Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't disagree that people may have known that Wallace enjoyed chess, or even where he played chess, but he was not a very regular attender. They would have to have known he was intending to play in order to phone and make sure he got the message. So at the very least it is most likely someone who knew the Wallaces and had been told (or seen the schedule). Parry and Wallace are therefore quite likely but you are right, not the only people. It is only when you combine it with knowing the premium schedule that it really narrows down to Parry or Wallace.

If it was someone else, they must have taken some action to find the cafe number as it was not listed.

I think this rules out run of the mill burglars.

To have made the phone call to the chess club the caller would have had to have been certain that Wallace was attending on that particular night especially as he hadn’t attended since before Christmas. This gives us only Wallace himself or someone watching Wallace from a car (not on foot) in Breck Road on the Monday night to ensure that he was going to the club.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that we would need to know a little more about The Anfield Housebreakers m.o. If he got into houses using a skeleton key I’d find it difficult to believe that he would do this as early in the evening as the murder of Julia Wallace? Wouldn’t he have gone in when the lights were off and he believed that everyone was in bed? Would he have simply let himself into the Wallace’s back kitchen at, say, 7.30 with the risk of finding Wallace himself in the back kitchen?

For me the phone call and the murder have to be connected as part of a plan which could have only two explanations. a) to get Wallace out of the house or b) to give Wallace a reason for being absent and to point at the involvement of an unknown assailant.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I don't disagree that people may have known that Wallace enjoyed chess, or even where he played chess, but he was not a very regular attender. They would have to have known he was intending to play in order to phone and make sure he got the message. So at the very least it is most likely someone who knew the Wallaces and had been told (or seen the schedule). Parry and Wallace are therefore quite likely but you are right, not the only people. It is only when you combine it with knowing the premium schedule that it really narrows down to Parry or Wallace.

If it was someone else, they must have taken some action to find the cafe number as it was not listed.

I think this rules out run of the mill burglars.

Certainly it was someone aware of the Wallaces. They had to know of his business, they had to know he went to chess and where. But also do keep in mind many burglars at that time formed "syndicates", so one person could have provided the information yet not actually done any of the dirty work.

As for the premium schedule. Is it certainly why they struck on tuesday? I tend to doubt that has to be true. What of the possibility that they just knew he went to chess on monday nights, had perhaps heard through the grapevine or Julia/Wallace that he was planning to go (or just knew that "Wallace leaving home on monday at X time = probably going to chess") for that occasion, and seized the opportunity without even knowing he was most likely to have the largest bounty on tuesdays?

I don't think the fact they struck on tuesday means they definitely knew about his collection habits.

And why not strike monday? Well perhaps they weren't totally sure he would be at the club, perhaps he'd just nipped out to buy some cigarettes. Maybe they felt it was a safer bet to see if he left at a certain time the following night? Perhaps Julia might have mentioned her husband would be out on a business trip that night which would be a solid tip off that the plan had worked (Amy Wallace called and was told Wallace was going to Calderstones, also of note, the Johnstons claimed they could always hear Amy Wallace's visits through the walls as she was so loud). Or perhaps they wanted to obtain the cat as part of the plan and had not yet done so (if it was taken after Wallace left for chess).

Of course, if Wallace himself is involved and had a conspirator to murder then it all becomes rather obvious blackmailing the person he knew burgled #19 and potentially other homes in the area would work out well. Especially if it was Mr. Johnston, as him going to jail could totally f*ck his family (and obviously himself and his own future too), as he may have been the sole breadwinner.

And obviously the Johnston involvement PLUS Wallace eliminates almost every possible coincidence in the case.

The weird BDSM sh*t could be related too. Had Julia discovered he was getting freaky with Amy (who was said to have indulged in "beating black boys" in Malaya - and we see Wallace owned a dog whip), and threatened a divorce or to tell Joseph (assuming Joseph really WASN'T in the country and WASN'T the doppelganger in the cab rushing to Sefton Park), that would provide a motive. So then you have a possible motive as well as a more plausible blackmailed murder scenario. That's what I'm thinking along the lines of right now.

