** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[NickB]

My 'nefarious activity' was first!

[etenguy]

I think we would have to consider a third option, in my view a likely option, that Parry was involved in some dodgy activity which he did not want to share with the police

Beat me to it Eten

Barely, Herlock, barely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

        
I think we would have to consider a third option, in my view a likely option, that Parry was involved in some dodgy activity which he did not want to share with the police

Beat me to it Eten

[Herlock Sholmes]

I realise that I’m probably in a minority of one in floating the possibility that Parry might simply have been mistaken about his Monday night alibi and that I might be accused of deliberately trying to exonerate Parry in favour of Wallace but I just can’t help thinking that it was at least a possible. Antony said this about Parry:

“Parry was a chancer, a conman who could think on his feet. Would a visit to another woman really throw him off balance with Lily?”

So might we not also ask “Would this ‘conman who could think on his feet’ really have given the police such an obviously disprovable alibi?”

After all, Parry was interviewed the Police on the 23rd, a full two days after the murder, so he’d had ample time, if guilty, to have set up some kind of alibi. I know that Parry and Lloyd eventually split up but not immediately after these events so we have to ask if their relationship would have survived a day if Lily Lloyd had point blank refused to back up his alibi? Parry would have known that the police would interview Lily and her Mother. He was streetwise if not exactly a genius so how did he think that the police would have viewed him after giving a false alibi that wouldn’t survive the merest glance?

Parry:

“I have no objection whatever to the police verifying my statement as to my movements on Monday 19th and Tuesday 20th.” Why is he confident that his Monday alibi was safe when it obviously wasn’t? Unless he simply assumed that it was.

“On Monday evening (19 January 1931) I called for my young lady, Miss Lilian Lloyd of 7 Missouri Road, at some address where she had been teaching, the address I cannot remember, and went with her to 7 Missouri Road at about 5:30pm and remained there until about 11:30pm when I went home.”

It’s not exactly a cleverly thought out ‘lie’ is it? An address he can’t even remember? This is a man who’s being questioned in regard to a crime which could result in the gallows. You’d think twice about giving this kind of alibi to avoid a shoplifting charge. In fact his Monday night alibi sounds just like the retelling of events that might have occurred on numerous previous occasions with Parry picking up his girlfriend from one of any number of addresses where Lily gave piano lessons. People do forget things or conflate events. Why no semblance of an alibi?

For me this is a little like the ‘did Wallace avoid blood spatter’ point. Wallace might have expected to have gotten blood on him but luck intervened and he didn’t. Wallace couldn’t have relied on luck though. But we have to rely on Parry being a halfwit to have given such a pathetic alibi.

His alibi for the Tuesday evening however doesn’t sound like a retelling of events that may have occurred several times. He went to the Brine’s first of course so for this to have been a false alibi not only would Olivia Brine and Harold Dennison have had to have lied but so would her 13 year old daughter (kids aren’t usually convincing liars.) Also Miss Plant, who didn't live there and was visiting at the time. Then he went for cigarettes and a newspaper. Then he went to Hignett’s. Yes it doesn’t appear that the police checked these but they were checkable. Then of course we have the 10 minutes he spent at the Williamson’s before going to Missouri Road. So I’d say that Parry’s Tuesday alibi is beyond question. We therefore know that Parry wasn’t at Wolverton Street. I also have to ask do the actions described above resemble the actions of a man in anyway involved in these events? He left the Lloyd’s at 11.00 at the earliest so if the accomplice left Wolverton Street around 8.00 what did he do for 3 hours? How did his clothes remain so wet with blood that they contaminated Parry’s car? Wasn't 3 hours long enough to dump a bloodied mitten when apparently he’d dumped the clean one. These things and others, in my opinion, point to Parry being uninvolved. I think the unconnected prank call on the very night of the murder is a vanishingly remote possibility. I agree with Antony that it would be unlikely that Wallace would have taken a waster like Parry into his confidence.

Of course we have to accept that Parry could just have lied. As I said earlier I may be the only poster who thinks that he could have been mistaken but I make no apologies about that. But if he did lie it didn’t mean that it was because he was making the call at that time (as Antony has said) An affair with a married woman is entirely possible or just a woman that wasn’t single. Might it have been that Parry was up to no good in some other (illegal) way?

It’s all interpretation and opinion of course but I just don’t think Parry made the call. I don’t think that he was involved in this case in any shape way or form. I could be wrong though.

