Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[moste]

LOL. That's too much. Like the nosey crow on 'little house on the prairie' listening in on everyone's calls . Pity though Wallace didn't think to call the Pru. from the library , and ask " hey fellers ! Take a look on the greater Liverpool map , and tell me the best tram to board for Menlove gardens east."

[RodCrosby]

Because Wallace was the only insurance agent in town of course!

And from these random calls, different operators on different shifts all got to recognise Wallace’s voice. Desperate.

Wallace was a creature of habit, who'd lived in the same house for 15 years. He was a bit of a local celebrity, as "Man from the Pru." It's perfectly reasonable to assume that over such long period, local telephonists would have "get to know him", whether he realised it or not. Who else would he be phoning, but the Pru? Virtually none of his social class had telephones in 1931, and he had few friends in any case.

It would be helpful to understand how telephone calls were placed in 1931... Probably relatively few subscribers in unremarkable Anfield, and they would all go through the local exchange.

https://www.1900s.org.uk/1940s50s-telephone-exchange.htm

The operators would know where the calls originated from, e.g. the library, the triangle phone-box. They would get to know "regular" callers, of course - particularly minor "celebrities", the Vicar, the Doctor, the Butcher, the Baker, the Man from the Pru (ringing from the library, as usual)....

"Telephone operators - local experts!

Operators of local manual exchanges usually knew what was going on in the area. They had to listen in to put a call through and could easily continue listening if they felt like it. My aunt's phone was on a manual exchange in Essex the 1950s and 60s. She was a district nurse, and when I phoned the operator to ask to be put through to her and she wasn't in, the operator frequently knew where she was and would say, "Nurse isn't in, she's at .....".

[RodCrosby]

LOL. That's too much. Like the nosey crow on 'little house on the prairie' listening in on everyone's calls . Pity though Wallace didn't think to call the Pru. from the library , and ask " hey fellers ! Take a look on the greater Liverpool map , and tell me the best tram to board for Menlove gardens east."

Everyone he had spoken to had already led him to believe he would find MGE where it "ought to be", off Menlove Avenue, among the well-known Menlove Gardens...

Not until he spoke to Sydney Green at the junction of Menlove Gardens West and Dudlow Lane did Wallace discover that ALL these "helpful" people had been wrong....

[Herlock Sholmes]

"a man like Mr. Wallace we didn't think would use that,

As ever you’ve focused on the part that you think might suit your case. The important part being “a man like Mr Wallace...” ie. a man of his type. A man of the type that they had the impression that he was.

And 50 years on Dorothy Carr could hardly have been in fear of any disciplinary action from the phone company! She didn’t say that the voice didn’t sound like Wallace’s which she could easily have done; explaining herself by saying ‘some of the girls used to listen to his calls when they were bored so they got to know his voice and they told her that it wasn’t him.” Also wouldn’t there have been the possibility that one of the operators might have had an attack of conscience after Wallace was sentenced to hang and admitted to the police that she knew that it wasn’t Wallace’s voice and how she knee it?

All she is saying is that from the type of man they believed Wallace to be they didn’t think that it matched the gruff, assertive, peremptory voice that Harley And Beattie heard.

Nothing to see here I’m afraid.

[MoriartyGardensEast]

As ever you’ve focused on the part that you think might suit your case. The important part being “a man like Mr Wallace...” ie. a man of his type. A man of the type that they had the impression that he was.

And 50 years on Dorothy Carr could hardly have been in fear of any disciplinary action from the phone company! She didn’t say that the voice didn’t sound like Wallace’s which she could easily have done; explaining herself by saying ‘some of the girls used to listen to his calls when they were bored so they got to know his voice and they told her that it wasn’t him.” Also wouldn’t there have been the possibility that one of the operators might have had an attack of conscience after Wallace was sentenced to hang and admitted to the police that she knew that it wasn’t Wallace’s voice and how she knee it?

All she is saying is that from the type of man they believed Wallace to be they didn’t think that it matched the gruff, assertive, peremptory voice that Harley And Beattie heard.

Nothing to see here I’m afraid.

I have to agree Herlock.

We can't know what to make of this sort of thing.

Anything else would just be whimsical speculation.

[WallaceWackedHer]

IMO whether operators eavesdropped his conversations or not is an interesting tidbit, but doesn't have an impact on the resolution of the case.

It was already established from the very beginning when the crime happened that IF Wallace had made the call, he'd have to have disguised his voice to the point where nobody could tell it was timid old Wallace.

Occam's razor tends to be useful, and for the points you're raising, I am quite sure some of the operators would have known him in person if he was a local celebrity. But again I don't feel it makes much difference in my personal opinion.

I believe that focusing on the events of the crime is the key to moving things forward, because there's a chance the call is a total red herring.

Figuring out what the nature of the crime is (robbery or killing, or killing AND robbery) would also potentially help explain the events of the day before better than knowing who the caller was could. E.g. if it's established as a true robbery, we can say with more certainty that Wallace wouldn't have burgled his own home as a main motive, which holds more weight as to who the caller was than speculating over who made the call when there are so many possibilities or even that the call is a red herring.

By the way, elaborate schemes are a hallmark of high profile crimes like bank robbery or premeditated murder (or at least when murder is considered a high probability). It's very rare for someone to put so much careful planning into the petty robbery of a small residential home. And by Parry's later crimes we can see he's not that type of criminal (unless he planned to kill Julia), which is why I'd sooner propose his accomplice as the mastermind.

I believe I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Julia was killed before the robbery began.

[RodCrosby]

People [in 1931] also used that phraseology to describe people they KNEW, - at least formally - and the whole context suggests that.

So, as ever, I focus on everything.

That's why I get results...

