Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nah, Julia knew Marsden so he couldn't have posed as Qualtrough. I'm postulating that perhaps an altered version of Rod's theory is correct, where a total stranger to Julia turned up claiming he is Qualtrough, for the purpose of gaining admission into the home and killing her. By Marsden being Qualtrough I meant perhaps he was the caller. But Parry is more suspicious because of his falsified alibi (though we don't know Marsden's alibi for the night of the call, AFAIK).

In any case we don't know how much Wallace told Julia. I think she told Amy that he had business in the Calderstone's district (which of course directly contradicts Wallace's account to the conductors of being totally clueless as to where he was going and being "a total stranger in the district"), but I don't know that she said anything more.

Of course she knew Marsden. How did I manage to get that wrong? Apologies WWH.

Ill try and get a grip

As you know though, one of my objections to the Accomplice theory is the fact that it relied on so much luck. Parry couldn’t have expected Wallace to give Julia the full details (including the name Qualtrough) of his MGE business trip. Julia took no interest in his business dealings so he might have just said “I have to go out on business this evening for a couple of hours”) And so, according to William, without knowing Qualtrough Julia wouldn’t have let him in.

Im still not anywhere near convinced that even if Julia had simply heard of Qualtrough that she’d have let him in.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Of course she knew Marsden. How did I manage to get that wrong? Apologies WWH.

Ill try and get a grip

As you know though, one of my objections to the Accomplice theory is the fact that it relied on so much luck. Parry couldn’t have expected Wallace to give Julia the full details (including the name Qualtrough) of his MGE business trip. Julia took no interest in his business dealings so he might have just said “I have to go out on business this evening for a couple of hours”) And so, according to William, without knowing Qualtrough Julia wouldn’t have let him in.

Im still not anywhere near convinced that even if Julia had simply heard of Qualtrough that she’d have let him in.

I'm of the opinion that Wallace was behind it, so would have full control over the details given. He may even have told her Qualtrough would be dropping by instead and to admit him (something he may have said when he returned around 6.05. We can only speculate)...

I believe it's possible 25 MGW was the intended address that was meant to be given to Beattie. I don't think a fake address serves anyone but a prank caller. But of course criminals make mistakes and the rationale may have made more sense to them at the time (to say MGE)... I base the opinion largely on Wallace going to write west and then being taken by surprise that it was east... Had be truly no idea of Menlove Gardens or of the details that SHOULD have been put through on the call, he would not have batted an eyelid at the east address. Just the same as, if he was truly such a clueless passenger, he would've boarded the 7 tram as the conductor yelled at him to do, not quickly backtrack for the 5A.

Also doesn't anyone find it a bit strange that, upon winning his freedom, Wallace didn't attempt to confront the man he was so sure had murdered his beloved wife? (Parry).

[Abby Normal]

I'm of the opinion that Wallace was behind it, so would have full control over the details given. He may even have told her Qualtrough would be dropping by instead and to admit him (something he may have said when he returned around 6.05. We can only speculate)...

I believe it's possible 25 MGW was the intended address that was meant to be given to Beattie. I don't think a fake address serves anyone but a prank caller. But of course criminals make mistakes and the rationale may have made more sense to them at the time (to say MGE)... I base the opinion largely on Wallace going to write west and then being taken by surprise that it was east... Had be truly no idea of Menlove Gardens or of the details that SHOULD have been put through on the call, he would not have batted an eyelid at the east address. Just the same as, if he was truly such a clueless passenger, he would've boarded the 7 tram as the conductor yelled at him to do, not quickly backtrack for the 5A.

Also doesn't anyone find it a bit strange that, upon winning his freedom, Wallace didn't attempt to confront the man he was so sure had murdered his beloved wife? (Parry).

yes absolutely. and I would have been all over the polices arses to go after him. also, didn't Wallace write in his diary something to the effect that he ran into parry later and said it was "rather awkward" or something to that effect? very odd-you think he would have reacted and written something much more strongly. come to think of it, if he really thought parry did it, and if he really loved his wife as much as he said, and knowing he was going to die soon-you think he would have done something a little more drastic. if it was me I would have put the bastard out of his misery and enacted sweet revenge. somehow, somewhere.

