Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

If the caller was not Wallace, then Wallace was (probably**) telling the truth about where he boarded the tram [nowhere near the phone-box]. It seems an unlikely and uncertain way to try to frame someone, based on a mere assumption that Wallace would not be able to prove he was no-where near the box, by him, for example, bumping into an acquaintance at the Breck/Belmont Road stop.

A perp would not surely rely on the Liverpool Police making no effort to verify Wallace's movements on the Monday night with tram conductors, etc. Although (it seems) that is in fact exactly what happened, due to Police 'tunnel vision'!

Personally, I would discount the 'framing' theory, and other evidence points to 'robbery' rather than murder as the intention, in any case...

**it's theoretically possible an innocent Wallace did board at the stop near the box, but decided to lie out of fear. But there's no evidence he lied about anything else, and that would all turn on when Wallace found out about the location of the box - before or after he described his Monday night route in his second statement on 22nd January. [not sure]

I am not sure why I find the option of the caller trying to make it seem like Wallace made the call, attractive. But I do. The reasons I went down that line is as follows.

If we start from the point Wallace did not make the call, then the caller chose a location and time of the call that would allow for Wallace to have made the call. If they had waited ten minutes, Wallace would not be in the frame for making the call. I am of course aware there are other explanations for the location and timing of the call, so clearly this is not overwhelming. However, it might be suggested that using the telephone exchange to connect the call was to establish the location and time. The only reason I can think of to do that is to make it possible that Wallace made the call and to bring this possibility to the fore as surely the police would check and this would be an easy link for them to make.

The caller may not have had murder in mind, but to steal the premiums. This may explain why no other monies were targeted. If it was Parry upset about being fingered by Wallace for fiddling, maybe he wanted to frame Wallace for a similar crime - maybe cost him his job. (pure speculation but seems the kind of revenge he might make).

[RodCrosby]

The caller may not have had murder in mind, but to steal the premiums. This may explain why no other monies were targeted. If it was Parry upset about being fingered by Wallace for fiddling, maybe he wanted to frame Wallace for a similar crime - maybe cost him his job. (pure speculation but seems the kind of revenge he might make).

Doesn't make much sense to me. Frame Wallace for a burglary? A burglary that a live Mrs. Wallace would be able to explain was due to a dodgy visitor calling while Wallace was provably out on a wild goose-chase?

But I agree the premiums were the target, in a sneak-thief plan.

[etenguy]

Doesn't make much sense to me. Frame Wallace for a burglary? A burglary that a live Mrs. Wallace would be able to explain was due to a dodgy visitor calling while Wallace was provably out on a wild goose-chase?

The cash box was replaced in its original position. Why? Because it was a sneak thief who did not want the crime to be obvious. If all had gone to plan and no murder occurred, then you have Wallace and his wife talking about someone who does not exist, has no known address, no-one else has seen and the only external evidence to his existence is the phone call - which could have been made by Wallace given the time and location of the call (which the caller made sure was recorded). If nothing else, it would have called Wallace's integrity into question.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The first point about the phone call is of course the location of the box. Situated at a spot that Wallace would have passed just about exactly the same time as the call was made had he turned right instead of left into Breck Road. Neither Parry or Wallace would have known that due to the problem with getting through to the cafe that the call was recorded. So we can’t say that Parry was trying to incriminate Wallace. Neither would have wanted to be seen in the vicinity of the phone box at that time but this would have been more important for Wallace of course. What we also have to remember is that Wallace was on foot and so had no choice but to use that particular phone box and so he would have had to have tried the best he could to stay out of sight. Checking that there was no one nearby and then using the phone box (which had no lighting.) Parry however had a car and so had the option of driving to another box further away. Yes there were unsuitable ones in cinema foyers for example but with a car he had the option of going further afield.

Gladys Harley said that the caller sounded like an older gentleman - Wallace was thirty years older than Parry.

The operators recalled that the caller pronounced ‘café’ correctly whereas a local would be more likely to have said ‘caff’ or even ‘caffee.’ This stood out to them. It would have been considered as quite a posh type of pronunciation. Who would have been more likely to use this pronunciation? Local wide-boy Parry, or the sophisticated, intellectual-type non-local Wallace?

