Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

Hi CCJ - thanks for your post. I feel some, if not all, of your queries and doubts are covered in my posts of #1633 and #1673 of 19th and 20th January but I'm happy to try and further clarify aspects concerning the collaborator now.

It'll probably help (me anyway!) if I juggle the order of your questions and also give a bit of explanatory introduction.

I'm not going to die in a ditch insisting that Wallace and a collaborator were responsible for Julia's murder. However, my belief is that if Wallace bore any responsibility, it must have been in conjunction with someone else. For me, too much rules him out having physically killed his wife; in particular, the lack of time available to him and the absence of any blood stains on him.

Thus, in this scenario, the collaborator is the killer.

I further speculate that Wallace returned home at 6pm on the night of the murder so that he could pave the way at the last minute for Julia to look out for a particular visitor and to let him in if he should arrive (which he would obviously would in this plan) before Wallace returned. It would be essential that Wallace only tell Julia just before he left so she would have no opportunity to mention the expected visitor to anyone. To confirm, the visitor is the killer as pre-planned with Wallace.

As per some of the possibilities I flagged to Eten and in connection with this scenario, the caller to the chess club could have been either Wallace or the collaborator. The advantages to Wallace of the collaborator making the call are: (1) that he (Wallace) would not not have entered the phone box and risked being seen there; and (2) as it wasn't him (Wallace) making the call, there was no possibility of his voice being recognised by whoever took the call at the club. As Wallace is trusting the collaborator to kill Julia in where this is all going, I have no issue with Wallace entrusting him to make the call.

That theory espoused, I readily acknowledge that I'm not tempted to put a shedload of dosh on it being the answer to what actually happened. However, I don't see it as totally implausible.

One particular weakness for me which I fully acknowledge is that Wallace always seems to come across as a solitary individual - would he really know and be able to arrange for someone else to kill Julia for him?

That question asked and being unanswered, it has to be recognised - at least by those suggesting Wallace did it or might have done it - that there are things about Wallace that we do not know. In particular, what was his motive? I appreciate no motive for Wallace needs to be proved to allege his guilt but those doing so have to acknowledge that not all about the man has ever come out.

Add to all that - as stated and illustrated in my post of #1633, Wallace's actions before, around the time (but not then at the murder scene) and after the murder were odd and perhaps suspicious. That all gives me atm at least some possibility of Wallace and a collaborator.

If pushed, I would say that Rod's theory holds the most water (although I wish he would present and sell it less forcibly at times) but it still leaves doubts for me about Wallace's conduct and makes me wonder as to whether he and another might just have been involved.

Best regards,
OneRound

Interesting theory, OneRound.

There are some issues to deal with but this post concentrates on some features of the case that might support such a scenario.

1. Why did Wallace spend so much time in the Menlove Gardens area after it was clear MGE did not exist? Is it possible that he needed to ensure he was not back until after an agreed time to give his collaborator time to commit the crime?

2. There is a lot of evidence, in my opinion, that points to the intent of the crime being the murder of Julia Wallace. I am not convinced by the suggestion that she was killed disturbing a sneak thief (this does not invalidate Rod's theory, only the intent of Parry's accomplice). If this is correct, it would also support the theory you propose.
(Some of the reasons for thinking murder was the intent of the crime include:
* Julia was killed in the parlour and there is no sign of fleeing from the kitchen (and if she was fleeing, surely she would be heading for an exit not a room to be trapped in)
* The position she was in when killed - as per MacFall's blood splatter pattern testimony - suggests she had just lit the gas fire when she was killed or was sitting in the armchair leaning forward (I prefer just lit the gas fire because of the burnt mackintosh and skirt). Either way, no sign of suspiscion of the other person in the house with her - in fact it suggests she was 'entertaining'.
* There is also no sign of her physically being coerced into the parlour (and why would a thief want to herd the victim into a different room anyway).
* The burglary scene and lack of stealing anything, including cash about the house, does not point to any kind of thief. And we know the killer at least knew of the £5 up-stairs since Julia's blood was on one of the notes (MacFall's testimony confirms it was her blood). In fact (and speculation now) did the killer move the cash box money to the upstairs ornament - it is odd that the Wallace household would have such an amount sitting around the house given their careful removing of monies from their home when they went out together.

