Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) The visit in my view is peculiar and highly coincidental. They were moving in with her the following day anyway? Allegedly... I have a possible answer you might like. Julia was seen talking to Florence at 4:30 PM. Florence may well have told Julia she and John were going out at a particular time to visit their relative. William could have used this knowledge to plan the timing of his return, had he acted alone.
Good point. This might provide an explanation for why he went front door, back door, front door, back door. Was he waiting for the Johnston’s to appear?
2) William had a key for both doors. He had no reason to knock unless as you said he'd forgotten his key. Knocking on the back door, they've lived as neighbors for many years, to the point I feel they MAY have been too familiar with his routine to not wonder what's going on. But you may be correct.

3) I don't think so. Not unless they had a completely different gate to William, since William states his wife always had to follow him down the yard to secure the gate when he left.
I take your point but I can’t see anything sinister in this. The Wallace’s were in the habit of locking their back gate but perhaps the Johnston’s weren’t?
4) Not really because it was very well known on the street that peoples' keys fit other doors. Remember a drunk Mr. Cadwallader (sp?) wandered into the Wallace's bedroom drunk, causing her to scream, since his own key had unlocked their house door.
Fair point.
5) Actually - I think you'll find the Johnstons TOLD HIM to go in alone while they waited outside. I don't put much stock into it hence why I didn't make a bolded statement. But it was them who sent him in alone as I recall.
It’s been shown that Wallace either felt that there might have been someone inside the house or was trying to give that impression. I think it a valid, though not conclusive, question to ask why he didn’t ask Johnston to accompany him inside? Wallace was hardly Chuck Norris.
6) Correct - I think he's guilty.

7 & 8) I don't like this as an excuse: "Yes but as I said earlier, under abnormal circumstances people don’t always act rationally or as we would have done with hindsight."... It's like Parry's alibi. Who would forget that two days earlier they had barged in on their girlfriend's music lesson? It seems like a stretch. I think it has to be admitted that in BOTH cases the behavior is unexpected... Parry's faked alibi should not be dismissed, the weird behavior of the Johnstons should not be dismissed.
Yet some are quite happy to put it down to the stress of the situation that Parry blabbed to Parkes. I’d say that Parry’s alibi for the murder is rock solid.
9) Yes, as you know I believe him guilty. But you see you could use that same excuse about people acting irrationally in these situations. This is why I don't like that excuse. ALL of these things are unnatural and NONE should be dismissed.
I agree that we can’t simply use the stress of the situation as an explanation for everything but of course we should remember and accept that these factors can have an effect.
I know that you disagree WWH but I genuinely find it weird that Parry (who wasn’t an idiot) would give such an obviously, childishly disprovable alibi to the police. Under no stretch of the imagination could he have remotely expected to have gotten away with it. And again, if he was a part of a plan, why was no thought given to creating some semblance of a remotely believable alibi?
10 & 11) In agreement it seems.

12) I agree, hence I didn't add a bolded statement. I believe it really could have been chance. But it is a coincidence and should be pointed out.
Agreed.
13) There is potential evidence that burning was attempted. You say Julia fell into the fire and caught alight. Okay. This is also a possibility. But the other possibility is that fire was used to incinierate incriminating items. Just as a random example, say he used some sort of cloth covering over the murder weapon to prevent blood getting upon it. That would be inciniterated with ease. It has to be considered that it was purposeful... IF the Johnstons are involved, then Wallace has time to attempt last minute disposal of items in fire, because Mr. Johnston has not yet gone to the police - hence no police are coming yet - he has as much time as he wants until Mr. Johnston leaves.
Not impossible.
My friend made another very good suggestion, and it's that Julia caught alight and in a panic he threw the mackintosh onto her in order to put out the flames and wrapped her in it. If she had been burned there may have been smoke or a fire starting.
A possibility.
14) The significance of my point, is that IF Wallace didn't notice the mackintosh was there until AFTER Mr. Johnston had left for the police, they no longer have time to do much about it. It may well have been a mistake, it might not have meant to have been there. If it was a mistake, AND the Johnstons are involved, then whether or not it was first discovered before or after Mr. Johnston went for the police is important.
For me the most important question is why it should be there in the first place? That the killer (Wallace) used it is the only satisfactory solution for me,
It is also CRUCIAL to know whether his hestiation when police officers picked up the mack happened before or AFTER telling the other officer it's "an old one of mine".

15) Why would a guilty William ONLY break down in front of Florence? If he was capable of sobbing and guilty, why did he stay so cold and calculating in front of officers. His cold demanor is one of the reasons people found him so suspicious. It would have served him FAR better had he shown emotion with officers etc. present.
Good point.
16) No, no way. It sounds like the line was rehearsed and they mixed up who was meant to have said it. You would NOT forget the words that came out of your own mouth and what came out of someone elses. This must be acknowoledged as bizarre and any explanations for it are weak.
I have no books with me at the moment but the quote that you say is William goes - And yet you glance around the room and you say whatever have they used? To which the reply is - Quite naturally. This sounds like the police questioning what William was doing or thinking. If this was after they had spoken to Florence who had said - whatever have they used? To me this is the police asking why they were interested in what weapon was used with Wallace saying that it was quite natural to wonder about it.

17) The use of the term "Calderstone's district" is a possible slip because William, on his trip, claimed to be a "total stranger in this district", yet we know he knew he had to go to the Calderstone's area, an area he was very familiar with.
How a slip?
---

Further to your points, the Johnstons claimed to have heard a loud thump at around... 8 or 8.15 or something? Might even have been 8.30. The initial thing they were going for is that the killer was still in the home when Wallace got back, and supposedly fled from the scene. The Johnstons prefaced it that they thought it was "Arthur taking off his boots". Arthur, of course, was in the room directly adjacent to the Wallace's parlor.

I would also like you to consider how the other things cast suspicion on themelves. First, this is terraced housing. If they claim to have heard Julia call out, while the neighbors on the other side heard nothing, that's not good. They can get away with it sure, but if Julia called out loudly then you'd think the Holme family would hear that too... They could have said Arthur heard a brief conversation at a certain time. But forensics could have done him over on that with rectal temperature.
I don’t think that it would have mattered had the Holmes not heard anything. The Johnston’s weren’t suspected. Sometime someone can hear something that another doesn’t hear. I’d say that saying that they’d heard Julia call out would have been risk free.
If you introduce a sighting of a person - they could have done that - but it might cause issues if anyone else was outside or in the area the apparent person ran to (e.g. Richmond Park) if the story doesn't match up with testimony of others who were about at that time. They'd also be asked for a description of the person, which might get iffy or cause problems if they're made to do sketches or whatever. They could say they just saw the back of a person. But still it introuces potential risk factors.
I don’t see a risk WWH. They could have been slight vague on the time and said that it could have been twenty past or half past and that they weren’t sure. So anyone in the alley wouldn’t have been an issue unless they were unlucky enough to have had someone in the alley for twenty minutes in which case the Johnston’s would have appeared mistaken at worst.
They probably could have done the third and gotten away with it. Unless the forensics actually did a good job and used rectal temperature to disprove she could've been alive at a specific time. They COULD have said they saw him see him off at the gate or saw Julia return after Wallace was gone. As long as they're sure nobody else could deny it.
I don’t see how Wallace as a planner, with the Johnston’s on his team, could have missed this very obvious opportunity to have put himself in the clear.
But the gate thing was a later amendment. Remember the first initial statement was that Julia had followed him down the entry. As per the police officer's suspicion, I think he may have been angling at the idea that someone had slipped in the back while Julia walked down the entry with him. I don't know why he went back on this.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Btw my friend and myself went through this together on a call. All of it.

RE: Your third point about them seeing Julia leave, my friend says that would be a bad idea because it would cast suspicion on themselves.

It might seem like they were casing the joint if they were there to see her leave and there for him to come home. It's a bit sus. I didn't myself see that point.

