Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wallace COULD have been at/passing by the phone booth... Except his stated route never went anywhere near it. The Police never even started to prove otherwise. Indeed, they unaccountably shied away from attempting to prove/disprove any of Wallace's Monday night movements...
it remained just a [convenient] Police theory, unsupported by any evidence.

There’s no more or less evidence that Wallace caught a tram from the stop in Breck Road than there is that he caught one from near to the phone box. It’s just Wallace’s word.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is also the "ka-FAY" business, which sounds highfalutin', possibly giving the impression of an older, supercilious or overly-refined person.

Telephone operator Dorothy Carr (sp?) was adamant in 1981 this was how the word was pronounced. She also implied that the other operators knew Wallace's voice!

"a man like Mr. Wallace we didn't think would use that, he was - as the other girls called him - a very timid man..."

Remember in 1931, all calls were put through by operators at the Anfield exchange, and Wallace agreed he had previously used the phone at the library, and - IIRC - the phone box.

So it's quite possible the operators knew Wallace's voice, and that is indeed what Dorothy Carr seems to be saying.

Contrast "the very timid man" with Beattie's recollections of the caller.

"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.

And then we have Parry...
"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

Or that they read about the type of man that Wallace was and felt that the voice didn’t sound like the type of man that they’d read about. How often would Wallace have had to have used the library phone to have spoken to various operators often enough for them to have recognised his voice. Especially given that they would have had no real reason to remember it.

[RodCrosby]

There’s no more or less evidence that Wallace caught a tram from the stop in Breck Road than there is that he caught one from near to the phone box. It’s just Wallace’s word.

And that is called evidence-in-chief. We may say that it was neither directly corroborated nor contradicted in any way.

[RodCrosby]

Or that they read about the type of man that Wallace was and felt that the voice didn’t sound like the type of man that they’d read about. How often would Wallace have had to have used the library phone to have spoken to various operators often enough for them to have recognised his voice. Especially given that they would have had no real reason to remember it.

I look forward to your unearthing an article from then describing Wallace as "timid." Operators of that period were well-known for listening in on calls, to relieve their boredom.
Wallace stated that he used the library phone "generally". He must have used that phone many times in the 15 years he had lived in the district, and as a business user probably used it more regularly than most in that era. And Wallace, due to the nature of his work and his 600 clients, was possibly a rich seam of local gossip for eavesdroppers....

It's an odd turn of phrase for Carr to use if she meant she/they had read it.

"Timid" is usually used in the context of some personal interaction or observation. So is her use of "[they]... called him... timid..."

[Herlock Sholmes]

I look forward to your unearthing an article from then describing Wallace as "timid." Operators of that period were well-known for listening in on calls, to relieve their boredom.
Wallace stated that he used the library phone "generally". He must have used that phone many times in the 15 years he had lived in the district, and as a business user probably used it more regularly than most in that era.

It's an odd turn of phrase for Carr to use if she meant she/they had read it.

"Timid" is usually used in the context of some personal interaction or observation. So is her use of "[they]... called him... timid..."

The exact word didn’t have to be used. The general impression is of a quiet, reserved man. They could simply have used the word timid as opposed to gruff or peremptory.

Wallace would have hardly had a meaningful conversation with these telephone operators. “Could you put me through to xyz please?”””” I’m also unaware that callers introduced themselves by name when asking for a number?! How would they know that the calls were from Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

Mmmm. Not for the first time, I may just have had an original insight in the Wallace Case.

Shall we ask Antony? Lol...

[RodCrosby]

Thesis. The operators had been listening-in for years to the Man-from-the-Pru's calls from the library, for any gossip. Who's died? Who's ill? Who's out-of-work again?

Dorothy Carr accidentally let this slip when she phoned Radio City in 1981...

[WallaceWackedHer]

If you were making a call, knowing it would likely become vital evidence, it's extremely doubtful you'd speak in your ordinary voice. You'd go to some lengths to sound as different from yourself as is physically possible.

[RodCrosby]

Yes, but who is more likely to be able to carry it off, or believe they can carry it off to even attempt it?

An actor, a relentless scammer, a "dual personality", who "could change his voice like you changing a shilling" or

a meek, "timid" old duffer who's going to risk his neck on a never before practised one-time performance?


Dorothy Carr's testimony is interesting, as it shows Wallace's personality and demeanour to be just about as far away from Parry's as is imaginable. It's of course possible they knew him in real life - he was very well known with many clients, although I suspect my thesis is correct. They'd heard him on the phone.

Parry worked as a switchboard operator in a hospital in North Wales, late in life (60+), so that is probably just a bizarre coincidence (but a fitting one if you believe Parry was Qualtrough).
The important point is his personality as described on the phone. The antithesis of timid !

