** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi CCJ

I've seen Herlock's response which might explain this. He could have gone to MGSth and MGNth also, but seems to have settled for West being the only alternative to East. A guilty Wallace might feel that was sufficient to seal his alibi.

He walked up both MGS and MGN, but they were all even numbered. Then he found himself on Green Lane.

He seems very determined on Tuesday night to find the address, even after being told it does not exist. I always thought this was very much at odds with his conversation on the way home from chess club, where he isn't even sure he is going to visit the mysterious Mr Qualtrough. I appreciate that since he made the journey, he would at least look around a bit - but the extent of his wanderings in the circumstances is suspicious.

Yes, of course it is suspicious compared to a datum of an average person. What if - just entertain the idea - that Wallace was obsessive-compulsive or even had ASD. Can we be so sure he would not do this? As Herlock rightly points out, we have to be careful on relying on introspection too much. What is typical for me or you might not have been typical for Wallace.

Edit: But it's suspicious only if we think that the extra half hour was important for Wallace's defence - or, rather, he thought it was. If he had taken the tram after speaking to Katie, he would have arrived home at about 8:15pm. That's still an hour and half away from home: enough to engender reasonable doubt? What did the extra 30 minutes buy him? It was easy to stay out even longer: visit 25 Menlove Avenue (following the instruction of PC Serjeant).

[etenguy]

Herlock and Etenguy,

Whether Wallace was guilty or innocent, do you find it odd that he didn't go to 25 Menlove Avenue after 25 MGW? It's virtually at the junction of Menlove Avenue and MGW - not far at all. Had he looked at a map (as he must have done if he was guilty) he would have probably seen that. It would have been a natural next step. We know PC Serjeant suggested it, but by then Wallace was on Allerton Road.

Hi CCJ

I've seen Herlock's response which might explain this. He could have gone to MGSth and MGNth also, but seems to have settled for West being the only alternative to East. A guilty Wallace might feel that was sufficient to seal his alibi.

He seems very determined on Tuesday night to find the address, even after being told it does not exist. I always thought this was very much at odds with his conversation on the way home from chess club, where he isn't even sure he is going to visit the mysterious Mr Qualtrough. I appreciate that since he made the journey, he would at least look around a bit - but the extent of his wanderings in the circumstances is suspicious.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony,

Could it be that Wallace might not have wanted it to look like he knew his way around?

It's possible! But, as part of his plan, he could have asked Katie Mather... "Perhaps, I should try 25 Menlove Avenue?" Mather would definitely know. Of course, if it wasn't planned, he might not have thought of it. It's a trivial point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock and Etenguy,

Whether Wallace was guilty or innocent, do you find it odd that he didn't go to 25 Menlove Avenue after 25 MGW? It's virtually at the junction of Menlove Avenue and MGW - not far at all. Had he looked at a map (as he must have done if he was guilty) he would have probably seen that. It would have been a natural next step. We know PC Serjeant suggested it, but by then Wallace was on Allerton Road.

Hi Antony,

Could it be that Wallace might not have wanted it to look like he knew his way around?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Guys ,
loved the recent banter on this case, just thought i'd jump in and add my own,,,

1. Back in the day (1931), not many people had cars, including William, and they knew the streets in a much larger radius than we would today, They had street directories/maps to find places further afield and had a much better knowledge of bus/tram routes. William knew of Menlove Gardens because his sister-in-law lived nearby, that he travelled to frequently, and his boss lived a street away whom he visited at least 5 times... not counting the trips he made down that way for cinema and gardens. We forget that we have GPS nowadays and don't need to check before we go.
2. William's actions on the journey. For starters he says he is a total stranger (Point 1 above proves this to be a lie) and then proceeds to get on a different numbered tram that he was advised to get on. If you were a complete stranger somewhere and was advised to catch "x" connection, what would you do?
3. William, whose job it was to walk the streets, didn't check a map/street directory before he set off...and then later stated that he was concerned for his wife's welfare...although he didn't have this concern on other nightly outings, such as his chess night the night before!
4. No evidence that any neighbour heard a knock on the door and greeting/discussion that would have taken place and could have been Qualtrough/Parry/accomplice. Remember, there was no white noise back then... distant traffic etc.
5. The accomplice/Parry/unknown thief theory doesn't work for me. To be found in the kitchen stealing money and then taking her back to the front room to murder her...nah. Did They have a weapon with them, did they use the iron bar from the fireplace?
6. Regardless of method (raincoat as shield and so on), William had the time to do it.
7. He had the time and LOCATION to make the phone call. If the call is made 1km further away it makes nearly impossible for William to have done it...1km further away than his route to the Chess club that is.
8. They were not a happy couple. Clients etc can't count, the people (outsiders) who had access to their personal lives were the ones that said it was not a harmonious relationship. Not Amy, they would have put on a front for her too.
9. That there were recent robberies nearby recently helped him to create the method/plan i.e. make it look like a botched robbery. If it was a real robbery gone wrong, why wasn't the rest of the house ransacked? Even Julia's purse wasn't looked at.

