Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Another issue with a prank call is this

    Wallace said that he’d left the house at 7.15. For Parry to have known that he was going to the club (to make the prank worthwhile) he’d have had to have seen Wallace (probably as he’d left Richmond Park at around 7.15/7.16) The phone operators said that the caller complained about not getting his call at 7.18. This means that the caller would have already tried, say 7.17. So in the space of a couple of minutes we have Parry - seeing Wallace, deciding on a prank, deciding on one to send him on a wasted journey, deciding on a fabricated business opportunity with mention of the reason for it (daughters birthday) He also comes up with (on the spur of the moment whilst driving to the phone box and parking up) an address which doesn’t exist but which is very close to ones that did exist and so was believable.

    It’s too much to ask imo.
    Yes, that's what I believe happened.

    In most transcripts, btw, he says the thing about "his girl's 21st" only after being asked to call back, as an excuse why he's too busy. It doesn't sound like the caller expected that question. That part seems improvised on the spot.

    As a part of any plan the fake address thing is stupid. So is the use of that name which can be traced back to being a Pru client, which is again stupid should someone be scheming a murder.

    I think as you wrote, Parry saw Wallace, pulled over at the phone box, placed a prank call (as he was constantly doing according to people who knew him), then went on his merry way to Lily's - having not the remotest idea of how that call would soon become deeply wrapped up in a murder.

    Comment


    • We think we got this:

      1) Gordon Parry plays a trick on Wallace with a prank call. Wallace falls for it.

      2) The next day, Amy visits Julia. Wallace returns and there is an argument relating to Amy...

      Amy was quite possibly in the parlor while visiting (where she had been received just one week prior), so the parlor is set up. William by admission was wearing the same raincoat found under Julia on his rounds that afternoon before 6 PM.

      So when Wallace gets back from his rounds, he's ALREADY wearing the raincoat, and the parlor is ALREADY set up with a fireplace lit.

      3) During an argument Wallace hits Julia with an unknown object. This occurs before the milk boy's visit, around 6 PM as all forensics said (not just MacFall). The home was already shrouded in darkness the window cleaner thought was peculiar before this.

      4) Because Wallace's jacket he was already wearing has been sprayed with blood, he dumps it.

      5) The milk boy arrives. He did not see Julia, he made it up for street cred among his teenage friends and the lie got too deep to escape it.

      6) After having more than enough time to clean himself up, Wallace haphazardly attempts to stage a robbery. Possibly, money from the cash box is moved upstairs into the vase... This is why William purposefully puts his fingers on it in front of a police officer, so the blood prints could be explained.

      7) Wallace now goes on the business trip, trying to keep it together and act as though nothing has happened. However he's shaken up and acts bizarrely as a result.

      8) Wallace comes home and makes the "discovery" of Julia's body.

      9) Wallace then uses the phone call in an attempt to deflect guilt. We see he is very stuck on the call, as he gets on Beattie's case about the time of the call. He knows he didn't make the call, and knows that he can frame whoever did.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
        We think we got this:

        1) Gordon Parry plays a trick on Wallace with a prank call. Wallace falls for it.

        2) The next day, Amy visits Julia. Wallace returns and there is an argument relating to Amy...

        Amy was quite possibly in the parlor while visiting (where she had been received just one week prior), so the parlor is set up. William by admission was wearing the same raincoat found under Julia on his rounds that afternoon before 6 PM.

        So when Wallace gets back from his rounds, he's ALREADY wearing the raincoat, and the parlor is ALREADY set up with a fireplace lit.

        3) During an argument Wallace hits Julia with an unknown object. This occurs before the milk boy's visit, around 6 PM as all forensics said (not just MacFall). The home was already shrouded in darkness the window cleaner thought was peculiar before this.

        4) Because Wallace's jacket he was already wearing has been sprayed with blood, he dumps it.

        5) The milk boy arrives. He did not see Julia, he made it up for street cred among his teenage friends and the lie got too deep to escape it.

        6) After having more than enough time to clean himself up, Wallace haphazardly attempts to stage a robbery. Possibly, money from the cash box is moved upstairs into the vase... This is why William purposefully puts his fingers on it in front of a police officer, so the blood prints could be explained.

        7) Wallace now goes on the business trip, trying to keep it together and act as though nothing has happened. However he's shaken up and acts bizarrely as a result.

        8) Wallace comes home and makes the "discovery" of Julia's body.

