Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[moste]

The problem is that no one, no matter who they are, plans to arrive exactly on a deadline. Wallace only had to be a few seconds later and his opponent could have claimed the game.

Wallace would have known the tram times well. Arriving spot-on 7.45 suggests that Wallace had caught a later tram than usual. Therefore we have to ask “what made Wallace late?” He didn’t mention being late or being delayed by anything.

Question: So what could have caused Wallace to have been late on that Monday night that didn’t normally occur?

Answer: The Qualtrough phone call.

If Wallace had made the call ,(and I do believe he was responsible for the call) If he made the call personally, would he likely have tried to pull the wool over the operators eyes and claim he had pushed button 'A'? ,rather he pushed button 'B' then complained he hadn't got through .The operator and her supervisor knew quite well that the caller had pushed 'B' and got his tuppence back. She connected him anyway ,and logged the fact.
This to me is important . since time was of the essence, Wallace would not play games with the GPO over paying the required fee for the call,however at the same time, I see his ploy of setting up a bogus call, to enable his alibi's tomorrow, but I don't believe he was clever enough to know, that Anfield exchange would be able to identify the actual box that the call was made from.
I'm beginning to think Wallace may have had an accomplice

[etenguy]

If Wallace had made the call ,(and I do believe he was responsible for the call) If he made the call personally, would he likely have tried to pull the wool over the operators eyes and claim he had pushed button 'A'? ,rather he pushed button 'B' then complained he hadn't got through .The operator and her supervisor knew quite well that the caller had pushed 'B' and got his tuppence back. She connected him anyway ,and logged the fact.
This to me is important . since time was of the essence, Wallace would not play games with the GPO over paying the required fee for the call,however at the same time, I see his ploy of setting up a bogus call, to enable his alibi's tomorrow, but I don't believe he was clever enough to know, that Anfield exchange would be able to identify the actual box that the call was made from.
I'm beginning to think Wallace may have had an accomplice

You raise an interesting point.

If Wallace had made the call, he would not want to draw attention to the phone box from which the call was made. Nor as you say would he want to waste time with the exchange.

If it were someone else making the call (Parry?), then the messing about with the exchange might have been specifically to call attention to the phone box used (surely it wasn't simply to save the call cost). Did someone intend on murder and want to frame Wallace?

[cobalt]

Did someone intend on murder and want to frame Wallace?


No, I think is the answer. Framing Wallace was probably not part of any plan. I will try to explain later.

BTW, it is clearly ridiculous to believe that Wallace, as part of his masterplan, was so intent on cheating the GPO out of tuppence. He had bigger fish to fry, one assumes. The connection to the phone exchange speaks strongly in his favour, for he had no reason to involve the operator.

Which leads me to the murder weapon, never found, but assumed to be either a metal bar or a poker from around the fireplace. Two of them? We only have the word of a weekly cleaning woman, but two weapons for me is one too many. Was the metal bar where the poker rested? No matter, it is reasonable to assume, given the locus of the attack, that the weapon came from around the fireplace.

Why remove it from the murder scene? And more particularly, why remove two? For Wallace it may have been that his bloody fingerprints were on it, so he had no option. He did, of course, have the option of washing it and wiping it clean, but that would have looked mightily suspicious to any detective finding it in the house. Better to take it on his travels to the Menlove area and dump it somewhere.

For an intruder the same would apply. But actually cleaning and wiping the weapon, then leaving it in the house, would have incriminated Wallace, if that were part of the plan. So no, I think there was no conspiracy to frame Wallace. An intruder presumably panicked, gave it a cursory wipe, and took it with him to be deposited elsewhere. But if, and that is a big if, it was Parry, and he mentioned dumping the weapon near a doctor’s drain, in theory it should still be there. Or have been discovered some time later when the drain traps were being cleaned.

I think we need to think more about which was the murder weapon- why two missing items- and why it was chosen at the moment of attack. This has the hallmarks of a sudden rage, not a planned murder.

[cobalt]

The poker was a symbol of male authority within the house. Wallace must have noticed it was missing on his return.


But then I am not sure whether the Wallace household had a gas fire, which would mean there was no need of a poker.

