|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Mark Bloch
Police Constable
Username: Mark
Post Number: 7
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 4:48 am: | 
|
Stan--
I wasn't aware of Wallace frequenting a cafe called Marsden's. I know Wallace's co-worker was called Marsden. He, along with Parry, was also guilty of discrepancies with the collecting of money for the Prudential, and also named by Wallace as someone who would have been admitted to the house by Julia.
MBR  |
MTR
Police Constable
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 5
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Mark,
For me, the only thing about the 'Midden Hypothesis' which works - although Hayworth didn't state it so I'm not letting him claim it in retrospect ! - is that if the murder weapon had been a piece of fireside brass (a stoker or similar), it could have been cleaned of blood and then maybe bent and made to look like it was only fit to be thrown away; and hence would not have looked out of place in a coal-midden or bin somewhere (surely not close to the scene though). Of itself, this would still not point to any particular perpetrator.
Could William have possibly let somebody into the house to commit the murder after he left for his 'meeting' ? Perhaps even some time beforehand ? Has that ever been discussed ? Wallace's anxiousness to establish his presence away from Wolverton Street could be seen as revealing his knowledge of a 'plan in motion' rather than of any direct involvement in the deed.
Mike. |
Mark Bloch
Police Constable
Username: Mark
Post Number: 8
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 8:18 am: |
|
Mike--
I've read/heard of a few theories of collusion - Did WHW hire somebody to do the act? Personally, I don't really think so. There is still the question of a motive. Would WHW risk the idea of a second party - or conversely, would whoever committed the crime take the same risk? I don't really think so, but you never know! You're right though about Wallace's behaviour on the way to, and in the Menlove Gardens area.
Mark
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 425
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
Hi Mark,
As I recall from an article I read, Wallace actually pointed a finger of suspicion at another coworker before switching it to Parry. Maybe Marsden was the guy. The rendition I read didn't give the man's name.
The Marsden's cafe was depicted in the film The Man from the Pru. I was just going by that. Whether it's accurate or not, I can't say.
Best wishes,
Stan |
MTR
Police Constable
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 6
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
I just recently watched The Man From the Pru (thanks to Barry above) and although the screenplay was unnecessarily disjointed, IMO, it was a good watch. It's a shame the Beeb haven't shown it again for so long. It may well appear on UK Living or something in the wee small hours one night, or better still a channel without ad breaks.
Mike. |
Barry
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
I really am having trouble getting my messages posted on this excellent web site. Moderator, with respect, why can you not have a simpler method of registering? ( By the way, I have applied by writing, so password please!!!)
I have put forward the following query to other members of this forum direct by e-mail, after I thought it had been added to this message board.
Assuming Wallace was the murderer, and frankly I am now beginning to have doubts, I find something very puzzling about the telephone call from Anfield to the City Cafe, I cannot understand why Wallace would make the telephone call from the telephone box Anfield 1642 situated fairly near to Wolverton Street. With such a carefully conceived murder in mind, Wallace would have realised that it was imperative to his alibi that this telephone call/message must be not only be logged, but more important, if traced, as he knew it would be, it had to be seen to have been made from a box in the area of the Menlove Avenue, where the supposed Mr Qualtrough said he lived. (Actually it didn't really matter where the phone call was made from if the caller was anyone but Wallace.) But no, no, if Wallace made the call I cannot conceive his gross stupidity in ringing from a box near his home. The relevance of a call from Anfield only makes sense if someone wanted the suspicion to fall on Wallace.
I also cannot understand why Wallace had to make the call to the City Cafe on his way to his game of chess the evening before Julia's murder. Surely it would have been much safer to have left the message a few days earlier, thus ensuring there was more time for the message to get to him.
I have to say that I am beginning to believe that the new theory that Wallace's next door neighbours. the Johnsons, could have been involved in the murder of Julia. It seems to me that if Julia was seen to be alive at around 6.45pm on the night of her death, then Wallace could simply not have actually done the deed himself before he went on his search for Mr Qualtrough. I think the solution to the murder is during the period after Wallace returned to Wolverton Street. From my books on the case, it seems a shame that Wallace's return to his home is not detailed. Did the police check his return journey as meticulously as his tram travels to to Menlove Avenue?
} |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 479
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2005 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Hi Barry,
Glad that you've sent in your registration. Your posts will now not only show up in real time, but you'll run less risk of losing them.
Moving on..
