Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

In regards to Parry, strong points can be made against him, but also exonerating him.

Guilt:

1) False alibi for the night of the call. THIS in my opinion is THE strongest evidence to suggest he had called. Without the false alibi I would definitely not think he called. There would be nothing of the sort to suggest it.

2) The possibility he could have made the call based on the testimony of Lily Lloyd (of note: her mother claimed he called at 7.15, which WOULD exonerate him).

3) His parents had attempted to have him shipped out of the country, rather calling into question whether his Brine alibi is true or coerced.

Innocence:

1) Parry, to me, seems to be a standard hoodlum, but neither a violent man, nor someone who would betray friends. Wallace had said that Parry was a "family friend" to himself and Julia. In fact, Parry had given Wallace the gift of a calendar just a few weeks earlier in December.

2) The fact the equivalent of the "cash box" was ALSO the only thing stolen from at the scene of #19, helps draw suspicion away from Parry. Obviously someone had inside knowledge to know where the #19 "cash box" was, and that person was NOT Parry.

Ambiguous:

1) I often find it hard to believe people are completely lying - but the testimony Parkes gave is rather crazy, and it leads me to wonder whether there was some tiny grain of truth (e.g. that Parry came and got his car hosed down) that he then greatly exaggerated with extra details. For example - the idea that as soon as Parkes saw the glove he admitted he'd be hung for it, and then randomly VOLUNTEERED where he'd dropped the murder weapon? How farfetched.

I mean we see that the inside of the car was totally clean, so a wringing wet blood-soaked passenger having got in seems unlikely. So then you have to imagine, all he was given was the weapon and glove.

---

Overall, in regards to Parry, I could see him breaking into random people's cars etc. but I do not see him as being a very violent man (I mean he was essentially harassed by Goodman and others, and not once acted out against them in violence AFAIK, even though even I would probably have thrown something at them if they'd been stalking me and harassing me continuously)... He was found totally innocent of the sexual assault charges against him, by the way, which, ironically, was investigated by professor MacFall.

---

My points following about Wallace were mainly to raise the idea that maybe he WAS a bit of a "bumbling" old man:

1. Yes 16 years without promotion could lead a man to feel unappreciated... But it could also just be that he was simply not good enough to be promoted.

2. Gannon's proposition was laughable in my opinion. He said it was an anagram for "SLAY J 1889" AKA 7.29 PM... Lol... But really, he was referring to a book by John Kirkwood Leys. He fumbled both the name of the author, AND the date, thus raising the possibility that maybe he IS prone to lapses of memory, or fumbling details.

As I said though, it could be that he purposefully added these things into the diary to allay suspicion away from himself. E.g. that detectives would read that and come to the conclusion that he is this prone to mistakes and messing up fine details/names etc.

3a. Yes. The point ALONE would point to his guilt strongly. But that's because we are viewing him as a highly intelligent chess champion. If, for example, he had an IQ of 70 and was considered to be the "village idiot", we wouldn't be shocked at him getting so many things wrong.

Potentially you could also argue that due to the stress of losing his wife, he had fumbled on the details... But I don't necessarily believe that is plausible.

3b. He mentioned the dog whip BEFORE Draper had come and identified the bar and poker as being missing. It is a very unusual item to own for people without a dog lol. And would fit in with the rumors about Amy Wallace. Particularly that William indulged in similar fantasies to her.

3c. Well the members of the club said he was specifically known for being a bad player:

At the time of the case a member of the Central Chess Club called Wallace a “chess-vandalist”, adding that “the best one can say about him is that he is an enthusiastic duffer”. Another member—a true devotee, this one—remarked, “The murder of his wife apart, I think Wallace ought to be hanged for being such a bad chess-player.”

And of course he also sucked a the violin. Lol...

The most damning evidence against him, all the fumbled statements, retractions, false information, could be explained by a man who suffered from some type of memory issue or lacking intelligence (even self-professed intellectuals aren't always exactly intellectual lmao. Anyone can read Marcus Aurelius etc. but it doesn't mean they're smart). If others like Rod and Antony were still posting here, I think they would have deeper information, having seen the police files.

