Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Maybe he was comparing Beatties time with his own watch, for his own reasons. Maybe Wallace wanted the police to believe he was being stalked.( He will have known that after the murder he would be number one suspect)

When pressed hard he gave his explanation, that he thought if Beattie could say for sure it was 7, he would be proven innocent, as he left home at 7.15... Except that's bullshit because no witnesses confirmed he had left home at that time, so an earlier time incriminates him more.

I suggest he didn't know the call was logged but knew the call had come later, and pressed Beattie for accuracy in the OTHER direction (i.e. that the call came later).

[Herlock Sholmes]

When pressed hard he gave his explanation, that he thought if Beattie could say for sure it was 7, he would be proven innocent, as he left home at 7.15... Except that's bullshit because no witnesses confirmed he had left home at that time, so an earlier time incriminates him more.

I suggest he didn't know the call was logged but knew the call had come later, and pressed Beattie for accuracy in the OTHER direction (i.e. that the call came later).

Hi WWH,

Are you suggesting here that Wallace gave an explanation for why he asked Beattie about the time of the call? This wasn’t the case. His conversation with Moore went:

Moore - You saw Mr Beattie of the chess club last night?

Wallace - Yes. While I was waiting for a tramcar in Lord Street.

Moore - You asked him about the telephone call and what time he received it?

Wallace - Yes.

Moore - You told him the time was important.

Wallace - Yes.

Moore - In what way was it important?

Wallace - I had some ideas of my own. We all have ideas. It was indiscreet of me.

Moore - What were your ides.

Wallace - I cant say why I asked him, I admit it was an indiscretion on my part. I cannot say anything further.

The last couple of responses from Wallace are pretty strange by anyone’s standards.

[ColdCaseJury]

The problem with that Moste is how would anyone who didn’t work at the exchange know that the supervisor would log the call? We don’t know that this was procedure or something that this particular supervisor did.

HS, I believe you are correct. I think moste is correct on his other point. I spend a chapter on my book on the call. In summary:

a) The call was logged as NO REPLY i.e. no one was picking up at BANK 3581. In one statement, an operator talks of "being engaged" (I will double check)

b) No fault was diagnosed and corrected by the engineer Leslie Heaton

c) Even if there was NO REPLY, or a fault, the widely-known procedure was to push B to return your coins then start over otherwise your money was LOST

d) If the caller pushed A he lost his two pennies and had to pay two more to reconnect to the operator

e) The above makes little sense given we had a caller who seemed "accustomed to using telephones" (said operators) and claimed to have pushed A when there was no answer

[ColdCaseJury]

When pressed hard he gave his explanation, that he thought if Beattie could say for sure it was 7, he would be proven innocent, as he left home at 7.15... Correct. He claimed the police believed his departure time. Except that's bullshit because no witnesses confirmed he had left home at that time, so an earlier time incriminates him more. A later time does not him help much either... unless the police investigated thoroughly the tram and bus journeys for the Monday to place Wallace on one at a certain time. I remain amazed that there is no record of them doing this.

I suggest he didn't know the call was logged but knew the call had come later, and pressed Beattie for accuracy in the OTHER direction (i.e. that the call came later).

According to the trial transcript, the police told Wallace on THURSDAY EVENING before the Beattie conversation that the call had been traced to Anfield. It appears he was not told the exact location or time.

[WallaceWackedHer]

According to the trial transcript, the police told Wallace on THURSDAY EVENING before the Beattie conversation that the call had been traced to Anfield. It appears he was not told the exact location or time.

Edit: Misread, I see he didn't receive knowledge the time was tracked.

Also how did you get the full file? I contacted Merseyside police and they said I am not entitled to it. Please tell me how I can obtain it.

I have compelling new ideas but I won't air them just yet. I am in desperate need of the file, to do myself and the case justice instead of relying on little nuggets of info spread across 1000000 corners of the internet. Like every day there's some random new factoid.

I think you will all VERY much enjoy the new idea, but I need to accumulate rock solid evidence and see if there's any contradictory information in the file.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Oh uh. Woah. This is really weird. I just found something seriously odd.

How accurate is Wyndham Brown's transcript of the trial? Has he misquoted anything? Or is it accurate?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH,

Are you suggesting here that Wallace gave an explanation for why he asked Beattie about the time of the call? This wasn’t the case. His conversation with Moore went:

Moore - You saw Mr Beattie of the chess club last night?

Wallace - Yes. While I was waiting for a tramcar in Lord Street.

Moore - You asked him about the telephone call and what time he received it?

Wallace - Yes.

Moore - You told him the time was important.

Wallace - Yes.

Moore - In what way was it important?

Wallace - I had some ideas of my own. We all have ideas. It was indiscreet of me.

Moore - What were your ides.

Wallace - I cant say why I asked him, I admit it was an indiscretion on my part. I cannot say anything further.

The last couple of responses from Wallace are pretty strange by anyone’s standards.

In Gannon's book there's a statement where he gave the explanation I said. It could also be on trial I'd have to search for it.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Here's an oddity I don't think has been pointed out before...

