** 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]

Hi Guys
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.

Hi Ven

You make some interesting points, which I see CCJ has picked up on - so I won't here to avoid two sets of conversations about the same thing.

But you mention Parkes. You're right we have to approach his statement with scepticism. I heard him on the radio city show and thought he sounded credible (though I may have been alone in that). I was also taken with Dolly's statements about Parkes and what she had been told at the time. (if you haven't heard the interviews, it is available in four parts on youtube - first part link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoVz82MW_AY )
It still leaves Parkes as the only primary source, and without direct corroboration, but the garage staff were aware at the time of Parkes' claims and seemed to believe him. It leads to three main possibilities:
1. Parkes made it up.
2. Parkes told the truth.
3. Parkes exagerrated around a real event.

The police did speak with him and it went nowhere, so did they believe it was not true? Some argue the police did not want to upset their case against Wallace with something as trivial as evidence, or had been leaned on by Parry's father. We do know the force was not at its best at this time.

This accusation was not put to Parry, so we do not have a response to evaluate - as such I agree with you that it is hard to consider it when thinking about the case - but it does not mean it is not true, nonetheless - however unlikely such a confession sounds.

[etenguy]

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).

Hi CCJ

I should have remembered the all even numbers statement - thanks for reminding me.

Regarding the extra 30 minutes, I think it might have bought a guilty Wallace two things:
a) more people to attest to his alibi - though he probably had enough
b) extra time away from the time of death - he may have wanted no opportunity for someone to suggest she may have been killed after Wallace's return.

He could have gone to 25 Menlove Avenue but a guilty Wallace may have thought he had done enough by that time - an innocent Wallace might have thought that Gardens East being misheard for Avenue was just too unlikely.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi CCJ

I should have remembered the all even numbers statement - thanks for reminding me.

Regarding the extra 30 minutes, I think it might have bought a guilty Wallace two things:
a) more people to attest to his alibi - though he probably had enough
b) extra time away from the time of death - he may have wanted no opportunity for someone to suggest she may have been killed after Wallace's return.

He could have gone to 25 Menlove Avenue but a guilty Wallace may have thought he had done enough by that time - an innocent Wallace might have thought that Gardens East being misheard for Avenue was just too unlikely.

That all seems very reasonable to me. Although, I should point out that "loose cannon" MacFall was as likely to fix time of death at 9pm as 6pm! But of course, Wallace could not know this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another point about the MGE search which, to me, sounds at least a little strange is the time that Wallace arrived. Wallace was going to an area in which, according to him, he was a ‘complete stranger.’ I also seem to recall reading somewhere that the area was a large one. And so for all that Wallace allegedly knew 25 MGE might have been a 20 minute walk from the tram stop. He wouldn’t have know which end of the estate was Qualtrough’s house. The general impression that we get of Wallace was that he was a by-the-book, well organised, meticulous kind of man. The kind for whom punctuality in business would have been important. So why did this experienced traveller arrive with a mere 10 minutes to find the address in time for his appointment?

To be honest we might ask the same question about Monday night too. The chess tournament deadline was 7.45 and this was a journey that Wallace had undertaken numerous times and yet he arrives pretty much on the dot of the deadline. Now if Chandler had been present and Wallace had arrived late he’d have been within his rights to have claimed the game. Also by getting there near to the deadline could have meant that a potential opponent (if Chandler wasn’t there) might have decided to play off one of his games against another opponent leaving Wallace without a tournament opponent. Even if Chandler was there he might have decided to play against another tournament opponent. (Antony might mention that there were some roadworks which might have affected tram times here)



And so the meticulous (and I’d say that we would be on safe ground to label him as punctual) Wallace was late on the 2 nights when the phone call took place and his wife was murdered.

[etenguy]

And so the meticulous (and I’d say that we would be on safe ground to label him as punctual) Wallace was late on the 2 nights when the phone call took place and his wife was murdered.

