Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

I am new to this case, and think this approach of collecting the known evidence is a good way to understand the case better. So, not to be a freeloader, I'll add what I think is established fact:

Liverpool central chess club captain, Samuel Beattie, stated he received a call for Wallace on January 19th, from someone calling himself R. M. Qualtrough, stating he wished to meet Wallace at 7.30 on 20th January at 25 Menlove Gardens East to discuss insurance business. The call was received about 25 minutes before Wallace arrived for a scheduled chess game.

Questions which arise from this:
1. Who made the call?
2. How did the caller know Wallace played chess at the cafe?
3. How did the caller know Wallace was playing chess that night?
4. Neither R M Qualtrough nor 25 Menlove Gardens East appear to be real - Beattie's error or a false call?
5. Was Beattie lying about the call?

Answers to these questions are best left until all the evidence is collected together.

We could add, and answer some
6. How did the caller know the telephone number of the cafe? It was not in the directory.
Answer: Wallace might know, as might any other frequenter of the cafe (or someone in cahoots with either, possibly) Therefore, it seems impossible that the caller was not intimate with the cafe.
2. There were other events, from other groups e.g. amateur dramatics, held at the cafe. Wallace had been playing chess there for approximately 8 years. Many frequenters of the cafe already knew each other, for diverse reasons. Either they had worked together, or lived near each other, etc. (Wallace also obviously knew he played chess at the club!) [and see 3]
3. The chess schedule had been displayed prominently, immediately next to the phone kiosk, since at least November 1930. Wallace was due to play a match on Monday 19th January 1931, which happened to be his last Monday-night match in the tournament. No-one, except Wallace of course, could be absolutely certain he would show up, purely from inspecting the schedule.
4. Beattie corrected Wallace from MG "West" to "East", when relaying the message, so he seemed certain of the details of the call. Beattie was Captain of the club, a well-to-do cotton broker, an upstanding, successful person, who lived on the opposite side of Liverpool to Wallace. It is unanimously agreed that the call was a hoax, made either by Wallace or someone else.
5. Not possible, really. The call was initially received by waitress Gladys Harley, who summoned Beattie to the phone to deal with the call...

[RodCrosby]

[INTERLUDE]

Liverpool itself continues to have an enduring fascination with one of the world's most baffling murders...
Only yesterday.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...house-15406678

[/INTERLUDE]

[etenguy]

We could add, and answer some
6. How did the caller know the telephone number of the cafe? It was not in the directory.
Answer: Wallace might know, as might any other frequenter of the cafe (or someone in cahoots with either, possibly) Therefore, it seems impossible that the caller was not intimate with the cafe..

It seems sensible to infer that whoever made the call was someone who frequented the cafe, or was informed by somebody who frequented the cafe.

2. There were other events, from other groups e.g. amateur dramatics, held at the cafe. Wallace had been playing chess there for approximately 8 years. Many frequenters of the cafe already knew each other, for diverse reasons. Either they had worked together, or lived near each other, etc. (Wallace also obviously knew he played chess at the club!) [and see 3].
3. The chess schedule had been displayed prominently, immediately next to the phone kiosk, since at least November 1930. Wallace was due to play a match on Monday 19th January 1931, which happened to be his last Monday-night match in the tournament. No-one, except Wallace of course, could be absolutely certain he would show up, purely from inspecting the schedule.

These two points serve to strengthen the reasons to believe that the call was made by someone who frequented the cafe, or was informed by somebody who frequented the cafe.

4. Beattie corrected Wallace from MG "West" to "East", when relaying the message, so he seemed certain of the details of the call. Beattie was Captain of the club, a well-to-do cotton broker, an upstanding, successful person, who lived on the opposite side of Liverpool to Wallace. It is unanimously agreed that the call was a hoax, made either by Wallace or someone else.

This seems the most plausible explanation and I do not seriously mean to undermine it, but for the sake of keeping an open mind, there is always the possiblity Beattie misheard or misunderstood some of the call.

5. Not possible, really. The call was initially received by waitress Gladys Harley, who summoned Beattie to the phone to deal with the call...

Indeed, but we rely on Beattie for the contents of the call.

Being new to the case, just keeping an open mind until what is obvious to anyone who has studied the case is also obvious to me.

[RodCrosby]

I removed these, because certain people were abusing my goodwill. So now that everyone is sensible again, we may resume..

At 6.30pm on 20th January 1981, fifty years - to the hour - after the murder of Julia Wallace, a Liverpool radio station broadcast an extraordinary drama-documentary*

'Who killed Julia? - Part 1'

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wPn4OzCNX5QQPs1BD5DLNC3qpUJTorvk/view?usp=sharing

I ask only two things.

a) please listen at least twice before commenting.
b) anyone who goes out of their way to misrepresent what is said should be subject to some sanction.

*the actual recording you will hear is from a re-broadcast made five weeks later, but it is identical, save that it is now split into two parts.

[etenguy]

I removed these, because certain people were abusing my goodwill. So now that everyone is sensible again, we may resume..

At 6.30pm on 20th January 1981, fifty years - to the hour - after the murder of Julia Wallace, a Liverpool radio station broadcast an extraordinary drama-documentary*

'Who killed Julia? - Part 1'

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wPn4OzCNX5QQPs1BD5DLNC3qpUJTorvk/view?usp=sharing

I ask only two things.

a) please listen at least twice before commenting.
b) anyone who goes out of their way to misrepresent what is said should be subject to some sanction.

