Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[WallaceWackedHer]

When I look at this case as a whole pretty much everything I see points toward William as the guilty party. An accomplice for William would certainly help strengthen the case but I simply can’t see him involving Parry in a life and death episode and then to point the police in his direction with the risk of him blabbing. No matter how much I look at it it doesn’t add up for me. The possibility of a Monday night identification is the only negative that I can see. The odds imo are still overwhelmingly Wallace alone.

I'll explain why the accent is important:

First because there's a misconception that the caller used his real voice to the operators. This fact proves that false if it's Wallace, which means he was already anticipating operators being questioned or the box being traced... He then switched to a different voice when he got through to the cafe... If he's faking his voice anyway why not use the same voice throughout?

Second because the Liverpool accent is extremely hard to emulate, especially in a natural sounding way. I think you live in England like me so you know scouser accents are mega distinctive and hard to emulate, and I suspect fooling actual locals would be even trickier.

You agree on at least point one right? Point two is so-so, it's evidence yeah but you could argue he had a knack for accents. But we have to discard the idea the caller spoke in his usual voice to operators if Wallace called. You're with me on that?

... There is no way being asked to recall a voice and picture it as being a certain person would LESSEN your likelihood of identifying the person... Beattie doesn't even seem sure of Wallace, he acts off when Wallace pressed him on the time. But he does seem sure the voice was NOT his, even when purposefully trying to envision it as Wallace using a fake voice.

I've heard about dodgy mates for ages. But you think it's the worst alibi in the history of crime (there's actually many more just as bad). Is that a new technique for criminals to get off the hook? Fake an alibi so badly people can't believe you'd be so dumb?... He KNEW that alibi was false mate, if he didn't call he purposefully lied for a different reason... But he lied and KNEW he lied... I'd like to have heard where he apparently picked Lily Lloyd up from (he didn't know where he picked her up from in his car lmao), and importantly when this supposed event took place if not on Monday... He's so salient about his actions on the murder night down to the minute, but just one day prior to that, he has no clue... Does Lily teach on weekends? I thought she did Monday to Friday, so he's mistaking his actions on Monday for an event that took place at the very least on Friday. Even harder to mess that up given the work week schedule kinda fixes separate weeks from each other in your mind, and also kinda emphasises weekends.

You also have to weigh up the odds of him trusting his girlfriend over his pals. If his pals are so dodgy and untrustworthy are they gonna be loyal enough to lie for him and therefore involve themselves in a murder plot? That's not much of an argument but have you considered that before?

The alibi is fake because he's hiding something. If you don't think he called can you at least agree he was probably hiding something else he did that was dodgy. Maybe he was out committing petty thefts at the time? It seems biased otherwise and relies on a lot of assumption.

I can prove the part about the phone. There was a fault though, I don't believe Antony because the police files are pruned. I believe Yseult Bridges had access to more information... BUT either way the caller used the phone incorrectly. THAT I can prove so have some faith in me on that aspect. I think he pressed button B but that could be part of the error... The fact there was an error actually helps your case but I have no dog in the race. But as I said even with an error the caller f'd it up which I can prove.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here's the first article HS, from February 15th 1932....


I'll upload the articles from 1936 later on this evening.

I can’t recall whether I’ve seen that particular article. The story is well known though. Cheers for posting it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll explain why the accent is important:

First because there's a misconception that the caller used his real voice to the operators. This fact proves that false if it's Wallace, which means he was already anticipating operators being questioned or the box being traced... He then switched to a different voice when he got through to the cafe... If he's faking his voice anyway why not use the same voice throughout?

It’s a bit annoying that I don’t have access to books at the moment and my memory can be dodgy but can you remind me how we can be sure about the accent? I’m not disputing the point it’s just that I can’t recall the details. Are we saying - Liverpool accent to the Operators but non- Liverpool accent to Beattie?

Second because the Liverpool accent is extremely hard to emulate, especially in a natural sounding way. I think you live in England like me so you know scouser accents are mega distinctive and hard to emulate, and I suspect fooling actual locals would be even trickier.

To be honest WWH I’d have said that the Liverpool accent is surely one of the easiest to emulate and remember Wallace heard this accent x times a day, at least 6 days a week and for 16 years. He’d have been soaked in the accent. Also the conversations with the operators were short and to the point. Likewise Beattie.

You agree on at least point one right? Point two is so-so, it's evidence yeah but you could argue he had a knack for accents. But we have to discard the idea the caller spoke in his usual voice to operators if Wallace called. You're with me on that?

If it’s shown that the Operators said Liverpool accent then yes.

