Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

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

  • I can’t help thinking that if Wallace had named Parry and Marsden to the police as the culprits, if Wallace was the planner, then he would have been taking an almost suicidal risk. Yes Wallace presented a far more reliable witness-type but the police would still have had two suspects saying basically the same thing - that Wallace was the planner. On interviewing them the police would have surely noticed various details where both Parry and Marsden concurred on separately.
    Regards

    Herlock






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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

      WWH, are postulating Parry as the caller, someone else as the killer and Wallace as the mastermind?

      If we accept your premise that Wallace planned (perhaps as a contingency) to throw Parry and Marsden under the bus because no one would believe their word against his, then Wallace had a get-out-of-jail-free card. All he had to say in his statement on 22.1.31, when he points the finger at Parry and Marsden, was that he last saw Marsden on the night of the murder. "I saw him briefly in Richmond Park as I was returning home, I said 'Hello', he said he was visiting a friend, and I asked how he was doing. Small talk. I then hurried home, anxious to get back to my wife." The investigation would have now focused on Marsden, his connection to Qualtrough, his lack of alibi etc. The fact that Hall saw them would have been a fantastic stroke of luck, and confirmed that someone was in the vicinity talking to Wallace that night. Marsden might have blabbed, but given your premise, Wallace would have successfully brazened it out.

      However, if Parry was then questioned under caution (for his misleading statement), confessed to the call and also implicated Wallace then things might have got trickier for Wallace. My own view is that if Wallace involved others, I don't believe he would have named them in his statement. However, with the Collaborator (Wallace + unknown who killed Julia) and Wallace theories, he might have named Parry and Marsden to draw suspicion away. So, I agree that an unknown killer looks a better bet than Marsden.
      Could you please copy the statement here. I'm sure I've read it but forgot. Could you please also tell me the date of the statement Wallace gave saying he'd spoken to nobody on the way home (the conversation with Gold). I can get these but would have to search through books.

      I'd also please like to know Wallace's reputation as a Pru employee. Dedicated? Competent? Length of employment? Position in heirarchy?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        I can’t help thinking that if Wallace had named Parry and Marsden to the police as the culprits, if Wallace was the planner, then he would have been taking an almost suicidal risk. Yes Wallace presented a far more reliable witness-type but the police would still have had two suspects saying basically the same thing - that Wallace was the planner. On interviewing them the police would have surely noticed various details where both Parry and Marsden concurred on separately.
        The good thing about naming the real culprits is that he KNOWS they cannot have an alibi.

        By telling police they're the only ones who knew where the cash box was, that is an even MORE suicidal risk if they weren't involved, because if they had an alibi (he couldn't know that they wouldn't), then he'd be done for pretty much. And the use of the R M Qualtrough moniker would also have been a HUGE error as the police easily linked a client with a similar name directly to Marsden and the Pru.

        If Marsden had an actually good alibi, and we know Parry did, then again suspicion is going to be HEAVILY on Wallace himself.

        I don't think Wallace even thought he would become a suspect. And also what could they corroborate apart from Wallace masterminding it? They're gonna be like "yeah Wallace told Parry to make the call to the cafe and then told me to burgle his home and kill his wife the night after" lol. I don't think it's strong. And would he have even briefed them together at the same time?

        The police should have put Parry and Marsden in a lineup for Lily Hall as well. What a monumental failure.

        ---

        Btw I know you're on the Wallace solo train so I wonder a few things:

        1) How do you reconcile the Lily Hall testimony having seen Wallace (identified in a lineup) in clothing of the correct description at the right place at the right time, talking to another man he evasively denied speaking to?

        2) How do you reconcile Parry lying about his movements when the call was made?

        3) How do you reconcile the timing of the thuds heard by the Johnstons?

        4) How do you reconcile Wallace being so free from blood and able to dispose of the weapon (I think this is possible and have my own ideas as to how, but would like to hear your interpretation).
        Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-20-2019, 12:54 PM.

