Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It doesn't make total sense to me really...

Incinerating the mack is more important than playing knock down ginger on his own home... He should've gone front door, back door, entered, chucked it in the kitchen fireplace, and then rushed out of his home having made the discovery to go grab his neighbors... And if he wanted to play the knock-knock game, he should've knocked a lot harder, rather than "gentle tapping", to absolutely ensure it would be heard and corroborated.

But I don't know that the Holme family heard his front door knock, and again the Johnstons - somehow - thought that a man knocking on the neighbor's back door late at night was normal.

But the main issue is that it would even work. I'm not really convinced it would - or at least, I think it would be very dangerous to rely upon unless it was a Bateman style raincoat with total coverage. He'd still have to take the time to wipe his face off (and get blood out of his thick moustache, is that easy to do?) with a cloth and then incinerate that entirely, along with the hat and gloves he would have probably worn.

How could Wallace have explained pieces of burnt mackintosh in the fire or buttons? Why would he have needed to have burnt the mackintosh if it wasn’t incriminating in any way? No one has yet been able to come up with a workable scenario for how and why the mackintosh ended up bunched up beneath Julia’s body. The nearest has been that it was used to dull the sound but that still doesn’t explain how it ended up underneath her body and not just her head. It gives every appearance of being placed there deliberately and if that was the case then what reason can we come up with? I can think of no better, or even other, reason than it was used by the killer.

Id also suggest that it’s not impossible that Wallace might have been a bit lucky too. Blood spatter is random of course so he may have either avoided blood on his face or just got a few spots. I even think that it’s not impossible to hit an unmoving target with your face behind a shield. He could have he’d it up to just below his eyes leaving just the top half of his head on view.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You could not possibly have thought you went there at 5.30 and remained until 11.30 if you didn't. It's not a mistake you could possibly make lol.

So the fact is, he obviously DID give a totally bunk alibi.

The fact that Parry confidently gave this alibi and mentioned that she’d been teaching somewhere sounds to me like someone who simple got his evenings mixed up. I think it could very well have been a mistake from someone who hadn’t prepared an alibi because he didn’t expect to have needed one. I just don’t see Parry being so colossally stupid. And remember, Lily Lloyd and her mother weren’t interviewed until two days later. We can’t be expected to believe that Parry didn’t mention his police interview with her and thus he would have found out that he’d given an incorrect alibi which would have raised alarm bells in a murder investigation. Why didn’t he simply go to the police and say “ I’ve made a mistake on my movements on Monday night.” Anything would have been better than potentially being caught out by the police.

[WallaceWackedHer]

For me the big issue is how do we account for William’s mackintosh being bunched up beneath Julia’s body? I simply can’t envision any scenario where this happened by chance. And if it was intentional then it can surely only point to Wallace.

Ive said this before but I think it’s worth repeating. A few have, at the very least, raised their eyebrows at my suggestion that Wallace might have used his mackintosh as a shield (I also believe that he might have worn it.) But then we see William Wallace suggesting the very same thing in his John Bull articles. You recently mentioned Wallace making a statement near the end of his life which might have sounded like an admission that he ‘got away with it?’ Was Wallace’s mention of using the mackintosh as a shield another bit of gloating? To the police: “I’m even telling you how I did it and you still can’t solve it.”

It doesn't make total sense to me really...

Incinerating the mack is more important than playing knock down ginger on his own home... He should've gone front door, back door, entered, chucked it in the kitchen fireplace, and then rushed out of his home having made the discovery to go grab his neighbors... And if he wanted to play the knock-knock game, he should've knocked a lot harder, rather than "gentle tapping", to absolutely ensure it would be heard and corroborated.

But I don't know that the Holme family heard his front door knock, and again the Johnstons - somehow - thought that a man knocking on the neighbor's back door late at night was normal.

