Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And Wallace, likewise, would have had a "level of certainty" that...

a) this was bullshit
b) he knew the voice

When someone adopts another voice it doesn’t sound like the original voice.....that’s the point of adopting another voice, duh!

Did you not read Dorothy L. Sayers from 1936 ?

Yes

She, like many authors, agrees with me.

Some believe Wallace innocent some guilty. A pointless point.

You’ve excelled yourself tonight

[RodCrosby]

forgive my mirth, trying to keep things light.

You know the way this whole case is a complete mystery , accepted as such by ' the best investigative writers, for the last 88 years. This is because the facts as we know them are completely exhausted and are of little use in trying to come to a decision one way or another, when it comes to an agreeable solution.
One thing is pretty certain though, to my mind. The perpetrator of this crime is neither a sneak thief, Richard Parry ,or the Anfield burglar, by reason of the intense malice and hatred exhibited by the culprit.
P.S. Try and lighten up, have another glass of red!

My barbed wit is my signature of lightness...

However my eyes do glaze over when people start claiming such-and-such crime is 'impossible because...' of the type of violence, etc.

With the greatest respect, I suggest you continue studying criminology a little further...

https://www.derehamtimes.co.uk/news/richard-beane-is-jailed-for-life-for-brutal-murder-of-brian-heed-from-toftwood-1-5015969

https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/15679191.man-96-seriously-injured-after-vicious-distraction-burglary/

https://truecrimeenthusiast.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/the-murder-of-auntie-elsie/

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/retired-farmer-real-gent-llywelyn-1802001

[moste]

And Wallace, likewise, would have had a "level of certainty" that...

a) this was bullshit
b) he knew the voice

Did you not read Dorothy L. Sayers from 1936 ?

She, like many authors, agrees with me.

I think if Parry had called the club and talked to Wallace , he could very easily have kept him from recognising his voice.

[RodCrosby]

The more relevant point is do you think Parry would have thought the same, confidently-enough to follow through?

We have an important snippet from Parkes, recounting Parry's scams:-

"He'd pick the phone up and he'd ring someone up - who he never knew - and he'd ring them up and talk to them...!"
John Parkes, 1981

[RodCrosby]

RICHARD GORDON PARRY COULD HAVE HAD ABSOLUTLEY NO REASON TO HOPE, SUSPECT, BELIEVE OR EVEN PRAY THAT WILLIAM WOULD GO ON TO MENTION SPECIFICALLY THE NAME QUALTROUGH OR THE ADDRESS MENLOVE GARDENS EAST TO JULIA. AND WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION, ACCORDING TO WALLACE AND TO YOUR SCENARIO, THE PLAN FAILS. YOU CANT DENY THIS BECAUSE THE WHOLE CRUX OF YOUR ‘SCENARIO’ IS THAT THE ACCOMPLICE GOES TO THE HOUSE AND ALLEGES TO BE QUALTROUGH. SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MEANINGLESS IF WALLACE HADNT HAVE TOLD HER ABOUT HIM.

Yawn...

CAPITALIZATION does not make an incoherent, fallacious argument any less incoherent or fallacious...

[ColdCaseJury]

I think if Parry had called the club and talked to Wallace , he could very easily have kept him from recognising his voice.

Yes, but surely Wallace would have asked after the nature of the business and asked for directions?

[moste]

Yes, but surely Wallace would have asked after the nature of the business and asked for directions?

well yes.
I was answering Rods ( A )this was Bull **** and(B ) he would have known his voice. But what your saying is quite right.

I'm afraid I get a bit confused trying to concentrate with the see-saw barracking.

[OneRound]

a) Why does Wallace rely on the suspicious "wild-goose-chase" alibi, when he could have arranged for his wife to be killed on the Monday, when he was surrounded by a dozen people, while cogitating the Knight's Move?

b) We know there was no visitor expected on the Tuesday. Julia invited Amy Wallace to stay for tea, told her about WHW's appointment, yet mentioned no visitor.

c) There was no reason for Wallace to want his wife to die. Certainly no objective reason, and his diaries all before the murder, and even more so after the murder right up his own death reveal his devastation at her loss..

Rod - although it seems you do not give any credence to the possible scenario I raised in post #1633, thank you anyway for taking the time and trouble to read it and respond.

I'll respond to your three points in the (UK) morning. Hopefully, the petty bickering currently going on will then have halted for at least a while.

OneRound

[rjpalmer]

A couple of questions from an amateur.

