Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

No hood. It would have looked something like this I assume.

https://www.google.com/search?q=1930...Cj8gpNz3xPIznM

F*ck what sort of raincoat has no hood?! I was thinking that would've provided significantly more coverage. Dang...

[moste]

Doesnt this count heavily against a connection as Julia was at home. The downstairs lights would have been on letting a potential burglar know that this house was a no-go.

People would leave a light burning that was visible from outside when they were going out, to make it appear that someone was home. My folks did when I was growing up and we lived in a considerably safer area than the Wallaces I would wager.
Also did Wallace not say to the constable 'we always leave a light on in there, refering to a room upstairs? I think the problem was, the average burglar knew the 'leave a light on trick '.

[moste]

Does anyone see anything of interest in the fact that the piano lid was up? 9 times out of 10 a pianist would close the lid when finished with a musical session.

[moste]

F*ck what sort of raincoat has no hood?! I was thinking that would've provided significantly more coverage. Dang...

Whilst wearing this particular piece of attire , a man would normally wear a trilby hat to protect against the rain .

[WallaceWackedHer]

Does anyone see anything of interest in the fact that the piano lid was up? 9 times out of 10 a pianist would close the lid when finished with a musical session.

Not at all, I have played and owned a piano for 15 years and the lid is always up (with music on the stand), so I can't put any stock into that. I THINK my piano teacher also always had the lid up on her two pianos.

After a while it just becomes hassle to close the lid and clear the shelf thing. I suppose untidy Julia certainly wouldn't bother.

[moste]

I can't agree , we will have to agree to disagree as they say. I take it your piano wasn't in the Seldom used front parlour? And I would think your teacher would be Using theirs quite frequently . My grandma had one, an upright , and a neighbour across the street also. Those piano's always had the lid down over the keys when not in use. However, C'est la vie.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I can't agree , we will have to agree to disagree as they say. I take it your piano wasn't in the Seldom used front parlour? And I would think your teacher would be Using theirs quite frequently . My grandma had one, an upright , and a neighbour across the street also. Those piano's always had the lid down over the keys when not in use. However, C'est la vie.

It's at the back of the front room (it's basically two rooms separated by stairs, but one big room). The lid is left up even during periods of many weeks when I don't bother to touch it because I'm busy doing other stuff or whatever... I don't think the lid has been down once in quite a few years. Especially with loose sheets clearing the shelf off can be annoying (hard to organize loose sheets) so those tend to always be on there. Even books though, because you end up stacking book in front of book lol.

So I can't necessarily accept it as proof of anything, since clearly not everyone puts the lid down. And my piano teacher only used one of the pianos, the other was pretty sh*t, I don't know why she even had it... I played on it once over like, almost a decade, it sucked... I think it was always open though.

They should have checked the keys for dust. They CAN get a bit dusty sometimes if it's not touched for like, months on end. If there was dust that would prove it was always left open.

[caz]

Hi All,

I haven't managed to catch up with this thread yet, but thought I'd mention an incident which happened to me yesterday, concerning voice recognition over the phone.

My landline rang and the conversation went as follows:

CAZ [in my normal voice] : Hello?

MY GARDENER : It's Martin. Would you like me to do your garden?

CAZ [laughing] : You're already doing it. I was about to put the kettle on for your cuppa!

MARTIN : Why are you laughing? I'm at Caroline's, so I thought I might nip next door and do your garden when I'm finished here.

CAZ : I am Caroline! You rang my number by mistake.

MARTIN : Oh I'm sorry. I thought you were Molly.

CAZ : No problem. See you shortly.

A minute later the phone rang again:

CAZ : Hello?

MARTIN : Oh hello Molly. I'm at Caroline's, do you want me to do your garden next?

CAZ : It's still Caroline!

MARTIN : Oh God I'm so sorry. Let's see... ah yes, I have Molly's number now.

CAZ : Good, I'll make the tea.

Now Martin has been doing my garden and Molly's for a year now, visiting us every few weeks. I don't think my voice sounds anything like Molly's. Shortly before he phoned me the first time, we had been chatting in the garden, going through what needed doing, and earlier he had phoned to find out when it was convenient to pop round. Yet despite all this, he had no idea it was me and not Molly talking when he rang from the end of the garden, not once but twice - because he simply wasn't expecting to hear my voice.

