Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I don't believe we need to raise our eyebrows over the Johnstons moving house the very next day. The police will certainly have satisfied themselves that there was nothing untoward happening here .

Like they satisfied themselves that Parry and Marsden had nothing to do with it? Like they satisfied themselves that the caller must certainly have been the same person as the killer? If we solely trust what the police had satisfied themselves with, then there'd be no discussion or books on the topic, because the police were completely certain Wallace did it - and did it alone.

WHERE WAS PUSS ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER?!

Lol I almost wanna make a joke of it because it sounds so funny, like accusing Puss of the crime... But from what I see, the cat legitimately did magically return when Julia was killed? What is up with that? Did they have a cat flap? Didn't Wallace find that weird that suddenly Puss is there after being missing for days? I guess not, because he was found stroking the cat and "callously" cutting up meat to feed Puss... Before of course carrying out his work duties the very next day after his wife had been murdered and he found her battered body, blood and brains sprayed everywhere...

Don't you think it's weird Mr. Johnston claimed he didn't even know Julia's name? Despite the Johnstons being entrusted to look after their cat, receiving postcards (signed with Julia's name), etc. Do you not see how that is peculiar? Don't you see that it's peculiar they coincidentally left their home at just the right time to find Wallace returning? Don't you see that it's peculiar that the cat Johnston "confessed" to being in possession of had indeed been missing for days and yet turned up magically when Julia was killed? Don't you see any peculiarity in the fact that Wallace didn't mention the Johnstons as someone Julia might let into the home? Don't you think it's a strange coincidence they moved the next day?

Don't you think it's strange the Johnstons heard nothing next door? It is known someone else had a key that opened the Wallaces home and wandered in while drunk, causing Julia to scream. If Julia had caught a burglar, or been scared in any way, she would have vocalized. The Johnstons were easily able to hear a light knock on the door of Wallace's home, but not the brutality going on next door? If the Johnstons are totally innocent, the silence is a huge mark against the "sneak thief" or even "burglar" theory, and is an aspect which points strongly to a murder motive (not the only glaring error, but one of them), or a planned murder -> burglary. If they were involved or paid off they could lie about any noise etc. and it opens up many new options.

Also Gannon said there was an actual problem connecting the call. Even the operators had difficulty connecting the call to the chess club IIRC. I don't think a potentially guilty Wallace knew the call was logged, otherwise why press Beattie so hard for accuracy on the time? If he knew the call had been logged at 7.20 he didn't have to worry about Beattie getting the time right.

[moste]

The notion of there being a conspiracy involved with regards to Julias murder, Marsden, Parry , the Johnstons,or any other, I find all to fantastic.
Either Wallace planned the whole thing and carried out the crime all by himself ( if his brothers involvement can be negated) or someone broke in and being surprised by Julia, murdered her. I am of the former view. Wallace cleverly thought the whole thing through ,and was confident enough that he had covered all of the possible prosecution excavations that they were never going to be able to find him guilty on the available evidence , and ultimately got it right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't believe there was anything wrong with the telephone used to call the chess club. A telephone engineer will have been dispatched as protocol since there had been a complaint from a customer that he had lost his Tuppence on pushing button A . As discussed before , The problem with connecting the call was a means of having the telephonist log the time of the incident, in furthering the overall plan.

The problem with that Moste is how would anyone who didn’t work at the exchange know that the supervisor would log the call? We don’t know that this was procedure or something that this particular supervisor did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Don't you think it's weird Mr. Johnston claimed he didn't even know Julia's name? Despite the Johnstons being entrusted to look after their cat, receiving postcards (signed with Julia's name),

They received two postcards, one in 1926 and one in 1928. We only know how the 1926 one was signed. It was signed J Wallace.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One of the issues with the guilty Johnston’s story is that Johnston allegedly said that on the night of the murder he saw Julia walk to the gate with William and she was wearing a mackintosh. She went into the alley to look for the cat and Johnston, believing that Julia had gone with William on his business trip, slipped into the house using his key.

Three problems with this.

1. We know that she wasn’t wearing a mackintosh - with this being specifically mentioned it smacks to me of someone trying to come up with an explaination for its presence later on.

