Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If a person had a considerable amount of blood on their hands etc. Then washed them in the sink being careful to wash all around the sink , then left the water running to make sure the pipes and drains were thoroughly flushed, I would imagine after say 2 or 3 minutes there would be no trace of blood left for forensics of the day to find. What do you think?

Wallace was also an amateur chemist. His back bedroom had been converted to a laboratory. He had access to chemicals which might have helped get rid of blood. As an intelligent man it’s also not unlikely that he had researched the subject.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How about this possibility.
(Fill in the gaps yourselves ), Wallace leaves his wife just as he said he did ,was witnessed by all and sundry on his tram trip Is then picked up by an accomplice (Parry?)and taken by car back home. Driver waits in the next street while Wallace is murdering his wife,then after about 20 minutes returns Wallace back to the tram stop in Allerton for his public journey home.The distance from a to b is 4 1/2 miles, 15 mins by car. That’s the method. The motive? Here’s where my powerful use of speculation comes in. William Wallace was a latent homosexual, very dangerous thing to indulge in in these days of the rolling century. Julia finds out and is horrifically scarred and mentally tortured by this revelation, and threatens to expose him. ( As I say , fill in the gaps , where and when you need,) Evidence ? You don’t need evidence it checks all the boxes.

The main objection to suggesting a Wallace/Parry collaboration is the question of the phone call. If they were working together Parry could have made the call whilst Wallace was actually at the club which would have removed any suspicion that Wallace might have made the call.

[harry]

The appeals court did not intervene until Wallace's counsel appealed the verdict.
The grounds of appeal was not that there was no evidence against Wallace,but that the verdict(Guilty)could not be supported by the evidence.
Oliver-The evidence as a whole was as consistent with innocence as guilt.
The appeal judgement- The conclusion to which we have arrived-is that the case against the appelant which we have carefully and anxiously considered-and discussed,was not proved with the certainty which is neccessary in order to justify a verdict of guilty.
Now anyone with an ounce of inteligence and understanding will know that the case consisted of the evidence against Wallace, and that it did not meet the standard of'Proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. Nowhere does it indicate there was no evidence.


Not everythig I have mentioned has been answered.The gas meter for instance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,
Insults do not worry me,but like you I feel it's unnecessary.Would have been better if my points had been answered in a decent way.We can excuse Rod though,his deformity,his head is grossly oversized in relation to the rest of his body,is a hard burden to bear.


None of what I have written is without confirmation.I think my last point,that Oliver the defense counsel remarking that the evidence of guilt was equal to that of innocence,taken from official records,is sufficient in itself to show that Wallace was not unfairly treated by the police or jury.

Harry,

Points are never answered decently from that quarter. I have a years experience of that. I gave up hoping for it long ago.

[harry]

Herlock,
Your theory is similar to mine,though I have Julia holding the raincoat towards the fire.The problem is,why would she be wearing or holding the mackintosh.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The appeals court did not intervene until Wallace's counsel appealed the verdict.
The grounds of appeal was not that there was no evidence against Wallace,but that the verdict(Guilty)could not be supported by the evidence.
Oliver-The evidence as a whole was as consistent with innocence as guilt.
The appeal judgement- The conclusion to which we have arrived-is that the case against the appelant which we have carefully and anxiously considered-and discussed,was not proved with the certainty which is neccessary in order to justify a verdict of guilty.
Now anyone with an ounce of inteligence and understanding will know that the case consisted of the evidence against Wallace, and that it did not meet the standard of'Proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. Nowhere does it indicate there was no evidence.


Not everythig I have mentioned has been answered.The gas meter for instance.

And of course Harry, apart from Parkes’ unbelievable statement, there’s not a single shred of evidence for Parry’s involvement. And why was Parry questioned in the first place? Because Wallace named him. It’s also interesting to wonder why Wallace only became certain of Parry’s guilt after the trial and acquittal?

[Herlock Sholmes]

From Rod,

. When I used to visit my grandmother as a child, she had a parlour, with a piano. The door was always closed, sometimes locked. Over the course of ten years, I think I entered that room twice...

Anyhow, Inspector Gold (once he was sober again) applied his mind to the matter of why Wallace had gone upstairs first.
"Wallace may have thought she had gone to bed. He knew she had a cold."
report for Superintendent Moore, February 1931

So nothing strange at all, Abby. Just another meaningless innocent happenstance, latched on to by obsessive little Wallace-ites.

Because they really have NOTHING ELSE...

My reply was,

“Of course she might have just gone to bed Rod. Stopping off only to rip off a cupboard door on the way.

Your floundering Rod.....badly.

Wallace knew that there was no ‘innocent’ explaination.

1. He said that he became concerned when he finally realised, after his charade, that MGE didn’t exist (you remember, after Green and Constable Serjeant told him so.)

2. He asked the Johnston’s if they’d heard any noises.

3. He couldn’t get in and ‘suspected’ that someone might have been in the house (you know, and then tried to wriggle out of saying it.)

4. He saw the cupboard door torn off it’s hinges.

Try and keep up Rod.

This was Wallace supposedly searching for a wife that he’d felt might have come to harm through foul play.

