Julia Wallace Murder Case

[RodCrosby]

Regarding the address, it wasn't wholly ficticious. Even if someone in the Chess club had said categorically "There's no Menlove Gardens East, but there are other Menlove Gardens.", there was a strong chance Wallace would have still gone, on the reasonable assumption that Beattie had simply misheard the message, and Qualtrough would be found at West, North or South. Wallace had no doubt had similar experiences in the past in his long career as a door-to-door collector, and, given what we know about his character, may even have been determined to "get to the bottom" of the mysterious call.

Also, Menlove Gardens had only just been built and other streets were in the process of construction, so an element of fuzziness in the address would not automatically arouse suspicion.

And if Wallace was being stalked, as seems likely, there was no great downside. The culprits would know he hadn't taken the bait, and if he hadn't taken it, we wouldn't be discussing it here now!

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Thanks MARK R ..I dont blame you for sitting on the fence...with the WALLACE case, almost every point can be seen 2 ways,depending on whether or not you think WALLACE was the killer.I agree with ROD regarding the Menglove Gardens East..everything we know about the stoic WALLACE suggests he would follow a sales lead tenaciously.I also agree with you regarding the site of the phone box & its close proximity to Wolverton Street..surely the fact that the police immediately thought this incriminated WHW was proof that he was NOT Qualtrough..poor WHW loses both ways as usual!IF WHW was the criminal mastermind he needed to be,surely he wouldnt have been so stupid as to use the nearest phone box,as he could easily have been recognised..never dirty your own doorstep...The police made little effort to trace his tram journey on the MONDAY night in case he was seen on the tram when the long ish phone calls took place! Can I ask MARK why you are certain that LILY LLOYD was not playing at the Clubmoor Cinema on the TUESDAY night..the only reference I can find seems to be a totally unsubstantiated statement in MURPHY?
Thanks GED..it will have to be CD to CD! CHEERS IAN(FJumble)

[RodCrosby]

The Times, Tuesday 19th May 1931

[Samp]

Having read the Wallace case a good few years ago, I have not really been keeping up with the discussion on the forum. However, I have been reading these accounts of the case over the last couple of days and although I would need to read more about it to be in a position to make any comments. I would like to make an observation regarding the false address.

- If Wallace was guilty of the crime, he could not give a real address because he would have had to visit the said address. He could not do this if he was the one who was going to commit the crime. By giving a none-existing address it could not be proved or disproved that he had not tried to locate the address, thereby giving him some sort of alibi.

- If someone else committed the crime, they in turn could not give him a real address to visit because he would have eventually have turned up at the said address, thus proving he was not at his own house at the time of the crime.

- The odds on anyone from the Anfield area of Liverpool knowing there was a Menlove Gardens East would be to my mind, pretty remote, considering the era and times the crime was committed. The type of people related to the crime would not be very mobile and be familiar with areas outside of their own district.

- This to me seems to indicate Wallace set it up.


Don?t shoot me down in flames, I am only making an observation!

(Even if it seems like gobbledegook)

[Acrosstheuniverse]

Wow this thread is burning up, cool!

Samp, it could be argued that Wallace could have just gone to the nonexistent address and then come back...it would still leave enough time for someone else to do it (if he hired it to be done) Or if he committed it himself all that matters is the time he left and was first seen at the tram stop. (If he did do this then he certainly cut it very close as this was not seen as a foolproof alibi.)

I think the fake address was just used to prolong the time Wallace would have an excuse for being out. I agree with your general premise; I think there are many aspects of the facts that smack of an inside job. I will go into more detail later when I have the time .

[Ged]

The fact Wallace's 5 page statement about Parry and Marsden knowing the layout of his house, were always short of money, would have been let into the house, had a record for stealing money, had a grudge too against Wallace having shopped them to the pru and so therefore a doulbe motive - was seemingly suppressed and the fact that Lily LLoyd's withdrawn alibi statement was never persued nor that the John Parkes/Parry/glove issue not persued I think means that had they been, there wouldn't even be a case against Wallace for us to talk about on here. Given all that, I think the wrong man was taken into custody.

[hanksnow]

The murder weapon was not found....When the house was renovated many years later the builders took out the old fireplace and found an old poker with dark red stains? Make of that what you will.

Some blood spots were found in the toilet bowl...A pity they were not preserved as today we might have been able to identify from DNA.