You could also (unlikely) have a furious Joseph revenge attack unbeknownst to Wallace, so Amy and Joseph conspiracy to murder. I don't know that it's plausible but again, best to mention everything 'cause you don't know what's gonna give someone an "AHA!" moment. Though Joseph was extremely intelligent, moreso than Wallace, and more likely to be able to mastermind a grand scheme.

But I don't want to convict Wallace just because it makes sense for him to be involved... If Rod and Antony return (team Wallacers) then they will definitely help push things forward as they'll have all the "why Wallace is innocent" facts.

[etenguy]

Someone else asked me this... I think a lot of people have issue with it... But I wouldn't say 100% they had to be involved.

In my PERSONAL view, lots of people could know Wallace went to chess. Long-time neighbors, cleaning ladies, Amy definitely knew of course (as she specifically mentioned why he only went on mondays). He wasn't a mute, and though Julia was apparently rather reserved and shy, she was able to speak, and could have told someone this information in passing. Particularly a neighbor or the cleaning lady... Which may then have been exploited for unscrupulous purposes... I somewhat dispute that "nobody could have known" Wallace would probably have gone to chess", and that nobody like the cleaning lady/neighbors could know of his collection routine, but my mind can easily be changed through discussion... I DON'T really think someone would wait another day for a much shakier chance of there being a bigger payload, so I don't think that was the reason the perpetrator didn't commit the act on Monday.

I don't have a solid opinion on this particular matter you raised either, so some group debate could be really helpful here. Btw if the cat was part of the plan, it was taken 24 hours in advance. Goodman's phrasing seems to potentially imply Puss went missing at the time Wallace went to the chess club? Hard to tell the specifics, all the papers just say it had been missing for "24 hours at the time of the murder" or words to that effect...

I don't disagree that people may have known that Wallace enjoyed chess, or even where he played chess, but he was not a very regular attender. They would have to have known he was intending to play in order to phone and make sure he got the message. So at the very least it is most likely someone who knew the Wallaces and had been told (or seen the schedule). Parry and Wallace are therefore quite likely but you are right, not the only people. It is only when you combine it with knowing the premium schedule that it really narrows down to Parry or Wallace.

If it was someone else, they must have taken some action to find the cafe number as it was not listed.

I think this rules out run of the mill burglars.

[WallaceWackedHer]

By the way the bolting of the back yard door is significant.

IS Julia negligent enough to leave it unbolted allowing someone to come in the back door? DID someone scale the back wall? Did Wallace ensure it was left unbolted? Did the perpetrator enter through the front door and leave through the back? What of the remote possibility that Julia DID follow Wallace down the entry and the killer slipped into the yard and into the home, then lie in wait to commit the terrible act on someone else's orders - I doubt it, but still?

The back yard door being unbolted upon Wallace's return and the front door on the latch, certainly shows that the intruder left through the back door.

In court, Wallace claimed Julia had bolted the back yard door, then said he isn't sure if she did. I think this matter is significant, as if it was unbolted it would be much easier for someone to come in the back door. But her presence in the parlor tends to indicate a guest, hence a more likely entry through the front... Or perhaps even Wallace letting an intruder in when he went home, letting them in through the back (to prevent any neighbors seeing it), or carelessly through the front door with him explaining to Julia that he was a guest etc.

I do doubt a number of those suggestions but it's best to raise ALL thoughts in case something you expect is meaningless hits someone else in a different way.

---

As for the suggestion of why wouldn't a potential burglar wait until both are out of the home... Well, if someone is totally broke and in desperate need of money, they don't have the luxury of waiting for the perfect opportunity, and have to create those opportunities on their own.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WHH

You are looking at a lot of evidence and information and have some interesting ideas about this case. However, as Herlock has mentioned, how do you explain the phone call if it was not Parry or Wallace involved?

Someone else asked me this... I think a lot of people have issue with it... But I wouldn't say 100% they had to be involved.

