Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

The problem is that for Parry to have been physically involved in any way on the Tuesday night then 4 people would have had to have lied to protect him. Mrs Brine, her 13 year old daughter, her nephew and a visitor. We just don’t have any reason to accuse them of lying.

Yes, I do not seriously put the theory forward as anything more than a thought exercise. I don't think they lied for him. Nor do I think he was able to make them think it was 8.30 when it was actually earlier. But it would explain a few things in the house:
* why the box was put back
* why the other money / Julia's bag was not robbed (time short -
accomplice would have had longer)
* why Julia had to be killed (she could identify the thief)

But no - the evidence does not really allow for this possibility.

[RodCrosby]

We know the Police did not check Parry's three Tuesday 'alibis' covering the period between 8.30pm and 9.00pm. There are no statements from the relevant parties.

We also know that Leslie Williamson seemed blissfully unaware in 1981 of the third alibi, when one might imagine he would have had something to say about it, if true.

We could also talk about the intrinsic implausibility of the "accumulator" alibi, and how Parry and his father varied this story over the subsequent years.

We also know that Parry's statement bears "markers of deception" for this period. My intuition told me that in 2008. My intuition was confirmed in 2017, when I discovered papers first published in 2013 by a recognised expert in the field of forensic linguistics.

[harry]

I believe Wallace killed his wife.He was not freed because there was no evidence against him.He was freed because the evidence against him,did not,in the opinion of the appeals court,reach the standard required by law.
If Parry had any reason to kill anyone,then it would have been Wallace,and that could more easily have been done outside on the streets.The only reason an outsider was even considered,as far as I am aware,is the suggestion by defending counsel,that Julia had put the mackintosh around her shoulders to answer the front door,and was killed shortly afterwards,with the mackintosh still around her shoulders.A suggestion that a neighbour thought possible,but peculier.Why should it have been thought peculier?Did she need anything around the shoulders to answer the door?Did she not have a shawl for example,or did she normally use Herbert's or her own mackintosh when she left the warmth of the kitchen?

[Abby Normal]

We know the Police did not check Parry's three Tuesday 'alibis' covering the period between 8.30pm and 9.00pm. There are no statements from the relevant parties.

We also know that Leslie Williamson seemed blissfully unaware in 1981 of the third alibi, when one might imagine he would have had something to say about it, if true.

We could also talk about the intrinsic implausibility of the "accumulator" alibi, and how Parry and his father varied this story over the subsequent years.

We also know that Parry's statement bears "markers of deception" for this period. My intuition told me that in 2008. My intuition was confirmed in 2017, when I discovered papers first published in 2013 by a recognised expert in the field of forensic linguistics.

If the police did not check his alibis from 8:30 to 9:00, he does not have an alibi. Period. Thus he could have time to commit the murder, no?

Or atbthe very least, help his accomplice who did.

[Abby Normal]

I believe Wallace killed his wife.He was not freed because there was no evidence against him.He was freed because the evidence against him,did not,in the opinion of the appeals court,reach the standard required by law.
If Parry had any reason to kill anyone,then it would have been Wallace,and that could more easily have been done outside on the streets.The only reason an outsider was even considered,as far as I am aware,is the suggestion by defending counsel,that Julia had put the mackintosh around her shoulders to answer the front door,and was killed shortly afterwards,with the mackintosh still around her shoulders.A suggestion that a neighbour thought possible,but peculier.Why should it have been thought peculier?Did she need anything around the shoulders to answer the door?Did she not have a shawl for example,or did she normally use Herbert's or her own mackintosh when she left the warmth of the kitchen?

Hi harry
There is evidence against wallace, however, its circumstantial and weak at that.
The circumstantial evidence is even weaker against parry IMHO, however, you could consider eyewitness testimony against parry from parkes but it wasnt given in court so eben that is weak.

Its a weak case against either, and not nearly enough for a conviction.
INMO the appeals court made the right decision.

Re the mac. Julia had a cold amd it was suggested that if it was a non wallace killer they came to the door, and she put it around her shoulders to answer the door and let the guest into the parlor, which was cold, so she had it on as she lit the fire in the room at which point she was attacked, fell into the newly lit fire, which explained the burnt skirt and bottom of mac, was pulled out by the killer who finished wacking her to death, and she fell with the mac now under neath her.