The operators said that the callers voice was quite normal but Samual Beattie said that it was a gruff voice. This suggests that the caller might have used his own voice whilst talking to the operators but his disguised voice when talking to Harley and Beattie. Parry did use the club for drama rehearsals but he can’t be said to have ‘known’ Beattie or even Harley. From memory I seem to recall that Wallace might have once briefly introduced Parry to Beattie? If he had it’s still hardly likely that Beattie would have remembered his voice anywhere near enough to recognise it on the phone from a perfunctory introduction. Wallace certainly would have had to have disguised his voice considerably.

Then there’s the undoubted fact that Beattie said that the voice didn’t sound like Wallace’s. Is this difficult to believe? This was 1931. Samuel Beattie was a senior businessman; a serious man. The concept of a prank call would have been alien to him. He heard a voice and the fact that it involved business. Not for a second would he have even considered the fact that the caller might have been Wallace disguising his voice. He was completely focused on the content of the call and ensuring that he took the message down accurately. So for me, it’s not in the least surprising that he might not have noticed that a disguised voice might have even slightly resembled Wallace’s in any way.

Then we have the content and the fact that the caller asked for Wallace’s address. A strange request when the caller was trying to get Wallace to come to him? Only Wallace would have known that Beattie couldn’t have said “yes he lives at...” Beattie had known Wallace for years but in all that time he hadn’t even bothered to find out Wallace’s line of work so they weren’t exactly bosom buddies. This pointless question might have a) made Beattie ask “why did you want Mr Wallace’s address if you want him to come to your house.” And b) it might have added to Wallace’s suspicions. Why would a prospective client contact him at the chess club? Only a handful of people knew that he was a member. And of course, “why would he ask for my address?” As I’ve pointed out on the thread before, even Antony had to accept that this points more to Wallace than Parry. Why might Wallace have asked the question? Well if guilty Wallace was trying to give the impression that someone was trying to get him away from the house so that they could enter. It might have been suggested that the thief/killer might have been told about an Insurance Agent with a stash of money in his house and that he attended a chess club on Mondays but he was unsure of his exact address. Beattie didn’t know but it might then have been suggested that he found out from another source.

We can also add that by using the phone call Parry could still not be anything like certain that Wallace would have gone looking for MGE at night especially when one of the club members, Mr Deyes I believe, said that it wasn’t the kind of area that you would want to be frequenting after dark. Wallace might have had other plans for the evening. He might not have wanted to have left Julia alone two nights running. Only Wallace could have been certain that the call would have ensured that he went to MGE.

Overall the content of the call and surrounding circumstances, for me, point considerably more at Wallace than anyone else.

[etenguy]

Hi Herlock - a well argued and evidenced post - I have some comments.

The first point about the phone call is of course the location of the box. Situated at a spot that Wallace would have passed just about exactly the same time as the call was made had he turned right instead of left into Breck Road. Neither Parry or Wallace would have known that due to the problem with getting through to the cafe that the call was recorded. So we can’t say that Parry was trying to incriminate Wallace. Neither would have wanted to be seen in the vicinity of the phone box at that time but this would have been more important for Wallace of course. What we also have to remember is that Wallace was on foot and so had no choice but to use that particular phone box and so he would have had to have tried the best he could to stay out of sight. Checking that there was no one nearby and then using the phone box (which had no lighting.) Parry however had a car and so had the option of driving to another box further away. Yes there were unsuitable ones in cinema foyers for example but with a car he had the option of going further afield.

I am not sure the use of the telephone exchange was an accident. The operator had said there was nothing wrong with the line. It seems to me using the exchange might have been intentional.

While Parry (or someone other than Wallace) did have the opportunity to use another call box, if they did want it to appear Wallace had made the call, they would have had to use that particular call box.

Gladys Harley said that the caller sounded like an older gentleman - Wallace was thirty years older than Parry.

I would only say it is easier for a younger person to sound older than for an older person to sound younger.

The operators recalled that the caller pronounced ‘café’ correctly whereas a local would be more likely to have said ‘caff’ or even ‘caffee.’ This stood out to them. It would have been considered as quite a posh type of pronunciation. Who would have been more likely to use this pronunciation? Local wide-boy Parry, or the sophisticated, intellectual-type non-local Wallace?

This does sound like Wallace. However, if Wallace used that pronouciation regulary it may have been something someone else (possibly Parry) picked up on.

