** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[Ven]

To be honest Ven I wouldn’t say ‘shot down in flames.’ It was a very good observation and something that no one else had noticed as far as I’m aware so I certainly take my hat off to you. All that I’d say though is that there is a possible and plausible innocent explanation. That said of course it’s by no means certain that this innocent explanation is correct.

Thanks Herlock,
But plausible and possible doesn't cut it for me. William said what he said... it's either truth or lie...I'm trying to take in all that he said... others seem to want pick what he said. i.e. don,t take one part of what he said and "this is fact"... What i'm saying is that it all could be a lie'... William seems to have "told/Discussed"it with Juliia several times ... but they contradict each other... tell me which of William's statements, trial records are true, and I'll point out the problem.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock,
But plausible and possible doesn't cut it for me. William said what he said... it's either truth or lie...I'm trying to take in all that he said... others seem to want pick what he said. i.e. don,t take one part of what he said and "this is fact"... What i'm saying is that it all could be a lie'... William seems to have "told/Discussed"it with Juliia several times ... but they contradict each other... tell me which of William's statements, trial records are true, and I'll point out the problem.

Surely the point is that we can only work on what we have. So how do we decide?

[Ven]

Surely the point is that we can only work on what we have. So how do we decide?

So when was he telling the truth and when was he lying? You yell me, when was he lying and when was he telling the truth?

did he discuss it before tea?

Had he decided before Tea?

Did he tell her at all?

William mentions at least two different times... so what is it?

And if you want to accept one answer then the other is a lie!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

So when was he telling the truth and when was he lying? You yell me, when was he lying and when was he telling the truth?

did he discuss it before tea?

Had he decided before Tea?

Did he tell her at all?

William mentions at least two different times... so what is it?

And if you want to accept one answer then the other is a lie!!

You know that I think that Wallace was guilty of course so I’m the least likely person to go out of my way to exonerate him but it’s still possible to put forward a possible explanation IMO. It would be fair for anyone to suggest that, after getting home on the Monday night, he might have mentioned to call to Julia but he hadn’t decided whether to go or not. Then he goes out to work on the morning and returns at lunch time when he mayor may not have mentioned it again to Julia. Then during the afternoon Julia mentions the call to Amy when she made her visit. Whilst he’s on his afternoon route William thinks over whether to go (knowing of course that it at least partly depends on what time he gets home and whether he has enough time.) He gets home, sees that he has enough time and says something like “do you think that I should go?” They have a short discussion and he decides to go.

Then, when asked about it, he mentions ‘discussing’ it with Julia at tea time (when the actual discussion took place.) The previous ‘mentions’ were just that. Wallace was talking about an actual discussion (when the decision to go was finally taken or agreed.)

Can we say that this is what happened? No. But it’s certainly a possible explanation and it’s one that we can’t dismiss with evidence.

[etenguy]

So when was he telling the truth and when was he lying? You yell me, when was he lying and when was he telling the truth?

did he discuss it before tea?

Had he decided before Tea?

Did he tell her at all?

William mentions at least two different times... so what is it?

And if you want to accept one answer then the other is a lie!!

Hi Ven

I don't see any issue with both statements being correct in the different contexts in which the questions were asked. He had spoken with Julia about it during the day and then discussed at tea time whether he should go.

[Abby Normal]

noob question here... did wallace ever say who he thought did it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

noob question here... did wallace ever say who he thought did it?

He goes for Parry but only after the successful appeal. He doesn’t mention him by name but he’s obviously referring to him.

[etenguy]

He goes for Parry but only after the successful appeal. He doesn’t mention him by name but he’s obviously referring to him.

He does mention him by name in his diary, but not publicly, though as you say, he is obviously referring to him.

[NickB]

But which solution option would Wallace have voted for in the poll?

His defence suggested Julia opened the door to Qualtrough, but he might have only gone along with this because he could not name Parry.

Of course a guilty Wallace, if being honest, would vote for himself!

[ColdCaseJury]

Here’s an argument I’m thinking of using in the second edition of Move to Murder. In a nutshell, it argues that critical aspects of the murder suggest Parry’s involvement is more likely than Wallace planned it to frame Parry. Or, alternatively, Wallace planned poorly, contrary to what many suppose. My presentation of the argument here is formal and logical – I would not present it like this in my book. I’m posting to a get a critique from some of the most knowledgeable people on the case - you!