My friend as you know has changed his mind and now thinks Gordon was made to call under a false pretext. He also said somethjng I didn't know which waz that apparently Parry used the word cafè and so did the caller, and that William said it the usual way: cafe.

I personally use cafè by the way lol. I mean it's the correct version. But the operators made fun of it.

My friend also suggested Parry may have been drunk as there was a popular drinking pub nesrby. He thinks this may be why he fudged the call and barged in weirdly on Lily. I had never considered that. I didn't know there was a pub there.

Another interesting point I considered is William's encounter with Beattie. He pretended he was exonerated, to get Beattie to talk to him openly, and pressed hard for accuracy on the timing of the call. Neither in court nor to police would he reveal why he did this... My suggestion: The call was made by Parry TOO EARLY and was meant to come at 7.30, which would exonerate William as the caller. I think this is the reason he tried to get Beattie to change his mind on the timing. I think William DID NOT KNOW the call was placed when it was and thiught it should have come later than it did.

[WallaceWackedHer]

[/B]



If Wallace planned this murder with its phone call and MGE excursion, and the Johnston’s were a part of it, I find it scarcely believable that Wallace would have missed out on three very, very easy opportunities of massively helping his case and of improving his chances of getting away with it at no added risk to himself.

One > Why didn’t he get the Johnston's to say that they’d heard Julia call out from the Parlour region at around 7.30? They wouldn’t have been expected to have acted upon it as they could have simply said - we just thought that she was calling out to William who was in another room or upstairs.

Two > Why didn’t he get one of the Johnston’s to say - just before Mr Wallace got back I looked out of the bedroom window and saw someone run past our gate from the direction of the Wallace’s house.

Three > Even better, why didn’t Wallace get the Johnston’s to say that they saw Julia seeing off William at the gate? Or that they saw Julia go into the yard for some reason after William had left. Then the police would have had Julia still alive after William had left. If they had done that then I don’t think that William would have been charged in the first place.[/COLOR]

In regards to the Whitecapel thing. I honestly just don't have any interest in following it all.

I would say that as a criminal profile, the fact he sent letters etc. shows that he wanted recognition for his work - and also perhaps that he enjoyed taunting the police to show he is more intelligent than they are. He reveled in being featured in the papers, so perhaps through his regular life he never received the attention he felt he deserved. Much like the Zodiac and Unabomber - both of whom were highly intelligent, I think Kaczynski had an IQ of over 160. The Zodiac got off on outsmarting the police, the Unabomber did too BUT the latter felt he was doing a service to mankind with his actions. Jack apparently only killed sex workers? Perhaps he felt they were a dredge to society, ruining marriages, that kind of thing (so perhaps one of Jack's own relationships was ruined in this way - or he discovered his partner worked as a hooker). They're also easy targets like homeless people as an alternative reason he might pick them... Furthermore IIRC several organs were missing in victims of the ripper? IIRC the organs which were taken were carefully removed and taken, which raises the question of whether the killer was eating his victim's organs rather than taking simple trophies. If that's true check:

Cutting up the meat is sexually exciting, according to cannibals. Feeling the flesh as it leaves the body brought many offenders to orgasm. They so enjoy the process of removing the meat from the skeleton. It makes them feel all powerful and capable of something very few people have ever done. Even most serial killers do not eat their victims. So the cannibal is in the class by himself. And he knows it. This produces a euphoric state which activates the pleasure center in the brain. Each cut brings more good feeling. So it is common to find many smaller cuts on the body. The process is that exciting.

For someone who is isolated and resentful, it fills a void. Most cannibals are extreme loners. They do not have friends, and they are bitter about it. Killing and eating a victim ensures that the offender is never alone. He ‘has' the victims with him at all times. They can never leave. This helps the cannibal retain a sense of control over his life. To himself, he has demonstrated mastery over another human being. The victim is now part of him as a trophy. This is intoxicating and drives him to do it again.

I would need to know all the similarities between the crime scenes to come to more conlucsions or contradict the ones I made above.

There's one Ripper theory involving the killing of the last woman that apparently implicates the man she was with as a lover. However, I don't know if anyone has ever considered that perhaps a highly intelligent murderer with the same motive to off his lover would kill her in the middle of the pack, rather than last, to help distract from himself? Also as for surgical knowledge, there are others with this type of skill - game hunters, butchers, gangsters (who dismember bodies), and soldiers who have been through survival training.

---

Anyway, back to this case because this is the one I do follow and care about... I'll address your points in order:

1) The visit in my view is peculiar and highly coincidental. They were moving in with her the following day anyway? Allegedly... I have a possible answer you might like. Julia was seen talking to Florence at 4:30 PM. Florence may well have told Julia she and John were going out at a particular time to visit their relative. William could have used this knowledge to plan the timing of his return, had he acted alone.

2) William had a key for both doors. He had no reason to knock unless as you said he'd forgotten his key. Knocking on the back door, they've lived as neighbors for many years, to the point I feel they MAY have been too familiar with his routine to not wonder what's going on. But you may be correct.

3) I don't think so. Not unless they had a completely different gate to William, since William states his wife always had to follow him down the yard to secure the gate when he left.

4) Not really because it was very well known on the street that peoples' keys fit other doors. Remember a drunk Mr. Cadwallader (sp?) wandered into the Wallace's bedroom drunk, causing her to scream, since his own key had unlocked their house door.

5) Actually - I think you'll find the Johnstons TOLD HIM to go in alone while they waited outside. I don't put much stock into it hence why I didn't make a bolded statement. But it was them who sent him in alone as I recall.

6) Correct - I think he's guilty.

7 & 8) I don't like this as an excuse: "Yes but as I said earlier, under abnormal circumstances people don’t always act rationally or as we would have done with hindsight."... It's like Parry's alibi. Who would forget that two days earlier they had barged in on their girlfriend's music lesson? It seems like a stretch. I think it has to be admitted that in BOTH cases the behavior is unexpected... Parry's faked alibi should not be dismissed, the weird behavior of the Johnstons should not be dismissed.

9) Yes, as you know I believe him guilty. But you see you could use that same excuse about people acting irrationally in these situations. This is why I don't like that excuse. ALL of these things are unnatural and NONE should be dismissed.

10 & 11) In agreement it seems.

12) I agree, hence I didn't add a bolded statement. I believe it really could have been chance. But it is a coincidence and should be pointed out.

13) There is potential evidence that burning was attempted. You say Julia fell into the fire and caught alight. Okay. This is also a possibility. But the other possibility is that fire was used to incinierate incriminating items. Just as a random example, say he used some sort of cloth covering over the murder weapon to prevent blood getting upon it. That would be inciniterated with ease. It has to be considered that it was purposeful... IF the Johnstons are involved, then Wallace has time to attempt last minute disposal of items in fire, because Mr. Johnston has not yet gone to the police - hence no police are coming yet - he has as much time as he wants until Mr. Johnston leaves.

My friend made another very good suggestion, and it's that Julia caught alight and in a panic he threw the mackintosh onto her in order to put out the flames and wrapped her in it. If she had been burned there may have been smoke or a fire starting.

14) The significance of my point, is that IF Wallace didn't notice the mackintosh was there until AFTER Mr. Johnston had left for the police, they no longer have time to do much about it. It may well have been a mistake, it might not have meant to have been there. If it was a mistake, AND the Johnstons are involved, then whether or not it was first discovered before or after Mr. Johnston went for the police is important.

It is also CRUCIAL to know whether his hestiation when police officers picked up the mack happened before or AFTER telling the other officer it's "an old one of mine".

15) Why would a guilty William ONLY break down in front of Florence? If he was capable of sobbing and guilty, why did he stay so cold and calculating in front of officers. His cold demanor is one of the reasons people found him so suspicious. It would have served him FAR better had he shown emotion with officers etc. present.

16) No, no way. It sounds like the line was rehearsed and they mixed up who was meant to have said it. You would NOT forget the words that came out of your own mouth and what came out of someone elses. This must be acknowoledged as bizarre and any explanations for it are weak.

