Hey, I just wanted to ask if it is okay if I use some of the information from this website to make a documentary about this case. Thanks in advance for your response.
Discussion of the weapon used to kill Mrs Wallace has concentrated on an iron bar, poker, or spanner. A secondary question is what happened to it?
Could one possibility be that a wooden club was used? Obviously one cannot be specific but something substantial like the leg of a table. This would give some distance between the killer and his victim, reducing risk of blood spatter on his clothing, but more importantly it facilitates disposal of the weapon.
It could have been, wrapped in newspaper to avoid blood dripping, dropped into the stove in the kitchen. Bu the time Wallace returned from MGE, it would be reduced to ashes.
Just a thought.
Wallace says it was a spanner that whacked Julia. It would provide a match for the markings found on her skull, whereas various other proposed items like bog standard iron bars would not leave the tramline wounds.
Assuming Wallace is innocent I can’t see that his opinion on what weapon was used is any more valid than mine. However if we include heavy Stillson wrenches under the umbrella term “spanner” he might be right. This of course implies a planned murder.
I agree that a straight smooth iron bar would not explain the tramlines. Wood originally in furniture of that era was often ornate with channeled-out grooves etc which might explain it but, like Wallace’s spanner, this is pure speculation.
I am intrigued by the fact that in his first statement WHE said there used to be a dog whip in the hallway with a wooden handle with measurements matching those of the supposed murder weapon. Why have a dog whip if you do not have a dog? Unless maybe to ward off savage dogs when he did his insurance rounds?
No further mention of this in any record?
If this was the weapon it could have been burned in the fire in the kitchen and brings WHW back to prime suspect
Tilly
Hi Tilly,
Wallace described the dog whip as having a wooden handle some 12 inches long and one inch in diameter. A cast iron bar of this size would be adequate for the job but a twelve inch length of wood only an inch thick might not have enough “heft.” That said, Wallace clearly thought it might have been a potential weapon although we have only his word that it ever existed. It was, he says, last seen over twelve months ago. As you imply, Tilly, what conceivable use would the Wallaces have for such a thing? A pity Mrs Draper, the cleaner, wasn’t questioned about it.
Another possibility is the use of a length of lead pipe, very common in plumbing installations in the 1930s. The temperature of burning coal is 700 to 1300 degrees C. Lead melts at 327 degrees C. Who would look for discoloured drops of molten lead among the ashes of the stove?
Lord Lucan killed nanny Sandra Rivett with a length of lead pipe used as a club. Nobody in the same house heard anything amiss.
Hi Mike. Blood spattered onto the walls and ceiling, apparently better seen in blown up photographs of the crime scene according to one of the panel on the 1981 Radio City anniversary broadcast who was in possession of one and better seen in a glossy magazine photo which came out later which I have, Therefore the type of weapon itself isn’t really a factor in keeping blood loss or spatter down. A man who did this was not afraid of getting blood on him and that can only be because he wasn’t planning on going out on trams and meeting people that evening.
I find the missing poker story an anomaly as a photo of the crime scene highlighted on here by RMQ clearly shows that on the brass fender/hearth of the fire. The bar (Which the cleaner, Sarah Draper says was always by the fire yet WHW says he has no knowledge of) well that’s very interesting because it would be strange him having no knowledge of it by why say that and drop himself in it, just say oh yes, it’s missing? Also this bar, it could not have been found by workmen years later renovating the property if the police had taken the fire out and we suspect that was to thoroughly search the area of the fire or why else take it out?
Why does Parkes make this story up of the bar being disposed of down a grid that he had no knowledge of being there, yet it is there this grid, in fact one outside each of the 2 drs that existed in Priory Road. Why make himself a target of Parry and his friend/accomplice? Why put himself in the firing line.
Tilly Mint. Nice to see a different contribution and take on it. However, if the dog whip was going to drop WHW in it, then why mention it at all?
Hi Ged,
Whereas the type of weapon used has little effect on the amount of blood spatter it does play a role in the amount of blood ending up on the assailant’s clothing. To give an extreme example: using a cosh type weapon would place the attacker close to the victim. Using a iron bar over 4 feet long places the attacker further away with less risk of blood ending up on him.
Re Parkes’ tale, it is a reasonable assumption that in Priory Road there will be grids, as in every urban environment. Parkes may have been a patient of one of the doctors in Priory Road. It is safe to assume that a grid will be found within a short distance of any house. And…why didn’t Parkes, having received such precise directions, go to Priory Road, verify that the weapon was in the grid, and call the police? It would vindicate his story and make him a hero.
By mentioning the dog whip Wallace is playing the role of the innocent husband saying anything which might help the police find his wife’s killer. I don’t think the dog whip particularly incriminates Wallace; it could have been grabbed by an intruder.
Hi Mike. Not sure how Parkes actually going to the grid (and there are 2 outside of Drs surgeries there) would verify it actually being down there as i’ve been and you can’t see. Also, a 4ft iron bar would have to be like a scaffolding pole, harder to dispose of and bring in/have lying around the house in wait for the moment without it being seen by someone including Julia, Amy or Edwin etc. The only thing in favour of a wooden club is it could be burnt but even then an india club type weapon had a bulky bulbous end and might not burnt through in the time required if at all, I have one and they are solid.
Hi Ged,
You found out that an iron bar dropped down the grid on Priory Road would be hard to see from the pavement. But Parkes didn’t know this and after hearing Parry’s story I would have thought natural curiosity would have led him to Priory Road to check it out. Even if he came back empty-handed, as it were, the fact he had gone there would add credence to his account of Parry’s visit.
I mentioned the 4 foot iron bar just as an extreme example of distancing the attacker from the victim, not as a serious possibility for the murder weapon.
I too wondered whether there would be enough time for the club to burn completely. Maybe not ashes but enough to hide it’s original identity?
I don’t want to know why you have an India club at home!
Further to my suggestion that the dog whip may have been the murder weapon, I have been researching what vintage dog whips looked like.
To my surprise some are club shaped with a narrow end of about 1” where the whip is attached and a broader end at the handle.
Some are loaded i.e weighted with lead.
Some are made of turned wood or have striations for decoration.
Obviously only WHW knew what it looked like if it even existed at all, but these added factors lend further credence to a whip being the weapon.
It is not recorded if the fire in the kitchen was cleaned out for analysis but as the police forensic investigation seems some what lacking, I doubt it was. Especially as the weapon has always been assumed to be a metal bar.
As for why WHW mentioned the whip in the first place, it is very clear that this crime was well thought out. By describing the whip to the police in his statement he knew he was in control as he knew they would never find it.
WHW showed classic signs of having a narcissistic personality- he was better than everyone else. I can explain my theory in another post should anyone wish to indulge me with their attention.
Hi Tilly,
I will certainly indulge you with my attention. I think a survey of Wallace’s personality is a neglected aspect of the case and would be of interest to many on here.
You raise several good points in favour of the dog whip being the weapon. Wallace mentioning it spontaneously was pure braggadocio just like the article he [ghost-] wrote about how he thought it had been done.
Hi Mike and Tilly Mint. Yes, I would certainly like to read of your WHW profiling.
Mike you mention Parkes Dr may well have been on Priory Road, Anfield. This is a distance of some 2 miles so whilst not impossible, i’ve found that there were 4 Drs just yards away from where he lived. These were at 15 Green Lane and 31-33 & 37-39 and 4 Derby Lane. Whilst working at Atkinsons Garage on Moscow Drive, he lived in Tynwald Hill just yards away and in 1981, fifty years later he was living in Guernsey Road just a few streets away so this non driver doesn’t seem to have strayed far from his immediate area. The 2 streets he lived in link Green Lane to Derby Lane.
I still think there is no need for WHW to volunteer possible murder weapons unless of course he is just genuinely trying to help the police solve this heinous crime on his beloved wife. Tilly suggests the crime is well thought out but if so WHW would surely have made better excuses about his attempts to get into the house which i’ve mentioned before as this would be a severe line of questioning that he knew would be forthcoming. Therefore not so well thought out at all, specially if he used a phone box near his house here he could have been seen by anyone. Then the alibi, no time stamp on he first tram (the reason being he knew where he as going at that stage, but if his time stamps were purely to form an alibi that he was out of his house by 10 to 7 then he would surely do something that would make him remembered on that tram, he only has to di this on the first and last tram in actual fact. Also, the timing of the murder. He was home from 6.05, he could have done it straight away and when Alan Close calls and gets no answer, WHW merely says he went to Menlove straight from work or left the house before Alan obviously called, why leave it all to a rushed 10-15 minute window?
I am unfamiliar with Liverpool’s geography so I take your point that it is unlikely that Parkes knew Priory Road or had been a patient of a doctor living there. Is Priory Road anywhere near the home of Lily Lloyd in Missouri Road? If Parry was given the iron bar after he left the Lloyds he would want to be rid of it asap.
My theory regarding WHW arises from the incredible similarities in the behaviour of someone I knew very well. We shall call this person Frank.
Frank worked abroad but had to return to the UK on health grounds.
He was unable to continue his career which he enjoyed and was well paid. He then had to take up alternative employment at a lower scale he had previously been used to.
He met a financially independent woman with a good income and close family ties.
He charmed this woman and separated her from her family, marrying her and going to live in a different city where she had no contacts.
Once he had separated her from her previous life and friends he started to act coercively controlling who she met, what she said and how she behaved in public and took over her finances.
After sometime she did not resist his behaviour towards her because he was always right and she was wrong. This led to indifference to each other within the home. She still
cooked and cleaned and looked after him and he would tell outsiders of the complete idyllic lives they had. On the few occasions they left the house together everyone thought them the perfect couple.
He indulged in his own interests and hobbies and criticised his wife for her inferior intellect. He denied her financial freedom although she was still working and prevented her from buying personal items as they were a waste of money.
The stress caused her to lose her job and her health to suffer. She finally decided to break away but could not leave as Frank became terminally ill. As his illness progressed he became less demanding but this did not stop him from physically attacking his wife
because he knew he was losing his power over her.
Sound a bit like anyone we know?
OK it is not a full psychological profile – I am not qualified to make such a claim.
But WHW did display the same tendencies as Frank.
Both were dismayed by the cards life dealt them and made no real efforts to improve their lot – choosing to blame others for their inadequacies. Mostly their wives.
But WHW really seemed to have it in for Parry too. Was it because he was young, handsome, charming, had the gift of the gab and a bit of a rogue. Everything WHW was not. This maybe why he gave such a damming statement about him to the police to deflect suspicion from himself.
I believe WHW to be a vulnerable narcissist just like Frank.
This type of narcissism displays itself by the person having low self esteem and an introverted personality. WHW showed this with his stoic nature.
They avoid social situations unless they are in control- WHW worked in a working class neighbourhood where he felt superior, he enjoyed intellectual pursuits which he felt set him apart from others.
They blame others for their problems.
They display coercive behaviour.
They are envious of others achievements – I believe WHW was jealous of not only Parry but also his brother Joseph who had a successful career abroad, was married to an attractive woman with a son at university.
They are manipulative with relationships.
WHW probably did believe he loved Julia provided she did as she was told. I fear in her last few months she may have become less manageable. There is a possibility that she may have shown signs of dementia. I think it was Douglas Metcalfe the paper boy who mentioned in a statement that he found she had left the key in the front door sometimes and that Julia went shopping with her bag and purse open. Also her ungainly underwear and hiding money in her corset is indicative that something was amiss. It is also quite strange that she chose to visit Southport in the middle of December although no
reason was given except WHW feared she may not return or was involved in an accident. Could he have abandoned her in Southport earlier in the day hoping something untoward would happen – hence his visit to the police station to report her missing.
Imagine his surprise when she turned up at 1am!
I think this is when he started to plan the murder.
All supposition of course – no evidence. But at the end of the day we will never know..
Look forward to your responses
Most of our exchanges on this forum deal with the weapon, the bloodstains, the (lack of) alibis, the crime scene etc and this certainly has it’s place. So it is a pleasure and something of a relief to read Tilly’s analysis of Wallace’s personality, especially as it is enriched by knowing Frank who was, I agree, very similar to Wallace.
To add my two cents worth:
Wallace clearly thought of himself as an intellectual by reading the writings of Marcus Aurelius, listening to Ibsen plays ( e.g. “The Master Builder”) on the radio, playing the cerebral game of chess and doing scientific experiments in his “laboratory”. He also for a time supervised a Chemistry evening course at a local college.
The reality was that his formal education ended at age fourteen; he went to work as a draper’s assistant. He had been playing chess for over 10 years, joining the club in 1923, but his level of skill was still mediocre. He had no qualifications in Chemistry and was supervising a class at a very basic level (I write as a retired chemist.) And he complained in his diary that the fine points of “The Master Builder” were beyond Julia’s comprehension.
His intellectualism was a self-constructed paper-thin facade to boost his self image and narcissism.
However much Wallace tried to rule the roost at home, the harsh realities of life were just outside his front door. His prospects of promotion were zero and he was doing a boring job normally given to an entry-level employee much younger than himself. And increasingly Julia may have reminded him that they lived in rented housing in an Anfield back street – what a come down for her with memories of Harrogate. Tilly covers all the main points in her excellent coverage of their relationship.
Ken Dodd was in pantomime in Liverpool. He said “Next week we’re going to Southport. We haven’t done anything wrong – its arranged by the agent.”
Julia Wallace’s mid winter trip to Southport clearly had a purpose but what? Whether it triggered the murder plan is open to debate. This aspect – at least giving a reason (possibly innocent) for the trip – has never been investigated fully.
I agree that we are not psychiatrists but we are intelligent people who, based on our reading and our own experience of the vagaries of human nature (e.g. Frank), can often arrive at conclusions which compare favourably with those of the professionals.
Some random points which occurred to me overnight:
Julia apparently never sought employment after arriving in Liverpool. They were childless and the extra income would have been welcome. Did Wallace forbid it to isolate Julia further?
I had always thought that Julia must have ruffled the feathers of her siblings at some point for them to be so estranged from her. But Tilly’s explanation of deliberate estrangement desired by Wallace seems very plausible. He told his landlady in the Lake District after the appeal that Julia was of French origin and had no relatives in the UK. Both lies.
Wallace shares several characteristics with Dr Shipman. Both were narcissists, working in a working class community, and Shipman’s wife too was completely estranged from her family who disliked Shipman and he them. Shipman, who murdered my Aunt Hilda Fitton in 1985, thought the police were ignorant plods. Carrying out so many killings undetected gave Shipman much-needed regular confirmation of how clever he was. I think Wallace also regarded the police as easily fooled by someone of his intellect. Hence the Qualtrough plan which is of course full of holes but I believe Wallace being intellectually arrogant couldn’t see the inherent faults in it.
I know little is known about Julia ‘per se’ but I have attempted to study her extended family and it’s history. We do know she was a farmer’s daughter who lost both parents at an early age. Her paternal aunt Sarah Taylor, paternal uncle John Dennis and his mother Ann made great efforts to keep the family together for as long as possible. This indicates their caring side. After Julia’s father’s death John Dennis and Sarah Taylor’s second husband tried to keep the pub he had bought running to provide support for the 7 children left as orphans. John Dennis even employed Sarah’s surviving son John Taylor and Julia’s younger brother also called John on his farm.
John Dennis died childless and left a considerable personal estate to his relatives. John Taylor continued to run the farm with Julia’s brother but both died young and unmarried. The proceeds of the farm business were added to the family fortune.
At this stage Julia and her sisters were working as governesses but certainly Rhoda branched out from teaching to run a guest house and Amy may have run a recruitment agency in Brighton for domestic servants and governesses. I am not positive about this last point as there was another Miss A Dennis at the same address. Regardless, both sisters lived in very comfortable circumstances in their own accommodation. This was probably not owned out right but rented as was usual at that time.
Coincidentally Sarah Taylor’s family were now fully grown. Her daughter Jane had married a pharmacist William B Mason. He wanted to start his own business and it was decided that the family lend him the funds to do so. This investment paid off, as Mason was a canny business man. He ended up owning and running the largest pharmaceutical wholesale and retail chemist in the North of England, calling it Taylor’s Drug Company Limited.
In the early years he employed family in the concern including Jane’s younger sisters as medical representatives, Julia’s brothers George and Herbert as managers. In fact it is amazing how many female relatives ended up marrying pharmacists!
The firm became so big it was eventually merged with Timothy White’s which in turn to was incorporated into Boots the Chemist which is now the Walgreens Boots Alliance.
It is therefore possible that family members were minor shareholders and this provided them with some return on their initial investments.
The caring and supportive nature of the family had extended to the next generation. Even when Julia’s eldest sister died, it was at the home of Jane and William Mason where she spent her final months.
Julia’s brother George was married with a family. It has been said that his eldest daughter Annie Teresa was very fond of Julia and went to stay with her in Harrogate about 1908 – 1910. Douglas Birch (Annie Teresa’s son) even said his mother told him that Julia was her favourite aunt and Julia doted on her. With this information it seems that up until 1910 the family were all in good terms.
1910 coincides with the time that WHW turned up in Harrogate to take up his post as Liberal Agent for the area. Part of his job was to study the town records to find suitable persons to convert to the political party he represented. He would therefore know of Julia’s marital status and her address which was very close to where he lived. Which was not 157 Belmont Road in Harrogate as WHW stated in his police statement and incidentally does not exist, there only ever being about 30 houses in the whole street!
But I digress, my point being that WHW may have seen Julia as a potential target from day one. A quiet, financially independent woman , living on her own except for the occasional guests who stayed in apartment rooms in her house at 11 St Mary’s Avenue. Julia would regularly advertise in the local press of the availability of rooms at reasonable rates in the local press. These adverts appeared less regularly after WHW was on the scene.
Therefore by 1914 when Julia and WHW married there apparently none of Julia’s relatives in attendance- not even the favourite niece Annie Theresa. WHW quickly moved himself and his elderly father into Julia’s house. It could not be foretold that World War 1 would bring WHW’s career as political agent to an abrupt end but could there have been another reason why they needed to leave affluent and gentile Harrogate?
Surely alternative employment could have been found in Yorkshire and with regards WHW’s interest in Chemistry, a job with Taylor’s Chemist was not out of the question!
Much emphasis has been put on Julia telling lies about her age and family. I do not think this was the case. Having studied my own family history my female relatives frequently reduced their age by 5-15 years on official documents such as marriage certificates and census records. The question of lies all come from when WHW came into Julia’s life.
Hence my theory and belief he was responsible for her cruel death.
Hi Tilly,
I found your account of Julia’s family relationships absorbing and relevant to the tragedy of Wolverton street. It is only by starting at the beginning as you have done then working forward chronologically to the crime that any sense of cause and effect can be gleaned from this complex story.
My “take away” from your extensive research is that there was a sharp change for the worse in Julia’s fortunes after meeting Wallace. He must have had a smooth line of patter about Marcus Aurelius, otherwise I can’t see why Julia aged ~52, financially comfortable and settled into life as a spinster would consider marriage to Wallace with his financial problems and dependant father and sister.
With marriage on the horizon, did Julia at this point lie about her age to make herself a more attractive prospect? This also seems to be the point where her relations with her siblings become strained leading to estrangement.
The inescapable conclusion is that, for whatever reason, Wallace had found a comfortable billet for himself and his relatives by marrying Julia – he brought along his ailing father and his sister Jessie to live with the newly weds.
According to author Isault Bridges, Wallace’s job as Liberal Agent did not suddenly disappear on the outbreak of war in 1914 – he was replaced by another man. Was he sacked?
As you say, if Julia’s family relationships were still harmonious at that time why wasn’t a sinecure found for him in her family’s pharmaceutical business?
I too have wondered why Wallace advertised so widely the love he felt for Julia. I have been fortunate in marriage but I never spoke of it outside the house. It reminds me of serial killer John Christie who described his wife to neighbours as “one in a million” only weeks before her body was found under the floor of his living room.
A great contribution Tilly. I hope we can look forward your continued interest in the case on this forum.
Great work and effort Tilly Mint, well done and great contributions too as ever Mike.
It could of course be all true but it could also all be unfounded conjecture.
If Julia is submissive to WHW and goes along with him then the relationship has a status quo and no need for such drastic action as murder for no gain and of course not all narcissistic husbands kill their wives. Julia had a sizable bank account, something not normally afforded to partners of men who control them. That would be transferred across prompto with the pretence of ‘I’m the man of the house and i’ll look after all financial matters’. Her position in the Wallace marriage might easily have been Wallace being old fashioned and thinking the lady of the house need not work but attend to domestic matters only which was pretty normal even into the 1970s where I lived.
If Julia is rebelling against Wallace’s alleged coercive control then you would expect to see escalatory behaviour such as domestic violence, emotional control and this being noticed by or mentioned to people Julia would see outside of Wallace’s prying eyes whether this be Amy, Edwin or even casual acquaintances such as the Johnston’s or the shopkeepers Julia frequented on Breck Rd or maybe her Doctor or even Parry during their trysts (though Parry does mention WHW being sexually odd and Julia is seeing him without Wallace’s knowledge)
As I say it is merely an option and an opinion though Diary entries also allude to a loving caring relationship, the frost on the flowers, encouraging Julia to go on walks with him, him mentioning Julia would have loved the bungalow in Bromborough and there were testimonies from people who knew them both too. There was certainly no mention by Amy or Edwin as to dementia affecting Julia, she may just have been a bit dizzy and careless. Her whole recreating a new background to herself is strange and maybe Wallace himself was not even aware that her mother was not French or of her real age? Maybe she had low self esteem and it is indeed the other way round, she now has a husband who will not ask too much of her by way of earning money and she can now relax.
If none of the money from the aforementioned business were to the benefit of Julia and she was not a shareholder or part of it, then it is irrelevant. If by leaving Harrogate was of no monetary loss to her and Wallace’s dad got him a job in Liverpool, then why not go. Did she own the house in Harrogate – no. Therefore not owning a house in Liverpool is of no consequence or detriment.
I mooted this initial post on the Wallace facebook site and crime author Antony Brown is responsible for most of what I have replied above which only reinforced my thoughts on the subject.
We also have Julia as only ever having known the good life. A governess of course was just a live in nanny and Julia spent some of her time living and working in the grimy, smog filled big smoke.
Thanks for your perspective Ged – I have read your other posts with interest and your unfaltering belief that WHW was innocent.
I have clearly stated that I have no concrete evidence for my theory and it is merely trying to join the dots from the facts at hand. However, I do strongly feel that Julia did not comply with WHW’s coercive tactics, merely as an old fashioned sort who having married later in life she came to accept that maybe she had made the wrong choice. She had made her bed and had to live with it. I do not wish to infer Julia had become rebellious toward WHW only that she may have let her guard down by not showing unequivocal devotion towards him that only WHW picked up on and saw as betrayal.
WHW seemed to be constantly displaying his affection for her to friends, work colleagues and clients alike – anyone who would listen. This is a classic narcissistic trait. Why talk about your personal and domestic life so openly if everything is so wonderful? Only someone who was hiding behind a facade of lies.
I cannot believe the suggestion that Parry would have any sexual interest in
Julia. A woman old enough to be his grandmother, with repeated chest infections so probably coughing a lot and maybe incontinent? It is not an attractive proposition.
There is no evidence to suggest Parry was involved in any way. The conjecture is reliant on testimony given years after. Parry himself was a narcissist but unlike WHW he was overt in his actions. Yes – Parry was a lying rogue and a thief but I do not believe he had the capacity to plan a crime effectively, after all he got caught red handed so many times.
Parry obviously enjoyed being in the limelight both physically and metaphorically speaking and probably dined out for years with tales of his association with the Wallaces.
He had no need to rob Wallace as he now had a job in insurance himself and to all accounts was capable of persuading friends and family to buy policies that they did not really want or need. I refer to first hand account from Leslie Williamson on Radio City phone line.
The failed robbery tactic was instigated by WHW himself by drawing the Johnston’s attention to the broken cabinet door. Who does that when you have just found your dear loved wife battered to death in the next room?
Thanks for letting me vent my ramblings on this fascinating case. I think the crime scene has been done to death (forgive the pun) so will not be offering any insight on that matter.
Hi Tilly Mint. It is always good to hear other opinions. I’m aghast that James Murphy’s book and Mark Russell’s book pretty much for 9 tenths of the text seem to be creating a case for the defence only for a tv drama style change around right near the end which leaves me perplexed.
You say Parry had no need to rob Wallace as he now had a job in insurance himself but he had a job in insurance himself as he was robbing the Pru during his paying in of Wallace’s rounds, which was on more than one occasion too. He seemed always short of money, hence his phone box robberies and car taking.
Parry’s connection is by no means reliant on testimonies years later as he is fingered by Wallace in his second statement and is mentioned in 1930s books on the killing. We also have his false alibi, possibly 2 false alibis and him having the motive and means for this killing. He admits to being in the area, he has a car, he is also fingered by Parkes, he has the capability to change his voice, he used phones to make prank calls, he wants revenge, he has the means via a car to dispose of the weapon, he has the time (or his accomplice does) to not have to worry about getting blood on himself, he kept himself in the loop as to what was happening with all the cast even decades later.
Wallace, well in the first instance he just doesn’t have the time frame in which to do it, the police proved that using the ill fated Anfield Harriers. He doesn’t have a motive we know of, he is ill versed in answering questions fired at him so any premeditated planning of how to answer them is not forthcoming. He has other means of killing her and other ways of carrying this out a lot better.
Hi Ged,
If, as you say, the police proved beyond doubt that Wallace did not have sufficient time to murder his wife, clean up, and be on the Lodge Lane by 7.06 pm, why did they go ahead and charge him with the murder?
Mike
They were wrong to Mike and Justice Wright should have thrown this case out. Right from the committal proceedings they loaded inaccuracies against Wallace (why have to do that?) and with reporting restrictions not in place it was a free for all including for the Jury to have a pre-conceived outlook. Justice Wright also got it wrong in applauding the police for their work imho, Justice was done though with the appeal judges who came to the correct conclusion that no case was ever proven and the Jury got it wrong and no need for any new evidence and thus creating history so it was not a decision taken lightly.
We also have to consider other factors.
The local media were pushing for answers regarding this most heinous of crimes. Hubert Moore had already made the error of stating the caller was the murderer. He had put out an APB though that railways stations, boarding houses etc to be checked for a heavily bloodstained person – yet later we are to believe the killer would have no blood on him. Moore’s secretary is related to Parry so what’s been said there. What’s being said by Ada Pritchard – does that get swept away too as well as Parkes? No, Moore has his man and must make the situation fit, not the facts, the situation. The Harriers run the route but that doesn’t put him off. Alan Croxton Close, Elsie Wright and James Alison Wildman, even Mr Holmes next door state why the Milk delivery isn’t 6.30pm but Moore makes this fit by getting Alan to change his time. All Wallace’s clients say he was normal that day, Rothwell the police office gives two contradictory accounts. Nothing is set in stone here against Wallace.
I agree that Justice Wright should have dismissed the case against Wallace at the outset based on insufficient evidence. Wallace’s defence were afraid to ask for this option reasoning that if the judge disagreed it would look as if there was enough evidence and this would favour the prosecution. The appeal judges criticised this decision of Wallace’s defence.
TV documentaries have highlighted the amount and quality of evidence needed today for the CPS to allow any case to go to court. Based on all we know now about Wallace and Parry I do not believe the CPS would agree the case against either of them should go to court. There simply isn’t enough evidence to give reasonable expectation of a conviction of either of them.
I totally agree with that Mike. The defence abandoned their duty to their client in not arguing forcefully that there was no case to answer given only circumstantial evidence was apparent and could have stated that if it is allowed to go ahead, I am sure we will see the holes I can make in any arguing put against my client. That i’m sure would have made the Judge, prosecution and Jury more wary of what was to come if indeed the Judge was still to allow it to go ahead.
Why had Wallace, seventeen years with the Pru, never achieved promotion? He was after all, at age 52, doing a job usually given to much younger entry-level employees, tramping the streets of Clubmoor day in / day out collecting premiums and paying benefits.
This might have been due to his personality. While he always behaved in a gentlemanly fashion and was not averse to accepting the odd cup of tea he seems to have been “strictly business” with little time for gossip or small talk.
Prudential agents were expected, in addition to their collection/payment duties, to be active salesmen and promotors of the various Prudential policies. They were encouraged and trained to present themselves as a trusted family friend in order to obtain new business. This may have been a criterion for promotion and Wallace with his reserved personality and Stoic demeanour was totally unsuited for it taking little initiative in this direction.
What a contract therefore with his response to the Qualtrough message. He set off in mid winter to meet a man he didn’t know, at an address he didn’t know on the other side of town to discuss new business which was still not guaranteed – Qualtrough may have found the premiums too steep or in the interim made a deal with another company.
This contrast between Wallace’s lack of initiative in his day job and his enthusiastic response to new business potentially offered by Qualtrough is telling. I think his expressed doubts that he would go to MGE were a bluff.
I agree that his reaction to the telephone message at the chess club completely over the top and out of character. We are to believe that he was a quiet, stoic introvert but here he is almost shouting look at me, I am going to meet Mr Qualtrough at MGE tomorrow night, does anybody else know him or where MGE is located? He knows that everyone will say no because he was the person who invented the name and address.
If this was an innocent man and true to character I believe WHW would have thanked Beattie for taking the message, apologised to his opponent for interrupting the game and then carried on playing. He did not seem to think why am I being contacted about business at my chess club? How does Mr Qualtrough know I would be here tonight? The message did not upset his train of thought or play. In fact he won which was an unusual feat in itself. This was because he was probably relaxing – knowing that the start of his plan was working.
Even when travelling home later he continued to prattle on about the message and ask Caird for possible directions. It is interesting that he did not heed any advice from fellow chess players because he already knew his route and how long it would take to travel there by all modes of available transport.
Ha ha Mike, I have to give you credit for your continued digging for a reason why Wallace was the killer, but not only is what you say all conjecture but just like the case itself, it can offer an alternative slant to the other extreme.
In Q3002 of the trial, Wallace states he has around 560 calls per week. Now that is some visiting wouldn’t you say, given he didn’t even work a full week on his rounds. When you add up the amounts he pays in, according to the trial, he is surely a valued agent and given the longevity of his beat (17 years you admit) you’d have to say a majority of these clients might well be of his making or extra policies taken out within the same families as newer members or circumstances (newborns, birthdays, weddings etc) come along. He may well have been comfortable in this role, just as Alan Shearer or Matt Le Tissier were probably better players than their club life suggests.
If he is taking tea with some of his clients as you admit and is said at the trial, who knows what small talk or idle gossip is discussed. He may have had clients outside of his normal rounds, friends, neighbours, Technical college colleagues, chess acquaintances etc and as it was said at the trial it was not against the rules nor unusual for an agent in any district to take other work of this nature from another district, there we have it that Wallace was always hungry to be adding to his portfolio which we see during the trial can bring him a sizable personal bounty.
He was a trusted hard worker who was loyal to his employers, he had called out some short payments made in by one of these younger entry level employees, in fact Marsden was another found to be less than honest. No, Wallace in that role was the model employee, the Pru wanted and needed more like him and they were happy in what he was doing and his wage was abundant as he was able to go about his hobbies and still have £152 (£12,300 today) in his bank account and even his unemployed wife could have around the equivalent of £7500. No need therefore for the extra responsibilities and stress a promotion might bring in his delicate position with his health and age.
Hi Tilly. The message is of course one of the many things our little troop of enthusiasts have discussed at length during our atmospheric meetings around the districts where this all happened. We have to take ourselves out of 2024 and imagine what it was like in 1931. Word of mouth was a big thing, it still can be in certain circles today. It only takes someone to say ‘oh why don’t you ask so and so, I’m not sure where he lives but he plays at the chess club every Monday or he drinks in the Brook house every Friday etc.
Also, giving a Menlove Gardens East non existent address to people who could have known the area very well would be a big risk. The area was still being built up and might not appear in the most recent ordnance survey maps anyway and even the tram drivers and inspectors who traipse up and down there daily did not know it didn’t exists and witnesses Wallace asked up in the very area said ‘you might want to try up there’ or ‘it could be the continuation of there’.
His familiarity of the area was not on the route of the last tram he took. To go to Amy’s in Ullet Road would not require him to get the Penny Lane terminus connection and to get to Crewe’s house in Green Lane would see him go on a different route altogether along Allerton Road, some walking distance away.
Regarding the message itself. We still have to overcome that he was going to be speaking to Beattie in person in a very short time from allegedly speaking to him on the phone asking questions and for him not to be found out. And then the next day after the murder is all over the city, we are to believe that Beattie wouldn’t be thinking, you know what, that sounded a bit like Wallace on the phone last night. No, i’m not having that. Then the call ending approx 7.27 and him being in the club approx 7.45 with the diversions on Dale st to contend with and who knows what congestion caused by it.
Another thing regarding Julia’s (false) age. The 1921 census form was completed and signed by William. It doesn’t prove anything of course as although Julia did not provide the information directly to the taker, she may well have supplied it on the day to William or William was aware of the date he provided prior.
Mike, I can’t remember if I answered you on a previous post about you not being too familiar with the areas of Liverpool concerned in this case. It was whilst we were discussing Priory Road and the grid outside the Drs, you asked where this was in relation to everything. Well as I say – a good 2 miles according to google from Parkes house. However, just across the road from where the call box was which is also very close to where Anne Parsons saw two people running down Hanwell st towards Lower Breck Road which leads onto Priory Road.
I hesitate to ask but what is a dog whip’s intended purpose? Surely not for whipping dogs for heaven’s sake.
Tilly, I too looked up vintage dog whips. Some of them look like substantial coshes, probably made of hardwood. Wallace mentioning it could have been a tease or an innocent remark trying to help the enquiry.
I agree totally with your assessment of Wallace receiving the Qualtrough message at the chess club. He made as much fuss as possible and was not a bit apologetic about this business call for him disturbing the players. From start to finish it was all about drawing in as many witnesses as possible: at the club, with Mr Caird, on the trams, at Menlove Gardens, with the Johnstons etc.
Ged, I agree that at this juncture we cannot know Wallace’s attitude his job or how he was regarded by his supervisor at the Pru. He never expresses any enthusiasm for it. Julia remarked to a visitor when Wallace was “ill” in bed that he “doesn’t want to go to work’ implying that he was malingering.
His job must have been physically demanding, tramping the streets of Clubmoor in all weathers, especially for a man 52 but prematurely “old,” and in poor health. Its surprising that the Prudential hadn’t found a desk job for him well before the tragedy.
The author Mark Russell’s great aunt was one of Wallace’s clients and she said that he was always polite but it was strictly business with no small talk on each of his visits.
I would like to return to our much earlier discussion of Wallace’s phantom briefcase. Why is it not mentioned anywhere in the written record? If he took it to MGE to meet Qualtrough why is it not mentioned as having been examined? And if he didn’t take it with him why not? It would have contained policies and attractive brochures to tempt Qualtrough and those under his roof to do business with the Pru. Did he know he wouldn’t need it?
Hi Michael
I understand your concern regarding the use of dog whips. They were not used to beat the dogs, rather to imitate the sound of gun shots for working dogs. I believe they are now used to train dogs to a particular standard and is now a sport.
This beggars the question why WHW had one?
Tilly
Thanks very much for this info Tilly which has put my mind at rest. Its a funny thing for Wallace to mention especially as he claimed he hadn’t seen it in the past ten years!
Hi Tilly,
Yes, you’re right, its 12 months. Pity Mrs Draper wasn’t questioned about it. A reliable objective opinion from someone who, unlike Wallace, had no particular axe to grind.
Mike
After I had had my tea I got a number of papers ready, forms,
which I thought I might require, and everything finished then I went upstairs and washed my hands and face.
This would suggest that an innocent Wallace prepared his papers for possible business with Qualtrough. As the Pru agent’s briefcase was inseperable from him while on business I assume Wallace put his papers in it and set off with it for MGE. On his return and eventually entering the house with the Johnstons as witnesses he would surely drop the case onto the floor or first available surface and after making the terrible discovery it would be the last thing on his mind. So it would be in full view when the police arrived and one of the first things they would want to examine in view of their suspicions. But Wallace’s briefcase and its examination are not to be found anywhere in accounts of the affair.
This is strange and may be just simple human error – they felt it was irrelevant. Or, a more sinister interpretation is that Wallace did not take it to MGE, even for added versimilitude because he knew he wouldn’t be meeting Qualtrough.
Out of sight. Out of mind. The police never thought to ask him about it.
Hi Everyone,
Hope you’re all keeping well.Not been on here for a while for various reasons, but I just wanted to say something in response to what Mike said a while back about how an attempted robbery could have been carried out in the morning or afternoon.Please excuse my use of upper case words, I’m just aiming for emphasis, not shouting at anyone…honest!! Sorry Mike, but I think this particular plan of Parry’s(and I’m convinced it was his plan) can only be successful if it’s carried out in the evening.That’s because William was at home most evenings, and during the mornings and afternoons was out on his collection rounds.The key part of the plan is for Qualtrough, whoever he was, to make Julia believe that he was EXPECTING William to be there when he knocks at 7.30pm on that Tuesday night.Of course, he’s secretly hoping that William ISN’T going to be there.But that’s not what he wants Julia to think.
Imagine the scenario if Qualtrough calls at 11.15 in the morning.Julia answers the door and Qualtrough explains he’s there to see William about an insurance policy.Now Julia wasn’t stupid…she’s bound to wonder why her husband has agreed to some sort of business meeting at a time of day when he’s not normally in the house!! And she’ll be even MORE suspicious if William hasn’t even told her anything about this meeting.This scenario would also apply if Qualtrough called at 3.15 in the afternoon.Under these circumstances, I think it’s almost certain that Julia is NOT going to allow Qualtrough to enter the house.That’s why this particular plan must be carried out in the evening, for the reasons I’ve stated, hence the importance of Julia believing Qualtrough expecting to meet William when he knocks.
As I’ve said on numerous occasions, this was NOT some kind of criminal master plan, not at all!! It’s not even a burglary.It’s a distraction robbery based simply on deception, sneak thievery, and the minimum of fuss.And distraction robberies are as old as the hills.Indeed, they’re still being carried out today.
When Qualtrough knocks at 29 Wolverton Street that night, there are only four possible outcomes…
1.The knock on the door goes unanswered.Under these circumstances, it’s probable that Qualtrough and a possible accomplice will simply leave.They’re unlikely to attempt a break in, as they can’t be certain that the house is empty.The knock on the door may just not have been heard.
2.Qualtrough knocks, and William answers the door.The plan is immediately dead in the water, as William clearly hasn’t taken the Menlove Gardens bait.
3.Qualtrough knocks, and Julia answers the door.Qualtrough explains why he’s there.Ah, says Julia, my husband has mentioned this to me.Wait a moment Mr.Qualtrough, I’ll just go and fetch him for you.He’s upstairs/in the kitchen/in the living room etc.Doesn’t matter where he is…because again, as in the second case, he HASN’T taken the Menlove Gardens bait.By the time he comes to the front door, Qualtrough will have disappeared into the darkness.
4.Qualtrough knocks, and Julia answers the door.Qualtrough explains why he’s there.Oh, says Julia, he mentioned this to me.But I’m afraid he’s gone to the Menlove Avenue district looking for your house.Ah,replies Qualtrough,there’s obviously been some sort of misunderstanding regarding the message I left at the Chess Club.I was meant to call HERE and meet HIM, not the other way round!! Now, under these circumstances, I think there’s a FAR greater chance of Julia granting Qualtrough access to the house than in either the morning or afternoon.After all, she knew all about the possibility of William going out on business that night, something that was confirmed by her sister Amy, who’d visited Wolverton Street earlier that day.This is EXACTLY what Qualtrough and a possible accomplice(William Denison?) want.As, of course, does our old friend Parry, whose idea it was in the first place!!
I think Parry has got the idea for his plan after seeing William on numerous occasions in the City Cafe.And there’s another very important question to be asked here too…how likely is it that Parry is going to know the telephone number of anywhere else that Wallace frequents??…very, very UNLIKELY, I’d suggest!! But knowing the telephone number of a place he knows for certain that Wallace visits gives him the ideal opportunity to leave a very plausible message there that Wallace may well act upon.And as I’ve also said before, checking to see if Wallace left his house on a Monday evening to attend his chess club, and then making the bogus call really WOULD have been incredibly easy!!
Hi David,
Good to have you back.
I did not suggest that a better plan would be for Qualtrough, identifying himself as such, to call on Julia during the day with Wallace absent. As you point out, this wouldn’t work.
I suggested that the elaborate Qualtrough ruse would not be necessary for a simple distraction robbery during the day.
There are many variants of this trick. This would be a robbery focussed only on the Pru cash box and it could be done in under a minute. Returning the box to the shelf would delay discovery of the theft. To use your words David, a distraction robbery involves “deception, sneak thievery, and the minimum of fuss.” The risky Qualtrough arrangement with it’s inherent uncertainties is an unnecessary complication.
The official “paying in day” was Wednesday but Wallace often did it on Thursdays.
With Wallace as the killer the Qualtrough ruse provides him with witnesses from start to finish. And this is the only scenario which guarantees Wallace will take the bait and go to Menlove Gardens.
I know you favour Parry as the caller David so why didn’t he disguise his voice and speak to Wallace directly at the chess club thereby removing uncertainty that Wallace would take the bait. Wallace spoke to hundreds of clients and several colleagues each week. Would he recognise Parry’s disguised voice in those circumstances at the club on the lo-fi telephones of that era? I think not.
Parry may have actually thought Wallace might be there to speak directly to at 7.20pm and was flummoxed when he wasn’t which caused him to make 2 mistakes as he faltered his lines. He says do you have Wallace’s address and then changes it to no he must visit me at MGE. He also mentions the 21st Birthday event as in the insurance policy for his ‘girl’, something which is fresh in his mind IE. The Williamson’s birthday event and again something the police didn’t add together. This only reinforces the notion it was Parry. Wallace speaking to Harley and Beattie directly who he would see only half an hour later is by far too much of a risk, especially with what would follow. The phone box call is a risk in itself. Eye witnesses may be asked did they see a man matching Wallace’s ungainly description, a local man, known about the area but would not be asked did the see a man matching Parry’s description which would be harder to describe.
Re: Wallace’s statements. You’d think if he was procuring all these witnesses and fixed on blaming Parry from the planning stage that he’d mention them all at once in his first statement but he doesn’t. He only mentions going to MGW, seeing the bobby and going to both shops. Those in themselves would be good enough. It’s only later the stories come from the tram drivers/inspectors not Wallace and Parry is only mentioned during the second statement after Wallace has had time to think about the question of who would have been allowed into the house.
There was a fault in the mechanism of this call box. Leslie Heaton, telephone engineer, visited the box and rectified it. There was no attempt to scam a free call. So Parry’s dishonesty, often cited as evidence that he was Qualtrough is irrelevant.
Qualtrough mentioning the 21st birthday of “my girl” was the excuse he gave for being unable to call back later. It was not to do with his potential business with Wallace. It was Wallace who inferred that it might be but this was by no means certain.
The caller asking for Wallace’s address wasn’t a mistake. It was to distance Qualtrough from being Wallace himself. A positive reply would have produced : “ Oh, on second thoughts its better if he calls on me tomorrow, I’m too busy etc……”
Voice recognition by Ms Harley or Mr Beattie is all to do with context. This fellow wants to speak to Wallace. The notion that it is in fact Wallace himself who is calling never occurs to either of them. It is much less of a risk than it first appears. Even so Ms Harley described the voice as that of “an elderly gentleman.”
People bustling home on a cold winter’s evening cannot be expected to clock details of a man in a telephone box, a man waiting at a bus stop across the street, or a man posting a letter, or leaning on a lamppost reading a newspaper. These are everyday mundane events and would so to speak go in one eye and out of the other.
Mr Beattie claimed he knew Wallace’s voice very well. I cannot agree. They met only at the chess club and they had I assume never spoken on the telephone.
The implication is that Beattie would be able to pick out Wallace’s voice from say ten random males, disguised voices allowed, calling him on the phone anonymously under test conditions. With of course, no guarantee that Wallace was one of the test callers. It is a pity that such a test was never done.
Morning Mike. Do you have a copy of Leslie Heaton’s statement or it’s whereabouts please?
Regardless of how Q mentioning his girls 21st Birthday came about, it is still a huge coincidence you must agree that the very following night Parry is at the Williamson’s discussing a 21st Birthday. I think it was a freudian slip when Parry had to speak for longer than intended during that call. A call that lasted so long, with two people and then Harley having to go to a chess table and raise Beattie and he take down a long name letter by letter and read it back. A call that lasted so long that W could then not make it to the club, encountering a tram diversion and be sat down playing a game 10 minutes before Beattie came over to him according to W’s statement.
If I am not used to putting voices on, and i’m not, and I call my Pool captain in my absence saying is Ged there i’m pretty sure he would start laughing, immediately know it was me and say ‘What do you want Ged’.
Don’t forget, the next day a murder happens, if W is guilty he knows this murder is going to happen and now he depends on Beattie coming down on his side so strongly that it basically eliminates him from being the caller, he can’t know that security measure will happen as B might be racking his brain to think, do you know what, it did sound a bit like him and now this murder has happened it puts it all into context.
Beattie had no need to say he knew Wallace’s voice well enough to know it wasn’t him. What does Beattie get out of saying that? Harley does describe the voice as that of an elderly gentleman but that seems to be a changed voice from those that the telephone operators encountered going off their descriptions of it.
People bustling home on a cold winters night indeed cannot be expected to clock details of a man in a phone box but that man had to walk to it and walk away from it, and if W, then get onto a tram (at an unfamiliar stop as usual to him) As mentioned on previous posts, there was a Cinema, there were 2 pubs yards away, there were trams and buses going up and down. Wallace cannot know for certain he hasn’t been seen by one of his many of hundreds of clients or will be noted by a tram driver or inspector. Was he even asked to produce his ticket by the police?
Hi Ged,
“As soon as Miss Kelly had obtained the number required by the caller she made an official note that at 7.15 pm a defect had been reported from public call box Anfield 1672 and accordingly next morning Leslie Heaton a telephone mechanic was sent to inspect the instrument, subsequently reporting that he had found “a fault in the mechanism” which he had corrected.”
Two studies in murder
Yseult Bridges 1959
page 168.
So it is clear that Annie Robertson creates the docket giving N.R (“No reply”) and the box number for transmission to the engineer so that he can investigate. Otherwise, why create the docket?
Mr Heaton does not mention this visit to repair the defect either in his statement or in his trial testimony. both available on this forum. At the trial he was questioned only about the lighting in the call box starting by a firm opinion that there was none and ending by admitting he didn’t know. Not surprising if he was there during daylight hours. He was clearly familiar with this box describing it as “more public” i.e. free-standing and not in enclosed premises like a library.
Also I question whether the account of his cross examination at the trial is complete. Yseult Bridges writes that no verbatim record of the complete trial was available in 1959.
Nobody at the time advanced the idea that Qualtrough tried to scam a free call. This seems to have been part of the “Parry as Qualtrough” version which snowballed later.
Is it credible that just by telling the operator you had paid for your call but hadn’t been connected, you would be put through for free?
Would Qualtrough on this night of all nights try the scam leading to a longer conversation with the operators and the possibility that some record might be made?
Both Parry and Wallace can be seen as potential scammers. The dishonest Parry and the abstemious penny-pinching Wallace with Parry being the best bet. But the above evidence convinces me that there was no attempt at fraud; it was just Qualtrough’s bad luck that the phone box he chose was on the blink.
I agree completely that Qualtrough mentioning the 21st birthday and Parry about to be invited to the Williamson 21st is either pure coincidence or, as you say, a slip of the tongue by Parry as Qualtrough.
I think it was part of a clever plan to introduce information into the call which distances Wallace from Qualtrough:
1. The false name itself
2. Wanting to speak with Wallace.
3. “Not knowing” Wallace’s address
4. Having a 21 year old daughter, Wallace being childless.
5. Being “too busy” later to ring back. Wallace was expected at the chess club
6. Giving an address in the Menlove Avenue area. Beattie may not have known Wallace’s exact address but knew he was friendly with Mr Caird who lived near him in Anfield.
Seen like this the 21st becomes an element in a careful plan to dismiss any fleeting idea in Beattie’s subconscious mind that Qualtrough could be Wallace himself.
At several stages in this saga Wallace, as you say Ged, cannot be sure that he has not been seen by one of his neighbours or Prudential clients. But being seen is quite different from being remembered. Wallace, to coin a phrase, was part of the Anfield / Clubmoor furniture. A very distinctive and familiar figure over six feet tall and with outmoded clothes. He must have tipped his hat to many people on the street every day.
It was this very familiarity which enabled him to “hide in plain sight.” People saw him around so often that a single sighting would not be recalled as anything special. Nobody came forward claiming to have seen him on the first tram to Menlove Gardens, a tram he boarded in his own neighbourhood. Nobody recalled his arrival at the chess club etc.
It was only when he drew attention to himself that he was remembered and this was not by people he knew but by tram conductors and residents/police in the Menlove area.
I find it amusing that because WHW was not reported as being seen in the telephone call box, it is said he couldn’t have made the call to the Chess Club on Monday night.
But when Lily Hall saw him in Richmond Park on Tuesday night in conversation with the mystery man – it is said it wasn’t him!
“As I was going up the stair,
I saw a man who wasn’t here,
He wasn’t there again today.
How I wish he’d go away.”
Taking into account Ged’s description of the area around the phone box: tram stop, two pubs, a cinema etc. I would not be surprised if Wallace had indeed been seen and even identified by someone passing by, if indeed it was he was Qualtrough. But he was such a familiar figure and one who admitted using that phone box regularly that it would just be a fleeting impression with no reason whatsoever for it to register as remarkable in anyone’s memory. At least three days went by before the police canvassed for anyone who might have seen anything – enough time for a momentary glimpse of Wallace to have been entirely forgotten.
Always nice to log on and see an account of what may or may not have happened. Yes, except on this occasion, possibly Liverpool’s biggest murder hunt is on and Wallace is in the frame and the local newspaper is reporting it. If W was seen that night, there is no doubt in my mind that it would have been remembered because you often think to yourself what YOU were doing that night which brings about the remembrance.
Tilly, can you tell me then what W had to hide by saying, yes I remember now, I did speak to someone for all of 5 seconds, he asked me for a street name (Can be replaced with*, a pub name, a persons name, a cinema name I did not recognise. Mr Greenlees and Lily Hall both put themselves exactly at the same time in Richmond Park yet neither of them see each other. Hall, who in the end mentioned the wrong time and the wrong day had her evidence dismissed by the Judge, it was so unreliable and it took her dad a week to come forward with the evidence as she was in bed sick.
Regarding the call box. Unless the author Bridges was there in the courtroom and taking notes, I don’t then know how that conclusion is reached but under evidence Lilian Martha Kelly says ‘The telephone box is a modern one, I know when the money is in, I observed a light on my board which indicated the money had been returned to the subscriber. She also told Wilkes in 1980 ‘The subscriber obviously pressed the wrong button B instead of button A and cut himself off. Kelly heard W speak at the trial and said I could not have sworn that it was the same man. Like i’ve said before, it is a pity that during the investigations, the police did not write down a sentence with the word Cafe in it and ask the suspects or witnesses helping the police with their enquiries to read it out.
Hi Ged,
I do get your point about people casting their mind back in retrospect: “I passed that phone box on the Monday evening. Did I notice anything?” I’m sure many people racked their brains on this but the significance of the phone call only became evident on the Thursday when, to Inspector Moore’s delight, the call had been traced. So people having routine lives, passing the box on their way home every single night, might not be certain as to what they saw and on what date.
And this was not the search for Lobby Lud (younger readers – look it up!). It was a murder investigation and any uncertainty about the sighting of Qualtrough might provoke “I’m not getting involved.”
I do believe that in spite of being a poor witness, Lily Hall did see Wallace talking to a stranger and it is a mystery, as you say Ged, why Wallace denied it unless it appeared to negate his statement that he “hurried” home.
The author Ronald Barthe (“The telephone murder”) says that Yseult Bridges was quoting from “the official report” when describing Mr Heaton finding and rectifying a fault in the phone mechanism. This doesn’t help us at all.
I emphasise that nobody – defence, prosecution, phone operator, or any of the authors which I have read – mentions the possibility of a potential scam to get a free call. This notion was introduced later to bolster the case in favour of Parry being the caller.
A strong indicator that the payment mechanism in the box was faulty comes from the operator who put the call through manually for free. Phone companies do not make money by giving away free calls. Qualtrough was unable to confirm the connection by pressing Button A so the connection had to be made manually at the exchange by the operator.
If the box had been operating normally this manual connection by the operator would not be needed.
By saying that Button B had returned the coins to the caller Operator Kelly is confirming what anyone would do after pressing button A and not getting the connection. Pressing B was not a mistake. I am old enough to have used this type of phone and operation of it is child’s play (when its working correctly.)
The police not recognising the significance of Qualtrough’s pronunciation of “café”
– sufficiently unusual to evoke a comment by the operator, was a major blunder. A test, along the lines you describe would have been very useful.
Hi Mike, regarding witnesses casting their minds back a few days. What I mean is, people used to seeing Wallace might say (when all this came out) well I saw him one day last week near the phone box, now let me see. I didn’t go out on Wednesday so it wasn’t then. I was out on Tuesday but I was on the bus going to town and got on by the Library so it must have been Monday, yes it was Monday when I was going to buy tickets at the cinema. This thinking aloud are how these remembrances tend to ding the lightbulb in the brain as i’ve done it myself. My missus might say, Neil next door has been bad and i’ll say well I saw him on Saturday by the park and she’ll say, you weren’t near the park on Saturday as we went to my mums, do you mean friday and i’d say ah yes of course, it was friday. It only took a nosy neighbour, a passer by etc to do this but the important thing is this!!!! Wallace could not have known who might have seen him and even if nobody did, he couldn’t know that. And of course, after the murder, the investigation will be involving this phone call and Wallace should at least suspect that the call will be looked into, the time, the voice and even the police making investigations into tracing it and they did and they struck gold.
If the call had not been traced it could have come from anywhere in Liverpool and beyond. I don’t think Qualtrough ever dreamed that it would be traced to that particular call box so he wasn’t particularly concerned about being seen. Once the police suspected that Wallace had made the call they might ask for witnesses around any of the public phones near his home but he could have called from anywhere and delayed his arrival at the chess club so they would be looking for a needle in a haystack.
I agree with the points you raise about narrowing down when he might have been seen. But even if he was actually seen in that phone box at the relevant time it is such a mundane everyday thing among hundreds of mundane everyday things which happened to you in the three days since the sighting. Could you, hand on heart, be absolutely sure of it? Unless the answer is an unequivocal “YES”, better keep quiet.
The police only traced the call/phone box because they actively tried and it came up trumps. It’s like these days if you were making a call, you’d know it could be traced and there might be no reason to think it wouldn’t be back then, especially as everything had to go through the local exchange nearest the phone box.
Nobody on that day would be saying ‘Ah there’s Wallace in a phone box’, because as you say, nobody knows they are going to need to remember it, however if your mate said to you so and so died today, you might say, ‘Oh I only saw him at the local chippy the other week’. Now if you only go that chippy every other Friday then you might be able to narrow it down. Things like this can and do happen and in the buzz of excitement this case was causing locally, people would be switched on and tuned in, maybe even to be part of the mystery solving.
On the night of the phone call – nobody reported seeing WHW leave his home, travel to town or even arrive at the Chess Club. Why would they notice him in the call box?
Similarly on the night of the murder, nobody saw him on the bus home, walking from the bus stop to his home at teatime, leaving the house, walking to the tram stop, getting on the tram to Smithdown Road.
No – the only people reported as noticing WHW were the people he selected to speak to with his constant blabbering about Qualtrough and MGE. He wanted them to notice him.
Imagine his surprise when Lily Hall pops up as seeing him on Richmond Park .This didn’t fit in with his plan and so of course he denied it.
By the way, nothing has been said about the Halls and the Cairds only living 2 doors apart on Letchworth Street. Surely gossip in the area would have been rife in the days after Julia’s death. So maybe Caird encouraged the Halls to take Lily’s testament seriously and report it to the police. After all Caird was supposed to be WHW’s closest friend and was present on Thursday night when WHW questioned Beattie about the phone call when WHW claimed he wasn’t a suspect.
In my view there was only a small chance that Mr Beattie would recognise Wallace’s voice. But even this, and possible recognition while making the call, could have been avoided with a different plan: sending a note in the post from Mr Q to Mr Wallace care of Club Captain Beattie with the MGE address and appointment details. Mail deliveries were super reliable in those days. Wallace, on receipt of the note at the chess club, could react just as he did with the phone message, drawing attention to it. After the murder, asked where the note was now, Wallace could say quite plausibly that he had thrown it away in disgust on being deceived about MGE.
No questions on recognition, timing etc so why didn’t he do it?
Hi Tilly Mint. Nobody was asked if they saw W on his journey to the chess club though but I presume the police did ask for witnesses as to was anyone seen by the phone box, if they weren’t then why not as you would do these days. Wallace did not timestamp the most important tram, the first one on Belmont Road which cements the time he left his house on the murder night. It’s like if a murder happens today, they don’t ask for witnesses as to what the suspect was doing 2 weeks ago when it doesn’t matter what he was doing.
We have to remember, the police obviously asked for witnesses up at MGE as W couldn’t have known those people’s names to give to the police in his statements so the police must have been actively requesting for witnesses. Just the tram drivers, Katie Mather, the bobby and shops would have done, why go through a charade with 3 other people (one of whom didn’t come forward)
Again, we have to ask why W wouldn’t just admit to talking to a stranger on his way home, no guilt in that? Whether Caird and the Hall’s conversed on the matter is conjecture but even so it proves nothing. W explained why he thought he was no longer a suspect by just having been told by the police the phone box call was 7pm and so he knew it couldn’t have been himself as he only left the house at 7.15pm.
Hi Mike. I think what sways it that W wouldn’t chance his voice being recognised by Beattie is the fact he (if guilty) knew he would be speaking to him at length in about 20 minutes time, that is just to soon for comfort. Maybe if he wasn’t seeing him and we don’t know how distinctive Wallace’s voice was, maybe that’s why Beattie was so sure it could not have been him but we have to believe Beattie under oath. However, we do have an amateur dramatics enthusiast in our midst who was in the middle of rehearsals that week and was used to calling people on phones and putting voices on don’t we 😉
Please accept my advance apologies for the length of this post, but as I have said previously, I am trying to come at this case from an entirely different angle – the state of WHW’s mind.
Ged correctly points out that we have no knowledge of the Police’s requests for witnesses to WHW’s movements over the 19th – 20th January. If witnesses had come forward, would their testaments even be recorded? We do not know.
So much of the Police investigation is a complete anathema compared to today’s standards, which are now mainly based on CCTV and scientific techniques unimaginable in the 1930s. The timings are a critical factor in this case but as people were looking at clock or watch faces – not digital displays as we have now – nobody can guarantee it was the correct time, only an approximation. On numerous occasions, I have myself glanced at a clock and mistaken the time. I am sure we all have. Based on this, I do not wish to consider any timings from witnesses as they are likely to be inaccurate.
I agree that the evidence presented was not sufficient to hang WHW, however it did not point to anyone else.
As I have said previously it was WHW who put Parry in the frame in the first place when he not only included him as a potential visitor to the house that Julia would admit – but placed him at the top of the list and with so much detail of Parry’s personal circumstances it suggests some obsession with him. Why not provide the same level of detail for the others? It is WHW who mentions Parry’s interest in Amateur Dramatics and eludes to his ability to act out characters, putting on voices.
So much emphasis has been put on Parry doing the insurance collections when WHW was ill over a period of a couple of weeks in December 1928. Such a short period and so long before the murder. Also implicating Marsden seems a bit odd. According to the diaries, WHW had been warned by Bamber that Parry needed watching. So why would WHW allow Parry to suggest another ex-Prudential agent who had also been suspected of financial irregularities to help him do the rounds? It wasn’t WHW’s call to make that decision and he should have sought the agreement of his superiors before allowing it. There is no mention of this anywhere.
Another glaring omission is who covered for WHW during June-July 1930 when he was in hospital? Who arranged this? Why wasn’t this event recorded in WHW’s diaries?
Talking of which, the diaries start in 1928 and up to November of that year, the entries are mainly to do with the illnesses and complaints WHW and Julia suffered and religious matters. It is a catalogue of disappointment and misfortune, nothing regarding his happy marriage. There is no mention of thinking of starting a hobby that involves Julia?
The entries I quote have come straight from the transcriptions given on this forum.
In November 1928 we have WHW’s visits to Mr Crewe for violin lessons, which would give him some familiarity with the surrounding area which he later admits to a certain extent. Menlove Gardens would still be under construction at this time and the newspapers of the day record adverts of new homes for sale in the area. There may have been builder’s advertising hoardings on the streets to the same effect. So, there is a possibility that WHW was aware that Menlove Gardens existed and where it was situated.
Tuesday December 19th – Bamber alerts WHW to Parry’s need for close supervision relating to company business. WHW then appears to be absent from work with bronchitis up to 31st December, where the entry says that Parry has done the work (no mention of Marsden!) and was not methodical enough.
Early 1929 is a repeat of 1928 – constant references to illness and religion. Then in March, Julia is finally mentioned in the diary but in quite a derogatory fashion.
20 March 1929: Listened to ‘The Master Builder’ by Ibsen. This is a fine thing, and shows clearly how a man may build up a fine career, and as the world has it, be a great success, and yet in his own mind feels that he has been an utter failure, and how ghastly a mistake he has made to sacrifice love, and the deeper comforts of life in order to achieve success. Curious that Julia did not seem to appreciate this play! I feel sure she did not grasp the inner significance and real meaning of the play.
For those not familiar with Ibsen’s work, this play is not the easiest to understand. But WHW states it is ‘curious’ that Julia does not appreciate it or grasp the inner significance suggesting it is blatantly obvious why she should.
The protagonist is a man who is a builder who starts with a modest business. He succeeds in life through the misfortunes of his wife’s family. She came from wealthy stock and after the death of her parents. they inherit and go to live in her ancestral home, where they start a family. Shortly after the birth of twin boys, a fire breaks out in the house which destroys it completely. The shock of the fire affected his wife’s ability to breastfeed and as a result the babies died. They had no more children and although he has not caused his wife pain intentionally, he feels that her inability to produce any more children has made their life intolerable and he feels he owes her a debt by staying married to her and building a hew home.
His wife confesses that the loss of the twins and her family home, sealed the end of their relationship. and she forces herself to be obedient to her husband because that was in their wedding vows – it is her duty to obey him.
Although not a professionally trained architect, the man concentrated on his building business and constructed on the site of his wife’s family estate, a number of houses which would bring him wealth and kudos. As the years go by, the business expands, and he becomes the ‘Master Builder’ of the title and ruthless of any other competition that he considers may stand in his way. He spends all his time ruminating about the past and is paranoid that the younger generation is going to ruin him, his reputation, and his years of hard work.
His wife is reasonably concerned with this and discusses the matter with the family doctor. However, when the doctor comes to call, the builder accuses his wife and doctor of plotting against him and suggesting he is going mad.
I won’t go any further in case I spoil the plot for anyone who wants to know what happens in the end. However, although Julia could not seem to see a significance, there are some similarities to WHW’s life.
This is not just my interpretation – it has been reported as;
Conclusion Ibsen‟s The Master Builder touches upon many issues that weigh on a career person who finds himself in a rut. Life around him progresses very fast while he grows older and feels he cannot keep pace with the vigor of the young. Solness feels threatened and while he is busy combatting his insecurities, he brings about his ruin. He thinks that playing blind and deaf along with stubbornness can save his name and prolong his already fading career.
What I find interesting is this suggestion of madness. One of the tip-off letters makes this suggestion about Wallace. It states the writer is aware that Mrs Wallace tried to have WHW committed as insane. Also, the letter was handwritten on paper headed with the address of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange which was situated on Edmund Street in the same street where Beattie worked as a cotton broker’s manager. I am not suggesting Beattie wrote the letter, but you must admit it does seem coincidental.
In the summer of 1929, Amy Wallace returned to England. She stayed 2 weeks at Wolverton Street and went on holiday with them. But this is not mentioned in the diary – why? You would think that WHW would be happy to see his sister-in-law after such a long time but it does not seem to be worth a single word in his writings. He only records visits to her flat in Ullet Road in the November.
1930 continues with the illness theme. In May WHW makes several references regarding Mr Crewe, this may have had something to do with his upcoming surgery and need to have cover provided during his absence. But again mysteriously, there is no mention of his illness, surgery or convalescence. Julia apparently looked after him at home, but he negates any word of thanks or gratitude towards her.
By October 1930 , there is mention of mental trouble but does not refer to whom it applies.Two days later WHW makes a statement regarding immortality, suggesting that it is he who has the problem.
This negativity continues in November when the chess tournament is announced.
6 November 1930: The tournaments (chess) are now up, and I see I am in class three. This about represents my strength of play. I suppose I could play better, but I feel it is too much like hard work to go in for chess whole heartedly, hence my lack of practice keeps me in a state of mediocrity. Good enough for a nice game, but no good really for first class play.
In December, WHW records his concern when Julia failed to return home until the early hours of the morning after a trip to Southport. I have already given my views on this in a previous post.
However, in January 1931, WHW sheds light on the inner workings of his mind when he records his interest in a book he had recently read.
Jan.14 Wednesday: Reading very interesting book. by J Lays published in 1889.](Wallace has made a mistake, the author’s name is J Leys (John Kirkwood Leys)).
This is the premise of the story – it is about a young man called Alec Lindsay who has a rich uncle who wants him to join his business with a view of taking it over in the future. However the young man wants to become a lawyer so refuses the offer and goes to university to train. Three years later the uncle is in very bad health and his doctor tells the uncle’s cousin and carer that he is end of life. He advises her to prepare the uncle for his soon death and to put his affairs in order. After receiving the news -his nephew Alec calls on him.
The uncle is jealous of the nephew for his youth and good health. He asks the nephew to help him write a letter to a Scottish Church Minister to inform him of his situation. The Minister goes to see the uncle who tells him he doesn’t know what to do with his estate and who to leave it to. He suggests that if he leaves his wealth to the Church he may get a better chance of redemption for his sins in Heaven. The Minister advises that a legal trust is set up and offers to be the Trust secretary. The Trust specifies money to be left to nearest relatives but the bulk of the wealth to the Church. The relatives to inherit any residue are names as the uncle’s two nephews – Alec Lindsay and James Semple. The uncle tells Alec his intentions in the will and asks Alec to oversee it. However, the other nephew James Semple finds out what is in the will and feels that he has been done out of his true inheritance and sets about a plan to change the content of the will to his advantage. He does this by burning the original will and replacing it with a forgery. When the uncle dies the will is read. The Church only received a small legacy whilst the bulk of the wealth goes to the 2 nephews. As Alec Lindsay supposedly drew up the will and was the major beneficiary he is accused of fraud and imprisoned and sent for trial. He was found not guilty and acquitted. Shortly after his acquittal Alec Lindsay was diagnosed with consumption. His love interest in the story went to live in Brighton as a nurse/governess. Two years later they met again and all lived happily ever after.
There is no particular evidence of why WHW found this book so interesting but again the similarities with Wallace’s circumstances are remarkable! And all this before the crime is committed.
I rest my case – comments welcomed but please don’t write off simply as conjecture of a would-be Miss Marple!
Hi Tilly Mint,
No need to apologise for the length of your thought-provoking posting.! Some points which I would raise:
I agree with your comments on reported times of events. They have to be taken as approximate. Everyday events remembered days later with extreme precision on timing – I don’t believe it.
It was indeed Wallace who introduced Parry into the story. This, in my view, was a reaction to Wallace being told on the Thursday evening that the call had been traced to a box near his home. He had not foreseen this so in spite of saying earlier “I have no suspicion of anybody” he goes into some detail about Parry to divert suspicion about his own involvement. On this evening too, still reeling from news of the call being traced, he quizzes Beattie at the tram stop about the time of the call.
Wallace had one remaining kidney and this was failing fast. Kidney failure is not like heart disease or liver failure etc, it is almost unique in that key symptoms are mood changes and specifically expressions of anger which make life very trying for relatives and carers. This alone wouldn’t make him kill his wife but it has to be factored in to any consideration of motive and the state of Wallace’s mind at the time.
With respect, I do not think it was Wallace who highlighted Parry’s supposed ability to change his voice and his proclivity for making spoof phone calls – this information came from John Parkes. And only John Parkes. Is this a reliable source?
Re “The master builder” Wallace’s diary entry shows that he considered himself intellectually superior to Julia.
In his diary entries there is not a single hint of humour or irony. He comes across as a depressive and as you say it is always about himself with little about Julia. Except when he describes his bungalow in Bromborough as “the kind of house that Julia (note “Julia” not “We’) always wanted.” I wonder how often she reminded him of it!
We must remember that there were few blank pages in the diary and what we must remember is that the snippets published here are only those used in court…..
Text from this site –
Personal diary entries written by Wallace, courtesy of Ronald Bartle, John Gannon and Roger Wilkes. These diaries were not written to be read or published, but they were made use of in court and after his death. At court the police had four diaries from 1928 to 1931, presumably one for each year. In each diary Wallace had written his height, weight and age, as well as his glove, hat, and coat size. Few pages were left blank, and yet few pages have been made public. Sadly I believe these diaries are now lost. Entries enclosed in square brackets are summaries by the police, the actual text is unknown.
So, now you have listed what the prosecution used, likewise we can see that:-
W is concerned by Julia’s ill health, coughing in bed etc
They are out together in Settle on 9.9.29
On 25.3.30 W records that we are pleased and contented with life as much as anyone.
15.12.30 W is anxious and worried about Julia going missing in Southport, worried enough to go to the police. This is just a month before her murder.
7.1.31 I persuaded Julia to go to Stanley Park to see the frost on the leaves etc, she was equally charmed. This is less than 2 weeks before her murder.
Then of course, the talk about how Julia would have loved the bungalow.
If Wallace thought there was anything of detriment in those diaries he could well have destroyed them on their burner at any time previous to the murder. Likewise, he could have entered very loving entries including what they would both be doing in the summer – just to prove they had plans. He could even drop those plans into conversations with Caird, The Johnston’s, Amy or Edwin etc.
Regarding the timings, I disagree with some of that and here’s why.
The Holy Trinity church clock was set weekly (the trial made a big mention of this) and the Workhouse church bells were rung religiously at 6.30pm. No fewer than 4 of the witnesses use these set times as gospel (pardon these puns) as to how long their foot journey would have taken them to various addresses in the locality.
also the trams are set to a timetable and on these routes trams had to physically punch a timestamp.
Parry is mentioned by W on Thurs 22/1 on the same day as he is confronted with the phone box location. I can’t find which came first. W though was simply answering a question put to him as to who might be allowed into the house. For all we know W might well have cottoned onto Parry’s ‘musical’ evenings with Julia and was suspicious of him and of course of Julia too. Imagine W IS innocent for a minute. Why wouldn’t he think of Parry, knowing what he knows about having blown up his financial irregularities. Also, why would W not speak to Beattie on the Thurs 22/1 now W is aware of the (false 7pm) call box time. He is bound to want to get it more accurate, I would if I were innocent. Also, here we have again, W talking to Beattie. This man he doesn’t talk to very often supposedly. What if during all these conversations Beattie twigs the caller was indeed W.
Parry and Marsden being Pru employees (and at this point no irregularities were present) so why wouldn’t W be ok with them doing his rounds. We do not know he didn’t get the ok from his superiors but they were not just 2 scallies off the street, they were employees.
I have been to Crewe’s house on Green Lane, and on a pitch black January evening during our group walk of the area. Approached from Allerton Road as W says was usual, you would not have any reason to know the other end of this road up at Menlove Gardens.
Hi Ged,
Wallace gave Parry’s name as someone who Julia would have admitted to No 29. If I recall correctly the list comprised some 14 names including neighbours, friends, and several Prudential colleagues (much to the chagrin of the latter!). But Parry is the only one who gets the full treatment with remarks on his dubious character, his engagement to Lily Lloyd, his address etc. Wallace is singling him out apart from the others as “a person of interest.”
Wallace’s diaries can be taken either at face value with expressions of domestic content and harmony or as a cynical record preparing the ground for the crime knowing that they would be read after his death. In particular I found his post-appeal entries about how much he missed Julia rather over the top and unconvincing. He also says his “sole remaining mission in life” is to unmask Parry as the killer and bring him to justice. All hot air because he did nothing.
As you say Ged he could have dropped references to future plans into conversations with others. He didn’t, but he did tell several of his Pru clients how happily married he was which has always struck me as odd.
The tram stop conversation with Beattie: Wallace had been told by the police that the call had been logged at ~ 7.00 pm. This time was confirmed In Beattie’s first answer to Wallace’s question. At this point Wallace has been given the same time by two independent sources who are best placed to know the time. An innocent Wallace would not know that ~ 7.00 pm was about 20 minutes too early. An innocent Wallace would accept ~7.00 pm as definitive. But he didn’t – he continued to question Beattie to the point where Beattie advised Wallace to stop “as it might be misconstrued.”
I take your point on the timings determined with reference the church clock or workhouse bells but when people live routine lives passing the same point at about the same time each evening there is always the possibility of confusing one day with another. But its a good point.
Hi Mike. Confusing one day with another like Lily Hall you mean who a week later couldn’t seem to remember the correct time or day or does confusion only count for those where it fingers Wallace 😉
Yes, I know all about Wallace fingering Parry quite badly but my reply was in response to this you said below:-
”It was indeed Wallace who introduced Parry into the story. This, in my view, was a reaction to Wallace being told on the Thursday evening that the call had been traced to a box near his home. He had not foreseen this so in spite of saying earlier “I have no suspicion of anybody” he goes into some detail about Parry to divert suspicion about his own involvement. On this evening too, still reeling from news of the call being traced, he quizzes Beattie at the tram stop about the time of the call.”
You make it look like Wallace only fingered Parry after learning about the location of the phone box but there is no record of whether he gave this statement before or after learning of the phone box location as both were on Thurs 22/1. I read somewhere that Wallace only learnt of the location not long before he left to see Beattie on the corner and therefore it was still fresh in his mind so it’s likely he had already given that Parry fingering statement earlier on that day.
I also believe he fingered Parry the most was because he was hardly likely to think other friends who might be let into the house such as Caird, the Johnston’s etc would do it. He knew Parry had tried to rob the Pru, he knew of him as a wide boy (probably after he’d allowed him his round whilst ill) and he’d fingered him again there so revenge could be a motive.
According to the prosecution, the diaries hardly present themselves in his favour so why didn’t he just get rid of them?
Have a good weekend too. Looking forward to the next round of too-ing and fro-ing lol.
I am still of the mind that WHW killed Julia for whatever reason.
Yes – he could have chosen another modus operandi- poison, strangulation, pushing her downstairs, etc but as Julia seldom left the house the murder would have to be indoors and when he wasn’t present. He was silly enough to try and create the RMQ alibi and pass the crime as a bungled burgalry but the actual attack was perfect.
His question to the Johnstons of had they heard anything unusual does not make sense. If I came home and found my doors locked and knowing my partner was inside I would be banging on the doors and windows to let them know I was trying to get in. If nobody answered I would then think they had popped out on an errand and would wait for their return. If my neighbours came out while I was waiting I would simply ask if they had seen my partner leave and when – if they said they hadn’t I would not ask them to hang on while I attempted to open the doors again! It just doesn’t make sense.
Similarly when he finds the body – he is the one who suggests a robbery by pointing out the broken cabinet door.
The murder had to occur in the parlour so as to confirm the murderer was a visitor not a resident – the bogus RMQ fitted this description perfectly.
WHW assumed that the crime would be accepted as attempted robbery and that would be that. The reason there was no blood or weapon found was to ensure that he could not be implicated in any way.
The Police would waste time looking for RMQ, forensics, weapons to no avail and he would play the grieving husband.
He didn’t expect to be a suspect he thought his plan was watertight. He did not have the foresight to think that switching the gas and lights off was odd or replacing the money box on its high shelf after removing £4 would be the acts of a burglar.
WHW probably placed the money in the jar upstairs earlier in the evening.
Even his supposed influenza the previous weekend was probably put on. If you have flu you are in bed for days afterwards, especially with his renal problems his recovery would probably take longer. You certainly wouldn’t be entertaining your relatives on Sunday night and playing chess on Monday! The pretend illness ensured he had an excuse to not to do his collections so that there would be a deficiency in money in the house. That way there would be no or little inconvenience to himself or his employers.
It was only when he discovered that the Police would not accept his version of his events he gave additional details of Parry, the discovery of the call coming from the local call box must have terrified him. Hence his weird conversation with Beattie.
Even after his acquittal he continued with his nonsensical claims that Julia had no relatives – he told this to the landlady of the guest house in the Lakes where he stayed after his acquittal. It must have been WHW who gave the police Amy Dennis’ contact details. Although Edwin Wallace stated they met Amy Dennis at the railway station, WHW does not acknowledge it. He didn’t have the guts to face Amy Dennis when she had travelled up from Brighton. Instead of meeting with her at Amy Wallace’s flat, even if there was no space to stay, he purposely asked to return to Wolverton Street. This is suspicious behaviour don’t you think.
Obviously no love lost between them as Amy Dennis returned home the next day leaving a note for Wallace ( re Julia’s fur coat) and a communication to the police. There is no record of either of these notes so we will never know what she said.
I remain convinced he did it- don’t know how but that is the mystery that has kept us talking for nearly 100 years and why he was acquitted on appeal.
Hi Ged,
At 10.45 am on the 22nd january Wallace reported to Dale Street police station telling Inspector Gold that he had important information. He went on to give Parry’s name and details along with other names.
It was that evening (Thursday 22 January 1931) at 7.45 pm that Superintendent Thomas told Wallace that the call had been traced and logged at around 7.00 pm.
So you are quite right Ged. This shows that it wasn’t the shock of the call being traced which led to Wallace pointing out Parry – he had already decided to do that on arrival at Dale Street.
Source” “Checkmate” by Mark Russell
Hi Tilly,
“Have you heard anything unusual?” is, as you say, a strange question in the circumstances. He may have been seeking confirmation that the Johnstons had not heard sounds of any commotion earlier that evening when Julia was killed.
Surely one’s first thought is that Julia, not being well, had gone to bed early and was sound asleep upstairs.
Mike
Thanks Mike, I thought that was the case regarding the timings on Thurs 22/1.
Tilly. So we have the master planner making sure the murder was in the parlour so as to give off the impression it was a caller, yet this master planner overlooked quite a few other simpler things like just saying The bolt was on from the very beginning. (It was very obvious the Police would be quizzing quite strongly as to why he couldn’t gain access) There are a whole host of other things he could have done or said if he was the killer acting out scenes of innocence. It looks to me like the no risk phone call to get him out of the way actually worked.
It would not be so impossible for the murder to happen in the kitchen when the caller is caught in the act of robbery by Julia. As for W suggesting robbery by pointing to the broken cupboard door on the floor, what else would you think it is lying there for? Why wouldn’t one draw attention to it?
It is clear that Wallace, if guilty, was not a “Master Planner.” There are many points in the case where he could have said something to his advantage or done something in a better way. But none of this contributes to the case for his innocence; it just shows he was, like all of us, a flawed human being who didn’t think of everything.
In particular he was unable to see that Qualtrough, planning either a murder or a robbery, would be unlikely to leave the chess club message due to it’s many potential failure points, any one of which would have scuppered his plan completely. Only Wallace knew with absolute certainty that he, W H Wallace, would go in search of Menlove Gardens East as instructed. Qualtrough would have had a better plan; Wallace didn’t need one.
This was a “one shot” plan which had to work first time; there would be no possibility of repeating it without raising suspicion. In fact it has many features of something conceived and executed at short notice. As if there was a triggering event which pushed Wallace over the edge into action.
This could have been Wallace’s consultation with Dr Curwen in December at which it is fairly sure he would be told of the state of his remaining kidney, with possibly an estimate of the time he had left.
Much has been made of the Wallaces’ apparent financial security, but with Wallace gone Julia would have been reduced to poverty without any help from her estranged family. Maybe Wallace’s expressions of affection for Julia were quite genuine and this was a mercy killing to spare her from a further decline into inevitable penury. This however doesn’t fit with the sustained ferocity of the attack which may indicate the venting of long-held frustration and resentment.
