The Murder of Julia Wallace (1931) - Full DPP case files

[WallaceWackedHer]

No problem. I haven't actually got Gannon's book, so I'll have to take your advice and get round to purchasing it.

I find the trial transcript to be really useful, but your website seems very detailed. extremly informative-good luck with devloping it. I've also relied on the Inner City Living site, which has lots of detailed info.
I've actually got a law degree, so interesting the case is being discussed by students.

Although I don't think Parry acted alone, I feel he probably had some involvement; I think he was very likely to have been Qualtrough, for example, and Parkes' testimony-partly confirmed by Dolly Atkinson, is damning.

However, I'm not s convinced about his alibi as some. Firstly, I find it convenient that Parry, Brine and Dennison all give an estimate of his leaving of "around 8:30." Secondly, the time itself is convenient abd coincidental, i.e just a few minutes before Wallace returns home and discovers the body. Thirdly, I think it a bit odd that he spends 3 hours at Brine's-wasn't he only there about a birthday invitation? I can't believe he stayed so long because he was best pals with 15 year old Dennison, although Olivia Brine's husband was conveniently away at sea, so be could have been interested in her.

I also don't think he would have had much of a problem in convincing Dennison to be somewhat economical with the truth, i.e. on the basis that he did visit Brine's but left significantly earlier than he claimed. The dapper Parry, who was popular with the ladies, and had a shiny car-at a time when car ownership wasn't particularly common, must have seemed a world away from Dennison's spotty teenage friends. And I think Brine would then have found it very difficult to contradict both Parry and her nephew, who'd she would be droppjng right in it, something I think she'd be reluctant to do.


I agree that Wallace is a poor candidate, and I don't think he should even have been arrested. All the substansive evidence is in his favour, such as no blood splatter on his clothing, which no one has satisfactorily explained in my opinion; no sensible explanation of what he did with the murder weapon; his voice didn't remotely match Qualtrough's, according to someone who knew him well, and no evidence he was good at impersonation; no good explanation as to how the coat got burned, from the perspective of Wallace being the killer.

I think we're of one mind... I'm also uncertain about Parry's alibi. It doesn't 100% cover him from killing Julia by the way (just very strong - he'd have like 5 minutes if he did) but there's evidence from others that there was coercion at play:

Firstly Lily Lloyd admits to partially falsifying an alibi.

Secondly on Radio City (I think in the part I am missing - there are 4 parts I have 3), someone said when they were a child Parry's parents came over and tried convincing her parents to get Gordon out of the country.

So there's good evidence something like that could have gone on. But Phyllis Plant was also given as a name (we just don't have her statement - so she may well have left before 20:30 for all we know). If Phyllis was able to corroborate 20:30 that would be three people persuaded to lie for someone they know to be a probable murderer.

(It should be noted it was Leslie Williamson with whom he arranged a birthday party, it wasn't while at Brine's house.)

Furthermore, his recollection of movements after leaving Brine's are detailed and all very innocuous. They were never checked so they could be invented, but he discusses buying cigarettes, collecting an accumulator part for his car, etc... It's not until 11 at night that he goes to John Parkes.

Now, let's assume he really did go about his business buying cigarettes etc, it seems unlikely he would be doing this if he knew he was now involved in a murder and knew he had murder weapons (etc.) that he had to get rid of... To me, by the description of the tale given by Parkes, it seems like Parry received those murder instruments unexpectedly - hence his anxiety blurting out about the iron bar etc. So I think what happened is when he drove down to meet the accomplice(s) they dumped these things on him.

I'm not sure if the mitten was even worn but may have been grabbed and used to wipe down a blood-splattered weapon. I say this only because it seems peculiar to keep only one...yet OJ Simpson also had one singular glove in his car. Weird how that could go down - but I assume it's because the first glove they take off is taken off with a hand wearing a glove, it's when they take the second one off they'd be putting their bare hand on it. I haven't thought on it too much but very roughly something to do with that?

---

As for the murder weapon if Wallace did it, I'm of the opinion it was likely never removed from the house at all.

If this is such a premeditated ingenious scheme, then surely he would have thought to wrap up the murder weapon in something like newspaper so he can do the deed, leave the item where he found it (throwing the newspaper into the fire or flushing it down the toilet of course), and not have to go out on a trip with an iron bar shoved up his sleeve.

But like I said I don't think a bad plan means it's necessarily not a real one. Wrapping it is the smartest choice, but whether or not someone would necessarily think of that is uncertain.