I cannot understand why Wallace would make the telephone call from the telephone box Anfield 1642 situated fairly near to Wolverton Street.
Hmm.. It's been at least 18 years since I read Jonathan Goodman's "The Murder of Julia Wallace" (right?) which, I confess, is the only book I've read on the case. And if Goodman mentioned the location of the phone box that was used to make the call to the City Cafe, it must not have registered with me. I've read a couple of sites on the web since, but I don't recall the phone box location being mentioned. So, many thanks for knocking me on the head with that one. It'll give me something to ponder. It does stir some curiosity in me.
I'm still, however, somewhat of the persuasion that Wallace murdered his wife. Regardless of the phone box gaff, if it was a gaff. He doesn't come across to me as particularly bright. If he did indeed 'get away with murder', forgive the cliche, I don't think that he masterminded the perfect murder. As I tend to think with Jack the Ripper, luck possibly played a significant part.
Guess I still haven't been able to figure out a motive for anyone (that we know of) but Wallace. Not even Parry, although Goodman made an impressive attempt to 'make it fit', but I really don't see any motive there. Petty cash? Well, maybe.. but worth the risk of the noose? If Parry mudered Julia, he must have been a pretty desperately broke dude. And his words at the garage - grasping at memory that's way past its prime here, I admit - something along the lines of, "that could hang me". Something I'd probably say without thinking. Maybe not quite the cliche as the more widely used, "I could murder you".. but it's entirely possible that his words that night were meaningless.
I have to say that I am beginning to believe that the new theory that Wallace's next door neighbours. the Johnsons, could have been involved in the murder of Julia.
Really curious to know why you think they were involved. As in motive. She probably would have let them in, but what reason would they have to murder her?
Please share your thoughts further. You've caught my interest.
It seems to me that if Julia was seen to be alive at around 6.45pm on the night of her death, then Wallace could simply not have actually done the deed himself before he went on his search for Mr Qualtrough.
Maybe afterwards? Although he just might have been a speedy bugger and managed it before he went 'looking for Qualtrough'. Do we know that he actually went looking for this suspiciously imaginary person?
I think the solution to the murder is during the period after Wallace returned to Wolverton Street.
I agree with the possibility that the solution may well lie there. So why dismiss the possibility that Wallace murdered his wife then - or do I misunderstand?
From my books on the case, it seems a shame that Wallace's return to his home is not detailed. Did the police check his return journey as meticulously as his tram travels to to Menlove Avenue?
Agree, and wonder the same.
Back to Parry for a sec.. the police "believed his alibi". Must have been for some reason. I'd love to know what reason convinced them - even though I dismiss Parry as Julia's murderer. I might somewhat doubt police competency over the past twenty years, and maybe I need to be knocked on the head again for thinking the police might have been a little more competent back in the thirties.. wasn't there, so really have no absolute reason to think that their accepting Parry's alibi as gospel.
Hey, thanks for stirring my curiosity and encouraging me to think about this case again.
Lyn
Never leave home without a paperback..
|
Mark Bloch
Police Constable
Username: Mark
Post Number: 9
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 4:51 am: |
|
Hi Barry & Lindsey -
Re: phone call 1627 - when I first heard about the phone call, the first thing that came to me was that it was someone else deliberately implicating WHW by having the call traced. Even though it was 1931 I believe whoever made the phone call could have an idea it could be traced.
Lindsey - you state 'no-one had a motive other than Wallace'. What was his motive? He gained absolutely nothing from his wife's death.
Re: The Johnstons - local Liverpool writer Tom Slemen mentioned the case against The Johnstons a few years ago. If I am right, he states that they committed it as WHW returned. I am not convinced.
The killing did definitely NOT occur after WHW's return. Somebody was with him all the time in the house. This theory can also be discounted because of the (still) lack of blood on his person.
He had many witnesses in the Smithdown Road - Menlove Gardens area. So he was definitely there.
Best,
Mark |
MTR
Police Constable
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 9
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 5:04 am: |
|
Hi Lyn,
So he "doesn't come across to me as particularly bright" to you ? ! He kept perfect books for an insurance company, was reputedly one of the best players at the chess club, he lectured - at University-level - in his spare time on Chemistry (of all subjects !) and he wrote and read music fluently. What criteria are you applying ? I'm not saying that just because someone is 'clever' in one area that they are automatically equally so in others but WHW probably saw the world through a very logical mind. If it was him what done it, I don't think he would have trusted to luck or left open any likely possibility of capture. Surely, he'd have formulated a sound plan ? The way events unfolded on the night WHW could have done it and then again he might not have. There's nothing compelling either way, as I see it. There's evidently too much missing in the story as known...
