Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hill Dickinson commercial lawyers? Interesting.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hill Dickinson commercial lawyers? Interesting.

Correct, it's where Munro's company eventually trickled down to, so they hold Munro's files on the case.

IllegalIy he was denied access to some statements like Parrys. I think few people know that.

[etenguy]

My thoughts are the same, etenguy.

I can't dismiss as an irrelevant coincidence the fact that Julia was so many years older than anyone at the time - including her husband - apparently believed.

How close a couple could they really have been, for him not to know? Was he too gallant to come out with the truth about her real age, when charged with her murder, or too afraid it would be seen as a motive?

Love,

Caz X

Hi Caz

I may be stretching the evidence further than I should - but this looks like a marriage of convenience. Coupled with Parry suggesting that William Wallace was what we would today call gay, it starts to paint a different picture of their relationship. We know little of Julia's background before she married William, but what we do know is there appears to have been some hardship. Marrying William provided a respectable and comfortable life for her, and for him it provided some cover. Perhaps both she and he were complicit in the lie about her age in order that the marriage appeared completely ordinary and to avoid speculation. If this is anywhere close to being true, the beginnings of a motive for William to kill Julia starts to emerge. Maintaining this cover for William might also explain why he made such a point of professing his love for her for the rest of his life, particularly as he was considered emotionally detached.

The problem with finding more evidence to support such a supposition is that both would want to keep this all secret, but this was not an unusual situation back in the 1930s (and indeed before then and through to the 1960s). There is a good, if a little melodramatic, film about a similar situation called Victim. It stars Dirk Bogarde and Sylvia Syms and was released in 1961 and played a significant role in changing the law about homosexuality.

There is one other piece of evidence that one might argue supports this conjecture, and that is Parkes' statement. When things were looking bad for William, Parkes comes forward with the Parry story, clearly an attempt to implicate Parry in the murder. If Parry had killed Julia (and we know he personally could not have, though he might have been involved), it is unlikely he would tell Parkes and I believe the statement to be a complete lie. So why would Parkes make the statement. One possible answer is that there was some affection there for William. This is compounded by him trying hard to get his statement taken into account during the trial - there must have been a strong reason (IMHO) for him to be that dogged about it.

You may find the above conjecture interesting, or consider it an imaginative fanciful story - but I think it is plausible but insufficiently evidenced to put forward as anything but a conjecture. However, when I work through the rest of the known evidence, everything lines up in a way that suggests it is at least possible.

[WallaceWackedHer]

You may want to consider one thing, which is that if both Julia and Wallace were party to the knowledge William was a gay man, why the sudden motive?

Murder based on discovery of homosexuality makes MUCH more sense than murdering someone because she's old. But that doesn't work in the case of a situation like you mentioned.

Unless Julia had attended some recent sermons that went hardcore in on gays. Odd neighbours heard no arguing if this is the case.

There is little doubt Wallace loved Julia in some way, even as a companion. Homosexuality is certainly a better fit. Just certain disgraceful scum ex-lawyers who stole millions from defenceless old ladies and write about the case see the elderly as expendable waste, thus push that motive.

In any conspiracy I would probably have to favour homosexuality. How did Gordon know (and btw lest we forget we're taking the word of perhaps the world's biggest conman and liar) Wallace was gay? If it was common knowledge why did the police not receive such tip offs?

Parry seems to fit the caller.

But if a gay lover of Wallace's murdered Julia consider a buried suspect long forgotten and mentioned in no book ever as the killer...

The middle aged well spoken man with an umbrella who got a cab from near the crime scene saying "YOU WON'T KILL ME WILL YOU?!" before entering the cab and saying he's just really high strung right now or w.e.. He was driven to Sefton Park but suddenly requested the driver turn down a road and got out, disappearing down a side alley towards the Mersey River direction.

That was about 19:00.

He and the Anfield Housebreaker were the first suspects hunted by police.

[etenguy]

You may want to consider one thing, which is that if both Julia and Wallace were party to the knowledge William was a gay man, why the sudden motive?