... There is no way being asked to recall a voice and picture it as being a certain person would LESSEN your likelihood of identifying the person... Beattie doesn't even seem sure of Wallace, he acts off when Wallace pressed him on the time. But he does seem sure the voice was NOT his, even when purposefully trying to envision it as Wallace using a fake voice.

Beattie acts off because he suspects that he shouldn’t be talking to Wallace. I think that thinking back would naturally cause someone to assume a greater level of caution especially when it came to a capitol crime. Even if Beattie had the slightest suspicion that it might have been Wallace’s voice would he have wanted to potentially send someone to the gallows on an error. Someone that he’d know for years. I’m certainly not suggesting that was the case though.

I've heard about dodgy mates for ages. But you think it's the worst alibi in the history of crime (there's actually many more just as bad). Is that a new technique for criminals to get off the hook? Fake an alibi so badly people can't believe you'd be so dumb?... He KNEW that alibi was false mate, if he didn't call he purposefully lied for a different reason... But he lied and KNEW he lied... I'd like to have heard where he apparently picked Lily Lloyd up from (he didn't know where he picked her up from in his car lmao), and importantly when this supposed event took place if not on Monday... He's so salient about his actions on the murder night down to the minute, but just one day prior to that, he has no clue... Does Lily teach on weekends? I thought she did Monday to Friday, so he's mistaking his actions on Monday for an event that took place at the very least on Friday. Even harder to mess that up given the work week schedule kinda fixes separate weeks from each other in your mind, and also kinda emphasises weekends.

You also have to weigh up the odds of him trusting his girlfriend over his pals. If his pals are so dodgy and untrustworthy are they gonna be loyal enough to lie for him and therefore involve themselves in a murder plot? That's not much of an argument but have you considered that before?

But he wasn’t trusting his girlfriend. He’d had time to have arranged for her to back him up but she didn’t. I genuinly don’t get this. Why the hell would Parry, being questioned in regard to a murder, give an alibi which he knew would be proven false? Why didn’t he just walk around carrying an “I killed Julia Wallace” sign? And, as you’ve said, even if it was a lie this still doesn’t mean that he made the phone call.


The alibi is fake because he's hiding something. If you don't think he called can you at least agree he was probably hiding something else he did that was dodgy. Maybe he was out committing petty thefts at the time? It seems biased otherwise and relies on a lot of assumption.

Its certainly possible. The issue I have is that he was being questioned about Julia’s murder and nothing else.

I can prove the part about the phone. There was a fault though, I don't believe Antony because the police files are pruned. I believe Yseult Bridges had access to more information... BUT either way the caller used the phone incorrectly. THAT I can prove so have some faith in me on that aspect. I think he pressed button B but that could be part of the error... The fact there was an error actually helps your case but I have no dog in the race. But as I said even with an error the caller f'd it up which I can prove.

I need to get round to doing some re-reading. I know that you think that I’m rigid on what happened but I’m not really. I could be wrong on anything. If I’m hard to budge put it down to endless debates and arguments with You-Know-Who Perhaps my overall approach is that we can’t explain everything and so as 90% of things point to Wallace (imo) the unexplained parts or doubts must have an explanation in line with everything else. I realise that therein lies danger and the risk of doing a Rod in reverse. I’m open to having my mind changed though.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I need to get round to doing some re-reading. I know that you think that I’m rigid on what happened but I’m not really. I could be wrong on anything. If I’m hard to budge put it down to endless debates and arguments with You-Know-Who Perhaps my overall approach is that we can’t explain everything and so as 90% of things point to Wallace (imo) the unexplained parts or doubts must have an explanation in line with everything else. I realise that therein lies danger and the risk of doing a Rod in reverse. I’m open to having my mind changed though.

Well Rod's gone forever, he just spends his time editing the Wikipedia page now, which is annoying because people researching the crime are exposed to proven misinformation.

Anyways, yeah the operators said it was a Liverpool accent, I can assure you that part. Wallace had a Cumbrian accent, being raised throughout childhood in Millom. He moved to Liverpool rather late in life, he actually went to Manchester and Yorkshire before ever settling down in Liverpool... Of note Qualtrough was apparently a prevalent Manchester surname at the time, so says one of the contemporary authors (can't remember which but 100% read it).

I am glad we can agree there, because that is a myth perpetuated for years (that Wallace used his normal voice to operators - when this shows he did not, if he called).

