** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mark was interviewed recently by Alan R Warren of the American House of Mystery podcast, KCAA 106.5 F.M. Los Angeles/ 102.3 F.M. Riverside/1050 A.M. Palm Springs.

Best wishes
Adam

Thanks for that Adam

[moste]

Hi Moste,

The interviewer on the Casebook podcast is Jonathan Menges who is American with another American involved in the conversation (Tom Wescott) It’s possible that Mark was interviewed by someone else though of course.

Thanks, that’s the one.

[AdamNeilWood]

Hi Moste,

The interviewer on the Casebook podcast is Jonathan Menges who is American with another American involved in the conversation (Tom Wescott) It’s possible that Mark was interviewed by someone else though of course.

Mark was interviewed recently by Alan R Warren of the American House of Mystery podcast, KCAA 106.5 F.M. Los Angeles/ 102.3 F.M. Riverside/1050 A.M. Palm Springs.

Best wishes
Adam

[Abby Normal]

Just starting to catch up again after my latest absence, so apologies for any repetition. Whether or not Wallace did it, it was definitely in his own interests for the police to have other potential suspects in mind, and as there was no forced entry, the killer had to be someone Julia was happy to invite in. It doesn't sound credible that she'd have let in anyone she didn't recognise, even if he called himself Qualtrough and Wallace had mentioned the name earlier. Mr Q was supposedly unknown to Wallace too, so Julia could have been suspicious if he turned up on her doorstep, when he was meant to be waiting for Wallace at his own address.

It also had to be someone who knew about the cash box and where it was kept, which again points to a previous visitor, who'd have been recognised by Julia and would give her no inkling about his motives.

This all points to a killer who was familiar with the Wallaces and their house, without Wallace needing to emphasise the fact. It was good and bad for him in equal measure, but there was no doing anything about that. If he pointed the finger too hard or too fast at Parry, or one of his ilk, it might have looked like special pleading. All he needed to say was that Julia would not have invited in any Tom, Dick or Harry, and let the police join up the dots.

Doesn't the reasonable doubt defence come into play if there is a possibility of someone other than Wallace doing the deed? If so, that someone - whether it's Parry, or some unknown person - wouldn't need to become a formal suspect, or to be eliminated, for this defence to work.

Love,

Caz
X

if wallace did it, and tries to accuse someone else like parry, and that person ends up having an alibi than thats not good for wallace.its actually pretty bad for him.
if wallace is innocent and thinks Parry did it he wouldnt care either way.if parry has an alibi. ok cross him off the list. might even be a relief to him that it wasnt someone he knows. and a suspect is eliminated, but at least your getting somewhere.

that wallace didnt scream his name from the start seems to me to point to the former, wallaces guilt. he knows parry didnt do it, but dosnt know if he has an alibi. better be quiet about accusing him or others.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock ,or fellow posters .I just finished listening to a podcast by NBC on American radio, where the host is interviewing Mark Russell. Is this the same programme currently being alluded too? Thanks

Hi Moste,

The interviewer on the Casebook podcast is Jonathan Menges who is American with another American involved in the conversation (Tom Wescott) It’s possible that Mark was interviewed by someone else though of course.

[Ven]

Hi Caz,

indeed, the reasonable doubt was that William didn't o it...therefore the successful appeal... however the prosecution was so woeful...the questions not asked etc...

[caz]

Etenguy, Why would he have narrowed down the suspect list if he did not intend to finger Parry? As discussed recently, he did not need to say Julia would only let in acquaintances.

Just starting to catch up again after my latest absence, so apologies for any repetition. Whether or not Wallace did it, it was definitely in his own interests for the police to have other potential suspects in mind, and as there was no forced entry, the killer had to be someone Julia was happy to invite in. It doesn't sound credible that she'd have let in anyone she didn't recognise, even if he called himself Qualtrough and Wallace had mentioned the name earlier. Mr Q was supposedly unknown to Wallace too, so Julia could have been suspicious if he turned up on her doorstep, when he was meant to be waiting for Wallace at his own address.

It also had to be someone who knew about the cash box and where it was kept, which again points to a previous visitor, who'd have been recognised by Julia and would give her no inkling about his motives.

This all points to a killer who was familiar with the Wallaces and their house, without Wallace needing to emphasise the fact. It was good and bad for him in equal measure, but there was no doing anything about that. If he pointed the finger too hard or too fast at Parry, or one of his ilk, it might have looked like special pleading. All he needed to say was that Julia would not have invited in any Tom, Dick or Harry, and let the police join up the dots.

