Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just quickly re-read the Accomplice theory in Antony’s book and I noticed that the scenario makes no attempt to explain the fact that the front door was bolted from the inside (as per Wallace himself?) Why would the killer have bolted the door anyway? He would have had a good idea of the minimum time that Wallace would have been away and he wouldn’t have wanted to hang around until anywhere near that time.

[WallaceWackedHer]

The killing was fairly clean, evidently, and we can discern that she was not expecting the blow, so wouldn't have put up any fight. In those days there wasn't really forensics so you only had to be VISUALLY free from blood.

Fairly clean? What does fairly mean in the context of eleven wounds to the head? Spray against the wall?

No forensics in these days? Do some homework. Read up on Glaister, the famous Scottish forensic scientist, who was solving cases like this in Aberdeen back at the same time.

Clean as in no blood tracked out of the room. No blood on any of the "ransacked" items except the notes upstairs (which, if it was a burglar, were touched after the crime as a burglar would've swiped them). Wallace having blood on his hands when counting the notes makes sense as he checked on his wife as per him. The blood in the toilet and on the notes is all that was found.

And I meant, forensics were very poor at the time. Nothing like what we have today. I doubt you could get away with a crime like this today.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I just quickly re-read the Accomplice theory in Antony’s book and I noticed that the scenario makes no attempt to explain the fact that the front door was bolted from the inside (as per Wallace himself?) Why would the killer have bolted the door anyway? He would have had a good idea of the minimum time that Wallace would have been away and he wouldn’t have wanted to hang around until anywhere near that time.

Did he withdraw that statement? I remember he withdrew his statement of the yard and back door being bolted. IIRC he stuck to the front door story, but the trial is so long it's hard to remember lol.

The front door being bolted makes sense though. Just to be extra safe. If you heard the front door go you could run out the back! Remember it's a fake address, the killer didn't even know for sure Wallace would get to Menlove before figuring out he was duped. Though the idea that a killer somehow ran out the back and vanished into the night with no witnesses and making no sound, is a bit fantastical I admit. Though that was the original story Wallace went with.

And you're assuming the murder took place much earlier rather than it taking place closer to the time Wallace got home. The pathologists totally f'd up by not taking rectal temperature, the window of error is huge. With a narrower window we may have been able to totally exonerate Wallace, or, show that the killer hanging around so long was dumb.

Both the specialists estimated time of death the same, so it does hold some merit, but again, huge margin of error.

[WallaceWackedHer]

The flaws in the accomplice theory are HUGE though in my opinion. Unless there were two in that house, I believe the theory is borderline impossible...

The idea is that a man saying he's Qualtrough enters the house (and makes up a reason to get to the kitchen alone - this is possible - "may I use the bathroom?" perhaps then sneak in there)... He tries to steal the insurance money but Julia catches him.

Here's where the theory completely breaks down:

Upon finding out there's a burglar in the house, she does not scream or shout. Wtf?

She does not immediately go for the door, or the phone. Instead we find her in the parlor. Supposedly the terrified Julia cared more about saving on her gas bill than her safety.

When did the burglar decide to kill her? If it was while he was in the kitchen having been discovered, why did he not grab a weapon from the kitchen like a knife? Instead he relies - perhaps on chance or by GREAT memory - that there's an iron bar in the parlor. I mean even Wallace who LIVED THERE didn't even know it was there.

Still why he chooses to do that instead of grabbing the many lethal weapons that would be in the kitchen I do not know... There was a small poker, I'm unsure of where that was kept, though Wallace believed her to have "thrown it out with the ashes", but denied knowing anything about the iron bar. It is generally suggested the bar was used rather than the poker, but you never know...

And why did he kill her? He'd pocketed the insurance cash. He was a total stranger to Julia, so why not just run away with the cash? Petty criminals killing instead of taking flight is very rare. Typically if they kill in a robbery, it was already seen as a possibility and they came armed. This is seen in basically every case ever.