---

Obviously I find Wallace to be a suspicious man, but my main gripes about him would be allayed if he had some type of memory issue, or was not exactly as intelligent as we are led to believe. And also I DO question the lack of blood, when I think about it... He would have had to wear clothes, the mack, and the hat. Probably gloves too... And socks... Because from what I read from the forensic team at the time, even if he had bathed, it would not remove all traces of blood. So if traces were still on him, then whatever new outfit he put on would have got microscopic bloodstains on which would have been revealed by the benzidine test which was performed upon them.

Am I wrong in this?

If I'm not wrong, I would think he either totally incinerated ALL of these items in the kitchen fire. Or handed them off to someone else (if he had acted alone in committing the act).

Also obviously the timing is a slight issue.

If anyone is going to focus on points about Parry and Wallace - I think it'd be worth investigating things which I DON'T think have been strongly debated or questioned before: WHY was he first seen at Smithdown Lane (the second tram he claimed to have boarded, was it not?), WHY did nobody see him on his tram journey home? Did he have some OTHER means of getting to Smithdown Lane and from Menlove Gardens which would shave off time?

And Lily Hall's statement, importantly focus on the clothing she reported him as wearing. I may have been wrong because I first of all said she'd correctly identified his outfit. But now I see he claimed he had worn a "fawn" overcoat, which is a light brown color. Did anyone else see him wearing a dark overcoat - the Johnstons - the constable? Surely someone else had described his outfit... The doppelganger seen on the cab ride was wearing a dark overcoat though not a hat.

---

Since learning a lot of new information I don't anymore think that we should just be arguing about whether it was Wallace alone, Parry alone, Parry and Marsden, Wallace Parry and Marsden, or Parry and "Unknown"... At least not now.

I think new avenues have been opened up which deserve to be explored.

---

Anyone with access to information of that time period, should right now be searching hard for information on ALL the Anfield burglaries (I cannot find them mentioned before the Wallace case came to light, which is annoying). We know a skeleton key was used - ok, but what about the crime scenes themselves? How similar were they to the others? Did the scenes tend to suggest advanced knowledge of the home's layout and where the most valuable possessions were located?

Did Sarah Draper or any other cleaning lady/staff members work at the #19 home or any others which were burgled. Was O'Mara really a random lunatic, or can he be connected in any way to the burglaries? He had committed suicide after setting his baby on fire only 30 minutes from Wolverton Street on the same night at 10 PM - brandishing an iron bar with which to threaten people... He had been out of work for 5 years, so had he been supporting himself through burglary? Had he, having commited murder, decided to commit suicide once realizing what he had done? It's a long shot... But definitely new information about events surrounding that night which I don't think have ever been mentioned before.

Can we PROVE Joseph Wallace arrived in Liverpool after the murder? Could he have been the one on that cab ride, disposing items in the lake at Princes Park, before making the very short trip to Amy's home (or the rented one, as I don't see evidence of the date he rented it out)?

We know the Johnstons had been in #19, and also had been asked to open and close curtains in #29, rather calling into question the claim that they'd only been in the parlor. The residents of #19 had also asked the Johnstons to keep watch of their home while they were away.

Did you know Mr. Johnston had to rise for work at 4 AM? What was he doing going to visit Phyllis at a time where he would likely have turned up at 9 PM or even a bit later?

Did you also know Mr. Johnston had a colleague from the shipyard where he worked who lived at 30 Menlove Gardens West, who he stopped visiting following the murder?

The Johnstons had also looked after Julia's cat. The same cat that went missing 24 hours before the crime was committed (strongly suggesting the cat was kept somewhere overnight, given the weather conditions).

The Johnstons were also direct neighbors to the Wallaces, and had they committed this act, it would be obvious how they could just "disappear", since they had only to walk a couple of feet from the back yard door into their own.

I DO think all residents within the red boxed area I showed (odd numbered Wolverton, and the Richmond Park side) should be heavily considered, either as the killers themselves, or accomplices. And even if the Johnstons were involved in some way, then there is no definite proof that it was something they did alone either. Back in those times, most "housebreakers" were syndicates working together, like the Allerton bunch who were caught in December 1930. The last home having been hit in Menlove Gardens, ironically, and a huge £243 bounty stolen.

And of course, obviously, Wallace could have given them the cat and blackmailed Johnston (who he figured out behind burglaries in the area) into committing murder.

