Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

Hi Antony,

If Beattie had forgotten I’m sure Wallace would have gone over for a friendly chat which would have jogged his memory.

On the other point, Wallace might have known in which area Beattie had lived and so might have had a very reasonable hope that he might have been unfamiliar with the area. And when Wallace received the message and then mentioned MGE he couldn’t really have foreseen that Beattie would have taken it upon himself to ask Mr Deyes.

As per the Accomplice Theory the Accomplice would have known that Wallace wouldn’t have answered the door because he’d been seen leaving for MGE.

When first told of the Qualtrough address, Wallace answered Menlove Gardens West and Beattie corrected him to MGE. Perhaps this was to emphasise the address - this would point to Wallace guilt. It may of course have been a simple slip if he was familiar with MGW but then that would undermine his assertion that he did not know the area.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony,

If Beattie had forgotten I’m sure Wallace would have gone over for a friendly chat which would have jogged his memory.

On the other point, Wallace might have known in which area Beattie had lived and so might have had a very reasonable hope that he might have been unfamiliar with the area. And when Wallace received the message and then mentioned MGE he couldn’t really have foreseen that Beattie would have taken it upon himself to ask Mr Deyes.

As per the Accomplice Theory the Accomplice would have known that Wallace wouldn’t have answered the door because he’d been seen leaving for MGE.

But Wallace not foreseeing something (point two) is not the same as having an infallible plan. A member could have said MGE did not exist, for all Wallace knew, which would have made things much more difficult.

There are variations on theories, of course. You have a different conception of how Wallace used the mackintosh compared to Murphy and the prosecution, for example. The Accomplice could have waited to see Wallace leave, sure, but he might have simply called near the appointment time to reinforce the idea of an error having been made (as suggested in my book) and to make sure Wallace was 4 miles away.

[RodCrosby]

When first told of the Qualtrough address, Wallace answered Menlove Gardens West and Beattie corrected him to MGE. Perhaps this was to emphasise the address - this would point to Wallace guilt. It may of course have been a simple slip if he was familiar with MGW but then that would undermine his assertion that he did not know the area.

How if it is a 'simple slip' does it undermine anything? Why does emphasising the correct address point to guilt?
Are not innocent people allowed to make everyday slips? Why would a guilty person make such a slip?

We should focus on the evidence, not on trivia that leads nowhere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But Wallace not foreseeing something (point two) is not the same as having an infallible plan. A member could have said MGE did not exist, for all Wallace knew, which would have made things much more difficult.

Yes but it would have been quite reasonable for Wallace to have assumed that Beattie would have given him a message purtaining to business in private which would eliminate the possibility of anyone else chipping in the information about MGE. Wallace and Beattie then spoke about the location of MGE; an exchange that Wallace couldn’t have expected to have led to Mr Deyes being asked or anyone else for that matter.

I’m willing to amend. The plan, if created by Wallace to give himself a reason to be away from Wolverton Street and to make the police think that the killer was admitted by Julia, is very. Nearly infallible. Whilst if it was created by Parry it was almost entirely reliant on a series of events, that could have gone one way or another, falling favourably for Parry.

I still say that if you create a plan there might be unforeseen or unforeseeable eventualities so you try and mitigate against them. It’s not realistic for Parry, unless he was truly stupid to the point of imbecility, to have been unaware of the frailty of the plan. It’s also unrealistic to suggest that he, and his accomplice, on the one hand went to all that trouble and effort and yet one the other took a ‘who cares?’ attitude to whether it succeeded or not.

[ColdCaseJury]

I still say that if you create a plan there might be unforeseen or unforeseeable eventualities so you try and mitigate against them. It’s not realistic for Parry, unless he was truly stupid to the point of imbecility, to have been unaware of the frailty of the plan. It’s also unrealistic to suggest that he, and his accomplice, on the one hand went to all that trouble and effort and yet one the other took a ‘who cares?’ attitude to whether it succeeded or not.

