** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[OneRound]

Does this exchange at the Trial make sense to anyone? Crewe told the Wright that William paid in 10.11.00 which was recorded as being on Monday 19th but all deposits by agents were logged as on a Monday no matter what day they were handed in. I seem to recall Wallace visiting the Prudential offices with Edwin just after the murder (on the Wednesday or Thursday I think) to pay some money in. So why did he pay in 10.11.00 considering how much was stolen? He didn’t collect on the Wednesday of course. Crewe then explains why the amount was so low. My comments are emboldened.

Crewe - for the simple reason either the police or someone else had taken the cash and a police have a portion of that cash yet.

How could the police have been involved on the Monday before the murder and what cash was even available to have been taken by the police after the ‘robbery?’

Hemmerde - What makes you say that?

Is that the best question you could come up with?!

Crewe - Well, I understand that the police have at least £18 cash and I have asked for it?

1. How could this have occurred before the crime? And 2. According to Wallace only £4/5 was stolen. How can he be £18 short?

Hemmerde - What makes you say that; where did you get it from?

Wake up Hemmerde!

Crewe - Because they took it and I have asked them for it.

What kind of answer is this?

Wright - When was the 10.11.00 paid in? Was it paid in cash?

Crewe - No, the 10.11.00 was paid in on the Thursday, 21st January

What??? He didn’t ask when it was paid in but how. And the 21st was Wednesday.

Hemmerde - Paid in by whom?

Crewe - By Mr Wallace.

.......


Its like a scene from Alice In Wonderland. Why is no one asking where this £18 came from and why the police had supposedly taken it? Is there something dodgy going on with regard to money here? Can anyone help deciphering this? Also something is telling me that when William paid in cash accompanied by Edwin it was a different amount? My memory might be playing me false but I recall at the time meaning to look into it but I forgot. I don’t know where it’s recorded though. It gives me a headache trying to decipher Edwin’s handwritten statement. Somethings not right.

I’ll be grateful for comments/explanations. Am I missing something? I could be wrong of course. It’s happened before - June 19th 1978, a bad day.

Hi Herlock - even though much of your post here is above my pay grade, I meant to respond earlier. The whole scenario as you set out and report makes little or no sense. Significantly, other posters more knowledgeable than myself are of the same view albeit they have valiantly attempted to analyse the exchanges.

I certainly feel this is a generally overlooked part of the case and one which just possibly might reveal more. Very much speculation on my part but I wonder if Wallace had got himself into some financial mess and was attempting a 'gas meter' type robbery to get out of that hole. I acknowledge that Julia becoming collateral damage as a result is a big step from there. However, maybe she was lined up to help him but backed out at the last minute and Wallace panicked. Alternatively, Wallace was working with an accomplice who was disturbed by Julia and it was the accomplice who panicked and killed Julia with her knowing nothing of what had been planned.

I do not claim with any confidence that the above is what happened but do consider it worthy of exploration. The majority of us believe that Wallace ''did it'' but are pretty much stumped as to why. It's widely thought that Wallace committed theft from the insurance takings as a way of drawing attention from him having planned Julia's murder. I'm just trying to look at it the other way round - Wallace committed murder (or an accomplice did) when a planned theft which was his original objective went wrong.

I'll comment more in the morning on why I think an accomplice may have been involved.

Best regards,
OneRound

[etenguy]

Hi eten - in his post earlier today (#534), moste memorably refers to Parkes in the Radio City broadcast as being ''one slice short of a loaf''. When I heard the broadcast, I actually wondered if Parkes was suffering dementia. That might present a fifth option. And just to add - options 2, 3 and 4 as you have listed are not mutually exclusive and may have all also influenced Parkes.

Best regards,
OneRound

hi OneRound

You are quite right that it could be a mix of options.

I'm not sure about the fifth option though. Parkes was clearly elderly at the time of the radio broadcast and his memory may indeed not be as sharp as it once was. However, that would not explain his contemporary telling of the story. Dolly Atkinson was clear that Parkes told her and her husband, Wilfred, the morning after the event. She says they had known Parkes for years and couldn't believe he would make up such a story. And her son, Gordon, says his family had talked about the car washing incident over the years. From this, I think Parkes did tell that story at the time but that does not mean it was true. Unless you believe all the Atkinsons are part of a conspiracy to lie about the story, the questions left are why did Parkes tell that story (hence the options I can think of) and what did the police do with the information? Was Hubert Moore in Parry's father's pocket?

[OneRound]

Hi Herlock

I think you are right to point out there was some tension between Parry and the garage folk - but to put him in the frame for murder on the basis of that seems, to me, to be going a little too far.

If I am correct, then why would Parkes (as he is the only primary source) tell such a story (remembering it was 50 years later but also told to the police at the time). I can think of four options:
1. It was true.
2. There was a strong hatred of Parry (perhaps Parkes had been bullied?)
3. For some reason Parkes thought Parry was guilty and wanted to put him in the frame.
4. Parkes wanted his five minutes of fame.

I find it difficult to believe it was true - but maybe it was, and maybe it had nothing to do with Julia's murder but some other crime - Parry didn't say why it would get him in trouble and maybe exaggerated the consequences to build his reputation as a hard man.

