Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

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

  • With regard to Accomplice Theories these appear to be recent
    Hussey’s book came out in 1972 Nick.
    Regards

    Herlock



    Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

      (a) Yes. Her complaint was not that she had been misquoted but she did not realise that it would be printed (what did she think they would do with it?)

      (b) One is obliquely mentioned in Murder Casebook (#25) in the early 1990s, if I recall correctly. I guess any mystery can be solved by adding other unknown participants - a very good point. Parry can't have done it (if Brine is telling the truth) so let's give Parry an accomplice. But we should not lose sight of the fact that sometimes more than one person is involved. And in this case - highly controversial as it is - we have Parkes' testimony and evidence that, on some interpretations, points to Parry in the phone box, so there are rational grounds to believe that Parry was involved but not the killer.
      On the subject of Mr Parkes
      Regards

      Herlock



      Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

      Comment


      • I share your wariness about Parkes. I used to listen to Michael Green on Radio City and he was a good newsman, but they did not have the resources that a national broadcaster would be able to devote to a documentary like this - which would have enabled greater research and more probing questioning.

        Here are 4 BBC programmes about the trial I would like to have seen and heard ...

        https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/page/e99...25be1fb675366c
        -

        https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/76a1477c09f347e9b7c4191997307a65

        -
        https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/page/830d59a244484476972ccf603527c486


        https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/page/7e4...b22ac7f481f6ff

        If some of the links come up the same you can copy and paste them to google for the separate programmes.
        Last edited by NickB; 01-30-2021, 04:43 PM.

        Comment




        • [/QUOTE]Also wouldn’t someone perpetrating a prank want to see the end result? If someone plays a practical joke on someone they want to see the victim get the bucket of water over him or watch her reaction when she sees the fake spider. What would have been the point of Parry sending Wallace off to the non-existent Menlove Gardens East if he wasn’t there to see him angrily trudging back along Wolverton Street?[/QUOTE]

          Happy new year everyone!

          Forgive me for late reply and apologies if somebody has already discussed this but Tommy Cooper used to carry tea bags around with him so that he could stuff it in a cabby's pocket and say "Have a drink on me later."

          He obviously wouldn't be there to see the punchline, but still....

          Building on this, if, for whatever reason, Parry did simply play a trick and did want to be there to see the end, what could have happened or gone wrong to cause him to kill Julia, if of course that wasn't his intention all along? Did he hang around and get asked in? Did he tell Julia what he'd done (for whatever reason) and get an earful he didn't expect? Would explain why more wasn't taken.

          Alternatively, did he prank Wallace then run round to stop him and something went wrong?

          The Wallace case is the biggest real-life whodunit for me, probably because I grew up not too far away and still go past now and again. I have to admit I'd never really thought about the prank angle. But in this case anything is possible!

          regards
          Last edited by Tecs; 01-30-2021, 05:45 PM.
          If I have seen further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dupin View Post
            Now, he reckons if he murders his wife, he will surely hang. Yes he is expert in chemistry, but even 30s forensics could detect the most obvious poisons.


            - he must have a cast iron reason for being out of the house long enough for an interloper to call
            - and the confirmation of most of the denizens of Liverpool that he was out and about far away for hours, at precise times

            Hullo,

            I was going to discuss the top bit by saying don't think having a knowledge of chemistry makes you a criminal genius. I have an honours degree in chemistry, from the University of Liverpool coincidentally, (funnily enough, I Don't remember anybody ever mentioning Wallace!) and to be honest, most of what we did was studying bonds, bond angles, structures etc. But then, to be fair I think I might be doing myself a diservice. I probably picked up a lot peripherally that I don't think about. I actually got some Uni stuff out of the loft and there's a lot more there about that type of thing than I remember.

            ​​​​​​Then, thinking about it, my degree in the 90's was with the help of computers, infra red machines, x-ray crystallography etc in the 30's, before these were invented, chemistry probably was more about actual chemicals rather than the study of them if you see whatbI mean.

            So, bearing in mind Klosowski got away with two murders using something as simple as tartar emetic thirty years before, I suppose if Wallace only wanted to kill his wife and that's it....well, yes he really should have more than enough knowledge to find whatever he needed.


            And just on the second point I've often wondered why if it was him he went to such a ridiculous extreme to provide an alibi?

            So ridiculous it must be true?

            If he needed an alibi why not simply arrange it all for a night you was at the chess club? There will be no questions then? or certainly not as many.

            regards
            If I have seen further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tecs View Post
              Also wouldn’t someone perpetrating a prank want to see the end result? If someone plays a practical joke on someone they want to see the victim get the bucket of water over him or watch her reaction when she sees the fake spider. What would have been the point of Parry sending Wallace off to the non-existent Menlove Gardens East if he wasn’t there to see him angrily trudging back along Wolverton Street?[/QUOTE]

              Happy new year everyone!

              Forgive me for late reply and apologies if somebody has already discussed this but Tommy Cooper used to carry tea bags around with him so that he could stuff it in a cabby's pocket and say "Have a drink on me later."