[John G]

Well I still appreciate you taking the time to read and acknowledge my work

My friend Josh who I have closely worked with has known of the case for ~20 years since he was at school, and fortunately for me he has a rain man tier memory, so he can recall very obscure facts he read once years ago. That has proven very useful indeed.

If you want to research the case yourself, definitely invest in a Kindle copy of Gannon's book. It is definitely the most thoroughly researched book on this case. Gannon's book on Kindle + the Kindle search function is incredibly useful as a researcher wanting to find statements or information about certain individuals quickly.

Though Gannon's book is currently the best resource, I'm hoping my website will be THE Wallace Case resource. I just have to make a trip down to Liverpool and I will have the entirety of the case files - and if I can locate Munro's files then that would be a bonus jackpot! The police's files have been pruned a fair bit sadly - but I'd like to see what I can recover.

I'm planning to expand the site, make it a true freedom of information hub. No piece of evidence in this case should be concealed in my opinion, the public deserve all of the information at their fingertips.

Hoping I can make that a reality.

---

Also I should add, that it's interesting the police managed to sentence a man to die on the basis he COULD have done something (and essentially forcing timings in reconstructions to ensure this), without ever even thinking about or proving why he WOULD have...

It has recently (just today in fact) come to my attention that this case is given to law students as a prime example of a miscarriage of justice.

No problem. I haven't actually got Gannon's book, so I'll have to take your advice and get round to purchasing it.

I find the trial transcript to be really useful, but your website seems very detailed. extremly informative-good luck with devloping it. I've also relied on the Inner City Living site, which has lots of detailed info.
I've actually got a law degree, so interesting the case is being discussed by students.

Although I don't think Parry acted alone, I feel he probably had some involvement; I think he was very likely to have been Qualtrough, for example, and Parkes' testimony-partly confirmed by Dolly Atkinson, is damning.

However, I'm not s convinced about his alibi as some. Firstly, I find it convenient that Parry, Brine and Dennison all give an estimate of his leaving of "around 8:30." Secondly, the time itself is convenient abd coincidental, i.e just a few minutes before Wallace returns home and discovers the body. Thirdly, I think it a bit odd that he spends 3 hours at Brine's-wasn't he only there about a birthday invitation? I can't believe he stayed so long because he was best pals with 15 year old Dennison, although Olivia Brine's husband was conveniently away at sea, so be could have been interested in her.

I also don't think he would have had much of a problem in convincing Dennison to be somewhat economical with the truth, i.e. on the basis that he did visit Brine's but left significantly earlier than he claimed. The dapper Parry, who was popular with the ladies, and had a shiny car-at a time when car ownership wasn't particularly common, must have seemed a world away from Dennison's spotty teenage friends. And I think Brine would then have found it very difficult to contradict both Parry and her nephew, who'd she would be droppjng right in it, something I think she'd be reluctant to do.


I agree that Wallace is a poor candidate, and I don't think he should even have been arrested. All the substansive evidence is in his favour, such as no blood splatter on his clothing, which no one has satisfactorily explained in my opinion; no sensible explanation of what he did with the murder weapon; his voice didn't remotely match Qualtrough's, according to someone who knew him well, and no evidence he was good at impersonation; no good explanation as to how the coat got burned, from the perspective of Wallace being the killer.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi,

Unfortunately, I'm not John Gannon, that's been asked before, but thanks for asking!

You've made some good points there, certainty food for thought, and I certainly didn't realize that Parry was considered a family friend, so thanks for info.

Your theory that Julia admitted someone into her home seems very plausible, and is supported by Mrs Johnstone's suggestion.

Well I still appreciate you taking the time to read and acknowledge my work

My friend Josh who I have closely worked with has known of the case for ~20 years since he was at school, and fortunately for me he has a rain man tier memory, so he can recall very obscure facts he read once years ago. That has proven very useful indeed.

If you want to research the case yourself, definitely invest in a Kindle copy of Gannon's book. It is definitely the most thoroughly researched book on this case. Gannon's book on Kindle + the Kindle search function is incredibly useful as a researcher wanting to find statements or information about certain individuals quickly.

Though Gannon's book is currently the best resource, I'm hoping my website will be THE Wallace Case resource. I just have to make a trip down to Liverpool and I will have the entirety of the case files - and if I can locate Munro's files then that would be a bonus jackpot! The police's files have been pruned a fair bit sadly - but I'd like to see what I can recover.

