Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    The best that Beattie could say was that “ It has to be near Menlove Avenue, doesn’t it?”
    It appears Beattie was aware of Menlove Avenue and Menlove Gardens West. Interestingly, at the Committal Hearing, Samuel Beattie said:

    "I told the accused the best way to get to Menlove Gardens East would be to take a [tram]car to Penny Lane and enquire." i.e. ask locals for directions.

    Of course, this did not prevent Wallace from looking it up first, but does show why he might not have done so.

    Comment


    • Cheers Graham.

      For those on this site, Graham and I are sparring partners on the A6 Murder Case site, where he strongly suspects Hanratty was guilty and I strongly suspect he was innocent. Like Socrates, we know nothing; we just strongly suspect. Things are a bit flat there now so we have gravitated to the classic Wallace Case, along with the admirable OneRound and Moste to test our wits over here.

      I first encountered the Wallace Case after winning some English prize around the age of 13 and being given a book token. Instead of using it to buy a work of literature I bought an Encyclopaedia of Murder by Colin Wilson and Pat Pitman which included the Wallace Case and, a bit like Bob Dylan, it blew my mind. Remarkably, it is still as intriguing now, 50 years later, than it was then. Raymond Chandler called it right- it is beyond compare in its ambivalence.

      Rod Crosby is too doctrinaire to take people with him in his arguments, and has got into an unpleasant personal vendetta with Herlock Sholmes. They both have a lot to offer in their knowledge and interpretation of the case but end up point scoring, which is why visitors can find the site tiresome I think. Amidst their schoolboy squabble some interesting observations are made however, and a recent American contributor has made some very salient points. As ever Graham, we are humble seekers after the truth, and those who abdicate their humility will abdicate some of the truth.

      Comment


      • it was almost certainly family influence that he wasn't under as severe a police scrutiny as he should have been.
        Parry was interviewed. His alibi’s were checked. His clothes were checked for blood. All clear. There’s not a smidgeon of evidence that family ties helped him evade justice.

        He was only checked out because Wallace pointed the police in his direction. His unshakeable alibi by the 4 people at the Brine’s house showed that he wasn’t involved. He also added that after he’d left the Brine’s he went to a named and checkable Post Office to buy cigarettes and a newspaper. Then as he left the Post Office he remembered that he’d promised to pick up his accumulator battery from Hignett’s garage, another checkable alibi which would have covered him until between say 8.45 and 9.00 at least. Why would the police feel that he was involved when Wallace arrived home at 8.45?
        Regards

        Herlock






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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          Graham are you completely unfamiliar with the idea of a motive festering beneath the surface. Why do you think every crime needs to be so neat and tidy. Tell me Jack The Rippers motive?
          Or William Bury's!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
            Cheers Graham.

            For those on this site, Graham and I are sparring partners on the A6 Murder Case site, where he strongly suspects Hanratty was guilty and I strongly suspect he was innocent. Like Socrates, we know nothing; we just strongly suspect. Things are a bit flat there now so we have gravitated to the classic Wallace Case, along with the admirable OneRound and Moste to test our wits over here.

            I first encountered the Wallace Case after winning some English prize around the age of 13 and being given a book token. Instead of using it to buy a work of literature I bought an Encyclopaedia of Murder by Colin Wilson and Pat Pitman which included the Wallace Case and, a bit like Bob Dylan, it blew my mind. Remarkably, it is still as intriguing now, 50 years later, than it was then. Raymond Chandler called it right- it is beyond compare in its ambivalence.

            Rod Crosby is too doctrinaire to take people with him in his arguments, and has got into an unpleasant personal vendetta with Herlock Sholmes. They both have a lot to offer in their knowledge and interpretation of the case but end up point scoring, which is why visitors can find the site tiresome I think. Amidst their schoolboy squabble some interesting observations are made however, and a recent American contributor has made some very salient points. As ever Graham, we are humble seekers after the truth, and those who abdicate their humility will abdicate some of the truth.
            I have to accept some of that criticism Cobalt. Over the past year or so we have tried to discuss the various aspects of the case. I accept that ‘well he started it’ is no excuse but I just have to say that if you took time (and I honestly wouldn’t expect you to) to look over the other thread you will see the level of insults and mockery that some of us have had to put up with. Turning the other cheek is sometimes harder than it sounds. I will renew my efforts

            Whilst I believe that Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest suspect I certainly wouldn’t be willing to send him to the gallows on the actual evidence. I accept that I could be wrong and that Wallace might have been innocent. I certainly don’t think that my opinions are more important or worthy than anyone else’s. I’m yet to hear any such concessions from Rod however who believes that because he has come up with a scenario that he believes fits then it’s game over. I object to such over confidence in a case that will in all likelihood (in the absence of new evidence) never be solved to anything close to everyone’s satisfaction.

