Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

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

You raise a good point. There are two options in my mind.

1. The accomplice was unknown to Julia and was confident even if she described him, he would not get identified (perhaps he was from London or even abroad). However, Julia catches him in the act and angers him causing him to lash out. Shocked at his reaction he gets out sharpish.

2. Violence was always envisaged. He gets into the house and batters her the first chance he gets. The problem with this scenario is that he would have plenty of time to collect other valuables and money in the house, which he did not.

[Abby Normal]

21st birthday

both qualtrough and mrs Williamson when speaking to parry mention a 21st birthday for their daughter.

to me this is just too much of a coincidence, no? I mean whats the chance?


did Wallace know the williamsons and or also know about this birthday?



if not, then I would imagine this points to parry or anyone else who would have known about this birthday.

[Harry D]

On the balance of probabilities, it had to be Wallace.

Right off the bat, there's a reason police immediately suspect the hubby. Statistically, the odds are that Wallace murdered her. Then we have the infamous "Qualtrough". If Wallace was innocent, this means somebody else stalked Wallace, staked out his home, waited until he left for chess club and made the call. He timed everything perfectly in such a way to frame Wallace. What if Wallace hadn't been going to chess club? The caller had no way of knowing this. The only people who knew that Wallace was definitely leaving for chess club was Wallace & Julia.

"Qualtrough" also refused to call back later to speak to Wallace, as he was at his daughter's birthday party. Most likely because Wallace couldn't be in two places at once.

[moste]

Herlock quote: 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.

I'm surprised that this timing part of the detective work tends to get skimmed over . Wallace caught the number 4 tram at the intersection of Lodge lane and Smithdown road, that much is corroborated by the tram conductor and\or his subsequent connecting tram personnel. This means, Wallace could not have left home later than six twentyish, regardless of milk\paperboy evidence. Luckily for us, the streets and houses in that neighbourhood of Anfield, have not changed .Google maps has the journey by foot as 2.3 miles and also has pedestrian timing for this as 48 mins. they do give alternative routes which take longer, but this is the most direct.
You see the problem , (Google maps also has the same route covered by bicycle at 15 minutes , but perhaps we wouldn't want to go there? LoL.) (Or maybe we should?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

You raise a good point. There are two options in my mind.

1. The accomplice was unknown to Julia and was confident even if she described him, he would not get identified (perhaps he was from London or even abroad). However, Julia catches him in the act and angers him causing him to lash out. Shocked at his reaction he gets out sharpish.

A very fair point Eten. I still find it difficult to accept though that if, as you say, ‘Qualtrough’ had a high level of confidence that he’d never get caught, that Julia could have done anything to rouse him to such a furious outburst of violence? Surely a hand over the mouth and a “keep your mouth shut and you won’t get hurt” would have easily sufficed?

2. Violence was always envisaged. He gets into the house and batters her the first chance he gets. The problem with this scenario is that he would have plenty of time to collect other valuables and money in the house, which he did not.

I agree with the problem that you’ve raised. I think that we can add another one. The iron bar was missing and so this was very likely the murder weapon. And so if violence was envisaged we would have expected ‘Qualtrough’ to have brought his own weapon with him rather than relying on finding something appropriate.

Of course we can also add the query - why, if ‘Qualtrough’ killed Julia on the spur of the moment and in panic, did he go around turning off lights? I can think of a plausible reason why Wallace might have wanted the lights off but it’s not so easy for a stranger.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock quote: 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.

I'm surprised that this timing part of the detective work tends to get skimmed over . Wallace caught the number 4 tram at the intersection of Lodge lane and Smithdown road, that much is corroborated by the tram conductor and\or his subsequent connecting tram personnel. This means, Wallace could not have left home later than six twentyish, regardless of milk\paperboy evidence. Luckily for us, the streets and houses in that neighbourhood of Anfield, have not changed .Google maps has the journey by foot as 2.3 miles and also has pedestrian timing for this as 48 mins. they do give alternative routes which take longer, but this is the most direct.
You see the problem , (Google maps also has the same route covered by bicycle at 15 minutes , but perhaps we wouldn't want to go there? LoL.) (Or maybe we should?)

Hi Moste,

I may be being a bit dense here so I might need you to explain this point again please.

Wallace did catch the number 4 tram at Lodge Lane/Smithdown Road as you said but he’d first caught the number 26 tram on Belmont Road near the church which took him the 2 miles to the stop to catch the number 4. This meant, after the efforts of the ‘Anfield Harriers’ that Wallace would have had to have left the house no later than 6.50 or he’d have missed the tram and would have had to have waited for the following number 26.

[Herlock Sholmes]

both qualtrough and mrs Williamson when speaking to parry mention a 21st birthday for their daughter.

to me this is just too much of a coincidence, no? I mean whats the chance?


did Wallace know the williamsons and or also know about this birthday?



if not, then I would imagine this points to parry or anyone else who would have known about this birthday.

