Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Abby Normal]

I think before she had time to consider that 'time was getting on,' she was dead.
The chess club arrival , well, arriving dead on time IS punctual. No?

No. Neither is leaving for a 7:30 meeting at the last second.

[OneRound]

No. Neither is leaving for a 7:30 meeting at the last second.

Hi Abby - now that is something I wouldn't do for a potentially valuable business meeting and it surprises me that Wallace cut it so fine if he was entirely innocent.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock - whilst I appreciate much of your reasoning indicating Wallace's guilt, do we actually know this would have been the case? From my slightly similar experience (albeit not chess), the latecomer usually just gets moaned at and then the game gets underway.

Do we know if Wallace's opponents always arrived in decent time? Although I'm punctual in most walks of life, I don't tend to be too fussed for a game when I know others are likely to be late. Maybe Wallace felt the same.

Best regards,
OneRound

I’m not saying that an opponent would always be so churlish as to claim the game for being slightly late. If matches started at 7.45 each week Wallace would have gotten into a routine over the years. He was a punctual, well organised man. I don’t see why it’s a problem for anyone to accept that it’s unlikely in the extreme that Wallace wouldn’t have usually gotten to chess club with time to spare. Being on time shows respect. Less so today maybe but this was 1931.

Wallace arriving at 7.45 is suspicious. Not proof of guilt of course but suspicious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS, but we should point out that we only know Wallace arrived at "about 7:45". And we do not know what time he normally arrived at the chess club, or indeed what time he normally left to go there. It's more of your "endless complications" point.

But, assuming he was later than usual, what else could have made Wallace late?

A. The fact that there was not a normal tram service running on 20.1.31. It was only the No. 14 with a frequency of 8-9 minutes.

Hi Antony,

We don’t know what time he normally arrived at the chessclub but it’s surely a reasonable assumption that he’d have planned to arrive in good time. Say 10-15 minutes before the games were scheduled to begin. Cutting it too fine increasedthe risk of him being late. Wallace gives the impression of a punctual, well organised man.

Even with trams only running every 8 or 9 minutes I’d still expect Wallace to have been fully aware of this as he’d been attending the club for years.

As a reasonable general rule if soneone had attended something for years but was late on one occaision then there’s usually a reason. I just can’t see Wallace as someone who was regularly late.

[ColdCaseJury]

I’m not saying that an opponent would always be so churlish as to claim the game for being slightly late. If matches started at 7.45 each week Wallace would have gotten into a routine over the years. He was a punctual, well organised man. I don’t see why it’s a problem for anyone to accept that it’s unlikely in the extreme that Wallace wouldn’t have usually gotten to chess club with time to spare. Being on time shows respect. Less so today maybe but this was 1931.

Wallace arriving at 7.45 is suspicious. Not proof of guilt of course but suspicious.

HS, his routine may have been later than usual because of the irregular tram service on the night of 19.1.31 - it was a reduced service because of a tunnel collapse in Dale Street earlier that night. Wallace would not have known about it, almost for sure. But that aside, the quickest journey time door-to-door by tram was 24 minutes. The earliest Wallace could have arrived was 7:39 and this assumes he boarded the tram immediately at Belmont Rd.

[moste]

Hi Antony,

We don’t know what time he normally arrived at the chessclub but it’s surely a reasonable assumption that he’d have planned to arrive in good time. Say 10-15 minutes before the games were scheduled to begin. Cutting it too fine increasedthe risk of him being late. Wallace gives the impression of a punctual, well organised man.

Even with trams only running every 8 or 9 minutes I’d still expect Wallace to have been fully aware of this as he’d been attending the club for years.

As a reasonable general rule if soneone had attended something for years but was late on one occaision then there’s usually a reason. I just can’t see Wallace as someone who was regularly late.

I agree,

So given all of this, would it not be reasonable to expect Wallace to be ahead of the game when it came to the meeting that had been tentatively made for 7 30 pm the next night, with a man he didn't know, at an address he hadn't been able to confirm,(or hadn't bothered to confirm)(since for 22 hours he had not had the opportunity to consult a current map or directory) and thereby be consciously needing to leave his house for 6 30 pm,thereby allowing himself 1 hour to take the 3 trams and whatever walking was required , in order to keep his excellent timekeeping reputation in tact.
This whole Qualtrough thing stinks! me thinks.