3. Wallace's behaviour in the Menlove Gardens area was suspicious as was his manner at the house with the police officer who stated this in his testimony (other theories exist to explain this but they are speculative also)

4. The messing about getting into the house and then suddenly gaining entry with no problem once the Johnston's arrive so there are witnesses to finding the corpse.

[cobalt]

OR,

Apart from Wallace having no obvious motive to kill his wife, it seems to me that a collaborator would have had less reason to. What was in it for him, save maybe a cheap life insurance policy?

A problem for me is that this attack does not look like a robbery gone wrong. It is in the wrong room. It is a sustained and lethal attack, not a 'mere' coshing.

But if it were a planned murder, then the weapon seems to have improvised on the spot. Why arrange such a bloody means of murder when a knife or piece of rope would have done the job with less mess?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. That question asked and being unanswered, it has to be recognised - at least by those suggesting Wallace did it or might have done it - that there are things about Wallace that we do not know. In particular, what was his motive? I appreciate no motive for Wallace needs to be proved to allege his guilt but those doing so have to acknowledge that not all about the man has ever come out

I’d say Wallace’s motive was that he was married to a constantly ill, nappy wearing wife who was old enough to be his mother. The effects of illnesses and her age would be increasingly obvious to Wallace. He had a serious kidney complaint which an intelligent, scientific man like himself probably realised left him the prospect of not many more years of life remaining. His life after working for the Prudential for many years involved endlessly trudging around in all weathers. No prospect of promotion for him; just the same tedious job that he might very well have thought, for an intelligent, cultured man, was less than he deserved from life. Although it’s not a cast-iron rule but that level of brutality of murder tends to point toward something of a person motive. One that involves emotions like hatred, anger or resentment. Julia had no close friends. Only William fits that particular bill.

People have killed for far, far less as we know. I agree of course that we can’t have a proven alibi here like a recently increased insurance policy or the discovery of another woman or a series of very public disputes or previous occaisions of violence but this can often be the case. So from a personal point of view OneRound my opinion is that Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest candidate based on what we know and can interpret, others disagree of course, but the unprovable alibi doesn’t bother me personally as I can easily see how one might have existed. Just my opinion of course.

[etenguy]

OR,

Apart from Wallace having no obvious motive to kill his wife, it seems to me that a collaborator would have had less reason to. What was in it for him, save maybe a cheap life insurance policy?

Wallace having no known motive does not mean there was not a motive, just that it has not been uncovered. As for the collaborator, if one existed, we do not know what his relationship was to Wallace or why he might assist - it may have been a strong personal connection which has been previously speculated but I do not believe any evidence exists to support this.

A problem for me is that this attack does not look like a robbery gone wrong. It is in the wrong room. It is a sustained and lethal attack, not a 'mere' coshing.

The actual physical attack goes beyond what you would expect as you state. The doctor and police described it as a frenzy which suggests a personal, emotional element to the attack.

But if it were a planned murder, then the weapon seems to have improvised on the spot. Why arrange such a bloody means of murder when a knife or piece of rope would have done the job with less mess?

If you wanted to make it seem like a robbery gone wrong, you might choose a weapon that supports such a reading of the situation. That weapon might be something that has a place in the house to make it appear to be an improvised spur of the moment killing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m currently looking into a possible Wallace plus collaborator ( Antony) scenario for Antony. As you all know I strongly favour Wallace alone but it’s an interesting exercise.

And as we all know: scenario and solution aren’t synonymous. Well, almost all of us.

[moste]

Good points Antony.

Another thought. Again this isn’t a cast iron point for or against it’s simply an observation.

Julia Wallace was born in the Victorian era and lived through the Edwardian. From what we know of her she was a very quiet, reserved and somewhat retiring type of person. It’s been said that she was ‘old fashioned.’ As I’ve said before we know that people from that time were far more sensitive of rumour, reputation and scandal than we are today.

