The Murder of Julia Wallace (1931) - Full DPP case files

[moste]

Quote: But if he called then he did, because the voice heard by the operators had a local accent, and I'm not sure but I've seen a couple of things suggesting Wallace's accent was different. So he's disguised his voice to the operators if he's the caller. And then used a different disguised voice when he gets through to the café.

Not likely in my view. Same ‘unlike his own voice for both operators talk and club talk’. Reason.. He had had a misunderstanding/disagreement with the post office worker He had no way of knowing that the operator wasn’t still on the line listening in, to satisfy herself that the party had their connection. No ,I would say Wallace impersonated a scouse accent a couple of semitones higher or lower than his own, job done.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Quote: But if he called then he did, because the voice heard by the operators had a local accent, and I'm not sure but I've seen a couple of things suggesting Wallace's accent was different. So he's disguised his voice to the operators if he's the caller. And then used a different disguised voice when he gets through to the café.

Not likely in my view. Same ‘unlike his own voice for both operators talk and club talk’. Reason.. He had had a misunderstanding/disagreement with the post office worker He had no way of knowing that the operator wasn’t still on the line listening in, to satisfy herself that the party had their connection. No ,I would say Wallace impersonated a scouse accent a couple of semitones higher or lower than his own, job done.

Then it's not him, because the person the operators spoke to had a local accent which I think William did not.

If it's him calling himself he faked his voice to the operators via a local accent.

[WallaceWackedHer]

You will see here anyway that bolting the front door is an obvious thing to do:



What I'm doing though is trying to find as much information as possible about housebreaking protocols among various gangs to see if the use of matches, turning out lights, anything like that would be consistent.

It's the light that should be investigated. I think it could potentially be very obvious like bolting the door but only if the person stayed in there after Julia was killed. Well I mean, in both cases really, it's more if they'd stayed in there for whatever reason that it would then be natural to shut off the lights and bolt the door.

BOTH doors actually. That would be the natural thing to do if they stayed inside.

[moste]

Then it's not him, because the person the operators spoke to had a local accent which I think William did not.

If it's him calling himself he faked his voice to the operators via a local accent.

You’ve lost me there.
what I was trying to intimate was that Wallace used a local accent to call the chess club so that his natural voice wouldn’t be recognized.
And because he found it necessary to talk to the operator first ,would simply use his phoney accent with her too for fear she may listen in. I don’t get the ‘use different voices’ thing.

[WallaceWackedHer]

You’ve lost me there.
what I was trying to intimate was that Wallace used a local accent to call the chess club so that his natural voice wouldn’t be recognized.
And because he found it necessary to talk to the operator first ,would simply use his phoney accent with her too for fear she may listen in. I don’t get the ‘use different voices’ thing.

Well, essentially, the operators heard a local accent with an ordinary sounding voice, decidedly not gruff.

Beattie heard a strong, gruff voice.

If his accent isn't a local one, then he's used a fake accent (what I mean by fake voice) when speaking to the operators, and then after that a fake accent PLUS a strong, gruff faked tone.

So it's two different altered voices.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The bolt is far more obvious than the lights. Judging by the matches in the parlour including in the folds of the mackintosh, it would appear there's support that whoever was in there didn't leave immediately, so the bolt is drawn for safety. Do you think they're going to be thinking "naaah don't worry, he won't be home for at least 30 minutes, might as well leave it unbolted" when it's soooo trivial to just go chuck the catch? What if he'd come home early or there was another relative who arrived with a key or something? It would be insanity, it takes about 2 seconds to draw the bolt and completely eliminate that threat. There isn't a single person who wouldn't do that.

There’s no proper evidence that he or they hung around after Julia’s murder. What logic would they have had for doing so? They obviously weren’t searching for cash or valuables during this ‘robbery’ and they didn’t spent time cleaning themselves up so loitering around makes zero sense. They must have left within a minute or so of killing Julia intending to leave by the back gate. Locking the door is utterly pointless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

But if he called then he did, because the voice heard by the operators had a local accent, and I'm not sure but I've seen a couple of things suggesting Wallace's accent was different. So he's disguised his voice to the operators if he's the caller. And then used a different disguised voice when he gets through to the café.

