** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[ColdCaseJury]

I just don’t think it was natural for her to have put on William’s coat. I think that the natural thing would have been for her to have put her own coat on. It wasn’t as if it would have taken any time to choose. And as it had been raining during the day how could Wallace’s mackintosh have dried in a cold hallway in less than 2 hours? At the very least it would have been damp. So why would she choose a damp coat to keep warm? It makes no sense.

If he’d have put the coat over her head then there would have been the possibility of the police being able tell that this is what had happened. Between weapon and bone the material might have been cut for example. A precaution like this would suggest deliberate murder and point only to Wallace. By using it as a shield all he had to do was to try and smear any blood spatter so it didn’t look like blood spatter which he could do by bunching up beneath her body. Added to the possibility of smearing he would have had the blood pooling as well.

No surprise: we disagree. I think that if Julia putt a coat round her shoulders she would pick up the uppermost coat - expedience. And she was hardly fussy. You say the coat dried in less than two hours. I believe the rain stopped at about midday - hence Wallace wore his fawn coat for the afternoon collections. That would mean the coat had approximately 7 hours to dry. Indeed, if the coat was wet, Wallace might have even let it dry in the kitchen.

Also, if any attacker wanted to avoid blood spatter, I suggest using the mackintosh in this way would be a natural manoeuvre with the added benefit of muffling any cries.

And this is how our sparring goes, Herlock! I raise an objection - in this case about the most natural use of the raincoat as protection - and you counter by saying Wallace planned this out well and did not want anything to implicate him. OK, I accept that. Apart from: he calls his chess club (which was not necessary to kill his wife and drastically limits the suspect pool), involves the cashbox (which was not necessary to kill his wife and drastically limits the suspect pool), he bludgeons his wife and then quickly departs from a bogus meeting (which was not necessary to kill his wife and risks blood transfer) etc. So, I conclude that a guilty and meticulous Wallace concocted this plan to kill his wife and frame Parry. Apart from he could not know Parry had an alibi, which is a critical error he surely would have thought of if he planned this well and did not want anything to implicate him.

As we currently arrive at different verdicts, it's only natural we differ in our interpretations on key aspects. I would have thought putting the raincoat over Julia's head while he rained down multiple blows while she was on the floor was natural and instinctive for anyone desperate to avoid any blood spatter. I don't think it would have implicated him; a good barrister would be easily able to dismiss this objection. I think the mackintosh fell from Julia shoulders. And this, by the way, is not inconsistent with the Wallace theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No surprise: we disagree. I think that if Julia putt a coat round her shoulders she would pick up the uppermost coat - expedience. And she was hardly fussy. You say the coat dried in less than two hours. I believe the rain stopped at about midday - hence Wallace wore his fawn coat for the afternoon collections. That would mean the coat had approximately 7 hours to dry. Indeed, if the coat was wet, Wallace might have even let it dry in the kitchen.

If Wallace came home on that afternoon wearing a wet coat would he have really have put it on top of Julia’s coat? There would have been more than one hook.

Also, if any attacker wanted to avoid blood spatter, I suggest using the mackintosh in this way would be a natural manoeuvre with the added benefit of muffling any cries.

I’m not saying that this isn’t a valid point Antony. Wallace of course might have been innocent or guilty but if he was guilty then he had planned the murder. His thinking might have been that if he killed Julia by the method that you suggest then there would have been no blood spatter telling the police that the killer employed the precaution that you suggested. This would have pointed away from a spontaneous killing and toward one with forethought and to Wallace.

And this is how our sparring goes, Herlock! I raise an objection - in this case about the most natural use of the raincoat as protection - and you counter by saying Wallace planned this out well and did not want anything to implicate him. OK, I accept that. Apart from: he calls his chess club (which was not necessary to kill his wife and drastically limits the suspect pool),

I don’t think that this is an issue as I’ve mentioned before. The ‘robbery’ pointed to inside knowledge. If Party and Marsden had alibi’s (as they did) then it still could have been someone that one of the two had passed information on to. Naturally they would have denied this but the police would still have had to have considered the possibility. Or perhaps even the possibility that a sneak thief had gone into the kitchen (whilst Julia was upstairs) briefly looked around and spotted the cash box on the shelf.

involves the cashbox (which was not necessary to kill his wife and drastically limits the suspect pool), he bludgeons his wife and then quickly departs from a bogus meeting (which was not necessary to kill his wife and risks blood transfer) etc. So, I conclude that a guilty and meticulous Wallace concocted this plan to kill his wife and frame Parry. Apart from he could not know Parry had an alibi, which is a critical error he surely would have thought of if he planned this well and did not want anything to implicate him.

