Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s a pity that Allan Close couldn’t have been contacted as an adult to answer a few questions but, if my memory serves, I believe that he was killed in the war.

I don’t have any particular aversion to coincidences but I think it’s certainly worth noting that Wallace had trouble getting in on this particular evening. We know that the lock on the backdoor was faulty but Wallace used that door regularly and not once in the past had he been unable to get in. Only on the very night that Julia lay dead in the parlour. Wallace going from front door to backdoor then front and back again served 2 purposes for me. It laid the groundwork for the suggestion that the killer might still have been inside (something that he was pretty much forced to admit in court) and it increased the chance of neighbours seeing him having problems getting in. It’s also suggestive to me that there was no loud knocking or calling out Julia’s name through the letterbox. Things that you perhaps might have expected from someone ‘concerned’ for his wife’s safety. Then of course we have Wallace seeing that the lights were off (and why would a stranger bother turning off the lights) and a cupboard door was torn off (leaving him in no doubt that there was no innocent explanation for Julia’s absence) and yet he neglects to look in the parlour before going upstairs despite the handle of the door being within reaching distance.

[moste]

If pushed, of the two options, I’d have to go with prank as I don’t for a minute think that Wallace had Parry as an accomplice. That said, I’d rate the prank call at around a thousand to one. I just can’t see Wallace acting on the spur of the moment like that. He would have had just 24 hours to plan and murder his wife and for much of this time he would have been at work.

We are being asked to believe that Parry played a pointless prank on a man that was simply an acquaintance. It wasn’t even a prank that he could have enjoyed by seeing his victims reaction to being tricked. Not only that, of all of the available phone boxes, he chooses the box that nearest to Wallace’s house and he times it just as William left the house. He then asks a completely pointless and illogical question which could only have added to Wallace’s suspicion about the call and increased his chance of not going. Also I’d ask why he chose a non-existent address? How could Parry have known that Wallace wasn’t completely familiar with the area and knew for a fact that there was no MGE? Or that a club member wouldn’t have been aware of its non-existance? If he wanted to ‘prank’ Wallace then why didn’t he simply give an address that existed? He could even have given the householders name in case Wallace checked a Directory. To be honest it would have been a pretty poor prank

Yes, I think, forget prank for the phone call. Abby Normal sums the whole thing up for me, just about spot on. . The 5 items in answer , are poor to my mind, especially the last one.
Wallaces purpose when returning home from Allerton, was to 'not enter the house without a neighbour overseeing the situation', and that's precisely what he did.
There was no luck involved with the next door neighbour being available, because if they had not been home ,Wallace would have disturbed the Holmes’s to witness his shenanigans.If the Holmes’s were not available then the folks across the street would fit the bill. In other words ,’ a witness to his supposed dilemma was not just useful ,it was Paramount to his plan, in my opinion.
Too much thought goes into Alan Close as a witness I think, in terms of his motive for being involved , I believe he was just a kid saying it as it was, probably showing off and acting like the big shot to his friends, but when it came to the timing of his route, in court he was adamant and couldn’t be cajoled by the prosecution.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes I'm curious whether you'd think it was connected or a prank call? We have Parry as the caller so we're deciding between these in our view, but prefer the latter given the evidence.

If pushed, of the two options, I’d have to go with prank as I don’t for a minute think that Wallace had Parry as an accomplice. That said, I’d rate the prank call at around a thousand to one. I just can’t see Wallace acting on the spur of the moment like that. He would have had just 24 hours to plan and murder his wife and for much of this time he would have been at work.

We are being asked to believe that Parry played a pointless prank on a man that was simply an acquaintance. It wasn’t even a prank that he could have enjoyed by seeing his victims reaction to being tricked. Not only that, of all of the available phone boxes, he chooses the box that nearest to Wallace’s house and he times it just as William left the house. He then asks a completely pointless and illogical question which could only have added to Wallace’s suspicion about the call and increased his chance of not going. Also I’d ask why he chose a non-existent address? How could Parry have known that Wallace wasn’t completely familiar with the area and knew for a fact that there was no MGE? Or that a club member wouldn’t have been aware of its non-existance? If he wanted to ‘prank’ Wallace then why didn’t he simply give an address that existed? He could even have given the householders name in case Wallace checked a Directory. To be honest it would have been a pretty poor prank

[WallaceWackedHer]

If it was proven that Parry made the call then I’d have to accept it of course. Whether it was in connection to the murder or as a prank then I’d have to weigh the two up. I simply don’t believe that Parry was connected to this case in any way. Everything I’ve ever read about the case, every time I’ve weighed up the various arguments and side issue I always, without fail, come back to the overwhelming likelihood that Wallace killed Julia and that he did it completely alone and with no assistance whatsoever. No matter what the doubts or unanswered questions it’s still Wallace for me.