17) The use of the term "Calderstone's district" is a possible slip because William, on his trip, claimed to be a "total stranger in this district", yet we know he knew he had to go to the Calderstone's area, an area he was very familiar with.

---

Further to your points, the Johnstons claimed to have heard a loud thump at around... 8 or 8.15 or something? Might even have been 8.30. The initial thing they were going for is that the killer was still in the home when Wallace got back, and supposedly fled from the scene. The Johnstons prefaced it that they thought it was "Arthur taking off his boots". Arthur, of course, was in the room directly adjacent to the Wallace's parlor.

I would also like you to consider how the other things cast suspicion on themelves. First, this is terraced housing. If they claim to have heard Julia call out, while the neighbors on the other side heard nothing, that's not good. They can get away with it sure, but if Julia called out loudly then you'd think the Holme family would hear that too... They could have said Arthur heard a brief conversation at a certain time. But forensics could have done him over on that with rectal temperature.

If you introduce a sighting of a person - they could have done that - but it might cause issues if anyone else was outside or in the area the apparent person ran to (e.g. Richmond Park) if the story doesn't match up with testimony of others who were about at that time. They'd also be asked for a description of the person, which might get iffy or cause problems if they're made to do sketches or whatever. They could say they just saw the back of a person. But still it introuces potential risk factors.

They probably could have done the third and gotten away with it. Unless the forensics actually did a good job and used rectal temperature to disprove she could've been alive at a specific time. They COULD have said they saw him see him off at the gate or saw Julia return after Wallace was gone. As long as they're sure nobody else could deny it.

But the gate thing was a later amendment. Remember the first initial statement was that Julia had followed him down the entry. As per the police officer's suspicion, I think he may have been angling at the idea that someone had slipped in the back while Julia walked down the entry with him. I don't know why he went back on this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t just automatically dismiss things WWH. I do try and look at both sides and I fully accept that I could be wrong. One of the things that I regularly argue against when discussing The Whitechapel Murders is conspiracy theorist thinking. Now I’m not accusing you of that WWH but what can occur is that we can invest something or someone with a mystery where it might be most likely that none exist. Coincidences occur. People do and say strange things under difficult circumstances which might lead us to suspicion. So I’m hyper-wary of this.

1) Mr. and Mrs. Johnston have just gotten ready to pay a random visit to a relative at quarter to 9 at night. They apparently were going to move in with her the next day anyway, and this move was planned and they already had stuff packed. They did not take ANYTHING with them to lighten the load the following day.

We just can’t know the reason for this visit. Last minute arrangements and planning? Who knows? This day and age a phone call would probably have sufficed

.

2) Mrs. Johnston hears William "knocking in the usual way on his back door". William states he never returned by the back door at night. Yet Mrs. Johnston does not find it at all suspicious to hear knocking on the back door.

If she heard knocking at the back door it was hardly likely to have been anyone else but William. Family and other visitors would use the front door of course. I don’t really see why it would seem particularly suspicious just because he usually used the front door after all she couldn’t have known if William occasionally used the back door but she just never heard him before. Perhaps this time William had forgotten his key whereas he usually let himself in?

3) Mr. and Mrs. Johnston leave by their back door and out the yard door. Nobody follows them to bolt the yard door behind them. They are leaving the home happy to have their yard unsecured.

I don’t really see anything sinister in that. Couldn’t they simply have locked the gate from the outside using a key?

4) William comes walking back around and Mr. and Mrs. Johnston are there. As you know he claims both doors are fastened against him. He goes to the door with the Johnstons and this time it opens easily. Note: Mr. Johnston claimed in another statement that Wallace had to force the door open, but in court said the door opened easily in the usual way. Also note Mr. Johnston offered to try his own key - meaning they knew that his own key would also unlock that door.

When someone is having difficulty opening a door with a key they often try different positions and angles. If William tried the key standing perhaps it gave Johnston the impression that he had his shoulder to the door?

Offering to try his own key doesn’t mean that he knew that his key would fit. It just means that he’d be willing to try it. They would have had nothing to lose by trying.

5) They wait outside while Wallace checks around the home. Mr. Johnston isn't bothered about any potential danger since he does not follow William in just in case there's something wrong

Ive raised this point myself but from Wallace’s viewpoint. Why didn’t Wallace ask Johnston to accompany him inside? After all, it has been shown that he was under the impression that there might have been someone inside. Did Wallace just want a last look around, on his own, to make sure that he hadn’t made any errors?

6) Wallace comes out of the house hurrying, exclaiming "come see, she's been killed!" He is apparently certain his wife is dead. A more expected response would be rushing out like "Julia has been killed! Someone please get the police!" or even requesting an ambulance to be honest - I get it was relatively obvious she was dead, but in a panicked state a doting husband MAY in desperation hope she can be saved.

I take your point WWH but this applies to a guilty Wallace.

.

7) The Johnstons follow William into the home and into the parlor. Mrs. Johnston's reaction to her brutally battered neighbor is: "oh you poor darling." A bit mild you might think? and then asking if a matchbox she saw belonged to Julia. WHO CARES who the matchbox belonged to, her brains are all over the floor, GET THE EMERGENCY SERVICES.

Yes but as I said earlier, under abnormal circumstances people don’t always act rationally or as we would have done with hindsight.

9) While Julia is lying in the parlor with her f-in brains splattered all over the place, Wallace and the Johnstons' concern now becomes to investigate the burglary. Again, this is clearly bizarre.

It does seem strange to us. But again, abnormal circumstances....

In those circumstances some people just act like a lunatic or some go into shock and barely talk.

10) William and the John go into the kitchen, Wallace states a cabinet door is wrenched off, and takes down a cash box. John asks if anything has been taken, and William says money has been stolen. He also actually bothers to take the time to check HOW MUCH is missing. When his wife is battered to death in the next room.

This is another pointer to strange behaviour by Wallace. A man I believe to have been guilty.

11) Mr. Johnston asks that William goes upstairs to check again to see if anything else has been stolen. As opposed to going to the police. What are you doing Mr. Johnston?! A woman is DEAD. You've already seen him check all around upstairs from outside!

True. This is strange behaviour.

EVEN WORSE! The fact you went for a doctor first means you thought she could be saved, so WTF are you doing dawdling wasting time instead of going for the doctor ASAP?!

Again, I agree.

12) Mr. Johnston goes off and first goes to some doctors office or something and is told he needs to go to the police or whatever. He also randomly encounters one of his daughter's boyfriends very close to the home, who was on his way over to visit.

I don’t think that we can read anything into a chance meeting.

13) Mrs. Johnston decides to light the fire in the kitchen just because she didn't know what else to do. Weak point: But there is evidence burning was attempted, raising the potential that the fire in the kitchen was used to incinerate certain things.

I don’t think that there was evidence of burning and I don’t think that Wallace would have been stupid enough to have tried any last minute disposal.

Based on John claiming there was no mackintosh there, I think that this discovery happened AFTER John had already gone for the police, so if it was discovered quite late, it would be risky/too late for Florence and William to make too much of an attempt to get rid of it since police could arrive at any moment. Other flammable evidence I believe was incinerated completely in one of the fireplaces.

CRUCIALLY he identified it as his mackintosh to two officers. One time he hesitated a lot, the other he said "it is an old one of mine". It is CRUCIAL to know WHICH of these happened first, because in my view if the hesitated reaction came first, I don't think Wallace EVER saw the mackintosh until the police found it, and that Florence was covering for him and lying that he'd pointed it out.

I don’t think that we can claim that Johnston said that the mackintosh wasn’t there, only that he hadn’t noticed it. I’d be interested to hear you expand on this WWH as I’m not quite getting the significance of your point.

I think it's important to take note of the fact that there is a LOT of contradiction about when exactly the mackintosh was found.