---

I think this is the information we should be exploring at the moment, as I don't believe it has really been discussed in detail before? But then again, I've only been here a few months and the posters here have had decades of discussion! So who knows?!

[moste]

Quote: 2) The fact the equivalent of the "cash box" was ALSO the only thing stolen from at the scene of #19, helps draw suspicion away from Parry. Obviously someone had inside knowledge to know where the #19 "cash box" was, and that person was NOT Parry.

Why do you think someone had to have inside knowledge of where their cash box was? Maybe it was on the mantle shelf, next to the clock!

[WallaceWackedHer]

Quote: 2) The fact the equivalent of the "cash box" was ALSO the only thing stolen from at the scene of #19, helps draw suspicion away from Parry. Obviously someone had inside knowledge to know where the #19 "cash box" was, and that person was NOT Parry.

Why do you think someone had to have inside knowledge of where their cash box was? Maybe it was on the mantle shelf, next to the clock!

This is not the only factor. The other factor is that nothing else was stolen, there was no forced entry, and pillows and blankets upstairs were randomly thrown around. Oh also the cash container was replaced.

In other words, the crime scene was basically identical to the scene at 29, just without the dead woman in it.

[moste]

This is not the only factor. The other factor is that nothing else was stolen, there was no forced entry, and pillows and blankets upstairs were randomly thrown around. Oh also the cash container was replaced.

In other words, the crime scene was basically identical to the scene at 29, just without the dead woman in it.

So what your saying is,' Wallace had been in #19 prepping a false burglary , so that it would completely throw the cops for a loop When he did his dirty work in his own home, maybe? ... Nahh , I can't go with that one.

[WallaceWackedHer]

So what your saying is,' Wallace had been in #19 prepping a false burglary , so that it would completely throw the cops for a loop When he did his dirty work in his own home, maybe? ... Nahh , I can't go with that one.

No. I'm saying the same perp could be responsible for both.

Or the scene at #29 was a murder made to look like #19 to throw off police.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Did you know Arthur Mills was living with the Johnstons, could he have had a job at his age?

There were apparently 6 people in the home at that time. Did Norah have a job? Did Robert have a job? Did Amy have a job? Did Florence have a job? Did Arthur have a job? Who were they all relying on to keep the household going? Because they need the financial means to feed and support 6 people in that home.

Mr. Johnston worked at Cammell-Laird shipbuilding yard, and in 1931 only one ship had been produced. They were known to be a very hard up family. And it would seem they at LEAST had to support their father. And if Florence was out of work, then Mr. Johnston would have been supporting her as well... And likely any others in the household who were out of work, would have been receiving financial support from the only working parties.

It would make sense for Mr. Johnston to rely on less-than-legal means to obtain the financial requirements to support his family.

IF Mr. Johnston were the "trigger man" as it were (or even just provided a place for the killer to wash himself off, maybe dump items (or just wash them off), then the total lack of sighting of a blood-splattered man would be clearly explained. IF someone knew of his criminal activities, blackmail could have been used to make him commit murder. Or indeed, he may have been blackmailed into performing the robbery and sharing the takings with the unknown person. I think I have already raised that point... But many authors who have Wallace as the mastermind suggest he used blackmail to get the parties involved to go along with it... And something like that, would be perfect for blackmail...

---

I found out some interesting information on Mr. Parkes... It would seem that Wilkes was initially told that Parkes demanded money to give his story... But of course, they tracked him down and then he had to give it up lol. Is there a grain of truth in Parkes' statement? It is possible... Or maybe he was just chasing financial gain from a B.S. story.

If we do have the involvement of Parry, I can see something like the following happening: Wallace tells Parry that he's going to pull off some scam to "burgle" the insurance takings in his own home, and share the bounty. Parry gladly agrees to this, and calls the City Café (though I think Mr. Johnston could also have done this... They lived next door lol, neighbors leaving together and walking to the box he would obviously be in there at the right time - and recall the voice was described as an "older gentleman")...Wallace tells him that he will need to be there the next day with a car... If Parkes is to be believed of course... So anyway, Parry comes along in his car, and to his shock, weaponry and blood stained gloves are dumped upon him. He's like "WHAT THE ****?!" and then threatened to dispose of them, since he is now essentially involved in a murder... And from there he may have gone and disposed of the items in a panicked state, and then gone to the garage in a panic later in the night.

