Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hill Dickinson commercial lawyers? Interesting.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yeah, I meant that file with the Johnstone statement. Is that one in Liverpool?

I think Hill Dickinson will have it. I can't go to Liverpool.to see the file atm due to COVID. I was invited though.

[WallaceWackedHer]

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?

I'm not sure I understand why the Johnstons are suspected today. How insane would it have been for them to commit such a crime - be it burglary or murder or both - in the house of their next-door neighbours, while they knew Julia would be there? Has anything like it ever happened before, with the culprits getting away with it until decades later, when some amateur tec goes digging in the files?

Love,

Caz
X

By the alleged confession she went out the back in the raincoat and they didn't see her come back. They wanted to use the cat to get her out of the house but thought she'd gone out anyway and so slipped in the back. As per Goodman and many others she was unusually attached to the cat, very worried and miserable about it, and the milk delivery probably upset her or spurred her to go out down the alleys looking. The cat isn't even Julia's originally, she just took to it so strongly that the original owners she catsat for told her she should keep it.

The Johnstons didn't see her come back because she'd actually gone in the front with the key (presumably she did a round trip of the block and came back in the front having locked the kitchen door behind her), set up the lounger and gone to take a nap or relax or something.

Forensically it fits with her being on the right side, the weapon described since it would be pronged, and the door lock situation. Julia coming out the back would lock the kitchen door go looking give up then come in the front. The neighbour has a key that opens the doors and goes in the back.

It actually fits the entire body of forensic evidence though I want to see more about what the guy says about the footprints. I have word on footprints from another but this is "the main man" as it were. For the record the other expert saying it's impossible William did it is a woman, I mention that because there's a huge bias for women to imagine themselves as the abused murdered housewife...

It could be any neighbour. But the robbery a month earlier that was apparently very similar had a similar scene. It shared the same back entry and was on the same row of houses. If you KNEW your prints were at a scene you'd have no choice but to do what the Johnstons did to intercept him and enter. Little known is another member of their family entered (or Francis McElroy).

Most "unforced entry" burglaries were committed by actually gaining access through windows and stuff though kids could indeed make skeleton keys. In Wolverton Street neighbour's keys could unlock each other's doors. How's that for temptation in an era of depression.

...

You have to stick to the science. Your original theory about jacketed William MUST be changed.

I'll get it solved because unlike other amateur tecs I realize I'm in no position to analyse a crime scene or blood spatter etc. and I'll actually hire professionals who do this for a living.

The list I posted is the establisbed facts.

All raincoat ideas are laughable. It's highly improbable he could have done it through ANY method in the time allotted.

He has an accomplice if guilty obviously. But I can prattle on down the same line of why it doesn't work very well... Gordon and Wallace isn't possible because the Brines wouldn't falsify an alibi. Wallace tricking Gordon then Amy murdering her or something would be cool and invent a motive (an affair) but whoever did the deed is bloodstained and she can't travel like that. It is funny that seems so obvious when considering the murderer was anyone other than Wallace.

So a neighbour or someone with a car works best.

When you get to Wallace, Gordon, and Marsden, you're literally saying "okay I know he didn't call... he also didn't kill her....... but I'll just make him mastermind it because it makes me feel more at ease with certain things".

...

I still have it as Parry and Denison online. I need more to be convinced enough on Johnston etc. to post it but it's strong and is the ONLY idea about the events that took place that matches forensics with the side of the room, weapon, etc. Those details contradict ALL other writings which have her on the left and hit with the iron bar or poker. It was not the iron bar or poker.

It was a spanner, threaded pipe, jemmy, that type of thing. You must think of weapons with clear prongs or repetitive patterning to produce those injuries.

I thus sent Wallace's John Bull crime reconstruction as an OJ Simpson style confession because a spanner is pronged and he mentions that and was laughed out the room basically. In a nice way. Totally dismissed from the realm of possibility quickly and easily.