Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

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

  • Originally posted by caz View Post

    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?
    Hi Caz

    My understanding is that the records of his collections would identify the amount of company money that should have been in the cash box. It may have been too risky to lie about this as it was likely to be checked by the Prudential. He did, though, claim the denominations were different, I believe.

    Originally posted by caz View Post
    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
    Indeed, especially as Wallace claimed that when he and Julia left the house together, all monies would be removed from the premises for safe keeping. Someone so careful to guard against burglary is even less likely to leave large sums of money on show, IMHO.

    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.​​​​​​​
      Hi Herlock

      I can make no sense of this either.

      Do you think the 10.11.00 might have been the sickness benefit paid out and it was some kind of reconciliation which Wallace handed in. It doesn't sound like it but I can think of nothing else. As for the 18 - no idea.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

        Hi Herlock

        I can make no sense of this either.

        Do you think the 10.11.00 might have been the sickness benefit paid out and it was some kind of reconciliation which Wallace handed in. It doesn't sound like it but I can think of nothing else. As for the 18 - no idea.
        Hi Eten,

        I don’t think so. The 10.11.00 was what Wallace paid in after the Sickness Benefits were paid out. This was logged by The Pru as being Monday 19th but, as Crewe said, whatever day money was handed in by agents it was always written down as a Monday so Wallace handed the money in during the week before the murder. Probably on Wednesday or Thursday (I can’t recall offhand which was his usual day - I think it was Thursday) So between that day and the day of the murder Wallace had, after any pay outs in benefits, just the 5 or so that was in the cash box. Surely we have to assume Crewe to have been no fool we have three questions.

        1. Why was he insistent that there was 18 outstanding when Wallace was saying 5?

        2. Why on earth would he think that the police had retained 18 and appeared unwilling to return it?

        3. (Which is only relevant if I’m not mis-remembering but I’m pretty convinced that I’m not) What money did William hand in after the murder when he visited the Prudential Office accompanied by Edwin?
        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

          Hi Eten,

          I don’t think so. The 10.11.00 was what Wallace paid in after the Sickness Benefits were paid out. This was logged by The Pru as being Monday 19th but, as Crewe said, whatever day money was handed in by agents it was always written down as a Monday so Wallace handed the money in during the week before the murder. Probably on Wednesday or Thursday (I can’t recall offhand which was his usual day - I think it was Thursday) So between that day and the day of the murder Wallace had, after any pay outs in benefits, just the 5 or so that was in the cash box. Surely we have to assume Crewe to have been no fool we have three questions.

          1. Why was he insistent that there was 18 outstanding when Wallace was saying 5?

          2. Why on earth would he think that the police had retained 18 and appeared unwilling to return it?

          3. (Which is only relevant if I’m not mis-remembering but I’m pretty convinced that I’m not) What money did William hand in after the murder when he visited the Prudential Office accompanied by Edwin?
          Hi Herlock

          Can't answer any of your questions, looks like you've spotted a strange anomaly.

          While we're talking about takings - part of the Parry theory suggests the reason for a Tuesday burglary was to maximise haul. If I understood Crewe properly, Parry would be a week late - it was the previous week that the monthly premiums were collected together with the weekly premiums. Parry would have known this. Would he really aim for 30 ish instead of 90 ish?

          Clearly he would have needed a different way to get Wallace out though.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

            Hi Herlock

            Can't answer any of your questions, looks like you've spotted a strange anomaly.

            While we're talking about takings - part of the Parry theory suggests the reason for a Tuesday burglary was to maximise haul. If I understood Crewe properly, Parry would be a week late - it was the previous week that the monthly premiums were collected together with the weekly premiums. Parry would have known this. Would he really aim for 30 ish instead of 90 ish?

            Clearly he would have needed a different way to get Wallace out though.
            It’s a good point Eten.

            Consider as well though, neither Joseph Crewe nor anyone else at The Pru could have known in advance how much money any individual agent was due to hand in on any given day. So even if the police had contacted them he couldn’t have told them. The only person that knew this amount was the individual agent. So it could only have been Wallace. So we can change question 2.

            From:

            2. Why on earth would he think that the police had retained 18 and appeared unwilling to return it?

            To:

            2. Why did Wallace tell Crewe that he was due to hand in 18 but that the Police had taken possession of it?

            We can’t put this down to an error by Crewe as there are no circumstances where he could have arrived at this opinion by mistake therefore this appears to have been a lie by Wallace. And not a trivial one either. Now normally when there’s a robbery and the householder says that more money was taken than actually was we would naturally shout ‘insurance scam!’ Surely we can dismiss this explanation in Wallace’s case?

            Id also say that we can dismiss an error by Wallace because he’d had to check his accounts for the exact amount missing and he couldn’t have mistakenly accused the Police of retaining money, for no discernible reason, that he’d never had in the first place? So, as Holmes would say: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

            If someone can give a reasonable possible/innocent explanation for this then I’ll doff my deerstalker and move on. But, until then, I’d say that we have Wallace telling an very significant lie and people usually lie for a reason.
            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 02-19-2021, 10:21 AM.
            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

              It’s a good point Eten.

