Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[cobalt]

The Slemen/Andrews theory is written up in rather dramatic prose. It does have one strong feature though: the explanation of Julia Wallace wearing a mackintosh to have a look for her missing cat while she saw her husband out of the door. The explanation of how the doors were locked is interesting too, although how would Johnston have known that Wallace would return to the front door after being locked out front and back?

A few other problems.
Mrs. Johnston seems very relaxed about being married to a killer; in fact according this account she oversaw the violent attack.
Surely Johnston would not have merely assumed that Julia accompanied Wallace on his trip: he would have watched to make certain she left with him. Even if she did, how could he know she was not just going to a local shop?
Johnston would surely have made sure he was out of the house before Wallace returned and not got trapped inside.
As neighbours with a key there must have been many opportunities to rob the Wallace property short of making the Qualtrough phone call; a phone call which Johnston could not have imagined would result in Julia leaving the property.

[RodCrosby]

Why would the Johnstons want to insert themselves into the drama of "the discovery of the body" and the inevitable Police arrival and police-think "it must be one of these suspects standing here in the house..."?

And probably another dozen reasons I can't be bothered wasting my time on. Yawn...

[etenguy]

Why would the Johnstons want to insert themselves into the drama of "the discovery of the body" and the inevitable Police arrival and police-think "it must be one of these suspects standing here in the house..."?

And probably another dozen reasons I can't be bothered wasting my time on. Yawn...

There are questions to be answered before the theory can be considered, I'll do some research and think about its weaknesses. If I get to the place where I think a more robust version of the scenario could be produced, I'll raise again rather than send this thread on a tangent. I'm not tied to the theory, but there are some points of interest within it.

[APerno]

Thank you all for the replies and enlightenment.

Parkes not coming forward until the 1950s changes everything and answers my questions regarding Oliver. !

I guess there is actually no way to know if Parkes was being truthful or was just seeking the limelight. I suppose no police records regarding his claimed interview survived.

[RodCrosby]

APerno

Parkes did not "come forward" in 1981, he was tracked down to a hospital bed. It is very important that we get the precise sequence of events accurate in our minds.

The circumstances, witness-support, and odd details of his story tend to support his veracity. We have discussed this at length, here and there, and I'm happy to do so again.

But I suggest you first listen to his testimony, or read Wilkes' book. [It's a damn-good read]

[APerno]

That's a rather blanket statement.

What I was trying to say was that Oliver made it clear from the get-go (opening statement) that he saw no need to mount any kind of an 'affirmative defense.'

I stated that because I was about to take issue with Oliver for not addressing Parkes' interview with the police. Of course now I know Oliver did not know of Parkes.

But before I started bashing Oliver I thought it correct to mention that he had made it clear he had no intention of mentioning alternatives . . . then I started (incorrectly) bashing him.

[RodCrosby]

I'm not so sure how it works stateside, but in English law there is one man on trial, and only one question under inquiry "did he do it?"

A defence lawyer cannot simply start accusing other people (by name)... unless they are also witnesses at the trial. This happened in the Evans-Christie case, and in a recent one decided here only last month.

Oliver did offer as a defence that a scenario of 'Qualtrough' actually being the killer was plausible, and the judge (and even the Police !) agreed.
But the jury convicted Wallace, after an hour's 'deliberation' [which later information from inside the jury-room indicated was no deliberation at all...]

[RodCrosby]

APerno
or read Wilkes' book. [It's a damn-good read]

there's a copy in FL for $4....

https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0586064524/ref=tmm_pap_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=1547400808&sr=8-2

[APerno]

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

Hi, thank you for the reply.

I should not have used such a commonly used term as working-man, I only meant that he was working five days a week (maybe more) and had to get up in the morning so how often is he suppose to go out.

If Parkes (assuming now this guy isn't a ruse) once rejected by the police had gone to the newspapers and told them of his encounter with Parry (without making an accusation) he would have been free of any civil liability (me thinks).

In regards to the trial, can a witness on the stand (in the box) under oath, be sued for defamation of character?

If you make suing a wittiness for defamation too easy it would put a chill on all testimony and could interfere with the accused getting a fair trial (but me no know).

[APerno]

there's a copy in FL for $4....
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...7400808&sr=8-2

LOL you really want me to read this book!

[APerno]

I'm not so sure how it works stateside, but in English law there is one man on trial, and only one question under inquiry "did he do it?"

A defence lawyer cannot simply start accusing other people (by name)... unless they are also witnesses at the trial. This happened in the Evans-Christie case, and in a recent one decided here only last month.

Oliver did offer as a defence that a scenario of 'Qualtrough' actually being the killer was plausible, and the judge (and even the Police !) agreed.
But the jury convicted Wallace, after an hour's 'deliberation' [which later information from inside the jury-room indicated was no deliberation at all...]

Certainly! That is why I stated that Oliver would have had a fight on his hands with he judge, (of course all this is pointless because Oliver didn't know of Parks) but I think there are ways that Oliver could have started introducing evidence and testimony into the case that would have taken him to Parry and thus made Parks' testimony 'relevant.'

One possible way (maybe): Oliver could have pulled the cops into the box and made them run through their investigation day by day and eventually make them admit for the record that they dismissed Parks' statements out-of-hand. It might have created in the jury's mind a mystery man.

No doubt it would take some good lawyering, but I felt (mistakenly) that if he knew of Parks he should have been pushing the issue every chance he got.

But yes, same rules here, you can't just start making lists of possible suspects to the jury.

[RodCrosby]

In regards to the trial, can a witness on the stand (in the box) under oath, be sued for defamation of character?

Probably not, although a judge might tell them to shut up, if they were offering opinions instead of facts. And then hold them in "contempt of court".
There was a case in the 1980s, where IIRC, a guy [a former policeman] deliberately didn't pay his rates[taxes], so he would be summoned to court, whereupon he accused a British Ambassador of murder, and Maggie Thatcher of complicity...
[his daughter had died in suspicious circumstances in Saudi Arabia, and he was convinced there was a cover-up]

[RodCrosby]

Certainly! That is why I stated that Oliver would have had a fight on his hands with he judge, (of course all this is pointless because Oliver didn't know of Parks) but I think there are ways that Oliver could have started introducing evidence and testimony into the case that would have taken him to Parry and thus made Parks' testimony 'relevant.'

One possible way (maybe): Oliver could have pulled the cops into the box and made them run through their investigation day by day and eventually make them admit for the record that they dismissed Parks' statements out-of-hand. It might have created in the jury's mind a mystery man.

No doubt it would take some good lawyering, but I felt (mistakenly) that if he knew of Parks he should have been pushing the issue every chance he got.

But yes, same rules here, you can't just start making lists of possible suspects to the jury.

Remember Parkes claimed [in 1981] he didn't come forward to the Police in 1931 until after the trial. [which of course is as useful as a chocolate tea-pot]

I'm sure there was some mention of Parry during the hearing, and the Judge suppressed it. I examined the Police file and the full trial-transcript with Antony 2 years ago, but didn't take many pics [I was Antony's guest].

I suppose I ought to go back... But it doesn't really alter anything. Everyone including Parry is entitled to a fair trial (while they're still alive, at least), and I don't believe Parry killed Julia in any case.

We know from many sources that Parry was suspected, even by the Police.

[cobalt]

Regarding defamation of character, from memory any witness in a court room enjoys qualified privilege at the discretion of the judge. He cannot be sued afterwards for any opinion given or accusation made. He could of course later be charged with perjury if he knowingly gave false testimony.


Absolute privilege is what politicians have within the parliament.

[moste]

LOL you really want me to read this book!

LOL. Go for it Aperno. I read it and now believe Wallace to have been guilty.