Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Killing one's wife: What are the elements of a 'perfectly' planned murder?

1. My alibi would be secured BEFORE the murder is committed so I could back out if the alibi couldn't be secured. (Wallace )

2. I would organized it so that there were no time restraints involved. (Wallace )

3. The murder would occur at a location I commonly visited, therefore making any trace (forensic) evidence found, that can be associated with me, meaningless. (Wallace )

4. I would arrange it so that someone else found the body. (Wallace )

5. I would arrange it so that the first time I could possibly hear about the murder I am alone; therefore no one could testify as to my reaction. (Wallace )

6. There would be no accomplice; the Ben Franklin maxim about keeping a secret applies here. (Wallace )

7. The murder weapon would be something that I could totally destroy not merely dispose of; anything if it still exist can be found. (Wallace )

7a. All evidence, bloody clothes, shoes, ETC. must also be destroyed not hidden. (Wallace )

8. I would insure that there was no (financial) motive that can be pointed to. (Wallace )

9. I would readily accept suspicion but would seek to avoid guilt; I would not offer the police a false narrative or an alternative killer; I would not leave false clues. I.e. If you try to send the police down a rabbit hole, they will find a mistake in your lie and then a jury will see you as guilty. (Wallace )

10. I would 'lawyer-up' even before my first conversation with the police; regardless of whether I cooperate or not, the police will see me as the main suspect anyway (see suspicion vs. guilt); better to have a 'mouth-piece' already in place serving as my advocate. I.e. Never talk to the police without a lawyer, even if you are innocent. (Wallace )

11. I would readily cooperate with the media (via my lawyer) but not the police. (Wallace - His worst possible post murder decision occurred here. )


Wallace succeeded in meeting only a few of these requirements; if Wallace did commit this murder I do not see it as well planned.


Of course I have no clue how I would do all this, I have never murdered anyone . . . yet.

Hi APerno

1. I have to admit that I don’t really understand this point.

2. Its surely difficult in the extreme to organise something like a murder of a wife in the house without time constraints.

3. Ok

4. I can’t see how Wallace could have managed that? He could only have killed her in the house and it would have been cowardly and suspicious if he’d have sent in Mr Johnston whilst Wallace waiting outside.

5. I’m sorry but this one is surely cancelled out by point 4.

6. No one suspected Wallace of having an accomplice.

7. What kind of weapon could you destroy totally? Especially in a house.

7a. There were no bloody clothes to be destroyed or hidden.

8. Ok.

9. Wallace didn’t openly accuse Parry. He just pointedthe police in his direction.

10. Perhaps Wallace wantedto give the impression that he didn’t need a lawyer because he hadn’t done anything wrong. Especially when being interviewed before he was charged.

11. Don’t understand that one.

[RodCrosby]

the above is no more or no less than what i’d expect from such a biased source. Just because the police in general had been guilty of both corruption and incompetence we simply cannot keep using that fact as a convenient ‘get out’ clause when the inconvenient occurs. Unless of course you are suggesting that every single police officer was corrupt and every single investigation was therefore invalid. This is nonsense of course.
i've already listed the actual errors the police made in the case, and highlighted the moot point whether this was due to incompetence or corruption. FWIW, my personal view is that Moore & Co. did not sink to the depths of Balmer & Co. [probably because Wallace had no form] but Wallace was still treated grossly unfairly.

what is the evidence for parry’s guilt? The sum total is parkes. That’s it. Far more points to wallace.
Parry didn't kill Julia. The circumstantial evidence [often the best evidence] is that he was involved and had an accomplice who killed Julia, and it is very persuasive evidence, with or without Parkes.

