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

[WallaceWackedHer]

Quote: I've argued the case for almost every possibility. My name is even WallaceWackedHer lmfao. I thought he did, then that he didn't, then that he did... But as it turns out, he legitimately didn't.

keep up the good research . You may find another twist pointing back to William . Anyhow allow nothing to bias regardless!

Well I have got something about a blog comment, the commenter stated Wallace was a gay man who hired his dad as a rent boy (his dad needed the money to buy a fare to America where he moved to).

Apparently many men at the Pru were closet gays involved with William, and Parry and Marsden had been rent boys for William.

Given that Wallace appears to have gladly given them work despite their criminal character, does suggest this could be why.

I would like to know, though, if he WAS gay if Julia knew about it. If he was fully homosexual I feel she would? And maybe THAT is why her family refused to attend the wedding, and why Wallace did not care about her being so much older.

Parry told Goodman Wallace is "sexually odd".

I think a homosexual twist on Gannon or Waterhouse's idea is quite good. BUT in my view, the main motive would be if Julia didn't know he was gay (especially easy if he was bisexual) and found out, making it necessary to silence her.

She surely wouldn't out him as it would ruin her own reputation, but the threat would feel strong. I think it's a good suggestion.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Couple of pointers : It is very possible that Wallace’s previous visits to Crewe’s place did not require his approach to the house from the Menlove Avenue end of Green Ave. He may have alighted the tram each time from the Allerton road end of Green Ave. However, the recent research into the newspaper clipping from that time of the burglaries in the Menlove
Gardens area , indicates to me that Wallace certainly was aware of the existence of that particular location , or are we to assume that He, his wife, the chaps he conversed with at the chess club , and all of the people on his routes never discussed the outrageous break- ins in the Allerton area? Come to think of it , am I wrong in recalling a conversation where someone stated ‘you wouldn’t want to be traipsing around that area at night ? In any event, Wallace’s overly emphasizing his excursion to all and sundry that night ,tell us something of his naively in his plan.

You're right they didn't, it was explained somewhere what route was taken to Crewe's. And yes he was told it was an awkward place to go knocking around in at night.

Menlove Gardens South is only one of the homes burgled out of around 30. At the same time 20 to 30 were burgled in Anfield. Again the police seem to think this was all done by one man, the "Anfield housebreaker", another counterintuitive suggestion... And the skeleton key suggestion which is not a bad one at all, but they had literally arrested multiple gangs who were gaining unforced entry through windows on the upper story then undoing the door from inside, and it seems they didn't ever consider this.

This is why I said I think the address could be connected to that housebreaking, since it happened almost a month to the day Julia was killed. Is it just me who sees a possible connection to that robbery and the use of the address given by the caller?

Because Parry rang the club then lied about his whereabouts, it makes me think he may have got the address from a dodgy friend, possibly someone related to the people who had broken in there. We know Parry despite being in his 20s was friends with teenagers, and that Parry was a thief.

The caller gave the house number 25. It might be a lucky guess, but to know West/East would be odd numbers implies further knowledge of those streets than simply reading about the existence of Menlove Gardens in the newspaper. The use of a non-existent Menlove East is not beneficial for Wallace, or for a burglar (though there is a possibility a burglar might THINK it's clever, but they're wrong...).

Wallace would have to be quite stupid to think he needs to speak to like 10 people just to prove he'd gone out on a trip when his wife was killed. He might be that stupid though... But he only needs to speak to perhaps a tram conductor, the residents at the address he visits or their neighbours/go into a neesagents (anything like that), and then come home. Alibi established, and not suspicious seeming.

The reports about Menlove Gardens also did not mention there was no East. Someone would have to actively search it up and see, or visit there.

In a solution such as that given by Waterhouse which I feel is fairly good, Menlove Gardens would probably have been the address dreamt up by Gordon, who as a thief may move in those kinds of circles. Qualtrough is meant to be Marsden's client so might be used to try to frame him, which is the only plausible reason to use it if William's guilty, since a weird name is obviously not essential to creating an alibi.

[moste]

At the end of the day, it will only ever be opinion . Proof evaporated long long ago.

