Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

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?

I think his natural reaction would be
"Excuse my grief, while I focus on your question..."
"What was it again? Oh, those items? I don't really know..."

[RodCrosby]

‘Cut and Paste’ Crosby strikes again.

Cut and Paste is good.... when it's...

THE EVIDENCE

Not prejudice or fancy....

[moste]

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.

At the risk of sounding like a parrot. Any chance Joseph the brother may have been involved. (Sorry to be a nuisance)

[moste]

Cut and Paste is good.... when it's...

THE EVIDENCE

Not prejudice or fancy....

Hi Rod

Could you possibly cut and paste for me anything that would exonerate, (probably by way of an alibi ) , Mr. Joseph Derek Wallace.Cheers.
Just to eliminate him from my enquiries

[etenguy]

I have a table of all the main factors that talk to innocence or guilt of the main suspects (Wallace and Parry +) but unfortunately format disappears when I try to paste in this forum - so deleted this post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Ah, it’s been a few days since you posted a meaningless, invented graph

I have pointed out numerous times the way that the plan relied on luck to succeed and that how no luck was required if Wallace was the planner. If you decide to continue exhibiting bias by shutting your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “Wallace was innocent” then that’s your choice.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cut and Paste is good.... when it's...

THE EVIDENCE

Not prejudice or fancy....

A graph invented by you isn’t evidence.
An opinion on the case from 1931 isn’t evidence.

Poor stuff Rodders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Rod

Could you possibly cut and paste for me anything that would exonerate, (probably by way of an alibi ) , Mr. Joseph Derek Wallace.Cheers.
Just to eliminate him from my enquiries

Hi Moste,

I haven’t any books with me where I am at the moment but, as far as Wallace’s brother is concerned, he was never suspected or investigated at the time. Something in the back of my mind is telling me that he wasn’t around at the time of the murders but I really can’t be sure. Sorry I don’t have more info to hand.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Rod

Could you possibly cut and paste for me anything that would exonerate, (probably by way of an alibi ) , Mr. Joseph Derek Wallace.Cheers.
Just to eliminate him from my enquiries

Unfortunately, much gets missed in the forum. As for Wallace's brother, he was overseas at the time of the murder but returned for the trial. If anyone knows differently, please shout.

You will be interested to know that the police interviewed a taxi driver who said that he took a man exactly matching Wallace's description to the Sefton Park area (not too far from Menlove Gardens) at 7pm on the night of the murder. It appears this was a hoax (given that Wallace was seen by two tram conductors). There is no extant witness statement (and I suspect none was taken).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unfortunately, much gets missed in the forum. As for Wallace's brother, he was overseas at the time of the murder but returned for the trial. If anyone knows differently, please shout.

You will be interested to know that the police interviewed a taxi driver who said that he took a man exactly matching Wallace's description to the Sefton Park area (not too far from Menlove Gardens) at 7pm on the night of the murder. It appears this was a hoax (given that Wallace was seen by two tram conductors). There is no extant witness statement (and I suspect none was taken).

Thanks for the info Antony. I thought that he wasn’t around at the time but wasn’t 100% sure.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A point for possible discussion and one that I’ve discussed with Antony.

Wallace arrived at the chess club on the Monday night at 7.45. This was the deadline for chess games and so, in theory, if Wallace’s opponent was sitting at a board ready to play and Wallace didn’t get to him until just after 7.45 he could have claimed the game.

From all we know of Wallace we get the impression of a man who did everything by the book. Not someone given to turning up late for any kind of appointment. No matter how good the tram service was, by cutting it that fine Wallace would have risked being late, as he very nearly was. In an earlier post Rod tried to claim that Wallace might have planned to get there on the dot but we surely cant accept this as reasonable? Far more likely that Wallace would have intended to have arrived at the chess club in good time. Say ten minutes before his game - enough time to warm himself up after the journey, take his coat off, say hello to a few fellow members etc.

So it’s reasonable to ask why Wallace just got to the chess club on match night by the skin of his teeth? I can make three suggestions:

1. Alan Close arrived later than he normally did due to a problem with his bicycle. Wallace couldn’t leave the house until Close had gone. Therefore he was later than planned.

2. What if he went to make the phone call but someone was using the phone so he had to hang back until the phone was free causing him to miss an earlier tram?

3. The call took longer than expected. We know that the caller had problems being put through to the cafe and so had to speak to two telephone operators and then their Supervisor. This might also have made him miss an earlier tram.

I don’t see Wallace, under normal circumstances, risking being late by arriving exactly on the deadline.

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...

Wallace got there on time because he knew exactly how long it would take him, having travelled the route scores, if not hundreds, of times - and the Liverpool trams ran like clockwork.

Now he's guilty for being punctual. What abject piffle !

