Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[cobalt]

The first reference in print to Parry seems to have been in 1934, just three years after the case. The author was Winifred Duke, a native Liverpudlian with some legal background, who wrote commentaries on a number of criminal cases. According to Wikipedia she referred to Parry, presumably for reasons of libel, as ‘Harris’ which is a cognate of that name. I don’t have a copy of her book in which the Wallace case features.

So although the Parkes statement and the police enquiries relating to Parry were not known to Wallace’s defence, there seems to have been some awareness of Parry’s possible involvement long before Goodman (1969) and Wilkes (1981) looked at the case. I am not sure how Duke’s obtained this information: maybe through contacts within the legal/police world, or by pursuing information from Wallace’s newspaper article, or maybe just local rumour. As it happens she believed Wallace was actually guilty which may be why she does not appear on Rod Crosby’s recommended reading list.

[ColdCaseJury]

I’d like to ask three connected questions. Without meaning any disrespect to any other posters the answer is likeliest to come from either Rod or Antony from their research. It’s not a ‘aha’ moment or proof of anything it’s just a curiosity.

On the Monday night Wallace was saying that he went to the tram stop in Breck Road near to the junction of Belmont Road. He would have walked to the end of Richmond Park where there was a tram stop and then turned left into Breck Road. He would then have passed another stop next to Pendennis Street on the left before arriving at the stop near the junction.

Where these two stops pick-up points for the Monday night tram that would have taken Wallace to the chess club?

If so, why do we think that Wallace walked past two stops to get to the one near the junction?

Was the stop near to the junction a point on the route where the fair became cheaper giving Wallace a reason for walking past the two closer stops?

Nice observation, HS. The honest answer: we don't know. The prosecution didn't pick up on this, I don't think. Inference: they weren't as astute as some posters, or it didn't raise an eyebrow at the time.

If Wallace was guilty, and said he took the tram at Belmont Rd to even out the timings, he was something of criminal genius, planning his crime to a highly nuanced degree. This would make other aspects of the crime a little surprising. The bungled staged burglary; the involvement of the cash box; his hounding of the 2nd and 3rd tram conductors but not the 1st; and so on.

[RodCrosby]

cobalt

FYI, it was me who deduced (in 2008) that Duke was talking about Parry, when everyone was still asking "Who is Harris?" The wikipedia comments (and indeed most of the article) are my work.

I have not read Six Trials (having read almost everything else on the case), because it is very hard to find, so cannot recommend it.
https://www.amazon.com/Six-trials-Wi.../dp/B000862OSM I am hoping one day it might appear for free on the Internet Archive, other rare works therein which I have linked to the wiki and posted here...

I'm not stopping you reading it - if you can find it - or anything else for that matter. There is really no need for snide comments...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I gave a plausible possible explanation.
Wallace was an avid walker, like many people in 1931. Maybe he just didn't like hanging around at bus/tram stops if there was no need to...
https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=960

Two things.

I’m unsure how we can classify Wallace as an avid walker? He and Julia took the occasional walk in the park as far as I can recall. He walked a lot during the day but that was by necessity. Is there any real evidence that he enjoyed walking?

Secondly, in response to your suggestion that “Maybe he just didn't like hanging around at bus/tram stops if there was no need to...” Wallace had taken that tram countless times and so would have been well aware of its arrival time. If he didn’t like hanging around he’d have simply turned up just before it was due to arrive. Antony mentioned an incident that would have affected the trams that night of course but Wallace would have been unaware of that and so would have expected the tram at any time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Rod,

. There is really no need for snide comments...

[RodCrosby]

Is there any real evidence that he enjoyed walking?

Almost the first thing Wallace did after his release was to head with his brother to the Furness peninsular for three weeks.

"They did a lot of walking..." said their landlady.

[ColdCaseJury]

Two things.

I’m unsure how we can classify Wallace as an avid walker? He and Julia took the occasional walk in the park as far as I can recall. He walked a lot during the day but that was by necessity. Is there any real evidence that he enjoyed walking?

Secondly, in response to your suggestion that “Maybe he just didn't like hanging around at bus/tram stops if there was no need to...” Wallace had taken that tram countless times and so would have been well aware of its arrival time. If he didn’t like hanging around he’d have simply turned up just before it was due to arrive. Antony mentioned an incident that would have affected the trams that night of course but Wallace would have been unaware of that and so would have expected the tram at any time.

Wallace said he was posting a letter. Whether this was done in Richmond Park or Breck Road, or where the post box was located, I have no idea. However, it is a possibility he walked on to post the letter at a box with a late night collection. Again, these questions were not asked at the time, so we'll never know.

[RodCrosby]

The post-box was outside the Rawdon Library, past Holy Trinity Church, near a drinking-fountain.

Marked "L.B" (letter-box) on Ordnance Survey maps...

[RodCrosby]

Still there, it seems...!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/37731655@N07/29508311961/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/37731655@N07/29547030232/in/photostream/

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nice observation, HS. The honest answer: we don't know. The prosecution didn't pick up on this, I don't think. Inference: they weren't as astute as some posters, or it didn't raise an eyebrow at the time.

If Wallace was guilty, and said he took the tram at Belmont Rd to even out the timings, he was something of criminal genius, planning his crime to a highly nuanced degree. This would make other aspects of the crime a little surprising. The bungled staged burglary; the involvement of the cash box; his hounding of the 2nd and 3rd tram conductors but not the 1st; and so on.

It’s certainly a pity that the police didn’t ask him the very obvious question “why did you walk past two stops?” It’s not conclusive of course but I don’t think that the police could have failed to have found this suspicious especially as the alternative option was for him to have gone past the call box.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wallace said he was posting a letter. Whether this was done in Richmond Park or Breck Road, or where the post box was located, I have no idea. However, it is a possibility he walked on to post the letter at a box with a late night collection. Again, these questions were not asked at the time, so we'll never know.

Fair point Antony

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...It was 'suspicious' that Wallace got out of bed that morning...

[cobalt]

RodCrosby

FYI, it was me who deduced (in 2008) that Duke was talking about Parry, when everyone was still asking "Who is Harris?" The wikipedia comments (and indeed most of the article) are my work.

I have not read Six Trials (having read almost everything else on the case), because it is very hard to find, so cannot recommend it.

Congratulations on your deduction, which tied in with work done by earlier commentators in identifying Parry as a suspect. It was all the more commendable an achievement since you have not actually read Winifred Duke’s essay, although that does not detract much from its likely accuracy.

I am still curious as to how Duke managed to come by Parry’s name (if indeed it was he) as early as 1934.

[cobalt]

SIX TRIALS

Author: Duke (Winifred)
Year: 1934
Publisher: Gollancz
First Edition
Edition Details: 1st edn.
Book Condition: NrVg.
Price: £50.00
IN STOCK NOW
OR
Hardback. Chapter headings include : A Medical Miscreant (Dr. Philip Cross); The Perfect Murder (Wallace); The Riddle of Rumsey House (Harold Greenwood); The Double Acquittal (George Henry Storrs); The Farmer's Wife (Mrs. Hearn, Alice Maud Thomas and Lydia Mary Everard); Rex Versus Robert Wood. 287pp. 8vo. h/back. Lightly browned pp, sl. foxed edges, sunned sp. o/w a Nr. Vg. copy of a scarce title.

There are a few copies advertised on Amazon as well.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn...a signed confession by Wallace wouldn’t be seen as ‘suspicious’ by some.

I have no problem at all with the fact that appears that only one person on the entire planet appears to think that there’s absolutely nothing at all suspicious or questionable about any aspect Wallace’s behaviour.