Re: Parry, I reiterate, if involved he's not the first to give a terrible alibi, and won't be the last. And perhaps he hadn't even expected he would be questioned. Especially if it WAS a robbery gone wrong that he took part in, or Wallace faked him out or paid him to make the call (in the latter case, I doubt Parry would ask questions), OR if it was a prank which I wish you would come around to seeing as truly viable if sparked by coincidence (driving past and spotting Wallace while on his way to Lily's like he had a month prior when he gave Wallace the calendar, and having a funny idea).

The detective novelist lady who came up with that was very smart, but ruined her reputation by going with the MacFail (sic) "Wallace crossdressing" nonsense. Let's be honest it's more likely Alan Close simply lied to his friends for street cred and never even saw Julia. I sometimes wonder WHY nobody has ever even entertained that notion? Especially given his reluctance to tell cops and odd behavior in court etc, AND the fact all forensics seemed to believe she was dead at 6 PM. Backing this up is window cleaner Hoer who said that Julia did not come out to talk to her in the yard and she found this so unusual she told her husband about it that night. She found the home shrouded in darkness. This is before Alan's visit. When Alan visited, he never saw Julia take in the jugs (by all testimonies he was at 31 Wolverton when the jugs were taken in), he just apparently spoke to her when collecting them. I cannot see any testimony that anyone saw Alan at the door with the door open.

Yes if Parry lied then it doesn't mean he called. But I'm saying that it's more likely he knowingly lied than confused his days, whatever the reasoning for doing so was.

---

I also hope you will come around to considering chess club members.

James Caird is a surprisingly strong suspect and underinvestigated. One of the ONLY suspects where we can literally factually show he was at the crime location within the window of time the murder took place in, knew Wallace was heading on the trip down to the route he'd take, knew the details of the message in full and hovered as it was delivered, claimed he knew the name Qualtrough (and according to Sherlock Houses, contradicted this), could watch Wallace go on the trip from the window of his own home, could easily escape unseen (almost as easily as the Johnstons), knew the interior of the home very well down to the location of the laboratory, had been in and out of the house for 15 years including playing chess in the kitchen where the cash box is, and would be admitted by Julia without question.

[moste]

//Quote..Of note Qualtrough was apparently a prevalent Manchester surname at the time, so says one of the contemporary authors (can't remember which but 100% read it).

Try researching Cumbria for Qualtrough, and particularly the Isle Of Man. For this time frame.Wallace was lying when he told his friend ‘ I’ve never heard that name before’!

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE].
I also hope you will come around to considering chess club members.

James Caird is a surprisingly strong suspect and underinvestigated. One of the ONLY suspects where we can literally factually show he was at the crime location within the window of time the murder took place in, knew Wallace was heading on the trip down to the route he'd take, knew the details of the message in full and hovered as it was delivered, claimed he knew the name Qualtrough (and according to Sherlock Houses, contradicted this), could watch Wallace go on the trip from the window of his own home, could easily escape unseen (almost as easily as the Johnstons), knew the interior of the home very well down to the location of the laboratory, had been in and out of the house for 15 years including playing chess in the kitchen where the cash box is, and would be admitted by Julia without question.

[/QUOTE

If we think that Wallace would have been taking a risk of being identified at the wrong place on the Monday night how much greater the risk for Caird of being seen at the Wallace’s door, after William had left for MGE on the night of the murder? A neighbour seeing him might easily have at least recognised him as someone that had been to the house before?

If Caird was guilty then he missed a very obvious trick. He could have told the police that the Wallace’s weren’t getting on or that William was unhappy. Even a few hints would have focused the police on Wallace even more and away from anyone else.

If Caird was guilty then we have to assume that he was in league with someone else because he arrived at the club at 7.35 after closing up his shop so he couldn’t have made the call. (I can’t recall anyone ever mentioning the location of his shop?)

We would need to know details about Caird that are unknown (and likely to remain unknown), but if his shop was near to the club this implies that he closed up at 7.30 on the Monday night so we can assume the same for Tuesday (if investigated by the police it might have appeared suspicious if he had randomly closed early on the night of the murder?) If it took Wallace 30 minutes to get from his house to the club then it would be reasonable to suggest the same journey time for Caird from shop to Wolverton Street. This would have him getting to number 29 at around 8. He would of course have intended to kill Julia but with the small talk, the murder and the robbery we can see him being inside the house until 8.10 or even 8.15. Wallace got back at 8.45 after some errors persistence. If he’d have given up earlier he might have shaved 15 or 20 minutes of that time getting him home for 8.25ish. This appears tight for Caird? He would also need an explanation for why he got home later than usual that night unless his family would lie for him of course.

As Caird would have intended to kill Julia and he had to walk home to his family he’d have had to either have cleaned up after the murder (and there’s no evidence of this) or alternatively taken preventative measures. We have the mackintosh of course but it’s difficult to see how Caird could have gotten it before he struck the first blow without Julia seeing him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is the quote function not working properly?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is the quote function not working properly?

