Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

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 The impression that we get of her is of quite a retiring, withdrawn type.

Indeed, Herlock. But Julia grew up in Victorian times when house lighting was not really available. oil lamps, fires and candles were used. It may not have seemed odd to Julia at all to rely on those sources. Particularly early evenings and if she was having an early evening, post dinner nap, she wouldn't have needed light. There is no evidence for this, but it is possible.

[etenguy]

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

That's a large % for unsub given the need for the killer to know both about the chess match and the premium routine (which the caller must have known for the call to make sense). I am at a very different place to you:

49% Wallace, 49% Parry and accomplice, 2% unsub.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

No problem Moste

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

That's a large % for unsub given the need for the killer to know both about the chess match and the premium routine (which the caller must have known for the call to make sense). I am at a very different place to you:

49% Wallace, 49% Parry and accomplice, 2% unsub.

Hi eten
I dont think he really needed to know the premium routine. I have a large number for an unsub because, to me, all they needed to know was he frequented the chess club. And im not sold on it being either or with wallace or parry.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Yes all very good points and questions hs. I still lean toward wallace.

[harry]

As a matter of interest,electricity as a means of lighting,was taking over from gas.In 1931,my family moved into a house lit by electricity.I well remember it.
Any planning by Parry would have to accept that Julia was most likely to be in the kitchen.He could not bank on Julia taking a visitor anywhere else.So any plans of taking the cash box,would include having Julia present in the kitchen.Any plans for dealing with Julia would have to include for action in the Kitchen.If she ran into the front room then her thoughts would not be on lighting a fire,nor would she,on returning to the kitchen from allowing a visitor in,still be wearing a raincoat.

I believe the police got it correct.The would be robbery was faked by Wallace.

[Abby Normal]

As a matter of interest,electricity as a means of lighting,was taking over from gas.In 1931,my family moved into a house lit by electricity.I well remember it.
Any planning by Parry would have to accept that Julia was most likely to be in the kitchen.He could not bank on Julia taking a visitor anywhere else.So any plans of taking the cash box,would include having Julia present in the kitchen.Any plans for dealing with Julia would have to include for action in the Kitchen.If she ran into the front room then her thoughts would not be on lighting a fire,nor would she,on returning to the kitchen from allowing a visitor in,still be wearing a raincoat.

I believe the police got it correct.The would be robbery was faked by Wallace.

The only plan parry needed was knowing where the cash box was and when wallace went to the club, and some dum shlub who would do the handy work. Who cares where julie was as long as wallace was out of the house. A knock on the door would obviously bring her to the door, a well dressed shlub under the guise of q would have her at least open the door. The rest is history. No?

[etenguy]

Hi eten
I dont think he really needed to know the premium routine. I have a large number for an unsub because, to me, all they needed to know was he frequented the chess club. And im not sold on it being either or with wallace or parry.

Hi Abby

In the scenario you paint for an unsub, who knew about the chess match but not that takings would be much higher the next day, why did they not simply conduct the burglary on the night of the chess match? They must have been in the area to make the Qualtrough call.

[etenguy]

As a matter of interest,electricity as a means of lighting,was taking over from gas.In 1931,my family moved into a house lit by electricity.I well remember it.
Any planning by Parry would have to accept that Julia was most likely to be in the kitchen.He could not bank on Julia taking a visitor anywhere else.So any plans of taking the cash box,would include having Julia present in the kitchen.Any plans for dealing with Julia would have to include for action in the Kitchen.If she ran into the front room then her thoughts would not be on lighting a fire,nor would she,on returning to the kitchen from allowing a visitor in,still be wearing a raincoat.

I believe the police got it correct.The would be robbery was faked by Wallace.

The robbery certainly seems half-hearted at best, which would support Wallace as killer. However, we can imagine a scenario where Julia lets someone in, takes them to the parlour and starts to light a fire with the coat still around her shoulders. A business guest would, I think, be likely to be shown to the parlour.

[harry]

What is the evidence for a visitor?There is none.Had Julia had her arms through the sleeves of the raincoat,it would have meant something,as it is there is no connection of her to the raincoat,except part of it was under her body,and there is more than one explanation of how that could have happened.

