Julia Wallace Murder Case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaisyChains

Was there ever anything concluded about the blood in the lavatory pan Mark?

---

Hi DaisyChains

MacFall concluded that the blood found on the lavatory pan was human and not menstrual. Dr Robert Coope conducted 118 tests using blood and came to the conclusion that the blood found on the lavatory pan would have been deposited there at least an hour after death. The shape and form (a small pyramid, a bit like a split 'pea') could not have made that mark immediately after the killing. The possibility being that it could have been taken up there by any of the police, medical staff or even Wallace himself.

Another point which has always intrigued me, and I don't think I've seen discussed in print.
"Did the activities of the Anfield Housebreaker cease after the murder of Julia Wallace?"

Wallace was Innocent - here's why...

'Do you know Mr Wallace's voice well?' said Oliver.

'Yes.' Beattie replied.

'Does it occur to you that it was anything like his voice?'

'Certainly not.' said Beattie firmly.

'Does it occur to you now that it was anything like his voice?'

Beattie replied that, 'It would be a great stretch of the imagination for me to say it was anything like that.'

In my view, that short exchange between Roland Oliver, K.C. and Samuel Beattie saved Wallace's neck...

Think about it....
It was accepted by Prosecution and Defence (and by all serious students of the crime) that Qualtrough was the killer.
Therefore, if Wallace was Qualtrough he was setting-up his alibi in a suicidal fashion. Why?

Wallace was not a Liverpudlian. There is no evidence that he ever dabbled in amateur dramatics or was practised in disguising his voice. It is almost certain Wallace did not speak precisely like a native Liverpudlian, and highly likely he spoke distinctively differently. If Wallace was Qualtrough he knew there was a high probability he might be speaking to someone at the Chess Club who would know him personally to some degree, and therefore a high risk his voice would be recognised, even if he was trying to conceal it. So far so good.

Wallace was put through to Beattie by waitress Gladys Harley. If Wallace was Qualtrough surely the last thing he would want would to be put through to someone who might recognise him. He would surely have said to Harley "There's no need to trouble anyone, dearie. Will YOU just write down this message for me." 99% of waitresses would happily go along with this request, in my view. But no, Qualtrough is happy to be put through to someone senior. I also find it inconcievable that Wallace/Qualtrough could have remained calm and collected while simultaneously trying to fake a voice to fool Beattie, who was in life anything but a fool. He would have wavered, hesitated, exaggerated his "cover voice", all the while searching for any sign that Beattie smelt a rat. He could not know that he hadn't....

Likewise, half an hour later he would be speaking to Beattie face-to-face in the Chess Club, discussing the contents of the call. He could not be certain that something, somewhere in the back of Beattie's mind was ringing a little bell of recognition, perhaps just a vaguely familiar vowel sound or cadence...

Furthermore, even if Wallace gambled that he had got away with it so far, and resolved to continue with the plan to its murderous fruition the following night, common sense would have told him he could not be certain Beattie's memory might not in the fullness of time, by now aware of the terrible crime, concentrate on the voice on the phone, and cast doubt on the identity of the caller. Wallace could not know that Beattie would be so resolutely certain on the witness stand that the caller was NOT Wallace. Beattie might or might not be.

I am certain this one piece of evidence saved Wallace's life. If Beattie had said "I don't know", "Can't be sure", "Can't remember" or some such Wallace would have surely gone to the gallows.

How could Wallace know that Beattie's denial would be so steadfast? He couldn't. Therefore he would not have risked all on a plan that hinged on such an unknown. Therefore Wallace was not Qualtrough, and was not the killer.

Beattie's unshakeable certainty (and the complete lack of bloodstains) were the two strongest points in Wallace's favour. In my view it was Beattie's testimony that tipped the balance at the Court of Appeal...

