Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[WallaceWackedHer]

GO ON THEN. Prove yourself either a liar [which we know already] or illiterate....

And of course it fails to address both my points a) and b).

Many authors (including Hussey) who doubt Wallace's guilt have over the years speculated on how "someone else" could have done it. Yawn...

I was the first to have all the evidence available to me and to abduce the Correct Solution of how it was done.

Which is why Antony chose MY theory, not theirs.... Yawn....

Of course he doesn't know the Parkes statement because Parkes came forward much later. Nor did Yseult Bridges know the statements Murphy saw. But Murphy's theory is still unoriginal. Lmao. He "abduced" a theory which already existed. He doesn't claim it's a brand new idea though.

Also I know for a fact through a friend that Antony was originally writing on Wallace's guilt and changed purely because publishers requested it.

Nobody with any sense at all could possibly come up with a scenario in which, in total silence, Julia caught a burglar and was then hit in the position she was struck in according to forensics. It's impossible. Please let's never discuss this/Oliver/Hussey's theory that a man pretending to be Qualtrough gained entry and sneakily thieved from the cash box on his own. It's disproven. Nobody should have to spend time debunking it again and again and again.

Put two people in the house if you want an actually plausible sneak theft scenario. Sneak theft with one lone ranger is impossible. Like come the f*ck on... It's a decent basic idea RUINED by people's own arrogance, egos, or greed.

Just like Gannon forcing in that Julia was hiring Parry and Marsden to sleep with her... He got tip offs that Wallace was bisexual and purposefully BURIED that evidence because he's too arrogant to include evidence he might be marginally wrong on one point... Murphy is the first to see the files and he buries the true information about the milk boy's alleged sighting time out of greed and egotism to suit his case... Others like Mark R and Radio City co-hosts claim to have seen "special information" that proves Wallace is guilty. But the catch is they won't tell you what that "secret information" is because they want to feel special and/or keep the mystery alive. It's frankly sad.

[RodCrosby]

Still waiting to see justification [as opposed to ducking and diving] that Hussey said what you claimed [he DIDN'T... Yawn] or that Antony chose Hussey's [or Oliver's} theory [he DIDN'T... Yawn]


And "I know for a fact through a friend...." that the Encyclopaedia Britannica were going to say that the Earth was flat....until Columbus discovered it was ROUND ! Yawn....


This place still the sick troll-factory and sad sock-puppet show that it mostly was previously? Looks to me no change.


Look elsewhere for sensible discussion of the Wallace Case.


I do, with success. I addressed over 50 people three weeks ago on the Wallace Case, at a short-notice meeting on an early Tuesday afternoon.


Met a lady from North Wales who had actually met Richard Gordon Parry....

[RodCrosby]

And, of course

"Well Rod's gone forever...."

joins


"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist...."

and

"Die, my dear doctor? That's the last thing I shall...."


in the Top 10 examples of f***wittery of all time

[moste]

And, of course
Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
"Well Rod's gone forever.
Oh for the love of Pete! He’s back! You had to tempt fate and open your gob didn’t you wwh. LOL.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Still waiting to see justification [as opposed to ducking and diving] that Hussey said what you claimed [he DIDN'T... Yawn] or that Antony chose Hussey's [or Oliver's} theory [he DIDN'T... Yawn]


And "I know for a fact through a friend...." that the Encyclopaedia Britannica were going to say that the Earth was flat....until Columbus discovered it was ROUND ! Yawn....


This place still the sick troll-factory and sad sock-puppet show that it mostly was previously? Looks to me no change.


Look elsewhere for sensible discussion of the Wallace Case.


I do, with success. I addressed over 50 people three weeks ago on the Wallace Case, at a short-notice meeting on an early Tuesday afternoon.


Met a lady from North Wales who had actually met Richard Gordon Parry....

