** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[ColdCaseJury]

That seems logical to me also. Wallace might well reason as you suggest. This makes me wonder whether he really wanted to frame Parry, or simply have an alternative suspect in the frame. Though post his appeal, Wallace seemed absolutely to be pointing the finger at Parry. It is quite a puzzle. CCJ has given a logical reason for Wallace to suspect Parry - but he seems to have a conviction beyond that.

Quite. That is my point precisely. There are two reasons why Wallace might have wanted to frame Parry:

F1) Casting suspicion away from himself i.e. it was instrumental to the actual crime; cover
F2) Wanting to see Parry convicted i.e. it was intrinsic to the crime, a motive in its own right

F2 is an old motive: kill your wife and frame her lover (I'm not saying this is exactly the same in the Wallace case).

Herlock clearly favours F1. I do not. I'm saying it would have been F2. Here is one reason to start with: Wallace's post-acquittal behaviour is consistent with F2 and not F1. After acquittal, he had won - he didn't need any cover. Under double jeopardy, he could have admitted killing his wife.

Also (against F1), as husband, Wallace would always be the prime suspect. Any reputational "credit" etc would be trumped by that fact.

OR

F3) Wallace inferred Parry was guilty from (E); hence, the post-acquittal behaviour*.

Edit: * And I should add: and also Parry's post-murder behaviour i.e. not speaking about the crime for the rest of his life, despite at least two writers pointing the finger of suspicion at him (via description) during his lifetime.

[ColdCaseJury]

Etenguy, I should also add that Wallace's sense of conviction under (F3) would be that he believed no-one else satisfied E. We cannot know Parry or Marsden as well as Wallace did. What we do know: Parry had a reputation of being a conman and disreputable. This might have also convinced Wallace it was Parry. And of course that might be other things that we do not know, especially about the Parry-Wallace-Julia relationship. I do not believe the conviction argument favours F2 over F3, but counts against F1.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Before the crime the most that Wallace could have done was to have pointed the police in the direction of Parry and Marsden as people that knew where the cash was kept. After the crime he had no reason to directly accuse either one of them as both had alibi’s. He and his council would have had no grounds to pursue a case against either of them and if Wallace had tried to make an accusation it would have appeared to have been a desperate and unfounded attempt to deflect from his own guilt. After the appeal however he was free to claim that he knew who had done it. He might have felt compelled to have done this as there were obviously those that felt that he must have been guilty but had gotten away with it.

So I’d say that Wallace’s post acquittal behaviour to me speaks of a man with the shackles off. Free to pretty much say want he wants.

[ColdCaseJury]

Before the crime the most that Wallace could have done was to have pointed the police in the direction of Parry and Marsden as people that knew where the cash was kept. After the crime he had no reason to directly accuse either one of them as both had alibi’s.

Did Wallace even know that?

He and his council would have had no grounds to pursue a case against either of them and if Wallace had tried to make an accusation it would have appeared to have been a desperate and unfounded attempt to deflect from his own guilt. After the appeal however he was free to claim that he knew who had done it. He might have felt compelled to have done this as there were obviously those that felt that he must have been guilty but had gotten away with it.

I've asked several senior detectives, in their experience, how often a murderer suspect (or even one convicted) accuses a specific person. So far the answer is zero. The felons usually vehemently deny they did it, but that's all. Why didn't Wallace do just that? What did he gain by incriminating Parry in addition to protesting his innocence?

Indeed, it is still hard to see why Wallace had to accuse anyone specifically once he was acquitted - and one he knew to be certainly innocent- unless F2 is true. At the very least, if Wallace is guilty, he harboured a grudge against Parry, which increases the likelihood of F2.

So I’d say that Wallace’s post acquittal behaviour to me speaks of a man with the shackles off. Free to pretty much say want he wants.

He's completely free, even to say he did it, especially on his deathbed. He would have then gone down in history as the man who got away with the perfect murder, gaining all the attention I think he might have craved.

So, I say its F2 vs F3, and F1 drops out.

