Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

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

  • Quote :On Sunday evening, 18th January, my sister-in-law (my brother’s wife) and her son spent the evening with us. They arrived at 6.30 or 7.00 and we spent the evening talking. My wife had a slight cold, and we did not have any music. They left about 1.00 pm”

    Hi Herlock, Not quite getting this , did they spend the night on a sleep over? Or should that be 11 .pm?

    Comment


    • Couple of interesting pointers from ‘ the Dark Histories podcast’ ‘The murder of Julia Wallace’.

      When Wallace hooked up with Julia in Harrogate he moved into her flat with her, and Wallace’s father moved in too.

      None of Julia’s six siblings were at her wedding .’(or I. think at her funeral’)

      Most if not all of Julia’s rendition of her past life before Wallace was pure fantasy , the author questions ,’did Wallace know anything about

      Julia other than her name?

      The nurse Mrs. Florence Wilson and the family doctor, in total conflict with Williams diary, were witness to the fact that the Wallace’s

      We’re anything but a happy, loving couple.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NickB View Post
        Parry was known to Julia so needed an accomplice anyway to commit the burglary. The phone call allowed the accomplice to gain entry by saying he was Qualtrough.
        Hi Nick

        That is correct if the burglar was to con their way in rather than break in. And if that was the plan, then Julia would always have seen the face of 'Qualtrough', so if she did catch the burglar in the act, why did he not simply flee. He was expecting to be identified by Julia in any case. Unless it was always the intention to murder her, in which case Parry could do that himself.

        Originally posted by NickB View Post
        However I agree with your general point that there were better ways for both parties to achieve their objectives. This is why I think it is wrong to assume the phone call was linked. The case you make is a good counterbalance to the claim that no linkage would be too much of a coincidence.
        Possibly, or equally it might point to someone else, as yet unknown, who did have a good reason for the 'phone call plan'. There is, as Herlock has outlined, another reason for Wallace to have conceived the phone plan (basically smoke and mirrors) but I have not heard a good reason for Parry to enact such a plan.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          I think that if Wallace was guilty then he was presenting the police with the ‘coincidence or no coincidence’ scenario that we’ve discussed here. If Julia had been killed whilst he was at chess then it would have been solely a Wallace decision but with the call the police had to consider how likely it was that the call and the murder were unconnected? A rather strange, out of the blue call which got him out of the house on an evening when he was never normally out of the house on the very night that his wife was killed. I’d say that Wallace would have been on safe ground to have been confident that the police would have connected the two incidents. So it introduces the possibility of a killer luring William away from the house. William just needs to make it convincing. That he caught a tram nowhere near the phone box (passing two perfectly serviceable tram stops in the process) That the caller didn’t sound like Wallace (so he disguises his voice) That he’d give the impression that he was undecided on whether he’d go or not (his conversation with Caird on the Monday evening) That he was genuinely looking for 25 MGE (the Indiana Jones-like persistence) His apparent inability to get into his house (giving the impression of someone being inside)

          There would have been no ‘mystery’ if he’d killed her whilst at chess. The police could have asked him: “did you go to chess last week?” No. Then: “did you go the week before?” No. Then the police are thinking “how could a killer have known that he’d go to chess on that monday?” They’d have checked chess club members of course but found no one remotely suspicious.

          Remember, were still discussing this call 90 years later (just after the 90th anniversary of course) so if it’s given us something to think about I’d say it would certainly have given the police something to think about 90 years ago too.
          Hi Herlock

          The smoke and mirrors argument is difficult to refute given we are still talking about the call as you say. I think Wallace could have made it known he was going to chess ahead of time to line up alternate suspects. That might have served him better, in that he may have been able to avoid a trial at all, but perhaps he thought obfuscation was the better option (assuming he was guilty). The phone call, though, raises risk for Wallace as well as for Parry - not least if the call was traced - as it was, of course.