2. We know from Wallace that Julia closed the gate and didn’t go out into the alleyway.

3. Why did Johnston need a key to get into the Wallace’s? Surely Julia wouldn’t bother locking the door if she was only walking to the gate for a journey there and back of a minute or less?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can’t recall Wallace saying anything about the cat being missing? Did he? If he didn’t then we only have the word of the guy Stan who related the ‘confession.’

If Wallace did mention the cat being missing then of course ignore this post.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I can’t recall Wallace saying anything about the cat being missing? Did he? If he didn’t then we only have the word of the guy Stan who related the ‘confession.’

If Wallace did mention the cat being missing then of course ignore this post.

My source said the cat had in fact been missing in the days prior. I do of course see oddities with the Johnstons. I mentioned them before knowing of the cat actually (because everyone laughs at their involvement, but I had no idea why the idea is so ridiculed)... I have problems with the SOLO Johnstons due to the Qualtrough alias, cash box ransacking (slightly) and the fact Parry had a falsified alibi and all the Wallace weirdness. Although it must be noted Wallace initially said Julia followed him some way into the entry...

IF the cat actually DID just randomly turn up and that's a corroborated fact then I am shocked people did not take that more seriously. Just because there are some false details, getting a weird tiny detail like that correct should be given some credence.

I still think it's weird Mr. Johnston didn't know her name. You'll also notice him on trial say Wallace called out a name, then a word, then that it was a name, then that he couldn't hear what the name was, then that he didn't even know her name was Julia. The series of that exchange isn't that odd, but IMO him not knowing her name is.

With innocent Johnstons I'm afraid the bungled robbery is just as farfetched as ever. Johnstons could add credence to the robbery (as in, someone else robbing the joint and them faking they heard and saw nothing).

If someone else apart from my source (my source who you know of, not Tom Slemen or w.e. his name is) can confirm that cat did randomly turn up, that's undeniably strange.

As I said to Rod, I feel the burglary -> murder is only really possible with two people in the home due to the silence.

Where was Puss when Wallace entered the home? We do like to think of animals as basically unconscious non-sentient beings in these circumstances, but I would think a violent attack and wrenching off of cupboard doors etc by a stranger would have caused the cat some anxiety. Wasn't it claimed the parlor door was ajar, and thus accessible to the cat? I know Puss walked past the door into the kitchen, but animals are often known to stay by dead/injured owners, or at least be scared - yes even cats. If the attack had been very recent I would have expected that the animal would be visibly anxious (possibly hiding) or by the body.

Obviously this will be seen as ridiculous but it's honestly something to consider. If the Wallaces had a dog for example people would be very shocked that it had not been barking like mad and alerted the Johnstons.

[WallaceWackedHer]

But yeah the Qualtrough alias is hugely against solo Johnstons.

The name IS somewhat peculiar, there were very few Qualtroughs in Liverpool, all were questioned. What are the actual odds one of them would have been an R Qualtrough insured with the Pru and specifically having dealt with Mr. Marsden?

The purpose of that alias can be difficult to determine... Surely Marsden would never knowingly take part in a crime where a name that could EASILY be linked to him was used as the catalyst? Surely Parry would not use a name that could implicate his friend (or use it at all if he was unaware of it) if he was the mastermind?

But Wallace has a good reason to use it - and that reason is because of the fact it links to Marsden, who, if he was the killer, would have no alibi etc. I'd like to hear of any other plausible suggestions.

The only other option I see is of it being used to fool Wallace into believing it's a real Pru client. But that has some errors:

1) They got the name wrong (should be R J). A possible mistake that could be made.

2) Wallace hadn't heard of the client (but were they necessarily to have known that?) And

3) A non-existent address was given. R J Qualtrough asking to meet at 25 MGW is more credible. Like Wallace could have called the Pru and they'd be like "oh yes, that's one of our clients, please do go meet him" and off he'd go to MGW. It's more than enough time to carry out the attack, and actually sets a much more definite time that Wallace will be gone.

---

If not a prank call as suggested by P D James, we have to accept that the alias R M Qualtrough and the address were thought up in advance. So the fake address was used on purpose (Beattie repeated it back to the caller, so he didn't get it wrong).

