Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[cobalt]

HS,

I am not consciously peddling a myth in relation to the time available to Wallace to commit murder, but simply offering an honest opinion. Even if we accept the time as being 13 minutes- corroborating evidence of the milkboy’s delivery suggests it was probably less- I cannot accept he had time to kill his wife, presumably place the mackintosh underneath her, then clean himself of the blood spray. He was, so far as I know, wearing the same suit all that day so did not have the option of dumping bloodstained clothing along with his murder weapon. Even if we accept the outlandish theory that Wallace stripped naked beneath the mackintosh, there would have been blood on his feet, hands, face and hair. An effective clean up and dressing smartly thereafter would, in my view, not be possible in the time available. It was a master stroke not to use either the bath or sink to wash up in, since the police actually dismantled these to look for evidence of their being used recently. He also had to dump the murder weapon en route to the tram stop, something he did remarkably effectively. A fit young man would not find all this easy to do and we know that Wallace was a chain-smoking, rather frail, middle-aged man.

There are two other problems with the timing. If Wallace was Qualtrough he was leaving too much to chance for such a devilishly clever plan. Julia’s sister was a visitor in the afternoon and it is unlikely that Wallace could have counted on her leaving before he did himself. Wallace would have had the option of killing Julia soon after his return around 6.05pm, but then ran the risk of not being able to answer the door to the milkboy if he was in the middle of his attack. So Wallace really had to await the milkboy and strike as soon as he could afterwards; but instead of arriving at around 6.30pm, which Alan Close claimed he normally did, he came nearer 6.40pm. Since Wallace’s alibi made it essential he was around Menlove Gardens at 7.30pm then his whole masterplan, with the Qualtrough trump card which could never really be played again, was now being crammed into something like a 10 minute period. A cold, calculating, chess- playing killer would have been more likely to abort the plan rather than go through with it.

[John G]

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

Yes, that's a fair point, Nick. I think if he was responsible for the murder then he clearly had to take a gamble, especially as his "alibi" wouldn't be worth anything unless he cut things extremely fine. He could also have estimated, based upon the tram times, Wallace's time of return. And how frequently did the tram's run? From memory, I think it was about every 20 minutes, so if Parry didn't see Wallace walking home he knew he had up to that amount of time. Finally, I really don't think Parry was the brightest criminal, as evidenced by the amount of times he kept getting caught!

[APerno]

And now with much narcissism I want to go back to my point . . . it is not whether Wallace had enough time to commit the acts necessary, what I want to know is why would such an elaborately concocted PLAN include such a ridiculously small window of time. To me that makes no sense. If he knew the milk boy usually came between 6:30 and 6:45 why not move the entire plan forward by one hour and have his intended meeting scheduled for 8:30 instead of 7:30? -- As I have said, I have a problem with calling this a 'well thought out plan.'

[ColdCaseJury]

Welcome back John G. I'm sorry I have not had time to read your posts yet - really busy right now - but hopefully will do soon. Ditto for other posters.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

To put it simply John, and to be accurate, we can only say that we don’t know for definite of a motive for Wallace. Not that he didn’t have one. We can’t keep ignoring inconvenient testimony like Nurse Wilson who spent three weeks living with them and who said that they weren’t a happy couple to put it mildly. Dr Curwen concurred. Wallace’s sister-in-laws said that Wallace was condescending toward Julia. Yet we still seem to favour the testimony of people likethe Johnston’s who had been inside the Wallace’s house three times in ten years and didn’t even know Julia’s Christian name. It surely has to be accepted that in those days couples were less keen to air any dirty linen in public. It’s quite possible therefore that Wallace could have had a motive. Motive goes no way toward exonerating Wallace.

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."

Before the Wallace case Parry’s criminal enterprise amounted to taking money from a collection and hoping that no one would notice that it was missing. There is nothing in Parry’s ‘career’ which suggests a planner. Parry might indeed have been fond of Julia lessening the likelihood perhaps of inflicting a robbery upon her when she was alone in the house. Parry ‘might’ have had a motive but it in no way follows that he was involved.

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.