        9) Wallace then uses the phone call in an attempt to deflect guilt. We see he is very stuck on the call, as he gets on Beattie's case about the time of the call. He knows he didn't make the call, and knows that he can frame whoever did.
        WWH - whilst recognising the dedication you have shown to this subject, where is the 'New Evidence' as in the title of your thread?

        Regards,
        OneRound

        Comment


        • Originally posted by OneRound View Post

          WWH - whilst recognising the dedication you have shown to this subject, where is the 'New Evidence' as in the title of your thread?

          Regards,
          OneRound
          First pages. I know I posted new testimony from Amy and some other stuff. I also posted new photos of the area including of the booth taken around the time of the killing. A better photo than the one taken at night.
          Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 01-13-2020, 10:30 AM.

          Comment


          • Also I have booked a slot to see the files on Thursday (the 16th). I will be photographing the entirety of the files. I may digitize the entire case file... This is a MUCH fuller one than what Antony has seen at the police station, this is the file Murphy used. So I think I can uncover HEAPS more information on that day.

            Comment


            • WWH - one aspect you've brought out that particularly interested me was how long it took the milk boy Close to tell the police that he saw Julia.

              I appreciate your view that he never saw her and was making things up to impress his mates. If you are right, Wallace was extremely fortunate as Close's statement pointed a lot towards Wallace having insufficient time to kill Julia. Even though that didn't hold water with the jury at trial, it has encouraged some followers of the case over subsequent decades to assert Wallace's innocence.

              If you are wrong and Close did see her as he claimed, I don't know if Wallace would then have had enough time to kill his wife although I rather doubt it. However, even if Close did see Julia and Wallace then went on to bump her off, it is very unlikely that this was part of any 'Wallace masterplan' given Wallace never mentioned Close's sighting to the police.

              Regards,
              OneRound

              Comment


              • Originally posted by OneRound View Post
                WWH - one aspect you've brought out that particularly interested me was how long it took the milk boy Close to tell the police that he saw Julia.

                I appreciate your view that he never saw her and was making things up to impress his mates. If you are right, Wallace was extremely fortunate as Close's statement pointed a lot towards Wallace having insufficient time to kill Julia. Even though that didn't hold water with the jury at trial, it has encouraged some followers of the case over subsequent decades to assert Wallace's innocence.

                If you are wrong and Close did see her as he claimed, I don't know if Wallace would then have had enough time to kill his wife although I rather doubt it. However, even if Close did see Julia and Wallace then went on to bump her off, it is very unlikely that this was part of any 'Wallace masterplan' given Wallace never mentioned Close's sighting to the police.

                Regards,
                OneRound
                Yes that's what I think too. I don't believe the telephone call is directly linked to the crime at all. I don't believe there was any plan to use the milk boy's arrival and beat a clock etc.

                If Wallace didn't do it, and the earlier robbery is indeed exactly as described by Slemen, then I think it was the Anfield Housebreaker.

                However MacFall says he believed Julia had been in conversation at the time, and when I put her body and killer in the places they would be in, it seems she was perhaps comfortable with this person.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                  Yes that's what I think too. I don't believe the telephone call is directly linked to the crime at all. I don't believe there was any plan to use the milk boy's arrival and beat a clock etc.

                  If Wallace didn't do it, and the earlier robbery is indeed exactly as described by Slemen, then I think it was the Anfield Housebreaker.

                  However MacFall says he believed Julia had been in conversation at the time, and when I put her body and killer in the places they would be in, it seems she was perhaps comfortable with this person.
                  WWH - for me though, it's still a big leap to say the telephone call isn't ''directly inked to the crime at all''.

                  Regards,
                  OneRound

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by OneRound View Post

                    WWH - for me though, it's still a big leap to say the telephone call isn't ''directly inked to the crime at all''.

                    Regards,
                    OneRound
                    I don't think so at all. It's terrible as a plan, the details are weird for no reason. Parry was on his way to Lily's which is just at the top of the road where the telephone box is.

                    If it wasn't Wallace, the plot isn't good to get him out of the house to begin with, there's many areas where it can fail in all regards. But even if it did work, the fake address is dumb and unnecessary. They only need, say, 15 minutes to kill her and get out, or to wack her then rob the place. It's unneeded and will cause more problems than it helps.

                    If it's Wallace it's even worse, he uses a name that can be linked to the Pru, and again needless fake address. John Smith at 25 Menlove Gardens West works just as well if he's trying to beat some sort of clock (he's not) just to be out on a false errand when his wife was killed.

