** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[RodCrosby]

Yes... unless you believe that three people who barely knew Parry risked Perjury [potentially life imprisonment] to save his neck, for some unascertainable reason.

Logic also indicates that Parry was not a murderer, as it also indicates that no murder was intended....

[Herlock Sholmes]

And so we have absolutely no grounds to reject Parry’s alibi. Not one. It’s just rejection of evidence on the basis of it being inconvenient to a theory. Parry played no part in this.

[RodCrosby]

It's just static.

Press on...

[barnflatwyngarde]

Or even an iron bar!

Is there a compelling piece of evidence for you that points to Wallace's guilt?

I have to say - trying to be objective as I can - Russell's arguments were not as good as his narrative. He relied heavily on Murphy and inherits some of the same mistakes. For example, that the caller was the killer. That was only "generally accepted" in the 20th century. Also, he dismisses important objections too easily. I see no rational grounds in his book to dismiss Lily Hall, for example. On a subject close to Herlock's heart, Russell also suggests that Parry might have misled the police about his whereabouts at the time of the call because he was with another woman. True, that would be uncomfortable for him in 1931 when he was dating Lily Lloyd, but in 1966 when he was interviewed by Goodman? How come he didn't come clean then? Why was he so evasive, especially when he knew Wallace had pointed the finger of suspicion at him?

Also, as I point out in my second edition, Russell (and he is not alone) completely overlooks the bloodstains on the floor, the most important by the armchair, and modern forensic analysis. It is worthy of The Second Stain... I hope that is enough of a tease!

AMB

Ah yes, the curious case of the iron bar that was there, then wasn't there, then might have been found again!

Hi CCJ, yeah this case is an absolute doozy.

For a long time I tended to lean in favour of Wallace's innocence, now I'm not so sure.

His constant pestering of people as he tries to find Menlove Gardens East, seems to me suspicious, bearing in mind the fact that he was told very early on in his search that there was in fact no Menlove Gardens East.

If I was the killer, and wanted to lure Wallace far enough away from home to commit the deed, why not give him a genuine address that was far enough away to ensure that I had enough time to carry out the murder without any risk of Wallace returning home in the middle of the crime?

I will certainly get the new edition of "Move to Murder" when it is available in paperback.

I am off to reacquaint myself with the case via Jonathan Goodman, and your own "Move to Murder".

[Abby Normal]

Ah yes, the curious case of the iron bar that was there, then wasn't there, then might have been found again!

Hi CCJ, yeah this case is an absolute doozy.

For a long time I tended to lean in favour of Wallace's innocence, now I'm not so sure.

His constant pestering of people as he tries to find Menlove Gardens East, seems to me suspicious, bearing in mind the fact that he was told very early on in his search that there was in fact no Menlove Gardens East.

If I was the killer, and wanted to lure Wallace far enough away from home to commit the deed, why not give him a genuine address that was far enough away to ensure that I had enough time to carry out the murder without any risk of Wallace returning home in the middle of the crime?

I will certainly get the new edition of "Move to Murder" when it is available in paperback.

I am off to reacquaint myself with the case via Jonathan Goodman, and your own "Move to Murder".

hi Barn
re the iron bar-the fact that he didnt tell the police about the iron bar is very telling to me. that the maid had to tell them is suspicious to me. I lean pretty heavily wallace did it.

[barnflatwyngarde]

hi Barn
re the iron bar-the fact that he didnt tell the police about the iron bar is very telling to me. that the maid had to tell them is suspicious to me. I lean pretty heavily wallace did it.

Absolutely Abby.

The Wallace's cleaner, Mrs Draper, had been in their employ for nine months, and worked every Wednesday.
She clearly stated that the piece of iron stood in the fireplace in the parlour, and was used for raking spent matches and cigarette ends from beneath the gas fire.
Indeed, Mrs Draper had used this piece of iron the week prior to the murder to retrieve a screw that had fallen from a bracket and rolled under the fire.

It is extremely puzzling that Mrs Draper immediately noticed that this piece of iron was missing after the murder, but Wallace denied all knowledge of it's existence.

This one fact alone is very damaging to Wallace.

[Pcdunn]

Has anyone established a motive for the murder?

That's the question, Dave. Why *would* anyone kill an infirm eldery lady?

-- Theft existed, but the tiny amount taken from the cash box hardly makes any sense at all.
Theory: A thrill killing? How likely in that day and age would a motiveless killing be?
Theory: The local burglar killed her in anger over the small amount of money found in the house? Burglars usually are in and out types, not violent murderers.

-- The husband killing his wife is the most obvious motive. Observe:
The violence of the blows and the covering of the body suggest a personal connection between the murderer and the victim.
But the husband as murderer runs into problems into this case, not the least of which are:
His alibi, seemingly established at great length, with his mentioning to various people he was headed off to an appointment in a street that apparently did not exist. WAS it an alibi??
Also, was Wallace healthy enough to bash in his wife's head? Some medical evidence suggests not, yet he was strong enough to walk a long route doing his collections for his job.
No blood evidence on Wallace.

If Wallace wanted to make sure his wife died, while being safely out of their home, logically he would need an accomplice. Okay... but who?? And how could he convince anyone to do a homicide and keep quiet about it?

Sigh...no wonder this is a puzzle all these years later.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's the question, Dave. Why *would* anyone kill an infirm eldery lady?

-- Theft existed, but the tiny amount taken from the cash box hardly makes any sense at all.
Theory: A thrill killing? How likely in that day and age would a motiveless killing be?
Theory: The local burglar killed her in anger over the small amount of money found in the house? Burglars usually are in and out types, not violent murderers.

