Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm in hospital at the moment. Had time lying here to just ponder the case.

Hear this out:

I think Gordon Parry placed a prank call to the chess club. William receives it, and being a wiley insurance agent who makes 600 calls in a week (it is literally his job to traverse Liverpool), when he receives the address he autocorrects East to West because he knows East doesn't exist and knows that West does, so assumes Beattie put it down wrong. As the game continues William perhaps figures out it was Gordon Parry based on the fact the caller sent the message to the club. It may have taken him until he got home even.

It is at this point or the day following he conceives of using it to murder his wife.

William already knows John Sharpe Johnston is the housebreaker and has known for a very long time. All you really need to off someone and get away with it is to just not be there when it happens. Now with this scapegoat he can go to Johnston, blackmail him AND give him a safety net ("don't worry this no good toerag Gordon Parry prank called me, if it goes south we'll pin it on him.") AND perhaps the unaccounted for money as extra bargaining power.

So John agrees. They take the cat which William gives to them, then on the day of the murder, William leads Julia down the entry, which allows John to slip in through the back and hide in the parlor. It is not a stretch to imagine John donning the mackintosh given how cold it was in the room with the fire off compared to the kitchen etc. when he has to hide in there for over an hour. William gives Julia instructions to set up the parlor for his return at 8. John hides behind the thick curtains, waits for Julia to enter and light the fire, then emerges and bashes her brains in.

MacFall is bullied into changing his initial time of death estimate I'm led to believe.

Lily Hall probably saw John Sharpe Johnston telling William it "had been done" before disposing of the hammer or whatever he used.

The police link the call to William himself which is totally unexpected, so as was planned reveals the true identity of the caller (Gordon Parry is his prime suspect, Marsden his secondary suspect). Obviously this person will NOT have an alibi for the call and will NOT be expecting to be investigated etc. so he fakes one for the night of the call, then perhaps even tells Lily Lloyd what happened and gets her to fake an alibi for him for the day of the killing. Brine may have done the same, or might not have.

Once William offloads the crime onto Parry knowing the cops are going to obviously assume the two things are connected, it's Gordon's problem then since it will be proven he called. Or so he thinks.

I wouldn't be shocked if evidence he did take the tram route he claimed on the call night was whitewashed, if he was gonna lie he'd have said his usual route. Surely someone on one of those trams would recognize him.

And that's the mystery of Menlove Gardens East... You'd probably be just as well off walking around Liverpool with William as you would consulting a directory. Again it's literally his JOB to know his way around, how's he going to consult a directory on hundreds of calls per week for many, many years. He really does know the area like the back of his hand.

Hope everything’s ok WWH and that you’re on the mend?

Ive never gone for the Sayers idea of the prank call I’m afraid. It’s too much of a stretch for me to think that, in less than a day, Wallace compiles a plan then murders his wife or arranges for the murder of his wife on the strength of a random call. It’s a bridge too far for me. I don’t think that we have any good reason to believe that Johnston was the housebreaker or that he’d talk about it loudly enough to have been heard through the walls.

If Wallace had told Julia to prepare the Parlour then surely she’d have done it pretty much as soon as he’d left allowing an hour for the fire to build and warm the room thoroughly? So Johnston couldn’t have expected a long wait. I can’t see him wearing the mackintosh unless it was against the blood spatter?

I can’t see why Johnston would have met William at the entry when he would see him at the house anyway?

I agree that Wallace might have prepared Parry or Marsden as potential fall guys.

Of course the problem with the Monday’s trams is that the police ignored them. A huge failing.

I agree that Wallace was probably more familiar with the Menlove Gardens area than he let on but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that he knew it like the back of his hand. He had a set insurance route which never included that area.

On Parry I still come back to the same issue. If I’d entered into a conspiracy with you to commit a crime that last thing that I’d want is for you to have been arrested and put under intensive questioning. Especially as different people react differently under pressure. If I was then exonerated I certainly wouldn’t persist in saying - it was WWH that did it. This really makes no sense to me.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'm in hospital at the moment. Had time lying here to just ponder the case.

Hear this out:

I think Gordon Parry placed a prank call to the chess club. William receives it, and being a wiley insurance agent who makes 600 calls in a week (it is literally his job to traverse Liverpool), when he receives the address he autocorrects East to West because he knows East doesn't exist and knows that West does, so assumes Beattie put it down wrong. As the game continues William perhaps figures out it was Gordon Parry based on the fact the caller sent the message to the club. It may have taken him until he got home even.

It is at this point or the day following he conceives of using it to murder his wife.

William already knows John Sharpe Johnston is the housebreaker and has known for a very long time. All you really need to off someone and get away with it is to just not be there when it happens. Now with this scapegoat he can go to Johnston, blackmail him AND give him a safety net ("don't worry this no good toerag Gordon Parry prank called me, if it goes south we'll pin it on him.") AND perhaps the unaccounted for money as extra bargaining power.

So John agrees. They take the cat which William gives to them, then on the day of the murder, William leads Julia down the entry, which allows John to slip in through the back and hide in the parlor. It is not a stretch to imagine John donning the mackintosh given how cold it was in the room with the fire off compared to the kitchen etc. when he has to hide in there for over an hour. William gives Julia instructions to set up the parlor for his return at 8. John hides behind the thick curtains, waits for Julia to enter and light the fire, then emerges and bashes her brains in.

MacFall is bullied into changing his initial time of death estimate I'm led to believe.

Lily Hall probably saw John Sharpe Johnston telling William it "had been done" before disposing of the hammer or whatever he used.

The police link the call to William himself which is totally unexpected, so as was planned reveals the true identity of the caller (Gordon Parry is his prime suspect, Marsden his secondary suspect). Obviously this person will NOT have an alibi for the call and will NOT be expecting to be investigated etc. so he fakes one for the night of the call, then perhaps even tells Lily Lloyd what happened and gets her to fake an alibi for him for the day of the killing. Brine may have done the same, or might not have.

Once William offloads the crime onto Parry knowing the cops are going to obviously assume the two things are connected, it's Gordon's problem then since it will be proven he called. Or so he thinks.

I wouldn't be shocked if evidence he did take the tram route he claimed on the call night was whitewashed, if he was gonna lie he'd have said his usual route. Surely someone on one of those trams would recognize him.

And that's the mystery of Menlove Gardens East... You'd probably be just as well off walking around Liverpool with William as you would consulting a directory. Again it's literally his JOB to know his way around, how's he going to consult a directory on hundreds of calls per week for many, many years. He really does know the area like the back of his hand.