BUT I'm not sure of Parkes. Especially the people who "backed up" his claims lol. I mean it's altogether a bit ridiculous. The car TOTALLY clear of stains, but for some reason a bloody glove left there rofl, guess he didn't think of chucking it down the drain with the bar LOL. Perhaps a grain of truth, perhaps he STRONGLY suspected Parry did it and elaborated some details, like inventing that Parry blurted out randomly that he'd thrown the weapon down a drain...

[WallaceWackedHer]

By the way every time I see Joseph in those shades I hear the GTA Liberty City Stories theme rofl:

Imagining him turning up to Julia's door with an Uzi. He looks like legit cartel or mafia don loool.

The description that cab driver gave of his passenger who was in an anxious state fleeing towards Sefton Park at the time of the murder, you legitimately could NOT come up with a better description of Joseph Wallace if you tried:

"About 5'11, sharp features, pale face, rimmed glasses, slight mustache, hair beginning to turn grey, thin build, well spoken, well mannered, about 50 years of age."

I dare ANYONE to come up with a more accurate description of Joseph lol.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) False alibi for the night of the call. THIS in my opinion is THE strongest evidence to suggest he had called. Without the false alibi I would definitely not think he called. There would be nothing of the sort to suggest it.

I find it difficult to believe that Parry would have been so monumentally stupid as to give a false alibi that he would have known would have been almost immediately disproven. He would have known that Lilly Lloyd and her mother would have been interviewed to check his alibi. Even if he’d said “I was out driving around” it would have been less harmful to himself than an obvious lie. If he’d planned the robbery/murder wouldn’t he have tried to create an alibi for himself (one of his dodgy mates or his accomplice?) If he’d even realised that he’d given a false alibi wouldn’t he have tried to get Lily and her mother to back him up? There refusal to do so obviously caused no rift or ill feeling which is difficult to accept. Also, as it was suggested that Lily told Wallace’s barrister that she’d given him a false alibi for the night of the murder (pointless as her ‘alibi’ was for after the time of the murder) wouldn’t she have mentioned that Parry had tried to get her to falsely alibi him for the night of the call.

Yes, I know that Antony suspects that this is a ‘defend Wallace’s candidature at all costs’ point but it's not. I think that we have to at least allow for the possibility that Parry was genuinely mistaken.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) I often find it hard to believe people are completely lying - but the testimony Parkes gave is rather crazy, and it leads me to wonder whether there was some tiny grain of truth (e.g. that Parry came and got his car hosed down) that he then greatly exaggerated with extra details. For example - the idea that as soon as Parkes saw the glove he admitted he'd be hung for it, and then randomly VOLUNTEERED where he'd dropped the murder weapon? How farfetched.

This is a good point WWH and one that I’ve made myself. As Parkes had told Parry that he didn’t trust him and as the Atkinson’s had caught him looking through a cupboard that contained cash Parry might have thought of a way of getting a bit of petty revenge. Confident of his alibi and the fact that he had no blood on him he led Parkes into believe him a murderer. The police dismiss Parkes because they know of Parry’s alibi and so Parkes gets labelled as a bit of a fantasist and waster of police time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The most damning evidence against him, all the fumbled statements, retractions, false information, could be explained by a man who suffered from some type of memory issue or lacking intelligence (even self-professed intellectuals aren't always exactly intellectual lmao. Anyone can read Marcus Aurelius etc. but it doesn't mean they're smart). If others like Rod and Antony were still posting here, I think they would have deeper information, having seen the police files.

They could also be explained as the efforts of a fallible human being undertaking an extremely stressful action. No matter how thorough someone plans something errors will occur (or the police would never catch anyone) Also not every eventuality can be accounted for (like Close turning up late for eg) and these things can cause panic and error.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Obviously I find Wallace to be a suspicious man, but my main gripes about him would be allayed if he had some type of memory issue, or was not exactly as intelligent as we are led to believe. And also I DO question the lack of blood, when I think about it... He would have had to wear clothes, the mack, and the hat. Probably gloves too... And socks... Because from what I read from the forensic team at the time, even if he had bathed, it would not remove all traces of blood. So if traces were still on him, then whatever new outfit he put on would have got microscopic bloodstains on which would have been revealed by the benzidine test which was performed upon them.

Am I wrong in this?

