Julia Wallace Murder Case

[Ged]

I have spoken to Arthur of the Wirral Debating Society and apparently Russell Johnston is a member there so can bring up subjects to debate on and welcome questions from the floor. Arthur has read up on the case but only Murphy's account so I explained Goodman's, Wilkes and J Gannon's take on it as well - from only what I know.

Apparently, the bowling club is up a narrow alley at the opposite end of Prenton Road West from Tranmere's ground but on the same side as the footy ground. It can be easily missed in the dark so look out for it if you're going.

[burkhilly]

Anyone going? If so will you report back to the thread. Thanks in advance.

[RodCrosby]

I'm surprised there are still people who think Wallace was guilty, and even someone who has moved to that conclusion after firmly believing in his innocence to begin with! Yet no-one seems to be able to provide any evidence or motive (beyond the realms of outlandish speculation) to support their belief.

I think this quote from Liverpool barrister Gerald Abrahams in 1954 [quoted on the chess site] is a fair and objective view.

"was Wallace guilty?

There are three approaches to this question:

(1) Legally, it is academic. There was no evidence against him.

(2) Personally. His acquaintances (excluding those who revel in the troubles of their “friends”) seem convinced of his innocence. The author takes the view that to vest Wallace with guilt in the circumstances is to credit him with a mental power, a skill, an agility, a cold-blooded nerveless efficiency, of which he seemed utterly incapable.

(3) Scientifically, it is a much easier hypothesis to assume another person as murderer, whose task would have been easier, mental effort less. By the principle of simple explanations Wallace was innocent."

[Acrosstheuniverse]

Rod, it seems like I always check this thread minutes after you have posted. I assume you're referring to me.

I agree with 1, yes from a legal standpoint no case has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt thus far. (I await John Gannon's book eagerly to see precisely what he has unearthed.)

2. is ridiculous and doesn't really merit discussion except to say there seemed to be public sentiment against Wallace rather than for him. On the whole though, that shouldn't matter either way.

3. is just plain wrong. The effort would have been much greater if one had to actually carry out the plan rather than fake it.

[RodCrosby]

1. I think Abrahams is more precise than you. There was no evidence. IIRC at the Appeal Court one of the judges interrupted Hemmerde to ask "so all the prosecution case amounts to is 'it could have been him'?" That is legal code for no evidence.
2. I think the fact that so many people stood by Wallace speaks volumes about the man, and cannot be lightly dismissed. Even Christ was thrice denied by Peter, his best friend!
3. I don't get your point. A guilty Wallace creating an alibi in such a fashion is just too fantastical. There was a piece of the jigaw overlooked in 1931, which I suspect is the solution, but plod couldn't get their head around it. There was more than one person involved!

[Acrosstheuniverse]

Rod, no idea what you mean by precise. I agree Wallace shouldn't have been convicted. But there was certainly a plethora of circumstantial evidence.

[Ged]

What credence should be given to:

1) John Parkes' story (can't say statement as it seems the police couldn't be bothered taking one) even though surely this was a fantastic breakthrough and was backed by Mr Atkinson.

2) Lily Hall saying she saw WHW talking to a man at Richmond Park entry. No man came forward after an appeal (and if he was up to no good then that wouldn't be surprising) though she did seem to fall apart - or the story's - times and date did in the witness box.

3) Roger Wilkes 'Conspiracy of silence' theory regarding the police heirachy being in with Parry's father and Uncle whom were high up in the Liverpool Corporation.

[Acrosstheuniverse]

GED, I think 1 and 3 have aspects of truth, and aspects that are sensationalized/untrue. 2 is probably true.

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Hey, that thirty years of Murder about forensics & Keith Simpson on Feb 15th looks good![/QUOTE]

I bet there wouldnt have been a WALLACE MYSTERY for us to discuss if Prof.Keith Simpson had been on the case in 1931!!!! IAN(FJumble)

[burkhilly]

Ged am I correct in thinking that the information from John Parkes wasn't known until the Roger Wilkes thing?


Also having re-read (very quickly) Jonathan Goodman's book, something I previously missed - the iron bar missing from the Wallace House! This was apparently found when there was some refurbishment of the house (changing from gas to electricity). It had fallen down a space beneath the fireplace. It was reported to the police, who didn't want to know.

