** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi Abby,

The theory that Antony favours is that Parry made the phone call to get Wallace out of the house and after he’d set off an accomplice of his turns up at Wolverton Street claiming to be Qualtrough; suggesting that there had been some kind of mix up and that he’d actually left a message saying that he would visit Wallace at home rather than Wallace visiting him. He asks Julia if he can come in and wait for Wallace’s return and she shows him into the parlour. Whilst he’s inside he steals the cash (possibly when Julia has gone upstairs or after he’s asked to use the toilet.) She either catches him in the act or she becomes suspicious and the accomplice kills her. Then the accomplice meets up with Parry somewhere (but in Parry’s car) and tells him what’s happened. Then, in the early hours of the morning, Parry gets his car washed by John Parkes.

The main point about this theory Abby is that it provides an explanation as to why the thief put the cash box back on the shelf - because he was trying to steal the cash without Julia knowing.

I have just finished reading "Checkmate: The Wallace Murder Mystery" by Mark Russell.
It's a very good forensic, if sometimes a bit dry, retelling of the case, mainly through the trial and appeal transcripts.

Russell makes a very good case for Wallace being the killer, and I have to confess that he has persuaded me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s no ‘correct’ solution of course as anyone with an ounce of reason would understand. If an individual doesn’t have the capacity keep their egos under control then they wouldn’t have such problems differentiating between fact and opinion. It’s laughable in a very sad kind of way. Then again….it’s hardly surprising.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have just finished reading "Checkmate: The Wallace Murder Mystery" by Mark Russell.
It's a very good forensic, if sometimes a bit dry, retelling of the case, mainly through the trial and appeal transcripts.

Russell makes a very good case for Wallace being the killer, and I have to confess that he has persuaded me.

When you ditch the conspiracist thinking Wallace is miles ahead as the likeliest killer Barn.

[RodCrosby]

I don't believe Mark Russell is any kind of advocate, and certainly not of the class of Hemmerde KC.

And Hemmerde KC failed to persuade the finest Judges of Appeal that there was any kind of case against Wallace.

On the contrary, the Judges found that the jury had made a terrible mistake, and quashed Wallace's conviction on the grounds that it was "unreasonable, or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence..."

Nothing has changed since 1931, except the revelation of new evidence pointing to the probable true culprits.

Therefore, Wallace as guilty is a mere superstition. Like Matthew Hopkins trying to "prove" Wallace was a witch....

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s not a superstition of course. It’s the best explanation for events as we know them. The only ‘evidence’ for Parry’s involvement in any way is Parkes whose statement is about as unlikely as it gets. Parry is alibi’d from before the crime to well after it so we know that he played no part. Parry is the bogey man of the Wallace case who has been jumped on purely because he was a pretty criminal, so to some he ‘must’ have been involved in some way. Such desperate that you get people like Wilkes who claimed Parry was the killer and then, when updating his book in the full knowledge that we now know that Parry had an alibi, he still says Parry was guilty. Then we had Hussy and his conspiracy which was then slightly altered to come up with the baseless accomplice theory. A theory for which there’s not a smidgeon of evidence. You can do it with any unsolved case. If x did this and y did that. Doesn’t make it solved though.

[RodCrosby]

Nothing can be "the best explanation" if it is not supported by the slightest particle of evidence, as the Judges of Appeal found.

Whereas Parry's own formal statements, unseen for 70 years, and his subsequent informal statements arouse the strongest suspicion, to any enquiring mind...

“I have promised my father I will never speak about it – not even for two thousand pounds...” Richard Gordon Parry, 1966

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Appeal was successful against the weak case that was mounted at the time. Hemmerde was useless. The accomplice theory wouldn’t get as far as court. If the case occurred today Wallace would have been found guilty. Parkes would have been laughed out of court and without him any suggestion of Parry’s involvement collapses. How does Parry get considered? Oh yeah, Wallace tried to throw him under the bus and failed. Wallace, that happy and contented man that suffered from depression. Married to a permanently ill woman who’d skimmed 16 years off her age to get him to marry her. A man with a serious and life-shortening kidney ailment which science tells us can cause mental health and cognitive issues. An intelligent man with sophisticated tastes who’d spent 16 years in a dead end job trudging around Clubmoor in all weathers with no hint of a chance at promotion. He’s almost textbook as a wife murderer. No one else can be placed at the scene or near to the house. Only he knew that he’d take the bait and go looking for MGE. Then he acts like a frightened 10 year old out on his own for the first time constantly badgering tram conductors and an inspector. Then he gets home and for the first time ever in the years that he’s lived there the back door defeats him; on the very night that his wife lay bludgeoned to death inside. Yeah right.

[RodCrosby]

A weak case, based solely on prejudice and fancy.

Repetition of it, ad nauseam, does not improve it.

Yawn...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Coming from Mr Obsessive bias.

