** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Certainly not enough to convict Abby.

I know you don’t go for phantom suspects (or barking mad conspiracies for that matter)

[moste]

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.

Hi Herlock ,or fellow posters .I just finished listening to a podcast by NBC on American radio, where the host is interviewing Mark Russell. Is this the same programme currently being alluded too? Thanks

[caz]

Etenguy, Why would he have narrowed down the suspect list if he did not intend to finger Parry? As discussed recently, he did not need to say Julia would only let in acquaintances.

Just starting to catch up again after my latest absence, so apologies for any repetition. Whether or not Wallace did it, it was definitely in his own interests for the police to have other potential suspects in mind, and as there was no forced entry, the killer had to be someone Julia was happy to invite in. It doesn't sound credible that she'd have let in anyone she didn't recognise, even if he called himself Qualtrough and Wallace had mentioned the name earlier. Mr Q was supposedly unknown to Wallace too, so Julia could have been suspicious if he turned up on her doorstep, when he was meant to be waiting for Wallace at his own address.

It also had to be someone who knew about the cash box and where it was kept, which again points to a previous visitor, who'd have been recognised by Julia and would give her no inkling about his motives.

This all points to a killer who was familiar with the Wallaces and their house, without Wallace needing to emphasise the fact. It was good and bad for him in equal measure, but there was no doing anything about that. If he pointed the finger too hard or too fast at Parry, or one of his ilk, it might have looked like special pleading. All he needed to say was that Julia would not have invited in any Tom, Dick or Harry, and let the police join up the dots.

Doesn't the reasonable doubt defence come into play if there is a possibility of someone other than Wallace doing the deed? If so, that someone - whether it's Parry, or some unknown person - wouldn't need to become a formal suspect, or to be eliminated, for this defence to work.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ven]

Hi Caz,

indeed, the reasonable doubt was that William didn't o it...therefore the successful appeal... however the prosecution was so woeful...the questions not asked etc...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock ,or fellow posters .I just finished listening to a podcast by NBC on American radio, where the host is interviewing Mark Russell. Is this the same programme currently being alluded too? Thanks

Hi Moste,

The interviewer on the Casebook podcast is Jonathan Menges who is American with another American involved in the conversation (Tom Wescott) It’s possible that Mark was interviewed by someone else though of course.

[Abby Normal]

Just starting to catch up again after my latest absence, so apologies for any repetition. Whether or not Wallace did it, it was definitely in his own interests for the police to have other potential suspects in mind, and as there was no forced entry, the killer had to be someone Julia was happy to invite in. It doesn't sound credible that she'd have let in anyone she didn't recognise, even if he called himself Qualtrough and Wallace had mentioned the name earlier. Mr Q was supposedly unknown to Wallace too, so Julia could have been suspicious if he turned up on her doorstep, when he was meant to be waiting for Wallace at his own address.

It also had to be someone who knew about the cash box and where it was kept, which again points to a previous visitor, who'd have been recognised by Julia and would give her no inkling about his motives.

This all points to a killer who was familiar with the Wallaces and their house, without Wallace needing to emphasise the fact. It was good and bad for him in equal measure, but there was no doing anything about that. If he pointed the finger too hard or too fast at Parry, or one of his ilk, it might have looked like special pleading. All he needed to say was that Julia would not have invited in any Tom, Dick or Harry, and let the police join up the dots.

Doesn't the reasonable doubt defence come into play if there is a possibility of someone other than Wallace doing the deed? If so, that someone - whether it's Parry, or some unknown person - wouldn't need to become a formal suspect, or to be eliminated, for this defence to work.

Love,

Caz
X

if wallace did it, and tries to accuse someone else like parry, and that person ends up having an alibi than thats not good for wallace.its actually pretty bad for him.
if wallace is innocent and thinks Parry did it he wouldnt care either way.if parry has an alibi. ok cross him off the list. might even be a relief to him that it wasnt someone he knows. and a suspect is eliminated, but at least your getting somewhere.

that wallace didnt scream his name from the start seems to me to point to the former, wallaces guilt. he knows parry didnt do it, but dosnt know if he has an alibi. better be quiet about accusing him or others.

[AdamNeilWood]

Hi Moste,

The interviewer on the Casebook podcast is Jonathan Menges who is American with another American involved in the conversation (Tom Wescott) It’s possible that Mark was interviewed by someone else though of course.

Mark was interviewed recently by Alan R Warren of the American House of Mystery podcast, KCAA 106.5 F.M. Los Angeles/ 102.3 F.M. Riverside/1050 A.M. Palm Springs.

Best wishes
Adam

[moste]

Hi Moste,

The interviewer on the Casebook podcast is Jonathan Menges who is American with another American involved in the conversation (Tom Wescott) It’s possible that Mark was interviewed by someone else though of course.

Thanks, that’s the one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mark was interviewed recently by Alan R Warren of the American House of Mystery podcast, KCAA 106.5 F.M. Los Angeles/ 102.3 F.M. Riverside/1050 A.M. Palm Springs.

Best wishes
Adam

Thanks for that Adam

[moste]

Mark was interviewed recently by Alan R Warren of the American House of Mystery podcast, KCAA 106.5 F.M. Los Angeles/ 102.3 F.M. Riverside/1050 A.M. Palm Springs.

Best wishes
Adam

Thanks.

[moste]

I wonder if it was checked out whether Wallace owned a bicycle. I’m surprised actually that his very extensive rounds were not traversed by bike. If he owned a bike but chose not to normally use it for his job, it would certainly have cut his journey time to his first tram to Allerton to 2 or 3 minutes. Just lean the bike against the wall near the tram stop and forget about it. Just a thought.

[moste]

I noted,Mark mentioned the chess club absences by Wallace, as 2 months ,but games were scheduled for 2 per week, and Wallace had missed 4 that equals 2 weeks to my reckoning.??

[jmenges]

I noted,Mark mentioned the chess club absences by Wallace, as 2 months ,but games were scheduled for 2 per week, and Wallace had missed 4 that equals 2 weeks to my reckoning.??

According to Mark Russell’s book, Wallace last played at the Chess Club in a tournament that’s first round ended on November 30th, 1930 and he was eliminated in that first round.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

According to Mark Russell’s book, Wallace last played at the Chess Club in a tournament that’s first round ended on November 30th, 1930 and he was eliminated in that first round.

JM

In the competition that Wallace was in everyone played each other with the usual chess point system of 1 for a win 1/2 for a draw and 0 for a defeat. Wallace had only played one game which was against Lampitt on the 10th of November (which he lost) so it was just over 2 months since he’d played. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he hadn’t attended though as he could have turned up and not played a match (maybe potential opponents were playing against each other?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder if there was another competition played under the ‘knock-out’ format where you get quarter finals, semi-finals etc and Wallace had lost in the first round of that one? I’ve never heard of it Jon but it could have been something that Mark discovered during his research?