Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Abby Normal]

I am caught up on the phone call.

Why would anyone, other than Wallace, choose to make the call when they could commit the crime on the night Wallace was playing chess? The answer is they wouldn't without a good reason.

The usual answer is that the criminal might have thought the haul would be larger if they waited until the next night, which means they needed to get Wallace out of the house to commit the crime. That only applies if the caller was Parry or his associate. No-one else, I think, knew Wallace's routine. Is this correct? If it is, we can with some confidence limit potential suspects to just the two possibilities.

If Wallace's customers also knew his routine, the list of potential suspects becomes considerably larger.

I would imagine anyone in his ches club, or anyone who frequented the chess club would have known his routine well enough . Or nis customers and co workers. Thats why i leave 30% chance other than wallace or parry for an unsub to be the killer.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, the two canonical suspects are Wallace and Parry. And only Wallace could know whether he was going to the chess club that night. Parry would have to watch him leave and infer he was going there (the chess schedule was in public view at the cafe, where Parry also frequented).

Hi ccj
No one would have to watch him leave for the chess club to make that call from that call box. They didnt even really need to know his schedule detailed that much. Inly that he went to the chess club that night at a certain time. They could have just made the call from any where any time during that day before he arrived.

The q call at that time from that call box approx when wallace was on his way to the club, points directly to a guilty wallace imho.

[etenguy]

I would imagine anyone in his ches club, or anyone who frequented the chess club would have known his routine well enough . Or nis customers and co workers. Thats why i leave 30% chance other than wallace or parry for an unsub to be the killer.

Hi Abby

For the phone call to make sense (if it wasn't Wallace), they would need to know both that he was going to the chess club and his premium collection routine. That narrows it down to Julia and Parry only, I think. Clearly it was not Julia. So we have only two potential suspects - Wallace and Parry (with accomplice).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS. Just to be clear, we are talking about the night of the call. Alan Close is about the timing on the night of the murder (an easy slip to make when writing a post). Let me know if I've missed your point.

Of course, to be completely fair, another reason Wallace arrived on time is that he did not make the call as alleged.

From my analysis of the defence team's timings (p183-186 in my book) and assuming he left his house at 7:15pm:

1) Wallace does not make the call - he arrives at club between 7:39 and 7:48 (for the former, no waiting; 9 minute wait for the latter)

2) Wallace makes the call - he arrives at club between 7:44 and 7:53. So Wallace would have boarded the tram almost immediately after making the call to arrive at about 7:45pm.

Certainly, I think Wallace would not have wanted to be late. The police would have been all over him. So, if guilty, why was Wallace cutting it's so fine? HS is suggesting that perhaps Wallace left earlier than 7:15pm to allow enough time to make the call, but was delayed (2 and 3 in HS' post above) and just made it to the club at about 7:45pm.

An aside: it would have been very revealing if Hemmerde had asked Wallace: "How long did you wait at the tram stop before boarding?" Wallace, on the stand with no time to think, would have almost certainly told the truth. "Almost immediately" would possibly point to his guilt (because he would have arrived earlier than he did if he did not make the call). "A few minutes" would point to his innocence (he gets there too late if he made the call).

Hi Antony,

All I can say on point one is . I posted in haste before going out (that’s my excuse anyway )

The two parameters of your point 2 are ‘cutting it fine’ and ‘late.’

I just think that under normal circumstances Wallace would intend to get to chess in good time and not leave himself under any risk of being late. He would have gone out leaving himself to get there with 10 minutes or so to spare.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn...

Wallace got there on time because he knew exactly how long it would take him, having travelled the route scores, if not hundreds, of times - and the Liverpool trams ran like clockwork.

Now he's guilty for being punctual. What abject piffle !

OLIVER KC: "If he did not send that message, he was an innocent man, and how can it be said that the Prosecution have even started to prove that he sent it ?"


Mr. Justice Branson asked Mr. Hemmerde:*
''Assuming the murder was not committed by the appellant, what evidence is there that the telephone call was put through by him?"*

There was of course no such evidence.'

