Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

Firstly, if it’s not in any way ‘relevant’ why are you so vociferous in claiming that Mather was a man with some kind of grudge?

Secondly, what words into who’s mouth? Are you talking about Wallace and Mather?

Because, as you know, I'm a rather good judge of character!
(and RES IPSA LOQUITUR)

Nope. We shall see...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because, as you know, I'm a rather good judge of character!
(and RES IPSA LOQUITUR)

Nope. We shall see...

I see absolutely no evidence for you being a good judge of character. Simply disliking those that disagree with you doesn’t really count.

And as you appear unwilling to back up your rather threatening statement about ‘putting words into mouths’ it’s impossible to respond properly and fairly.

On re-Reading the thread, and as the only other person that I’ve mentioned who might ‘object’ to anything that I might say is, and I can only assume (due to your unwillingness to specify,) Antony? I therefore assume (due to your unwillingness to specify again,) that you are talking about my point about Antony accepting that the caller asking for Wallace’s address points more to Wallace than Parry?

If that’s indeed the case then I’d suggest you read Antony’s book.

Bottom of page 85

“Nevertheless, this detail points more towards Wallace.”

I can see no other occaision where I might be accused of putting words into someone’s mouth. Something that I’ve never knowingly done. Unlike when someone suggested that Parkes had said that he’d been threatened by Parry when this had never been said or even implied.

[cobalt]

There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face. He was a gentlemen on whom I built an absolute trust.

So says Duncan to Macbeth on the execution of the treacherous Thane of Cawdor, little realising that Macbeth himself will prove more lethal. Anyone who says they are good judge of character usually dies penniless. Or worse.

[RodCrosby]

I can see no other occaision where I might be accused of putting words into someone’s mouth. Something that I’ve never knowingly done.

You have just put in [and took out!] words from Wallace's mouth...!

You don't even know you're doing it, apparently...

But it's no problem. I enjoy your contributions.

[RodCrosby]

There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face. He was a gentlemen on whom I built an absolute trust.

So says Duncan to Macbeth on the execution of the treacherous Thane of Cawdor, little realising that Macbeth himself will prove more lethal. Anyone who says they are good judge of character usually dies penniless. Or worse.

I'm a good judge of character because cynicism is in my DNA.

Hell, our ancient family motto is CELERITER NIL CREDE...

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have just put in [and took out!] words from Wallace's mouth...!

You don't even know you're doing it, apparently...

But it's no problem. I enjoy your contributions.

It’s very easy, and not to say more than a little infantile, to make an accusation without explaining the reason for it. And if I didn’t know that I was doing it it’s difficult to see where criticism is valid. All that would have been required would have been for you to have pointed it out. I admit my errors. I don’t recall you ever admitting that Parkes never said that he’d been threatened by Parry for example?

How about ditching the insinuation and speaking openly?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have just put in [and took out!] words from Wallace's mouth...!

You don't even know you're doing it, apparently...

But it's no problem. I enjoy your contributions.

I think your tying yourself up in knots here Rod. You accuse me of putting words in and taking words out of Wallace’s mouth. Then please explain how this is connected to the quote, and threat, below?

Rod:

And I'd be cautious about putting words in someone's mouth, btw. I doubt he'll put up with it any more than I do...

So according to this you are suggesting that Wallace won’t put up with it?

It’s therefore fairly obvious that you were indeed talking about Antony as I originally suggested but were thrown by my quote from his book.

Goodnight all.

[RodCrosby]

Since we have attracted new posters, with a thirst for information, here's a little compendium of good resources:-

Brief

F. Tennyson Jesse, 1953

https://www.dropbox.com/s/og96f9012qelpni/CHECKMATE.pdf?dl=0

Daily Telegraph, 2001

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/4814433/Inside-story-29-Wolverton-Street.html

Yahoo!Groups, 2003
https://archive.is/20130105185113/ht...ers/message/27

Intermediate

Dorothy L, Sayers (1936)

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.220696/2015.220696.The-Anatomy#page/n165/mode/2up

Edgar Lustgarten (1950)

https://archive.org/stream/verdictindispute00lustuoft#page/162/mode/2up

The unmissable spine-tingling Radio City drama-documentary from 1981, with people who were actually there in 1931

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=463578&postcount=79

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=463590&postcount=82

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=463597&postcount=85

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=463671&postcount=94

In A City Living, 2011 blogspot [illustrated with photos]
https://outline.com/RzNcc7

In-Depth

(to follow soon)

[Herlock Sholmes]

And our new posters can spot the very obvious dodge.

