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

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

Wasn't Parry's sister forced to move colleges (or something like that) because a good many people thought Parry had murdered Julia? Lol.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wasn't Parry's sister forced to move colleges (or something like that) because a good many people thought Parry had murdered Julia? Lol.

I haven’t heard that one but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Might it have been in a newspaper clipping that you’ve read somewhere. If it was then it wasn’t something I’ve seen. I know that William got some grief. Innocent or guilty for either there are always going to be people that think someone has gotten away with it rather than been found not guilty.

[moste]

I didn’t give much credence to the cat ‘Puss’ ((I think it’s name was) being missing ’ other than someone saying ‘the Johnsons may have abducted it as a plan to get Julia into the yard after dark’. Then I was just musing over the the possibility of Wallace using the cats disappearance as part of his plan, because like Wallace’s inability to gain access to the house on the particular night his wife is murdered, it is quite odd that the cat which Julia apparently thought the world of, only shows up after the murder, after being gone a long time.
But then, Wallace couldn’t have successfully hidden it without outside help. Hidden in the outside toilet, or his laboratory, and Puss would be heard meowing , so I think this is a dead end, still you never know.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I didn’t give much credence to the cat ‘Puss’ ((I think it’s name was) being missing ’ other than someone saying ‘the Johnsons may have abducted it as a plan to get Julia into the yard after dark’. Then I was just musing over the the possibility of Wallace using the cats disappearance as part of his plan, because like Wallace’s inability to gain access to the house on the particular night his wife is murdered, it is quite odd that the cat which Julia apparently thought the world of, only shows up after the murder, after being gone a long time.
But then, Wallace couldn’t have successfully hidden it without outside help. Hidden in the outside toilet, or his laboratory, and Puss would be heard meowing , so I think this is a dead end, still you never know.

He could have put it anywhere, I mean it factually WAS missing so it had to be SOMEWHERE unless its name is Schroedinger. I'd actually consider it possible altruism if he's guilty. He seemed to like the cat... He liked animals and plants and stuff like that... If it was part of a plan to seem innocent I think he would have actually ensured people realize the cat had randomly come back. But as it turned out basically nobody knew.

However the actual confession itself, deserves very careful inspection. Without a doubt.

You know how police withhold certain information to catch people out with something only the killer would know?

Well this isn't something "only the killer would know" but it IS something so obscure and bizarre to know about and mention, that if an officer received that confession they would take it a LOT more seriously than all the false confessors who come forward.

We must remember John had dementia. And we didn't hear John say this. A man named "Stan" said this. How do we know "Stan" isn't giving real information about what happened - i.e. the cat had been taken, perhaps to help gain entry - but pretending John said it?

How do we know the Johnstons didn't know more about the crime than they let on and John in a state of delirium with dementia thought he himself had done it and killed Julia?

Whoever said it must be EXTREMELY familiar with the case or with the Wallaces to know something that obscure and also be able to name the cat which I've never seen anywhere else.

John also could have invented it while delirious but it seems too elaborate for a man in that state of mind maybe?

A possibility that the Johnstons were threatened has to be considered. I don't believe their plan to move was months in the making. I think they moved either because they were traumatized, or because they had been threatened and were scared.

I should also add, apparently "Phyllis" wasn't expecting their visit. Neither John nor Flo seemed remotely shocked to see Julia dead, and Johnston was quite insistent about investigating a burglary (including searching upstairs again), almost like they knew she was dead and knew the home was robbed... I can imagine them (being totally innocent but knowing something happened) feeling bad for William and coming out to be with him when he sees what's happened hence the interception.

Nobody followed them down the yard don't forget, so that implies they had no real plan to go out visiting anyone (AKA they made it up), since it would mean they were going to leave their yard door unbolted... Maybe that was normal though. I'm not going to say that's a major deal.

This is totally off course of any discussion or theory I'm not really sure what this is. Musings I guess. But I think that could make sense... They act weirder than Wallace in the house.

Florence tried hard to comfort him, and they both defended him very well in court. Flo saying he broke into tears in front of her for example when the prosecutors were trynna say he didn't care about his wife being dead.

[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?

Hi Herlock - I've tunnelled out for a while at least. Strange that so many here believe Wallace did it but shouldn't have been found guilty whilst over on the A6 thread I seem to be in a minority of one in supporting Hanratty's guilt but not his conviction.

Thanks for your follow up and reasoning about the lights.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock - I've tunnelled out for a while at least. Strange that so many here believe Wallace did it but shouldn't have been found guilty whilst over on the A6 thread I seem to be in a minority of one in supporting Hanratty's guilt but not his conviction.