In my PERSONAL view, lots of people could know Wallace went to chess. Long-time neighbors, cleaning ladies, Amy definitely knew of course (as she specifically mentioned why he only went on mondays). He wasn't a mute, and though Julia was apparently rather reserved and shy, she was able to speak, and could have told someone this information in passing. Particularly a neighbor or the cleaning lady... Which may then have been exploited for unscrupulous purposes... I somewhat dispute that "nobody could have known" Wallace would probably have gone to chess", and that nobody like the cleaning lady/neighbors could know of his collection routine, but my mind can easily be changed through discussion... I DON'T really think someone would wait another day for a much shakier chance of there being a bigger payload, so I don't think that was the reason the perpetrator didn't commit the act on Monday.

I don't have a solid opinion on this particular matter you raised either, so some group debate could be really helpful here. Btw if the cat was part of the plan, it was taken 24 hours in advance. Goodman's phrasing seems to potentially imply Puss went missing at the time Wallace went to the chess club? Hard to tell the specifics, all the papers just say it had been missing for "24 hours at the time of the murder" or words to that effect...

---

I tried to see if anyone lived or worked near the Qualtrough butcher shop at 108 Country Road (although of course many people could have known of it so I'm not sure it's of any use, but I'll provide it anyway!).

These people/locations are:

Dr. Curwen's practice at 111 Priory Road.

Prudential agent Mr. Sutton, who R J Qualtrough is insured with (74 Queen's Drive).

Wallace's violin tutor Mr. Davis (Queen's Drive).

Detective Gold (95 Queen's Drive).

Caird's former business partner John William, who opened a shop at 114 Cherry Lane.

There was also a congregational church on Queen's Drive.

---

Walton and Kirkdale are the areas closest to that butcher shop, where it's sometimes suggested the name may have been taken from.

[etenguy]

Well... You'd think so... But countless other guilty people have so there's that...



I don't think there is any way Parry would imply he had any involvement in a murder. Even if he had a perfect alibi for the murder (which can realistically be questioned as to its genuinity - given that his parents may have coerced it, like they tried to have him smuggled away)... Like even so, just any suggestion he was involved in any way whatsoever could have got him in SERIOUS, SERIOUS trouble.

Given that Parkes apparently initially demanded money to give up the information, he might either be lying or exaggerating. I think I said as an example, Parry HAD turned up to have his car washed inside and out, and maybe Parkes found it (and perhaps even his behavior) a bit peculiar and added on the extra details. Maybe there was even a glove, but it was clean and Parry snatched it quickly which he again found suspicious. I CANNOT imagine Parry randomly volunteering that he dropped the murder weapon down a drain. NO WAY can I imagine that happening lmfao, so I strongly suspect Parkes is embezzling the truth.

Like really, imagine someone finds a blood-soaked glove in your car linking you to a murder then you're randomly like "oh yeah I killed someone, OH and by the way, the weapon was dropped down a drain on ___ road".



Of course, absolutely... Typically when someone on trial is going back on statements and getting "confused" with details etc., you'll find they're pretty much always guilty lol. But at the same time, given that diary entry (fumbled author name and book date), supposed bad chess skills, and lack of promotion despite 16 years of loyal work, it does make me wonder if he really was a foolish man/man with frequent memory lapses. He recently had a growth removed - I assume it wasn't from his brain?

Now "Wallace is innocent" supporters would probably be able to chime in here with helpful information on this factor. At the moment we're basically an echo chamber as most of us tend to lean on Wallace either being solely guilty, or involved in some way/having knowledge of what was going to happen that night. I think he was smart, but not THAT smart if you know what I mean. This entire scheme is like, Moriarty level of cunning, I don't think he was a genius. Maybe a slightly smart man who tried to pose himself as an intellectual by reading Marcus Aurelius books etc.

We NEED some recourse from the other side but they (Antony and Rod) have essentially vanished and it sucks when working towards a solution.



I don't feel a mackintosh is enough protection. He had to be SPOTLESS. It would have covered a large portion of his body, and of course a glove and hat even more, but he would still have some exposure. If he had planned the murder in the way it is suggested (that he would get out of the house at a time which makes it nearly impossible he could have done it), then he couldn't have known in advance that he'd get "lucky" to not be drenched, so it was quite risky.