When shown a photo of the crime scene in court, Mr. Johnston said there was no mackintosh present when he was in the house. I believe the mackintosh was NOT seen by William when he first entered the room. I believe it was discovered AFTER Mr. Johnston had left for the police. Take note also of Florence's statement: "I did not notice a mackintosh until Mr. Wallace drew my attention to it later."

Ditto my comment above.

Florence is also the only one to have said that William had broken down sobbing. She said nobody else was present, she was the sole witness to this sobbing. To everyone else he appeared cold and calculated at all times.

True but thiscould be interpreted as a) William only breaking down in private, or b) a calculating William simply giving an impression to Mrs Johnston as evidence of his genuineness.

.

William and Florence also mixed up who said "whatever have they used?" BOTH claimed in court that it was THEMSELVES who uttered this phrase:

Florence:

What did Mr. Wallace do then ? — Mr. Wallace stooped
over Mrs. Wallace, and he said, They have finished
her ; look at the brains ; and I said, “ Whatever have
they used ? ’’ glancing round the room.

William:

And yet you glance round the room, and you say,
‘‘ Whatever have they used ? ” — Quite naturally.

The confusion of a difficult and stressful situation?

Did Florence hear/know of Amy's arrival, did she confirm this? Did Charlie Bliss see Amy? This should be checked obviously.

I don’t think that either of these things were checked at the time and there’s no way of checking them now.

I believe William was involved in the murder of his wife, but just for the sake of integrity I want to point out that if you think William is innocent, it is often speculated "how could the person be sure that William was going on that trip to Menlove Gardens?"... Well at least one person knows for sure (Amy claims Julia allegedly told her that William was going to the "Calderstone's district"). And it is also possible Florence could have extracted this information when she spoke to Julia that day.

Amy undoubtedly got that information from Julia but we have to stress that she said Calderstone’s district and not Menlove Gardens.

One of my objections to the Accomplice theory is against the point that Julia would admitted Mr Qualtrough because she’d heard the name from William. Firstly, even if this was the case it’s still far from certain that she’d have let him in and secondly, as Julia took no interest in Williams business dealings, there’s no way that Parry the plotter could have expected William to have mentioned the name Qualtrough or even MGE. He might simply have said - I have to go out on business this evening dear.

I think that Gordon Parry rang the Chess Club that night, and William and the Johnstons were involved in the murder or cover-up of the murder. Gordon Parry was an intended scapegoat. This is what I am thinking at the moment. Please actually consider what I have said instead of dismissing it automatically.

If Wallace planned this murder with its phone call and MGE excursion, and the Johnston’s were a part of it, I find it scarcely believable that Wallace would have missed out on three very, very easy opportunities of massively helping his case and of improving his chances of getting away with it at no added risk to himself.

One > Why didn’t he get the Johnston's to say that they’d heard Julia call out from the Parlour region at around 7.30? They wouldn’t have been expected to have acted upon it as they could have simply said - we just thought that she was calling out to William who was in another room or upstairs.

Two > Why didn’t he get one of the Johnston’s to say - just before Mr Wallace got back I looked out of the bedroom window and saw someone run past our gate from the direction of the Wallace’s house.

Three > Even better, why didn’t Wallace get the Johnston’s to say that they saw Julia seeing off William at the gate? Or that they saw Julia go into the yard for some reason after William had left. Then the police would have had Julia still alive after William had left. If they had done that then I don’t think that William would have been charged in the first place.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'm sorry maybe I'm a lunatic but does nobody see the utter ABSURDITY of the events that unfold when William returns home? Let's see how it played out:

1) Mr. and Mrs. Johnston have just gotten ready to pay a random visit to a relative at quarter to 9 at night. They apparently were going to move in with her the next day anyway, and this move was planned and they already had stuff packed. They did not take ANYTHING with them to lighten the load the following day.

2) Mrs. Johnston hears William "knocking in the usual way on his back door". William states he never returned by the back door at night. Yet Mrs. Johnston does not find it at all suspicious to hear knocking on the back door.

3) Mr. and Mrs. Johnston leave by their back door and out the yard door. Nobody follows them to bolt the yard door behind them. They are leaving the home happy to have their yard unsecured.

4) William comes walking back around and Mr. and Mrs. Johnston are there. As you know he claims both doors are fastened against him. He goes to the door with the Johnstons and this time it opens easily. Note: Mr. Johnston claimed in another statement that Wallace had to force the door open, but in court said the door opened easily in the usual way. Also note Mr. Johnston offered to try his own key - meaning they knew that his own key would also unlock that door.

5) They wait outside while Wallace checks around the home. Mr. Johnston isn't bothered about any potential danger since he does not follow William in just in case there's something wrong.

6) Wallace comes out of the house hurrying, exclaiming "come see, she's been killed!" He is apparently certain his wife is dead. A more expected response would be rushing out like "Julia has been killed! Someone please get the police!" or even requesting an ambulance to be honest - I get it was relatively obvious she was dead, but in a panicked state a doting husband MAY in desperation hope she can be saved.

7) The Johnstons follow William into the home and into the parlor. Mrs. Johnston's reaction to her brutally battered neighbor is: "oh you poor darling." A bit mild you might think? and then asking if a matchbox she saw belonged to Julia. WHO CARES who the matchbox belonged to, her brains are all over the floor, GET THE EMERGENCY SERVICES.

8) At this point now things get more bizarre and we start entering "wtf territory". Because at this point it is absurd even for the Johnstons to not be like "oh, God! I'll go for the police, Florence you stay here!" or whatever.

9) While Julia is lying in the parlor with her f-in brains splattered all over the place, Wallace and the Johnstons' concern now becomes to investigate the burglary. Again, this is clearly bizarre.

10) William and the John go into the kitchen, Wallace states a cabinet door is wrenched off, and takes down a cash box. John asks if anything has been taken, and William says money has been stolen. He also actually bothers to take the time to check HOW MUCH is missing. When his wife is battered to death in the next room.

11) Mr. Johnston asks that William goes upstairs to check again to see if anything else has been stolen. As opposed to going to the police. What are you doing Mr. Johnston?! A woman is DEAD. You've already seen him check all around upstairs from outside!

EVEN WORSE! The fact you went for a doctor first means you thought she could be saved, so WTF are you doing dawdling wasting time instead of going for the doctor ASAP?!

12) Mr. Johnston goes off and first goes to some doctors office or something and is told he needs to go to the police or whatever. He also randomly encounters one of his daughter's boyfriends very close to the home, who was on his way over to visit.

13) Mrs. Johnston decides to light the fire in the kitchen just because she didn't know what else to do. Weak point: But there is evidence burning was attempted, raising the potential that the fire in the kitchen was used to incinerate certain things.

---

I think it's important to take note of the fact that there is a LOT of contradiction about when exactly the mackintosh was found.

When shown a photo of the crime scene in court, Mr. Johnston said there was no mackintosh present when he was in the house. I believe the mackintosh was NOT seen by William when he first entered the room. I believe it was discovered AFTER Mr. Johnston had left for the police. Take note also of Florence's statement: "I did not notice a mackintosh until Mr. Wallace drew my attention to it later."

Let me point out more, take this extract from Florence:

"He came round the body, and said, Whatever was
she doing with her mackintosh and my mackintosh ? ” —
Yes.

When it was shown to you, and you saw it was a mack-
intosh, did you remember if you had seen it there when
you first went in ? — ^Well, it appeared to be something
roughed up, you know ; I did not know really what it
was. It was almost hidden under the body, you see.

And he stooped down, and said, “ It is mine ” ? — ^Yes."

William gave the same statement to Hector Munro (that he had said "her mackintosh and my mackintosh").

Based on John claiming there was no mackintosh there, I think that this discovery happened AFTER John had already gone for the police, so if it was discovered quite late, it would be risky/too late for Florence and William to make too much of an attempt to get rid of it since police could arrive at any moment. Other flammable evidence I believe was incinerated completely in one of the fireplaces.

