** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[NickB]

Etenguy, Why would he have narrowed down the suspect list if he did not intend to finger Parry? As discussed recently, he did not need to say Julia would only let in acquaintances.

[ColdCaseJury]

LOL, Iet's get back to the facts, the use of Dinner or Tea

Ven, I like your forensic analysis of the timings regarding Amy's conversation with Julia. However, Wallace was never asked when he first told Julia about the call. He said they discussed it at tea, which I interpret to mean (in light of other things said at the trial) that is when he decided to keep the appointment. In which case, he might of told Julia at breakfast or dinner.

If we do not accept the above, then we have to conclude that Amy Wallace is lying. What other interpretation is there? And that blows open the entire case.

[ColdCaseJury]

She doesn’t actually say that Julia was in the habit of opening doors to strangers. Just that William had told her not too more than once. Amy is then suggesting that Julia’s kindness might have made her let in a stranger in on that particular night.

But it is clearly implied. After all, why was Wallace reminding his wife not to open doors to strangers unless she had a natural propensity to do so?

[ColdCaseJury]

Etenguy, Why would he have narrowed down the suspect list if he did not intend to finger Parry? As discussed recently, he did not need to say Julia would only let in acquaintances.

Because, if he was innocent, he was trying to narrow down the list of suspects for the police - those who knew about the cash box and, therefore, who had killed his wife.

It makes less sense if he was guilty. He needed to keep the suspect pool as wide as possible, and also he could not be sure if Parry had an alibi for the night of the murder.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Dupin

Like Herlock, based on what we know, I think it is more likely that Wallace killed his wife than someone else did.

If we do as you have - try and put ourselves in the mind of a pre murder guilty Wallace, is what happened what Wallace would have planned? As your post makes clear, surely not.

We don't know Wallace was guilty, but if he was maybe his thinking went something like this
* he must have known he would be a prime suspect, so he wanted to set up an alibi. Hence his plan.
* Not only does it give him a reason to be out of the house, by introducing Qualtrough, it throws in a different suspect.
* Also, he introduces the burglary motive - and there had been a spate of burglaries.
He probably thought this would lead the police away from him. He expected to get off scot free, reputation intact and garnering sympathy from his friends and colleagues. Clever man.

So what went wrong? A few things perhaps, including:
* the call was traced to the phone box not far from Wallace's home
* he overdid his getting noticed in the MGE area
* he didn't do a great job of making the burglary seem real

Nevertheless - it was good enough that he eventually escaped the noose.

A very succinct overview of the case against Wallace. One point: by introducing Qualtrough he throws in a suspect who could be any male in Liverpool. He then undermines his plan - he narrows the suspect pool and makes himself the prime suspect by centering the burglary on the cash box. He then provides an essay on Parry, effectively reducing the suspect pool to just one person for whom Wallace could not know whether he had an alibi or not.

As Dupin suggests, Wallace did not help himself to easy ways out. And he could have easily lied:
- my wife always lets strangers in, although I told her not to (but he actually says she would not let strangers in)
- I told my wife about Qualtrough the night I came home from chess (he does not)
and so on.

Not strong evidence of innocence but why is he sabotaging his own plan?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I take the point about a guilty Wallace reducing the suspect pool by pointing a finger at Parry but I’d suggest that it wasn’t only Parry as there was Marsden too. Consequently the police would have had to have considered the possibility of an acquaintance of either men. Essentially I’m saying that perhaps Wallace felt that the police might consider some form of Accomplice Theory. Or that a thief had overheard Parry discussing Wallace with someone?

[etenguy]

Not strong evidence of innocence but why is he sabotaging his own plan?

Hi CCJ

If Wallace was guilty, I'd suggest he thought he was attempting to throw the police off the scent by introducing what he considered to be strong alternative suspects. At the very least he may have thought it would muddy the waters. If that is correct, you might argue he didn't think it through and ended up sabotaging his own plan. But saying that, about a quarter of your jury favour that Parry was the murderer with another third thinking he was involved. That's well over half of the jury - so maybe it wasn't such a bad plan.