For the record, the Liverpool author, 'psychic investigator' and "Master Storyteller" (his words), who has been on this site a few times in connection with his Conder Ripper book (we're all still waiting), once wrote thus:
"In April this year [2001], I appealed for people who had known the Johnstons to get in touch with me. A seriously ill man who had known John Johnston got in touch with criminologist Keith Andrews. The man – named Stan – said Johnston had died in January 1960 of senile dementia at an old folks home on Westminster Road. I have checked this information and found it to be true. Stan said that days before Johnston died, he confessed to killing Julia Wallace. He had made the Breck Road phonecall to the chess club to get Wallace out the house. Florence had Julia's cat 'Puss' and was supposed to lure Julia next door to get it. Julia's cat had been missing for days. But John Johnston had surmised that Julia had gone to Menlove Gardens with her husband when he saw them go out the backyard together. Julia had on the mackintosh. The woman went down the alleyway looking for Puss, and Johnston didn't see her return. The Johnstons waited, then slipped into the Wallace's house via the back kitchen door, which John unlocked with his key. He went in search of the insurance man's monthly takings and a nest egg he imagined Wallace had upstairs. Disappointed with the meagre cash he found, John and Flo decided to try the front parlour. As they entered they got the shock of their lives when the flu-stricken Julia Wallace rose from her couch with the mackintosh over her. She wasn't supposed to be there. 'Mr Johnston!' Julia probably shouted. John decided to hit her with the jemmy he'd used to smash open the cabinet. He had to kill her, because she now knew the identity of the man who was burgling the neighbourhood. The only fingerprints that would be found at the murder scene belonged to Mr Wallace – and the Johnstons. On the following day, the Johnstons moved out of Wolverton Street and went to live with their daughter at 358 Townsend Avenue. Flo was subsequently treated for shingles and John started to lose his hair. Raymond Chandler said the Wallace case could never be solved. He was wrong."
This person's current website makes no mention of this tale on the page about the Wallace murder but I believe he does still claim 'case closed' on the Wolverton Street Murder Mystery. Make of that what you will.
Personally, from what I know of the case, I see no reason why the entire attack on Mrs. W could not have been performed in under a minute. Time enough for anyone to have done it. I've got to say though that I do intend to read alot more about this case as it's a real brainstretcher. Besides, I've got my own theory which I need to put to the test 
Mike.
(Message edited by rigby on October 06, 2005) |
Mark Bloch
Police Constable
Username: Mark
Post Number: 10
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 9:06 am: |
|
I think if WHW committed the murder he would have done it pre-Menlove Gardens journey - it would have been riskier for him to do it post-journey. It would have been to the killers advantage for the passing of time (rigor mortis setting in, thereby casting doubt/debate over the time of death). I don't think he would have had the time after the journey. He left the newsagents on Allerton Road at about 8 o'clock - assuming he took the same route back it would have taken him about 10 minutes to get to to Penny Lane, another 10 minutes to get from Penny Lane to Lodge Lane and then the same 17-20 minutes to get back to Wolverton Street - 27 - 30 minutes overall journey time. He would have arrived at Wolverton Street at about 8.30-8.40. (It is stated that WHW met the Johnstons in the alleyway at 8.45.). It also begs the question of where he would have discarded the weapon.
Re: The Johnstons. Florence Johnston claimed she heard two thumps at about 8.25. Surely if they had committed the murder it would have been to their advantage to say they heard the thumps at around 6.35 - 6.40.
MBR |
MTR
Police Constable
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 10
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 10:06 am: |
|
Hi Mark,
You wrote: "Re: The Johnstons. Florence Johnston claimed she heard two thumps at about 8.25. Surely if they had committed the murder it would have been to their advantage to say they heard the thumps at around 6.35 - 6.40."
Perhaps the Johnstons weren't smart enough to realise that ? Just because that's the logical thing to say in retrospect...etc. Maybe they were seen in or around Number 29 earlier when they 'did it' (by someone who hadn't really noticed them and never came forward) and so they had to start pushing the idea of a later time for the murder (and cross their fingers that neither forensics not that witness I summise would tell much to the contrary).