But the main issue is that it would even work. I'm not really convinced it would - or at least, I think it would be very dangerous to rely upon unless it was a Bateman style raincoat with total coverage. He'd still have to take the time to wipe his face off (and get blood out of his thick moustache, is that easy to do?) with a cloth and then incinerate that entirely, along with the hat and gloves he would have probably worn.

Also this is what Wallace had to say about it later:

"Another puzzle was the fact that my mackintosh was found under the shoulders of my wife, badly burnt at the bottom and heavily bloodstained. The front of my wife’s skirt was also burnt and the prosecution saw no way out except that my wife, being struck, had fallen onto the gas fire. But if the murderer was wearing the mackintosh how had it become burnt also? I was surprised as much as anyone and could not agree with my counsel that my wife had thrown it around her shoulders to go to the door to admit – whoever she did admit. It was a thing I had never known her to do and could not imagine her doing. But I confess my poor brain could invent no other possible alternative to that theory."

Brown, Antony M.. Move to Murder: A brutally murdered wife and a husband accused of the perfect crime (Cold Case Jury Collection Book 3) . Mirror Books. Kindle Edition.

Did he have time to perform the act and clean his face and moustache? And if he did, why didn't he use some other jacket. Using your own is quite incriminating. I'd probably have purchased something else from like, a thrift store or whatever, in advance, or just generally use anything that wasn't mine lol. And certainly I would make sure the thing was absolutely reduced to ash.

There was a fire going in the kitchen, just chuck the thing in there as he goes out the back door. You'd think it would be completely incinerated by the time he got home, surely? It would be pretty dumb to not think of that...

[WallaceWackedHer]

Whether the call had been logged or not the police would still have had Gladys Harley and Samuel Beattie to tell them the time of the call which would have required an alibi from Parry. I accept of course that there was a risk of Beattie identifying the voice but there are always risks and Wallace might simply have felt that he would be able to disguise his voice sufficiently to fool him.

I do not tend to think so... If they had no idea where the phone booth was, he could have been truthful about arriving at Lily Lloyds at half past, and all the police would have to go on is that there WAS a phone booth in that general vicinity that he could potentially have rang from... It would be very weak.

The knowledge of which phone booth was used now means they can specifically determine whether or not he/another suspect could have been at that one specific booth at the right time based on when they left the home/were next seen, etc.

Many criminals don't just give alibis proven wrong by CCTV etc, many just invent **** about who they were with or say they were at work - which is immediately proven false.

Look at Parry's statement, this isn't simply "misremembering":

On Monday evening the 19th instant, I called for my young lady, Miss Lillian [sic] Lloyd, of 7, Missouri Road, at some address where she had been teaching, the address I cannot for the moment remember, and went home with her to 7, Missouri Road at about 5.30 p.m. and remained there until about 11.30 p.m. when I went home.

You could not possibly have thought you went there at 5.30 and remained until 11.30 if you didn't. It's not a mistake you could possibly make lol.

So the fact is, he obviously DID give a totally bunk alibi.

I don't think he was scheming with Wallace to kill Julia lol. More likely he was tricked so he could be used as a scapegoat. That's the smarter choice. Otherwise Wallace is just way too lucky for it to make sense... The only other person who could likely have rang (knowing the chess schedule) as well as knowing Wallace's address, coincidentally giving a terrible false alibi?... Like the luck factor of that would just be insane... Unless he was honestly innocent and truly felt Parry was a good suspect... Otherwise there's no way he could have relied on that luck.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The other possibility in a burglary motive is two people in the home. One attempts to rob the joint, Julia hears something, but is attacked before she can investigate by the second perpetrator. We can see by the lack of blood on handles etc. that if the killer acted alone, he either put gloves on after the killing, took them off after the killing, or wiped his gloves clean with a rag or inside of his pockets (improbable)... If there were two intruders, the first evidently touched everything while the other committed the murder, and was very careful not to touch anything else. The idea that the home was robbed BEFORE Julia died by a singular person is incredibly implausible, as any sort of commotion you'd expect upon Julia making such a discovery would quickly break the silence.

