Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, it isn't. And this is at the heart of my quandary with this case. I believe two seemingly contradictory things:
a) the intent of the criminal was to murder Julia and the robbery was (badly) staged.
b) Wallace was not the murderer.

Since the police focused on Wallace when they investigated the crime, we have no evidence of anyone else who might have wanted to kill Julia.

I think Rod's theory of Parry and an accomplice committing the crime is a valid reading of the evidence and allows my belief that Wallace was innocent. However, I am unconvinced of the evidence at the house that this was an attempted robbery. I can find no reason from what we know why Parry would want to mastermind the murder of Julia.

One of my main issues with Parry as the ‘planner’ is that so much relies on luck; on things falling just his way. If Wallace was the planner these issues go away.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wallace could have bolted the door before he left for MGE or once he was back - assuming he was guilty. Both equally plausible - but I believe an equally plausible reason can be speculated if it was the accomplice. Of itself, the bolted front door doesn't help us identify the murderer.

The back door - in the context of the front being bolted - is more problematic. If Wallace was the killer, then clearly he would have been able to lock the back door behind him if he left that way. The accomplice though would not be able to do this unless he had a key, which presumably he did not. And why would he go to the bother of locking the back door, assuming he picked up a key at the house. I can find no reason for the accomplice to do this - Does anyone have a plausible theory for why the accomplice might lock the back door?

Wallace did state he believed that an intruder might be in the house. If innocent it might have been scared and believed that possibility and the later thought differently. I try to imagine myself into that situation, with a wife inside potentially with an intruder. I too am a meek man but in that circumstance I think I would just rush in without thinking too much.

If Wallace was guilty and knew the house contained no intruder, then I'm not sure why he would invent one. It has been suggested it was to suggest someone was keeping him out the house. But he knew anyone there would soon discover the house empty apart from Julia's corpse, so what would be the point. I think the fact he suspected an intruder talks more to his innocence than his guilt.

He would invent one to show that someone else killed her and not himself.

[harry]

I'm sure Rod,that the investigating officers,the prosecutors and the court were all conversant with the existing laws,and they plus the jury,were aware of the kind of evidence needed and presented,and that the standard was 'Beyond a reasonable doubt'.The appeal courts decision was that the evidence did not reach that standard.It was never a case of the appeals court having to decide there was no evidence at all,and in their wording they were clear on this.It was a case of the evidence not being of the required standard.

What was the motive for Parry.Revenge,gain or both.It had been over a year since Parry left the prudential.A long time to hold a grudge,and seeing as it was his own dishonesty that led to his(Parry) dismissal,it's hard to imagine him sustaining a desire for revenge.Robbery?Most housebreaking might be because the occupants did not carry enough money while outdoors,but Wallace did,so why in his case(Wallace)take the added risk of housebreaking.
As to using an accomplice,well the procceeds had to be halved at least.Was there ever enough to satisfy an accomplice and himself(Parry)?

[moste]

Hi Abby,

The initial suggest that I made way back (and I’m not claiming to have been the first to do so) is that Wallace was only pretending that he couldn’t get in to give the impression that there was someone inside and that it was the intruder who was ‘preventing’ him from getting in. As we know that there was no one inside then there was no one doing anything with the doors to prevent him getting in. He’d never in the past been unable to get in (despite the faulty locks which he would have been used to) so it’s strange to say the least that he struggled on that particular night. As for the front door being bolted, Wallace could easily have done that when he got inside.

It’s been said that Wallace was fortunate that the Johnston’s appeared when they did. I don’t see that. Being frustrated that he wasn’t able to get into either front or back doors, would he not simply have knocked on the neighbours door to ask to borrow their key and therefore ‘get them involved’ which Ibelieve was his intention. Also ,if as is stated, Wallace was unable to unlock the front door, and unable to summon his wife by banging on the door, why would he not rap on the Johnston’s door for help since he was seriously concerned about his wifes safety? rather than make the trip all the way round to the back which as I have mentioned before requires a 150 yard walk.Also ,since the back alley gate was not bolted when Wallace came around to the back door as it had been when he left earlier to meet with Qualtrough, are we asked to believe that the murderer locked the back door ( presumably with Julia’s key )then make his exit by unbolting the rear gate?I have serious problems with all of this! As well as simultaneous lock failures.

[RodCrosby]

American Sherlock was following it from the start...

Oh yes, the guy that was banned for making stuff up and launching unwarranted personal attacks...

I remember him.

[RodCrosby]

The back door - in the context of the front being bolted - is more problematic. If Wallace was the killer, then clearly he would have been able to lock the back door behind him if he left that way. The accomplice though would not be able to do this unless he had a key, which presumably he did not. And why would he go to the bother of locking the back door, assuming he picked up a key at the house. I can find no reason for the accomplice to do this - Does anyone have a plausible theory for why the accomplice might lock the back door?

