Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll explain why the accent is important:

First because there's a misconception that the caller used his real voice to the operators. This fact proves that false if it's Wallace, which means he was already anticipating operators being questioned or the box being traced... He then switched to a different voice when he got through to the cafe... If he's faking his voice anyway why not use the same voice throughout?

It’s a bit annoying that I don’t have access to books at the moment and my memory can be dodgy but can you remind me how we can be sure about the accent? I’m not disputing the point it’s just that I can’t recall the details. Are we saying - Liverpool accent to the Operators but non- Liverpool accent to Beattie?

Second because the Liverpool accent is extremely hard to emulate, especially in a natural sounding way. I think you live in England like me so you know scouser accents are mega distinctive and hard to emulate, and I suspect fooling actual locals would be even trickier.

To be honest WWH I’d have said that the Liverpool accent is surely one of the easiest to emulate and remember Wallace heard this accent x times a day, at least 6 days a week and for 16 years. He’d have been soaked in the accent. Also the conversations with the operators were short and to the point. Likewise Beattie.

You agree on at least point one right? Point two is so-so, it's evidence yeah but you could argue he had a knack for accents. But we have to discard the idea the caller spoke in his usual voice to operators if Wallace called. You're with me on that?

If it’s shown that the Operators said Liverpool accent then yes.

... There is no way being asked to recall a voice and picture it as being a certain person would LESSEN your likelihood of identifying the person... Beattie doesn't even seem sure of Wallace, he acts off when Wallace pressed him on the time. But he does seem sure the voice was NOT his, even when purposefully trying to envision it as Wallace using a fake voice.

Beattie acts off because he suspects that he shouldn’t be talking to Wallace. I think that thinking back would naturally cause someone to assume a greater level of caution especially when it came to a capitol crime. Even if Beattie had the slightest suspicion that it might have been Wallace’s voice would he have wanted to potentially send someone to the gallows on an error. Someone that he’d know for years. I’m certainly not suggesting that was the case though.

I've heard about dodgy mates for ages. But you think it's the worst alibi in the history of crime (there's actually many more just as bad). Is that a new technique for criminals to get off the hook? Fake an alibi so badly people can't believe you'd be so dumb?... He KNEW that alibi was false mate, if he didn't call he purposefully lied for a different reason... But he lied and KNEW he lied... I'd like to have heard where he apparently picked Lily Lloyd up from (he didn't know where he picked her up from in his car lmao), and importantly when this supposed event took place if not on Monday... He's so salient about his actions on the murder night down to the minute, but just one day prior to that, he has no clue... Does Lily teach on weekends? I thought she did Monday to Friday, so he's mistaking his actions on Monday for an event that took place at the very least on Friday. Even harder to mess that up given the work week schedule kinda fixes separate weeks from each other in your mind, and also kinda emphasises weekends.

You also have to weigh up the odds of him trusting his girlfriend over his pals. If his pals are so dodgy and untrustworthy are they gonna be loyal enough to lie for him and therefore involve themselves in a murder plot? That's not much of an argument but have you considered that before?

But he wasn’t trusting his girlfriend. He’d had time to have arranged for her to back him up but she didn’t. I genuinly don’t get this. Why the hell would Parry, being questioned in regard to a murder, give an alibi which he knew would be proven false? Why didn’t he just walk around carrying an “I killed Julia Wallace” sign? And, as you’ve said, even if it was a lie this still doesn’t mean that he made the phone call.


The alibi is fake because he's hiding something. If you don't think he called can you at least agree he was probably hiding something else he did that was dodgy. Maybe he was out committing petty thefts at the time? It seems biased otherwise and relies on a lot of assumption.

Its certainly possible. The issue I have is that he was being questioned about Julia’s murder and nothing else.

I can prove the part about the phone. There was a fault though, I don't believe Antony because the police files are pruned. I believe Yseult Bridges had access to more information... BUT either way the caller used the phone incorrectly. THAT I can prove so have some faith in me on that aspect. I think he pressed button B but that could be part of the error... The fact there was an error actually helps your case but I have no dog in the race. But as I said even with an error the caller f'd it up which I can prove.

