** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[ColdCaseJury]

Absolutely agree with your conclusion, taking all the information we have, I favour (a). I don't think I have seen a good explanation of why Wallace might have concluded Parry was guilty if (b) is correct, but it's been a while since I read his article so I might re-read.

Hi Eten,

There is set of circumstances or evidence (E) that make it look like Parry might have done it. E is basically an "inside job" and includes: involving the cashbox, knowing his chess club schedule, Julia not admitting strangers, and so on. One possibility is that a guilty Wallace set up E to frame Parry. However, E allows an innocent Wallace to infer that Parry did it. The logic on this seems pretty unassailable to me.

My initial argument was a reductio ad absurdum:

(P) Wallace carefully planned to frame Parry (because of E)
and
(1) Wallace could not know whether Parry had an alibi or not
(2) If Parry had an alibi, E makes it appear that no one else could commit the crime except Wallace

I don't think anyone really disputes (1) and (2) - there might be a few skirmishes on detail, that's all.

But
(3) For Wallace to have planned this particular murder scheme (it needed much thought), he would have seen both (1) and (2) and the dangerous position it would leave him in (facing a murder charge with the death penalty)
Therefore
(P*) Wallace would not have carefully planned to frame Parry (he would have devised some other method, e.g. poisoning).

Hence, from (P) we get its negation (P*) and we must reject (P). This is the argument in its simplest form. I suggest it provides a rational foundation for accepting (b) from earlier. Obviously, other evidence and arguments need to be considered, too. But if you ultimately reject (b), I agree with you that you should accept (a) rather than simply that "Wallace was guilty".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

This is a key question for the Parry (with or without an accomplice) theory. I have never seen a convincing explanation except to include that murdering Julia was always part of the plan. But even then, that raises questions about why the thief did not try to maximise their haul.

Hi Eten,

This is one of the points I have with the theory. Why didn’t the thief just scarper if he’d been caught? Or maybe a slap might have silenced Julia if she’d made a noise? Or a hand over the mouth? But beating her brains out? Then, as you say, no attempt to search for more cash.

[etenguy]

It's difficult see envision a thief leaving so much to chance. And then of course we have to ask the old question “why kill Julia when he’d known all along the she could have identified him as the thief?

Hi Herlock

This is a key question for the Parry (with or without an accomplice) theory. I have never seen a convincing explanation except to include that murdering Julia was always part of the plan. But even then, that raises questions about why the thief did not try to maximise their haul.

[etenguy]

As always, your points raise some interesting questions. I agree that being protective of the Wallaces' money but then bashing Julia's brains out is inconsistent (although stranger things have happened). This counts against the Parry theory. However, it does not count against the Accomplice theory i.e. the burglar and killer, acting under instructions from Parry, did not have a connection to the Wallaces.

As for not getting both Wallace and his wife out of the house, there is an explanation. Being paranoid about leaving money in the house, they always took personal and company money with them on the rare occasions they went out together. So, it was useless getting both out. Any burglar had to lure Wallace away and then distract Julia (i.e. make an excuse and leave Julia sitting in the parlour). But of course, the burglar had to know this. There is virtually only one person who might - Parry - who worked with Wallace for two weeks and knew all about his domestic routines.

That is a good point and if anyone would know, Parry would.

You make a good point about collection money being a general target. But it is not just the involvement of cashbox that points to a framing. Remember, Wallace stressed on numerous occasions (when he had no need to) that Julia would only admit someone she knew. Also, even after he had been acquitted, Wallace was adamant that Parry was the killer. If Wallace was guilty, he had won - he no need to impugn a man he knew was innocent unless his intention had been to frame Parry and wouldn't let it go (i.e in his mind, he had not won).

I suggest it all points either to (a) a guilty Wallace framing Parry or (b) an innocent Wallace believing that Parry was the killer.