-- The husband killing his wife is the most obvious motive. Observe:
The violence of the blows and the covering of the body suggest a personal connection between the murderer and the victim.
But the husband as murderer runs into problems into this case, not the least of which are:
His alibi, seemingly established at great length, with his mentioning to various people he was headed off to an appointment in a street that apparently did not exist. WAS it an alibi??
Also, was Wallace healthy enough to bash in his wife's head? Some medical evidence suggests not, yet he was strong enough to walk a long route doing his collections for his job.
No blood evidence on Wallace.

If Wallace wanted to make sure his wife died, while being safely out of their home, logically he would need an accomplice. Okay... but who?? And how could he convince anyone to do a homicide and keep quiet about it?

Sigh...no wonder this is a puzzle all these years later.

Hi Pat,

Over the years one of the main points raised against Wallace being the murderer is that apparently they had a contented marriage. People like Caird who had been to the house saw them as a contented, loving couple. Wallace’s friends, colleagues and customers described him favourably. There was no other woman that we know of and Julia wasn’t insured to the extent that murder for money would have been a motive. So, on the surface at least, Wallace seems an unlikely murderer but there’s evidence that all want rosy in the garden. Curwen, Wilson and Mather can’t simply be ignored because they are inconvenient to the perceived image of the couple. And is it impossible or even unlikely that a couple would put on a ‘happy front’ when they had visitors? Wallace also suffered from depression. We also have to remember that Julia had lied about her age and was actually 16 years older than she’d claimed so Wallace’s wife was actually old enough to have been his mother. So is it too far fetched if we at least suggest a different picture? An intelligent man in the same job for years trudging around in all weathers and with no hope of promotion to a nice cushy office position coming home to nurse an almost permanently ill wife. A man with a life shortening kidney ailment (which can affect mental health) might easily have thought “is this how I’m going to spend my last few years?” We can’t know for certain of course but equally we can’t just dismiss Wallace because he didn’t seem the type.

Other points raised against him have been the fact that he was an amateur chemist so why didn’t he poison her? It’s a fair question but I’d ask if Wallace might have been concerned that someone like the revered Spilsbury might have somehow discovered poison? If poison had been discovered then there would only have been one suspect.

The main point against has been the time that Wallace would have had available to have killed Julia, cleaned up and then left the house in time to have reached his first tram. I suspect that Wallace used the mackintosh to protect himself from blood (others disagree of course) but interestingly a forensic expert (questioned by former poster WallaceWackedHer on his website) has recently said that it’s possible that the killer might have got no blood on him at all. So for me there’s nothing about this that eliminates Wallace. Without a clean up how long could a bludgeoning have taken. Wallace had around 10 minutes. IMO half that time would have been ample.

But you’re right Pat in that every suggestion has an alternative interpretation and there are questions on both sides. Some Major some minor. Like….

Why was Wallace surprised that he couldn’t open the back door? Whenever he returned after dark he went in by the front door so naturally Julia, being in the house on her own and knowing that the back door wouldn’t be used again that night, would have locked and bolted it for the night. And, as the back door wasn’t bolted, isn’t it suspicious that Wallace couldn’t open it at first? The door had never previously defeated him. Why only on the night that his wife lay dead inside? Was the incident of the doors a charade? I tend to think so.

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...

The Court of Criminal Appeal put this to bed 90 years ago:-

"Suffice it to say that we are not concerned here with suspicion, however grave, or with theories, however ingenious..."

And yet, some people waste their lives ignoring the learned Judges.

Some fools even write books, based entirely on Theories, Conjecture, Prejudice and Fancy.

There was no evidence against Wallace in 1931. There is none now.

Whereas, there was evidence then, and there is more now, leading to the Correct Solution...

[Herlock Sholmes]

. , based entirely on Theories

Says the originator (apart from Hussey) of The Accomplice Theory.

Talking about ‘learned Judges’ is pointless of course unless it can be shown that Judges are, or ever have been, infallible. Or if it can be proved that Prosecution and Defence Council always put forward the best case possible or never missed a telling point. So childishly repeating what Judges said 90 years ago is irrelevant.

A case isn’t ‘solved’ because one person or 10 people or 100 people think it is. Simple stuff.

[RodCrosby]

Haha, when snipes fail, try the other old standby: disinformation.

Hussey did not originate The Accomplice Theory. His book states clearly that he thinks one person, known to Julia Wallace, committed the crime. He merely speculates that that could be EITHER "Mr.Y" OR "Mr. Z", who equate to Marsden and Parry respectively.

So you simply add the inability to read to your copious catalogue of personal inadequacies, which, for some weird reason, you are determined to display repeatedly to the world...

The Accomplice Theory is a theory backed by evidence, unlike The Wallace Theory.

But I know I am expecting too much, for you to appreciate complex ideas like that !

[RodCrosby]

And as for the Judges... Yawn.

Sure, people can make mistakes. But there either was evidence against Wallace, or there was not. That was the sole test they (all three) had to apply, and it was a test that had never been found in the negative in a capital case.

If you think they made a mistake, where was the evidence that they must have missed?

You are the person, correct me if I am wrong, who has repeatedly stated that you as a juror would NOT have convicted Wallace !

So you continue to make a public fool of yourself. Your strange choice...

[RodCrosby]

It's clear that you wish you could have been Matthew Hopkins, where your Prejudice and Fancy trumps everything.

The (lack of) Evidence
Honest Judges (must be mistaken)
Prosecutors (must be incompetent, and replaced, if they fail)

Thanks for clearing that all up for us. As ... yawn ... you always do.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s Groundhog Day in Wallace Land.

You simply can’t discus the case can you? You are incapable of anything but the same old tedious ego driven boasting and repetition.

Why don’t you post this actual ‘evidence’ for your theory?

[RodCrosby]

I've discussed it many times, here and elsewhere, with people capable of that skill.

I've posted the evidence many times, here and elsewhere, and you know where to find it.