If some version of Accomplice is true, Parry had to watch Wallace leave and make a call on the Monday, and obviously brief the accomplice beforehand. Part of that briefing might have included an easy contingency: if Wallace answered the door (i.e. the plan has failed in the ways you describe) there was a fail safe (e.g. the accomplice is a stranger lost in the area and is asking for directions - I think you will love my sense of irony) and leaves. Yes, the plan fails but the effort appears commensurate with the expected reward of £50-£100.

In my opinion, Parry was a con man, a chancer, someone who wanted easy money. His post-Wallace crime spree did not appear to be risk-free and well-planned, and this one certainly had holes in it. I suggest your list of the ways the plan could have failed logically supports the conclusion Parry was not a great planner, or was comfortable with failure, or both. You need further premises to conclude Parry would not have undertaken it, e.g. Parry was a great planner who could not afford the plan to fail. Certainly, the latter is true of Wallace.

As for Murphy's mugging - remember Parry had a reputation (at least outside Standard Life) for being a con man and not trustworthy. And we don't know if Parry was also targeting the insurance money as an act of revenge against Wallace and the Prudential - PD James thought so, of course.

Anyway, this will probably be my last posting until after Christmas. I wish everyone here a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. No doubt, I will be mulling Wallace over the mince pies!

[NickB]

The plan, if created by Wallace to give himself a reason to be away from Wolverton Street and to make the police think that the killer was admitted by Julia, is very. Nearly infallible.

The plan was clearly fallible because the police did not think Julia admitted someone claiming to be Qualtrough and, if you ridicule Rod's theory, nor do you.

Surely a better plan to explain an intruder would have been to include a forced entry.

[RodCrosby]

The plan was clearly fallible because the police did not think the killer was admitted by Julia and, if you ridicule Rod's theory, nor do you.

Surely a better plan to explain an intruder would have been to include a forced entry.

with a ready-made REAL suspect who had been active only 4 doors away down the street, only the previous month...

[Herlock Sholmes]

The plan was clearly fallible because the police did not think Julia admitted someone claiming to be Qualtrough and, if you ridicule Rod's theory, nor do you.

Surely a better plan to explain an intruder would have been to include a forced entry.

Rod:

“with a ready-made REAL suspect who had been active only 4 doors away down the street, only the previous month...”

It’s one thing to suggest that no one saw or heard Julia talking on the doorstep to Qualtrough but surely another to say that no one saw or heard a forced entry? If someone had seen Julia talking on her doorstep to a stranger no ‘alarm bells’ would have gone off. Not so if someone had seen Julia being attacked.

As to the Anfield Housebreaker who, to my knowledge had never beaten anyone’s brains out with an iron bar, would it have been believable that he’d have been happy with a haul of £4 without any real attempt to look elsewhere for cash or valuables?

[etenguy]

How if it is a 'simple slip' does it undermine anything? Why does emphasising the correct address point to guilt?
Are not innocent people allowed to make everyday slips? Why would a guilty person make such a slip?

We should focus on the evidence, not on trivia that leads nowhere.

I thought this did not require detailed explanation, but I'm happy to expand.

It has been suggested that if Wallace was guilty, he would want to emphasise in the mind of Beattie that the message stated MGE, This would support his reason for all the questions he was to ask in the Menlove area to secure his alibi. By emphasising in this way, it secures the message details in Beattie's mind. This on its own is hardly conclusive but supports the theory that Wallace might be guilty and trying to strengthen his alibi.

If Wallace was innocent and simply made a slip because he was used to Menlove Gardens West as an address, then that undermines his assertion that he was not familiar with the area. Of course, we already know he had visited the area on a number of occasions previously.

Since the message and its contents is an important part of the case, I'm surprised you consider it trivia, though you are quite welcome to disagree with the interpretation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I thought this did not require detailed explanation, but I'm happy to expand.

It has been suggested that if Wallace was guilty, he would want to emphasise in the mind of Beattie that the message stated MGE, This would support his reason for all the questions he was to ask in the Menlove area to secure his alibi. By emphasising in this way, it secures the message details in Beattie's mind. This on its own is hardly conclusive but supports the theory that Wallace might be guilty and trying to strengthen his alibi.

If Wallace was innocent and simply made a slip because he was used to Menlove Gardens West as an address, then that undermines his assertion that he was not familiar with the area. Of course, we already know he had visited the area on a number of occasions previously.

