Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[WallaceWackedHer]

What would the milk boys motive be for lying about seeing Mrs. Wallace?

your #14 motive would be humorous if not so ridiculous. So one possibility you think is’Oh Oh ! Wallace is talking about moving out of the area and taking his chess dues with him, quick, kill his wife!’
In the words of Dickens from his book Scrooge, “I’ll retire to bedlam “ LOL.

Obviously to impress his fellow young gang of friends. Highly plausible that a child would do that. He never mentioned it for ages, didn't tell his parents, just volunteered it among other kids then hesitated about telling the police. Taking his word as gospel given the circumstances is ridiculous. Only one author appears to have pointed out that he's not a very credible witness.

And yes I know I was thinking of the Carsini wineries episode of Columbo.

Realistically though, if the two men were both financially responsible for the club's upkeep, whether Wallace had perhaps been lagging on payments or not paying his fair share, that would be highly important information clearly, as possible incentive to steal from him.

That's trying to push a motive beyond simply wanting money for money's sake, which is what would probably apply in any burglary scenario for any suspect including Gordon Parry.

Fact is, and this as far as I see cannot possibly be disputed, James Caird has both the knowledge and opportunity needed to commit the crime. He knows everything about the business trip, the layout of the home, will be admitted without question, and is so close as to practically be a neighbour allowing for easier escape, while being confirmed to be near Wallace's house within the window of Julia's possible time of death. Can you realistically dispute this? Or will you admit it as fact.

---

I think anyone can say with very high probability that Gordon Parry is the caller... So if you finger James Caird as the perpetrator it'd be good to establish for a fact whether he definitely knew Parry (might be in his police statements since Parry was investigated as one of the prime suspects).

It's of course possible that someone at the chess club would exploit a prank call from Parry.

---

Parry as a duped caller then Wallace killing his wife could work if not for the fact his neighbours on both sides I guess had never heard any argument between the two. Living together apparently so happily for over a decade with no issues noticed by their terraced neighbours seems unlikely. My house is semi-detached and I had neighbours who were in a bad marriage before and you KNEW about it.

When it comes to blood splashes however, you might consider that others have seemingly got away untouched by blood despite strong evidence they did it.

See Deborah Pieringer (similar to Wallace, no drains at the crime scene were used) and Lizzie Borden. But the list of cases where this has happened is quite long, and nobody can quite figure out how they are doing it except to claim they're naked - which doesn't even make sense since they'd track blood around the house and onto the insides of clothing they put on after... There is evidence in both the Borden and Wallace case, however, that burning was involved. Borden put a dress of hers in the fire, there's signs of burning on Wallace's mackintosh. Maybe that's how they're doing it. Except Wallace failed to incinerate the raincoat in such a scenario.

[moste]

What would the milk boys motive be for lying about seeing Mrs. Wallace?

your #14 motive would be humorous if not so ridiculous. So one possibility you think is’Oh Oh ! Wallace is talking about moving out of the area and taking his chess dues with him, quick, kill his wife!’
In the words of Dickens from his book Scrooge, “I’ll retire to bedlam “ LOL.

[WallaceWackedHer]

“He looks too kind to be a criminal “. ?

I know, I know, that is the furthest thing from evidence!

But I am REALLY good at reading people off of their appearance. I will be the first to admit it is not even remotely evidence, but when I look at his face (in Gannon's book) he looks so jovial, to the point I really can't imagine him ever being involved in something like that. Also the fact he covered William's back... You'd think a guilty party would want someone else to go down for the crime - and yet we see Parry also covered William's back saying they had a great marriage (and I am 99.99% certain he is the man who placed the phone call).

However, on the evidence, I put James Caird forward as a good suspect for involvement, here's why:

1) Is intensely familiar with the Wallace household (to the point of knowing the upstairs back room has been turned into a laboratory).

2) Played chess at Wallace's home often, I cannot think of any other room they may have played in but the kitchen where the cash box was kept, owing to the need for a table. Furthermore, Caird was so close to Wallace having known him for 15 years.

3) If involved in a premeditated scheme, will be at the club to ensure Wallace receives the message from his accomplice. In fact, he actually followed Beattie and stood by him as he delivered the message and listened to Wallace's responses. This is documented as fact in his own statements.

4) Even if the call was a prank Caird knows: The nature of Wallace's business, the address Wallace is going to, Wallace's home address, the name of the client, the time of the appointment, and even the tram route Wallace is taking. On top of this he would be admitted by Julia without question.

