Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[moste]

Also isn't a polymath, someone who knows everything about everything?

You don't stand a chance Herlock! Bwha ha ha ha!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also isn't a polymath, someone who knows everything about everything?

You don't stand a chance Herlock! Bwha ha ha ha!

Yup. It’s impossible to debate an ego.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn...

the Judge thought not...

"...he might perfectly well have made these enquiries simply to impress upon Mr. Beattie the importance of being accurate if any question should arise.
It would, one imagines, be very dangerous to draw any inference adverse, seriously adverse to the prisoner from that conversation."
Mr. Justice Wright, summing-up in Rex v Wallace

But do carry on making my case for me!

If this is all you got, then - transparently - you got....NOTHING

Wallace categorically cannot be exonerated except by those who persist in the ‘kindly silver haired old gent’ style of thinking. Parry can be eliminated categorically from committing the murder. And Parry’s behaviour on the night of the murder: the Brine’s, the Post Office, Hignett’s Garage blatantly show a man taking part in no plan. The Parkes testimony stretches credulity beyond the realms of fantasy to leave us with absolutely zero involvement for Parry or a made-up Accomplice.

This leaves us with a man who was the only person in the world, as far as we know, who might have had a motive to kill Julia so brutally.

The only man who can actually be placed at the scene of the crime and so had the opportunity.

The phone call came from a box that Wallace would have passed if he’d left the house when he did.

Wallace strangely only avoids being late for his chess match (for no reason that he ever mentions) by a matter of seconds. A club that he’d been to hundreds of times and would have been completely familiar with the tram times.

He pretends, to virtually every man, woman and dog, that he’s a complete stranger in an area that he’d been to before.

He ‘forgets’ to mention Crewe.

We then have a back door which, on the night of his wife’s murder, for the first time ever, completely malfunctions preventing him from getting in, then it miraculously rights itself.

We have Wallace, becoming increasingly worried that his wife has been the victim of foul play, yet he ignores the room she’s actually in (which is actually within touching distance) to go upstairs.

We have a killer who inexplicable goes around turning off the lights.

We have a spur-of-the-moment killer, taking no precaution against blood spatter, and yet gets not one drop of blood outside of the Parlour.

We have a sneak-thief, expecting big cash, who finds only £4 (to share between two) and yet he makes no effort to look for other cash or valuables (including the obvious target of Julia’s bag)

And let’s not forget, we have a sneak-thief willing to take all of the risks whilst Parry is drinking tea in safety with the Brine’s.

We have a sneak-thief who utterly unneccessarily takes away the bloodied weapon.

We have Wallace lying about being cleared and his blatantly suspicious response to questioning.

We can either go for some fanciful plan of Julia’s to escape or the more sensible ‘Wallace used the mackintosh to shield himself from blood spatter.’

We have a plan to get Wallace out of the house for a certain amount of time. For Parry it’s reliant on more luck than any human being can expect a right to. For Wallace it’s as close to a certainty as you can get.

And yet you ignore all this and more, or come up with some farcical ‘explaination’ or pointless quote or meaningless graph.

It really is become tiresome listening to your desperate wriggling Rodder’s.

Yawn......

[RodCrosby]

Is that it?

I only ask, because every point has already been shown repeatedly to be either disinformation, misrepresentation, prejudice or fancy...

But it's good of you to display them all together. Most impressive !

[RodCrosby]

Also isn't a polymath, someone who knows everything about everything?

No. Just a lot about a lot.

Like... your capital's monumental connection with a famous murder...

I'm glad to see the Yale in the Couve is still open. I heard that it was in danger of closing. Many happy nights spent there. Canadian girls are wild!
And the delightful islands in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Playing around there in seaplanes and boats. I have relatives on Galiano...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is that it?

I only ask, because every point has already been shown repeatedly to be either disinformation, misrepresentation, prejudice or fancy...

But it's good of you to display them all together. Most impressive !

