Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to add on the ‘panicked’ state comment. This was three hours after the murder! He’s thinking enough to get his car cleaned. Why doesn’t he think of the even more obvious “oh, and I’d better dump the glove before I go?”

[etenguy]

Just a thought, but did anyone ever find the murder weapon? Maybe a water worker. I guess if they did they may not have recognised what it was.

[RodCrosby]

No, not to anyone's knowledge.
I even offered in 2008 to go and dig up the grid.

There were in fact 2 doctor's surgeries in Priory Road in 1931. One of them had a grid outside...

[moste]

No, not to anyone's knowledge.
I even offered in 2008 to go and dig up the grid.

Anyone know,was the Wallace house 29 Wolverton rented, or were they buying?
Looking for a possible motive.

[RodCrosby]

Rented, as did most people then.

[moste]

In Roger Wilkes book , he has Mrs Wallace putting the bottom bolt on the back yard gate ! If true, did William climb over to access back door?

[RodCrosby]

It was unbolted because the killer had left by that way.

[moste]

In Roger Wilkes book , he has Mrs Wallace putting the bottom bolt on the back yard gate ! If true, did William climb over to access back door?

Further I notice ,if unable to unlock Yale type latch at the front door, in order to then ‘go to the back’, It was necessary to walk some 150 yards around the 4 adjoining houses and along the back alley . An assailent still on the premises, would observe this and be able to make a well timed escape . Nah! I think I’ll stick with, Wallace murdered his wife!

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s also worth pointing out that Wallace said that he’d never been unable to get in before despite the locks being a bit faulty. So another thing that we’re asked to believe is that in the 2 hours that Wallace was away and while the murder of his wife was taking place both locks simultaneously malfunctioned to the extent that he couldn’t open the doors. For the first time ever.

[RodCrosby]

Yawn. I think I prefer the evidence of an unbiased expert.

"James Sarginson, a locksmith, gave evidence that the lock of the front door of 29 Wolverton Street, which he had examined, had been in a defective condition for a long time. He stated that the part which was operated by the key was worn, and that when the key was inserted into the lock it turned a complete revolution, which allowed the latch to slip back again. There was no indication that it had been damaged recently. He also testified that the lock of the back door was rusty, but in good working order. It required pressure to open it."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn. I think I prefer the evidence of an unbiased expert.

"James Sarginson, a locksmith, gave evidence that the lock of the front door of 29 Wolverton Street, which he had examined, had been in a defective condition for a long time. He stated that the part which was operated by the key was worn, and that when the key was inserted into the lock it turned a complete revolution, which allowed the latch to slip back again. There was no indication that it had been damaged recently. He also testified that the lock of the back door was rusty, but in good working order. It required pressure to open it."

I don’t see the relevance of that quote. I’d already stated that the locks had defects. The key point, which you’ve avoided again, is that Wallace stated that he’d never been unable to get in before. This was the first time that it had happened, ever. As the lock on the front door had been defective for some time why was Wallace surprised by this?

So I repeat - we have two locks malfunctioning to the extent that Wallace can’t get in simoultaneously just at the time of his wife’s murder.

[moste]

Qualtrough is a Manx name in origin, and very common there. The Isle of Man is 70 miles from Liverpool, and in the 1930s was a popular holiday destination. Many people from Liverpool would have visited on the daily ferry.

Liverpool, as a major port, also attracted immigrants from all over Britain, and beyond.

There were 14 families named Qualtrough who were residents of Liverpool, including several shopkeepers, a couple of whom were within a mile of where Wallace/Parry lived.

At least one Qualtrough was also a client of the Prudential (although not Wallace's client) !

14 families named Qualtrough in Liverpool in 1931.
Liverpool’s population had peaked in 1931 to (get ready for this) 846,000.
Qualtrough was a very rare name in Liverpool at that time, Millom on the other hand where Wallace grew up, well,most people would have heard of that name and perhaps even known of a Qualtrough.
Wallace should have gone with Brown, Wilson , O’Brien or some such. I think We’re on to him.Erm ..I’ve just received word that I have been promoted to Sergeant. However I’m transferred back to the A6 case so ,bye for now, and , evening all.