5) Admitted to knowing the name Qualtrough.

6) Caird pressed Wallace oddly on their discussion on the way home. Caird first said he had heard of a Qualtrough when Wallace expressed doubts. Then when Wallace rejected Caird's suggested route (which was to get a bus from queen's drive, a stop 30 minute walk from Wallace's house - Wallace's own route took 25 minutes in TOTAL) and said he'd take the direct route, Caird questioned him on what route that would be... Then he says "I take it you've made up your mind to go then?" as if trying to ensure that Wallace will definitely be going on the trip.

7) Has at least two mutual acquaintances with Gordon Parry, who is almost certainly the caller (Wallace, and Stanley Holmes).

8) At least knows Gordon Parry by sight, as his chess tournament nights were on Thursdays, the same night as Parry's drama club met.

9) Was not due to be at the chess club on that Monday, since Monday was for second class players and he was a first class player.

10) Possibly prompted Beattie to deliver the message in the first place. This is disputed as there are several different accounts, whether Beattie or Caird first mentioned Wallace being there, but in whatever case he pointed out to Beattie that Wallace had arrived.

11) Caird offered Wallace a game before he'd even hung up his coat and hat... Which would of course put him in prime position to ensure Wallace received the message.

Note: Take note of how despite immediately offering Wallace a game, when Wallace rejects the offer, Caird does not try to find another partner, he instead loiters around for a little while, first going to greet Samuel Beattie, then following Beattie and hovering around as the message was delivered.

12) Lives about 30 seconds from Wallace's home so can easily get in and out unseen compared to most other suspects.

13) By his own statements did not have an alibi for a window of opportunity in the murder. By his statement, he left his store at 7.15 PM and arrived home (AKA 30 seconds from 29 Wolverton Street) at 7.45 PM. He could have potentially committed this murder.

14) A POSSIBLE motive. The two men had set up the chess club together, and therefore I am assuming were financially responsible for its upkeep. There are many ways this could lead to motive... Just one idea is if Wallace realized he was terminally ill and planned to move out of the area, removing financing for the club... Or if Julia was putting on similar pressure....... Or simply if he felt Wallace had been giving him a raw deal had he been covering more of the costs than he felt was fair.

15) Not evidence but something to look into... Wallace named another man from the chess club as being someone his wife would admit, a Mr. Thomas. I have never ever seen him referenced, but he is a possible accomplice (since in a burglary scenario I am sure there are multiple people in the house).

---

I'd also like to field the idea that Alan Close lied about seeing Julia... Not that he was mistaken... The idea he OUTRIGHT lied.

Alan Close did not see Julia take the milk in. After putting the milk on the doorstep of 29, he went to 31 (or 27? One of the two) and delivered the milk to them. He then went back to 29 Wolverton Street to collect the empty jugs or containers or whatever it was, and THAT is when he claimed to have seen Julia.

It is fact that he was at the door, but possible he lied about the sighting.

One indication that he is lying is the fact that he first revealed this information some time after the murder (when Wallace was already the prime suspect), and to a group of kids around his own age... Something a child might do for "street cred"... When they told him he should tell the police, he was extremely hesitant... He then began bragging he's "the missing link" and giggled and fell asleep in the courtroom.

[moste]

Just so you guys are aware, I found out that James Caird told police he arrived home (AKA seconds from Wallace's home) at 19.45 on the night of the murder.

He looks way too kind to be a criminal though. I know looks can be deceiving but still, he's like a cuddly skinny-Santa looking man.

“He looks too kind to be a criminal “. ?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Just so you guys are aware, I found out that James Caird told police he arrived home (AKA seconds from Wallace's home) at 19.45 on the night of the murder.

He looks way too kind to be a criminal though. I know looks can be deceiving but still, he's like a cuddly skinny-Santa looking man.

[WallaceWackedHer]

WWH. Too far back to track where you mentioned Wallace having been raised in Millom . Turns out interestingly though, there is a far higher incidence of the name Qualtrough in North west Lancashire than anywhere else in Britain, barring the Isle of Man, and in particular, in the early part of the 20th century. I mentioned this fact quite a while back and I don’t think folks saw the significance in it. Wallace said ‘I’ve never heard of that name before’ I think he was Lying.
On the telephone booth call, and to clarify, I believe Wallace made the call, Knowing it would be traceable , and as a method of incriminating Parry. Knowing the police would learn all about Parry’s involvement with Julia, his involvement with Wallace’s insurance rounds and collections etc.and that Parry had been involved in embezzlement at the Pru’s expense. Wallace could almost hear the police interview with Parry thus: “You made that call knowing that Mr. Wallace would not be there to talk to you, and you left a bogus message for Mr. Wallace did you not? Further, knowing Mr. Wallace would almost certainly take the bate and make the journey across town, it left you free to call on Julia the next evening , assured that her husband would not be home for a couple of hours.”
Although we’ll never know his motive, I’m sure Wallace was responsible for his wife’s death, albeit possibly with family involvement.