[WallaceWackedHer]

So maybe the question to concentrate on is why make a call at all.

Maybe ask yourself, if William's guilty "why make a call to the chess club."

I'm sure there are many, many, many ways one could set up an alibi for himself. I'm sure William regularly attended other places, and if he's planning her death then he can plot the attack for any day he chooses.

But he specifically chooses to take a call at the club.

Why?

Perhaps because he knows it can be proven Gordon attends the same café and proven that he knows William attends the chess club there.

It would be like if you were a member of a golf club, and wanted to frame someone else who is a member of that club for the murder of your wife. You would have a call placed to the golf club, right? A call that you believe it can be proven you did not place thus exonerating yourself of guilt and leading the police to investigate alternative suspects/ideas... The obvious suspect being anyone else who knew you attended that club.

And what's more, the only item stolen from is a cash box where you keep your collection money (and maybe Julia's rings too I have read).

Why?

Why make it look like a targeted attempt to steal the collection money?

Perhaps because he knows it can be proven Gordon worked for the Pru, had been into his home, was friendly with Julia (would be granted admittance) and knew where the cash box was kept. If more had been stolen, it would be more likely that the intruder simply got lucky while ransacking the place and came across the box. By stealing ONLY from the box it seems TARGETED and suggests the intruder has knowledge of where that box is kept and what it contains.

---

What's curious to me is that even after he was acquitted (and I believe double jeopardy was still a thing back in the 30s so he could never have been re-tried) he continued to bring up Gordon Parry as suspect #1 and wrote in his diary about an apparent meeting with Parry, and how he's certain Parry killed her etc. and is considering hiring a private detective. What is the point of doing this? It would only help to clear his name posthumously. Does he really care what people think about him after his death? Or is he doing this because he is determined that Gordon goes down for murder or at least that his name is soiled?

If Gannon is right that Parry was sleeping with Julia, it might've occurred to William to kill Julia/have her killed and have Parry be put to death for the crime. Two birds, one stone. As per Goodman Parry claimed to go to Julia's home for "musical interludes", which William never made any mention of. Parry also claimed that Julia would accompany him on the violin - but could she even play the violin? That was William's instrument... I mean perhaps she gave it a go. But the entire claim is suggestive.

William gave so much information on Gordon to the police that if he's guilty it's OBVIOUS he had him in mind as a "fall guy" ANYWAY. The amount of detail put into it shows this almost beyond question - with explanations for everything about the crime scene, e.g. that Parry knew where the box was, that the alias given was so similar to the name of the client closely linked to Parry's best friend Marsden. So maybe it was one step further and Parry wasn't just a fall guy, but intentionally meant to go down for the crime as revenge.

---

Something to consider.

Out of the guilty William theories mentioned in my large post covering all possible guilt angles, this would fit with William and Parry ; William and the Johnstons (with Parry as the caller) ; And possibly William and Marsden (with Parry as the caller).

If William is innocent I peg the 2 intruders theory as the most plausible and Gordon truly is involved. In other words it's no intentional set up, he really was behind it...

[WallaceWackedHer]

I made two mistakes I would like to correct:

1) Leslie Williamson did apparently confirm Gordon was at their home on the Wilkes radio show.

2) The killer had to be behind and to the LEFT of Julia.

[etenguy]

As for the caller's identity...

Evidence for William: Timing matches if he lied about his tram route. It was reported as an "old man's voice".

Evidence for Parry: No alibi, timing of his arrival at Lily Lloyd's fits with the call, local accent (as opposed to William's Cumbrian accent), possible evidence of call scamming (although the box was LEGITIMATELY faulty as per Yseult Bridges), was used to placing prank calls and could fake voices without much trouble, used caffay as opposed to caffe (the latter is how William pronounced it).

This case has really got under your skin. It is impressive how much thought you have given to what happened.

I think the call is key to ever understanding what happened to Julia. I shall concentrate on that.

Your evidence for William making the call is simply that he might have had time to make the call which occurred not long after he left home. And yet Beattie was adamant it could not have been William's voice, and he knew him quite well. Of course, Beattie may have been fooled, but that is harder to do over a conversation than one might imagine. Try phoning a close friend and maintaining to them you are someone else for five minutes.

Your evidence for Parry making the call is that he could not prove he did not make the call - no alibi. Timings that are confirmed for his known movements would allow him time to make the call. That he was an amateur actor and could disguise his voice does make it possible he could have done that, but the same is true for many others. Also caffay is a common pronounciation in the area, it is William who was the outlier. I don't think this particularly points to Parry.

So maybe the question to concentrate on is why make a call at all.

If Wallace was the killer, then the only possible reason would be to deflect guilt onto the unknown Qualtrough and away from him. Except Wallace was a chemist. He would have been well aware of toxins that could not be detected and would make it seem like Julia died a natural death. If there was no obvious murder, then no-one would question his innocence and he would have got much sympathy. Much better deflection than Qualtrough.

If Wallace was not involved in the killing, then why was there a call at all. The murder could have taken place on chess night. The caller (killer) was right there and the murder would take no more than ten to fifteen minutes. Much less risky than relying on a staged phone call to hopefully get Wallace out the house the next night which may have been more convenient. The proposed suggestion that the next night would be more lucrative and hence lthe crime was designed for Tuesday is not borne out by what happened on the night Julia was killed. There was no evidence of a serious burglary, on the contrary, valuables were left untouched.

So logic dictates that Wallace was not the caller/killer and no-one else was the caller/killer. And yet someone was. There is some important piece of information missing. Why was the call necessary in this plan? At the moment, flawed as it, the most plausible reason is that Wallace made the call to deflect guilt onto an imaginery Qualtrough. But this is not entirely satisfactory as an explanation.

[WallaceWackedHer]

If Parry didn’t have an alibi then it still wouldn’t make him guilty of course but it would certainly make him a stronger suspect but, with an alibi, i have to dismiss him.

I don’t know if I’d have a single damning point but rather a collection of them. I think that this was a deliberate murder motivated by feeling against Julia and that there was no robbery. I only see Wallace as having a possible reason for this. The fact that the cash box was returned to the shelf strengthens the view that Wallace might have been attempting to set up either Parry or Marsden and to give the impression that that the intruder was caught in the act and killed Julia.
Against this is the question why, if Wallace was simply setting up a robbery, didn’t he make a better job of it by ransacking a few drawers?