          Comment


          • First book I read after the ‘Man from the Pru’ movie , was Roger Wilkes’s The final verdict. It was intended to show the reader how Parry was undoubtedly the guilty party. It failed where I was concerned. Mainly because of the interview with Parkes , very unconvincing I thought. But further, Wilkes’s apparently accurate depiction outlining Wallace’s sequence of events of his outward journey , Underlining his conscious involvement of so many unknowing alibi providers, this completely convincing me that Wallace was guilty .I’m no Psychologist , but Surely the big give away is Wallace’s dogged determination, at procuring no fewer than nine (maybe more )sound reliable witnesses to his movements between 7.06 pm. and 8.00 pm that night.Wallace not only provided witnesses , he gave powerful reason for having them remember him. Think of it. All that over the top effort , when the post office and the newsagents would have sufficed, but just for good measure we’ll add 25 Menlove Avenue.Remember, this man was normally a quiet ,reserved type, a self admitted self taught Stoic. Wallace knew damn well that MGE did not exist.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Im saying that it was Wallace who may have been mistaken. He was arrested on February 2nd and so his statement to Munro was after that, so 2 weeks after that Sunday. And I’ve no doubt that the defence would have said ‘and in the meantime his wife had been brutally murdered so it’s hardly unlikely that he’s mixed up insignificant events on the Sunday. Just playing Devil’s Advocate Ven.
              No. his statements were before that... what!!,... they didn't interview him before the 2nd...lol?

              Comment


              • "this man was normally a quiet ,reserved type"
                Indeed, but he was also an insurance salesman on a promise of a juicy annuity or some such. He was accustomed to knociking on doors and asking people for directions.
                Nonetheless it does look suspicious, but couldn't provide an alibi if he'd done her in before leaving. That is why I used to think he had an accomplice arranged for 8 pm to do the dirty on Julia.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ven View Post

                  No. his statements were before that... what!!,... they didn't interview him before the 2nd...lol?
                  Im genuinely struggling to see your point Ven. Wallace made 4 statements to the police. Only 4. One from Anfield Station, two from Dale Street and one from Amy’s house. And in none of those statements did he mention events of the preceding Sunday. The statements are there to read in full.

                  He did however mention the Sunday evening in the notes that his Solicitor Hector Munro took (which you can see over on WWH’s site and is 25 pages long ) Obviously his solicitor didn’t get involved in the case until after Wallace had been arrested. This occurred on the 2nd February. Therefore the events of the Sunday were first mentioned, on or just after the 2nd February, by Wallace two weeks after they occurred.


                  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 etenguy View Post

                    Hi Herlock

                    The smoke and mirrors argument is difficult to refute given we are still talking about the call as you say. I think Wallace could have made it known he was going to chess ahead of time to line up alternate suspects. That might have served him better, in that he may have been able to avoid a trial at all, but perhaps he thought obfuscation was the better option (assuming he was guilty). The phone call, though, raises risk for Wallace as well as for Parry - not least if the call was traced - as it was, of course.
                    Hi Eten,

                    I guess one point to mention might be - who he could have let know that he was going to chess? It would have been considered strange if he’d suddenly started mention going to chess to his customers during the day. He could have gone to chess the previous week of course and pre-arranged his game telling his opponent that he’d definitely be there but that would only point to his opponent or a chess club member or two - no doubt respectable citizens who were at home with the wife (or someone else’s wife) at the time.
                    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 moste View Post
                      First book I read after the ‘Man from the Pru’ movie , was Roger Wilkes’s The final verdict. It was intended to show the reader how Parry was undoubtedly the guilty party. It failed where I was concerned. Mainly because of the interview with Parkes , very unconvincing I thought. But further, Wilkes’s apparently accurate depiction outlining Wallace’s sequence of events of his outward journey , Underlining his conscious involvement of so many unknowing alibi providers, this completely convincing me that Wallace was guilty .I’m no Psychologist , but Surely the big give away is Wallace’s dogged determination, at procuring no fewer than nine (maybe more )sound reliable witnesses to his movements between 7.06 pm. and 8.00 pm that night.Wallace not only provided witnesses , he gave powerful reason for having them remember him. Think of it. All that over the top effort , when the post office and the newsagents would have sufficed, but just for good measure we’ll add 25 Menlove Avenue.Remember, this man was normally a quiet ,reserved type, a self admitted self taught Stoic. Wallace knew damn well that MGE did not exist.
                      This is a huge point for me Moste. First the meticulous Wallace arrives for a business appointment with only 10 minutes to find a house in a street he’d never heard of in a large area where he was allegedly a complete stranger. Secondly his claim to have been a complete stranger in the area is clearly false. Then the non-existent MGE. He appears to accept that there was no MGE after talking to Kate Mather. Wallace apparently told her “they tell me there isn’t any” referring to MGE. So he’s had strike one - no MGE. Then Sydney Green tells him there was no MGE - strike two. Then of course Constable Serjeant - strike 3 no MGE (what better source of info than a Bobby on his beat? He still goes on! No one will ever convince me that this is anything approaching reasonable, normal behaviour. From a man who conveniently neglects to i form the police in his interviews that he’d gone to Crewe’s house.