I think framing Parry for the call is impossible. It's a lot harder than vice versa (framing Wallace).

It's possible PD James got it right though, and William knew Gordon placed the call while thinking about it that night, and then framed him by emptying the cash box and saying he's one of the only people Julia would admit into the house. So it would again be an exploit albeit with Wallace as the exploiter.

It is important to think about Wallace's motive when considering him a suspect regardless of what others may think. Did he want to get away with a murder? Or did he want to frame someone? Or did he want to outsmart police and purposefully leave himself in the frame?

Because if he just wanted to murder Julia and spend the rest of his days studying his hobbies he could have poisoned her and almost definitely gotten away with it. She was known to be poorly, it would be ridiculously simple to "speed up" her illness with his knowledge of botany and chemistry... Maybe he just didn't think of it... But it seems the obvious choice. So then it looks like he either hated Julia SO MUCH that he wanted to smash her head in more than he wanted to get away with it, purposefully wanted to play cat and mouse with the police, or purposefully wanted to have someone convicted of murder.

---

I don't think William is the caller, I am certain Parry is. The reasoning is that William gave his tram route before he even knew the booth was traced (seems an unnecessary risk but perhaps he just wanted to place himself away from ANY booth), Beattie said it's nothing like his voice even in hindsight, and William was born and raises in Cumberland while the caller had a LOCAL accent.

Wallace as the caller would have had to call someone he knows and fake not only his voice in general, but convincingly fake a scouse (Liverpool) accent to someone who actually WAS a local. He also then faked his accent to the telephone operators in that case because they reported a local accent if I remember right.

On the other hand Gordon Parry first and foremost knowingly lied about his alibi (no ifs and buts about it, unless someone has EXTREME prejudice), knew Wallace went to that chess club, and we can place him at that phone box at the right time for him to have called.

... Gordon being in the box is the part of the case I am most certain of. I might have considered he faked his alibi due to an affair but then he wouldn't have given Lily as the person he was with... I also like the Johnston family as suspects and consider them exceptionally strong candidates, and when I come up with other ideas exonerating them is one of the hardest parts of the case... Look where Julia was killed for one, she was basically killed against the dividing wall between their houses that's how close she was to that wall when she was hit, and Arthur Mills was literally living in that adjacent room. Their daughter did not expect their visit allegedly. There's so many reasons.

So even if I can consider something like James Caird and Jack Bethurn exploiting the call, or Caird and Parry being friends and concocting the whole scheme to rob the joint (they had a mutual friend Stanley Holmes, as well as meeting at the cafe on the same night), or Parry's father convincing Olivia Brine to lie for his son as he attempted with others... Then I have to ask HOW can I exonerate the Johnstons and explain away their ignorance to sound, their "planned move", their behavior on finding the body, their visit to their daughter Phyllis that she wasn't expecting at all - as well as the fact they had clear opportunity to get in and out easily and unseen, and had their fingerprints all over the crime scene (yes they can be explained, but it makes you wonder if that could be WHY they went back in?)... It's exceptionally difficult...

I think Parry placing a prank call and then a member of the chess club exploiting that call should be explored deeply, and I'd nominate James Caird as the chess club member given his proximity to Wolverton Street (he literally lives on the next street), and the fact he'd almost certainly been in the Wallace's kitchen when he and Wallace played chess together, would be admitted by Julia without question, and also questioned Wallace about the route he'd take and if he was definitely going on the trip.

[moste]

WWH. Too far back to track where you mentioned Wallace having been raised in Millom . Turns out interestingly though, there is a far higher incidence of the name Qualtrough in North west Lancashire than anywhere else in Britain, barring the Isle of Man, and in particular, in the early part of the 20th century. I mentioned this fact quite a while back and I don’t think folks saw the significance in it. Wallace said ‘I’ve never heard of that name before’ I think he was Lying.
On the telephone booth call, and to clarify, I believe Wallace made the call, Knowing it would be traceable , and as a method of incriminating Parry. Knowing the police would learn all about Parry’s involvement with Julia, his involvement with Wallace’s insurance rounds and collections etc.and that Parry had been involved in embezzlement at the Pru’s expense. Wallace could almost hear the police interview with Parry thus: “You made that call knowing that Mr. Wallace would not be there to talk to you, and you left a bogus message for Mr. Wallace did you not? Further, knowing Mr. Wallace would almost certainly take the bate and make the journey across town, it left you free to call on Julia the next evening , assured that her husband would not be home for a couple of hours.”
Although we’ll never know his motive, I’m sure Wallace was responsible for his wife’s death, albeit possibly with family involvement.