I'm planning to expand the site, make it a true freedom of information hub. No piece of evidence in this case should be concealed in my opinion, the public deserve all of the information at their fingertips.

Hoping I can make that a reality.

---

Also I should add, that it's interesting the police managed to sentence a man to die on the basis he COULD have done something (and essentially forcing timings in reconstructions to ensure this), without ever even thinking about or proving why he WOULD have...

It has recently (just today in fact) come to my attention that this case is given to law students as a prime example of a miscarriage of justice.

[John G]

If John G is short for John Gannon, then first of all I must say I am legitimately honoured you would read and acknowledge my work. I have used your book as my main research guide since I first became interested in the case.

In regards to the mackintosh, I think the idea put forward by the defence and Mrs. Johnston is the correct one.

I unfortunately do not see CCJ's solution as being possible at all. If Julia had just discovered someone burgling her, why is her next move to go into the parlour? To me I feel that unless there are two people in that home, Julia was struck down before any robbery took place. If she had just discovered a burglar (who then decided to kill her), I'd expect her to be found dead in the kitchen where she found him... Or alternatively in the hallway or scullery as she attempted to escape from the threat.

What she wouldn't do after finding out a stranger is not who he says he is (as per CCJ's idea), is go and cozy herself by the fire.

If Wallace did it himself and I knew that was the case, I would take the final ghostwritten John Bull article as an OJ Simpson type confession. In other words it was held up as a shield while he battered her to death.

But my suggestion is Julia had done exactly what Mrs. Johnston instinctively thought she had done, and had thrown it round her shoulders admitting someone into the home and parlour (which would take a little while to warm up).

As per who Wallace would have worked with? Well, according to testimony recovered by Wilkes, Gordon "quite liked" Wallace. Vice versa Wallace termed Parry a family friend. Just recently before the Christmas just gone, Parry had given Wallace a gift in the form of a calendar. Not something I'd expect from a sworn enemy! I see a collaboration as quite plausible.

Hi,

Unfortunately, I'm not John Gannon, that's been asked before, but thanks for asking!

You've made some good points there, certainty food for thought, and I certainly didn't realize that Parry was considered a family friend, so thanks for info.

Your theory that Julia admitted someone into her home seems very plausible, and is supported by Mrs Johnstone's suggestion.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I've just checked the link- very good analysis. It's a while since I've contributed to the Wallace thread, but I'm still very much interested in the case.

What do you think about the burnt Macintosh issue? The prosecution argued that she could have had the cost around her and she fell as she was struck, so as to burn her skirt in the lit fire. The defence suggest it was drapped over her shoulder when struck: Mrs Johnstone had suggested that it was the sort of thing a woman would do. And I believe it was CCJ's suggestion that she had the coat drapped over her shoulder as she was intending to go next door for help, i.e. having detected a sneak thief.

Either way, I think it creates problems for the argument that Wallace was the killer, i.e. because it suggests the murder was unplanned, otherwise why would Julia have been afforded the opportunity to put on the Macintosh, presumably with the intention of exiting the house.

I don't think Wallace could have been wearing the Macintosh, because that would mean he accidentally set fire to himself in his own home, and I can't believe be did that very often!

The only way I see Wallace setting fire to himself is if he was involved in a dynamic struggle with Julia, chasing her around the room, blocking off the exits, but that seems highly implausible to me.

Just one more question. If Wallace worked with an accomplice then who exactly would he trust? After all, he seemed a bit of a loner, with few if any friends-certainly not Parry, who misappropriated the insurance money when he covered Wallace's round, and who he seems to have detested.

If John G is short for John Gannon, then first of all I must say I am legitimately honoured you would read and acknowledge my work. I have used your book as my main research guide since I first became interested in the case.

In regards to the mackintosh, I think the idea put forward by the defence and Mrs. Johnston is the correct one.

I unfortunately do not see CCJ's solution as being possible at all. If Julia had just discovered someone burgling her, why is her next move to go into the parlour? To me I feel that unless there are two people in that home, Julia was struck down before any robbery took place. If she had just discovered a burglar (who then decided to kill her), I'd expect her to be found dead in the kitchen where she found him... Or alternatively in the hallway or scullery as she attempted to escape from the threat.

What she wouldn't do after finding out a stranger is not who he says he is (as per CCJ's idea), is go and cozy herself by the fire.