Mrs. Johnston claims that SHE said "whatever have they used?":

What did Mr. Wallace do then ? — Mr. Wallace stooped over Mrs. Wallace, and he said, They have finished her ; look at the brains ; and I said, “ Whatever have they used ? ’’ glancing round the room.

The next day, the prosecution grilled Wallace on HIM having said that. The defence DOES NOT CALL THIS OUT?! Essentially allowing the prosecution to use b.s. evidence against their client. Here's the transcript:

And yet you glance round the room, and you say, ‘‘ Whatever have they used ? ” — Quite naturally. You think that is quite a natural remark to make ? — I do.

Take from that anything that you may. Wallace denied memory of having said that line just before. I wanted to quote it but I'm on mobile it didn't work right.

You may either infer from this that he is easily led and malleable by suggestions made to him by members of the legal system... Or that he thought he may indeed have said it and then rolled with it. I'll let you decide.

Both are valid views. I am not sure how to look at that.

Oh and also if you agree with the prosecution, that it's weird to assume a weapon from the home had been used, remember MRS. JOHNSTON said that line.

[ColdCaseJury]

Here's an oddity I don't think has been pointed out before...

Mrs. Johnston claims that SHE said "whatever have they used?":


The next day, the prosecution grilled Wallace on HIM having said that. The defence DOES NOT CALL THIS OUT?! Essentially allowing the prosecution to use b.s. evidence against their client. Here's the transcript:

Take from that anything that you may. Wallace denied memory of having said that line just before. I wanted to quote it but I'm on mobile it didn't work right.

You may either infer from this that he is easily led and malleable by suggestions made to him by members of the legal system... Or that he thought he may indeed have said it and then rolled with it. I'll let you decide.

Both are valid views. I am not sure how to look at that.

Oh and also if you agree with the prosecution, that it's weird to assume a weapon from the home had been used, remember MRS. JOHNSTON said that line.

Hi WWH, I point this out in my book (trial section) but didn't draw any inference... to me, it's not clear what inference to draw. Apart from the defence was not that great, something that Hussey was very damning about (and IIRC he lists all their failures).

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH, I point this out in my book (trial section) but didn't draw any inference... to me, it's not clear what inference to draw. Apart from the defence was not that great, something that Hussey was very damning about (and IIRC he lists all their failures).

Well you could have used it to support the idea that Wallace was innocent... He lies quite a bit on trial and about statements he made etc, and it could be inferred that he is prone to going along with what police say and trying to make his story fit. So lying to defend himself in spite of innocence.

I'm not saying I'm on the "innocent Wallace" train, but you could have used it as a perk in your cause.

I REALLY want those full files. I want to do more research on the Johnstons. I can't say I believe Tom Slemen's idea, but perhaps his book contains the most information about them that is out there?

Also if Wallace was innocent (just again playing Devil's advocate to my current beliefs), the reason he could have ommited the Johnstons from the list of people Julia would admit, could be that he knew they had a beef with her for some reason.

MacFall's initial testimony was that Julia was sitting on the chair as though in conversation when she was hit. This was changed to her either being on the chair or getting up from the fireplace... But if she was in conversation, it would be consistent with the idea of two people in the home at the time. One in conversation with her to distract her attention, and then the other caves her skull in... This can support pretty much any theory where there is more than one person involved btw. But I have my own ideas about what may have been used to convince Julia to allow the person into the home.

I don't want to explore this idea until I have compiled strong evidence and seen that there is no obvious counter or issue with it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does anyone on here get the impression that WWH is hooked on this case?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Does anyone on here get the impression that WWH is hooked on this case?

I am! You can blame you know who... I just absolutely love stuff like this. My favorite movie of all time is Mulholland Drive. I love this type of thing, where you realistically can come up with answers, but have to use a lot of logic, reasoning, and thinking.

I initially got into the Ripper but now I hate the Ripper case because IMO it is legitimately totally unsolveable. They won't release the police files for one thing, so nobody even has the full details of the case, there's also like 100000 different potential suspects.

But cases like this, Benet-Ramsey, mysteries that can realistically be unravelled... I just get so hooked, I love it haha

And I mean you guys have had probably like a decade of discussion, so I've got a lot of catching up to do

[ColdCaseJury]

I'm not saying I'm on the "innocent Wallace" train, but you could have used it as a perk in your cause.

This allows me a segue into a brief post about my cause. In writing my CCJ books, I try to adopt a position of neutrality and dramatise events surrounding a historical crime for which the verdict is open to doubt. And I try to include evidence not published before (such as the post mortem report, the engineer's report and Wallace's memoir). My cause is to engage the reader and let them arrive at their own conclusion, which they can register on my website. Indeed, in Move To Murder, only six pages out of over 250 are dedicated to my view on the case, and there are just as many pages on the verdicts other authors have reached.

My own view in this case is that I don't like any theory that much; I have problems with them all. However, I am inclined to believe it was Parry in the call box and that has led much of my thinking. If Wallace was in the call box, then I tend to favour Wallace alone, but the Collaborator theory trumps it if Hall's testimony is also accepted, and so on.

