** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[Ven]

Ven - great to have you contributing again.

We can go all through your points, if you wish, but several stand out for debate:

Hey ColdCaseJury, thoughts on (1)?

(2) Wallace was told by Phillips (second tram) that Wallace could get on the 7, 5, 5A or 5W (trial testimony). According to Wallace, Inspector Angus also told him to take a 5A.
OK, depends on which book you read.. but sure i read that he took a different tran to one recommended.

(3) He didn't have concern for his wife's welfare on the Monday because the chess club was real (I think we can be facetious and have fun!)
Yeah , let's have fun.... he had no problems going out at night even though the robbery in his street was after his last chess journey.. people get complacent.

(4) The attack - possibly a frenzy of 11 blows - was unheard by any neighbour. Unless Florence's "two thuds" were the attack, in which case Wallace is not the killer
Yep, 11 blows not heard, body dropping to floor, but she heard two thuds "..it might have been her FIL taking of his boots" i think i read.. but didn;t hear kitchen cupboard breaking off...


(6)-(7) Yes, it is certainly possible Wallace is guilty. I'm not sure that's evidence he did it, though.
No, not evidence but "evidence of availabilty

(8) They might not have been. That does not mean he killed his wife. However, I agree a spouse always has a motive.
Yes, and as well as being "unharmonious"(where there is proof) ... she is 17 years older... where he may have or not found out... unlike homo claim where there is no proof

(9) One possibility: the target was the company's money. Did all the other burglaries involve money that was not the householder's?
Don't know but this was obviously a staged robbery... Julia's handbag, other valuable items, no ransacking.

Hopefully, that should get us going!

Sorry for delay, do't get on every day

[Ven]

Hi Ven

You make some interesting points, which I see CCJ has picked up on - so I won't here to avoid two sets of conversations about the same thing.

But you mention Parkes. You're right we have to approach his statement with scepticism. I heard him on the radio city show and thought he sounded credible (though I may have been alone in that). I was also taken with Dolly's statements about Parkes and what she had been told at the time. (if you haven't heard the interviews, it is available in four parts on youtube - first part link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoVz82MW_AY )
It still leaves Parkes as the only primary source, and without direct corroboration, but the garage staff were aware at the time of Parkes' claims and seemed to believe him. It leads to three main possibilities:
1. Parkes made it up.
2. Parkes told the truth.
3. Parkes exagerrated around a real event.

The police did speak with him and it went nowhere, so did they believe it was not true? Some argue the police did not want to upset their case against Wallace with something as trivial as evidence, or had been leaned on by Parry's father. We do know the force was not at its best at this time.

This accusation was not put to Parry, so we do not have a response to evaluate - as such I agree with you that it is hard to consider it when thinking about the case - but it does not mean it is not true, nonetheless - however unlikely such a confession sounds.

Hey Etenguy,

I did get around to listening to the radio show from 1981 and yes , he sounds credible, as any old man in a hospital bed would, but his tale doesn't add up.
1. he never mentions blood (just "evidence'). If he used a high power spray he would have had to respray the blood that came from the car and ended up on the floor, down the drain. The glove was soaked.. in what, blood or water... he doesn't say he had to wash his hands of the blood.
If there was blood in his car...and his alibi didn't stand up, that he was with Lily, but at the end they say he did the deed first, then went and picked up Lily and dropped her off, then went and got the car cleaned, how did Lily not notice all the blood!!! (BTW there was no blood found around the house... but it was all in the car!!)
2. he was told by Parry that Parry had also disposed of the bar but not the waders and raincoat/mackintosh.
3. he was told by two different people that Parry had borrowed the items from them...just out of the blue!! AND that they were never returned.
4. One of them was a POLICEMAN!!! Who borrows a mackintosh from a policeman with intent to commit murder with it... and not return it? The Mack and waders could have easily been washed off/cleaned and returned.
5, Yes, Parry was questioned and had his clothes inspected but nothing came of it... why... if another cop said... "He borrowed my mack but never returned it" and another guy said "he borrowed my waders but never returned them"?

