Tweet
Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer
View Post
-
But it would create suspicion. Why ask for Wallace’s address then ask him to go to MGE?Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.” -
Only Wallace working alone had a good reason for turning out the lights.. Why would anyone bother turning out the lights?Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”Comment
-
I’m not a fan of conspiracies. Wallace, Parry and the Johnston’s is a step too far for me. I just don’t think that Wallace would have trusted Parry. Any pressure put on him by the police and he could have blown everything for Wallace. Yes we know that Parry didn’t have a good reputation like Wallace but if the police suspected him of the call they would have suspected him of the murder and he had an airtight alibi for that. This would have given weight to anything he said about William.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”Comment
-
I'm sure you can see how RECEIVING the address is actually better in terms of opening up the suspect pool to anyone who may have known Wallace played chess or attended the cafč.
Not knowing the address then committing the crime = obviously the caller is someone who knows where Wallace lives already and hence well acquainted with him and the suspect pool tightens. That you can agree on right?
There's not even any actual need to ask for the address. You realize how easy it would be to be all "I'm too busy tonight to look up and leave a note at his address so I'm hoping you can deliver it to him for me?" You know I just came up with that stream of consciousness style, but if it's planned it would be so easy to avoid the need to even ask the address and likely better than that.
---
I know you don't like conspiracies but I think all signs point to Gordon calling. Like realistically, objectively... It's why Antony who is biased likes to focus on the call, because logically Gordon fits the best and he knows that. So he tries to force you to admit Gordon called and then use that as ammunition to make you believe the impossible scenario he presents...
I don't even trust his murder night alibi. He SUPPOSEDLY had Lily lie for him, why do that if he already had an alibi with the Brines? There's rumors his parents attempted to beg friends to give him an alibi... So I don't think he killed her but feel wary of his alibi knowing this.
---
If Wallace used that booth he took a very big risk in lying about that tram route. Is that a risk he'd be willing to take considering how easily cops could check it. Do you know if he gave his route before or AFTER known the box was traced. I think it was before, which lowers the odds he would lie. But in any case giving a correct and verifiable route, even passing the box, is safer, and can easily implicate a stalker.
Look how many people use the fact Wallace went left to show the caller couldn't have known he'd got on the tram. It actually harms him but maybe he didn't think of that.
---
If William killed her himself I STILL think he had Parry call. It has the highest odds. It honestly does. Lack of Beattie recognizing Wallace's voice, false alibi, coincidentally perfectly timed arrival at Lily's (an odd visit by the way), I think he made the call and I think there was a LEGITIMATE fault with the box as per Yseult Bridges. In isolation it means little but altogether it doesn't look good for him. I make NO accusation that he knew Julia would be killed or took part in that.
There's NO reason to use the Qualtrough moniker EXCEPT to frame Parry/Marsden (who were close pals) - I'd be surprised if it wasn't carefully chosen. So even if Wallace called himself he already had Parry and Marsden in mind as people he could bury should he fall under suspicion. It would therefore be wiser to make sure Parry wouldn't have an alibi which is obviously best done by having him call. Imagine both had airtight alibis? Then what...
---
There are many reasons I don't put much stock into the lights being off UNLESS someone is trying to present the "burglary gone wrong" angle. Something which is very unlikely for this reason among many. But lights going off in an assassination is not a big thing to me. It actually fixes a time of death to neighbors potentially, and I'm not aware the Wallace's ever had visitors. They were pretty damn reclusive.
---
IF William didn't kill her himself I'm sure many would agree this is a pretty smart solution. If the case files were made public I could either debunk or strengthen it.
But one thing I do know is that no intruder could have entered that home from the front door around the time William left as there were milk boys and all sorts milling about. If the intruder came too late they risk William returning home since he's looking for a fake address after all and could have found out VERY quickly. As a matter of fact he might not even have been GOING on the trip when they saw him leave.
Wallace recalls how the sick Julia followed him down the entry with no jacket on. Or did she walk down the yard and bolt it behind him? If she walked down the entry I think that's when the killer enters... Apparently her illness had improved which is why he decided to go to chess club, yet the next day he claimed she'd be way too sick to be out posting mail or whatever.
