Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Murder of Julia Wallace (1931) - Full DPP case files

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

    If a minute or two doesn't matter then please admit the truth. 5 minutes is faster than the average walking speed even if he's ONLY walking.

    Are you suggesting there will be absolutely no difference in the time it takes when he's calling at multiple houses etc? Because that has to be the suggestion - in COMBINATION with him speed walking - to arrive at 5 minutes. It's nonsense, it's not something that can be debated because it's mathematically proven to be nonsense.

    If we're gonna start going extremes (6.30 is an extreme, completely bogus time), why then ignore the evidence of Elsie Wright who heard the 6.30 church bells before she saw Alan Close who had not yet delivered to the Wallace home? 6.30 is very literally picking and choosing evidence to fit whatever you want it to fit, and ignoring everything else. It's no different than Rod.

    I don't even see the reason to falsify the reality, do you really need that extra 5 minutes to believe in William's guilt? If it was 5 minutes later you think he's innocent?
    I’ve no need to falsify reality nor have I ever attempted to.

    Ive checked online and have found various people, one of whom was a Professor who, based on average walking time, say that 500 yards could have been done in 5 or 6 minutes. One person said 4. You’ve stated above that he’s calling at multiple houses but...
    • He collected milk which was waiting for him on the counter. So he walks in, picks it up and walks out. 10 seconds.
    • He delivered milk in Letchworth Street. Easily plausible that this could have been 30 seconds or a minute.
    • He leaves milk in a garden in Richmond Park. 10 seconds.
    These 3 acts might easily have been a minute combined. We don’t know so we can’t eliminate the possibility. Maybe 2.

    Again, we cannot assume a walking speed for Close. He might have been a fast walker. As I said earlier it would hardly have been surprising for a kid to have wanted to have finished his rounds as soon as possible so that he could go out. And let’s not forget...he was late which might have encouraged him to have walked quicker.

    I see nothing wrong with a basic walking time of 5 mins but let’s not forget that a second reconstruction was timed at 6 mins.

    Even if we stretch it and give him 7 minutes this still gets him to number 29 at 6.32.


    And one of the officers, not the first bunch, literally used the term sprinted, that exact word. It was when he was asked if they got onto a moving tram car. He said though they indeed sprinted to get it, it had stopped and wasn't moving when they boarded.

    That sounds like a fair test...
    Im certainly not accusing you of falsifying WWH but I don’t know of another bunch of officers. The ones in the full trial transcript that I mentioned don’t mention this. If they had dashed to get one tram before it pulled away it can’t be construed that they sprinted the whole journey. If they were checking possible journey times they couldn’t assume that the person originally making that journey wouldn’t have also have sped up if they were in the same situation.

    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 moste View Post

      The police photo , I believe I have in the ‘Wilkes’ book shows the cupboard door directly below the shelf with the cash box on it. If this is correct I can’t think of another reason why the hinge would be ripped off , other than being stepped on , in an attempt to reach the 7’ shelf, can you?
      I was just reading the Wilkes' book. The testimony in there is very interesting, since it's written after the radio program was broadcast and therefore contains other interviews.

      I posted above what Walsh said, that nobody actually believed Alan Close saw Mrs Wallace alive (he and Hemmerde subscribe fully to the crossdressing William theory, adamantly). There's one of the telephone operators, who discusses the phone call and how the voice was very ordinary and very calm, and that the caller pressed the wrong button. She does not suggest she thinks it was Wallace's voice, and says she heard Wallace in court and couldn't have sworn it was the same voice.

      Bailey said that when he retired he would tell Goodman something very interesting about the case. His son Harry Bailey said his dad told him Parry was the prime suspect. I also saw it in the paper once, after Bailey's death, that Bailey apparently had been told by Wallace "okay you've arrested me Bailey, now you have to prove I did it."

      There's a reiteration in here about one of the detectives being wasted drunk. He went to the upstairs bathroom and flushed the toilet. Subsequently on the flushing handle the only fingerprints found would be his and Wallace's. Essentially he may well have flushed evidence. This was from one of his colleagues so not an anti-police type person.

      Lily Lloyd seems to strongly imply she knows exactly what happened, but VERY frustratingly, like every single person - including authors - who claim to know """secrets""" about the case, refuse to tell anyone. She said rather cryptically if she knows the truth about what happened that night it will go to the grave with her. It's truly shocking behaviour from all these individuals... I see old posts by this "Mark R" guy saying he has "secrets" and it will be in his book. A book that was apparently going to be released about a decade ago... I get really annoyed by that type of thing.