[WallaceWackedHer]

The notion of there being a conspiracy involved with regards to Julias murder, Marsden, Parry , the Johnstons,or any other, I find all to fantastic.
Either Wallace planned the whole thing and carried out the crime all by himself ( if his brothers involvement can be negated) or someone broke in and being surprised by Julia, murdered her. I am of the former view. Wallace cleverly thought the whole thing through ,and was confident enough that he had covered all of the possible prosecution excavations that they were never going to be able to find him guilty on the available evidence , and ultimately got it right.

Okay, then you have to provide a convincing explanation for these things (as with the list of things I provided that supporters of Wallace's innocence MUST explain convincingly to have credibility):

1) Why did Parry falsify an alibi for the night of the call?

2) The testimony of Lily Hall.

3) Disposal of bloodied clothing and weaponry.

4) The testimony of Parkes.

5) The time frame. 9.37 to 7.06, take off say, 10 minutes for a fast-walk journey to the tram (old people can move quickly in an emergency - and Google Maps shows you can reach the stop at walking speed in 16 minutes using the longest route?)... So he has a window of about 20 minutes. I forget what people said earlier, but I think 9.37 was the time Julia was seen at the doorstep engaging in conversation, so knock off a minute for the conversation. Then Wallace has to have her meander into the parlor (through which an excuse could be used? For example saying the meeting is cancelled, let's have some music - or saying there's been a change of plan, Qualtrough is coming here, set up the parlor). She doesn't realize there is a hurry, so she's going to be going about it in typical old-person fashion so knock off at least 3 minutes... So now we have a timeframe of around 15 minutes remaining.

Now it becomes important to establish where she was hit. If she was hit on the back of the head, it suggests she was perhaps bending down to the fire. If on the front, which was also suggested as the death blow, possibly as she was rising or sitting on the chair.

Wallace has at some point donned the mackintosh... Perhaps pre-wrapped newspaper around the iron bar and has that ready to go... He may have removed his trousers, glasses and shoes in the hallway and put on the mack, just as Julia was setting up the fire, then quickly came in and hit her. This may have been accomplished at the same time Julia was entering the parlor to put on the fire, so I won't remove time for this possibility.

So he kills her, and now has to wipe himself down using a rag of some sort, and double check himself for blood, of course this is highly important he has none on him... How he got it out of his hair is very difficult to say... This may take about 5 to 10 minutes... The rag and whatever other flammable items may then have been incinerated as a possibility.

And then finally, he wrenches off the cupboard door, takes money from the cash box, and flees quickly. He may have removed the door and money in advance, however.

So it's up to you to determine whether you think the time frame is possible.

6) The hearing of thumps at 8 p.m. claimed by the Johnstons.

7) The sighting of two men running, consistent with the timing of the incident. I can get the witness names if needed.

---

A stranger surprising Julia is an impossibility, she would certainly scream. Like what happened when a drunk neighbor wandered into her home. The Johnstons would have heard this - unless they lied.

I have other ideas about the disposal of clothing and weaponry should he have acted alone. As an example, it's possible he could have stowed these items in a clever place that would not be found. Perhaps under a floorboard, up a chimney...

[moste]

The problem with that Moste is how would anyone who didn’t work at the exchange know that the supervisor would log the call? We don’t know that this was procedure or something that this particular supervisor did.

WE don't necessarily know, but Wallace may have known that in 1931 that the GPO didnt give phone calls away free Willy nilly . How do you mean ' we don't know that this particular particular supervisor did' . It WAS logged ,so its a fair suggestion I think that Wallace believed it would be . It's a very long time ago so all we can do is try and make as good a guess as possible.

[moste]

The Johnstons not hearing any screams doesn't particularly impress me. If a stranger had gained accessed to the house unbeknown to Julia (maybe she had not locked the kitchen door after seeing Wallace off) ,perhaps whilst she was upstairs in the bathroom, and on her returning back down to the kitchen fancies she heard a sound in the Parlour.
Wack! Never knew what hit her. Not much space there for screaming , nor so much as a sudden in-rush of air. We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject of 'someone would have heard something's
It's a mute point anyway for me, I think Wallace Wacked Her!