I did not include the Johnston theory in my book largely because many find the confession unreliable; the family deny it was even made. BTW, there was also a rumour that Wallace confessed to the murder on his deathbed, but again it is totally without foundation. Of course, a Johnston/Wallace conspiracy that avoids relying on the confession, should be examined as any other theory. To my knowledge, WWH is the first to postulate this.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I just think there are things about the Johnstons which are suspect, of their own doing rather than anything that could've been "put upon them"...

When I say put upon them, what I mean by that is, the R M Qualtrough moniker quickly and easily leads to Marsden. I don't think Marsden would willingly take part in a serious crime where an alias linking easily back to him was used. If he took part, I don't think he knew what alias was used, and I don't think Parry knew the connection... I would rather suggest that Wallace had briefed them separately. And also I think this crime was planned some time in advance, so parties aware of the alias would have time to consider the implications of using it for them...

There's even a chance that Marsden wasn't involved/Parry made the call on a false pretext... With that said, it does seem a turn of luck for him that he should have had such a good alibi for the time of the murder (although it could be coerced by his parents).

But anyway back onto the Johnstons, here are things about them which are a bit weird or coincidental:

1) Them suddenly materializing outside on Wallace's return - coincidence? We are led to believe this, that it was just lucky timing.

2) Mr. Johnston not knowing Julia's name... Despite the couple having lived next door to her for a decade, received postcards from her in their absence saying what a nice time she was having on holiday etc. and apparently the walls were so thin they could hear everything. Especially the visits of Amy Wallace... But not once in 10 years had Mr. Johnston heard the name "Julia" uttered? - I know you all can see why this may be construed as odd.

3) The prosecution made a point against Wallace about him saying "whatever have they used?" - If you think this is suggestive evidence from the prosecution, then remember that it was actually apparently MRS. JOHNSTON who had said that while glancing around the room.

4) Their coincidental move the very next day, like the "Bagel King" Jerry Steuerman.

5) Them hearing basically all of the events of that day, but all other sounds mysteriously absent... They heard Wallace lightly knock on his own door, the milk boy's arrival, conversations with Amy through the walls... Yet suspicious in its absence is their recollection of ANY sound that might indicate someone entering the home. No door opening, no doorstep conversation of a man explaining he is "Mr. Qualtrough" or whatever, that is the claim we are to believe.

6) The Johnstons looked after the Wallace's home (and cat) when they were away on vacation. Supposedly Mrs. Johnston had only ever seen the parlor of that home, and supposedly only ever been in there when Julia was there and Wallace was out... And Mr. Johnston, well apparently he had never stepped foot into the home in his life.

7) Mrs. Johnston, having seen the gruesome sight of the badly battered Julia, with exposed brains, and blood/brain tissue sprayed all over the walls... Consider how she reacted? Would you expect such calmness from Mrs. Johnston having walked in on that?

8) Mr. Johnston is also a short man and could have matched the sighting of Lily Hall.

9) The sudden re-appearance of the missing and ever-enigmatic Puss. Who, on a side note, despite the parlor door apparently being open, had not approached Julia or tracked bloody pawprints around the home shortly after the crime had occurred, and was apparently not at all exhibiting any sign of anxiety over what was clearly a savage attack, not hiding, not running out of the home (if they had a cat flap), etc. Cats are NOT unconscious beings, if they felt they were under threat they would most certainly exhibit signs of fear or anxiety... And those are just a few on-the-spot points on top of Puss's mystical reappearance.

10) They DID have a key for the home. But I am not so sure it was used to be honest... I think Julia willingly admitted someone(s) into the home, and furthermore, I think she had trusted this person(s).

11) Wallace strangely ommited the Johnstons from the list of people Julia would admit into the home. Was he an innocent man who knew there was a riff between them? Was he trying to avoid police investigating the Johnstons more heavily? Or was it simply an oversight?

12) Mr. Johnston apparently had a friend who lived at Menlove Gardens West.

---

The R M Qualtrough moniker, I propose, has the very specific purpose of implicating a Prudential worker in the crime (just as does the stealing from ONLY the cash box). The alias had to have been thought out carefully in advance, and it serves no purpose other than to lead police, with very little effort, to a Prudential client, who by sheer coincidence, had dealt with Mr. Marsden... So is this just a case full of many coincidences? Or a careful plan? You decide...

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I mean you guys have had probably like a decade of discussion, so I've got a lot of catching up to do

To be honest WWH I’ve been interested in the ripper for 30+ years (not so much these days though) but I’ve only been interested in the Wallace case for just over a year and it was mainly through the other thread. I quickly got hooked, read more and more and got into the debate more.
I intend to go back a re-read the books on the case as a refresher as I’ve been distracted recently by a family bereavement. That said I wanted to mention a point from Gannon. It’s been awhile since I read the book but you say that the name Qualtrough naturally points to Marsden as he had a client of that name? But wasn’t there some kind of shop with that name? Is my memory playing me false here? If there was such a shop then couldn’t Wallace simply have seen this and the name stuck in his memory and when he needed a memorable name.....?