This ludicrous and inaccurate assumption that the Parlour Of 29 Wolverton Street was a charnel house of blood and gore is gross exaggeration to suit a purpose. Wallace could easily have avoided blood. Yes, he might even have had a little good fortune, it’s not unknown. Even McFall later (along with another Doctor I think I recall) said that Wallace could have avoided blood. And let’s remember that McFall wasn’t actually a paragon of probity. Wallace is simply not ruled out on this unless we take a blinkered viewpoint.

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.)

Frankly an unfair misrepresentation. No one has said that he put it over his head John and you know it. I’ve made two very simple and very possible suggestions. 1. That he might have draped the coat over his left arm (holding it in place with his left hand) then, kneeling by Julia, he holds his arm horizontally in front of his chin. The coat would hang to the carpet. All that would be exposed would have been Wallace’s face and his moving right arm. Simple. And 2. That he wore the coat backwards in a similar way to a surgeon’s gown. Wallace might even have worn gloves.


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.

Anger. A build up of resentment. None of which could be said to exist for any other killer. Making it more likely that this kind of attack was personal. As it is in many crimes of this nature.

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.

I’m afraid that’s more nonsense John. Things that are hidden are often not found. It’s a fact of life. If Wallace planned the crime he’d have probably have had months to find a place to hide the weapon. And, as I’ve mentioned before, it’s it a bit rich that the police are labelled as absolutely incompetent by Wallace defenders, and yet to suit their argument the police become paragons of meticulousness when it comes to the search.

The fact that the weapon was taken away points to Wallace over an accomplice. An accomplice wearing gloves, as he would have to be, couldn’t be connected in any way to the weapon and so would have no reason to walk out with a bloodied iron bar. Wallace however had the opportunity to place it in a bag or wrap it in paper to conceal it. Added to this, a weapon from the house (ie one not brought in by a killer) might be seen to point to Wallace more than a stranger. So Wallace took it away. The absence of a weapon points more to Wallace than anyone else. The fact that it was never found is just that...a fact.

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.

Have you a single shred of evidence that Olivia Brine lied? Categorically no. It would mean her daughter and nephew lying too. And a Miss Price who visited. Then the man in the Post Office then the man at Hignett’s Garage. Parry’s alibi is unshakeable.

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.

How does this exonerate Wallace? It doesn’t.

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!

You’re just manipulating times to suit. Parry left at 8.30 John. End of. No conspiracy involved. Richard Gordon Parry categorically didn’t kill Julia. There’s nothing in this case that we can be more certain of. I’m sorry but you’re just desperately trying to defend Wallace by shoehorning an innocent Parry into the frame.

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.

Look forward to it John.

[John G]

Okay, Part 2 of my Wallace v Parry analysis. The Qualtrough call was obviously very important to the investigation, and if it's not directly connected to the murder we are left with an enormous coincidence. So, out of Wallace and Parry who was most likely to have made the call? Well, Samuel Beattie took the call at the chess club. He was well acquainted with Wallace, having known him for about 8 years. And this is what he said at trial to the defence barrister:

Roland Oliver: " Do you know Mr Wallace's voice well?
Samuel Beattie: "Yes"
Roland Oliver: "Did it occur to you that it was anything like his voice."
Samuel Beattie: "Certainly not."
Roland Oliver: "Does it occur to you now it was anything like his voice."
Samuel Beattie: "It would take a great stretch of the imagination for me to say it was anything like that.'

Objectivity speaking, based upon this exchange I think it reasonable to conclude that the caller was highly unlikely to have been Wallace.

But what of Parry? Parry had been involved in amateur dramatics since childhood. I believe Parkes also said that he had a habit of making hoax calls from the garage, putting on a fake voice. Importantly he also lied about his alibi for the call.

Thus, according to Parry he was at his girlfriend's from 5:30 to 11;30. This wasn't even close. According to Lilian Lloyd he didn't arrive until 7:35, over 2 hours later than claimed. Even then Lloyd didn't see him, as she was busy with a pupil (she was a music teacher). Parry then left and didn't return until 8:30 to 9:00 pm. Considering the call was made at 7:00pm, I would conclude that Parry is left deeply implicated. This is the first piece of substantive evidence to connect Parry to the crime. I would also add that he told the police that he would have "no objection whatever to the police verifying my statement as to my movements on Monday the 19th and Tuesday the 20th." Considering he didn't even bother to prime his girlfriend to lie for him, I think we can also safely conclude that he was no Einstein!