insulting a jury of very normal average citizens who listened to the prosecution and the defence and found wallace guilty. Not because they were stupid but because what they heard convinced them. Maybe they were corrupt too?
as a matter of fact, some of the jurors were noticed to be sleeping during the trial. They held no discussions before reaching a verdict, and there is evidence of intimidation within the jury room [qv "12 Angry Men" without Juror #8]. They apparently were convinced Wallace, 6'2", had impersonated his wife, 5'1", to the milk-boy - notwithstanding this had never been seriously advanced as a theory at trial.
So they were idiots [probably prejudiced by the malicious JR Bishop's 'errors' at the committal stage.] The Court of Appeal recognised this, led by a Lord Chief Justice who had spent his career effectively saying no such miscarriage could happen, yet was persuaded to stand on his head in the face of such a travesty of justice. Under law, the Judges could only quash the conviction if in fact there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace. By quashing the conviction, the Court DID declare there was NO EVIDENCE, and that the Jury had been UNREASONABLE in delivering their verdict (aka idiots)...
The Judges at the Court of Appeal went out their way to put Hemmerde KC on the spot, asking "where is the evidence he made the phone-call?", "where is the evidence he killed his wife?"
Answer: Errrmm / waffle / capitulation

those who feel wallace the likeliest culprit have simply looked at the facts without creating an imaginary friend scenario which still hasn’t convinced anything like a majority.
as a civilised society, we convict people on EVIDENCE, not on 'likelihoods', and there was none against Wallace. The court said they were not interested in theories or suspicions.
As for the acceptance of the correct solution, give it time....

[law report]

[RodCrosby]

There is nothing about the timing that exonerates Wallace.

He WAS exonerated. Get over it...

"The case of Mr. Wallace does not differ in principle from that of any other defendant who has been acquitted of a serious charge by the verdict of a jury..."
J.R. Clynes, (Home Secretary), House of Commons, 22nd May 1931

Your entire pointless OBSESSION is based on a misunderstanding of EVERYTHING...

[Herlock Sholmes]

He WAS exonerated. Get over it...

"The case of Mr. Wallace does not differ in principle from that of any other defendant who has been acquitted of a serious charge by the verdict of a jury..."
J.R. Clynes, (Home Secretary), House of Commons, 22nd May 1931

Your entire pointless OBSESSION is based on a misunderstanding of EVERYTHING...

I’ve misunderstood nothing. I just don’t think that anything you say is worth listening to as you are so irrevocably biased. Your ego simply won’t allow you to admit it.

You constantly parrot that there was no EVIDENCE against Wallace. So where is your EVIDENCE that Parry was involved? Where is your EVIDENCE that the phantom accomplice existed. There is none. The circumstantial evidence against Wallace is a mountain compared to Parry’s molehill.

You have absolutely nothing. A scenario. That’s all. Man up and admit it.

[APerno]

Al Perno,

If I were you, I wouldn't bother. There are so many holes in your reasoning, best to leave your wife alone in the kitchen.

Share some!

[etenguy]

I’ve misunderstood nothing. I just don’t think that anything you say is worth listening to as you are so irrevocably biased. Your ego simply won’t allow you to admit it.

You constantly parrot that there was no EVIDENCE against Wallace. So where is your EVIDENCE that Parry was involved? Where is your EVIDENCE that the phantom accomplice existed. There is none. The circumstantial evidence against Wallace is a mountain compared to Parry’s molehill.

You have absolutely nothing. A scenario. That’s all. Man up and admit it.

Rod has undertaken a lot of work to develop his scenario which identifies Parry as the killer. There is a lot to commend it. There is evidence that Parry may have been involved in the crime (Parkes statement - and although any police record of this has not been found, we have Parkes assertion that he told Moore and this is corroborated by the Atkinsons - unless we believe they all conspired I think we can be confident that Parkes did tell his story to the police). We may challenge the veracity or credibility of the statement in a number of ways (and it is difficult to believe) but it does provide some evidence.

I believe the statement Parkes made is not accurate, either through misunderstanding, embellishment, fabrication or from being lied to by Parry. Given it is the key piece of evidence against Parry, if it cannot be relied upon, corroborating evidence is required.

At the moment, in my opinion, the best evidence which exonerates Parry is that there is no convincing evidence of a serious intent of robbery. This would suggest murder was the intent of the crime. If this is true, there is no reason to consider Parry was involved. Since murder seems the more likely motive, it suggests Wallace is most likely the criminal.