For me the big issue is how do we account for William’s mackintosh being bunched up beneath Julia’s body? I simply can’t envision any scenario where this happened by chance. And if it was intentional then it can surely only point to Wallace.

Ive said this before but I think it’s worth repeating. A few have, at the very least, raised their eyebrows at my suggestion that Wallace might have used his mackintosh as a shield (I also believe that he might have worn it.) But then we see William Wallace suggesting the very same thing in his John Bull articles. You recently mentioned Wallace making a statement near the end of his life which might have sounded like an admission that he ‘got away with it?’ Was Wallace’s mention of using the mackintosh as a shield another bit of gloating? To the police: “I’m even telling you how I did it and you still can’t solve it.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

And yes it's easy to say and think that he would have made a better alibi - but the fact of the matter is, countless convicted killers have given terrible alibis which were proven wrong in minutes,

I certainly accept that WWH but these alibis are often proved wrong by things like a cctv camera that they were unaware of. Or that they forgot that they’d been to a cash machine.

If Parry made the call then he either came up with the plan or was working to someone else’s (Wallace’s?) As the plan involved the Wallace’s he would have at least considered it a real possibility that he would have come under police scrutiny at some point. Surely the first thing that he would have done would have been to get himself a decent alibi. Perhaps provided by one of his dodgy mates? Being spoken to by the police couldn’t have come as a surprise and Parry, whilst not being a genius, was still of reasonable intelligence. He would have known for a fact that the police would have checked his alibi. He’d also have known that Lily Lloyd would have just told then the truth.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn't it more of a risk to make the phone call himself and risk Beattie - in hindsight - thinking it could have been his voice?

The call wasn't even supposed to have been logged, if it wasn't then Parry probably wouldn't have even needed to lie about his alibi by claiming he was at Lloyds... Which is interesting... Because I wonder if he knew the call had been traced to that box when he gave his statement?

Whether the call had been logged or not the police would still have had Gladys Harley and Samuel Beattie to tell them the time of the call which would have required an alibi from Parry. I accept of course that there was a risk of Beattie identifying the voice but there are always risks and Wallace might simply have felt that he would be able to disguise his voice sufficiently to fool him. After all:

1. As a serious businessman the concept of a ‘prank call’ would have been an alien one to Beattie. So he wouldn’t have been on his guard as we often are today.
2. It was related to business and so Beattie would have been focusing on what information was being imparted rather than the voice.
3. I believe that the word peremptory was used to describe the caller. ‘Gruff’ certainly was. So the caller was almost barking out short, sharp sentences which mean that there would have been less chance of ‘slipping’ into his normal voice than if the call was more conversational.
4. It’s also difficult to remember a voice when thinking back unless there was some obvious detail like an accent.
5. The pronunciation “kaffay” stood out to the phone operators because it wasn’t how a local would have pronounced it. It would have been considered posh or pretentious. Does this point to local wide-boy Parry or the middle-aged, intelligent, more cultured Wallace?
6. Then we have the fact that the caller asked for Wallace’s home address. Something only Wallace would have known that Beattie couldn’t have provided. (Although I accept of course that this point is moot if Wallace and Parry were working together.)

For me there has never been anything about the call that remotely discounts Wallace. In fact I believe that more points to him than to Parry. I have mentioned coincidences before but one to at least remember is that if Wallace left the house when he did and turned right instead of left (as we only have his word that he didn’t ) then he would have reached the call box at just the right time to have made the call.

The biggest point against this of course is that of Wallace potentially being seen around the call box or getting onto a tram. I’d suggest though that Wallace didn’t have to kill Julia on that particular day so he could have walked to the phone box and checked to see if anyone was around to potentially see him. If there was then he just carries on to catch his tram. If things looked quiet he carries on with the call. If he’s recognised on the tram then yes it was a risk but his defence would simply have said that the witness was mistaken and that Wallace had got on slightly later. Probably asking ‘why would you specifically remember where he got on?’ and ‘isnt it at least possible that you might be mistaken?’ With a man’s life on the line a witness might be less inclined to confidence about events of a few days ago.

