Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[ColdCaseJury]

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.

A really good post.

As you say, Parry even became violent when put in a police cell (tearing off a wooden bench from the wall) in July 1936. The police clapped irons on him. It seems Parry had a vicious, violent side to his character. He was also an incorrigible conman, who would trick friends out of money, not just his employers.

The latter behaviour appears to fit with the telephone call ruse. The former with the murder itself, apart from he has an alibi at the crucial time (although it was not thoroughly cross-checked). Are there any records of violence after 1936, I wonder? I have not found any yet.

Many people - but by no means all - think he is involved in this crime somehow. Indeed, apart from the Wallace theory, all the other major theories involve him in some way. Of course, this fact by itself does not mean any of them are correct, of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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!

Hi APerno,

No one in 1931 had heard of John Parkes. His story only came to light 50 years later when he spoke on Roger Wilkes radio programme about the Wallace case. Parkes said that the police rejected his story out of hand when he told them at the time but there’s no record of this (although, in itself, this doesnt mean that his meeting with the police didn’t take place.)

Many people, including myself think that Parkes’ story is simply not believable for a variety of reasons (including, for example, the fact the it requires an act of suicidal stupidity by Parry)

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

The only difference being that apparently Parry went on to live a perfectly normal life after the Wallace case.

[RodCrosby]

A really good post.

As you say, Parry even became violent when put in a police cell (tearing off a wooden bench from the wall) in July 1936. The police clapped irons on him. It seems Parry had a vicious, violent side to his character. He was also an incorrigible conman, who would trick friends out of money, not just his employers.

The latter behaviour appears to fit with the telephone call ruse. The former with the murder itself, apart from he has an alibi at the crucial time (although it was not thoroughly cross-checked). Are there any records of violence after 1936, I wonder? I have not found any yet.

Many people - but by no means all - think he is involved in this crime somehow. Indeed, apart from the Wallace theory, all the other major theories involve him in some way. Of course, this fact by itself does not mean any of them are correct, of course.

Yes, I noted 11 years ago that Parry seems to fit the textbook definition of a psychopath [although as the experts are at pains to point out, the homicidal psychopath is a thankfully rare subset of this group. There are plenty of 'successful' psychopaths in politics, medicine, business, etc.]

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?3494-Julia-Wallace-Murder-Case&p=118221&viewfull=1#post118221

[RodCrosby]

Here it is; it is definitely 30:

Thanks for that.

[ColdCaseJury]

The only difference being that apparently Parry went on to live a perfectly normal life after the Wallace case.

HS, I believe all Parry's brushes with the law happened after the Wallace case. His thefts were in 1932. His alleged rape (with violence) was April 1936 (acquitted June 1936). His prison cell temper was July 1936 after being put in the cell for arguing with a woman. His thefts were in 1932.

But after 1936 I have found nothing.

[RodCrosby]

And earlier repeated acts of petty vandalism, when at Lister Drive school.
There was also his friend 'Tattersall', whose 1981 meanderings could point to other petty crimes that he and Parry engaged in prior to the murder.
"I admit that he and I were a couple of bad lads."

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS, I believe all Parry's brushes with the law happened after the Wallace case. His thefts were in 1932. His alleged rape (with violence) was April 1936 (acquitted June 1936). His prison cell temper was July 1936 after being put in the cell for arguing with a woman. His thefts were in 1932.

But after 1936 I have found nothing.

Antony, an absence of any kind of criminal record after 1936 doesn’t mean that he didn’t commit any other crimes of course. He might have done but just didn’t get caught. But as he appeared to have had a pretty ‘normal’ life with a steady job and a marriage it’s not impossible that, like many people, he left his criminal past behind. None of this exonerates him of being involved in the Wallace case of course.

I have to say that it still surprises me somewhat that some still feel that he was the actual murderer.

[etenguy]

Just to take stock a moment, since we have covered a lot of ground in this thread.

We have two competing theories for who killed Julia Wallace, one championed by RodCrosby (Parry plus accomplice) and one championed by Herlock Sholmes (Wallace). Both are equally plausible and both share a lack of direct evidence. Most reading outside of this thread supports one or other of these theories and so it is no surprise we focus on and concentrate on these two possibilities.