Key Assumptions:
[W₁] Wallace alone killed Julia Wallace
[W₂] Wallace carefully planned and thought through the details of his plan in advance

Key elements of his plan included:
[Q] The Qualtrough call to make it appear someone else was the killer
[C] The theft from the cash box to make it appear that robbery was the motive
[P] Killing Julia in the parlour to make it appear that a visitor had called

Now P by itself does not limit the number of potential suspects (although Wallace subsequently limited it by stating that Julia would not admit strangers). However, Q limits the suspect pool to those that knew Wallace frequented the cafe and might be there on the Monday night, and C limits it to a handful of people, mostly business colleagues, who knew of the cash box. In fact, Q & C limit the suspect pool to just two known people: James Caird and Gordon Parry.

One might include Joseph Marsden in the list, but it is unclear if he knew Wallace might be at the chess club on the Monday night. In fact, Q and C eliminate almost everybody else, so let’s stick with the two. As Wallace would have be confident during his planning that Caird would have an alibi for the call (i.e. Caird would be at the chess club), the plan QCP limits the potential suspects to just one – Parry. Therefore, we can conclude that if W₁ and W₂ are true:
[C₁] Wallace planned QCP to frame Parry for the murder

There is no other plausible explanation for the plan QCP. If we reject C₁, we have to ask what on earth was Wallace thinking? If he wanted to keep the number of suspects as high as possible (his best defence) he would have planned only P (and stated that Julia would admit anyone) but not C and not Q. Even the phone call dramatically limits the number of suspects – just look at Hemmerde’s attacks during the trial if you are in any doubt. Again, if C₁ is rejected, why did Wallace state that Julia would not admit strangers? Was he so stupid not to realise his defence was hindered by this statement? Did he not realise that Parry was virtually the only possible suspect that Julia would admit into the parlour (P) and who knew enough to make the call [Q] and had actually used his cash box [C]? He must have done, hence C₁

Is there any other evidence to support C₁? Yes – Wallace’s second police interview during which he clearly points the finger towards Parry, his John Bull articles and his private diaries in which he actually names Parry. Under assumptions W₁ and W₂, the plan QCP and Wallace’s post-crime behaviour implies beyond a reasonable doubt that Wallace was trying to frame Parry [C₁]. I think many Wallace theorists are comfortable with that.

But:
[C₂] QCP imply Parry’s involvement.

By definition, they must. If C₁ is true, Wallace deliberately pointed the evidence to implicate Parry. If C₂ is false then there would be no grounds whatsoever to claim that Wallace planned to frame Parry. Therefore, C₂ must be true if C₁ is true. And as we have seen, C₁ is the only reasonable interpretation of QCP under the assumptions of W₁ and W₂.

And here’s the twist: the probability of QCP > W₂QCP (this is not opinion but a theorem of probability theory). In ordinary English, the simpler and more likely theory is that Parry was involved and not that Wallace planned it to look like Parry was involved. In other words, if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, why do you assume it’s a hologram of a duck and not a real one?

Therefore, if we are to hold W₁ (Wallace is the killer) I believe we should reject W₂. Wallace did not plan and think through this crime at all well. And even if you’re not sure about the probability stuff, look at what the QCP plan achieved. It effectively limited the suspect pool to just one person – Parry – a person that, for all Wallace knew, might have had cast-iron alibis for the night of the murder and the call. If Wallace was the killer, he wanted the largest pool of suspects or overwhelming evidence that Parry did it, yet his plan did neither. It was a poor plan if he wanted to get away with murder.

You may question the last point. You might counter that Wallace was an ingenious planner who was so bitter against Parry (for some reason) that Wallace was prepared to take a risk. But this is only to re-state C₁ (Wallace planned QCP to frame Parry for the murder) and hence a similar conclusion Pr(QCP) > Pr(C₁QCP) follows: the more likely theory is that Parry was involved and not that Wallace planned it to look like Parry was involved. I would also question how Wallace thought his plan would ensnare Parry when he had no idea whether Parry had alibis for the nights in question. Again, I would conclude that, if that was his objective, he did not plan well.