Its certainly a black mark against the police that they focused solely on the Tuesday evening trams.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Probably not but each individual is different. Some might have. Parry might have. Why would Wallace risk this? What if the police had seriously begun to suspect Parry and given him a serious grilling? He might simply have cracked under the pressure and blabbed. It happens. I just can’t see Wallace taking this risk.

Isn't it more of a risk to make the phone call himself and risk Beattie - in hindsight - thinking it could have been his voice?

The call wasn't even supposed to have been logged, if it wasn't then Parry probably wouldn't have even needed to lie about his alibi by claiming he was at Lloyds... Which is interesting... Because I wonder if he knew the call had been traced to that box when he gave his statement?

Personally I think that story is one of those typical ‘legends’ that occur in cases like this.

Just to be clear WWH I’m assuming that you mean Parry’s Monday alibi when you say B.S?

Ive said this before but I find it difficult to believe that Parry could have been so monumentally stupid as to have given such an easily disprovable and incriminating alibi. I have no real difficulty in believing that Parry was simply mistaken.

Yes I did mean that - BUTTTTTT - I absolutely think his Tuesday alibi could have been coerced, if the "legend" I mentioned is true.

I do not AT ALL believe that Gordon Parry would murder Julia Wallace. No way... I mean, he attempts to flee and make dumb excuses when caught (rather than become homicidal) with strangers, but would want to brutally bludgeon this woman, who he probably had some amount of fondness for (considering her "doting" on him), when caught trynna rob their cash box? - Which didn't happen by the way, because any argument or discovery would break the silence and also put Julia on the defensive, meaning her death in the parlor would also be nigh-on impossible to boot.

And yes it's easy to say and think that he would have made a better alibi - but the fact of the matter is, countless convicted killers have given terrible alibis which were proven wrong in minutes, and countless more will continue to do so in the future. Especially if Parry wasn't expecting it, and had to invent something on the spot...

---

I am of the opinion though, that Parry did not do it, and the crime scene was certainly created before Julia died (unless it was the Johnstons or Wallace as their fingerprints were excused) - hence the lack of blood or foreign fingerprints upon any of the items that were confirmed to have been touched. Door handles you can push with your elbows (why you would want to do so if you had gloves on, I am not so sure), but door knobs not so much...

And I am also of the opinion that in the case of a burglary motive, to maintain absolute silence, the attacker either entered the parlor first, was shocked to find Julia snuggling up under a mackintosh for a blanket, and lashed out at her before she could even react. This is implausible if Wallace is to be believed, because the kitchen was much warmer... Then again the parlor had far comfier chairs had she wanted to take a nap, while still waiting up in case her husband should return (except he had a key)... I see this as possible but improbable.

The other possibility in a burglary motive is two people in the home. One attempts to rob the joint, Julia hears something, but is attacked before she can investigate by the second perpetrator. We can see by the lack of blood on handles etc. that if the killer acted alone, he either put gloves on after the killing, took them off after the killing, or wiped his gloves clean with a rag or inside of his pockets (improbable)... If there were two intruders, the first evidently touched everything while the other committed the murder, and was very careful not to touch anything else. The idea that the home was robbed BEFORE Julia died by a singular person is incredibly implausible, as any sort of commotion you'd expect upon Julia making such a discovery would quickly break the silence.