In my view the killer was relaxed during that call, because he knew no-one could possibly recognise his "ordinary sounding" voice, and probably at that stage killing was the last thing on his mind.... Occam's Razor suggests the murder started as a cunningly planned burglary which went disastrously wrong...

btw, there is a reprint of the 1933 "Trial of William Herbert Wallace" just come out in the U.S. At about £55 it's steep, but less than half the price of the extremely rare original edition.
http://www.gaunt.com/w.htm

FWIW, my late grandfather, John Goodwin (1883-1949), was acquainted with Wallace as a fellow-member of the Central Chess Club. He swore to his dying day "Wallace didn't do it...", but alas, I have no insight into his reasoning...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RodCrosby

Another point which has always intrigued me, and I don't think I've seen discussed in print.
"Did the activities of the Anfield Housebreaker cease after the murder of Julia Wallace?"

---

I have a list of the housebreaking activities in the area. Don't know whether they ceased. The lists I have are the police ones - It seems that list is solely showing the possibilites because of the connection with the case. Tom Slemen claimed John Sharpe Johnston (Wallace's neighbour at no.31) was the Anfield Housebreaker. He moved house immediately after the killing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark R

...Tom Slemen claimed John Sharpe Johnston (Wallace's neighbour at no.31) was the Anfield Housebreaker. He moved house immediately after the killing.

---

Who wouldn't have done ?

Have tried to make a long post, which has gone into "moderation." Is that normal, and will it likely re-appear?

Yes. I've never been convinced that the Johnstons murdered Julia (even more so because they moved house). I think it would have looked extremely suspicious moving house (from a guilt perspective). Would a guilty Johnston have moved?

Hiya Rod hopefully its there now :PDT_Piratz_26:

I agree with what you say. I've always believed that the call was in favour of Wallace's innocence. He would have been suicidal to use a phone so close to his own home. In his book The Murder of Julia Wallace, James Murphy claims that Wallace had no option but to use that particular box. I believe nothing of the sort - he could have used one further away from Anfield or even in the city centre. I also believe there are many more points in favour of Wallace's innocence - the number 1 with me being the lack of blood on his person/clothing. Other factors are: MacFall's original belief that Julia had died 2 hours before he arrived. In other words that she was murdered at about 7.50 (Wallace was in the post office on Allerton Road at about this time); Florence Johnston claiming that Julia's hand was still warm. Mrs. Johnston also claiming that she heard 'bangs' at about 8.15 - 8.30; Close's testimony that he was half an hour late for his milk round due to his bike being damaged. Wildman's testimony regarding his newspaper round; the testimony of Elsie Wright; and Wallace's complete absence on the first tram being noticed.

I for one can't really make my mind up about Wallace.
I certainly don't know nearly as much about the case as Mark but I have read a bit about it.

As for the next door neighbours moving away, I don't think I personally would want to live next door to where something so gruesome had happened.

There is something in Wallace's first statement which is of interest (as printed in Murphy's book)
"I then boarded another car up Menlove Avene West, looking for 25 Menlove Avenue East where I had an appointment with Mr RM Qualtrough for 7.30pm...."

An odd slip to make by a criminal mastermind.... or just an understandable error made by a dazed, confused old duffer whose world had just come crashing down around him?

Also, can someone answer these two questions definitively, since various works seem to be ambiguous and contradictory on the points.

i) was the front door of 29 Wolverton Street bolted from the inside when Wallace returned?
ii) the photographs of Julia's corpse in the parlour show a mackintosh lying some distance from her body. Was that mackintosh originally found over her shoulders and moved away from the body before the police photo was taken? If so, who moved it? There appears to be a mackintosh belt still lying under Julia's body, protruding from under her neck or upper chest.

Thanks

Just to say today's the 75th anniversary of Wallace's death. RIP an innocent man and his wife...

http://www.anfieldcemetery.co.uk/anf...s/image064.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RodCrosby

Just to say today's the 75th anniversary of Wallace's death. RIP an innocent man and his wife...

