** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[etenguy]

I’d forgotten about that Eten cheers. I don’t know anything about these fires though. If it was blazing at 6.30 is it unlikely that it was as Mrs Johnston said 2.5 hours later?

ps why don’t computers have a way of properly typing fractions? 1/2 is crap.

- modern problems

[Herlock Sholmes]

- modern problems

I like pens

[NickB]

½
Hold down the Alt key and type 0189 on the numeric keypad.

[Herlock Sholmes]

½
Hold down the Alt key and type 0189 on the numeric keypad.

Thanks Nick but I have an iPad. No alt key.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks Nick but I have an iPad. No alt key.

Does this help?

https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/pages-ipad/tan031d3206d/ipados

[Abby Normal]

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
yes those are good points. one of the main ones for me pointing away from wallace (and to Parry) is the mention of the 21st birthday on the Q call. I mean whats the chances?
anyone have any explanation for that one???

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does this help?

https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guid...1d3206d/ipados

½

Cheers Joshua

It only works in Pages though. But it’s no problem to copy and paste from there

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi eten
yes those are good points. one of the main ones for me pointing away from wallace (and to Parry) is the mention of the 21st birthday on the Q call. I mean whats the chances?
anyone have any explanation for that one???

Hi Abby,

Although Parry went to the Williamson’s and received an invitation for the 21st birthday party I don’t think that there’s any evidence that he knew of this beforehand. So if he only found out about it on Tuesday evening he couldn’t have known about it on the previous evening.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Although Parry went to the Williamson’s and received an invitation for the 21st birthday party I don’t think that there’s any evidence that he knew of this beforehand. So if he only found out about it on Tuesday evening he couldn’t have known about it on the previous evening.

thanks herlock. either way its still an incredible circumstance

[NickB]

Julia was orphaned at 13 and had younger siblings. Who looked after them?

I suppose candidates are gran Ann Dennis, uncle John Dennis or auntie Sarah Monkhouse. The 1881 census may show, although Julia herself had moved on by then.

[ColdCaseJury]

Thanks ColdCaseJury, i appreciate your feedback, so I'd like to maybe finish this line with the following -

OK, not many seem to agree with my points about William discussing/telling Julia about the Qualtrough call, and the implications of this on Amy's statement, and therefore William's guilt, so I will try one last time and not bring it up again if anyone can positively refute it or bring up some other evidence.

If discussed/told at Supper on Monday night after chess, breakfast on Tuesday, Dinner/Lunch on Tuesday, then why didn't he answer that at the trial? Please don't say, "well they still discussed its veracity...blah blah blah..." William said, when asked, if he told his wife, yes, he discussed it at TEA.

At this point in time, it's a no brainer...but eagerly await your responses.

Ven

Q3182 to Q3186 of the trial puts this issue to bed.

Q3183: Or told the evening before?

Wallace: She knew all about it. As a matter of fact, we had discussed it during the day and it was really because we discussed it together that I decided to go.

As Wallace came home at (approx) 2:10pm for dinner (i.e. lunch) and then again at 6:05pm for tea, Wallace must have discussed with his wife during lunch or before (unless a dark January evening at 6pm is now classed as "day"). Therefore, Julia could have told Amy about the call. That was my point all along.

Whether Wallace is actually lying or not is not the issue: there are no grounds to say that he is lying on this point. Indeed, I would say this about as positive a refutation as you can get in this case.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I like pens

One slight typo, you'd have a very different post...

[Herlock Sholmes]

One slight typo, you'd have a very different post...

That took me a full minute to suss out what you were talking about. It must be the advancing years Al, then again, I’ve had a hard life

[Herlock Sholmes]

The question has been asked “why didn’t our culprit simply contact Wallace via a letter?” It’s a valid question IMO.

A formally written letter would surely have been less suspicious than a call made to a club that only very few people knew that Wallace was a member of and that no one knew whether he would actually attend on that night.

What advantages would have letter have provided for Wallace? No risky phone calls with the chance of being recognised?

What advantages for Parry? Certainty that Wallace would receive it? Less suspicious/strange than a call to the club? Less chance of error writing down the message?

What disadvantages for Wallace? The possibility of handwriting similarities being spotted?

What disadvantages for Parry? The same issue with handwriting but if he had an unknown accomplice to write it?

Either could have used a typewriter of course but neither owned one as far as we know. So they would have had to have used a friend’s or a colleague’s or else one belonging to a family member. Wallace doing this would have been fairly easily traceable but much less so than Parry. His accomplice might also have had access to one?

So I’d say that contacting Wallace via a letter would have favoured Parry than Wallace? What does everyone think?

[caz]

One slight typo, you'd have a very different post...

I thought the same as you, Al, but was far too polite to say anything.