Thanks for your follow up and reasoning about the lights.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hi OneRound

It is. I’ve only read two books on the A6. Foot and Woffinden (I have the Razen book on kindle but haven’t gotten around to it yet) and obviously they’re both for Hanratty’s innocence so my lack of knowledge of the case makes my opinion next to worthless but mine is that if the DNA didn’t exist I’d say there was at least some doubt on whether he was guilty and as DNA evidence obviously wasn’t available at the time I would have voted not guilty. DNA says guilty though. I’m really interested in the case but I don’t know whether my brain could stand up to the Ripper, the Wallace case and the A6 at the same time?

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound

It is. I’ve only read two books on the A6. Foot and Woffinden (I have the Razen book on kindle but haven’t gotten around to it yet) and obviously they’re both for Hanratty’s innocence so my lack of knowledge of the case makes my opinion next to worthless but mine is that if the DNA didn’t exist I’d say there was at least some doubt on whether he was guilty and as DNA evidence obviously wasn’t available at the time I would have voted not guilty. DNA says guilty though. I’m really interested in the case but I don’t know whether my brain could stand up to the Ripper, the Wallace case and the A6 at the same time?

Cheers, Herlock.

Something else I would recommend on the A6 is the Court of Appeal's judgement from May 2002. I can't attach from here but it's readily available on the net. Surprisingly readable and not too long - just over 200 fairly short paragraphs. It summarises key prosecution and defence arguments pretty well even if I don't always agree with the conclusions that the Court reaches.

I do though understand your concern about whether you can cope with another case. What helps me is that I shamelessly cop out of posting on the Ripper threads! I suspect though that I'm in danger of being sucked in on the Bamber case.

Apologies for going off topic. By way of recompense, I must start to read the full Wallace Court transcript as unearthed by WWH and recently reproduced here.

Best regards,
OneRound

[WallaceWackedHer]

Cheers, Herlock.

Something else I would recommend on the A6 is the Court of Appeal's judgement from May 2002. I can't attach from here but it's readily available on the net. Surprisingly readable and not too long - just over 200 fairly short paragraphs. It summarises key prosecution and defence arguments pretty well even if I don't always agree with the conclusions that the Court reaches.

I do though understand your concern about whether you can cope with another case. What helps me is that I shamelessly cop out of posting on the Ripper threads! I suspect though that I'm in danger of being sucked in on the Bamber case.

Apologies for going off topic. By way of recompense, I must start to read the full Wallace Court transcript as unearthed by WWH and recently reproduced here.

Best regards,
OneRound

The trial is decent but for me I wish certain witnesses had been asked certain questions which they weren't. Especially William. I wish they would have asked him what he meant by saying he's a stranger in the district, for example.

Some of the "wtf" things he said or did he cleared up quite well in court, but there's many they missed. They got him to explain why he asked Beattie for the time, and the cop.

I would not much bother about the cop he time checked with, one of his regular clients said he did it all the time as habit and had they called her as a witness she could have explained that.

I also wish the Johnstons were questioned more about the thuds. That didn't even come up IIRC?

And I wish Lily Hall had been questioned more. She is questioned rather hard but the statement is SO important it deserved more digging.

And I wish they asked William exactly how long that cat had been missing...

---

It is possible he did it and I'm just being too logical of course. Maybe the answer isn't so perfectly logical as I'm painting a picture of.

Maybe William's just dumb. Maybe he wasn't trying to beat a clock because he didn't really care (hence no mention of Alan).

Maybe that jacket, he attempted to burn on the fireplace but it failed and he incinerated everything else in the KITCHEN stove.

It's possible he could have done it. Just would have to mean he's a little stupid, a terrible planner, etc. among other things. But then how many convicted killers do we find who are essentially dumb as a rock... Oh but still make no mistake that Gordon called...

I'm basically giving a solution that ties up every single aspect of the case into a perfectly neat little package that makes the most logical sense, but true crime doesn't always work that way.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Tom Slemen vindicated again:

I have just discovered that John Sharpe Johnston did indeed have a friend who lived at 30 Menlove Gardens South (Slemen puts it as West, it's South), named Dan Roberts (Daniel Eric Roberts).

So far every single claim in his retelling of the story I have been able to verify. I think it's only right that I point out this finding.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cheers, Herlock.

Something else I would recommend on the A6 is the Court of Appeal's judgement from May 2002. I can't attach from here but it's readily available on the net. Surprisingly readable and not too long - just over 200 fairly short paragraphs. It summarises key prosecution and defence arguments pretty well even if I don't always agree with the conclusions that the Court reaches.

I do though understand your concern about whether you can cope with another case. What helps me is that I shamelessly cop out of posting on the Ripper threads! I suspect though that I'm in danger of being sucked in on the Bamber case.

Apologies for going off topic. By way of recompense, I must start to read the full Wallace Court transcript as unearthed by WWH and recently reproduced here.