[APerno]

Hi APerno

1. I have to admit that I don’t really understand this point.

2. Its surely difficult in the extreme to organise something like a murder of a wife in the house without time constraints.

3. Ok

4. I can’t see how Wallace could have managed that? He could only have killed her in the house and it would have been cowardly and suspicious if he’d have sent in Mr Johnston whilst Wallace waiting outside.

5. I’m sorry but this one is surely cancelled out by point 4.

6. No one suspected Wallace of having an accomplice.

7. What kind of weapon could you destroy totally? Especially in a house.

7a. There were no bloody clothes to be destroyed or hidden.

8. Ok.

9. Wallace didn’t openly accuse Parry. He just pointedthe police in his direction.

10. Perhaps Wallace wantedto give the impression that he didn’t need a lawyer because he hadn’t done anything wrong. Especially when being interviewed before he was charged.

11. Don’t understand that one.

Of course there is no such thing as 'perfect' that's what motivated me to try to list what would be prefect. I was getting a touch annoyed with hearing this was the perfect murder. -- How does one secure and alibi before murdering someone? Very difficult if not impossible. If one could do such a thing it would be a much more dangerous world. But I will give it some thought and see if I can come up with a plan.

The time restraint is what bothers me the most - there will always be some time limit on your actions but what I have a problem with is why Wallace would give himself such a small window.

I meant this as an abstraction not to apply it to Julia's murder, but with that said, what about arranging for his sister to appear at the right time?

Why find the body with the neighbors watching; estimated time of death would have kept his alibi intact if he had entered the house alone, then no one can see his initial reaction.

OK this one is going to sound silly but it makes the point; Alfred Hitchcock Presents. The woman kills her husband with a frozen leg of lamb, claims it was an intruder. The police suspect the wife but can't find the murder weapon. She offers the police lunch, she is such a nice old lady and they are hungry so they eat. They comment how wonderful lunch tastes; how well she can prepare lamb. -- Anyway, wood or cloth can be destroyed but not metal objects, kill with something you can destroy.

10. Perhaps Wallace wantedto give the impression that he didn’t need a lawyer because he hadn’t done anything wrong

No! No! No!

Now let me get serious, Wallace should never have spoken to the police without a lawyer. What you said in #10 is the biggest mistake any criminal can make. You are always going to be under suspicion and the police are always going to tell you if you talk to them it will take away their suspicion. But it never does (remember you are guilty); it is always just a set-up and the police are never satisfied and they never go away. If you are going to commit a crime you must be ready to accept suspicion, it is the guilt you want to avoid. You must separate suspicion from guilt; accept the suspicion and avoid giving evidence against yourself.

A criminal should know he is going to be investigated and nothing he says will ever make the police back off, it never happens. So the rule is very simple, NEVER talk to the police, because it is NEVER going to help you and can often get you hanged.

On the last one you don't understand, Wallace should have worked the press. By giving the press access and thus ink to print, the press will quickly become your friend and won't hesitate to help you take on the police. Access is what the press wants, if you give it and the police don't, the press will turn on the police and become your ally. The media does not care about right or wrong, only who will give them access, refuse to talk to the media and they will jump you, work with them and they will love you.

[APerno]

Rod has undertaken a lot of work to develop his scenario which identifies Parry as the killer. There is a lot to commend it. There is evidence that Parry may have been involved in the crime (Parkes statement - and although any police record of this has not been found, we have Parkes assertion that he told Moore and this is corroborated by the Atkinsons - unless we believe they all conspired I think we can be confident that Parkes did tell his story to the police). We may challenge the veracity or credibility of the statement in a number of ways (and it is difficult to believe) but it does provide some evidence.

I believe the statement Parkes made is not accurate, either through misunderstanding, embellishment, fabrication or from being lied to by Parry. Given it is the key piece of evidence against Parry, if it cannot be relied upon, corroborating evidence is required.

At the moment, in my opinion, the best evidence which exonerates Parry is that there is no convincing evidence of a serious intent of robbery. This would suggest murder was the intent of the crime. If this is true, there is no reason to consider Parry was involved. Since murder seems the more likely motive, it suggests Wallace is most likely the criminal.