However, there is another suspect. One who confessed to the crime in 1960, some years after the event. This confession was relayed to Tom Slemen and Keith Andrews. The confession was made by John Johnston and the scenario which has him as the killer explains the evidence, such as it is, to a high degree. There must be the caveat about evidence received so long after the crime and it should also be caveated that when John Johnston made his confession, he was suffering from dementia.

The basic scenario is:
* John Johnstone's motive was burglary - specifically the premiums stored in the cash box.
* John Johnstone made the Qualtrough phone call from his local phone box to get Wallace out of the way.
* He killed Julia when disturbed committing the crime (the suggestion is he crept into the kitchen using a key which he was holding as a neighbour - a common practice to hold a neighbour's key and explaining why he suggested using his key when Wallace couldn't open the door). Of course, unlike the Parry accomplice theory, Julia would have recognised John Johnston.
* He washed and changed before Wallace returned from MG area
* He returned to the house to check for incriminating evidence he may have left behind and had bolted both doors in case Wallace returned.
* When Wallace tried both the front and back doors and couldn't get in, Johnston waited until Wallace went back to try the front door, unbolted the back and escaped (perhaps with the weapon or he may have taken that with him earlier). Then he and his wife were there to meet Wallace as he tried the back door a second time and it opened easily.
* It could be suggested that the Johnston's reaction to finding the body was a little less shocked that you might expect, supporting that it was not a surprise to them.
* Fred Williams, who had spoken with Wallace and the Johnston's, but no other witnesses, said he thought he knew who the killer was and that Wallace was innocent.

A summary of the Slemen/Andrews scenario can be found at http://detectiveandrews.tripod.com/prufour.html

Is there any good reason not to consider this scenario plausible?

[RodCrosby]

A summary of the Slemen/Andrews scenario can be found at http://detectiveandrews.tripod.com/prufour.html

Is there any good reason not to consider this scenario plausible?

https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/author/profile/81189.Tom_Slemen/

Aside from the irate Johnston family stating it is pure fantasy, made up by paranormal-bullshitter Tom-"the truth about demons that live in our homes"-Slemen, and I think there were 4 other people in the Johnston house that night?
And common sense?

[etenguy]

Aside from the irate Johnston family stating it is pure fantasy,

Well they would wouldn't they?

made up by paranormal-bullshitter Slemen,

I don't know enough about Tom Slemen to judge his credibility - but he does not rely on paranormal intervention in his theory. Regardless of the credibility of the proposer - the theory nevertheless stands up as a plausible scenario

and I think there were 4 other people in the Johnston house that night?

If the Johnston's had an alibi and therefore couldn't have committed the crime, that would invalidate the theory - this would be good to establish.

And common sense?

I can see no common sense reason to immediately dismiss the scenario. On the contrary, prima facie it explains the evidence, such as it is, quite comprehensively. I can see no reason not to test it to establish whether the theory stands up in light of other facts (such as the Johnstons having a strong alibi).

[ColdCaseJury]

Just to take stock a moment, since we have covered a lot of ground in this thread.

We have two competing theories for who killed Julia Wallace, one championed by RodCrosby (Parry plus accomplice) and one championed by Herlock Sholmes (Wallace). Both are equally plausible and both share a lack of direct evidence. Most reading outside of this thread supports one or other of these theories and so it is no surprise we focus on and concentrate on these two possibilities.

However, there is another suspect. One who confessed to the crime in 1960, some years after the event. This confession was relayed to Tom Slemen and Keith Andrews. The confession was made by John Johnston and the scenario which has him as the killer explains the evidence, such as it is, to a high degree. There must be the caveat about evidence received so long after the crime and it should also be caveated that when John Johnston made his confession, he was suffering from dementia.

