Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Abby Normal]

It's always good to think, Abby. I encourage it!

But it would surely be a bit late for Wallace to be asking that question, if guilty?

Anyhow, since you have a genuine interest in the case, if you haven't seen the murder room...

Bear in mind the Police had disturbed the scene by the time the photographer had arrived.

Thanks rod

Well he may have wanted to know what the johnstons had heard and when, if guilty and this was the first time he was encountering them

[Herlock Sholmes]

Uncomfortable facts dodged by Rod....yet again

Night all...

[RodCrosby]

Abby
It's possible and, if guilty, his reaction, depending on their answer would be:-

"Oh sh1t, I'm dead..."

OR

"I might still just get away with all this..."

I think my analysis of all the hurdles a guilty Wallace would be required to vault suggests that no-one in their right mind would have credibly embarked upon such a scheme in the first place...

Others agreed, many years ago

“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)

[moste]

Abby
It's possible and, if guilty, his reaction, depending on their answer would be:-

"Oh sh1t, I'm dead..."

OR

"I might still just get away with all this..."

I think my analysis of all the hurdles a guilty Wallace would be required to vault suggests that no-one in their right mind would have credibly embarked upon such a scheme in the first place...

Others agreed, many years ago

“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)

Would that ‘Oh sh— I’m Dead ‘ be to the Johnson’s “Yes we heard what sounded very much like Julia shouting .No No Will , please don’t hit me with that iron bar!

[RodCrosby]

[harry]

What sort of a plan is it,that has the thief knock on the door to gain entrance.Short of silencing Julia for good,what was preventing Julia from later recognising the thief,or did not the clever duo think of this?And Julia,suffering from a cold,bad enough to cover herself with a raincoat,decides to entertain the caller in a cold room,when she had come from a warm kitchen with a fire already lit and could easily return to it.

Before giving too much credit to the blood on the glove clue,it would be well to explain that it was human blood and not animal blood.If the explanation is that Parry stated so,where is the evidence for this.If the evidence is circumstantial and not real,then like the circumstantial evidence against Wallace,what value does it have?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Abby
It's possible and, if guilty, his reaction, depending on their answer would be:-

"Oh sh1t, I'm dead..."

OR

"I might still just get away with all this..."

I think my analysis of all the hurdles a guilty Wallace would be required to vault suggests that no-one in their right mind would have credibly embarked upon such a scheme in the first place...

Others agreed, many years ago

“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)

More biased nonsense.

Everyone has already seen how you avoid questions that you can’t answer. Once the Parkes nonsense crumbles the case against Parry crumbles with it. So, if your prepared to believe the unbelievable then feel free. I’ll stick with reason.

The hurdles faces Parry of course get ignored. You know, like the fact that he was elsewhere

Keep on dodging Rodders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What sort of a plan is it,that has the thief knock on the door to gain entrance.Short of silencing Julia for good,what was preventing Julia from later recognising the thief,or did not the clever duo think of this?And Julia,suffering from a cold,bad enough to cover herself with a raincoat,decides to entertain the caller in a cold room,when she had come from a warm kitchen with a fire already lit and could easily return to it.

Before giving too much credit to the blood on the glove clue,it would be well to explain that it was human blood and not animal blood.If the explanation is that Parry stated so,where is the evidence for this.If the evidence is circumstantial and not real,then like the circumstantial evidence against Wallace,what value does it have?

We must also ask why, after committing the robbery ‘Qualtrough’ went back into the Parlour to Julia? Why not just say ‘I think I’ll be getting along Mr Wallace. I might bump into your husband?’ No, he stays to chat. Julia panics for some reason then engages in a bit of crossdressing to nip out to find Tiddles the cat. Qualtrough flips and kills her (instead of just scarpering). Qualtrough then, on one hand is calm enough to pull off a cupboard door but too panicked to search elsewhere for cash. He’s then calm enough to go around pointlessly turning off lights but he’s so panicked that he walks out with an iron bar dripping with blood and brains.

A lot of selective panicking to explain stuff in the Accomplice theory Harry. Like Parry panics into the world’s dumbest confession.

Far too much blatent twisting, turning and shoehorning for my tastes Harry. None needed for Wallace to have done it.