I need to get round to doing some re-reading. I know that you think that I’m rigid on what happened but I’m not really. I could be wrong on anything. If I’m hard to budge put it down to endless debates and arguments with You-Know-Who Perhaps my overall approach is that we can’t explain everything and so as 90% of things point to Wallace (imo) the unexplained parts or doubts must have an explanation in line with everything else. I realise that therein lies danger and the risk of doing a Rod in reverse. I’m open to having my mind changed though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here's the first article HS, from February 15th 1932....


I'll upload the articles from 1936 later on this evening.

I can’t recall whether I’ve seen that particular article. The story is well known though. Cheers for posting it.

[WallaceWackedHer]

When I look at this case as a whole pretty much everything I see points toward William as the guilty party. An accomplice for William would certainly help strengthen the case but I simply can’t see him involving Parry in a life and death episode and then to point the police in his direction with the risk of him blabbing. No matter how much I look at it it doesn’t add up for me. The possibility of a Monday night identification is the only negative that I can see. The odds imo are still overwhelmingly Wallace alone.

I'll explain why the accent is important:

First because there's a misconception that the caller used his real voice to the operators. This fact proves that false if it's Wallace, which means he was already anticipating operators being questioned or the box being traced... He then switched to a different voice when he got through to the cafe... If he's faking his voice anyway why not use the same voice throughout?

Second because the Liverpool accent is extremely hard to emulate, especially in a natural sounding way. I think you live in England like me so you know scouser accents are mega distinctive and hard to emulate, and I suspect fooling actual locals would be even trickier.

You agree on at least point one right? Point two is so-so, it's evidence yeah but you could argue he had a knack for accents. But we have to discard the idea the caller spoke in his usual voice to operators if Wallace called. You're with me on that?

... There is no way being asked to recall a voice and picture it as being a certain person would LESSEN your likelihood of identifying the person... Beattie doesn't even seem sure of Wallace, he acts off when Wallace pressed him on the time. But he does seem sure the voice was NOT his, even when purposefully trying to envision it as Wallace using a fake voice.

I've heard about dodgy mates for ages. But you think it's the worst alibi in the history of crime (there's actually many more just as bad). Is that a new technique for criminals to get off the hook? Fake an alibi so badly people can't believe you'd be so dumb?... He KNEW that alibi was false mate, if he didn't call he purposefully lied for a different reason... But he lied and KNEW he lied... I'd like to have heard where he apparently picked Lily Lloyd up from (he didn't know where he picked her up from in his car lmao), and importantly when this supposed event took place if not on Monday... He's so salient about his actions on the murder night down to the minute, but just one day prior to that, he has no clue... Does Lily teach on weekends? I thought she did Monday to Friday, so he's mistaking his actions on Monday for an event that took place at the very least on Friday. Even harder to mess that up given the work week schedule kinda fixes separate weeks from each other in your mind, and also kinda emphasises weekends.

You also have to weigh up the odds of him trusting his girlfriend over his pals. If his pals are so dodgy and untrustworthy are they gonna be loyal enough to lie for him and therefore involve themselves in a murder plot? That's not much of an argument but have you considered that before?

The alibi is fake because he's hiding something. If you don't think he called can you at least agree he was probably hiding something else he did that was dodgy. Maybe he was out committing petty thefts at the time? It seems biased otherwise and relies on a lot of assumption.

I can prove the part about the phone. There was a fault though, I don't believe Antony because the police files are pruned. I believe Yseult Bridges had access to more information... BUT either way the caller used the phone incorrectly. THAT I can prove so have some faith in me on that aspect. I think he pressed button B but that could be part of the error... The fact there was an error actually helps your case but I have no dog in the race. But as I said even with an error the caller f'd it up which I can prove.