There are two very simple reasons why Beattie would have had no idea at the time that Qualtrough could have been Wallace: 1) the very fact that Qualtrough was asking for Wallace and 2) the voice would not have sounded like Wallace, whether it was him or not. Wallace would have been doing his level best to disguise his normal voice if he was planning to kill his wife, in which case he must have been confident he could fool Beattie. Additionally, we don't know how recently Beattie had spoken to Wallace over the phone, if ever, but clearly he would have used his normal voice on every other occasion.

What Beattie couldn't do was to 'recognise' the voice as Wallace's in retrospect. He was as sure as he could be, when questioned later, that it hadn't been Wallace on the phone, but he could not have ruled out the possibility. These days voice recognition can be used to confirm someone's identity over the phone, as the human voice is unique to the individual, like a fingerprint. If the Qualtrough conversation had been recorded and Beattie had listened again, knowing that Wallace was the prime suspect for the caller and the killer, he might have had second thoughts, or he might have been even more certain it wasn't him. But the problem would then have been how much his recollection was being influenced by a personal belief in the man's guilt or innocence. Put simply, if the voice was Wallace's he was almost certainly a scheming murderer; if not, Wallace was off the hook. So Beattie presumably believed in Wallace's innocence, or at least had doubts about his guilt, when saying it was not him on the phone. He couldn't even admit the possibility that he might have been fooled [and let's face it, nobody likes to admit that], if he didn't want to help put a noose round Wallace's neck.

In short, Beattie believed what he believed about Wallace and that phone call, and that alone amounts to reasonable doubt in my mind. But he could have been wrong and he could have been fooled, and I suspect he was, because the various Parry theories just don't add up.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi All,

I haven't managed to catch up with this thread yet, but thought I'd mention an incident which happened to me yesterday, concerning voice recognition over the phone.

My landline rang and the conversation went as follows:

CAZ [in my normal voice] : Hello?

MY GARDENER : It's Martin. Would you like me to do your garden?

CAZ [laughing] : You're already doing it. I was about to put the kettle on for your cuppa!

MARTIN : Why are you laughing? I'm at Caroline's, so I thought I might nip next door and do your garden when I'm finished here.

CAZ : I am Caroline! You rang my number by mistake.

MARTIN : Oh I'm sorry. I thought you were Molly.

CAZ : No problem. See you shortly.

A minute later the phone rang again:

CAZ : Hello?

MARTIN : Oh hello Molly. I'm at Caroline's, do you want me to do your garden next?

CAZ : It's still Caroline!

MARTIN : Oh God I'm so sorry. Let's see... ah yes, I have Molly's number now.

CAZ : Good, I'll make the tea.

Now Martin has been doing my garden and Molly's for a year now, visiting us every few weeks. I don't think my voice sounds anything like Molly's. Shortly before he phoned me the first time, we had been chatting in the garden, going through what needed doing, and earlier he had phoned to find out when it was convenient to pop round. Yet despite all this, he had no idea it was me and not Molly talking when he rang from the end of the garden, not once but twice - because he simply wasn't expecting to hear my voice.

There are two very simple reasons why Beattie would have had no idea at the time that Qualtrough could have been Wallace: 1) the very fact that Qualtrough was asking for Wallace and 2) the voice would not have sounded like Wallace, whether it was him or not. Wallace would have been doing his level best to disguise his normal voice if he was planning to kill his wife, in which case he must have been confident he could fool Beattie. Additionally, we don't know how recently Beattie had spoken to Wallace over the phone, if ever, but clearly he would have used his normal voice on every other occasion.