CRUCIALLY he identified it as his mackintosh to two officers. One time he hesitated a lot, the other he said "it is an old one of mine". It is CRUCIAL to know WHICH of these happened first, because in my view if the hesitated reaction came first, I don't think Wallace EVER saw the mackintosh until the police found it, and that Florence was covering for him and lying that he'd pointed it out.

Florence is also the only one to have said that William had broken down sobbing. She said nobody else was present, she was the sole witness to this sobbing. To everyone else he appeared cold and calculated at all times.

William and Florence also mixed up who said "whatever have they used?" BOTH claimed in court that it was THEMSELVES who uttered this phrase:

Florence:

What did Mr. Wallace do then ? — Mr. Wallace stooped
over Mrs. Wallace, and he said, They have finished
her ; look at the brains ; and I said, “ Whatever have
they used ? ’’ glancing round the room.

William:

And yet you glance round the room, and you say,
‘‘ Whatever have they used ? ” — Quite naturally.

---

Please also take note of this, in the timeline:

4.30pm. Amy Wallace leaves 29 Wolverton Street bidding Julia goodbye as she heads for home.

4.30pm. Julia then chats to neighbour Florence Johnston in her backyard then pays window cleaner Charles Bliss.

Did Florence hear/know of Amy's arrival, did she confirm this? Did Charlie Bliss see Amy? This should be checked obviously.

---

I believe William was involved in the murder of his wife, but just for the sake of integrity I want to point out that if you think William is innocent, it is often speculated "how could the person be sure that William was going on that trip to Menlove Gardens?"... Well at least one person knows for sure (Amy claims Julia allegedly told her that William was going to the "Calderstone's district"). And it is also possible Florence could have extracted this information when she spoke to Julia that day.

---

I think that Gordon Parry rang the Chess Club that night, and William and the Johnstons were involved in the murder or cover-up of the murder. Gordon Parry was an intended scapegoat. This is what I am thinking at the moment. Please actually consider what I have said instead of dismissing it automatically.

[WallaceWackedHer]

The thing that I’m most confident of in this case is that I believe that William is overwhelmingly the likeliest killer.
I think that Parry should be entirely eliminated as the murderer.
I see almost no reason for Parry/Marsden/Johnston’s involvement,
I don’t think that William would have involved or trusted anyone else in this plan.

I think that the murder was intentional and personal (ie motivated by emotion rather that gain)
I think the Qualtrough plan involving the chess club smacks of Wallace himself.
I think Wallace’s behaviour on that night both at Menlove Garden’s and on trying to get into the house point to Wallace acting out a plan.
I think that the fact that the lights were out point to Wallace.
I think that the fact that there was no blood outside of the Parlour points strongly to Wallace.
I think that the fact that Wallace ignored the within reach Parlour to go upstairs points to a guilty Wallace.

In short, I’m still at Wallace alone.

I could’ve wrong though of course.

In The Telephone Murder (I believe it is) it is stated that he regularly took the route down Pendennis (like when he went on the wild goose chase to Menlove). That was the author's strongest point actually, that he took an odd route. It's also something I find somewhat strong.

That is an important factor. He said he went that way to mail a letter - I tend to err on the side of this being an excuse, and err on the side of it being really weird he went that route... The mailing of a letter excuse does help to explain away any witnesses who may have seen him walking the wrong way up Richmond Park. But the tram route is so easily verifiable, and of course it is dangerous to lie moreso than it is to just tell the truth ESPECIALLY if he doesn't even know the call was traced. So what happened there? The police were very biased, did they bury evidence? Even if they did, why didn't William's defence team check it? We may never know, so sadly we have to let it go... But in my honest opinion, I THINK he probably took the route he claimed, just to be safer than telling an outright lie, which makes it impossible he placed the phone call.

The fact that he apparently used that box and took that tram is pretty much the crux of the entire prosecution against him acting alone. So the fact it wasn't investigated seems weird. But that's what happened so we have to deal with that as it stands. But yeah as I said that's their screw up and we have to deal with that.

It seems we're in agreement that Wallace and Parry were on good terms, and Wallace did not report him. I do wonder though - if Wallace did not report Gordon, and if they were friends, what else could Wallace have possibly have known about Parry and his crimes? We know Parry had pulled off insurance scams etc. One has to wonder if he had something else on him that he could use for blackmail? Just saying, would like to hear your thoughts.

I definitely disagree that the Johnstons should be exonerated automatically. The police should have at least investigated them thoroughly. It's not just the things I mentioned. There's a lot more on them. For example how Johnston claimed Wallace "forced the door open" and then in court said "he opened the door easily, in the usual way". I mean if you really want I will list out ALL circumstantial evidence against them. There's a lot and I think I can truly convince you to at least consider them if I were to bullet point an entire list. Because to actually just automatically omit them as suspects is ludicrous.

Wallace did leave his home at the right time. The proposal I have made is that he purposefully went that strange route to meet up with a person (who MIGHT have been Gordon) and then forked off in separate directions. The call I believe was intended to placed a tad later than it really was - to my mind this is the explanation for why Wallace would press Beattie so hard for accuracy on the time the call came. Maybe he thought it would have come at half past the hour which again would exonerate him.

I also maintain it's UNSAFE for Gordon to say he was tricked into calling. His word against William's. And Marsden with the flu allegedly. Gordon wouldn't have to be the killer to have been involved in murder in the eyes of the police. For example, as I said, if he'd had someone else go there and rob the place. Just saying. It's not a reliable way out for him. it's very dangerous in fact. I think he would only have caved if he was legitimately arrested for the murder.

---

By the way I also do not think Gordon killed Julia but I DEFINITELY wouldn't rule it out. There is evidence that alibi coercion was attempted (if the callers on Wilkes' radio show were not lying) and so I am not entirely sure. We also have Lily (jilted - so possibly lying) saying that Parry made her falsify an alibi. To COMPLETELY rule him out, I don't really think that can be done. But I agree for sure that to me, he is the least likeliest killer.

And this thing about "Wallace wouldn't have trusted" others etc. I mean you're a true crime buff right? You know how many murders have been commited with multiple parties involved? People getting their friends to stage a robbery and kill their spouse. People getting someone they're having an affair with to go in and kill for them. It's been done many, many time. To completely discount it as even possible when there are so many examples of solved crimes where similar things have happened - I don't think that's reasonable to do. It must be considered.

---

If we and other posters continue to discuss these points I really honestly believe we can come up with something coherent and possible. But for me I just want to solve the case, I have no vested interest in it being any particular person (despite my Johnston avatar lol), I just want to crack the case as far as can be possibly done with the evidence we have.

I am actually considering taking a 3 hour train up to Merseyside and looking through the files.

The facts Slemen brings up are GAME CHANGING, and the only reason they aren't considered is because they haven't been verified and I can't myself tell if they are true or fictional. If I can actually verify facts such as that a home was burgled with an IDENTICAL crime scene while the Johnstons were housesitting for a neighbor, etc. then obviously, you have to admit that would be a major breakthrough in this case... Of course, William could have staged the scene identically to try and frame the same burglar. But obviously it would be pretty major. There are actually a lot of facts he mentions which would be game changing if verified as fact in the police files.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's known that his usual route was down Pendennis.
Are you sure about that? I’ve never been of the understanding that this was the case. Why did he take different route on that particular night?
Either way he has someone there to take his fare, so I don't see the issue. I mean surely people couldn't just fraud what stop they got on and pay less lol. I'm not sure how trams work. Either way it relies too much on assumption.
Trams/Metro systems work like that these days too. I regularly visit a friend in Birmingham by Metro and three times recently I’ve had a free ride because the conductor hadn’t gotten to me by the time I’d arrived at my destination. I’m not saying that Wallace’s tram was so full that this could have happened but those trams had an upstairs. All I’m saying is that if the conductor had been upstairs whilst Wallace got on this might have led to doubt.
I've heard mixed messages on the reporting of Parry. If Wallace reported him that's more reason for revenge. But I've heard that wasn't actually what happened.
I’m pretty certain that Parry left his job at The Pru of his own volition.
However we must remember Parry and Wallace were still on friendly terms. Parry in fact gave William a calendar as a gift in December.
Would they have remained on friendly terms had Wallace caused him to have lost his job?
There is suspicion against Johnston circumstantially speaking. To omit him is legitimately ridiculous. Sorry WWH but I see nothing at all against Johnston.He's a viable candidate if you look into it. I've already listed so many reasons. Their chance leaving their home just as Wallace was there to visit someone who wasn't exoecting them, which John needing to be up st 4 AM lol. There’s nothing strange about an unannounced or unplanned visit at a time when only the better off families owned telephones. It was a family visit. It might have been just for an hour or so meaning that they’d have been back home at 10.30-11.00. Weren’t the Johnston’s moving house the next day? Surely Mr Johnston would have had the day off? It's kinda ridic... The fact they were gonna go out leaving their yard door unsecured (I wonder if this was common practice and Wallace lied thaf Julia always bolted it)... There's a lot of stuff I could mention. He absolutely absolutely must be investigated seriously as a suspect. It's dishonest to discount him. I’ve always tried to look at the case honestly WWH.

