Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[moste]

Does anyone know whether the Anfield burglar continued to ply his trade after the Wallace murder?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does anyone know whether the Anfield burglar continued to ply his trade after the Wallace murder?

I’ve never seen a name put to the The Anfield Housebreaker so I’ve always assumed that he was never caught. I don’t know if he continued after the murder or for how long but I’d have thought that someone might have at least mentioned the ‘coincidence’ of the burglaries ceasing after the murder? It would have been a little like Druitt in the ripper case, someone would have said that he stopped with the burglaries after Wolverton Street went horribly wrong. Rod or Antony might know.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Absolutely. Was that day when wallace would normally have the most cash in the cash box?

[etenguy]

Absolutely. Was that day when wallace would normally have the most cash in the cash box?

Yes, I can't remember the details but it had something to do with collecting monthly or quarterly premiums. Parry knew about this and the chess club. Wallace's colleagues probably knew about the premium collection, as would his customers, but they wouldn't have known about the chess match - Wallace said he hadn't told anyone. The chess club members knew about the match, but wouldn't have known about the premium routine. So only Wallace and Parry (and Julia) knew about both - as far as we know. It is possible one of Wallace's customers or colleagues found out about the chess match by coincidence of course if they visited the cafe, but we have no evidence to support that.

[moste]

Yes, I can't remember the details but it had something to do with collecting monthly or quarterly premiums. Parry knew about this and the chess club. Wallace's colleagues probably knew about the premium collection, as would his customers, but they wouldn't have known about the chess match - Wallace said he hadn't told anyone. The chess club members knew about the match, but wouldn't have known about the premium routine. So only Wallace and Parry (and Julia) knew about both - as far as we know. It is possible one of Wallace's customers or colleagues found out about the chess match by coincidence of course if they visited the cafe, but we have no evidence to support that.

So, an obvious question. 'Why was there very little ,next to no takings to be had in Wallace's home ? had he already cashed in his monies for the week /month?

[moste]

Its actually a clever ploy, one worthy of a half decent chess player,.Throw the red herring at the plod, that the intruder will have known about the money on the premises.(even though there wasn't any)

[etenguy]

So, an obvious question. 'Why was there very little ,next to no takings to be had in Wallace's home ? had he already cashed in his monies for the week /month?

I believe he was later than usual to make his collections. I would have to recheck.

[etenguy]

Its actually a clever ploy, one worthy of a half decent chess player,.Throw the red herring at the plod, that the intruder will have known about the money on the premises.(even though there wasn't any)

I don't recall seeing any statement where Wallace brought this to the police's attention (Parry knowing about the usual premium routine). I may have missed it. I think Wallace didn't really start to talk about his thoughts on who the murderer was until after his appeal had been successful.

[moste]

I don't recall seeing any statement where Wallace brought this to the police's attention (Parry knowing about the usual premium routine). I may have missed it. I think Wallace didn't really start to talk about his thoughts on who the murderer was until after his appeal had been successful.

Well I didn't mean he pointed a finger at anyone , just made the inference, that normally there would be a large sum of money on the premises, just to sew the seed, so to speak.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a couple of points purely for info.

Wallace hadn’t been to chess for a while so he wasn’t someone that attended every meeting.

About any of the chess club being aware of Wallace’s business - the club captain Samuel Beattie had know Wallace for years and was unaware of his line of work.

If any chess club member might be said to have known more personal details about Wallace’s life it would have been James Caird.

These are just for info for what it might be worth - no points being made.

One interesting point is that Qualtrough asked Beattie for Wallace’s address. If he’d have given it wouldn’t it have seemed at least strange that he then went on to ask that Wallace went to see him at Menlove Gardens East - why would he have needed Wallace’s address? Only Wallace could have been certain that Beattie didn’t know his address. How could Parry have known that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't recall seeing any statement where Wallace brought this to the police's attention (Parry knowing about the usual premium routine). I may have missed it. I think Wallace didn't really start to talk about his thoughts on who the murderer was until after his appeal had been successful.

Wallace did tell the police that Parry knew about the cash box and Wallace’s home set up.

[etenguy]

Wallace did tell the police that Parry knew about the cash box and Wallace’s home set up.

Thanks Herlock.

[harry]

After carefull planning to get Wallace out of the house,there seems to be no rational plan to deal with Julia.She would be witness to anyone that went there knocking on the front door.Surely Parry would understand that.Short of killing her,and that would mean premeditation,I am at a loss to understand how else he or an accomplice would hope to get away without evidence leading to them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Parry: an unconvincing conspirator?