If Parry made the call and he was trying to make it convincing enough to fool Wallace it’s difficult to see why he would have asked for Wallace’s address. Wallace of course knew that Beattie didn’t know it but Parry wouldn’t have known that. If Beattie had given Parry the address and then went on to ask Wallace to go to his house how convincing would it have been? A man specifically asking for Wallace when he could have phoned The Pru and requested an agent. He asks for Wallace’s address as if he’s going to visit him then requests that Wallace visit him. Then to top it of Wallace might have also asked himself how Qualtrough knew he was a chess club member and that he’d be there that night? By asking for the address Parry would have increased the likelihood of Wallace being suspicious about the call.

It’s easy to be conspiratorial in any murder case (especially one involving a police force that we knew had a serious corruption issue) The timing of Allan Close seems fairly obvious. 6.25 at the clock. His round took 6 minutes. Giving 6.31. This ties in with the time Mrs Johnson gave and the time that the Holme’s heard the Wallace’s door close. The fact that Close seemed nervous, evasive and suspicious in court is hardly surprising considering he was a teenage boy in such a situation. No matter what else he said to friends and under what circumstances we still have the neighbours.

Being as kind as I can to Parkes (and it’s difficult considering his statement) what if Parry saw his chance of playing a trick on Parkes (a man who’d told Parkes to his face that he neither liked nor trusted him) He hears about the murder and goes to the garage acting deliberately suspicious hoping that Parkes would go to the police. Parry knows he’s safe because he has a cast-iron alibi. He hopes Parkes gets done for wasting police time. I don’t know. I just don’t for a minute believe that Parry turned up there with a bloody car, a bloody mitten and then without prompting blabs about the murder weapon.

On the pronunciation of cafe. Most working class people would pronounce it as with caff or caffee. Cafu would be considered in many quarters to have been pretentious or even posh. This fits the ‘sophisticated’ Wallace more than Parry. And I can’t see an issue with someone (Wallace) adopting an accent for a few sentences that he’s heard every day of the week for the last 16 years or so. I don’t see a single issue withWallace making the call. Not one.

That said of course I accept the risk of the Monday evening journey but we weren’t there. Wallace might have just taken the attitude of going through it and then reviewing the situation later to see if he felt that he could have gotten away with it. He had the opportunity of bailing out of course. We also have to consider that Wallace had a serious illness. It’s very possible that he felt that he didn’t have long left to live so this might have given him a fatalistic outlook. We can’t know how he was thinking but he might have felt that the risk was worth it. So if any of the above was the case (and we can’t say for certain either way) then for me that eliminates any real barrier to Wallace being the sole perpetrator.

There are still unanswered questions of course like how did he dispose of the weapon. I don’t really know but if he killed her then he did dispose of it. It’s not outlandish to suggest that occasionally hidden things remain undiscovered.

Yes I'm curious whether you'd think it was connected or a prank call? We have Parry as the caller so we're deciding between these in our view, but prefer the latter given the evidence.

I'm afraid 6.31 is quite a bad shout lol. It's no better than 6.45. Both are biased timings. I don't even think Wallace couldn't have killed her so there's not much point discussing that anyway. But my opinion stands at the more popular later timing (say around a 6.38 door closing time) because more witnesses claimed the latter. Neighbors had less reason to notice the specific time than people who are at work. And if the Holmes' family statement is so accurate, then we are to believe Julia was killed after the door opened, and before it closed again (a sound like a body falling, they said - which seems like a 20/20 vision type of statement tbh lol but I digress)...

I didn't even know the police force itself was widely corrupt, just it's clear in this case they wanted to make sure they got the timings they wanted, including the route time tests. They did not bother to check the chess route as we agree is terrible, nor bother to question Parry on his false alibi. It just doesn't look good for them at all. And Hemmerde was trying to rebuild his career at that time, I believe at one point he was rather prolific but had fallen off the map. He could be GUILTY AS SIN but it doesn't remove the fact that the police seemingly used a lot of corruption to ensure that conviction, because the evidence they had wasn't strong enough to arrest the man they knew did it...

I would say there's zero chance of Parry playing a trick on Parkes. Character witnesses said Parkes was a good man, I can see Parry being there and perhaps acting odd for whatever reason that may be, and then Parkes exaggerating that over the years. To say it was a total fabrication... Well I'm not sure about that part. It's something I could get behind but it's hard for me to accept people just outright lying so badly.

The pronunciation would on the surface fit Wallace better, but in fact it's been used as a major signal for Parry as the caller by those in the innocent Wallace camp.

As for the accent, though, you do accept that he also faked his voice to the telephone operators? That's a new piece of information as it was long considered that the voice the operators heard was the real voice.

Wallace alone would work so well it's just that if we're being completely honest rather than trying to make a good theory fit with facts that don't support it, Parry is definitely a better suspect for the caller... I mean, we otherwise have Wallace in the booth, fumbling with the operation of the telephone though he was an experienced user, faking an accent to telephone operators, faking an accent and voice to Beattie, faking the tram route he took without knowing he needed to... All the while Gordon Parry by coincidence is driving past at the same time as he enters the booth.

