Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

Do we know when Parry became aware of the murder of Julia Wallace?

"I have heard of the murder of Mrs Wallace and have studied the newspaper reports of the case
and, naturally, being acquainted with Mr and Mrs Wallace, I have taken a great interest in it."
RG Parry, statement, 24th January 1931


A little too much self-justification?

[Herlock Sholmes]

"I have heard of the murder of Mrs Wallace and have studied the newspaper reports of the case
and, naturally, being acquainted with Mr and Mrs Wallace, I have taken a great interest in it."
RG Parry, statement, 24th January 1931


A little too much self-justification?

And so, as I said, we don’t know when and how he found out.

It wasn’t from an accomplice though.

[moste]

According to Parkes, Parry came to Atkinson’s Garage: “Late that night or early morning,” so we can reasonably assume 1am or later. If we say, hypothetically of course, that the killer left 29 Wolverton Street by 8pm this would make Parry’s visit 5 hours or more later. This raises our first questions. We might ask why he waited for five hours but it’s reasonable to suggest that he might have waited until the garage was quieter. More pertinent is why he chose to go to a garage at all, let alone Atkinson’s. Parry might have expected, at some point, to have been questioned by the police as he knew the Wallace’s but he couldn’t have expected a call anything like so soon. So its difficult, if not impossible, to use the ‘time pressure’ or ‘panic’ excuse. If someone wanted to remove incriminating evidence of a capital crime why would they go to a garage? Surely Parry and his accomplice could have laid their hands on a hosepipe and found a less conspicuous location where they could have cleaned the car away from prying eyes or potential witnesses? But no, he chose a garage. And one where he was well known.

Parkes stated that Parry once asked him: “Do you like me?” To which Parkes responded “I don’t trust you.” Parkes was adamant that he’d told Parry this straight to his face. So there was no friendship or trust between them. No reason to expect discretion. Parkes also claimed about Parry: “ He wanted money badly and tried to rob the sons of the garage. He was caught going through the wardrobe where one of the sons kept money.” The garage had other experience of Parry too. According to Parkes: “As a matter of fact the Atkinson’s overhauled his engine for him and never got paid.”

So, at the barest minimum and going on Parkes statement, we can ask two initial questions. Why did Parry choose a garage to clean his car instead of doing it in private with his accomplice’s help? And, could Parry have possibly chosen a worse garage than the Atkinson’s and a worse person in John Parkes?

Parry comes into the garage and asks Parkes to clean his car with the hose inside and out despite Parkes saying that it looked clean to him. Parkes said: “As I was doing this I saw a glove inside a box in the car and I pulled it out to stop it getting wringing wet. Parry snatched it of me. It was covered in blood and Parry said to me ‘if the police found that - it would hang me!’ Well I was a bit dubious about things, and then he started rambling about a bar which he’d hidden outside a doctors house in Priory Road. He said he’d dropped it down a grid outside the house.

More questions. Why over the previous five hours hadn’t Parry disposed of such an incriminating piece of evidence? Especially when he appears to have gotten rid of the other glove? Can this really be put down to panic or an oversight? To leave the one piece of incriminating evidence in plain view in a location where he was directing someone to clean? Next we might ask why, when Parkes picked up the glove, did Parry suddenly spill the beans? Blood dried over 5 hours ago might not have obviously been identifiable as blood on a dark glove. Why didn’t Parry just say that it was an old glove with paint on it or some other substance? No, he immediately owns up but not only that, and with absolutely no prompting he tells about the iron bar. We simply cannot put this down to panic. This admission makes absolutely no sense unless Parry was under some suicidal delusion. More questions without logical answers. Then we can add two points. Firstly it’s very noticeable that Parry, who has just potentially put his neck in the noose, at no time tells Parkes to keep his mouth shut. A man of whom he can have absolutely no expectation of loyalty or discretion. I ask any person of reason - is this credible? Also we of course have to ask why Parry would ‘own up’ to crime for which he could hang when he didn’t actually commit the murder? He had an unshakeable alibi for the time of Julia’s murder and afterwards. This makes absolutely no sense.

Next, we have a relatively minor point. Wilkes describes the glove as a ‘leather mitt,’ Parkes actually describes the ‘glove’ and he appears to be describing a mitten. Let’s face it, who would think that he needed to describe what a glove looks like? If this was a mitten we have to ask why anyone would use such a clumsy thing when the main part of the ‘job’ was to get notes out of a fairly small cash box? Why restrict yourself by using a mitten? Surely between them Parry and his accomplice could have laid their hands on a glove?