[WallaceWackedHer]

In Wallace’s statement on 22.11.31 he said:

“When I left home on Monday night to go to the Chess Club I think I walked along Richmond Park to Breck Road then up Belmont Road, where I boarded a tramcar.....”

Ive always thought that the word think interesting. Why would he only think that he walked along Richmond Park? Surely he would have always taken the same route to the chess club? Why the indecision?

Yeah that's a decent fact, unfortunately because he arrived at "about 7.45" it's hard to establish... He could have gone either way.

BUT if he made the call it's less likely he arrived at the club at or before 7.45. It's more likely he arrived afterwards, as late as around 7.53, at minumum 7.44... With the route he claimed, he could've arrived as early as 7.39 or as late as 7.48... That's according to Antony.

Would be good to know how abruptly the caller ended the call. Doesn't seem he was in much hurry on the phone. But to hit the timing right on the route by the box he'd have to quickly get off the phone and to a waiting tram, to avoid a long waiting time as the trams were coming at 8 or 9 minute intervals.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I myself have used the same arguments etc. before. All this accounted for I seriously don't think he's a good candidate for the call.

If it's an old man it's an old man who isn't Wallace. If you're using voice clues then you can't neglect the fact that overriding this is the Liverpool accent which Wallace didn't have, and Beattie literally saying there's no way it was his voice. We must also agree he was disguising his voice to operators too if he called, given the accent they described.

I don’t understand why you find the idea of Wallace adopting an accent that he heard 100 times a day difficult? People adopt cents every day it’s hardly a revolutionary skill.

At the TIME the call came Beattie might be duped. But he then has to look at it in hindsight with the belief that Wallace called, and STILL cannot see it as even possibly being him when he's trying to envision it.

Hindsight would serve to lessen any doubt because it would have been tempered by the fact that he knew Wallace. He believed him to have been a decent, respectable man. Certainly not the type to murder his wife.

I don’t see a single problem with the idea of Wallace disguising his voice to make the call.

But essentially the crux of your argument is you just can't see cautious William trusting someone else. Which isn't evidence, it's an educated guess. Like saying I just can't see Parry killing Julia since he's a nonviolent offender in most cases.

I think that it’s way more than that. Ask anyone if they would enter any kind of conspiracy with someone (one that might conceivable end on the gallows) and then accuse that person of being guilty. It’s preposterous when you think about it.

There's more evidence than not to suggest he's NOT the caller. Evidence for him as the caller is weak, if he killed Julia it's simply more likely someone else placed that call for him, or it's an exploit of a prank call.

The only thing weighing against him as the caller is the risk of being identified as being in the wrong place on the Monday night. Everything else is easy. So if Wallace made the call and felt that no one saw him or really paid any attention to him it was worth the risk. A defence Barrister would have pressured any conductor or passenger with “can you always remember everyone that you see on a journey? Do you memorise which stops people get on at? How do you know that it was Mr Wallace and not another gentleman of his age and appearance?)

You know my evidence for how the latter is legitimately plausible already, and doesn't involve staking the house out but a coincidental encounter (we can place both Gordon and William at the same place at the same time and they've bumped into each other a number of times before). I forgot to mention though, that Wallace was known to basically never go out after dark except to the chess club. And given the tram stop he may have been spotted at or headed to, one might also be able to assume the direction he's headed.

So Parry spots William.....assumes that he’s going to the Chess Club (when he might have been going somewhere else)....he then goes to the phone box and makes the call (thinking up the insurance idea on the spur of the moment) just as a prank to get William out of the house the next night? Where did you get the info that William only ever went out after dark to chess? (I’m not disputing it btw) If this was a known fact why would Parry play a prank involving Wallace going out after dark when he knew that Wallace never did this. But then Wallace decides to take this opportunity to kill his wife? I’d say that, whilst not impossible, the chances are extremely thin imo.

