Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

Well certainly Wallace - whether guilty or not - was in dire need of some other suspect apart from himself. The husband is always going to be the prime suspect without evidence against anyone else. Clearly, Qualtrough served that purpose very well, being a mystery suspect. But was he and Wallace one and the same?

Hi Caz - you make some good points. It's true that Wallace would be a prime suspect. I'm not sure Qualtrough would be Wallace's best bet for an alternative suspect, and it turned out it cast more doubt on Wallace than if he hadn't been mentioned. But Wallace might have thought it would help. If Wallace had made the call though, Beattie would not have been so adamant that the caller was not Wallace. You can only disguise your voice so much, but I guess it is possible he fooled Beattie. But it was a risk that his voice would have been recognised and there were less risky, better options open to him, including the one Rod mentioned in his response to you. I think there needs to be a more satisfactory reason for inventing Qualtrough.

Also, the fact that Parry was obviously a wrong'un doesn't really help. If it's evidence that he had it in him to batter someone to death, it could also be seen as the reason Wallace named him to the police. Just as he needed Qualtrough as his alternative suspect, he needed someone who could be identified as a local bad boy, who knew the Wallaces and the City Cafe well enough to fit the bill. Parry, if not guilty, was extremely convenient for Wallace, regardless of who did kill Julia. If the whole thing was planned by Wallace, almost like a game of chess, he absolutely had to have someone just like Parry, who could be his Qualtrough too.

I won't repeat Rod's response, but he made some good points. Wallace didn't really point the finger at Parry, but assuming Wallace was innocent, he must have suspected him, as later on he definitely did. If Wallace really did plan this out like a series of chess moves and was looking for a key suspect to cast the blame, it is unlikely he would have left Parry's whereabouts to chance in case he had an alibi (as he did). He would have had a plan to deal with Parry if he were that organised, I think.

One other thing for now...

Does anyone find it a bit odd that when Beattie gave Wallace the address, as 25 Menlove Gardens East, Wallace initially repeated it as 25 Menlove Gardens West, before Beattie corrected him and said the caller had definitely said East? It's almost as though Wallace was having an uncanny premonition about the events of the following evening, 24 hours before he could - or should - have known there would be such significance attached to the difference between East and West!

That is a little odd. He may just have misheard, but I think it more likely he knew of Menlove Gardens West and jumped to that conclusion before Beattie had reached the end of his sentence. Certainly I have been guilty of similar in the past. If it were deliberate, it would be to emphasise in Beattie's memory that it was East. But Beattie remembering ,east or west would make little difference I think - it was written down.

Oh, just one more thing...

The evidence suggests the front door was bolted from the inside when Wallace returned home, in which case his key would have been no use at all when he tried to unlock it. Assuming he didn't bolt the front door himself, before leaving via the back door [which was unbolted on his return but almost as stubborn as the front door had been], who did bolt it and when? Julia could not have let a visitor in through the front door without unbolting it, and dead women can't bolt doors after their killer has left. So any visitor that night must have come to the back door first, expecting Julia to invite them in, and must have left the same way after killing her in the parlour. I can't see any reason why either Julia or her killer would have bolted the front door after she had invited him in. If the killer bolted it to gain time, in case Wallace arrived back early, while he was still there, how would he know which door Wallace would try first? The first thing intruders usually do is to make sure they have a quick and easy exit, in case they are surprised. So I doubt the killer would have bolted either door against Wallace's possible return, and be left fumbling with it later, if Wallace entered by the other. Even worse if he bolted both doors, leaving himself trapped inside, not knowing if a frustrated Wallace was at the front or back of the house.

I think Rod gave a good reason for the front door being bolted - though I'm not so sure. It is possible the murderer locked both so as not to be caught in the house. If someone did try one door, they couldn't get in but the murderer could unlock and escape through the other door. This might explain why Wallace couldn't get in either door at first. He tried the front. The murderer didn't get out before Wallace tried the back door. He escaped when Wallace went back to the front, which meant when Wallace tried the back again, he could get in easily. [Possible, and would explain the door issue that Wallace had - but not sure I have convinced myself this is not a bit far-fetched].

Did Wallace make a fatal error? Did he leave by the back door after killing Julia, without checking that the front door was unbolted for "Qualtrough", as it would need to be for Julia to let him in that way? Did Julia bolt the door out of habit, after the milk was delivered, without Wallace realising it, so it was still bolted when he delivered the fatal blow to her head, and when he returned from MGE?

Possibly but doesn't explain the problem he had with getting in the back door, unless of course that was just a lie he told. However, having the front door bolted doesn't really constitute evidence that Wallace was the killer.

You set quite a challenge for those of us who believe, on balance, that Wallace was innocent. But like this whole case, the facts are seldom in doubt, it is just they could either support or oppose Wallace's innocence (or guilt).

[RodCrosby]

That said, for the purposes of this thread, let's accept that Parry was (or may have been) lying - I'm intrigued as to where this leads.

The Great Detective once said:
'There is no branch of detective science which is so important and so much neglected as the art of tracing footsteps.' [A Study in Scarlet, 1887]

Parry went to pick his accomplice up, to divvy-up the proceeds of the robbery, have a good old laugh at Wallace's expense, and then head for Lily Lloyd's...

Cyan route. Parry's claimed route, with supported alibis, "B"rine and "L"loyd, and unsupported alibis "PO"ffice, "H"ignetts, and "W"illiamson.
Red route: Parry's concealed route to the pick-up point, the pitch-black "R"ecreation Ground.
Yellow route: the Accomplice's escape route(s) from "J"ulia's house.