[moste]

Quote: I've argued the case for almost every possibility. My name is even WallaceWackedHer lmfao. I thought he did, then that he didn't, then that he did... But as it turns out, he legitimately didn't.

keep up the good research . You may find another twist pointing back to William . Anyhow allow nothing to bias regardless!

[moste]

Couple of pointers : It is very possible that Wallace’s previous visits to Crewe’s place did not require his approach to the house from the Menlove Avenue end of Green Ave. He may have alighted the tram each time from the Allerton road end of Green Ave. However, the recent research into the newspaper clipping from that time of the burglaries in the Menlove
Gardens area , indicates to me that Wallace certainly was aware of the existence of that particular location , or are we to assume that He, his wife, the chaps he conversed with at the chess club , and all of the people on his routes never discussed the outrageous break- ins in the Allerton area? Come to think of it , am I wrong in recalling a conversation where someone stated ‘you wouldn’t want to be traipsing around that area at night’ ? In any event, Wallace’s overly emphasizing his excursion to all and sundry that night ,tell us something of his naivety in his plan.

[WallaceWackedHer]

My goodness me! You certainly feel very warmly in the subject! . Time to wind your neck in! And perhaps change your profile picture LOL!

Naturally if I'm putting in effort to find new statements and facts thinking it will shed light and it has zero impact at all.

I swear I could literally find a photograph of Gordon in the phone box giving a thumbs up as he rings the cafè and nobody will change their opinion. It's always going to be Gordon was mistaken, Alan came at 18:30, the Liverpool police force tram tests where they sprint the last leg to head off trams or jump onto moving trams are totally fair.

Or conversely it will always be a man giving the name Qualtrough is admitted then grabs a mute Julia who allows him to drag her into the parlour, shove her down on the seat then bash her brains in without struggling or trying to defend herself.

No matter what you find, no matter what evidence or statement, it doesn't seem to matter. Rod's theory is impossible and debunked. 18:30 as the time Alan came is incredibly unlikely.

I've argued the case for almost every possibility. My name is even WallaceWackedHer lmfao. I thought he did, then that he didn't, then that he did... But as it turns out, he legitimately didn't.

Gannon's strong theory has nothing to do with nappy rent boys, the actual crux of the argument is that William had help. Nappy rent boys is his attempt to explain why they might have helped. It seems quite false, but that is just brainstorming. Gannon's idea is far, far better than the prosecution's.

[moste]

Well that’s a shame H.S. I would hazard a guess myself , that we are sometimes subjected to a couple of poster faux pas on here ,that may well involve youth, hence lack of life experience, and possibly alcohol. Oh Well!

[WallaceWackedHer]

It is bias, it's similar but different from dishonesty. I'm sure, for example, that Hemmerde truly believed William went to the door dressed in women's clothing to trick Alan. We all know it's BS, but that's bias.

I mentioned Mather actually. I thought he might have a connection to Katie Mather it sounded like an unusual surname, but it seems not. I think I mentioned reports of callousness between the two. The overwhelming majority of people attested they were a loving couple... And Mather OBVIOUSLY just hates them because he disses Julia too, who everyone attests was a very sweet old lady, and says she'd never help w insurance biz when she actively did so while William was sick.

The caller = killer is a stupid assumption because the police just automatically rule out the possibility that he might have someone else in his pocket. To continue to make that assumption even AFTER Lily Hall gave her statement shows the police to be moronic and disgraceful.

Parry gave a false alibi because he's lying, just as bad as when he stole a car to "meet his girl". He's lying because he called. He didn't get confused about his days. He's lying. He got put on the spot unexpectedly was caught out.

Biased thinking saying he mixed up his days is really not much different from Hemmerde's crossdressing bias. Selective evidence = calling John Parkes a liar, and ignoring Lily Hall who I'm sure really believed she saw what she did.

Due to the aforementioned moronic police, they don't bother to follow this up because they realize Parry didn't kill Julia. Like that automatically means he couldn't possibly be involved in any way. They should be embarassed and ashamed of themselves.

Conversely there is quite literally no evidence William called except Gladys saying the gruff voice sounded like an older man to her (but of course he's not the only old man in Liverpool)... We actually have testimony saying it's definitely not his voice even trying to envision him altering his voice and looking in hindsight, which is actual evidence that it's not William's voice (because it isn't, it's Gordon).