I'm not ducking and diving and how dare you level such accusations at me throughout your prior posts. I just had to search a huge hardcover book for something I read over two months ago. On review it looks like the originality of your theory is that Parry or Marsden wasn't the intruder. Hussey does say that anyone giving the name "Qualtrough" could enter (page 92), and specifically uses the term "sneak thief" as the definition of his theory, but seems to think Mr. Z or Mr. Y (Parry or Marsden) both called AND entered.

Hussey's sneak theft scenario is produced faithfully below:

https://i.imgur.com/3pNoZZi.png

https://i.imgur.com/fspHPxR.png

---

It is almost completely impossible, exactly as impossible as your spin. I know I read before that you had Julia holding Wallace's raincoat so the "scent of William" could comfort her. Antony's book's version differs a bit I believe, but still, these scenarios are all ridiculous.

Adapt.

You should be pleased I am producing plausible alternatives for William's total innocence (which I believe you have some personal bias in favour of due to your grandad I'm told?), but you're too egotistical trying to take credit for a sneak thief "solution" that didn't work in any way it has ever been written.

Would you like me to make it more bulletproof for you? Because I can. I am certain that Gordon Parry rang the chess club. Wallace's guilt can go either way but I can create an actually plausible sneak theft scenario if you just let me incorporate two people ffs.

I'm not happy about the withholding of evidence. Even in newspapers, there is a man claiming to be Munro refusing to say the secrets he knows. Then we have inspector Gold (I think it's Gold?) in the newspaper saying he refuses to tell even best friends the "secrets" he knows about the case. Radio city presenters doing a complete 180. Why? No surprises they won't tell you what "secret" they have found... It is blatant that people are withholding evidence and it's p*ssing me off.

I've been invited to view the files, but I can get a more complete version at Kew Gardens. Which I AM going to do. And unlike others I won't withhold evidence or try to f*cking charge money for it. Every single thing I find will be published online for free as I have done with everything else I have found.

[WallaceWackedHer]

And, of course
Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
"Well Rod's gone forever.
Oh for the love of Pete! He’s back! You had to tempt fate and open your gob didn’t you wwh. LOL.

Honestly I am glad for it. I know his theory is very wrong but he's active as a poster like myself. There's nothing worse than being bored stiff, opening all your favorite sites and seeing no new replies on everything...

I mean I do have a life but I work about 20 minutes a day (and I make about £50,000 a year - stated just because I don't want people thinking I'm on Jobseekers or something) so have a LOT of free time.

I'm only concerned about being pulled off topic by having to discuss the near-impossible solution instead of "new" stuff and new findings which I hope to get from the DPP files I have been given access to. Ofc all will be faithfully reproduced, photographed, etc, and made public domain. For example, Caird (although on the surface I am biased to see as implausible) is actually, based on facts, a very strong candidate and SHOULD be investigated to rule him out. Time should be spent on new leads not disproven ideas.

If Rod was in fact right I would hardly deny it out of spite, I don't even know him except for knowing my friend has feuded with him. It's just clearly not supported by the evidence and I can show it is impossible. I have previously given a more plausible version involving two people rather than one... The evidence is there to make a reasonable scenario. Add to it the fact two people were seen "running very fast" by two separate witnesses from Richmond Park up towards Breck Road, as shown in Gannon's impenetrable "book" (my condolences to anyone who has this unreadable mess as a physical copy rather than a Kindle book which has a search function).

A lone ranger accomplice of Parry's sneak thieving alone? No. Impossible. So many reasons. I am willing to list all of them at request.

[RodCrosby]

Oh for the love of Pete! He’s back!

Do you really think he ever went away? Yawn....

Just letting the acres of drivel smear by without comment... Like sailing down a sewer in a glass-bottomed boat... Look elsewhere, if you can !


The usual prejudice, fancy, factual inaccuracy, logical fallacy and pure invention, instead of rigorous analysis of the demonstrated facts. Yawn....


But personal attacks and deliberate misrepresentation of others' bona fides?

Terminated, with extreme prejudice. ALWAYS.