---
William told her to set the parlor up, or placed her in there on purpose. It's very unlikely someone came through the front door from a pure risk mitigation standpoint. I'm thinking William let the killer in as he left (giving Julia some excuse) OR he was still in there and distracting Julia with conversation, she may even have been aware of the "guest", that guest hits her.
This depends on forensics. Macfall suggested she was on the chair in conversation. Oliver and the matchbox tend to suggest she was indeed lighting the fireplace.
The fact Wallace seemingly was SURPRISED the mackintosh was his makes me think it likely he left BEFORE she was slain. If he did it himself it's an odd slip to make. If he knew it was his you'd have expected him to have phrased it like "what's this under her shoulder? This is my mackintosh, what was she doing with it?"
But by accounts and his own testimony he spat out her mackintosh, then quickly corrected himself. I don't believe that jacket was meant to be there. And I think it was a huge mistake.
---
Again as a killer a neighbor has the highest odds of killing Julia and getting away unseen with ample time to clean up etc. Particularly a next door neighbor.
---
For a non Wallace solution I really like this a lot. ESPECIALLY the idea that the intruder came in the BACK to avoid the huge risk of being seen... Again I reiterate I have more certaintly as to the first part of the solution that someone else called. William went a very weird route. If he was gonna lie about which route he took why not pretend he took the normal one? He went up that way on purpose and I believe he DID go left... Breck road was safer for someone dodgy to be hanging around at night. The housing estate was under police observation at the time due to the string of robberies.
But yeah essentially I believe his route, but I believe he took it for nefarious purposes. Unless he's literally innocent and literally just posting a letter. But there's many more reasons now that I believe in his involvement.Comment
-
Youre certainly putting a lot of thought into the case WWH. Far more than I have lately. I’m still strongly in favour a Wallace alone. Yours is a clever solution but I just can’t see Wallace involving others.Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”Comment
-
1. Right, and if Wallace rang himself, he still knows Beattie doesn't have the address (allegedly) and asked anyway. Whoever rang is actually benefitted moreso by Beattie giving over the address or not asking for it at all. We can only speculate here, but of course as soon as the crime was committed, with Beattie NOT giving the address, it significantly tightens up the suspect pool which is bad for everyone including William. The duality of this makes me feel it's better to sideline.
Actually this particular point I think is more in favor of William's innocence, since a random caller may NOT have known Beattie didn't have the address. We're told William knew for a fact he didn't. We know if Gordon called, he was under instruction to pose as a stranger, so maybe asking for the address was something he came up with in the moment, which WASN'T something Wallace briefed him to say. Either way I'd put this point to the very back of the queue because there's too many explanations.
2. If a tram driver or ticket inspector or any other passenger saw the very striking Wallace board that tram, while those on the other tram claimed not to have seen him, this would be incredibly damning. The defence can argue whatever they like, this would be STRONG almost insurmountable evidence. Again I think he gave this route BEFORE knowing the booth was even traced like you said. He still might've wanted to place himself well away from any booth even without knowin it was traced, but it lowers the odds that he would lie.
3. Yes this calls into question Lily's credibility, the alibi may very well have been real. As far as I know, though, when pestered by Goodman Parry STILL didn't provide his airtight Brine alibi to get him off his back. I'm just not sure about it. I don't think he killed Julia and I'd even say he might not have known she would be killed like I said, but I question his alibis for the reasons mentioned. They MAY be real, but it casts doubt.
4. It's POSSIBLE he knew but also possible he didn't. Either way, remember, if he admits to the call, Wallace can claim he WAS in on it and to be honest they'd both be in SERIOUS trouble and go down for murder.
5. I actually considered this carefully but after a while decided I disagree. There are many exotic names someone could pick, just for one thing, but even a regular name, nobody's likely to forget it, least of all when it's brought up again by police it'd be likely to trigger the memory. Beattie in particular had written the name down... So on consideration I think the alias was chosen to frame Marsden (/Parry, since they were close pals and had Parry rang he'd have no alibi).
We know he reiterated that name so he did want it to stick. But that SPECIFIC name is easily linked to Marsden, and I question why he didn't think to use a different unusual name if he wasn't purposefully trying to make them scapegoats. I mean not only was it the surname, but the initials were also very similar.