If it was them then perhaps they weren't trying to frame WHW at all. The 'thud' at 8:25pm casts doubt on WHW being involved so the Johnstons are doing him a favour.
As for the weapon, I guess it would have been a heavy iron or steel item so unlikely to have been carried far. It could easily have been dropped down a kerbside grid and, who knows, might still be there to this day (I'm starting to sound like the Mr. Hayworth cited above now !).
I quite fancy having a peek at the Wallace case next time I'm down at Kew. Nothing like original sources !
Mike. |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 480
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Mark,
you state 'no-one had a motive other than Wallace'. What was his motive? He gained absolutely nothing from his wife's death.
Motive? Possibly wanting to be rid of Julia for no reason that would make any sense to the rest of us? (Note the obligatory 'possibly'. I haven't hanged Wallace yet.)
Onto your second sentence. Well.. ultimately, no. His remaining two years seem to have been pretty troubled. But, perhaps - if he was Julia's murderer - he hadn't considered the backlash that he was to receive from neighbours, customers and others. If he was innocent, I feel truly bad for him for having to endure such a nasty experience.
Moving on. I was pretty much thinking along the lines of Wallace simply wanting to bump Julia off. Their marriage may have appeared to be a fairly contented one, but it's possible that Wallace might have been inwardly discontent.
I suppose I've been swayed to that scenario by its comparison to a case several years ago involving a personal friend. By all appearances, his relationship with his wife was hunky-dory. Fooled me along with a 100 pop. community, anyway.. Yet discontentment, which had apparently been brewing for years, caused him to use murder as a means to be free of her - which floored me completely in this age of easy divorce. He and I corresponded on and off while he served his 14-years-but-out-in-10, but I wasn't able to get more than, "I wanted to be free" from him, right to the last letter. Only after he was released did he say, "she wouldn't sign". But regardless of that sad scenario, supposion from an outsider doesn't make Wallace guilty.
Mike,
(Welcome to the boards, by the way.)
What criteria am I applying? I suppose it would be the 'a person might well be remarkably intellectual, but can still come across as being a taco short in their combo' one. As in being perfectly able to master chess, lecture chemistry at University level, etc. etc., but neglecting to consider certain factors in the alibi-planning department, if Wallace was the perpetrator. And I'm even disregarding the Qualtrough phone call from a box a tad too close to home for the moment. Just a few things about Wallace's statement regarding his return to the house that night that niggle me a little.. like, suddenly his front door key didn't work. What, the lock became unexpectedly and inexplicably defiant in a matter of a few hours? Suppose it's possible that a mysterious murderer was coincidentally holding the lock on the other side of the door right at that time.. but then where did they disappear to while Wallace was legging it 'round the back? Oh.. they went out the front door at just the right moment. And nobody saw them in the road because no one happened to be looking through the net curtains at the time. Possible, granted.
Moving on, though. Wallace couldn't be sure whether the back door was locked or just sticking. If he thought the back door was merely sticking, and was already concerned about the safety of his wife, why not shoulder the door? And if it was indeed locked, why not yell or leg it to the neighbours? Just how concerned about his wife was he? (Remember, according to his statement, he 'ran into' the Johnstones a few minutes later as they were leaving their house. Speaks to me of a chance meeting.)
And hey presto, the back door opens "quite easily" once the neighbours are watching - having been asked to.
Wallace's statement makes no mention of his having called out to his wife. Maybe he did, and simply neglected to say so. (Would police reports confirm whether he called out to Julia or not?) If not, though, why not? Particularly after having found signs of a disturbance in the kitchen.
I can almost accept his going straight upstairs, possibly thinking that Julia was in bed. It was, after all 8:45 pm when he returned home, and there were no lights on except for "a small light in the kitchen". He might well have thought she had retired early. However, I think I'd have gone through the downstairs first if I'd already been suspicious about the door locks not working, and then seeing signs of a disturbance upon eventual entry.
And why not go straight to the front bedroom? (My presumption that that was their bedroom coming from being brought up in England where the front bedroom is almost always the one used by married couples. Especially 'old school' married couples. Plus Wallace mentions, "I don't think my wife would have left it like that", which suggests further - to me, anyway - that this was the room they slept in.) But why go to the other two bedrooms first, making a detour to the bathroom along the way?
He states that he lit a match in the front bedroom - does this mean he stumbled through the others in darkness, or simply neglected to mention that he'd lit matches constantly on his walkabout?
