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

[WallaceWackedHer]

I don’t think that any murder suspect in the history of crime has ever had such efforts done on his behalf. It genuinely baffles me. I used to ask Rod “are you related to William?” because I could never understand, and still can’t, understand the exertions on his part. It’s staggering. Every aspect of this case points to a guilty Wallace. Statistics point more to William. The viciousness points more to William. His lies about being a stranger to the area scream William. The ludicrous persistence on a journey that 24 hours earlier he wasn’t bothered about points to William. The lack of blood outside the Parlour speaks of a caution that only William would need to employ. The lights being off categorically point to William. The evidence of the front door bolt points to a lie by William and therefore his guilt. William’s reluctance to admit that he’d ‘felt’ that someone was in the room points to William. A phone call made at just the time that William would have passed the box. The most obviously staged robbery ever! And there’s more..

Yet despite this Mount Everest we still bend over backwards to try and involve a man for whom there’s not a smidgeon of real evidence of his involvement. This man has a cast-iron alibi and so, in an attempt to shoehorn him into the frame because dodgy Parry ‘must’ have been guilty, we construct scenarios where he might have been the mastermind. And all this time the blinkers are firmly put in place as far as William is concerned.

To be honest, frustration is setting in with me on this case. In any other case a suspect with so much against him would have meant the case being considered all but solved. It’s not even close. Wallace is miles and miles and miles ahead of any other suspects. In actual fact there are no other suspects because we cannot place anyone else at or near to the crime scene but this is not considered Important for some reason. I can’t see a scintilla of evidence for anyone else. There’s not a single fact that can discount Wallace.

You know full well nobody says Parry killed the woman, and full well what he's accused of is placing the call.

No efforts are made on William's behalf, society disowned him completely and 99.9% of the world's population apart from Johnathan Goodman just assumed that because he just BARELY could have done it then he obviously did.

I have to ask are you related to Parry? Because trying to claim he mixed up his days, even though William's guilt and Parry's involvement aren't mutually exclusive, is strange.

I don't concern myself with him asking people where the address is and such. It's not relevant. It's behavior that looks condemning in retrospect BECAUSE of what happened after. He is a stranger in the area. He knows Crewe's house/Green Lane, the cinema, and Calderstones park. That's it. We know this guy is a recluse.

The viciousness of 3 to 12 strikes, good job McFall! It's not even uncommon in other murders where the person did not know the killer if you look at crimes at the time. It means nothing.

I know the type of logic you employ and I don't think it's a good way to work things out but to employ the same: You think this man relying on being able to leave his house without even the tiniest drop of blood on him is going to hit her 12 times? And not do the mega obvious thing of chucking a covering over her head?

The lights, definite faulty logic there. Nobody loitering the home is leaving them on. And to be honest I'd feel safer rushing out of a dark house than one with lights on. Just sayin'. But more importantly again: nobody loitering the home is leaving them on.

The front door bolt was never proven to be a lie.

What it is, is that you decided over a decade ago that the guy's guilty and the police and prosecution are right, and that's it.

I thought he was too. But nah, he's not. Well - definitely he's not guilty alone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, I have just purchased the move to murder book on the Wallace case [not arrived yet]. How would you rate it ?
Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

My apologies for missing your post. Move To Murder is one of the 5 books I’d say that anyone interested in the case should get along with Goodman, Wilkes, Murphy and Gannon. It looks at the main theories and analyses the likelihood then Antony gives his preference. I disagree with his preferred solution but that’s no issue. I’d also recommend the other books in the series too

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi Darryl,

My apologies for missing your post. Move To Murder is one of the 5 books I’d say that anyone interested in the case should get along with Goodman, Wilkes, Murphy and Gannon. It looks at the main theories and analyses the likelihood then Antony gives his preference. I disagree with his preferred solution but that’s no issue. I’d also recommend the other books in the series too

Wilkes book is kinda meh really. Might as well just listen to Radio City... Bit of a waste of money.

Antony's book makes it impossible to tell fact from fiction.

Goodman and Murphy are biased and sharpen and level but are good.

Dorothy L. Sayers' write up is really good tbh. She makes many of the same points it's taken amateur sleuths like me decades to come up with. I mean she mentions the same exact things we're discussing now with the same exact points. Smart woman. And there's contemporary info since she lived around that era.

Move to Murder is a good book in the sense that the timings etc. are accurate, and I think it recounts the story well until the recreations which could confuse a casual reader (you'll be like "wait, is that artistic license or fact?").

Lustgarten's chapter on the case is really good IIRC.

[caz]

Parry doesn't need to know what he's ringing for. After the deed is done, he's now essentially an accomplice to murder and would be terrified to come forward. Same in a robbery scenario, I don't think he wanted Julia killed - the plan is to keep her busy while things are looted and the thugs leave with her none the wiser. I don't think he for a second thinks these people will beat her to death, I also don't think he's the "ringleader" in any case, I think he's an upper class drama-club boy trying to pretend he's a gangster who's in desperate need of money.

Intuitively although it makes less sense, I feel like a person such as Marsden was the one who came and was admitted by Julia, and that he's the killer.

