Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

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

  • Is there any evidence that Mather had any kind of grievance that might hint that he was giving anything other than his honest opinion? Why shouldn’t we then equally suggest that ‘friends’ might be expected to say nice things about the Wallace’s out of loyalty? Telling themselves that ‘surely that nice Mr Wallace couldn’t have done such a horrible thing?’

    It’s also difficult to see why the opinions of a doctor and nurse should be dismissed? We surely can’t just dismiss the inconvenient and accept the convenient?
    Regards

    Herlock






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

    Comment


    • Has there been any investigation into the court proceedings that resulted in a guilty verdict? (A death sentence no less.)

      The fact that an appellate court over-turned a jury conviction (which is not a common act other than on legal technicalities) at first glance makes me want to speculate that Wallace got convicted first by the newspapers and then the jury just followed along.

      This kind of reminds me of the Louise Woodward case, the 19 year old British au pair, but in her case it was her lawyer Barry Scheck (who had been part of the law team that got O.J. Simpson acquitted) that the jury hated.

      The trial, which was televised, left us viewers in shock that such flimsy evidence could result in a second degree murder conviction, but it did.

      Fortunately the trial judge reduced the charge to involuntary manslaughter, released her and sent the kid home to her family i.e. reduced the sentence to time severed and ordered her deported.

      I wonder if Wallace's trial was a newspaper circus? Are there transcripts available?

      Comment


      • My apologies for the rather basic question; I'm no expert, nor even a competent amateur, when it comes to the Wallace case (I certainly have a lot of reading to do) but here goes.

        The defense theory is that the whole 'Qualtrough' episode was a ploy to get Wallace out of the house on Tuesday night. Fair enough; it is reasonable argument.

        However, Wallace was already out of the house on Monday night, and 'Qualtrough' was evidently even aware of this fact, having called down to the chess club.

        So why not just bump off Julia or rob the house on Monday night? Did anyone come up with a credible theory as to why Tuesday would have been preferable to Monday for the murder? Was a payment due to be made into the cash box, or something along those lines?

        Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

        Comment


        • I defy anyone to read Mather's over-the-top bile, and not conclude that he was motivated by malice, for some reason known only to himself.

          He was the same age as Wallace, but described as "retired Prudential agent." Had he been any good at his job?

          Not that any of it matters. It's of no evidential value regarding the murder.

          We don't convict people based on smears, or pay any heed to such trivia.
          "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 APerno View Post
            Has there been any investigation into the court proceedings that resulted in a guilty verdict? (A death sentence no less.)

            The fact that an appellate court over-turned a jury conviction (which is not a common act other than on legal technicalities) at first glance makes me want to speculate that Wallace got convicted first by the newspapers and then the jury just followed along.
            Yes, Aperno. The case was a travesty. At the committal hearing in February 1931, the notorious JD Bishop - opening the case against Wallace - managed to make eighteen mis-statements of fact, all prejudicial to Wallace.

            In a ringing call for restraint and justice, Wallace's counsel said:
            "What Mr Bishop has said will be taken down and there will be reports of his speech in the press tonight. They will be read by people wise and by people ignorant. They will also be read by people who have a logical faculty and people who have not. It is from among those people that twelve men and women will be selected to try this man at a later stage for his life. Surely Wallace is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty, and Mr. Bishop is not entitled to give his opinion. What we must have are cold, hard facts. If any..."

            Re: the Woodward Case. I discussed it with a barrister acquaintance at the time. I predicted the verdict would be overturned. He was sceptical, but I was... correct.
            Last edited by RodCrosby; 01-12-2019, 11:32 AM.
            "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 rjpalmer View Post
              My apologies for the rather basic question; I'm no expert, nor even a competent amateur, when it comes to the Wallace case (I certainly have a lot of reading to do) but here goes.

              The defense theory is that the whole 'Qualtrough' episode was a ploy to get Wallace out of the house on Tuesday night. Fair enough; it is reasonable argument.

              However, Wallace was already out of the house on Monday night, and 'Qualtrough' was evidently even aware of this fact, having called down to the chess club.

              So why not just bump off Julia or rob the house on Monday night? Did anyone come up with a credible theory as to why Tuesday would have been preferable to Monday for the murder? Was a payment due to be made into the cash box, or something along those lines?
              Yes. I did.

              Murder was not the objective... Burglary was.

              The Qualtrough call served two purposes. To get Wallace out, and get 'Qualtrough' in, which obviously could not have been achieved on the Monday.
              Moreover, Tuesday should also have presented jackpot taking for the burglar, and a Monday night chess-game for Wallace presented an opportunity and a motive for the phone call, too good to ignore.

