Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. It is a leap of faith to assume he just got confused. That would be quite weird. It's not like, a common thing when people are interviewed.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can’t for a minute see Wallace using someone else. Least of all Parry. This was a personal murder. Why would Wallace involve Parry by getting him to make the call? What reason would Wallace have to have confidence that Parry wouldn’t spill the beans if put under any pressure?

Once Wallace was on the Monday night tram journey what if the tram was empty from the stop near to the phone box until the Breck Road stop and so Wallace knew that there was no one to say that he got on at the phone box stop? What if the conductor was upstairs taking fairs and chatting away and didn’t come back downstairs until the tram pulled away from the Breck Road stop? If questioned later he couldn’t have said that William got on at the call box.

Before the journey Wallace would have had no issue with admitting that he’d caught the tram at the stop near to the call box if he’d been seen because he had no way of knowing that the call would be traced to the box.

[WallaceWackedHer]

OK, WWH. Over to you. When is your book out?

I would put together something very good if I could get the files.

I just don't believe you can say in good faith that you believe the theory you say you do. I fail to believe you think it's correct. The book is marketed as having some new theory that finally might crack the case. So I think you have a vested interested to "believe" it. I know you wouldn't be able to admit if I'm right, but there's just no way anyone with sanity could believe it's the best solution.

The theory is just like something someone chucked together while eating donuts and smoking weed. It's so illogical.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I can’t see why this is a leap of faith? The alternative is that Parry was monumentally stupid in giving the police an alibi that he would have known would be checked and easily disproven thus leaving him looking guilty as sin. Why didn’t he simply prepare some kind of alibi with one of his dodgy mates? He didn’t even ask Lily to lie for him but she refused or he wouldn’t have proceeded with the story knowing that she wasn’t going to back him up. It also couldn’t have been the case that Lily had agreed to back him up and then changed her mind as the relationship would hardly have survived it. So we are left with Parry knowingly dropping himself right in it.

But if we have Parry who regularly met up with Lily under very similar circumstances and at very similar times it’s no real stretch to say that he got the events of that day confused with other days. And if Parry was innocent of course, as I believe him to have been, then he’d have had no reason to have distinguished that Monday from any other. I think that we often look at this scenario in terms of - how could he have not known what he did on such an important night as the night of the phone call? But to an innocent man; a man going about his normal business this evening was no different or worthy of remembering than any other.

Do you not know what you were doing a couple of days ago? He didn't just slightly mix things up, it was flagrantly wrong, and all the timings etc. match up, his odd barging in on Lily's lesson, the mention of a 21st birthday party.

It is a leap of faith to assume he just got confused. That would be quite weird. It's not like, a common thing when people are interviewed.

I have terrible memory and even I know what I was doing 2 days ago. 3 days ago. 4 days ago. I would know if I'd met up with my girlfriend on a certain day or w.e. lol, I'd remember barging in on her lesson.

He fits as the caller. Keep William as the wacker that's fine, the identity of the killer is puzzling, but Gordon is simply the best fit as the caller. The sole evidence against Wallace being the caller is that someone claimed it was an old man's voice. You have to then assume more things, like that he lied about the tram route.

You could use the same argument there. Why would William lie about something so easily checked?

We know for a FACT Gordon lied but we don't know Wallace lied about his route. If he did he could've pretended he went down Pendennis the usual way. Like if he's gonna lie why not go all out?

We also know with high certainty that Parry's weird arrival at Lily's fits with the timing of the call, but we DON'T know with any certainty that William's timing matches considering the tram route wasn't checked.

With all evidence in considerstion, Gordon likely made that phone call.

With a evidence in consideration Julia was assassinated in a premeditated fashion. I think I can almost PROVE this was a murder (or planned murder and robbery) NOT a burglary gone wrong. And again fhe ridiculous theory shoehorning where the burglar apparently came into the parlor with cash hanging out of his pocket (which I guess Julia knew was from the cash box somehow), like the burglary theories I've read are absolutely appalling and biased, and so illogical as to be essentially a Punch and Judy show.

