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

[moste]

Couple of pointers : It is very possible that Wallace’s previous visits to Crewe’s place did not require his approach to the house from the Menlove Avenue end of Green Ave. He may have alighted the tram each time from the Allerton road end of Green Ave. However, the recent research into the newspaper clipping from that time of the burglaries in the Menlove
Gardens area , indicates to me that Wallace certainly was aware of the existence of that particular location , or are we to assume that He, his wife, the chaps he conversed with at the chess club , and all of the people on his routes never discussed the outrageous break- ins in the Allerton area? Come to think of it , am I wrong in recalling a conversation where someone stated ‘you wouldn’t want to be traipsing around that area at night’ ? In any event, Wallace’s overly emphasizing his excursion to all and sundry that night ,tell us something of his naivety in his plan.

[moste]

Quote: I've argued the case for almost every possibility. My name is even WallaceWackedHer lmfao. I thought he did, then that he didn't, then that he did... But as it turns out, he legitimately didn't.

keep up the good research . You may find another twist pointing back to William . Anyhow allow nothing to bias regardless!

[moste]

At the end of the day, it will only ever be opinion . Proof evaporated long long ago.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Couple of pointers : It is very possible that Wallace’s previous visits to Crewe’s place did not require his approach to the house from the Menlove Avenue end of Green Ave. He may have alighted the tram each time from the Allerton road end of Green Ave. However, the recent research into the newspaper clipping from that time of the burglaries in the Menlove
Gardens area , indicates to me that Wallace certainly was aware of the existence of that particular location , or are we to assume that He, his wife, the chaps he conversed with at the chess club , and all of the people on his routes never discussed the outrageous break- ins in the Allerton area? Come to think of it , am I wrong in recalling a conversation where someone stated ‘you wouldn’t want to be traipsing around that area at night ? In any event, Wallace’s overly emphasizing his excursion to all and sundry that night ,tell us something of his naively in his plan.

You're right they didn't, it was explained somewhere what route was taken to Crewe's. And yes he was told it was an awkward place to go knocking around in at night.

Menlove Gardens South is only one of the homes burgled out of around 30. At the same time 20 to 30 were burgled in Anfield. Again the police seem to think this was all done by one man, the "Anfield housebreaker", another counterintuitive suggestion... And the skeleton key suggestion which is not a bad one at all, but they had literally arrested multiple gangs who were gaining unforced entry through windows on the upper story then undoing the door from inside, and it seems they didn't ever consider this.

This is why I said I think the address could be connected to that housebreaking, since it happened almost a month to the day Julia was killed. Is it just me who sees a possible connection to that robbery and the use of the address given by the caller?

Because Parry rang the club then lied about his whereabouts, it makes me think he may have got the address from a dodgy friend, possibly someone related to the people who had broken in there. We know Parry despite being in his 20s was friends with teenagers, and that Parry was a thief.

The caller gave the house number 25. It might be a lucky guess, but to know West/East would be odd numbers implies further knowledge of those streets than simply reading about the existence of Menlove Gardens in the newspaper. The use of a non-existent Menlove East is not beneficial for Wallace, or for a burglar (though there is a possibility a burglar might THINK it's clever, but they're wrong...).

Wallace would have to be quite stupid to think he needs to speak to like 10 people just to prove he'd gone out on a trip when his wife was killed. He might be that stupid though... But he only needs to speak to perhaps a tram conductor, the residents at the address he visits or their neighbours/go into a neesagents (anything like that), and then come home. Alibi established, and not suspicious seeming.

The reports about Menlove Gardens also did not mention there was no East. Someone would have to actively search it up and see, or visit there.

In a solution such as that given by Waterhouse which I feel is fairly good, Menlove Gardens would probably have been the address dreamt up by Gordon, who as a thief may move in those kinds of circles. Qualtrough is meant to be Marsden's client so might be used to try to frame him, which is the only plausible reason to use it if William's guilty, since a weird name is obviously not essential to creating an alibi.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Quote: I've argued the case for almost every possibility. My name is even WallaceWackedHer lmfao. I thought he did, then that he didn't, then that he did... But as it turns out, he legitimately didn't.

keep up the good research . You may find another twist pointing back to William . Anyhow allow nothing to bias regardless!

