Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

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

  • 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 - even though much of your post here is above my pay grade, I meant to respond earlier. The whole scenario as you set out and report makes little or no sense. Significantly, other posters more knowledgeable than myself are of the same view albeit they have valiantly attempted to analyse the exchanges.

    I certainly feel this is a generally overlooked part of the case and one which just possibly might reveal more. Very much speculation on my part but I wonder if Wallace had got himself into some financial mess and was attempting a 'gas meter' type robbery to get out of that hole. I acknowledge that Julia becoming collateral damage as a result is a big step from there. However, maybe she was lined up to help him but backed out at the last minute and Wallace panicked. Alternatively, Wallace was working with an accomplice who was disturbed by Julia and it was the accomplice who panicked and killed Julia with her knowing nothing of what had been planned.

    I do not claim with any confidence that the above is what happened but do consider it worthy of exploration. The majority of us believe that Wallace ''did it'' but are pretty much stumped as to why. It's widely thought that Wallace committed theft from the insurance takings as a way of drawing attention from him having planned Julia's murder. I'm just trying to look at it the other way round - Wallace committed murder (or an accomplice did) when a planned theft which was his original objective went wrong.

    I'll comment more in the morning on why I think an accomplice may have been involved.

    Best regards,
    OneRound

    Comment


    • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

      hi OneRound

      You are quite right that it could be a mix of options.

      I'm not sure about the fifth option though. Parkes was clearly elderly at the time of the radio broadcast and his memory may indeed not be as sharp as it once was. However, that would not explain his contemporary telling of the story. Dolly Atkinson was clear that Parkes told her and her husband, Wilfred, the morning after the event. She says they had known Parkes for years and couldn't believe he would make up such a story. And her son, Gordon, says his family had talked about the car washing incident over the years. From this, I think Parkes did tell that story at the time but that does not mean it was true. Unless you believe all the Atkinsons are part of a conspiracy to lie about the story, the questions left are why did Parkes tell that story (hence the options I can think of) and what did the police do with the information? Was Hubert Moore in Parry's father's pocket?
      Hi again eten - you're of course right to flag the Atkinsons' support for Parkes and I should have mentioned it. I still find it a mighty unconvincing tale as told on Radio City and do wonder if it had changed and become more fanciful - perhaps due to dementia - over the years. It's some time since I listened to the radio interview but didn't he at one point refer to the murderer wearing fisherman's waders as borrowed from a policeman?

      Best regards,
      OneRound

      Comment


      • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
        There are not many posts in this thread that make the case for Wallace's innocence and/or Parry's guilt. When I have provided my reasons for thinking it more likely that Wallace murdered his wife, I have focussed on those things that suggest his guilt. But those reasons taken together, although in my view quite convincing, are insufficient for certainty. Given that uncertainty, it is also worth considering the elements of the case which point to Wallace's innocence. And there are a number of things which do that.

        1. Beattie swore the voice he heard on the phone call was definitely not Wallace, even under questioning at the trial - he never showed any doubt in that conviction.
        2. There was not a single drop of Julia's blood found on Wallace.
        3. Wallace's diary and the view of most people asked, point to a close, loving relationship between Julia and Wallace.
        4. No motive for Wallace to commit the murder has ever been proven, instead there is speculation about the state of the marriage based on limited evidence.
        5. The time available for Wallace to commit the crime (book ended by the milk boy and the tram conductor) was extremely limited to the point where it has to be questioned that it was sufficient (also true in respect of making the Qualtrough call).
        6. No-one at the chess club nor on his insurance round noted anything about of his behaviour out of the ordinary.
        7. The 'alibi' forming in the Menlove area was overdone (often argued to point to his guilt) but it might also be argued that if he had been guilty he would have been more measured so as not to make his alibi suspicious.

        Are there any other aspects which positively point towards Wallace being innocent?

        Hi eten - you make some good points there for Wallace not having personally killed Julia.

        I think you could adapt point 5 in support of Wallace. Even if there was sufficient time available for him to commit the crime as Herlock and Caz have particularly and effectively sought to highlight, would Wallace have been so sure? Might that not have been one risk too many for him to take?

        An additional point or at least possible pointer favouring Wallace is that the murder weapon was never found. Far easier for an unknown killer to conceal it for the rest of time than Wallace whose travels that night are pretty well documented.

        However, Wallace's behaviour is nonetheless suspicious and mightily so when looking at all the different occasions.

        * Before the crime - the normally exact Wallace not consulting a map or checking with any thoroughness where he was meant to be going and setting off with little time to spare.

