Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[MoriartyGardensEast]

No civilised legal system requires anyone to prove themselves not guilty, a task that would be impossible in most cases (certainly prior to DNA evidence)

As a matter of FACT, there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace. That was conclusively shown at the Court of Criminal Appeal by its verdict.

I can't help irrational, ill-informed "thoughts", whether they be Wallace was guilty, or the moon is made of green cheese...

I think you are having a comprehension issue as your 1st sentence bears no relationship whatsoever to anything I said. Following your logic, there is no debate to be had over the guilt or innocence of anyone found not guilty.

You may not realize this but the implication from this is (even if we agree with the verdict of not guilty which I do) that there is no difference between thinking one guilty and finding them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which is obviously untrue.

This is an exceptionally simple point.

If you can't agree to this we are in trouble.

CCJ, why are you quiet here? You make exceptionally detailed and logical inferences at times in your book so such an elementary point should surely be a piece of cake for you to explain to Rod? What is going on? Help me out!

[ColdCaseJury]

I think you are having a comprehension issue as your 1st sentence bears no relationship whatsoever to anything I said. Following your logic, there is no debate to be had over the guilt or innocence of anyone found not guilty.

You may not realize this but the implication from this is (even if we agree with the verdict of not guilty which I do) that there is no difference between thinking one guilty and finding them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which is obviously untrue.

This is an exceptionally simple point.

If you can't agree to this we are in trouble.

CCJ, why are you quiet here? You make exceptionally detailed and logical inferences at times in your book so such an elementary point should surely be a piece of cake for you to explain to Rod? What is going on? Help me out!

Hi MGE

You are correct, of course. We may think someone is most probably guilty but not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Wallace was found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt on appeal, and I believe this was the correct judgement. Whether he was probably guilty is what we are debating. And in that context, the appeal acquittal is as irrelevant as the original conviction although some of the judges' reasoning might apply at the level of balance of probabilities.

I have made this point before on this thread, but I'm happy to have said it again.

[MoriartyGardensEast]

Hi MGE

You are correct, of course. We may think someone is most probably guilty but not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Wallace was found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt on appeal, and I believe this was the correct judgement. Whether he was probably guilty is what we are debating. And in that context, the appeal acquittal is as irrelevant as the original conviction. Some of the judges' reasoning might apply at the level of balance of probabilities, but this cannot be assumed.


I have made this point before on this thread, but I'm happy to have said it again.

Thank you for your lucid explanation.

[RodCrosby]

As a matter of law in 1931, the Court of Criminal Appeal would only quash a conviction on the facts if the verdict was unreasonable, and not supported by the evidence.

To that extent, Wallace's innocence is even more conclusive than if he had merely been acquitted by a jury [we would never know how close they came to "beyond reasonable doubt"]

The CCA in effect found him "not guilty" - beyond reasonable doubt, as distinct from "not... guilty beyond reasonable doubt."

I've already stated that if you want to consider Wallace a suspect, that's fine. And we must ignore both his wrongful conviction and its rectification by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

It'll be a short exercise though, since just like the Court of Criminal Appeal we will find NO EVIDENCE that he committed the crime...

And just like the Court of Criminal Appeal, we will find those who imagine him guilty to be UNREASONABLE...

Perhaps if there was new evidence against Wallace it would be different. But there isn't.

The only new evidence is against another person, which of course leads to the Correct Solution to this crime.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Moriarty. You have doubts about the 'accomplice theory,' but what about an 'accomplice once removed?' By this I mean the number of criminal cases that were originally contemplated over a few pints down at the pub. Two or three sleazy characters (Parry and X and Y), discuss this geezer who keeps a cash box in his house. He is known to occasionally go to a chess club on Monday nights. It's an easy caper; burglar the house while he's down at the club, and make a few quid. Nothing ever really comes of it, however, as far as Parry is concerned. He's drunk and it's just pub talk. X also forgets about it. But the plan preys on Y's mind, and he decides to burgle the house by himself, without Parry's knowledge.

There is just one catch. Parry never mentioned there being a Julia. And because of that, the plan turns pear-shaped. Y wrongly assumed this 'geezer' lived alone.

Come Tuesday night, if the door lock really was defective, Y merely walks in through the back door when he found it open. Lo and behold, there is a woman in the house! Panicking, he bashes her several times over the head with a nearby poker, panics even more, grabs what cash he can out of the box and flees. There are other valuables in the house, but by now he is too alarmed and horrified by what he has done to stick around.