This is what the facts indicate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

think it is supported by the evidence and doesn't require leaps of faith like suggesting Gordon "forgot" what he had done that day rather than faking an alibi because he was guilty of calling.

I can’t see why this is a leap of faith? The alternative is that Parry was monumentally stupid in giving the police an alibi that he would have known would be checked and easily disproven thus leaving him looking guilty as sin. Why didn’t he simply prepare some kind of alibi with one of his dodgy mates? He didn’t even ask Lily to lie for him but she refused or he wouldn’t have proceeded with the story knowing that she wasn’t going to back him up. It also couldn’t have been the case that Lily had agreed to back him up and then changed her mind as the relationship would hardly have survived it. So we are left with Parry knowingly dropping himself right in it.

But if we have Parry who regularly met up with Lily under very similar circumstances and at very similar times it’s no real stretch to say that he got the events of that day confused with other days. And if Parry was innocent of course, as I believe him to have been, then he’d have had no reason to have distinguished that Monday from any other. I think that we often look at this scenario in terms of - how could he have not known what he did on such an important night as the night of the phone call? But to an innocent man; a man going about his normal business this evening was no different or worthy of remembering than any other.

[ColdCaseJury]

The logic is its weakness, everything is.

Absolutely nothing about the scene matches with what would be expected if this is what happened.

I could write a WAYYYYY more plausible version of the same theory but the one in your book is close to 0% in terms of probability but you defend it gallantly. There's also a lot of weird fictionalizing like Julia seeing "M"s gaudy ring. Like, people who don't know the case might actually think there was a ring found at the scene or something. Lol.

You shut down Yseult Bridges but I'd like to see that backed up with proof she fictionalized the report in her book. I also want the statements from the other Johnston family members. Especially the old coot staying adjacent to the parlor.

But even if I were to fix the theory into something more plausible there are still serious problems. First of all, if he was someone unknown to Julia he would flee if caught. Second of all if he was caught she'd make noise (same if there was an argument). Third of all he'd have to come in the front door hence is way more likely to be spotted and nobody heard the door open or close or knocking, though the Holme family seemed to easily hear the milk boy knocking on the Wallace's front door etc. etc. etc. There are just SO SO SO SO many logical problems with the theory. It's based on a novel and exciting premise and then every fact has been shoehorned into aligning with what is essentially impossible.

It's like, I love the idea of Julia having a lover it seems so neat and obvious, but logically the facts don't align.

What the facts align with is that William knew what was going to happen to Julia, and that Gordon Parry had placed the phone call.

We can argue about the killer all day. Because there are many possibilities - though not including the Johnstons as suspects is ridiculous since there IS a lot of pointers in their direction... But as for Wallace being involved and Gordon placing the call, it's pretty sound. I think it is supported by the evidence and doesn't require leaps of faith like suggesting Gordon "forgot" what he had done that day rather than faking an alibi because he was guilty of calling.

For the killer I do peg Mr. Johnston as a high probability suspect because he can slip in and out unseen the easiest out of anyone, has time on his side (as opposed to William), and fudged his testimony on a few occasions. He NEEDS to be looked at carefully.

OK, WWH. Over to you. When is your book out?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Tut, tut, WWH.

If I wrote a book (like Murphy or any other author on the case) that is clearly a defence of their own position, often sharpening and levelling, then I would have no problem with your statement. But it's not. 300 pages and only 5 are actually an appraisal of my position. I don't mind you calling my position wrong in the slightest but be fair. And of course the accomplice scenario is logically possible... the logic is its strength, its weakness is its empirical foundation.

The logic is its weakness, everything is.

Absolutely nothing about the scene matches with what would be expected if this is what happened.

I could write a WAYYYYY more plausible version of the same theory but the one in your book is close to 0% in terms of probability but you defend it gallantly. There's also a lot of weird fictionalizing like Julia seeing "M"s gaudy ring. Like, people who don't know the case might actually think there was a ring found at the scene or something. Lol.