        * Around the time of the crime - continually asking for the whereabouts of Menlove Gardens East and refusing to accept ''no such place, guv'' as an answer as if seeking to establish an alibi.

        * After the crime - all the mucking about with the keys and the Johnsons.

        So, yes, I might just be persuaded that Wallace didn't physically kill Julia but that still doesn't mean he was innocent. Could he have had an accomplice who killed Julia as intended? Or could he have have had an accomplice who was meant to steal the insurance takings to cover up Wallace having been on the fiddle but panicked when disturbed and killed her? I have to concede that the usually solitary Wallace plotting any crime with another seems unlikely. I certainly can't answer who it might have been. I do though feel Wallace, assuming him guilty, may have had some help along the way. As always with this case, questions but never a complete answer.

        Best regards,
        OneRound

        Comment


        • Hi Eten and OneRound,

          You’re both right to look at points that might point away from Wallace’s guilt (or his direct guilt of course) OneRound’s ‘financial difficulty’ motive and the suggestion that he got someone else to steal the cash has a few problems though.

          The first, and most obvious, is that it’s difficult to think how Wallace might have become in need of cash? A secret girlfriend with expensive tastes? I don’t think that anyone could imagine William snorting cocaine from the body of a prostitute with a chilled bottle of Mot Et Chandon on the table. Joking aside, it’s certainly not impossible that William might have spent more than usual, but he was such a meticulous man. I know that it may seem strange but I can imagine Wallace as a murderer but not as a thief or an embezzler. An opinion isn’t proof of course.

          Secondly there was only 4 in the box. Wallace have surely waited until he had collected more cash?

          And thirdly, Wallace had money in the bank (I can’t recall the exact amount off the top of my head but I think that it was something like 150, which I think was around, or just over, 6 months wages?)


          > Incidentally, a good point against Party being involved IMO (possibly originating with Murphy?) If he was desperate for cash and had a potential accomplice why not simply stage a mugging? Wait until Parry had collected a significant amount and get his accomplice to jump him in the street? A faked scuffle in a location where there were a few side streets for the assailant to make use of in his escape? A shaken Party knocks on a door for help (no issue for an amateur actor) Then an invented description of his attacker before splitting the cash.
          Against this we have the fact that on one collection round he wouldn’t have collected anywhere near as much as he might have expected in Wallace’s box. But this chances of something going wrong would have been far less IMO.<


          An accomplice for Wallace has always been an interesting prospect. I wrote a scenaro a while ago which I think might be on Antony’s website. I also did one on here involving Amy (yes Ven) A female accomplice might have impersonated Amy allowing her to have been killed earlier. Any male accomplice might have made the call or driven William to chess or disposed of the weapon or bloodied clothing. The problems are obvious though. Who would Wallace have trusted for something like this? I certainly couldn’t see him trusting RGP. Plus, Julia knew him of course which makes him a non-starter as a sneak thief.

          ...

          One problem with Parkes scenario is that we know that Parry didn’t kill Julia and that he could in no way be connected to the crime. He had a solid alibi. Even if an accomplice broke ranks, and even though Parry knew about the cash box, he could still have denied all knowledge. He might even have said to the police “i seem to recall discussing the Wallace’s with x.” In short, he was completely in the clear so what kind of half-wit risks going to a garage in a potentially bloodstained car to get it cleaned in the early hours of the morning a few hours after the murder with a bloodied mitten in plain view and then he all but coughs up to the crime telling a man who didn’t like or trust him (who worked for people who didn’t trust him) where the weapon had been dumped without once telling Parkes to keep all this to himself. Absolutely nothing about Parkes story adds up. It certainly doesn’t add up that Moore would have risked dismissing him out of hand.
          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 again eten - you're of course right to flag the Atkinsons' support for Parkes and I should have mentioned it. I still find it a mighty unconvincing tale as told on Radio City
            Hi OneRound

            I absolutely agree with you here.
            Originally posted by OneRound View Post
            and do wonder if it had changed and become more fanciful - perhaps due to dementia - over the years. It's some time since I listened to the radio interview but didn't he at one point refer to the murderer wearing fisherman's waders as borrowed from a policeman?
            Re the waders, that's my memory too - I think borrowed from a policeman but I would need to double check.

            Your more substantive point is, I think, on the money. What Parry said and what Parkes heard may not have been the same thing. Misinterpretation and embellishment both at the time and then on retelling over the years, is, I think, a very likely explanation for the Parkes story. A kernel of truth, an ambiguous comment, a vivid imagination having heard of Julia's murder and 1+1 = 24.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by OneRound View Post
              An additional point or at least possible pointer favouring Wallace is that the murder weapon was never found. Far easier for an unknown killer to conceal it for the rest of time than Wallace whose travels that night are pretty well documented.
              Hi OneRound - I agree this is something a Wallace is guilty explanation would have to explain.