Now the killer puts on Wallace's mackintosh, or at least something is done with it, and enters the room. Julia does not seem weirded out. Instead she lets the killer WALK BEHIND HER AND PICK UP A ******* IRON BAR. Evidently she is comfortable with this stranger doing this as she allows her back to be turned to him. WEIRD. There are no signs of a struggle etc. so this is literally what had to happen. If she turned her back to him to run she would probably have been screaming at that point knowing she was in grave danger. Would YOU let a dangerous man walk behind you and casually saunter away without turning to face him. He'd have to have picked that bar up completely silently as well, ofc, lest he scare her and make her scream or turn to defend herself.

(Note: I concede with reservations Julia may have had the mack around her shoulders. But why choose her husband's jacket, she didn't have any of her own? Apparently she was okay to accompany Wallace down the entry - I mean back yard - without it. It's also just straight fkin peculiar she'd be wearing his mack like a scarf, instead of wearing more layers or using a blanket etc).

The killer, who would have been panicked having been discovered, somehow manages to get a super clean kill, professional hitman style, with no sound made at all. And he managed to that in the spur of the moment while chasing a panicked Julia - while also panicked himself might I add.

WHAT?

Now Julia is dead, the killer for some reason doesn't wash his hands off in any of the sinks, or wash himself, you know, just to be safe (or he did it in the toilet). Instead the panic stricken killer takes the time to turn out the lights and stove, before vanishing into the Liverpool night. But not before throwing some of Julia's clothing and pillows around.

Btw apparently the happily married husband and wife William and Julia did not share a bedroom, as Wallace hadn't been in there for 2 weeks he claimed. Even though they kept important savings in there and apparently they took ALL the money in the house out with them whenever they left together. So maybe Julia just enjoyed sleeping in an untidy room.

This is so incredibly implausible...

Much more likely version:

Two accomplices enter the home. One distracts Julia in the parlor while his partner tries to steal from the cash box. Julia notices a sound, the man in the parlor wacks her before she can investigate. For some reason the killer was wearing her husband's mack and she was ok with this. Or if he wore nothing, he was apparently fine to run out without even washing his hands in the sink. It still has big holes, but man is it 1000x more plausible. The singular sneak thief theory to me requires some type of Laurel and Hardy farce to be real.

Or:

The non-Wallace killer planned to kill her from the start, and either a burglary was staged (to draw attention away from anyone who may have had motive to kill her), or a real robbery happened and the box was replaced to try and cover that it'd been stolen from - to draw suspicion away from anyone who might have known where the box was kept.

---

It's an interesting theory, so I'm sorry if my critique sounds disrespectful, because obv a lot of effort and thought and research was put in... But that's just how I see it.

As it stands I have such a hard time seeing how the events could have possibly unfolded except in bizarro world. I'm more than open to discuss counterarguments etc, maybe you can convince me or educate me if I got it wrong as you guys seem more well read on this case than me (I got into it fairly recently, but have read the entire trial and some other material).

I think you could make a much more convincing argument for TWO accomplices, accomplice with murder as a main motive, or a planned murder and robbery, than the singular sneak thief accomplice scenario!

[moste]

I guess that's NO then?

[ColdCaseJury]

This thread is like a fast flowing river - off for a couple of days and everything's changed!

WWH, back to #2024.

You said: "Tough question, I wouldn't like to say who. It's a factor I'm unsure of. You could convince me either way... Although within the scope of your book I pose to you this: If Parry had an accomplice, why didn't he have his accomplice make the call and supply himself with a rock solid alibi (knowing there was a possibility he could be a suspect)?"

Well, if the accomplice made the call and committed the crime, there would not be much of a cut for Parry. Also, I expect Parry would not let the accomplice make the call - it was too important.

OK, back to the list. I don't wish to convince you of anything, BTW, but would like to go through the phone lists will created. Let's start with Wallace. Assign a number 0-10 to each statement, with 0 being irrelevant, and 10 being extremely probative and having substantial weight or significance. Let's do the first three. I'll go first.

1) Wallace would have been at/passing by the phone booth around the time the call was made. (BTW, if operator Alfreds is correct, this implies Wallace left his house no later than 7:11 pm).

It is also consistent with someone seeing him leave and then going to phone box. So I will give this a "0" but I will give a positive mark later for Wallace as caller because Parry could not be sure Wallace would be going to chess club.

2) Wallace was physically unable to call back later as he obviously can't call himself while at the chess club.