[etenguy]

POST #327 PART 2

Key Assumptions:
[W₁] Wallace alone killed Julia Wallace
[W₂] Wallace carefully planned and thought through the details of his plan in advance

Key elements of his plan included:
[Q] The Qualtrough call to make it appear someone else was the killer
[C] The theft from the cash box to make it appear that robbery was the motive
[P] Killing Julia in the parlour to make it appear that a visitor had called

The conclusion was:
[C_A] Wallace hatched a plan (QCP) to frame Parry; or
[C_B] QCP is evidence of Parry’s involvement

I’m aware of some objections, but for now I wish to press on. Let’s introduce a new evidential area:
[N] Parry lied to police about his whereabouts at the time of Q

Hi CCJ

There are other conclusions, but I'm interested in your arguments concerning Parry lying to the police about Monday evening.

Two main reasons have been conjectured.[/FONT]
(1) Parry made an honest mistake; or
(2) He was involved with a second woman and did not want this fact made public (and damaging his relationship with Lily).

I think we would have to consider a third option, in my view a likely option, that Parry was involved in some dodgy activity which he did not want to share with the police.

I’m sanguine about many things in the case but (1) is not one of them. Parry knows in perfect detail all his movements between 8:30pm and 9pm on the Tuesday night but apparently nothing of the Monday night. Josephine Lloyd remembers Parry telling her (on the Monday night) that he was going to Lark lane, but Parry cannot remember going there himself. We know from Wallace (when Parry helped him) and several other sources, including the Wilkes call-in (1981) with Leslie Williamson, that Parry was untrustworthy and deceitful. Therefore, our default position cannot be to blithely assume Parry simply made an honest mistake; that’s not just a free lunch it’s an all-you-can-eat buffet. No. A normal 21 year old has a sharp memory, as evidenced by Parry’s recall of Tuesday night. The only reasonable conclusion is that Parry lied for a reason.

I have to agree with you here. I think an honest mistake is unlikely and that Parry had a reason for lying about his movements.

Could Wallace have duped Parry into making the call and hence N was not a coincidence at all? I doubt it because it would mean Wallace involving someone else in his plan, someone who would know Wallace was guilty. Why would Wallace go to all the bother of this intricate plan when there was such an obvious weak link? It would have been a massive risk involving someone like Parry whose basic instincts were to serve his own needs. If the reserved and cautious Wallace is guilty, it is surely most likely that he worked alone.

Again, I have to agree with you. I cannot conceive that Wallace duped Parry into making the call and if Wallace is guilty, he worked alone. Another reason to think he worked alone in relation to the phone call (assuming he is guilty) is the timing of the call. If Wallace had an accomplice making the call, surely he would have had the call made ten or fifteen minutes later when it would have been absolutely clear that Wallace could not have made the call and arrived at the chess club by 7.45pm.

Had the police done a good job in following up Parry’s alibis, we would know where he was on the night of the call and had further evidence to corroborate his Tuesday night alibi. We don’t, and so we will never know why he lied, but we know he did. It is one of the most important facts in the entire case. As I have argued, Wallace’s plan QCP was – quite frankly – dreadful[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I would say it was dreadful, after all it worked. But I do think someone hatching a plan as elaborate as QCP could have developed a much better plan. Despite holding the view that on balance, given what we know, Wallace is the most likely murderer - I struggle to understand why he did not conceive of a better plan,

unless he wanted to frame Parry

, unless there was an attempt to frame Parry (but then he needs a motive both for murder and for wanting to frame Parry). I don't see this as a particularly good way to frame Parry - as you have said, Wallace would not have a clue as to whether Parry would have an alibi or not and it would be simply too risky if Parry was the only one in the frame.

[/I](and BTW I do not see how QCP taken together - as they must - can be waived away as a smoke-and-mirrors plan if Wallace did not know that Parry had an alibi or not). And – by an extraordinary coincidence – Parry does not have an alibi for the call and he lies to the police. If Wallace’s outward journey to full of improbable coincidences (as per some recent posts), the suspicious coincidences involving Parry must be given due weight, unless we are to simply pick and choose the evidence to suit our preferred theories.

If a guilty Wallace, then it is possible QCP was designed to suggest someone other than Wallace had committed the murder. It may not have been conceived as a way to frame Parry, but that might have been introduced by Wallace later, though for his defense at trial he stuck with an unknown Qualtrough (and that was sufficient in the end to win his freedom).

I'm not sure the smoke and mirrors argument relies on Parry as the culprit, if I understood Herlock correctly, a guilty Wallace could have introduced a number of elements to obfuscate and send the police down blind alleys. I am not entirely convinced by this, but the QCP plan, if that is what is was, has kept people considering all sorts of theories over the years, so it is hard to refute it completely.

