Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[moste]

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

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

[WallaceWackedHer]

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

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

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

2) The testimony of Lily Hall.

3) Disposal of bloodied clothing and weaponry.

4) The testimony of Parkes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

[WallaceWackedHer]

But yeah the Qualtrough alias is hugely against solo Johnstons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[WallaceWackedHer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Three problems with this.

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

[moste]

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

[WallaceWackedHer]

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

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

WHERE WAS PUSS ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER?!

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

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

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

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

[moste]

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

[moste]

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

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH, To make that call, you had to know something about insurance collecting at the Pru and not just that Wallace was an insurance agent. You had to know he was likely to go to the which chess club (and it's telephone number) and not just that Wallace played chess and so on. The devil is in the detail, I'd say. Florence had been inside the house just 3 times in 10 years, Jack never until that night. I'm not sure whether conversations could be heard clearly through the party wall.

I do agree, however, the detail could have been provided by Wallace himself (i.e. conspiracy).

Back to my sick bed...

Well, I am in agreement that them acting alone would not be very plausible, but not for the reasons you give. I think the Qualtrough moniker is the most suspicious thing pointing away from them, as it's an unusual name and so close to a real Pru client with links to Marsden and therefore Wallace/Parry as well. But we see Wallace claim to have never even heard of the name... But it's far from unlikely they would be completely unaware of his business and that he goes to chess, etc. And what word do we have to go on that they had only been in the house 3 times? Just a statement in court that even the prosecution seemingly found odd.

But so are a few things about claims from the Johnstons. For example, Mr. Johnston claimed he did not even know Julia's name. That seems to be an incredible claim, particularly considering they had taken care of her cat, and received postcards from her etc, lived as neighbors for a decade, and Florence was somewhat a friend to Julia:

"A postcard, dated July 6th, 1928, from Julia Wallace to her next door neighbor Florence Sarah Johnston, apologising for not giving Mrs Johnston money for minding Puss, the Wallaces' cat. Julia and William Wallace were on holiday at Cemaes Bay, Anglesey. The Johnstons were minding the cat and looking after the Wallaces' home."

He also claimed to have NEVER heard them quarrel, which seems another pretty fantastic claim. I live in an end of terrace home. ALL couples argue at least sometimes. And they were even able to hear him lightly knock on the back door, so I should think they would hear pretty much any slight upset in the home, which is inevitable with couples at some point, no matter how loving... And what about Mrs. Johnston? Did she not scream when she walked into the room and saw the absolutely gruesome battering of her neighbor and the blood and brains sprayed everywhere?

It is plausible they could know the location of the cash box but still how could they know of Qualtrough the Pru client (perhaps if they knew the man personally)? A legitimately unusual name (though there was a butcher's shop in the area with that name) which, as far as I can see, could only have the purpose of being used to frame someone, or convincing Wallace it was a real Pru client. In the case of the latter, though, keep in mind Wallace seemed completely oblivious to the name.

About the supposed confession, I find it too in-depth with detail, and that makes me question whether it could actually be PURE fantasy. Like little details about "Puss" etc. and the confirmation that the cat had in fact been missing. Think carefully about the return of the cat. WHEN was it returned? We know Wallace was seen stroking it on the night of the murder. So when had it been found/returned and if returned, who returned it?

Why did Wallace ommit the Johnstons from the long list of people Julia would let into the home? Why did the Johnstons move the very next day? They DO NOT claim it was because of living beside a murder house, but that it was sheer coincidence.

There is very little information on the Johnstons. Certainly if they were involved, they could lie about hearing things next door etc, which would eliminate one of the biggest problems in the idea of a robbery gone wrong... The coincidence of them showing up at the right time and so on would be explained... And perhaps Lily Hall had in fact seen Mr. Johnston talking to Wallace (I noticed Mr. Johnston is quite a small man). If involved together, they could spin all sorts of yarns about the events of that day... Also notice the Johnstons are the ONLY ONES who claim Wallace had "broken down" and "sobbed" over his dead wife on that night, while to the police he seemed to be a total stonewall.

I have a tough time exonerating either Wallace or Parry entirely though. Parry due to his falsified alibi mainly (NOT the scammed call - the phone was LEGITIMATELY out of order), and the testimony of Parkes. Wallace due to a smattering of things... Based on evidence it would not seem unlikely that Parry made the phone call, and that Wallace knew something about what was going to happen the following night (which Parry himself may not have known)...

As for the involvement of somebody else... It is suggested that it is Marsden (and from the information on file, his alibi is weak - though we do not know if he was investigated more thoroughly and that information redacted from the file)... But we do not really know that for sure. Would he have taken part in a scheme to commit murder relying on a call where a name very similar to one of his client's had been used? Unless Parry and Marsden were briefed separately... ... I wonder, had Marsden still been working at the Pru? And if so, could Wallace have known he would be ill indoors due to skipping work and set him up? Could he have known he had flu through Parry, who was a friend of his?... I cannot find this information to hand of whether he had left employment... Though I do not believe that line of thought (of exploiting a known illness) is reliable at all, and I would delete it but think all ideas should be aired.

Also one more thing to take into consideration: Parry's parents begged someone to sneak him out of the country. We know Parry has a strong alibi for the night of the murder, but how can we be sure it's true, and not coerced by pressure from Parry's parents? The Johnstons were hard up as well, and a discrepancy found in regards to the money in the cash box and the money paid into the Pru the next day (by the way, I find it unlikely that someone who had just lost his wife to a brutal murder would take care of work details the very next day) etc. Could the Johnstons have been paid off?

Food for thought. I look forward to all of your ponderings.

[moste]

Btw can someone check Ancestry UK to confirm the day in January Joseph Wallace returned to Liverpool?

Simply because I WISH the solution was that Wallace stayed home killing his wife while Joseph in a trilby hat (or w.e. Wallace was said to be wearing) went to Menlove Gardens.

That'd be a legit Poirot tier solution lol. I really wish that was the answer. They look lime twins almost lol

I did that one 3 or 4 months back. I believe Rod it was , maintained that the police checked and Joseph didn't arrive back in the country untill after the murder.

[ColdCaseJury]

But I don't think all of those are good points unfortunately. I'm angling at something different (collaboration/conspiracy), but even those points on their own are not all good. But they were neighbors. I think they would know something about him and his habits, hobbies, etc. Again neighbors are highly likely to know his career.

Hi WWH, To make that call, you had to know something about insurance collecting at the Pru and not just that Wallace was an insurance agent. You had to know he was likely to go to the which chess club (and it's telephone number) and not just that Wallace played chess and so on. The devil is in the detail, I'd say. Florence had been inside the house just 3 times in 10 years, Jack never until that night. I'm not sure whether conversations could be heard clearly through the party wall.

I do agree, however, the detail could have been provided by Wallace himself (i.e. conspiracy).

Back to my sick bed...