Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Graham]

Hi Graham, this is the trial transcript.

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet....Trial_djvu.txt

Thanks for this, Herlock. Will read with interest.

Graham

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Graham, this is the trial transcript.

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet....Trial_djvu.txt

Just to be clear, this is the edited transcript. The edited version of Close's transcript is perfunctory and misses out most of the uncomfortable cross examination.

[ColdCaseJury]

Not having seen a transcript of the trial, I wonder if Alan Close was asked anything about whether he thought Wallace was at home when he called. I'd have thought such questioning would have been fairly crucial with regard to Wallace's description of the events of that evening.

Close only spoke to Julia. If he had seen or heard Wallace, I'm sure he would have told his friends the day after.

Wallace testified he could not remember if the milk boy had called or not. I'm not sure we can make too much of this. However, just to be sure, I'll hand over to HS who - by his own admission - can connect any piece of evidence to Wallace's guilt!

[Graham]

Close only spoke to Julia. If he had seen or heard Wallace, I'm sure he would have told his friends the day after.

Wallace testified he could not remember if the milk boy had called or not. I'm not sure we can make too much of this. However, just to be sure, I'll hand over to HS who - by his own admission - can connect any piece of evidence to Wallace's guilt!

A good point, CCJ. I don't know who murdered Julia, but I'm just trying to establish at least one reason why Wallace may have - and so far I haven't.
Which I hasten to add doesn't mean that he didn't do it, of course. It's just that he doesn't seem the type! If there really were serious marital difficulties - and I really don't think there were - then if Wallace did lose his rag with Julia I can envisage him possibly giving her a back-hander to shut her up or whatever, but to beat out her brains?!? On the other hand, looks and outward manner do deceive, as has been demonstrated in other 20th century murder cases.

Graham

[NickB]

beat out her brains

And not as the result of an argument that got out of hand and in the heat of the moment he went too far, but in a pre-meditated planned attack.

[Graham]

And not as the result of an argument that got out of hand and in the heat of the moment he went too far, but in a pre-meditated planned attack.

Possibly. I would still like to see proof pf some definite motive that drove him to murder. I mean, most marriages go through rocky phases, as I know quite well, but to resort to murder? Yes, it's happened of course, but Wallace simply does not seem fitted for such a desperate resort.

Graham

[NickB]

Graham,

I was supporting the point you were making, and suggesting it was even more unlikely because it was not the normal frenzied spur-of-the-moment sort of attack usually associated with domestic crime.

[ColdCaseJury]

A good point, CCJ. I don't know who murdered Julia, but I'm just trying to establish at least one reason why Wallace may have - and so far I haven't.

As a unashamed, blow-your-own-trumpet aside, that is why my book is called Move to Murder. What moved the killer to kill Julia with at least three blows in a violent attack? And if it was Wallace, it was a carefully planned murder (as pointed out by Nick B and many others) with him making many key moves, like the phone call.

Of course, you don't need to prove motive. I draw out some similarities between Wallace and the murder of Effie Ratley in Florida (2007) in The Ratley Parallel.

BTW, if Wallace was guilty, he was also a consummate actor - he was telling close colleagues like Hal Brown that he had nothing to live for after the murder. And as HS will point out as quick as a flash, many murders are, and also deny their guilt even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Wallace is unusual, however, in that he names Parry as the murderer (and all but names Parry in public) - and did so when he was acquitted, when there was no need. Indeed, he could have confessed to the crime - he was dying and double jeopardy laws applied in England at the time. Again, this is not an argument for innocence, but some points to mull over with, well, the mulled wine!

[Graham]

Graham,

I was supporting the point you were making, and suggesting it was even more unlikely because it was not the normal frenzied spur-of-the-moment sort of attack usually associated with domestic crime.

Sorry about that, Nick!

Graham

[Graham]

As a unashamed, blow-your-own-trumpet aside, that is why my book is called Move to Murder. What moved the killer to kill Julia with at least three blows in a violent attack? And if it was Wallace, it was a carefully planned murder (as pointed out by Nick B and many others) with him making many key moves, like the phone call.

Of course, you don't need to prove motive. I draw out some similarities between Wallace and the murder of Effie Ratley in Florida (2007) in The Ratley Parallel.

