Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    The problem with 2pm is that a caller who knew Wallace’s job would know that he was working during the day and that a large detour to MGE would have caused him to miss some of his regular calls so he would have been unlikely in the extreme to have gone.

    Eaxactly Herlock, hence the prank !!

    On William going out at night...1) He was an irregular attender, 2) Ill stand correcting but I’m pretty sure that he was no longer attending the college, and 3) his round was entirely in the Clubmoor area.
    Not sure what this post supposes

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ven View Post

      Not sure what this post supposes
      That a prank call asking William to go to MGE at 2pm would have been unlikely in the extreme to have worked. William wouldn’t have wanted to miss his regular appointments to go to MGE during the day.
      Regards

      Herlock



      “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

      “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

      ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

      Comment


      • Not sure what you're implying here Herlock

        On William going out at night...1) He was an irregular attender, 2) Ill stand correcting but I’m pretty sure that he was no longer attending the college, and 3) his round was entirely in the Clubmoor area.

        Umm what?

        On William going out at night...1) He was an irregular attender, 2) Ill stand correcting but I’m pretty sure that he was no longer attending the college, and 3) his round was entirely in the Clubmoor area.

        Umm what again?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ven View Post
          Not sure what you're implying here Herlock

          On William going out at night...1) He was an irregular attender, 2) Ill stand correcting but I’m pretty sure that he was no longer attending the college, and 3) his round was entirely in the Clubmoor area.

          Umm what?

          On William going out at night...1) He was an irregular attender, 2) Ill stand correcting but I’m pretty sure that he was no longer attending the college, and 3) his round was entirely in the Clubmoor area.

          Umm what again?
          Your original post:

          .
          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!
          So....

          1. So your question is: “If it was a prank caller why didn’t he request that William go to MGE at 2pm rather than at 7.30 pm?”

          2. You qualified this suggestion by stating occasions that William already went out in the evenings.

          My responses were/are...

          1. If the prank call had suggested that Wallace went to MGE at 2.30pm instead of 7.30pm it would have been unlikely to have worked because it would have meant that Wallace would have had to have taken a considerable amount of time to go out of his way causing him to miss sone of his regular appointments.

          2. Was just my response to your suggestion that Wallace already went out in the evenings. a) he was an irregular chess attendee, b) he no longer lectured and c) he didn’t go out in the evening to Clubmoor on business. He did that during the day.
          Regards

          Herlock



          “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

          ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

          Comment


          • On another issue..

            Over the years the main argument against Wallace’s guilt has been that he would have needed time to clean up after the murder and so would not have had enough time between the departure of Alan Close and the time that he would have needed to have left to the house in order to have reached his first tram in time. I’ve argued two points. A) that he used the mackintosh (either as a shield or by wearing it) as protection, and B) that he might have expected to have gotten blood on him but was fortunate and didn’t. After all, if Wallace had gotten blood on his hands or face he could have cleaned up in the back kitchen sink at no risk to himself as it could have been said that any killer might not have wanted to leave the house covered in blood.

            Former poster WWH has been consulting various forensic experts on the subject of blood spatter to analyse the crime scene (not easy as we have to rely on only 2 photographs where, for example, an old blemish might be mistaken for blood or that some spatter might not have been picked up by a 1930’s camera.) WWH has now posted the findings of a forensics expert. This is his final point.

            “The assailant is expected to have very little if any blood upon them from carrying out this attack”

            Yes, I might be accused of gloating here, but I have to say that surely we can now dispense with the “Wallace couldn't have had time to have done it” argument. He certainly could have had time. Of course this isn’t a slam dunk Wallace was obviously guilty point but it’s a huge point nonetheless. This was the big ‘objection.’ I’d say that it’s now gone.

            Thanks to WallaceWackedHer for his excellent website and for taking the time and effort
            Regards

            Herlock



            “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

            ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

            Comment


            • On 28-Jan-31 the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions said he would not advise proceedings on the current evidence. The decision was left to Liverpool police, if further enquiries yielded additional evidence.

              It is difficult to see what significant additional evidence had been obtained that justified Wallace being charged 5 days later.