As William had left by the back door no neighbour could have known that Julia was alone in the house. But in 1931, after dark, wouldn’t it have been more likely for the man of the house to have answered the door? Might not any neighbour observing unseen from across the road, and who saw Julia answering the door and admitting an unknown man, have thought this slightly amiss. More to the point might not a sensitive Julia have been aware and worried about this possibility (especially as she would have had to have had a conversation with the man which might have taken up to a minute.) This time might have increased the chances of this conversation being seen. And even if a neighbour hadn’t assumed that she was alone in the house Julia knew that William would have returned later by the front door. If the same neighbour had seen William return they would have known that Julia had been alone in the house with a strange man for a considerable length of time.

Might this not have added to Julia’s reluctance to admit a strange man to the house?

I agree with your observations, in fact I mentioned some time ago that I would think any kind of verbal exchange would more than likely have taken place through the door closed, rather than open. 'Alone, Its Dark, very cold, she has a head cold, and to put the old tin lid on it, Anfield has been subjected to a burglar that has still to be apprehended' . No, I cant see Julia opening the door to an unannounced person. Even if this man stated, the unfortunate misunderstanding of Wallace getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, Julia's reaction to this I'm sure would be ' I'm sorry Mr. Qualtrough for the mix up, but if you head home I'm sure you will find my husband waiting there for you'.

[etenguy]

I’m currently looking into a possible Wallace plus collaborator ( Antony) scenario for Antony. As you all know I strongly favour Wallace alone but it’s an interesting exercise.

And as we all know: scenario and solution aren’t synonymous. Well, almost all of us.

Hi Herlock

I have read more widely about this case now and have come across a Wallace plus collaborator theory you might find of interest (only I cannot recall the URL). In that theory a motive for the killing was speculated which also provided a motive for the collaborator being involved. I found it entirely plausible but there was absolutely no evidence to support it - it was pure speculation. I'm a little loathe to repeat it, for that reason, but in case it is of interest to you it basically went like this:

The Wallace marriage was one of convenience and appearance for Wallace. He hid behind his marriage to avoid people suspecting his homosexual tendencies. In 1931 it would have ruined him. It went on to suggest he had formed a relationship with a man and now Julia was in the way. In order that they could be more free to pursue time together (or perhaps Julia found out) they decided to kill her. Of course, at that time they would have needed to be entirely discrete and so evidence is unlikely to ever be found to support this. Nor, as far as I am aware, has anyone who knew Wallace ever suggested they suspected he might have been homosexual.

[moste]

Hi Herlock

I have read more widely about this case now and have come across a Wallace plus collaborator theory you might find of interest (only I cannot recall the URL). In that theory a motive for the killing was speculated which also provided a motive for the collaborator being involved. I found it entirely plausible but there was absolutely no evidence to support it - it was pure speculation. I'm a little loathe to repeat it, for that reason, but in case it is of interest to you it basically went like this:

The Wallace marriage was one of convenience and appearance for Wallace. He hid behind his marriage to avoid people suspecting his homosexual tendencies. In 1931 it would have ruined him. It went on to suggest he had formed a relationship with a man and now Julia was in the way. In order that they could be more free to pursue time together (or perhaps Julia found out) they decided to kill her. Of course, at that time they would have needed to be entirely discrete and so evidence is unlikely to ever be found to support this. Nor, as far as I am aware, has anyone who knew Wallace ever suggested they suspected he might have been homosexual.

Hi there Eten. Have you been reading my post'1310'? LOL.

Actually , I also believe Parry mentioned 'Wallace was sexually strange' or words to that effect. (I Think it was Parry)

[etenguy]

Hi there Eten. Have you been reading my post'1310'? LOL.

Actually , I also believe Parry mentioned 'Wallace was sexually strange' or words to that effect. (I Think it was Parry)

Hi Moste

Just went back and re-read it. Seeing it a second time jogged my memory of having read it the first time. It is the same as I recounted to Herlock. I think I read a fuller version on a blog/web site but it may very well be your post that I was remembering. It was a vague recollection at the back of my mind that I blurted out to Herlock in case it was of interest. Apologies - didn't mean to steal your thunder.

[ColdCaseJury]

Good points Antony.

Another thought. Again this isn’t a cast iron point for or against it’s simply an observation.