Absolutely agree with your conclusion, taking all the information we have, I favour (a). I don't think I have seen a good explanation of why Wallace might have concluded Parry was guilty if (b) is correct, but it's been a while since I read his article so I might re-read.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think your points are actually an argument against distraction burglaries (a one-person is less common than two-person it does happen). Basically, the lack of opportunity "on the ground" and risk of identification are inherent risks of this type of crime. As for the latter, even today in age of better communications and identikits, distraction burglaries still occur. In 1930s, there would have been a description in a newspaper or police handbill but that's about it. The risk of being identified was quite small. As you know, the key objective is to get in, steal, and get out without the householder suspecting anything so the theft is normally noticed hours or days later.

The cabinet door had been broken and repaired by Wallace - it was attached by two hooks. Given its location on the bookshelf, it is possible that it was knocked during the burglary. And it surely would have been heard by Julia as it fell, as you say. And at this point the distraction burglary has gone disastrously wrong.

Does this mean that you now prefer a 2 accomplice solution?

[ColdCaseJury]

A point that I always find myself coming back to is how could the accomplice have been confident of the opportunity of stealing the cash arising? He can’t simply have hoped that Julia would go upstairs leaving him free to go for the cash so he’d have had to have manipulated the circumstances to suit. The only way that I can think of would have been for him to have asked to use the upstairs toilet. If that was the plan then he was risking a) Julia going into the kitchen for some reason whilst he was ‘upstairs.’ He could have expected Julia to have sent a guest down the yard to the outside loo. Or b) Julia going opening the parlour door herself saying “top of the stairs first door on your right.” There was also the risk of Julia hearing him in the next room and this point becomes more of an issue when we consider that a cupboard door had been pulled off. Would a thief, trying to steal something without being discovered, have taken this very obvious risk? Then there are lesser points like Julia possible being suspicious when he returned to the parlour without her hearing the toilet flushing.

Its difficult see envision a thief leaving so much to chance. And then of course we have to ask the old question “why kill Julia when he’d known all along the she could have identified him as the thief?

I think your points are actually an argument against distraction burglaries (a one-person is less common than two-person but it does happen). Basically, the lack of opportunity "on the ground" and risk of identification are inherent risks of this type of crime. As for the latter, even today in age of better communications and identikits, distraction burglaries still occur. In 1930s, there would have been a description in a newspaper or police handbill but that's about it. The risk of being identified was quite small. As you know, the key objective is to get in, steal, and get out without the householder suspecting anything so the theft is normally noticed hours or days later.

The cabinet door had been broken and repaired by Wallace - it was attached by two hooks. Given its location on the bookshelf, it is possible that it was knocked during the burglary. And it surely would have been heard by Julia as it fell, as you say. And at this point the distraction burglary has gone disastrously wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A point that I always find myself coming back to is how could the accomplice have been confident of the opportunity of stealing the cash arising? He can’t simply have hoped that Julia would go upstairs leaving him free to go for the cash so he’d have had to have manipulated the circumstances to suit. The only way that I can think of would have been for him to have asked to use the upstairs toilet. If that was the plan then he was risking a) Julia going into the kitchen for some reason whilst he was ‘upstairs.’ He could have expected Julia to have sent a guest down the yard to the outside loo. Or b) Julia going opening the parlour door herself saying “top of the stairs first door on your right.” There was also the risk of Julia hearing him in the next room and this point becomes more of an issue when we consider that a cupboard door had been pulled off. Would a thief, trying to steal something without being discovered, have taken this very obvious risk? Then there are lesser points like Julia possible being suspicious when he returned to the parlour without her hearing the toilet flushing.

Its difficult see envision a thief leaving so much to chance. And then of course we have to ask the old question “why kill Julia when he’d known all along the she could have identified him as the thief?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi CCJ

This explanation raises some questions about Parry's behaviour - for instance would he be protective of the Wallace's money but willing to kill Julia? As you point out, he had a history of being in need of money and being a bit of a wide boy, so theft would not be inconsistent with what we know of him. I struggle to understand the plan from his point of view though. Why would he only be concerned with getting Wallace out of the house rather than both of them if burglary was intended? Unless of course Parry had a motive to kill Julia.