[harry]

The least talked about item,and I write least because there is so little information I find on searching for information,is the mackintosh.It was underneath the body of Julia.How did it get there? The most obvious explanation might be that someone put it there,but is it the only one.How else might it have got there?I have an idea,but the idea appears worthless unless it was Herberts.Anyone know?

[RodCrosby]

There is a clue in the testimony of Florence Johnston

Oliver KC: Yes, to go and open the door; that is my suggestion.
Mrs Johnston: That was my idea; I thought that was the object.

Oliver KC: You had the idea too ?
Mrs Johnston: It just flashed across my mind because it was a peculiar thing, a mackintosh.

Oliver KC: I quite agree — that the woman might have thrown it over her shoulders to go and open the door ?
Mrs Johnston: Yes.

[etenguy]

The Great Detective once said:
'There is no branch of detective science which is so important and so much neglected as the art of tracing footsteps.' [A Study in Scarlet, 1887]

Parry went to pick his accomplice up, to divvy-up the proceeds of the robbery, have a good old laugh at Wallace's expense, and then head for Lily Lloyd's...

A possibility but I think we would probably need something more to confirm the theory.

Do you know if Parry was ever implicated, or charged, with theft and/or assault/murder subsequent to this case?

[RodCrosby]

Parry had subsequent convictions for theft and embezzlement, on at least one occasion working with accomplices (car-taking).
There was an alleged assault on a girl, although the jury dismissed the case.
They are detailed in the second part of "Who killed Julia?", and in several books.

To be fair, he seemed to settle-down somewhat after his first marriage in 1937.

[harry]

From that short exchange between Oliver KC and mrs Johnston Rod,I gain the impression that both believed it was a peculiar thing for Julia to have used the mackintosh in the way suggested.That is,putting the macintosh around the shoulders to answer the door.Possible but peculiar.Pity she wasn't asked to elaborate as to why she thought it peculiar.I wonder where the suggestion originated,and it's value in determining how it finished up beneath Julia.

[RodCrosby]

The theory put forward by the Defence was that Julia had thrown the mackintosh on, admitted someone, and was immediately attacked while lighting the gas fire in the parlour. [which - as I've said - isn't really supported by the bloodstain patterns]

There is another possibility, consistent with the rest of the evidence in the house.

[Abby Normal]

why is this thread dying on the vine? I thought we had some good discussion moving forward.

I was expecting some more Wallace did it proponants would be chiming in.


oh well-as soon as the book is available in US I will be buying.

[Abby Normal]

I brought up this point before but I don't think anyone responded.


Why would someone have to make the Q call to the chess club at that box at that time? the argument before is they would want a vantage point to see Wallace on his way to the club, to make sure he wasn't there yet when the call is made.

I don't buy it. Any one who knew him well enough to know where he lived, knew he frequented the café and about when he left for the chess club, etc. would not need to be at that call box to see him on his way first.

they could have called from anywhere at any time before he normally arrived there without taking the trouble or risk to call from that call box.


again I ask-what possible reason would someone call from that call box and at that time? (unless of course it was Wallace himself, as he was going to the chess club)

[Harry D]

again I ask-what possible reason would someone call from that call box and at that time? (unless of course it was Wallace himself, as he was going to the chess club)

It was so obviously Wallace. This case isn't even that much of a mystery.

[Abby Normal]

It was so obviously Wallace. This case isn't even that much of a mystery.

Hi harry
LOL. well I lean slightly to Wallace but it apparently isn't so obvious or not a mystery to a lot of people.


let me ask you this:

do you think its feasable wallace could have disguised his voice enough to trick people who knew what he sounded like?


do you think he made the Q call?


do you think he had enough time to commit the murder and get to the tram?


Do you feel him having trouble getting in the house just a coincidence (and legit) or he faked it?


whats the motive?



just trying to get you to expound a bit more on why you think it was so obvious Wallace did it.

[RodCrosby]

Abby
Wallace had missed a few matches. It would make sense for someone waiting for him to emerge, to watch again and not make the call until he was reasonable certain this time it would not be a wasted call. It was a one-time scam that could not be repeated, obviously.

Parry was in the vicinity of the box at the time of the call, and lied about it.
Wallace said he never went anywhere near the box, and the Police never proved otherwise.

Therefore, I say, Parry made the call. The "21st birthday" and the fiddling with the buttons also point to Parry.

[Abby Normal]

Abby
Wallace had missed a few matches. It would make sense for someone waiting for him to emerge, to watch again and not make the call until he was reasonable certain this time it would not be a wasted call. It was a one-time scam that could not be repeated, obviously.

Parry was in the vicinity of the box at the time of the call, and lied about it.
Wallace said he never went anywhere near the box, and the Police never proved otherwise.

Therefore, I say, Parry made the call. The "21st birthday" and the fiddling with the buttons also point to Parry.

thanks Rod
yes I see what your saying-good points. especially the 21st birthday being mentioned both by Q and parry.

but you don't think Parry was the killer right? so he was the mastermind and got someone else to do it correct? whos the other person?

and why? was it a burglary gone wrong, did he want Julia murdered?

cmon-dish! : )

[RodCrosby]

I have a couple of suspicions who the killer might be, but probably we will never know.

Yes, all the evidence in the house suggests a robbery gone wrong. Julia either said or did the wrong thing, and was brutally murdered when the robber panicked.

It's a commonplace type of crime.