I don’t think that it’s likely that Wallace would have involved Parry and then done everything that he could do to get him arrested and charged. And then blamed him for the murder after he was freed on appeal. This makes no sense.

I think that with the Qualtrough plan, the phone call, the MGE excursion, the issue with the doors were all things that only Wallace had control over and as I find it difficult to see him trusting anyone else to have taken part I can only see Wallace involved.

There are certainly issues that have been pointed out and I certainly can’t answer all questions. An accomplice would certainly answer those issues but we could then be guilty of creating an one just so that all questions and doubts can be answered.

For me the doubts are:

1. The Monday night risks that we know of.
2. Whether Wallace would have had time to kill Julia and either a) remained blood-free or relatively so, or b) cleaned himself up.
3. The disposal of the weapon.

for me then:

1. Wallace might perceived that the risks were far less than we tend to perceive them to have been 80 years later.
2. I think that by using the mackintosh, either by wearing it or using it as a shield, Wallace could have avoided blood o kept it to a minimum.
3. I have no explanation for how he got rid of the weapon bu hidden things can remain unfound.

I feel it was a murder motivated by sexual/romantic reasons. There were only rumors of such a thing, but I don't think he just randomly got sick and tired of her out of the blue with no change in living conditions, in my view. It's possible but you would have expected reports of arguments from neighbors.

The replacing of the cash box is a mistake for ANYONE trying to stage a robbery scene. Wallace or another party, it could also have been done on purpose to mirror an earlier crime scene where the container was replaced, or if there were 2 robbers, the one in the kitchen could have made noise when the coins dropped etc, and quickly replaced the box in case Julia came in, although fortunately the person distracting Julia in the parlor wacked her first before she could investigate.

Parry could never come forward in any case. Wasn't double jeopardy still a thing back then in England? Parry would also then have to go through trial for murder if he came forward. He just can't come forward.

Just "finding it hard to see William trusting others" when so much evidence suggests he did, and also so much more can be explained, seems unfair.

And why so much backlash against an accomplice? Do you know how many true crimes have involved NUMEROUS people in on it? I binge watched entire murder series and apart from serial killers, a shocking number of premeditated murders involved multiple people. One with the actual motive, and others roped along. I could give examples, but there are many.

The doubts you have, I think a weapon that was covered in cloth or newspaper could be easily disposed of. If the weapon is covered, the weapon itself is free from blood, which means it can easily be put in a pocket, up a sleeve, something of that nature, and dropped down a grid, into a river, anything. The covering would be inciniterated.

As for the time William had, are we entirely sure Alan Close told the truth in his tesitmony, that he saw Julia? Just wondering because he was very hesitant to go to the police. He was also late, which suggests to me if William was relying on Alan he may have thought "f- this the milk boy's not coming, I'm just gonna have to do her in now". I believe he said something about her having a cold though which links nicely.

Weirdly the Holmes family hear the Wallace's door open, then the sound of something like a body falling to the floor, and THEN the door closing on Alan. Something to consider.

A mackintosh can provide excellent protection, but perhaps not enough if you need to be out of the home only 15 minutes later at tops, AND be 100% certain that there is absolutely no blood transferred onto any of your clothing.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'll also discuss theories with the ASSUMPTION that William was guilty (in other words, invovled to some degree). In this scenario, the only possible motive I can see being realistic is murder. So we can skip this segment.

But first we look at the possible purposes of the call (as opposed to just bashing her brains in before the chess club):

1) To frame somebody else for the crime, a mysterious "stranger" with ill-intent. As well as a staged burglary, a phone call corroborated by Beattie luring William out of the home ALSO detracts attention away from himself. It's like two layers of protection.

a. If he got somebody else to call, possibly on a false pretext, for example Gordon Parry, and he (William) indeed took the tram route he suggested, he knows with certainty that it can be shown to be impossible that he could have placed the phone call himself. He can also be certain that Beattie will testify it was not William's voice... Considering the accent it would be even more difficult to conceal his own voice when it went to trial and Beattie was asked to remember the caller's voice with the idea in mind that William placed it himself... But ideally this call alone, I believe William was hoping would earn him exoneration. I believe he may have requested that the call be placed later, say half past the hour, to make it completely impossible he called.

b. If he placed it himself, then he has taken a larger risk - but should he feel it necessary to act alone then it's a risk he has to take. So he places the call, and LIES about the tram stop he got on at. This was done before he even knew the box was traced, yet we can still argue he was willing to risk being easily outed as a liar just to make it impossible he could have been near any call box at the time. He also places the risk that if he falls under suspicion Beattie could - in retrospect - say that it could have been William disguising his own voice.

c. An unlikely scenario, but one I doubt has ever been raised: William placed the call himself so the killer had an alibi for the call, and then assumed Julia's time of death would exonerate him should she be attacked at a later time closer to his arrival home.

---

Out of the three the first option appears to me the most logical and allows the framing of another suspect whose innocence and story would never be believed (as you know I am quite firm about this if Gordon had placed the call). ESPECIALLY if William himself wasn't the one who killed Julia and he expected time of death etc. would exonerate him also, then of course, we know who Parry would be suspect #1. And his tale would sound like a desperate lie to try and escape his guilt in a conspiracy to rob/murder the Wallace home.

We also have the pressing of when the call came by William. Why? Is it because he knows exactly when the call came/was supposed to come? Also important to note that he claimed to Beattie that he had been exonerated, probably to ensure he would speak to him more openly instead of refusing to communicate details to a suspect. I do not think there can be ANY potential alternative for this line of questioning except that he knew/thought the call came and ended later. If he thought a specific time might implicate someone else he knew and he (William) was innocent, he surely would have named that person if he truly wanted his wife's killer caught.

However our killer, if William himself, can't get EVERYTHING perfectly right, so it is possible he placed the call and simply lied about the tram route when questioned after, realizing the timing allows for police to place him at the booth... Although how he would know both routes would have him arrive at the club around the same time I am not 100% sure. It seems he must have tested the routes in advance and realized that they both take the same time (factoring in walking distance).

---

2) To allow a hired hitman who was a stranger to Julia entry into the home by using the Qualtrough moniker. This may have been the man sighted by Lily Hall if her testimony is not faked.

---

Again the main issue is that nobody heard or saw anyone at the front door of the Wallace's home. I could easily say this is normal luck of the draw, but there's too much evidence that neighbors apparently hear all these doors opening and closing, conversations through the walls of the house, etc. it seems almost neighborhood watch tier the amount these neighbors claim to be able to hear. He could have come in the back if William had given him a spare set of keys and he scaled the wall, and Julia didn't latch the back door (this is quite a dangerous play)... William could ALSO have simply left the back door and yard undone and left by the front door - although he would risk being seen and later outed as a liar, and of course it would mean he had to have left the house even earlier. Not a problem if he didn't kill her himself.

