Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

I’d also say that it’s irrelevant.

Dear Herlock

Just to be clear, what is it you consider irrelevant?

Is it that Wallace had no motive or is it that you suspect he did have a motive but it has not been identified?

If the former, that is far from irrelevant. It is usual that to prove someone's guilt you need to establish that they had the ability to commit the crime, the reason they committed the crime and that they had the opportunity to commit the crime.

In the case of Wallace, neither the motive nor the opportunity have been adequately proven.

[Abby Normal]

Antony’s Quote:

Draper also told police:
a) On three occasions visitors arrived when she was cleaning - every time the visitor was shown into the front room.

Abby
yup no problem with this-I agree. and it does point to a visitor killer.

I have to disagree. Are we suggesting that William couldn’t have gone into the Parlour? This sounds like a bad syllogism to me: visitors would be shown into the Parlour; the murder took place in the Parlour; therefore the murderer was a visitor?

We’re not suggesting this are we?

Sounds like Rod-thinking to me.

Hi HS
yes I am-kind of. seems it was not a room they used as much as the others? Im thinking if she was found murdered in the kitchen, or their bedroom for example it would point away from a visitor and more to Wallace.


it fits the scenario of seeing a guest into the parlor, lighting the fire because its a cold room etc. also.


however, if its a room they used just as much as the rest of the house for themselves, than I stand corrected of course.


and this is weird-in one post im arguing in favor of Wallace and in the very next arguing for a visitor. lol. I guess the nature of this case. Im still on the fence.
and my balls are starting to ache.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If disinformation and misrepresentation don't work, try it in red ink...

You never know...

Change the record and stop acting like a parrot.

I’ll keep debating the facts while you continue to cut and paste quotes and meaningless graphs.

[RodCrosby]

Social mores were very different in 1931, especially for anyone aspiring to the middle-class.
People lived somewhat casually and slovenly in the "back room", the "middle kitchen", etc...

If a stranger or visitor (other than a tradesman) called they would invariably be shown into the "best room", the "front room" or "parlour", where everything was perfect and "just so". The sole purpose of the room was for such presentations, and occasional 'special' family gatherings...

My grandmother was like that [I seldom entered the parlour; it was almost unheard-of - we hung-out in the middle-kitchen, same for my mother's family], and even my parents were the same. From memory, there was a relaxation in the 1980s, whereby, as teenagers we could "take over" the "front-room" with our friends.
[Our parents were probably glad they had this spare, otherwise unused, room for us to dick-about in!]

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS
yes I am-kind of. seems it was not a room they used as much as the others? Im thinking if she was found murdered in the kitchen, or their bedroom for example it would point away from a visitor and more to Wallace.


it fits the scenario of seeing a guest into the parlor, lighting the fire because its a cold room etc. also.


however, if its a room they used just as much as the rest of the house for themselves, than I stand corrected of course.


and this is weird-in one post im arguing in favor of Wallace and in the very next arguing for a visitor. lol. I guess the nature of this case. Im still on the fence.
and my balls are starting to ache.

No problem Abby. You are giving an honest opinion and, apart from Rod, everyone can see the difficulties in the case. I think that it’s easy though for the impression to be given that the Parlour was some kind of rarely used ‘scared ground.’ Undoubtedly it was considered the best room and that new or special guests would have been taken their. Whereas someone like her sister-in-law popping in for a cup of tea and a chat would been taken to the kitchen where it would have already have been warm.

Julia’s piano was in the Parlour though and, as William going out, she might have decided on an hour playing the piano. As I posted before, whilst she was dealing with Alan Close, Wallace might have gone in there and when he heard the door close he called for Julia to bring him his mackintosh as he prepared to leave. Maybe Wallace had told Julia that he’d decided against going out and that he wanted an evening of playing the violin accompanying Julia’s piano? Maybe Julia went in there to look for something? I think that there could have been any number of reasons why Julia was killed where she was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dear Herlock

Just to be clear, what is it you consider irrelevant?

Is it that Wallace had no motive or is it that you suspect he did have a motive but it has not been identified?

If the former, that is far from irrelevant. It is usual that to prove someone's guilt you need to establish that they had the ability to commit the crime, the reason they committed the crime and that they had the opportunity to commit the crime.

