Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I feel he may have thought it was your voice in retrospect. You should ask your gardener if thinking back he now realizes it was your voice.

Parry theories are based pretty much entirely on the fact he faked an alibi, and parents begging for himtp be sneaked out of the country etc. Yes it makes sense if he was tricked into calling under a false pretense... Or if he legit wanted Julia dead (murder motive) rofl but that seems ridiculously unlikely for so many reasons... The former is more likely by a long shot... IMO the silence and Julia's presence in the parlor is a VERY difficult to overcome obstacle (when in conjunction) in the idea of a burglary with only one perpetrator in the home.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi All,

I haven't managed to catch up with this thread yet, but thought I'd mention an incident which happened to me yesterday, concerning voice recognition over the phone.

My landline rang and the conversation went as follows:

CAZ [in my normal voice] : Hello?

MY GARDENER : It's Martin. Would you like me to do your garden?

CAZ [laughing] : You're already doing it. I was about to put the kettle on for your cuppa!

MARTIN : Why are you laughing? I'm at Caroline's, so I thought I might nip next door and do your garden when I'm finished here.

CAZ : I am Caroline! You rang my number by mistake.

MARTIN : Oh I'm sorry. I thought you were Molly.

CAZ : No problem. See you shortly.

A minute later the phone rang again:

CAZ : Hello?

MARTIN : Oh hello Molly. I'm at Caroline's, do you want me to do your garden next?

CAZ : It's still Caroline!

MARTIN : Oh God I'm so sorry. Let's see... ah yes, I have Molly's number now.

CAZ : Good, I'll make the tea.

Now Martin has been doing my garden and Molly's for a year now, visiting us every few weeks. I don't think my voice sounds anything like Molly's. Shortly before he phoned me the first time, we had been chatting in the garden, going through what needed doing, and earlier he had phoned to find out when it was convenient to pop round. Yet despite all this, he had no idea it was me and not Molly talking when he rang from the end of the garden, not once but twice - because he simply wasn't expecting to hear my voice.

There are two very simple reasons why Beattie would have had no idea at the time that Qualtrough could have been Wallace: 1) the very fact that Qualtrough was asking for Wallace and 2) the voice would not have sounded like Wallace, whether it was him or not. Wallace would have been doing his level best to disguise his normal voice if he was planning to kill his wife, in which case he must have been confident he could fool Beattie. Additionally, we don't know how recently Beattie had spoken to Wallace over the phone, if ever, but clearly he would have used his normal voice on every other occasion.

What Beattie couldn't do was to 'recognise' the voice as Wallace's in retrospect. He was as sure as he could be, when questioned later, that it hadn't been Wallace on the phone, but he could not have ruled out the possibility. These days voice recognition can be used to confirm someone's identity over the phone, as the human voice is unique to the individual, like a fingerprint. If the Qualtrough conversation had been recorded and Beattie had listened again, knowing that Wallace was the prime suspect for the caller and the killer, he might have had second thoughts, or he might have been even more certain it wasn't him. But the problem would then have been how much his recollection was being influenced by a personal belief in the man's guilt or innocence. Put simply, if the voice was Wallace's he was almost certainly a scheming murderer; if not, Wallace was off the hook. So Beattie presumably believed in Wallace's innocence, or at least had doubts about his guilt, when saying it was not him on the phone. He couldn't even admit the possibility that he might have been fooled [and let's face it, nobody likes to admit that], if he didn't want to help put a noose round Wallace's neck.

In short, Beattie believed what he believed about Wallace and that phone call, and that alone amounts to reasonable doubt in my mind. But he could have been wrong and he could have been fooled, and I suspect he was, because the various Parry theories just don't add up.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks for that Molly....er Caz. Sorry but you type just like Molly. Welcome back. Where ya been?

Really good points. As you said 1. The voice was asking for Wallace and 2. It wouldn’t have sounded like Wallace’s voice.

We can perhaps add the fact that, as a serious businessman in 1931, the idea of a prank phone call would have been an alien one to Samuel Beattie and this call was about business. These days if we get an ‘unusual’ call our natural first thought is “hang on, is this Caz winding me up?” This wouldn’t have been the case with Beattie. And you’ve just shown with your example how even someone that’s completely familiar with you’re voice can get it wrong. Even someone that you’d been speaking to face-to-face minutes earlier!

Personally ive never had an issue with the ‘Beattie didn’t recognise Wallace’s voice’ argument.