Even your granny can’t help you out of this one.”


An old Rod trick here. When he loses a point (which he transparently did here) he doesn’t pursue it. Simply hoping that the person that made the point won’t mention it again.

Just thought I’d post a little reminder.

[RodCrosby]

The appeals court did not intervene until Wallace's counsel appealed the verdict.
The grounds of appeal was not that there was no evidence against Wallace,but that the verdict(Guilty)could not be supported by the evidence.
Oliver-The evidence as a whole was as consistent with innocence as guilt.
The appeal judgement- The conclusion to which we have arrived-is that the case against the appelant which we have carefully and anxiously considered-and discussed,was not proved with the certainty which is neccessary in order to justify a verdict of guilty.
Now anyone with an ounce of inteligence and understanding will know that the case consisted of the evidence against Wallace, and that it did not meet the standard of'Proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. Nowhere does it indicate there was no evidence.


Not everythig I have mentioned has been answered.The gas meter for instance.

I have demonstrated why you are wrong, chapter and verse. The law did not permit the Court of Appeal to act in the way you imagine. Therefore they did not.

And the Official Record, together with secondary citations in Law Journals shows that, beyond peradventure.

"The Court will quash a conviction founded on mere suspicion" [headnote]
Court of Criminal Appeal 19 May 1931(1932) 23 Cr. App. R. 32

Repeating your pet, wrong-headed beliefs just takes up bandwith.

You and your fellow-travellers can continue to discuss your alternative universe case.

I will discuss the real one.

[RodCrosby]

More twisting. Rod never once mentioned being published in Antony’s book. He led us to believe that it was his own book that was coming out.

By their LIES shall ye know them.

on 03-06-2018, I wrote:

Someone else is writing it...

and the trolls knew very well who I meant, by their squeals of anger and cheap abuse, directed not only against me, but even to the author.

Must feel great, pretending to be the Great Detective, wasting your life posting obsessive drivel, and then someone comes along from nowhere with a new theory.

The theory is accepted, published and endorsed, just like I said it would be. And you are IGNORED.

diddums...

[Abby Normal]

Herlock,
Your theory is similar to mine,though I have Julia holding the raincoat towards the fire.The problem is,why would she be wearing or holding the mackintosh.

The idea is she put it on around her shoulders when she went to answer the door.
And still had it on when she let the guest in, presumably the murderer, and into the parlor, where she was attacked while lighting the fire.

[RodCrosby]

Once the "noise" has stopped, we may continue discussing the real evidence, and the real case.

[Abby Normal]

If it was an intruder and murder was intended, who would not bring a murder weapon with them?

And if even if they didnt, and presumably used the rod or poker, why take it away with them?

The missing murder weapon clearly points to wallace IMHO.

Eventhough it would seem that even wallace would leave the murder weapon, i could see how he may not have thought this point through and felt he needed to get rid of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, I draw everyone’s attention to post #472

Gold - the unreliable drunk - comes up with the nonsensical idea that Wallace avoided the Parlour because he thought that Julia might have gone to bed with a cold - and suddenly Rod agrees with him! He’s now reliable.

I’ve shown, and it wasn’t difficult, that Wallace a) became concerned for Julia’s safety when it finally sunk in that MGE didn’t exist.
b) He became increasingly worried when he couldn’t get in.
c) He asked the Johnston’s if they’d heard any noises. - not of Julia sneezing with her cold either! Sounds of an intruder.
d) And finally, putting the nail in the ‘she might have had a cold’ drivel, Wallace seems that a cupboard door has been yanked off.

And so......

As he got to the door from the kitchen to the Parlour there’s absolutely no doubt that Wallace would have been convinced of foul play. In short he would have feared for his wife’s safety or even her life.

How many men, faced with that situation, wouldn’t bother opening a door that was actually within reach to check for his wife?

I’d say.....around none.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If it was an intruder and murder was intended, who would not bring a murder weapon with them?

And if even if they didnt, and presumably used the rod or poker, why take it away with them?

The missing murder weapon clearly points to wallace IMHO.

Eventhough it would seem that even wallace would leave the murder weapon, i could see how he may not have thought this point through and felt he needed to get rid of it.

Hi Abby,

We have to weigh up who would have been more likely to take the weapon away. Wallace or a sneak thief?

There’s no obvious reason that Wallace might have taken away the weapon. My own suggestion is that he might have felt that with no weapon at the scene that it might suggest to the police that the killer brought his own weapon with him and therefore wouldn’t have wanted to leave it at the scene. Also the murder of his wife, in his own Parlour with a weapon from his own fire grate might point the police toward a domestic murder.

In the Accomplice theory Rod has the killer wearing gloves. This is logical of course - he wouldn’t have wanted to leave prints. But it follows then that the accomplice would have worn gloves when committing the murder. And so with no prints on a weapon that could have in no way been connected to him there’s no reason at all why the killer would have taken it away with him.

Therefore, on balance, the missing weapon points to Wallace more than anyone else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Drunks, unlike obsessive little trolls, can have occasional periods of lucidity...

No response to the point though I see.

We’re all waiting Rod.........