However he was a chemist. Were people at the time aware of benzidine testing? It's possible he could have washed and then poured some chemical down the drain that would render the benzidine test useless. But then Antony SAYS they didn't perform the test on the drains? So I'm not sure.

If he washed, the timing is even tighter of course. But I will come back to this on another point you made.



It's more than that. He didn't make his presence known on the FIRST tram he "apparently" boarded. Not just the way back.

And even if he didn't, did people not have to pay fares? Wallace is a VERY distinctive looking man, his build, his face, his height. He certainly stands out a bit. You would think SOMEONE would recall seeing him, particularly anyone who took fares... And that brings me back to the point above on the timing. Did he have some way to get to Smithdown Lane much faster than he could have by tram? If so then it would make sense WHY he would choose to not make his presence known on the first tram he got on - since he never took it...

Even if he made his presence known on the first tram by saying "I need to go to MGE!", there could have been some OTHER event that would make someone recall him being on that tram. Like "accidentally" dropping his change etc. Anything that'd make him stick in someone's mind.

I think it would have made more sense should he have made his presence known on the FIRST tram if he took it. If he skipped it, the police in recreations would have to assume the potential fact that he arrived at the tram stop just as the tram arrived and assume a 0 minute wait time. Sorry if I'm sounding confusing lol, hopefully you see what I mean... But he could shave off time by hitching a ride to Smithdown.



Again, at least the bolded points were identical to the scene in #19 when it was burgled in December. And also sheets and pillows chucked around the room upstairs... Since there was no killing (hence no blood) or anyone in the home, the lack of blood out of the parlor and screaming is kinda moot for a comparison (though they are important points of course! Just not for comparing scenes), and I do not know if the lights were turned out. I should assume so, given the occupants were on vacation.

Julia would have screamed if confronted by someone threatening/a stranger to her yes, or at least caused some commotion. I COULD potentially see, if someone she knew and trusted came in, she may have been like "what the **** are you doing here?" without screaming then taken by surprise. And her being in the parlor suggests the admittance of a guest... But was there any other reason she may be in there? Comfier chairs to doze off on? The room WAS colder than the living kitchen apparently, but a fire was lit.

But yes, the scene at 29 Wolverton Street was either the work of the SAME PERSON who burgled 19 Wolverton Street. OR it was PURPOSEFULLY staged to look identical to #19 so as to throw off police.

---

Overall I am still of the opinion that neighbors, landlords, and cleaning ladies need to be examined very closely. Either as potential killers (many possible variations, hired by Wallace, hired by someone else to commit burglary, working alone) or as being involved in some way. In my mind "sneak burgling" as proposed by Rod and Antony is actually an impossible solution unless two people were in the home - one distracting Julia in the parlor while another came in the back door with a dupe key. And in a straight burglary, I expect the burglar must have gone into the parlor FIRST, rather than wrenching off doors etc.

I myself have been utterly COVERED in blood (I didn't kill/hurt anyone don't worry!) from head to toe. Blood was not tracked outside of the room where it got upon me, except when I carelessly touched walls and light handles etc. If I'd have been wearing gloves and taken them off, there would have been no blood tracked anywhere. It was on my face, body, arms - probably legs and feet, I don't know, but it was everywhere... It's a bit embarassing how it happened but it was when sleeping with someone, and the lights were off so we didn't realize, then the lights went on and HOLY ****. When I say there was a lot of blood I don't just mean there was a "lot of blood", I mean it literally looked like I'd dismembered someone and we were BOTH covered from head to toe in it. Something had torn and had bled profusely over a long period of time in the darkness with repeated aggravation...

I got most of it off with towels etc, but there was still some which had matted and I had to shower it off quite thoroughly at home. It's harder to clean yourself from blood than one might imagine.

But the idea of the perpetrator being covered then going on a tram journey totally clean, I don't know. I think the benzidine would catch transfer onto clothing worn over the top. It would take some time to get it all off thoroughly.