---

I've never seen GUILTY spelt that way before. Did you get your dictionary from Jeffrey Archer perchance ? :D

Well, all I can say is I have just spent an hour up around Wolverton St and elsewhere, and a more plausible theory comes to mind...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RodCrosby

Also, can someone answer these two questions definitively, since various works seem to be ambiguous and contradictory on the points.

i) was the front door of 29 Wolverton Street bolted from the inside when Wallace returned?
ii) the photographs of Julia's corpse in the parlour show a mackintosh lying some distance from her body. Was that mackintosh originally found over her shoulders and moved away from the body before the police photo was taken? If so, who moved it? There appears to be a mackintosh belt still lying under Julia's body, protruding from under her neck or upper chest.

Thanks

---

Wallace claimed he unbolted the front door when PC Frederick Roberts Williams knocked at about 9.10. WHW claimed it was bolted.
Florence Johnston claimed she thought the photo looked 'staged' and that the mackintosh was in a different position. When Wallace and the Johnstons first saw the body they claimed the mackintosh was tucked under the body. It had obviously been moved from the other photo (as had a stack of papers on the sideboard next to what looks like a fruit bowl). I don't know of anybody ever mentioning this before but it is noticeable...

Thanks Mark

Some other questions.
i) What were Richard Gordon Parry's movements on Mon 19th January. I know he was supposed to have been at Lily Lloyd's from 7.15, but how long did he stay there that night?
ii) Apart from the chess club, what other activities, if any, were occurring at the city cafe on the Monday night?

I'm not sure exactly how long Parry was at the Lloyds on the 19th. I think it was apparently for some considerable time (thereby covering him for the phone call). But who is to say that he was there at 7.15? I know it was Lily Lloyd's mother that stated he was there 'about that time' but I suppose there could be an argument that it could have been after 7.15.
As regards Cottle City Cafe - it doubled also as a venue for a theatrical group - I'm not sure on which day though.

Lily Lloyd and her mother had a motive for giving Parry an alibi obviously but didn't lily Lloyd retract one of them (either the phone call night or the murder night - can't remember now - when she fell out with him?)

The lad who worked in the garage - ref: the bloodied glove didn't have any motive to point the finger yet eventually did.

Parry had one, maybe two motives to kill - affair/bungled robbery - I still think Parry done it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ged

Lily Lloyd and her mother had a motive for giving Parry an alibi obviously but didn't lily Lloyd retract one of them (either the phone call night or the murder night - can't remember now - when she fell out with him?) The lad who worked in the garage - ref: the bloodied glove didn't have any motive to point the finger yet eventually did.

---

That's right Ged - Lily Lloyd swore that she would sign an affidavit (to Wallace's solicitor Hector Munro), claiming that she wasn't with him at the time she stated on the 20th January. Munro claimed that he didn't bother because he didn't have a client as Wallace was already dead. Munro was only bothered with getting Wallace off.
John Parkes - yes, when the Radio City programme makers made contact with him in 1981 he told them everything. I suppose it could be argued that he was jumping on the bandwagon but there is a strong argument that he told the Atkinson's of the incident that same night/early hours of the next morning (20/21 January 1931). Parkes to me sounds genuine...

No I don't think Parry did it, but I am moving towards a solution which fits all the known facts... It's blindingly obvious, really....
Can you guess?

I've got my own thoughts on it. :shock:

In his book The Murder of Julia Wallace James Murphy mentions 'criminal profiling', claiming (in Parry's favour) that a criminal goes on a career of crime which would culminate in murder much later and not early in their career. Later on in the book Murphy then goes on to compare Wallace with Lowell Lee Andrews (who was convicted of murdering his parents and sister). Andrews was in his late teens when he committed the crime. So much for profiling... Murphy also neatly ignores the fact that Wallace never had a criminal record of any kind and was an exemplary worker, never being a penny out in his collecting.

Another question, Mark.

In the photo of the crime scene (taken from the doorway) there is a cushion on the chaise-longue which looks squashed, as if someone has been recently sitting there. I understand the forensics indicated Julia had been sitting (rather uncomfortably) on the chair to the left of the fireplace.
Was there ever any speculation at the trial or in later books on the significance of the squashed cushion?

Rod knows something............

Was it Rod Crosby?

