Julia Wallace Murder Case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse

Mark, I completely agree with the difficulties you presented for Wallace not being Qualtrough.....that is why I think he was in effect (I believe he was not the actual caller, but the mastermind.) I think you're splitting hairs...so let's say instead of ingenious perhaps 'elaborate' would be a better adjective.

---

I cannot believe someone as educated as Wallace would even contemplate using a call box so near to his house. If Wallace was the mastermind, wouldn't he have been better planning to have Julia murdered on the Monday instead? He could have spent the whole evening at the chess club. Or was the Tuesday chosen to give a contract killer a better security of mind in that Wallace had less of a 'concrete' alibi? 'Strangers on a Train' film springs to mind...

Whoever sent WHW on that wild goose chase could never have known his pedantic searching and asking would have resulted in such a strong alibi - which in effect it turned out to be.

If Parry sent WHW up to Menlove, he could reasonably assume he'd know the route and not have to ask tram conductors, maybe ask one or two people when he found it difficult to find then come home with maybe any persons he asked would not be found when the police appealed for them?

But then, maybe it could also be assumed he'd consult a street map. I doubt, given the possible commission available he'd pass it over to the local Allerton agent.

I still think WHW had nothing to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ged

But then, maybe it could also be assumed he'd consult a street map. I doubt, given the possible commission available he'd pass it over to the local Allerton agent.

I still think WHW had nothing to do with it.

---

Yes that is a good point re: the commission Ged. I think it is James Murphy (and other Wallaceites) who say he should have passed the business over to another agent, one in the Allerton/Mossley Hill area. Why would anyone do this when the individual stands to gain in commission? Also the idea that instead of the elaborate phone call 'Qualtrough' could have posted a note through 29 WS. This also, doesn't hold any water. It would be a risky venture in case of being seen, or the handwriting being identified.

For Wallace to be Qualtrough you must accept two things.

i) tall, distinctive, well-known-in-the-district Wallace would risk being spotted at a phone box around the corner from his own house!
ii) Cumberland native Wallace would risk his voice being recognised on the phone, when speaking to someone he knew!

Either one is a huge risk. Taken together they must point to Wallace's innocence....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RodCrosby

For Wallace to be Qualtrough you must accept two things.

i) tall, distinctive, well-known-in-the-district Wallace would risk being spotted at a phone box around the corner from his own house!
ii) Cumberland native Wallace would risk his voice being recognised on the phone, when speaking to someone he knew!

Either one is a huge risk. Taken together they must point to Wallace's innocence....

---

Also the idea that the call was traced. Murphy & others state that it wasn't common knowledge at the time that a call could be traced. Wallace was of a scientific mind - I'm pretty sure he could have had an idea it could be traced, thereby the likelihood of a guilty Wallace using a call box in Anfield is highly suspect.

Yes, I think it's plain that Wallace did not make the phone call. That says nothing about whether or not he set everything up. I see tremendous difficulty with a planned robbery scenario. I won't list all the reasons why again; at this point it's beating a dead horse.

So Wallace being innocent means you have to accept someeone else plotting the murder of Julia Wallace and framing her husband. This seems remarkably implausible.

Not necessarily framing her husband.

The red herring Qualtrough business deal may have been no more than getting him out of the way.

The fact he was put in the frame due to everything that happened consequently might just be the icing on the cake for the real murderer/s.

I'm a defo Wallace didn't do it. Two things which bother me about the case are:

1. The murder weapon.........we have Mr Wallace saying that an iron bar was missing from the house, the police assuming that this was the weapon, which was probably but down a drain. According to Jonathan Goodman's book an iron bar very similar to the missing one was found some years later in the Wallace house during the change from coal to gas fires. There was a space below the fire grate, and this is where the iron bar was. This information was apparently reported to the police, who were not interested.

2. It's always bothered me that Mr Wallace, having arrived home on the fateful night, couldn't open the back door or the front door, which he believed were locked when he initially tried. I'm quite convinced that there was someone in the house when he arrived home.

Any responses to the above?

I have always believed that there was only one person involved in Mrs Wallace's murder, but now I'm beginning to think that there may have been two involved after reading all the theories on the thread.

