** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[etenguy]

If Wallace was the caller, his problem would not be having an alibi, so instead he'd have wanted a couple of decent reasons for people to believe it was someone else. So you may be right about the phone box scam being designed to point towards a known petty criminal such as Parry, while Wallace's claim to have used a different route to the chess club that night would have been his insurance - ha ha.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

You are quite right about the alibi issue. I had meant to suggest he would claim he could not have made the call and reached the tram stop he says he used, but this would only be possible if the time of the call could be specified reasonably accurately (and he did later push Beattie to be more precise about the time of the call).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes I am looking at the map of his route in Mark's book. It would be useful to have a larger scale one for the house area, but I would have thought that alleyways were a prime hunting ground for burglars and they were skilled at concealing themselves.

On the question of not knowing who was left in the house, that is an occupational hazard of opportunistic burglary.

Which raises an interesting point. If you were planning a burglary surely it would be better to pick a house you knew would be empty rather than one you knew would still be occupied.

Don't know if this one’s any good Nick?




Its blurred when you enlarge it. My useless technology knowledge. Sorry.

[NickB]

Thanks.

The previous month there had been a robbery further down the street when no-one was home. As there was no sign of forced entry, I wonder if this was facilitated by obtaining the street-shared front door key.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks.

The previous month there had been a robbery further down the street when no-one was home. As there was no sign of forced entry, I wonder if this was facilitated by obtaining the street-shared front door key.

It seems that keys could fit other doors but it wasn’t a case of all keys fit all doors. It was a quirk of those locks at the time (and not a very reassuring one I’d imagine.) I know that a local heavy drinker called Cadwallader had mistakenly got into the Wallace’s house by using his key. That was why Johnston offered to try his key on the back door before it (conveniently) opened.

[NickB]

But still, a shared front door key might be easier for a burglar to obtain than a unique one. Mark thinks it is damning evidence against Wallace that the Holmes did not hear anyone knocking. I wonder if the intruder could have used one of these keys to sneak in, then clobbered a surprised Julia before she could scream. (Just an idea!)

One passage in Mark's book that baffles me is where he says we should consider that Julia's modest insurance proceeds and cash would be a motive for Wallace because "... he seemed to go to extreme measures to gain a commission in his quest for Menlove Gardens East." The 'extreme measures' of murder hardly compare with a trip to MGE. But a guilty Wallace wasn't on a genuine quest to gain a real commission anyway.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But still, a shared front door key might be easier for a burglar to obtain than a unique one. Mark thinks it is damning evidence against Wallace that the Holmes did not hear anyone knocking. I wonder if the intruder could have used one of these keys to sneak in, then clobbered a surprised Julia before she could scream. (Just an idea!)

One passage in Mark's book that baffles me is where he says we should consider that Julia's modest insurance proceeds and cash would be a motive for Wallace because "... he seemed to go to extreme measures to gain a commission in his quest for Menlove Gardens East." The 'extreme measures' of murder hardly compare with a trip to MGE. But a guilty Wallace wasn't on a genuine quest to gain a real commission anyway.

You’re right of course. A burglar might have obtained half a dozen house keys from somewhere increasing the chances of one of them fitting the door.

And yes I didn’t understand that point in the book either.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A point that I’d like to raise.

Wallace returns and is surprised/concerned that he cant get in first via the front door then the back then the front again then the back again. On his second visit to the back door he meets the Johnston’s and tells them that he can’t get in. Mr Johnston offers to fetch his own key but when Wallace tries again and the door opens.

Wallace is quite clear that whenever he returned to the house after dark he returned via the front door. So Julia would obviously have known this and so, knowing that the back door wouldn’t be used again that evening and that she was in the house alone, she would have bolted the back door. So why was Wallace surprised that he couldn’t get in? Surely he should have fully expected it to have been locked and bolted?

Was it because it was his intention to claim that the killer was still inside the house when he arrived back and that he’d escaped via the back door when Wallace made his second visit to the front door? This plan was hampered by the unforeseen appearance of the Johnston’s.

At the Trial:

Hemmerde - Do you remember Inspector Gold asking you whether you thought there was someone in the house when you got back? I think was page 53. That was when the statement exhibit 42 was taken. Do you remember him asking you if you though that anyone was in the house when you got back, and do you remember your answer?

Wallace - No I do not.

Hemmerde - “I thought someone was in the house when I went to the front door because I could not open it, and I could not open the back door.” Do you remember saying that?