[etenguy]

Etenguy, I should also add that Wallace's sense of conviction under (F3) would be that he believed no-one else satisfied E. We cannot know Parry or Marsden as well as Wallace did. What we do know: Parry had a reputation of being a conman and disreputable. This might have also convinced Wallace it was Parry. And of course that might be other things that we do not know, especially about the Parry-Wallace-Julia relationship. I do not believe the conviction argument favours F2 over F3, but counts against F1.

Hi CCJ

F3 supposes that Parry is guilty, or at least Wallace is innocent, whereas F1 and F2 are based on Wallace being guilty. So you are right in saying that Wallace's conviction that Parry was guilty came from E if Wallace was innocent. If Wallace is guilty, then the conviction is feigned. This conviction, and the public stating of it, appears after Wallace has won his appeal. So you are right to ask, what is the point if Wallace is guilty and got away with it? I think the answer to that might appear in Wallace's diary entries and John Bull articles. The law has proclaimed Wallace innocent, but parts of the public nevertheless shunned him. He moved, his job was changed and he endured ostracisation, it must have been a difficult life. He may have felt he needed to give the public a credible alternative suspect. That might explain why he feigned such conviction, if in fact it was feigned.

Parry's post murder behaviour is interesting. We have:
a) the Parkes' story - if true.
b) the refusal of Parry to defend himself to journalists (although he had nothing to gain and maybe just wanted to let sleeping dogs lie).
c) his tantalising statement that he knew more but his father had sworn him to silence.
d) he approached Wallace in a friendly manner but Wallace blanked him.
e) Lily Lloyd stated Parry never said anything to her that led her to believe he was involved in the murder - this after changing her statement about the time.
f) Parry's daughter swore he never spoke to her about the case.

Some of the above points to Parry's guilt and some to his innocence.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi CCJ

F3 supposes that Parry is guilty, or at least Wallace is innocent, whereas F1 and F2 are based on Wallace being guilty. So you are right in saying that Wallace's conviction that Parry was guilty came from E if Wallace was innocent. If Wallace is guilty, then the conviction is feigned. This conviction, and the public stating of it, appears after Wallace has won his appeal. So you are right to ask, what is the point if Wallace is guilty and got away with it? I think the answer to that might appear in Wallace's diary entries and John Bull articles. The law has proclaimed Wallace innocent, but parts of the public nevertheless shunned him. He moved, his job was changed and he endured ostracisation, it must have been a difficult life. He may have felt he needed to give the public a credible alternative suspect. That might explain why he feigned such conviction, if in fact it was feigned.

Parry's post murder behaviour is interesting. We have:
a) the Parkes' story - if true.
b) the refusal of Parry to defend himself to journalists (although he had nothing to gain and maybe just wanted to let sleeping dogs lie).
c) his tantalising statement that he knew more but his father had sworn him to silence.
d) he approached Wallace in a friendly manner but Wallace blanked him.
e) Lily Lloyd stated Parry never said anything to her that led her to believe he was involved in the murder - this after changing her statement about the time.
f) Parry's daughter swore he never spoke to her about the case.

Some of the above points to Parry's guilt and some to his innocence. Innocent points being (d) and (e) presumably?

Hi Eten

"He may have felt he needed to give the public a credible alternative suspect."

But What if Parry had come forward with his alibi? What if the police leaked that Parry had an alibi? I agree that Wallace had not publicly named Parry but it did not stop Parry coming forward with the Empire News article (if genuine).

Presumable, points (a)-(c) and (f) are consistent with Parry's guilt (i.e. at least involvement) and (e) and (d) innocence? Of course, (d) we don't know; and (e) he was hardly likely to confess. BTW, on (e), Lloyd and Parry broke up shortly after the murder and the "worry of it all" might have caused Parry's mother's premature death (source: Wilkes).

I still haven't heard a credible explanation as to why a guilty Wallace went round impugning a man he knew to be innocent and who, therefore, most likely had an alibi (defeating his purpose). He had the perfect generic scapegoat - Mr Qualtrough. Yet, in the Tit-Bits and John Bull articles, Wallace insisted on going through the evidence (E) and the inference that pointed to just one individual who could be Qualtrough.

Surely, its F3 v F2?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Eten

"He may have felt he needed to give the public a credible alternative suspect."