[ColdCaseJury]

The robbery certainly seems half-hearted at best, which would support Wallace as killer. However, we can imagine a scenario where Julia lets someone in, takes them to the parlour and starts to light a fire with the coat still around her shoulders. A business guest would, I think, be likely to be shown to the parlour.

The staged robbery also seems a little odd in a Wallace scenario, too. Firstly, why target the insurance money? Under this scenario, Wallace hated his wife, not his company (as far as we know) and his accounts were to the penny. Secondly, by targeting the insurance money, suspicion would fall on a small set of close friends and colleagues and him because the location of the cash box was not well known. Thirdly, why not empty his wife's bag on the table and take her money? This would then be consistent with anyone, including an intruder like the Anfield burglar.

Perhaps a counter is that Wallace wanted to frame Parry. But, of course, Wallace could not have known whether Parry had an alibi for the night of the murder - in fact, he did. If this was his plan, it was risky. Another counter might be that Wallace wanted the scene to be consistent with an intruder forcing Julia to reveal the location of the cash box before silencing her. But Wallace obviously thought an intruder who bashed his wife's brains out would be considerate enough to replace the cash box.

If Wallace was guilty, I suggest the robbery and the replacement of the cash box were bad mistakes by him. This would be a little surprising given the time he devoted to other aspects of his crime (the call, the alibi, the disposal of weapon, how to clean up quickly, etc) which he executed flawlessly. One thought I've had is that perhaps Wallace could not find his wife's handbag on the night (it was on her chair under the table) and improvised. Of course, if this is accepted, then you can't also say that the untouched handbag is evidence that there was no intruder like the Accomplice (because why would he find the handbag any more easily than Wallace?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

On creating a plan to commit a crime even the most amateur of planners would try and eliminate things that might go wrong. They would also try and eliminate, as far as possible, any reliance on luck. With these points in mind let’s consider Parry as the planner:

Perhaps not very likely but it’s not impossible that Beattie might have forgotten to pass on the message. It happens - the distraction of playing his own match and running the club etc. This also brings up the point of why didn’t the ‘actor’ Parry simply wait until Wallace arrived and spoken directly to him? To whoever answered the phone he could have said “I need to speak to one of your members on a matter of business....a Mr Wallace.” Thus establishing the call with a third party. By speaking directly to Wallace he could have been certain of Wallace’s attendance the following evening.
If Beattie had told him about Qualtrough asking for his address first and then requesting him to attend MG`e Wallace might have thought - why would someone contact me at my chess club - how could they know about it - why would they ask for my address and yet go on to request that I go to their house? He becomes suspicious and doesn’t go.
What if Beattie or someone at the club knew the area well and said something like “my brother lives at Menlove Gardens West and I can’t tell you for a fact that there’s no ‘East.’ Wallace doesn’t go.
Wallace simply doesn’t like the idea of going at night after working for the company all day so he doesn’t go.
During the day on Tuesday Wallace checks a directory - no Menlove Gardens East - Wallace doesn’t go.
He calls his Superintendent Mr Crewe, who lives in the MG area, to ask for directions and he tells him there’s no MGE - Wallace doesn’t go.
Wallace and Julia have plans for the evening - Wallace doesn’t go.
Julia has been ill lately and Wallace doesn’t want to leave her for two nights running - Wallace doesn’t go.
A tram conductor tells him that MGE doesn’t exist so Wallace turns round and goes home.
Wallace simply asks someone during the day who tell him that there’s no MGE - Wallace doesn’t go.

None of these are fanciful or outlandish. Simple and obvious ways that the ‘plan could fall at the first hurdle. Unless, of course, Wallace was the planner then you can delete the lot.

And then according to the Accomplice Theory our second man gets in by pretending to be Qualtrough because Julia would only let in people that she knew (as per William.)

Firstly, and very obviously, I’ve heard of the name Donald Trump but it doesn’t mean that I know him or could trust him. Julia did not ‘know’ Qualtrough and so might still not have let him in. Remember the Anfield Housebreaker was still at large.