If Parry has zero involvement then he's been framed perfectly with a lot of luck involved. How fortunate that the #1 suspect Wallace named just so happened to give a frauded alibi (and they were SO sure the caller IS the killer, him having an alibi for the murder time was enough for them to rule him out which is wrong) while his girlfriend's time statement just so happens to mean he can be at the box at the exact right time... Let's not talk about him somehow being confused about what he did a day or two ago to such an extreme degree unless he has alzheimer's... He didn't even know the place he supposedly picked Lily up from, I mean............

He was hiding something. If he didn't call he was up to no good in a different way, or with the person who did.

I find it strange that no one seems to even wonder why Parry, in such a dAngelou’s position but with easily sufficient time to have manufactured an alibi (and enough dodgy mates to lie for him), gives the police the most cretinous, easily disprovable alibi in the history of crime? And yet people tend to think it impossible that someone can get the actions of a particular day confused with another (easily done if you’re innocent). I think that this should be called “The Parry Effect.” I just think that over the years Parry has become the Wallace case bogey man. He was dodgy. He was a criminal. He knew the Wallace’s ....so he must have been involved.

But it extends beyond that. Wallace is also SO lucky that his prime suspect also happens to be one of the only people he named who could know Wallace went to the club that night, one of the only people he named who Julia would admit, and one of two people he said knew where the box was... The only others who might match all of these points is James Caird, Amy Wallace, or a neighbour who'd been into the home... Parry also had worked for the Pru and had a criminal history AND was known to enjoy making prank calls in funny voices.

Lucky in that Wallace virtually constructs a photofit biography of Parry for the police. There has to be a chance that, when planning the murder, Wallace felt that he had a good chance of leading the police to Parry’s door (unfortunately for him Parry had an alibi.)

Like that's the Vegas jackpot of luck for ALL those stars to align for the #1 suspect unless framing was purposeful, then the fake alibi was the only lucky bit.

So if he's done this himself you might presume he had Parry in mind and wanted to frame him, and struck gold by accident when Parry was unable to produce an alibi.

That's a leap of faith.

We can discuss how he could've killed her all day because it's plausible, but as the sole perpetrator and caller... It takes a great stretch of the imagination... If it's not Parry it's not Wallace either, I'd then be looking into people he didn't name, or members of the chess club.

The chances of Wallace being identified in the wrong place on Monday is the only doubt.

Even if the box was faulty, as pointed out in a contemporary book everyone knew that you didn't press button A until you'd HEARD your correspondent on the other end. PLUS the switchboard indicated B was pressed, not A... So some clever Moriarty tier b*stard is either purposefully getting the call logged, didn't really know how payphones worked, was mega nervous and screwed it up (though the voice was confident), or WAS indeed trying to scam a free call.

I need to re-read the phone issues when I get home.

When I look at this case as a whole pretty much everything I see points toward William as the guilty party. An accomplice for William would certainly help strengthen the case but I simply can’t see him involving Parry in a life and death episode and then to point the police in his direction with the risk of him blabbing. No matter how much I look at it it doesn’t add up for me. The possibility of a Monday night identification is the only negative that I can see. The odds imo are still overwhelmingly Wallace alone.

[Sherlock Houses]

Gordon Parry was also born in Liverpool and appears to have only been around a year older that RG Parry. I’d certainly be interested in seeing the articles Sherlock.

Here's the first article HS, from February 15th 1932....


I'll upload the articles from 1936 later on this evening.

[WallaceWackedHer]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one as I think everything points to Wallace.

• it was the voice of an older man
• the caller asked for Wallace’s address when only Wallace would have known that no one at the club knew it except Caird (and Wallace knew what time Caird arrived at the club.)
• the phone plan was only a certain if Wallace made it. Any other caller couldn’t have known that Wallace would have taken the bait.
• any other killer could simply have watched for Wallace to leave. They didn’t need a phone call.
• i just can’t see the generally private and cautious Wallace involving anyone else so for me the caller was the killer.

Against this we have the question of his voice being unrecognised but I’ve never seen much strength in that argument. A disguised voice is a disguised voice and Beattie wouldn’t have suspected a prank and would have been focusing on getting the message correct.

