Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[WallaceWackedHer]

It would be the "inadmissible evidence" I would be interested in

Definitely! I forgot to mention I also do anticipate the solution that Parry knowingly called on Wallace's orders (Waterhouse's solution). Just putting that out there in case that's what it is.

Gannon's book is definitely the most comprehensive and he seems to think Marsden did it. But as far as I know he saw the police files, which have been heavily pruned to save space. I might get more on Marsden here, as this is the DPP file used by Murphy.

If it's anything else I'd be surprised. If Gannon's right I'm gonna guess Wallace's sexuality is behind it, rather than oldass Julia sleeping with Parry.

My main pick as the solution is Parry calling, Wallace killing her. On roughly equal ground, I'm gonna go Johnstons (my avatar hehe) killing her and Parry calling - the call likely being only accidentally related in that case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't know about what Rod uploaded, but Josh believes the original radio broadcast was 4 parts. He said the other part contains crucial information. Maybe Rod only uploaded 3 parts (if so, I would imagine to protect some detail he doesn't want people to know since it would down his idea more?). Do you know how Rod got this broadcast to begin with? If you do, maybe I can get it the same way and get all 4 parts if there are indeed 4 parts.

Tomorrow I will be viewing the files anyway.

I doubt it's going to outright say "this is what happened", but I will turn it upside down front to back, and publicly post every single thing in those files. If my phone runs out of battery I will rage, and have to make a second trip. This will indeed be the biggest evidence drop in the history of the case.

As a preliminary guess, if there IS some solution imprinted right there, I'm anticipating one of four things:

Wallace killed his wife solo and he did in fact have a genuine Liverpool-sounding accent.
Parry's alibi for the murder turns out to be bullshit somehow, and he murdered Julia.
Amy or Amy/Wallace are involved directly in her murder in some way.
The Anfield housebreaker murdered Julia, possibly without actually knowing there was a telephone call at all.

I know there should definitely be Amy info in there, because of the strange witness who went on about her for years, but whose testimonies have not been publicized apart from a mention in one of the books I have.

As to whether it turns out the call is unrelated, I'm gonna hedge my bets at 50/50. I think it's probably unrelated so that doesn't make sense, but some of the plausible scenarios do involve it being related (e.g. if it says Parry's Brine alibi fell apart or some ****).

...

I'm also anticipating the possibility there will be "inadmissable" evidence that we never saw because it was not allowed in court, and that this evidence will be CRUCIAL. I don't think there will be any outright confession because if there was, I think Gannon or someone would have mentioned it.

I don’t know where Rod got it from but he’s been interested in the case for years. It’s difficult to see how a 4th part would fit in as the culmination appears to be part 3 (I’m not saying that Josh is mistaken though, he could be right.)

Good luck tomorrow. I certainly take my hat off to you the way you’ve immersed yourself in the case and the effort that you’re putting in. I won’t feel so bad if I eventually have to admit to have gotten it wrong. It’s still Wallace alone for me though.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I don’t know where Rod got it from but he’s been interested in the case for years. It’s difficult to see how a 4th part would fit in as the culmination appears to be part 3 (I’m not saying that Josh is mistaken though, he could be right.)

Good luck tomorrow. I certainly take my hat off to you the way you’ve immersed yourself in the case and the effort that you’re putting in. I won’t feel so bad if I eventually have to admit to have gotten it wrong. It’s still Wallace alone for me though.

I've argued in favour of so many theories now, if I'm wrong I'm sure I can find some old thread to save my pride LOL.

Unless it's something REALLY weird like Beattie purposefully changing details of what Qualtrough told him, and then going to Wallace's pad. Like it'd have to be really out there to be something I never considered.

Odds are fairly good you're right. Murphy came to the conclusion you did when seeing them... But personally I'm expecting even if Wallace killed her, Parry called. Or Johnstons killed her. Or Parry's alibi falls to pieces.

I'm just getting showered now. Gonna take my charger there.

I'll make a new thread tbh coz I mean, there's no denying a thread with the FULL files posted should have that in the first few posts to avoid getting lost. Everyone should have easy and full access.

