Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[moste]

yes, to identify the call box, and so put an extra bullet or two in the cylinder, for this round of Wallace's pre-planned nine-rounds-of-russian-roulette "brilliant murder plan"...

Yawn...

Yawn? So what is your take on the whole phone box conundrum . Call made to downtown cafe, Messes up and operator is obliged to get involved , what do you think is going on here pray tell. Parry made call and doesn't realise he's identified the phone booth he's used ?

[RodCrosby]

The simplest answers are the best.

Parry scammed a free call (his routine phone-box MO) for the speculative crime he was trying to set up - which was burglary - after seeing Wallace trudge towards the tram stop.

He simply had no reason to care whether the call was traced or not...

[RodCrosby]

"Cartref", 4 Menlove Gardens North - in 1931, the home of the wealthiest Parry in Liverpool. Thomas Parry (1876-1940), estate agent and trustee of a trust fund, had built up his business in the Anfield district. When he died he left the modern equivalent of about $5 million.

The smaller neighbouring house sold in 2015 for approximately $1 million...

[Herlock Sholmes]

The simplest answers are the best.

Parry scammed a free call (his routine phone-box MO) for the speculative crime he was trying to set up - which was burglary - after seeing Wallace trudge towards the tram stop.

He simply had no reason to care whether the call was traced or not...

This isn’t the simplest answer. It’s the ‘point the finger at Parry’ answer.

And just to identify for newer posters on the case ‘’’speculative’ crime’’ is Rod’s attempt at a get out clause ever since I pointed out the huge amount of luck that Parry would have required for the plan to have worked. So it basically goes:

We have a plan involving a disguised voice and a ruse to get Wallace out of his house. Parry would have had to have checked times to work out, at least, roughly how long William might have been away. He has to enlist an accomplice who would be willing to take all of the risks. They would sit watching then following Wallace to ensure that he went to chess. The accomplice had to be confident enough to convince a reluctant Julia. And after that planning, because I pointed out the luck required, Rod says “so what. It was a punt. A stab in the dark. A ‘you win some you lose some’ exercise. Therefore he adds ‘speculative’ to try and cover his a*#e.

[MoriartyGardensEast]

Seems to me Accomplice if working with Parry could have used easy method of slipping note under Wallace's door telling him to call the following night at the address rather than the highly speculative call method which has questionable chance of Wallace even getting the message or the name "Qualtrough" being mentioned to Julia.

A note when Wallace was out would ensure Julia read the name "Qualtrough" herself. It would also make Wallace less suspicious than a call to his obscure chess club.

Any risk Accomplice would have of being seen leaving the note would pale in comparison to the risk he would take the following night trying to gain entry explaining himself on the doorstep.

Any risk Accomplice would have in handwriting being detected would be superfluous as point is Julia wouldn't know him and therefore could not identify him. If she ran into him one day and insisted it was him, he'd be in trouble anyway. Besides in this scenario they are banking on that not happening. So what difference would it make?

Instead we have Parry and A stalking out making calls, trying this ruse God knows how many times (remember Wallace had not attended previous 4 times) all for something incredibly speculative.

Also, why did sneak thief accomplice turn gas off, lights etc. Why was there no blood tracked out if this thief was too panicked to steal the jewelry and money he easily could have and fled in a haste?

This theory is just no good. Very poorly thought out.

[MoriartyGardensEast]

Ok since the new format Im not getting post numbers. I'm on a 2 year old Ipad which is much better than my 12 year old PC! But still
Not too happy. Anyway could you or someone remind me , did Wallace say on his death bed ' we won didn't we' ?, Is there serious proof of this? And who was he talking to? Thanks.

This was to Sydney Scholefield Allen a junior member of Wallace's counsel. Allen always thought that was an odd statement from an innocent man. Roland Oliver also apparently had a "great deal of doubt as to Wallace's innocence"

Justice Wright, who summed up for acquital in later years also stated that any man with common sense would know Wallace's alibi wasa too good to be true, but you can't hang a man on that. I've seen people argue that, but it is historical fact.

I myself would not convict Wallace but it is close, I definitely think he was guilty.

I also respect those who do not and would like to engage in discussion and reasoned debate.

[MoriartyGardensEast]

Delighted to announce a guest article - Double Check - about the case on the Cold Case Jury website. It introduces the Collaborator theory. If you read my footnote you will realise there is a way to reconcile Herlock and Rod, something universally acknowledged to be harder than negotiating Brexit:

The accomplice was Wallace and the collaborator was Parry!

See, we must never lose our sense of humour...

This was an excellent article. I wish you had included him in your actual book along with the other "user submitted" theory, it may have been fairer that way. Maybe a sequel on the way?

[MoriartyGardensEast]

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...

There is a difference between being found not guilty legally and proven not guilty in fact.

For example, I would not convict Wallace, but I think he was guilty.

Surely a man of your intelligence can understand this rather simple distinction?

[RodCrosby]

No civilised legal system requires anyone to prove themselves not guilty, a task that would be impossible in most cases (certainly prior to DNA evidence)

As a matter of FACT, there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace. That was conclusively shown at the Court of Criminal Appeal by its verdict.

I can't help irrational, ill-informed "thoughts", whether they be Wallace was guilty, or the moon is made of green cheese...

