Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[ColdCaseJury]

You and your deranged sidekick who went up like a roman candle certainly know it...

Others will know me as someone very knowledgeable, who has happily shared my archive and research here. Who debates everyone who is capable of that skill.

But doesn't suffer fools, who have nothing to offer but prejudice, fancy, disinformation, etc.

And stop WHINING. It's embarrassing.

Hi Rod,

Let HS and everyone else have their say. If the Accomplice theory is better than Wallace, people will see that. If it is not, they must be free to conclude that, too. A debate must have an agree-to-disagree option, otherwise it is a fight. I know your background and skills, and HS is no fool either.

I suggest HS and you both set each other to ignore.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You and your deranged sidekick who went up like a roman candle certainly know it...

Others will know me as someone very knowledgeable, who has happily shared my archive and research here. Who debates everyone who is capable of that skill.

But doesn't suffer fools who have nothing to offer but prejudice, fancy, disinformation, etc.

And stop WHINING. It's embarrassing.

We’ve had to ‘suffer’ you for a year. You only debate those that won’t dispute your points. It’s no wonder you’ve been kicked off other Forums.

I’ve nothing further to say to you. You are utterly delusional. Parroting the same old drivel. Cut and pasting irrelevant quotes because you cannot carry a debate using your own ‘intelligence.’ Laughably pointless graphs. Misinformation like when you tried to make us believe that Parry had threatened Parkes when he’d done no such thing. Twisting and distorting to make your ‘scenario’ fit. Pushing reason way past breaking point purely because of your very sad and rather embarrassing obsession with exonerating Wallace. And then there’s your transparent schoolyard ‘my dad is bigger than your dad’ type boasting about how much money you have.

You are an unpleasant joke and I’ll have nothing more to do with you. In time, other posters will feel exactly the same if they don’t already.

[RodCrosby]

I enjoy everyone having their say, and have acknowledged some fine contributions and insights from other posters.

But if prejudice, fancy and disinformation are injected they must be NAILED, good and hard, else there is no "debate" worthy of the term.

I've never ignored anyone, and don't intend to start now. [The people you mention tried that. It lasted 5 minutes, when they discovered their only playmates were each other...]

I have too much fun watching the goings on here. (like the last cringeworthy post appealing to the imaginary gallery with characteristic disinformation...)

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only way on here to treat ignorance is to ignore it.

The only way on here to treat dishonesty is to ignore it.

The only way on here to treat stupidity is to ignore it.


And so......ignored!

[moste]

The only way on here to treat ignorance is to ignore it.

The only way on here to treat dishonesty is to ignore it.

The only way on here to treat stupidity is to ignore it.


And so......ignored!

Hi S H . How does Ignored work? Can we Have a poster not show up to you on your PC but still share with everyone else?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi S H . How does Ignored work? Can we Have a poster not show up to you on your PC but still share with everyone else?

Hi Moste,

Click on the persons name and go to their public profile. Near the top right you will see “add ****** to your ignore list” and then you won’t be able to see their posts when your logged in.

[moste]

Hi Moste,

Click on the persons name and go to their public profile. Near the top right you will see “add ****** to your ignore list” and then you won’t be able to see their posts when your logged in.

Cheers

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cheers

More than happy to help

[OneRound]

If Wallace was guilty then he surely created one of the greatest red herrings in history with his Qualtrough phone call. But it was a trick he could pull only once, and having played his joker so to speak, he was committed to pursuing his murder plan within a narrow time frame the following day. In theory Wallace could have killed Julia anytime between 6.05pm when he arrived home, and 6.50pm - the latest possible time he left on his search for Menlove Gardens East. However in practice, his window of opportunity was much less.

Wallace’s plan is highly dependent on the arrival of the milk boy, for to establish a strong alibi it is necessary for Julia to be seen by this lad. Therefore Wallace’s hands are tied until the boy knocks on the door. If Wallace strikes early and then answers the door himself - presumably an unusual occurrence- then his alibi is undermined. If he is unable to answer the door (because he is attacking his wife at the time) this is even more suspicious. Worst of all he answers the door after the attack, bloodstained in his plastic mackintosh.