              The DPPs expert advice is important because the mechanism by which Wallace was freed was by the defence arguing that his case should never even have been tried. I wonder if the appeal judges had read the DPP file.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                On another issue..

                Over the years the main argument against Wallace’s guilt has been that he would have needed time to clean up after the murder and so would not have had enough time between the departure of Alan Close and the time that he would have needed to have left to the house in order to have reached his first tram in time. I’ve argued two points. A) that he used the mackintosh (either as a shield or by wearing it) as protection, and B) that he might have expected to have gotten blood on him but was fortunate and didn’t. After all, if Wallace had gotten blood on his hands or face he could have cleaned up in the back kitchen sink at no risk to himself as it could have been said that any killer might not have wanted to leave the house covered in blood.

                Former poster WWH has been consulting various forensic experts on the subject of blood spatter to analyse the crime scene (not easy as we have to rely on only 2 photographs where, for example, an old blemish might be mistaken for blood or that some spatter might not have been picked up by a 1930’s camera.) WWH has now posted the findings of a forensics expert. This is his final point.

                “The assailant is expected to have very little if any blood upon them from carrying out this attack”

                Yes, I might be accused of gloating here, but I have to say that surely we can now dispense with the “Wallace couldn't have had time to have done it” argument. He certainly could have had time. Of course this isn’t a slam dunk Wallace was obviously guilty point but it’s a huge point nonetheless. This was the big ‘objection.’ I’d say that it’s now gone.

                Thanks to WallaceWackedHer for his excellent website and for taking the time and effort
                Yes, really interesting. Unfortunately for us, this is the second forensic expert WWH consulted. The first concluded the opposite, and was why WWH believed Wallace could be eliminated as a suspect. What this case gives on one hand... it takes away with the other!

                Nevertheless, it opens that side of the debate up. I do agree.
                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


                • Herlock, On WWHs site, doesn't he have forensic experts saying different things about the blood splatter?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NickB View Post
                    Herlock, On WWHs site, doesn't he have forensic experts saying different things about the blood splatter?
                    He has two others Nick.

                    Number One said:

                    “This type of injury would likely cause a lot of blowback blood spatter, meaning the perpetrator would be covered in blood, from the testimonies it doesn’t seem consistent that the MacKintosh was being worn during this “

                    and

                    “ I wouldn’t rule out that the mac could have been worn, but I would envision a greater spatter on the fabric if so”

                    and

                    “Clearly, the competence of the photography of the jacket isn’t ideal. I can’t really say more about the spatter on here from this”

                    and

                    “I can’t see an attack such as this not leaving spatter upon all the clothes, even if covered by the mackintosh. Especially on sleeves and collars that wouldn’t be covered in that scenario”


                    So we have real uncertainty here but the expert can’t rule out the mackintosh being worn.


                    Number Two said:

                    “I will say from the information below that there would be a lot of expected cast off of blood from the multiple blows. I have not seen the exact information you discussed earlier, but if the story is that Wallace was convicted on the basis of him “holding up the raincoat as a shield” while simultaneously striking the blows, I would say that is absurd. Now if he was wearing a raincoat, it could largely protect the underlying clothing”

                    Im afraid that it’s not absurd. I’ve tried it. Not by striking a body of course but I’ve held a coat as a shield and made 10 heavy blows. A friend of mine repeated it too.

                    and

                    “But to your original question.. I see no way that anyone could have committed the murder without getting seriously blood stained. And then certainly have done it in the time frame allotted”

                    and

                    “Yes, even if worn. There would still be spatter on the attackers face and neck (and hands unless wearing gloves). And on the lower pant legs and shoes, since a mac does not drag on the floor. And I can’t accept it being used as a “shield”. You simply can’t hold up a coat like that and protect your entire body. We know from the spatter at the scene that it was not placed over the head for all blows (if any

                    This ‘pant legs and shoes’ is a non-point if the killer was kneeling as I’ve suggested that he might have been. On the “you simply can’t...” point, he’s just wrong I’m afraid.


                    and

                    “I remain convinced that William was not the killer and I am not very excited about the accomplice theory. I just don’t think he was involved. The involvement of Parry seems pretty clear, especially with the glove and car wash.”

