The murder of Julia Wallace

[RodCrosby]

I suppose that he would make himself known to people on the tram as soon as possible after the killing. He knew that Julia would come to the door with a milk jug anyway to meet the milk boy on that particular evening so it wasn't much of a risk.

He didn't. It was only on the second tram (of three) that he started asking the clippie where to change next, which tram, etc, once he was already quite far from his home.

I'm not sure you grasp the significance of Close. Without Close, Wallace would not have had any alibi at all, and "time" enough to kill five people, and been left with just a shaggy-dog story about Qualtrough and Julia dead on the rug...

[Steve_uk]

He didn't. It was only on the second tram (of three) that he started asking the clippie where to change next, which tram, etc, once he was already quite far from his home.

I'm not sure you grasp the significance of Close. Without Close, Wallace would not have had any alibi at all, and "time" enough to kill five people, and been left with just a shaggy-dog story about Qualtrough and Julia dead on the rug...

Not at all. He had made sure his cronies at the chess club knew the details of the strange telephone call request, or just as much information as he wanted them to have. I assume the milk delivery was on the same night each week. Might I question also why the occupants of 29 Wolverton Street had to have milk delivered in this way and how long this custom had endured, when I would bet that most other houses on the row would have a regular morning delivery of milk bottles left on the doorstep, as was conventional at the time.

[RodCrosby]

Not at all. He had made sure his cronies at the chess club knew the details of the strange telephone call request, or just as much information as he wanted them to have. I assume the milk delivery was on the same night each week. Might I question also why the occupants of 29 Wolverton Street had to have milk delivered in this way and how long this custom had endured, when I would bet that most other houses on the row would have a regular morning delivery of milk bottles left on the doorstep, as was conventional at the time.

It was Beattie who asked around the club where Menlove Gardens East was, not Wallace. Everyone asked thought it existed, and offered suggestions of how to get there. No-one said it didn't.

You can bet what you like. You'd still lose.  Close explained in some detail at trial, his milk-round and his many customers.

And, some history. http://catecollection.com/2021/08/01/the-history-of-milk-delivery-in-the-uk/

[Steve_uk]

It was Beattie who asked around the club where Menlove Gardens East was, not Wallace. Everyone asked thought it existed, and offered suggestions of how to get there. No-one said it didn't.

You can bet what you like. You'd still lose.  Close explained in some detail at trial, his milk-round and his many customers.

And, some history. http://catecollection.com/2021/08/01/the-history-of-milk-delivery-in-the-uk/

The point about the milk delivery was that it was a regular occurrence and the milk boy's presence at the doorstep at that particular hour could be counted upon.

[nugnug]

ivve allway had a false impresion of this case becouse i thougt there were only 2 creible suspects but now it     there are sevral people who coul of one it.

[RodCrosby]

The point about the milk delivery was that it was a regular occurrence and the milk boy's presence at the doorstep at that particular hour could be counted upon.

It was entirely fortuitous that Alan Close arrived and saw Julia when he did, most likely around 6.38pm.
He stated that he was running up to half an hour late that night because his bike, which he normally used, was out of action, so he had to do his round on foot. He would normally have arrived much earlier.

But Wallace did not arrive home from work until 6.05pm. He had even stayed chatting with a client and had a cup of tea with her.

In other words, if Close was supposed to be Wallace's 'alibi', Wallace deliberately ran the risk that Close and the 'alibi' would have been and gone even before he arrived home !

Wallace would have then had time to kill five people and no alibi at all.

If Close had arrived earlier, around his usual time, Wallace would have had the following problems:
a) no alibi, because he arrived home after Close had gone, or
b) Wallace would have had to leave the house suspiciously early, immediately after killing Julia (to make it seem he didn't have the time to do it), and arrive at Menlove Gardens suspiciously early. Or, more likely, if Wallace was guilty he would have arranged the fictitious appointment for 7pm, not 7.30pm, to "close the time gap", based on Wallace's assumption that Close would arrive a lot earlier than he did, in fact, arrive.

Alternatively, if Close had arrived later still, Wallace would have had the following problems:
c) he would have had to wait for Close to arrive to have an alibi, then kill Julia, and then arrive suspiciously late for his appointment at Menlove Gardens, or
d) abandon his one-time plan to kill Julia altogether, as too risky for the above reason.

As a matter of fact, it was established that William Herbert Wallace stepped off the tram at the corner of Menlove Gardens West at 7.20pm, at exactly the time an innocent man would have, with 10 minutes in hand to find what he thought would be an address in an adjoining street...

What are the chances that Alan "Goldilocks" Close would arrive just at the right time, not too early, not too late, to allow a guilty Wallace to seem like an innocent man with such perfect timing? For that is what happened.

And who in their right mind would base anything on such a plan working out?

[RodCrosby]

ivve allway had a false impresion of this case becouse i thougt there were only 2 creible suspects but now it     there are sevral people who coul of one it.

There was only ONE credible suspect: Richard Gordon Parry. [this was confirmed by the son of the DS on the case to Roger Wilkes in the early 1980s]

Except that Parry didn't kill Julia Wallace [but he knew who did]. The Police, desperate for a conviction, were forced to turn away from Parry, and pursue a fantastical case against Wallace, which ultimately crashed and burned at the Court of Criminal Appeal.

There was no evidence against Wallace, as the Judges of Appeal agreed, and the Prosecutor, Hemmerde KC, finally conceded. A jury of prejudiced idiots had brought in an unlawful verdict, and Wallace was set free and acquitted.

