The murder of Julia Wallace

[RodCrosby]

The Man from the Pru (1990) - a dramatisation of the case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rDwxrS1HeE

Pros: standout performances from Pryce (Wallace), Tom Georgeson (Supt. Moore) and Gary Mavers (Parry). The period detail is absolute perfection, and actually filmed in and around Wolverton Street, Calderstones Park, Sefton Park and St. George's Hall. The 'facts' which are definitely facts, are generally presented accurately.

Cons:  too many flashbacks/flashforwards, the jarring Chinese execution scenes, and the suggestion of sexual intrigue between Wallace/Amy and Parry/Julia, for which there is absolutely no evidence. [They didn't know in 1989 that Julia was touching 70 at the time of her death]

[RodCrosby]

I have two questions at this point.  I'm particularly aiming this at Rod, but anyone who knows should feel free to answer:

(i). When Wallace was going round asking for the whereabouts of the fictitious street, did he hand anybody the note given to him by whoever it was at chess club, or did he hand them his own note? 

(ii). In either case, was the name 'Qualtrough' spelt correctly on that note?

(i) Beattie wrote the call details down on the back of an envelope [presented in court], and "gave" the envelope to Wallace, who, Beattie saw, wrote them down in his own memorandum book.[presented in court]. There is no record, AFAIK, of Wallace handing his book, or the note, to anyone on his journey.

(ii) There is no allegation that it wasn't, although in the Police Files there were I think two references to the name "Qualthorp", but, from memory, these were in very early memos from one officer to another.[simple Police/typist errors, probably] No issue of the spelling, by Wallace or anyone else, was ever taken in Court.

The Roger Wilkes radio station was independent, not BBC, btw.

[RodCrosby]

Why would this person wish to purchase insurance anyway by this means: if he had Wallace's business card surely he would contact him through the normal channel? Why was nothing stolen in the house, why was the mackintosh underneath the victim and why did Wallace strive so hard to gain witnesses throughout that evening?

We need to know something of the social mores of the time, and the geography of Liverpool

I suspect Wallace was an early victim of 'social engineering' and 'scam by telephone', which of course continues today.

Few people had telephones in 1931. Wallace certainly didn't. From Sherlock Holmes through 1920s detective fiction it was a commonplace plot device to "leave a message at his club", or "ring up his club", although Wallace agreed it had never happened to him before.

Perhaps he felt great pride in being singled-out as the "go-to" man for insurance, in front of his peers. Perhaps he presumed a fellow-member had recommend him to someone "there's a fellow down my club who does insurance. Wallace is his name." Several members, Beattie and Deyes at least, lived near Menlove Gardens in the far more swanky southern end of Liverpool, as did Wallace's supervisor Crewe.

£4 [about £267 today] was stolen from the house, although the thief probably expected ten times that amount.

We'll come to the mackintosh later, if I may.

Again social mores. There was a commonplace phrase of the times "Ask a Policeman !", and people were generally more open, communicative and helpful than they are today. Wallace was by nature a methodical, insurance-peddler, determined to demonstrate he had left no stone unturned. [What if Qualtrough complained to the Pru "your man never turned up for his appointment!" ?]

When his fellow insurance-peddlers [the Prudential Staff Union] held an unprecedented secret mock-trial in London, hearing the evidence, for and against, the verdict was unanimous acquittal, and the defraying of his defence costs in his forthcoming murder trial. So nothing sounded strange to these people!

In any event, it's one of the great myths of the case that any of this was supposed to provide an 'alibi' for Wallace. His 'alibi'  hinged entirely on the fortuitous arrival of milk-boy Alan Close at 29 Wolverton Street.

[Steve_uk]

We need to know something of the social mores of the time, and the geography of Liverpool

I suspect Wallace was an early victim of 'social engineering' and 'scam by telephone', which of course continues today.

Few people had telephones in 1931. Wallace certainly didn't. From Sherlock Holmes through 1920s detective fiction it was a commonplace plot device to "leave a message at his club", or "ring up his club", although Wallace agreed it had never happened to him before.

Perhaps he felt great pride in being singled-out as the "go-to" man for insurance, in front of his peers. Perhaps he presumed a fellow-member had recommend him to someone "there's a fellow down my club who does insurance. Wallace is his name." Several members, Beattie, Deyes and Bethurn at least, lived near Menlove Gardens in the far more swanky southern end of Liverpool, as did Wallace's supervisor Crewe.

