Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by OneRound View Post

    I'm inclined to dismiss Parkes' story as the ramblings of a sick old man, possibly suffering from dementia.
    That would be fine, but I bet you don't know it was corroborated. Someone else from the time said Parkes had told them the same thing very shortly after the murder.

    Dolly Atkinson I think.

    John Sharpe Johnston had dementia and confessed. It was a VERYYYY convincing confession simply because it made use of something SO obscure and weird that only somebody very well acquainted with the Wallaces could have said it... And that was about the cat being missing. He gave the cat's name (never reported anywhere AFAIK) and said they'd taken it to lure Julia over.

    It's SUCH an obscure weird fact (that the cat was missing) that I am sure he really did say it - or whoever did, knew something and pinned it on John when it was really their own confession. But he had ACTUAL dementia at the time.

    The nursing home the guy who reported it was at was confirmed as being the one John had been at... If it interests anyone the man who said John said this was called Stan.

    Stan was the name of the third Pru employee Wallace fingered along with Parry and Marsden.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-12-2020, 12:00 PM.

    Comment


    • Oh hang on sorry, more Pru people were named I think. I for some reason remembered him saying Stan Young after Parry and Marsden... But still...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

        That would be fine, but I bet you don't know it was corroborated. Someone else from the time said Parkes had told them the same thing very shortly after the murder.

        Dolly Atkinson I think.


        John Sharpe Johnston had dementia and confessed. It was a VERYYYY convincing confession simply because it made use of something SO obscure and weird that only somebody very well acquainted with the Wallaces could have said it... And that was about the cat being missing. He gave the cat's name (never reported anywhere AFAIK) and said they'd taken it to lure Julia over.

        It's SUCH an obscure weird fact (that the cat was missing) that I am sure he really did say it - or whoever did, knew something and pinned it on John when it was really their own confession. But he had ACTUAL dementia at the time.

        The nursing home the guy who reported it was at was confirmed as being the one John had been at... If it interests anyone the man who said John said this was called Stan.

        Stan was the name of the third Pru employee Wallace fingered along with Parry and Marsden.
        Yes, I'm pretty sure Dolly Atkinson was on the Radio City broadcast giving at least some support to Parkes. However, I still just can't buy what he alleged. All too outlandish for me. What would make me change my mind on that? Probably nothing short of dated cine film showing Parry driving up to the garage on the night and waving a bloodied mitten around! Unreasonable on my part? Probably yes but that's my take.

        Best regards,
        OneRound

        Comment


        • Originally posted by OneRound View Post

          Yes, I'm pretty sure Dolly Atkinson was on the Radio City broadcast giving at least some support to Parkes. However, I still just can't buy what he alleged. All too outlandish for me. What would make me change my mind on that? Probably nothing short of dated cine film showing Parry driving up to the garage on the night and waving a bloodied mitten around! Unreasonable on my part? Probably yes but that's my take.

          Best regards,
          OneRound
          Sure that's fine. I buy him, it's the bar thing that makes me "lolwat". But if Parry is caught up in something and didn't want or expect this then meh, maybe...

          What are your thoughts on the cat? It's SUCHHH a weird thing to say, and mega obscure - only those very well acquainted with the case would even know the cat had been missing... I wonder if it really was used in some way, just not by John. It's one of those things you "just can't make up" if you know what I mean...

          The guy Slemen was appealing for info specifically on Johnston, so maybe the guy who said about the cat really did know something and just pretended John did it all.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

            Sure that's fine. I buy him, it's the bar thing that makes me "lolwat". But if Parry is caught up in something and didn't want or expect this then meh, maybe...

            What are your thoughts on the cat? It's SUCHHH a weird thing to say, and mega obscure - only those very well acquainted with the case would even know the cat had been missing... I wonder if it really was used in some way, just not by John. It's one of those things you "just can't make up" if you know what I mean...

            The guy Slemen was appealing for info specifically on Johnston, so maybe the guy who said about the cat really did know something and just pretended John did it all.
            Tbh with you, my knowledge of the case doesn't extend to that detail and so it's difficult / impossible to give a meaningful opinion. I do agree with you that it was a weird thing for Johnston to say. However, I would though always be wary of attaching too much significance to anything said by someone with dementia. Possibly he knew and heard things / rumours at the time and over the years which he added to his own delusions as his death neared.