If you're saying there's no way the two could have been in on it together then that's strong for innocence, because for Parry to have no involvement you have to ignore a fake alibi with a match on timing, and call John Parkes not only an exaggerator but complete liar.

Hi WWH,

Isn't that a contradiction? If Parry was terrified to come forward, because he'd now be an accomplice to murder, what the hell does that do to the [belated and highly questionable] account given by Parkes? Would Parry not have been equally terrified that Parkes would come forward and promptly drop him fairly and squarely in the you know what? He'd have been insane to gamble on Parkes not doing so, or coming forward and then not being taken seriously.

What I was saying is that I can't see Wallace being 'in on it' with anyone else. I can't comment further on pairs of suspects IF Wallace was innocent. I described the only scenario that struck me as theoretically possible: Parry making the call on the Monday, to prepare the way for a thug or two of his acquaintance to enter the house on the Tuesday in Wallace's absence. But Parry would have had no control over Julia's safety in those circumstances, much less been able to predict that she'd be 'none the wiser'! You seem to be moulding Parry's personality and thinking to fit your speculation.

Johnston asked Wallace how much money had been taken, Wallace didn't volunteer it.

So if our neighbour joined my husband and found me dead on the floor of Brown Towers, and then asked how much money was missing, I'm supposed to think it reasonable that hubby would meekly check and report the figure, rather than saying "I really couldn't give a flying one right now. My wife is lying there with her skull caved in, man!" Come on, WWH, that's simply ridiculous.

What you're saying about Close doesn't make sense. Apparently he's trying to beat the clock, if Alan is the only person to corroborate that Julia wasn't dead by 10 past 6 he has no alibi if Close doesn't come forward. He doesn't need to say "Alan came at ___" he just has to say, when asked who was the last person to see Julia alive, that it might have been the milk boy.

No, what I was saying is that all Wallace knew was that the milk boy would be knocking on the door at some point. IF Wallace killed Julia, he had to wait until Close had left, or risk the lad knocking while the murder was taking place or shortly afterwards. If he didn't bring up the milk delivery when being quizzed by the police, there must have been a reason. IF guilty, was it a case of "least said, soonest mended", because he knew how much time had passed between Close's departure and his own, and it had enabled him to do the deed and get out of the house on time - just. However, if he had been innocent, he would surely have remembered it IF the boy had seen Julia alive just moments before she had seen Wallace off, which was "at a quarter to seven". So why would he have failed to say so, knowing his life could soon depend on it? My answer is that Close didn't see Julia just moments before Wallace left the house, but a good ten minutes or more, thus giving a guilty man the opportunity to kill his wife uninterrupted, or causing an innocent one to forget all about the milk by the time he was ready to leave for his business trip.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

. You know full well nobody says Parry killed the woman, and full well what he's accused of is placing the call.

Goodman and Wilkes both do. A percentage of the voters on ColdCaseJury do.

No efforts are made on William's behalf, society disowned him completely and 99.9% of the world's population apart from Johnathan Goodman just assumed that because he just BARELY could have done it then he obviously did.

Im not talking about people at the time. I’m saying that there’s a tendency when looking at the case to excuse or dismiss.

I have to ask are you related to Parry? Because trying to claim he mixed up his days, even though William's guilt and Parry's involvement aren't mutually exclusive, is strange.

Ive simply said that it’s possible that he was mistaken. People usually need a reason to lie and Parry had no good reason to do so. And when people give a knowingly false alibi they usually believe that it won’t get found out (until the cctv footage appears, or the unknown witness etc) And yet Parry, with three days to come up with something, gives an alibi that even a toddler would have known would have been found out.

There’s simply nothing wrong with this thinking as opposed to thinking “well we know that he was guilty so it was obviously a lie.”

I don't concern myself with him asking people where the address is and such. It's not relevant. It's behavior that looks condemning in retrospect BECAUSE of what happened after. He is a stranger in the area. He knows Crewe's house/Green Lane, the cinema, and Calderstones park. That's it. We know this guy is a recluse.

Wallace isn’t a recluse. Chess club, violin lessons, visits to Calderstones Park, lectures at the college, every day walking around as part of his job. He wasn’t Keith Richards but he wasn’t a recluse.

Saying that it’s not relevant is another example of dismissing the inconvenient. Wallace lied. He wasn’t a complete stranger in the area and more to the point he knew very well how to get to his destination because he’d used the very same tram numerous times. It’s a charade and quite an obvious one.

The viciousness of 3 to 12 strikes, good job McFall! It's not even uncommon in other murders where the person did not know the killer if you look at crimes at the time. It means nothing.

And I’ve never claimed that it was anything like a clincher. It’s a very minor point but it gives us a possible statical pointer.

I know the type of logic you employ and I don't think it's a good way to work things out but to employ the same: You think this man relying on being able to leave his house without even the tiniest drop of blood on him is going to hit her 12 times? And not do the mega obvious thing of chucking a covering over her head?

In actual fact I think it entirely likely that Wallace might have expected to have got at least some blood on him (the top half of his head; his hand etc) If he had done so then there would have been absolutely no issue for him to have washed in the back kitchen sink. Any blood seen by the police might easily have been explained as a thief/killer washing his hands before he went out.