Regarding Parry's involvement:
He lied about his movements on the Monday evening - by all accounts Parry was a practiced liar. Why? We don't know, there could be any number of reasons. This appears not to be out of character for Parry. I don't see a suspicious coincidence here, just Parry being Parry.

He has a good alibi for Tuesday night, so could not have committed the murder himself. If QCP was Parry's plan to get one of his muckers into No 29 to commit a burglary, which then led to murder, his Tuesday night movements are perfectly aligned. He has a cast iron alibi for the important times and he is free to pick up his accomplice to share the loot after the event. I don't think this theory can be dismissed, but QCP as a plan is very risky (in terms of success) in this scenario. And like for Wallace, he could have developed a better plan which reduced the attaching risks.

So, whether Wallace or Parry was the culprit, the QCP plan seems pretty poor - and yet neither Wallace nor Parry were convicted, so maybe my calling it a poor plan is churlish, since it worked for whoever made the plan.

[caz]

Thanks ColdCaseJury, i appreciate your feedback, so I'd like to maybe finish this line with the following -

OK, not many seem to agree with my points about William discussing/telling Julia about the Qualtrough call, and the implications of this on Amy's statement, and therefore William's guilt, so I will try one last time and not bring it up again if anyone can positively refute it or bring up some other evidence.

So, I'll add another piece to confirm my accusation...

"... I arrived home at 6.05pm. I remember the time quite well because, I looked at the time on the mantlepiece to ascertain how much time I had to spare before leaving for Manlove Gardens East."...so the DECISION to go to the Qualtrough call was already made, after the DISCUSSION had already been made, before he arrived home for TEA! So why DISCUSS it after that?! Therefore, it was never discussed or TOLD.
If discussed/told at Supper on Monday night after chess, breakfast on Tuesday, Dinner/Lunch on Tuesday, then why didn't he answer that at the trial? Please don't say, "well they still discussed its veracity...blah blah blah..." William said, when asked, if he told his wife, yes, he discussed it at TEA.
He was asked Q. Had you ever told your wife you were going out that night? and he answered A. Certainly, we discussed it. If you want to be pedantic then why would he not, simply answer the question with say "Yes. I told her at Supper on Monday Night/ at breakfast on Tuesday Morning or Dinner/Lunch on Tuesday"? or more simply "Yes"... and then wait for the question about "discussing it"...as shown above, his decision to go was already made up.

At this point in time, it's a no brainer...but eagerly await your responses.

I am trying to find his statement about "Always discussing business decisions with his wife." Although it wouldn't change this timing issue.

BTW, the lack of blood outside the parlour , I believe, leads to a premeditated murder rather than an "Oh ****, someone's home, will have to kill her" type scenario... but that's another thread....

Hi Ven,

To be strictly fair to Wallace, he may not have decided whether to go to MGE until the Tuesday afternoon, when he could reassess the weather conditions, ask Julia how she was feeling, and see how he was feeling himself after the day's work. He had recently had 'flu, which could also have made it touch and go. In that case, he may not have troubled Julia with the fine details of this Qualtrough business until he finally decided to go, and checked how much time he had to spare for tea and a scone, a quick wash and getting his paperwork together, before he would need to leave. He may just have mentioned it earlier as a possibility of going out after tea to see a new customer, which was only firmed up and discussed in more detail over their tea and scones.

On the other hand, I agree with you about the lack of blood outside the parlour, which appears to fit better with a planned attack by someone who needs to avoid trailing blood everywhere on his way out, than with someone who panics and smashes Julia's head in, without a thought in his own head about any transfer of her blood to other parts of the house.

Love,

Caz
X

[NickB]

Perhaps Parry felt that he had a good enough alibi for the night of the murder and so could expect the police not to probe too much into his movements on the night of the phone call, so found it easier to lie than reveal whatever nefarious activity he was engaged in.