So, in the end, Wallace is innocent. Parry is only guilty of having loose lips among sleazy characters. The 'Qualtrough' gambit was made up on the spur-of-the-moment when Y called the chess club Monday to confirm that Wallace would be present; the answer he received was non-committal, so he ditched the plan, and took it up on Tuesday night instead.

Year's later, when Richard Whittington-Egan questions Parry on his doorstep, he gets a decided feeling that Parry knows more than he is saying. And of course he does. He was responsible for it in a moral sense. Case solved!

[NickB]

Or as I mentioned (post 1292) Parry might have made the call as a prank and then boasted about it to someone who then committed the burglary. If he made the call for that purpose, he might have been tempted to share the amusement with someone. And as you suggest, he could have mentioned the cash box as well to the same person on that or another occasion.

[RodCrosby]

I like that one NickB. We could call it "the (Accidental) Accomplice Theory" !

[moste]

Hi Moriarty. You have doubts about the 'accomplice theory,' but what about an 'accomplice once removed?' By this I mean the number of criminal cases that were originally contemplated over a few pints down at the pub. Two or three sleazy characters (Parry and X and Y), discuss this geezer who keeps a cash box in his house. He is known to occasionally go to a chess club on Monday nights. It's an easy caper; burglar the house while he's down at the club, and make a few quid. Nothing ever really comes of it, however, as far as Parry is concerned. He's drunk and it's just pub talk. X also forgets about it. But the plan preys on Y's mind, and he decides to burgle the house by himself, without Parry's knowledge.

There is just one catch. Parry never mentioned there being a Julia. And because of that, the plan turns pear-shaped. Y wrongly assumed this 'geezer' lived alone.

Come Tuesday night, if the door lock really was defective, Y merely walks in through the back door when he found it open. Lo and behold, there is a woman in the house! Panicking, he bashes her several times over the head with a nearby poker, panics even more, grabs what cash he can out of the box and flees. There are other valuables in the house, but by now he is too alarmed and horrified by what he has done to stick around.

So, in the end, Wallace is innocent. Parry is only guilty of having loose lips among sleazy characters. The 'Qualtrough' gambit was made up on the spur-of-the-moment when Y called the chess club Monday to confirm that Wallace would be present; the answer he received was non-committal, so he ditched the plan, and took it up on Tuesday night instead.

Year's later, when Richard Whittington-Egan questions Parry on his doorstep, he gets a decided feeling that Parry knows more than he is saying. And of course he does. He was responsible for it in a moral sense. Case solved!

Or it was 'THE Anfield House Breaker'

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS, Parry arrived in his car at the Llyod's about 7:25pm (the average of the two Lloyd statements), stayed for a few minutes with the mother, left to go to Park (or Lark) Lane and returned at 9pm. According to Parry he was there for six hours from 5:30pm. Parry's 3-day memory was lucid but his 4-day memory, despite his comings and goings at the Lloyds, was blatantly false.

So, we don't know where Parry was at the time of the call, but we do know he turned up at the Lloyds - which was just a few minutes drive from the call box - just a few minutes after the call ended.

We certainly don’t know where Parry was at the time of the call so there’s certainly no physical evidence that precludes him from having made it. I certainly think that it could have been error rather than willing deception though.

[etenguy]

I have been on the fence since finding this thread - Wallace or Parry +1. Rod's theory is compelling and took some exploration. In the end though I find myself agreeing with Herlock. The fact of the Qualtrough call seals Wallace's highly probable guilt in my view.

My thinking: If the criminal was not Wallace, the crime would have occurred on Monday night. Taking time to set up a risky plan to get Wallace out of the house on Tuesday does not make sense. There was a good chance Wallace would not go. Why pass up the perfect opportunity on the risky prospect of another opportunity the next night. Increasing the robbery haul has been suggested for why Tuesday would be better, but if Wallace did not take the bait, they would have got nothing. Using a non existent address only raises the risk of Wallace not going.

The Qualtrough call makes absolute sense if Wallace was the murderer. It provides a potential alternative to Wallace being the killer, as well as a reason for Wallace to wander around collecting alibis.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As a matter of law in 1931, the Court of Criminal Appeal would only quash a conviction on the facts if the verdict was unreasonable, and not supported by the evidence.