Burkhilly Wallace didn't say that an iron bar was missing - it was the cleaner Sarah Jane Draper who said that. Wallace said he didn't know anything about the iron bar. I think Murphy is more than likely correct in his book when he says there wouldn't have been an iron bar hidden behind the fire - I think Goodman is probably wrong about that. The place was taken apart and I'm sure an iron bar wouldn't have escaped the attentions of the police (no matter how incompetent they were meant to be!)
Your second point: Initially Wallace said he thought that there might have been someone in the house when he returned. When asked by the police if he though he heard someone inside, Wallace replied 'No.' Wallaceites believe this was Wallace considering making out there was someone inside the house but dismissing it as it wouldn't have fitted in with his modus operandi.

What makes Murphy so sure that there wouldn't have been anything hidden behind the fire? (Sorry, I haven't been able to read the book yet...) If it were pushed through a small gap it would not necessarily have occurred even to an efficient police force to have excavated the whole fireplace, let alone the incompetent bunch who were in charge of this investigation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Doh

What makes Murphy so sure that there wouldn't have been anything hidden behind the fire? (Sorry, I haven't been able to read the book yet...) If it were pushed through a small gap it would not necessarily have occurred even to an efficient police force to have excavated the whole fireplace, let alone the incompetent bunch who were in charge of this investigation!

---

I think it is because the place was stripped right down during the police investigations. I don't really think it points to guilt whether there was a bar there or not. Those who believe Wallace was guilty claim that the lack of a weapon found points to his guilt. I don't think this is so. Anyone coming to the house with a weapon would more than likely take it away with them.

I agree with you burkilly that WALLACE himself couldnt possibly have battered JULIA.I rather put the "someone was still in the house" theory with the Anfield Burglar..as a total red herring...either an innocent WHW assuming she'd been the victim of a robbery gone wrong..or,more likely in my opinion, WHW returning & trying to point the authorites towards a random killer.Again,I agree with MARK about the iron bar,it couldnt have been overlooked even by these appalling police officers!! PARKES claiming Parry dropped it down a grid outside a doctors house(possibly WHW's own doctor!) in Priory Road sounds very plausible to me. I think you are correct in coming round to the idea that this murder was not carried out by one person...but only WALLACE could have wanted her dead(& as we have said he didnt batter her!)QUALTROUGH is crucial to the case & he is PARRY for sure.... hopefully the forthcoming book by John Gannon will give us all more info. about the possible 3rd member of the group(MARSDEN)who I personally know next to nothing about at the moment..IAN (FJumble)

---------- Post added at 02:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 PM ----------

Sorry MARK I missed this post,I have had a lot of trouble with my home PC! Apart from the blood issue,which you adequately cover,there is the equally important question of TIME..no,WHW couldn't possibly have battered JULIA. I have to admit that the evidence for PARRY being Qualtrough is circumstantial..but it is strong evidence. 1)Experienced in amateur Dramatics 2)Known to regularly disguise his voice & make hoax phone calls 3)ConMan who couldnt resist trying his trick of a free call by pressing the wrong button 4)Familiar with WHW arrangements especially regarding 24B North John Street..and now his apparent pre-occupation with trying to organise a 2ist celebration!! I go with GOODMAN & Whittington-Egan PARRY was QUALTROUGH...IAN(FJumble)

Hi Ian. If you are saying only WHW could have wanted her dead and that Parry is the phone hoaxer then are you saying they were in collusion. WHW could have killed her in a far less messy way - out of the house even on one of their walks.

We don't know Parrys/Julia's liasons and if there's another reason Parry could have wanted her dead as it was a frenzied attack.

Even so, I'm not sure he did it, the phone call yes - but could he have kept his cool and the car free of blood in front of Lily Lloyd until he took it to be cleaned. More likely he was the getaway car driver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER

I go with GOODMAN & Whittington-Egan PARRY was QUALTROUGH...IAN(FJumble)

---

Ha ha! Whittington-Egan has reneged in recent years on his belief that Parry was Qualtrough Ian. I honestly don't believe there is any conspiracy theory - I think that is wishful thinking by hack writers and sensationalists who are looking for a story, and I think the Marsden angle is the same. I honestly believe it was either Wallace or some unknown. Certainly not Parry or Marsden. We only have Parkes' word that Parry used to phone people up and use a false voice. Even if he did, it would never stand up in a court of law.

