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

[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.

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

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

[OneRound]

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

[WallaceWackedHer]

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...

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

[WallaceWackedHer]

IF (even though I give it serious consideration, it's still a large ''if'') Wallace had an accomplice, I doubt it was Parry as he appears to have a decent alibi for the night of the killing. Furthermore, I doubt that either Wallace or Parry would have trusted the other to keep schtum.

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.

As posted previously, we don't know of everyone with whom Wallace had some involvement and to what extent. Consequently, it seems rash and artificial to narrow the field as to who might have been a possible accomplice.

Best regards,
OneRound

No I'm saying Gordon for very, very good reason.

Wallace has employed a multi-layered frame job against Gordon. He hasn't just said "oh yeah uh I guess Gordon knew I go to that chess club", he's also said ONLY Gordon and like, two other people know where the cash box is kept, and he's one of the few people Julia would let in.

He hasn't just taken a bunch of jewelry (and let's be honest he could have lied about stuff like non-existent bracelets even being stolen - who could prove him a liar?).

It's made to look like a targeted strike on the insurance box. HE has limited the pool of potential culprits to about 3 people.

That's a level of framing you employ only when you KNOW you can implicate the person. And the only way you can KNOW that is if they are involved and you can be sure they won't have an alibi.

Which Gordon didn't, hence falsified.

It's possible Wallace killed her and Parry had to get rid of the stuff, as per Parkes.

OR the alternative is he's innocent and it looks like Gordon is involved because he is. No framing.

[OneRound]

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.

IF (even though I give it serious consideration, it's still a large ''if'') Wallace had an accomplice, I doubt it was Parry as he appears to have a decent alibi for the night of the killing. Furthermore, I doubt that either Wallace or Parry would have trusted the other to keep schtum.

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.

As posted previously, we don't know of everyone with whom Wallace had some involvement and to what extent. Consequently, it seems rash and artificial to narrow the field as to who might have been a possible accomplice.

Best regards,
OneRound

[WallaceWackedHer]

I agree. I had no problem interpreting it.

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.

[WallaceWackedHer]

[QUOTE=Ven;n731804]

WHEN DO HIS DIARIES DATE BACK TO? MOST (YES, GENERALISING) GUYS MARRY TO HAVE A LONG LIFE WITH A LOVING PARTNER AND KIDS... and so you're not married!

Right.............

Anyway, so they go back to some time at least in the 20s because that's when the "newspaper argument" he had with her happened. I can check Wilkes' book for this.

He went to Liverpool for work, it has nothing to do with Julia at all. She's the one who loved Harrogate so much, since she loved the countryside and painting etc. William lost the political position, he took a new job...

[Ven]

[QUOTE=WallaceWackedHer;n731799]

He didn't want to stay in Harrogate, WHY, BASED ON WHAT he lost his post at the political place and moved to Liverpool for the Prudential. His dad was dead by now I think. NO, HIS DAD GOT HIM THE JOB WITH THE PRU He would have gone with or without Julia. NO, THEY MET IN 1910

He moved into Julia's swanky stately Harrogate home before this move. YES, WHEN THEY MARRIED WITH HIS FATHER

His dream was to work overseas like his brother but he couldn't because of the kidney disease. He never mentioned anything about raising a family or a desire to. Not in diaries or anything.

WHEN DO HIS DIARIES DATE BACK TO? MOST (YES, GENERALISING) GUYS MARRY TO HAVE A LONG LIFE WITH A LOVING PARTNER AND KIDS... and so you're not married!

[Ven]

I agree. I had no problem interpreting it.

[OneRound]

I’m sorry but you’re saying that just because you can’t understand it no one would. It’s a very general way that these kind of league tables are done. I don’t claim to be a genius but I understood it straight away. It’s very simple. The number in the box tells you who that person is due to play. Average people use them all the time in pub darts, dominoes and crib leagues. W, L and D are win, lose and draw. No letter means the game wasn’t played.

