Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

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

  • Originally posted by Ven View Post

    Also, William Roberts, in his initial notes where he lists all the items he analysed, wrote -
    "On the cushion there were numerous small human blood stains on one side, together with burnt particles of the burnt macintosh."

    This would seem to me that the murderer used the cushion to smother the burning jacket. He just grabbed the nearest thing to him.
    Might this point to someone with a vested interest in not leaving the house to burn down once he has left it safely? Why would it matter to anyone but Wallace, if Julia's body, or any items of clothing, were left near enough to the gas fire to set the whole house alight? In fact, that could have been a bonus for a burglar, if all the evidence were to go up in flames after he replaced the rifled cash box and took off with the spoils. A tragic accident, caused by Julia being careless with the gas fire, while her husband was out on business.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

      Hi Herlock

      You are quite right of course, a careless police officer could have transferred the blood, or possibly even Wallace himself. It is striking, however, that the amount 'stolen' and the amount in the jar are so similar. We can place Wallace in that room before he left for MGE as he said he changed his clothes there before leaving.

      If Wallace did swap the notes to the jar, the only sensible conclusion as to why he did that rather than add to his wallet, is that he thought that less suspicious than being caught carrying around a large sum of money on a visit to an area he did not know well.

      Hi Nick

      If Wallace was guilty, he had three options with the money - get rid of it, put it somewhere else in the house or put it in his wallet. I would have to assume, that if it was Wallace, he considered the jar on the mantelpiece was his best option - I suspect the thought of throwing money away was anathema to him. I find it strange that such a large sum would be left in a jar on full view generally - if you had £100 in your house (or me in mine), I suspect we would put it away out of view somewhere.
      If Wallace caught sight of the jar as he was about to descend the stairs, and transferred the money there on the spur of the moment, so he wouldn't have to take it with him, why would he have admitted afterwards that this was the same amount that had been taken from the cash box? How hard would it have been to claim that it had contained a different amount, in different denominations? Would anyone have known any different?

      But I agree, it's a tad suspicious that a large sum like that would be kept in a jar on full view. And it's more evidence that the 'burglar' didn't go for the easy pickings he could have found both upstairs and down, either in the jar or in Julia's handbag.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        It’s something I’d like Mark to expand on but in his book, in the footnotes on page 178, he says: The police investigations did not include the searching of the drains on the complete route from Wolverton Street to the Menlove Gardens area.

        Obviously neither Wallace nor any other killer could have known where or where not the police might have searched for the weapon. If the weapon had been found on the route would that have meant ‘game over’ for Wallace? I think it would have been a case of the Prosecution would suggest that Wallace had discarded it but the Defence might have said ‘well the caller (who wasn’t Wallace) probably used MGE because he was familiar with the area which might imply that he himself lived somewhere there and so might have discarded it?
        That's a neat observation, Herlock. If the whole point of giving an unsuspecting Wallace a false address was to set him off on a mission leading to nowhere, it would stand to reason that Qualtrough knew the Menlove Gardens area well enough to know that only Menlove Gardens East did not exist, making it the ideal choice for a wild goose chase. Other people, on Wallace's route, had to recognise the Menlove bit of the address in order to send him off in the right general direction, so as not to alert him too soon that anything was amiss. It was no good just making up some fake address from scratch, which Wallace would have had to check before setting out.

        If Qualtrough was the killer and lived in that area, he could have discarded any evidence on his way back there, using the same route Wallace had taken earlier. So once again, Wallace would have had a way out down the avenue of reasonable doubt, in the event that anything was found.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          That's a neat observation, Herlock. If the whole point of giving an unsuspecting Wallace a false address was to set him off on a mission leading to nowhere, it would stand to reason that Qualtrough knew the Menlove Gardens area well enough to know that only Menlove Gardens East did not exist, making it the ideal choice for a wild goose chase. Other people, on Wallace's route, had to recognise the Menlove bit of the address in order to send him off in the right general direction, so as not to alert him too soon that anything was amiss. It was no good just making up some fake address from scratch, which Wallace would have had to check before setting out.