The lights, definite faulty logic there. Nobody loitering the home is leaving them on. And to be honest I'd feel safer rushing out of a dark house than one with lights on. Just sayin'. But more importantly again: nobody loitering the home is leaving them on.

Sorry but that simply isn’t the case. There is no evidence that anyone loitered around after Julia’s death. Indeed that lack of any evidence of a robbery would strongly suggest that, if she was killed because she’d disturbed a robbery, then her killer fled the scene almost immediately and via the back door. Turning of the lights would have been an utterly pointless waste of time and effort. But not for William though. The lights being out strongly point to William without a shadow of a doubt.

The front door bolt was never proven to be a lie.

Very little in this case is conclusively proven but the testimony of PC Williams and Florence Johnston suggest very forcefully that the door wasn’t bolted. Viewed as it stands anyone seeing this would accept that strong likelihood. And if the door wasn’t bolted then William is the murderer.

. What it is, is that you decided over a decade ago that the guy's guilty and the police and prosecution are right, and that's it.

I thought he was too. But nah, he's not. Well - definitely he's not guilty alone

So yet again my opinions are dishonest?!

For a start I’ve only been interested in this case since I joined Casebook in 2017.

What I’ve done is looked at what we know over and over and over again. I’ve read the case for and the cases against and I’m quite capable of forming an honestly arrived at opinion and I’m as likely to be as right or wrong as the next person. It’s not an isolated one either. Unless Josh has changed his mind recently (and he may have and if he had then I would have no issue with that) he has always very strongly favoured Wallace. Caz is very knowledgeable on the case and she favours Wallace (although perhaps not as strongly as I do) Moste and Ven both favour Wallace as does Etenguy and Abby I think? On the ColdCaseJury site (and despite the book favouring the Accomplice theory) more people voted for Wallace alone than any other suspect/solution. Noted crime historian and expert Stewart Evans (a very respected man on Casebook and elsewhere; and a man who was a friend of Goodman) believes Wallace to have been guilt. Authors/researchers Murphy and Bartle believed Wallace to have been guilty. Antony accepts the possibility that Wallace might have been guilty. So I’m hardly proposing any kind of wacky, out-there theory. The fact that I’ve consistently favoured Wallace means that I haven’t seen a scintilla of evidence that puts a dent in the theory. And let’s be honest, a few months ago you were absolutely convinced that the Johnston’s were involved. You’ve also theorised about the Anfield Housebreaker suggesting that the crime scene strongly pointed to him (and even that he might have been Johnston.) You've also at times appeared to strongly favour an Amy connection. And that Wallace was involved in a sado-masochistic relationship. Or that he was gay. None of these are based upon anything but rumour. I stick to what’s know yet you persist in saying that my opinions aren’t honestly arrived at.

You’ve done a great job in re-igniting and maintaining interest in the case. You are to be commended for the excellent resource that is you r Wallace website. But the last thing that I want is that another Wallace thread descends into the bad old days of you-know-who. The days when opinions were stated as fact. It’s now becoming too frustrating to post when glaringly obvious points are dismissed. I don’t mind at all anyone disputing Wallace as a suspect or proposing alternatives but there really is no point in continuing when a) it’s repeatedly stated or insinuated that my opinions haven’t been arrived at honestly, or b) it’s stated that Wallace alone has been disproven when it so very obviously hasn’t. I’ll say again that he’s the strongest suspect by an absolute mile. He’s not definitely guilty, but no one comes remotely close as a suspect.

[caz]

The problem of course is that there’s not a smidgeon of evidence to connect Marsden to the crime. He was just about to marry into a good family. We have no reason for suspecting that he was in any way short of cash. He had no history of criminality whatsoever. It was only Wallace that talked of ‘financial irregularities.’ Gannon found zero evidence of this though. So there’s simply nothing to connect him to the case except that he’d had a client called Qualtrough. Marsden is a name and nothing more.

We have Wallace giving a list of people that Julia would have let in. For everyone it’s just a case of name, who they were and where they lived. Not only does he write a long paragraph on Parry including his financial irregularities but in his much shorter paragraph on Marsden he talks of rumours of financial irregularities and pointedly describes him as ‘very plausible.’

Im fairly convinced that William deliberately set up the crime to look like it was committed by someone that knew the house and the financial arrangements. He then dangled two likely lads under the police’s noses and hoped. Lets remember, we only have William’s word that Julia would only have let in certain people. It’s also strange that Wallace didn’t mention suspecting Parry during the investigation (maybe he felt that the police might think that he was deliberately using him to deflect attention from himself) and yet, after his acquittal, he becomes convinced of his guilt. This is strange. He’d received no new information. The police had investigated and exonerated him. It’s not as if Wallace had hired a detective to look into Parry. So why was he so convinced?

I think Wallace was p*ss*d off that his efforts to drop Parry in it hadn’t worked. Plus, as some people still felt him guilty, he needed a fall guy.

Parry and Marsden were names on a piece of paper put there by William to benefit William.

imo of course.

Hi Herlock,

Thanks for the welcome back.