Later, when suffering people who thought he had got away with murder, offering up a real person as his prime suspect (as opposed to an imaginary Qualtrough) might have been an attempt to take the heat off him.

[etenguy]

Essentially I’m saying that perhaps Wallace felt that the police might consider some form of Accomplice Theory. Or that a thief had overheard Parry discussing Wallace with someone?

Hi Herlock

You may well be right. Whatever he thought though, over time at least, the theory has attracted a significant number of followers.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi CCJ

If Wallace was guilty, I'd suggest he thought he was attempting to throw the police off the scent by introducing what he considered to be strong alternative suspects. At the very least he may have thought it would muddy the waters. If that is correct, you might argue he didn't think it through and ended up sabotaging his own plan. But saying that, about a quarter of your jury favour that Parry was the murderer with another third thinking he was involved. That's well over half of the jury - so maybe it wasn't such a bad plan.

Later, when suffering people who thought he had got away with murder, offering up a real person as his prime suspect (as opposed to an imaginary Qualtrough) might have been an attempt to take the heat off him.

Inspector Etenguy, you are among the elite of Wallace theorists, who have ingenious theories to underpin Wallace's guilt. Not that I'm saying your conclusion is obviously wrong - Wallace is a strong suspect and always will be.

The simplest explanation for Wallace introducing Parry is that he genuinely believed Parry was the killer. He had no way of knowing Parry was a strong alternative because, for all he knew, Parry had watertight alibis for both nights. Delighted you should mention the CCJ verdict to date. The jurists are using hindsight and posterior evidence Wallace did not have to prior to executing his plan. So, if Wallace amended his defence as he went along (possible), he got lucky. Yes, I agree if Wallace is innocent he was extremely unlucky. But, as have I tried to point out, if Wallace is guilty, he was lucky, at least with hindsight. I don't think it would have mattered much at the time: the police only had Wallace in the frame.

One last observation. Many murders protest their innocence. Even murders who are irrefutably guilty vehemently protest their innocence. How many actually name an alternative killer? A few, I guess. But it's striking, in my view, that very few do because the claim "anyone but me" is much easier to sustain than "he did it". We know from Karl Popper and the philosophy of science that a specific claim or hypothesis is far easier to refute that a vague one.

No, one last edit: surely if Wallace planned to put Parry in the frame for murder, he would have duped Parry into making the call?

[OneRound]

If only Julia had survived, id'd her attacker and this was confirmed by a DNA test. Then this would be a real mystery!

...

Hi Nick, Herlock and all - for the Wallace case to be on all fours with that of the A6, Julia would have to first pick out a totally innocent makeweight on an id parade and the DNA test would have to wait until the late 1990s with the whereabouts and security of the items tested uncertain in the intervening years.

Of the many here who feel Wallace murdered Julia, none (as far as I am aware) consider he should have legally been found guilty. That to my mind is totally understandable. However, I do find it surprising that I appear to be in a camp of one when coming to the same view about Hanratty.

Best regards,
OneRound

[etenguy]

Inspector Etenguy, you are among the elite of Wallace theorists, who have ingenious theories to underpin Wallace's guilt. Not that I'm saying your conclusion is obviously wrong - Wallace is a strong suspect and always will be.

Thank you, CCJ, I think

Actually, I'm not a strong advocate of Wallace's guilt. On balance I think he is the likeliest to be guilty, but I am not at all convinced if I was on a jury I would convict him.

Also, I'm not sure suggesting a guilty person points to someone else to take the blame is particularly ingenious - lots of people do that.

The simplest explanation for Wallace introducing Parry is that he genuinely believed Parry was the killer. He had no way of knowing Parry was a strong alternative because, for all he knew, Parry had watertight alibis for both nights.

That is certainly a good theory and I do not dismiss it. I don't think it is particularly anymore straight-forward than 'it wasn't me it was him' though.

Delighted you should mention the CCJ verdict to date. The jurists are using hindsight and posterior evidence Wallace did not have to prior to executing his plan. So, if Wallace amended his defence as he went along (possible), he got lucky.

