** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[moste]

Hi Herlock and all - proper thread this. Moste digging away and Caz well in the mix now too.

All makes for a fascinating thread. Only problem is I struggle to keep up. I start to come down on one side and then something else pops up to make me think again. That's even without CCJ's algebra!

Anyway, with regard to the recent posts about Parry and his possible involvement, I have in mind that Parry was strongly advised by his father never to talk to others about the case. If I'm not completely imagining things there, could you say what that was all about.

Many thanks,
OneRound

Hey Oneround. Another snippet, of factual info. Where those who report Wallace’s traverse of Allerton, it’s usually stated that when he had spoken with the last alibi providers ,post office ,and newsagents, he retraced his steps and returned home on the trams he’d come on. When he actually caught a tram across from the post office on Allerton road ,outside a cinema I believe. Travelling Allerton road back to Penny Lane, so his journey was forming a big triangle. It sounds like the police had no interest in looking into this return trip, and only concerned themselves with his alibis to 8 o’clock. Now, suppose he had picked up a cab outside the cinema, maybe even a pre- booked Cab, he could have been dropped off at Richmond Park near his house by 8 12 pm or 8 15. leaving himself ample time to murder his wife and meet the Johnsons in the back lane at 8 45. I feel the murder took place around 6 45 actually. But this is another option.

[moste]

Hi moste,

I have argued in the past that if the first blow proved fatal, causing the heart to stop and the blood to stop pumping, the subsequent blows were not likely to leave the killer or his clothes covered in blood, which would explain why he left no blood tracks on his way out of the house.

As for the excessive blows, if we assume the killer had never done anything like this before, and was someone known to Julia, his main priority was to make sure he killed her, so there was no possibility of her surviving to tell the tale. If he couldn't be sure that the first blow had done the trick, the subsequent ones would have finished her off and put the matter beyond doubt.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.
Remember ,there was a streak of blood spatter up the wall across the room and to a height of 7 feet apparently.that blow subsequent to the killer blow. So if as you say( and I agree ) that there was no blood pumping out through a wound ,(she now on the floor) the maniac must have gone at her like a man possessed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock and all - proper thread this. Moste digging away and Caz well in the mix now too.

All makes for a fascinating thread. Only problem is I struggle to keep up. I start to come down on one side and then something else pops up to make me think again. That's even without CCJ's algebra!

Anyway, with regard to the recent posts about Parry and his possible involvement, I have in mind that Parry was strongly advised by his father never to talk to others about the case. If I'm not completely imagining things there, could you say what that was all about.

Many thanks,
OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Im just on my way out for a while but someone did make a statement that the Parry’s asked someone to get RGP out of the country. I can’t recall who it was off the top of my head. The statement is probably on WWH’s site. I’ll see if I can locate it later on.

We’re getting converts to the case OneRound which is good. It might quieten off though if the A6 thread re-ignites.

Maybe they’ll discover The Diary Of Peter Alphon where he admits to the murder?

[OneRound]

Hi Herlock and all - proper thread this. Moste digging away and Caz well in the mix now too.

All makes for a fascinating thread. Only problem is I struggle to keep up. I start to come down on one side and then something else pops up to make me think again. That's even without CCJ's algebra!

Anyway, with regard to the recent posts about Parry and his possible involvement, I have in mind that Parry was strongly advised by his father never to talk to others about the case. If I'm not completely imagining things there, could you say what that was all about.

Many thanks,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does this exchange at the Trial make sense to anyone? Crewe told the Wright that William paid in 10.11.00 which was recorded as being on Monday 19th but all deposits by agents were logged as on a Monday no matter what day they were handed in. I seem to recall Wallace visiting the Prudential offices with Edwin just after the murder (on the Wednesday or Thursday I think) to pay some money in. So why did he pay in 10.11.00 considering how much was stolen? He didn’t collect on the Wednesday of course. Crewe then explains why the amount was so low. My comments are emboldened.

Crewe - for the simple reason either the police or someone else had taken the cash and a police have a portion of that cash yet.

How could the police have been involved on the Monday before the murder and what cash was even available to have been taken by the police after the ‘robbery?’

Hemmerde - What makes you say that?

Is that the best question you could come up with?!

Crewe - Well, I understand that the police have at least £18 cash and I have asked for it?

1. How could this have occurred before the crime? And 2. According to Wallace only £4/5 was stolen. How can he be £18 short?

Hemmerde - What makes you say that; where did you get it from?

Wake up Hemmerde!

Crewe - Because they took it and I have asked them for it.

What kind of answer is this?

Wright - When was the 10.11.00 paid in? Was it paid in cash?

Crewe - No, the 10.11.00 was paid in on the Thursday, 21st January

What??? He didn’t ask when it was paid in but how. And the 21st was Wednesday.

Hemmerde - Paid in by whom?

Crewe - By Mr Wallace.

.......


