Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The most damning evidence against him, all the fumbled statements, retractions, false information, could be explained by a man who suffered from some type of memory issue or lacking intelligence (even self-professed intellectuals aren't always exactly intellectual lmao. Anyone can read Marcus Aurelius etc. but it doesn't mean they're smart). If others like Rod and Antony were still posting here, I think they would have deeper information, having seen the police files.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) I often find it hard to believe people are completely lying - but the testimony Parkes gave is rather crazy, and it leads me to wonder whether there was some tiny grain of truth (e.g. that Parry came and got his car hosed down) that he then greatly exaggerated with extra details. For example - the idea that as soon as Parkes saw the glove he admitted he'd be hung for it, and then randomly VOLUNTEERED where he'd dropped the murder weapon? How farfetched.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) False alibi for the night of the call. THIS in my opinion is THE strongest evidence to suggest he had called. Without the false alibi I would definitely not think he called. There would be nothing of the sort to suggest it.

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. He would have known that Lilly Lloyd and her mother would have been interviewed to check his alibi. Even if he’d said “I was out driving around” it would have been less harmful to himself than an obvious lie. If he’d planned the robbery/murder wouldn’t he have tried to create an alibi for himself (one of his dodgy mates or his accomplice?) If he’d even realised that he’d given a false alibi wouldn’t he have tried to get Lily and her mother to back him up? There refusal to do so obviously caused no rift or ill feeling which is difficult to accept. Also, as it was suggested that Lily told Wallace’s barrister that she’d given him a false alibi for the night of the murder (pointless as her ‘alibi’ was for after the time of the murder) wouldn’t she have mentioned that Parry had tried to get her to falsely alibi him for the night of the call.

Yes, I know that Antony suspects that this is a ‘defend Wallace’s candidature at all costs’ point but it's not. I think that we have to at least allow for the possibility that Parry was genuinely mistaken.

[WallaceWackedHer]

By the way every time I see Joseph in those shades I hear the GTA Liberty City Stories theme rofl:

Imagining him turning up to Julia's door with an Uzi. He looks like legit cartel or mafia don loool.

The description that cab driver gave of his passenger who was in an anxious state fleeing towards Sefton Park at the time of the murder, you legitimately could NOT come up with a better description of Joseph Wallace if you tried:

"About 5'11, sharp features, pale face, rimmed glasses, slight mustache, hair beginning to turn grey, thin build, well spoken, well mannered, about 50 years of age."

I dare ANYONE to come up with a more accurate description of Joseph lol.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Did you know Arthur Mills was living with the Johnstons, could he have had a job at his age?

There were apparently 6 people in the home at that time. Did Norah have a job? Did Robert have a job? Did Amy have a job? Did Florence have a job? Did Arthur have a job? Who were they all relying on to keep the household going? Because they need the financial means to feed and support 6 people in that home.

Mr. Johnston worked at Cammell-Laird shipbuilding yard, and in 1931 only one ship had been produced. They were known to be a very hard up family. And it would seem they at LEAST had to support their father. And if Florence was out of work, then Mr. Johnston would have been supporting her as well... And likely any others in the household who were out of work, would have been receiving financial support from the only working parties.

It would make sense for Mr. Johnston to rely on less-than-legal means to obtain the financial requirements to support his family.

IF Mr. Johnston were the "trigger man" as it were (or even just provided a place for the killer to wash himself off, maybe dump items (or just wash them off), then the total lack of sighting of a blood-splattered man would be clearly explained. IF someone knew of his criminal activities, blackmail could have been used to make him commit murder. Or indeed, he may have been blackmailed into performing the robbery and sharing the takings with the unknown person. I think I have already raised that point... But many authors who have Wallace as the mastermind suggest he used blackmail to get the parties involved to go along with it... And something like that, would be perfect for blackmail...

---

I found out some interesting information on Mr. Parkes... It would seem that Wilkes was initially told that Parkes demanded money to give his story... But of course, they tracked him down and then he had to give it up lol. Is there a grain of truth in Parkes' statement? It is possible... Or maybe he was just chasing financial gain from a B.S. story.