Just like 1888, there were crackpots in 1931 too, claiming knowledge or providing first hand witness accounts. There were about 200 JTR letters sent to the press/police, how many were written by JTR? How many of the proposed sightings of strangers near William's house, William with Amy (near Amy's place), Parkes' claims etc, were true? Without any supporting evidence it's hard to take any of them.

The fact that she was 16-17 years older than him but not mentioned at the time... so it was her secret... and my theory for motive.

The comment "I'm a total stranger here" seals it for me.

Ven - great to have you contributing again.

We can go all through your points, if you wish, but several stand out for debate:

(2) Wallace was told by Phillips (second tram) that Wallace could get on the 7, 5, 5A or 5W (trial testimony). According to Wallace, Inspector Angus also told him to take a 5A.

(3) He didn't have concern for his wife's welfare on the Monday because the chess club was real (I think we can be facetious and have fun!)

(4) The attack - possibly a frenzy of 11 blows - was unheard by any neighbour. Unless Florence's "two thuds" were the attack, in which case Wallace is not the killer

(6)-(7) Yes, it is certainly possible Wallace is guilty. I'm not sure that's evidence he did it, though.

(8) They might not have been. That does not mean he killed his wife. However, I agree a spouse always has a motive.

(9) One possibility: the target was the company's money. Did all the other burglaries involve money that was not the householder's?

Hopefully, that should get us going!

[Ven]

Hi Guys ,
loved the recent banter on this case, just thought i'd jump in and add my own,,,

1. Back in the day (1931), not many people had cars, including William, and they knew the streets in a much larger radius than we would today, They had street directories/maps to find places further afield and had a much better knowledge of bus/tram routes. William knew of Menlove Gardens because his sister-in-law lived nearby, that he travelled to frequently, and his boss lived a street away whom he visited at least 5 times... not counting the trips he made down that way for cinema and gardens. We forget that we have GPS nowadays and don't need to check before we go.
2. William's actions on the journey. For starters he says he is a total stranger (Point 1 above proves this to be a lie) and then proceeds to get on a different numbered tram that he was advised to get on. If you were a complete stranger somewhere and was advised to catch "x" connection, what would you do?
3. William, whose job it was to walk the streets, didn't check a map/street directory before he set off...and then later stated that he was concerned for his wife's welfare...although he didn't have this concern on other nightly outings, such as his chess night the night before!
4. No evidence that any neighbour heard a knock on the door and greeting/discussion that would have taken place and could have been Qualtrough/Parry/accomplice. Remember, there was no white noise back then... distant traffic etc.
5. The accomplice/Parry/unknown thief theory doesn't work for me. To be found in the kitchen stealing money and then taking her back to the front room to murder her...nah. Did They have a weapon with them, did they use the iron bar from the fireplace?
6. Regardless of method (raincoat as shield and so on), William had the time to do it.
7. He had the time and LOCATION to make the phone call. If the call is made 1km further away it makes nearly impossible for William to have done it...1km further away than his route to the Chess club that is.
8. They were not a happy couple. Clients etc can't count, the people (outsiders) who had access to their personal lives were the ones that said it was not a harmonious relationship. Not Amy, they would have put on a front for her too.
9. That there were recent robberies nearby recently helped him to create the method/plan i.e. make it look like a botched robbery. If it was a real robbery gone wrong, why wasn't the rest of the house ransacked? Even Julia's purse wasn't looked at.

Just like 1888, there were crackpots in 1931 too, claiming knowledge or providing first hand witness accounts. There were about 200 JTR letters sent to the press/police, how many were written by JTR? How many of the proposed sightings of strangers near William's house, William with Amy (near Amy's place), Parkes' claims etc, were true? Without any supporting evidence it's hard to take any of them.

