Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi everyone, I busy on my next book and don't have much time at the moment to look on the forum, although I see it is bursting with debate and ideas. There is so much to comment on, but I will take the most recent.

What fault did Leslie Heaton (the telephone engineer) fix? Where is the evidence of the fault? And when was it reported as fixed? Heaton mentioned no fault in his police statement, deposition (committal hearing) and trial. The logged COMPLAINT (note it was not logged as a fault) was NO REPLY from Bank 3581.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi everyone, I busy on my next book and don't have much time at the moment to look on the forum, although I see it is bursting with debate and ideas. There is so much to comment on, but I will take the most recent.

What fault did Leslie Heaton (the telephone engineer) fix? Where is the evidence of the fault? And when was it reported as fixed? Heaton mentioned no fault in his police statement, deposition (committal hearing) and trial. The logged COMPLAINT (note it was not logged as a fault) was NO REPLY from Bank 3581.

Here:

The all important fact, that following the Qualtrough complaint of his difficulty getting through, the telephone engineer was sent to examine the mechanism was not mentioned. Nor was the fact that he found a fault in the mechanism which he repaired. In her book Two Studies in Crime (Macmillan, 1970) Yseult Bridges quotes the official record of the incident.

Far more important information for someone who's seen the case files to reveal would be the complete statements made by the other Johnston household members, and other neighbors.

And also if anyone else Wallace encountered that night saw what he was wearing (Lily hall claimed a dark overcoat, Wallace said fawn IIRC).

Wallace also did not say A. M. Qualtrough AFAIK. The statement you quoted in your book, I found in others and in newspaper reports. All include the Menlove Avenue East slip, but all say R. M. Qualtrough.

[ColdCaseJury]

Here:



Far more important information for someone who's seen the case files to reveal would be the complete statements made by the other Johnston household members, and other neighbors.

And also if anyone else Wallace encountered that night saw what he was wearing (Lily hall claimed a dark overcoat, Wallace said fawn IIRC).

Wallace also did not say A. M. Qualtrough AFAIK. The statement you quoted in your book, I found in others and in newspaper reports. All include the Menlove Avenue East slip, but all say R. M. Qualtrough.

Yes, I agree the source is Bridges, but there is no official report. No one has been able to verify it. That's my point. (Edit: and if Heaton did fix a fault you would think he would have mentioned it at least once).

I'll double check AM Qualtrough - I might be wrong, as you suggest - but Wilkes also has it as AM.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, I agree the source is Bridges, but there is no official report. No one has been able to verify it. That's my point.

I'll double check AM Qualtrough - I might be wrong, as you suggest - but Wilkes also has it as AM.

Bridges made it up?

Two operators attempted to connect that call and failed. They had to get their supervisor. Obviously there was something f*cked up going on. The woman who answered the phone attested that it had not rung prior to the final call that was connected by Kelly, finally, after even the supervisor failed to connect the call.

I'm sure you have seen the statements of neighbors and other Johnston family members while reading the case files, can you recall those? They are of utmost importance.

[ColdCaseJury]

Bridges made it up?

Most writers make mistakes. Bridges fabricated a vital police statement in (IIRC) the Constance Kent case and did a similar thing in the Bravo case. In the latter she augmented a key statement that completely changed its meaning although the person who made the statement said nothing of the sort. The telephone engineer was Heaton and he would have mentioned a fault in his police statement, deposition and testimony; he did mention the faulty light bulb. Is that it, I wonder? Also, if there was a fault with the phone/line, I suggest it does not explain what the caller said.

Give me time, WWH, and I'll try to post (at my website) what you want.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Most writers make mistakes. Bridges fabricated a vital police statement in (IIRC) the Constance Kent case and did a similar thing in the Bravo case. In the latter she augmented a key statement that completely changed its meaning although the person who made the statement said nothing of the sort. The telephone engineer was Heaton and he would have mentioned a fault in his police statement, deposition and testimony; he did mention the faulty light bulb. Is that it, I wonder? Also, if there was a fault with the phone/line, I suggest it does not explain what the caller said.

Give me time, WWH, and I'll try to post (at my website) what you want.

You don't even need the engineer to know something was wrong though... Look at how many times the operators failed to connect the call to the City Cafè. That obviously shows things were not working as they should.

