Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

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

  • Graham

    basically a good grasp of the case, except the Amy Wallace stuff. What drivel people have written and continue to write... There was even a rumour that Wallace had murdered his own brother, so he could be with Amy ! In fact, Joseph Wallace was returning from the Far East to assist with his brother's defence...

    The Lily Lloyd 'fake alibi' story seems to be crossed wires, perhaps sparked by some misunderstanding years later by Lloyd herself.

    Parry's alibi for the killing never did depend on Lloyd. It depended on Olivia Brine, but this did not come into the public domain until 2001.

    Parry was charged with indecent assault in 1936.
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/577sirgepi...y1936.pdf?dl=0

    The case was dismissed...
    https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/212505469
    Last edited by RodCrosby; 12-09-2018, 02:52 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


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      The problem is that the Wallace’s weren’t exactly a The Kardashians. No hectic social life for them and few could say that they knew them well. Most said that they appeared to be a happy couple. Mrs Johnston for example didn’t even know Julia’s Christian name. Most people, as you know, don’t air their dirt linen in public; they put on a show in front of guests. Didn’t everyone say that the Crippen’s appeared a happy couple. We do have something to go on though.

      Eight years before the murder Mrs Wilson actually lived with them for three weeks nursing Wallace through pneumonia so she would have seen them at close quarters when guards were down. She said:

      “Their attitude towards each other appeared strained and that the feeling of sympathy and confidence which one usually found existing between man and wife appeared to be entirely absent. They were not the happy and devoted couple some people thought.”

      She said of Julia: “....was peculiar in her manner and dirty.”

      Whilst William: “....appeared to have suffered a keen disappointment in life.”’

      Wilson had no reason to lie. And how might the Wallace’s relationship have deteriorated over the proceeding eight years?

      Dr Curwen said that Julia had implied that Wallace had malingered. He also said that Wallace appeared indifferent to the state of Julia’s health.

      Again, what reason would a Doctor have to lie.

      Alfred Mather, a former colleague of William’s called him “the most cool, calculating, despondent and soured man” he had ever met and that he had an evil temper. He’d met Julia and found her ‘very offhand’ and a ‘proud and peculiar woman’ who believed she’d married beneath herself. Rod calls this a grudge but, of course, there’s no evidence of that.

      Wallace’s sister-in-laws Amy felt that Wallace was condescending towards his wife.

      We might add that Wallace was an intelligent, cultured man who had been stuck in the same job for 15 years or so; trudging around the streets in all weather collecting money. Julia not only lied about her past she’d taken 16 years off her true age. She was actually old enough to have been William’s mother! She was also estranged from her family.

      Is it a beyond the realms that Wallace (not in the best of health himself) might have seen the rest of his life as nursemaiding a wife who was more and more resembling his mother in age and health? We could even speculate....what if William had somehow discovered Julia’s true age? Perhaps from her family or when trying to arrange some kind of insurance policy. How might that have affected him?

      Motives can remain hidden below the surface away from friends and family. How many times though have we seen the news and a murder has taken place and a neighbour says to an interviewer “they always seemed such a happy couple.”
      Hi Herlock,

      interesting post. If Mrs Wilson had been as perceptive as you believe her to be, she might have seen that, during a prolonged illness of a marriage-partner, their reationship at at time may appear strained and edgy. I know this personally, as I've been through it. Particularly if Wallace had been suffering from pneumonia, which a century ago was more likely to be fatal than not.

      I think I've read that Julia was the daughter of a formerly wealthy, but eventually bankrupt, Yorkshire farmer and landowner. If true, than I was respectfully suggest that her resulting upbringing would not be considered, later in life, to make her 'dirty'. 'Peculiar in her manner'? What's that mean?

      And why should Wallace 'malinger'? To prove something? Make a point? Or what? And 'indifferent to the state of Julia's health'? Was she going through a period of ill-health, known to others, at the time?

      And how can anyone possibly detect, and subsequently suggest, that Wallace 'appeared to have suffered a keen disappointment in life'? As in, marrying beneath him? Marrying unsuitably? Julia was well above his 'station in life', and was by accounts I've read better educated, more intelligent, and more intellectual than Wallace. Was he jealous of all this, so bumped her off as a result?

