Julia Wallace Murder Case

I've been reading all the previous posts during the long holiday break.I think its fair to say that nearly all people think WALLACE innocent(?) & a lot feel PARRY was surely QUALTROUGH(?)...very few,if any, are in favour of the Johnstons involvement(?) & the idea of an accomplice with PARRY is gaining favour!!
JOHN PARKES testimony is currently interesting me greatly..why would the bloodied glove be "inside a box"...why only ONE glove? Why did nobody in 1981 ask for a description of the "other chap" who came with RGP on the return visit to Atkinson's garage?(could have been a description of MARSDEN!),which could have answered a lot of questions..we already know at least they knew each other!! IAN(FJumble)

Roger Wilkes is still kicking about. He has just written a book on the Jeremy Bamber case [which could turn out to be the greatest miscarriage of justice evermore, and has a couple of similarities with Wallace - the telephone is important, as well as timing.]

Perhaps someone could entice him here to share his thoughts on the Parry accomplice theory, and if there is anything he discovered which might downgrade it.

What does anyone think of the 'Conspiracy of Silence' chap;ter of Wilkes' book 'The final conflict'?

Why did the police dismiss the Atkinsons'/Parkes story out of hand.

The police, Parry, Parry's sister and Lily Lloyd claim they went over his clothes, car and house at the time.

What of the relationship; between Hubert Moore and William and George Parry. William was the City asst treasurer, George, the chief librarian to the city. Both attended functions that the chief of police did too. Moore's daughter was W.Parry's typist. The cathedral held a memorial to G. Parry upon his death which was attended by Moore.

The case was handled abysmally in any case with Gold turning up drunk and using the upstairs toilet, possibly flushing any other blood apart from the droplet known about and adding his fingerprints to the chain.

Prof McFall used the unreliable rigor mortis method to determine the time of death which was at odds with the findings of another scientist. He never used a rectal thermometer at all.

Too many loose ends, too many grey areas.

If the case was brand new and Lily Lloyd's alibi didn't exist and Parkes' statement was taken seriously - would there be a need for this thread right now? Did Parkes and Atkinson not offer their findings to Munro or Oliver and if not why not and if so why weren't they used?????

GED, I think that the murder was planned with a large amount of careful genius. It may have been handled poorly but I think it would have been very difficult for the Police to initially arrest anyone or see it leading in any direction. I do think in the subsequent months the Police should have been able to delve deeper and get to the bottom of it but did not do so for somewhat corrupt reasons...Whatever that's worth...

Rod, in Murphy's book he compares Bamber to Wallace (assuming both were guilty.) I have always wondered if Bamber could be innocent, and wow that would be an awful miscarriage of justice. What makes you think he might not be guilty?

Across the universe. I think the police pretty quickly made up; their mind they had their man in WHW and would not or could not be swayed from it.

Not even when their own time trials and admission that the killer would have had blood on him failed to conclusively nail wallace. All they could do was poo poo Alan closes' testimony and John Parkes and the Atkinsons.

They apparently didn't even check the time it would have taken for WHW to make the call on the 19th then make it to the chess club. Nor to see if Lily Lloyd was playing piano in the clubmoor cinema on the murder night.

Parry also seemed to have different alibis. His car broke down on Breck road, it was in a garage, he was with Lily Lloyd. One thing is for sure, he admits he was in his car in the Breck Road area on the night.

While one man was hounded, it seems another man with a record, a motive, the means of entry into the house and in the area was being overlooked.

What is your take on the Parkes testimony then? He took no money for the interview and it's not like he only came out with the story in 1981 for some fame as he'd already offered it in 1931. It wasn't even he who approached radio city, a friend of Parkes arranged the meeting.