Are you very old and wanting to get something off your chest maybe? :)

If you know the killer, get in there before Keith Andrews and Tom Slemen - oh well, maybe anytime will do then ;)

No I don't know the killer, and I think no-one ever will. But it wasn't Wallace, it wasn't Parry and it wasn't the Johnstons...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark R

Yes. I've never been convinced that the Johnstons murdered Julia (even more so because they moved house). I think it would have looked extremely suspicious moving house (from a guilt perspective). Would a guilty Johnston have moved?

---

[LIST=1]
[/
I think it might have been the Johnsons because they moved after the trial. John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RodCrosby

Another question, Mark.

In the photo of the crime scene (taken from the doorway) there is a cushion on the chaise-longue which looks squashed, as if someone has been recently sitting there. I understand the forensics indicated Julia had been sitting (rather uncomfortably) on the chair to the left of the fireplace.
Was there ever any speculation at the trial or in later books on the significance of the squashed cushion?

---

Hi Rod,

I haven't read of anything concerning the squashed cushion on the chaise-longue. You're right in stating that MacFall believed Julia was sitting in the chair to the left of the fireplace. He came to the conclusion because there was no blood on the chair seat. I don't believe she was sitting when struck - I think the scenario puts her somewhere in front of the fire - there were scorch marks on the skirt and mackintosh - I think she was hit then fell onto the fire.
My own personal hunch (although I don't really like naming anyone who cannot defend themselves) is Marsden. I could be ****ing in the wind here but I have a strange feeling...

Great reading a debate about the case guys!

So come on Rod. Pray tell!

Mark, the John Wilfred Marsden, insurance agent, who lived at 55 Knoclaid Rd was probably born at Prescot, near Liverpool in early 1886, making him 45 at the time of the murder. The Marsden that Wallace mentions is described as aged "about 28 years of age", so it's unlikely to be him, although they could be related, possibly even father and son if Wallace's estimate of his age was a tad too high. Do we know the first name of the Marsden that Wallace mentioned?

Do we know for how long the Anfield Housebreaker had been at work in the district prior to the murder?

I am interested in Parry's movements on Monday 19th January as described by Lily and Josephine Lloyd's statements in the DPP file. Where could I get access to the File?

Another question.
Is it recorded by the Police whether on first examination the toilet seat and lid were in the up or down position? The photo showing the clot is obviously with the seat (and lid) up, but I'd like to know whether they were originally in that position....

An interesting fact re Parry. Murphy intimates that if Parry was Qualtrough it would have been more logical for him to have struck a week earlier, perhaps by passing a note through Wallace's door on Monday 12th January.

Except that Monday 12th January 1931 just happened to be Richard Gordon Parry's 22nd birthday........

That is another weakness in the Murphy book. If Parry had dropped a note to Wallace his handwriting would have been recognised.

Mark you have echoed what I have always thought Julia was killed whilst standing in front of or lighting the fire.
Don't be telling us too much about your theory we would rather wait for your book.

cheers
Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RodCrosby

Mark, the John Wilfred Marsden, insurance agent, who lived at 55 Knoclaid Rd was probably born at Prescot, near Liverpool in early 1886, making him 45 at the time of the murder. The Marsden that Wallace mentions is described as aged "about 28 years of age", so it's unlikely to be him, although they could be related, possibly even father and son if Wallace's estimate of his age was a tad too high. Do we know the first name of the Marsden that Wallace mentioned?

---

That is one of the puzzling things regarding Marsden. I can tell you right now that in his statement Wallace claimed Marsden as being about 28 years of age (which you correctly state). In the police records (which I have accessed) the Marsden that is listed was mentioned as working for the Prudential about 23 years ago (Making him considerably more than 28)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RodCrosby

Do we know for how long the Anfield Housebreaker had been at work in the district prior to the murder?
I am interested in Parry's movements on Monday 19th January as described by Lily and Josephine Lloyd's statements in the DPP file. Where could I get access to the File?

