Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

It doesn't say, so maybe. But most definitely that inference can't be drawn from those words. If you refer to the regularity specifically, then regular once-weekly lessons (at the same time and place each week) is the norm, at least from my experience having had a decade of piano/violin lessons and a few different tutors.

I think the most simple explanation is that Parry was not being entirely truthful for an undetermined reason, which may be because he had placed that telephone call or been committing another crime at the time.

Parry could have deliberately lied but I also feel that he might simply have been mistaken and, as you said, even if he did lie then this still doesn’t prove that he made that call. I just really struggle with the idea that after a three day gap (so he wasn’t caught unawares) Parry, when being interviewed in connection to a murder that’s the talk of the town, Parry gives an alibi that he knew would have been checked and disproven. As someone with a cast-iron alibi for the murder even saying “I was just out driving around” would have been less potentially damaging alibi that the one he gave. I accept that it sounds unlikely that he could have made such an error but it’s easily done if you have no particular reason to recall a day that had nothing out of the ordinary in it.

I think that we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one WWH

[WallaceWackedHer]

Parry could have deliberately lied but I also feel that he might simply have been mistaken and, as you said, even if he did lie then this still doesn’t prove that he made that call. I just really struggle with the idea that after a three day gap (so he wasn’t caught unawares) Parry, when being interviewed in connection to a murder that’s the talk of the town, Parry gives an alibi that he knew would have been checked and disproven. As someone with a cast-iron alibi for the murder even saying “I was just out driving around” would have been less potentially damaging alibi that the one he gave. I accept that it sounds unlikely that he could have made such an error but it’s easily done if you have no particular reason to recall a day that had nothing out of the ordinary in it.

I think that we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one WWH

Well fair enough, but I'm sure you can see these are valid points? I don't think Parry deserves credit for stupidity more than Wallace does for the dumb things he did when we're assessing potential involvement/guilt/what happened in general.

Otherwise giving a fake alibi would be the new best thing to do when caught by police. Just say something so outlandishly untrue, that when they check it they just say "oh he was mistaken obviously" and drop him from the investigation. That doesn't seem rational.

I think I'll ask law enforcement on Reddit about fake alibis such as this and see what happens.

Since Wallace is not the greatest candidate as the man who rang the club, I think Parry is the second best. Otherwise something like a chess club member, albeit as a robbery or murder plot the details of the call are simply not very good. There are many dumb criminals, but it sounds more like someone was simply trying to mess with Wallace.

Come murder murder day, there's some issue and Julia ends up dead. Wallace goes on the trip acting bizarre due to his wife's murder that just occurred, then finds out it was a fake appointment, providing him a perfect alibi?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well fair enough, but I'm sure you can see these are valid points? I don't think Parry deserves credit for stupidity more than Wallace does for the dumb things he did when we're assessing potential involvement/guilt/what happened in general.

Otherwise giving a fake alibi would be the new best thing to do when caught by police. Just say something so outlandishly untrue, that when they check it they just say "oh he was mistaken obviously" and drop him from the investigation. That doesn't seem rational.

I think I'll ask law enforcement on Reddit about fake alibis such as this and see what happens.

Since Wallace is not the greatest candidate as the man who rang the club, I think Parry is the second best. Otherwise something like a chess club member, albeit as a robbery or murder plot the details of the call are simply not very good. There are many dumb criminals, but it sounds more like someone was simply trying to mess with Wallace.

Come murder murder day, there's some issue and Julia ends up dead. Wallace goes on the trip acting bizarre due to his wife's murder that just occurred, then finds out it was a fake appointment, providing him a perfect alibi?

Happy New Year WWH

[WallaceWackedHer]

Happy New Year WWH

Out at some club rn loool, waiting for their card machines to be fixed so we can buy drinks.

Happy New Year!

[WallaceWackedHer]

Reading tonight I see Amy had been in the parlour on the week prior, but apparently she was in the kitchen on the day of the murder. She alleges she did not stay long, just asked about the pantomime and heard about the trip then left.

Apparently rumours circulated about her for a long time because of her outburst at the coroner's trial about the press printing some of her words. Also because she did not appear as a witness during the trial.

Goodman believes Joseph and Amy were not a very close couple. Apparently, the keeper of the inn/hotel Wallace stayed at with Joseph after his release did not realize Amy and Joseph were even married, and he returned back to Malaya not long after.

The general public appears to have been rather convinced of her involvement so it seems. This could have fueled some of the eyewitness statements (albeit I think the tram conductor is genuine that he believes he saw her at Scotland Road looking nervous seeking directions to the ferry landing stage)... At least one juror also believed that Julia was already dead before the milk boy claims to have seen her.

Julia had been sick for at least a week. The milk boy would have been aware of her illness had he seen her the week prior, which is a detail in his statement (that she discussed her illness).

Goodman alleges that Amy was not impressed by Julia. When Julia had filled in for Wallace, Amy supposedly chided her about how that was unwomanly behavior. She was also scornful of Julia's petty illnesses, as she saw it as a sign of weakness, and abhorred weakness - claims Goodman.