      ---

      Just thought I should put all that out there... But anyway about the cupboard door, I have the Wilkes book which contains photos etc., it's the same photo as can be found online of the living kitchen (though I have the paperback, not sure if the hardback has different photos). If you could perhaps circle where the cupboard is on the crime scene photo I'd very much appreciate that.

      If the cupboard is indeed in a position as to where it would be likely to be stepped on or used as a hand-hold, then that is what I would call rather good evidence a shorter man had rifled that box.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by moste View Post
        Does anyone know whether the Anfield burglaries stopped, after January 20th?
        I do, and yes they did. That was the end of the Anfield housebreakings.

        Of course, would you really want to be caught robbing another home in the same area where there was a high profile murder case you could potentially then be suspected of?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by moste View Post

          The police photo , I believe I have in the ‘Wilkes’ book shows the cupboard door directly below the shelf with the cash box on it. If this is correct I can’t think of another reason why the hinge would be ripped off , other than being stepped on , in an attempt to reach the 7’ shelf, can you?
          To be honest I’ve always thought that the damaged cupboard was near to the door. I thought that I had a photograph pointing to it but I don’t. I’m still of that opinion though but I could easily be mistaken. The issue with the cupboard beneath the bookshelf is that it’s quite high and doesn’t appear to stick out much. It looks a bit of a precarious way of reaching the shelf especially when there was a chair there which could easily have been used. I can’t really imagine anyone clambering onto the cupboard rather than the easy option of the chair.

          I couldn’t help being reminded of this classic piece of Monty Python silliness.

          https://youtu.be/e8eHILrlkoM


          I could suggest a couple of reasons for the damaged cupboard. a) an attempt to make it look more like a robbery, or b) making it look like the killer didn’t know the exact location of the cash box. A locked cupboard might seem a likely place to hide a large sum of money.
          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 no need to falsify reality nor have I ever attempted to.

            Ive checked online and have found various people, one of whom was a Professor who, based on average walking time, say that 500 yards could have been done in 5 or 6 minutes. One person said 4. You’ve stated above that he’s calling at multiple houses but...
            • He collected milk which was waiting for him on the counter. So he walks in, picks it up and walks out. 10 seconds.
            • He delivered milk in Letchworth Street. Easily plausible that this could have been 30 seconds or a minute.
            • He leaves milk in a garden in Richmond Park. 10 seconds.
            These 3 acts might easily have been a minute combined. We don’t know so we can’t eliminate the possibility. Maybe 2.

            Again, we cannot assume a walking speed for Close. He might have been a fast walker. As I said earlier it would hardly have been surprising for a kid to have wanted to have finished his rounds as soon as possible so that he could go out. And let’s not forget...he was late which might have encouraged him to have walked quicker.

            I see nothing wrong with a basic walking time of 5 mins but let’s not forget that a second reconstruction was timed at 6 mins.

            Even if we stretch it and give him 7 minutes this still gets him to number 29 at 6.32.

            Im certainly not accusing you of falsifying WWH but I don’t know of another bunch of officers. The ones in the full trial transcript that I mentioned don’t mention this. If they had dashed to get one tram before it pulled away it can’t be construed that they sprinted the whole journey. If they were checking possible journey times they couldn’t assume that the person originally making that journey wouldn’t have also have sped up if they were in the same situation.
            It's after 6.30, the church bells timestamp that.

            Even if those events take the time you say they would, it's more than 5 minutes, which is the forced time the police gave for Alan's rounds. It's dishonest to try to press a 5 minute time because it's not true. 5 minutes is the time for somebody not carrying a crate of milk jugs to walk that while actively hurrying and not stopping for anything.

            I'm not really wanting to debate established facts because it's pointless. It's more reasonable to discuss evidence that isn't concrete and proven, otherwise it's like debating a flat-earther. If you falsely think it's 5 minutes (though even if you were biased to wish for Wallace's guilt, it doesn't even need to be as short as 5 minutes) then there's no convincing someone that dead set, you might as well continue to think it's the case... It doesn't even really have that much of a bearing since the entire case of the prosecution is that he didn't get any blood on him because of the raincoat so if you want to think it then okay.