I’d say that’s fairly easily explained. Wallace adopts a local accent for the operators, perhaps even altering his voice slightly but when he spoke to people that knew him he perhaps felt that he hadn’t disguised his voice enough so he disguised it more. Hence the ‘gruff’ description.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Going around on his doors is pointless. If he wanted to be noticed he'd have made some noise, not knocked "gently". It doesn't make sense, almost all of his suspicious behaviour serves absolutely zero purpose to him whatsoever if he's solely responsible for the crime.

For a start, as I’ve said, there was no reason for the front door to have been locked by anyone else and we only have William’s word that it was. And we have a back door that stops William getting in for the first time in 16 years...on that night? These are strong pointers to a charade.

If Wallace was innocent and seriously concerned for his wife’s safety why didn’t he knock loudly? Why didn’t he yell at the top of his voice “Julia, are you there?!”

Because he was play acting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. He didn't do it...

I'm afraid that the evidence, viewed as a whole and connected, shows that he most probably did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE].

The way you're thinking is the same as other people around the time etc. but you have to try to think about if this guy is a murderer, what exactly he is getting out of some of these things, because in a lot of cases the answer is absolutely nothing at all... Like do you think he benefits from saying only the insurance money is touched and he's one of the only people who know where it's kept? It seems suspicious but it benefits him in NO WAY whatsoever - in fact it counts against him.

In no intelligent plan would you limit the suspect pool to about 3 people and use your own jacket as a shield which you then leave under your wife's dead body. You just wouldn't. So if you're thinking of why do ___ when you can ___ those are the more important things to consider.
[/QUOTE\


Everything fits. Absolutely everything. They all combine to point to William and no one else. We are reduced to constantly making excuses for him. The plan suits his purpose ideally. But it’s not perfect for anyone else but they can’t be certain that William would have taken the bait or that Julia would have let them in. Trying to reduce the window or time, portraying his marriage as perfect and with no dissenting voices. Explaining away his indisputable lies, like being a complete stranger in the area. Why is this lie ok and yet Parry’s Monday night lie condemns him?

[WallaceWackedHer]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n731225]

.

The way you're thinking is the same as other people around the time etc. but you have to try to think about if this guy is a murderer, what exactly he is getting out of some of these things, because in a lot of cases the answer is absolutely nothing at all... Like do you think he benefits from saying only the insurance money is touched and he's one of the only people who know where it's kept? It seems suspicious but it benefits him in NO WAY whatsoever - in fact it counts against him.

In no intelligent plan would you limit the suspect pool to about 3 people and use your own jacket as a shield which you then leave under your wife's dead body. You just wouldn't. So if you're thinking of why do ___ when you can ___ those are the more important things to consider.
[/QUOTE\


Everything fits. Absolutely everything. They all combine to point to William and no one else. We are reduced to constantly making excuses for him. The plan suits his purpose ideally. But it’s not perfect for anyone else but they can’t be certain that William would have taken the bait or that Julia would have let them in. Trying to reduce the window or time, portraying his marriage as perfect and with no dissenting voices. Explaining away his indisputable lies, like being a complete stranger in the area. Why is this lie ok and yet Parry’s Monday night lie condemns him?

How does it suit him? Unless he chose to try to frame Gordon and/or Marsden with the fake client name, that and the address are entirely unnecessary for showing that he wasn't at home... And lifting from just the insurance cash box and saying Julia doesn't let anyone in is also completely unhelpful... Using his own jacket as a shield is unhelpful.

Where is the plan good exactly?

It's only good if he wants to get himself arrested, or wants to frame Parry/Marsden. Literally, with the information he WILLINGLY gave police, who ELSE could they possibly have arrested? He essentially told them "only I could have done it". He easily could have fudged a lot of information that nobody could disprove.

He was somewhat a stranger in the general area though I know what you mean yes, it would appear he's lying... But you see, unless Amy is covering for him in some way, he told Julia he was going on business to the "Calderstone's district", and secondly, he immediately asked Beattie if Menlove Gardens was Menlove Avenue, and told James Caird exactly how he would get to Menlove Avenue. So he couldn't possibly believe that his knowledge of Menlove Avenue would go unnoticed. It would be impossible to think so.

It was the Gardens he didn't know.