Since the message and its contents is an important part of the case, I'm surprised you consider it trivia, though you are quite welcome to disagree with the interpretation.

It’s a very good point Eten but the longer you post on this thread you’ll come realise that anything that might point toward Wallace or away from the Accomplice theory will be labelled ‘irrelevent’ or ‘pointless’ or a ‘misinformation’ by Rod. That’s how it works apparently.

[etenguy]

The plan was clearly fallible because the police did not think Julia admitted someone claiming to be Qualtrough and, if you ridicule Rod's theory, nor do you.

Surely a better plan to explain an intruder would have been to include a forced entry.

I think the questions that have to be answered if we believe that Julia admitted someone, perhaps claiming to be Qualtrough, is why was the front door bolted and who bolted it?

I think it highly unlikely Julia would have invited someone in and then bolted the door behind him. I can see no reason for the Qualtrough character to bolt the door (though I did try to suggest one which was quickly dismissed - for good reason).

However, if Julia was home alone and expecting Wallace to return by the back door, then she might have bolted the door not expecting to use that door that evening. I think this is a likely explanation for the bolted front door if Wallace was not the killer. Of course this would mean the killer entered through the back rather than front door.

If Wallace was the killer, then either Julia had bolted the door after the milk delivery and Wallace left by the back door - or Wallace bolted the front door after the murder so he could play up not being able to enter the house on his return from MGE and attract a neighbour to discover the body with him.

[RodCrosby]

I thought this did not require detailed explanation, but I'm happy to expand.

It has been suggested that if Wallace was guilty, he would want to emphasise in the mind of Beattie that the message stated MGE, This would support his reason for all the questions he was to ask in the Menlove area to secure his alibi. By emphasising in this way, it secures the message details in Beattie's mind. This on its own is hardly conclusive but supports the theory that Wallace might be guilty and trying to strengthen his alibi.

If Wallace was innocent and simply made a slip because he was used to Menlove Gardens West as an address, then that undermines his assertion that he was not familiar with the area. Of course, we already know he had visited the area on a number of occasions previously.

Since the message and its contents is an important part of the case, I'm surprised you consider it trivia, though you are quite welcome to disagree with the interpretation.

I still don't follow any of that. Beattie wrote the message down himself, so did not need to have anything from Wallace to secure it in his mind.

There is no evidence Wallace knew of Menlove Gardens although he may have occasionally passed down the main thoroughfare Menlove Avenue on the way to someplace else. He had certainly heard of Menlove Avenue.

If he's innocent, how does any everyday slip he might make undermine anything?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As Parry ran the risk of Wallace, by some means, discovering that there was actually no Menlove Gardens East why didn’t he use a real address?

As he couldn’t have known how soon Wallace would have given up and gone home he could simply have given a real address say a couple of hundred yards further away. Wallace would probably, for all Parry knew, have been away from the house just as long so the accomplice would still have had the same amount of time. The obvious bonus though would have been that if Wallace had checked for the location of MGE he wouldn’t have been put off by the uncomfortable fact that I’d didn’t exist. A win-win for Parry.

[RodCrosby]

That’s how it works apparently.

Only in your case, quite deservedly.

[etenguy]

I still don't follow any of that. Beattie wrote the message down himself, so did not need to have anything from Wallace to secure it in his mind.

The suggestion would be that he would likely put the details of the message out of his mind having passed it onto Wallace, or may later be less able to recall with certainty what he wrote down. By quoting the wrong address Wallace has a denial that West was the address and it was definitely East - a clever way of ensuring that detail was not lost. If he was guilty of course.

There is no evidence Wallace knew of Menlove Gardens although he may have occasionally passed down the main thoroughfare Menlove Avenue on the way to someplace else. He had certainly heard of Menlove Avenue. If he's innocent, how does any everyday slip he might make undermine anything?

When people make slips with addresses like this, it is usually because of familiarity with the address that they quote in error. If East sounded like West, it may have been simply mishearing, but they do not sound alike, so it is likely Wallace simply jumped the gun, and simply quoted back the address he was more familiar with.