The basic scenario is:
* John Johnstone's motive was burglary - specifically the premiums stored in the cash box.
* John Johnstone made the Qualtrough phone call from his local phone box to get Wallace out of the way.
* He killed Julia when disturbed committing the crime (the suggestion is he crept into the kitchen using a key which he was holding as a neighbour - a common practice to hold a neighbour's key and explaining why he suggested using his key when Wallace couldn't open the door). Of course, unlike the Parry accomplice theory, Julia would have recognised John Johnston.
* He washed and changed before Wallace returned from MG area
* He returned to the house to check for incriminating evidence he may have left behind and had bolted both doors in case Wallace returned.
* When Wallace tried both the front and back doors and couldn't get in, Johnston waited until Wallace went back to try the front door, unbolted the back and escaped (perhaps with the weapon or he may have taken that with him earlier). Then he and his wife were there to meet Wallace as he tried the back door a second time and it opened easily.
* It could be suggested that the Johnston's reaction to finding the body was a little less shocked that you might expect, supporting that it was not a surprise to them.
* Fred Williams, who had spoken with Wallace and the Johnston's, but no other witnesses, said he thought he knew who the killer was and that Wallace was innocent.

A summary of the Slemen/Andrews scenario can be found at http://detectiveandrews.tripod.com/prufour.html

Is there any good reason not to consider this scenario plausible?

A great post and yes, this is worth considering this scenario against the evidence as with any other theory.

I would say there is a huge problem with it:

John Johnston did not know of Wallace's chess schedule. Did he say he popped down to the City Cafe, saw Wallace was down to play on the Monday and noted the Cafe telephone number (according to Rod the Cafe was not in the phone book) to make the Qualtrough call? I also doubt Johnston would not know anything about the insurance industry to make the call either.

The Qualtrough call is the key to the case, in my opinion. The caller must have known about Wallace's job, the insurance industry and frequented the City Cafe to know about the chess club. The only two candidates are Wallace and Parry. A third party might have gleaned info from either, but this is doubtful, unless they were somehow involved too.

Another problem: how did the Johnston know about the cash box? Johnston had never stepped in the house and Florence only showed into the front room three times in a decade.

Another problem: why was Julia killed in the front room with the fire on?

[etenguy]

A great post and yes, this is worth considering this scenario against the evidence as with any other theory.

I would say there is a huge problem with it:

John Johnston did not know of Wallace's chess schedule. Did he say he popped down to the City Cafe, saw Wallace was down to play on the Monday and noted the Cafe telephone number (according to Rod the Cafe was not in the phone book) to make the Qualtrough call? I also doubt Johnston would not know anything about the insurance industry to make the call either.

The Qualtrough call is the key to the case, in my opinion. The caller must have known about Wallace's job, the insurance industry and frequented the City Cafe to know about the chess club. The only two candidates are Wallace and Parry. A third party might have gleaned info from either, but this is doubtful, unless they were somehow involved too.

Another problem: how did the Johnston know about the cash box? Johnston had never stepped in the house and Florence only showed into the front room three times in a decade.

Another problem: why was Julia killed in the front room with the fire on?

Thank you. The problems you identify would need explaining and I don't have any immediate response to those, they are real challenges to the theory (as is Rod's suggestion of an alibi for the Johnston's).

I don't champion the theory, I think I was attracted to it because of the way it explains the issue with the doors - which, if Wallace was not the killer, need better explanation, I think.

I agree with you that the Qualtrough call appears key to the case and the specific challenge you set out about Johnston making the call is particularly difficult to explain away.

[ColdCaseJury]

Thank you. The problems you identify would need explaining and I don't have any immediate response to those, they are real challenges to the theory (as is Rod's suggestion of an alibi for the Johnston's).

I don't champion the theory, I think I was attracted to it because of the way it explains the issue with the doors - which, if Wallace was not the killer, need better explanation, I think.

I agree with you that the Qualtrough call appears key to the case and the specific challenge you set out about Johnston making the call is particularly difficult to explain away.

Thanks for your reply and refreshing attitude. I didn't think you were championing the theory, by the way, but wanting to explore every option, which has to be the rational and reasonable approach.

Any solution to the case must explain the call: why it was made and what was said. I honestly believe the Johnston Theory cannot even get to the hurdle, let alone try to clear it.

[RodCrosby]

The Johnstons' grandson is a serious researcher on the case, who gives talks.
Whether I disagree with him or not, I'd pay more attention to him over Tom-"the strange case of the werewolf cabby"-Slemen any day of the week...

But you weren't to know any of this eten, so apologies for my cynicism. It wasn't directed at you.