But What if Parry had come forward with his alibi? What if the police leaked that Parry had an alibi? I agree that Wallace had not publicly named Parry but it did not stop Parry coming forward with the Empire News article (if genuine).

Presumable, points (a)-(c) and (f) are consistent with Parry's guilt (i.e. at least involvement) and (e) and (d) innocence? Of course, (d) we don't know; and (e) he was hardly likely to confess. BTW, on (e), Lloyd and Parry broke up shortly after the murder and the "worry of it all" might have caused Parry's mother's premature death (source: Wilkes).

I still haven't heard a credible explanation as to why a guilty Wallace went round impugning a man he knew to be innocent and who, therefore, most likely had an alibi (defeating his purpose). He had the perfect generic scapegoat - Mr Qualtrough. Yet, in the Tit-Bits and John Bull articles, Wallace insisted on going through the evidence (E) and the inference that pointed to just one individual who could be Qualtrough.

Surely, its F3 v F2?

But surely we have to consider that even after the acquittal Wallace was considered by many to have been a man that got away with murder. Added to this we know that killers often believe themselves to be cleverer than they actually are so a guilty Wallace’s thinking might have been that he’d planned the murder in such a way as to point the police in the direction of Parry and Marsden (as either being directly or indirectly involved) and yet they’d still charged him. That the police should have realised that one of them was behind it in some way. In essence Wallace was saying “the killer might have fooled the police but he doesn’t fool me. I know who did it.”

[RodCrosby]

But surely we have to consider that even after the acquittal Wallace was considered by many to have been a man that got away with murder.;

Yawn...

Your intellectual betters opined, back in May 1931...

"There was NO EVIDENCE."

So, the notion that (cough) Wallace was "a man that got away with murder" is mere SUPERSTITION.

Like horoscopes, or tarot cards....

Yawn...

[jmenges]

Some members are obviously unable to harness the ability to post without making a personal attack.

So they get a little break.

JM

[etenguy]

Hi Eten

"He may have felt he needed to give the public a credible alternative suspect."

But What if Parry had come forward with his alibi? What if the police leaked that Parry had an alibi? I agree that Wallace had not publicly named Parry but it did not stop Parry coming forward with the Empire News article (if genuine).

Hi CCJ

If Parry had come forward with a public alibi, it may well have suited Wallace. People would be talking about Parry as a viable suspect and with his reputation, would be discussing whether the alibi was sound. The focus would shift to whether Parry might have been involved. You might imagine people choosing between a young tear away and a respectable man. And of course, Wallace always had the 'I wasn't referring to him' defence if opinion came down on the side of Parry. Trump has illuminated just how much people believe alternative facts despite strong evidence to the contrary. This is not new, Trump just shone a light on it.

Presumable, points (a)-(c) and (f) are consistent with Parry's guilt (i.e. at least involvement) and (e) and (d) innocence? Of course, (d) we don't know; and (e) he was hardly likely to confess. BTW, on (e), Lloyd and Parry broke up shortly after the murder and the "worry of it all" might have caused Parry's mother's premature death (source: Wilkes).

I have a slightly different take. Generally, I think
a) talks to Parry's guilt (if you believe Parkes' story is true).
b) talks to Parry's innocence or guilt depending on the intent you ascribe for his silence.
c) talks to Parry's innocence suggesting he knew more that might identify the killer (presumably not him) but of course that might also be smoke and mirrors to hide his guilt.
d) if it happened, is neutral, but perhaps suggests Wallace really believed Parry was guilty.
e) and f) could be argued either way (innocent since there is nothing to say, or guilty and keeping it to himself).

I still haven't heard a credible explanation as to why a guilty Wallace went round impugning a man he knew to be innocent and who, therefore, most likely had an alibi (defeating his purpose). He had the perfect generic scapegoat - Mr Qualtrough. Yet, in the Tit-Bits and John Bull articles, Wallace insisted on going through the evidence (E) and the inference that pointed to just one individual who could be Qualtrough.

Surely, its F3 v F2?