You shut down Yseult Bridges but I'd like to see that backed up with proof she fictionalized the report in her book. I also want the statements from the other Johnston family members. Especially the old coot staying adjacent to the parlor.

But even if I were to fix the theory into something more plausible there are still serious problems. First of all, if he was someone unknown to Julia he would flee if caught. Second of all if he was caught she'd make noise (same if there was an argument). Third of all he'd have to come in the front door hence is way more likely to be spotted and nobody heard the door open or close or knocking, though the Holme family seemed to easily hear the milk boy knocking on the Wallace's front door etc. etc. etc. There are just SO SO SO SO many logical problems with the theory. It's based on a novel and exciting premise and then every fact has been shoehorned into aligning with what is essentially impossible.

It's like, I love the idea of Julia having a lover it seems so neat and obvious, but logically the facts don't align.

What the facts align with is that William knew what was going to happen to Julia, and that Gordon Parry had placed the phone call.

We can argue about the killer all day. Because there are many possibilities - though not including the Johnstons as suspects is ridiculous since there IS a lot of pointers in their direction... But as for Wallace being involved and Gordon placing the call, it's pretty sound. I think it is supported by the evidence and doesn't require leaps of faith like suggesting Gordon "forgot" what he had done that day rather than faking an alibi because he was guilty of calling.

For the killer I do peg Mr. Johnston as a high probability suspect because he can slip in and out unseen the easiest out of anyone, has time on his side (as opposed to William), and fudged his testimony on a few occasions. He NEEDS to be looked at carefully.

[ColdCaseJury]

It's why Antony who is biased...

Tut, tut, WWH.

If I wrote a book (like Murphy or any other author on the case) that is clearly a defence of their own position, often sharpening and levelling, then I would have no problem with your statement. But it's not. 300 pages and only 5 are actually an appraisal of my position. I don't mind you calling my position wrong in the slightest but be fair. And of course the accomplice scenario is logically possible... the logic is its strength, its weakness is its empirical foundation.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH, I'm sorry for going on and on, although I don't think I'm the only one on this thread who suffers from this. But you cannot understand my position (and my error, in your view) without understanding the importance of the call. You are right about simplicity. Simplicity is a methodological rule you invoke to decide between two theories that explain the facts equally well. If you believe the facts suggest Parry was in the call box then the simplest theory is Parry, but of course this does not fit the fact of his alibi (assuming Brine told the truth). And so on. However, in a case like this, people disagree on the putative facts - e.g. Lily Hall saw Wallace. Also, in Bayesian inductive logic prior probability plays a big role (I won't bore people on the thread with the details) and this gives Wallace (alone) a big head start. If we are correct about the evidence making Parry the probable caller then those that endorse Wallace as the verdict should reduce their confidence in Wallace but could legitimately maintain it is still most probable theory overall for them.

I don't really want to conclude a marginal probability, ultimately I want to solve the case. Of course even a "solved" case is based on probabilities, especially before DNA evidence was a thing. But that's the only thing I'd be satisfied with.

You can use probability to deduce certain things which in conjunction add up together to be overwhelming, to as much of a degree as is possible in an old case.

I was hoping you would add ALL full statements from all witnesses on your website, since otherwise I'll have to take a 3 hour train ride all the way down to Liverpool for the sole purpose of seeing the files. And I'm not even sure if it's free to see them, or if there's loads missing.

Like in the last post I made while enjoying an evening out, as I said I think Wallace would have been truthful about his tram route on the night the call was made. You would know if he gave this route before or AFTER knowing it was traced which would affect that probability... E.g. if he assumes it's NOT traced he has less reason to lie. But even if it was, it would fit with him being stalked. But we can assume there'd be some things he'd overlook...

It also occurred to me that I think William did love Julia. There's a case where I think something similar happened, and that's the murder of Kathleen Peterson. I think it may have been a crime of necessity... We know that William would usually stay home from chess if Julia was unwell (which makes it stranger he went), he was buried with her - I don't think was to cause indignity, but out of love. We know he wrote in his diary about her AFTER she was killed. We suspect he may have been seen crying the day she was killed.