He didn't lie about visiting Crewe, he was asked who he'd spoken to. Although I'm sure it crossed his mind if he's being honest that it might look bad. But he said he'd done this and got no answer. So he really did knock there... So what if Crewe wasn't at the cinema but actually answered - because that's what would normally have happened...

Rod's theory is debunked, it couldn't have happened. It's entirely disproven. Antony coming here trying to explain the "strawman" actually made it worse (I think he assumes people commit every word of his book to permanent memory) explaining Julia, mute with fear, is dragged into the parlour and sat down before being bashed without trying to defend herself.

Ergo it is completely disproven. Impossible, just like I said.

The evidence presented like the milk boy carrying crates full of milk around at a near-jogging pace is disposed of because it's debunked. It is only possible to put 6:30 as the time of arrival with exceptional bias and saying the adults who have no reason to notice the precise time must surely be right because they're adults (even though the huge majority put the timing later, which it was), and ignoring the strongest indication of time in the ringing of church bells before seeing Alan.

William blatantly felt perfectly okay with having untrustworthy Parry and Marsden do his rounds and continue being friends with Gordon after Gordon """left to better his position""" AKA got told to leave due to stealing.

In your own article you mention "Mr. X" helping him. Him doing everything alone is out of the question. In your own article you also say the milk boy came at 18:35, which is accurate.

Why are you writing accurate things like that then saying they're completely impossible, there's no Mr. X and it's 18:30?

I'm sure you can understand my confusion.

[moste]

I don't think it's any sort of shock that someone might put the bolt on the front door to avoid the possibility of someone coming in while they're in the house with a dead body - as opposed to the risk Wallace returns early or something.

You even wrote your own piece on the case before with the blatantly more logical idea that William had help, AKA not solo Wallace. So it's upsetting because I know you don't even believe solo Wallace is what happened loool.

And it's not what happened. I know it, you know it........

My goodness me! You certainly feel very warmly in the subject! . Time to wind your neck in! And perhaps change your profile picture LOL!

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s now time for me to walk away from this thread and the Wallace case on here as for at least the second time recently I’ve been accused of dishonesty by the same person. I don’t mind at all being disagreed with but I’m not going to accept being called dishonest when I’ve always attempted to look and assess the case according to the available evidence. I’m also tired of see opinions being stated as facts.


“He absolutely did NOT kill his wife. Sorry.”


This is an opinion and the facts show it to be an incorrect on. Sorry.

It’s a worrying trend which reminds me of the bad old days with Rod. We can disagree without calling each other dishonest. Something that I haven’t done. I’ve never sought to omit ‘inconvenient’ facts for example and yet I notice that on the Wallace website when attempting to show that the Wallace’s were a happy couple and therefore that William had no motive the testimonies of Curwen, Wilson and Mather have been ‘conveniently’ omitted because they present us with a powerful alternative viewpoint. Even if you dispute them in some way a fuller picture cannot be presented without them.


You say that Gannon is plausible. That the 70 year old, diaper wearing Julia employed toy boys for illicit sex romps? Or that William took two untrustworthy characters into his confidence in a plot to bludgeon a 70 year old woman to death? And you say that these are more plausible than William? Not on earth I’m afraid.


On the issue of Crewe I certainly should have checked the transcript rather than relying on memory but this was an error (which I’ll always admit) rather than it being another example of my dishonesty. The fact remains though that in 4 police statements he never mentioned Crewe. Is it likely that he’d ‘forgotten’ visiting the only address on that night of someone that he actually knew? Or was this for the same reason as his transparent play-acting on the route out - to create the false impression that he was a ‘complete stranger.’ We know that he wasn’t. Innocent men have no need to lie.


I’m afraid that the idea of connecting this murder to housebreaking gangs is far too close to a joke. Not a chance. And yet you call the police’s decision to connect the call and the murder:


“Probably the most stupid automatic assumption I've ever heard in my entire life.”