Then we have Parkes saying: “He was in an agitated state. I could tell that by what he said.” Parkes also said (whilst talking quickly and excitedly according to Wilkes): Parry was in a state of insanity....he had to do something....had to tell somebody.....and he told me everything.” Is this believable? Why is it that , hours earlier, and just after he’d discovered that he was now implicated in a horrible crime that carried the death penalty, a crime that he’d planned to be a simple robbery where no one got hurt, Parry visited the Williamson’s acting perfectly calmly and normally? He then went to his girlfriends where she and her mother saw him acting perfectly normally and calmly. So why, a few hours later is he acting as Parkes said that he was? Again, does this make any logical sense. I’d have to say...not in any way.

Then we have Parkes stating that two people, at two different times told him that Parry had borrowed oilskins and waders. The oilskins were from a policeman and Parry never returned them. Parkes theorises that Parry wore them to protect himself from blood whilst he killed Julia. We have to ask why would two people come to tell Parkes this news? Was he the local sorting house for all Parry related news? The idea of Parry borrowing oilskins and waders is ludicrous but there’s no getting away from the fact that Parkes stated that this was what he was told.

Then we have Parkes handing the killer of Julia Wallace to Superintendent Moore on a plate only to have him reject it casually. Is this believable? Police corruption existed of course. As did police incompetence but we can’t just fall back on those reasons without hard evidence. Why wouldn’t Moore undertake to spend a few minutes of police time to send a Constable to check the drain in Priory Road for the weapon? This was only just after Wallace was charged let’s not forget? What if someone else, like Parkes or a friend of his, had found the weapon and gone to the press? What if Parry had simply told the press or anyone about his story? What if the story had surfaced after Wallace had been hanged. We can’t put this down to police incompetence because it’s far beyond that. Can we put it down to corruption? I see no specific evidence of that.

Does any of this entire episode sound believable when we look at it closely? To me nothing about it makes sense. And if, as was suggested, that this story was common knowledge around the garage why did it not leak out over the ensuing fifty years. After all, after the Maybrick poisoning case at the end of the last century this was Liverpool’s most famous, most talked about case. It simply beggars belief that no one would have mentioned the story of Parry and his car until Parkes was tracked down fifty years later.

Do we think that this story is obviously true or obviously false? Or do we think that it could be true but it has so many unbelievable elements? You can guess which one I favour but we have to remember this. If it wasn’t true then the case against Parry or Parry and his accomplice pretty much collapses as all that would be left would be the undoubted fact that Parry knew the Wallace’s. That Parry knew about Wallace’s business dealings. And that Parry knew where Wallace kept his takings. Not exactly bang-to-rights is it.

And by the way I don’t mind any responses or no responses at all, but could we avoid these words and phrases - yawn, misinformation, disinformation, logical fallacies also any pointless Latin or pointless quotes from lawyers or judges and even more importantly no graphs. Or any other method of avoiding the issues.

Much appreciated.

We can hear from listening to Parkes that as well as not trusting Parry, he did also in fact fear him.
Since Parry had at that time an irrefutable alibi, I would suggest he was having a little game with his old school chum, who, he would likely bully, make fun off, take the mickey out of, and generally treat with a large dose of disdain like the typical arrogant snide he appeared to be. Parkes may well remember accurately things like 'Parry enjoying phoning complete strangers, putting on phoney voices just for a laugh'
Parry after his 'Jangling of Parks's chain' probably laughed his sides sore all the way to his next port of call. Being only 22 years of age, One could simply pass this all off as a 'Parry Prank'

Then again... and from a personal experience.
I had a brother-in-law who was the absolute salt of the earth. Loved by all who knew him, and accepted into the family by my parents as a son of their very own. He was also an inveterate liar. Everyone knew he was, and although it was always pretty harmless stuff, it did become tiresome.
Listening to Parkes when being interviewed sounded so like my B-I- Law it was uncanny, right down to his croaky accent, and little chuckle when making a point. I don't believe Parkes's story of the wader boots and police cape, the iron bar hiding ,or the bloody glove tale either ,but he sounded a likeable, easy going chap, and just wanted to be involved in some way. When Wilkes came calling, it just made him feel important, and his imagination took the better of him.

[cobalt]

I get your drift Moste.