I am not sure Qualtrough was believable as an independent suspect, he would be seen as an imaginary person who was either Wallace or another viable suspect. I think Wallace needed to make a real person seem a more likely suspect than himself if he was to gain some sympathy and perhaps a less vilified life. Parry was an ideal foil for a guilty Wallace, even an unshakable alibi would only have people talking about what his level of involvement with the murder was. The conversation would change and Wallace would no longer be the only and obvious person suspected. If an acquittal by senior judges did not convince everyone of Wallace's innocence, then an alibi from a rogue would be even less accepted.

[ColdCaseJury]

OK. I think it might be beneficial if we actually re-focus the question. My overall point is this:

(Q) WHY DID A GUILTY WALLACE EXECUTE THIS PARTICULAR MURDER PLAN (P) RATHER THAN ANOTHER?

(I'm not shouting just emphasising a question that virtually no writer has bothered asking).

Another could be something completely different (D): a poisoning, a push-down the stairs. Or it could have been a variation (V) on P. For example, he could execute the killing exactly as before but on the Monday night. So, he gets out of house quickly and then goes to the chess club. No phone call. No quest. The alibi is better: it's genuine and many people see him there. His defence is the same: he left his wife alive and came back home to find her dead (with neighbours as witnesses) and timing (on trams etc) counts against him doing it. Note: having a Qualtrough is not necessary for his defence.

There are literally scores of ways Wallace could have killed Julia and got away with it. I think with a bout of flu going round in January, he would have fancied his chances with poison and that Dr Curwen would not find the death suspicious, sudden or unnatural, and issued a death certificate; hence no post mortem.

We have to ask ourselves why did Wallace chose P and not D or V? There must be a reason why he conducted this "the whole plan" which "was fraught with danger and possible disaster" to quote Mark Russell.

Now, I would say that a guilty Wallace would only chose P because he wanted to frame Parry (F2 above).

OR

(F3) He didn't concoct such a convoluted and risky plan.

Obviously, the answer cannot be: he executed P because we know that's what he did. That's logically begging the question against F3.

Q is important because (contra Murphy and Russell), virtually everything in this case has a dual interpretation. The only one that does not is Parkes yet its evidential value is weakened given its nature and timing.

My hunch: those who tend towards innocence ask Q, and find it quite bizarre that Wallace would bludgeon his wife knowing he was going out in public in short order (with all the problems of blood spatter and timing etc), involve the cashbox, makes a call to his chess club etc. I think those who find him guilty ignore Q, and look only at the circumstantial evidence that, for the most part, can be interpreted both ways.

[Herlock Sholmes]

OK. I think it might be beneficial if we actually re-focus the question. My overall point is this:

(Q) WHY DID A GUILTY WALLACE EXECUTE THIS PARTICULAR MURDER PLAN (P) RATHER THAN ANOTHER?

(I'm not shouting just emphasising a question that virtually no writer has bothered asking).

Another could be something completely different (D): a poisoning, a push-down the stairs. Or it could have been a variation (V) on P. For example, he could execute the killing exactly as before but on the Monday night. So, he gets out of house quickly and then goes to the chess club. No phone call. No quest. The alibi is better: it's genuine and many people see him there. His defence is the same: he left his wife alive and came back home to find her dead (with neighbours as witnesses) and timing (on trams etc) counts against him doing it. Note: having a Qualtrough is not necessary for his defence.

There are literally scores of ways Wallace could have killed Julia and got away with it. I think with a bout of flu going round in January, he would have fancied his chances with poison and that Dr Curwen would not find the death suspicious, sudden or unnatural, and issued a death certificate; hence no post mortem.

We have to ask ourselves why did Wallace chose P and not D or V? There must be a reason why he conducted this "the whole plan" which "was fraught with danger and possible disaster" to quote Mark Russell.

Now, I would say that a guilty Wallace would only chose P because he wanted to frame Parry (F2 above).

OR

(F3) He didn't concoct such a convoluted and risky plan.

Obviously, the answer cannot be: he executed P because we know that's what he did. That's logically begging the question against F3.

Q is important because (contra Murphy and Russell), virtually everything in this case has a dual interpretation. The only one that does not is Parkes yet its evidential value is weakened given its nature and timing.

My hunch: those who tend towards innocence ask Q, and find it quite bizarre that Wallace would bludgeon his wife knowing he was going out in public in short order (with all the problems of blood spatter and timing etc), involve the cashbox, makes a call to his chess club etc. I think those who find him guilty ignore Q, and look only at the circumstantial evidence that, for the most part, can be interpreted both ways.