[RodCrosby]

I believe I can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Julia was killed before the robbery began.

Well that's a big statement. I look forward to hearing the proof once we get to that point...

[Herlock Sholmes]

People [in 1931] also used that phraseology to describe people they KNEW, - at least formally - and the whole context suggests that.

So, as ever, I focus on everything.

That's why I get results...

Nope. Your shoehorning as ever.

You haven’t achieved a single result except being constantly proved wrong.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Well that's a big statement. I look forward to hearing the proof once we get to that point...

Sure. I won't sidetrack now, but for the record I'd even be more inclined to believe one of the following:

1) Parry was involved and the box was replaced because he knew the cops could find out he was one of the only people who knew where the box was, so wanted to cover up that he'd stolen from it.

2) If it WAS a sneak thieving attempt, 2 people were in the house that night aside from Julia. One stayed with her in the parlor while another went into the kitchen to try and steal from the box. Julia heard a noise in the kitchen and as she got up to investigate, the second man wacked her from behind.

---

I'm not saying I believe either of those two theories are right, just that I find them more plausible than the idea of a singular person sneak thieving.

IMO the idea of a singular sneak thief gone wrong is completely implausible - bordering on impossible even. If it was one person in the house, I think she was killed before the burglary with almost absolute certainty.

[moste]

Everyone he had spoken to had already led him to believe he would find MGE where it "ought to be", off Menlove Avenue, among the well-known Menlove Gardens...

Not until he spoke to Sydney Green at the junction of Menlove Gardens West and Dudlow Lane did Wallace discover that ALL these "helpful" people had been wrong....

So he didn't need to explore any further did he? 'Go home Wallace ! You've been duped . But no , innocent Will goes on to Mr. Crewes house , then no luck there , checks in with PC plod for an answer. Now confirmed by him that he's on a fools errand , does he finally get the message and head for the tram ? Not Bill! He needs written proof before he's going anywhere. FINALLY, The very thing, no luck at the post office, but the paper shop let's our Clubmore Rover, see their directory.
Eureka ! 'There's no such place as 'Menlove Gardens East' Wow, Wallace is nothing if not a dogged determined stalwart of the Pru.
It's a wonder he didn't retrace his steps just to be sure. Actually if he had retraced his steps he could have popped into 25 Menlove Ave. Which he had almost passed on his way into Green Lane.
Sorry to sound so flippant , but this episode of the case smells very strong of over exaggerated alibi seeking.

[WallaceWackedHer]

So he didn't need to explore any further did he? 'Go home Wallace ! You've been duped . But no , innocent Will goes on to Mr. Crewes house , then no luck there , checks in with PC plod for an answer. Now confirmed by him that he's on a fools errand , does he finally get the message and head for the tram ? Not Bill! He needs written proof before he's going anywhere. FINALLY, The very thing, no luck at the post office, but the paper shop let's our Clubmore Rover, see their directory.
Eureka ! 'There's no such place as 'Menlove Gardens East' Wow, Wallace is nothing if not a dogged determined stalwart of the Pru.
It's a wonder he didn't retrace his steps just to be sure. Actually if he had retraced his steps he could have popped into 25 Menlove Ave. Which he had almost passed on his way into Green Lane.
Sorry to sound so flippant , but this episode of the case smells very strong of over exaggerated alibi seeking.

A man like Wallace who was obsessed with puctuality (or a determined stalwart as you put it) would look up the address in advance to be sure he didn't miss his appointment. Was it Wallace's usual M.O. when going on business trips to just turn up in the general district and rely on asking around with no real idea of where he's going to find addresses? Was it his usual practice to not know what trams to take to reach his destination and have to badger the conductors?

I also wonder if Beattie messed up by saying East, and that the caller said West. Using a real address is better for both Wallace AND for some other perpetrator in my view, leaves less up to chance.

Something curious to note, when Wallace took the address from Beattie, Wallace first believed he said West. In my mind this could indicate either:

1) Wallace was EXPECTING it to be West because that's what he said on the phone.

2) Wallace KNEW there wasn't an East. Which would throw shade on his claims of being a "total stranger to the district".

[RodCrosby]

Wallace is nothing if not a dogged determined stalwart of the Pru.

That sounds a very reasonable explanation, in accordance with the facts. And, btw, 25 Menlove Avenue wasn't near the entrance to Green Lane. It's 500 yards away.

[RodCrosby]

A man like Wallace who was obsessed with puctuality (or a determined stalwart as you put it) would look up the address in advance to be sure he didn't miss his appointment. Was it Wallace's usual M.O. when going on business trips to just turn up in the general district and rely on asking around with no real idea of where he's going to find addresses? Was it his usual practice to not know what trams to take to reach his destination and have to badger the conductors?
.

Might i respectfully suggest you do a little more research?

"I told the accused the best way to get to Menlove Gardens East would be to take a [tram]car to Penny Lane and enquire."
Samuel Beattie, Committal hearing.

And Wallace followed Beattie's recommendation to the letter...

[WallaceWackedHer]

Might i respectfully suggest you do a little more research?

"I told the accused the best way to get to Menlove Gardens East would be to take a [tram]car to Penny Lane and enquire."
Samuel Beattie, Committal hearing.

And Wallace followed Beattie's recommendation to the letter...

Yes that's true of course, but I find it quite unreliable. If I had an important business meeting which I may get a sizeable commission on, I'd make damn sure I knew exactly where to go and how to get there. Not just ask around for directions.

He had many means at his disposal to get a more definite idea of where he was going before he even embarked on his trip, which is what I'd expect a man of his character to do.

It shouldn't be used as evidence of guilt (he may have had good reason to not have time to look it up), but I think everyone can agree it's out of character he wouldn't have looked it up in advance.