Wallace - No I do not.

So first he can’t remember.

Hemmerde - Do you still think that when you were there you thought there was someone in the house?

Wallace - No I do not.

Now Wallace is saying that he hadn’t believed there was someone in the house at the time.

Hemmerde - You have given that theory up?

Wallace - Yes.

Hemmerde - Did you ever believe it?

Wallace - I might have done at the time.

Now he’s saying that he might have believed it.

Hemmerde - Did you ever believe that someone was inside the house and had unbolted that door there?

Wallace - At the moment I did.

Now he definitely believed it.

.....

Wallace appears reluctant to admit this. It’s also worth remembering that, on the subject of the faulty locks, Wallace had said at the Trial:

”....but we never had difficulty in getting in.”

Only on the night that his wife lay dead in the parlour did William have ‘difficulty’ in getting in. Coincidence?

[caz]

Its certainly an infuriating case Dupin.

Julia could certainly have let in someone called Qualtrough if William had told her about him but, although we know that Wallace told Julia about his evenings business journey, we don’t know if he’d mentioned the name. William said specifically that Julia would have let someone in if she had known them personally so, as you say, had William had specifically mentioned Qualtrough she might have let him in but if not? She didn’t know a Qualtrough personally.

It’s also worth noting about how solid the plan was. There are so many ways that the plan to get William out of the house on that Tuesday night might have failed and Julia deciding not to let in a stranger is one of them. If William planned it of course there was no possibility of it failing. He was definitely going to the non-existent MGE.

Your Ena Sharples point is a good one (although a mystery to non-UK posters of course) Would Julia have let in a man after her husband had left? It might be said that perhaps the neighbours wouldn’t have known that she was alone in the house because William had left via the back door but, of course, they might have seen him return via the front door. We can also ask, if a ‘Mr Qualtrough’ turned up wasn't he taking a huge risk of being seen or heard or both. The Holme’s, Wallace’s neighbours at number 27, heard the milk boy knock the door of the Wallace’s house at around 6.35. This was possibly less than an hour before our ‘Qualtrough’ might have arrived. Qualtrough and Julia would have had a short explanatory conversation on the doorstep. Maybe 20 or 30 seconds. Yet no one saw or heard anything. It’s not impossible that this could have happened of course but it was a huge slice of luck for Mr Qualtrough.

Morning Herlock,

If Wallace had mentioned to Julia that he was going to meet a Mr Qualtrough, you'd think he'd have said something after the murder along the lines of: "The biggest regret of my life is telling Julia about Qualtrough, because it seems she must - unusually for her - have let him in, recognising the name."

He could have said the same thing whether he was guilty or not. She was dead, so she couldn't have contradicted him, if he'd said nothing of the sort.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

On the question of not knowing who was left in the house, that is an occupational hazard of opportunistic burglary.

Which raises an interesting point. If you were planning a burglary surely it would be better to pick a house you knew would be empty rather than one you knew would still be occupied.

I was thinking along the same lines, Nick. It does seem illogical to me that anyone merely intent on robbery would go to Qualtrough's lengths to get Wallace out of the way, but then not give two hoots about Julia being there. I suppose that could be because the robber knew the Wallaces, and where the cash box was kept, and thought it would be preferable to get himself invited in, then take advantage of Julia's vulnerability once inside. But that brings its own problems, if she could have identified him afterwards. Maybe he just meant to frighten her half to death, and threaten to come back and finish her off if she grassed on him.

As always, there are missing pieces to this human puzzle, which no doubt explains why I keep coming back to it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz, great to see you back on this topic!

I think the issue with your point is that for Wallace to make it look like a scam he had to report a no-reply (i.e. make the second call to the operator). Either Wallace knew a no-reply would be logged or he did not.

If he did know, then he knew he was logging that the phone call was made just 400 yards from his house. Not the smartest move - rather than point away from him, it means he is now the prime suspect. And, as it happened, it was this fact above all else that to his arrest. By contrast the call not being traced to Anfield 1627 meant that the suspect pool was a large as all the men in Liverpool - anyone could have made the call. Surely, that would have been his plan?

If he did not know, then there was no way anyone (including him) could suggest it was a scam - the call would not have been logged for starters and we would know nothing about it. And, I should point out, that no one in 1931 suggested it was a scam - at least at the trial.

Either way, I think this might be over finessing the case in hindsight and attributing near-genius level criminality to Wallace!