                      .......

                      On the subject of Parkes. Mr Brown has been tantalising me for months with some new Parkes info which he’s yet to mention.
                      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 seem to remember discussing this point with WWH. Wallace would have known that he was always going to be the police’s first port of call for a suspect so why would he introduce Parry into the mix and risk him telling the police that Wallace asked him to make the call when he was interviewed? Parry could even have claimed to have known nothing about the murder by saying that Wallace had asked him for a favour because he needed an excuse to go out (maybe to see another woman or to go for a drink with a friend that Julia disapproved of?)
                        I agree that Wallace would have been taking a hell of a risk if he killed Julia, after setting up Parry to make the phone call. Parry would have grassed on anyone if that was the only way he could avoid the rope for a murder he didn't commit. But then, if Wallace committed it, he'd know that there was every chance that Parry could come up with an alibi, when telling the police how he was tricked into making the Qualtrough call.

                        For me, it just doesn't work that Wallace would have put Parry in the frame in such a way as to make him come out fighting like that. How many husbands would involve an accomplice, or trick someone they know into becoming an unwitting one, in a plan to get rid of their wife? How could they expect it to work in practice and be a perfect murder?

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Last edited by caz; 02-15-2021, 04:52 PM.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          I agree that Wallace would have been taking a hell of a risk if he killed Julia, after setting up Parry to make the phone call. Parry would have grassed on anyone if that was the only way he could avoid the rope for a murder he didn't commit. But then, if Wallace committed it, he'd know that there was every chance that Parry could come up with an alibi, when telling the police how he was tricked into making the Qualtrough call.

                          For me, it just doesn't work that Wallace would have put Parry in the frame in such a way as to make him come out fighting like that. How many husbands would involve an accomplice, or trick someone they know into becoming an unwitting one, in a plan to get rid of their wife? How could they expect it to work in practice and be a perfect murder?

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          If we know anything about Wallace we know that he wasn’t an idiot or a taker of inordinate risks. Murder is always going to carry risks of course without saddling yourself with someone as untrustworthy as Parry.
                          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 Gordon View Post

                            If he could count to five he could find it.
                            There may have been two or three gas lamps in the street , but the back alleys would be pitch dark.
                            A very familiar resident may venture out that way under the guidance of a dim light from the house, (as Wallace would do) but return via the front.
                            For a theory of a killer gaining entry it would have to be through the front door, invited in by an unsuspecting Julia, thereby running the very serious risk of being observed.
                            Last edited by moste; 02-15-2021, 09:00 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by moste View Post
                              There may have been two or three gas lamps in the street , but the back alleys would be pitch dark.
                              A very familiar resident may venture out that way under the guidance of a dim light from the house, (as Wallace would do) but return via the front.
                              For a theory of a killer gaining entry it would have to be through the front door, invited in by an unsuspecting Julia, thereby running the very serious risk of being observed.
                              Or of being heard Moste. The Holme’s heard Alan Close at the door but no accomplice who would probably have knocked less than an hour later. It would only have taken one neighbour to have looked out of their window and seen someone at the door or some kid playing in the street seeing someone go to the Wallace’s. These were terraced houses of course were someone at a front door would be easier to see than a house with a drive or a front garden.
                              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

                                Or of being heard Moste. The Holme’s heard Alan Close at the door but no accomplice who would probably have knocked less than an hour later. It would only have taken one neighbour to have looked out of their window and seen someone at the door or some kid playing in the street seeing someone go to the Wallace’s. These were terraced houses of course were someone at a front door would be easier to see than a house with a drive or a front garden.
                                Quite So HS. I’m thinking ,on the whole Wallace did an almost acceptable job of planning and executing the crime ; the only real errors for me are, as discussed , the alibi muster. And the oversight by himself of operator -call box identification.
                                I don’t believe he would purposely red flag that phone box so close to home, to incriminate Parry/Qualtrough. So I see that as a mistake, one which nearly hanged him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X