                    It's a prank call placed by Gordon Parry. This is why he panics and frauds an alibi, and why his parents try to sneak him out of the country etc.

                    Comment


                    • I can’t see why it’s such a bad plan for Wallace? Are we sure that a Parry knew that there was a Prudential customer called Qualtrough? From memory I seem to recall that it was Marsden who’d had a client by that name. Wasn’t there also a shop somewhere called Qualtrough? The name was probably chosen because it’s unusual and therefore memorable.

                      Also I can’t see why using a fake address as opposed to a real one is an issue for Wallace? It got him out of the house. And if it was a plan (and I’m convinced that it was) then only Wallace could have been certain of the plan moving forward.

                      A question: I don’t have any maps to hand (plus I’m hopeless with directions) but on the Monday night which would have been the optimum route for Parry from home (I assume) to Lily’s house?
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        I can’t see why it’s such a bad plan for Wallace? Are we sure that a Parry knew that there was a Prudential customer called Qualtrough? From memory I seem to recall that it was Marsden who’d had a client by that name. Wasn’t there also a shop somewhere called Qualtrough? The name was probably chosen because it’s unusual and therefore memorable.

                        Also I can’t see why using a fake address as opposed to a real one is an issue for Wallace? It got him out of the house. And if it was a plan (and I’m convinced that it was) then only Wallace could have been certain of the plan moving forward.

                        A question: I don’t have any maps to hand (plus I’m hopeless with directions) but on the Monday night which would have been the optimum route for Parry from home (I assume) to Lily’s house?
                        R J Qualtrough (the client's actual name) vs R M Qualtrough. Considering the call gave details of an insurance trip, I think the name was meant to be that client... I don't think it was a random choice... Apparently that particular client was known as being difficult at the Pru, and I think that's the reason it was picked.

                        If we're giving Wallace Kasparov level intellect (which is the case if he planned all this), then the address is clearly not smart as it ONLY raises problems. For example, the fact he was told the place did not exist early on is just one such issue... And then of course, if he has this incredible pre-empting abilities, the staging of the crime scene is beyond pathetic.

                        If this is some beat the clock alibi, he only needs to be seen to be elsewhere in the crucial window of time.

                        Parry's natural route was along Breck Road. He was coming from Lark Lane. There's another route that's equal in timing. These are the obvious routes though. Lily's is basically at the top of Breck Road (she's at Missouri Road, you just keep driving up Breck Road and take a right and it's the first turning).

                        Parry made the call, Wallace killed Julia over something relating to Amy. Josh suggested that Wallace killed her when he got home from his rounds. I think he's right and I think it's the correct solution, given I believe the parlour has a decent chance of being set up when Amy visited, and Wallace is naturally wearing the raincoat. The stars simply align with the evidence there.

                        If it wasn't Wallace, and the other crime scene is identical (which I'm sure I will see on Thursday), I think the same person who committed that robbery also killed Julia.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                          Also I have booked a slot to see the files on Thursday (the 16th). I will be photographing the entirety of the files. I may digitize the entire case file... This is a MUCH fuller one than what Antony has seen at the police station, this is the file Murphy used. So I think I can uncover HEAPS more information on that day.
                          Waiting with bated breath.
                          I think , to doubt the Close lads word is a bit of a stretch .Now if we were talking an adult of say Parry’s disposition, then no problem.But for a kid of his age to decide to ‘get in on the deal’ by having himself centre staged as a very important witness at a murder scene just to impress his mates, not likely, have to disagree on that one.
                          Also I believe the phone call was an integral part of Wallace’s plan (a) incriminate Parry, and (b) have the phoney message waiting for him when he arrived at the club.
                          Giving that particular ‘wrong address’ was I believe, clever and also an integral part of Wallace’s plan. Using Menlove Gardens West, would mean Wallace would likely only be away from home for 50 mins. or so. He wanted to be gone longer ,so M G east was the perfect ruse. With maximum exposure to witnesses , and a time away from home more like 1 1/2 hours. Why did he plan on this time frame? Who knows? Maybe he was aware of neighbours movements , availability etc.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by moste View Post
                            Waiting with bated breath.
                            I think , to doubt the Close lads word is a bit of a stretch .Now if we were talking an adult of say Parry’s disposition, then no problem.But for a kid of his age to decide to ‘get in on the deal’ by having himself centre staged as a very important witness at a murder scene just to impress his mates, not likely, have to disagree on that one.
                            Also I believe the phone call was an integral part of Wallace’s plan (a) incriminate Parry, and (b) have the phoney message waiting for him when he arrived at the club.
                            Giving that particular ‘wrong address’ was I believe, clever and also an integral part of Wallace’s plan. Using Menlove Gardens West, would mean Wallace would likely only be away from home for 50 mins. or so. He wanted to be gone longer ,so M G east was the perfect ruse. With maximum exposure to witnesses , and a time away from home more like 1 1/2 hours. Why did he plan on this time frame? Who knows? Maybe he was aware of neighbours movements , availability etc.
                            That doesn't make sense. That is exactly the type of thing kids do. How can people doubt adult Lily Hall and Parkes, yet take this child's words as gospel? Why didn't he tell his parents? Why was this a sudden revelation he made only when among other young kids? And then his reluctance to go to the police until forced to by the other children he had told.