[WallaceWackedHer]

[QUOTE=moste;n725350]

Yseult Bridges also said the engineer confirmed a fault with the box, I think I typed that already. But also it has been said that everyone knew that you don't press button A until AFTER you hear your correspondents voice. So either way the caller made a mistake.

Just to be clear. The correct statement should be’ Everyone knew you can’t press button ‘A’ until after you hear the correspondents voice, because the lock mechanism won’t allow it’. Herein lies the answer to what the engineer repaired. But then the caller would have to have made the mistake of pushing button ‘A’ before hearing a voice, and coincidently the locking mechanism failed allowing the money to be released into the cash box ,and, coincidently the failure of an extremely reliable piece of equipment, at just the moment that a person with criminal intent needed the telephone exchange to note problems with that particular location.
Surely it’s quite obvious that there is a plan involving that phone box

This sounds like you're suggesting he was framed on purpose.

I will say that, I think it's almost a certainty that Gordon Parry was in the call box. So many reasons for this. And then there's two angles from there, either it was indeed a scheme with another person, or it was an exploit of a practical joke.

You see, Breck Road is a main road and near Lily Lloyd's home at Missouri Road, and as I recall Parry said he had come from a place which was to the west. Parry and Gordon had bumped into each other in public a few times before like when Gordon gave William a calendar... We know the two of them can be placed in a similar location at a similar time on the night of the call based on timings...

We know William barely went out after dark. His outings to lecture chemistry, I can see nothing to show that this was a routine thing or on what days this would be... But he did somewhat regularly go to the club on the Monday. From what I can see it's the only thing after dark he ever did with any sort of reliability.

So if William is at the tram stop or walking to it, Parry could very well (based on timing) br coming past it along Breck Road. He may have the funny idea to f*ck with William for laughs as it is reported he loved to do (making prank calls in comical voices), and the telephone kiosk would be the very next one he would come across.

So then he calls and scams it because he pressed BUTTON B (he did not press button A) and then has his fun on the phone. Gets out, back into his car and proceeds to Lily Lloyd's with NO IDEA what his actions will lead to.

Who could exploit it?

James Caird or anyone at the chess club. But keep in mind Caird lived less than a minute walk from William and he had undoubtedly been into William's kitchen (where the cash box is) numerous times when they played chess together. He also had a weird exchange with William asking which route William was going to take and if he was definitely going (after the club ended)... But anyone at the chess club, because it was discussed all night, knows: William's line of work, where he is going the following night, what time he is going, the name of the person he is going to meet, and William's street or home address (McCartney asked for it to work out which route he should take).

If it's planned, Gordon and the first rate chess members met on the same nights for their respective clubs at the cafe. So would know each other AT LEAST by sight. But who knows if Parry had forged a friendship with any of them. If he had and this is a scheme, then "knowing William got the message" is a cinch because there is someone at the cafe already, who will see if he gets it... Caird again is a good call since he is a first rate player so would meet at the cafe on the same nights as Parry's drama club, AND he was not meant to be at the club on that monday since he had no scheduled matches AND he immediately asked Wallace for a game even though Wallace was to play a tournament match (and if he'd accepted of course he would be positioned perfectly to hear the message being delivered). By some accounts he ALSO is the one who prompted Beattie to deliver the telephone message.

---

As for the crime scene itself. I think it's TWO people not one... There are things about the scene which suggest it... For one thing the cash box and kitchen etc. is clean. However, this is weird because it would probably have to be ransacked after Julia is dead. Reason being, if she'd discovered him in the kitchen she wouldn't be then taking him into the parlor to make him comfy by the fire...

But here is a scenario that fits...

See, the cash box is 7 foot off the floor. On the ground are coins, and the box has a broken hinge.

