Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

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

  • ColdCaseJury
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    1. Can you catch an illness via a forum? I’ve been ill for the last 2 or 3 days too. (note to Admin- where’s the chin scratching smiley? It was the one I used the most)

    and

    2. I can picture Wallace stroking the cat Bond-villain style. Told you he was guilty.
    I'm still in bed with flu-like symptoms - day 4. It's clearly the forum!

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Not sure when it was found but Wallace was stroking it after the murder.
    1. Can you catch an illness via a forum? I’ve been ill for the last 2 or 3 days too. (note to Admin- where’s the chin scratching smiley? It was the one I used the most)

    and

    2. I can picture Wallace stroking the cat Bond-villain style. Told you he was guilty.

    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Antony thank you. I'm on Nytol about to doze off so bare with me on this...

    But I don't think all of those are good points unfortunately. I'm angling at something different (collaboration/conspiracy), but even those points on their own are not all good.

    I don't know what his actual word by word confession was. But they were neighbors. I think they would know something about him and his habits, hobbies, etc.

    Again neighbors are highly likely to know his career. Though the moniker Qualtrough? I don't know how. I could see it plausible, if they knew the man somehow for one (and that he was insured with the Pru), but also otjer ways.

    Not sure how they knew where the cash box was. But I think we only have their word about how many times they went in there, and of course the walls were quite thin. Would Wallace necessarily have been told about all visits while he was out at work btw?

    ---

    Anyway as you identified though I'm referring to a possible conspiracy/collaboration. Here are a few key points to consider before I sleep:

    1) The Johnston's "coincidentally" appear outside to see Wallace at the right time.

    2) The problem with the lack of noise is eliminated if the Johnston's were involved of course.

    3) Mr. Johnston is clearly kind of short. Could he have been the man Lily Hall saw with Wallace?

    4) The caller was described as an old man (but Parry's falsified alibi makes me think he rang).

    5) When Wallace gave his "shopping list of names" Julia would admit into the home, it is very odd that he didn't mention the Johnston's among those names, wouldn't you agree?

    6) Julia's cat really had been missing. Not sure when it was found but Wallace was stroking it after the murder.

    7) They had a key to enter the home without force. But also would have been admitted I'm sure.

    8) They moved home immediately. Behavior seen with numerous other criminals.

    I promise will come up with something more thought provoking when I'm awake enough to think and go back through books and notes etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • ColdCaseJury
    replied
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
    Antony, excuse me for being a newbie to this case, but I understand the Johnstons are basically laughed out of threads as suspects.

    What is the actual evidence exonerating them from any involvement? I cannot find it anywhere. You realize one of the biggest hurdles to Rod's theory is the Johnston's not hearing Julia scream etc (showing she was not taken by surprise - although of course there are some other very big hurdles - despite the theory starting VERY plausibly)?

    When I look at them on a very base level, I see that Mr Johnston is short (like the guy Lily Hall saw), they "coincidentally" materialized as Wallace went back to the back door, and moved house immediately like the Bagel King/Jerard Steuerman style. Mr Johnston also apparently confessed to killing Julia. The detail given seemed too in depth to be TOTALLY falsified... Yet I have to say I still have issue with exonerating Wallace and Parry, as both are very suspect... Has anyone ever mentioned a Wallace and Johnston's conspiracy?

    Can someone please explain why they are completely exonerated? Everyone knows they had a key for Wallace's door right? Everyone knows they could've unlocked it when he went back round to the front door, then when he came back around came out just in time to see him, by coincidence?

    So please cut me some slack as a newb and explain why they are ridiculed as potential suspects?
    WWH, the Johnston Theory is not seen as plausible by many but it assumes Jack (or Jack and Florence) worked alone.

    Some points against this theory (taken from an earlier post of mine):

    John Johnston did not know of Wallace's chess schedule. When he confessed, did Johnston also say he popped down to the City Cafe, saw Wallace was down to play on the Monday and noted the Cafe telephone number (according to Rod the Cafe was not in the phone book) to make the Qualtrough call? I also doubt Johnston would know anything about the insurance industry to make the call either.

    The Qualtrough call is the key to the case, in my opinion. The caller must have known about Wallace's job, the insurance industry and frequented the City Cafe to know about the chess club. The only two plausible candidates are Wallace and Parry. A third party might have gleaned info from either, but this is doubtful, unless they were somehow involved too.

    Another problem: how did the Johnston know about the cash box? Johnston had never stepped in the house and Florence only showed into the front room three times in a decade.


    As for a Wallace/Johnston conspiracy, that has not been aired on these threads, to my knowledge. Of course, all of the above are eliminated if Wallace worked with them. You have the floor...

    P.S. The key to No. 33 also fit the front door to No. 29.

    P.P.S. Early hours 21 Jan: Wallace told Gold the Johnstons were the only people he saw/spoke to on his return Journey.

    P.P.P.S Wallace stated (trial testimony) that he told the Johnstons to wait outside while he searched inside. The Johnstons initially concurred in their police statement but then changed it to state that Jack had told Wallace they would wait outside while Wallace took a look around the house.


    Leave a comment:


  • WallaceWackedHer
    replied
    Antony, excuse me for being a newbie to this case, but I understand the Johnstons are basically laughed out of threads as suspects.

    What is the actual evidence exonerating them from any involvement? I cannot find it anywhere. You realize one of the biggest hurdles to Rod's theory is the Johnston's not hearing Julia scream etc (showing she was not taken by surprise - although of course there are some other very big hurdles - despite the theory starting VERY plausibly)?

    When I look at them on a very base level, I see that Mr Johnston is short (like the guy Lily Hall saw), they "coincidentally" materialized as Wallace went back to the back door, and moved house immediately like the Bagel King/Jerard Steuerman style. Mr Johnston also apparently confessed to killing Julia. The detail given seemed too in depth to be TOTALLY falsified... Yet I have to say I still have issue with exonerating Wallace and Parry, as both are very suspect... Has anyone ever mentioned a Wallace and Johnston's conspiracy?

    Can someone please explain why they are completely exonerated? Everyone knows they had a key for Wallace's door right? Everyone knows they could've unlocked it when he went back round to the front door, then when he came back around came out just in time to see him, by coincidence?

    So please cut me some slack as a newb and explain why they are ridiculed as potential suspects?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X