If the Johnstons were involved in some capacity with Wallace, then pretty much all "coincidences" are eliminated.

---

Again Johnston had to get up for work at 4AM, why is he visiting Phyllis at 9? Johnston had a dupe key. Johnston had a friend at 30 MGW. Johnston potentially had to support a family of 6 with potentially no other family member in work. Their involvement is possible and should certainly be considered carefully.

Johnston contradicted himself by telling the press Wallace had to force the back door open, then on trial said he opened it easily.

Hi WHH

You are looking at a lot of evidence and information and have some interesting ideas about this case. However, as Herlock has mentioned, how do you explain the phone call if it was not Parry or Wallace involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I find it difficult to believe that Parry would have been so monumentally stupid as to give a false alibi that he would have known would have been almost immediately disproven.

Well... You'd think so... But countless other guilty people have so there's that...

This is a good point WWH and one that I’ve made myself. As Parkes had told Parry that he didn’t trust him and as the Atkinson’s had caught him looking through a cupboard that contained cash Parry might have thought of a way of getting a bit of petty revenge. Confident of his alibi and the fact that he had no blood on him he led Parkes into believe him a murderer. The police dismiss Parkes because they know of Parry’s alibi and so Parkes gets labelled as a bit of a fantasist and waster of police time.

I don't think there is any way Parry would imply he had any involvement in a murder. Even if he had a perfect alibi for the murder (which can realistically be questioned as to its genuinity - given that his parents may have coerced it, like they tried to have him smuggled away)... Like even so, just any suggestion he was involved in any way whatsoever could have got him in SERIOUS, SERIOUS trouble.

Given that Parkes apparently initially demanded money to give up the information, he might either be lying or exaggerating. I think I said as an example, Parry HAD turned up to have his car washed inside and out, and maybe Parkes found it (and perhaps even his behavior) a bit peculiar and added on the extra details. Maybe there was even a glove, but it was clean and Parry snatched it quickly which he again found suspicious. I CANNOT imagine Parry randomly volunteering that he dropped the murder weapon down a drain. NO WAY can I imagine that happening lmfao, so I strongly suspect Parkes is embezzling the truth.

Like really, imagine someone finds a blood-soaked glove in your car linking you to a murder then you're randomly like "oh yeah I killed someone, OH and by the way, the weapon was dropped down a drain on ___ road".

They could also be explained as the efforts of a fallible human being undertaking an extremely stressful action. No matter how thorough someone plans something errors will occur (or the police would never catch anyone) Also not every eventuality can be accounted for (like Close turning up late for eg) and these things can cause panic and error.

Of course, absolutely... Typically when someone on trial is going back on statements and getting "confused" with details etc., you'll find they're pretty much always guilty lol. But at the same time, given that diary entry (fumbled author name and book date), supposed bad chess skills, and lack of promotion despite 16 years of loyal work, it does make me wonder if he really was a foolish man/man with frequent memory lapses. He recently had a growth removed - I assume it wasn't from his brain?

Now "Wallace is innocent" supporters would probably be able to chime in here with helpful information on this factor. At the moment we're basically an echo chamber as most of us tend to lean on Wallace either being solely guilty, or involved in some way/having knowledge of what was going to happen that night. I think he was smart, but not THAT smart if you know what I mean. This entire scheme is like, Moriarty level of cunning, I don't think he was a genius. Maybe a slightly smart man who tried to pose himself as an intellectual by reading Marcus Aurelius books etc.

We NEED some recourse from the other side but they (Antony and Rod) have essentially vanished and it sucks when working towards a solution.

I wouldn’t say that you’re wrong WWH as we could all be wrong on any issue. I genuinely believe that Wallace could have committed the crime using the mackintosh and possibly a pair of gloves. Either by using the mackintosh as a shield as he was kneeling next to Julia or by wearing it (possibly backwards) Also I’m never to worried about suggesting that Wallace might have had a bit of good fortune with the random blood spatter by not getting any on any parts of his body (like his head) that were exposed.