---

Anyway I can agree that I peg Gordon Parry as the most likely caller. The alias picked was used to implicate Parry and Marsden. The cash box was rifled to implicate them.

But do you also concede that

1) The accomplice theory outlined in your book is nearly impossible logically in how it was presented?

2) That entry through the back door was more likely and safer for the intruder.

3) That a neighbor has the best odds of getting in and out without being spotted.

4) Writing and ceossing out west suggrsts suggests either knowledge of the gardens OR that the call was MEANT to say "West:.". Nobody's mishearing east as west.

---

Anyway again my idea is this. Something happened between Julia and Wallace that sparked friction. Considering Julia's vagina was found to be "virginal" I'm not so sure she had a lover or that William ever really slept with her. Therefore I siggest an argument on

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

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.

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

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 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.

[etenguy]

I've heard that idea before.

Indeed - not original but has not been explored as much as other theories.

The issues being that Julia was very old (so I would think unlikely to be gallavanting around with toyboys),

Not suggesting it was a toy boy - maybe someone the same age as her husband or even older than him. Lots of older people still have romantic associations.

Julia had flu at the time, the crime scene is very clinical (no blood tracked out of the room, or on handles etc) suggesting premeditation, to name a few.

I wouldn't describe the crime scene as clinical, but you are right to point out that the mess stayed in the parlour. I do not think that means it was a pre-meditated crime.

The narrative with the evidence runs more smoothly with a lover or romantic liaison across the whole set of information we have, eg:

1. The killer waits for Wallace to leave for his chess club and makes the phone call to get Wallace out the next night too.
2. While Wallace is at his chess club, Julia admits her lover through the back door and they spend time together.
3. The lover leaves before Wallace returns home.
4. Wallace is dubious about going to see Qualtrough but Julia encourages him to go.
5. The lover waits for Wallace to leave before again being admitted through the back door.
6. Julia and her lover spend time in the parlour but it is a little chilly.
7. The visitor is given Wallace's mac to put across his shoulder to keep warm while the fire is started up.
8. There is an incident which enrages the lover, maybe Julia is stopping their liaison.
9. He lashes out and they fall against the fire burning both the mac and her skirt.
10. After the murder he wipes his hands, maybe his shoes too, has a half-hearted attempt at staging a burglary and gets out quick before Wallace returns.

No contradictions, no elaborate plans, no accomplices, no unlikely alliances - just an everyday sad story of a situation that went too far.

The biggest problem with this theory - absolutely no evidence.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I've heard that idea before. The issues being that Julia was very old (so I would think unlikely to be gallavanting around with toyboys), Julia had flu at the time, the crime scene is very clinical (no blood tracked out of the room, or on handles etc) suggesting premeditation, to name a few.

[etenguy]

I get it Antony. I think Parry was in the box. But there's aspects where thenidds aren't great for a theory without Wallace's involvement. I'm out rn but will explain more when home.

I think Wallace went left at Breck Road, Parry went right to the box and placed the call.

I think the phone call is key to understanding what happened. We have restricted the list of people who could have made the phone call to a limited group:
* Wallace disguising his voice to provide a good reason to be out of the house the following night (an alibi building / other suspect motive)
* Parry as someone familiar with the fee collection workings to get Wallace out of the house the night of potentially greatest haul.

In both cases, the purpose of the call was to get Wallace out of the house, or have reason to be out of the house, on Tuesday night.
Whoever made the call had to know Wallace would be going to the Chess club and how to contact the Chess club, neither of which could have been accomplished without some effort or foreknowledge.

IMHO, it makes no sense for Wallace to concoct such a plan, since being at the Chess club all night was a much better alibi than waiting a day to use walking the streets looking for an imaginary address as an alibi. With such a strong alibi for Monday night, I would argue the phone call was unnecessary to create another suspect. A burglary gone wrong would be relatively easy to suggest, particularly as there had been several burglaries already.

IMHO, it makes no sense for Parry either, since he had a clear run on Monday night and it would be risky to rely on the call to get rid of Wallace on Tuesday, Wallace might very well know the address was imaginary. Besides which, no serious attempt at burglary seems to have taken place, undermining the burglary motive.