            Best regards,
            OneRound

            Comment


            • Originally posted by OneRound View Post

              Tbh with you, my knowledge of the case doesn't extend to that detail and so it's difficult / impossible to give a meaningful opinion. I do agree with you that it was a weird thing for Johnston to say. However, I would though always be wary of attaching too much significance to anything said by someone with dementia. Possibly he knew and heard things / rumours at the time and over the years which he added to his own delusions as his death neared.

              Best regards,
              OneRound
              Yes I don't think he did it (I did before, strongly - he's legitimately a strong suspect)... But I'm wondering if it WASN'T John who said it, but actually the man named "Stan" giving information pretending that it was Johnston who had said it/did it. Or Johnston DID say it because he had heard it from someone else (or knew exactly what had happened) and due to dementia believed he himself did it.

              To my knowledge, none of the books or articles on the case give much detail on the "Stan Young" Wallace named as a suspect, who worked for the Pru.

              I also have no idea how long it was missing for. Goodman gives no time, Slemen says "days" plural, newspapers (only one mention) says 24 hours.

              It would be less unusual if it was July or something, but this was a rainy and freezing cold January. Then it just turns up again on the night of the murder.

              It's really peculiar and the fact it was mentioned, given the obscurity of that fact, makes it worthy of investigation. To me it seems like something too specific, too obscure, to simply cast aside without even giving it thought. For a man with dementia that's a very elaborate thing to come up with if it's just rambling.
              Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-12-2020, 01:51 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by OneRound View Post

                Hi Herlock - well, no rotten fruit and veg from me. An open and honest assessment with your views well explained. I particularly liked you distinguishing between fact and supposition, and not trying to ram the latter down our throats and make anyone out to be an idiot if he or she disagreed.

                When I first started looking into this case a couple of years or so ago, I was inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to William Wallace and put his odd actions down to the fact that … the geeky, chess playing, insurance man was odd. However, I've since formed the view that his actions weren't just odd but downright suspicious. Your piece - and I've read the whole full length shooting match! - goes a very long way to supporting those suspicions and pointing towards Wallace being responsible for his wife's murder. As you are at pains to emphasise, that's insufficient to legally convict him (and the jury were wrong to do so) but that's not what we are about here.

                From what we know of Wallace's character, his actions and inactions before and after the murder seem so unlikely if he were indeed innocent. Just a few examples - the normally meticulous Wallace not bothering to check or consult a map for where he was going for a potentially important meeting but to wing it; having set off, the usually shy and reserved Wallace trumpeting to so many where he was going and to whom he was going to see and then his refusal to accept the non-existence of MGE - I loved you likening it to him being thwarted in his attempt to discover the source of the Nile; and then all the performance with the keys and the bolt with his neighbours. Nope, together it's all too much for me to buy. I therefore side with you in believing he planned it.

                Where though I found your piece less convincing was in the actual physical killing of Julia. Although you make the case for Wallace having sufficient time, it was still tight for him to do so. Furthermore, there had to be the risk of blood splatter on him (even if it didn't occur) which may have stopped him from personally wielding the weapon. That then leads to another issue - if he did kill her himself, what did he do with the weapon and why wasn't it found? To your credit, you don't duck this but acknowledge it and don't attempt an invented explanation.

                This makes me wonder if Wallace was aided by an accomplice who actually killed Julia and perhaps made the phone call to the chess club which would of course explain why Wallace's voice wasn't recognised. [I gave more of my thinking about this on the main thread in January last year to your mate Antony as he requested although he p*ss*d me off by not having the grace to even acknowledge.] ADMITTEDLY (it's a large ''admittedly''), this then prompts the question - who could that person have been? I don't know and don't pretend to but don't see it as inconceivable. As I've said in earlier posts, we don't know everything about Wallace and anyone who says we do is a fool.

                On one particular bit of detail, I'm unclear why you attach so much significance to the killer turning the lights off and that pointing to Wallace. If Wallace killed her himself, I would have thought he would have wanted to leave the lights on so as to make it seem that Julia was safely there by herself when he left. If someone else killed her, I could more readily envisage that person turning the lights off to aid his escape unseen.

                Best regards,
                OneRound



                Hi One Round,

                Its good to hear from another escapee from the A6 thread. Thanks for your comments. Yes I’d never say that the case was solved but I simply that that Wallace is a far more likely candidate than anyone else and the more I look and think about the case the more firm are my opinions.

                On the question of the lights.

                Like most things there are no definites here but the question is who would benefit most? A guilty Wallace or another (by another I mean either someone from the single accomplice theory or WWH’s 2 accomplice theory.)