[etenguy]

With Rod's recent absence from the thread, we seem to have a concensus that the most likely culprit was Wallace. This scenario is not without its problems. To be more sure of our position, there are a number of factors that need a satisfactory explanation. Some we have considered, but perhaps superficially in some cases. So, if it was Wallace:

* how did he disguise his voice beyond recognition
* what was the timing for the murder and clean up
* why did he commit the crime
* what happened to the murder weapon
* how do we explain Parkes' statement
* why didn't he choose a week with more money in the cash box - to cement a motive of robbery
* why was the robbery staging so poor
* how did he clean himself completely, using no sink/bath in the house
* if he wanted to point to someone else in the house (Qualtrough), why not leave a clue at the scene

That's probably enough to start with.

[WallaceWackedHer]

With Rod's recent absence from the thread, we seem to have a concensus that the most likely culprit was Wallace. This scenario is not without its problems. To be more sure of our position, there are a number of factors that need a satisfactory explanation. Some we have considered, but perhaps superficially in some cases. So, if it was Wallace:

* how did he disguise his voice beyond recognition
* what was the timing for the murder and clean up
* why did he commit the crime
* what happened to the murder weapon
* how do we explain Parkes' statement
* why didn't he choose a week with more money in the cash box - to cement a motive of robbery
* why was the robbery staging so poor
* how did he clean himself completely, using no sink/bath in the house
* if he wanted to point to someone else in the house (Qualtrough), why not leave a clue at the scene

That's probably enough to start with.

Well, there's no saying Wallace acted alone. I know Antony doesn't care for Lily Hall's testimony but I find it strong. She identified him in a lineup, accurately described what he was wearing that night, and the time of the sighting fits. Let's say Wallace put others up to the task. Now we can go in an interesting direction:

1) He was not the caller. He instructed another man (who may have been Parry) to call, and the details of what to say on the call. I believe he was probably meant to say "Menlove Gardens West" and ****ed it up. The R M Qualtrough (which may have been MEANT to be R J Qualtrough, but I'm not sure) moniker was almost certainly thought of in advance, and I see that it works excellently to implicate Marsden... Who planning to commit a crime would willingly choose to use a name that could easily be linked back to them?

2) I propose it was 8 PM. This based on Wallace saying to the police officer "it is not quite 8 PM yet", as well as the timing of the thuds heard by the Johnstons.

3) I don't want to reveal my thoughts on this lol. But there are rumors that Wallace had sexual interests in men, not just from Parry, but there were rumors that he paid for rent boys (seriously). Julia was deemed "virginal" upon examination, and was 70, likely with little sex drive. So one wonders where the much younger Wallace was getting his fill...

There are plenty of other easy explanations, like that their marriage wasn't actually a happy one, there's lots you could come up with. But I wish people would explore the rumors before outright dismissing it - because if true it would be huge.

4) I heard someone write it was eventually found behind the fireplace? Is this true? Otherwise perhaps it was dropped down a grid as per Parkes' testimony.

5) His testimony was true. Or he hated Parry lol, which supposedly he did. Did he REALLY wait 50 years to reveal the information? Isn't there evidence he went to the police with this earlier?

6) Don't see that it makes much of a difference. The proposed intruders would only have known that he was likely to have collection money on Tuesday, not the exact time of month it'd be at its fullest.

7) Perhaps a purposeful attempt by Wallace at setting up a scenario from which he could implicate Parry and Marsden for the crime if he fell under suspicion. Considering nothing but the contents of the cash box were stolen, it would strongly suggest to police that the intruders went in with the intention of stealing from that box, and therefore had to have known where it was kept and what it contained, narrowing down the list of suspects significantly. I don't believe an actual thief would only have snatched the cash box money (and by the way, they left a dollar in there, how kind of them!)

