Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[Harry D]

Take almost any high-profile case and you will find all kinds of intriguing tidbits and red herrings.

There is no need for 4D chess when there is a parsimonious key to this mystery. Wallace battered his old lady.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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



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.

From post #23


Moreland is about as clear as mud on this. On one hand he’s saying that Julia had been told about Qualtrough’s imminent visit (hence the use of the parlour) then, apparently with only her and William in the room, he’s saying that she would be in the position that you would expect with a newcomer in the room?

I understand how he suspects that Wallace made use of the mackintosh though as it’s something I’ve proposed myself. It’s also perhaps worth mentioning again that Wallace himself suggested the idea of the mackintosh being used as a shield in the John Bull articles. Was this a bit of gloating? Either way I’m yet to hear a convincing explanation for the presence of the mackintosh. It wasn’t in a position where you would have remotely expected it to have fallen naturally. Surely it had to have been put there, bunched up intentionally and the only person with any possible reason for this was Wallace himself. It’s been suggested that it might have been used to reduce noise by deadening the blows but this would only make sense if it was used like a cushion which would mean that it would have been found beneath her head and not her body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

3. New testimony: A woman came forward saying that at the time of the murder a woman approached her in Menlove Gardens West, asking for directions to Menlove Gardens East around 15.00 (before reading of the crime in the Echo at just after 4 PM that day). Being very familiar with the area, the witness told this other woman that there was definitely no such road. However the woman insisted that there was and claimed that she had actually been there herself... The witness claims that during the trial she was able to connect this woman to Amy Wallace of Ullet Road (Amy of course, being one of the only people who knew with certainty that William was going on the trip that night).

This is interesting although it’s not corroborated. A while ago on the other thread I came up with a scenario with Wallace having a female accomplice. I’m not proposing it but it’s certainly tempting to suggest William having help and with a female accomplice who might have dressed as Julia thus allowing extra time for the murder. An accomplice might also have gotten rid of the murder weapon and perhaps taken away any bloodstained clothing?

Ive been trying to come up with a reason why Amy might have visited Menlove Gardens? Might Wallace have elected to dump the weapon himself but then started to panic that it might have been discovered so he dispatches Amy to retrieve it and dump it elsewhere? If Amy was the sole murderer would she be dumping the weapon where it would have been found implicating William? Against that idea of course is the unlikeliness of Amy drawing attention to herself by talking to passers by?

It’s difficult to come up with a motive for Amy. I think you’ve suggested jealousy? It’s harder to see a reason for an Amy/William partnership though as they went their separate ways after the trial.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I will say that, I think it's almost a certainty that Gordon Parry was in the call box.

Not to me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
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.

I just can’t see any reason for suspecting Caird? I don’t think that we can read anything into the fact that he didn’t have a match to play on the monday. He would undoubtedly have still been able to have enjoyed a game with someone (after all, Beattie was in the same league and he was playing a game that night) or simply watched the matches.

He couldn’t have been certain that Wallace would have gone in search of MGE so how would he have explained himself if he’d turned up to find Wallace at home?

Theres also the fact that Caird had been to the house before and so, if he’d been seen by a neighbour, they might easily have identified him (or at least as someone that had visited the Wallace’s previously.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Is there an untraceable poison? The problem is that if there was any suspicion of foul play leading to an autopsy which found any kind of irregularities who could the police have suspected apart from the man with the chemistry lab in his back bedroom?

[etenguy]

Is there an untraceable poison? The problem is that if there was any suspicion of foul play leading to an autopsy which found any kind of irregularities who could the police have suspected apart from the man with the chemistry lab in his back bedroom?