          If Qualtrough was the killer and lived in that area, he could have discarded any evidence on his way back there, using the same route Wallace had taken earlier. So once again, Wallace would have had a way out down the avenue of reasonable doubt, in the event that anything was found.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          Cheers Caz
          Regards

          Herlock



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

          Comment




          • Does this exchange at the Trial make sense to anyone? Crewe told the Wright that William paid in 10.11.00 which was recorded as being on Monday 19th but all deposits by agents were logged as on a Monday no matter what day they were handed in. I seem to recall Wallace visiting the Prudential offices with Edwin just after the murder (on the Wednesday or Thursday I think) to pay some money in. So why did he pay in 10.11.00 considering how much was stolen? He didn’t collect on the Wednesday of course. Crewe then explains why the amount was so low. My comments are emboldened.

            Crewe - for the simple reason either the police or someone else had taken the cash and a police have a portion of that cash yet.

            How could the police have been involved on the Monday before the murder and what cash was even available to have been taken by the police after the ‘robbery?’

            Hemmerde - What makes you say that?

            Is that the best question you could come up with?!

            Crewe - Well, I understand that the police have at least £18 cash and I have asked for it?

            1. How could this have occurred before the crime? And 2. According to Wallace only £4/5 was stolen. How can he be £18 short?

            Hemmerde - What makes you say that; where did you get it from?

            Wake up Hemmerde!

            Crewe - Because they took it and I have asked them for it.

            What kind of answer is this?

            Wright - When was the 10.11.00 paid in? Was it paid in cash?

            Crewe - No, the 10.11.00 was paid in on the Thursday, 21st January

            What??? He didn’t ask when it was paid in but how. And the 21st was Wednesday.

            Hemmerde - Paid in by whom?

            Crewe - By Mr Wallace.

            .......


            Its like a scene from Alice In Wonderland. Why is no one asking where this £18 came from and why the police had supposedly taken it? Is there something dodgy going on with regard to money here? Can anyone help deciphering this? Also something is telling me that when William paid in cash accompanied by Edwin it was a different amount? My memory might be playing me false but I recall at the time meaning to look into it but I forgot. I don’t know where it’s recorded though. It gives me a headache trying to decipher Edwin’s handwritten statement. Somethings not right.

            I’ll be grateful for comments/explanations. Am I missing something? I could be wrong of course. It’s happened before - June 19th 1978, a bad day.​​​​​​​
            Regards

            Herlock



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

            Comment


            • Hi Herlock and all - proper thread this. Moste digging away and Caz well in the mix now too.

              All makes for a fascinating thread. Only problem is I struggle to keep up. I start to come down on one side and then something else pops up to make me think again. That's even without CCJ's algebra!

              Anyway, with regard to the recent posts about Parry and his possible involvement, I have in mind that Parry was strongly advised by his father never to talk to others about the case. If I'm not completely imagining things there, could you say what that was all about.

              Many thanks,
              OneRound

              Comment


              • Originally posted by OneRound View Post
                Hi Herlock and all - proper thread this. Moste digging away and Caz well in the mix now too.

                All makes for a fascinating thread. Only problem is I struggle to keep up. I start to come down on one side and then something else pops up to make me think again. That's even without CCJ's algebra!

                Anyway, with regard to the recent posts about Parry and his possible involvement, I have in mind that Parry was strongly advised by his father never to talk to others about the case. If I'm not completely imagining things there, could you say what that was all about.

                Many thanks,
                OneRound
                Hi OneRound,

                Im just on my way out for a while but someone did make a statement that the Parry’s asked someone to get RGP out of the country. I can’t recall who it was off the top of my head. The statement is probably on WWH’s site. I’ll see if I can locate it later on.

                We’re getting converts to the case OneRound which is good. It might quieten off though if the A6 thread re-ignites.

                Maybe they’ll discover The Diary Of Peter Alphon where he admits to the murder?
                Regards

                Herlock



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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post

                  Hi moste,

                  I have argued in the past that if the first blow proved fatal, causing the heart to stop and the blood to stop pumping, the subsequent blows were not likely to leave the killer or his clothes covered in blood, which would explain why he left no blood tracks on his way out of the house.

                  As for the excessive blows, if we assume the killer had never done anything like this before, and was someone known to Julia, his main priority was to make sure he killed her, so there was no possibility of her surviving to tell the tale. If he couldn't be sure that the first blow had done the trick, the subsequent ones would have finished her off and put the matter beyond doubt.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  Hi Caz.
                  Remember ,there was a streak of blood spatter up the wall across the room and to a height of 7 feet apparently.that blow subsequent to the killer blow. So if as you say( and I agree ) that there was no blood pumping out through a wound ,(she now on the floor) the maniac must have gone at her like a man possessed.
                  Last edited by moste; 02-18-2021, 04:00 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by OneRound View Post
                    Hi Herlock and all - proper thread this. Moste digging away and Caz well in the mix now too.