Hi Herlock

You make a good point. We do know that Alan Close was about 30 minutes late on Tuesday, I assume you are alluding to that making Wallace late, or at least with no time to spare. In fact, this might answer CCJ's earlier question. Wallace needed Alan Close for his alibi and so the murder had to take place on Tuesday. If he'd arrived on time, it would have given Wallace the perfect timing - hence Wallace making the call with an appointment of 7.30pm.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

You make a good point. We do know that Alan Close was about 30 minutes late on Tuesday, I assume you are alluding to that making Wallace late, or at least with no time to spare. In fact, this might answer CCJ's earlier question. Wallace needed Alan Close for his alibi and so the murder had to take place on Tuesday. If he'd arrived on time, it would have given Wallace the perfect timing - hence Wallace making the call with an appointment of 7.30pm.

Hi Eten,

Yes, I think it’s strange that Wallace didn’t allow himself more time to find 25 MGE and more time to get a tournament game. So in effect Wallace was ‘late’ on both important nights. Of course I’m not claiming this as a ‘gotcha’ moment but it adds to the list and it’s that list that makes me believe Wallace to have been the likeliest killer.

…..

Another point about the crime scene. According to Wallace the front door was locked and the lights were turned down. So we have to ask when and why would an accomplice/sneak thief have done this? Obviously he couldn’t have locked the door as Julia let him in so he must have done it later. If he excused himself to go to the loo planning to steal the cash) would he have risked bolting the front door with Julia in the front room? Possibly I suppose, but it would seem a little risky as he couldn’t have know how stiff (and therefore noisy to draw) the bolt might have been. So would he have done it after killing Julia? Why would he as he made no further search for cash so the evidence is that he scarpered immediately so why waste time bolting a door?

Then we have to ask, if he scarpered as soon as he’d killed Julia, would he have wasted time pointlessly turning down gas jets leaving him to exit a pitch dark house.

So two points. The one about the lights is the stronger of the 2 IMO. I can see absolutely no reason why a stranger who had just murdered a woman on the spur-of-the-moment and who did nothing else like search the house for cash and so must have fled straight away would have pointlessly turned down the lights. I’ve genuinely never heard one explanation for this. It simply makes no sense and surely must point away from a stranger killer.

Perhaps we might add: why wasn’t she killed in the kitchen as the reason for her being killed in the parlour one of the least believable parts of the accomplice theory.

[ColdCaseJury]

It's always interesting discussing the case with you! You often take a 180 degree view of it compared to me.

Another point about the MGE search which, to me, sounds at least a little strange is the time that Wallace arrived. Wallace was going to an area in which, according to him, he was a ‘complete stranger.’ I also seem to recall reading somewhere that the area was a large one. And so for all that Wallace allegedly knew 25 MGE might have been a 20 minute walk from the tram stop. He wouldn’t have know which end of the estate was Qualtrough’s house. The general impression that we get of Wallace was that he was a by-the-book, well organised, meticulous kind of man. The kind for whom punctuality in business would have been important. So why did this experienced traveller arrive with a mere 10 minutes to find the address in time for his appointment?

This assumes that he needed more than 10 minutes, of course. I would say Alan Close arrived at the "Goldilocks moment" - not too early, not late but just at the right time - for Wallace to kill, leave and arrive in the area with about 10 minutes to spare, the time I would allow for finding an address. I certainly wouldn't have allowed, say, 20+ minutes. Indeed, I would say a punctilious person is equally uncomfortable arriving too early as too late. Clearly Wallace did not think he left it too late because he could always have aborted his plan at any stage until the first blow was struck. Presumably, he would have done so had Close arrived at about 6:15pm (typical time) or 7pm (the latest Close would deliver, according to Florence Johnston)?

To be honest we might ask the same question about Monday night too. The chess tournament deadline was 7.45 and this was a journey that Wallace had undertaken numerous times and yet he arrives pretty much on the dot of the deadline. Now if Chandler had been present and Wallace had arrived late he’d have been within his rights to have claimed the game. Also by getting there near to the deadline could have meant that a potential opponent (if Chandler wasn’t there) might have decided to play off one of his games against another opponent leaving Wallace without a tournament opponent. Even if Chandler was there he might have decided to play against another tournament opponent. (Antony might mention that there were some roadworks which might have affected tram times here)

But was there any imperative for Wallace to make the call at 7:15pm? He could have made it at, say, 7pm*. In which case, had Wallace planned this, he could still have got to the chess by 7:30pm. Perhaps his lateness is a pointer away from this being planned?