        Comment


        • Btw can someone check Ancestry UK to confirm the day in January Joseph Wallace returned to Liverpool?

          Simply because I WISH the solution was that Wallace stayed home killing his wife while Joseph in a trilby hat (or w.e. Wallace was said to be wearing) went to Menlove Gardens.

          That'd be a legit Poirot tier solution lol. I really wish that was the answer. They look lime twins almost lol

          Comment


          • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

            The good thing about naming the real culprits is that he KNOWS they cannot have an alibi.

            By telling police they're the only ones who knew where the cash box was, that is an even MORE suicidal risk if they weren't involved, because if they had an alibi (he couldn't know that they wouldn't), then he'd be done for pretty much. And the use of the R M Qualtrough moniker would also have been a HUGE error as the police easily linked a client with a similar name directly to Marsden and the Pru.

            If Marsden had an actually good alibi, and we know Parry did, then again suspicion is going to be HEAVILY on Wallace himself.

            I don't think Wallace even thought he would become a suspect. And also what could they corroborate apart from Wallace masterminding it? They're gonna be like "yeah Wallace told Parry to make the call to the cafe and then told me to burgle his home and kill his wife the night after" lol. I don't think it's strong. And would he have even briefed them together at the same time?

            The police should have put Parry and Marsden in a lineup for Lily Hall as well. What a monumental failure.
            In my view, involving the cash box was an avoidable but catastrophic error by Wallace, if he planned and/or executed this. The whole point of the Qualtrough call, at least to my mind, was to show that someone wanted him out of the house - an indefinite number of suspects at least superficially. But involve the cash box, this pool narrows to just three prime suspects: Wallace, Parry and Marsden. If he was not working with them and they both had alibis then it leaves only Wallace, as you point out. Why not nick the money from his wife's handbag and perhaps the cash and jewelry from upstairs? Why target the insurance money?

            If Wallace was working with the young men, and he wanted to frame Marsden for the murder, he could have easily fingered him properly, as I said. But by naming and shopping Marsden (assume he is the killer) who had a connection to Qualtrough and could not have an alibi, Wallace risks the entire scheme coming into the open. I am not an expert on 1930s law, but a conspiracy to murder (or equivalent) must have been available.

            I'm sure Wallace could have operated a murder-cell, keeping both the call and the kill separate, but the point is that his involvement would come out separately if the police started to thoroughly investigate. And why would they investigate either Parry or Marden, if Wallace hadn't named them? Would we even have Parry's statement had Wallace not named him? Why the police treated Marsden differently remains a mystery. I can only postulate that Moore thought it was a waste of time: he had his man.

            Qualtrough moniker. I'm not sure I follow your point (I blame my temperature). Using "Qualtrough" (with its link to Marsden) seems less of an error to me than actually naming him and saying Marsden knew where the cash box was, if he was working with Marsden. But I do agree, the use of the name is a pointer to Marsden and his friend Parry.

            Joseph Wallace. I love that theory, it is SO Agatha Christie.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

              In my view, involving the cash box was an avoidable but catastrophic error by Wallace, if he planned and/or executed this. The whole point of the Qualtrough call, at least to my mind, was to show that someone wanted him out of the house - an indefinite number of suspects at least superficially. But involve the cash box, this pool narrows to just three prime suspects: Wallace, Parry and Marsden. If he was not working with them and they both had alibis then it leaves only Wallace, as you point out. Why not nick the money from his wife's handbag and perhaps the cash and jewelry from upstairs? Why target the insurance money?

              If Wallace was working with the young men, and he wanted to frame Marsden for the murder, he could have easily fingered him properly, as I said. But by naming and shopping Marsden (assume he is the killer) who had a connection to Qualtrough and could not have an alibi, Wallace risks the entire scheme coming into the open. I am not an expert on 1930s law, but a conspiracy to murder (or equivalent) must have been available.