The second piece of substantive evidence is, of course, his "confession" to John Parkes. Although some have questioned Parkes' account, we know it that at least one part of the story holds up: Parkes claimed that Parry admitted to disposing of an iron bar down a grid outside a doctor's on Priory Road. There were two doctors on Priory Road, and a grid outside of both, which were never searched.

importantly, Parkes' account is confirmed by Dolly Atkinson, who new him well. She was also convinced he wouldn't have lied. Dolly Atkinson is clearly a powerful character witness as she new him well-Parkes was considered by the Atkinsons as one of the family. Moreover, her supporting evidence proves Parkes' account was contemporaneous: it wasn't therefore something he merely dreamt up half a century later.

It has also been argued, by those who doubt him, that he was somewhat slow-witted. Possibility, but that doesn't make it very likely that he had the wit to dream up an elaborate and detailed hoax, to stick by the account for half question century, and to fool those who knew him well.

Could Parry have been playing a trick on Parkes, a cruel hoax? Well that would presuppose that he'd heard of the murder, for which there's no evidence. Moreover, he was also supposed to be a close friend of Julia's; they even enjoyed "musical interludes" together. If, therefore, upon hearing of Julia's brutal murder, instead of grieving or being shocked, he decided it would be a great idea to make a joke of it, it is submitted a reasonable conclusion is that he must have been sociopathic: just the sort of person, in fact, who would have committed a brutal murder!

But why did Parkes and the Atkinsons decide not to come forward until after the trial, with Mr Atkinson's advice to Parkes being not to get involved?

I think they're can be a number of explanations. Firstly, although Parry's account seems to deeply implicate him we should remember he didn't actually confess to Julia's murder, or even to committing any violent crime: although this is implied by his comments, "if the police found that it would hang me." Secondly, it would be Parry's word against Parkes', and we know Parry was a seasoned liar. Thirdly, if Parry had killed one person why not two? Mr Atkinson might therefore have been seriously concerned for the lad's well-being. And the fact that he worked late at night, alone, at the garage meant that he was in an extremely vulnerable position. I also doubt that witness protection, or a safe house in a remote location in Wales would have been an option in the 1930's!

Finally, I want to look at Parry's conduct as a whole on the night of the murder. Thus, according to him after leaving the Brine household he went to buy some cigarettes and a newspaper from the post office, then he went to get his accumulator, then he had a chat with Mrs Williamson, before finally arriving at his girlfriend's. Phew! Could these be the actions of someone desperately trying to accumulate alibis?

In conclusion, having considered the evidence I would conclude that Parry is a fair superior candidate than Wallace for Julia's murder, especially as, in my opinion, the latter is effectively ruled out by the forensic evidence and the failure of the police to find a murder weapon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS,

I am not consciously peddling a myth in relation to the time available to Wallace to commit murder, but simply offering an honest opinion. Even if we accept the time as being 13 minutes- corroborating evidence of the milkboy’s delivery suggests it was probably less- I cannot accept he had time to kill his wife, presumably place the mackintosh underneath her, then clean himself of the blood spray. He was, so far as I know, wearing the same suit all that day so did not have the option of dumping bloodstained clothing along with his murder weapon. Even if we accept the outlandish theory that Wallace stripped naked beneath the mackintosh, there would have been blood on his feet, hands, face and hair. An effective clean up and dressing smartly thereafter would, in my view, not be possible in the time available. It was a master stroke not to use either the bath or sink to wash up in, since the police actually dismantled these to look for evidence of their being used recently. He also had to dump the murder weapon en route to the tram stop, something he did remarkably effectively. A fit young man would not find all this easy to do and we know that Wallace was a chain-smoking, rather frail, middle-aged man.

Ive explained two ways that Wallace could have avoided blood spatter. Neither require him being naked. So this massive clean up operation wasn’t required. It’s an assumption. There would have been no blood on his hands if he’d worn gloves - is that outlandish? There would have been no blood on his feet if he was kneeling when he dealt all but the first blow. The coat reaching the carpet. Blood spray on his face. He might simply have been fortunate. As I said in my response to John, the Parlour wasn’t a charnel house. We are exaggerating if we say he must have been drenched in blood. Then how long would he have needed? With no clean up, or even very limited clean up, plenty of time. Easy.

