Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    The question has been asked “why didn’t our culprit simply contact Wallace via a letter?” It’s a valid question IMO.

    A formally written letter would surely have been less suspicious than a call made to a club that only very few people knew that Wallace was a member of and that no one knew whether he would actually attend on that night.

    What advantages would have letter have provided for Wallace? No risky phone calls with the chance of being recognised?

    What advantages for Parry? Certainty that Wallace would receive it? Less suspicious/strange than a call to the club? Less chance of error writing down the message?

    What disadvantages for Wallace? The possibility of handwriting similarities being spotted?

    What disadvantages for Parry? The same issue with handwriting but if he had an unknown accomplice to write it?

    Either could have used a typewriter of course but neither owned one as far as we know. So they would have had to have used a friend’s or a colleague’s or else one belonging to a family member. Wallace doing this would have been fairly easily traceable but much less so than Parry. His accomplice might also have had access to one?

    So I’d say that contacting Wallace via a letter would have favoured Parry than Wallace? What does everyone think?
    It strikes me, Herlock, that the whole Qualtrough business, from start to finish, was designed to involve witnesses on both occasions: witnesses to the message itself, and to Wallace getting it, on the Monday evening; and witnesses to his response on the Tuesday evening, trying to find MGE.

    It was almost like Wallace was centre stage in a play, with a hand picked audience conveniently placed to watch the plot thicken.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • If Wallace dunnit, it was also a useful way to get feedback at the club to the call. If no-one there thought the message was suspicious or going to the appointment would be foolhardy, that would embolden him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        It strikes me, Herlock, that the whole Qualtrough business, from start to finish, was designed to involve witnesses on both occasions: witnesses to the message itself, and to Wallace getting it, on the Monday evening; and witnesses to his response on the Tuesday evening, trying to find MGE.

        It was almost like Wallace was centre stage in a play, with a hand picked audience conveniently placed to watch the plot thicken.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        I think so Caz. And it was one that couldn’t really have failed for Wallace.

        Ive been wondering if Wallace had shown the police a letter, received on the Monday about a meeting on the Tuesday, would they have been suspicious if he’d kept it? He would probably have shown it to them on Wednesday at the earliest? Might a Mr X have sent it to have got to Wallace before the Monday to be safe? Then again might he have been reluctant to have allowed Wallace too much time to potentially discover that there was no MGE?
        Regards

        Herlock



        Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

        Comment


        • According to Parry, the last time he had visited the Wallace's home was in Oct/Nov 1929. A long time for a burglary to come to mind and to be sure Wallace's cash box location and routine had not changed. Also, he states the last time he visited the city cafe for rehearsals was before 17 November 1930. Would the chess club notice have been there then?

          Parry also states that he was at Mrs Williamson's house until at least 11.00pm (to 11.30pm) on Tuesday 20 January 1931. Does anyone remember what time Parkes said Parry went to the garage to have his car cleaned?

          Comment


          • Sorry to flood the thread with questions, but I'm trying to make sense of the Lily Hall and Mr Greenlees sightings of 20 January 1931.

            Lily Hall says she saw Wallace talking to a stocky man wearing a felt cap at around 8.35pm in Richmond Park near the entry to Wolverton Street. She saw them part soon after. Mr Greenlees said a minute or so later he was asked by a stocky man (wearing a felt hat) in Richmond Park for directions to an address (54 Richmond Park) which did not exist (another one!). Wallace denied the encounter.

            What's going on? Was Lily mistaken (though the time is when Wallace was returning home)? Is Wallace lying? Is this a possible accomplice? Why would the stocky man ask for a non-existent address? What is it with false addresses in Liverpool! I'm struggling to make heads or tails of it all.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
              According to Parry, the last time he had visited the Wallace's home was in Oct/Nov 1929. A long time for a burglary to come to mind and to be sure Wallace's cash box location and routine had not changed. Also, he states the last time he visited the city cafe for rehearsals was before 17 November 1930. Would the chess club notice have been there then?

              The competition’s first games were due on November 10th Eten so the notice would have been there.

              Parry also states that he was at Mrs Williamson's house until at least 11.00pm (to 11.30pm) on Tuesday 20 January 1931. Does anyone remember what time Parkes said Parry went to the garage to have his car cleaned?

              Parry was only at the Williamson’s for 10 or 15 minutes. He arrived at the Lloyd’s sometime between 9.00 and 9.30 (Lily and her Mother disagreed on the time) He left their house at around 11.00 I believe.
              Your right though about it being a long time since he’d been at the Wallace’s. He could easily have found a different hiding place for the cash box.

              Regards

              Herlock



              Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                Sorry to flood the thread with questions, but I'm trying to make sense of the Lily Hall and Mr Greenlees sightings of 20 January 1931.