              I'm sure Wallace could have operated a murder-cell, keeping both the call and the kill separate, but the point is that his involvement would come out separately if the police started to thoroughly investigate. And why would they investigate either Parry or Marden, if Wallace hadn't named them? Would we even have Parry's statement had Wallace not named him? Why the police treated Marsden differently remains a mystery. I can only postulate that Moore thought it was a waste of time: he had his man.

              Qualtrough moniker. I'm not sure I follow your point (I blame my temperature). Using "Qualtrough" (with its link to Marsden) seems less of an error to me than actually naming him and saying Marsden knew where the cash box was, if he was working with Marsden. But I do agree, the use of the name is a pointer to Marsden and his friend Parry.

              Joseph Wallace. I love that theory, it is SO Agatha Christie.
              I know those ancestor sites have details of when people arrive/immigrated into certain areas/countries. If you can find Joseph Edwin (?) Wallace I would pay to see the exact date he arrived in Liverpool. Just because it would be so amazing lmao. Like can you imagine it said he arrived in Liverpool on the 19th? It's so unlikely but I would love that to be true haha.

              But anyway back to the more realistic topics, here's the thing... No matter what you go with, no matter what theory etc, there are going to be major errors made (or lies, odd behaviors, retracted statements, contradictions etc.).

              If Parry did it, he must have known that the Qualtrough moniker could implicate him or his friend (since it points quickly to a Pru employee). He must have known that only touching the cash box would again point to someone familiar with its location and contents. He must have known that calling the chess club implicates people who are known to attend there (e.g. Parry) who also know Wallace and his business. I'm certain you see the dilemna here? Whoever planned this, unless it was NONE of them, has to have made a fatal error, unless a purposeful attempt was made to frame someone... Also is everyone sure Parry and Wallace weren't on good terms? Didn't Parry give Wallace a calendar only a few weeks earlier? Why would he say Julia would admit into the home someone on bad terms with her husband who was a known miscreant?

              I would massively appreciate it if someone is able to list out the police statements in the order they occured, I could scour books and spend ages putting it together but I'm sure someone has easier access to an ordered list of all statements they could paste here. Nothing in between, just statements in order one after the other.

              I particularly want to know when Wallace first brought up Parry and Marsden as suspects, when he first said they would know the location of the box etc, when he made the statement about speaking to nobody on the way home, and when he first fell under suspicion (I think he claimed he first thought he was suspected when speaking to Beattie requesting accuracy as to the timing of the call).

              I also think Wallace's reputation as a Pru employee is of high importance. His dedication to his job, position, length of employment, and competency. These are key pieces of information. From what I have heard he had a decent position in the company and was considered a bit of a "jobsworth", a dedicated and competent employee. Is that accurate?
              Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-20-2019, 04:07 PM.

              Comment


              • By the way, as I was doing my own digging through statements (I see the conversation with Beattie was on the 23rd, and the giving up of Marsden and Parry on the 22nd?), I find another contradiction:

                I was horrified to see my wife lying across the rug in front of the fireplace. Her head was towards the door, and by the light of the match I could see it was horribly battered. There were big bloodstains on the floor. As far as I can remember I struck a match, stepped round her body and lit the right-hand gas.
                And:

                "You told the offlcer you thought she was in a fit ? — That was my first impression, but it only lasted possibly a fraction of a second, because I stooped down, with the same match, and I could see there was evidence of signs of a disturbance and blood, and I saw that she had been hit.
                Vs...

                “ Did you not scream or shout ?” He said, “No ; I thought she might have been in a fit. I lit the gas to go to her assistance, but of course I found that she was dead.”
                Wallace claims twice that that he could tell by the light of the match that Julia had been battered and was NOT having a fit. But also made a statement, contradictory to this, that he had LIT THE GAS and went to her assistance, before realizing she wasn't having a fit and was evidently battered.