What Beattie couldn't do was to 'recognise' the voice as Wallace's in retrospect. He was as sure as he could be, when questioned later, that it hadn't been Wallace on the phone, but he could not have ruled out the possibility. These days voice recognition can be used to confirm someone's identity over the phone, as the human voice is unique to the individual, like a fingerprint. If the Qualtrough conversation had been recorded and Beattie had listened again, knowing that Wallace was the prime suspect for the caller and the killer, he might have had second thoughts, or he might have been even more certain it wasn't him. But the problem would then have been how much his recollection was being influenced by a personal belief in the man's guilt or innocence. Put simply, if the voice was Wallace's he was almost certainly a scheming murderer; if not, Wallace was off the hook. So Beattie presumably believed in Wallace's innocence, or at least had doubts about his guilt, when saying it was not him on the phone. He couldn't even admit the possibility that he might have been fooled [and let's face it, nobody likes to admit that], if he didn't want to help put a noose round Wallace's neck.

In short, Beattie believed what he believed about Wallace and that phone call, and that alone amounts to reasonable doubt in my mind. But he could have been wrong and he could have been fooled, and I suspect he was, because the various Parry theories just don't add up.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks for that Molly....er Caz. Sorry but you type just like Molly. Welcome back. Where ya been?

Really good points. As you said 1. The voice was asking for Wallace and 2. It wouldn’t have sounded like Wallace’s voice.

We can perhaps add the fact that, as a serious businessman in 1931, the idea of a prank phone call would have been an alien one to Samuel Beattie and this call was about business. These days if we get an ‘unusual’ call our natural first thought is “hang on, is this Caz winding me up?” This wouldn’t have been the case with Beattie. And you’ve just shown with your example how even someone that’s completely familiar with you’re voice can get it wrong. Even someone that you’d been speaking to face-to-face minutes earlier!

Personally ive never had an issue with the ‘Beattie didn’t recognise Wallace’s voice’ argument.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I feel he may have thought it was your voice in retrospect. You should ask your gardener if thinking back he now realizes it was your voice.

Parry theories are based pretty much entirely on the fact he faked an alibi, and parents begging for himtp be sneaked out of the country etc. Yes it makes sense if he was tricked into calling under a false pretense... Or if he legit wanted Julia dead (murder motive) rofl but that seems ridiculously unlikely for so many reasons... The former is more likely by a long shot... IMO the silence and Julia's presence in the parlor is a VERY difficult to overcome obstacle (when in conjunction) in the idea of a burglary with only one perpetrator in the home.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t even think that he faked an alibi because it wasn’t one that he could have believed for a second would be upheld. I’d say that it was impossible for Parry to have intentionally tried to trick the police. What could have been worse for him or more suicidally stupid than to have given such an obviously false and categorically refutable alibi. If he’d planned the crime (or even been a part of a plan) then not supplying the police with a pathetic ‘alibi’ would have been one of his main thoughts. I think that Parry was simply mistaken.

[caz]

I feel he may have thought it was your voice in retrospect. You should ask your gardener if thinking back he now realizes it was your voice.

Hi WWH,

There are two crucial differences in our case: 1) I made absolutely no attempt to disguise my voice, and 2) I told him it was me, during both calls, and he then realised his mistake. I wasn't trying to fool anyone.

Whoever Qualtrough was, his sole reason for making that call was to fool people.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Thanks for that Molly....er Caz. Sorry but you type just like Molly. Welcome back. Where ya been?

Really good points. As you said 1. The voice was asking for Wallace and 2. It wouldn’t have sounded like Wallace’s voice.

We can perhaps add the fact that, as a serious businessman in 1931, the idea of a prank phone call would have been an alien one to Samuel Beattie and this call was about business. These days if we get an ‘unusual’ call our natural first thought is “hang on, is this Caz winding me up?” This wouldn’t have been the case with Beattie. And you’ve just shown with your example how even someone that’s completely familiar with you’re voice can get it wrong. Even someone that you’d been speaking to face-to-face minutes earlier!

Personally ive never had an issue with the ‘Beattie didn’t recognise Wallace’s voice’ argument.

Cheers HR!

I haven't had much spare time for the message boards of late, but am trying to catch up, bit by bit, with the topics that interest me most.

My Mum's name was Molly too, so I did a double take when I saw your first line.