Hi Herlock

There are poisons that would not be picked up in a normal screening - if indeed one was undertaken which would be unlikely if a poison that mimics natural causes was used. Basically untraceable unless murder was suspected and a full toxicology screening undertaken. And even then, there are some that could be explained away as the victim accidentally taking, such as plant based (there's a good Miss Marple short story about just this issue but I forget the title - poisonous leafs added to a meal supposedly mistaken for normal leafs). He would have got away with it if he used poison. Back then, some poisons were not detectable, much less so now but a good number that would not normally be screened for unless other evidence or circumstances (large insurance payout perhaps) pointed to foul play.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I just can’t see any reason for suspecting Caird? I don’t think that we can read anything into the fact that he didn’t have a match to play on the monday. He would undoubtedly have still been able to have enjoyed a game with someone (after all, Beattie was in the same league and he was playing a game that night) or simply watched the matches.

He couldn’t have been certain that Wallace would have gone in search of MGE so how would he have explained himself if he’d turned up to find Wallace at home?

Theres also the fact that Caird had been to the house before and so, if he’d been seen by a neighbour, they might easily have identified him (or at least as someone that had visited the Wallace’s previously.)

The reason is because he has all the knowledge and opportunity required to have done it, and was around the scene of the crime during the window of time in which Julia was killed. I think we both know it wouldn't be even remotely difficult to explain visiting the home of a close friend, no crime has even been committed at this point.

In other words there's absolutely no reason why he COULDN'T have done it. So he absolutely MUST be a suspect. He's one of the few who meet that criteria.

If Parry was not in the call box William almost surely wasn't. The Liverpool accent is really weird and distinctive, Liverpool is basically famous FOR the accent... Waterhouse might've got it right with Parry calling and Wallace wacking. Disposal of a weapon wouldn't be too difficult then even. It doesn't have to be expertly hidden, just decently covered, assuming there's someone else available to retrieve it and do a more thorough job. Although newspaper or cloth wrapping or w.e. around the item wouldn't be difficult either.

If Amy is involved then of course they couldn't be hooking up with each other after what happened and Joseph coming home etc. it would only have worked if he was not arrested, and preferably ruled out as a suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

There are poisons that would not be picked up in a normal screening - if indeed one was undertaken which would be unlikely if a poison that mimics natural causes was used. Basically untraceable unless murder was suspected and a full toxicology screening undertaken. And even then, there are some that could be explained away as the victim accidentally taking, such as plant based (there's a good Miss Marple short story about just this issue but I forget the title - poisonous leafs added to a meal supposedly mistaken for normal leafs). He would have got away with it if he used poison. Back then, some poisons were not detectable, much less so now but a good number that would not normally be screened for unless other evidence or circumstances (large insurance payout perhaps) pointed to foul play.

Cheers Eten

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
The reason is because he has all the knowledge and opportunity required to have done it, and was around the scene of the crime during the window of time in which Julia was killed. I think we both know it wouldn't be even remotely difficult to explain visiting the home of a close friend, no crime has even been committed at this point.

In other words there's absolutely no reason why he COULDN'T have done it. So he absolutely MUST be a suspect. He's one of the few who meet that criteria.

I agree that there’s no real reason as far as we know that he couldn’t have done it but to call someone a suspect we need positive evidence. We could just as easily say that the Holme’s might have done it.

.
If Parry was not in the call box William almost surely wasn't. The Liverpool accent is really weird and distinctive, Liverpool is basically famous FOR the accent... Waterhouse might've got it right with Parry calling and Wallace wacking. Disposal of a weapon wouldn't be too difficult then even. It doesn't have to be expertly hidden, just decently covered, assuming there's someone else available to retrieve it and do a more thorough job. Although newspaper or cloth wrapping or w.e. around the item wouldn't be difficult either.

As you know I can’t see Wallace using Parry and then going on to try and implicate him after the trial. That just doesn’t add up to me. If you have two people in on a secret that could have gotten them both hanged is one really likely to have pointed the finger at the other?

If Amy is involved then of course they couldn't be hooking up with each other after what happened and Joseph coming home etc. it would only have worked if he was not arrested, and preferably ruled out as a suspect.

Wallace appears to have been the type who was concerned with his reputation (typical of the era) so it’s difficult to see him getting exonerated of his wife’s murder and then proceeding to run off with his sister-in-law.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I agree that there’s no real reason as far as we know that he couldn’t have done it but to call someone a suspect we need positive evidence. We could just as easily say that the Holme’s might have done it.