But the main point I was posting is that it was the kitchen which Amy had been in. Her parlour visit was one week before.

[moste]

WWH quote: But the main point I was posting is that it was the kitchen which Amy had been in. Her parlour visit was one week before... How could anyone be sure of this, if it wasn't tested in court?

[moste]

So if the defence did not summon Amy as a witness at the trial, they must have not trusted that Amy would be reliable to give a thumbs up to Wallace and Julia being a close caring couple?
Also the jury would find it rather odd that since Amy was the definite last person to have been with Julia and had chatted at length. The Jury I would think would be left wondering 'can we hear for ourselves straight from the horses mouth, what was discussed, and what was the general demeanor of Julia. 'Fishy?'
,

[WallaceWackedHer]

So if the defence did not summon Amy as a witness at the trial, they must have not trusted that Amy would be reliable to give a thumbs up to Wallace and Julia being a close caring couple?
Also the jury would find it rather odd that since Amy was the definite last person to have been with Julia and had chatted at length. The Jury I would think would be left wondering 'can we hear for ourselves straight from the horses mouth, what was discussed, and what was the general demeanor of Julia. 'Fishy?'
,

Whether or not Amy had ACTUALLY been in the kitchen that day I can't say, I'm just repeating her claim, or what I can discern of it from Goodman's and Antony's books. The Johnstons should have been able to determine that (or even whether she was there at all) given they said they could always hear her through the walls... On the prior occasion a week before, she had been received in the parlour (along with Edwin).

I have often thought that it's rather convenient Julia happened to mention all this stuff about the trip to her, and coincidental she would turn up mere minutes after Wallace left for his afternoon rounds (you would think she would be interested in seeing him).

Amy would have definitely said Julia and Wallace were a loving couple. She had said so in other statements, and was of course very "team Wallace" so wouldn't have volunteered anything harmful to his defence. There's only speculation in books as to why she was not called as a witness, although apparently at that time the rumours were very strong that Amy was involved in the murder, or the femme fatale who essentially caused it.

Because of those rumours, I think perhaps some statements about her might stem from that. Apart from the tram conductor who's either very genuine or very crazy, since he wrote the home office etc. for ages and got the case re-examined as he was certain he saw Amy with Wallace at Scotland Road around 8 PM asking for the landing stage.

[moste]

Mmhh! Very interesting

[moste]

WWH. Quote: Because of those rumours, I think perhaps some statements about her might stem from that. Apart from the tram conductor who's either very genuine or very crazy, since he wrote the home office etc. for ages and got the case re-examined as he was certain he saw Amy with Wallace at Scotland Road around 8 PM asking for the landing stage.


Wallace being seen at Liverpool Scotland road asking about the docks with Amy. Could this just as easily have been Joseph with his wife Amy ? After all the two men could almost be twins at a distance? curious , Joseph Wallace being the seafarer, recently disembarking from the east, and soon to be embarking to return to the east.Though from recent posts I believe Liverpool was the port for ferries, or transatlantic voyages. I suppose there is no evidence available of Joseph’s voyage’s .i e. Landing papers ,passport, voyage tickets etc? Presumably it would be through Southampton. Nevertheless , I would be interested to know , to eliminate him from enquires ,his dates of arrival and departure from our fair shores.
It seems like quite the coincidence Joseph arriving when he did ,attending his sister-in-laws funeral, then leaving right after. I would imagine the plod looked very carefully into all that. Incidentally, maybe Joseph flew home after being wired of the murder. You see the problem ,his journey by steam ship in 1931 would have been at least 3 weeks.

[WallaceWackedHer]

WWH. Quote: Because of those rumours, I think perhaps some statements about her might stem from that. Apart from the tram conductor who's either very genuine or very crazy, since he wrote the home office etc. for ages and got the case re-examined as he was certain he saw Amy with Wallace at Scotland Road around 8 PM asking for the landing stage.


Wallace being seen at Liverpool Scotland road asking about the docks with Amy. Could this just as easily have been Joseph with his wife Amy ? After all the two men could almost be twins at a distance? curious , Joseph Wallace being the seafarer, recently disembarking from the east, and soon to be embarking to return to the east.Though from recent posts I believe Liverpool was the port for ferries, or transatlantic voyages. I suppose there is no evidence available of Joseph’s voyage’s .i e. Landing papers ,passport, voyage tickets etc? Presumably it would be through Southampton. Nevertheless , I would be interested to know , to eliminate him from enquires ,his dates of arrival and departure from our fair shores.
It seems like quite the coincidence Joseph arriving when he did ,attending his sister-in-laws funeral, then leaving right after. I would imagine the plod looked very carefully into all that. Incidentally, maybe Joseph flew home after being wired of the murder. You see the problem ,his journey by steam ship in 1931 would have been at least 3 weeks.

He arrived by boat, I do not believe he was at the funeral. There are no records available of his date of arrival or mode of transport, only what is stated in books and so on.