[Ged]

Hi Burkhilly. Roger Wilkes in his book - The final verdict - says that Parkes and Mr Atkinson went to the police as soon as WHW was charged. The story was dismissed as Parry had already been investigated and his car stripped and searched.

You would have thought though that a story of this magnitude would have resulted in a statement being taken and the iron bar down a grid story acted upon. Unless of course Wilkes' conspiracy of silence theory about Mr Parkes senior being in collusion with the police (and in particular Hubert Moore) is true.

Perhaps Moore thought he had his man in WHW and wanted to quickly close the matter and all this extra faffing about was getting in his way so he fitted the crime to the person rather than the person to the crime.

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

MARK R & GED ..great to finally meet you 2 last night,for what was a thoroughly enjoyable evening! Wasnt it great to hear from the excellent RUSSELL & his cousin directly...especially what they thought of Tom Slemen's efforts to "solve" the case!! Russell hit on something that has bothered me for a long time..WHERE WAS JULIA DENNIS for the long period till she married WHW? We really know next to nothing about JULIA & I'm wondering again if the baby born 28th April 1861 was the same woman murdereed in 1931...even McFaul said the body was a woman in her mid-fifties..bad though he was on the night,surely he was experienced enough to know what a woman of 70 looked like? And its surely very strange,especially as she came from a large family..THAT not one family member came to her wedding OR even the poor woman's funeral!! IAN(FJumble)

[Ged]

Ian, it was a pleasure to meet you and your wife too and was so glad that us outsiders were received with such warmth by the Wirral Debating Society members.

We were eventually thrown out of the room as the caretaker rightly needed to lock up however, Russell, Philip, Fiona, another chap, MarkR and myself remained in the pitch black car park for at least another 30 mins discussing all we could find out.

Mark has traced some of Julia's missing 35 years where she was a live-in Governess down south. It was intriguing that one of the audience brought up the fact that it could have been someone from these missing years that committed the deadly deed, though somehow, the Parry/Qualtrough phone call - lying about whereabouts etc really does make me think we know the names already of those involved.

If we are to believe Whittington-Egan. He reckons he spoke to the killer in 1966 - ie Parry (did Parry tell him he could say tell him a lot more but had promised his father not to - not even for money)

If we are to believe John Parkes and Mr Atkinson's son - Parry/the blood/the glove/the bar Then Parkes too spoke to the killer - or his accomplice.

If we are to believe Wilkes, then he claims a policeman involved in the case would spill the beans when he retired as there was more to the case that would interest him.

Too many people have kept schtum on this and now they're not here.

One thing seems for sure - Tom Slemen got it wrong and only brought out his theory (as fact) when he thought there were no living Johnston relatives to rebuke it.

I say above 'if we believe' because one thing which isn't helping the solving of this case is hidden - or not so hidden agendas by authors on the case.

Someone is lying when...............

James Murphy has either cherry picked the Lily Lloyd/Richard Gordon Parry statements to suit his own ends to finger WHW as the killer or John Gannon has tweaked the said statements to finger Parry being involved - at least in the Qualtrough call.

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Thanks GED..good thoughts!! Clearly Whittington-Egan thought PARRY was the killer & his actions on the doorstep indicate he knew a lot more than he was saying...if he had been totally innocent with nothing to hide,surely he would have at least answered the questions in a non-aggresive manner(?)..he implied WALLACE was sexually odd,was JULIA also strange? PARKES was clearly scared of PARRY & with good reason from what we know of the man. RUSSELL said he was only in trouble for several minor offences in later life..but a few years after the WALLACE murder, he did threaten a girl to such an extent that in court she said she said she thought he was going to kill her!!(I know it can be claimed this was just an expression..but it shows his violent nature)IAN

[Mark R]

Ian - it was great to meet up with you & Anne. I really admire both of your dedication & enthusiasm in the case. Thanks also to Ged for the lift and his enthusiasm as well. And without trying to sound like an academy award winner's speech I'd also like to thank the debating society for making us welcome and for a wonderful evening.

It was great to hear Russell and Philip discussing the case and they put their views across excellently. Russell's presentation was great - he done a thoroughly great job in speaking for 1 hour and 10 minutes. I could have listened to him all night

It was nice to meet Fiona as well - at last - to finally meet somebody else who remembers watching Who Killed Julia Wallace? and being terrifed in that Autumn of 1975

Once again, cheers Ian & Ged