I guess the big thing here is whether we get to see the Parry police files from this case that weren't allowed to be released in 1981

[Ven]

Hi Eten,

If Wallace had gone out earlier but, for whatever reason, he couldn’t use the phone straight away then we have to consider that if he’d been able to use the phone straight away then he might have been able catch an earlier tram and so would have got to the club 10 minutes earlier. That said, I’ve always agreed that this is the most difficult part of the case for anyone proposing Wallace. As you’ve said, what if he’d been seen at the phone box, or getting on the tram near to the phone box? The best that I can say I guess is that Wallace could have bailed out if he’d been seen. It was dark after all and we don’t know how many people were around. Yes the tram driver would have had to have seen Wallace but why would Wallace have particularly stood out? It’s been pointed out that he was tall but that counts for very little if the conductor got to him after he’d sat down. Wallace might also have considered a conductor being questioned at a trial with his defence asking “so do you remember every passenger and where they got on?” Or “this is Mr Smith who was also on that tram, can you tell me where he got on? Or Mrs Jones perhaps?” And “can you be absolutely certain that he didn’t actually get on W stops later?” There we’re always going to be risks. When Wallace got home on the Monday night and looked back on events he might just have weighed things up a decided to press on.

And talking of timings we also have to ask of course why Wallace, according to himself, walked past 2 perfectly good tram stops to go to a stop further away? Does this make sense?

Love your work on this one Herlock!!
It was dark, not many people around ... and the phone is close to his home... either he did it or someone smarter(?) thought "I'll use a phone close to his house to help implicate him... although I don't know if he'll get the message, if he'll believe it, check the bogus address, not even go on the errand..."
Lucky the call wasn't made from somewhere further away or on his route to the chess club... so lucky!... and made at a time that he still made it to the chess club on time.

[Ven]

another thing Entenguy, Parry drives to Wolverton St, but doesn't park there, because neighbours would have seen or heard it, walks to #29, wearing or carrying the waders and mack and knocks (but not heard - or maybe the accomplice does) and gets in to do a premeditated murder with a fake robbery? (and no-one heard the cupboard coming off)... something William could have done during the day saying " oh, I broke the cupboard I had just fixed!".. and then leaves , dripping in blood, not in the house or back alley or front street, but in the car...the washing of the inside of the car needs to be explained... on top of all the other things I've pointed out about Parry

[Ven]

Parry got rid of the bar at a different place to the waders and mack (and one other glove) but doesn't tell Parkes this? just about the bar?
Parry dumps everything except one glove?!! You've got four things to dump but only do three and then tell someone where got got rid of one item (the bar)... doesn't add up!

[Herlock Sholmes]

another thing Entenguy, Parry drives to Wolverton St, but doesn't park there, because neighbours would have seen or heard it, walks to #29, wearing or carrying the waders and mack and knocks (but not heard - or maybe the accomplice does) and gets in to do a premeditated murder with a fake robbery? (and no-one heard the cupboard coming off)... something William could have done during the day saying " oh, I broke the cupboard I had just fixed!".. and then leaves , dripping in blood, not in the house or back alley or front street, but in the car...the washing of the inside of the car needs to be explained... on top of all the other things I've pointed out about Parry

We have to ask how Parry could have got the blood in his car. He’s alibi’d for the murder so we know that’s out. If an accomplice killed Julia when would it have been? According to the theory the accomplice was pretending to be Qualtrough and that there had been a mix up so would have arrived at number 29 by 7.30. It’s unthinkable that he’d have sat around chewing the fat for any length of time so I’d say it’s reasonable to suggest that Julia would have been dead by 8.00ish.

How does Parry and the accomplice then meet up whilst the accomplice is still wet with blood (considering Parry’s alibi) Also the room wasn’t exactly a charnel house was it. A bit of spray on the wall to the left of Julia looking in from the door. A forensic expert has also recently said that the killer might not have gotten blood on him. So why is this accomplice so badly covered in blood which is still wet that it requires an internal car wash which Parry waits until the early hours of the morning to get done?

Another points is this….if the mitten was drenched in blood presumably because the killer wore it when he battered Julia’s brains out why did he take the weapon away? Mitten on……no prints.

[Ven]

Hey Herlock, Parkes just says the mitten was soaked, not in blood or water, it's just assumed blood... by his own words.."it was soaked" this is after /whilst he is cleaning the car (if he ever did, that is). Parkes does not mention blood so it is ASSUMED it is blood... but no mention of any other blood in car.
Accomplice can't be WET with blood.. no other blod found ANYWHERE outside the room.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi CCJ

I agree. An additional element is that either
a) a guilty Wallace did not know the time and location of the call would be recorded. Therefore, he could have just said he boarded by the phone box, just in case he was seen.
b) a guilty Wallace did know that the time and location of the call would be recorded in the circumstances and having it recorded was part of the plan and his alibi for the call. He may even have intended to board three stops along, making a Wallace fuss so he was remembered getting on there. Then, as Herlock speculates, he was held up making the call and forced by time to board near the phone box and decided it was an acceptable risk.