It is worth remarking that compared to most killers, Wallace had little to lose whether found guilty or innocent. Obviously “Innocent” is better than “Guilty” so that he can die in a hospital bed but either way he was a dead man walking and he knew it.
Those who believe Wallace to be guilty see his difficulty in gaining access to his home as a charade intended to attract witnesses to his eventual discovery of Julia’s body. I have always had doubts about this because if the Johnstons had not emerged at 8.45 pm he would have had to alert a neighbour himself after trying the front and back doors without any witnesses and without success.
If Wallace had told Julia that he would not go to Menlove Gardens and that a musical evening was planned she might bolt the front door after speaking with Alan Close as no further use of that door was expected that evening. Wallace would not know this and he left by the back door. He was initially unsure about the bolt but at his trial definitely said that the front door was bolted so he could not get in.
Which leaves the back door lock: anyone reading the locksmith’s report can see that this was in a terrible condition and erratic in operation. Didn’t Mrs Draper once lock herself out and had to be admitted by Julia? So this is consistent with Wallace failing at first to unlock the back door then on his return with the Johnstons, it unexpectedly worked. Also we have only Wallace’s word that he couldn’t get the back door to open on his first try.
So this business with the doors may have an “innocent” explanation and Wallace’s surprise at being unable to open the front door may have been genuine.
Yet Wallace never thought to himself. I can’t go leaving a message for myself at the chess club, it’s never happened before, why would anyone do that, it is quite unbelievable and what if my voice is recognised, and then the murder of my wife because of it whilst i’m out attending the reason for the call, the police would be all over it. What even if somebody saw me at the box making the call, spotted me on the way to it or coming from it and said’ Evening Mr Wallace’ then there is my plan up in smoke. what if somebody saw me from the bus or tram but I didn’t see them. What if i’m noticed coming into the club only at 7.45 when the rules say 7.30? Not only is it unbelievable that somebody else would do it (though there is no risk if it doesn’t work) it is even more unbelievable that he would attempt it. Yet somebody did it and the one with no risk seems simpler to me.
Hi Mike and Tilly Mint. I am also reading this which goes into great detail about the call and possible fault. The engineer found no fault with the box, it seems it was with the line.
I would recommend ignoring information that isn’t in a case file. Is there a document about that? I think that could be a misinterpretation of what the electrician said about the light in the box on trial, rather than anything about the phone itself?
The electrician’s statements are published, I don’t recall anything about the operating condition of the phone.
Hi RMQ,
I agree that it is unwise to rely on information not backed up by documentary evidence. And in view of the difficulty placing the call it is puzzling why Leslie Heaton, the ‘phone engineer, wasn’t questioned about it. It would seem that he had visited this specific phone box and it wasn’t to see if there was a light in it because he finally admitted that he didn’t know.
Incidentally Hemmerede later in the trial confirmed that there was no light in this phone box.
I am convinced there was no attempt to scam a free call because:
1, This was not mentioned by the operators or anyone else as a possibility at he trial.
2. The operator’s final instruction to Qualtrough was “Insert your two pennies please” once she had made the connection (Gladys Harley Statement No 2). So he paid for his call.
3. Qualtrough, even if he was a scammer, would surely not have tried to scam this call in particular. A longer conversation than usual with the operator could be foreseen as well as the risk of the call being noted in some way (as it was.)
I agree with Ged that it appears the problem was with the line connection rather than the coin mechanism of that particular box. Maybe Mr Heaton found the mechanism to be O.K. which is why he didn’t mention it.
I don’t think anyone checked the cafe phone. However I find it seems quite coincidental that William sought multiple corroborations at every single point (various chess club members that a call was received, various tram conductors, various people walking around the Menlove area, various shopkeepers), and it so happens that there are multiple telephone operators to corroborate it too.
Possibly it was done on purpose, so when the story comes out in the news etc, there will more likely be people to say “oh yes I remember putting a call through to that cafe on that night” and possibly be able to provide some rough idea of what time that was.
The corroborations which you mention, and I agree they were deliberate and planned in order to support Wallace’s narrative of receiving the message, going to MGE, and discovering Julia’s body.
I too considered the business with the phone call might be once again a deliberate gathering of witnesses. He might gain a recording of the time giving him a short time to get to the club but he risks the source of the call being recorded which would be a major clue for any investigator so on balance I don’t think it was deliberate – just an unlucky glitch on the line.
HI GED,
It was on the Thursday that the call was traced to the Anfield phone box. I imagined the following:
The police call at my home on a Friday and inform me that my next door neighbour is suspected of using a fake credit card at the ATM in the lobby of the local bank. Did I see him anywhere near the bank on Monday evening? My answer would be that I see him out and about in the neighbourhood almost every day. I have seen him regularly near the bank, in the supermarket, waiting for a bus etc. etc. but this is such a regular thing that a specific sighting doesn’t register in my mind. I had no reason to remember seeing him near the bank on Monday or any other time as it was such common occurrence.
So if Wallace chose his moment e.g. between trams, for entering the phone box and kept his head down in that unlit space I do believe he could get away, perhaps not unseen, but certainly unremembered by anyone who knew him who happened to be passing by.
Voice recognition by Mr Beattie was in my view a small risk for reasons given previously. Add to these that Wallace, staid and serious, was the last person one would suspect of pulling a practical joke of this kind.
But then imagine the police ask your neighbour on the other side who says ‘I only go out for my weekly takeaway on a Monday evening as my local place does a deal for pensioners. The only other evening I go out is on a Thursday to Bingo in the other direction. Yes I do recall seeing him coming out of the bank, I was going to let on but he was walking with his head down but it was definitely him, I even recognise the hoodie he wears.
Wallace not only had to negotiate not seeing anyone (but more importantly not being seen by anyone) and he couldn’t have known he hadn’t been – ala Lily Hall – or anybody on any passing bus or tram – even the one he got on – at not his usual stop.
I’ve said to my missus many a time, saw your Martin (or another) yesterday. Oh what did he say? ‘We didn’t speak, he didn’t see me, I just saw him across the road but I was in a rush’. – It would only have taken somebody, anybody to blow his story sky high.
That is a bigger risk than a stranger Q making the call, who nobody would be asking about and indeed the call itself is no risk. No voice ID, no problem if W doesn’t fall for it – just everything to gain.
How different a path this case may have taken if the Police had just checked out Parry’s statements more thoroughly but the stubborn and under pressure Moore went directly for the first suspect he could get his hands on, it was easy meat. This even in light of the tram times not fitting and having to lean on the pesky Alan Close.
Our different points of view about Wallace being seen making the phone call do not take into account that Wallace never thought the call would be traced to his local phone box. If it had not been traced it could have come from anywhere so, although he took basic precautions, if seen and recalled by a witness he could say the witness was mistaken as he regularly used that phone and there would be nothing concrete to link him to the Qualtrough call.
As you say, an encounter with a neighbour who exchanged greetings near the phone box at 7.15 pm on that night would put him in an awkward spot but he could postpone the call and the follow-up until another time. One can never be 100% sure that one hasn’t been seen but Wallace must have felt confident enough to go ahead.
Maybe he didn’t see it that way. He expressed weird ideas about exonerating himself with the time of that call (see his answer when forced to give one on trial).
We all know Wallace was no master chess player, he even says so himself (yet some publications make a lot out of the chess side of things, even on their covers)
However, everyone seems to agree he was meticulous, stoic and set in his ways regarding planning, details and timings and yet we have this fumbling man trying to make sense of the murder who seems to go to pieces when asked seemingly simple questions that he would surely have known were coming the minute the police arrived.
Here in my mind is what a guilty Wallace does and it takes no genius.
Firstly, don’t involve blood, but we know this does so let’s go with what we know.
On the night of the call, why make it from a call box in the opposite direction of where he will be heading afterwards. Whether or not he knows it is going to be traced, just make it from Church st or Lord st then toddle into the club 10 or 15 minutes later.
Unless he’s making sure Close sees Julia alive before he commits the murder, then he has from 6.05 until about 6.45 to do this. Yet he somehow decides they’ll have a last supper first of scones and tea, even read the evening paper. The meal finished at 6.30 so he’s already just lowered his time to do this by more than half and the paper boy still hasn’t been, in fact he’s been arriving anytime up to 7pm lately according to neighbours. If he isn’t waiting for Close then what is he waiting for, just do it sooner. He has time to make the robbery look more believable and then bolts the front door to facilitate what is to happen later which is a gimme. These aren’t afterthoughts by us would be sleuths, anyone committing this would need to know they need a reason for not being able to gain entry on arrival back there later.
Next step, he knows he must make himself known on the first tram as that timestamps him having left the house when he said he did. He doesn’t even have to talk to the tram driver on tram 2 unless he really doesn’t know which tram takes him to Menlove as he only ever approached Crewe’s house from Allerton Road on a totally different route. On the third tram he only needs to ask to be put off as close to the Menlove Gardens area as possible which he does. Up at Menlove, Katie Mather is a good and solid witness, the bobby is a coincidence, he doesn’t go looking for one. The two shops, even one of them suffices. It is his actual true doggedness that keeps him up there having gone all that way – remember the Manchester shoe shop episode of his that comes later.
Arriving back at his front door, it is bolted, he is bemused so he knocks and no answer but hey ho let’s try the back, he doesn’t gain access (he’s maybe not to know the char lady and the locksmith will come to his aid about the defective mechanism or maybe he does know, who knows what conversations he and Julia had about it, he could make one up to the police couldn’t he, she’s not there to deny it. Maybe put a diary entry in a month before saying, reminder to see to back door lock. I mean why not, detractors use his diary to try to finger him, in fact burn the diaries as part of his plan if they are no help to him. So he goes back around to the front and bangs loudly, shouting Julia’s name through the letterbox instead of depending on the million to one shot of meeting the Johnston’s leaving their house at the never before unearthly time of gone 8.45pm in the pitch black cold January night to a visit their daughter wasn’t even expecting? Why drop himself in it by saying he knocked gently, why the uncertainty over whether the key turned or not or was the bolt on or not. Even if he’d forgotten to do it beforehand, he was the one who let the first policeman, Williams in, in fact Mr’s Johnston couldn’t even open the door, one just the same as hers next door.
Wallace saw crying as a fault in a man of the house. He cried in front of Mrs Johnston yet, she said, he seemed to pull himself together when in the presence of the police, a very strange manner from someone pretending to be grief stricken? Why not just be a blabbering wreck, sat at the table with his head in his hands?
Regarding identifying his mackintosh, which he did a number of times to the police but then hesitated when Moore asked him – why? It doesn’t prove guilt any more than it proves innocence. Perhaps he’s thinking why do they keep asking me this, maybe it’s not. What does he mean by whatever was she doing with my mackintosh – her mackintosh. More muddied waters.
When asking Beattie on the Thursday night if he could pinpoint the time of the phone call more accurately, he was asked by the police why did he ask Beattie. Wallace again doesn’t help himself by apologising that it was indiscreet of him. Why didn’t he just say because you (the Police) told me it was made at 7pm (which was factually incorrect but were the police trying to test him out or were they trying to say he had time to make it and into the chess club instead of only the 20 mins or so he actually had) so therefore Wallace was wanting to substantiate that he was still in his house until 7.15pm.
He could have made it all a lot better on himself for sure innocent or guilty and these are just some of the events I can think of offhand and i’m sure there are more.
To his credit I think he did a marginally better job than some other killers like Scott Peterson who pretended to be partying by the Eiffel Tower with Pierre on the phone as an alibi.
Maybe if when he’d gone down to the police station when she was late home, hoping to hear there’d been an “accident” and there had in fact been one, he would never have had to carry out his evil wifewacking plans.
By the way he knocked “gently” at the front door, which wasn’t heard by anyone. I suggested a possibility he didn’t knock at the front and thus specified “gentle” knocking at the front door as a pre-emptive excuse for why nobody heard him.
Hi Ged,
I agree with all the points you raise where a guilty Wallace could have “done it better.” I imagine many a killer now in prison has had the same thoughts about his/her own crime.
It is likely that Wallace having been told by the police that the call had been traced and logged at around 7 pm prompted his remark to Mr Beattie that the police had cleared him as he claimed to have left home at 7.15. An innocent Wallace would be satisfied with this but Wallace asks Beattie for his recollection of the time . “About 7 pm or shortly after.” An innocent Wallace would be delighted by this confirmation of a time which exonerates him from making the call. But, far from being delighted, Wallace presses Beattie further: “Can’t you get it closer than that?”
This remark indicated to me that Wallace in reality is not at all happy with their timing of ~ 7 pm because if he had left home earlier that he said he had plenty of time to make the call and get to the chess club by 7.45 pm. By “get it closer than that” Wallace was hoping Beattie might say “Come to think of it, it was later – around 7.15 pm.” Because Wallace knew the call was at ~ 7.20 giving him a tight window of time and doubt about whether he had enough time to get to the club.
Beattie’s error about the time is understandable but why did the police tell him it was around 7 pm? A miscommunication within the police or a deliberate deception to throw Wallace off -guard?
It could be that Wallace did think he had made himself known on the first tram but the conductor completely forgot about it.
I think Wallace would have gone ahead with the murder even if Alan Close had delivered the milk at 7 pm. After all, the appointment with Qualtrough at 7.30 pm was a myth and if questioned Wallace could say Julia was ill which delayed his departure.
You can see he was asked to explain his reasoning. Most times he refused to elaborate with weird cryptic riddle replies, but was forced to explain on trial and did so.
Yes you are correct, he is innocent, therefore he didn’t. i’m telling you what anyone with half a brain would have done.
”By the way he knocked “gently” at the front door, which wasn’t heard by anyone.”
Yes, I didn’t say he didn’t. I’m suggesting that a guilty Wallace would have made a damn good racket to be noticed, you know, like you say he made a racket with the tram staff to be noticed.
Mike – How does Beattie moving the time he took the call to 7.15 make it better for W, it is no different from 7pm. because at either of these times W still wasn’t at the call box if he only left the house at 7.15 like he says he did? If Beattie remembers it was 7.20 then it puts W right there so this questioning is bad for W not good so that is a plus point for him.
If Wallace had made some fuss on the first tram or done/said something memorable, I’m sure he would have made comment of it the Police to back up his short time period for having to have committed the murder and leave the house. This then could be traceable to the driver etc.
I’ve just come across yet another incarnation of the casebook forum threads as it keeps getting closed down (the last time was due to some arguments between RMQ/Josh on here with another poster) Anyway, the most recent thread is now closed too but I wish I could have got to comment on it whilst it was live as there are some wild theories on it. Luckily Antony Brown is on it to bring some semblance of reality to it.
That’s not how reality works. Like “Scott Peterson pretended to be raving at the Eiffel Tower with “Pierre” as an alibi and that was dumb, therefore he is innocent”? Lol.
Throw out all the invented “evidence” (anything not backed by a reference to a documented file i.e. invented bs by authors and random townsfolk recollections half a century later) and the case is over. I don’t even think about it anymore.
OK so if W is so dumb as to not see the inevitable questions that will come, let’s have no more about how meticulous he is with this and that, master planner, time keeper etc. If he is guilty he is very lucky to have got away with murder.
Wallace never uses Alan Close as an alibi or excuse. If he purposely waited for his arrival he would do so knowing he can only kill Julia afterwards. We know he was on that 7.10 tram at Lodge lane so we know the latest he can leave his house is 6.49 . Are you expecting me to believe that Wallace having had from 6.05 until 6.49 to commit the murder waited until after Close left and didn’t use him to prove he couldn’t have done it?
The fact he never heard him arrive at all and he wasn’t even sure if the milk had been delivered or not when questioned puts himself in it until close comes forward as he has potentially nearly three quarters of an hour to commit the murder so why does he leave it until the last minute after Close has been.
If you want to stick to documented file, stop inventing that the killer had no blood on him because you recruited some would be townsfolk 21st century amateur scientist because the suggestion of such according to McFall, Moore who were at the crime scene is ludicrous.
Meaningless noise. The drains could have been used so blood is irrelevant, benzidine “facts” about the drains are inventions by pseudointellectual authors never corroborated by any documented evidence, and in any case would not be reliable inside drains. There’s a reason these low rate writers are creating books read by all of 100 people and not working as P.I.s or detectives. The case is closed. Husband kills wife yet again, what a surprise.
Even bank jobs stealing hundreds of thousands of pounds aren’t as elaborate as this alleged cash box heist of what was expected to be ~£20 or whatever (a few grand).
The case is over, time to find another hobby. Perhaps the Merseyside crime crew can all get into crafting miniatures?
Wallace thought the time given to him by the police and Mr Beattie (~ 7.00 pm) cleared him as he claimed to have left the house at 7.15 pm. But he’s on thin ice because he could be said to have lied about leaving at 7.15. If Wallace was guilty he knew the call was at 7.20 pm and he was hoping Beattie would confirm this by giving a time of 7.15 to 7.20 pm. Yes, I agree it makes it possible for him to have made the call but the tight time window for him to get to the club by 7.45 pm would introduce doubt that he could have done it. As in fact it did.
Thank you Mike, I see your reasoning now. Another double sided argument, like so many in this case which can go either way. Wallace will probably expect that Beattie and Harley will be able to near accurately pin point the call time, in fact Harley says that phone did not ring for half an hour before the Q call (further proving the failed call was probably due only to the dodgy line between the exchange and the club) so she had an eye for gauging times etc. If Beattie say started his game at 7.15, he’d have an idea that he was called away from it only about 5 minutes into it etc.
As i’ve said before, having re-enacted the whole scenario of the failed call incl 3 operators involved, then, Harley having to fetch B, then the writing down and spelling out of the name and re-reading it back etc, it is a good estimate that the whole call took no less than 5 minutes and possibly more like 7. Wallace then only had to slide in unannounced and claim he’d been there since 7.40 to make that call be an impossibility.
Yes I agree that Wallace, not thinking that the call would be traced and the time logged, hoped that Beattie and/or Harley would be able to give a fairly accurate time. In this he was to be disappointed with Beattie quoting “7.00 pm or shortly after” and Ms Harley saying it was between 7 and 8 pm!
These are normal reactions of people asked to recall the time of (at the time) an unimportant event. This alone is enough to make me sceptical of any timings based only on individual recollections throughout the case. These can only be approximate e.g. the milk delivery, re-enactions of Alan’s deliveries with the police notwithstanding.
Ah yes but the milk delivery is corroborated by Elsie Wright hearing the service church bells at 6.30pm and Wildman checked Holy Trinity church which was set correctly every week. We know those to be correct as can the trams who have to time stamp into physically calling points.
How frustrating it would be to a guilty Wallace to not only have to overcome the diverted traffic and potential congestion due to said diversion but a faulty line resulting in him spending some more time on the phone than necessary whilst cutting down the time Beattie would hear his voice twice.
RMQ – You’ve closed the case without answering questions and with not a shred of palpable evidence against Wallace which is just as conceited as Gannon or anyone claiming the final verdict.
We know the drains were searched, the bath taken out etc, the house was inhabitable.
Are you saying you’ve never put yourselves in the shoes and mind of the killer who had forever to plan this and the questions that would be asked (If W is the killer) It is only right that we do so. We say, now how would I have done that. It’s not hindsight, it’s how would we do it.
None of that means anything, there is zero documented evidence whatsoever that testing was done to determine that blood hadn’t been washed down the drains, rendering much about the case’s “impossibility” moot. The only reason to even think he didn’t slay his wife to begin with is that it’s allegedly impossible, but that was based on fictional evidence that seemingly doesn’t exist (since nobody can produce proof of the claims) and which is entirely invented or misonstrued by sensationalist authors and pseudointellectuals.
Thousands of convicted wife wackers or husband murderers had some dumb attempt at an alibi. The fact they had a terrible “plan” doesn’t mean they’re innocent. They did it and so did Wallace.
If Wallace was guilty. Why did he spend his time walking around Menlove as though he was actually looking for a place. He didn’t need to, just call at MGW then head down to Crewe’s but just say to the unsuspecting police that he traipsed all around MGN/S/W etc, it adds nothing. He knows he’s going the post office and shop if it’s all pre-planned and so he knows he has his alibi. Yet he is seen exactly where he says he was. Meeting the bobby would be a fortunate bonus.
GED this hindsight game is ridiculous. The guy wanted to impress upon as many people as he could his supposedly vain search for MGE. The “why didn’t he do this or that” game could be applied to literally virtually any planned murder. We also see in many cases of obviously guilty people the “how did they escape blood” bit.
The hindsight game, if we’re gonna do it, could be applied much much better to this supposed Parry and accomplice insane theory. Parry convinces “M” someone who has never been in 29 Wolverton to go because he made a convoluted call that may or may not get Wallace out the next night and for M to take all the risk with the wife still in the house. Just LOL at thinking that’s what happened. Not to mention this plan has M not planning to kill Julia but entering with a weapon and exploding on her and running from another room into the parlor and smashing her brains out viciously and seeming personally rather than running away.
It’s comedy level as a working theory. Discuss over your next pint and Shepherd’s pie.
PS: It has been told to you many times I am not Calum. We have posted pictures together so why the RMQ/Josh addresses? This isn’t good detective work from Rod and you guys lol.
Why did he spend so much “unnecessary” time traipsing around Menlove Gardens?
1. He was gathering as many witnesses as possible to testify as to his determination to find Mr Qualtrough.
2. He was told categorically by a local resident within 10 minutes of his arrival that 25 MGE did not exist. He even said “Its funny there’s no East.” But he persisted, talking with anyone he met. Even confirmation that the address was bogus by the local policeman didn’t stop his quest for more supporting witnesses at the PO and newsagent, long after the time of his “appointment” had passed.
Yes I agree this was “overkill” (no pun). “Just get two witnesses and head back home.” But he couldn’t be sure they would all come forward or be traced so there is a belt, braces, and elasticated waistband aspect to it.
A good point. That would be an innocent Wallace’s first thought: Mr Beattie wrote “Gardens East” instead of “Avenue.”
Menlove Avenue is some 3 miles long and I don’t know if the low numbers are close to Menlove Gardens or at the other end as it were.
Well, that certainly is interesting making it even more surprising that he didn’t check it out. Of course if, in a one in a million chance, a Mr Qualtrough had been living there this would have become known very quickly.
It seems that once Wallace had enough witnesses in the Gardens he was ready to go home.
So hang on a minute Mike and Herlock Sholmes and Wallace Whacked Her (Calum and Josh) You say we can’t use hindsight or muse how it should/could have been yet yous go on in some detail about what he should have done regarding 25 Menlove Avenue. Comedy central ha ha.
Yeah exactly the point, I perfectly illustrated how bullsh*t and meaningless these types of musings are. Do you think it proves he murdered her that he should have gone to 25 Menlove Avenue? Neither do your hindsight musings have any bearing whatsoever on the case, it is just noise obscuring the clarity of what happened here. You know, you might try playing Bridge or something instead… Or perhaps Rod can take you up in his Make-a-Wish gyrocopter.
We can all think of many ways in which a guilty Wallace could have “done it better” and improved his chances. Although entertaining, these musings don’t support Wallace’s innocence. They just show he was fallible.
His not checking Menlove Avenue No 25 is quite different. It is something one would expect an innocent Wallace to do, especially as it was nearby, after being told at least twice that 25 MGE didn’t exist.
Sorry Ged/Rod/Antony your point is a non sequitur…
We aren’t theorizing on what he “should have done” just noting what he didn’t do and what that might tell us. You are saying because he didn’t do it exactly how you would ot means he’s innocent. So sorry not analogous comparisons.
I find it comical that the bearded fat guy kicked me out of the group instantly after I was let back on. You guys can’t handle the heat?
Invite me to a pub meetup and I’d make quick work of everyone—-with words of course! Everyone would be agreeing Husseys sneak thief theory is bunk and Wallace is the likely man before nights end. I’d even buy you guys a round of Heinekens and a beef pie because I’m a generous guy.
Let’s stick with the clarity of what happened then. ALL from documented evidence.
Wallace makes a phone call at 7.20 on the Monday from Rochester Road. Three operators (due to a faulty line) and 2 recipients at the chess club later, he puts the receiver down at approx 7.27 – going by my subjective re-enactment of the whole transcript incl fetching of Beattie by Harley.
Wallace is at his table playing around 7.45 despite, according to him, catching the tram at his usual stop on Breck Road and tunnel excavation subsidence causing a tram diversion and who knows what knock on congestion.
On the Tuesday, Wallace arrives home at 6.05
Alan Close sees Julia alive approx 635/6.40 (Workhouse bells/Holy Trinity clock)
(So Wallace doesn’t murder her in the first 30/35 mins of opportunity but instead has scones and tea with her)
At approx 6.40 onwards Wallace murders her and puts £4 from the cashbox into a jar upstairs as there is blood on one of the notes. He cleans himself of any blood as soc state the murderer will have blood on him. (McFall and Moore confirm this) in the meantime the newspaper is opened on the table at some point.
Wallace exits his home at 6.49 to make the first tram in time to reach the 2nd tram by 7.10. The police time trials find this impossible without running, jumping on a moving tram or getting on at the wrong stop which was a request stop before St Michael’s church.
Yes lmao these facts are largely incorrect. The “tunnel diversion” didn’t affect his route (the only route he “wasn’t sure” is the one he actually took by the way):
…on January 19th. last between the hours of 7.0 p.m. and 8.0 p.m. the only cars running from Belmont Road via Church Street to Pier Head were the No.14 cars and that the intervals between cars would be 8 to 9 minutes…
…At this date owning to the Tunnel subsidence under Dale Street, the No.13 cars via Dale Street and also some of the Church Street cars [to the East of where Whitechapel meets Lord Street] were diverted…
Do you see it now? He would have boarded a No.14. The diverted cars are No.13s. Diversion is irrelevant noise and can be discarded.
7.27 is invented in your mind. Obviously the conversation wasn’t instant, but this is completely unreliable and can be discarded.
Wallace thinks he arrived to the club at 7.50 rendering his arrival time uncertain. The penalty applies to scheduled matches by the way, he didn’t play the scheduled match as his opponent didn’t show up.
He has lots of time to get on these trams. He says he left his house at 6.45, in which case he has around the run time of a long pop song like “I Want to Know What Love Is” (he showed Julia what it is) up to a Genesis prog rock track run time like In The Cage (which he soon ended up in) to slay his wife and leave the house. Plus a little extra on top… Up to two “I Want to Know What Love Is”s, give or take.
I take issue with McFall and Moore’s apparent conviction that the killer would be blood-stained. The following factors are relevant:
The distance between killer and victim during the attack.
The number of blows administered after death.
Whether the weapon was muffled e.g by being in the sleeve of the mac
Whether the attacker was kneeling when giving the final blows to the prostrate body
Whether the mac was used as a shield.
The position of the victim (sitting / crouched near the gas fire?).
The length of the murder weapon.
Was the killer initially facing or behind Julia?
All these are unknown so I do not see how anyone can be categorically certain that the killer would be blood-stained.
Michael. I can’t have you both telling me to discard things you don’t like such as the length of the phone call involving 6 people and that Moore put out an APB to lodging houses and train stations etc looking for a blood soaked man – you told me to stick to what is known at the trial and I am and now it is yous moving the goal posts and adding in after thoughts, like I was told not to do. You will say next it wasn’t 11 blows but only 3 so he could have done it quicker. Can you please all make your minds up.
RMQ. I’m not sure if you have ever personally been in a situation where your normal route is saturated with other traffic because of a diversion of the said other traffic into your usual route. Now do you get it that there may have been some delay as to what was usually expected.
I do love the In the cage medley my friend but he was also soon out of it because your evidence, just like back in 1931 does not stack up.
The diversion is not relevant in this case, it affected a route he did not take. That is why it was not used by his defense counsel and why the report Maddock did for them only says the other route would likely have taken longer, rather than saying it as a generality that due to the diversion his trip would likely have taken longer. I think the comment was made by Maddock to pre-empt suggestions by the prosecution that he could have taken a No.13 and did tests on the now diversion-free 13 route.
Hi Michael lmao at your quip about the teetotal veggie 🙂
You said this:
”Yes I agree this was “overkill” (no pun). “Just get two witnesses and head back home.” But he couldn’t be sure they would all come forward or be traced so there is a belt, braces, and elasticated waistband aspect to it.”
He could be sure that the police officer would be traced as well as the workers in both shops though. Along with Katie Mather, that was well enough.
Any ideas why W didn’t kill Julia between 6.05 and 6.40 which only left him 9 minutes assuming he did the deed only seconds after the door closed on Close (5 mins if you believe W left at 6.45 which is more likely as he didn’t run to the first tram like the police did)
”Wallace thinks he arrived to the club at 7.50 rendering his arrival time uncertain. The penalty applies to scheduled matches by the way, he didn’t play the scheduled match as his opponent didn’t show up.”
But it was a scheduled match. The fact Chandler didn’t show up is irrelevant as W couldn’t have known he was not going to show up. A guilty W would be telling everyone he was there early – not late, making it possible he could have called. Do you not think a guilty W had a brain in his head.
7.50 is the figure he gave to his defence team, before he knew that the others at the club had placed him there at 7.45. After this statement, defence received testimony from club members like Beattie that placed him there at 7.45. Suddenly as if by magic Wallace’s next statement says 7.45 now he realizes he can get away with blagging earlier than he thinks he arrived. Even if he was innocent which he isn’t, he has a vested interest in lowering that time when given the opportunity to do so.
By the way Beattie says inquiring around Wallace was not there before 7.45, so 7.45 is the absolute minimum if you trust them. If matches had allegedly strictly enforced penalties and he didn’t get docked, Beattie would be able to feel more certain that he wasn’t there “after” such time.
Hi Ged,
Yes, Wallace would, as you say, have enough traceable witnesses with Katie Mather, the policeman, and the people in the PO and the newsagents. But after Katie Mather who told him 25 MGE didn’t exist he collared potentially untraceable people he met at random in the street. It was only at the end of his search that he met the policeman and the other traceable witnesses. Had he met them at the start of his search he might have said “That’s enough, I’m off home.”
If Wallace made the call he imposed a tight time schedule on himself by fixing the appointment at 7.30 pm. Qualtrough could have said “Call on me until 9 pm, I will be in that evening.” This fixed time and the choice of the Tuesday evening can be seen as fitting very well with Parry’s planed 3 hour (alibi?) visit to Mrs Brine from 5.30 until 8.30 pm.. I mention this to show that Wallace’s guilt is, for me, by no means proven beyond doubt.
Mike
I’m not asking for the length of the phone call to be discarded. Beyond doubt, when taken into account, it is a tight squeeze for Wallace to get to the chess club on time. Likewise with Moore, quite correctly, putting out an APB for blood-stained men in lodging houses etc. It is the right thing to do assuming the killer is blood-stained. However this remains an assumption as there is so much we don’t know about the circumstances of the attack as I outlined previously.
It isn’t overly tight given the window of 7.45 to 7.50 which has been provided through evidence. It’s actually possible for him to make the call and walk all the way to the tram stop he claimed he used (the only route he refused to commit to, and maintained an uncertain attitude as to his route to chess), board all the way over there, and still show up to the club at 7.50 PM which he initially claims is the time he arrived there. That is very significant in itself because the primary reason to think anyone other than he slayed his wife is some alleged notion of impossible timing.
The majority of times in this case cannot be expected to be completely accurate and should be used as a ballpark. Apart from for example the trams on the killing night, the time logged at the call center (albeit it is a nice round number, presumably off an analogue clock since digitals didn’t exist then), and Elsie’s hearing of the church bells.
It is not realistic to expect someone to recall to the minute something that took place the day before, unless they were expecting they would need to remember it. If I asked what time you passed a certain church clock on your drive back from the supermarket yesterday it would be ridiculous to expect you to be accurate to the minute as there was no reason to commit the time to memory. Using random testimony of times which the person had no reason to recall so specifically as an exact to the minute figure to work out some probability chart is just mental masturbation. You do have to allow some level of ballpark unless the time is more rigid i.e. trams, church bells, the call centre log etc.
Wallace’s clients’ statements show the issues with determiming extremely precise timing, as he provides the order in which he visited each client, rendering some of their times given impossible. For example it might be that client #4 says he came at 3.45 but client #5 who he went to after says he arrived at 3.30. This is the reality of relying on people to give timestamps like this… This is also the case with Gordon’s 8.30, unless they had reason to commit this to memory or he made special mention “oh it’s 8.30 I better get going” then it is not realistic that this figure is exact. He likely left in actuality a bit before or after.
The same is true of many things… Oh I think I waited about two minutes for X. Oh I think Y took about ten minutes. Oh I think I was at Z place for five minutes. None of this is reliable. Subjective experience can alter perception of time, where ten minutes in a waiting room feels like twenty because nothing is happening. Or being on hold on a call. Or having a conversation on the phone. Or walking to a certain place. But ten minutes at the pub with friends might feel like two.
I couldn’t agree more with your comments on timing. I’ve been beating this particular drum myself. A good example is Beattie’s recollection of the phone call (‘7 or shortly after’) and Ms Harley’s (‘between 7 and 8 pm’).
Whenever I read of debate on whether Wallace left for MGE at 7.49 or 7.50 pm it makes my hair curl.
It was only at the end of his search that he met the policeman and the other traceable witnesses. Had he met them at the start of his search ”HE MIGHT HAVE SAID” “That’s enough, I’m off home.”
When I say Wallace might have, or would have or could have, it is constantly pulled up by RMQ. There is absolutely a ton of stuff a guilty W with all this planning time Might have, would have thought of, Could have and should have done with only half a brain.
One of these is to make his time to do all this impossible. Such as timestamping the first tram and definitely saying he arrived at the chess club in the shortest possible time ever, so saying 7.40 even is more likely to come from his mouth than 7.50.
RMQ: Why wouldn’t a guilty W commit to his chess club tram stop route if guilty?
RMQ: You seem to concede at last that church bells for instance are a reliable source to timestamp something so you concede then as per Alan Close’s original statement, backed up by Wildman and Wright that Close could not have been on the doorstep at 6.30 like the Police MADE HIM change it to. Now I wonder why they’d have to do that?
He wouldn’t commit to it if he didn’t take that stop. By failing to commit and only “think” he took that route but isn’t sure, it helps to offer protection if someone comes forward and calls out the lie. Claiming he maybe posted a letter would achieve the same if he boarded at the stop by the post box, and was seen waiting there or something like that. Then he can suddenly remember that oh yes he boarded there because of the letter he stopped to post.
6.30 is an irrelevant time, doesn’t matter, I haven’t seen 6.30 claimed by people who know he did it because that amount of time is longer than necessary to carry out the task.
Neither me nor Josh is the “Gordon” poster unless you mean the text below, that sounds like one of mine. If Parry didn’t know what time the call was made or where it was made from (or even that the location was traced at all), which he wouldn’t if he didn’t make it, he doesn’t know what time specifically he would need to cover himself for. If he was just driving around somewhere, and that happened to coincide with when the call was made, the true fact that he had just been driving around places wouldn’t protect him very well especially if alone. Blocking off a large amount of time claiming to have been with someone all day avoids the possibility of being accused of, for example, stopping off at a kiosk while driving somewhere.
I don’t know his actual thought process but it’s the sort of ancillary noise found in a majority of homicide cases that aren’t just like “dude shoots drug dealer and many witnesses saw that Tyrone did it”. Lily would have no clue if Gordon did or didn’t do it unless he showed up to her house soaked in blood or told her “hey Lily by the way I just murdered someone how are you?”. She’s using the same suggestions of having “secret knowledge” that Mark R did for years before releasing his book containing literally zero secret hidden info. And Whittington-Egan too saying he saw “something” in the files. And some of the detectives in the newspapers after the case pretending they have “secret proof” Wallace did it but refused to elaborate. Time and time again it is shown that “secret knowledge” in this case just means they actually have no hidden info at all, they just want to gain credibility as though they have seen proof so you should listen to them, or some other bizarro motives.
Herlock Sholmes
Commissioner
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 18330
#305
02-05-2021, 12:04 PM
.
POSTED BY GORDON:
”Well, I understood that Lily Lloyd repudiated the alibi she’d given Parry for the night of the murder, after he threw her over, saying she couldn’t have been with him that night anyway because she was playing the piano at the Cosy Cinema in Boaler Street, Clubmoor, until late in the evening. Whether this was a mere act of spite is debatable, but it does seem to call the matter into question”
HERLOCK SHOLMES REPLY TO GORDON:
”Its not Lily Lloyd that’s important though Graham. He was alibi’d by 4 people at Knocklaid Road until 8.30. Parry also named 2 places that he went to directly after leaving the Brine’s (although there’s nothing to show that these 2 were checked. They were certainly checkable though.)”
OK so let’s look at this in more detail:
We know Parry lied about his Monday night activities – Period. Why?
We know the Parry had an alibi from his best mates Aunt for Tuesday, yet no best mate is present? This ‘unshakable – we keep hearing) alibi is very sparse, just that they sat for many hours, no mention of what they did, discussed, where it could be verified. The alibi seems to be taken as gospel. Maybe if the police had checked his Monday night statement properly, they’d look a bit more into Tuesdays, maybe visiting the people who gave the alibi separately to question them.
Parry’s alibi after half 8 is very detailed – when it doesn’t really matter. When it doesn’t really have to be?? He probably did visit those checkable places then. This is a ploy by people who will give detailed checkable things during a time that didn’t matter to help substantiate and make it look like co-operation when it’s the earlier time that matters.
Although Lily Lloyd’s alibi for the Tuesday night is from 8.30 onwards so doesn’t count anyway, why does she give their meeting as 8.30 if in fact it is for much later, why was she coerced by Parry (that surely must be the case) what was he up to at 8.30 pm. He couldn’t have been meeting another lady friend, as Lily is in on this lie.
I don’t see it as a woman spurned btw as she is sticking to this story even in 1981 and says that ‘If she is the last person who knows what truly happened that night then it will go to the grave with her’ – or words to that effect. Not exactly exonerating Parry is it?
No RMQ. I’m asking if you or Josh is Sherlock Holmes?
So… If you are saying Wallace is lying, I assume it is ok for me to say Parry is lying about the Brine Alibi and they have covered for him. I mean it is his best mate’s aunt, her and Harold’s alibi are almost word for word – contrived even and not saying too much.
I mean if saying Wallace is lying is ok, it is ok for me to say this too – right?
The thing i’m getting at is if Lily Lloyd is too not a liar, she was asked by Parry to cover for him – right? Not for the murder time but for a couple of hours after.
The post box was outside the library so posting a letter still doesn’t take him off his usual route to his tram stop by Belmont Road.
6.30 is relevant, very much so to the police who coerced Close into changing it as such. You keep telling me to go with what we know, what is documented.
Nah, I always used the same username on there and so did Josh.
I don’t think Lily Lloyd is lying to the cops. The Radio crew just assume she’d covered for him in the murder window. I think her “later that evening” she references is the time she told cops he’d shown up. With the radio crew I think she kind of enjoyed playing into the mystery with them to some extent (hence implying secret knowledge with cryptic words instead of just saying X or Y secret). She has no fear of ever seeing the files released in her lifetime so she can play into it with these interviewers freely, acting like she’s some big player in a Poirot episode.
She didn’t lie for him about the Monday evening and neither did her mother.
I definitely don’t think she is relevant in this. The Brines are but now you’re approaching sort of conspiratorial areas and it’s just simpler the less people involved in alleged cover ups unless there’s strong evidence for it.
The post box is towards Belmont I know, you’re not understanding. There is a closer stop near the post box on the same route. If he’d actually boarded the tram at that earlier tram stop, it could be a cover here. Refusing to commit to using the stop at Belmont provides an “out” and mentioning he maybe or maybe didn’t post a letter etc could be used as an “out” in the way mentioned, where if someone came forward and said “he didn’t board at Belmont I saw him waiting for the tram/get on the tram at the top of Richmond Park!” (near the post box), it would allow something along the lines of “oh yes I remember now, I boarded there because I stopped off to post a letter at the box there and saw the tram arriving”.
6.30 is not a correct or relevant time for Alan’s arrival. I’m pretty sure all this is on my solution page.
To provide balance the case for Parry’s involvement may be summarised as follows:
1. Character
He was dishonest, money-hungry, knew Wallace’s routine and the location of the cash box, and was accused later of assault on a young woman, which I incidentally believe to be true, although it was thrown out of court.
2.The Qualtrough call
Parry’s account of calling on Lily Lloyd as she was giving a music lesson has enough slack in it in my view for him to have made the call. He was in the neighbourhood and had his car. Parry initially gave an untrue account of his whereabouts that evening.
3. The Brine alibi
The choice of that Tuesday evening for the robbery and the fixed time of 7.30 pm for Wallace’s appointment guarantee that Parry has a strong alibi for the robbery itself. This could be deliberate.
4. John Parkes
On the face of it: unbelievable. But damning evidence of his involvement if it is true.
The Brine alibi which satisfied the police rules out Parry as the killer which leaves him as a potential fixer for the robbery to be done by accomplices. Here the case against him hits a brick wall. We can speculate endlessly about likely candidates and men running in the neighbourhood but there isn’t a shred of solid evidence to support this scenario.
The circumstantial case for Parry’s involvement is real but it is far weaker than the circumstantial case against Wallace, which, although not perfect is far more convincing in my opinion.
Hi Mike. A fair summary but some omissions. For other evidence against Parry we either also have to believe Ada Pritchard, Jonathan Goodman and Richard Whittington-Egan or believe that they too, as well as Parkes and the Atkinsons are liars. We also have to believe Lily Lloyd lied about fabricating a later alibi. We have to bear in mind Dolly Atkinson and Lily Lloyd are rubbishing themselves in this matter because Dolly is admitting to witholding evidence and besmirching the good family name and reputation for no good reason as is Lily.
I also feel given both characters as we know of them. Parry is more likely (than W) to make a dodgy call and put voices on, knowing he won’t be heard again 20 minutes later by the same people. Parry is more likely to do or know people that would do the deadly dead.
RMQ. Please tell me where you think the post boxes are because as far as I can tell both are West of Richmond Park so their location does not put you anywhere near any other tram stop East of Richmond Park or near to the phone box. That is to say if you come out of Richmond Park onto Breck Road, both post boxes are to the left uphill, not right downhill.
Yes, before the files were released it is clear in Goodman’s book he thinks Lily has vouched for Parry during the murder time. However, even after the murder time is known, so in 1933 Lily is approaching Wallace’s solicitor to claim she saw him much later than the 9pm she originally claimed. Lily’s persona does not for me seem like she is coveting publicity or to be any part of this unpleasantness. She, like Parkes had to be sought out. Parkes got his off his chest, Lily says anything she knows must die with her. What a strange thing to say if there’s nothing to hide.
Lily’s statement about Parry arriving at her house at 9 pm was supported by her mother. Wallace’s solicitor, although he was an old man when asked, had no memory of Lily recanting her 9 pm timing. Did Lily admit to doing this? Otherwise I don’t know where this story came from. Its relevant that neither Lily or her mother noticed anything unusual in Parry’s behaviour or demeanor which I would expect if he had just been told of the murder.
Lily, when tracked down in later life, was reluctant to even discuss the case so it may have been her marginal role in the story rather than any private knowledge which she took to the grave.
On the face of it Dolly Atkinson and her family are indeed hiding evidence but this only applies if they believed Parkes’s story. I cannot believe that they would withold his story about a customer they didn’t like if they believed it.
There are several stops towards Belmont Road, one not far from the library post box. It’s on my final solution page, there should be a map where I marked these things.
OK so he comes along Richmond Park and turns left into Breck Road and does what he usually does which is proceed up the hill towards a tram stop and he may have posted a letter en route or not. How does that fit in with him being down between the phone box and Richmond Park and the letter being an excuse when the letter boxes are up beyond Richmond Park heading in the direction of the city. The posting of a letter or not is a red herring and doesn’t even have to be brought into the equation as the letter box isn’t by the phone box. The prosecution would just say why didn’t you use the letter box by the library? It doesn’t even come into it. It sounds like he’s just thinking aloud trying to remember his very movements.
You haven’t comprehended the point still. It is a good excuse if someone calls out that they in fact saw him waiting/boarding at the tram stop near the library. It can then be said “oh yes I remember now, I didn’t board at Belmont Road, I boarded at Richmond Park because I had stopped off to post a letter and saw the tram approaching” or variants of that.
Failing to commit to the route and claiming he maybe posted a letter but isn’t sure etc, allows easy retracting of the statement if in fact he lied about boarding at Belmont and instead boarded at a different stop, for example the one near the post box that is closer and requires less walking distance from the phone box.
There isn’t any known congestion on his route, it affected trams he couldn’t have taken from those stops.
Mike. She rings in on the 1981 programme saying they believed Pucker. It isn’t up for debate if we are going off what we ‘know’ like i’ve been told to do. Parry was a wide boy, a known lout. Parkes had nothing to gain telling the Atkinson’s some wild fantasy and neither did Ada Pritchard. We have to believe there were a lot of liars – all with no axe to grind.
It’s Pukka I think? And he is an aged moron, though at the time of the crime he was a young moron, so only half the moron he was at the time of the interview.
Mike Green et al omitted some of “Pukkas” more unusual claims from the show so he didn’t come across like a kook. Those claims which included stakeouts etc, not corroborated in any file not even Munro’s defence files (though many people who felt they had important information for the defence contacted Munro), were sent to me by Wilkes.
Please pay attention to the events as they unfolded. Parkes learned about the murder from a cop before Gordon arrived. When the cop told him Julia was killed, he immediately replied “that’s Parry’s friend!” i.e. he was already thinking of Gordon in connection to the crime before he even saw Gordon. He also is likely to have brought it up to Parry if he turned up later that evening with the car. Because of these factors, as well as his admitted distrust of Gordon at the time, it would be easy for him to misconstrue Parry’s words and behavior.
Agreed. Parkes’s remark “That’s Parry’s friend” is curious: Parry and Wallace were not friends. They were ex-colleagues who only ran into each other by chance on the street and exchanged greetings and small talk. It may show that Parkes had a mild obsession about Parry and was already primed to link him to the murder by misconstruing his behaviour with some embellishment of his own.
PS – RMQ. I have just lifted this from you ‘My Solution’
”The phone is generally agreed to have gone down earlier than 7.26 (around 7.24 to 7.25)” so why do you keep dissing my suggestion it was around 7.27 like it is miles out 🙂
This then means he may make it into the chess club for 7.50 but only if the tram is right there and there is no 6-8 minute wait and does not take into account any added congestion due to the re-route of the other trams and traffic.
He can literally walk all the way to Belmont Road and board there after the phone goes down and STILL be at the club at the time he gave. It is an example to showcase that he DOESN’T EVEN have to be lying about the tram stop he boarded at and could STILL have made the call AND arrived at the club at 7.50, the time he claims he got there in his first statement. Even boarding all the way over at Belmont Road. And that’s not jogging from the box to Belmont, it’s walking.
No RMQ it is you not comprehending. Listen and watch. The whole idea you are saying that W can use the excuse of a letter only works if he makes the call and used the tram stop down on the corner of Townsend lane by the call box. To use any of the other stops higher up towards Belmont road are his usual stops anyway.
To use your own map for instance. Wallace’s natural route from his house takes him along Richmond Park and there is a stop right at the end on Breck Road so he’d look down, see no tram coming so turn left to the next stop at the end of Newcombe. The talk of perhaps a letter being posted here cannot be a ruse of any sort as he’d be up that end of Breck Road anyway so it doesn’t act as a reason for him being seen coming from the phone box area.
He can only be at the club if he gets a tram straight away with no waiting minutes and if the subsidence diversion causes no extra delay on his route. He gets into the club, has to establish Chandler isn’t there, gets asked by Caird to play, reject this and find McCartney and start playing, all before Beattie comes over with the message.
You make a lot of Parkes saying ‘That’s Parry’s friend’ How come people would go straight for him. Why didn’t he say ‘Hmm do you think it was her husband’ (If wife murders are always supposed to be the husband) To think outside the box like that would seem to point to Parry being a first thought rather than Wallace.
You didn’t get it again lol… What if we suppose he DIDN’T get on the tram at Belmont Road, because he was lying to increase the distance between his alleged point of boarding the tram and the call box? What if he told that lie, committed to it (rather than being “unsure”) and someone had spotted him boarding one of the earlier stops along that route?
The tram stop by the post box is closer to the phone booth than Belmont Road. If he made the call and only has to walk to Richmond Park, it is a slightly shorter walk than all the way to Belmont Road. The further he has to walk after putting down the phone the less likely it is to make the club at the specified time, hence why you might want to try to create distance.
You understand that it is easier to hang up the phone and get to Richmond Park, than it is to hang up the phone and get to Belmont Road right? So then you understand a possible motive to try to push his boarding location as far up as he thinks he can bluff. Though he COULD STILL have boarded at Belmont AND arrived at the club, and anything about delays and whatever is speculation. It is also possible that there are less trams running the route from Belmont (Maddock says ONLY the #14 was running through there, presumably there were usually more than just one number tram) and hence it took less time than usual. These ideas are speculative and can be discarded.
However I think you should get the thing about the letter etc now, and see how it might provide an easy out if he tried to blag boarding at Belmont when he boarded a stop not so far a walk.
Would a ticket issued by a tram be any confirmation of the tram no, route and time it was issued. It’s been that long since I used a bus, not sure what information if any it holds and was Wallace asked if he had any of his tram tickets or is the information on them useless. I’m thinking here he could have still had his first tram ticket on the murder night. I also believe trams en route to the city centre had to make a stop and timestamp at a machine on village street as it descends to the city centre. (Goodman’s book)
Parkes sounds compos mentis when giving his interview to Radio City I must say. He says, it is clear in my mind as it was back then. It was confirmed that Mr Atkinson told him not to use the back entries on his way to work in the future. I wish he elaborated more on the 2nd visit Parry made the day after with his ‘friend’
Let’s not forget, if Parkes was lying, he could have said Parry was full of blood or exaggerated other aspects of the alleged meeting. But he didn’t, he actually said it baffled him why he had no blood on him. Not a very good fantasist is he?
How about Ada Pritchard/Cook. Is she a liar too. Her story is damning
How about the relationship between Moore and his PA ?
He doesn’t sound “compos mentis”, in fact I think he’s on a dementia ward or in an asylum, because if you read the book by Wilkes you will see that in order to speak to Parkes, they had to gain permission from his son (power of attorney?) rather than ask Parkes himself. If Parkes was “compos mentis” I don’t know why he wasn’t capable of granting them permission to talk to him by himself.
Nothing about Ada’s tale is damning? She’s recalling a conversation she heard as a child 50 years earlier, and it is quite obvious Gordon’s parents were terrified when their son is being investigated for murder lmao. It is also logical that her parents in the circumstance could assume Parry must have done it.
Moore and his PA is approaching 9/11 truther stuff. Moore letting a murderer go free AND knowingly send an innocent man to his death over some mid tier at best job. Secretary? Lmao.
RMQ: It is quite laughable that Ada Pritchard, Jonathan Goodman, Richard Whittington-Egan and John Parkes are all liars when it comes to this case and Beattie is mistaken etc 🙂 Nothing damning about Ada Pritchard saying she heard a conversation whereby it’s being asked to get Parry spirited out of the city on a ship which then causing a big argument between her mum and dad after the Parry’s have left.
Yet, a woman Parry was calling on for 3 hours whilst her husband is away and who happens to be the aunt of his bezzie (who wasn’t even there) should be believed. Comedy gold actually.
Regarding the letter box: Let’s suppose W is guilty so after leaving the phone box he walks up Breck Road towards the tram stops and he is spotted by someone, so you are saying he will say he was just posting a letter. Well to post a letter in that post box he still wouldn’t be anywhere near down on that stretch of road between the phone box and even Newcombe st as his natural route to that box is along Richmond Park to the end and there is the letter box.
As far as Moore is concerned and the possibility of a framing is not so far fetched if you are aware of Herbert Balmer. I thought better of you RMQ. 🙁
If his PA is taking dictation and letters down for her boss, which is her job after all, I at least expect she will be keeping Parry in the picture.
Parry liked to remain in the picture, even as late as 1966 when he mentioned he knew a lot more about the case than he was prepared to say as he’d promised his father not even for £2000 would he talk about it. Talk about what exactly? He knew also about Edwin’s death which was only reported in the Far East.
I’m not saying if he’s seen walking towards Belmont Road, but if he’s seen BOARDING at Richmond Park stop, e.g. by the conductor, or seen standing around there visibly waiting for the tram at Richmond. He COULD make it ALL THE WAY to Belmont Road after making the call and make the time, but it’s easier if he had caught the tram at Richmond Park, and if a tram had been coming he may have done so, and tried to blag a further stop.
Here is an example and you will definitely understand:
W: “I think I boarded at Belmont Road, I am not sure and maybe I’m mistaken, I may or may not have stopped to post a letter.”
Conductor: “Hello officers, I just saw that Wallace claimed to get on at Belmont Road on the chess night, that is quite impossible as I was the conductor on that tram and noticed him board at Richmond Park!”
Cops: “Hey W, why did you lie about getting on the tram at Belmont Road, a conductor saw you board at Richmond Park!”
W: “Oh yes, that’s right I remember now, I was going to go to Belmont but now I recall that I did in fact stop off to post that letter at the library, and then saw a tram approaching so boarded it at the Richmond Park stop near the post box instead”.
And variations of. It would be harder to retract statements about routes he committed to without seeming to have been purposefully deceptive.
I could go into all of those other things but I already explained Ada’s testimony for example, and I’m not sure if you actually don’t see what I was saying. She is trying her best to recollect accurately a conversation 50 years earlier, which she wasn’t even in the room for and eavesdropping, which even if took place exactly to the letter what she said, it is not very surprising that the parents of someone being investigated for murder (with the husband actively trying to claim it was Parry) would be nervous for his safety. If these randoms are actually taken at their word then some rando relative of Parry claims his car and clothes were taken apart to the seams. It isn’t in the files anywhere, there is no verification that this actually happened, the person claiming it wasn’t even alive at the time just relaying I guess what she heard, and should not be relied upon. That would be an example of the type of low quality tabloid journo work done by Goodman. Who printed that John Bull was ghostwritten based on a letter of Munro saying he “suspects” it must be ghostwritten on the basis that he was too shocked that Wallace would actually have said those things. This is low tier journalist work at best, mostly relying on rumours written into him by mail by random strangers, like when Tom Slemen put out his radio thing requesting information.
Hi GED you should really stop using RWE as an example of someone who “would have to be lying.” In his final book he fingers Wallace as the killer. Along with Roger Wilkes (who ended up favoring a conspiracy masterminds by Wallace instead) both changed their mind.
What’s more is in Goodman’s obituary it says his work was a great succcess “although Wallace was likely the killer”, the obituary says it was written by friends and family.. we can do the math.
Not that anyone’s opinion proves anything but since you still keep using this as an argument…
And what would RWE ever “have to be lying” about? He simply said he accompanied Goodman and would probably backup Goodman that Parry was nasty or creepy; then again if innocent I don’t think many would like to be confronted by aspie true crime writers with an axe to grind about a murder you were the main “alternative suspect” of.
When people are suspects tons of people pop out of the woodworks with weird damning stories. Fortunately for Parry he had somewhat of an alibi(even if we don’t fully believe the entirety of it) and when we look at the whole picture with the structure of the plan,Parry not even attending the club on the days Wallace was there for chess, Wallace missing the majority of the previous few meetings combined with what we know now is a bogus benzidine test that proved nothing and a 7:30 not 7:45 start time (showing the rule wasn’t really enforced and people barely paid attention), most of the reasons to think Wallace wasn’t involved go by the wayside.
Ada’s testimony means very very little. His parents wanted him out of the country with cops closing in on their petty criminal son for a crime which the penalty was hanging. This may have been before the cops were satisfied with his alibi, which by the way he was giving it to police the night of the 22nd and it ran into the 23rd early morning. This seems a more likely time Parry visited the garage rather Han the murder night since it was claimed to be at around 1 Am. That the low iq Parkes could get the wrong end of the stick (our outright lie) and the Atkinsons would back him up 50 years later for a tabloid show that was seeking info about a wide boy they didn’t like is not surprising.
Wallace also had many people over the years hinting at and claiming his involvement. None of this ps anything either way, we can keep going back and forth with this.
What I do know is especially once the benzidine test was shown to be bunk and the regular start time was 7:30 for chess, many of the reasons to think that it couldn’t be Wallace go away. And then obviously for a multitude of reasons without this in his favor, he has to be at the top of the suspect list. It’s no longer this “impossible murder” that the early crime writer fantasists and Asperger’s believed.
Yes of course, the primary reason to think Wallace couldn’t be guilty is the alleged “”””””evidence”””””” of benzidine proving drains weren’t used etc, which curiously never appears in any report or any statement. John Parkes claimed a pretty close relationship with the cops at the time, they were staking out the garage allegedly (lol). No reference to this. And I guess invested the energy and manpower into staking out a garage rather than simply opening the storm drain Parkes told them the weapon could be found down.
If it isn’t in the file, it didn’t happen, is probably a safer bet with a lot of this garbage journalism and hack writings.
Nice to see you again Josh: You say – ”Parry not even attending the club on the days Wallace was there for chess, Wallace missing the majority of the previous few meetings”
You have no evidence of any of this. Parry saw W at least 3 times on a Thursday and we don’t know how many other times he may have attended there. Just because the play was over does not stop him going in there, he worked in town. You have no evidence that W never attended on the day of the games he didn’t play. As with Chandler on the Monday night, W may have attended but his opponent did not which is why the game never went ahead. Beattie says W attended once or sometimes twice a week – even if it were only once every other week it is claimed he attended when he could.
Yes I thought Ada’s testimony may count for very little, as does everybody else where it doesn’t fit the W guilty narrative. She is not trying to remember something, it is clearly something stuck in her mind with very little difficulty recalling it, a bit like Parkes, a bit like Lily lloyd.
The reason I bring up do you also think Goodman and RWE are liars is they say they are sure they met the murderer that night. They recount the story of ‘Not for £2000 he promised his dad etc’
So I ask you, what do you think this is about then?
I also ask you why W had tea and scones with Julia as some sort of last supper instead of just doing away with her anytime between 6.05 and 6.49?
Also why didn’t he just say he didn’t even go home that night, that he went straight from Clubmoor to Allerton?
Don’t say in case someone saw him not do that, because when I give that as a reason that he didn’t make the phone call, it is twisted that nobody would have seen him. You can’t have it both ways.
This has been explained to you before I remember lol. You seem to forget and repeat the thing a month or so later. Some of these things though were explained within the last few days and you ought not to have forgotten already.
Also how is it “lying” that Goodman said he met the murderer? He thinks he did lmao. I am positive he believes he met the killer that night in the same way 3 year old infants who go meet Santa at the local shopping centre truly believe they just met Santa lmao.
Ged, your argument is Wallace missed scheduled tournament games but he might still have been at the chess club? Lol, what sense does that make. And more importantly it isn’t about whether or not he was actually there (although clearly he wasn’t) but the impression this would leave on a would be schemer in yours, Antony, Rod and the brilliant old timers pet theory.
Now admittedly the chess board is nearly indecipherable to a lay person, but as has been pointed out this was a “one shot” deal that had to work the 1st time whether it was Wallace or someone else behind it, so pretty lucky he attended that night/it was the first night Parry tried (assuming he was the caller.) Not sure how you can deny this.
One unfortunate aspect of this case is the intellectual dishonesty where people refuse to concede even minor points that goes against their theory. For example, I can admit the call in isolation has a Parryish flavor to it. But you won’t even concede the unreliability of the plan if Wallace wasn’t involved and there to make sure he went to the club and got the messsage. Rod wouldn’t concede Justice Wright thought Wallace guilty because of an obvious meaning quote about common sense which Stringer twisted. Antony won’t concede he wrote an original version of his book which has since been disappeared like a photo of an old communist dictator in a new regime; and chose Rod’s Hussey rip off theory because the publishers wanted a more exciting angle (read: less likely.)
Concessions are an important part of having an honest conversation and being an adult.
Antony also rigs democratic votes like a communist dictator. Percentages of each result miraculously identical after supposedly 500 to 1000 more votes.
The statistical probability of this being a genuine poll and not rigged, given hundreds and hundreds more votes and identical percentages is about 1 in 100,000,000—about the same as the chosen Parry Accomplice theory likelihood.
Real life isn’t an episode of Poirot or Columbo. We don’t need convoluted abducements from people desperate to be right or people trying to make a buck off old cases and murdered victims to arrive at the most likely conclusion. In fact, this is counterproductive.
Do you both not see that Wallace could turn up at the chess club and his opponent is not there (rather like on Mon 19th) So therefore we have no evidence that Wallace had not been attending for weeks. Beattie says differently, that Wallace went once or sometimes even twice a week. Beattie knew Wallace’s voice well enough to commit to it not being Wallace by any stretch of the imagination.
If Wallace is guilty, why didn’t he just say, I never even went home that night, I went straight from Clubmoor in search of MGE. I know what you will counter – what if he was seen, his story would be blown away. Yet when I say he wouldn’t have made the call or got on at a different stop because he may have been seen, you dismiss this. You can see the double standards upheld here by the W is guilty people.
For all we know, the reason Parry’s parents go storming around to Ada Cook’s parents begging them to get Parry out of the city could well be because he admitted some part in it. After all he decides to sign up for the Army in Aldershot (where he still can’t keep out of trouble) then he moves to London and when found there in 1966 he disappears into the middle of nowhere in North Wales and most tellingly, he keeps tabs on the case, his Father makes up some story about a car problem on Breck Road when asked about that night, Parry says he promised his father not to speak about it – speak about what? He admits to visiting Julia behind Wallace’s back. Yet you dismiss all of this as nothing.
Also, I don’t know why you keep bringing Rod, Antony or anybody else into my posts, I was writing about this on forums many years before any of them, my interest having begun in 1981 when my dad suggested I listen it as he remembered the case as an 11 year old.
Btw, you’ve not answered any of my previous questions, so trying to get out of it by saying you’ve answered these but i’ve forgotten doesn’t wash with me.
I must admit I do love your wit the pair of you, like a comedy double act though sadly as bad as Cannon & Ball. 🙂 and though i’ve said it before, I love the work you’ve done on this site.
Addressed months before as I recall spending time explaining this, was why the logic you are now using again is fail: you’re using the same sort of arguments that allow atheists to humiliate Christians over and over and over in debates… E.g. when they say “but you have no evidence God DOESN’T exist” and get schooled. That’s where the cringe “spaghetti monster” memes and flying teacup thing comes from, because it’s a failure to grasp the burden of proof.
You have no proof James Caird WASN’T best friends with the real Prudential client R. J. Qualtrough so how can you dismiss it? Yes certainly Caird is friends with R. J. Qualtrough, you also have no proof he DOESN’T know where the cash box is and what’s in it. You have no proof he doesn’t know Gordon and Marsden also. So we can conclude Caird masterminded the plot? Lmao.
You will eventually comprehend that again like how you presumably understand the thing about the letter and tram stops now, and then in a month or two you will say something about the letter excuse not mattering because it’s on his walk towards Belmont Road. And then claim like you’ve never heard it before… I don’t know how long until the two men running circles back in as if it wasn’t previously discussed?
There isn’t actually anything to support Gordon going into the cafe on any Monday ever, and if he looked at the chart it says games have to start at 7.30. He went there and saw the chess club playing on Thursdays only (and only a couple of times). The case was solved. Rod thinks he’s Poirot, which makes sense because Poirot is fictional and written by a woman with zero experience in any sort of detective endeavour and who would never be able to solve any sort of real case.
Ged, we can play the why didnt X do Y game with every theory.
Whatever happened it wasn’t a perfect crime. But since the 2 main reasons to think it wasn’t Wallace have been evaporated regarding the nonsense benzidine test and 7:30 vs 7:45 start time, Wallace alone has to rise to the top of theories.
Anything else is highly convoluted.
This is either a very very elaborate unreliable robbery plan cooked up by 2 impulsive wide boys with IQs similar to the old timers club average IQ (and why not just go that Monday night if they were so sure Wallace was at the club to get the message, instead of adding in another night and its unreliability—for what the possibility of slightly more money in the cashbox…lol please) OR it’s a murder plan made to look like a convoluted robbery plan by a somewhat intelligent, but likely on the spectrum man planning to kill his wife.
A man who fits the profile of a domestic murderer quite well.
A man who wrote an O.J. Simpson esque if I did it snippet in John Bull.
A blunt force head killing (extremely common in domestic homicide, very rare otherwise.)
In order of likelihood, I would say.
1. Wallace alone
2. Wallace with help of others.
BIG GAP
3. Parry alone (and Brine alibi is inaccurate)
4. Johnstons
5.Hussey/Rod/Antony/Old Timers theory
6. Someone from the chess club
Ged, this if X was guilty why didn’t he do Y could be applied to any theory…
The main 2 reasons to think Wallace wasn’t guilty (benzidine test and timing on night of the call (730 start vs 745) ) have both been shown to be nonsense, so naturally he rises to the top of the suspect list.
Is is either a convoluted 2 day robbery plan with Parry and “M” (lol), two wide boys with IQs around the average of the old timers crew or a complicated plan to murder one’s wife and look like a robbery by an intelligent, but autistic man. I favor the latter.
We also have blunt force head trauma in a room where the cashbox is not. A sneak thief who Julia doesn’t know could just run away or silence her with one blow from anything.
Blunt force head trauma murder is extremely common in domestic homicides and extremely uncommon otherwise. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
Ha ha love it but so many inaccuracies in your posts it’s equally as funny.
If you read any forum there are posters saying he would have done this, you are guilty of it yourselves, saying he got on at a different stop AND JUST WOULD HAVE SAID I WAS POSTING A LETTER Ha ha. Sorry for the capitals, just emphasising the two faced aspect of it all. But no, he never used any excuse about posting a letter and that’s why he was seen walking up from near the call box. All superfluous.
Just as I can’t prove Parry could have been in that cafe 10 times in January 1931, you can’t prove he wasn’t either but it is madness to think that he was only ever there at the times Wallace saw him, what about the possible times Wallace never saw him, are you saying it’s 100% that Parry say didn’t call in for his lunch on a Wednesday when Wallace wasn’t there. It doesn’t matter anyway, the noticeboard was even up in November when Parry was there.
So what we have is Wallace committing the murder between 18.40 and 18.49 when he could have committed it anytime from 18.05 and then leaving the house bloodstained with a weapon. Please don’t say he didn’t have even the tiniest blood speck on him when the experts who were there said he’d be covered – mackintosh or not – it had spattered up to the ceiling and 7ft plus up on the walls. Then he calmly gets on 3 trams and makes himself visible and talkative to just about everyone according to you.
Not forgetting, the night before, he calls from right by his house where he could be seen in the box or walking to it or from it and to or from a different tram stop (his nearest stop was the corner by the phone box) Not forgetting he will speak to Beattie twice in 30 mins and Beattie won’t twig and yet there are supposed to be no risks in any of this – yet the only risk for Parry was he didn’t get the message or go to MGE 🙂
ps Josh. Your No2 solution. Wallace with the help of others. Do you not think he would have kept himself away from his home on the Tuesday by going to MGE straight from Clubmoor. – Job done. I’d make the Johnston’s theory higher up than that 🙂
“But no, he never used any excuse about posting a letter and that’s why he was seen walking up from near the call box. All superfluous.”
He wasn’t reported to have been seen walking anywhere that night? Will this wrongness be repeated in a couple months again once you forget? And you’re still doing “you can’t prove Jesus DIDN’T resurrect!” stuff that Christians get owned by Chris Hitchens types for.
William can board all the way at Belmont and make the chess club at the time he said he arrived. I’m merely suggesting a possibility that nothing really hinges on being what happened or not. Like when excellent real trained detective Mark Fuhrman speculates that Michael Skakel may have claimed he was chucking stones into the treeline as being a way to potentially pre-empt being seen making striking motions near the trees (or something like that). The letter posting claim could be a similar pre-empt in case seen loitering the wrong stop near the post box waiting for a tram there. But nothing hinges on it as he can make the club after the call from the stop he did claim to use and arrive at the time stated.
The case is solved, every reason for it to be not solved was false evidence not in the files, what is the point of this?
Hi GED glad to see you still have your good humor about you, can’t say that about all members of your crew. Meant sincerely.
Yes Wallace if he had the help others could have created better alibis for himself either night and that is a mark against a conspiracy like that.
However it’s possible he could believe the voice being not his was enough to get away. People often rely on one or two exonerating details they think will get them off and don’t always bother with other stuff. There could be other reasons he’d want to not be at the club on the night of the call or at home before the murder if going off to MGE, particularly if he thought another voice on the call and Beattie’s relaying of it would exonerate him.
The problem with the Johnston is I don’t think John is a good candidate for the call. If it is them I’d favor an exploited theory (similar to Parry prank then Wallace exploits the opportunity). In other words they get wind Wallace is headed out and try for a robbery then.
Neither of these are my favorite theories but they aren’t impossible.
Like Calum/RMQ I think with many of the marks against Wallace acting alone diffused by really dealing with the actual facts and debunking lies, he must rise to the top of the suspect list.
BTW, Antony favors a conspiracy theory with Wallace as the mastermind deep down. That’s what he wrote originally and admitted to me he only changed it because of publisher pressure and desire to have an exciting theory. Although Rod’s convoluted theory is a rip off of Hussey, that book wasn’t that well known, so this solution seems more novel despite its implausibility.
Ged’s dead with a bullet in his head
Bang bang smoking gun
Now Rod’s on the run
Flying off in his copter
Crashing down someone call a doctor
Make a Wish granting wishes
To this autist man who got no bitches
What does it matter?
When he crashed his body splattered
Smoking engine rising flames
Antony crying eating cakes
Ding dong the bitch is dead
Ding dong his name was ged
Antony Brown, AKA the Wishmaster
Granting Rod’s wishes with his literary disaster,
Rigging polls for years like he’s Saddam Hussein
1000 more votes yet the percentage didn’t change?
Don’t dare waste his time if you have no degree
Don’t you know he graduated from university?
Was his subject something useful like biology?
No of course not, it was philosophy-
(HA! Lame!)
Trying to bamboozle fools with “Bayes theorem”
So they will finally accept his theoretical delirium,
What’s that, a “solution”? Let’s bring it back to the middle
Let’s get ontological in this homicidal riddle
How about an interesting case that’s not as old as time?
Something about Jonbenet or Moxley would be fine
Something more relatable than green bicycle crimes
Too scared of getting sued, so I guess nevermind…
Hey GED. I’ll be in England this summer and wouldn’t mind a day trip up to Liverpool. How about we all grab a pint at the old timers meet up pub? We can let bygones be bygones and hopefully no one gets “intro trouble.” I can help you fellows realize the reality of this domestic homicide.
I have no problem with that at all Josh, not sure about Rod though, I think the venom between you and him goes both ways. Keep in touch.
For all on here:
If you could go back to that Monday or Tuesday night and if you were allowed stand in one place and observe. What would it be. I assume the Parlour.
Though bear in mind, if a stranger’s face unknown to us commits the murder we will still be in suspense as we will not know the build up (the phone caller, the way into the house etc etc)
Just reading the re-booted A6 Murder case on the Casebook forum and there are plenty of posts like this one from Cobalt.
”The crime is botched badly and JH must now ditch the murder weapon and the car to avoid detection. However time is on his side: he has around 4 hours until daylight, and even when the victims are discovered (he assumes they are both dead) it may take time to identify them and link the car back to Malcolm Gregsten. His best option would surely be to dump the weapon and ammunition in some forlorn spot, abandon the car in a railway station car park, then catch an early train to Liverpool in order to establish his alibi. JH does none of this.”
This, like many others, is a case of a forum user stating what James Hanratty should have/could have done. It is only natural for this line of questioning, it is after all what police use in their investigations and what Prosecutors use to build their case – none of it is proven.
‘Wallace would have walked down to the call box, made the call and got on at Townsend lane tram stop’ – ‘Close would have had time to make all his calls and be at 29 Wolverton st for 18.30’ ‘Parry is eliminated from our enquiries as the caller as he was with his lady from 5.30pm until 9pm on the Monday night’
Everything is based on building a picture of what happened. I watch enough wall to wall sky real life tv documentaries and series to know this.
The who killed Billie Jo Jenkins is one yous should watch and would enjoy, the similarities with the Wallace case kept jumping out at me. Anyway, I digress. So I am building up a picture in my mind of what Wallace would have done if he’d done this murder and it is nothing like it panned out.
Wasn’t James Hanratty proven guilty by modern DNA tests? I don’t read about that case but I recall seeing that his surviving family (or whatever) had the stuff tested for DNA expecting him to be exonerated and it showed he did it lmao.
Your earlier comment about where I’d stand made me check maps. I see there are other ways out of Wolverton Street so there isn’t actually anywhere you could reliably stand to see anyone come to or depart from 29 Wolverton Street.
As funny as these poems are because I know the people represented, they will mean nothing to Mike, Tillymint or others perusing this brilliant site. Please don’t undo all your hard work by flooding it with nonsense. We have enough of that in you unconditionally and totally exonerating Parry of any wrong doing whatsoever 😉
Ged, I haven’t really put much hard work since it’s Calum who made the site. We are not the same person as I keep saying 😉
However, I will ease on the poetry for awhile to respect your wishes and reopen the flow of conversation. Hopefully you’ll accept my offer for a pint and maybe I can run a few more by you. I have some haikus involving Rod, Mark R, and a bonobo that could make a stern old school teacher laugh.
I don’t exonerate Parry totally from wrongdoing; clearly he committed various petty crimes culminating in what was almost certainly a sexual assault he got away with. I just think he is a red herring in this case.
To me both Wallace and Parry seem like possible callers but the timing fits perfectly with Wallace calling. For Parry to have been the caller it requires more stretches of logic (he would have had to have stalled Wallace out for an indefinite period of time and then made the call as soon as Wallace left his home with zero way of knowing the call would be received accurately or at all) and certainly zero way of knowing Wallace would go to MGE the following night.
I admit aspects of the call seem like Parry is the caller and there wouldn’t be a need for a voice disguise but also recall the one person spoken to who the caller had no need to disguise their voice to said the caller sounded like an older man.
Wallace is the only one who knows he will be at the club to get the messsge for sure; he is the only one who knows he will go for sure the following night, and a possibly robbery plan still has Julia to contend with the next night (and Wallace out of the house the Monday night to receive the message so why not go then?)
Conspiracies involving both Wallace and Parry (and maybe someone else) resolve some things but create even more issues.
The plan, call, and crime just make a lot more sense if Wallace did them all alone.
This may be relevant to the question of Mr Beattie speaking to Qualtrough:
“Telephones have been using a limited frequency range of 300 hertz to 3.4 Kilohertz for over 100 years. While the frequency spectrum of the human voice ranges from about 50 Hertz to 8 Kilohertz, speech remains quite intelligible when transmitted at the very limited bandwidth.”
So it is clear that the phone, even now, transmits only the middle frequency range of the human voice with significant losses at both the low frequency (deep voice) end as well as the high frequency (high pitched) end. In my view Mr Beattie had previously had only limited interaction with Wallace’s voice at irregular intervals and possibly never over the phone.
Asking him whether the phone voice sounded like Wallace was asking him to compare his limited exposure to the full bandwidth of Wallace’s face-to-face voice with the limited frequency response squark box tones of the 1931 telephone. Add this to the curious circumstances of the call (“Wallace asking to speak to ….Wallace?”).
No wonder he replied as he did.
I don’t think we have enough knowledge to determine that. It is also possible his voice was a little different due to being sick with flu, like perhaps his voice was a little hoarse. But we don’t really know these things for sure to actually use them as a cornerstone.
It is possible that some people weren’t sure if he was innocent or guilty, and know that their words could be used to hang the man (the man who was sometimes their friend, or their neighbour), so were more cautious in what they were stating. In both Johnstons’ statements, their original typecopied words are crossed out and altered in some important parts. Wallace still maintained for example that he told them to wait while they both reversed their position.
You will see Moore discuss this in regards to the Johnstons and Crewe who change their statements.
If for example these people said they went outside because they heard Wallace making commotion at the back door, that might be bad for him. I could see a scenario where people are simply not wanting to say something that could be responsible for hanging a possibly innocent man who they have known years and think is so timid etc.
But you can’t use these things as more than speculations. And it’s not needed to make the strong case.
Josh, RMQ,
Undoubtedly the poor audio quality of the phone line is to be added to the other factors, particularly context, which taken together would make it hard for Beattie to recognise who’s voice was on the other end.
I particularly agree that of all the questions asked at the trial, Beattie’s possible recognition of Wallace’s voice would have been pivotal. I don’t believe it ever crossed Beattie’s mind that it was Wallace calling and even if it did he would deny it in answering the question because after all he might be mistaken and Wallace seemed to be such a harmless old coot.
Did Wallace do a dry run of the call by phoning Mr Beattie at the Cotton Exchange, posing as e.g. a Mr Jenkinson and asking for example if any jobs were on offer? If he was rumbled he could deny any involvement and the Qualtrough plan would bite the dust. Just a thought.
”Did Wallace do a dry run of the call by phoning Mr Beattie at the Cotton Exchange, posing as e.g. a Mr Jenkinson and asking for example if any jobs were on offer? If he was rumbled he could deny any involvement and the Qualtrough plan would bite the dust. Just a thought.”
You see. This is the sort of thing I say and get slated over it. If I say wouldn’t wallace just say the bolt was on – game over for the police. Wouldn’t Wallace just need the constable, Katie Mather and the shops as enough evidence.
We all have a why didn’t he just say this if he was guilty. I’m sorry, he’s not so gullible or infinitely thick as to rely on getting away with this because there might not be enough circumstantial evidence which of course still counts for something.
If he had a cold which changed his voice on the phone then this cold would still be changing his voice when face to face.
Parry, as we know, as could anyone, could suspect by looking at the notice board that Wallace would attend. It’s gobbydegook to understand anyway and you canot tell when he didn’t last attend. Just because a game did not go ahead the last time it should have doesn’t mean Wallace didn’t attend, it could have been his opponent that didn’t attend – just like Chandler didn’t attend on the 19th yet Wallace did. Parry and/or another only have to stand in the Cabbage Hall car park to see Wallace turn out of Richmond Park en route to his tram and hey presto. If he doesn’t then no great loss. Try next week. The reason Parry’s accomplice didn’t just do this on the Monday when Wallace was out anyway is well documented. 1) There would be x amount more bounty on the Tuesday but more importantly they need a ruse to gain entry into 29 Wolverton st and Qualtrough is it.
Wallace admitting he asked the Johnston’s to wait there is worse for him. It is better he let Johnston take the initiative and say ‘We will wait here’ as it puts themselves in the finding of Julia along with Wallace as a doing of their choice – not his.
Wallace was of fine character and was always found to be honest and reliable in his work in precuring new business and in handling cash, paying in the correct amounts and in fact highlighting, potentially against his own safety, instances when others paying in on his behalf were short (aka fiddling) There are a number of accounts of his marriage described as being loving and normal by Caird, Edwin, Amy and the Johnston’s. Albert Wood, a Pru employee goes as far as saying Devoted. Wallace’s diaries and actions by and large go to substantiate this. Eg. His worry when Julia was late home. His requesting Drs attendance, Julia stating William shouldn’t be in the cold room whilst suffering flu, trips to Stanley and Calderstones parks.
Parry has consistently shown himself to be dishonest and unreliable. Described as a source of sorrow and anxiety to his parents by Court Clerk Henry Harris, his kleptomania resulting in a number of arrests and if we are to believe he is unlucky enough to be caught every time, then there are other misdemeanours unaccounted for, who knows how many. An alleged sexual assault was dismissed though there was some evidence in the way of broken ear-rings found in the debris where both admit they were. Parry has been described by a number of people including the Atkinsons, John Parkes, Ada Cook and Mr Williamson to be conniving, a crook, dishonest, deceitful.
The traits described above are often in the genes, the genetic make up of a person whether that be natural empathy and goodness or evilness and untrustworthiness. We often hear born evil though nurture and opportunism can play a part. Just look at Hanratty or the Moors Murderers, even more recently the Bulger or Rhys Jones murderers. There is an ingrained probability.
We are to believe one of these men mentioned above (Wallace or Parry) suddenly turned gangster, crook, murderer or at least an accomplice to murder.
Which one is your money on. Which one, if all these facts were presented to a member of the public who had never heard of this case, would they go for.
Ged, from a profiling standpoint Wallace is a much likelier killer. Look up stats about domestic homicides, blunt force head trauma, overkill etc. Investigate the traits of people who carry out these carefully planned family annihilations have and compare them to Wallace.