Their marriage was fine and the window of time is exactly as stated.

I do think Julia might have been playing "beard" to him - knowingly (hence her family not going to the wedding etc.). The comment I heard about that was posted on InACityLiving is very convincing. If she didn't know and had then found out he was gay, that IMO is the only possible motive I can see as being provable.

The prosecution couldn't show any motive because they had one statement from someone who hated them (like I said to hate on Julia seems perhaps personal lol), one from the doctor and a nurse saying they were callous regarding each other...

...Yet a ridiculous amount of testimony showed the exact opposite. Corroborated diary entries showing care for his wife, neighbours, coworkers, Parry, Amy... They were known by a local shopkeeper as "Darby and Joan" as I recall (maybe they're like that couple in Father Ted lmaoooo). It's not even remotely true they had a soured and bad marriage. It's like... So not true to imply that was the case.

That's why I think any killing of her was more a necessity killing like in the case she had outed him and he felt threatened. There is some support for this in Julia potentially sleeping in the spare bedroom... We know that hadn't always been the case (IF she was, it's just a possibility) due to the story of Cadwallader walking in while they were sleeping in bed together.

Also William's alleged crying and further, his continuous mentions of Julia in private diaries, and being buried with her. If he killed her (more accurately it would be "had her killed") then it was not born out of hatred but out of necessity or perhaps some other lover. That sort of thing.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I wish I could recover that comment about William being gay. It's like a decade old. Josh told me about it and someone on Reddit randomly said they remember it and gave details.

The commenter said his dad said he worked as a rent boy for William and many Pru workers were closet gays involved with him.

Then Parry of course tells Goodman Wallace is sexually odd.

Julia is religious so it would suggest she wouldn't like it. But there's some evidence she knew like the disowning/refusal from family to attend the wedding - and also could probably figure it out if he's not sleeping with her.

But yeah I feel it might be unrelated unless she just found out necessitating her silencing, and a decent case can be made that she had, given the bedroom thing.

Wallace is a stranger to the area of Menlove Avenue it's just Green Lane and the cinema he's familiar with. He would get to Green Lane by another route I recall it was stated, and had only been to the cinema once. I don't think he's a regular in Allerton or knows the district at all apart from Green Lane.

Gordon Parry put the call through. I put Waterhouse and Gannon's general idea quite high. Gannon not with Julia rent boys but a gay William, I think is rather decent. I can see William straight up throwing them under the bus when he realizes he'll be caught, which might be why it's clear the suspect pool was narrowed to basically just them - and how he could be confident to name them knowing there was no way they could have an alibi.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=WallaceWackedHer;n731229]

How does it suit him? Unless he chose to try to frame Gordon and/or Marsden with the fake client name, that and the address are entirely unnecessary for showing that he wasn't at home... And lifting from just the insurance cash box and saying Julia doesn't let anyone in is also completely unhelpful... Using his own jacket as a shield is unhelpful.

The name is very simply a memorable one and one that he’d recalled seeing. There’s no need for over-thinking as it’s very simple.

Saying that Julia wouldn’t let just anyone else in is absolutely perfect for William. He’s pointed the police at someone that Julia might have admitted...namely Parry. Let’s not forget two very salient points.

1) During the investigation William said that he didn’t suspect anyone and yet in his police statement he lists everyone that Julia would have admitted to the house. Just names and occupations really. Except of course for a small paragraph on Marsden and a virtual essay on Parry. If that wasn’t pointing the finger I don’t know what is? It’s equally strange that although William apparent suspected no one at the time, after his acquittal he becomes convinced of Parry’s guilt. Why? The police had looked into him thoroughly and exonerated him. What did he know after his Appeal that he didn’t know during the investigation? I’d suggest nothing.

2) You must surely see that this is a pathetic attempt at a robbery? But by putting the cash box back on the shelf and there being no signs (apart from the cupboard door) of any search for his takings Wallace is very clearly painting a picture of someone who knew where to look.

Combine this fact with the suggestion of Julia only letting in someone that she knew and William’s essay on Parry then we ge a pretty faultless attempt to point the police in Parry’s direction (a man the he might have held in very low regard due to his past) Of course William couldn’t have known that Parry had an unshakeable alibi but it was certainly worth a stab and risk-free for William.