I’m certainly not saying that F2 couldn’t be the correct interpretation Antony but the point that I’d want to make is how can we be sure that (if he did plan and carry out the murder) Wallace’s risk assessment might not align with our own? For example, if he’d pushed her down the stairs she might have survived leaving him with the task of having to finish her off with the problem of making it look like the injuries occurred during the fall? I take your point about poisoning but maybe Wallace just over-thought this option? As Curwen was less than complimentary about the Wallace’s marriage maybe he’d exhibited signs of irritation at them in the past? Perhaps he’d hinted that he’d felt that either William or Julia were malingerers? Could Wallace then have worried that Curwen might have expressed any concerns or suspicions to the police causing them to order a post mortem with any hint of poisoning pointing the finger firmly at the amateur chemist. All that I’m saying is that we can’t know the exact circumstances and so those circumstances might have affected Wallace’s decision as to how he would kill Julia?

If Wallace then dismissed poisoning or a convenient accident then he had to consider another violent death (bludgeoning, stabbing, shooting etc) Shooting can be instantly dismissed as an option of course so bludgeoning or stabbing. Obviously this had to occur when Wallace was out but that still introduces the question why would someone want to kill the inoffensive Julia? So it would have to have been that Julia was killed as a result of a robbery gone wrong so, to some extent, the decision was made for him just leaving him to work out the details.

So could he have made it look like a normal robbery? Well we know that some robberies had been facilitated by the use of skeleton keys but none resulted in the occupant being viciously bludgeoned to death. But of course it might have been said that this one just went horribly wrong. But was Wallace aware that other burglaries had involved skeleton keys? Might he not have assumed that the robberies would have exhibited sign of a break in (damaged lock, broken window etc?) If that was the case then how could Wallace have recreated those signs? Could he have risked damaging the back door lock or breaking a window with neighbours on both sides (and we have to remember the Johnston’s even heard Wallace knocking) So feigning a break in might have appeared to difficult and risky a task for Wallace.

Therefore all that he had left was that Julia had let someone in. Or to put it another way, someone tricked their way in. We know that Julia wouldn’t have let a stranger in but the police didn’t know that, but wouldn’t Wallace, when planning, realise that Amy (or Edwin) might have been questioned and they might have told the police that Julia wouldn’t have let in a stranger? For all that William knew Julia might even have mentioned this in conversation with Florence Johnston. So the police would have had one, two or even three people telling them how they couldn’t understand why Julia would have let in a stranger while William was out. So William would need someone that Julia would have let in. Either someone that she knew or someone that she might have been aware of like Mr Qualtrough.

Then he comes up with the plan and sets it up as someone being let in by Julia who then realises that they’ve stolen some money resulting in her murder.

[ColdCaseJury]

I’m certainly not saying that F2 couldn’t be the correct interpretation Antony but the point that I’d want to make is how can we be sure that (if he did plan and carry out the murder) Wallace’s risk assessment might not align with our own? For example, if he’d pushed her down the stairs she might have survived leaving him with the task of having to finish her off with the problem of making it look like the injuries occurred during the fall? I take your point about poisoning but maybe Wallace just over-thought this option? As Curwen was less than complimentary about the Wallace’s marriage maybe he’d exhibited signs of irritation at them in the past? Perhaps he’d hinted that he’d felt that either William or Julia were malingerers? Could Wallace then have worried that Curwen might have expressed any concerns or suspicions to the police causing them to order a post mortem with any hint of poisoning pointing the finger firmly at the amateur chemist. All that I’m saying is that we can’t know the exact circumstances and so those circumstances might have affected Wallace’s decision as to how he would kill Julia?

Finishing off at the bottom of the stairs would be as simple as breaking her neck (or have a pet owl in the house! Sorry - a very true crime joke!) If he's queasy about that, I'm sure he would be as queasy about a messy bludgeoning. Julia even had symptoms of the flu - blocked nose etc. Of course, this assumes Wallace knew the symptoms of arsenic poisoning - but he did lecture in chemistry, so not unreasonable.