[ColdCaseJury]

I agree,

So given all of this, would it not be reasonable to expect Wallace to be ahead of the game when it came to the meeting that had been tentatively made for 7 30 pm the next night, with a man he didn't know, at an address he hadn't been able to confirm,(or hadn't bothered to confirm)(since for 22 hours he had not had the opportunity to consult a current map or directory) and thereby be consciously needing to leave his house for 6 30 pm,thereby allowing himself 1 hour to take the 3 trams and whatever walking was required , in order to keep his excellent timekeeping reputation in tact.
This whole Qualtrough thing stinks! me thinks.

Hi, if you believe Wallace would have left hour before his meeting, then yes he was running late because of Close.

But the night of the Call is important.

Wallace leaves at "about 7:15". If we assume 7:15, the earliest Wallace can get to the chess club is 7:39 (whether via the tram stop by the kiosk or at Belmont Rd as I explain in my book) if he boards immediately.

On 19.1.31 the No. 13 tram was diverted, only the No. 14 was running (frequency 8-9 minutes). A reasonable assumption is that with the No. 13, frequency was 4-5 minutes. So, Wallace over the years might have had, on average, a 2-3 minute wait at a stop before boarding.

If he leaves at 7:15PM, he would have expected to get there at 7:41-7:42. Even if he left a few minutes earlier than 7:15PM, this is not allowing 10-15 minutes to spare. To get 10-15minutes spare, he should have left as early as 7:05PM.

But on the 19.1.31, the average wait time would have been 4-5 minutes. If he left at 7:15PM, then he would have arrived at the chess club between 7:43-7:44. This seems to explain his arrival at "about 7:45" very well.

Now, I'm not saying this is what happened. He can, of course, make the Qualtrough Call and arrive at the chess club at 7:44 if he boarded the tram by the kiosk immediately. But even if he waited 2-3 minutes he risked forfeiting his game. If he had to wait 4-5 minutes, he gets there at 7:48-7:49 but still possibly near enough to believe he arrived at "about 7:45". But one would imagine he would have left at 7:05PM if he had to make the call and arrive at the chess club with 10-15 minutes to spare, if that was his normal practice.

My point is this. We cannot claim that Wallace would have planned to be at the chess club with 10-15 minutes to spare and then also apply this behaviour (arriving with ample excess time to spare) to the night of the murder. Not if we wish to be evidentially based, given the facts we have.

As it stands, I believe the facts on the night of the call are more consistent with Wallace not making the call.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi, if you believe Wallace would have left hour before his meeting, then yes he was running late because of Close.

But the night of the Call is important.

Wallace leaves at "about 7:15". If we assume 7:15, the earliest Wallace can get to the chess club is 7:39 (whether via the tram stop by the kiosk or at Belmont Rd as I explain in my book) if he boards immediately.

On 19.1.31 the No. 13 tram was diverted, only the No. 14 was running (frequency 8-9 minutes). A reasonable assumption is that with the No. 13, frequency was 4-5 minutes. So, Wallace over the years might have had, on average, a 2-3 minute wait at a stop before boarding.

If he leaves at 7:15PM, he would have expected to get there at 7:41-7:42. Even if he left a few minutes earlier than 7:15PM, this is not allowing 10-15 minutes to spare. To get 10-15minutes spare, he should have left as early as 7:05PM.

But on the 19.1.31, the average wait time would have been 4-5 minutes. If he left at 7:15PM, then he would have arrived at the chess club between 7:43-7:44. This seems to explain his arrival at "about 7:45" very well.

Now, I'm not saying this is what happened. He can, of course, make the Qualtrough Call and arrive at the chess club at 7:44 if he boarded the tram by the kiosk immediately. But even if he waited 2-3 minutes he risked forfeiting his game. If he had to wait 4-5 minutes, he gets there at 7:48-7:49 but still possibly near enough to believe he arrived at "about 7:45". But one would imagine he would have left at 7:05PM if he had to make the call and arrive at the chess club with 10-15 minutes to spare, if that was his normal practice.

My point is this. We cannot claim that Wallace would have planned to be at the chess club with 10-15 minutes to spare and then also apply this behaviour (arriving with ample excess time to spare) to the night of the murder. Not if we wish to be evidentially based, given the facts we have.

As it stands, I believe the facts on the night of the call are more consistent with Wallace not making the call.

Antony,

To be clear, you are saying that, with the trams operation a normal service, Wallace would have arrived at the club by 6.39 at the earliest had he left the house at 7.15?

