Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Good thinking Moste! Always a man prepared to think outside the box.

    I had considered the idea of Wallace’'s plan festering for months before he pulled the trigger, but never developed the point the way you have:- maybe Wallace aborted the plan on a number of occasions until the moment was right. That is an interesting idea and requires more thought on my part. Are there any indications of a prior attempt?

    However, I think you will concede the following: if Wallace were guilty, then once he made the Qualtrough phone call his ship was launched and if for some unseen reason like a late milkboy he to abort the launching, it could never be re-launched. It was all or nothing.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      Where’s Rod

      in imaginary land with our sneak thief, Qualtrough

      Comment


      • Originally posted by moste View Post

        I figure Wallace concieved this plot quite a while back , at least weeks before ,maybe longer . For all we know he may have had the wheels in motion to carry out the murder and had to abort the plan for whatever reason . I would say he was very meticulous in his preparations, and anything on the night that might have happened that he wasn't happy with ,the mission would be terminated. Take the Q,call as an example, if someone had approached the phone box or he had been involved unexpectedly with anyone ,'mission terminated' just about all of his movements to my mind were calculated . People say he was lucky the way the Johnstones appeared on their way out, I think he took this as fortunate, as his plan all along was to rouse a neighbour to witness his apparent distress at not being able to access his home ,and then witness the discovery.
        People give him too much credit lol. He was a terrible chess player, and in this case Wallace is largely implicated by himself and his changing stories and unnatural behaviors.

        But aside from that look at the crime: Who robs a cash box and leaves cash still inside, then puts the same amount that was apparently stolen into a vase upstairs, with blood smears. It's Three Stooges tier.

        What robber randomly pulls a cupboard door off for no reason?

        It's probably the worst staged burglary of all time. It's so bad that it honestly seems like he was framed. It's just too hard to believe anyone could do such a terrible job of staging a burglary gone wrong.

        Evidently his meticulous planning was about as good as his chess moves.

        Since learning new info about the "burglary" it seems 1000x more likely than I first suspected that the crime scene was staged.

        Did anyone at chess club really hate him or Julia or something? Has anyone ever even seriously considered he might have been framed? It's hard to believe anyone could do such a poor job of staging unless on purpose.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

          People give him too much credit lol. He was a terrible chess player, and in this case Wallace is largely implicated by himself and his changing stories and unnatural behaviors.

          But aside from that look at the crime: Who robs a cash box and leaves cash still inside, then puts the same amount that was apparently stolen into a vase upstairs, with blood smears. It's Three Stooges tier.

          What robber randomly pulls a cupboard door off for no reason?

          It's probably the worst staged burglary of all time. It's so bad that it honestly seems like he was framed. It's just too hard to believe anyone could do such a terrible job of staging a burglary gone wrong.

          Evidently his meticulous planning was about as good as his chess moves.

          Since learning new info about the "burglary" it seems 1000x more likely than I first suspected that the crime scene was staged.

          Did anyone at chess club really hate him or Julia or something? Has anyone ever even seriously considered he might have been framed? It's hard to believe anyone could do such a poor job of staging unless on purpose.

          I don't think he was a terrible chess player, just average. I do believe he figured he had done enough to confound the dopes who would be investigating this crime, red herrings and such. Rather than anyone hating him at the club , how bout someone loving him ? Best motive to date for me. Speculatively speaking of course.
          Last edited by moste; 02-09-2019, 06:11 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by moste View Post


            I don't think he was a terrible chess player, just average. I do believe he figured he had done enough to confound the dopes who would be investigating this crime, red herrings and such. Rather than anyone hating him at the club , how bout someone loving him ?
            Yes of course something regarding love should be explored.

            The problem is that probably everyone from back then is dead now, and I don't know how comprehensive the full police file is... So if Wallace was gay, apart from Parry's comment and a blog post, we can never know for sure if he was gay, bi, or straight.

            Even just a female lover Julia found out about would be another option - or a male lover Julia had.

            Wallace in his early 50s still had sexual desires, maybe Julia did not given her age, who knows.