[rjpalmer]

In 1901, Julia (aged given 30) is back in London, living alone as head of her household in Stroud Green Road, Hornsey, Middlesex.
Occupation: Living on own means

[The transcription of age 30 may be an error for 39 (I have not seen the original) or this could be around the time that Julia started to shave a considerable amount off her age]

Here it is; it is definitely 30:

[rjpalmer]

Whether he's guilty or not, I cannot say, but studying Parry's background, he reminds me of a young Neville Heath. He's cut from the same cloth with all the warning signs: pointless destruction of private property as a school-boy; stealing cars; two counts of date rape or at least attempted date rape (although acquitted, I tend to believe the young ladies); disorderly conduct in jail; embezzling from his employers; embezzling from his employers for a second time; and, above all, oozing with self-satisfaction and arrogance. It's Heath all over again. Seriously bad news.

[APerno]

Thanks Rod,

Read Checkmate; The Telegraph; Yahoo Group; Lustgarten; and a part of Sayers.

Got a dozen questions but I am sure they have been covered multiple times, so I will try not to put you guys through them.

The alternative Parry argument seems more popular today then it than it did in 1931.

First Complaint:

There are several references to the brilliance of defense attorney Oliver, especially by Lustgarten, but I am wondering why he didn't push the Parry alternative during the trial.

I recognize that he (Oliver) opened with the classic: 'I don't have to prove his innocence, they have to prove his quilt' line [Lustgarten] but maybe he shouldn't have been so self assured, considering.

IMO John Parker's testimony has 'reasonable doubt' written all over it. (As I said I have not finished Sayers yet, but so far I have not found any record of John Parker testifying)

I can see where he (Oliver) might run into a judge that wouldn't let him explore alternatives too liberally, but Wallace did finger Parry early on and the police did interview him, and according to "Checkmate" they interviewed (and dismissed) John Parker's testimony.

If I was Oliver I would have been jumping all over the judge trying to find a way to get Parker on the stand (in the box).

What I did notice is that none of the early writings mention Parry (and therefore not Parker), even Checkmate which was written in 1953 does not bring up Parry, he is only introduced in the Editor's addendum. (Which I can't date.)

Anyway is it safe to assume that Oliver was aware of the police interview with John Parker and how damning it was for Parry?

If so why didn't Oliver push him; why did it take so long for Parry to become a serious suspect?

Second Complaint:

Why does everyone (not just Wallace's contemporaries but all the recent and current historians as well) refer to this man (and his wife) as mundane and their lives boring?

He played chess once a week; how many nights a week must a working man go out so not to be called boring? They both played musical instruments, he was an amateur scientist and her an artist. It sounds like an OK life to me.

It is almost as though everyone (even the historians) want there to be some kind of weirdness about Wallace so they have convinced themselves that the man was boring and mundane to the point of weirdness. I don't see it.

If anything negative comes across it's maybe he was a 'corporate man' and a sometime snitch for the bosses.

BTW on whether he did it or not, I got nothing!

[Harry D]

I recognize that he (Oliver) opened with the classic: 'I don't have to prove his innocence, they have to prove his quilt' line

That's a rather blanket statement.

[Graham]

APerno,

I see a lot of sound common sense under your heading 'Second Complaint'. One thing, though: I don't think Wallace would have considered himself to be a 'working man', in the social hierarchy sense of the term. He was certainly not born into a working-class family, and I have the impression that it was mainly down to his ill-health that he wasn't able to rise to greater things in professional life. As you say, he played chess, played musical instruments; he also had a very practical interest in chemistry, with his own home lab., and sometimes lectured at the local technical college. Does that sound like a boring life?

