Julia Wallace Murder Case

[Mark R]

Sorry for putting the answers up Ian!!
Of course many have written about the Wallace Case - Winifred Duke, WF Wyndham Brown, Nigel Morland, Martin Fido and Liverpool's own John Brophy, Vincent Burke and Gerald Abrahams amongst them. Don't ever recall reading (or hearing) if Alfred Hitchcock and Agatha Christie had an opinion about it.
I listened to your phone-in and it was very interesting. Great to hear the views of the panel. I think the only down side was the perpetual phone line cock ups! It was good listening to Roger Wilkes struggling through it . Still great to hear it though.

[burkhilly]

I've not the time to listen to the programmes yet - but will listen to all of them shortly. What I have listened to is the "phone-in" which is interesting in that it gives people's views of Parry's character. Not a very nice person by all accounts, but did he do it?

[Mark R]

I'm not convinced Parry did it burkhilly. Yes, you're right - by all accounts he was an unsavoury character. Did John Parkes have a reason for his actions? Did Parry actually take a car into the garage? Or did Parkes have a grudge against Parry? It seems severe to say the least that Parkes would point the finger at him because he had a grudge...Or did Parry really take the car in to be cleaned? We'll never know...

The Wallace Case has always had two generally accepted theories - the Wallaceite (those convinced of his guilt) and Qualtroughite (that he was innocent). I suppose you could also say what I refer to it as - the Quallaceite - (Wallace in collusion with a contract killer) not a new theory by any means, but it would take an incredible amount of trust... I still think that the Anfield Housebreaker cannot be ruled out.

[Ged]

Reasons for Parry's involvement.

The phony alibi on the Qualtrough phone call night.

His demeanour to Whittington-Egan and Jonathan Goodman in 1966 and his saying he could say a lot more about the case but promised his father he wouldn't - Why?

His admitting to going to see Julia some afternoons to make 'sweet music' - Of what kind?

Him being blown up to the Pru superindant Joseph Crewe by WHW - thereby giving him a motive (as if the aforementioned clandestine meetings and his perpetual shortage of money didn't already)

But..... I would still like to know what Harry Bailey could have told WHW solicitor Sydney Scholefield Allen after he retired that would have 'Interested him immensely'.

With the changes of findings by MacFall (3 at least), the co-ercing of witnesses (Alan Close and John Parkes) by Moore and the farcical Anfield Harriers routine - all manufacturered to make the crime fit the person rather than the person fit the crime, then Parry at the very least cannot be ruled out.

I must admit though, take Parry out of the equation and the way for instance Russell Johnston put that talk across, seeing things as they unfolded during those two nights with the only evidence that was available to the police at that time, you could just as easily go for Wallace as the killer. (though we don't know what Parry evidence they chose to ignore because they thought they had their man in Wallace and didn't want to deviate from it/the Moore-Parry senior connection factor too)

[John Doh]

Phew! Quite an impressive summing up there, m'Lud! Well, at least one member of the jury that's still sitting had a bit more to think about...

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

THANKS Ged..EXCELLENT PIECE! I think MARK, I've been a "Qualtroughite"all my life as WALLACE couldnt possibly have battered JULIA himself! In recent times,I swung to become "Quallaceite" on the basis that obviously somebody badly want JULIA dead & WHW is the obvious(only?)candidate & now a plausible motive has surfaced(her old age & lying about it!). PARRY was surely Qualtrough. I think theft & the Anfield Burglar can both be dismissed..the killer/Wallace tried to point the police towards the theft/breakin theory..but importantly,JULIA KNEW her killer & showed him into the "parlour" & lit the gas for him(strange thing to do for a sneak-thief/House Burglar!!!) Also, if the Anfield Burglar was in the habit of battering his victims why wer'nt his other robberies carried out like this? With John Parkes statements,I initially thought them far fetched...but the Atkinsons clearly believed him & backed him up.I dont think he would have tried to frame PARRY because he had a grudge against him..for 50 years?? Also,he was terrified of Gordon Parry..he was brave to go as far as he did at the time & the police must have convinced everyone at Atkinsons that they had the killer(WHW) & Parry was in the clear!! FJumble(IAN)

[Mark R]

There is still no evidence though to say that Parry WAS Qualtrough Ian! I cannot believe Wallace didn't know Julia's correct age. The photo we all know of Julia was more than likely taken many years before - maybe 30 years before - she certainly doesn't look older than 40 on it (well I don't think so anyway).
On the contrary, I still think one of the Anfield Housebreaker's is still a viable possibility. I have to say, there is no proof that it was one burglar targeting the area. Many people (a lot of them elderly) have and still allow complete strangers into their homes. A stranger could have told Julia that he was Qualtrough and that he has called on Wallace and that he could wait for his return...It is not an impossibility. After bludgeoning her to death he could have been caught in an overwhelming state of panic and fled - the only doubt I have about that is the lack of blood outside the room...Surely a fleeing killer would have left traces...or if he didn't, then Wallace didn't (which drives me around the bend thinking how he managed to avoid spatter, something which I cannot believe!!)
I'm just not convinced that Wallace would devise such a plan with an accomplice when he could have dispatched her in a much easier method - and without anyone else knowing.
With regards to Parkes - he said he was scared of Parry, yet said to his face he didn't trust him. It doesn't sound like he was that scared of him. Yes, it is possible for a deep rooted hatred to fester for 50 years. I'm not saying Parkes was making it up - maybe he wasn't - but I find it ludicrous that a guilty Parry would have disclosed his connection with a murder,
saying to Parkes regarding the glove; 'if they found that it would hang me...' Hey maybe it was Parkes in collusion with Wallace thereby framing Parry. Parkes worked late at night giving him time to execute the phone call and the murder

[Acrosstheuniverse]

But the Anfield Housebreaker committed all sorts of crimes without ever involving an ingenious phone message the day before. I think this was a much more personal plan from the get-go.

[Mark R]

But the Anfield Housebreaker committed all sorts of crimes without ever involving an ingenious phone message the day before. I think this was a much more personal plan from the get-go.

We don't know that exactly though. I think the only way it can be called an 'ingenious' phone call is if Wallace made it (and I wouldn't call it ingenious then either!). If it wasn't Wallace 'Qualtrough' was taking a chance just by hoping that Wallace would carry it through. He was putting all his faith on him falling for it and making the trek. He didn't know for definite that Wallace would make the journey to Menlove Gardens and if he didn't go up to Menlove Gardens 'Q' could hardly try the same trick again without Wallace being suspicious.
If it was Wallace that made the phone call he took one of the biggest risks ever. I'm sure he would never have wanted the call traced but managed to get it traced - I wouldn't call that ingenious!

[Acrosstheuniverse]

We don't know that exactly though. I think the only way it can be called an 'ingenious' phone call is if Wallace made it (and I wouldn't call it ingenious then either!). If it wasn't Wallace 'Qualtrough' was taking a chance just by hoping that Wallace would carry it through. He was putting all his faith on him falling for it and making the trek. He didn't know for definite that Wallace would make the journey to Menlove Gardens and if he didn't go up to Menlove Gardens 'Q' could hardly try the same trick again without Wallace being suspicious.
If it was Wallace that made the phone call he took one of the biggest risks ever. I'm sure he would never have wanted the call traced but managed to get it traced - I wouldn't call that ingenious!

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.

[Mark R]

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...

[Ged]

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.

[Mark R]

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.

[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....

[Mark R]

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.