Murder Most Mysterious by Hargrave Lee Adam (1932)

The obsessive has tied himself up in such knots, in his contortions to justify his delusions, that he's even mixed-up the facts relating to Alan Close...

Disinformation and Misrepresentation. As ever...

Another mind blowing lay pathetic effort

No one Rod....and I mean no one....least of all Wallace intends to arrive on exactly the deadline. To suggest as such is neither more than a joke.

You get worse.

“Disinformation and misrepresentation” - “Disinformation and Misrepresentation” - “Disinformation and Misrepresentation.”

“Who’s a pretty boy then.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, the two canonical suspects are Wallace and Parry. And only Wallace could know whether he was going to the chess club that night. Parry would have to watch him leave and infer he was going there (the chess schedule was in public view at the cafe, where Parry also frequented).

Antony do you see a problem with the suggestion that Parry was watching the end of Richmond Park from across the street in Breck Road when Wallace could have left by the front door and gone up onto Lower Breck Road and along the far side of the triangular garden to the phone box and remained out of sight?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

For the phone call to make sense (if it wasn't Wallace), they would need to know both that he was going to the chess club and his premium collection routine. That narrows it down to Julia and Parry only, I think. Clearly it was not Julia. So we have only two potential suspects - Wallace and Parry (with accomplice).

Why would they need to know his premium collection routine?

[etenguy]

Why would they need to know his premium collection routine?

The only way the caller, if not Wallace, could expect the haul the day after the chess match to be much higher than the night of the chess match is if they knew Wallace's premium collection and banking regime. Given theft was the motive, it makes sense to wait the extra day if this known and hence the need to get Wallace out of the way the following night. In the end it did them no good as Wallace changed his routine.

If they did not expect the haul to be much higher the day after the chess match, they would have conducted the robbery on the night of the match, since there was no reason to delay. This means there is no need for the phone call to get Wallace out of the way. He would have been gone to play chess in any case.

I hope that makes sense.

[moste]

Hi Moste,

I haven’t any books with me where I am at the moment but, as far as Wallace’s brother is concerned, he was never suspected or investigated at the time. Something in the back of my mind is telling me that he wasn’t around at the time of the murders but I really can’t be sure. Sorry I don’t have more info to hand.

Ta Muchly

[etenguy]

Ah, it’s been a few days since you posted a meaningless, invented graph

I have pointed out numerous times the way that the plan relied on luck to succeed and that how no luck was required if Wallace was the planner. If you decide to continue exhibiting bias by shutting your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “Wallace was innocent” then that’s your choice.

Do you think if Wallace was the killer, his method was inspired by the Lizzie Borden case some 40 years earlier. I am struck by the parallels. Even down to being acquitted for similar reasons, though no appeal needed for Borden. Maybe that is why the mackintosh was burned (just kidding).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you think if Wallace was the killer, his method was inspired by the Lizzie Borden case some 40 years earlier. I am struck by the parallels. Even down to being acquitted for similar reasons, though no appeal needed for Borden. Maybe that is why the mackintosh was burned (just kidding).

I’m unsure Eten. To be honest it’s a long time since I read anything on the Borden case.

One thing that I have wondered about and I can’t recall who first mentioned it on the other thread (it may have been Caz) is the possibility that one of the ‘bonuses’ in a plan by a guilty William might have been the putting forward of Parry as a possible scapegoat. Of course there’s no way that William could have known Parry’s movements on that night or whether or not he’d have an alibi. But he might have felt that planting the seed was well worth it. Parry knew where the cash box was and William’s habits. William named him as someone that Julia would have let in. Although not violent it was known that Parry wasn’t particularly honest (especially in regard to cash.) The police might have discovered that Parry was in debt. Parry knew about the chess club. Wallace might even have thought that even if Parry had an alibi it might have been from one of his dodgy mates and so the police might suspect that it was fabricated. Before the Parrot pipes in, we have no specific evidence of this of course. But if Wallace was guilty (and I believe that he was) it might have crossed his mind that he had a possible ready made scapegoat in Parry.

[etenguy]

I’m unsure Eten. To be honest it’s a long time since I read anything on the Borden case.