£4 [about £267 today] was stolen from the house, although the thief probably expected ten times that amount.

We'll come to the mackintosh later, if I may.

Again social mores. There was a commonplace phrase of the times "Ask a Policeman !", and people were generally more open, communicative and helpful than they are today. Wallace was by nature a methodical, insurance-peddler, determined to demonstrate he had left no stone unturned. [What if Qualtrough complained to the Pru "your man never turned up for his appointment!" ?]

When his fellow insurance-peddlers [the Prudential Staff Union] held an unprecedented secret mock-trial in London, hearing the evidence, for and against, the verdict was unanimous acquittal, and the defraying of his defence costs in his forthcoming murder trial. So nothing sounded strange to these people!

In any event, it's one of the great myths of the case that any of this was supposed to provide an 'alibi' for Wallace. His 'alibi'  hinged entirely on the fortuitous arrival of milk-boy Alan Close at 29 Wolverton Street.

We don't really know that a sum of money was stolen from the house; we only have Wallace's word how much was there before he left. He could well have asked his wife to have a word with the milk delivery boy on some pretext or other. The fact is after the smoke and mirrors of the case have been removed the wife was killed. The feature of the putative attentive husband murdering the wife is the central plot of Agatha Christie's Mysterious Affair at Styles, which he and his spouse may well have read for entertainment in the days before television.

His colleagues may have rallied round along with the Establishment due to his previous role in the provision of uniforms for the armed forces in India, which explains why the latter intervened to prevent him from being hanged.

[Steve_uk]

i never saw a real motie for her husband to kill her he dident stand to gain any money there was no other woman and they seemed to get on all right so he had no real reason to.

I believe there was a sister whom Wallace seemed attracted to. The motive was in any case to get rid of a woman whom he came to despise and move to a more salubrious area, which he did.

[RodCrosby]

We don't really know that a sum of money was stolen from the house; we only have Wallace's word how much was there before he left. He could well have asked his wife to have a word with the milk delivery boy on some pretext or other. The fact is after the smoke and mirrors of the case have been removed the wife was killed. The feature of the putative attentive husband murdering the wife is the central plot of Agatha Christie's Mysterious Affair at Styles, which he and his spouse may well have read for entertainment in the days before television.

His colleagues may have rallied round along with the Establishment due to his previous role in the provision of uniforms for the armed forces in India, which explains why the latter intervened to prevent him from being hanged.

His accounts were always in order, according to his supervisor's testimony at Trial, and the books proved it. Unless it's some weird theory that Wallace destroyed the £4. If so, we might wonder why he didn't choose a night when he had much more money in the house, to appear "more convincing." Only Wallace knew there was such an unusually small sum that night, because he had been ill the previous weekend, and been unable to work his round.

There was no need for pretexts, etc. Julia spoke to Alan Close as usual, telling him to "run along home because he had a cough." She had one too.  A physical exchange of milk-cans had to occur, as normal, to receive the milk. She had to open the door for the milk-boy, if she wanted milk. Close called every day, but crucially, this day he was very late. Even if it was a "pretext" how is that supposed to help the case against Wallace? Julia is seen alive, either way !

People read all kinds of books all the time. They don't all follow through with their plots to murder. I can't think of one who has. In fact, Wallace wasn't into that stuff. A man of science, his shelves were filled with Stoic philosophy, Botany, Chemistry, the Armchair Scientist, etc. He was fond of the wireless, listening to Ibsen plays. No evidence Julia was into pulp fiction either. She spent her time with painting, and tinkling the ivories, and household chores...

The Pru members from all over the country who gathered in London had no knowledge or interest of his past. They were all strangers to him, and focused entirely on the charge against him, and the lack of evidence.

[RodCrosby]

I believe there was a sister whom Wallace seemed attracted to. The motive was in any case to get rid of a woman whom he came to despise and move to a more salubrious area, which he did.

Amy [Wallace's sister-in-law] spent more time in the company of Julia. She was there on the afternoon of the day of the murder, and was invited to stay to tea by Julia, which she declined.

"In fact, so far as the happiness of this household is concerned, the Crown knows nothing to the contrary of the view that these two people were very happy together." Hemmerde KC, opening speech for the Prosecution.