And of course the strongest point against Wallace was potentially being seen/identified. But we have to remember that until the murder Wallace had done nothing wrong. He could have just gone through Monday nights events and assessed the risks as too great and abandoned his plan. If he felt that he was ok then he’d proceed.

I myself have used the same arguments etc. before. All this accounted for I seriously don't think he's a good candidate for the call.

If it's an old man it's an old man who isn't Wallace. If you're using voice clues then you can't neglect the fact that overriding this is the Liverpool accent which Wallace didn't have, and Beattie literally saying there's no way it was his voice. We must also agree he was disguising his voice to operators too if he called, given the accent they described.

At the TIME the call came Beattie might be duped. But he then has to look at it in hindsight with the belief that Wallace called, and STILL cannot see it as even possibly being him when he's trying to envision it.

But essentially the crux of your argument is you just can't see cautious William trusting someone else. Which isn't evidence, it's an educated guess. Like saying I just can't see Parry killing Julia since he's a nonviolent offender in most cases.

There's more evidence than not to suggest he's NOT the caller. Evidence for him as the caller is weak, if he killed Julia it's simply more likely someone else placed that call for him, or it's an exploit of a prank call.

You know my evidence for how the latter is legitimately plausible already, and doesn't involve staking the house out but a coincidental encounter (we can place both Gordon and William at the same place at the same time and they've bumped into each other a number of times before). I forgot to mention though, that Wallace was known to basically never go out after dark except to the chess club. And given the tram stop he may have been spotted at or headed to, one might also be able to assume the direction he's headed.

If Parry has zero involvement then he's been framed perfectly with a lot of luck involved. How fortunate that the #1 suspect Wallace named just so happened to give a frauded alibi (and they were SO sure the caller IS the killer, him having an alibi for the murder time was enough for them to rule him out which is wrong) while his girlfriend's time statement just so happens to mean he can be at the box at the exact right time... Let's not talk about him somehow being confused about what he did a day or two ago to such an extreme degree unless he has alzheimer's... He didn't even know the place he supposedly picked Lily up from, I mean............

He was hiding something. If he didn't call he was up to no good in a different way, or with the person who did.

But it extends beyond that. Wallace is also SO lucky that his prime suspect also happens to be one of the only people he named who could know Wallace went to the club that night, one of the only people he named who Julia would admit, and one of two people he said knew where the box was... The only others who might match all of these points is James Caird, Amy Wallace, or a neighbour who'd been into the home... Parry also had worked for the Pru and had a criminal history AND was known to enjoy making prank calls in funny voices.

Like that's the Vegas jackpot of luck for ALL those stars to align for the #1 suspect unless framing was purposeful, then the fake alibi was the only lucky bit.

So if he's done this himself you might presume he had Parry in mind and wanted to frame him, and struck gold by accident when Parry was unable to produce an alibi.

That's a leap of faith.

We can discuss how he could've killed her all day because it's plausible, but as the sole perpetrator and caller... It takes a great stretch of the imagination... If it's not Parry it's not Wallace either, I'd then be looking into people he didn't name, or members of the chess club.

Even if the box was faulty, as pointed out in a contemporary book everyone knew that you didn't press button A until you'd HEARD your correspondent on the other end. PLUS the switchboard indicated B was pressed, not A... So some clever Moriarty tier b*stard is either purposefully getting the call logged, didn't really know how payphones worked, was mega nervous and screwed it up (though the voice was confident), or WAS indeed trying to scam a free call.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No way, is there anything I could say to convince you why this is not plausible?

I can’t see why this isn’t plausible. You initially said that the first blow couldn’t have occurred as the mackintosh was being handed over but my amended scenario has Julia bending down to tend the fire after handling over the mackintosh (or Wallace could have collected it from the ok earlier). I can’t see the problem. As for Wallace striking the first blow without protection. Wallace would have been nervous at the prospect of committing a murder and uncertain of how it would actually happen. With Julia bending or kneeling to tend the fire Wallace suddenly finds himself presented with the ideal moment so he strikes.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'm not a fan of the supernatural. I don't think such things exist...