Can you really be serious about about this? A wife is murdered whilst her husband was out on some one-off wild goose chance based on a mystery business-related phone call taken at his chess club. Of course they had to connect the two. They would have been criminally insane not to have. The chances of the call and the murder being unconnected are so vanishingly remote as to be unworthy of consideration.


Everyone on here knows my opinion of Rod but honesty (yes honesty) forces me to admit that his theory is no less plausible that the two accomplice theory. We can doubt it but we cannot disproved it. Selective certainty does not amount to valid evidence.


“I don't think it's any sort of shock that someone might put the bolt on the front door to avoid the possibility of someone coming in while they're in the house with a dead body “


Do people often simply walk into strange houses? Who could have walked in? They’d sent Wallace off on his goose chase. They were perfectly aware of a minimum time that he’d have to have been away. They had no time constraint. They made no search for cash. They didn’t clean up. The front door shows that it was overwhelmingly likely that William lied. Like his made up back door problems. Conveniently though our mystery backdoor man, who unlike William was totally unfamiliar with that dodgy lock, had no problem getting in.


Sadly, this is now apparently not a thread for discussing the case because, like Rod, you believe that some things have been categorically proven. Facts are mocked. Convoluted and ever-changing conspiracy theories are accepted as plausible yet reasoned, evidence based suggestions are dismissed as nonsense and I get accused of dishonesty.


Viewing this case honestly and openly and not in the light of a conspiracy theorist shows us that William Wallace is, by a country mile, the likeliest suspect. There is one proven fact though. Parry didn’t kill her. And the overwhelmingly likelihood is that he played no part in events. There’s not a shred of evidence to connect him to the call except for Parkes suggesting that he could disguise his voice and that he made prank calls. Hardly concrete is it? Every aspect of this case points to Wallace and Wallace alone. Theres not one single fact that disproves it. There’s not one single unbiased suggestion that puts a dent in the suggestion. The case is as solved as it ever will be. William did it.



All the best to everyone

[WallaceWackedHer]

I don't think it's any sort of shock that someone might put the bolt on the front door to avoid the possibility of someone coming in while they're in the house with a dead body - as opposed to the risk Wallace returns early or something.

You even wrote your own piece on the case before with the blatantly more logical idea that William had help, AKA not solo Wallace. So it's upsetting because I know you don't even believe solo Wallace is what happened loool.

And it's not what happened. I know it, you know it........

[WallaceWackedHer]

Wallace is transparently and very obviously the only real suspect in this case and there is absolutely no requirement for ‘superpowers’ or leaps of imagination unlike Parry for example for whom we have to posit that four witnesses perjured themselves themselves just to keep him in the frame. Four witnesses (one of whom was a teenage girl, and two that didn’t even live at that address) who were all questioned by the police. Also at least two other witnesses (who maybe not have been questioned) but were named by Parry and were verifiable at the time. So if there’s one suspect that we can confident dismiss it’s not William, it’s Parry. Not a shred of doubt. The only think that ever links Parry to the crime is the most unbelievable piece of testimony ever (by Hans Christian Parkes)

This idea that William would have needed superpowers is nonsense I’m afraid. Wallace had at least 12 minutes to carry out the murder which was more than ample time. Of course doubt can conveniently be shed if we try to describe our killer as someone looking as if someone had tipped a bucket of blood over him! By very simply using the mackintosh as a shield (the only plausible explanation for its presence in the Parlour by the way) Wallace could have shielded himself from just below his eyes to the ground (if kneeling at Julia’s side) leaving only his right arm and the top three inches or so of his head exposed. He might even have put his right arm through the sleeve of the coat leaving only his hand or part of it exposed. If tried this position myself with a long coat and it’s surprisingly child’s play. Let’s remember even William himself suggested this after he was acquitted (but not before) There are specks of blood around of course but the walls aren’t drenched. William might have been prepared for some form of clean up but he might simply have had a touch of good fortune and avoided them completely.

And if we enter a territory where even the suggestion that a person could disguise his voice is considered a superpower then I’m afraid that we really are in desperate territory. Especially with 1930’s technology.