Murder based on discovery of homosexuality makes MUCH more sense than murdering someone because she's old. But that doesn't work in the case of a situation like you mentioned.

It was not, perhaps, that William was gay per se that provides the motive, but if he started forming a relationship with a man. Julia might well turn a blind eye to casual encounters that take place away from the house. But if she found out he was actually seeing someone regularly, she may make the ultimatum he stop or she will stop it. She might have been scared he would be found out or simply be insecure. This threat to out him could be the motive.

Unless Julia had attended some recent sermons that went hardcore in on gays. Odd neighbours heard no arguing if this is the case.

If it were true, then I suspect they would not have argued in a way that neighbours might hear - they would still be protecting their secret.

There is little doubt Wallace loved Julia in some way, even as a companion. Homosexuality is certainly a better fit. Just certain disgraceful scum ex-lawyers who stole millions from defenceless old ladies and write about the case see the elderly as expendable waste, thus push that motive.

I would think at the very least they would have to be good companions for each other and possibly even real affection existed.

In any conspiracy I would probably have to favour homosexuality. How did Gordon know (and btw lest we forget we're taking the word of perhaps the world's biggest conman and liar) Wallace was gay? If it was common knowledge why did the police not receive such tip offs?

It is quite possible Parry got a sense of William being gay, if indeed he was, when working closely with him - maybe William made suggestions to Parry to test if he was a potential sexual partner, which Parry saw through.

But if a gay lover of Wallace's murdered Julia consider a buried suspect long forgotten and mentioned in no book ever as the killer...

The middle aged well spoken man with an umbrella who got a cab from near the crime scene saying "YOU WON'T KILL ME WILL YOU?!" before entering the cab and saying he's just really high strung right now or w.e.. He was driven to Sefton Park but suddenly requested the driver turn down a road and got out, disappearing down a side alley towards the Mersey River direction.

That was about 19:00.

He and the Anfield Housebreaker were the first suspects hunted by police.

I don't think a gay lover killed Julia. I think it was Wallace himself - (long explanation for that at another time). If there was a gay lover then I believe the extent of his involvement would have been to provide a car to ferry Wallace about so he could make those seemingly impossible timings.

[WallaceWackedHer]

It was not, perhaps, that William was gay per se that provides the motive, but if he started forming a relationship with a man. Julia might well turn a blind eye to casual encounters that take place away from the house. But if she found out he was actually seeing someone regularly, she may make the ultimatum he stop or she will stop it. This threat to out him could be the motive.



If it were true, then I suspect they would not have argued in a way that neighbours might hear - they would still be protecting their secret.



I would think at the very least they would have to be good companions for each other and possibly even real affection existed.



It is quite possible Parry got a sense of William being gay, if indeed he was, when working closely with him - maybe William made suggestions to Parry to test if he was a potential sexual partner, which Parry saw through.



I don't think a gay lover killed Julia. I think it was Wallace himself - (long explanation for that at another time). If there was a gay lover then I believe the extent of his involvement would have been to provide a car to ferry Wallace about so he could make those seemingly impossible timings.

Right... I think there would be yelling but there also might not be I see what you mean.

I would rather contend the gay man killed Julia, because he'd be bloodstained, there's like no way around it. Also given Wallace seems genuinely fond of Julia I don't think if he had an accomplice he'd want to kill her in that fashion. Also more importantly he has to go off on a journey and it's CRUCIAL he's spotless of blood which he was. Nothing even on a benzidine test.

The weirdo taxi suspect is a good shout, and escaped by cab rather than tram etc. So probably not seen much. Only weirdos get in the front seat of cabs unless it was different then, so he might even be semi out of view of the cabbie who'd just see him in the mirror every now and then.

The use of a car wouldn't make a difference really. Look where the second tram stop was that he was spotted on. No cars were seen actually on or around Wolverton Street (which would be expected, too conspicuous back then), so there's still a short walk to wherever that's parked, then the distance to the second tram compared to just getting the tram is negligible... It does cut out a wait time but the cops did tests where they jumped on trams. They denied it in court but one admitted it somewhere that he had done this with some others to make the time hence why it was brought up. I swear I saw it I cannot find it though. But yeah if you work out the actual speed the officers are moving based on the distance travelled (which Oliver did during the Appeal, which is on my site) for both the milk boy and cops it's just not likely. It's already too fast and then has to rely on a 0 minute wait time.