                Lily Hall says she saw Wallace talking to a stocky man wearing a felt cap at around 8.35pm in Richmond Park near the entry to Wolverton Street. She saw them part soon after. Mr Greenlees said a minute or so later he was asked by a stocky man (wearing a felt hat) in Richmond Park for directions to an address (54 Richmond Park) which did not exist (another one!). Wallace denied the encounter.

                What's going on? Was Lily mistaken (though the time is when Wallace was returning home)? Is Wallace lying? Is this a possible accomplice? Why would the stocky man ask for a non-existent address? What is it with false addresses in Liverpool! I'm struggling to make heads or tails of it all.
                I don’t have my books with me at the moment but I think Antony dealt with Lily Hall well in his book. Her testimony is pretty unclear but if I recall correctly but I think when it’s analysed she was describing one man going up the alley on the opposite side of the road to the one that led to Wallace’s house and the other heading toward Breck Road. I just think that she saw 2 men but neither of them was Wallace. If Wallace had an accomplice meeting him would he have been stupid enough to chat in the street when they could easily have stepped into an alley way out of sight?
                Regards

                Herlock



                Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                Comment


                • According to Roger Wilkes , Parkes started night shift at 11 o clock pm, till 9 o am, still checking if he mentions Parry’s time of arrival.

                  Comment


                  • So.reading on, a PC. Wallace dropped by at Atkinsons garage, for a chin wag, as was his want, explaining to Parks about the murder over in Wolverton st. And it was some time later possibly in the early hours that Parry showed up to have his car pressure washed inside and out, (according to Parkes)

                    Comment


                    • Thinking on the visitors to Wallace’s house on the fateful day, it was quite a busy place .We had the window cleaner and his wife, the husband had to leave apparently for a dental appointment, or something, so a friend or relation took over assisting the wife, and was duly paid by Mrs. Wallace. Amy Wallace showed up around 4 PM. along with a bread delivery boy soon after. Then there was the paper boy. and finally the milk delivery after Wallace got home . People in past posts have questioned why Amy showed up and only stayed for about 1/2 an hour turning down an invite to stay for tea , ‘No I can’t stay must get off’. What could have been so pressing? She caught two trams from Sefton park to get there, was there some other reason to be in the Anfield area? It couldn’t be that she wanted to get home before dark. Sunset is 4 32 pm in Liverpool on Jan.20th.was it that she wanted to get going before Wallace arrived back home?
                      Last edited by moste; 02-26-2021, 11:21 PM.

                      Comment


                      • I guess we don’t know whether the jar in the bedroom containing pound notes was glass and the money was visible through it? Just considering the possibility that it may have been on on view for the window cleaner to see.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          I don’t have my books with me at the moment but I think Antony dealt with Lily Hall well in his book. Her testimony is pretty unclear but if I recall correctly but I think when it’s analysed she was describing one man going up the alley on the opposite side of the road to the one that led to Wallace’s house and the other heading toward Breck Road. I just think that she saw 2 men but neither of them was Wallace. If Wallace had an accomplice meeting him would he have been stupid enough to chat in the street when they could easily have stepped into an alley way out of sight?
                          Hi Herlock

                          Extract from Lily's statement below (the entry referred to is to the back entry to Wolverton Street, I think, though it's not entirely clear)

                          I had come from Breck Road into Richmond Park. I was 30 or 40 yards away when I first saw him. I was walking towards him. He was standing talking to a man at the corner of the entry. I was on the pavement on the opposite side. I passed him before I crossed over to the side on which he was. I turned into Letchworth Street.

                          I was crossing over Richmond Park towards Letchworth Street when I last saw the accused. He and the other man parted as I crossed Richmond Park. One went down the entry and the other down Richmond Park but I do not know whom.. I know it was 8.35 p.m. because I was going to the Pictures and I looked at the clock on Holy Trinity Church as I went past the church.
                          The only reason I could think of Wallace meeting someone then was perhaps to take the murder weapon (and blood soiled clothes?) away - or to confirm that had been done.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by moste View Post
                            So.reading on, a PC. Wallace dropped by at Atkinsons garage, for a chin wag, as was his want, explaining to Parks about the murder over in Wolverton st. And it was some time later possibly in the early hours that Parry showed up to have his car pressure washed inside and out, (according to Parkes)
                            Thanks moste - so plenty of time for Parry to get there.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by moste View Post
                              I guess we don’t know whether the jar in the bedroom containing pound notes was glass and the money was visible through it? Just considering the possibility that it may have been on on view for the window cleaner to see.
                              I don't know moste - but that money wasn't stolen.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                                Thanks moste - so plenty of time for Parry to get there.
                                But how did he get bloodstains in his car from a murder that took place at least 4 hours earlier? And why had he apparently dumped one mitten but retained the bloodied one? You know this of course.

                                Regards

                                Herlock



                                Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X