[harry]

Why light a fire in the cold front room,when there was already a heated kitchen?.Where is the evidence that indicates a fire was lit in the room where the killing took place,and without a fire,how did the skirt and mackintosh get burnt?Sure there were two used matchsticks near the door to the kitchen,but that was some way from the fireplace,and unlikely to land that far on being dropped by Julia.How was the match struck?Hardly on a matchbox,as the one (matchbox) was found on a table aways from the fireplace.Wouldn't it have been customally to keep the matchbox in hand after extracting a match?

There was it seems enough evidence to convince a jury of guilt,it is a pity we do not have their interpretation of that evidence.

[RodCrosby]

He was not freed because there was no evidence against him.He was freed because the evidence against him,did not,in the opinion of the appeals court,reach the standard required by law.

sorry harry, but you're simply wrong.

The relevant part of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907, S4(1) reads:-

"The Court of Criminal Appeal ... shall allow the appeal if they think that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence..."

Therefore the "standard required by law" in 1931 was that the Jury's verdict was "NOT unreasonable", and "CAN be supported having regard to the evidence"....

The leading "bible" of the law stated:-

"it is not sufficient to show merely that the case against the appellant was a very weak one... nor is it enough that members of the Court feel some doubt as to the correctness of the verdict... If there was evidence to support the conviction, the appeal will be dismissed"
(Archbold, 1922, ed. p. 377)

and in long line of cases the Court of Appeal expounded on the reasons why that was so

"It must be understood that we are not here to re-try the case where there was evidence proper to be left to the jury upon which they could come to the conclusion at which they have arrived. The Appellant must bring himself within the words of section 4 (1). Here there was evidence on both sides, and it is impossible to say that the verdict is one to which the jury could not properly have arrived."
R v Williamson (1908)

"There have been cases in which the Court has thought fit to set aside a verdict of a question of fact alone, but only where the verdict was obviously and palpably wrong. Such cases are rare."
R v Hancox (1913) 8 Cr App R 193

“...the fact that some members or all the members of the Court think that they themselves would have returned a different verdict is again no ground for refusing to accept the verdict of the jury, which is the constitutional method of trial in this country. If there is evidence to go to the jury, and there has been no misdirection, and it cannot be said that the verdict is one which a reasonable jury could not arrive at, this Court will not set aside the verdict of Guilty which has been found by the Jury.”
R v Hopkins-Husson (1950) 34 Cr App R 47

It was not until 1968 that the law was relaxed, to permit the Court of Appeal to accept a lower test, and "allow an appeal against conviction if they think that the conviction is unsafe" Criminal Appeal Act 1968, S2 (1(a))

[Herlock Sholmes]

We know the Police did not check Parry's three Tuesday 'alibis' covering the period between 8.30pm and 9.00pm. There are no statements from the relevant parties.

We also know that Leslie Williamson seemed blissfully unaware in 1981 of the third alibi, when one might imagine he would have had something to say about it, if true.

We could also talk about the intrinsic implausibility of the "accumulator" alibi, and how Parry and his father varied this story over the subsequent years.

We also know that Parry's statement bears "markers of deception" for this period. My intuition told me that in 2008. My intuition was confirmed in 2017, when I discovered papers first published in 2013 by a recognised expert in the field of forensic linguistics.

Why would Parry invent alibis like the PO and Hignett’s which would have been easily disproven had the police checked? It makes no sense. The most important alibi’s however were the ones pre-8.30 which we have no reason to suspect were all false.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the police did not check his alibis from 8:30 to 9:00, he does not have an alibi. Period. Thus he could have time to commit the murder, no?

Or atbthe very least, help his accomplice who did.

I’d have to say Abby why would he have named the PO and Hignett’s when a simple check by the police would have landed him in deep trouble.

I’m unsure if we can be certain that they didn’t check those two alibi’s just because it wasn’t mentioned. It could be the case thar they didn’t check of course, I just can’t recall.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I believe Wallace killed his wife.He was not freed because there was no evidence against him.He was freed because the evidence against him,did not,in the opinion of the appeals court,reach the standard required by law.
If Parry had any reason to kill anyone,then it would have been Wallace,and that could more easily have been done outside on the streets.The only reason an outsider was even considered,as far as I am aware,is the suggestion by defending counsel,that Julia had put the mackintosh around her shoulders to answer the front door,and was killed shortly afterwards,with the mackintosh still around her shoulders.A suggestion that a neighbour thought possible,but peculier.Why should it have been thought peculier?Did she need anything around the shoulders to answer the door?Did she not have a shawl for example,or did she normally use Herbert's or her own mackintosh when she left the warmth of the kitchen?