            Can you imagine the nightmare of being stuck married to a wife who thinks she's too good for you, is a compulsive fantasist liar, is like 20 years older than she claimed, and then waking up every night to the smell (and possibly even the dampness) of urine, while maybe knowing yourself you didn't have much longer to live.

            It's enough to drive anyone mad. If he was the killer I'm surprised he didn't snap sooner. He had dreams of making it big like his brother and instead he's a monumental failure stuck in a p*ssed bed every night.

            Comment


            • Sorry to be boring....or shall we say persistent but I’d like to resubmit an earlier post for opinions if any.


              To add to the ‘ignored parlour’ point I’d like to add 4 more.

              1. We have the ‘problem’ with the backdoor. I think WWH posted earlier that it was bolted? It was actually the front door which was alleged to have been bolted but we only have Wallace’s word for this as Mr Johnston couldn’t recall if he actually unbolted it to let the police in? And so, the backdoor. The lock was faulty but William had never previously been unable to get in. So the question is an obvious one. What are the chances that the first time ever that William can’t get in is on the very night that his wife was lying bludgeoned to death in the Parlour? Astronomically small I’d say. It’s been suggested that Wallace might have struggled because he was panicked and nervous? Well the famously stoical Wallace certainly showed no other examples of this nervousness and panic. And because he was trying to give the impression that someone was inside the house Wallace never mentions being nervous. He never says anything like “my hands were shaking so badly that I could use the key.” In fact Johnston offered to go and get his key to try the door (Wallace again never said “it’s not the lock it’s the fact that I’m nervous’ or words to that effect.) Of course Wallace wouldn’t have wanted Johnston to put in his key and say “that’s strange, it opens easily for me,” and so, lo and behold, the door magically opens for Wallace.

              This points toward Wallace.

              2. The light are all off. Why would a sneak-thief/killer have turned them off? It’s been suggested that it was because the killer didn’t want anyone to see the body in the Parlour from outside. This nonsense needn’t detain anyone. Those Edwardian/Victorian type heavy curtains could have contained the light from a lighthouse! This suggestion can be dismissed. We can come up with no logical reason why a killer would turn off the lights causing him to walk around an unfamiliar house in the dark. Can we come up with a reasonable reason why a guilty Wallace might have turned off the lights? Yes we can.

              A guilty Wallace is following his own plan which ends with him discovering Julia’s body later in the evening. What could have completely scuppered his plan and pointed the finger directly at him? An unexpected visitor. Say someone like his sister-in-law or his nephew or anyone that knew them. What could have been worse than, after Wallace left at 6.45 according to him’ than a visitor arrives at 7.10 say. They knock the door but get no response. The lights are on though. “Why aren’t they answering?” (If it was Amy, for example, she knew that Wallace was going out on business and that Julia was alone in the house.) They decide to raise the alarm and the police are called and they have Wallace leaving at 6.45 and Julia dead by 7.10. It would have been totally logical and understandable for a guilty Wallace to have turned off the light.

              This points toward Wallace.

              3. The fact that the killer, covered in blood and with absolutely no reason for caution (apart from fingerprints,) very kindly manages to get not one smidgeon, stain, smear or drop of blood outside of the Parlour. Not on the walls as he brushes past, not on the gas jets as he turns them down, not on the front door as he bolts it, not in the kitchen or the back kitchen. Not on the back door or even the back gate as he made his getaway. Only Wallace would have had to have either cleaned up or used protection against blood spatter (I favour the latter)

              This points toward Wallace.

              4. In a house where the neighbours on both sides can hear the Wallace’s doors closing and where there are neighbours behind curtains a few feet away over the road no one hears or sees our sneak thief arrive and knock on the door. Not only that but, as per the plan, we have to assume a conversation between Julia and Qualtrough of say between 30 seconds and a minute explaining the mix-up with the light from the hall pouring out. Not impossible of course but worth questioning. We might also ask how likely would it have been for a reticent, genteel Victorian/Edwardian lady like Julia to have let a strange man into the house, after dark, whilst William was out? We might ask how the neighbours could have known that William was out as he left via the backdoor? Two things. I’d make the assumption that, in those days, after dark, it would have been more likely for the husband to have answered the door and so Julia answering might suggest that she was alone in the house. Added to this a neighbour would have only had to have observed William returning later to have confirmed this. Can we honestly believe that Julia, born when she was and being the kind of person that she was, wouldn’t have been hyper-conscious of gossip and rumour?