The fact that Wallace had more scruples than the rogue Parry is less important from a profiling standpoint. Parry would be a better suspect for a simple robbery not a murder not even in the same room as the cash following a complex call the night before.
Admittedly this is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, profiling itself can never be but I’d definitely look at it that way rather than Wallace=virtuous and Parry=wide boy. Might be true to a surface extent but profile wise we also have to match up the personalities to the crime committed.
All of Gordon’s known crimes are impulsive/opportunistic and not thought out to any extent whatsoever. He’s the type of dude to just see a drawer with cash and take it when the person’s not looking, or see a car and decide to just jump in it and drive off. Literally zero foresight at all.
Not shown in his prior known crimes to have the patience to stalk people and etc (and the fact it actually isn’t possible to watch all Wolverton Street exit routes at once), moreso just see unattended money and take it immediately with no consideration of consequence.
If his prior crimes were used as a demonstration of how he prefers to commit them, that would be more like just walking in there Monday and taking the marginally lesser collection money, and doing it even though he’d obviously be caught out. That is obv moreso the actions of an impulsive type of criminal, rather than someone who premeditates crimes.
Yes, whoever planned this crime, whether the original intention was robbery or murder gave it much foresight. Jonathan Goodman describes the killer as “one of the most fastidious planners in criminal history.” Of course he is unfortunately incorrect about many things but was most likely right about this.
What makes more sense for such intricate planning? A weird, unreliable 2 day robbery plot involving multiple people with a plethora of logical flaws and uncertainties cooked up by an impulsive 95 IQ wide boy or a carefully planned domicide by a self styled intellectual middle aged scientific minded man?
Without the fake evidence (e.g. makebelieve benzidine etc) and finding the publicly displayed club times etc, I don’t even know what there is to argue. It’s like 9/11 truther or OJ innocent type lunatic stuff. The case was already resolved ~a century ago… Like OJ, everyone knew he did it despite begrudgingly having to exonerate due to insufficient evidence. He even wrote a piece about how he killed Julia in John Bull like OJ did in “If I Did It”.
As Ged says: Wide boy dishonest Parry vs quiet respectable Wallace – which one would you go for? According to the polls a majority favour Parry’s direct or indirect involvement. As there is no golden bullet of evidence pointing to either party it boils down to impressions and Parry’s bad character holds sway. The Liverpool jury in 1931 did not consider alternative suspect Parry and it was Wallace’s cold clinical demeanour at the crime scene and in the court which left a bad impression on the jury and got him convicted based on gut feeling rather than anything else. “He’s just the type.”
However gut feeling is a dangerous emotion which has led to several miscarriages of justice and delayed discovery of heinous crime down the years. John Christie, John Wayne Gacy, and most notably Harold F Shipman were all seen as “good eggs” and pillars of their local community until their crimes were revealed to an unbelieving public. In the end, the community’s gut feeling about these men counted for nothing. They had been duped.
This applies to the apparent respectability and undoubted bad character which surround Wallace and Parry respectively. These should not be ignored but neither should they be given too much weight as a guide to their potential involvement in the murder. Wallace vs Parry ?: the good character of the one and the bad character of the other are not major considerations in my plumping for Wallace as the more likely candidate.
With respect I believe there was a passing reference to an alternative suspect (Parry) at the trial but the Judge unsurprisingly ruled that he should not be named in open court.
This to avoid a possible libel/slander claim. There was certainly
nothing divulged to the jury regarding the case against Parry. This, in Parry’s absence, would be enough to cause a mistrial. Wallace’s trial was not the place to give doubts about Parry an airing.
Parry’s name was used I checked, line 976. Read out from William’s statement which listed Parry as his suspect. Again named on line 3651 by prosecution.
The judge said the opposite to wanting it redacted, he said it’s not right to have mystery in this case.
Fair enough. I stand corrected. I should have checked the trial transcript but I have difficulty reading it and scrolling down is a nightmare. Anyway well done RMQ – all is clear now.
Just to clarify. Wallace’s route from Wolverton st can be viewed. How many exits do you think you need, only the final one from Richmond Park onto Breck Road for the Monday. Parry or Denison would not need to look near the phone box, it is one of them who made the call.
Secondly Parry’s name was not read out as a suspect, just clarification of Wallace’s statement and in fact Hemmerde even makes a statement that Wallace says he does not suspect Parry Q3651.
Regarding the answer : ‘We know which one the public went for, they convicted him’ Yes but wrongly according the appeal court. The first time ever a ruling was reversed based on the fact the jury got it wrong based on the evidence presented (some of which, just like the preliminary case in Dale st was flawed) It is also widely believed that Justice Wright is veering the jury away from a guilty verdict in his summing up.
Imagine the weeks or days leading up to the murder:
Yes, Parry is no mastermind and is more impulsive as you say, but since Christmas he’s been friends with a William Denison, they sometimes call around to Denison’s aunts, Olivia Brine. One day, maybe at Brines or not, Denison says hey Richard, what about these Anfield burglaries. Bloody wannabe’s on our patch. Parry says, I know where there could be up to £100 right now and we need to get it before they do. I can get into the house pretty much any time I want but I couldn’t take it as it’d be bang on.
Dennison: Then we have to get it before the wannabe’s do. How do we do it.
Parry: Well the geezer goes to play Chess on a Monday but the real dosh would be in the house on a tuesday. He’s in insurance and makes cash collection and he pays it in on wednesdays or thursdays to his office.
Dennison: Then we have to get him out the house on a tuesday night. Is he married, how about his wife, can we get them both out and break in?
Parry: No, the old dear hardly ever goes out of a night, I quite like her, she deserves better than that stuck up oddity she’s with.
Dennison (after a period of silence): How about we call his chess club one Monday night and send him on a wild goose chase the following night. You can put a voice on if you speak to him direct or I can speak to him, he doesn’t know me……………..
If Parry only attends the club for rehearsals on a thursday and knew from the notice board that Wallace attends every Monday (as far as he knows) there is no reason to think Wallace is haphazard in his attendance there. This is why he says’ But he will be there?’ to Beattie. Having expected he might speak Directly to Wallace with a voice on and suddenly he is told he’s not there yet, he has to improvise which makes him say things like ‘What is Wallace’s address’ (as he doesn’t really want that but can get out of it if it was forthcoming) it also makes him give away much more than he intended to – ref His girls 21st – there was a real one that only Parry knew about.
This may be not too wide of the mark…………
Josh – GED this last post is a new low for you lol
Let’s not forget, you are favouring a guilty version when it has already been thrown out, quite rightly, by an appeal court. Tell me what makes your version any better.
My post could not be as low as your attempts at poetry now could it?
GED you are senile. You keep repeating yourself over and over and parroting Rod. The things you posted and are arguing have been explained many many times to you. You just go back to repetition mode unfortunately many times and are incapable of even the most minor of “concessions” to the other side. Sorry dude but it’s pretty straightforward; Parry was named as a suspect at trial. This is like Rod denying Wright thought Wallace guilty based on an obvious meaning quote later in life which he twisted. Even Antony agreed Rod was being dishonest and a little snot nosed cunt because it was so ridiculous. Yes, Wright summed up for acquittal because there’s a difference between guilt beyond reasonable doubt and likelihoods.
You come with the stance that I can’t favorite a guilty version because it’s been thrown out then what is the point of discussion? You basically want to me bully me into agreement with this as some sort of a trump card so why even discuss it. If on a jury, I might not convict Wallace because there is no smoking gun and it may not be beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems to me like he probably did it.
I also wonder why Antony and Rod don’t have the guts to post here. Or that fat bearded loser from the pub meet group.
If you guys tried me in real life you’d be surprise. I’m the “final boss” tier level type. You can’t defeat me. I’d bang Rod’s wack eyed sister then own him on true crime as well. Antony might get some donuts from me. I’m a generous guy.
You guys are very very wrong indeed and the sooner you realize it the better. The problem is you are also all cowards.
I suspect Antony, Rod and Mark see you both as nuts, they ask me why I bother giving you the time of day but I like discussion. So you obviously think that Parry planning the phone call with Denison (or another who isn’t so impulsive) is absolutely a non starter. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think that cannot be a possibility whatsoever.
RMQ: There isn’t only one tram route to get to the club lol. So yes all the exit points from the street matter.
Tell me why Wallace if innocent would use any other tram route than the Breck Road one to town. The trams on Belmont (like he used on Tues) head South and go a longer way. He would only be using the one on the corner of Townsend if he was guilty of using the phone box but if he is being watched then he is not guilty so would not be using that one.
Many various reasons, maybe a stop at a newsagents for smokes, maybe taking the bus for some unknown reason, maybe stopping off at the nearby telephone box for innocent reasons, maybe he was visiting a relative like Amy and going from her place. The latter being an example of the fact you wouldn’t know that he was necessarily at home at the time you were “staking it out” either. Caird went straight from work for example, if they were staking out Caird’s house they’d never see Caird leave for the club.
The point is an outside person wouldn’t know this and can’t rely on him coming out a specific way or even being at the home they’re staking out.
A reclusive middle-aged man is duped into leaving his home for an appointment with a man with an unusual name. The recluse has been promised a large financial reward from this meeting. He finds that neither the man with the unusual name or his address exist and he hurries back home only to find his home has been the scene of a serious crime while he was away.
This is the plot of “The Adventure of the Three Garridebs,” a Sherlock Holmes short story published in 1925 in “The Strand” magazine and again in “The casebook of Sherlock Holmes” in 1927.
The common features with the Wallace case : the unusual name (in this case Garrideb), the bogus address, the financial gain as the lure to the expected meeting, and the crime committed in the man’s home while he was away.
Taking into account when it was published, could this have been the inspiration for the Qualtrough ruse?
Apologies if I have raised this point previously but I think it worthy of discussion.
Sounds much like it doesn’t it Mike though i’ve never heard of it myself. However, how much of a recluse was this man. He took his wife to two parks we know of. Got up in front of students to lecture at the Polytech college and visited once if not sometimes twice a week on occasion to play chess according to Beattie. He traipsed the streets of Clubmoor 3 or 4 times a week and visited Amy who likewise visited him with Edwin for music. Wallace also visited Crewe for violin lessons and we know he went the shop with Julia when it was mentioned here is the boy who found my key in the lock – Harold Jones was it who said they were known in the area as Darby & Joan. He also went into town to pay his takings into the Pru so I think a duller picture may have been portrayed of him than is true, even I don’t get out that much. 🙂
Yes, Wallace doesn’t merit the label “recluse.” In fact he was quite a chatterbox once he got going: “I have a tongue in my head.”
Conan Doyle’s character is reclusive – an amateur scientist (!) who collects fossils and rarely goes out so he has to be lured away while a robbery (!) takes place in his home. While not a recluse, Wallace seldom went out in the evenings so subterfuge had to be used to get him away.
Incidentally, Wallace claimed at the trial that he made 560 calls on clients per week. With a paying-in day each week, Fridays at home doing his books, and a half day on Saturday this figure of 560 calls is hard to believe.
Hi GED, Antony spent years sending me long emails and even offered me a free copy of his book. We remained on good terms until I challenged him one too many times with truth bombs. He has a fragile ego.
Not sure about Mark R, doesn’t seem he’s on good terms with even you anymore lol.
As far as Rod, he is a lunatic that has been kicked off endless sites and Wikipedia for being an absolute autistic menace; the guy was actually beaten up (lol) for trying to stop supposedly “underage drinking” at his old boys club. Trust me I am not politically correct nor do I care much about political opinions but his are so extreme that he believes in tin foil stuff. He claims the holocaust never happened etc.and supports this with “google search trends data”
If you ask what this has to do with the Wallace case, it is because he uses the same tactics, prescriptive arguments and insanity when discussing Wallace. All is good if you agree with him completely.
I question anyone’s judgement who meets him and doesn’t realize instantly he is an absolutely freak because I know he acts no differently in person as I heard him on a recorded video discussing the case breathing heavily sounding insane while driving past case “sights”. He was definitely on something or if not, he needed to be.
Antony may deny it now but so have our entire email exchange and he many times hinted at how touched Rod is.
Back to the case, GED when did I say “it’s a non starter”. I have explained many times why the caller seems like it could have been Parry but why I still think Wallace is the killer and the caller. This is not black and white or set in stone. I am not Rod or you. Please pay more attention if you want to have a fruitful discussion.
I take your points RMQ (Always well thought through) and a stranger to W indeed would not know his habits, but Parry would. He would know his client routes, having done them himself, his rough finishing time at work, the time he would normally be at the chess club, so work that back and you will see the half hour window in which to expect him to leave the house for the club. It’s a no risk strategy because if it doesn’t work that day, nothing lost, try another.
Josh: I told Rod I don’t believe Julia would see the robbery in action and end up somehow being killed in the parlour, some distance away. More likely she was in the parlour with someone when she hears the cupboard door breaking off as the thief stands on it to gain access to the cash box and in the melee the coins drop to the floor and she says what was that, goes to get up and was whacked.
Mike. 560 sounds exaggerated to me too for a 3 and a half day week in which he also travels home and back after lunch too.
I have been rather disappointed in the recent posts going ‘off piste’ with regards to the aim of this website and forum.
The childish name calling and accusatory language maybe brushed aside as playful banter but it is quite off putting and threatening to others who are more purist in their intentions in contributing their thoughts on the case.
However, regarding the number of calls made by Wallace:-
It depends on how you interpret the evidence. WHW has about 560 clients in total. We know that his collections were both monthly and weekly. Therefore not all clients would have a weekly call. Some would be fortnightly or monthly. This accounts for the variations in the amounts he cashed in at the Pru.
Bearing in mind he didn’t start his round until after 10am he returned home at lunchtime for at least an hour and was usually home by 5.30pm. He had alternative Monday afternoons off, he did his paperwork at home and cashed in one day and didn’t collect Fridays and Sundays.
I reckon the maximum number of calls he would visit per week would be 140 or maybe 25-30 per day.If you look and map out the calls he did on the day of the murder (discounting the times as they don’t make sense!) The houses are terraced a couple of doors or so apart, on opposite side of the street or on parallel or adjacent streets. It therefore wouldn’t be such an effort to amble along.
Incidentally just by chance, I met a retired Prudential agent who had been with the company over 30 years. He told me that it was not possible for an agent to choose who would cover for them sickness or holidays. Also taking calls outside the allocated area although allowed had to be sanctioned by a supervisor.
He said if he was in the Chess Club and was told a business call had come through, he would immediately phone his supervisor to
inform him. It was then the supervisor’s decision who would follow up with the potential client. This usually was the agent local to the client’s area.
Whether this policy was as a result of the Wallace case I have no idea. But it seems a rational one for any company to have.
Happy to contribute further – if we can dispense with the silliness please.
Hi Tilly, I think you have raised some good points about Wallace from a profiling standpoint.
I would be interested in your thoughts on my recent other post (5/24) about the extreme unlikelihood of the posited scenario by some others.
I also point out blunt force head trauma is almost always perpetrated by a husband on a married female who is murdered–this is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is highly suggestive.
On the other hand, I would say if you can’t handle or don’t like the language here, you could create your own site or take up a less conflictual hobby than debating true crime online with strangers—perhaps knitting.
Let’s just suppose for a minute Wallace is guilty.
Do you think he is using Tuesday night for the murder because he would be expected to have more money in the cash box on Tuesday and therefore finger Parry or Marsden (a dangerous ploy to limit the suspect pool) or do you think it had to be Tuesday come what may anyway because the call had to be to the chess club on Monday night.
(ps – don’t say it is not a dangerous ploy because Parry or Marsden could have told any number of associates about the cash box, because it is still limiting the number of suspects down to a few in the know)
Hi Ged, In my view the Tuesday was chosen as it was only 24 hours after receipt of the chess club message. Qualtrough, whoever he was, didn’t want to leave much time for e.g. Mr Caird to check a directory and warn Wallace that it might be a trick.
The Innocent Wallace option is that Tuesday corresponds nicely with Parry’s regular visits to Mrs Brine and gives him an alibi while his pals go to No 29.
I think, had it been a planned robbery, much more study would have been made of the potential haul e.g by waiting for a monthly collection. Surely they would have known via Parry that the cash box contents could vary widely depending on Wallace’s health etc. To strike on a random Tuesday hoping to get lucky especially after the elaborate Qualtrough deception just doesn’t fit for me.
One more point GED, the suspect pool is limited no matter what. If Wallace did it, there’s not that many possible people that would know enough about him, his attendance at the chess club, and cash box etc to be able to do it. There would still enough possibilities to cast doubt that he is the killer in his mind IMO especially if he can fool Beattie.
If he is innocent then obviously the same thing applies with regards to a limited suspect pool and the perpetrstor(s) would be one of them in this remarkably symmetrical case. Admittedly, an advantage for this theory is if the original plan was robbery and not murder , the risk is less.
A disadvantage I would argue is the suspect pool is even narrower in a plan if Wallace is innocet; it basically has to be a former or current pru worker who has been in Wallace’s house before to know where the cash box is and mention of R M Qualtrough being similar to the pru client R J is suggestive.
I don’t think we can glean much about Wallace’s guilt or innocence based on the suspect pool size.
Regarding the chess club, theoretically the suspect pool could include any member of the chess club, anyone who may have visited the cafe during chess club events, anyone known to these individuals, i.e. on the basis that that Wallace’s attendance might have been discussed,, anyone who worked at the cafe or was associated with someone who worked at the cafe, anyone who visited the cafe saw fixture list, anyone they may have spoken to etc. As regards the cash box, anyone who was who knew that he was an insurance agent would presumably assume that there could be a large amount of cash on the premises, and that might have included a great number of people.
In practice I think the caller very likely would have to be someone who
1. Knew Wallace’s chess habits to some degree.
2. Not only knew he was an insurance agent and might have cash on hand but know that he did have a cash box and probably know where the cash box was located in his house.
Yes Mike and I take in all you say, as always, but given the time lapse since Parry last worked for Wallace, would Parry be expected to know when the monthly collection would be there as I believe it was every four weeks so no set date.
By phoning Pru HQ and posing as a forgetful policy-holder Parry could ask whether the premium on his monthly policy would be collected this week or next. But Ged, you highlight a worrying aspect to a potential robbery plan. It is the very poor quality of the intelligence which dates from Parry’s filling-in for Wallace some three years earlier: the uncertainty about the size of the prize, whether Wallace is still using that old cash box kept in the same place and whether the paying in day has changed. Its all too airy-fairy to justify the Qualtrough preparative step.
It reminds me of “In cold blood” where Dick Hickok badgers cell mate Floyd Wells as to whether wealthy rancher Herb Clutter has a safe. Wells, who worked for Herb several year earlier has no idea but eventually tells Dick that he does. Based on this faulty intelligence Hickok, when released, meets up with ex-con Perry Smith and tragedy ensues. Total haul: a Zenith transistor radio.
I can agree somewhat Mike but Wallace was a creature of habit. He used the same times, the same days for his clients and paying in, his accountancy at home on Fridays, half days on Saturdays, the same meal times, the same days to Chess. What has worked for him before is probably what he did for life and Parry might well suspect this and at least suspect there will be some bounty or other to be had – before the Anfield burglar stumbles upon it. Let’s not forget Parry’s self confessed visits to Julia where he might glean some further information by just ‘innocently’ enquiring about William to Julia as though he’s bothered. I wonder if she might even have had time to unwittingly tip Parry off that William may be/is out visiting a client tonight…….
Josh says: One more point GED, the suspect pool is limited no matter what.
Not if he is innocent and also wrong about any Parry/Marsden connection. As is well documented, it is crazy of him if guilty to just point the finger at one or two people who might well have a solid alibi.
If we exclude that the tuesday/more money in the cash box tie in is just a coincidence, then the phone call luring away could be just about anyone, or anyone at least who knew he regularly played chess on a monday. I expect that as well as the phone no being in the chess club etched into the glass, it would also be in the telephone directory.
The chess club phone was a public coin-operated phone box which seems to have doubled as the phone of Cottle’s cafe because waitress Gladys Harley answered it’s ring several times a day. As a public phone it would not be in the usual phone directory. Qualtrough was familiar with this phone and had noted it’s number. He had probably seen Gladys answer the phone so he knew what to expect when he called on the 19 January 1931.
GED, sorry if I didn’t make myself clear enough. There just aren’t that many people who could have been able to make that call. The person has to know a lot about Wallace: his chess club attendance habits, the cash box etc. It also has to be someone Julia would let in (I know you buy the Qualtrough open sesame), and also crucially collection habits if you think the Tuesday was crucial to the plan in hoping to maximize proceeds. (And whether this even was an assumption someone would reasonably make who had worked for the pru is up for debate.)
The entire plan can only be done by a very limited number of people no matter if the goal was robbery or murder or who was behind it.
You are switching the discussion a bit to ask why Wallace Parry and Marsden, this doesn’t change how limited the suspect pool is. It is a valid question why he would restrict it two people (although a separate point than what we were talking about) but in actual fact he also mentioned Stan Young and then in a broader sense other workers at the pru. He did seem to cast particular suspicion on Parry which is not uncommon for guilty people to do this, whether or not they know the person they are fingering has an alibi or not.
You are switching the discussion a bit to ask why Wallace named Parry and Marsden, this doesn’t change how limited the suspect pool is. It is a valid question why he would restrict it to two people (although a separate point than what we were talking about) but in actual fact he also mentioned Stan Young and then in a broader sense other workers at the pru. He did seem to cast particular suspicion on Parry which is not uncommon for guilty people to do this, whether or not they know the person they are fingering has an alibi or not.
I like shepherd’s pie myself, but moderation in everything my friend. Hopefully you didn’t eat Rod’s commission for his “original” “on balance the most likely expalnation” solution.
He really needs the money man the guy is on benefits for autism from the NHS! You’re doing this dude wrong.
If there was a spent match in the folds of the crumpled mac, has anyone ever given any thought that the mac was set alight deliberately, or does the fact there were bits of macintosh possibly stamped out totally disprove this possibility. I am wondering how the match got there, maybe when the body was dragged away from the fire by the hair which would only have needed to happen if it was in danger of catching fire. This I assume is why Julia’s head ended up near the door and the opposite end from the fire.
Inspector Moore observed the body then noticing the crumpled mac tucked in at Julia’s side but not underneath her said “‘Let’s have it up.” The mac was then lifted for examination. I don’t recall any mention of a spent match in the folds of the mac before it was lifted. One may have been under the mac on the floor but it could have been there before the murder.
I think scorching of the mac happened when Julia was struck the first time and fell on the hot clays of the fire. The mac being burned at the same time is consistent with it being cast over her head as a shield from blood spray, but this is speculation. I can’t see any advantage to be gained by setting fire to the mac deliberately.
I think Julia was attacked as she turned off the gas fire on learning the musical evening wouldn’t take place, but it is possible she was lighting the fire (hence the match) but the clays would not be hot enough to scorch the mac/skirt so I prefer the “turning off” version.
I agree the body was dragged away from the fire accounting for it’s position when found.
Hi Mike. If the mac had been thrown over Julia’s head surely there would be evidence of pieces of material battered down into her skull/brain of which there is none. This I think is what somebody using the mac would have done which would also have reduced any noise made. This makes me feel that Julia had the mac around her shoulders. There are some inconsistencies about the scorch mark – 3 parallel clay marks – were there even clays on this type of fire, I can’t see any. Also no burns on the underskirt. I wonder if this scorch mark was from an earlier episode?
I’m currently looking for a copy of Dr Curwen’s statement about the Wallace’s. I don’t seem to be able to locate it on this site, any clues?
Underskirt is irrelevant because it’s flowing material, if you fall in a skirt, as you can imagine it sort of billows out. The skirts don’t stay glued together like a corset.
I hesitate to speculate about what happened in that parlour because there’s so much that we simply do not know. That said, the main risk of blood spatter on the attacker is with the first blow when the victim’s heart is pumping at full pressure. Julia falls towards the fire clays, is dragged off the fire before her underskirt is scorched and further blows (the overkill) are delivered while she’s on the floor.
The mac over Julia\s head provides a material barrier between the weapon (an iron bar presumably) and the blood pumping from the wound following that first blow. It reduces the chance of the bar spraying blood all over the room and onto the attacker.
Macs in those days were often “rubberised” to make them waterproof. I don’t think blows would drive pieces of fabric into the wound.
The fire clays are the honeycomb – patterned ceramic elements which in this fire are at about 45 degrees to the horizontal. On modern fires the clays are vertical. I think Julia fell onto the hot clays, scorched the mac and her skirt, and was then dragged away and finished off. The mac fell away from her which accounts for the spatter on the walls and furniture as the final blows were delivered.
But, as I say, its all speculation.
”The head was badly battered in on the left side above and in front of the ear, where there was a large open wound approximately half an inch by three inches, from which bone and brain substance was protruding. At the back on the left side of the head, there was a great depression of the skull, with severe wounds. The matted hair obscured the detail of the wounds.”
If the body was pulled away from the fire towards the position it was found in (to save it/the mac setting alight any further) then I cannot believe that the killer would not have blood on his hands.
I therefore expect McFall’s and Moore’s theories (and other experts subsequently) that the killer would have blood on them to be correct. Any killer could not know that a tiny splash or splatter would not be on them and found later upon examination on a piece of their clothing that it could not have got onto innocently, like when bending over the body later to examine it as in the case of Wallace.
Since this case has been basically beaten into the ground like a dead horse, I can’t really offer much new in the way of musings, but I admit to enjoying the mental masturbation of it, despite its circularity and repetitiveness, so I will once again point out what the favored theory of many here and in the meet up group requires to illustrate the implausibility of this:
1. Gordon Parry, a handsome but likely dim witted wide boy of 22 who hasn’t been at the cafe since his amateur dramatics concluded in November remembers that Wallace plays chess at the club and/or the chess notice board and concocts an elaborate scheme 2 months later to get Wallace out of the house on a particular night.
2. This scheme is a 2 day plan with elements that make no sense.
3. How does Parry know/how can he rely on that Wallace will be at the club when his attendance had been so sporadic? Either Parry was keeping tabs on Wallace or he wasn’t for the last few chess club meetups/looking at the bulletin board over the last couple months. If you argue he wasn’t, which is obviously more likely, then he got lucky that Wallace just so happened to attend that night to receive the message. Please absorb this point.
4. How can Parry be confident that the message will be relayed correctly (to be honest it seems that it might not have been at first) and more critically that Wallace will go the following night? And please don’t argue “well he did go; this is a circular argument because we don’t know if Wallace is behind the crime or not, to argue “well he did go” is presupposing that he was not.
5. What is the point of not going the Monday night and waiting another night for all this unreliable schtick to possibly unfold? Extra possible commission? How much extra?
6. Furthermore what really is the point of Parry wanting Wallace out of the house when Julia is still there to contend with? The answer I often see is it easier to sneak thieve with her just there and not William. But are you telling me there is no other way? Particularly if Parry is involving another person in this scheme. Distraction robberies which many of you guys have pointed out were relatively common at the time did not require a phone call the night before in any other case I can think of.
7. This plan requires that Parry has a sidekick who is willing to go along with ALL of this, willing to take ALL of the risk, willing to wait out another day and HOPE Wallace got the message and will leave for a sufficient amount of time the following night so as to not interrupt this sidekick, shall we call him “M” . He also must somehow be kept abreast of things by Gordon, co-ordinating with him this extremely complex plan to be commissioned and carried out in a house he has never been in before with a woman he has never met.
8. This plan, although highly flawed and laughably unreliable does have a certain complicated Moriarty esque intelligence to it. At the very least it is very complex and convoluted. We are attributing all this to a petty impulsive criminal. It appears Parry did commit a rather severe crime (seems more likely than not he raped Lily Fitzsimmons) but this plan has him as some Iago like master manipulator. None of his crimes showed planning at any point.
This is a guy who didn’t have money for bus fare at one point and was (ironically) a phone operator. The guy was a loser lol not some criminal mastermind.
8. IF all of this in fact did happen as claimed, and “M” made noise or drew attention to himself fiddling with the cashbox, the vicious silencing of Julia would be very unusual. M would be much better off running away, knocking her out once at worst etc. The whole point is she doesn’t know him, so he wouldn’t be easily identified. One tries not to backwards rationalize too much (a great and unfortunate crime of logic committed by many commentators on this case), so I will grant we may not know for certain what a highly strung robber might do. But 11 vicious bloody blows speaks of something more personal and is unnecessarily over the top to a bizarre degree to silence/attempt to silence her. Let us recall that the cashbox is not even in the same room as where Julia was struck.
Please look up the statistics on mortal blunt force head trauma and who the perpetrator overwhelmingly likely is, particularly if the victim is a married female.
Hi Josh, a fair but not totally convincing summary I would think it more fair to say.
Are you saying, (your words), the plan was complex and convoluted which required some criminal mastermind so is more likely to be Wallace and yet this same fella didn’t think ahead enough to know all he had to say was the bolt was on and even Mrs Draper had trouble with the back door – job done. I’m sure Julia/Sarah Draper would have made Wallace aware of the back door lock problem and so Wallace could easily use this excuse. As it was even Flo Johnston couldn’t open the front door.
I would also say that a little planning might go into robbing from phone boxes or robbing cars. I don’t believe that Parry was ever just walking past a phone box and thought hey up, a phone box. He would have thought beforehand, i’ll get some money tomorrow or later from a phone box in town and if I don’t get enough to get home, I can always try some car doors etc… Was there no planning in abducting and raping Lily Fitzsimmons, he must have known where to take her to that wasteland for instance.
One thing i’ve thought of though. If it was Parry who made the phone call. Would’nt it have been more beneficial to him to speak directly to Wallace? This would surely have reduced the possibility of other members in the club discussing it and therefore Wallace finding out in advance that there was no such place. I’ve often wondered why a real place but a bit further out, maybe in Garston or Speke would not have served the same purpose to keep Wallace out for a couple of hours.
You see I have my preferred theory but it does not mean I also have a closed mind.
Thanks. My mind isn’t made up completely. If I was a juror I probably wouldn’t convict Wallace. I don’t think it’s beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think there are mistakes and confusing elements to the plan regardless of who was behind it. Whether it was Parry and a planned robbery or Wallace planning to kill his wife, both made errors in both the call and commissioning out of the crime.
But from a profiling standpoint, I think such a convoluted, complex call is more likely to be made by a middle aged, intelligent, possibly (probably) embittered and spiteful man than a petty pleasure seeking crook. It is just one way of looking at it though and not conclusive.
I will admit that the mention of a 21st and the supposed Parry prank calls at the garage raise an eyebrow so my mind isn’t totally closed either.
One other reconciliation of things would obviously be that Wallace hired Parry to place the call as part of a conspiracy, but I decided this creates more problems than it solves.
An interesting twist on this would be Wallace having Parry make the call on some false pretext.
Overall I think Wallace probably did it all by himself but to about a confidence level of about 80 to 85 percent. Maybe him having involvement in some way so being essentially guilty (either doing it himself or hiring it done) I could put at 90 to 95 percent but this doesn’t rise to beyond a reasonable doubt which to me is more like 97.5 percent plus.
I think the Goodman files if you look on this site about Parry are interesting. I had already read the account about the meeting with Parryin 1966 but that page has two versions of the account, the 2nd which has slightly different and new details to me.
It seems to me Goodman and RWE were very rigid thinkers with an unjustified level of confidence in their belief. Interestingly, RWE apparently changed his mind some years later fingering Wallace as the likely culprit in a mediocre book (somewhere between Antony’s and Shakespeare) he wrote with his wife.
Roger Wilkes also seemed to change his mind as he endorses Gannon’s book.
And the infamous Mark R. also seemed to change his mind because the tone of his posts on yoliverpool indicated an “I don’t know but I’m leaning somewhat towards innocence” vibe the entire way…
Thanks Josh. I will read the Goodman files again. I think Wallace working with A.N. Other (especially Parry can be ruled out) Wallace wouldn’t even need to go home from work and could make his way straight to MGE at an earlier time, making the phone call appointment 7pm instead. This puts him nowhere near the house and out of the frame totally.
If Wallace were to procure the services of Parry as the caller on another false pretext, I’m sure then that Parry would have come forward when the poo hit the pan, Taking great delight too in getting revenge on Wallace.
Regarding the Goodman files. If we believe Goodman & RWE are not liars like Parry, Pritchard and others… then what does Parry mean by the following:
a)” I promised my father that not for £2000 would I discuss the case” (why not? What was Parry’s father afraid of his son revealing)
b) There are certain facts that only he knew about the case.
c) ”Trouble over the case definitely shortened his mother’s life”. (why would it – what trouble? – Ada Cook incident and possibly others?
d) Trouble over the case caused a rift between himself and Lily Lloyd. (why would it? What trouble. The fact Lily wanted to retract her statement – whether the time she gave initially mattered anyway or not – suggests that she was asked or coerced into providing a false time, even if that time was later than the murder so why?
e) He implied Wallace was a ”sadist, pervert and a strange man. ” Was this information gleaned from his clandestine meetings with Julia? How did Parry and Julia arrange these and why? How would Parry know when Wallace was out or that Amy Wallace would not be calling etc? These meetings took some planning yet Parry was not a planner to read some views on here and elsewhere?
I think Parry was toying with J Goodman and RW-E on his doorstep. His father was wise to advise Parry not to discuss the case. There was nothing for him to gain and anything he said, especially to a writer like JG, could be twisted and might re-ignite the dead embers of the case.
Parry’s remark that he knew more about the case is pure braggadocio (“Wouldn’t you like to know?”)
He didn’t give details of Wallace’s supposed sexual proclivities, merely remarking that W was sexually “odd.” Which may have been another throw-away line to get JG/RW-E salivating.
Lily Lloyd allegedly recanting her timing of Parry’s arrival at her home implies that in a case of brutal murder of a defenceless woman in her own home Lily was prepared to give false information to help the guy she was expecting to marry!!
“Trouble over the case shortened his mother’s life.” Impossible to confirm this but I can imagine the police checking out Parry’s car, clothing, alibis, etc wouldn’t help any family member of a nervous disposition especially as they knew Parry got up to all kinds of mischief and may have wondered whether in fact he was involved.
In summary, if guilty, Parry would have had nothing to do with these two writers. At this point the case was dead and he would want it to remain so. His constant smile throughout the interview says a lot.
You see, I am not putting Parry in the frame here, Parry is……..He wants to be.
As i’ve said before, if Wallace is committing this murder, he is home from 18.05 yet I am expected to believe that instead, he decides to wait until Close calls as this shows Julia was still alive at 18.35 to 18.40 and yet it is only by luck that Close comes forward, Wallace doesn’t even use him as his alibi that he had no time to do it. Very strange for a man facing the noose.
I think Wallace was unaware that Close was running late due to his broken bike. Close’s usual time for milk delivery was shortly after 6.00 pm which would give Wallace, as you say, more than enough time to do it, clean up, and get underway. He wanted Julia to be seen by Close whatever time he came. He planned the murder for immediately afterwards with a quick departure for the tram. If Close had delivered at his usual time the tight time window could be a ~6.15 pm murder and boarding a tram at ~6.30 pm “To be in good time to find 25 MGE as I didn’t know where it was.” Otherwise the last independent sighting of a living Julia was by Neil Norbury the bread boy at ~ 4.00 pm.
It was only by luck, and reluctantly, that Close came forward but if he hadn’t, a routine enquiry of regular deliveries in Wolverton Street would have quickly identified him. I agree that it is strange that Wallace’s defence didn’t make a key point out of the tight time window between Close’s delivery and Wallace boarding the 7.06 pm tram.
But the tight timing was part of Wallace’s plan whatever time Close made his delivery. In my humble opinion, as always!
Wallace asks 3 tram staff en route to Menlove Avenue. Btw, only when he alights does he say I am a complete stranger to this area. If we believe he only recognises Green Lane (where Joseph Crewe lives) a little later after walking the length of Menlove Gardens North to its end at Green Lane, (which is further along Menlove Ave) then indeed he was, as he always approached Crewe’s house via Allerton Road on a different tram route.
Wallace then speaks to 7 people up at Menlove. It can seem excessive but it is also excessive and more than he needs even if he is guilty as he only needs Katie Mather and the Post office for instance as proof, they wouldn’t be able to deny he was there and then he gets lucky with PC Serjeant so these will do. Although the constable says it doesn’t exist, why does he then suggest the police station or post office directory (just in case?) We know the area was still being built.
Also take into consideration Wallace’s trip after release to buy some shoes in Manchester. Doesn’t he go overboard there in asking everyone with the ‘tongue in his head’.
Let’s now move to Parry’s alibi for the murder night.
Lo and behold he goes over and above with 7 people too. Assuming Parry was asked to cover his movements right up until when Wallace spoke to the Johnston’s in his back yard at 20.45, Parry tells us he was with Olivia Brine, Harold Denison and Savona Brine before going out to 3 shops and finishing up at Mrs Williamsons. (Mr Williamson on the 1981 Radio City 50th Anniversary phone in does not even mention that Parry called on the murder night Hmmm – you’d think he would have) Lily Lloyd is then his last port of call (Though Lily will later change her statement that he in fact arrived later)
Parry’s alibi for Mon 19th.
As we know, this is a complete fabrication. If he didn’t make the call he can tell the truth. If he did, he can’t. If we take Lily Lloyd’s statement into account, Parry was 150 yards away from Cottle’s cafe that evening.
Hi Mike. You said:
It was only by luck, and reluctantly, that Close came forward but if he hadn’t, a routine enquiry of regular deliveries in Wolverton Street would have quickly identified him. I agree that it is strange that Wallace’s defence didn’t make a key point out of the tight time window between Close’s delivery and Wallace boarding the 7.06 pm tram.
There seems to have been a lot of luck for this to have worked as it did.
Lucky Wallace saw PC Serjeant up at Menlove
Lucky the Johnston’s were coming out like never before at 8.45pm to an unplanned visit to a daughters they were moving into next day
Lucky that Close came forward and that Wallace having used Close’s chat to Julia as part of his alibi, he never mentioned it in any statement.
However Mike, I would say that the defence did use it once known. Doesn’t it in fact form the crux of it couldn’t have been Wallace in that short time frame.
Do we believe this?
If we do, did Julia leave the back gate and door open for Parry to visit that night.
Did he come in and sneak someone in with him that Julia wasn’t aware of and it all went wrong from there. Parry might think to himself, if he stays within sight of Julia for his length of time there, then he cannot be blamed for any later discovered theft.
This does away with someone knocking on the font door as Q. Nobody was heard at the front door that evening.
Against this clandestine visit scenario we have Parry’s Brine alibi for the murder evening which satisfied the police. To place Parry at 29 Wolverton Street on the murder evening this alibi has to be rigged which in a case of brutal murder I cannot believe. And why would Julia choose this evening for Parry’s visit when he had long periods every day when Wallace was absent?
No neighbour ever heard music in the afternoons which would have been the case if Parry, as he claimed, visited Julia behind Wallace’s back. In brief, we have only Parry’s word that he visited Julia. Why would he volunteer this information as it draws him closer to the Wallace couple. If it was true I’d expect him to keep quiet about it.
Thanks Mike, so we have JG and RWE to add to the ever growing list of liars that keeps Parry out the frame.
Why didn’t W just stage a break in during a chess night, make a better do of the robbery, he could have said any amount of personal money had been taken and let the blame fall on the never identified Anfield housebreaker.
I don’t think JG and RW-E were liars. I do think they approached their 1960’s Parry interview already convinced he was Julia’s killer. His bogus charm and confident attitude confirmed this for them, although RW-E later changed his mind. I think Parry enjoyed playing with their feet with his throw away “revelations” about Wallace, the secret visits to No 29. and his store of knowledge which he wasn’t going to reveal even for £2,000. “That should give them something to think about.” And it did – we’re still discussing it 60 years on as if every word is Holy Writ instead of a shoal of red herrings.
I can’t make a judgement on Ada Cook whether she’s honest, mistaken, or making it up due to lack of information on her character etc.
With Parry’s cocksure wide-boy persona he would enjoy tricking these nosey journalists. He (P) may well be telling the truth but blind acceptance of every word he says is unwise where there isn’t any supporting evidence that his nuggets of information are true: Wallace being odd, the secret trysts with Julia, and him knowing more about the case than he is prepared to reveal. Scepticism is justified.
Parry’s “revelations” in this interview suggest he was much more than the lad, barely out of his teens, who helped Wallace with collections three years earlier when he was ill. He portrays himself not only as having intimate knowledge of the Wallaces but knowing much about the murder itself. Why would a guilty Parry do this? Surely he would want to distance himself from the whole business saying he met Wallace occasionally in the street and they exchanged a few friendly words but in fact he had little contact with Wallace or Julia in the last few years
Either way he was, thirty years after the murder, home and dry and he found it amusing to throw out these straws in the wind. Wallace remarked to a client on his rounds that he suspected “a friend of my wife” (i.e. not one of “my” friends) of the murder. Maybe Parry did visit behind Wallace’s back and Wallace discovered these clandestine visits and this was, along with other things, enough to bring about the tragedy.
So we have a theory there and are fitting the facts to measure.
We can’t have a ‘Parry is making it up’ as his defence and then a ‘Parry is right about his trysts’ and this is why Wallace killed her.
Regarding Parkes.
He said the baffling thing was, Parry had no blood on him and he couldn’t fathom it out. If his statement is all fantasy, why didn’t he just go the whole hog and say Parry was covered in blood and be done with it.
I am just presenting alternative interpretations of the evidence. It could be Parry is making it up to befuddle JG/RW-E or he could be telling an embellished version of the truth. In my view he’s playing with them but I can’t prove I’m right and I may well be wrong. That however is my considered opinion, no more.
The thing about Parkes for me is that in the recording of his interview with Roger Wilkes he comes across as totally believable. The story is told clearly with conviction and he regrets that there was no independent witness “to back him up.” Just imagine if it was true and nobody believed him because it is on the face of it literally unbelievable. But unbelievable things do sometimes happen.
Parkes is labelled by some as an old man and is not to be believed, on his deathbed etc. He lived a whole year after this and it wasn’t dementia he had. Also there is no record of him receiving any money for this, that was a go between trying to make a fast buck to put JG in touch with him.
We have to take Parkes story in two parts. There are things he says he saw and heard first hand. This to me if correct can not be anything but undeniable. That is as I say as long he too hasn’t embellished anything, but why not embellish blood being on Parry?
The second part is where he says he heard or was told second hand, The Ellis delivery driver for instance. This part is less believable, almost totally unbelievable but he is trying to make sense of why Parry had no blood on him so is giving it some credence.
What Parkes hasn’t taken into account is Parry having an accomplice.
Hi Ged, I agree that we have to distinguish between what Parkes says he witnessed first hand, and bits of information which he picked up later (borrowed fisherman’s cape/waders etc.) In a way we cannot hold him responsible for this latter and more outlandish part because he’s just repeating what he heard from others. I also picked up the detail that Parry hurried away and didn’t linger once the car was washed. Was this to avoid the chance of a taxi turning up with the driver as a witness to his visit?
And as you say, what did Parkes gain from this story? Without a witness it was deniable by Parry but by telling the Atkinsons about it Parkes put himself in some danger. I’m sure they didn’t keep such a hot potato to themselves.
Its the detail of the mitten which bugs me. Why not just say it was a glove?
On balance it happened as Parkes said and either
1 Parry was in a panic because he had been saddled with the bloody glove by his accomplices on learning that things had gone wrong.
2 Parry played a sick practical joke on the gullible Parkes.
If you twist my arm I’d have to go for No 2. But its a puzzle.
A further thought: Parkes repeated the story he was told about the cape/oilskins etc without any indication that he didn’t believe it. In fact he seemed to think it supported his story of Parry’s involvement. Does this show that Parkes was a gullible fellow who would believe anything he was told?
I don’t think it happened as Parkes said. I believe something happened during a possibly panicked visit to the garage. The veracity of the details has to be called into question.
Also note: Parkes says it happened the night of the killing at 1 am; this is integral to his story. But Parry has a police interview running past night 2 nights later from the 22nd into early morning of the 23rd.
To me it seems more logical Parry visited the garage after that and maybe explained the police pressure he was under. Parts of Parkes story are almost definitely not true and some seem like they might be untrue (which night it was.)
This imo casts considerable doubt on the accuracy of the claims made. Parry also clearly wasn’t loved by anyone at the garage.
I don’t know what condition Parkes was in at the time of the interview but permission had to be given by his son so that says something, no? I would also argue he sounds somewhat out of it but that might be a matter of interpretation.
Hi Mike. Ref Parkes gullibility. Parkes was certainly not detective material and I think he’s trying to make sense out of why Parry had no blood on him and like I say if he’s making this up out of some anger or dislike against Parry A) Why not say he had blood on him. B) Why not go to the police no matter what Mr Atkinson says and C) Why put himself in danger by peddling such a story about a man he is clear wary of, it just makes no sense. Having to watch his back, look over his shoulder, change his route from the back entry to the main road etc.
Also regarding him not being Detective material. A) He hasn’t put two and two together that Parry isn’t the killer but his accomplice was. B) The real detectives were not very good either in thinking from day 1 that Q has to be the killer.
Hi Josh. Parkes to me sounds very alert and is recounting something from 50 years earlier like it was yesterday, there are no hesitations or eerms or pauses or corrections. It is only etiquette that permission should be sought to speak to a man that is after all obviously ill in hospital and about something he might not want to talk about. Let’s not forget that as well as telling the Atkinson’s this story at the time, the go between also knew it so he has not kept this to himself or seemingly made it up. It’s just a pity Parkes wasn’t pressed more about the alleged second visit by Parry (and a friend – Denison?) the day after where Parkes was told to keep quiet.
Also if you read the transcript of what Parkes says he is clearly meaning 1am to mean 5 hours after the murder and not 1am on the Thursday. Why would Parry keep the car a whole 29 hours after the murder to clean it. Parkes says he came in after he spoke to Constable Ken Wallace.
The alleged second visit by Parry + friend to the garage must have been late at night when Parkes was starting his night shift. It has always been inferred that this was to remind Parkes to keep quiet about Parry’s visit the night before but I can’t recall seeing this stated explicitly anywhere.
The fact that Parry was with a friend supports the notion of an accomplice.
I agree that Parry is unlikely to have waited until after his police interview late on Thursday evening to get the car washed. Something that would have raised police eyebrows if they found out about it.
We are expected to believe that Wallace had all of 9 minutes (Less according to Alan Closes’ original statement and that of Wildman and Wright) to commit the murder making sure not a speck of blood got onto him, clean up, get out, dispose of the weapon and then act quite naturally, not anxious or out of breath – to no fewer than 9 people who he offered himself up to that night (as much is made of)
Likewise, we are equally expected to believe (by some) that Parry was the killer or at least knew about the murder but was able to present himself to his young lady Lily Lloyd sometime after 9pm where he stayed for a couple of hour unperturbed by it all.
He, as the murderer can only be possible if his alibi for say 7.30 to 8.30 is a lie. Brine and his best mates brother, Harold Denison offer an alibi. Is it fake or not? The 8.30pm overly detailed alibi/s are not required. Is this a question of being overly detailed when it doesn’t really matter and they don’t have to be but being unusually devoid of anything substantial when it does matter? There is no statement made by Savona Brine, Olivia’s 13 year old daughter, nor by a Miss Plant who Brine says called but neither Parry nor Harold mention her.
If Parry is just the driver who collects his accomplice at 8.30pm and is told of the robbery gone wrong resulting in the killing, and knows of the bloodied glove then I doubt he’d be driving around with it all calmly to the Lloyds until 11pm – Unless…. he doesn’t know about the glove or the killing at that point and only goes to meet his accomplice/s at 11pm – and then we have the Parkes story?
There are still things to make sense of such as why a mitten – hardly any use in a robbery. Does the accomplice put the glove in the compartment without Parry even knowing and then when Parkes opens it, there it is and the impromptu shock and unrehearsed babbling from Parry?
When Wallace comes home after being at Menlove. He tries the front door which is his normal way of entering when that late at night. I need to understand if it is documented anywhere how he found the back yard gate and back door into the house once he went around the back to try to gain entry into the house.
The gate was obviously unbolted but it should not have been. Was it wide open or closed over? Some gates will automatically swing closed. Was the back door into the house bolted or locked with a key because Wallace and the Johnston’s seem to say he just turned the knob but it wasn’t working. Why would he expect to be able to gain entry into the back door by just turning the knob if the routine would be for Julia to lock or bolt this from inside once Wallace goes out at night time. I expect he could say Julia normally bolts it but the killer must have unbolted it to escape but how about a key lock, did it even have one, I would suspect so?
There was a mention in one book of a car with people, possibly hawkers selling something like maybe a vacuum cleaner, in Wolverton Street on the afternoon of the murder. Men calling at the houses whilst a woman was sat in the car. I can’t find it now, can anybody pinpoint it please?
I can’t be certain but I think this comes from Mark Russell’s book “Checkmate. They called at the Holmes house; it was to do with the repair of an Electrolux device. I will check it out later.
At approx 3.45 pm a car pulled up outside 27 Wolverton St. Mrs Holme answered the door to 2 men. A woman sat in the back of the car. The men said they were from Electrolux in response to a complaint Mrs Holme had made about her appliance. The men examined it, said it was OK but she could part-exchange for a new one. The man said he would call back in a few days’ time.
Source: “Checkmate” p 23.
All from statements and itemised brilliantly on this site by RMQ. There is no way Alan Close was on that doorstep before 6.35 and more likely around 6.40. (see below) This fits in with W saying he might have been getting ready upstairs when the milk was delivered as he didn’t hear or know if it had been. 5 minutes later at 6.45 he was being seen out of the back gate by Julia, it all fits like a jigsaw.
Lets bear in mind, the whole idea of this phone call for a visit up to Menlove is for a guilty Wallace to introduce another person, the killer into the fold but in no way does it act as an alibi for him because he never attempts to use Alan Close as an alibi/witness at 6.40 so as far as he thinks, and the police think (until Alan Close comes forward and puts a spanner in the works) he still has from 6.05 until 645 (maybe 6.49 according to the Anfield Harriers) to commit this murder.
Taken from this site/the witness statements of the delivery kids.
After the police time tests had been carried out. According to Radio City interviews, the police were not pleased with Alan’s 18:45 claim and said something along the lines of “well if you aren’t sure, maybe it was 18:35.”
As per Elsie Wright, Wolverton Street is his last stop before Redford Street. According to Allan to get to Redford Street he walks onto Richmond Park and along from there. Allan says he checked his watch at Redford Street (~0.1 miles, a ~2 minute walk at an average walking speed) and noted the time was 18:45. His watch is 1 or 2 minutes fast so that would make it 18:43 or 18:44 when he checked his watch. He therefore may have left the doorstep of 29 Wolverton Street (if it was his last stop in the street) at around 18:41 by his own watch.
This aligns more with the statements of other delivery boys and girls who were around at the time.
Allison Wildman (the oldest witness) implies that Elsie Wright was in fact waiting for Allan in Wolverton Street. She does not make mention of this herself, only references the time she passed him. Wildman claims to have arrived in Wolverton Street at around 19:37 or 19:38, by passing through an entry by “Campbell’s Dancing Rooms”. According to John Gannon he would emerge “5 doors down from 29 Wolverton Street”, presumably this would then mean the entry beside 21 Wolverton Street.
Wildman delivers papers at various houses in Wolverton Street: Nos. 28, 27, 22, 20, and 18 (as seen, most on the “Evens” side of the street, which would be across the road). At the time he got to and completed the delivery of the newspaper at 27 Wolverton Street (the Holme’s house) having presumably walked up from 21 Wolverton Street, he said the milk boy was still standing at the doorstep of Wolverton Street which was wide open.
The order he delivers papers in the street was not stated, but one can assume it would probably be most convenient to deliver at #27 first since it is the side of the road he emerges on, then cross the road diagonally to 28 (situated right at the top of the road), walking down to 22, 20, then 18 to complete the “Evens” side deliveries. Just a few doors down from #18 there is an entry which he would go through to get to Redford Street.
Walter Holme of 27 Wolverton Street stated he usually receives his newspaper delivery from Wildman at 18:40. The sound he heard regarding the door of 29 Wolverton Street (apparently ~5 minutes before this) could not then be Julia closing the door on Allan, because Allan was still at the doorstep of #29 with the door wide open after Wildman delivered the paper to Mr. Holme and departed that evening.
According to Allan he waited on the step for one or two minutes before Julia returned with the empty milk jugs, they then exchanged a few short words about their respective illnesses. Wildman did not see or hear Alan speaking to anyone and did not see Julia at the door of Wolverton Street. We may say that the door closed on Allan at 19:39 to 19:41 depending on the length of conversation and how soon after Wildman departed she arrived back at the door with the empty jugs. Unfortunately Wildman did not say whether the milk boy was still in the road after he completed all five of his newspaper deliveries in the street. Only that the boy was still standing at the step when he left #27.
Nobody had noticed any light coming from 29 Wolverton Street’s parlour, the only light noticed was then in the middle kitchen.
Elsie Wright (Allan’s Coworker):
ELSIE WRIGHT of 63, Sedley Street, Anfield, Liverpool, Schoolgirl, will say:-
I am 13 years of age, and work mornings and evenings at Close’s Dairy, 51, Sedley Street. Alan Close is the son of the people who keep the Dairy. It was his job to deliver milk in Wolverton Street and other neighbouring streets, and I delivered in Pendennis Street, which is next to Sedley Street. Sometimes if Alan was late I would do the deliveries in Wolverton Street. I did so on Monday 19th January, and among other houses I called at 29, Wolverton Street, where Mrs. Wallace took the milk in. I know her, but not Mr. Wallace.
On Tuesday evening, 20th January, I left our shop at about ten past six, and Alan was then out delivering in Breck Road, on a bicycle. Before going to Wolverton Street, he would come back to the shop, put in the bicycle, and get cans, which he would deliver on foot.
I went to deliver in Twyford Street, and then came down Breck Road. It would take me about five minutes to get to Twyford Street, and I would be about another five minutes delivering there. It runs into Breck Road, and when I came back into Breck Road I heard the bells of the Belmont Institute ringing for half past six service. I then went to the Vicarage of Holy Trinity in Richmond Park, and was kept there for about five minutes. Before I got to the Vicarage the bells had stopped. When I left the Vicarage I went up Richmond Park towards Letchworth Street, where I was going to deliver. I passed Alan Close on foot holding cans while I was in Letchworth Street. I then delivered at my Aunt’s house, No. 12, Letchworth Street. When I passed Alan he was going in the direction of Wolverton Street. His round is Letchworth Street, Richmond Park, Wolverton Street, and Redford Street. When I passed him it would be about twenty to seven. [E.M.W. this was his regular round & he goes on it every day.]
The next morning I asked Close if he had delivered milk to Mrs. Wallace the previous night, and he said “Yes”. No time was then mentioned. When I saw him again in the evening in the Dairy we talked about it again and I asked him what time he got to Mrs. Wallace’s, and he said “Oh, about a quarter to seven“. He said he had been on his way there when he met me.
Later, I met Metcalf and another boy in Richmond Park, and Kenneth Caird came up later on. We talked about the murder, and Metcalf asked me if Close had told the Police that he was at the house the night before. I said he had not, and just then Close came up shortly after Caird had joined us. Metcalf said to Close “You ought to go and tell the Police you were at the Wallace’s”. Then he asked him what time he was there, and Close said “A quarter to seven”. Alan said he had not said to the Police he had been there the previous night. Metcalf said “If you’ll go back we’ll go with you”. He said it was most important to tell the Police. We all went to Wolverton Street with Close, and we knocked at the door. A Policeman came and said “What, you back again?” (This was said because Close and I had called the same evening to see if Milk was wanted). Close said “I’ve come to tell you that Mrs. Wallace answered the door to us last night”. I did not hear him say any time. The Policeman told him to come in, and we waited.
On the way up the passage to 29, Wolverton Street, Close had said something about being the missing link, and had treated it all as rather a joke.
I did not know Close had told the Police half past six until I saw it in the paper. The time was first given in the paper as 6.35, and then it became 6.31. I have never mentioned it to Close, as I didn’t think it was anything to do with me. The Police have never interviewed me.
In our place we do not have any delivery books or anything else of the kind.
The scenario and timings given in the above account would be more convincing if the various witnesses had been wearing synchronised watches which recorded the exact time at each stage. Clearly this was not so and instead we have the recollections of youngsters going about their normal jobs as they did on every evening. At best, the times which they give are approximate and estimates to within five or even ten minutes are more valid than the 6.41s or 6.34’s which feature here.
Mrs Johnston estimated her milk delivery on that evening to be about 6.30 pm which might indicate a window between 6.25 pm and 6.35 pm.
Nest we have the unreliability of Alan Close’s testimony. On the stand he denied saying “missing link,” denied being reluctant to go to the police and denied being persuaded by his pals to do so. I can almost hear the doubt in Judge Wright’s voice when he asked him pointedly” “You did SEE Mrs Wallace, didn’t you?”
None of this proves that Wallace had time to spare for the murder. It does however cast doubt on any claim that these given timings exonerate him.
Did you consult your watch at around 7 pm last night? What time did it give?
All times are likely to be approximate with various degrees of closeness unless there is a fixed point in time like church bells and call log times. Elsie’s “5 minutes” of conversation is approximate whereas the bells are not (and 5 minutes of thrilling conversation might feel like 2, and 5 minutes of boring old biddies might feel like 10). The only possibility where the bells are not accurate would be a lapse in memory regarding when the bells were heard by her, or some human error at the church in regards to ringing them. But it is quite a safe point in time.
People ought to try to remember exact events and their respective times and order from yesterday, and see how close you are (many devices and websites log precise times, your comment was at 9.41 am for example, which can be used as reference).
There are 2 things that time this delivery. Holy Trinity Clock and the Church Bells of the Institution, so no need for unreliable youngsters at all though Mike. We know from the Church Bells alone which had ended before Elsie Wright even got to the Vicarage and she was kept there for about five minutes she says. If the church bells ring for even only 2 minutes, this means it’s 6.37 when Elsie sets off for Letchworth street and passes Alan Close on his way to Wolverton Street. Meantime James Wildman says he arrived in Wolverton st at 6.37-6.38 and he still has to make a few paper deliveries on the evens sides before crossing over to post into the Holmes letterbox where he sees Close on the doorstep of No.29.
Close would normally be delivering the milk at about 6.30 but for his bike being broken so perhaps Flo Johnston is working on usual times and we do tend to round up or down to quarters when recalling ‘about’ times but we know for sure it is not 6.30 due to the bells, the bells as Quasimodo (not Qualtrough) might say.
So to repeat, what do we have. A phone call by Wallace that does not even prevent him being the killer from 6.05 until 6.49. A phone call made at 7.20 when he knows he has to meet his chess opponent by 7.45 therefore he could have made the call at 7pm. He also knows he has to speak face to face to the person he’ll be trading a 5 minute call with, re-reading back the Qualtrough spelling etc.
For me, the Police got to Alan Close. A fairer test would have been taking Elsie Wrights fool proof version of the bells timing before starting his round timing. It’s a bit like the tram tests, all skewed in the balance of the police agenda.
Sometime in the mid 1960’s a GI was on Route 66 in New Mexico hitching rides back to his base. A limousine appeared and pulled up. The driver had spent time in the army in Germany and they swapped tales of military life. Three of the driver’s pals were seated in the back. En route they stopped at a roadside diner to use the bathroom, creating something of a stir.
Back at his base, the soldier couldn’t wait to tell his pals: the driver had been Elvis Presley on his way to Hollywood to make another of those ghastly films. His mates accused him of spending too long in the sun. They didn’t believe it.
On his day off he returned to the diner, remembering that photos had been taken. He obtained copies and was able to show himself with his new chum, Elvis.
I often think of this tale in relation to John Parkes’ story. Sometimes, something absolutely unbelievable…is true.
I am drawn back to the kids statements, they are adamant Close said In these words – A Quarter to Seven, not 6,30 to 6.45 – not even 6.45 as kids don’t often use timings in this way but say twenty past, twenty five to etc – certainly little scousers would.
Wildman looked at Holy Trinity Church clock at 25 to 7 and it takes him 2 minutes to walk to Wolverton st (about right) When he walked away from No27 Close was still on the step of 29.
Wright heard the bells and saw the clock, after the Vicarage she still had to go to Letchworth st where she passed Close on his way to Wolverton st. Without any corroboration with Wildman at all these times fit in.
Caird and Metcalfe are equally as adamant with what they all heard but they don’t have to just believe Close said ‘A Quarter to 7’ they lived it too, they knew it was about right due to their own timings.
Hemmerde does his best bless him to try to bully the kids into thinking they heard it differently but they’re having none of it. He tries to question how long it was since the boys gave statements to the police and did they speak to Munro before or afterwards etc but luckily these children had all told their parents straight away once the murder became apparent. They weren’t remembering from 2 weeks or a month ago but from the very night afterwards.
The important thing here is, the phone call does not give Wallace an alibi, it only introduces the possibility of another person that cold have done this. Why then point the finger at Parry who might have a solid alibi, he has his suspect, Qualtrough.
GED I’m not sure why this is debatable. There is a plethora of evidence that the time was around 6:37 when the door opened/the convo happened and you could maybe say the door closed at about 6:38. Almost everything carefully analyzed the kids said corroborated mske this like pieces to a puzzle. It’s beyond reproach imo. This is the timing that Antony himself uses btw.
In that case Wallace is innocent because to do all he had to do takes more than the 11 minutes which the police say he could have done it in as they agree 7.49 is the latest he could have left, if we take the Anfield Harriers timings seriously and he only has 7 minutes if he left at 6.45pm when he said he did. Add to this that it’s only Alan Close being so late and coming forward to throws all this doubt. Basically Wallace being Qualtrough makes no real sense in that Wallace still had from 6.05 until 6.49 without the pesky Alan Close. If you are going to say Wallace introduced Qualtrough as the person getting him out of the house then he doesn’t even have to point at Parry who might have a cast iron alibi (and he supposedly does), he has his man, Qulatrough, the person he invented.
It doesn’t take more than 11 minutes. It is definitely interesting to point out the various mistakes he made when slaughtering his wife, clearly he isn’t as ingenious as he thought.
Gerard, I find the fixation on the time factor interesting as the difference between what Wallace claimed and the police admitted was the latest he could have left is a mere 4 minutes. I think it’s a red herring.
He has enough time either way particularly since the benzidine test has been demonstrated as nonsense (and the weapon could easily have been a household object), particularly if he was waiting to spur into action as soon as Close leaves and act as quickly as possible. The facts and timing seem to fit that scenario very well just like facts of time and distance for him very well for the previous night of the call.
The other points you’ve made are separate threads, not sure what they have to do with the timing, you just sort of threw them in there but we can re litigate those too and I can again show you the error of your ways if you would really like.
A good summary of what probably happened Josh. A few additional remarks:
I don’t think the milk delivery was any part of Wallace’s original plan because if Alan had not been delayed the milk may well have been delivered already when Wallace arrived home at ~ 6.05 pm. Alan’s lateness gave Wallace a problem; he could not murder Julia until after the milk had been delivered because Julia not answering Alan’s knock, or himself taking in the milk, would cause suspicion of Wallace. He also wanted to wait until the Echo had been delivered in order to place it, opened at the central pages, on the kitchen table to suggest Julia having had time to read part of it.
Regarding the time available to him, detailed discussion is futile because we have only estimates not facts. I would just say that an awful lot can be done within a few minutes if one is determined.
It is possible the mac, in addition to it’s role as a shield from blood spatter was used as a cover for the body acting as a blanket to delay cooling. It was found at the side of the body with no part trapped underneath it.
The first tram: it is likely that Wallace used the request stop on Belmont Road to the right of Castlewood Road and not the stop he claimed he used (a further 275 yards at St Margaret’s Church). The request stop was much closer to his home.
I have a couple extra minutes now so just a couple notes
1. The end of the 2nd to last paragraph contains a typo but I mean it’s interesting isn’t it how for both the night of the murder and the call Wallace is exactly in the frame but only just so which matches up very well for him having been both the caller and killer but tried to act as quickly as possible.
2. Wallace has an incentive to make it seem like someone else could be the killer so it’s better if she is killed as late as possible. He cannot know how good or poor of a job Mcfall will do (obviously as we know he did an atrocious job.) Also, if he remembers the milk boy is coming he will not want to act until the milk boy has come, seen Julia as per usual, and then gone.
3. The introduction of Qualtrough in the event of Wallace’s guilt would be an attempt to make it seems that someone else designed this. It’s not a common crime and Wallace knew few people. Distraction robberies were common, crimes like this were not. He is limited somewhat but a narrowest suspect pool but it is the best he can do. The focusing on a particularly suspicious false suspect happens all the time when crimes are committed without people knowing what kind of alibi the suspects they are trying to divert blame onto may have.
About the mackintosh – from Flo Johnston who also report Wallace breaking down sobbing, shoulders heaving, hands to face a number of times, so no real coldness about him at all as is sometimes reported.
” I looked, and saw the mackintosh tucked round her body, behind her, and touching the body. She looked as if she was lying on it. It looked as though a knock had come to the front door, and she had pulled the mackintosh round her shoulders, as she had a cold, before answering the knock.”
She was one of the first 3 people along with Wallace and her husband to see the mac, before it had been manhandled and held up by the police was Wallace to identify.
If Julia did, as Mrs Johnston suggests, put the mac around her shoulders to answer the front door to admit a visitor wouldn’t we expect her to put it back on the hall stand as she passed it before ushering the visitor into the parlour?
The macintosh was “tucked round her body” (actually only on the right hand side) and it may well have given the impression that she was lying on it but when Inspector Moore said “Let’s have it up” it was lifted without any need to move the body.
The mac was found close to Julia’s body parallel to it along it’s full length and giving Mrs Johnston the impression of having been “tucked in.” Unfortunately the mac had been raised for examination by the time the crime scene photos were taken and it is no longer in it’s original position.
Wallace’s mac was 50 inches long and in my view there is no way that it would have fallen with the body and ended up in this neat parallel “tucked in” position. It is however consistent with the mac being used as a blanket to cover the body to retain body temperature and delay cooling. I also suspect the gas fire was left on a low light withe same objective. On Wallace\s “discovery” of the body he simply lifted it on the left hand side placed it in the parallel position in which it was found. He then turned off the fire.
Wallace was banking on a body temperature being taken which, although approximate, would suggest a time of death during his absence.
In answer to your first question Mike, no I don’t think Julia would have hung it straight back up as it would have been cold in the parlour too, hence the lighting of the fire.
Regarding the mac being all crumpled either alongside or underneath her (it doesn’t matter which) as this would have occurred when Julia was pulled by her chignon, back away from the fire which is why her head ended up at the opposite end of the fire.
The fire would have been turned off in the panic of the mac catching fire, rather like turning a cooker ring off if a chip pan caught fire. The singe on Julia’s skirt is consistent with her falling forwards before being pulled back.
We have to bear in mind that if this was Wallace he must have had to do all this within seconds of the door closing on Close. The late milk delivery, the fire, burning, stamping out, pulling back etc were all things costing panic and time that he wouldn’t have accounted for.
Also we have McFall’s post mortem saying 3 to 4 blows, the examination having taken place the day after the murder and once Julia’s head had been shaved. What then made him change his mind on the witness stand to 10 or 11 blows. This could have a huge bearing on the frenzied vs not frenzies attack.
I do agree that it would have been cold in the parlour. I have memories of our “front room” at home in the 1950s. In those pre-central heating days it was warmer outside!Which leads me nicely to my point : I do not think Julia was lighting the fire when the blows were struck. It takes a few minutes for such a fire to heat the clays to the point where they would scorch a garment falling onto them. I think she was turning the fire off after Wallace told her that they wouldn’t have a musical evening and that he would go to his appointment with Mr Qualtrough.
The position of the mac by the side of the body and parallel to it’s length is suspicious. It was quite a substantial coat fitting the 6 foot 2 inch tall Wallace. If it had been used as a shield against blood spatter as I suspect, then simply thrown on the floor I would not expect to find it parallel to Julia’s body along it’s length, “scrunched up” and giving the impression of having ben “tucked in.”
I agree that the body was quickly dragged away from the fire. Julia didn’t fall into the position where she was found. But I cannot see that this would leave the mac “neatly” by the side of the body.
McFall was a disgrace to his profession. With his illustrious career behind him and occupying important positions he had lost sight the basics of his job. No thermometer. Changing from 4 blows to 11 blows. And giving his insights into the psychology of the killer: “a frenzied attack.”
Does anyone have any information on the nurse called Wilson who supposedly lived with the Wallace’s for three weeks giving a less than complimentary take on their relationship? I think Inspector Gold may have uncovered her in his investigations?
At risk of telling you something you already know Ged: Florence Mary Wilson was matron of the Remand Police Home, 31 Derwent Road. She nursed Wallace through a bout of pneumonia about eight years prior to the murder. She described the Wallaces as a very peculiar couple with a strained attitude to each other. Wallace seemed to have had a keen disappointment in life and Mrs Wallace was peculiar and “dirty”.
This is from Inspector Gold’s report May 11, 1931.
The important thing for me is that Mrs Wilson’s impressions date from eight years before the murder so it would seem that the marriage had been in trouble for a long time before the 1931 tragedy.
Wallace could have taken a tip from me: after 50 years of marriage I still refer to my beloved as “my current wife.” It keeps her on her toes!
I wouldn’t say the marriage is in trouble just because a nurse who will have saw them at their worst during bouts of illness says they had a strained attitude towards each other and this being eight years previously so why didn’t he kill her in the mid 1920s then?
They diaries after that and his worry during her late night home due to the train crash don’t point to any strain and that was only a few weeks before her death. This is also a report by a matron from a police remand home given to a policeman who is obviously working for the prosecution at this point so hardly unbiased. Did she live in with the Wallace’s for a period or just visit?
Hi Ged,
You’re right: people are never at their best when there is illness in the house, especially, in those pre-antibiotic days, pneumonia which with Wallace’s delicate health could have seen him off.
And he took up the violin only two years before the murder in order to accompany Julia’s piano playing…..
Wallace is still my prime suspect but it is a case of “Faute de mieux”as they say in Barnsley: he’s the best bet in a lousy field of runners. If I were a juror I still couldn’t find him guilty on what we know so far.
I’ve been looking at a forum from years ago that goes on for a couple of years, reading all the posts, it goes back pre this site when RMQ was still new to the case and is asking questions and putting together his scenario. John Gannon and Antony Brown (two authors on the case are also on it) Rod Stringer who also puts forward a scenario in Antony’s book is on there, we were on a site called Yo Liverpool which goes back pre facebook to 2005 talking about it with another author of the case, Mark Russell. I am putting together my own proposal of a scenario which does away with some of the doubts and answers questions on the forum though that forum is now locked as a read only platform.
For me, a Wallace pre-planning all this could just have strangled Julia, over in seconds, no blood, clean up (or worry he had just one dot on him) no weapon to dispose of. He came home at 6.05pm and says he left at 6.45pm – certainly no later than 6.49pm – there is no alibi as he has over 40 minutes to kill her and he doesn’t even present Alan Close as his trump card, the kids do that themselves.
All the call does if it were Wallace is introduce A.N. Other but denying the murder and the Anfield housebreaker being so prevalent introduces A.N. Other anyway. Therefore there is no need for any elaborate phone call if you’re Wallace, he could have done it on the Monday before leaving for Chess after smashing a window in the yard by taping it up first to prevent the noise – or as I say, the less time consuming and messier strangulation. If you say he planned it to make it look like somebody was after more takings in the cashbox on the Tuesday night, then you are saying he was framing Parry or Marsden and lowering the suspect pool as they would have had to have been involved, even if only telling somebody else about Wallace’s domestic arrangements and of course Wallace couldn’t know if either of these had cast iron alibi’s. Parry does (allegedly) for the murder time, Marsden’s is less concrete and it was never corroborated (in bed with the flu)
It is indeed surprising that Wallace’s defence didn’t highlight the tight time window after Alan Close delivered the milk. But then Wallace’s defence was lacking in other respects. Why tell the jury that they might find the case for the defence unlikely. It implies that Olivier himself found it unlikely. No wonder Wallace was convicted.
Also surprising is the police not asking Close if he was the regular milk delivery boy when he and Elsie Wright called at No 29 on the 21st January to ask if any milk was needed.
Wallace would not have killed his wife before the milk was delivered. She had to be allowed to answer the door establishing that she was alive. Close being late was unforeseen by Wallace. He wasn’t too concerned about this tight timing because his plan was to simulate a much later time of death:
1. by leaving the gas fir on a low light to maintain room/body temperature.
2. by covering the body with the mac as insulator. It was peeled back on his “discovery” of the body.
3. by leaving the Echo open on the kitchen table as if Julia had been reading it.
4. by going through the charade of the locked doors and suggesting there was still someone in the house.
This accounts for his extended enquiries in Menlove Gardens. He knew any estimate of time of death would be approximate and he wanted to be away from No 29 at the estimated time, which ideally from his point of view would be 8 pm plus or minus an hour. In this respect Wallace overestimated the competence of the pathologists (no thermometer!) and the precision of any estimate even one based on body temperature.
The case is full of aspects where with hindsight we can suggest better ways to have done it. If Wallace was still with us he would no doubt be able to give cogent reasons why he made the choice he did. Hindsight is seldom 20:20.
I look forward Ged to reading your scenario when it is available.
Hi Everyone,
Not posted for a good while, so I hope you’re all well.There’s another aspect of this case that maybe doesn’t quite get the attention it deserves, although it’s a well-known aspect, and I definitely think a hugely important one.It’s Parry’s drive to Hignetts on the night of the murder…when he says in his statement that after buying his cigarettes and newspaper in the Post Office on Maiden Lane, that as he was turning he suddenly “remembered” that he’d promised to pick up his accumulator from Hignetts on West Derby Road.One day last week, I decided I’d walk and time the route Parry said he took that night.So I set off from Worcester Drive, which is about 15 yards past the Post Office, and would have been the road Parry was about to turn into when he just so happened to remember his accumulator!! Following exactly the same route, walking at a steady pace, it took me 27 minutes to arrive at where Hignetts once stood.After a short rest and a drink of water, I then continued walking back towards my starting point at Worcester Drive, passing 43 Knoclaid Road along the way.This second walk took me 13 minutes.Which means that Parry took a route to Hignetts that was TWICE as long as the one he could have taken.Now, does anyone seriously believe he did this just for the sheer hell of it? I certainly don’t!!
There are some crucial things that need to be kept in mind when looking at this issue.For a start, Parry was local to this area.His own house at 7 Woburn Hill was no more than a mile away from that Post Office as the crow flies.And as both a regular caller to Lily Lloyd’s house, and a keen motorist, he’d have been extremely well acquainted with that particular neighbourhood.So there’s no way he wouldn’t have known that by performing a simple U-turn by Worcester Drive, and heading back in the direction he’d originally come from, he’d have arrived at Hignetts much quicker.So what was he up to? Why has he taken a noticeably longer journey than he needed to? I’m convinced it’s because somewhere in the vicinity of Lower Breck Road, possibly by Breckside Park, he’s picked someone up.At one point on his journey along Lower Breck Road, he’d have been less than 200 yards from Wolverton Street.And if the times he gave in his statement are true, he’d have been at this point about 5 minutes before Wallace discovered Julia’s body.Are we seriously expected to believe this was just a coincidence? But there’s more.After leaving Hignetts, Parry would have driven along West Derby Road, before turning left into Lisburn Lane, where he went to Mrs.Williamson’s house at number 49, and received the 21st Birthday invitation. But before he turns into Lisburn Lane, he’d have had to drive past Marlborough Road…where his friend (and possible accomplice) William Denison lived, number 29 to be exact.William’s brother Harold also lived here, both of whom were mentioned in their aunt Olivia Brine’s statement.Again, are we expected to believe that Parry driving past this road at this time was pure coincidence? I think it’s feasible to suggest he’s possibly dropped Denison off here, after picking him up a few minutes earlier.Although it’s also possible he’s picked someone else up other than Denison on his longer than necessary journey from Worcester Drive.We can’t be certain, but Parry’s car was a two seater apparently, so picking up two people may well have been difficult.But I’m totally convinced he definitely HAS picked someone up.And there’s a possibility that whoever he picked up had blood on them…hence his late night visit to Atkinson’s garage to have his car cleaned.I think at some point between 9pm and the visit to Atkinson’s, Parry discovers his plan has gone horribly wrong…and he’s now in huge trouble.
This is something I’ve believed for a long time.There has to be a reason Parry took that journey, because as has been made clear, he could have made it in a much quicker time.So why didn’t he? I can’t accept he suddenly just decided to take that route.And with everything we know about the case, and the actual locations and timings involved in this route he took, you simply have to seriously suspect it had been planned.Parry has NOT just taken this route on a whim!!
Well, that’s my theory!! What does anyone else think about Parry’s journey?
I’m in the middle of re-reading Gannon’s book and whilst I don’t agree with his theory I am compelled to believe Ada Cook’s statement about what happened between her parents and Parry’s parents. I wish I was able to speak with the researcher who found her.
Whenever Parry is put up as a suspect involved in this we are told that:
His Mon night statement is just a honest mistake, yet his statement for the 8.30 onwards on the murder night is very overly detailed, no mistakes there for what he did just the night after.
Also Parkes is just an old man after 15 mins of fame, yet he wasn’t in 1931 when he told this to the Atkinsons. Either this or we’re asked to believe Parry was just winding him up, putting his neck on the line in the process.
Anne Parsons seeing 2 men legging it down Hanwell st, the first street you come to in Richmond Park if leaving the Wallace’s rear entry is just a coincidence, there were also 2 other people to part corroborate this, Jane Smith and a man whose name i’ve forgotten.
Ada Cook, well, she is just another 15 mins of fame person.
Parry commenting about knowing much more than he would say, not for £2000 as he promised his father is just more wind ups for JG and RWE.
Now onto your theory Dave.
The biggest problem here is, If Parry picked up his accomplice/s around 8.30pm but did not go into Atkinson’s until after midnight and in between times went to the Lloyd’s – at what point does he find out they’ve killed Julia?
Now, people will say are we expected to believe that Parry went to his girlfriends where he will have seen 2 people and was all calm and collected. Yet the same people expect us to believe that Wallace killed his wife in a rush (as Close was unexpectedly late) and acted all calm and collected to around a dozen people, one of them a policeman.
A way around this is if Parry picked up the accomplice after they’d dropped the iron bar down the grid, perhaps wrapped in one of the gloves, after Anne Parsons had seen them, and they did not inform Parry of Julia’s death, perhaps even just said we had to bash her on our way out, one of them gets the lift and shoves the remaining glove in the glove box without Parry noticing.
Later that night after Parry leaves the LLoyd’s about 11.30pm like he says he did, word reaches Parry about Julia’s death, he might even go back to his accomplice’s house to find out what really went on. In a blind panic he says i’m gonna have to get this car cleaned, the rest we know.
It is clear Leslie Williamson was no friend of Parry and the likelihood of the invite to his 21st was because Mrs Williamson and Josephine Lloyd were fellow piano teachers and good friends. When Leslie rings Radio City in 1981 he is not only scathing of Parry but also crucially does not mention Parry called on the murder night, something that surely would have stuck in his mind.
Parry commenced visiting Olivia Brine’s with her Nephew William Denison around Christmas 1930, so just a few weeks before the murder, yet on this night, William is not with him – Why, where is he?
The police files do not contain statements from Joseph Caleb Marsden or Savona Brine or Miss Phyllis Plant. Parry is not asked about his friend Marsden who by now Wallace has said was a friend of Parry’s. Olivia Brine/Harold Denison statements look sparse and concocted. Theirs mention people present that Parry’s doesn’t and Parry’s mentioned someone present that Olivia and Harold don’t.
I also have another idea about how the accomplice/s could have gained silent entry through an open back door without the need for a lengthy conversation at the front door about being Qualtrough here for a meeting with Mr Wallace.
Hi also again to Mike
If I were Wallace’s defence team I would have been asking the judge for a no trial based on there being insufficient evidence to convict the defendant. I don’t see how this would go against Wallace or sway the jury to think something was amiss. In the event of the Judge throwing out that request and the case going ahead ,it would sway me to think I will listen to this case even more clearly now as what do the defence mean by lack of evidence?