                            What about his behavior in court? He fell asleep and kept giggling throughout proceedings and even on the stand, causing Roland Oliver to admonish him. Does that sound like a reliable witness to you?

                            The line taken about the address and so on is the same faulty one taken by the prosecution.

                            What is Wallace's motive? To get away with murder or to frame Parry? If it's the latter how does he know he's going to be gifted a frauded alibi by Parry? He doesn't need to be out for ages and ages. The motive is to get away with murder I suppose, so narrowing the suspect pool just makes it more likely you'll get caught.

                            He didn't place the call, Gordon Parry did. Wallace killed Julia the next day, due to an affair with Amy. I really think that's the solution, or something very much like it... He's not a criminal mastermind, the guy doesn't even know what year it is (he dates Munro letters 1930), let alone have the mental capacity to plan the most elaborate crime in the history of the world.

                            What's not the solution is Wallace placing a call to himself. It's not supported by evidence. The voice is wrong, the accent is wrong, the timing is wrong (lest he needlessly lied about his route). The caller used his real voice to the operators, and put on a funny voice when he got through to the cafe. The real voice had a Liverpool accent while William is from Yorkshire.

                            As two separate incidents, the call with no crime strongly points to Gordon Parry as the culprit. The crime with no call strongly points to Wallace as the culprit. Because that's probably legitimately the case.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                              R J Qualtrough (the client's actual name) vs R M Qualtrough. Considering the call gave details of an insurance trip, I think the name was meant to be that client... I don't think it was a random choice... Apparently that particular client was known as being difficult at the Pru, and I think that's the reason it was picked.

                              If we're giving Wallace Kasparov level intellect (which is the case if he planned all this), then the address is clearly not smart as it ONLY raises problems. For example, the fact he was told the place did not exist early on is just one such issue... And then of course, if he has this incredible pre-empting abilities, the staging of the crime scene is beyond pathetic.

                              If this is some beat the clock alibi, he only needs to be seen to be elsewhere in the crucial window of time.

                              Parry's natural route was along Breck Road. He was coming from Lark Lane. There's another route that's equal in timing. These are the obvious routes though. Lily's is basically at the top of Breck Road (she's at Missouri Road, you just keep driving up Breck Road and take a right and it's the first turning).

                              Parry made the call, Wallace killed Julia over something relating to Amy. Josh suggested that Wallace killed her when he got home from his rounds. I think he's right and I think it's the correct solution, given I believe the parlour has a decent chance of being set up when Amy visited, and Wallace is naturally wearing the raincoat. The stars simply align with the evidence there.

                              If it wasn't Wallace, and the other crime scene is identical (which I'm sure I will see on Thursday), I think the same person who committed that robbery also killed Julia.
                              A prank call, like many other suggestions in the case, can’t be dismissed as impossible. But Parry saw Wallace turning it to Breck Road then that would have left Parry a couple of minutes or even likely less to decide to play the prank, come up with the idea of how to get Wallace on his goose chase, the mention of his daughters 21st, the name Qualtrough and an address that didn’t exist but sounded like it might have existed then park his car and make the call (Wallace said that he’d left the house at 7.15 so we can say 7.16 at the corner of Breck. The caller got through to the operators to complain at 7.18, after already trying unsuccessfully to get through to the club, approx 7.17) This is pretty tight by anyone’s reckoning. To be honest as far as the prank suggestion goes, if it occurred, I’d think it more likely that Parry didn’t see Wallace but had decided earlier on to play the prank. As he knew the chess club days he might simply have mistakenly assumed that Wallace attended every session.