OLIVER KC: "If he did not send that message, he was an innocent man, and how can it be said that the Prosecution have even started to prove that he sent it ?"


Mr. Justice Branson asked Mr. Hemmerde:*
''Assuming the murder was not committed by the appellant, what evidence is there that the telephone call was put through by him?"*

There was of course no such evidence.'

Murder Most Mysterious by Hargrave Lee Adam (1932)

The obsessive has tied himself up in such knots, in his contortions to justify his delusions, that he's even mixed-up the facts relating to Alan Close...

Disinformation and Misrepresentation. As ever...

[ColdCaseJury]

A point for possible discussion and one that I’ve discussed with Antony.

Wallace arrived at the chess club on the Monday night at 7.45. This was the deadline for chess games and so, in theory, if Wallace’s opponent was sitting at a board ready to play and Wallace didn’t get to him until just after 7.45 he could have claimed the game.

From all we know of Wallace we get the impression of a man who did everything by the book. Not someone given to turning up late for any kind of appointment. No matter how good the tram service was, by cutting it that fine Wallace would have risked being late, as he very nearly was. In an earlier post Rod tried to claim that Wallace might have planned to get there on the dot but we surely cant accept this as reasonable? Far more likely that Wallace would have intended to have arrived at the chess club in good time. Say ten minutes before his game - enough time to warm himself up after the journey, take his coat off, say hello to a few fellow members etc.

So it’s reasonable to ask why Wallace just got to the chess club on match night by the skin of his teeth? I can make three suggestions:

1. Alan Close arrived later than he normally did due to a problem with his bicycle. Wallace couldn’t leave the house until Close had gone. Therefore he was later than planned.

2. What if he went to make the phone call but someone was using the phone so he had to hang back until the phone was free causing him to miss an earlier tram?

3. The call took longer than expected. We know that the caller had problems being put through to the cafe and so had to speak to two telephone operators and then their Supervisor. This might also have made him miss an earlier tram.

I don’t see Wallace, under normal circumstances, risking being late by arriving exactly on the deadline.

Hi HS. Just to be clear, we are talking about the night of the call. Alan Close is about the timing on the night of the murder (an easy slip to make when writing a post). Let me know if I've missed your point.

Of course, to be completely fair, another reason Wallace arrived on time is that he did not make the call as alleged.

From my analysis of the defence team's timings (p183-186 in my book) and assuming he left his house at 7:15pm:

1) Wallace does not make the call - he arrives at club between 7:39 and 7:48 (for the former, no waiting; 9 minute wait for the latter)

2) Wallace makes the call - he arrives at club between 7:44 and 7:53. So Wallace would have boarded the tram almost immediately after making the call to arrive at about 7:45pm.

Certainly, I think Wallace would not have wanted to be late. The police would have been all over him. So, if guilty, why was Wallace cutting it's so fine? HS is suggesting that perhaps Wallace left earlier than 7:15pm to allow enough time to make the call, but was delayed (2 and 3 in HS' post above) and just made it to the club at about 7:45pm.

An aside: it would have been very revealing if Hemmerde had asked Wallace: "How long did you wait at the tram stop before boarding?" Wallace, on the stand with no time to think, would have almost certainly told the truth. "Almost immediately" would possibly point to his guilt (because he would have arrived earlier than he did if he did not make the call). "A few minutes" would point to his innocence (he gets there too late if he made the call).

[etenguy]

I am caught up on the phone call.

Why would anyone, other than Wallace, choose to make the call when they could commit the crime on the night Wallace was playing chess? The answer is they wouldn't without a good reason.

The usual answer is that the criminal might have thought the haul would be larger if they waited until the next night, which means they needed to get Wallace out of the house to commit the crime. That only applies if the caller was Parry or his associate. No-one else, I think, knew Wallace's routine. Is this correct? If it is, we can with some confidence limit potential suspects to just the two possibilities.

If Wallace's customers also knew his routine, the list of potential suspects becomes considerably larger.

[ColdCaseJury]

I am caught up on the phone call.

Why would anyone, other than Wallace, choose to make the call when they could commit the crime on the night Wallace was playing chess? The answer is they wouldn't without a good reason.

The usual answer is that the criminal might have thought the haul would be larger if they waited until the next night, which means they needed to get Wallace out of the house to commit the crime. That only applies if the caller was Parry or his associate. No-one else, I think, knew Wallace's routine. Is this correct? If it is, we can with some confidence limit potential suspects to just the two possibilities.

If Wallace's customers also knew his routine, the list of potential suspects becomes considerably larger.

Yes, the two canonical suspects are Wallace and Parry. And only Wallace could know whether he was going to the chess club that night. Parry would have to watch him leave and infer he was going there (the chess schedule was in public view at the cafe, where Parry also frequented).