Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

No the vase was in the middle bedroom, where they slept.

The disorder was in the front bedroom, which Julia seemed to have used for her clothes, hats, and perhaps as a kind of boudoir.

Most authors now concur that the disorder there was due simply to Julia performing some household chores, taking off a bedsheet to mend it.

[WallaceWackedHer]

No the vase was in the middle bedroom, where they slept.

The disorder was in the front bedroom, which Julia seemed to have used for her clothes, hats, and perhaps as a kind of boudoir.

Most authors now concur that the disorder was due simply to Julia performing some household chores, taking off a bedsheet to mend it.

You are correct, I was mistaken.

I've been doing some reading around and I have just seen that Wallace arrived at the chess club almost too late, after 7:45 it is said players could be penalized, Wallace arrived right on the dot, and Antony said Beattie was already playing chess. Do you know if this is true?

[RodCrosby]

Yes, Wallace arrived "about 7.45pm", or just-in-time (assuming the rules were strictly enforced, which I somehow doubt). But I'd hazard many people have arriving just-in-time down to a tee, for a short, simple journey they have done hundreds of times...

Example, I played in the Merseyside Quiz League in the 1980s. It had a similar 8.45pm start "rule", else the game could be forfeit.
i never recall anyone claiming under the rule, unless it was a complete no show. It would be considered "unsportsmanlike" to do so...

Even in the event of a no-show, it appears that Wallace and his fellow chess-fiends were content to bumble on, and play a missed game another time....
Therefore to suggest there was some kind of automatic disqualification for being a minute late is ludicrous....

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, Wallace arrived "about 7.45pm", or just-in-time (assuming the rules were strictly enforced, which I somehow doubt). But I'd hazard many people have arriving just-in-time down to a tee, for a short, simple journey they have done hundreds of times...

Example, I played in the Merseyside Quiz League in the 1980s. It had a similar 8.45pm start "rule", else the game could be forfeit.
i never recall anyone claiming under the rule. It would be considered "unsportsmanlike" to do so...

Hm okay... I considered that a mastermind Wallace told Parry to make the call, but either Parry called too early, or Wallace arrived later than he expected for whatever reason. Like he wanted the call to come just before he walked in. Then again, without the foresight that the call would be traced, I suppose it becomes a moot point... And as a side note, in terms of the voice recognition, as I understand it, Wallace was only just recovering from a bout of flu? I don't doubt he would have disguised his voice anyway, but flu on top of an attempted voice disguise would be even better of a cover... Does anyone know if Beattie and Wallace had ever spoken over the phone before? Everyone knows people sound quite different on the phone, even using their NORMAL voice, and that's with modern technology.

I find it hard to reconcile a few things in this case, like Wallace's odd behavior and faltering testimonies (even if he was innocent, I think many can agree he did as much as an innocent man possibly could to make it appear as though he's guilty), the sighting by Lily Hall, and the thudding sound heard by neighbors.

Also as I said, I find the accomplice theory as it is right now almost impossible. I'd rather it be rewritten as two men in the home, but still the scene is quite consistent with staged robberies.

I've tried to assume guilt and follow Wallace's own indications (as he's the only suspect I see questioned on trial - which is dumb)... We see that Wallace hesitates or is iffy on a few key issues, and IF he's guilty it would mean that in his mind these things are incriminating:

1) The mackintosh. Many details including when he first saw it.

2) The time Beattie received the call at the club ("can you not get closer than that?"). And did he say that before he even knew the call had been traced and logged by an operator? By the way, for no reason he absolutely refused to elaborate, even on trial, why exactly he wanted Beattie's accuracy on that particular matter so badly.

3) His seeming expectation of "west" when given by Beattie, as though he either knew east didn't exist, or knew that the message was meant to say west (which is better for both Wallace and unknown assailants). I mean this is a man who says he knows Liverpool really well.

4) The light being visible from outside. He claimed light could not escape through the curtains and REFUSED to allow the officer present to test it.