Secondly, Julia took no interest in William’s business dealings and so why would anyone expect him to go into any details with her? He might very easily have just said “I have to go out on business tonight dear. I shouldn’t be too long though.” No mention of Qualtrough equals no reason to admit him. There simply no way that Parry could even hope that William would give Julia the details. It’s simply a request for a huge slab of luck. No one plans for luck except Richard Gordon Parry apparently. And yet if it was Wallace doing the planning.........

[Herlock Sholmes]

What is the evidence for a visitor?There is none.Had Julia had her arms through the sleeves of the raincoat,it would have meant something,as it is there is no connection of her to the raincoat,except part of it was under her body,and there is more than one explanation of how that could have happened.

Good point Harry. And I still can’t see why we should just accept that she would use William’s mackintosh and not her own coat which would have been inches away.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The staged robbery also seems a little odd in a Wallace scenario, too. Firstly, why target the insurance money? Under this scenario, Wallace hated his wife, not his company (as far as we know) and his accounts were to the penny. Secondly, by targeting the insurance money, suspicion would fall on a small set of close friends and colleagues and him because the location of the cash box was not well known. Thirdly, why not empty his wife's bag on the table and take her money? This would then be consistent with anyone, including an intruder like the Anfield burglar.

Perhaps a counter is that Wallace wanted to frame Parry. But, of course, Wallace could not have known whether Parry had an alibi for the night of the murder - in fact, he did. If this was his plan, it was risky. Another counter might be that Wallace wanted the scene to be consistent with an intruder forcing Julia to reveal the location of the cash box before silencing her. But Wallace obviously thought an intruder who bashed his wife's brains out would be considerate enough to replace the cash box.

If Wallace was guilty, I suggest the robbery and the replacement of the cash box were bad mistakes by him. This would be a little surprising given the time he devoted to other aspects of his crime (the call, the alibi, the disposal of weapon, how to clean up quickly, etc) which he executed flawlessly.

Hi Antony,

One of the things that we have to remember is that Alan Close arrived later than usual and so Wallace would have felt under greater time pressure.

Your point one - he simply used a ‘robbery’ to point the police away from himself.

Point two - The murder of his wife in his own home was always going to involve him being suspected no matter what the circumstances. Having dodgy Parry as a possible scapegoat couldn’t have harmed the cause.

Point three - No one seems to mind accrediting any amount of strange behaviour by Parry or his accomplice to panic so I think I’m allowed one in the bank. I’ll say Wallace was under time pressure and it didn’t occur to him.

[Graham]

A couple or three questions, and sorry if they seem a bit basic to those of you with a far greater knowledge of the case than I:

1] How was Alan Close able to state precisely that he had called at the Wallaces' house at 6.25pm? Had Mrs Wallace on the doorstep mentioned the time to him, as I understand it was later than his usual calls, and this remained in his memory?

2] Do we know for certain that Wallace left the house when he said he did, that is at about 6.45pm? If he did leave at this time, then he would have been there when Alan Close called. Did Alan Close ever suggest that Mr Wallace was also in the house, as well as his wife?

3] Is there any evidence at all that there was animus between Wallace and his wife? From what I've read (not a lot), it would seem that the Wallaces were quite well-educated, talented and rather intellectual in differing ways, and 'did things' together, as in their musical evenings and discussions. Did anyone who knew them ever suggest, let alone testify, that Wallace strongly disliked his wife? Did anyone who knew them suggest or testify that he/she had heard the Wallaces arguing?

4] I've seen it suggested Wallace married Julia for her money, in order to pay off his debts. Is there solid evidence for this? Julia, I understand, was the daughter of a failed Yorkshire farmer who went bankrupt, so if she had any money of her own it probably didn't come from her father. So - had she money of her own? If so, was it ever established and made public just how much? Had she life-insurance?

5] I understand that the police asked Wallace to list the names of any caller or callers whom his wife may have known well enough to let into the house. It seems he named 15 people, including Parry, of whom Wallace admitted he was suspicious, and his sister-in-law Amy, who was apparently something of an odd 'un. Were the other names on this list ever made public?

6] It seems that the 'Anfield Housebreaker' was active at the time of the murder; any evidence that he was also violent?

I hope you guys can help!

Graham