As you know I can’t see Wallace using Parry and then going on to try and implicate him after the trial. That just doesn’t add up to me. If you have two people in on a secret that could have gotten them both hanged is one really likely to have pointed the finger at the other?



Wallace appears to have been the type who was concerned with his reputation (typical of the era) so it’s difficult to see him getting exonerated of his wife’s murder and then proceeding to run off with his sister-in-law.

Nah the Holmes aren't as good as suspects because we don't know that they know about Wallace's business trip, or that they are acutely familiar with the interior layout. We know more about James Caird and his actions, and some of those actions are worthy of suspicion and investigation.

We have never seen statements from the Holmes apart from some tiny snippet about when the milk boy came and hearing a body fall before the door closed again.

But everyone with knowledge and opportunity to have done it need to be ruled out and checked more thoroughly.

Amy Wallace and chess club members are the only people we know for sure know about Wallace's trip (and all the details of it including the client's name). And due to McCartney asking Wallace's address to offer directions, anyone in that club would also know at least the street Wallace lives on if not the actual house number.

InACityLiving says Florence spoke to Julia in the yard. Murphy says she went outside and eavesdropped. I'll need to see statements from the window cleaners to see if any conversation took place, and if it did, if details of a trip were mentioned in passing.

---

I don't think Wallace placed that call. If it's not Parry it's someone else, but not Wallace.

I think it's Parry though, even if he was driving down Breck Road on his way to Lily's as Wallace was at the tram stop, and pulled over at the phone box to play a practical joke on him (AKA it was spur of the moment based on a chance sighting- which happened a few times between the two men e.g. when the calendar was given - not a planned hoax). A joke where anyone who also heard the details of the call could exploit it if it were to put ideas in their head.

Of course I think someone who sees they are essentially screwed would try to throw an accomplice under the bus as a final resort.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Of course I think someone who sees they are essentially screwed would try to throw an accomplice under the bus as a final resort.

But Wallace wasn’t screwed. He was a free man by that time. If Parry had been arrested and the police had really started to put pressure on him then he might very well coughed to having made the call but as a favour to Wallace (perhaps Wallace might have told Parry that he’d needed an excuse to go out to see another woman?) Parry o course knowing that he had a watertight alibi for the time of the murder.

For Wallace to have made the call I’d say that we have to overcome or explain 2 main doubts. 1) Could Wallace have fooled Beattie on the phone? And 2) The risk of Wallace being seen near to the phone box or on the tram before the Belmont Road stop? Neither question can be shrugged off of course.

1) I see this as the lesser of the two issues. Of course none of us can know how good Wallace was at altering his voice or accents but he might have been very good. The point for me though is that Beattie would have assumed that the call was genuine. He was a serious businessman who’d have likely had no dealing with the idea of a prank call. He would have been more concerned with the content of the message (and ensuring that he’d gotten it right) than the tone. So as long as Wallace altered his voice (perhaps adding an accent) I don’t see an issue.

2) This would all have been down to Wallace’s own perception of the situation at the time of course. No crime is without risk. So he might have felt that no one had seen him enter or leave the unlit phone box. He might have originally intended to have then walked to the other stop or just the stop at the end of Richmond Park but if, when the tram arrived, he saw that the conductor was upstairs (and being later than expected due to Close being late) he might have decided to risk it. If the conductor had come downstairs after the stop had arrived at Richmond Park then he could have claimed to have gotten on there. If the conductor had been downstairs he might have walked to the next stop and got to Menlove Gardens later than intended. He might have explained this by saying that he’d gotten on the wrong tram or that he’d gotten off at the wrong stop. Up until the actual murder Wallace could simply have bailed out and abandoned his plan if he’d felt that it was now too risky.

Point 2) is the only significant doubt for me. It would be interesting to know if tickets recorded the stop or just the cost of the journey?