---

So now comes the possible combinations of OTHER suspects invovled with William:

1) William and Parry Alone

In this scenario, William would presumably trick Gordon into placing a phone call, and then on the following day murder his wife himself, assuming the phone call timing and Beattie's testimony will exonerate him.

This of course comes with all the issues of William acting alone on the murder night, such as his complete cleanliness.

2) William and Marsden

In this scenario I would buy into Marsden's impending marriage as a possible means to blackmail. William and Marsden may have plotted together. Marsden may have been drinking with Parry at the local pub and left with Parry to place the call, or he may himself have tricked Parry into placing the call claiming it will be a great "prank" against William. Not enough is known about Marsden to be able to investigate this closely enough.

All we know is that Marsden's alibi for the night of the murder is questionable but plausible - considering there really was a flu epidemic.

I'd also add this may have been a solo plot by Marsden. Unlikely I know, but it's easy to conceive of him convincing Parry to call the club as an excellent prank. But choosing that particular alias? Surely he would realize that it's a name easily linked to himself? Did he not think this through properly?

Either way, on the murder night I suggest William would have let him in through the back, or taken Julia down the entry, having given Marsden the spare keys, at which point he could sneak into the home and await Julia's return to strike. Escape wouldn't have been quite as easy, he would probably have to wipe off excess blood, and rely on a long trenchcoat for covering the blood from others he might pass nearby on the street. He would not be able to take a tram or bus, so would have had to walk home. Not that this would be a major concern for someone who had just killed a person.

3) William, Parry AND Marsden

Essentially just read Gannon's book and you have the theory.

In my opinion I don't think Parry would have been willing to have Julia murdered to keep his rent boy antics a secret. I'm sure he would have laughed it off. So I think if Parry rang he did not know the implications of his actions. So really it could tie into the above that it was William and Marsden, with Parry as an unwitting pawn.

But we do have the testimony of Parkes. Is it an OUTRIGHT lie, or does he give us a grain of truth? The full truth? That is for you to decide. I'm of the opinion that Parkes invented the part about Parry randomly admitting where he'd dropped the murder weapon, which again calls into question the reliability of his entire testimony.

4) William and Amy (with or without Parry)

In this case, we may say that the motive for the killing was due to the discovery of an affair between Amy and William, who were notoriously close. I do not know that her visit that day was corroborated even though there was a window cleaner and conversation in the yard with Julia that took place mere moments after Amy's departure at 4.30 PM if IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is when she said she had left).

What was the purpose of her visit? DID she even visit? Or was her sole purpose to play witness that William had told Julia about the business trip (lowering the odds he was just going to wack her), and that Julia had had to CONVINCE William to go, who apparently did not want to go on the trip (again, heavily implying William was not involved and was persuaded to go on the trip due to Julia's words).

The caller is up to you. Again I feel moreso that Parry is the best candidate. Just my opinion.

5) William and the Johnstons (with or without Parry)

In this case I suggest there was a grain of truth in the "confession" told by John Johnston, perhaps small facts he slipped to his friend Stan over his time at the nursing home. That grain of truth may have been that he was the Anfield housebreaker. Stan knows a lot of details about the case that it's weird for him to know unless he specifically studied it or was told certain details by John himself.

I posted not many posts back about the implausibility of the full Johnston "confession", but like the Parkes statement - is it COMPLETELY made up, is there a grain or grains of truth pieced together into a full story by either Stan or Slemen (probably the latter)?

In this scenario I think it was most likely that William would have had to blackmail John into killing Julia, and threatening to expose him as the Anfield housebreaker is one way to do it. He may have had other dirt on him we can only speculate. But blackmail seems likely. The cash that was unaccounted for according to Crewe does not seem like enough money to pay off a hitman, so to be convinced to commit murder there would have to be some other incentive.

The caller I still cannot say is not Gordon - simply based on the circumstantial evidence that we have to hand which sways us towards picking between William and Parry. I would like to say John placed the call if he was the killer, but I can't find any statement from him as to his whereabouts on the night of the call so I really cannot say. And also I would doubt someone would be willing to have no alibi for both nights KNOWING that a murder is to be committed.

With this scheme - again if Parry did call he would NOT be believed, you have to admit it is very unlikely he would seem anything other than guilty of conspiracy to robbery that turned into murder. Or even just conspiracy to murder.

Because entry through the front door is so risky, I again suggest that William ensured the back doors were open so John could enter the home. Because William told the officer on the night of the murder that Julia had followed him down the entry (the officer says he is EMPHATIC that William said this, as he immediately formed the opinion someone may have slipped in) and immediately retracted this and went with the story that she bolted the back yard door, I think she really DID go down the entry with him which is when John entered. As said earlier, this could also be possible with Marsden.

HOWEVER, if the Johnstons are involved there is a benefit, because they as neighbors can claim ignorance of sounds (especially when Arthur is but a thin dividing wall away from where she was killed), and they have time to inspect the home with William and perform any necessary cleanup operation. This would be harder with Marsden as the killer because William would have to rely on Marsden's cleanliness, as once he has entered the home with neighbors there's no time for that... Apparently William told them to wait outside while he goes in, but he took barely any time, and rushed out quickly to alert them. OF NOTE: ALL three changed the testimony to say that John had in fact told William to go in alone while they wait outside.

Another benefit to using neighbors is that John can get in and out unseen the easiest out of everyone whereas escape for Marsden is a little trickier. He could cover bloodied shirts etc. with a long overcoat, but it would probably be high risk to take a tram, so I suggest he fast-walked home or got a ride from Gordon Parry. Though his car was inspected very carefully for blood. Yes Parkes apparently hosed it down, but is that enough to completely clear the car of ANY single stain?

6) William ALONE

As per Murphy's book - although please remember the book contains a lot of sharpening and levelling like Goodman's book, hence why I don't tend to bother with it since I don't know what facts I can trust and what have been altered from the truth.

In this scenario I actually think it's higher risk for William because he has no scapegoat. If his tram route is checked it can be falsified and then police will question WHY he lied about that route, and probably start thinking that it was to place himself away from the box.

