Julia Wallace Murder Case

[Mark R]

Because there was no perceived violence in any of the burglaries doesn't mean it can be ruled out. It just might have been that the burglar wasn't caught in the act. I know of cases where violence has been perpetrated by the most unbelievable of suspects...
I don't think it matters in the slightest that he was a Liberal agent. Many people in this world have been party to some of the most inhuman acts irrespective of race, political bent or colour.
No I don't believe for a second that it is a conspiracy between Wallace and Parry, Marsden, Young or Johnston. That is wishful thinking by sensationalists looking for a story to tie it to. It is all pernicious nonsense. We might as well discuss Tom Slemen's belief in the Johnston theory - it is no different. I don't want to say too much as many things I have written on forums down the years have been jumped upon.
I can tell you Ian, Whittington-Egan HAS reneged. I managed to find it last night:

Murder on File: The World's Most Notorious Killers (published in 2005).
Richard and Molly Whittington-Egan

Not only does RW-E say that it wasn’t Parry, he also names Wallace, hence the name of the book.

“Parry’s alibi for the night of the murder did not, as has been previously suggested, depend upon the evidence of his friend Miss Lily Lloyd. His alibis were thoroughly checked and verified by the police, and tests carried out on his clothes and car proved negative. He was, therefore, rightly eliminated.”

I'm sure I also have a letter from RW-E from a few years ago that he sent me re: Parry. I gave it to a friend and am awaiting her response to what it was exactly that he said regarding Parry. I'm sure he mentions it.

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Thanks MARK..NONE of the Anfield Burglaries involved ANY violence or DUPING of victims...the murder of JULIA was a PLANNED assasssination & the killer certainly made certain she was dead..sorry, it cant have been a random act of theft that went wrong. Regarding WHW's political persuasion at the time of his marriage,frankly I dont care if he was a committed Monster Raving Loony Supporter (or whatever they had in those days).....I'm simply saying,in 1914, he was still ambitious & very concious of his position in the world.I dont think,at that time, he would KNOWINGLY allow Julia to "perjure" herself(I dont think thats the correct legal term-but I dont know what is the term for lying under oath....)
Thanks for the most useful update on RWE..still cant believe thats really his view though! IAN (FJumble)

[Mark R]

Ian, just because none of the Anfield burglaries involved violence or duping of victims does not mean robbery can be ruled out. If it was a planned assassination then it only points to one person - Wallace. If he did it, he did it alone. There is NO way he would have hired a contract killer then named them. There is no collusion, conspiracy theory or any other de Vinci Code type conspiracy involved.

Here's what Whittington-Egan replied in a letter to me:

"Goodman and I met Parry and faced him up with the fact that Wallace had so accused him. Frankly, I did not care for him and found him rather sinister but I am not convinced of his guilt, especially since reading Murphy's excellent The Murder of Julia Wallace."

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Thanks very much MARK..so RWE was swayed by MURPHY..I'd still like to know his current assessment! I thought you were convinced WHW couldnt possibly have battered JULIA?(for all the many obvious reasons..the blood alone being enough!) IF he didnt then someone else sure as anything battered her(?) Again,if RGP's alibi for the Tues.murder night is watertight,but his alibi for the Monday phonecall night is full of holes..surely there can be only one conclusion? It must have been a conspiracy..there is surely no other explanation that stands up..unless your Tom Slemen....Off to Prof. Simpson talk now...IAN(FJUmble)

[Mark R]

I don't know about you Ian but I have to say that I've never read a book that has swayed me - I go by reading the trial transcript, police reports and (some!) newspaper reports. Murphy's book is a great book but it is completely biased towards a guilty verdict. Nothing wrong in that of course but there are points in Wallace's favour that Murphy excludes. I am convinced Wallace couldn't have battered her (because of the lack of blood on him and yes, as you say many other factors) but I'm convinced it couldn't be anyone else (please excuse if that makes no sense at all!) I think Chandler said something similar along the lines of 'Wallace couldn't have committed it, and neither could anyone else'). That is why this case drives me around the bend. As I've said - some days I get up and believe it was Wallace, other days I believe his innocence. Ha ha Slemen...He's been too busy recently solving the Jack the Ripper case
Have a great time at the Prof Simpson talk.

[Ged]

I wouldn't say a planned assassination could only point to WHW. What if Julia was about to spill the beans on Parry over an affair or something?

What if 'Qualtrough' really did call as has been mooted, with the intention being robbery and she rumbled him and he had to make sure she was dead to avoid her pointing the finger at him and then he made his getaway before making it upstairs to the rest of the money.

Murphy has now gone down in my estimation for cherry picking the Parry monday night statement to fit with his own theory, given that John Gannon as allegedly posted the full statement up.