Been away a few days and the posts have been piling up ! Etenguy's post caught my eye - insightful, imo.

B) If Wallace was delayed 10 mins at the kiosk you would have thought he would have bailed. After all, he would have become agitated and nervous about the delay. He could have postponed by a week and would have lost absolutely nothing, as far as we know. And if he was delayed, going through further delays in the kiosk seem implausible when he was under time pressure to get to his club.

A) A great point. Without the logging of the call, the call could have come from anywhere in Liverpool or even beyond. So why didn't Wallace say he boarded there? It makes little sense to me.

In my view, there is no way anyone could have known that call would have been logged unless they had inside knowledge of telephone exchanges. And even then, Robinson might not have done because no formal complaint had been made. I think this is attributing far too much ingenuity to Wallace or Parry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Been away a few days and the posts have been piling up ! Etenguy's post caught my eye - insightful, imo.

B) If Wallace was delayed 10 mins at the kiosk you would have thought he would have bailed. After all, he would have become agitated and nervous about the delay. He could have postponed by a week and would have lost absolutely nothing, as far as we know. And if he was delayed, going through further delays in the kiosk seem implausible when he was under time pressure to get to his club.

A) A great point. Without the logging of the call, the call could have come from anywhere in Liverpool or even beyond. So why didn't Wallace say he boarded there? It makes little sense to me.

In my view, there is no way anyone could have known that call would have been logged unless they had inside knowledge of telephone exchanges. And even then, Robinson might not have done because no formal complaint had been made. I think this is attributing far too much ingenuity to Wallace or Parry.

Good point of course and I know that I’m going to be thought of as going out on a limb for a guilty Wallace but…..isn’t it possible that he might have incorrectly believed that the calls might have been logged? Even if he’d just thought “what if the exchange have some kind of record of these calls?”

[ColdCaseJury]

Good point of course and I know that I’m going to be thought of as going out on a limb for a guilty Wallace but…..isn’t it possible that he might have incorrectly believed that the calls might have been logged? Even if he’d just thought “what if the exchange have some kind of record of these calls?”

If Wallace was going to the chess club, why would he head towards the one by the kiosk? It is in the wrong direction. For me, the puzzle remains why didn't he say he boarded at the end of Richmond Park? I think the Belmont Rd stop smacks of the truth more than a lie

[etenguy]

another thing Entenguy, Parry drives to Wolverton St, but doesn't park there, because neighbours would have seen or heard it, walks to #29, wearing or carrying the waders and mack and knocks (but not heard - or maybe the accomplice does) and gets in to do a premeditated murder with a fake robbery? (and no-one heard the cupboard coming off)... something William could have done during the day saying " oh, I broke the cupboard I had just fixed!".. and then leaves , dripping in blood, not in the house or back alley or front street, but in the car...the washing of the inside of the car needs to be explained... on top of all the other things I've pointed out about Parry

Hi Ven

It is a strange story full of unexpected (unbelievable?) information. Yet Parkes has no reason we know of to lie - surely not throwing an acquaintance under the bus for the sake of 5 minutes of fame, which he did not get at the time. It is possible Parry was yanking his chain, but probably not. The best explanation is that Parkes was exaggerating/lying, but then we have to ask why.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Wallace was going to the chess club, why would he head towards the one by the kiosk? It is in the wrong direction. For me, the puzzle remains why didn't he say he boarded at the end of Richmond Park? I think the Belmont Rd stop smacks of the truth more than a lie

I’d say, because the phone box was there.

[ColdCaseJury]

I’d say, because the phone box was there.

Ha, Ha.

No, assume he is guilty and he did go the phone box, why didn't he just say he boarded at the Richmond Park stop? Why say Belmont Rd?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ha, Ha.

No, assume he is guilty and he did go the phone box, why didn't he just say he boarded at the Richmond Park stop? Why say Belmont Rd?

Fair point of course Antony. I don’t have a real answer except maybe if he’d said the Richmond Park stop someone might have suggested that he could have made the call and dashed down to the RP stop. Belmont Road is way too far away for that kind of suggestion.

[ColdCaseJury]

Fair point of course Antony. I don’t have a real answer except maybe if he’d said the Richmond Park stop someone might have suggested that he could have made the call and dashed down to the RP stop. Belmont Road is way too far away for that kind of suggestion.

A good suggestion. But again, it shows a remarkable degree of forethought from Wallace.