You know my position by now of course. I eliminate Parry as the murderer because of his alibi. Whilst I accept that an accomplice for Wallace would help the case I just can’t see Parry as that person. I tend to see Parry as the ‘bogey man’ of the case. He knew the Wallace’s and their habits and he was a crook so he must have been involved. We can’t dismiss the inconvenient of course and point 2) is certainly tricky. There might have been another explanation? I’m still strongly for Wallace alone. If we had an explanation for point 2) I’d then say that it was close to case solved for me.

[Sherlock Houses]

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.

How about the following for some amazing coincidences WWH........ My dear Uncle Ron passed away just over 5 weeks ago aged 97. His initials, I kid you not, were R.Q. and he worked for the Prudential from April 1952 until August 1982. His mother's maiden name was Annie Mason who became a widow when Ron was just 5 years old in 1927.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But Wallace wasn’t screwed. He was a free man by that time. If Parry had been arrested and the police had really started to put pressure on him then he might very well coughed to having made the call but as a favour to Wallace (perhaps Wallace might have told Parry that he’d needed an excuse to go out to see another woman?) Parry o course knowing that he had a watertight alibi for the time of the murder.

For Wallace to have made the call I’d say that we have to overcome or explain 2 main doubts. 1) Could Wallace have fooled Beattie on the phone? And 2) The risk of Wallace being seen near to the phone box or on the tram before the Belmont Road stop? Neither question can be shrugged off of course.

1) I see this as the lesser of the two issues. Of course none of us can know how good Wallace was at altering his voice or accents but he might have been very good. The point for me though is that Beattie would have assumed that the call was genuine. He was a serious businessman who’d have likely had no dealing with the idea of a prank call. He would have been more concerned with the content of the message (and ensuring that he’d gotten it right) than the tone. So as long as Wallace altered his voice (perhaps adding an accent) I don’t see an issue.

2) This would all have been down to Wallace’s own perception of the situation at the time of course. No crime is without risk. So he might have felt that no one had seen him enter or leave the unlit phone box. He might have originally intended to have then walked to the other stop or just the stop at the end of Richmond Park but if, when the tram arrived, he saw that the conductor was upstairs (and being later than expected due to Close being late) he might have decided to risk it. If the conductor had come downstairs after the stop had arrived at Richmond Park then he could have claimed to have gotten on there. If the conductor had been downstairs he might have walked to the next stop and got to Menlove Gardens later than intended. He might have explained this by saying that he’d gotten on the wrong tram or that he’d gotten off at the wrong stop. Up until the actual murder Wallace could simply have bailed out and abandoned his plan if he’d felt that it was now too risky.

Point 2) is the only significant doubt for me. It would be interesting to know if tickets recorded the stop or just the cost of the journey?

You know my position by now of course. I eliminate Parry as the murderer because of his alibi. Whilst I accept that an accomplice for Wallace would help the case I just can’t see Parry as that person. I tend to see Parry as the ‘bogey man’ of the case. He knew the Wallace’s and their habits and he was a crook so he must have been involved. We can’t dismiss the inconvenient of course and point 2) is certainly tricky. There might have been another explanation? I’m still strongly for Wallace alone. If we had an explanation for point 2) I’d then say that it was close to case solved for me.

Just to add.....regardless of the location of the conductor Wallace might simply have have reasoned like this....by the time the police got into checking the Monday night trams would the conductor have been likely not only to have not only remembered Wallace but also at what stop he’d actually boarded? This might have been days after the event and even if the conductor might felt that he’d gotten on near the phone box a Defence Barrister would have asked if the conductor could remember all of his passengers and when they got on or off?

Im only saying that this might very well have been Wallace’s thinking. In the end it didn’t matter because the police didn’t check the Monday trams (for which they should have been heavily criticised.) So whilst I certainly accept the doubt I believe that we have a possible explanation which, if correct, leaves no barrier (in my opinion) to Wallace being the sole perpetrator of Julia’s murder.

[Sherlock Houses]

5) Admitted to knowing the name Qualtrough.

This is at odds WWH with what James Caird replied when questioned at the Liverpool Police Court by prosecution counsel J.R. Bishop on February 19th....