If Wallace then dismissed poisoning or a convenient accident then he had to consider another violent death (bludgeoning, stabbing, shooting etc) Shooting can be instantly dismissed as an option of course so bludgeoning or stabbing. Obviously this had to occur when Wallace was out but that still introduces the question why would someone want to kill the inoffensive Julia? So it would have to have been that Julia was killed as a result of a robbery gone wrong so, to some extent, the decision was made for him just leaving him to work out the details.

Yes. Robbery gone wrong. On the Monday night while he's at chess. In the kitchen. He says personal money stolen . Why not? Saves the penny-pinching agent 4d on calls, about 4d on trams and, if I'm correct, £10 11s in compensating the Prudential. Far less complicated and risky. Just the timing to sort out...

So could he have made it look like a normal robbery? Well we know that some robberies had been facilitated by the use of skeleton keys but none resulted in the occupant being viciously bludgeoned to death. But of course it might have been said that this one just went horribly wrong. But was Wallace aware that other burglaries had involved skeleton keys? Might he not have assumed that the robberies would have exhibited sign of a break in (damaged lock, broken window etc?) If that was the case then how could Wallace have recreated those signs? Could he have risked damaging the back door lock or breaking a window with neighbours on both sides (and we have to remember the Johnston’s even heard Wallace knocking) So feigning a break in might have appeared to difficult and risky a task for Wallace.

Breaking a window, no. But a few marks around a lock?

Therefore all that he had left was that Julia had let someone in. Or to put it another way, someone tricked their way in. We know that Julia wouldn’t have let a stranger in but the police didn’t know that, but wouldn’t Wallace, when planning, realise that Amy (or Edwin) might have been questioned and they might have told the police that Julia wouldn’t have let in a stranger? For all that William knew Julia might even have mentioned this in conversation with Florence Johnston. So the police would have had one, two or even three people telling them how they couldn’t understand why Julia would have let in a stranger while William was out. So William would need someone that Julia would have let in. Either someone that she knew or someone that she might have been aware of like Mr Qualtrough.

Amy Wallace told the press the opposite - that Julia would let in strangers.

Then he comes up with the plan and sets it up as someone being let in by Julia who then realises that they’ve stolen some money resulting in her murder.

Herlock, of course, I'm aware of the best-plan fallacy - because we think Wallace could have done it better (D or V), it could not have not it this way (P). Rather, I'm invoking Liebnitz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. In his context, there must be reasons for Wallace choosing the complexity of P. What was he trying to achieve with P that could not be done some other way? And my honest conclusion, looking objectively as I can, is that he wanted to frame Parry. In my judgement, (F2) explains (E) and (P) quite well, if he was guilty. For example, I certainly do not believe that given (E) and (P) Wallace's post-acquittal behaviour can be simply waived away as "bravado" (Russell).

And yet, for me, (F2) also has severe problems... hence my inclination to (F3).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, of course, I'm aware of the best-plan fallacy - because we think Wallace could have done it better (D or V), it could not have not it this way (P). Rather, I'm invoking Liebnitz's Principle of Sufficient Reason. In his context, there must be reasons for Wallace choosing the complexity of P. What was he trying to achieve with P that could not be done some other way? And my honest conclusion, looking objectively as I can, is that he wanted to frame Parry. In my judgement, (F2) explains (E) and (P) quite well, if he was guilty. For example, I certainly do not believe that given (E) and (P) Wallace's post-acquittal behaviour can be simply waived away as "bravado" (Russell).

And yet, for me, (F2) also has severe problems... hence my inclination to (F3).

My point is though that there may have been factors that we are unaware of which pushed Wallace towards his plan. We can’t know how he was thinking at the time or what points he might have been considering that we are unaware of. For me (F3) has the most issues to deal with.

[ColdCaseJury]

My point is though that there may have been factors that we are unaware of which pushed Wallace towards his plan. We can’t know how he was thinking at the time or what points he might have been considering that we are unaware of. For me (F3) has the most issues to deal with.

Of course, but that it is getting close to logically begging the question against his innocence. Perhaps we can agree that - prima facie - P is surprising plan. Let's go to the issues. For you, is there any evidence that can only be interpreted in terms of Wallace's guilt?