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


      • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
        I am not sure Qualtrough was believable as an independent suspect, he would be seen as an imaginary person who was either Wallace or another viable suspect. I think Wallace needed to make a real person seem a more likely suspect than himself if he was to gain some sympathy and perhaps a less vilified life. Parry was an ideal foil for a guilty Wallace, even an unshakable alibi would only have people talking about what his level of involvement with the murder was. The conversation would change and Wallace would no longer be the only and obvious person suspected. If an acquittal by senior judges did not convince everyone of Wallace's innocence, then an alibi from a rogue would be even less accepted.
        Hi All,

        I finally caught up with this thread!

        I do think etenguy makes a good point here.

        Wallace very nearly hanged for his wife's murder, and when he was acquitted on appeal, it wasn't because he was found to be innocent, or because anyone else was proved to be guilty. It was because the evidence against him wasn't strong enough to be sure of a safe conviction.

        We can all read between the lines when it is said that nobody else is being sought in connection with a particular murder, and whether or not Wallace killed his wife, I doubt he'd have liked the general public to continue believing he narrowly got away with doing so.

        IF he did it, the whole Qualtrough plan would have been thought up as a distraction, to provide a criminal who wanted Wallace out of the way, as a plausible alternative to a husband who wanted his wife out of the way. In either scenario, Wallace would have had a credible reason for being absent when Julia died. The criminal would have had no choice but to give Wallace a genuine alibi, if he had sent him on the wild goose chase. But Wallace would have had to make the best of it, if he had sent himself, after murdering Julia.

        All a guilty Wallace had to do, in essence, to plant the reasonable doubt which eventually saved his neck, if not his reputation, was to show that someone other than himself appeared to have had the means, motive and opportunity to commit this crime while he, the man of the house, was elsewhere. Wallace didn't have to prove the caller was not himself; only that it need not have been.

        Clearly, if Wallace had been found innocent, the only reasonable conclusion would have been that the phone call was a ruse by the real killer. But as Wallace had no way to prove his innocence, the mud was likely to stick for the rest of his days and beyond - as we know it did to a large extent - if he made no further attempt to claim that Qualtrough was a real person and therefore the real murderer. As we also know, he didn't do badly in that regard, despite Parry's alibi.

        Summing up, regardless of his guilt or innocence, I could see Wallace's ego getting in the way of letting sleeping dogs lie. If guilty, he'd be keeping up a pretence he had started; if innocent, he'd be damned if he didn't try to pin it on the man he felt was most likely to be responsible.

        Love,

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


        Comment


        • Hello everyone, I have recently joined, and this is my first post. I am very interested in the Ripper topics, but first, the social chat section caught my eye, and in particular, the baffling case of Julia Wallace.
          I have read the following books so far on that subject -
          Brown, Goodman, Wilkes, Gannon, Russell. (In that order.)
          I have also picked up a copy of the Murder Casebook 25 (and also Murder in Mind 64), and have read the solution section on the JWM Foundation website.
          I have a fairly long post written out in draft form, but first of all, I wanted to see if I am able to successfully post a message to the site, so I have a much shorter first post instead -
          Can someone please explain roughly how the sunbeam gas fire works, in terms of what is needed to be done in order to turn it on, very roughly how long each step occurs (eg gas regulation), and what position they need to be in for each step (eg kneeling down to the left, or middle, etc). Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.

          Comment

          Working...
          X