              Consider as well though, neither Joseph Crewe nor anyone else at The Pru could have known in advance how much money any individual agent was due to hand in on any given day. So even if the police had contacted them he couldn’t have told them. The only person that knew this amount was the individual agent. So it could only have been Wallace. So we can change question 2.

              From:

              2. Why on earth would he think that the police had retained 18 and appeared unwilling to return it?

              To:

              2. Why did Wallace tell Crewe that he was due to hand in 18 but that the Police had taken possession of it?

              We can’t put this down to an error by Crewe as there are no circumstances where he could have arrived at this opinion by mistake therefore this appears to have been a lie by Wallace. And not a trivial one either. Now normally when there’s a robbery and the householder says that more money was taken than actually was we would naturally shout ‘insurance scam!’ Surely we can dismiss this explanation in Wallace’s case?

              Id also say that we can dismiss an error by Wallace because he’d had to check his accounts for the exact amount missing and he couldn’t have mistakenly accused the Police of retaining money, for no discernible reason, that he’d never had in the first place? So, as Holmes would say: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

              If someone can give a reasonable possible/innocent explanation for this then I’ll doff my deerstalker and move on. But, until then, I’d say that we have Wallace telling an very significant lie and people usually lie for a reason.
              That should read “however improbable,” of course.
              Regards

              Herlock



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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                I wonder if it would be helpful to consider the Qualtrough phone call in terms of likely success of the caller's plans. Whoever the caller, they had thought about their plan so it may also be useful to consider whether an alternative option would better suit the caller's plan. If the call is connected to the murder, then we have two possible purposes of the call:
                1. Wallace - to supply an opportunity to establish an alibi and plant the suggestion someone else committed the murder
                2. Parry (other) - to get Wallace out of the house in order to commit the crime (whether that crime is burglary or murder or both).

                If Wallace made the call, I would suggest the call does exactly what was necessary for his plan to succeed.

                If Parry (or other) made the call, then there are risks outside of his control to his plan succeeding, ie:
                • The message may not reach Wallace
                • Wallace may know (or discover) that MGE does not exist and therefore not make the journey
                • Wallace may find being called at the Chess Club suspicious and therefore not make the journey
                • Wallace may simply decide it is too inconvenient and therefore not make the journey
                Given the above risks to a plan that could only be attempted once, would Parry (or other) choose a different approach to better achieve their plan's end - at the very least use a real address?



                Hi etenguy,

                It does seem too elaborate a plan for a simple robbery. Why not just target houses in the area which are more frequently left empty by the occupiers? Qualtrough had to think up a ruse to get Wallace out of the house, because he would not normally have gone out in the evenings for long enough, apart from when he was playing chess. And Julia would still be there, representing a human obstacle to success, even if the spoils were expected to be worth the forward planning and potential risks involved. How long would a prison sentence have been for someone who was invited in, burgled the property and was later identified by Julia, if murder was never the intention? I would think in the early 30s it would involve a fairly long stretch inside. Long enough to make murdering the human obstacle the safer option perhaps? Alternatively, if this was someone Julia would have invited in, why not just call on her during normal working hours, when Wallace was out at work anyway, along with many of the neighbours?

                Love,

                Caz
                X

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


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  What money did William hand in after the murder when he visited the Prudential Office accompanied by Edwin?
                  The last three payments were:

                  19-Jan-31 10.11.0 paid in 21-Jan
                  26-Jan-31 52.16.6 paid in 29-Jan
                  26-Jan-31 2. 9. 9 paid in 29-Jan

                  (Source: Munro case files on WWH site)

                  The two things about Crewe that stand out for me are (1) he wants to support Wallace and (2) he gets confused about the figures.

                  In his 5-Jan-31 statement he says: "His accounts with the Company are in perfect order." He repeats this in court and it seems to be a linchpin he does not want to contradict.

                  His account of the payments in court is so confusing that I think everyone just became dazed and wanted to move on.

                  So it could be that there was indeed a shortfall from Wallace or that Crewe was simply muddled in his own mind.

                  Comment


                  • (5-Feb-31 statement, not 5-Jan.)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

                      This is the case for generating theories! I'm logging this as the Coincidental Accomplice Theory. Phone call and its motive the same as Accomplice theory, the murder as Wallace theory. The coincidence is that Wallace uses the unexpected call as cover for his long-planned murder scheme, while Parry and his associate become unintentionally embroiled in murder. Is that it a nutshell, Herlock?