Best regards,
OneRound

Its well worth a read. I keep meaning to have a full re-read again. It’s good to see the actual documents (especially in full) that WWH took the time and effort to photograph and post. He’s saved any potential future an author a couple of days work at least.

Ill make a note to have a look at the A6 Court Of Appeal. I could do with having a year of doing nothing but reading (it still wouldn’t be long enough though.) as I also keep meaning to read the Wallace case books that I have.

I know what you mean about the Bamber case. A friend of mine has been interested for years and is convinced that he’s innocent. There’s plenty on here to make you wonder although you’ve probably already seen it. It’s a wonder there isn’t a thread. I bought their book on Kindle but....you’ve guessed it....haven’t gotten around to reading it yet.

https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/

[Herlock Sholmes]

The trial is decent but for me I wish certain witnesses had been asked certain questions which they weren't. Especially William. I wish they would have asked him what he meant by saying he's a stranger in the district, for example.

Some of the "wtf" things he said or did he cleared up quite well in court, but there's many they missed. They got him to explain why he asked Beattie for the time, and the cop.

I would not much bother about the cop he time checked with, one of his regular clients said he did it all the time as habit and had they called her as a witness she could have explained that.

I also wish the Johnstons were questioned more about the thuds. That didn't even come up IIRC?

And I wish Lily Hall had been questioned more. She is questioned rather hard but the statement is SO important it deserved more digging.

And I wish they asked William exactly how long that cat had been missing...

---

It is possible he did it and I'm just being too logical of course. Maybe the answer isn't so perfectly logical as I'm painting a picture of.

Maybe William's just dumb. Maybe he wasn't trying to beat a clock because he didn't really care (hence no mention of Alan).

Maybe that jacket, he attempted to burn on the fireplace but it failed and he incinerated everything else in the KITCHEN stove.

It's possible he could have done it. Just would have to mean he's a little stupid, a terrible planner, etc. among other things. But then how many convicted killers do we find who are essentially dumb as a rock... Oh but still make no mistake that Gordon called...

I'm basically giving a solution that ties up every single aspect of the case into a perfectly neat little package that makes the most logical sense, but true crime doesn't always work that way.

Did you just say that he might have done it?

I was going to suggest a name change to WallaceDidntWackHer but maybe it could be the even longer WallaceMightHaveWackedHer?
Id love to see the response from Admin if you told them that you wanted to change your name to...

WallaceMightHaveWackedHerButItsFarMoreLikelyToHave BeenAnAccompliceOfRichardGordonParry.

Doesn’t have much of a ring to it though but it’s certainly better than WallaceInADress

~

Perhaps one thing that we can all be guilty of at times is, in a genuine effort to get at the truth, over-thinking. People can of course plan things yet make mis-judgments and mistakes. They might do something that appears illogical to us but there was a reason for it at the time that we’re unaware of 90 years later.

Youre absolutely right of course that more questions could have been asked; lines could have been perused more vigorously. In court and by the police.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Did you just say that he might have done it?

I was going to suggest a name change to WallaceDidntWackHer but maybe it could be the even longer WallaceMightHaveWackedHer?
Id love to see the response from Admin if you told them that you wanted to change your name to...

WallaceMightHaveWackedHerButItsFarMoreLikelyToHave BeenAnAccompliceOfRichardGordonParry.

Doesn’t have much of a ring to it though but it’s certainly better than WallaceInADress

~

Perhaps one thing that we can all be guilty of at times is, in a genuine effort to get at the truth, over-thinking. People can of course plan things yet make mis-judgments and mistakes. They might do something that appears illogical to us but there was a reason for it at the time that we’re unaware of 90 years later.

Youre absolutely right of course that more questions could have been asked; lines could have been perused more vigorously. In court and by the police.

Well I have ranked Waterhouse and Gannon's general idea pretty highly. I don't think it works as well from a standpoint of logic, but of course there is a chance I am creating a perfect fit for the puzzle when the reality is that it's not such a perfect fit. I mean it is a possibility.

Solo Wallace I only have so low based on the pure fact that out of everything in the case I most firmly believe that Gordon called - so you can see why I have no choice but to put anything with that as the basis towards the upper ends of my possibility tiers. I can't and never will accept his falsification of an alibi is a mistake. Commonly alibis are faked because the person is covering an affair, but seeing he gave Lily Lloyd's name as who he was with I don't think that's the case here... If he'd been re-questioned and admitted to falsifying the alibi because he had been committing another crime at the time, he would have been charged like the other thief who admitted to that.

I think something quite simple, would be say... Wallace has Gordon call, he bashes his wife's head in, then he dumps everything on Gordon. The evidence in favour of another man in ANY scenario - Gordon or otherwise (but I'm sure it's Gordon for many reasons, Parkes, parents trying to have him smuggled away, cryptic comments to Goodman implying he knows something, Lily admitting to pushing back his alibi time for him - there's just a LOT).