It is simpler that it wasn't Joseph, though we can see from some other solved cases that the wacky answer is sometimes the right one (like the one where the guy was living in his ex girlfriend's walls coincidentally while she held a seance for her dead mom then he pretended to be her ghost lmao).

Amy and Wallace are simpler for involvement. So are the Johnstons and chess club members.

Also I think there's strong evidence that Parry placed the call, and I'm not sure Amy or Joseph knew Parry. Then again of course, I also think the call was coincidental and not part of any plan.

[moste]

He arrived by boat, I do not believe he was at the funeral. There are no records available of his date of arrival or mode of transport, only what is stated in books and so on.

It is simpler that it wasn't Joseph, though we can see from some other solved cases that the wacky answer is sometimes the right one (like the one where the guy was living in his ex girlfriend's walls coincidentally while she held a seance for her dead mom then he pretended to be her ghost lmao).

Amy and Wallace are simpler for involvement. So are the Johnstons and chess club members.

Also I think there's strong evidence that Parry placed the call, and I'm not sure Amy or Joseph knew Parry. Then again of course, I also think the call was coincidental and not part of any plan.

If we know so little about Joseph’s visit, how can we rule out the possibility of his total involvement in the crime. I think I mentioned before the possibility of Joseph aping his brother for his round trip to the Menlove gardens east address.what makes it simpler if it isn’t Joseph? I guess is what I’m asking.

[WallaceWackedHer]

If we know so little about Joseph’s visit, how can we rule out the possibility of his total involvement in the crime. I think I mentioned before the possibility of Joseph aping his brother for his round trip to the Menlove gardens east address.what makes it simpler if it isn’t Joseph? I guess is what I’m asking.

I don't think it's impossible. Just simpler if that's not the case because of course it's quite complicated.

I already think the proposed plan is over the top, and it doesn't pair well with the staging of the crime scene. I know people like to make out Wallace is literally Moriarty or something, and pre-empted all these SUPERRRR tiny occurrences. But I don't think that's the case.

The plan if the call is part of it, is NOT GOOD for anyone as any form of plot. It's really bad. And I'm rather confident the probable answer is that it has nothing (at least not intentionally) to do with the crime. I have high confidence it is probably a prank call.

I think Julia's murder is a mundane crime which has been romanticized and buffed up into a riddle by the seemingly obvious link between a call and a crime that then happened the next day.

It's not really a coincidence though in my view as much as a chain reaction of events. If Slemen is accurate about the crime scene of the robbery that occurred a month earlier, where he claims money was stolen from a container and the container replaced, no forced entry, nothing else taken, and pillows chucked about upstairs - then I think the perp being that person has a higher chance than the caller being the same person as the killer.

If Wallace did it, I think maybe it is related to Amy Wallace. In such a case I think Julia was dead and Wallace went out thinking he had to keep the appointment to not raise red flags, acting really peculiar because he's so shaken over Julia. Then on the trip he realizes he's been duped, and that provides an unexpected and fortunate strong alibi. Or vice versa she was killed by Amy or something while Wallace was out...

If Wallace is involved I don't think he planned to beat any clock, and I don't think there was a long period of premeditation. Alan Close (the most important aspect of Wallace's defence case) did not come forward at first, and yet Wallace did not use any obvious opportunity to mention this apparently VITAL part of his alibi... The fact he beat the clock is either another coincidence, Alan lied about seeing Julia, or someone else carried out this crime.

If the details of the earlier burglary that happened just one month prior are correct, I think the Johnstons or someone known to them may be the killer. Investigating THAT crime would then be important to the solution in my view.

---

But yes all in all - I think this case is much more mundane than appearances would lead one to believe. No mastermind Sherlock Holmes tier plot...

What this case does show IMO is the error in human logic. Much like when people see Jesus's face in toast... We're wired to seek patterns and links, it's how our brains work. Here we are presented with what SEEMS an obvious link, and on the surface it is, so it's hard for our minds to see beyond. But I think the reality is different.

People are so good at working backwards from the end to the start. But not at starting from the beginning and seeing how events may have naturally unfolded.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hey! I did see Jesus in my toast. Then I couldn't eat it, as that would be sacrilege and now I'm starving.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another issue with a prank call is this

Wallace said that he’d left the house at 7.15. For Parry to have known that he was going to the club (to make the prank worthwhile) he’d have had to have seen Wallace (probably as he’d left Richmond Park at around 7.15/7.16) The phone operators said that the caller complained about not getting his call at 7.18. This means that the caller would have already tried, say 7.17. So in the space of a couple of minutes we have Parry - seeing Wallace, deciding on a prank, deciding on one to send him on a wasted journey, deciding on a fabricated business opportunity with mention of the reason for it (daughters birthday) He also comes up with (on the spur of the moment whilst driving to the phone box and parking up) an address which doesn’t exist but which is very close to ones that did exist and so was believable.

It’s too much to ask imo.