Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Spitfire]

Does everyone (or anyone) understand its meaning?

You can answer either from the position as a member of the tournament, and a chess aficionado, or not - as the case may be...

I understand its meaning but cannot say whether everyone else does.

[OneRound]

I understand its meaning but cannot say whether everyone else does.

Yeah, piece of cake. What's the problem for anyone? Shows who is playing whom and when together with results. As Abby says, Walshy is top dog.

OneRound

[Spitfire]

Yeah, piece of cake. What's the problem for anyone? Shows who is playing whom and when together with results. As Abby says, Walshy is top dog.

OneRound

I assume that the photo was taken after the murder which was on 20 January 1931 yet none of the results for the previous two rounds of matches had been marked up. I assume that Wallace wisely stayed away from the Chess Club on 5th January to avoid playing 'Walshy'.

[RodCrosby]

Walsh was the best player. Lol

He was the worst of the lot, actually.

Anyhow, back to 20th January 1981.

By the end of the broadcast we now know two things.

a) a caller claimed to have information connecting Parry to the murder, information he already had before the name Parry was released, for the first time, during the broadcast.
b) within half an hour of the name Parry being revealed to the listeners, at least 2 elderly men had managed to get through to the phone-in, with their highly unflattering recollections of Parry.

So what happened next? Roger Wilkes contacted the a) caller. It turned out he wanted a modest sum of money, to put Wilkes in touch with a "go-between" who could then direct Wilkes to the car-washer from 1931.

Wilkes was sceptical, thinking it might be a set-up, and was reluctant to pay for the information anyhow.

With no real expectations of success, Wilkes and Michael Green turned detective instead...

It would surely be hopeless. No garage from 1931 would surely still be in existence, and after traipsing around several petrol-station forecourts, they were about to give up.

Then Michael Green had a brainwave. If there was any truth to the story, Parry must have turned up late in the evening at a garage to have his car washed, after the murder. But petrol stations in 1931 were very different to those in 1981. They were few and far between, and they certainly didn't stay open late, as a rule. But Green knew that in those days a few garages operated their own taxi fleets, and those types of garages might be open late. Cross-checking the 1931 and 1981 directories, Green discovered that there was one still in existence under the same name: "Atkinson's Taxis and Motor Engineers", and it was in Moscow Drive, two streets away from Parry's 1931 home in Woburn Hill...

Turning up unannounced - and feeling not a little foolish - Green called over the din, to oil-smeared mechanics grappling with gearboxes and gaskets, "I'm from Radio City. I don't suppose anyone knows anything about a murder in 1931, and a car that was brought into a local garage?"

"It was here", a calm voice behind him stated. Gordon Atkinson, the current owner, was not even born in 1931, but was the son of one of the three brothers who had been there in 1931, in the firm that had been founded in the 1920s by their father.

Gordon Atkinson explained that yes, he had been told the story by his own father, about the cleaner who had been forced by Parry to wash the car inside and out on the night of the murder. And yes, the elderly cleaner was still alive, and living in nearby Guernsey Road. His name was John Parkes.

Proceeding directly to the house in Guernsey Road, and getting no reply to his knocks, a neighbour emerged to explain that Parkes had recently been admitted to hospital for an operation.

Green raced to the hospital. Parkes was sleeping, but the nurse gave him Parkes's son's telephone number, who later that night gave permission for Green to interview Parkes the following day.

The interview was conducted at Parkes's hospital bedside, and broadcast on 26th February 1981. John Parkes died 11 months later, aged 75, on 25th January 1982.

'Who killed Julia? - Conspiracy of Silence'

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G4jMDCtaA5PRowniFVfAPENb9Gelb0qQ/view?usp=sharing

[Spitfire]

He was the worst of the lot, actually.

He might have been but he won all his games.

[RodCrosby]

He might have been but he won all his games.

He lost them all, actually. The winners were the people he played....

[Abby Normal]

He lost them all, actually. The winners were the people he played....

maybe that's why he killed Julia. ; )

[Spitfire]

He lost them all, actually. The winners were the people he played....

No, his opponents were the losers.

[RodCrosby]

It's in one of the books on the case somewhere. I'll try and dig out the reference, but I suppose it could be wrong...

[Abby Normal]

the blood spattered macintosh-its a like a rain coat yes?
It was found bloodied under the victim?

whose was it?

[Abby Normal]

at this point(and i just know the basics) im thinking 40% chance Wallace did it, 30% Parry and 30% someone else.


One of the intriguing things is the call to the chess club before wallace arived.

If it was Parry who made the call I could see he may have known Wallace would not be there and could leave a message-obviously not wanting to make it when wallace was there because he would recognize the voice. Also, he didnt call the house because wallace or his wife would recognize him. to me the call actually points to parry. and a witness said it wasn't Wallace voice.



Wallace could have easily have just made the whole qualtrough call up without making any call at all.

But I do put weight on the guy who saw parry cleaning up that night-its one of the main reason I would consider parry as high as I do.





However, the rain coat found under the woman, especially if it was wallaces (was it?) point to Wallace. his rain coat found under her, making a scene like hes locked out, and of corse de facto murdered wives are usually killed by their husbands.


The crime scene in general seems to point to him especially the macintosh-was he going to use it to get her out of there and then changes his mind? put it on before murdering and then stuffing it under her to obscure the evidence?