You know better?

The only way that Wallace managed to move to a more salubrious area was via libel settlements he received from idiots who continued to insinuate he had murdered his wife...

[guest29835]

Ibsen plays, eh?  Good that he liked those.  I'm warming to him now. That may tilt it towards Not Guilty. 

I don't know much about the case, though I feel certain I have read about it in the past and simply forgotten.  I like this case anyway because of the chess association and the whole chessic connotation in the murder plot. 

The Qualtrough name is already known to me, for unrelated personal reasons that I need not expand on here.  (Your pronunciation is correct).  This personal factor caused me to home in (and hone in) on the name itself. 

It seems to me that if the name was spelt correctly when written down, that establishes nothing one way or the other.  An innocent Wallace should not be punished because he is sufficiently literate to know how the name is spelt.

But if the name was spelt incorrectly by Wallace himself (whether or not copied down from someone else), this would tend to point to innocence, because if he has concocted the whole thing, it is more likely than not that the name would be spelt in the correct way. 

A further question in the same vein would be whether the name was spelt out for Beattie by the caller, as that clearly affects this line of deduction.

Another way of asking the question: Was the spelling 'Qualtrough' established only after the incident? 

Qualtrough is a patronymic Gaelic name (in fact, Scottish) meaning 'son of Walter'.  There are variations of the name, the closest being 'McQualtrough' and 'MacQualtrough', but there are no orthographic or phonetic variations of the specific derivation 'Qualtrough'.

I accept this is not conclusive, and it's a minor point perhaps, but what made my think of this is that, from a distant memory about this case, I distinctly remember Wallace handing the note to a policeman, partly due to understandable confusion on the policeman's part about the address, but also perhaps due to a need for an abundance of emphasis on the part of Wallace (especially if Wallace is guilty).  Would he go to the length of deliberately misspelling the name?

Overall, he does look guilty, but that does not make him guilty in law.  As with many of these cases, the tentative (and provisional) view I take is that it is quite likely the police got the right person, but the evidence was not there to convict.

[Steve_uk]

His accounts were always in order, according to his supervisor's testimony at Trial, and the books proved it. Unless it's some weird theory that Wallace destroyed the £4. If so, we might wonder why he didn't choose a night when he had much more money in the house, to appear "more convincing.".Only Wallace knew there was such an unusually small sum that night, because he had been ill the previous weekend, and been unable to work his round.

There was no need for pretexts, etc. Julia spoke to Alan Close as usual, telling him to "run along home because he had a cough." She had one too,  A physical exchange of milk-cans had to occur, as normal, to receive the milk. She had to open the door for the milk-boy, if she wanted milk. Close called every day, but crucially, this day he was very late. Even if it was a "pretext" how is that supposed to help the case against Wallace? Julia is seen alive, either way !

People read all kinds of books all the time. They don't all follow through with their plots to murder. I can't think of one who has. In fact, Wallace wasn't into that stuff. A man of science, his shelves were filled with Stoic philosophy, Botany, Chemistry, the Armchair Scientist, etc. He was fond of the wireless, listening to Ibsen plays. No evidence Julia was either. She spent her time with painting, and tinkling the ivories, and household chores...

The Pru members from all over the country who gathered in London had no knowledge or interest of his past. They were all strangers to him, and focused entirely on the charge against him, and the lack of evidence.

If Wallace is guilty he has mental health issues to say the least, like Holden Caufield in J.D . Salinger's book The Catcher in the Rye. The book has been claimed to be responsible for motivating Mark David Chapman and John Hinckley Jr.

[RodCrosby]

Rather than me answer point by point, which I'm happy to do, if you are really interested we might get there quicker if you do a little reading... [directed to all, not only the last poster]

I recommend, in order of reading.

Edward Winter
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/wallace.html
Excellent background precis, focusing somewhat on the Chess aspects, but many other key quotes are gathered together. One wag said "if Wallace ought not to have hanged for the murder, he ought to have hanged for his chess..."

Dorothy L. Sayers (1936) "The Anatomy of Murder" [chapter]
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.220696/page/n165/mode/2up?view=theater
Sceptical, I would say, and quite witty. [a couple of minor errors, such as (James) Allison Wildman being a girl]

Edgar Lustgarten (1950) "Verdict in Dispute" [chapter]
https://archive.org/details/verdictindispute00lustuoft/page/162/mode/2up?view=theater
Sceptical, I would say.