                We know that there was no attempt to search for cash or valuables after they found the meagre haul of 5 (to be divided between 2 or 3 people) and we know that no one washed away any blood in the sink. We know that they would have exited by the back door and escaped via the alleyway so it’s almost impossible to see why they would have taken the time and effort to turn of the lights. They’d surely have left pretty much as soon as everything went pear shaped with Julia’s murder.

                Wallace might have turned the lights off in caution. Probably over-caution to be honest. He was (imo) working to a plan where he would discover Julia’s body later that evening. He might have worried that if someone had come to the door say 10 minutes after he’d left (maybe his sister-in-law Amy?) and seen the lights on but received no response to her knocks then this might have led to panic and the police being called. The police would then have had a killer arriving at the house as William left, talking his way in, attempted to steal the contents of the box, killing Julia after being discovered then making his escape without leaving any blood outside of the Parlour all within a 10 minute time window. And this with Wallace always likely to have been, initially at least, the first person looked at.

                Now of course a visitor could have still arrived, seen the lights off and not bothered knocking. It would still have narrowed the window if they had come forward later (which Amy for example certainly would have.) Maybe Wallace only turned the lights down as a last minute thought without having time to think it through fully? The lights were certainly off though. It’s unlikely in the extreme that Julia would have wanted to be alone in a darkened house so we are left with Wallace or sneak thief/killer? I can’t think of a logical reason for the ST/killer. So maybe it’s a case of - a not particularly good reason versus no discernible reason?
                Regards

                Herlock






                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                  The other person would be Gordon Parry.

                  If Wallace killed Julia he didn't just push the boat out and make it look like it COULD be Gordon, it's a very multi-layered framing that leads people to the conclusion that he's essentially the only person apart from William who could have done it.

                  He didn't just make use of the chess schedule, he went further. He says Julia would only admit people personally known to her. Then further, he says only Gordon and Marsden know where the box is kept. It's a targeted strike on the box.

                  Nobody wanting to get away with a crime narrows a suspect pool especially to that degree, unless there are personal hopes for revenge, or they know they can do so safely because the person is indeed involved hence 100% assurance of no alibi.

                  The sole reason for the crime to be as it is, is if it's legitimate, OR it's been done in such a way as to purposefully frame Gordon.
                  Firstly Wallace knows he’s going to be the first suspect no matter what. He’s not reliant on another suspect to convince the police of his innocence. He’s relying on - everyone giving him a good character, no obvious motive, a connected phone call that didn’t sound like him, a short time frame for a murder in which he’d become soaked in blood and therefore a clean up, his desperate/genuine search for MGE. All of these things Wallace would have felt would have been enough to have convinced the police of his innocence. Plus we know very well that many killers feel themselves cleverer than the police.

                  And so Wallace wasn’t relying on pinning it on Parry or Marsden because he would have known that they might have had an alibi (something that he had no control over) but it took absolutely no effort or risk to nudge the police in their direction. If they had alibi’s then ho-hum. If they didn’t then they become of interest to the police.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                    You can interpret it because you've been told how to.

                    I'm inclined to believe anyone saying they knew what it meant before being told are lying. The scores for the 19th show he didn't attend. It's heiroglyphic tier.

                    Whatever the case, it's not "easy" for anyone to see when he didn't go. Total nonsense. I won't allow it. I won't.

                    I can also interpret it now. Not before HS explained it, nor could my friend Josh who's into this case, nor can my dad who plays darts for a regional team (and is damn good at it btw)... I just sent him the pic and asked if he can tell what days people didn't turn up. He said maybe the Xs are no shows. Which is what any layman would be likely to assume.
                    A layman who didn’t know that a game of chess requires 2 people? A layman who can’t count that there are 7 players in the league? A layman that doesn’t know that there are 3 possible outcomes to a game of chess Win, Lose and Draw. And one that can’t work out that 7 divided by 2 = 3 with 1 left over. Therefore, every week there’s 1 player without a partner to play.

                    This is simple stuff.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






                    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Firstly Wallace knows he’s going to be the first suspect no matter what. He’s not reliant on another suspect to convince the police of his innocence. He’s relying on - everyone giving him a good character, no obvious motive, a connected phone call that didn’t sound like him, a short time frame for a murder in which he’d become soaked in blood and therefore a clean up, his desperate/genuine search for MGE. All of these things Wallace would have felt would have been enough to have convinced the police of his innocence. Plus we know very well that many killers feel themselves cleverer than the police.