To have plausibly murdered Julia he would need a lot more time according to the forensics. And that's not like to have done it, just for it to even be plausibly possible. Right now it's basically discarded entirely.

Especially the raincoat. And I think that's important because if Wallace HASN'T used it as a blood shield exactly what HAS he done with it? It's suggested by experts to have been more likely on Julia in some way.

Cars were very rare. Wallace wouldn't place a call when he has an accomplice either so I'd expect whoever he did it with would call. But Parry placed that call... Then things start hitting dead ends... I am emphatic he made that call and you can check my history and see how much I argued that Wallace did for so long. With all facts it's just... Combined with the false alibi you can't get him away from it.

I'd have enjoyed putting Johnston in the box but I can't because it's Gordon. It's like a total stonewall. There's so many options you could explore if you could get Gordon out of that box but he just is so overwhelmingly likely the caller.

He could have been tricked into placing it. Or actually been gay/bi. I would rather buy Parry as a rent boy for William (a man wrote to Gannon stating this but Gannon deleted it permanently) than as a rent boy for elderly Julia...

...

On Julia though. Weirdly the police background of Julia which is in the file is very different from the one given by Gannon. It gives a different Harrogate address and all sorts.

The marriage certificate can't be denied but it's weird. Also weird that Goodman says her hair was just starting to grey. Unexpected for a 69 year old.

I briefly considered she'd faked her age to inherit her parent's stuff as she was orphaned at 14. But IIRC it didn't check out.

[etenguy]

Right... I think there would be yelling but there also might not be I see what you mean.

I would rather contend the gay man killed Julia, because he'd be bloodstained, there's like no way around it. Also given Wallace seems genuinely fond of Julia I don't think if he had an accomplice he'd want to kill her in that fashion. Also more importantly he has to go off on a journey and it's CRUCIAL he's spotless of blood which he was. Nothing even on a benzidine test.

The weirdo taxi suspect is a good shout, and escaped by cab rather than tram etc. So probably not seen much. Only weirdos get in the front seat of cabs unless it was different then, so he might even be semi out of view of the cabbie who'd just see him in the mirror every now and then.

The use of a car wouldn't make a difference really. Look where the second tram stop was that he was spotted on. No cars were seen actually on or around Wolverton Street (which would be expected, too conspicuous back then), so there's still a short walk to wherever that's parked, then the distance to the second tram compared to just getting the tram is negligible... It does cut out a wait time but the cops did tests where they jumped on trams. They denied it in court but one admitted it somewhere that he had done this with some others to make the time hence why it was brought up. I swear I saw it I cannot find it though. But yeah if you work out the actual speed the officers are moving based on the distance travelled (which Oliver did during the Appeal, which is on my site) for both the milk boy and cops it's just not likely. It's already too fast and then has to rely on a 0 minute wait time.

To have plausibly murdered Julia he would need a lot more time according to the forensics. And that's not like to have done it, just for it to even be plausibly possible. Right now it's basically discarded entirely.

Especially the raincoat. And I think that's important because if Wallace HASN'T used it as a blood shield exactly what HAS he done with it? It's suggested by experts to have been more likely on Julia in some way.

Cars were very rare. Wallace wouldn't place a call when he has an accomplice either so I'd expect whoever he did it with would call. But Parry placed that call... Then things start hitting dead ends... I am emphatic he made that call and you can check my history and see how much I argued that Wallace did for so long. With all facts it's just... Combined with the false alibi you can't get him away from it.

I'd have enjoyed putting Johnston in the box but I can't because it's Gordon. It's like a total stonewall. There's so many options you could explore if you could get Gordon out of that box but he just is so overwhelmingly likely the caller.

He could have been tricked into placing it. Or actually been gay/bi. I would rather buy Parry as a rent boy for William (a man wrote to Gannon stating this but Gannon deleted it permanently) than as a rent boy for elderly Julia...