So is there a third person who meets all the criteria for being able to make the call and who had a strong reason to get rid of Wallace on Tuesday night and does not require a team of people involved in murdering Julia? Someone who might be hanging around for Wallace to leave Monday night making the call before joining Julia. I think we could describe such a person.
* This person would have a good reason for wanting Wallace gone Tuesday night, but it would not be overly problematic for him (must be a him if they made the phone call) if Wallace did not go.
* Their motive would be neither murder or burglary, the murder being unplanned but committed by someone familiar with the house.
* Someone that had good reason to be in the parlour with Julia, did not bring a weapon and improvised as a result of something that happened that night and who then hurriedly and half-heartedly staged a burglary to deflect attention.
* And crucially, someone Julia would admit to the house without hesitation.
* This person would also need a personal connection to Julia in order to explain the seemingly emotional elements that are suggested by the nature of the murder.

That leads me to a suspect who has been described before but who we have largely over-looked in this thread. Partly because we have no name and partly because there is no evidence beyond making the events of that night logical and explaining what happened without the need for unlikely partnerships to commit the crime. Since the police never explored this scenario, and Julia would have done her best to conceal her killer's identity ahead of her murder, it perhaps cannot be proved. But Julia's lover, if he existed, makes better sense of the evidence.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH, I'm sorry for going on and on, although I don't think I'm the only one on this thread who suffers from this. But you cannot understand my position (and my error, in your view) without understanding the importance of the call. You are right about simplicity. Simplicity is a methodological rule you invoke to decide between two theories that explain the facts equally well. If you believe the facts suggest Parry was in the call box then the simplest theory is Parry, but of course this does not fit the fact of his alibi (assuming Brine told the truth). And so on. However, in a case like this, people disagree on the putative facts - e.g. Lily Hall saw Wallace. Also, in Bayesian inductive logic prior probability plays a big role (I won't bore people on the thread with the details) and this gives Wallace (alone) a big head start. If we are correct about the evidence making Parry the probable caller then those that endorse Wallace as the verdict should reduce their confidence in Wallace but could legitimately maintain it is still most probable theory overall for them.

I get it Antony. I think Parry was in the box. But there's aspects where thenidds aren't great for a theory without Wallace's involvement. I'm out rn but will explain more when home.

I think Wallace went left at Breck Road, Parry went right to the box and placed the call.

[ColdCaseJury]

It doesn't really matter how simple something is if probability and logic dictates otherwise.

Calling the club yourself is risky. Initially it might be okay but on trial etc. now there is obvious risk knowing that person is going to re-assess that call knowing you could have been the caller. More to the point, risky is giving an easily falsified tram route which is basically good enough to bury your defence.

But for Parry as the caller it fits entirely. So I don't so much care that William calling is simple, a lot more evidence suggests Gordon Parry placed that phone call EVEN IF Wallace wacked her. That's why Antony goes on and on about the call because the evidence there is on his side for Parry as the caller.

From a totally neutral standpoint you look at this and say "yes the evidence suggests Gordon rang." The difference is I think he rang because William got him to. William went left at the top of that road just like he said he did.

Hi WWH, I'm sorry for going on and on, although I don't think I'm the only one on this thread who suffers from this. But you cannot understand my position (and my error, in your view) without understanding the importance of the call. You are right about simplicity. Simplicity is a methodological rule you invoke to decide between two theories that explain the facts equally well. If you believe the facts suggest Parry was in the call box then the simplest theory is Parry, but of course this does not fit the fact of his alibi (assuming Brine told the truth). And so on. However, in a case like this, people disagree on the putative facts - e.g. Lily Hall saw Wallace. Also, in Bayesian inductive logic prior probability plays a big role (I won't bore people on the thread with the details) and this gives Wallace (alone) a big head start. If we are correct about the evidence making Parry the probable caller then those that endorse Wallace as the verdict should reduce their confidence in Wallace but could legitimately maintain it is still most probable theory overall for them.