometimes.

              One thing though, he left a REALLY cryptic entry about all obstacles having to be overcome or something. Someone said it's about the fiddle but the way it was written doesn't sound that way. It's like purposefully cryptic. Do you know which entry I mean? It sounded ominous.

              Again though I disagree here. I am currently leaning on Wallace and accomplices. I think the way it was set up, Parry and Marsden could not convincingly argue that Wallace put them up to it. There's no STRONG evidence he did, just suggestive evidence. As it stood he already almost got acquitted first time (the judge strongly implied he should be found non guilty - despite himself feeling Wallace had done it).

              With Parry and Marsden, the evidence the prosecution could have put forward would have been far more damning. Parry's lack of alibi for the call, Marsden's lack of alibi for the murder, plus the more reputable word of Wallace saying they knew where the cash box was. I strongly believe if Parry had confessed to the call, Wallace would've been let off. I do not believe anyone would have believed Parry's word of Wallace having put him up to it.

              That's my view on the matter. And yeah if he acted alone he couldn't know they wouldn't have alibis. But if he knew they both did it, he KNEW they couldn't have. It was a very traitorous but smart move.

              Antony and Rod please return I need more Wallace debate.

              P.S. As for your suggestion about Wallace thinking Parry guilty after he was let free... If he had discovered new damning evidence and was innocent, he most certainly would have gone to the police.
              Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-17-2019, 11:57 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                Yes I want Rod and Antony. Where have they gone?!

                Just as I get hugely into a case everyone vanishes. Typical!

                Anyway I realize he could have frauded happy entries as cover up, and wouldn't write she has to go or w.e. but even after being found innocent he continued to mention her lovingly. And the Johnstons did hear them play music together regularly. His diary is in fact almost suspicious in its lack of entries about arguments etc. ALLLL couples argue at least sometimes.

                One thing though, he left a REALLY cryptic entry about all obstacles having to be overcome or something. Someone said it's about the fiddle but the way it was written doesn't sound that way. It's like purposefully cryptic. Do you know which entry I mean? It sounded ominous.

                Again though I disagree here. I am currently leaning on Wallace and accomplices. I think the way it was set up, Parry and Marsden could not convincingly argue that Wallace put them up to it. There's no STRONG evidence he did, just suggestive evidence. As it stood he already almost got acquitted first time (the judge strongly implied he should be found non guilty - despite himself feeling Wallace had done it).

                With Parry and Marsden, the evidence the prosecution could have put forward would have been far more damning. Parry's lack of alibi for the call, Marsden's lack of alibi for the murder, plus the more reputable word of Wallace saying they knew where the cash box was. I strongly believe if Parry had confessed to the call, Wallace would've been let off. I do not believe anyone would have believed Parry's word of Wallace having put him up to it.

                That's my view on the matter. And yeah if he acted alone he couldn't know they wouldn't have alibis. But if he knew they both did it, he KNEW they couldn't have. It was a very traitorous but smart move.

                Antony and Rod please return I need more Wallace debate.

                P.S. As for your suggestion about Wallace thinking Parry guilty after he was let free... If he had discovered new damning evidence and was innocent, he most certainly would have gone to the police.
                HS and WWH

                Had builders in, son poorly and now it's half-term. I'll try to post when I can.

                Some very interesting posts from you both. Very briefly, I think Collaborator (Wallace + other) is a stronger theory than Conspiracy (Gannon). Conspiracy. If the killer was Marsden is there a need for the Qualtrough call? Marsden would have been let in by Julia, and Wallace could have gone to chess club for over three overs on the Monday without any suspicious behaviour at all. If another person was the killer, then Parry could have made the Qualtrough call (on behalf of Wallace) as the pretext to allow another to enter, but I'm sure Wallace would have made the bogus appointment for about 7pm and gone to MGE directly after seeing his last customer, Mrs Martin. With so many helpers, why go home and ruin a cast-iron alibi? I have more points but please be patient.

                I agree Hall's testimony, if accepted, is a game changer, but I explore her evidence in my book. So I won't repeat those arguments here.

                As for J K Leys, I have literally just flicked through At The Sign of the Golden Horn (1898). No characters called Qualtrough (huge disappointment all round!) and nothing of real note apart from the denouement involves false telegrams to lure the heroine to a real location where she meets her nemesis. I think I know what you will both say, but I am of the opinion the book is more likely to be a reprint of the natural history book (assuming Wallace's date is correct) - science was his thing and he would have found that fascinating.

                It's extremely common for guilty murderers to protest their innocence, far less common for them to name a specific person. The cash box is key here, I suggest. An innocent Wallace would know it was the key to solving the crime. However, I also suggest a guilty Wallace would have realised that the cash box had made him look very suspicious, and wanted to throw the net of suspicion elsewhere. But would surely Wallace would have realised this beforehand?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

                  HS and WWH

                  Had builders in, son poorly and now it's half-term. I'll try to post when I can.