                              My main concern with the prank call idea is with Wallace. I just can’t see Wallace (the cautious, meticulous Wallace, a man who does everything by the book) deciding on this murder on the spur of the moment. Hearing the message and deciding straight away to murder his wife. Again, it’s not impossible of course but I think it’s unlikely. For me, like Moste, the call was part of a deliberate plan. Made and executed by the obvious suspect, William.

                              The problem with proposing an argument related to Amy is that there isn’t any evidence for it. There aren’t even any pointers to any rift. Are you suggesting that Amy was present at the murder or that there was an argument when Amy was there and the murder took place later. Or that the argument and murder took place after Amy left?

                              I look forward hearing of anything new in the files so good hunting. For me the solution of the case is, and always has been fairly obvious. All roads lead to Wallace. He’s not just the best suspect for me but the only one. There’s no one else in this case that I’d award the title of suspect to. But as I’ve always said...I could be wrong.


                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                A prank call, like many other suggestions in the case, can’t be dismissed as impossible. But Parry saw Wallace turning it to Breck Road then that would have left Parry a couple of minutes or even likely less to decide to play the prank, come up with the idea of how to get Wallace on his goose chase, the mention of his daughters 21st, the name Qualtrough and an address that didn’t exist but sounded like it might have existed then park his car and make the call (Wallace said that he’d left the house at 7.15 so we can say 7.16 at the corner of Breck. The caller got through to the operators to complain at 7.18, after already trying unsuccessfully to get through to the club, approx 7.17) This is pretty tight by anyone’s reckoning. To be honest as far as the prank suggestion goes, if it occurred, I’d think it more likely that Parry didn’t see Wallace but had decided earlier on to play the prank. As he knew the chess club days he might simply have mistakenly assumed that Wallace attended every session.

                                My main concern with the prank call idea is with Wallace. I just can’t see Wallace (the cautious, meticulous Wallace, a man who does everything by the book) deciding on this murder on the spur of the moment. Hearing the message and deciding straight away to murder his wife. Again, it’s not impossible of course but I think it’s unlikely. For me, like Moste, the call was part of a deliberate plan. Made and executed by the obvious suspect, William.

                                The problem with proposing an argument related to Amy is that there isn’t any evidence for it. There aren’t even any pointers to any rift. Are you suggesting that Amy was present at the murder or that there was an argument when Amy was there and the murder took place later. Or that the argument and murder took place after Amy left?

                                I look forward hearing of anything new in the files so good hunting. For me the solution of the case is, and always has been fairly obvious. All roads lead to Wallace. He’s not just the best suspect for me but the only one. There’s no one else in this case that I’d award the title of suspect to. But as I’ve always said...I could be wrong.

                                Yes that's what I'm suggesting in regards to the prank call, a spur of the moment thing. I actually don't think the crime scene suggests premeditation, simply because the staging is so awful. The staging is reminiscent of other crimes where someone has killed someone in the heat of the moment then very quickly tried to make out like it was a robbery gone wrong.

                                There isn't evidence for any sort of affair, but there's no evidence of any other murder motive. I think that is a plausible one, but it's a lot of very small things combined to paint a picture. I don't like her age being a reason to kill her, moreso, if anything, things that happened because of her age (like becoming sick and frail, a possible hindrance) that became apparent by then, is better.

                                In regards to the argument or whatever it was... I mean I'm speculating... I don't know much of the details about her visit, and her statement is incredibly short and sweet (oddly, given at that time she was the last person who could say she saw Julia alive apart from Wallace, since Alan hadn't yet revealed himself as a witness).

                                I think something relating to her, and potentially directly related to that visit, is quite possible. I don't really think the call made him decide to kill Julia. It's not an impossibility but other explanations fit better.
                                You will be able to do some hunting too since I plan to faithfully reproduce every single page publicly online. Unless my phone runs out of charge, that would be a disaster... But you're allowed to take photographs etc.

                                Wallace, if the killer, strikes me as sincere in his affection for Julia. The diary entries he wrote for many years after seem to suggest a fondness for her. Which would tend to suggest a split second decision, or something he felt he was forced to do... Wallace gets a pass on too many things because he just claims "stoicism"... Like even he is going to be prone to emotion, and attacking Julia in a specific circumstance might not be so farfetched... He sobbed after Julia was murdered, and discreetly on trial too when diary entries were read out... In either case, we see Julia was messed up pretty bad, so if Wallace did kill her, it seems likely there was a lot of emotion in the attack, given the severity.
                                Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 01-14-2020, 02:19 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X