If we do have the involvement of Parry, I can see something like the following happening: Wallace tells Parry that he's going to pull off some scam to "burgle" the insurance takings in his own home, and share the bounty. Parry gladly agrees to this, and calls the City Café (though I think Mr. Johnston could also have done this... They lived next door lol, neighbors leaving together and walking to the box he would obviously be in there at the right time - and recall the voice was described as an "older gentleman")...Wallace tells him that he will need to be there the next day with a car... If Parkes is to be believed of course... So anyway, Parry comes along in his car, and to his shock, weaponry and blood stained gloves are dumped upon him. He's like "WHAT THE ****?!" and then threatened to dispose of them, since he is now essentially involved in a murder... And from there he may have gone and disposed of the items in a panicked state, and then gone to the garage in a panic later in the night.

BUT I'm not sure of Parkes. Especially the people who "backed up" his claims lol. I mean it's altogether a bit ridiculous. The car TOTALLY clear of stains, but for some reason a bloody glove left there rofl, guess he didn't think of chucking it down the drain with the bar LOL. Perhaps a grain of truth, perhaps he STRONGLY suspected Parry did it and elaborated some details, like inventing that Parry blurted out randomly that he'd thrown the weapon down a drain...

[WallaceWackedHer]

So what your saying is,' Wallace had been in #19 prepping a false burglary , so that it would completely throw the cops for a loop When he did his dirty work in his own home, maybe? ... Nahh , I can't go with that one.

No. I'm saying the same perp could be responsible for both.

Or the scene at #29 was a murder made to look like #19 to throw off police.

[moste]

This is not the only factor. The other factor is that nothing else was stolen, there was no forced entry, and pillows and blankets upstairs were randomly thrown around. Oh also the cash container was replaced.

In other words, the crime scene was basically identical to the scene at 29, just without the dead woman in it.

So what your saying is,' Wallace had been in #19 prepping a false burglary , so that it would completely throw the cops for a loop When he did his dirty work in his own home, maybe? ... Nahh , I can't go with that one.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Quote: 2) The fact the equivalent of the "cash box" was ALSO the only thing stolen from at the scene of #19, helps draw suspicion away from Parry. Obviously someone had inside knowledge to know where the #19 "cash box" was, and that person was NOT Parry.

Why do you think someone had to have inside knowledge of where their cash box was? Maybe it was on the mantle shelf, next to the clock!

This is not the only factor. The other factor is that nothing else was stolen, there was no forced entry, and pillows and blankets upstairs were randomly thrown around. Oh also the cash container was replaced.

In other words, the crime scene was basically identical to the scene at 29, just without the dead woman in it.

[moste]

Quote: 2) The fact the equivalent of the "cash box" was ALSO the only thing stolen from at the scene of #19, helps draw suspicion away from Parry. Obviously someone had inside knowledge to know where the #19 "cash box" was, and that person was NOT Parry.

Why do you think someone had to have inside knowledge of where their cash box was? Maybe it was on the mantle shelf, next to the clock!

[WallaceWackedHer]

In regards to Parry, strong points can be made against him, but also exonerating him.

Guilt:

1) False alibi for the night of the call. THIS in my opinion is THE strongest evidence to suggest he had called. Without the false alibi I would definitely not think he called. There would be nothing of the sort to suggest it.

2) The possibility he could have made the call based on the testimony of Lily Lloyd (of note: her mother claimed he called at 7.15, which WOULD exonerate him).

3) His parents had attempted to have him shipped out of the country, rather calling into question whether his Brine alibi is true or coerced.

Innocence:

1) Parry, to me, seems to be a standard hoodlum, but neither a violent man, nor someone who would betray friends. Wallace had said that Parry was a "family friend" to himself and Julia. In fact, Parry had given Wallace the gift of a calendar just a few weeks earlier in December.

2) The fact the equivalent of the "cash box" was ALSO the only thing stolen from at the scene of #19, helps draw suspicion away from Parry. Obviously someone had inside knowledge to know where the #19 "cash box" was, and that person was NOT Parry.