6. My ACTUAL inclination is that Julia was in the parlor lighting the fire as per Wallace's instructions, while Wallace went outside and let someone in. BUT we have to consider Wallace's INITIAL testimony which is that Julia followed him down the entry. If he did indeed have her do that, it's a perfect opportunity for someone to slip in as the doors and yard gate are all unlocked. Actually, the police officer he told that to had the same theory... I don't believe she came down the back yard and bolted it after him, because then someone has to come in the front had the back yard been secured, and I think an unlready unlocked/open BACK door was used hence why nobody saw or heard anything.
If I had to guess, and it's true he had hired someone, I think first of all it's imperative they go in the back or it's just too dangerous. Second, because of the seeming surprise at his own mackintosh being there (seems he was expecting it would be a different jacket - alternatively, again, overzealousness to seem clueless) I think the events in the home unfolded AFTER he had already left. So I can see a possibility of Wallace telling Julia to light the fire, going quickly to the back yard door, unbolting it, and leaving for the tram stop while the killer goes in in his place.
7. The confusion regarding WHEN the mackintosh was first noticed, I think it happened after John had gone for the police, or not even noticed until the police arrived.
As per many statements, the mackintosh was barely visible and tucked under her. I don't think it was the right one. I'd like to know what other jackets were in that house, because a smart man, if Wallace was gonna do her in, would wear one of Julia's or buy a new one at some market. Hindsight IS 20/20 though so I don't expect him to get EVERYTHING perfect. But still, that would have been the wise choice... What I DO expect though, is that he would be MORE than aware that the presence of his own jacket is extremely damning.
It's ALSO possible if Wallace was innocent that someone took his mackintosh on purpose and stuffed it there under her body. Unplanned perhaps, but last second quick thinking. There's a lot I would say about the mackintosh and I think it's one of the "bizzarities" about the case that deserves attention.
8. Entering the FRONT has way higher odds of the person being spotted, and recall how close the Johnston and Wallace's yard doors were... Not only is it kinda unlikely they'd be spotted ANYWAY in that back alley, but we're literally talking a couple of seconds opportunity to see him as he slips in and out. Their gates are basically touching each other. It's simply the LEAST risky way for a hired gun to get in and out.
Gannon believes Marsden did it, I do see Marsden as sus due to his alibi but we have NOTHING else to go on for him, no statements etc. But let's say it was him, he has to risk being seen going towards the home, into the back entry way, and then leaving the scene and travelling many blocks at a time when people are out still in order to escape. The odds of anyone other than a neighbor being caught or spotted are SO much higher.
You're also ASSUMING Johnston was not a criminal. Yet a home was mysteriously burgled with an almost identical crime scene while he was housesitting for them. So it is sus. And we must remember Johnston was one of the ONLY people in that house working. They had to care for an infirm Arthur, children of theirs who were out of work, etc. The only workers in that home were John and one of the son's (or was it one of their daughter's boyfriends)? Maintaining a family like that on such low income must have been tricky. It wouldn't be surprising if he was forced to turn to crime.
------
Here are more considerations, which I don't want used against the crux of my idea because these are random thoughts I haven't gone into depth on and just occurred to me, essentially. These are.
1) John and Flo were leaving by their back door, nobody followed them and thus they were planning to leave the yard door unsecured during their trip (I actually think this IS important, but the rest is just musings).
2) John and Flo claim to have been going out visiting. John had to get up at 4 AM for work, they were visiting at 9. Take into account travel times, visiting times, etc, and this seems unlikely, unless John had booked the following day off... Furthermore what's strange is they claim they were moving into that home the following day and that it was planned with things already packed. This was never checked. And if that was true, you'd expect them to have brought very light luggage on that trip to lighten the load for the next day. But still, it's weird to visit someone UNEXPECTEDLY (that's the apparent claim from the daughter) at past 9 o'clock especially when you're moving in with them the next day anyway?
If they were just terrified of William, why leave the rest of their family back in that house? Did they just not care if crazy William went and wacked Arthur or something?