The fact that she was 16-17 years older than him but not mentioned at the time... so it was her secret... and my theory for motive.

The comment "I'm a total stranger here" seals it for me.

[ColdCaseJury]

Herlock and Etenguy,

Whether Wallace was guilty or innocent, do you find it odd that he didn't go to 25 Menlove Avenue after 25 MGW? It's virtually at the junction of Menlove Avenue and MGW - not far at all. Had he looked at a map (as he must have done if he was guilty) he would have probably seen that. It would have been a natural next step. We know PC Serjeant suggested it, but by then Wallace was on Allerton Road.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi CCJ and Herlock

I agree with CCJ - this is a surprising plan for Wallace to have implemented, but also agree with Herlock, that it is just as surprising a plan for Parry to have implemented.

Wallace had a ready made alibi for Monday night with his chess match, and equally, Parry could have confidently arranged the burglary for Monday night after having checked Wallace went to his chess match. The argument against this for Parry is that he needed a plan to get someone in the house. This is not necessarily so - a break in or forced entry past Julia would have been more straight-forward and have the added benefit of the man committing the burglary being able to hide his face - perhaps with a balaclava. The other argument for Parry waiting until Tuesday is that he wanted an extra days takings - the question then is to enact a plan with high risk of coming away with nothing as opposed to a much less risky plan and coming away with a good haul with much less risk. I believe for both Wallace and Parry, the plan is over complicated and too clever by half. From what we know of the two men, Wallace appears more likely to conceive such a plan but I did not know the men and could well be wrong.

With regard to CCJ's question about information that could only speak to Wallace's guilt, while not decisive, I have always found Wallace's behaviour on his journey to MGE and while in that vicinity hard to explain and coupled with the issues he faced with entry on his return (a guilty Wallace playing for time until someone appeared to find the body with him?) quite suspicious.

Excellent post, imo. I also point out the flaws of both plans in my second edition. The point about Parry, of course, is that it was a distraction burglary - but yes, other ways (D*) are entirely plausible and raise the question Q* as well as Q.

There were several steps for Wallace to get to MGE - three trams. Presumably, you find his behaviour on 2 and 3 suspicious? At MGE, Wallace does surprising things, perhaps compared to us. But was such compulsion typical for Wallace? And, I would point out one surprising thing at MGW if Wallace is guilty: telling Katie Mather at about 7:30pm that MGE did not exist. This allowed the police (and indeed yourself) to say the next 30 minutes (until about 8:00pm) his quest was a charade.

[etenguy]

Of course, but that it is getting close to logically begging the question against his innocence. Perhaps we can agree that - prima facie - P is surprising plan. Let's go to the issues. For you, is there any evidence that can only be interpreted in terms of Wallace's guilt?

Hi CCJ and Herlock

I agree with CCJ - this is a surprising plan for Wallace to have implemented, but also agree with Herlock, that it is just as surprising a plan for Parry to have implemented.

Wallace had a ready made alibi for Monday night with his chess match, and equally, Parry could have confidently arranged the burglary for Monday night after having checked Wallace went to his chess match. The argument against this for Parry is that he needed a plan to get someone in the house. This is not necessarily so - a break in or forced entry past Julia would have been more straight-forward and have the added benefit of the man committing the burglary being able to hide his face - perhaps with a balaclava. The other argument for Parry waiting until Tuesday is that he wanted an extra days takings - the question then is to enact a plan with high risk of coming away with nothing as opposed to a much less risky plan and coming away with a good haul with much less risk. I believe for both Wallace and Parry, the plan is over complicated and too clever by half. From what we know of the two men, Wallace appears more likely to conceive such a plan but I did not know the men and could well be wrong.

With regard to CCJ's question about information that could only speak to Wallace's guilt, while not decisive, I have always found Wallace's behaviour on his journey to MGE and while in that vicinity hard to explain and coupled with the issues he faced with entry on his return (a guilty Wallace playing for time until someone appeared to find the body with him?) quite suspicious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, I think the issue is Parry's burglary plan (P*) had "so many obvious ways of failing" (and it did) that this is an argument against Parry implementing (P*). I believe that was your response (#693) to mine asking which issues suggest (or even demonstrate) Wallace's guilt to you. I'm just pointing out that the outcome of failure determines the amount of risk of failure someone might tolerate. Yes, perhaps it's an obvious point, but Russell also believes the amount of inherent failure in Parry's plan counts against it. I'm saying: Parry might not have cared about the burglary failing so long as there was chance of success. So, if I'm not mistaken, this is not really strong grounds for thinking Wallace guilty over Parry (Accomplice).