W. F. Wyndham-Brown (1933) "The Trial of William Herbert Wallace"
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.220695/page/n3/mode/2up?view=theater
abridged Trial Transcript, the go to reference for the fine detail.

Roger Wilkes (1985) "Wallace - The Final Verdict"
mentioned up-thread. Immensely readable. Spellbinding. Strong case against Parry, but ultimately flawed conclusion.

Jonathan Goodman (1969, 1987) "The Killing of Julia Wallace"
did much of the spade-work for Wilkes. A landmark book at the time.(1969).

James Murphy (2001) "The Murder of Julia Wallace"
standard "Wallace did it", containing many errors of fact and logic. A point, though, for researching Julia's true age and background.  Unknowingly, Murphy first published the evidence which points to the Correct Solution. (Hard to find the book now. Expensive. Probably best obtained via a library, if that is possible.)

Antony M. Brown (2018, 2021) "Move to Murder"
Examines ALL the theories, first evidentially and logically, then "reconstructing" what might have happened with fictional narratives, before plumping for a new theory. Mine. Some interesting original research in this book.

There are other, lesser works, which I can list later.

[guest29835]

Rather than me answer point by point, which I'm happy to do, if you are really interested we might get there quicker if you do a little reading... [directed to all, not only the last poster]

I recommend, in order.

Winter
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/wallace.html
Excellent background precis, focusing somewhat on the Chess aspects, but many other key quotes gathered together. One wag said "if Wallace ought not to have hanged for the murder, he ought to have hanged for his chess..."

Dorothy L. Sayers (1936) "The Anatomy of Murder" [chapter]
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.220696/page/n165/mode/2up?view=theater
Sceptical, I would say, and quite witty. [a couple of minor errors, such as (James) Allison Wildman being a girl]

Edgar Lustgarten (1950) "Verdict in Dispute" [chapter]
https://archive.org/details/verdictindispute00lustuoft/page/162/mode/2up?view=theater
Sceptical, I would say.

W. F. Wyndham-Brown (1933) "The Trial of William Herbert Wallace"
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.220695/page/n3/mode/2up?view=theater
abridged Trial Transcript, the go to reference for the fine detail.

Roger Wilkes (1985) "Wallace - the final verdict"
mentioned up-thread. Immensely readable. Spellbinding. Strong case against Parry, but ultimately flawed conclusion.

Jonathan Goodman (1969, 1987) "The Killing of Julia Wallace"
did much of the spade-work for Wilkes. A landmark book at the time.(1969).

James Murphy (2001) "The Murder of Julia Wallace"
standard "Wallace did it", containing many errors of fact and logic. A point for researching Julia's true age and background.  Unknowingly, Murphy first published the evidence which points to the Correct Solution.

Antony M. Brown (2018, 2021) "Move to Murder"
Examines ALL the theories, first evidentially and logically, then "reconstructing" what might have happened with fictional narratives, before plumping for a new theory. Mine. Some interesting original research in this book.

There are other, lesser works, which I can list later.

Thank you, Rod.  Your knowledge and expertise are greatly appreciated.

[RodCrosby]

Some more...

Daily Telegraph, (2001)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/4814433/Inside-story-29-Wolverton-Street.html
entertaining short article by Roger Wilkes

Yahoo!Groups, (2003)
https://archive.ph/20130105185113/http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/unsolvedbritishmurders/message/27
Another entertaining article, from a Crime Compendium, in Wallace's favour

F. Tennyson Jesse, (1953), essay "Checkmate"
https://www.dropbox.com/s/og96f9012qelpni/CHECKMATE.pdf?dl=0
Thinks Wallace guilty, on nothing more than a hunch. Bizarrely proposes that Wallace disposed of the murder weapon in the River Mersey. Anfield is three miles inland...

In A City Living, (2011) blogspot [illustrated with many photos]
https://inacityliving.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-wallace-murder-case.html
a neutral recitation of the case, in great detail

Robert F Hussey - Murderer Scot-Free (1972)
basically endorses and develops Goodman's theory [either Mr "Y", OR another, "Mr "Z", acting alone, who correspond to Marsden and Parry, respectively]

Hargrave Lee Adam - Murder Most Mysterious (1932) [chapter]
https://archive.org/details/murdermostmyster00adam/page/261/mode/1up?view=theater
Wallace probably didn't do it; a commentary on the trial and appeal.