Wallace would have had to have cleaned up if he’d gotten blood on him because he had to speak to tram conductors etc.
Only an intentional murderer would have used protection.
There was no blood traces on the gas jets, the doors, the door handles, the carpets, the wallpaper or indeed anywhere outside the Parlour. A random, spur-of-the-moment killer would have had no need of such caution especially considering the fact that the lights were off.

Therefore the fact that there was no blood outside of the Parlour points very heavily towards Wallace imo.

I don't feel a mackintosh is enough protection. He had to be SPOTLESS. It would have covered a large portion of his body, and of course a glove and hat even more, but he would still have some exposure. If he had planned the murder in the way it is suggested (that he would get out of the house at a time which makes it nearly impossible he could have done it), then he couldn't have known in advance that he'd get "lucky" to not be drenched, so it was quite risky.

However he was a chemist. Were people at the time aware of benzidine testing? It's possible he could have washed and then poured some chemical down the drain that would render the benzidine test useless. But then Antony SAYS they didn't perform the test on the drains? So I'm not sure.

If he washed, the timing is even tighter of course. But I will come back to this on another point you made.

Isnt this because he wasn’t making his presence known on the journey back? On the way back he was just another passenger. On the way there he was that passenger who kept pestering conductors and an inspector for directions which gave them cause to remember him.

It's more than that. He didn't make his presence known on the FIRST tram he "apparently" boarded. Not just the way back.

And even if he didn't, did people not have to pay fares? Wallace is a VERY distinctive looking man, his build, his face, his height. He certainly stands out a bit. You would think SOMEONE would recall seeing him, particularly anyone who took fares... And that brings me back to the point above on the timing. Did he have some way to get to Smithdown Lane much faster than he could have by tram? If so then it would make sense WHY he would choose to not make his presence known on the first tram he got on - since he never took it...

Even if he made his presence known on the first tram by saying "I need to go to MGE!", there could have been some OTHER event that would make someone recall him being on that tram. Like "accidentally" dropping his change etc. Anything that'd make him stick in someone's mind.

I think it would have made more sense should he have made his presence known on the FIRST tram if he took it. If he skipped it, the police in recreations would have to assume the potential fact that he arrived at the tram stop just as the tram arrived and assume a 0 minute wait time. Sorry if I'm sounding confusing lol, hopefully you see what I mean... But he could shave off time by hitching a ride to Smithdown.

As for connecting The Anfield Housebreaker I still can’t get past the phone call. This makes the killing of Julia Wallace very different for me. Granted a killer might have gotten in using a skeleton key but there’s much against the idea of a burglar..

If someone got in that way and Julia came across him surely she would have screamed out.
The use of the call to get William out of the house.
The poor haul of cash and the lack of effort to find other cash or valuables.
Putting the cash box back onto the shelf.
The lack of blood outside the Parlour.
The lights being turned off.

Unless we go for the PD James idea (which I consider ludicrous) I can’t personally connect the AH to the crime.

Again, at least the bolded points were identical to the scene in #19 when it was burgled in December. And also sheets and pillows chucked around the room upstairs... Since there was no killing (hence no blood) or anyone in the home, the lack of blood out of the parlor and screaming is kinda moot for a comparison (though they are important points of course! Just not for comparing scenes), and I do not know if the lights were turned out. I should assume so, given the occupants were on vacation.

Julia would have screamed if confronted by someone threatening/a stranger to her yes, or at least caused some commotion. I COULD potentially see, if someone she knew and trusted came in, she may have been like "what the **** are you doing here?" without screaming then taken by surprise. And her being in the parlor suggests the admittance of a guest... But was there any other reason she may be in there? Comfier chairs to doze off on? The room WAS colder than the living kitchen apparently, but a fire was lit.

But yes, the scene at 29 Wolverton Street was either the work of the SAME PERSON who burgled 19 Wolverton Street. OR it was PURPOSEFULLY staged to look identical to #19 so as to throw off police.