Hi Antony,

But surely you don’t think that people plan crimes on the ‘off chance’ of success. It defeats the object of planning in the first place. This crime took at least some planning. Ok it’s not Great Train Robbery level of planning of course but it’s still planning (with someone watching the house to see William leave) Why go to that level of effort if you’re not bothered about success?

Another point for me is that if Parry could find a mate to bluff his way past Julia wouldn’t there have been a more than fair chance that he’d have known someone that could break into a house? Let’s face it number 29 was hardly Fort Knox. Why didn’t he simply get a mate to break in while the Wallace’s were in bed and nick the cash? No need to risk Wallace not going to MGE. No need to risk Julia not letting ‘Qualtrough’ in. No risk if being caught sneaking into the kitchen with Julia in the next room. Just break in….maybe wait 2 or 3 minutes to ensure he hadn’t been heard….pocket the cash and off.

Why would Parry go through the rigmarole of this plan with not only the risk of it failing but the risk of his accomplice possibly being identified (and dropping him in it to the police) when he could have gotten someone to break in. Once in it would have been the work of seconds to have nabbed the cash and run but with easily enough time to open a few drawers to make it look like a search had occurred rather than the thief going straight to the box.

Come to think of it that’s another point. Why would Parry plan a murder that speaks so loudly of inside knowledge? Surely he’d have realised that he’d be suspected? Why didn’t he tell the accomplice to open a few drawers?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Herlock, I think the issue is Parry's burglary plan (P*) had "so many obvious ways of failing" (and it did) that this is an argument against Parry implementing (P*). I believe that was your response (#693) to mine asking which issues suggest (or even demonstrate) Wallace's guilt to you. I'm just pointing out that the outcome of failure determines the amount of risk of failure someone might tolerate. Yes, perhaps it's an obvious point, but Russell also believes the amount of inherent failure in Parry's plan counts against it. I'm saying: Parry might not have cared about the burglary failing so long as there was chance of success. So, if I'm not mistaken, this is not really strong grounds for thinking Wallace guilty over Parry (Accomplice).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, note that Murphy & Russell believe that the journey to MGE can only be interpreted only in terms of Wallace's guilt; an extreme position. You wisely reject this.

OK. First, and something as an aside, note that Murphy asks an implicit question:

(Q*) WHY DID PARRY CHOOSE THIS BURGLARY PLAN (P*) RATHER THAN SOME OTHER?

He the gives an example of (D*) - Parry's accomplice mugging Wallace. Yet - if I am not mistaken - Murphy never asks Q.

Second, we need to note an important asymmetry: If (P) fails, Wallace will hang. If (P*) fails, Parry may or may not hang - it depends on how P* turned out and whether it was:

1) Parry to kill Julia (no one actually believes this - not even Goodman or Wilkes). This can be ignored.
2) Parry to steal from the cashbox. This is the classic Parry theory.
3) An accomplice of Parry's to steal from the cashbox. This is the classic Accomplice theory.

As I believe (3) is the most plausible of these three, let's use that as our working hypothesis for (P*).

Clearly, Parry will not hang if (P*) fails i.e. the burglary is unsuccessful (ignore how it actually turned out; we are talking about plans). So, there is an intrinsic asymmetry between the outcome of failure between plans (P) and (P*). Indeed, assume Parry tries to lure Wallace from his house with the call and sends round an accomplice but Wallace does not go; he even answers the door. So what? The plan failed at little cost but there was much to gain if it worked (about £30 for a normal week). This could be a plan worked out over a pint in a pub. So long as there was a chance of success, Parry The Chancer and Conman might not have minded about the high risks of failure. It is mistaken, in my opinion, to equate the plan of someone desperate for money (and therefore is willing to take a punt on a chancy scheme) to someone who needs to be absolutely sure his murder plan does not fail.

So, at this stage, I cannot accept your premise. What am I missing?