There are two other problems with the timing. If Wallace was Qualtrough he was leaving too much to chance for such a devilishly clever plan. Julia’s sister was a visitor in the afternoon and it is unlikely that Wallace could have counted on her leaving before he did himself. Wallace would have had the option of killing Julia soon after his return around 6.05pm, but then ran the risk of not being able to answer the door to the milkboy if he was in the middle of his attack. So Wallace really had to await the milkboy and strike as soon as he could afterwards; but instead of arriving at around 6.30pm, which Alan Close claimed he normally did, he came nearer 6.40pm. Since Wallace’s alibi made it essential he was around Menlove Gardens at 7.30pm then his whole masterplan, with the Qualtrough trump card which could never really be played again, was now being crammed into something like a 10 minute period. A cold, calculating, chess- playing killer would have been more likely to abort the plan rather than go through with it.

If Alan Close turned up at the same time every week it would have been reasonable for him to assume that he would be there at the same time on that Tuesday. You can’t plan for the unforeseen.

Absolutely nothing exonerates Wallace. He might have been innocent I accept. There are doubts and unknowns I accept. But he cannot be exonerated.

Parry can however and yet people still persist with conspiracy theories.

[cobalt]

Parkes claimed that Parry admitted to disposing of an iron bar down a grid outside a doctor's on Priory Road. There were two doctors on Priory Road, and a grid outside of both, which were never searched.

''

Do we know this for sure?
Even if not searched at the time, drains are cleaned as part of municipal duties. An object like a metal bar would be caught in the 'trap' which prevents the drain from being blocked.

[John G]

Look forward to it John.

I'm afraid there are a number of inaccuracies in your response, and you really need to read the trial report. Firstly, Dr McFall did not say that the killer could have avoided blood. That isn't just seriously misleading, it's totally false. He conceded that he would get blood on his face, his legs and his left hand: considering that blood sprayed all over the room, hitting the violin case low down, and reaching 7 foot in height on the wall, as well as striking the furniture, this is hardly a controversial assessment. If you want to challenge Dr McFall you need to find a forensic expert. Are you such an expert? If So please be good enough to cite your relevant qualifications.

Now you suggest that Super Shleld Man draped the coat over his arm! So presumably had the additional ability to predict which direction the blood would spurt out, and lighting fast reflexes to deflect the blood? With respect, how on earth does this make any sense? And you haven't explained why he struck Julia 11 times, which would be madness if he was trying to avoid blood splatter. Nor why he didn't opt for strangulation or suffocation, which would have avoided all of these problems.

He may have worn gloves! So bloodied gloves is another thing not found! And how did he avoid blood transference when removing the gloves?

Build up of resentment? This again flies totally in the face of the facts. Remember, even Parry described them as a "devoted couple".

It isn't nearly nonsense to say that I he failure to find the murder weapon is "a fact of life". Wallace had a small area in which to hide the weapon, which was searched extensively. Your trying to paint the police as the Keystone Cops, which is simply silly. And can you give any other example on how world criminological history where the police made such a basic error? "Things hidden and not found?" This wasn't a game of hide and seek! It wasn't some parlour game. Suggesting that Wallace had some super secret hiding place, " another special power, the power to make solid objects invisible, is, I'm afraid, desperate reasoning. At the absolute least, Wallace's ability to somehow avoid blood splatter, and the police's failure to find his super secret hiding place, despite an extensive search, would be highly unlikely. And yet you conclude that it makes him most likely guilty!

Parry's alibi isn't unshakable. Even if it were, I've demonstrated how he could still have had the opportunity to commit the murder. And what do you mean he left at 8:30 "end of" Neither Parry nor his alibis said any such thing. They all Saud "about 8:30", which means they weren't paying full attention to the time.

You need to familiarize yourself with the basic facts of the case, as your making simile errors. May I humbly suggest that you start by reading the trial transcript?

[ColdCaseJury]

One thing that has been keeping me busy is writing an article on "forensic mathematics" and the Wallace case. If you are comfortable with maths then please read Waiting For An Alibi, which investigates the timings of events on the Monday night.

