Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello CCJ.
In your article 'waiting for an alibi' you mention telephone calls not being traceable . This will of course be true once the caller has hung up and the operator pulled the chord. In the case of the call made by 'Qualtrough' a few hundred yards from Wallaces house,it was I believe the fact that the caller made issue with the operator of not making connection after pressing button 'A' ( though he had in fact pressed button 'B') which alerted the operator to the identifying of the call box , since she had her patch chord 'in' for that location. The caller knew that by seemingly didleing the GPO out of Tuppence the operator or rather her supervisor would log the circumstance, this leads me to contend it was not Parry making the call, because he wasn't smart enough, Wallace was ,and used this ploy as part of his plan to have the police believe he was being targetted,the call being made so close to his home.

Hi Moste,

Theres no way that either Wallace or Parry could have known that the supervisor would have logged the call. I don’t think that we’re even sure that this was common practice. It may have been something that this particular supervisor did?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hello CCJ.
In your article 'waiting for an alibi' you mention telephone calls not being traceable . This will of course be true once the caller has hung up and the operator pulled the chord. In the case of the call made by 'Qualtrough' a few hundred yards from Wallaces house,it was I believe the fact that the caller made issue with the operator of not making connection after pressing button 'A' ( though he had in fact pressed button 'B') which alerted the operator to the identifying of the call box , since she had her patch chord 'in' for that location. The caller knew that by seemingly didleing the GPO out of Tuppence the operator or rather her supervisor would log the circumstance, this leads me to contend it was not Parry making the call, because he wasn't smart enough, Wallace was ,and used this ploy as part of his plan to have the police believe he was being targetted,the call being made so close to his home.

Operator Kelly asked her colleague Alfreds whether a call had been placed from the Anfield 1627, so I assume she did not look at the switchboard. And there is no way, in my opinion, anyone could mistake Button A for Button B. One returned the money, one deposited it (i.e. you lost it).

I also disagree with your main contention. It was the content of the call, and not its originating location, that gave the impression of Wallace being targeted. As Moore admitted, the tracing of the call to a call box so close to his home was the decisive factor in getting him arrested: it threw all his movements and timings on the Monday night into sharp focus. So, if he did want to log the call (and see Herlock's point in #1936), it was a massive mistake.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

[ColdCaseJury]

Delighted to announce a guest article - Double Check - about the case on the Cold Case Jury website. It introduces the Collaborator theory. If you read my footnote you will realise there is a way to reconcile Herlock and Rod, something universally acknowledged to be harder than negotiating Brexit:

The accomplice was Wallace and the collaborator was Parry!

See, we must never lose our sense of humour...

[Abby Normal]

Delighted to announce a guest article - Double Check - about the case on the Cold Case Jury website. It introduces the Collaborator theory. If you read my footnote you will realise there is a way to reconcile Herlock and Rod, something universally acknowledged to be harder than negotiating Brexit:

The accomplice was Wallace and the collaborator was Parry!

See, we must never lose our sense of humour...

thanks! interesting. although if Wallace had an accomplice, be it parry or not, why would Wallace still be the one to make the Q call?? that part makes no sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

thanks! interesting. although if Wallace had an accomplice, be it parry or not, why would Wallace still be the one to make the Q call?? that part makes no sense.

Hi Abby,

Even today some people aren’t comfortable speaking on the phone (my dad was one.) Maybe this guy was just too nervous and he felt that he wouldn’t have been convincing enough (possibly he’d just never used the phone before?) Maybe he had a bad stammer? Maybe he had a very strong Scottish or Irish accent which he felt that he couldn’t disguise and which he worried might help identify him at some point? A lot of maybes I know but you never know.

[ColdCaseJury]

thanks! interesting. although if Wallace had an accomplice, be it parry or not, why would Wallace still be the one to make the Q call?? that part makes no sense.

In this scenario, I'm pretty sure Wallace would never have allowed anyone else to make the call - it was such an important part of his plan.

[cobalt]

Abby is surely correct on the detail of the Qualtrough phone call, although that does not invalidate the theory.

For me this theory has two weaknesses. The first is motive, which remains very weak. Wallace is portrayed as an outwardly respectable but inwardly simmering Victorian character, a well known trope. Yet Wallace had lived most of his adult life under the Edwardian and Georgian regimes, was Liberal in his politics (this before the electoral visibility of the Labour Party) and could not have been immune to the fact that these once heralded Victorian values were lampooned by commentators after the horrors of WW1. Like his wife Julia there is an indication that both were free-thinking types and not necessarily constrained by the conventional thought, or what we perceive to be the conventional thought of their times. Besides, if his wife’s illness was such a trial and she was truly so much older, it could be argued he would soon be shot of her in any case.