As always, your points raise some interesting questions. I agree that being protective of the Wallaces' money but then bashing Julia's brains out is inconsistent (although stranger things have happened). This counts against the Parry theory. However, it does not count against the Accomplice theory i.e. the burglar and killer, acting under instructions from Parry, did not have a connection to the Wallaces.

As for not getting both Wallace and his wife out of the house, there is an explanation. Being paranoid about leaving money in the house, they always took personal and company money with them on the rare occasions they went out together. So, it was useless getting both out. Any burglar had to lure Wallace away and then distract Julia (i.e. make an excuse and leave Julia sitting in the parlour). But of course, the burglar had to know this. There is virtually only one person who might - Parry - who worked with Wallace for two weeks and knew all about his domestic routines.

You make a good point about collection money being a general target. But it is not just the involvement of cashbox that points to a framing. Remember, Wallace stressed on numerous occasions (when he had no need to) that Julia would only admit someone she knew. Also, even after he had been acquitted, Wallace was adamant that Parry was the killer. If Wallace was guilty, he had won - he no need to impugn a man he knew was innocent unless his intention had been to frame Parry and wouldn't let it go (i.e in his mind, he had not won).

I suggest it all points either to (a) a guilty Wallace framing Parry or (b) an innocent Wallace believing that Parry was the killer.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten

a) Here's a tentative reason for Wallace wanting to frame Parry from the outset... Wallace believed Parry was too familiar with Julia (source: Parry's Empire News article, commented extracts of which are in my second edition). Of course, Parry could merely be saying that to make it look like Wallace hated Parry and that was why Wallace was accusing him of murder (all discussed in the book).

Hi CCJ

You are of course correct - the unknown motive for Wallace to want to kill his wife might have been such that he also wanted to frame Parry for that murder. It may have been the demon jealousy as Parry suggests. That does lead us to consider though those points you made in your previous post about how much Wallace's plan left to chance in framing Parry when other parts of the plan were seemingly well thought through.

b) Why involve the cashbox if he didn't want to frame Parry? Wallace could have told police that, say, £6 of personal money was missing from the house. Who could refute it? And as there is a case for believing that the penny-counting Wallace paid back the stolen money to his employer (discussed in a new exhibit called "Forensic Accounting"), it surely would have appealed to him unless he had a reason for involving the cashbox.

You make a good point and the cashbox may have been targeted in order to make Parry seem a better suspect. One possible alternative reason is related to Wallace's job as a Prudential collector. I read a report pointed to in another thread (sorry I don't have the reference) that Prudential collectors' homes were commonly targeted by burglars for their collection money. It is possible Wallace wanted Police to believe that was what was happening at his property.

c) Wallace did give Parry's name to the police, true, but only after the police asked him for the names of people who Julia would let in.

Yes, and made little of Parry in his defence - though later is public about his thoughts on the murderer.

OR

The cashbox was targeted because Parry was actually involved and did not want to raid the Wallaces' money; his beef was with the Prudential. I also very briefly mention in the 2nd edition an anonymous letter that claimed Parry was asking agents and former colleagues for a loan of money at the time. Of course, an anonymous letter holds very little evidential weight but it is consistent with what we known about Parry at the time.

This explanation raises some questions about Parry's behaviour - for instance would he be protective of the Wallace's money but willing to kill Julia? As you point out, he had a history of being in need of money and being a bit of a wide boy, so theft would not be inconsistent with what we know of him. I struggle to understand the plan from his point of view though. Why would he only be concerned with getting Wallace out of the house rather than both of them if burglary was intended? Unless of course Parry had a motive to kill Julia.

[ColdCaseJury]

I am not sure Wallace, if indeed it were he, intended to frame Parry from the outset. A (perhaps too) simple account might read:

a) Wallace had a (unknown) reason to murder his wife
b) He came up with a plan to provide himself with an alibi and make the murder seem like a burglary gone wrong
c) As it became apparent his plan was not taking the heat off him as a suspect, he looked to introduce Parry as an alternative suspect.