I don't think Gordon would have been believed but whatever. Why would the police automatically disbelieve him. He had an alibi for the murder and so even if he’d made the call they couldn’t have pinned the murder on him. Who else could they have gone for? Only Wallace. All signs pointed to him and Marsden. I don't know if I believe his alibi even though I don't think he killed Julia (and Marsden didn't really have an alibi). I’d say that Parry’s alibi is rock solid. Admitting he made that call, he'd have been pretty condemned...I disagree. I think that if he’d admitted the call claiming that he was tricked into it by Wallace, with his alibi, Wallace would have hanged. Perhaps the safety net of KNOWING Beattie will confirm it could not have been William's voice was enough. Beattie didn’t think that it was Wallace’s voice. It doesn’t mean that it wasn’t though. Beattie was focused on the content of the message. The idea of a prank call would have been an alien concept to him. He was a serious businessman and this call was about business. I don’t think that it’s at all an issue that Wallace might simply have disguised his voice. Wallace might have been a good mimic? We don’t know. Some people are but it’s not something that would have been common knowledge.I just think William took the route he claimed, which makes Wallace impossible as the caller... On top of that all the timings match up for Gordon in that box and his barging in on Lily was weird. Also, if Wallace left the house when he said that he did he’d have reached the call box at the right time.It all fits the timing perfectly. So eithet Gordon called or William was INCREDIBLY lucky that the second best suspect was around the box at the right time and gave a fake alibi. Or Wallace made the call by disguising his voice. He perhaps originally intended to say that he caught the tram near to the call box because the call couldn’t have been traced but as circumstances turned out such that they gave him confidence that he couldn’t be placed at or near to thecall box he decided to put himself further away bu claiming that he walked past two active stops to catch the tram near the Belmont Road junction.

So pick your poison.
There are certainly doubts and objections to most points.
We don't even know what other dirt William possibly had on Parry, he knew he was a swindler. I can see him goading Gordon into calling.

JMO. And the opinion of my pal you know.

The thing that I’m most confident of in this case is that I believe that William is overwhelmingly the likeliest killer.
I think that Parry should be entirely eliminated as the murderer.
I see almost no reason for Parry/Marsden/Johnston’s involvement,
I don’t think that William would have involved or trusted anyone else in this plan.

I think that the murder was intentional and personal (ie motivated by emotion rather that gain)
I think the Qualtrough plan involving the chess club smacks of Wallace himself.
I think Wallace’s behaviour on that night both at Menlove Garden’s and on trying to get into the house point to Wallace acting out a plan.
I think that the fact that the lights were out point to Wallace.
I think that the fact that there was no blood outside of the Parlour points strongly to Wallace.
I think that the fact that Wallace ignored the within reach Parlour to go upstairs points to a guilty Wallace.

In short, I’m still at Wallace alone.

I could’ve wrong though of course.

[WallaceWackedHer]

It's known that his usual route was down Pendennis.

Either way he has someone there to take his fare, so I don't see the issue. I mean surely people couldn't just fraud what stop they got on and pay less lol. I'm not sure how trams work. Either way it relies too much on assumption.

I've heard mixed messages on the reporting of Parry. If Wallace reported him that's more reason for revenge. But I've heard that wasn't actually what happened.

However we must remember Parry and Wallace were still on friendly terms. Parry in fact gave William a calendar as a gift in December.

There is suspicion against Johnston circumstantially speaking. To omit him is legitimately ridiculous. He's a viable candidate if you look into it. I've already listed so many reasons. Their chance leaving their home just as Wallace was there to visit someone who wasn't exoecting them, which John needing to be up st 4 AM lol. It's kinda ridic... The fact they were gonna go out leaving their yard door unsecured (I wonder if this was common practice and Wallace lied thaf Julia always bolted it)... There's a lot of stuff I could mention. He absolutely absolutely must be investigated seriously as a suspect. It's dishonest to discount him.

I don't think Gordon would have been believed but whatever. All signs pointed to him and Marsden. I don't know if I believe his alibi even though I don't think he killed Julia (and Marsden didn't really have an alibi). Admitting he made that call, he'd have been pretty condemned... Perhaps the safety net of KNOWING Beattie will confirm it could not have been William's voice was enough. I just think William took the route he claimed, which makes Wallace impossible as the caller... On top of that all the timings match up for Gordon in that box and his barging in on Lily was weird. It all fits the timing perfectly. So eithet Gordon called or William was INCREDIBLY lucky that the second best suspect was around the box at the right time and gave a fake alibi.

So pick your poison.

We don't even know what other dirt William possibly had on Parry, he knew he was a swindler. I can see him goading Gordon into calling.

JMO. And the opinion of my pal you know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok so you know for a fact he didn't know the call was traced? So then why say Belmont if he's gonna lie? That's not his usual route. There's a reason he chose that route. It's not Oxford Street but there are still people milling around at those times. Just ONE sighting and it's over for him. He chose it specifically for a useless letter mailing alibi maybe?
How do you know that the Belmont stop wasn't his usual stop? If it was then this provides a reason for Wallace not appearing to do anything out of the ordinary on that night.
You have to pay a fare when you get on the tram do you not? That's one person already who's seen him.
It didn’t work that way then. You sat down and waited for the conductor to come to you to take your fairand give you a ticket. The conductor could have been upstairs when Wallace was picked up.
And I think Parry called the club too early. I think he was meant to call around 10 minutes later than he did. I think that's why Wallace pressed Beattie for accuracy on the call time, because he expected it would have come later when he was nearer the club on the tram which would exonerate him.
Good suggestion.
Did Parry KNOW Julia would be killed? I don't think so. The voice was too confident and unwavering for that, most likely, though that's weak evidence as some people perform well under pressure.
True.
In Gordon Parry we have the PERFECT sacrificial lamb: A man with a dodgy reputation, a member of the club at the cafe, a man with arguably something personal against the Pru, a man who Julia would admit willingly, and importantly a man with no alibi for when the call was made (though we can place him at the box based on when he barged in on Lily), with an alias linked to his best pal.
I don’t know what Parry could have had against the Pru? He left of his own volition. A man with a cast iron alibi for the time of the murder is hardly the perfect fall guy.
Now why would Parry call? A few options. One is the use of a false pretext - with the pair being buddies. The second is, remember, Wallace was Parry's supervisor at the Pru. AFAIK he did NOT report Parry's discrepancies. Does Wallace know more than he's letting on about Parry's criminal activities? These things could have been used with or without monetary payment, and with or without Parry's knowledge of the true intention of the crime.
I’m pretty sure that Wallace reported Parry? Parry’s father had to pay back some cash.
---

So come murder night. This is gonna be hard to crack...

What I WOULD say is it's highly likely is that anyone who entered came in the back as Julia was instructed to set up the parlor. WAS Julia in the habit of bolting the yard? Wallace says so. That's of high importance really as that's what would block an intruder unless they were let in.

