Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[ColdCaseJury]

The Call

This forum moves at dizzying speeds when HS and Rod get going. So much ground is covered that it is hard to give adequate responses/views to each.

Just brief responses on three issues.

The Address. Beattie did not know Wallace's address (we know this from Caird's statement, which is reflected in my book p. 24, 7:55pm). It is reasonable to assume Wallace was aware Beattie did not know it. Parry, on the other hand, could not know this. Of course, Parry could guess it would not be given out, as I say in my book, and have a line worked out in case Beattie did tell him. So, overall, a pointer to Wallace, in my opinion, but it is an odd question for either man to have asked, and I would not give it huge weight (certainly not as much as Murphy). Others will have different views, of course.

21st Birthday. As mentioned by other posters, this seems too much of a coincidence. Parry was 22, and clearly going to 21st birthday parties around this time. Surely, "I'm busy tonight" would have sufficed when told to call back later. But a conman cannot resist telling a yarn and elaborating. In my opinion, a pointer to Parry, but again I would not place huge weight on it.

The Bus. I cannot believe Wallace would have taken a 15-20 minute bus ride and risked being noticed. He was distinctive looking. And if he was noticed, he had been caught in a blatant, neck-stretching lie. I think Murphy is wrong on this point. As I show in my book, Wallace could make the call and arrive at the chess club when he did via the tram. With the tram, Wallace only has to deny any potential observer misremembered the stop he got on at.

There are many other points to discuss. But later.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.The Bus. I cannot believe Wallace would have taken a 15-20 minute bus ride and risked being noticed. He was distinctive looking. And if he was noticed, he had been caught in a blatant, neck-stretching lie. I think Murphy is wrong on this point. As I show in my book, Wallace could make the call and arrive at the chess club when he did via the tram. With the tram, Wallace only has to deny any potential observer misremembered the stop he got on at.

I have to agree to disagree with Murphy on that one too Antony.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. This forum moves at dizzying speeds when HS and Rod get going. So much ground is covered that it is hard to give adequate responses/views to each.

I agree Antony. I mentioned this in an earlier post. Apart from the issue of ongoing personal disputes we tend to leap from one section of the case to another. A post, a couple of responses and then another topic.

I’ll suggest again. As you began the thread why don’t you lead the discussion. You choose a part of the case. We all discus then you decide when we’ve got to the point of ‘agreeing to disagree,’ then you select another subject. It might be more productive especially if we all agree to double our efforts to avoid personal clashes.

Just a suggestion which might improve the thread and encourage others to take part?

[rjpalmer]

I haven't yet read too deeply on the subject, but has anyone considered the possibility that Wallace had Asperger's? It has been written that his 'cold' emotional response is what convinced many of his guilt. But I've known a couple of gentlemen who were diagnoses with the syndrome, and some of the descriptions of Wallace remind me of what I saw in them. Nice blokes--perfectly polite--but emotionally flat. And, like most who have Asperger's, both of them were quite cerebral, mainly interested in mathematics, science, etc.--as was Wallace.

Either way, I don't think Wallace's detached response to his wife's death is evidence of anything; the one bloke I knew lived with his mother, and when she died suddenly (of a medical condition) he showed up for work as though nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. I can also readily imagine him marrying a woman 17 years his senior, because he viewed people as companions or convenient objects, but had no real 'passion' in the ordinary sense.

[moste]

Blagging a free call off the operator does seem the sort of thing you might expect far more from a young jack the lad type up to no good than a late middle aged man carefully plotting the murder of his wife.

OneRound

I agree, and I would suggest that this was one of Wallace's methods of steering the call away from himself. If the call was made by Parry, he certainly would not be badgering the operator for a free call, since it surely would occur to him that anything other than a straight forward push button 'A' for a connection, would result in either, at best , the operator remembering such a attempted extortion ,or at worse ,the whole thing being logged and timed etc. On the other hand Wallace in his clever calculating, places the call , pushes button 'B' gets his money returned , then taps on the receiver a few times to get the operators attention, claims there must be a problem with the line since he has not been connected with his correspondent. She knows quite well that this caller is trying to rip the GPO off (and Wallace knows she does), she then involves her supervisor, (Wallace presumes she will) and the issue is logged and timed and the caller is patched through to 'bank' (as Wallace knew it would be).
Further to this, it is not difficult to have an acquaintance believe you are someone else when speaking on the phone, its not necessary to attend amateur dramatic classes to accomplish this.