If that’s the case I’d still suggest the likelihood that Wallace would have wanted to get there earlier than that. This is still only 6 minutes before he’s due to play his match. Most people would want a few minutes to warm up after the journey. Maybe buy a cup of tea; greet a friend or two with a chat?

My point is this. We cannot claim that Wallace would have planned to be at the chess club with 10-15 minutes to spare and then also apply this behaviour (arriving with ample excess time to spare) to the night of the murder. Not if we wish to be evidentially based, given the facts we have.

We can if we accept that 10 or 15 minutes to spare might have been considered sufficient by an innocent Wallace on the night of the murder.

[RodCrosby]

This section of the case also deals with just the first three of the nine-or-ten-rounds-of-russian-roulette that a guilty Wallace would have had to have planned and evaluated as being worth the risk...

1) Wallace had to be confident he would not be seen at the phone-box, nor approaching or leaving it. [Wallace was tall, distinctive and extremely well-known in the district, and the box was at a major junction of four busy roads]

AND

2) Wallace had to be confident that no-one, e.g. the conductor or a passenger who recognised him, would recall him boarding at the tram stop only 25 yards from the phone-box. [Wallace stated that he boarded at another stop, some 555 yards away, and the Police offered no evidence to the contrary]

AND

3) Wallace had to be confident that Beattie - who knew him well - would not recognise his voice, and be steadfast, under later pressure, that it was not Wallace on the line. [We might add that Wallace had a distinctive non-Liverpudlian accent, and the telephone operator - who was a native-Liverpudlian - described the voice as "ordinary". And of course, for some bizarre reason a 'guilty' Wallace draws attention to himself, allowing the call to be later traced to the phone-box...]

[ColdCaseJury]

Antony,

To be clear, you are saying that, with the trams operation a normal service, Wallace would have arrived at the club by 7.39 at the earliest had he left the house at 7.15? YES, assuming he had not made a call and did not wait for a tram.

If that’s the case I’d still suggest the likelihood that Wallace would have wanted to get there earlier than that. This is still only 6 minutes before he’s due to play his match. Most people would want a few minutes to warm up after the journey. Maybe buy a cup of tea; greet a friend or two with a chat.

OK, that's your view, but how can we square that with the 7:15 departure? Wallace lied? However, if he had to make a call, he would have surely left even earlier.

We can if we accept that 10 or 15 minutes to spare might have been considered sufficient by an innocent Wallace on the night of the murder.

YES. An innocent Wallace might have allowed 10-15 minutes and left at 6:45PM. But a guilty Wallace who planned his murder on the arrival of the milk boy at 6:20PM, was allowing at least 30 minutes.

All aspects of the call are important.

[RodCrosby]

During my researches I have recently come across this case. Betts was hanged on 3rd January 1931, less than three weeks before the Wallace murder. Ridley was reprieved from the gallows, and served just 5 years.

Betts and Ridley had entered into a plan, which involved a measure of violence, to rob an elderly man named Andrews whom they knew to carry large sums of money on behalf of his employer. During the course of the robbery, Betts struck Andrews a blow either with his clenched fist but much more probably with some kind of weapon, as a result of which he died. Meanwhile, Ridley had remained in the car to which Betts returned after the robbery with the cash which was divided up between the two men.

Betts did not give evidence; but Ridley did. He accepted that he had been a party to an agreement that Andrews would be robbed, but said that he anticipated only that the deceased would be pushed down and the bag snatched from him, and he was not a party to any agreement that violence of any kind should be used. Both Betts and Ridley were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. Avory J in the Court of Criminal Appeal, it is submitted, rightly said that such a scheme to rob a man in such circumstances could not be carried out without the probability at least of violence having to be used in order to get possession of the money.