(Sorry, guys.. realising that that is really an unimportant niggle, and I doubt any relevance.)
To move on again, though. "I then came down and looked into the front room, after striking a match and saw my wife lying on the floor. I felt her hand and concluded she was dead."
Too clinical. Imagine coming home and (having found locks not working preventing you from entry into your house and after several detours upstairs) eventually finding your wife lying stone cold on the floor.. Heck, I hope my husband would consider my hand to be the last thing he picked up. Why didn't he go for her head or face first? I've worked in nursing homes interspersed with in-home nursing for most of my career-life. Seen umpteen families react to death. For those not expecting the worst, holding the head has always come first - then the face. At least as far as I've seen.
"I then rushed out and told my Mr and Mrs Johnstone what had happened saying something but I cannot remember what I did say. After my neighbours had been in Mr Johnstone went for the Police and a Doctor, I asked him to go. I afterwards found that about £4 had been taken from a cash box in the kitchen but I am not sure of the amount. When I discovered my wife lying on the floor I noticed my mackintosh lying on the floor at the back of her. I wore the mackintosh up to noon today, but left it off owing to the fine weather. My wife has never worn the mackintosh to my knowledge. You drew my attention to it being burnt, but it was not like that when I last saw it and I cannot explain it. I have no suspicion of anyone."
I can understand the rambling of a distraught man having just found his wife murdered, but Wallace was noted to have been remarkably stoic while the police were at the house. If he became more fitting to the 'distraught husband' role after arriving at the station, I honestly question that manifestation.
And the "I asked him to go" sentence.. why state that? Why specify that he "asked him to go" to the police?
No, I haven't actually been through having to write a police statement on suspicion of murder, before you ask, so, no, I really have no clue about stumbling mistakes when under pressure having just found out that your spouse has been brutally murdered. Just that Wallace's statement doesn't add up. Not to me.
That said, I guess I'm off the fence finally..
Lyn
}
Never leave home without a paperback..
|
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 11
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 4:40 am: |
|
The front-door lock WAS defective - a locksmith corroborated this.
The Johnstons stated that Wallace DID call out to his wife - on two occasions. Wallace did not force himself onto them outside the back of 29 Wolverton Street, if anything they bumped into him. As for Wallace's statement - PC Williams took down the statement nearly two hours after he had given it.
Granted I don't really believe you have to have a motive for murder, but it seems to just apply to Wallace to some correspondents.
Really, the way it was handled (especially by the police) and the evidence (or lack of it), the case should never have even gone ahead.
Mark B R
(Message edited by Mark on October 07, 2005) |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 484
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Bear with me..
I do need to make a significant correction to my last post. During the wee hours of yesterday morning, it occurred to me that the reason for Wallace going straight for Julia's hand might have been because her head and face probably weren't in a state that a spouse would want to grab first. I realised that my previous thoughts had been based on observing family members of elderly people dealing with non-injury based death.
Anyway, just wanted to say that before anyone else did 
Still think most of his actions that night were rather lacking in emotion. But that's simply based on reading material, and not personal observation.
Mark -- did anyone ever figure out why the lock was defective? I'm wondering how long it had been defective..
Wallace's statement being taken down two hours later... see your point.
Erm.. can I go on a simple gut feeling that something in his behaviour didn't appear quite right? 
Lyn
Never leave home without a paperback..
|
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 12
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Just been touring some of the sites. 24 North John Street (CCCCC) which is now, incidentally 'For Sale' as apartments. The Post Office and Newsagents are still there on Allerton Road. 34 Green Lane (home of Joseph Crewe), and Menlove Gardens N/S/W. Hope to go back and get photos in the daytime! Seems the sites associated with the Wallace Case are still standing and in pretty good condition!
Mark B R
|
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 11
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Which Newsagents is it, Mark ? The one near the Cinema (under it's 'canopy') ? Or one further up, nearer to Penny Lane ?
Mike. |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 13
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 5:24 am: |
|
Mike-
The Newsagents is the one nearer to Penny Lane (between Mapledale and Rosedale Roads). |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 14
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Looking through my Wallace material and now I realise that the Newsagents COULD be the one near the cinema - Wallace took the tram car outside the Plaza cinema around 8.00pm just after visiting the Newsagents - on the map in Roger Wilkes' book the Newsagents is stated as the one between Mapledale and Rosedale Roads - but something tells me it was the one nearer to the Plaza - but I could be wrong.