              He obviously wouldn't be there to see the punchline, but still....

              Building on this, if, for whatever reason, Parry did simply play a trick and did want to be there to see the end, what could have happened or gone wrong to cause him to kill Julia, if of course that wasn't his intention all along? Did he hang around and get asked in? Did he tell Julia what he'd done (for whatever reason) and get an earful he didn't expect? Would explain why more wasn't taken.

              Alternatively, did he prank Wallace then run round to stop him and something went wrong?

              The Wallace case is the biggest real-life whodunit for me, probably because I grew up not too far away and still go past now and again. I have to admit I'd never really thought about the prank angle. But in this case anything is possible!

              regards[/QUOTE]




              Happy New Year Tecs,

              It was PD James who first came up with the idea of the prank call but the theory is that Parry makes the call and then William takes advantage of it as an alibi before killing Julia.
              Regards

              Herlock



              Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tecs View Post


                Hullo,

                I was going to discuss the top bit by saying don't think having a knowledge of chemistry makes you a criminal genius. I have an honours degree in chemistry, from the University of Liverpool coincidentally, (funnily enough, I Don't remember anybody ever mentioning Wallace!) and to be honest, most of what we did was studying bonds, bond angles, structures etc. But then, to be fair I think I might be doing myself a diservice. I probably picked up a lot peripherally that I don't think about. I actually got some Uni stuff out of the loft and there's a lot more there about that type of thing than I remember.

                ​​​​​​Then, thinking about it, my degree in the 90's was with the help of computers, infra red machines, x-ray crystallography etc in the 30's, before these were invented, chemistry probably was more about actual chemicals rather than the study of them if you see whatbI mean.

                So, bearing in mind Klosowski got away with two murders using something as simple as tartar emetic thirty years before, I suppose if Wallace only wanted to kill his wife and that's it....well, yes he really should have more than enough knowledge to find whatever he needed.


                And just on the second point I've often wondered why if it was him he went to such a ridiculous extreme to provide an alibi?

                So ridiculous it must be true?

                If he needed an alibi why not simply arrange it all for a night you was at the chess club? There will be no questions then? or certainly not as many.

                regards
                An advantage of using the phone call and the search for MGE is that another suspect is introduced into the mix - Qualtrough (whoever he was) Wallace could have said “I only left the house that night because of the call” whereas with chess it would have been 100% down to him.

                Regards

                Herlock



                Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  An advantage of using the phone call and the search for MGE is that another suspect is introduced into the mix - Qualtrough (whoever he was) Wallace could have said “I only left the house that night because of the call” whereas with chess it would have been 100% down to him.
                  Another interesting tidbit of information I think I mentioned on the previous threads .After some research a few years ago, it was revealed that the highest concentration of family names ‘Qualtrough’ ,although rare around the rest of the country, and indeed the world ,was centred around Cumberland, and Millom in particular , with the heaviest concentration just across the water on the Isle of Man.He got his idea of that name from his home town where he grew up I would wager, and knew it would suit nicely for his memorable and fictitious phone box caller.I also seem to recall someone mentioned that there was a local shop not too far away, by that name, and yet Wallace was insistent he hadn’t heard of the name Qualtrough.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by moste View Post

                    Another interesting tidbit of information I think I mentioned on the previous threads .After some research a few years ago, it was revealed that the highest concentration of family names ‘Qualtrough’ ,although rare around the rest of the country, and indeed the world ,was centred around Cumberland, and Millom in particular , with the heaviest concentration just across the water on the Isle of Man.He got his idea of that name from his home town where he grew up I would wager, and knew it would suit nicely for his memorable and fictitious phone box caller.I also seem to recall someone mentioned that there was a local shop not too far away, by that name, and yet Wallace was insistent he hadn’t heard of the name Qualtrough.
                    Id heard of the Isle Of Man connection but not the Cumberland/Millom connection. Is that a definite Moste?!
                    Regards

                    Herlock



                    Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by moste View Post

                      ... with the heaviest concentration just across the water on the Isle of Man. I also seem to recall someone mentioned that there was a local shop not too far away, by that name, and yet Wallace was insistent he hadn’t heard of the name Qualtrough.
                      Windermere St.

                      http://qualtrough.org/articles/artic...m-wallace.html
                      Thems the Vagaries.....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

                        Ven, I like your forensic analysis of the timings regarding Amy's conversation with Julia. However, Wallace was never asked when he first told Julia about the call. He said they discussed it at tea, which I interpret to mean (in light of other things said at the trial) that is when he decided to keep the appointment. In which case, he might of told Julia at breakfast or dinner.

                        If we do not accept the above, then we have to conclude that Amy Wallace is lying. What other interpretation is there? And that blows open the entire case.
                        Thanks ColdCaseJury, i appreciate your feedback, so I'd like to maybe finish this line with the following -

                        OK, not many seem to agree with my points about William discussing/telling Julia about the Qualtrough call, and the implications of this on Amy's statement, and therefore William's guilt, so I will try one last time and not bring it up again if anyone can positively refute it or bring up some other evidence.

