Julia Wallace Murder Case

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Glad to see the book has provoked such differences of opinion..I thought it would! Surely none of us can accuse JOHN GANNON of not doing his research for this new book.... its full of new facts & clears up a lot of false impressions from earlier books.I'm now happy that WHW was behind the murder(But couldnt possibly have killed her himself!)I'm even more happy that RGP was Qualtrough,but was not the actual killer & that, at best, MARSDEN is a plausible possible killer...but unfortunately no more..there is no evidence against him..apart from 1)WHW naming him,2)RGP knowing & recommending him to WALLACE & 3)he was at least dishonest with the Pru's money.But there is no record that his juvenile crimes extended into later life ..as of course it did with PARRY. Strange given the huge interest in the crime at the time,that there is no movie footage of WHW either at St Georges Hal or leaving the Court Of Appeal in London....even in 1931 I think Pathe/BBC news was active.. We havnt even got a photo of MARSDEN(?)
IAN(FJumble)

[Acrosstheuniverse]

Yes IAN, I agree Wallace planned it and Parry made the call...that much I'm convince of. Marsden possible, maybe even probable (when you tie together Qualtrough+family connection/police) but certainly not proved. Wish we could get a picture of him. I think Wallace described him in the final Verdict.

[RodCrosby]

Please... where is there anything resembling 'evidence', never-mind 'proof beyond all reasonable doubt' for this theory...?

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Please... where is there anything resembling 'evidence', never-mind 'proof beyond all reasonable doubt' of this theory...?

ROD,yes I agree as I said earlier there is no hard evidence against MARSDEN,but I'm sure LILY HALL clearly saw WALLACE talking to a man who fitted his description at the right place & right time..why would WALLACE deny this if it was of no consequence? Also, Mrs Parsons(P.187) saw 2 men running very fast down Hanwell St ..again right place,right time...and Mrs Jane Smith said she saw "one of the men" by the Cabbage Hall cinema...again hardly conclusive,but if they were not involved ..why did nobody come forward to explain? Thank goodness this book has got an index(MURPHY's book is infuriating because it hasnt got an index!!)
The fact that the Central Chess Club was actually formed by WHW & CAIRD is an interesting little tit-bit,but surely the fact that he waited 40 min. by the tramstop to tackle BEATTIE is far more relevant to the case.His answer to the police of why he did this is no more than an apology..not an explanation! IAN(FJumble)

[Rhoobarb]

Not throwing any accusations of guilt of providing any evidence or proof here, but it's said that attacking the eyes suggests a relationship with the attacker.

Given the ferocious injuries to Julia's head could this be a similar thing. Particularly given how badly injured she was, it suggests an awful lot of anger within the attacker towards the victim ergo it was personal.

Like I say, just a thought.

[RodCrosby]

Pure speculation: some spouse-killers kill 'personally' but quietly with poison or a pillow. Professional hitmen brutally pump bullets into skulls. It's not personal, just 'business'...

So no firm conclusion can be drawn from Julia's injuries.

[Rhoobarb]

Don't get me wrong, not throwing Wallace's name in the hat. From all the evidence i've read I don't believe it was him that did the deed.

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

The attack was described as "frenzied"..which it surely was...more like an assassination than a spare of the moment killing. Any thoughts ROD on GANNON'S reconstruction of the actual chain of events in the parlour,which I thought was an excellent reconstruction of actual killing? His version of events neatly covers all the oddities regarding the mackintosh,the partly burnt skirt & of course the the way the body was moved by the killer & then by the police..very well reasoned I thought!! The missing iron bar from the fireplace has long been assumed to be the actual weapon & had the advantage of being "in situ" so that the weapon was not carried to the murder scene..but I do wonder if WHW actually had in mind the axe for the job & when the killer didnt use it,WHW cleverly "re-discovered" it to gain favour with the police ..knowing full-well it was not in any way incriminating!! IAN(FJumble)

[RodCrosby]

Today's Echo
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liver...0252-30427747/

Ian, I'll have to read the bit about the (slight) moving of the body again (not that it really aids in indentifying the killer), but the "mac over the head" nonsense was firmly debunked by Home Office pathologist Dr Charles St. Hill in the 1981 radio show...

*btw, just received my very own copy of Wyndham-Brown's 1933 book. Cost me £70, but it looks very nice...