Otherwise I think I favour Parkes wanting to feel important and getting his five minutes of fame.

Hi eten - in his post earlier today (#534), moste memorably refers to Parkes in the Radio City broadcast as being ''one slice short of a loaf''. When I heard the broadcast, I actually wondered if Parkes was suffering dementia. That might present a fifth option. And just to add - options 2, 3 and 4 as you have listed are not mutually exclusive and may have all also influenced Parkes.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hmmm has anyone seen a description of Parkes? Thinking about the man in Richmond Park.

I don’t think that there is one Eten. We only have the photograph of Parkes in old age.

[etenguy]

I don’t know if anything can be read into this but isn’t it a coincidence that Parkes claimed that Parry said that the weapon had been put down a drain in front a doctors house in Priory Road. The Wallace’s own Doctor Curwen lived in Priory Road.

Hmmm has anyone seen a description of Parkes? Thinking about the man in Richmond Park.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t know if anything can be read into this but isn’t it a coincidence that Parkes claimed that Parry said that the weapon had been put down a drain in front a doctors house in Priory Road. The Wallace’s own Doctor Curwen lived in Priory Road.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not definitive enough for me to change my mind about Wallace’s guilt, but someone reminded me recently that Wallace continued writing in his diary when all the dust had settled and he was living in the Wirral . Now , I may be misremembering, but was he not saying stuff like. ‘Julia would have loved this little home and garden , and enjoyed the beautiful spring flowers’ ,and so on and so forth. If this is true , wouldn’t it point away from the likelihood of him being guilty? Even Wallace at his calculating scheming best is not, I think, likely to care one way or another what the world believed after he was dead! Or would he?

The 3rd instalment of the ‘Wilkes radio city,1981 Parkes interview,’was what convinced me, that the author , and program producers were too gullible for words. They had to see that Parkes was one slice short of a loaf, .The programme and the book as I’ve mentioned before were halfways instrumental in my believing in Wallace’s guilt.

Nothing wrong with your memory Moste and it’s certainly a valid point but I’d say that as Wallace points the finger at Parry as being Julia’s murder it might also point to the fact that he was still ‘in the zone’ as far as those events were concerned. If he was hoping that someone might look into the case and hopefully clear his name then his diaries were there to be read.

I wonder what happened to those diaries and what info they might have contained? Obviously he didn’t mention Parry by name in his John Bull articles but he’d have had no such restrictions in his diary and so I’d assume that he openly accused Parry in them? William’s personal belongings would have gone to Joseph, as Sole Executor, who may have destroyed them or passed them on to Edwin who also may have destroyed them but it’s not impossible that they are in the attic of one of Edwin’s descendants. Joseph died in 1950 and Edwin died young 10 years later.

[moste]

Not definitive enough for me to change my mind about Wallace’s guilt, but someone reminded me recently that Wallace continued writing in his diary when all the dust had settled and he was living in the Wirral . Now , I may be misremembering, but was he not saying stuff like. ‘Julia would have loved this little home and garden , and enjoyed the beautiful spring flowers’ ,and so on and so forth. If this is true , wouldn’t it point away from the likelihood of him being guilty? Even Wallace at his calculating scheming best is not, I think, likely to care one way or another what the world believed after he was dead! Or would he?

The 3rd instalment of the ‘Wilkes radio city,1981 Parkes interview,’was what convinced me, that the author , and program producers were too gullible for words. They had to see that Parkes was one slice short of a loaf, .The programme and the book as I’ve mentioned before were halfways instrumental in my believing in Wallace’s guilt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I think you are right to point out there was some tension between Parry and the garage folk - but to put him in the frame for murder on the basis of that seems, to me, to be going a little too far.

If I am correct, then why would Parkes (as he is the only primary source) tell such a story (remembering it was 50 years later but also told to the police at the time). I can think of four options:
1. It was true.
2. There was a strong hatred of Parry (perhaps Parkes had been bullied?)
3. For some reason Parkes thought Parry was guilty and wanted to put him in the frame.
4. Parkes wanted his five minutes of fame.

I find it difficult to believe it was true - but maybe it was, and maybe it had nothing to do with Julia's murder but some other crime - Parry didn't say why it would get him in trouble and maybe exaggerated the consequences to build his reputation as a hard man.

Otherwise I think I favour Parkes wanting to feel important and getting his five minutes of fame.

Hi Eten,

It has to be pointed out that there’s not a single mention of Parkes in any of the files seen so far so there’s no evidence that Parkes actually went to the police. Taking this a little further, how likely would it have been for the police to have dismissed a man out of hand that appeared to be handing them something as important as this evidence? Granted the police had fixed on Wallace but would they have been so stupid as to have taken the risk of Parry or one of the Atkinson’s going and retrieving the weapon from where Parry ‘alleged’ that it had been dumped? Or Parkes going to the press with his story of being rebuffed by the police (bloodied murder weapon in hand?)