It's why I wondered if Parry had heard of the murder by the time he went in to get his car cleaned. If he had, Parry might then have tried to impress Parkes that he was a dangerous man, in order to have some sport with him.
He would only do this of course if he were innocent of involvement.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Moste and Cobalt,

Good posts.

Your points are something that I’ve been thinking about over the last day or two.

We know that Parry was dishonest.
We know that Parkes distrusted and disliked him.
We know that the Atkinson’s distrusted him too after catching him out.
We know that he was the ‘flashy’ type so he might have been cocky and arrogant.

So perhaps the king of guy who would want to take some kind of revenge on Parkes and the Atkinson’s. And maybe cocky and arrogant enough to use the police?

He hears of Julia’s murder. He finds a stained old glove (maybe the glove gave him the idea?) He dashes into the garage, let’s Parkes find the glove, spills the beans about the weapon and doesn’t even bother to threaten Parkes into silence.

Parry knows that he wasn’t involved and that he has an unshakeable alibi. He hopes that Parkes will call the police and that they head off to Priory Road to find nothing down the drain. Parkes gets told off by the police as a time waster and ends up looking like a fantasist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hypothetical territory here but if Parry can be allowed an unnamed accomplice why not Wallace?

I’d suggest that there have been three main objections to this idea.

1. Wallace didn’t have any associate/friend close enough to him to be a trustworthy accomplice.

2. Unlike Parry, Wallace didn’t exactly mix in criminal company.

3. If Wallace had an accomplice who made the phone call for him why didn’t he make the call after Wallace had arrived at the club. Proving that Wallace and Qualtrough weren’t one and the same?

~

On points one and two. Wallace came into contact, on a daily basis, with people struggling with money to different extents. Let’s suggest that he gets to know a man on his rounds. Always behind with his payments; always telling Wallace he was in debt with the rent and in other ways. He is out of work (maybe a criminal record hindered his success in finding a job?) Maybe he even suspects that his wife is about to leave him taking the kids? In short.....a desperate man.

Wallace begins to sound him out and finally feels confident enough to make him a proposition. He’s salted some money away at home over the years in a box at home and so offers the man £100 (half a years money for the average worker) for help.

On point 3. Mr X makes the phone call at the pre-arranged time. But as Antony has pointed out from his research, there had been an accident causing a reduced tram service. Wallace turned up exactly on the chess deadline. It’s still too big a gap I admit but maybe Mr X simply made a mistake? Maybe his watch was wrong?

Another maybe. It’s unlikely that a man so in debt would own a car but he might have had access to one. A favour from a friend, brother or brother-in-law perhaps? On the night of the murder he simply parks up in Richmond Park. This would allow Wallace even more time to do what he had to do (possibly 7 or 8 minutes more?) Wallace leaves before 7.00 and gets into the car to be driven to his first tram stop.

He hands Mr X a parcel containing the weapon and possible a pair of gloves if Wallace used them. We might also consider that if Wallace had gotten blood on a shirt or a pair of trousers these would have been parcelled up too. Mr X disposes of the weapon and burns the gloves and clothing.

Like the Accomplice theory involving Parry we cannot name or prove the existance of our accomplice but what we can say is this - with Wallace being involved a) they knew for certain that Wallace would go to MGE, and b) there’s no need for a freak piece of luck in Wallace needing to mention Qualtrough to Julia.

This plan explains Beattie not recognising the voice and Wallace turning left out of Richmond Park on the Monday instead of right. It gives Wallace more time to kill Julia. It explains the lack of blood. It explains the disposal of the weapon. With Wallace involved it explains why the lights were turned off.

For these reasons I’d say that it’s as least as believable as the current Accomplice theory. The only thing that it doesn’t explain is Parkes of course. But a) I don’t believe Parkes statement and b) consider the previous posts suggesting that Parry might have taken the opportunity provided by Julia’s murder to ‘get his own back’ on Parkes and the Atkinson’s.

Ladies and gentleman I give you.....The Mr X Theory.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hypothetical territory here but if Parry can be allowed an unnamed accomplice why not Wallace?

I’d suggest that there have been three main objections to this idea.

1. Wallace didn’t have any associate/friend close enough to him to be a trustworthy accomplice.

2. Unlike Parry, Wallace didn’t exactly mix in criminal company.

3. If Wallace had an accomplice who made the phone call for him why didn’t he make the call after Wallace had arrived at the club. Proving that Wallace and Qualtrough weren’t one and the same?

