Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

As opposed to someone just inventing a scenario...

Yawn...

I didn't invent it.

As I have shown, I have abduced it from the EVIDENCE.
Circumstantial Evidence
Witness Evidence (including Parry's own)
Subsequent statements (from Parry, Parkes, policemen and many others)

[etenguy]

Yawn...

I didn't invent it.

As I have shown, I have abduced it from the EVIDENCE.
Circumstantial Evidence
Witness Evidence (including Parry's own)
Subsequent statements (from Parry, Parkes, policemen and many others)

Perhaps the strongest evidence that implicates Parry is the statement provided by Parkes. If we accept that statement as accurate, then your theory provides a plausible account of what may have happened.

If we struggle to accept Parkes statement, your theory still provides a plausible account of what may have happened and has more reliable, if less conclusive, support.

The fact this debate exists at all is because there is the high probability that either Parry (+1) or Wallace killed Julia. Unfortunately, the evidence, such as there is, is insufficient to determine with anything approaching certainty, which it was. At least, that would be my judgement based on my current level of knowledge about the case.

[RodCrosby]

What we know of physics, mathematics, logic, the sheer absence of evidence and the character of the suspect points (at best) to a negligible chance of Wallace having committed the crime.

Whereas, applying the same analysis to Parry points (at least) on the balance of probabilities (>50%) that he was involved in the crime in the way I suggest.

Speaking personally, I think the case against Parry (& Chum) is beyond reasonable doubt.

[RodCrosby]

"I won't discuss it at all - not if you were to offer me Ł2000" [about Ł37,000 in 2018]
Richard Gordon Parry, 1966

[Herlock Sholmes]

What we know of physics, mathematics, logic, the sheer absence of evidence and the character of the suspect points (at best) to a negligible chance of Wallace having committed the crime.

Whereas, applying the same analysis to Parry points (at least) on the balance of probabilities (>50%) that he was involved in the crime in the way I suggest.

Speaking personally, I think the case against Parry (& Chum) is beyond reasonable doubt.

I’m tired of reading this biased fantasy.

Parry wasn’t there. Parry can’t be placed anywhere near the scene. And his action scream out as the actions of a man not taking part in a ‘plan.’ You only ‘connect’ Parry because he knew where the cash box was and Parkes drivel. That’s not enough. Nowhere near.

Almost everything points to Wallace. 95% guilty. The only suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"I won't discuss it at all - not if you were to offer me Ł2000" [about Ł37,000 in 2018]
Richard Gordon Parry, 1966

Another meaningless quote. So what ?

Why don’t you quote Wallace blatantly lying to Beattie and Caird about being cleared by the police?

Why don’t you quote his blatantly suspicious explaination of that lie to the police?

If you’re not suspicious of Wallace’s behaviour before, during and after this crime then you are blind. Pure and simple. And I have no reason to believe that you’re blind so that only leaves one explaination.

[RodCrosby]

It can scarcely be said Wallace lied to Caird and Beattie, although he certainly made an unwise assertion. Why would he consciously lie about it? What was the benefit to him?

It's more probable that Wallace inferred, or was led to believe, he had been cleared by the Police, from something inconsequential they had said, e.g.
"We have no more questions, Mr. Wallace. You're free to go." or
"We've sent out our officers searching all over Liverpool for a bloodstained man. We know the killer was heavily bloodstained" ....or any number of similar statements.

It would not be for another 11 days, at the second request, that the Police were given authority by the DPP to charge Wallace.

[Graham]

Weren't the Johnstons, or at least Mr Johnston, under some suspicion, at least for a time? They were certainly interviewed by the police, and I have a vague memory of reading that, some time after the murder, Mr Johnston 'told his story' to a newspaper.

Graham

[RodCrosby]

No serious student of the crime pays any attention to the Johnston claim, and they were never under suspicion in 1931.

It was concocted around 2001 by a shyster who specialised in tall tales of ghosts and the supernatural in Liverpool...

Johnston's grandson was most irate, and threatened legal action, IIRC. He is something of an expert on the crime, giving public talks, etc.

The Johnstons were interviewed, as material witnesses, of course, having encountered Wallace in the alley, and then having entered the house and been confronted with Julia's corpse...

[Herlock Sholmes]

It can scarcely be said Wallace lied to Caird and Beattie, although he certainly made an unwise assertion. Why would he consciously lie about it? What was the benefit to him?

It's more probable that Wallace inferred, or was led to believe, he had been cleared by the Police, from something inconsequential they had said, e.g.
"We have no more questions, Mr. Wallace. You're free to go." or
"We've sent out our officers searching all over Liverpool for a bloodstained man. We know the killer was heavily bloodstained" ....or any number of similar statements.

It would not be for another 11 days, at the second request, that the Police were given authority by the DPP to charge Wallace.

More transparent wriggling to try and show Wallace in the best possible light as usual. I’ll recap for any who aren’t familiar with this exchange.

Inspector Gold: “You saw Mr Beattie of the chess club last night?”

Wallace: “Yes.”

Gold: “You asked him about the telephone call and what time he’d received it?”

Wallace: “Yes.”

Gold: “You told him the time was important?”

Wallace: “Yes.”

Moore: “In what way was it important?”

Wallace: “I had some ideas of my own. We all have ideas. It was indiscreet of me.”

Wallace then lapsed into silence....

Moore: “ What were your ideas?”

Wallace: “I cant say why I asked him, I admit it was an indiscretion on my part. I cannot say anything further.”


Nothing suspicious about that then

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...

the Judge thought not...

"...he might perfectly well have made these enquiries simply to impress upon Mr. Beattie the importance of being accurate if any question should arise.
It would, one imagines, be very dangerous to draw any inference adverse, seriously adverse to the prisoner from that conversation."
Mr. Justice Wright, summing-up in Rex v Wallace

But do carry on making my case for me!

If this is all you got, then - transparently - you got....NOTHING

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn...

the Judge thought not...

"...he might perfectly well have made these enquiries simply to impress upon Mr. Beattie the importance of being accurate if any question should arise.
It would, one imagines, be very dangerous to draw any inference adverse, seriously adverse to the prisoner from that conversation."
Mr. Justice Wright, summing-up in Rex v Wallace

But do carry on making my case for me!

If this is all you got, then - transparently - you got....NOTHING

Was the judge related to Wallace

Wallace transparently wasn’t just concerned with accuracy.

Read again........

“I had some ideas of my own. We all have ideas. It was indiscreet of me.”

And

“I can’t say why I asked him (why not William? Was it a secret? Or did you ask him and then forget the reason for asking.), I admit it was a discretion on my part. I cannot say anything further. (or...stop asking awkward questions.)”

Just for once Rod. Take off those damned goggles!!!

[RodCrosby]

The only 'goggles' I wear are those worn by Justice Wright.

a Cambridge Tripos prize-winning esteemed Judge?
versus
some random obsessive nonentity on the internet...

Tough call....NOT !

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only 'goggles' I wear are those worn by Justice Wright.

a Cambridge Tripos prize-winning esteemed Judge?
versus
some random obsessive nonentity on the internet...

Tough call....NOT !

I don’t care if he was Stephen Hawking’s vastly more intelligent older brother. Nothing changes what Wallace actually said. Suspicious....end of.

And as for your ‘Wallace might have misunderstood and thought that he’d been cleared’ nonsense. This just illustrates your desperation.

[moste]

Quick question Rod.

Did Kenneth Branagh, influence you in your filling out your profile page? only I noticed you have him as yourself on there, it seems.