Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year WWH

[WallaceWackedHer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

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

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Two things I've always wanted to verify about Slemen's claims... He claims firstly that the break in at 19 Wolverton a month earlier was almost identical (pillows thrown about randomly in a bedroom upstairs, no forced entry, only the savings which were hidden in a pot having been stolen and the pot replaced). He also claims that Phyllis said she had not expected her parents (John and Florence) to visit her that night.

Unfortunately Slemen has a reputation for being unreliable, so you can't trust his stated facts like you can with someone like Gannon, until you verify them yourself. But that first stated fact would be incredibly interesting if true. I'm not sure what I would make of it.

Yes Slemen doesn’t exactly fill you with confidence. The problem is that I don’t think that we could deduce anything from it if it were true. Perhaps they wanted to discus something to do with the move? It looks a bit strange to us but we’re so used to the idea of making a phone call first. I can’t recall how far away Phyllis lived or how much travelling was involved? It does seem a little late to have gone visiting but there could have been a perfectly innocent explanation. Perhaps something issue cropped up to do with the move that needed sorting before the day of the move?

[WallaceWackedHer]

I’ve just checked the Lloyd’s statements and Mrs Lloyd says:

“Rita Price who is due for a music lesson at 7pm or a bit earlier every Monday.”

It sounds like she might only have just started regular lessons?

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

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

Two things I've always wanted to verify about Slemen's claims... He claims firstly that the break in at 19 Wolverton a month earlier was almost identical (pillows thrown about randomly in a bedroom upstairs, no forced entry, only the savings which were hidden in a pot having been stolen and the pot replaced). He also claims that Phyllis said she had not expected her parents (John and Florence) to visit her that night.

Unfortunately Slemen has a reputation for being unreliable, so you can't trust his stated facts like you can with someone like Gannon, until you verify them yourself. But that first stated fact would be incredibly interesting if true. I'm not sure what I would make of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well the police are entirely certain that the phone call is the key to everything, and also that the caller is definitely involved in the killing in some capacity. Realistically I don't think anybody would dare say if they had made the call and involve themselves.

The actual content of the alibi also seems off, such as the inability to say where he had picked his girlfriend up from. Further there is another problem:

Lily Lloyd taught Rita Price at her house every single Monday at that time, confirmed by Lily's mother, this was a weekly scheduled appointment. Parry turned up at her house meaning he knew she'd be there (as opposed to her working at the cinema or at another student's home). But Parry says he picked Lily up from another house then went home with her and stayed with her until 11 PM.

Since Parry seems to have been aware of his girlfriend's schedule and that she taught a student at home on Monday evenings around 7, then he would know that it would not be possible for her to have been elsewhere or entertaining him on that day at that time. He knew it was Monday since he said it was Monday in his alibi (as opposed to just saying "the 19th" or whatever).

I’ve just checked the Lloyd’s statements and Mrs Lloyd says:

“Rita Price who is due for a music lesson at 7pm or a bit earlier every Monday.”

It sounds like she might only have just started regular lessons?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Well the police are entirely certain that the phone call is the key to everything, and also that the caller is definitely involved in the killing in some capacity. Realistically I don't think anybody would dare say if they had made the call and involve themselves.

The actual content of the alibi also seems off, such as the inability to say where he had picked his girlfriend up from. Further there is another problem:

Lily Lloyd taught Rita Price at her house every single Monday at that time, confirmed by Lily's mother, this was a weekly scheduled appointment. Parry turned up at her house meaning he knew she'd be there (as opposed to her working at the cinema or at another student's home). But Parry says he picked Lily up from another house then went home with her and stayed with her until 11 PM.

Since Parry seems to have been aware of his girlfriend's schedule and that she taught a student at home on Monday evenings around 7, then he would know that it would not be possible for her to have been elsewhere or entertaining him on that day at that time. He knew it was Monday since he said it was Monday in his alibi (as opposed to just saying "the 19th" or whatever).

[Herlock Sholmes]

But what's the point of this when he could have just used the same mega-disguised voice he used with the waitress with the operators? If he knew he needed to fool the operators then that would mean he anticipated they may be questioned by police. Surely then it would look bad if the voice is described entirely differently by the cafe staff, showing the caller was trying to deceive them.