              This at the least casts doubt on a stranger knocking on the door and being admitted, after dark, by Julia who was alone in the house.

              Taken as a whole these point toward a guilty Wallace and away from our sneak-thief. None of the above is ‘misdirection’ or ‘logical fallacy’ as will undoubtedly get parroted in response from a certain quarter.
              Regards

              Herlock



              Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Sorry to be boring....or shall we say persistent but I’d like to resubmit an earlier post for opinions if any.
                The sneak thief theory has almost 0% probability of being the correct answer in my opinion, I don't think you even need to go into much depth to show why... It would honestly have had to play out like a comedy sketch in order to be the right answer given the evidence.

                And just a burglary theory in general seems v. improbable now I've found out even more about the case... Money still left in the cash box, cash box kindly replaced, the same amount that was "stolen" found in a vase upstairs with blood smears, random cupboard door ripped off for no reason whatsoever, easy to snatch valuables not touched, killer coming so unprepared he has to use tools and clothing from the person's home to kill her, no sign of forced entry, no sound made, Julia just chilling in the parlor by the fireplace thinking nothing untoward is going on, no use of the drains, a pretty uncommon M.O. for a real house burglar... Taking everything into account the odds of this being a burglary are incredibly slim.

                By the way did anyone testify as to the time they saw the lights being turned out in the full file?

                If "Qualtrough" turned up, I think Julia would've told him to come back the next day or say her husband will call on him tomorrow or whatever, etc.

                Comment


                • Apart from the cash box being replaced, I would like to see ANY evidence whatsoever that this was a sneak thief attempt. Any. To me it feels like a theory created to get around one tiny inconsistency that doesn't even mean Wallace killed his wife.

                  It is actually less likely than the "Wallace is gay" idea, because you can't PROVE Wallace isn't bisexual/gay, but you CAN prove why a sneak thief theory is completely implausible.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    Sorry to be boring....or shall we say persistent but I’d like to resubmit an earlier post for opinions if any.


                    To add to the ‘ignored parlour’ point I’d like to add 4 more.

                    1. We have the ‘problem’ with the backdoor. I think WWH posted earlier that it was bolted? It was actually the front door which was alleged to have been bolted but we only have Wallace’s word for this as Mr Johnston couldn’t recall if he actually unbolted it to let the police in? And so, the backdoor. The lock was faulty but William had never previously been unable to get in. So the question is an obvious one. What are the chances that the first time ever that William can’t get in is on the very night that his wife was lying bludgeoned to death in the Parlour? Astronomically small I’d say. It’s been suggested that Wallace might have struggled because he was panicked and nervous? Well the famously stoical Wallace certainly showed no other examples of this nervousness and panic. And because he was trying to give the impression that someone was inside the house Wallace never mentions being nervous. He never says anything like “my hands were shaking so badly that I could use the key.” In fact Johnston offered to go and get his key to try the door (Wallace again never said “it’s not the lock it’s the fact that I’m nervous’ or words to that effect.) Of course Wallace wouldn’t have wanted Johnston to put in his key and say “that’s strange, it opens easily for me,” and so, lo and behold, the door magically opens for Wallace.

                    This points toward Wallace.

                    2. The light are all off. Why would a sneak-thief/killer have turned them off? It’s been suggested that it was because the killer didn’t want anyone to see the body in the Parlour from outside. This nonsense needn’t detain anyone. Those Edwardian/Victorian type heavy curtains could have contained the light from a lighthouse! This suggestion can be dismissed. We can come up with no logical reason why a killer would turn off the lights causing him to walk around an unfamiliar house in the dark. Can we come up with a reasonable reason why a guilty Wallace might have turned off the lights? Yes we can.