As the game against Chandler wasn’t filled in it’s possible that the results were handed to Beattie who hadn’t filled them in yet or that Wallace was meant to fill it in but had forgotten. But the point is that the table is easy to understand and a person looking at it would see that Wallace hadn’t played 3 out of his last four games. Obviously he wouldn’t be thinking “well he might have played all of these games but not filled the board in going back a whole month.” He’d very naturally have assumed that Wallace had failed to play 3 games. To an average pub or club visiting man this table would have posed no problems.

I'm fully with Herlock on this. I wouldn't say that I'm more than an average pub goer and games player but, in line with Herlock's explanation* above and earlier, the table is clear and straightforward to me.

Best regards,
OneRound

EDIT and PS: * Just to emphasise - I didn't need Herlock's explanation to understand the table although it's apparent that's not the case for all.

[WallaceWackedHer]

[QUOTE=Ven;n731797]

To stay in Harrogate and work in politics... whatever... he had to move to Liverpool and take up a job, to raise a family, on a job his Dad found for him

He didn't want to stay in Harrogate, he lost his post at the political place and moved to Liverpool for the Prudential. His dad was dead by now I think. He would have gone with or without Julia.

He moved into Julia's swanky stately Harrogate home before this move.

His dream was to work overseas like his brother but he couldn't because of the kidney disease. He never mentioned anything about raising a family or a desire to. Not in diaries or anything.

[Ven]

[QUOTE=WallaceWackedHer;n731795]

I mean it seems like some vendetta against the elderly that some people have lmao. Like "ohhh she's older than he thought, no wonder he would cave her head in!"
Again, you missed my point about the age issue. So you are not married... or been in love I think.
There's a lot of assumption about the fact he had even recently found this out (and that he didn't already know), that it would bother him enough to KILL her, that he didn't tell any of his pals or coworkers "omfg guys my wife lied to me about her age!" before it occurred to him to bump her off... Assumption that he even wanted children...
Again, you missed my point about the age issue. So you are not married... or been in love I think.
You know, kill her as opposed to the other things he may have done. It seems pretty damn extreme.
What other things he might have done?
What dream did he give up? Julia's dream is the one that was snatched from her. She loved Harrogate, and this guy shipped her off to a concrete jungle.

Kidney disease ruined William's dream, not Julia.

To stay in Harrogate and work in politics... whatever... he had to move to Liverpool and take up a job, to raise a family, on a job his Dad found for him

[WallaceWackedHer]

[QUOTE=Ven;n731785]

I don't know, I mean it took pages upon pages for people to finally accept the milk boy came after 18:30. At least that's been cleared up. But there's probably more.
I never had a problem with later than 6.30. In my paper I show how he only need a few minutes to do the deed and get out.
I'm sure it will take at least 100 pages to convince people William may have had help...

I also do see a discovery of the age and deception as a possible addition to a motive but not just straight reason to kill lol.
Maybe you're the type to steal millions from poor defenceless old people or think it makes perfect sense to kill someone for being old.
This sentence bothers me. Firstly how do you steal millions from poor people and however did I give you that impression. Secondly, you're missing my point if you think I said it was because she was simply old. This is why I have asked whether you are married (and I'm guessing you're not). William was lied to from the minute he met his wife, the person he was going to spend the rest of his life with, having kids, giving up his real dreams...
But I think there would be additional factors.

I mean it seems like some vendetta against the elderly that some people have lmao. Like "ohhh she's older than he thought, no wonder he would cave her head in!"

There's a lot of assumption about the fact he had even recently found this out (and that he didn't already know), that it would bother him enough to KILL her, that he didn't tell any of his pals or coworkers "omfg guys my wife lied to me about her age!" before it occurred to him to bump her off... Assumption that he even wanted children...

You know, kill her as opposed to the other things he may have done. It seems pretty damn extreme.

What dream did he give up? Julia's dream is the one that was snatched from her. She loved Harrogate, and this guy shipped her off to a concrete jungle.

Kidney disease ruined William's dream, not Julia.