8) He didn't perform the killing. Someone else did. Potentially Marsden, or someone Wallace had admitted into the home who was a stranger to Julia, using the Qualtrough moniker. Had Wallace been behind the plot, he could explicitly have told Julia after he returned home that Qualtrough would be stopping by at their home instead, and to admit him, and then make up some other excuse why he has to go out.

There are other possibilities, remember Lizzie Borden completely incinerated her clothing, there's also random speculative stuff you could invent, like him filling a metal tub with water (like what they used to bathe in outside in the old days lol), a hose, lol. Like you could come up with many ideas. Also the idea that the mack was thrown over Julia's head when she was bludgeoned, and the mack flicked at the walls to create splash marks.

9) I think it's safer not to... Still, the clue of the cash box being broken into was strong enough to implicate Parry and Marsden should he need to throw someone under the bus to save himself.

---

I think Wallace orchestrated this killing. I'm sorry to Wallace fans but he is a proven liar. You can make an almost bulletproof case against him based on even just a few facts in conjunction:

1) His denial of FOUR witness testimonies (conductor, Hall, the constable, the OTHER constable who saw him crying).

2) His claim of being a "total stranger to the area" yet correctly identifying to Julia that he was headed to the Calderstone's district, an area he was known to be familiar with.

3) His surprise at the address given being "east" rather than "west", strongly suggesting he either knew of the Menlove Gardens area, or expected it to be west because he had engineered the call. If he truly had no idea about Menlove Gardens, why would he even bat an eyelid at Beattie saying "east"? He'd just be like "okay thanks." Not act shocked then write "EAST" in block capitals.

4) His claim of having never heard of the name Qualtrough, despite a man by that name being a client of one of his assistants at the Pru (plus the butcher shop in the area).

5) The fact he was a "complete stranger" begging for directions from the conductor, but then explicitly ignored the conductors directions because he in fact knew better as to what tram he needed (remember - Wallace went to the 5A after being told to take the 7, the conductor literally shouted out to him to take the 7, then Wallace feigned that he was going to the 7, before backtracking and taking the 5A - A man who truly had no idea where he was going would have boarded the 7).

6) Claiming to have NEVER SEEN the iron bar in his home, an item his maid noticed as missing. Shocking really.

---

These are only a FEW of the facts strongly against him. With effort you could build a pretty much bulletproof case that he knew SOMETHING was going to happen that night. I think Wallace didn't really think he would be considered a suspect, I think he suspected that, considering his pantomime at the chess club, and on his trip, (and if someone else called the chess club, Beattie saying it wasn't his voice), the police would instantly clear him of any suspicion.

Clearly it did not work out that way.

Still we have a case here like OJ, Lizzie Borden, and many others. A crime where you can build such a strong case to where you almost know they had a hand in it, but not to the point where you should convict them. Wallace was rightly acquitted based on the evidence presented at court... Perhaps more intense questioning at the trial (particularly pressing on matters he was proven to have lied about) as well as bringing in Parry and Marsden for questioning at the trial, would have led to a more solid conclusion.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'd like to write out a scenario of a path I think would have been followed if Wallace was a completely clueless and innocent man:

1) Wallace receives a message to the chess club. Wallace finds this unusual and asks Beattie why the man called the club and how he knew he would be there, and why he didn't contact him through the Pru or leave a note at his home. Why was this complete stranger calling him specifically? How did the stranger know of him and his business? When did the stranger call? That's roadblock one, because that's not what happened. But we continue...

Beattie would then say to Wallace that Qualtrough requested his address which may help to alleviate suspicion... Upon hearing the name you could argue that Wallace would assume it was R J Qualtrough calling him (if Marsden worked FOR Wallace as claimed, then Qualtrough was basically Wallace's client) - but this isn't strong evidence because it IS possible that he was not aware of his own assistant's clientele (btw, if Marsden was "filling in for him" it is more suspect IMO), and Wallace has evidently never heard of this surname.

2) Beattie continues to relay the details. Wallace, having NO IDEA about Menlove Gardens is given the address "25 Menlove Gardens East", and writes it down in his diary without batting an eyelid - because unless you know of the area you would not ever suspect that the address could be wrong and be shocked it isn't west. Again this did not happen. But we continue...