                      As a writer, I love the drama of the accomplice thief finding a dead body in the parlour... not what he was expecting that night! But I won't comment on theory just yet.
                      Ingenious idea, and it might not have been quite so coincidental if Wallace suspected Julia - rightly or wrongly - of having a 'friendship' with a man who wasn't her husband. So when he gets the Qualtrough message, he immediately suspects he's being got out of the way by this male friend, so the naughty pair can enjoy some slap and tickle while he's off on his fool's errand. "Julia must have tipped the blackguard off that I would be at the chess club to get the message. The crafty cow! Right, so if that's their little game, I'll play along." So he mentions the call casually to Julia over lunch on the Tuesday, watching like a hawk for her reaction. Will she encourage him to go? Of course she will! And so she does [not because she really wants him out of the way, but because it sounds like a good business proposition]. At tea, they discuss the appointment further and Wallace drops in the name Qualtrough, again to see the effect. Although Julia doesn't react, she seems even keener to be rid of him, even suggesting he will be late if he doesn't get a move on. So he puts on his mackintosh, meaning to stay near the house, watching to see if lover man shows up, but then sees Julia in the parlour, plumping up the cushions and humming a tune, and he sees red. "What's the cow doing in there, if she's not preparing for a saucy soiree, the minute I leave the house?" And that seals Julia's fate.

                      It would make a great fictional drama, if nothing else!

                      Love,

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


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        We can add Moste’s Theory For me there was certainly something strange about the marriage. Then we have Julia’s lies. How can we claim a happy contented Wallace when he admits to depression?
                        Hmmm, I know people who suffer from depression, who don't stop loving their partners, or being loved by them.

                        Conversely, one can also be bloody depressed if one is stuck with a spouse one can no longer stand.

                        So I don't think depression, by itself, can tell us much about the Wallace marriage.

                        Having said that, I can't see it being a bed of roses either, all things considered!

                        Love,

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


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NickB View Post

                          The last three payments were:

                          19-Jan-31 10.11.0 paid in 21-Jan
                          26-Jan-31 52.16.6 paid in 29-Jan
                          26-Jan-31 2. 9. 9 paid in 29-Jan

                          (Source: Munro case files on WWH site)

                          The two things about Crewe that stand out for me are (1) he wants to support Wallace and (2) he gets confused about the figures.

                          In his 5-Jan-31 statement he says: "His accounts with the Company are in perfect order." He repeats this in court and it seems to be a linchpin he does not want to contradict.

                          His account of the payments in court is so confusing that I think everyone just became dazed and wanted to move on.

                          So it could be that there was indeed a shortfall from Wallace or that Crewe was simply muddled in his own mind.
                          Thanks for finding these Nick. I can’t think how I missed them

                          Im still convinced that there’s mention of William’s visit to The Pru with Edwin though.

                          ...

                          It’s worth noting how soon after Julia’s murder William went back to work when The Pru would surely have found a temporary replacement and allowed him time off to mourn and make arrangements if he’d asked. Might we also add this to the fact that on the evening that Julia was found bludgeoned to death William wanted to sleep at home. It doesn’t prove anything of course but it’s at least a little strange.

                          ......

                          Why did he pay in 2 amounts on the same day?

                          Why did he bother pay in the day after his wife was brutally murdered?

                          What did he pay in as his takings had been stolen?

                          Why did he Crewe believe that 18 was outstanding?

                          Why would Crewe believe that the police had retained some of Wallace’s money?

                          Had the police retained some money?

                          Why did Wallace tell him this (as it appears that he couldn’t have found out any other way)?


                          The questions mount.

                          Regards

                          Herlock



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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            Hmmm, I know people who suffer from depression, who don't stop loving their partners, or being loved by them.

                            Conversely, one can also be bloody depressed if one is stuck with a spouse one can no longer stand.

                            So I don't think depression, by itself, can tell us much about the Wallace marriage.

                            Having said that, I can't see it being a bed of roses either, all things considered!

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Fair point Caz.
                            Regards

                            Herlock



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

                            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,

                              I just remembered the origin of the story about Parry’s family wanting him out of the country. It was Ada Cook. You can read the details on pages 120 and 121 of Gannon.
                              Regards

                              Herlock



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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
                                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
                                Hi CCJ,

                                If we assume Wallace made the call [he has no alibi, any more than Parry does] and killed his wife [hoping the fruitless trip to MGE would work as an alibi, making 'Qualtrough' the obvious suspect for getting him out of the way so he could commit the robbery and/or murder], Wallace could have done very little about the unforced entry, by someone who had to have certain knowledge about both himself and Julia; had to know about the chess club; had to know about the cash box and where it was kept; and had to know Julia's habits regarding callers in her husband's absence. The killer could in theory have gained that knowledge from a third party, but that's the only way I can think of, for the suspect pool to have been widened, and all these conditions would inevitably point as much to Wallace himself as it would to the limited number of potential suspects who could fit this narrow bill. I'm struggling to see how a guilty Wallace could have done anything about this under the circumstances. Is there any better plan he could have come up with, which would have suggested that virtually anyone could have murdered his wife?

                                I know I keep banging on about reasonable doubt, but all Wallace had to do was to make it possible - not even plausible or likely - for someone other than himself to have planned this, using the phone call, and committed the crime while Wallace was out looking for MGE. He didn't need to frame anyone in particular, nor have another suspect arrested and charged.

                                I do feel the blood issue is pivotal here, because Wallace is only off the hook if there is absolutely no possibility of him getting out of that house when he did, clean as a whistle. As it is, it's only the reasonable doubt issue that leads me to presume his innocence. I can see nothing that actually proves it.

                                Love,

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


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X