[Herlock Sholmes]

This was to Sydney Scholefield Allen a junior member of Wallace's counsel. Allen always thought that was an odd statement from an innocent man. Roland Oliver also apparently had a "great deal of doubt as to Wallace's innocence"

Justice Wright, who summed up for acquital in later years also stated that any man with common sense would know Wallace's alibi wasa too good to be true, but you can't hang a man on that. I've seen people argue that, but it is historical fact.

I myself would not convict Wallace but it is close, I definitely think he was guilty.

I also respect those who do not and would like to engage in discussion and reasoned debate.

I agree MGE.

Welcome to the thread

[Herlock Sholmes]

This was an excellent article. I wish you had included him in your actual book along with the other "user submitted" theory, it may have been fairer that way. Maybe a sequel on the way?

Thank you

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that Parry ‘lied’ about his Monday night alibi is understandably used against him when discussing the case but are things as clear cut as this? Could Parry have simply been mistaken?

He made his statement on the 23rd and his resulting alibi relied on confirmation from Lillian and Josephine Lloyd who were interviewed on the 26th. Is it likely that Parry would give himself a false and so easily disprovable alibi? Parry would have seen Lillian before her interview so can we really be expected to believe that he didn’t discuss something so important with her? That he wouldn’t have tried to persuade Lillian and her mother to back him up? If they refused to back him up on something that could have seen him implicated in a murder we can ask two questions. a) wouldn’t Party have been far better off then going to the police and telling them that he’d been mistaken before being found out in a lie? And b) Is it likely that he and Lillian would have stayed together (even for a short while) after she refused to help him?

Approaching this logically I find it almost impossible to believe that Parry would have told such an easily disprovable lie to the police. It’s also unthinkable that he would have found out that neither Lillian or her mother were going to back him up and yet took no action. To me it appears that Parry just assumed that Lillian version of events would concur with his own.

I think it far more likely that an innocent Parry had no reason to distinguish that Monday night from any other night and he simply made a mistake.

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...

a "mistake" where he claims he can't actually remember where he was on the Monday night !

This from a guy who can remember events going back to 1928, can remember seeing Wallace at the chess club in November 1930, and can "remember" in great detail his claimed movements on the Tuesday night, even down to "remembering" the exact point he "remembered" to go for his accumulator....

'Approaching this logically I find it almost impossible to believe that Parry would have told such an easily disprovable lie to the police.'
Yep, criminals never duck and weave, mix fact and fiction, lie and obfuscate - and sometimes get caught out... The policemen of the world have such an easy job, it's a wonder they are needed at all...

As i said, the simplest explanations are always the best.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn...

a "mistake" where he claims he can't actually remember where he was on the Monday night !

This from a guy who can remember events going back to 1928, can remember seeing Wallace at the chess club in November 1930, and can "remember" in great detail his claimed movements on the Tuesday night, even down to "remembering" the exact point he "remembered" to go for his accumulator....

'Approaching this logically I find it almost impossible to believe that Parry would have told such an easily disprovable lie to the police.'
Yep, criminals never duck and weave, mix fact and fiction, lie and obfuscate - and sometimes get caught out... The policemen of the world have such an easy job, it's a wonder they are needed at all...

As i said, the simplest explanations are always the best.

I refuse to believe that you can’t see the biased nonsense of that post. If someone gets the events of one night wrong it doesn’t follow logically that they get the events of every night wrong any more than a person forgetting one thing doesn’t mean that he forgets everything.

My point stands untouched and absolutely reasonable. Stick to cutting and pasting.

[ColdCaseJury]

The fact that Parry ‘lied’ about his Monday night alibi is understandably used against him when discussing the case but are things as clear cut as this? Could Parry have simply been mistaken?

He made his statement on the 23rd and his resulting alibi relied on confirmation from Lillian and Josephine Lloyd who were interviewed on the 26th. Is it likely that Parry would give himself a false and so easily disprovable alibi? Parry would have seen Lillian before her interview so can we really be expected to believe that he didn’t discuss something so important with her? That he wouldn’t have tried to persuade Lillian and her mother to back him up? If they refused to back him up on something that could have seen him implicated in a murder we can ask two questions. a) wouldn’t Party have been far better off then going to the police and telling them that he’d been mistaken before being found out in a lie? And b) Is it likely that he and Lillian would have stayed together (even for a short while) after she refused to help him?

Approaching this logically I find it almost impossible to believe that Parry would have told such an easily disprovable lie to the police. It’s also unthinkable that he would have found out that neither Lillian or her mother were going to back him up and yet took no action. To me it appears that Parry just assumed that Lillian version of events would concur with his own.

I think it far more likely that an innocent Parry had no reason to distinguish that Monday night from any other night and he simply made a mistake.

HS, Parry arrived in his car at the Llyod's about 7:25pm (the average of the two Lloyd statements), stayed for a few minutes with the mother, left to go to Park (or Lark) Lane and returned at 9pm. According to Parry he was there for six hours from 5:30pm. Parry's 3-day memory was lucid but his 4-day memory, despite his comings and goings at the Lloyds, was blatantly false.

So, we don't know where Parry was at the time of the call, but we do know he turned up at the Lloyds - which was just a few minutes drive from the call box - just a few minutes after the call ended.