            Cobalt, you are absolutely right that we need less acrimony and more civilised debate and discussion whilst accepting differences of opinion.
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 01-11-2019, 04:18 PM.
            Regards

            Herlock






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

            Comment


            • Im curious, what do people find more odd: that both qualtrough and parry talk about a 21 year old birthday party

              Or

              Wallace is apparently clueless about the bar and poker and its the maid that brings it up to police?
              "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


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Parry was interviewed. His alibi’s were checked. His clothes were checked for blood. All clear. There’s not a smidgeon of evidence that family ties helped him evade justice.

                He was only checked out because Wallace pointed the police in his direction. His unshakeable alibi by the 4 people at the Brine’s house showed that he wasn’t involved. He also added that after he’d left the Brine’s he went to a named and checkable Post Office to buy cigarettes and a newspaper. Then as he left the Post Office he remembered that he’d promised to pick up his accumulator battery from Hignett’s garage, another checkable alibi which would have covered him until between say 8.45 and 9.00 at least. Why would the police feel that he was involved when Wallace arrived home at 8.45?
                To be fair on this point, HS, to fully check Parry's alibi on the night of the murder the police should have checked with at least six people (excluding Savona Brine). They took very brief statements from two, with no questions about how his arrival and departure times were known.

                Assume Wallace was innocent and he felt he knew who the killer was. Surely, he had every right to point the the finger in the direction of Parry. It was certainly doing so (without naming him) in the press in 1932. Many leads are generated this way.

                Finally, the police checked Parry's alibi on the night of the call, found he had misled them but instead of interviewing him under caution on suspicion of perverting the cause of justice, did nothing. It would have certainly helped solve the case for us armchair detectives 90 years later had they done so!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  Im curious, what do people find more odd: that both qualtrough and parry talk about a 21 year old birthday party

                  Or

                  Wallace is apparently clueless about the bar and poker and its the maid that brings it up to police?
                  Great question.

                  Wallace told the police about the maid almost as soon as he was questioned. In this post-Victorian era, men still did not do any housework. It is possible he was clueless, especially about the bar in the parlour which was for cleaning only. Kitchen poker less so, I would say.

                  Of course, Wallace could have used a spanner* but fiendishly disposed of both poker and bar on the Monday and hoped the charwoman would discover they were missing to create a brilliant red herring... There's a novelist in me yet!

                  Parry and 21 birthdays.... a bit of a coincidence, isn't it?

                  * He suggested this might have been the implement in his John Bull articles. And just to show we all have a sense of humour: Wallace gave the spanner to Parkes!
                  Last edited by ColdCaseJury; 01-11-2019, 04:50 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Cheers HS,

                    I hope Rod will offer some humility amidst his knowledge soon. And maybe some mutual respect for an adversary. I am as sceptical about the Parry scenario as you are, including the prank phone call and the nymphomaniac Julia (complete with colostomy pad.) I could add to my scepticism the ludicrous concept of Wallace impersonating his wife for the benefit a milk boy he could have ignored, and his attacking his wife naked from behind a plastic mac.

                    I still think the milk boy is the key to Wallace’s innocence. The persiflage of the phone call or Wallace’s later meanderings around Menlove Gardens are simply bookends to the case. The murder must have happened between 6.05 and 6.50 if Wallace were guilty, In fact the time slot is much narrower if the milk boy’s testimony is entered, and in truth that is the strongest inconvertible fact which speaks to Wallace’s innocence. Anyone who tries to work around this is reduced to creating a calculating murderer of great vigour, resource and sang froid. I concede you can kill your wife in 15 minutes, but to clean yourself without using the bath or sink, conceal the weapon for over 80 years and show no obvious motive is beyond most men, even a moderate chess player.

                    Curiously, if there had been no phone call to the chess club, it is more credible that Wallace might have killed his wife in a moment of rage. The phone call can be read two ways.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
                      It appears Beattie was aware of Menlove Avenue and Menlove Gardens West. Interestingly, at the Committal Hearing, Samuel Beattie said:

                      "I told the accused the best way to get to Menlove Gardens East would be to take a [tram]car to Penny Lane and enquire." i.e. ask locals for directions.