There just isn't any logical reason to do this. Unless of course he was purposefully doing all this to have Parry put away for murder, and therefore purposefully frauded the accent and pronunciations of words like cafè in order to frame him... Because then it would look like the operator voice is the real one (and it would fit Parry - or just alleviate suspicion against himself)... And in that case he got lucky Parry didn't have a good alibi for when the call came in... That level of pre-empting from the failed chess player does not seem very believable, especially when, with this apparent Nostradamus tier level of foresight, he does such basic stuff wrong (e.g. replacing the cash box).

But the other option is that it was just straight up not him who called... Rather, someone acting on his behalf, a prank call, or a REALLY crap burglary plan from a dumb crook which somehow miraculously worked.

If I were to treat the two things as separate incidents, the facts of the call lean towards a different caller. But without any phone call and the murder still occurring, with the scene as it is, then the evidence leans towards Wallace's guilt (or complicity in covering for another person) in the murder... It looks like a staged burglary on the surface, albeit the insecure door locks on many homes at that time, not just on that street, mitigates the "no forced entry" evidence... Or if not staged, like the scene had been cleaned in some way.

The parlour as a premeditated murder location is not very good... Without blood planted on the cash box etc, it gives the appearance that someone killed her AFTER going for the box (unless it's two people)... The kitchen would have been a better place to kill her to give the impression of a burglary gone wrong (to make it seem she'd been killed after catching the burglar red handed)... Because the parlour is not adjacent to the neighbor's living area, it could also be somewhere they often went to argue and avoid the prying ears of neighbors (though don't forget Arthur Mills had his room in the Johnstons parlour, so there's a chance it wouldn't be good for that purpose). The potential sound could also be a reason to use the parlour as a murder room, though still the staging in the rest of the home did not fit well with a parlour murder.

Because of that it would lead me to think Julia was either in there naturally (perhaps due to a real guest), or the criminal made a mistake in his thinking (believing the parlour would better suit his needs).

Julia was in that parlour of her own accord earlier in the day when Amy visited. Again because of this, Wallace's potential complicity IF the scene is staged, and him being seen allegedly crying near Wolverton Street at the time Amy arrived at the home, you might think these things could be related in some way...

There was talk of an alleged affair between the two, and I don't doubt she was unfaithful with SOMEONE given her husband was away for so long. Perhaps if this is true, an affair between Amy and William led to a murder which was seemingly not even planned given the haphazard staging.

The call may well have simply given the killer(s) an alibi they didn't even expect to have, like William didn't even know it was a fake appointment until he got there. Good fortune and all that... If it was a real business appointment he had at Menlove Gardens, which he attended then came home and called police, I'm not sure what police would have thought... Because of the lack of modern investigative procedures like DNA testing, I think you may still get away with it, given there's a wide berth in the time of death.

The motive is just me musing and throwing ideas out there, it isn't something I'm suggesting I think did happen. I think it's possible.

If there was no reason for Wallace to have used a different voice during the two parts of the call then the same has to be said of Parry. Why would he have used two different voices?

What's the evidence for Parry using the pronunciation caffay? This just doesn’t register with me. It appears to be a pronunciation more in line with Wallace.

We can’t be certain why the killer chose the Parlour? Maybe it was because there was more floor space. Less chance of tripping over a chair if there was a struggle? Perhaps less chance of Julia picking something up to defend herself?

Im wary of a statement like and I don’t doubt she was faithful with SOMEONE.... I’d say that there was a huge doubt as there was no evidence for it except for a rumour. Some people do manage to stay faithful (I though only us older blokes were cynics) Amy and William went their separate ways after the appeal so it’s unlikely that they were having an affair imo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We know that Parry had an unshakeable alibi and so couldn’t have been the murderer and so even if he’d made the call as a harmless prank what did he have to worry about? It’s almost certain that he wouldn’t have been aware that this particulate call was traceable and so he had no problem. And even if he suspected (or even assumed) that the call could have been traced then he still had no issues. He was out and about at the time. So what? He wasn’t the murderer. Why would the police suspect him of making a completely unconnected call? The phone box was near to Wallace’s house of course not Parry’s. The police didn’t have a single reason for connecting Parry to the call if he wasn’t the murderer.

The murder took place on the Tuesday and Parry gave his statement to the police on the Friday saying that he had no issue at all with them checking his alibi’s so he had ample time to mull this over and come to the very obvious conclusion that he had absolutely nothing to worry about. So why then did Parry give himself an alibi for the time of the phone call that he must have known would have been immediately and easily refuted by the Lloyd’s? Remember, Parry wasn’t caught out here. He’d had plenty of time to either confirm his actual alibi or, if guilty of anything, to have tried to set up a false alibi. No, Parry from a position of safety drops himself right in it. Why?