Yes, a pointer to Wallace: 3. On the basis that Parry could have executed another method. BUT leaving a note was not as good IMO - telephone carried cachet, a sign of wealth, importance and urgency - and leaving a note meant Qualtrough already knew Wallace's address (and limited the suspect pool). Also, Parry was confident on phone - it was his domain, and so were call boxes; he was caught stealing from them a year later.

3) The caller requested Wallace's address, something only Wallace could be certain Beattie did not have

Yes, a pointer to Wallace: 4. As I say, in my book, Parry might have guessed addresses would not been given out or simply batted away the issue. "Oh, he lives in Anfield! I will not be able to get there tonight - I'm busy with my daughter's 21st - can you take a message for me?" Regardless of whether you think the line credible now, it would - I argue - have been sufficient to get Beattie to take the message.

Do you agree with these ratings? Have I been fair and reasonable? Not the same question as the first (we can disagree but both be fair and reasonable).

[RodCrosby]

WWH
Just to correct a few things

There was no phone in the house
The Wallaces did sleep together in the middle bedroom (Hemmerde's opening speech)
As far as i can see, it was never positively adduced that Julia possessed a mac' of her own

[WallaceWackedHer]

This thread is like a fast flowing river - off for a couple of days and everything's changed!

WWH, back to #2024.

You said: "Tough question, I wouldn't like to say who. It's a factor I'm unsure of. You could convince me either way... Although within the scope of your book I pose to you this: If Parry had an accomplice, why didn't he have his accomplice make the call and supply himself with a rock solid alibi (knowing there was a possibility he could be a suspect)?"

Well, if the accomplice made the call and committed the crime, there would not be much of a cut for Parry. Also, I expect Parry would not let the accomplice make the call - it was too important.

OK, back to the list. I don't wish to convince you of anything, BTW, but would like to go through the phone lists will created. Let's start with Wallace. Assign a number 0-10 to each statement, with 0 being irrelevant, and 10 being extremely probative and having substantial weight or significance. Let's do the first three. I'll go first.

1) Wallace would have been at/passing by the phone booth around the time the call was made. (BTW, if operator Alfreds is correct, this implies Wallace left his house no later than 7:11 pm).

It is also consistent with someone seeing him leave and then going to phone box. So I will give this a "0" but I will give a positive mark later for Wallace as caller because Parry could not be sure Wallace would be going to chess club.

2) Wallace was physically unable to call back later as he obviously can't call himself while at the chess club.

Yes, a pointer to Wallace: 3. On the basis that Parry could have executed another method. BUT leaving a note was not as good IMO - telephone carried cachet, a sign of wealth, importance and urgency - and leaving a note meant Qualtrough already knew Wallace's address (and limited the suspect pool). Also, Parry was confident on phone - it was his domain, and so were call boxes; he was caught stealing from them a year later.

3) The caller requested Wallace's address, something only Wallace could be certain Beattie did not have

Yes, a pointer to Wallace: 4. As I say, in my book, Parry might have guessed addresses would not been given out or simply batted away the issue. "Oh, he lives in Anfield! I will not be able to get there tonight - I'm busy with my daughter's 21st - can you take a message for me?" Regardless of whether you think the line credible now, it would - I argue - have been sufficient to get Beattie to take the message.

Do you agree with these ratings? Have I been fair and reasonable? Not the same question as the first (we can disagree but both be fair and reasonable).

Yes I just got super into the case recently so I'm enjoying this thread a lot!

1) Yes you're right it's not evidence of guilt. Just puts him into the frame as a possibility.

2) I totally agree a call keeps the suspect pool more open. With that said, if the accomplice was someone unknown to the Wallaces, it would have made no difference as the obvious suspects (e.g. Parry) would have a cast iron alibi for the killing. How many people knew Wallace's address? Quite a few? He was relatively well known I hear, despite his reclusive wife. I believe this deserves a higher score than the one about the guy requesting the address.

3) That is something I didn't think of. I can't decide whether it should be downgraded or upgraded though. Were Wallace and Beattie quite well acquainted? If so you'd think the caller assumed (if it wasn't Wallace) that he WOULD have his address. Though actually, if he didn't know of their relationship he might not have made that assumption.

I find it very peculiar that Beattie didn't inquire how the man even knows Wallace was going to be at the club that night. It seems an obvious thing, if he'd asked that it might have revealed more vital evidence.

