Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

How easy it to propose Parry’s involvement? Apparently it’s simplicity itself because no matter what points are brought up against him the goalposts widen further and further and move to wherever they’re required. Different rules appear to be in force for the Accomplice theory. The police are all Inspector Clouseau’s. The police are all corrupt. Witnesses lie for Parry. Parry is a clever planner. Parry is an utter moron who’s completely aware that he might be putting himself, very obviously, in the frame. Parry spent time coming up with the Qualtrough plan which included watching Wallace’s movements and the accomplice bluffing his way past a very wary Julia and yet he seems completely unaware of the fact that the plan relied on chunks of luck. Witnesses who say that the Wallace’s weren’t the happy couple that everyone thought are dismissed as irrelevant and yet Parkes’ unbelievable testimony is taken as gospel.

It would be nice if we applied the same criteria to Wallace apart from just viewing him as the kindly, silver-haired old duffer who couldn’t possibly have killed Julia. Then again, I’m used to bias by now. Yawn....

[NickB]

HI HS

a simple slip up when asked to call back?

to me this is very big red flag pointing to parry. I mean what are the chances?

All this indicates is that Parry made the call, which may have been just a prank. The robber could have been someone who got to know about the call but acted without Parry’s knowledge or approval, or someone who was unaware of the call.

[RodCrosby]

There is NO evidence against Wallace, and logic points away from the THEORY that he did it... (his alleged nine-rounds-of-russian-roulette 'scheme', and internal inconsistencies; no motive)

There IS evidence for Parry being involved, and a motive, and a postulated logical plan (an ingenious variation on an everyday crime.)

That is not bias, but clear-headed objectivity...

The real Great Detective would identify it as the correct solution, while a manqué obsessively clings to an obsolete theory, discredited in May 1931...

[Abby Normal]

All this indicates is that Parry made the call, which may have been just a prank. The robber could have been someone who got to know about the call but acted without Parry’s knowledge or approval, or someone who was unaware of the call.

though possible, that's the least likely scenario IMHO.

[RodCrosby]

Aside from Qualtrough, Wallace and Julia, it seems only three people had knowledge of the call.

Beattie, Caird and Amy Wallace (the last only about 3 hours prior to the murder).

It's stretching credulity to breaking-point to postulate any of these being involved, and there is no evidence, of course.

Still less likely is some random killer, entirely unconnected to the call. [two unconnected lone nuts firing simultaneously in Dealey Plaza is its analogue theory...]

[moste]

How easy it to propose Parry’s involvement? Apparently it’s simplicity itself because no matter what points are brought up against him the goalposts widen further and further and move to wherever they’re required. Different rules appear to be in force for the Accomplice theory. The police are all Inspector Clouseau’s. The police are all corrupt. Witnesses lie for Parry. Parry is a clever planner. Parry is an utter moron who’s completely aware that he might be putting himself, very obviously, in the frame. Parry spent time coming up with the Qualtrough plan which included watching Wallace’s movements and the accomplice bluffing his way past a very wary Julia and yet he seems completely unaware of the fact that the plan relied on chunks of luck. Witnesses who say that the Wallace’s weren’t the happy couple that everyone thought are dismissed as irrelevant and yet Parkes’ unbelievable testimony is taken as gospel.

It would be nice if we applied the same criteria to Wallace apart from just viewing him as the kindly, silver-haired old duffer who couldn’t possibly have killed Julia. Then again, I’m used to bias by now. Yawn....

I see you've unignored then!

[RodCrosby]

What would you expect, except disinformation?

[etenguy]

Aside from Qualtrough, Wallace and Julia, it seems only three people had knowledge of the call.

Beattie, Caird and Amy Wallace (the last only about 3 hours prior to the murder).

It's stretching credulity to breaking-point to postulate any of these being involved, and there is no evidence, of course.

Still less likely is some random killer, entirely unconnected to the call. [two unconnected lone nuts firing simultaneously in Dealey Plaza is its analogue theory...]

