Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

As Parry ran the risk of Wallace, by some means, discovering that there was actually no Menlove Gardens East why didn’t he use a real address?

As he couldn’t have known how soon Wallace would have given up and gone home he could simply have given a real address say a couple of hundred yards further away. Wallace would probably, for all Parry knew, have been away from the house just as long so the accomplice would still have had the same amount of time. The obvious bonus though would have been that if Wallace had checked for the location of MGE he wouldn’t have been put off by the uncomfortable fact that I’d didn’t exist. A win-win for Parry.

It is possible that Parry didn't check and thought MGE was a real address - or was hedging his bets to keep Wallace away as long as possible.

OR - maybe Parry did have a grudge and wanted to frame Wallace - thinking if he sent him to an address that didn't exist, Wallace would have no alibi. I know it is hardly a foolproof plan - but Parry was not necessarily a mastermind.

[RodCrosby]

It is possible that Parry didn't check and thought MGE was a real address - or was hedging his bets to keep Wallace away as long as possible.

OR - maybe Parry did have a grudge and wanted to frame Wallace - thinking if he sent him to an address that didn't exist, Wallace would have no alibi. I know it is hardly a foolproof plan - but Parry was not necessarily a mastermind.

I don't really think it makes much difference whether the address given was East or West. [the non-existent East just adds to the attraction of the case for crime-writers and daydreamers !]
I imagine Wallace's actions, whether innocent or guilty, would have been substantively the same. Go to West, maybe then decide it was East, or North or South, walk up West looking for East, ask people, etc...

[NickB]

I think it highly unlikely Julia would have invited someone in and then bolted the door behind him. I can see no reason for the Qualtrough character to bolt the door

So ...

- It is unlikely the front door would be bolted after Julia had let in someone.

- There was no forced entry.

- Wallace ruled out an intruder sneaking in through the scullery door by saying Julia did not walk to the gate with him.

- And he told the court that he had not the slightest suspicion of any of the limited number of named people who he claimed Julia would have let in.

In each of the above points, Wallace could have done or said something to make it easier to believe there had been an intruder. Why didn’t he, if the main purpose of his plan was to divert suspicion away from himself?

[RodCrosby]

I'm glad you can see all this Nick.

The problem with this case is that it has been over-analysed in quite unrealistic, even ridiculous ways, no doubt off the back of faraway authors who swooned over its 'unsolvability', way back in the 1930s...

The (thankfully few remaining) Wallaceites are obsessives, who only have "heads we win, tails Wallace loses" coin-tricks to offer, who seize on any everyday occurrence that must only point ONE way, while remaining blissfully unaware of the internal self-contradictions in their own thesis...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't really think it makes much difference whether the address given was East or West. [the non-existent East just adds to the attraction of the case for crime-writers and daydreamers !]
I imagine Wallace's actions, whether innocent or guilty, would have been substantively the same. Go to West, maybe then decide it was East, or North or South, walk up West looking for East, ask people, etc...

It made no difference to Wallace because if he came up with the plan then he obvious knew that he was going to go.

Parry couldn’t have been sure that he’d go but by adding a real address he would have increased his chances of success.

I’d have thought that this was pretty easy to understand?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So ...

- It is unlikely the front door would be bolted after Julia had let in someone.

- There was no forced entry.

- Wallace ruled out an intruder sneaking in through the scullery door by saying Julia did not walk to the gate with him.

- And he told the court that he had not the slightest suspicion of any of the limited number of named people who he claimed Julia would have let in.

In each of the above points, Wallace could have done or said something to make it easier to believe there had been an intruder. Why didn’t he, if the main purpose of his plan was to divert suspicion away from himself?

I find the emboldened statement strange Nick as Wallace said this at his trial:


Tell us exactly how far she came, as far as you can
remember ? — She came down the back yard as far as the
back-yard door and I left her standing there, with an
instruction to her to bolt the door after me. That was our
usual practice.

Do you remember now whether she bolted it ? Did you
hear her bolt it ? — I did not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm glad you can see all this Nick.

The problem with this case is that it has been over-analysed in quite unrealistic, even ridiculous ways, no doubt off the back of faraway authors who swooned over its 'unsolvability', way back in the 1930s...

The (thankfully few remaining) Wallaceites are obsessives, who only have "heads we win, tails Wallace loses" coin-tricks to offer, who seize on any everyday occurrence that must only point ONE way, while remaining blissfully unaware of the internal self-contradictions in their own thesis...

Pot-kettle-black

Wallace was overwhelmingly likely to have been guilty. No one else is in the frame.

[RodCrosby]

Pot-kettle-black

Wallace was overwhelmingly likely to have been guilty. No one else is in the frame.

Of course he is, with his nine-rounds-of-russian-roulette plan, no motive, no benefit, and a hastened death...