                  Some very interesting posts from you both. Very briefly, I think Collaborator (Wallace + other) is a stronger theory than Conspiracy (Gannon). Conspiracy. If the killer was Marsden is there a need for the Qualtrough call? Marsden would have been let in by Julia, and Wallace could have gone to chess club for over three overs on the Monday without any suspicious behaviour at all. If another person was the killer, then Parry could have made the Qualtrough call (on behalf of Wallace) as the pretext to allow another to enter, but I'm sure Wallace would have made the bogus appointment for about 7pm and gone to MGE directly after seeing his last customer, Mrs Martin. With so many helpers, why go home and ruin a cast-iron alibi? I have more points but please be patient.

                  I agree Hall's testimony, if accepted, is a game changer, but I explore her evidence in my book. So I won't repeat those arguments here.

                  As for J K Leys, I have literally just flicked through At The Sign of the Golden Horn (1898). No characters called Qualtrough (huge disappointment all round!) and nothing of real note apart from the denouement involves false telegrams to lure the heroine to a real location where she meets her nemesis. I think I know what you will both say, but I am of the opinion the book is more likely to be a reprint of the natural history book (assuming Wallace's date is correct) - science was his thing and he would have found that fascinating.

                  It's extremely common for guilty murderers to protest their innocence, far less common for them to name a specific person. The cash box is key here, I suggest. An innocent Wallace would know it was the key to solving the crime. However, I also suggest a guilty Wallace would have realised that the cash box had made him look very suspicious, and wanted to throw the net of suspicion elsewhere. But would surely Wallace would have realised this beforehand?
                  Good to hear from you Antony. Sorry to hear about your son.

                  Anyway I think the Qualtrough call makes sense on a few levels which I'll discuss (could probably come up with more):

                  1) It's a great diversion for the investigation first and foremost, a fantastic red herring for the police to chase. To elaborate further, without the call the case is far more straightforward, and with no forced entry suspicion would immediately fall upon anyone who Julia would admit into the home. This would be my main point.

                  2) Say Marsden wasn't involved, the call works well to set him up as a "fall guy", since he had a client by the name R J Qualtrough. If Parry made the call, it's odd he would choose to use a name that heavily implicates Marsden, a friend of his. If engineered by Wallace, he could have said to use that name and Parry may have been unaware of the connection. You could theorize in many directions, even that it was actually Marsden who made the call and, on the spot, came up with the first faked name he could think of...

                  3) An altered version of Rod's theory where a hitman unknown to Julia was sent as "Qualtrough". Although Julia was reported to have left Wallace's clients standing at the door rather than admitting them. I would THINK she would tell "Qualtrough" to come back tomorrow or something, rather than letting him in? I maintain that Marsden's alibi is pathetic.

                  4) A later appointment allows for a later killing, which means more darkness and likely less witnesses.

                  ---

                  As for Wallace returning home, many arguments can be made. For example, perhaps he wanted to "set the scene" for the killer so to speak - ensure the iron bar was in the right place, blah blah blah, take down the already somewhat broken door, remove money from the cash box, maybe prefacing Julia with a few things that would help the killer. Maybe NOT returning home would have been suspicious behavior for him... Maybe he even just wanted to see his wife one final time... There can be a lot of speculation on this matter and I'm sure others can contribute.

                  I think if he had helpers he probably thought he DID have a cast iron alibi, but was failed by the pathologists who used the worst possible method for determining the time of death. Perhaps as far as he was concerned he was completely in the clear... He may have assumed that the police would totally buy that someone had called to lure him away from his home (it was only the accidental logging of the call location that even cast suspicion on him as the caller to begin with), and that the time of death would be more accurate rather than such a large range.

                  As for the books, I hadn't considered a reprint, and "fascinating" does sound more like a reference to non-fiction... But I would rather get my hands on "Under a Mask", which has a more ominous title.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                    Good to hear from you Antony. Sorry to hear about your son.

                    Anyway I think the Qualtrough call makes sense on a few levels which I'll discuss (could probably come up with more):

                    1) It's a great diversion for the investigation first and foremost, a fantastic red herring for the police to chase. To elaborate further, without the call the case is far more straightforward, and with no forced entry suspicion would immediately fall upon anyone who Julia would admit into the home. This would be my main point.

                    2) Say Marsden wasn't involved, the call works well to set him up as a "fall guy", since he had a client by the name R J Qualtrough. If Parry made the call, it's odd he would choose to use a name that heavily implicates Marsden, a friend of his. If engineered by Wallace, he could have said to use that name and Parry may have been unaware of the connection. You could theorize in many directions, even that it was actually Marsden who made the call and, on the spot, came up with the first faked name he could think of...