                    A guilty Wallace is following his own plan which ends with him discovering Julia’s body later in the evening. What could have completely scuppered his plan and pointed the finger directly at him? An unexpected visitor. Say someone like his sister-in-law or his nephew or anyone that knew them. What could have been worse than, after Wallace left at 6.45 according to him’ than a visitor arrives at 7.10 say. They knock the door but get no response. The lights are on though. “Why aren’t they answering?” (If it was Amy, for example, she knew that Wallace was going out on business and that Julia was alone in the house.) They decide to raise the alarm and the police are called and they have Wallace leaving at 6.45 and Julia dead by 7.10. It would have been totally logical and understandable for a guilty Wallace to have turned off the light.

                    This points toward Wallace.

                    3. The fact that the killer, covered in blood and with absolutely no reason for caution (apart from fingerprints,) very kindly manages to get not one smidgeon, stain, smear or drop of blood outside of the Parlour. Not on the walls as he brushes past, not on the gas jets as he turns them down, not on the front door as he bolts it, not in the kitchen or the back kitchen. Not on the back door or even the back gate as he made his getaway. Only Wallace would have had to have either cleaned up or used protection against blood spatter (I favour the latter)

                    This points toward Wallace.

                    4. In a house where the neighbours on both sides can hear the Wallace’s doors closing and where there are neighbours behind curtains a few feet away over the road no one hears or sees our sneak thief arrive and knock on the door. Not only that but, as per the plan, we have to assume a conversation between Julia and Qualtrough of say between 30 seconds and a minute explaining the mix-up with the light from the hall pouring out. Not impossible of course but worth questioning. We might also ask how likely would it have been for a reticent, genteel Victorian/Edwardian lady like Julia to have let a strange man into the house, after dark, whilst William was out? We might ask how the neighbours could have known that William was out as he left via the backdoor? Two things. I’d make the assumption that, in those days, after dark, it would have been more likely for the husband to have answered the door and so Julia answering might suggest that she was alone in the house. Added to this a neighbour would have only had to have observed William returning later to have confirmed this. Can we honestly believe that Julia, born when she was and being the kind of person that she was, wouldn’t have been hyper-conscious of gossip and rumour?

                    This at the least casts doubt on a stranger knocking on the door and being admitted, after dark, by Julia who was alone in the house.

                    Taken as a whole these point toward a guilty Wallace and away from our sneak-thief. None of the above is ‘misdirection’ or ‘logical fallacy’ as will undoubtedly get parroted in response from a certain quarter.
                    Well thought out post from a genuine party actually interested in solving the crime. That is rare on these boards apparently. Not a surprise since the mods themselves are hacks.

                    Unlike CCJ/Antony and RodCrosby who have a financial and personal motive to hawk a certain theory. Antony's lack of genuine belief in Rod's theory was communicated to me as well as the fact that he only went with it because publishers want a "new" theory. We are not dealing with honest actors. A shame for such a celebrated case.

                    RodCrosby has been kicked off wikipedia and he is proud of it; he is a menace to rational thought. He has posted graphs and charts about far out conspiracy theories that are too insane even for the far corners of the internet. This is not "ad hominem" fallacy, as we have debunked his absurd, virtually impossible theory already. Just hammering the point home about who we are dealing with. I could say other things about Rod, but I will leave it alone...

                    Anyways, I think point 4 needs to really be hammered home. It would be PITCH BLACK in Liverpool in January (sunset would be around 4:30) Julia would be home alone and the doorbell rings. Neighbors have recently heard the milk boy come and go, Wallace leave etc, yet they hear nothing. Wouldn't Qualtrough have to explain on the doorstep , shout, ask to be let in? All that PLUS the door closing shut to let him in, yet they hear none of this. And what if Julia just told the man to run after William? That she would let this fake Qualtrough in at all is highly questionable. Then you have her killed in an entirely different room from the cashbox with no sign of struggle and the entire sneak-thief thing is a non starter. It's absolut baloney on the level of thinking maybe OJ's son committed the murders in Brentwood. And there are people who will argue just as vociferously as our Rodney that that was the case...

                    PS. Mods you cant catch me hahahaha

                    Comment


                    • HS,

                      In response to your points.