I wouldn’t say that you’re wrong WWH as we could all be wrong on any issue. I genuinely believe that Wallace could have committed the crime using the mackintosh and possibly a pair of gloves. Either by using the mackintosh as a shield as he was kneeling next to Julia or by wearing it (possibly backwards) Also I’m never to worried about suggesting that Wallace might have had a bit of good fortune with the random blood spatter by not getting any on any parts of his body (like his head) that were exposed.

Wallace would have had to have cleaned up if he’d gotten blood on him because he had to speak to tram conductors etc.
Only an intentional murderer would have used protection.
There was no blood traces on the gas jets, the doors, the door handles, the carpets, the wallpaper or indeed anywhere outside the Parlour. A random, spur-of-the-moment killer would have had no need of such caution especially considering the fact that the lights were off.

Therefore the fact that there was no blood outside of the Parlour points very heavily towards Wallace imo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If anyone is going to focus on points about Parry and Wallace - I think it'd be worth investigating things which I DON'T think have been strongly debated or questioned before: WHY was he first seen at Smithdown Lane (the second tram he claimed to have boarded, was it not?), WHY did nobody see him on his tram journey home? Did he have some OTHER means of getting to Smithdown Lane and from Menlove Gardens which would shave off time?

Isnt this because he wasn’t making his presence known on the journey back? On the way back he was just another passenger. On the way there he was that passenger who kept pestering conductors and an inspector for directions which gave them cause to remember him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Since learning a lot of new information I don't anymore think that we should just be arguing about whether it was Wallace alone, Parry alone, Parry and Marsden, Wallace Parry and Marsden, or Parry and "Unknown"... At least not now.

I think new avenues have been opened up which deserve to be explored.

I agree that all avenues should be investigated and I honestly think it’s great that we have a fresh pair of eyes with new viewpoints looking into things (that’s you by the way) my only word of caution is that around any case like this we have the curse of the rumour. The ripper case is full of them. This case less so for obvious reasons but they do exist. Worth exploring yes but it’s vital to bear in mind that people do simply make stuff up and outrageous stuff at that and so to push on along any of those avenues we need some strong corroborating evidence and not just that more than one person mentioned the same rumour. I’m not saying that that’s what your doing at all but it’s worth mentioning I think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As for connecting The Anfield Housebreaker I still can’t get past the phone call. This makes the killing of Julia Wallace very different for me. Granted a killer might have gotten in using a skeleton key but there’s much against the idea of a burglar..

If someone got in that way and Julia came across him surely she would have screamed out.
The use of the call to get William out of the house.
The poor haul of cash and the lack of effort to find other cash or valuables.
Putting the cash box back onto the shelf.
The lack of blood outside the Parlour.
The lights being turned off.

Unless we go for the PD James idea (which I consider ludicrous) I can’t personally connect the AH to the crime.

[moste]

As for connecting The Anfield Housebreaker I still can’t get past the phone call. This makes the killing of Julia Wallace very different for me. Granted a killer might have gotten in using a skeleton key but there’s much against the idea of a burglar..

If someone got in that way and Julia came across him surely she would have screamed out.
The use of the call to get William out of the house.
The poor haul of cash and the lack of effort to find other cash or valuables.
Putting the cash box back onto the shelf.
The lack of blood outside the Parlour.
The lights being turned off.

Unless we go for the PD James idea (which I consider ludicrous) I can’t personally connect the AH to the crime.

With the exception of Julia screaming out, I am on board with the above. She certainly would scream out, loudly enough for the whole street to hear , if the intruder was coming at her from across the room with a weapon in his hand,but it may not have been quite like that.
It is refreshing having WWH sifting through evidence and trying to come up with a new angle.I have only read , as Ive said before 'Roger Wilkes's effort' who believes far too much in Parkes's testimony IMO. I would mention in this regard WWH , blackmail, or financial profit are a strong magnet for many of the criminal fraternity, but folk of Parkes's ilk I believe will gladly grab the limelight for no other reason other than to feel important and have people listen to them.Wilkes probably knew all this but had a radio show to put out and a book to flog .
If Wallace wasn't controlling events , and was completely unknowing in what was going on, then the plan, including the phone call and all other aspects of the crime with all its ruses, are for me of MI 5 proportions . Consequently, we need look no further than Wallace .