[etenguy]

I don’t see the relevance of that quote. I’d already stated that the locks had defects. The key point, which you’ve avoided again, is that Wallace stated that he’d never been unable to get in before. This was the first time that it had happened, ever. As the lock on the front door had been defective for some time why was Wallace surprised by this?

So I repeat - we have two locks malfunctioning to the extent that Wallace can’t get in simoultaneously just at the time of his wife’s murder.

This issue has been raised a few times, so probably worth exploring.

a) I seem to remember the front door was bolted from the inside,
so, regardless of the state of the lock, Wallace would not be able to enter through the front door. So, this inability to open the door is not
faked to attract a witness to find the body with him. Of course, if he
were the murderer, he may have bolted the door before he left to
ensure he couldn't get in but we are here dealing with whether
Wallace's behaviour was odd given the front door was locked against
him. It doesn't seem to be to me. He says he knocked and received no answer. If he knew she was dead he might say this but there would be no point in actually knocking. The Johnsons though state that they heard the knock, so we know he did knock.

b) the back door would not open and then would easily on a second attempt. Maybe the key was not properly inserted the first time, especially as he was a bit agitated (see below). Or maybe he was stalling for a witness to come along. Wallace had a limited time to find witnesses to find the body with him if that was his aim. He had no way of knowing that someone would present themselves at about that time. Especially coming out of the back of their house (why did the Johnsons leave from the back door and not the front?). Unless it is common not to leave from the front of the house in Liverpool at that time, he is in the wrong place to best attract a witness. The front of the house would have been better and more likely. I think this leads me to think it was his being anxious which led him to insert the key improperly the first time.

c) Wallace expressed his worry/anxiousness to the Johnsons when he met them. Much is made of this, as if it would be unreasonable for him to be anxious. I would argue that most people would be. He has just returned from a wild goose chase, the front door is locked and no-one answers his knocks. This is unusual and sufficiently odd, that he worries something has happened to Julia. If I were in that position, I too would be anxious and might very well express that to a neighbour or friend. I don't find this odd behaviour at all.

[RodCrosby]

I don’t see the relevance of that quote. I’d already stated that the locks had defects. The key point, which you’ve avoided again, is that Wallace stated that he’d never been unable to get in before. This was the first time that it had happened, ever. As the lock on the front door had been defective for some time why was Wallace surprised by this?

So I repeat - we have two locks malfunctioning to the extent that Wallace can’t get in simoultaneously just at the time of his wife’s murder.

Yawn. You continue to accumulate disinformation and misrepresentation points, your only "contribution" to this thread, it seems.

Wallace said in his first statement on the night of the murder that the back door "sticks sometimes" and repeated this under cross-examination.

In his book, Antony states that the stickiness of the back door was confirmed by the Wallaces' char-woman...

If you mean why did he have particular difficulty that night, well it was the first time he had been called away on a wild-goose chase, ever, and the first time he had cause to worry about what might be going on his house, ever. And it turned out that the front door had been bolted from the inside.

"It is not at all impossible that, under those circumstances, in that state of mind, he might have been so upset
at the moment as to have had a difficulty in overcoming the friction of the two locks."
Mr. Justice Wright, summing-up in R v Wallace

[etenguy]

Yawn. You continue to accumulate disinformation and misrepresentation points, your only "contribution" to this thread, it seems.

Wallace said in his first statement on the night of the murder that the back door "sticks sometimes" and repeated this under cross-examination.

In his book, Antony states that the stickiness of the back door was confirmed by the Wallaces' char-woman...

If you mean why did he have particular difficulty that night, well it was the first time he had been called away on a wild-goose chase, ever, and the first time he had cause to worry about what might be going on his house, ever. And it turned out that the front door had been bolted from the inside.

"It is not at all impossible that, under those circumstances, in that state of mind, he might have been so upset
at the moment as to have had a difficulty in overcoming the friction of the two locks."
Mr. Justice Wright, summing-up in R v Wallace

Sorry Rod, I think we must have posted similar responses at the same time.