I always thought the intellectual husband was weary of his wife and took up the 'challenge' to rid himself of her and fool Mr Plod to boot.

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

There are so many books on poor JULIA's murder..its difficult to sift actual fact from rumour,guesswork & theory! The idea that the clever chess playing WHW planned the perfect murder of his wife because he was bored,was a guess at "motive" by DOROTHY L.SAYERS..without,as far as I know any evidence whatsoever! WHW was a stoic,yes,but he was no more than an ordinary chess player. I'm not certain, but I think the poker,(with dark patches!) found years later behind the fire is just another unsubstatiated rumour(?) The bloodclot(singular),not a blood splash- that was found upstairs on the toilet bowl was dealt with thoroughly at the Committal..see GOODMAN.P.138 139 & 140. What is certain that no blood whatsoever was found on WALLACE or his clothes..surely another massive plus on the innocent WHW! If the police had done the job properly in 1931,then we wouldnt have a mystery....IAN(FJumble)

[Ged]

Correct. Are we now to believe that apart from everything else, Wallace killed Julia with the poker in the lounge (hey it's starting to sound like a game of cluedo) and had time to take out the fireplace, put the poker there then re-instate the fireplace. Nah.

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Thanks GED..yes I think your CLUEDO comparison is fair....even the v.poor policework of the time couldnt surely have missed the murder weapon!! They actually removed most of the pipework in the house trying to find signs of blood,without success.The killer,it follows, left the scene with some blood stains on him,because he definately did'nt wash in 29, Wolverton St.(perhaps not a lot of staining if the the mackintosh was used as a shield(?) ..but more than enough to convict if he'd been caught....plus the murder weapon,probably a poker, hidden under his (over)coat.ROD's theory of PARRY waitng in the car for the killer fits well with this.....but again it surely CANNOT possibly be WHW!!! IAN(FJumble)

[Ged]

There's also John Parkes later testimony that Parry got rid of the iron bar down a grid outside a doctors on Priory Road?

Somewhere there was somebody and something with blood.

[Acrosstheuniverse]

GED, I have serious problems with John Parkes testimony...do you take it as wholly accurate?

[Ged]

I don't know. To me just another piece in the jigsaw with some missing bits and we all know how frustrating that can be. Do we take Parry's testimony as wholly accurate or do we discount Lily Lloyd's alibi withdrawal? I would be interested to know what your serious problems are with it though.

Am I right in thinking that Parkes reported the bloodied glove incident to the garage owner Mr Atkinson at the time but it was hushed up as Parry was a good customer? Perhaps because all's well that ended well - ie. WHW eventually got off with it and that's all Munro aspired to, then additional information forthcoming from Lloyd and Parkes carried no weight. The police didn't persue another line of enquiry (which is usually their way of saying we had our man, our only suspect and he was tried and got off with it so why bother)

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

I also had some reservations about JOHN PARKES ..but he actually sounds more convincing on tape. "Young Pucka", as the Atkinsons called him ,was known to be a very honest young man(24) & the Atkinsons do confirm that he reported the PARRY late night "car-wash" to them partly because of the obvious legal implications(he was scared of PARRY) & also because the car wash was chargeable to the garage(I cant see RGP being a good customer as he pinched from them!)He said "the glove was INSIDE A BOX in the car" & "was covered in blood"...hmmm! The surviving family members did confirm(in1981) that they believed everything PARKES claimed....Mr William Atkinson even ordering him to change his route to & from the garage. We obviously cannot do anything about his claim that the iron bar was put down the grid in Priory Road...but has anyone researched the car PARRY was driving..was it registered in his name or his Father's(or maybe MARSDEN'S)? ..do ATKINSON'S records record the reg.no.? PARKES said he thought the car was a "Little SWIFT" I agree with ROD that the car could be very important in the murder,especially when PARKES said that when RGP returned later he was with another chap!! IAN(FJumble)

[RodCrosby]

According to Wilkes, Parkes also said that Parry was always winding people up on the phone, changing his voice.

There are just too many things that scream Parry=Qualtrough, but not nearly enough to say he was the killer. My accomplice theory fits the bits of the jigsaw together better, I think.

Goodman and Wilkes did a generally good job in reviving the case, but they slipped-up at the final fence...

The contrast between the smooth sophistication of the preparation of the crime, and the senseless brutality of its execution strongly suggests to me that two people were involved...

The logistics of such an intricate and expansive plot also indicate the same.