3) Wallace checks a directory for directions to where he is going. He is set to earn a good commission on this deal! He better know where he is going to make the appointment on time - not just for his own benefit, but also for his company's reputation. He also calls up the Pru and tells them of the business and asks if they knew of such a client etc. This did not happen so we have to assume he was just callous and lazy on this matter for whatever reason.

4) The next day Wallace dabs his eyes which are watering due to the cold during his rounds. The constable is totally mistaken.

5) Wallace leaves for his appointment with Qualtrough... Now, having no idea where he was headed, I would THINK he should have allowed himself a little more time, rather than cutting it so fine! But I digress, he did what he did, perhaps a little cocky in his knowledge of Liverpool... So he gets on the tram.

6) He, being legitimately clueless, gets on the tram and quizzes the conductor as to the route he should take, he may bring this up a few times to ensure he doesn't miss his stop (he must not be familiar with the stop he is headed to, so needs express direction). The tram stops... The conductor points Wallace to the 7 tram. Wallace being completely clueless as to where he is or where he is going thanks the conductor for his advice and boards the 7 tram, having no reason to suspect the conductor's advice was incorrect... This did not happen, another roadblock for innocent Wallace... We have to assume the conductor lied and did NOT yell at Wallace to take the 7 and that in fact he told Wallace to take the 5A and Wallace headed straight to it with no inteference, which is his claim.

7) Having gotten off at Menlove Gardens (was it at north or west he got off at?) he would naturally go in the direction where "east" should theoretically be... His actions here are, IMO, not damning. He asks several people for directions, it's plausible, I buy it... He was given conflicting information as to whether the address existed...

8) He finds out he has been duped with a fake address. How could he be so stupid to fall victim to a prank call he thinks to himself! Now, having recognized the area he is in, is easily able to navigate home, with a feeling of dread that something terrible may have happened back home.

9) He gets home without speaking to anyone at all due to his state of panic. Despite Lily Hall seeing him at the right time, in the correct outfit, and picking him up in a lineup, and the fact that Wallace looks very distinctive and was standing at the entry he used to go home, she is apparently lying. By the way let's look at his statement:

I asked him, “ Did you speak to anyone on your way home from the tram-car on the night of the murder ? ” He said, “ No.” I said, Are you sure ? ” He said, Yes.” I then said, “ You told me you were in a hurry to get home, you should remember.” After a slight hesitation he said, “ I was not so alarmed that I would not raise my hat or speak to a person I knew.” After further hesitation, he said, “ Positively I did not.”

Does this sound like a natural answer? He remembers every other person he had spoken to throughout his journey, but can't be absolutely certain he didn't speak to anyone on the way home. But this must be because he was in such a state of panic that he forgot - though due to his practice of stoicism he ensured to walk in his usual way, rather than hurrying (as the Johnstons noted).

10) I noticed an inconsistency between comments on the trial and in Gannon's book. Here's the trial:

How were you able to see that there was no light in the
kitchen ? — Through the window in the back kitchen.

Do you remember a conversation you had with Police
Constable Williams upon that subject ? — Yes.

That he said to you when you first came up the yard,
‘‘ Did you notice any light shining through the cur-
tains ” ? — That is so.

And you said the curtains would prevent the light from
escaping ? — Quite correct.

He's implying he saw no light? But Gannon claims:

"Entering the yard, he could see that there was a light in the back kitchen, but not in the kitchen"

Didn't he say light wouldn't escape the curtain? I'm confused here... But anyway. I can't speculate here not knowing which is factual so we move on... The Johnstons come out completely by chance... Wallace is glad to see them and anxiously asks if they've heard anything unusual, being so worried about Julia. They say they haven't, which eases his mind a little. Having had no success with the door, he finally gets it open thanks to the peace of mind having his neighbors there gives him... Being slightly worried something might have happened, he asks Mr. Johnston to accompany him; except he didn't do this, so perhaps he was looking out for his neighbor's safety over his own, or simply lost suspicion when the neighbors claimed to not have heard anything.