I hope to post a guest article on my website soon, and you'll be the first to know.

P.S. I hope those old enough to remember and appreciate Thin Lizzy will appreciate the article title!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm afraid there are a number of inaccuracies in your response, and you really need to read the trial report. Firstly, Dr McFall did not say that the killer could have avoided blood. That isn't just seriously misleading, it's totally false. He conceded that he would get blood on his face, his legs and his left hand: considering that blood sprayed all over the room, hitting the violin case low down, and reaching 7 foot in height on the wall, as well as striking the furniture, this is hardly a controversial assessment. If you want to challenge Dr McFall you need to find a forensic expert. Are you such an expert? If So please be good enough to cite your relevant qualifications.

I’ll quote James Murphy who I’m afraid doesn’t cite the source but unless we assume Murphy to have made something up that could so easily have been shown to be a lie.... “...both MacFall and Dr Pierce reassessed the situation, conceding that the killer could have escaped contaminating himself had he struck Mrs Wallace about the head from a particular angle.” And so it wasn’t false it was actually said. No need to apologise though John. Murphy however, even though he believed Wallace guilty, was honest enough to believe this explaination unlikely. I have no more forensic qualification than you do John.

Now you suggest that Super Shleld Man draped the coat over his arm! So presumably had the additional ability to predict which direction the blood would spurt out, and lighting fast reflexes to deflect the blood? With respect, how on earth does this make any sense? And you haven't explained why he struck Julia 11 times, which would be madness if he was trying to avoid blood splatter. Nor why he didn't opt for strangulation or suffocation, which would have avoided all of these problems.

I’ll ignore your Crosby-like tone of mockery. To protect yourself from blood spatter is hardly a ludicrous suggestion if someone was planning to kill his wife. I mentioned 2 methods and yet you choose to ignore one of them. 1. If Wallace held the coat in front of him he wouldn’t need to ‘deflect blood’ as 90% (I’ve just plucked a figure there) would have hit the mackintosh. The only part of his body that would have been vulnerable would have been his moving right arm (which because it was moving could have avoided blood) leaving his face to perhaps even half of it if he’d held the mackintosh over his arm in front of his mouth. With random blood spatter how can it be impossible that he avoided blood on his face. And 2. A mackintosh worn backward with him kneeling alongside Julia would have left only hands and face open. Gloves could account for the hands leaving only the face and the randomness of blood spatter

Why strike 11 times? Totally explicable if it was a murder of built up anger and resentment. Where’s the problem?

He may have worn gloves! So bloodied gloves is another thing not found! And how did he avoid blood transference when removing the gloves?

You are inventing complications. Firstly the gloves wouldn’t have had blood on every inch of the material. Wallace gripped them by placing a finger inside. Disposal- the police weren’t looking for gloves unless I’m being ‘seriously misleading’ again.

Build up of resentment? This again flies totally in the face of the facts. Remember, even Parry described them as a "devoted couple".

I’ve dealt with this so many times. You can’t keep cherry-picking. Wilson, Curwen, Mather, Amy easily enough to raise serious doubts about this supposedly happy marriage.

It isn't nearly nonsense to say that I he failure to find the murder weapon is "a fact of life". Wallace had a small area in which to hide the weapon, which was searched extensively. Your trying to paint the police as the Keystone Cops, which is simply silly. And can you give any other example on how world criminological history where the police made such a basic error? "Things hidden and not found?" This wasn't a game of hide and seek! It wasn't some parlour game. Suggesting that Wallace had some super secret hiding place, " another special power, the power to make solid objects invisible, is, I'm afraid, desperate reasoning. At the absolute least, Wallace's ability to somehow avoid blood splatter, and the police's failure to find his super secret hiding place, despite an extensive search, would be highly unlikely. And yet you conclude that it makes him most likely guilty!

Again you use silly mocking tones to make a point. Simple question- is it utterly impossible that a relatively small object could have been hidden and not found? If you say ‘yes’ to that then there’s no logic to be had here. It’s pure desperation.



Parry's alibi isn't unshakable. Even if it were, I've demonstrated how he could still have had the opportunity to commit the murder. And what do you mean he left at 8:30 "end of" Neither Parry nor his alibis said any such thing. They all Saud "about 8:30", which means they weren't paying full attention to the time.