5) Which doors were bolted, and general issues surrounding the doors.

6) Whether or not the killer was still in the house.

7) Whether he spoke to anyone on the way back from the tram... He was REALLY dodgy on this one, before he even knew someone had testified. His answer is like he's "hedging his bets" or thinking about how he needs to answer.

IMO points 2, 3, 4, and 7 are the ones I find most compelling to think of.

---

However, I also believe Parry could have made the call, and also that Marsden could have been involved in some way (due to Lily Hall's sighting of a stout man around 5'7, and his pathetic "alibi"). I still believe Wallace knew something honestly. There's a reason so many people think he was guilty beyond just that he COULD have potentially done it/been involved. It's just about making all the jigsaw pieces fit...

I wouldn't mind seeing you come up with an altered version of the accomplice theory where two men arrive at the house by the way, or even an accomplice theory where murder is the motive.

[RodCrosby]

If you think the accomplice theory is "almost impossible", how is Julia admitting TWO strange men any more likely?

As to some minor points, if this was an innocent man who found himself in the middle of a nightmare, the Judge had this to say

"The prisoner, as far as I can follow, never disowned the mackintosh ; he drew Mrs. Johnston's attention to the mackintosh, and said it was his own ; he mentioned it to Police Constable Williams, and said it was his mackintosh ; and then he mentioned it to Superintendent Moore, who said he did it in a way which showed that he had some doubt whether it was his or not. One must be careful not to pay too much attention to these things. He had been, on that night, interviewed, and, when reference is made to discrepancies in his statement, I cannot help thinking it is wonderful how his statements are as lucid and consistent as they have been. I will refer to this later, but you will remember that he made a long statement that night, between twelve and one, and at other places at different times ; he gave an account to Williams, the police constable, a very long account to Superintendent Moore, and other statements. I have read them through very carefully, and it appears to me that it is very striking that they are as accurate as they are, and as consistent as they are."
Mr Justice Wright, summing-up in Rex v Wallace

[ColdCaseJury]

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.

Hi WWH

Ah, if only we knew what time Wallace usually arrived! Caird would have known, probably Beattie, too. One of the questions anyone with a degree of natural curiosity would have asked, but not the police it would appear. I think many people on the forum would say if Wallace arrived later than usual it's because he made the call; although, you would have thought he would have factored this in.

Assume Wallace innocent and that he left at his usual time of "about 7.15". Assume 3 minutes either side, he would be arriving between 7.36 pm and 7.47 pm (the latter assumes a maximum wait of 5 minutes due to the No. 13 tram also running). Say about 7.40 pm? I don't know if this is significant for you.

Back to our evaluation. This is a theory-free examination of the evidence (as far as that is possible). We make one key assumption: the caller is either Parry or Wallace. I placed No. 2 at 5, based on your feedback, because Wallace had fewer options than Parry, but a phone call was a good option for Parry as I explained. Let's move on to the next three for Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

If you think the accomplice theory is "almost impossible", how is Julia admitting TWO strange men any more likely?

It's not almost impossible because of her admitting someone into the home, it's almost impossible for the events suggested to transpire as they did unless there were two, or unless the first action was to kill Julia.

Also the first man in the house could unlock the back for the second man theoretically.

The robbery screams of being staged. As far as people know Julia had no enemies. That's an assumption not necessarily the truth. For me unless there were two people in that house aside from Julia, the motive or first step of the plan was murder.

[RodCrosby]

Also the first man in the house could unlock the back for the second man theoretically.

Yes, I'd considered that, but three people being involved (caller + 2 accomplices) seems less likely than just two. And it adds more complexity.
I think one accomplice could have achieved what I propose.

Successfully rifle the box, but clumsily drop some coins.
Discovery by Julia of the coins, leading to confrontation and death....