Cheers, CCJ.

As usual, you make a great point. If Wallace did make the call, I can see why it was not in his best interests for it to be traced back to that phone box. He may of course not have given a thought to whether any or all calls could be traced. But the fact remains that he claimed to take a route to the club that night, which did not take him near or past that phone box.

Is the order of events known, concerning when Wallace was first told where the call was made from, and when he first described the route he took? I'm a little uneasy about the coincidence here, if he took an unusual route, without a clue that someone was going to make the Qualtrough call from that particular box [let alone that it would later be traced to that box], while he was innocently making his way to the club. It seems like a very fortuitous decision, all things considered, and yet he was never able to prove it. The contrast with the Tuesday evening, when he made his presence felt throughout his journey to MGE, is striking.

Love,

Caz
X

[NickB]

Yes Caz, a really clever plan would have been to lure Julia away too. That would still involve breaking in, or using the key, but the house would then be empty.

Herlock, How about this ....?

Wallace cannot unlock the front door. While he is trying one thought, among many, that occurs to him is that when he arrived back there was an intruder in the house who - while Wallace has been attempting to get in the front the first time - escaped out the back. He then goes round to try the back.

So when the police arrive that thought is still fresh in his mind and he readily agrees that he thought there might have been an intruder in the house when he got back. But the idea that there was an intruder was not part of a carefully thought out murder plan, it was just a passing thought. So by the time of the trial he had forgotten it when first asked but, when prompted, remembered.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Morning Herlock,

If Wallace had mentioned to Julia that he was going to meet a Mr Qualtrough, you'd think he'd have said something after the murder along the lines of: "The biggest regret of my life is telling Julia about Qualtrough, because it seems she must - unusually for her - have let him in, recognising the name."

He could have said the same thing whether he was guilty or not. She was dead, so she couldn't have contradicted him, if he'd said nothing of the sort.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

If Wallace was guilty then perhaps he missed a trick? As far as I can recall no one made a point of the fact that he’d said that Julia would have let in anyone that she’d known personally. He might have said something like “ I regret that I ever mentioned the name Qualtrough to her because if she hadn’t heard the name and known that it was a business matter she wouldn’t have let him in.”

[caz]

To add to my previous post...

If Wallace did make the call, he had to make it from somewhere, so perhaps he felt it was safer to pick a phone box which he normally used, rather than one he had never set foot in before and had no reason to do so. If he was seen coming out of the one near his house, he could have an excuse ready if he needed one. The different route story could have come in if he knew he wasn't seen, but realised he may have caused the Qualtrough call to be traced back to that box.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was thinking along the same lines, Nick. It does seem illogical to me that anyone merely intent on robbery would go to Qualtrough's lengths to get Wallace out of the way, but then not give two hoots about Julia being there. I suppose that could be because the robber knew the Wallaces, and where the cash box was kept, and thought it would be preferable to get himself invited in, then take advantage of Julia's vulnerability once inside. But that brings its own problems, if she could have identified him afterwards. Maybe he just meant to frighten her half to death, and threaten to come back and finish her off if she grassed on him.

As always, there are missing pieces to this human puzzle, which no doubt explains why I keep coming back to it.

Love,

Caz
X

It’s always been an issue for me that if our burglar’s intent was to steal the cash without Julia realising it (and the cash box points that way) and then leaving he knew that, after discovering the cash missing, she could have given a detailed description of him. So why kill her if she’d either discovered him in the act or she’d become suspicious of him? If she had made a noise no one heard it and it would surely have been quicker just to grab her and put a hand over her mouth then convince her to calm down than it would have been to look for a weapon, pick it up and then batter her to death duting which time she could have screamed like a banshee? The Wallace’s had no phone of course. By the time Julia could have told someone about the robbery who in turn got a policeman there our burglar would have been long gone.

[caz]

One passage in Mark's book that baffles me is where he says we should consider that Julia's modest insurance proceeds and cash would be a motive for Wallace because "... he seemed to go to extreme measures to gain a commission in his quest for Menlove Gardens East." The 'extreme measures' of murder hardly compare with a trip to MGE. But a guilty Wallace wasn't on a genuine quest to gain a real commission anyway.

Hmmm, yes, Nick, that wasn't the most well thought out argument, was it?

A better one might be that Wallace seemed to go to extreme measures to let everyone know he was out searching for MGE, while the mysterious Qualtrough was supposedly back at his house, murdering Julia.

Love,

Caz
X