** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[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.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony, it is.

It’s a fair point of course but if it was Wallace’s intention to point the Police in Parry’s direction, which I believe very possible, then poisoning would have been of no use. He needed a ‘robbery gone wrong’ scenario with insider knowledge evident.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, great to have this thread humming again.

I cover this in my second edition. A pathologist would only get involved if death was suspicious such that a doctor refused to issue a death certificate. As there was widespread influenza in Liverpool during January 1931, and Julia was frequently unwell, Wallace had an ideal smokescreen; a large dose of arsenic, easily sourced at the time, presents with almost identical symptoms as gastric flu. I'm sure a malevolent introvert would love to poison his wife and get away with it; criminal history is full of such cases. Now this is hardly proof that Wallace did not commit a brutal bludgeoning and left for a bogus appointment immediately after, but it is somewhat surprising that he chose the method he did. Especially as involving the cashbox really put the cat amongst the three pigeons!

Hi Antony, it is.

It’s a fair point of course but if it was Wallace’s intention to point the Police in Parry’s direction, which I believe very possible, then poisoning would have been of no use. He needed a ‘robbery gone wrong’ scenario with insider knowledge evident.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nurse !

Evidence?

No?

Ok.

[ColdCaseJury]

Other points raised against him have been the fact that he was an amateur chemist so why didn’t he poison her? It’s a fair question but I’d ask if Wallace might have been concerned that someone like the revered Spilsbury might have somehow discovered poison? If poison had been discovered then there would only have been one suspect.

Hi Herlock, great to have this thread humming again.

I cover this in my second edition. A pathologist would only get involved if death was suspicious such that a doctor refused to issue a death certificate. As there was widespread influenza in Liverpool during January 1931, and Julia was frequently unwell, Wallace had an ideal smokescreen; a large dose of arsenic, easily sourced at the time, presents with almost identical symptoms as gastric flu. I'm sure a malevolent introvert would love to poison his wife and get away with it; criminal history is full of such cases. Now this is hardly proof that Wallace did not commit a brutal bludgeoning and left for a bogus appointment immediately after, but it is somewhat surprising that he chose the method he did. Especially as involving the cashbox really put the cat amongst the three pigeons!

[RodCrosby]

Nurse !

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks, Matthew Hopkins.

Happily, OUR legal system, and any civilised legal system worthy of the name, does not work that way...

Carry on making a public fool of yourself.

Unless you hadn’t grasped it, we aren’t a court of law here. We’re not disputing decisions made 90 years ago. We’ve had 90 years to think about the case and come up with things that weren’t considered at the time.

So again, point out the single piece of evidence that exonerates Wallace and while you’re at it you can perhaps point out the cast-iron evidence that proves the Accomplice Theory? After all, you haven’t said “in my opinion this is what happened.” You’ve claimed that the case is categorically solved. So perhaps you could present the categorical, undeniable, rock solid, court of law-proof evidence that proves your theory? It’s not asking much is it?

[RodCrosby]

There’s not a single piece of evidence that proves Wallace’s innocence. Not one.

Thanks, Matthew Hopkins.

Happily, OUR legal system, and any civilised legal system worthy of the name, does not work that way...

But DO carry on making a public fool of yourself. Don't let me stop you...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m well aware of your theory. It’s a piece of speculation which you believe fits the known facts and your thinking, naturally for you is, “I’ve thought of it, so it must be true.” Most people don’t take that approach though. Then again, you’ve never been able to discuss the case properly as your previous posts show. He had a successful appeal therefore Wallace couldn’t have done it. Hardly cut and dried is it?

There’s not a single piece of evidence that proves Wallace’s innocence. Not one. And all the tedious ‘yawns’ and ‘cut and pastes’ and repeated phrases won’t change that. You have a theory. Congratulations. But that’s all that you have.