              Originally posted by OneRound View Post
              However, Wallace's behaviour is nonetheless suspicious and mightily so when looking at all the different occasions.

              * Before the crime - the normally exact Wallace not consulting a map or checking with any thoroughness where he was meant to be going and setting off with little time to spare.

              * Around the time of the crime - continually asking for the whereabouts of Menlove Gardens East and refusing to accept ''no such place, guv'' as an answer as if seeking to establish an alibi.

              * After the crime - all the mucking about with the keys and the Johnsons.
              I think which ever camp you sit in, the behaviour of Wallace over those two days is suspicious - but we do not have much to compare against - perhaps he always behaved a little strangely. If Wallace is innocent, based on his behaviour that night, I do wonder if he was somewhat autistic.

              Originally posted by OneRound View Post
              So, yes, I might just be persuaded that Wallace didn't physically kill Julia but that still doesn't mean he was innocent. Could he have had an accomplice who killed Julia as intended? Or could he have have had an accomplice who was meant to steal the insurance takings to cover up Wallace having been on the fiddle but panicked when disturbed and killed her? I have to concede that the usually solitary Wallace plotting any crime with another seems unlikely. I certainly can't answer who it might have been. I do though feel Wallace, assuming him guilty, may have had some help along the way. As always with this case, questions but never a complete answer.
              I don't think it is out of the question for Wallace to have committed the crime with an accomplice. We could only speculate who (WWH thought it might have been a male lover based on Parry stating Wallace was sexually odd (gay?) and thus also providing a motive and a possibly discrete friendship post Julia that no-one thought strange (as opposed to Wallace taking up with another woman which would have been more obvious)). However, it is not uncommon for an accomplice to be considered when there is some evidence or reason to think a suspect could not or would not have done something (same with Parry of course). Entirely possible though.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Hi Eten and OneRound,

                You’re both right to look at points that might point away from Wallace’s guilt (or his direct guilt of course) OneRound’s ‘financial difficulty’ motive and the suggestion that he got someone else to steal the cash has a few problems though.

                The first, and most obvious, is that it’s difficult to think how Wallace might have become in need of cash? A secret girlfriend with expensive tastes? I don’t think that anyone could imagine William snorting cocaine from the body of a prostitute with a chilled bottle of Mot Et Chandon on the table. Joking aside, it’s certainly not impossible that William might have spent more than usual, but he was such a meticulous man. I know that it may seem strange but I can imagine Wallace as a murderer but not as a thief or an embezzler. An opinion isn’t proof of course.
                Hi Herlock - are you confusing Wallace with the alleged Angus Deayton incident?

                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Secondly there was only 4 in the box. Wallace have surely waited until he had collected more cash?

                And thirdly, Wallace had money in the bank (I can’t recall the exact amount off the top of my head but I think that it was something like 150, which I think was around, or just over, 6 months wages?)
                Yes, about 150 in the bank - if Wallace was guilty, I don't think money was the motive.


                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Incidentally, a good point against Party being involved IMO (possibly originating with Murphy?) If he was desperate for cash and had a potential accomplice why not simply stage a mugging? Wait until Parry had collected a significant amount and get his accomplice to jump him in the street? A faked scuffle in a location where there were a few side streets for the assailant to make use of in his escape? A shaken Party knocks on a door for help (no issue for an amateur actor) Then an invented description of his attacker before splitting the cash.
                Against this we have the fact that on one collection round he wouldn’t have collected anywhere near as much as he might have expected in Wallace’s box. But this chances of something going wrong would have been far less IMO.
                I agree - there were far easier ways for Parry to have stolen money - the Qualtrough plan seems far too contrived for a simple burglary. It is my view that the crime planned was always murder - and hence the more complex plan.


                An accomplice for Wallace has always been an interesting prospect. I wrote a scenaro a while ago which I think might be on Antony’s website. I also did one on here involving Amy (yes Ven) A female accomplice might have impersonated Amy allowing her to have been killed earlier. Any male accomplice might have made the call or driven William to chess or disposed of the weapon or bloodied clothing. The problems are obvious though. Who would Wallace have trusted for something like this? I certainly couldn’t see him trusting RGP. Plus, Julia knew him of course which makes him a non-starter as a sneak thief.

                ...