      I can't comment about Mather's contribution, as I've never read anything about it, but it kind of implies that Mather had known a number of 'cool, calculating, despondent and soured men', with whom he could compare Wallace. Doubtful. Evil temper? So what? So have I, when something gets me going. And how did Mather determine from meeting Julia that she thought she'd 'married beneath herself'? Did she tell him that?

      From what I gather, Wallace spent his early working life with the British Forces drapery branch, at first in England, then later in India and China. I haven't a clue what this employment entailed or demanded - any suggestions? It also seems that Wallace was attracted by the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius, the classic Stoic, who taught that one must not expect too much out of life.

      I honestly don't think that the age-difference between Julia and William can be seen as contributory to her murder. 16 years is a hell of a long time, and I am not quite convinced that in this case it was proven. Perhaps someone can show me proof of this alleged age-difference? I mean, if my wife had been 16 years older than I at the time of our marriage, I rather think I may have noticed!

      Seems to me that in their (to us) staid and boring existence they were perfectly content, if not happy. Wallace with his home chemisty-lab, chess, and his part-time teaching; Julia with her books and her music and her art.

      Can't somehow get my head around William Herbert Wallace bumping off his wife in such a brutal manner....had he decided to do so, then I rather feel that poison would have been his weapon. But....one never knows.

      Graham
      We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

      Comment


      • Rod,

        The Lily Lloyd 'fake alibi' story seems to be crossed wires, perhaps sparked by some misunderstanding years later by Lloyd herself.
        Hmmm, well, the Lily Lloyd alibi info that I've read was provided by Jonathan Goodman, who I rather feel I could trust as an independent crime-investigator.
        Where does the 'misunderstanding' come in?

        Regarding Olivia Brine, was her husband not a steward on board a Cunard Liner at the time of the murder? Is it beyond the realms of possibility that she and Gordon Parry, who had I believe been acquainted for a couple of years, were - pardon me - having it off in the absence of her husband? And that because of this she provided Parry with an alibi? Only asking.

        I also think I recall reading that Olivia Brine lived very near - maybe in the same street - as a senior police-officer who was part of the investigation into the Wallace case.

        Graham
        We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

        Comment


        • Well, Graham, people having it off in 1931 I guess would get down to their clandestine business - not sit around with family members and passing visitors...

          Brine's 13-year old daughter was also in the house, according to Parry.
          Attached Files
          Last edited by RodCrosby; 12-09-2018, 03:10 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


          • Yes, Rod, so two persons testify that Parry left the Marlborough Road house at about 8.30pm.

            Wallace evidently returned to his house at 8.45pm. How long does it take to batter another person to death? Minutes? Seconds?

            My knowledge of Liverpool geography is zero, so I can't figure out how far Marlborough Road is from Wolverton Crescent.

            Graham
            We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

            Comment


            • About a 3 minute drive, according to my timing tests in the area. There were no speed limits or traffic lights in 1931.

              It should be said though that Wallace almost certainly arrived back a few minutes before 8.45pm, since the Johnston's heard him knocking a few minutes before they went out at exactly that time.

              And all the pathologists were adamant death could not have occurred after 8pm.
              Last edited by RodCrosby; 12-09-2018, 03:33 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


              • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
                None of these people had the temerity to say any of their prejudicial, malicious gossip in Court - which amounted to nothing in the way of motive, in any case.

                Even the Crown itself said it had nothing to offer against the view that the Wallaces were very happy together.

                There were reams of people, who knew the Wallaces far better than these, who did give evidence in Court consistently as to their happiness.

                But of course, only an obsessive would ignore all the evidence that was given, and harp on about stuff [the only negatives the Police could find, after searching far and wide] that was not given in evidence...
                Biased nonsense as we’ve come to expect. Dismissing everyone who disagrees with the ‘happy couple’ story. Who are these people that knew the Wallace’s so well? Julia was almost a recluse. Are you so detached from human nature to realise that people rarely air their dirty linen in public. The fact that many people thought them happy is utterly irrelevant. “They seemed like a devoted couple” is a phrase that’s rung down through the ages after a murder. To deny this is bias; pure and simple. And rather desperate.
                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  Who are these people that knew the Wallace’s so well?
                  People who were prepared to swear to it in Court....

                  And the Crown offered nothing to the contrary, and agreed they could not, at the very opening of the case.