~

On points one and two. Wallace came into contact, on a daily basis, with people struggling with money to different extents. Let’s suggest that he gets to know a man on his rounds. Always behind with his payments; always telling Wallace he was in debt with the rent and in other ways. He is out of work (maybe a criminal record hindered his success in finding a job?) Maybe he even suspects that his wife is about to leave him taking the kids? In short.....a desperate man.

Wallace begins to sound him out and finally feels confident enough to make him a proposition. He’s salted some money away at home over the years in a box at home and so offers the man £100 (half a years money for the average worker) for help.

On point 3. Mr X makes the phone call at the pre-arranged time. But as Antony has pointed out from his research, there had been an accident causing a reduced tram service. Wallace turned up exactly on the chess deadline. It’s still too big a gap I admit but maybe Mr X simply made a mistake? Maybe his watch was wrong?

Another maybe. It’s unlikely that a man so in debt would own a car but he might have had access to one. A favour from a friend, brother or brother-in-law perhaps? On the night of the murder he simply parks up in Richmond Park. This would allow Wallace even more time to do what he had to do (possibly 7 or 8 minutes more?) Wallace leaves before 7.00 and gets into the car to be driven to his first tram stop.

He hands Mr X a parcel containing the weapon and possible a pair of gloves if Wallace used them. We might also consider that if Wallace had gotten blood on a shirt or a pair of trousers these would have been parcelled up too. Mr X disposes of the weapon and burns the gloves and clothing.

Like the Accomplice theory involving Parry we cannot name or prove the existance of our accomplice but what we can say is this - with Wallace being involved a) they knew for certain that Wallace would go to MGE, and b) there’s no need for a freak piece of luck in Wallace needing to mention Qualtrough to Julia.

This plan explains Beattie not recognising the voice and Wallace turning left out of Richmond Park on the Monday instead of right. It gives Wallace more time to kill Julia. It explains the lack of blood. It explains the disposal of the weapon. With Wallace involved it explains why the lights were turned off.

For these reasons I’d say that it’s as least as believable as the current Accomplice theory. The only thing that it doesn’t explain is Parkes of course. But a) I don’t believe Parkes statement and b) consider the previous posts suggesting that Parry might have taken the opportunity provided by Julia’s murder to ‘get his own back’ on Parkes and the Atkinson’s.

Ladies and gentleman I give you.....The Mr X Theory.

Hi HS,

If developed, I think this can be added to the canon of theories. Why don't you give it some thought and write it up as an article? I'll publish on my website, if you're interested (I offered this to AS, but...)

Interestingly, the Wallace "Collaboration" theory (just to differentiate it from Accomplice and Conspiracy) with the most explanatory power would be Wallace makes the call (didn't trust anyone else to do it) and the accomplice executes the murder. There is one big drawback to this version (why Wallace returned home on night of murder before keeping the appointment). But it can be discussed with your version and see how plausible they are.

[cobalt]

I am not aware of any witnesses who saw Wallace leave the house and board his first tram.

However, some problems with the Wallace accomplice theory. Again we have Wallace leaving his house carrying bloodstained clothing and a murder weapon which is a bit too much to fit into a briefcase. Someone might have remembered him in his own street carrying a bundle.

Cars were much less common then, so someone might have remembered seeing the very distinctive Wallace getting into a car.

It's not just that Wallace was unlikely to confide in an accomplice; according to your theory HS, the accomplice would have had to ask a favour from an associate to get his hands on a car. That associate had no reason to cover up after the events made him suspicious.

A blunt instrument would be an unusual choice of weapon for an assassin. A knife would make much more sense, or strangulation. The attack was described as frenzied.

There is every indication that Julia was lighting the parlour fire as if for a visitor. Why would she let the assassin in, unless she was being given the Qualtrough bluff maybe.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

If developed, I think this can be added to the canon of theories. Why don't you give it some thought and write it up as an article? I'll publish on my website, if you're interested (I offered this to AS, but...)

Interestingly, the Wallace "Collaboration" theory (just to differentiate it from Accomplice and Conspiracy) with the most explanatory power would be Wallace makes the call (didn't trust anyone else to do it) and the accomplice executes the murder. There is one big drawback to this version (why Wallace returned home on night of murder before keeping the appointment). But it can be discussed with your version and see how plausible they are.

Hi Antony,

I’ll give it a go and email you over the next few days. Comments on here will be helpful of course

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not aware of any witnesses who saw Wallace leave the house and board his first tram.

Hi Cobalt, no one did see Wallace leave the house or arrive at the tram stop. It’s not until we hear from tram conductors and an inspector that we can track Wallace’s route.