As we currently arrive at different verdicts, it's only natural we differ in our interpretations on key aspects. I would have thought putting the raincoat over Julia's head while he rained down multiple blows while she was on the floor was natural and instinctive for anyone desperate to avoid any blood spatter. I don't think it would have implicated him; a good barrister would be easily able to dismiss this objection. I think the mackintosh fell from Julia shoulders. And this, by the way, is not inconsistent with the Wallace theory.

As we’ve said often enough…everything can be interpreted at least two ways.

[ColdCaseJury]

As we’ve said often enough…everything can be interpreted at least two ways.

Yep. I agree with that! I hope Russell and Murphy are reading you! I find Wallace's plan from the top down very surprising indeed. You find his bottom up behaviours very suspicious indeed. My view - as there is little no evidence connecting Wallace or anyone else to the crime (setting aside Parkes), I think many people look at the crime in one of these two ways and then interpret everything on that basis.

One point about the wet coat. I meant: IF it was very wet Wallace might have wanted to dry it. He hung on the coat stand, therefore it probably was NOT as wet as you possibly think.

I now see mackintosh as a pointer away from Wallace. Obviously, you disagree and have good reasons. It's the nature of the case!

[ColdCaseJury]

For the Wallace connoisseur. A few novels have been based on the Wallace case. I dabble in crime & mystery short stories, so I wrote one that was partly inspired by it. It involves a phone box, a chess club and a cafe (!) but it is a very different story. Of possible interest to JTR posters on this thread might be the companion article on coincidences. Of course, this relates to the Wallace case because it has been muted that the call was in fact a prank...

From the official blurb:

"For Discerning But Time-Pressed Readers

This digital-only book contains a short mystery story, shortlisted for the Margery Allingham Prize in 2021, and a non-fiction article. For Laura Hope tells of a passer-by who picks up a ringing telephone in a public callbox in wartime London. An unbelievable set of coincidences embroils the young man in a murder investigation that not only changes his life but the course of the war. Related to the short story, the article Amazing Tales of Chance and Coincidence examines the stories that luck fashions based on real-life anecdotes collected from around the world. The beguiling narratives show that coincidence is the poet laureate of ordinary life.

Serve with coffee and consume during a lunch hour."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yep. I agree with that! I hope Russell and Murphy are reading you! I find Wallace's plan from the top down very surprising indeed. You find his bottom up behaviours very suspicious indeed. My view - as there is little no evidence connecting Wallace or anyone else to the crime (setting aside Parkes), I think many people look at the crime in one of these two ways and then interpret everything on that basis.

One point about the wet coat. I meant: IF it was very wet Wallace might have wanted to dry it. He hung on the coat stand, therefore it probably was NOT as wet as you possibly think.

I now see mackintosh as a pointer away from Wallace. Obviously, you disagree and have good reasons. It's the nature of the case!

Unless something new turns up this case is never going to be solved to anything approaching a consensus Antony (I suspect that you’d agree with that). My only issue with anyone’s opinion is if they said that it’s solved (either way) and I know that’s never been your conclusion.

Wallace’s plan, if it was a plan, certainly couldn’t be interpreted as a work of genius but Wallace might have been the type of person that simply believed he was cleverer than others. I don’t think that this proposition is much of a stretch of the imagination after we read some of the things that he wrote.

Whilst I’m not accusing you of this I’ve seen over the last few years what I see as an attempt to bend over backwards to excuse Wallace’s behaviour.

An example of this is that Wallace twice said that the mackintosh was his but later Moore asked him 4 or 5 times before Wallace even spoke a word (why was he struck dumb?) before suddenly becoming cautious - if it has a patch etc. To me this is highly suspicious. You ask in your book if this was because Wallace realised that he’d already identified it an that the police might have asked how he could have recognised a bunched up partially hidden coat as his own?

I think that his behaviour on the journey is completely unnatural especially from a man who was so nonchalant about finding the place when they discussed it in the cafe. I don’t see how it can’t be considered deeply suspicious that a man that was allegedly a ‘complete stranger’ in the area and that was pestering conductors for directions for the whole journey ignored the conductor when pointing out his next tram to get on to a different tram. How could he have known if this tram was going where he wanted it to? We know after all that Wallace was not a complete stranger in the area. That’s not say that he knew every back street but he certainly wasn’t a stranger to the area. So when Wallace said that he was a ‘complete stranger’ he lied.