Hi Abby,

You probably won’t be surprised that I think that this was just a coincidence. I’m less coincidence sensitive than most

21 was a ‘coming of age’ and would have been the kind of occaision that might merit the opening of some kind of policy in my opinion.

[etenguy]

Of course we can also add the query - why, if ‘Qualtrough’ killed Julia on the spur of the moment and in panic, did he go around turning off lights? I can think of a plausible reason why Wallace might have wanted the lights off but it’s not so easy for a stranger.

I'd prefer to say enraged rather than panicked. A violent man who thought he was in control challenged by an old woman. Maybe he was intimidating her to tell him where the money was that wasn't in the cash box (assuming he thought she had hidden it from him, or knew where it was at least), and she wouldn't - well she couldn't could she. His masculinity pricked, he lashes out in a fit of rage (perhaps not unlike the Tabram murder in that respect).

The only reason I can think of for the 'accomplice theory' murderer to turn off the lights is to give the impression the house was empty. Why he would want to do that would be pure speculation, I think. A possible reason is that he hid out there for a while (waiting for his meeting time with Parry) and didn't want a caller to have reason to think someone was home and perhaps raise the alarm. But there is no evidence to help us understand his motive.

[etenguy]

Hi Abby,

You probably won’t be surprised that I think that this was just a coincidence. I’m less coincidence sensitive than most

21 was a ‘coming of age’ and would have been the kind of occaision that might merit the opening of some kind of policy in my opinion.

I would describe this as a necessary part of the planning of the phone call. A response would be needed to 'call back later' and so the caller would have identified a common occasion that would allow people not to question their inability to call later. It is a minor coincidence that Parry had been discussing a 21st birthday party. On its own it is hardly worth a mention (though I mentioned it when I first heard it) but when taken in tandem with the other information we have, it starts to feel like a coincidence too many.

[Abby Normal]

I would describe this as a necessary part of the planning of the phone call. A response would be needed to 'call back later' and so the caller would have identified a common occasion that would allow people not to question their inability to call later. It is a minor coincidence that Parry had been discussing a 21st birthday party. On its own it is hardly worth a mention (though I mentioned it when I first heard it) but when taken in tandem with the other information we have, it starts to feel like a coincidence too many.

it really does. to me any way.

Im starting to click with the Parry/accomplice theory a little more.

heres a guy who was a known criminal. who knew Wallaces routine, both work and personal. tells some shlub he knows an easy plan for some quick money. all he has to do is go there posing as Q, gain access to the house, either hold the old bitty at bay (maybe first try to get to the cash box when shes distracted) and skidaddle. something goes wrong and the moron panics and kills her. Wallace thinks he did it and says so.


It would explain alot.


im at 40 % wallace 35% parry/accomplice and 25% unsub.

[moste]

Hi Moste,

I may be being a bit dense here so I might need you to explain this point again please.

Wallace did catch the number 4 tram at Lodge Lane/Smithdown Road as you said but he’d first caught the number 26 tram on Belmont Road near the church which took him the 2 miles to the stop to catch the number 4. This meant, after the efforts of the ‘Anfield Harriers’ that Wallace would have had to have left the house no later than 6.50 or he’d have missed the tram and would have had to have waited for the following number 26.

No, your not dense, I was totally mislead by Roger Wilkes's Jerky explanation of Wallaces journey sorry, 3 tram trips, got it now!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd prefer to say enraged rather than panicked. A violent man who thought he was in control challenged by an old woman. Maybe he was intimidating her to tell him where the money was that wasn't in the cash box (assuming he thought she had hidden it from him, or knew where it was at least), and she wouldn't - well she couldn't could she. His masculinity pricked, he lashes out in a fit of rage (perhaps not unlike the Tabram murder in that respect).

The only reason I can think of for the 'accomplice theory' murderer to turn off the lights is to give the impression the house was empty. Why he would want to do that would be pure speculation, I think. A possible reason is that he hid out there for a while (waiting for his meeting time with Parry) and didn't want a caller to have reason to think someone was home and perhaps raise the alarm. But there is no evidence to help us understand his motive.

I can’t really see a believable reason why the accomplice would switch off the lights in an unfamiliar house. His meeting with Parry, to me, doesn’t appear likely for the reasons I posted earlier. It’s hard to believe that a guy that’s just killed someone would want to stay in the house when William could have returned.

If Wallace did it however his plan was to discover the body, with the issue of not being able to get in at first, after he’d returned from his evenings venture. The last thing that he’d have wanted was someone coming to the door (maybe his sister-in-law?) near to 7.00 with the visitor raising the alarm after seeing the lights on but getting no reply. Julia dead by 7.00 pretty much sends Wallace to the gallows.