I agree with Rod in this regard. I think it reasonable to infer from the following that the killer was either Wallace or Parry (with accomplice):
* the Qualtrough call is highly suggestive of a planned crime
* the targetting of the cash box - seemingly knowing its location
* the timing of the crime - for the usual night of highest haul
* the call was made to the cafe that few people knew Wallace would be attending.
[/LIST]

[RodCrosby]

I agree with Rod in this regard. I think it reasonable to infer from the following that the killer was either Wallace or Parry (with accomplice):
* the Qualtrough call is highly suggestive of a planned crime

...a call that could plausibly have served two purposes. Get Wallace OUT, and get 'Qualtrough' IN...

[Herlock Sholmes]

The objective view; the view that requires no flights of imaginative fantasy is that Wallace was overwhelmingly the likeliest culprit. The ‘no motive’ call is a blatant distraction. We all know that motives can remain hidden beneath the surface. We see this time and time again over the history of crime “they seemed like a devoted couple.” “He seemed such a nice man.” Again, two people who spent time alone with the Wallace’s in their own home, and had absolutely no reason to lie, both said that their marriage was not a happy one. And yet blinkered Wallace defenders prefer the Johnston’s for example. I believe that Julia had been inside the Wallace’s house 3 times in 10 years. The Johnston’s didn’t even know Julia’s Christian name. And as for others who ‘knew’ them like the Caird’s. Is it likely that the Wallace’s would have aired any grievances or had any rows in their presence? We all know that couples tend to put on a ‘public face’ more especially in the 1930’s when the couple involved grew up in Victorian England.

The non-motive is a non-argument.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Only Wallace could have been anything like confidant that the phone call would have the desired effect. For Parry it’s a complete lottery; for Wallace it’s as close to a certainty as you can get. Of course Rod will keep trotting out his dishonest ‘Russian Roulette’ nonsense but no amount of twisting of reality will hide the facts.

I’ll repeat until this sinks in.

There was absolutely no reason for Parry to think, believe or expect that Wallace would mention the name of Qualtrough to Julia. Julia took zero interest in Wallace’s business dealings.

Therefore, with no mention of the name Qualtrough, Julia (according to Wallace himself) would not have admitted a stranger on that Tuesday night. This ‘plan’ is not a plan if it we suggest Parry as the planner.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only ‘evidence’ for Parry is the complete fairy story as told by Hans Christian Parkes. A story so laughable that it’s difficult to read it with a straight face.

The only reason that Parry was even considered was down to Wallace himself. Fortunately for Parry his actions on the night of the murder show that he categorically couldn’t have killed Julia. It also shows that he wasn’t a man acting out a plan either.

[etenguy]

The objective view; the view that requires no flights of imaginative fantasy is that Wallace was overwhelmingly the likeliest culprit. The ‘no motive’ call is a blatant distraction. We all know that motives can remain hidden beneath the surface. We see this time and time again over the history of crime “they seemed like a devoted couple.” “He seemed such a nice man.” Again, two people who spent time alone with the Wallace’s in their own home, and had absolutely no reason to lie, both said that their marriage was not a happy one. And yet blinkered Wallace defenders prefer the Johnston’s for example. I believe that Julia had been inside the Wallace’s house 3 times in 10 years. The Johnston’s didn’t even know Julia’s Christian name. And as for others who ‘knew’ them like the Caird’s. Is it likely that the Wallace’s would have aired any grievances or had any rows in their presence? We all know that couples tend to put on a ‘public face’ more especially in the 1930’s when the couple involved grew up in Victorian England.

The non-motive is a non-argument.

Couples often have hidden tensions which they may not be able to contain 24 hours a day, and so those who spent concentrated time with the Wallace couple may have seen those and, in fact, reported this. That is a long way from a relationship breakdown to the point of murder.

I struggle to dismiss the lack of a known motive so easily. Of course there could be a hidden motive, but we have no evidence of one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Of course there could be a hidden motive, but we have no evidence of one.