Would be nice to know what time the other people came to Brine's place. Unless they're there in the window of the murder then the only witness is Olivia Brine and there's evidence of pressure by Parry's parents to solicit an escape for their son, so...

But anyway... I did neglect to answer some of Herlock's posts. I should probably have responded to them, let's see...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just mere coincidence or an intriguing sign ?? Make your own minds up...


I happen to be one of those strange people who doesn't believe in one too many coincidences.

I wonder what a bookie's odds would be on the following happening......

Yesterday afternoon while searching the Liverpool Echo Archives I downloaded six newspaper articles relating to a certain Richard Gordon Parry... one from 1932 and the rest from 1936. I can post some or all of them on this thread if anyone is interested. They make very interesting reading indeed, Parry was certainly making news at that time. Anyhow, literally a couple or so hours later, in the early evening, I decided to watch an old black and white movie I had recorded a month or two ago on the 'Talking Pictures' channel. It was a 1952 movie called "Women of Twilight". Anyhow the opening credits of the movie rolled by until the last credit appeared, revealing as per usual, the name of the film's director. I was astonished by the name I saw.....Gordon Parry !! Quite extraordinary, especially bearing in mind that Parry was more popularly known, as far as I can tell, by his second name, Gordon.

Gordon Parry was also born in Liverpool and appears to have only been around a year older that RG Parry. I’d certainly be interested in seeing the articles Sherlock.

[Sherlock Houses]

Just mere coincidence or an intriguing sign ?? Make your own minds up...


I happen to be one of those strange people who doesn't believe in one too many coincidences.

I wonder what a bookie's odds would be on the following happening......

Yesterday afternoon while searching the Liverpool Echo Archives I downloaded six newspaper articles relating to a certain Richard Gordon Parry... one from 1932 and the rest from 1936. I can post some or all of them on this thread if anyone is interested. They make very interesting reading indeed, Parry was certainly making news at that time. Anyhow, literally a couple or so hours later, in the early evening, I decided to watch an old black and white movie I had recorded a month or two ago on the 'Talking Pictures' channel. It was a 1952 movie called "Women of Twilight". Anyhow the opening credits of the movie rolled by until the last credit appeared, revealing as per usual, the name of the film's director. I was astonished by the name I saw.....Gordon Parry !! Quite extraordinary, especially bearing in mind that Parry was more popularly known, as far as I can tell, by his second name, Gordon.

[WallaceWackedHer]

To be honest I can’t see the issue between my suggestion for why Julia and William were in the parlour and the ‘musical evening’ suggestion. I’m not at all rigid on this though as were never going to be able to prove why they were there or what the exact plan was. William might not have had a prearranged spot for the murder. There are so many variables. Even on the ‘musical evening’ suggestion it could simply have been Julia who intended to play the piano whilst William was out and that’s why she lit the fire. Perhaps she intended some music together when he got back?

Im always wary of trying to preempt how someone might have fallen when we can’t know the exact positions. The fact is that Julia’s skirt was burnt as was the mackintosh (in a room with a lit fire) so it seems likely that these two events were connected in some way.

I just don’t see anything implausible here. The only suggestion that I find implausible to be honest is any suggestion that the mackintosh could have ended up where it did by chance. I’m convinced that it was put there intentionally. By William.

Forensics do a good job with establishing positions. MacFail wasn't the only one there. We know her position when struck (and fml this took AGES to get because every book seems to not see the difference between a friggin chair and sofa)... But she's on the left of the room by the ARMCHAIR (Gannon thinks it's the sofa or doesn't know the difference between the words). The blood spray is too low for her to be standing, she's either kneeling, bending down, or perched on the edge of the armchair, and her head is facing slightly to the left.