Hi Ged,
The appeal court judges also expressed surprise that “No case to answer” was not introduced by Wallace’s defence at the start of the trial. Wallace’s team feared that if the judge disagreed with this submission it would look like the judge thought there was a case against Wallace and this would influence the jury. Using that logic “No case to answer” would never be used by anyone’s defence team. From Judge Wright’s summing up in favour of Wallace it is likely in my view that he would have accepted the lack of concrete evidence and stopped the trial at that point.
Hi Dave,
Welcome back. A lot to chew on but on the point of Parry’s long journey to Hignett’s: Isn’t it possible that Parry was en route to his next destination when, as he said, he “remembered” his promise to call at Hignett’s for his battery. So he turns around or whatever and makes his way there having taken a much longer route than if he had gone there directly.
Mike
I can reply for Dave as not sure when he will make his next appearance here but we know Parry’s intentions. He says he was on his way to his young lady’s house.
”About 8.30p.m. I then went out and bought some cigarettes – Players No. 3, and the evening Express from Mr. Hodgson, Post Office, Maiden Lane, on the way to my young lady’s house.
When I was turning the corner by the Post Office I remembered I had promised to call for my accumulator at Hignetts in West Derby Road. I went there and got my accumulator and then went down West Derby, Tuebrook and along Lisburn Lane to Mrs. Williamson, 49, Lisburn Lane,”
I can’t though see where it says which route he took TO Hignett’s, only the route back FROM Hignetts?
Yes, he doesn’t say how he got to Hignett’s and as you have pointed out previously he even gives the spurious detail of the brand of his ciggies. Irrelevant detail is sometimes an indicator of lies. Once the police had confirmed his Brine alibi I don’t suppose they checked out his post 8.30 pm story and as Dave mentioned, his visit to the Williamsons wasn’t mentioned by the family member who phoned in to the 1981 radio discussion.
Hi Mike. I notice Olivia Brine uses the phrase ‘called’ as the same for Parry, Harold Denison and Phyllis Plant. This would suggest Miss Plant was in the house, not just at the doorstep yet there are no police statements for her or Savona who is only mentioned by Parry. There doesn’t seem to be any police statements from Mr Hodgson from the Post office or from Hignett’s either. There is no questioning of Parry regarding Marsden and no statement in the police files from Marsden, just a note in the margin of a piece of paper saying in bed with flu – not great or corroborated.
All three, Parry, Brine and Denison say Parry left at ‘about’ 8.30pm – none are specific. This leaves it open that Parry could have left 5 or 10 minutes earlier than that and still went to both those places before picking up any accomplice. (William Denison/Marsden)
Also, if Parry was willing to lie about his Monday night movements (the only known lie in any statements) knowing they could be checked out, what’s to stop him thinking he could lie about his Tuesday night movements.
We know McFall used the least reliable method for timing the death and took no notes. He then changed his autopsy findings from 3 or 4 blows to 11 under oath – why?
He is trying to say a frenzied attack which would fit more in line with a spur of the moment than a pre-planned effort.
Just watched a Sky crime programme last night, I watch them most nights actually. This one, the murder of Brian McKandie near Aberdeen struck me as very Wallace like in its execution. Head stove in during a limited amount of time, lots of blood spatter, many blows, no witnesses, circumstantial evidence towards a killer.
As it was I think they got the right man but even the prosecution say the verdict was not a foregone conclusion. This frenzied attack wasn’t by a spouse, just by a near neighbour who got greedy for cash.
James Allison Wildman, the 16 year old paper lad who posted the Liverpool Echo trough the letter box of No.27 (Walter James Holmes) at about 6.40pm on Tuesday 20th January 1931 just as the Collegiate School cap wearing Alan Croxton Close was delivering milk to Julia Wallace.
Here is a photo of him in later life and a look at some of his memoirs which mention the area he lived and the murder case which was big news at the time.
Hi Ged and Mike,
Continuing the theme of Parry’s journey to Hignetts on the evening of the murder.Apologies again for the use of upper case letters…as always, I’m just aiming for a bit of emphasis.In Antony Brown’s book, the suggested route is described as being possible.But when you read Parry’s statement, you quickly realise that it almost certainly WAS the route he took.As Ged has pointed out, Parry states that after collecting his accumulator he drove down West Derby Road and then Lisburn Lane.If he’d taken the noticeably shorter route, this would have been the other way round…he’d have driven back up Maiden Lane, then Knoclaid Road, Lisburn Lane, then turning right towards West Derby Road.
But there are a couple of other things that make this whole journey extremely suspect.Firstly, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt when he said he suddenly remembered he’d promised to go to Hignetts as he was turning into Worcester Drive.Fair enough.But at what point on his journey does he also “remember” he had to call at Annie Williamson’s house on Lisburn Lane? And I use the inverted commas deliberately!! If you’re prepared to take his statement at face value, then it means that even AFTER buying his fags and newspaper in the Post Office, and also AFTER getting in his car and heading towards his girlfriend’s house, it was only THEN that he remembered not only the visit to Hignetts, but also the visit to Mrs.Williamson!! Obviously it’s not impossible, but does anyone believe it’s likely? I certainly don’t.And even if it’s true and all perfectly innocent, then why hasn’t he taken the much shorter route? As I said in my previous post, he was exceptionally well acquainted with that neighbourhood, and would definitely have known he had no need to take the route he did.
Secondly, his visit to Annie Williamson is also rather odd.It seems to have been generally accepted that this woman wasn’t particularly enamoured with Parry, and only tolerated him due to her friendship with Lily Lloyd, a piano teacher like herself.I think her son Leslie confirmed this when he telephoned Radio City in 1981 for the 50th anniversary broadcast.Now, you’d imagine our friend Parry would have had SOME inkling that Annie Williamson didn’t much like him, so why’s he calling at her house without Lily being with him? Lily certainly hasn’t asked him to call there on her behalf, or she’d have said so in her own statement.Did he actually call there SPECIFICALLY for Leslie’s 21st Birthday party invitation? Or was that just given to him on the spur of the moment? We don’t find out.But if he DIDN’T call for the birthday invite, then what DID he call for? Leslie Williamson mentioned something in that broadcast about Parry interrupting one of his mother’s piano lessons before the murder, asking to borrow a sheet of music, if I’m not mistaken.So, could the REAL purpose of his visit there that night have been to return this sheet of music, and also kill a bit of time?
I’m convinced that what Parry was doing after leaving Olivia Brine’s was padding out that all important half hour between approximately 8.30pm and 9.If we accept he genuinely WAS in Brine’s house between 5.30pm and 8.30(though I’m STILL a bit sceptical!!) then it means he’s got his alibi for the robbery.But he also needs to conceal the fact he’s picked somebody up…very possibly by the recreation ground on Lower Breck Road.That’s why he pads things out, going into unnecessary detail about his visits to the Post Office, Hignetts and Annie Williamson, before going to his girlfriend’s.When questioned by the police, which he knows is likely to happen, he wants them to think he couldn’t have had the time to pick anyone up.From saying virtually nothing about the three hours he spent in Brine’s house, he’s suddenly going into all sorts of details!! A classic case, according to a criminal psychologist called Richard Wiseman, of someone believing that the more true but trivial details they give, the more substance they believe it gives to their alibi, because trivial but true details can be checked out and verified.Of course, it’s what they’re NOT telling you that’s the real issue!! And in Parry’s case, what he wasn’t telling anyone was the fact that on his rather convoluted trip that night, he’d picked someone up.
But the ironic thing for me is that he may not have needed to do all this between 8.30 and 9….because it’s very obvious from the outset of the investigation that Hubert Moore believes Wallace is his man.And it’s also pretty obvious that he doesn’t believe a robbery actually took place…he clearly thinks Wallace has faked the robbery himself.As a result, as I’ve said before,I think the robbery angle doesn’t get anything like the attention it deserves.And for Parry and his accomplices (I still think there could have been two of them!!) this is a huge slice of fortune.If Moore doesn’t believe there was a robbery, and also believes the time of death to be anywhere between 6.30pm and Wallace leaving at 6.49pm at the latest, then the three hours Parry spent in Brine’s covers him.He didn’t have to worry about picking up whoever DID attempt to carry out the robbery…because Moore didn’t think it ever happened!! I also believe that this blinkered approach on the part of Moore and his colleagues was also a plus for Parry.Moore appeared focused completely on proving Wallace was the killer, and Parry’s statement is little more than an exercise in ticking boxes when it clearly should have been looked into in far greater depth, considering the obvious discrepancies in it.Like I say, Moore’s dismissal of the robbery means the very reason for everything that happened is just NOT properly investigated.
We don’t have a definitive solution so all theories on this case deserve a fair hearing. Following a robbery by Parry’s cronies there would be a planned meet-up afterwards to discuss how it went down and to divide the spoils. Logically this would be after Parry left Mrs Brine and before he arrived at Lily Lloyd’s house. Would he make these various calls – cigarettes, Williamsons, Hignetts – if he had just been told Mrs Wallace had been murdered? Very unlikely in my view and this explains why he arrived at Lily’s calm and behaving normally.
This changes at some point after he left Lily’s at 11 pm. He arrives at Atkinson’s garage agitated, nervous, and anxious to unburden himself of the details of the crime.
Maybe there was no firm plan for a meeting that evening, after all Parry had a full programme, but in the light of the murder the cronies had to speak with Parry. They reasoned he could be at Lily’s and spotted his car outside her house. After a long discussion of what to do, he drove them home then went to Atkinson’s arriving after 12 midnight.
I agree Dave that when the Qualtrough call was traced to the Anfield box Moore’s strong suspicions of Wallace gelled into a virtual certainty and from that point on any other enquiries were simply ticking boxes. The short statements by Brine and Denison were enough – Parry could be eliminated.
There are problems with this scenario among which is:
the robbers, unlike Parry, being unknown to Mrs Wallace could have left without killing her if the robbery was rumbled by Mrs Wallace.
Wallace tells of Julia having a bad cold on the Monday night and suggests she goes to see Dr Curwen. This she does, that much is known. In order to get there she would be passing near the phone box around the same time that Parry is in the vicinity either before or around the time of the call or after his swift visit to see Lily (but she’s giving a piano lesson)
Parry knows by now that Wallace will be out tomorrow, on his wild goose chase, as it is him sending him there and tells Julia he’s heard on the insurance grapevine that William will be out on business tomorrow night and to set up the parlour for one of his visits (The visits he tells JG about in 1966)
This chance meeting has saved Parry knocking to inform Julia all this (whilst Wallace is at Chess or the following day) and of course Julia won’t mention this meeting to William and is not in the least surprised when William later that night or in the morning tells Julia of his business meeting lined up in the Calderstones district which he confirms she encourages him to go to.
Parry doesn’t really want to visit Julia though but instead he knows Julia will leave the back door and gate unbolted (which is why Wallace doesn’t hear her bolt it) This would be Julia’s usual practice when entertaining Parry which is why nobody ever saw him entering, they both of course had to be very discreet. He’ll just make his apologies next day to Julia that he couldn’t make it in the end.
This is also why there was no need for any lengthy conversation at the front door from a Mr Qualtrough pleading a mix up of addresses for the business meeting which even in itself might not have resulted in him gaining entry to the house.
We know that Walter Holmes and Florence Johnston heard door knocking and door closing during the busy tea time period and even heard Wallace knocking upon returning home from Menlove, even though they lived in the middle kitchen towards the rear of their houses.
This then sets the scene for Tuesday evening when Julia goes into the cold parlour with the mac around her shoulders to light the fire ready to entertain Parry for an hour or so. However, Parry has other plans and already his mate William Denison and A.N. Other (possibly Marsden) are instructed to enter No.29 at the back which will be open and to be as quick as possible getting that likely possible £100 out of that cashbox.
Denison has been Parry’s companion whenever they visited Denison’s aunt, Olivia Brine, but not tonight, Parry is there alone, his part is over until about 8.30 when he will go to collect his mate and his bounty.
Perhaps Denison is even meant to go alone but takes along a friend for courage. Denison is shorter than Wallace and to reach the cashbox he opens the bottom cupboard door to stand on it and reach up to the cashbox which is never taken down. Just as the replaces the cashbox lid and puts it back, an act to delay discovery of the theft and to give the impression there has been nobody at the property at all, the door, previously broken and mended breaks, Denison comes crashing down as do some coins which spill out of his hand.
The commotion causes Julia to call inquisitively from the Parlour, is that you Richard which alerts Denison’s mate who was just about to go mooching in the parlour for any more valuables as he waits for Denison – too late, they see each other, he wasn’t expecting this, he pushes her backwards towards the fire, causing the new bruise on her arm.
She still has the mac on her until it warmed up a bit, it catches fire as she turns to get her bearings to get up, her skirt is singed and he spots the iron bar and pulls her backwards by her chignon which is later found wrenched from her head. He bashes her once more and stamps out the flames, turning off the sparking fire at the same time. He bashes her twice more, he turns down the light worrying someone outside might see, Denison is saying what have you done as they flee.
Anne Parsons is heading home up Hanwell street as she sees two men running like hell down towards Lower Breck Road. Hanwell st is the first street you come to if you leave 29 Wolverton street by the back entry and head towards Richmond Park and turn right.
With the bar wrapped inside a hastily removed glove it is shoved down a grid outside a Drs in Priory Road, just across the road from Lower Breck Road. Parry collects Denison, the murderer has ran off. Denison puts the remaining glove in the glove box without Parry noticing. Denison is sweating saying I brought a mate with me (or if it was the plan for two of them all along he says eg. Marsden had to bash her, I’ve got the money here but it doesn’t look much, we had to get out, no time for searching.
Parry drops him off and goes to Lily Lloyd’s, disappointed with the haul but none the wiser regarding Julia’s condition. Parry leaves Lily’s about 11.30pm and only within the next hour finds out about the murder, he is panicked, agitated, stressed, he knows he needs to get to Atkinson’s garage and get that car washed inside and out.
Parkes opens the glove box and pulls out the glove, Parry is mortified and grabs at it. Parkes is later perplexed as to how Parry had no blood on him but of course he didn’t because he wasn’t there but he is an accessory. If Parkes was lying, why didn’t he just say Parry had blood on him…………
Hi Ged,
In the scenario above Parry tells Mrs Wallace that William will be out on business the following evening even before Wallace himself receives the invitation from Qualtrough via Mr Beattie. Why didn’t Wallace mention it when he had tea with Julia at ~ 6.15 pm that evening? Julia’s suspicions would be aroused when Wallace told her of the chess club phone message which then and only then initiated his trip to Menlove Gardens.
The whole thing is predicated on Wallace taking the bait which was by no means certain.
Parry’s clandestine visits to meet Julia were in the afternoons, not the evening according to Parry’s account to JG/RW-E. An evening tryst was risky; Wallace might return home directly on hearing from the policeman on point duty that MGE didn’t exist.
Was Julia in the habit of walking around inside her home with Wallace’s mac over her shoulders for warmth? No question here of answering the door because in the scenario described the back door has been left unlocked for Parry’s arrival.
The plan depends on Julia being in the parlour when the would-be thieves arrive. Having lit the gas fire isn’t she more likely to be in the warm kitchen/diner reading the Echo?
These are some of the reasons why I think this scenario is flawed. It is consistent with the two men running in Hanwell Street but this is, in my view, outweighed by the points described above.
Hi Dave. some real talking points about this case.
Moore and Co wrongly believe from the start that the caller (Q) is the killer. Once you get off on the wrong footing, you’re then making the facts fit your agenda.
Moore and Co don’t seem to have checked out why Parry lied about his whereabouts on the Monday night.
Moore and Co don’t interview Elsie Wright because they won’t like what she’s got to say about Close’s timings – see point 1 above.
Parry never mentions his visit to Brines either to Lily Lloyd or even to JG/RWE in 1966. WHY? This would have been an obvious thing to do if there is nothing in it.
Imelda Moore, daughter of Supt Moore – head of the murder case being John Parry’s secretary cannot go understated here either in my book. Even Wallace’s customer Herbert Gold was not taken off the case. We only usually see such close inter-relations in Coronation Street.
Hi Mike,
The important thing to remember here is Parry made these calls to The Post Office, to Hignetts, and to Mrs.Williamson’s BEFORE he would have known Julia had been killed.He may have discovered things hadn’t gone as planned when he meets up with his accomplice or accomplices after 8.30pm, but it’s quite feasible he doesn’t find out Julia has actually been killed until a couple of hours later.I was saying on the Facebook site earlier today that the person he picked up in the vicinity of Lower Breck Road may well have been the actual murderer.I’m convinced that William Denison is involved, but he very possibly wasn’t the murderer, only the thief….meaning he’d have had no blood on him.He also only lived a 10 minute walk from Lower Breck Road, so he could have easily made his way home without drawing attention to himself.
But if the person who DID kill Julia wasn’t from that neighbourhood, and clearly had blood on his clothing, then there’s obviously no way he can make his way home without drawing attention to himself.He certainly can’t get on a tram or bus with blood on his clothing.So there’s a possibility he’s demanded Parry take him home to avoid this.This could be the reason Parry didn’t arrive at Lily’s house at 9pm, as he claimed in his statement.Lily herself admitted two years later that Parry did NOT arrive at 9pm as she’d originally told the police, but sometime later than that, although she couldn’t remember the exact time.This would explain Parry’s late night visit to Atkinson’s Garage once he discovers precisely what’s happened…because he’s had somebody sitting in the passenger seat of his car with Julia’s blood on them.
Of course, the original plan could well have been for Parry to pick Denison up and then drop him off as he drove past Marlborough Road, where Denison lived, before he continues padding out his alibi at Mrs.Williamson’s on Lisburn Lane.But if a second accomplice killed Julia, and doesn’t live around there, then the plan may change dramatically for the reasons I’ve stated.
Hi Dave,
As you know, I believe Wallace killed Julia but definite proof is lacking.
In the Parry + accomplices scenario I agree that Parry is unlikely to have heard about the murder until after he left Lily Lloyd’s at around 11 pm. He may then have driven someone home before going, in an agitated state, to Atkinson’s garage.
As for Denison’s involvement we have only his absence from the Brine meet-up and subsequent convictions attesting to his bad character although I have never seen any evidence of the latter. Have you?
A further point is how Denison (+/- another) persuaded Mrs Wallace to let them in. They, being young men, could hardly pretend to be Qualtrough who had a 21 year old daughter.
Finally, as I said before, if the visitors were not known to Mrs Wallace and she rumbled the distraction robbery of the cash box they could simply leave without any violence. There was no evidence of the house being ransacked in a search for valuables after the murder.
So the Parry + accomplices scenario, while possible and somewhat attractive, is problematic when it comes to hard evidence supporting it.
”In the scenario above Parry tells Mrs Wallace that William will be out on business the following evening even before Wallace himself receives the invitation from Qualtrough via Mr Beattie. Why didn’t Wallace mention it when he had tea with Julia at ~ 6.15 pm that evening? Julia’s suspicions would be aroused when Wallace told her of the chess club phone message which then and only then initiated his trip to Menlove Gardens.”
Parry is telling Julia this when she goes to see Dr Curwen which is after Wallace has left for the chess club. It could have been that someone has told Parry my friend will contact Mr Wallace tonight about a business meeting. Julia cannot tell Wallace this as it confirms their clandestine meetings and if you remember, Wallace says Julia encouraged him to go during their discussion about it so it doesn’t balance on him taking the bait.
Julia could have gone into the Parlour to light the fire, gone back out until it warmed up and was back inside waiting for Parry’s arrival and upon hearing the noise and calling out was leaving the Parlour with the mac to hang it back up when confronted. The intruder having bolted the front door to ensure his pal had a free reign on the cash box.
”A further point is how Denison (+/- another) persuaded Mrs Wallace to let them in. They, being young men, could hardly pretend to be Qualtrough who had a 21 year old daughter.”
”Finally, as I said before, if the visitors were not known to Mrs Wallace and she rumbled the distraction robbery of the cash box they could simply leave without any violence. There was no evidence of the house being ransacked in a search for valuables after the murder.”
My scenario allows for their entry to 29 Wolverton st unseen and unheard, if Parry mentioned previously to Julia he will call tomorrow/tonight and to leave the back door open. The reason for no further searching for valuables is the robbery went wrong and fearing being identified later the thief gave her a few bashes.
I’ve just watched 2 back to back real lift cases on Sky Crime where a perp unknown to the victim did just this and if you read the newspaper articles on this very site about housebreakers m.o. putting on front door bolts and battering the householders, you will see it was not uncommon.
Regarding the telephone conversation and how long it took. We don’t have to worry about what went before with the first two operators as the Supervisor, Annie Robertson says the call was put through at 7.20 and recorded due to what seems to have been a fault on the line at Cottles City Cafe. This we know as Gladys Harley confirms the phone did not ring during the first two attempts to put the call through so this wasn’t a fudge or attempted swindle by Parry or anyone else.
This is roughly how the conversation went by gleaning information from Police statements, solicitors notes and the the trial transcripts of those involved.
7.20
AR: Bank 3581
GH: Yes (then a slight delay), long enough for GH to speak again
GH: Do you require this number?
AR: Yes, Anfield calling you, hold the line.
AR to Q: Put the pennies in
Q: Is that the Central Chess Club?
GH: Yes.
Q: Is Mr Wallace there, it is something connected to the chess club
GH: I will go and get him.
(GH then goes to find Beattie and relay whom the caller is asking for and to say she doesn’t know what he’s on about)
B: Hello.
Q: Hello, can I speak to Mr Wallace?
B: No, he is not here.
Q: Will he be there
B: I cannot say, he may or may not, if he is coming he will be here shortly
Q: Can you give me his address?
B: No I can’t
Q: Will you be sure to see him?
B: I do not know
Q: Could you get in touch with him as it is a matter of importance to Mr Wallace.
B: I am not sure, I suggest you ring later.
Q: Oh no I can’t, I am too busy, It is my daughter’s 21st birthday and want to do something for her which would be in the nature of business for Mr Wallace. I want to see him particularly.
B: If I cannot get Mr Wallace himself I could possibly get in touch with him through a friend, perhaps you know him, Mr Caird who is fairly certain to be here tonight and I will try to get the message delivered through him.
Q: Will you ask him to call on me tomorrow night at 7.30, you had better take my address.
B: I will if I see him but I can’t promise that Mr Wallace will get the message. I am standing at the telephone and can take it.
Q: The name is R.M. Qualtrough. Q.U.A.L.T.R.O.U.G.H.
B: R.M. Qualtrough. Q.U.A.L.T.R.O.U.G.H.
Q: The address is 25 Menlove Gardens East, Mossley Hill.
B: Menlove Gardens East, Mossley Hill.
It is then said Q hangs up, no mentions of pleasantries or a goodbye.
During the trial Q285 which is to Beattie is:
‘And you had altogether quite a conversation with the voice’
Beatie replies ‘Yes, I should say so’
This is quite a lengthy conversation including a slight delay and a longer one whilst AR fetched B. The length of it seems to be somebody in no particular rush as Wallace might have been given it took a few minutes of speaking with the first two operators and failed attempts at a connection prior to all this.
Hi Ged,
You may have missed my reply to your scenario (Aug 15 8.05 pm) but to recap:
It would in my view be extremely risky for Parry to arrange a clandestine evening visit to Mrs Wallace. Wallace might return home sooner than expected when told e.g. by a policeman that 25 MGE didn’t exist. Plus the whole plan depends on Wallace taking the bait in the first place.
If Parry was used to entering the back yard unobserved on his afternoon visits why would he avoid a gentle tap on the door by suggesting the door was left unlocked, especially with Wallace away and on a dark night.?
Clearly this would be a social call without music within earshot of the neighbours. Why not arrange it for when Wallace was at the chess club until past 10 pm.
So although nothing can be ruled out in this case, and I do believe Parry visited Julia in the afternoons occasionally, I have problems with this scenario for the reasons above.
I am concerned that I am not being allowed in the facebook group, yet GED is allowed to post here. This seems unfair. I respect GED and his thoughtful contributions (as well as his dioramas).
I think GED should lobby for me to be allowed in the facebook group if he does not want his posting privileges here revoked. Nothing against him personally, but I believe GED has sway among the “pub crew”.
Hi Mike. Wallace could return anytime for lunch and for tea by the looks of the short hours he puts in of a daytime. He doesn’t seem to start until 10am pffft 🙂
There’s nothing here to say whether it was day or night?
”He described Julia Wallace as a ‘very sweet, charming woman’. He said that he used to sing as a young man, and would often go to tea at 29 Wolverton Street, where Julia would accompany his singing on the piano.”
Hi Josh. Ha, I don’t hold any sway being just a member and not admin but i’ll ask for sure as I don’t think RMQ was banned.
Hey Josh. Just catching up with a 2018-2020 thread on the casebook forum. Oh how times and opinions have changed. This is from you aka WWH.
I wish I had been part of that debate as there is so much selective misinformation, particularly by Herlock Sholmes.
”With Parry and Marsden, the evidence the prosecution could have put forward would have been far more damning. Parry’s lack of alibi for the call, Marsden’s lack of alibi for the murder, plus the more reputable word of Wallace saying they knew where the cash box was. I strongly believe if Parry had confessed to the call, Wallace would’ve been let off. I do not believe anyone would have believed Parry’s word of Wallace having put him up to it.
That’s my view on the matter. And yeah if he acted alone he couldn’t know they wouldn’t have alibis. But if he knew they both did it, he KNEW they couldn’t have. It was a very traitorous but smart move.
Antony and Rod please return I need more Wallace debate.”
Josh is inevitable. When he visits me I will simply have him post from my account. Rod posting would be nice but he doesn’t speak to me because he is an aspie schizophrenic who thinks I’m also my best friend. Makes me feel kind of like the Tony Hawk existential crisis meme.
Hi GED, while my opinion has changed on this case as has pretty much everyone’s, people opinions have never been my issue with most of you. Rather the disgusting way in which some of you conduct yourselves (you are a minor offender here my friend)
ALSO, as has been explained to you MANY times I am NOT Calum and my username was NOT WWH. My username was AmericanSherlock. We are however friends and discussed/worked on the case at length. I introduced him to it and he did most if not all of the work.
This has been explained many times and one would have to be a paranoid schizophrenic to think otherwise.
You are lucky you are allowed to even post here so don’t come with baseless accusations fed to you by our favorite Blundellsands businessman. And I didn’t see a reply about allowing me back in the Facebook group.
The senile old coots are too out of touch with modern times to comprehend two people communicating via WhatsApp. In their day, all communication happened via carrier pigeon.
Hi Josh. My reply to you is further up ^^^^ and sent yesterday, I will try. As for being lucky in allowing to post here, who would if it was not Mike, Dave and myself?
ps: My apologies if you were American Sherlock – though you claim to be British, so please excuse the mix up.
pps. I’ve not seen or spoken to Rod since our last Wallace meet up some months back.
ppps. My reply above was to say I have no influence with the admin on the Wallace facebook group but I will ask.
pppps. Yes, you are right that your opinion has changed as has pretty much anyone’s but you will see from as far back as the first forums in 2005 that mine hasn’t. Things learned since then only reinforces my belief.
I follow true life crime documentaries on T.V. and 2 cases jumped out at me recently.
1) The case of Brian McKandie of Aberdeenshire whose head was stove in during a robbery. Not a personal murder, the killer lived 3 miles away in a caravan on land belonging to his parents. So proving that a frenzied attack does not have to be by a spouse only, I always thought to suggest so was ludicrous anyway. By the way, the hapless McFall’s post mortem findings were 3 or 4 strikes. He changed this at the trial only to frenzies, maybe after the police had got to him as they did Alan Close.
2) The recent horrendous shooting in my city, Liverpool of a child named Olivia Pratt-Korbel. This week there is a four part documentary on how they caught the killer Thomas Cashman. He was a go to hired hitman as well as a killer in his own right. How was he caught?. By going straight to someone he knew and spilling the beans. Could this remind you maybe of Parry at the Atkinson’s garage, it certainly did me.
I’ve never claimed to be British, not sure where you got that from. I lived in NYC for most of my life and now I live in California. I have traveled all over Europe including England and London where I visited Calum. Part of the hostility I feel is because it is constantly one odd and incorrect personal claim after another (and claims that match schizo theories that both Rod and Antony have said to me), so it is difficult to believe you are acting in good faith.
Your opinion has never changed in that you did appear to always lean towards Wallace’s innocence (judging by the yoliverpool posts), although I would say you weren’t very explicit in this, just a general flavor but I concede this point.
However, this is a very different thing than favoring the particular theory of Hussey (which Rod somehow branded his own and Antony claims is new). On this, you do appear to have shifted.
Mark R., who I believe you wrote the inacityliving site about the case with appeared to do a drastic about face in his book (like you he never explicitly stated his belief in Wallace’s innocence) but appeared to lean somewhat in that direction. He claims he is working on a book for 10 years, then when it comes out it goes against what he has appeared to think for a decade; really weird.
The inacityliving site is ambiguous and I think was meant to be informational, so it is hard to tell the opinion of the writers (you and Mark R) but I agree both your yoliverpool posts lean somewhat towards a belief in innocence (As well as Mark R’s posts on casebook.)
The thing is never changing one’s opinion I don’t view as a badge of honor or dishonor. Being open to change is important if new information is presented. What I find annoying however is denial of certain facts or realities that are obvious if they don’t match the narrative one believes at the time. I believe I have never done this, but many are guilty of this (admittedly pro Wallace guilt authors too). This is called “sharpening and levelling”.
I think Wallace made the call and killed the wife but I can admit Parry in isolation seems like a better candidate for the call.
I concede if Wallace did it he had some luck on his side etc.
On the other hand, all I get is arguments if some basic facts are presented in the other direction. People make up their minds and then try to post hoc fit all the facts to match that; things don’t work that way.
Critically, the reliability of the benzidine test being misrepresented and the 7:30 start time making a joke of the “late penalty” or “Wallace getting to the club on time if he was the caller” (when obviously no one paid much attention to the time or the rules) are two powerful points in my opinion. I find it difficult to accept people who cannot deal with the nuance of the reality that not all the facts will fit their theory (Rod is a particularly nasty and egregious offender here), rather than not allowing for dissenting opinions which anyone is welcome to.
I do believe however at this point with every single piece of evidence possible out there for the public to see (largely thanks to Calum’s work), and particularly because of the previous 2 points I mentioned about the club start time (which also makes it very odd for a stakeout if Parry was the caller if he thinks the matches start at 7:30) and the benzidine test being shown to be bunk that it would be difficult to sway me off my position now. I feel it is final because all the evidence, files etc are out there now, which was not nearly the case until the last few years. In concept though, I would always be open to change my mind if presented with new information.
“Critically, the reliability of the benzidine test being misrepresented” actually was just never done on the drains even if it turned out to be possible to find anything noteworthy like that. Possibly just not done period, as it isn’t in the files, so just the ramblings of the much ballyhooed Goodman.
Hi Josh, I have made representations for your return to the fb site and the Admin informed me he came on here and still saw you calling us/them The pub crew, schitzos etc, that doesn’t help if i’m trying to convince him you have changed and just want to debate.
Anyhow, back to the case. The fact is the killer wouldn’t know which tests the forensics might use, they could in fact use such as the ninhydrin test, just as Wallace couldn’t know that just one tiny speck of blood on his glasses frame or anywhere might not hang him. He also was home from 6.05 until 6.45 or later so there was no alibi anyway, the phone call in that case only introduced A.N. Other but his denial did this anyway. We know he was playing his game by 7.45 and I estimate having done a mock call/transcript of the call myself that it took at least 6 minutes from 7.20pm and adding potential congestion to his journey due to other traffic diversions there is no way in my book he had time to make the call or commit the murder.
We also have to discount Ada Cook, John Parkes and even Parry’s false alibi itself.
Worst of all, why didn’t this great planner Wallace just strangle her and do away with blood and a weapon disposal.
He had time to make the call AND then walk all the way across to the tram stop he claimed to use, he had time to bash his wife’s head in AND listen to Home by the Sea. Time isn’t an issue, he has no alibi (you can’t have a legit alibi for something you did lol). I wasn’t able to make the call 6 minutes in mock tests even when I was actively trying to prove his innocence btw.
On another note Mark did go for an innocent Wallace on YoLiverpool and did change tack. Regarding my Inacitylivingblogspot. It was put together without any agenda for information purposes only for the reader to decide as I was bemused with Murphy’s book as the text for the most part was making it look like an innocent Wallace only to change for the conclusion.
The Police were absolutely rubbish right from the crime scene contamination thru to thinking the caller had to be the kilelr then onwards and after the 18 errors in the committal proceedings which of course there were no reporting restrictions and so a potential jury would have preconceptions.
RMQ. During Gladys Harleys testimony she even says there was a 1 or 2 minute gap between Annie Robertson’s first conversation with her and her next, so much so in fact that Gladys had to intervene and say ‘Do you want this number?’ That alone takes it to possibly 7.22 and she has yet to speak to Q and go and find B, explain the situation to him and for him to go to the call. There is all the palava of ‘Is he there’, ‘I don’t know’ ‘But he will be there?’ etc then asking for Wallace’s address, spelling out his name and getting it read back to him letter by letter then giving his address. We will just have to agree to disagree, it is just opinions on how long the call took. If these timings were so easy for Wallace to do, I wonder why the Police time trialists had to run or catch trams at the wrong stops etc. Why didn’t he call from near the chess club?, why didn’t he strangle her?
Also, it would appear the police files have been ‘trimmed down’ for lack of a better description. I wonder why? Where is Marsden’s statement – just a note in a margin about him having flu. Where are the details of the bath and fireplace being removed? Where are the tram time trials for the Monday night, are you telling me the police did none? Where is the follow up statement from Parry that should exist IF the police did their job and found there was a huge discrepancy between his statement and the Lloyds? It almost seems as if Ken Oxford was not releasing the Police files in 1981 until anything that painted the police in a bad light was removed.
The defence did tram time tests which show Wallace could have reached the club after making the call AND walking to the farthest stop he claims to have used. The defence also got better times than the “Anfield Harriers” (Goodman invention?), they beat the police by a minute.
All distances were listed by the surveyor and also Maddock, and you can literally do the math to figure out the walking speed and how long it would take to get to whatever location. You can make any of the locations given, including the furthest tram stop if he walked ALL THE WAY over to the stop he said he used that’s waaay over from the phone box. If you don’t think so you can crunch the numbers, the distances are provided.
I’ve seen Maddocks timings, he used 4mph walking. I used to run at 8mph, that’s bloody fast, so is 4 for walking. Maddocks cannot know how long the call took so it’s all pie in the sky ifs, buts and maybes. I’ve yet to see an answer as to why a planner, with weeks or months in the making needs an on the spot frenzied attack, he could just strangle her in 30 seconds, rob some other stuff, knock very loudly creating a fuss at the door, lots of things you’d think to do easier and better for yourself with all this time in the planning. He certainly wouldn’t be faffing about in a call box having to redial, asking unnecessary questions such as his own address, going into details about a 21st, using the longest name on earth to spell out and have it spelt back to him – all when he has a chess match to get to by 7.45pm.
Hi Ged,
As you say from the phone call to Wallace’s arrival at the club we are not dealing with definitive cast iron evidence on timing. The lady who made out the 7.20 pm notification for the call should have been questioned about the accuracy of this time. Was the docket filled in at the time or as an afterthought – an estimate? Mr Beattie reckoned “7.00 pm or shortly after.”
At the other end, nobody saw and timed Wallace’s arrival at the club. So here again we have a wooly situation on timing.
As regards the caller faffing about: the glitch on the line was unforeseen and his asking for his own address, the 21st birthday, and using the exotic name were all designed to hammer home the idea that this was nor WH Wallace calling.
Yes he could have strangled his wife, shot her, or poisoned her but this does not make his beating her to death less likely.
Hi Mike, regarding your last paragraph, I certainly think it does, just again a matter of opinion. In planning a murder where you know you’re going to be a suspect, maybe even the prime suspect, I can think of quicker and less messier ways. A way that does away with a weapon, the disposal of same, blood, cleaning up and worrying about contamination.
Also, if any neighbour had been looking out their back bedroom window at the time of him leaving for Menlove, they could have repudiated seeing him with Julia at the back gate, just another instance (like the phone box and tram stop) whereby if he was lying, he couldn’t know he hadn’t been seen by someone.
Actually, Amy Johnston had seen Julia across the front bay window that very morning (in the messed room) so it is not far fetched to say anybody could have seen anything.
I recall that story sounding BS, not that it has literally any bearing on the case, but didn’t they say she saw Julia from their own home’s bay window, rather than somewhere that makes sense like the street?
Hi Everyone…hope you’re all well.
Just been away on holiday, so not been on here the last week or more.But just reading some of the recent comments, and it looks like it’s been lively!!
Anyway, I’ll get on with what I want to say.And it’ll be no surprise that, yet again, it concerns our friend Parry!! I posted recently that his journey to Hignetts on the evening of the murder was deeply suspicious, and nothing is likely to change my mind on that.But there’s something else concerning him that I find very odd too…and extremely unlikely in my personal opinion.
It links his statement to the police on the 23/24th of January 1931 to his being quizzed by Goodman in London in May 1966, 35 years after the murder.The dates on Parry’s statement mean that it was started late on Friday evening the 23rd, and was completed early on Saturday morning the 24th.Now… imagine you’re 22 years old and in the same situation as Parry.It’s very late on a Friday night, and you’re sitting in a police station giving a statement in connection to the murder of a woman whom you knew reasonably well.A murder that took place in a house that you’d visited on numerous occasions, and in a room that you’d actually sat in.But the connection goes further…this woman had also been married to a man whom you also knew well.In fact, up until about 18 months earlier, this man had not only been a work colleague of yours, you’d sometimes covered his work for him when he was ill.Now, sitting in a police station at midnight and the early hours of the morning, and being asked questions about a murder is NOT something the average 22 year old is going to do on a regular basis!! So I’d imagine that for most people under these type of circumstances, this is likely to be a very unusual and very stressful experience, and not one you’re likely to ever forget in a hurry…if at all.
Yet fast forward 35 years to 1966, and Parry doesn’t mention a single thing about it when speaking to Goodman.Why not if he was totally innocent of ANY involvement whatsoever in this case??…Does anyone on here seriously believe that he’s genuinely and completely forgotten about an experience like this?? No chance.I’m fortunate enough to have a decent memory, so I can comfortably remember what I was doing back in 1989, which is also 35 years ago.Where I was working, people I was hanging about with, girls I went out with etc….all sorts of things.But even without a good memory, there’s simply no way you’d completely forget about sitting in a police station giving a statement about a murder.And you’re even LESS likely to forget if you’re doing it in the middle of the night!! There’s not a cat in hells chance Parry has simply just forgotten all about this, so why won’t he talk about it? This reluctance on Parry’s part ties in with his determination to keep people away from his alibi, and there HAS to be a reason for this.And I believe the reason is far more serious and significant than Parry just playing games with Goodman, whom he knows can’t possibly have seen the official police files.I think it’s down to the fact that in 1966, there were at least 11 people still alive who had a connection to both Parry and the case itself.And Parry almost certainly knew this.I listed the names of these people and their connections to Parry on the Facebook site a few months ago, and I’ll do it again on here later.But I’m off to watch something on the telly now!! But I’ll be back soon!!
Hello Folks,
As promised in my last post, here is a list of the people who in various ways were acquainted with Parry that were definitely still alive in 1966 when Goodman and Whittington-Egan spoke to him outside his London flat.These are 12 people who were mentioned either in his own statement, plus the the statements of both Olivia Brine and Harold Denison, or were connected to him via family, friendship, work, romance, or were just acquaintances.
So, here goes…
1.His father, William John Parry, who told his son to promise to never speak about the case.Which is a bit strange if his son truly had nothing whatsoever to do with it!! Parry Senior was still living at 7 Woburn Hill in Liverpool in 1966, which in itself is quite possibly relevant.Goodman mentioned that Parry seemed unusually up to speed with people involved in the case when he met him in 1966, which is a bit odd considering he now lived 200 miles from Liverpool.For example, Parry knew that the milk boy Allan Close had died.I think it’s likely that it was father who was keeping him up to speed…through local gossip, just keeping his ear to the ground, and also by reading obituary columns in the local newspapers.Parry Senior died very shortly after Goodman spoke to him.
2.Olivia Brine…statement.
3.Savona Brine…statement and daughter of Olivia.
4.William Denison…statement and friend.
5.Harold Denison…statement.
6.Phyllis Plant…statement.
7.Lily Lloyd…statement and ex-girlfriend.
8.Leslie Williamson…acquaintance and son of Annie Williamson.The Williamsons lived at 49 Lisburn Lane, where Parry called after collecting his accumulator on his strangely convoluted journey on the evening of the murder.Leslie Williamson also contacted Radio City during the 50th anniversary broadcast in 1981, and confirmed that, for various reasons, Parry wasn’t a popular figure in the Williamson household.So why is he calling at a house where he knows he’s not much liked?
9.John Parkes…acquaintance from Atkinson’s Garage.
10.Joseph Marsden…old friend of Parry’s who worked with both himself and Wallace at one time at the Prudential.Also mentioned in Wallace’s statement.
11.Ada Cook nee Pritchard…her parents were close friends with Parry’s parents, who she said visited her house very soon after the murder to plead with her father, a seaman, to get Parry on a ship out of Liverpool.Ada also remembered Parry attempting to chat her up outside a fish shop in St.Helens in 1941.She was married by this time, and living in the town, and Parry had failed to recognise her.
12.Jimmy Tattersall…former friend of Parry’s from the 1920’s and early 30’s.He makes an appearance in Roger Wilkes book “Wallace:The Final Verdict”.Tattersall contacted Wilkes after the Radio City broadcast.They met in a Liverpool pub, where Tattersall attempted to defend Parry, saying he wasn’t capable of murder, was squeamish, and likely to run away from a fight.
So…there you have it.12 people, all connected to Parry.And far more importantly, every single one them still alive in 1966 when Goodman tracks Parry down to his London flat.Camberwell, if I’m not mistaken.And I’m convinced this is why Parry makes no mention of his alibi, no mention of his statement given at midnight, and doesn’t give Goodman with a single name, despite telling him that the police seemed satisfied when he was able to provide them with the names of some people he was arranging a birthday party with.So why doesn’t he tell Goodman the names of some of these people if he’s got nothing to hide? It’s a marvellous chance to clear his name.If that was me, and I had absolutely nothing to do with the case, I’d be telling Goodman as many names as I could remember, particularly the names of people on my statement.And I think anybody who felt wrongly suspected of involvement in a crime, especially a murder, would also jump at the chance to prove they weren’t involved.So why isn’t Parry making the most of this opportunity? The reason is simple…he HAS got something to hide!! And there’s no way he wants Goodman to go searching for some of these people.Even after 35 years, it only takes one of them to inadvertently say something that makes Goodman suspicious, and suggests Parry’s involvement.And there are certain people on this list who Parry DEFINITELY won’t want Goodman going anywhere near…William Denison, Lily Lloyd and John Parkes to name but three.Antony Brown nails it in Move to Murder, when he talks about Parry being guarded and evasive about the murder for the rest of his life…and there HAS to have been a reason for that.A genuinely innocent person would have no need to be guarded and evasive.I also seriously believe that Goodman tracking him down to London is one the reasons he moved to a remote village in North Wales just two years later…not long before Goodman’s book was published.He doesn’t want any other journalists or writers asking him awkward questions, and that’s because he was up to his neck in it!!
Anyway, sorry for the long post!! But hopefully it’ll spark a bit of debate.
Goodman is like a random nobody “The Sun” level reporter showing up to his door harassing him and implicitly accusing him of being a murderer. It is unsurprising he didn’t want to furnish the hack with his life story and send him to old friends to harass them also.
I agree with RMQ. By 1966 the Wallace murder had been consigned to history. And here were two nosey journalists turning up on Parry’s doorstep implying that he was involved! They were lucky he agreed to speak with them at all but he’d been warned by his father of their visit and it might be amusing to spin a few false trails. Above all, whether he was involved or not, he had absolutely nothing to gain by giving names of people who could corroborate his alibi etc. Who knows what these two would print in articles/books twisting and mis-interpreting what he said (as indeed happened to some extent.) . Interest in the case would be revived and more journalists would be knocking on his door. “Let sleeping dogs lie.”
Parry didn’t mention his 3 hour Brine visit to Lily Lloyd or her mother when he arrived at their home. I suspect this hints at his relationship with Mrs Brine or Phyllis Plant rather than anything more sinister. Another reason why he wouldn’t want either of them to be traced and questioned.
R M Qualtrough says:
August 23, 2024 at 7:58 pm
I recall that story sounding BS, not that it has literally any bearing on the case, but didn’t they say she saw Julia from their own home’s bay window, rather than somewhere that makes sense like the street?
It does have bearing on the case. Your own photo on this site of yours shows how by looking out of her own upstairs front bedroom bay window, it is only a few metres away from the Wallace’s upstairs front bedroom bay window. It means Julia was in the messed up room that morning and the possible bedsheet on the kitchen table is perhaps being mended and so that was not a burglar or anyone ransacking the room. William says he had not been in that room in about 2 weeks. It all makes perfect sense.
There is no bedsheet on the table just so you know, it’s a schiz delusion by Gannon. Julia would have to literally be IN the window and so would the neighbor, btw, at the same time. It would be weird if she was legit in there as it might suggest she was no longer sharing a bed with William, and was instead sleeping in the other room away from him due to marital unrest.
Hemmerde is all over the place on his questioning, asking a defendant and jury to follow this is comical.
Q 3280. I thought you did know. On the Monday night you say you knew he (Crewe) had been to the Cinema (but Wallace had said in answer to a question just earlier that it was the Tuesday night which was correct)
Then….
Q3353. Did it ever occur to you when you were in difficulties that night on the 20th just to look in and ask Mr Crewe?
A: I have given evidence that I did look in (and he was out)
Pfft. It seems Wallace (as Justice Wright commented) was very consistent with all his statements which is more than can be said for the prosecution who offered nothing in the way of proving any guilt.
Looking at the recent Olivia Korbel case in a 4 part documentary last week and the hoops the detectives had to jump through to get CPS approval to prosecute, this would and should never have got off the ground.
Hi Mike,
Neither Goodman or Whittington-Egan were journalists, they were both authors and historians.Indeed, Whittington-Egan was only there to provide some moral back up for Goodman who was obviously a bit nervous about meeting Parry.I could be wrong here, but I don’t think Whittington-Egan ever had more than a passing interest in the case, and that was only because of the Liverpool connection.I think a lot of his writing was predominantly about the history of Liverpool in general, he certainly didn’t specialise in crime and murder.Goodman was a crime author and historian, but a Sun like journalist as RMQ describes him he certainly wasn’t.
Getting to the actual case, I’m afraid I disagree in regard to the three hours Parry spent at Olivia Brine’s house.I think he was there purely for the benefit of his alibi.I don’t think it’s impossible there was some sort of relationship between him and Brine, but I don’t think he had any shenanigans planned for this particular night.The reason being that her 13 year old daughter was in the house when he called…something that was always likely to be the case if he was calling at 5.30.After all, she’d probably only finished school an hour or so earlier…something Parry would surely have known even if he WAS carrying on with Brine, which we can only speculate about anyway.So he can’t exactly jump into bed with her while her daughter is there!! I also think it’s significant that Harold Denison shows up at the house just half an hour after Parry.I think this is something he’s been asked to do by his brother William, and possibly Parry too.Harold’s appearance adds substance and credibility to Parry’s alibi.After all, he can just say he was expecting to find his brother William there when he called at his Aunt’s house, so he’ll hang around and wait for him…which is exactly what Parry can claim he was doing too.Of course, William never appears at Knoclaid Road…probably because he was never meant to.And it’s odd the police don’t appear to have checked on his whereabouts considering his Aunt Olivia actually mentions him in her statement.As I’ve said previously on here, if Parry began calling with him before Christmas, then why is Parry calling on his own on this particular night? And as I’ve just said, he won’t be calling for sexual purposes if he knows her daughter is going to be there.I’m convinced he’s there simply killing time until he can pick up his accomplice, or accomplices, from somewhere on Lower Breck Road…one of whom is likely to be William Denison.If it were possible, I’m willing to bet that William Denison was one of the two men seen running at speed down Hanley Street towards Lower Breck Road shortly before 8.15pm that night by Anne Parsons.And it’s why Parry took his unnecessarily convoluted route to Hignetts, because he was meant to meet them somewhere in the Lower Breck Road vicinity.Probably Breckside Park, which even today can be rather dark near the entrance gates.I used to play football there myself many years ago, and about 15 years ago used to take my son for football training there.Believe me, it’s not exactly well illuminated at night!! So imagine what it was like in 1931 with maybe only gas lamps there??…very useful for a clandestine meeting, I’d say.
And I’m sorry Mike, I also disagree that Parry couldn’t have given Goodman some names in 1966 if he was totally innocent of any involvement.Okay, if he HAD been carrying on with Brine or Plant, then it’s understandable he’d be reluctant to give Goodman their names, even though we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that he was carrying on with either of them.But what was stopping him giving Goodman the names of William and Harold Denison, or Leslie Williamson, if everything he said he did that night was 100% genuine and had nothing whatsoever to do with the events that unfolded in Wolverton Street?? What’s his problem here?? After all, he received a 21st Birthday party invitation for Leslie Williamson when he called at 49 Lisburn Lane.And he told Goodman the police seemed satisfied when he was able to produce some some friends with whom he’d been arranging a birthday party.So why can’t he give Goodman Williamsons’ name if this is the birthday party he’s referring to? I don’t see a problem with that at all if it’s honest and straight.And even if Leslie Williamson didn’t like Parry, I’m sure he’d have confirmed to Goodman that what Parry had told him about a birthday party was true as far as he could recall.
Sorry, but I can’t accept that he won’t tell Goodman anything simply because he wants to let sleeping dogs lie, or because he may or may not have been carrying on behind Lily’s back.The reason he didn’t tell Lily or her mother about the three hours he spends in Brine’s is because it’s his alibi for a robbery that he knows he’s going to be questioned about anyway, even if it goes according to plan.He’ll know that Wallace is surely going to give the police his name as someone who knew where he kept the cash box.At some point he might have to tell Lily where he was, but even then he can just say he was at Brine’s waiting to meet his mate William Denison.
Sorry Mike and RMQ…but Parry is STILL up to his neck in it!!
Would you send a tabloid cuck like Goodman to harass your friends and spin up a tale about you in his “research”. Half of the stories in his book are rumours. As Rod says “prejudice and fancy”, like the thing about finding the bar behind the fireplace, or benzidine. A real “historian” wouldn’t do that. He’s a tabloid tier journo writing sensationalist novellas to capture the interest of housewives.
RMQ – The list of people we have to ignore is getting longer don’t you think.
Ada Cook, John Parkes, Samuel Beattie, Anne Parsons, the other two witnesses, John Smith is one of them and now Amy Johnston.
Her sighting of Julia Wallace that morning clearly shows that Julia was in the room where the bedsheets were disturbed. Wallace says under oath that Julia would usually sew, or read, or play piano, or do some domestic duties whilst he is out. There is something on the kitchen table, make of that what you will.
We do know the drains were checked, Wallace might not know that if guilty so may wash any blood off then get caught – just like so many in the real life crime series I watch.
Also, is anyone going to tell me yet why this master planner with weeks or months to plan this doesn’t just strangle poor frail old Julia? Instead he has to turn into this frenzied monster for all of 2 minutes then calmly talk to 10 people 🙂
There’s no bedsheet on the table, that is schizo Gannon stuff. Please purchase the Murder Casebook magazine which has the photos in high quality, looks more like a skirt with sequins, which would make sense since William didn’t allow his wife to buy clothes, and instead made her wear “homemade” rags so he could spend all their money on his crappy microscope.
Hi Dave,
I don’t have it to hand but I recall Goodman’s account of meeting Parry as virtually a list of snippets of information volunteered by Parry: his father’s advice to say nothing, his afternoon visits with Julia, his opinion of Wallace (“sexually odd” ) etc. etc. Obviously Goodman and W-E had to avoid direct accusations. (W-E was there for back-up in case of fisticuffs as much as anything.) I get the impression that Parry did most of the talking, throwing a few straws in the wind along the way but adding little of consequence. So I don’t think his visitors questioned him in any depth, if at all, about his alibi for the murder evening particularly not asking for names in order to confirm it. Such a request would be futile anyway for reasons already given.
I can only repeat: Parry was home and dry in 1966. He had nothing to gain, particularly if he was involved, by giving information which would revive the case. In fact, I’m surprised he said as much as he did. I wouldn’t have given them the time of day.
RMQ says: It would be weird if she was legit in there as it might suggest she was no longer sharing a bed with William, and was instead sleeping in the other room away from him due to marital unrest. It was never mentioned at the time of the crime.
Just to correct your error here: Not only did Wallace say to Gold. Our bedroom is the middle bedroom as being above the middle kitchen it is warmer but Q3573 at the trial.
3573. Your wife’s bedroom would look down on the yard? Yes.
Zero errors made. She was allegedly seen in the FRONT bedroom. I.e. NOT the one she allegedly shared with William. Which could suggest she was in fact sleeping in the FRONT bedroom due to marital unrest, a fact that was not stated at the time.
Mike says; I can only repeat: Parry was home and dry in 1966. He had nothing to gain, particularly if he was involved, by giving information which would revive the case. In fact, I’m surprised he said as much as he did. I wouldn’t have given them the time of day.
Not quite, JG told him he was writing a book. Parry said he had no objection to him being mentioned as long as it wasn’t by name or he would sue them. In that respect he was not home and dry on a cold case still unsolved. However, a simple, see Mrs Brine who back then lived in Clubmoor and she will back me up as to where I was just as she did in 1931 would suffice to never hear from them again and no need to drop tasty nuggets of info or to disappear into the middle of nowhere in North Wales.
R M Qualtrough says:
August 29, 2024 at 6:04 am
Zero errors made. She was allegedly seen in the FRONT bedroom. I.e. NOT the one she allegedly shared with William. Which could suggest she was in fact sleeping in the FRONT bedroom due to marital unrest, a fact that was not stated at the time.
It was not stated at the time as you have just made that up. It is said on at least 2 occasions that I have clearly pinpointed above that they slept in the middle bedroom. Julia was seen in the front bedroom by Amy Johnston on the day of her murder, proof that she was in the room that was messed up. Why was it messed up (and not really messed but a couple of pillows on the floor and the bedspread pulled across – her hats were on the bed. Possibly because she was sewing a sheet or something on the table. Are you not paying attention to the content within your own site?
If she was in fact seen in the FRONT ROOM, which is a bedroom, when they were alleged to be occupying the MIDDLE ROOM, it could potentially suggest she was sleeping in the FRONT ROOM instead. A possible reason could be unstated marital disharmony, which caused her to no longer sleep in the MIDDLE ROOM with her murderer husband.
Making the bed in a room that nobody had been in or slept in for weeks? Or because she was actually sleeping there.
There’s no bedsheet on the kitchen table. The photos are available. It is invented and that’s why bedsheets on the table are not mentioned anywhere. It is just fictional bullshit borne out of schizophrenia. In front of her chair where she was sewing you will see some dark material which looks like it’s covered in sequins (like a dress, because her murderer husband made her wear rags made/repaired at home, to save funds for his microscopes).
We occupied the middle bedroom; the front room was cold and dark. The middle room, being over the kitchen, was much warmer. The small bedroom I used as a work room. I did photography and chemistry and microscopic work (botanical).
Hi Ged,
Why didn’t Wallace simply strangle Julia avoiding potential blood stains etc?
We can also ask:
Why did Dr Shipman use morphine to kill his victims? A very stable and easily detectable alkaloid when many hard to detect poisons were, with his medical training, known to him?
Why did Crippen (if you believe he was guilty) poison his wife, then chop up her body which was never found apart from a few internal organs buried in his coal cellar? Poisoners usually want the death passed off as natural – why dismember her?
Why did Christie murder several women in his own home and hide the bodies there when he could have met them in a rented room far away?
Just three examples, among many, of murders which, with the benefit of hindsight, could have been done differently and with reduced risk of detection. Wallace himself said he could have poisoned his wife using an undetectable poison although I think Wallace’s knowledge in this field was minimal.
I do agree that on the face of it Wallace (if it was he) chose a messy way to do it. With Julia’s frail health her sudden death from poison, particularly if her true age were to be discovered, would be passed off as natural. Estranged from her relatives and with few friends, nobody would be asking awkward questions.
Hi Mike. Shipman used a drug that he could be quite naturally prescribing his victims and thus allow him to kill them with no suspicion. Remember it was his forging of wills which led to his downfall, his methods of murder went unnoticed until his forgeries were found out.
Crippen’s poisonings again were a more natural way, actually just like Wallace might do with his knowledge of poisoning. Crippen cutting them up just proved him as evil and mad – not a label ever thrown at Wallace in court.
Christie got a sexual pleasure from his methods and kept them as trophies. The cases you use are of serial killers. Wallace could quite easily have planned a lot of things better, it doesn’t need hindsight, just simple things. For example. He has no need to say one minute the front door key won’t turn and then on his second visit it does turn but slips back (as Moore found too) He only had to say the snib was on and it wouldn’t turn either time. These are not great knowledge with hindsight but would be things Wallace would be expecting to get quizzed with and so would think it through beforehand. Imagine you or I not being able to get into our house tonight with our key, we’d have to think beforehand how that could occur, he only had 4 or 5 real tasks to accomplish when you think about it.
Stage a break in by smashing a window at the back and make the robbery look realistic. Strangle Julia. Say the snib was on and agree with Sarah Draper that the back door was iffy and even Julia had to let her in on occasions. Make himself known only to the first and last tram driver and at MGW to Katie Mather and all is done.
If he is pointing towards an insurance cash robbery and Q being the perp then no need for the smashed window. None of this is rocket science and doesn’t need any great thought. Leave the light on, go in the parlour before upstairs – that part really doesn’t make much difference.
Why did OJ brutally stab the shit out of his wife bro, this is proof he is innocent. A guilty OJ would surely strangle his cheating druggy wife to avoid bringing blood back to his Brentwood mansion.
Must have been framed by that racist cop Mark Fuhrman.
If the members of the pub meet up crew really wanted to solve the case and arrive at the correct solution (rather than talking in circles, some members likely hopped up on amphetamines and shattered dreams), then why not allow back in a superior level IQ American into the group?
That’s the way I “would do it” if I really wanted to solve the case rather than just “being right” with a “new, clever” theory.
As you can see, people do not always act in predictable ways.
I have championed your return Josh, have you re-applied to join? The site admin popped on here and saw you still name calling, that doesn’t help does it? I am not name calling you, RMQ or Mike because I have a different theory and as you can see I don’t agree with my mate Mark and don’t agree with Rod. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that Parlour that evening.
I make occasional contributions to the Lindbergh case forum based in the USA. Virtually all the contributors are Americans. Two of them are Michael and Joe who have diametrically opposite views as to whodunnit and for literally 20 years they have been arguing the toss on the case often descending (in my view) to name calling and giving their views on the other’s personality.
This got to such a pitch that (Fools rush in) I opined that the reason other contributors had stopped posting was that they were, like myself, fed up with this schoolboy name calling and character denigration.
Michael, the forum coordinator, posted that he and Joe were veteran students of the case of long standing. “We have great respect for each other.” He admitted that in the heat of the moment intemperate language was used but it was recognised as such by both parties and “no real harm done.”
So, dare I say, we Brits like to think we conduct ourselves without resorting to personal comments as to character and motivation on the part of any poster. I tend to agree with Michael that no real harm is intended by our American friends. Its just a question of style.
By the way, after my intervention both Joe and Michael were more careful about the language they used!
Hi Mike, yes unfortunately, the Casebook Forum which I believe started off as a JTR Forum but now has other murder cases on it including the Wallace case has had threads opened and closed before, about 3 times, due to it descending into farce and name calling. Antony Brown, the Move to Murder author started one thread which lasted 194 pages with countless posts, RMQ was on it as was Josh and Rod and another few good posters. Lots were learning of the case as it went along and chipped in with ideas. I think we are all entitled to our own hunches and opinions and those should only be countered by other opposite facts/opinions and not cast as the solution.
From what I see of the trial, both the prosecution and defence do themselves no great justice in getting muddled up along the way on occasions. Poor old Wallace doesn’t help himself on occasions either, i’ve gotten to shouting at the computer why didn’t you just say this, that or the other in reply to that question. Sometimes Oliver will jump in to help dig him out, but not out of a lie he’s told but out of something he’s misremembering which I saw earlier he’d said. Hemmerde does a lot of assuming and trying to put words in Wallace’s mouth I see.
I agree there are some stylistic differences between USA and UK and being an American and having visited Britain and all over Europe, the style is definitely more confrontational here even among friends.
I would also say there is a history here so it isn’t a case of respect but just more aggressive language in expressing disagreements (which I agree is more of an American cultural thing.) Unfortunately I do recognize that being insulting can put people off even if I feel it is justified based on the history. Most of the frustration I have is geared towards a certain poster (you will see the first thread was humming along fine until he entered). And Antony Brown changing positions (you can no longer find his first edition) because the publishers wanted a “more exciting theory” made me annoyed and questioning his seriousness. Also his defense of the aforementioned poster who has been banned from several forums and Wikipedia for trolling in a similar manner.
Ironically, the issue started because I (politely) did not agree with this poster’s very prescriptive, rigid theory and absolute confidence in it as well as rude dismissals of other theories. I think of that saying “if you stare into the abyss too long…” so I will try to keep things more respectful as I feel the discussion is better here. Differences of opinions are fine and make things interesting and I never demand someone agree with my theory, just hope we can all make our cases in the best faith way possible.
Back to the case,
Let’s play a game “steel man” the opposing position or in other words what worries you the most about your position’s correctness/other theories maybe being right.
For me it’s the call itself and the content of it (mention of 21st birthday, peremptory tone, guts it would take to make the call (and obviously more stressful if it’s Wallace and murder is the aim etc) all point towards Parry as the caller.
But for other reasons due to timing, implausibility of the plan if Parry is calling etc., I do think Wallace still is the caller.
And for many other reasons as well which have already been stated I believe he is the killer too. Parry being less of a dodgy character though would certainly have helped him be less of a suspect.
Hi Josh,
A great contribution. I too was appalled that Antony Brown changed his opinion of how Julia was killed because his publisher wanted a more exciting ending as if his book were a novel, not a serious factual account. Shocking!
I too believe Wallace to be the caller/killer but there are unresolved problems with this:
1. Motive
Apart from three individuals describing the relationship as strained and lacking in affection (Dr Curwen /Nurse caring for Wallace) and Wallace being sour, bitter and fed up with his job (Prudential colleague), there was unanimous agreement that the Wallaces were everything to each other and a devoted couple.
There was no financial gain from her death and no hint of extra-marital relationships if we discount Parry’s claimed afternoon visits which I believe were social rather than anything else.
2. Menlove Gardens
Wallace’s dogged quest to find Mr Q at 25 MGE is expected behaviour of a Prudential agent prospecting lucrative new business. It was unlikely that Mr Beattie had taken down the wrong address so having travelled 4 miles Wallace was not going to accept that it didn’t exist until he had examined all options.
3. 25 MGE
Wallace made no attempt to check the location of this address during working hours on the 20 th January. Why should he? Wallace was essentially of the Victorian era where much business was conducted in that telephone-free era face-to-face. Approaching complete strangers in the street for information was completely natural to him.
4. Cause of death
Here, with a nod to Ged, I agree that beating in his wife’s head with an iron bar is somehow out of character for the calm placid Wallace. If we recall the Armstrong case of some 10 years earlier, Major Armstrong poisoned his wife with arsenic and he got away with it until he tried the same thing on a rival solicitor which raised the alarm. With Julia’s delicate health and her malnourished state her death, although sad, would be unremarkable in that era when people were dying like flies from TB, flu, pneumonia etc. Against the background detailed above of a loving marriage, no suspicion would attach to Wallace.
Gradual poisoning does not require Wallace to establish an alibi of any kind. And you don’t need specialised knowledge of poisons. The dogs in the street know arsenic is poison.
I have avoided the usual exculpatory facts exonerating Wallace – no blood on him, the tight timing, the non recognition of him as Mr Q on the phone – because I believe these can be explained in terms of his guilt.
The above is a summary of why, as a juror, I could not vote in favour of Wallace’s conviction for murder.
As a juror, I could not vote guilty because I do not believe the case quite meets the threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, (which I absolutely think is the correct standard in a criminal and especially capital case, and has been the staple of British and now American jurisprudence for hundreds of years.) But I definitely think he did it.
I trip up more with the call than anything else but I think the 7:30 starting time thing is very important (I believe you found it) as it makes the possibility of someone staking out Wallace to leave and then make the call even less (as he would be very late at that point). It also shows the arrival time rule was not strictly enforced at the club as some have claimed. Also, since the time Wallace leaves and the location of the call box dovetail with him being the caller, I can get past my slight unease about Parry on the face of it seeming a more likely candidate to have made the call.
I also think the flaws with benzidine test (and Wallace’s scientific background meaning he likely knew this) was also a dramatic seemingly “innocence” point that really turned out not to be a fact after all. Like finding out Parry had an alibi with the Brines (separate from his Lily Lloyd alibi.) One can question the veracity of this alibi, but it is an alibi nonetheless, and puts a damper on Goodman and Radio City et al. assertion of a “conspiracy of silence.”
As far as motive, I agree this is challenging. I think of Gannon’s theory, which I definitely do not buy into (both the conspiracy and the soap opera esque sex angle), but the one aspect of it that makes me think is the suddenness of the need to get rid of Julia. Maybe something occurred that we just don’t know about that made Wallace felt the urgent need to get rid of Julia. Hard to say what that could be and perhaps it isn’t likely but we just don’t know. It is also possible he wanted to commit the perfect crime and had grown sick of his elderly (I definitely believe he knew her real age) possibly burdensome wife. It’s very hard to get in someone else’s head, so I agree with Hemmerde that motive does not need to be demonstrated if the case is proven in other ways. I just think it wasn’t quite, although it’s still a strong case.
I believe there is something critical about the Wallace case that we do not know about–and now never will; something about Wallace or maybe Julia and her past etc. that is majorly related to what occurred and would make more sense of things if transparent.
Unfortunately, now all we can do is speculate forever.
Hi Josh,
Your point about the suddenness of Wallace’s decision to kill Julia: we do know that Wallace consulted Dr Curwen in December. This was probably about his kidney deterioration which even in 1931 could be monitored accurately by urine analysis. The news cannot have been good. Wallace was in terminal decline and unlikely to last more than a few years. Plus, in his condition he would be vulnerable to any attack of flu or pneumonia which could carry him off at any time. All this is speculation of course.
The Wallace’s lived in rented accommodation, had collectively only a few hundred pounds in the bank, were estranged from relatives and had few friends. If Wallace kicked the bucket Julia, now alone, would descend to absolute poverty. I know its far fetched but the murder – a quick death after all – may have been Wallace’s solution. To save his beloved Julia from this inevitable fate.
Wallace was nothing if not a philosopher. Unlike most killers he had in a sense little to lose – whether found guilty or innocent he was going to die anyway. Obviously, “innocence” was preferable so he took pains with his plan. His demeanour throughout was calm and unemotional , even before his appeal – consistent with his stoic philosophy of all life’s events being pre-determined.
P.S. Wallace had been ill with the flu the week before the murder. This may have been a stark reminder of his precarious health and Dr Curwen’s prognosis. He decided to act without further delay and for the first time in two months, he went to the chess club….
Yes, this is interesting. I could see Wallace realizing that he has not much time left and how perilous his health was and that if anything were to happen to him, Julia would be screwed. Knowing her age, he might have felt it was a way for them “to go together.”
Twisted of course, but certainly not unheard of in criminal history. There could also be a blend of motivations as human psychology is complex; maybe he partially or mostly felt it was a mercy killing and because of a negative diagnosis did feel an obligation to act quickly (hence his first arrival at he club in 2 months) but also enjoyed the idea of living out his last stretch alone.
Wallace strikes me as someone who might hyperfocus on certain details and he probably thought his plan was perfect (once Beattie says the voice wasn’t mine, they cannot convict me.)
I found Murphy’s book to be important because it was the first that revealed the case documents in full and Parry’s actual alibi, but it is riddled with errors and basically lies which is disappointing because I agree with his conclusion although maybe not to the same confidence level.
He does have a “profiling” chapter where he compares Wallace to American family annihilator John Emil List (who claimed his killings were mercy killings); the direct comparison between the two is slightly tenuous but the general point I found hit home with me. Wallace, with his disappointing life, sour demeanor, and quotidien yet intellectually pretention stoic philosophy fits the profile of a “family annihilator” very well. Also if getting a bad diagnosis put Wallace over the edge in some ways, he could be prone to desperation at thinking what might happen next once he dies/to Julia etc. That kind of desperation can cause horrific domestic crimes when perpetrated by people who tend to hyperfocus and feel trapped without being able to see ways out/the larger picture. For lack of a better word, I suspect Wallace was somewhat “on the spectrum” who comforted himself with philosophy and also a rigid thinker who once mind made up, even if about to embark on something terrible/dangerous would not be able to dissuade himself.
This is all speculative and does not at all by itself prove a case and I understand why people are wary of profiling; it is everyone’s worst nightmare for someone to be convicted of a crime they didn’t commit and profiling tropes can often be overly applied. That said, these types of profiles tend to be very and surprisingly accurate. I think Wallace fits the “family annihilator” profile exceptionally well.
Hi Josh,
I like your idea of a “blend of motivations.” Julia Wallace was an intelligent cultured lady who had already suffered a dramatic fall in her standard of living by marrying William and moving from Harrogate (a spa town) to a rented house in an Anfield back street. That was seventeen years earlier when William was 35 years old and would have been looking forward to advancement in his new job with the Prudential. This never materialised and now he was 52 and doing the same job which was normally done by much younger men e.g. Parry when he helped him out.
Julia was aware of Wallace’s fragile health, especially his kidney problem, and she must have dreaded the prospect of becoming a poverty-stricken widow. Did she hold Wallace responsible for their situation due to his lack of ambition and lack of achievement? More importantly, did she let him know this? Constant hints of his failure to provide for their future would give Wallace an additional motive to put an end to it.
I just read about the List murders and there are undoubted similarities with this theory of the Wallace case: murder to put an end to financial problems in the family.
Although far from being “Case closed” this theory is a contender.
Goods posts by you both though I don’t personally think the mercy killing to be believable simply because doing such out of a duty or fear for his good lady he would surely not bludgeon her to death but make it as peaceful for her as possible.
Bear in mind only 3 weeks earlier he was worried about her lateness home and only the night before had urged her to go to Dr Curwen. When Wallace was speaking to his colleague after the appeal, at the Pru building in Dale st, he asked his advice about what may be forthcoming regarding his health and what ‘he would do’ so it seems he wasn’t aware of his impending death just yet and in fact would last nearly another two years.
What proof is there that his visit to the chess club was his first in two months. Beattie says he hadn’t seen him since before xmas but that was only a month earlier.
Yeah three weeks earlier he went to the cops hoping to hear she’d been killed in an accident. Unfortunately for him she was alive and just late, so he had to put her down himself, like Old Yeller. More doctor’s bills? But he needs his crappy laboratoy (from which zero discoveries were ever made)! How sad that on the day of her demise, she was slaving on her homemade rags and hiding money in her underwear lest William find out there were pennies unaccounted for… She didn’t even get to spend her final day in a nice outfit 🙁
I don’t give much credence to the Johnston’s being involved but this was a post put forward on the aforementioned casebook forum. It would mean that Johnston would have had to have some knowledge about Wallace’s work and chess pastime though and make the call (As fantasist Tom Slemen/Stan claims)
”But anyway back onto the Johnstons, here are things about them which are a bit weird or coincidental:”
1) Them suddenly materializing outside on Wallace’s return – coincidence? We are led to believe this, that it was just lucky timing.
2) Mr. Johnston not knowing Julia’s name… Despite the couple having lived next door to her for a decade, received postcards from her in their absence saying what a nice time she was having on holiday etc. and apparently the walls were so thin they could hear everything. Especially the visits of Amy Wallace… But not once in 10 years had Mr. Johnston heard the name “Julia” uttered? – I know you all can see why this may be construed as odd.
3) The prosecution made a point against Wallace about him saying “whatever have they used?” – If you think this is suggestive evidence from the prosecution, then remember that it was actually apparently MRS. JOHNSTON who had said that while glancing around the room.
4) Their coincidental move the very next day, like the “Bagel King” Jerry Steuerman.
5) Them hearing basically all of the events of that day, but all other sounds mysteriously absent… They heard Wallace lightly knock on his own door, the milk boy’s arrival, conversations with Amy through the walls… Yet suspicious in its absence is their recollection of ANY sound that might indicate someone entering the home. No door opening, no doorstep conversation of a man explaining he is “Mr. Qualtrough” or whatever, that is the claim we are to believe.
6) The Johnstons looked after the Wallace’s home (and cat) when they were away on vacation. Supposedly Mrs. Johnston had only ever seen the parlor of that home, and supposedly only ever been in there when Julia was there and Wallace was out… And Mr. Johnston, well apparently he had never stepped foot into the home in his life.
7) Mrs. Johnston, having seen the gruesome sight of the badly battered Julia, with exposed brains, and blood/brain tissue sprayed all over the walls… Consider how she reacted? Would you expect such calmness from Mrs. Johnston having walked in on that?
8) Mr. Johnston is also a short man and could have matched the sighting of Lily Hall.
9) The sudden re-appearance of the missing and ever-enigmatic Puss. Who, on a side note, despite the parlor door apparently being open, had not approached Julia or tracked bloody pawprints around the home shortly after the crime had occurred, and was apparently not at all exhibiting any sign of anxiety over what was clearly a savage attack, not hiding, not running out of the home (if they had a cat flap), etc. Cats are NOT unconscious beings, if they felt they were under threat they would most certainly exhibit signs of fear or anxiety… And those are just a few on-the-spot points on top of Puss’s mystical reappearance.
10) They DID have a key for the home. But I am not so sure it was used to be honest… I think Julia willingly admitted someone(s) into the home, and furthermore, I think she had trusted this person(s).
11) Wallace strangely omitted the Johnstons from the list of people Julia would admit into the home. Was he an innocent man who knew there was a riff between them? Was he trying to avoid police investigating the Johnstons more heavily? Or was it simply an oversight?
12) Mr. Johnston apparently had a friend who lived at Menlove Gardens West.
It is also claimed they could have come out at the same time having heard the knock solely so they could go back inside the Wallace’s to check they’d not botched it or to even get blood on them in case any was still on them from the murder. It seems the police never bothered to hold them as suspects or look in their house. It also seems the daughter was not expecting them and they were moving in next day anyway. The future son-in-law met Mr Johnston on his way to the police station where he says Mr J told him, I’ve got to get Florence out of that house. I read a rumour somewhere that Flo was discussing the case sometime later with a neighbour only for John to usher her in and she was later seen with a black eye. Has anyone else read that too.
It’s a lesson for all, to see how far the mind has to contort when presented with lies by schizophrenic tabloid cucks like Goodman, autismal weirdos like Rod Stringer, and greedy pretentious authors who scrounge off their wife (kind of Wallace behaviour [spelling quickly corrected from behavior lest spastic Rod thinks I’m American again], since it appears Wallace used Julia for her wealth – selling her Harrogate mansion of which she was landlady – and discarded her when the pot ran dry).
The lesson is essentially, that if the “pieces don’t quite fit” in any orientation, it makes more sense to review the pieces instead of trying to abstract outwards even further to try to find some means by which they can fit together. I.e. the pieces themselves are likely wrong. And on review you do find that, yes, things relied upon as being facts which prevented the easy slotting together of the puzzle, were indeed invented by useless journalists, fantasists (as per the ones you mentioned and Parkes), and wannabe authors. A randomer sent me a letter claiming they heard a tale from a friend that the bar was found? Better include that in my book.
And then you look back in great embarassment, as you realize you showed people humiliating low IQ theories about distraction robberies, for something literally anyone on the planet can easily see is an almost definite domestic homicide. Cringe-inducing for sure.
Yet still there is no evidence whatsoever to convict him beyond he was there. The police file was trimmed – why? The police themselves invented stuff such as the 18 mistakes at the committal proceedings and not releasing witnesses to the prosecution – why? They acted as though the caller had to be the killer – why? It could be said the police did the very thing you are accusing the authors of and trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Once they had their man, everything else was found an excuse for incl the coercing of Alan Close and the tram trial tests to name but two. Ada cook and Anne Parsons need to be dismissed and the master planner with weeks at his disposal to do a run through in his mind doesn’t just strangle her then say the door was bolted from the off. Strange isn’t it.
“Why wouldn’t you strangle her?!” So now we’re entering the phase of “let’s assume the criminal is a mastermind, let’s assume he’s smart”. The guy is a retard, we’re always in the 70s with IQ with all these domestic homiciders. But I love the reasoning “it doesn’t make sense to bludgeon some innocent woman”, yes, we agree, he’s doing evil shit and he’s a dumb motherfucker.
Hi Ged,
In my view the case against Johnston is no more outlandish than Parry + accomplices. Supporting the latter is:
1. Parry’s bad character.
2. His knowledge of Wallace’s home / routine / cash box location.
3. Lying initially to the police about his alibi. So stupid in a murder enquiry that there has to be an innocent explanation for it.
4. He could feasibly have made the Qualtrough call.
5. Parry’s Brine alibi satisfied the police but this doesn’t stop the Parry bandwagon: Mrs Brine lied. The corrupt police scapegoated Wallace due to intervention of Parry’s father. Parry gave detailed instructions to his cronies who had never been inside No 29 before. These will o’ the wisp accomplices are even named (Denison, Marsden etc) without a shred of evidence.
My front runner is Wallace and far behind him is Johnston, not Parry. You raise several points Ged which I hadn’t thought of. Mrs Johnston was unnaturally calm and collected if that was the first time she had seen Julia’s body.
After living next door to the Wallace’s for so many years Johnston would certainly know of Wallace’s chess club membership.
Local burglaries ceased when Johnston moved out of the area.
Yes, its a weak case against Johnston too but there has always been one aspect which sticks out. If he did have a workmate who lived in Menlove Gardens West and Johnston visited him there (ref Tom Slemen) what are the chances of this being a mere coincidence? It would probably make Johnston one of the few people in Liverpool who knew MGE didn’t exist and who also knew Wallace.
The source of the black eye story is again Tom Slemen in his book “Liverpool murders” or somesuch. Slemen has been dismissed as a fantasist due to his books on the supernatural but I found his suspicions of Johnston, although far from conclusive, to be well presented.
5. Parry’s Brine alibi satisfied the police but this doesn’t stop the Parry bandwagon: Mrs Brine lied. The corrupt police scapegoated Wallace due to intervention of Parry’s father.
Parry’s Mon night alibi also satisfied the police – but why?
Parry never mentions the Brine alibi ever again, not to Goodman or anyone – why?
His excuse for being late to Lily Lloyd is his (10 minute) visit to the Williamson’s where it seems from later testimony he wasn’t at all welcome, mind you he’d even swindled the Lloyds but was welcome there. No mention of his 3 hours at the Brines. Gannon has him as possibly carrying on with Phylis Plant though.
Parry may not worry too much about saying where he really was on the Monday because he knows it’s not the murder night and that he didn’t do it and that he can’t be linked to the call anyway. UNLESS the police tell him why they want to know where he was on the Monday night and then still do nothing about asking why he lies when it is uncorroborated. Imelda Moore of course is working for Parry’s dad during all this time he is being questioned too. Maybe Supt Moore is also in Parry Snrs pocket.
“Why wouldn’t you strangle her?!” So now we’re entering the phase of “let’s assume the criminal is a mastermind, let’s assume he’s smart.
It doesn’t really have to take you to be smart to do a premeditated killing the easiest way does it, nor to wonder hmm won’t the police ask why I couldn’t get in the house. Ah, i’ll just say it was bolted -nah too easy this.
There are after all 3 or 4 books and websites using the chessboard as their covers as if to say the Q call planning and his MGE alibi gathering was that of a mastermind.
Then we have the Parry was just a thick thief, always getting caught. Though maybe his accomplice was more savvy.
There is a common assertion being mentioned on here a number of times now about there having been no Benzidine test carried out as though this is fact. Antony/Rod have never said there was no test, just that there is no evidence in the police files for it having been done but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t. Home office pathologist Dr. Charles St. Hill was adamant in 1981 on the Radio City broadcast that it was done and he was in medical training in the 1930s.