11) Despite being of the belief that there was an intruder actively in the home who had locked the doors against him, and being alarmed, he, for some reason, did not immediately shout for his wife when the door opened. I can't come up with an "innocent Wallace" explanation for this except that the Johnstons totally eased his mind. Maybe he felt his wife was sleeping, but in such an emergency I think calling out would be warranted (and we find out he did upon reaching the bottom of the stairs?)... So anyway he is in the kitchen, and he notices a cupboard door wrenched off... Again this does not seem to raise any suspicion as he still does not yell for his wife's name or vocalize in any way, despite this evidence in front of him that something HAD potentially happened in the home. This is because the door was already kinda jacked up and he assumed it had fallen off.

12) He goes to the stairs without even peeking into the parlor (because he felt Julia would be asleep upstairs) and moves around upstairs. Perhaps expecting to find his wife in the bedroom. She is not there! Eventually, now desperate, he tries the parlor... AH! There she is! Why is she on the floor he thinks to himself!!!!

13) Wallace does not yell out loudly, instead he thinks she must have simply had a fit and checks on her despite there being a gigantic pool of blood, blood sprayed all over the walls, and brain matter everywhere and gaping holes in her skull... But he obviously does not notice this and decides to check on her since she must have had a seizure - oh wait! She really is dead!

14) Due to shock and perhaps stoicism, Wallace does not yell from inside the home, he doesn't yell out for the Johnstons, just walks outside and leads them in exclaiming that "she's been killed!"

---

And that is the story of completely innocent Wallace

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi WWH, I'm laid up in bed with flu at the moment and cannot respond to all your points in your Saga of Innocent Wallace. Some are suspicious, yes, and it would be instructive to agree on which points are, but please remember that conductor PHILLIPS told Wallace when he boarded at Lodge Lane that a No.5 or a No.7 car would take him to MGE. Specifically, he said "No. 5, 5A, 5W or a No. 7". Also we don't know if Wallace asked the No. 7 driver and what was said.

That's tired me out! Back to nursing my temperature!

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH, I'm laid up in bed with flu at the moment and cannot respond to all your points in your Saga of Innocent Wallace. Some are suspicious, yes, and it would be instructive to agree on which points are, but please remember that conductor PHILLIPS told Wallace when he boarded at Lodge Lane that a No.5 or a No.7 car would take him to MGE. Specifically, he said "No. 5, 5A, 5W or a No. 7". Also we don't know if Wallace asked the No. 7 driver and what was said.

That's tired me out! Back to nursing my temperature!

Conductor Thomas Phillips:

"When my tram stopped at the corner of Tunnel Road and Smithdown Lane on the 20th January at 7.06 p.m. there was a fair crowd waiting to board the car, and about the last to get on was the man who asked me if the car went to Menlove Gardens East. I told him ‘No’ that a 7 or a 5W would take him, but then I changed my mind and told him I could give him a transfer ticket or a penny fare and he could change. He got on and took his seat inside.

I went in for the fares and he said he was a stranger in the district and that he had an urgent ‘call’ or ‘business’ at Menlove Gardens East and emphasized the word ‘East’. I gave him a penny ticket and he then said ‘You won’t forget Guard; I want to get to Menlove Gardens East’. I collected my fares inside and outside and when I got back to the platform he turned his head and said ‘How far is it now and where do I have to change?’ I told him he would have to change at Penny Lane and when we got there, I saw a No. 7 car waiting and I told him to get that.

He hurried away and I saw he was going towards a No. 5 car which was also waiting and I shouted 'not that one, a No. 7 in the out loop' and he went towards the No. 7 car."

Wallace's statement:

"The conductor pointed to a tram, a 5A which was standing there and told me that would take me to Menlove Gardens, I boarded it ... The car arrived at Penny Lane, and the conductor told me there was a 5A car standing on the other side of the road, which would take me to Menlove Gardens. I alighted and at once boarded the 5A car."

If Wallace had spoken to the No. 7 driver he would have said so, but instead he contradicted the conductor who told him to take the 7.