                        So, I'll add another piece to confirm my accusation...

                        "... I arrived home at 6.05pm. I remember the time quite well because, I looked at the time on the mantlepiece to ascertain how much time I had to spare before leaving for Manlove Gardens East."...so the DECISION to go to the Qualtrough call was already made, after the DISCUSSION had already been made, before he arrived home for TEA! So why DISCUSS it after that?! Therefore, it was never discussed or TOLD.
                        If discussed/told at Supper on Monday night after chess, breakfast on Tuesday, Dinner/Lunch on Tuesday, then why didn't he answer that at the trial? Please don't say, "well they still discussed its veracity...blah blah blah..." William said, when asked, if he told his wife, yes, he discussed it at TEA.
                        He was asked Q. Had you ever told your wife you were going out that night? and he answered A. Certainly, we discussed it. If you want to be pedantic then why would he not, simply answer the question with say "Yes. I told her at Supper on Monday Night/ at breakfast on Tuesday Morning or Dinner/Lunch on Tuesday"? or more simply "Yes"... and then wait for the question about "discussing it"...as shown above, his decision to go was already made up.

                        At this point in time, it's a no brainer...but eagerly await your responses.

                        I am trying to find his statement about "Always discussing business decisions with his wife." Although it wouldn't change this timing issue.

                        BTW, the lack of blood outside the parlour , I believe, leads to a premeditated murder rather than an "Oh ****, someone's home, will have to kill her" type scenario... but that's another thread....

                        Comment


                        • Why would the prank caller not say 2pm.? If he really wanted to disrupt William's life? William already went out at night to 1) play chess 2) Teach and 3) occasionally go out to Clubmoor for business.
                          To have to go out during the day would have really upset his daily routine!

                          Comment


                          • Did anyone have any thoughts about my POST #145 about the police trying to set up William?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by moste View Post

                              Another interesting tidbit of information I think I mentioned on the previous threads .After some research a few years ago, it was revealed that the highest concentration of family names ‘Qualtrough’ ,although rare around the rest of the country, and indeed the world ,was centred around Cumberland, and Millom in particular , with the heaviest concentration just across the water on the Isle of Man.He got his idea of that name from his home town where he grew up I would wager, and knew it would suit nicely for his memorable and fictitious phone box caller.I also seem to recall someone mentioned that there was a local shop not too far away, by that name, and yet Wallace was insistent he hadn’t heard of the name Qualtrough.
                              Moste, you can leave a dynamite quote like that without further data and sources! Ancestry shows that - today - about 95% of Qualtroughs live in the Isle of Man. The rest are in the North West and London. No specific breakdown. North West, by the way, includes Liverpool as well as Cumbria. We need the data because - out of all the tens of thousands of posts on this topic - this one is arguably one of the most probative.
                              Author of Cold Case Jury books: The Shark Arm Mystery (2020), Poisoned at the Priory (2020), Move to Murder (2018), Death of an Actress (2018), The Green Bicycle Mystery (2017) - "Armchair detectives will be delighted" - Publishers Weekly. And for something completely different - I'm the co-founder of Wow-Vinyl - celebrating the Golden Years of the British Single (1977-85)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ven View Post
                                "... I arrived home at 6.05pm. I remember the time quite well because, I looked at the time on the mantlepiece to ascertain how much time I had to spare before leaving for Manlove Gardens East."...so the DECISION to go to the Qualtrough call was already made, after the DISCUSSION had already been made, before he arrived home for TEA! So why DISCUSS it after that?! Therefore, it was never discussed or TOLD.
                                Ven, you may have a strong argument against Wallace but, in my opinion, your last argument regarding the timing of William and Julia's conversation is a non-sequitur. Let me give you my view - and then you and others can see if you agree with me or not.

                                As you say, the quote suggests that Wallace probably had already discussed it with Julia prior to tea on Tuesday. That supports Amy Wallace's statement. But you then ask why discuss it after that? A good question - but we cannot conclude it was never discussed at all. I think you mean, it was not discussed at tea and therefore Wallace is lying (and evidence of his guilt). But I'm not sure we cannot conclude that he did not discuss the trip with his wife at tea as well. He might have been unsure whether to go given Julia's cold, or discussed what he hoped his commission might be. People discuss different aspects of things all the time don't they?

                                As I say, if you're correct, and Amy Wallace was lying, it blows the case wide open. Alas, Wallace was not asked when he first told his wife about the call. If he had answered "at tea" your analysis would be devastating and everyone would have to agree - it would point to Amy covering up for Wallace.
                                Author of Cold Case Jury books: The Shark Arm Mystery (2020), Poisoned at the Priory (2020), Move to Murder (2018), Death of an Actress (2018), The Green Bicycle Mystery (2017) - "Armchair detectives will be delighted" - Publishers Weekly. And for something completely different - I'm the co-founder of Wow-Vinyl - celebrating the Golden Years of the British Single (1977-85)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X