Its often claimed that he simply had to have been lying because he remember the events of the following night in such detail. But this happens all of the time. Some things stick in our minds some things don’t. Things get confused. Memories of events get mixed up. On the Tuesday evening he had two visits (one of them a lengthy one) plus his visit to Hignett’s to aid his memory. On the Monday he just went to meet Lily, something that he’d done many times. If he was innocent then he’d have had no particular reason for the events of that night to have stood out from any other night when he went to meet Lily. Tuesday was the night of the murder so he was likelier to have remembered. How many times have we heard people saying that they can remember where they were when they heard about Elvis or JFK dying?

Despite this Parry, under absolutely no pressure, gives an easily disprovable alibi. He can’t even recall where he’d picked Lily up. He hasn’t even bothered to ask Lily about that night. This doesn’t sound like a man with a guilty conscience. I’m not saying that he couldn’t have lied but what I’m saying is that he had absolutely no need to have lied. He also told a lie that he couldn’t possibly have expected to have gotten away with. This makes little, if any, sense. Even if he lied it’s not certain (or even likely imo) that he did so because he’d made that call.

I simply don’t think that we can assume that Parry lied. His alibi was undoubtedly incorrect but was it a lie? Possibly. But possibly not and the circumstances surrounding it lead me to suspect that this might simply have been a case of a man who had done nothing wrong mis-remembering what he’d done on a very ordinary day.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Thanks for that. I keep meaning to re-read all the books on the case to refresh my memory but I always have other things to read. It’s amazing how some facts that I wouldn’t have gotten wrong a year ago I now mix up or get wrong. I should check rather than rely on memory.

Anyway the point that I’d make is that there’s a pretty obvious reason why Wallace would have needed a greater level of disguise with his voice for the call as opposed to the operators. The operators had nothing to make a judgment against but Beattie and Harley actually knew what Wallace sounded like. If the operators had been called to ID Wallace’s voice using just a local accents against his usual accent they’d have had no chance. The change of voice tone would have been imperative with those who knew his voice.

But what's the point of this when he could have just used the same mega-disguised voice he used with the waitress with the operators? If he knew he needed to fool the operators then that would mean he anticipated they may be questioned by police. Surely then it would look bad if the voice is described entirely differently by the cafe staff, showing the caller was trying to deceive them.

There just isn't any logical reason to do this. Unless of course he was purposefully doing all this to have Parry put away for murder, and therefore purposefully frauded the accent and pronunciations of words like cafè in order to frame him... Because then it would look like the operator voice is the real one (and it would fit Parry - or just alleviate suspicion against himself)... And in that case he got lucky Parry didn't have a good alibi for when the call came in... That level of pre-empting from the failed chess player does not seem very believable, especially when, with this apparent Nostradamus tier level of foresight, he does such basic stuff wrong (e.g. replacing the cash box).

But the other option is that it was just straight up not him who called... Rather, someone acting on his behalf, a prank call, or a REALLY crap burglary plan from a dumb crook which somehow miraculously worked.

If I were to treat the two things as separate incidents, the facts of the call lean towards a different caller. But without any phone call and the murder still occurring, with the scene as it is, then the evidence leans towards Wallace's guilt (or complicity in covering for another person) in the murder... It looks like a staged burglary on the surface, albeit the insecure door locks on many homes at that time, not just on that street, mitigates the "no forced entry" evidence... Or if not staged, like the scene had been cleaned in some way.

The parlour as a premeditated murder location is not very good... Without blood planted on the cash box etc, it gives the appearance that someone killed her AFTER going for the box (unless it's two people)... The kitchen would have been a better place to kill her to give the impression of a burglary gone wrong (to make it seem she'd been killed after catching the burglar red handed)... Because the parlour is not adjacent to the neighbor's living area, it could also be somewhere they often went to argue and avoid the prying ears of neighbors (though don't forget Arthur Mills had his room in the Johnstons parlour, so there's a chance it wouldn't be good for that purpose). The potential sound could also be a reason to use the parlour as a murder room, though still the staging in the rest of the home did not fit well with a parlour murder.