One thing: it would have been dangerous, because of the risk of a libel action, to name Parry as Julia's murderer, or even involved in her murder. He was only named (as far as I can tell) after his death in April 1980. He may have been named because of his connection with Wallace, but it would have been foolhardy to go any further than this.

BTW: it was Parkes with an 's'.

I liked your post.

Graham

[RodCrosby]

Thanks Rod,
You're welcome. You probably read too much, too soon, and now you are a little confused!
Read Checkmate; The Telegraph; Yahoo Group; Lustgarten; and a part of Sayers.

Got a dozen questions but I am sure they have been covered multiple times, so I will try not to put you guys through them.

The alternative Parry argument seems more popular today then it than it did in 1931.
not necessarily, except that Parry was not publicly named UNTIL 1981. The idea of an actual 'Qualtrough' killer was part of the defence from the get go.
First Complaint:

There are several references to the brilliance of defense attorney Oliver, especially by Lustgarten, but I am wondering why he didn't push the Parry alternative during the trial.
He did (except from naming him). And the judge told the jury it was quite possible. Some of the works you've read don't convey that fact though.
I recognize that he (Oliver) opened with the classic: 'I don't have to prove his innocence, they have to prove his guilt' line [Lustgarten] but maybe he shouldn't have been so self assured, considering.

IMO John Parker's testimony has 'reasonable doubt' written all over it. (As I said I have not finished Sayers yet, but so far I have not found any record of John Parker testifying)
Parkes testimony did not surface UNTIL 1981, when he claimed he had tried to tell the Police in 1931 (albeit after Wallace's conviction), but had been dismissed. So of course Parkes will not be mentioned in any work published prior to 1981..

I can see where he (Oliver) might run into a judge that wouldn't let him explore alternatives too liberally, but Wallace did finger Parry early on and the police did interview him, and according to "Checkmate" they interviewed (and dismissed) John Parker's testimony.
The bit about Parkes is tagged on as commentary by Roger Wilkes (mid 1990s), after the CHECKMATE piece by Jesse (1953). After the "--//--" There is also a short introduction by Wilkes. It's a bit confusing, and wasn't really formatted well in a hard-to-find internet archive which I have scraped into a PDF. I'll try re-formatting it for clarity.

If I was Oliver I would have been jumping all over the judge trying to find a way to get Parker on the stand (in the box).
As I've indicated above, Parkes did not come forward until AFTER Wallace was convicted, according to his statement when he was tracked down to a hospital bed in 1981.

What I did notice is that none of the early writings mention Parry (and therefore not Parker), even Checkmate which was written in 1953 does not bring up Parry, he is only introduced in the Editor's addendum. (Which I can't date.)
Yes, I hope I've explained why above.

Anyway is it safe to assume that Oliver was aware of the police interview with John Parker and how damning it was for Parry?
No. See above

If so why didn't Oliver push him; why did it take so long for Parry to become a serious suspect?
ditto

Second Complaint:

Why does everyone (not just Wallace's contemporaries but all the recent and current historians as well) refer to this man (and his wife) as mundane and their lives boring?
Well I suppose by some standards it was, by others not. Authors will often label someone, especially in a murder case, however they want to, to push their point of view.
And I suppose there is a general view that anyone who lived before TV, the internet and the Xbox must have lived a boring, monochrome life! But yes, poor old Wallace is fair game now for anything, although the in-depth books do give a more balanced view.
He played chess once a week; how many nights a week must a working man go out so not to be called boring? They both played musical instruments, he was an amateur scientist and her an artist. It sounds like an OK life to me.
Yes, you're quite objective
It is almost as though everyone (even the historians) want there to be some kind of weirdness about Wallace so they have convinced themselves that the man was boring and mundane to the point of weirdness. I don't see it.
Yes. It's prejudicial and arrogant to presume this.
If anything negative comes across it's maybe he was a 'corporate man' and a sometime snitch for the bosses.
He was a perfect gentleman, and a valued employee, who had led a blameless life up to that point.

BTW on whether he did it or not, I got nothing!

That's fair. There is nothing!