---

For the record I think the police did a TERRIBLE job in regards to Marsden. Lily Hall potentially saw a man matching his description, and his alibi was "in bed with flu". Did they not even check if he was sick the day before and after too? Did they not even check his alibi for the call?

Why did the police rule out Marsden so quickly? Did he have police connections? It seems really odd, considering he was fingered by Wallace as a prime suspect, and had no alibi.

[MoriartyGardensEast]

It's an interesting theory, so I'm sorry if my critique sounds disrespectful, because obv a lot of effort and thought and research was put in... But that's just how I see it.

"Interesting" is one word for it....

[ColdCaseJury]

Yes I just got super into the case recently so I'm enjoying this thread a lot!

1) Yes you're right it's not evidence of guilt. Just puts him into the frame as a possibility.

2) I totally agree a call keeps the suspect pool more open. With that said, if the accomplice was someone unknown to the Wallaces, it would have made no difference as the obvious suspects (e.g. Parry) would have a cast iron alibi for the killing. How many people knew Wallace's address? Quite a few? He was relatively well known I hear, despite his reclusive wife. I believe this deserves a higher score than the one about the guy requesting the address.

3) That is something I didn't think of. I can't decide whether it should be downgraded or upgraded though. Were Wallace and Beattie quite well acquainted? If so you'd think the caller assumed (if it wasn't Wallace) that he WOULD have his address. Though actually, if he didn't know of their relationship he might not have made that assumption.

I find it very peculiar that Beattie didn't inquire how the man even knows Wallace was going to be at the club that night. It seems an obvious thing, if he'd asked that it might have revealed more vital evidence.

---

For the record I think the police did a TERRIBLE job in regards to Marsden. Lily Hall potentially saw a man matching his description, and his alibi was "in bed with flu". Did they not even check if he was sick the day before and after too? Did they not even check his alibi for the call?

Why did the police rule out Marsden so quickly? Did he have police connections? It seems really odd, considering he was fingered by Wallace as a prime suspect, and had no alibi.

I'm glad you're enjoying the thread - let's keep it this way! I am happy to change my ratings in an attempt to get a consensus where we can; we will disagree on some points later but at least we will know where and why.

1) 0
2) 5
3) 3

How about these as a revised scoring?

To be fair to Beattie, he wanted to get back to his chess game. Those most guilty of not asking the right questions were the police on SO many issues, including Marsden. Roger Wilkes could have probed more with Parkes (but Parkes was ill).

[WallaceWackedHer]

WWH
Just to correct a few things

There was no phone in the house
The Wallaces did sleep together in the middle bedroom (Hemmerde's opening speech)
As far as i can see, it was never positively adduced that Julia possessed a mac' of her own

Thanks for the info. I had no idea they didn't have a phone. In such a situation I still think she'd just go for the door honestly, and I strongly believe she was not expecting the attack. But the knowledge they had no phone could change things I think of in the future.

I also did not know he and his wife shared a bed. I searched the opening speech of Hemmerde but could not locate it:

Mr. Hemmerde — May it please your Lordship, mem-
bers of the jury, the charge against the prisoner, as you
have heard, is murder. I shall have to open to you in
some detail a story not without its difficulties, but which
I think must show a very serious case against the prisoner.
He has been for some years an agent of the Prudential,
and he was living at a house in Wolverton Street in

Anfield in this city, and had been living there for some
years with his wife, apparently on terms of happiness and
comradeship. In fact, so far as the happiness of this house-
hold is concerned, the Crown knows nothing to the con-
trary of the view that these two people were very happy
together. In spite of that, the Crown now lay before you
evidence which, though it will not show you any motive,
nevertheless, I shall suggest to you, will carry you almost
irresistibly to the conclusion that in spite of aU the happi-
ness of that little household, in spite of everything that
one knows about the relations of these people, on the
night of January 20th of this year this woman was mur-
dered by her husband.