Ridley's counsel, however, argued that before they could convict Ridley of murder, they should have been directed that there existed between the two men a common design that such violence should be used as, in the contemplation of a reasonable man, would be likely to result in death or at least in grievous bodily harm to the intended victim. Insofar as the test for complicity argued for was objective, that is clearly inconsistent with modern notions of criminal responsibility based on subjective foresight; but what is important here is the argument (based as it was on authorities such as Easts Pleas of the Crown and Russell on Crime) that death had to follow as a likely consequence of the common purpose.
Avory J said:

Even if Betts did vary in the manner of execution of this agreed plan to rob, and obviously it must have been a plan to rob with some degree of violence, Ridley being present as a principal in the second degree, was equally responsible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080801102803/http://www.bond.edu.au/study-areas/law/publications/BLR/vol2-2/Cato2_2.pdf

Victor Edward Betts - hanged at HMP Winson Green Birmingham,3rd January 1931

The job had been carefully planned. They had watched a number of times as the old man went about his regular routine of walking to the National Provincial Bank at Six Ways, banking the takings from William Taylor and Co., drapers, of Potters Hill, Aston, Birmingham, and, when his appearance at the bank could be anticipated almost to the minute, they decided it was time to their put plan into action.
Sixty three-year-old William Thomas Andrews had worked for Taylor and Co. for over thirty years, having risen to the position of head porter and it was his responsibility to see that the wages were collected, and takings deposited at the bank on a daily basis. At just after 2pm on Monday afternoon, 21 July 1930, Andrews collected a bag with the weekend’s takings of just over nine hundred pounds, along with the paying in book, and set out on the five-minute walk to the bank. It was a journey he would never complete.
Earlier that lunchtime, two 21-year-olds, Victor Betts and Herbert Ridley, had called into Rose Garage on Park Road and arranged to hire a yellow Morris Cowley four-seat saloon. Coal merchant Thomas Young of Holte Road owned the car and, after the youths told him they wanted it for an hour or so, to take an elderly relatives across the city, they agreed on a price and Ridley signed the hire agreement.
It had been Betts who had first hit on the idea of robbing the old man. He was unemployed and eking out a meagre living as a street gambler when he noticed Andrews carrying his bag of money to the bank. When he saw him a second and then a third time over the coming days, he discussed his plans with a number of his criminally-inclined friends before settling on lorry driver Ridley, the only one of his friends who could drive. This was an essential part of his plan.
That afternoon, with Ridley at the wheel of their hire car, they parked up on the corner of Victoria Road and Rifle Crescent, adjacent to the bank, and waited. When Betts saw Andrews approach he climbed out and hid around the corner. As the man passed him, Betts struck him on the head and pushed him to the ground. He then snatched the bag and, as the car screeched up alongside, he tossed it into the back and climbed into the front seat as Ridley sped away.
Van driver Charles Dowd was driving down Victoria Road when he saw the attack. At the same moment a yellow car had pulled up and the assailant climbed in. As it sped off he attempted to give chase but soon lost it as it reached the Six Ways junction. Dowd was able to give a good description of the car and it was quickly traced to Rose Garage, where detectives learned that it had been hired by Ridley. Officers hurried to his rooms on Barton Street, but found he had already absconded. The car was later found abandoned containing the bag lying empty on the back seat. Officers had by now also learned the identity of Ridley’s accomplice and, with Andrews lying in hospital with a fractured skull, a hunt for his attackers began. The hunt for the thieves became a murder enquiry when Andrews died from his injuries three days later from a fractured skull sustained in the fall. He never regained consciousness.
It was to be almost two weeks later before detectives had the attackers in custody. On Sunday, August 6 a car was involved in an accident in Sussex. There had been four people in the car, two young men and two women, when it ran into a ditch, and when officers went to follow up the incident at an address the men had given they found a link with the murder in Birmingham.
The enquiry then focused on the south coast, and on the following Tuesday night Ridley was picked up in Brighton. When searched he was found to be carrying over a hundred and fifty pounds. Betts was picked up later that night and when officers searched their rooms at Grand Parade they found another two hundred and fifty pounds. Taken into custody and brought back to Birmingham, both admitted being involved in the robbery and, from the outset, Ridley maintained he had merely driven the getaway car.
Their two-day murder trial before Mr Commissioner Mitchell-Innes at Warwickshire Assizes began on 4 December. In the case of Ridley, his defence again maintained that he had only been the driver of the car. He said that when they planned the robbery, Betts had told him he simply planned to push Andrews to the ground and snatch the bag. Ridley claimed that had he known Betts intended to use violence he would have taken no part in the crime.
Betts’ defence was that he had not intended to kill and therefore he was only guilty of manslaughter. Betts said he had used minimal force and his counsel produced medical evidence to show that Andrews had an abnormally thin skull.
Despite this, the prosecution claimed it was a brutal attack on an innocent man going about his business and that both had undertaken the attack and, while Ridley may have claimed to have merely acted as the driver in the actual crime, he had been a willing accomplice and had received an equal share of the spoils. Having considered their verdict, the jury returned to find Betts guilty of murder and, as Ridley had been party to the common design, they found him equally guilty. Both were sentenced to death and each immediately launched an appeal.
The partners in crime would not hang side by side, although preparations were well underway for what would be a rare double execution at the gaol. Just days before the sentences were due to be carried out, the Home Secretary announced a reprieve in the case of Ridley. His appeal had been successful. Spared the gallows, he was sentenced instead to life imprisonment. There was to be no such mercy for Victor Betts, deemed the mastermind behind the crime and, the man who had yielded the fatal blow, and he walked to the gallows on a frosty and foggy Saturday morning, 3 January 1931.
Herbert Charles Ridley would serve just five years before being released on licence in December 1935.
https://www.facebook.com/36982019314...3807506410992/