---

The records I have of the housebreaker (from the police file) are from 1929-1931. The Lloyd's statements are not among those held by Merseyside Police. I am hoping to get down to Kew and view the files there. As regarding the toilet seat...It is possible of course that the seat could have been down. Let's not forget that Julia had a chest infection/cold. It is possible that she could have coughed blood up previously to the 20th January.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve miller

That is another weakness in the Murphy book. If Parry had dropped a note to Wallace his handwriting would have been recognised.

Mark you have echoed what I have always thought Julia was killed whilst standing in front of or lighting the fire.
Don't be telling us too much about your theory we would rather wait for your book.

cheers
Steve

---

I'll try not to Steve!

Thanks Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark R

In the police records (which I have accessed) the Marsden that is listed was mentioned as working for the Prudential about 23 years ago (Making him considerably more than 28)...

---

That makes no sense at all. Wallace was not even in Liverpool 23 years before. Are you sure it doesn't say "2-3 years ago" ? That would chime with Wallace's second statement that Marsden had been a Pru agent for "two or three years" prior to helping with Wallace's work in December 1928.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark R

The records I have of the housebreaker (from the police file) are from 1928-1931. The Lloyd's statements are not among those held by Merseyside Police. I am hoping to get down to Kew and view the files there. As regarding the toilet seat...It is possible of course that the seat could have been down. Let's not forget that Julia had a chest infection/cold. It is possible that she could have coughed blood up previously to the 20th January.

---

Murphy states the housebreaker had only been at work for a few months, albeit in the Richmond Park area....

Another question. How long had Parry been driving a car prior to the murder?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RodCrosby

Thanks Mark
That makes no sense at all. Wallace was not even in Liverpool 23 years before. Are you sure it doesn't say "2-3 years ago" ? That would chime with Wallace's second statement that Marsden had been a Pru agent for "two or three years" prior to helping with Wallace's work in December 1928.

---

No. It is the police record stating 23 years ago (not 2-3 years ago). I was puzzled by it but might have an idea...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RodCrosby

Murphy states the housebreaker had only been at work for a few months, albeit in the Richmond Park area....?

---

The housebreaker had been active for considerably longer than Murphy states. But then again, Murphy is rather economical with the truth :slywink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RodCrosby

Another question. How long had Parry been driving a car prior to the murder?

---

I know John Parkes said that Parry used to drive what he (Parkes) described as a 'Swift' (it is actually mentioned in The Man From The Pru as well). Apparently Parry took it to Atkinsons Garage to have the engine overhauled. The company had great difficulty getting the money off him for it. As for how long he'd been driving - not sure exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark R

No. It is the police record stating 23 years ago (not 2-3 years ago). I was puzzled by it but might have an idea...

---

I have grave doubts about that, Mark. It's almost certainly a typo in the record. The Police would not talk about something happening "23 years ago." It's meaningless. They would talk about something that happened "in 1907 or 1908." I bet any copper could confirm that.

What was the first name of Wallace's Marsden? I am a genealogist, and may be able to help out with some research...

The clincher, supposedly, for Wallace's innocence was the fact that on the night before the murder Wallace won his chess game against McCartney...
The argument goes that a man planning the perfect murder would not have been able to concentrate on his game.... Sounds quite persuasive to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RodCrosby

I have grave doubts about that, Mark. It's almost certainly a typo in the record. The Police would not talk about something happening "23 years ago." It's meaningless. They would talk about something that happened "in 1907 or 1908." I bet any copper could confirm that.

---

I don't think it is a typo. If they are noting that the Marsden on the report worked for the Prudential (and it was 23 years previous) I think they would mention it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RodCrosby

The clincher, supposedly, for Wallace's innocence was the fact that on the night before the murder Wallace won his chess game against Chandler...
The argument goes that a man planning the perfect murder would not have been able to concentrate on his game.... Sounds quite persuasive to me...

---

The problem is that people have tried to find clinchers for all this time and there are none. And, as is de rigeur for this case, evidence can point both ways: it could equally be argued that the planning of the murder was well established in his mind by that point and that chess was helping his methodology and strategic thinking all along. The whole shebang (unfortunate choice of noun there) was just human chess after all.