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

ROD..Congrats on getting hold of a copy of Wyndham-Brown..I think £70 is about right these days & its probably a good investment because its a scarce title & only likely to increase!! I sold my copy about 1990 & I've regreted it ever since!
I agree that obviously the moving of the body doesnt help in any way with identifying the killer..but the sequence of events, properly detailed by the police, would have helped them realise exactly how & exactly where poor JULIA was killed in the parlour..the official police photographs are therefore rendered very misleading & strongly hint that the first crucial blow was NOT delivered where the final resting place suggests! Yet another example of very shoddy & unprofessional police detective work,which as we all agree runs right through the investigation. What do you make of JOSEPH CREWE'S blatent lies about how often WHW visited him in Green Lane...he had already admitted earlier that WALLACE had visited him at his home in Green Lane on a fairly regular basis & this is very near(ie adjacent) the Menlove Gardens complex. WHW told the police & just about everybody else on the murder night, that he was a stranger in the area..he was clearly anything but!! At the Penny Lane junction,the tram conductor,PHILIPS, noted that he charged off to get the tram he had obviously used previously(5A)... instead of the one "the stranger" was directed to use by the conductor(No.7)..the conductor,PHILIPS, actually shouted after WHW to tell him he was getting on the wrong tram as was independently witnessed..but he clearly knew what he was doing! IAN

[burkhilly]

The "I'm a stranger" doesn't, I agree, make sense. But let's be honest if there's a North, South and West Gardens, it would be logical to think there must be an East Gardens. I know there's no East Gardens but only because of the Wallace case. Green Lane is very nearby, but whereabouts on Green Lane did Crewe live? I really must do a tour one of these days so I can get my bearings!

I can't remember who (sure one of you know) but a author asked a friend to drop off an "important document" using a similar scenario - the address didn't exist (can't remember if it was North, South, East of West) and the friend asked at least eight people who didn't know where the road was - none said the road didn't exist!

[RodCrosby]

What earthly reason could Crewe have had to 'lie'? Perhaps he merely clarified with the second statement what he really meant to say in the first.

Philips was scarcely a reliable witness. He didn't recall what time his car had left Lodge Lane. And even if his evidence was correct, I fail to see it's of much significance. Wallace had some idea of his orientation, owing to his visits to Calderstones and Crewe.

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

BURKHILLY It was GOODMAN who sent a friend of his round some Chelsea mews as you describe!
ROD.. surely thats the point ....WHY did Crew lie? It can only be to protect his friend,WHW, who must have asked him to play down his original statement otherwise his "I'm a stranger" oft repeated mantra would have proved him a liar..as he clearly new the area quite well!! PHILIPS,is surely reliable on this point : that he shouted to WALLACE that he was he wa going to the wrong tram(this was witnessed) & WHW totally ignored his warning & borded the 5a tram. If you were a stranger in lets say Newcastle & asked for directions why would you risk getting lost in an unfamiliar area by taking no notice of the advice given by the person who asked for directions? He headed straight for the 5a because he knew full well where it went,dont you agree?? IAN

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Wallace had some idea of his orientation, owing to his visits to Calderstones and Crewe.[/QUOTE]AGREED ..so why all the "I'm A Stranger" rubbish?

---------- Post added at 07:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 AM ----------

[QUOTE=burkhilly;399464]. Green Lane is very nearby, but whereabouts on Green Lane did Crewe live? BURKHILLY He lived at No.34 GREEN LANE ..which, if you leave MENLOVE Gdns Nprth & cross MENLOVE Ave into Green Lane(heading towards the ALLERTON ROAD junction)..JOSEPH CREWE'S house is on the left just past half-way down.There is a map showing this in GANNON'S new book et al.ie WILKES
I think "walking the walk" is a very good way of getting to grips with the geography of the case!!! However,if you havnt visited WOLVERTON STREET on a 20th JANUARY after 6.30pm.I strongly recommend you take the trouble... it is very evocative! IAN(FJumble)

[burkhilly]

I've never visited Wolverton Street, but pass Richmond Park regularly. I've been tempted to make a detour on many occasions - but I'd just feel odd going to a house because a murder took place years ago. Not that anyone is odd visiting the house, but this is just me!

I am going to take a walk from Penny Lane up Menlove Avenue, and into Green Lane, just so I can get my bearings on whereabouts Crewe lived. I will however wait until the good weather arrives - a nice sunny and warm day - there should be at least one during the summer!

I really must read JG's book again - which I will before I do my walk - I have missed lots of information, mainly due to me wanting to read it very quickly and trying to skip bits I already knew - or thought I knew.