Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by AmericanSherlock View Post
    There will be a review from me within the next couple weeks up here. It will be in depth.
    I will look forward to that.

    Comment


    • #17
      I’m half way through Antony’s book and I have to thank him for settling one question about the case through his research. In books by Murphy and the Gannon it was stated that ‘Qualtrough’ asked Beattie for Wallace’s address. This fact hadn’t appeared in any previous book on the case. Those of us who feel that the likeliest culprit for the murder was Wallace said that this would surely eliminate Parry as being provided the address would immediately scupper the plan. Parry could have had no way of knowing that Beattie nor any other member of the club didn’t know their fellow members address. Wallace however knew perfectly well that the only member of the club that knew his address was Caird. He also knew that Caird went to the club after locking up his shop and so he could be certain that the only person that could answer the question wouldn’t have arrived at the club by that time.

      Another poster (who believes Parry to have been the caller) felt that Murphy had made this up as it would have been ‘crazy’ for either Parry or Wallace.

      .
      "The caller asked for Wallace’s address."

      Not one of the celebrated authors who documented this case supports this assertion, and it was a rather short phone call to document correctly...

      Not Lee-Adam. Not Wyndham-Brown. Not Sayers. Not Lustgarten. Not Goodman. Not Wilkes or Radio City.
      Gannon or Murphy seem to have made it up [If someone can produce Beattie's actual Police statement I'll happily stand corrected.]

      And it would be a crazy thing to do for anyone hoping to advance the criminal design that we know subsequently unfolded, whoever was the culprit
      Thanks to Antony we now know that the caller did indeed ask for Wallace’s address as it was in Samuel Beattie’s statement dated 21.1.31.

      So we now have to ask ourselves who, from Wallace or Parry, would have felt it ‘safe’ to ask for Wallace’s address after all, unless we go for another culprit, it had to be either them. So I’ll repeat:

      Parry had absolutely no way of knowing that neither Beattie or any other club member would have been able to provide Wallace’s address.

      Wallace, on the other hand, knew perfectly well that no one knew it except one man and Wallace knew that that one man wouldn’t have been present at the time of his call.

      We can surely now eliminate Parry as the caller.
      Regards

      Herlock






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

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        We can surely now eliminate Parry as the caller.
        Fast and loose with the facts, tendentious 'logic' and an unsupportable conclusion, as ever...

        I still haven't seen Beattie's actual statement, but I already knew it would make no difference whether or not the caller asked Beattie if he knew Wallace's address.
        That's why I said I would happily stand corrected, remember...?

        Just the most obvious reason.

        If it was Parry on the line, planning a robbery - with an eye to later confuse the Police, he might very well like to leave the impression that the perpetrator was
        someone who did NOT already know Wallace's address, and that silly Beattie (he hoped) would get the blame for handing it out to some 'random' criminal...

        So, sorry, we can NOT 'surely now eliminate Parry as the caller.'
        [aside from the ton of actual evidence that still points to him as the caller, and the additional ton that points away from Wallace...]

        Next !!
        Last edited by RodCrosby; 11-14-2018, 12:00 PM.
        "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
        Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
        The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
        https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

        Compendium of Resources
        https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
          Fast and loose with the facts, tendentious 'logic' and an unsupportable conclusion, as ever...

          I still haven't seen Beattie's actual statement, but I already knew it would make no difference whether or not the caller asked Beattie if he knew Wallace's address.
          That's why I said I would happily stand corrected, remember...?

          Just the most obvious reason.

          If it was Parry on the line, planning a robbery - with an eye to later confuse the Police, he might very well like to leave the impression that the perpetrator was
          someone who did NOT already know Wallace's address, and that silly Beattie (he hoped) would get the blame for handing it out to some 'random' criminal...

          So, sorry, we can NOT 'surely now eliminate Parry as the caller.'
          [aside from the ton of actual evidence that still points to him as the caller, and the additional ton that points away from Wallace...]

          Next !!
          I even suspect that you don’t mean any of that nonsense

          This was a guy that was apparently too stupid to see the ways that the plan could crumble at the first hurdle. This was a guy so gullible that he just assumed that Wallace would tell his wife all the details of his evenings adventure (Qualtrough’s name, MGE etc) to ensure access to the house. And now, out of sheer desperation, you suggest that Moriarty Parry comes up with this piece of Machiavellian obfuscation whilst at the time carelessly jeopardising the plan, again.

          What Parry wanted, according to you, is the cash....first and foremost. How could anyone seriously suggest that he would potentially throw that away just on the off chance of possibly confusing the police later on?

          All the wriggling in the world isn’t getting away from this one.

          The fact that the caller asked for Wallace’s address overwhelmingly points to Wallace over Parry.

          But then again, we knew it was probably Wallace all along didnt we.
          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment


          • #20
            “Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”
            Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Copper Beeches

            And I have solved the Wallace Case...
            "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
            Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
            The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
            https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

            Compendium of Resources
            https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
              “Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”
              Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Copper Beeches

              And I have solved the Wallace Case...

              No response as expected.

              I also forgot to mention....we can now add yet another way that this ‘brilliant’ plan could have fallen.

              Beattie: “ he asked for your address.”

              Wallace: “ why would he ask for my address then ask that I go to see him? Sounds suspicious to me Mr Beattie?”

              Beattie: “ very suspicious Mr Wallace.”

              ~

              Also, it certainly didn’t end up making the police think “well it was someone that didn’t know where Wallace lived” because they suspected that it was Wallace himself.

              ~

              Would Parry have asked this question and faced the very serious risk of the plan crumbling? Of course not. Serious risk for no gain.

              Alternatively, does this question fit in with Wallace? Absolutely 100%.