You will hear that sometimes on Mondays, and pos-
sibly some other days, the prisoner was in the habit of
visiting a cafe in North John Street, called the City Cafe,
because he was a member of a chess club that used to
meet there to play chess, I think, once a fortnight. The
club, I think, was called the Central Chess Club. It had
no telephone number of its own ; it merely met there,
and that was the place of their fortnightly meetings. On
January 19th, which was a Monday, about 7.15 to 7.20,
a telephone message came through to the club, to the
caf(6, the number of which is Bank 3851. This message
was a message making an appointment for the prisoner
to meet a man the next night at half past seven, at an
address two or three miles from his house ; the name was
Qualtrough ; the address was 25 Menlove Gardens East.
He was not in the club, and the message was taken by
the captain of the club, a Mr. Beattie. We know, as a
matter of fact, where the message came from. In the
ordinary way, if you telephoned and got through at once
it would not be easy, I think it might not be possible, to
trace the origin of the call ; but in this particular case some
difficulty was experienced by the person ringing up from

While skimming through though, I found this from the defence:

Miss Hill was not telling the truth when she said she
saw Wallace in conversation with a man on his return to
the house. That man, if he existed, must be perfectly
innocent, and would come forward, and Wallace had no
reason to conceal it. He would be wanting it known that
he had got back.

I disagree with this statement! There's actually no saying that man was innocent, and if he had any hand in the matter at all then Wallace would certainly conceal it. Actually I find it odd how Wallace hesitated when asked if he had spoken to anyone on the way home (the answer sounded almost like he was hedging his bets or thinking of how to answer). The person Lily Hall described matches the description of Marsden, a man who was "at home with flu" and barely even investigated for whatever reason. The only thing about Lily's statement is that she said she isn't sure who went in what direction, which discredits her a bit...

As for other often discarded evidence, I also believe that the neighbors heard a thud. I don't think they would lie about that.

As for the mackintosh, I would have assumed Julia would own SOMETHING to keep herself warm in the cold, a jacket of some kind surely? Using her husband's seems odd, and the way it was placed suggests it was not worn on her, but perhaps over one shoulder or something of that nature. Why? I'm not sure, it's quite peculiar. A mackintosh is definitely not the most comfortable thing to wear - quite the opposite lol. Had it been raining? Was she going to dry it by the fireplace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'm glad you're enjoying the thread - let's keep it this way! I am happy to change my ratings in an attempt to get a consensus where we can; we will disagree on some points later but at least we will know where and why.

1) 0
2) 5
3) 3

How about these as a revised scoring?

To be fair to Beattie, he wanted to get back to his chess game. Those most guilty of not asking the right questions were the police on SO many issues, including Marsden. Roger Wilkes could have probed more with Parkes (but Parkes was ill).

Sure we can go for that. Though in terms of the accomplice theory you propose, I'd put #2 at something more like a 7. It eliminates so many risks/leaps of faith and the suspect (e.g. Parry) would have a cast iron alibi.

And hang on a sec, if Beattie was already playing chess, does this mean Wallace arrived at the club later than expected? If so this will support your theory of Parry as the caller and I'll explain why.

[MoriartyGardensEast]

Roger Wilkes could have probed more with Parkes (but Parkes was ill)

Yeah and Lily Hall was not ill and it was right after the murder not 50 years later.

Yet you changed your theory in book 1 to book 2 from the one that supports Hall's testimony to the one that supports Parkes randomly. (Clearly Parry and Accomplice is designed to reconcile the fact Parry has an alibi with Parkes testimony.) What gives?

Not saying I think Hall was necessarily correct, and the Parry, Marsden, Wallace theory, at least the way Gannon tells it, falls short of the mark for sure.

But I am unclear as to why you believe Parkes but do not believe Lily Hall.

[RodCrosby]

"But in the room where they did sleep a very curious thing was found. You remember that there were said to be missing from downstairs. Upstairs, in a vase on the mantelpiece in the bedroom that they used, were five Treasury notes, and on one of them was blood."
Hemmerde KC, opening speech for the Crown

[WallaceWackedHer]

"But in the room where they did sleep a very curious thing was found. You remember that there were said to be missing from downstairs. Upstairs, in a vase on the mantelpiece in the bedroom that they used, were five Treasury notes, and on one of them was blood."
Hemmerde KC, opening speech for the Crown

Ah right, the document is laid out in a really strange way (think it's a robotic interpretation of a book scan) so I missed that.

Edit: Just found out he said "WE" have not been in this room for 2 weeks. My bad.