---------- Post added at 02:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ged

Hi Ian. If you are saying only WHW could have wanted her dead and that Parry is the phone hoaxer then are you saying they were in collusion. WHW could have killed her in a far less messy way - out of the house even on one of their walks

---

I agree. That is what is unconvincing with the collusion theory Ged. Also Wallace naming Parry, Marsden amongst others. I know it could be regarded that it would look suspicious if Wallace didn't name Parry, but he hadn't been in Wallace's house for over two years. He had no contact with him and wasn't that friendly with him.

Also, Parry doesn't have an alibi for
i) the time of the phone call on the Monday
ii) the time Wallace could be expected to return from the quest for Qualtrough on Tuesday.

In fact, our lad was "out and about" in his car at both times, in the vicinity...

Well now that you put it like that Rod ;)

I've created a multi-option poll. It uses the Alternative Vote [which we may soon be using in general elections]

Who Killed Julia Wallace?
http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=Wallace

please rank all the options in the order you think most likely.

The missing iron bar had fallen down a gap somewhere by the fire, where is not clear. As Mark said it was the cleaner who reported the bar missing. I live in a 1920s house and have the original fireplace still intact. I've just had a knock on the base and it sounds quite solid. Therefore I suspect you're right Mark and it wouldn't make a jot of difference anyway to the actual case.

I still think that there was someone in the house when Mr Wallace returned home and I have always thought this since I first became interested in the case 20 odd years ago.

Thanks a lot ROD for that ..what about a belief in "WHW + other"S" IAN

---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------

MARK..when did RICHARD Whttington-Egan change his mind? I must have missed that....IAN(FJumble)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER

[/COLOR]MARK..when did RICHARD Whttington-Egan change his mind? I must have missed that....IAN(FJumble)

---

Hi Ian. Since the publication of Murphy's book. I think Whittington-Egan never said that he was convinced that Parry was Q anyway, it was more Goodman. Of course this doesn't mean that Parry wasn't Q:) No one can say for definite that he wasn't in the call-box...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark R

Hi Ian. Since the publication of Murphy's book. I think Whittington-Egan never said that he was convinced that Parry was Q anyway, it was more Goodman. Of course this doesn't mean that Parry wasn't Q:) No one can say for definite that he wasn't in the call-box...

---

Considering all the current facts, how could Parry not have been Qualtrough though. I mean, as Ian has said, the mentioning of a 21st birthday party is just a tremendous coincidence. It strains credulity to put someone else other than Parry in that phonebooth.

Thanks MARK. I would have thought that Whittington-Egan has become MORE convinced since 1981 as new evidence(albeit somewhat circumstanial) has surfaced.Even on the Radio City phone in,Goodman states that he & RWE were BOTH convinced of PARRY's "guilt"(ie QUALTROUGH).You say it was more GOODMAN,but on what evidence can you say that? IAN

Parry admitted himself he knew more about it than what he was prepared to say. That's according to RWE and JG

Parry's actions at the Atkinsons garage put him in the frame. That's according to JP and 5 Atkinson members. I know the Atkinson's can only go on what JP told them but he was like a son to them and besides, where in those days would JP have got the money from to give to Mr Atkinson, the money that Parry gave him for washing the car.

Parry's false alibi for the phone call time. - Why? What was he up to really?

Parry's dad saying Gordon was having trouble with his car battery on Breck Road - that's at odds with Parry's alibi unless he got the car battery and accumulator battery mixed up - and the street names???

There's too many according to's................... They can't all be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse

Considering all the current facts, how could Parry not have been Qualtrough though. I mean, as Ian has said, the mentioning of a 21st birthday party is just a tremendous coincidence. It strains credulity to put someone else other than Parry in that phonebooth.