[caz]

Hi All,

I haven't managed to catch up with this thread yet, but thought I'd mention an incident which happened to me yesterday, concerning voice recognition over the phone.

My landline rang and the conversation went as follows:

CAZ [in my normal voice] : Hello?

MY GARDENER : It's Martin. Would you like me to do your garden?

CAZ [laughing] : You're already doing it. I was about to put the kettle on for your cuppa!

MARTIN : Why are you laughing? I'm at Caroline's, so I thought I might nip next door and do your garden when I'm finished here.

CAZ : I am Caroline! You rang my number by mistake.

MARTIN : Oh I'm sorry. I thought you were Molly.

CAZ : No problem. See you shortly.

A minute later the phone rang again:

CAZ : Hello?

MARTIN : Oh hello Molly. I'm at Caroline's, do you want me to do your garden next?

CAZ : It's still Caroline!

MARTIN : Oh God I'm so sorry. Let's see... ah yes, I have Molly's number now.

CAZ : Good, I'll make the tea.

Now Martin has been doing my garden and Molly's for a year now, visiting us every few weeks. I don't think my voice sounds anything like Molly's. Shortly before he phoned me the first time, we had been chatting in the garden, going through what needed doing, and earlier he had phoned to find out when it was convenient to pop round. Yet despite all this, he had no idea it was me and not Molly talking when he rang from the end of the garden, not once but twice - because he simply wasn't expecting to hear my voice.

There are two very simple reasons why Beattie would have had no idea at the time that Qualtrough could have been Wallace: 1) the very fact that Qualtrough was asking for Wallace and 2) the voice would not have sounded like Wallace, whether it was him or not. Wallace would have been doing his level best to disguise his normal voice if he was planning to kill his wife, in which case he must have been confident he could fool Beattie. Additionally, we don't know how recently Beattie had spoken to Wallace over the phone, if ever, but clearly he would have used his normal voice on every other occasion.

What Beattie couldn't do was to 'recognise' the voice as Wallace's in retrospect. He was as sure as he could be, when questioned later, that it hadn't been Wallace on the phone, but he could not have ruled out the possibility. These days voice recognition can be used to confirm someone's identity over the phone, as the human voice is unique to the individual, like a fingerprint. If the Qualtrough conversation had been recorded and Beattie had listened again, knowing that Wallace was the prime suspect for the caller and the killer, he might have had second thoughts, or he might have been even more certain it wasn't him. But the problem would then have been how much his recollection was being influenced by a personal belief in the man's guilt or innocence. Put simply, if the voice was Wallace's he was almost certainly a scheming murderer; if not, Wallace was off the hook. So Beattie presumably believed in Wallace's innocence, or at least had doubts about his guilt, when saying it was not him on the phone. He couldn't even admit the possibility that he might have been fooled [and let's face it, nobody likes to admit that], if he didn't want to help put a noose round Wallace's neck.

In short, Beattie believed what he believed about Wallace and that phone call, and that alone amounts to reasonable doubt in my mind. But he could have been wrong and he could have been fooled, and I suspect he was, because the various Parry theories just don't add up.

Love,

Caz
X

[WallaceWackedHer]

I can't agree , we will have to agree to disagree as they say. I take it your piano wasn't in the Seldom used front parlour? And I would think your teacher would be Using theirs quite frequently . My grandma had one, an upright , and a neighbour across the street also. Those piano's always had the lid down over the keys when not in use. However, C'est la vie.

It's at the back of the front room (it's basically two rooms separated by stairs, but one big room). The lid is left up even during periods of many weeks when I don't bother to touch it because I'm busy doing other stuff or whatever... I don't think the lid has been down once in quite a few years. Especially with loose sheets clearing the shelf off can be annoying (hard to organize loose sheets) so those tend to always be on there. Even books though, because you end up stacking book in front of book lol.

So I can't necessarily accept it as proof of anything, since clearly not everyone puts the lid down. And my piano teacher only used one of the pianos, the other was pretty sh*t, I don't know why she even had it... I played on it once over like, almost a decade, it sucked... I think it was always open though.

They should have checked the keys for dust. They CAN get a bit dusty sometimes if it's not touched for like, months on end. If there was dust that would prove it was always left open.

[moste]

I can't agree , we will have to agree to disagree as they say. I take it your piano wasn't in the Seldom used front parlour? And I would think your teacher would be Using theirs quite frequently . My grandma had one, an upright , and a neighbour across the street also. Those piano's always had the lid down over the keys when not in use. However, C'est la vie.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Does anyone see anything of interest in the fact that the piano lid was up? 9 times out of 10 a pianist would close the lid when finished with a musical session.