No, that’s not ‘it,’ It’s a small section but even that is vastly more than is against Parry and The Phantom.

You have never shown any points that have been made to be ‘Disinformation, misinterpretation, prejudice or fancy’ because you are incapable of reasoned debate. All you have are cut and paste quotes, meaningless, invented graphs and chronic bias interspersed with mockery to avoid answering questions properly or fully.

The case against Parry and The Phantom is this:

1.Wallace mentioned that Julia would have let Parry into the house.
2.Parry knew where the cash box was.
3.Parry was light fingered.
4.Your re-hash of Hussey. (An imagined scenario.)
5.Parkes and the least believable testimony in the history of true crime.

Yet with Wallace, we have someone that was actually, provably, undeniably in the house alone with Julia within minutes of her death. Someone that you cannot prove didn’t make the phone call from the phone box that, if he’d left the house when he said that he did, he’d a passed at pretty much the exact time of the call. Someone (the only one) that could have been certain that he’d go in search of MGE and make himself known to all and sundry and to persist in his search after being told that it was fruitless. And much, much more.

None of the above is ‘disinformation, misinformation, etc...’

Can you even come remotely close to exonerating William? Of course you can’t.

What do you have?

Oh yes, you have....”yawn...”

You have the occaision graph.

You can paste a quote (clever boy )


Wallace by a country mile

[Herlock Sholmes]

No. Just a lot about a lot.

Like... your capital's monumental connection with a famous murder...

I'm glad to see the Yale in the Couve is still open. I heard that it was in danger of closing. Many happy nights spent there. Canadian girls are wild!
And the delightful islands in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Playing around there in seaplanes and boats. I have relatives on Galiano...

Rod’s been googling again I see

[RodCrosby]

Yet with Wallace, we have someone that was actually, provably, undeniably in the house alone with Julia within minutes of her death.

Yawn...

Or 4 miles away, based on the initial forensic evaluation.

That then changed for no reason... [other than to put the frame around Wallace]

But they messed up. And the milk-boy popped-up!

So they got to work on the milk-boy...

But it still didn't work.

Oliver KC: So if she was alive at half past six, your opinion is wrong ?
MacFall: Yes.

So when you say "actually, provably, undeniably" you really mean "I fancy, based on my prejudiced misrepresentation of the evidence."

Which is what I highlight every time you waste your time posting here...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn...

Or 4 miles away, based on the initial forensic evaluation.

That then changed for no reason... [other than to put the frame around Wallace]

But they messed up. And the milk-boy popped-up!

So they got to work on the milk-boy...

But it still didn't work.

Oliver KC: So if she was alive at half past six, your opinion is wrong ?
MacFall: Yes.

So when you say "actually, provably, undeniably" you really mean "I fancy, based on my prejudiced misrepresentation of the evidence."

Which is what I highlight every time you waste your time posting here...

More biased nonsense. I could do my Rod The Parrot impression “yawn, yawn, misinformation, disinformation, yawn, yawn, pieces of eight.”

We know that TOD is a hellishly difficult thing to tie down accurately. Find me the modern day medical expert who would examine the evidence and state categorically that Wallace couldn’t have killed Julia. Or you could save yourself the complete waste of time. And so Wallace is the only person in the frame. The only person except for a figure for whom we don’t even have the merest smidgeon of evidence for his existence.

And then we move into conspiracy theorist territory. The last resort of the desperate. Those corrupt old pantomime villain coppers got to work on Alan Close to change the time to suite this anti-Wallace vendetta. Any real evidence of this......erm...no. It’s just an assumption. They checked by the clock and walked him through his route. But what’s always very conveniently ignored by the Apostle of St William Of Anfield is the testimony of Mrs Johnston and the Holme’s (neighbours on either side of the Wallace’s.) All very normal people whose honesty has never been brought into question. It’s also never been suggested that they were too stupid to tell the time!

And can we all admit that, as a very reasonable general rule, adults are far more reliable with ‘time’ than children are.

Let’s remember.