                    So this Forensic Analyst sees nothing strange about the Parkes evidence? Ok.

                    .......

                    So from 3 experts one says that it’s possible the killer might have got little or no blood on him. Another says that the suggestion of the Mac being worn cannot be ruled out but he ‘can’t see’ an attack not leaving blood on the clothes even if covered by the mackintosh? And the third is more confident that the killer would have gotten blood on him and states something as impossible which isn’t. He also doesn’t even consider the possibility of the killer kneeling to deliver all but the first blow.

                    Whichever way we look at it how do we read these 3 and dismiss William on their say. It’s impossible.

                    I know that this will annoy, and I’m not saying that Wallace had to be guilty, but we really do have to dismiss the suggestion that Wallace would have been covered in blood and wouldn’t have had sufficient time. All the ‘mights’ in the world are irrelevant. William could have easily had time to kill Julia. I firmly believe that this point can no longer being challenged with facts.

                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 01-31-2021, 02:39 PM.
                    Regards

                    Herlock



                    “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

                    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

                    ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      I know that this will annoy, and I’m not saying that Wallace had to be guilty, but we really do have to dismiss the suggestion that (1) Wallace would have been covered in blood and (2) wouldn’t have had sufficient time. All the ‘mights’ in the world are irrelevant. William could have easily had time to kill Julia. I firmly believe that this point can no longer being challenged with facts.
                      Herlock, I've numbered two points in your concluding comment.

                      (1) I hope everyone agrees whoever was the killer was not drenched in blood. If he was, there would be bloody footprints and drops of blood downstairs. But (1) is consistent with some blood transfer to the killer and that might still be problematic as we do not believe Wallace changed clothes and the police examined them with Benzidine.

                      (2) If he had no blood on him and (almost) walked out of the house soon after then, yes, I agree. It depends on (a) how much time we believe Wallace had to get out of the house by 6.49pm (at the latest) and what he had to do.

                      Edit: I would also point out that Julia's body was moved during the attack (from by the armchair to the centre of the room) probably by grabbing her hair, which must have been bloodied. This manoeuvre increases the chances of blood transfer - I do not know whether the analysts have considered this.
                      Last edited by ColdCaseJury; 01-31-2021, 02:53 PM.
                      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 ColdCaseJury View Post

                        Herlock, I've numbered two points in your concluding comment.

                        (1) I hope everyone agrees whoever was the killer was not drenched in blood. If he was, there would be bloody footprints and drops of blood downstairs. But (1) is consistent with some blood transfer to the killer and that might still be problematic as we do not believe Wallace changed clothes and the police examined them with Benzidine.

                        (2) If he had no blood on him and (almost) walked out of the house soon after then, yes, I agree. It depends on (a) how much time we believe Wallace had to get out of the house by 6.49pm (at the latest) and what he had to do.

                        Edit: I would also point out that Julia's body was moved during the attack (from by the armchair to the centre of the room) probably by grabbing her hair, which must have been bloodied. This manoeuvre increases the chances of blood transfer - I do not know whether the analysts have considered this.
                        Fair points of course Antony. On the issue of blood transfer though I’d suggest that it would be possible that the blood transfer ended up on the mackintosh (however it might have been used.) Wallace may have also rolled up his shirt sleeves for example and got some specks of blood on his hand or wrist (unless he’d worn gloves?) Apart from that only his face would have been uncovered. Any blood spatter might not have hit his face though because if the killer was to Julia’s left it’s noticeable that there’s no blood behind the killer toward the window which, if any amount of blood went in that direction then every drop would have had to have hit his head which would surely be unlikely? A speck or two on his face might have been cleaned away with a cloth which he might have dampened one corner of under the tap, leaving no blood in the sink. The cloth might then have been used to wrap the weapon (and maybe a pair of gloves?)
                        Regards