                    All makes for a fascinating thread. Only problem is I struggle to keep up. I start to come down on one side and then something else pops up to make me think again. That's even without CCJ's algebra!

                    Anyway, with regard to the recent posts about Parry and his possible involvement, I have in mind that Parry was strongly advised by his father never to talk to others about the case. If I'm not completely imagining things there, could you say what that was all about.

                    Many thanks,
                    OneRound
                    Hey Oneround. Another snippet, of factual info. Where those who report Wallace’s traverse of Allerton, it’s usually stated that when he had spoken with the last alibi providers ,post office ,and newsagents, he retraced his steps and returned home on the trams he’d come on. When he actually caught a tram across from the post office on Allerton road ,outside a cinema I believe. Travelling Allerton road back to Penny Lane, so his journey was forming a big triangle. It sounds like the police had no interest in looking into this return trip, and only concerned themselves with his alibis to 8 o’clock. Now, suppose he had picked up a cab outside the cinema, maybe even a pre- booked Cab, he could have been dropped off at Richmond Park near his house by 8 12 pm or 8 15. leaving himself ample time to murder his wife and meet the Johnsons in the back lane at 8 45. I feel the murder took place around 6 45 actually. But this is another option.

                    Comment


                    • The main problem with that one Moste would have been the huge risk of the cab driver coming forward.

                      Its worth noting that Wallace allegedly goes to an area in which he was ‘a complete stranger.’ He returns via a different route. It’s noticeable that when the police asked for witnesses only employees from the outward journey came forward. None from the return. So on different trams, from an area where he was a ‘complete stranger’ Wallace asks no one about trams or stops.
                      Regards

                      Herlock



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

                      Comment


                      • Any comments/opinions on post #440?
                        Regards

                        Herlock



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

                        Comment


                        • Hi to Caz and HerlocK,

                          Some things I'd like to point out (and yes, Herlock, i will acknowledge, it was in a later statement to Munro)... but...-

                          1. He acknowledges that Edwin says they had music on Sunday night but that he disagrees and thinks they did not. (this is a hand written note, by Wallace, on the Munro files). From Amy and Edwin's statements it looks like they visited each other every second weekend and when at the Wallaces , the Wallaces played music...äs "usual"!!

                          Also, another discrepancy...
                          He acknowledges that the Johnstons stated they volunteered to wait outside while he investigated but disagrees and says he asked them to wait.

                          What was he trying to cover?

                          As i have said, this doesn't prove anything... except that Wallace is a liar!!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ven View Post
                            Hi to Caz and HerlocK,

                            Some things I'd like to point out (and yes, Herlock, i will acknowledge, it was in a later statement to Munro)... but...-

                            1. He acknowledges that Edwin says they had music on Sunday night but that he disagrees and thinks they did not. (this is a hand written note, by Wallace, on the Munro files). From Amy and Edwin's statements it looks like they visited each other every second weekend and when at the Wallaces , the Wallaces played music...äs "usual"!!

                            Also, another discrepancy...
                            He acknowledges that the Johnstons stated they volunteered to wait outside while he investigated but disagrees and says he asked them to wait.

                            What was he trying to cover?

                            As i have said, this doesn't prove anything... except that Wallace is a liar!!
                            Cheers for acknowledging it Ven

                            Of the two issues that you mention are both worth considering of course. I can only say that the differ in terms that it’s almost impossible (for me at least) to come up with a reason why Wallace might have lied about the music? To me this suggests an error of memory rather than a conscious lie.

                            The second point is certainly interesting though. If Wallace did actually ask the Johnston’s to wait outside then that’s suspicious in my book. I’ve discussed this point previously. Wallace either felt that there was someone inside preventing him from getting in or he was shamming ( I think the latter of course) but does anyone really see Wallace as the have-a-go-hero type? Or did Wallace have a reason for wanting to enter alone (after all he hadn’t expected the Johnston’s to have turned up.) Again, with apologies, I raise my ‘parlour door’ point.