            The police said they sprinted to catch a tram. It wasn't the entire distance, just the final leg. I've read it, I thought it might be in Bailey's statement but I haven't been able to find it again, but certainly a point was made of this... It was in response to the allegation of jumping on moving trams. I feel sure it's in one of the pages I uploaded, maybe the short notes or appeal I don't know. That said Roland Oliver used the surveyor's distance to give a walking speed for at least one of the tests and it showed something like 7 mph. That I know is the appeal trial rather than the initial trial text... Plus the fact in numerous of these tests the officers didn't even take the route Wallace claims he took and those need to have an asterisk beside them.

            The second reconstruction was 5 minutes. The first was 6.
            Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 01-25-2020, 09:30 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              To be honest I’ve always thought that the damaged cupboard was near to the door. I thought that I had a photograph pointing to it but I don’t. I’m still of that opinion though but I could easily be mistaken. The issue with the cupboard beneath the bookshelf is that it’s quite high and doesn’t appear to stick out much. It looks a bit of a precarious way of reaching the shelf especially when there was a chair there which could easily have been used. I can’t really imagine anyone clambering onto the cupboard rather than the easy option of the chair.

              I couldn’t help being reminded of this classic piece of Monty Python silliness.

              https://youtu.be/e8eHILrlkoM


              I could suggest a couple of reasons for the damaged cupboard. a) an attempt to make it look more like a robbery, or b) making it look like the killer didn’t know the exact location of the cash box. A locked cupboard might seem a likely place to hide a large sum of money.
              It depends, if Julia is still alive (for example in the case of a distraction robbery) I think the person would be less likely to move the chair. If she's already dead, I imagine they'd be more likely to use the chair since the importance of sound is greatly diminished.

              A point was made of how much it stuck out, and in fact it was quite a suitable ledge to stand on.

              The ideas given here are what is suspected, it's what it looks like. But should it be in a position where someone could have used it to clamber up, then it aligns quite well with a shorter man having emptied that box.

              As the prosecution, if at all possible, they should have focused on trying to prove the money in the pot with the stain on, was from the cash box. That would essentially supercede everything and prove almost beyond any shadow of doubt that Wallace is implicated in this crime. There would be only one innocent explanation, like the burglar going upstairs, seeing the stain, and realizing he can't keep such a thing. And still that's not a great one. So that if proven would be VERY strong evidence of guilt.

              Comment


              • I’m not being dishonest!

                None of us were there so we have no reason to claim exact knowledge. 5 and 6 minutes were the times established by a reconstruction done by the police and the person who did the journey at the time. These are the facts not an assumption that they must have been lying.

                Maybe it’s time for a break from the Wallace case. I might see if the Flat Earth Society has a forum perhaps.
                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’m not being dishonest!

                  None of us were there so we have no reason to claim exact knowledge. 5 and 6 minutes were the times established by a reconstruction done by the police and the person who did the journey at the time. These are the facts not an assumption that they must have been lying.

                  Maybe it’s time for a break from the Wallace case. I might see if the Flat Earth Society has a forum perhaps.
                  Well it's less so about the time they did it in but the idea it was an ordinary walking pace, which if 5 minutes, is not the case. Especially for someone short, which you'd expect of a 14 year old, since taller people tend to have longer strides. Especially when carrying a load like a full crate of milk I'd naturally expect a slower pace.

                  If Alan was legitimately rushing, I mean, if there's evidence of that then 5 minutes could maybe work. Though others who saw him never suggested anything of the sort, and Elsie Wright heard the church bells toll which would be 6.30 (this before seeing Alan), providing a strong timestamp. Actually that's the strongest evidence of time given by any witness, since bells tolling is much more salient than a glance at a couple of clock hands that you have no real reason at all to take much notice of.

                  Realistically the neighbour's testimony is the least likely to be accurate, since they're not "on the clock" working, so have absolutely no reason to take the time down to the minute. Not only does someone working have more reason to keep an eye on the time (like Lily Lloyd vs. Lily's mother), but they were basing their time off of a clock which had recently been tuned to be accurate.

                  Comment


                  • Found the cabinet:

                    "In front of this, between the back kitchen doorway and the window looking out onto the backyard was a small cabinet, its top strewn with papers, books and a wooden 12-inch ruler.

                    Slightly above this, on the cabinet’s single shelf, was a line of books. On either side of the kitchen range was a recess of about 3 feet in width; the left-hand recess contained a low cupboard, about 2 feet high with five shelves above it, four of which were filled with books. The top shelf, just over 7 feet from the floor, contained various items of bric-a-brac, a couple of books and, almost at its centre, the small cash box Wallace used to store his Prudential collection money.