---

It doesn't mean it was him in the call-box though. Coincidences do occur. Murphy puts a convincing case forward with regard to Wallace being in the call-box (although it doesn't convince me personally). I just cannot believe Parry would disclose any connection to a murder to a third party (ie John Parkes). I'm sure the 'battery alibi' was put forward by William Parry (father to RGP) in 1966 - a long time after the event.

Murphy makes a lot of the street lighting etc doesn't he in his eagerness to put WHW in the call box. He could still have been spotted though and his voice recognised. Were prints not taken from the receiver, what was the likelihood of it being used often from the time taken to make the call, to the time taken to trace the call?

THANKS GED..yes I completetely agree with your PARRY points!! As you say the "phoney"(sic)alibi smells of something to hide..if he was not involved why not just say exactly where he was & what he was doing..sounds very guilty to me! IAN(FJumble)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ged

Murphy makes a lot of the street lighting etc doesn't he in his eagerness to put WHW in the call box. He could still have been spotted though and his voice recognised. Were prints not taken from the receiver, what was the likelihood of it being used often from the time taken to make the call, to the time taken to trace the call?

---

Yes he does Ged and he also states that 'Wallace had to use that call-box' but I refute this. He could have used one on the way or in the city centre without the risk of being recognised/noticed compared to using Box 1627. Murphy also says that a telephone was a luxury few could afford in 1931 but I think that misses the point - some of the general public more than likely still used phones - after all they were public telephones! Much was also made that the light was broken in the kiosk but light or no light, it would seem suicidal (in every sense) for Wallace to have used it. I assume prints were taken but maybe not...The call was traced the next day? So it would be interesting to know how many people had used it in the interim. Can you imagine what that phone receiver would be worth now? :shock:

I can imagine the agitated Parry putting out a fag in the phone box after finishing the call. What price DNA back then ;)

Thanks for that GED..good thought! At least we know they would have been PLAYERS No.3 from his OTT details on his statement..guilty or what! We also know that WHW was a heavy smoker,but I wonder if JULIA enjoyed a drag also? No wonder the Wallaces were always ill with chest complaints!! IAN(FJumble)

Well I've just finishing listening to the radio programmes I downloaded a couple of weeks ago. They were made all the more interesting by actually hearing from people involved in the case and who knew Mr Wallace and Parry. Thanks for downloading they were brilliant.

I know that many on this thread believe that Parry did it with perhaps someone else involved. Would this be Marsden? Who is he? If you think he's involved, why? I thought Marsden's name was just mentioned in passing. Certainly in the couple of books I've read he barely gets a mention.

If you don't think Parry did it, why?

Marsden was another ex employee of the Pru, a possible aquaintance of Parry's? John Gannon puts all 3, WHW, Parry and Marsden in the frame as accomplices.

This is getting to be a parlour game - a veritable chorus line of characters in Wallace's parlour, battering poor Julia's brains out.
It's only a matter of time before someone says the milk-boy done it, in league with Leslie Williamson!

For me, this much is clear.
Wallace didn't make the phone call and didn't kill Julia.
Parry did make the phone call, but didn't kill Julia.

And that, sadly, is as much as I believe we'll ever know with confidence...

I would go along with what you think 100% Rod.

For me, it's just a matter of who Parry was in collusion with. Marsden or another but certainly not Wallace.

I still believe Wallace was the mastermind and here are some points I have not yet mentioned which should also serve to counter some recent arguments made to the contrary.

First off, Wallace and Parry were in fact in contact after 1928. In Wallace's second statement to the police, he says : “I forgot to mention that I believe Mr Parry owns a motor car or has the use of one, because I was talking to him about Xmas time in Missouri Road and he had a car then which he was driving. He gave me one of his company calendars.” I would argue that this not only shows Wallace and Parry were in contact; it also seems to hint that their relationship was amicable.

Wallace adds “I have now found by the calendar that Mr Parry's employers are The Standard Life Assurance Company, whose head office is at 3, George Street, Edinburgh." Interesting that Wallace would be referring to Parry's calendar... if he was not friendly with him, why would he use Parry's calendar.... did he have it up pinned on his wall? I'm sure as an insurance agent he was issued his own calendar as is standard practice.

