Julia Wallace Murder Case

[Prefrab]

Even if Wallace had visited Green Lane Allerton on a regular basis ,Menlove Gardens are on the other side of the dual carriage way (Menlove Avenue) slightly tucked away and there would be no reason for him to be aware of their location , and he would just assume when he got the Qualtrough call that they were off Menlove Avenue, which is a long Avenue.

I have worked in the same location for 18 years, and apart from the roads I drive down to get to work, I would struggle to name any other adjacent roads

[RodCrosby]

IAN: In Wyndham-Brown, Phillip's testimony (under cross-examination by Hemmerde) states:-
'He asked me if the car went to Menlove Gardens East, and I said "No, you can get on No.5, 5A, 5W, or a No.7 car"'

So, if anything, the number 5 was impressed upon Wallace, rather than 7. That could explain his later choice at Penny Lane, and he may not have heard Phillips calling after him in any case. I really don't think there is much mileage in looking for discrepancies in this stuff. And as for "I'm a stranger here" - it's a figure of speech, which we have all used.

Just think about it. We all have our home locality, which we know like the back of our hand. We visit other places, but we can never know them as well as we know home. We may gain a knowledge of the main thoroughfares and landmarks, and we may well know our way to a specific address off the beaten track (Green Lane?) but if someone stopped us to ask directions to a particular obscure street, we might well say "Sorry, I'm a stranger here." I know I certainly have done exactly that...

[Prefrab]

but if someone stopped us to ask directions to a particular obscure street, we might well say "Sorry, I'm a stranger here." I know I certainly have done exactly that...

We also have to look at in the eyes of someone living in the 1930's, when the average person had no need to, and did not travel more than about 1.5 miles from their home for any reason ( local: shops, hospitals, cinemas, schools, pub on your street corner etc) except possibly to travel to work

[Acrosstheuniverse]

'Sorry, I'm a stranger here?!?!' Who would say that, ever? Sounds totally contrived.

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Thanks ROD / PREFAB..I think you both make good points & I agree that WHW would perhaps not be familiar with ALL the relatively new housing developments..but I'm sure his friend Joseph Crewe must have been aware of the names of the roads so near to his house of over 3 years! As PREFAB pointed out people in 1931 didnt get around as much as we do 81 years later & they mostly walked..hence you would notice Street names MORE in those times as you walked past,than nowadays in our cars etc. CREWE that night was visiting the cinema with his wife & presumably he would have walked as it wasnt very far of course. I think CREWE was a final brick in WHW's alibi as he expected to be drinking tea in Green Lane at the time of the killing...except he had gone to the cinema!! CREWE said in his first statement that Wallace visited his Green Lane home regularly once a week on business & as a friend..plus of course the other 5 visits for violin lessons. Why later in court,when questioned by HEMMERDE would he be so vague & say ONLY 5 times in total for the lessons!! That is so obviously a blatent lie & I wonder WHY..the only explanation is to try & not incriminate his friend WALLACE..who claimed repeatedly "to be a stranger here" If I had visited an area 15 plus times,I could hardly claim to be a stranger.WHW had travelled that tram journey MANY times previously......thats why he made a beeline for the 5a despite PHILIPS shouting at him...IAN(FJumble)

---------- Post added at 10:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

'Sorry, I'm a stranger here?!?!' Who would say that, ever? Sounds totally contrived.

Especially if you'd been there at least 15 times before!!!
Heres one for you JOHN.....who unlocked the OUTSIDE door/Gate to the back entry? WHW says when he left Wolverton St.to go to MENLOVE GARDENS,JULIA walked with him to the gate as she habitually did..then she bolted the door behind him! When he returns at 9.45 & cant gain entry through the front door,he goes round the back to what he presumably expected to be a BOLTED back gate? Why when the JOHNSTONS appeared did he say nothing about the BOLTED back door now being UNBOLTED.....who unbolted it? it couldnt have been WHW..if it was JULIA it would have to have been to admit the man who killed her.If the killer left it open as he fled..how did he gain entry to No.29 in the first place....no doors or windows were forced & surely the killer didnt just knock on the front door??? It seems to me that WALLACE didnt mention this oddity because he KNEW it had been left UNBOLTED.Hmmmmmm IAN(FJUmble)

---------- Post added at 10:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 PM ----------

Sorry for slip ..of course I meant 8.45 pm !!

[Acrosstheuniverse]

Yes, IAN

Wallace saying 'now it opens!', but then never making a big deal about the unlocked door again was a major slip up in my opinion. Pretty good indicator of pre knowledge/planning.

I would never say I was a stranger to an area I had been many times. Goodman tested it out on a friend who went on a Wallace like journey, but there were two MAJOR differences. One, Wallace had been to the area many times previously and was at least familiar with the surroundings. Not a random goose chase. In addition, he had been told several times the road DID NOT EXIST AT ALL. Some argue, presuming Wallace's innocence, that he could have thought a mistake had been made with the address and not realize he had been had. Fine, but then why continue on aimlessly for such a long period of time after being repeatedly told there was no such road? He would have been better off going to an actual address in my opinion, and establishing his alibi that way....I do wonder if Murphy's idea of a mistaken address may have been right. Maybe Parry screwed it up and was supposed to say West.