Conclusion
The QCP aspects of the case are more likely to be evidence of Parry’s involvement than a plan by Wallace to frame him, or Wallace did not plan as well as many suppose.

So, that’s the argument. Any feedback welcome.

[moste]

I would simply answer that Wallace intended to ensnare Parry . Parry having an alibi ,doesn’t exonerate him from being involved. ( use of accomplice) . I think Wallace purposely flunked the phone call knowing the call could be traced , and calculated that the police would consider that he,Wallace,was being set up. (Obviously what the appeal judges believed)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here’s an argument I’m thinking of using in the second edition of Move to Murder. In a nutshell, it argues that critical aspects of the murder suggest Parry’s involvement is more likely than Wallace planned it to frame Parry. Or, alternatively, Wallace planned poorly, contrary to what many suppose. My presentation of the argument here is formal and logical – I would not present it like this in my book. I’m posting to a get a critique from some of the most knowledgeable people on the case - you!

Key Assumptions:
[W₁] Wallace alone killed Julia Wallace
[W₂] Wallace carefully planned and thought through the details of his plan in advance

Key elements of his plan included:
[Q] The Qualtrough call to make it appear someone else was the killer
[C] The theft from the cash box to make it appear that robbery was the motive
[P] Killing Julia in the parlour to make it appear that a visitor had called

Now P by itself does not limit the number of potential suspects (although Wallace subsequently limited it by stating that Julia would not admit strangers). However, Q limits the suspect pool to those that knew Wallace frequented the cafe and might be there on the Monday night, and C limits it to a handful of people, mostly business colleagues, who knew of the cash box. In fact, Q & C limit the suspect pool to just two known people: James Caird and Gordon Parry.

One might include Joseph Marsden in the list, but it is unclear if he knew Wallace might be at the chess club on the Monday night. In fact, Q and C eliminate almost everybody else, so let’s stick with the two. As Wallace would have be confident during his planning that Caird would have an alibi for the call (i.e. Caird would be at the chess club), the plan QCP limits the potential suspects to just one – Parry. Therefore, we can conclude that if W₁ and W₂ are true:
[C₁] Wallace planned QCP to frame Parry for the murder

There is no other plausible explanation for the plan QCP. If we reject C₁, we have to ask what on earth was Wallace thinking? If he wanted to keep the number of suspects as high as possible (his best defence) he would have planned only P (and stated that Julia would admit anyone) but not C and not Q. Even the phone call dramatically limits the number of suspects – just look at Hemmerde’s attacks during the trial if you are in any doubt. Again, if C₁ is rejected, why did Wallace state that Julia would not admit strangers? Was he so stupid not to realise his defence was hindered by this statement? Did he not realise that Parry was virtually the only possible suspect that Julia would admit into the parlour (P) and who knew enough to make the call [Q] and had actually used his cash box [C]? He must have done, hence C₁

Is there any other evidence to support C₁? Yes – Wallace’s second police interview during which he clearly points the finger towards Parry, his John Bull articles and his private diaries in which he actually names Parry. Under assumptions W₁ and W₂, the plan QCP and Wallace’s post-crime behaviour implies beyond a reasonable doubt that Wallace was trying to frame Parry [C₁]. I think many Wallace theorists are comfortable with that.

But:
[C₂] QCP imply Parry’s involvement.

By definition, they must. If C₁ is true, Wallace deliberately pointed the evidence to implicate Parry. If C₂ is false then there would be no grounds whatsoever to claim that Wallace planned to frame Parry. Therefore, C₂ must be true if C₁ is true. And as we have seen, C₁ is the only reasonable interpretation of QCP under the assumptions of W₁ and W₂.

And here’s the twist: the probability of QCP > W₂QCP (this is not opinion but a theorem of probability theory). In ordinary English, the simpler and more likely theory is that Parry was involved and not that Wallace planned it to look like Parry was involved. In other words, if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, why do you assume it’s a hologram of a duck and not a real one?