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH

Ah, if only we knew what time Wallace usually arrived! Caird would have known, probably Beattie, too. One of the questions anyone with a degree of natural curiosity would have asked, but not the police it would appear. I think many people on the forum would say if Wallace arrived later than usual it's because he made the call; although, you would have thought he would have factored this in.

Assume Wallace innocent and that he left at his usual time of "about 7.15". Assume 3 minutes either side, he would be arriving between 7.36 pm and 7.47 pm (the latter assumes a maximum wait of 5 minutes due to the No. 13 tram also running). Say about 7.40 pm? I don't know if this is significant for you.

Back to our evaluation. This is a theory-free examination of the evidence (as far as that is possible). We make one key assumption: the caller is either Parry or Wallace. I placed No. 2 at 5, based on your feedback, because Wallace had fewer options than Parry, but a phone call was a good option for Parry as I explained. Let's move on to the next three for Wallace?

I think he would have factored it in as well, although he has to make the call when he knows club members will be there to receive it. Say he legitimately had issues with the phone box and it was actually faulty as rumored? Which set him back on his arrival time. Nobody can say exactly when he left his home, perhaps he arrived at the booth with more time to spare, and malfunctioning and a lot of fiddling took up precious time.

We know Parry visited his girlfriend who was near the phone booth (where did Parry live?), and potentially trying to scam a call is like him - though the box was meant to be f'd up. Also we don't know if the caller wanted to timestamp the call with another witness by purposefully going through an operator.

What was Marsden's alibi for the time the call was made?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, I'd considered that, but three people being involved (caller + 2 accomplices) seems less likely than just two. And it adds more complexity.
I think one accomplice could have achieved what I propose.

Successfully rifle the box, but clumsily drop some coins.
Discovery by Julia of the coins, leading to confrontation and death....

The issue with the confrontation is that nobody heard it. Were there even coins in that box by the way?

Everything suggests Julia was not thinking she was in any danger. It seems the blow was totally unexpected to her. Literally everything about the events suggests she did not feel she was in danger when hit. If it was any other crime and the same thing happened, I think anyone could conclude with almost total certainty that Julia felt safe when she was struck down.

Even without the aspect of sound (which is huge in terraced housing).

I find 2 accomplices more likely even though it might seem simpler on the surface to only have two conspirators. Her hearing a sound in the kitchen and being struck down before she can investigate it avoids so many of the gaping plot holes involved in the theory if it's just one.

[RodCrosby]

What was Marsden's alibi for the time the call was made?

He was "in bed with flu" on the night of the murder, although there seem to be no further details anywhere in the police files. He seems to have been eliminated instantly by the Police.

Nevertheless, John Gannon builds a grand conspiracy out of thin air, with Marsden as the killer....

[RodCrosby]

The issue with the confrontation is that nobody heard it. Were there even coins in that box by the way?
Yes, according to Wallace, there were coins in the box

Everything suggests Julia was not thinking she was in any danger. It seems the blow was totally unexpected to her. Literally everything about the events suggests she did not feel she was in danger when hit. If it was any other crime and the same thing happened, I think anyone could conclude with almost total certainty that Julia felt safe when she was struck down.
With respect, many, many victims show signs of being taken by surprise

Even without the aspect of sound (which is huge in terraced housing).
Whoever killed Julia, no-one heard anything obvious

I find 2 accomplices more likely even though it might seem simpler on the surface to only have two conspirators. Her hearing a sound in the kitchen and being struck down before she can investigate it avoids so many of the gaping plot holes involved in the theory if it's just one.
It's not impossible. It just seems (to me) an unnecessary multiplication of perps.

But do carry on. It's clear you are approaching the case honestly, without preconceptions or prejudices.

[WallaceWackedHer]

He was "in bed with flu" on the night of the murder, although there seem to be no further details anywhere in the police files. He seems to have been eliminated instantly by the Police.

Nevertheless, John Gannon builds a grand conspiracy out of thin air, with Marsden as the killer....