The mackintosh served a purpose. William needed to avoid heavy blood contamination. He could easily have gotten away with having to wash his hands and face in the sink because it couldn’t have been tied to him and the Defence would have pointed out the very obvious fact that any killer getting blood on him would have wanted to clean up before heading outside where he might have run into someone. So he had to use some method. Why not a coat? What else could he have used that he wouldn’t have had to try and dispose of? Just because it was William’s coat doesn’t mean that the police would have automatically have suspected William. If they’d known for certain that the weapon was William’s poker would they automatically have assumed him guilty? Of course not.

Where is the plan good exactly?

It's only good if he wants to get himself arrested, or wants to frame Parry/Marsden. Yes, I think it’s likely that he was at least pointing the police in their direction.Literally, with the information he WILLINGLY gave police, who ELSE could they possibly have arrested? He essentially told them "only I could have done it". He easily could have fudged a lot of information that nobody could disprove.

No, he’s telling them “someone made a phone call luring me out of the house on the promise of a commission in order to get my takings. This person seems to have known where my cash box was because he appeared to go straight to it. This person was also let in by my wife who would only have let in someone that she’d known. He also appeared to know that I was a member of the chess club and that I might have been there on the Monday evening. Here is a list of candidates...”

He was somewhat a stranger in the general area though I know what you mean yes, it would appear he's lying... But you see, unless Amy is covering for him in some way, he told Julia he was going on business to the "Calderstone's district", and secondly, he immediately asked Beattie if Menlove Gardens was Menlove Avenue, and told James Caird exactly how he would get to Menlove Avenue. So he couldn't possibly believe that his knowledge of Menlove Avenue would go unnoticed. It would be impossible to think so.

It was the Gardens he didn't know.

William said that he was a “complete stranger” in the area. The questions that he asked on the monday were very general though. Nothing too specific showing any real knowledge. Two people gave him possible routes. He ignored them both.

Their marriage was fine and the window of time is exactly as stated.

You are ignoring the inconvenient. Curwen and Wilson, professional people that saw them at close hand and over extended periods, tell a very different story. Why doesn’t their opinions count? Everyone though Belle Elmore and Crippen were a happy couple. Crime history is replete with cases where neighbours say “they seemed such a devoted couple. They did loads of charity work for the church.” And this just after they’ve dug up the wife’s body. History proves that this happens. You cannot say they were a happy couple. The best that you can say is that they ‘appeared’ to have been a happy couple.

I do think Julia might have been playing "beard" to him - knowingly (hence her family not going to the wedding etc.). The comment I heard about that was posted on InACityLiving is very convincing. If she didn't know and had then found out he was gay, that IMO is the only possible motive I can see as being provable.

But it’s not provable. It’s nothing more than a rumour. Rumours always appear on high profile cases. The Ripper case is full of them.

The prosecution couldn't show any motive because they had one statement from someone who hated them (like I said to hate on Julia seems perhaps personal lol), one from the doctor and a nurse saying they were callous regarding each other...

Of course we can’t prove a motive. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t one. We can’t ‘prove’ a motive for Parry but we can reasonably suggest that he might have been desperately in debt for example.

...Yet a ridiculous amount of testimony showed the exact opposite. Corroborated diary entries showing care for his wife, neighbours, coworkers, Parry, Amy... They were known by a local shopkeeper as "Darby and Joan" as I recall (maybe they're like that couple in Father Ted lmaoooo). It's not even remotely true they had a soured and bad marriage. It's like... So not true to imply that was the case.

Im afraid that’s provable nonsense. See above (the Crippen’s) and thousands of others throughout crime history. Unhappy marriages don’t always result in fights in the street. Couples put on a front for the benefit of friends and family. This is well established. William and Julia were of an era, far more than today, when people feared gossip, rumour and scandal. Discord was kept away from prying eyes. This is well known. The motive is a non-issue.

That's why I think any killing of her was more a necessity killing like in the case she had outed him and he felt threatened. There is some support for this in Julia potentially sleeping in the spare bedroom... We know that hadn't always been the case (IF she was, it's just a possibility) due to the story of Cadwallader walking in while they were sleeping in bed together.