Then we have a back door that hadn’t defeated him in 16 years. Not once. But it did on that night. What are the chances of that? I think that Wallace was putting on a performance and was trying to created the impression that the killer was still inside the house. In court Wallace tried to deny he was thinking this but then admitted the truth. This is suspicious, strange behaviour by anyone’s standards.

Those are just three obvious examples and my apologies for the repetition.

Certainly not a case closed but for me Wallace remains by a considerable distance the likeliest killer.

[ColdCaseJury]

Unless something new turns up this case is never going to be solved to anything approaching a consensus Antony (I suspect that you’d agree with that). My only issue with anyone’s opinion is if they said that it’s solved (either way) and I know that’s never been your conclusion.

Wallace’s plan, if it was a plan, certainly couldn’t be interpreted as a work of genius but Wallace might have been the type of person that simply believed he was cleverer than others. I don’t think that this proposition is much of a stretch of the imagination after we read some of the things that he wrote.

Whilst I’m not accusing you of this I’ve seen over the last few years what I see as an attempt to bend over backwards to excuse Wallace’s behaviour.

An example of this is that Wallace twice said that the mackintosh was his but later Moore asked him 4 or 5 times before Wallace even spoke a word (why was he struck dumb?) before suddenly becoming cautious - if it has a patch etc. To me this is highly suspicious. You ask in your book if this was because Wallace realised that he’d already identified it an that the police might have asked how he could have recognised a bunched up partially hidden coat as his own?

I think that his behaviour on the journey is completely unnatural especially from a man who was so nonchalant about finding the place when they discussed it in the cafe. I don’t see how it can’t be considered deeply suspicious that a man that was allegedly a ‘complete stranger’ in the area and that was pestering conductors for directions for the whole journey ignored the conductor when pointing out his next tram to get on to a different tram. How could he have known if this tram was going where he wanted it to? We know after all that Wallace was not a complete stranger in the area. That’s not say that he knew every back street but he certainly wasn’t a stranger to the area. So when Wallace said that he was a ‘complete stranger’ he lied.

Then we have a back door that hadn’t defeated him in 16 years. Not once. But it did on that night. What are the chances of that? I think that Wallace was putting on a performance and was trying to created the impression that the killer was still inside the house. In court Wallace tried to deny he was thinking this but then admitted the truth. This is suspicious, strange behaviour by anyone’s standards.

Those are just three obvious examples and my apologies for the repetition.

Certainly not a case closed but for me Wallace remains by a considerable distance the likeliest killer.

No need to apologise for repetitions... Of course, any suspicious behaviour must be relative to Wallace. For the tram number, No. 7 vs No. 5A, I do cover this is my book. Thomas (in his trial testimony) said he told Wallace he could use four trams (incl. 5A) and, according Wallace, inspector Angus told him to take the 5A. Perhaps, Angus told him in a confident manner? Therefore, this aspect is not so suspicious in my view. "Stranger to the area" - which area was Wallace referring to? If he was referring to Menlove Gardens, he probably was. It might be odd, but Wallace was odd.

I'm just pointing out an alternative explanation. And, true to the dual-interpretation hypothesis, if some people bend over backwards to interpret everything Wallace does in a benign way then others do exactly the same but in a malign way. The problem is the lack of hard facts, and despite assertions from Murphy and Russell that there is evidence that can only be interpreted in one way, almost everything has a dual interpretation.

Personally, I have always believed that the tram journey and MGE are not the most suspicious behaviours but the locks. But - then again - why didn't he just say the front door was bolted? Why did he think he had to say that the door was bolted and broken in two different ways to imply a killer was inside? Was he making it up as he went along? If he was, perhaps it was because something went wrong and he was improvising. To my mind, this *might* point to Conspiracy (not Gannon's but Wallace + killer). Just sayin'!

[ansonman]

"Those are just three obvious examples and my apologies for the repetition."

Here are eight important points made by Roger Wilkes that add to a damaging case against Gordon Parry:

1. He had two motives, one for simple robbery, to avenge Wallace's "treachery" in reporting his accounting discrepancies; and a second for murder, to silence the sole witness of his bungled attempt at theft. Wallace claimed that Parry was hard up at the time of the killing.

2. He had the means: the ability, as an amateur actor, to have disguised his voice convincingly during the telephone call; the use of a car to get to and from Wolverton Street; and access to a murder weapon, either something to hand in the house, or an implement he took there himself.

3. He had opportunity: he knew where Wallace's insurance takings were kept, he was virtually assured of being admitted to the house by Mrs Wallace, and knew that Wallace himself would be out of the way long enough to commit robbery without risk of interruption.