Wish me luck y'all. It's been super fun trynna solve this riddle.

[Ven]

Good Luck WWH...go out and prove my theory !!

[WallaceWackedHer]

Good Luck WWH...go out and prove my theory !!

Just got on the train. I'm pumped.

I hope this isn't just some cuck legal file detailing his release or I'll hop on a train to Liverpool rofl.

[Ven]

Think positive WWH!

[OneRound]

I did post a link to the radio shows in an earlier post. Didn’t they work?




'Who killed Julia? - Part 1'

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wPn...ew?usp=sharing

'Who killed Julia? - Part 2 - a tale of two suspects' https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fCc...ew?usp=sharing __________________

'Who killed Julia? - Conspiracy of Silence' https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G4j...ew?usp=sharing __________________

Does this work?

Hi Herlock - many, many thanks.

Listenened to all three today. Fascinating. Lot of food for thought.

Although I found Parkes and his 'memories' of Parry in the final broadcast totally unconvincing and lacking credibility, the first two parts nonetheless pointed heavily towards Parry being the guilty man. Particularly if his girlfriend's alibi can be discounted as suggested.

The first two parts also went some way to suggesting Wallace's innocence in bringing out his general character and poor health. Against that, it remains - and maybe always will - mightly strange that the 'taciturn' Wallace should choose to chat to the tram conductor and so many others about his appointment that fateful night.

Btw and further to recent posts, it was made clear in the various introductions that there were only three broadcasts made at the time of production. If there was a fourth, it must have come some time later although I doubt even that - the third broadcast ended with a disappointed recognition that matters had been investigated as far as they could.

Finally and btw again, I just loved the early description given of Wallace as an 'elongated walking stick'. Brilliant.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock - many, many thanks.

Listenened to all three today. Fascinating. Lot of food for thought.

Although I found Parkes and his 'memories' of Parry in the final broadcast totally unconvincing and lacking credibility, the first two parts nonetheless pointed heavily towards Parry being the guilty man. Particularly if his girlfriend's alibi can be discounted as suggested.

The first two parts also went some way to suggesting Wallace's innocence in bringing out his general character and poor health. Against that, it remains - and maybe always will - mightly strange that the 'taciturn' Wallace should choose to chat to the tram conductor and so many others about his appointment that fateful night.

Btw and further to recent posts, it was made clear in the various introductions that there were only three broadcasts made at the time of production. If there was a fourth, it must have come some time later although I doubt even that - the third broadcast ended with a disappointed recognition that matters had been investigated as far as they could.

Finally and btw again, I just loved the early description given of Wallace as an 'elongated walking stick'. Brilliant.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Glad you enjoyed it.

The problem with Parry’s alibi from Lily Lloyd is that she never gave him an alibi in the first place. What she did say was that on the night of the murder was that Parry arrived between 8.30 and 9.00 but she thought it nearer to 9.00. Her mother gave the time of his arrival as 9.00 or a little later. Acting perfectly normally by the way. Julia was killed sometime between 6.35 and 8.45. On the night of the murder Parry went straight to the Brine’s at Knocklaid Road after he’d finished work at 5.30. He stayed there until around 8.30 (confirmed by at least 3 people) He then went and bought a newspaper and cigarettes from the Post Office in Maiden Lane (We don’t know if the police checked this but it was an alibi that was easily checkable at the time) He then went to Hignett’s shop to pick up an accumulator that he was waiting for (another easily checkable alibi) Then he went to the Williamson’s at Lisburn Lane where he learned about the 21st birthday party. He was there for around 10 minutes then he went to the Lloyd’s. So for me Parry can be eliminated as the murderer.