It appears the files were trimmed out after 1981 (Ken Oxford would not release the police files to Radio City in 1981 even though the 50 year rule was up citing the police were coming in for a hammering on the show so they’d listened with keen ears to it. Afterwards they were released but it is said they were trimmed down. Now I wonder why? Are we asked to believe that the police really did not act upon Parry’s failed Monday night statement, no that Joseph Celeb Marsden was not questioned because we know he was, where is his statement? Where are the statements of Savona Brine or Phyliss Plant? How about that of Parkes which was pooh pooh as he must be mistaken – words uttered by Moore a few weeks earlier to Alan Close.
I could also add, are we asked to believe that the police did not test the Monday night tram timings too. If they didn’t then they are fools. Absence of evidence is not evidence as absence as Antony has just replied to me.
That’s like, a Christian thing to counter atheists lol. It’s the flying teapot in space thing. Wallace is so guilty people are turning to RELIGION to believe he dindu nuffin?
You should look at how benzidine tests even work. Drains where there’s been running water are not a good candidate for this kind of test. Probably why they didn’t do it.
Hi Ged,
It was on the Thursday as I recall that the news came through that the source of the Qualtrough call had been traced. This solidified Inspector Moore’s already grave suspicion of Wallace into a virtual certainty. It was on this day that Wallace gave names of people Julia would have admitted to No 29, concentrating on Parry and giving details about him. Parry was checked out by the police but they were convinced it was Wallace and this may have been done, I agree, less thoroughly than it should have been.
There are many cases where the police homed in on a suspect early in the investigation and discounted any evidence indicating they are wrong.
You are right in highlighting the police being reluctant to release the full file on the Wallace case even after 50 years. It has the distinct smell of circling the wagons to repel an attack by indians. The Radio City programme clearly upset the Liverpool police because it re-ignited interest in an essentially dead case. If there was nothing to hide the files should have been released “in toto.”
We need look no further than the potted biography of Inspector Herbert Balmer on their website. No mention that he was exposed as a corrupt officer who sent at least two innocent people to the gallows with perjured evidence. Its all “Good Old Bert.”
The benzidine test for blood has been discredited because the test reacts positively to a range of vegetable matter and fruit residues. So whether it was done or not is, for me, a moot point.
The Jack the Ripper files have also not been released. They do this to protect the identities of still living people or their families, who may have given confidential statements with embarassing admissions (e.g. maybe their alibi is that they were off cheating on their wife). Especially police informants, as they don’t want to discourage people in the future from ratting out lest they be exposed as a rat after their likely death.
Hi Mike. Good post. There was also the ninhydrin test available. It seems the drains were taken out and looked at, Wallace was denied entry to the house from Thursday onwards as it was inhabitable. It’s amazing they allowed him back in there to sleep there on the Wednesday. I expect they didn’t just put a pair of glasses on to see if there was a bit of red here or there? Would have been good to see some documentation on what was done though.
RMQ. The burden is on you to prove it. In that case you will need to do better than the police and prosecution. The release date of files is what it is to protect still living people who were involved. There weren’t that many by 1981 when Radio City came snooping. One who was though was Lily Lloyd and she confirmed she gave a false alibi and even though that was for a later time, it does mean it was requested of her by Parry, so why? It also seems she was playing piano at the Clubmoor Cinema until 10pm on the murder night. It also seems we’re doing a better job at finding out these things than the police ever did.
It doesn’t work that way. Will you also soon be claiming Gordon actually confessed to the murder in a secret police interview and it is just lost from the files, and I must prove it’s not the case?
I thought Anthony was a staunch atheist but he’s been reduced to literal religious arguments that Christians use to prove the existence of Yahweh. Soon it will be ontological arguments about the existence of literally anything at all and whether we can be sure Julia even existed. Maybe a paranormal entity called the chess club.
This guy slaughtered his wife btw. You will spend eternity trying to show otherwise, because it’s NOT otherwise and it’s as simple as that. Willy Wallace took a wrench and gave his wife’s skull fifty dents, and when he saw what he did do (i.e., he diddu sumfin) he gave her another fifty two. If you felt the case was solved would that like, kill the mood at pub meet though? Like maybe you want it to be a mystery to have stuff to chat about, like a hobby club?
Hello again!
Tilly Mint is back in the room.
It is clear that the police files have been cleansed over the years. What evidence remains allows for the theories that fuel this forum.
However I am convinced that the arrival of Amy Dennis, Julia’s sister on Wednesday 21st January had some bearing on the case.
1. How did Amy get to know of the murder? WHW was with the police. Did he tell them? I don’t think so as he maintained she had no family.
Who would know how and where to contact her?
It was said that there were letters in Julia’s handbag – who were they from?
She had few friends so presumably family?
Was Amy planning to visit Julia on that day anyway?
Was this an influential factor for the time of the murder?
How did she organise her visit so quickly from Brighton?
2. Why isn’t Amy’s visit recorded anywhere except in a statement made by Edwin?
He is the only one who mentions meeting Amy at Lime Street Station.
Amy had lived in Brighton for over 30 years but Edwin infers they were meeting a relative “coming from Yorkshire”?
Was Amy visiting all her relatives in the North of England and had arranged to drop in on Julia on her way back to Brighton.
This would explain the disarray of the front bedroom of Wolverton Street. Julia may have been preparing the room for Amy?
Edwin also says that WHW was also there and had permission from the police to attend. Neither WHW or the detectives say this.
Even at trial WHW says on that day he was with the police all day and when asked was he treated with consideration. He replied “I was not allowed to leave when I wanted to”. When asked if he was given meals, he said “I was , because I was not allowed to go out for them”. There is nothing in the police files regarding this event.
It must have happened as Amy Dennis’ stay at Ullett Road was the reason that WHW supposedly stayed that night at 29 Wolverton Street.
3. That one night stay at Wolverton Street again is not mentioned only by WHW who said he was driven there in a police car. The police officers who drove him there never mention it.
How did he enter if the police had the keys?
Amy and Edwin say they were expecting him at their flat but he didn’t arrive. Amy said that afterwards WHW told her where he spent the night.
At trial – Hubert Moore said he would not allow WHW to go back to Wolverton Street under any circumstances. So there is clearly something awry here. The following week WHW had to request to return to collect some fresh clothes from the house and went under police supervision.
This leaves the question if WHW just said he went to Wolverton Street or somewhere else?
In my eyes, if I had spent all day with police I would want to be with my family but WHW deliberately avoids the situation. Yes – the lack of accommodation may have been an issue but I firmly believe that WHW was avoiding Amy Dennis.
4. According to all sources ( No I am not quoting the Weather Girls! – hahaha) Amy Dennis left Liverpool the following morning leaving a note for the police and a request for Julia’s coat. What was in the note for the police – was it damning evidence against WHW?
If the police had informed Miss Dennis they should have taken a statement even just to corroborate WHW’s back story. But she disappeared back to Brighton as mysteriously as she had arrived.
5. Very soon after the trial and WHW’s sentence to death. Julia’s brother George Smith Dennis wrote to the police requesting Julia’s property believing WHW would hang. He had no truck with WHW and wanted back what he believed was Dennis family property. There appears to be no further communication?
I have a hunch that Amy Dennis could identify that the woman purportedly living as Julia was not her sister. That would give clarity to the facts on the marriage certificate being nonsense. It would explain the move to Liverpool, the estrangement from other family members. Nobody in Liverpool knew what the true Julia Dennis looked like.
I believe that Julia Dennis had an inheritance and an income from Taylor’s Chemists possibly as a shareholder. WHW knew this and was guilty of embezzlement. That is the reason he didn’t appear to be bothered about advancement in his job. He didn’t need the money but preferred to live an inconspicuous life in the back streets of Anfield.
We know Julia lived in Dragon Parade in Harrogate until 1910. After that she appears as Jane / J Dennis at 11 St Mary’s Avenue.
The man who witnessed the Wallace marriage was the manager of Taylor’s Chemist Harrogate branch and a neighbour of 11 St Mary’s Avenue but he travelled across the country from branch to branch and may have not known Julia or WHW very long to question any history. The move to Liverpool was sudden – why?
Wallace did the crime and I believe that pride was his motive. For whatever reason he and his wife had been living on Julia’s money and they were about to be found out.
He was prepared to murder his wife for fear she would let the secret out. Hence the elaborate plan and the avoidance of Amy Dennis.
Wallace was not the mild mannered insurance man but a conniving trickster. He thought by implicating the wide boy Parry that he could escape his deadly deed, but the police saw through him. The evidence could not be found to be presented at court it was circumstantial. So on appeal he walked free.
Afterwards a person who escaped the noose would not subject themselves to ‘Hello’ magazine articles such as those published in John Bull. Yes – they were ghost written but it was Wallace posing in new photos smiling in his new home. Again playing the tortured soul under the never ending threat of Parry.
Wallace was a master of manipulation and he definitely did it!
But the real mystery is what happened to Julia Dennis?
RMQ – Oh but British justice does work that way. The burden of proof is on you matey. Let’s hear your best version, are you just copying Murphy’s book which for 9 tenths of the text is showing an innocent Wallace and then he suddenly comes up with rubbish.
1) Let’s dismiss Parkes altogether in your world
2) Let’s dismiss Lily Fitzsimmons in your world
3) Let’s dismiss Anne Parsons in your world
4) Let’s dismiss Alan Close before police manipulation in your world
5) Let’s dismiss Ada Cook in your world
6) Let’s dismiss that a planned murderer has no need to bludgeon to death.
7) Let’s dismiss Parry’s alibi lie as a mistake yet Wallace isn’t afforded the same
8) Let’s dismiss Parry’s dad telling him never to discuss it with anyone ever
I could go on……..
No it doesn’t, this is just rage because you are beginning to see you are wrong and your worldview is crumbling down around you like the dioramas of Liverpool, long since disposed of…
“You can’t show me God DOESN’T exist, therefore he exists” = “you can’t show me benzidine (which wouldn’t even work in drains btw) wasn’t used, therefore it was”. No defence team in any country can just ASSERT something was done/happened on the basis of “you can’t show me it DIDN’T”.
Literally every case in the history of time has weird bullshit people and false confessors (not Gordon, the schiz weirdos who wrote in that they did it). Literally I think there might not be any exceptions. Every defence trial has witnesses to call to support a guilty client’s innocence. See: Adnan Syed as a recent example. Every case has a “Parkes”… People on Radio City also said Gordon’s car and clothes were tested down to the seams. Not in any file, but I suppose I can assert that as fact also? Lol.
The schizo cat ladies and pub crews got MURDERER Adnan Syed out of prison via the same shenanigans being pulled here. It’s just like, embarassing really. Some schizo “saw” Wallace and Amy down at the docks trying to flee the country at like 8pm that night. Lily Hall is very sure she saw William speaking to a man of near identical description to a man seen to be in the error by another local resident minutes prior/after. That would be the man William never mentioned talking to (he knows that guy didn’t kill his wife, of course, since he did himself, so no matter of importance).
“Oh boy two men were seen running down a road towards a tram stop! That must be Gordon and A.N.Other!” Just lol. It’s over.
Hi Tilly Mint, nice to hear from you again Soul sister ha ha.
Wild theory there though but glad to read it, digest it and dissect it 🙂
There have been accusations of homosexuality and Wallace being blackmailed or blackmailing someone else, being in collaboration with Amy Wallace, being in collaboration with Marsden and Parry as Julia was selling herself, the Johnston’s using Puss the cat as bait while they raided the home – yet they had a key and minded the place at times and now this one.
Are we to assume then that Wallace also did away with the real Julia? If he embezzled the money, where was it, he was living in a tiny rented terraced house and had £150 in the bank, only £60 more than Julia. He was also working whilst living a bit of a dogs life with his kidney complaint whereas the motivation behind embezzlement is usually to retire in luxury?
It is said his dad got him the job in Liverpool, hence the move. To implicate Parry and limiting the suspect pool to one is dangerous when Wallace couldn’t know if Parry had a sound alibi or not. I believe the John Bull articles were not ghost written, or at least had input and the ok from Wallace as Munro was found to hold the original drafts signed by Wallace. I’ve posted your theory on another forum though to see what their thoughts are and will let you know if anybody finds anything I haven’t thought of or finds it plausible.
RMQ. The burden of proof is forever on the prosecution so show me it.
Please copy Lily Hall’s testimony out and post it here. In the end she can’t even get the time or the day correct so Justice Wright threw it out as unimportant rightly or wrongly.
It would have been nothing for Wallace to say, ‘Do you know what, she is quite correct. A man was asking me the whereabouts of the Thirlmere public house so I pointed him in the direction of Breck Road. Wallace would hardly be rendezvousing with his hit man right outside the entry would he? Not this mastermind of the Qualtrough call that didn’t get one spot of blood on him and ran to the first tram stop as the Anfield Harriers did.
William Herbert Wallace in 1931: About the trial verdict:
Even at that awful moment I could hear a tone of grim satisfaction, almost pride in that foreman’s voice, a note of jubilance. Then throughout the court, before and behind me, rushed one great gasp of absolute amazement. Even the Clerk of Assizes looked dumbfounded. I have since learnt that all those sitting on the bench, sheriff, chaplain, clerks and even the judge were shocked at the unexpected verdict.
Lily Lloyd from home on the Isle of Man 1981:
If it were true that i’m the only person still alive that knows the truth about the Wallace case, then the truth will never be told.
Parry went and saw her at the time she claimed originally. Maybe she thinks he used her as his alibi (i.e. rather than him saying he was with Brine, maybe she thinks he told cops he was with her from 5 o clock or whatever it was), and doesn’t even know herself that it was just the same account she gave.
But yeah. Ex-fiancè Lily Lloyd claimed to have Wallace secrets and cryptic secret Gordon knowledge (before the case was public so she could just pretend she was his alibi), Wallace dindu nuffin, that’s it boys shut it down.
It seems you come in here and repeat talking points from the group that can’t handle me being a member due to extreme thin skin and inability to deal with disagreements with a half baked ripped off theory (You are just parroting Hussey in essence over and over). I don’t know what other explanation there is for you just answering pretty much every post with talking points, many of which are unrelated to the post’s content and which I have seen many times before from other people.
You also recently mentioned you talk things over in the group. Let them know if they can’t handle me personally one on one (LOL) and since they are feeding you what to say, if they actually address me personally with coherent arguments in this weird proxy manner, I would be happy to dismantle their logical fallacies one by one.
Tilly Mint,
While I agree Wallace was the killer I can’t agree with anything else about your post. There’s absolutely no evidence for any of your claims, and what is worse is you state very questionable supposition as fact. I actually had to read the post a few times to realize you were being serious.
Thank you Ged and Josh for your replies.
I know my ideas are wacky to say the least, but no sillier to some others I have read.
However I realise when to back off and not to ruffle any feathers.
So I will now go back to my knitting and my cats and leave all you gentlemen to fight another day.
Best wishes and over and out
Tilly Mint
So welcome back, it is just what this forum needs. Instead of us endlessly stirring the pot of Parry, Qualtrough, bloodstains and timings it is refreshing to see that you are thinking outside the box (or the pot!). So often in this case we can’t see the wood because the trees are in the way.
Amy ’s visit: The only way that Amy Wallace, Julia’s sister, could have been informed so quickly of the murder is via the police in Brighton receiving her address on the phone from the Liverpool police. Wallace maintained she had no relatives so Amy’s address may indeed have been on one of the letters in Julia’s handbag. Even so she managed apparently to “drop everything” and arrived in Liverpool on Wednesday, the day after the murder. This haste is surprising; its not as if she was especially close to Julia.
There is a central unknown fact in this case which if/when it is discovered will turn most existing theories on their head and make sense of the apparent contradictions. I’m not saying you, Tilly, have found it but I for one appreciate your sharing this version of events.
I want to get this off to encourage your further contributions. I may have more to say later.
Hi Tilly. If you are on facebook just search for the murder of Julia Wallace.
Hi Josh. The admin say you have not re-applied to join the above. If you do I expect you will be allowed back, I did say this some time ago if you look back.
Tilly. Regarding your scenario.
Wallace did the crime and I believe that pride was his motive. For whatever reason he and his wife had been living on Julia’s money and they were about to be found out.
He was prepared to murder his wife for fear she would let the secret out. Hence the elaborate plan and the avoidance of Amy Dennis.
I’m sure that any damning statement in Amy Dennis’s letter to the police which would bolster their case against Wallace would have certainly been used against him.
Likewise, if something about their embezzlement was about to come out, why didn’t it still come out separately, or as part of the case against Wallace.
Might make a good novel or fiction drama though. 😉
Hi Tilly,
The pathologist examining Julia’s corpse described it as that of a woman “about 55 years of age.” Wallace seemed strangely vague on the subject saying she was “about 52.” Is it a coincidence that both estimated Julia’s age at 15 to 17 years younger than the 69 calculated from the birth certificate of Julia Dennis ?
Mike
RMQ: ”Parry went and saw her at the time she claimed originally. ”
Impossible as she was playing piano at the Clubmoor cinema. She was obviously asked to say it was earlier to fill in the gap of time between his 10 minute spell at the Williamsons and actually getting to see her. He doesn’t mention his visit to the brines. She does however though ask him why he’s late and blames the Williamson visit. Her mum hears Lily ask him why he’s late and he blames his visit not just to Williamsons but Hignetts too – again never mentioning the Brines. If he was late and she was not in until after 10pm due to her cinema job then just how late was he?
She’s talking about his alibi for the killing. I.e. she thinks they’re talking about the 6 45 to 8 45 period. The journalists are telling her Gordon said he couldn’t have killed J because he was with her at the time. This was later exposed as fake news because literally nobody claimed this.
All three, as in including Lily’s mother, say he came at 8.30 to 9-ish, closer to 9. None of these times btw, are when the nosy-neighbour saw two men running towards a tram stop.
Hi Folks,
It’s obvious some people on here clearly believe Wallace was guilty, and Parry had no involvement whatsoever.One simple question then…please explain to me why, on the night of the murder, he took a journey in his car to Hignetts to pick up his accumulator that was TWICE as long as the route he could have taken? A route that also meant he’d have HAD to drive past Hanwell Street, where Anne Parsons saw the two men running just before 8.15pm, he’d have HAD to drive past Richmond Park, and be less than 200 yards from Wolverton Street as he did, and he’d have HAD to drive past Marlborough Road, where his friend William Denison lived.The William Denison who rather strangely doesn’t turn up at Olivia Brine’s house that night during the three hours Parry is there!! So…am I right here in thinking that those people who genuinely believe that Parry had no involvement at all in the case, seriously believe that he made this convoluted journey just for the good of his health? He just fancied a little drive on a cold January night, is this what you’re actually saying?? And it’s PURE coincidence that he just happened to be driving past those roads and streets at about 5 or 10 minutes before Julia’s body is discovered?? REALLY??…
Come on!! He’s picked someone up en route after what he’s hoped has been a successful robbery!! And THAT’S the real reason he’s taken this route!! I think it’s patently obvious!! Anyone who thinks otherwise, please PLEASE explain to me what possible justification he’s had for making a journey that was much longer than it needed to be!!
Oh, and by the way RMQ, the two men running down Hanwell Street towards Lower Breck Road were most definitely NOT running towards a tram stop…no trams ran along Lower Breck Road in 1931.In fact, no trams have ever run along Lower Breck Road!!
Hanwell Street included in the image. This is the location of the stop Wallace was alleged to have used after he placed the call used to bash his wife’s brains in. However, it would also be possible for him to have boarded at the stop he did claim to use after placing the call used to bash his wife’s brains in.
On Tuesday the 20th instant, I finished business at 5.30p.m. and called upon Mrs. Brine, 43, Knoclaid Road. I remained there with Mrs. Brine, her daughter Savona, 13 yrs; her nephew, Harold Dennison, 29, Marlborough Road, until about 8.30p.m. I then went out and bought some cigarettes – Players No. 3, and the evening Express from Mr. Hodgson, Post Office, Maiden Lane, on the way to my young lady’s house.
When I was turning the corner by the Post Office I remembered I had promised to call for my accumulator at Hignetts in West Derby Road, Tuebrook. I went there and got my accumulator and then went down West Derby Road and along Lisburn Lane to Mrs. Williamson, 49, Lisburn Lane, and saw her. We had a chat about a 21st birthday party for about 10 minutes, and then I went to 7, Missouri Road, and remained there till about 11 to 11.30p.m. when I went home.
Wolverton Street is not even in the frame? It’s to the left of this. Possibly you have been misled by reciting Gannon, a classic blunder! Please check all witness testimony, the route is: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 (there are zero testimonies placing Gordon at the “3” marker Gannon just stuck on there to try to make Gordon go past Wallace’s street (time which doesn’t even align with the Lily sighting he claims is Wallace and Marsden)). The route I mapped is also shorter by the way.
Hi Dave,
When I was turning the corner by the Post Office I remembered I had promised to call for my accumulator at Hignetts in West Derby Road, Tuebrook.
Parry’s statement 23/1/31
The key word here is “remembered.” Parry was on his way to Lily’s when he recalled that he had to pick up his accumulator at Hignetts so he made a detour and drove there to pick it up. He then drove to the Williamsons, then to Lily’s. This is why his journey from the Brine’s to Lily’s is by an indirect longer route than one would expect. Secondly, if he had picked up his cronies as you suggest and received the bad news wouldn’t he have told the police that he drove directly to Lily’s without mentioning the call for ciggies or the detour for his battery during which he picked up his pals, and as you suggest drove them home? Thirdly, after receiving the staggering news of Julia’s murder how did he arrive calm as a cucumber at Lily’s without Lily or her mother noticing anything awry?
Mike
I believe Dave mistakenly believes – possibly due to Gannon – that Gordon went along Townsend and down Lower Breck Road etc, when that testimony doesn’t exist. That’s why he mentions “u-turn”, he thinks Gordon went along Townsend and down past Wallace’s house instead of going back on himself. In a car it wouldn’t be the biggest deal ever (obviously there’s no point in walking it, that seems kind of useless, Google can show the distance easily), but this is fairytales invented by authors anyway.
I have checked a number of times now in case I am missing something here, since Dave is so assured, but I don’t think so.
The case in many ways has been butchered worse than Julia was by lame fiction writers.
Hi RMQ,
That’s NOT Lower Breck Road, it’s Breck Road.It’s a bit confusing, but they’re different roads.There’s also a Walton Breck Road around there.And the nearest tram stop to the telephone kiosk was actually on Townsend Lane.I know all this this because I live a 20 minute walk from there and having travelled up and down these roads hundreds of times over the years for various reasons, I can safely say I know this area extremely well!! A lot better than you, I’d suggest.That’s why I know for a fact that Richmond Park comes out onto both Breck Road AND Lower Breck Road.Parry would have driven past Richmond Park where it emerges onto LOWER Breck Road…which is less than 200 yards from Wolverton Street.Trust me, this is FACT.
And you didn’t have to track Parry’s route for me, because I know EXACTLY what route he took.I walked it a few weeks back, and it took me 27 minutes from just after the Post Office on Maiden Lane to get to where Hignetts once was.I then walked the route he COULD have taken from just past the Post Office, when he suddenly “remembered” his accumulator, and it took me 13 minutes to get where Hignetts once was….less than half the time.All Parry had to do was perform a simple U-turn and head back in the direction he’d come from, towards Brine’s house on Knoclaid Road, and he’d have been at Hignetts far quicker.So why hasn’t he done this?? He knew that neighbourhood back then as well as I know it now, so there’s no way he wouldn’t have known that he was making a much longer journey than necessary.So WHY has he made it? Why has he so obviously gone out of his way when he didn’t need to?? Or do you still think he just fancied a relaxing drive on a cold, dark January night? Yeah, that’s REALLY likely isn’t it?!!…Not a chance!! He’s picked someone up who was at Wolverton Street.
Starts at 1: Brine’s house “5.30p.m. and called upon Mrs. Brine, 43, Knoclaid Road.”
Goes to 2: Post office “until about 8.30p.m. I then went out and bought some cigarettes – Players No. 3, and the evening Express from Mr. Hodgson, Post Office, Maiden Lane”
[U-TURNS HERE]
Goes to 4: Hignetts “When I was turning the corner by the Post Office I remembered I had promised to call for my accumulator at Hignetts in West Derby Road, Tuebrook. I went there and got my accumulator”
Goes to 5: Lisburn Lane to discuss birthday parties “I went there and got my accumulator and then went down West Derby Road and along Lisburn Lane to Mrs. Williamson, 49, Lisburn Lane, and saw her”
Goes to 6: “and then I went to 7, Missouri Road, and remained there till about 11 to 11.30p.m. when I went home.”
The Priory Road tram stop is the one I referenced that the two men were running towards, i.e. the one Wallace allegedly used (but didn’t have to to get to the club on time). They were running from Richmond Park, towards Lower Breck Road, through Hanwell Street. There’s a tram stop right there, you come out of the road and go left, that’s it.
Check the statements if you think anyone anywhere has claimed he took that route. I don’t see how you could have come up with that notion except by reciting Gannon who decided to just stick a “3” stamp on that map as if Gordon ever went that way?
R M Qualtrough says:
September 12, 2024 at 7:19 pm
She’s talking about his alibi for the killing. I.e. she thinks they’re talking about the 6 45 to 8 45 period. The journalists are telling her Gordon said he couldn’t have killed J because he was with her at the time. This was later exposed as fake news because literally nobody claimed this.
All three, as in including Lily’s mother, say he came at 8.30 to 9-ish, closer to 9. None of these times btw, are when the nosy-neighbour saw two men running towards a tram stop.
How could he call at 8.30 to 9 when she’s in the cinema playing honky tonk woman???
There was no nosey neighbour. Anne Parsons was returning from a church choir I think it was and passed them running down Hanwell st as she was walking up.
Evidently she wasn’t, since both she and her mother say she was at home. I wonder what would happen if everyone with a Wallace secret called up the show. Maybe they could get on that batty old crank who said he saw Wallace and Amy fleeing to the docks, or Tom Slemen’s informant.
The guy trying to accurately recall the whereabouts of an aquaintance 50 years prior didn’t even see her that evening I thought? Didn’t he just say yeah she totez would’ve been playing there that night. Well that’s reliable lol.
Hi RMQ,
Sorry, but this is an example of you not knowing the local geography of the neighbourhood.If he’d taken the shorter route, he’d have U-turned by Worcester Drive, which is about 20 yards past the Post Office, and was where he would have needed to drive down to get to Missouri Road.He’d have performed the U-turn here, then drove back up Maiden Lane, past the Post Office in the opposite direction to which he’d just come.He’d then have driven up Knoclaid Road, re passing Brine’s house, then onto Lisburn Lane before turning right onto West Derby Road.But he doesn’t do this.The giveaway is the fact that he clearly states that he picked up his accumulator, then drove down West Derby Road, then drove down Lisburn Lane to call at Annie Williamson’s house at number 49.If he’d taken the shorter route, he’d have driven up Lisburn Lane BEFORE driving down West Derby Road.It’s impossible not to if he HAD taken this noticeably shorter route….but he didn’t.Taking the shorter route would also have enabled him to call at Mrs.Williamson’s first, then onto Hignetts.But according to his own statement, he’s gone to Hignetts BEFORE Mrs.Williamson’s.And at no point in his statement does he ever mention making a U-turn near the Post Office or Worcester Drive.He didn’t mention it because he didn’t make a U-turn!! And had no intention of making one.And he hasn’t suddenly “remembered” he’d promised to collect his accumulator either.That’s always been part of the plan.Here’s the route he DID take, the one I recently walked:
He gets in his car outside the Post Office after buying his cigarettes and newspaper, then drives down Maiden Lane towards Townsend Lane, ignoring the left turn into Worcester Drive, where he claimed he was turning into when his memory suddenly sprang into life!! He was NEVER intending to turn left here.He actually turns left about 200 yards further on, onto Townsend Lane and drives up towards Lower Breck Road.He’s then turned left onto Lower Breck Road.As he was doing this, he’d actually have been little more than 10 yards from the telephone kiosk from where he’d set this all in motion the previous evening.He’s then driven down Lower Breck Road, past Hanwell Street, and past Richmond Park which leads up to Wolverton Street.At some point around here, I’m convinced he’s picked up an accomplice.He’s then continued down Lower Breck Road toward West Derby Road.He then turns left onto West Derby Road and heads to Hignetts.He gets his accumulator, gets back in his car, and continues down West Derby Road before turning left onto Lisburn Lane.His own statement confirms this particular part of the journey.And as I’ve said, if he’d taken the shorter route, he’d have HAD to have driven up Lisburn Lane BEFORE driving along West Derby Road.He clearly hasn’t done this, so he clearly hasn’t taken the shorter route.So the question remains…why hasn’t he taken it? Which in turn leads to a second question…what was he up to by taking a route that’s twice as long as the one he chose NOT to take??
By the way, there’s a very good map in Antony Brown’s book showing the long-winded journey that Parry took, and the one I walked.Page 189, if you want to check.
To totally exonerate Parry of being involved in any way I have to satisfy myself of a number of things.
1) Why lie on his alibi for Monday night?
2) Why haven’t the police picked up on this?
3) Why lie about the time he met Lily on Tues, as she was playing piano?
4) Why does Ada Cook talk of the meeting of the Parry’s and her parents?
5) Why doesn’t Parkes just say Parry was full of blood if he is lying?
6) Why does Parry’s dad not want him to talk about it, not for £2000?
7) Why does Parry not mention the Brine’s visit to Lily?
8) Why does Parry not fend off nosey journalists by just mentioning his Brine’s visit?
9) Why does Parry say the police were satisfied when I was able to produce some people with whom I was arranging a birthday party with when that visit was 8.30pm +
10) Why does Lily Lloyd say. ‘If it is true that I am the only person still alive that knows the truth about the Wallace case then the truth will never be told’ This indicates a lie has been told and that she doesn’t want the truth to be told?
11) Why, in 1933 does Lily retract her statement for Parry when she must know by then that the time of the murder and the time for the alibi she gave him are well apart anyway?
Hi Mike:
Michael says: Thirdly, after receiving the staggering news of Julia’s murder how did he arrive calm as a cucumber at Lily’s without Lily or her mother noticing anything awry?
The same way Wallace supposedly arrived calm as a cucumber to several tram staff and people up at Menlove and yet that is accepted as fact.
As described earlier. If Parry only found out ‘we had to give the old girl a bash’ after his visit to Lily’s then that of course is possible. He was a night owl after all (The Lily Fitzsimmons episode tells us that alone whether he was guilty or innocent)
Hi Ged,
Wallace prided himself on not showing any external sign of emotion. He followed stoic philosophy saying he felt emotion like everyone else but had disciplined himself not to show it (his own words). This cover wasn’t 100% though: he broke down at the crime scene but quickly recovered and the policeman who spoke with him in Menlove Gardens described him as “nervous.” It was his cool unemotional demeanour at the trial which was his undoing as much as anything else.
If there is anything in the Parry + cronies scenario then I agree he must have heard of the tragedy after leaving Lily Lloyd’s. This would account for his agitated state at the Atkinson’s garage. Why did Parkes immediately conclude that the mitten was stained with blood. Blood stains on fabric or leather when 5 hours old are dark brown. One’s first thought would be dirt, oil, or grease not blood.
And how had Parry, if he wasn’t involved, hear about the murder if he left the Lloyds at 11.00 pm ? No local radio in those days.
“C’est une probleme” as they say in Wigan.
Mike
Hi Mike. Stoicism tends to be in line with, when things happen to you, it is a ”what will be will be”. For example his illness, something he has no control over or very little. However, actually creating the scenario is a different kettle of fish, it would be much harder to hide. He broke down in front of Mrs Johnston yet pulled himself together when the police and more people were present. Surely a guilty Wallace does the opposite, like we see on tv these days with boyfriends or husbands who are guilty, crying like a baby at the press conferences to throw the scent off them.
Parkes only had to say Parry was full of blood if he had it in for him. Parkes strikes me as wary and concerned about Parry so would hardly be placing himself in danger voluntarily. He was warned by the Atkinson’s not to use the entry coming to work in the dark for instance and nobody seemed to enforce Parry not coming to the garage after all.
Parry could have arranged to see his cronies after his visit to Lily. Perhaps it was only after leaving Lily he heard on the local grapevine about the happenings that night and went to his cronies to learn for the first time how badly it went wrong. The weapon was wrapped in one glove and disposed of by the cronies earlier – down the grid. The other glove was shoved in the glovebox by one of his cronies during this late night encounter. Parry, now up to his neck in it had to get the car cleaned in case it was gone over by the police which could be anytime now – and it was apparently.
For those who continue to say ‘Oh yeah and he just spills the beans to Parkes’. Well he wasn’t expecting Parkes to see the glove and so was not prepared for what he would say. Even the most evil criminals just blurt it out never mind this small time petty crook. You may have heard of the terrible most recent killing of a young girl by notorious hit man Thomas Cashman. well read this, he did just the same.
Cop comes, tells Parkes Julia has been killed.
Parkes instantly connects Gordon to this.
Later on Gordon arrives (allegedly), Parkes doesn’t mention to Gordon that his pal Julia has been slain?
This is a ridiculousness, quite clearly. You’ve literally put all of your faith into The Sun tier reporters actually being legit sources of info, and making snippets of conversations provided via The Sun tier reporters into cryptic secret messages. Maybe you should peruse the files and see all the nonsense info sent to the cops by people like Parkes. Crazy person fake confessors, dock sightings of William and Amy fleeing the country, random women who claim to have seen Wallace.
Cloud fantasist land. I wonder is it a grand conspiracy involving 100 people conspiring to protect Gordon (including Lily’s mother “yeah bro let me help protect your murderer criminal boyfriend as I surely want you to keep dating him”, or are the tidbits of local rumous collected 50 years after the fact just nonsensical and fractured memories of the real events? These people are HACKS bro.
Especially off air. Goodman made two different notes of his conversation with Gordon. The words are different in each. These are like, curated paraphrased conversations about events half a century ago. Keep in mind even the Parkes conversation is edited, the original has Parkes discussing stakeouts, unlike witness statements which are not given full context and are carefully curated for a tabloid or radio show selling you a certain story. I could have made a radio show and found the one crank in Liverpool like Slemen did when he found Stan. He found a crank to tell tales of Johnston confessing.
Seems like he was proven wrong and then just beat a hasty retreat. LOL.
Couldn’t even say “Oh I see guess you were right, my bad.” Inability to admit when one is wrong is a very unfortunate characteristic of some. Makes discourse very unproductive.
OK RMQ: Reading the Casebook forum from years ago, it seems yous had some zany ideas yourselves but that aside, let’s put Parkes one side then, let’s Park Parkes 🙂
Ada Pritchard. Someone with no skin the barney – discuss.
We already have it from you that Parry just made a mistake about his Monday night alibi and that Parkes is a liar (even though if lying he could just have said Parry was full of blood) we also have it that Anne Parsons was a curtain twitcher, even though she was outside lol. We even have it that Parry is just jesting and playing tricks on Goodman and RWE yet he doesn’t disclose that he was at the Brines, that statement is not revealed until after the 50 years is up.
“We already have it from you that Parry just made a mistake about his Monday night alibi”
Where?
Ada is the one who said about her parents right? If it happened it’s pretty obvious Gordon’s parents are terrified because their son is being investigated for murder.
The stuff about Parkes is ridiculous, Gordon comes in during the A.M. how can he believably be soaked in blood still? Obviously if Gordon went to the garage that night, local idiot Parkes already knows that: 1) Julia has been killed and that 2) Parry is friends with Julia, he makes this connection straight away when the cop tells him BEFORE Gordon shows up (he’s already thinking of Gordon in connection with the murder). Gordon comes in later that night. It is quite obvious that the story presented by Parkes is incomplete if not inaccurate… By Parkes’ tale he himself is completely mute and just a silent receiver of Gordon’s instructions and words, which is dumb and obviously not the case. He is giving you only one side of a conversation, paraphrased, from half a century prior, presenting ONLY snippets of the conversation that allegedly happened, entirely without context.
Two random men (without description) running, towards the direction of a tram stop, at the wrong time (Gordon is being alleged to have gone to pick up his pals after 8.30) is also just like, meaningless. There were many such tidbits of local information sent in. The man asking the cab driver “you won’t kill me will you?!” is more sus than that, except they found that guy as he came forward, and he didn’t do it.
Hi RMQ. It may have been Josh if not you but there seems to be a lot of ignoring or excuse making for Parry, like he misremembered what he was up to Monday night yet for Tuesday night he remembers absolutely everything perfectly well.
Why would Parry’s parents be so concerned as to want their son spirited out of the country and then practically sent to Aldershot to join the army.
Parkes is always portrayed as dumb and was only remembering 50 years later. Are you forgetting he mentioned the bar to the Atkinson’s the morning after the murder, before it was even known about any bar. He didn’t even come forward, he was traced and somebody else was told of his story, the man who tried to gain money out of it. Parkes could always have lied more convincingly by saying there was blood on his suit, on his fingernails, whatever his fancy took him.
Parry’s dad has him tending to his car battery on the murder night which is different to a radio accumulator from Hignett’s but Hignett’s doesn’t clear him anyway as that was 8.30pm + and then we have his dad telling him not to talk about it for £2000.
Here is what Lily Lloyd also said.
‘I gave a statement to the police investigating the Wallace murder but it was only partly true. This was because I only saw Gordon later on the night of the crime. I can’t remember how much later.
Let’s analyse that. ‘Partly true’ doesn’t mean the same as ‘The statement I gave him was for after the murder anyway’ as that is FULLY TRUE. Partly true suggests that she was asked to give a statement that she saw him from 9pm but that she only saw him later on in the night, so where was he and why was she asked to supply a statement that she saw him from 9pm.
Parry, Brine and Denison all say Parry left ‘about 8.30’ but that could be 8.20 – it’s very open to ‘near enough’.
Regarding the man in the cab. Is there any proof that he came forward. I see ‘Wallace whacked Her’ on the casebook forum saying many time he believes it could have been Joseph Wallace heading off to the flat he rented in Princes Park or to Amy’s in Ullet Road after murdering Julia and was wanting proof of when he arrived in the UK.
First pointer towards Wallace being innocent. Let’s analyse his so called alibi.
If Close had called at his normal time of anywhere between 6pm and 6.30pm – Where exactly is the alibi? An alibi is a provable statement to say I was somewhere else when the crime was committed so if Close calls at 6.15, 6.20,6.25, 6.30 etc – just where is the alibi, it actually doesn’t exist.
All what happens then is it throws a doubt as to someone is trying to get him out the house to commit the murder whilst he’s gone but the murder is committed whilst he is capable of being in according to you so it doesn’t even work out that way for him.
It therefore has to be the worst alibi ever put forward, and remember, it is not just him putting it forward but everyone connected to that call.
Pointer No.2:
According to Julias autopsy report, her stomach contained about four ounces of semi-fluid food consisting of currants, raisins and unmasticated lumps of carbohydrate. According to Wallace’s statement, this was the remains of the meal (tea and scones) he and Julia had had at around 6.15/6.25pm. If this is so and the science seems to prove it, this would indicate that Julia was probably murdered sometime between 7.30 and 8.30 p.m. (an hour and a half to two and a half hours after her meal) and not between 6.37 and 6.50pm. If Julia had been murdered between the latter times, the food in her stomach would not have been as broken down by digestive fluids, as the process would have been halted by her death. Gannon alludes to this in his book too.
Have you been believing Gannon’s book again? I hired several forensic pathologists, you can’t discern time of death scientifically in a window of time narrower than is provided by Close to Johnstons. Almost every single thing in that book is inaccurate btw lol, basically every single thing apart from the genealogy is inaccurate somehow. Re: cab guy yes there is proof, it’s in the newspapers, various articles. Could be BS as we have seen newspaper people are like that, but various different newspaper publications.
This is all just “mental masturbation”, going over an edited tabloid show and the writings of tabloid people, and statements where people “recall” events that happened over half a century ago word for word. Goodman has two different versions of the Gordon interview, and everyone else interviewed in any case has 50 years at the back of them. All of the evidence in favor of Wallace is like that, either involving large scale coverups or tabloids and rumors, primarily those recounted half a century after it took place. If you think witness recollection is waning after days, consider 50 years lol.
It is more than obvious that Parkes’ story is out of context at best. It shouldn’t even be contended, it is very obvious, where he says he was told earlier before he saw Gordon about the killing. And he already knew Gordon knew Julia. It shouldn’t even be contended that Parkes was clearly not just a mute who said literally nothing while Parry spoke at length about killings… Earlier that night Gordon had picked up an accumulator for his car, presumably he was working on his car in some way. Wouldn’t even shock me to discover the gloves were covered in engine grease if it even happened at all. Maybe mute Parkes wasn’t so mute after all and actually remarked on it in some way.
The case is 100% solved, what do we do now with our time?
Hi Ged,
Pointer No 1: Wallace’s alibi.
The period between his arrival home at ~ 6.05 pm and his alleged departure at ~ 6.45 pm does not give Wallace an alibi if the evidence shows that Julia was murdered approximately within this time frame. If Close had been on time he could have done it shortly after her doorstep encounter and left immediately with the excuse that he didn’t know where MGE was, and wanted tp be in good time. But Close was late which was unforeseen by Wallace so the murder took place later, fortuitously giving Wallace a tight time window between the Julia/Close meeting and the 7.06 pm tram. But this tight window could not have been part of his plan because he hadn’t known Close would be late.
What was, in my view, a key part of his plan was to arrange conditions in the parlour so that a competent pathologist (e.g. by measuring body temperature) would estimate a later time of death than it actually was. He did this by leaving the gas fire on a low setting to maintain an equable room (and body) temperature. And he covered the body with the macintosh for extra insulation, peeling it back and tucking it in on his “discovery” of the body and switching the gas fire off.
He knew any estimate of time of death would be approximate so he stayed in Menlove Gardens much longer than necessary gathering witnesses to his presence to give himself some leeway relative to the expected estimate.
Pointer No 2. Digestion.
Yes, digestion of food does stop after death but it does not come to a dead stop (no pun intended.) The enzymes responsible for breaking down protein, fats, and cardohydrates work best at the normal body temperature of ~ 37 degrees. If the body temperature is artificially prevented from falling quickly as I outlined above, the digestive processes continue, albeit at a slower rate. This would account for the “later” time of death indicated by the stomach contents.
Even as late as 10 pm Julia’s hand was stated to be slightly warm. This, in my view, would be impossible if she had been lying dead and uncovered on the floor of an unheated parlour for more than three hours with the only heat source being the dying kitchen fire. In mid winter.
Of course Wallace’s plan didn’t pay the dividends he expected. Estimates of time of death based on rigor mortis varied widely and no body temperatures were taken.
And, as usual in this case, both these points – warmth of the body / state of digestion – are consistent with Wallace’s innocence: she was killed by A N Other at around 8 pm.
OK so what I am saying is, and you seem to be agreeing with is Wallace’s plan (if guilty) did not and would never and could not include him being out of the house somewhere else during the killing because if he is guilty then he was obviously still in the house committing the murder. I’m glad we got that one out of the way so that begs the question, why the phone call at all then if you are a guilty Wallace.
The only answer of course is to try to put A.N. other into the frame who is trying to get him out of the house so that he can get in. But in denying the murder, you are already putting A.N. Other into the frame, whether it be the Anfield Housebreaker, some random or his Pru acquaintances for whom he did not know had a solid alibi or not. Of course his Pru acquaintances could also be in collaboration with dodgy pals, supplying them info about the cash box.
So that still leaves the dodgy Parry Mon night alibi and what to me is not a watertight alibi for the murder night, whether that be a coerced alibi with Brine or what seems to be a coerced alibi with Lily LLoyd who for once questions why he is late.
I am still to hear why Ada Pritchard’s parents were begged by Parry’s parents to get him out of the country at any cost. I am still yet to be thoroughly convinced that there isn’t some truth in what Parkes tells us of his first hand encounter with Parry which was relayed within hours to the Atkinson’s who have no beef in this episode except to admit to tarnishing their name in keeping silent.
It is quite obvious and unsurprising that Gordon’s parents might have been scared that their criminal son is being investigated for murder, and hence tried to get him away from it. According to the cock and bull radio show, if equal credence is given to all of the senile chumps who called in, Gordon was having his clothes and car taken apart to the seams for blood testing.
Pro-Wallace “evidence” is pretty much always like this, Chinese whispers, bizarre tales from locals like Stan, he-said she-saids, and eavesropped conversations revealed over 50 years after they allegedly took place, with edits from the authors/broadcasters (who for example removed Parkes’ discrediting rambles about stakeouts of the garage, as it ruined their “angle” for the program), and an assortment of disgraced money-hungry authors butchering the evidence of the case which you then believe.
He has plenty of time to do all of the things mentioned, so what exactly is the problem? The “impossible timing” is made up. He easily could have slaughtered his wife. The sole reason to think otherwise is the assertions that it is not possible, but the things which made it “not possible” are invented by the con-artists and hacks mentioned.
There is 0% odds that Parkes’ tale happened as stated, the reasons for this have been covered, in particular as mentioned many times the fact that Parkes already knew of the murder and Julia’s connection to Gordon before seeing Gordon that evening, which duh would colour the interaction and also be strange if Parkes never actually even brought it up. It’s legit dumb. You could easily find a Parkes to paint anyone you want as guilty, as shameless Tom Slemen did well.
“Parkes already knew of the murder and Julia’s connection to Gordon before seeing Gordon that evening”
Parkes says he was told of the murder by a PC Ken Wallace but how did PC Wallace or Parkes know that Parry was connected to the Wallace menage? The connection was old and temporary: Parry had helped W with his collections some three years earlier and since then he exchanged greetings with Wallace when they met by chance. They were hardly bosom pals or “friends” as Parkes described them.
I find it strange that Parkes knew of this tenuous connection.
“Why the phone call….?
Wallace could have said that Mr Qualtrough approached him while on his rounds, gave him the 25 MGE address and directions of how to get there/find it, and an appointment was agreed. Very simple. No phone call etc. But his doesn’t provide Wallace with witnesses which feature in the chess club, on the trams, and in Menlove Gardens .These confirm his receipt of the message and his supposed unfamiliarity with the journey and Menlove Gardens. The whole thing is theatre, a performance, and the witnesses are the audience.
I too think Parry’s Monday night alibi is too loose and would allow him time to make the phone call.
The Brine alibi, of which we know only the bare detail that “he was there.,” is suspect because it enters the case only in the 1990s when the weeded police files were released. Parry, Lily and her mother don’t mention it. You’d think with Parry collaborating with magazine articles e.g. “Wallace accused me!” that Mrs Brine would step forward for her 15 minutes of fame saying “He was at mine.” It emerged only when almost everyone who could confirm it was conveniently dead.
Its impossible to comment on the Ada Pritchard story with knowing more. Were the Pritchards ideally placed, e.g. with maritime connections, to spirit Parry away? As if he would evade justice by fleeing!!
The best I can do with Parkes is to suggest that Parry was there and saw an opportunity to wind up the gullible Parkes with a cock and bull story. The Atkinsons humoured Parkes but not wishing to appear fools, they did nothing with it and felt no guilt about their inaction.
There seems to be an awful lot of misremembering and winding up going on in this murder most foul case doesn’t there. As if you’d be doing that when your neck is in the noose. Parry did it to the ‘gullible’ Parkes, Parry did it to the ‘gullible’ JG and RWE whilst lying about his Tues night alibi to them. We’re not allowed to say ‘Wallace could have’ Mike, this is according to RMQ/Josh previously. Wallace could have done a lot of things if guilty such as strangle her, knock loudly on the door attracting attention, just say the bolt was on all the way through.
We are expected to believe that Wallace was there with no alibi, in the house with plenty of time to do this murder, clean himself, run to the trams like the police did and there is nobody else in the frame so why wasn’t he hung – it’s a closed case isn’t it?
I don’t know about any Parkes stakeout story RMQ – Where can I find that? Ada Pritchard’s dad worked on the ships and back then you could put forward names like my father-in-law did as a Cunard Yank. The 2 men running down Hanwell street is not the wrong time and we are told when saying Wallace is guilty that the trams are every 7 mins so why be legging it?
Why would Parkes have to mention the killing of Julia to Parry when he says he came in agitated, says wash the cash inside and out and Parkes says I know why I was doing it (but he was obviously scared to say no and knew the score about saying nothing, he didn’t need to be told)
The Atkinson’s didn’t just humour ‘gullible’ Parkes, in fact they came forward in favour of Pukka, showing themselves in a bad light as withholding information.
So up to now the list of reasons/excuses regarding Parry being involved is:
1)We have to ignore that Parry had a monetary and revenge motive against Wallace
2)Parry was just mistaken or misremembering his Monday night movements
3) The Police just made a mistake not picking up on the false Monday night alibi
4) Brine’s alibi is unshakable – I don’t think it is with further questioning
5) Parry goes into greater detail after 8.30 pm on his Tues night alibi
6) Parry was just winding up the gullible fool Parkes
7) Why/how could Ada Cooks dad do anything, she must be lying
8) Parry was just winding up the gullible Goodman and RWE in 1966
9) Lily LLoyd said to revisit those times would cause great stress
10) Lily LLoyd said ‘The truth will never be told’ What truth?
All seems a bit fishy to me. I’d never say case closed like RMQ did earlier. That is the realms of Goodman and Rod isn’t it – the very people he rubbishes.
We have literally discussed the stakeout thing many times (as in you were actively participating in those conversations), Wilkes told me about that himself via email, I think I have included these emails on this site, probably on the Parkes page.
“We are expected to believe that Wallace was there with no alibi, in the house with plenty of time to do this murder, clean himself, run to the trams like the police did and there is nobody else in the frame so why wasn’t he hung – it’s a closed case isn’t it?”
Yes it is lol. It is as closed as OJ Simpson who was also found innocent despite the fact he is guilty of killing Nicole and Ron and wrote a book where he discussed precisely how he killed them (like Wallace describing exactly how he spanner’d his wife in the John Bull articles, ASSERTED with ZERO evidence to be “ghostwritten” by Goodman: based on Munro saying he “can’t believe” (aka zero evidence) Wallace would have written that). These baseless claims based on “I can’t believe it!” and “a friend of a friend of a friend once saw Gordon confess to murder bro” are typical of the disgraceful butchering of justice committed by Goodman.
“Running” to the trams is another thing you keep forgetting over and over is invented fiction. Check the distance, calculate the walking speed (yes he can WALK to the tram and make it in time – and on Monday too, he can even walk ALL THE WAY to Belmont Road from the telephone call box and reach the club within the range of times he provided). I don’t know how tall you are but for Wallace, these paces are a “brisk walk”. Defence beat the police times. All of these things have been discussed ad nauseum.
Your mind is just stuck in an abyss of obsession with 50 years-after-the-fact tabloid hit pieces where the interviews were carefully curated (as mentioned for example: Parkes’ discrediting rambles about stakeouts removed, and Goodman’s multiple slightly different accounts of his interview with Gordon). Basically if you didn’t read “The Sun” entertainment “news” type stuff, you would think William obviously did it? The only thing making you think he didn’t just batter his wife is in the same league as Tom Slemen’s radio show where he had Stan say Johnston did it all. What are we even doing here then? The case is over, literally everyone else already knows he killed Julia, so I doubt this provides value to anyone outside of like 20 of us who got really into the case.
Hi Ged,
The Ada Pritchard contribution is a conversation Ada overheard as a girl some fifty years previously but let us assume it is substantially true. I was interested to read that your father in law Ged could “put names forward.” This surely was to recommend friends for employment on the ships. They would not need the recommendation of an insider to travel as a passenger.
This could be an understandable effort by Parry’s parents, after he was questioned in the murder enquiry, to “straighten him out” by getting him away from Liverpool and his dubious pals e.g. Denison. Parry was sociable and of good appearance – ideal as a potential steward on the Cunard ships.
We know this effort was futile so Parry was strong-armed to join the Army. Hardly something he would do voluntarily.
I do not see any advantage to Parry “fleeing the scene.” It was this that was the undoing of Crippen. Where would he go? Did the Parrys have relatives in the USA who could take him in? Suddenly leaving his job in insurance? It doesn’t fit.
No stakeout discussed anywhere, there is no Parkes page on this site only my transcription of his recorded interview and one of the Goodman files is no longer available so I haven’t a clue what you are on about, who is staking out who?
Now let’s dispel some of your myths here:
The first Anfield Harrier jumps onto a moving tram to make it in time…
867. On the first of your tests, you took 15 minutes. You got on to a moving tramcar
that happened to be passing Belmont Road as you came to it? Yes.
868. That came, I suppose, as a bit of luck? Yes.
869. Then on your second experiment, you did not do that, but you did what the
prisoner says he did, namely, after getting into Belmont Road turning to the left and
walked as far as there and then took the tram? Yes.
870. On your second experiment, which took 18 minutes, did you board the tram at the Church corner at 6.52? Yes.
Another of the Anfield Harriers gets on at a request stop that Wallace didn’t even use:
879. Are you a Detective Sergeant of the Liverpool City Police? I am.
880. On the 27th of January, last did you leave the back door of 29 Wolverton Street at 6.49? I did.
881. I think you were with an officer called Gilroy? I was.
MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: That is the same date as Prendergast?
MR HEMMERDE: That is so, my Lord, but at different times.
882. Did you go along the route shown in red as far as Belmont Road? I did.
883. And did you pick up a tram there immediately? Yes, there was a car there as we
arrived at the junction of Castlewood Road.
884. Did you go on that as far as Lodge Lane? I did.
885. Did you notice what the time was when you got on to it? 6.52 pm.
886. Did you notice what the time was when you arrived at the junction of Lodge Lane? I did, it was 6 minutes past 7.
887. So you had taken 17 minutes? That is so.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR ROLAND OLIVER.
888. You boarded the car not at the Church but immediately you got into Belmont
Road? That is so.
889. Was it coming along as you went out? Yes. Just as we got out, we stopped the car.
890. You headed it off? That is so.
So you see, instead of smokescreens as to distances which only work if both parties are doing the same pace of walking and actually going the same route, they mean nothings and I would add, the fact they had to make shortcuts in jumping on moving trams or heading off one at a request stop proves they weren’t very confident of making the times doing this test as they should have – following Wallace’s said route.
Ada was 17 years of age not 7 and I can remember much more menial happenings at 17 and that is nearly 50 years ago. I can remember the killing of a 2 year old twin on waste ground near my home in 1973 when I was 11 and this is because it’s not every day back then that things like the Wallace case or the one I know of were regular occurrences. Ada would remember this like it happened just last week.
So to add to my list earlier, we are to believe Beattie was just fooled, that 18 factual errors by Bishop at the committal hearing was just one of those things – or 18 of those things. That the prosecution wouldn’t release files to the defence regarding witnesses they had interviewed. That 5 different children that evening were lying for no reason that Alan Close said ‘A quarter to six’ and that to substantiate this we have church bells having stopped ringing in Elsie Wrights testimony and Wildman checking his watch. We know you now agree on a 18.37/18.38 timing for the doorstep but why did Moore want it to be 18.30 if he was so sure he didn’t need it to be.
We have the snidy, thieving, chancer, liar with the opportunity and motive versus the straight laced honest, mild upright citizen who had nothing to gain but everything to lose. 🙂
You are doubting me or? I’m not Goodman. See below, email from the Radio City team:
“Calum,
I spoke to Mike Green who has a copy of the unedited interview with John Parkes, and he listened through to it for me, sending me the following notes:
John Parkes talks about the bloody glove and hosing the car down inside and out. He also says
that the police later took possession of the car and examined it for blood, but found nothing.
He says Parry claimed to have dropped an iron bar down a drain in front of a doctor’s house
In Priory Road. There’s no description of the bar (or where it came from) and Parkes said he saw nothing
else in the vehicle apart from the bloody glove, which he says was like a leather mitten.
He claims he was told that Parry borrowed thigh boots and a mac from two people before the murder, but he
was dressed “normally” when he visited with the motor car, a “dicky” Swift. He says the car was
Parry’s own, not his father’s and he often brought it round.
Interestingly, he claims that the police staked out the garage after the murder and warned him that
he needed to be careful using the back alley from his house, implying they were suspicious of Parry.
He also says Parry turned up a few days later with a man of similar age and implies that
he might have been an accomplice.
Parkes says he told Gordon Atkinson and his two sons what had happened the day after Parry visited.
He does not mention Dolly.
If you use any of this, please credit Mike Green as the interviewer.
Hope this is of some use.
Regards,
Roger
Roger Wilkes”
Incidentally we have literally discussed this many times, and that being no more than a year or so. If you don’t remember the minutae of conversations from a year or two, consider people trying to recall word for word conversations and precise events exactly as they took place over half a century before. Also:
“So you see, instead of smokescreens as to distances which only work if both parties are doing the same pace”
You don’t know what you’re talking about lol. The distances for the exact route can be found easily, I put them all on my solution page I think? But they can be found by anyone at any time. Then:
There is no smokescreen involved in the literal fixed mathematical distances, easily checkable (I think various surveyors and defence team like Maddock gave exact distance measurements in yards, and it’s down to within a yard accuracy) and the speeds to walk those distances. It is “brisk walk” pace. On the solution page I worked out all of these.
You might notice that Maddock made no mention of “running”. Where does it come from? By “Anfield Harriers” it’s obviously just more tabloid CUCK Goodman and other assorted reporters who also wrote that Johnston kicked the back door in to open it for Wallace. That’s what garbage publications do. Maddock beat all of their times. They “headed off” the tram at the request stop, obviously what has happened is they arrived there just as the tram started to leave and they hopped on the back, not like Jason Bourne action movie stuff (trams are fairly slow-ish not like modern cars). The case is closed this is ridiculous and you are just talking like a moon landing conspiracy person now. Remove all the fake crap “johnston kicked down the door” tier garbage invented by the press (Goodman included in this) and it is obvious there IS no impossible time anywhere, all do-able, even when steelmanned the other way (to make him not board by the phone booth but place the call and then also walk (walk not run) all the way over to the Belmont stop). What a waste of time.
Assuming that Ada Pritchard’s recollection is substantially true, as I do in my post, I suggest why Parry’s parents wanted. as she says, to get him on a ship out of Liverpool. It wasn’t to flee and avoid further questioning which would have been sheer madness. It may have been to find him employment which would hopefully get him away from his environment and straighten him out. Instead the army was seen as a solution, but it wasn’t as we know.
RMQ – I don’t see anywhere that anyone has ever suggested Johnston kicking in the back door for Wallace, why are you adding untruths. Why are the Anfield Harriers using other the tram stops Wallace says he never used (which could easily be refuted by the driver or somebody on the tram)
Mike – Both sets of parents (Parry’s and Ada’s) met and knew each other from church. They had other opportunities to see each other later in the week or at the weekend to ask about a simple job for Parry. This meeting between all 4 of them resulted in a blazing row afterwards. No, not having it that they hadn’t yet thought of asking Mr Pritchard for a simple job for their lad.
A question to you both.
If Wallace is guilty there is no need to mention his trip to Calderstones to Julia. He doesn’t know Amy is going to call on her so he certainly doesn’t know that Julia will tell Amy about it even if he did. A guilty Wallace has Julia setting up the parlour for music in the first place. I think that is game, set and match.
This is apart from Beattie not recognising Wallace 1 iota (who would have had a distinctive voice having lived two thirds of his life elsewhere)
This is apart from Close leaving Wallace around 10 minutes to do everything including making sure not one dot of blood was in his hair, on his glasses, on the back of his trouser leg etc.
This apart from Parry offering a lie because he wasn’t expecting the police to know where the call was made from or expect to be questioned regarding the Monday night.
This apart from Parry never ever confirming his Brine visit to Lily or JG – only ever mentioning his visit to the Williamson’s which was after 8.30pm.
It was in the newspapers at the time, available to view on the newspaper archives, it was either someone kicking the door in or forcing it open in some way, rather than accurately depicting that it opened easily without force in Johnston’s presence. Are you actually doubting me again? While adding the actual untruth that Wallace had a regional accent (Munro was specifically asked this and said Wallace didn’t have such an accent).
Your questions aren’t relevant to be honest, plus have been discussed ad nauseam and you forgot again, we covered the hack Goodman and his hacky works very recently especially (btw you literally WROTE the page on this site where the Parkes stakeout thing is included lol, it has your name at the top of the transcript, AND you commented under it, before completely forgetting it exists? – but people will remember word for word conversations half a century ago?).
If the Pritchard/Parry family conclave wasn’t to get Gordon a maritime job, and it wasn’t to book him a regular passage, exactly what did Parry’s parents want? To take him as a stowaway?
I have lived 60% of my life outside the UK. Nobody has ever told me that I have a distinctive voice apart from my Northern accent which is still intact.
Agreed there was no absolute need for Wallace to mention his Qualtrough trip to Julia except to prepare the ground early by expressing some doubt as to whether he would go, and to suggest a musical evening if he didn’t..
Opinions as to whether the assailant would receive blood spray have varied widely. We do not know:
If/how the mac was used as a shield
The type of weapon
It’s length (determines distance between victim and attacker}
Position of victim when first blow fell
Whether the weapon was muffled eg with the sleeve of the mac
Bear in mind too that this was a female victim with a mass of hair around the impact zones
By common agreement most blows fell when Julia was already dead. Blood pressure zero.
In these circumstances any “opinion” as to blood on the killer is guesswork.
Yes, there are worrying aspects to Parry’s evasions and untruths but it remains a fact that he was checked out by the police less than a week after the murder and cleared of all suspicion by them. To discount this is to allege staggering incompetence or deep rooted corruption in the Liverpool police at the time and I do not believe either to be the case.
2 errors in fact you have committed as far as I can see:
1.Goodman does claim Johnston knocked down the door or somehow busted it open with zero evidence.
2. Wallace was described as not having an accent that stood out by several accounts including his own counsel.
A further equivocation:
The row Ada Pritchard overhead was between her own parents, not between her parents and the Parry family; you don’t outright say what you mean, but just adding this for clarification purposes. The Parrys felt the police were hot on Gordon’s tail (which they were) and he needed help; the Pritchards were unwilling to give it. This assuming all of this is true even. Anyways, that’s it; can’t see what can be gleaned from that.
A common theme is you, Rod, Antony etc. assert one thing, but the facts and sources say another. So which is truth. Do you lie to Josh?
Glasses man, you explain to Joe how you calculate walking pace from distance travelled. Tiny hat man say you must sprint to get to tram on time, so which is truth? Do you lie to Joe?
Mike you say: Agreed there was no absolute need for Wallace to mention his Qualtrough trip to Julia except to prepare the ground early by expressing some doubt as to whether he would go, and to suggest a musical evening if he didn’t..
A guilty Wallace doesn’t have to prepare any ground to Julia about going out on business, in fact him staying in for a musical evening IS the way a guilty Wallace would easily get her into the parlour. Only a Wallace in collaboration with someone else tells Julia he is going to Calderstones to prepare the ground for her to let Qualtrough in when he says ‘Oh dear, I was meant to come here, can I come in and wait for him’. A guilty Wallace doesn’t have to do this and mention he’s going anywhere.
Mike says: Yes, there are worrying aspects to Parry’s evasions and untruths but it remains a fact that he was checked out by the police less than a week after the murder and cleared of all suspicion by them.
Let’s re-read that. And cleared of all suspicion by them. Really – The Monday night alibi – even the sketchy Brine alibi which was very sparse and only 2 of the said 4 people in attendance giving an alibi. And then Parkes, rightly or wrongly – Why doesn’t his statement exist and we only know about it at all due to luck. The luck that Radio City are putting together a broadcast, the luck that they must have put it out there they were looking for info, the luck that a middle man came forward, the luck that paying money was refused but the team did their own investigations and the Atkinsons garage still existed, the luck that it was still in the same ownership 50 years later, the luck that Parkes was just about still alive and coherent.
Calum/Josh. I don’t know who Joe is so can’t answer you. Ref the stakeout i’m supposed to have forgotten. You interpretation of a stake out and mine are just two different things, nobody mentions a stakeout of sorts, unless you mean keeping an eye open.
For what it’s worth I don’t agree with Rod’s repeated ‘He was found not guilty so he isn’t guilty’ stance. It may be the legal outcome but as you say based on a lack of evidence. For me though the lack of evidence isn’t because there was any better evidence to be put, in fact, I’d go as far to say that there was some jumped up evidence put before the jury – not to mention the deliberate 18 statement of mis-fact at the committal proceedings.
Regarding the row, yes I know it was between Ada’s parents – ask yourself why.
Agreed that Wallace didn’t HAVE TO prepare the ground with Julia at lunchtime on the 20th January. But he did mention it and Julia mentioned it to Amy later that afternoon during Amy’s unplanned visit.
I cannot see how this throw away remark prepares the ground for her to let a bogus Qualtrough into the house. As if she would be in the parlour alone waiting for the arrival of a man she didn’t expect.
I have no problem accepting that there are many aspects to Parry’s alibis and prevarications which are suspicious. But we armchair detectives are at a profound disadvantage compared with the police in 1931. We have only the written record of what took place: the trial transcript, the various statements etc. This represents a TINY FRACTION of what happened – there is no way that every interview, every house call, every phone call, and most importantly every impression gained could be committed to paper.
An example is the very brief Brine statement – just a few lines. The police must have been satisfied as to the reason Parry was there, Mrs Brine’s good reputation, what they discussed for three hours, the nature of the various relationships e.g with Ms Plant etc etc . None of this was recorded but they were satisfied that the alibi was sound.
I am tempted to say “How dare we, almost a century later, with only a faction of the facts available to us, question this conclusion which was made by experienced police dealing face to face with the people concerned.?” It borders on arrogance to suggest that they were bamboozled but we know better.
These officers had wives and often daughters at home. They were not going to turn a blind eye to let the fiend who murdered Julia Wallace escape justice.
I don’t know why Gordon invented his Monday movements, but I do know very well that the list of murder cases where suspects gave false alibis and yet were later proven innocent of involvement is extremely long. The most common reasons are to do with hiding affairs. I.e. in some cases, people like Gordon have said they were somewhere else because they don’t want to admit they are cheating on their girlfriend, or involved in some other untoward activity.
If Gordon did not even know the significance of the Monday, he would be even more likely to simply invent his movements for that evening if he was actually doing something he found embarassing or difficult to admit for reasons other than “he made the call”.
I would also add to the above. The prosecution witheld from the defence witnesses that they had taken statements from but were not calling (no wonder because it made the case for the defence better) and we have the manipulation of McFall’s 4-5 blows at the autopsy to 111 blows to make it look like a personal killing and the manipulation of Alan Close’s original time of ‘A quarter to 6’ verified by 5 other witnesses, one of whom checked his watch and another of whom said the church bells for half 6 service had stopped before she’d even let onto Close in Letchworth street. Also add the letters from a policeman and his wife about the corruption in this newly relatively newly formed force after the 1919 strike saw half of them sacked and the books which vilify the police at this time.
I won’t go into the conspiracy theories regarding Insp Duckworth (marriage relative of Marsden – Gannon) or Moore (His daughter was Parry’s dads PA) or Herbert Balmer (Mr. Corruption himself who joined the Liverpool CID in 1930) or that 2 police officers had sworn to spill the beans that it wasn’t Wallace but died beforehand etc…
Wallace’s relationship with his wife Julia has several characteristics which today suggest psychological spouse abuse. Sadly we know much more of this syndrome now than in 1931.
Wallace was keen to maintain the fiction that Julia had no living relatives, telling his landlady in Cumbria even after the appeal that she was of French origin (a lie) and that she had no living relatives in the UK (another lie.)
Isolation of the victim from relatives is a common feature of spouse abuse – nobody to ask questions.
Julia had no friends. During her weekly visits to church she would chat with others but no relationships developed and she would scurry home afterwards.
He considered himself her intellectual superior, a compensation for his “bottom of the pack” position at the Prudential.
The contrast between Julia’s life/circumstances and those of Amy her sister-in-law could not be greater. Amy was smart, outgoing, and lived in a comfortable apartment. Julia wore drab home-made clothes and was a virtual recluse. Her fur coat probably dated from her time in Harrogate.
Wallace certainly kept an eye on the pennies. The pound notes sewed into Julia’s undergarment may have been to hide them from her husband.
Wallace in contrast had treated himself to expensive photographic equipment and a microscope. He paid his chess club dues and in some accounts he played bowls.
When Julia was delayed on her return from Southport Wallace sarcastically recorded in his diary that when he got back from the police station “her majesty” had returned home.
Both of them were essentially Victorian figures and appearances had to be maintained: a loving relationship had to be shown to the outside world.
In reality Wallace was content to see his wife become a drab shadow of the confident woman he had married in Harrogate.
Julia would be less than human if she didn’t remind him of her reduced circumstances and who she held responsible for them.
I agree with the author of this site’s comprehensive analysis and conclusions. He used DEDUCTIVE reason as opposed to the more autistic and flawed backwards rationalizing ABDUCTIVE reasoning.
Also one of the highlights of my life was putting Rod in his place and owning him when I was 60 and he was 35.
Hi Mike, We don’t know that Julia might not have got on with her siblings and was quite happy to keep up the pretence that they didn’t exist, after all none of them attended her wedding nor her funeral so perhaps there was no love lost hence Wallace going along with that at her request. We also don’t know for sure that Wallace knew Julia’s past or parentage occupations or origins do we?
You bring up that she had no friends and yet that she was also out in Southport so where was she? They were also known as Darby and Joan in the locality according to one of the delivery lads who had also had to return her keys on occasions.
They attended walks in the park, he wrote of her both before and after he death in loving ways and there was no other romance during or after his partnership with her so it’s all purely conjecture.
Pray tell Kentigern Smith. I thought at first you must be a plant/acquaintance of Josh/Calum with using the term autistic against Rod. Hope to hear from you again.
Kentigern and Rod were involved in a legal case in 1999 whereby Kentigern and others had to pay out of court compensation to Rod plus court fees. This put considerable financial pressure on Kentigern and his family, eventually leading to Kentigern and his son being involved in bankruptcy proceedings some years later.
I think it is clear that ‘Kentigern Smith’ is related to RM Qualtrough and clarifies his and Josh’s poor opinion of Rod.
What this has to the Wallace case is unfathomable.
Why go off script on personal vendettas?
Sorry to rock the boat gentlemen but this is so unchallenging, and somewhat predictable of your state of minds to outdo each other regarding this case after you have being arguing your theories for so long.
Happy arguing
Tilly
PS Looking forward to the expected vitriol from you after this post. But it needed to be said. Please grow up!
Are you sure? I think it might genuinely be the ghost of Kentigern, back from the grave to exact a second beatdown on Rod.
Kentigern in life was such a high-testosterone alpha male badass that he, as a 60+ year old pensioner, beat the living crap out of Rod who was in his 30s, and made him go crying to “the man” (the government/legal system) to protect himself from the wrath of Kentigern.
The thing to learn here is that even an old man like Wallace is capable of carrying out a vicious attack of this nature when the motivation is right.
This site isn’t yours, if you don’t like the tone here you can join the Facebook group and discuss autism theories with 60 year old men that live with their mom (literally). Your whacked out theory would probably fit in better there (although they were viciously dissing it from what I saw) We like to discuss actual possible things here on this site based on evidence.
PS. Kentigern is a hero. A hero! Alpha Chad Kentigern 60 plus destroying virgin Rod in his 30s for trying to prevent a basic alcohol sale. Doesn’t get much more heroic than that.
Yes – it was reported in the newspapers that the court case related to an assault at a club between Rod and ‘a member of the club’. You purport this to be definitely Kentigern?
Rod was suspended from the club and sought recompense by taking the club to court.
The analogy to WHW is somewhat tentative – comparing Kentigern and Rod brawling in a club bar to Wallace battering vulnerable Julia to pulp is a bit of a difference don’t you think?
Really RMQ, you don’t want to bring your great site down to this level do you. It only make you look unstable not Rod who it would seem from what I read did nothing wrong.
Back to the case and it seems i’ve stumped you.
1) We know Close was coerced to saying nearer 6.30pm, 5 other kids say so, he clearly said ‘Quarter to 7’ plus the Belmont institute bells don’t lie and neither does Holy Trinity clock or the watch of Wildman.
2) McFall suddenly changes his autopsy 4 or 5 blows to 11 to suit Moore’s assumption this was a personal attack, tighten the noose around Wallace’s neck.
3) Allow timings for tram testing where you can jump on moving trams or get on at requests stops elsewhere (Castlewood road)
4) Call the phone call an alibi and yet Wallace had from 6.05 to 6.49 to commit this murder so the phone call was not an alibi at all, it just introduced another suspect.
5) Wallace could have murdered Julia on the Monday without all this risk of calling from his local phone box, getting on a tram stop he said he didn’t, risking his voice being recognised by Beattie etc etc
6) We know Brine and Denison gave an alibi for their fried (where are Phyllis Plant and Savona Brines statements btw?) but why was Lily made to give Parry an alibi from 9pm when she later states ‘This was only partly true as he came much later but I cannot remember how much later’. She also states ‘If it is true that i’m the only person still alive who know the truth about the Wallace case then the truth will never be told’
Strange thing to say – she’s admitting she hasn’t told the truth then.
I could go on, Parkes, Atkinsons, Ada Pritchard, Anne Parsons, Parry not for £2000, Parry false Mon night alibi (oh it was just a mistake) yeah yeah….
Nothing can bring this site down. Part of what makes it so good is freedom of speech unlike the Facebook group where that weird fat guy who looks like he’s a little too proud of his beard and may use expensive beard balms bans and deletes everything. This site is the number one resource on the case by far and has totally made a mockery of anything previous; including yours and Mark R’s site, anything Antony Brown wrote or “case expert” Rod’s non-existent site.
Freedom to slag off the Blundlesands “businessman” (what business exactly I have no idea, since it seems he’s a lifelong NEET who still lives with his mom at 60+) is critical indeed.
Rod has engaged in “bantz” also, the only difference is that mine is actually amusing lol.
I’m not “stumped” dude by the way lol, it’s like “do you know the reason OJ knifed his wife to death instead of merely strangling her? No? You are stumped!” Or “do you know which model of knife OJ used?”
It’s just that these are like, little satellite musings not core to the case in any way. Almost solely revolving around half-century past the date of the event “recollections” and rumours dialled in by people who weren’t even there.
As an example, perhaps you need to discuss Josephine Lloyd also since if Lily told “untruths” her mother also told untruths to help the guy (who presumably revealed he was a violent murderer) avoid prison and keep dating her daughter. There are many possible explanations for this but it isn’t important to the case. One possibility out of a myriad, maybe the tabloid people kept pestering her suggesting she knows more than she’s letting on and she was like “oh, well, right whatever, if I know secrets I guess they’ll just die with me then”. Or she’s basking in her 15 minutes of fame like Parkes pretending his garage was the center of the mystery with cops staking it out and mysterious mafiosa tier visits from Gordon and “A.N. Other”. Lily also supposedly said she is sure he didn’t do this so what “secret” could be there in any case is likely irrelevant also.
The points you’re raising just aren’t relevant or just aren’t important details in the case, and often revolve around tabloid insinuations and rumours. Ironically the entire radio show was genuine actual “prejudice and fancy”, where some tabloid loser like Goodman invited callers to ring up and slag off dead Gordon who couldn’t ring in to defend himself from every Tom, Dick and Harry in Merseyside calling in to say they saw him running from the scene in fishing waders or whatever these worthless people were saying. Fish and chip shop flirtations, wtf is this in a serious investigation for? It is no different than Tom Slemen, professional ghost hunter extraordinaire, inviting everyone in England to ring in and dish the dirt on Mr. Johnston. It’s dumb and Goodman is a disgraced author like the rest.
This is ALL superfluous and meaningless. All 6 points. Should I take aim at another? For example 1: irrelevant because the time is agreed upon, it’s like 6.35 to 6.40-ish. It is irrelevant what Alan initially said or what cops allegedly forced him to say, because we have many of the neighbourhood kids giving input and the time of the delivery is agreed upon. It is irrelevant and superfluous.
3. is also irrelevant in every conceivable way. The time taken to walk to that stop (walk) can be determined absolutely via the physical distance and calculating the pace. No running is required. You have been told 100 times the defence beat this time. There was no “running”. The point is a lie/defeated. Every single point raised is like this.
Ged,
Wallace’s claim that Julia was a fluent French speaker is a strange thing to invent unless it is true. There isn’t much call for this skill in Harrogate so I am wondering whether Julia spent considerable time in France before meeting Wallace. This might account for the “missing years” in her life story as we know it.
I agree its quite possible that Wallace went along with Julia’s wish to exclude her relatives by denying they existed but why continue this falsehood once Julia was gone by lying to his landlady in Cumbria? Its not crucial to the case but its strange none the less.
This site is a useful source and it is a pity that it descends into anarchy every now and again. Does it have to do with a waxing moon that all the weirdness comes out?
As for free speech – I am entitled to say what I like here as you do. I get the feeling that you are misogynistic and prefer this to be what you would term ‘alpha male’ territory so you can shamelessly slag each other off to no avail.
Please note I am not anyone’s ‘babe’ just a free thinking woman, with an interest in this fascinating case like the rest of you. I heard somewhere that researching Julia’s murder is like entering a rabbit hole – once you are in, you cannot escape.
The gaps in evidence open up all sorts of theories, unanswered questions and likelihoods that nobody will ever be able to prove or explain nearly 100 years after the fact.
Why my rants should be considered any different to other opinions in this respect I cannot fathom.
But if you really wish me to leave this forum I will do so, safe in the knowledge that I have my dignity intact and have not lowered myself to your depths and bullyboy tactics.
By the way have you considered psychiatric help for your outbursts? You certainly do have some kind of multiple personality disorder!
Lol it’s hilarious though… By the way, beta male Rod dishes out insults, so what you’re really upset about is how humiliatingly outmatched he is in this regard. Like if a puny little cuck tried to hit prime Mike Tyson and Tyson just turned around and hit him back full force lol.
IMO it’s fair game and very amusing. People generally find internet drama to be hilarious… The fact is, he was physically outmatched by Kentigern after snitching like a ho, and he’s verbally outmatched by Kentigern’s fan club here after “showing cheek”. It’s not anybody’s fault that he’s so severely outclassed lol.
Like Tilly I joined this site to debate the Wallace case and the various theories as to whodunnit.
I find this backbiting and bitchiness a distraction and more suited to the locker room at a girls’ school.
“People in general find internet drama (so that’s what it is!) amusing.” The participants find it amusing – nobody else does.
No one is forcing anyone here. Much of the drama stems from the Facebook group “The Murder of Julia Wallace” and constant references to it. There was literally zero drama until a certain person entered the fray dating back to the days when this topic was on casebook.
Avoiding discussing the personal drama is a choice; one some might decide to not want to do. If you want, join the Facebook group and see how pleasant it is there 🙂
Again, no one is being held at gunpoint to come and visit this site. Personally, I agree with Calum and find it funny when unreasonable or schizoid punks get “owned”
‘Sock Puppet says’ This site is the number one resource on the case by far and has totally made a mockery of anything previous; including yours and Mark R’s site, anything Antony Brown wrote or “case expert” Rod’s non-existent site.
I agree, this site is the number one resource, it also makes a mockery of your own findings on forum such as this:
”In The Telephone Murder (I believe it is) it is stated that he regularly took the route down Pendennis (like when he went on the wild goose chase to Menlove). That was the author’s strongest point actually, that he took an odd route. It’s also something I find somewhat strong.
That is an important factor. He said he went that way to mail a letter – I tend to err on the side of this being an excuse, and err on the side of it being really weird he went that route… The mailing of a letter excuse does help to explain away any witnesses who may have seen him walking the wrong way up Richmond Park. But the tram route is so easily verifiable, and of course it is dangerous to lie moreso than it is to just tell the truth ESPECIALLY if he doesn’t even know the call was traced. So what happened there? The police were very biased, did they bury evidence? Even if they did, why didn’t William’s defence team check it? We may never know, so sadly we have to let it go… But in my honest opinion, I THINK he probably took the route he claimed, just to be safer than telling an outright lie, which makes it impossible he placed the phone call.”
As for my site, nothing can be made a mockery of that site as I don’t have my own agenda on it. I put the story out and leave others to read it and decide.
As for the facebook site. If the participants and information on it is so bad then why are you begging for Josh to come back?
As for the banter/mockery and the fact Josh and Calum and whichever one of them is Kentigern are all talking to each other and patting each others backs on here I find that all highly amusing and I do LOL but that’s probably because i’ve never grown up and proud of it ha ha.