And William is such an honest chap of course and yet he blatantly lied about being a ‘stranger’ in the Menlove Gardens earlier. In numerous police interviews and over four interviews Wallace described, in detail, every stranger that he’d met that night. Every strange location. Every conversation with strangers and every detail of his route and yet, at no time, does he mention that he’d visited the house of a person that he’s actually known, Joseph Crewe! Only when Crewe testifies and Hemmerde pursues it does Wallace admit this. Could there be a clearer example that Wallace was guilty? Why would an ‘innocent’ William have lied? He lied because he didn’t want the police knowing that he was familiar with the area having visited Crewe several time for violin lessons.

My piece on the case will be available over the next day or two but one thing that I mention is something that I believe very, very strongly points to William’s guilt........who bolted the front door?

William claimed that the front door was bolted and that he found this out when he’d let the police in. Mrs Johnston couldn’t confirm this so we only have William’s word. So who bolted it?

Was it Julia? Of course not as she was expecting William home and then she’d have to have let her visitor out of course.

Was it the visitor? How? If he was trying to deceive Julia to get at the cash how could he have locked the door (just outside the Parlour) without her knowing? It’s preposterous. And why would he have? William had been sent on a goose chase and so he/they had ample time.

Did he do it after Julia was dead? Hardly, as there’s zero evidence that he’d searched for cash or valuables in this blatantly fake robbery so what reason would he have had for sticking around? None. He’d have immediately escaped via the back door.

This was William lying again. Add this to the fact that William was foiled by the back door lock for the first and only time in 16 years of living in the house (on the very night that Julia lay bludgeoned to death in the Parlour) and we have a clear view of the guilty party. It was pretty obviously William.

I’ll repeat. William Wallace stands head and shoulders above all other suspects. In fact, he’s the only real suspect.

He did not kill his wife. At most he got someone else to do it or had a helper - such a helper would likely be Gordon. He absolutely did NOT kill his wife. Sorry.

Only something like Gannon or Waterhouse is plausible. I quite like Waterhouse's suggestion to be frank. Parry having the bloodied up items dumped on him, it's fitting.

William did say he'd been to Crewe's house, it's in a statement to Hector Munro. It actually makes no sense why he wouldn't go there. If he wanted to be so far from Crewe he could've picked an address somewhere different entirely.

Calling at Crewe's would have eaten up time. He did go there... But Crewe wasn't home.

Parry is involved. He made the call, which I think is very obvious to anyone without a vested interest in it not being the case. The only reason he was exonerated is because the failure of a police force assumed the caller and killer are the same. Probably the most stupid automatic assumption I've ever heard in my entire life... So when they were satisfied he wasn't the killer they didn't bother pressing him about the call - which he made.

There's so much against solo Wallace, it's in fact a pretty bizarre and ridiculous idea. Sort of like how Rod's theory needs more than one person to even be plausible, so does Wallace. It just sounds like Rod trying to have his lone ranger sneak thief when it's so clear that it doesn't work, yet he refuses to have a second person for no good reason.

And beyond that, given the facts about the housebreaking gang having hit Menlove Gardens South only a month earlier, and also 19 Wolverton Street hit a month earlier...

There's just way too much. Way way way too much.

As far as I'm concerned William doing it completely alone is disproven at this point, and just a kinda fairytale for people into murder mysteries. It is true there is a wonderful story and mystique in the idea, that's completely ruined if you realize it's not what happened.

It's disproven. It didn't happen. Like Rod's theory is disproven. These are both completely debunked ideas.

Parry is the caller without any question. Wallace, Marsden, or another thug is the killer.

---

An actually GOOD William murder plot would be sending himself over to, say... I don't know, Southport? With a real address. Speak to a couple of conductors. Knock and speak to the resident, or neighbours if they're out. Return home.

Knock loudly on the door of his house to get the attention of neighbours.

Thieve the handbag contents instead of stupidly being like "yeah the cash box was looted, I'm one of the only people who know where it is just FYI." Or just lie about other things being missing.

So he's either MORONIC or he didn't do it (at the least not alone).