...

On Julia though. Weirdly the police background of Julia which is in the file is very different from the one given by Gannon. It gives a different Harrogate address and all sorts.

The marriage certificate can't be denied but it's weird. Also weird that Goodman says her hair was just starting to grey. Unexpected for a 69 year old.

I briefly considered she'd faked her age to inherit her parent's stuff as she was orphaned at 14. But IIRC it didn't check out.

You are correct, if Wallace was the murderer and had a male accomplice, it would make sense that the accomplice made the call.

I know you are not keen on my suggestion of Wallace having a clean change of clothes in the car - but if he murdered Julia, it would explain the total lack of blood on his clothes.

It is possible the accomplice killed Julia rather than Wallace, but it raises a set of questions about him being in the house that simply disappear if Wallace was the killer.

And of course, we would need to identify who Wallace's gay lover was, and I believe it was possibly Parkes, which then explains his story about Parry which he really pushed on with the police. I can think of no stronger reason for him being so dogged. And also it could have been his car, or one he used from the garage, which he cleaned that night, not Parry's.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I just can't accept this as a suggestion in a serious murder case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VumrpkL6RS0&t=03m00s

Also he has to not get the blood from the stained clothing on his skin OR the new clothing while doing this or it'd stain the fresh clothing. And he was dressed formally, so various layers and a collar etc not just sweats.

Contorting himself with poor health as he had. It's not reasonable IMO.

The suggestion of homosexuality is reasonable. I'd rather think it's simpler Wallace let him in the back and had Julia set up the parlour and he's clean and changed etc. walking out the back door as the gay man kills her.

But there's issues. Like the fact Gordon called (unless this is unrelated) so as I said it's back at three man conspiracy. Which is what it appears to have to be if the call isn't a prank and Wallace is involved.

Let me put you in a car in clothing covered in mustard and drive you to a tram stop a short distance away and see if you can change outfits and avoid staining your new clothes in any way lol... The car ride wouldn't even shave much time, I checked ages ago because of Parry's involvement, I considered Parry driving Wallace hence my check on the time saving. It's not really feasible.

[etenguy]

I just can't accept this as a suggestion in a serious murder case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VumrpkL6RS0&t=03m00s

Also he has to not get the blood from the stained clothing on his skin OR the new clothing while doing this or it'd stain the fresh clothing. And he was dressed formally, so various layers and a collar etc not just sweats.

Contorting himself with poor health as he had. It's not reasonable IMO.

That's a very funny clip - of course I didn't envisage it quite that way. I don't think it is particularly difficult to do though. (see below about the accomplice killing)

The suggestion of homosexuality is reasonable. I'd rather think it's simpler Wallace let him in the back and had Julia set up the parlour and he's clean and changed etc. walking out the back door as the gay man kills her.

But there's issues. Like the fact Gordon called (unless this is unrelated) so as I said it's back at three man conspiracy. Which is what it appears to have to be if the call isn't a prank and Wallace is involved.

One issue about the accomplice killing Julia is that the accomplice may have been seen. Worse still seen with Wallace. I appreciate it makes Wallace in clean clothes easier to explain. I think it difficult to decide which is more likely.

I realise this doesn't work for you as you are convinced Parry made the call - and I can see why, but I think the call was the set up for the alibi.

[John G]

Hi John

There is no good solid evidence which points to a particular person being the caller, we have to infer the caller from the rest of the known facts. We can say it was a man. That if Wallace was the killer then he was most likely the caller, even though he disguised his voice so Sam Beattie did not recognise it. If he wasn't the murderer then it was Parry pranking or the would be thief/murderer. How you determine the latter is through the other evidence.

Hi,

I'm afraid I would have to disagree. The recipient of the call, who knew Wallace well, was convinced that it wasn't him. And there's no evidence that Wallace had the ability to disguise his voice. That's solid evidence.

Parry lied about his whereabouts at the time of the call, and we have a witness who states he had a history of making prank calls. That's solid evidence.

[John G]

This is a slight tangent to the thread, but I would be interested to know whether people think the intent that night was robbery or murder.