So let’s get this straight then once and for all. When it comes to anything that might point in Parry’s direction, even his own false alibi and questionable Tues night alibi that goes from sparse to ridiculously overtold, it’s all dubious journalists or Parry having a little play with peoples minds ha ha. Yes yous are so hilarious.
PS. I do hope Mike and Tilly Mint are not scared off, even if I don’t agree with their conclusions.
Anything that starts with “according to (book name)” or, “(author name) says that” you just know the following is worthless. The authors involved in this case, aside from Wilkes, are really the most bottom of the barrel writers since the two Betsy Aardsma books. Different case but wow you should see how bad those books are, it makes the Wallace authors seem like Pulitzer prize candidates.
The majority of Wallace books are genuinely worse than the average The Sun article. That isn’t just a funny joke, that’s genuinely the professionalism we’re getting here. One Wallace book calls Gordon “Reginald” throughout. And this got published. The case is a joke for the most talentless authors to write the equivalent of 1950s clickbait.
Parry has been explained in great depth, especially the false alibi. I know nobody actually reads the solution page I made over a year ago, but I think I have discussed the angles.
Well lets diss one thought you’ve put as fact. Nobody encouraged anybody to ring into the 1981 show to disparage Parry, they just happened to do so, why is that I wonder. Even Leslie Williamson who claimed Parry conned his mother and Lily Lloyd’s mother. A man in the know. I have read your final solution but it doesn’t mean it’s solved, to say that just puts you in the same mould as JGannon , Wilkes, Rod etc with their ‘final solutions’.
Nobody needs convincing that Gordon Parry was a bad ‘un. The evidence speaks for itself: the car thefts, the many swindles of Pru customers, his pocketing of insurance premiums, and the alleged sexual assault charge which I happen to believe. He is in many ways the ideal alternative to Wallace for involvement in the crime.
This has led to the debate being reduced to a contest between Wallace and Parry as suspects. The Brine alibi has to be a fabrication for Parry to be suspected as the killer. Police corruption and/or incompetence have to be invoked which I don’t believe.
The case against Parry as the planner with his cronies at No 29 is the fall back position and I don’t say its impossible, just that there is nothing but speculation, often incredibly detailed with names, meet-up points and itineraries offered as “support.”
We also have a veritable constellation of what RMQ described as “satellites.” A series of stories which reflect badly on Parry: the attempt to get him on a ship, the Parkes episode, the men running in Hanwell street, his refusal to ever mention the Brine alibi by name, his claim to know more which even for £2,000 he would not reveal etc. etc. These should not be dismissed out of hand but they do not provide a coherent narrative supporting his guilt.
My money is still on Wallace but I agree it is far from being “case closed.”
Lurking in the background is a Mr X who made the Qualtrough call and duped Mrs Wallace into admitting him to the house. When his pal, who had “gone to the toilet,” was heard dropping the cash box Mr X struck before the alarm could be raised. Not a shred of evidence to support this of course but neither can it be ruled out.
The 7.30 chess club start time listed on the noticeboard at the cafè is significantly damaging to the idea. I believe historical weather data should show that it was heavy sleet at the time that the stakeout was allegedly taking place.
It is probably about as likely as the neighbors simply placing the red herring call, then going in and assassinating Julia and stealing the money.
Good posts both. The Parry and accomplice is not my fall back position but my No.1 position. Whoever made the call is involved I think we can all agree. The case against Wallace is he might have had time to make the call. The case against Parry is that he couldn’t prove he didn’t and the timings can fit neatly with what he was known to do that evening and of course the false alibi.
Maybe the question is why make the call at all. It is not an alibi for Wallace as he’s home from 6.05 until 6.45 – He could kill 4 people based on the time he is supposed to have from 7.37 to 7.49 maximum to kill Julia because he hasn’t a clue what time Close will call. For Wallace the call would only introduce another suspect who got him out of the house but his chess fixtures list can act as this too, he only had to make it plain in the week prior that he’d be there to all and sundry. For Parry the freeing up of Tuesday as opposed to Monday to get the largest possible bounty can be the only reason otherwise he could organise the robbery for the Monday night. Neither seem totally satisfactory to be honest yet someone called. Oh pheerlease don’t say Mr Johnston. 🙂
Hey Ged, the Papa Smurf looking little bearded gnome-cel ejected me from the group so I won’t be able to post facts or memes in the hugbox anymore.
Mr. Johnston is a much better suspect than Gordon. Mr. Johnston doesn’t need to stand out in the 0 to 5 celsius weather past the point where the guy has missed his chess game (7.30 start time, based on the leaflet). Mr Johnston would match the old man voice reported by Gladys. The Johnstons fingerprints are at the scene (not reported, but he and his wife did enter the house and touch things, Flo helped stoke the kitchen fire). They have a few steps to go to “escape”, and it helps explain the lack of noise reported through the thin party wall.
I assume you will unban me from the group when I have new findings. Josh is commissioning a video to be made.
A video will be made yes. I’m paying for it out of my own pocket. There will be a comprehensive explanation of this basic domestic homicide, how it was perverted by sensationalist journalists and greedy corpulent authors. As well as David Icke holocaust deniers who insist they are the only ones that have come up with the right solution when it’s really just a rip off of another theory. I am not politically correct and really don’t care what someone’s opinions are; I’m pro freedom of speech/center-right but let’s not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a lunatic with Rod Stringer.
I also happen to know that Antony has frauded the poll on his website to a confidence interval of 1 in 650,000 based on unchanging results after around one thousand more votes. All mathematical calculations came up with a similar result if not lower odds of this occurring. (Keep in mind a rounding difference 24.4 vs 24.5 would change the result but we see 4 of the 5 theories have the same exact percentage after many more votes). Of course his “pet theory” is at the top.
Personally, based on other factors which he would dispute, I know the real odds of fraud are 100 percent. But let’s just stick to the math and science because that is the only language these rigid aspies knows. You can’t rely on these guys for basic intuition or common sense lol.
Even Antony’s explanation left the odds very low that the results were genuine; much lower than his own standard for “reasonable doubt.” And even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, the fact that the votes are not updated in real time and instead a thousand votes (after there were around 300 for years) were added manually by Antony himself (supposedly by mail-in ballots) obviously raises a serious possibility of massive voter fraud. That is not the way to tabulate votes. Imagine if they did this in elections lol.
I will be paying over a thousand dollars out of my own pocket, the case will be vivisected, Antony will be insulted, Rod will be insulted beyond belief, and various other people will be “put in their place” including the short guy with the bad beard and criminally dishonest authors (not just Antony). By the way, I have the email where he admits he changed his theory because the publishers wanted a more sensationalist one. His original book picked Gannon’s retarded theory and is now out of print suspiciously.
The person who creates these takedown true crime videos and exposes charlatans is very talented and busy so this may take a month or two but it’s in the works.
The 5’4 bearded guy is Steve Heidstrom? Is he the one too embarassed to even use a photo of himself on his Facebook account?
It is true that Antony rigs his polls yes. I have the commentary confirming that he claims to be manually updating the polls on his site (manually inputting 1000 email-in votes? And really many more than that due to there being numerous cases on his site). This is quite a serious fraud considering the only point of his books is the jury poll angle, but he refuses to pay even £16.50 per month to have working polls. Which does go to show he is just out to squeeze wallets.
The only thing he collects from the polls is personal data, under the guise of wanting to know the demographics of the voters for personal curiosity. Most likely the demographics are actually used to help the marketing campaign of his books.
Johnston on his way home from work and at the tram stop exchanges a few words with Wallace who says he is on his way to the chess club. Johnston makes the Qualtrough call. If Wallace is heard leaving the house on the 20th it is almost certain he has taken the bait. Johnston lures Julia out of the house telling her that Puss is in a nearby alley or has been taken in by a neighbour at No 13. In her absence he enters No 29 using his key, is disappointed to find only £4 in the cash box but puts it back in order to delay discovery of the theft. Julia returns earlier than expected and in panic Johnston hides in the parlour not knowing that that its exactly where Julia is headed. She has the gas fire on because she planned to re-arrange her music scores in comfort during Wallace’s absence. She is shocked to discover Johnston in there and….
Johnston returns home and quickly prepares to go on an unplanned visit to his daughter who he will see the following day anyway.
This particular night is the last chance Johnston will have as next door neighbour to pull off the robbery.
Yes, Mr J is my No2 suspect too.
Mike said: Police corruption and/or incompetence have to be invoked which I don’t believe.
Apart from the Police suffering a recruitment process of half its force in just the preceding decade and promotions from within which were deemed unsatisfactory I can list the following just off the top of my head:
Not securing the crime-scene…Over 12 in there incl suspects.
Altering the crime scene…For the photo – the body position etc
Allowing cross-contamination…Possible reason for the pan and note blood
Not taking notes…McFall and Williams
Being drunk…Can’t remember which one, was it Gold
Not cross-checking alibis…Parry and Marsden jump out
Not looking for (or suppressing) exculpatory evidence…
Presenting a case at the Committal that had 18 prejudicial, factual errors…
Persuading witnesses to change their evidence…Close
Refusing to respond to defence requests for the names of witnesses
Thinking the caller had to be the killer
Conflicting interests -Imelda Moore is John Parry’s secretary
Relying on Rigor Mortis
No check on the call box coins for prints
No check on any suspects saying the word Cafe as Caffay.
I have to admit Ged that this is a formidable list which screams incompetence. It is remotely possible that some of these things were actually done/investigated but not committed to paper. But if anything relevant had been discovered it would have been mentioned at the trial.
Mr Q’s pronunciation of Cafe as Caffay is likely to be the way he always said it even if he was using a disguised voice so it was a golden opportunity missed.
That said, and even though the police were convinced about Wallace, they investigated Parry extensively even after Brine and Denison had given him an alibi in their short statements. Which suggests to me that they were not easily fobbed off and continued until they were satisfied he was in the clear.
If Parry was really investigated extensively we would see corroborating evidence from Lily and Josephine Lloyd (not a contradiction) and statements from Phyllis Plant, Savona Brine, The Hignett’s staff and the post office staff.
Let’s reverse what you say about ‘if anything relevant has been discovered it would have been mentioned at the trial’. That means of course that anything discovered that pointed Wallace in a good light would have been suppressed. We know the delivery kids statements for instance, possibly the Mon night tram tests, how many more we don’t know of as the Police wouldn’t play ball. It might be where new C.I.D. rookie Bert Balmer learnt his fitting up as he would do twice later on.
I was watching yet another real life crime documentary on sky crime last night. The murder of Sabrina Nesse in London by Albanian Koci Selamaj. The silver bullet of evidence that got him was the tiniest speck of blood on his trainer. Just like a tiny speck of blood on Wallace would have had him hanged with no appeal on earth getting him off with it.
RMQ/Josh. I look forward to seeing your video. Why not do a youtube video that points interested parties to this site of yours. I didn’t get to see the post that got RMQ/Calum banned from the FB group but contrary to popular belief I have no jurisdiction over its members. It is Steve’s group but I do go along with there being no need to get personal. Let’s just stick to facts, opinions and scenarios and discuss.
I used a tame slur against the holocaust-denier neo-Nazi dude, referring to him as a “self important incel”. It’s a joke and Steve should be ashamed, protecting a literal Hitler supporter virgin, when said virgin could easily just block me (is he too low IQ to find the block button?) without deleting me from groups.
Either that or Antony initiated a covert op once I exposed his poll rigging. I wonder if people would still buy his books if they knew the voting gimmick is a fraud? Probably not. Antony himself being in league with the neo Nazi aspie who tells the families of Holocaust victims to “look for” their slaughtered relatives because they are probably still alive. Lmao… He is a freak, an incel, a virgin, and an autist (none of these are insults, they are facts you can confirm with him) and he will soon be taken out.
You can definitely feel the generational gap here. I’m a millenial, we were raised “on these streets” with internet culture etc. Olds like Steve can’t handle the internet really. If he just unbans me to post the new video when it’s done that would be fine.
Btw it isn’t remotely realistic to compare criminimal forensic investigation in 2021 to 1931. It’s literally so insane of a comparison to draw you must realize that lol. In 1931 most forensic work was carried out with the naked eye, e.g. benzidine colour change determined by eye not by spectrophotometers.
Trial Questions 3402-3403 In reply to what Julia would usually do when W was at the chess club.
‘Sometimes she sat in the kitchen sewing or occupied in various domestic duties. Very rarely would she go out to friends. Sometimes she would go in the front room and light up and play a tune or two for possibly half an hour.’
Could this provide an answer as to why she was in the parlour?
Also RMQ: Any stalker worth his salt would be on the look out from about 7am just in case Wallace left earlier to perhaps call to a shop for cigarettes before the chess club once in town or in Breck Road before his tram journey. Why leave it until the last minute and miss him altogether. I’ve even done it myself when playing a prank on my brother. If Parry is at in his car with his friend in the Cabbage Hall car park, it doesn’t even matter if it were cold or raining.
Doesn’t make sense and also didn’t happen. You probably meant 7pm which doesn’t make sense because “from 7pm” is like the latest time you can stalk the place assuming a 7.30 start time.
None of this happened, and surprisingly 1931 cars were not very well insulated with aircon and heating built in etc.
Well spotted Ged. Either the musical evening with Wallace which didn’t happen or with Wallace absent she was in there attending to her music. “Light up” presumably refers to the gas fire.
“He was always so polite. I used to see him with his wife in the neighbourhood. A devoted middle-aged couple with her arm linked in his. He would always tip his hat to the ladies.”
Statement by a neighbour of John and Ether Christie shortly after Ethel’s body had been found under the floorboards of Christie’s living room. So much for appearances!
So we all agree the ‘stakeout’ which is basically just Parry and maybe a friend sitting in a car smoking, talking and watching could have happened and we all agree Julia did go in the parlour on occasions to play the old Joanna without William and yes, appearances mean nothing – look at killer Dr Shipman and killer nurse Lucy Letby.
Sitting in the car smoking in a poorly insulated tin box without heating, in 0 to 5 C weather, for like an hour, and sat there like 15 minutes beyond the time you think he has to leave to be at the club on time. This didn’t happen.
More could be said but obviously it didn’t happen on the face of it. It would be an insult to your intellect to go on beyond this.
Why are you stating misinformation about the weather conditions?
It was 7 to 8 degrees on 19/1 as can be checked on weatherspark.com.
This scenario was mooted in court and is very realistic. More so than your Amy+Parry+Johnstons mad theories.
Parry saw the chess chart and doesn’t know there have been times Wallace hasn’t attended, he is the common denominator in knowing everything about the crime scene and even getting into it with no problem. He has the motive and means. He lies to the police. It’s not rocket science.
You are making untrue or unproven statements and passing them off as fact. Very Stringer/Brown of you.
Weatherspark is notoriously unreliable for historical climatological data and indeed offers broad ranges of “estimated” temperatures for time periods thruout days in the distant past. One could conclude the data is tantamount to being made up or a very broad guessing game.
The met office data shows a morning low of between 39.9 and 40.1 degrees for January 19, 1931, but an absolute low of 38 degrees for the 24 hour period. The high temperature was 46.8, but the sun sets before 4:30. The warmest part of day therefore is almost certainly going to be around 1 or 2 pm. The diurnal ranges(difference between hi and low) are also small at this time of year so if the low was 38 for the night of the 19th and we are in pitch black rainy Liverpool, we are probably already close to that by later evening. We can reasonably conclude that the temperature around 7 pm to 715 pm on the night of the 19th was at or slightly below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. I could not find data for anywhere exactly in Liverpool (another reason to think the broad range weatherspark data is rubbish), but I used Southport which is just a bit up north and has the exact same January average as Liverpool (Hi 43 Lo 35 Fahrenheit).
Certainly not “7 or 8 degrees” Celsius but more like barely 5 if that. Anyways, we may be splitting hairs; the point is it is not comfortable weather. Goodman describes a drizzle that was persistent and made one suddenly realized they were drenched by the way for the entire night.
You state your last paragraph as fact; there isn’t even evidence Parry was at the club since mid November and also while the chart is admittedly nearly indecipherable , as it turns out Wallace had frequently not attended so if Parry had tried this ruse before it probably would not have worked. The one time he tries it; it works (according to your theory) and in uncomfortable conditions waiting significantly past a reasonable time it could be concluded Wallace would not be emerging and headed to the club. Another interpretation is Wallace just did it himself.
The vast majority of domestic homicides are perpetrated by the husband, even more so if the method of murder is blunt force head trauma. Julia wasn’t even killed in the same room as the cash box. You are right, it’s not rocket science!
A Mr J Parry was a member of the chess club in 1931. He took part in the championship competition but was eliminated early. Just thought I’d throw this into the mix for what its worth, probably nothing…
Mike, that is interesting for sure but I am pretty sure it is an unrelated Parry. It seems that it was not an uncommon last name in Liverpool at the time. A big deal was made of George Parry etc., so if this Parry was related I think we would know.
”Sitting in the car smoking in a poorly insulated tin box without heating, in 0 to 5 C weather, for like an hour, and sat there like 15 minutes beyond the time you think he has to leave to be at the club on time. This didn’t happen.”
Who says it didn’t happen – RMQ 🙂
Another, just for good measure….
”Doesn’t make sense and also didn’t happen. You probably meant 7pm which doesn’t make sense because “from 7pm” is like the latest time you can stalk the place assuming a 7.30 start time.”
And….
”None of this happened, and surprisingly 1931 cars were not very well insulated with aircon and heating built in etc.”
Here is the Weatherspark link and it’s Liverpool airport not Southport.
In any case, sitting off in a car for half an hour nattering to your mate whilst keeping watch is hardly a chore, something some people might even do anyway but especially when a nice little bounty is in the planning.
Also, because there is no proof Parry being in the club after rehearsals for his play finished does not mean he never went in there again you know. In fact his mate Jimmy Tattersall even talks of meeting him in a basement cafe in North John street during and after this period. He also tried nicking cars in North John st, He worked in town and was local to here quite apparently.
I have contacted the Met Office. All over a few celsius where it is still blatantly winter weather. They have emailed back and confirmed the request has been sent to the relevant department and I should get real weather data soon (AI gave me the original figures). I will publish that.
The rest seems a bit low IQ and requires some thinking cap time. Let’s see for example:
“from 7pm” is like the latest time you can stalk the place assuming a 7.30 start time.”
He left his house at something like 7.10, 7.15 and turned up at the club at 7.45 to 7.50. The club match starts at 7.45, but the noticeboard tells people like Parry it’s 7.30. This is a difference of 15 minutes… So if he left his house around 7.15, what do you get when you minus 15 minutes from this?
“surprisingly 1931 cars were not very well insulated with aircon and heating built in etc”
This is also accurate information. Though I am no longer able to provide all public info as a little gnome cuckold bearded beta male “Snow White and the 7 dwarves” Heigh-Ho Heigh-Ho it’s off to work we go 5’6 “Honey, I shrunk the Steven” Stuart Little virgin motherfucker banned me from viewing the group. Banning from posting would be whatever, but sometimes there was actual info like timetables etc I could put here for the rest of the world outside of the Holocaust denial group you’re in, but I can’t view these now.
It was overcast with light rain at 6 PM (Beaufort lettering “o/ro”), which would be unpleasant to stand outside in (cars were not very common at the time, nobody seemed to spot any cars loitering), aside from just the cold winter temperature. Inacityliving has reported “sleet” for some reason:
Buddy GED, I don’t know if you are senile or what but we dealt with this already ad nauseam. I provided you with the most accurate possible info available and my logically based reasoning. This is not an easy task with ancient climatological data that dates back to you Rod and Antony’s childhood.
Your link actually doesn’t work by the way but I can see you attempted to link to the weatherspark site which I pointed out gives broad ranges of temperatures for a given time and seems frauded and you didn’t attempt to refute.
As an example, the site you attempted to link to was using Liverpool airport which opened in July 1933.
It would be interesting to check the weather around 6-7 pm on the 20th January 1931. Wallace claimed he left his mac which he had worn that day on the hall stand and wore his “fawn coat” to MGE because the weather had improved.
Hi RMQ/Josh. So what if Parry read that the chess matches started at 7.30pm so he’d just stake out from 6.45 then and eventually they would see Wallace at 7.20 ish – no biggie. If he’s been there practising his play for weeks he probably knows when people start turning up to play and that the 7.30 and even the 7.45 was never enforced. Tentative enquiries might even have confirmed this to him on the pretence he was thinking of joining – nobody would know him.
Mike. We know he changed from his mac worn during his morning collections to his fawn overcoat for the afternoon due to an improvement in the weather so perhaps this improvement stabilised or continued.
The greatest reveal just lately I found was that Julia would indeed play the piano alone to pass the time whilst William was out. Whether she did on that night with her cold is just another variation but in my recent scenario, she is in the parlour because she is expecting Parry and there is nothing I can find about his visits behind Wallace’s back to being just in the afternoons. Of course, he has his alibi (maybe) and it wasn’t Parry who showed up…………
It’s 11C outside today and even now at this temp it is unpleasant, I have the fire on. This isn’t a realistic proposition. They don’t even really know he is home to begin with, he could be visiting Amy or something, for example, and going to chess from there. He could even have decided to go out the other way and take another route or visit a shop in the other direction before, be out late at a client’s place conducting business (allegedly he is going out for 7.30 PM at night to do just that on the following evening).
It isn’t very realistic as a proposition.
Parry’s club never met on Mondays by the way. He only saw the club on a totally different day, and would hardly be paying much attention to the times people start filing in months before any of this went down. And if he did, the notice would make it seem that the time must have changed.
Ged,
Quite apart from his apparently solid alibi, how did Parry expect to get away with a distraction theft? Assuming he was successful in pocketing the cash undetected, and having replaced the cash box back on the shelf to delay discovery he would then make his excuses and leave.
The only witness to his visit is Julia who having welcomed Parry during his clandestine visits might not wish to mention this evening call to Wallace when the theft was discovered. So Parry would have to rely on Julia’s collusion to cover up his involvement.
If on the other hand the afternoon visits never happened Julia would certainly mention Parry’s visit and when the theft was discovered the game would be up for him.
If it wasn’t Parry who showed up but his pal(s), perhaps claiming to be Mr Q and the theft takes place as described and undetected Julia would certainly mention this visit of Mr Q who “had to dash off to another appointment.” Parry would make sure that the fake Mr Q didn’t know Julia so she wouldn’t be able to name him, just give a description. Even if she heard noises in the kitchen/diner during the theft they could just scarper without the need for any violence.
It was a cafe, open to anyone, any day, Parry was not limited to just Thursdays, he met his mate Jimmy Tattersall in cafes in North John st. Michael, if you read my possible solution it doesn’t involve Parry doing the robbery., just making the call to clear the way for his mate. I also offer a solution as to how the thief got in without being Mr Q at the front door.
Hi Ged,
If we accept for the moment that Parry’s pal or pals were responsible and entry to the house was done as you suggest, we are still confronted with the murder following discovery by Julia of “something wrong” or a ”strange noise” in the kitchen diner. Otherwise we have to assume that the murder was pre-planned by Parry’s pal(s) which can be discounted.
The confrontation between Julia and the thief is most likely to be in the kitchen/diner which doesn’t fit with the murder happening in the parlour. But putting this aside, the perp, not being known to Julia, would only have to get out of the house before she raises the alarm.. No violence. No murder. A shaken Julia would be able to offer only a description of the thief.
The only way I can square this circle is to assume Parry’s mate to be a psychopath who would react to a challenging situation with violence, without thinking of the consequences if caught. This isn’t far-fetched. These people exist. I suppose you too Ged watch the excellent series on BBC TV “Parole” where convicts who have murdered someone in a “red mist” moment of madness (one of many in some cases!) apply for release on parole after their latest prison sentence.
One of the names suggested has been Parry’s mate Denison who is said to have had convictions later on but we don’t know if these were for violence.
Hi Michael. I take it you’ve not read back to my scenario, I actually think you might have commented on it at the time but I have Julia waiting in the parlour for Parry but being confronting by one of the two burglars and the murder not being premediated but as a consequence of ‘oh fk’ and if it was Marsden – recognition’ (Denison or another at the cash box)
For me:
Wallace never uses Close as an alibi and never even mentions him.
Wallace never uses the Q visit as an alibi as he has from 6.05 until 6.50 so it’s not.
Wallace doesn’t have time from 6.37 and in my book (and McFall’s/The Police) would have blood on him.
Wallace had no need to tell Julia of the Q visit and in fact a night in would be discussed.
A guilty Wallace would sew easy facts up in his planning (Just as the McCann’s would have if they were involved)
Parry if innocent would be bringing his own book out but he had something to hide which he never wanted uncovering whilst certain people were still alive.
If Marsden was there and she recognised him, and if the theft was undetected at the time, so there was no murder, how did Marsden hope to get away with it? I suppose if Julia was expecting Parry, and Marsden arrived she might not want to mention any visit to Wallace.
I totally agree about Parry’s alibi with Mrs Brine especially so because as you say nobody knew about it until the police files (what was left of them) were released, probably as a reaction to the Radio City programme.
The implication is that Wallace was put up for trial as an Aunt Sally, on weak evidence and likely to be acquitted. But these are deep waters involving police corruption to get Parry off the hook and I don’t want to go there.
Julia was never meant to see the burglars. Parry set it up to visit her but never would. she would leave the back gate and door unlocked like for his normal visits so he could swan in unseen as nobody ever saw him call or knock on the door any other time. She would be waiting for him in the parlour. However, it went wrong whilst Marsden ventured into the parlour as Denison was stood on the cupboard door to reach and rifle the cashbox without ever taking it down. He gets out his paltry sum, he doesn’t want a dollar or stamps and once the cash box is replaced and he’s ready to jump back down the (one before repaired) door breaks and coins spill out of his hand. After the bludgeoning, there is no time for looking for more money, they have to get out of there. It is these two that Anne Parsons see legging it down Hanwell street.
If you don’t want to go there about police corruption that is up to you but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and anyone who has read about Bert Balmer who incidentally had just joined the CID in 1930 will enlighten you but he can be googled, basically he got innocent men hung after framing them. Goodman’s book will also tell you of the state of the police in the 1920s and up to 1931 and there are even 2 letters on this site from a policeman and his wife about the corruptions going on.
Moore (whose daughter was Parry seniors PA) didn’t want a pesky Parkes statement anymore than he wanted Alan Close saying the mantra ‘Quarter to seven’ which he’d clearly said to 5 other delivery mates. He was under pressure from the local press and it was his first big test since becoming Superintendent. In his mind he had his man just as in his mind the caller had to be the killer which we know could be untrue. Also in his mind the killer had to be full of blood (see his APB on the murder night) but when some scenarios like this blood or Close didn’t suit him he soon dropped those ideas.
Lol what? What do you mean? She’s sat in the parlour waiting for Gordon to have a clandestine visit (like sexual you mean?) entering in the back, and then both Marsden and Denison sneak in the back door instead?
What do you mean like wouldn’t Julia hear the back door open and think it’s Gordon coming in? Lol. Why is she necessarily going to be waiting inside the parlour rather than just setting the fireplace and waiting in the kitchen because of the dodgy sticky back door she might need to let him in?
Like wait, if she’s just waiting in the parlour and Gordon is expected, and she just sits in the parlour, hears the back door open etc, and then later all the money is gone from the cash box, how is she not going to think Gordon stole the money?
Gordon standing on a street corner stalking Wallace, doesn’t know Wallace is actually at home to begin with (he could be at Amy’s or at a client’s place or at a violin lesson or seeing a friend, and be going to the club directly from there), seeing him leave, you don’t know where he’s going. It would be far more prudent to stake out the club, then call about half hour later and simply say to the person who picks up “hi can you write down a message for me and pass it to Mr. Wallace?”
I agree with the points raised by RMQ below.. The scenario of a sneak theft rather than a distraction theft depends on Julia not being in the kitchen diner which is a risky assumption given that the parlour was rarely used. Even assuming she expected Parry, she may well have been waiting at the dining room table, the gas fire in the parlour ablaze in anticipation of his arrival. Nobody in their right mind would undertake such a risky venture.
“Julia was never meant to see the burglars.”
Assuming they entered undetected while Julia was in the parlour, why on earth would Marsden go there? He knows Julia must be in there because she is expecting Parry’s visit.
Police corruption
I wasn’t born yesterday. Police corruption has always existed but it cannot be assumed without evidence to support it and that is why I don’t want to go there. Inspector Moore would not be the first senior investigator, or the last, to form an early opinion as to whodunnit (Wallace in this case) and to stick with it dismissing evidence supporting an alternative suspect. This is pig headedness, not corruption.
That said, like it or not, Parry’s alibi for the murder night satisfied the police but they continued with an examination of his car, his clothing, and they spoke to the Lloyds. We can bring up the short rubber-stamp statements, Parry keeping quiet about Mrs Brine, the mysterious Phyllis Plant etc etc but the fact remains that he was cleared by the police on the ground in 1931 and although these are valid questions they are not enough, in my view, for us to reach a different conclusion.
I will submit to paper yet another story so I know where to find it when required again. It is often said, particularly by one particular poster on the Casebook Forums (Herlock Sholmes) why would Parry give such an easily checkable lie for his Monday alibi and that it must surely have been either a mistake or a cover for where he really was with another woman for instance.
Well, watching Sky Crime as I do and following the story of the murder of 16 year old Mhairi Julyan by 55 year old Gavin Maguire. His alibi was very specific. He was nowhere near the Stagecoach bus depot where her body was found, in fact he was in Kilmarnock at a pub called The Tudor until 10.45pm. Now, he wouldn’t give such an easily checkable alibi would he. Well he did and you’ve guessed it, he wasn’t there.
I’m truly amazed at the number of mistakes and let offs for Parry as opposed to Wallace. A guilty Wallace with weeks or even months to plan this only had to look at the main things to overcome to prevent the gallows. The first one would certainly be the method of murder and then trying to explain why he couldn’t get in the house in the most simplest terms and that is just to say the bolt was on from minute one. Not messing with locks to see if they are rusty etc. Simple stuff really for this chess mastermind. He could even have sent himself to Bootle instead of somewhere he was tried to be shown he knew well.
RMQ. Yes, by Parry’s own admissions he used to call on Julia and you know that. This must have been pre-arranged so as William not to be there so there is no reason this one would not be pre-arranged just like before. Once the money has gone and goes to plan (IE No murder) all Parry has to say to Julia the next time he sees her is ‘Sorry I couldn’t come on Tuesday but Lily’s mother needed a lift somewhere’ and she’d say ‘Oh Gordon, the most terrible thing happened, we were robbed’ – no proof.
Parry, or good old Gordon as you call him knows Wallace’s routine to a tee and he is a creature of habit. It’s a work day, he’ll be home about 6pm for his tea and then to the chess club and the next night will be similar only he’ll be off to MGE after his tea. Not rocket science is it.
Lol he’s a creature of habit but his visits to the chess club are unreliable enough to have to “stake out” his home? Even if you see him leave his house you literally have no idea where he’s going and have to guess by the time he’s likely going to the club (even though he’s left his house too late to actually get to the club by the time matches start).
Clearly it is smarter to stake out the cafe if anything, and then you can just call and ask the person who answers it to write down the message for you.
It is not rocket science to figure out that if Gordon has said he’s coming and to leave the back door open, and Julia hears the back door open, and just sits there for a bit and then hears it close, like who is she meant to think it was that came? Lmao, like not the one guy who said he was going to come and told her to leave the door open, and it happened around the time he told her he’d be coming?
Lol like what is Julia going to do, she hears the back door open, she’s not going to call out like “Gordon?” or walk into the kitchen to greet him, or even be sat there in the warm waiting for him, especially since the back door is tricky.
“The Trial of William Herbert Wallace” edited by F Wyndham Brown, written in 1933, is hard to find these days. Gyan books based in New Delhi, India are a reprint house who print and publish rare books on demand from a master copy.
I ‘m aware that the trial transcript is available on this site but in parts I find it difficult to read. More important for me is that a book is portable whereas my computer is a fixed desk top and often occupied by my wife!
The book arrived yesterday. It is a handsome affair with a leather spine bearing the title in embossed gold leaf. The corners of the end boards are also leather. The print is crystal clear and on a good quality heavy paper. There are 320 pages, 50 of which give a well -written overview of the case by the author.
The illustrations have not reproduced very well but Gyan advised me of this asking if I wished to proceed with my order. As they are the pictures we are all familiar with it doesn’t really matter.
It isn’t cheap coming in at around 70 euros but now that I have it in my hands I consider it money well spent and any serious student of the case might want to consider its purchase.
RMQ – Staking out the cafe and seeing him arriving before calling lmao. As if Beattie would take a message when Wallace could be called over sitting a few yards away.
As if the burglars would announce their arrival by slamming doors open and shut. The idea is that they sneak in and out within minutes if it wasn’t for the hapless Marsden seeing what was of value in the parlour thinking Julia might be waiting for Parry upstairs.
Mike, call it pig headedness or corruption, I call it the latter as would the Birmingham 6 or Oliver Campbell or Tomasz Komande to name but a few and if you are going to cite that the fact remains that Parry was cleared by the police in 1931 (despite his false alibi) then i’ll sign off by saying that the fact remains that the Criminal Court of Appeal found Wallace not guilty of this murder beyond all reasonable doubt in 1931 which means that any other outcome is unreasonable. 🙂
The book sounds good. Hope the trial transcript tallies with the pages RMQ kindly copied onto here.
“Hi, is this the City Chess Club? Is Mr. Wallace there? I don’t want to disturb Mr. Wallace’s chess, could you take down a message for me and pass it along?”
Versus just seeing him leave his house, at the wrong time (he would be late for any chess match by the public noticeboard) and guessing he’s off to the club, and even presuming he’s home to begin with and not visiting Amy, or making some other late night call to a different client (he was evidently willing to venture out after work hours for business, as seen from his Qualtrough search), or at a violin lesson.
What do you mean Julia waiting upstairs for Gordon? Lol man, so literally they’re meant to be having an affair and she’s lying there spreadeagled in bed with the back door open while her cuckold husband is out looking for a fake address? So why are two men going into the house in any case? Why is Marsden and Denison going in, lol. Why do you need both of them to pull off this crime?
She could literally be IN THE KITCHEN waiting, yes she will hear the back door opening then. She would probably hear it ANYWAY, with the stiff crappy old door with messed up mechanisms, even from the middle bedroom which by the way overlooks the yard (see floor plans) where the back door is. You realize this isn’t correct, right? She knew someone was there (because obviously it was her bitter old husband, William), so she had her back turned to regulate the fire, and didn’t see the strike coming to the back of her head, and so didn’t end up with defensive bruising/wounding on her arms from putting her arms up to prevent a guy who just wandered in unexpectedly smashing her face in with the pipe she sees coming.
It is literally more believable that Puss did it. Julia fed Puss sour old milk, and it was late too due to loser Alan. For Puss this was the final straw. As Julia bent down to the fire readying herself for a little piano, Puss LEAPT on Julia, knocking her headfirst into the fire. Puss then began to batter her and claw at her skull (see the tram marks, surely cat claws). “That’s the last time you ever feed me sour milk you incontinent old bag!”
GED, the call could have been made so that while Wallace wasn’t at the club yet, he was almost there (from a box nearer the club). This would increase the chances of the call being relayed correctly too. Of course, this doesn’t work if you buy into the aspie house stakeout theory which has potential framing implications too.
In either event, there would be no reason to believe the 15+ minute late Wallace who had just had 2 bouts of illness and missed many sessions would show up at much less get or follow up on a message like that.
Ha ha – love the puss did it but what do yous both mean, one minute RMQ says the stakeout is outside the club, the next Josh says it’s just before he enters the club, it’s make your mind up time. You’d have to literally be standing in the phone box waiting to make the call and hope to see him heading for the club and I do think Beattie would say, here is Mr Wallace himself, it would be natural and more unbelievable if the caller was putting off actually speaking to Wallace himself.
I have 2 people there just for dutch courage and back up, is it so unbelievable when your own investigations has house burglars even working in threes – see your own site with the news cuttings.
Also, the fire couldn’t just be being lit as the clays had to be hot enough for the scorch marks on her skirt – do keep up.
I cannot see this crime without Parry having some sort of involvement. I cannot see Wallace who showed no motive even after his freedom to have done this either. In fact his diaries, writings and actions showed quite the opposite even without the danger of double jeopardy.
“Also, the fire couldn’t just be being lit as the clays had to be hot enough for the scorch marks on her skirt – do keep up.”
She was bending down to regulate the flame after it had already been lit, just as Wallace said in his confession “If I Did It” OJ Simpson piece, when he then smashed her with a wrench. The claim about the clays and how long they’d need to heat, or even the functionings of the fireplace, by the way, is from Gannon as per usual, where he’s just guessing things about the fireplace. Like every other part of the book he is merely guessing.
“RMQ says the stakeout is outside the club”
RMQ says it didn’t happen, because it isn’t Gordon, obviously. But it would have made it more definite he is actually going to be there. Rather than just guessing? The time isn’t even correct for that to be where he’s headed. You should make up your mind in fact, is this what you’re settling on? Why are you even inserting Marsden lol. Wallace told you how he killed his wife.
We had a gas fire for years in Council houses in Liverpool, the type with clays, these were similar but Robinson Willey gas fires. They were originally white but down the years would scorch to orange then black. I believe they would have to bit hot to scorch Julia’s skirt and that would take some time to be hot enough to scorch material
so i’m not going off Gannon here but through knowing how these fires work having had them.
Another point that is usually made is that a bludgeoning has to be by someone known to the victim. I refer to yet another Sky Crime episode, you can read it here. Victim and killer unknown to each other. In fact, your own house burglar newspaper cuttings on here show how these people would batter the elderly to within an inch of their live.
We don’t know for sure that Julia was regulating the gas fire when she was attacked. However in view of the scorching of mac and skirt it is likely. If she had been lighting the fire, in my view the fire clays would not be hot enough in the few seconds after ignition, as she rose, to produce the scorching observed. So if indeed she was regulating the gas fire she was more likely to be turning it either down or off with the fire clays at red heat.
Statistics apart, it is the “overkill” nature of this attack – 11 blows – which suggests the venting of anger etc . A psycho stranger as in the example you give Ged is possible but it also indicates the venting of a long-held grievance by someone known by the victim. Psychos, and this is a generalisation, don’t go in for elaborate pre-planning (the Qualtrough call) but are opportunist killers living in the present doing what they have to do and not thinking further ahead than the next few minutes. That said, it is a possibility which has not received much attention because there’s no meat to chew on as with Parry or Wallace. It would answer a lot of questions, timing, alibis, motive which bedevil the cases against P and W.
That news story isn’t relevant because it doesn’t say about a lack of defensive wounds? The point is that if Julia was facing the attacker, even if it was her psycho murderer husband, and saw something coming at her face, she’s likely to throw her arms up or do something to try to block the strike. And that leaves things like bruises on the victim, cuts, other things, showing where they have tried to prevent themselves from getting hit.
It seems more likely she was clubbed over the head while bending down to regulate the gas fire (likely because it had been left full for a bit to heat the room). Simply because seeing a random unexpected person coming into the room (as she would from the couch) and swinging a pipe at you, it isn’t very sensical she’d just stand there arms at her side not reacting at all.
Which is what William said happened… it seems quite likely he would know better than us how he killed his wife, and he says it was as she bent to regulate the gas.
From even a neutral standpoint why did McFall keep changing his opinions and they shouldn’t be opinions but observations based on fact. I tend to go with his Autopsy report of nearer 4 blows – 11 seems to have been added during the trial after the police had got to him to make it seem like a spouse attack. The cop on the Bike at Maiden lane says in his statement that W had his hands in his pocket. On trial W was wiping his eyes – make your mind up. Close says Quarter to Seven (heard by 5 others) then denies it under oath, again after the police said you must be mistaken. W doesn’t actually say this is how I killed my wife lmao to coin your phrase. He could quite well have admitted it freely though given no double jeopardy.
Mcfall doesn’t matter, whether he said one blow (look up Krauseneck, one axe strike by the way) or 1000, his testimony isn’t relevant to whether or not the guy did it. Her skull was literally smashed open with her brains visibly mushed and leaking out. I don’t think anybody uses McFall’s report, because he’s unreliable, it isn’t relevant here.
Jail/execution isn’t the only thing to be worried about lol. He was already being threatened in the streets randomly and couldn’t keep his normal job because clients were too scared to see him… If he literally just started gloating that he killed her, I can’t even imagine. He’d be fired and repelled from everywhere and everyone.
Also honestly I’d feel terrified of bizarre deep obscure legal loopholes or legal changes where they can just grab me and sentence me anyway. For example if he got arrested on a different trumped up charge.
Wallace’s confession doesn’t specify the number of blows if I remember right. He simply explains how he smashed her when she bent down to the fire. I wish he’d offered a confession for the prior night too, just so the whole story is laid out beginning to end.
RMQ – You keep saying certain things are not relevant. Regarding the things I have posted what is relevant is this. It doesn’t have to be a deranged disappointed husband for a bludgeoning – period, I can post many where killers have even cut people up and didn’t even know their victims. Authors need to stop using this against Wallace. Also there is no differentiating between whether these types of murders are spur of the moment or premediated, i’m sure between us we watch enough crime documentaries to know it’s very open ended. Watched yet another last night whereby the perp viciously attacked someone they only knew by sight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Paige_Doherty
You say Wallace’s confession – it is not a confession lmao
You say on one hand how he can’t confess due to all what you said in the prior 2 paragraphs then say it is – make your mind up.
RMQ says… That news story isn’t relevant because it doesn’t say about a lack of defensive wounds?
What are you on about?…. Really?…..
It doesn’t say about lack of defensive wounds because there are none. The programme says he got into the property by pretending he was from help the aged and he even dropped the leaflet inside her hallways once he was in, his fingerprints were on it. She was taken as much by surprise as was Julia.
The point i’m making is that the victim DOES NOT have to be known by the killer for it to be a bludgeoning as your own news cuttings on this site confirm. This myth needs to be stopped being pedalled as to why it was Wallace.
Apart from he didn’t have time, didn’t use Close in his defence, he incidentally just came forward, didn’t even have an alibi without Close. No weapon found – which a different perp would have had time to dispose of, but not Wallace. Then all the dodginess of Parry which are put down to him fooling around, having fun, winding people up – when his neck is on the line – open your eyes.
Yeah she was taken by surprise, from behind (by her husband), not a stranger or someone unexpected just wandering in while she’s sat at the couch, and then being walked up on and not trying to throw her arms up or anything as this dude comes at her with a pipe. Just sat there happily chilling as an iron bar (spanner) is swung at her skull.
This isn’t correct and didn’t happen. There are also old ladies who got attacked in their beds while asleep. There are also serial killers who creep in the window and machete attack families. That is not the same situation, Julia is awake, and would have seen her unexpected attacker enter. That is why it is not relevant, because the context is completely different.
The theory is a cope and didn’t happen. This is just like “Sisyphus” tier wanting to maintain mystery to have something to do and friendship groups to hang with etc. It’s just a hobby lol.
It IS Wallace. He TOLD YOU how he murdered his wife step by step, what weapon he used, how the fire happened. He laid it all out in the articles he wrote which 90% consisted of bragging about his accomplishments and insulting others (and a whole two page spread on how much he hates women and their “poison tongues”). He insulted the other prisoner’s intellect saying they suffer from “imbicility”. He thinks he’s better than them. He thinks he’s smarter than you. He probably is. But it is beside the point.
And this lanky gremlin motherfucker is going to get away with it because one of the laundry list of names he provided to the cops fabricated his whereabouts on Monday? That’s it? I covered this over and over on my main page which you haven’t read.
Ha, your mini page. I’ve read the casebook forum where you name everyone from Parry, Marsden, Wallace, Johnston with sometimes them even working with each other.
I have seen your solution but forgive me if I don’t go with it. I will need you to answer the questions I raised about Parry some time back which all just seemed to be he was mistaken about his whereabout just 3 nights prior.
I’ll also need to know where this spanner is, how Wallace had time to wash the blood off (it’s agreed by all there would be blood on the assailant) and don’t say some new fangled forensic expert you plucked out of nowhere said there’d be none. Why Wallace didn’t even make the appointment for 7pm so that he wouldn’t have 45 minutes to commit the murder or why he didn’t even use Close as his obvious alibi.
As the judge says, Wallace’s many statements are very consistent and nobody comes forward to rubbish any of them, not the trams times for Monday, which stop he got on, anything. And please don’t say Maddock says he could make it to the club via any stop as firstly I can’t see that it does say that anyway. Please stop on the 7.30pm start time too, even Beattie in court says it’s 7.45pm so maybe it’d changed and the rules just not updated as it was never enforced anyway, I mean, it seems you could even miss your schedule and still not be penalised, just play it later.
I mean you can get angry that your hero, a literal murderer, told you how he did the murdering, it is what it is. I didn’t pluck anyone “out of nowhere” by the way. That is also when I was really hoping for someone to say they agreed with that notion and they didn’t and basically said it’s totally BS.
Not that it’s relevant, since the idea it’s proven the drain wasn’t used is literal bullshit. Who first invented that? Was it tabloid incel Goodman? Was it greedy Gregg’s sausage roll gobbling poll-rigging fatass authors? Was it Gannon?
Maybe he shoved the spanner up his ass. There are infinite possible real speculations. It might not even be gone from the house. Maybe it was wiped off with the mac. Maybe it was rinsed in the sink when he washed the blood off his own hands, maybe it was wrapped in cloth which was then chucked in the fire. No such item was ever tested.
7.30 is what’s displayed on the noticeboard. That is the time a randomer wandering in would see. I.e. Gordon inspecting the chart, would see 7.30. Do you understand this?
You’re basically just like a religious cult member. What is the point of this? I would have more luck walking into the middle of a church service and telling everyone that religion is a scam and blatant bullshit. Which is fitting because 90% of your ideas are religious in nature and Russell’s Teapot tier stuff like failed philosopher Antony now uses himself to sell embarassing books to low IQ invalids like Rod while being too cheap to have a working and fair and accurate poll on his site. Where are Rod’s royalty checks? Where are my royalty checks for him using expert opinions I paid a lot of money for? We all know where they are, they’re converted to Mr. Kipling cakes and shoved down the fat cuck’s gullett.
Imagine if you legit just came out like “yeah okay he did it”. Imagine how quickly Rod would ban you from the group meetings at his mum’s house that he’s lived at his entire life at the age of 60+ (the same age successful family man Kentigern was when he battered the shit out of Rod who was still in his physical prime at 30) while pretending to be a bitcoin millionaire and denying the holocaust. He has as much bitcoin as he has had sexual encounters. And about as much bitcoin as he has IQ points. The fact you seemingly don’t notice this literal turbo autist is a turbo autist, is illuminating in itself on many grounds. Josh said Rod posted a video driving around literally shaking with autism. It’s actually very likely I’d never insult him again if I had seen that for myself or met him, because he’s probably like a literal disabled person with mental retardation.
Maybe there’s some new information that I’m just missing here, but I wouldn’t know since you banned me from your conspiracy theorist group. Or rather had the Stasi do it in the form of a little bearded 5’4 goblin who is too ashamed of his pathetic stature to even put a picture of himself on his social media pages.
Why do you even do this? Is it just loneliness? It does sometimes feel like it’s just lonely old men keeping alive mysteries for the purpose of having friendships. Like that author dude who would say “come over and let’s discuss Wallace, old boy”.
How come in the same John Bull article he practically names Parry then and mentions how he’s had to put security lighting up etc. Even his post appeal behaviour and continued diary entries which nobody would see suggest his innocence.
Whereas Parry’s post trial behaviour escalated and he even kept tabs on who was still alive or dead and then his father telling him what to do and not do regarding the case.
How many interviews did OJ Simpson do where he discussed helping find the “real” killer (which is, by the way, himself). OJ Simpson as you probably know, wrote a book titled “(if) I Did It” where he “hypothetically” walks through the exact way he would have killed his wife and Ron Goldman, in a manner reminiscent of the John Bull articles where Wallace walks through exactly how “someone” killed his wife in bizarrely great detail.
As you will see from Wallace’s John Bull writings, he was shunned from society and had to flee his home. What you are saying here, is not something exclusive to Wallace. Every single murderer on death row says they dindu nuffin. Our prison systems must be completely broken because if we go by the words of the convicted, there are a total of zero guilty murderers in prison.
How long and how hard did he search for his wife’s true murderer exactly? He has a whole fucking magazine series penned by himself. Where is the “if you reading this have any information whatsoever about the murder of my wife please get in touch with X”. I have that on here and it’s not even my wife. There was no further contact with police or government or anything like that urging them to continue looking for the killer (sure, he has lost faith in the cops, but there are still avenues for this. See John Ramsey still searching for his daughter’s killer (probably his wife) interviewing with news outlets etc to this day despite being completely embittered by the Boulder P.D.). There’s no search for the real killer because there isn’t one to find. He IS the killer.
Julia literally owned a house, she was a landlady. Wallace was infirm due to his kidneys and couldn’t have the sorts of jobs he felt he should have been able to do (like his brother Joseph). At the time of their death, their combined bank balance was what? Check it. I think it was, allegedly, pathetic like £200. What happened to all the money? They were renters in Liverpool. He married this MUCH older woman, used up her funds making chemistry labs, buying retarded microscopes etc, and then once she was no longer useful and actively USING up money with her doctor’s bills etc, he bumped her off lmao. It’s not sus he married an ancient rich woman like 15 years older than himself? You can see by her RAGS and sewing money into her clothes, and Wallace’s diary alluding to money troubles, that money was a stressor in this relationship.
There is some sort of invoice to him for a private detective, you do know that, but no further details of it. He knows the killer, he says so in the very John Bull articles that you so much rely on for Wallace’s guilt. They had today’s equivalent of a good few thousand pounds. Money was definitely found not to be any motive, you are trying to re-write history.
No there isn’t any such invoice. He wrote he “had half a mind to” get a detective alongside the other BS he wrote. Thanks for the misinformation bro.
A good few thousand is literally broke tier. She had a giant house, she was a landlady, now she’s in rags sewing pennies into her skirt so her miserly pathetic husband doesn’t know she has money he’s not accounting for. Can you believe that scumbag Goodman dared to suggest she was dirty etc by choice lol. She was a baroness type woman, proper, look at her big hats in her sole photo.
His diary says they had money troubles. “£, d, s” troubles. He’s a miserly old crote, their bank balance is pathetic and their health conditions are hemmorhaging funds. She used to be a pay-pig (rich oldass ancient lady with a big house he married). Maybe HE thought she had more and expected he would find out he’s set to inherit a sack of dollar dollar bills yo. But alas, she was spent.
Ha ha they are not haemorraghing anything, she had £90 (£8k) He had even more. She was not baroness like but a paid nanny. In Munro’s accounts there is a cost for some private detective work, do your research. Her dad, a broken farmer ended up a drunken landlord of a pub. You are buying into her fantasy land. Nobody made her move to Liverpool, she’d worked in smoggy London too.
Yeah that’s a dogsh*t amount. She had a huge house and moved to a poverty area (Anfield is for poors, really the entire of Liverpool is impoverished if we’re being honest). The amount of cash is pathetic, if I owned a huge house and ended up with 8K in a poverty area renting a small house I’d be enraged.
Show the private detective commissioning lmao. Was that after he got away with the crime he committed?
Show me the huge house she had and how she got the money to pay for it. As far as I know she along with her siblings inherited some property so who know what she was worth if anything? Enlighten us.
I’d also add they were married for around 16 years was it (without me bothering to check) She was not ‘Made’ to stay with him, were known affectionately as Darby and Joan in the area, seemed at least contented and loving by up to a dozen people who knew them, diary entries sound ok. Nothing ever alerted the police or prosecution to your re-writing of history.
In 1931 most of the exchanges were manual including the one at Anfield . When a call came in a bulb lit up above a socket on the Home Board of the operator. The Home Board had separate sections for coin-operated boxes and calls from private subscribers. She inserted a jack plug and asked the caller for the number which he required then made the connection to this number on the main board in front of her. She stayed on the line until satisfied that the caller had the corespondent then went off-line.
If the caller told the operator that there was difficulty getting through to the desired number, R F Wyndham Brown tells us what happened:
“When there is a delay in obtaining a number and it is found necessary to communicate (this situation) to the operator it is usual for the exchange to ask for the number of the telephone from which a request is made for connection.”
The Trial of W H Wallace. R F Wyndham Brown 1933.
and Hemmerde:
“We know as a matter of fact where the message came from. In the ordinary way, if you telephoned and got through at once it would not be easy. I think it might not be possible to trace the origin of the call. But in this particular case some difficulty was experienced by the person ringing up from a public call-office in getting through, and, as a result we can trace the call as having come from a callbox four hundred yards from the house in Wolverton Street.”
Opening speech for the Crown
So the reporting of difficulty with the connection would prompt a “tracing” of the call by the operator asking for the caller’s number, otherwise the source of the call would be unknown.
Note: there was no display of incoming numbers at the exchange. Displays date from the 1980’s. There was no permanent historic record of every call as today with hard drives etc.
The only way for the operator to get the caller’s number was to ask him for it!
There was no need for the exchange to know the caller’s number in normal operation because all calls were pre-paid either from coin-operated boxes or from the monthly rental of a domestic phone.
2. Belt, Braces, and Elasticated waist-band
Just to be sure, I have exchanged e mails with these sources :
(a) The Telephone Museum located in Wolverton (!!) near Milton Keynes:
“You are right, she would not know the number.”
(b) The History of the Telephone website. Mr Bob Freshwater has been most helpful:
“He could give a wrong number.”
(c) The BT Archive information centre:
Still waiting for a response to my query.
These experts and enthusiasts have confirmed that a manual exchange in 1931 would have no knowledge of the caller’s phone number unless, in the case of a reported fault, they asked the caller for it so that a note of it could be made.
In this case the “fault” was of short duration and the call was put through on the second attempt. It is likely that the docket was created as a reference in case there were future complaints from that number – this would prompt an investigation.
Leslie Heaton, the telephone technician, described the phone box Anfield 1627 at the trial but didn’t know if there was an internal light. There wasn’t. He did not confirm that he had even visited the box to investigate or to fix a fault.
If you Google Manual Telephone Exchange Operation you will be able to access a short movie showing the switchboard of a manual exchange in action in the 1950’s. At several points you can hear the operator asking a caller “Would you give me the number you are calling from.”
3. Implications
The phone box at the corner of Lower Breck Road ( Anfield 1627) may have been the source of Mr Qualtrough’s call to the chess club. But we can no longer be sure that it was.
The caller could have been anywhere in the catchment area of the Anfield exchange. He could give the false number Anfield 1627 to deceive the operator and leave the impression that he was phoning from the box close to Wallace’s home and far from the chess club when in fact he wasn’t..
If the caller wasn’t Wallace he could give Anfield 1627, not to frame Wallace, but to suggest a Mr Qualtrough monitoring Wallace’s movements prior to making the call from there.
If the caller was Wallace the implications are covered later.
4. Blowback
Some will say this cannot be true because it would have been spotted long ago.
Investigators and amateur detectives alike have, down the years, been beguiled by the word “traced”. It implies automatic detection of the source of the call and the result being free of human influence. In fact the only way to “trace” the call was by human intervention (asking the caller where he was) which, when dealing with honest people is !00% effective. When dealing with criminals it isn’t.
At no point do any of the the phone operators say that they asked Qualtrough for his phone number. So there is no mention of this in the written record. However, asking the caller for his number is the only way the operator could obtain it. So it is a safe assumption that this happened.
It was such a “mundane detail” and standard practice when a fault was reported that nobody thought to mention it. This is not surprising: It was several days after this call that the operators were asked to recall the details of it having handled probably hundreds of calls in the interim. Their recall would be understandably hazy.
The police were already strongly suspecting Wallace when news that the call had been traced by the exchange came through. They were delighted that their suspicions were being confirmed. Confirmation bias.
When you go to the doctor and he says your blood test results show sugar levels in the ideal range you don’t ask him for details of the test, its reliability etc. You assume he knows what he’s doing.
The police have a long record of rejecting pesky details which don’t support their pre-conceived ideas.
However, this finding does not exonerate Wallace……
5. Timing etc
How could anyone using the Anfield 1627 box at night, manage to read the number of the phone in that dark, unlit cabin?
MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: How can he do anything in darkness?
For Wallace it could be an integral part of his plan to claim difficulty in getting through so that his number was asked for. He would have the number Anfield 1627 in his pocket in anticipation of the operator’s request.
5.1 Only Qualtrough knows the time his conversation with Mr Beattie ended. The docket records that the call was put through at 7.20 pm. Is it unreasonable to estimate say 7.28 pm as the time it ended? This would make it difficult for Wallace, calling from Anfield 1627 near his home to arrive at the chess club at 7.45 pm (as per Mr Caird’s recollection.)
But if Wallace was using a phone box, still in the Anfield exchange catchment area, but much closer to the city centre it would be only a short hop to the club and he would arrive on time. He would give Anfield 1627 as his number and alibi for the time of the call and this would be noted on the docket.
5.2 This would also support Wallace’s theory of a Mr Qualtrough surveilling his departure from home before going to the nearby phone box and calling the chess club.
5.3 This scenario also helps to explain Wallace’s persistent questions to Beattie at the tram stop about the time of the call. Beattie’s estimate of “Seven o’clock of shortly after” just would not do if Wallace knew it was close to 7.30 pm when it finished. So he pressed Beattie until Beattie advised him to stop! When asked about this, Wallace could not justify his behaviour except to say he had certain theories, without saying what these were.
5.4 It would also help answer Ged’s point that the familiar figure of Wallace would surely have been noticed making the call from his local phone box. Not if he wasn’t there.
5.5 If Wallace really was phoning from Anfield 1627 near his home and the difficulty with the connection was genuine, would he have given this number to the operator knowing the call might be traced? Again, how could he read it in that dark kiosk? He could give any number if he thought the call might be traced.
He would give Anfield 1627 confident that his prompt arrival on time at the chess club would show that he could not have been at Anfield 1627 at the time of the call and that Qualtrough, the man who killed his wife, was there.
“As I was going up the stair,
I saw a man who wasn’t there,
He wasn’t there again today,
How I wish he’d go away.”
6. Conclusion
In my view this does not bring us much closer to discovering who murdered Julia
Wallace.
However it does challenge one of the “sacred cows” of the Wallace case: that Qualtrough (whoever he was) phoned the chess club from Anfield 1627.
I notice they have not made mention of asking for the box number. I also notice that they reference 1627 being a “modern” type box regarding the way the coin system worked. It looks like this could be determined by lights on the board that show when money is in? And there are presumably a number of boxes then, that do not work that way (are not of the modern type), and would then hinge on some small amount of luck to have chosen another box that worked the same as 1627.
I also notice that the operator appears, by the earlier statement, to have been able to discern the connection her colleague was trying to make (to the cafe) by sight? Didn’t their switchboard work by an array of ports for each telephone being on the switchboard, an incoming call lighting the incoming location, then they plug into that to talk to the caller. Then connect their call by plugging the other end of the cable into the port for the location it is going to (roughly speaking, with some minor differences in the actual functioning)?
“In 1931, switchboard systems operated using a system of electromechanical indicators to alert the operator about an incoming call. Here’s how it worked in detail for a line like Anfield 1627:
Line Circuit Activation: When the caller at Anfield 1627 picked up the receiver, it closed a circuit in the telephone line connected to the exchange (switchboard). This action signaled the exchange equipment that the line was active and requesting service.
Indicator Lights or Drops: Each subscriber line was assigned a specific position on the switchboard panel. This position often included an indicator light or drop indicator associated with that line. When Anfield 1627’s circuit closed, it triggered the corresponding indicator, either lighting up a small bulb or causing a mechanical “drop” to fall on the panel.
Visual Alert for the Operator: This light or drop acted as a visual alert, immediately notifying the operator that a call was originating from the specific line position assigned to Anfield 1627. Switchboard panels had hundreds of these positions, each corresponding to different subscriber lines within the exchange area.
Line Connection Process: Once the operator saw the indicator for Anfield 1627, they could insert the appropriate plug into that line’s jack to connect to the calling party. The caller would then verbally request the number they wanted to reach (in this case, Bank 3351).
Manual Completion of the Call: The operator would take a second cord and plug it into the jack corresponding to Bank 3351, completing the connection and allowing communication between the two lines.
This method was reliable because each line had a dedicated position on the switchboard, so the operator could always see exactly which subscriber line was initiating the call based on the indicator’s position on the panel. The system was entirely manual but highly organized to allow for rapid, straightforward connections.”
I also notice that Wallace AKA Qualtrough rang twice. They seem to have realized that it was the same caller both times, by statements it appears they knew straight away it was the same caller before he explained anything the second time.
Thanks for your prompt response. If I take a helicopter view of your remarks, you are suggesting that the operators at the exchange had some visual indication of the source telephone number of incoming calls. And therefore asking the caller to give his number was not necessary.
This is not the opinion of Bob Freshwater who runs the History of the Telephone web page. He wrote that the operators would not know the number of the caller. He is accessible at : bob@britishtelephones.com and is quite willing to answer any queries as “I get lots of them.”
Hemmerde stated that in normal operation i.e. with no fault being reported, it might not be possible to ascertain the caller’s number.
In the movie which I mentioned, why would the operators be asking for the caller to give his/her number if they already knew it from an indicator of some kind?
My understanding of a manual exchange is that calls come in, not to the main board which is for outgoing connections, but to a 10 port Home Board directly in front of the operator. This has no indication of the number calling. The operator asks for the number required then plugs a lead from the Home Board port into one on the giant main board vertically in from of her. In this case it would be a relay to the BANK exchange which then connected the caller to the cafe.
So for me its still an open question. If you contact Bob, I would of course like to hear what he has to say.
If you can provide me the full email exchanges I will post them. I don’t really know what to do with it though. It might be correct but I am not sure enough to make up any ideas that hinge upon it.
The fact is that any sort of criminal planning to commit a crime hinging on the call would be less likely to give a truthful answer (though of course even if asked, they couldn’t be CERTAIN that the other end wouldn’t know the real answer right?) plus it is very possible in any case for William to have made the call from that box AND walk to Belmont Road stop AND still arrive at the club inside the window of time provided by himself. If it doesn’t have to be that box obviously his trip becomes even more ridiculously trivial lol. One might mistakenly think sticking themselves at a box miles back would be enough to get them out of the running, so that would be amusing karmic irony indeed if he lied and STILL was in the window of possibility.
I respect the authority and knowledge of the opinions but for something so major I would really want a statement of FACT rather than just opinion, before using it as a cornerstone to further convict the already convicted chump Wallace. E.g. is there some surviving manual from Anfield exchange in particular or knowledge of the machinery used at that particular exchange? Anything like that could be used to determine a fact and then it could be used.
You also noticed the 7.30 time on the chess club noticeboard. Is there any chance you will be able to notice any more small details like these things soon? Because keep them coming. And try to pin this phone thing down.
Without being too aggressive, it is pathetic that figures like Goodman put out “comprehensive” books of crappy misinformation when the infrastructure and witnesses were still alive to get these details from. Instead of visiting the Anfield telephone exchange and trying to get tram timetables etc, or attempt to track down the tram conductors from Monday in case they were missed, he spent his time gathering garbage rumours. The fate for these books? Furnace.
HI RMQ,
I will wait a few days hoping to have a reply to my query from BT archives before sending you the e mails.
If I send them to you on this forum they will already be posted so maybe you could clarify this for me.
Personally I think it is best to wait until we have a fuller picture either confirming or refuting the theory.
I agree that we need hard facts about the Anfield exchange in 1931 and the answer must surely be in Liverpool itself. Which would mean enquiry at museums and with the local branch of British Telecom. It is after all a simple question: “Would the operator be totally dependent on the caller telling the truth about the number he was calling from?”
We do not know when this phone call ended so any calculation as to whether Wallace could have made it in time to the chess club from Anfield 1627 is approximate at best. Wallace, if it was him, must have been confident that he hung up the phone at a time late enough to make it almost impossible, if of course the theory is sound.
Although I sketched out a scenario incriminating Wallace we can do the same for any caller who wanted to mis-direct investigation to Anfield 1627 when he wasn’t there.
I will continue my enquiries but I can’t guarantee any novel insights in future! These things just pop up and are often “hidden in plain sight” e.g. the 7.30 pm starting time for the chess matches.
Great thanks. I guess this is probably the reality of investigation, I guess you have to question literally EVERYTHING. I think I will go through everything again and see if there’s anything more. I know my grandpa found something resembling the description of the iron bar on the fireplace hearth in the crime scene photo (size and shape, with a knob shaped end).
Obviously I was dramatically more motivated before but in my mind I literally feel it’s a solved case since when I wrote the last iteration of the solution page lol. However things like this are still very exciting.
Great posts by you both. Isn’t it better when we all play nicely and not deter other would be posters with possible other insights or even oversights.
Mike. In response to your 5.1
You mention the call lasting to 7.28 and I myself timed the call doing it myself virtually of course, with response times, imaging GH going to summons Beattie from his game etc and I too arrived at about 7.28 which was immediately poo pooed by RMQ.
Wallace on a mission to make it to the club at 7.45 never mind 7.30 would not be hanging around having to make second calls and spelling out a long name like Qualtrough which then had to be spelt back to him plus asking irrelevant questions such as do you have Wallace’s address don’t you think.
Also ref 5.1 You say…
”But if Wallace was using a phone box, still in the Anfield exchange catchment area, but much closer to the city centre it would be only a short hop to the club and he would arrive on time. He would give Anfield 1627 as his number and alibi for the time of the call and this would be noted on the docket.”
How would Wallace not only know the number of the phone box and secondly how would he know he needed to know it when he doesn’t know the operator is going to ask him for it as he doesn’t know there is going to be a difficulty getting the call connected.
Mike you further say:
5.3 This scenario also helps to explain Wallace’s persistent questions to Beattie at the tram stop about the time of the call. Beattie’s estimate of “Seven o’clock of shortly after” just would not do if Wallace knew it was close to 7.30 pm when it finished. So he pressed Beattie until Beattie advised him to stop! When asked about this, Wallace could not justify his behaviour except to say he had certain theories, without saying what these were.
Wallace does indeed justify it quite clearly under oath when Oliver asks why he persisted. It was because if the call was pre-7.15pm then how could it be him as he knows he only left the house at 7.15. This goes a long way to show that he is telling the truth, he is not even thinking the police will say ‘Well we only have your word you left at 7.15’.
Ref 5.5. This is the most spot on paragraph. Wallace if the caller would not be dropping himself in it by giving the call box location as being 400 yards from his home unless he has a death wish as it was the very point which sealed his fate with Supt Moore.
RMQ in reply to you:
If you are saying a line lights up in the exchange saying Anfield 1627 then the location of the call box was never a mystery, even if the call wasn’t faulty so this cannot be the case can it. Only the time of 7.20 was written in pen as a result of the fault, not the location.
You say it was known by the operators that the second call was also by the same person from the same call box but only after he’d said I have not received my correspondent yet was that known.
I think this possible new light unearthed by Mike throws even more innocence on Wallace. The Wyndham Brown book written during the times of how these exchanges worked is probably a truer reflection. I’ve never gone in for the older books as they were written before the witness statements were released for our own eyes but if we trust what they saw and heard at the trial are written correctly without an agenda like Murphy et al, then they are probably gold dust. Well done Mike.
Yeah 7.28 is not realistic at all. Even Antony’s scam book doesn’t attempt to push that. I did it numerous times way back and couldn’t possibly contrive it to be that long even when going off to “fetch Beattie” and root around for paper to write on etc. I mean, we are literally talking a few minutes here when the arrival time at the chess club is a “?”. Beattie says he can confirm Wallace did not arrive BEFORE 7.45 after asking numerous people, he didn’t actually say the times some of these people gave, because if he asked many people and nobody said any figure before 7.45, one wonders what higher figures some of the members might have floated around. One member, Wallace, thought 7.50. It is hairsplitting when it doesn’t make that much difference unlike a legitimately timed event like the trams or call docket note. And still 7.28 is kind of ridiculous.
The time element in this case is literally the only reason anyone other than crazies and wine aunts think Wallace might be innocent. You understand that if he could be calling from literally any box in the catchment, then him getting to the club within the given times goes from being “definitely possible” to literally undisputably possible and easily so.
How many people would think Wallace didn’t do this if he showed up to the club an hour after the call and left home an hour after Julia was last seen alive by anyone but him? Well the murder night timing, that can be shown to be comfortably possible, and was, and you can check the walking pace required to make the tram stop at a given time and see irrefutably that this is trivial… and the chess club, he could have walked over to Belmont and still just about made it on time after even making the call. But if the tightness is just fictional it’s literally like, there is literally zero reason at all to even think it’s remotely difficult for him to have done this in time. The whole notion of why this is a “tough case” is “It had to have been Wallace, but it COULDN’T have been” (that’s a quote from some old time author). If there’s no “couldn’t” then it’s literally just “it has to have been Wallace” lmao.
If this pseudo-intellectual thought he was being smart whereby he called from a totally different box and thought he could make it look like someone was watching his house while believing it would be impossible for himself to be accused of being the caller (for example in his mind he thinks the trip to the club from that box would be much longer than it was and much longer than from where he was)… or that’s just one of the only boxes which number he had memorized, and there was a genuine issue at the other box such that he had not pre-prepared to do this and thus that number is one of the only ones in his mind that occurred to him he could give at the moment (if it only occurred to him right then and there to lie, you did not consider this did you?)… I do not know. I don’t know which. If it was on purpose I wouldn’t be shocked since literally every other element of the crime, irrespective of the guilty party, is so pathetically and deeply contrived. But essentially the reality would be this: Wallace has zero time alibi at all, and could easily and trivially have got to the club if this is the case. As in, easily rather than “definitely but it’s tight”.
If the accused man is robbed of the ONLY semi-alibi he has, he literally has nothing anymore. Nothing at all can be used to suggest it would be difficult at all for it to merely just be him that did it.
Firstly, I do not think Wallace on a tight schedule would be faffing about in that box, spelling out the long name Qualtrough letter by letter, getting it read back to him letter by letter then asking do you know his address etc, explaining the call is to do with a 21st for his girl etc. He speaks to no fewer than 2 or 3 operators then 2 people at the cafe. All this you reckon in less than the length of the Beatles Hey Jude song which is 8 minutes.
Then we have to believe some scenarios such as he hopes he’s not seen at the junction where there’s a cinema and 2 pubs and it’s not 7.30pm yet. We have it that there is practically no wait time for the tram and then there’s the Fitzclarence st time stamp by the conductor and any possible congestion at the bottom of Islington due to the tunnel collapse and wouldn’t a guilty Wallace who supposedly arrived at the club un-noticed not say I arrived at about 7.40 to 7.45 and not drop himself further in it like he always seems to be doing during this case?
This is just the Monday night which I cannot believe the police did not time check. On the Tuesday it’s even more bizarre. Moore things Wallace has plenty of time to do the deed until Alan Close and friends take centre stage not only making it practically impossible but Wallace doesn’t even use this lad he’s been waiting for to call as an alibi? Wallace is hapless throughout, the things that help cast the beyond reasonable doubt are all accidents he couldn’t have planned for.
Yeah it was, I did all that too and got 3 and a half minutes. He already had Gladys there. So the main “hold” here is just getting Beattie from- was it the same room? Or was it the next room? I think it was the same room? I can spell the name in under 15 seconds letter by letter. Do it… Q… U… A… L… T… R… O… U… G… H… And then obviously read back.
He didn’t speak to 3 operators in 8 minutes for example. This is known. The time was logged after Annie Robertson got the call through. Yes all the operator stuff took around 5 minutes and this is known. And it’s then 7.20. Maybe this is where your error lies. All of that, with the phone box, they say took from around 7.15 to 7.17 pickup, to 7.20 connection. This is the reality. You think it took the same amount of time as that to deliver a rudimentary message with a couple of offhand remarks thrown in. And the time of the call starts there from Gladys because that time is logged.
The stuff you have said btw is not different from many other killers. It isn’t exclusive to him. You have heard the advice “don’t speak to cops without your lawyer present”? Yes this is why. He thinks he’s a genius but he’s a midwit, and blabbed crucial information thinking he was smarter than them. Then got owned. Obviously you could also ask infinite “whys” about why a robber who is a complete stranger to Julia would go back into the parlour or not only hit her to escape or just run out the door (yes you don’t even need to hit her at all, she doesn’t even know you), but literally bash her brains in all over the floor.
Obviously someone did it, and thus someone did something with many useless “whys”. You could give Wallace a real address further out of town and increase the odds he goes on the trip or doesn’t find out too early that it’s fake and return home early. This proves it wasn’t Gordon and A.N. Other? It is an irrelevant way of thinking.
Wallace’s only alibi. His ONLY alibi for this. Is that the timing appears impossible. Well that is a lie, it’s very achievable but tight. And if he can be at ANY box in the catchment, the tightness of getting to the club is literally non existent. This is like… critical death blow… It leaves him only one singular tight time, and we know it’s 6.38 ish not 6.45, that she was last seen, and Hey Jude is an easy length of time to do what he did if he can use drains etc… If you read his confession explaining how he did it, see how basic it is… She bent to regulate the gas, he hit her, he took two strides out and grabbed his mac, he came back in, stomped out the flame and pulled her away from the fire, then battered her. This is easy. Yes he could have staged it back home even on the other end, but even to do that, chuck a few pennies on the ground and stick the notes in the vase upstairs when you go up there to quickly check yourself for blood and rinse it off etc.
What is the reason if this is true, that it’s not possible he could have done this? The sole thing that ever had ANYONE believe he might be innocent, is a lie, then what? Literally a century of discussion over a 100% solved case, where the circumstances supposedly showing he “couldn’t have done it” are all based on made up bullshit like fake non-existent chemical tests of drains, fake chess start times, and is this now fake phone box too? Great, cool, very nice.
My time of 7.28 pm for the end of the Qualtrough call was pure guesswork but not unreasonable considering Ms Harley having to go to Mr Beattie’s table, tell him the tale etc. In fact I’m breaking my own rule in being apparently precise because there’s so much we don’t know. Has anyone seen a photo of the docket bearing 7.20 pm and NR? To be accepted as evidence it would have to bear the phone number called, and that of the caller. And we have only our estimates for the time the call finished. Then he has to walk to the tram stop, wait for the next tram and you’re quickly past 7.30 pm before he’s underway.
IF Wallace adopted the stratagem of using a phone other than Anfield 1627 but claiming to the operator that the caller was at Anfield 1627, this would be part of a clever plan and he would have the phone numbers he needed to hand, prepared in advance.
How could he be sure the operator would ask for his number? By faking a difficulty getting through e.g. the buttons A/B fiasco. He may have encountered a genuine difficulty some time in the past and been asked to provide his number. On this occasion he might even have asked the operator why she required it and if she said “We always fill in a docket…” Nuff said.
Wallace was not at all happy with the police and Mr Beattie timing the call at “~7 o’clock.” If Wallace really had left his house at 7.15 he would be delighted because he had already told the police this time before he was informed of their time of the call. So Wallace’s “7.15 leaving home” time could not be a lie in response to the Police/Beattie’s ~ 7.00 pm time. However a guilty Wallace would know that the time was closer to 7.20 and this would be confirmed by the docket and this is where his false alibi plan clicks in.
It occurred to me too: Wyndham Brown writing in 1933 would be familiar with telephones and their workings, coin boxes etc. He may have had difficulty with a connection and been asked for his number.
Although I have sketched a scenario consistent with Wallace’s guilt, the unreliability of the call being from Anfield 1627, if confirmed, is a neutral finding equally consistent with Wallace’s innocence. Indeed, as you say Ged, it removes one of the key things held against him – that he definitely phoned from his local phone box.
I have two lines of enquiry still open. I will post any news when (if) I receive it.
I would trust the docket time because unless it is literally just a lie, the docket was literally viewed. It may even have been an item in evidence, and the contents of the docket were given. Something with N.R. in the margin.
It is more about when exactly Annie went to produce the docket and how accurate the exchange clock was. Like for example is she rounding to a nice round figure (obviously she has no reason to believe this time will be critical), did she make the note after she connected to Gladys right away, did she return to her desk and do it there? I mean I would just accept okay, 7.20, it is reliable enough.
I know the call was put through at 7.20 but i’m saying I cannot see Wallace, stuck to the time schedule you are giving him, faffing about any longer than minimally required to make the call and get it over with and this includes some comical getting it wrong on purpose by pressing wrong buttons and now premeditating a fake call in order to be asked to supply his call box number (when we know the real reason for the troublesome call was at the cafe end as confirmed by Gladys Harley saying the phone hadn’t rang once in the previous half an hour. Also, the Anfield catchment area means just that so where are the other phones and how would he get to the chess club from this other box off the beaten track tram route – comical 🙂 To suggest Wallace has some prior knowledge of the operators not having a clue which box he is using is more comical than my thoughts that frequent user of the cafe Parry would know the chess playing times and routines even if he asked about them.
Also why does the fact the Q address was not a real address somewhere else prove it wasn’t Parry anymore than it proves it wasn’t Wallace. a guilty Wallace has more to gain if the address is somewhere other than a district he was found to know a bit about.
Also Wallace cannot know that using the drains will be risk free and the police would be incompetent (If indeed they were not checked and don’t forget that no evidence in the files does not mean they were not and it is reported the bath was taken out with discussion of it in court) Wallace also could not know that he hadn’t been seen near the box or that he didn’t have one speck of blood on him. The not knowing is what could hang him. I’ve watched plenty of crime docs where a partial footprint, a speck of blood in a car or on a trainer is all that’s needed.
To top it all though Wallace somehow doesn’t use simple methods to help cast doubt on his innocence by time stamping the first tram, by just saying the bolt was on the front door, by saying Close came at 6.45 then Julia saw me to the book door immediately afterwards – just really simple things. Have we forgotten the police tram trials required them jumping on moving trams at the incorrect stops. It’s keystone cops stuff.
“Also, the Anfield catchment area means just that so where are the other phones and how would he get to the chess club from this other box off the beaten track tram route – comical”
Are you joking? There are phone boxes absolutely everywhere back then, and tram routes absolutely everywhere. Buses too of course.
Wallace DID try to claim he was a stranger to the district. And as you probably know it’s a district with a good chance for a weird address since the missing East is so conspicuous. As he mentioned to the woman at 25 West way before ending his search something like “how strange there is no East!” allegedly.
“frequent user of the cafe Parry would know the chess playing times and routines even if he asked about them.”
He isn’t a “frequent user”. His drama club met there once a week for a short period, the last meeting being months before. Do you purposefully post the fake information to prompt a reply? It is like an attack upon all of my work on the site since the entire idea of publicising all of the files is to cut through the fake information. And you KNOW these things you’re coming out with are fake.
You are deluded RMQ. You have grasped onto a nothing story about this phone box, let’s look at it. You are giving this 3rd rate chess player more credit as a mastermind than he deserves.
If Wallace was aware that a fudged call would result in the operator asking for the callers phone box number, he only had to record the number of a phone box near Parry’s house, Lloyd’s house or one anywhere other than one by his own home ha ha ha pherrrlease.
Being a local Liverpool Historian and Author on the subject incl my own FB Website on the matter, I am furnished with where every tram route was, why would he be in Anfield somewhere calling?
I for instance attended Everton football club home games as a season ticket holder from 1978 until 1998. I couldn’t tell you now most of the roads on the periphery of the stadium. Wallace used to approach Crewe’s house from the Allerton Road tram route which he then went by foot UP green Lane. At best he used the tram to Calderstones Park 2 or 3 times a year he said. He would use the tram route to Amy’s only as far as the Penny Lane terminus. This is well documented during the case and still the judge directs the jury to a not guilty verdict and still the appeal judges see no importance to it.
Jimmy Tattersall claims to have regularly attended a cafe with Parry in North John Street. Parry worked in the city centre. Parry rehearsed there on Thursdays. Parry stole cars from North John st. He was basically never away from the place. Stop making excuses for him. 🙂
You have literally inputted one single accurate fact in your 1,000,000 posts, that being the weather fact which was 100% dead on accurate and great. That’s it. Maybe there’s one more thing that wasn’t just invented or rumours that I’m presently forgetting. Every single other thing has been wrong in some way. I can’t really trust you as a source of history. Your own site made with Mark R has the same weather fact you got correct here, but wrong, claiming sleet. I can’t just trust you on these historic facts. I have the maps of the area too. Even within a small bird’s eye view of Wallace’s house there are 5 tram stops. They’re everywhere because few people had cars. There are many maps from the time which I used to show the old library location which also show telephones and tram lines.