Well I have got something about a blog comment, the commenter stated Wallace was a gay man who hired his dad as a rent boy (his dad needed the money to buy a fare to America where he moved to).

Apparently many men at the Pru were closet gays involved with William, and Parry and Marsden had been rent boys for William.

Given that Wallace appears to have gladly given them work despite their criminal character, does suggest this could be why.

I would like to know, though, if he WAS gay if Julia knew about it. If he was fully homosexual I feel she would? And maybe THAT is why her family refused to attend the wedding, and why Wallace did not care about her being so much older.

Parry told Goodman Wallace is "sexually odd".

I think a homosexual twist on Gannon or Waterhouse's idea is quite good. BUT in my view, the main motive would be if Julia didn't know he was gay (especially easy if he was bisexual) and found out, making it necessary to silence her.

She surely wouldn't out him as it would ruin her own reputation, but the threat would feel strong. I think it's a good suggestion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again you’re making categorical statement. It is utterly impossible, totally and utterly impossible to disprove that Wallace was the killer but yet again you are stating as a fact just like Rod used to. Just because you believe something it doesn’t make it game over. I’ve never said that it had to have been William, only that I think he’s overwhelmingly the likeliest. Which he is.

I never said that Parry’s Monday night evidence had to be a mistake rather than a lie. Just that it might not have been a lie but a mistake if you fully consider. a) he had no real need to lie, combined with b) why would he have provided such an easily disprovable one.

You state that Close was virtually forced to change his evidence with no proof at all. You ignore that the Johnston’s, the Holme’s and Wildman all prove the 6.45 time to have been the myth that it was giving Wallace ample time to have killed Julia.

Parry cannot be placed at the call box but you think it must have been him because he allegedly played phone pranks and could alter his voice. Is disguising your voice such a rare skill that Wallace couldn’t have done it?

Parry is eliminated as the killer. As soon as someone shows me evidence that the Brine’s lied then I’ll listen. Until that time Parry is out. So was he connected? How? For the nights proceedings he’s pretty solidly alibi’d from 5.30 until around 11pm. If Parkes was telling the truth (and Parry didn’t kill Julia but was involved in a plot) then at some point in the evening the actual killer sat in his car. And at some point when the blood was still transferable. When did this occur? Parry left the Brine’s at 8.30 and got to the Lloyd’s at around 9.00. In between he went and bough cigarette’s and newspapers at a PO the collected his accumulator battery at Hignett’s then spent 10 minutes at the Williamson’s. Three stops (one involving a 10 minute or so chat) in a 30 minute window before he then stayed at the Lloyd’s until 11.00. Surely anyone can see that Parry took no part in anything that night? It really can’t be more obvious unless we persist in suggesting plots and lying witnesses.

Yes he could have made the call and taken no further part but it’s hard to accept even the possibility. It also requires Parry to have been incredibly lucky to have found two accomplices willing to have taken all the risks whilst he sat sipping tea at the Brine’s . Leaving in him such a secure position that even if they’d tried to drop him in it Parry was on easy street. Rock solid alibi for the time of the murder and nothing to connect him to the call box or the call. And so what do we have to connect Parry to the case?

• He could disguise his voice and allegedly made prank calls.....ok
• John Parkes......oops
• A mysterious statement that his family tried to arrange for him to be spirited away like in a Hitchcock movie. Even though he was totally in the clear and Wallace had been charged.
• William Wallace pointing the finger athim

And despite all of this he’s considered likelier than Wallace? Yet no one can name a single fact that disproves Wallace without resorting to saying things like he had to have superpowers simply to have used a mackintosh to prevent himself getting blood on him. As if the room was some kind of charnel house and that Wallace would have had more blood on him than Carrie! And I’ve still never insulted anyone’s thinking or accused them of dishonesty.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I did prove it, it's a fast walking pace even without doing any deliveries or carrying a heavy load. Wildman's time is most likely correct. The bells are the best indicator we have of the time.