4. After the killing, Parry claimed at least three different alibis, the first (reportedly to the police) that he had spent the evening with friends, one of whom, Lily Lloyd, he named; the second (to his father) that he was fixing his car in Breck Road; the third (to Goodman and Whittington-Egan) that he had been arranging a birthday celebration with friends.

5. Parry, named to the police by Wallace, was evidently the strongest initial suspect.

6. His antecedents, a history of pilfering, car stealing and his alleged violent nature, weigh against him.

7. Lily Lloyd stands by her 1933 version of events, admitting that Parry did not join her until late on the murder night, late enough to deprive Parry of an alibi for the time of the killing.

8. The substantial evidence of John Parkes concerning Parry's visit to Atkinson's Garage, recounted for no reward or inducement other than "to get it off my mind after all these years".

It seems to me that these points far outweigh any that can be levelled against Wallace.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Those are just three obvious examples and my apologies for the repetition."

Here are eight important points made by Roger Wilkes that add to a damaging case against Gordon Parry:

1. He had two motives, one for simple robbery, to avenge Wallace's "treachery" in reporting his accounting discrepancies; and a second for murder, to silence the sole witness of his bungled attempt at theft. Wallace claimed that Parry was hard up at the time of the killing.

It was Parry’s own decision to leave the Prudential.

2. He had the means: the ability, as an amateur actor, to have disguised his voice convincingly during the telephone call; the use of a car to get to and from Wolverton Street; and access to a murder weapon, either something to hand in the house, or an implement he took there himself.

You don’t need to be an actor to disguise your voice but it’s known to be quite difficult to sound older or younger than you actually are. One of the telephone operators and Gladys Harley described the voice of an older man. They also made a point that the caller pronounced cafe as Kaffay rather than the local pronunciation kaffee. Parry was Liverpool born and bred, Wallace wasn’t. Kaffay would have been considered the ‘posh’ way of pronouncing the word. So dodgy local lad or middle aged, cultured Wallace? It’s was also noticable that the voice was described as ‘normal’ by all except Beattie who described it as gruff. Beattie might have seen Parry at the club when Parry was rehearsing in another room but he didn’t actually know him. He knew Wallace well of course so Wallace would have had more need to change to a different voice than he’d used for the others.

3. He had opportunity: he knew where Wallace's insurance takings were kept, he was virtually assured of being admitted to the house by Mrs Wallace, and knew that Wallace himself would be out of the way long enough to commit robbery without risk of interruption.

But unless you’re suggesting that Parry went in there with the express intention of murdering Julia how could he have hoped to have gotten away with stealing the cash if he’d been the only other person in the house.

4. After the killing, Parry claimed at least three different alibis, the first (reportedly to the police) that he had spent the evening with friends, one of whom, Lily Lloyd, he named; the second (to his father) that he was fixing his car in Breck Road; the third (to Goodman and Whittington-Egan) that he had been arranging a birthday celebration with friends.

Two of those he actually did. The ‘fixing his car’ might simply have been his father mis-remembering as Parry had been to pick up his accumulator battery. He did have a confirmed alibi up until around 8.30 which exonerates him.

5. Parry, named to the police by Wallace, was evidently the strongest initial suspect.

Exactly, mentioned by Wallace himself. Thoroughly checked by police including his car and clothing. Alibi checked and exonerated.

6. His antecedents, a history of pilfering, car stealing and his alleged violent nature, weigh against him.

He’d never committed a crime that required any planning though and the ‘alleged’ violence was just that ‘alleged.’ Certainly not in the same ball park as viciously beating the brains out of someone that he knew.

7. Lily Lloyd stands by her 1933 version of events, admitting that Parry did not join her until late on the murder night, late enough to deprive Parry of an alibi for the time of the killing.

Lily Lloyd is irrelevant on the night of the murder. Wallace got home at 8.45. Parry was confirmed to have been at the Brine’s until 8.30. Then he went to buy cigarettes and then on to Hignett’s (we have no record that these last 2 were checked but he named them so they were there to be checked) He then went to the Williamson’s then to Missouri Road.

8. The substantial evidence of John Parkes concerning Parry's visit to Atkinson's Garage, recounted for no reward or inducement other than "to get it off my mind after all these years".

But we have to look at the content of any statement. Why would Parry get his car cleaned at a garage where he wasn’t welcome and by a man who’d told him to his face that he didn’t trust him? Why didn’t he clean it himself, he had more than ample time? Why keep the bloodied mitten after he’d thrown away the weapon? Why tell Parkes about the weapon when he had absolutely no need to? Who uses a mitten for a robber, especially one where you’re stealing notes from a small box? Are we really to believe that Parry would have put his neck in the noose by telling Parkes this and yet not once did he ask him to keep quiet about what he’d told him?