                  And the man-without-a-mirror calls this 'biased nonsense'....
                  Last edited by RodCrosby; 12-09-2018, 03:49 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


                  • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                    Yes, Rod, so two persons testify that Parry left the Marlborough Road house at about 8.30pm.

                    Wallace evidently returned to his house at 8.45pm. How long does it take to batter another person to death? Minutes? Seconds?

                    My knowledge of Liverpool geography is zero, so I can't figure out how far Marlborough Road is from Wolverton Crescent.

                    Graham
                    Parry was seen by four people at the Brine’s. When he left at 8.30 he went to Maiden Lane PO where he bought cigarettes and a newspaper from a Mr Hodgson. Then he went to Hignett’s Garage in West Derby Road to pick up an accumulator battery. Then he went to the Williamson’s.

                    He didn’t go to Wolverton Street unless Mr Hodgson and the staff at Hignett’s are all part of the conspiracy to condem William as Rod would have you believe.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
                      People who were prepared to swear to it in Court....

                      And the Crown offered nothing to the contrary, and agreed they could not, at the very opening of the case.

                      And the man-without-a-mirror calls this 'biased nonsense'....
                      Your usual ‘buffet’ type investigation. Pick the ones you like and discard the ones you don’t.

                      How obvious would a motive be for Christ’s sake? If Wallace hated Julia he’s hardly going to walk around on his route muttering “I’m going to murder that bitch one day” is he?

                      Grow up.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by moste View Post
                        Hi etenguy. Something like this.

                        Rod , This is more like it ,good post , I’m still of the opinion Wallace was guilty.
                        I do believe he had a means of transporting himself from the Allerton newsagents to his home in approx. 15 minutes,with time to murder his wife, (‘Taxi”?)and prepare the scene for the Johnston’s and the police.
                        I will now copy and paste your ‘judges recommendation’and ‘jury guidance’
                        Paragraphs ,particularly the 1958 one , for the Hanratty Thread.
                        After all the planning that was required for Wallace to be the killer, he would be taking a huge risk to return home in a taxi. He could easily be identified and if such a driver came forward, it would seal his guilt. Also, this was a well known case in the area at that time. A taxi driver would likely come forward if one had been used.

                        In any event, he couldn't have returned home in time to kill his wife if we believe that the time of death had to be before 8pm, as stated.

                        Comment


                        • Is it now

                          Y=X^(10*2), instead of Y=X^(9*2)

                          for the chance of Wallace planning all this, and getting away with it?

                          I'm losing track...

                          “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.”

                          Gerald Abrahams, barrister-at-law, in According to the Evidence (1958)
                          Attached Files
                          Last edited by RodCrosby; 12-09-2018, 04:20 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


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            Your usual ‘buffet’ type investigation. Pick the ones you like and discard the ones you don’t.

                            How obvious would a motive be for Christ’s sake? If Wallace hated Julia he’s hardly going to walk around on his route muttering “I’m going to murder that bitch one day” is he?

                            Grow up.
                            You posted a likely scenario, if Wallace killed his wife, a few pages back, a violent and brutal murder.

                            One of the reasons which I think points against Wallace being the murderer, is the nature of the murder. Wallace would appear to be an intellectual and mild mannered man. One with a keen interest in science. Some suggest that the mode of murder shows an emotional connection to the victim - ergo Wallace is the murderer. But this was a planned murder (or robbery/murder) and so this was not a fit of rage - unless something triggered the rage that night (possibly, but not necessarily, Julia interrupting a burglar)..

                            I think, given Wallace's knowledge and nature, if he wanted to get away with murdering his wife, he would have used some form poisoning - possibly one than triggered what looked like a natural death.

                            Comment


                            • The planning of the crime,was as difficult for Parry as it was for Wallace,I would say more so,but my impression is that Wallace was the more educated and intelligent of the two.While the police may have admitted it was possible for someone to have called,who can argue the possibility,there was no evidence of such a caller.Anyhow,it was only a suggestion of the defence that this could have happened,the onus was on them to prove it,which of course they never did.They did suggest that robbery was the motive,but the police countered this by concluding that the signs of robbery were faked.