Gannon says Metcalfe called into Wilkes' radio show and said Alan told him he was persuaded into changing the time by police when he entered the house to give his statement as 6.45. Wildman also called in and stuck to the time he himself had given.

I never wrote anywhere it's 6.45, it seems most likely to be about 6.35 to 6.40.

I think he's at the call box because he lied and the timing fits. Not because he can talk in a different voice. William evidently had to use two fake voices if he had an accent (not sure he did but seen two things to suggest that was the case), as the voice operators and the people at the cafe heard were different.

Lily Lloyd herself said she lied about the time Gordon arrived and that he'd actually arrived later than she said. And the cigarettes thing etc. as far as I know was never checked... And given he lied about his movements for the Monday, it's quite dangerous to just trust him on that without corroboration don't you think?

I don't think the odds of him just collecting his share after making a call is that low. I base this on reading reports with housebreaker gangs where some of them would never enter the house, just knock there with a fake reason to see if anyone was in, or wait outside then collect a small share.

Gordon is getting Wallace out as well as giving the location of the cash box (or Marsden for the latter) and if it's not for him they wouldn't even be able to do it, since he's the one who knows about the chess club and so on.

So I don't think it's unlikely he would get a cut while sipping tea with Brine on the day of the crime.

I don't think you're dishonest I just don't know the word, I just mean you seem biased in thinking which leads to excusing certain facts like Alan's arrival time and Gordon's fake alibi to point all in one direction.

[moste]

Who was Wallace supposed to have been talking to on his death bed when he said”We won didn’t we” was this someone causing mischief? Or perhaps an actual lover?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Who was Wallace supposed to have been talking to on his death bed when he said”We won didn’t we” was this someone causing mischief? Or perhaps an actual lover?

I think Schofeld Allen (spelling?)... Wallace uses the same terminology in his diaries after Julia's death though, in the same entries as he says how much he misses her (that he "won" his freedom etc.)

[moste]

Some people have no problem at all changing their voice. I for example do a very convincing Chinaman. One person even commented “ well as I live and breathe! I thought I was talking to Cato, of Clouseau fame “LOL . In passing I would suspect Wallace to have had a similar accent as the actor from the movie ‘The Man From The Pru.’ Ie.northern Lancashire , but I would think Scouce would come very easy to him.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Some people have no problem at all changing their voice. I for example do a very convincing Chinaman. One person even commented “ well as I live and breathe! I thought I was talking to Cato, of Clouseau fame “LOL . In passing I would suspect Wallace to have had a similar accent as the actor from the movie ‘The Man From The Pru.’ Ie.northern Lancashire , but I would think Scouce would come very easy to him.

Yeah but it means he then used two fake voices. What's the point in that? Why wouldn't he just use the same voice he was going to use to Beattie when on the phone to the operators?

Parry's the caller, the voice to the operators was his real voice. He used one faked voice.

[Herlock Sholmes]

..

I did prove it, it's a fast walking pace even without doing any deliveries or carrying a heavy load. Wildman's time is most likely correct. The bells are the best indicator we have of the time.

Gannon says Metcalfe called into Wilkes' radio show and said Alan told him he was persuaded into changing the time by police when he entered the house to give his statement as 6.45. Wildman also called in and stuck to the time he himself had given.

I never wrote anywhere it's 6.45, it seems most likely to be about 6.35 to 6.40.

I really don’t see how you’ve proved it? By checking a few sources online the general opinion tended to be around 5 or 6 minutes for 500 yards at an average walking pace. Obviously average means that some walk faster some walk slower. Could Close have walked quicker than the average walking speed? Well he was late for a start which might have encourage him to get a bit of a spurt on. Also he was a kid who was working when he’d have preferred to have been out with his friends so this might also have encouraged him to walk quicker than the average stroll. So those times might have come down. I’m not suggesting massively but some. Let’s just for arguments sake say 4 and a half minutes. Obviously that’s walking alone so we would have to factor in what he’d done on the route (which Close said the police had done.)