Apparently the milk boy arrived at the house later than he normally did that evening. Therefore the cold, calculating Wallace must have been panicking that his plan was falling apart, for he was committed to leaving the house by 6.50pm at the latest to make his 7.30pm meeting with Qualtrough look credible. By 6.30pm he must have been fearing that the milk boy was delayed or maybe ill and not coming at all. In such an event he would really have had to abandon his devious scheme, a scheme he would never be able to utilise on a second occasion.

I do not think a man capable of laying such a false trail, avoiding blood staining, and disposing of the murder weapon so successfully would have placed so much reliance on the movements of a delivery boy.

Hi Cobalt - a good and effective post.

As regards ''so much reliance on the movements of a delivery boy'', I've long thought that Wallace, if guilty, was incredibly lucky that Close's delivery time could be pinpointed.

Just imagine if the young milko hadn't been seen by others and he had replied to the police's questioning along the lines, ''I know I was running a bit later than usual but I couldn't tell you the exact time I got to number 29. Not within twenty minutes either side, anyway. Sorry, sir, but I'm just a milk boy, not a timekeeper. '' A far from ridiculous scenario imo and one which would have increased the chances of Wallace meeting the hangman.

That said, I remain uncertain of Wallace's innocence. I do find his behaviour around Menlove Gardens odd and suspicious.

Best regards,
One Round

[RodCrosby]

Of course this petulant, childish "ignore" will last 5 minutes - just like it did the last time...

I'm happy either way. It just lets me demolish nonsense here freely without having to ...yawn... also demolish the pitiful, whining, bed-wetting attempts at a comeback.

It's nice to see some new posters, e.g. cobalt come on board to the real case, with some trenchant analysis.

[RodCrosby]

I do find his behaviour around Menlove Gardens odd and suspicious.

I do mean this quite genuinely, OneRound.

What do you find suspicious?

[moste]

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but just reading the 'post mortem' report. Julia had a fresh small bruise inside ,upper ,left arm.
This would almost certainly have been inflicted while the assault was in progress , grabbed roughly,manhandled, before being struck?
Interesting I thought. If she was in the parlour why would it be necessary to grab her arm . Had she been dragged/bundled by the arm into the parlour, from the other room, just a thought.

[RodCrosby]

Yes, it's been mentioned before, by me.

A clue, certainly. That she wasn't quietly brained while obliviously lighting the fire.

I outlined a scenario where "Qualtrough" grabbed her - with his left hand - as she attempted to leave the room...

But it's just my 2c, without a proper reconstruction.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I do not think a man capable of laying such a false trail, avoiding blood staining, and disposing of the murder weapon so successfully would have placed so much reliance on the movements of a delivery boy

But it wasn’t as if the milk boy appeared at random Cobalt. He would have turned up at the same time every week and so Wallace would have had a high level of confidence (and with valid reason) that Close would have turned up as expected and at roughly the same time.

It’s not like Parry for example who would have relied on slabs of good fortune simply to get the plan up and running and then a massive piece of luck to get the accomplice into the house.

For some though this passes as ‘logic.’ For some, for Wallace to have planned it he would have had to have been near perfect or he’s innocent. Yet, for some, in Parry’s case the goalposts move. He can come up with any kind flimsy plan and it’s ok and points to his guilt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, but just reading the 'post mortem' report. Julia had a fresh small bruise inside ,upper ,left arm.
This would almost certainly have been inflicted while the assault was in progress , grabbed roughly,manhandled, before being struck?
Interesting I thought. If she was in the parlour why would it be necessary to grab her arm . Had she been dragged/bundled by the arm into the parlour, from the other room, just a thought.

Wallace struck her and Julia fell against the fire singeing her dress. The bruise in all likelihood was caused when Wallace pulled her away from the fire.

And as no one else was there it had to be Wallace.