That is, he did concoct a clever plan with much thought, but then clutched at Parry after without that same deliberation and with the obvious pitfalls you and others have identified.

Hi Eten

a) Here's a tentative reason for Wallace wanting to frame Parry from the outset... Wallace believed Parry was too familiar with Julia (source: Parry's Empire News article, commented extracts of which are in my second edition). Of course, Parry could merely be saying that to make it look like Wallace hated Parry and that was why Wallace was accusing him of murder (all discussed in the book).

b) Why involve the cashbox if he didn't want to frame Parry? Wallace could have told police that, say, £6 of personal money was missing from the house. Who could refute it? And as there is a case for believing that the penny-counting Wallace paid back the stolen money to his employer (discussed in a new exhibit called "Forensic Accounting"), it surely would have appealed to him unless he had a reason for involving the cashbox.

c) Wallace did give Parry's name to the police, true, but only after the police asked him for the names of people who Julia would let in.

OR

The cashbox was targeted because Parry was actually involved and did not want to raid the Wallaces' money; his beef was with the Prudential. I also very briefly mention in the 2nd edition an anonymous letter that claimed Parry was asking agents and former colleagues for a loan of money at the time. Of course, an anonymous letter holds very little evidential weight but it is consistent with what we known about Parry at the time.

[etenguy]

We are possibly looking for the simplest account.

I am not sure Wallace, if indeed it were he, intended to frame Parry from the outset. A (perhaps too) simple account might read:

a) Wallace had a (unknown) reason to murder his wife
b) He came up with a plan to provide himself with an alibi and make the murder seem like a burglary gone wrong
c) As it became apparent his plan was not taking the heat off him as a suspect, he looked to introduce Parry as an alternative suspect.

That is, he did concoct a clever plan with much thought, but then clutched at Parry after without that same deliberation and with the obvious pitfalls you and others have identified.

[ColdCaseJury]

Don’t we then have a choice on which scenario is likeliest/unlikeliest? YES.

Would Wallace have staged a scene to look like a robbery/murder which pointed toward someone with inside knowledge with the possibility that those with inside knowledge might have had alibi’s? A robbery with no break in. Why didn't Wallace simply say that some PERSONAL cash was stolen and leave the cashbox well alone? No break-in could be attributed to the Anfield burglar, after all. Or,

Would Parry have planned a robbery where it looked like the culprit knew exactly where the cash box was kept? And not only that, it was a scene that suggested that the culprit had been admitted to the house rather than someone just breaking in? Again pointing to inside knowledge. Parry might have targeted the cashbox because he wanted the Prudential's money and NOT Wallace's. With nothing to connect him to the call or the murder (or so he thought), Parry was in the clear (assuming he worked with an accomplice).

If Wallace was guilty then he’d have known that he’d have without doubt been first on the list of suspects and so there was no risk-free enterprise. Isn’t it plausible that Wallace felt that a combination of the Qualtrough call, the MGE trek, his previous good character, the lack of an obvious motive, the time window for an assumed clean up, might have been enough to convince the police that he wasn’t guilty. Or perhaps this is too complicated to believe Wallace would opt for this over a simpler plan e.g. poisoning. Killers often believe that they’re too clever to be caught. Ditto for Parry instigating a robbery?

We are possibly looking for the simplest account.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In planning for the worst case scenario, surely Wallace would assume that Parry (and Marsden) would say: "No, sir, I've told no one about the location of the cashbox. Of course, not." From Parry's point of view, he doesn't want the police thinking he might be involved or has been blabbing about confidential info (remember he was still employed in the insurance at the time). Even if Parry lied, the police and the CPS have their case: Wallace is the only known suspect - precisely the situation Wallace had avoid at all costs. So, if Wallace is planning this "well in advance, possibly years" (to quote Russell*) - we arrive at the conclusion he probably would not have gone with this scheme. It's a reductio ad absurdum from the major premise that Wallace had time and capability to plan this crime in exquisite detail.