The operators said that the callers voice was quite normal but Samual Beattie said that it was a gruff voice. This suggests that the caller might have used his own voice whilst talking to the operators but his disguised voice when talking to Harley and Beattie. Parry did use the club for drama rehearsals but he can’t be said to have ‘known’ Beattie or even Harley. From memory I seem to recall that Wallace might have once briefly introduced Parry to Beattie? If he had it’s still hardly likely that Beattie would have remembered his voice anywhere near enough to recognise it on the phone from a perfunctory introduction. Wallace certainly would have had to have disguised his voice considerably.

A good point, except what the operator called a normal voice and what Beattie called a gruff (or confident) voice might be the same voice. It is hard to know what the operator meant by normal beyond nothing obviously strange - like a foreign accent.

Then there’s the undoubted fact that Beattie said that the voice didn’t sound like Wallace’s. Is this difficult to believe? This was 1931. Samuel Beattie was a senior businessman; a serious man. The concept of a prank call would have been alien to him. He heard a voice and the fact that it involved business. Not for a second would he have even considered the fact that the caller might have been Wallace disguising his voice. He was completely focused on the content of the call and ensuring that he took the message down accurately. So for me, it’s not in the least surprising that he might not have noticed that a disguised voice might have even slightly resembled Wallace’s in any way.

It is true Beattie may not have recognised a disguised Wallace voice - but I think it would be a risky ploy for Wallace.

Then we have the content and the fact that the caller asked for Wallace’s address. A strange request when the caller was trying to get Wallace to come to him? Only Wallace would have known that Beattie couldn’t have said “yes he lives at...” Beattie had known Wallace for years but in all that time he hadn’t even bothered to find out Wallace’s line of work so they weren’t exactly bosom buddies. This pointless question might have a) made Beattie ask “why did you want Mr Wallace’s address if you want him to come to your house.” And b) it might have added to Wallace’s suspicions. Why would a prospective client contact him at the chess club? Only a handful of people knew that he was a member. And of course, “why would he ask for my address?” As I’ve pointed out on the thread before, even Antony had to accept that this points more to Wallace than Parry. Why might Wallace have asked the question? Well if guilty Wallace was trying to give the impression that someone was trying to get him away from the house so that they could enter. It might have been suggested that the thief/killer might have been told about an Insurance Agent with a stash of money in his house and that he attended a chess club on Mondays but he was unsure of his exact address. Beattie didn’t know but it might then have been suggested that he found out from another source.

I don't think whether Beattie knew the address or not was important. He would either give the address or not. Of course, the question might have prompted the question 'why do you want to know if Wallace is coming to you?' This might derail the conversation and could upset the scheme for either Wallace or a third party. I have no idea why this question was raised.

We can also add that by using the phone call Parry could still not be anything like certain that Wallace would have gone looking for MGE at night especially when one of the club members, Mr Deyes I believe, said that it wasn’t the kind of area that you would want to be frequenting after dark. Wallace might have had other plans for the evening. He might not have wanted to have left Julia alone two nights running. Only Wallace could have been certain that the call would have ensured that he went to MGE.

This is entirely correct. The plan may not work. If it was Wallace who made the call, of course he could make sure he went. If it was someone else, they could not be sure. They would have to watch to see if he left the house and started his journey away. In the event he did go - if he hadn't gone the plan failed. Wallace himself said he was not sure he would go and so this was a risk.

Overall the content of the call and surrounding circumstances, for me, point considerably more at Wallace than anyone else.

[RodCrosby]

The cash box was replaced in its original position. Why? Because it was a sneak thief who did not want the crime to be obvious. If all had gone to plan and no murder occurred, then you have Wallace and his wife talking about someone who does not exist, has no known address, no-one else has seen and the only external evidence to his existence is the phone call - which could have been made by Wallace given the time and location of the call (which the caller made sure was recorded). If nothing else, it would have called Wallace's integrity into question.

So a robbery frame-up would by necessity also include framing Mrs. Wallace?

All a little far-fetched and highly unlikely to work.

I suspect even the Liverpool police, in the entire absence of any contrary evidence, would have had to accept the Wallaces story, with their impeccable reputations, no money troubles and the inconvenient fact there was only a paltry £4 in the cash-box to begin with...

[etenguy]

So a robbery frame-up would by necessity also include framing Mrs. Wallace?

All a little far-fetched and highly unlikely to work.