[WallaceWackedHer]

The Johnstons not hearing any screams doesn't particularly impress me. If a stranger had gained accessed to the house unbeknown to Julia (maybe she had not locked the kitchen door after seeing Wallace off) ,perhaps whilst she was upstairs in the bathroom, and on her returning back down to the kitchen fancies she heard a sound in the Parlour.
Wack! Never knew what hit her. Not much space there for screaming , nor so much as a sudden in-rush of air. We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject of 'someone would have heard something's
It's a mute point anyway for me, I think Wallace Wacked Her!

I also think Wallace is involved unless anyone can convincingly explain away the points I mentioned in an earlier post, which I can post again if anyone wants to have a crack at it.

It's a shame Rod isn't here, I wonder what happened to him. He is in the "innocent Wallace" camp (as is Antony - albeit less vehemently so), so I'm sure we could have had a good discussion about it. I hope he didn't get banned or something. I'm sure Antony can get him back on here.

And again you see here the glaring issues... There are no signs of forced entry. This can mean only a few options: Wallace admitted the person into the home. Julia admitted the person into the home. The Johnstons (or another neighbor with a fitting key) admitted the person into the home. Or Julia left the doors unlocked (as well as the entry door unbolted - contrary to the initial claim of Wallace - which he did indeed try to back out of).

Of all of those, the initial two seem the most probable. The Johnstons admitting the person would need more evidence to create a convincing narrative (for example, confirmation of an odd fact such as the return of Puss on the night of the murder, if my source is correct, plus other factors). And the latter, I'm afraid I find rather unbelievable. Several reasons why I think it is close to impossible that this is how it happened. For a start, the person obviously knew Wallace well enough to know he goes to chess club, the nature of his business, his address, and where he kept the cash box. Having such knowledge of him and intimate knowledge of the home's interior to instantly locate the cash box, is it likely they would not know he had a wife? If they knew he had a wife, they would not have attempted a forced entry - so getting in through unlocked doors would be sheer incredible luck and CERTAINLY nothing anyone could plan for, especially had Wallace been innocent.

In my mind, had a person snuck in, I would think it more likely that Wallace had given the key to someone, or something along those lines. Since the lack of forced entry rules much of anything else out...

Possibly she had wandered into the parlor and been hit from behind. Although again we need the consensus on whether the killing blow was to the back of the head (taken totally by surprise), or from the front. It is suggested she was in a bent over position, suggesting she was sitting on the chair (this was the strongest suggestion IIRC) or bending down to the fireplace. Also if Puss was in the home she might have attributed slight odd noises downstairs to the cat ambling around

Puss - The ultimate key to the riddle!!!!!

In all seriousness though I do think it should be established whether the cat was missing and turned up on the murder night as my source told me - and also the aspect of silence is only one part of the problem, and surely the intruder was not surprised by Julia's presence...

There is a shopping list of problems that MUST be explained convincingly to prove a solo Wallace crime... As a "Lily Hall Believer" I strongly suspect at least a second party was involved, if not more!

[WallaceWackedHer]

WE don't necessarily know, but Wallace may have known that in 1931 that the GPO didnt give phone calls away free Willy nilly . How do you mean ' we don't know that this particular particular supervisor did' . It WAS logged ,so its a fair suggestion I think that Wallace believed it would be . It's a very long time ago so all we can do is try and make as good a guess as possible.

I don't think he knew.

If Wallace made the call and thus knew the time of the call had been logged, why would he press Beattie for accuracy on the time of the call? He already had a dead on timestamp with the switchboard. Furthermore, if he had enough knowledge to be aware of call logging, then would he really want the call traced to a box within a few minutes of his house?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Can anyone corroborate Rod's claim that it's proven Joseph arrived in Liverpool after the murder, beyond the testimony of his own wife? Who I believe was not actually living with him but in Liverpool, so how she could be certain of when he got back into the country I'm not sure.

[moste]

I don't think he knew.

If Wallace made the call and thus knew the time of the call had been logged, why would he press Beattie for accuracy on the time of the call? He already had a dead on timestamp with the switchboard. Furthermore, if he had enough knowledge to be aware of call logging, then would he really want the call traced to a box within a few minutes of his house?

Maybe he was comparing Beatties time with his own watch, for his own reasons. Maybe Wallace wanted the police to believe he was being stalked.( He will have known that after the murder he would be number one suspect)