[etenguy]

I agree, and I would suggest that this was one of Wallace's methods of steering the call away from himself. If the call was made by Parry, he certainly would not be badgering the operator for a free call, since it surely would occur to him that anything other than a straight forward push button 'A' for a connection, would result in either, at best , the operator remembering such a attempted extortion ,or at worse ,the whole thing being logged and timed etc. On the other hand Wallace in his clever calculating, places the call , pushes button 'B' gets his money returned , then taps on the receiver a few times to get the operators attention, claims there must be a problem with the line since he has not been connected with his correspondent. She knows quite well that this caller is trying to rip the GPO off (and Wallace knows she does), she then involves her supervisor, (Wallace presumes she will) and the issue is logged and timed and the caller is patched through to 'bank' (as Wallace knew it would be).
Further to this, it is not difficult to have an acquaintance believe you are someone else when speaking on the phone, its not necessary to attend amateur dramatic classes to accomplish this.

Hi RJ - we both have the caller purposefully getting the call logged - but have very different reasons. I suggested Parry had done this so the police would know the call box used was close to Wallace's house, thus implicating Wallace. I guess we will never know.

I would, though, suggest it was high risk for Wallace to do this to point to Parry, as it would also identify the phone box near his home was used. By identifying the phone box used, Wallace would be putting himself in the frame as a potential caller. This was one of the points the police picked up on - and of course they would. So i still favour Parry deliberately going through the exchange to implicate Wallace. Though as others have pointed out, that assumes the caller knew the call would be logged and that may not have been the case.

[moste]

I haven't yet read too deeply on the subject, but has anyone considered the possibility that Wallace had Asperger's? It has been written that his 'cold' emotional response is what convinced many of his guilt. But I've known a couple of gentlemen who were diagnoses with the syndrome, and some of the descriptions of Wallace remind me of what I saw in them. Nice blokes--perfectly polite--but emotionally flat. And, like most who have Asperger's, both of them were quite cerebral, mainly interested in mathematics, science, etc.--as was Wallace.

Either way, I don't think Wallace's detached response to his wife's death is evidence of anything; the one bloke I knew lived with his mother, and when she died suddenly (of a medical condition) he showed up for work as though nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. I can also readily imagine him marrying a woman 17 years his senior, because he viewed people as companions or convenient objects, but had no real 'passion' in the ordinary sense.

Well, I suppose there may be something in that RJ. Of course It wouldn't account for Wallace momentarily breaking down and weeping in the kitchen while Mrs Johnstone was trying to console him. Mind you I do believe this event was quite brief and others at the scene did witness that Wallaces behaviour was odd under the circumstances. Still though with 'Asperger's, I don't think he would have the ability to turn his emotions on and off, what do you think?

[RodCrosby]

Just watching the history of the terraced house on TV. Liverpool was a pioneer in all this...
Lots of insight about how people lived in these houses, and the significance of the parlour, etc.

Also on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0G2vcWzLM4

[rjpalmer]

Still though with 'Asperger's, I don't think he would have the ability to turn his emotions on and off, what do you think?

It's a fair point, and I can only judge by the two gents that I knew personally. The only things that ever seemed to upset them were when things were out of place; that drove them both crazy: like when the books on the shelf weren't arranged properly, or if there were 13 eggs in a basket instead of 12. But the syndrome runs on a continuum; some are so severe that they are nearly autistic; others are never diagnosed and merely come across as being a bit 'off.'

I certainly wouldn't insist Wallace had it; it's just something I rather idly wondered about. No way of ever knowing, of course. By the way, neither of these two blokes I knew were the least bit sly or cunning. If anything, they were two of the most candid people I ever met. If they thought something was wrong, they would not hesitate to let you--or anyone else--know about it. Cheers.

[moste]

Hi RJ - we both have the caller purposefully getting the call logged - but have very different reasons. I suggested Parry had done this so the police would know the call box used was close to Wallace's house, thus implicating Wallace. I guess we will never know.

I would, though, suggest it was high risk for Wallace to do this to point to Parry, as it would also identify the phone box near his home was used. By identifying the phone box used, Wallace would be putting himself in the frame as a potential caller. This was one of the points the police picked up on - and of course they would. So i still favour Parry deliberately going through the exchange to implicate Wallace. Though as others have pointed out, that assumes the caller knew the call would be logged and that may not have been the case.

MMhh. I see what your saying, but do you think the 22 year old Parry would have the gumption to know that his call was traceable? Wallace I would wager almost certainly would.
Whatever Wallace's motive was for killing his wife, I do think he wanted Parry in the frame for it.