3) Something VERY devious albeit possible is that William had Gordon and/or Marsden go to the house at 8 PM and enter through the back. I don't know what story he could have told them... But we have witnesses claiming to see "two men running very fast" from the scene at just gone 8, and William himself seemed weird about wanting to ensure he's out past 8. IF he had somehow tricked Parry and Marsden into actually going to the house, that's a PERFECT frame job, they go in, unexpectedly see Julia has had her brains bashed in. Parry then has no alibi for the call AND both of them SHOULD have no alibi for the murder night and be placed at the scene of the crime... Maybe Parry did and only Marsden was sent, I'm not sure. But I imagine he would send both.
I mean that would be an amazingly perfect framing. And dumping murder weapons on Parry in his car is one way to go about disposal and framing.
The above is just mainly musings, but the crux of the idea I put forward, I like it for a non-Wallace solution. And in a Wallace solution, I favor Parry having rang the club ANYWAY with/without knowing what was happening. Simply because I don't believe he'd be dumb enough to lie about his tram route.Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 06-27-2019, 07:39 AM.Comment
-
bingo and not to mention the Johnstons. to convoluted a theory, too risky (and unnecessary). if Wallace did it-he did it alone.Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View PostComment
-
It doesn't really matter how simple something is if probability and logic dictates otherwise.Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
Calling the club yourself is risky. Initially it might be okay but on trial etc. now there is obvious risk knowing that person is going to re-assess that call knowing you could have been the caller. More to the point, risky is giving an easily falsified tram route which is basically good enough to bury your defence.
But for Parry as the caller it fits entirely. So I don't so much care that William calling is simple, a lot more evidence suggests Gordon Parry placed that phone call EVEN IF Wallace wacked her. That's why Antony goes on and on about the call because the evidence there is on his side for Parry as the caller.
From a totally neutral standpoint you look at this and say "yes the evidence suggests Gordon rang." The difference is I think he rang because William got him to. William went left at the top of that road just like he said he did.Comment
-
Let me add something for you to ponder... Is there actually any evidence at all William returned home after work? The reason I ask is that nobody in the first tram he said he took had any recollection of the striking William. AFAIK nobody corroborated they ever saw him go home or leave his home.
Why? Do you think they legitimately just didn't recognize him? I'm just curious if this sparks any ideas for anyone.
I'm kinda high sorry LOL. The last post I wasn't but rn I'm pretty high so I may be talking nonsense.Comment
-
that's a PUI (posting under the influence) infraction for you!Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View PostComment
-
Hi WWH, I'm sorry for going on and on, although I don't think I'm the only one on this thread who suffers from this. But you cannot understand my position (and my error, in your view) without understanding the importance of the call. You are right about simplicity. Simplicity is a methodological rule you invoke to decide between two theories that explain the facts equally well. If you believe the facts suggest Parry was in the call box then the simplest theory is Parry, but of course this does not fit the fact of his alibi (assuming Brine told the truth). And so on. However, in a case like this, people disagree on the putative facts - e.g. Lily Hall saw Wallace. Also, in Bayesian inductive logic prior probability plays a big role (I won't bore people on the thread with the details) and this gives Wallace (alone) a big head start. If we are correct about the evidence making Parry the probable caller then those that endorse Wallace as the verdict should reduce their confidence in Wallace but could legitimately maintain it is still most probable theory overall for them.Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
Author of Cold Case Jury books: Move To Murder (2nd Edition) (2021), The Shark Arm Mystery (2020), Poisoned at the Priory (2020), Move to Murder (2018), Death of an Actress (2018), The Green Bicycle Mystery (2017) - "Armchair detectives will be delighted" - Publishers Weekly. Author of Crime & Mystery Hour - short fictional crime stories. And for something completely different - I'm the co-founder of Wow-Vinyl - celebrating the Golden Years of the British Single (1977-85)Comment
-
I get it Antony. I think Parry was in the box. But there's aspects where thenidds aren't great for a theory without Wallace's involvement. I'm out rn but will explain more when home.Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
I think Wallace went left at Breck Road, Parry went right to the box and placed the call.Comment
-
I think the phone call is key to understanding what happened. We have restricted the list of people who could have made the phone call to a limited group:Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
* Wallace disguising his voice to provide a good reason to be out of the house the following night (an alibi building / other suspect motive)
* Parry as someone familiar with the fee collection workings to get Wallace out of the house the night of potentially greatest haul.