Surely any comparison between robbery and murder is always going to be asymmetrical with regard to risk. An intentional plan to murder by Wallace is always going to be risky of course (apologies for stating the bleeding obvious) so Wallace would have needed a plan and no matter how we try to imagine how he was thinking we can never account for every facet of his thought processes. Maybe he wanted this kind of involved plan because his ego told him that he could outwit the police with his clever, chess players brain? We know that serious kidney illnesses can affect mental health and the cognitive processes so how can we know that his thought processes weren’t affected?

We can postulate that it might have been less risky to have employed another method of killing Julia but we aren’t thinking with Wallace’s brain. So he might have seen the method that he chose as more likely to succeed that other, less complicate methods. But it’s certainly possible IMO than when weighing things up the tipping point might have been the opportunity of throwing Party under the bus. Your suggestion is that, if Wallace was guilty, then his plan was chosen to deliberately throw Parry under the bus whereas I think that, when weighing things up, the deciding factor might have been the bonus point of being able to drop Parry and Marsden into the police’s lap. If they had alibi’s (which would always have been a possibility) then the police might still suspect that they had passed information about Wallace on. Naturally they would deny it but Wallace, if a murderer, might have had a murderers ego, so a) he was cleverer than them so he would have been able to outwit them and b) would they simply have believed a liar like Parry?

[ColdCaseJury]

Im just saying that, for someone allegedly desperate for cash, it’s plan with so many obvious ways of failing.

I wouldn’t say that there was any ‘game, set and match’ point Antony. Everything can be interpreted differently of course but for me it’s always been an unavoidable accumulation of pointers. For me they point to Wallace.

Herlock, note that Murphy & Russell believe that the journey to MGE can only be interpreted only in terms of Wallace's guilt; an extreme position. You wisely reject this.

OK. First, and something as an aside, note that Murphy asks an implicit question:

(Q*) WHY DID PARRY CHOOSE THIS BURGLARY PLAN (P*) RATHER THAN SOME OTHER?

He the gives an example of (D*) - Parry's accomplice mugging Wallace. Yet - if I am not mistaken - Murphy never asks Q.

Second, we need to note an important asymmetry: If (P) fails, Wallace will hang. If (P*) fails, Parry may or may not hang - it depends on how P* turned out and whether it was:

1) Parry to kill Julia (no one actually believes this - not even Goodman or Wilkes). This can be ignored.
2) Parry to steal from the cashbox. This is the classic Parry theory.
3) An accomplice of Parry's to steal from the cashbox. This is the classic Accomplice theory.

As I believe (3) is the most plausible of these three, let's use that as our working hypothesis for (P*).

Clearly, Parry will not hang if (P*) fails i.e. the burglary is unsuccessful (ignore how it actually turned out; we are talking about plans). So, there is an intrinsic asymmetry between the outcome of failure between plans (P) and (P*). Indeed, assume Parry tries to lure Wallace from his house with the call and sends round an accomplice but Wallace does not go; he even answers the door. So what? The plan failed at little cost but there was much to gain if it worked (about £30 for a normal week). This could be a plan worked out over a pint in a pub. So long as there was a chance of success, Parry The Chancer and Conman might not have minded about the high risks of failure. It is mistaken, in my opinion, to equate the plan of someone desperate for money (and therefore is willing to take a punt on a chancy scheme) to someone who needs to be absolutely sure his murder plan does not fail.

So, at this stage, I cannot accept your premise. What am I missing?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, are you saying the MGE plan can only be interpreted in terms of Wallace's guilt? Or this is the singled biggest factor for you? Or perhaps something else?

Im just saying that, for someone allegedly desperate for cash, it’s plan with so many obvious ways of failing.

I wouldn’t say that there was any ‘game, set and match’ point Antony. Everything can be interpreted differently of course but for me it’s always been an unavoidable accumulation of pointers. For me they point to Wallace.

[ColdCaseJury]

Only Wallace could have known for certain that he’d have gone looking for MGE. What could they have done next? If it’s being proposed that Parry was desperate for cash surely he’d have wanted something with fewer reasons to go wrong? I think it was Murphy that asked why, if Parry was desperate for cash, didn’t he wait until the day when he had his largest collection and get one of his mates to ‘mug’ him in the street? A man, possibly with his face partially hidden by a scarf knocks him to the ground then runs away? Surely this would involve far less risk of being caught?

Herlock, are you saying the MGE plan can only be interpreted in terms of Wallace's guilt? Or this is the single biggest factor for you? Or perhaps something else?