Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

R.I.P. an innocent couple

[RodCrosby]

re: the Voice

Lilian Kelly described it as "an ordinary male voice." What does that mean?

Well, Lily Kelly's voice sounded ordinary to me in 1981, despite the fact she had lived for many years in New York. She hadn't lost her Liverpool accent at all!

Whereas, Pete Postlethwaite, who played Wallace in the drama-documentary, did not sound at all "ordinary" to me. He had a distinctively non-Liverpudlian accent, despite being born only 9 miles outside the city limit!

Therefore, it seems that Wallace - who never came within a hundred miles of Liverpool until he was 37 - would not have sounded "ordinary" to Lily Kelly.

The affected pronunciation of café sounds like an actor.
"Let us have a soirée at the ca-FAY!"

So... a Liverpudlian amateur actor? (perhaps trying to sound more mature and serious than he really was)

[Herlock Sholmes]

re: the Voice

Lilian Kelly described it as "an ordinary male voice." What does that mean?

Well, Lily Kelly's voice sounded ordinary to me in 1981, despite the fact she had lived for many years in New York. She hadn't lost her Liverpool accent at all!

Whereas, Pete Postlethwaite, who played Wallace in the drama-documentary, did not sound at all "ordinary" to me. He had a distinctively non-Liverpudlian accent, despite being born only 9 miles outside the city limit!

Therefore, it seems that Wallace - who never came within a hundred miles of Liverpool until he was 37 - would not have sounded "ordinary" to Lily Kelly.

The affected pronunciation of café sounds like an actor.
"Let us have a soirée at the ca-FAY!"

So... a Liverpudlian amateur actor? (perhaps trying to sound more mature and serious than he really was)

If Parry made the call his objective was not to sound like himself and to sound like a normal, plausible man. He wasn’t doing his impersonation of Noel Coward.

Caf-fay favours Wallace over Parry. Only slightly I’ll admit.

‘Older man’ favours Wallace over Parry.

Asking for Wallace’s address favours Wallace over Parry.

The fact that Wallace was certain that he’d go to MGE and wasn’t reliant on external factors...favours Wallace.

In fact the phone call.....favours Wallace.

[Herlock Sholmes]

R.I.P. an innocent couple

An innocent woman certainly. An innocent man? It’s possible but very unlikely.

[RodCrosby]

If Parry made the call his objective was not to sound like himself and to sound like a normal, plausible man. He wasn’t doing his impersonation of Noel Coward.
Plausible can mean anything, And the caller DID sound plausible.

Caf-fay favours Wallace over Parry. Only slightly I’ll admit.
Not if Parry was an actor. Oh wait...Parry WAS an actor!

‘Older man’ favours Wallace over Parry.
Not if Parry was an actor. Oh wait...Parry WAS an actor!

Asking for Wallace’s address favours Wallace over Parry.
Not if the caller was a dissembler. Oh wait...the caller WAS a dissembler! ("Is Mr Wallace there?")

The fact that Wallace was certain that he’d go to MGE and wasn’t reliant on external factors...favours Wallace.
PETITIO PRINCIPII doesn't cut it, I'm afraid...

In fact the phone call.....favours Wallace.

Yawn...As easily demonstrated, in fact, it does not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn...As easily demonstrated, in fact, it does not.

Only you could claim that the voice of an older man was more likely to come from a man who occaisionally took part in amateur dramatics rather than an actual older man!

Taking part in an amateur dramatics group that rehearsed in a cafe doesn’t qualify Parry as ‘an actor’ any more than me cooking a meal makes me a chef.

Your point about the caller asking for Wallace’s address deserves no response.

My point about Parry the planner relying on luck whereas Wallace the planner didn’t is so beyond debate as to again require no response.

And no amount of googling Latin phrases will help either.

My point has been made. Your responses are inadequate and self-serving.

[RodCrosby]

"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...
And he could change his voice like you changing a shilling!"
John Parkes, 1981

[etenguy]

There’s no way either of them could have known that the supervisor would log the call.

That depends on whether it was unusual for such calls to be logged or part of normal process. If normal process, then it might have been known (or might not nevertheless). I do not know if it was normal process, I expected and assumed it was. I'll see if I can find out for sure.

[RodCrosby]

Common sense suggests the default assumption in the mind of a caller would be that a call might be logged, certainly if it was a 'problem' call.

In 1931 in Liverpool there was no direct-dial (and indeed no dial at all on telephones!). To get through to anywhere, you had to speak to an operator.

At the trial, the operators confirmed it was routine procedure to log 'problem' calls.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"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...
And he could change his voice like you changing a shilling!"
John Parkes, 1981

That settles it then. If Hans Christian Parkes said it....

[Herlock Sholmes]

Common sense suggests the default assumption in the mind of a caller would be that a call might be logged, certainly if it was a 'problem' call.

In 1931 in Liverpool there was no direct-dial (and indeed no dial at all on telephones!). To get through to anywhere, you had to speak to an operator.

At the trial, the operators confirmed it was routine procedure to log 'problem' calls.

No it doesn’t. It’s simply that it suits your viewpoint. No one could assume that the call would be recorded. There’s also no reason for certainty that the issue with the call was intentional. This is wish-thinking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Common sense suggests the default assumption in the mind of a caller would be that a call might be logged, certainly if it was a 'problem' call.

It would have been ‘common sense’ for an innocent Wallace to have checked the Parlour before he went upstairs but he didn’t.

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...

If you are asking a human-being in officialdom to do something for you, common-sense suggests it might be recorded, certainly if it is an out of the ordinary request.

Or do you imagine officialdom keeps no records?

[RodCrosby]

It would have been ‘common sense’ for an innocent Wallace to have checked the Parlour before he went upstairs but he didn’t.

Lol. I've exploded that nonsense enough times...

Even the Police agreed there was a perfectly good reason for him to go upstairs first.

And of course, had Wallace in fact gone to the parlour first, you would no doubt be effusing "See, Guilty!"

"Heads we win, tails Wallace loses" coin-tricks don't cut it, obviously.

[etenguy]

"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...
And he could change his voice like you changing a shilling!"
John Parkes, 1981

Given that we are reasonably certain the phone call could have been made by one of two people, either Wallace or Parry, is there anything in the content of the call that can help us identify which of the two it was.

The voice was described as a man's voice, confident and gruff - very different to Wallace's voice, but also an older man's voice that sounded normal (presumably that means no foreign accent etc...). Whoever made the call was disguising their voice and so this probably doesn't help much but suggests, in my view, it was slightly more likely to be Parry than Wallace.

In terms of other content - I have suggested those elements that I think suggest Parry is more likely and those which I think suggest Wallace is more likely. Other elements I do not think suggest one over the other. It would be interesting to know if posters believe the lists correct/incorrect and how they might change the lists.

Suggests Parry
* mention of a daughter's 21st birthday

Suggests Wallace
* request for Wallace's address