Doesn't the reasonable doubt defence come into play if there is a possibility of someone other than Wallace doing the deed? If so, that someone - whether it's Parry, or some unknown person - wouldn't need to become a formal suspect, or to be eliminated, for this defence to work.

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

I’ve got 45 minutes of the podcast to go. I can’t recall if it was Graham who questioned how certain we can be about Julia’s age. Mark has stated in the podcast that he has a copy of Julia’s birth certificate which states that she was indeed born in 1861. This is where Murphy got the information from too.

Hi Herlock ,or fellow posters .I just finished listening to a podcast by NBC on American radio, where the host is interviewing Mark Russell. Is this the same programme currently being alluded too? Thanks

[Herlock Sholmes]

thanks herlock. ive always leaned heavily it was wallace. if i was innocent and i thought someone i knew did it, i would be screaming his name from the rooftops. another little oddity that i see as a clue pointing to wallace.

kind of like when he leaves it to the maid to tell the police about the missing bar and poker. and being able to suddenly get in as soon as his neighbors see him trying.

as some of you may know from my posts about the ripper, i also dont go much for phantom suspects when youve got one right in front of your nose. that being said i think the courts got it right eventually as there just dosnt seem to be enough hard evidence to convict.

Certainly not enough to convict Abby.

I know you don’t go for phantom suspects (or barking mad conspiracies for that matter)

[Abby Normal]

He goes for Parry but only after the successful appeal. He doesn’t mention him by name but he’s obviously referring to him.

thanks herlock. ive always leaned heavily it was wallace. if i was innocent and i thought someone i knew did it, i would be screaming his name from the rooftops. another little oddity that i see as a clue pointing to wallace.

kind of like when he leaves it to the maid to tell the police about the missing bar and poker. and being able to suddenly get in as soon as his neighbors see him trying.

as some of you may know from my posts about the ripper, i also dont go much for phantom suspects when youve got one right in front of your nose. that being said i think the courts got it right eventually as there just dosnt seem to be enough hard evidence to convict.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve got 45 minutes of the podcast to go. I can’t recall if it was Graham who questioned how certain we can be about Julia’s age. Mark has stated in the podcast that he has a copy of Julia’s birth certificate which states that she was indeed born in 1861. This is where Murphy got the information from too.

[NickB]

If Wallace was the killer, he wanted the largest pool of suspects or overwhelming evidence that Parry did it, yet his plan did neither.

I think it would be far better to go for the largest pool of suspects, because all he is doing here is pointing suspicion away from himself. After all he doesn't need to finger anyone in particular. And if he effects a forced entry the question of who Julia would let in is moot.

The trouble with going for Parry is that he needs supporting evidence to avoid it being seen as an attempt to frame him. The more elaborately he fits up Parry the more likely it is to be traced back to him, for the simple reason that (under this scenario) Parry is innocent. Thus, unless you can think of a way Wallace could implicate Parry without leaving his fingerprints, there is a built-in problem for Wallace in planning the frame-up more carefully.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here’s an argument I’m thinking of using in the second edition of Move to Murder. In a nutshell, it argues that critical aspects of the murder suggest Parry’s involvement is more likely than Wallace planned it to frame Parry. Or, alternatively, Wallace planned poorly, contrary to what many suppose. My presentation of the argument here is formal and logical – I would not present it like this in my book. I’m posting to a get a critique from some of the most knowledgeable people on the case - you!

Key Assumptions:
[W₁] Wallace alone killed Julia Wallace
[W₂] Wallace carefully planned and thought through the details of his plan in advance

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

Now P by itself does not limit the number of potential suspects (although Wallace subsequently limited it by stating that Julia would not admit strangers). However, Q limits the suspect pool to those that knew Wallace frequented the cafe and might be there on the Monday night, and C limits it to a handful of people, mostly business colleagues, who knew of the cash box. In fact, Q & C limit the suspect pool to just two known people: James Caird and Gordon Parry.

One might include Joseph Marsden in the list, but it is unclear if he knew Wallace might be at the chess club on the Monday night. In fact, Q and C eliminate almost everybody else, so let’s stick with the two. As Wallace would have be confident during his planning that Caird would have an alibi for the call (i.e. Caird would be at the chess club), the plan QCP limits the potential suspects to just one – Parry. Therefore, we can conclude that if W₁ and W₂ are true:
[C₁] Wallace planned QCP to frame Parry for the murder