BTW, if Wallace was guilty, he was also a consummate actor - he was telling close colleagues like Hal Brown that he had nothing to live for after the murder. And as HS will point out as quick as a flash, many murders are, and also deny their guilt even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Wallace is unusual, however, in that he names Parry as the murderer (and all but names Parry in public) - and did so when he was acquitted, when there was no need. Indeed, he could have confessed to the crime - he was dying and double jeopardy laws applied in England at the time. Again, this is not an argument for innocence, but some points to mull over with, well, the mulled wine!

I agree about the careful planning, CCJ. If Wallace did it, then his criminality must have been on a previously unrecognised level of cunning and competence. The phone-call, to me, is the one occurrence which does suggest Wallace's guilt; but doesn't prove it. Maybe he had figured out a way to nail both Julia and Parry in one fell swoop! Denying a murder is not unknown to anyone on these boards who follows the A6 Case, but unlike Hanratty it seems that Wallace - if guilty - pulled off a massive theatrical coup! I have to say he was taking a bit of a risk in naming Parry, who if he had the nous and the wherewithal could have done Wallace for libel. I wonder if the fact that he didn't is suggestive?

Graham

[NickB]

Sorry about that, Nick!

Graham

Not at all Graham, I didn’t express myself very well.

I can imagine how an argument developed, got out of hand and resulted in that sort of attack.

I find it more difficult to believe that, after she took in the milk, he worked himself up into an instant rage to attack her - then went straight back into calm mode to do a quick and efficient cleaning up job.

[ColdCaseJury]

I agree about the careful planning, CCJ. If Wallace did it, then his criminality must have been on a previously unrecognised level of cunning and competence. The phone-call, to me, is the one occurrence which does suggest Wallace's guilt; but doesn't prove it. Maybe he had figured out a way to nail both Julia and Parry in one fell swoop! Denying a murder is not unknown to anyone on these boards who follows the A6 Case, but unlike Hanratty it seems that Wallace - if guilty - pulled off a massive theatrical coup! I have to say he was taking a bit of a risk in naming Parry, who if he had the nous and the wherewithal could have done Wallace for libel. I wonder if the fact that he didn't is suggestive?

Graham

Apparently Parry wrote an article in a Sunday paper under the headline "Wallace Suspects Me". Alas, I could not find it.

The 1930s were not a litigious age. Libel suits were for the wealthy. However, Wallace took action against several papers that ran stories stating the appeal judgement was incorrect i.e. Wallace was guilty. Wallace won. If he was guilty, Wallace did not want anyone to think he was, or saw an opportunity to make money and gain twice from his crime. Or - just maybe - he was innocent. We cannot tell from this, of course.

[Graham]

Apparently Parry wrote an article in a Sunday paper under the headline "Wallace Suspects Me". Alas, I could not find it.

The 1930s were not a litigious age. Libel suits were for the wealthy. However, Wallace took action against several papers that ran stories stating the appeal judgement was incorrect i.e. Wallace was guilty. Wallace won. If he was guilty, Wallace did not want anyone to think he was, or saw an opportunity to make money and gain twice from his crime. Or - just maybe - he was innocent. We cannot tell from this, of course.

Well, if Wallace could sue newspapers then he must have had the wherewithal to initiate actions - and there was no guarantee he would win. Parry, on the other hand, was I believe the son of well-to-do parents, so probably would have had the means to initiate a libel action.

Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

Antony, for some reason I get the impression that you are critical of my opinion that Wallace was guilty or that you seem to imply that I’m biased. If I do express my strong belief in Wallace’s guilt my forthrightness has been shaped in reaction to the blatant and constant bias exhibited by Rod over the past year or so. And, I might add, exhibited in a very inpleasant manner. It sometimes appears to me, and I’m not alone in this, that there’s sometimes an almost superhuman effort to see nothing ever wrong, suspicious or inexplicable in Wallace’s behaviour and yet when there’s something similar for the accomplice or Parry himself it’s written off as “well he must have panicked!”

I’d just like to remind everyone if I may that there is only one poster on here who claims that it’s case closed....and it’s not me.

I welcome all opinion Antony. I just don’t feel that I’ve said anything particularly controversial.

[Graham]

I didn't post on Casebook for a while, and have missed many posts on this thread, so may I ask what's happened to God Crosby? Sorry, slip of the pen: Rod Crosby.

Graham