Ambiguous:

1) I often find it hard to believe people are completely lying - but the testimony Parkes gave is rather crazy, and it leads me to wonder whether there was some tiny grain of truth (e.g. that Parry came and got his car hosed down) that he then greatly exaggerated with extra details. For example - the idea that as soon as Parkes saw the glove he admitted he'd be hung for it, and then randomly VOLUNTEERED where he'd dropped the murder weapon? How farfetched.

I mean we see that the inside of the car was totally clean, so a wringing wet blood-soaked passenger having got in seems unlikely. So then you have to imagine, all he was given was the weapon and glove.

---

Overall, in regards to Parry, I could see him breaking into random people's cars etc. but I do not see him as being a very violent man (I mean he was essentially harassed by Goodman and others, and not once acted out against them in violence AFAIK, even though even I would probably have thrown something at them if they'd been stalking me and harassing me continuously)... He was found totally innocent of the sexual assault charges against him, by the way, which, ironically, was investigated by professor MacFall.

---

My points following about Wallace were mainly to raise the idea that maybe he WAS a bit of a "bumbling" old man:

1. Yes 16 years without promotion could lead a man to feel unappreciated... But it could also just be that he was simply not good enough to be promoted.

2. Gannon's proposition was laughable in my opinion. He said it was an anagram for "SLAY J 1889" AKA 7.29 PM... Lol... But really, he was referring to a book by John Kirkwood Leys. He fumbled both the name of the author, AND the date, thus raising the possibility that maybe he IS prone to lapses of memory, or fumbling details.

As I said though, it could be that he purposefully added these things into the diary to allay suspicion away from himself. E.g. that detectives would read that and come to the conclusion that he is this prone to mistakes and messing up fine details/names etc.

3a. Yes. The point ALONE would point to his guilt strongly. But that's because we are viewing him as a highly intelligent chess champion. If, for example, he had an IQ of 70 and was considered to be the "village idiot", we wouldn't be shocked at him getting so many things wrong.

Potentially you could also argue that due to the stress of losing his wife, he had fumbled on the details... But I don't necessarily believe that is plausible.

3b. He mentioned the dog whip BEFORE Draper had come and identified the bar and poker as being missing. It is a very unusual item to own for people without a dog lol. And would fit in with the rumors about Amy Wallace. Particularly that William indulged in similar fantasies to her.

3c. Well the members of the club said he was specifically known for being a bad player:

At the time of the case a member of the Central Chess Club called Wallace a “chess-vandalist”, adding that “the best one can say about him is that he is an enthusiastic duffer”. Another member—a true devotee, this one—remarked, “The murder of his wife apart, I think Wallace ought to be hanged for being such a bad chess-player.”

And of course he also sucked a the violin. Lol...

The most damning evidence against him, all the fumbled statements, retractions, false information, could be explained by a man who suffered from some type of memory issue or lacking intelligence (even self-professed intellectuals aren't always exactly intellectual lmao. Anyone can read Marcus Aurelius etc. but it doesn't mean they're smart). If others like Rod and Antony were still posting here, I think they would have deeper information, having seen the police files.

---

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?

If I'm not wrong, I would think he either totally incinerated ALL of these items in the kitchen fire. Or handed them off to someone else (if he had acted alone in committing the act).

Also obviously the timing is a slight issue.

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?

And Lily Hall's statement, importantly focus on the clothing she reported him as wearing. I may have been wrong because I first of all said she'd correctly identified his outfit. But now I see he claimed he had worn a "fawn" overcoat, which is a light brown color. Did anyone else see him wearing a dark overcoat - the Johnstons - the constable? Surely someone else had described his outfit... The doppelganger seen on the cab ride was wearing a dark overcoat though not a hat.

---

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.

---

Anyone with access to information of that time period, should right now be searching hard for information on ALL the Anfield burglaries (I cannot find them mentioned before the Wallace case came to light, which is annoying). We know a skeleton key was used - ok, but what about the crime scenes themselves? How similar were they to the others? Did the scenes tend to suggest advanced knowledge of the home's layout and where the most valuable possessions were located?