IAN, I think we are pretty much in agreement on most factors. I wish we could buttress Gannon's already magnificent work by dredging up some info on Marsden. Would LOVE to find out new info about him.

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Thanks JOHN..I think his stubborn refusal to accept MENLOVE GARDENS EAST just didnt exist & to keep asking was a major reason why the police first suspected him & made him the prime suspect..you could say the ONLY suspect, as they dont seem to have made much effort with PARRY or any one else for that matter! Presumably JOHN GANNON couldnt get any more on Marsden than he put in the book. WHW saying "now it opens" was obviously the door to the back kitchen,which he couldnt unlock with his key...that squares as the police locksmith found the locks in the house were actually faulty.But its odd that the back gate, which he said JULIA bolted, was open(ie UNBOLTED) and yet he didnt comment that it should be bolted!!
I completely agree with your point about GOODMAN'S friend in Chelsea..again I wonder if GOODMAN was aware that WALLACE regularly visited 34,Green Lane..he may have just gone with the trial version of just 5 times!! IAN(FJumble)

[RodCrosby]

Wallace was in a state of agitation. You can't condemn a man simply because he didn't use a form of words you think he ought to have used. Wallace did say "she won't be out: she has such a bad cold" and that could have been an allusion to the unlocked gate...

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Thanks ROD..I take your point about his obvious agitation(same applies whether he was guilty or innocent!)but so far as I can see he never mentioned to anybody..including the police...that the back gate SHOULD have been bolted shut when he went round the back... but it wasnt. How or who do you think was responsible for unlocking the gate(I'm saying "gate" to avoid confusion with the back-kitchen door)...it must have been JULIA letting her eventual killer into the house surely? She clearly recognised this person to not only admit whoever it was..... I now think MARSDEN is a good candidate...but to go through to the front parlour with him & light the gasfire on a cold January evening. As I cant imagine the killer going out through the front door(or indeed entrancing this way either!)...he must have gone out the same way he got in... through the back door gate, which of course bolted on the inside,so he had to leave it UNBOLTED as he fled into the back entry.. It seems likely that he then turned right & spoke briefly to WHW when he emerged in Richmond Park.. ..as witnessed by Lily Hall ..IAN

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Its worth checking out the reviews of the excellent new JOHN GANNON book on AMAZON...mostly very complimentary..with one notable exception!! BOOKS TO YOU UK now offering the book at £7 + P/P. Has anybody's opinion on the case been changed by the new book? Does anybody still believe WALLACE did the actual killing? Personally,I fully accept that the MARSDEN theory is totally unproved..but the logic of 2 young disgraced ex. Pru.men being blackmailed into the assassination fits with me..albeit that the sexual angle is very contoversial! IAN

[RodCrosby]

'the logic of 2 young disgraced ex. Pru.men being blackmailed into the assassination fits with me..albeit that the sexual angle is very contoversial!'

It's total cobblers, Ian. Sorry, but there it is...

[Prefrab]

A drop of slow poisoning , a trip down the stairs, a wiff of town gas, a pillow over the face, Wallace could have found easier ways , after all a woman of her age even the flu could have been fatal ( or arranged to be ) and he would not have too or allegedly involve 2 others.

[burkhilly]

I just read the reviews on Amazon just out of interest, and noted that one reviewer believes the book gives the definitive answer to who killed Julia Wallace. Well it doesn't. There's no way on earth that JG's conclusion is right. Julia was paying two young men for sex, her husband found out and then blackmailed the two men into becoming involved in a big plot to murder her?

The question remains "Who Killed Julia Wallace" - because as far as I'm concerned the conclusion given in the book is disrespectful to an innocent old lady, who died horribly.

Prefab is right there were other far easier ways of getting rid of Julia than rather battering her to death, particularly as she did suffer frequent ill health.

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

I agree that the murderer is still far from resolved BURKHILLY!! But,there is a danger of just concentrating on JOHN GANNON'S hypothesis about PARRY/MARSDEN & JULIA paying them & ignoring the outstanding research in the other 99% of the book..at least it tries to reach a conclusion.You surely dont find the whole book "total cobblers" do you ROD,I assume you just mean his conclusion? For me MURPHY falls down after a very promising start,by trying to make the facts fit WHW just like Hubert Moore etc But does everyone agree it couldnt have been WHW surely(?) PARRY must be Qualtrough(?) and unpleasant as it is, the killer actually CHOSE to despatch poor JULIA by smashing her skull in..not by any of the other perhaps "easier" methods PREFAB listed! IAN

[Prefrab]

the killer actually CHOSE to despatch poor JULIA by smashing her skull in

Which showed unbelievable savagery or possible hatred...quite rightly indicating to the police someone who knew her, particularly focusing on her husband. If the crime happened today we would all first think "The husbands behind it" after all even the most "perfect marriages in public" behave differently behind closed doors.

Having now read JG's book I feel like all previous books it just adds another possible scenario, but not in my opinion the definitive solution
I look forward to the next writers take on the subject