There is no other plausible explanation for the plan QCP. If we reject C₁, we have to ask what on earth was Wallace thinking? If he wanted to keep the number of suspects as high as possible (his best defence) he would have planned only P (and stated that Julia would admit anyone) but not C and not Q. Even the phone call dramatically limits the number of suspects – just look at Hemmerde’s attacks during the trial if you are in any doubt. Again, if C₁ is rejected, why did Wallace state that Julia would not admit strangers? Was he so stupid not to realise his defence was hindered by this statement? Did he not realise that Parry was virtually the only possible suspect that Julia would admit into the parlour (P) and who knew enough to make the call [Q] and had actually used his cash box [C]? He must have done, hence C₁

Is there any other evidence to support C₁? Yes – Wallace’s second police interview during which he clearly points the finger towards Parry, his John Bull articles and his private diaries in which he actually names Parry. Under assumptions W₁ and W₂, the plan QCP and Wallace’s post-crime behaviour implies beyond a reasonable doubt that Wallace was trying to frame Parry [C₁]. I think many Wallace theorists are comfortable with that.

But:
[C₂] QCP imply Parry’s involvement.

By definition, they must. If C₁ is true, Wallace deliberately pointed the evidence to implicate Parry. If C₂ is false then there would be no grounds whatsoever to claim that Wallace planned to frame Parry. Therefore, C₂ must be true if C₁ is true. And as we have seen, C₁ is the only reasonable interpretation of QCP under the assumptions of W₁ and W₂.

And here’s the twist: the probability of QCP > W₂QCP (this is not opinion but a theorem of probability theory). In ordinary English, the simpler and more likely theory is that Parry was involved and not that Wallace planned it to look like Parry was involved. In other words, if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, why do you assume it’s a hologram of a duck and not a real one?

Therefore, if we are to hold W₁ (Wallace is the killer) I believe we should reject W₂. Wallace did not plan and think through this crime at all well. And even if you’re not sure about the probability stuff, look at what the QCP plan achieved. It effectively limited the suspect pool to just one person – Parry – a person that, for all Wallace knew, might have had cast-iron alibis for the night of the murder and the call. If Wallace was the killer, he wanted the largest pool of suspects or overwhelming evidence that Parry did it, yet his plan did neither. It was a poor plan if he wanted to get away with murder.

You may question the last point. You might counter that Wallace was an ingenious planner who was so bitter against Parry (for some reason) that Wallace was prepared to take a risk. But this is only to re-state C₁ (Wallace planned QCP to frame Parry for the murder) and hence a similar conclusion Pr(QCP) > Pr(C₁QCP) follows: the more likely theory is that Parry was involved and not that Wallace planned it to look like Parry was involved. I would also question how Wallace thought his plan would ensnare Parry when he had no idea whether Parry had alibis for the nights in question. Again, I would conclude that, if that was his objective, he did not plan well.

Conclusion
The QCP aspects of the case are more likely to be evidence of Parry’s involvement than a plan by Wallace to frame him, or Wallace did not plan as well as many suppose.

So, that’s the argument. Any feedback welcome.

Couldn’t there be a W3? That Wallace believed that he’d planned thoroughly. It appears that kidney failed can lead to certain issues which I mentioned in an email to you before reading Mark’s book. Mark also mentions it. So might this have affected his thinking? Or might he just have been the arrogant type who just felt that he was cleverer than police?

Although I realise that you’ve talked of reducing the suspect pool to ‘known’ people I’d also suggest that Q and C would also include associates of Parry or Marsden who they might simply have told about Wallace’s cash? Maybe ‘small fish’ Parry was trying to ingratiate himself with a ‘bigger fish’ by putting him onto an opportunity? Or maybe he tried to get out of a debt by saying ‘I know where you can lay your hands on a load of cash?’ Or maybe he just talked about Wallace to someone that came up with the plan?

I agree that Wallace would have been better off suggesting that Julia would have let others in but maybe his thinking (maybe impaired?) was “if Parry (or Marsden) had alibi’s then the police will just assume that it was some dodgy associate or that one of them just planned the robbery but got someone else to do it.

Antony didn’t Wallace say somewhere that Julia might have let Qualtrough in? Or am I mis-remembering?

.......

I’m certainly not disputing the way you’ve analysed this as I know nothing about Probability Theory but you won’t be surprised to hear that I favour the ‘Wallace wasn’t as clever as he thought that he was’ version. I’d also add that I think that Wallace might have felt that the police might also have considered associates of Parry and Marsden. Maybe Wallace invented the Accomplice Theory?

[moste]

I would simply answer that Wallace intended to ensnare Parry . Parry having an alibi ,doesn’t exonerate him from being involved. ( use of accomplice) . I think Wallace purposely flunked the phone call knowing the call could be traced , and calculated that the police would consider that he,Wallace,was being set up. (Obviously what the appeal judges believed)

[ColdCaseJury]

Here’s an argument I’m thinking of using in the second edition of Move to Murder. In a nutshell, it argues that critical aspects of the murder suggest Parry’s involvement is more likely than Wallace planned it to frame Parry. Or, alternatively, Wallace planned poorly, contrary to what many suppose. My presentation of the argument here is formal and logical – I would not present it like this in my book. I’m posting to a get a critique from some of the most knowledgeable people on the case - you!

Key Assumptions:
[W₁] Wallace alone killed Julia Wallace
[W₂] Wallace carefully planned and thought through the details of his plan in advance

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

Now P by itself does not limit the number of potential suspects (although Wallace subsequently limited it by stating that Julia would not admit strangers). However, Q limits the suspect pool to those that knew Wallace frequented the cafe and might be there on the Monday night, and C limits it to a handful of people, mostly business colleagues, who knew of the cash box. In fact, Q & C limit the suspect pool to just two known people: James Caird and Gordon Parry.

One might include Joseph Marsden in the list, but it is unclear if he knew Wallace might be at the chess club on the Monday night. In fact, Q and C eliminate almost everybody else, so let’s stick with the two. As Wallace would have be confident during his planning that Caird would have an alibi for the call (i.e. Caird would be at the chess club), the plan QCP limits the potential suspects to just one – Parry. Therefore, we can conclude that if W₁ and W₂ are true:
[C₁] Wallace planned QCP to frame Parry for the murder

There is no other plausible explanation for the plan QCP. If we reject C₁, we have to ask what on earth was Wallace thinking? If he wanted to keep the number of suspects as high as possible (his best defence) he would have planned only P (and stated that Julia would admit anyone) but not C and not Q. Even the phone call dramatically limits the number of suspects – just look at Hemmerde’s attacks during the trial if you are in any doubt. Again, if C₁ is rejected, why did Wallace state that Julia would not admit strangers? Was he so stupid not to realise his defence was hindered by this statement? Did he not realise that Parry was virtually the only possible suspect that Julia would admit into the parlour (P) and who knew enough to make the call [Q] and had actually used his cash box [C]? He must have done, hence C₁

Is there any other evidence to support C₁? Yes – Wallace’s second police interview during which he clearly points the finger towards Parry, his John Bull articles and his private diaries in which he actually names Parry. Under assumptions W₁ and W₂, the plan QCP and Wallace’s post-crime behaviour implies beyond a reasonable doubt that Wallace was trying to frame Parry [C₁]. I think many Wallace theorists are comfortable with that.

But:
[C₂] QCP imply Parry’s involvement.

By definition, they must. If C₁ is true, Wallace deliberately pointed the evidence to implicate Parry. If C₂ is false then there would be no grounds whatsoever to claim that Wallace planned to frame Parry. Therefore, C₂ must be true if C₁ is true. And as we have seen, C₁ is the only reasonable interpretation of QCP under the assumptions of W₁ and W₂.

And here’s the twist: the probability of QCP > W₂QCP (this is not opinion but a theorem of probability theory). In ordinary English, the simpler and more likely theory is that Parry was involved and not that Wallace planned it to look like Parry was involved. In other words, if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, why do you assume it’s a hologram of a duck and not a real one?

Therefore, if we are to hold W₁ (Wallace is the killer) I believe we should reject W₂. Wallace did not plan and think through this crime at all well. And even if you’re not sure about the probability stuff, look at what the QCP plan achieved. It effectively limited the suspect pool to just one person – Parry – a person that, for all Wallace knew, might have had cast-iron alibis for the night of the murder and the call. If Wallace was the killer, he wanted the largest pool of suspects or overwhelming evidence that Parry did it, yet his plan did neither. It was a poor plan if he wanted to get away with murder.

You may question the last point. You might counter that Wallace was an ingenious planner who was so bitter against Parry (for some reason) that Wallace was prepared to take a risk. But this is only to re-state C₁ (Wallace planned QCP to frame Parry for the murder) and hence a similar conclusion Pr(QCP) > Pr(C₁QCP) follows: the more likely theory is that Parry was involved and not that Wallace planned it to look like Parry was involved. I would also question how Wallace thought his plan would ensnare Parry when he had no idea whether Parry had alibis for the nights in question. Again, I would conclude that, if that was his objective, he did not plan well.

Conclusion
The QCP aspects of the case are more likely to be evidence of Parry’s involvement than a plan by Wallace to frame him, or Wallace did not plan as well as many suppose.

So, that’s the argument. Any feedback welcome.