It wasn't a particularly serious post, though in essence the cases are quite similar, but the details different. The Borden case has probably a prior claim to 'the perfect murder' tag.

One thing that I have wondered about and I can’t recall who first mentioned it on the other thread (it may have been Caz) is the possibility that one of the ‘bonuses’ in a plan by a guilty William might have been the putting forward of Parry as a possible scapegoat. Of course there’s no way that William could have known Parry’s movements on that night or whether or not he’d have an alibi. But he might have felt that planting the seed was well worth it. Parry knew where the cash box was and William’s habits. William named him as someone that Julia would have let in. Although not violent it was known that Parry wasn’t particularly honest (especially in regard to cash.) The police might have discovered that Parry was in debt. Parry knew about the chess club. Wallace might even have thought that even if Parry had an alibi it might have been from one of his dodgy mates and so the police might suspect that it was fabricated. Before the Parrot pipes in, we have no specific evidence of this of course. But if Wallace was guilty (and I believe that he was) it might have crossed his mind that he had a possible ready made scapegoat in Parry.

Possibly, Herlock - and the recent spate of burglaries could have been scape-goated too. However, if Wallace wanted to point the finger at Parry, there is probably more he could have done. Simply mentioning him as one of a number of people Julia might have admitted doesn't sound like Wallace was putting him in the frame. Though later of course, he was more vocal about knowing a prime suspect who he thought was the murderer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It wasn't a particularly serious post, though in essence the cases are quite similar, but the details different. The Borden case has probably a prior claim to 'the perfect murder' tag.



Possibly, Herlock - and the recent spate of burglaries could have been scape-goated too. However, if Wallace wanted to point the finger at Parry, there is probably more he could have done. Simply mentioning him as one of a number of people Julia might have admitted doesn't sound like Wallace was putting him in the frame. Though later of course, he was more vocal about knowing a prime suspect who he thought was the murderer.

That’s certainly true Eten. It may be that Wallace simply thought that he had nothing to lose by nudging th police in Parry’s direction but if he’d have been more forceful they might have felt suspicious that he was trying to lay the blame at someone else’s door. It’s always intrigued me though, why did Wallace become certain of Parry’s guilt only after his appeal? He couldn’t have known any more about Parry after the trial and appeal than he did before. It’s not as if he’d put a private detective on the case for example to investigate. What caused him to be certain of Parry’s guilt? Maybe Wallace, suspecting (or knowing) that he didn’t have long to live simply had nothing to lose by claiming to know of Parry’s guilt? A posthumous ‘last laugh’ for Wallace maybe?

[etenguy]

That’s certainly true Eten. It may be that Wallace simply thought that he had nothing to lose by nudging th police in Parry’s direction but if he’d have been more forceful they might have felt suspicious that he was trying to lay the blame at someone else’s door. It’s always intrigued me though, why did Wallace become certain of Parry’s guilt only after his appeal? He couldn’t have known any more about Parry after the trial and appeal than he did before. It’s not as if he’d put a private detective on the case for example to investigate. What caused him to be certain of Parry’s guilt? Maybe Wallace, suspecting (or knowing) that he didn’t have long to live simply had nothing to lose by claiming to know of Parry’s guilt? A posthumous ‘last laugh’ for Wallace maybe?

If Wallace was innocent, then it may have been a sincere conclusion reached after some reflection. Grief and his legal predicament may have consumed him earlier. I favour this explanation.

If Wallace was guilty, then deflection. Perhaps he wanted to silence the gossips or at least sow enough doubt he could avoid some of the social exclusion he was suffering. He may not have had it mind originally, relying on an intruder/thief scenario.

I know you favour Wallace as the murderer, but his post appeal behaviour does suggest, to me at least, doubt that he was guilty.

[harry]

Herlock,
In post 821,you question Wallaces arrival at the chess meeting as maybe being later than normal.I agree,as when the captain Beatie answered the telephone at about 7.20, he told the caller that Wallace was expected shortly.
One can argue as to what shortly may mean,but in the circumstances,I would expext no more than 15 minutes.So 7.35,and Wallace is reported as ariving at 7.45,a ten minute interval.