I thought the cash receipts in the kitchen had been stolen. Granted there wasn't much there but a thief (Parry) would not have know that; but Parry would have known that the cash receipts were there. -- I don't support either theory right now, but I thought it was a robbery or at least staged to look like a robbery.

[cobalt]

As someone who believes that Wallace was innocent, the biggest problem I have with the case is that it seems to have been a murder, not a robbery.
If the murder had occurred in the kitchen, I could put it down to a panicking thief lashing out when disturbed. But from what we are able to gather, Julia Wallace seemed quite composed when she was attacked in the parlour. I can't accept the RC idea that she was confronting Parry or an accomplice in that part of the house. There's more evidence that she was lighting the fire rather than confronting anyone.
I can't see why Qualtrough would need to launch such a savage attack, given his presumed motivation was merely theft. That leaves Parry killing Julia because she could identify him as a thief, or Wallace. Since Wallace, despite HS claims, really has no time to do this, certainly not as part of a premeditated murder, then that leaves Parry or the Anfield burglar. Since the Anfield burglar never attacked anyone so far as I know, that leaves Parry. Yet his alibi seems as reasonable as Wallace's does.

[RodCrosby]

Interesting paper on the history of the Court of Criminal Appeal, including a brief mention of the Wallace Case.

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/b...sVerRevCou.pdf

[Herlock Sholmes]

. . Since Wallace, despite HS claims, really has no time to do this, certainly not as part of a premeditated murder,

Cobalt, I really don’t understand why you keep repeating something as fact that is blatantly untrue? Wallace had ample time. Between 10 and 13 minutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. then that leaves Parry or the Anfield burglar. Since the Anfield burglar never attacked anyone so far as I know, that leaves Parry. Yet his alibi seems as reasonable as Wallace's does.

His alibi is pretty much cast iron. Parry didn’t kill Julia and shouldn’t really even be considered. Wallace’s alibi was self created. No one can prove that Qualtrough existed. Therefore we are left with Wallace as quite obviously the likeliest candidate.

[ColdCaseJury]

Cobalt, I really don’t understand why you keep repeating something as fact that is blatantly untrue? Wallace had ample time. Between 10 and 13 minutes.

Hi HS

Wallace had between 7 and 11 minutes (Julia closing the door between 6.38 pm - 6.42 pm). Whether this is "ample" depends on what we believe Wallace had to do in that time. This is one of the points we should return to as the previous discussion on this topic was interrupted and never concluded.

[John G]

I've been away from this thread for sometime, although I have been giving the various problems a great deal of thought.

I will now consider a Parry v Wallace argument, i.e. in order to try and determine who is most likely to have murdered Julia Wallace. I will consider factors such as motive, opportunity, forensic evidence, substantive evidence, and the Qualtrough call.

Firstly, then, motive. Put simply, Wallace didn't have one. Even Parry described the Wallace's as a "devoted couple", and not only did he know them extremely well he had absolutely no reason to lie, particularly as he must have realized that he would probably be considered the most likely suspect if Wallace was exonerated.

On the other hand Parry was known liar and crook, with a long history of crime, going back to childhood, including a possible history of violence. Thus, his criminal activities included embezzlement, theft, criminal damage and a possible abduction and sexual assault: this was in relation to a Miss Lily Fitzsimons. The court case was evidently dropped, however, I would imagine it was even more difficult in the 1930s to prove these sort of cases, especially where there are no witnesses, than it is today.

I would therefore conclude that Parry has the stronger motive, i.e. robbery gone wrong, based upon the insurance money, or a personal motive: He had a reputation as a lady's man and was well-acquainted with Julia, who he would call on for tea and "musical interludes."

What about opportunity? As I've noted before, Wallace is virtually ruled out on this basis. During the trial Dr McFall made it clear that the assailant would have got blood upon his person, I.e. face, hand, legs, knee (irrespective as to whether he was wearing the Macintosh), and clothes. This was inevitable, as blood vessels were broken and blood then sprayed out in all directions. And attempts to reconcile this problem, in favour of Wallace's candidacy, make no sense to me.