Not at all, I have played and owned a piano for 15 years and the lid is always up (with music on the stand), so I can't put any stock into that. I THINK my piano teacher also always had the lid up on her two pianos.

After a while it just becomes hassle to close the lid and clear the shelf thing. I suppose untidy Julia certainly wouldn't bother.

[moste]

F*ck what sort of raincoat has no hood?! I was thinking that would've provided significantly more coverage. Dang...

Whilst wearing this particular piece of attire , a man would normally wear a trilby hat to protect against the rain .

[moste]

Does anyone see anything of interest in the fact that the piano lid was up? 9 times out of 10 a pianist would close the lid when finished with a musical session.

[moste]

Doesnt this count heavily against a connection as Julia was at home. The downstairs lights would have been on letting a potential burglar know that this house was a no-go.

People would leave a light burning that was visible from outside when they were going out, to make it appear that someone was home. My folks did when I was growing up and we lived in a considerably safer area than the Wallaces I would wager.
Also did Wallace not say to the constable 'we always leave a light on in there, refering to a room upstairs? I think the problem was, the average burglar knew the 'leave a light on trick '.

[WallaceWackedHer]

No hood. It would have looked something like this I assume.

https://www.google.com/search?q=1930...Cj8gpNz3xPIznM

F*ck what sort of raincoat has no hood?! I was thinking that would've provided significantly more coverage. Dang...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just curious, the jacket was a raincoat right? Did it have a hood?

No hood. It would have looked something like this I assume.

https://www.google.com/search?q=1930...Cj8gpNz3xPIznM

[WallaceWackedHer]

Just curious, the jacket was a raincoat right? Did it have a hood?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Doesnt this count heavily against a connection as Julia was at home. The downstairs lights would have been on letting a potential burglar know that this house was a no-go.

If the scenes are truly as identical as claimed, then it was almost definitely staged to be the same on purpose. I think lights weren't visible from the back, but still... My thought was that it was staged to look the same to confuse police and make them think the housebreaker did it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The burglar always entered when the occupants were absent, in all 20 to 30 break-ins, so he (or they) would have to know when a home is empty

Doesnt this count heavily against a connection as Julia was at home. The downstairs lights would have been on letting a potential burglar know that this house was a no-go.

[WallaceWackedHer]

The problem is that when someone makes an assertion then the burden of proof is with them. Sleman’s has posited a theory which is based on an alleged confession. So really we need corroboration for how closely the crime scene’s resembled each other. Can we be sure that a duplicate key was used? Couldn’t the Housebreaker just have picked the locks in some way? Couldn’t he just have had a set of skeleton keys which fit random doors? I don’t know. So many questions in this case.

Yeah well the only way that will happen is if someone sees the files, or finds information about that specific set of burglaries. Or if someone can get in touch with Tom and ask where he got the info.

I think it was determined a dupe or skeleton key was used. All the newspaper reports say as much. "Random doors" I don't think so... The burglar always entered when the occupants were absent, in all 20 to 30 break-ins, so he (or they) would have to know when a home is empty. Really, we just need extensive information on these burglaries otherwise there's a lot of guesswork and theorizing needed.

And I don't really believe the confession, it seems implausible. However, the fact he really had been at (and died at) that nursing home, and the fact that the person who relayed the alleged confession knew very weird specific details (like the name of the cat, and the fact it had been missing) gives it weight... I don't think it happened as per the confession, but I feel like John really did say SOMETHING... I think perhaps Tom took a small bit of info he was given and then turned it into a full series of fictionalized events.

Then again, even if it is entirely falsified, it does not make the Johnstons any less suspicious. But again this is where really you need to see the files, because I want to see all statements made by the Johnstons (ALL of them, including everyone else who was in that home, as well as Phyllis and Norah's boyfriend). I contacted Merseyside Police but they said I'm "not entitled" to the case files. So if anyone knows how other authors have got copies of it I'm all ears... Antony said he would put this info on his site but nothing has been added yet, so I'm considering trying to get a copy of the files. More than likely, the case is very easily solveable if you have ALL the information in front of you, rather than the tidbits authors bother to supply to support their own ideas. Also more than likely with all the statements etc. you could either raise someone as more suspicious, or rule another person out.

I did not know the police took the fireplace out.