So let's imagine a man, perhaps a man known to Julia but not definitely, comes in the front and is shown into the parlor. While this is happening someone has entered the yard (trust me the yard bolts are zero issue at all, I can explain) and the back door, probably with a duplicate key. Such keys were VERY common back then, I have read many newspaper reports and locks were SO EASY to pick that even 14 year old boys could make skeleton keys with files quite easily. One gang of youths were found with 24 file-made duplicate keys.

Though curiously William also apparently said his wife would NOT LOCK the kitchen door as she was protected by the yard door.

So anyway... This person is in the kitchen, struggling to reach the cash box because it's up so high. And like what many of us have done when trying to grab things just a bit too high to firmly grasp, he edges it towards him and it falls off the shelf and smashes spilling coins on the ground and breaking the hinge. The perpetrator in a panic very quickly grabs the box and puts it back as fast as he can, as you would, and gets ready to make his escape. But little does he know his friend who was distracting Julia in the parlor heard the noise, noticed Julia heard it, and hit her before she could go to investigate.

This man in the back may have been the well spoken man who hailed the cab in a very anxious state, asking the cab driver to step on it to Sefton Park and asking the cab driver if he's going to kill him. This was the first suspect police hunted for in newspapers, and the cab was hailed at around 7 PM on the night of the killing near Wolverton Street.

If it turned out to be chess club members you might finger Caird and Bethurn, the two men who accompanied William home after the chess club and discussed the route with him etc. Caird told William he had heard of a Qualtrough before.

[etenguy]

[QUOTE=moste;n725350]

Just to be clear. The correct statement should be’ Everyone knew you can’t press button ‘A’ until after you hear the correspondents voice, because the lock mechanism won’t allow it’. Herein lies the answer to what the engineer repaired. But then the caller would have to have made the mistake of pushing button ‘A’ before hearing a voice, and coincidently the locking mechanism failed allowing the money to be released into the cash box ,and, coincidently the failure of an extremely reliable piece of equipment, at just the moment that a person with criminal intent needed the telephone exchange to note problems with that particular location.
Surely it’s quite obvious that there is a plan involving that phone box

I agree moste, I believe the phone box / call is key to understanding this crime.

[moste]

[QUOTE]Yseult Bridges also said the engineer confirmed a fault with the box, I think I typed that already. But also it has been said that everyone knew that you don't press button A until AFTER you hear your correspondents voice. So either way the caller made a mistake.

Just to be clear. The correct statement should be’ Everyone knew you can’t press button ‘A’ until after you hear the correspondents voice, because the lock mechanism won’t allow it’. Herein lies the answer to what the engineer repaired. But then the caller would have to have made the mistake of pushing button ‘A’ before hearing a voice, and coincidently the locking mechanism failed allowing the money to be released into the cash box ,and, coincidently the failure of an extremely reliable piece of equipment, at just the moment that a person with criminal intent needed the telephone exchange to note problems with that particular location.
Surely it’s quite obvious that there is a plan involving that phone box

[WallaceWackedHer]

Here is the conclusion of Morland. I do not actually understand what he's saying, see if you get it:

Why did the killer put on the mackintosh?

To protect himself from blood, we know. And there has been the proposition it was used to cover his nakedness. Yet never once has the clearly practical answer been offered, the real answer which throws all those times tables aside. The mackintosh could have protected the murderer, made his possession of it acceptable to Julia, and allow him to kill swiftly and leave unmarked and within a few minutes of the murder.

Here is how I envision it: The murderer properly dressed carrying the mackintosh in the ordinary manner over one arm thus covering the hand which held the murder weapon, perhaps the iron bar.

And the message at the chess club had been handed on in garbled form to Julia Wallace that Qualtrough was coming to her home, which would justify the use of the sitting-room.

Therefore, with the murderer's entry to say that "Qualtrough will be here in a few minutes," Mrs. Wallace kneels down to light the gas fire, her right hand reached to the right hand side of the fire to turn on the tap, her left holding the lighted match.

In that position, as is always the case when one does such a thing with a newcomer in the room, her eyes were facing the gas fire but her head slightly turned towards the visitor.

The weapon went into the murderer's right hand, and the mackintosh, as he stepped forward to strike, was handled in front of him much as a toreador handles his cope, only the murderer's hand and arm as he struck were exposed to the spurting of blood.

Following that first tremendous blow Mrs. Wallace jerked into the position in which she was found, her whirling skirt brushing the fire accidentally to scorch it. The murderer, moving round her as she fell, could easily have swept his mackintosh past the hot fire sufficiently to damage the rubberised material. The next immediate action was the rain of blows to complete the dozen. The gas-fire and the gas in the illuminating bracket were both doused, after the mackintosh had been thrust where it was found and the same bloodied hand which did it possibly wiped the bar on the dead woman's hair. Nor was it callousness-it was not something the murderer would ever have done, but the carefully contrived imaginary murderer would have acted in just that way.