Fresh evidence and analysis offers a more persuasive solution.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course he is, with his nine-rounds-of-russian-roulette plan, no motive, no benefit, and a hastened death...

Fresh evidence and analysis offers a more persuasive solution.

As ever.....complete drivel. There is no knew evidence unless you count Parkes’ transparent fantasy.

It’s infantile to keep bleating ‘no motive.’ I’ve put that one to bed numerous times.

Plan - could only be certain of success if Wallace was responsible for it. And before you start twisting - the ‘getting caught’ risk is there for whoever committedthe crime and would always be unavoidable.

No benefit - 70 year old wife out of the way. You cannot know that Wallace hadn’t grown to hate Julia. Don’t bother mentioning his diary either.

You didn’t mention ‘can anyone actually be placed at the crime scene around the right time?’ Err......let me think

There’s no hope for the blind.

Parry’s alibi’s eliminate him from any involvement. His actions on the Tuesday night are obviously not those of someone following a ‘plan.’ They are the actions of someone sauntering around visiting friends, buying cigarettes, nipping to the garage to pickup a battery, popping in to see the Williamson’s before meeting his gf.

I’m off to bed. Rod’s set my Drivelometer into overload!

[etenguy]

So ...

- It is unlikely the front door would be bolted after Julia had let in someone.

It is my view that it is unlikely Julia would have bolted the front door after admitting a guest through it. The front door was bolted. So either no-one was admitted through the front door or the killer bolted it.

- There was no forced entry.

There were no signs of a forced entry - if the killer entered through the back door, which was open, they would not have needed to force their way in.

- Wallace ruled out an intruder sneaking in through the scullery door by saying Julia did not walk to the gate with him.

This does not rule out entry through the back door - in fact Wallace says he didn't hear Julia lock the gate behind him. Though I think it likely she would have locked the gate, a young man would easily scale it - used to do that myself all the time when I was a kid.

- And he told the court that he had not the slightest suspicion of any of the limited number of named people who he claimed Julia would have let in.

It would be difficult for Wallace to say anything else here, since he was listing people Julia trusted enough to allow entry to the house while she was alone.

In each of the above points, Wallace could have done or said something to make it easier to believe there had been an intruder. Why didn’t he, if the main purpose of his plan was to divert suspicion away from himself?

He did say at one point that he thought there had been an intruder in the house when he arrived home, but later had a change of heart - which of course he must since the house was demonstrably empty, other than Julia's body, once they gained entry.

Also, he might have pointed the finger (subtly) at one or more people - maybe Parry, but he would need to be careful since if he did and that person had an alibi, it might rebound on him.

[etenguy]

As ever.....complete drivel. There is no knew evidence unless you count Parkes’ transparent fantasy.

My problem with Parkes evidence is that it went unchallenged and the police completely ignored it. There was a reason for this, but we don't know that reason. It may have been conspiracy/corruption/incompetence or it may have been a lack of credibility of the story/witness. While, if true, it would support Rod's Parry/accomplice theory - Rod's theory does not rely on this statement for its credibility.

It’s infantile to keep bleating ‘no motive.’ I’ve put that one to bed numerous times.

I know you have speculated a credible motive of a marriage gone sour behind closed doors - but it is speculation with little evidential support. Of course, it may nevertheless be true. We are still left with no known motive, which I think is problematic when pointing the finger at Wallace.

Plan - could only be certain of success if Wallace was responsible for it. And before you start twisting - the ‘getting caught’ risk is there for whoever committedthe crime and would always be unavoidable.

I agree that the plan makes more sense if it was concocted by Wallace, and more likely to succeed. I don't think the Plan is so off the wall though if Parry just wanted Wallace out of the way that night. It may not have crossed his mind that Beattie would forget to pass on the message although a false address (by accident or on purpose) does lower the chance of success for Parry.

No benefit - 70 year old wife out of the way. You cannot know that Wallace hadn’t grown to hate Julia. Don’t bother mentioning his diary either.

As above, credible but not proven - I don't think you can ignore the diary or Wallace's subsequent behaviour - this is important evidence when considering the motive you put forward. Of course, there may be a number of different motives for Wallace, but we do not know of one.

You didn’t mention ‘can anyone actually be placed at the crime scene around the right time?’ Err......let me think

There’s no hope for the blind.

This is an important point - Isaac Asimov once wrote when critiquing mystery fiction - (this is from memory and not his actual words but the sense is right) - 'just once I would like to read a story where a woman goes down a dark, dead-end alley, followed by a man carrying a knife, is found stabbed and at the end of the story the man with the knife is found guilty - because that is overwhelmingly the case in real life'. He then went on to write such a mystery story (The Naked Sun) which was bloody brilliant.