                      And so Wallace wasn’t relying on pinning it on Parry or Marsden because he would have known that they might have had an alibi (something that he had no control over) but it took absolutely no effort or risk to nudge the police in their direction. If they had alibi’s then ho-hum. If they didn’t then they become of interest to the police.
                      No this doesn't work.

                      The fact Parry has an alibi is why to this very day so many people say it MUST be Wallace 'cause he's the only one who knew cash was kept there except Parry - and Parry didn't do it.

                      It's like a MAJOR point of evidence as to who could have done it, because they had to know money was kept there.

                      If he killed Julia, Gordon called and he threw him under the bus because he KNEW he could. It's really an easy thing to see... Any alternative is reaching hard.

                      A smart man would have sent himself to see Mr. Wilson at some address in Southport, knock knock, oh he doesn't live here? Okay bye. Return home. Jewelry and obvious things missing. Could be anyone.

                      If that's what happened would we even be debating any case at all? He would have got away with it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        A layman who didn’t know that a game of chess requires 2 people? A layman who can’t count that there are 7 players in the league? A layman that doesn’t know that there are 3 possible outcomes to a game of chess Win, Lose and Draw. And one that can’t work out that 7 divided by 2 = 3 with 1 left over. Therefore, every week there’s 1 player without a partner to play.

                        This is simple stuff.
                        I know that and I'm saying it's not easy to read. I ALWAYS assumed the Xs were no-shows until I read the trial. That's why I was like "wtf are people talking about he missed all those days he only missed one?". I thought the numbers were points or something.

                        If I didn't get it, Josh didn't get it, my dad didn't get it, then it's not as easy as you're saying it is.

                        I'm not accepting the assertion that it is.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                          That would be fine, but I bet you don't know it was corroborated. Someone else from the time said Parkes had told them the same thing very shortly after the murder.

                          Dolly Atkinson I think.

                          John Sharpe Johnston had dementia and confessed. It was a VERYYYY convincing confession simply because it made use of something SO obscure and weird that only somebody very well acquainted with the Wallaces could have said it... And that was about the cat being missing. He gave the cat's name (never reported anywhere AFAIK) and said they'd taken it to lure Julia over.

                          It's SUCH an obscure weird fact (that the cat was missing) that I am sure he really did say it - or whoever did, knew something and pinned it on John when it was really their own confession. But he had ACTUAL dementia at the time.

                          The nursing home the guy who reported it was at was confirmed as being the one John had been at... If it interests anyone the man who said John said this was called Stan.

                          Stan was the name of the third Pru employee Wallace fingered along with Parry and Marsden.
                          Just because Dolly Atkinson heard the lie too doesn’t make it true. One of the Atkinson brothers I believe said that the story of Parry’s visit was common knowledge around the garage. We have to ask how, when we’re talking about the most talked about crime in Liverpool crime history since the Maybrick poisoning in 1889, that this ‘common knowledge’ didn’t leak out until 50 years later? Surely the suggestion of a local lad virtually confessing to the murder, pointing out the location of the murder weapon and still being dismissed by the police, would have circulated like wild fire. Apparently not though.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                            I know that and I'm saying it's not easy to read. I ALWAYS assumed the Xs were no-shows until I read the trial. That's why I was like "wtf are people talking about he missed all those days he only missed one?". I thought the numbers were points or something.

                            If I didn't get it, Josh didn't get it, my dad didn't get it, then it's not as easy as you're saying it is.

                            I'm not accepting the assertion that it is.
                            Ok. No problem. Three people don’t understand it (one of whom is American where things like this might be done differently) and so it’s indecipherable.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by OneRound View Post

                              Yes, I'm pretty sure Dolly Atkinson was on the Radio City broadcast giving at least some support to Parkes. However, I still just can't buy what he alleged. All too outlandish for me. What would make me change my mind on that? Probably nothing short of dated cine film showing Parry driving up to the garage on the night and waving a bloodied mitten around! Unreasonable on my part? Probably yes but that's my take.

                              Best regards,
                              OneRound
                              Not unreasonable at all. The story is unbelievable. And after saying and doing all of this self-incriminating stuff not once does Parry even ask Parkes to keep quiet about it.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                              Comment


                              • QUOTE. : I feel you are saying Parry because he's a known and dodgy character to have had some involvement with Wallace. However, there's no substantive evidence against Parry; particularly, as I'm inclined to dismiss Parkes' story as the ramblings of a sick old man, possibly suffering from dementia.

                                Or on Acid !
                                Last edited by moste; 02-12-2020, 05:57 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X