Anyway, I’m off. If I really wanted to talk to a I’d go to the circus.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

The theory that Antony favours is that Parry made the phone call to get Wallace out of the house and after he’d set off an accomplice of his turns up at Wolverton Street claiming to be Qualtrough; suggesting that there had been some kind of mix up and that he’d actually left a message saying that he would visit Wallace at home rather than Wallace visiting him. He asks Julia if he can come in and wait for Wallace’s return and she shows him into the parlour. Whilst he’s inside he steals the cash (possibly when Julia has gone upstairs or after he’s asked to use the toilet.) She either catches him in the act or she becomes suspicious and the accomplice kills her. Then the accomplice meets up with Parry somewhere (but in Parry’s car) and tells him what’s happened. Then, in the early hours of the morning, Parry gets his car washed by John Parkes.

The main point about this theory Abby is that it provides an explanation as to why the thief put the cash box back on the shelf - because he was trying to steal the cash without Julia knowing.

thanks Herl
thats actually not a bad theory, although i still favor wallace as guilty rather heavily.

hey i think you missed my last post to you-it seems new evidence shows that Parry is clearly ruled out as commiting the actual murder via strong alibi??

[barnflatwyngarde]

The Appeal was successful against the weak case that was mounted at the time. Hemmerde was useless. The accomplice theory wouldn’t get as far as court. If the case occurred today Wallace would have been found guilty. Parkes would have been laughed out of court and without him any suggestion of Parry’s involvement collapses. How does Parry get considered? Oh yeah, Wallace tried to throw him under the bus and failed. Wallace, that happy and contented man that suffered from depression. Married to a permanently ill woman who’d skimmed 16 years off her age to get him to marry her. A man with a serious and life-shortening kidney ailment which science tells us can cause mental health and cognitive issues. An intelligent man with sophisticated tastes who’d spent 16 years in a dead end job trudging around Clubmoor in all weathers with no hint of a chance at promotion. He’s almost textbook as a wife murderer. No one else can be placed at the scene or near to the house. Only he knew that he’d take the bait and go looking for MGE. Then he acts like a frightened 10 year old out on his own for the first time constantly badgering tram conductors and an inspector. Then he gets home and for the first time ever in the years that he’s lived there the back door defeats him; on the very night that his wife lay bludgeoned to death inside. Yeah right.

Hey Herlock, that's a pretty good summation of the case.

Not everyone perceived Wallace as a quiet innofensive man.

Among the words used to describe Wallace by people who knew him are:

• "A man who had suffered a keen disappointment in life."
• "Cool, calculating, despondent and soured."
• "Bad tempered devil."

There was also a comment from the Wallace's GP, Dr Curwen, that "they did not lead the happy and harmonious life that others supposed they did."

No smoking gun here, but the more we find out about the Wallace marriage, and the character of Wallace himself, the more the suspicions mount.

[RodCrosby]

Parry has a cast-iron alibi.

The evidence, and logic, strongly indicates that:

i) Parry was not in 29 Wolverton Street

ii) no murder was intended

iii) yet Parry was implicated

[RodCrosby]

Hey Herlock, that's a pretty good summation of the case.

Not everyone perceived Wallace as a quiet innofensive man.

Among the words used to describe Wallace by people who knew him are:

• "A man who had suffered a keen disappointment in life."
• "Cool, calculating, despondent and soured."
• "Bad tempered devil."as tittle-tattle.

There was also a comment from the Wallace's GP, Dr Curwen, that "they did not lead the happy and harmonious life that others supposed they did."

No smoking gun here, but the more we find out about the Wallace marriage, and the character of Wallace himself, the more the suspicions mount.

None of it was adduced as evidence, so it remains mere "tittle-tattle."

The Police files are replete with such rubbish. The Police, as they do, trawled the alehouses and flophouses for it.

The Prosecution themselves announced at the opening of the Trial that:-

"...so far as the happiness of this household is concerned, the Crown knows nothing to the contrary of the view that these two people were very happy together."

Tittle-tattle is not evidence. Unless, of course, you are determined to adopt the methods of Matthew Hopkins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

Yawn...

[barnflatwyngarde]

None of it was adduced as evidence, so it remains mere "tittle-tattle."

The Police files are replete with such rubbish. The Police, as they do, trawled the alehouses and flophouses for it.

The Prosecution themselves announced at the opening of the Trial that:-

"...so far as the happiness of this household is concerned, the Crown knows nothing to the contrary of the view that these two people were very happy together."

Tittle-tattle is not evidence. Unless, of course, you are determined to adopt the methods of Matthew Hopkins. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

Yawn...

Wow, somebody forgot to take their chill pills.

[RodCrosby]

Coming from Mr Obsessive bias.

Hmmm... Let's see.

I DON'T claim to know better than the Trial Judge, and the Judges of Appeal

I DON'T claim to know better even than the Prosecution !!!

I DO understand the Law

I DO understand the difference between Evidence, and mere Prejudice and Fancy

I DO use Abductive Reasoning, instead of Superstition

I DO know how NOT to make a public ass of myself

And I never, ever, flounce

Yawn...