                This is of course, just another contradiction just like the mackintosh issue, and whether he had noticed it immediately, or on his second/third visit into the parlor. Here's another weird mackintosh issue:

                When I discovered my wife lying on the floor I noticed my mackintosh lying on the floor at the back of her. I wore the mackintosh up to noon today but left it off owing to the fine weather. My wife has never worn a mackintosh to my knowledge.
                In Wallace's initial statement to Munro, he admitted that he had said, what was Julia doing with "HER" mackintosh and his mackintosh, confirmed by the Johnstons on trial. I would like to know if the police checked the rest of the jackets in the home, to see if Julia indeed did own a mackintosh. Julia has never worn a mackintosh before in her life, yet apparently she had one?

                Comment


                • . In Wallace's initial statement to Munro, he admitted that he had said, what was Julia doing with "HER" mackintosh and his mackintosh, confirmed by the Johnstons on trial. I would like to know if the police checked the rest of the jackets in the home, to see if Julia indeed did own a mackintosh. Julia has never worn a mackintosh before in her life, yet apparently she had one?
                  This is another mystery. I recall Wallace saying that he’d never seen Julia wearing a mackintosh so I’d say from that we can reasonably assume that she didn’t own one. I don’t recall any mention of the police checking the rest of the coats (unless Antony has come across anything during his research?) Normally you would assume that the police would have done so given the general confusion as to what Wallace’s mackintosh was doing in the Parlour let alone beneath Julia’s body. Obviously if there was another mackintosh on the coat racks then it would have been reasonable to suggest that Julia picked William’s up in error. It’s been suggested of course that she might have had it over her shoulders against the cold but we have to balance that with the fact that she didn’t have it over her shoulders when she went outside and down to the back gate with William when he left.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • . “ Did you not scream or shout ?” He said, “No ; I thought she might have been in a fit. I lit the gas to go to her assistance, but of course I found that she was dead.”

                    Wallace claims twice that that he could tell by the light of the match that Julia had been battered and was NOT having a fit. But also made a statement, contradictory to this, that he had LIT THE GAS and went to her assistance, before realizing she wasn't having a fit and was evidently battered.
                    Im no Wallace defender (as you may have noticed) but he wasn’t actually saying that he didn’t know that she’d been battered before he turned on the gas. Only that he didn’t find out that she was actually dead until he’d turned on the gas and checked her closely. I agree that we might suggest that he would surely have strongly suspected that she was dead given the state of her head but he couldn’t have been 100% certain.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • I particularly want to know when Wallace first brought up Parry and Marsden as suspects, when he first said they would know the location of the box etc, when he made the statement about speaking to nobody on the way home, and when he first fell under suspicion (I think he claimed he first thought he was suspected when speaking to Beattie requesting accuracy as to the timing of the call)
                      Wallace first mentioned Parry and Marsden in his second police statement on Thursday 22nd January (I’d like to credit my great memory for this but I’ve just checked Antony’s book)

                      Wallace didn’t mention not speaking to anyone on the way home in any of his three statements so I can’t recall where he stated it. Surely it would have been mentioned before the trial? Antony?

                      From my crap memory I can’t pinpoint when Wallace first came under suspicion but it wasn’t long after the night of the murder. The seeds of doubt may have been sown on that night. When he was confronted with having spoken to Beattie and Caird he suspected that he was being followed (as who else would have bothered informing the police about an innocuous meeting) and so was a suspect.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Im no Wallace defender (as you may have noticed) but he wasn’t actually saying that he didn’t know that she’d been battered before he turned on the gas. Only that he didn’t find out that she was actually dead until he’d turned on the gas and checked her closely. I agree that we might suggest that he would surely have strongly suspected that she was dead given the state of her head but he couldn’t have been 100% certain.
                        Lol yeah. Though my interpretation of those statements is that at first he's saying he only thought she was having a fit for a split second because, with the match he bent down and specifically said he noticed she had been hit.

                        From the other statement I interpret it as him saying he still thought she might have been having a fit and that he could help her, until he lit the gas and got a proper look.

