** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[caz]

It’s certainly true that we can sometimes hear something unquestioningly and then when we think back it’s “hold on, how come….?” Old William certainly seems singularly lacking in curiosity about this odd request. He even told Caird that he hadn’t made his mind up to go and yet next day he’s unthinking persistence personified as he spends an hour arsing around and ignoring locals who keep telling him that the address doesn’t exist.

It’s an issue that we can never get the bottom of Caz but I still wonder if William was caught a little unawares by Gladys Harley bringing Beattie to the phone? Perhaps he was expecting more of “I’m sorry but Mr. Wallace isn’t here. Can I pass on a message” kind of thing from her? Maybe William wouldn’t have fancied trying to fool Beattie but if, expecting to hear Gladys he hears Beattie responding, then on the spot he had to go into fake voice mode. Then again, as I’m typing this I’m thinking, didn’t one of the operators say that the caller had a gruff voice? I’ll check but if that was the case (and I think it was) then it implies that he was prepared from the off for using a disguised voice. There was certainly a risk of someone knowing that there was no MGE. And might the café have had a directory? I don’t know.

He would have known that Beattie didn’t have his address but a risk would have been Beattie saying “his friend Mr. Caird is here. He’s bound to know.” He could hardly have said “don’t bother.” Even though I’m convinced that William was guilty there are still so many questions that we’d like an answer for but I think that we’re doomed to ignorance on most of not all of them. A bit of speculation never hurt anyone Caz.

Hi Herlock,

The risk of someone at the club knowing that MGE didn't exist would have been greater for anyone needing Wallace to buy into it and be out of the house on the Tuesday evening.

Wallace, on the other hand, could easily have bluffed his way through this minor setback by suggesting the caller may have spoken indistinctly or been misheard, or a mistake made in taking the message down. He would give it a go anyway, unless "Qualtrough" called back [which wasn't going to happen], and try the similarly named streets. Had anyone insisted that there was no such address, he could have adapted his famous enquiries on the journey accordingly: "Look, I've been given this address but I'm told it must be a mistake. Could you suggest where I could try instead?"

Wallace had a tongue in his head, and I'm pretty sure he knew how to use it to get himself out of tricky situations.

Love,

Caz
X

[Dupin]

I was interested in whether or not Qualtrough (the man who phoned) used a false voice, and the circumstances of the call. There are two statements from the operators on the Wallace site. It was agreed he was male and one said with a deep voice. Both agreed it was an ordinary voice, at least to them, and were at pains to remark it was certainly not gruff (cf Beattie below). Gladys Harley, the club waitress who took the call initially, said " The man who telephoned had a deep voice and spoke very quickly.., there was nothing strange about it. It seemed like the voice of an elderly gentleman." However, Mr Beattie who ran the chess club and took the call next said "I went to the ‘phone and a man’s voice – a gruffish voice but of a man sure of himself, a strong voiced man ..."

It seems Qualtrough spoke with an ordinary voice at least to the operators, and it sounds like he had a telephone manner, saying Café proper-like and describing this caff as a Restaurant. I don't know why the operator thought he was used to telephones. As it happened he was using a new type of box with two buttons, and had pressed B instead of A when the call was connected, but said he had pressed A.

It was because he was in the end put through for nothing that a record was made. Was this the intent? Surely nobody would be so petty about tuppence. But why would a guilty Wallace want a record of this important message to come from a phonebox within easy walking distance from his home? Although it was probably a ten minute walk, being outside the Cabbage Hall picturedrome.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

The risk of someone at the club knowing that MGE didn't exist would have been greater for anyone needing Wallace to buy into it and be out of the house on the Tuesday evening.

Wallace, on the other hand, could easily have bluffed his way through this minor setback by suggesting the caller may have spoken indistinctly or been misheard, or a mistake made in taking the message down. He would give it a go anyway, unless "Qualtrough" called back [which wasn't going to happen], and try the similarly named streets. Had anyone insisted that there was no such address, he could have adapted his famous enquiries on the journey accordingly: "Look, I've been given this address but I'm told it must be a mistake. Could you suggest where I could try instead?"

Wallace had a tongue in his head, and I'm pretty sure he knew how to use it to get himself out of tricky situations.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I just double checked on the way that the conversation in the club went a relayed by Beattie:

William: ……Where is Menlove Gardens East? Is it Menlove Avenue?