[RodCrosby]

As for how busy it was at the time, unlike you, I haven’t visited 1930’s Liverpool.

It might someday cross your mind that the mere fact that a telephone kiosk was sited there in 1931 demonstrates that it was at the junction of four busy roads.

It was, in fact, the very heart of Anfield.

Historic Core: ...The confluence of routes - at junction of Priory Road, Breck Road/Townsend Lane, Walton Breck Road and Lower Breck Road - marks the build up of villa housing by mid 19th Century
https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/...ool-Part-6.pdf

[RodCrosby]

"I went to the phone and a man's voice - a gruffish voice but of a man sure of himself, a strong voiced man - enquired for Mr. Wallace and asked would he be there."
Samuel Beattie, statement, 1931

Goodman (1987) adds the words "strong and gruff, ready of utterance, confident, definite in knowing what to say, peremptory" to Beattie's description.

"Dick [Parry] was one hell of a character. Used to get a lot of people's backs up. Had an incredibly arrogant manner on the telephone. Bit of a handicap really because that was his job: switchboard operator."
Phil Roberts (undertaker), 1980

[moste]

Just watching the history of the terraced house on TV. Liverpool was a pioneer in all this...
Lots of insight about how people lived in these houses, and the significance of the parlour, etc.

Also on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0G2vcWzLM4

Good documentary. Thanks for passing it along. God Bless 'YouTube'

[Herlock Sholmes]

It might someday cross your mind that the mere fact that a telephone kiosk was sited there in 1931 demonstrates that it was at the junction of four busy roads.

It was, in fact, the very heart of Anfield.

Historic Core: ...The confluence of routes - at junction of Priory Road, Breck Road/Townsend Lane, Walton Breck Road and Lower Breck Road - marks the build up of villa housing by mid 19th Century
https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/...ool-Part-6.pdf

Junction - yes.
Busy - who knows.
Specifically busy or quite at 7.15 on a Monday night - who knows.

[etenguy]

Thank you everyone for humouring me by going through the factors surrounding the Qualtrough phone call again. Rod and Herlock have championed different theories about who made that call and I was finding it difficult to decide which was the stronger theory as Rod and Herlock argue their cases well and evidence their arguments from what information we have. I read other posters who like me were finding it difficult to decide which theory to support, if either of them.

As you can probably tell from this post’s opening paragraph, I am nearly at the point of providing a third theory of events around the phone call, which I think fully incorporates the evidence we have. Before I make a complete fool of myself by describing that theory, it relies on some reasoning we have covered in this thread previously. I would find it useful to have those assumptions tested to see if they hold water, before I feel confident enough to post my version of the call (which is not entirely original – building on theories already discussed in the thread).

Earlier in this thread, we reached a consensus (almost unanimous) that the two potential callers was either Wallace or Parry. We reached that conclusion for the following reasons, I believe:
* whoever made the call had to have good reason to expect Wallace to be attending the chess match on Monday evening. (Both Parry and Wallace could be demonstrated to expect this to be the case – though only Wallace would have known for sure).
* we had to explain why the crime was committed on Tuesday rather than Monday (when Wallace was at the chess match) – we decided it was either someone who knew the haul was likely to be larger on Tuesday (so intimate with Wallace’s premium arrangements) if robbery were the motive (Parry) or to provide the police with a reason to suspect someone other than Wallace (if Wallace were guilty of wanting to murder his wife). In either case, there was a need to either establish a reason for Wallace to be out for the evening or to try and ensure Wallace was out for the evening. We struggled to identify anyone other than Parry or Wallace who had knowledge of the premium routine.
* we connected the Qualtrough call to the crime and by doing this eliminated an opportunistic crime based on someone observing Wallace leaving the house and so chancing their luck on a burglary. There is an outside possibility that the call and the crime were not connected and it was merely a coincidence of timing. While I consider this unlikely in the extreme (and I believe the majority of posters to the thread agree), there is at least one poster who believes this should be explored more fully.
* the targeting of the cash box during the crime suggests that the criminal knew where the premiums were stored. We struggled to identify anyone other than Parry or Wallace (or Julia I guess, but being the victim and female we are sure she did not make the call) who had this information.

For all the above reasons, I think we can narrow the field of potential Qualtrough callers to either Wallace or Parry. Please let me know if you think there is an error, omission, over statement of what we know or logical flaw in this reasoning.

Thank you.