Get well soon! I know a nasty flu has been going around. One of my best friends actually got pleurisy from it so BE CAREFUL! He's stuck in a hospital all day (literally right now as we speak) on his mobile messaging me and browsing Facebook, so I've been entertaining him with details of the case lol.

[ColdCaseJury]

Conductor Thomas Phillips:



Wallace's statement:



If Wallace had spoken to the No. 7 driver he would have said so, but instead he contradicted the conductor who told him to take the 7.

Get well soon! I know a nasty flu has been going around. One of my best friends actually got pleurisy from it so BE CAREFUL! He's stuck in a hospital all day (literally right now as we speak) on his mobile messaging me and browsing Facebook, so I've been entertaining him with details of the case lol.

Yes, it is a nasty bug and it's already on my chest. See the testimony of Phillips (not his police statement). But I agree there is a discrepancy.

[ColdCaseJury]

And don't forget in Wallace's third statement (23-1-31): "A ticket inspector [Edward Angus, not the conductor Phillips] entered and told me to get off at Penny Lane and take a 5A." Phillip's second statement to the police was dated 3-2-31.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'll have to check this when I'm home. Was the ticket inspector identified and what was his testimony?

In any possible case you have to assume Phillips lied about pointing Wallace to the 7 and Wallace heading for it, as their statements directly contradict.

[ColdCaseJury]

I'll have to check this when I'm home. Was the ticket inspector identified and what was his testimony?

In any possible case you have to assume Phillips lied about pointing Wallace to the 7 and Wallace heading for it, as their statements directly contradict.

To my knowledge, there is no statement or testimony from Angus to confirm this - another lack of due diligence from the police! This is frustrating because this would be proof that Wallace lied. But under the presumption Wallace was innocent, you don't have to assume Phillips lied, only that Wallace was misremembered because there is a clear discrepancy between the two accounts. Of course, it is possible that Wallace concocted the story about Angus, in which case he would be lying through his nicotine-stained teeth.

[ColdCaseJury]

And if you look at the notated statements of Wallace in my book, you will find he does get confused or misremember things: Menlove Gardens East became Menlove Avenue East, R. M. Qualtrough became A. M. Qualtrough, and McCartney became McCarthy.

[WallaceWackedHer]

What was Wallace's reputation in the Pru, was he considered to be a highly competent employee? Was he considered to be dedicated to his job? How high up in the company was he? How long had he held his job with the Pru?

[ColdCaseJury]

I'm postulating that perhaps an altered version of Rod's theory is correct, where a total stranger to Julia turned up claiming he is Qualtrough, for the purpose of gaining admission into the home and killing her. By Marsden being Qualtrough I meant perhaps he was the caller. But Parry is more suspicious because of his falsified alibi

WWH, are postulating Parry as the caller, someone else as the killer and Wallace as the mastermind?

If we accept your premise that Wallace planned (perhaps as a contingency) to throw Parry and Marsden under the bus because no one would believe their word against his, then Wallace had a get-out-of-jail-free card. All he had to say in his statement on 22.1.31, when he points the finger at Parry and Marsden, was that he last saw Marsden on the night of the murder. "I saw him briefly in Richmond Park as I was returning home, I said 'Hello', he said he was visiting a friend, and I asked how he was doing. Small talk. I then hurried home, anxious to get back to my wife." The investigation would have now focused on Marsden, his connection to Qualtrough, his lack of alibi etc. The fact that Hall saw them would have been a fantastic stroke of luck, and confirmed that someone was in the vicinity talking to Wallace that night. Marsden might have blabbed, but given your premise, Wallace would have successfully brazened it out.

However, if Parry was then questioned under caution (for his misleading statement), confessed to the call and also implicated Wallace then things might have got trickier for Wallace. My own view is that if Wallace involved others, I don't believe he would have named them in his statement. However, with the Collaborator (Wallace + unknown who killed Julia) and Wallace theories, he might have named Parry and Marsden to draw suspicion away. So, I agree that an unknown killer looks a better bet than Marsden.