Mrs Johnston said that she had her milk delivery at 6.30. Alan Close said that whilst Julia was taking in the milk jug to fill her own he went next door to deliver the Johnston’s milk. So the Wallace’s and the Johnston’s got their milk deliveries as close to simoultaneously as possible. At 6.30.

The Holme’s on the other side heard the Wallace’s door close at 6.35 As no one else called at the Wallace’s then this had to be Julia closing the door on Alan Close....at 6.35.

And so, to sum up, we have 2 neighbours. Neither of whom were known to be in any way dishonest, stupid or living under a different time zone! Both very inconveniently for the conspiracy minded saying between them a) the milk was delivered at 6.30 and b) the Wallace’s door closed on Alan Close at 6.35. It doesn’t get much clearer (unless you’re an Apostle of St William Of Anfield Of course )

I might add of course that if, as conspiracy theorists suggest, Julia closed the door at 6.45 she must have sprinted through the house to exit at the back with St William at 6.45 too. Then again....once you’re down the rabbit-hole anything can be made to fit!

[moste]

Yes. If we consider the fact that Wallace had taken time to prepare the murder of his wife down to the last detail ,rigorously, checking over each and every action ,including clever red herrings, IE removing weapon, locking doors , turning gas taps and the like. Then the time frame required to perform the deed is drastically reduced ,compared to that of an intruder, or even a husband who flies off the handle .I think I can see how Wallace may have known about and waited for the last tradesperson to call , before carrying out his plan and still making the tram at 6 past 7.

[RodCrosby]

Do you care to indicate how Wallace could have known this, when Close by his own admission was running about half-an-hour late that night?

[ColdCaseJury]

And can we all admit that, as a very reasonable general rule, adults are far more reliable with ‘time’ than children are.

Let’s remember.

Mrs Johnston said that she had her milk delivery at 6.30. Alan Close said that whilst Julia was taking in the milk jug to fill her own he went next door to deliver the Johnston’s milk. So the Wallace’s and the Johnston’s got their milk deliveries as close to simoultaneously as possible. At 6.30.

The Holme’s on the other side heard the Wallace’s door close at 6.35 As no one else called at the Wallace’s then this had to be Julia closing the door on Alan Close....at 6.35.

And so, to sum up, we have 2 neighbours. Neither of whom were known to be in any way dishonest, stupid or living under a different time zone! Both very inconveniently for the conspiracy minded saying between them a) the milk was delivered at 6.30 and b) the Wallace’s door closed on Alan Close at 6.35. It doesn’t get much clearer (unless you’re an Apostle of St William Of Anfield Of course )

Hi HS. Been away a couple of days and the thread moves at lightning speed. Just a quick point on timing.

As a very reasonable general rule, adults are far more reliable with ‘time’ than children are. I agree but in this specific case we have five teenagers (James Wildman, Douglas Metcalf, Elsie Wright, David Jones and the original view of Alan Close himself) whose testimony converges that Julia did not close her front door before 6:38pm. Wallace left before 6:50pm. So, that allows him 11 minutes at the outside. Depending on the scenario (how Wallace did it), that may be enough time. That is a judgement everyone has to make.

Florence Johnston in her police statement said she could not be accurate to within 5 minutes of when the milk was delivered.

Walter Holmes in his police statement inferred the timing of the door closing at No. 29 based on the delivery of their paper boy which was usually 6:40pm (he thought the door at No. 29 closed 5 minutes earlier).

If Julia closed the door at 6.45 she must have sprinted through the house to exit at the back with St William at 6.45 too. A good point. But remember Wallace might have left as late as 6:49 (all the Wallace scenarios assume so) and is consistent with Wallace stating he departed at about 6:45pm. So, even if Julia closed the door at 6:45, that gives her 4 minutes to cover the 50ft from the front door to the back gate and gives Wallace enough time to board his trams. If Wallace departed at 6:45 on the dot (or before), he is almost certainly innocent (of Murphy's scenario) when taking into account all the testimony on the delivery of the milk.