Therefore, if we are to hold W₁ (Wallace is the killer) I believe we should reject W₂. Wallace did not plan and think through this crime at all well. And even if you’re not sure about the probability stuff, look at what the QCP plan achieved. It effectively limited the suspect pool to just one person – Parry – a person that, for all Wallace knew, might have had cast-iron alibis for the night of the murder and the call. If Wallace was the killer, he wanted the largest pool of suspects or overwhelming evidence that Parry did it, yet his plan did neither. It was a poor plan if he wanted to get away with murder.

You may question the last point. You might counter that Wallace was an ingenious planner who was so bitter against Parry (for some reason) that Wallace was prepared to take a risk. But this is only to re-state C₁ (Wallace planned QCP to frame Parry for the murder) and hence a similar conclusion Pr(QCP) > Pr(C₁QCP) follows: the more likely theory is that Parry was involved and not that Wallace planned it to look like Parry was involved. I would also question how Wallace thought his plan would ensnare Parry when he had no idea whether Parry had alibis for the nights in question. Again, I would conclude that, if that was his objective, he did not plan well.

Conclusion
The QCP aspects of the case are more likely to be evidence of Parry’s involvement than a plan by Wallace to frame him, or Wallace did not plan as well as many suppose.

So, that’s the argument. Any feedback welcome.

Couldn’t there be a W3? That Wallace believed that he’d planned thoroughly. It appears that kidney failed can lead to certain issues which I mentioned in an email to you before reading Mark’s book. Mark also mentions it. So might this have affected his thinking? Or might he just have been the arrogant type who just felt that he was cleverer than police?

Although I realise that you’ve talked of reducing the suspect pool to ‘known’ people I’d also suggest that Q and C would also include associates of Parry or Marsden who they might simply have told about Wallace’s cash? Maybe ‘small fish’ Parry was trying to ingratiate himself with a ‘bigger fish’ by putting him onto an opportunity? Or maybe he tried to get out of a debt by saying ‘I know where you can lay your hands on a load of cash?’ Or maybe he just talked about Wallace to someone that came up with the plan?

I agree that Wallace would have been better off suggesting that Julia would have let others in but maybe his thinking (maybe impaired?) was “if Parry (or Marsden) had alibi’s then the police will just assume that it was some dodgy associate or that one of them just planned the robbery but got someone else to do it.

Antony didn’t Wallace say somewhere that Julia might have let Qualtrough in? Or am I mis-remembering?

.......

I’m certainly not disputing the way you’ve analysed this as I know nothing about Probability Theory but you won’t be surprised to hear that I favour the ‘Wallace wasn’t as clever as he thought that he was’ version. I’d also add that I think that Wallace might have felt that the police might also have considered associates of Parry and Marsden. Maybe Wallace invented the Accomplice Theory?

[NickB]

If Wallace was the killer, he wanted the largest pool of suspects or overwhelming evidence that Parry did it, yet his plan did neither.

I think it would be far better to go for the largest pool of suspects, because all he is doing here is pointing suspicion away from himself. After all he doesn't need to finger anyone in particular. And if he effects a forced entry the question of who Julia would let in is moot.

The trouble with going for Parry is that he needs supporting evidence to avoid it being seen as an attempt to frame him. The more elaborately he fits up Parry the more likely it is to be traced back to him, for the simple reason that (under this scenario) Parry is innocent. Thus, unless you can think of a way Wallace could implicate Parry without leaving his fingerprints, there is a built-in problem for Wallace in planning the frame-up more carefully.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve got 45 minutes of the podcast to go. I can’t recall if it was Graham who questioned how certain we can be about Julia’s age. Mark has stated in the podcast that he has a copy of Julia’s birth certificate which states that she was indeed born in 1861. This is where Murphy got the information from too.

[Abby Normal]

He goes for Parry but only after the successful appeal. He doesn’t mention him by name but he’s obviously referring to him.

thanks herlock. ive always leaned heavily it was wallace. if i was innocent and i thought someone i knew did it, i would be screaming his name from the rooftops. another little oddity that i see as a clue pointing to wallace.

kind of like when he leaves it to the maid to tell the police about the missing bar and poker. and being able to suddenly get in as soon as his neighbors see him trying.

as some of you may know from my posts about the ripper, i also dont go much for phantom suspects when youve got one right in front of your nose. that being said i think the courts got it right eventually as there just dosnt seem to be enough hard evidence to convict.