[ColdCaseJury]

POST #327 PART 2

Continuing from my original post, recall:

Key Assumptions:
[W₁] Wallace alone killed Julia Wallace
[W₂] Wallace carefully planned and thought through the details of his plan in advance

Key elements of his plan included:
[Q] The Qualtrough call to make it appear someone else was the killer
[C] The theft from the cash box to make it appear that robbery was the motive
[P] Killing Julia in the parlour to make it appear that a visitor had called

The conclusion was:
[C_A] Wallace hatched a plan (QCP) to frame Parry; or
[C_B] QCP is evidence of Parry’s involvement

I’m aware of some objections, but for now I wish to press on. Let’s introduce a new evidential area:
[N] Parry lied to police about his whereabouts at the time of Q

If Parry was involved [C_B] then we would expect N to be the case. If he made the call then he would have to lie to avoid being a prime murder suspect. But N is hugely surprising if C_A is true. In fact, it is an astonishing coincidence. If Parry was innocent and uninvolved with the call, we would not expect him to lie to the police. Astonishing coincidences have low probability unless we can show a good reason for their occurrence. So at this point the probability of C_A and N has tanked – C_B is a far more likely explanation for the events.

So, to reduce the effect of N we have explain N given C_A – why the coincidence occurred if Wallace planned to frame Parry. Two main reasons have been conjectured.
(1) Parry made an honest mistake; or
(2) He was involved with a second woman and did not want this fact made public (and damaging his relationship with Lily).

I’m sanguine about many things in the case but (1) is not one of them. Parry knows in perfect detail all his movements between 8:30pm and 9pm on the Tuesday night but apparently nothing of the Monday night. Josephine Lloyd remembers Parry telling her (on the Monday night) that he was going to Lark lane, but Parry cannot remember going there himself. We know from Wallace (when Parry helped him) and several other sources, including the Wilkes call-in (1981) with Leslie Williamson, that Parry was untrustworthy and deceitful. Therefore, our default position cannot be to blithely assume Parry simply made an honest mistake; that’s not just a free lunch it’s an all-you-can-eat buffet. No. A normal 21 year old has a sharp memory, as evidenced by Parry’s recall of Tuesday night. The only reasonable conclusion is that Parry lied for a reason.

So what could that reason be? Parry was a chancer, a conman who could think on his feet. Would a visit to another woman really throw him off balance with Lily? I think even if the police were indiscreet and his alibi with another woman was leaked, he would not be fazed. This is someone who conned money off friends and neighbours without compunction. He could have easily made an excuse with Lily. But what if it were a dalliance with a married woman? Did he realise that if the affair leaked out it would put his paramour in an extremely difficult position? Did Parry have some scruples and actually lied about his whereabouts to protect a married lover? It’s far more plausible than him doing so for single woman, I suggest.

So, in attempting to cancel out or reduce the effect of N, we could speculate that Parry was having an affair with a married woman. However, this does lead to astonishing coincidence #2: Parry’s alibi for the night of the murder was given by a married woman. Not a mate. Not someone of his own age. Not someone who we might expect Parry to normally hang out with. In fact, his mate (18-year-old William Denison) was not even at Olivia Brine’s. Where was he? An interesting question… but let’s set it aside for now.

Could Wallace have duped Parry into making the call and hence N was not a coincidence at all? I doubt it because it would mean Wallace involving someone else in his plan, someone who would know Wallace was guilty. Why would Wallace go to all the bother of this intricate plan when there was such an obvious weak link? It would have been a massive risk involving someone like Parry whose basic instincts were to serve his own needs. If the reserved and cautious Wallace is guilty, it is surely most likely that he worked alone.

Had the police done a good job in following up Parry’s alibis, we would know where he was on the night of the call and had further evidence to corroborate his Tuesday night alibi. We don’t, and so we will never know why he lied, but we know he did. It is one of the most important facts in the entire case. As I have argued, Wallace’s plan QCP was – quite frankly – dreadful unless he wanted to frame Parry (and BTW I do not see how QCP taken together - as they must - can be waived away as a smoke-and-mirrors plan if Wallace did not know that Parry had an alibi or not). And – by an extraordinary coincidence – Parry does not have an alibi for the call and he lies to the police. If Wallace’s outward journey to full of improbable coincidences (as per some recent posts), the suspicious coincidences involving Parry must be given due weight, unless we are to simply pick and choose the evidence to suit our preferred theories.

[NickB]

Wolverton Street resident Benjamin Wade saw a man emerging from the alleyway at about 6.30, if I interpret his statement correctly.

[moste]

Or of being heard Moste. The Holme’s heard Alan Close at the door but no accomplice who would probably have knocked less than an hour later. It would only have taken one neighbour to have looked out of their window and seen someone at the door or some kid playing in the street seeing someone go to the Wallace’s. These were terraced houses of course were someone at a front door would be easier to see than a house with a drive or a front garden.