I suspect even the Liverpool police, in the entire absence of any contrary evidence, would have had to accept the Wallaces story, with their impeccable reputations, no money troubles and the inconvenient fact there was only a paltry £4 in the cash-box to begin with...

Except there is evidence - the phone call was made from a phone box 400 yards from the house at the time Wallace was passing it (or could have been passing it). It may not have held up, but it would question his integrity. And only Wallace knew about the £4, if Parry had made the call he might have expected up to £100 in there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I am not sure the use of the telephone exchange was an accident. The operator had said there was nothing wrong with the line. It seems to me using the exchange might have been intentional.

While Parry (or someone other than Wallace) did have the opportunity to use another call box, if they did want it to appear Wallace had made the call, they would have had to use that particular call box.

Eten, the problem is that under normal circumstances the call couldn’t have been traceable to a specific call box in those days unlike today of course. The police were actually told this when they enquired. It was only because the supervisor at the phone company finally got through and connected him for free (his coins had been returned to him) that she logged the call time and the phone box on a piece of paper. Neither Parry or Wallace could have possibly know that this might happen. So Wallace would have made the call without the risk of the call being traced and Parry couldn’t have made the call hoping to incriminate Wallace due to the proximity of the box.

[etenguy]

Eten, the problem is that under normal circumstances the call couldn’t have been traceable to a specific call box in those days unlike today of course. The police were actually told this when they enquired. It was only because the supervisor at the phone company finally got through and connected him for free (his coins had been returned to him) that she logged the call time and the phone box on a piece of paper. Neither Parry or Wallace could have possibly know that this might happen. So Wallace would have made the call without the risk of the call being traced and Parry couldn’t have made the call hoping to incriminate Wallace due to the proximity of the box.

But that is my point, Herlock. The only way to identify the particular call box and time was to have the call placed through the exchange. And the caller did just that. I suggest the caller knew that would allow the details to be traced later.

That would mean it was a deliberate act for a speific purpose.

It is of course possible that Wallace made the call, ignorant of the consequences of using the exchange. I am exploring an alternative thought to see where that leads.

edit = or are you suggesting it was only the record keeping of the operator, that was not normal protocol, that meant the details were kept?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But that is my point, Herlock. The only way to identify the particular call box and time was to have the call placed through the exchange. And the caller did just that. I suggest the caller knew that would allow the details to be traced later.

That would mean it was a deliberate act for a speific purpose.

It is of course possible that Wallace made the call, ignorant of the consequences of using the exchange. I am exploring an alternative thought to see where that leads.

edit = or are you suggesting it was only the record keeping of the operator, that was not normal protocol, that meant the details were kept?

edit = or are you suggesting it was only the record keeping of the operator, that was not normal protocol, that meant the details were kept?

There’s no way either of them could have known that the supervisor would log the call.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just one point.

On the Monday night, according to the Accomplice theory, Wallace gets to the end of Richmond Park and turns left into Breck Road. Parry and accomplice then know that Wallace is off to the chess and so can make the call to the chess club.

Does anyone see an issue with that statement?

[RodCrosby]

They didn't know it, but surmised it with a sufficiently high probability of being correct to act upon it.

"Nothing in this life is certain - except death and taxes" - Ben Franklin (attrib.)

[and endlessly-tedious internet posts]

[Herlock Sholmes]

They didn't know it, but surmised it with a sufficiently high probability of being correct to act upon it.

"Nothing in this life is certain - except death and taxes" - Ben Franklin (attrib.)

(and endlessly-tedious internet posts)

I’m afraid not. If Parry and his accomplice were normal human beings of course.

As soon as Wallace turned left into Breck Road he’d walked straight past a tram stop at the end of Richmond Park that would have taken him to the club. This would immediately have given them a serious doubt as to whether Wallace was going to the club or elsewhere.

The next stop, which Wallace also walked inexplicably past, was adjacent to Pendennis Street. Looking on Street View I’d say that it would have been pretty much impossible for Parry to have seen Wallace there from where he was parked; especially in the dark. And so Parry would have had to have followed Wallace in the car until they saw him arrive at the stop at the junction of Belmont Road. They would then have turned the car around, gone back up Breck Road, parked somewhere (unlikely to have been right next to the box) and then made the call.

[RodCrosby]

Yawn....

is that it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn....

is that it?

I was just generously pointing out that you appeared to have forgotten to mention any of that in your comic masterpiece ‘theory.’

Your welcome...