                        The constable also relayed Wallace's words as such, which I think makes it clearer:

                        "No, I hit the gas ; I thought she might be in a fit and I could go to her assistance."
                        He was claiming that until he put the gas on, he thought she may have been in a fit. The first statement (to the constable at the home) was a split second cover for why he hadn't shouted or cried out when he found her. He also gave an odd answer on trial about this:

                        "When you had lighted the gas and you had found her
                        lying there, did you then move towards her with a cry
                        of affection or pain or anything ? — Yes.

                        Did you ? — Of course I did ; but I did not shout out
                        or cry out. "
                        To expand upon the obvious reason it's weird (basically saying, "yes I cried out... But I did not cry out!"), also notice that he says he cried out AFTER the gas had been lit. But he had noticed she'd been attacked, according to his own words, BEFORE he had lit the gas, so why would he cry out only AFTER lighting the gas? He already knew his wife was severely hurt.
                        Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-20-2019, 11:22 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Wallace first mentioned Parry and Marsden in his second police statement on Thursday 22nd January (I’d like to credit my great memory for this but I’ve just checked Antony’s book)

                          Wallace didn’t mention not speaking to anyone on the way home in any of his three statements so I can’t recall where he stated it. Surely it would have been mentioned before the trial? Antony?

                          From my crap memory I can’t pinpoint when Wallace first came under suspicion but it wasn’t long after the night of the murder. The seeds of doubt may have been sown on that night. When he was confronted with having spoken to Beattie and Caird he suspected that he was being followed (as who else would have bothered informing the police about an innocuous meeting) and so was a suspect.
                          Inspector Gold asked him if he had spoken to anyone on the way home. He gave this odd answer:

                          "I asked him, “ Did you
                          speak to anyone on your way home from the tram-car on
                          the night of the murder ? ” He said, “ No.” I said, Are
                          you sure ? ” He said, Yes.” I then said, “ You told me
                          you were in a hurry to get home, you should remember.”
                          After a slight hesitation he said, “ I was not so alarmed
                          that I would not raise my hat or speak to a person I knew.”
                          After further hesitation, he said, “ Positively I did not.”"
                          And then the inspector revealed that Lily Hall had claimed to have seen him. I use the term statement broadly.

                          By the way, did Wallace have anyone corroborate that he had left for chess club at 7.15? I also assume his conversation with Beattie took place before he found out the call had been logged.
                          Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-20-2019, 11:16 PM.

                          Comment


                          • We’ve only got Wallace’s word that he left at 7.15.

                            On your last point - the police were initially told that there was no way of tracing the call so they only had Beattie and Harley to go on.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • I also think Wallace's reputation as a Pru employee is of high importance. His dedication to his job, position, length of employment, and competency. These are key pieces of information. From what I have heard he had a decent position in the company and was considered a bit of a "jobsworth", a dedicated and competent employee. Is that accurate?
                              Crewe spoke very highly of Wallace. ‘Jobsworth’ is a derogatory term and no one ever accused Wallace of that. He was considered honest and conscientious.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Joseph Wallace. I love that theory, it is SO Agatha Christie.
                                Talking of Agatha Christie Antony I don’t suppose that you would have read my scenario written on the other thread a few months ago?

                                I suggested ‘what if Wallace had a female accomplice?’ Ok, it would have helped if she bore a passing resemblance to Julia.

                                He kills Julia as soon as he gets home and let’s his accompl8ce in by the the back door. She goes upstairs and puts on some of Julia’s clothes and answers the door to Alan Close whilst Wallace is cleaning himself up in the kitchen. He doesn’t focus much on her face as he’s doing his job and spends little time actually in front of Julia. Julia speaks to him about his cold and says that she’s had one too (which might also have allowed her to use a handkerchief partially obscuring her face.) She then leaves taking the weapon and any bloody clothes.

                                Come on admit it.....I’ve solved it
                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X