And then he went to the Post Office to buy cigarettes and a newspaper. Oh, and then he went to Hignett’s Garage to pick up his accumulator battery. So I’m quite happy to say, with regard to Parry’s guilt, categorically end of.

You need to familiarize yourself with the basic facts of the case, as your making simile errors. May I humbly suggest that you start by reading the trial transcript?

I have the trial transcript and I’ve read it. There’s nothing humble about your post John. It could almost have been written by Rod. Check the facts. You are trying to shoehorn Parry into the case whilst desperately twisting things to exonerate William. If I can accept doubts from my side it would be rather refreshing if others could do the same.

Parry didn’t kill Julia. Of that I’m certain. To arrive at that conclusion requires conspiracy theory thinking.

[RodCrosby]

On the Wallace Trail today - CALDERSTONES PARK, one of his and Julia's favourites...

{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\t2019-01-31 15.04.42-2.jpg Views:\t0 Size:\t210.7 KB ID:\t700858","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"700858","data-size":"full"} {"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\t2019-01-31 12.23.01-1.jpg Views:\t0 Size:\t255.7 KB ID:\t700857","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"700857","data-size":"full"}

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay, Part 2 of my Wallace v Parry analysis. The Qualtrough call was obviously very important to the investigation, and if it's not directly connected to the murder we are left with an enormous coincidence. So, out of Wallace and Parry who was most likely to have made the call? Well, Samuel Beattie took the call at the chess club. He was well acquainted with Wallace, having known him for about 8 years. And this is what he said at trial to the defence barrister:

Roland Oliver: " Do you know Mr Wallace's voice well?
Samuel Beattie: "Yes"
Roland Oliver: "Did it occur to you that it was anything like his voice."
Samuel Beattie: "Certainly not."
Roland Oliver: "Does it occur to you now it was anything like his voice."
Samuel Beattie: "It would take a great stretch of the imagination for me to say it was anything like that.'

Objectivity speaking, based upon this exchange I think it reasonable to conclude that the caller was highly unlikely to have been Wallace.

Or that Wallace disguised his voice well enough. The concept of a ‘prank call’ would have been alien to Beattie. He was focused on the content not to wonder if the voice might have resembled Wallace. Nothing about this excludes Wallace.

But what of Parry? Parry had been involved in amateur dramatics since childhood. I believe Parkes also said that he had a habit of making hoax calls from the garage, putting on a fake voice. Importantly he also lied about his alibi for the call.

The fact that the caller asked for Wallace’s address points away from Parry as he couldn’t possibly have known that Beattie couldn’t have given him the answer thus making the call suspicious at least. Why ask for his address when he wanted him to go to MGE.

Also, Parry couldn’t have been sure that Wallace would go to MGE. Why then didn’t the actor Parry, disguising his voice, wait until Wallace was at the club so that he could know for certain that the plan was on.

Thus, according to Parry he was at his girlfriend's from 5:30 to 11;30. This wasn't even close. According to Lilian Lloyd he didn't arrive until 7:35, over 2 hours later than claimed. Even then Lloyd didn't see him, as she was busy with a pupil (she was a music teacher). Parry then left and didn't return until 8:30 to 9:00 pm. Considering the call was made at 7:00pm, I would conclude that Parry is left deeply implicated. This is the first piece of substantive evidence to connect Parry to the crime. I would also add that he told the police that he would have "no objection whatever to the police verifying my statement as to my movements on Monday the 19th and Tuesday the 20th." Considering he didn't even bother to prime his girlfriend to lie for him, I think we can also safely conclude that he was no Einstein!

Of course we might also add why did Parry give such an easily disprovable alibi? Especially when his girlfriend was interviewed 2 or 3 days later? You’d think he’d have made sure that she was singing from the same song sheet. Unless Parry, being an innocent man, had no specific reason to recall an evening that would have no doubt been like many others. In short we can’t dismiss that he might have simply been mistaken

The second piece of substantive evidence is, of course, his "confession" to John Parkes. Although some have questioned Parkes' account, we know it that at least one part of the story holds up: Parkes claimed that Parry admitted to disposing of an iron bar down a grid outside a doctor's on Priory Road. There were two doctors on Priory Road, and a grid outside of both, which were never searched.