                      Of course, this did not prevent Wallace from looking it up first, but does show why he might not have done so.
                      Thanks for the clincher.

                      I've raised this point since forever. If people who had lived for years in the district, Deyes, Beattie and Crewe; tram-conductors who'd rattled around its streets for years, Angus, Phillips and Thompson, did not know that Menlove Gardens East did not exist, and in fact encouraged Wallace in his journey there on THEIR assumption that it did exist, then to apply any different standard to Wallace is of course UNREASONABLE...
                      Last edited by RodCrosby; 01-11-2019, 07:51 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
                        He was only checked out because Wallace pointed the police in his direction.
                        We can't even know that. We know of at least one other person [before Parkes] who put pen to paper to highlight Parry as a suspect. We have also heard the contributions of people, 50 years later, who felt so impelled to share their knowledge of Parry within half an hour of his name being heard on the radio...
                        Last edited by RodCrosby; 01-11-2019, 08:40 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
                          Thanks for the clincher.

                          I've raised this point since forever. If people who had lived for years in the district, Deyes, Beattie and Crewe; tram-conductors who'd rattled around its streets for years, Angus, Phillips and Thompson, did not know that Menlove Gardens East did not exist, and in fact encouraged Wallace in his journey there on THEIR assumption that it did exist, then to apply any different standard to Wallace is of course UNREASONABLE...
                          The only difference being of course is that those other people were talking about Menlove Gardens East hypothetically whereas Wallace actually intended to go there. They had nothing to lose but Wallace might have wasted time and effort.

                          That said, I accept that it was a reasonable assumption to have made and one that anyone might have made that Menlove Gardens East was in the close vicinity of Menlove Avenue and so anyone arriving in the area was unlikely to have needed to have walked ‘miles’ to have found it.

                          I still wonder though why Wallace didn’t bother with the simple expedient of checking a directory beforehand?
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
                            We can't even know that. We know of at least one other person [before Parkes] who put pen to paper to highlight Parry as a suspect. We have also heard the contributions of people, 50 years later, who felt so impelled to share their knowledge of Parry within half an hour of his name being heard on the radio...
                            I can see no suggestion that anyone named Parry before Wallace did in his police statement. I’m not saying that it would have been impossible that someone mentioned him after Wallace had but it seems overwhelmingly likely that Wallace was the first to mention him.

                            One of the many things that I find unlikely about the Parkes story is that it was said that it was common knowledge around the garage and yet, until Parkes, this potentially incendiary story didn’t leak out from any source. With even a few people being aware of it at a busy garage the story would have quite naturally spread. And yet no one mentioned it in the ensuing 50 until Parkes surfaced.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              I still wonder though why Wallace didn’t bother with the simple expedient of checking a directory beforehand?
                              Hi HS, the only thing I can think of (assuming innocence) is Wallace only decided to keep the appointment quite late on (the weather was bad earlier) and didn't have a street map or guide at his house. Hemmerde suggested Wallace could have easily talked to a Prudential Agent of the Calderstones area and found MGE did not exist. However, to the latter, Wallace only replied "It was not necessary" rather than "It was too late" etc.
                              Last edited by ColdCaseJury; 01-12-2019, 04:20 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                I have to accept some of that criticism Cobalt. Over the past year or so we have tried to discuss the various aspects of the case. I accept that ‘well he started it’ is no excuse but I just have to say that if you took time (and I honestly wouldn’t expect you to) to look over the other thread you will see the level of insults and mockery that some of us have had to put up with. Turning the other cheek is sometimes harder than it sounds. I will renew my efforts

                                Whilst I believe that Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest suspect I certainly wouldn’t be willing to send him to the gallows on the actual evidence. I accept that I could be wrong and that Wallace might have been innocent. I certainly don’t think that my opinions are more important or worthy than anyone else’s. I’m yet to hear any such concessions from Rod however who believes that because he has come up with a scenario that he believes fits then it’s game over. I object to such over confidence in a case that will in all likelihood (in the absence of new evidence) never be solved to anything close to everyone’s satisfaction.

                                Cobalt, you are absolutely right that we need less acrimony and more civilised debate and discussion whilst accepting differences of opinion.
                                Hi Herlock - aided by Cobalt's admirable direction, you have reached a good place.

                                Best regards,
                                OneRound

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X