In the case of Wallace, neither the motive nor the opportunity have been adequately proven.

Hi Eten,

My post wasn’t intended to be dismissive.

I’d say that if a murder takes place and a spouse is a suspect then just because most people felt them to be happy isn’t anything like reason enough to exonerate. It might make it more difficult to understand but not exonerate in my opinion. Conversely of course we would have to except that if it was discovered that Wallace was having an affair then that would give him an obvious motive though it still wouldn’t prove his guilt. There was no evidence at all of an affair by the way.

I’d say that the opportunity has been proven however. Wallace wa there at the time and no one else can be placed at the scene (certainly not Parry.) To say that Wallace didn’t have time to commit the murder we have to assume unproven (in this case) police corruption and ignore adult testimony in favour of children’s hearsay. We also have to assume that Wallace got pretty much drenched in blood when he could have quite easily taken precautions (which can’t be unreasonable if this was a pre-planned murder.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

.Social mores were very different in 1931

They certainly were. And so would Julia have been completely blasé about admitting a strange man into her house after dark? One assumes that, in those days, it would have been the man that opened the door after dark? If a neighbour saw Julia opening the door and talking to the man however they might assume that Julia was in the house alone. Fuel for the gossip mongers perhaps?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was 1931, Abby.
Like it or not, domestic duties were women's work in those days...
And WHW was even one step removed, there being a charwoman.

Wallace wouldn’t have made the tea but he’d have known where the teapot was kept.

He knew about the pokers. Surely it’s reasonable to assume that the iron bar would have been kept in the same place and that he might just have noticed it’s presence. Or he might have though “I wonder what that iron bar is doing there?”

[RodCrosby]

"Alan Close told the Police that he had seen Mrs. Wallace alive at a quarter-to-seven, and I heard him say so..." Douglas Metcalf, 1981

Trial Transcipt

OLIVER KC: Did you hear Alan Close say what time it was that he had seen Mrs. Wallace alive ?
DOUGLAS METCALF: Yes ; he said it was a quarter to seven.

OLIVER KC: Have you any doubt about that ?
METCALF: No, sir.

HEMMERDE KC: I suggest that what he said to you was that he had seen her between 6.30 and 6.45 ?
METCALF: No, he never said that ; he said, point-blank, a quarter to seven.

OLIVER KC: Did you, on the evening of the 21st January last, hear Alan Close say what time he last saw Mrs. Wallace alive ?
KENNETH CAMPBELL CAIRD: Yes ; he said a quarter to seven.

HEMMERDE KC: Have you ever heard what he did say was, "Between 6.30 and 6.45” ?
CAIRD: No ; he said, "A quarter to seven,” not “Between 6.30 and 6.45.”

[Abby Normal]

It was 1931, Abby.
Like it or not, domestic duties were women's work in those days...
And WHW was even one step removed, there being a charwoman.

Thanks rod
Ok so lets assume this. He was clueseless about the bar and poker.

Wouldnt the natural reaction be once he was asked about them after the maid mentioned them missing to be... the killer probably took them away?

[etenguy]

Thanks rod
Ok so lets assume this. He was clueseless about the bar and poker.

Wouldnt the natural reaction be once he was asked about them after the maid mentioned them missing to be... the killer probably took them away?

That's a good point Abby - I assume only one implement was used to murder Julia, probably the iron bar. Why were the poker and iron bar taken? I don't envisage the murderer changed weapons mid way through.

[harry]

At a quarter to seven,according to Wallace,Julia was in his company,at the back of the house.For those that believe in his innocence and truthfulness,it would mean that any evidence giving Julia's presence at the front of the house with the milk boy,is false.If one believes Close/Metcalf,then Wallace evidence is false. If both sets of evidence is false,then Wallace could have killed Julia.That is what I believe.Both cannot be true.

If a visitor was expected,then it is likely,depending who that visitor was,and time of year,to use the front room,and in winter the fire would be lit beforehand, but only if the visit was expected to be of long duration.There was no expected visitor that night,and if we are to belive she was killed almost immediately on entering the room and lighting the fire,then no opportunity for deciding whether a visit was going to be long or short term.