By the way I am of the opinion Parry was tricked into making the call under a false pretext (if it really was him). But the connection was legitimately faulty, so the only thing against him is that it was claimed to not be Wallace's voice (but that holds almost no water as proof Parry called), and most importantly the false alibi. The latter is the only strong indication of why I think he rang.

Parkes clearly lied too but many use his statement as evidence. When I saw Goodman confirm the bar was found (in an extremely pro-Wallace book by the way - this is used as evidence of Wallace's innocence), then straight away it becomes clear that the bar wasn't "dropped down a grid". It was already obvious that it'd be weird for a murderer to blurt out for no reason where he'd ditched the weapon and implying that he'd killed someone, instead of making excuses (which was Parry's usual M.O. when caught btw).

All books containing the Parkes statement should include the footnote that the bar was found - which will help people realize he's a liar.

[ColdCaseJury]

All books containing the Parkes statement should include the footnote that the bar was found - which will help people realize he's a liar.

I do mention this in my book (that a bar was found), as I'm sure you realise. Murphy mentions it but dismisses it, as I also explain.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I do mention this in my book (that a bar was found), as I'm sure you realise. Murphy mentions it but dismisses it, as I also explain.

Indeed. Also Murphy is so biased I'm not sure I even wanna buy the book. I saw him write an article claiming Alan Close came at 6.30 so how could I trust anything else he says? Lol.

I will look forward extremely enthusiastically to other neighbor reports. The confirmation of timing of sounds, or lack thereof, etc, will prove crucial IMO.

The reports of other Johnston family members - in particular Arthur Mills, I particularly wish to see.

[ColdCaseJury]

Indeed. Also Murphy is so biased I'm not sure I even wanna buy the book. I saw him write an article claiming Alan Close came at 6.30 so how could I trust anything else he says? Lol.

I will look forward extremely enthusiastically to other neighbor reports. The confirmation of timing of sounds, or lack thereof, etc, will prove crucial IMO.

The reports of other Johnston family members - in particular Arthur Mills, I particularly wish to see.

Yes, I will get what I have up on my website in due course, WWH. I don't believe there is a police statement by Arthur Mills.

And in my evaluation of Parkes I also say that the mentioning of the bar is suspicious, and counts against his account. Whether you reject everything he says is a judgement to be made by everyone (no need for my friend Herlock to say anything further on this point!)

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, I will get what I have up on my website in due course, WWH. I don't believe there is a police statement by Arthur Mills.

And in my evaluation of Parkes I also say that the mentioning of the bar is suspicious, and counts against his account. Whether you reject everything he says is a judgement to be made by everyone (no need for my friend Herlock to say anything further on this point!)

That's a shame as Arthur was in the best position to hear sounds in the parlor. More bad policing?

Just wondering, do you also have extended details about the Anfield housebreakings? Can't find anything in the newspapers except after Julia was killed, then suddenly it mentions a string of 20 to 30 robberies in the neighbourhood using a skeleton/dupe key.

I believe the housebreaker was the initial suspect due to the crime scene looking very similar to the previous burglary (except this one had a dead woman in it).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed. Also Murphy is so biased I'm not sure I even wanna buy the book. I saw him write an article claiming Alan Close came at 6.30 so how could I trust anything else he says? Lol.

Id take Murphy over Wilkes and Goodman every day of the week. I don’t see why we have to assume police corruption on this issue. It seems pretty obvious that Close arrived at the Wallace’s nearer to 6.35 than 6.45. The police just walked Close through his journey. The testimony of the Johnston’s and the Holme’s appear to corroborate this earlier time too.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Id take Murphy over Wilkes and Goodman every day of the week. I don’t see why we have to assume police corruption on this issue. It seems pretty obvious that Close arrived at the Wallace’s nearer to 6.35 than 6.45. The police just walked Close through his journey. The testimony of the Johnston’s and the Holme’s appear to corroborate this earlier time too.

Sharpening and levelling bro... Murphy is extremely well read on the case, he should know it's 6.37 or 6.38 as the typical consensus? It seems that claiming 6.30 or 6.45 is a sign of strong bias.

Oddly the Holme testimony is that they heard the sound of someone falling, and THEN the front door shut. Peculiar. I wonder if they felt it was someone falling after they learned what happened, or if it was their initial impression also.

Alan Close is weird. It sounds like he enjoyed the fame of being the "missing link!" I have a much longer court transcript with the boy, and he's legit giggling while being questioned etc. Srs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

By the way I am of the opinion Parry was tricked into making the call under a false pretext (if it really was him).