I do find it incredible that an innocent Wallace, grieving for his brutally murdered wife, would not have been frantically racking his brains over who knew enough about the couple and their social, business and financial arrangements, to have set up this elaborate plan to lure him - and only him - out of the house, so they could help themselves, while a helpless Julia was at home alone. How furious would he have been, to think how cruelly he had been tricked, and how defenceless his wife must have been, and how he was suspected of being responsible for this creature's monstrous crime? How would it have taken Wallace that long to suspect Parry's involvement, IF Parry had indeed been involved? And how could Wallace have restrained himself from voicing that suspicion at the earliest opportunity, when not to do so would leave himself as the only viable suspect for the police to work on? Since Wallace did go on to put Parry squarely in the frame, it's not as if he would have feared repercussions if he had done so at the time and was proved wrong. In fact, IF Wallace was guilty, maybe that was what he did fear - that if he made too much use of Parry early on, and the man could prove he had no involvement in either the call or the crime, what could his own next move have been?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Thanks for the welcome back.

I do find it incredible that an innocent Wallace, grieving for his brutally murdered wife, would not have been frantically racking his brains over who knew enough about the couple and their social, business and financial arrangements, to have set up this elaborate plan to lure him - and only him - out of the house, so they could help themselves, while a helpless Julia was at home alone. How furious would he have been, to think how cruelly he had been tricked, and how defenceless his wife must have been, and how he was suspected of being responsible for this creature's monstrous crime? How would it have taken Wallace that long to suspect Parry's involvement, IF Parry had indeed been involved? And how could Wallace have restrained himself from voicing that suspicion at the earliest opportunity, when not to do so would leave himself as the only viable suspect for the police to work on? Since Wallace did go on to put Parry squarely in the frame, it's not as if he would have feared repercussions if he had done so at the time and was proved wrong. In fact, IF Wallace was guilty, maybe that was what he did fear - that if he made too much use of Parry early on, and the man could prove he had no involvement in either the call or the crime, what could his own next move have been?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Its a good point and one that I’ve considered recently. I do think that there’s room for reasoned speculation that Wallace might have simply dangled the idea of Parry and Marsden by his more detailed account of them in his statement and hoped (that with nothing to lose) that one of them might have had a shaky alibi for the time of the murder? Maybe this is why the ‘robbery’ scene looks like the guy went straight to the cash box as only someone who knew the layout would?

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH,

Isn't that a contradiction? If Parry was terrified to come forward, because he'd now be an accomplice to murder, what the hell does that do to the [belated and highly questionable] account given by Parkes? Would Parry not have been equally terrified that Parkes would come forward and promptly drop him fairly and squarely in the you know what? He'd have been insane to gamble on Parkes not doing so, or coming forward and then not being taken seriously.

What I was saying is that I can't see Wallace being 'in on it' with anyone else. I can't comment further on pairs of suspects IF Wallace was innocent. I described the only scenario that struck me as theoretically possible: Parry making the call on the Monday, to prepare the way for a thug or two of his acquaintance to enter the house on the Tuesday in Wallace's absence. But Parry would have had no control over Julia's safety in those circumstances, much less been able to predict that she'd be 'none the wiser'! You seem to be moulding Parry's personality and thinking to fit your speculation.



So if our neighbour joined my husband and found me dead on the floor of Brown Towers, and then asked how much money was missing, I'm supposed to think it reasonable that hubby would meekly check and report the figure, rather than saying "I really couldn't give a flying one right now. My wife is lying there with her skull caved in, man!" Come on, WWH, that's simply ridiculous.



No, what I was saying is that all Wallace knew was that the milk boy would be knocking on the door at some point. IF Wallace killed Julia, he had to wait until Close had left, or risk the lad knocking while the murder was taking place or shortly afterwards. If he didn't bring up the milk delivery when being quizzed by the police, there must have been a reason. IF guilty, was it a case of "least said, soonest mended", because he knew how much time had passed between Close's departure and his own, and it had enabled him to do the deed and get out of the house on time - just. However, if he had been innocent, he would surely have remembered it IF the boy had seen Julia alive just moments before she had seen Wallace off, which was "at a quarter to seven". So why would he have failed to say so, knowing his life could soon depend on it? My answer is that Close didn't see Julia just moments before Wallace left the house, but a good ten minutes or more, thus giving a guilty man the opportunity to kill his wife uninterrupted, or causing an innocent one to forget all about the milk by the time he was ready to leave for his business trip.

Love,

Caz
X

Nahhhhhh... Look, the plan is this (well... my proposition anyway): Man one goes into the front room with old Julia. Man two gets in the back, takes the cash, and leaves. Man one leaves.

Job done, Pru money taken, everyone's a winner.

I mean... I have an idea of Parry, I think he's real oddball. He's like some toff preacher's son playing a gangster. But then he raped a girl too so...... There's something weird about the guy. A misfit if you ask me. And by many accounts he was in fact a bit of a misfit, didn't have many friends and so on.

I believe the guy that he liked Julia. I believe that he did in fact get in with a "bad lot" as reported. I don't believe he was in control in any way of the "bad lot" I suspect committed the crime. I think vice versa he's afraid of them. But he's desperate for money, and knows where he can get his hands on what he expects might be quite a handsome sum.