Beattie: No, Menlove Gardens East.

William: Where is Menlove Gardens East?

Beattie: Wait a moment, I’ll see whether Deyes (another member of the chess club who lived in that district) knows.


Menlove Avenue is in the Mossley Hill area which is where Beattie lived (Deyes too). Beattie knew of Menlove Gardens West only and Deyes knew of West, North and South but not East. So neither knew the road but not that it didn’t exist.

When William copied the address, that Beattie had written on an envelope, into his diary he wrote EAST in capitals. There appeared to have been a short discussion on prospective routes as William was confident that he knew the general area and would have no trouble finding the address. Even his opponent Mr. McCartney asked for William’s address so that he might make suggestions as to routes.

I don’t think that we can read anything much into this part of the puzzle though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was interested in whether or not Qualtrough (the man who phoned) used a false voice, and the circumstances of the call. There are two statements from the operators on the Wallace site. It was agreed he was male and one said with a deep voice. Both agreed it was an ordinary voice, at least to them, and were at pains to remark it was certainly not gruff (cf Beattie below). Gladys Harley, the club waitress who took the call initially, said " The man who telephoned had a deep voice and spoke very quickly.., there was nothing strange about it. It seemed like the voice of an elderly gentleman." However, Mr Beattie who ran the chess club and took the call next said "I went to the ‘phone and a man’s voice – a gruffish voice but of a man sure of himself, a strong voiced man ..."

It seems Qualtrough spoke with an ordinary voice at least to the operators, and it sounds like he had a telephone manner, saying Café proper-like and describing this caff as a Restaurant. I don't know why the operator thought he was used to telephones. As it happened he was using a new type of box with two buttons, and had pressed B instead of A when the call was connected, but said he had pressed A.

It was because he was in the end put through for nothing that a record was made. Was this the intent? Surely nobody would be so petty about tuppence. But why would a guilty Wallace want a record of this important message to come from a phonebox within easy walking distance from his home? Although it was probably a ten minute walk, being outside the Cabbage Hall picturedrome.

It’s certainly interesting that the person who heard the ‘gruff’ voice was the only person that actually knew William’s voice. Even Gladys Harley at the club wouldn’t have recognised it.

I don’t think that William deliberately misused the phone but we do know that there was no light inside the phone so perhaps it was an error caused by the lack of light?

[etenguy]

I don’t think that William deliberately misused the phone but we do know that there was no light inside the phone so perhaps it was an error caused by the lack of light?

Hi Herlock

I think you are right. If William made the call, it was in his best interests for it not to be known it was his local call box - so a mistake, perhaps due to poor light as you suggest and no knowledge that it would have been recorded.

The same if it was Mr Q who used that box to call when he was sure Wallace had left and was on the way to his chess club.

There is a third option - it may have been a deliberate ploy to ensure the call was recorded as coming from that telephone box if Mr Q was trying to put Wallace in the frame. I'm not sure there is an established theory that would have someone framing Wallace - but a possibility, albeit unlikely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I think you are right. If William made the call, it was in his best interests for it not to be known it was his local call box - so a mistake, perhaps due to poor light as you suggest and no knowledge that it would have been recorded.

The same if it was Mr Q who used that box to call when he was sure Wallace had left and was on the way to his chess club.

There is a third option - it may have been a deliberate ploy to ensure the call was recorded as coming from that telephone box if Mr Q was trying to put Wallace in the frame. I'm not sure there is an established theory that would have someone framing Wallace - but a possibility, albeit unlikely.

Hi Eten,

That one has been mentioned somewhere I think but one of the problems for someone trying to set up Williams is that if he hadn’t seen William leave the house and walk in the direction of the phone box he was relying on luck that no one had seen him turn left instead of right into Breck Road. Or that someone hadn’t seen him get on a tram at the Belmont Road stop.

The reason for the problem that the caller had will never be fully explained. People have looked into the operation and issues with that kind of phone with no conclusion. I suspect that it was some kind of tech issue.

[cobalt]

The modern citizen assumes that all phone calls are logged digitally but this would not have been the case in 1931. As late as the 1990s, police dramas often featured some detective investigating a blackmailer to plead 'Keep him on the line so we have time to trace the call.'
So I doubt there was any ulterior motive to the difficulty encountered by Mr. Qualtrough in the public phone box.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed Cobalt. The caller would have had to have had an intimate knowledge of the workings of the system and such stuff wasn’t common knowledge in those days. The caller would have needed to have been someone like one of the operators that the caller spoke to or a telephone engineer.