He collected his milk from Sedley Street which he said was on the counter waiting for him so we’ve no reason to suspect that this was anything other than an in and out job. Maybe just 30 seconds. He then makes a delivery in Letchworth Street. How long? Well if he was just delivering bottles (as seems possible if not likely because of his drop off in Richmond Park) then this could also have been a 30 second job (knock, hand over bottles ets) Then he just puts bottles in a garden in Richmond Park (10 seconds?) and on to the Wallace’s.

So it’s surely plausible/possible that the actual work that he’d done was not much more than a minute. And if he’d walked slightly quicker than the average walking speed that adds up to around 5 and a half minutes and, as you know, the police did 2 timings at 5 and 6 minutes. A few seconds here and there could be debated forever but none of us were actually there to have seen it.

Now I don’t think that I’ve used any leaps of imagination there or have relied on anything superhuman.

That said and done the important point in all of this is the time that this allowed William to have potentially killed Julia so even if we doubled the time it still gets Close to the Wallace’s at 6.35. Nothing here is concrete of course because we have to consider Wildman who said he saw Close at the Wallace’s door at 6.37/6.38 (which for me still gives Wallace ample time.) So who do we favour? Close or Wildman? To be honest, either are ok for how I see the murder as occurring. But I’d certainly say that adults are usually better on time than kids and both the Johnston’s and the Holme’s both put Close’s arrival at about 6.30 which might tend us to favour a time slightly earlier than Wildman?

So, in general I’d say between 6.30 and 6.38.

I think he's at the call box because he lied and the timing fits. Not because he can talk in a different voice. William evidently had to use two fake voices if he had an accent (not sure he did but seen two things to suggest that was the case), as the voice operators and the people at the cafe heard were different.

But the timing fits even better for Wallace. If he’d have turned right instead of left he couldn’t have avoided passing the box at the time of the call. Can I prove that he did that? No, but you can’t place Parry at the call box either but I can ask a very pertinent question such as why did Wallace, after spending the whole day trudging around, walk past two perfectly serviceable stops to walk to one much further away? The police were seriously at fault for not picking up on this. In an investigation today this would have been seen as highly suspicious behaviour on the very night that something so important occurred.

Yes, I’ll concede that as a person type (with the skills and habits that he had) Parry was better suited to the roll of caller but....and it’s a huge but for me, I’m absolutely convinced that the call was connected to the murder and I see no evidence for or need for any kind of conspiracy. All we have to believe for William to have been able to have made the call is that he could have disguised his voice over a poor quality 1930’s phone to a man who wouldn’t have considered the idea of a prank call for a second. A man totally focused on getting the message pertaining to business correct rather than analysing the voice. Also I’d ask you how do you think that you would do trying to remember a strangers voice after you’ve heard them bark out a few sentences on a crap phone a few days previously? Would you be prepared to swear 100% that it wasn’t Mr X or Mr Y?

Lily Lloyd herself said she lied about the time Gordon arrived and that he'd actually arrived later than she said. And the cigarettes thing etc. as far as I know was never checked... And given he lied about his movements for the Monday, it's quite dangerous to just trust him on that without corroboration don't you think?

But Lily Lloyd didn’t say that to the police at the time. She said it after she and Parry had split up. We have to consider the possibility of a “hell hath no fury...” scenario.

It does appear to be true that the police didn’t check at Maiden Lane or at Hignett’s but this is the night of the actual murder. Parry was trying to prove that he couldn’t have been at number 29. This was far more important than his monday night alibi.

Ive just had a thought. Why couldn’t Parry have lied about his Monday night alibi because he’d heard about the phone call and just didn’t want to get roped in because he knew the Wallace’s. I’d have to check that one out.