There seems to be confusion here. My reading is the back door was not locked, in the sense of a key-lock. It was closed, but the knob would not turn correctly for Wallace to release the catch. He thought initially it might be bolted from the inside. At no point did Wallace say he tried a key in the back door. The Johnstons offering their key is a red-herring. The door was not "locked" in that sense.

[RodCrosby]

I'm sure Rod,that the investigating officers,the prosecutors and the court were all conversant with the existing laws,and they plus the jury,were aware of the kind of evidence needed and presented,and that the standard was 'Beyond a reasonable doubt'.The appeal courts decision was that the evidence did not reach that standard.It was never a case of the appeals court having to decide there was no evidence at all,and in their wording they were clear on this.It was a case of the evidence not being of the required standard.

You're still incorrect. I'm afraid.

Yes of course the standard for the Jury was "beyond reasonable doubt", but that is something for the Jury to decide, based on any instructions from the Judge, should they be bothered to listen...

"...it is no use applying tests to evidence if none of them excludes really the possibility of the innocence of the prisoner. If every matter relied on as circumstantial is equally or substantially consistent both with the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, the multiplication of those instances may not take you any further in coming to a conclusion of guilt."
Mr Justice Wright, summing-up in R v Wallace

In 1931, the Court of Appeal would not set itself as a 13th Juror. The law was that the Jury were the final arbiters of what they made of the evidence. The Court of Appeal would only intervene if there was no evidence whatsoever upon which the Jury could have reached a verdict of guilty, or (perhaps) so slight and inconsequential evidence that no reasonable jury could have done so.

"It is not sufficient to show merely that the case against the appellant was a very weak one...If there was evidence to support the conviction, the appeal will be dismissed" (Archbold, 1922, ed. p. 377).

If it was "not sufficient" to show merely that the case against the appellant was a very weak one, then it would CERTAINLY not be "sufficient" to show that the case was a somewhat stronger one, or that it was one that 'did not quite' meet the reasonable doubt test, as you seem to contend. The official record of the Appeal demonstrates that beyond peradventure, as I have repeatedly shown.

"The Court will quash a conviction founded on mere suspicion" [headnote]
R v Wallace (1932) 23 Cr. App. R. 32

Therefore, the Court of Appeal felt the Liverpool Jury had wrongly convicted Wallace on mere suspicion, without any substantial evidence whatsoever.

If all that is not enough to convince you, the Lord Chief Justice himself asked Hemmerde KC, somewhat rhetorically.

"Are you not really saying that if it be assumed that this man committed the murder, other circumstances fit in with that?"

Suspicion, and Assumption, that was all the Prosecution had. Not EVIDENCE upon which any reasonable jury could have reached a verdict of guilty.


It was not, in fact, until the 1968 Act that the Court of Appeal's discretion was broadened to consider the "lurking doubt". [known as the Cooper test]

[RodCrosby]

If Wallace was the planner these issues go away.

Yep, they sure do. Try...

Y = X^(9*2)

or, if you're not so good at sums

“To any objective observer, the hypothesis which is the prosecution’s case is something so intrinsically difficult of acceptance that the defence does not seem to matter. Putting the prosecution at its highest, it leaves doubt." [According to the Evidence: An Essay on Legal Proof (London 1958)]

[RodCrosby]

The same Antony that now refuses to even be on the same thread as you.

I wonder why?

Do you have any evidence or justification whatsoever for your unwarranted personal attack on him and me?

[Abby Normal]

There seems to be confusion here. My reading is the back door was not locked, in the sense of a key-lock. It was closed, but the knob would not turn correctly for Wallace to release the catch. He thought initially it might be bolted from the inside. At no point did Wallace say he tried a key in the back door. The Johnstons offering their key is a red-herring. The door was not "locked" in that sense.

Hi rod, eten all

This is an extremely important point and one i just brought up a while back.

Was the back door locked,in the sense that wallace needed a key to open it?

Or was the knob or handel just messed up which prevented him opening first try? As rod suggests.


Because if it was locked, and the front door was locked how could an intruder killer leave without a key and locking the back door behind him?

So either he found a key to the back door inside the house and locked the back door as he left.

Or it was the kind that automatically would lock when you shut it.

I find both the former highly implausable and the latter unlikely.

So this obviously points to wallace if both doors were locked? Why or was it even possible for an intruder to lock both doors as he left

[RodCrosby]

Or was the knob or handle just messed up which prevented him opening first try? As rod suggests.

WALSH (junior Prosecution barrister): Were you able to hear, from where you were, whether he tried with his key or anything ?
Mr. JOHNSTON: No, he did not seem to try the key; he seemed to turn the knob in the usual way.

WALSH: He got up to the door ?
Mrs. JOHNSTON: We could not see the door from where we stood, you see, and Mr. Wallace appeared to put his hand on the knob to try it, and he called out, “It opens now.”

