Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is it now

Y=X^(10*2), instead of Y=X^(9*2)

for the chance of Wallace planning all this, and getting away with it?

I'm losing track...

“To any objective observer, the hypothesis which is the prosecution’s case is something so
intrinsically difficult of acceptance that the defence does not seem to matter.
Putting the prosecution at its highest, it leaves doubt.”
Gerald Abrahams, barrister-at-law, in According to the Evidence (1958)

Do everyone a favour Rod and stop posting meaningless graphs. All they prove is the lengths that you’ll go to to manipulate facts.

[RodCrosby]

The planning of the crime,was as difficult for Parry as it was for Wallace,I would say more so,but my impression is that Wallace was the more educated and intelligent of the two.While the police may have admitted it was possible for someone to have called,who can argue the possibility,there was no evidence of such a caller.Anyhow,it was only a suggestion of the defence that this could have happened,the onus was on them to prove it,which of course they never did.They did suggest that robbery was the motive,but the police countered this by concluding that the signs of robbery were faked.

The police,the jury,the prosecuion,and people in the street believed in his guilt.So do I.

Once again, I don't really think you understand the legal system.

It was not the job of the Defence to prove the guilt of another unidentified person.

As for the Police, and the people in the street... Maybe we don't need trials and evidence at all?

Thank God for the Court of Appeal. That's what they are there for...

[Herlock Sholmes]

You posted a likely scenario, if Wallace killed his wife, a few pages back, a violent and brutal murder.

One of the reasons which I think points against Wallace being the murderer, is the nature of the murder. Wallace would appear to be an intellectual and mild mannered man. One with a keen interest in science. Some suggest that the mode of murder shows an emotional connection to the victim - ergo Wallace is the murderer. But this was a planned murder (or robbery/murder) and so this was not a fit of rage - unless something triggered the rage that night (possibly, but not necessarily, Julia interrupting a burglar)..

I think, given Wallace's knowledge and nature, if he wanted to get away with murdering his wife, he would have used some form poisoning - possibly one than triggered what looked like a natural death.

As I’ve said to Graham, poisoning would have been a giveaway for a man with a chemistry laboratory in his back bedroom.

Calm planning is one thing Eten but consider what pent up anger and resentment might have been unleashed after the first blow or two which might have been all Wallace initially intended.

[Herlock Sholmes]

People who were prepared to swear to it in Court....

And the Crown offered nothing to the contrary, and agreed they could not, at the very opening of the case.

And the man-without-a-mirror calls this 'biased nonsense'....

Name them.

[RodCrosby]

Do everyone a favour Rod and stop posting meaningless graphs. All they prove is the lengths that you’ll go to to manipulate facts.

They are highly meaningful. And there are no facts like maths facts...

Sorry you don't like them. Diddums

[harry]

Rob,
I understood and operated under the legal system for a number of years.
It was the defence who suggessted a caller,therefor the onus was on them to support that suggestion.In the Wallace trial,they could not.
A well reasoned lawyer once told me,in court you will get a decision,you will not neccessarily get justice.That I figure, could well have happened in the Wallace appeal.

[RodCrosby]

Rob,
therefor the onus was on them to support that suggestion.In the Wallace trial,they could not.

You're wrong again, I'm afraid. But in any case, in the event you weren't paying attention...

OLIVER KC: What I am putting to you is that everything in that room is consistent with a knock at the front door, and the admission of someone, and the visitor being taken into the parlour ?

Supt. MOORE: It is quite possible.

[moste]

After all the planning that was required for Wallace to be the killer, he would be taking a huge risk to return home in a taxi. He could easily be identified and if such a driver came forward, it would seal his guilt. Also, this was a well known case in the area at that time. A taxi driver would likely come forward if one had been used.

In any event, he couldn't have returned home in time to kill his wife if we believe that the time of death had to be before 8pm, as stated.

If the report of Mrs. Johnston’s observation at approx. 8 50 pm. ‘ the poor darli
ng, she’s still warm’ (when stooping to hold Julia’s hand,) if this is accurate ,then from what I have managed to find out , she can’t have died before William left for Menlove gardens east, because her extremities would have been stone cold , possibly not her feet in socks and shoes, but certainly her hands.
I believe Wallace murdered his wife , and that it had to be in the 30 min. Period between 8 15 pm and 8 45 pm when he fortunately met with the Johnston’s,
I say fortunately, only because it saved him having to knock on their door with the ruse ‘ have you heard or seen anything suspicious ,I can’t seem to get into my house’.If the Johnson’s had already left ,since they were actually on their way out, then Wallace would have had to have called on the neighbours on the other side, So that part of his plan went quite well.
As for your alluding to my taxi thought . Well that’s a matter of opinion. I appreciate he wouldn’t chance cabbing to wolverton street, but likely to a couple of streets away, say Richmond park maybe, only 3 min. Walk away.
I don’t know what kind of records they kept in 1931 but in any case with a population as huge as Liverpool’s trying to find a cab driver that took a fare a few days before would be very difficult . Another thing it’s interesting how many people riding the tram could be found to testify to Wallace’s alibi on the outward journey, but no one came foreward, and I don’t believe the police even investigated the possibility of Wallace’s return trip.If they did , and they bloody well should have done, they came up with nothing.
If something was available that proved absolutely that Wallace made his way home slowly by public transport .Or stopped to chat with a client at the end of his street for eg. having him arrive home at 8. 45. then I would concede he was probably innocent .I find it a tough call that he had time to kill his wife and everything that went with it before he left for the tram stop,
You mention time of death. This unfortunately was a complete farce. This should have rocked the jury back on their heels, Macfall I believe his name was, the chief coroner and eminent pathologist only used the condition of rigor mortis to set time of death . Whereas the much more precise method is to check interior body temperature with a thermometer. Consequently, basically the good doctor believed he was clever enough to guess at the time of death , which incidently didn’t jive with another medical persons opinion.