* Russell also says "Wallace was not the greatest planner". While not an outright contradiction, he seems comfortable with the unbearable tension between these two statements - and I'm not referring to suspense!

Of course, the counter "Wallace did not plan that well" now comes at a cost. He planned so well to dump the weapon where no one could find it. Really? He planned so well that he knew how to respond to the message at the chess club. Really? He planned so well that even made mistakes about his customer's name and address in his police statement to make it look like it was not rehearsed. Really? I can go on. Again, I'm not offering this as proof but trying to close one of the "escape hatches" sometimes offered by Wallace proponents. It's should make our debate more interesting!

Don’t we then have a choice on which scenario is likeliest/unlikeliest?

Would Wallace have staged a scene to look like a robbery/murder which pointed toward someone with inside knowledge with the possibility that those with inside knowledge might have had alibi’s? A robbery with no break in. Or,

Would Parry have planned a robbery where it looked like the culprit knew exactly where the cash box was kept? And not only that, it was a scene that suggested that the culprit had been admitted to the house rather than someone just breaking in? Again pointing to inside knowledge.

If Wallace was guilty then he’d have known that he’d have without doubt been first on the list of suspects and so there was no risk-free enterprise. Isn’t it plausible that Wallace felt that a combination of the Qualtrough call, the MGE trek, his previous good character, the lack of an obvious motive, the time window for an assumed clean up, might have been enough to convince the police that he wasn’t guilty. Killers often believe that they’re too clever to be caught.

[ColdCaseJury]

WallaceWackedHer had the same objection to this point but I don’t think that it would have left William as the only suspect if Parry had an alibi because Parry could easily have passed on the information about the location of the money to someone else. So it might then have been a case of the police considering that the killer might have been any number of unnamed acquaintances or even accomplices of Parry’s. Then however many potential people that might have included we could double it as the information could have been related to someone by Marsden.

In planning for the worst case scenario, surely Wallace would assume that Parry (and Marsden) would say: "No, sir, I've told no one about the location of the cashbox. Of course, not." From Parry's point of view, he doesn't want the police thinking he might be involved or has been blabbing about confidential info (remember he was still employed in the insurance at the time). Even if Parry lied, the police and the CPS have their case: Wallace is the only known suspect - precisely the situation Wallace had avoid at all costs. So, if Wallace is planning this "well in advance, possibly years" (to quote Russell*) - we arrive at the conclusion he probably would not have gone with this scheme. It's a reductio ad absurdum from the major premise that Wallace had time and capability to plan this crime in exquisite detail.

* Russell also says "Wallace was not the greatest planner". While not an outright contradiction, he seems comfortable with the unbearable tension between these two statements - and I'm not referring to suspense!

Of course, the counter "Wallace did not plan that well" now comes at a cost. He planned so well to dump the weapon where no one could find it. Really? He planned so well that he knew how to respond to the message at the chess club. Really? He planned so well that even made mistakes about his customer's name and address in his police statement to make it look like it was not rehearsed. Really? I can go on. Again, I'm not offering this as proof but trying to close one of the "escape hatches" sometimes offered by Wallace proponents. It's should make our debate more interesting!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ooh, very juicy. For me, the staged robbery definitely implies framing Parry. A poisoning merely getting rid of his wife. The problem he had was that he could not know whether Parry would have an alibi. In planning for the worst case scenario, which any person intelligent enough to think of this scheme would do, he would assume Parry would have one. He would then realise that this would leave the crime scene looking exactly like a staged robbery with himself the only suspect. So, I think, after puffing on his cigarettes, he would have gone for the poisoning or some other plot. The framing of Parry plays a big part in my second edition, BTW.

WallaceWackedHer had the same objection to this point but I don’t think that it would have left William as the only suspect if Parry had an alibi because Parry could easily have passed on the information about the location of the money to someone else. So it might then have been a case of the police considering that the killer might have been any number of unnamed acquaintances or even accomplices of Parry’s. Then however many potential people that might have included we could double it as the information could have been related to someone by Marsden.