On the murder night - I don't actually necessarily think William was waiting for Alan Close to arrive. If he was, it's evident he was PROBABLY willing to entirely abort the plan if Alan didn't arrive, because Alan was some 20 or more minutes late. At which point, if you were Wallace relying on his arrival before committing the act, knowing you need to get to the Gardens by 7.30 to avoid suspicion, would you decide Alan isn't coming at all and just carry out the attack and leave - or decide there isn't enough time now?

Of course he could have changed his mind after the milk boy arrived and un-aborted his plan and just hoped for the damned best that he could still make the fake appointment on time. Which he did... In this case we also assume William wore a full length mackintosh covering. He may have kneeled down to deliver the extra blows. Or he wore other clothing underneath which he went on to incinerate (along with other evidence you would expect like murder weapons (or cloths covering murder weapons from splatter), gloves, etc.) and then quickly changed into a new outfit and left. He bunched the mackintosh under Julia in a poor attempt to make it seem she had been wearing it around her shoulders? Or simply realized there was nothing else he could do with it and the burning created too much of a noticeable smell or was simply implausible... And so he left it.

Remember also how thoroughly Parry was investigated, they took apart his clothing to the seams. We can only assume the same was done of Wallace and his belongings and turned up nothing. Perhaps he wore nothing under the mackintosh then THOROUGHLY cleansed his exposed areas with a soapy rag (possibly even chemical use considering he is a chemist) before getting dressed and swiftly leaving. Because of his knowledge of chemistry it's even possible that he doused the clothing he had worn in a chemical bath if he had any alone time before his arrest, chemicals he knew would remove ANY trace of blood. The crime scene was staged in advance before Julia was even killed which extends his window of opportunity.

The same can be said if he'd worn clothing under the mackintosh. Chuck it all in a chemical bath and let it work its magic, or incinerate the lot. He would be in socks rather than boots you would think, as they would be easier to deal with, and if they were his only shoes he would have assurance they would not have any trace of blood on the soles.

7) William FORCED into the plan by an unknown suspect

Again this would link to Julia's past. We see William crying on the day of the murder (allegedly). I can see some potential that a dangerous person from Julia's past for whatever reason we will never know decided she needed to be killed and William was forced to play along.

He could have gone to the police of course, but if it was some gangsters or whatever, they could obviously threaten massive repurcussions.

But why would anyone suddenly want little old Julia dead? We can never really know...

---

Overall for myself, looking at MacFall's initial time of death report, Gannon's argument about the stomach contents, Mrs. Johnston's claim that Julia was STILL warm to the touch and only went cold to the touch just before the police arrived, the seemingly unexpected discovery of his OWN mackintosh: "her mackintosh ; and my mackintosh" (unless that was used to again make himself seem clueless like the crossing out of West), William seemingly wanting to wait until 8 PM before returning, and the kitchen fire still being on when he arrived home according to the Johnstons, makes me feel that it's quite possible Julia was killed at a later time than was possible for William to do himself. Remember as well - if the Johnstons are involved any of THEIR claims can be dismissed as possible fabrication.

Everything until the arrival of the police could be a completely B.S. rehearsed story for all we know if the Johnstons wre in fact involved.

The pressing of accuracy on time for Beattie to me suggests William knew the call SHOULD have come later and would exonerate him when it was confirmed he took the tram he told the police he had taken.

---

So I would favor William and Marsden (with Parry tricked into calling), or William and the Johnstons (with Parry tricked into calling) if I had to take a shot at a guess as to a correct theory pertaining to his own involvement. There are MANY advantages to involving the Johnstons IF he has the dirt on them to blackmail John into cooperating. They're a far safer bet than Marsden etc... And also they have no connection to Gordon Parry. If both Gordon AND Marsden give the same story about William being behind it, they'd have more credence. Albeit all of them would be taken down by the law, so this isn't an outcome any of them would want.

I find it harder to place William in the call box, and considering he claimed to have used a different tram stop that would make him impossible as the caller, I find it hard to understand or believe this wasn't checked. Unfortunately I have not seen the file. I am given pause by him stating he "thinks he mailed a letter but can't be sure". I feel if he did lie about the tram route this was his get out of jail free card - so he could claim "OH! That's right, I had mailed that letter another day, sorry, I just got confused there..." which is basically the same as Parry's faked alibis.

Also I peg the killer as being sat on the double sofa or behind the curtains. The former if Julia is aware of their presence, the latter if not. Reason being that the killer had to be behind her and to the right. Hitting her right handed, from left to right, behind her ear, with force in the direction of the fireplace upon which her skirt caught alight.

---

As for the caller's identity...

Evidence for William: Timing matches if he lied about his tram route. It was reported as an "old man's voice".

Evidence for Parry: No alibi, timing of his arrival at Lily Lloyd's fits with the call, local accent (as opposed to William's Cumbrian accent), possible evidence of call scamming (although the box was LEGITIMATELY faulty as per Yseult Bridges), was used to placing prank calls and could fake voices without much trouble, used caffay as opposed to caffe (the latter is how William pronounced it).

[WallaceWackedHer]

The problem is, there is no evidence that either William or Gordon made the call. There is only speculation. You may believe that his behaviour makes it more likely that Gordon made the call, but that is not the same as evidence.

If Gordon made the call, then it is unlikely Wallace killed Julia. If Wallace made the call, it is hard to believe that anyone other than Wallace killed Julia. There is, of course, the possibility that someone else made the call - but who that might have been is equally speculative.

That isn't true, there is circumstantial evidence for both in fact - albeit William had to lie about which tram stop he got on at.

It is also untrue that if Gordon made the call then it's unlikely William killed Julia.

---

I have been TRYING to conceive of a possible scenario where William could be innocent. We have to first make the assumption he's a bit ditzy... We do have the evidence he misspelled J Leys and gave the wrong publication date, and apparently messed up by calling 25 Menlove Gardens 25 Menlove Avenue in statements. So is he just this ditzy old man? We also have the evidence of him wandering all over town asking people where he can buy these specific boots. Was that normal for him? Was it in his manner to be autistically persistent and go around asking random people on the streets?

But let's just ASSUME he's innocent and not go into the plausibility of that.

There are only a limited number of reasons why the call might have been placed:

1) The caller needs William out of the home.

2) The caller needs Julia IN the home otherwise they cannot gain entry.

3) The caller perhaps stupidly thinks it creates plausible deniability that the crime and call are related considering he "didn't know William's address". OTOH if they had got the address given to them it would make it seem MORE likely lol. But you see the point...

