Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[OneRound]

We think we got this:

1) Gordon Parry plays a trick on Wallace with a prank call. Wallace falls for it.

2) The next day, Amy visits Julia. Wallace returns and there is an argument relating to Amy...

Amy was quite possibly in the parlor while visiting (where she had been received just one week prior), so the parlor is set up. William by admission was wearing the same raincoat found under Julia on his rounds that afternoon before 6 PM.

So when Wallace gets back from his rounds, he's ALREADY wearing the raincoat, and the parlor is ALREADY set up with a fireplace lit.

3) During an argument Wallace hits Julia with an unknown object. This occurs before the milk boy's visit, around 6 PM as all forensics said (not just MacFall). The home was already shrouded in darkness the window cleaner thought was peculiar before this.

4) Because Wallace's jacket he was already wearing has been sprayed with blood, he dumps it.

5) The milk boy arrives. He did not see Julia, he made it up for street cred among his teenage friends and the lie got too deep to escape it.

6) After having more than enough time to clean himself up, Wallace haphazardly attempts to stage a robbery. Possibly, money from the cash box is moved upstairs into the vase... This is why William purposefully puts his fingers on it in front of a police officer, so the blood prints could be explained.

7) Wallace now goes on the business trip, trying to keep it together and act as though nothing has happened. However he's shaken up and acts bizarrely as a result.

8) Wallace comes home and makes the "discovery" of Julia's body.

9) Wallace then uses the phone call in an attempt to deflect guilt. We see he is very stuck on the call, as he gets on Beattie's case about the time of the call. He knows he didn't make the call, and knows that he can frame whoever did.

WWH - whilst recognising the dedication you have shown to this subject, where is the 'New Evidence' as in the title of your thread?

Regards,
OneRound

[WallaceWackedHer]

We think we got this:

1) Gordon Parry plays a trick on Wallace with a prank call. Wallace falls for it.

2) The next day, Amy visits Julia. Wallace returns and there is an argument relating to Amy...

Amy was quite possibly in the parlor while visiting (where she had been received just one week prior), so the parlor is set up. William by admission was wearing the same raincoat found under Julia on his rounds that afternoon before 6 PM.

So when Wallace gets back from his rounds, he's ALREADY wearing the raincoat, and the parlor is ALREADY set up with a fireplace lit.

3) During an argument Wallace hits Julia with an unknown object. This occurs before the milk boy's visit, around 6 PM as all forensics said (not just MacFall). The home was already shrouded in darkness the window cleaner thought was peculiar before this.

4) Because Wallace's jacket he was already wearing has been sprayed with blood, he dumps it.

5) The milk boy arrives. He did not see Julia, he made it up for street cred among his teenage friends and the lie got too deep to escape it.

6) After having more than enough time to clean himself up, Wallace haphazardly attempts to stage a robbery. Possibly, money from the cash box is moved upstairs into the vase... This is why William purposefully puts his fingers on it in front of a police officer, so the blood prints could be explained.

7) Wallace now goes on the business trip, trying to keep it together and act as though nothing has happened. However he's shaken up and acts bizarrely as a result.

8) Wallace comes home and makes the "discovery" of Julia's body.

9) Wallace then uses the phone call in an attempt to deflect guilt. We see he is very stuck on the call, as he gets on Beattie's case about the time of the call. He knows he didn't make the call, and knows that he can frame whoever did.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Another issue with a prank call is this

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

It’s too much to ask imo.

Yes, that's what I believe happened.

In most transcripts, btw, he says the thing about "his girl's 21st" only after being asked to call back, as an excuse why he's too busy. It doesn't sound like the caller expected that question. That part seems improvised on the spot.

As a part of any plan the fake address thing is stupid. So is the use of that name which can be traced back to being a Pru client, which is again stupid should someone be scheming a murder.

I think as you wrote, Parry saw Wallace, pulled over at the phone box, placed a prank call (as he was constantly doing according to people who knew him), then went on his merry way to Lily's - having not the remotest idea of how that call would soon become deeply wrapped up in a murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another issue with a prank call is this

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

It’s too much to ask imo.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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

[WallaceWackedHer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

[moste]

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

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

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

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

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

[WallaceWackedHer]

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


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

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

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

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

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

[moste]

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


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

[moste]

Mmhh! Very interesting

[WallaceWackedHer]

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

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

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

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

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

[moste]

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

[moste]

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

[WallaceWackedHer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[WallaceWackedHer]

Happy New Year WWH

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

Happy New Year!