Quite So HS. I’m thinking ,on the whole Wallace did an almost acceptable job of planning and executing the crime ; the only real errors for me are, as discussed , the alibi muster. And the oversight by himself of operator -call box identification.
I don’t believe he would purposely red flag that phone box so close to home, to incriminate Parry/Qualtrough. So I see that as a mistake, one which nearly hanged him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There may have been two or three gas lamps in the street , but the back alleys would be pitch dark.
A very familiar resident may venture out that way under the guidance of a dim light from the house, (as Wallace would do) but return via the front.
For a theory of a killer gaining entry it would have to be through the front door, invited in by an unsuspecting Julia, thereby running the very serious risk of being observed.

Or of being heard Moste. The Holme’s heard Alan Close at the door but no accomplice who would probably have knocked less than an hour later. It would only have taken one neighbour to have looked out of their window and seen someone at the door or some kid playing in the street seeing someone go to the Wallace’s. These were terraced houses of course were someone at a front door would be easier to see than a house with a drive or a front garden.

[moste]

If he could count to five he could find it.

There may have been two or three gas lamps in the street , but the back alleys would be pitch dark.
A very familiar resident may venture out that way under the guidance of a dim light from the house, (as Wallace would do) but return via the front.
For a theory of a killer gaining entry it would have to be through the front door, invited in by an unsuspecting Julia, thereby running the very serious risk of being observed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree that Wallace would have been taking a hell of a risk if he killed Julia, after setting up Parry to make the phone call. Parry would have grassed on anyone if that was the only way he could avoid the rope for a murder he didn't commit. But then, if Wallace committed it, he'd know that there was every chance that Parry could come up with an alibi, when telling the police how he was tricked into making the Qualtrough call.

For me, it just doesn't work that Wallace would have put Parry in the frame in such a way as to make him come out fighting like that. How many husbands would involve an accomplice, or trick someone they know into becoming an unwitting one, in a plan to get rid of their wife? How could they expect it to work in practice and be a perfect murder?

Love,

Caz
X

If we know anything about Wallace we know that he wasn’t an idiot or a taker of inordinate risks. Murder is always going to carry risks of course without saddling yourself with someone as untrustworthy as Parry.

[caz]

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?)

I agree that Wallace would have been taking a hell of a risk if he killed Julia, after setting up Parry to make the phone call. Parry would have grassed on anyone if that was the only way he could avoid the rope for a murder he didn't commit. But then, if Wallace committed it, he'd know that there was every chance that Parry could come up with an alibi, when telling the police how he was tricked into making the Qualtrough call.

For me, it just doesn't work that Wallace would have put Parry in the frame in such a way as to make him come out fighting like that. How many husbands would involve an accomplice, or trick someone they know into becoming an unwitting one, in a plan to get rid of their wife? How could they expect it to work in practice and be a perfect murder?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

First book I read after the ‘Man from the Pru’ movie , was Roger Wilkes’s The final verdict. It was intended to show the reader how Parry was undoubtedly the guilty party. It failed where I was concerned. Mainly because of the interview with Parkes , very unconvincing I thought. But further, Wilkes’s apparently accurate depiction outlining Wallace’s sequence of events of his outward journey , Underlining his conscious involvement of so many unknowing alibi providers, this completely convincing me that Wallace was guilty .I’m no Psychologist , but Surely the big give away is Wallace’s dogged determination, at procuring no fewer than nine (maybe more )sound reliable witnesses to his movements between 7.06 pm. and 8.00 pm that night.Wallace not only provided witnesses , he gave powerful reason for having them remember him. Think of it. All that over the top effort , when the post office and the newsagents would have sufficed, but just for good measure we’ll add 25 Menlove Avenue.Remember, this man was normally a quiet ,reserved type, a self admitted self taught Stoic. Wallace knew damn well that MGE did not exist.

This is a huge point for me Moste. First the meticulous Wallace arrives for a business appointment with only 10 minutes to find a house in a street he’d never heard of in a large area where he was allegedly a complete stranger. Secondly his claim to have been a complete stranger in the area is clearly false. Then the non-existent MGE. He appears to accept that there was no MGE after talking to Kate Mather. Wallace apparently told her “they tell me there isn’t any” referring to MGE. So he’s had strike one - no MGE. Then Sydney Green tells him there was no MGE - strike two. Then of course Constable Serjeant - strike 3 no MGE (what better source of info than a Bobby on his beat? He still goes on! No one will ever convince me that this is anything approaching reasonable, normal behaviour. From a man who conveniently neglects to i form the police in his interviews that he’d gone to Crewe’s house.

.......

On the subject of Parkes. Mr Brown has been tantalising me for months with some new Parkes info which he’s yet to mention.