Because of that it would lead me to think Julia was either in there naturally (perhaps due to a real guest), or the criminal made a mistake in his thinking (believing the parlour would better suit his needs).

Julia was in that parlour of her own accord earlier in the day when Amy visited. Again because of this, Wallace's potential complicity IF the scene is staged, and him being seen allegedly crying near Wolverton Street at the time Amy arrived at the home, you might think these things could be related in some way...

There was talk of an alleged affair between the two, and I don't doubt she was unfaithful with SOMEONE given her husband was away for so long. Perhaps if this is true, an affair between Amy and William led to a murder which was seemingly not even planned given the haphazard staging.

The call may well have simply given the killer(s) an alibi they didn't even expect to have, like William didn't even know it was a fake appointment until he got there. Good fortune and all that... If it was a real business appointment he had at Menlove Gardens, which he attended then came home and called police, I'm not sure what police would have thought... Because of the lack of modern investigative procedures like DNA testing, I think you may still get away with it, given there's a wide berth in the time of death.

The motive is just me musing and throwing ideas out there, it isn't something I'm suggesting I think did happen. I think it's possible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He did, faking an accent is faking a voice, the operators are the ones who said he had a Liverpool accent. So then he anticipated needing to fool operators and used two different voices... One normal with an accent, the other gruff with an accent...

It was the waitress who said the voice sounded like an older man. The operators did not say this. Because the caller is evidently faking a gruff voice once getting through to the cafe, that could give such an impression of being older... The operators when questioned on this, on the back of that statement from the waitress, said the voice was "decidedly not gruff" and that the voice sounded very ordinary.

If he's anticipating that he has to trick operators, wouldn't you expect he'd try to ensure maximum protection and use the same fully faked voice in both instances?

Using two different fake voices would show a desire to fool both operators and the cafe. But the use of two seems less plausible than the voice the operators heard being the real voice and accent.

Thanks for that. I keep meaning to re-read all the books on the case to refresh my memory but I always have other things to read. It’s amazing how some facts that I wouldn’t have gotten wrong a year ago I now mix up or get wrong. I should check rather than rely on memory.

Anyway the point that I’d make is that there’s a pretty obvious reason why Wallace would have needed a greater level of disguise with his voice for the call as opposed to the operators. The operators had nothing to make a judgment against but Beattie and Harley actually knew what Wallace sounded like. If the operators had been called to ID Wallace’s voice using just a local accents against his usual accent they’d have had no chance. The change of voice tone would have been imperative with those who knew his voice.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amending my post #228

I should have rechecked the whole statement rather than relying on a faulty memory. Mrs Lloyd came to her timing because of the time the Rita Price was due and the fact that she was a few minutes late and that Parry arrived during the lesson. She judged Parry’s arrival to have been earlier whilst Lily felt that it was later. Neither are conclusive but on balance I’d accept of course that Lily would have been likeliest to have been accurate with her time of 7.35.

I don’t think that Parry made the call be we can’t show that he didn’t via the timings.

[WallaceWackedHer]

But he didn’t. The operators heard the normal sounding voice of an older man (William) whereas Beattie and Harley heard a gruff voice (William disguising his voice for obvious reasons.)

He did, faking an accent is faking a voice, the operators are the ones who said he had a Liverpool accent. So then he anticipated needing to fool operators and used two different voices... One normal with an accent, the other gruff with an accent...

It was the waitress who said the voice sounded like an older man. The operators did not say this. Because the caller is evidently faking a gruff voice once getting through to the cafe, that could give such an impression of being older... The operators when questioned on this, on the back of that statement from the waitress, said the voice was "decidedly not gruff" and that the voice sounded very ordinary.

If he's anticipating that he has to trick operators, wouldn't you expect he'd try to ensure maximum protection and use the same fully faked voice in both instances?

Using two different fake voices would show a desire to fool both operators and the cafe. But the use of two seems less plausible than the voice the operators heard being the real voice and accent.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. What do they gain by using two different fake voices?

But he didn’t. The operators heard the normal sounding voice of an older man (William) whereas Beattie and Harley heard a gruff voice (William disguising his voice for obvious reasons.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Yes a different voice was used when the caller got through to the cafe. William calling had to have used two different fake voices because of that.

And I don’t for a minute think that Beattie would have been able to recognise Parry’s voice but let’s face it, it’s surely much easier to fake an accent that you’ve heard every day for 16 years than it is to make your voice sound much older than you actually are?