MBR |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 12
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Thanks for the clarification, Mark.
Logically, could it not have been a shop anywhere on that road ? Lots of them have new shopfronts and have probably had a few changes of use over the years.
Mike. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 438
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 7:42 pm: |
|
Hi all,
To reiterate, perhaps Wallace was guilty but didn't do it. That is, he put another up to doing it. This would explain a lot.
Stan |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 15
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 4:34 am: |
|
Mike-
I'll check the trade journals here and see if the Newsagents is listed - the Manageress was Lily Pinches, I shouldn't think it would be too difficult to find out. The only problem is whether a change of street-numbering has occured.
Mark |
Barry
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Hi Lindsey
Am getting a little miffed at writing to this message board, and never seeing them posted. The number now totals four. I am very keen to get involved in all the theories, but am rapidly running out of patience. Hope you will understand my annoyance. |
Barry
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Lindsey
A little off subject for a moment.
Can you tell me how you can get a quote up on screen? I've tried pasting, and then putting quote into italics. but this seems to get of the message. (or so it says when I try and preview.)
Barry |
Barry
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
The Johnstons.
Frankly I can't follow 'The Master Storyteller's line about the cat. Trying to lure Julia! What's it all about? Surely the cat was about anyway, as WHW was seen to be preparing its food after finding Julia's body.
I had always assumed that John and Florence Johnston were the only residents of No 31. However, according to 'Final Verdict', the grandson of the Johnstons, Russell, when interviewed in the eighties, said that his mum and dad lived with them, and his mum had spoken to Julia the morning of the day she got murdered. The book also says that Florence thought the two thuds had been made by her father, who had his bed in the Front Parlour. That makes five residents. Julia gets brutally attacked and no one hears anything. This is truly surprising. Also accoording to the book, neither the defence or prosecuting lawyers counsel make anything of these thuds.
Can anyone also enlighten me on the exhibit of hair whilst Inspector Gold was giving evidence? It is inferrred in the book that it was false hair. What was this evidence? |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 13
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 6:41 am: |
|
For the record, "Tom Slemen", once claimed that he'd solved this case - see my post above - but makes no mention of this on his (un-dated) current webpage devoted to the Wallace Murder - where he writes that "...despite all the attempts, the case is still officially unsolved, and it looks as if it will remain that way for some time to come".
Well, just when I thought he was recanting to a quiet corner he wrote the following on his own Forum recently
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005
Subject: Wallace
I am now credited with solving the Wallace Murder case in a book called Liverpool the First 1000 Years by Arabella McIntyre Brown. I serialised my findings in the Merseymart and Star in 2001 and BBC Radio Merseyside also broadcast my play, The Perfect Murder.
John Sharp Johnston killed Julia Wallace.
As I said, just for the record.
Mike.
|
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 14
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 9:53 am: |
|
The four-part Wallace serialisation mentioned by Mr. Slemen was once online but has since been taken down. However, it has been archived:
Part 1 - http://tinyurl.com/djhgt (19 July, 2001)
Part 2 - http://tinyurl.com/8kzvh (26 July, 2001)
Part 3 - http://tinyurl.com/brbdx (2 August, 2001)
Part 4 - http://tinyurl.com/9xb73 (8 August, 2001)
The Johnston Conclusion is contained in Part Four.
Mike. |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 16
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
Tom Slemen's self-appointed 'solving' of the WHW case is another in the line - we had it with Goodman, Wilkes and Murphy - but at least these three writers did their research, and should be respected for their works - the least Slemen could do would be to bring a book-length study out to back his claim.
As I recall, Tom Slemen stated a few years ago that he had 'solved' the Jack the Ripper Case as well as the Wallace Case (never mind all the experts who have studied it for years...). My word, Tom should have been a policeman! 
Mark
(Message edited by Mark on October 13, 2005)
(Message edited by Mark on October 13, 2005) |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 15
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Tom's 'Ripper' hypothesis has already been discussed elsewhere on this site (IIRC, he later contributed to the thread himself) and problems with it were outlined in Ripper Notes (in July). The same theory is also dissected by Colin Veacock here.