However if the visitor pretended to be Qualtrough,the likely reasoning of Julia would be that her husband,on finding him not to be at home,would immediately return,and be home shortly,so the kitchen would suffice.

Or she could simply say,"You have just missed my husband,if you hurry back you may be in time to catch him".

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Alan Close told the Police that he had seen Mrs. Wallace alive at a quarter-to-seven, and I heard him say so..." Douglas Metcalf, 1981

Trial Transcipt

OLIVER KC: Did you hear Alan Close say what time it was that he had seen Mrs. Wallace alive ?
DOUGLAS METCALF: Yes ; he said it was a quarter to seven.

OLIVER KC: Have you any doubt about that ?
METCALF: No, sir.

HEMMERDE KC: I suggest that what he said to you was that he had seen her between 6.30 and 6.45 ?
METCALF: No, he never said that ; he said, point-blank, a quarter to seven.

OLIVER KC: Did you, on the evening of the 21st January last, hear Alan Close say what time he last saw Mrs. Wallace alive ?
KENNETH CAMPBELL CAIRD: Yes ; he said a quarter to seven.

HEMMERDE KC: Have you ever heard what he did say was, "Between 6.30 and 6.45” ?
CAIRD: No ; he said, "A quarter to seven,” not “Between 6.30 and 6.45.”

‘Cut and Paste’ Crosby strikes again.

Let’s look at what the adults said. Adults that are far more time-aware than children.

Mrs Johnston (whose honesty and accuracy no denies in any other context...strange that ) said that she got her milk delivery at 6.30 and we know for a fact that Alan Close delivered her milk whilst Julia was taking her delivery inside. So the Wallace’s and the Johnston’s had their milk delivered at the same time......6.30.

On the other side of the Wallace’s the Holme’s heard the Wallace’s door close at 6.35 (ie after Close left because no one else called.)

Of course we can allow for a couple or three minutes. So it’s quite reasonable to suggest that Alan Close left the Wallace’s between 6.35 and 6.38. Leaving William between 12 and 15 minutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At a quarter to seven,according to Wallace,Julia was in his company,at the back of the house.For those that believe in his innocence and truthfulness,it would mean that any evidence giving Julia's presence at the front of the house with the milk boy,is false.If one believes Close/Metcalf,then Wallace evidence is false. If both sets of evidence is false,then Wallace could have killed Julia.That is what I believe.Both cannot be true.

If a visitor was expected,then it is likely,depending who that visitor was,and time of year,to use the front room,and in winter the fire would be lit beforehand, but only if the visit was expected to be of long duration.There was no expected visitor that night,and if we are to belive she was killed almost immediately on entering the room and lighting the fire,then no opportunity for deciding whether a visit was going to be long or short term.

However if the visitor pretended to be Qualtrough,the likely reasoning of Julia would be that her husband,on finding him not to be at home,would immediately return,and be home shortly,so the kitchen would suffice.

Or she could simply say,"You have just missed my husband,if you hurry back you may be in time to catch him".

Good points Harry. This is one of the areas where the Accomplice Theory suffers a huge blow in my opinion. There is absolutely no way that Parry the planner could have been confident that William would have told Julia the details of his nights business. Luck is yet again required but not if William was guilty. If Wallace had simply said to Julia ‘by the way dear I have to go out on business tonight’ then she wouldn’t have heard the name Qualtrough and so she wouldn’t have let him in.

How anyone can persist in calling Parry a clever planner is beyond me

You’re right of course that even if she’d heard the name Qualtrough from William it still doesn’t necessarily follow that she’d have let him in. Just knowing of someone’s name doesn’t mean that you know or can trust them.

On one hand Rod calls Parry a clever planner then when you point out the huge chunks of luck required for success and the many ways that the plan could have failed he ascribes to Parry (who was supposed to have been in need of cash) a ‘you win some you lose done’ attitude. Did he want the cash or not? Those goalposts do seem to keep moving don’t they?

[RodCrosby]

It wasn't beyond Mr. Justice Wright, who could see there was a risk-free get-out for "Qualtrough"...

The exact opposite can be said for Wallace, as I have shown.