However, some problems with the Wallace accomplice theory. Again we have Wallace leaving his house carrying bloodstained clothing and a murder weapon which is a bit too much to fit into a briefcase. Someone might have remembered him in his own street carrying a bundle.

Good point but I’d say that Wallace left via a back alley in the dark. He would then have had a short work in Richmond Park to a waiting car possibly after checking from the exit to the alley way that there was no one in the street. As you know, I believe that Wallace would have taken precautions against blood contamination and so any stained clothing (if it existed) might have simply amounted to a shirt with stained cuffs which could have been rolled up around the iron bar and wrapped in paper to make quite a small parcel.

Cars were much less common then, so someone might have remembered seeing the very distinctive Wallace getting into a car.

True, but again I’d say that Wallace might have checked from the alley way before emerging into Richmond Park.

It's not just that Wallace was unlikely to confide in an accomplice; according to your theory HS, the accomplice would have had to ask a favour from an associate to get his hands on a car. That associate had no reason to cover up after the events made him suspicious.

True again, but the associate would probably have had no reason to link the accomplice to the murder of Julia. Perhaps he made plans to visit someone on that night using the car after the events at Wolverton Street? He borrowed a car to visit ‘x’ he then actually visited ‘x.’ With no reason to link him to the crime I can’t see anyone checking times especially when the accomplice’s part in the crime would have taken little time.

A blunt instrument would be an unusual choice of weapon for an assassin. A knife would make much more sense, or strangulation. The attack was described as frenzied.

Id still go for Wallace as the murderer using the iron bar which was removed from the scene and Wallace appeared to have no knowledge of.

There is every indication that Julia was lighting the parlour fire as if for a visitor. Why would she let the assassin in, unless she was being given the Qualtrough bluff maybe.

I don’t suggest a visitor and so the assassin was already in the house.

I’d just like to stress that I still strongly favour Wallace alone. I’m just working with a possible scenario. I appreciate the comments/criticisms. Fault finding is welcome.

[moste]

Hi HS,

If developed, I think this can be added to the canon of theories. Why don't you give it some thought and write it up as an article? I'll publish on my website, if you're interested (I offered this to AS, but...)

Interestingly, the Wallace "Collaboration" theory (just to differentiate it from Accomplice and Conspiracy) with the most explanatory power would be Wallace makes the call (didn't trust anyone else to do it) and the accomplice executes the murder. There is one big drawback to this version (why Wallace returned home on night of murder before keeping the appointment). But it can be discussed with your version and see how plausible they are.

I wish we had documented proof of when Joseph Wallace arrived back in England! Is it certain he returned for the purpose of Julia's funeral, and 'being there' for his brother?

[RodCrosby]

I’d just like to stress that I still strongly favour Wallace alone. I’m just working with a possible scenario. I appreciate the comments/criticisms. Fault finding is welcome.

In other words,

I favour one theory for which there is no evidence, but I'll try to invent another for which there is no evidence, while studiously ignoring the only theory for which there is strong evidence, commonly known as the Correct Solution...

Is that [cough], concise enough fault-finding?

[Herlock Sholmes]

In other words,

I favour one theory for which there is no evidence, but I'll try to invent another for which there is no evidence, while studiously ignoring the only theory for which there is strong evidence, commonly known as the Correct Solution...

Is that [cough], concise enough fault-finding?

Nope it’s your usual utter lack of meaningful content. Pointless comments and insults which can easily be ignored as irrelevant.

There is not a single, solitary, smidgeon of evidence for your theory. It’s a work of imaginative fiction which you believe explains the facts. If a theory relies on Parkes then it’s on about as shaky ground as possible.

Only one saddo calls it the Correct Solution and I’m utterly bored with exposing your legion of deficiencies and listening to your tedious parroting of the same old lines over the last year or so. Same old.....

If you ever say anything worth responding to in future I may make the effort to do so.

[moste]

In other words,

I favour one theory for which there is no evidence, but I'll try to invent another for which there is no evidence, while studiously ignoring the only theory for which there is strong evidence, commonly known as the Correct Solution...

Is that [cough], concise enough fault-finding?

Oh Dear!, anyway... Do you think you could dig into the archives and find Joseph Wallace's documented proof of his landing back in Britain? Port of entry paper, passport, evidence of his travel from Dover, that line of thing. Date and time would be awesome.( I'm building a theory.)

[RodCrosby]

You'll find them on Ancestry.co.uk (paywall)...