Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

We’ve only got Wallace’s word that he left at 7.15.

On your last point - the police were initially told that there was no way of tracing the call so they only had Beattie and Harley to go on.

Considering these points, I do not understand Wallace's explanation for demanding accuracy on the timing.

He claimed that if the time had been 7 PM, it would rule him out to police as he left his home at 7.15 PM. But this is wrong because he had nobody to corroborate that he had left at that time, so an earlier time actually implicates him MORE, and makes it MORE likely he had time to place the call.

I suggest he knew the time to be later (or expected it to have come later) and pressed Beattie for accuracy in the OTHER direction, to make it less likely he could have called.

Crewe spoke very highly of Wallace. ‘Jobsworth’ is a derogatory term and no one ever accused Wallace of that. He was considered honest and conscientious.

So if Wallace was considered such a good employee, I put it to you whether it seems likely he would mix up his client's name and address in other statements: "A M Qualtrough" and "Menlove Avenue East" or whatever Antony said Wallace had said? Yes, it wasn't a real client, just a ruse to burgle/kill his wife, but that makes it even worse, because he's apparently misremembering details relating directly to his wife's MURDER. And he had specifically gone on that journey and all around the Gardens.

With such a terrible memory and failure to look up directions in advance, also cutting appointment times very fine, and without relaying details of appointments (etc.) to the Pru before they happened, is it really possible he could have gained the reputation for being such a good employee?

There are so many unnatural Wallace moments, but two MUST be explained by those who believe his innocence:

1) Wallace claimed he had NEVER HEARD of "Menlove Gardens" before in his life. If this is the case, why did he act confused when Beattie said east? And write "EAST" in block capitals when corrected as if totally unexpected. If he had never even heard of the area, he would have taken down the address without any hint of confusion, assuming it to be real.

2) Wallace must have known it was VERY PECULIAR to receive a business call at his chess club. A place nobody even really knew he went to - paired with the fact it was a call from a man he had never heard of before in his life. If Wallace were completely innocent he would have questioned Beattie heavily.

It'd be like if you were a plumber, randomly walked into a pub one night for a quiz night (that wasn't even advertised), and the barman said a complete stranger rang the pub just moments before to request that you go and fix his pipes. Immediately you are going to wondering - How did this stranger know I would be here, how does this stranger know of my business, why is this stranger contacting me in such a weird way? There is absolutely no way anyone would not question this.

There's a chess poster that says "W H Wallace" is due to play. So what? How can that tell a complete stranger anything? It can only be of use to someone who knows him and his career.

---

These points MUST be accounted for. Does anyone truly believe it to be plausible that he could mishear "east" as "west" from someone stood right next to him? And to write it in block capitals as if confused? Does anyone truly believe it to be plausible that he would just accept that some total stranger had rang with no way of knowing he'd be there or who he is (if they are indeed a stranger) calling him out on business?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Talking of Agatha Christie Antony I don’t suppose that you would have read my scenario written on the other thread a few months ago?

I suggested ‘what if Wallace had a female accomplice?’ Ok, it would have helped if she bore a passing resemblance to Julia.

He kills Julia as soon as he gets home and let’s his accompl8ce in by the the back door. She goes upstairs and puts on some of Julia’s clothes and answers the door to Alan Close whilst Wallace is cleaning himself up in the kitchen. He doesn’t focus much on her face as he’s doing his job and spends little time actually in front of Julia. Julia speaks to him about his cold and says that she’s had one too (which might also have allowed her to use a handkerchief partially obscuring her face.) She then leaves taking the weapon and any bloody clothes.

Come on admit it.....I’ve solved it

The reason this is unlikely is sadly the same reason it's unlikely Joseph made the trip to menlove (unless it can be proven he arrived in Liverpool before the murder, which it can via Ancestry sites)... Because Alan Close would know Julia too well to make such a mistake... And the constable spoken to at Menlove Gardens was familiar with Wallace.

However, one thing more in your favor is Julia's cold, which could have explained to Alan Close why her voice may have sounded a bit strange. But I still don't really think you could mistake someone you see that often!

But these solutions would be like, the best crime solutions of all time lol. Straight out of a movie.

I feel like you're suggesting your theory was silly, but it's actually really clever thinking lol.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Do you have a photo of Amy Dennis?

[ColdCaseJury]

Talking of Agatha Christie Antony I don’t suppose that you would have read my scenario written on the other thread a few months ago?

I suggested ‘what if Wallace had a female accomplice?’ Ok, it would have helped if she bore a passing resemblance to Julia.