To that extent, Wallace's innocence is even more conclusive than if he had merely been acquitted by a jury [we would never know how close they came to "beyond reasonable doubt"]

The CCA in effect found him "not guilty" - beyond reasonable doubt, as distinct from "not... guilty beyond reasonable doubt."

I've already stated that if you want to consider Wallace a suspect, that's fine. And we must ignore both his wrongful conviction and its rectification by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

It'll be a short exercise though, since just like the Court of Criminal Appeal we will find NO EVIDENCE that he committed the crime...

And just like the Court of Criminal Appeal, we will find those who imagine him guilty to be UNREASONABLE...

Perhaps if there was new evidence against Wallace it would be different. But there isn't.

The only new evidence is against another person, which of course leads to the Correct Solution to this crime.

The ego blinkers are still on I see.

when are you going to name the actual EVIDENCE that your scenario is correct. Never I guess, because there’s none. You have Parkes and nothing else.

You have a scenario. And for the *@%*nth time a scenario is not a proven solution in itself. All you have is ““I’ve come up with a possible solution and so because I’m so clever it must be true.””

Not good enough Rod. The fact that someone as knowledgeable as Antony favours your scenario is still not good enough to say case solved. The fact that there are others that might agree or partially agree with you is not good enough to say case solved.

Solved to your own satisfaction and in your own mind isn’t anywhere near enough I’m afraid. It’s a triumph of ego over reason.

Your position of claiming that everything points away from Wallace is untenable. No one else takes such and unreasonable and unreasoned position.

[RodCrosby]

yawn...

I've listed the evidence many times. And the logic is impeccable.

And there is no evidence against Wallace [a legal fact], only superstition...

What has your rant to do with my correct analysis of the Law of England in 1931, btw?

[Herlock Sholmes]

yawn...

I've listed the evidence many times. And the logic is impeccable.

And there is no evidence against Wallace [a legal fact], only superstition...

What has your rant to do with my correct analysis of the Law of England in 1931, btw?

It was nothing to do with your analysis and all to do with your unjustified boast about ‘the correct solution’ at the end.

[RodCrosby]

ah... so it's all just ad hominem and personal inadequacy. Who'd have thunk it?

It is the Correct Solution, based on the available evidence. I've said many times something new could [in theory] upend it.

Until then...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Moriarty. You have doubts about the 'accomplice theory,' but what about an 'accomplice once removed?' By this I mean the number of criminal cases that were originally contemplated over a few pints down at the pub. Two or three sleazy characters (Parry and X and Y), discuss this geezer who keeps a cash box in his house. He is known to occasionally go to a chess club on Monday nights. It's an easy caper; burglar the house while he's down at the club, and make a few quid. Nothing ever really comes of it, however, as far as Parry is concerned. He's drunk and it's just pub talk. X also forgets about it. But the plan preys on Y's mind, and he decides to burgle the house by himself, without Parry's knowledge.

There is just one catch. Parry never mentioned there being a Julia. And because of that, the plan turns pear-shaped. Y wrongly assumed this 'geezer' lived alone.

Come Tuesday night, if the door lock really was defective, Y merely walks in through the back door when he found it open. Lo and behold, there is a woman in the house! Panicking, he bashes her several times over the head with a nearby poker, panics even more, grabs what cash he can out of the box and flees. There are other valuables in the house, but by now he is too alarmed and horrified by what he has done to stick around.

So, in the end, Wallace is innocent. Parry is only guilty of having loose lips among sleazy characters. The 'Qualtrough' gambit was made up on the spur-of-the-moment when Y called the chess club Monday to confirm that Wallace would be present; the answer he received was non-committal, so he ditched the plan, and took it up on Tuesday night instead.

Year's later, when Richard Whittington-Egan questions Parry on his doorstep, he gets a decided feeling that Parry knows more than he is saying. And of course he does. He was responsible for it in a moral sense. Case solved!

Hi Roger, this is a point I’ve made previously and it’s valid.

‘And so for Rod - if it’s possible that someone heard about Wallace from Parry and then enlisted an accomplice to help him (without Parry’s help) commit the crime it cannot be proven that the original scenario is ‘case solved.’ In addition - is there any evidence that exonerates Wallace? No. Therefore Wallace could have been guilty (and in all likelihood was)

Remember your Holmes Rod. You first have to eliminate the impossible. Other theories cannot be proven impossible - therefore you have no logical grounds in claiming ‘case solved.’