In the same way, there are many places on North John Street. You are a “historian” claiming Gordon must have always been in the cafe because he went to North John Street, one of the main town strips with various businesses. That’s the only cafe in town? Stop lying to yourself bro. No serious historian just throws out suspicions as facts.
I already answered all the things you brought up btw. There is even a possibility that the error with the call is real, and he only thought about lying once the opportunity arose to do so when he was asked for the box number. And in that case, he may not have a pre-planned idea of utilizing some box near Gordon’s house is or w.e., he might only remember 1627, and thus gave 1627 simply because a) he wasn’t there and b) he actually knew that one/remembered it.
Obviously it doesn’t benefit anybody to NOT lie if they knew 100% they could and could get away with it too, since they know 100% the call is going to be linked to a crime, whether it’s robbery or murder.
My previous enquiries were to websites devoted to telephones in general. I recently found Telephone Exchanges UK who have expertise specifically devoted to exchanges and their operation. I have just received this reply from them:
Hi Michael,
I passed your enquiry onto my friend, John Cranston, who is more knowledgeable than myself regarding telephones in that period.
Here is response which I hope you will find helpful:
In 1931, Anfield exchange was a (central battery) CB10 manual exchange. Each line connected to it had a separate ‘appearance’ on the switchboard. When the caller placed two pennies in the kiosk coinbox and lifted the receiver, a lamp would glow above the plug socket (‘jack’) in the exchange allocated to the kiosk’s line. The lamp cover would have been red, to indicate to the operator that it was a payphone line, and the jack would have had the number of the calling line engraved next to it – in this case 1627. The operators would not have asked the caller, or needed to have asked, the number of the phone box. Hope that helps.
Regards,
Mike Fletcher
I still have an enquiry pending with BT archives but I think we can take the above answer as definitive. I didn’t include the number Anfield 1627 in my query, referring only to a crime in Liverpool in 1931 to keep it simple, but Mr Cranston includes it in his reply. Maybe he’s a Wallace buff!
I was also beginning to have doubts about it:
Wallace would have time-stamped his conversation with Beattie by saying “Oh, by the way, do you have the time? I’m hurrying off to my daughters etc”
He would also have made sure the time of his arrival at the chess club was noted.
Thanks for that, please find more “hidden in plain sight” challenges to established facts if you can. I wonder if such things are more likely to be seen in photos, or found via words.
So one minute the call fudge is premeditated to take advantage of being a bit nearer the chess club (even though he’d still have to be in Anfield 🙂 ) and the next minute you flip flop to he may not have premeditated it but just knew that number so gave it. Why would he memorise that particular number, he claims to have used that box only once before. Did you ever go around memorising the call box numbers you used cos I certainly didn’t, it’d be a bit strange. What if he gave that number and the operator said ‘No you’re not’ he wouldn’t know why they’re asking, it might just be for clarification.
On the contrary, you put Parry down as hardly ever being in NJ street but i’ve proven otherwise so it is you with the incorrect information. Imagine you claiming that in defence of him in a court of law and me bringing in the policeman who arrested him there, the car owner of the car he sat in, Jimmy Tattersall. His drama teacher, Wallace etc – loads of people who’d seen him on different occasions in NJ Street and these are just the ones we know about.
The weather for the Monday was sleet in the day which cleared up in the evening which is what I’ve said. There were no tram lines/routes in Lower Breck Road for instance – somewhere you said the 2 men were running down Hanwell st to a tram ha ha. I have the 3 Paul Bolger books and others on Edwardian maps of the city and it’s tram routes through Victorian times, you cannot catch me out. Main arterial routes had trams such as main roads into the city centre from the North, East and South. If he was in a phone box say on Whitefield Road he’d have to walk for 10 minutes to get to Breck Road and back on the tram/bus route so that would put him even later at the chess club. He is actually only on the very edge of Anfield as it is because just further along Breck Road he’d be entering the Everton District.
Go away, have a think about the above, list my inaccuracies and we’ll debate again. I am not dissing your site or work by the way, it’s very commendable but it doesn’t mean I have to agree you’ve solved the case anymore than you think Rod has.
I never said “HARDLY EVER IN NJ STREET”, one of the main town strips people were in all the time, I said he is not known to have literally ever gone into that cafe outside of the drama club meetings, and definitely not at the times when the chess club met (because nothing else matters, since the chess board he COULD have seen and is proven he could have seen, has the wrong time written on it). No “historian” would claim he must have been in there all the time, if he was he was only noticed by Wallace and vice versa once… When was that? During the drama club meeting. The times he was proven to have been at the cafe. Yes there is a tram stop at the end of that street the men were running down. It’s the stop right by the phone call box. The one Wallace was accused of using. How do you think you get to that stop, down Hanwell Street, take a left. So you are “caught out” yes… I didn’t say they WERE doing that (like a fake “historian” would), I said they could have been for all we know. We don’t even know their ages. 18? 35? 50?
“Go away and have a think about” the IQ test and post results and then we’ll debate again. I didn’t “solve the case”, the cops did, nearly a century ago. There is just slight new evidence like for example the chess club arrival time range being extended to 7.50 by Wallace, the public noticeboard saying 7.30, etc which turn “possible” into proven do-able.
Your tram ideas are garbage by the way, I have maps also. This is literally like when David was trying to ASSERT he is definitely right about Parry’s route on account of him (David) having lived there and walked the route and all that. He was literally completely wrong… Now it’s supposed to be that because you have been to Everton football club you must be right, wow… I’m not talking about your opinions on my site, I’m saying it’s an attack on my work BECAUSE the entire point of the site is to publicize all case files and dispel the crap rumours and misinfo in books by frauds like Goodman. That’s the entire reason it exists, and you constantly come in with fake facts. For example Gordon was in North John Street sometimes so he was always in the cafe, one of many businesses in the town, wtf sort of historian would do this. Proof of sleet for example? You got the other weather element correct, have you done a “fake historian” and asserted sleet based on nothing or are you right on that part too? Cops didn’t need to run to make the tram, what happened was a tram was right there at the request stop and was just headed off and they ran and hopped on that one. That’s one of many tests including Maddock’s test who wasn’t sprinting and managed a better time.
Have you even seen the distance between his back door and the tram stop he used? Do you understand that spatial relations don’t change based on who’s walking the route? Do you understand you can literally find a walking pace by the distance and time taken? You can very literally calculate this mathematically. A real historian would do that instead of discussing keystone cops because one of many tests they ran for the request stop tram that was just leaving. It isn’t a matter of opinion it’s mathematically proven that you don’t need to run to make the tram on time from the point he left his house. This is proven bro it’s not open to opinion.
This is what I mean, it is an attack on my work (“work” as in going to the archives and taking photos and doing some transcriptions lmao) in the sense that the point of everything here is to do the exact opposite and make it so BS including my own can be proven or disproven. Every trash fake fact is something a visitor could read and be misled by.
Mike, that’s a brilliant find so well done. So no deliberate or accidental fudging of the call necessary for knowing the callers origin call box then. So, if a reasonably educated and frequent call box user would suspect or even expect this series of events would happen within the exchange it is reasonable to assume that if you were Wallace you would not use that box but if you were Parry not only would it not matter but it might even point the finger in Wallace’s direction.
You sound a bit rattled? I only enquired as to why we should take an account of a policeman hopping on a moving tram at a request stop when Wallace didn’t do that or why we should discount Jimmy Tattersalls’ account of going in a cafe in NJ Street with his friend Parry. You just carry on picking and choosing which versions you want to believe. With Mike’s new evidence that the line lights up showing quite well which call box was used, Wallace wouldn’t be using a box local to his home. If he was ever trying to frame Parry he could have rang from near Lily Lloyd’s house then jumped on the tram there, a few stops ahead of his normal tram. After all the Wallace guilty brigade have him not worrying about getting on at any old stop nor being seen by tram staff or clients at any old stop. I think for now i’ll go along with the judge and appeal panel.
Neither the judge nor appeal court think he’s innocent. Nobody thought the teflon don Gotti was innocent but you have to begrudgingly let people go if the burden of proof was not met, which is what happened.
The particular test where they hopped on at the request stop was one of the slower test times, nobody is using this. I know the distance and thus the walking speeds required, these were all carefully measured. He can board at St Margarets church without running. He can board at Belmont Road and get to the club within the time range after making the call, without running. That is the only thing that matters. Maddock did not run and easily beat every cop time by a full minute, while trying to actually defend the guilty man. It is proven possible and we already know these things.
It isn’t relevant what cops did or didn’t do when trying to arrest the guilty man. Unless they literally changed the evidence we are using to determine he did it, we have all the facts necessary to render an opinion. What you have is religion and religious belief. You aren’t going to admit to yourself that the man obviously did it anymore than a devout Christian is going to admit their book is makebelieve.
It’s relevant that the cops got Alan Close to change his timing, why did they do that?
How do you know the judge and appeal panel did not think him innocent? Neither they nor the prosecution found anything to convict him, in fact the judge says the defendants statements are wholly consistent. No timings are proven possible that Wallace could have done it, only that walking a certain pace or the call finishing in 5 minutes makes it possible – none of which is proven.
That means it is proven possible… Impossible would mean you couldn’t make it even if you were Usain Bolt. But the paces required to make the times are not Usain or even running. They are walking to brisk walking pace, less brisk for a tall man due to stride length. And this is very generous, steelmanning to make it so he isn’t boarding by the phone box but going all the way to Belmont Road.
7.45 is the EARLIEST he could have arrived based on Beattie asking many members. Wallace believes 7.50. Do you think EVERY person Beattie asked at the club said 7.45? That was the earliest they gave. What do you think the latest might have been since one member, Wallace, thought 7.50.
Well I think a guilty Wallace would say timings that make it impossible for him to have done the deed, don’t you? Such as he only left his house on Monday at 7.20pm that he actually left his house on Tuesday at 6.40 and he doesn’t think the milk boy had been – things like that. Just like I think he’d have just said the bolt was on the front door and not things like ‘It wasn’t like that this morning’ etc and it’s funny how Sarah Draper knew the back door was dodgy yet Wallace didn’t use it as a ready made excuse. You asked earlier why the thief didn’t just turn on his heels and run, i’ve explained this by saying if it was Marsden or even Parry himself, Julia knew them. For all we know she might even have know Denison or any other of Parry’s friends – who’s to say not, we don’t know everyone she did or didn’t know.
Murders happen to this day, killers give info to cops leading to their own arrest just like Wallace did. This is what happens when simpleton 90 IQ pseudointellectuals like Wallace think they’re too clever for the cops and speak without their lawyer present. You know he did this, or you are lying to yourself because it’s a hobby.
I thought you’d dropped that theory that definitely didn’t happen where she’s waiting in the parlour or bedroom. It is as likely as Joseph Wallace sailing over from Asia and posing as William in Menlove Gardens to help him murder his rotten old wife, or Wallace dressed as Julia at the door. Even Rod must be saying like “bro, this didn’t happen” lol.
Holmes: “Then there is the curious business of Wallace’s briefcase.”
Watson: ”But nobody mentions Wallace’s briefcase. The Menlove witnesses, the police, nobody. The police searched the house and don’t mention finding and examining Wallace’s briefcase.”
Holmes: “ That, my dear Watson, is the curious business.”
I make no apology for re-visiting this topic. A Prudential agent and his briefcase were inseparable. Literally: the Pru briefcase supplied to all agents has a wrist cuff secured around the agent’s wrist. It is unthinkable that an agent out to arrange new business with a client, Mr Qualtrough, would not take it with him full of brochures and documents related not only to the expected policy for his daughter but to cover any potential new business with other members of his family. Its what Pru agents always did.
It is hard to believe it was found and examined by the police but this was not recorded. The only option is that Wallace didn’t take it with him, even for versimilitude, because he knew he wouldn’t need it or its contents. But where was it?
The fact it isn’t mentioned does not mean he didn’t take it, rather like it was just expected he did, just like the fact the call box number light lit up in the exchange wasn’t mentioned because it was known that it did. Either that or another piece of police incompetence but Wallace does mention that he got some documents together that he thought he would need so in that it is safe to say he did take some whether in his briefcase or inside pocket.
Hi Ged,
If we look closely at the Qualtrough phone call, Mr Q mentions being busy with arranging his daughter’s (or his girl’s) 21st birthday. This is given as the reason why he can’t call back later. It was nothing to do with the business he expects to conclude with Wallace. In fact Mr Q was vague about this saying only that he wanted to meet Wallace – it was something to do with his business.
It was Wallace who inferred (he says) that the “business” was likely to be related to the daughter’s 21st. He did, as you say, put together some papers that he thought he might need (based on his assumption about the daughter.) But this would be very unprofessional for a seasoned Pru man like Wallace. What if Qualtrough wanted to take out a sickness/medical expenses policy for himself or/and his wife? Wallace wouldn’t have the correct documents with him.
As for stuffing a few papers into the inside pocket of his coat – it beggars belief.
I suspect he didn’t take the briefcase with him to MGE because he knew he wouldn’t need it. But even if he did why is it not recorded as having been thoroughly examined by the police (for obvious reasons.)?
Bro it was intermittently raining through the day. Imagine just sticking A4 papers in his jacket pockets lmfao. Taking out rumpled papers from his pocket to convince a guy to get big commissions.
Yes, I agree it is safe to say he assumed it was about this 21st but what if the police said to Wallace, show me your briefcase. He would point to it wherever he kept it and in there would be all his normal documentation he carried with him everyday and it wouldn’t prove whether he’d taken it with him to MGE or not? To suspect he never took it and prove it are two different things, like most of this case. We can suspect the bolt was or wasn’t on but cannot prove it except to say Flo Jo couldn’t open the front door (from inside) either. Which to my mind goes in Wallace’s favour.
”Bro it was intermittently raining through the day. Imagine just sticking A4 papers in his jacket pockets lmfao. Taking out rumpled papers from his pocket to convince a guy to get big commissions.”
I didn’t say he ‘DID’ do that, just that he could have and his inside pocket would be dry but I suspect the fact the police have not pulled him on this is because he did take his briefcase and even if he didn’t – how would they know he didn’t because when asked he would just say he did. Please read my last post, the one you are replying to, I said all this already.
Murderer Julius Jones’ parents said he was at home with them when the murder was committed. Julius DENIED this alibi. Why would a guilty Julius not just agree he was at home playing Monopoly with the family like they said, instead of putting himself in the frame for the murder?! This proves he is innocent, let him out of death row like the innocence project says!
Phenomenal logic at play here. Real intellectual powerhousery.
There’s like 10000 witnesses of his pathetic trip around the Menlove district. Flo and John saw him return fucking around with the door, they could be asked also.
Wallace taking his briefcase to MGE is neutral as regards an indication of guilt or innocence. Either an innocent Wallace took it really hoping to meet Mr Q or a guilty Wallace took it along as part of his pose as a Pru agent out on business.
Wallace not taking his briefcase is hard to justify in terms of his innocence and may indicate that he knew he wouldn’t need it or its contents.
Guilty or innocent, on arrival back at No 29 and after the business with the doors he would put the case down immediately on entry and begin his search for Julia. It would therefore be in full view when the police arrived and no doubt, as his story unfolded, of great interest to them.
It is entirely possible that it was examined but was never specifically mentioned in reports etc as it was found to be “clean.” I would expect Wallace’s defence to have mentioned this at the trial along with the absence of blood on his person.
Its all very strange when we have details of the contents of Julia’s hand bag on the kitchen chair, the Echo open on the table etc. but no briefcase!
”There’s like 10000 witnesses of his pathetic trip around the Menlove district.”
More fake news – name all 10,000 🙂 Having walked the very route he said he did, in the pitch black of January last year it is clear that traversing the whole triangle and having walked up to Dudlow Lane then down Green Lane it is very feasible and took pretty much exactly the time he was actually out. In reality he only needed to ask Katie Mather as an alibi, the copper alibi could not have been planned or foreseen – of that you must agree.
I agree Mike, but as we’ve seen in this case, if something happened that was natural, there is no great detail on it IE The drains do seem to have been searched going by reports at the time, there is no great mystery surrounding how the call was traced, as you have found out, it was natural. His briefcase not being there would surely have been mentioned equally by the prosecution so therefore it must have been.
So he has a briefcase, then it is no longer very difficult to remove items from the home. Evidently this briefcase if existent wasn’t tested in any way. He was also laughably allowed to re-enter and spend time alone in the house just a couple of days or so after the crime, so more opportunity for tampering if something had accidentally been overlooked. Allegedly the cops were just 100% gunning for him, like all the “innocent” convicted murderers, but let their suspect back into the crime scene without supervision.
Katie Mather yes, that would be the woman to whom he said “how odd, there is no East!” (or something like that, it is in her statements), before continuing his hunt. Yes his hunt should have ended there, he was already “suspicious” as he says, that something terrible may have happened to his wife (actually, suspicious something was up due to the string of robberies). And the cop who said he appeared very nervous, yes, that would be another witness. Yes they had tunnel vision, a tunnel that led them straight to the killer. Like every single murder case ever where the cops begin closing in on the murderer before making an arrest.
Would he remove a bloodied bar or spanner in a briefcase that he could expect would be turned over and inside out by the police? If he did why wasn’t blood found. Oh you have him wrapping the weapon up in newspaper or something as though that is blood proof or was that Herlock Sholmes as i’ve lost count of the number of idiotic claims on that casebook forum 🙂
Yes, a guilty Wallace only needs to time stamp the first and/or last tram and Katie Mather so to continue, just because he’s spent all that time going up there and now he’s there he may as well look plus the disappointment of not realising his own commission bounty, it is quite understandable.
Oh well that’s convincing yes, nobody has committed any murder ever because why would a guilty _ do _? Just let them all free. They dindu nuffin. Why would a guilty OJ stab Nicole to death when he has to catch a limo ride so soon afterwards? Why not merely strangle her to avoid all the blood that was found inside his Bronco and on his property or wait until he has more time? I guess he didn’t do it guys.
I’m not sure how spontaneous OJ’s killing was, did he take months to consider and plan it like it’s said Wallace did? If he did take months or even weeks he was a bad planner and yet still got away with it, what does that say – innocent probably if the brains of the C.I.D. couldn’t pin anything on him.
I’ve also lost count of the number of crime docs I watch where the killers say something or openly admit to the murders and just keeping schtum would see them off with it, almost like the burden of guilt being lifted from them, some even owning up to cold cases or old cases they were suspected of, it happens all the time.
Wallace denied guilt upon his arrest, at trial and upon his sentencing.
Lol what? Kevin Cooper says he is innocent. Julius Jones says he is innocent. Rodney Reed says he is innocent. Rudy Guede says he is innocent. Marcellus Williams says he is innocent… SCOTT PETERSON says he is innocent… Not only do they say they are innocent, so do hundreds upon thousands of low IQ retards on TikTok and the scam artists of the Innocence Project. Just like Wallace has Kim Kardashian tier intellects in his corner.
James Krauseneck says he is innocent. Michael Peterson says he is innocent. Sam Sheppard says he is innocent and inspired TV shows about his innocence (The Fugitive). Lizzie Borden says she is innocent, even after she got away with it. Adnan Syed says he is innocent and he’s SO guilty that even though some corrupt ho freed him from prison they’re trying to put him back in. The evidence to get him out was bogus of course.
The commonality being that ALL of these guilty people have huge “innocence” movements behind them, because people are very easy to manipulate if you just put some nice piano music over photos of the murderer as 6 year old and lie through your teeth, a la benzidine in the drainpipes. Jonathan Goodman is the same as the modern Innocence Project figures who distort things to portray very guilty people as innocent. 90% of his book is just flat out inaccurate factually, filled with rumours.
James Krauseneck put an axe through his wife’s skull. There’s a secondary Parry type figure in that case too except that guy actually confessed to doing it, Ed Laraby. He lived just down the road and was in prison at the time of confession because he broke into women’s homes and raped and/or killed them. That is a far stronger suspect than Gordon? Gordon made up his whereabouts on Monday. Well he didn’t do the crime, which introduces more figures for Tuesday, and bizarro scenarios which definitely did not happen like Marsden wandering into the parlour while Julia waits upstairs in the bedroom to get serviced by Gordon. Like put that out of your mind right away, I can assure you that in particular didn’t happen. The only way to legitimately believe Wallace didn’t do this is if he COULDN’T, because barring some near-impossibility, he is very clearly the strongest suspect given all of the facts of the case. And all things making it impossible have now been exposed as fictitious. So that’s really it for him.
Wallace did this like all those other people with swathes of innocence supporters in their corner. I think Lizzie Borden and OJ are just the most famous of these, but see all the others too.
RMQ are you seriously asking me to compare this absolute circus with a real trial:
The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson was a criminal trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court, in which former NFL player and actor O. J. Simpson was tried and acquitted for the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, who were stabbed to death outside Brown’s condominium in Los Angeles on June 12, 1994. The trial spanned eight months, from January 24 to October 3, 1995.
Though prosecutors argued that Simpson was implicated by a significant amount of forensic evidence, he was acquitted of both murders on October 3.[1][2][3][4] Commentators agree that to convince the jury to acquit Simpson, the defence capitalized on anger among the city’s African-American community toward the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), which had a history of racial bias and had inflamed racial tensions in the beating of Rodney King and subsequent riots two years
Political correctness, Woke bias and racial tensions played a big part in his acquittal quite obviously. No more comparing this sh1t show with Wallace pherllease.
The difference is, all those you list claimed innocence (as did OJS) when in fact a plethora of damning evidence shows them as guilty. If you can stick to like for like where there is absolutely no evidence of guilt – ala Wallace then I will consider your rants. Maybe such as the killing of billie jo which was contentious.
The circumstantial evidence against the man is well known. And it is strong enough that it literally requires some form of impossibility to suggest another person did it. The evidence exclusive to the other suspect is that he told lies about where he was on Monday. Which isn’t something OVERTLY rare in real life, where an innocent man lies about where he was because of various reasons and I listed that on my page along with some real life examples.
What is crucial is that some assumed proven elements like the chess start being displayed on board, are gone, and various time elements like Wallace giving 7.50 as arrival, benzidine BS. Basically, these previously assumed proven things have been reduced to possibilities at best, and for that reason are no longer strong enough to make the alternate suspect better than the blatant one.
The evidence against Krauseneck and Sam Sheppard is also circumstantial.
As if the burglars would announce their arrival by slamming doors open and shut. The idea is that they sneak in and out within minutes if it wasn’t for the hapless Marsden seeing what was of value in the parlour thinking Julia might be waiting for Parry upstairs.
I never said she was waiting upstairs for Parry. I said Marsden might think that so stop putting words in my mouth. In not hearing Julia, it is possible he thought the house was empty even or she was asleep upstairs but then was confronted by her as he opened the parlour door.
It is only a theory, perhaps it WAS even Parry himself, given the dodgy sparse almost coerced pre meditated sound alike alibi’s by Brine and her nephew. Not a mention about why Parry stayed there for 3 hours when his mate William Denison wasn’t even there.
P.S. If anyone wants to read the poo show trial that RMQ has at least half a dozen times not mentioned in comparison to the Wallace case, here it is and is even more of a soap opera than I first remember it 🙂
RMQ says: ”The circumstantial evidence is strong enough that it literally requires some form of impossibility to suggest another person did it”
This is clearly false and in fact part of Wallace’s defence is in fact that somebody else did do it which is upheld otherwise quite clearly, anything saying it HAD to be him would have resulting in his hanging.
IE. The circumstantial evidence IS NOT strong enough to convict him and therefore that alone is not enough to convict him.
Verdict: The weight of the prosecution evidence against Wallace is not strong enough to convict him which is why the appeal judges over ruled the jury verdict which in itself contrary to what was directed by Justice Wright.
It is probably why there were gasps in the public gallery and why the unprecedented event of a Cathedral Mass was said in Wallace’s honour and why a dry run trial at the HQ of the Pru etc were all on Wallace’s side.
P.S. It is not just the Monday night lie by Parry that put’s him in the frame for me. I’m sure if it had been him and his supposed alibi’s undergoing some serious questioning we might have got to the bottom of it at the time.
I meant to reach the bar of “did he do it”, not the bar of “beyond reasonable doubt”. Incidentally the circumstantial evidence against Sam Sheppard and James Krauseneck may also on paper not be strong enough to actually convict, yet it is quite obvious that they did do it. Sam I know less about but Jim definitely did it. They were all convicted despite this, like Wallace, and I think Sam was also released on appeal. Possibly also from death row.
Those realistically are solved cases and so is this. As in, if it’s not literally near impossible they did it, it’s so blatantly them. Despite having to begrudgingly let them all go. Even if Gordon didn’t exist you would have to acquit legally. Remember that the appeal judges were not furnished with most of the things you use about Gordon and still acquitted.
We aren’t making judgements on his life. We are saying “who did it”. Obviously you must think William once the impossibility is exposed as a lie, and anything else is like vested interest or crazy person stuff.
The debate seems to have boiled down to “it was either Parry or Wallace.” Justice Wright said that based on the evidence it is hard to find any individual responsible for Julia’s murder. It could have been a stranger who called, was admitted on whatever pretext, murdered Julia and left. However, because we know little or nothing about these alternative suspects, our focus is on the two principals.
To believe it was either Wallace or Parry we have to jump through several hoops. In the case of Wallace his good character, lack of apparent motive, and the tight timing on both evenings etc.
With Parry we have his alibi for the murder evening, his record of spontaneous criminality (car theft etc) as opposed to a planned caper, and his pattern of being a lone operator instead of working with cronies.
Dismissing Parry’s alibi for the murder evening as “arranged” has to invoke staggering incompetence or corruption on the part of the police, outright “turning a blind eye” to someone who may have been guilty of a brutal murder, or collusion by Mrs Brine.. This is for me an insurmountable obstacle. Parry was a sneak thief, not a planner. A planner would have chosen the night when a full monthly collection was in the cash box. And would anyone, the haul being uncertain, plan it with colleagues who would want their share?
As for Wallace. Nice guys do commit murder. The examples are legion. Motive is a problem, but the advanced state of Wallace’s kidney disease probably pushed him over the edge. The timing has been dealt with by RMQ and I agree he could have made it to the club and to the tram in time.
So although I’m not as committed as RMQ I have Wallace as my front runner with anyone else, and it wouldn’t be Parry, a distant second.
Hi. Parry was in a planner in some respects. He obviously planned to go to try car doors or whatever, it wasn’t that spontaneous, he might go into town knowing he would have no money to get back and think, i’ll just rob a car – that’s planning even if he doesn’t know what type of car it will be. He might plan to go o town with no money but assume he will get some from one call box or another, that is planning.
If we look at what Herbert Balmer who coincidentally had joined the C.I.D. in 1930 got away with then police corruption (see the letter on this site and Goodman’s take on the state of the police in 1931) also in collaboration with Moore was under pressure and thought he had his man early on and didn’t want that disrupting (I’ve mention this and that pesky Alan Close before) and then ‘Where was pal William Denison?’ then why such a short statement from Olivia and Harold with no substance to it and then Moore working with Imelda Parry and then Ada Pritchard, Parry’s dad £2000 etc etc and it is not insurmountable to me that’s all.
This is literally “Innocence Project 101”. Please note the allusions that the man was innocent but cops were just “pressured” or had “tunnel vision”, then proceed to look at every piece by the Innocence Project which uses the exact same reasoning and word for word terminology to make it seem that the cops don’t care about finding the person who killed a woman, and just want to frame an innocent person for doing it so a vicious murderer of old ladies can continue to wander the community to kill someone else.
This is how OJ got away with his crime, because fantastic cop Mark Fuhrman was a racist, so they alleged that the cops worked to frame OJ for nefarious reasons. Mark IS a racist, on that there is no doubt, but it is a mistake to believe that his racism means he can’t possibly be correct in his investigative findings or would plant evidence just to frame an innocent black man.
Now, it is actually pathetic to do the same with Moore. It is actually really severely distorted thinking, even beyond any of the stuff I came up with while stoned years ago, to suggest cover up to protect Gordon and risk his entire career and insane jail time (aiding and abetting a murderer, max penalty in 1931?) because his daughter has an average as fuck easily-replaceable receptionist job with the Parrys (proof btw? Is it just Gannon’s severe autism again or is this definite). Even I never suggested anything like that lol.
You’re so easily swayed by like, random BS like rumours and tabloid pieces. 99% of your thinking revolves around rumours, and like inconsequential ambiguous statements. Maybe Gordon was fishing for 5K from the loser failed-historian Goodman (i.e. Not even for 2K, hint hint offer me 3 you autist cuck ). Maybe his dad doesn’t trust him given his history and isn’t himself absolutely confident in his son’s non-involvement (literally how the fuck would he know). Even for an innocent man why draw attention back on yourself in connection with a murder?
These are the types of things you are easily impressed by. You are probably impressed by the rumour that Schofield Allen was at his bedside when Wallace was dying and Wallace made a strange comment about winning. You probably just accept this is something that happened.
Hi GED the 2k comment was obviously a money ploy to Goodman; probably hoping for a higher offer.
Note it is mentioned in Goodman’s notes that he was promised money by John Rowland and never received it, so the subject must have come up.
No one said Parry was a choir boy; he was definitely angling for easy money before deciding he could tell these aspies off.
This says absolutely nothing one way or another about his guilt or innocence. Please try to use some more deductive reasoning (note not: “abductive” which is an obsolete word and is misused by Rod.) Some more deductive logic from you would help things run snappier here and be more pleasant for all.
Goodman has numerous versions of the same exact conversations. He’s a hack and a failed historian who filled a book, intended to be a historical account, with local rumours and Chinese whispers of a guy who knows a guy who knew a guy who knew they found the iron bar.
If precise wordings and accounts of conversations are important, Goodman is the absolute last person to trust. He can’t even keep it straight between his own notes. What a joke. In one version Gordon implies Wallace is a homo. In another Gordon says Wallace is a sadomasochist rather than sexually odd. The dude is garbage and probably autistic judging by the radio city show he was on.
If the short “rubber stamp” statements from Mrs Brine and the Denison lad were all we had regarding Parry’s alibi it would raise suspicion that the police were convinced Wallace did it and were not going to investigate Parry or anyone else seriously. But they also examined his clothing, his car, and interviewed Mrs Lloyd and Lily about his movements. These two must have been convinced of his innocence because the engagement to Lily continued for some time afterwards.
It was barely 48 hours after the murder that Wallace gave Parry’s name to the police. At this early point, even with the phone call being traced to Anfield 1627, all leads were being followed up including the whereabouts of Marsden.
Its also notable that although many people disliked Parry, having been duped by him on some scam or other, there was no bandwagon protesting his guilt. Nobody wrote “Parry did it” on a wall at the dead of night. And his employment with the Gresham Insurance company was unaffected.
That Parry was a bad lot and an inveterate liar is accepted but it takes more than these straws in the wind – Ada Pritchard, £2,000, Parkes…. – to build anything like a convincing case against him.
I like the way Ada Pritchard is airbrushed out in less than 1 sentence 🙂
It is much more easy to be swayed and impressed by ‘it is always the husband’ when i’ve pointed to instances in the past when it wasn’t. The police files were undoubtedly pruned after Ken Oxford Refused permission for them to be seen in January 1981 – why by the way? Where is Marsden’s statement? Why was Parry at Olivia Brine’s with no pal William present? Where are the statements from Phyllis and Savona from the night at Brine’s? Why didn’t the police re-question Parry under caution after the police got the Lloyd’s statements – as that would be the process. I’ve also listed over half a dozen high profile police corruption cases so to suggest Moore (promoted after the 1929 police strike) couldn’t have done this under pressure of the biggest case in his life doesn’t wash with me either. Yes, we do accept these things of Parry, just like we accept that Wallace was a decent, upstanding, honest citizen with no previous record of absolutely anything untoward who can be suddenly imagined to be a killer.
It’s airbushed in a sentence because that’s literally all that is required to dismantle these nothing-statements… Like wow that’s crazy dude you mean Gordon’s parents were scared their son was being investigated for murder? This is groundbreaking. What explanation could there possibly be except that he did it (which they couldn’t know obviously unless he decided to tell them since he wasn’t home).
Every one of these desperate musings can be obliterated in perhaps one sentence. Literally this is just the ridiculous and desperate death rattle of a man who has been thoroughly debunked beyond belief… Literally Google your exact wording regarding pressure and corruption and see the precise exact same thing pop up in relation to guilty murderers like Julius Jones. Usually alongside, of course, photos of them as 6 year olds or in graduation caps and gowns. Because you know look, how could this kind man have done this crime he’s SMILING! How could this put bull be dangerous look it’s wearing a FLOWER CROWN. The latter being something championed by the truly lowest IQ members of our species.
Krauseneck was an upstanding citizen. Sam Sheppard was a doctor. Crippen was a doctor also right, another upstanding citizen? Lord Lucan is an upstanding citizen… The BTK (Bind Torture Kill) killer Dennis Rader was an upstanding citizen and did stuff for the church… OJ Simpson was more than just an upstanding citizen he was a national hero and global icon.
Nothing “washes” with you. Except literally the most mundane Tom Slemen-esque musings like the mentioned Ada. You’re legitimately impressed by that lol, that a murder suspect’s parents were afraid for their tearaway son’s life. Wow how shocking. Who could imagine that? These are literally ghost story tier happenings, very inconsequential and explainable in one or two sentences tops, I feel like I’m at a campfire roasting marshmallows with this BS bro.
There is a world of difference between events that could have a sinister interpretation – police corruption, Ada Pritchard etc – and those which, supported by solid evidence, become established facts. The various points which you raise supporting Parry’s involvement Ged are possibilities. As such I don’t dismiss any of them. But for any point to be promoted into the “probable” column we need more background information and at this point we simply don’t have it.
Why did Mr Chandler not show up for his chess game with Wallace? Could he be Qualtrough who didn’t want his voice to be recognised so soon after the phone call? Yes, it sounds crazy but its not impossible until proved so to be.
So these various points should not be dismissed but placed on the very crowded back burner pending the discovery of supporting information.
I would add that my late Aunt Hilda also thought her doctor was a “decent, upstanding, honest citizen.” You will find Hilda Fitton in the list of Dr Shipman’s victims.
RMQ please stop citing other totally unnecessary cases, I’ve seen them all and none bear any relation to the Wallace case. Here’s some facts:
Apart from 18 Prejudicial errors at the Committal proceedings with no reporting restrictions and the well documented police incompetence at the crime scene and in their statement taking and cross referencing, i’ve been looking at how 3 witnesses for sure changed their statements in court. No doubt after Police coercion as with Alan Close, the milk boy.
James Edward Rothwell statement 30.1.31
I saw Mr Wallace walking at a very fast pace and was looking on the ground and appeared to me as if he was crying. He had his hands in his pockets of his overcoat which was a light fawn coloured one.
Trial: Q399-401: His face was haggard and drawn and he was very distressed – unusually distressed. He was dabbing his eyes with his sleeve and appeared as if he’d been crying. I have never seen him like that before.
John Edward McFall. Post Mortem 21.1.31
I am of the opinion that death was due to fracture of the skull by someone striking the deceased 3 or 4 times with terrific force.
Trial: Q1795: 12 blows quite definitely. 11 I am sorry. It is rather doubtful so I have put it definitely as to 11. It was a frenzied attack.
Alan Croxton Close. 21.1.31
Between 6.30 and 6.45
Statement on 20.2.31:
I passed Holy Trinity church at 6.25 I went to the dairy at Sedley st and on to 29 Wolverton st.
(incorrect as he had deliveries first at Letchworth st (where Elsie Wright saw him) and then at Richmond Park before the Wallace’s)
Trial: What time did you deliver the milk that night: Half past 6.
Okay bro yes everyone was got to by the cops to frame the innocent man. I notice literally zero people including Alan put Alan at the door at 6.45 including various kids who weren’t manipulated by the cops . I’ve been re-checking these facts.
“I then went along Wolverton Street to Richmond Park and then to Redford Street and then went home. When I got to Redford Street I looked at my watch and it was then a quarter to seven. My watch is a minute or two fast.”
I.e. Alan’s two minute fast watch showed 6.45 after he’d left Wolverton Street and reached Redford Street. So he was in Redford Street at 6.43 or 6.44. Which is after Wolverton as he says. Which makes sense because that would make his time align with when the other dude saw him at the doorstep, and is closer to all the others including the latest guesstimate by Elsie (who gave an “about” 6.40 she saw Alan headed to Wolverton). Roughly all of the timings given, it is already accepted as being something within the region of 6.40. Give or take on either side. This doesn’t need debating and isn’t overtly critical. Wallace thinks he left his house at 6.45 which is another testimony about Alan’s timing, because obviously Julia cannot both be taking in cans and simultaneously walking down the back yard with her husband to lock the gate behind him.
Some of your pals are less charitable and say 6.37 or 6.38 like Antony. I provide a later time to steelman the position.
By the way can you provide proof about Imelda working for Gordon’s dad? It’s not something that matters re guilt, but it would be amusing if it’s literally just more bullshit from Goodman’s tabloid. I think it might just be another falsehood from the pathetic wannabe as I can’t find any source for it except people just asserting it.
We all know about changing statements yeah. Like the visits to Crewe’s house. Lolz. Sorry your hero is a murderer bro. Blame Goodman, a lifelong hack who put out rumour mill bullshit for money and notoriety, and dared to present himself like a real historian. What a joke. His pals in his obituary say he was wrong which is very funny tbh. Kicking a man while he’s literally down… Don’t be like Goodman. If you want to LARP as a historian, then it is critical to get these events correct and corroborated reliably.
Nobody cares much about what MacFall thinks or says. He is sort of a hack or guessing on a lot I things, but even more importantly, the techniques of the time were not adequate for this sort of time window or precision anyway. Rothwell wrote in to Goodman’s rumour mill and reiterated his statement but of course the tabloid loser joke of a man just ignored him. Not that his statement matters that much, but helps shed light upon the farcical nature of the man known as Goodman. He’s literally as bad as James Murphy, not even exaggerating.
I obviously have no affinity to either Goodman nor Wallace RMQ I’m just stating what is already apparently researched and in print.
I have a spreadsheet of the different callers and their part proven times 9by the church clock and institute bells, own watches etc and yes i’d say 6.38 is fair. I also note that Maddox and the Police timings mean Wallace couldn’t have left any later than 6.50 but he says 6.45 and therefore I do not think that Wallace could have done what he had to do in 7 minutes. We know the bath was taken out and we know the gas fire was taken out, it is why the house was inhabitable for Wallace to return to on the Thursday (in fact he should never have been allowed to on the Wednesday) but that’s the Police in this case for you. Btw McFall is supposed to be a professor in his field but he made the point of pushing, without being asked, that this was a frenzied attack as I believe that would help the jury sway towards Wallace and I wonder who could have put that idea in his mind when his Autopsy should be the conclusion to go off.
I just don’t see the relevance, because I think I have said before, what these people did or didn’t think isn’t really of relevance since I don’t think anyone is paying much attention to MacFall for example… Whereby even if he were an incredible elite tier forensic pro, was too limited by the technology of the time for this case to benefit much at all from his findings.
And similarly with the other elements, it is not impactful here because we aren’t being swayed by them. MacFall probably thought he was like Poirot tier and imposed his own conclusions in the courtroom. Possibly. Well forensics even in 2024 are largely subjective interpretations of objective facts. It only changed with DNA where you can say, yes there’s 1 in 250 billion chance this blood is anyone else’s other than the accused. And that is not a subjective element anymore.
Wallace says 6.45 yes, I think like Alan, times of this nature are more typically “abouts”. When we say quarter past 7, rarely is it literally exactly 7.15, they’re the sort of numbers we say when we glance at a clock and it’s like 7.13, 7.16, 7.17, etc… I think to do this in 7 minutes is easy. Even if the drains weren’t used the thing then was that it could be done but it would involve more presumption… E.g. There is evidence of burning. A man could quite easily wipe his face with a handkerchief and throw it into the fire. Or wrap a weapon in it then chuck the fabric in the fire… Without a promise that drains are not used, it expands the avenues which could have been used. Which matters because there is a blood spot, with splash streak, on the toilet rim, so someone at some point you must say at the very least, has been in there with blood upon them.
I steelman the staging but the reality is the man entered the house alone while neighbours waited outside. It is possible that the staging could have been done to some degree here. E.g. Grabbing some notes from the box, taking them upstairs to the bedroom jar… We know the man went upstairs while the neighbours waited outside. There are so many possibilities but I purposefully limit it, because the fact is it can be shown to be very much plausible even in the most generous assumptions. E.g. That he used all the tram stops he said he did rather than boarding by the call box, that Alan comes at 6.40 rather than 6.37, staging after he kills Julia and before leaving the house. And having his walking speed at 3 mph which for a taller man is kind of slow even if he wasn’t rushing. Even with all of these things being true, he can still have done this, with leeway.
One of the first things the police thought of: Was there any use of the bath or wash basins. Indeed these were checked, removed and no trace of blood or recent usage noted, only a damp nail brush, no wet towels.
Let’s suppose Wallace is guilty. He could (time permitting to do everything from 6.38 to 6.49 max) have washed himself in the scullery/downstairs sink, wiped himself dry on a towel then burnt it on the open fire in the kitchen. Upon inspecting Julia’s body with Flo Johnston upon his return, he could have manhandled her in a way that he would purposely get blood on himself, then say, Oh dear, I am full of Julia’s blood, burst out crying again and said he must wash it off and gone to the very sink and washed the blood down the drains – even use the very towel, so no need to burn it at all. No need for the police to have the drains removed as there would be a perfectly normal reason now for blood to be present in the pipes. Funny how that didn’t happen isn’t it?
You mean the kind of thing he did when he told the cop to look then put his hands on the bloodstained notes in the jar in the upstairs middle bedroom, but with sinks? I don’t think any murderer who washed themselves off has ever tried such a ploy… Should we just go ahead and release them? Because obviously they would have done that if they really did the killing, so not doing this thing is proof they’re innocent. Should we actually just go ahead and release every murderer in fact, because there are things 100% of them hypothetically could have done and didn’t.
I mean just literally take every single piece of evidence in every case and say “well if he really did it he could have simply chucked out the bandana they found with his DNA all over it, therefore he can’t have done this crime”.
Your paradigm is such that literally only people with zero evidence against them whatsoever are guilty, because any possible thing indicating guilt is something a person who was guilty would apparently just get rid of, lol. So you can just be like “why would a guilty Gordon not simply use the Brines to cover for him on BOTH nights?” and for you this is absolute proof he didn’t do it because, well, if he was actually guilty surely he would do X Y Z bro, and not doing that therefore proves he didn’t do anything.
James Edward Rothwell statement 30.1.31
“I saw Mr Wallace walking at a very fast pace…. ” This is confirmation that when the occasion demanded it Wallace could move quickly. Presumably much faster than the conservative 3 mph used in RMQ’s calculation that Wallace had time to spare on both the 19th and the 20th January.
Yes, Wallace could have, as you say Ged, covered himself in blood examining Julia’s body then washed it off at the sink etc. But there are many things with hindsight that he could have done to reduce, if he was guilty, his chances of discovery. The Qualtrough plan was not only faulty. it had more holes in it than Swiss cheese. He could have done much better but he didn’t. That he went ahead with such a ramshackle scheme shows that he wasn’t the ice cold master planner that some have claimed him to be.
These failings to “do it better” don’t contribute to a belief in his innocence.
“Assuming the average walking speed of 3 mp/h we can deduce the walk time between each stop:
The distance between the phone box and Richmond Park request stop is 233 yards【𝟮𝟭𝟯.𝟬𝟲 𝗺】, about a 2½ minute walk.
The distance between the Richmond Park request stop and the compulsory Newcombe Road stop is 157 yards【𝟭𝟰𝟯.𝟱𝟲 𝗺】, about a 1¾ minute walk.
The distance between the compulsory Newcombe Road stop and compulsory Belmont Road stop is 133 yards【𝟭𝟮𝟭.𝟲𝟮 𝗺】, about a 1½ minute walk.
The entire stretch from the telephone box to the Belmont Road stop is 523 yards【𝟰𝟳𝟴.𝟮𝟯 𝗺】, about a 6 minute walk at this average pace. There is even slight leeway depending on walking speed if he did walk across to Belmont Road. For example, a pace of 3.5 mp/h makes it a 5¼ minute walk, and 4 mp/h makes it 4½ minutes. If Wallace was trying to create as much distance between himself and the box as possible when boarding a tram, he may have walked at these brisker paces. For a man as tall as he was, stride length would make brisker walking paces more comfortable.”
To note here, the trams came every 8 to 9 minutes that evening, and we might expect Wallace, irrespective of guilt or innocence, to have boarded at one of these request stops had a tram been coming. And as such could postulate that for the time taken to walk between the Richmond Park request and Belmont Road stops (4 and a half minutes), no tram had been coming. And guesstimate from this tram times and wait times a little better.
For example, if it had JUST left the Richmond request before he could reach it, by the time he got to Belmont Road he would have to wait there around 3 and a half to 4 and a half minutes (it’s a 4 and a half minute walk and the trams come every 8/9 minutes).
I know something like this was brought up on trial, but may be for the other night.
Its safe to assume that on both the 19th and 20th January Wallace would want to put as much distance between himself and the incriminating phone call and murder respectively. He wasn’t out for an evening stroll so even 4 mph might be on the low side for the estimated walking speed of a determined tall man in these circumstances. You’re right: he had time to spare.
Ha ha I love the way RMQ latched right onto Mike’s incorrect initial assumption that the telephone exchange would receive a call from anywhere in the Anfield catchment area and this could put Wallace nearer the chess club when he made the call. Caught, game over, end of, period – bang to rights. Only to be disappointed once again when Mike got the correct info eventually that it was never any mystery which call box was used as the call box number lit up in the telephone exchange.
Now he is doing it again with this false evidence by Rothwell, like Wallace is racing along ha ha and Mike, you’re falling for it too to back up ever flagging evidence. I have found Rothwell to be a liar with his contradictory evidence about where Wallace’s hands were which changed from in his pockets (statement), to wiping his eye with his sleeve (trial – months later) when Wallace said not only did he not do this but if he had a watery eye he would dab it with a handkerchief under his glasses.
RMQ said: ”Your paradigm is such that literally only people with zero evidence against them whatsoever are guilty,” How do you work that out? What??? Only people with Zero evidence against them are guilty?? Really. No, I think only people with genuine evidence against them are guilty actually.
The ‘blood’ on the note was never confirmed to be even blood let alone Julia’s and there is no evidence anywhere that he ever had Julia’s blood on his hands – though I have found it incredible that such a fact was never confirmed.
So what you’re saying is he had the presence of mind to take the copper up to notes that didn’t even need to be there if he was guilty and then he made sure he put his blood stained hands on them (so the blood would have been noted as fresh ha ha – so comical this – even the keystone copper would surely note that – pardon the pun)
Yet this mastermind never thought to feign having to wash his hands in order to rid himself of any blood and therefore do away with any need for a mackintosh at all.
Also, if he is using this mackintosh as a shield when kneeling, he is therefore nearer the door than the fire with Julia’s body between him and the fire and the ‘shield’ is between himself and Julia, just how do you provide a scenario where this mac catches fire. It was clearly draped over Julia’s shoulders just like Flo thinks and like what women used to do, usually with a shawl and i’ve even seen women do to this date with a coat.
RMQ – Murderers wouldn’t normally try to wash the blood off in their own sink simply because usually the murderer is long gone and is hardly ever the first person alone to find the dead person they’ve just killed. Why would a murderer do this. The police upon checking the drains would say how is the victims blood in the drainage system, in the sink, in the bath etc – only the husband could have done it. None of Julia’s found in the Wallace’s drains despite your lone protestations that the test wasn’t done which you cannot prove. But it would have been so easy for Wallace to overcome that anyway by using the drains an then doing as I say he would have done and taken a wash afterwards in the presence of Flo. A bit like the bolt on the door – could have been done once he got back home at 20.45 if he’d forgotten to do it before or after the murder.
These are not mastermind thinking, there are only a few main things he has to plan.
Blood coverage (i’ve already mentioned the other methods which do away with any need to consider this) but ok in the event of blood, just wash himself off then create the wash charade in front of Flo making sure she sees him do it. He’ll also need to be swift as he has 11 minutes at best thanks to pesky Alan Close. The murder weapon – ah yeah, we’ve never properly solved that one have we, nor anyone, not even the keystone cops who scoured the area. 🙂
As for the Brines and why didn’t he use them as alibi’s twice. Parry didn’t know he’d be needing one for the Monday night as murder was never intended.
Are you drunk? This whole post is insane cognitive dissonance because your mind is slowly understanding it is wrong. Yeah it’s blood on the note. I am noting the possibility (I can define this word if needed) it was already there from earlier, and now he touches them in front of a witness. This was brought up explicitly in court with this exact implication, hence it’s why it’s Hemmerde not Oliver asking if he had blood on his hands then.
1616. Will you put those notes back in the ornament exactly as you found them? I did
not put them back; the accused did.
1617. But as far as you know, how they were. As far as my recollection goes, the notes
were like that, and with my height and the lowness of the mantelpiece, I could see there
were notes in the pot. (The witness illustrated).
1618. You did not draw attention to them first? No, I did not.
1619. MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: You mean the notes are right inside? Yes, my Lord.
1620. MR HEMMERDE: I want this quite clear. How far did he lift them out before you
stopped him? I should say about that. (Indicating).
1621. Then you told him to drop them? To replace them.
1622. And they were replaced? Yes, he put them back.
MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: About an inch or an inch and a half.
1623. MR HEMMERDE: About halfway, my Lord, and then he put them back. (To the
witness): Apart from that, was anything done to disturb them or arrange their order?
Nothing at all.
Page 75 of 224
1624. You are sure? Yes.
1625. Did you on that evening at any time see any blood upon him? I did not.
1626. Hands, clothes or anywhere? I did not.
Because Oliver was trying to use this action to explain the blood just prior, and Hemmerde is trying to shut down the notion.
Every single thing suggesting a person did it, in your paradigm (do you know that word?) can’t be real because if they did it, they would surely do X Y Z to avoid that evidence existing. The murder took place before Gordon was interviewed. So yes he could “do XYZ” and have himself covered for the entire period. The Brines were interviewed after Gordon. If they will lie for him for Tuesday they can lie for Monday. So yeah he has “the presence of mind to get them to lie for Tuesday but not for Monday!” Shall we list all the things “mastermind” Gordon “could have done”? Will that then prove to you it can’t be Gordon?
You see how this is literally mental midget-ism and embarassing. Like bottom set of every class, special needs tier.
Legit please just do the test bro lol. Do the test, post the result. Unlike the makebelieve benzidine fabrication tests which btw wouldn’t have worked if done.
The person who finds a dead body always starts out as the prime suspect AFAIK.
I’m tired of being forced to respond because of fear a person visiting the site will read some fiction about fairytale tests (which wouldn’t have worked if done) on what I am attempting to maintain as a serious historical resource. I refactored my pages and deleted my own trash musings, so now ideas and possibilities are marked as such, because this is meant to be a historically accurate resource now, and the crap rumour evidence from beta male Goodman and other autists are weeded out due to being unfounded.
Historical fact includes all Rothwell’s contradictory statements as well as Crewe’s contradictory statements about the number of visits and nature of the visits. Pace calculations are accurate facts for example and highly relevant. Rather than reply with corrections in comments I might start cataloguing actual inaccuracies of fact in a separate page so people aren’t misled. The cow goes moo, the pig goes oink, the duck goed quack quack! We can start at infant level basics if needed.
“….this false evidence by Rothwell, like Wallace is racing along.”
Presumably if Rothwell had described Wallace as walking slowly and pausing to catch his breath from time to time this would be taken as solid confirmation of Wallace being incapable of making it to the chess club or tram stop in the time available.
It is accepting or rejecting evidence based on whether it supports or negates a pre-conceived conviction as to his guilt or innocence.
These were observations lasting seconds which assumed importance only after the murder. I too noticed the hands in pockets / dabbing eyes with sleeve discrepancy. This is due to confusion, not lies, as he tries to remember details of a mundane event which had no importance at the time.
Mike, there is no need for Rothwell to mention anything about pace – nor his change of stance regarding the eye dabbing after the police have got to him, just as they did Close but Antony Brown literally ties his lies down to come up with a more realistic 18.38 to 18.40 timing – which i’m glad even RMQ recognises, based even on Close’s own admission that his rounds finished at 18.55 and he only had 2 streets after No.29. You put it down to confusion like most people do to help Parry out, oh he was just confused about Monday night etc…
RMQ- The only thing you said that made any sense in your last post is that the murder suspect is always the spouse and don’t you think Wallace knew this. So why leave notes upstairs, why leave bloodied notes upstairs even. Everything you copied and pasted from the trial I know already, it says nothing which is why he was a free man.
It’s like the mumbo jumbo about the blood clot, it’s shape, the height is was dropped from, whose was it, how did it get there – all irrelevant and took up far too much time than it ever needed to.
Murdering someone isn’t a very rational act no matter how hard you try to plan it. The act of murder is in and of itself irrational. It’s why I bring up tangential cases, which are absolutely relevant when you keep doing this. E.g. Why did Julius Jones keep the red bandana? Don’t you think that’s unusual? Does this prove he didn’t do it because the act of keeping a vital clue after killing someone is stupid? Let’s discuss all the things Gordon “COULD HAVE DONE BRO” and if he didn’t do all of those proposed things he is obviously proven innocent, seems legit.
Jesus the list of premeditated murders where the killers made mistakes in spite of trying to plan it out and get away with it. The list is insurmountably long. One of the innocence project (fraudject) murderers who got freed by the innocence project went on to decapitate and dismember a man shortly after his release and “exoneration” (LOL). He went so far as to attempt to wear a disguise to fool cameras. The dude who freed him went on Joe Rogan grovelling saying his therapist is helping him deal with the guilt of having freed a murderer who just murdered again.
Regarding the notes specifically there are numerous possibilities. Many of them. Here is one of 1000000, maybe he didn’t notice there was blood on it when he stuffed the note(s) in there, and it came to his attention later when he inspected the house upon returning and going into every single room including his lab (lol) looking for Julia while the neighbours waited. The day after the killing he paid money into the Pru despite money being stolen. One of the possible motives is financial. This is shown in the diary entry mentioning £ s d worries, his wife’s rags, and the money she kept in a secret compartment of her dress… If that is the type of man he was, perhaps he tried to keep the “stolen” cash because he was to pay a certain amount into the Prudential after her death.
Another element to this is his claim of not knowing how much money his wife had. She had owned a pretty big house, and had supposed high class backgrounds he may not have known was bullshit (check marriage cert w fake dad’s job, check claims of her speaking French and whatever else).
If he is not being deceitful on that point, he may have expected her to have a huge amount of cash he would inherit, only to be surprised like “Qualtrough” when he found £4 in the box. About the same amount found stuffed in the jar. Of course there are 999999 possibilities remaining. You can speculate all day long.
Most death penalty murders in more modern times are premeditated, because first degree usually entails planning. Otherwise it’s called second degree and I think it’s not a death penalty offence then. Every single one of them made a mistake of some kind. What makes you believe this is different? Do you think Wallace is incapable of overlooking something, going right when he should’ve gone left, or of making some stupid mistake like how his own jacket was left under the corpse lol?
Julia was not wearing a possibly damp jacket round her shoulders bro. The jacket had been allegedly left in the hallway to dry owing to the rain earlier. She is sick, she puts this left-to-dry mack round her neck? She doesn’t have her own jackets there? Is this how bad her miserly husband is? Neil Norbury, an alleged statement I can’t now find, found her to have had a scarf around her neck when she came to the door. Or was that Alan? Or both of them? So where’s that?
Hi Ged please stop with this nonsense. You state stuff as facts like it wasn’t blood on the notes that anyone can look up and see every single source says the opposite. You’re making us all go around in a circle. It’s reaching absurd levels. I’m sorry you have personal health issues but please don’t take it out on us who are trying to have rational discussions about the case that lead somewhere.
Nobody has yet answered my question as to provide a scenario where a kneeling Wallace using the mac as a shield nearer to the door than the fire manages to get it burned.
There is no proof Wallace did not know Julia’s financial position and even the police and prosecution do not go down that road, there is no financial motive, in fact Wallace seems to have paid the Pru that week from his own money so stop making things up.
Just seems barmy that this master planner who had about 4 things to consider the police will question him on should take the money out of the cash box and of all places put it bloodied in a jar upstairs that the police would be all over a few hours later.
The idiot cop Fred Williams did not even write down any notes until afterwards and tries to say in Q1613 there was no blood on the mac when in Q1611 he’d already admitted that W could have transferred blood to the pound note from the mac.
By the way, show me anywhere it was confirmed that it was even blood on the note, never mind even fresh blood or Julia’s blood. I won’t hold my breath.
Many thanks for wasting ~30 minutes of my time with this “historian” LARP. Can you get a different job please, maybe one you are qualified for like pushing trolleys at Tesco? Yes it is mentioned in the City Analyst report. Both that it was human blood, AND that it was fresh.
I don’t know what you are referencing in regards to kneeling by the door. What Wallace claims “””the killer””” (i.e. himself) did was hit her as she bent at the fire -> took two strides to the hallway where he grabbed his mackintosh that had been left to dry earlier -> came back in and saw her skirt had caught on the fire -> pulled her away (by her hair it looks like) and then looked down and saw the mackintosh had also caught while he was doing that, so stamped it out.
Wallace says to Gold he doesn’t know where Julia kept money. Probably because she was hiding it in her corset from him, because he is a miser psycho.
Julia had a bank account with £90 in it (about 8k today) not bad for a lady in 1931 who is not working and hasn’t for many years. There is no proof that W did not know she had a bank account and I read mention of him seeing the paperwork in a drawer in the house which is how he came to cash it.
Show me where it is confirmed the blood on the notes is from Julia and confirm it cannot be the case the even if it is, W could not have transferred this blood at the time of touching the notes in the presence of PC Fred Williams.
It also says (as we all know) that the mac was heavily bloodstained both inside and out and yet you want me to believe that W would not have had to wash some blood of somewhere.
W is not admitting anything in the John Bull stories otherwise you are omitting him saying He knows who the killer is – (Parry). So I call that selective reading with a preconceived agenda.
So when does W notice her skirt is burning? when he comes back in with the mac after the first hit knocks her onto the fire. How does pulling her backwards by the hair from the near the middle of the room with Julia between W and the fire cause the mac to burn? You/He is saying here that the skirt burn and the mac fire are happening on two separate occasions really which is too far a stretch of the imagination, like a comedy scene by the Marx Brothers.
After you made me scour to disprove your claims I saw how mind numbingly boring this case is. It’s actually like a form of torture to read the trial. I guess it’s only interesting to people who are fugue state delusional. It’s like reading 100,000 lines of Lizzie Borden being questioned.
I don’t have to scour about the bank book because during this boring torture I found out that Gold found it. In the front bedroom in a drawer, the room Wallace barely steps foot in (not for a fortnight prior to the killing).
If he believed his wife was upper class from rich vet dad etc, he may well have assumed some untold nest egg. Because yes 90 is bad. Are you on benefits? She owned a house and LARPed about being from good stock. Now they are renters in a slum. What did she sell her house for?
Post test result and I’ll answer all Qs. You should see the amount of suspects far better than Gordon they found in the Jonbenet case. All these insanely strong seeming alternate suspects…
There’s a retard I saw the other day on a short interview, who befriended tonnes of death row inmates. He said the proof they are innocent is that they said they were innocent still as their last words lol. He said everyone he met on death row is innocent and he couldn’t find a single terrorist in Guantanamo Bay. Just a teenager in there for telling someone where to get tomatoes (seems legit). Reminded me of the Wallace diary.
You have no evidence W believed the vet story, you started the sentence with IF but if I start it with IF I get shouted down. The bank book was hardly hidden from W then was it? IF it was proven it was Julia’s blood on the pound note IF W had been seen by the phone box or IF this or IF that.
How many times must I say i’m not interested in other cases like the Jonbenet case (she was strangled just how W could easily have done it – hey presto no blood) Like chalk and cheese with the W case.
Wallace’s diary goes from years before and sometime after – so no comparison again and nothing incriminating ever found. In fact, only weeks before W is going the police station concerned for Julia’s whereabouts – hardly the actions of someone hoping she’s dead and let’s get my hands on her 8k is it?
I suppose why none of these IF’s ever came to fruition is why he walked away an innocent man.
You get shouted down because your ifs are completely retarded, and also often just factually bullshit (usually) and make me waste time crawling through this BORING, DULL, MEANDERING case to recover the thing to show it. Like some of my own retarded ponderings which deserved the same. I’m not sure if you’ve ever brought up a single thing that is a good point because perhaps you just don’t care and spit out stuff like tabloid people do. It’s so rare that I can actually point to and track your correct moments of genius, e.g. weather numbers (your site still says sleet or no?). Usually they just rely upon outright fake info and rumours.
(“in a city living”, I hope is on purpose and not a butchering of “inner city living” lol, which would make sense because Liverpool is mostly a ghetto).
Your ponderings are like, if Gordon did this why not, after realizing someone just slaughtered Julia, and allegedly getting the Brines to lie for him, not simply have them lie for Monday too? And this for you proves he didn’t do it. Because a murderer NEVER overlooks something and never makes any mistake ever. And if they do, it means they didn’t do it.
That is why it is directly analogous to the other cases mentioned. And all other cases mentioned ALSO have other “strong suspects”, much stronger than Gordon, including fake alibis sometimes, who turn out to just straight up not be guilty. Much stronger evidence against them than what you are using as a base from which to devise ideas of Julia, apparently a total nymphomaniac in her old age (dog lash?), waiting up in the bedroom to get f*cked by a barely adult boy.
If Wallace was guilty it wasn’t to get his mitts on Julia’s money. Nine thousand in today’s pounds is a handy sum but Wallace knew he was a dead man walking and as a widow this amount would be insufficient to keep Julia from descent even further into absolute poverty in that pre-welfare state era. Rented home, estranged family, no supporting offspring – her future was dire and if Wallace believed she was only 52, it may have lasted decades. I have even considered that this might have been a motive for the murder: to spare Julia this gloomy future.
Wallace’s financial position improved greatly after the appeal. He bought his bungalow, probably helped by several successful libel actions against articles in the press which described him as a murderer.
It is common ground that the mac was bloodstained but I can’t see why this means Wallace had to wash blood off his person. The function of the mac was to shield the killer from blood spray so that no washing off would be needed.
Wallace, as you say Ged, admits nothing in the John Bull article. But it is surely curious that an innocent man would speculate in detail, in print, as to how his wife was killed. Maybe payment for the article was a convincer.
Julia was actively tanking money and had, either just before or just after her husband placed the call to tragically end her, paid another medical bill to Dr. Curwen. She’s hiding money from her Scrooge maniac husband, potentially not even sleeping in the same bed as him anymore (see: front room sheets, alleged sighting of Julia in the window (reported on Tabloid City Radio Show), her bank stuff being in the drawer in that room).
Shortly before there had been yet another medical bout where she was coughing blood (perhaps she had a bite or two of Wallace’s perfectly baked arsenic-scones).
So now she was killed because she was 52 and he loved her so much it was to save her from her own poverty 🙂
We know the libel cases paid for his Bungalow, it is documented what he had in the bank on 21.1.1931.
It is documented at the trial that they slept in the same room, please don’t make me have to prove it yet again to you. She was in the front room to remove a bedsheet being mended on the table – stop making unsubstantiated dross up 🙂
There’s no evidence of hiding any money, Wallace being a scrooge or maniac or arsenic poisoner – you are literally like the hapless Echo readers who had him hung based on unrestricted reporting including 18 mis statements at the committal proceedings. Tell me why the police or prosecution have to do that or withold names of witnesses if he is sooo guilty?
For the record, I only started looking at who possibly could be the killer once I satisfied myself that Wallace didn’t have the time to do it and clean up (undisputed in my book and the experts that there’d be blood on him) plus he was so dumb he didn’t even say Hangonamo, the milk boy didn’t even come until 6.40 (even if it was before)
He’d also managed to have his tea of scones with enough mastication in Julia’s stomach to show this murder couldn’t have happened until towards 7pm even if Alan Close had called at 6pm and not 6.38. There are other details such as no way Wallace puts a voice on in a box where he could be seen then race to Cottles and speak to Beattie. I prefer to believe the people who were there at the time.
Bullshit bro. Great job again Mr. “Historian” (lol). Have you considered becoming a weatherman instead, it’s literally the only thing you’ve ever got right, ever, in decades of discussion about the same case. Literally ever. “Now, over to Ged for the weather…” has a nice ring to it tbh.
“It is documented at the trial that they slept in the same room” documented by the murderer yeah. There are minor pointers towards her POSSIBLY sleeping in the front. Though one of the three sources is Tabloid City so I don’t know how much stock to put into that. Or if you include the fact that several people attested that when they were ill, they wouldn’t sleep in the same room (nurse said this or w.e.) and guess what, Wallace had been ill just before the killing, Julia was ill on the day and days surrounding the killing.
There’s no bedsheet on the table Gannon, you are hallucinating again. Maybe buy the Casebook No. 7 magazine with the actual high res images instead. No the “mastication” doesn’t show this. Do you do this on purpose bro? Post IQ. Post IQ or don’t post anything, simple as.
IQ or back to Facebook you go to discuss autistic Gannon stuff about sheets on the table and bloody mittens on the windowsill based on about 2 pixels with the 60+ year old pensioner LARPing that he’s a bitcoin millionaire while living with and scrounging off of mommy due to severe autism. I promise I won’t ever insult or rag on you again if you’re special needs/low IQ. I’m like, holding you to a different standard and as such you seem to be purposefully shady.
Like with 10000% certainty you are just not cut out for this at all, you are wrong about this murderer husband just like I was and like I brainwashed my poor bestie into being wrong about too. Once the made up shit is gone, yes he has time, easily, no there are zero things preventing it from being him, yes it is a basic domestic homicide. What is your excuse for STILL being wrong and for decades at that? Must be either special needs or trolling on purpose to get a rise out of people. IQ right now or Facebook, pick one.
You’re the one admittedly on the drugs ‘bro’. I’m quite ok thanks. She was sewing something do you agree. The bedsheets were pulled aside, so maybe possibly yes. Not sure if Nurse Wilson who is hardly unbiased in her job for the police said they slept apart but if they did when ill then that proves they didn’t when not ill. Historian of Liverpool by the way has nothing to do with this case and i’m not sure some scousers will be happy with your ghetto slur, they’d probably knock you straight out but enough of that.
Let’s just stick to the facts. Here’s the biggest one. The defendant, despite the alibi etc having more holes in it than swiss cheese according to Mike, was released on appeal after the Jury wrongfully convicted him against the weight of the evidence provided – even after a fit up job. Now go and do that IQ test yourself ‘bro’ 🙂
I’ve done the test, I did a serious one at school too. I’ll share results once you take it… Or you can go ahead and return to Facebook… I just want to understand if you are special needs because like, I obviously won’t hold you to the same standard and will be more understanding instead of constantly insulting and ranting at you.
Which scousers do you refer to? Autistic 60+ year old fat man living with mommy? Or alpha male Kentigern back from the dead like Undertaker in WWE getting out of his coffin to uphold the honor of Merseyside?
Liverpool in large parts is a ghetto that’s why there are so many violent thugs and criminals like those around at the time. Clubmoor is just straight up a ghetto and is where Wallace first moved to from Harrogate. Anfield is like a middle ground. Amy Wallace lived in the wealthier part. She was probably considered like a billionaire for being able to afford a normal home that wasn’t in the slum. I think even around Menlove Gardens, Beattie’s like “uh yeah don’t go there at night bro it’s full of thugs”. Does this imply to you that it’s a nice area? The area is dogshit just like the Beatles who made shit bottom tier music that people only like because they were “on the drugs”, like Grateful Dead fans. You definitely need to be experimenting with some kind of hallucinogenic drug to actually believe this pathetic wife killer is innocent of this crime, beyond “wellll we can’t convict him based on this”. Like deep in an Ayahuasca trip, or just mental retardation.
Where did Rod get knocked straight out, was that in the ghetto part? Where exactly did he get bodied by a man in his 60s while in the prime of his life? Was it near the “tenements” (equivalent to “The Projects” in the Bronx ghetto).
I’m not allowed on your group of literal invalids and pretentious Antony (not Dave, he is not an invalid or pretentious – actually I quite like Dave, and I know there’s some kid there who is likely just fine also – though it’s suspicious to actually just hang out w autismal holocaust denier Rod) because I AM abrasive. I am being abrasive and condescending RIGHT NOW. This is a well known fact, it’s my preferred debate style, i.e. half facts, half ad hominem condescension, with some random alliterations and peculiar catchy sounding sentences. I enjoy this greatly, but apparently aspie incel virgin Rod can’t handle it. Yet you are allowed here always. You could at least do us the courtesy of taking the test, or just go back. Your input is just reckless and plays fast and loose with facts. With one correct fact ever in decades. This isn’t the right job for you.
I admit I do laugh out loud. I probably shouldn’t encourage you 🙂
You only deny certain things because you can’t find them in a heavily pruned case file that Ken Oxford was scared to release in 1981. We even have coppers from the case saying they’ll tell the truth once they retire but alas never did, even a letter on your own site about police corruption. It was as rife then as it is now.
I can’t help you about re-joining the facebook site. I have nothing against you and let’s face it, if Mike and I didn’t come on here nobody would. I’ll always say though a great asset.
Whether Mr and Mrs Wallace occupied the same bed is not a guide to the state of their marriage. Attitudes to age were totally different in 1931 compared with what they are today. People aged faster and died younger. I remember seeing ads in the 1940s: PHYLLOSAN FORTIFIES THE OVER FORTIES. Whatever “fortifies” means, you obviously needed it if you were over 40. People dying in their 60s were said to have had a “good innings.”
Whatever passions existed when they were married, the Wallace’s were now old beyond their years and ailing. Priority would be getting a good night’s sleep free from hearing snores or fighting each other for the blankets. I happen to believe they slept together but if they didn’t it was for the above reason rather than anything else.
You are forgetting someone wandered in ~a year or two prior and saw them in bed together, allegedly, according to the murderer William… The murderer also says that they were in fact sharing the middle bedroom so that does matter in that case also if it’s untrue… Because if they were suddenly not sleeping in the same bed where they were before it would suggest some kind of shift in relationship dynamic:
I.e. even a sharp decline in health. Obviously health concerns could lead to more strain on any relationship, especially combined with the outgoing costs involved with that and signs of the woman hiding money and diary entries which suggest money was a source of tension. William was not sure where Julia kept her money (we know some of it was hidden in her undergarments), so whatever is going on financially, obviously it is not something her husband was 100% in the know regarding. We can circle back on this because there is support for this angle.
Tangentially, he mentioned something about the upstairs front room being cold due to being directly above the parlour, whereas the middle bedroom was above the kitchen (where a fireplace was often on) so benefitted from the heat coming up the chimney to some extent. So it could have a relation to the front parlour fireplace being on if Julia had switched to the front bedroom and left a fire lit to keep that room warmer due to her sleeping in it away from her husband.
Attendants of the house note that they slept apart during bouts of illness, and both had recently been sick so is not completely unfounded to guess that at the time there’s a chance they were not sleeping together. The same attendants suggest these bouts of illness caused stress between the couple: Julia would accuse Wallace of malingering despite the fact he was dying with kidney illness, and Julia was just lazy and useless and did not have any desire to keep the house tidy (this is WIDELY reported, even in tabloids and by almost every witness from Pru employees to nurses hired – nurses also costing money by the way). You can also see this with your own eyes. The place is disgusting. The toilet is vile. The house is a hovel.
The charwoman had not been able to attend for some weeks (another source of outgoing finance, for something which at the time was expected to be a woman’s “household duties” (a term Wallace used to describe Julia’s housework)). So the home had become the disgusting putrid mess we see in the photos. More sources of tension.
The sleeping apart signals something not just because of the very surface level “oh they sleep apart? Must be fighting” but for what that could signify in regards to health conditions and other things that run deeper and contribute to the marital tensions. Them sleeping apart is an educated guess/proposal only, of course. To be very clear. It has circumstantial backing and testimony that could support the claim as a possibility but that’s it. What I am doing is just putting forward a convincing narrative of the events leading up to the crime.
Hi RMQ,
I agree with these points about the Wallaces’ sleeping together. JRH Christie strangled his wife Ethel as they lay together in the marital bed so we can’t draw any binding inferences from their sleeping arrangements!
The house was shabby with the enamel coming off the base of the bath and the door locks, front and back, needing fixing or replacement. You would think that a security-concious Wallace, with the Pru’s cash always in the house, would at least have had his landlord attend to the locks well before they got into their present condition.
Mike
Q: 2992: What were your relations with your wife. A) What I should describe as perfect.
Q: 2993: Were you in any sort of financial difficulty A) None whatever.
None of these were ever disputed, his diaries backed him up as did people they knew. All except a Dr and Nurse who would have seen them ill and at their worst. Subsequently W was found to have today’s equivalent of 12.5k in his account, Julia having 8k in her account. Further writings by W confirm that his lecturing fees were split with his wife and he bought his equipment with his half. A few coins in her nappy or one writing about ‘Just like everybody else we could do with more money’ is not a motive for killing her and neither was it ever suggested or given any credence, even by the Police or prosecution so why should we now when you are scrambling for unfounded reasons?
We might also add that Q3198 TO 3204 make it clear that the room with the hats is not where Julia slept and later he even answers that they slept in the same room.
Q: 3087: No one at the club knew where MGE was I gather? A) No
Not even Beattie or Deyes who lived nearer to MGW that W or most. Katie Mather also confirmed than the area was still being built upon.
Q:3005. Have you ever had a single penny wrong in your accounts. A) No.
In fact it seems he paid the shortfall of the stolen money into the Pru account that week from his own money. So we can sort out straight away that they were not in any financial difficulty that may persuade a man dealing daily with cash to syphon some off somewhere – not a penny unaccounted for.
We must not grasping at straws when in actual fact it is shown quite clearly that there are none there. They were not there in 1931 so they are not there now even with the benefit of actions we are aware of afterwards that the court could not know of course.
Are those answers the ones from the murderer? His diaries suggest “£ s d” worries. Thus whatever his financial situation was, it shows that however you personally interpret his wealth (which is in modern money, not even middle class, hence they’re living in a favela where there are numerous robberies and suicides down that street because it’s trash, and Elsie afraid to walk down an alley by herself), for him it was a worry, and a minor argument with his wife over buying newspapers right?
3005 suggests he was not thieving from the Pru. That is not related to his murder of his wife. I have already suggested this as a possible reason for stashing the notes upstairs in the vase, the knowledge that he would need to pay in the money himself. Could also be he was faking sick so he could collect less and have less to pay in. You can speculate on this.
The doctors and nurses saw them at their worst. So exactly, it is relevant that at the time of the killing they are supposedly both going through bouts of sickness and at their worst. These sicknesses put them at their worst and thus cause tension. I am merely building the narrative behind the murder that William carried out. You could use any singular one, or combine the costings with the tensions spotted between the couple during illness which they both had at the time she was killed.
Most people didn’t see them at their worst is correct.
I would also add. Any defects on this rented property would be down to the landlord and we do not know if W had reported these or not, he may well have.
The charwoman in their once a week procurement was of their choice and the only week she missed was because of the death of her husband. If they couldn’t afford her they would not have her. We have to stop imagining these tensions. In his writings W says that the free time his job allows for his other interests is good so we also have to stop imaging he wants to be management material etc.
We also have to imagine according to Rothwell (but not half a dozen clients that day) that this teary Wallace, so dismayed at what he was about to do, actually went home and say down for some tea and scones instead of sitting up in his room crying just minutes before he would slay her.
Taking your very lame points one by one:
He is not only not the murderer but at no point does he ever say he is, in fact his life story, later ghost serialised in the John Bull mentions another person, contrary to your suggestion so like the police did, embellishing and adding lies at the committal proceedings so please stop this nonsense.
His diaries don’t suggest any such thing as being hard up, just that like everyone else he could probably do with a few more shillings and neither do the prosecution or police even think so. It appears he didn’t even know how much he had in the bank, he had to be told and he agreed saying he’ll accept that. He also shared his lecture fees with Julia.
He cannot be held responsible for there being a burglar in the area, possibly the rowdy lot you have news cuttings of on this site. If you are going to pull up the odd mention of newspapers, I could mention his fear when she was not home, well documented by at least 3 other people too. How about him encouraging Julia to accompany him to the park to see the frost upon the flowers. How about his talk that Julia would have hated all this 9on the murder night, everyone in the house traipsing around) How about his post trial speak of Julia would have loved the new home etc. I suggested he’s never thieved from the Pru because a hard up person in charge of cash may not have the will power to resist the temptation – ala Parry – funnily enough whose hands were always in somebody elses cash till whether it be the Pru’s the place he was sacked from afterwards, the phone boxes etc and it was reported he was asking colleagues and friends for loans of money around the time of the murder. Mr Hard up – always living beyond his means unlike the Wallace’s who had 20k + in the bank and cash in the house.
Why would he have the knowledge that he would have to pay the stolen money back himself, that’s just ludicrous, in fact he was shown to be on works time whilst out looking for more business which is what was put forward by Hector Munro and why the Pru even paid for his legal fees.
So one minute we have Mike suggesting the murder might have been some sort of Mercy killing because W loved her so much he was saving her from a life of poverty after his death (which was still 2 years away) and now it was because there was tension with them being ill, like nobody is ever ill and yet don’t kill each other because of it – laughable. They’d been ill for years and he never killed her in 1928 🙂
Garbage. What do you mean ghost serialized? Lol jesus christ just leave already. Just leave, you have your Facebook where 70 IQ cat ladies can discuss your ideas. You are literally as delusional as the people who think OJ is innocent. That’s you. Pretending the OJ verdict is an outrage, the OJ jury is you bro. That’s you. You are they, they are you.
Every death row inmate maintains their innocence. There are “marks” just like you who go visit these guilty murderers like Kevin Cooper and champion their innocence. Why? Well duh he said he didn’t do it, and said he in fact really loved the family he slayed, so that proves it yeah… You are that “mark”, the type to proclaim “those strippers at the club really liked me!” after getting all of your benefits money rinsed for pathetic lap dances. I mean after all they were soooo interested in your dioramas. Couldn’t get enough of them… In fact as it turns out, they said your dioramas made them feel rather aroused, they said they love a man who creates miniatures…
20K is not even close to middle class. They are impoverished and in a slum with a filthy old lady who pretends to be from money, and a life failure who was doing the job of a young adult with no promotions in years, pretending he was going to make some important scientific discovery in his home lab. They are both pretenders. Gordon’s family were probably dramatically richer based on a number of factors. Gordon owns a car for one example, Wallace has to take public transport like a bitch. There are a lot of Gordons. Right now in fact check the news, lots of Menendez brothers news in circulation. They were rich, and still committed various thefts just like Gordon. Lots of Gordons not only in terms of well off people who commit crimes anyway, but in terms of alternate suspects. All cases have Gordons. Gordon was a strong alternative suspect, you have the fake alibi (I provide examples of other instances of this happening in true crime cases on my main page), and some of the knowledge required to have done this. Yes a very good suspect. Turns out he didn’t have anything to do with it.
This case is boring, meandering, and obvious once you delete the shit books from existence. None of the authors to write on this case have any talent at all. They are basically grifters. One book calls Gordon Reginald. Antony changed his theory for money because he is a scam artist LARPer. He originally was going with Gannon’s conspiracy theory. These are all grifters, LARPers, and charlatans, much like the SHIT books written about Betsy Aardsma by the two autistic hacks I can’t recall the names of.
“We have had a note from the Bank this morning that it was £152. I accept that.”
Wallace’s bank account:
£152
“Then I think you found an insurance policy in the name “Julia Wallace”? Yes, for
£20, and I asked him if there was any other insurance policy on her life: he said “No, that is
the only one”.”
“MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: In the front bedroom? Yes, in the front bedroom: the
jewellery in the middle bedroom. £90, I have a note, in the Savings Bank, not £95”
“Mr Hard up – always living beyond his means unlike the Wallace’s who had 20k + in the bank and cash in the house.”
Another great piece of input from the Liverpool “historian”. As much a historian as Rod is a “Blundellsands businessman” (what business? He has literally never worked and lives with his mom despite being over 60). Are you not ashamed of yourself doing this or is this just the average level of Liverpudlian competence? According to yourself the cops were all a disgrace, obviously MacFall is a disgrace, the Beatles are a disgrace, is this just the norm?