---

Overall I am still of the opinion that neighbors, landlords, and cleaning ladies need to be examined very closely. Either as potential killers (many possible variations, hired by Wallace, hired by someone else to commit burglary, working alone) or as being involved in some way. In my mind "sneak burgling" as proposed by Rod and Antony is actually an impossible solution unless two people were in the home - one distracting Julia in the parlor while another came in the back door with a dupe key. And in a straight burglary, I expect the burglar must have gone into the parlor FIRST, rather than wrenching off doors etc.

I myself have been utterly COVERED in blood (I didn't kill/hurt anyone don't worry!) from head to toe. Blood was not tracked outside of the room where it got upon me, except when I carelessly touched walls and light handles etc. If I'd have been wearing gloves and taken them off, there would have been no blood tracked anywhere. It was on my face, body, arms - probably legs and feet, I don't know, but it was everywhere... It's a bit embarassing how it happened but it was when sleeping with someone, and the lights were off so we didn't realize, then the lights went on and HOLY ****. When I say there was a lot of blood I don't just mean there was a "lot of blood", I mean it literally looked like I'd dismembered someone and we were BOTH covered from head to toe in it. Something had torn and had bled profusely over a long period of time in the darkness with repeated aggravation...

I got most of it off with towels etc, but there was still some which had matted and I had to shower it off quite thoroughly at home. It's harder to clean yourself from blood than one might imagine.

But the idea of the perpetrator being covered then going on a tram journey totally clean, I don't know. I think the benzidine would catch transfer onto clothing worn over the top. It would take some time to get it all off thoroughly.

If the Johnstons were involved in some capacity with Wallace, then pretty much all "coincidences" are eliminated.

---

Again Johnston had to get up for work at 4AM, why is he visiting Phyllis at 9? Johnston had a dupe key. Johnston had a friend at 30 MGW. Johnston potentially had to support a family of 6 with potentially no other family member in work. Their involvement is possible and should certainly be considered carefully.

Johnston contradicted himself by telling the press Wallace had to force the back door open, then on trial said he opened it easily.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As for connecting The Anfield Housebreaker I still can’t get past the phone call. This makes the killing of Julia Wallace very different for me. Granted a killer might have gotten in using a skeleton key but there’s much against the idea of a burglar..

If someone got in that way and Julia came across him surely she would have screamed out.
The use of the call to get William out of the house.
The poor haul of cash and the lack of effort to find other cash or valuables.
Putting the cash box back onto the shelf.
The lack of blood outside the Parlour.
The lights being turned off.

Unless we go for the PD James idea (which I consider ludicrous) I can’t personally connect the AH to the crime.

‘Double post - sorry

[Herlock Sholmes]

As for connecting The Anfield Housebreaker I still can’t get past the phone call. This makes the killing of Julia Wallace very different for me. Granted a killer might have gotten in using a skeleton key but there’s much against the idea of a burglar..

If someone got in that way and Julia came across him surely she would have screamed out.
The use of the call to get William out of the house.
The poor haul of cash and the lack of effort to find other cash or valuables.
Putting the cash box back onto the shelf.
The lack of blood outside the Parlour.
The lights being turned off.

Unless we go for the PD James idea (which I consider ludicrous) I can’t personally connect the AH to the crime.

[moste]

As for connecting The Anfield Housebreaker I still can’t get past the phone call. This makes the killing of Julia Wallace very different for me. Granted a killer might have gotten in using a skeleton key but there’s much against the idea of a burglar..

If someone got in that way and Julia came across him surely she would have screamed out.
The use of the call to get William out of the house.
The poor haul of cash and the lack of effort to find other cash or valuables.
Putting the cash box back onto the shelf.
The lack of blood outside the Parlour.
The lights being turned off.

Unless we go for the PD James idea (which I consider ludicrous) I can’t personally connect the AH to the crime.