Hemmerde also suggested, as a case against Wallace, that Qualtrough would have to be "two people" to see that Wallace had certainly left his home (to watch the back and front of the home)... True to an extent, although one might be somewhat sure of Wallace's habit of leaving through the back for quicker access to the tram... But also remember that Amy had allegedly dropped by and allegedly learned from Julia that Wallace was indeed going on that business trip. She (and arguably the Johnstons since they could always "hear Amy through the walls" - though they could hardly have relied on such luck) was the only one who could have known he was going for sure. Could a jealous Amy have murdered Julia (or had her murdered)? There is quite some suggestion that the two (Amy and Wallace) may have been intimate together. That is for you to decide the plausibility of... But do recall the most MYSTERIOUS and enigmatic suspect (the peculiar "umbrella man") fleeing to an area near her flat via cab at around the time of the murder.

I do not tend to believe Julia was sleeping around - not in that home. Neighbors would surely have heard unusual sounds if she was lol. Like unexpected sounds while William was at work, or seeing random men admitted into the home when Wallace is home followed by such unexpected sounds. I'm sure they would have had something to say about that LOL. More likely is that Wallace was having an affair (I think with Amy), Julia found out, and he had to silence her... The rage in the attack is odd, since it does appear the two cared for each other to an extent. I can't see people who despise each other playing regular duets together.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Look at Parry's parents trynna smuggle him out and his B.S. alibi lol.

Personally I think that story is one of those typical ‘legends’ that occur in cases like this.

Just to be clear WWH I’m assuming that you mean Parry’s Monday alibi when you say B.S?

Ive said this before but I find it difficult to believe that Parry could have been so monumentally stupid as to have given such an easily disprovable and incriminating alibi. I have no real difficulty in believing that Parry was simply mistaken.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How could Parry tell the police if he'd unwittingly taken part in a murder scheme? It'd be way, WAY too dangerous. He would have SEVERE problems if police found out he'd made a call that directly linked to Julia's murder - even if he had an alibi for the night of the killing. Would YOU take that chance?

Probably not but each individual is different. Some might have. Parry might have. Why would Wallace risk this? What if the police had seriously begun to suspect Parry and given him a serious grilling? He might simply have cracked under the pressure and blabbed. It happens. I just can’t see Wallace taking this risk.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sharpening and levelling bro... Murphy is extremely well read on the case, he should know it's 6.37 or 6.38 as the typical consensus? It seems that claiming 6.30 or 6.45 is a sign of strong bias.

Oddly the Holme testimony is that they heard the sound of someone falling, and THEN the front door shut. Peculiar. I wonder if they felt it was someone falling after they learned what happened, or if it was their initial impression also.

Alan Close is weird. It sounds like he enjoyed the fame of being the "missing link!" I have a much longer court transcript with the boy, and he's legit giggling while being questioned etc. Srs.

Florence Johnston said that her milk was delivered at around 6.30 and we know that her milk was delivered whilst Julia Wallace was taking hers inside. Bertha Holme said to her husband “Is that a knock at our front door?” To which her husband replied “no, it’s at the Wallace’s.” According to Murphy, in their police statements the day after the murder, both Holme’s said that they’d heard the knock at 6.30. No one else called at the Wallace’s at that time.

Id say that as a general rule adults are far more reliable when it comes to matters of time. I think that Alan Close knocked on the Wallace’s door pretty close to 6.30 but I’d go for a time of 6.30-6.35.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I still struggle with the concept of Wallace tricking Parry into making the call. Wallace would have risked the gallow’s on the belief that Parry, if he’d gone to the police, wouldn’t have been believed when they compared his background to Wallace’s. Even if Parry had known of the murder he could still have claimed, for example, that he made the call just to help out a friend who wanted a night out without his wife knowing. The police couldn’t have proved his connection to the crime and as he had a rock solid alibi for the time of the murder he would have had no problems. A guilty Wallace would have known that he would have been the first person that the police would have looked at as a suspect. It’s reasonable to ask whether Parry would have gone to the police but how could Wallace have been sure that Parry, crook though he was, might not have had a conscience. Especially concerning the brutal death of someone that he may well have been quite fond of?