[etenguy]

I can’t really see a believable reason why the accomplice would switch off the lights in an unfamiliar house. His meeting with Parry, to me, doesn’t appear likely for the reasons I posted earlier. It’s hard to believe that a guy that’s just killed someone would want to stay in the house when William could have returned.

If Wallace did it however his plan was to discover the body, with the issue of not being able to get in at first, after he’d returned from his evenings venture. The last thing that he’d have wanted was someone coming to the door (maybe his sister-in-law?) near to 7.00 with the visitor raising the alarm after seeing the lights on but getting no reply. Julia dead by 7.00 pretty much sends Wallace to the gallows.

Indeed, and if the accomplice was waiting around in the house, why not increase his haul. I think the only sensible explanation is that the murderer left the house not long after the murder - whether that was Wallace or the accomplice.

I am therefore left with only one conclusion. If it was the accomplice, he did not go round the house turning the lights off. The only sensible explanation is that the lights were not on when he arrived. Perhaps Julia was content with the light from the fire that early in the evening, or had an oil lamp.

[Herlock Sholmes]

it really does. to me any way.

Im starting to click with the Parry/accomplice theory a little more.

heres a guy who was a known criminal. who knew Wallaces routine, both work and personal. tells some shlub he knows an easy plan for some quick money. all he has to do is go there posing as Q, gain access to the house, either hold the old bitty at bay (maybe first try to get to the cash box when shes distracted) and skidaddle. something goes wrong and the moron panics and kills her. Wallace thinks he did it and says so.


It would explain alot.


im at 40 % wallace 35% parry/accomplice and 25% unsub.

Hi Abby,

I’m at, conservatively, 90% Wallace, 1% Accomplice, 9% unknown killer.

I have to ask a few questions if I may.

Parry gets complimented on his clever plan but does it not bother anyone that this plan was almost totally reliant on good fortune to succeed? Good fortune that was not required if Wallace was the planner.

Why would Parry risk asking Beattie for Wallace’s home address when a) he didn’t need it, b) Beattie and Wallace might have become suspicious about why he’d asked for the address when he wanted Wallace to come to him, and c) only Wallace knew that Beattie didn’t know his address.

Why again would the accomplice take away a bloodied weapon that could in no way have been connected to him? And if he could go around turning off lights for no apparent reason we surely can’t keep saying ‘panic.’

Why did Wallace, desperate to find a wife that he believed was the victim of foul play, ignore the doorto the Parlour that was within reach, to go upstairs. Again, calls of ‘panic’ just don’t work.

Why would the sneak thief have bolted the front door when he couldn’t have been certain that Wallace might have returned the way he went out - by the back door?

How could Parry have been part of a ‘plan’ to collect the accomplice after the ‘robbery’ when at 8.30 (surely the time he’d have expected everything to have been done and dusted) he leaves the Brine’s and goes for cigarettes and a newspaper. Then he remembers to go to Hignett’s Garage to pick up his accumulator battery. Then he’d have to get the accomplice. How can we believe that this was a man acting out a plan? He then finds out he’s involved in a brutal murder and goes off for a chat with the Williamson’s and then heads off to his girlfriend (all of whom say he was acting perfectly normally and calmly.)

Wasn’t he lucky to find an accomplice willing to take all the risks whilst he sat drinking tea at the Brine’s.

Why didn’t our accomplice, after finding only £4, not even bother to search Julia’s bag or anywhere else for cash or valuables? And yet he still had time to pointlessly turn off the lights?

Why did the neighbours hear any disturbance?

Why did no one see or hear the accomplice knock the door or have a conversation on the doorstep with Julia explaining the error?

Why did Wallace try to deny that he’d initially ‘thought’ that there was someone in the house when he’d got back?

Why did Wallace blatantly lie to Beattie and Caird by saying that the police had cleared him when they hadn’t?

Why did it take so long for Wallace to ‘mention’ that he’d been in the Menlove Gardens area a few times before? And so wasn’t the ‘complete stranger’ that he kept telling all and sundry that he was?

Why did Wallace keep looking for the non-existent MGE when first Green had told him that it didn’t exist and then a police officer told him that it categorically didn’t exist? And yet on he went.

Just a few points but there are more. So many things that point toward Wallace and away from anyone else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed, and if the accomplice was waiting around in the house, why not increase his haul. I think the only sensible explanation is that the murderer left the house not long after the murder - whether that was Wallace or the accomplice.

I am therefore left with only one conclusion. If it was the accomplice, he did not go round the house turning the lights off. The only sensible explanation is that the lights were not on when he arrived. Perhaps Julia was content with the light from the fire that early in the evening, or had an oil lamp.

There was no oil lamp as far as I can recall Eten. It’s rather difficult to imagine Julia sitting in the dark in a house on her own. After all she would have had to move around occasionally, to use the toilet for example. The impression that we get of her is of quite a retiring, withdrawn type.