No matter what was thought about Parkes by those that knew him or the fact that Dolly Atkinson said that she remembers him mentioning Parry at the time we can’t dismiss the fact that his story is simply not believable.

It seems to me that these points far outweigh any that can be levelled against Wallace.

I really can’t understand why Parry is still even mentioned as a potential murderer? As for Wilkes, I’m afraid I have little respect for a man who re-issues his book and completely ignores the fact that we now know about Parry’s alibi.

[ColdCaseJury]

I really can’t understand why Parry is still even mentioned as a potential murderer? As for Wilkes, I’m afraid I have little respect for a man who re-issues his book and completely ignores the fact that we now know about Parry’s alibi.

In fact, the re-issuing of this book can only confuse matters.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In fact, the re-issuing of this book can only confuse matters.

True, especially if this is the first book someone picks up on the case.

[RodCrosby]

It seems to me that these points far outweigh any that can be levelled against Wallace.

the Lord Chief Justice turned to Hemmerde KC and said:
"Are you not really saying that if it be assumed that this man committed the murder, other circumstances fit in with that?"

Hemmerde KC: "...the jury were brought irresistibly to the conclusion that it all fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle."

And, with that, the Court of Appeal gave a collective snort, and turned Wallace loose...


There was NO EVIDENCE, just Prejudice, Fancy, Assumption, Superstition.

The same techniques Matthew Hopkins had used in the 17th Century, to "find" witches.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the entire basis of a debate on who killed Julia Wallace and whether William was guilty or innocent is simply a re-iteration of an Appeal decision that we’re all fully aware of then it’s pretty desperate to say the least. Unless it can be shown that courts, judges, juries etc have never in legal history gotten anything wrong I see no purpose in simply parroting the same old stuff. Then again, if that’s all that some have then they have no choice but to parrot away. It’s all very childish really.

We have had 90 years to look into the case. Those conducting the case had weeks. The statement “There was no evidence…” is telling. There is zero ‘evidence’ for the accomplice theory. It is purely conjecture and speculation. Some favour it, some don’t. It’s a scenario and nothing more and a child could understand that just because someone can come up with a ‘scenario’ it doesn’t mean that it’s the truth. If you put the ‘accomplice theory’ before a court would there be anywhere near enough to convict Parry of being complicit? Of course there wouldn’t. A Barrister would say “are you kidding? You want me to go to court with that?”

Put as simply as I can so that it’s easy to understand. A scenario is not a solution. Never thought I’d have to explain this but apparently it does need explaining.

But hey, keep telling us the result of the appeal. Elvis is dead too. I look forward to reading about the result of the appeal in the next post.

You might want to throw in a bit of boasting too.

[RodCrosby]

I asked before: "So where is the EVIDENCE that the Appeal Court overlooked", since that is the only way they could be, according to you, "wrong".

You have none, therefore it is YOU that must be wrong. QED.


And please don't try to tell me what evidence is or isn't. You'll merely display your ignorance yet again.

Let a great Judge (co-incidentally the same Judge who freed Wallace) tell us, from another case...

"It has been said that the evidence against the applicants is circumstantial: so it is, but circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence. It is evidence of surrounding circumstances which, by undesigned coincidence, is capable of proving a proposition with the accuracy of mathematics."

There is strong circumstantial evidence for the Accomplice Theory, and no evidence for any other. Therefore, as far as can be determined, 90 years after the event, the Accomplice Theory is the Correct Solution.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Therefore, as far as can be determined, 90 years after the event, the Accomplice Theory is the Correct Solution.

This sentence doesn’t even make sense. It’s completely devoid of logic. What you are basically saying is “ after looking at the circumstantial evidence, and with the complete absence of hard evidence, I can suggest what might have happened. Therefore this must be what actually happened.”

It’s a completely untenable stance but if that’s your stance I’m quite happy to leave than one standing for everyone to judge.

If you can’t categorically dismiss other suggestions then very obviously (to all but yourself) your scenario cannot be said to be the correct solution. Again, this is very simple, obvious stuff.

Ill paraphrase the Maybrick thread….

Produce the One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable fact which exonerates Wallace.

If you can’t (and you can’t) then logic tells us that your scenario cannot be considered the correct solution.’
(and a 15th repetition of the appeal court verdict doesn’t count by the way)

I hope that’s easy enough to understand. I could try and re-phrase if you need me to.

[RodCrosby]

Yawn... I said you'd display your ignorance.

‘Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt.. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.’ Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935]

Keep on whittling in the dark...