Oh and let's not forget proof of bias when the prosecution makes a big deal of Wallace saying "whatever have they used", when it was Florence Johnston who said this... And let's not forget the proof of Wallace's propensity to confusion when he went along with it explaining why he said it, despite the fact he had never said it. In addition of course to Wallace messing up the CURRENT YEAR, and names and dates in general... In fact that gives YOU something to work with, because R M Qualtrough is clearly meant to be R J Qualtrough, and 25 Menlove Gardens East was arguably meant to be West... It aids your cause just as well that he is so easily confused... But also aids his innocence in other ways.

Weapon disposal would be EASY, but it's also a red herring in a sense. I don't believe the weapon needed to be removed AT ALL. Newspaper wrapped around it, hit her, burn it, put the weapon back... But even if it was, Wallace wasn't arrested, he was free to move around. He could have left it in a TEMPORARY hiding spot, and then moved it to a much better one over the following days with ease.

On that subject, consider what he took out with him on the trip, and what he returned with. Did he go out with a briefcase? Did he bring one home? It would be shockingly simple to dump everything in the briefcase and take it out, and get rid of everything. It couldn't be simpler...

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) Your memory is correct, that's what she had claimed. Whether they confirmed this etc. I don't know. I don't know if Amy was in the habit of visiting Julia alone very often either.

2) That's being quite selective with statements lol. The majority of statements agree on a later time. But for sure he was coached down to 6.31. I've seen an extended account of Close's court testimony. It's not in Wyndham Brown.

In it, the defence presses Alan on the time he gave and he's super evasive and basically says the police convinced him it was earlier. It's rarely as blatant as that when a witness has been coached.

3) Parkes' testimony doesn't seem accurate. I think there might be a grain of truth with added exaggerations however. It seems BIZARRE Parry would randomly blurt out he was a killer. I think Parkes might have been certain in his suspicion and lied because of that.

I don't think he lied about Parry having ever even been there that night.

4) That's selective bias again. The voice spoke in a local accent. Parry being a frequent prankster isn't the evidence, it's support. The evidence is the time he arrived at Lily's, the direction he'd came from, and the false alibi. Again it's very extreme bias to excuse that alibi. It would definitely not be ignored in any other murder case.

He was never questioned again when they found out the alibi was wrong. Once they got an alibi for the murder night (and there's direct evidence of Parry's parents attempting to coerce others into helping Parry) that was it. They didn't care to prove he was the caller, because they made the OBVIOUSLY wrong assumption that the caller and killer had to be one and the same.

If Wallace was in the booth, Parry drove past him as Wallace was about to call. But I rather think that vice versa, Parry saw Wallace at the tram stop and placed one of his typical prank calls while further down the same road near Lily's house.

It's not just about voice recognition, it's also the caller's accent. Much has been made for a long time that the caller had spoken normally to operators, but we now see this cannot possibly be true because of the accent - meaning if it was Wallace he faked his voice to the operators too.

The caller attempted to scam a free call (or didn't know how to use a payphone) regardless of whether it was broken or not. Contemporary authors explain how those phones work, and everyone knew not to press A until you hear your correspondent. Was Wallace nervous and f'd it up? Maybe? But the voice reported by all was a confident one. I've also heard some from time to time say that Parry used the cafè pronunciation (kaffay).

It's just a total misfit to the evidence that Wallace was the caller. It requires taking one single remark that it sounded like an older man, and disregarding the extensive evidence against Gordon Parry. The call and crime don't even have to be purposefully linked, there's not any actual evidence for it. Anyone at the chess club could have gone to his house the next day, anyone who knew about the trip... Even had Amy or Wallace killed Julia, he could well have thought it was a real appointment he had to keep else it'd look suspicious.

---

I'm curious what you'd believe happened if you knew for fact that Wallace didn't call. Would you favor something like Gannon's theory?

If it was proven that Parry made the call then I’d have to accept it of course. Whether it was in connection to the murder or as a prank then I’d have to weigh the two up. I simply don’t believe that Parry was connected to this case in any way. Everything I’ve ever read about the case, every time I’ve weighed up the various arguments and side issue I always, without fail, come back to the overwhelming likelihood that Wallace killed Julia and that he did it completely alone and with no assistance whatsoever. No matter what the doubts or unanswered questions it’s still Wallace for me.

If Parry made the call and he was trying to make it convincing enough to fool Wallace it’s difficult to see why he would have asked for Wallace’s address. Wallace of course knew that Beattie didn’t know it but Parry wouldn’t have known that. If Beattie had given Parry the address and then went on to ask Wallace to go to his house how convincing would it have been? A man specifically asking for Wallace when he could have phoned The Pru and requested an agent. He asks for Wallace’s address as if he’s going to visit him then requests that Wallace visit him. Then to top it of Wallace might have also asked himself how Qualtrough knew he was a chess club member and that he’d be there that night? By asking for the address Parry would have increased the likelihood of Wallace being suspicious about the call.

It’s easy to be conspiratorial in any murder case (especially one involving a police force that we knew had a serious corruption issue) The timing of Allan Close seems fairly obvious. 6.25 at the clock. His round took 6 minutes. Giving 6.31. This ties in with the time Mrs Johnson gave and the time that the Holme’s heard the Wallace’s door close. The fact that Close seemed nervous, evasive and suspicious in court is hardly surprising considering he was a teenage boy in such a situation. No matter what else he said to friends and under what circumstances we still have the neighbours.

