Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[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

[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....

[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]

What are you talking about?

I literally have the book in my hands, the events proposed are identical. Have you not read it? There's also another author after Hussey who briefly glosses over the idea.

Antony has used Hussey's theory from what I can see. Do you want me to photograph the pages as proof?

He can't just add a couple of statements and say it's a new theory. That's like saying the idea Wallace killed her wearing his raincoat was made up by Murphy.

Be under NO illusion anybody reading. I can assure you that the events, Parry ringing, then an accomplice going to the home posing as "Qualtrough" and trying to sneak burgle the place, was explored in detail by Robert F. Hussey and I can post photographs to prove this is fact.

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....

[WallaceWackedHer]

Mmh! Looking again at the 90 deg. bend in Richmond park there is actually a cobbled curve in the roadway stopping at a newer wall, indicating that it is quite likely that Castlewood actually extended past it’s now dead end, giving easy thoroughfare from the end of Letchworths back alley to Castlewood. All purely academic now of course. I think your straight lines on your photo are drawn between Richmond park and Letchworth, Wwh. Not Wolverton .

The lines are from 3 Letchworth Street's top windows to one of the alleys Wallace passed on his route (as per Hussey's map), and the other to the back entry Wallace left from Wolverton Street which comes out onto Richmond park.

Hussey's diagram of the route is a good one as it's very clearly drawn with contemporary photographs actually showing the locations.

[moste]

Gardens and walls within the curtilage of the old Belmont Road Hospital (aka Newsham General Hospital) blocked that route, then as now... [my grandfather died in that place in 1946]

Mmh! Looking again at the 90 deg. bend in Richmond park there is actually a cobbled curve in the roadway stopping at a newer wall, indicating that it is quite likely that Castlewood actually extended past it’s now dead end, giving easy thoroughfare from the end of Letchworths back alley to Castlewood. All purely academic now of course. I think your straight lines on your photo are drawn between Richmond park and Letchworth, Wwh. Not Wolverton .

[WallaceWackedHer]

Still posting malicious disinformation...? [no worries, it's all you have]

Antony's selection of the best explanation for the Wallace murder could not be based on your disinformation, for at least two reasons...

a) it is based on three pieces of evidence not available until Oliver and Hussey were long dead [Parkes's and Parry's and the Lloyds' statements]

b) solely on that real "new evidence" I abduced the Correct Solution to the Wallace Case in 2007/2008, I had only read Goodman, Wilkes and Murphy at that point [and yes, i can prove that]

What are you talking about?

I literally have the book in my hands, the events proposed are identical. Have you not read it? There's also another author after Hussey who briefly glosses over the idea.

Antony has used Hussey's theory from what I can see. Do you want me to photograph the pages as proof?

He can't just add a couple of statements and say it's a new theory. That's like saying the idea Wallace killed her wearing his raincoat was made up by Murphy.

Be under NO illusion anybody reading. I can assure you that the events, Parry ringing, then an accomplice going to the home posing as "Qualtrough" and trying to sneak burgle the place, was explored in detail by Robert F. Hussey and I can post photographs to prove this is fact.

It's kind of irrelevant anyway because Hussey's theory is the worst ever in terms of plausibility. It only works with two people without it being pure pantomine. I can write a much, much more logically sound version. I actually think with two people it becomes a decent proposal.

[RodCrosby]

(coincidentally the man who first came up with the theory Antony favours, after Roland Oliver).

Still posting malicious disinformation...? [no worries, it's all you have]

Antony's selection of the best explanation for the Wallace murder could not be based on your disinformation, for at least two reasons...

a) it is based on three pieces of evidence not available until Oliver and Hussey were long dead ! [Parkes's and Parry's and the Lloyds' statements]

b) solely on that real "new evidence" I abduced the Correct Solution to the Wallace Case in 2007/2008, I had only read Goodman, Wilkes and Murphy at that point [and yes, i can prove that]

[WallaceWackedHer]

...

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

It might be CENTIMETERS off of being possible that direction.