Weird....now it’s working.

Witchcraft

[WallaceWackedHer]

Weird....now it’s working.

Witchcraft

Caird, on the night of the murder, said he was at his home (which is of course 30 seconds from Wallace's house) by 7.45 PM. It's in the police files.

He couldn't have called of course. Unless he had a car ride to beat the tram. My suggestion would be someone rang and Caird was at the club waiting to ensure the message was delivered...

Indeed, he actually loitered around Beattie and Wallace as the message was relayed and stayed there until the interaction between the two was complete. This is confirmed.

It's also known, I forgot to tell you, that Caird was not expected at the club that night. He was meant to attend on the Thursday. I said it in an older post but I don't think I relayed this to you... Plus he has two mutual acquaintances with Parry and knows Parry at least by sight since Caird's chess nights were the same time and place as Parry's drama club.

If Caird did it he has a partner or exploited a phony call... It should also be kept in mind the doors were notoriously insecure on that street so entry through the back is possible without a bolt drawn. The YARD door is IRRELEVANT because the walls can be easily scaled. The window cleaners did as much the very same day... But you could have a stranger in the front door and someone like Caird coming in the back while Julia is with the other man in the parlour.. The Qualtrough open sesame trick Hussey suggested is alright, but Amy Wallace claims Julia was in the habit of admitting random strangers anyway.

I wouldn't place any certainty on Julia's murder being pre-planned. Yes I'm aware there are suggestive aspects, well aware of that. But there are other plausible scenarios as well (except Rod AKA Hussey's theory, which is NEARLY impossible - the lone sneak thief aspect that is).

I just found out the tap for the fire is apparently on the right side of the room by the window.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. It's also known, I forgot to tell you, that Caird was not expected at the club that night. He was meant to attend on the Thursday. I said it in an older post but I don't think I relayed this to you... Plus he has two mutual acquaintances with Parry and knows Parry at least by sight since Caird's chess nights were the same time and place as Parry's drama club.

Do we know that Caird never went to the club on Monday? I know that the first class competition matches were played on Thursdays but Caird might have been a regular on Mondays to watch the second class matches and play a friendly game.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Caird, on the night of the murder, said he was at his home (which is of course 30 seconds from Wallace's house) by 7.45 PM. It's in the police files.

So it’s unlikely that he’d have gone out again unless his family backed him up in a lie? This would mean him committing the murder between closing up his shop and reaching home (deducting approximately 30 minutes travelling time) If he closed up at 7.00 it’s not impossible time wise but I just see nothing to suspect him. There’s nothing suspicious about Caird for me. He couldn’t have hoped to have stolen the cash without Julia knowing so he must have intended murder. This is a big ask for someone with no history of violence or crime. Also we would then have to assume that he’d have taken precautions against blood.

[WallaceWackedHer]

So it’s unlikely that he’d have gone out again unless his family backed him up in a lie? This would mean him committing the murder between closing up his shop and reaching home (deducting approximately 30 minutes travelling time) If he closed up at 7.00 it’s not impossible time wise but I just see nothing to suspect him. There’s nothing suspicious about Caird for me. He couldn’t have hoped to have stolen the cash without Julia knowing so he must have intended murder. This is a big ask for someone with no history of violence or crime. Also we would then have to assume that he’d have taken precautions against blood.

Well he doesn't seem suspicious, but nor would many people who were never investigated as a possible perpetrator and where information on that person and their movements is VERY scant. I don't even know if his timing or movements were corroborated.

However he's actually the best candidate for having commissioned some aspect of the crime if Wallace IS innocent, if you FORGET his lack of a criminal history, seeming jovialness etc. and just list the KNOWN facts.

Amy Wallace would be second, she'd just have a harder time escaping without Wallace's involvement, and I've never seen her alibi for the murder night (whereas with Caird we know he was at the right place around the right time).

By the way Caird's shop was at 113 Stanley Road. 2 miles from Wolverton Street.

[Sherlock Houses]

Gordon Parry was also born in Liverpool and appears to have only been around a year older that RG Parry. I’d certainly be interested in seeing the articles Sherlock.

The following four articles relate to Lily Fitzsimon's serious charges against Parry......

[Sherlock Houses]

The 6th and final article relating to Parry.....

[Herlock Sholmes]

By the way Caird's shop was at 113 Stanley Road. 2 miles from Wolverton Street.

Cheers WWH I could recall the address being named. I don’t think that a photograph exists though.?