Did Sarah Draper or any other cleaning lady/staff members work at the #19 home or any others which were burgled. Was O'Mara really a random lunatic, or can he be connected in any way to the burglaries? He had committed suicide after setting his baby on fire only 30 minutes from Wolverton Street on the same night at 10 PM - brandishing an iron bar with which to threaten people... He had been out of work for 5 years, so had he been supporting himself through burglary? Had he, having commited murder, decided to commit suicide once realizing what he had done? It's a long shot... But definitely new information about events surrounding that night which I don't think have ever been mentioned before.

Can we PROVE Joseph Wallace arrived in Liverpool after the murder? Could he have been the one on that cab ride, disposing items in the lake at Princes Park, before making the very short trip to Amy's home (or the rented one, as I don't see evidence of the date he rented it out)?

We know the Johnstons had been in #19, and also had been asked to open and close curtains in #29, rather calling into question the claim that they'd only been in the parlor. The residents of #19 had also asked the Johnstons to keep watch of their home while they were away.

Did you know Mr. Johnston had to rise for work at 4 AM? What was he doing going to visit Phyllis at a time where he would likely have turned up at 9 PM or even a bit later?

Did you also know Mr. Johnston had a colleague from the shipyard where he worked who lived at 30 Menlove Gardens West, who he stopped visiting following the murder?

The Johnstons had also looked after Julia's cat. The same cat that went missing 24 hours before the crime was committed (strongly suggesting the cat was kept somewhere overnight, given the weather conditions).

The Johnstons were also direct neighbors to the Wallaces, and had they committed this act, it would be obvious how they could just "disappear", since they had only to walk a couple of feet from the back yard door into their own.

I DO think all residents within the red boxed area I showed (odd numbered Wolverton, and the Richmond Park side) should be heavily considered, either as the killers themselves, or accomplices. And even if the Johnstons were involved in some way, then there is no definite proof that it was something they did alone either. Back in those times, most "housebreakers" were syndicates working together, like the Allerton bunch who were caught in December 1930. The last home having been hit in Menlove Gardens, ironically, and a huge £243 bounty stolen.

And of course, obviously, Wallace could have given them the cat and blackmailed Johnston (who he figured out behind burglaries in the area) into committing murder.

---

I think this is the information we should be exploring at the moment, as I don't believe it has really been discussed in detail before? But then again, I've only been here a few months and the posters here have had decades of discussion! So who knows?!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi WWH, you appear to be moving away from believing Wallace to have been guilty (nothing wrong with that of course) I see the case when broken down into the separate aspects as pointing pretty overwhelmingly toward Wallace and away from other explanations.

Parry had an alibi for the time of the murder and so can be eliminated as the murderer and his actions on the night of the murder don’t speak of a man taking part in any kind of plan. Only two things ‘connect’ him. That he knew of Wallace’s business dealings and Parkes (in my opinion one of the least likely things in the whole case.)

Marsden is a peripheral character who had a decent job and was about to marry into a well-to-do family. So it’s difficult to see why he would involve himself. He had a customer called Qualtrough but the name wasn’t exclusive to him. There was the shop for example or any number of ways that Wallace might have heard the name before.

For me, the suggestion of the Anfield Housebreaker falls on the phone call which I just can’t see as unconnected. The caller was either the murderer or connected closely to the crime.

Your points above:

1. This might also point to Wallace feeling that he’d never gotten the appreciation that he deserved.

2. To be honest it’s been a while since I read Gannon so I can’t recall the significance of the ‘Lays’ point.

3a. Could be seen as Wallace trying to distance himself from any real knowledge of the crime.

3b. Pretty much ditto. I don’t recall mention of the dog whip but this could be seen as Wallace attempting to throw doubt on either the existence of the bar or his knowledge of it. “I can recall that we used to have a dog whip but I can’t recall seeing an iron bar.” I don’t think that we can assume anything sexual about the dog whip. If it was used for those purposes Wallace would hardly have brought it up in conversation inviting someone to ask what it was used for.