The accomplice aspect of the theory reads more like Hitchcock than real life. Why would Wallace trust a character such as Parry? No one else seems to have. Wallace must have been one of the tallest men in Liverpool yet he is jumping in and out of Parry’s car like it was a taxi; he only had to be spotted once and his plan would have been blown out of the water. For some reason the pay off takes place in a darkened back alley and not the car. At which point Parry could have taken his ill gotten gains, then told Wallace he had NOT in fact disposed of the evidence, and would be back each month for his ‘premium.’ A course of action the chess-playing Wallace would surely have anticipated, since Parry’s interest in this proposed joint venture was purely financial.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can I just point out that the piece wasn’t written suggesting Parry as a collaborator but an unnamed Mr X. The suggestion from Antony was that some of the criteria might fit Parry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Why would Wallace trust a character such as Parry?

We might then also ask why would the accomplice have trusted Parry especially when, in his case, the plan involved him taking 100% of the risks?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m sorry but the motive argument is next to pointless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The accomplice aspect of the theory reads more like Hitchcock than real life.

i can’t really see how it’s any more ‘Hitchcock’ that the Accomplice theory.

By the way, as Antony suggested, were better off calling it the Collaberator Theory so we don’t get confused with the Accomplice Theory.

[cobalt]

The weakness of the resentment motive is that is can apply to anyone and everyone who is a husband with this proviso: the more doting, outwardly affectionate and considerate a husband is, then the more seething his resentment: especially if he has any connection to the Victorian age. Under this perverted logic, it seems to me that if Wallace had been in the habit of coming back drunk of an evening and raising his hands to his wife then he would be considered less likely to be the murderer.

Most wives are, I think, murdered by their husbands. This attack seems to have been violent and sustained, beyond what a burglar or robber would inflict. So far, so bad for Wallace, I agree. But anyone attempting to flesh out the motivation through interpretations of Wallace’s outwardly stoical nature, or the Victorian values which had weakened over the 30 years prior to the murder, is applying a lot of polyfilla to the holes.

All of the accomplice or collaborator theories are riddled with holes, since the risk factor undertaken or trust factor required is out of proportion to any gain or loss.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The weakness of the resentment motive is that is can apply to anyone and everyone who is a husband with this proviso: the more doting, outwardly affectionate and considerate a husband is, then the more seething his resentment: especially if he has any connection to the Victorian age. Under this perverted logic, it seems to me that if Wallace had been in the habit of coming back drunk of an evening and raising his hands to his wife then he would be considered less likely to be the murderer.

Most wives are, I think, murdered by their husbands. This attack seems to have been violent and sustained, beyond what a burglar or robber would inflict. So far, so bad for Wallace, I agree. But anyone attempting to flesh out the motivation through interpretations of Wallace’s outwardly stoical nature, or the Victorian values which had weakened over the 30 years prior to the murder, is applying a lot of polyfilla to the holes.

All of the accomplice or collaborator theories are riddled with holes, since the risk factor undertaken or trust factor required is out of proportion to any gain or loss.

There’s no perverted logic here Cobalt. I genuinely don’t understand this. All throughout the history of crime there are men that have killed their wives who no one would have suspected beforehand. I’m not saying that because Wallace seemed respectable he must be guilty so I don’t see how you can apply the drunken wife-beater analogy as it just doesn’t work.

im not applying polyfilla, I’m trying to combat a flow of people over the last few months pretty much saying “well we don’t have a definite, known motive for William so he couldn’t have done it.” Why do we ignore Wilson and Curwen who both said that the Wallace’s didn’t have the contented marriage that everyone appeared to think.

wallace could easily have had a motive to kill Julia and that’s all we need to say. It doesn’t weaken the case against him.

[moste]

Operator Kelly asked her colleague Alfreds whether a call had been placed from the Anfield 1627, so I assume she did not look at the switchboard. And there is no way, in my opinion, anyone could mistake Button A for Button B. One returned the money, one deposited it (i.e. you lost it).

I also disagree with your main contention. It was the content of the call, and not its originating location, that gave the impression of Wallace being targeted. As Moore admitted, the tracing of the call to a call box so close to his home was the decisive factor in getting him arrested: it threw all his movements and timings on the Monday night into sharp focus. So, if he did want to log the call (and see Herlock's point in #1936), it was a massive mistake.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

I agree, I do believe the main purpose of the call was the content of that call, I do think the caller had a particular reason for identifying his location though.
I can't believe the mess up with the 'pressing of the wrong button was accidental. I remember the operation and technology of the system used back then. and if I may just mention of the H S answer. In an exchange as large as downtown Liverpools, a row of 60 or so operators working feverishly had 3 or 4 supervisors alongthe line , standing to attention , ready to assist with any problems , I am close to certain it was protocol to log these kind of deficiencies and Wallace may well have known this. ( The keeping of written entries in a book was for the purpose of passing along information to the maintenance crews, who kept the telephone systems in tip top shape)

[RodCrosby]

History of the K1 Mk 236 phone kiosk

http://www.the-telephone-box.co.uk/kiosks/k1-mk-236/