An outsider, even parry, if the murder was revenge or botched burglary, wouldnt have screwed around with jacket, unless he meant to wear it out of there to cover up blood on his clothes, which didnt happen.




Bottom line gun to head at this point I would pick wallace-but that being said not enough to convict especially in this day and age.

[RodCrosby]

the blood spattered macintosh-its a like a rain coat yes?
It was found bloodied under the victim?

whose was it?

Yes, Abby. It was blood-spattered, and it was Mr. Wallace's.
It was also considerably burned at the lower part, as was Julia's skirt.

What do you make of that?

[etenguy]

One of the intriguing things is the call to the chess club before wallace arived.

If it was Parry who made the call I could see he may have known Wallace would not be there and could leave a message-obviously not wanting to make it when wallace was there because he would recognize the voice. Also, he didnt call the house because wallace or his wife would recognize him. to me the call actually points to parry. and a witness said it wasn't Wallace voice.

Hey Abby - new to this case too. If it was Parry, why make the call at all? Why not just rob the house while Wallace is playing chess? The only reason I can think is that Parry thought there would be more money the next night. Is this plausible?

Wallace could have easily have just made the whole qualtrough call up without making any call at all.

Indeed, I made a similar point. The possible answer was to make the alibi stronger, but doesn't ring true to me.

But I do put weight on the guy who saw parry cleaning up that night-its one of the main reason I would consider parry as high as I do.

I put less faith in this. I can see no reason for keeping quiet at the time but then shouting about it later. I don't think I believe the garage story. Why would Parry put himself in that position?

However, the rain coat found under the woman, especially if it was wallaces (was it?) point to Wallace. his rain coat found under her, making a scene like hes locked out, and of corse de facto murdered wives are usually killed by their husbands.

The crime scene in general seems to point to him especially the macintosh-was he going to use it to get her out of there and then changes his mind? put it on before murdering and then stuffing it under her to obscure the evidence?

An outsider, even parry, if the murder was revenge or botched burglary, wouldnt have screwed around with jacket, unless he meant to wear it out of there to cover up blood on his clothes, which didnt happen.

The reason for the mac could have been to protect the murderer's clothes from getting covered in blood - then abandoned in the house when the murder was over - I don't think iy helps us identify the murderer.

Bottom line gun to head at this point I would pick wallace-but that being said not enough to convict especially in this day and age.

Did you listen to the broadcasts? There are three reasons that make Wallace unlikely in my view:
* he would not have had time to kill her and catch the tram (barely
had time if the revised testimony from the milk kid is believed)
* he chose to die rather then extend his life without his wife
* he had no motive

Doesn't prove his innocence, but makes it difficult to understand how it could have been him.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, Abby. It was blood-spattered, and it was Mr. Wallace's.
It was also considerably burned at the lower part, as was Julia's skirt.

What do you make of that?

He tried to set it on fire?

[RodCrosby]

Hey Abby - new to this case too. If it was Parry, why make the call at all? Why not just rob the house while Wallace is playing chess? The only reason I can think is that Parry thought there would be more money the next night. Is this plausible?
As we have noted, Parry was very well known to the Wallaces. How could he expect to get away with a robbery at any time, unless he was prepared to kill also? But if he was prepared to kill, he could have 'charmed his way' into the house on the Monday night, while Wallace was at the chess club, killed Julia and stolen the money.
True, there ought to be a little bit more money on the Tuesday, the maximum amount possible, which Parry would know from his detailed understanding of the Prudential, and of Wallace's habits. But trying to lure Wallace out on the Tuesday with a hoax call could well end in failure, if Wallace did not bite. Monday 19th was also Wallace's final scheduled Monday-night appearance at the club. If Parry was determined on a murder-robbery, why pass up on this certain opportunity, for an uncertain one?


Indeed, I made a similar point. The possible answer was to make the alibi stronger, but doesn't ring true to me.
Upon what ultimately did Wallace's 'alibi' depend? The milk-boy, whose varying testimony of the time he saw Mrs Wallace alive either made it practically impossible for Wallace to have committed the murder, or opened up a small window wherein it might just be possible. What else do we know about the milk-boy Alan Close?


I put less faith in this. I can see no reason for keeping quiet at the time but then shouting about it later. I don't think I believe the garage story. Why would Parry put himself in that position?
It is known that criminals sometimes partially incriminate themselves to friends or acquaintances, in desperation, or in a panic. As I've indicated I think it unfair to say that Parkes 'shouted'. He was told by his boss in 1931 not to get involved, and he was tracked down to a hospital bed in 1981. The substance of his story was supported by his late employer's widow, Mrs. "Dolly" Atkinson. 76. Why should she - 50 years later - wish to support a fantasy, dreamed up by an underling, which portrays her and her family in a un-favourable light? "Conspiracy of Silence" was the title of the broadcast, remember. To me, it seems both these elderly people are trying to "clear their consciences."


The reason for the mac could have been to protect the murderer's clothes from getting covered in blood - then abandoned in the house when the murder was over - I don't think it helps us identify the murderer.
Why was it burned at the bottom, as was Julia's skirt?


Did you listen to the broadcasts? There are three reasons that make Wallace unlikely in my view:
* he would not have had time to kill her and catch the tram (barely
had time if the revised testimony from the milk kid is believed)
* he chose to die rather then extend his life without his wife
* he had no motive

Doesn't prove his innocence, but makes it difficult to understand how it could have been him.

Thanks again for some interesting comments.