Julia Wallace was born in the Victorian era and lived through the Edwardian. From what we know of her she was a very quiet, reserved and somewhat retiring type of person. It’s been said that she was ‘old fashioned.’ As I’ve said before we know that people from that time were far more sensitive of rumour, reputation and scandal than we are today.

As William had left by the back door no neighbour could have known that Julia was alone in the house. But in 1931, after dark, wouldn’t it have been more likely for the man of the house to have answered the door? Might not any neighbour observing unseen from across the road, and who saw Julia answering the door and admitting an unknown man, have thought this slightly amiss. More to the point might not a sensitive Julia have been aware and worried about this possibility (especially as she would have had to have had a conversation with the man which might have taken up to a minute.) This time might have increased the chances of this conversation being seen. And even if a neighbour hadn’t assumed that she was alone in the house Julia knew that William would have returned later by the front door. If the same neighbour had seen William return they would have known that Julia had been alone in the house with a strange man for a considerable length of time.

Might this not have added to Julia’s reluctance to admit a strange man to the house?

HS,

That's an interesting observation. As far as we know, Julia did admit younger men occasionally (Parry and Marsden) but that was probably during the day. I think your point could be pared back to, Would Julia admit anyone at night? I had a neighbour who refused to answer the door to anyone after dark. If there were evidence (aural, visual) of admittance between 7pm and 8pm, I think the probability of Accomplice would increase significantly for everyone. Absence of evidence, of course, does not imply the opposite.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I have read more widely about this case now and have come across a Wallace plus collaborator theory you might find of interest (only I cannot recall the URL). In that theory a motive for the killing was speculated which also provided a motive for the collaborator being involved. I found it entirely plausible but there was absolutely no evidence to support it - it was pure speculation. I'm a little loathe to repeat it, for that reason, but in case it is of interest to you it basically went like this:

The Wallace marriage was one of convenience and appearance for Wallace. He hid behind his marriage to avoid people suspecting his homosexual tendencies. In 1931 it would have ruined him. It went on to suggest he had formed a relationship with a man and now Julia was in the way. In order that they could be more free to pursue time together (or perhaps Julia found out) they decided to kill her. Of course, at that time they would have needed to be entirely discrete and so evidence is unlikely to ever be found to support this. Nor, as far as I am aware, has anyone who knew Wallace ever suggested they suspected he might have been homosexual.

Hi Eten,

I had heard that one before but I can’t recall it’s origins. As you’ve said there’s no evidence or even suspicion that Wallace was gay but it’s not completely impossible of course. Very little is.

[cobalt]

Some recent posts seem to be placing theories on to the evidence, rather than working from the evidence towards a theory. So we are now being presented with Wallace as a cuckold, a complaisant, a closet homosexual or, as P.D. James had it, a skilled cross- dresser capable of fooling the milkboy. We are now entering the territory where a total lack of evidence, for example about Wallace being gay, is not considered a hindrance since in 'these days' things would be more discreet.

I’m just as guilty of playing the armchair psychologist/sociologist as anybody else, for the temptation is so great given the contrasting characters of Wallace and Parry. The photographs establish this in our minds: the bespectacled, stoical Wallace as opposed to the mugshot of a brooding, psychopathic Parry. Wallace is a man of probity; tall, ascetic, sober, if a little sickly. Parry is a dishonest scoundrel; wiry, saturnine, dandyish, energetic. Wallace plods the streets of Liverpool to ply his trade and enjoys a quiet game of chess: Parry zooms around in a flashy car and prefers theatrical pursuits. From these brief brush strokes I suspect our prejudices surrounding the case are founded.

The truth about Wallace and Parry is doubtless more complex. Wallace is portrayed as boring, yet he met many people in the course of his work and was just as likely an engaging conversationalist with a dry sense of humour, a man who enjoyed a fag and whose ‘lad’s talk’ about his days in Shanghai made the young Parry consider him ‘sexually weird.’ In a similar vein Parry may well have been a generous spirit, loyal to his close friends as well as having some cultural refinement and ultimately proved capable of self-reflection. He was presumably resilient at the very least, leading an apparently respectable life after his imprisonment. These were real people: not characters from a crime drama.