                      1.The key problem is certainly a weak part of Wallace’s explanation, but I did suggest earlier that if he had indeed planned the murder then it would have been better to claim the back door was unlocked. I take on board the possibility that he perhaps intended to knock on the Johnsons’ door to ask for help with their key, but even then it would have been rather suspicious if their key had worked first time. This weak story of locked doors would make more sense if Wallace had he lashed out in anger and tried to concoct a narrative in a short space of time. However this was a planned murder if he was the culprit and the weak claim about locked doors claim is not in keeping with the fastidious attention to avoiding blood and meticulous hiding of the murder weapon.



                      2.We are assuming the gas lamps were turned down after the attack. If Julia had decided to sit in the parlour and have a relaxing evening she may have done this herself, relying on the glow of the gas fire.

                      Burglars have been known to turn off lights and operate with a torch in order to focus light better and avoid casting shadows. We are merely assuming the murderer was stumbling around in the dark.



                      3.As for point two above, with the addition-

                      Only Wallace would have had to have either cleaned up or used protection against blood spatter (I favour the latter)

                      I do not agree with your logic here. What Wallace would have had to do was just the same as another murderer, except he had to do it extremely quickly.



                      4.Neighbours would be unlikely to notice a burglar, in fact the Anfield burglar had been on the prowl for some time in the area. Wallace would have been a good ‘customer’ due to the cash held in the house and well worth the extra work of a fake phone call. The burglar was surprised in the parlour when Julia came in to light the fire.

                      Comment


                      • WWH, back to the evaluation of the call. This time looking at the case for Parry in the call box. I'm sure this is where the controversy starts, but at least we will be able to see where our differences might lie.

                        1. Parry misled the police as to his whereabouts on the night of the call, saying he went to the Lloyd's house at 5:30pm and stayed 6 hours, even though he actually turned up in his car minutes after the call ended, stayed a few minutes with his girlfriends' mother, left after a few minutes to go to Park Lane and then returned at 9pm. A good rule of thumb in an investigation is to follow the lies or false statements. And this is the only known one in the case.

                        Now look at Parry's alibi for the Tuesday night. Assume Parry told the truth when he took his circuitous route from the Brine's to the Lloyd's. But if he can recall in lucid detail what he did on Tuesday night how come his memory is somehow fogged for the previous night? And it must be remembered that Parry told the Lloyds on the Monday that he had been to Park (or Lark) Lane, something the Lloyds were both able to tell the police a few days later in their statements but Parry was not. Put simply, if he told the truth about the Tuesday, there is no plausible reason for him not to remember what he did on the Monday night, and it is rational to believe he was lying about the Monday.

                        Could Parry have mislead the police for another reason? Possibly, but the timing of him turning up at the Lloyds* means he could have been in the vicinity of the call box at the right time. The difference with Wallace is that we think Wallace might have lied and might have been in the vicinity of the call box at the right time - but we know Parry lied and might have been in the vicinity of the call box at the right time. Now much is made of the coincidences in the case against Wallace, and yet this one is just swept under the carpet.

                        Now consider there are really only two people who could make the call. Wallace and Parry (who knew Wallace attended the chess club, knew enough about the insurance industry to have made the call and could have been at the call box at the appropriate time), and we know one of them lied.

                        And it wasn't Wallace.

                        Follow the lies, and you see this is the biggest factor by far in considering who made the call.

                        * Murphy conveniently accepts Jospehine Lloyd's time of Parry's arrival (about 7:15 PM) and ignores that of Lilly (about 7:35 PM) who fixed the time more accurately in her statement. If we take an average of the two times (seems a rational and fair procedure) we have Parry arriving at about 7:25 PM, almost to the second when he would have arrived in his car if the phone was put down in Anfield 1627 at 7.22 PM (see Waiting for an Alibi).
                        Last edited by ColdCaseJury; 02-09-2019, 05:02 PM.
                        Author of Cold Case Jury books: The Shark Arm Mystery (2020), Poisoned at the Priory (2020), Move to Murder (2018), Death of an Actress (2018), The Green Bicycle Mystery (2017) - "Armchair detectives will be delighted" - Publishers Weekly. And for something completely different - I'm the co-founder of Wow-Vinyl - celebrating the Golden Years of the British Single (1977-85)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                          HS,

                          In response to your points.