[Mark R]

What if 'Qualtrough' really did call as has been mooted, with the intention being robbery and she rumbled him and he had to make sure she was dead to avoid her pointing the finger at him and then he made his getaway before making it upstairs to the rest of the money.Murphy has now gone down in my estimation for cherry picking the Parry monday night statement to fit with his own theory, given that John Gannon as allegedly posted the full statement up.

That's what I was saying about a 'possible' robbery Ged. Some bloke was in my brother's class at school years ago and he seemed a very nice lad. Sometime in the 1980's a bloke was beaten to death somewhere off Dale Street. I think the man was gay. Anyway, the bloke robbed the gay man and hit him. I think the man was lying up an entry or side street. The man who hit him went back and smashed his head in (with a brick I think) to 'finish him off' so he wouldn't be recognised. The bloke who done it was the lad in my brother's class... I think what I'm saying here is that some people will do anything when thrown in a situation.

Yes, that is the fault of the Murphy book. I think he could have still put a case forward for the guilt of Wallace without leaving anything out.

[RodCrosby]

Re: Julia's age. A few points.
1. It was a different world then. Polite people simply didn't discuss such things.
2. As a genealogist, I think I've yet to find a marriage certificate in my own family in which the woman reported her age correctly. Ditto for most of the men!
3. In law, AFAIK, no-one can be a witness to the circumstances of their own birth (fairly obviously), and so cannot give evidence on oath to the same. Consequently, no-one has ever been prosecuted for being less than accurate in this regard..
4. It is quite possible the Wallaces' marriage was more or less platonic (or should that be stoic?), meaning the question or suspicion of Julia's age may never have arisen in Wallace's mind.
5. Alternatively, Julia may have been very well preserved for her age. As someone said previously, she fooled McFall in death. In my youth I had lots of fun with older women [albeit not grab-a-granny, but you know what I mean.] She was only about 50 when Wallace, aged 33, met her. I've been there too....
6. There is a slim chance Murphy has his facts wrong, and there was another, younger, Julia Dennis - perhaps born abroad - who in fact was the woman who died in 1931.

All in all, I wouldn't read too much into this, and trying to link any discrepancy to the events of 1931 is stretching things, IMHO...

[Mark R]

I agree with you. I've documents myself that have different ages for the same person. They are far from 100% reliable. Believe it or not Rod, I have wondered the same myself re: Murphy getting the age wrong. As you say, it is probably slim but the possibility IS there.

[alansimp]

I agree with you. I've documents myself that have different ages for the same person. They are far from 100% reliable. Believe it or not Rod, I have wondered the same myself re: Murphy getting the age wrong. As you say, it is probably slim but the possibility IS there.

Mark, you claim that you have researched Julia's family history. If so, you will know that Murphy is correct about Julia's age. Check out the Census records.

Allen

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

BRILLIANT..thanks a lot ROD that is really helpful..especially your "grab a granny confession"..though I'm still not certain the corpse of JULIA WALLACE found in 1931 was the same female born in 1861. I agree it seems a distinct possiblity that a mistake has been made somewhere...
Went to the WirralTalk last night on Prof.Keith Simpson & I was again made very welcome. I sat with Russell Johnston,who I didnt get to speak to much last month...great guy..very fair & helpful!! The lecture itself was fascinating as (Dr.) OLGA HIGH worked at Guy's with Prof.Simpson for 30 years & was best friends with his 2nd wife.The WALLACE case naturally came up several times & it was concluded that at least Prof.Simpson would have at least given the police a fairly accurate time of death,which to my mind would have made it impossible for WHW to have actually carried out the killing! IAN(FJumble)

[Ged]

I agree with you. I've documents myself that have different ages for the same person. They are far from 100% reliable. Believe it or not Rod, I have wondered the same myself re: Murphy getting the age wrong. As you say, it is probably slim but the possibility IS there.

Look at the Marriage certificate and the text that goes with it in James Murphy's book. Even they don't match up

[alansimp]

1891 census - Julia Dennis, 28yrs, born Yorks
1901 census - Julia Dennis, 30yrs, born Yorks

My guess is that Julia came into some money after 1891, and decided on a change of scenery, knocking a few years off her age. Women do this all the time. It's no big deal.

Allen

[Mark R]

Mark, you claim that you have researched Julia's family history. If so, you will know that Murphy is correct about Julia's age. Check out the Census records.

Allen

Allen, I actually have a copy of her birth certificate and yes it is April 28th 1861. I think what Rod Crosby is hinting at is that records aren't always 100% accurate. I think her actual age is certain to be correct and I think Wallace was quite aware of it.

---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 AM ----------

Look at the Marriage certificate and the text that goes with it in James Murphy's book. Even they don't match up

Which illustrates such inconsistencies...

[burkhilly]

Bearing in mind I'm not as well informed as some on the thread, can someone explain something for me? My understanding is that Gordon Parry's alibi for the night of the murder was discredited, because Lily Lloyd was working from about 6.30pm at the cinema and she later actually withdrew the alibi to Mr Wallace's solicitor and the Radio City investigation.

Thanks!