Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Abby Normal]

This is a thought provoking post and when talking of killing two birds with one stone, I have touched on this scenario before, and its where I am at with my thinking . Thinking too hard when trying to assess situations tends to over complicate an otherwise straight forward series of events. Take the Mac. 'Wallace wearing the Mac' at the time of the murder fits the bill. He probably completely underestimated the amount of mess it would cause, and knowing it would totally incriminate him by just leaving it lying around he stuffed it under his wife's body removing the obvious spatter/spray evidence as suggested by H S in the past.

yeah but theres nothing straight forward about his mac being crumpled up underneath her though. it weird in its own right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's just another round in the nine-rounds-of-russian-roulette plan, supposedly thought out and proceeded with by Wallace.

Even if he succeeds with the mechanics of the phone-call, the murder and the disposal of the weapon, etc. he draws suspicion with an unnecessary shaggy-dog story about Qualtrough, which the Police and a jury indeed felt was "too good to be true." A better plan might have been to make the call before the previous chess game, and ignore it, explaining to the Police "I discovered the address and the person were false so didn't bother going." It might still have been useful to Wallace, as indicating there was someone out there who wished to do him harm. As I've said repeatedly, Wallace's alibi for the murder didn't depend on Qualtrough; it depended on Close (with its own set of difficulties and improbabilities)

As for trying to implicate Parry, he might as well have tried to implicate a random person from the phone-book. He could not know he would not have an alibi. Wallace would surely have tried to lay a better trail of evidence pointing to Parry, other than simply naming him, after the event, as one of many who might have been admitted to the house...

I don’t know how you can persist in trying to imply that the plan was illogical or unlikely for Wallace but perfectly feasible for Parry? The opposite is transparently the case. The plan makes absolutely perfect sense for a man trying to a) have a reason to be away from the house that isn’t based entirely on his own choice (as a visit to the chess club would be) and b) to introduce the culprit (someone that existed because Beattie and Harley had both spoken to him.) Wallace, of course, knows that the plan can’t fail because he’s in control.

For it to have been Parry of course we have to believe that he went to all the trouble of creating a plan which relies almost entirely on luck. Why won’t this sink in?!

As for Wallace implicating Parry. I didn’t say that this was a major part of Wallace’s plan. I didn’t even say that it was a part of his plan. What I said was that Wallace had nothing to lose by this and it might have paid off if Parry had been unfortunate enough to have been out and about whilst Julia was being killed.

[etenguy]

Hmmm - the whole Qualtrough call plan is difficult to fathom.

A reason for Wallace to make the call, if guilty, would be to suggest a thrid party involved in the crime. But it has a logical flaw. That imaginery person would have to know Wallace was out on Monday night at the Chess Club so why would they call to get Wallace out of the house the next night. The police would find that situation curious. It is possible Wallace wished to frame Parry by suggesting Parry would know there was normally more money on a Tuesday night - peak amount since it was Wallace's habit to bank premiums once a week on Wednesdays. This resoning is not without issue.

Rod has suggested that Parry made the call. Again, why would Parry simply not conduct the crime on Monday night (with or without an accomplice). Rod's theory has it that Parry would expect a significantly larger haul on Tuesday and that explains the need for the call, coupled with supplying an excuse to allow the accomplice entry. If Rod is correct, then the motive was robbery with a view to maximising the haul. This reasoning is not without issue.

With both of the above, the reasoning is not supported by actions. Wallace did not - until much later - make any serious allegation against Parry. You might have expected him to have raised this before his trial - if he did in fact want to frame Parry. He didn't mention it.

Equally Parry/Accomplice made no attempt to maximise their haul - if they were guilty - but yet went to the trouble of half-heartedly staging a burglary scene while ignoring cash lying around the house.

Go figure!

[moste]

Devils advocate question. Just reading the trial transcript, when Wallace is questioned re his movements during the day. At lunch time he caught a tram from Clubmore back home for a bite with his wife, (as is his want,) then sets out again to continue his calls. If relations are poor, bordering on intolerable between Wallace and his wife , why does he not spend this lunch time in a local café, or pub ?

[moste]

Heading back to the transcript now. I need to find out if the prosecution dug deep into the issue of Wallace not having any means to locate an address in Liverpool. 'a tool of his trade' one would surely assume.
I have heard no suggestions as to an answer to this. Wallace with 600 customers all over north west Liverpool, and every address found by asking the office where it was or calling at post offices or newsagent to borrow their directory. B.S.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hmmm - the whole Qualtrough call plan is difficult to fathom.

A reason for Wallace to make the call, if guilty, would be to suggest a thrid party involved in the crime. But it has a logical flaw. That imaginery person would have to know Wallace was out on Monday night at the Chess Club so why would they call to get Wallace out of the house the next night. The police would find that situation curious. It is possible Wallace wished to frame Parry by suggesting Parry would know there was normally more money on a Tuesday night - peak amount since it was Wallace's habit to bank premiums once a week on Wednesdays. This resoning is not without issue.