Maybe you can't "see" Wallace being in on it with anyone else, but that doesn't mean much when there's a lot of evidence that it was the case if he's guilty. You literally have an eyewitness essentially saying it's the case, Parry implying to Goodman he knows more about the case than he let on... Lily Lloyd implying she knows what happened to Wilkes but saying the secret will die with her...

Why is the neighbour asking how much is missing? You don't think that's weird too? Wallace had already asked him to go for a doctor. So why is he loitering asking Wallace to go check upstairs (which he already knows he did). That's not odd behavior? What double standards is this. The behavior of the Johnstons is also "damning" but it's generally accepted they're innocent... Mr. Hemmerde is standing there in court telling William the fact he said "whatever have they used?" means he's guilty - oh but Florence is the one who actually said that... Although Wallace was quickly tricked into believing he did say it.

I don't know what you're talking about regarding the milk boy loool. If the milk boy never came forward Wallace would have been executed. If the milk boy never came forward Wallace now has 40 minutes in the eyes of the prosecution and police in which to kill his wife. You're saying that helps his case? Lol.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Goodman and Wilkes both do. A percentage of the voters on ColdCaseJury do.



Im not talking about people at the time. I’m saying that there’s a tendency when looking at the case to excuse or dismiss.



Ive simply said that it’s possible that he was mistaken. People usually need a reason to lie and Parry had no good reason to do so. And when people give a knowingly false alibi they usually believe that it won’t get found out (until the cctv footage appears, or the unknown witness etc) And yet Parry, with three days to come up with something, gives an alibi that even a toddler would have known would have been found out.

There’s simply nothing wrong with this thinking as opposed to thinking “well we know that he was guilty so it was obviously a lie.”



Wallace isn’t a recluse. Chess club, violin lessons, visits to Calderstones Park, lectures at the college, every day walking around as part of his job. He wasn’t Keith Richards but he wasn’t a recluse.

Saying that it’s not relevant is another example of dismissing the inconvenient. Wallace lied. He wasn’t a complete stranger in the area and more to the point he knew very well how to get to his destination because he’d used the very same tram numerous times. It’s a charade and quite an obvious one.



And I’ve never claimed that it was anything like a clincher. It’s a very minor point but it gives us a possible statical pointer.



In actual fact I think it entirely likely that Wallace might have expected to have got at least some blood on him (the top half of his head; his hand etc) If he had done so then there would have been absolutely no issue for him to have washed in the back kitchen sink. Any blood seen by the police might easily have been explained as a thief/killer washing his hands before he went out.



Sorry but that simply isn’t the case. There is no evidence that anyone loitered around after Julia’s death. Indeed that lack of any evidence of a robbery would strongly suggest that, if she was killed because she’d disturbed a robbery, then her killer fled the scene almost immediately and via the back door. Turning of the lights would have been an utterly pointless waste of time and effort. But not for William though. The lights being out strongly point to William without a shadow of a doubt.



Very little in this case is conclusively proven but the testimony of PC Williams and Florence Johnston suggest very forcefully that the door wasn’t bolted. Viewed as it stands anyone seeing this would accept that strong likelihood. And if the door wasn’t bolted then William is the murderer.



So yet again my opinions are dishonest?!

For a start I’ve only been interested in this case since I joined Casebook in 2017.

What I’ve done is looked at what we know over and over and over again. I’ve read the case for and the cases against and I’m quite capable of forming an honestly arrived at opinion and I’m as likely to be as right or wrong as the next person. It’s not an isolated one either. Unless Josh has changed his mind recently (and he may have and if he had then I would have no issue with that) he has always very strongly favoured Wallace. Caz is very knowledgeable on the case and she favours Wallace (although perhaps not as strongly as I do) Moste and Ven both favour Wallace as does Etenguy and Abby I think? On the ColdCaseJury site (and despite the book favouring the Accomplice theory) more people voted for Wallace alone than any other suspect/solution. Noted crime historian and expert Stewart Evans (a very respected man on Casebook and elsewhere; and a man who was a friend of Goodman) believes Wallace to have been guilt. Authors/researchers Murphy and Bartle believed Wallace to have been guilty. Antony accepts the possibility that Wallace might have been guilty. So I’m hardly proposing any kind of wacky, out-there theory. The fact that I’ve consistently favoured Wallace means that I haven’t seen a scintilla of evidence that puts a dent in the theory. And let’s be honest, a few months ago you were absolutely convinced that the Johnston’s were involved. You’ve also theorised about the Anfield Housebreaker suggesting that the crime scene strongly pointed to him (and even that he might have been Johnston.) You've also at times appeared to strongly favour an Amy connection. And that Wallace was involved in a sado-masochistic relationship. Or that he was gay. None of these are based upon anything but rumour. I stick to what’s know yet you persist in saying that my opinions aren’t honestly arrived at.

You’ve done a great job in re-igniting and maintaining interest in the case. You are to be commended for the excellent resource that is you r Wallace website. But the last thing that I want is that another Wallace thread descends into the bad old days of you-know-who. The days when opinions were stated as fact. It’s now becoming too frustrating to post when glaringly obvious points are dismissed. I don’t mind at all anyone disputing Wallace as a suspect or proposing alternatives but there really is no point in continuing when a) it’s repeatedly stated or insinuated that my opinions haven’t been arrived at honestly, or b) it’s stated that Wallace alone has been disproven when it so very obviously hasn’t. I’ll say again that he’s the strongest suspect by an absolute mile. He’s not definitely guilty, but no one comes remotely close as a suspect.