In any case the person came in the back is ny theory. If Wallace didn't fo it. And for SHEER odds of getting in and out with timr to clesn etc. Johnston is your most likely candidate.
I can’t see a single reason for suspicion against Johnston.
---

Would Parry crack YES. If he was arrested on suspicion of murder he would without any doubt fess up. Though in fairness he's pretty f'd as it were even if he tried to be honest. At best he'd be executed with William for murder conspiracy.

i also wouldn't doibt his murder alibi is coerced. Just saying...

He's the PERFECT scapegoat. But fortunately he was entirely acquitted and never had to sdmit to his potentisl role in all this.
This is where it falls imo. Why would Wallace set up Parry knowing full well that if he was questioned he’d immediately drop William in it leading him to the gallows? I’d think that Parry would have a good chance of getting off Scot-free. All that he’d have needed to have done would have been to say that William asked him to make the call because he needed an excuse to go out because he was seeing a woman. Added to that when they saw Parry’s unshakeable alibi what would they nail Parry on? A potentially semi-innocent phone call? Way to big a risk for Wallace imo.

Still Wallace alone for me.

[WallaceWackedHer]

It's quite rare (maybe unheard of) for soft and gentle arguments to end in a slaying.

And as for her health condition, Wallace had claimed it was allegedly bad enough that she wouldn't have left the house to post mail... So yeah I would rather think these encounters on these two nights weren't sexual in nature.

We believe Amy was there, yes. We don't actually have anyone to corroborate that as far as I know... I wasn't aware that she was even really friends with Julia, let alone enough to visit and invite her out to some weird play or w.e... As per the Johnston family they could usually hear when Amy visited that home, as her voice was rather loud and boisterous... I am not sure if they corroborated her being there or not?... But just saying - we have to at least consider the option that the sole purpose of Amy's testimony is to help exonerate William (for example, if he was really going to murder her, why would he tell her about the trip, say he doesn't think he'll go, and she apparently "convinces him"?). Keep that in mind.

That does work with the fake address yes. Albeit again, look at the risk of him finding out quickly that the address legitimately doesn't exist. Allegedly he didn't check a map, and he didn't ask the officer on point duty (who could have, apparently, confirmed far sooner that there was most definitely no such place). Say he had done those things? I guess Julia would have to persuade him to try West and that Beattie may have misheard it. Either way the place was only 4 miles away. William returned RELATIVELY early as is (he was gone for only about an hour and a half, right?) and that's with EXTREME exhaustion of all options for search, including checking the newsagents and local directory etc. etc.

And now the issue of this killer... So okay if it was premeditated, then the cleanliness can be explained easier. I don't believe premeditation at all makes any difference to the brutality of the crime (actually you can check other true crimes to confirm this - plenty of premeditated killings have been VERY brutal). The intruder in this scenario still has to escape into the night unseen, out of the back door of course - the same way Julia would have let this person in. If it was premeditated, the person may also not have provoked an argument with Julia, just slain her without her expecting it at all.

And then what of that cabinet door? Half of it was torn off and on the floor. Yet this did not make any sound heard by neighbors? Another part of the silence that doesn't add up with expectation.

---

But then we go back to the evidence and circumstantially there is a strong case against Gordon Parry ringing the club. And perhaps the most CONDEMNING piece of evidence against William - his writing of "WEST" which was then crossed out and replaced by East when relayed to him by Beattie. Now I'm not sure about you, but I find it hard to believe anyone could ever confuse the words "East" and "West" which sound distinctly different.

What I believe that shows is that William KNEW the gardens. And he either EXPECTED the call to say "west" OR, he was trying too hard to make it seem like he was clueless to what was happening... If he TRULY didn't know of the gardens, then he would have just written down the address without any question or confusion... For example - If I said to you a caller had requested you to meet him at 25 Prospect Park East, would you hesitate in writing down that address or assume it was West? Because Prospect Park East DOESN'T exist, and there IS a North, South, and West. Same scenario... Also factor in that William used the specific phrasing "I'm a complete stranger in this district", yet according to Amy who allegedly visited Julia that day, Wallace had told her he had business in the "Calderstones district", an area he was not a complete stranger to.

Another condemning factor in my view is the way that William failed to question how the caller knew he'd be there, WHY he's calling him there of all places, etc... Like if it was genuine, I would feel like I've been stalked, because obviously it would be someone who knew I attended the club, who knew which NIGHT I would be there, and for whatever reason chose to contact me there rather than through the Pru. He had never received business calls that way before - and beyond that didn't even recognize the caller's name (although he SHOULD have been familiar with the name "Qualtrough" rather than pointing out several times how peculiar it is - since it was a client of Marsden's, who he supervised).

[etenguy]

I do like it but I don't think it fits on close examination.

If there was an argument it would have been heard by the neighbors. The silence of the killing is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a robber being discovered or an unplanned killing following an argument.
Arthur was actually staying adjacent to the parlor but I assume he heard nothing or his statement would have cropped up somewhere and been used as evidence.

The argument needn't have been a loud shouting match - may have been a gentle ending of the liaison, more soft and sad. May still have enraged the romantic partner who lashes out. Of course it could have been anyone from her past who she wanted to keep quiet about - not necessarily a lover.

And again the fact she was unwell, which makes me wonder if she would really be up for entertaining a romantic partner two nights in a row.

Not so unwell - she had entertained guests (Amy) and dealt with the milk lad and judging by the stuff in the kitchen, was sewing during the evening.

IIRC no foreign fingerprints were found at the crime scene, just William and the Johnstons' prints.

And yet we know Amy had been there earlier - if they missed hers they could miss others.

I would also question why the lover would purposefully give a fake address increasing the odds William finds out it doesn't exist or comes home early, as opposed to sending him off to a real address further away.

To keep Wallace out longer, relying on Julia to persuade him to go in the first place. Too far away and Wallace may not be persuadable to embark on the journey in the first place.

To my mind the silence and lack of blood tracked out of the parlor suggests premeditation. If someone had killed in the heat of the moment, first of all I'd expect them to have panicked and they'd want to get out of there as soon as possible, rather than think about cleaning up and the elaborate crime scene staging... Yes it is poorly staged but at the same time it seems to have some thought put into it if that makes sense? Like to specifically target the cash box (and know where it is) etc. rather than grabbing random items in the parlor and kitchen and fleeing.

I just think the evidence is more consistent with premeditated murder regardless of who carried out the attack.

And yet if it were premeditated, would the killing have been so frenzied - the blood splattered away from the killer and so he may not be particularly covered in blood and the mac might have caught a lot/most of it that did come his way. Not sure that the lack of blood elsewhere in the house precludes such a scenario.

But if it was premeditated, maybe the visitor was not a lover someone from her past who she wanted to keep away from Wallace and who did want to kill her.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Ok so you know for a fact he didn't know the call was traced? So then why say Belmont if he's gonna lie? That's not his usual route. There's a reason he chose that route. It's not Oxford Street but there are still people milling around at those times. Just ONE sighting and it's over for him. He chose it specifically for a useless letter mailing alibi maybe?

You have to pay a fare when you get on the tram do you not? That's one person already who's seen him.

And I think Parry called the club too early. I think he was meant to call around 10 minutes later than he did. I think that's why Wallace pressed Beattie for accuracy on the call time, because he expected it would have come later when he was nearer the club on the tram which would exonerate him.

Did Parry KNOW Julia would be killed? I don't think so. The voice was too confident and unwavering for that, most likely, though that's weak evidence as some people perform well under pressure.

In Gordon Parry we have the PERFECT sacrificial lamb: A man with a dodgy reputation, a member of the club at the cafe, a man with arguably something personal against the Pru, a man who Julia would admit willingly, and importantly a man with no alibi for when the call was made (though we can place him at the box based on when he barged in on Lily), with an alias linked to his best pal.