OH and OBVIOUSLY using anything OTHER than his jacket while bludgeoning her LOL.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wallace is transparently and very obviously the only real suspect in this case and there is absolutely no requirement for ‘superpowers’ or leaps of imagination unlike Parry for example for whom we have to posit that four witnesses perjured themselves themselves just to keep him in the frame. Four witnesses (one of whom was a teenage girl, and two that didn’t even live at that address) who were all questioned by the police. Also at least two other witnesses (who maybe not have been questioned) but were named by Parry and were verifiable at the time. So if there’s one suspect that we can confident dismiss it’s not William, it’s Parry. Not a shred of doubt. The only think that ever links Parry to the crime is the most unbelievable piece of testimony ever (by Hans Christian Parkes)

This idea that William would have needed superpowers is nonsense I’m afraid. Wallace had at least 12 minutes to carry out the murder which was more than ample time. Of course doubt can conveniently be shed if we try to describe our killer as someone looking as if someone had tipped a bucket of blood over him! By very simply using the mackintosh as a shield (the only plausible explanation for its presence in the Parlour by the way) Wallace could have shielded himself from just below his eyes to the ground (if kneeling at Julia’s side) leaving only his right arm and the top three inches or so of his head exposed. He might even have put his right arm through the sleeve of the coat leaving only his hand or part of it exposed. If tried this position myself with a long coat and it’s surprisingly child’s play. Let’s remember even William himself suggested this after he was acquitted (but not before) There are specks of blood around of course but the walls aren’t drenched. William might have been prepared for some form of clean up but he might simply have had a touch of good fortune and avoided them completely.

And if we enter a territory where even the suggestion that a person could disguise his voice is considered a superpower then I’m afraid that we really are in desperate territory. Especially with 1930’s technology.

And William is such an honest chap of course and yet he blatantly lied about being a ‘stranger’ in the Menlove Gardens earlier. In numerous police interviews and over four interviews Wallace described, in detail, every stranger that he’d met that night. Every strange location. Every conversation with strangers and every detail of his route and yet, at no time, does he mention that he’d visited the house of a person that he’s actually known, Joseph Crewe! Only when Crewe testifies and Hemmerde pursues it does Wallace admit this. Could there be a clearer example that Wallace was guilty? Why would an ‘innocent’ William have lied? He lied because he didn’t want the police knowing that he was familiar with the area having visited Crewe several time for violin lessons.

My piece on the case will be available over the next day or two but one thing that I mention is something that I believe very, very strongly points to William’s guilt........who bolted the front door?

William claimed that the front door was bolted and that he found this out when he’d let the police in. Mrs Johnston couldn’t confirm this so we only have William’s word. So who bolted it?

Was it Julia? Of course not as she was expecting William home and then she’d have to have let her visitor out of course.

Was it the visitor? How? If he was trying to deceive Julia to get at the cash how could he have locked the door (just outside the Parlour) without her knowing? It’s preposterous. And why would he have? William had been sent on a goose chase and so he/they had ample time.

Did he do it after Julia was dead? Hardly, as there’s zero evidence that he’d searched for cash or valuables in this blatantly fake robbery so what reason would he have had for sticking around? None. He’d have immediately escaped via the back door.

This was William lying again. Add this to the fact that William was foiled by the back door lock for the first and only time in 16 years of living in the house (on the very night that Julia lay bludgeoned to death in the Parlour) and we have a clear view of the guilty party. It was pretty obviously William.

I’ll repeat. William Wallace stands head and shoulders above all other suspects. In fact, he’s the only real suspect.

[John G]

I agree, good post. Given Alan Close is apparently THE basis of his alibi to get away with killing his wife, he never even mentioned the existence of the milk boy, even when the milk boy didn't initially come forward? Hardly likely.

I'm surprised the defence didn't point that out... Quite clearly, he was not using Alan Close to help form an alibi.

I think the chance of Wallace doing this alone is almost zero...

The prosecution was all about showing Wallace could have done it, with no suggestion that he would. And even then to show he COULD do it took massive leaps of faith with some of their suggestions...

MacFall also said the assailant would have blood on his hair and face. MacFall is so bad as to be untrustworthy though.

---

Oh and what of the diary entries? These are CORROBORATED by multiple people. It was something like a week to a month earlier Julia was late home due to a problem with the trains, and Wallace went to the police station showing concern.

Julia relayed how worried Wallace was to Albert Wood.