He kills Julia as soon as he gets home and let’s his accompl8ce in by the the back door. She goes upstairs and puts on some of Julia’s clothes and answers the door to Alan Close whilst Wallace is cleaning himself up in the kitchen. He doesn’t focus much on her face as he’s doing his job and spends little time actually in front of Julia. Julia speaks to him about his cold and says that she’s had one too (which might also have allowed her to use a handkerchief partially obscuring her face.) She then leaves taking the weapon and any bloody clothes.

Come on admit it.....I’ve solved it

Yep, you and WWH are definitely frustrated crime novelists!

BTW, the only plausible entry in the immigration record for Wallace's brother is MAY 1931 ("J Wallace", arriving Liverpool). This suggests he came over for the appeal (which we know he certainly did). If my memory serves me right, he was not present at the trial the month before; so I think this fits.

[ColdCaseJury]

Ignore my last post. That J Wallace arrived in Liverpool on 26/5/31.

In which case, I can find no record of him arriving... I'll check outward passenger lists.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Antony, excuse me for being a newbie to this case, but I understand the Johnstons are basically laughed out of threads as suspects.

What is the actual evidence exonerating them from any involvement? I cannot find it anywhere. You realize one of the biggest hurdles to Rod's theory is the Johnston's not hearing Julia scream etc (showing she was not taken by surprise - although of course there are some other very big hurdles - despite the theory starting VERY plausibly)?

When I look at them on a very base level, I see that Mr Johnston is short (like the guy Lily Hall saw), they "coincidentally" materialized as Wallace went back to the back door, and moved house immediately like the Bagel King/Jerard Steuerman style. Mr Johnston also apparently confessed to killing Julia. The detail given seemed too in depth to be TOTALLY falsified... Yet I have to say I still have issue with exonerating Wallace and Parry, as both are very suspect... Has anyone ever mentioned a Wallace and Johnston's conspiracy?

Can someone please explain why they are completely exonerated? Everyone knows they had a key for Wallace's door right? Everyone knows they could've unlocked it when he went back round to the front door, then when he came back around came out just in time to see him, by coincidence?

So please cut me some slack as a newb and explain why they are ridiculed as potential suspects?

[ColdCaseJury]

Antony, excuse me for being a newbie to this case, but I understand the Johnstons are basically laughed out of threads as suspects.

What is the actual evidence exonerating them from any involvement? I cannot find it anywhere. You realize one of the biggest hurdles to Rod's theory is the Johnston's not hearing Julia scream etc (showing she was not taken by surprise - although of course there are some other very big hurdles - despite the theory starting VERY plausibly)?

When I look at them on a very base level, I see that Mr Johnston is short (like the guy Lily Hall saw), they "coincidentally" materialized as Wallace went back to the back door, and moved house immediately like the Bagel King/Jerard Steuerman style. Mr Johnston also apparently confessed to killing Julia. The detail given seemed too in depth to be TOTALLY falsified... Yet I have to say I still have issue with exonerating Wallace and Parry, as both are very suspect... Has anyone ever mentioned a Wallace and Johnston's conspiracy?

Can someone please explain why they are completely exonerated? Everyone knows they had a key for Wallace's door right? Everyone knows they could've unlocked it when he went back round to the front door, then when he came back around came out just in time to see him, by coincidence?

So please cut me some slack as a newb and explain why they are ridiculed as potential suspects?

WWH, the Johnston Theory is not seen as plausible by many but it assumes Jack (or Jack and Florence) worked alone.

Some points against this theory (taken from an earlier post of mine):

John Johnston did not know of Wallace's chess schedule. When he confessed, did Johnston also say he popped down to the City Cafe, saw Wallace was down to play on the Monday and noted the Cafe telephone number (according to Rod the Cafe was not in the phone book) to make the Qualtrough call? I also doubt Johnston would know anything about the insurance industry to make the call either.

The Qualtrough call is the key to the case, in my opinion. The caller must have known about Wallace's job, the insurance industry and frequented the City Cafe to know about the chess club. The only two plausible candidates are Wallace and Parry. A third party might have gleaned info from either, but this is doubtful, unless they were somehow involved too.

Another problem: how did the Johnston know about the cash box? Johnston had never stepped in the house and Florence only showed into the front room three times in a decade.


As for a Wallace/Johnston conspiracy, that has not been aired on these threads, to my knowledge. Of course, all of the above are eliminated if Wallace worked with them. You have the floor...

P.S. The key to No. 33 also fit the front door to No. 29.

P.P.S. Early hours 21 Jan: Wallace told Gold the Johnstons were the only people he saw/spoke to on his return Journey.