You make excellent other points, and I hope to get to these (and some I agree with, BTW) but timing is important.

[moste]

Do you care to indicate how Wallace could have known this, when Close by his own admission was running about half-an-hour late that night?

Don't need to indicate this. Wallace was not restricted time wise .Don't you see, if he caught the earlier tram, or later tram, that's when his alibis kicked in .If he had arrived home 20 mins later , the Johnstones would have gone out for evening ,and Wallace would have been knocking on the Holmes's house, asking 'Have you heard or seen anything unusual? I cant seem to get into my house! He was the architect of his events. For e.g. He arrived at the newsagents just before closing at eight oclock , if they had already been closed it wouldn't have mattered, he already had sufficient alibi material. As long as he could see the last caller deal with his wife , regardless of exact time, he set himself x amount of time to do the necessaries, before heading out to time frame his alibis. My rough estimation is that it took him from her closing the front door for the last time ,about 7 or 8 minutes, to the time he was slipping into the back alley.
Quite brilliant really , have to take your hat off to the guy. He knew you see that the amount of time required and in fact the actual time of the incident ,would never be identifiable by a coroner (especially Macfall.) Even the eminent Pathologist Keith Simpson would have struggled. All Wallace had to say was 'It couldn't have been me, I was out! ' And he knew ,If things went reasonable well , they wouldn't be able to prove otherwise.
His plan was almost thwarted by the jury who clearly weren't following the plot, but exonerations were just around the corner in the form of the three wise men of the appeal court.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS. Been away a couple of days and the thread moves at lightning speed. Just a quick point on timing.

Hi Antony.

As a very reasonable general rule, adults are far more reliable with ‘time’ than children are. I agree but in this specific case we have five teenagers (James Wildman, Douglas Metcalf, Elsie Wright, David Jones and the original view of Alan Close himself) whose testimony converges that Julia did not close her front door before 6:38pm. Wallace left before 6:50pm. So, that allows him 11 minutes at the outside. Depending on the scenario (how Wallace did it), that may be enough time. That is a judgement everyone has to make.

Agreed. I think 11 minutes would have been ample time. Others disagree of course.

Florence Johnston in her police statement said she could not be accurate to within 5 minutes of when the milk was delivered.

Thanks for that Antony. So it could have been nearer 6.25

Walter Holmes in his police statement inferred the timing of the door closing at No. 29 based on the delivery of their paper boy which was usually 6:40pm (he thought the door at No. 29 closed 5 minutes earlier).

Which we have no reason to believe takes us away from 6.35 (although of course we can’t quibble over a couple of minutes here or there.)

If Julia closed the door at 6.45 she must have sprinted through the house to exit at the back with St William at 6.45 too. A good point. But remember Wallace might have left as late as 6:49 (all the Wallace scenarios assume so) and is consistent with Wallace stating he departed at about 6:45pm. So, even if Julia closed the door at 6:45, that gives her 4 minutes to cover the 50ft from the front door to the back gate and gives Wallace enough time to board his trams. If Wallace departed at 6:45 on the dot (or before), he is almost certainly innocent (of Murphy's scenario) when taking into account all the testimony on the delivery of the milk.

Fair points Antony. This might be controversial but even if Julia closed the door at 6.38 and Wallace left at 6.45 I still don’t think it’s impossible for Wallace to have committed the murder.

You make excellent other points, and I hope to get to these (and some I agree with, BTW) but timing is important.

Timing is certainly important but the point I would make is that we cannot exonerate Wallace on timings. We can suggest doubts only (the seriousness of those doubts are down to individual interpretation of course.)

To be honest Antony the thing that surprises me more than anything about this case is when people name Parry as the murderer. Unless someone has evidence of fabricated alibi’s then, for me, he should be discounted.

[Abby Normal]

The crazy thing is there isnt any direct evidence linking wallace or parry to the crime.. which is why i still hold out a relatively large possibility for an unsub.