Yes, I think it's plain that Wallace did not make the phone call. That says nothing about whether or not he set everything up. I see tremendous difficulty with a planned robbery scenario. I won't list all the reasons why again; at this point it's beating a dead horse.
So Wallace being innocent means you have to accept someeone else plotting the murder of Julia Wallace and framing her husband. This seems remarkably implausible.
Not necessarily framing her husband.
The red herring Qualtrough business deal may have been no more than getting him out of the way.
The fact he was put in the frame due to everything that happened consequently might just be the icing on the cake for the real murderer/s.
I'm a defo Wallace didn't do it. Two things which bother me about the case are:
1. The murder weapon.........we have Mr Wallace saying that an iron bar was missing from the house, the police assuming that this was the weapon, which was probably but down a drain. According to Jonathan Goodman's book an iron bar very similar to the missing one was found some years later in the Wallace house during the change from coal to gas fires. There was a space below the fire grate, and this is where the iron bar was. This information was apparently reported to the police, who were not interested.
2. It's always bothered me that Mr Wallace, having arrived home on the fateful night, couldn't open the back door or the front door, which he believed were locked when he initially tried. I'm quite convinced that there was someone in the house when he arrived home.
Any responses to the above?
I have always believed that there was only one person involved in Mrs Wallace's murder, but now I'm beginning to think that there may have been two involved after reading all the theories on the thread.
Burkhilly Wallace didn't say that an iron bar was missing - it was the cleaner Sarah Jane Draper who said that. Wallace said he didn't know anything about the iron bar. I think Murphy is more than likely correct in his book when he says there wouldn't have been an iron bar hidden behind the fire - I think Goodman is probably wrong about that. The place was taken apart and I'm sure an iron bar wouldn't have escaped the attentions of the police (no matter how incompetent they were meant to be!)
Your second point: Initially Wallace said he thought that there might have been someone in the house when he returned. When asked by the police if he though he heard someone inside, Wallace replied 'No.' Wallaceites believe this was Wallace considering making out there was someone inside the house but dismissing it as it wouldn't have fitted in with his modus operandi.
It is Accomplished
What makes Murphy so sure that there wouldn't have been anything hidden behind the fire? (Sorry, I haven't been able to read the book yet...) If it were pushed through a small gap it would not necessarily have occurred even to an efficient police force to have excavated the whole fireplace, let alone the incompetent bunch who were in charge of this investigation!
I think it is because the place was stripped right down during the police investigations. I don't really think it points to guilt whether there was a bar there or not. Those who believe Wallace was guilty claim that the lack of a weapon found points to his guilt. I don't think this is so. Anyone coming to the house with a weapon would more than likely take it away with them.Originally Posted by John Doh
It is Accomplished
I agree with you burkilly that WALLACE himself couldnt possibly have battered JULIA.I rather put the "someone was still in the house" theory with the Anfield Burglar..as a total red herring...either an innocent WHW assuming she'd been the victim of a robbery gone wrong..or,more likely in my opinion, WHW returning & trying to point the authorites towards a random killer.Again,I agree with MARK about the iron bar,it couldnt have been overlooked even by these appalling police officers!! PARKES claiming Parry dropped it down a grid outside a doctors house(possibly WHW's own doctor!) in Priory Road sounds very plausible to me. I think you are correct in coming round to the idea that this murder was not carried out by one person...but only WALLACE could have wanted her dead(& as we have said he didnt batter her!)QUALTROUGH is crucial to the case & he is PARRY for sure.... hopefully the forthcoming book by John Gannon will give us all more info. about the possible 3rd member of the group(MARSDEN)who I personally know next to nothing about at the moment..IAN (FJumble)
---------- Post added at 02:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 PM ----------
Sorry MARK I missed this post,I have had a lot of trouble with my home PC! Apart from the blood issue,which you adequately cover,there is the equally important question of TIME..no,WHW couldn't possibly have battered JULIA. I have to admit that the evidence for PARRY being Qualtrough is circumstantial..but it is strong evidence. 1)Experienced in amateur Dramatics 2)Known to regularly disguise his voice & make hoax phone calls 3)ConMan who couldnt resist trying his trick of a free call by pressing the wrong button 4)Familiar with WHW arrangements especially regarding 24B North John Street..and now his apparent pre-occupation with trying to organise a 2ist celebration!! I go with GOODMAN & Whittington-Egan PARRY was QUALTROUGH...IAN(FJumble)
Hi Ian. If you are saying only WHW could have wanted her dead and that Parry is the phone hoaxer then are you saying they were in collusion. WHW could have killed her in a far less messy way - out of the house even on one of their walks.
We don't know Parrys/Julia's liasons and if there's another reason Parry could have wanted her dead as it was a frenzied attack.
Even so, I'm not sure he did it, the phone call yes - but could he have kept his cool and the car free of blood in front of Lily Lloyd until he took it to be cleaned. More likely he was the getaway car driver.
Ha ha! Whittington-Egan has reneged in recent years on his belief that Parry was Qualtrough Ian. I honestly don't believe there is any conspiracy theory - I think that is wishful thinking by hack writers and sensationalists who are looking for a story, and I think the Marsden angle is the same. I honestly believe it was either Wallace or some unknown. Certainly not Parry or Marsden. We only have Parkes' word that Parry used to phone people up and use a false voice. Even if he did, it would never stand up in a court of law.
---------- Post added at 02:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------
I agree. That is what is unconvincing with the collusion theory Ged. Also Wallace naming Parry, Marsden amongst others. I know it could be regarded that it would look suspicious if Wallace didn't name Parry, but he hadn't been in Wallace's house for over two years. He had no contact with him and wasn't that friendly with him.
It is Accomplished
Also, Parry doesn't have an alibi for
i) the time of the phone call on the Monday
ii) the time Wallace could be expected to return from the quest for Qualtrough on Tuesday.
In fact, our lad was "out and about" in his car at both times, in the vicinity...
Celeriter Nil Crede
Well now that you put it like that Rod
I've created a multi-option poll. It uses the Alternative Vote [which we may soon be using in general elections]
Who Killed Julia Wallace?
http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=Wallace
please rank all the options in the order you think most likely.
Celeriter Nil Crede
The missing iron bar had fallen down a gap somewhere by the fire, where is not clear. As Mark said it was the cleaner who reported the bar missing. I live in a 1920s house and have the original fireplace still intact. I've just had a knock on the base and it sounds quite solid. Therefore I suspect you're right Mark and it wouldn't make a jot of difference anyway to the actual case.
I still think that there was someone in the house when Mr Wallace returned home and I have always thought this since I first became interested in the case 20 odd years ago.
Thanks a lot ROD for that ..what about a belief in "WHW + other"S" IAN
---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------
MARK..when did RICHARD Whttington-Egan change his mind? I must have missed that....IAN(FJumble)
Hi Ian. Since the publication of Murphy's book. I think Whittington-Egan never said that he was convinced that Parry was Q anyway, it was more Goodman. Of course this doesn't mean that Parry wasn't QNo one can say for definite that he wasn't in the call-box...
It is Accomplished
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks