Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Abby Normal]

thank you Rod-I will take a look.

[Abby Normal]

Hi, after setting up the other Wallace thread (which has over 350k views) I know there is some interest in the case.

My book, Move To Murder, was due to published last November but was delayed to allow Death of an Actress - my book about the Gay Gibson case - to be released in time for the 70th anniversary of the trial of James Camb for her murder.

However, today Move to Murder is finally published. For those new to the Wallace case, it is arguably Britain's most baffling unsolved murder. I hope the book will be of interest to those who know about the case, too. It compares and contrasts five theories, including a new one (by a poster to these forums), and publishes original evidence for the first time. This includes:

- the post mortem report that contradicts expert testimony at the trial;

- exclusive extracts from Wallace's unpublished memoir that provide his last known thoughts on the murder and his trial;

- the timing tests conducted by the defence but never used at trial.

And, best of all, you do not have to agree with my conclusions. You can deliver your verdict on what you believe most likely happened on the ColdCaseJury website. Will the overall verdict of the jury find Wallace guilty? Or will one of the other four theories be endorsed? The result is in your hands.

If there is interest, this thread will answer specific questions about the book. For general points about the case, see the other thread.

N.B. The newspaper article is from today's Daily Express (1 Nov 2018).

hi Cold case
I would like to order the book but amazon says its pre order only and not available till May?

[Abby Normal]

I have read up a little more on this and have a lot of thoughts but this is the main one;

if its true the Qualtrough call came from the call box near wallaces house at the about the same time that Wallace would be walking near on his way to the chess café then there is little doubt in my mind he made the call and is the killer.


Its way too much of a coincidence.


I had said before that the call probably didn't come from him since they didn't recognize his voice, but if the above is true he must have made the call. and simply disguised his voice well enough.



or would the killer know his movements well enough, and plan this out well enough (over a burglery? revenge?) and take the risk of being seen and recognized by Wallace on his way by (or anyone else) to make the call to the chess cafe from that call box? i find that very hard to beleive.

[etenguy]

I have read up a little more on this and have a lot of thoughts but this is the main one;

if its true the Qualtrough call came from the call box near wallaces house at the about the same time that Wallace would be walking near on his way to the chess café then there is little doubt in my mind he made the call and is the killer.

Its way too much of a coincidence.

Or, perhaps someone was watching his movements and waited to check that he left to go to the chess club before making the call, thus ensuring he would receive the message. If that were the case, two things follow:
* there is a good chance Wallace would have recognised the voice which is why the caller phoned when he could leave a message - therefore the caller was well known to Wallace;
* there was a reason the murderer could not (or did not want to) commit the robbery/murder that night.

[RodCrosby]

Hi Abby

you might be able to get the book via UK Amazon. I don't think it will be long before it appears on US Amazon though.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Move-Murder-Cold-Case-Jury/dp/1907324739

I have read up a little more on this and have a lot of thoughts but this is the main one;

if its true the Qualtrough call came from the call box near wallaces house at the about the same time that Wallace would be walking near on his way to the chess café then there is little doubt in my mind he made the call and is the killer.
There were two tram stops near his home. Wallace stated that he walked to the southerly stop, which would seem logical for someone heading basically south-west into Liverpool city centre. The Police made great efforts to track Wallace's movements on the Tuesday night, but seemingly none at all for the Monday night, the night of the phone call. In other words, there was nothing to disprove Wallace's claim that he had not walked anywhere near the phone box.

There were several vantage points from where someone could watch both his routes at the same time, to see which stop he was going for, and then walk to the phone kiosk to make the Qualtrough call.

I attach a 1930 map. The blue lines are the two routes Wallace could have taken to the tram stop(s). The yellow box is the phone box. The red circle is a very obvious vantage point from where someone could watch both routes quite easily.

Its way too much of a coincidence.
Not really, if we think of an alternative explanation.

I had said before that the call probably didn't come from him since they didn't recognize his voice, but if the above is true he must have made the call. and simply disguised his voice well enough.
Not really, if we think of an alternative explanation.


or would the killer know his movements well enough, and plan this out well enough (over a burglary? revenge?) and take the risk of being seen and recognized by Wallace on his way by (or anyone else) to make the call to the chess cafe from that call box? i find that very hard to believe.
It is accepted that if Wallace wasn't the caller/killer it must have been someone who knew him very well. And Wallace was tall and distinctive, a relatively easy target to stalk.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

you might be able to get the book via UK Amazon. I don't think it will be long before it appears on US Amazon though.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Move-Murder.../dp/1907324739

Thanks rod.

Didnt wallace have someone he suspected? Did he ever name him?

[Abby Normal]

Or, perhaps someone was watching his movements and waited to check that he left to go to the chess club before making the call, thus ensuring he would receive the message. If that were the case, two things follow:
* there is a good chance Wallace would have recognised the voice which is why the caller phoned when he could leave a message - therefore the caller was well known to Wallace;
* there was a reason the murderer could not (or did not want to) commit the robbery/murder that night.

He eten
Yes perhaps. See rods response above. Or wallace made rhe call on the way to the tram and disguised his voice. Both seem crazy to me now.

[RodCrosby]

Thanks rod.

Didnt wallace have someone he suspected? Did he ever name him?

Yes, it started with the police asking Wallace who Julia might have let into the house (as is quite normal in a murder investigation such as this).
In his second statement, Wallace mentioned 17 people, or 19 if you assume the Johnstons, who he thought Julia would have let into the house without question. He did seem to focus on two former Prudential colleagues, Gordon Parry and Joseph Marsden, in particular, although he said he had no suspicions of anyone.

During the trial of Wallace, someone named Parry in court [I have seen the file, but can't remember exactly who, sorry!] and the Judge ordered the Press, etc. not to mention the name publicly [again quite reasonable, everyone is entitled to a fair trial, after all].

By the time his conviction was quashed, Wallace had thought a lot about who really killed Julia. He committed his thoughts to his private diary, and he became convinced that it was Parry. He even expressed the fear that Parry would come and kill him too, because Parry 'knew that he (Wallace) knew', to the extent that he had electric lights installed around his bungalow, where he had moved to escape the wagging-tongues in Liverpool after he was freed. Wallace became a little obsessed in his diary, about ways Parry could be brought to justice for 'his crime'. Wallace died in February 1933, as we have heard. It seems probable he lost the will to live.

Two authors came as close as they dared to naming Parry, given the Judge's ruling and the libel laws. In a 1932 book he was "Mr. P", and in a 1934 book he was "Harris" [both Harris and Parry mean 'son of Harry']

Subsequent authors referred to him as "Mr.X" or "Mr.Z" until he died, aged 71, on 14th April 1980. On the fiftieth anniversary of the crime, Roger Wilkes and Jonathan Goodman finally revealed the name Richard Gordon Parry to the world, in the radio program I have linked previously....

[etenguy]

He eten
Yes perhaps. See rods response above. Or wallace made rhe call on the way to the tram and disguised his voice. Both seem crazy to me now.

Yes, we are missing some information which would help us understand why a call was made at all, by anyone. As it stands it does seem odd. I suspect if we could crack the reason for the call, the murderer will be revealed.

Rod asked an insightful question in one of his earlier posts - who needed Qualtrough to exist?

[etenguy]

Yes, it started with the police asking Wallace who Julia might have let into the house (as is quite normal in a murder investigation such as this).
In his second statement, Wallace mentioned 17 people, or 19 if you assume the Johnstons, who he thought Julia would have let into the house without question. He did seem to focus on two former Prudential colleagues, Gordon Parry and Joseph Marsden, in particular, although he said he had no suspicions of anyone.

During the trial of Wallace, someone named Parry in court [I have seen the file, but can't remember exactly who, sorry!] and the Judge ordered the Press, etc. not to mention the name publicly [again quite reasonable, everyone is entitled to a fair trial, after all].

By the time his conviction was quashed, Wallace had thought a lot about who really killed Julia. He committed his thoughts to his private diary, and he became convinced that it was Parry. He even expressed the fear that Parry would come and kill him too, because Parry 'knew that he (Wallace) knew', to the extent that he had electric lights installed around his bungalow, where he had moved to escape the wagging-tongues in Liverpool after he was freed. Wallace became a little obsessed in his diary, about ways Parry could be brought to justice for 'his crime'. Wallace died in February 1933, as we have heard. It seems probable he lost the will to live.

Two authors came as close as they dared to naming Parry, given the Judge's ruling and the libel laws. In a 1932 book he was "Mr. P", and in a 1934 book he was "Harris" [both Harris and Parry mean 'son of Harry']

Subsequent authors referred to him as "Mr.X" or "Mr.Z" until he died, aged 71, on 14th April 1980. On the fiftieth anniversary of the crime, Roger Wilkes and Jonathan Goodman finally revealed the name Richard Gordon Parry to the world, in the radio program I have linked previously....

I am surprised the police did not investigate Parry more fully. As far as I can tell, the police were convinced Wallace was the murderer and did not investigate other possibilities thoroughly. Parry makes a good suspect. The radio broadcast suggests he was protected by a well connected father. I'd like to think that wasn't true.

[RodCrosby]

The Liverpool Police had a very poor reputation throughout most of the 20th Century, and were involved in several 'cause celebres', where it is suspected the wrong men were hanged or imprisoned.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/murder-most-foul-innocent-man-3488195

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/murder-most-foul-hanged--3488330

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/england/merseyside/7272994.stm

https://www.eddiegilfoyle.co.uk/

As a youth, I remember my father, who had policemen friends, telling me that the force was "riddled with Freemasonry..."

John Gannon, in his book on the case, quotes a statement made by a friend of the Parrys that, in the aftermath of the murder, Parry's parents begged her father, a ship's steward, "to smuggle Gordon out of Liverpool on any boat he could find.. to the other side of the world." Her father, after wavering, ultimately declined, after a blazing row with her mother, who told her husband he "would be helping a murderer...escape the punishment he deserved." [Gannon, 2012]

Sergeant Harry Bailey, after Wallace was freed, approached Wallace's junior barrister, Scholefield Allen. He intimated that "when he retired" he would tell Allen "something about about the investigation that would interest him immensely." They never did meet again. [Goodman, 1969]

In 1981, Harry Bailey's son told Roger Wilkes "my father told me that Parry was the prime suspect. The police were on to him straight away, turning over his house and his car, which they stripped down. But Parry had an alibi - and it was unshakeable." [Wilkes, 1985]

In the mid-1950s, Dr Coope, who had been an expert witness at the trial, was working in a Liverpool hospital, when a patient in a bed said "you probably don't remember me." It was Constable Fred Williams, the first policeman to enter 29 Wolverton Street on the night of the murder. "I want to talk to you about the Wallace Case. There's a lot I can tell you. That man was innocent." Coope arranged a further meeting, but then himself became indisposed. When he returned to the hospital ward a week later, the matron informed him that Williams had died. [Goodman, 1987]

Parry himself, when confronted by Jonathan Goodman in 1966, stated that he would not talk about the case "not for £2000", as he had promised his father (who was still alive) that he never would.

[Abby Normal]

If Parry did it-what do think his motive was?
would he have gone through this elaborate scheme just for a robbery?

Was the murder intended from the beginning or was it a robbery gone wrong?

[RodCrosby]

Hi Abby,

I don't think Richard Gordon Parry killed Julia Wallace.

Perhaps we should look at the statements to see if there is a clue to what really happened.

[etenguy]

Hi Abby,

I don't think Richard Gordon Parry killed Julia Wallace.

Perhaps we should look at the statements to see if there is a clue to what really happened.

I have not looked through all the statements, yet.

I think Parry makes a strong suspect but I am not convinced he is the murderer. I am even less of the view that Wallace was the murderer. In neither case does the phone call make sense to me. The argument that Wallace wanted to introduce another possibility to throw the scent off him is not very convincing to me. Nor is the idea that Parry was trying to get Wallace out of the house - Wallace was out of the house for much longer on the night of the chess match and this would have been known by the caller.

But I am at a loss as to why anyone would make that call.

(Purely Speculative) It seems to me that it is perhaps possible the telephone caller met with Julia on both days and Julia had kept the meeting from her husband for some reason. That would explain the need to ensure Wallace was not there on the night of the murder and hence the telephone call.

[Abby Normal]

I have not looked through all the statements, yet.

I think Parry makes a strong suspect but I am not convinced he is the murderer. I am even less of the view that Wallace was the murderer. In neither case does the phone call make sense to me. The argument that Wallace wanted to introduce another possibility to throw the scent off him is not very convincing to me. Nor is the idea that Parry was trying to get Wallace out of the house - Wallace was out of the house for much longer on the night of the chess match and this would have been known by the caller.

But I am at a loss as to why anyone would make that call.

(Purely Speculative) It seems to me that it is perhaps possible the telephone caller met with Julia on both days and Julia had kept the meeting from her husband for some reason. That would explain the need to ensure Wallace was not there on the night of the murder and hence the telephone call.

hi eten and Rod

the plot thickens.lol