Yeah well... The percentage of the voters on the Cold Case Jury site are wrong then. I don't really care about their wrong opinion. I wouldn't say they're definitely wrong, trusting a guy who has a proven false alibi and another person saying they helped him fake one (Lily moving the time back) - I can see why people might have their doubts. But I think they're wrong. They can think what they like... Same for the authors, I have looked deep into this case and seen the files just like the rest of them, my opinion is just as valid as any of them. Everyone also thought the world was flat at one point in time.

I didn't say Parry lied because he's guilty, I said he's probably guilty (of involvement, not of murder you understand) because he lied. It's vice versa you see... I don't care much for how his "dodgy mates" could cover him, I certainly wouldn't blame a guy for thinking the woman who's in love with him might be more willing to help him out in any case. We know that according to her she did for the following day... The fact is, Parry lied through his teeth.

The bolt is not a proven lie, I explained this. It's not. We don't even know what type of bolt it is, this is why Dorothy Sayers was so insistent on the mechanism of the bolt - because the type of bolt would determine whether it would be likely for the officer to have heard it... It was never expanded upon. That he lied about the bolt is not a fact, saying it is doesn't make it true.

Saying the lights being off only benefits William is also not true and not a fact.

He was a stranger in the area. He'd been in the area before, but there's nothing to say he was very familiar with the place in general... He knew Green Lane. He'd been to the cinema once. If you see statements, the route he took to Crewe's house is different.

To answer your question Josh thinks Wallace is probably innocent. I think... But he may just be bigging me up lol.

You can arrive at your opinions as honestly as you like, but it doesn't mean there isn't biased thinking at play. Hemmerde really believed what he said and thinks Wallace crossdressed as Julia. That's an honest opinion but a ridiculous one.

I have argued for Johnston and a connection to Amy, that's because I'm not bound down to a single point of view. There was good evidence for Johnston and evidence for a possible connection to Amy. There were numerous people stating Wallace was gay. All of these things were worth arguing and exploring. I've argued for solo Wallace for probably the majority of my posting history.

I think it is a disproven idea. Not as in "0% didn't happen" disproven, but disproven in the "very unlikely" sense. Like Mr. Stringer, the fact some people refuse to involve more than a single person is bizarre, despite the fact the evidence supports it. Well Rod does have two people... But it's the wrong "two people", because the singular sneak thief is - again - what I consider a disproven idea. It's FAR more disproven than solo Wallace, despite being closer to my own idea.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Thanks for the welcome back.

I do find it incredible that an innocent Wallace, grieving for his brutally murdered wife, would not have been frantically racking his brains over who knew enough about the couple and their social, business and financial arrangements, to have set up this elaborate plan to lure him - and only him - out of the house, so they could help themselves, while a helpless Julia was at home alone. How furious would he have been, to think how cruelly he had been tricked, and how defenceless his wife must have been, and how he was suspected of being responsible for this creature's monstrous crime? How would it have taken Wallace that long to suspect Parry's involvement, IF Parry had indeed been involved? And how could Wallace have restrained himself from voicing that suspicion at the earliest opportunity, when not to do so would leave himself as the only viable suspect for the police to work on? Since Wallace did go on to put Parry squarely in the frame, it's not as if he would have feared repercussions if he had done so at the time and was proved wrong. In fact, IF Wallace was guilty, maybe that was what he did fear - that if he made too much use of Parry early on, and the man could prove he had no involvement in either the call or the crime, what could his own next move have been?

Love,

Caz
X

It’s also worth asking Caz why an ‘innocent’ Wallace expressed no suspicions about the call over the following 24 hours?

Id suggest that every innocent, normal person would have asked the following.

• Why did the unknown Qualtrough specifically ask for Wallace? An agent who was completely unknown to him and from a completely different collection area.
• Its likely that most people had some kind of insurance and so who did Qualtrough have insurance with? Why didn’t he simply speak to his own agent?
• If he didn’t use the a Prudential but wanted to why not a simple phone call to arrange a visit from the local agent?
• How did this apparent stranger know that William was a chess club member?
• How did he know that Wallace would have gone on that particular night?
• Why did Qualtrough ask for Wallace’s address and then, in the next sentence, ask that William went to MGE?

Even the most naive, trusting person would have been extremely suspicious about all of this but William appears to think it’s perfectly natural despite saying that no one had ever contacted him via the chess club before. Not once does William express any doubt about this mysterious and out-of-the-blue call.

I wonder why

[WallaceWackedHer]

It’s also worth asking Caz why an ‘innocent’ Wallace expressed no suspicions about the call over the following 24 hours?

Id suggest that every innocent, normal person would have asked the following.