P.P.P.S Wallace stated (trial testimony) that he told the Johnstons to wait outside while he searched inside. The Johnstons initially concurred in their police statement but then changed it to state that Jack had told Wallace they would wait outside while Wallace took a look around the house.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Antony thank you. I'm on Nytol about to doze off so bare with me on this...

But I don't think all of those are good points unfortunately. I'm angling at something different (collaboration/conspiracy), but even those points on their own are not all good.

I don't know what his actual word by word confession was. But they were neighbors. I think they would know something about him and his habits, hobbies, etc.

Again neighbors are highly likely to know his career. Though the moniker Qualtrough? I don't know how. I could see it plausible, if they knew the man somehow for one (and that he was insured with the Pru), but also otjer ways.

Not sure how they knew where the cash box was. But I think we only have their word about how many times they went in there, and of course the walls were quite thin. Would Wallace necessarily have been told about all visits while he was out at work btw?

---

Anyway as you identified though I'm referring to a possible conspiracy/collaboration. Here are a few key points to consider before I sleep:

1) The Johnston's "coincidentally" appear outside to see Wallace at the right time.

2) The problem with the lack of noise is eliminated if the Johnston's were involved of course.

3) Mr. Johnston is clearly kind of short. Could he have been the man Lily Hall saw with Wallace?

4) The caller was described as an old man (but Parry's falsified alibi makes me think he rang).

5) When Wallace gave his "shopping list of names" Julia would admit into the home, it is very odd that he didn't mention the Johnston's among those names, wouldn't you agree?

6) Julia's cat really had been missing. Not sure when it was found but Wallace was stroking it after the murder.

7) They had a key to enter the home without force. But also would have been admitted I'm sure.

8) They moved home immediately. Behavior seen with numerous other criminals.

I promise will come up with something more thought provoking when I'm awake enough to think and go back through books and notes etc.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not sure when it was found but Wallace was stroking it after the murder.

1. Can you catch an illness via a forum? I’ve been ill for the last 2 or 3 days too. (note to Admin- where’s the chin scratching smiley? It was the one I used the most)

and

2. I can picture Wallace stroking the cat Bond-villain style. Told you he was guilty.

[ColdCaseJury]

1. Can you catch an illness via a forum? I’ve been ill for the last 2 or 3 days too. (note to Admin- where’s the chin scratching smiley? It was the one I used the most)

and

2. I can picture Wallace stroking the cat Bond-villain style. Told you he was guilty.

I'm still in bed with flu-like symptoms - day 4. It's clearly the forum!

[ColdCaseJury]

But I don't think all of those are good points unfortunately. I'm angling at something different (collaboration/conspiracy), but even those points on their own are not all good. But they were neighbors. I think they would know something about him and his habits, hobbies, etc. Again neighbors are highly likely to know his career.

Hi WWH, To make that call, you had to know something about insurance collecting at the Pru and not just that Wallace was an insurance agent. You had to know he was likely to go to the which chess club (and it's telephone number) and not just that Wallace played chess and so on. The devil is in the detail, I'd say. Florence had been inside the house just 3 times in 10 years, Jack never until that night. I'm not sure whether conversations could be heard clearly through the party wall.

I do agree, however, the detail could have been provided by Wallace himself (i.e. conspiracy).

Back to my sick bed...

[moste]

Btw can someone check Ancestry UK to confirm the day in January Joseph Wallace returned to Liverpool?

Simply because I WISH the solution was that Wallace stayed home killing his wife while Joseph in a trilby hat (or w.e. Wallace was said to be wearing) went to Menlove Gardens.

That'd be a legit Poirot tier solution lol. I really wish that was the answer. They look lime twins almost lol

I did that one 3 or 4 months back. I believe Rod it was , maintained that the police checked and Joseph didn't arrive back in the country untill after the murder.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH, To make that call, you had to know something about insurance collecting at the Pru and not just that Wallace was an insurance agent. You had to know he was likely to go to the which chess club (and it's telephone number) and not just that Wallace played chess and so on. The devil is in the detail, I'd say. Florence had been inside the house just 3 times in 10 years, Jack never until that night. I'm not sure whether conversations could be heard clearly through the party wall.

I do agree, however, the detail could have been provided by Wallace himself (i.e. conspiracy).

Back to my sick bed...

Well, I am in agreement that them acting alone would not be very plausible, but not for the reasons you give. I think the Qualtrough moniker is the most suspicious thing pointing away from them, as it's an unusual name and so close to a real Pru client with links to Marsden and therefore Wallace/Parry as well. But we see Wallace claim to have never even heard of the name... But it's far from unlikely they would be completely unaware of his business and that he goes to chess, etc. And what word do we have to go on that they had only been in the house 3 times? Just a statement in court that even the prosecution seemingly found odd.