              But as often in such cases, something went wrong in the execution, and Julia Wallace lost her life...

              Both logic and the evidence indicate the burglar/killer was not Parry, but an accomplice.
              Last edited by RodCrosby; 01-12-2019, 11:37 AM.
              "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


              • This is simply a theory not a fact.

                To say that the call served to get ‘Qualtrough’ in ignores a very inconvenient but a very obvious fact.

                For the planner (Richard Gordon Parry as per Rod’s scenario) the idea is that after the phone call Wallace tells Julia about RM Qualtrough and his business trip to 25 Menlove Gardens East to meet him. After Wallace leaves on the Tuesday evening the accomplice turns up at 29 Wolverton Street claiming to be Qualtrough saying that there had been a mix-up and that he’d always intended to come to Wallace. Julia (who Wallace had stated would only admit someone to the house whilst she was alone if she actually knew them) would then let ‘Qualtrough’ in to await Wallace’s return. Whilst there he would steal the money from the cash box.

                The problem with this ‘plan’ of course is that there’s absolutely no way that Parry could have been even remotely confident that Wallace would have mentioned RM Qualtrough let alone Menlove Gardens East. Julia was known to take no interest in William’s business dealings. There would have been every likelihood that he might have just said ‘I have to go out on business tonight.’ Thus, no reason for Julia to admit Qualtrough. It can barely be called a stab in the dark.

                As we know plans attempt to eliminate the need for luck as far as possible. This requirement of such a massive slice of it is built right in and so it’s hard to see how it can realistically be called a plan.
                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  This is simply a theory not a fact.

                  To say that the call served to get ‘Qualtrough’ in ignores a very inconvenient but a very obvious fact.

                  For the planner (Richard Gordon Parry as per Rod’s scenario) the idea is that after the phone call Wallace tells Julia about RM Qualtrough and his business trip to 25 Menlove Gardens East to meet him. After Wallace leaves on the Tuesday evening the accomplice turns up at 29 Wolverton Street claiming to be Qualtrough saying that there had been a mix-up and that he’d always intended to come to Wallace. Julia (who Wallace had stated would only admit someone to the house whilst she was alone if she actually knew them) would then let ‘Qualtrough’ in to await Wallace’s return. Whilst there he would steal the money from the cash box.

                  The problem with this ‘plan’ of course is that there’s absolutely no way that Parry could have been even remotely confident that Wallace would have mentioned RM Qualtrough let alone Menlove Gardens East. Julia was known to take no interest in William’s business dealings. There would have been every likelihood that he might have just said ‘I have to go out on business tonight.’ Thus, no reason for Julia to admit Qualtrough. It can barely be called a stab in the dark.

                  As we know plans attempt to eliminate the need for luck as far as possible. This requirement of such a massive slice of it is built right in and so it’s hard to see how it can realistically be called a plan.
                  Mmhhh, I wonder if there is anything to be read into the fact that the Qualtrough caller asked for Wallaces address,? I presume this was a juvenile attempt to have people believe (after the fact,) that he really didn't know Wallaces address

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
                    I defy anyone to read Mather's over-the-top bile, and not conclude that he was motivated by malice, for some reason known only to himself.

                    He was the same age as Wallace, but described as "retired Prudential agent." Had he been any good at his job?

                    Not that any of it matters. It's of no evidential value regarding the murder.

                    We don't convict people based on smears, or pay any heed to such trivia.
                    It is categorically impossible to know Mather’s motive. He might have had every reason to dislike Wallace. Wallace might have done him some kind of disservice? Again you are dismissing the inconvenient without reason.

                    I therefore dismiss the Johnston’s as they were barely nodding acquaintances. Mrs Johnston probably only ever saw Julia during the day whilst William was out. She only entered the house 3 times in 10 years and didn’t even know Julia’s first name so any ‘testimony’ about the Wallace’s was near worthless.

                    Caird would have seen them on ‘formal’ visits where the Wallace’s would have been on their best behaviour ‘keeping up appearances’ and not wishing to cause gossip about any marital discord. These opinions cannot be viewed as ‘gospel.’ Honestly given, yes, but not difinitively accurate.

                    They could have produced 100 people who claimed that the Wallace’s appeared devoted couple (with ‘appeared’ being the important word) and it still couldn’t possibly guarantee the truth of their opinions. Only one dissenting voice though introduces doubt. Three or four introduces more.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by moste View Post
                      Mmhhh, I wonder if there is anything to be read into the fact that the Qualtrough caller asked for Wallaces address,? I presume this was a juvenile attempt to have people believe (after the fact,) that he really didn't know Wallaces address
                      Hi Moste,

                      Even Antony accepts that this point favours Wallace over Parry. Only Wallace could have been certain of not receiving an answer and the question appears superfluous. Of course if Parry had received the address it wouldn’t categorically have meant plan over but Beattie might have asked “why do you need his address if you want him to come to your house?” In relaying this information to Wallace it may have caused doubt in Wallace’s mind about the genuineness of the call.