If Parry planned a ‘robbery’ to be undertaken by an accomplice then there would have been some effort made to ensure that the plan was successful. We already know about the six or seven ways that the plan could have fallen at the first hurdle and we also know how easily it could have failed when the alleged accomplice arrived at Wolverton Street but we can reasonably assume that Parry (and the accomplice) would have wanted to avoid the chance of Wallace returning to number 29 whilst ‘Qualtrough’ was still there?

So what time did Wallace leave? Of course for this conversation we are talking about an innocent Wallace so we will go for the time that he claimed to have left the house 6.45. The next question would be ‘when did the accomplice knock the door?’ I’d suggest that it would have been unlikely to have been too soon because it might have allowed Julia to have said “we’ll if you hurry you might catch him at the tram stop,” or something like. So I think that it’s entirely reasonably to suggest that the accomplice would have arrived at between 7.00 and 7.15. Let’s say 7.15 to reduce even further the chance of Julia suggesting that he try and catch Wallace up.

Parry would have been able to make a reasonably accurate estimation of Wallace’s combined journeys to and from MGE, the only complete unknown was how long would Wallace spend in his search before giving up and heading home? Wallace got back at around 8.45. It wouldn’t have been surprising though if Wallace had given up sooner (in fact of course some of us say that this is suspicious behaviour by Wallace) and caught an earlier tram. Wallace might easily therefore have arrived home at 8.30. So we have an accomplice possible entering around 7.15 and Wallace possibly returning at 8.30. Would Parry have told the accomplice “take your time,” or is it far more likely that he would have said “to be safe you need to be out of there by.....?”

So what would have been a reasonable ‘get out’ time? I’d suggest between 8.00 and 8.15 (with the earlier time being safer.” 8.00 allows 45 minutes for the accomplice’s work; 8.15 gives him an hour. Both times are surely ample.

And so we have the plan. The accomplice went in around 7.15 and was expected to leave by 8.00 (or 8.15 at the latest) then Parry comes around in the car, picks him up from a pre-arranged spot and gets him away from the crime scene and to safety where they can divide the cash.

The problem for me (amongst many) is this question: “did Parry’s actions on that night speak of a man taking part in a criminal plan?”

If the accomplice left Wolverton at 8.00 or 8.15 why is Parry still at the Brine’s until 8.30? He surely couldn’t have expected the accomplice to stay at Wolverton Street until 8.30! And so does Parry then go to pick up the Accomplice after leaving him standing around for 35 minutes (accomplice leaves at 8.00 Parry arrives 8.35) or even 20 minutes (accomplice leaves at 8.15 Parry arrives at 8.35?) No he drives round to the Post Office to get cigarettes and a newspaper. Another 5 minutes passes then. So does he then go and pick up his accomplice who has been kicking around for between 25 and 40 minutes (and I’d go for the latter?) Nope! He remembers that he has to go to Hignetts Garage to pick up his accumulator battery. How long would this have taken....10 mins? So now the poor old accomplice has been loitering around for between 35 and 50 minutes!

And then to top it off when Parry finally meets up with his, by now very cold and scared accomplice, he learns that this ‘robbery’ is now the brutal murder of an old lady in which he’s irrevocably implicated. The gallows loom. How panicked would anyone be let alone a 22 year old? And yet he calmly pays a short visit to the Williamson’s to chat about a birthday party then he saunters off to meet his girlfriend. None of whom state that he was anything other than his calm and normal self.

I ask anyone that’s unbiased (which includes all on this thread but one) does this sound like the actions of a man taking part in a criminal plan? Surely not by any stretch of the imagination?

[Herlock Sholmes]

After carefull planning to get Wallace out of the house,there seems to be no rational plan to deal with Julia.She would be witness to anyone that went there knocking on the front door.Surely Parry would understand that.Short of killing her,and that would mean premeditation,I am at a loss to understand how else he or an accomplice would hope to get away without evidence leading to them.

What we are being asked to believe Harry is that our accomplice was, on the one hand, completely sanguine about the possibility of being identified by Julia as the man who stole the cash and yet, when she became suspicious of him he battered her brains out! Neither of the Wallace’s neighbours heard Julia scream or any kind of commotion so what could have made Qualtrough turn from Jekyll to Hyde that night? It’s a bit of a mystery Harry