As I see it there are two possibilities:

A. This was attempted robbery which was interrupted, leading to the attack on Julia. If we believe that it leads to one set of suspects.
B. This was premeditated murder which was rather clumsily set up to look like an interrupted robbery, which leads us to a different set of suspects.

My thoughts on the matter are that this was always intended as a murder of Julia, the signs of robbery were clumsy at best and the evidence for attempted burglary not strong (ie no burglary took place (except a small amount of money from the box) and yet valuables were in the house).

Overwhelmingly a robbery gone wrong. A perpetrator who was interrupted, resulting in an unplanned murder, is hardly likely going to spend time searching for valuables, especially if they believe that the neighbour may have been alerted.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi,

I'm afraid I would have to disagree. The recipient of the call, who knew Wallace well, was convinced that it wasn't him. And there's no evidence that Wallace had the ability to disguise his voice. That's solid evidence.

Parry lied about his whereabouts at the time of the call, and we have a witness who states he had a history of making prank calls. That's solid evidence.

Not only was Beattie saying it wasn't his voice, he was actively trying to envision it was Wallace faking a voice and STILL said essentially that there's no way.

[John G]

Not only was Beattie saying it wasn't his voice, he was actively trying to envision it was Wallace faking a voice and STILL said essentially that there's no way.

Exactly. But such hard facts don't seem to matter when you have a convoluted theory to promote, unsupported by any evidence, of course. It's like the forensic evidence which effectively rules Wallace out, supported by modern forensic experts and the experts at the time. And the impossibility of Wallace disposing of the murder weapon, another inconvenient truth.

[etenguy]

Hi,

I'm afraid I would have to disagree. The recipient of the call, who knew Wallace well, was convinced that it wasn't him. And there's no evidence that Wallace had the ability to disguise his voice. That's solid evidence.

Hi John

Both you and WWH have made this point. Could Wallace have disguised his voice over the phone sufficiently to fool Sam Beattie? I have certainly been able to do that with my friends, whether they would swear to that in Court is another matter. Nevertheless, given Sam's insistence it was not Wallace, I agree that we would have to accept that the caller was extremely unlikely to be Wallace. This does not mean, however, that Wallace did not kill or conspire to kill his wife.

Parry lied about his whereabouts at the time of the call, and we have a witness who states he had a history of making prank calls. That's solid evidence.

This is solid evidence that Parry lied. This is solid evidence that Parry was a phone prankster. It is not solid evidence that Parry made the fateful call. All this tells us is that we cannot rule out the possibility that Parry made the call.

[etenguy]

Overwhelmingly a robbery gone wrong. A perpetrator who was interrupted, resulting in an unplanned murder, is hardly likely going to spend time searching for valuables, especially if they believe that the neighbour may have been alerted.

Hi again, John

I will explain why the interrupted burglary scenario seems very unlikely to me, and would be interested in your thoughts.

WWH has done some excellent research with forensic experts that identifies the most likely position of Julia Wallace when she was attacked. His latest research suggest she was on the lounger. (It is quite easy to imagine Julia resting on the lounger with the mac as a cover, since she was not so well). Others have suggested she was lighting the fire or sitting on the armchair which had the violin case resting on it.

None of those positions, especially the latest, suggests she had interrupted someone in the kitchen. If, as WWH's latest research suggests, she was resting on the lounger, it follows that she was not concerned about either anyone else being in the house with her, or any crime taking place in the house. Quite the opposite in fact. If she had interrupted a burglar and had time to rush back to the front parlour to sit (or perhaps be pushed onto) the lounger afraid for her life, she would have screamed and the Johnstons at the very least would have heard her.

Instead, we appear to have someone relaxed and taken by surprise - which suggests that anyone else in the house was not a concern for her. This to my mind suggests that Wallace was the most likely murderer.

In addition, again following research by WWH, it has been identified that the missing iron bar was not the murder weapon. Nothing else that could have been the weapon was reported as missing from the house. This suggests the killer brought the murder weapon into the house. So whether it was Wallace or someone else, they entered the house with at least the possibility of murder on their mind.