[etenguy]

Did someone intend on murder and want to frame Wallace?


No, I think is the answer. Framing Wallace was probably not part of any plan. I will try to explain later.

BTW, it is clearly ridiculous to believe that Wallace, as part of his masterplan, was so intent on cheating the GPO out of tuppence. He had bigger fish to fry, one assumes. The connection to the phone exchange speaks strongly in his favour, for he had no reason to involve the operator.

Which leads me to the murder weapon, never found, but assumed to be either a metal bar or a poker from around the fireplace. Two of them? We only have the word of a weekly cleaning woman, but two weapons for me is one too many. Was the metal bar where the poker rested? No matter, it is reasonable to assume, given the locus of the attack, that the weapon came from around the fireplace.

Why remove it from the murder scene? And more particularly, why remove two? For Wallace it may have been that his bloody fingerprints were on it, so he had no option. He did, of course, have the option of washing it and wiping it clean, but that would have looked mightily suspicious to any detective finding it in the house. Better to take it on his travels to the Menlove area and dump it somewhere.

For an intruder the same would apply. But actually cleaning and wiping the weapon, then leaving it in the house, would have incriminated Wallace, if that were part of the plan. So no, I think there was no conspiracy to frame Wallace. An intruder presumably panicked, gave it a cursory wipe, and took it with him to be deposited elsewhere. But if, and that is a big if, it was Parry, and he mentioned dumping the weapon near a doctor’s drain, in theory it should still be there. Or have been discovered some time later when the drain traps were being cleaned.

I think we need to think more about which was the murder weapon- why two missing items- and why it was chosen at the moment of attack. This has the hallmarks of a sudden rage, not a planned murder.

A good analysis which talks against Wallace being the murderer I think - in that if Wallace was the murderer, then it had been meticulously planned and a rage killing therefore unlikely. However, if it was a stranger, what on earth could have caused such rage? I can imagine a thief finding it necessary to use force, but this murder suggests more than that.

[ColdCaseJury]

I'm beginning to think Wallace may have had an accomplice

A former poster, AS, also believes this might be a viable theory.

[cobalt]

I think the accomplice theory is the weakest one available. There is no financial or social advantage to assisting Wallace in the murder of his wife that I, or anyone else, has ever seen. Wallace, by nature, was quite a private man, so the whole idea lacks foundation.


We have one of three scenarios: Wallace murdered his wife in a moment of pent up madness- maybe she folded the newspaper the wrong way- and used the Qualtrough phone call as an alibi on the spur of the moment. After all, according to a friend, he was in two minds about pursusing the lead.


Wallace planned the murder meticulously, from his red herring phone call down to the time of the milk boy and his knowledge of the faulty locks on his doors, and knew his neighbours were likley to come out around the time of his arriving.

An intruder, presumably for fnancial gain, gained entry to the house and attacked Julia Wallace in the furtherance of a crime.

Accomplices? None so far as can see.

[moste]

I think the accomplice theory is the weakest one available. There is no financial or social advantage to assisting Wallace in the murder of his wife that I, or anyone else, has ever seen. Wallace, by nature, was quite a private man, so the whole idea lacks foundation.


We have one of three scenarios: Wallace murdered his wife in a moment of pent up madness- maybe she folded the newspaper the wrong way- and used the Qualtrough phone call as an alibi on the spur of the moment. After all, according to a friend, he was in two minds about pursusing the lead.


Wallace planned the murder meticulously, from his red herring phone call down to the time of the milk boy and his knowledge of the faulty locks on his doors, and knew his neighbours were likley to come out around the time of his arriving.

An intruder, presumably for fnancial gain, gained entry to the house and attacked Julia Wallace in the furtherance of a crime.

Accomplices? None so far as can see.

Wallace was a quite and private man, although that didn't prevent him from befriending Parry enough to have him help out on his various insurance routes, albeit, on Parry's offer.
Believe it or not Parry was invited up to Wallace's bedroom where Parry apparently offered to do Wallace's rounds for him while he was laid up in his sick bed.
I don't think the idea of an accomplice entirely lacks foundation.