But so are a few things about claims from the Johnstons. For example, Mr. Johnston claimed he did not even know Julia's name. That seems to be an incredible claim, particularly considering they had taken care of her cat, and received postcards from her etc, lived as neighbors for a decade, and Florence was somewhat a friend to Julia:

"A postcard, dated July 6th, 1928, from Julia Wallace to her next door neighbor Florence Sarah Johnston, apologising for not giving Mrs Johnston money for minding Puss, the Wallaces' cat. Julia and William Wallace were on holiday at Cemaes Bay, Anglesey. The Johnstons were minding the cat and looking after the Wallaces' home."

He also claimed to have NEVER heard them quarrel, which seems another pretty fantastic claim. I live in an end of terrace home. ALL couples argue at least sometimes. And they were even able to hear him lightly knock on the back door, so I should think they would hear pretty much any slight upset in the home, which is inevitable with couples at some point, no matter how loving... And what about Mrs. Johnston? Did she not scream when she walked into the room and saw the absolutely gruesome battering of her neighbor and the blood and brains sprayed everywhere?

It is plausible they could know the location of the cash box but still how could they know of Qualtrough the Pru client (perhaps if they knew the man personally)? A legitimately unusual name (though there was a butcher's shop in the area with that name) which, as far as I can see, could only have the purpose of being used to frame someone, or convincing Wallace it was a real Pru client. In the case of the latter, though, keep in mind Wallace seemed completely oblivious to the name.

About the supposed confession, I find it too in-depth with detail, and that makes me question whether it could actually be PURE fantasy. Like little details about "Puss" etc. and the confirmation that the cat had in fact been missing. Think carefully about the return of the cat. WHEN was it returned? We know Wallace was seen stroking it on the night of the murder. So when had it been found/returned and if returned, who returned it?

Why did Wallace ommit the Johnstons from the long list of people Julia would let into the home? Why did the Johnstons move the very next day? They DO NOT claim it was because of living beside a murder house, but that it was sheer coincidence.

There is very little information on the Johnstons. Certainly if they were involved, they could lie about hearing things next door etc, which would eliminate one of the biggest problems in the idea of a robbery gone wrong... The coincidence of them showing up at the right time and so on would be explained... And perhaps Lily Hall had in fact seen Mr. Johnston talking to Wallace (I noticed Mr. Johnston is quite a small man). If involved together, they could spin all sorts of yarns about the events of that day... Also notice the Johnstons are the ONLY ONES who claim Wallace had "broken down" and "sobbed" over his dead wife on that night, while to the police he seemed to be a total stonewall.

I have a tough time exonerating either Wallace or Parry entirely though. Parry due to his falsified alibi mainly (NOT the scammed call - the phone was LEGITIMATELY out of order), and the testimony of Parkes. Wallace due to a smattering of things... Based on evidence it would not seem unlikely that Parry made the phone call, and that Wallace knew something about what was going to happen the following night (which Parry himself may not have known)...

As for the involvement of somebody else... It is suggested that it is Marsden (and from the information on file, his alibi is weak - though we do not know if he was investigated more thoroughly and that information redacted from the file)... But we do not really know that for sure. Would he have taken part in a scheme to commit murder relying on a call where a name very similar to one of his client's had been used? Unless Parry and Marsden were briefed separately... ... I wonder, had Marsden still been working at the Pru? And if so, could Wallace have known he would be ill indoors due to skipping work and set him up? Could he have known he had flu through Parry, who was a friend of his?... I cannot find this information to hand of whether he had left employment... Though I do not believe that line of thought (of exploiting a known illness) is reliable at all, and I would delete it but think all ideas should be aired.

Also one more thing to take into consideration: Parry's parents begged someone to sneak him out of the country. We know Parry has a strong alibi for the night of the murder, but how can we be sure it's true, and not coerced by pressure from Parry's parents? The Johnstons were hard up as well, and a discrepancy found in regards to the money in the cash box and the money paid into the Pru the next day (by the way, I find it unlikely that someone who had just lost his wife to a brutal murder would take care of work details the very next day) etc. Could the Johnstons have been paid off?

Food for thought. I look forward to all of your ponderings.

[moste]

I don't believe we need to raise our eyebrows over the Johnstons moving house the very next day. The police will certainly have satisfied themselves that there was nothing untoward happening here .

[moste]

I don't believe there was anything wrong with the telephone used to call the chess club. A telephone engineer will have been dispatched as protocol since there had been a complaint from a customer that he had lost his Tuppence on pushing button A . As discussed before , The problem with connecting the call was a means of having the telephonist log the time of the incident, in furthering the overall plan.