* I believe Beattie got to the cafe at 6:30pm?

And so the meticulous (and I’d say that we would be on safe ground to label him as punctual) Wallace was late on the 2 nights when the phone call took place and his wife was murdered.

My view: if Wallace planned this, he was in full control of the timings and had the option of abandoning at any time if he thought things were looking too suspicious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's always interesting discussing the case with you! You often take a 180 degree view of it compared to me.



My view: if Wallace planned this, he was in full control of the timings and had the option of abandoning at any time if he thought things were looking too suspicious.

With Close’s usual time being at 6.15 Wallace could have reasonably assumed to have been done and dusted by 6.25 which would have meant getting off his last tram at, I’m only estimating here, around 6.50-7.00. 10 minutes seems a bit tight to me for someone who hadn’t a clue which part of a large area Qualtrough’s house was located.

Your second point is a fair one too of course. Maybe Wallace did intend to make the call earlier but there was someone using the phone? Or perhaps there was someone that he knew loitering around talking so he held back until they’d moved on. Speculation of course.

[etenguy]

Your second point is a fair one too of course. Maybe Wallace did intend to make the call earlier but there was someone using the phone? Or perhaps there was someone that he knew loitering around talking so he held back until they’d moved on. Speculation of course.

Hi Herlock

Quite possibly. But if Wallace made the call he would barely have had time to get to the club by around 7.45, which we are told he did. He would have to have used the tram stop near the phone kiosk to have any chance. It would have undermined his story to the police if it had been found he boarded at a different place than he told them. He would have to have a faster way to get to the stop he said he used than walking if the timings have any chance of working using that tram stop. That would require an accomplice to drive him perhaps. However, if he had an accomplice the better option would be to get the accomplice to make the call ten or fifteen minutes later. We have a good reason for Wallace to need the call for his Alan Close alibi, but whether he could have made that call and keep his story intact under scrutiny appears not to be possible in the time available - unless he accepts the risk that the police might find out he lied about his journey route.

Something else I have been wondering is the business with the money that got the time and location of the phone box recorded. It serves neither Parry nor Wallace to have the phone box from which the call was made identified. If the person making the call knew that the location would be identified in those circumstances, does it open up our thinking to considering whether someone was actually trying to frame Wallace? Or is that too fanciful.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Eten,

If Wallace had gone out earlier but, for whatever reason, he couldn’t use the phone straight away then we have to consider that if he’d been able to use the phone straight away then he might have been able catch an earlier tram and so would have got to the club 10 minutes earlier. That said, I’ve always agreed that this is the most difficult part of the case for anyone proposing Wallace. As you’ve said, what if he’d been seen at the phone box, or getting on the tram near to the phone box? The best that I can say I guess is that Wallace could have bailed out if he’d been seen. It was dark after all and we don’t know how many people were around. Yes the tram driver would have had to have seen Wallace but why would Wallace have particularly stood out? It’s been pointed out that he was tall but that counts for very little if the conductor got to him after he’d sat down. Wallace might also have considered a conductor being questioned at a trial with his defence asking “so do you remember every passenger and where they got on?” Or “this is Mr Smith who was also on that tram, can you tell me where he got on? Or Mrs Jones perhaps?” And “can you be absolutely certain that he didn’t actually get on W stops later?” There we’re always going to be risks. When Wallace got home on the Monday night and looked back on events he might just have weighed things up a decided to press on.

And talking of timings we also have to ask of course why Wallace, according to himself, walked past 2 perfectly good tram stops to go to a stop further away? Does this make sense?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Eten,

That said, I’ve always agreed that this is the most difficult part of the case for anyone proposing Wallace. As you’ve said, what if he’d been seen at the phone box, or getting on the tram near to the phone box? The best that I can say I guess is that Wallace could have bailed out if he’d been seen.