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, but who is more likely to be able to carry it off, or believe they can carry it off to even attempt it?

An actor, a relentless scammer, a "dual personality", who "could change his voice like you changing a shilling" or

a meek, "timid" old duffer who's going to risk his neck on a never before practised one-time performance?


Dorothy Carr's testimony is interesting, as it shows Wallace's personality and demeanour to be just about as far away from Parry's as is imaginable. It's of course possible they knew him in real life - he was very well known with many clients, although I suspect my thesis is correct. They'd heard him on the phone.

Parry worked as a switchboard operator in a hospital in North Wales, late in life (60+), so that is probably just a bizarre coincidence (but a fitting one if you believe Parry was Qualtrough).
The important point is his personality as described on the phone. The antithesis of timid !

I don't believe it's unlikely for a timid old man to be able to speak in a rough voice if necessity called for it. I do believe Parry's acting skills would have been very useful if he was the caller - though I'd imagine he'd have tried to make the voice sound the opposite of himself (so try to sound mild and perhaps even a different accent, like a London accent), if he had the skills to pull that off.

I have issues with Parry being the caller unless it was a prank call. If it was a planned slaying/burglary, I would think he'd have his accomplice make the call and provide himself with a good alibi, knowing suspicion could fall on him for the crime.

Even if Parry was involved in or responsible for the crime, I still doubt that he made the call in the realm of the accomplice theory, unless it was a prank and the entire call is a red herring... Or that the killer was also another very likely suspect who could be linked to the Wallaces (hence they agreed one would have an alibi for the killing but not the call, and vice versa)... So either way the detectives were stumped by making the definitive assertion that the caller and killer must be the same person.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mmmm. Not for the first time, I may just have had an original insight in the Wallace Case.

Shall we ask Antony? Lol...

It would be the first time and no you haven’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thesis. The operators had been listening-in for years to the Man-from-the-Pru's calls from the library, for any gossip. Who's died? Who's ill? Who's out-of-work again?

Dorothy Carr accidentally let this slip when she phoned Radio City in 1981...

Again, how would these various phone operators know that it was Wallace? Talk about desperate! Come on Rod....even by your standards!

[RodCrosby]

He was ringing the Pru from the library.

A voice answered "Prudential Assurance Company?"

Operator (to her co-worker): "That'll be Wallace ringing the Pru"

Co-worker: "oooh, that'll be worth a listen!"

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, but who is more likely to be able to carry it off, or believe they can carry it off to even attempt it?

An actor, a relentless scammer, a "dual personality", who "could change his voice like you changing a shilling" or

a meek, "timid" old duffer who's going to risk his neck on a never before practised one-time performance?


Dorothy Carr's testimony is interesting, as it shows Wallace's personality and demeanour to be just about as far away from Parry's as is imaginable. It's of course possible they knew him in real life - he was very well known with many clients, although I suspect my thesis is correct. They'd heard him on the phone.

Parry worked as a switchboard operator in a hospital in North Wales, late in life (60+), so that is probably just a bizarre coincidence (but a fitting one if you believe Parry was Qualtrough).
The important point is his personality as described on the phone. The antithesis of timid !

The fact that they said that it was the voice of an older gentleman immediately and squarely points toward Wallace.

Far too much nonsense is talked about whether Wallace’s voice could have remained undetected by Beattie. Of course it could. As I’ve said many times Beattie was a serious businessman for whom the idea of the ‘prank call’ would have been unknown. He would have been focused on the content of the call and getting the message correct especially as he knew that the call involved ‘business’ for Wallace. Then he had to try and connect the voice retrospectively when the police asked him about it.

Parry was a part-time petty criminal who did a bit of amateur dramatics. He wasn’t Rory Bremner. And again as I’ve said before if he was so good at disguising his voice why didn’t he wait until Wallace had turned up then spoken to him directly thus making certain that Wallace went off to MGE rather than leaving any doubts or reliance on luck?

The fact that the caller asked for Wallace’s address favours Wallace over Parry (even Antony agrees on this.)

The pronunciation ‘caffay’ favours the more sophisticated Wallace than wide-boy local Parry.

The fact that Parry had a car and could have gone to any out-of-the-way call box to avoid being seen near the crime scene speaks more than Wallace who was on foot and had no choice but to have used that call box.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was ringing the Pru from the library.

A voice answered "Prudential Assurance Company?"

Operator (to her co-worker): "That'll be Wallace ringing the Pru"

Co-worker: "oooh, that'll be worth a listen!"

Because Wallace was the only insurance agent in town of course!

And from these random calls, different operators on different shifts all got to recognise Wallace’s voice. Desperate.