The inventor of Qualtrough had the intelligence to attend to every detail not with genius but from a lifetime of observation and careful underplaying which-not elaborate construction-will always be the secret of acceptable facts.

Clearly enough the reader is perfectly aware that I have indicted William Herbert Wallace as the murderer.

It sounds like he's saying the mackintosh was part of the staging? But William pointed it out twice as his own without hesitation? I really have no clue WTF he's saying here, but his mackintosh idea is the crux of his book. The chapter is even entitled "the man behind the mackintosh" and focuses on the mackintosh as the key theme as he's 100% certain he has the answer.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Little update again. I received Morland's book, this one has some new information actually. To be clear, he is aware of Parry, but fingers Wallace as the killer.

He claims that, while people think William died of kidney issues, he actually died of throat cancer, and had use of just one lung.

I've also heard similar before, but he also said that William said (in a state of collapse) after his successful appeal: "don't they know she was kneeling down?"

He feels certain of his theory on the mackintosh. I'm not quite sure what he's saying but I believe he's saying the killer would use it like the cape of a toreador, and have the weapon hidden under it (the mack draped over his arm) when he entered. Then he'd pass the weapon from one hand to the other.

I think he's saying William purposefully tried to give that impression, that it was part of staging? I'll type it out in full when I'm on the laptop.

Yseult Bridges also said the engineer confirmed a fault with the box, I think I typed that already. But also it has been said that everyone knew that you don't press button A until AFTER you hear your correspondents voice. So either way the caller made a mistake.

---

I can also confirm the maiden name is given as "Thorp" not Thorpe with an E. The E'less Thorp I've now seen in two different books.

Allegedly Wallace and Julia became close because she knew of Marcus Aurelius and introduced him to other Roman philosophers.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I have received more publications including the "Murder can be Fun" magazine issue. Much is information I had heard already but it contain a tidbit.

When William was arrested his lawyers received threatening letters anonymously, calling them names for defending Wallace. These were signed with pen names including "Blind Goddess" and "Vigilante".

I have also seen that the jurors were in fact VERY biased against William. One juror, according to Rowland, had been seen on a tram before the trial even began pointing to William's photo in the paper to a friend saying "that's the guy. He did it alright."

---

I have also been reading The Man from the Pru. A book not about William, but the surprisingly entertaining and insightful stories of a man who had worked for the Prudential Assurance Company. I don't think there's a single Wallace reference.

It should be noted that a number of things actually do help shed light on this case, surprisingly.

For example, it was expected of an insurance agent to always have his "nose to the ground" and be on the hunt for new business. Say someone had moved into a home a few doors away from a client, a good insurance man would knock at that door and introduce themselves, asking if they could be of assistance.

So going out on wild goose chases was a part of the Prudential agent's ethos if new business was on the line. Where there's a possibility to capture a client, the insurance agent should snap it up. And with bad payers, agents may go chasing these people on Fridays because that's when they would be paid (the clients) so it was important to see them quickly. This in itself often involved goose chases rushing all about because, without telephones, there weren't fixed appointments, the person may be out shopping or anything else. So there'd be a lot of back and forth door to door hoping people would be in.

Insurance agents also worked from home mainly. This is interesting, and may have made it a good job for Wallace. Rather than collecting premiums daily, the insurance agent would collect sometimes only two days a week, often spending the majority of their time in their offices at home.

The clients of an agent should know his address in case they ever need to see him on business. And that is an interesting little quirk, because if now we have a whole other set of unknown suspects, being clients of his.

If he had asked clients that day for Menlove Gardens East (since he may have wanted to see if anyone he saw on his round could help him), someone unscrupulous could have exploited that. Even without knowing where the box is (though they probably would if they'd done business with Wallace in the living kitchen), if they'd called at the house saying they had to pay money in, they may have been admitted by Julia and told where to put the money (in the box). Julia had filled in for William before while he was sick.

Further, mondays and tuesdays were considered the biggest paydays for the insurance agent. I am not sure why, as people were paid on Fridays it sounds like? But that is the claim, so there we have another reason for a Tuesday night hit. Not only was Wednesday pay in day, but Mondays and Tuesdays were jackpot days in and of themselves, so a tuesday night robbery makes complete sense. Even if the person didn't know what day pay ins were but did know that Mondays and Tuesdays were the jackpot of collections.

