Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, I will get what I have up on my website in due course, WWH. I don't believe there is a police statement by Arthur Mills.

And in my evaluation of Parkes I also say that the mentioning of the bar is suspicious, and counts against his account. Whether you reject everything he says is a judgement to be made by everyone (no need for my friend Herlock to say anything further on this point!)

That's a shame as Arthur was in the best position to hear sounds in the parlor. More bad policing?

Just wondering, do you also have extended details about the Anfield housebreakings? Can't find anything in the newspapers except after Julia was killed, then suddenly it mentions a string of 20 to 30 robberies in the neighbourhood using a skeleton/dupe key.

I believe the housebreaker was the initial suspect due to the crime scene looking very similar to the previous burglary (except this one had a dead woman in it).

[ColdCaseJury]

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.

I will look forward extremely enthusiastically to other neighbor reports. The confirmation of timing of sounds, or lack thereof, etc, will prove crucial IMO.

The reports of other Johnston family members - in particular Arthur Mills, I particularly wish to see.

Yes, I will get what I have up on my website in due course, WWH. I don't believe there is a police statement by Arthur Mills.

And in my evaluation of Parkes I also say that the mentioning of the bar is suspicious, and counts against his account. Whether you reject everything he says is a judgement to be made by everyone (no need for my friend Herlock to say anything further on this point!)

[WallaceWackedHer]

I do mention this in my book (that a bar was found), as I'm sure you realise. Murphy mentions it but dismisses it, as I also explain.

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.

I will look forward extremely enthusiastically to other neighbor reports. The confirmation of timing of sounds, or lack thereof, etc, will prove crucial IMO.

The reports of other Johnston family members - in particular Arthur Mills, I particularly wish to see.

[ColdCaseJury]

All books containing the Parkes statement should include the footnote that the bar was found - which will help people realize he's a liar.

I do mention this in my book (that a bar was found), as I'm sure you realise. Murphy mentions it but dismisses it, as I also explain.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Most writers make mistakes. Bridges fabricated a vital police statement in (IIRC) the Constance Kent case and did a similar thing in the Bravo case. In the latter she augmented a key statement that completely changed its meaning although the person who made the statement said nothing of the sort. The telephone engineer was Heaton and he would have mentioned a fault in his police statement, deposition and testimony; he did mention the faulty light bulb. Is that it, I wonder? Also, if there was a fault with the phone/line, I suggest it does not explain what the caller said.

Give me time, WWH, and I'll try to post (at my website) what you want.

You don't even need the engineer to know something was wrong though... Look at how many times the operators failed to connect the call to the City Cafè. That obviously shows things were not working as they should.

By the way I am of the opinion Parry was tricked into making the call under a false pretext (if it really was him). But the connection was legitimately faulty, so the only thing against him is that it was claimed to not be Wallace's voice (but that holds almost no water as proof Parry called), and most importantly the false alibi. The latter is the only strong indication of why I think he rang.

Parkes clearly lied too but many use his statement as evidence. When I saw Goodman confirm the bar was found (in an extremely pro-Wallace book by the way - this is used as evidence of Wallace's innocence), then straight away it becomes clear that the bar wasn't "dropped down a grid". It was already obvious that it'd be weird for a murderer to blurt out for no reason where he'd ditched the weapon and implying that he'd killed someone, instead of making excuses (which was Parry's usual M.O. when caught btw).

All books containing the Parkes statement should include the footnote that the bar was found - which will help people realize he's a liar.

[ColdCaseJury]

Bridges made it up?

Most writers make mistakes. Bridges fabricated a vital police statement in (IIRC) the Constance Kent case and did a similar thing in the Bravo case. In the latter she augmented a key statement that completely changed its meaning although the person who made the statement said nothing of the sort. The telephone engineer was Heaton and he would have mentioned a fault in his police statement, deposition and testimony; he did mention the faulty light bulb. Is that it, I wonder? Also, if there was a fault with the phone/line, I suggest it does not explain what the caller said.