Is he really that cunning?

If he had Julia killed, something happened very very recently and he had to quickly get rid of her. Which seems like a necessity killing, not personal hate.

Thanks. I fully agree that the chances of Wallace being responsible are virtually zero-- to construct any case against him at all you have to completely reject the evidence of the forensic experts, even though they were all in accord, as well as the issue over the murder weapon and a number of other factors.

The only evidence against William is that he was married to the victim, and if that's all it takes to get someone convicted of murder, or to be considered a suspect, then why bother with an investigation and a trial in cases of murder? Why not automatically convict the spouse? At least with Parry there's some substansive evidence, from Parkes, and it's not physically impossible that the two witnesses he relied upon were economical with the truth.

I agree with the issue of William 's supposed cunning. The diary entries, as you indicate, demonstrate that he was genuinely concerned for Julia's welfare. And even Parry described them as a devoted couple. There's absolutely zero evidence that he plotted to murder his wife, so only by turning him to an evil calculating genius with super powers can any case be made against him whatsover.

[WallaceWackedHer]

As I've argued before, the only way a case can be made against Wallace is by creating some sort of Marvel Comic super anti-hero, equipped with a number of special powers. And it's argued that is not only plausible but likeky!

Thus, it requires a complete rejection of the foresnic evidence by a number of experts, Even though those asserting the theory are not forensic experts and didn't view the crime scene.

Thus, the unanimous view of the forensic experts is that the assailant would have blood on his person. Even Dr McFall, who made a number of errors and was a witness for the prosecution, conceded this, agreeing that the assailant would at least have hot blood on his left hand and lower down.

If you considet the crime scene there was blood splatter everywhere-6 foot high on the walls, and low down on the violin case, for example.

How did Super Shield Man avoid all of this? If he holds his super shield too high the bottom half of his body would be unprotected and he wouldn't be able to see. Too low and the lower half of the body is unprotected. And the hand holding the weapon is also unprotected.

Neither would he have heen able to predict the direction of blood flow- unless that was another of his special powers- so such a strategy would be a crazy gamble anyway.

Neither has any sensible explanation been provided for how he disposed of the murder weapon, unless he also had the power to make solid objects invisible.

If he was Qualtrough then he also had the ability to disguise his voice so effectively that a man who knew him for eight years didn't recognise it, despite the fact that there is zero evidence he could mimic voices, so presumably this was another special power.

He would also have to have committed all the elements of the crime in super quick time and be completely dependent on Close noting and remembering the time he called, and to be honest about it (he did neither of those things) even though Close didn't call at a regular time and didn't even have a watch. It was only by a miracle that Wallace was provided with an alibi, i.e. by James Wildman, something he couldn't possibly have predicted, unless foresight was another of his many special powers. Oh dear, at least against Parry we have some evidence of substance, i.e. Parkes' evidence, which was believed by Dolly Atkinson, someone who actually knew him at the time, not just someone who's never met him, but has decided they can perfectly assess his character, i.e. veracity, on the basis of a short radio broadcast.

Against all of this implausability, explaining how Wallace couldn't have done It, what evidence is there that he did do it? Er..there isn't any!

I agree, good post. Given Alan Close is apparently THE basis of his alibi to get away with killing his wife, he never even mentioned the existence of the milk boy, even when the milk boy didn't initially come forward? Hardly likely.

I'm surprised the defence didn't point that out... Quite clearly, he was not using Alan Close to help form an alibi.

I think the chance of Wallace doing this alone is almost zero...

The prosecution was all about showing Wallace could have done it, with no suggestion that he would. And even then to show he COULD do it took massive leaps of faith with some of their suggestions...

MacFall also said the assailant would have blood on his hair and face. MacFall is so bad as to be untrustworthy though.

---

Oh and what of the diary entries? These are CORROBORATED by multiple people. It was something like a week to a month earlier Julia was late home due to a problem with the trains, and Wallace went to the police station showing concern.

Julia relayed how worried Wallace was to Albert Wood.

Is he really that cunning?

If he had Julia killed, something happened very very recently and he had to quickly get rid of her. Which seems like a necessity killing, not personal hate.