MacFall says "as if in conversation" regarding the position of her head. Weird term because to her left is just the photos and fireplace lol. But also the violin case...

And what of the two authors claiming Wallace when being taken from the appeal court in the car muttered "she was bending down" or "don't they know she was kneeling down?". Overzealous reporters making something up? Could be.

But anyway everything suggests she was not standing upright and we can basically assume she was doing something with the fireplace.

The first strike puts her out cold. It was such a hard strike it reached her brain, cracking open her skull.

Now unless someone is physically handling her (there is a bruise on her upper arm, left arm I think? And her hair's bun yanked almost completely off) she's just going to fall violently following the direction of the strike, upper body first... From a kneeling, sitting, or bent position...

That is not consistent with Julia handing over or grabbing the mackintosh. And if she was how does that work for the killer? Wallace doesn't bother protecting himself on strike one then just puts on the jacket (now burned) to hit her on the back of the head? If it's not Wallace she's handing someone else William's jacket?

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be honest I can’t see the issue between my suggestion for why Julia and William were in the parlour and the ‘musical evening’ suggestion. I’m not at all rigid on this though as were never going to be able to prove why they were there or what the exact plan was. William might not have had a prearranged spot for the murder. There are so many variables. Even on the ‘musical evening’ suggestion it could simply have been Julia who intended to play the piano whilst William was out and that’s why she lit the fire. Perhaps she intended some music together when he got back?

Im always wary of trying to preempt how someone might have fallen when we can’t know the exact positions. The fact is that Julia’s skirt was burnt as was the mackintosh (in a room with a lit fire) so it seems likely that these two events were connected in some way.

I just don’t see anything implausible here. The only suggestion that I find implausible to be honest is any suggestion that the mackintosh could have ended up where it did by chance. I’m convinced that it was put there intentionally. By William.

[WallaceWackedHer]

She hands the mackintosh to William who is checking his tie in the mirror (William wouldn’t have had an exact idea of what position Julia would be in when he struck.) After she’d handed over the mackintosh she bent down to tend the fire presenting William with his chance. He strikes and Julia crumpled against the fire singeing her dress. William, with his mackintosh still over his arm or in his hand, bends down to pull her away. As he does this the mackintosh dangles in the fire causing the burning. Using the mackintosh as a shield he rains down the remaining blows. He then wedges the mackintosh underneath Julia believing it will smear and disguise the blood spattering possibly also being in a growing pool of blood from Julia’s wounds. He turns of the light before he leaves the Parlour (something that a random killer wouldn’t have bothered doing.)

No way, is there anything I could say to convince you why this is not plausible?

It doesn't work forensically, or on any other level, and he hardly needs an excuse to get his wife in the parlour. I'm sure the very last thing she would ever think no matter WHAT excuse he used is that her own husband is about to murder her.

She can't crumple skirt first from that position, if she falls naturally it's going to be top half first.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
There's too much convincing evidence pointing away from his as the caller (it's not just the route) I have considered all these things tbh except I thought the route opposite the box might have passed the one he said he took. But same thing in essence. I don't think it works.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one as I think everything points to Wallace.

• it was the voice of an older man
• the caller asked for Wallace’s address when only Wallace would have known that no one at the club knew it except Caird (and Wallace knew what time Caird arrived at the club.)
• the phone plan was only a certain if Wallace made it. Any other caller couldn’t have known that Wallace would have taken the bait.
• any other killer could simply have watched for Wallace to leave. They didn’t need a phone call.
• i just can’t see the generally private and cautious Wallace involving anyone else so for me the caller was the killer.

Against this we have the question of his voice being unrecognised but I’ve never seen much strength in that argument. A disguised voice is a disguised voice and Beattie wouldn’t have suspected a prank and would have been focusing on getting the message correct.

And of course the strongest point against Wallace was potentially being seen/identified. But we have to remember that until the murder Wallace had done nothing wrong. He could have just gone through Monday nights events and assessed the risks as too great and abandoned his plan. If he felt that he was ok then he’d proceed.