Hello Harry,

According to Wallace he’d never seen Julia in a mackintosh which strongly points to the fact that she didn’t own one. Whatever reason is put forward for Julia using the mackintosh it’s hard to see why, when she stood at the coat hooks, she didn’t simply pick up her own coat?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi friend : )

But parkes and his boss did come forward after wallace was convicted and told the cop moore who came and interviewed parkes right?

Its not there fault the cops didnt beleive them?

They were scared to come forward from the beginning, then finally did, did their moral duty, told the police. In the ensuing years, i could see why they wouldnt press it not wanting to get involved. They told the cops, the ball was in the polices court now to follow up if they saw fit.

And not going to the press with their story goes along with this reluctance no?

I find it difficult to believe Abby. Parry was ‘dodgy’ but he was hardly Ronnie Kray, striking terror into all who knew him. Gordon Atkinson said the case was ‘discussed openly’ around the garage. Many people would have known about Parkes ‘story’ and yet the story never saw the light of day. You know how these kind of ‘secrets’ go Abby. Fred tells Bill whilst at work then Bill tells his wife who then tells....etc. But it never gets out, in any form, until 50 years later.

Also don’t you find it hard to believe the risk that Moore would have taken with his own and the police’s reputation if Parkes had made the story known. What if someone had gone and retrieved the weapon? What if someone had gone to the press? What if Wallace had been found innocent and then it was revealed that Moore had ignored a valuable lead? What if Wallace had been found guilty and hanged and then it had been revealed that Moore had ignored Parkes?

All these risks and all it would have taken was for Moore to have sent a PC or two to Priory Road to check if the weapon was actually there. If not then he dismisses Parkes statement.

It seems rather a massive risk Abby for the sake of 15 minutes work for a couple of Bobbies.

[RodCrosby]

We know Parry lied about his Monday night movements. Therefore there is no reason to suppose he would not also lie about the Tuesday, if necessary.

The Police didn't check them because they knew he couldn't have done the murder (Brine) and so they discounted him from enquiries, without considering a further possibility (the accomplice).

We don't know what Moore did after 25th April (Wallace's conviction) and Parkes and the Atkinsons coming forward, as Parkes claims.

As for "the Police's reputation" - don't make me laugh. You obviously know nothing of the Police's spectacular track record of miscarriages of justice, in Liverpool in particular...

Such miscarriages can take 50 years to rectify. The 1930s Police were not exactly "looking over their shoulders" to see who might be checking on them...

[etenguy]

There are two issues to consider with the Parkes story:
a) did they come forward at the time they state
b) was the interaction as described by Parkes

Let's assume they did tell Moore: he then did nothing. Why? incompetence, didn't believe Parkes or did not want to upset the case against Wallace? All possible, but given how easy it would have been to check, surprising. No interview with Parry either.

Was Parkes story true? Seems unlikely at best. Stretches credibility to its limits. That some criminals do tell/boast about their crimes is not in question. That criminals would tell someone antagonistic towards them - I have not heard of previously and it would beggar belief that they would - unless they wanted to get caught. Especially given the sophisticated plan that would have had to be in place for Parry to be guilty of masterminding the crime.

It also stretches believability that they would wait until Parry died to mention this story, given he had moved away from Liverpool and the case has attracted a lot of attention over the years.

We cannot dismiss it entirely - strange events do occur - but it is highly suspect I think.

[Abby Normal]

Is it not in the police record somewhere that moore interviewed parkes about parry coming to the garage???

[Abby Normal]

I’d have to say Abby why would he have named the PO and Hignett’s when a simple check by the police would have landed him in deep trouble.

I’m unsure if we can be certain that they didn’t check those two alibi’s just because it wasn’t mentioned. It could be the case thar they didn’t check of course, I just can’t recall.

Hi hs
Criminals give false alibis all tje time to police, thinking they wont check them out, or if they do, itll be inconclisive. Especially In the time of no security cameras because parry could say yes i was, the other person must have forgotten.

Any way if its not documented in the police record that the alibis were checked then he dosnt have a solid alibi.