                    3) An altered version of Rod's theory where a hitman unknown to Julia was sent as "Qualtrough". Although Julia was reported to have left Wallace's clients standing at the door rather than admitting them. I would THINK she would tell "Qualtrough" to come back tomorrow or something, rather than letting him in? I maintain that Marsden's alibi is pathetic.

                    4) A later appointment allows for a later killing, which means more darkness and likely less witnesses.

                    ---

                    As for Wallace returning home, many arguments can be made. For example, perhaps he wanted to "set the scene" for the killer so to speak - ensure the iron bar was in the right place, blah blah blah, take down the already somewhat broken door, remove money from the cash box, maybe prefacing Julia with a few things that would help the killer. Maybe NOT returning home would have been suspicious behavior for him... Maybe he even just wanted to see his wife one final time... There can be a lot of speculation on this matter and I'm sure others can contribute.

                    I think if he had helpers he probably thought he DID have a cast iron alibi, but was failed by the pathologists who used the worst possible method for determining the time of death. Perhaps as far as he was concerned he was completely in the clear... He may have assumed that the police would totally buy that someone had called to lure him away from his home (it was only the accidental logging of the call location that even cast suspicion on him as the caller to begin with), and that the time of death would be more accurate rather than such a large range.

                    As for the books, I hadn't considered a reprint, and "fascinating" does sound more like a reference to non-fiction... But I would rather get my hands on "Under a Mask", which has a more ominous title.
                    Some great points, WWH. Yes, the call would be a red herring but one of limited value, as you point out. Of course, Wallace was under no obligation to say Julia would not admit strangers. That he did so led to the naming of the 15, including Parry and Marsden. Of course, this is why Wallace claimed Julia knew her killer. To me, the Qualtrough call seems superfluous in this scenario and simply involved another player with more opportunity for error. And Wallace had no skin in the game. The call is made by Parry, the execution by Marsden. Why on earth would they agree to the scheme in the first place? This is where Gannon's theory becomes wildly speculative for many. However, an improved Conspiracy theory might be more plausible.

                    As for Parry and the call. It is possible Parry didn't know the connection between Marsden and Qualtrough, as you suggest. There was a butcher's by that name in the area. If Parry knew the connection, he might have used it nonetheless - perhaps Qualtrough was a difficult customer (for Marsden) and he chose it to get back at him. Nevertheless, it's a good point you raise.

                    I agree that Julia's first reaction would have been to ask the stranger to come back later. I handle how Qualtrough might have been able to enter in one of the reconstructions in my book.

                    I cannot find Under A Mask anywhere.

                    Comment


                    • There was the butcher shop. But still R J Qualtrough is very close, and apparently Wallace didn't know of the shop or of Marsden's client (wasn't Marsden meant to be filling in for or working under Wallace or something?) because he acted as though Qualtrough is a name he'd never even heard before in his life.

                      When I think about it, I think the name had to have been thought up in advance. So then the question becomes why choose that?

                      Like, if you was about to make a call of such importance you'd already know what name you're going to be using before starting the call right? Unless it was a harmless prank call. Why choose something so bizarre? If it was me I'd have said something like "John Jackson", something really generic and more believable.

                      I think it was probably common knowledge Julia wouldn't admit strangers, if he'd said she'd let anyone in that would run the risk of being countered by witnesses like the Johnstons and others. And still I think he had a plan in advance where Parry and Marsden could go down for it. I think he planned it so if worst came to worst and he felt under suspicion he could have the miscreants Parry and Marsden convicted. I am quite positive no court would have believed them had they said Wallace put them up to it.

                      I don't feel the call had limited use. It was a STRONG false lead (look how much confusion it adds onto an otherwise simple crime) which is important, meant there were witnesses to corroborate the details (so Wallace can play up the poor tricked husband role and make himself seem clueless to Caird etc.), and expands the suspect list considerably: Without the call there's no room for the idea of a stranger being admitted.

                      ---

                      I believe Gannon's book to be excellent, and greatly underrated due to his terrible sidetracked pages discussing where people's grandparents grew up and worked etc. as well as the gigolo idea which tends to seem ridiculous for the "virginal" Julia. Gannon says she wasn't incontinent, but she was, right?

                      Cut out the family tree B.S. and conclusion from his book and you have an unarguably fantastic resource for this case.

                      Comment


                      • I personally believe Lily Hall's sighting, I also believe the constable who saw him crying.

                        Wallace lied several times - proveably so. Julia knew Wallace was headed to the Calderstone's district, so Wallace was not a "total stranger to the district". If he really DID not have a clue where he was going, he would have boarded the 7 tram. The conductor had told him to do so. The fact he went to the 5A, was shouted at to take the 7, faked like he was headed to the 7 then backtracked to the 5A, shows that he KNEW what tram he needed to take to get where he had to go. He knew in advance that the conductor's advice was wrong - not something an ACTUAL clueless stranger would know. He tried to deny the conductor's account...