The insurance agent was expected to be very charming, and act as a friend not just a collection agent, and thus, that may be why Wallace did not find himself promoted up the ranks. Perhaps he was not able to connect with the common man as well as he would have liked, though there's evidence he tried from clients saying he had been "joking with them" the day Julia died. I don't believe he could small talk with them about football and the likes... So it may be a case of personality rather than incompetency. Like a salesman, he perhaps just did not have the right personality to excel in the field.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Correction: Obviously in an earlier post I meant to say if the motive was ROBBERY then it clearly did not go well due to Julia ending up dead. Anyway, here's a quote from Wikipedia that was sent to me by a friend, though from another publication, worth mentioning:

In 2017, Ann Carlton, in her book Penny Lane and All That: Memories of Liverpool, describes how her father—the late Sir Stanley Holmes—visited Wallace in his prison cell, at Wallace's request, after he had been convicted. Holmes was then a teenager working for Liverpool Corporation and was friendly with the sons of Wallace's regular chess opponent Mr Caird.

Carlton wrote that Holmes said that Wallace revealed the name of the man he thought was the murderer; it was a man who Holmes knew from Lister Drive School. Carlton wrote that her father said the man was clever but a bad lot and some years after the murder he had seen him in the dock accused and convicted over a different matter. Speculating about Wallace's motives in asking to see her father, Carlton wrote that Wallace may have suspected that the city's local government establishment wanted to protect the son and nephew of one of their own, and that the case against him was brought to do just that. She added that she believed that the young man her parents knew and thought was a bad lot - and very possibly a murderer – was the man named by Roger Wilkes.

Does seem an odd man to choose to talk to (but may have been because William was friendly with him and knew he was in political circles. He served as an MP for the liberal party, which William also had worked for)... But something else here is we see another possible link between James Caird and Richard Gordon Parry. Stanley Holmes was friendly with James Caird's family, AND personally knew Richard Gordon Parry. And Caird alone also provides a possible link to the alias Qualtrough as he told William he had heard of it before.

That link between the two men is not really needed because we know Parry and Caird, both attended the same cafe on the same nights for some time, and they have another mutual friend in Wallace anyway. But still interesting to note another potential mutual acquaintance.

It would be nice if we had a description or photo of James Caird, to see if he may be a fit for the "umbrella man" who anxiously asked the taxi driver at around 7 on the night of the murder "you won't kill me will you?" then asked to be hurried to Sefton Park, requested the driver turn off down a random side street, then hurried off down a side street in the westerly direction. Or indeed if anyone else at the club could be a fit... The man was well spoken etc. and instinctively when we think of chess club members we may think of them as being somewhat classy in presentation and manner... So I'd be curious to see how the chess club members looked.

---

More from Yseult Bridges (we've got about 60 pages left):

. Apparently William told police that because Julia would bolt the back yard gate she did not bother to lock the back kitchen door. Seems curious considering window cleaners were able to easily scale the walls to move from yard to yard, I don't think it's all that secure.

. Finds it of importance that he knocked gently rather than hard. This is a point for his guilt in her view. I must admit I see it quite the opposite. The door knock pantomime without anyone noticing, seems utterly pointless. If he wanted to get a neighbor out to bare witness to his entry, then it would make sense for him to knock hard.

The Johnstons did hear it and appear, but they may be suspects. With that said (Johnstons being suspicious), while if Florence had spoken to Julia in the yard when Julia went out to pay Charles Bliss, then aside from Florence potentially learning of William's business trip (which would point in their direction), vice versa Julia may have learned Florence was heading out to meet a relative later that night, and relayed that to William, and therefore William may have timed his home-coming to coincide with the time he knew they were going to head out to visit their relative (which would point to William). So that's something to keep in mind...

. She contradicts her above point, to be honest, by saying he would not have gone to the police but wanted a neighbor to witness him enter the house, and wanted to enter alone. So if he wanted to alert neighbours then actually a gentle knock is counterintuitive.

. She thinks William bunched up the jacket and put it under Julia's shoulder AFTER he had entered the home again. She thinks that when he had killed her he just chucked it over the top of her body.

. Says that he could have known the Johnstons were just about to go out when he returned because their bedroom lights were on.

. Says that Mr. Johnston yelled up at her to "hurry up!" and that Florence yelled back "I'm coming!" and said that William could have heard this, and known they were about to leave the house. I can say that on very quiet streets, you can hear that stuff inside the house if you're walking along the road outside.