I don't think the odds of him just collecting his share after making a call is that low. I base this on reading reports with housebreaker gangs where some of them would never enter the house, just knock there with a fake reason to see if anyone was in, or wait outside then collect a small share.

Gordon is getting Wallace out as well as giving the location of the cash box (or Marsden for the latter) and if it's not for him they wouldn't even be able to do it, since he's the one who knows about the chess club and so on.

So I don't think it's unlikely he would get a cut while sipping tea with Brine on the day of the crime

Yes but they’d still knocked at the door and so were on the scene and could have been seen and identified. They were still sharing the risk. Parry at the Brine’s is virtually risk free. If his sidekicks had said “it was all Parry’s idea” how could they have proved it. Parry could simply have denied all knowledge. The best that they could have said was “well how did we know where the cash box was?”

I don't think you're dishonest I just don't know the word, I just mean you seem biased in thinking which leads to excusing certain facts like Alan's arrival time and Gordon's fake alibi to point all in one direction

Ok but you did say it more than once and if I seem a bit defensive it’s because I’ve spent so much time getting insults and accusations from Rod (ask Josh) just because I disagreed with him and i don’t want the thread to degenerate into one where this happens just because we disagree.

I don’t base my opinions lightly (and I’m sure you don’t either.) You are confident that Wallace was innocent...that’s fine. I’ll tell you how I see the case and I’m not having a dig at anyone. It genuinely, and I mean genuinely baffles me how anyone can look at this case in its entirety and conclude that it was overwhelmingly likely to have been Wallace. I don’t just put him slightly above other theories. I put him miles ahead. It’s seems absolutely obvious to me. As for Parry being the murderer I dismiss him totally. I no longer even consider the possibility and until someone can provide even a tiny smidgeon of evidence that those at Knocklaid Road might have lied I’ll continue to take that view.

So I see a man for whom there’s evidence that his marriage wasn’t a happy one and where his wife knocked a staggering 16 years off her true age who gets a suspicious phone message intended to get him out of the house on the very night that his wife is bludgeoned to death in her own home. This makes me suspect.

When I see Wallace not being suspicious about a call seeking him out personally (is he Super Insurance Man?) and who apparently knows that he’s a member of a chess club and that he’d be there that night I suspect.

When I hear that on the Monday Wallace hasn’t even made his mind up to go and yet the next day he’s become so desperate to attend this meeting that constantly pesters Conductors and an Inspector with the same requests because he’s apparently ‘a complete stranger’ in the area when we know that he absolutely wasn’t, I suspect.

When I see Wallace showing the persistence of Indiana Jones and that despite being told by several people ( including a Constable on his beat) that MGE didn’t exist he goes on an on then I suspect.

When I see the most pathetic robbery ever, a feeble haul but no attempt to search a few drawers or even Julia’s bag, I suspect.

When I see blood spatter, but no blood outside the room, I think... either a clean up or the kind of caution that a spur-of-the-moment killer wouldn’t have taken. There was no evidence of a clean up so...I suspect.

When I see the lights turned off and no one can come up with a remotely plausible reason for a thief/killer to have done so but I can see a perfectly plausible one for Wallace, I suspect.

When I see absolutely no plausible, logical reason for the front door being bolted and owe only have Wallace’s word that it was, I suspect.

When I see this charade of Wallace going front door, back door, front door, backdoor. Unable to beat a lock that’s never once troubled him in the past on the very night that his wife is murdered, and that in court he tried to deny the suggestion that he’d felt someone was in the house before being forced to concede the truth, I suspect.


All these things and many more would surely make even the least cynical person suspect him? Why would anyone just dismiss all that with what amount to little more than excuses. How many excuses is Wallace allowed. I think he’s way past using them all up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some people have no problem at all changing their voice. I for example do a very convincing Chinaman. One person even commented “ well as I live and breathe! I thought I was talking to Cato, of Clouseau fame “LOL . In passing I would suspect Wallace to have had a similar accent as the actor from the movie ‘The Man From The Pru.’ Ie.northern Lancashire , but I would think Scouce would come very easy to him.

