Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

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

  • Can't see the prank call as being a "spur of the moment thing"... too many specific details to make up on the spot.

    How many people do you know say they have "practised Stoicism "for most of their lives"... William's the only one I know of... and as said in my paper ..."practising Stoicism works both ways"... even writing heartfelt memoirs after the death.. that's the easy part..ummm I think he only claimed Stoicism once (for acting calmly in court)... I've credited him several times

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ven View Post
      Can't see the prank call as being a "spur of the moment thing"... too many specific details to make up on the spot.

      How many people do you know say they have "practised Stoicism "for most of their lives"... William's the only one I know of... and as said in my paper ..."practising Stoicism works both ways"... even writing heartfelt memoirs after the death.. that's the easy part..ummm I think he only claimed Stoicism once (for acting calmly in court)... I've credited him several times
      Even in your scenario he doesn't have to despise Julia. He could be angry at the time and do all this, but then still fondly remember the happy times... His entries seem very genuine. Nobody even read them until after he was dead so...

      If it's a prank call, the need to come up with something perfect is not really necessary. And as a very regular prank caller who was known for doing stuff like that often, I'd guess he already had a basic guideline of funny "material" to use.

      I suggest he might have preplanned to prank Wallace. I guess he could have a rough idea of the time of day when Wallace left his home for the club and that's why he even drove to Lily's (as soon as he arrived, he said he had to go be somewhere else which IIRC was back in the direction he just came from, which is peculiar - before then returning again later)... But to me it seems opportunistic...

      Comment


      • Nup... entries seeming genuine,,, you've been fooled... like many of us at times.

        To place an ad hoc prank call with perfect timing, name and address...nup. And "How often" did he do it... it was said he did it but really... how often?

        Comment


        • I’m not at home so again I don’t have any books with me so.... I can’t recall but is there any other source for the idea that a Parry was in the habit of making prank phone calls apart from Parkes?
          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 WallaceWackedHer View Post

            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.
            I very strongly doubt Parks’ word because I carefully listened to everything he had to say in the Liverpool radio station interviews.(isn’t this where we got the notion ,’Parry liked playing Pranks?)
            As for the boy Close . I hope I understand children,having raised seven of my own, , I can assure you , even if this kid was something of a know-all,
            cheeky little so and so, initially, under police interviews and questioning he would be nervous and seriously trying to get stuff right. After a time when he became relaxed with the involvement and apparent protocol of the courtroom, he may become more cocky and indifferent to his surroundings. However initially when being interviewed I believe his times given for his visit to Wolverton , could be relied on.
            Last edited by moste; 01-14-2020, 09:05 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ven View Post
              Nup... entries seeming genuine,,, you've been fooled... like many of us at times.

              To place an ad hoc prank call with perfect timing, name and address...nup. And "How often" did he do it... it was said he did it but really... how often?
              Absolutely. After the fact, any entries made in a diary by a murderer, would be totally unreliable.In fact any entries made previous to the crime could be sending red herring messages ,if we're-talking cunning planner and plotter, of which I believe Wallace was ace.
              Last edited by moste; 01-14-2020, 09:03 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by moste View Post

                I very strongly doubt Parks’ word because I carefully listened to everything he had to say in the Liverpool radio station interviews.(isn’t this where we got the notion ,’Parry liked playing Pranks?)
                As for the boy Close . I hope I understand children,having raised seven of my own, , I can assure you , even if this kid was something of a know-all,
                cheeky little so and so, initially, under police interviews and questioning he would be nervous and seriously trying to get stuff right. After a time when he became relaxed with the involvement and apparent protocol of the courtroom, he may become more cocky and indifferent to his surroundings. However initially when being interviewed I believe his times given for his visit to Wolverton , could be relied on.
                Yes it was callers on the Radio City program. I don't know if it was Parkes though, who made that particular comment. I know there were several people who alleged they had worked at the garage and commented on Parry etc.

                I'm afraid I have little faith in Alan who seemed to treat the whole process like a big joke right from the start (skipping and singing he's the missing link just before he'd gone to the police, for example). He's not credible at all. I do think he might be telling the truth of course, but his behavior does not lend him much credibility, and if enough evidence stacks up to contradict him, I'd be tempted to call BS. You'd think if something important like that had happened, he would have revealed it to his parents rather quickly.