[RodCrosby]

What sort of a plan is it,that has the thief knock on the door to gain entrance.Short of silencing Julia for good,what was preventing Julia from later recognising the thief,or did not the clever duo think of this?And Julia,suffering from a cold,bad enough to cover herself with a raincoat,decides to entertain the caller in a cold room,when she had come from a warm kitchen with a fire already lit and could easily return to it.

Before giving too much credit to the blood on the glove clue,it would be well to explain that it was human blood and not animal blood.If the explanation is that Parry stated so,where is the evidence for this.If the evidence is circumstantial and not real,then like the circumstantial evidence against Wallace,what value does it have?

I directed viewers to the concept of "distraction burglary".

The Judge at the trial explained:-

'You know in many cases, especially of murder, the only evidence that is available is circumstantial evidence, but circumstantial evidence may vary in value almost infinitely. There is some circumstantial evidence which is as good and conclusive as the evidence of actual eye-witnesses. In other cases, the only circumstantial evidence which anyone can present still leaves loopholes and doubts, and still leaves possibilities of other explanations, of other persons, and still leaves the charge against the accused man little more than a probability, and nothing that could be described as reasonably conclusive. ...
The real test of the value of circumstantial evidence is : Does it exclude every reasonable possibility ? I can even put it higher : Does it exclude other theories or possibilities ? If you cannot put the evidence against the accused man beyond a probability and nothing more, if that is a probability which is not inconsistent with there being other reasonable possibilities, then it is impossible for a jury to say : ‘‘We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the charge is made out against the accused man.” A man cannot be convicted of any crime, least of all murder, merely on probabilities, unless they are so strong as to amount to a reasonable certainty. If you have other possibilities, a jury would not, and I believe ought not, to come to the conclusion that the charge is established.'
Mr Justice Wright, summing-up in Rex v Wallace

No reasonable person could say that the case against Wallace excludes other possibilities.
I have identified such another reasonable possibility. Moreover, it is supported by far stronger circumstantial evidence than anything against Wallace. Witness testimony [supported by others], Parry's lies and slips in his statements to the Police and in his explanations to Lloyd.
It is also consistent with the crime scene, and the logic and circumstances of the Qualtrough call.

and

'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)

'Scientifically, it is a much easier hypothesis to assume another person as murderer, whose task would have been easier, mental effort less.'
Gerald Abrahams, barrister-at-law, in The Legal Mind (London, 1954)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Quite simply the case against Wallace is far stronger than the case against anyone else. No leaps of faith or plans requiring huge slabs of luck or calls of ‘well he must have panicked’ to explain away nonsensical behaviour.

The brutality of the murder speaks more of anger and resentment than anything else.
Only Wallace can be placed at the scene.
Only Wallace could have guaranteed the success of the plan.

We can produce long lists of things that point to Wallace over anyone else but of course if an unbelievable fantasy is preferred.....

[moste]

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.

[RodCrosby]

That's fine, moste.
Anyone can believe anything they like, of course, but I submit that a theory that requires you to INVENT things, like Taxis, is a vastly inferior theory than one which relies on an analysis of the actual evidence...

Lord Wright's summing-up was absolutely masterly, and scrupulously fair. It should be required reading for all judges, on "how to do it"....

[NickB]

If the guy who drove this strange person on the night went to the police, I feel confident a taxi driver taking Wallace home would have done so too ...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yk33R1lC430/VfBRuEqmbHI/AAAAAAAABH0/knXIZRjREU0/s1600/wallace19310126yp.jpg

[Yorkshire Post, 26-Jan-31]

[moste]

If the guy who drove this strange person on the night went to the police, I feel confident a taxi driver taking Wallace home would have done so too ...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yk33R1lC430/VfBRuEqmbHI/AAAAAAAABH0/knXIZRjREU0/s1600/wallace19310126yp.jpg

[Yorkshire Post, 26-Jan-31]

I can’t agree on that I’m afraid Nick.A person arranging for a cab pick up in Allerton ,for a fare to Anfield, there is no strange person about that. Also a cab driver picking up a fare for a 4 mile journey in a city with a population of 846,000 isn’t going to remember any aspects of that fare weeks later.
Incidently Rod , Inventing strong possibilities is how the police get cracking, stay calm.

[RodCrosby]

Are we supposed to believe the Police didn't check the return tram or whether Wallace had somehow conned them, by taxing a taxi or a personal gyrocopter?

They checked every other damn thing Wallace said he did that night...