[RodCrosby]

I think the accomplice theory is the weakest one available. There is no financial or social advantage to assisting Wallace in the murder of his wife that I, or anyone else, has ever seen. Wallace, by nature, was quite a private man, so the whole idea lacks foundation.

Just to avoid confusion, cobalt, "the Accomplice Theory" has been used here as short-hand for my theory (Parry & Accomplice) which Antony feels, on balance, to be "the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history."

Wallace & Accomplice(s), which Antony calls "Conspiracy" was, I think, first mooted in the 1990s by Richard Waterhouse in his pamphlet "The Insurance Man", and was most notably elaborated by John Gannon in "The Killing of Julia Wallace" (2012)

But I agree "Conspiracy" is a very weak theory, utterly without foundation and against common sense and the evidence presented.

[RodCrosby]

The poker was a symbol of male authority within the house. Wallace must have noticed it was missing on his return.


But then I am not sure whether the Wallace household had a gas fire, which would mean there was no need of a poker.

"Male authority" in 1931 did not extend to domestic duties...

There was a gas fire in the parlour, and an iron bar there for "cleaning" underneath.

There was a range (coal fire/oven/back boiler) in the middle kitchen, and a small poker was employed there.

The char-woman stated both poker and bar were missing.
Wallace suggested that Julia may have thrown the poker out previously, and averred that he knew nothing of a bar in the parlour.

[moste]

Wallace was a quite and private man, although that didn't prevent him from befriending Parry enough to have him help out on his various insurance routes, albeit, on Parry's offer.
Believe it or not Parry was invited up to Wallace's bedroom where Parry apparently offered to do Wallace's rounds for him while he was laid up in his sick bed.
I don't think the idea of an accomplice entirely lacks foundation.

Wallace was a quite and private man, who interacted with 600 separate persons on his prudential insurance rounds, where on occasions went into favoured customers homes for a cup of tea and a brief chat. He also was a member of the central Liverpool chess club, as a social outlet. Also I just found out he enjoyed lawn bowling , in the summer which usually involves teams , (wonder if he used Richmond Private bowling club which was/is just over the next row of houses in the next street).
We may have to have a rethink Cobalt, on the demeanor, and type of person William Herbert Wallace was.
P S was it yourself wondering about the heating at 29 Wolverton? The Living/kitchen room there was a coal fire ,and in the front parlour a gas fire.

[RodCrosby]

Wallace was a quite and private man, who interacted with 600 separate persons on his prudential insurance rounds, where on occasions went into favoured customers homes for a cup of tea and a brief chat. He also was a member of the central Liverpool chess club, as a social outlet. Also I just found out he enjoyed lawn bowling , in the summer which usually involves teams , (wonder if he used Richmond Private bowling club which was/is just over the next row of houses in the next street).
We may have to have a rethink Cobalt, on the demeanor, and type of person William Herbert Wallace was.
P S was it yourself wondering about the heating at 29 Wolverton? The Living/kitchen room there was a coal fire ,and in the front parlour a gas fire.

The type of person Wallace was:-
aside from a rather sad, ill, old duffer - "old-fashioned", "slow-moving" - playing chess and bowls, listening to Ibsen-plays on the wireless, reading the "Armchair Scientist", the "Financial Times", and the "Meditations of Marcus Aurelius". Interested in plants, the natural world via a microscope, and scratching a tune out on a fiddle. Known, with his wife, in the district as "Darby & Joan"...

What is there to re-think?

[cobalt]

Thanks for the clarification regarding the heating, but can I just confirm that Julia Wallace was killed in the room where there was a coal fire? That would bring a poker into play.


In my childhood my father controlled the poker, to open the 'damper' inside the chimney that might allow the boiler to be heated. My mother controlled the kitchen; her symbolic power came through the breadknife. The message was clear: Men- stay out of the kitchen; Women- stay away from the hearth.

[RodCrosby]

No cobalt, in the parlour with the gas fire.

[RodCrosby]

The kitchen, where the Wallaces (and most other folk in 1931) lived, was where the cash-box was located (circled). The range fire was located here.