Strange to say the least. Just because the doctors exists? He could have said he’d dumped it at Anfield Football Ground John....that exists too. Do we think that a local like Parkes would mention a non-existent Doctors.

importantly, Parkes' account is confirmed by Dolly Atkinson, who new him well. She was also convinced he wouldn't have lied. Dolly Atkinson is clearly a powerful character witness as she new him well-Parkes was considered by the Atkinsons as one of the family. Moreover, her supporting evidence proves Parkes' account was contemporaneous: it wasn't therefore something he merely dreamt up half a century later.

A lie confirmed is still a lie. A story exaggerated over time confirmed is still a story exaggerated over time. The story stands or falls on its content which is almost laughable.

It has also been argued, by those who doubt him, that he was somewhat slow-witted. Possibility, but that doesn't make it very likely that he had the wit to dream up an elaborate and detailed hoax, to stick by the account for half question century, and to fool those who knew him well.

And that he, and all those to whom the story was ‘common knowledge’ kept absolutely schtum for 50 years. Not once did the story leak out about the ‘real’ culprit In Liverpool’s most celebrated crime?

Could Parry have been playing a trick on Parkes, a cruel hoax? Well that would presuppose that he'd heard of the murder, for which there's no evidence. Moreover, he was also supposed to be a close friend of Julia's; they even enjoyed "musical interludes" together. If, therefore, upon hearing of Julia's brutal murder, instead of grieving or being shocked, he decided it would be a great idea to make a joke of it, it is submitted a reasonable conclusion is that he must have been sociopathic: just the sort of person, in fact, who would have committed a brutal murder!

But as we know that he didn’t murder Julia it’s irrelevant. We don’t know that he hadn’t heard of the murder but he might have. If Parkes had heard whilst being stuck at work why couldn’t Parry have found out whilst being out and about?

But why did Parkes and the Atkinsons decide not to come forward until after the trial, with Mr Atkinson's advice to Parkes being not to get involved?

I think they're can be a number of explanations. Firstly, although Parry's account seems to deeply implicate him we should remember he didn't actually confess to Julia's murder, or even to committing any violent crime: although this is implied by his comments, "if the police found that it would hang me." Secondly, it would be Parry's word against Parkes', and we know Parry was a seasoned liar. Thirdly, if Parry had killed one person why not two? Mr Atkinson might therefore have been seriously concerned for the lad's well-being. And the fact that he worked late at night, alone, at the garage meant that he was in an extremely vulnerable position. I also doubt that witness protection, or a safe house in a remote location in Wales would have been an option in the 1930's!

Strange then that not once does Parry even ask or warn Parkes to keep his mouth shut after needlessly coughing up to a murder.

Finally, I want to look at Parry's conduct as a whole on the night of the murder. Thus, according to him after leaving the Brine household he went to buy some cigarettes and a newspaper from the post office, then he went to get his accumulator, then he had a chat with Mrs Williamson, before finally arriving at his girlfriend's. Phew! Could these be the actions of someone desperately trying to accumulate alibis?

Blatent twisting for all to see. No, they were transparently the actions of a man having a very normal evening. And these alibi’s are just that. They prove Parry’s innocence. Unless you suspect a conspiracy of course.

In conclusion, having considered the evidence I would conclude that Parry is a fair superior candidate than Wallace for Julia's murder, especially as, in my opinion, the latter is effectively ruled out by the forensic evidence and the failure of the police to find a murder weapon.

By anyone applying unbiased reason Parry should be completely eliminated as a suspect. Since when have alibi’s ceased to count? When the name Parry enters the conversation and madness rules. You have to PROVE that alibi’s are false or at the very least show a reasonable amount of doubt and you haven’t come close John.

Wallace is still the likeliest candidate by a fair distance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the Wallace Trail today - CALDERSTONES PARK, one of his and Julia's favourites...

Is it just me or has nothing appeared where Rod has posted some kind of attachment? This isn’t sarcasm by the way. Only words have appeared on my screen.

[RodCrosby]

2019-01-31 15.04.42-2.jpg