Being as kind as I can to Parkes (and it’s difficult considering his statement) what if Parry saw his chance of playing a trick on Parkes (a man who’d told Parkes to his face that he neither liked nor trusted him) He hears about the murder and goes to the garage acting deliberately suspicious hoping that Parkes would go to the police. Parry knows he’s safe because he has a cast-iron alibi. He hopes Parkes gets done for wasting police time. I don’t know. I just don’t for a minute believe that Parry turned up there with a bloody car, a bloody mitten and then without prompting blabs about the murder weapon.

On the pronunciation of cafe. Most working class people would pronounce it as with caff or caffee. Cafu would be considered in many quarters to have been pretentious or even posh. This fits the ‘sophisticated’ Wallace more than Parry. And I can’t see an issue with someone (Wallace) adopting an accent for a few sentences that he’s heard every day of the week for the last 16 years or so. I don’t see a single issue withWallace making the call. Not one.

That said of course I accept the risk of the Monday evening journey but we weren’t there. Wallace might have just taken the attitude of going through it and then reviewing the situation later to see if he felt that he could have gotten away with it. He had the opportunity of bailing out of course. We also have to consider that Wallace had a serious illness. It’s very possible that he felt that he didn’t have long left to live so this might have given him a fatalistic outlook. We can’t know how he was thinking but he might have felt that the risk was worth it. So if any of the above was the case (and we can’t say for certain either way) then for me that eliminates any real barrier to Wallace being the sole perpetrator.

There are still unanswered questions of course like how did he dispose of the weapon. I don’t really know but if he killed her then he did dispose of it. It’s not outlandish to suggest that occasionally hidden things remain undiscovered.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Im relying on memory here but didn’t Amy visit to ask Julia if she’d be attending a Pantomime with her?



I don’t think that it’s a given that Close was coached at all. Gold and Moore checked Close’s route with a stopwatch (Close was with them at the time.) It took Close 6 minutes to walk from Holy Trinity Church to Sedley Street to Letchworth Street to Richmond Park to Wolverton Street. When he passed the church the clock had said 6.25 (and the clock had only just been reset and so was accurate.) So this got Close to the Wallace’s at 6.31. This ties up with the Johnston’s and the Holme’s statements.



Surely Parkes’ statement is one of the least believable pieces of testimony ever?



I think that far too much is made of whether Beattie would have recognised Wallace’s disguised voice or not. Caz once made a post on here stating that she’d had a phone conversation with someone that she’d known well but that person simply didn’t recognise her voice. And to make it worse it was someone that she’s spoken to in person earlier that day.

It was the disguised voice of an older man. Parry was 22. I don’t think that there’s any evidence at all that Parry made the call. Just the fact that he made prank calls is not evidence.



It might also be said that, for a man desperately worried for the safety of his wife, he was very quiet about it. No slamming of the door knocker. No calling out of Julia’s name through the letter box. Then once inside he couldn’t even be bothered to try a parlour door that was within reaching distance before going upstairs.

1) Your memory is correct, that's what she had claimed. Whether they confirmed this etc. I don't know. I don't know if Amy was in the habit of visiting Julia alone very often either.

2) That's being quite selective with statements lol. The majority of statements agree on a later time. But for sure he was coached down to 6.31. I've seen an extended account of Close's court testimony. It's not in Wyndham Brown.

In it, the defence presses Alan on the time he gave and he's super evasive and basically says the police convinced him it was earlier. It's rarely as blatant as that when a witness has been coached.

3) Parkes' testimony doesn't seem accurate. I think there might be a grain of truth with added exaggerations however. It seems BIZARRE Parry would randomly blurt out he was a killer. I think Parkes might have been certain in his suspicion and lied because of that.

I don't think he lied about Parry having ever even been there that night.

4) That's selective bias again. The voice spoke in a local accent. Parry being a frequent prankster isn't the evidence, it's support. The evidence is the time he arrived at Lily's, the direction he'd came from, and the false alibi. Again it's very extreme bias to excuse that alibi. It would definitely not be ignored in any other murder case.

He was never questioned again when they found out the alibi was wrong. Once they got an alibi for the murder night (and there's direct evidence of Parry's parents attempting to coerce others into helping Parry) that was it. They didn't care to prove he was the caller, because they made the OBVIOUSLY wrong assumption that the caller and killer had to be one and the same.

If Wallace was in the booth, Parry drove past him as Wallace was about to call. But I rather think that vice versa, Parry saw Wallace at the tram stop and placed one of his typical prank calls while further down the same road near Lily's house.

It's not just about voice recognition, it's also the caller's accent. Much has been made for a long time that the caller had spoken normally to operators, but we now see this cannot possibly be true because of the accent - meaning if it was Wallace he faked his voice to the operators too.