As an aside, I seem to recall that the next nearest public phone for William was in the foyer of a cinema (I’ll stand correcting on this of course if I’ve misremembered) So much too public a location. I think there was mention of another one but I just can’t remember.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Btw, I asked Calum if he was aware of whether there was a directory in the telephone kiosk at the café but it’s not information that we have.

[cobalt]

The push button A and button B system was only introduced to public phones in 1925 at which point Wallace would have been around 45 years old and a bit like an old dog trying to learn new tricks. Add in the lack of an interior light and the pressure of disguising his voice and it's not difficult to imagine him fumbling around trying to make the call.

But I remain sceptical of Wallace's guilt. No guilty man could have expected to receive such a helping hand from fortune as came his way. For a start Wallace might have expected the waitress to write down the details of the Qualtrough alibi (she normally answered the phone) but his voice (presumably disguised) was not recognised by a member of the chess club who knew him and took the call. In addition that member, Beattie, after suggesting the caller try later, actually went to the trouble of painstakingly writing down the details offered. And he also remembered to pass them on when Wallace came in. Had Beattie not responded the way he did in these three areas, Wallace's alibi would never have got off the ground.

On the day of the murder the late arrival of the milkboy, presumably unexpectedly late by Wallace's estimation, actually worked in his favour since it narrowed the time for murder and clean up to around 10 minutes. This remains a stumbling block for those who judge Wallace guilty and I think it was the police at the time who theorised that Wallace had dressed up as his wife and conversed with the milkboy in a high pitched voice. If so, the tall, lean Wallace was blessed by fortune to have such an extremely unobservant milkboy. Since Wallace had no way of ensuring that minute sprays of blood did not come into contact with his clothing he must have been damned lucky, which is why the 'naked underneath the mackintosh' theory took root I assume.

Wallace's luck continued to hold in the aftermath. He was able to dispose of the murder weapon so effectively, despite the police having a good idea of the route he took that evening, that it has never been found. Hoping to be spotted on his peregrinations around Menlove Gardens Wallace hit the jackpot when he encountered a local policeman, the ideal witness. And on his return to the marital home it was perfect timing of the Johnstons to be leaving their own house just as Wallace attempted to gain entry to his own.

In summary: the set up with the Qualtrough phone call, the alibi at Menlove and the discovery of his wife's body were all corroborated by independent witnesses. None of the forensic evidence expected in a domestic murder surfaced.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The push button A and button B system was only introduced to public phones in 1925 at which point Wallace would have been around 45 years old and a bit like an old dog trying to learn new tricks. Add in the lack of an interior light and the pressure of disguising his voice and it's not difficult to imagine him fumbling around trying to make the call.

But I remain sceptical of Wallace's guilt. No guilty man could have expected to receive such a helping hand from fortune as came his way. For a start Wallace might have expected the waitress to write down the details of the Qualtrough alibi (she normally answered the phone) but his voice (presumably disguised) was not recognised by a member of the chess club who knew him and took the call. In addition that member, Beattie, after suggesting the caller try later, actually went to the trouble of painstakingly writing down the details offered. And he also remembered to pass them on when Wallace came in. Had Beattie not responded the way he did in these three areas, Wallace's alibi would never have got off the ground.

On the day of the murder the late arrival of the milkboy, presumably unexpectedly late by Wallace's estimation, actually worked in his favour since it narrowed the time for murder and clean up to around 10 minutes. This remains a stumbling block for those who judge Wallace guilty and I think it was the police at the time who theorised that Wallace had dressed up as his wife and conversed with the milkboy in a high pitched voice. If so, the tall, lean Wallace was blessed by fortune to have such an extremely unobservant milkboy. Since Wallace had no way of ensuring that minute sprays of blood did not come into contact with his clothing he must have been damned lucky, which is why the 'naked underneath the mackintosh' theory took root I assume.

Wallace's luck continued to hold in the aftermath. He was able to dispose of the murder weapon so effectively, despite the police having a good idea of the route he took that evening, that it has never been found. Hoping to be spotted on his peregrinations around Menlove Gardens Wallace hit the jackpot when he encountered a local policeman, the ideal witness. And on his return to the marital home it was perfect timing of the Johnstons to be leaving their own house just as Wallace attempted to gain entry to his own.