I really like your site, and the whole concept that underpins it - not solely the Wallace case. And of course you are right about hindsight and I suspect in an age of conspiracy theories, the Parry solution has a certain appeal, more interesting than a husband murdering his wife solution - so I do take your point.

Yes, I agree if Wallace is innocent he was extremely unlucky. But, as have I tried to point out, if Wallace is guilty, he was lucky, at least with hindsight. I don't think it would have mattered much at the time: the police only had Wallace in the frame.

Nothing to disagree with there.

One last observation. Many murders protest their innocence. Even murders who are irrefutably guilty vehemently protest their innocence. How many actually name an alternative killer? A few, I guess. But it's striking, in my view, that very few do because the claim "anyone but me" is much easier to sustain than "he did it". We know from Karl Popper and the philosophy of science that a specific claim or hypothesis is far easier to refute that a vague one.

Good point. If a guilty Wallace did point the finger at Parry, he didn't really think it through. Of course, if he was innocent the finger pointing may have been a real conviction that Parry was the culprit, as you have said.

No, one last edit: surely if Wallace planned to put Parry in the frame for murder, he would have duped Parry into making the call?

I'm not sure he would find it easy to do that and get away with it - but I take your point. If Wallace wanted to frame Parry from the start, the plan he executed was not the best, or even very good. There would have been better options.

[NickB]

At the inquest Amy Wallace complained to the Coroner about a newspaper report, claiming she thought she was being interviewed by the police rather than reporters. Was she referring to the Liverpool Post report posted recently?

With regard to Accomplice Theories these appear to be recent. I think whoever was responsible would have viewed an accomplice as risky and with shortcomings (e.g. having to share the booty). Any mystery can be 'solved' by introducing an accomplice.

Although there may have been a gang involved, given the large number of burglaries in the area shown by WWH's research and in Mark's note 84 on page 45.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Nick, Herlock and all - for the Wallace case to be on all fours with that of the A6, Julia would have to first pick out a totally innocent makeweight on an id parade and the DNA test would have to wait until the late 1990s with the whereabouts and security of the items tested uncertain in the intervening years.

Of the many here who feel Wallace murdered Julia, none (as far as I am aware) consider he should have legally been found guilty. That to my mind is totally understandable. However, I do find it surprising that I appear to be in a camp of one when coming to the same view about Hanratty.

Best regards,
OneRound

My opinion on Hanratty counts for a big zero as I’ve only read 2 books on the subject (Foot and Woffinden) and have made no study of the case but I came away thinking that surely there was evidence for at least doubt that he was guilty. This is why I’d like to see an updated book on the case exploring the evidence and the differing viewpoints.

[ColdCaseJury]

(a) At the inquest Amy Wallace complained to the Coroner about a newspaper report, claiming she thought she was being interviewed by the police rather than reporters. Was she referring to the Liverpool Post report posted recently?

(b) With regard to Accomplice Theories these appear to be recent. I think whoever was responsible would have viewed an accomplice as risky and with shortcomings (e.g. having to share the booty). Any mystery can be 'solved' by introducing an accomplice.

(a) Yes. Her complaint was not that she had been misquoted but she did not realise that it would be printed (what did she think they would do with it?)

(b) One is obliquely mentioned in Murder Casebook (#25) in the early 1990s, if I recall correctly. I guess any mystery can be solved by adding other unknown participants - a very good point. Parry can't have done it (if Brine is telling the truth) so let's give Parry an accomplice. But we should not lose sight of the fact that sometimes more than one person is involved. And in this case - highly controversial as it is - we have Parkes' testimony and evidence that, on some interpretations, points to Parry in the phone box, so there are rational grounds to believe that Parry was involved but not the killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
No, one last edit: surely if Wallace planned to put Parry in the frame for murder, he would have duped Parry into making the call?

I seem to remember discussing this point with WWH. Wallace would have known that he was always going to be the police’s first port of call for a suspect so why would he introduce Parry into the mix and risk him telling the police that Wallace asked him to make the call when he was interviewed? Parry could even have claimed to have known nothing about the murder by saying that Wallace had asked him for a favour because he needed an excuse to go out (maybe to see another woman or to go for a drink with a friend that Julia disapproved of?)