You have always maintained that. And, yes, I agree Wallace could abandon if he thought he had been seen by an acquaintance or neighbour. However, it did not remove the problem of the conductor or some other passenger remembering. "Yes, he definitely got on there because it was the same stop I got on" or whatever. And, if he got on a bus (Murphy & Russell) he was running an enormous risk. I think we agree on this.

And talking of timings we also have to ask of course why Wallace, according to himself, walked past 2 perfectly good tram stops to go to a stop further away? Does this make sense?

Yes, two tram stops. The nearest for him was at the end of Richmond Park (which I believe was the stop immediately after the kiosk). Surely, for a guilty Wallace, it was far better that he boarded there - any dispute meant he could plead misunderstanding based on the (reasonable) grounds that it was only one stop apart. Was the witness really that sure? Whereas, making it the third stop injected greater distance and less room for misunderstanding. So, I don't know why a guilty Wallace did not say that he got on at the end of Richmond Park rather than the Belmont Rd junction. An innocent Wallace might have wanted to walk to keep warm on a cold night. Of course, the latter is conjecture but he was never asked.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

When Wallace got home on the Monday night and looked back on events he might just have weighed things up a decided to press on.

And talking of timings we also have to ask of course why Wallace, according to himself, walked past 2 perfectly good tram stops to go to a stop further away? Does this make sense?

Hi Herlock

As you state, there may have been an unexpected hold up which meant he made the call later than he planned. Still, the time between the call being made and Wallace arriving at the club is so tight, he must have had good luck catching the tram - or someone else made the call.

As for the two tram stops walk - a guilty Wallace might have wanted to place himself far from the phone box. As for an innocent Wallace, then I think CCJ's suggestion sounds reasonable - he walked along the route to keep warm. I have to say I have done that myself when I have been running late - it's ridiculous, but when in a hurry I have walked the route a bit, at the risk of being caught between stops when the bus arrives, because standing and waiting at a stop feels like wasting time and at least walking makes me feel I am nevertheless on my way. I might just be odd as I know it makes absolutely no difference to arrival time at my destination.

[etenguy]

Yes, two tram stops. The nearest for him was at the end of Richmond Park (which I believe was the stop immediately after the kiosk). Surely, for a guilty Wallace, it was far better that he boarded there - any dispute meant he could plead misunderstanding based on the (reasonable) grounds that it was only one stop apart. Was the witness really that sure? Whereas, making it the third stop injected greater distance and less room for misunderstanding. So, I don't know why a guilty Wallace did not say that he got on at the end of Richmond Park rather than the Belmont Rd junction. An innocent Wallace might have wanted to walk to keep warm on a cold night. Of course, the latter is conjecture but he was never asked.

Hi CCJ

I agree. An additional element is that either
a) a guilty Wallace did not know the time and location of the call would be recorded. Therefore, he could have just said he boarded by the phone box, just in case he was seen.
b) a guilty Wallace did know that the time and location of the call would be recorded in the circumstances and having it recorded was part of the plan and his alibi for the call. He may even have intended to board three stops along, making a Wallace fuss so he was remembered getting on there. Then, as Herlock speculates, he was held up making the call and forced by time to board near the phone box and decided it was an acceptable risk.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, two tram stops. The nearest for him was at the end of Richmond Park (which I believe was the stop immediately after the kiosk). Surely, for a guilty Wallace, it was far better that he boarded there - any dispute meant he could plead misunderstanding based on the (reasonable) grounds that it was only one stop apart. Was the witness really that sure? Whereas, making it the third stop injected greater distance and less room for misunderstanding. So, I don't know why a guilty Wallace did not say that he got on at the end of Richmond Park rather than the Belmont Rd junction. An innocent Wallace might have wanted to walk to keep warm on a cold night. Of course, the latter is conjecture but he was never asked.

But surely if he’d made the call and then noted the time would he have risked missing the tram completely by walking down to the Richmond Park stop? The tram could have come when he was between stops.