Everyone who knew him appeared to have a good opinion of Parkes but his testimony just isn’t convincing. Hours after the crime Party decides to get his car cleaned in the early hours of the morning despite having ample time to have done it himself in privacy. He chooses a garage where he’d recently been caught rummaging in cupboards in a room where they kept cash. And where the guy doing the washing neither liked or trusted him...and had told him this to his face. Despite having plenty of time Parry appears to have disposed of one mitten (who uses a mitten for a robbery/murder?) but retained the incriminating one and left it in open view. He then not only admits to the significance of the glove but he adds the location of the murder weapon. Then to top it off (and Rod wasn’t happy when I pointed this out) not once does Parry tell Parkes to keep his mouth shut! Then, only after Wallace is charged, he tells the police who dismiss him. They don’t even send an officer to check for a weapon in the drain. Apparently not at all bothered if someone else retrieved it and went to the police, or even worse, the Press. It’s almost impossible to take Parkes seriously. I’ve wondered if Parry, who knew that his alibi was watertight, played a trick on Parkes? Trying to get him seen as a time waster by the police and a liar by everyone else?

[moste]

Hi OneRound,

Glad you enjoyed it.

The problem with Parry’s alibi from Lily Lloyd is that she never gave him an alibi in the first place. What she did say was that on the night of the murder was that Parry arrived between 8.30 and 9.00 but she thought it nearer to 9.00. Her mother gave the time of his arrival as 9.00 or a little later. Acting perfectly normally by the way. Julia was killed sometime between 6.35 and 8.45. On the night of the murder Parry went straight to the Brine’s at Knocklaid Road after he’d finished work at 5.30. He stayed there until around 8.30 (confirmed by at least 3 people) He then went and bought a newspaper and cigarettes from the Post Office in Maiden Lane (We don’t know if the police checked this but it was an alibi that was easily checkable at the time) He then went to Hignett’s shop to pick up an accumulator that he was waiting for (another easily checkable alibi) Then he went to the Williamson’s at Lisburn Lane where he learned about the 21st birthday party. He was there for around 10 minutes then he went to the Lloyd’s. So for me Parry can be eliminated as the murderer.

Everyone who knew him appeared to have a good opinion of Parkes but his testimony just isn’t convincing. Hours after the crime Party decides to get his car cleaned in the early hours of the morning despite having ample time to have done it himself in privacy. He chooses a garage where he’d recently been caught rummaging in cupboards in a room where they kept cash. And where the guy doing the washing neither liked or trusted him...and had told him this to his face. Despite having plenty of time Parry appears to have disposed of one mitten (who uses a mitten for a robbery/murder?) but retained the incriminating one and left it in open view. He then not only admits to the significance of the glove but he adds the location of the murder weapon. Then to top it off (and Rod wasn’t happy when I pointed this out) not once does Parry tell Parkes to keep his mouth shut! Then, only after Wallace is charged, he tells the police who dismiss him. They don’t even send an officer to check for a weapon in the drain. Apparently not at all bothered if someone else retrieved it and went to the police, or even worse, the Press. It’s almost impossible to take Parkes seriously. I’ve wondered if Parry, who knew that his alibi was watertight, played a trick on Parkes? Trying to get him seen as a time waster by the police and a liar by everyone else?

When the whole thing Is laid out this way H.S. It does eliminate Parry altogether. And it would appear he certainly did lead Parkes a merry dance .Parry enjoyed a bit of mischief yanking Parkes chain , and this latest event presented the perfect opportunity. Good post.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi Herlock - many, many thanks.

Listenened to all three today. Fascinating. Lot of food for thought.

Although I found Parkes and his 'memories' of Parry in the final broadcast totally unconvincing and lacking credibility, the first two parts nonetheless pointed heavily towards Parry being the guilty man. Particularly if his girlfriend's alibi can be discounted as suggested.

The first two parts also went some way to suggesting Wallace's innocence in bringing out his general character and poor health. Against that, it remains - and maybe always will - mightly strange that the 'taciturn' Wallace should choose to chat to the tram conductor and so many others about his appointment that fateful night.

Btw and further to recent posts, it was made clear in the various introductions that there were only three broadcasts made at the time of production. If there was a fourth, it must have come some time later although I doubt even that - the third broadcast ended with a disappointed recognition that matters had been investigated as far as they could.