Since the Jogee case [2016], it's unlikely Ridley (albeit reprieved) would have been convicted of murder in the first place, if that murder occurred today.

But back in 1931, Parry was at risk of the noose, depending on the specific facts that came out at any hypothetical trial.

OTOH, if it could be shown that Parry merely envisaged sneak-thievery, and that no weapon was carried into the house with his knowledge (or at all), he might have been convicted merely of Burglary...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose#English_law

But to pin anything at all on Parry, in practice the Police would have needed to first track down the killer... A tough nut to crack!

[moste]

I’m not saying that an opponent would always be so churlish as to claim the game for being slightly late. If matches started at 7.45 each week Wallace would have gotten into a routine over the years. He was a punctual, well organised man. I don’t see why it’s a problem for anyone to accept that it’s unlikely in the extreme that Wallace wouldn’t have usually gotten to chess club with time to spare. Being on time shows respect. Less so today maybe but this was 1931.

Wallace arriving at 7.45 is suspicious. Not proof of guilt of course but suspicious.

I agree with all this ,but, If he was as we believe guilty of his wife's murder. Despite making the effort to get to the club on time,(and after making the call to the club) if he had arrived ten mins. late, and had to forfeit a game, I don't believe he would have cared a jot.' Apologies all round there was a mess up with the tram journey due to a tunnel collapse'! What's the big deal?
We may say Wallace was a very punctual man and would under normal circumstances be mortified at his own tardiness, but tomorrow he's going to
commit the ultimate crime, I don't believe he is fuzzed about an amateur chess game.

[ColdCaseJury]

I agree with all this ,but, If he was as we believe guilty of his wife's murder. Despite making the effort to get to the club on time,(and after making the call to the club) if he had arrived ten mins. late, and had to forfeit a game, I don't believe he would have cared a jot.' Apologies all round there was a mess up with the tram journey due to a tunnel collapse'! What's the big deal?
We may say Wallace was a very punctual man and would under normal circumstances be mortified at his own tardiness, but tomorrow he's going to
commit the ultimate crime, I don't believe he is fuzzed about an amateur chess game.

Hi Moste,

He wasn't concerned about missing a chess game, but giving the police reason to believe he was late because he made the call. Hence, he wanted to be on time, especially if he was routinely punctual, and even more so if he normally arrived with 10-15 minutes to spare. It's symmetrical to the night of the murder. He would not want to be inside his house for a long time after Close called and allow the police to say "Well, you had ample time to kill her before you left", which is exactly what they did say after they had massaged Close's timings (which is undoubtedly the case). HS believes Wallace did not need as much time as the police believed - and we're reconstructing how that might look using a much more realistic assessment of when Close most likely called.

[moste]

Interestingly, even though the chess club worked as a perfect lead up to his alibi's. the detective's weren't buying it, and still weren't after his successful appeal.

[moste]

Hi Moste,

He wasn't concerned about missing a chess game, but giving the police reason to believe he was late because he made the call. Hence, he wanted to be on time, especially if he was routinely punctual, and even more so if he normally arrived with 10-15 minutes to spare. It's symmetrical to the night of the murder. He would not want to be inside his house for a long time after Close called and allow the police to say "Well, you had ample time to kill her before you left", which is exactly what they did say after they had massaged Close's timings (which is undoubtedly the case). HS believes Wallace did not need as much time as the police believed - and we're reconstructing how that might look using a much more realistic assessment of when Close most likely called.

So the police , were not buying the fact that there had been tram delays then?