The caller attempted to scam a free call (or didn't know how to use a payphone) regardless of whether it was broken or not. Contemporary authors explain how those phones work, and everyone knew not to press A until you hear your correspondent. Was Wallace nervous and f'd it up? Maybe? But the voice reported by all was a confident one. I've also heard some from time to time say that Parry used the cafè pronunciation (kaffay).

It's just a total misfit to the evidence that Wallace was the caller. It requires taking one single remark that it sounded like an older man, and disregarding the extensive evidence against Gordon Parry. The call and crime don't even have to be purposefully linked, there's not any actual evidence for it. Anyone at the chess club could have gone to his house the next day, anyone who knew about the trip... Even had Amy or Wallace killed Julia, he could well have thought it was a real appointment he had to keep else it'd look suspicious.

---

I'm curious what you'd believe happened if you knew for fact that Wallace didn't call. Would you favor something like Gannon's theory?

[Abby Normal]

Im relying on memory here but didn’t Amy visit to ask Julia if she’d be attending a Pantomime with her?



I don’t think that it’s a given that Close was coached at all. Gold and Moore checked Close’s route with a stopwatch (Close was with them at the time.) It took Close 6 minutes to walk from Holy Trinity Church to Sedley Street to Letchworth Street to Richmond Park to Wolverton Street. When he passed the church the clock had said 6.25 (and the clock had only just been reset and so was accurate.) So this got Close to the Wallace’s at 6.31. This ties up with the Johnston’s and the Holme’s statements.



Surely Parkes’ statement is one of the least believable pieces of testimony ever?



I think that far too much is made of whether Beattie would have recognised Wallace’s disguised voice or not. Caz once made a post on here stating that she’d had a phone conversation with someone that she’d known well but that person simply didn’t recognise her voice. And to make it worse it was someone that she’s spoken to in person earlier that day.

It was the disguised voice of an older man. Parry was 22. I don’t think that there’s any evidence at all that Parry made the call. Just the fact that he made prank calls is not evidence.



It might also be said that, for a man desperately worried for the safety of his wife, he was very quiet about it. No slamming of the door knocker. No calling out of Julia’s name through the letter box. Then once inside he couldn’t even be bothered to try a parlour door that was within reaching distance before going upstairs.

hi HS
re disguising your voice-I agree. Its easy-especially over the phone. one of the easiest and effective (and I beleive well known)ways is to place a piece of paper between your mouth and the mouthpiece. Ive done it and its worked every time-once even with my wife (as a joke) and it worked eventhough shes known me for thirty years!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've also been wondering why Amy Wallace visited mere minutes after Wallace had left for his rounds. Surely she would be interested in seeing William too if possible, even briefly, being they were so close? The neighbors surely could have confirmed if Amy had ever visited Julia alone before.

Im relying on memory here but didn’t Amy visit to ask Julia if she’d be attending a Pantomime with her?

Alan Close was coached so you wonder if he was the only one. There are too many real cases like Ryan Ferguson where corruption led to false witness statements coaxed by the prosecution, or the police feeding certain details to potential witnesses as was done with the timing for Alan... And Parkes' claim the police just ignored his statement which is another common theme in cases like the Ryan Ferguson case, or the Tair Rada murder especially... Given there's known corruption in this case, be very dubious and wary of witnesses called by the prosecution...

I don’t think that it’s a given that Close was coached at all. Gold and Moore checked Close’s route with a stopwatch (Close was with them at the time.) It took Close 6 minutes to walk from Holy Trinity Church to Sedley Street to Letchworth Street to Richmond Park to Wolverton Street. When he passed the church the clock had said 6.25 (and the clock had only just been reset and so was accurate.) So this got Close to the Wallace’s at 6.31. This ties up with the Johnston’s and the Holme’s statements.

. And Parkes' claim the police just ignored his statement which is another common theme

Surely Parkes’ statement is one of the least believable pieces of testimony ever?

More than one person heard the caller's voice that night. Wallace spoke in the courtroom. But none of them but Beattie were asked if the voice they heard on the phone sounded like the defendant.

I think that far too much is made of whether Beattie would have recognised Wallace’s disguised voice or not. Caz once made a post on here stating that she’d had a phone conversation with someone that she’d known well but that person simply didn’t recognise her voice. And to make it worse it was someone that she’s spoken to in person earlier that day.

It was the disguised voice of an older man. Parry was 22. I don’t think that there’s any evidence at all that Parry made the call. Just the fact that he made prank calls is not evidence.

His door knocking was for nobody's benefit. APPARENTLY according to neighbors he knocked very gently. That's weird if he's trying to play act and draw attention to himself.

It might also be said that, for a man desperately worried for the safety of his wife, he was very quiet about it. No slamming of the door knocker. No calling out of Julia’s name through the letter box. Then once inside he couldn’t even be bothered to try a parlour door that was within reaching distance before going upstairs.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH
ive always leaned somewhat heavily that Wallace killed her. one new thing occurred to me that also points in his direction-who would make a trip to visit a mysterious client based on an obscure phone message? were not talking about a lead that could gain a lot of money-its insurance.
I think the first inclination of any reasonable person would be-why didn't this person just leave a return phone number? then-this person obviously knows me well enough to know I frequent the club. he knows im in insurance. why not call the office?
Id be like-OK this person obviously knows me, but I don't know them, they didn't leave a phone number and want me to make a trip to come meet them(and at some distance). and at a false address no less. Cmon-no reasonable person would make that trip IMHO.