And how much easier would it be to recreate an accent that you’ve heard every single day of the week for 16 years. In fact he rarely heard a different accent.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah but it means he then used two fake voices. What's the point in that? Why wouldn't he just use the same voice he was going to use to Beattie when on the phone to the operators?

Parry's the caller, the voice to the operators was his real voice. He used one faked voice.

? Wallace didn’t need to disguise his voice to the operators because they didn’t know him. At best they might have said - well it might have been him, when comparing the voices weeks or days later (wary of mistakenly contributing to sending a potentially innocent man to the gallows of course.) But Beattie and Harley actually knew him and would have recognised his normal voice.

[WallaceWackedHer]

It's 6.35 PM that he got there. It can't possibly be 6.30 because the church bells chime at 6.30 and Elsie heard these before she even saw Alan. If we trust Alan it was 6.45. As per Metcalfe on Radio City, Alan said he was persuaded to change his time (initially to 6.35 by the way - hence why 6.35 is used on "The Man from the Pru" movie).

The police also sometimes walked past stops on their tests and not because they were against taking the other stops. Those other stops weren't normal stops, they were request stops. I know that some officers got on at the request stop, or if a tram wasn't there they walked down and got on where Wallace did. Even when they got on at the request stop they couldn't beat 15 or 16 minutes, and I think that was with them ALSO catching the second tram EXACTLY as it was departing. There doesn't actually seem much difference in timing between the request stop times and the ones where they walked down, so it might be something to do with how the trams operated back then that we wouldn't know about.

If he did get on at a different stop, then he's lied about both the stop he got on the night before, and the stop he got on on the night of the killing.

Lily and Parry kept in contact all the way up until Parry's death. Even then Lily admitted she did in fact lie about when Gordon arrived and that it was actually later than she told police, but that she's certain he didn't kill Julia.

In the other break-ins, the boys who didn't take the risk of going in would get a share, just a smaller % of it while the ones who went in would get to keep the more valuable items or larger sums of money. Parry deserves at least some sort of cut if he's getting Wallace out of the house and knows where the box is etc. since it's then essentially his plan and idea. You couldn't cut him out completely that would be totally unfair.

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.

The lights are a more complicated issue. First of all, I think there's the possibility the lights were never turned on. If Wallace killed Julia then for sure the lights would not be turned on because any light seen in that window before he leaves the house would have him hanged. So if he did it, what's happened is he's gone in there, had her turn the fire on pretending he's going to light the lamps, and struck her down instead.

In the case it's someone else, depending on how visible the inside of the room was by the light outside that room, I think she might have gone to the fireplace first since she's unwell and the room would be somewhat cold. So still there is some chance in my view that no light went on.

One thing I do know is that housebreakers drew all the curtains in a house while robbing it, and a lot of them would carry flash lamps. I think the curtains would be drawn for detection reasons of course, and I assume having lights off might be in the same sort of vein. I also know they took off their shoes or changed into rubber boots when entering a property.

It's something worth a lot of consideration.

? Wallace didn’t need to disguise his voice to the operators because they didn’t know him. At best they might have said - well it might have been him, when comparing the voices weeks or days later (wary of mistakenly contributing to sending a potentially innocent man to the gallows of course.) But Beattie and Harley actually knew him and would have recognised his normal voice.

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.

Honestly most of the things against Wallace seem suspicious but they either serve NO purpose if he's the killer, or alternatively only seem that way because Julia is dead. His persistence if he's guilty is strongly indicative of him having someone else do the deed for him.

If he did it himself, he doesn't need to go around asking all these people. Literally two or three enquiries is enough to prove without question that you had really gone out looking for the address. You don't need a fake address and you don't need a weird name... Literally all you need to do is set an appointment at a real address that will take a decent amount of time to journey there and back, make like two or three enquiries, come home.

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.

He didn't do it...

---

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.