                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                One problem with Parkes scenario is that we know that Parry didn’t kill Julia and that he could in no way be connected to the crime. He had a solid alibi. Even if an accomplice broke ranks, and even though Parry knew about the cash box, he could still have denied all knowledge. He might even have said to the police “i seem to recall discussing the Wallace’s with x.” In short, he was completely in the clear so what kind of half-wit risks going to a garage in a potentially bloodstained car to get it cleaned in the early hours of the morning a few hours after the murder with a bloodied mitten in plain view and then he all but coughs up to the crime telling a man who didn’t like or trust him (who worked for people who didn’t trust him) where the weapon had been dumped without once telling Parkes to keep all this to himself. Absolutely nothing about Parkes story adds up. It certainly doesn’t add up that Moore would have risked dismissing him out of hand.
                I think OneRound is probably correct - a misunderstanding embellished both at the time and over time. As you rightly point out, someone going to all the bother of a Qualtrough type plan doesn't then blurt it all out to an acquaintance.
                Last edited by etenguy; 03-02-2021, 05:35 PM.

                Comment


                • Just looking back on the Wilkes book again re ‘Parkes ‘ Story. He claimed Parry was always skint, and there were fears he had been in the Atkinson garage office on the night shift, rifling through draws , Parkes claimed the car he drove he thought was a little ‘Swift’ was probably a gift from his Dad ‘,Atkinson’s had overhauled the vehicle but not been paid’ Parry was in their bad books for not paying debts,
                  and yet when Parkes flushed out the car and pressure washed it, Parry paid Parkes 5 shillings ! ( that’s nearly 5 gallons of gas in those days, enough to fill the tank)Sounds screwy to me.’ Also when Parkes told the boss of the incident next day ,and offered the money to him he was supposed to have said ‘keep it’! Unlikely I think. Parkes and William Atkinson are supposed to have made a pact that they would keep the whole Parry visit to themselves , unless Wallace was convicted . Wallace was convicted , and the police were called . Superintendent Moore came over to the garage when contacted, and Parkes poured out his story, including the metal bar being dropped down a grid in Priory road. When Concluded the policeman Pooh poohed the whole thing and told Parkes he must be mistaken. I can’t get my head around any of this, it’s all too inconceivable
                  P S . 5 shillings was a quarter of Parkes’s weekly pay, of 2 pounds.

                  Comment


                  • Sorry 1/8 th of Parkes’ pay. ( 5 hrs pay).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      Hi Eten and OneRound,

                      You’re both right to look at points that might point away from Wallace’s guilt (or his direct guilt of course) OneRound’s ‘financial difficulty’ motive and the suggestion that he got someone else to steal the cash has a few problems though.

                      The first, and most obvious, is that it’s difficult to think how Wallace might have become in need of cash? A secret girlfriend with expensive tastes? I don’t think that anyone could imagine William snorting cocaine from the body of a prostitute with a chilled bottle of Mot Et Chandon on the table. Joking aside, it’s certainly not impossible that William might have spent more than usual, but he was such a meticulous man. I know that it may seem strange but I can imagine Wallace as a murderer but not as a thief or an embezzler. An opinion isn’t proof of course.

                      Secondly there was only 4 in the box. Wallace have surely waited until he had collected more cash?

                      And thirdly, Wallace had money in the bank (I can’t recall the exact amount off the top of my head but I think that it was something like 150, which I think was around, or just over, 6 months wages?)


                      > Incidentally, a good point against Party being involved IMO (possibly originating with Murphy?) If he was desperate for cash and had a potential accomplice why not simply stage a mugging? Wait until Parry had collected a significant amount and get his accomplice to jump him in the street? A faked scuffle in a location where there were a few side streets for the assailant to make use of in his escape? A shaken Party knocks on a door for help (no issue for an amateur actor) Then an invented description of his attacker before splitting the cash.
                      Against this we have the fact that on one collection round he wouldn’t have collected anywhere near as much as he might have expected in Wallace’s box. But this chances of something going wrong would have been far less IMO.<


                      An accomplice for Wallace has always been an interesting prospect. I wrote a scenaro a while ago which I think might be on Antony’s website. I also did one on here involving Amy (yes Ven) A female accomplice might have impersonated Amy allowing her to have been killed earlier. Any male accomplice might have made the call or driven William to chess or disposed of the weapon or bloodied clothing. The problems are obvious though. Who would Wallace have trusted for something like this? I certainly couldn’t see him trusting RGP. Plus, Julia knew him of course which makes him a non-starter as a sneak thief.

                      ...