But in any case you can see that if a "stake out" was going to happen, it would definitely not be difficult for anyone in that home to get themselves into a suitable vantage point...

I don't even see WHY a stake out is necessary though. It's a stupid line by the prosecution. All someone has to do is go to the door and ask if Mr. Wallace is home. Why do they need to watch him leave rather than just turning up at, say, 7:15 PM or some time after which they KNOW he has to be out if he was trying to make the appointment? If he's in they can make an excuse or just leave, no crime has been committed.

[RodCrosby]

Quite right , I was thinking access to castlewood road from letchworth would be a quick short cut for the direction Wallace needed, but as I say, then, as now, not accessible.

Gardens and walls within the curtilage of the old Belmont Road Hospital (aka Newsham General Hospital) blocked that route, then as now... [my grandfather died in that place in 1946]

[WallaceWackedHer]

Quite right , I was thinking access to castlewood road from letchworth would be a quick short cut for the direction Wallace needed, but as I say, then, as now, not accessible.

Okay it was Hussey's book as I presumed (coincidentally the man who first came up with the theory Antony favours, after Roland Oliver). Here's the map of the route which is one of the clearest:

https://i.imgur.com/Wpo4s8A.png

And here's some contemporary photographs which can be matched up with the above diagram:

https://i.imgur.com/3aUcF50.png

https://i.imgur.com/XLNcNi2.png

Doesn't mark 3 Letchworth unfortunately. But as said I had a brief memory lapse of the route anyway (I think from playing with the route on Google Maps, which doesn't let you put the marker down the church alley)... But from very near Caird's home as you can see, there are 3 vantage points. I would imagine perhaps a metre or two from his front door would allow someone a perfect view onto Richmond Park and the two alleyways Wallace used... And then of course there are 2 more connecting alleys that could get a very brief glimpse of someone going down past the church.

Whether someone could see something from the top window of the home itself I'm not sure.

[moste]

Quite right , I was thinking access to castlewood road from letchworth would be a quick short cut for the direction Wallace needed, but as I say, then, as now, not accessible.

[RodCrosby]

Having studied the ‘drone’ view , (google, earth) it would appear that the end of terrace of Mr. Cairds Street , didn’t lend itself for an alley , though alley’s abounded in these areas , in this case it doesn’t appear architecturally possible. Am I wrong?

There were two alleys from Letchworth Street feeding into the alley I mentioned.

But for Wallace's journey on 20th January 1931, Letchworth Street would have been a ludicrous, unnecessary dog-leg and double-back...

The alley by-passed Letchworth Street completely....

[WallaceWackedHer]

Caird can’t watch anything down his own street because the houses are staggered , as in, not aligned.

Let me check this, I think there's a good vantage point onto Richmond Park at that time. There's a contemporary photo in one of the older books. I THINK it's Hussey's. I posted it on an earlier page, it's a picture taken from the point I mentioned at the bottom of Richmond Park (not the Breck Road end) which was taken to show where someone could have stood alone to watch both entrances at the same time.

It might be Morland's book even. I know I've posted it in this thread earlier though.

Either way the very underinvestigated Caird apparently reached his home at 7.45 on the murder night which is after Wallace had left. No corroboration that I have access to (I assume family backed him up - but no verification on others who confirmed when he left his shop etc), but this would be after Wallace had departed an hour earlier, so he himself did not perform a stakeout in any case.

But for Wallace's total innocence, of course Caird's involvement is most supported by factually proven evidence over any other party. Considering he was a close friend, not hard up etc. I don't really see him doing something like that to Wallace (albeit an intruder clearly carefully left Wallace's own keepsakes like the dollar in the cash box. Was it only the Pru's money that was stolen?)... But I am speaking purely of the KNOWN facts, forgetting his character and personal tendency to see him as genuine, he is a chart topper no doubt.

[moste]

Having studied the ‘drone’ view , (google, earth) it would appear that the end of terrace of Mr. Cairds Street , didn’t lend itself for an alley , though alley’s abounded in these areas , in this case it doesn’t appear architecturally possible. Am I wrong?