I still struggle with the concept of Wallace tricking Parry into making the call. Wallace would have risked the gallow’s on the belief that Parry, if he’d gone to the police, wouldn’t have been believed when they compared his background to Wallace’s. Even if Parry had known of the murder he could still have claimed, for example, that he made the call just to help out a friend who wanted a night out without his wife knowing. The police couldn’t have proved his connection to the crime and as he had a rock solid alibi for the time of the murder he would have had no problems. A guilty Wallace would have known that he would have been the first person that the police would have looked at as a suspect. It’s reasonable to ask whether Parry would have gone to the police but how could Wallace have been sure that Parry, crook though he was, might not have had a conscience. Especially concerning the brutal death of someone that he may well have been quite fond of?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I still struggle with the concept of Wallace tricking Parry into making the call. Wallace would have risked the gallow’s on the belief that Parry, if he’d gone to the police, wouldn’t have been believed when they compared his background to Wallace’s. Even if Parry had known of the murder he could still have claimed, for example, that he made the call just to help out a friend who wanted a night out without his wife knowing. The police couldn’t have proved his connection to the crime and as he had a rock solid alibi for the time of the murder he would have had no problems. A guilty Wallace would have known that he would have been the first person that the police would have looked at as a suspect. It’s reasonable to ask whether Parry would have gone to the police but how could Wallace have been sure that Parry, crook though he was, might not have had a conscience. Especially concerning the brutal death of someone that he may well have been quite fond of?

How could Parry tell the police if he'd unwittingly taken part in a murder scheme? It'd be way, WAY too dangerous. He would have SEVERE problems if police found out he'd made a call that directly linked to Julia's murder - even if he had an alibi for the night of the killing. Would YOU take that chance?

Look at Parry's parents trynna smuggle him out and his B.S. alibi lol.

It's interesting that Parry said he wouldn't talk even for thousands of pounds - BUT only while his dad's still alive - because he says he promised his dad he wouldn't say anything. He said if his dad passes, he will talk if the price is right.

So it sounds like he may know something or have some connection, but was not really a participant in the crime.

If he just wanted money he could easily have just spun a yarn and completely lied, even while his dad is alive. So it's odd to me.

---

Also I should think it's WAY riskier for Wallace to have called himself and then Beattie later realizing (because obv he wouldn't even consider it at the time but might view it differently after what happened) that it might have been William's voice?

Look at the backing Wallace would have. Parry could know Wallace went to chess there, knew Wallace's address, knew where the cash box is (allegedly), and would be welcomed in as a guest (which fits with Julia in the parlor) AND had a reputation as a crook. Police had a hard enough time pinning it on Wallace as it is. Then he has Amy testifying that Julia told her Wallace had received an unexpected business call, the Johnstons to claim thuds at 8.25 and play witness to his discovery of the body...

Why do you think Wallace suddenly gave over Parry as a suspect out of the blue? The poor b*stard was set up. Did police even suspect him before that? What if Parry had an alibi for the call AND murder night? Big risk there... He basically said in so many words "Parry did it", then listed a bunch of random names like his violin tutor.

He probably decided to give up Parry when the cops cast suspicion onto him and off of the Anfield housebreaker.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sharpening and levelling bro... Murphy is extremely well read on the case, he should know it's 6.37 or 6.38 as the typical consensus? It seems that claiming 6.30 or 6.45 is a sign of strong bias.

Oddly the Holme testimony is that they heard the sound of someone falling, and THEN the front door shut. Peculiar. I wonder if they felt it was someone falling after they learned what happened, or if it was their initial impression also.

Alan Close is weird. It sounds like he enjoyed the fame of being the "missing link!" I have a much longer court transcript with the boy, and he's legit giggling while being questioned etc. Srs.

Florence Johnston said that her milk was delivered at around 6.30 and we know that her milk was delivered whilst Julia Wallace was taking hers inside. Bertha Holme said to her husband “Is that a knock at our front door?” To which her husband replied “no, it’s at the Wallace’s.” According to Murphy, in their police statements the day after the murder, both Holme’s said that they’d heard the knock at 6.30. No one else called at the Wallace’s at that time.

Id say that as a general rule adults are far more reliable when it comes to matters of time. I think that Alan Close knocked on the Wallace’s door pretty close to 6.30 but I’d go for a time of 6.30-6.35.