Julia Wallace Murder Case

[Mark R]

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.

[Acrosstheuniverse]

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?

[Mark R]

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).

[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)

[Mark R]

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.

[Ged]

Possibly true about Parry's over imagination - even if it did cast him in a bad light and put himself in it so to speak but we still have the 'There are lots of things I could tell you etc etc, Wallace was sexually odd, peculiar, Promised my father, not for £1000 or whatever it was...

However, Julia did invent an elaborate story about her parents and their origins and professions and tried to conceal this. Actually who was this intended for and how was it proven otherwise?

[Mark R]

Parry did seem to revel in being a menace (or perceived as one). Maybe he was attention seeking (but who would want that sort of publicity?) I don't know about you but I find it odd that Wallace would discuss his sexual preferences/behaviour with Parry. I just cannot imagine such a conversation ever having taken place!

[Ged]

No, but I wonder if Julia did during one of their 'meetings', if indeed they did take place?

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

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?

burkhilly..I'm glad you enjoyed the Radio Broadcasts. I think a lot of us now think the Wallace Murder was planned by,but couldnt have been actually carrried out by WHW,...it seems more likely now that PARRY was used as QUALTROUGH..but that the actual murder was carried out by a.n.other..I'm hoping that John Gannon's forthcoming book may finally give us more about the mysterious MARSDEN,who John clearly thinks did the battering(see his blog. on COLD CASE CLOSED JULIA WALLACE)for update. I think theft can be ruled out ..as can the ANFIELD BURGLAR..who never went anywhere near this type of MO.IAN (FJumble)

[Ged]

I don't suspect the Anfield Housebreaker either Ian but can you clarify 'anywhere near this type of MO. for me please? Ta.

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

Thanks God

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.

MARK..did you ever get anymore on your assertion that Whittington-Egan reneged on his belief that PARRY was QUALTROUGH..I find this very hard to accept. I think its clear that WHW must have known JULIAS' real age eventually,but the point is surely,when did he find out. I cant see WHW,from what we know of his so called stoic upright persona,being a party to fraud on his wedding day..surely he wouldn't have gone ahead if he knew she was 52 in 1914..or indeed if he knew he was being duped! The afternoon musical intervals...are purely from what RGP bragged to JG & RWE on the doorstep..every other possible confirmation of these sessions seems to draw a total blank.IAN (FJumble)

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

Thanks ROD..I agree with your points..but the fact that its a "parlour game" makes it so fascinating. No wonder Raymond Chandler was on to LUSTGARTEN so much about it and claimed the case was unbeatable! To your main points,I'd simply add surely theft was not the motive.The killing was cold-blooded and planned & not a random act.The phone-call to the chess club & the wild-goose chase alibi prove these 2 assertions...would a random thief or the Anfield Burglar have gone to such elaborate trouble? Regards IAN(FJumble)

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

Sorry GED..I meant the Anfield Burglar was a sneak thief,an opportunist..who was,so far as I know never used violence.His Modus Operandi was NEVER to assault & rob! IAN(FJumble) Are you/MARK going to Prof.Simpson lecture tomorrow?

[burkhilly]

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!) I've written about 10,000 words over the last week and hope to get a book done by the end of the year.

Hey Mark if you want a proof reader I'll do it!


Ian - thanks for that Blog info...........am just going to have a read.

[Mark R]

MARK..did you ever get anymore on your assertion that Whittington-Egan reneged on his belief that PARRY was QUALTROUGH..I find this very hard to accept. I think its clear that WHW must have known JULIAS' real age eventually,but the point is surely,when did he find out. I cant see WHW,from what we know of his so called stoic upright persona,being a party to fraud on his wedding day.
Ged Are you/MARK going to Prof.Simpson lecture tomorrow?

An upright person that wouldn't be party to fraud but invariably plan the murder of his wife
Yes Ian, Whittington-Egan did renege on it. I'll have to dig it out (I've got literally tons of material re: the Wallace Case that I've collected down the years and will have to sift through it!)
Unfortunately I can't make the Simpson lecture tomorrow. Would have liked to have attended that! if anyone goes, let us know what it was like.

I'm hoping that John Gannon's forthcoming book may finally give us more about the mysterious MARSDEN,who John clearly thinks did the battering(see his blog. on COLD CASE CLOSED JULIA WALLACE)for update. I think theft can be ruled out ..as can the ANFIELD BURGLAR..who never went anywhere near this type of MO.IAN (FJumble)

We don't know how the MO of a particular burglar works. As I've said before - there was more than one burglar active. Some have a different MO to others. Marsden isn't that mysterious. He was 28 - worked for the Prudential and lived in Adelaide Road. I think the idea that Marsden killed Julia has about as much credibility as Slemen's assertion that John Johnston committed the murder.

[IAN DAVID FRYER]

An upright person that wouldn't be party to fraud but invariably plan the murder of his wife:sly wink:
Yes Ian, Whittington-Egan did renege on it. I'll have to dig it out (I've got literally tons of material re: the Wallace Case that I've collected down the years and will have to sift through it!)
Unfortunately I can't make the Simpson lecture tomorrow. Would have liked to have attended that! if anyone goes, let us know what it was like.




We don't know how the MO of a particular burglar works. As I've said before - there was more than one burglar active. Some have a different MO to others. Marsden isn't that mysterious. He was 28 - worked for the Prudential and lived in Adelaide Road. I think the idea that Marsden killed Julia has about as much credibility as Slemen's assertion that John Johnston committed the murder.

MARK,I didn't mean his standing in the 1931... I meant his perceived "pillar of society" personna at the time of his wedding..he was after all a liberal party agent!! He wouldn't have looked good if,say, his sister-in-law stood up & shouted she's not 37 she's 52..especially if he was aware of it(I dont see how he could have been!!) He must surely have discovered this lie at a later date!! Looking at the BeatlesLiverpoolandMore site for John Gannon's preview of THE DEVIL IN THE DETAIL he says that Richard Whittington-Egan is considering doing a piece for the book..hardly seems likely IF he has changed his mind abot PARRY being QUALTROUGH!!
The question of MO is that the Anfield Burglaries NEVER involved violence or duping people to leave their homes..so its a Red Herring...
When you say you are coming around to thinking WHW did it,I take it you mean as part of a conspiracy..you surely dont think WHW battered JULIA do you?? Looking forward to Prof Keith Simpson tonight..he was involved in a lot of very famous murder cases..as I've said before,its a shame he wasnt involved at Wolverton Street or we'd have had NO MYSTERY!! IAN (FJumble)

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 AM ----------

Sorry for delay in responding ATU..just to say I personally agree with you completely!! That STANDARD LIFE calandar would be nice to turn up for a WALLACE CASE museum at, say The PRUDENTIAL,which is still going locally...Regards IAN(FJumble)

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 entwined 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.

[Ged]

Sorry, can't make tonight Ian, but please do report back.

How do we know WHW ever found out about Julia's true age - she fooled MacFall - even in death.

The Anfield housebreaker is ruled out for me simply because of the hoax phone call. It certainly would have been an unusual 'diversion' from his/their usual tack - pardon the pun.