1. Has research confirmed that the telephone number of Cottle's City Café was not in the directory, or, is this a misunderstanding, and it was only the number of the Chess club that was not in the directory? (I assume the number would be the same, but what I am referring to is the listing. It's not always clear what is meant).


2. Also, has it generally been accepted/confirmed that Parry belonged to this theatrical group that supposedly met in the same café on Thursday nights? Is this a 'fact' or is it under dispute?

Thanks, I'm still slowly making my way through some of the sources, but I don't readily see answer to these basic questions.


What I can't quite get my mind around is that someone with an interest in chemistry and botany would crudely murder his wife by bashing her over the skull. It seems too crass for Wallace. Sorry, but that's my gut feeling. Both the murder and the strange 'alibi' seem a bit out of character, if you ask me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m going to do a Rod and walk away for a while.

‘Petty bickering’ has been mentioned.

To be honest I’ve lost patience with this. The fault lies 100% with Rod. No honesty or integrity at all. Just twisting, wriggling, distortions and insults.

If other posters want to keep putting up with this or constantly turning blind eyes then they’re welcome to it.

[RodCrosby]

A couple of questions from an amateur.

1. Has research confirmed that the telephone number of Cottle's City Café was not in the directory, or, is this a misunderstanding, and it was only the number of the Chess club that was not in the directory? (I assume the number would be the same, but what I am referring to is the listing. It's not always clear what is meant).


2. Also, has it generally been accepted/confirmed that Parry belonged to this theatrical group that supposedly met in the same café on Thursday nights? Is this a 'fact' or is it under dispute?

Thanks, I'm still slowly making my way through some of the sources, but I don't readily see answer to these basic questions.


What I can't quite get my mind around is that someone with an interest in chemistry and botany would crudely murder his wife by bashing her over the skull. It seems too crass for Wallace. Sorry, but that's my gut feeling. Both the murder and the strange 'alibi' seem a bit out of character, if you ask me.

1. Cottle's City Café at North John Street was not in the directory. The Central Chess Club was a piffling affair that merely met in the café, and in 1931 had no separate number.

2. It is a fact that Parry was a member of the Merseyside Amateur Dramatic Society which met from time-to-time in the City Café.

'I am a member of the Mersey Amateur Dramatic Society and previous to the production of “John Glaydes Honour” on November 17th 1930, at Crane Hall, we were rehearsing at the City Café every Tuesday and Thursday. It was during these rehearsals that I saw Mr Wallace at the City Café on about three occasions. I did not know previously that he was a member of the Chess Club there.'
RG Parry, statement, 24th January 1931

'About last November I was in the City Café one evening, I think it was on a Thursday, playing chess, and I saw Parry there. He was not playing chess. He was by himself walking across the room. I said “Good evening” and he returned my greeting. I think that was the last time I saw him. He is a member of an amateur dramatic society which holds its meetings at the City Café on Thursday evenings.’
WH Walllace, statement, 22nd January 1931

[RodCrosby]

I’m going to do a Rod and walk away for a while.

‘Petty bickering’ has been mentioned.

To be honest I’ve lost patience with this. The fault lies 100% with Rod. No honesty or integrity at all. Just twisting, wriggling, distortions and insults.

If other posters want to keep putting up with this or constantly turning blind eyes then they’re welcome to it.

Holmes chuckled heartily. "Your conversation is most entertaining," said he. "When you go out close the door, for there is a decided draught." [The Speckled Band]

[rjpalmer]

The Central Chess Club was a piffling affair that merely met in the café, and in 1931 had no separate number.

Thanks, Rod. That's what I assumed, but it's good to get confirmation. Quite an interesting puzzle.

[cobalt]

rjpalmer,

You have raised one of the major problems in the case: the method of murder.
Everything, including the supposed weapon, points to a sudden, unplanned, frenzied attack.

Yet the major players on here keep to their dogma of an ingenious murder plan, either by Wallace, Parry or some associate. The method of murder supports none of these.

[RodCrosby]

rjpalmer,

You have raised one of the major problems in the case: the method of murder.
Everything, including the supposed weapon, points to a sudden, unplanned, frenzied attack.

Yet the major players on here keep to their dogma of an ingenious murder plan, either by Wallace, Parry or some associate. The method of murder supports none of these.

I agree (IIUC!)

It was a robbery [burglary, in law, actually] that went wrong.
We cannot be prescriptive about what the nature of the assault suggests was the intended crime...