                        Comment


                        • A minor point but one worth mentioning. If we postulate Marsden as Qualtrough and Wallace had told Julia the full story about his Tuesday evening business; that Qualtrough wanted to do something insurance-wise for his daughters 21st birthday, wouldn’t she have been surprised and more than a little suspicious about Qualtrough turning up and finding him to be a man in his late twenties. Far too young to have a 21 year old daughter? Whoever planned the murder, if they intended to use Marsden as Qualtrough, wouldn’t they have come up with something more plausible than this?
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                            There was the butcher shop. But still R J Qualtrough is very close, and apparently Wallace didn't know of the shop or of Marsden's client (wasn't Marsden meant to be filling in for or working under Wallace or something?) because he acted as though Qualtrough is a name he'd never even heard before in his life.

                            When I think about it, I think the name had to have been thought up in advance. So then the question becomes why choose that?

                            Like, if you was about to make a call of such importance you'd already know what name you're going to be using before starting the call right? Unless it was a harmless prank call. Why choose something so bizarre? If it was me I'd have said something like "John Jackson", something really generic and more believable.

                            I think it was probably common knowledge Julia wouldn't admit strangers, if he'd said she'd let anyone in that would run the risk of being countered by witnesses like the Johnstons and others. And still I think he had a plan in advance where Parry and Marsden could go down for it. I think he planned it so if worst came to worst and he felt under suspicion he could have the miscreants Parry and Marsden convicted. I am quite positive no court would have believed them had they said Wallace put them up to it.

                            I don't feel the call had limited use. It was a STRONG false lead (look how much confusion it adds onto an otherwise simple crime) which is important, meant there were witnesses to corroborate the details (so Wallace can play up the poor tricked husband role and make himself seem clueless to Caird etc.), and expands the suspect list considerably: Without the call there's no room for the idea of a stranger being admitted.

                            ---

                            I believe Gannon's book to be excellent, and greatly underrated due to his terrible sidetracked pages discussing where people's grandparents grew up and worked etc. as well as the gigolo idea which tends to seem ridiculous for the "virginal" Julia. Gannon says she wasn't incontinent, but she was, right?

                            Cut out the family tree B.S. and conclusion from his book and you have an unarguably fantastic resource for this case.
                            Antony might correct me here WWH but as far as I can recall there was no proper evidence that Julia was incontinent. I think that this is an assumption that’s been made due to Julia’s homemade underwear which have been likened to a diaper/nappy.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • Antony, I just had a quick look at one of the maps in your book (exhibit B) and I have a question. My memory is foggy on timings (and many other things)

                              How is it that Wallace’s walk from the tram stop (A) to his meeting with Green at Dudlow Lane (B) and back to his meeting point with Katie Mather (C) is timed at 16 minutes (7.19-7.35) but his walk from Mather (C) down to his meeting with PC Serjeant is only 10 minutes (7.35-7.45)?

                              Of course the first part would include a couple of minutes of talking time between Wallace and first Green and then Mather but the second part of the walk (Mather to Serjeant) was considerably longer. If we accept that (B) to (C) was 5 minutes then I’d say that the second part of the walk would have taken 5 or 10 minutes longer than 16 minutes which would have included the time taken to knock on Crewe’s door. So wouldn’t we have expected Wallace to have met up with Serjeant somewhere between 7.56 and 8.01? What am I missing? I am on my third glass of malt so this might explain my confusion
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                A minor point but one worth mentioning. If we postulate Marsden as Qualtrough and Wallace had told Julia the full story about his Tuesday evening business; that Qualtrough wanted to do something insurance-wise for his daughters 21st birthday, wouldn’t she have been surprised and more than a little suspicious about Qualtrough turning up and finding him to be a man in his late twenties. Far too young to have a 21 year old daughter? Whoever planned the murder, if they intended to use Marsden as Qualtrough, wouldn’t they have come up with something more plausible than this?
                                Nah, Julia knew Marsden so he couldn't have posed as Qualtrough. I'm postulating that perhaps an altered version of Rod's theory is correct, where a total stranger to Julia turned up claiming he is Qualtrough, for the purpose of gaining admission into the home and killing her. By Marsden being Qualtrough I meant perhaps he was the caller. But Parry is more suspicious because of his falsified alibi (though we don't know Marsden's alibi for the night of the call, AFAIK).

                                In any case we don't know how much Wallace told Julia. I think she told Amy that he had business in the Calderstone's district (which of course directly contradicts Wallace's account to the conductors of being totally clueless as to where he was going and being "a total stranger in the district"), but I don't know that she said anything more.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X