Now why would Parry call? A few options. One is the use of a false pretext - with the pair being buddies. The second is, remember, Wallace was Parry's supervisor at the Pru. AFAIK he did NOT report Parry's discrepancies. Does Wallace know more than he's letting on about Parry's criminal activities? These things could have been used with or without monetary payment, and with or without Parry's knowledge of the true intention of the crime.

---

So come murder night. This is gonna be hard to crack...

What I WOULD say is it's highly likely is that anyone who entered came in the back as Julia was instructed to set up the parlor. WAS Julia in the habit of bolting the yard? Wallace says so. That's of high importance really as that's what would block an intruder unless they were let in.

In any case the person came in the back is ny theory. If Wallace didn't fo it. And for SHEER odds of getting in and out with timr to clesn etc. Johnston is your most likely candidate.

---

Would Parry crack YES. If he was arrested on suspicion of murder he would without any doubt fess up. Though in fairness he's pretty f'd as it were even if he tried to be honest. At best he'd be executed with William for murder conspiracy.

i also wouldn't doibt his murder alibi is coerced. Just saying...

He's the PERFECT scapegoat. But fortunately he was entirely acquitted and never had to sdmit to his potentisl role in all this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Really it's the opposite lol. Both if he's innocent OR guilty, if he DIDN'T know the call was traced to that booth he is better off being truthful about the route.

If he did know it was traced, then he may FEEL forced to lie to make it seem impossible he made the call. This would be a stupid move but hindsight is 20/20. If guilty he may also have been stupid enough to lie about the route just to place himself away from a potential call box. Either way it's a dumb decision because if ANYONE could verify he took the tram by the box then it's game over for him.

If he lied then why not pretend he went the usual way down Pendennis? It's quite peculiar.

To assume William placed the call himself, it takes a lot of "perhaps"es. Perhaps the tram was empty, perhaps the conductor was upstairs, it's not really based on anything... I don't think anyone could identify the person in the box (or even notice them - unless of course they went to place a call themselves lol). But as stated I think based on the facts we know for sure, Gordon is the best suspect for the caller.

I don't see that it's so difficult to perceive how Gordon could have rang and William bashed her brains in the following day. In fact think of it this way, I mean, it actually seems a legitimate attempt was made to FRAME Gordon Parry. Wouldn't it be smart to ensure he doesn't have an alibi for when the call was made? If he did place the call then William knows there's no way he has an alibi. The Qualtrough alias links to Marsden, a friend of Gordon's. Gordon knew where the cash box was. Gordon was a member of a club at the same café.

Otherwise how lucky was William that Gordon should just so happen to "forget" the events that happened two days prior?

I think William walked up that way, Gordon was waiting somewhere arount the T junction, they MAY have briefly spoken, or maybe not, then William headed left and Gordon to the right. Gordon places a phone call then barges in randomly on Lily Lloyd's piano lesson saying he'd just come from Lark Lane (or Park Lane - whichever one it was). That's what I think went down based on the known evidence and facts.

Wallace would have believed that the call could not be traced so, after he’d made the call, he had two ways of proceeding. If he thinks or suspects that he’s been seen then he says that he used tram stop near to the phone box. If he thinks that he hasn’t been seen or recognised then he can say that he used the Belmont Road stop to place himself nowhere near the phone box. He didn’t need ‘perhapses’ because he had a plan a and a plan b.

I don't see that it's so difficult to perceive how Gordon could have rang and William bashed her brains in the following day.

I just can’t believe it WWH. I can’t believe that William would have been so stupid as to having tricked Parry into making the call which led to William killing Julia where he would have risked Parry blabbing. If we claim it as an attempt to frame Parry what if it had worked and the police had hauled in Parry. Is it remotely likely that he wouldn’t have said - hold on. Wallace got me to make that call. I knew nothing about any murder.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Really it's the opposite lol. Both if he's innocent OR guilty, if he DIDN'T know the call was traced to that booth he is better off being truthful about the route.

If he did know it was traced, then he may FEEL forced to lie to make it seem impossible he made the call. This would be a stupid move but hindsight is 20/20. If guilty he may also have been stupid enough to lie about the route just to place himself away from a potential call box. Either way it's a dumb decision because if ANYONE could verify he took the tram by the box then it's game over for him.

If he lied then why not pretend he went the usual way down Pendennis? It's quite peculiar.

To assume William placed the call himself, it takes a lot of "perhaps"es. Perhaps the tram was empty, perhaps the conductor was upstairs, it's not really based on anything... I don't think anyone could identify the person in the box (or even notice them - unless of course they went to place a call themselves lol). But as stated I think based on the facts we know for sure, Gordon is the best suspect for the caller.

I don't see that it's so difficult to perceive how Gordon could have rang and William bashed her brains in the following day. In fact think of it this way, I mean, it actually seems a legitimate attempt was made to FRAME Gordon Parry. Wouldn't it be smart to ensure he doesn't have an alibi for when the call was made? If he did place the call then William knows there's no way he has an alibi. The Qualtrough alias links to Marsden, a friend of Gordon's. Gordon knew where the cash box was. Gordon was a member of a club at the same café.

Otherwise how lucky was William that Gordon should just so happen to "forget" the events that happened two days prior?

I think William walked up that way, Gordon was waiting somewhere arount the T junction, they MAY have briefly spoken, or maybe not, then William headed left and Gordon to the right. Gordon places a phone call then barges in randomly on Lily Lloyd's piano lesson saying he'd just come from Lark Lane (or Park Lane - whichever one it was). That's what I think went down based on the known evidence and facts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So now there's a completely empty tram and conductor upstairs in the mix?

I'm not so much bothered about the implications of why he would involve Parry. I AM but, first and foremost my interest is in the evidence. And the evidence and facts we know suggest Gordon as the most probable caller. It just does. You can think he didn't call, but at least admit the facts and evidence mostly stack up against Parry.

I also tend to think the murder wasn't definitely personal... I think it might've been a crime of necessity. By most accounts their marriage was a happy one, and to me my mind jumps to the discovery of some type of affair as the catalyst... If William had Julia murdered I suspect that was the motive. But that's just a theory.

Much is made of the risk that Wallace would have taken in lying about which tram stop he used on that Monday night and I’ve felt the same way. But look at it from Wallace’s viewpoint. It’s important to recall that he had no way of knowing that the call would eventually have been traced to that particular phone box so, as long as he wasn’t seen exiting the box, the police wouldn’t have been able to tie him to that box and therefore the Qualtrough call. A guilty Wallace therefore would have been better off saying that he caught the tram near to the call box.

And so Wallace plays it by ear. He gets onto the tram. Perhaps there was no one downstairs. Perhaps there was a couple in conversation and paying him no attention, neither of whom was familiar to Wallace. Maybe the conductor was upstairs when the tram pulled away from the stop near the box? So it’s possible that William had a level of confidence that no one could place him getting on the tram at the call box stop.

Its possible that William simply wanted to distance himself from the call box and so, after seeing that he’d been lucky with the tram, he felt that he could say that he’d caught the tram near to Belmont Road - in the opposite direction. If he had been seen getting on by the call box then no loss - he’d say that he caught it near a call box which couldn’t be connected to the Qualtrough call.

The desire to place himself as far away from the call box stop as he might reasonably have might explain why William illogically walked past two serviceable tram stops to get to the one near to Belmont Road.

I think that we also tend to assume that the area around the call box was like Piccadilly Circus. We weren’t there on a dark night near an unlit call box at the apex of a triangular garden with overhanging trees and bushes. Wallace might have found it none-too-difficult to have made the call unseen. Who bothers looking into a phone box? If someone saw Wallace in the unlit box they were hardly likely to have been able to have identified him.


If these events had occurred today then we would be absolutely correct in saying that William took a massive risk if he’d lied about which tram stop he used but in 1931 things were different. The fact that William was under the impression that the call couldn’t have been traced to that particular box changes the way we should look at things. When William was asked by the police which stop he’d used I just wish someone had have asked him - why did you walk past two stops to get to that one?