Its like a scene from Alice In Wonderland. Why is no one asking where this £18 came from and why the police had supposedly taken it? Is there something dodgy going on with regard to money here? Can anyone help deciphering this? Also something is telling me that when William paid in cash accompanied by Edwin it was a different amount? My memory might be playing me false but I recall at the time meaning to look into it but I forgot. I don’t know where it’s recorded though. It gives me a headache trying to decipher Edwin’s handwritten statement. Somethings not right.

I’ll be grateful for comments/explanations. Am I missing something? I could be wrong of course. It’s happened before - June 19th 1978, a bad day.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's a neat observation, Herlock. If the whole point of giving an unsuspecting Wallace a false address was to set him off on a mission leading to nowhere, it would stand to reason that Qualtrough knew the Menlove Gardens area well enough to know that only Menlove Gardens East did not exist, making it the ideal choice for a wild goose chase. Other people, on Wallace's route, had to recognise the Menlove bit of the address in order to send him off in the right general direction, so as not to alert him too soon that anything was amiss. It was no good just making up some fake address from scratch, which Wallace would have had to check before setting out.

If Qualtrough was the killer and lived in that area, he could have discarded any evidence on his way back there, using the same route Wallace had taken earlier. So once again, Wallace would have had a way out down the avenue of reasonable doubt, in the event that anything was found.

Love,

Caz
X

Cheers Caz

[caz]

It’s something I’d like Mark to expand on but in his book, in the footnotes on page 178, he says: The police investigations did not include the searching of the drains on the complete route from Wolverton Street to the Menlove Gardens area.

Obviously neither Wallace nor any other killer could have known where or where not the police might have searched for the weapon. If the weapon had been found on the route would that have meant ‘game over’ for Wallace? I think it would have been a case of the Prosecution would suggest that Wallace had discarded it but the Defence might have said ‘well the caller (who wasn’t Wallace) probably used MGE because he was familiar with the area which might imply that he himself lived somewhere there and so might have discarded it?

That's a neat observation, Herlock. If the whole point of giving an unsuspecting Wallace a false address was to set him off on a mission leading to nowhere, it would stand to reason that Qualtrough knew the Menlove Gardens area well enough to know that only Menlove Gardens East did not exist, making it the ideal choice for a wild goose chase. Other people, on Wallace's route, had to recognise the Menlove bit of the address in order to send him off in the right general direction, so as not to alert him too soon that anything was amiss. It was no good just making up some fake address from scratch, which Wallace would have had to check before setting out.

If Qualtrough was the killer and lived in that area, he could have discarded any evidence on his way back there, using the same route Wallace had taken earlier. So once again, Wallace would have had a way out down the avenue of reasonable doubt, in the event that anything was found.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Herlock

You are quite right of course, a careless police officer could have transferred the blood, or possibly even Wallace himself. It is striking, however, that the amount 'stolen' and the amount in the jar are so similar. We can place Wallace in that room before he left for MGE as he said he changed his clothes there before leaving.

If Wallace did swap the notes to the jar, the only sensible conclusion as to why he did that rather than add to his wallet, is that he thought that less suspicious than being caught carrying around a large sum of money on a visit to an area he did not know well.

Hi Nick

If Wallace was guilty, he had three options with the money - get rid of it, put it somewhere else in the house or put it in his wallet. I would have to assume, that if it was Wallace, he considered the jar on the mantelpiece was his best option - I suspect the thought of throwing money away was anathema to him. I find it strange that such a large sum would be left in a jar on full view generally - if you had £100 in your house (or me in mine), I suspect we would put it away out of view somewhere.

If Wallace caught sight of the jar as he was about to descend the stairs, and transferred the money there on the spur of the moment, so he wouldn't have to take it with him, why would he have admitted afterwards that this was the same amount that had been taken from the cash box? How hard would it have been to claim that it had contained a different amount, in different denominations? Would anyone have known any different?

But I agree, it's a tad suspicious that a large sum like that would be kept in a jar on full view. And it's more evidence that the 'burglar' didn't go for the easy pickings he could have found both upstairs and down, either in the jar or in Julia's handbag.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Also, William Roberts, in his initial notes where he lists all the items he analysed, wrote -
"On the cushion there were numerous small human blood stains on one side, together with burnt particles of the burnt macintosh."

This would seem to me that the murderer used the cushion to smother the burning jacket. He just grabbed the nearest thing to him.

Might this point to someone with a vested interest in not leaving the house to burn down once he has left it safely? Why would it matter to anyone but Wallace, if Julia's body, or any items of clothing, were left near enough to the gas fire to set the whole house alight? In fact, that could have been a bonus for a burglar, if all the evidence were to go up in flames after he replaced the rifled cash box and took off with the spoils. A tragic accident, caused by Julia being careless with the gas fire, while her husband was out on business.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Even forensic back in those days would undoubtedly have been able to say one way or another whether the rain coat and/or her skirt was burned by the gas fire ,by evidence of residual material charring on or below the radiation porcelain bars/tubes of the said gas appliance.
If there was an absence of said ashy material, it can be assumed that either the coat was already scorched, as HS, mentioned, or that the killer cleaned up this evidence.( highly unlikely)
On the blood spatter notion. It was discussed some time back with WWH, (where did he go?)who ,if I recall disagreed with Herlock about using the raincoat as a shield. I on the other hand believe it to be the perfect answer . After the initial heavy blow, which likely killed her instantly, by kneeling by the felled body and holding the coat as a bullfighter does with his cape, it is not unreasonable to think that Wallace may rain down any number of blows without so much as a blot landing on his person. The only question is, in Wallace’s mind, does he regard (when considering the future investigation,)excessive blows to be more in keeping with a burglar/maniac attack, or himself as an aggrieved husband?I would venture, the former.