3c. I don’t think that we can say that Wallace was a terrible chess player. He just wasn’t in the clubs top tier. On the Monday night he’d won his game after all and I seem to recall that it was against a player that was considered better than him.

Wallace certainly wasn’t an idiot. He had his own laboratory. He’d lectured on chemistry. Whilst this doesn’t prove him a genius it shows that he was an intelligent man. As he carried out his job efficiently and no one reported any signs of dementia or anything like it and from his statements and testimony in court I think that we can safely say that there were no issues in that area.

I think that the advantage of Wallace as a suspect is that we don’t need any stretches of imagination, leaps of faith or conspiracy.

Wallace, unhappy with his life and suspecting that he might not have long left, decides not to spend his remaining years nursemaiding Julia. He comes up with a plan where he can kill his wife and make it look like someone had made a bogus call to get him out of the house to steal his takings with Julia getting in the way. He has a ready made, potential pair of scapegoats in Parry and Marsden. He goes around the Mossley Park area as if he’s Indiana Jones searching for the Lost Ark. He finally becomes worried and goes home. He pretends that he can’t get in to give the impression that the killer might still be in the house. When he gets inside, supposedly frantic with worry, he walks straight past the Parlour to go upstairs.

Wallace lied to Beattie and Caird about being cleared by the police and tried to pressure Beattie on the time of the call and then gives an evasive answer to the police’s question. He also tried to distance himself from the suggestion that he’d believed that someone was still in the house until he was pressed on it. He ‘forgets’ to mention in his statements that he’d knocked on Joseph Crewe’s door in an area that he’d spent the whole evening claiming to be unfamiliar with (yet he’d bern to Crewe’s house half a dozen times before.)

I still believe that Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest candidate.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Also, evidence supporting Wallace's complete innocence can be found. How? Well... Consider that 99.9999% of the evidence against him comes via lies, retracted statements, or other implausible behaviors.

But pair this with two things:

1) Wallace had worked at the Pru for 16 years, and had NEVER been promoted.

2) He spoke about "J Lays 1989" (or something, in any case BOTH the author's name AND the date were wrong), as it was actually J Leys, and he had no books out that year. YES this diary MAY have contained entries specifically to suggest certain things to the police - like his terror at his wife's brief absence.

3) Take the above two facts, and consider that:

a. Wallace referred to Qualtrough as "A.M. Qualtrough", "Qualthorpe". said his appointment had been for "tuesday the 21st" at "Menlove Avenue East".

b. Did not realize the iron bar and poker were missing (though curiously did notice the bondage equipment had been missing - for a year lmfao).

c. Wallace was known as a TERRIBLE chess player.

---

So the evidence suggesting Wallace is guilty, to my mind, comes purely from the stretch of imagination it takes to picture him as a total idiot. HOWEVER, if it can be shown that he WAS this dumb, and prone to mistakes, OR that he was suffering early signs of dementia, anything of the likes, then it now becomes quite a lot more likely that this is an innocent man. A total idiot, possibly with some memory problem, being easily tricked out of his home, and thus explaining all of his lies, retractions, and unnatural statements.

Something for you to consider...

[WallaceWackedHer]

As the Johnston’s key appeared to fit the Wallace’s door it seems that security wasn’t great at that time. The Housebreaker might have just had a bunch of skeleton keys which didn’t the job?

Not only did the person(s) involved have a duplicate key(s), but ALSO intimate knowledge of the interior of the homes AND where the valuables were kept, apparently. In both of these crimes on Wolverton Street (there were others in early 1930 apparently, but I cannot find details), the intruder, for whatever reason, decided to ONLY steal the "nest egg", ignore all other valuables, and randomly chucked pillows and stuff around.

Now, houses number 19 and 29, does anyone know if they had been rented - because we KNOW Wallace rented the home at 29 Wolverton Street? Does anyone know if the residents of #19 hired a cleaning lady (particularly if it was Draper)? Does anyone know if they were also renting? And how about the other homes that had been entered. Had they been rented?