So, in attempting to practice what I preach, I shall return to the evidence.
Why did the murder occur in the parlour?
Why did the murderer remove the murder weapon from the house?
And how did Alan Close the milkboy die? It seems that Parry, although living in London, was aware of his death almost 40 years after the crime had been committed. Not many of us follow the life and times of our local milkboy so many years afterwards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some recent posts seem to be placing theories on to the evidence, rather than working from the evidence towards a theory. So we are now being presented with Wallace as a cuckold, a complaisant, a closet homosexual or, as P.D. James had it, a skilled cross- dresser capable of fooling the milkboy. We are now entering the territory where a total lack of evidence, for example about Wallace being gay, is not considered a hindrance since in 'these days' things would be more discreet.

I’m just as guilty of playing the armchair psychologist/sociologist as anybody else, for the temptation is so great given the contrasting characters of Wallace and Parry. The photographs establish this in our minds: the bespectacled, stoical Wallace as opposed to the mugshot of a brooding, psychopathic Parry. Wallace is a man of probity; tall, ascetic, sober, if a little sickly. Parry is a dishonest scoundrel; wiry, saturnine, dandyish, energetic. Wallace plods the streets of Liverpool to ply his trade and enjoys a quiet game of chess: Parry zooms around in a flashy car and prefers theatrical pursuits. From these brief brush strokes I suspect our prejudices surrounding the case are founded.

The truth about Wallace and Parry is doubtless more complex. Wallace is portrayed as boring, yet he met many people in the course of his work and was just as likely an engaging conversationalist with a dry sense of humour, a man who enjoyed a fag and whose ‘lad’s talk’ about his days in Shanghai made the young Parry consider him ‘sexually weird.’ In a similar vein Parry may well have been a generous spirit, loyal to his close friends as well as having some cultural refinement and ultimately proved capable of self-reflection. He was presumably resilient at the very least, leading an apparently respectable life after his imprisonment. These were real people: not characters from a crime drama.

So, in attempting to practice what I preach, I shall return to the evidence.
Why did the murder occur in the parlour?
Why did the murderer remove the murder weapon from the house?
And how did Alan Close the milkboy die? It seems that Parry, although living in London, was aware of his death almost 40 years after the crime had been committed. Not many of us follow the life and times of our local milkboy so many years afterwards.

I believe that the murder occurred in the Parlour because that was where Wallace was as Julia was just finishing with Alan Close. His plan was to use the mackintosh to protect him from blood spatter (the only sensible explanation for its presence in my opinion) and he realised that it was also his way of getting Julia into the Parlour too. He asked her to bring him his mackintosh as soon as he heard the door close.

I believe that Wallace removed the weapon because, as a household item, he felt that it would have pointed to him. He’d also believe that the absence of a weapon would create the impression that the killer brought his own weapon along with him.

I believe that Alan Close dies during the war. I have to admit that I can’t recall Parry recalling the fact that Close had died? I don’t know if Parry kept in touch with anyone from Liverpool after he’d left? Maybe he visited Liverpool and someone told him? I can’t give a conclusive answer though Cobalt.

[RodCrosby]

So, in attempting to practice what I preach, I shall return to the evidence.
Why did the murder occur in the parlour?
Why did the murderer remove the murder weapon from the house?
And how did Alan Close the milkboy die? It seems that Parry, although living in London, was aware of his death almost 40 years after the crime had been committed. Not many of us follow the life and times of our local milkboy so many years afterwards.

a) because that was where the killer was when Julia confronted him in some way
b) having killed, he knew he might have to kill again, if he found someone blocking his escape from the house
c) Alan Close died fighting for his country in 1940 http://www.traffordwardead.co.uk/ind...&soldier=Close

[cobalt]

a) I'm not sure why Wallace would be getting dressed in the parlour. His request to bring the mackintosh there might have seemed unusual. Since he was presumably clothed when Julia brought it to him, then he performed miracles in removing all signs of blood in such a short time.

There does not seem to have been much of a confrontation between Julia and her attacker. She was judged to have been struck from behind with no defensive injuries so far as I can recall.

b)So the murderer would have polished off Mr. Johnston as well had the neighbour been alerted to the attack? Or even a late delivery boy?

c) Parry's knowledge of Close, whose death during the war would have been officially published, is less suspicious given the circumstances.