Parry’s alibi’s eliminate him from any involvement. His actions on the Tuesday night are obviously not those of someone following a ‘plan.’ They are the actions of someone sauntering around visiting friends, buying cigarettes, nipping to the garage to pickup a battery, popping in to see the Williamson’s before meeting his gf.

I’m off to bed. Rod’s set my Drivelometer into overload!

I think Rod's theory deals with the alibi for Parry issue - hence the need for an accomplice.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I think Rod's theory deals with the alibi for Parry issue - hence the need for an accomplice.

Rod’s scenario has Parry picking up the accomplice in his car after the ‘robbery.’ It’s reasonably, plausible and likely that Parry the Planner would have given his accomplice a ‘You need to be away from there by....’ time. I’d suggest 8.00 or 8.15 (any later, say 8.30, would only have required Wallace to have given up slightly earlier allowing him to return via the tram before the one that he eventually caught.)

So we have the accomplice leaving between 8.00 and 8.15.

It’s unlikely that the pre-arranged meeting place would have been any great distance from Wolverton Street so let’s say 5 minutes.

So we have the accomplice arriving at the meeting place between 8.05 and 8.20.

Parry leaves the Brine’s at 8.30. Does he go, as part of the plan, to pick up the accomplice? No, hegoes off to get a packet of cigarettes and a newspaper. Let’s say 5 minutes.

It’s now 8.35.

Does he then go and pick up his accomplice? No, he remembers that he has to go to Hignett’s Garage to pick up an accumulator battery. How long? Let’s say 10 minutes.

It’s now 8.45.

He finally gets to pick up his accomplice at around 8.50. As part of the ‘plan’ he’s left the accomplice standing around for between 30 and 45 minutes whilst he does things that could have been easily done at another time.

Then, after being told by the accomplice that he’s now implicated in a murder and could end up on the gallows for £2 he goes to the Williamson’s for a chat and then to his girlfriends. None of whom say that he was anything other than calm and entirely normal.

As ever Rod is silent on any ‘uncomfortable’ points but I’ll ask everyone ‘hand on heart’ do these actions speak of a man enacting a pre-arranged plan? And let’s not forget we can’t fall back on ‘well he might not have picked him up. He might have gone to the accomplice’s house to collect his share for example because, for the plan to ‘fit,’ we have to have the accomplice in Parry’s car for Parry to have need of his car cleaning by Parkes.

[NickB]

Etenguy - I agree with all the points you make. But if his plan was to make it look like there had been an intruder, the entry aspect would have been a key part of that plan and I cannot see what that was. And instead of keeping entry options open he seemed to do his best to close them down. To me, this all points away from a ‘Wallace plan’.

Now supposing someone had scaled the back gate and entered through the scullery door. Couldn’t that have just been someone who wandered the streets looking out for burglary opportunities and had seen Wallace leave?

[RodCrosby]

My problem with Parkes evidence is that it went unchallenged and the police completely ignored it. There was a reason for this, but we don't know that reason. It may have been conspiracy/corruption/incompetence or it may have been a lack of credibility of the story/witness. While, if true, it would support Rod's Parry/accomplice theory - Rod's theory does not rely on this statement for its credibility.

We don't even know the Police ignored it. It merely seems they (Moore) did.

But what could they do, individually or collectively? Wallace was convicted by that time. It was legally out of the Police's hands. I can't think of a case where the Police waltz into a court, and announce "Shucks, guys, I guess we got it wrong...", even where it is later proven they did get it wrong... The 'justice' system simply doesn't work like that.

Here's an entirely left-field idea, and I accept it's a bit "out there."

Something unique (among several unique things) happened in the Wallace Case.

The Church of England intervened on behalf of a convicted murderer.

An astonishing, dramatic step, never repeated.

What prompted this extraordinary intervention? Clerics are not lawyers. But they are not fools either.

Did someone, in desperation, reveal strong evidence that Wallace was innocent, and someone else guilty, and the Police had made a terrible mistake?

Someone from the Police? Moore himself? Moore was supposed to be a devout Roman Catholic (so we might imagine had a conscience that might bother him if he was now certain an innocent man would hang because of his efforts)...

[etenguy]

Etenguy - I agree with all the points you make. But if his plan was to make it look like there had been an intruder, the entry aspect would have been a key part of that plan and I cannot see what that was. And instead of keeping entry options open he seemed to do his best to close them down. To me, this all points away from a ‘Wallace plan’.

Now supposing someone had scaled the back gate and entered through the scullery door. Couldn’t that have just been someone who wandered the streets looking out for burglary opportunities and had seen Wallace leave?

Your scenario is entirely possible, but the Qualtrough call makes it unlikely - it points to a planned event, not an opportunistic one. It could very well have been made by someone other than Parry or Wallace, but one of them is the most likely culprit because of other aspects of the case.