Could we add 5. Parry, looking to get his own back on Parkes, and knowing that he had an unshakeable alibi and no blood on his clothing and that there was no weapon down a drain, just acted suspiciously hoping that Parkes would contact the police but get branded as a time waster? I don’t know?

The problem for me is that Parkes story simply isn’t believable. It has Parry acting in a mind-numbingly stupid way with the police following suite. I just don’t accept that something could have been common knowledge amongst several people at a busy garage and yet it remained a secret for 50 years. And the man that first mentioned Parkes was a mystery man who appeared to be after money at first for Wilkes chance to get to speak to an old man in hospital with not long to live.

[etenguy]

My memory could be at fault here but wasn’t Parkes the only source for the suggestion that Parry liked to make prank calls too? Might Parkes have held some kind of grudge against Parry? Well we know that Parkes certainly didn’t like or trust him. At least one of the Atkinson family confirmed that Parkes had mentioned Parry’s visit to the garage so did the family have any grudge against Parry? Yes, he’d been caught rummaging through cupboards in a room where they’d kept cash.

Hi Herlock

I think you are right to point out there was some tension between Parry and the garage folk - but to put him in the frame for murder on the basis of that seems, to me, to be going a little too far.

If I am correct, then why would Parkes (as he is the only primary source) tell such a story (remembering it was 50 years later but also told to the police at the time). I can think of four options:
1. It was true.
2. There was a strong hatred of Parry (perhaps Parkes had been bullied?)
3. For some reason Parkes thought Parry was guilty and wanted to put him in the frame.
4. Parkes wanted his five minutes of fame.

I find it difficult to believe it was true - but maybe it was, and maybe it had nothing to do with Julia's murder but some other crime - Parry didn't say why it would get him in trouble and maybe exaggerated the consequences to build his reputation as a hard man.

Otherwise I think I favour Parkes wanting to feel important and getting his five minutes of fame.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My memory could be at fault here but wasn’t Parkes the only source for the suggestion that Parry liked to make prank calls too? Might Parkes have held some kind of grudge against Parry? Well we know that Parkes certainly didn’t like or trust him. At least one of the Atkinson family confirmed that Parkes had mentioned Parry’s visit to the garage so did the family have any grudge against Parry? Yes, he’d been caught rummaging through cupboards in a room where they’d kept cash.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

50 years later.

Even though one of the family interviewed said that this was ‘common knowledge’ around the yard at the time. So we have Liverpool’s most famous murder (since Maybrick) with all the publicity of the trial and then the Appeal and here we have a man talking to the ‘murderer’ just after the crime and it doesn’t leak out? No one mentions it for 50 years? Yeah right.

Why would they not have talked about it? According to Parkes he’d reported this to the police and had been dismissed and so neither he nor anyone at the garage had any reason for maintaining silence. They’d ‘done the right thing’ after all. Can we really believe that no one would have mentioned this to ‘Fred in the pub’ or his brother-in-law or a regular customer or someone? I don’t think so for a minute. It’s been suggested that he’d been threatened into silence but there’s not a shred of evidence for this and the ‘fact’ that he’d spoken to the police anyway speaks against this anyway.

And this ‘evidence’, apart from Wallace mentioning him, is the only thing connecting Parry to the crime. And because he had a rock solid alibi for the murder a sidestep was required. So we have him masterminding this ‘robbery gone wrong.’ Party was definitely dodgy but he’s also the perfect fall guy (especially with Wallace pointing the police in his direction.)

totally agree. i always take this sort of way after the fact type "evidence" with a grain of salt. and fifty years later!?! pffft.

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi herlock
how long after the events did the whole parry at the garage thing come to light? did this come up at trial?

Hi Abby,

50 years later.

Even though one of the family interviewed said that this was ‘common knowledge’ around the yard at the time. So we have Liverpool’s most famous murder (since Maybrick) with all the publicity of the trial and then the Appeal and here we have a man talking to the ‘murderer’ just after the crime and it doesn’t leak out? No one mentions it for 50 years? Yeah right.

Why would they not have talked about it? According to Parkes he’d reported this to the police and had been dismissed and so neither he nor anyone at the garage had any reason for maintaining silence. They’d ‘done the right thing’ after all. Can we really believe that no one would have mentioned this to ‘Fred in the pub’ or his brother-in-law or a regular customer or someone? I don’t think so for a minute. It’s been suggested that he’d been threatened into silence but there’s not a shred of evidence for this and the ‘fact’ that he’d spoken to the police anyway speaks against this anyway.

And this ‘evidence’, apart from Wallace mentioning him, is the only thing connecting Parry to the crime. And because he had a rock solid alibi for the murder a sidestep was required. So we have him masterminding this ‘robbery gone wrong.’ Party was definitely dodgy but he’s also the perfect fall guy (especially with Wallace pointing the police in his direction.)

[Abby Normal]

But how did he get bloodstains in his car from a murder that took place at least 4 hours earlier? And why had he apparently dumped one mitten but retained the bloodied one? You know this of course.

hi herlock
how long after the events did the whole parry at the garage thing come to light? did this come up at trial?

[Herlock Sholmes]

and why would he confess.

And why didn’t Parry tell him not to tell anyone