Give me time, WWH, and I'll try to post (at my website) what you want.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, I agree the source is Bridges, but there is no official report. No one has been able to verify it. That's my point.

I'll double check AM Qualtrough - I might be wrong, as you suggest - but Wilkes also has it as AM.

Bridges made it up?

Two operators attempted to connect that call and failed. They had to get their supervisor. Obviously there was something f*cked up going on. The woman who answered the phone attested that it had not rung prior to the final call that was connected by Kelly, finally, after even the supervisor failed to connect the call.

I'm sure you have seen the statements of neighbors and other Johnston family members while reading the case files, can you recall those? They are of utmost importance.

[ColdCaseJury]

Here:



Far more important information for someone who's seen the case files to reveal would be the complete statements made by the other Johnston household members, and other neighbors.

And also if anyone else Wallace encountered that night saw what he was wearing (Lily hall claimed a dark overcoat, Wallace said fawn IIRC).

Wallace also did not say A. M. Qualtrough AFAIK. The statement you quoted in your book, I found in others and in newspaper reports. All include the Menlove Avenue East slip, but all say R. M. Qualtrough.

Yes, I agree the source is Bridges, but there is no official report. No one has been able to verify it. That's my point. (Edit: and if Heaton did fix a fault you would think he would have mentioned it at least once).

I'll double check AM Qualtrough - I might be wrong, as you suggest - but Wilkes also has it as AM.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi everyone, I busy on my next book and don't have much time at the moment to look on the forum, although I see it is bursting with debate and ideas. There is so much to comment on, but I will take the most recent.

What fault did Leslie Heaton (the telephone engineer) fix? Where is the evidence of the fault? And when was it reported as fixed? Heaton mentioned no fault in his police statement, deposition (committal hearing) and trial. The logged COMPLAINT (note it was not logged as a fault) was NO REPLY from Bank 3581.

Here:

The all important fact, that following the Qualtrough complaint of his difficulty getting through, the telephone engineer was sent to examine the mechanism was not mentioned. Nor was the fact that he found a fault in the mechanism which he repaired. In her book Two Studies in Crime (Macmillan, 1970) Yseult Bridges quotes the official record of the incident.

Far more important information for someone who's seen the case files to reveal would be the complete statements made by the other Johnston household members, and other neighbors.

And also if anyone else Wallace encountered that night saw what he was wearing (Lily hall claimed a dark overcoat, Wallace said fawn IIRC).

Wallace also did not say A. M. Qualtrough AFAIK. The statement you quoted in your book, I found in others and in newspaper reports. All include the Menlove Avenue East slip, but all say R. M. Qualtrough.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi everyone, I busy on my next book and don't have much time at the moment to look on the forum, although I see it is bursting with debate and ideas. There is so much to comment on, but I will take the most recent.

What fault did Leslie Heaton (the telephone engineer) fix? Where is the evidence of the fault? And when was it reported as fixed? Heaton mentioned no fault in his police statement, deposition (committal hearing) and trial. The logged COMPLAINT (note it was not logged as a fault) was NO REPLY from Bank 3581.

[moste]

To make any kind of headway in a case as complex as this we would need reasonable accuracy on all issues . Take the given statement reported on from various sources , ' Wallaces insurance collection round consisted of 600 customers visited weekly. Really?
This was a personable chap who would have a little joke , a chat, maybe an occasional 'pop in for a cuppa' with his favourite customers.His rounds covered Clubmoor, Anfield , and districts in North Liverpool, that required him to take trams or buses to and from his home for lunch breaks. If what we have learned is his typical daily jaunt, he doesn't leave home untill 10 to 10.30 am. Pops back home around 1 30 pm. to 2 pm. then has an afternoon stint of perhaps 3 to 3 1/2 hours. I don't know if he worked all day Saturday, but in any event 600 Visits in a week is ( to borrow a WWH phrase, )Bullsh*t.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Quote:. The call in on Wilkes is more legitimate IIRC as it might have been from someone who was in the hoMe.