If Wallace did it himself and I knew that was the case, I would take the final ghostwritten John Bull article as an OJ Simpson type confession. In other words it was held up as a shield while he battered her to death.

But my suggestion is Julia had done exactly what Mrs. Johnston instinctively thought she had done, and had thrown it round her shoulders admitting someone into the home and parlour (which would take a little while to warm up).

As per who Wallace would have worked with? Well, according to testimony recovered by Wilkes, Gordon "quite liked" Wallace. Vice versa Wallace termed Parry a family friend. Just recently before the Christmas just gone, Parry had given Wallace a gift in the form of a calendar. Not something I'd expect from a sworn enemy! I see a collaboration as quite plausible.

[John G]

The solution to the Wallace case proposed by myself and Josh Levin:

https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...l/my-solution/

Some of you will be livid LOL.

But this is what I (as well as my close friend and former Casebook poster Josh) truly believe to be the correct answer to the mystery.

If Parkes is talking out of his ass I'd go with a prank call exploit or the murder being entirely unrelated. If Wallace is involved I'll go with a hit job or some kind of accomplice (Waterhouse's suggestion is quite strong: Parry calling, Wallace killing his wife and dumping blood-stained items on Parry).

I've just checked the link- very good analysis. It's a while since I've contributed to the Wallace thread, but I'm still very much interested in the case.

What do you think about the burnt Macintosh issue? The prosecution argued that she could have had the cost around her and she fell as she was struck, so as to burn her skirt in the lit fire. The defence suggest it was drapped over her shoulder when struck: Mrs Johnstone had suggested that it was the sort of thing a woman would do. And I believe it was CCJ's suggestion that she had the coat drapped over her shoulder as she was intending to go next door for help, i.e. having detected a sneak thief.

Either way, I think it creates problems for the argument that Wallace was the killer, i.e. because it suggests the murder was unplanned, otherwise why would Julia have been afforded the opportunity to put on the Macintosh, presumably with the intention of exiting the house.

I don't think Wallace could have been wearing the Macintosh, because that would mean he accidentally set fire to himself in his own home, and I can't believe be did that very often!

The only way I see Wallace setting fire to himself is if he was involved in a dynamic struggle with Julia, chasing her around the room, blocking off the exits, but that seems highly implausible to me.

Just one more question. If Wallace worked with an accomplice then who exactly would he trust? After all, he seemed a bit of a loner, with few if any friends-certainly not Parry, who misappropriated the insurance money when he covered Wallace's round, and who he seems to have detested.

[WallaceWackedHer]

[WallaceWackedHer]

The solution to the Wallace case proposed by myself and Josh Levin:

https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...l/my-solution/

Some of you will be livid LOL.

But this is what I (as well as my close friend and former Casebook poster Josh) truly believe to be the correct answer to the mystery.

If Parkes is talking out of his ass I'd go with a prank call exploit or the murder being entirely unrelated. If Wallace is involved I'll go with a hit job or some kind of accomplice (Waterhouse's suggestion is quite strong: Parry calling, Wallace killing his wife and dumping blood-stained items on Parry).

[WallaceWackedHer]

Now uploaded, The One Show's retelling of the Wallace case:

https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/videos/the-one-show-bbc-the-wallace-case-21-01-2020/

[WallaceWackedHer]

A write-up of the crime by myself, edited by Josh:

https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/general/the-murder-of-julia-wallace/

[WallaceWackedHer]

I should add if anyone thinks there's anything I should add to my site please suggest it.

Also I don't want any personal spins on anything on there, don't want to influence people's minds. It's very difficult to not "point out" things I think are important that could unfairly prejudice visitors, but I'm staying restrained. Even in dispelling myths I am concerned of dispelling too many about one person that could cause prejudice. Gotta attempt to keep a balance.

I do have exciting news for you incoming. I have got a hold of a rare TV episode on this case. NOT "The Man from the Pru" (though I have that too in higher quality than the YouTube one coming in the post), but "Britain's Most Baffling Murder".

Quite naturally I will be uploading this for the entertainment of my fellow Wallace friends and random enthusiasts.

I also am going to place a personal ad in the Liverpool Echo appealing for information.

---

One more thing about the timing. When did John Johnston usually return from work, 6.30? Was he home when the milk boy came.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Found the cabinet:

"In front of this, between the back kitchen doorway and the window looking out onto the backyard was a small cabinet, its top strewn with papers, books and a wooden 12-inch ruler.

