Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

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

  • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
    Wow, I literally go for a long walk (finishing off The Ridgeway) and there are pages of comment! There's more heat than light. Let's go back to 1) the call and then 2) the murder.

    1) Wallace cannot be eliminated from making the call the call. Ditto for Parry. They are both suspects.

    2) Some people eliminate Wallace from the murder (time constraints, lack of blood etc), although I think it is possible he did it. Parry could not have killed (given Olivia Brine). However, an accomplice could have.

    So, there are two basic theories. I think Accomplice is the leading non-Wallace theory and Wallace alone is the leading opposite theory.

    Now, contra Murphy and Russell, the Appeal Court Judges did not believe any piece of evidence could only be interpreted in terms of Wallace's guilt. Neither did they find the set of circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict with the certainty that is necessary BUT that does not mean he was actually innocent.

    As husband with a murdered wife in his parlour, Wallace starts with the highest prior probability (about 60-65% based on Home Office stats I got). This means that if you think the EVIDENCE points equally to innocence or gulit, your verdict, should be Wallace with a posterior probability of 60-65%. If you think the evidence points to Wallace, then your level of belief will increase (say to 85%). If, as I do, you interpret the evidence in Wallace's favour, then the posterior probability might drop to, say, 45%, meaning you find Wallace innocent, but it's a close call.

    However, unless you make extreme judgements, e.g. it was impossible for Wallace to have killed his wife in the time available (say) then Wallace will always be in the frame.

    On Hussey, my view is that he clearly thinks Parry was the culprit (sneak thief) and did not involve an accomplice. It is an important book in that he goes into to detail how Parry might have done it. Then comes the police file (Brine), and then Rod.

    Sorry to be the dull one...

    P.S. You can eliminate Wallace if you accept Parkes with 100% confidence. But as it was not fully corroborated I cannot see how this can be done.
    I don’t think that anyone taking a reasonable view could dispute that assessment Antony. Individual interpretation is all when trying to decide who we believe the likeliest killer to have been.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
      Wow, I literally go for a long walk (finishing off The Ridgeway) and there are pages of comment! There's more heat than light. Let's go back to 1) the call and then 2) the murder.

      1) Wallace cannot be eliminated from making the call the call. Ditto for Parry. They are both suspects.

      2) Some people eliminate Wallace from the murder (time constraints, lack of blood etc), although I think it is possible he did it. Parry could not have killed (given Olivia Brine). However, an accomplice could have.

      So, there are two basic theories. I think Accomplice is the leading non-Wallace theory and Wallace alone is the leading opposite theory.

      Now, contra Murphy and Russell, the Appeal Court Judges did not believe any piece of evidence could only be interpreted in terms of Wallace's guilt. Neither did they find the set of circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict with the certainty that is necessary BUT that does not mean he was actually innocent.

      As husband with a murdered wife in his parlour, Wallace starts with the highest prior probability (about 60-65% based on Home Office stats I got). This means that if you think the EVIDENCE points equally to innocence or gulit, your verdict, should be Wallace with a posterior probability of 60-65%. If you think the evidence points to Wallace, then your level of belief will increase (say to 85%). If, as I do, you interpret the evidence in Wallace's favour, then the posterior probability might drop to, say, 45%, meaning you find Wallace innocent, but it's a close call.

      However, unless you make extreme judgements, e.g. it was impossible for Wallace to have killed his wife in the time available (say) then Wallace will always be in the frame.

      On Hussey, my view is that he clearly thinks Parry was the culprit (sneak thief) and did not involve an accomplice. It is an important book in that he goes into to detail how Parry might have done it. Then comes the police file (Brine), and then Rod.

      Sorry to be the dull one...

      P.S. You can eliminate Wallace if you accept Parkes with 100% confidence. But as it was not fully corroborated I cannot see how this can be done.
      Dear CCJ

      Nothing dull about a great assessment of the current state of play concerning who killed Julia Wallace. I'm looking forward to reading your up-dated book and understanding the reasons you interpret the evidence in Wallace's favour.

      Comment

      Working...
      X