And yeah that's basically what Waterhouse suggested in The Insurance Man (the only publication I don't own), and I think it's very strong.

I DO think a lot of aspects of the case lead to a conclusion of innocence, however... It's one of those things where it's like "he COULD have done it... but that doesn't mean he DID do it". That evidence in my view is more salient than him doing some silly things like not checking a map........ Though we have to be fair, maps at the time were not always up to date, since new roads were built and atlases came out what - yearly?... Or being dumb enough to fall for it despite not recognizing the name (I think he was meant to).

So yeah...

I'd REALLY like to crack two codes:

First the mackintosh and burning. I want to crack the exact series of events, where Julia was first struck, how she fell into the fire, what was done with the jacket, etc.

Secondly the cat.

I feel like I'm the only person on the planet who thinks that such a weird, obscure fact as the cat being missing being mentioned decades later (something so rarely known that it appeared only in passing in a single newspaper article that wasn't even a local Liverpool one) warrants close attention... There's no way some random person who's not obsessed-tier familiar with the case, or knew the Wallaces very well, could have said such a thing... And the story of how it was used - rather than this person just overlooking it like everyone else - well it's so elaborate and obscure, it strikes me as something you wouldn't just come up with on the spot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And yeah that's basically what Waterhouse suggested in The Insurance Man (the only publication I don't own), and I think it's very strong.

Ive never seen a copy for sale to be honest but you appear to have read it? Where have you seen it?

I don’t have the Rowland book because whenever I’ve seen it for sale it’s always been around £100! I don’t have a copy of the Hargrave Lee Adam book only the online version, likewise Lusgarten, and I don’t have Wyndham Brown, Brophy or Moreland or Gustafson. There’s one book that I notice you don’t mention on the site (I don’t have it either) it’s Six Trials by Winifred Duke? There’s a section on Wallace.

Three that you don’t mention WWH are The Telephone Murder by Ronald Bartle. I have this one. I think that he is a Barrister or Solicitor and I don’t recall any details but he goes for Wallace, I seem to recall disagreeing with some stuff that he wrote though. Another to re-read maybe.

The Anatomy Of Murder by Dorothy L Sayers and Murder In Merseyside by Sleman’s.

Maybe I’ll get around to buying the ones that I don’t have?

Wyndham Brown £252 on Amazon. I think not....

I’ve just ordered the Lustgarten for £10.85

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd REALLY like to crack two codes:

First the mackintosh and burning. I want to crack the exact series of events, where Julia was first struck, how she fell into the fire, what was done with the jacket, etc.

Secondly the cat.

I feel like I'm the only person on the planet who thinks that such a weird, obscure fact as the cat being missing being mentioned decades later (something so rarely known that it appeared only in passing in a single newspaper article that wasn't even a local Liverpool one) warrants close attention... There's no way some random person who's not obsessed-tier familiar with the case, or knew the Wallaces very well, could have said such a thing... And the story of how it was used - rather than this person just overlooking it like everyone else - well it's so elaborate and obscure, it strikes me as something you wouldn't just come up with on the spot.

We all tend to assume that the singeing on Julia’s skirt was done at the time of the murder but might it not be a bit of a red herring? Perhaps it got singed at another time and if she only ever intended to wear it around the house.....

I genuinely don’t see the cat as important. I think that someone has simply done a bit of imaginative thinking.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Ive never seen a copy for sale to be honest but you appear to have read it? Where have you seen it?

I don’t have the Rowland book because whenever I’ve seen it for sale it’s always been around £100! I don’t have a copy of the Hargrave Lee Adam book only the online version, likewise Lusgarten, and I don’t have Wyndham Brown, Brophy or Moreland or Gustafson. There’s one book that I notice you don’t mention on the site (I don’t have it either) it’s Six Trials by Winifred Duke? There’s a section on Wallace.

Maybe I’ll get around to buying the ones that I don’t have?

I do have the Winifred Duke one I think. I neglected to mention a few on my site. I have all the others you listed.

I think Gustafson is the one I said was a disgrace on my site. If that is the one then yeah, that book is honestly an utter disgrace. She thinks Parry is called Reginald for example, just zero effort leeching off of Wilkes' info.

Wyndham-Brown's online for free so I didn't bother with that. But I have all the rest just not Waterhouse. I also have some weird (maybe unpublished) one. It's a bunch of paper stapled together rather than a book. It doesn't have any new info but still.

Oh and I have magazines, I have the "Murder Can Be Fun" one and some more.

I can watch the old 70s Wallace movie, the Yorkshire TV one, but only watch. Which is annoying. They have a special place you go to view it, copies are illegal.