• Why did the unknown Qualtrough specifically ask for Wallace? An agent who was completely unknown to him and from a completely different collection area.
• Its likely that most people had some kind of insurance and so who did Qualtrough have insurance with? Why didn’t he simply speak to his own agent?
• If he didn’t use the a Prudential but wanted to why not a simple phone call to arrange a visit from the local agent?
• How did this apparent stranger know that William was a chess club member?
• How did he know that Wallace would have gone on that particular night?
• Why did Qualtrough ask for Wallace’s address and then, in the next sentence, ask that William went to MGE?

Even the most naive, trusting person would have been extremely suspicious about all of this but William appears to think it’s perfectly natural despite saying that no one had ever contacted him via the chess club before. Not once does William express any doubt about this mysterious and out-of-the-blue call.

I wonder why

We all know that asking for the address only benefits the caller (including Wallace, by the way) if Beattie actually provides it.

Widening the suspect pool is ALWAYS a good idea whoever you are... Tightening it is very much the opposite. If Caird had been there at the time he could have given the address. And then when police go on to investigate the crime, they have to consider the possibility that the caller did not know where Wallace lived and extracted the address from Beattie.

I'm sure whoever called found it highly unfortunate that Beattie did not know and did not have someone like Caird there to provide it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah well... The percentage of the voters on the Cold Case Jury site are wrong then. I don't really care about their wrong opinion. I wouldn't say they're definitely wrong, trusting a guy who has a proven false alibi and another person saying they helped him fake one (Lily moving the time back) - I can see why people might have their doubts. But I think they're wrong. They can think what they like... Same for the authors, I have looked deep into this case and seen the files just like the rest of them, my opinion is just as valid as any of them. Everyone also thought the world was flat at one point in time.

Your opinion is just as valid as mine or anyone else’s but I’ve never suggested that your opinions weren’t honestly arrived at and I’ve never said that any theory apart from a solo Wallace has been disproven. So if I’ve said that all theories are still possible and you’ve said that Wallace has been disproven how does that make me the one that is biased?

I didn't say Parry lied because he's guilty, I said he's probably guilty (of involvement, not of murder you understand) because he lied. It's vice versa you see... I don't care much for how his "dodgy mates" could cover him, I certainly wouldn't blame a guy for thinking the woman who's in love with him might be more willing to help him out in any case. We know that according to her she did for the following day... The fact is, Parry lied through his teeth.

Again you are stating opinion as fact. I haven’t said that he definitely didn’t lie only that it’s possible that he made an error. When we try and deduce when someone lied or not one of the first things to consider is whether he needed to have lied and Parry didn’t really need to. The second is that people who lie usually have reason to believe (good or bad) that they will not be caught out. Parry couldn’t have hoped for that. How could he have expected the Lloyd’s to have randomly come up with a scenario for the Monday night that just happened to match his own (without Parry and them synchronising their stories?)

The bolt is not a proven lie, I explained this. It's not. We don't even know what type of bolt it is, this is why Dorothy Sayers was so insistent on the mechanism of the bolt - because the type of bolt would determine whether it would be likely for the officer to have heard it... It was never expanded upon. That he lied about the bolt is not a fact, saying it is doesn't make it true.

Im not saying that it’s absolutely proven but the testimony of Williams and Johnston points strongly toward that fact. But of course you dismiss this. Also who bolted it? Was it Julia after she’d opened the door? Of course not. Would the intruders? Not impossible but why would they have needed to as only William had a key and they knew that he wouldn’t be back for awhile yet. Would they have locked it after she was dead? Of course not. There’s no evidence of them hanging around. In fact the evidence points the opposite way so bolting the door on the way out the back would have served zero purpose.

And so we have a very reduced chance of anyone bolting it and positive evidence from witness that it wasn’t bolted. But ok, we ignore it.

Saying the lights being off only benefits William is also not true and not a fact.

Sorry but you're clutching at straws here. I'm happy to leave this point out there. There’s not a single even half decent reason for anyone else to have turned off the lights but William.

He was a stranger in the area. He'd been in the area before, but there's nothing to say he was very familiar with the place in general... He knew Green Lane. He'd been to the cinema once. If you see statements, the route he took to Crewe's house is different.

He took the tram that he’d taken to Amy’s and to Calderstones. He said that he was a ‘complete stranger’ to the area. Whichever way you dress it up this is lie.

To answer your question Josh thinks Wallace is probably innocent. I think... But he may just be bigging me up lol.

No problem. The last time I exchanged emails with me (not that long ago) he was still for Wallace.

You can arrive at your opinions as honestly as you like, but it doesn't mean there isn't biased thinking at play. Hemmerde really believed what he said and thinks Wallace crossdressed as Julia. That's an honest opinion but a ridiculous one.

And of course you cannot be biased?

I have argued for Johnston and a connection to Amy, that's because I'm not bound down to a single point of view. There was good evidence for Johnston and evidence for a possible connection to Amy. There were numerous people stating Wallace was gay. All of these things were worth arguing and exploring. I've argued for solo Wallace for probably the majority of my posting history.

You make it sound dishonest to stick with the same opinion. I do it because after exploring and arguing and reading and evaluating I always come back to Wallace. Because everything points to him.

I think it is a disproven idea. Not as in "0% didn't happen" disproven, but disproven in the "very unlikely" sense. Like Mr. Stringer, the fact some people refuse to involve more than a single person is bizarre, despite the fact the evidence supports it. Well Rod does have two people... But it's the wrong "two people", because the singular sneak thief is - again - what I consider a disproven idea. It's FAR more disproven than solo Wallace, despite being closer to my own idea.