With the exception of Julia screaming out, I am on board with the above. She certainly would scream out, loudly enough for the whole street to hear , if the intruder was coming at her from across the room with a weapon in his hand,but it may not have been quite like that.
It is refreshing having WWH sifting through evidence and trying to come up with a new angle.I have only read , as Ive said before 'Roger Wilkes's effort' who believes far too much in Parkes's testimony IMO. I would mention in this regard WWH , blackmail, or financial profit are a strong magnet for many of the criminal fraternity, but folk of Parkes's ilk I believe will gladly grab the limelight for no other reason other than to feel important and have people listen to them.Wilkes probably knew all this but had a radio show to put out and a book to flog .
If Wallace wasn't controlling events , and was completely unknowing in what was going on, then the plan, including the phone call and all other aspects of the crime with all its ruses, are for me of MI 5 proportions . Consequently, we need look no further than Wallace .

[Herlock Sholmes]

As for connecting The Anfield Housebreaker I still can’t get past the phone call. This makes the killing of Julia Wallace very different for me. Granted a killer might have gotten in using a skeleton key but there’s much against the idea of a burglar..

If someone got in that way and Julia came across him surely she would have screamed out.
The use of the call to get William out of the house.
The poor haul of cash and the lack of effort to find other cash or valuables.
Putting the cash box back onto the shelf.
The lack of blood outside the Parlour.
The lights being turned off.

Unless we go for the PD James idea (which I consider ludicrous) I can’t personally connect the AH to the crime.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Since learning a lot of new information I don't anymore think that we should just be arguing about whether it was Wallace alone, Parry alone, Parry and Marsden, Wallace Parry and Marsden, or Parry and "Unknown"... At least not now.

I think new avenues have been opened up which deserve to be explored.

I agree that all avenues should be investigated and I honestly think it’s great that we have a fresh pair of eyes with new viewpoints looking into things (that’s you by the way) my only word of caution is that around any case like this we have the curse of the rumour. The ripper case is full of them. This case less so for obvious reasons but they do exist. Worth exploring yes but it’s vital to bear in mind that people do simply make stuff up and outrageous stuff at that and so to push on along any of those avenues we need some strong corroborating evidence and not just that more than one person mentioned the same rumour. I’m not saying that that’s what your doing at all but it’s worth mentioning I think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If anyone is going to focus on points about Parry and Wallace - I think it'd be worth investigating things which I DON'T think have been strongly debated or questioned before: WHY was he first seen at Smithdown Lane (the second tram he claimed to have boarded, was it not?), WHY did nobody see him on his tram journey home? Did he have some OTHER means of getting to Smithdown Lane and from Menlove Gardens which would shave off time?

Isnt this because he wasn’t making his presence known on the journey back? On the way back he was just another passenger. On the way there he was that passenger who kept pestering conductors and an inspector for directions which gave them cause to remember him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Obviously I find Wallace to be a suspicious man, but my main gripes about him would be allayed if he had some type of memory issue, or was not exactly as intelligent as we are led to believe. And also I DO question the lack of blood, when I think about it... He would have had to wear clothes, the mack, and the hat. Probably gloves too... And socks... Because from what I read from the forensic team at the time, even if he had bathed, it would not remove all traces of blood. So if traces were still on him, then whatever new outfit he put on would have got microscopic bloodstains on which would have been revealed by the benzidine test which was performed upon them.

Am I wrong in this?

I wouldn’t say that you’re wrong WWH as we could all be wrong on any issue. I genuinely believe that Wallace could have committed the crime using the mackintosh and possibly a pair of gloves. Either by using the mackintosh as a shield as he was kneeling next to Julia or by wearing it (possibly backwards) Also I’m never to worried about suggesting that Wallace might have had a bit of good fortune with the random blood spatter by not getting any on any parts of his body (like his head) that were exposed.

Wallace would have had to have cleaned up if he’d gotten blood on him because he had to speak to tram conductors etc.
Only an intentional murderer would have used protection.
There was no blood traces on the gas jets, the doors, the door handles, the carpets, the wallpaper or indeed anywhere outside the Parlour. A random, spur-of-the-moment killer would have had no need of such caution especially considering the fact that the lights were off.

Therefore the fact that there was no blood outside of the Parlour points very heavily towards Wallace imo.