Finally and btw again, I just loved the early description given of Wallace as an 'elongated walking stick'. Brilliant.

Best regards,
OneRound

My friend Josh is adamant there are four parts. He says there was a phone-in segment where people gave their opinions and Goodman got mad.

[WallaceWackedHer]

When the whole thing Is laid out this way H.S. It does eliminate Parry altogether. And it would appear he certainly did lead Parkes a merry dance .Parry enjoyed a bit of mischief yanking Parkes chain , and this latest event presented the perfect opportunity. Good post.

You don't mess about like that when the consequence could be death or life in prison. It's something you might joke about years after, but not while there's an ongoing investigation.

[OneRound]

You don't mess about like that when the consequence could be death or life in prison. It's something you might joke about years after, but not while there's an ongoing investigation.

Hi WWH - yes, I'm with you there. Also, if I understood Parkes correctly, he was claiming that he hosed down the inside of the car at Parry's instruction before Parry drove away. I didn't follow how or even if the car interior was dried. If not and allowing for it to have actually happened, the joke would seem to be on Parry!

That said, Herlock's post was a good one as Moste stated; particularly effective in showing that the time available for Parry to personally murder Julia was extremely limited, if not non-existent. There again, it doesn't rule out Parry having made the call and briefed an accessory who would pose as Qualtrough to carry out the robbery and ended up killing her. Speculative? Yes, for sure although imo worthy of consideration IF (quite a big 'if') we attribute innocence to Wallace.

Best regards,
OneRound

[OneRound]

My friend Josh is adamant there are four parts. He says there was a phone-in segment where people gave their opinions and Goodman got mad.

Hi again WWH - I guess it's quite possible that interest in the original broadcasts may have prompted a probably live phone-in programme. Whether that would have been rebroadcast or even saved, I don't know.

If your mucker Josh is right - and he may well be - I suspect that the phone-in programme was produced separately after the other programmes had been aired.

Btw, tremendous credit to those involved with the research for the original broadcasts. Fifty years on from the murder, tracking down Lily Lloyd to the Isle of Man and the telephonist in the States - that's some effort in the pre-internet age! Fascinating as well to hear the memories and thoughts of Hector Munro, Wallace's trial solicitor.

Best regards,
OneRound

[moste]

You don't mess about like that when the consequence could be death or life in prison. It's something you might joke about years after, but not while there's an ongoing investigation.

In which case I must bow to your superior knowledge of Parry’s demeanour.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH - yes, I'm with you there. Also, if I understood Parkes correctly, he was claiming that he hosed down the inside of the car at Parry's instruction before Parry drove away. I didn't follow how or even if the car interior was dried. If not and allowing for it to have actually happened, the joke would seem to be on Parry!

That said, Herlock's post was a good one as Moste stated; particularly effective in showing that the time available for Parry to personally murder Julia was extremely limited, if not non-existent. There again, it doesn't rule out Parry having made the call and briefed an accessory who would pose as Qualtrough to carry out the robbery and ended up killing her. Speculative? Yes, for sure although imo worthy of consideration IF (quite a big 'if') we attribute innocence to Wallace.

Best regards,
OneRound

The evidence does not support a single person entering the home as Qualtrough very well, unless that person had intended to murder her. Two people, however, could potentially work should this be some sort of distraction burglary where the second man came in the back with a duplicate key. This isn't very hard to do evidently, since there were MANY "skeleton key" burglaries around Liverpool at the time.

The reason one person alone is not good, is if the person entered the home and been caught in the middle of a robbery, it appears unlikely there would not have been signs of a struggle (albeit Julia had a bruise on her upper left arm - might have been right arm I forget) or any obvious commotion in the house. Once rattled, Julia would process that the stranger in her home is a threat, and there is surely no threat more terrifying than realizing a total stranger in your home is not who he says he is...

Further, if the man is a total stranger to Julia, he has no real motive to murder her over simply running away. A man known to her has more reason to silence her so she cannot turn him over to the police.

By the appearance of the crime scene, what it looks like, is that Julia was killed before she knew of the grave danger she was in.