                I don't think entries written in his personal diary after his acquittal are fake. I really don't see why it's so difficult to believe he might have had some fondness for the woman he had at least initially been in love with and married, and perhaps felt a level of remorse if he had killed her. It's hardly a stretch.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  I’m not at home so again I don’t have any books with me so.... I can’t recall but is there any other source for the idea that a Parry was in the habit of making prank phone calls apart from Parkes?
                  It's just Radio City chatter as far as I'm aware. Parkes didn't think Parry had placed a prank call, he was trying to suggest Parry had called to get Wallace out so he could rob the house, so he's not angling to prove some sort of prank call idea. I'm also not 100% sure it was Parkes who made that comment... When Rod got utterly humiliated and owned by everyone pointing out that his idea is autismal, he deleted the entire Radio City recording out of spite, so I've never heard it. Just what Josh has told me.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    I’m not at home so again I don’t have any books with me so.... I can’t recall but is there any other source for the idea that a Parry was in the habit of making prank phone calls apart from Parkes?
                    Quite right H S . I believe Park’s to be the chief, if not only accuser of pranky Parry.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                      It's just Radio City chatter as far as I'm aware. Parkes didn't think Parry had placed a prank call, he was trying to suggest Parry had called to get Wallace out so he could rob the house, so he's not angling to prove some sort of prank call idea. I'm also not 100% sure it was Parkes who made that comment... When Rod got utterly humiliated and owned by everyone pointing out that his idea is autismal, he deleted the entire Radio City recording out of spite, so I've never heard it. Just what Josh has told me.
                      I did post a link to the radio shows in an earlier post. Didn’t they work?




                      'Who killed Julia? - Part 1'

                      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wPn...ew?usp=sharing





                      'Who killed Julia? - Part 2 - a tale of two suspects'

                      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fCc...ew?usp=sharing

                      __________________

                      'Who killed Julia? - Conspiracy of Silence'

                      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G4j...ew?usp=sharing

                      __________________
                      Does this work?

                      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 did post a link to the radio shows in an earlier post. Didn’t they work?




                        'Who killed Julia? - Part 1'

                        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wPn...ew?usp=sharing





                        'Who killed Julia? - Part 2 - a tale of two suspects'

                        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fCc...ew?usp=sharing

                        __________________

                        'Who killed Julia? - Conspiracy of Silence'

                        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G4j...ew?usp=sharing

                        __________________
                        Does this work?
                        Great job, thank you. I haven't ever heard that before in my life. Some of the details on this are different to what's in books so that's interesting (here they say Parry said Julia accompanied him on piano, in books they say he claimed violin - which was Wallace's instrument).

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          I did post a link to the radio shows in an earlier post. Didn’t they work?




                          'Who killed Julia? - Part 1'

                          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wPn...ew?usp=sharing




                          'Who killed Julia? - Part 2 - a tale of two suspects'

                          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fCc...ew?usp=sharing

                          __________________
                          'Who killed Julia? - Conspiracy of Silence'

                          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G4j...ew?usp=sharing

                          __________________
                          Does this work?
                          Josh just informed me there's a part missing (there should be 4 parts), do you have that one by any chance?

                          Comment


                          • I’ve never heard of a part 4? I saved these when Rod posted them. I’m 99.9% certain there were only 3. Is Josh certain that there were 4?
                            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’ve never heard of a part 4? I saved these when Rod posted them. I’m 99.9% certain there were only 3. Is Josh certain that there were 4?
                              I don't know about what Rod uploaded, but Josh believes the original radio broadcast was 4 parts. He said the other part contains crucial information. Maybe Rod only uploaded 3 parts (if so, I would imagine to protect some detail he doesn't want people to know since it would down his idea more?). Do you know how Rod got this broadcast to begin with? If you do, maybe I can get it the same way and get all 4 parts if there are indeed 4 parts.

                              Tomorrow I will be viewing the files anyway.

                              I doubt it's going to outright say "this is what happened", but I will turn it upside down front to back, and publicly post every single thing in those files. If my phone runs out of battery I will rage, and have to make a second trip. This will indeed be the biggest evidence drop in the history of the case.

                              As a preliminary guess, if there IS some solution imprinted right there, I'm anticipating one of four things:

                              Wallace killed his wife solo and he did in fact have a genuine Liverpool-sounding accent.
                              Parry's alibi for the murder turns out to be bullshit somehow, and he murdered Julia.
                              Amy or Amy/Wallace are involved directly in her murder in some way.
                              The Anfield housebreaker murdered Julia, possibly without actually knowing there was a telephone call at all.

                              I know there should definitely be Amy info in there, because of the strange witness who went on about her for years, but whose testimonies have not been publicized apart from a mention in one of the books I have.

                              As to whether it turns out the call is unrelated, I'm gonna hedge my bets at 50/50. I think it's probably unrelated so that doesn't make sense, but some of the plausible scenarios do involve it being related (e.g. if it says Parry's Brine alibi fell apart or some ****).

                              ...

                              I'm also anticipating the possibility there will be "inadmissable" evidence that we never saw because it was not allowed in court, and that this evidence will be CRUCIAL. I don't think there will be any outright confession because if there was, I think Gannon or someone would have mentioned it.
                              Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 01-15-2020, 01:26 PM.

                              Comment


                              • It would be the "inadmissible evidence" I would be interested in

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X