                              The police,the jury,the prosecuion,and people in the street believed in his guilt.So do I.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                                Hi Herlock,

                                interesting post. If Mrs Wilson had been as perceptive as you believe her to be, she might have seen that, during a prolonged illness of a marriage-partner, their reationship at at time may appear strained and edgy. I know this personally, as I've been through it. Particularly if Wallace had been suffering from pneumonia, which a century ago was more likely to be fatal than not.|

                                “Not the happy and devoted couple that people thought.” You can’t get much clearer than that. And she saw them at close hand. Day in day out, morning, noon and night for three weeks. Far more closely than anyone Rod might quote.

                                I think I've read that Julia was the daughter of a formerly wealthy, but eventually bankrupt, Yorkshire farmer and landowner. If true, than I was respectfully suggest that her resulting upbringing would not be considered, later in life, to make her 'dirty'. 'Peculiar in her manner'? What's that mean?

                                Julia lied about her father being a Vetinary Surgeon. He actually ended up running a pub and died of illnesses that were possibly drink-related.

                                And why should Wallace 'malinger'? To prove something? Make a point? Or what? And 'indifferent to the state of Julia's health'? Was she going through a period of ill-health, known to others, at the time?

                                No she was saying that William just wanted to stay off work. It was felt that they engaged in a kind of tit for tat behaviour. One was ill so when they recovered the other became ill.

                                And how can anyone possibly detect, and subsequently suggest, that Wallace 'appeared to have suffered a keen disappointment in life'? As in, marrying beneath him? Marrying unsuitably? Julia was well above his 'station in life', and was by accounts I've read better educated, more intelligent, and more intellectual than Wallace. Was he jealous of all this, so bumped her off as a result?

                                I think it quite reasonable that someone might give the impression that they deserved better from life. It was said of Lee Harvey Oswald in fact. Wallace expressed exasperation that Julia couldn’t appreciate a play on the radio that they’d both listened to. Wallace might easily have felt that all his life had in store for him was nursemaiding Julia.

                                I can't comment about Mather's contribution, as I've never read anything about it, but it kind of implies that Mather had known a number of 'cool, calculating, despondent and soured men', with whom he could compare Wallace. Doubtful. Evil temper? So what? So have I, when something gets me going. And how did Mather determine from meeting Julia that she thought she'd 'married beneath herself'? Did she tell him that?

                                If someone gets an impression of someone we can’t just dismiss it because they don’t write a detailed analysis. I’m not saying that it’s categorical that the marriage was unhappy what I’m saying is that there were people that said as much. And even if there weren’t we can’t exonerate Wallace because of lack of motive. Motives are often sub-surface. Hidden from friends and family.


                                From what I gather, Wallace spent his early working life with the British Forces drapery branch, at first in England, then later in India and China. I haven't a clue what this employment entailed or demanded - any suggestions? It also seems that Wallace was attracted by the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius, the classic Stoic, who taught that one must not expect too much out of life.

                                Surely the most relevant thing about Wallace’s employment is that he had the same boring job for years with no sign of advancement. This might have caused him some resentment.

                                I honestly don't think that the age-difference between Julia and William can be seen as contributory to her murder. 16 years is a hell of a long time, and I am not quite convinced that in this case it was proven. Perhaps someone can show me proof of this alleged age-difference? I mean, if my wife had been 16 years older than I at the time of our marriage, I rather think I may have noticed!

                                Murphy proved this. Julia was born on 28th of April 1861 at Bruntcliffe House Farm and was christened at St Oswaldo on 26th May. This is beyond doubt.


                                Seems to me that in their (to us) staid and boring existence they were perfectly content, if not happy. Wallace with his home chemisty-lab, chess, and his part-time teaching; Julia with her books and her music and her art.

                                As I’ve said, many people ‘appear’ happy.

                                Can't somehow get my head around William Herbert Wallace bumping off his wife in such a brutal manner....had he decided to do so, then I rather feel that poison would have been his weapon. But....one never knows.

                                Poison would have been a bit of a giveaway for a man with his own chemistry laboratory upstairs.

                                Graham
                                All I’m saying Graham is a) even if we can’t show an obvious motive it still doesn’t exonerate William as motives often remain hidden as can unhappiness in a marriage. And b) whilst not categorical there’s enough there from, as far as we know, people with no axe to grind, people that saw them at close hand, to give doubt to the ‘happy marriage’ idea.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X