Ged, I think John Parkes' testimony was on the whole accurate in the sense that I think Parry did come by the garage and perhaps revealed some info incidentally that made Parke's suspicious, I just think certain details such as the glove in a box and specifically the cape and oilskin boots were ridiculous. I believe Parry was Qualtrough, I do not believe he committed the actual murder. Parkes was an old man at the time of this 'confession' and one wonders completely about his mental facilities and its accuracy.

Rod I agree with you, Too many details point to Parry being Qualtrough, but too many point to him NOT being the murderer. One author about the case once wrote that whoever Qualtrough was he murdered Julia Wallace the next night, well I think that guy was wrong!

There's some mind-boggling stuff about Bamber, such as the police radio logs show that while Bamber and the Police were waiting outside the farm, the Police saw a figure moving in an upstairs bedroom. [later dismissed as "shadows" or "trick of the light"]

The logs also show that the police marksmen "communicated" with a person inside the farm, while Bamber stood with Police outside...

The logs also show that Nevill Bamber phoned the police before Jeremy, and the Police phone number was the last number dialled on the office phone, which verifies Jeremy's version of events.

Sheila Caffell's body was moved by the Police as is clearly demonstrated by police photos. Jeremy was accused of this.

Bamber's relatives produced the silencer days later, after handling it together with a pair of Sheila's menstrual blood-stained knickers.

Julie Mugford and Bamber's relatives both went to the police the same day one month later to accuse Jeremy. Coincidence or collusion? Jeremy, the adoptive son, stood to gain everything, including the grandmother's estate. The relatives persuaded her to change her will, before going to the Police.

The medicines Sheila was on have subseqently been linked to numerous similar incidents of murder/suicide and the manufacturers have paid out millions in compensation...

The evidence against him was incredibly thin, and the 10-2 guilty verdict was the minimum possible to convict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse

Ged, I think John Parkes' testimony was on the whole accurate in the sense that I think Parry did come by the garage and perhaps revealed some info incidentally that made Parke's suspicious, I just think certain details such as the glove in a box and specifically the cape and oilskin boots were ridiculous. I believe Parry was Qualtrough, I do not believe he committed the actual murder. Parkes was an old man at the time of this 'confession' and one wonders completely about his mental facilities and its accuracy.

Rod I agree with you, Too many details point to Parry being Qualtrough, but too many point to him NOT being the murderer. One author about the case once wrote that whoever Qualtrough was he murdered Julia Wallace the next night, well I think that guy was wrong!

---

But he wasn't an old man when he made the initial testimony as soon as it became clear WHW was arrested for it. Would Parry not have had time to clean up at his partner in crimes house before going to Lily Lloyds later in the night (as he was only really there for the latter part according to her revised 'partly true' alibi) Wilkes says his mental facilities were fine when they interviewed him in Sefton General. Incidentally, it was Wilkes who claims that Qualtrough was the murderer. Although I do now think this 'another chap' whether it be Marsden or Rod's chap pretending to be Qualtrough calling on WHW could be true, I still wouldn't rule out Parry himself.

GED, that is a very good point that didn't occur to me. Although it doesn't change the fact that I think Parkes testimony was mostly accurate...I just don't think Parry committed the actual murder. The specific details we know about what Parkes said also were only relayed when he WAS an old man.

In my view, Parry definitely had a partner...or two... I mean all we have to go by on at this point is conjecture and what reason would Parry have to commit the murder himself? The cash motive has always bothered me. Why then not plan a way to get BOTH of the Wallace's out. Yeah it's true maybe he didn't intend to murder her...but I don't know it seems like such an elaborate plan with such a high risk. While I could see Parry doing something ilicit (such as getting paid for sex as has been suggested whether you accept that or not), it stretches the imagination of him going to such lengths and concocting such an elaborate plot for such a low reward and high risk. Also the plot is a mastermind one with the phone call, address etc... and as Murphy pointed out Parry was no criminal mastermind. I think there was definitely another 'brain' behind the plot.