Rod has suggested that Parry made the call. Again, why would Parry simply not conduct the crime on Monday night (with or without an accomplice). Rod's theory has it that Parry would expect a significantly larger haul on Tuesday and that explains the need for the call, coupled with supplying an excuse to allow the accomplice entry. If Rod is correct, then the motive was robbery with a view to maximising the haul. This reasoning is not without issue.

With both of the above, the reasoning is not supported by actions. Wallace did not - until much later - make any serious allegation against Parry. You might have expected him to have raised this before his trial - if he did in fact want to frame Parry. He didn't mention it.

Equally Parry/Accomplice made no attempt to maximise their haul - if they were guilty - but yet went to the trouble of half-heartedly staging a burglary scene while ignoring cash lying around the house.

Go figure!

Wallace first mentioned Parry to the police in a statement made on 22/1/31 two days after the murder. He goes into great detail about him and also mentions Marsden. Then in one short paragraph he simply lists the other people who Julia would have let in (without any background detail on any of them) He then adds “I forgot to mention that I believe Mr Parry owns a motor car or has the use of one, because I was talking to him in Missouri Road and he had a car then which he was driving. He gave me one of his company’s calendars.”

Wallace is keen to get in every detail. He mentions the two occaisions that Parry had been involved in financial irregularities. He ensures that they know that Parry knew where the cash box was. He even gives them the address of his girlfriend.

Apart from some brief information about Marsden he gives no information at all about any of the others on the list. Just their names and who they are.

It’s pretty obvious that Wallace is saying “here’s a possible suspect for you.”

During the case he pursues Parry no further. Probably because he knows that there’s no evidence against him and possibly he doesn’t want to appear as someone obsessed or predisposed to accusing him.

Then, after the trial and his subsequent acquittal Wallace, for reasons unknown, suddenly appears to become convinced that Parry is guilty? It’s a little strange.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Devils advocate question. Just reading the trial transcript, when Wallace is questioned re his movements during the day. At lunch time he caught a tram from Clubmore back home for a bite with his wife, (as is his want,) then sets out again to continue his calls. If relations are poor, bordering on intolerable between Wallace and his wife , why does he not spend this lunch time in a local café, or pub ?

I wouldn’t say that was the case Moste. Any discontent was beneath the surface. Wallace wouldn’t have wanted anyone to know that there was anything wrong for obvious reasons. Julia might not even have been aware that her husband was unhappy.

[etenguy]

During the case he pursues Parry no further. Probably because he knows that there’s no evidence against him and possibly he doesn’t want to appear as someone obsessed or predisposed to accusing him.

Then, after the trial and his subsequent acquittal Wallace, for reasons unknown, suddenly appears to become convinced that Parry is guilty? It’s a little strange.

I expect his brief was telling him he was likely to be acquitted due to lack of evidence and so decided to hold back in case it confused matters.

[moste]

I expect his brief was telling him he was likely to be acquitted due to lack of evidence and so decided to hold back in case it confused matters.

Here's a thought.
Parkes, in discussing the Parry event ( washing away evidence and bloody glove etc.) at the late night garage, with the Atkinsons. We are told that John Parks is asked to keep the Parry visit to himself, whereupon Parks says' but if things go badly for Wallace, we will have to go to the police' .This I believe is agreed upon, and when Wallace is found guilty Parks apparently does indeed make a statement to the police. Since this situation at the garage involves Atkinsons property and one of their employees I would assume it would be one of the Atkinson bros. or father that would invite the C I D down for a statement of the facts. Here's the problem, would Atkinson and\or Parkes not be charged with' withholding evidence ?,could this be a flaw in the Parkes story?
In any event would it not be human nature, (and understanding something of Parkes's mentality,) very likely that Parkes would contact Wallace after his release with this incredible story, and this in turn further convinces Wallace of Parry's guilt ? and finally ,wouldn't there be details of Wallaces's reaction to hearing from Parkes in his diary?
I guess I am convincing myself that Parkes' statements in '81 was hogwash! and succeeding.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here's a thought.
Parkes, in discussing the Parry event ( washing away evidence and bloody glove etc.) at the late night garage, with the Atkinsons. We are told that John Parks is asked to keep the Parry visit to himself, whereupon Parks says' but if things go badly for Wallace, we will have to go to the police' .This I believe is agreed upon, and when Wallace is found guilty Parks apparently does indeed make a statement to the police. Since this situation at the garage involves Atkinsons property and one of their employees I would assume it would be one of the Atkinson bros. or father that would invite the C I D down for a statement of the facts. Here's the problem, would Atkinson and\or Parkes not be charged with' withholding evidence ?,could this be a flaw in the Parkes story?
In any event would it not be human nature, (and understanding something of Parkes's mentality,) very likely that Parkes would contact Wallace after his release with this incredible story, and this in turn further convinces Wallace of Parry's guilt ? and finally ,wouldn't there be details of Wallaces's reaction to hearing from Parkes in his diary?
I guess I am convincing myself that Parkes' statements in '81 was hogwash! and succeeding.