Yes we do know the Johnstons had keys which fit house #29, and also it was only their fingerprints and Wallace's (as well as the detectives etc.) found at the scene - although many prints were blurred and of no use. We also know they coincidentally turned up at just the right time, at which point, having gone to the front door, Wallace's back door was now unlocked. We also know that Mr. Johnston had to wake up early for his work at the shipyard, so a visit to a relative so late at night is unusual, and that he had a colleague who lived at 30 Menlove Gardens West, who he stopped visiting after the crime. They were also a hard up family and moved out the very next day, which is a tactic employed by some other guilty parties like Steuerman in the Tankleff crimes. We also see his contradictory information in statements made to the press, and in court, where he had initially claimed Wallace "forced the door open" pushing on it very hard, but in court said he opened it very easily.

What I'm curious to ascertain, is whether they only had keys to access the back door, or if the front door would also allow access. The reason for the importance of this, is the fact that the yard door was left unbolted while the front had the latch on. This of course suggests that the intruder left through the back, into the entry between the houses.

Now is it plausible to think that Julia would neglect to bolt the yard door allowing someone to easily enter the yard? Wallace seemed to imply she was a cautious woman and he would have expected her to bolt the door. Had the intruder scaled the wall? APPARENTLY this was SOMEHOW "tested" by detectives/forensics, but HOW exactly they could know this seems a bit of an impossibility and I'm not sure if it's exactly strong evidence.

Then one has to figure out why Julia was in the parlor. It does suggest a guest, but would she have potentially seeked refuge in the comfy chairs in that room, and perhaps dozed off due to her illness? IF the intruder gained willful entrance, then it strongly suggests, that either one person had distracted Julia in the parlor (perhaps with Puss or something like that) while another entered through the back using a duplicate key... Or that he/she/they had entered through the front door with the express intent of committing murder, and staging the scene to resemble the house at #19 which had been burgled a month prior.

Had someone known who was involved in the crime spree in the area and threatened them to murder Wallace's wife (or steal from the home on their behalf)? Could Parry be involved in such a housebreaking syndicate, of which there were many? I do NOT believe Parry would have wanted Julia (or even Wallace) to be killed, if he was involved. I would rather suggest he gave some information... But then how would Parry ALSO have known of the location of the savings at number 19 Wolverton Street? The fact of the matter is, that the intruder in BOTH cases knew EXACTLY where the nest eggs were, replaced the containers after thieving from them, and disappeared into the night. So why would Parry necessarily be needed? ANY neighbor of Wallace could easily have known that he tends to attend chess on Monday nights. It's not even remotely a stretch of imagination that this should be known by several neighbors.

I still would focus on the killer's home (or another in the syndicate) being located within the area of the red box. So the odd numbered side of Wolverton Street, or the Richmond Park side.

---

I am NOT saying this WAS a robbery. But it was either staged to purposefully look as such by someone who wanted her dead (or hired them to do the deed), or there was a big error regarding Julia. As a reclusive woman, perhaps it was not known that Wallace even had a wife (a bit of a stretch - I admit), or, perhaps there was some plan involving getting the reclusive Julia to also leave the home, which backfired.

---

At this moment I would try to focus on any residents living within the marked red box, landlords, and cleaning ladies. Anyone who could easily slip away unnoticed, and anyone who could give/know intimate information about the home and its contents.

[moste]

Hi WWH, I see your digging towards the Anfield burglar theory. If Wallace is innocent , it's my preferred outcome. The statement by Wallace regarding the cash box is the only connection with somebody knowing 'the Wallace/insurance money situation's.
Wallace may have lied about that to incriminate others . Otherwise it could easily be 'Anfield burglary 'gone wrong IMO

[moste]

Quote ..As the Johnston’s key appeared to fit the Wallace’s door it seems that security wasn’t great at that time. The Housebreaker might have just had a bunch of skeleton keys which didn’t the job?

Yes, thinking on the skeleton key business and break ins. A private landlord would have duplicate keys, and would require notice if people wanted to change the locks or have them re- keyed . However , given the crime climate in that area people would be doing that regardless would you not think?