In summary: the set up with the Qualtrough phone call, the alibi at Menlove and the discovery of his wife's body were all corroborated by independent witnesses. None of the forensic evidence expected in a domestic murder surfaced.

Hi Cobalt,

I don’t understand what relevance you place on the fact that William might have expected Gladys to have written down the message? Have I misunderstood you? Gladys Harley admitted that she didn’t know William’s voice and Beattie was the only person that heard Qualtrough’s voice to describe it as ‘gruff.’ This suggests that he changed his voice just for Beattie and Beattie was the only one that might have recognised William’s voice. And surely it’s not luck to expect a person to write down a short message correctly?

I’m a little confused as to why you say on one hand that the arrival of the milk boy was both in William’s favour but also becomes a stumbling block for those believing him guilty. The arrival of Alan Close later than expected gave William less time than he’d have expected but we still can’t be certain as to the exact time of his arrival or how long he had available to him. The act of killing Julia could have been completed in a minute, leaving whatever time was required before leaving. I think that we can often over-estimate how long things take.

William didn’t need to be naked under the mackintosh. He could have used it as a shield just as William himself suggested that the killer might have done. This method was simplicity itself (after the first blow) and if he avoided blood on the top half of his face/head and his right hand the he could have been 3 or 4 minutes from Julia closing the door on Close to William leaving.

William required almost no luck but often in a plan you have to adapt to unforeseen circumstances. The fact of the Johnston’s being there when he returned blighted his initial plan in my opinion. I think that he was trying to give the impression that the killer was still in the house when he returned (he admitted that this was what he was thinking at the trial p but only after initially denying it) I think that on his second visit to the back door he intended to tell the police that the gate and back door were open and that someone pushed passed him; possibly with a mask on but the same height and build as Parry.

[cobalt]

Apologies if I was unclear. Wallace would not have had to disguise his voice for Gladys the waitress and might have hoped she would write down the message. So it was unfortunate when Beattie was called to the phone since Wallace then had to disguise his voice; however his luck held since Beattie neither at the time, nor subsequently, thought the voice was Wallace's.

Beattie suggested that Qualtrough phone back later but was not adamant enough to put the caller off. Had he been more insistent then Wallace's plan (if it was his) would have been scuppered. The details over the phone were well capable of being misunderstood- I don't know if Beattie requested the caller to spell his name since it was an unusual one. Any confusion on Beattie's part over the Menlove saga would have been very understandable given the various permutations. And of course Beattie could have absent mindedly simply forgotten to pass on the message if he was absorbed n his games of chess. There were plenty of potential pitfalls.

The milkboy problem has been well aired over the years. I cannot believe that Wallace would have planned such a short time in which to murder and clean himself up. So you could say it was bad luck that Alan Close arrived later than usual, but this surely worked to Wallace's advantage since it made the whole process less likely to be achievable in such a short time span. That was the view of the police at the time hence their fanciful idea of Wallace answering the door in drag. It's true you can murder someone inside a minute and it may be possible to remove all evidence of having done so from your person in ten. But at this point those who believe Wallace is guilty are having to square a circle since the murder is supposed to have been extremely well planned. They are left with a total contradiction which they try to explain away by saying that Wallace could adapt to circumstances, him being a chess player and the like.

The mackintosh theory HS has explained clearly and quite plausibly to my mind. But there are a few holes in the theory as I see it. Blood spray is not always visible to the naked eye so even with his reversed mackintosh Wallace was extremely lucky to leave no traces on his person whatsoever. The police understood this themselves, hence the 'naked Wallace' suggestion which was not Wallace's invention but theirs. He merely repeated it in his John Bull article. And why on earth did the mackintosh end up under Julia? I appreciate there was a problem with the gas fire but having done the deed, surely the killer would throw the mackintosh over the victim: not drag her over it. The lack of deep blood staining on the mackintosh where a man would have kneeled to inflict the blows has also been covered by other commentators.

The HS conjecture about a masked figure at the back door resembling Parry is rather desperate. The police were bound to ask why would Parry the burglar bother to bring a mask with him when he knew both Wallace and Julia would recognise him anyroads. And Wallace wasn't even supposed to be there since Parry had lured him away about an hour earlier. Had Wallace come out with that guff then the police would have quickly honed in on him trying to fit up Parry.