** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[Gordon]

But consider a stranger leaving the front to go to the back. He wouldn’t have a clue which back gate to try, having gone down the block ,down the side alley, along the back alley ..and in the dark.No chance. Unless there was a 29 sign on the gate, which I very much doubt.

If he could count to five he could find it.

[Ven]

Do we know that Wallace knew that they were turning up though? Perhaps they just showed up maybe they were passing nearby and decided to ‘drop in’ for a social call to see how Julia was?

Or perhaps the Wallace’s expected them to arrive but hadn’t intended to play music until someone suggested it?

LOL doesn't matter Sherlock if they knew they were turning up, Williams statement after the date was that he didn't play music. (his diary simply backs this up) Edwin said they did play music ..(as usual)..like they did it every week.. Amy said "the night passed as usual... " so they did it regularly, please explain Edwin's and Amy'd statements compared to his..."no music"

[Ven]

as i have said Sherlock, this is not a game breaker, bu simply proof that someone is lying

[Herlock Sholmes]

LOL doesn't matter Sherlock if they knew they were turning up, Williams statement after the date was that he didn't play music. (his diary simply backs this up) Edwin said they did play music ..(as usual)..like they did it every week.. Amy said "the night passed as usual... " so they did it regularly, please explain Edwin's and Amy'd statements compared to his..."no music"

I was only going by the diary entry Ven because Wallace doesn’t mention the Sunday in his police statement. Then I checked and he did say it but in his statement to Hector Munro. Taking that into account I can’t explain it.

Who do you think would benefit from a lie?

[etenguy]

Starting from the position that the Qualtrough call and the murder are linked, why was a call made at all? For the dominant theories (Wallace as killer or Parry as killer (with or without an accomplice)), why would either make that call.

The Wallace as killer theory is that it was a device to provide an alibi and point suspicion at a third party.
The Parry theory is it was to get Wallace out of the house to commit a burglary at an optimum time to maximise the haul.

Do these motivations hold up to scrutiny?

If Wallace wanted a strong alibi without drawing suspicion on himself, he had his Monday night chess club for that. So the call is unnecessary for that purpose. If he wanted to point the finger at someone else, either generally or at Parry in particular, he need only have told people he was playing chess Monday night. So he doesn't need the call for that either. So, is there another stronger reason for Wallace to have made the call if he was the killer?

If Parry wanted Wallace out of the house, he could instead have committed the crime on Monday night after watching Wallace leave for the Chess club. Some suggest that maybe he had something else on that he couldn't move on Monday and so needed Wallace out on Tuesday - but we know that is not the case. Some suggest the haul would have been expected to be significantly larger on Tuesday and this was why Parry might have made the call. This is possible, but given Parry's alibi, he would have needed an accomplice for a Tuesday burglary, someone with whom he would presumably need to split the haul. Therefore, if he worked alone on Monday, would he not have achieved about the same amount of money - and of course no risk that Wallace wouldn't take the bait, especially given the level of risk of failure associated with the Qualtrough call approach.

It seems to me the call plan serves neither Parry or Wallace better than a Monday night crime - in fact a Monday night crime would be better for both of them. So is there a better reason for such an elaborate Qualtrough call plan?

[Ven]

I was only going by the diary entry Ven because Wallace doesn’t mention the Sunday in his police statement. Then I checked and he did say it but in his statement to Hector Munro. Taking that into account I can’t explain it.

Who do you think would benefit from a lie?

I don't know, yet, Herlock. It just seems strange that his testimony contradicts Edwin's and maybe Amy's...did they not meet as "usual" (their words) on that Sunday night as they "usually" did"? As if the Sunday night "family" gathering with music, was the Usual/normal thing

So what do you think?

[Ven]

Either way...William or Edwin/maybe Amy is lying...your thoughts?

[NickB]

So is there a better reason for such an elaborate Qualtrough call plan?

Parry was known to Julia so needed an accomplice anyway to commit the burglary. The phone call allowed the accomplice to gain entry by saying he was Qualtrough.

However I agree with your general point that there were better ways for both parties to achieve their objectives. This is why I think it is wrong to assume the phone call was linked. The case you make is a good counterbalance to the claim that no linkage would be too much of a coincidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Either way...William or Edwin/maybe Amy is lying...your thoughts?

Well, I always try to see if there’s a reasonable, banal explanation first because they’re usually closer to the truth. Of the top of my head I can’t recall the date of the Munro statement. Couldn’t William simply have mis-remembered? After all, that Sunday was just a normal, uneventful day unlike the following two. Maybe they usually had music whenever Amy and Edwin called on them but on one Sunday, for whatever reason, they didn’t . Maybe it was the previous weekend and Wallace just got them mixed up?

[Ven]

Well, I always try to see if there’s a reasonable, banal explanation first because they’re usually closer to the truth. Of the top of my head I can’t recall the date of the Munro statement. Couldn’t William simply have mis-remembered? After all, that Sunday was just a normal, uneventful day unlike the following two. Maybe they usually had music whenever Amy and Edwin called on them but on one Sunday, for whatever reason, they didn’t . Maybe it was the previous weekend and Wallace just got them mixed up?

No Herlock... they were interviewed about what happened that week... they could not have been confused,,, no... William's diary notes and police statement,,, do not match with Edwin's

[Herlock Sholmes]

Starting from the position that the Qualtrough call and the murder are linked, why was a call made at all? For the dominant theories (Wallace as killer or Parry as killer (with or without an accomplice)), why would either make that call.

The Wallace as killer theory is that it was a device to provide an alibi and point suspicion at a third party.
The Parry theory is it was to get Wallace out of the house to commit a burglary at an optimum time to maximise the haul.

Do these motivations hold up to scrutiny?