He ruined his theory with nonsense about gigolos as well. Like a 70 year old incontinent woman is hiring gigolos wtf? It's more likely Wallace was bisexual than that...

I mean the guy never had kids, happily married a woman 20 years older than him, and I read some rumors which sounded truthful. And the whole "sexually odd" comment by Parry of course. Calling him "sexually odd" is a very weird comment to make... He was only in his 50s I'm sure he still had sexual desires, but 70 year old incontinent women don't like to have sex, so where was he getting his fill?

With a theory based around Parry and Marsden like that I'd recommending going the bisexual route rather than gigolo. We know what a taboo it was back then. What if Julia found out and he killed to preserve his secret? It wouldn't be the first time this exact thing has happened.

I kinda believe Lily Hall and that thud the neighbor's heard. What can we make out of the situation if that sighting and the timing of the thud are true? If Wallace had masterminded it, he may have assumed the pathologists would get a more accurate time using rectal temp and exonerate him totally, even with signs of alibi mongering etc. and had someone do the dirty work for him, while sending police off on a wild goose chase for a non-existent man. I mean the call distracts police from investigating the ACTUAL CRIME. They become too caught up in the call and the mysterious alias etc.

And if Wallace did it, there are easy ways to shave a lot of time off time between murder and leaving the home with a helper. E.g. suppose someone was willing to help but NOT kill, all it takes is for Wallace to kill Julia, wash his hands in the toilet unless gloves were used, change his clothes, and leave everything else there for a helper to pick up (and maybe for the helper to do random BS like take the cupboard door off and throw **** around in the spare bedroom) and clean up after him.

Or if Wallace acted alone, where's the evidence there was even a burglary? One broken cupboard and a ****in' few pillows thrown about which could have been like that already lol. And were there the same amount of notes found in the vase as was missing from the cash box? Just wondering.

[WallaceWackedHer]

But do carry on. It's clear you are approaching the case honestly, without preconceptions or prejudices.

Yeah the issue I have is like I wrote initially. Say coins have fallen and she's caught the thief, the natural instinct is gonna be for her to exclaim something loudly.

The next natural instinct would be to go for the door.

To find you're being burgled, remain silent, then walk back into the parlor to mess with the fireplace, and then allow the burglar to come up behind you. It just seems absurd. Unless she knew who the burglar was he'd likely have made a run for it when caught, or he'd have brought his own weapon if he knew there was a chance of things going wrong. Or at least grabbed a weapon like a knife from the kitchen not took a chance on the parlor. It must be said it takes a lot of suspension of disbelief to think it would play out that way... I believe both the defence and prosecution settled on Julia having been dispatched first and foremost, I may be wrong.

Anyway in a true event of finding a thief, I would expect her to have shouted upon discovery, to have been killed in the hallway or kitchen, and for the killer to have used his own weapon (probably something like a knife). The silence of the killing is the most damning evidence against the burglary-coming-first idea IMO. As soon as the burglar is caught, there's very likely to be a lot of noise or Julia going for the door. Also I'd expect a struggle etc.

The more I think about it the more it seems like an assassination honestly. That doesn't necessarily implicate anyone. But I really do believe that. The panicked fleeing killer idea is mostly crushed by the fact the lights were turned off, it seems he wasn't so panicked, so why not swipe some more very obvious items?

If that cash box was found on the floor I think it'd be even more of an obvious staged crime, given the lack of things taken (only one item being stolen and no sign of forced entry is typical of staged robberies - blatant forced entry is too, like smashed windows, but these are terraced homes so that idea is bust).

[RodCrosby]

"sexually odd" in 1966 [when Parry said it] would be code for homosexual.

But clearly, many geeky, timid men, who are not rampantly heterosexual have been wrongly labelled as such.
It's an easy accusation to make...

Or it may indeed be true. [How Parry would know for certain is an open question]

But many homosexual men have indeed married, and even had children!

I've never heard of murder ensuing from such complications...