Love,

Caz
XX

[WallaceWackedHer]

I remain unconvinced. It seems there may be a vested interest to clear Parry of any involvement whatsoever. Criminals have countless times given easily falsifiable alibis, just the same as Gordon, so why in this case should it be an exception? For any investigating law enforcement, giving a false alibi would certainly raise him as a suspect, and rightly so.

The evidence that Wallace called is no weaker or stronger than the evidence that Parry did. The situation with Beattie is similar too... Your gardener didn't recognize the voice at first, but then when told it was you he realized. Beattie was essentially told it could have been Wallace calling him, so quite a similar factor.

I don't buy the excuses. Like when did Lillian teach, what day of the week was the 19th? I would think it would be very hard to mix your days up. Very hard indeed. It seems like a big stretch in fact.

If Gordon had rang, then it would help out a killer Wallace.

I will have new forensic evidence for you shortly (seriously). I've sent off emails to linguistic forensic scientists to analyze the statements given by each party, and perhaps some of the trial statements.

In my view, Wallace showed deceptiveness when saying he was not seen crying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I remain unconvinced. It seems there may be a vested interest to clear Parry of any involvement whatsoever. Criminals have countless times given easily falsifiable alibis, just the same as Gordon, so why in this case should it be an exception? For any investigating law enforcement, giving a false alibi would certainly raise him as a suspect, and rightly so.

I tend to think the opposite. Parry is the bad boy of the piece. The criminal against the ‘good guy’ Wallace. I think it galls people that Parry had an alibi for the time of the murder and so we know for a fact that he didn’t kill Julia. And so second prize is to tie him into some kind of plan or conspiracy. And so he ‘must’mhave Lied about his Monday night alibi. But this crime wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment thing it was planned. So why didn’t Parry set himself up with an alibi from one of his dodgy mates? And let’s face it, even having no alibi would have been 100% better than an easily disprovable false one that he didn’t need to give. If he’d have said “I was just driving around” then so what? He had a cast iron alibi for the time of the murder and that’s all that mattered.

The evidence that Wallace called is no weaker or stronger than the evidence that Parry did. The situation with Beattie is similar too... Your gardener didn't recognize the voice at first, but then when told it was you he realized. Beattie was essentially told it could have been Wallace calling him, so quite a similar factor.

The caller asking for Wallace’s address points more to Wallace. Who was taking the risk of Beattie giving him the address: Parry who had no way of knowing that Beattie didn’t know his address or Wallace who certainly did?

I don't buy the excuses. Like when did Lillian teach, what day of the week was the 19th? I would think it would be very hard to mix your days up. Very hard indeed. It seems like a big stretch in fact.

It might seem so to us but I certainly get days mixed up. It’s not impossible therefore it’s possible. How utterly stupid would Parry have to have been to have given a blatantly disprovable alibi? It wasn’t even in panic. He’d had plenty of time to work out what he was going to say to the police. He’d even had enough time for ask Lillian Lloyd to back him up. It seems unlikely that he did and she refused considering future events.

If Gordon had rang, then it would help out a killer Wallace.

I think that if Wallace needed help Parry would have been the last person he would have trusted. I think that far too much is made of the fact that Beattie didn’t recognise Wallace’s voice. A disguised voice - a business call - Beattie focusing on the content - Beattie having never received a prank call and probably even being unaware of what one was - the voice didn’t sound like Wallace’s - voices can sound different on the phone anyway. I have absolutely no issue with the fact that Wallace could have made the call.

I will have new forensic evidence for you shortly (seriously). I've sent off emails to linguistic forensic scientists to analyze the statements given by each party, and perhaps some of the trial statements.

That will be interesting WWH although doesn’t the fact that the actual voices can’t be heard affect the outcome? Also when things are transcribed they’re not always transcribed 100% accurately.

In my view, Wallace showed deceptiveness when saying he was not seen crying.

You could be right. I think that we shouldn’t dismis Rothwell’s testimony out of hand.

I still go for the least complicated solution. Wallace alone. There isn’t a single fact to show that this couldn’t have happened. Would Wallace who, let’s face it, wasn’t exactly Ronnie Kray have wanted to trust someone else in this? Someone like the completely untrustworthy Parry?