On point 1, we must then ask why didn't the caller commit the crime on the night William went to chess? We have to either assume they didn't know for certain that William was going to the chess club but had means of finding out the following day if he was headed to the appointment. We know that - if her testimony is accurate - Amy Wallace DEFINITELY knew William would be going on that trip, and possibly Mrs. Johnston who spoke to Julia in the yard that day at 4.30 PM... However there is also a simple explanation that the suspect who entered the home the following day had an appointment to keep that night (or something of that nature) which necessitated arrangements be made for the crime to be committed on another night... We may also consider the possibility that the caller was a member of the chess club who would have arrived some time after William. The latter also would mean the caller would know for certain that William had got the message.

On point 2, as far as I know, there was no sound heard of the Wallace's door opening or closing, or of a conversation taking place in the doorway, it makes it less likely that the caller would have used the front door to gain access. We may consider a possibility that Julia was in fact in on this whole "scheme" and had the call placed, and admitted the suspect through the back door as she did not want neighbors to see this person. As someone said earlier, not much is known of Julia's past and her funeral attendance was barren.

---

So now still following innocent Wallace, let's look at the possible motives of this crime:

1) Robbery

2) Murder

3) Framing William for murder

If it is a robbery, we have to assume that either two people entered the home, or that the suspect(s) had planned to murder Julia and then subsequently steal from the home.

2 Person Robbery:

Following Rod's proposition (although it is not a new suggestion), a suspect entered the front door saying there had been a mix up and that he was meant to meet William at Wolverton Street, giving the name Qualtrough. This person would have had to have come after 7 of course, or after whatever time the paperboys and milk boys stopped doing their rounds and the area was more desolate to avoid being spotted. He also got very lucky that nobody heard the door open or close, or the conversation that would have taken place before his admission into the home. Also very lucky that nobody heard the conversation inside the home, considering the Johnstons claim they could often hear visitors such as Amy through the walls, and Arthur Mills was in the room adjacent to the parlor with only a thin dividing wall.

At this point, "Qualtrough" would request to use the outhouse. While he is doing this, Julia is setting up the parlor for the guest. Qualtrough goes out to the yard to the outhouse, unbolts the yard door, comes back through the back door and leaves it off the latch. This allows person #2 to enter. Qualtrough would then return to the parlor to distract Julia. As Julia lights the fire, she hears a sound from the kitchen, saying something like "what was that?" - possibly the cupboard door crashing to the ground (although remember this is not corroborated by neighbors), and before she can get up to investigate Qualtrough hits her with a weapon in his right hand, from the back left side of her, which causes her to fall skirt-first into the fireplace. We see that the killer was positioned behind her to be able to deliver that blow, so possibly sitting on the two seated sofa when this happened.

Interestingly in this case it would be a panic induced assault, and you would expect the suspects to have left the scene far less clinical in nature. You may also have expected some yelling between the two (yes they don't want neighbors to know they're there, but in a panic were the killing unplanned you might expect this). The person who killed Julia does not touch anything as he has blood soaked hands/gloves. He could remove these gloves but then he would leave fingerprints - but it's VERY unlikely he would even think about that in a state of panic as he would just want to get out of there as quickly as possible. The person who was rifling the cash box would have opened the doors, and touched anything necessary, likely while wearing gloves, and the two escape into the night, one of them doused in blood, possibly covered in the eyes of distant passerbys by his own overcoat, the gloves stuffed into the pockets.

One of the two may have thrown down William's jacket onto Julia to put out flames, or as an attempt to frame him which would lean more towards the killing of Julia being premeditated. It is more likely a second person would have used William's jacket as he would be in the kitchen and see it hanging in the hall. If the killer was in the parlor, was there some other obvious item like a blanket that could have been quickly grabbed and used for this purpose? If the second person used William's jacket it means he was alerted to trouble by person one, which means noise, which was not reported by neighbors, making this unlikely. Otherwise the second person was to take the cash and leave out the back unseen by Julia.

They cannot really take many items since being caught in the possession of items which can be verified as coming from the Wallace's home could be too risky, they would also have to try to sell these items and again this increases the risk factor considering the severity of the crime. On the other hand, taking money has little risk. Supposedly rings were also taken from Julia's fingers, and if so the burglars are not too panicked by her death to carry on grabbing nearby and very obvious valuables as they made their escape.

It is worth noting there were reports of two men running very fast toward the Plaza cinema direction at around 8 PM. I believe it may even have been corroborated by two witnesses. Whether this is related or not is undetermined.

1 Person Robbery:

If this is the case then it strongly suggests that killing Julia was premeditated. If he had been discovered stealing valuables in the kitchen, it makes no sense that we then find her lighting a fire to make the thief comfortable in the parlor. In that case you would think she would be found dead in the kitchen. You would also expect defensive wounds since she now knows there is danger and would not willingly want to put her back to the perpetrator in the way we find her. You would also expect to find noise. Julia screamed loudly when a drunken Mr. Cadwallader wandered into the Wallace's bedroom, she is shy but not a doormouse...

In this scenario, it is not as important that the suspect be a stranger to Julia - although if he was very careful and it was planned by two people, one of them may have feared being recognized in that neighborhood. So the "stranger" would be someone from another area where locals are unlikely to identify him.

So the killer goes in, lets Julia set the fire, then kills her as planned. She falls into the fire which is not planned, and is then pulled out. The flames are doused, possibly with William's jacket, or alternatively it was placed there on purpose to frame William. Because of this mishap it may have spooked the suspect or eaten up enough time that he felt he could not spend too much more time in the house - or it was already determined that only the cash box would be stolen from, implicating someone who knew its location in the crime.

It is also possible he was interrupted by William arriving home, which would mean he was alerted when William went to the front door and knocked. Then he apparently waits or is in the midst of doing something which allows William the time to go and knock on the back door and find it latched. When this happens, the killer may have been in the kitchen area, he may have seen William leave the yard from the window, and made a dash for it, or something along those lines.

In this scenario various questions are raised: Why not the night of the chess club? Either they had obligations themselves, were a member of the club (and knew William's address), wanted to maximize on the collection money, or the intended burglar was a stranger to Julia. Considering Julia herself was not lured out along with William - unless something like this was attempted and aborted (like in Johnston's "confession"), they need her in the home to admit them. And even if the Johnston's "confession" was true, it is unnatural that we find her in the parlor unless she had been told to set it up by William or had a guest arrive. Even IF the suspect(s) had a key for the doors, the front door is high risk and probably bolted, and the back kitchen door may be on latch. The yard door may also be bolted. Therefore entry into the home is not even likely.