[Steve_uk]

Whether the milk-boy (in some accounts it's the paperboy) was late or not had no bearing on the crime. Wallace's alibi was the abortive meeting with R.M Qualtrough, who was one and the same man. We know this because the original telephone call to the Chess Club made on the evening of 19th January 1931 was made from the Anfield 1627 telephone box, some 370 metres distant from the domicile of the accused, 29 Wolverton Street. It's almost inconceivable that R.M. Qualtrough would be making a telephone call at the same time Wallace had left his house and passing by en route to the Chess Club.

Richard Gordon Parry had an alibi corroborated by two witnesses for the evening in question.

[RodCrosby]

Whether the milk-boy (in some accounts it's the paperboy) was late or not had no bearing on the crime. Wallace's alibi was the abortive meeting with R.M Qualtrough, who was one and the same man. We know this because the original telephone call to the Chess Club made on the evening of 19th January 1931 was made from the Anfield 1627 telephone box, some 370 metres distant from the domicile of the accused, 29 Wolverton Street. It's almost inconceivable that R.M. Qualtrough would be making a telephone call at the same time Wallace had left his house and passing by en route to the Chess Club.

Richard Gordon Parry had an alibi corroborated by two witnesses for the evening in question.

As I have explained, unless Close arrived at precisely the time he did arrive, Wallace would have either:-

a) had no alibi at all
b) had to arrive at Menlove Gardens either suspiciously early or late. The Police themselves established that Wallace arrived on the corner of Menlove Gardens West at 7.20pm, for his 7.30pm appointment. No-one can deny that that is perfectly normal timing, consistent with Wallace's innocence.
c) had to abandoned his one-time plan to kill Julia, because of a).

It is far from "almost inconceivable" that an "R.M. Qualtrough" would be making a telephone call at the crucial time, especially if Qualtrough was in fact waiting to observe Wallace heading to his tram (in the opposite direction from the telephone box). If you stand on that very spot, as I have, you can see that it's perfectly plausible that Qualtrough & Accomplice would see the "immensely tall", "elongated walking-stick" emerge from Richmond Park, turning left - away from them - towards his tram at the Belmont Road crossing, to head for the Chess Club. They would then know that the first piece of the plot had fallen into place, and proceeded to make the call from the phone-box, just yards away...

Parry did indeed have a watertight alibi for the time of the murder. But I have never said Parry killed Julia...

His accomplice did !

The Court of Appeal, uniquely, found there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace, and turned him loose.

Clearly, your claims to the contrary can only be based on Prejudice and Fancy.

[Steve_uk]

As I have explained, unless Close arrived at precisely the time he did arrive, Wallace would have either:-

a) had no alibi at all
b) had to arrive at Menlove Gardens either suspiciously early or late. The Police themselves established that Wallace arrived on the corner of Menlove Gardens West at 7.20pm, for his 7.30pm appointment. No-one can deny that that is perfectly normal timing, consistent with Wallace's innocence.
c) had to abandoned his one-time plan to kill Julia, because of a).

It is far from "almost inconceivable" that an "R.M. Qualtrough" would be making a telephone call at the crucial time, especially if Qualtrough was in fact waiting to observe Wallace heading to his tram (in the opposite direction from the telephone box). If you stand on that very spot, as I have, you can see that it's perfectly plausible that Qualtrough & Accomplice would see the "immensely tall", "elongated walking-stick" emerge from Richmond Park, turning left - away from them - towards his tram at the Belmont Road crossing, to head for the Chess Club. They would then know that the first piece of the plot had fallen into place, and proceeded to make the call from the phone-box, just yards away...

Parry did indeed have a watertight alibi for the time of the murder. But I have never said Parry killed Julia...

His accomplice did !

The Court of Appeal, uniquely, found there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace, and turned him loose.

Clearly, your claims to the contrary can only be based on Prejudice and Fancy.

Isn't this somewhat of an elaborate ruse to kill someone, who, after all, is a rather nondescript individual?

[RodCrosby]

Yes, although there have been stranger ones.

Here's the thing.

Murder was NOT the plan.

It was an ingenious distraction burglary, which happened to end in a murder...

[Steve_uk]

Yes, although there have been stranger ones.

Here's the thing.

Murder was NOT the plan.

It was an ingenious distraction burglary, which happened to end in a murder...

Then why not take all of the money on the premises in one go?

[RodCrosby]

The perps didn't realise there was only perhaps 1/10th of their expected haul on the premises - since Wallace had been ill, and he had not collected as usual the previous week/weekend.

If you mean why didn't he ransack the house, for a few extra pounds/shillings, well

a) he hadn't planned to ransack the house - he came for the collection-box in particular
b) once murder was committed, he wanted to make himself scarce.

[Steve_uk]

The perps didn't realise there was only perhaps 1/10th of their expected haul on the premises - since Wallace had been ill, and he had not collected as usual the previous week/weekend.

If you mean why didn't he ransack the house, for a few extra pounds/shillings, well

a) he hadn't planned to ransack the house - he came for the collection-box in particular
b) once murder was committed, he wanted to make himself scarce.

But there was no need to leave the mackintosh had it been an unknown intruder. Wallace had to wear the mackintosh (he was naked underneath) to avoid blood spatter, then leave it in situ. He wore the mackintosh at the start of the day, instead of the overcoat, which is a giveaway in itself on a cold Liverpool January morning, for easy retrieval later in the day.

[RodCrosby]

The witness Florence Johnston suggested it was Julia who was wearing the mackintosh (to admit a visitor to the house, who then quickly attacked and killed her)

I suggest it is equally likely that Julia put on the mackintosh to LEAVE the house. (once she had discovered her visitor was a thief). But she was killed before she could leave...

Anyways, the Court of Criminal Appeal determined that none of this amounted to a hill of beans against Wallace. The Prosecution theory of a naked Wallace under the mackintosh was just a far-fetched theory...

The Court of Criminal Appeal would have none of it, and uniquely quashed his conviction and turned him loose...