HEMMERDE KC: At the back door, what was your position ?
WALLACE: I tried it. I got hold of the knob and it would not open; the bolt would not slip back.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yep, they sure do. Try...

Y = X^(9*2)

or, if you're not so good at sums

“To any objective observer, the hypothesis which is the prosecution’s case is something so intrinsically difficult of acceptance that the defence does not seem to matter. Putting the prosecution at its highest, it leaves doubt." [According to the Evidence: An Essay on Legal Proof (London 1958)]

Meaningless

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you have any evidence or justification whatsoever for your unwarranted personal attack on him and me?

When are you going to stop your pathetic babyish attempts to get me censured? I’m in email contact with Antony. We’ve spoken many times on the case. There have been no personal attacks.

Unlike these few beauties.




“Like... bugs on my windshield”

“There'd be a couple less fools on the internet, maybe”

“Next turkey, step forward!”

“If only I listened to more dyslexic nonentities on the internet”

“certain bizarros on this forum “

“. weird stalkers”


“That was the dyslexic one's imbecilic claim “

“I should challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed.”

“Trolls and Stalkers self-evidently don't.”

“Even God can't help the terminally stupid, btw... so save your prayers.”

“ malignant disinformation and idiocy. All you have to offer is verbal diarrhoea..”

“a silly troll and a creepy stalker “

“Are there really no smarter fish in this barrel for me to shoot? “

“the Troll and the Stalker and their malignant delusions”

“Except in the trolls' fantasy alternative universe”

“a couple of malignant trolls “


“like all obsessive little trolls.”

“another of your malignant, stupid, trollish INVENTIONS.”

“Troll-on-the-run “

“Don't feed the trolls. “

“Such fun filleting these fools in public.”

“Another liar...”


Of course these personal attacks don’t count do they?

[Herlock Sholmes]

When are you going to stop your pathetic babyish attempts to get me censured? I’m in email contact with Antony. We’ve spoken many times on the case. There have been no personal attacks.

Unlike these few beauties.




“Like... bugs on my windshield”

“There'd be a couple less fools on the internet, maybe”

“Next turkey, step forward!”

“If only I listened to more dyslexic nonentities on the internet”

“certain bizarros on this forum “

“. weird stalkers”


“That was the dyslexic one's imbecilic claim “

“I should challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed.”

“Trolls and Stalkers self-evidently don't.”

“Even God can't help the terminally stupid, btw... so save your prayers.”

“ malignant disinformation and idiocy. All you have to offer is verbal diarrhoea..”

“a silly troll and a creepy stalker “

“Are there really no smarter fish in this barrel for me to shoot? “

“the Troll and the Stalker and their malignant delusions”

“Except in the trolls' fantasy alternative universe”

“a couple of malignant trolls “


“like all obsessive little trolls.”

“another of your malignant, stupid, trollish INVENTIONS.”

“Troll-on-the-run “

“Don't feed the trolls. “

“Such fun filleting these fools in public.”

“Another liar...”


Of course these personal attacks don’t count do they?

And my justification for my comment.....where is Antony then? He came back to the thread to initiate a debate but because of your attitude he decided that he couldn’t continue. And yet he’s quite happily discussing the case with me in a civil manner.
And so my comment about Antony and yourself is entirely based on facts and therefore justified.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wallace could have bolted the door before he left for MGE or once he was back - assuming he was guilty. Both equally plausible - but I believe an equally plausible reason can be speculated if it was the accomplice. Of itself, the bolted front door doesn't help us identify the murderer.

The back door - in the context of the front being bolted - is more problematic. If Wallace was the killer, then clearly he would have been able to lock the back door behind him if he left that way. The accomplice though would not be able to do this unless he had a key, which presumably he did not. And why would he go to the bother of locking the back door, assuming he picked up a key at the house. I can find no reason for the accomplice to do this - Does anyone have a plausible theory for why the accomplice might lock the back door?

Wallace did state he believed that an intruder might be in the house. If innocent it might have been scared and believed that possibility and the later thought differently. I try to imagine myself into that situation, with a wife inside potentially with an intruder. I too am a meek man but in that circumstance I think I would just rush in without thinking too much.

If Wallace was guilty and knew the house contained no intruder, then I'm not sure why he would invent one. It has been suggested it was to suggest someone was keeping him out the house. But he knew anyone there would soon discover the house empty apart from Julia's corpse, so what would be the point. I think the fact he suspected an intruder talks more to his innocence than his guilt.

The backdoor wasn’t actually locked but it might be worth asking why it wasn’t ?
Wallace left by the backdoor and Julia knew that Wallace always returned via the front door. The backdoor wasn’t going to be used again that night and Julia was in the house on her own so I wonder why she didn’t lock the door after William left?