                        Herlock



                        “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

                        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

                        ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Fair points of course Antony. On the issue of blood transfer though I’d suggest that it would be possible that the blood transfer ended up on the mackintosh (however it might have been used.) Wallace may have also rolled up his shirt sleeves for example and got some specks of blood on his hand or wrist (unless he’d worn gloves?) Apart from that only his face would have been uncovered. Any blood spatter might not have hit his face though because if the killer was to Julia’s left it’s noticeable that there’s no blood behind the killer toward the window which, if any amount of blood went in that direction then every drop would have had to have hit his head which would surely be unlikely? A speck or two on his face might have been cleaned away with a cloth which he might have dampened one corner of under the tap, leaving no blood in the sink. The cloth might then have been used to wrap the weapon (and maybe a pair of gloves?)
                          Ditto - fair points, Herlock. I think Wallace would have used gloves tucked inside the sleeves of the mackintosh - it was a a cold January evening and would not have aroused suspicion in Julia. Of course, Wallace has to take off bloodstained gloves, a thing easier said than done when you don't want any blood transfer. I am assuming, by the way, there would at least have been blood transfer when he moved the body. Of course, he now has to to dispose of gloves as well as a weapon (a bit like Parry, really!), but this is a different issue...

                          Wallace has to plan thoroughly and accept the risk that he might get blood flecks in his hair or, say, on the rim of his spectacles that he might miss and send him to the gallows. But that is another issue...

                          Now the lack of blood spatter to the right of the corner chair is interesting. I would like to say that's because it went all over the killer! But it is an interesting point, I hope you agree, on which expert analysis would be welcome. Also, his lower legs and feet. Given the position of the body on the floor, aren't these likely to get some blood on them? Even if he wiped them clean, not all traces of blood would come off and some transfer to clean socks would be revealed by the sensitive Benzidine test... but I am assuming the police did a thorough job... mmm.

                          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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Id heard of the Isle Of Man connection but not the Cumberland/Millom connection. Is that a definite Moste?!
                            It is a definite . But I’m having problems bringing up the same info on Qualtrough concentrations on the internet ,that I know I had found a few years back

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                              very interesting Al.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

                                Ditto - fair points, Herlock. I think Wallace would have used gloves tucked inside the sleeves of the mackintosh - it was a a cold January evening and would not have aroused suspicion in Julia. Of course, Wallace has to take off bloodstained gloves, a thing easier said than done when you don't want any blood transfer. I am assuming, by the way, there would at least have been blood transfer when he moved the body. Of course, he now has to to dispose of gloves as well as a weapon (a bit like Parry, really!), but this is a different issue...

                                Wallace has to plan thoroughly and accept the risk that he might get blood flecks in his hair or, say, on the rim of his spectacles that he might miss and send him to the gallows. But that is another issue...

                                Now the lack of blood spatter to the right of the corner chair is interesting. I would like to say that's because it went all over the killer! But it is an interesting point, I hope you agree, on which expert analysis would be welcome. Also, his lower legs and feet. Given the position of the body on the floor, aren't these likely to get some blood on them? Even if he wiped them clean, not all traces of blood would come off and some transfer to clean socks would be revealed by the sensitive Benzidine test... but I am assuming the police did a thorough job... mmm.
                                I’d imagined the killer kneeling next to Julia’s body except for the first blow of course with his feet toward to window so I’d consider them largely out of danger.

                                Can we assume that the body was moved Antony and that she couldn’t have landed where she was found. Isn’t this largely based on the singeing of Julia’s skirt and the chignon that had come away from her hair (assuming that her hair had been pulled to move her?) I understand the assumption that the singeing occurred at the same time as the burning of the mackintosh but I have my doubts. The singeing on Julia’s skirt had burned through into a hole but there was absolutely no marking on her underskirt. I’m not stating a certainty of course but this raises a question for me. Could the singeing have occurred at an earlier date? Julia was no Jackie Onassis when it came to clothing so would she have been too fussy about wearing a singed skirt around the house?

                                Couldn't the chignon have just come away after a heavy blow?

                                Do you think that there is at least the possibility that Julia might not have been moved?
                                Regards

                                Herlock



                                “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

                                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

                                ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X