In both cases, the purpose of the call was to get Wallace out of the house, or have reason to be out of the house, on Tuesday night.
Whoever made the call had to know Wallace would be going to the Chess club and how to contact the Chess club, neither of which could have been accomplished without some effort or foreknowledge.
IMHO, it makes no sense for Wallace to concoct such a plan, since being at the Chess club all night was a much better alibi than waiting a day to use walking the streets looking for an imaginary address as an alibi. With such a strong alibi for Monday night, I would argue the phone call was unnecessary to create another suspect. A burglary gone wrong would be relatively easy to suggest, particularly as there had been several burglaries already.
IMHO, it makes no sense for Parry either, since he had a clear run on Monday night and it would be risky to rely on the call to get rid of Wallace on Tuesday, Wallace might very well know the address was imaginary. Besides which, no serious attempt at burglary seems to have taken place, undermining the burglary motive.
So is there a third person who meets all the criteria for being able to make the call and who had a strong reason to get rid of Wallace on Tuesday night and does not require a team of people involved in murdering Julia? Someone who might be hanging around for Wallace to leave Monday night making the call before joining Julia. I think we could describe such a person.
* This person would have a good reason for wanting Wallace gone Tuesday night, but it would not be overly problematic for him (must be a him if they made the phone call) if Wallace did not go.
* Their motive would be neither murder or burglary, the murder being unplanned but committed by someone familiar with the house.
* Someone that had good reason to be in the parlour with Julia, did not bring a weapon and improvised as a result of something that happened that night and who then hurriedly and half-heartedly staged a burglary to deflect attention.
* And crucially, someone Julia would admit to the house without hesitation.
* This person would also need a personal connection to Julia in order to explain the seemingly emotional elements that are suggested by the nature of the murder.
That leads me to a suspect who has been described before but who we have largely over-looked in this thread. Partly because we have no name and partly because there is no evidence beyond making the events of that night logical and explaining what happened without the need for unlikely partnerships to commit the crime. Since the police never explored this scenario, and Julia would have done her best to conceal her killer's identity ahead of her murder, it perhaps cannot be proved. But Julia's lover, if he existed, makes better sense of the evidence.
Comment
-
I've heard that idea before. The issues being that Julia was very old (so I would think unlikely to be gallavanting around with toyboys), Julia had flu at the time, the crime scene is very clinical (no blood tracked out of the room, or on handles etc) suggesting premeditation, to name a few.Comment
-
Indeed - not original but has not been explored as much as other theories.Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
Not suggesting it was a toy boy - maybe someone the same age as her husband or even older than him. Lots of older people still have romantic associations.Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
I wouldn't describe the crime scene as clinical, but you are right to point out that the mess stayed in the parlour. I do not think that means it was a pre-meditated crime.Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
The narrative with the evidence runs more smoothly with a lover or romantic liaison across the whole set of information we have, eg:
1. The killer waits for Wallace to leave for his chess club and makes the phone call to get Wallace out the next night too.
2. While Wallace is at his chess club, Julia admits her lover through the back door and they spend time together.
3. The lover leaves before Wallace returns home.
4. Wallace is dubious about going to see Qualtrough but Julia encourages him to go.
5. The lover waits for Wallace to leave before again being admitted through the back door.
6. Julia and her lover spend time in the parlour but it is a little chilly.
7. The visitor is given Wallace's mac to put across his shoulder to keep warm while the fire is started up.
8. There is an incident which enrages the lover, maybe Julia is stopping their liaison.
9. He lashes out and they fall against the fire burning both the mac and her skirt.
10. After the murder he wipes his hands, maybe his shoes too, has a half-hearted attempt at staging a burglary and gets out quick before Wallace returns.
No contradictions, no elaborate plans, no accomplices, no unlikely alliances - just an everyday sad story of a situation that went too far.
The biggest problem with this theory - absolutely no evidence.
Comment
Comment