*the actual recording you will hear is from a re-broadcast made five weeks later, but it is identical, save that it is now split into two parts.

Interesting piece. Do you have part 2 and the programme that claims to have new evidence?

[Spitfire]

The telephone number was prominently displayed near the club’s notice board.

[RodCrosby]

Interesting piece. Do you have part 2 and the programme that claims to have new evidence?

Before we continue, there is one piece of EVIDENCE about that, which must be mentioned, and digested.

Until Jonathan Goodman uttered the words "Richard Gordon Parry" in Part 2 of the broadcast, the name had never before appeared in print or been broadcast in relation to the Wallace Case. The alternative suspect had always previously been referred to as "Mr. X" or otherwise concealed, owing to the libel laws.

On the day of the broadcast, the Liverpool Echo had run a piece on it, stating that the name of "Mr.X" would finally be revealed.

Half an hour before the broadcast, the telephone on Roger Wilkes's desk rang. The conversation went like this.

"I've just seen the piece in the Echo tonight"
"Oh yes"
"Is your Mr X really Mr P ?"
"Yes"
"Parry ?"
"Yes"
"What do you know about the car?"
"What car?"
"The car Parry used"
"I can't prove he did have a car"
"Well, he did. How would you fancy talking to someone who saw the car straight after the murder?"
"You're joking, of course."
"No, I'm not. I can put you in touch with the bloke who washed the car out after Parry done the murder"
"Tonight ?"
"No way"

Conscious of the rapidly-approaching broadcast, and that he would be chairing a round-table discussion and phone-in, Wilkes took the caller's details, and had to terminate the call.

'Who killed Julia? - Part 2 - a tale of two suspects'

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fCc7yqCfkyGff6RRH7VKMRtI9W67xN8D/view?usp=sharing

[Graham]

I've not been following the Wallace Case threads, so all this may have been mentioned previously, but with reference to the post in which Roger Wilkes takes a phone-call from someone who claims to know the man who washed Parry's car. Was this man called John Parkes?

This name is included in a short piece on the murder written by Colin Wilson and included in a paperback collection edited by John Canning titled 'Murders and Mysteries', published in 1987.

If this is all old news as far as this thread is concerned, then I crave indulgence!

Graham

[RodCrosby]

I've not been following the Wallace Case threads, so all this may have been mentioned previously, but with reference to the post in which Roger Wilkes takes a phone-call from someone who claims to know the man who washed Parry's car. Was this man called John Parkes?

It is very important, Graham, that we get the precise sequence of events fixed in our mind.

So please bear with me.

[RodCrosby]

The final part of the 20th January 1981 broadcast, a live round-table discussion and phone-in (the reliability of telephones seemed little better than in 1931 !)

Pay particular attention to the contribution of Leslie Williamson, the first caller.

Regrettably, neither Williamson himself, nor the panel, were aware in 1981 of his possible significance...

'Who killed Julia? - the phone-in'

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hAiqRGmPYEIa-6WHEpu3ZhXaFPqp3VuO/view?usp=sharing

[etenguy]

Having listened to both parts, coupled with what I have read, my instinct would be that Julia Wallace was not murdered by her husband.

Reasons:
a) timings make Wallace being the killer unlikely.
b) Wallace had no motive.
c) if it had been Wallace, the chess match would have been a less suspicious alibi - no need for strange calls.
d) He chose to die rather than extend his life without his wife.
e) There is at least one suspect against whom a better case could be made.

Still need to review further, but initial thoughts are above.

[RodCrosby]

Having listened to both parts, coupled with what I have read, my instinct would be that Julia Wallace was not murdered by her husband.

Reasons:
a) timings make Wallace being the killer unlikely.
And it only became at all 'possible', after both the pathologist and the milk-boy had changed their initial opinions, after conferring with the Police, to open up a tiny window of opportunity, wherein Wallace could 'possibly' have committed the crime.
b) Wallace had no motive.
The Crown candidly admitted that in their opening speech.
c) if it had been Wallace, the chess match would have been a less suspicious alibi - no need for strange calls.
The counter-argument, and indeed the whole thrust of the Prosecution, was that Wallace had concocted 'Qualtrough' and 'Menlove Gardens East' himself, to throw the Police off his scent, by suggesting there was an alternative murderer.
d) He chose to die rather than extend his life without his wife.
Quite moving testimony, from someone who knew Wallace professionally, and was still clearly moved by it 50 years later.
e) There is at least one suspect against whom a better case could be made.
That's a fair statement, and we will examine that case shortly.
Still need to review further, but initial thoughts are above.

Thanks for your initial thoughts.

[etenguy]

Thanks for your initial thoughts.

And thanks for your comments. Whoever the killer, there are unanswered questions. Maybe ColdCase's book will supply fuller information.

[RodCrosby]

Situated next to the phone kiosk, the Central Chess Club 2nd Class schedule
(photographed by the Police, soon after the murder)

Does everyone (or anyone) understand its meaning?

You can answer either from the position as a member of the tournament, and a chess aficionado, or not - as the case may be...

[Abby Normal]

Situated next to the phone kiosk, the Central Chess Club 2nd Class schedule
(photographed by the Police, soon after the murder)

Does everyone (or anyone) understand its meaning?

You can answer either from the position as a member of the tournament, and a chess aficionado, or not - as the case may be...

Walsh was the best player. Lol