Perhaps instead of us discussing Tom's Johnston-related, case-closing revelations here at Casebook (where he may never see us) we should consider posting on his own forum and asking him directly ? (see link in my previous post)
Mike. |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 17
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Mike
Just been reading the Slemen links you posted up - excellent. It would be good to get Tom in on the debate. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 446
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Is Close still alive? Was Julia really 70 and 18 years older than Wallace? I'd always heard her age given at something like 47. I'd need substantially more evidence to go down the Johnston road which I'd also heard referred to as Johnson.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 18
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 4:32 am: |
|
Hi Stan
No, Alan Close died some years ago. Yes apparently Julia was born in 1861.
Best
Mark
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 448
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 6:21 pm: |
|
Hi Mark,
WOW! If she was 70, I wish all women looked that good a that age.
Stan |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 19
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
Re: hair. The mound of hair was left at the scene when the body was removed. The talk is that Julia possibly wore a wig - perhaps. I think it was probably from the attack, maybe a piece of scalp with the hair still attached.
Mark
|
Stephen Miller
Police Constable
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Hi All I still cannot get my head around the fact that if Wallace did it and planned it he could have done it on the Monday and then gone to Chess Evening he did not need to think up an elaborate plan.
Also in the phone call by Qualtrough he mentions his girls' 21st everyone assumes he means his daughter but could it not also mean his girlfriend and Parry's girlfriend was 21 around that time I beleive.
all the best
steve |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 17
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Hi Stephen,
Are you implying that the phonecaller was trying to implicate Parry ? 'Cos he surely wouldn't have said that himself, would he ?
Mike. |
Stephen Miller
Police Constable
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 3:19 pm: |
|
If it was Parry he may have said this as a slip of the tongue. However I don't think Parry did it but I am of the opinion that it could have been an associate of Parry's though I do not have any evidence for this of course.
The main reason I say this is because the murder was on a Tuesday when most of the takings from his collections would have been in Wallace's house.
The whole thing for me revolves around the fact that the murder/robbery had to happen on a Tuesday and someone like Parry may have let it slip that there would be money in the house and the robbery went horribly wrong.
Now for the "alibi" that Wallace was accused of fabricating by bringing attention to himself on numerous occasions during his search for Qualtrough.
If he had murdered Julia would he not have needed to be seen as soon as he left his house and yet he does not ask any directions on his first tram journey.
Now for a little light hearted relief:
Wallace worked as a Drapers Apprentice when he was young and on a family history site someone interested in this case has found a Draper called Qualtrough in Isle of Man in 1881 census
maybe just a coincidence |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 20
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 5:03 am: |
|
Hi Stephen
Good point concerning Qualtrough. It is actually a Manx name derived from WALTER (sounds a bit like 'Wallace' don't you think?). Could the killer (if it wasn't WHW) be trying to drop a devious hint?  |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 21
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Here is another point: When Samuel Beattie answered the telephone at the chess club, why didn't he know about Menlove Gardens East? After all, didn't he live in Ballantrae Road in the vicinity of the Menlove Gardens area? If he knew there wasn't a M.G.E. why didn't he notify WHW? Or, conversely, if he didn't know if it did exist, it would be a strong case in favour of WHW, as even a fairly local resident of the area didn't know of its existence (or lack of). I know he told WHW "It will probably be up Menlove Avenue area" (signifying he didn't know of its non-existence). If Beattie didn't know whether it existed or not, then it is certainly acceptable to assume WHW might not know of its existence either. |
Barry
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 4:15 am: |
|
Alan Close died 12 June 1940. Jonathan Goodman states he was a Blenheim pilot killed aerial action over East Anglia. He was attached to the No 23 Squadron. (Personally I have a little doubt he was a pilot officer, given his backgound, but it was not unknown for a working class man to attain such a rank.
I think James Murphy, in his excellent book, 'The Murder Of Julia Wallace, definately proves Julia Wallace, nee Dennis, was born on 23 April 1861, even though her grave stone gives her age at death of 54 at her death. She was therefore 69 when she was murdered. |
Stephen Miller
Police Constable
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Hi Mark good point about the mention of Menlove Gardens East to Braintree-- so if Wallace did make the phone call surely he would have known who he was talking to and it would have been a big risk to mention a fictitious address to someone from that area.
Barry I think James Murphy gives credit to someone who has researched Julia as part of their family history and as far as we know we have no reason to doubt that she was born in 1861.