It also raises the question, if the killer was still in the home when William got back, why not let him into the house, hide, and then kill him as well? We cannot expect a killer to act with perfect rationality, but this would probably have been the smarter choice, as it would allow them much more time to escape, and more time before the bodies are discovered. Of course - it would rule out William as a suspect, so if they intended to frame him, that could be one reason why they allowed him to live.

Murder:

Still we are assuming scenarios where William is somehow innocent, no matter how unlikely. So you have someone going into the house to specifically kill Julia, and stage a robbery. Staging of a robbery is a means of detracting attention away from anyone who may have a motive to kill her. So this person may have felt they could fall under suspicion and that they could be believed to have motive to kill her (this motive does not necessarily have to be known - as is the case with William himself).

Following on from the reasoning for the call: This would tend to rule out chess club members as it's unlikely they know her well enough to have reason to kill her - unless it was some sort of secret love affair or a very sick personal vendetta against William. We do not know the particulars of the relationship between Julia and basically anyone else, but according to William, he knew nobody with motive to kill her.

So then I suggest an unknown suspect from Julia's past who was, most probably, allowed in through the back while William was away. This person had gone to the home with the intention of killing Julia for reasons we do not know. He may have also been there on the Monday, and possibly even on a previous day. Perhaps they mutually decided they needed to meet again for another discussion, but the perpetrator decided at a certain point that the best option was to kill Julia, which he carried out on the night of the murder.

If this is true, then the killer also had a job, otherwise he would have been able to arrange these meetings for times when William was away at work.

---

That's all I can come up with for William's innocence. As you know I favor William as the mastermind and Parry implicated in the crime by placing the call, and potentially more e.g. Marsden or the Johnstons as my top picks for a murderer other than William.

I do not fully trust Parry's alibi for the night of the murder. The cinema manager confirmed Lily's testimony was faked. Lily claimed he had come from the Williamsons house, but Leslie Williamson called into Wilkes and made no mention of this visit. We also have claims of coercion from Parry's parents (who were quite well-to-do) asking friends to sneak Gordon out of the country. I also agree with the point in Antony's book. When Goodman was harassing Gordon of being the killer, why did he not just tell them he had been at Olivia Brine's house and that it was verified by police etc? I agree with Antony that it makes it seem like he didn't want anyone digging into that alibi.

We also have Gordon on record saying he would not speak about the crime until his dad passed away, due to a promise he made, but that after his dad has passed he will talk for the right price... This to me TENDS to lean in favor of him knowing more than he let on. If he just wanted money he could have taken the money and made up a bunch of lies, and he certainly wouldn't admit to murdering someone, surely. But it seems he knew something.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just wondering, what would you think if Gordon DIDN'T have any alibi for the night of the murder?

Also what point do you find most condemning against William? For me I find him taking down "West" instead of "East" strange since he claims to not know the Gardens, so why would he hesitate in taking down the fake address? For me I find that difficult to get past unless he did know the Gardens somewhat and everything he said to the police/on trial was lies because he felt the truth made him look too guilty.

However - I heard something that raises doubts to me... Apparently upon acquittal William went on vacation with his solicitor (or lawyer, something) - not just his trip with Joseph and Amy. And apparently he for some reason wanted this specific pair of boots, and he went around asking loads of people on the street where the store is that he can buy them from. I forget exactly what my friend told me (the solicitor or w.e. was the same person who later said he has "serious doubts" about the innocence of William)... But it makes you wonder if persistently walking around asking random people was typical for him.

If Parry didn’t have an alibi then it still wouldn’t make him guilty of course but it would certainly make him a stronger suspect but, with an alibi, i have to dismiss him.

I don’t know if I’d have a single damning point but rather a collection of them. I think that this was a deliberate murder motivated by feeling against Julia and that there was no robbery. I only see Wallace as having a possible reason for this. The fact that the cash box was returned to the shelf strengthens the view that Wallace might have been attempting to set up either Parry or Marsden and to give the impression that that the intruder was caught in the act and killed Julia.
Against this is the question why, if Wallace was simply setting up a robbery, didn’t he make a better job of it by ransacking a few drawers?

I don’t think that it’s likely that Wallace would have involved Parry and then done everything that he could do to get him arrested and charged. And then blamed him for the murder after he was freed on appeal. This makes no sense.

I think that with the Qualtrough plan, the phone call, the MGE excursion, the issue with the doors were all things that only Wallace had control over and as I find it difficult to see him trusting anyone else to have taken part I can only see Wallace involved.

There are certainly issues that have been pointed out and I certainly can’t answer all questions. An accomplice would certainly answer those issues but we could then be guilty of creating an one just so that all questions and doubts can be answered.

For me the doubts are:

1. The Monday night risks that we know of.
2. Whether Wallace would have had time to kill Julia and either a) remained blood-free or relatively so, or b) cleaned himself up.
3. The disposal of the weapon.

for me then:

1. Wallace might perceived that the risks were far less than we tend to perceive them to have been 80 years later.
2. I think that by using the mackintosh, either by wearing it or using it as a shield, Wallace could have avoided blood o kept it to a minimum.
3. I have no explanation for how he got rid of the weapon bu hidden things can remain unfound.

[etenguy]

Gordon Parry is going down for making a call to allow a crooked friend to get into the house and steal from the box is the likely scenario I'm afraid. The evidence against William is almost non-existent and the evidence against Gordon is damning.

The problem is, there is no evidence that either William or Gordon made the call. There is only speculation. You may believe that his behaviour makes it more likely that Gordon made the call, but that is not the same as evidence.

If Gordon made the call, then it is unlikely Wallace killed Julia. If Wallace made the call, it is hard to believe that anyone other than Wallace killed Julia. There is, of course, the possibility that someone else made the call - but who that might have been is equally speculative.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Ive always tried to be honest.

Just wondering, what would you think if Gordon DIDN'T have any alibi for the night of the murder?

Also what point do you find most condemning against William? For me I find him taking down "West" instead of "East" strange since he claims to not know the Gardens, so why would he hesitate in taking down the fake address? For me I find that difficult to get past unless he did know the Gardens somewhat and everything he said to the police/on trial was lies because he felt the truth made him look too guilty.