[harry]

Please tell me why I am wrong Rod,and why I am not paying attention.
Oliver suggests there was a caller.Supt Moore agrees it was a possibility.
A suggestion and a possibility.Now tell me Rod how that equates to a certainty.Even more so,that the suggested caller was an accomplice of Parry,and that robbery was a motive.

My suggestion is that a caller would be taken to a room that was warm,and already had a fire.It was after all the middle of winter,and Julia was suffering a cold.

[moste]

Parry was seen by four people at the Brine’s. When he left at 8.30 he went to Maiden Lane PO where he bought cigarettes and a newspaper from a Mr Hodgson. Then he went to Hignett’s Garage in West Derby Road to pick up an accumulator battery. Then he went to the Williamson’s.

He didn’t go to Wolverton Street unless Mr Hodgson and the staff at Hignett’s are all part of the conspiracy to condem William as Rod would have you believe.

Another thought ,looking at the houses on wolverton street on goggle earth,
and noting how very close the front doors are ,anyone , Qualtrough, Parry or whomever would be taking one hell of a risk to go knocking on a front door with the purpose of committing any kind of crime. I mean to say ,every street has a nosy neighbour or two ,and these terraced houses have bay windows on the front.

[moste]

Do everyone a favour Rod and stop posting meaningless graphs. All they prove is the lengths that you’ll go to to manipulate facts.

Was it one of the great W C Fields .Quotes : If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance. Baffle them with bull sh1t.

[RodCrosby]

Another thought ,looking at the houses on wolverton street on goggle earth,
and noting how very close the front doors are ,anyone , Qualtrough, Parry or whomever would be taking one hell of a risk to go knocking on a front door with the purpose of committing any kind of crime. I mean to say ,every street has a nosy neighbour or two ,and these terraced houses have bay windows on the front.

It was a very quiet cul-de-sac, with just one gas-lamp on each side, and in those days almost everyone "lived" at the back of the house.

Photo taken morning after the murder...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another thought ,looking at the houses on wolverton street on goggle earth,
and noting how very close the front doors are ,anyone , Qualtrough, Parry or whomever would be taking one hell of a risk to go knocking on a front door with the purpose of committing any kind of crime. I mean to say ,every street has a nosy neighbour or two ,and these terraced houses have bay windows on the front.

I’ve made this before before Moste and I think that it’s a fair one. It’s not conclusive of course but it does show another piece of good fortune for our ‘master planner.’ And of course, according to Rod’s ‘theory,’ our mysterious Qualtrough would have had to have stood on the doorstep explaining the ‘mistake’ to a woman who was reluctant to admit a stranger to the house whilst she was alone. How long would this have taken? 30 seconds...a minute? The Wallace’s had neighbours either side who had previously heard the Wallace’s door. Also there were neighbours across a narrow street, anyone of whom might have looked out of the window or stood on the doorstep. It was early evening - women talking, kids in the street, men going to the pub.

Our conspirators were lucky boys.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Was it one of the great W C Fields .Quotes : If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance. Baffle them with bull sh1t.

Rod has an Honorary Degree in that.

[Abby Normal]

I’ve made this before before Moste and I think that it’s a fair one. It’s not conclusive of course but it does show another piece of good fortune for our ‘master planner.’ And of course, according to Rod’s ‘theory,’ our mysterious Qualtrough would have had to have stood on the doorstep explaining the ‘mistake’ to a woman who was reluctant to admit a stranger to the house whilst she was alone. How long would this have taken? 30 seconds...a minute? The Wallace’s had neighbours either side who had previously heard the Wallace’s door. Also there were neighbours across a narrow street, anyone of whom might have looked out of the window or stood on the doorstep. It was early evening - women talking, kids in the street, men going to the pub.

Our conspirators were lucky boys.

hi HS and moste
to me this is one of the main things that points to Wallace and away from parry/accomplice or an unsub-no one heard or saw any stranger or anyone suspicious the whole time. big red flag