If memory serves, and it often doesn’t, I seem to recall that they occasionally slept separately when illness struck?

Also William's alleged crying and further, his continuous mentions of Julia in private diaries, and being buried with her. If he killed her (more accurately it would be "had her killed") then it was not born out of hatred but out of necessity or perhaps some other lover. That sort of thing.

Far less likely than a build up of resentment. The brutality of the attack tend to point toward rage. Who else could have reasonably felt rage toward an inoffensive and retiring 70 year old woman but William.

So the alleged crying after the murder is plausible and yet the alleged crying before the murder PC Rothwell just ‘had’ to have been an error?

The more I think about it and the more I examine each point individually the greater my conviction that William was guilty. To exonerate him takes far too much hard work; far too many excuses; far too many ‘blind eyes.’

[WallaceWackedHer]

Parry was wrongfully exonerated. He didn't kill Julia so moron-police are like "well good enough for us, no way you could possibly have any hand in it, ciao", even though there's literal eyewitness evidence of a potential accomplice.

Give up on Parry's non-involvement. He's involved in some capacity, I'm just not sure how deeply or how knowingly. Given his innocuous actions on the day (like arranging a party which is verified) I don't think he knew what was going to happen.

It's not remotely risk-free for Wallace to say basically only he or two other people could even possibly have done it. I'd like to hear any explanation possible as to how someone is benefitted by limiting the suspect pool to essentially him and two other people?

What do you think are the chances that he would name essentially two people as the only possible candidates and by sheer luck the prime suspect lies about his whereabouts (because he's hiding something of course)?

It makes way more sense he would do it if he knew he himself was suspected and knew for a fact Gordon couldn't provide an alibi, which would be the case if he knew Parry called.

I'm literally not willing to debate that, it's seriously blatant to the point of not being worthy of discussion, it should be one of the few accepted facts.

They appeared to be a happy couple yes. They lived in terraced housing. The overwhelming evidence suggests they were a happy couple. The prosecution had to accept that the motive might be unknown because the evidence on the surface strongly indicates there were not problems between them... There are far more positive testimonies including from people who had been into the house many times like Caird than vice versa.

You are ignoring the inconvenient. The testimony of like two or three people vs. the very vast majority as well as diary entries and the like. I am taking the minority testimony into account, the very vast majority say the opposite. To think they have a terrible marriage you have to literally cling to a very sparse few statements and ignore everything else which points at the complete opposite. Whatever arrangement they had going on seemed to benefit them.

If he's crying before she's killed, combined with diary entries, being buried with her etc, it's a crime of necessity. This is pretty obvious too, or at least the most probable. MacFall can't even decide if she's hit 3 or 12 times because he's too busy getting high on opium to do his job properly.

I don't even think hitting someone more than 3 times or whatever means there has to be personal rage. It makes no sense at all. Like the door bolt nobody would be like "ah well might as well leave it unbolted since he'll be gone at least 30 minutes" when it's so trivial to throw the bolt. If you're going to kill someone you make DAMN SURE you finish the job there and then, you don't just think "ah well just hit them the bare minimum amount of times".

That particular comment about gayness was substantial, the guy's saying his own dad had told him he had been a rent boy for William, pretty odd to make up such an elaborate tale about your father. Parry implied it too.

[Sherlock Houses]

Scotland Road to Wolverton Street though, would be just 10 minutes. I have not worked it out with the walking time, but it's a short distance. If Amy is there, it seems plausible he would continue home while she carries out some important task.

A couple of weeks ago while driving around in my home town I happened to measure the shortest and most logical route [by car] from the location of the infamous Qualtrough phone box to the beginning of Scotland Road. It measured between 2.1 and 2.2 miles. I travelled along Priory Road [crossing Utting Avenue on the way] past Anfield Cemetery on the right hand side and turning left at the approaching traffic lights onto Walton Lane which leads to a decline onto Everton Valley. I turned left at the bottom of Everton Valley onto Kirkdale Road which leads to the beginning of Scotland Road. The distance from Wolverton Street itself to the beginning of Scotland Road would consequently be about 2.4 miles. The walking time would be approximately 35-40 minutes at normal pace.

Incidentally WWH many thanks for the painstaking work you have carried out uploading all that various stuff recently.