How could Parry tell the police if he'd unwittingly taken part in a murder scheme? It'd be way, WAY too dangerous. He would have SEVERE problems if police found out he'd made a call that directly linked to Julia's murder - even if he had an alibi for the night of the killing. Would YOU take that chance?

Look at Parry's parents trynna smuggle him out and his B.S. alibi lol.

It's interesting that Parry said he wouldn't talk even for thousands of pounds - BUT only while his dad's still alive - because he says he promised his dad he wouldn't say anything. He said if his dad passes, he will talk if the price is right.

So it sounds like he may know something or have some connection, but was not really a participant in the crime.

If he just wanted money he could easily have just spun a yarn and completely lied, even while his dad is alive. So it's odd to me.

---

Also I should think it's WAY riskier for Wallace to have called himself and then Beattie later realizing (because obv he wouldn't even consider it at the time but might view it differently after what happened) that it might have been William's voice?

Look at the backing Wallace would have. Parry could know Wallace went to chess there, knew Wallace's address, knew where the cash box is (allegedly), and would be welcomed in as a guest (which fits with Julia in the parlor) AND had a reputation as a crook. Police had a hard enough time pinning it on Wallace as it is. Then he has Amy testifying that Julia told her Wallace had received an unexpected business call, the Johnstons to claim thuds at 8.25 and play witness to his discovery of the body...

Why do you think Wallace suddenly gave over Parry as a suspect out of the blue? The poor b*stard was set up. Did police even suspect him before that? What if Parry had an alibi for the call AND murder night? Big risk there... He basically said in so many words "Parry did it", then listed a bunch of random names like his violin tutor.

He probably decided to give up Parry when the cops cast suspicion onto him and off of the Anfield housebreaker.

[Herlock Sholmes]

By the way I am of the opinion Parry was tricked into making the call under a false pretext (if it really was him).

I still struggle with the concept of Wallace tricking Parry into making the call. Wallace would have risked the gallow’s on the belief that Parry, if he’d gone to the police, wouldn’t have been believed when they compared his background to Wallace’s. Even if Parry had known of the murder he could still have claimed, for example, that he made the call just to help out a friend who wanted a night out without his wife knowing. The police couldn’t have proved his connection to the crime and as he had a rock solid alibi for the time of the murder he would have had no problems. A guilty Wallace would have known that he would have been the first person that the police would have looked at as a suspect. It’s reasonable to ask whether Parry would have gone to the police but how could Wallace have been sure that Parry, crook though he was, might not have had a conscience. Especially concerning the brutal death of someone that he may well have been quite fond of?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Id take Murphy over Wilkes and Goodman every day of the week. I don’t see why we have to assume police corruption on this issue. It seems pretty obvious that Close arrived at the Wallace’s nearer to 6.35 than 6.45. The police just walked Close through his journey. The testimony of the Johnston’s and the Holme’s appear to corroborate this earlier time too.

Sharpening and levelling bro... Murphy is extremely well read on the case, he should know it's 6.37 or 6.38 as the typical consensus? It seems that claiming 6.30 or 6.45 is a sign of strong bias.

Oddly the Holme testimony is that they heard the sound of someone falling, and THEN the front door shut. Peculiar. I wonder if they felt it was someone falling after they learned what happened, or if it was their initial impression also.

Alan Close is weird. It sounds like he enjoyed the fame of being the "missing link!" I have a much longer court transcript with the boy, and he's legit giggling while being questioned etc. Srs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed. Also Murphy is so biased I'm not sure I even wanna buy the book. I saw him write an article claiming Alan Close came at 6.30 so how could I trust anything else he says? Lol.

Id take Murphy over Wilkes and Goodman every day of the week. I don’t see why we have to assume police corruption on this issue. It seems pretty obvious that Close arrived at the Wallace’s nearer to 6.35 than 6.45. The police just walked Close through his journey. The testimony of the Johnston’s and the Holme’s appear to corroborate this earlier time too.