Hi moste,

I have argued in the past that if the first blow proved fatal, causing the heart to stop and the blood to stop pumping, the subsequent blows were not likely to leave the killer or his clothes covered in blood, which would explain why he left no blood tracks on his way out of the house.

As for the excessive blows, if we assume the killer had never done anything like this before, and was someone known to Julia, his main priority was to make sure he killed her, so there was no possibility of her surviving to tell the tale. If he couldn't be sure that the first blow had done the trick, the subsequent ones would have finished her off and put the matter beyond doubt.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just on the point about Wallace setting up Parry or Marsden. I certainly understand people making the point that Wallace was stupidly narrowing the field and that he couldn’t have known whether the dynamic duo had alibis or not. But when considering this point I’m reminded of Blackadder’s quote when asked who knew about the ‘secret’ plan to advance into No Man’s Land: “Field Marshall Haig; Field Marshall Haig’s servants; Field Marshall Haig’s servants tennis partners.”

The point being of course that the information about Wallace’s situation could have been known by pretty much any acquaintance (whether close or casual) of Parry or Marsden. This could have been dozens of people and of course it wouldn’t matter that these would largely have been unknowns. The possibility existed so there was an unknown amount of unnamed possible culprits. The police didn’t need another suspect to exonerate Wallace of course and neither did a jury. In short, I don’t think that if Wallace pointed the police in the direction of Parry and Marsden he was hampering himself in any way. I’d say that it was pretty much a free hit for Wallace.

[moste]

A couple of facts worthy of note,
though not necessarily furthering the investigation.
On my recent research of the Qualtroughs . It seems John Quaultrough of 4 Hunt street Anfield who was at the dog track at the time of the phone call was the client of a Mr.Bott. Now 4 Hunt st. is (was) close to the corner of Breck road, an approximate 4 stop tram journey from Holy Trinity church.near Wolverton.15 min walk, Mr. Bott on the other hand was a 6 or 7 minute walk from MGW, living at 92 Woolton road ,east Wavertree. Since being at the greyhound races, doesn’t sound much of an alibi unless he was with mates who could speak for him. I bet the police gave him a good grilling ( or not, if they were anything like the plod on the Hanratty case) until they were satisfied . Anyway weird I thought, ,such a rare name in England ,and indeed Liverpool. Yet here was a goodly number right there in Anfield,
but of course Wallace had never heard of them.

Another issue that has bugged me. Two separate reports mention Wallace on his rounds ,making five hundred calls collecting insurance premiums per week. Now as well as being employed in a piecework environment.,for some time in my youth, and also previously a paper route many houses being terraced. I have to say this number of five hundred is pure science fiction stuff. Here was a chap who typically heads out between 9 and 10 am and is back home for say 1 o clockish for lunch. off he goes again around 2, and is back home for tea around 6. This fellow doesn’t move at a brisk pace ,and doesn’t possess a bicycle , so I would guesstimate a maximum of 20 calls a day, this is generous because remember, he has his favourites that invite him in for a cup of tea! Yeah! I’m thinking, including working all day Saturday 120 calls tops.
None of this helps the case along ,but serves to highlight how we have to sift through the non information.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Tying in with Nicks post. In all the modern crime dramas ,where a man has a perfectly checkable alibi ,not illegal, but involving an illicit affair ( husband on 2 till 10 shift) Nearly always , the guilty adulterers when questioned by the police will plead for anonymity, to which the police will oblige since no law had been broken.In Parry’s case they may have believed they had enough alibi material if the above were the case. Who knows?
I don’t think Parry had anything to do with it either.

Good point Moste. I false alibi would have set off alarm bells so perhaps the woman confirmed that he was actually with her but they agreed to keep ‘schtum.’ It’s been hinted at that Parry received help from someone influential? Maybe he was having an affair with the wife of someone influential and so it was hushed up?

When we consider what type of person Parry undoubtedly was we are on safe grounds to assume that he had some pretty dodgy mates and an accomplice would certainly have been one of them so how difficult would it have been for him to arrange a false alibi? Either with his accomplice or another or both or more. Just “playing cards at Fred’s house” would have done the job.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My 'nefarious activity' was first!

[moste]

Tying in with Nicks post. In all the modern crime dramas ,where a man has a perfectly checkable alibi ,not illegal, but involving an illicit affair ( husband on 2 till 10 shift) Nearly always , the guilty adulterers when questioned by the police will plead for anonymity, to which the police will oblige since no law had been broken.In Parry’s case they may have believed they had enough alibi material if the above were the case. Who knows?
I don’t think Parry had anything to do with it either.