John Brophy - The Meaning of Murder (1966), [chapter] "The Liverpool Classic"
Wallace didn't do it.

John Rowland - The Wallace Case (1949)
Wallace was innocent

John Gannon - The Killing of Julia Wallace (2012)
Wallace, Parry and Marsden conspired to kill Julia. Wallace "blackmailed" the boys into killing her because he discovered they were shagging Julia. Aside from the silly theory, there is a lot of [over-]detailed research on just about every aspect of the case, although very disorganised.

Yseult Bridges - Two Studies in Crime (1959)
Wallace did it. Biased and error-strewn. Tries to compare Wallace with the murderer Courvoisier, a century earlier.

Ronald Bartle - The Telephone Murder (2018)
Wallace did it. The first edition was ludicrously error-strewn.

Mark Russell - Checkmate: The Wallace Murder Mystery (2021)
Wallace did it. Biased and hugely intemperate in making his case.

Richard Waterhouse - The Insurance Man (1994) [very short and self-published, I think]
Wallace and Parry did it together.

Winifred Duke - Six Trials (1934) [chapter]
Possibly thinks Wallace innocent (I'm not sure, it's a very difficult book to find)

F.J.P. Veale - The Wallace Case (1950) [another short pamphlet]
I don't know what Veale thinks. The work is essentially unobtainable.

[nugnug]

i seewhy the police thought wallace was guilty hes behavior does look uspicious but at the same time i cant see that he had motive or means very short time rame for him to hae one it and cleaned up

[guest29835]

Some more...

Daily Telegraph, (2001)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/4814433/Inside-story-29-Wolverton-Street.html
entertaining article by Roger Wilkes

Yahoo!Groups, (2003)
https://archive.ph/20130105185113/http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/unsolvedbritishmurders/message/27
Another entertaining article, from a Crime Compendium, in Wallace's favour

F. Tennyson Jesse, (1953), essay "Checkmate"
https://www.dropbox.com/s/og96f9012qelpni/CHECKMATE.pdf?dl=0
Thinks Wallace guilty, on little more than a hunch. Bizarrely proposes that Wallace disposed of the murder weapon in the River Mersey. Anfield is three miles inland...

In A City Living, (2011) blogspot [illustrated with many photos]
https://inacityliving.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-wallace-murder-case.html
a neutral recitation of the case, in great detail

Robert F Hussey - Murderer Scot-Free (1972)
basically endorses and develops Goodman's theory [either Mr "Y", OR another, "Mr "Z", acting alone, who correspond to Marsden and Parry, respectively]

Hargrave Lee Adam - Murder Most Mysterious (1932) [chapter]
https://archive.org/details/murdermostmyster00adam/page/261/mode/1up?view=theater
Wallace probably didn't do it, a commentary on the trial and appeal.

John Brophy - The Meaning of Murder (1966), chapter "The Liverpool Classic"
Wallace didn't do it.

John Rowland - The Wallace Case (1949)
Wallace was innocent

John Gannon - The Killing of Julia Wallace (2012)
Wallace, Parry and Marsden conspired to kill Julia. Wallace "blackmailed" the boys into killing her because he discovered they were shagging Julia. Aside from the silly theory, there is a lot of [over-]detailed research on just about every aspect of the case, although very disorganised.

Yseult Bridges - Two Studies in Crime (1959)
Wallace did it. Biased and error-strewn. Tries to compare Wallace with the murderer Courvoisier, a century before.

Ronald Bartle - The Telephone Murder (2018)
Wallace did it. The first edition was ludicrously error-strewn.

Mark Russell - Checkmate: The Wallace Murder Mystery (2021)
Wallace did it. Biased and hugely intemperate in making his case.

Richard Waterhouse - The Insurance Man (1994) [very short and self-published, I think]
Wallace and Parry did it together.

Winifred Duke - Six Trials (1934) [chapter]
Possibly thinks Wallace innocent (I'm not sure, it's a very difficult book to find)

F.J.P. Veale - The Wallace Case (1950) [another short pamphlet]
I don't know what Veale thinks. The work is essentially unobtainable.

Extremely grateful - thank you, Rod!

[nugnug]

o you think wallae was guilty rod