Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[NickB]

Beattie told Qualtrough that Wallace hadn’t arrived yet. Had Wallace told Beattie that he was coming that night? In any case, Beattie appeared to have reason to believe that he was.

If Wallace is guilty, it looks suspicious that a stranger contacted him through the chess club. But if Wallace is innocent, it may well have increased the credibility of Qualtrough in his mind to think that he had connections with someone at the club.

[RodCrosby]

This is a bit of a puzzler for me.

It appears Julia was initially attacked when she was to the LEFT of the fireplace (this is where all the blood splatter is). Yet, Julia's feet are to the RIGHT of the hearth. How does Julia fall (presumably onto the fire - singed skirt) and how does the killer pull her to be in the position she was found?

To my mind, Julia's feet would have been by the armchair and to the LEFT of the fireplace, even if (and after) the killer had pulled her from the fireplace. To get the feet where they were found, he would have had to have lifted them there for no reason. What am I missing? Help appreciated.

Just speculation (although I wish someone would try to re-enact the murder under controlled conditions)...

Julia is standing, facing Qualtrough and the right corner of the room.

Maybe Qualtrough first grabbed Julia (there was a bruise under her left upper arm) and flung her across the room. She might well rotate, and fall to her knees, and onto the fire. She would be broadly facing the armchair at that point, leaning with her right side on the fire.

And then Qualtrough has his red mist, and grabs the bar next to the fire and brains her.
She might well fall forwards towards the arm chair at that point, where he continues the assault.

Noticing that the skirt/mackintosh is smouldering, Qualtrough grabs Julia by the hair and pulls her away from the fire, towards the door. I think the dead woman's legs might then naturally extend into the position they are shown in the pictures... [I seem to recall that severe insult to the central nervous system tends to produce a stiffening of the spine and legs]

Just my 2c...

[RodCrosby]

But if Wallace is innocent, it may well have increased the credibility of Qualtrough in his mind to think that he had connections with someone at the club.

As I've said before, the caller was an expert in 'social engineering.'

Wallace would be pleasantly surprised that someone had identified him as the go-to man for insurance, in front of his peers.

His natural thought would be that a friendly frequenter of the cafe had passed on his name, and the cafe phone number, which was not in the directory.

[RodCrosby]

bloodstains in the parlour...

[NickB]

Julia is standing, facing Qualtrough at the right corner of the room.

Maybe Qualtrough first grabbed Julia (there was a bruise under her left upper arm) and flung her across the room. She might well rotate, and fall to her knees, and onto the fire. She would be broadly facing the armchair at that point, leaning with her right side on the fire.

And then Qualtrough has his red mist, and grabs the bar next to the fire and brains her.

If no-one heard her scream, isn't it likely that the first blow happened more quickly?

[RodCrosby]

We can speculate all day...

Would she scream?
Was there time to scream?
Did she scream?
Would she be heard?

Etc.,etc...

[ColdCaseJury]

Attendance at Chess Club

Beattie said he last saw Wallace "before Christmas". I suggest that implies December or November - any earlier and surely Beattie would have said "months ago". The Chess Schedule shows Wallace lost to Lampitt, a match which was scheduled for November 10.

[RodCrosby]

Beattie said he last saw Wallace "before Christmas". I suggest that implies December or November - any earlier and surely Beattie would have said "months ago". The Chess Schedule shows Wallace lost to Lampitt, a match which was scheduled for November 10.

Murphy (p,210) has it that Lampitt lost to Wallace...

‘Thus, on 10 November Wallace played number three player, Mr E. Lampitt. Lampitt lost and had the letter “L” marked in against his number opposite Wallace’s name and Wallace, as the winner, had the letter “W” marked against his number, opposite Lampitt’s name. Two weeks later Wallace was to have played McCartney, but the game was not played; no letters L and W were written by the names ...'

What Murphy doesn't get is that the board does not actually indicate when these games were played. Aye, they were scheduled for certain dates, BUT we know that didn't always happen...

Wallace played McCartney on the 19th January, because Chandler didn't show.
The Wallace-McCartney match had been scheduled for 24th November. We cannot tell from looking at the board who didn't show on 24th November. Wallace? McCartney? Both?

Presumably the 24th November slot would have eventually been updated with the result of the 19th January Wallace-McCartney game...

It hadn't been, by the time Police photo was taken. Neither had any other scheduled 19th Jan match. Neither had any 5th Jan match (save Ellis seemingly winning without McCartney registering a loss!) Had anyone ever been in any hurry to update the board correctly?

So Murphy's nonsense about anyone being able to get a fix on Wallace's movements, merely from looking at the board, goes up in smoke, accompanied by the sound of laughter...

[RodCrosby]

the shambolic schedule [again]...

[NickB]

Did Murphy give any reason why he thought the Ws and Ls applied to the adjascent number, rather than the player named in that row?

[ColdCaseJury]

Did Murphy give any reason why he thought the Ws and Ls applied to the adjascent number, rather than the player named in that row?

I believe Lampitt Won and Wallace lost. It doesn't matter, of course.

[ColdCaseJury]

Antony, perhaps you can answer a question. It’s just one of those small and possibly meaningless points.

On the Monday evening it’s taken that a guilty Wallace caught his tram near to the phone box whereas an innocent Wallace caught the tram in Breck Road near to the junction of Belmont Road.

To get into Breck Road he walked along Richmond Park and then turned right. Why did he walk past two stops - one at the end of Richmond Park, the other at the end of (fingers crossed for my memory here) Pendennis Street?

Where these stops pick up points on the Monday night?

If they were, the only reason that I could come up with for why Wallace might have walked so far on would have been if the stop near Belont Road was a point where the fair dropped and so Wallace was trying to save a bit of cash? Was that the case do you know?

The honest answer is I don't know. It may be that the stop at Belmont Rd junction had more trams stopping at it. As it happened, only one tram was running between 7pm and 8pm on 19.1.31 - the No. 14 every 8-9 minutes.

If Wallace made the call, his best bet might have been to say he boarded at Richmond Park in case he was observed boarding; Richmond Park is virtually the next stop from the one near the phone box (i.e. plausible deniability).

As I said in an earlier post, a revealing follow-up question to have asked Wallace was how long he waited before boarding.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I've said before, the caller was an expert in 'social engineering.'

Wallace would be pleasantly surprised that someone had identified him as the go-to man for insurance, in front of his peers.

His natural thought would be that a friendly frequenter of the cafe had passed on his name, and the cafe phone number, which was not in the directory.

Of course not.

Wallace’s natural thoughts would have been.

Why contact specifically me and not The Prudential?
How would someone know that I attended the chess club?
Why would someone contact me at the chess club?

And then, if Beattie had told Wallace that the caller had asked for his address, he’d have very naturally thought “why did he pointlessly ask for my address and then go on to ask me to go and see him? Makes no sense.”

The caller wasn’t an expert in social engineering at all. If it was Parry then he was an idiot for coming up with a plan that relied on luck rather than planning. If it was Wallace then the plan couldn’t fail.

Must try harder I’m afraid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We can speculate all day...

Would she scream?
Was there time to scream?
Did she scream?
Would she be heard?

Etc.,etc...

That there was an imaginary accomplice.....

[RodCrosby]

Wallace would have turned left into Breck Road, in any case.

Maybe Wallace just liked to stretch his legs, instead of waiting at a tram stop. We'd do this as kids. If there wasn't a bus coming, walk to the next stop...

Breck Road was one of JB Priestley's Liverpool "long sad roads" and you would certainly hear the approaching tram's "whining" from quite a distance. The stops were about 450 feet apart, so little risk of being caught short...