If it was hidden then we wouldn’t know it.

We have evidence that Parry’s previous forays into crime amounted to taking money that he’d collected on an insurance round and hoping that Wallace wouldn’t notice its absence. We have nothing at all to indicate that a) Parry ever ‘worked’ with a confederate or b) that he was the kind of criminal to have come up with a prearranged plan to get a victim out of the house whilst simoultaneously planning for a confederate to bluff his way into a house.

Parry was dodgy and dishonest but nothing about his previous history suggests someone who would come up with a convoluted plan.

Now I wouldn’t say that this categorically disproves Parry’s involvement any more that we can say that just because William and Julia weren’t at each other’s throats all the time that William might not have had a motive to murder her.

A point to remember is that many people, for reasons of vanity usually, shave a few years off their age. Julia however shaved 16 off her age. She was actually old enough to be William’s mother. Her often poor health would have made this more and more obvious to William. He himself had poor health and might easily have expected not to have many years left. So we have an intelligent man, one who might consider himself an intellectual (recall his comment about pitting his mind against some of the finest chess brains) stuck in the same monotonous job for years with no hint of advancement. And what does he have to look forward to in his remaining years but nursemaiding a woman who was increasingly looking and behaving like his invalid old mother. I’ll add another point that I’ve suggested before - what if Wallace had discovered his wife’s true age? Maybe whilst sorting out a policy or from her family? What effect might that have had upon him to find out that she’d lied to him to improve her chances of him marrying her?

For me there’s easily enough possibility of causes for marital problems. Problems that can fester and grow.

[etenguy]

If it was hidden then we wouldn’t know it.

We have evidence that Parry’s previous forays into crime amounted to taking money that he’d collected on an insurance round and hoping that Wallace wouldn’t notice its absence. We have nothing at all to indicate that a) Parry ever ‘worked’ with a confederate or b) that he was the kind of criminal to have come up with a prearranged plan to get a victim out of the house whilst simoultaneously planning for a confederate to bluff his way into a house.

Parry was dodgy and dishonest but nothing about his previous history suggests someone who would come up with a convoluted plan.

Now I wouldn’t say that this categorically disproves Parry’s involvement any more that we can say that just because William and Julia weren’t at each other’s throats all the time that William might not have had a motive to murder her.

A point to remember is that many people, for reasons of vanity usually, shave a few years off their age. Julia however shaved 16 off her age. She was actually old enough to be William’s mother. Her often poor health would have made this more and more obvious to William. He himself had poor health and might easily have expected not to have many years left. So we have an intelligent man, one who might consider himself an intellectual (recall his comment about pitting his mind against some of the finest chess brains) stuck in the same monotonous job for years with no hint of advancement. And what does he have to look forward to in his remaining years but nursemaiding a woman who was increasingly looking and behaving like his invalid old mother. I’ll add another point that I’ve suggested before - what if Wallace had discovered his wife’s true age? Maybe whilst sorting out a policy or from her family? What effect might that have had upon him to find out that she’d lied to him to improve her chances of him marrying her?

For me there’s easily enough possibility of causes for marital problems. Problems that can fester and grow.

I agree with your analysis about Parry, he seems a bit of a wide boy, ducking and diving but not a hardened criminal and no reason to believe he would get involved with murder (though of course he may not have anticipated that). He doesn't seem the brightest spark in the fire either, so unlikely to be masterminding convoluted plans. Of course, if he was working with an accomplice, they may have been more astute - no evidence to support this, but one can imagine he got into a tight spot, perhaps owed money to someone far more unscrupulous and Parry told about Wallace's premium collections and the plan was constructed (and perhaps Parry was no more involved than providing the intelligence).

As for Wallace - there is no known motive, but we can speculate. Your scenario seems perfectly plausible, and possibly even likely. Wallace certainly appears to be better able to devise such a plan than Parry.