The evidence in no way supports more than one person. It points to one person. This wasn’t a robbery. It doesn’t even resemble a robbery. This was a premeditated murder and a premeditated murder is overwhelmingly likely to have been committed by William.

Simply by thinking that Parry appears ideally suited to the role of phone-caller doesn’t justify shoehorning him into the case because there’s no evidence that he was involved apart from the laughable Parkes. If he was involved then the evidence shows that he didn’t do anything crime-related that night. So what do we have to connect him? We go back to his ‘type’ and Parkes.

Can we name anything that discounts the most obvious suspect? I mean properly discounts him? The answer is no.

If this was a murder, and it certainly appears so, then it was Wallace.

The lights, the lack of blood, lie about being a complete stranger, the ludicrous persistence, the charade with the doors, the weird call that he simply accepts, the location of the call box, the fact that Wallace went to the club for the first time in 3 or 4 weeks just in time for the call. All this and more points to Wallace. We have to come up with teams of conspirators to come up with a alternative. Conspirators who all meekly accepted a three way share in £5!

Its sad to say but I think we’re finally at a dead end in Wallace case discussion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We all know that asking for the address only benefits the caller (including Wallace, by the way) if Beattie actually provides it.

Widening the suspect pool is ALWAYS a good idea whoever you are... Tightening it is very much the opposite. If Caird had been there at the time he could have given the address. And then when police go on to investigate the crime, they have to consider the possibility that the caller did not know where Wallace lived and extracted the address from Beattie.

I'm sure whoever called found it highly unfortunate that Beattie did not know and did not have someone like Caird there to provide it.

The address would certainly not have benefitted a caller other than Wallace. Even though Wallace appeared to have been completely blasé about the utter weirdness of the call he would have had another doubt to contend with:

“If he’d been told my address why did he the ask for me to go to his house.?”

But only Wallace knew for certain that a) Neither Beattie or the other members knew his address, and b) the only member that did know it, Caird, wouldn't have got there yet because Wallace knew that he attended the club after he’d closed up his shop (he went straight there)

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'm not biased... That's why I've argued so many different solutions... This is what I think is right at present.

I do think solo Wallace is disproven because there is too much about the idea that doesn't work very well. For example, he's clearly attempted to frame Gordon Parry for the crime. This is not helpful, to limit the suspects so much, not unless you know that you can frame the person because you know they made the call. This is just one example, but there are quite a few.

Rod's theory is disproven to the near 0% possibility degree. Solo Wallace is not, but it is in fact very unlikely.

I don't buy Parry being confused about his days as a possibility. I legitimately and truly do not think it is in the realm of a reasonable answer. It's reaching. THIS I will state as fact not opinion. I guess he knows what brand of cigarettes he bought on the day of the killing but when it comes to the day prior to that he has total amnesia or something... Nah... I will stand by it being factual that he lied.

Clearly it benefits anyone to bolt the front door. Moreso intruders funny enough, but also William to an extent...



Do you think they're actually thinking "well we're in the house with a dead body, might as well not take 2 seconds to bolt the doors since only William has a key [they apparently know this I guess] and he won't be back for at least X amount of time so meh, what's the point?", does that sound like something people would do in that situation?

Why is William turning off the lights? I thought you said the thick Edwardian curtains would prevent light from escaping. The lights being down is beneficial for anyone. William though would not ever turn on the parlour lights, so he would only have turned down the kitchen lights anyway... ... But I guess he didn't think to turn down the ones upstairs but meh.

I do think people stayed in the house for a short time after her murder.

It is quite proven William was familiar with some parts of Mossley Hill/Allerton. Specifically Green Lane, the cinema (albeit he visited just the once), and Calderstones Park. There is not any proof he is familiar with Menlove Avenue and Gardens. He knows of Avenue, and it borders Calderstones park. He knows where it is too (he knows it's somewhere near Calderstones, and has a rough idea of how he can get there by tram as relayed to Caird). But there's nothing disputing that he wasn't very familiar with the area in general. As he said he would make inquiries once he got in the general vicinity.

You do realize, simply going down to some real address in Sefton Park, knocking on a door, asking if Mr. Wilson is there for a business appointment, being told no, then going home... That's his alibi secured... Lol.

[WallaceWackedHer]

The address would certainly not have benefitted a caller other than Wallace. Even though Wallace appeared to have been completely blasé about the utter weirdness of the call he would have had another doubt to contend with:

“If he’d been told my address why did he the ask for me to go to his house.?”

But only Wallace knew for certain that a) Neither Beattie or the other members knew his address, and b) the only member that did know it, Caird, wouldn't have got there yet because Wallace knew that he attended the club after he’d closed up his shop (he went straight there)

I explained this quite well I thought... There's no need for he himself to even ask for the address; you realize he could have just said he's busy tonight with some birthday party and can a message be delivered?

The benefit of the address being given is that it widens the suspect pool which helps to prevent the person behind the crime getting caught. The wider the suspect pool, the more chance you have of getting away with it.