I think Wallace probably killed her and tried to plan it well.

For whatever reason he wanted her dead (and most murders are commonly by a spouse, lover family etc).
he plans it out.
makes the call to the club on the way there the night before. disguises his voice.
The night of the murder he puts on the coat, murders her with the bar, takes the coat off and stuffs it under her, maybe cleans up fast if need be(blood clot in toilet), stages a robbery.
He leaves with the murder weapon, goes on his trip--making sure hes conspicuous by asking lots of directions. somewhere along the way he gets rid of the murder weapon.
when he returns he makes a scene of trying to get in the house, and presto as soon as theres a witness(the johnstons), he can get in. (classic guilty behavior-setting it up so someone else discovers the body and or is also there when he does).

Later when questioned by police he makes the mistake of playing dumb by not bringing up the maid and the missing bar/poker. Shes the one that has to tell the police about the missing bar/poker. busted.

classic first degree murder plan, preconceived with many steps looking ahead, like a chess match, and almost gets away with the perfect murder-but for karma and he dies soon afterwards.

Greetings. Thanks for the post.

Let me go through these points.

1) Wallace did in fact stand to gain a relatively sizeable commission taking into account the equivalent buying power. However, it was the Prusential man's duty and work ethos to always be on the lookout for new clients.

I have the memoirs of a Pru agent, I think he was active in the 60s but I read it a few months ago now. But it's quite illuminating on the company policy and how the agents worked. If a new neighbor moved in next to a client, the agent was expected to knock for that neighbor and ask if he can be of assistance.

2) As per above, again, the Pru agent was expected to be gung ho when it came to signing up new clients. Any new lead. It's a big part of the company policy.

But moreover, the Gardens were rather new and there wasn't a Google Maps at the time. Maps would be released at intervals, so streets which do now exist might not be on the map.

It would be reasonable to assume it was a newly built road, of which there were many at that time in the expanding Liverpool.

But: I think William didn't check in advance as it would be normal for a person to do. But that's not a crime or evidence, it's perfectly possible he just didn't check.

This is by the way, a man who despite being an apparently reliable agent, had never been promoted from his junior level position in 10+ years of service.

3) There is too much evidence to place Parry as the caller. Wallace killing Julia works, but making the call doesn't.

Whatever theories may be made of that then so be it. I think it's difficult to place Wallace in the booth compared to Parry. And if Wallace was in the booth, Gordon was by chance driving past the box at the same time Wallace was inside it.

4) He didn't play dumb with the maid. He says they don't have a maid they have a charwoman who comes in once a week (or something along those lines).

The charwoman did not know William's name.

5) His door knocking was for nobody's benefit. APPARENTLY according to neighbors he knocked very gently. That's weird if he's trying to play act and draw attention to himself.

He probably couldn't anticipate the neighbors heading out on that impromptu trip unless he'd overheard they were going to visit her. But of course by the same token I consider the Johnstons may have heard about the trip. It's a possibility either way. We have a statement on Mark R's site that Florence spoke to Julia. Antony says she did not, but if they did speak it introduces the chance of the trip or the Johnstons' visit to their daughter coming up in conversation.

Also in the majority of cases where the killer wants a witness to discover the body with them, they have the witness accompany them to make that discovery.

---

About the neighbor thing, Wallace went in alone so if he's guilty items and some staging may well have taken place now. For example moving bloodied pound notes to the upstairs jar. It's curious he didn't take the opportunity to take that jacket and put it into the kitchen stove, which would have properly destroyed that evidence (the kitchen fire was still burning slightly). There's no doubt that's what I'd be doing.

And a lot of staging would happen before Julia is dead I would imagine. You can safely eliminate the time for staging for that reason.

But in conclusion to the crux of your post, although Wallace works well in many regards as the killer, he makes a relatively poor candidate for having been the caller.

[Abby Normal]

Just to clarify I think Wallace having killed her is quite plausible. But as the caller, the vast majority of evidence points away from him, and specifically to Gordon Parry for that one aspect of the case. Moreso now I know how prevalent of a prank caller Parry was, and the route from Lark Lane.

The crime scene evidence can implicate Wallace for the killing. But even if he did it, I think Gordon called, there's too much to back it to disregard. Picking Wallace speaking in a fake accent (not just voice) and deceiving numerous people is getting a bit incredible. Like a literal Columbo episode (the one with the chess player who places a call using a Russian accent). Especially when you have another suspect who's there at the time the call was made, constantly made prank calls, and gave a false alibi for starters.