                          1.The key problem is certainly a weak part of Wallace’s explanation, but I did suggest earlier that if he had indeed planned the murder then it would have been better to claim the back door was unlocked. I take on board the possibility that he perhaps intended to knock on the Johnsons’ door to ask for help with their key, but even then it would have been rather suspicious if their key had worked first time. This weak story of locked doors would make more sense if Wallace had he lashed out in anger and tried to concoct a narrative in a short space of time. However this was a planned murder if he was the culprit and the weak claim about locked doors claim is not in keeping with the fastidious attention to avoiding blood and meticulous hiding of the murder weapon.

                          But the fact is that back door wasn’t locked so there was no reason at all why Wallace didn’t simply enter. The fact that it mysteriously opened when the Johnston’s appeared and Mr Johnston offered to try his own key is surely suggestive. If the Johnston’s hadn’t turned up then Wallace could easily have said or even hinted that “I checked the front door and couldn’t get in, I then tried the backdoor and couldn’t get in. When I tried the front door a second time the killer must have escaped via the backdoor.” To add authenticity he might have added ‘I heard the back gate closing.’



                          2.We are assuming the gas lamps were turned down after the attack. If Julia had decided to sit in the parlour and have a relaxing evening she may have done this herself, relying on the glow of the gas fire.

                          Burglars have been known to turn off lights and operate with a torch in order to focus light better and avoid casting shadows. We are merely assuming the murderer was stumbling around in the dark.

                          Wallace himself couldn’t answer why the lights were out which he might have done if Julia was in the habit of sitting in the dark. There was no need for our burglar to turn of lights to focus a torchlight or avoid shadows behind those heavy Edwardian curtains. If, as would be likely, that he had blood on him moving around a strange house in the dark would increase even more the chance of leaving at least some traces outside of the Parlour.



                          3.As for point two above, with the addition-

                          Only Wallace would have had to have either cleaned up or used protection against blood spatter (I favour the latter)

                          I do not agree with your logic here. What Wallace would have had to do was just the same as another murderer, except he had to do it extremely quickly.

                          I’m genuinely surprised that you disagree on this one. The murderer could have left the house with blood on him, in the dark, heading for a secluded meeting place to be picked up in a car - as per the Accomplice theory. Wallace however couldn’t leave the house with blood on him as he had to go on trams, speak to conductors etc then ask directions when he arrived. Wallace had to leave the house blood-free. The accomplice didn’t.



                          4.Neighbours would be unlikely to notice a burglar, in fact the Anfield burglar had been on the prowl for some time in the area. Wallace would have been a good ‘customer’ due to the cash held in the house and well worth the extra work of a fake phone call. The burglar was surprised in the parlour when Julia came in to light the fire.


                          The Anfield Housebreaker didn’t knock on doors and have a conversation with the householder.
                          All these points lean heavily toward Wallace in my opinion.
                          Regards

                          Herlock



                          Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
                            . A good rule of thumb in an investigation is to follow the lies or false statements. And this is the only known one in the case.
                            Apart from when Wallace lied to Beattie and Caird about being cleared by the police of course.
                            Regards

                            Herlock



                            Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                            Comment


                            • It’s still difficult to see why Parry would knowingly tell a lie so easily disprovable that its hard to imagine a toddler trying it. I think he simply forgot because he had no reason to remember it. Yes he could remember Tuesdays events but some things we remember some get forgotten or confused with other times.

                              But I agree that we can’t ignore it however we interpret it.
                              Regards

                              Herlock



                              Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Apart from when Wallace lied to Beattie and Caird about being cleared by the police of course.
                                No, I think that is a misunderstanding, HS. Wallace was not arrested so he thought he had been cleared.
                                Author of Cold Case Jury books: The Shark Arm Mystery (2020), Poisoned at the Priory (2020), Move to Murder (2018), Death of an Actress (2018), The Green Bicycle Mystery (2017) - "Armchair detectives will be delighted" - Publishers Weekly. And for something completely different - I'm the co-founder of Wow-Vinyl - celebrating the Golden Years of the British Single (1977-85)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X