If Wallace wanted a strong alibi without drawing suspicion on himself, he had his Monday night chess club for that. So the call is unnecessary for that purpose. If he wanted to point the finger at someone else, either generally or at Parry in particular, he need only have told people he was playing chess Monday night. So he doesn't need the call for that either. So, is there another stronger reason for Wallace to have made the call if he was the killer?

If Parry wanted Wallace out of the house, he could instead have committed the crime on Monday night after watching Wallace leave for the Chess club. Some suggest that maybe he had something else on that he couldn't move on Monday and so needed Wallace out on Tuesday - but we know that is not the case. Some suggest the haul would have been expected to be significantly larger on Tuesday and this was why Parry might have made the call. This is possible, but given Parry's alibi, he would have needed an accomplice for a Tuesday burglary, someone with whom he would presumably need to split the haul. Therefore, if he worked alone on Monday, would he not have achieved about the same amount of money - and of course no risk that Wallace wouldn't take the bait, especially given the level of risk of failure associated with the Qualtrough call approach.

It seems to me the call plan serves neither Parry or Wallace better than a Monday night crime - in fact a Monday night crime would be better for both of them. So is there a better reason for such an elaborate Qualtrough call plan?

I think that if Wallace was guilty then he was presenting the police with the ‘coincidence or no coincidence’ scenario that we’ve discussed here. If Julia had been killed whilst he was at chess then it would have been solely a Wallace decision but with the call the police had to consider how likely it was that the call and the murder were unconnected? A rather strange, out of the blue call which got him out of the house on an evening when he was never normally out of the house on the very night that his wife was killed. I’d say that Wallace would have been on safe ground to have been confident that the police would have connected the two incidents. So it introduces the possibility of a killer luring William away from the house. William just needs to make it convincing. That he caught a tram nowhere near the phone box (passing two perfectly serviceable tram stops in the process) That the caller didn’t sound like Wallace (so he disguises his voice) That he’d give the impression that he was undecided on whether he’d go or not (his conversation with Caird on the Monday evening) That he was genuinely looking for 25 MGE (the Indiana Jones-like persistence) His apparent inability to get into his house (giving the impression of someone being inside)

There would have been no ‘mystery’ if he’d killed her whilst at chess. The police could have asked him: “did you go to chess last week?” No. Then: “did you go the week before?” No. Then the police are thinking “how could a killer have known that he’d go to chess on that monday?” They’d have checked chess club members of course but found no one remotely suspicious.

Remember, were still discussing this call 90 years later (just after the 90th anniversary of course) so if it’s given us something to think about I’d say it would certainly have given the police something to think about 90 years ago too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No Herlock... they were interviewed about what happened that week... they could not have been confused,,, no... William's diary notes and police statement,,, do not match with Edwin's

Im saying that it was Wallace who may have been mistaken. He was arrested on February 2nd and so his statement to Munro was after that, so 2 weeks after that Sunday. And I’ve no doubt that the defence would have said ‘and in the meantime his wife had been brutally murdered so it’s hardly unlikely that he’s mixed up insignificant events on the Sunday. Just playing Devil’s Advocate Ven.

[Ven]

Im saying that it was Wallace who may have been mistaken. He was arrested on February 2nd and so his statement to Munro was after that, so 2 weeks after that Sunday. And I’ve no doubt that the defence would have said ‘and in the meantime his wife had been brutally murdered so it’s hardly unlikely that he’s mixed up insignificant events on the Sunday. Just playing Devil’s Advocate Ven.

LOL.. NO Herlock... his statements were from the 20th!! TWO NIGHTS FROM The 20/1/31.... not two weeks later...who are you trying you protect!!

[Ven]

Amy - "...and everything passed of in the usual way..."... which was playing music...

Edwin - "... They played to us in the usual way..."


William - "... My wife had a slight cold and we did not have any music..."...and From his diary - 18 January 1931: "Have not touched fiddle all day. It is unusual to let Sunday go by without some practice."

PLEASE @HERLOCK explain this discrepancy

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amy - "...and everything passed of in the usual way..."... which was playing music...

Edwin - "... They played to us in the usual way..."


William - "... My wife had a slight cold and we did not have any music..."...and From his diary - 18 January 1931: "Have not touched fiddle all day. It is unusual to let Sunday go by without some practice."

PLEASE @HERLOCK explain this discrepancy

. LOL.. NO Herlock... his statements were from the 20th!! TWO NIGHTS FROM The 20/1/31.... not two weeks later...who are you trying you protect!

Ven, I have Wallace’s Police statements in front of me.

The first is dated 20.01.31 at Anfield Detective Office. There is no mention of music or the Sunday evening.

The second is dated 22.01.31 at Dale Street Detective Office. There is no mention of music or the Sunday evening.

The third is a one paragraph statement dated 23.01.31 at Dale Street. There is no mention of music or the Sunday evening.

The fourth was dated 29.01.31 and was taken at 83 Ullet Road. There is no mention of music or Sunday evening.

Wallace made no more Police statements.

But in the notes taken by Hector Munro of his interview with Wallace he states:


“On Sunday evening, 18th January, my sister-in-law (my brother’s wife) and her son spent the evening with us. They arrived at 6.30 or 7.00 and we spent the evening talking. My wife had a slight cold, and we did not have any music. They left about 1.00 pm”

Obviously Wallace didn’t meet his Solicitor professionally until after he was arrested on the 2nd Feb and so, as I said, at least 2 weeks later.

That said, I’m not trying to protect anyone, least of all a man that I believe to have been guilty, all that I’m saying is that when someone is thinking back there’s always a possibility of mis-remembering. I’m not saying that’s what happened but it might have been.

I should add of course that maybe Amy mis-remembered as they usually did have music when they visited? We would also have to ask what would be the reason for lying about such a trivial detail?