Slightly above this, on the cabinet’s single shelf, was a line of books. On either side of the kitchen range was a recess of about 3 feet in width; the left-hand recess contained a low cupboard, about 2½ feet high with five shelves above it, four of which were filled with books. The top shelf, just over 7 feet from the floor, contained various items of bric-a-brac, a couple of books and, almost at its centre, the small cash box Wallace used to store his Prudential collection money.

Between the top of the cupboard and the first shelf was a gap of about 1½ feet containing a microscope Wallace had bought for £70 or £80 (after trying, unsuccessfully, to build his own), a box of chessmen, books and the home-made cabinet containing his photographic equipment – a piece of the door now lying on the floor in front of the cupboard. The recess to the right of the kitchen range was covered by two glass-panelled doors, under which was another cupboard, its surface, once again, littered with boxes, papers, bric-a-brac and what appear to have been Wallace’s radio, accumulator battery and headphones."

---

So it is in the location you mentioned moste. But how viable it is as something to grab, with a mantlepiece to the right, we'll have to figure that one out between us all.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I’m not being dishonest!

None of us were there so we have no reason to claim exact knowledge. 5 and 6 minutes were the times established by a reconstruction done by the police and the person who did the journey at the time. These are the facts not an assumption that they must have been lying.

Maybe it’s time for a break from the Wallace case. I might see if the Flat Earth Society has a forum perhaps.

Well it's less so about the time they did it in but the idea it was an ordinary walking pace, which if 5 minutes, is not the case. Especially for someone short, which you'd expect of a 14 year old, since taller people tend to have longer strides. Especially when carrying a load like a full crate of milk I'd naturally expect a slower pace.

If Alan was legitimately rushing, I mean, if there's evidence of that then 5 minutes could maybe work. Though others who saw him never suggested anything of the sort, and Elsie Wright heard the church bells toll which would be 6.30 (this before seeing Alan), providing a strong timestamp. Actually that's the strongest evidence of time given by any witness, since bells tolling is much more salient than a glance at a couple of clock hands that you have no real reason at all to take much notice of.

Realistically the neighbour's testimony is the least likely to be accurate, since they're not "on the clock" working, so have absolutely no reason to take the time down to the minute. Not only does someone working have more reason to keep an eye on the time (like Lily Lloyd vs. Lily's mother), but they were basing their time off of a clock which had recently been tuned to be accurate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not being dishonest!

None of us were there so we have no reason to claim exact knowledge. 5 and 6 minutes were the times established by a reconstruction done by the police and the person who did the journey at the time. These are the facts not an assumption that they must have been lying.

Maybe it’s time for a break from the Wallace case. I might see if the Flat Earth Society has a forum perhaps.

[WallaceWackedHer]

To be honest I’ve always thought that the damaged cupboard was near to the door. I thought that I had a photograph pointing to it but I don’t. I’m still of that opinion though but I could easily be mistaken. The issue with the cupboard beneath the bookshelf is that it’s quite high and doesn’t appear to stick out much. It looks a bit of a precarious way of reaching the shelf especially when there was a chair there which could easily have been used. I can’t really imagine anyone clambering onto the cupboard rather than the easy option of the chair.

I couldn’t help being reminded of this classic piece of Monty Python silliness.

https://youtu.be/e8eHILrlkoM

I could suggest a couple of reasons for the damaged cupboard. a) an attempt to make it look more like a robbery, or b) making it look like the killer didn’t know the exact location of the cash box. A locked cupboard might seem a likely place to hide a large sum of money.

It depends, if Julia is still alive (for example in the case of a distraction robbery) I think the person would be less likely to move the chair. If she's already dead, I imagine they'd be more likely to use the chair since the importance of sound is greatly diminished.

A point was made of how much it stuck out, and in fact it was quite a suitable ledge to stand on.

The ideas given here are what is suspected, it's what it looks like. But should it be in a position where someone could have used it to clamber up, then it aligns quite well with a shorter man having emptied that box.

As the prosecution, if at all possible, they should have focused on trying to prove the money in the pot with the stain on, was from the cash box. That would essentially supercede everything and prove almost beyond any shadow of doubt that Wallace is implicated in this crime. There would be only one innocent explanation, like the burglar going upstairs, seeing the stain, and realizing he can't keep such a thing. And still that's not a great one. So that if proven would be VERY strong evidence of guilt.