                      One problem with Parkes scenario is that we know that Parry didn’t kill Julia and that he could in no way be connected to the crime. He had a solid alibi. Even if an accomplice broke ranks, and even though Parry knew about the cash box, he could still have denied all knowledge. He might even have said to the police “i seem to recall discussing the Wallace’s with x.” In short, he was completely in the clear so what kind of half-wit risks going to a garage in a potentially bloodstained car to get it cleaned in the early hours of the morning a few hours after the murder with a bloodied mitten in plain view and then he all but coughs up to the crime telling a man who didn’t like or trust him (who worked for people who didn’t trust him) where the weapon had been dumped without once telling Parkes to keep all this to himself. Absolutely nothing about Parkes story adds up. It certainly doesn’t add up that Moore would have risked dismissing him out of hand.
                      Hi Herlock - thanks for your considered responses and to you too eten.

                      I have to concede that you go a long way to showing that Wallace's motive (assuming guilt on his part) was not a financial one. The more you highlight, it just doesn't seem to have legs.

                      On the possibility of an accomplice and I also wouldn't put Parry in the frame there, I again readily acknowledge the problem of ''Who would Wallace have trusted for something like this?''. Possibly we might be helped if we could have an answer to ''Why did Wallace want to do something like this?''.

                      Best regards,
                      OneRound

                      PS The A6 has reopened to traffic.


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by OneRound View Post

                        Hi Herlock - thanks for your considered responses and to you too eten.

                        I have to concede that you go a long way to showing that Wallace's motive (assuming guilt on his part) was not a financial one. The more you highlight, it just doesn't seem to have legs.

                        On the possibility of an accomplice and I also wouldn't put Parry in the frame there, I again readily acknowledge the problem of ''Who would Wallace have trusted for something like this?''. Possibly we might be helped if we could have an answer to ''Why did Wallace want to do something like this?''.

                        Best regards,
                        OneRound

                        PS The A6 has reopened to traffic.

                        And coincidentally I saw the Fred Dineage documentary on the A6 today. We need a new book on the subject.
                        Regards

                        Herlock



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

                        Comment


                        • "Fred Dineage documentary on the A6" Hm here in the UK you have to buy the DVD, whereas in the US you can watch it on Amazon Prime.
                          Not sure how that should be.
                          Is it worth purchasing?
                          Dupin

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Dupin View Post
                            "Fred Dineage documentary on the A6" Hm here in the UK you have to buy the DVD, whereas in the US you can watch it on Amazon Prime.
                            Not sure how that should be.
                            Is it worth purchasing?
                            Dupin
                            I only saw it because I was at someone's house and they had the TV on. It seemed ok as an introduction to the case but I doubt if there was anything of value for posters on the A6 thread.

                            Regards

                            Herlock



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

                            Comment


                            • I need a bit of assistance. I'm trying to transcribe the statement of Albert Wood on WWH's site. Unfortunately it looks like Wood wrote it with the pen between his teeth. So...

                              If you look at the statement there are two parts that I’m struggling with.

                              The first is in the 17th line. It’s the three words that come after the words “...I am not positive that this was... there’s one very short word, then a word that I take to be ‘much,’ then a small words that appears to end in the letter ‘h.’ Could it be ‘ash?’

                              The second is a much longer piece right at the end and appears after the words “Mrs Wallace told me how...” The next word looks like ‘just’ and it’s followed by ‘Mr Wallace...’ possibly ‘had been.’

                              Thanks in advance for any help.
                              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
                                I need a bit of assistance. I'm trying to transcribe the statement of Albert Wood on WWH's site. Unfortunately it looks like Wood wrote it with the pen between his teeth. So...

                                If you look at the statement there are two parts that I’m struggling with.

                                The first is in the 17th line. It’s the three words that come after the words “...I am not positive that this was... there’s one very short word, then a word that I take to be ‘much,’ then a small words that appears to end in the letter ‘h.’ Could it be ‘ash?’

                                The second is a much longer piece right at the end and appears after the words “Mrs Wallace told me how...” The next word looks like ‘just’ and it’s followed by ‘Mr Wallace...’ possibly ‘had been.’

                                Thanks in advance for any help.
                                Hi Herlock

                                The guy should have been a doctor - terrible handwriting.

                                The first is in the 17th line. It’s the three words that come after the words “...I am not positive that this was... there’s one very short word, then a word that I take to be ‘much,’ then a small words that appears to end in the letter ‘h.’ Could it be ‘ash?’
                                I think that line reads
                                'I am not positive that there was an iron bar'

                                The second is a much longer piece right at the end and appears after the words “Mrs Wallace told me how...” The next word looks like ‘just’ and it’s followed by ‘Mr Wallace...’ possibly ‘had been.’
                                I think that reads:
                                'Mrs Wallace told me how upset Mr Wallace had been when she had been very late (owing to an accident) coming from Southport' (not sure about place name Herlock, but I think Southport is where she took a bus).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X