This is the only thing that makes ne think William had some kind of motive: He could have found out about her true age and began to resent her she was almost certainly incontinent ( hope I spelt that right) and apparently not very tidy in her housekeeping so maybe his resentment could have grown over the years and he kept it bottled up. I still think this is supposition just like my theory of an aquaitance of Parry committing the murder. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 465
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
Hi all,
WOW! Julia must have been a randy old girl. Especially if she was gettin'it on with Parry as was implied in The Man from the Pru.
Stan |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 22
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Re: Allerton Newsagents.
The Newsagents WHW visited on 20th January 1931 is I believe the one Wilkes lists on the map in his book THE FINAL VERDICT. The original Plaza cinema was demolished and a supermarket was built on it. Another picture house was built (The Odeon). Incidentally, the Clubmoor Cinema (where Lily Lloyd played the piano) is now a supermarket.
(Message edited by Mark on October 18, 2005) |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 21
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
For the record, Alan Croxton Close is listed on the website of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission:
http://www.cwgc.org/cwgcinternet/casualty_details.aspx?casualty=2735970
I assume this is the same chap.
And from The Sale & Altrincham News (27th September 2000):
Flowers mystery solved
THE mystery of flowers planted on a 60-year-old grave in Brooklands cemetery has been solved.
After an appeal in last week's SAM, the full story of Battle of Britain hero Sergeant Pilot Alan Croxton Close, who is buried there, has emerged.
The grave was planted with pansies as part of a planting scheme, a spokesman for Trafford Council revealed. Harry Scholar, Welfare Officer of Sale Branch of the Royal Air Forces Association, who discovered documents about the case, can now return them to the pilot's family as the brother and sister-in-law of the dead man's widow, Daphne, have been in touch. Harry said: "I have spoken to them and am going to meet them next Saturday and hand over the papers."
Harry said a local historian, John Wright, had been in touch: "He came round with a big book giving details of both the English and German planes and their pilots." John said: "I have a series of books which go into great detail about everything that happened during the second world war. The information given in SAM was quite precise and I was able to look up the incident and show Harry a photograph of the German plane."
Harry also received a call from war memorial researcher, George Cogswell, who informed him that Sergeant-Pilot Close was named on Sale cenotaph. Harry has now been able to work out the full story.
Daphne met Sergeant Pilot Close in Llandudno. Three months after their wedding in March 1940 he was killed when his Blenheim Fighter bomber was shot down by a German plane. It was a Heinkel HE 14 bomber piloted by Flt Commander D. Von M. Assenbach. Harry said: "He must have been very experienced to have that rank. It is equivalent to our Squadron Leader." The Heinkel itself was shot down by another member of 23 Squadron, Flt Lt R.M.B. Duke-Woolley. It crashed in the sea near Norfolk. The crew survived, were captured by the Home Guard and imprisoned until the end of the war.
Daphne herself joined the WAAF and became a corporal plotter at fighter command, tracing the routes of German and British aircraft. She was following in the footsteps of her father, William Warren who served in the Royal Flying Corps in World War I. Daphne remarried, had two children and two grandchildren and died in 1980.
But one question remains: How did the documents end up in the RAFA file?"
Mike.
(Message edited by rigby on October 19, 2005)
(Message edited by rigby on October 19, 2005) |
Granger
Police Constable
Username: Granger
Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
Hi Mark, MTR and Stephen. Lets see if I am a registered member at last! |
Granger
Police Constable
Username: Granger
Post Number: 2
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
The article on Alan Close is very interesting although I am a little unsure whether or not the documents mentioned are related to the Wallace case. Be interesting to know what the earlier newspaper article was all about. |
MTR
Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 24
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
Hi Granger,
What is your preferred Wallace theory then ? 
Mike. |
Mark Bloch
Sergeant
Username: Mark
Post Number: 23
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
My Mother notified me that my Grandparents stated that whenever they saw Julia Wallace (around Anfield/Breck Road area) she appeared smartly dressed and certainly not the dowdy-threadbare woman that she is perceived to be.
Mark |
Stephen Miller
Sergeant
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Hi Granger glad to see you here.
Mark maybe she made an effort when she ventured out. I think she was due to go to the theatre on the Monday and the unused bedroom had evidence of clothing being tried on and then discarded maybe she was deciding what to wear if she went out that night |
Granger
Police Constable
Username: Granger
Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
It is presumed that the Wallaces shared the middle bedroom. Or did they?? |
Stephen Miller
Sergeant
Username: Knutmill
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Don't know but according to the plan of the house the front bedroom is a lot bigger
best wishes
steve |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