                      On the other hand, why would Wallace ask for his own address if he’d made the call? I can only suggest that he might have been trying to show that Qualtrough was, at the same time, trying to find out where this insurance agent he’d been told about with cash in the house lived and then plan to get him out of the house. Wallace might simply have been trying to create an impression for the police.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • a) We do know Wallace said much more to Julia than "I have to go out on business tonight"
                        http://www.coldcasejury.com/case03/amywallace.asp

                        b) Wallace mentioning 'Qualtrough' to her was not absolutely necessary for success, and we don't know that he didn't. But the perps certainly hoped he might.
                        possibilities...
                        i) Wallace omits to mention 'Qualtrough' to Julia
                        ii) Julia omits to mention 'Qualtrough' to Amy
                        iii) Amy omits to mention 'Qualtrough' to the Police
                        iv) the Police omit to ask Amy about 'Qualtrough'
                        [only the last two are reasonably certain]

                        c) We know, as the judge explained, that crimes are often speculative, and almost risk-free.
                        "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 moste View Post
                          Mmhhh, I wonder if there is anything to be read into the fact that the Qualtrough caller asked for Wallaces address,? I presume this was a juvenile attempt to have people believe (after the fact,) that he really didn't know Wallaces address
                          Certainly possible. If a 3rd party perp, he would also know Wallace was not there (yet), but he still asked "Is Mr. Wallace there?"
                          So [needless to say], lies and obfuscation would have been inherent in this individual...
                          Last edited by RodCrosby; 01-12-2019, 02:19 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
                            It is categorically impossible to know Mather’s motive. He might have had every reason to dislike Wallace. Wallace might have done him some kind of disservice? Again you are dismissing the inconvenient without reason.
                            And how is any of that - even if true - relevant to figuring who killed Julia?

                            And I'd be cautious about putting words in someone's mouth, btw. I doubt he'll put up with it any more than I do...
                            Last edited by RodCrosby; 01-12-2019, 02:32 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
                              a) We do know Wallace said much more to Julia than "I have to go out on business tonight"
                              http://www.coldcasejury.com/case03/amywallace.asp

                              Much more’ amounts to “Mr Wallace, had a telephone message while he was at the chess club the previous night to call somewhere in the Calderstones district sometime that evening,” from Amy. And “Wallace also stated that he believed his wife would admit someone called Mr Qualtrough because "she knew all about the business" which obviously comes from Wallace himself and so is of little value.

                              b) Wallace mentioning 'Qualtrough' to her was not absolutely necessary for success, and we don't know that he didn't. But the perps certainly hoped he might.

                              But the whole point of the plan was to get someone into the house past a very wary and reticent Julia who, according to Wallace himself, would only admit someone that she knew (like Parry.) Even though she didn’t ‘know’ Qualtrough your scenario had it built in that she would have at least heard the name Qualtrough and so would have let him in.

                              possibilities...
                              i) Wallace omits to mention 'Qualtrough' to Julia
                              ii) Julia omits to mention 'Qualtrough' to Amy
                              iii) Amy omits to mention 'Qualtrough' to the Police
                              iv) the Police omit to ask Amy about 'Qualtrough'
                              [only the last two are reasonably certain]


                              c) We know, as the judge explained, that crimes are often speculative, and almost risk-free.

                              It’s more than a stretch to categorise this as ‘speculative.’ This is a plan where Parry got himself an accomplice who was believable enough to convince a nervous Julia and was willing to take all the risks/ he would have studied the trams to judge how long Wallace would be away, he came up with the phone call idea to get Wallace out of the house and he apparently arranged to pick up his accomplice after the crime. This isn’t a stab in the dark. It’s a plan. You don’t come up with this kind of involved plan knowing that it’s reliant on a huge chunk of unforeseen luck.
                              No one comes up with this kind of plan with the attitude “you never know, it might work, but if it doesn’t hey-ho.”
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by RodCrosby View Post
                                And how is any of that - even if true - relevant to figuring who killed Julia?

                                And I'd be cautious about putting words in someone's mouth, btw. I doubt he'll put up with it any more than I do...
                                Firstly, if it’s not in any way ‘relevant’ why are you so vociferous in claiming that Mather was a man with some kind of grudge?

                                Secondly, what words into who’s mouth? Are you talking about Wallace and Mather?
                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X