More than one person heard the caller's voice that night. Wallace spoke in the courtroom. But none of them but Beattie were asked if the voice they heard on the phone sounded like the defendant. Again I think it's a case of the lawyers on both sides afraid of the answer... Albeit they were called as witnesses by the prosecution as I recall, so surely they would have been asked that question in private? So did they just not like the answer and decide not to ask? Did ALL of them say they can't tell? It was definitely a short interaction but I feel like one would be able to render at least a vague opinion. Even if it's "no but I can't be certain if it was a fake voice he said so little".

Alan Close was coached so you wonder if he was the only one. There are too many real cases like Ryan Ferguson where corruption led to false witness statements coaxed by the prosecution, or the police feeding certain details to potential witnesses as was done with the timing for Alan... And Parkes' claim the police just ignored his statement which is another common theme in cases like the Ryan Ferguson case, or the Tair Rada murder especially... Given there's known corruption in this case, be very dubious and wary of witnesses called by the prosecution...

Even though Wallace could very well have killed her himself in spite of that police corruption.

Hi WWH
ive always leaned somewhat heavily that Wallace killed her. one new thing occurred to me that also points in his direction-who would make a trip to visit a mysterious client based on an obscure phone message? were not talking about a lead that could gain a lot of money-its insurance.
I think the first inclination of any reasonable person would be-why didn't this person just leave a return phone number? then-this person obviously knows me well enough to know I frequent the club. he knows im in insurance. why not call the office?
Id be like-OK this person obviously knows me, but I don't know them, they didn't leave a phone number and want me to make a trip to come meet them(and at some distance). and at a false address no less. Cmon-no reasonable person would make that trip IMHO.

I think Wallace probably killed her and tried to plan it well.

For whatever reason he wanted her dead (and most murders are commonly by a spouse, lover family etc).
he plans it out.
makes the call to the club on the way there the night before. disguises his voice.
The night of the murder he puts on the coat, murders her with the bar, takes the coat off and stuffs it under her, maybe cleans up fast if need be(blood clot in toilet), stages a robbery.
He leaves with the murder weapon, goes on his trip--making sure hes conspicuous by asking lots of directions. somewhere along the way he gets rid of the murder weapon.
when he returns he makes a scene of trying to get in the house, and presto as soon as theres a witness(the johnstons), he can get in. (classic guilty behavior-setting it up so someone else discovers the body and or is also there when he does).

Later when questioned by police he makes the mistake of playing dumb by not bringing up the maid and the missing bar/poker. Shes the one that has to tell the police about the missing bar/poker. busted.

classic first degree murder plan, preconceived with many steps looking ahead, like a chess match, and almost gets away with the perfect murder-but for karma and he dies soon afterwards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

'Who killed Julia? - Part 1'

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wPn...ew?usp=sharing

'Who killed Julia? - Part 2 - a tale of two suspects' https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fCc...ew?usp=sharing __________________

'Who killed Julia? - Conspiracy of Silence' https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G4j...ew?usp=sharing __________________

These are the radio shows WWH. I’m just hoping this link works. I’m just heading out so I’ll re-read your posts and reply later.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Just to clarify I think Wallace having killed her is quite plausible. But as the caller, the vast majority of evidence points away from him, and specifically to Gordon Parry for that one aspect of the case. Moreso now I know how prevalent of a prank caller Parry was, and the route from Lark Lane.

The crime scene evidence can implicate Wallace for the killing. But even if he did it, I think Gordon called, there's too much to back it to disregard. Picking Wallace speaking in a fake accent (not just voice) and deceiving numerous people is getting a bit incredible. Like a literal Columbo episode (the one with the chess player who places a call using a Russian accent). Especially when you have another suspect who's there at the time the call was made, constantly made prank calls, and gave a false alibi for starters.

More than one person heard the caller's voice that night. Wallace spoke in the courtroom. But none of them but Beattie were asked if the voice they heard on the phone sounded like the defendant. Again I think it's a case of the lawyers on both sides afraid of the answer... Albeit they were called as witnesses by the prosecution as I recall, so surely they would have been asked that question in private? So did they just not like the answer and decide not to ask? Did ALL of them say they can't tell? It was definitely a short interaction but I feel like one would be able to render at least a vague opinion. Even if it's "no but I can't be certain if it was a fake voice he said so little".

Alan Close was coached so you wonder if he was the only one. There are too many real cases like Ryan Ferguson where corruption led to false witness statements coaxed by the prosecution, or the police feeding certain details to potential witnesses as was done with the timing for Alan... And Parkes' claim the police just ignored his statement which is another common theme in cases like the Ryan Ferguson case, or the Tair Rada murder especially... Given there's known corruption in this case, be very dubious and wary of witnesses called by the prosecution...

Even though Wallace could very well have killed her himself in spite of that police corruption.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Greetings all. I just checked the statements again (the ones publicly available) and see that it was Lily's mother who said Parry had come from Lark Lane, while Lily thought she overheard Park Lane. The Lark Lane route makes more sense to me.

Given Lily is a piano tutor I trust her timing, as lessons are carefully regimented to the time, but believe Lily's mother for the place name since she was the one actually standing in front of Gordon who he spoke to.