Still waiting for the sock-puppet's piffle about Hussey... GO ON THEN

[WallaceWackedHer]

Do you really think he ever went away? Yawn....

Just letting the acres of drivel smear by without comment... Like sailing down a sewer in a glass-bottomed boat... Look elsewhere, if you can !


The usual prejudice, fancy, factual inaccuracy, logical fallacy and pure invention, instead of rigorous analysis of the demonstrated facts. Yawn....


But personal attacks and deliberate misrepresentation of others' bona fides?

Terminated, with extreme prejudice. ALWAYS.


Still waiting for the sock-puppet's piffle about Hussey... GO ON THEN

He was talking about you. And I'm not a sockpuppet. Lol. I also posted above this post I am quoting in response to you.

Rigorous analysis of the demonstrated facts shows that your idea (and Hussey's version) is the least plausible theory I've seen printed. Next to it would be the series of events given by Slemen. It just doesn't work. And you refuse to adapt it in any way, and I fear that's due to egotistical reasons.

In both cases you have a good foundation to explore a lead but it's ruined by ridiculousness and rigidity of the person who penned it to adapt.

Look at P D James as well. She HAD to go and have Wallace crossdressing as Julia. She has a good foundation for a potential lead but it's presented in a way that's ridiculous and then everything is shoehorned in, making the idea a laughing stock... In all of these cases, with actual impartial analysis you can craft them into something believable and worthy of careful study.

It's hard to mention Slemen or P D James because they ruined their own ideas so bad that even bringing it up induces immediate revulsion.

Let's start with P D James. It sounds ridiculous. According to her, Parry coincidentally crank called Wallace when Wallace was already in the process of planning to murder his wife... Scratch that... Look at the facts, we have Gordon Parry driving to Missouri Road. He has coincidentally passed Wallace on the streets on other occasions, even a month prior, and Breck Road is a main road. Both men can potentially be placed on that road at the same time. Say Parry sees Wallace on his way to Lily's, and just has a funny idea in the spur of the moment? Say then, that someone else who hears about this call EXPLOITS it.

They don't even necessarily have to know the appointment is fake, just see an opportunity and have an idea implanted in their head. Look at the people at the chess club that night. If McCartney asked for Wallace's address and Wallace gave it, ANYONE at the club could have gone to his home the next day. They know EVERYTHING about his appointment including the client name, address of the client, and time (but Caird knows where the cash box is which we can't say of a total stranger). That's just one example. You see how that works so much better? Often with these oddball ideas the foundation is good but the author was so excited by the idea they jotted it down and shoehorned everything as quickly as possible without stopping to make it plausible.

[Sherlock Houses]

Haha well, what do you know, it looks like someone at Caird's home actually COULD see Wallace going on his journey if the architecture is the same (those are garden walls, a top story window should give a vantage point over those):

https://i.imgur.com/GqTw7dQ.png

Well I didn't expect that... If a person at 3 Letchworth could watch the entry from Wolverton Street I am not sure, but see what you think:

https://i.imgur.com/JVBQWqC.png

Those imgur photos are totally misleading WWH, you are depicting number 1 Letchworth Street as number 3 Letchworth Street.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Those imgur photos are totally misleading WWH, you are depicting number 1 Letchworth Street as number 3 Letchworth Street.

Oh ffs that's right, so sorry people. I don't know why Caird's house is causing me so many damn problems?!?... So I think he can't see the Richmond Park entry. But has an even better view of the alley beside the church. Please someone else relieve me of this treacherous property because I keep ******* up details relating to it...

Though Caird (though I do not know who corroborated aspects of this etc. etc.) wasn't home until after 7 anyway... He was home at 7.45 PM. Still within the window of thr crime but...

The stake out idea is stupid from the prosecution because the person doesn't need to see Wallace leave. But I still was pointing that out, the possibility.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Those imgur photos are totally misleading WWH, you are depicting number 1 Letchworth Street as number 3 Letchworth Street.