For instance, the "Super-Shield Man", argument, where it's hypothesized that Wallace could have used the coat-which was only knee length anyway-as a shield, simply turns the man into some sort of Marvel Comic book character. I mean, if he puts the coat over his head, to protect his face and hair, he wouldn't be able to see. Moreover, over the lower part of the body would be unprotected. If he holds it lower down, then the top part of his body is exposed. Put simply, it would be a hare- brained idea. And if he planned the crime meticulously, as has been suggested, why was he crazy enough to opt for the messiest possible method? I mean, both suffocation and strangulation would have avoided not only blood splatter, but also what to do with the murder weapon (more about that later.)

Dr McFall also stipulated during the trial that Julia was struck with eleven blows. So apparently Wallace, who is so desperate to avoid blood splatter that he takes elaborate precautions to avoid it, strikes Julia once, and risks splatter; strikes her twice, and risks splatter; strikes her three times, and risks further splatter; strikes her four times...well, you get the message. This level of overkill was totally unnecessary, and makes no sense in relation to a well-thought out plan to avoid getting covered in blood.

The next problem is what did Wallace do with the murder weapon? It was never found, despite an extensive search, which is extraordinary if Wallace was the killer, as it had to be either in the house, or between the house and the team stop. Additionally, he only had a matter of a few minutes at best to dispose of it. And taking it away from the house would make no sense anyway: he's hardly going to walk down Wolverton Street wielding a blood stained iron bar. And if he puts it under his coat then his clothing would be blood stained. Once again, only extreme reasoning can possibly provide an explanation for this conundrum.

I would therefore submit that the failure to find a murder weapon, coupled with the forensic evidence, effectively rules Wallace out.

But what of Parry? On the face of he's protected by the Olivia Brine alibi. But how convincing is this alibi? To begin with, I think Brine could possibly have lied: she was a married women whose husband happened to be at sea, and ladies-man Parry had been visiting her regularly over a prolonged period (for several hours on the night of the murder, apparently). Now unless he was best friends with her 13 year old daughter, or 15 year old Harold Denison, the obvious inference is that they were having an affair, which gives Brine a motive to lie.

But what if she, and Denison, were telling the truth? Okay, let's consider the likely time of death. According to Dr McFall, Julia most likely died at around 6:00pm, and no latter than 7:00pm (although for some mysterious reason he initially estimated 8:00pm. ) However, it is now known that time of death cannot be accurately estimated within anything like this degree of precision (The Forensic Science Regulator advisers that modern pathologists shouldn't even attempt it.) And McFall used rigor mortis to estimate the post mortem interval, and this is probably the most unreliable method. See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...mortis&f=false As you can see from the citation, in one example rigor was still occurring after 17 days, and in rare instances it can be instantaneous. It's therefore as plain as a pikestaff that the TOD estimate cannot stand.

So lets say Parry left the Brine household at 8:17 (his alibis estimated "around 8:30, so this time is consistent if you round up to the nearest half hour). He was about 1.8 miles away from the Wallace's address, and Google Maps estimates that this distance can be covered, by vehicle, in about 8 minutes, although if he put his foot down I think he could have conceivably done it in 3, especially considering there were far fewer cars on the road in the 1930s. That would place his arrival between 8:20 and 8:25. Wallace returned home at about 8:45, so if we say the latest Parry could have left is 8:40, that gives him between 15 and 20 minutes to commit all the components of the crime. To put that into perspective, it's suggested Wallace could have done it in 7-10 minutes, twice as quickly, and Parry was a much younger and fitter man, who didn't immediately have to dispose of the murder weapon. It's therefore submitted Parry's alibi is blown apart!

That's all for now. I will post a Part 2, where I will consider the Qualtrough call and Parkes' testimony, as well as looking further into Parry's alibis.

[NickB]

Wallace returned home at about 8:45

But Parry did not know that he would return at 8.45. He could have returned much earlier.