It's funny that even if Wallace called, it is likely that by chance, Parry was driving past the phone booth while Wallace was inside it. A man who turned out to be the perfect fall guy.

---

The Wallace alone idea (both as caller and killer) is actually plausible as to the act being committed, but flies in the face of the evidence which suggests it was someone else - specifically Parry.

My American friend told me some more about Parkes' on Radio City (apparently Rod was the uploader of this video and took it down due to bias so I've never heard it). Apparently he stated that Parry wasn't just known as a prankster, but that Parkes specifically had to tell him to stop because he'd do it so often.

The evidence is clear. The man who placed the telephone call is very very likely to be Richard Gordon Parry.

Out of sheer curiosity, I'm curious as to what you, HS, would believe happened if you knew FOR SURE that Wallace didn't place the call?

---

I've also been wondering why Amy Wallace visited mere minutes after Wallace had left for his rounds. Surely she would be interested in seeing William too if possible, even briefly, being they were so close? The neighbors surely could have confirmed if Amy had ever visited Julia alone before.

If Alan Close lied which is a possibility that seems increasingly likely the more you look into the scenario (where he was gloating to young friends weeks after the murder, and then forced into telling police, was NOT on the doorstep when the door was opened as confirmed by other witnesses, his behavior on trial laughing and sleeping etc.), Amy may well have had something to do with the crime. In such a case, Wallace may be covering for her, and also in such a case, I expect he believed the appointment was quite real and that he had to keep this appointment.

If that is the case, it matches the crying seen by the police officer around the same time as Amy Wallace allegedly arrived at Wolverton Street, the forensic estimated time of death, as well as the very peculiar mention of the missing dog whip (an item Wallace claimed was missing for 12 months - so perhaps odd to mention it - he was never again questioned on the item or why he owned it considering he had no dog). It would also match the window cleaner Emily Hoer's implication that she thinks Julia died before 6 PM when she was cleaning the windows.

It would also match the weird outlier witnesses who swore blind for years they saw Amy Wallace that night around 8 PM, or acting peculiar in the days following; and match her random outrage to the press for publishing something she had said previously. She also did not speak at the trial though she would have been key for the defence, since she could show that Wallace had told Julia about the trip and that the couple were getting on well etc.

I don't really think it's the best scenario but it's another without real issue. That said, if the call is unrelated, MANY ideas become quite flawless. Though the best opportunity would undoubtedly be for a neighbor, James Caird (who lives one street over so is basically a neighbor himself), Amy, or William.

---

The chess club night tram makes me wonder about the lawyers and police here. It's like both sides were too scared of what the answer might be. I think perhaps the prosecution didn't check (which could prove Wallace a liar and potentially the caller) out of fear they'd find out he didn't get on at that stop near the booth... And the defence didn't check out of fear of the opposite (that they'd find out he did).

Shady. The prosecution is shady anyway, their clear coaching of Alan Close is just one aspect. Again - they had their man, and they were going to MAKE the pieces fit. Doesn't mean Wallace was innocent but it's quite obvious.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Perhaps the poor staging of the crime scene might be explained either by Wallace’s being rushed by Close being late or by the fact by making it look like the thief went directly for the cash box he was pointing the police in Parry’s direction?

If he’d decided on using something as a shield then he was almost pushed into using the mackintosh as anything else would have required disposing of. At least with the mackintosh it might for example have been suggested that Julia had been drying it in front of the fire.

Amongst all murderers who tried to stage theft, if he's guilty, he's one of the worst stagers in history. Alan Close is no excuse, especially if he'd already planned the staging as a meticulous man might.

Disposing of a weapon or its covering but leaving your jacket there soaked in blood is frankly laughable on his part. There was an actual proper fireplace in the kitchen (not one of those safety grid ones), he couldn't have used that?

Even the biggest idiot could see how incriminating it would be... Or how it can be easily shown that his supervisor lives in the same area he's telling people he's a stranger in.

Or how weird it looks to have just the box, entirely clean, stolen from (still with your lucky dollar inside) while your wife is battered in the parlour and the box is replaced on the shelf.

So really if he's guilty he did a VERY bad job of it.

And incriminating one specific man for the crime? That's dumb too. If he acted alone it was sheer luck from the Gods that Gordon happened to be such a perfect scapegoat including the false alibi.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It can seem that way based on a perception of William's personality, but for the actual evidence and details of the call it's extremely solid. The most probable, I think.

If Wallace acted so meticulously, I'd expect him to do a much better job of staging a crime scene and establishing an alibi, and definitely not leave his own jacket half burnt under Julia's body. What's meticulous about that? In fact if he did it, it's frankly pathetic on his part. Total "amateur hour".

Perhaps the poor staging of the crime scene might be explained either by Wallace’s being rushed by Close being late or by the fact by making it look like the thief went directly for the cash box he was pointing the police in Parry’s direction?

If he’d decided on using something as a shield then he was almost pushed into using the mackintosh as anything else would have required disposing of. At least with the mackintosh it might for example have been suggested that Julia had been drying it in front of the fire.