              Firstly, it makes him sound authentic.......’ok if you can’t give me his address can you get him to come and see me please?’

              Secondly, only Wallace could ask this question at no risk to himself because he knew that no one at the club knew his address. And just to make it fit better, only he knew that his best friend Caird (the only one that knew his address) wouldn’t have arrived at the club yet.

              ~

              Sneak Thief Theory

              https://youtu.be/h9JArvEJ64M
              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • #22
                And then there are the doors....

                Wallace arrives home. He tries the front door but it won’t open. He then tries the back door - same result. Same again with the front door again then around to the back where he finally gets in with the Johnston’s present.

                Now, I can’t recall anywhere where Wallace said that he was often apparently locked out. They did find slight faults with the locks but these were locks that Wallace used each day and several times.

                So what are we being asked to believe? That two locks deteriorated so badly, in the space of time between Wallace leaving for Menlove Gardens East and his return, that he couldn’t open the doors? This is asking a lot surely.

                Or is there more likely reason....or two?

                1. Wallace was going from door to door hoping to draw attention to himself returning from his trip. Luckily the Johnston’s turned up.

                2. He was trying to give the impression that Julia’s killer was still in the house. It was said that Wallace even suggested this to a police officer but he later denied doing so.

                I think that a combination of both is likely. Certainly likelier than synchronised lock failure.
                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  And then there are the doors....

                  Wallace arrives home. He tries the front door but it won’t open. He then tries the back door - same result. Same again with the front door again then around to the back where he finally gets in with the Johnston’s present.

                  Now, I can’t recall anywhere where Wallace said that he was often apparently locked out. They did find slight faults with the locks but these were locks that Wallace used each day and several times.

                  So what are we being asked to believe? That two locks deteriorated so badly, in the space of time between Wallace leaving for Menlove Gardens East and his return, that he couldn’t open the doors? This is asking a lot surely.

                  Or is there more likely reason....or two?

                  1. Wallace was going from door to door hoping to draw attention to himself returning from his trip. Luckily the Johnston’s turned up.

                  2. He was trying to give the impression that Julia’s killer was still in the house. It was said that Wallace even suggested this to a police officer but he later denied doing so.

                  I think that a combination of both is likely. Certainly likelier than synchronised lock failure.
                  Hi hs
                  I know nothing about this case. But killers of family members, in their own home, will often plan things out and do things that make sure that someone else finds the body, or that someone is with them when they find the body.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    They often do, Abby, but in this case...
                    "...his meeting with the Johnstons was entirely fortuitous, and could not have entered into his calculations one way or the other."
                    Dorothy L. Sayers, in The Anatomy of Murder, 1936
                    "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
                    Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
                    The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
                    https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

                    Compendium of Resources
                    https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
                      They often do, Abby, but in this case...
                      "...his meeting with the Johnstons was entirely fortuitous, and could not have entered into his calculations one way or the other."
                      Dorothy L. Sayers, in The Anatomy of Murder, 1936
                      hi Rod
                      yes very fortuitous, especially if he was the killer. and if he was and they hadn't showed up, his next step was probably to get help.
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Poor old Wallace just can't win, then...

                        Thankfully we have intelligent judges who understand the difference between evidence and prejudice, and we also have some fair-minded detective authors...
                        "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
                        Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
                        The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
                        https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc1n5xu7nn...heory.pdf?dl=0

                        Compendium of Resources
                        https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          A bit of misinformation going on here again...unsurprisingly.

                          No one is suggesting that Wallace planned for the Johnston’s to be there as he couldn’t possibly have known that they were going out that night. But by going back and forth, knocking twice at the front door and twice at the back, Wallace might have hoped to have drawn attention to himself and his situation. Maybe a neighbour simply saying ‘is everything ok Mr Wallace?’ After all there were neighbours both sides (even someone who might have been watching from across the road. Wallace had nothing to lose by this, he was under no time pressure. It was easily worth a try. Fortunately the Johnston’s were going out that night and so could witness his entry and his ‘problems’ getting in.

                          What we are asked to believe though by those allegedly being ‘reasonable’ and ‘unbiased’ is that both doors to Wallace’s house suddenly decided to malfunction between the time that Wallace left the house and the time that he returned.
                          A period of 2 hours. Wallace couldn’t have been ‘unable’ to get in before because he became ‘suspicious’ when he couldn’t get in on the night of the murder.
                          If Wallace was trying to give the impression that the killer was still inside the house then of course it had to be the back door that eventually opened allowing it to be suggested that the killer then escaped via the front door. This couldn’t have been suggested of course if he’d eventually have gotten in via the front door as the Johnston’s were at the back door and would have seen the ‘killer’ escape.
                          It borders remarkable how much wriggling is done to exonerate Wallace
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            some fair-minded detective authors....
                            Who now even refuse to debate on the same thread as you.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              Hi hs
                              I know nothing about this case. But killers of family members, in their own home, will often plan things out and do things that make sure that someone else finds the body, or that someone is with them when they find the body.
                              Hi Abby,

                              They certainly do. Wallace had spent his journey to the fictitious Menlove Gardens East pestering and badgering conductors and inspectors. Telling people that he was a complete stranger in the area when he wasn’t just so that he would be noticed and remembered. So his actions when he returned home are completely in line with that.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                Hi Abby,

                                They certainly do. Wallace had spent his journey to the fictitious Menlove Gardens East pestering and badgering conductors and inspectors. Telling people that he was a complete stranger in the area when he wasn’t just so that he would be noticed and remembered. So his actions when he returned home are completely in line with that.
                                absolutely-planned murder alibi establishing 101
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X