                    Between the top of the cupboard and the first shelf was a gap of about 1 feet containing a microscope Wallace had bought for 70 or 80 (after trying, unsuccessfully, to build his own), a box of chessmen, books and the home-made cabinet containing his photographic equipment – a piece of the door now lying on the floor in front of the cupboard. The recess to the right of the kitchen range was covered by two glass-panelled doors, under which was another cupboard, its surface, once again, littered with boxes, papers, bric-a-brac and what appear to have been Wallace’s radio, accumulator battery and headphones."

                    ---

                    So it is in the location you mentioned moste. But how viable it is as something to grab, with a mantlepiece to the right, we'll have to figure that one out between us all.

                    Comment


                    • I should add if anyone thinks there's anything I should add to my site please suggest it.

                      Also I don't want any personal spins on anything on there, don't want to influence people's minds. It's very difficult to not "point out" things I think are important that could unfairly prejudice visitors, but I'm staying restrained. Even in dispelling myths I am concerned of dispelling too many about one person that could cause prejudice. Gotta attempt to keep a balance.

                      I do have exciting news for you incoming. I have got a hold of a rare TV episode on this case. NOT "The Man from the Pru" (though I have that too in higher quality than the YouTube one coming in the post), but "Britain's Most Baffling Murder".

                      Quite naturally I will be uploading this for the entertainment of my fellow Wallace friends and random enthusiasts.

                      I also am going to place a personal ad in the Liverpool Echo appealing for information.

                      ---

                      One more thing about the timing. When did John Johnston usually return from work, 6.30? Was he home when the milk boy came.
                      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 01-26-2020, 12:18 AM.

                      Comment


                      • A write-up of the crime by myself, edited by Josh:

                        https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...julia-wallace/

                        Comment


                        • Now uploaded, The One Show's retelling of the Wallace case:

                          https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...se-21-01-2020/

                          Comment


                          • The solution to the Wallace case proposed by myself and Josh Levin:

                            https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...l/my-solution/

                            Some of you will be livid LOL.

                            But this is what I (as well as my close friend and former Casebook poster Josh) truly believe to be the correct answer to the mystery.

                            If Parkes is talking out of his ass I'd go with a prank call exploit or the murder being entirely unrelated. If Wallace is involved I'll go with a hit job or some kind of accomplice (Waterhouse's suggestion is quite strong: Parry calling, Wallace killing his wife and dumping blood-stained items on Parry).
                            Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 01-29-2020, 04:10 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Comment


                              • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                                The solution to the Wallace case proposed by myself and Josh Levin:

                                https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...l/my-solution/

                                Some of you will be livid LOL.

                                But this is what I (as well as my close friend and former Casebook poster Josh) truly believe to be the correct answer to the mystery.

                                If Parkes is talking out of his ass I'd go with a prank call exploit or the murder being entirely unrelated. If Wallace is involved I'll go with a hit job or some kind of accomplice (Waterhouse's suggestion is quite strong: Parry calling, Wallace killing his wife and dumping blood-stained items on Parry).
                                I've just checked the link- very good analysis. It's a while since I've contributed to the Wallace thread, but I'm still very much interested in the case.

                                What do you think about the burnt Macintosh issue? The prosecution argued that she could have had the cost around her and she fell as she was struck, so as to burn her skirt in the lit fire. The defence suggest it was drapped over her shoulder when struck: Mrs Johnstone had suggested that it was the sort of thing a woman would do. And I believe it was CCJ's suggestion that she had the coat drapped over her shoulder as she was intending to go next door for help, i.e. having detected a sneak thief.

                                Either way, I think it creates problems for the argument that Wallace was the killer, i.e. because it suggests the murder was unplanned, otherwise why would Julia have been afforded the opportunity to put on the Macintosh, presumably with the intention of exiting the house.

                                I don't think Wallace could have been wearing the Macintosh, because that would mean he accidentally set fire to himself in his own home, and I can't believe be did that very often!

                                The only way I see Wallace setting fire to himself is if he was involved in a dynamic struggle with Julia, chasing her around the room, blocking off the exits, but that seems highly implausible to me.

                                Just one more question. If Wallace worked with an accomplice then who exactly would he trust? After all, he seemed a bit of a loner, with few if any friends-certainly not Parry, who misappropriated the insurance money when he covered Wallace's round, and who he seems to have detested.
                                Last edited by John G; 01-29-2020, 08:14 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X