I think Parry clearly made the Qualtrough call and Wallace and Parry's lives seem to have been far more intwined than a casual acquaintanceship that soured. Branching off from that, one can see that both Wallace and Parry have good alibis for the actual murder itself which leads to an inevitable conclusion.

Since I've not the foggiest whodunnit, I also cannot totally rule out that version of events either ATU. :PDT11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse

I still believe Wallace was the mastermind and here are some points I have not yet mentioned which should also serve to counter some recent arguments made to the contrary.

First off, Wallace and Parry were in fact in contact after 1928. In Wallace's second statement to the police, he says : “I forgot to mention that I believe Mr Parry owns a motor car or has the use of one, because I was talking to him about Xmas time in Missouri Road and he had a car then which he was driving. He gave me one of his company calendars.” I would argue that this not only shows Wallace and Parry were in contact; it also seems to hint that their relationship was amicable.

Wallace adds “I have now found by the calendar that Mr Parry's employers are The Standard Life Assurance Company, whose head office is at 3, George Street, Edinburgh." Interesting that Wallace would be referring to Parry's calendar... if he was not friendly with him, why would he use Parry's calendar.... did he have it up pinned on his wall? I'm sure as an insurance agent he was issued his own calendar as is standard practice.

---

If you're referring to my post Atu I think you might have mis-read - I don't think I said Parry wasn't in contact with Wallace - I think I said Parry hadn't been in 29 Wolverton Street since 1928. In actual fact Wallace had seen him often at the chess club as well. If they were amicable it draws me even more to the fact that it would hardly be Wallace & Parry in collusion. I'm still of the opinion that it was either Wallace or s.o. else (other than Parry, Marsden & Young) and am becoming more and more convinced of Wallace's guilt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark R

If you're referring to my post Atu I think you might have mis-read - I don't think I said Parry wasn't in contact with Wallace - I think I said Parry hadn't been in 29 Wolverton Street since 1928. In actual fact Wallace had seen him often at the chess club as well. If they were amicable it draws me even more to the fact that it would hardly be Wallace & Parry in collusion. I'm still of the opinion that it was either Wallace or s.o. else (other than Parry, Marsden & Young) and am becoming more and more convinced of Wallace's guilt.

---

Mark, after you said that though, you added 'He had no contact with him and wasn't that friendly with him.'

Not trying to be argumentative, I just actually had to dig into some research to see the extent of their relationship/friendship.

I'm interested that you are now becoming more swayed toward the Wallaceite point of view. What has caused the shift?

ATU - I think what I mean regarding their relationship with one another is that it wasn't a 'friendship' but more of an acquaintanceship. the only times they met was by chance and the only times Parry visited the Wallace home was with regards to working for the Prudential.
There are certain factors that sway me towards the guilt of Wallace but don't want to divulge them at the present time. Saying that, I am still not 100% convinced of his guilt - I will always have that doubt (still on the fence at the moment).

Well done Mark. Can't wait. I would say the lack of blood on WHW could only mean at worst that he's hired someone to do both the call and the murder. I still don't think the age difference would be a motive, possibly the finding out about infidelity though? (If that's true at all)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ged

Well done Mark. Can't wait. I would say the lack of blood on WHW could only mean at worst that he's hired someone to do both the call and the murder. I still don't think the age difference would be a motive, possibly the finding out about infidelity though? (If that's true at all)

---

Thanks Ged

Yes, I say that I have doubts about his innocence but this case has driven me nuts for years...as you know the lack of bloodstaining on Wallace/his clothing is what has always drawn me towards his innocence and it is something I don't think anyone will ever resolve...That is what is so special about the case - it looks like it couldn't be anyone else yet there are so many doubts. I'm with you regarding the supposed 'age' motive. I'm convinced Wallace would have known her age - I certainly don't think he believed her age was around the same as his. I don't think infidelity can be ruled out but she seems to have been a person that would have found it hard to conceal any sort of relationship (I'm sure the Johnston and Holmes families and other neighbours would have seen any 'goings on'). The Johnston's claimed that they never heard any daytime musical performances (and that isn't a euphemism:)). I think it was just Parry acting deviously when interviewed by Goodman and RW-E in 1966.