WILKES ! Wilkes thought Parry did it ,because Parkes said so!

Parry did not kill Julia. Parry also probably wouldn't have taken part in a plan to rob from his "friends" (Wallace claimed Parry was a personal friend of his and Julia's. We know Parry had given Wallace a calendar as a gift only a month earlier, Julia "doted" on him, etc.), and Wallace did not get him fired. Maybe he would betray friends of his? I don't know... But I think he's more the type to try and target a stranger's car or pinch pennies from a telephone.

Oh and with regards to the telephone. An engineer was called to the kiosk and there WAS A FAULT, which he fixed, other operators at the switchboard could not connect the call. So the idea that the caller was trying to scam a call is cast into SERIOUS doubt. So the only thing we have against Gordon Parry as the caller, is that he had a false alibi, and Beattie's assertion it was not Wallace's voice.

The portrayal of Parry in "The Man from the Pru" (available for free on YouTube) reminds me of this bit from the Simpsons lol:

Note the "out of the way" route Wallace took from his home to go to the chess club. He "may have posted a letter" but of course he cannot remember for sure.

If Parry called, I do not doubt that he was tricked into doing so under a false pretext. He was a perfect scapegoat indeed.

I also noticed (I saw it in the photo, but thought I might be mistaken somehow), that the Wallaces appear to have had one of those grid fireplace things. We used to have one when I was really little except the grid extended all the way up. Is that what it is? If so, I don't think you could burn something in there by accident. The grid design is created specifically for safety... Although we had like, a little cage around it as well because I was very, very young at the time.

[WallaceWackedHer]

WWH. Quote: They didn't even have grandchildren in the home at the time (in fact, I think they didn't even have grandchildren at all at this time?). It was Arthur Mills, Norah, Robert and his girlfriend, John and Florence living there.
So you mean anything that could be gleaned from the grandchildren in the Johnston family would be useless on account of them not being there at the time?

Their testimony is of course far more unreliable than a first hand account (and we see from Parkes that even "first hand accounts" can most definitely be fictionalized).

In fact, the testimony of anyone in that house is unreliable if the family were involved in any way, let alone grandkids lol.

This is why the testimonies of neighbors is a far more important factor.

Do you HONESTLY believe it's reasonable to suggest that the Johnstons can hear Amy through the walls with great clarity, and "gentle knocks" on the back door (which they considered "usual" - which I've already proven why it isn't), but not a woman being knocked down and then having her brains repeatedly bashed into the floor with an iron bar?

Arthur was literally in the front room bordering their parlor, that's where he lived and slept. Was he deaf? Where is his statement? Do the neighbors testimonies corroborate with the story given by the Johnstons/Wallace?

Why did Mr. Johnston tell the press Wallace had to force the door open?

Why didn't they bring some of their "already packed" luggage on their journey to their new home to lighten the load the following day?

Did the residents at 27 Wolverton Street hear Wallace knocking on the front door that was directly next to theirs? If not, then why (I wouldn't be surprised if Wallace really did knock though, to be safe)? Did anyone other than the Johnstons hear the commotion in the home when the body was discovered, or corroborate the times gived by Wallace and the Johnstons? Did anyone hear the heavy thuds at 8.25 that the Johnstons claimed to be coming from the parlor area? Not the residents at #33 (if it really was from their home) OR #27? If not, then why?

[moste]

Quote:. The call in on Wilkes is more legitimate IIRC as it might have been from someone who was in the hoMe.

WILKES ! Wilkes thought Parry did it ,because Parkes said so!

[moste]

WWH. Quote: They didn't even have grandchildren in the home at the time (in fact, I think they didn't even have grandchildren at all at this time?). It was Arthur Mills, Norah, Robert and his girlfriend, John and Florence living there.
So you mean anything that could be gleaned from the grandchildren in the Johnston family would be useless on account of them not being there at the time?