Hi Moste,

As you know, I do think the Parkes story hogwash. One of the problems amongst many that I have is that it was said that the story of Parry’s alleged visit was common knowledge around the garage. Knowing human nature as we do is it really remotely likely that this story, concerning Liverpool’s most famous criminal case, could have not seeped out over the ensuing 50 years. We are asked to believe that not one person told his wife or a friend and that if they did they in turn kept completely schtum? Not until the radio show did someone emerge from the shadows and mention Parkes. There’s also no record of the alleged Parkes police interview. We can’t just keep brushing things aside with calls of ‘police corruption.’


An alternative viewpoint.

What if Parry did go to the garage? We know that he wasn’t welcome at the garage by the brothers as he’d been caught going through a wardrobe which contained cash. We know that Parkes had told him to his face that he didn’t trust him. A bit of a humiliation for the cocky Parry.

He hears of the Wallace murder through the grapevine and has an idea to get his own back. He finds an old stained glove and puts it in his car. He drives round to the garage and employs his acting skills to seem panicked. Parkes finds the glove and Parry blabs about the fact that it could have gotten him hanged. He then tells the naive and gullible Parkes about the hiding of the weapon. He doesn’t even bother to tell Parkes to keep his mouth shut.

He knows that there’s no evidence in the car because none ever existed. He knows that there’s no evidence anywhere because he wasn’t involved. And best of all he has a cast-iron alibi for the time of the murder. Parry is branded a fantasist and is rebuked for wasting police time. Maybe Parkes and one of the brothers wastes there time by checking the drain in Priory Road for the weapon?

[RodCrosby]

Yawn, just more self-serving special-pleading.

And of course, you have no explanation why an elderly lady in 1981 would endorse a fabrication from an underling which paints her - and her recently-deceased husband - as equally culpable of moral cowardice in 1931.

It did "seep out" because, according to Gordon Atkinson, it was "common knowledge". It would, of course, not "seep" into the public domain while Parry was alive... Parry died in 1980. A public domain whereby these witnesses could finally give their evidence was provided in early 1981...

And silly attempts to undermine these witnesses won't add to the zero evidence that Wallace killed his wife, and the sheer implausibility of any theory that he did...

[RodCrosby]

And then we have Mrs Ada Cook, who gave a detailed signed statement later in life...

[etenguy]

And then we have Mrs Ada Cook, who gave a detailed signed statement later in life...

For those not familiar with Ada Cook (and Jane Smith) statements.

Ada Cook stated Parry's parents approached her father to smuggle Parry out of the country. She also said she had heard that the murder implement had been dropped down a drain outside a cinema. There was a cinema near Dr Dunlop's surgery. The suggestion is these two statements, Parkes and Cook, corroborate each other. However, it should be noted Ada Cook named a different cinema than the one close to Dr Dunlop's surgery.

Jane Smith stated she had seen a man in the area (she lived between the cinema and the surgery) but we don't know who that was or if they dropped anything down a drain, so not very useful in this context.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn, just more self-serving special-pleading.

And of course, you have no explanation why an elderly lady in 1981 would endorse a fabrication from an underling which paints her - and her recently-deceased husband - as equally culpable of moral cowardice in 1931.

It did "seep out" because, according to Gordon Atkinson, it was "common knowledge". It would, of course, not "seep" into the public domain while Parry was alive... Parry died in 1980. A public domain whereby these witnesses could finally give their evidence was provided in early 1981...

And silly attempts to undermine these witnesses won't add to the zero evidence that Wallace killed his wife, and the sheer implausibility of any theory that he did...

And why wouldn’t it seep out whilst Parry was alive? Anyone could have spoken about hearing of Parkes meeting with Parry at no risk to themselves.

Why would an old lady endorse a fabrication? Who knows? Have people never endorsed fabrications before?

Its certainly instructive to hear you speak about undermining witnesses when anyone who says anything that speaks against Wallace is immediately branded worthless or a liar by you. This is cherry-picking pure and simple.

The theory that Wallace killed his wife is anything but implausible and yet the Accomplice theory has enough holes for anyone who isn’t biased to see.

At the end of the day, when judging the worth of Parkes statement, we cannot ignore the actual content of that statement. I fail to see how anyone could read it critically and with an unbiased eye and not be immediately struck by the sheer unlikeliness of it. But then again, in this case, we are used to having ludicrous excuses made to explain weird or unlikely behaviour all in the name of propping up a theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And then we have Mrs Ada Cook, who gave a detailed signed statement later in life...

The important words being “in later life...”

Rumours and legends built up over time and certain people wishing to be associated with a piece of history.

Nothing to see here.......