Okay I fixed it:

https://i.imgur.com/apglBzw.png

Do you see where Google puts 3 Letchworth Street with the marker? It puts it at 1 Letchworth Street, grr. But that above is the view from Caird's. Do keep in mind it would be rather dark (so not as easy to see someone walk by as it would be in broad daylight as in that photo), but also that it wouldn't be pitch dark at that time.

Still just showing it's possible to see Wallace go on his route from that house, whoever was in there (Caird himself apparently was not in that area until 7.45 PM - but I can't prove that since it's only by his own statement). I don't even think a stakeout is remotely necessary and again, it's a dumb line from the prosecution, but still...

[Herlock Sholmes]

FOREMAN OF THE COLD CASE JURY, PLEASE STATE THE CURRENT VERDICT

As of 22:04 on 22 November 2019, the verdict of the Cold Case Jury is:

WALLACE William Wallace murdered his wife


Number of jurors: 397




Hadn't looked for ages. Even in the face of some extremely dodgy block voting early on in favour of the Accomplice Theory I see that the readers got it right in the end.

[Sherlock Houses]

I must be thick, as I have always [well since I first read about the case about a few short years ago] favoured his complete innocence. Why on earth would mild mannered William have gone to such elaborate and complicated lengths to devise such a scheme just to murder a fragile, elderly woman when there would have been, if he was so inclined, much simpler and far less violent ways to do away with her without causing suspicion to fall upon him ? He was an intelligent man and would know instinctively that a murder victim's nearest and dearest would be the first person the police would suspect in such a case as this.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I must be thick, as I have always [well since I first read about the case about a few short years ago] favoured his complete innocence. Why on earth would mild mannered William have gone to such elaborate and complicated lengths to devise such a scheme just to murder a fragile, elderly woman when there would have been, if he was so inclined, much simpler and far less violent ways to do away with her without causing suspicion to fall upon him ? He was an intelligent man and would know instinctively that a murder victim's nearest and dearest would be the first person the police would suspect in such a case as this.

Yes he almost definitely could have gotten away with poisoning Julia. He says as much himself in his articles for the newspapers (which he got paid for lol). Especially given she had bronchitis and was known for being sickly and frail in any case and had even visited the doctor the day prior. It would look like a natural death if the right poison was used...

So one wonders, if he did it, did he simply want to get rid of his wife... Or did he WANT to play cat and mouse with the police? Was outsmarting the law and the cops fun for him? If so you might start considering purposefully planted "clues" put there just to confuse police. Like notes in the vase for example if they were placed by the killer.

Wallace was a self styled intellectual who knew he was dying so he doesn't have much to lose if he gets caught in any case.

Believe it or not that's something that actually happens in real life with certain types of killer. The Zodiac is similar in some ways. He's killing people but clearly gets his thrills from the media circus and taunting detectives. But there are many examples.

Alternatively perhaps he hated her so much he wanted the satisfaction of beating her to death. Or perhaps someone else killed her and he thought the time of death and call would TOTALLY rule him out and have a higher chance of acquittal than poisoning... He'd be wrong to think that (because I don't think Julia dying while suffering with illness would cast any suspicion) but I could see how he potentially might think that given his laboratory.

That is all, of course, if he had any involvement in the crime...

But there are COMPLETELY plausible alternate scenarios. It's a case that's FAR from "unsolveable" if everyone involved was still alive. Imagine being able to grill Parry on his fake alibi for example? Or on the Parkes statement? To legitimately solve the case you would need the full case file.

Without that you can concoct more than one entirely workable solution and not be able to rule any of those out...

All that said, keep in mind a lot of proven killers have used the "why would I have done X when I could have just done Y and easily gotten away with it?" line like Wallace about being able to poison Julia... So do keep that in mind.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m unconvinced by this “untraceable poison” argument? Poisoners get caught. Any doubt at all and Wallace is the man with the chemistry lab in the back bedroom. The Qualtrough Plan introduces a third party.