Rod, sorry for straying a little from the subject but I think it is somewhat of an appropriate forum as there are similarities between the two murders; Murphy implies that both men were guilty. I have to say the Jeremy Bamber case is one I know little about. Not super well known in the US, I did see an A and E special on it around 2006 I think. From what I could tell, I saw huge problems with the case especially regarding a lock to the basement or something? I think I'm right in that this made me think he might have been innocent although maybe this is the evidence that the police used against him to imply guilt? I can't remember many details of the case. I also saw something more recent on the case which led me to believe he was probably innocent. Really shocking and awful is that's true. What I remember being my certain conviction is there was not enough to convict him. Hopefully, they can do the right thing as they did in the Martin Tankleff case in Long Island, NY. (one of the worse injustices EVER) Sorry to insult British jurisprudence, as I generally think Britain paved the way for the jury system, but a 10-2 margin being enough is pretty abysmal. America has it right; 12-0 or mistrial.

Just another obvious point against PARRY...his obsession with "21st birthdays"..he told BEATTIE he was trying to arrange something in Mr WALLACES line for his daughters 21st birthday..he told Jonathan Goodman a new alibi on the doorstep that he was engaged in trying to organise a 21st birthday! He was at the time of the murder,actually trying to get an invite to LESLIE WILLIAMSON'S real 21st birthday party(to which I think Lily Lloyd had already been invited,as its obvious LW was keen on LL as he says she was a lovely girl,so no wonder RGP was determined to get an invite)..LW is the same man who rang in to Radio City,but no one at the time knew who he was!! Incidentally,I'm sure that PARRY'S sister was only a small child at the time so anything she said about the police & RGP could only have come from her brother!!! IAN(FJumble)

yes IAN, amazing police didn't (maybe didn't want to) pick up on that. Parry being Qualtrough is quite obvious at this point to me.

Is it a mastermind plan though?

You want to gain access to a known insurance agents house so what better way than to get a message to him to visit the other side of town.

Then wait and watch.

I fully agree with all the recent posts ..ie PARRY is QUALTROUGH & had a partner in crime..possibly his friend the shadowy figure Joseph Caleb Marsden(as ID'd by MARK R!)It would appear that perhaps the original plan was just to get WALLACE away from Wolverton Street whilst they stole what they thought was a reasonable & worthwhile sum! Its difficult to imagine why they would plan to actually kill JW(unless she had something against one of them)so surely this is just a robbery that went wrong & ended in poor JULIA being battered to death.True to charcter & what we know,consumate liar & conman RGP managed to convince the police that his alibi was watertight..when it was clearly full of holes & cobbled together to suit the circumstances.The police didnt seem to bother much with MARSDEN???? if, in fact, he WAS the other partner? If it was the 2 young crooks,in 1931 they would be very aware that they BOTH faced the hangman's noose..even IF RGP was able to convine the police that he was little more than a getaway driver,which of course he wasnt...but agreed,he doesnt seem like a mastermind,his careless "21st birthday" obsession proves that... Does this synopsis actually need a MASTERMIND..after all if it was just a robbery that went horribly wrong,then it was just the robbery that was "planned"..it hardly needed a Prof.Moriarty to plan that!! IAN(FJumble)

What a great thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lindylou

.. and here is the little shop 'up the slope' :)


It's a shame to see it derelict, it used to be thriving. I remember very well the Irish people who owned it.

---

Wish I had a quid for everytime I passed it on the way to and from school.
And the ice in the back entry in winter,you could get some speed up going down then smack, into the wall.Pick yourself up and then do it again down the narrow one.Just aswell there wasn't much traffic because there was no stoppin until you hit the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GNASHER

What a great thread.


Wish I had a quid for everytime I passed it on the way to and from school.
And the ice in the back entry in winter,you could get some speed up going down then smack, into the wall.Pick yourself up and then do it again down the narrow one.Just aswell there wasn't much traffic because there was no stoppin until you hit the road.

---

Yeah we used to do that with our roller skates too :)