. I think she's implying he may not have knocked on the front, just heard Florence and John yelling to hurry up etc. and slipped down the side so he could then intercept them and pretend he'd just tried the front door.

. Says that William asked them to wait while he went inside (Disputed - We know they changed their statement to say the opposite - that John had said they'd wait outside)

. Mrs. Johnston had said she particularly noticed the spent matches when she entered the home. One in the kitchen (living kitchen?) on the mat near the scullery (back kitchen) door, and two just in the doorway of the parlour.

. Re-iterates the oddity of him not yelling out when finding the body.

. Says the gas lamp in the parlour was not turned up fully when the Johnstons first entered, and says that is why the mackintosh was not noticed.

. Points out the cupboard door which was detached was not locked (According to Gannon this was a door which was already broken and had been shoddily repaired).

. Says that William went to investigate the burglary before asking John to go for the police (Disputed - I think, I'll have to check, but in some publications I know they say that William asked John to hurry for the doctor and police, and then John asked him what was missing, and then we do know John is the one who told him to check upstairs again. Whether William took down the cash box in the presence of John or AFTER John had gone for the police is ALSO disputed).

. Mrs. Johnston says the Wallace's front door had a different lock to her own and she was agitated, both contributing to her being unable to open it when the police arrived.

. Re-iterates that he said on trial his wife did not have a mackintosh (he actually said to his knowledge she never wore one, but it is suggestive she didn't have one), despite asking what she was doing with "her mackintosh".

. Seems to imply that the Wallace's had a doorbell? She says at least that the defence argued someone had "rung the bell" and been admitted. I don't think they did have a doorbell though, from what I can see in photos?

. Says that the assertion was that William had knocked on the front, and that the killer had then fled out the back. But says this does not make sense because the yard door was ALREADY unbolted.

---

Something to note here as well. While discussing William's odd behavior, not much is made of the facts about the Johnstons behavior. They also did not rush for police/a doctor (going for the latter implying it was believed she was saveable and so should have gone quicker), and also were adamant on investigating the burglary, even sending William back upstairs after literally watching him check all the upstairs rooms.

And then John bumps into Francis McElroy, his daughter's Fiancé: "Frank, I have to get Florence out of there!"... Why is there any need for Florence to be in there at all? The Johnstons had a full household, he could easily have "gotten Florence out of there" and either himself stayed with William while one of his sons went for the police, sent one of his sons into the home in her place, or even told Francis McElroy to enter the home so Florence could get out.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Continuing "Two Studies in Crime" by Yseult Bridges - Chapter: Tuesday, 20th January 1931:

. Brings up the point that the bedroom which was in disarray was the largest and best furnished, yet apparently unused. Echoes Winifred Duke that the disorder may have been to make the room look like it wasn't in use to disguise any domestic falling out.

. Mentions the Johnstons leaving to see friends. Does not mention that it was their daughter they were visiting. Wonder if that's her mistake or they altered their statement.

. Claims Wallace asked the resident at Menlove Gardens West if that was Menlove Gardens East (in addition to asking for Mr. Qualtrough).

. Claims it was confirmed William had never told anybody before the trial that he knocked at Mr. Crewe's home. However, Gannon disputes this.

. Claims Wallace could have disposed of the weapon around the Menlove area and had around quarter of an hour free time to do so. She says there was a lot of building work going on, and because of that, it would be an ideal disposal ground.

---

That's two chapters covered above believe it or not... It's a bit sparse because it's mostly repeating the same facts we've heard many times, essentially walking the reader through the journey William took around the Menlove Gardens area, and accentuating how he could have found out the place did not exist if he'd just done X or Y or Z. But it's essentially just walking the reader through the facts.

It appears, that the prosecution and author are hoping to hang him due to his stupidity in this book... Though we must remember, if he's innocent, his wife being murdered is the VERY LAST thing he would expect to happen. If he had gone out on this trip, done all of these things, neglected to consult a directory etc, then returned home to his wife who was still alive, complaining that he'd been tricked then going about their lives, we'd not think anything of it.

A lot of the prosecuting evidence relies on things that a person naturally may neglect to bother to do, but which becomes important in hindsight when we see that a murder has taken place.

The prosecution has strong points. But in these two chapters, Bridges herself, and the supporting trial excerpts, are all basically arguments along the lines of "he's so stupid to not have just done X (e.g. call Mr. Crewe) that he must be guilty". So not the strongest chapters in argument power. But a well-written recounting of the story.