However - I heard something that raises doubts to me... Apparently upon acquittal William went on vacation with his solicitor (or lawyer, something) - not just his trip with Joseph and Amy. And apparently he for some reason wanted this specific pair of boots, and he went around asking loads of people on the street where the store is that he can buy them from. I forget exactly what my friend told me (the solicitor or w.e. was the same person who later said he has "serious doubts" about the innocence of William)... But it makes you wonder if persistently walking around asking random people was typical for him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Like to not even be willing to consider Gordon rang seems dishonest with so much evidence

Ive always tried to be honest.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Fair unbiased reasoning that the decision to change routes came after the call.

But then of course we must give him the benefit of the doubt that he'd not been seen boarding, on, or getting off that tram by anyone at all and that he was CERTAIN enough in this to make things up that could be checked easily. Definitely not a gambit I'd have liked to try personally, I'd have rather told the truth and go with the stalker angle.

How about the risk of Beattie in HINDSIGHT realizing it could potentially have been Wallace's voice? Obviously at the time he wouldn't think anything of it - but now I know William also had an accent. I can fake a Liverpool accent only very badly but it would probably be easier for a local but still - we have to assume he could pull this off convincingly... When thinking back to the call in hindsight William is banking that Beattie won't say "uhmmmm, I guess it could have been him now I think about it - but I wouldn't like to say for sure".

But remember his pressing for the time which makes me think he knew that if Beattie gave the "real time" of half past (if someome called for him and William thought that's when it came), he'd be totally exonerated. No wonder it was "of great importance to him" if that was the case. Admittedly the real time would also exonerate him if he knew he could be proven to have boarded at Belmont. Either way it basically proves advanced knowledge.

Now if that call had been placed by another party and at half past, or if it was the time stated but he used the stop specified and this was confirmed. He's exonerated. This is a huge safety net because if someome else calls it fits the narrative that he was tricked you see? Then we have testimony from others that William wasn't even sure he'd go - that Amy (who was never confirmed to have been there AFAIK) said Julia had had to convince him to go. That their marriage was so perfect etc. He has zero motive in the eyes of others.

The fact of the matter is.:

There is close to zero evidence that on the call night William rang the club himself. The ONLY evidence is that it sounded like an "old man's" voice and that he of course knew he'd be going. A very weak case. And if the call came later or his route was verified he's exonerated completely.

For GORDON we have a B.S. alibi (lucky he didn't get his days confused on the murder night huh), odd behavior, and timing that lines up perfectly with him having been in that box, the fact he also knew Wallace attended chess there, the use of caffay, that he was a known prank caller who could imitate voices, that he was likely to involve himself in petty crime, that he'd know the Wallace home layout and position of the box.

Now I DON'T think he expected a murder would come of it. If Wallace isn't the type to even have an affair, how could he conceive he's the type to bash someone's brains in? It had to be a fake reason he needed the call. We can speculate what that was.

If this went to trial, based on just the call:

Gordon Parry is going down for making a call to allow a crooked friend to get into the house and steal from the box is the likely scenario I'm afraid. The evidence against William is almost non-existent and the evidence against Gordon is damning.

Maybe MacFall wouldn't have been pressured into changing the time of death in that case. Maybe Beattie would have heard Gordon's voice and recognized it in trial, along with the operators and Parry's local accent.

So Gordon is in fact a great safety net for William over risking calling himself and lying about routes etc. We can see quite clearly that Gordon would have immense evidence against him in comparison to William.

---

In any case there's evidence Gordon knew more than he would let on. Remember he stated to Goodman (or whoever it was) that he "promised his dad he would never talk about it" but that after his dad passes he will discuss it for the right price.

Now, this seems genuine, because IF he wanted to just make a quick buck, he could've taken their money and told a pack of lies. So it seems he was being genuine. But would he have admitted to MURDER for the right price? It sounds more to me that he knew about the crime and was implicated (without knowing Julia would be killed) hence his dad telling him to promise to never speak of it agsin.

Did Gordon admit to his parents he had called? Is that why they begged to have him snuck out of the country, knowing how bad it would look for Gordon?

---

You simply cannot tell me that's a case where he'd have been believed over William... Like to not even be willing to consider Gordon rang seems dishonest with so much evidence. To simply have a hard time believing he would trust Gordon or w.e. is a weak foundation upon which to rest your beliefs if you already have them set in stone. It almost seems no amount of evidence could convince you Gordon called the club, your mind is already made up. Even though all evidence points to Gordon.

Otherwise how damn unlucky was Gordon to have forgotten what he did that day, to have had perfect timing to have called that matched his arrival at Lily's... It'd be almost as unlucky as William's snipe hunt tier actions making him look so guilty if he was innocent.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

. None, and that is the entire point and why it is so genius.

Im a little confused. I can’t understand why you think that this would have been a good thing for Wallace to be involved with a man who might easily have cracked and dropped him in it.

And yes, he was risking that if it came down to it, his word would hold more water than Gordon's. If William killed her himself he's taking a massive risk anyway (and in that case he has to also lie about tram routes etc. too) so either way he's apparently willing to put his life on the line to bump her off

But without Parry (or the Johnston’s) all he has is his own intelligence and planning to worry about. He doesn’t have to worry about Parry putting his foot in it and letting something slip.


As you know, I accept that the Monday night is the biggest area of question for Wallace but, if we think about it, it’s not the actual risk that would have been important it’s the risk that Wallace would have perceived at the time.

We think about - what if someone saw him getting on the tram near to the call box? - or - what if the conductor remembered him getting on? But if Wallace didn’t know that the call could have been traced to that particular call box then for him he’d have had absolutely no reason to worry about getting on at that stop. Even if we are cautious and say well we can’t be 100% certain that William didn’t know that, under normal circumstances, calls couldn’t be traced there was still a good chance that this is what he believed.

And so for William he wouldn’t have believed it to have been a risk to have been seen getting on the tram near to the phone box as long as he wasn’t seen in the box itself. I think that the decision to say that he said that he’d used the tram near to Belmont Road came after he’d made the call. Maybe he started thinking that, with the stop being near to a call box, the police might have become suspicious as there weren’t as many call boxes around in those days. And so he felt that he might have added a layer of safety by distancing himself from that call box.

What seems really risk to us with hindsight might not have appeared too risky to William at that time.

[WallaceWackedHer]

What option would Parry have had in the end but to have admitted - ok, I made the call but only because Wallace asked me to (or paid me too) because he told me that he was seeing another woman and wanted an excuse to be out of the house.

None, and that is the entire point and why it is so genius.

And yes, he was risking that if it came down to it, his word would hold more water than Gordon's. If William killed her himself he's taking a massive risk anyway (and in that case he has to also lie about tram routes etc. too) so either way he's apparently willing to put his life on the line to bump her off.