                            We have Wallace returned after being sent on a wild goose chase, worried about his wife (note his first question to the Johnston’s) then for the first time ever he can’t get in (is someone trying to keep him out?) The sense of worry must have been increasing? He gets inside and finds the lights turned down and all is quiet. He goes into the kitchen and sees the cupboard door broken off (dispelling all thought of a possible innocent explanation) He’s now desperate to find Julia. He gets to the kitchen door with the parlour door within reach. A matter of 2 seconds work and he either finds Julia in the parlour or eliminates that room. No, he ignores it and goes upstairs first? Perhaps he wants to see if Julia has decided to do a few chemical experiments in his lab? Others say that the parlour was the least used room. Really? Is that an explanation? It was hardly a sealed vault. Who, when searching for a wife in peril, would stand next to a door and think “well, percentage-wise the parlour is probably the room Julia is least likely to be in?” They just wouldn’t. I genuinely, honestly can’t see why everyone doesn’t see this as strange behaviour? Apparently they don’t though so what can I say?

                            Perhaps William had planned one last look around to check that he hadn’t made any errors? Perhaps he’d forgotten to do something or check something. Now if William deliberately told Johnston to stay outside, despite the possible danger, then avoided the parlour to go upstairs then who knows.
                            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

                              Does this exchange at the Trial make sense to anyone? Crewe told the Wright that William paid in 10.11.00 which was recorded as being on Monday 19th but all deposits by agents were logged as on a Monday no matter what day they were handed in. I seem to recall Wallace visiting the Prudential offices with Edwin just after the murder (on the Wednesday or Thursday I think) to pay some money in. So why did he pay in 10.11.00 considering how much was stolen? He didn’t collect on the Wednesday of course. Crewe then explains why the amount was so low. My comments are emboldened.

                              Crewe - for the simple reason either the police or someone else had taken the cash and a police have a portion of that cash yet.

                              How could the police have been involved on the Monday before the murder and what cash was even available to have been taken by the police after the ‘robbery?’

                              Hemmerde - What makes you say that?

                              Is that the best question you could come up with?!

                              Crewe - Well, I understand that the police have at least £18 cash and I have asked for it?

                              1. How could this have occurred before the crime? And 2. According to Wallace only £4/5 was stolen. How can he be £18 short?

                              Hemmerde - What makes you say that; where did you get it from?

                              Wake up Hemmerde!

                              Crewe - Because they took it and I have asked them for it.

                              What kind of answer is this?

                              Wright - When was the 10.11.00 paid in? Was it paid in cash?

                              Crewe - No, the 10.11.00 was paid in on the Thursday, 21st January

                              What??? He didn’t ask when it was paid in but how. And the 21st was Wednesday.

                              Hemmerde - Paid in by whom?

                              Crewe - By Mr Wallace.

                              .......


                              Its like a scene from Alice In Wonderland. Why is no one asking where this £18 came from and why the police had supposedly taken it? Is there something dodgy going on with regard to money here? Can anyone help deciphering this? Also something is telling me that when William paid in cash accompanied by Edwin it was a different amount? My memory might be playing me false but I recall at the time meaning to look into it but I forgot. I don’t know where it’s recorded though. It gives me a headache trying to decipher Edwin’s handwritten statement. Somethings not right.

                              I’ll be grateful for comments/explanations. Am I missing something? I could be wrong of course. It’s happened before - June 19th 1978, a bad day.​​​​​​​
                              Yes there is certainly something untoward with this questioning.Also what made me reread the sentence twice was, (and if you are recalling the incident correctly), ‘Wallace takes his weeks takings from last weeks work into the Prudential in the city,
                              the day after or 2 days after this horrendous incident.,that supposedly left him crushed, life in tatters. STOIC, yeah! Really.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by moste View Post

                                Yes there is certainly something untoward with this questioning.Also what made me reread the sentence twice was, (and if you are recalling the incident correctly), ‘Wallace takes his weeks takings from last weeks work into the Prudential in the city,
                                the day after or 2 days after this horrendous incident.,that supposedly left him crushed, life in tatters. STOIC, yeah! Really.
                                My memory is certainly fallible Moste but I’m strongly of the opinion that this happened because I recall at the time telling myself to look into this further. But, ironically, I forgot. And I believe that my interest in it was due to the amount that he was supposed to have handed in. Actually though he should have had no money to hand in because it had been stolen. If Wallace was correct about the money that was in the cash box on the Tuesday then he should however, at most, only have handed in around £5 (and only if he’d made up the amount out of his own pocket of course)

                                So if he handed in money after the murder where did it come from? And of course why was Joseph Crewe of the apparently firm belief that the police had some company money in their possession?

                                There’s something not right here. I thought it around a year ago and I still do. I’ve emailed Antony to see if he can she a light on it.
                                Regards

                                Herlock



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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X