IMO there’s so much more to this, since she was hiding money in her skirt and kept her own savings in a separate room etc, pretended she is from upper class wealthy stock with a veterinarian dad etc. OWNED A BIG HOUSE at one point, where did that go (use your “historian” skills to get that info if possible) and was a landlady.
My guess is that he thinks she has a lot more hidden away somewhere. That’s just my guess and you can suck it up big boy… Gordon could probably buy Julia from Wallace, these are like “on benefits” tier people with no assets, renting, outgoing costings on medical shit and maids… Gordon has a sikk car and fancy suits, in lovely Stoneycroft, while Wallace and Julia rot in the favela (Anfield). His car alone is probably worth more than their entire life savings LOL. Look up the average cost of a car in 1931 – according to the retard garage attendant, it was a “Swift” so you can search that, and at 21 (or whatever he was), his car alone is worth more than both of these jokers combined.
Firstly if you read back I said OJ is as guilty as sin but why do you keep bringing him and others into it. The John Bull is basically taking Wallace’s own memoirs and adding a bit of flavour. At no point does it infer or admit guilt and in fact the opposite, even says I know who the killer was and then goes on to all but name Parry – everyone not blind can see this.
Also stop trying to re-write history. Neither the prosecution or the Police have any motive, not money, not anything period, finito, end of!!! Parry’s dad may be richer but certainly not your poncy boy who was always on the rob just like those burglars, only he burgled from phone boxes and employers and clearly lived beyond his means, evil he was called from his early days and undoubtedly an assaulter. Do you have proof he owned the car or only had use of it. Why was he robbing other cars then? Maybe, the owner, Daddy was using it those days? It only turns out he doesn’t have anything to do with it in your mind, where’s your proof?
You’ve mentioned that small change in her skirt now about 4 times, you are obsessed with it, It’s nothing. Wallace gave her money from his lectures which he doesn’t have to.
So based on all the above fact vs your lies and embellishments I rest my case with dust settling on it LOL.
As for me being a published author running a fb site with over 7k active members (and it’s a closed group) with also an exhibit in Liverpool Museum, none of it has anything to do with my thoughts on the Wallace case. You have even less to pontificate about and have to make things up to back your case.
As for Liverpool and The Beatles. I love the fact my favourite group is renowned as the best in the world with countless records to their name and I even liked them as a child before I knew where they were from. As multimillionaires with talent by the bucketful they don’t need me to protect or wax lyrical about them. I’m living in a city with currently the best Football team in Europe and the place is thronging with tourists from the UK and abroad every weekend – what’s not to like?
Meanwhile I can picture you being into some loser grunge band as you sit alone in your room.
You’ve already miffed people off from visiting your site so do yourself a favour and stick to the facts about the case and not some fanciful imagining.
I obviously don’t need your “contributions”, your contributions are 99.9999% misinformation without the “IMO” or “could suggest” preamble to help people understand it’s a guess/supposition, just flat out asserting things like “yeah this was ghostwritten” lmao, which is bullshit so yeah, misleading and useless. You are literally just a weatherman lol. That should be your role, just go find some weather reports from Google, “contribute” those… Obviously you only comment because you enjoy it or are addicted, it’s not like a magnanimous act lol. The site exists as a resource not a chit chat place… I had comments only to receive possible leads. Michael contributed one regarding the chess notice. Don’t post and watch me not care, the site is not created for this purpose.
I’m sorry to say that “in2013dollars” (Indian SEO Adsense scam site?) is not more credible than the Bank of England. 21K by the way, is also impoverished and not close to middle class, but it’s actually only 15.something. They should have a LOT LOT LOT more from Julia’s house and all sorts, the fact the cash has dwindled down to that is telling. You should indeed be embarrassed tbh.
The Beatles, I mean just lol, I grant it is better subject matter than some modern “yo, yo, ye boi I shot that fool while snorting coke in the Chevy”, granted it at least inspires joy. It is total shit though. Beatles beside Genesis is like a spergy retard shaking maracas beside Beethoven. They’re a joke. If you go to the Beatles tourist places it’s just a sea of American accents, like people fetishizing Britishness basically. Compare to the era just preceding, it’s all cool normal music then 20 years of creepiness, then back to normal. The whole of the 60s/70s is just fucked up with hallucinogenics and weird looking Rod Laver tennis players in creepy shorts with tiny wooden rackets, and Jimmy Savile. Very weird vibes. A creepy time in history… I really do suspect it was all the LSD. It’s not a coincidence IMO that it just so happens that the entire world was creepy and weird at the same time hippies were a thing, i.e. everyone was high on hallucinogenic compounds and as a result the entire world was like a hallucinogenic trip for the period.
You’re just guessing shit about Gordon here I think. Most of those ideas are from hacks like Goodman… Gordon WAS thieving cars, conning people, and raping a woman (let’s be honest he did that) like the Menendez brothers were doing too despite their wealth. I thought his dad said Parry was fixing “his” (i.e. Parry’s) car on whatever night. I thought retard-garagehand Parkes said Parry owned a Swift. Daddy Parry is happy to pay off his Son’s scams of the Pru. Daddy Parry was willing to pay for a boat abroad according to tabloid city, to get his son away from a possible murder charge. They’re well off and the Wallaces are basically on benefits street. On benefits street like “businessman” Rod (in the business of scamming dole money from the gov while watching The Onedin Line). I just know tbat spaz watches Onedin Line, because of his “special interest” in Merseyside and boats. Probably with Ben and Jerry’s from mommy. Spergs are so predictable, jesus.
Parry was handled as a suspect. He did all these things, stole, thieved, raped (opportunistically by the way, no weird plans in any other crime, he just steals brazenly and then kicks and screams being dragged away by cops). His parents did all those things to help him and he did all those crimimal acts, and pretended he was with his girlfriend on Monday. All of that he did, and he didn’t do this particular crime. As mentioned there are Gordon characters in every investigation (which makes sense duh, because of course the shady criminals always seem shady and warrant investigation). Didn’t retard Parkes or one of the Atkinsons in the tabloid show say Gordon just straight up opened their cupboards and stole stuff. None of them appear to have received a mysterious call. He just walked in and stole.
I think Gordon has a better job than Wallace. Much more handsome, better job, hotter girlfriend, cool car, lives in a nicer area, wears nicer clothes, while Anfield is slummy (and Clubmoor, their first locale and where Lily lived, is like actual Brazilian favela tier). At 21 he has achieved more in life than pathetic Wallace. And later he’s a war hero fighting against the Nazis (the same Nazis Rod believes didn’t commit genocides and seemingly idolizes by his favorite books list) while cuckold wimpy sucka beta male Wallace stayed home during WW1. Imagine being a public transport wanker while Gordon drives by in his Benz. Like this:
Yeah I think there’s a financial motive. I suggest a few actually. Quite a few possibilities and according to you the cops are incompetent and corrupt so who cares what they argued? IMO it’s financial combined with growing tensions arising from arguments during bouts of illness (significant because their illnesses were getting worse and Wallace soon died), as witnessed by nurses etc, and also IMO he suspected she had a lot more money somewhere because of her pretending to be rich. That’s what I think. The sheer fact he married a woman near 20 years his elder, who just so happened to have money and LARP about being a baroness from wealth, whose family never attended their wedding, I use as support for this (marrying much richer old people is often sus as to your motive). Visually it would be difficult to buy a 40 year old woman telling you she’s in her 20s or whatever, like come on man as if. It is clearly simpler than involving half of Liverpool in a coverup to help Gordon and frame an innocent man (see how Gordon was charged for later crimes, where is his special protection at then when he was stealing cars)?
The Beatles are rubbish, Liverpool is a slum full of benefit scroungers, some contributors to this forum are retards…….I could continue ad nauseam but I don’t need to. Whether this outpouring of bile is genuine, or a pose to get reaction is academic. In either case it indicates deeply held anger which is looking for a target. As such it should be expressed elsewhere.
As Ged says, this forum is an asset but it has few contributors. New ones are unlikely to contribute if they are to become subject to personal insults just because their view of the case is disagreed with.
You can express yourself elsewhere also. This isn’t a “forum” it’s something akin to an encyclopedia. The only desired contributions are factual in nature. I.e. You have a fact or observation, I add it to the encyclopedia.
Yes the Beatles are shit I’m sorry but that’s a subjective opinion and I absolutely 100% truly believe they are one of the worst bands of all time. Not trolling. I utterly despise them, truly, it has the same vibes as the other 60s and 70s hippy stuff, just really weird and trippy. Literally like acid trip weird feel. Any British hippy stuff I loathe and I’m entitled to that. The positive messaging COOL but the music, I’d love to incinerate.
Here is what has been filled in to me about Liverpool, allegedly:
1. Incompetent cops who frame innocent people.
2. Gangs of criminal youths willing to murder old ladies.
3. Little girls afraid to walk down alleys alone (Elsie) and need protection.
4. Beattie telling Wallace it’s DANGEROUS to be out at night in the Menlove area (a richer area than Anfield which I lovingly called a SLUM full of streets with numerous robberies and suicides – I think the Clubmoor favela claim is from Goodman who is useless in every way so possibly incorrect about that).
5. Large swathes of people willing to aid and abett someone who murdered an old lady for trivial reasons.
This paints a good picture of Liverpool would you say? Is Liverpool so bad that this is actually a positive spin on it? Btw I said benefits street, since they tried to film the series there but the residents said no. It is among the top 10 highest unemployment rate cities in the country. Times have changed but it is relevant for a case with financial motive (if Gordon did it, it’s meant to be a robbery), and I say it as in contemporary, as in 1931. Not 21st century even though it is currently deprived still. If you’re too enamoured with Liverpool to accurately assess things like this where there’s proposed financial motive, that’s not useful.
I feel like we should sing YMCA. You know… Young man, there’s a place you can goooo, I said young man, when you’re short on your dough, you can stay there, and I’m sure you will find many ways! To! Have! A! Good time! And that place you can go is Ged’s Facebook group. They have pub meet ups once in a while. You’ll have a good time…
The documentary about the murder of Dr Brenda Page by her ex-husband Dr Christopher Harrison 45 years ago in Scotland was interesting. The victim was beaten to death with a chisel-like weapon causing about 30 separate wounds, many of them on the head. The murder scene was a bloodbath but not a drop of blood was found on Harrison’s person.
A forensic pathologist was questioned on this:
Q: is it possible that the assailant would have no trace of blood on him/her after such an attack?
A: Yes It is quite possible. In fact we demonstrate this in our training courses. Of course, the more blows that are struck, the greater the chance of some blood ending up on the assailant.
To repeat, Dr Page suffered over 30 separate woulds – but no blood was found on the killer.
In the Wallace case this was also the final (revised) opinion of pathologists Dr Pierce and Professor McFall.
Hi Mike. For clarity. Domestic abuse ensued throughout their marriage and she had a restraining order on him. I’m not familiar with this documentary per se and will look into it but how long was it before he was questioned and how do they know he had no blood on him as I assume he’d made his getaway by then? Wallace as we know had to be out the house and into the public on a tram pretty quickly, even confident enough to approach tram staff and an officer. Personally, McFall was so inept in his practices that night and flip flopped so much afterwards that I wouldn’t believe a thing he said then or since.
Hi Ged,
It was some time before he was questioned as you suggest. The point of my post was the opinion of the forensic pathologist at the trial in 2003: that not only was it possible for there to be no blood on one’s person but that this was being demonstrated as part of today’s training course for pathologists.
I agree about McFall – he changed his opinion so often.
Check out the documentary – its a good one.
Mike
I will check that out thanks Mike. Even in the 1981 Radio City broadcast ‘Experts’ were at odds as to would he have had blood on him or not. With the ordinary layman having no knowledge of how blood would squirt not only from the victim but also splash and spatter around from wielding a weapon up and down quite a number of times, it would have to be a whole lot of pure luck and not anything done purposely by the perpetrator that would see him clean of just one spot of blood.
Incidentally I might refer you to the case below that I watched on sky crime last night. It involved the killing of a girl by a lad she knew, he’d even got into a taxi with her with other friends and looked directly at the cctv in the communal area of her apartment block before raping and killing her so lord knows how he ever thought he’d get away with it. He stabbed her in the back 9 times and part of the evidence against him was other cctv footage of him walking along the street looking at his bloodied hand. The knife used was probably about the same length of the chisel used in the Dr Brenda Page case you mention and yet we know for sure blood was present in the Megan Newton case I mention so I honestly can’t give much credence to anyone saying for sure there would be no blood on the perpetrator. It’s like OJ Simpson had ‘Experts’ backing him and the victim had ‘Experts’ backing her. One lot is always wrong of course.
I had a couple of questions about the case that I wanted to ask without seeming foolish but having read through all of the posts since they began appearing in January of this year, it seems like the comments section has dissolved into a personal fight between two people. What in the world The Beatles have to do with a nearly 100-year-old murder case I have no idea. What Genesis has to do with a nearly 100-year-old murder case I also have no idea. But here they both are, mentioned in what I thought was a comment section about a nearly 100-year-old murder case. With all due respect, and thank you all very much for reading, could someone please tell me of a site where I can ask a few questions about the case without upsetting anyone? I’m new to the case and have only read the Goodman book. Are there other ones out there and could someone please direct me to them? Thank you.
For chit chats and social outings etc, Ged has a Facebook group, the link he will probably be able to send you. The information provided on it is of course very inaccurate and poor quality, but you can cross-reference their answers to official case files archived here.
Pretty much if what someone says about a particular fact, e.g. some scientific testing or whatever else, is not on this site, it didn’t happen.
As long as you check everything they say, as I have been doing for Ged who posts an incorrect statement of fact in almost every single post he has ever made in decades of discussion (check case files against his posts), then you won’t be misled.
You are not allowed to ask questions here; all this needed to get to the bottom of anything ever related to this case is already provided, including the recently added “Armchair Detectives” section which explains a lot about what has been written, theorized, and posted on this case by autists.
Is is all there for you; whether you accept it or not, the facts won’t change.
You should probably give every Wallace book you own the Mackintosh treatment and set them all alight. The Wallace books, like the one written by Goodman, are fictional tales woven from rumours and, possibly, outright makebelieve invented by the author to sell their tale. Every book contains misinformation and unvetted rumours about X figure. Mark Russell’s book if I recall is more factually accurate, and I’m not talking about his conclusions at all, just that I recall less “50 years later Mrs. Bucket revealed Parry came to her and told her he just whacked Julia! Her best friend Gloria backs her up. Case closed!” type fairytales.
More than likely I have accidentally posted misinformation also. Usually because I read it in a book like Gannon’s, or Goodman’s and I accepted it in my mind as a known fact.
That is why the case files are important. It is critical to cross-check every claim by every person including the crappy authors who profiteered off this dead woman. If it isn’t in a case file it probably didn’t happen, or at best cannot possibly be known to have happened.
Watching another one on Sky Crime. Again the perp caught within minutes after a stabbing and guess what, blood all over him.
Funny isn’t it how the ones that don’t get caught right away or on cctv like the Megan Newton case above, experts say they wouldn’t have had blood on them but in those cases where not caught right away and they have time to escape, wash and change, invariably any trainers or clothes found binned, hidden, washed or whatever afterwards are always the giveaway with the victims blood on them.
Hi Information Please,
Your post echoes my sentiments. It is disappointing when a civilised discussion between holders of different opinions on the case descends into personal abuse and scattergun insults regarding place of residence, musical preferences and mental condition (autism etc.). It is the price we pay for having a free anonymous forum where all opinions can be expressed.
This should not discourage you from posting your questions here. I will not be alone when I do my best to provide answers.
As regards a book recommendation.: most books are slanted towards a preferred suspect, usually Gordon Parry or Wallace himself. The most recent book is by Mark Russell (“Checkmate: The Wallace murder mystery”) which I recommend as being a detailed and balanced treatment of the case although Mark does name his preferred suspect at the end.
Again, don’t hesitate to pose questions. This site has few enough regular posters as it is. New ones are welcome.
Mike
Thank you. Reading ahead to the comments I somehow became involved in; I assure everyone that I’m a real person with a few questions. That Levin guy, Mr. “No questions allowed” should shield his eyes from this point forward because I’m going to ask a question, anyway. I’ve viewed the autopsy photos in the books and on this site and I was wondering, was it common in those days to shave the victim’s head to show the wounds? That’s what it looks like, at least. I did get the Checkmate book and am looking forward to it so thanks a lot for the suggestion.
Mark R does come to the right conclusion although probably by luck (he used to post about the case for decades and couldn’t make his mind up, offering very little in the way of insight) but it is probably one of the worst books ever written on the case.
He just states his opinion as fact “It wasn’t him” “But it’s not them, it’s Wallace” without explaining why.
All that is needed to solve this “mystery” is contained on this webpage; everything else is a joke.
I’m not sure if the posters called ‘Information Please’ and ‘Genuinely Interested’ are actually genuine or just more ‘made up characters’ so that the usual suspects can have another dig because I don’t rise to their bait. I’ve never mentioned my musical preference so the site owner and or his friend must have done some facebook digging.
If they are genuine posters, please search facebook for a site called ‘The Murder of Julia Wallace’. It has some genuinely interested and knowledgeable posters on it who have actually driven the routes concerned and re-traced Wallace’s footsteps up at Allerton that do prove the timings to be correct and not out of the ordinary. A few of them have also likewise scoured the police and solicitor records of this case and read many if not all of the books, a few of them are also authors of books on the case.
The mention of burning all the books that have been written is of course a nonsense due to their conclusions not always following the agenda provided here. It is also incorrect that if it is not mentioned here then it didn’t happen. There are things which happened which were so usual for the time, it is not even thought of they’d need recording – one such thing that the poster Mike brought to light was the fact the origins of the call box was never a doubt and wasn’t traced by some Sherlock Holmes detective work by Supt Moore’s team, it was in fact a usual and every day occurrence that the exchange would know due to a light on the switchboard. Just as the site owners here would have us believe that the police had the plumbing taken out which made the house inhabitable for Wallace to stay in and yet that wasn’t done for the reasons of testing for blood, so why? What we also must take into account is the fact the police files were heavily trimmed down after Chief Kenneth Oxford had refused access of them to a Radio City investigation in January 1981. You must draw your own conclusions as to why. He was also the leader of the Merseyside Police whose racial prejudices led to the Toxteth Riots later that same year though maybe not as bad as one of his corrupt as one of his predecessors Herbert Balmer who saw innocent men hung.
Another site which I own is https://inacityliving.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-wallace-murder-case.html which lays out the case and players with no agenda, leaving the reader to make up their own minds. Let’s say it’s a blend of information gleaned from around half a dozen previously published books. There is nothing i’ve posted there or in fact here which is incorrect or misleads anyone. I won’t reciprocate the bad falling towards fellow sites. I have always said and still maintain this site to be a fantastic asset to the case. As for armchair detective, that applies to us all including the owners of this site unless of course I don’t know their true profession 😉
Yeah they’re just us bro. Another case solved. Because it would be too difficult to enter the group by just making a new Facebook account called like, Fred Johnson, and joining the group. No for sure we need an “epic ruse” to be allowed into the group, just like Qualtrough, because people definitely need clever “ruses” with fake names in advance to gain access to places, that’s very realistic.
Oh wait, it’s not.
Half the books which should be burned follow the “agenda”, so what now?
Go back to your group when you want to post about made up things that literally never happened. In fact you all just need to go there and stay there in your containment box away from real historical archives lol… Anyone who entertains these notions is like the type of naive individual to go to a psychic reading and sit there like “omg wow how did he know I have an uncle called Dave?”… Uh guys Gordon’s entire wardrobe was tested down to the seams and his fake alibi was actually re checked. The file was “pruned” so we can just make things up now didn’t you hear? So yeah that 100% happened.
The secret pruned testing was also definitely done (hint: it wouldn’t work to reveal blood properly in a drain where there’d been running water). Yeah so basically Gordon’s clothing was all tested, his alibi re checked where he gave a real one they could verify. Yeah definitely happened. It’s not in any file ever but I guess uh, I guess some random called into the radio 50 years later (one of Gordon’s relatives, remember?) and said it did so woooo! See guys I’m a real epic cool genius investigator who comes in to correct the “Keystone cops” just like Hercule Poirot, not just a Simple Simon old fogey desperate for social interaction!
Thanks for the tip on your site. I’m getting ready to review it now. I have a question, though: Regardless of “whodunnit”, what motive did Wallace even have? Finding out that his wife was a lot older than she claimed to be? He had to have figured that out long before she died. She had a couple bucks hemmed up in her underwear? It’s a stretch, but isn’t that the equivalent of what rural Americans called “butter and egg money” when I was a kid? Wives hid money in cookie jars all the time from their husbands back in the day. From what I’ve read so far, it seems like the local cops bungled it like they seemed to do with every crime they encountered back then. There seemed to have been a lot of racism and jumping to conclusions back then. Guys who couldn’t pound a beat got promoted to high positions through backroom deals and lack of manpower. Sorry for going on so long but I really enjoy reading the back on forth on here. Thanks.
Police racism brought up somehow in a case featuring an all white cast, and literally zero minorities of any kind. Then again maybe they thought he was Indian, he does kind of resemble Ghandi…
Back to the facts then: Wallace supposedly waited for Alan Close to call before he could commit the murder yet never once said to the police, hang on, the milk boy only called at 6.40 and Julia put the milk in the fridge then saw me to the back yard gate so how could it be me. It was in fact left to Alan Close off his own bat to tell the other kids who then threw the spanner in the works of the police who made Close change his timings. Hmmm, I wonder why they had to do that, make Wallace’s leaving time of the house different then practically jump onto moving trams at the wrong stops. Funny isn’t it.
All facts – as recorded at the trial. Don’t be lying saying it’s misinformation because it’s not. ps. new fb accounts are not let on any sites I run.
In a trial run some cops doing the tests ran to catch a tram at a request stop (duh, they turned up as a tram was about to leave a request stop and ran to catch it). Their time was slower than a number of other cops who didn’t run, and slower than the defence.
Distance is known, walking speed calculated. Catching the tram from the times given, is not difficult. It can be mathematically proven, AND is also contained in the evidence in the fact that many tests including defence team Maddock’s are faster. At walking speed. Not running. Obviously you don’t have the mental capacity to understand what this means (it means your input is meaningless and misleading, AGAIN), but fortunately 99% of people do.
Back to the facts: It’s time for you to leave. Stop posting. Cya.
Nobody knows Wallace’s walking pace, a man so riddled with illness he is often bedridden and incapacitated and was so just that week, a man so ill he actually dies of this illness just two years later so he’s not blagging is he. Furthermore please explain the literally 8 minutes Wallace had to commit the murder and not wash (as no blood was found anywhere) and dispose of the murder weapon. This murder was so obviously committed by somebody who had time to do all this at pretty much his leisure.
Since you keep bringing up other cases that i’ve found under scrutiny don’t even align with your theories, what i’ve found in countless cases i’ve seen is that blood would have most definitely been present on the perp for a murder of this ‘frenzy’ (A word inserted by McFall after first saying it was only 4 blows at the autopsy) in fact we can quite clearly see it high up on the wall. Only a person leaving the scene covered in blood, with a weapon to dispose of could have committed this. It’s logical and the most sensible conclusion.
Whilst I agree for the most part with your new page on armchair detectives, you cannot dismiss the police cases of corruption that are known to have happened in the past like you are rewriting history. Certainly not least when they were happening in the very force at the very time of the Wallace case.
We know he can walk, he has told us what times he left from or arrived at his house and the destinations he departed from/got to at roughly what time. We know roughly the tram travel times. He’s not an invalid. Apparently he’s walking past numerous perfectly good request stops to get to the ones he used, something a cripple who can barely walk would be unlikely to do.
The night before the crime he told Caird that his kidney disease wasn’t affecting him at all, so much so that he didn’t bother taking his medication (else too miserly to buy it, which would add fuel to my suggested motive). Check Caird’s statement now, I believe you will find this true. I think it’s the Munro file.
If anything based on his height he should walk faster than average. Calculating for average pace is fair even though his height would in actuality mean a bigger stride length. Fairer than I need to be, even using slightly slower than normal walking paces in most instances. If someone just killed their wife I don’t expect them to be taking a leisurely stroll so yeah, this is being more fair than is really warranted, because you can be this fair and he STILL makes the times.
He actually had about 10 minutes after the milk boy. I could increase this based on the 6.37/6.38 times given. I could make it 12 to 13 minutes. Speedy Gonzalez Maddock’s time, if I recall, eeked out another minute on both nights, without running. Meaning while the cops’ best time showed 9 minutes, Maddock got 10 to spare. Maybe the fact the police trials were done in pairs somehow affected this, as Maddock who went alone seems to have had no issue beating them repeatedly without trying. Weird but true. Math alone in any case can show the sort of times we can expect.
But that length of time to commit the act is not necessary. We can track the killer’s progress through the house. If the blood stains upstairs are not “transfer”, he took money from the box then went upstairs and stuffed it in a vase in the bedroom, then went into the bathroom (presumably to rinse his hands, face, whatever) where a speck of blood was left on the toilet rim under the seat (a man, like he is, was probably the last person to use it if the seat was up for blood to get on it).
Then he left the house. The actual murder itself is documented step by step by William up until the point the criminal discovers there’s only £4 (in his “hypothetical” piece about what the murderer did). And then we can follow these actions. The allotted time is absolutely no problem at all. He spends a couple of minutes alone in the house doing nobody knows what in each room upon his return with the eyewitnesses waiting outside for him to discover the body. Again, absolutely no problem with the time allowed at all. Trivial.
In the tangential cases referenced, on my pages, I listed the exact ways in which they share similarities. That is in the Defence 101 post, next to the other one you read… You sent me a Google link, lol, and most of the entries on that page are themselves BS. The Innocence Project is literally in the search results and all of them mention racism (Wallace wasn’t black so no “Get Out of Jail Free” race card here). The Innocence Project being the ones who got convicted murderer Sheldon Johnson out of prison based on the same thing you linked, who then went and murdered and dismembered another person after his “exoneration”. Maybe you’ll find definite murderer Adnan Syed there too among the alleged victims of corruption, one of the other more recent convicted killers to be released. You know well of course as you have discussed, that OJ was found not guilty based on fake allegations of police corruption (Mark Fuhrman being a racist). It has surely happened a few times but far from the norm, and in the Wallace case it is a lot more fantastical, where it is not just one bad egg like Fuhrman, but essentially the entirety of Merseyside conspiring to “get Wallace” and “protect Gordon”. Who based on the idle gossip and rumour mill and radio show made after his death, was not even very well liked at all. Definitely doesn’t have the “everyone loves OJ” national treasure aura.
Suggesting that all of these high ranking police officials and officers and witnesses are knowingly conspiring and coordinating with each other to protect Gordon and hang an innocent bereaved husband, is venturing extremely far off the reservation. Especially since he was convicted and jailed for numerous other crimes. He’s not Teflon Don John Gotti, the dude was jailed on numerous occasions.
Regarding blood, of course we can rotate the room 180 degrees and see a total of zero specks of blood on that side of the room. Not a single speck on the couch or curtains are reported for instance. How could the couch and drapes be in close proximity to this supposed blood shower and not get any blood upon them? Some of that side of the room would be shielded by the killer’s jacket (and body) presumably, but beside him, above him, no splash in that direction? That is how it works. The couch didn’t even have a nifty blood shield. A person would have to stand the opposite side to what is proposed to get soaked like the walls (it would not be as easy from that side to do the wacking, a bit more cramped). The blood on the ceiling might potentially be disinformation by the way. Please search official sources for this. The colourizers had to just guess what dots were blood if you’re going by the colour photos.
Great new section under “critical thinking” called “information credibility” which gives a good explanation of the fabric of the personality of many of the authors on this case. Discerning readers will be able to understand why these resources aren’t as valuable as the type of hard evidence contained on this site.
I like the additional pages and it probably goes for 90% of all cases – try telling that to the Birmingham 6 though. It doesn’t take the whole of Liverpool or the whole of the police force to be bent, just the lead detective. ‘Sir, we have the milk boy Alan Close saying he saw the victim alive at about a quarter to seven’ ‘He must be mistaken’ !!!
There are a few other pieces of misinformation or at least misinterpretations I found.
Firstly, opinions of professional law agents can be no more accurate in some aspects of those otherwise, let’s take Inspector Gonçalo Amaral in the Madeleine McCann case who was removed from it partly due to his bizarre findings and then publishing them as fact. You will also give ratings on the lack of criminal or law qualifications on most authors and yet Edgar Lustgarten who did possess those qualifications doesn’t come out any better.
If James Murphy did distort any facts, yet comes to the conclusion he does, that Wallace is the killer, why does he have to resort to distorting any facts, largely like I think the police did too – so why?
Greenlees sighting may concur with one of the men Lily Hall saw (though different styles of hats are described) but the magic bullet whom was Wallace was not seen by him. There is still no logical explanation for a guilty Wallace standing around talking to an accomplice just like there is no logical explanation as to why Wallace wouldn’t just say yes, a man asked me for directions.
There were not numerous witnesses for Parry on the murder night, there were allegedly four, so I can count them on one hand. I say allegedly because statements for two of those persons don’t even exist and the statements that do are very sparse, almost word for word and look contrived. Statements for where he was after half 8 don’t exist either but they largely don’t matter, he may well have been at those places.
I’m sorry but the biggest piece of misinformation is about Parkes. He did not claim 50 years after the murder etc, He claimed this at the very time and the Atkinson’s (who don’t come out of this smelling of roses) back this up. He did not even come forward in 1981, he had to be discovered. The unbelievable waders story is not his first hand account so that can be dismissed.
It is mentioned that Parry did not escape the law on other more minor offences in Liverpool, so why would he escape this. Well, both offence types are chalk and cheese and yes he did by and large he did get away with other things. It was only down in Aldershot that the judge aghast at what he had got away with in Liverpool, and practically mentioned so, decided to jail him. Parry even tried to hide his earlier misdemeanours until he had to agree to them when confronted with them by JG and RWE.
I notice there is no mention of Ada Pritchard adding some weight to proceedings whether you like it or not.
As I say though, worthy additions to the site but not so sure most if any apply to this case. Parry isn’t a name that came out of the blue after Parkes utterings don’t forget, he was all but named way back.
Parkes and many others, like the waders people, had tales of Gordon to tell straight after the crime. Many people like to pretend they are somehow involved in big cases. Actually I think that’s why you get false confessors like John Mark Karr too… It’s the adult equivalent of “my dad works for Nintendo”.
There is no doubt he told half the town about the apparent confession he was the sole witness to (and we only get one side of the tale, since the other person, Gordon, is dead and can’t defend himself from the allegations) and stake outs of his garage. The Radio City team edited out testimony like that because it makes him sound like a fantasist. It also contradicts his claim of being dismissed… If they are staking out the garage, then obviously they took his claim very seriously and investigated it fully.
This claim is equally as existent as the others. If you believe it happened then the police followed his lead very rigorously and seriously, if you think it’s made up, his entire story, which he had to be hunted down and cornered into retelling, is cast into doubt. Which one do you prefer?
In the Wallace case it isn’t just the lead detective, it’s also supposedly bent witnesses providing him with fake alibis, and the other witnesses on the stand to testify. By the way if they did give him a fake alibi, why not just say Gordon did it all? No need at all for the convoluted, fantastical tale of Gordon and multiple accomplices all coordinating together in an unnecessarily complex plot. There are bank jobs less convoluted than this. If his alibi for the murder is fake just say Gordon did it.
The milk boy WAS mistaken in what he told friends. When in a far more serious environment where rigor was needed, he contradicted his own timing by placing himself in Red-something street at the same time as he was supposedly at the front door, a street he had visited after Wolverton Street. 6.45 is a nice round time. It is a time you spit out, generally, when giving an approximation (o’clocks being the vaguest, e.g. 5 o clock, 6 o clock; then the 15s like 5.15, 5.30, 5.45; then the 5s and 0s like 3.05, 3.10, 3.15, 3.20… you get the point).
We have discerned that Alan was there at some time around 6.40 give or take. So yes he WAS mistaken. You are putting words into the investigator’s mouth that they tried to dismiss and force him to change his story, I doubt they even said what you allege.
I don’t know enough about foreign cases like McCann. It seems from the outset looking in, that the idea a little girl was abducted in a foreign country while the parents left her there alone, is not surprising. We have all heard the warnings about foreign countries. I also don’t want to be xenophobic but I’m not entirely sure non-Western countries have investigators of the same calibre. The Amanda Knox case is also controversial. These people have an actual vested interest in proving the foreigner did it because otherwise it paints their country in a bad light. Would be bad for tourism etc.
Ada Pritchard’s story is of two non-descript men, of non-descript ages, running down a street where a tram stop is at the end and to the left by the phone box. To use this as a basis for crafting a conspiracy theory is kind of ridiculous. Explain how this sighting is more unusual than the guy in the area at the same time Wallace got back, asking for directions to a fake address, yards from where dead Julia lie; or perhaps the guy entering a cab and saying “you won’t kill me will you?!” who police appealed for in the papers to locate, should we create conspiracy theories involving them too?… You are not seeing the point. Lily Hall saw Wallace and a particular man in a hat… By itself, there is no corroboration that this sighting is real or that she has the day correct… The second sighting adds credibility to her sighting by verifying that a man of similar description was seen within minutes of her sighting on the same day. This means that it is less likely she invented the story as at least one part, the short stocky hat man, is now verified to have been seen.
My contention is that Wallace was seen being asked for directions by the man. Much like Greenlees was. Wallace didn’t mention the man because he himself is the murderer, and hence knows this other man is not the killer and has nothing to do with the crime so just kind of brushed it off and paid no attention to the oddity. I understand there are lots of things you think he “should” have done, like use this man somehow I would guess, just as figures like Scott Peterson “should” have done all sorts of things too but didn’t.
If every potential true crime writer were to be be disqualified because he/she lacked law enforcement or legal experience the shelves in the True Crime section of every bookshop would be almost empty. Integrity, common sense, and a command of the language are more important and it seems that some of the authors mentioned fall short on this rather than their background “qualifications.”
Isn’t it ironic that in real life the guilt or innocence of a suspect is decided by twelve random members of the public with no law enforcement of legal training.
The section should be empty, or marked as entertainment like those cancer warnings on cigarettes.
The jury system is a disgrace, I genuinely think juries should be comprised of impartial professionals. E.g. you should have a forensic expert from another county who doesn’t care about the case, perhaps a retired judge, that kind of person. People actually fit to decipher the evidence presented.
Parkes didn’t come forward because he was in hospital and knew nothing of the Radio City broadcast. However, somebody he had obviously told the story too heard it and tried to direct the team to Parkes for money. In the end, only investigative journalism got the team to Parkes for no cost. Not sure about the term stake out. It’s commonly known by Parkes and the Atkinsons that Parry would sometimes visit the garage and they were on alert about not letting him upstairs. They were obviously wary of him, maybe scared (fixed his car without payment for it and didn’t seem to pursue the payment) so just why would Parkes put himself in harms way of this tyrant with this story both in 1931 and thereafter including 1981 when at that point Parkes doesn’t even know that Parry is dead.
You are getting Ada Pritchard mixed up with Anne Parsons. It was Parsons who saw the two men running like hell down Hanwell street, the very street that you’d come to after leaving the back of Wolverton street and exiting the alley into Richmond Park. She wasn’t the only one either as two others are reported whose names escape me (a man and a women all separately)
Ada Pritchard (Cook) of course was the 16 year old who purposely eavesdropped on an alarming conversation between her parents and Parry’s parents which later resulted in her parents rowing about the outcome of that conversation, her mother evidently winning. Instead it seems Parry was sent to Aldershot to get him out of the way. There was no conscription in 1931 and he is the most unlikely of candidates to volunteer for a disciplined existence, proven as such when up to his old tricks he is imprisoned.
Regarding what you say here RMQ:
In the Wallace case it isn’t just the lead detective, it’s also supposedly bent witnesses providing him with fake alibis, and the other witnesses on the stand to testify. By the way if they did give him a fake alibi, why not just say Gordon did it all? No need at all for the convoluted, fantastical tale of Gordon and multiple accomplices all coordinating together in an unnecessarily complex plot. There are bank jobs less convoluted than this. If his alibi for the murder is fake just say Gordon did it.
Assuming the two witness alibi’s are false (one is his best mates aunt and the other his best mates brother – but where is his best mate during these 3 hours?) it is not a giant leap of faith that things like falsifying an alibi for a good friend, more so if he’s directly involved with the said relative would not be impossible. Who knows if Parry was not involved sexually with Olivia Brine too – something happened to make Parry tell JG and RWE that the whole saga broke up his engagement, led to his mother’s earlier death, distressed his father to the point of Parry being made to keep schtum. False alibis happen all the time of course even today.
But, let’s go with what you say and these sparse alibi’s are not fake then there is no other witnesses on the stand lying for Parry. We just have Moore hell bent on making a name for himself, his biggest test yet since his promotion after the police strike and the local press and natives baying for a conclusion. It is not too far fetched when we know of other cases such as The Cameo Murders and the A6 Murder to name but two.
I did. That is worse then, because Ada isn’t evidence of anything important at all lol. Literally it could have 100% happened word for word and doesn’t mean anything at all. It literally means nothing because the Parrys were terrified that their son was being investigated for murder… their son wasn’t with them at the time of the murder, he is a convicted criminal. They are scared for him.
The police pressure big case etc, is one of the desperate defence team tactics. Please check, it’s also levelled at the Boulder PD for example, when they rigorously investigated the murder of Jonbenet and have been accused of the same. I.e. small town, inexperienced police department, massive public pressure, big worldwide case. This is defence tactics 101 when attempting to introduce reasonable doubt about their clearly guilty client.
It does stretch believability the more individuals you start trying to introduce into the conspiracy. If Gordon has no alibi, it’s just Gordon, would be far more believable.
So you mean that despite us strangers defending Parry to the hilt as not the type of person who would commit a murder or have anything to do with one, his parents who reared him think it could be possible – Hmmmm….
There doesn’t have to be loads of people in on anything.
Picture this scenario No1. Parry does it alone – he only has to convince (possible lover/ good friend/mates aunt) Olivia Brine that he didn’t do it but has no alibi and the police would frame him so could she please provide an alibi. She says i’ll make it even better, i’ll say my nephew Harold was here too. Even Parry’s mate William may have convinced his aunt to provide the alibi for him/them.
Picture this scenario No2. Parry puts William Denison onto the robbery but Parry does actually go to the Brines that night. Birds of a feather flock together, Olivia is not going to drop Parry in it and thereby drop her nephew William in it too. Alibi sorted during the planning stage.
The only people that need to be in on this are 3 or 4 who might all be of the same ilk. There are lots of murders still committed where ‘others’ are in on it, you must have heard of joint enterprise where multiple people are convicted because they aided, abetted or were in the know despite there being only one person who stabbed, shot, beat or strangled the victim.
Yes, they are scared. You don’t know what’s gone on, and neither do they because they weren’t there or with him all day. Do you think this meets the bar of even being evidence at all (i.e. not even weak evidence like Anne, since there are WAAAAY more suspicious events in the immediate area during the window of the crime, but the bar of being evidence full stop)?
3 or 4 people being involved in this is much less likely yes. These things happen sometimes, as you can easily find with a Google search or the gang of children robbing houses at the time, but much rarer. And moreso, much rarer in terms of every single individual being able to keep the story straight, actually getting away with it, etc. But you propose that not only are these uninvolved family members (unless they too planned and took part in the crime) in on it and complicit, but also police investigator(s), who allegedly also purposefully aid and abett Gordon while purposefully framing and having innocent bereaved husband Wallace sentenced to death because reasons?
We are not even touching on the other extremely rare and bizarre reactions. Julia did not even discover she was being burgled (at most she has just heard a loud crash in the kitchen, a crash no neighbours heard despite being even closer to the source of the noise than Julia was) but was knocked down and had her brains smashed across the room. They can both just scarper with the cash. In fact, they can just take the entire box if someone has come in the back…
Remind me why you are not just saying Gordon did it all, completely alone by himself, if the Brine alibi is not accepted as genuine? This conspiracy is convoluted and ridiculous, involves too many people coordinating together and agreeing to be complicit in the crime, including law enforcement, and does not follow Occam’s Razor at all when used against the totality of evidence available (i.e. with ALL real documented evidence, what is the simplest answer?).
Hey, I just wanted to ask if it is okay if I use some of the information from this website to make a documentary about this case. Thanks in advance for your response.
Of course that would be fine. Let me know when it’s done as I will enjoy seeing it.
Also looking forward to seeing it, this site is a fantastic resource. Well done to RMQ.
Hey Just wanted to ask if it’s ok to use info and images from your website for my YouTube channel? Ta!
Yup that will be fine
Discussion of the weapon used to kill Mrs Wallace has concentrated on an iron bar, poker, or spanner. A secondary question is what happened to it?
Could one possibility be that a wooden club was used? Obviously one cannot be specific but something substantial like the leg of a table. This would give some distance between the killer and his victim, reducing risk of blood spatter on his clothing, but more importantly it facilitates disposal of the weapon.
It could have been, wrapped in newspaper to avoid blood dripping, dropped into the stove in the kitchen. Bu the time Wallace returned from MGE, it would be reduced to ashes.
Just a thought.
Wallace says it was a spanner that whacked Julia. It would provide a match for the markings found on her skull, whereas various other proposed items like bog standard iron bars would not leave the tramline wounds.
Assuming Wallace is innocent I can’t see that his opinion on what weapon was used is any more valid than mine. However if we include heavy Stillson wrenches under the umbrella term “spanner” he might be right. This of course implies a planned murder.
I agree that a straight smooth iron bar would not explain the tramlines. Wood originally in furniture of that era was often ornate with channeled-out grooves etc which might explain it but, like Wallace’s spanner, this is pure speculation.
I am intrigued by the fact that in his first statement WHE said there used to be a dog whip in the hallway with a wooden handle with measurements matching those of the supposed murder weapon. Why have a dog whip if you do not have a dog? Unless maybe to ward off savage dogs when he did his insurance rounds?
No further mention of this in any record?
If this was the weapon it could have been burned in the fire in the kitchen and brings WHW back to prime suspect
Tilly
Hi Tilly,
Wallace described the dog whip as having a wooden handle some 12 inches long and one inch in diameter. A cast iron bar of this size would be adequate for the job but a twelve inch length of wood only an inch thick might not have enough “heft.” That said, Wallace clearly thought it might have been a potential weapon although we have only his word that it ever existed. It was, he says, last seen over twelve months ago. As you imply, Tilly, what conceivable use would the Wallaces have for such a thing? A pity Mrs Draper, the cleaner, wasn’t questioned about it.
Another possibility is the use of a length of lead pipe, very common in plumbing installations in the 1930s. The temperature of burning coal is 700 to 1300 degrees C. Lead melts at 327 degrees C. Who would look for discoloured drops of molten lead among the ashes of the stove?
Lord Lucan killed nanny Sandra Rivett with a length of lead pipe used as a club. Nobody in the same house heard anything amiss.
Hi Mike. Blood spattered onto the walls and ceiling, apparently better seen in blown up photographs of the crime scene according to one of the panel on the 1981 Radio City anniversary broadcast who was in possession of one and better seen in a glossy magazine photo which came out later which I have, Therefore the type of weapon itself isn’t really a factor in keeping blood loss or spatter down. A man who did this was not afraid of getting blood on him and that can only be because he wasn’t planning on going out on trams and meeting people that evening.
I find the missing poker story an anomaly as a photo of the crime scene highlighted on here by RMQ clearly shows that on the brass fender/hearth of the fire. The bar (Which the cleaner, Sarah Draper says was always by the fire yet WHW says he has no knowledge of) well that’s very interesting because it would be strange him having no knowledge of it by why say that and drop himself in it, just say oh yes, it’s missing? Also this bar, it could not have been found by workmen years later renovating the property if the police had taken the fire out and we suspect that was to thoroughly search the area of the fire or why else take it out?
Why does Parkes make this story up of the bar being disposed of down a grid that he had no knowledge of being there, yet it is there this grid, in fact one outside each of the 2 drs that existed in Priory Road. Why make himself a target of Parry and his friend/accomplice? Why put himself in the firing line.
Tilly Mint. Nice to see a different contribution and take on it. However, if the dog whip was going to drop WHW in it, then why mention it at all?
Hi Ged,
Whereas the type of weapon used has little effect on the amount of blood spatter it does play a role in the amount of blood ending up on the assailant’s clothing. To give an extreme example: using a cosh type weapon would place the attacker close to the victim. Using a iron bar over 4 feet long places the attacker further away with less risk of blood ending up on him.
Re Parkes’ tale, it is a reasonable assumption that in Priory Road there will be grids, as in every urban environment. Parkes may have been a patient of one of the doctors in Priory Road. It is safe to assume that a grid will be found within a short distance of any house. And…why didn’t Parkes, having received such precise directions, go to Priory Road, verify that the weapon was in the grid, and call the police? It would vindicate his story and make him a hero.
By mentioning the dog whip Wallace is playing the role of the innocent husband saying anything which might help the police find his wife’s killer. I don’t think the dog whip particularly incriminates Wallace; it could have been grabbed by an intruder.
Hi Mike. Not sure how Parkes actually going to the grid (and there are 2 outside of Drs surgeries there) would verify it actually being down there as i’ve been and you can’t see. Also, a 4ft iron bar would have to be like a scaffolding pole, harder to dispose of and bring in/have lying around the house in wait for the moment without it being seen by someone including Julia, Amy or Edwin etc. The only thing in favour of a wooden club is it could be burnt but even then an india club type weapon had a bulky bulbous end and might not burnt through in the time required if at all, I have one and they are solid.
Hi Ged,
You found out that an iron bar dropped down the grid on Priory Road would be hard to see from the pavement. But Parkes didn’t know this and after hearing Parry’s story I would have thought natural curiosity would have led him to Priory Road to check it out. Even if he came back empty-handed, as it were, the fact he had gone there would add credence to his account of Parry’s visit.
I mentioned the 4 foot iron bar just as an extreme example of distancing the attacker from the victim, not as a serious possibility for the murder weapon.
I too wondered whether there would be enough time for the club to burn completely. Maybe not ashes but enough to hide it’s original identity?
I don’t want to know why you have an India club at home!
Further to my suggestion that the dog whip may have been the murder weapon, I have been researching what vintage dog whips looked like.
To my surprise some are club shaped with a narrow end of about 1” where the whip is attached and a broader end at the handle.
Some are loaded i.e weighted with lead.
Some are made of turned wood or have striations for decoration.
Obviously only WHW knew what it looked like if it even existed at all, but these added factors lend further credence to a whip being the weapon.
It is not recorded if the fire in the kitchen was cleaned out for analysis but as the police forensic investigation seems some what lacking, I doubt it was. Especially as the weapon has always been assumed to be a metal bar.
As for why WHW mentioned the whip in the first place, it is very clear that this crime was well thought out. By describing the whip to the police in his statement he knew he was in control as he knew they would never find it.
WHW showed classic signs of having a narcissistic personality- he was better than everyone else. I can explain my theory in another post should anyone wish to indulge me with their attention.
Hi Tilly,
I will certainly indulge you with my attention. I think a survey of Wallace’s personality is a neglected aspect of the case and would be of interest to many on here.
You raise several good points in favour of the dog whip being the weapon. Wallace mentioning it spontaneously was pure braggadocio just like the article he [ghost-] wrote about how he thought it had been done.
Hi Mike and Tilly Mint. Yes, I would certainly like to read of your WHW profiling.
Mike you mention Parkes Dr may well have been on Priory Road, Anfield. This is a distance of some 2 miles so whilst not impossible, i’ve found that there were 4 Drs just yards away from where he lived. These were at 15 Green Lane and 31-33 & 37-39 and 4 Derby Lane. Whilst working at Atkinsons Garage on Moscow Drive, he lived in Tynwald Hill just yards away and in 1981, fifty years later he was living in Guernsey Road just a few streets away so this non driver doesn’t seem to have strayed far from his immediate area. The 2 streets he lived in link Green Lane to Derby Lane.
I still think there is no need for WHW to volunteer possible murder weapons unless of course he is just genuinely trying to help the police solve this heinous crime on his beloved wife. Tilly suggests the crime is well thought out but if so WHW would surely have made better excuses about his attempts to get into the house which i’ve mentioned before as this would be a severe line of questioning that he knew would be forthcoming. Therefore not so well thought out at all, specially if he used a phone box near his house here he could have been seen by anyone. Then the alibi, no time stamp on he first tram (the reason being he knew where he as going at that stage, but if his time stamps were purely to form an alibi that he was out of his house by 10 to 7 then he would surely do something that would make him remembered on that tram, he only has to di this on the first and last tram in actual fact. Also, the timing of the murder. He was home from 6.05, he could have done it straight away and when Alan Close calls and gets no answer, WHW merely says he went to Menlove straight from work or left the house before Alan obviously called, why leave it all to a rushed 10-15 minute window?
I am unfamiliar with Liverpool’s geography so I take your point that it is unlikely that Parkes knew Priory Road or had been a patient of a doctor living there. Is Priory Road anywhere near the home of Lily Lloyd in Missouri Road? If Parry was given the iron bar after he left the Lloyds he would want to be rid of it asap.
Apologies for this long post –
My theory regarding WHW arises from the incredible similarities in the behaviour of someone I knew very well. We shall call this person Frank.
Frank worked abroad but had to return to the UK on health grounds.
He was unable to continue his career which he enjoyed and was well paid. He then had to take up alternative employment at a lower scale he had previously been used to.
He met a financially independent woman with a good income and close family ties.
He charmed this woman and separated her from her family, marrying her and going to live in a different city where she had no contacts.
Once he had separated her from her previous life and friends he started to act coercively controlling who she met, what she said and how she behaved in public and took over her finances.
After sometime she did not resist his behaviour towards her because he was always right and she was wrong. This led to indifference to each other within the home. She still
cooked and cleaned and looked after him and he would tell outsiders of the complete idyllic lives they had. On the few occasions they left the house together everyone thought them the perfect couple.
He indulged in his own interests and hobbies and criticised his wife for her inferior intellect. He denied her financial freedom although she was still working and prevented her from buying personal items as they were a waste of money.
The stress caused her to lose her job and her health to suffer. She finally decided to break away but could not leave as Frank became terminally ill. As his illness progressed he became less demanding but this did not stop him from physically attacking his wife
because he knew he was losing his power over her.
Sound a bit like anyone we know?
OK it is not a full psychological profile – I am not qualified to make such a claim.
But WHW did display the same tendencies as Frank.
Both were dismayed by the cards life dealt them and made no real efforts to improve their lot – choosing to blame others for their inadequacies. Mostly their wives.
But WHW really seemed to have it in for Parry too. Was it because he was young, handsome, charming, had the gift of the gab and a bit of a rogue. Everything WHW was not. This maybe why he gave such a damming statement about him to the police to deflect suspicion from himself.
I believe WHW to be a vulnerable narcissist just like Frank.
This type of narcissism displays itself by the person having low self esteem and an introverted personality. WHW showed this with his stoic nature.
They avoid social situations unless they are in control- WHW worked in a working class neighbourhood where he felt superior, he enjoyed intellectual pursuits which he felt set him apart from others.
They blame others for their problems.
They display coercive behaviour.
They are envious of others achievements – I believe WHW was jealous of not only Parry but also his brother Joseph who had a successful career abroad, was married to an attractive woman with a son at university.
They are manipulative with relationships.
WHW probably did believe he loved Julia provided she did as she was told. I fear in her last few months she may have become less manageable. There is a possibility that she may have shown signs of dementia. I think it was Douglas Metcalfe the paper boy who mentioned in a statement that he found she had left the key in the front door sometimes and that Julia went shopping with her bag and purse open. Also her ungainly underwear and hiding money in her corset is indicative that something was amiss. It is also quite strange that she chose to visit Southport in the middle of December although no
reason was given except WHW feared she may not return or was involved in an accident. Could he have abandoned her in Southport earlier in the day hoping something untoward would happen – hence his visit to the police station to report her missing.
Imagine his surprise when she turned up at 1am!
I think this is when he started to plan the murder.
All supposition of course – no evidence. But at the end of the day we will never know..
Look forward to your responses
Tilly Mint
Most of our exchanges on this forum deal with the weapon, the bloodstains, the (lack of) alibis, the crime scene etc and this certainly has it’s place. So it is a pleasure and something of a relief to read Tilly’s analysis of Wallace’s personality, especially as it is enriched by knowing Frank who was, I agree, very similar to Wallace.
To add my two cents worth:
Wallace clearly thought of himself as an intellectual by reading the writings of Marcus Aurelius, listening to Ibsen plays ( e.g. “The Master Builder”) on the radio, playing the cerebral game of chess and doing scientific experiments in his “laboratory”. He also for a time supervised a Chemistry evening course at a local college.
The reality was that his formal education ended at age fourteen; he went to work as a draper’s assistant. He had been playing chess for over 10 years, joining the club in 1923, but his level of skill was still mediocre. He had no qualifications in Chemistry and was supervising a class at a very basic level (I write as a retired chemist.) And he complained in his diary that the fine points of “The Master Builder” were beyond Julia’s comprehension.
His intellectualism was a self-constructed paper-thin facade to boost his self image and narcissism.
However much Wallace tried to rule the roost at home, the harsh realities of life were just outside his front door. His prospects of promotion were zero and he was doing a boring job normally given to an entry-level employee much younger than himself. And increasingly Julia may have reminded him that they lived in rented housing in an Anfield back street – what a come down for her with memories of Harrogate. Tilly covers all the main points in her excellent coverage of their relationship.
Ken Dodd was in pantomime in Liverpool. He said “Next week we’re going to Southport. We haven’t done anything wrong – its arranged by the agent.”
Julia Wallace’s mid winter trip to Southport clearly had a purpose but what? Whether it triggered the murder plan is open to debate. This aspect – at least giving a reason (possibly innocent) for the trip – has never been investigated fully.
I agree that we are not psychiatrists but we are intelligent people who, based on our reading and our own experience of the vagaries of human nature (e.g. Frank), can often arrive at conclusions which compare favourably with those of the professionals.
Some random points which occurred to me overnight:
Julia apparently never sought employment after arriving in Liverpool. They were childless and the extra income would have been welcome. Did Wallace forbid it to isolate Julia further?
I had always thought that Julia must have ruffled the feathers of her siblings at some point for them to be so estranged from her. But Tilly’s explanation of deliberate estrangement desired by Wallace seems very plausible. He told his landlady in the Lake District after the appeal that Julia was of French origin and had no relatives in the UK. Both lies.
Wallace shares several characteristics with Dr Shipman. Both were narcissists, working in a working class community, and Shipman’s wife too was completely estranged from her family who disliked Shipman and he them. Shipman, who murdered my Aunt Hilda Fitton in 1985, thought the police were ignorant plods. Carrying out so many killings undetected gave Shipman much-needed regular confirmation of how clever he was. I think Wallace also regarded the police as easily fooled by someone of his intellect. Hence the Qualtrough plan which is of course full of holes but I believe Wallace being intellectually arrogant couldn’t see the inherent faults in it.
Thank you Michael for your response.
I know little is known about Julia ‘per se’ but I have attempted to study her extended family and it’s history. We do know she was a farmer’s daughter who lost both parents at an early age. Her paternal aunt Sarah Taylor, paternal uncle John Dennis and his mother Ann made great efforts to keep the family together for as long as possible. This indicates their caring side. After Julia’s father’s death John Dennis and Sarah Taylor’s second husband tried to keep the pub he had bought running to provide support for the 7 children left as orphans. John Dennis even employed Sarah’s surviving son John Taylor and Julia’s younger brother also called John on his farm.
John Dennis died childless and left a considerable personal estate to his relatives. John Taylor continued to run the farm with Julia’s brother but both died young and unmarried. The proceeds of the farm business were added to the family fortune.
At this stage Julia and her sisters were working as governesses but certainly Rhoda branched out from teaching to run a guest house and Amy may have run a recruitment agency in Brighton for domestic servants and governesses. I am not positive about this last point as there was another Miss A Dennis at the same address. Regardless, both sisters lived in very comfortable circumstances in their own accommodation. This was probably not owned out right but rented as was usual at that time.
Coincidentally Sarah Taylor’s family were now fully grown. Her daughter Jane had married a pharmacist William B Mason. He wanted to start his own business and it was decided that the family lend him the funds to do so. This investment paid off, as Mason was a canny business man. He ended up owning and running the largest pharmaceutical wholesale and retail chemist in the North of England, calling it Taylor’s Drug Company Limited.
In the early years he employed family in the concern including Jane’s younger sisters as medical representatives, Julia’s brothers George and Herbert as managers. In fact it is amazing how many female relatives ended up marrying pharmacists!
The firm became so big it was eventually merged with Timothy White’s which in turn to was incorporated into Boots the Chemist which is now the Walgreens Boots Alliance.
It is therefore possible that family members were minor shareholders and this provided them with some return on their initial investments.
The caring and supportive nature of the family had extended to the next generation. Even when Julia’s eldest sister died, it was at the home of Jane and William Mason where she spent her final months.
Julia’s brother George was married with a family. It has been said that his eldest daughter Annie Teresa was very fond of Julia and went to stay with her in Harrogate about 1908 – 1910. Douglas Birch (Annie Teresa’s son) even said his mother told him that Julia was her favourite aunt and Julia doted on her. With this information it seems that up until 1910 the family were all in good terms.
1910 coincides with the time that WHW turned up in Harrogate to take up his post as Liberal Agent for the area. Part of his job was to study the town records to find suitable persons to convert to the political party he represented. He would therefore know of Julia’s marital status and her address which was very close to where he lived. Which was not 157 Belmont Road in Harrogate as WHW stated in his police statement and incidentally does not exist, there only ever being about 30 houses in the whole street!
But I digress, my point being that WHW may have seen Julia as a potential target from day one. A quiet, financially independent woman , living on her own except for the occasional guests who stayed in apartment rooms in her house at 11 St Mary’s Avenue. Julia would regularly advertise in the local press of the availability of rooms at reasonable rates in the local press. These adverts appeared less regularly after WHW was on the scene.
Therefore by 1914 when Julia and WHW married there apparently none of Julia’s relatives in attendance- not even the favourite niece Annie Theresa. WHW quickly moved himself and his elderly father into Julia’s house. It could not be foretold that World War 1 would bring WHW’s career as political agent to an abrupt end but could there have been another reason why they needed to leave affluent and gentile Harrogate?
Surely alternative employment could have been found in Yorkshire and with regards WHW’s interest in Chemistry, a job with Taylor’s Chemist was not out of the question!
Much emphasis has been put on Julia telling lies about her age and family. I do not think this was the case. Having studied my own family history my female relatives frequently reduced their age by 5-15 years on official documents such as marriage certificates and census records. The question of lies all come from when WHW came into Julia’s life.
Hence my theory and belief he was responsible for her cruel death.
Hi Tilly,
I found your account of Julia’s family relationships absorbing and relevant to the tragedy of Wolverton street. It is only by starting at the beginning as you have done then working forward chronologically to the crime that any sense of cause and effect can be gleaned from this complex story.
My “take away” from your extensive research is that there was a sharp change for the worse in Julia’s fortunes after meeting Wallace. He must have had a smooth line of patter about Marcus Aurelius, otherwise I can’t see why Julia aged ~52, financially comfortable and settled into life as a spinster would consider marriage to Wallace with his financial problems and dependant father and sister.
With marriage on the horizon, did Julia at this point lie about her age to make herself a more attractive prospect? This also seems to be the point where her relations with her siblings become strained leading to estrangement.
The inescapable conclusion is that, for whatever reason, Wallace had found a comfortable billet for himself and his relatives by marrying Julia – he brought along his ailing father and his sister Jessie to live with the newly weds.
According to author Isault Bridges, Wallace’s job as Liberal Agent did not suddenly disappear on the outbreak of war in 1914 – he was replaced by another man. Was he sacked?
As you say, if Julia’s family relationships were still harmonious at that time why wasn’t a sinecure found for him in her family’s pharmaceutical business?
I too have wondered why Wallace advertised so widely the love he felt for Julia. I have been fortunate in marriage but I never spoke of it outside the house. It reminds me of serial killer John Christie who described his wife to neighbours as “one in a million” only weeks before her body was found under the floor of his living room.
A great contribution Tilly. I hope we can look forward your continued interest in the case on this forum.
Mike
Great work and effort Tilly Mint, well done and great contributions too as ever Mike.
It could of course be all true but it could also all be unfounded conjecture.
If Julia is submissive to WHW and goes along with him then the relationship has a status quo and no need for such drastic action as murder for no gain and of course not all narcissistic husbands kill their wives. Julia had a sizable bank account, something not normally afforded to partners of men who control them. That would be transferred across prompto with the pretence of ‘I’m the man of the house and i’ll look after all financial matters’. Her position in the Wallace marriage might easily have been Wallace being old fashioned and thinking the lady of the house need not work but attend to domestic matters only which was pretty normal even into the 1970s where I lived.
If Julia is rebelling against Wallace’s alleged coercive control then you would expect to see escalatory behaviour such as domestic violence, emotional control and this being noticed by or mentioned to people Julia would see outside of Wallace’s prying eyes whether this be Amy, Edwin or even casual acquaintances such as the Johnston’s or the shopkeepers Julia frequented on Breck Rd or maybe her Doctor or even Parry during their trysts (though Parry does mention WHW being sexually odd and Julia is seeing him without Wallace’s knowledge)
As I say it is merely an option and an opinion though Diary entries also allude to a loving caring relationship, the frost on the flowers, encouraging Julia to go on walks with him, him mentioning Julia would have loved the bungalow in Bromborough and there were testimonies from people who knew them both too. There was certainly no mention by Amy or Edwin as to dementia affecting Julia, she may just have been a bit dizzy and careless. Her whole recreating a new background to herself is strange and maybe Wallace himself was not even aware that her mother was not French or of her real age? Maybe she had low self esteem and it is indeed the other way round, she now has a husband who will not ask too much of her by way of earning money and she can now relax.
If none of the money from the aforementioned business were to the benefit of Julia and she was not a shareholder or part of it, then it is irrelevant. If by leaving Harrogate was of no monetary loss to her and Wallace’s dad got him a job in Liverpool, then why not go. Did she own the house in Harrogate – no. Therefore not owning a house in Liverpool is of no consequence or detriment.
I mooted this initial post on the Wallace facebook site and crime author Antony Brown is responsible for most of what I have replied above which only reinforced my thoughts on the subject.
We also have Julia as only ever having known the good life. A governess of course was just a live in nanny and Julia spent some of her time living and working in the grimy, smog filled big smoke.
https://spitalfieldslife.com/2021/11/21/the-fogs-smogs-of-old-london-x/
Thanks for your perspective Ged – I have read your other posts with interest and your unfaltering belief that WHW was innocent.
I have clearly stated that I have no concrete evidence for my theory and it is merely trying to join the dots from the facts at hand. However, I do strongly feel that Julia did not comply with WHW’s coercive tactics, merely as an old fashioned sort who having married later in life she came to accept that maybe she had made the wrong choice. She had made her bed and had to live with it. I do not wish to infer Julia had become rebellious toward WHW only that she may have let her guard down by not showing unequivocal devotion towards him that only WHW picked up on and saw as betrayal.
WHW seemed to be constantly displaying his affection for her to friends, work colleagues and clients alike – anyone who would listen. This is a classic narcissistic trait. Why talk about your personal and domestic life so openly if everything is so wonderful? Only someone who was hiding behind a facade of lies.
I cannot believe the suggestion that Parry would have any sexual interest in
Julia. A woman old enough to be his grandmother, with repeated chest infections so probably coughing a lot and maybe incontinent? It is not an attractive proposition.
There is no evidence to suggest Parry was involved in any way. The conjecture is reliant on testimony given years after. Parry himself was a narcissist but unlike WHW he was overt in his actions. Yes – Parry was a lying rogue and a thief but I do not believe he had the capacity to plan a crime effectively, after all he got caught red handed so many times.
Parry obviously enjoyed being in the limelight both physically and metaphorically speaking and probably dined out for years with tales of his association with the Wallaces.
He had no need to rob Wallace as he now had a job in insurance himself and to all accounts was capable of persuading friends and family to buy policies that they did not really want or need. I refer to first hand account from Leslie Williamson on Radio City phone line.
The failed robbery tactic was instigated by WHW himself by drawing the Johnston’s attention to the broken cabinet door. Who does that when you have just found your dear loved wife battered to death in the next room?
Thanks for letting me vent my ramblings on this fascinating case. I think the crime scene has been done to death (forgive the pun) so will not be offering any insight on that matter.
Tilly Mint
Hi Tilly Mint. It is always good to hear other opinions. I’m aghast that James Murphy’s book and Mark Russell’s book pretty much for 9 tenths of the text seem to be creating a case for the defence only for a tv drama style change around right near the end which leaves me perplexed.
You say Parry had no need to rob Wallace as he now had a job in insurance himself but he had a job in insurance himself as he was robbing the Pru during his paying in of Wallace’s rounds, which was on more than one occasion too. He seemed always short of money, hence his phone box robberies and car taking.
Parry’s connection is by no means reliant on testimonies years later as he is fingered by Wallace in his second statement and is mentioned in 1930s books on the killing. We also have his false alibi, possibly 2 false alibis and him having the motive and means for this killing. He admits to being in the area, he has a car, he is also fingered by Parkes, he has the capability to change his voice, he used phones to make prank calls, he wants revenge, he has the means via a car to dispose of the weapon, he has the time (or his accomplice does) to not have to worry about getting blood on himself, he kept himself in the loop as to what was happening with all the cast even decades later.
Wallace, well in the first instance he just doesn’t have the time frame in which to do it, the police proved that using the ill fated Anfield Harriers. He doesn’t have a motive we know of, he is ill versed in answering questions fired at him so any premeditated planning of how to answer them is not forthcoming. He has other means of killing her and other ways of carrying this out a lot better.
Hi Ged,
If, as you say, the police proved beyond doubt that Wallace did not have sufficient time to murder his wife, clean up, and be on the Lodge Lane by 7.06 pm, why did they go ahead and charge him with the murder?
Mike
They were wrong to Mike and Justice Wright should have thrown this case out. Right from the committal proceedings they loaded inaccuracies against Wallace (why have to do that?) and with reporting restrictions not in place it was a free for all including for the Jury to have a pre-conceived outlook. Justice Wright also got it wrong in applauding the police for their work imho, Justice was done though with the appeal judges who came to the correct conclusion that no case was ever proven and the Jury got it wrong and no need for any new evidence and thus creating history so it was not a decision taken lightly.
We also have to consider other factors.
The local media were pushing for answers regarding this most heinous of crimes. Hubert Moore had already made the error of stating the caller was the murderer. He had put out an APB though that railways stations, boarding houses etc to be checked for a heavily bloodstained person – yet later we are to believe the killer would have no blood on him. Moore’s secretary is related to Parry so what’s been said there. What’s being said by Ada Pritchard – does that get swept away too as well as Parkes? No, Moore has his man and must make the situation fit, not the facts, the situation. The Harriers run the route but that doesn’t put him off. Alan Croxton Close, Elsie Wright and James Alison Wildman, even Mr Holmes next door state why the Milk delivery isn’t 6.30pm but Moore makes this fit by getting Alan to change his time. All Wallace’s clients say he was normal that day, Rothwell the police office gives two contradictory accounts. Nothing is set in stone here against Wallace.
I agree that Justice Wright should have dismissed the case against Wallace at the outset based on insufficient evidence. Wallace’s defence were afraid to ask for this option reasoning that if the judge disagreed it would look as if there was enough evidence and this would favour the prosecution. The appeal judges criticised this decision of Wallace’s defence.
TV documentaries have highlighted the amount and quality of evidence needed today for the CPS to allow any case to go to court. Based on all we know now about Wallace and Parry I do not believe the CPS would agree the case against either of them should go to court. There simply isn’t enough evidence to give reasonable expectation of a conviction of either of them.
I totally agree with that Mike. The defence abandoned their duty to their client in not arguing forcefully that there was no case to answer given only circumstantial evidence was apparent and could have stated that if it is allowed to go ahead, I am sure we will see the holes I can make in any arguing put against my client. That i’m sure would have made the Judge, prosecution and Jury more wary of what was to come if indeed the Judge was still to allow it to go ahead.
Why had Wallace, seventeen years with the Pru, never achieved promotion? He was after all, at age 52, doing a job usually given to much younger entry-level employees, tramping the streets of Clubmoor day in / day out collecting premiums and paying benefits.
This might have been due to his personality. While he always behaved in a gentlemanly fashion and was not averse to accepting the odd cup of tea he seems to have been “strictly business” with little time for gossip or small talk.
Prudential agents were expected, in addition to their collection/payment duties, to be active salesmen and promotors of the various Prudential policies. They were encouraged and trained to present themselves as a trusted family friend in order to obtain new business. This may have been a criterion for promotion and Wallace with his reserved personality and Stoic demeanour was totally unsuited for it taking little initiative in this direction.
What a contract therefore with his response to the Qualtrough message. He set off in mid winter to meet a man he didn’t know, at an address he didn’t know on the other side of town to discuss new business which was still not guaranteed – Qualtrough may have found the premiums too steep or in the interim made a deal with another company.
This contrast between Wallace’s lack of initiative in his day job and his enthusiastic response to new business potentially offered by Qualtrough is telling. I think his expressed doubts that he would go to MGE were a bluff.
I agree that his reaction to the telephone message at the chess club completely over the top and out of character. We are to believe that he was a quiet, stoic introvert but here he is almost shouting look at me, I am going to meet Mr Qualtrough at MGE tomorrow night, does anybody else know him or where MGE is located? He knows that everyone will say no because he was the person who invented the name and address.
If this was an innocent man and true to character I believe WHW would have thanked Beattie for taking the message, apologised to his opponent for interrupting the game and then carried on playing. He did not seem to think why am I being contacted about business at my chess club? How does Mr Qualtrough know I would be here tonight? The message did not upset his train of thought or play. In fact he won which was an unusual feat in itself. This was because he was probably relaxing – knowing that the start of his plan was working.
Even when travelling home later he continued to prattle on about the message and ask Caird for possible directions. It is interesting that he did not heed any advice from fellow chess players because he already knew his route and how long it would take to travel there by all modes of available transport.
Ha ha Mike, I have to give you credit for your continued digging for a reason why Wallace was the killer, but not only is what you say all conjecture but just like the case itself, it can offer an alternative slant to the other extreme.
In Q3002 of the trial, Wallace states he has around 560 calls per week. Now that is some visiting wouldn’t you say, given he didn’t even work a full week on his rounds. When you add up the amounts he pays in, according to the trial, he is surely a valued agent and given the longevity of his beat (17 years you admit) you’d have to say a majority of these clients might well be of his making or extra policies taken out within the same families as newer members or circumstances (newborns, birthdays, weddings etc) come along. He may well have been comfortable in this role, just as Alan Shearer or Matt Le Tissier were probably better players than their club life suggests.
If he is taking tea with some of his clients as you admit and is said at the trial, who knows what small talk or idle gossip is discussed. He may have had clients outside of his normal rounds, friends, neighbours, Technical college colleagues, chess acquaintances etc and as it was said at the trial it was not against the rules nor unusual for an agent in any district to take other work of this nature from another district, there we have it that Wallace was always hungry to be adding to his portfolio which we see during the trial can bring him a sizable personal bounty.
He was a trusted hard worker who was loyal to his employers, he had called out some short payments made in by one of these younger entry level employees, in fact Marsden was another found to be less than honest. No, Wallace in that role was the model employee, the Pru wanted and needed more like him and they were happy in what he was doing and his wage was abundant as he was able to go about his hobbies and still have £152 (£12,300 today) in his bank account and even his unemployed wife could have around the equivalent of £7500. No need therefore for the extra responsibilities and stress a promotion might bring in his delicate position with his health and age.
Hi Tilly. The message is of course one of the many things our little troop of enthusiasts have discussed at length during our atmospheric meetings around the districts where this all happened. We have to take ourselves out of 2024 and imagine what it was like in 1931. Word of mouth was a big thing, it still can be in certain circles today. It only takes someone to say ‘oh why don’t you ask so and so, I’m not sure where he lives but he plays at the chess club every Monday or he drinks in the Brook house every Friday etc.
Also, giving a Menlove Gardens East non existent address to people who could have known the area very well would be a big risk. The area was still being built up and might not appear in the most recent ordnance survey maps anyway and even the tram drivers and inspectors who traipse up and down there daily did not know it didn’t exists and witnesses Wallace asked up in the very area said ‘you might want to try up there’ or ‘it could be the continuation of there’.
His familiarity of the area was not on the route of the last tram he took. To go to Amy’s in Ullet Road would not require him to get the Penny Lane terminus connection and to get to Crewe’s house in Green Lane would see him go on a different route altogether along Allerton Road, some walking distance away.
Regarding the message itself. We still have to overcome that he was going to be speaking to Beattie in person in a very short time from allegedly speaking to him on the phone asking questions and for him not to be found out. And then the next day after the murder is all over the city, we are to believe that Beattie wouldn’t be thinking, you know what, that sounded a bit like Wallace on the phone last night. No, i’m not having that. Then the call ending approx 7.27 and him being in the club approx 7.45 with the diversions on Dale st to contend with and who knows what congestion caused by it.
Another thing regarding Julia’s (false) age. The 1921 census form was completed and signed by William. It doesn’t prove anything of course as although Julia did not provide the information directly to the taker, she may well have supplied it on the day to William or William was aware of the date he provided prior.
Mike, I can’t remember if I answered you on a previous post about you not being too familiar with the areas of Liverpool concerned in this case. It was whilst we were discussing Priory Road and the grid outside the Drs, you asked where this was in relation to everything. Well as I say – a good 2 miles according to google from Parkes house. However, just across the road from where the call box was which is also very close to where Anne Parsons saw two people running down Hanwell st towards Lower Breck Road which leads onto Priory Road.
I hesitate to ask but what is a dog whip’s intended purpose? Surely not for whipping dogs for heaven’s sake.
Tilly, I too looked up vintage dog whips. Some of them look like substantial coshes, probably made of hardwood. Wallace mentioning it could have been a tease or an innocent remark trying to help the enquiry.
I agree totally with your assessment of Wallace receiving the Qualtrough message at the chess club. He made as much fuss as possible and was not a bit apologetic about this business call for him disturbing the players. From start to finish it was all about drawing in as many witnesses as possible: at the club, with Mr Caird, on the trams, at Menlove Gardens, with the Johnstons etc.
Ged, I agree that at this juncture we cannot know Wallace’s attitude his job or how he was regarded by his supervisor at the Pru. He never expresses any enthusiasm for it. Julia remarked to a visitor when Wallace was “ill” in bed that he “doesn’t want to go to work’ implying that he was malingering.
His job must have been physically demanding, tramping the streets of Clubmoor in all weathers, especially for a man 52 but prematurely “old,” and in poor health. Its surprising that the Prudential hadn’t found a desk job for him well before the tragedy.
The author Mark Russell’s great aunt was one of Wallace’s clients and she said that he was always polite but it was strictly business with no small talk on each of his visits.
I would like to return to our much earlier discussion of Wallace’s phantom briefcase. Why is it not mentioned anywhere in the written record? If he took it to MGE to meet Qualtrough why is it not mentioned as having been examined? And if he didn’t take it with him why not? It would have contained policies and attractive brochures to tempt Qualtrough and those under his roof to do business with the Pru. Did he know he wouldn’t need it?
Hi Michael
I understand your concern regarding the use of dog whips. They were not used to beat the dogs, rather to imitate the sound of gun shots for working dogs. I believe they are now used to train dogs to a particular standard and is now a sport.
This beggars the question why WHW had one?
Tilly
Thanks very much for this info Tilly which has put my mind at rest. Its a funny thing for Wallace to mention especially as he claimed he hadn’t seen it in the past ten years!
I think you mean 12 months not 10 years.
Hi Tilly,
Yes, you’re right, its 12 months. Pity Mrs Draper wasn’t questioned about it. A reliable objective opinion from someone who, unlike Wallace, had no particular axe to grind.
Mike
Question 3092 of the trial.
3092. What did you do?
After I had had my tea I got a number of papers ready, forms,
which I thought I might require, and everything finished then I went upstairs and washed my hands and face.
This would suggest that an innocent Wallace prepared his papers for possible business with Qualtrough. As the Pru agent’s briefcase was inseperable from him while on business I assume Wallace put his papers in it and set off with it for MGE. On his return and eventually entering the house with the Johnstons as witnesses he would surely drop the case onto the floor or first available surface and after making the terrible discovery it would be the last thing on his mind. So it would be in full view when the police arrived and one of the first things they would want to examine in view of their suspicions. But Wallace’s briefcase and its examination are not to be found anywhere in accounts of the affair.
This is strange and may be just simple human error – they felt it was irrelevant. Or, a more sinister interpretation is that Wallace did not take it to MGE, even for added versimilitude because he knew he wouldn’t be meeting Qualtrough.
Out of sight. Out of mind. The police never thought to ask him about it.
Hi Everyone,
Hope you’re all keeping well.Not been on here for a while for various reasons, but I just wanted to say something in response to what Mike said a while back about how an attempted robbery could have been carried out in the morning or afternoon.Please excuse my use of upper case words, I’m just aiming for emphasis, not shouting at anyone…honest!! Sorry Mike, but I think this particular plan of Parry’s(and I’m convinced it was his plan) can only be successful if it’s carried out in the evening.That’s because William was at home most evenings, and during the mornings and afternoons was out on his collection rounds.The key part of the plan is for Qualtrough, whoever he was, to make Julia believe that he was EXPECTING William to be there when he knocks at 7.30pm on that Tuesday night.Of course, he’s secretly hoping that William ISN’T going to be there.But that’s not what he wants Julia to think.
Imagine the scenario if Qualtrough calls at 11.15 in the morning.Julia answers the door and Qualtrough explains he’s there to see William about an insurance policy.Now Julia wasn’t stupid…she’s bound to wonder why her husband has agreed to some sort of business meeting at a time of day when he’s not normally in the house!! And she’ll be even MORE suspicious if William hasn’t even told her anything about this meeting.This scenario would also apply if Qualtrough called at 3.15 in the afternoon.Under these circumstances, I think it’s almost certain that Julia is NOT going to allow Qualtrough to enter the house.That’s why this particular plan must be carried out in the evening, for the reasons I’ve stated, hence the importance of Julia believing Qualtrough expecting to meet William when he knocks.
As I’ve said on numerous occasions, this was NOT some kind of criminal master plan, not at all!! It’s not even a burglary.It’s a distraction robbery based simply on deception, sneak thievery, and the minimum of fuss.And distraction robberies are as old as the hills.Indeed, they’re still being carried out today.
When Qualtrough knocks at 29 Wolverton Street that night, there are only four possible outcomes…
1.The knock on the door goes unanswered.Under these circumstances, it’s probable that Qualtrough and a possible accomplice will simply leave.They’re unlikely to attempt a break in, as they can’t be certain that the house is empty.The knock on the door may just not have been heard.
2.Qualtrough knocks, and William answers the door.The plan is immediately dead in the water, as William clearly hasn’t taken the Menlove Gardens bait.
3.Qualtrough knocks, and Julia answers the door.Qualtrough explains why he’s there.Ah, says Julia, my husband has mentioned this to me.Wait a moment Mr.Qualtrough, I’ll just go and fetch him for you.He’s upstairs/in the kitchen/in the living room etc.Doesn’t matter where he is…because again, as in the second case, he HASN’T taken the Menlove Gardens bait.By the time he comes to the front door, Qualtrough will have disappeared into the darkness.
4.Qualtrough knocks, and Julia answers the door.Qualtrough explains why he’s there.Oh, says Julia, he mentioned this to me.But I’m afraid he’s gone to the Menlove Avenue district looking for your house.Ah,replies Qualtrough,there’s obviously been some sort of misunderstanding regarding the message I left at the Chess Club.I was meant to call HERE and meet HIM, not the other way round!! Now, under these circumstances, I think there’s a FAR greater chance of Julia granting Qualtrough access to the house than in either the morning or afternoon.After all, she knew all about the possibility of William going out on business that night, something that was confirmed by her sister Amy, who’d visited Wolverton Street earlier that day.This is EXACTLY what Qualtrough and a possible accomplice(William Denison?) want.As, of course, does our old friend Parry, whose idea it was in the first place!!
I think Parry has got the idea for his plan after seeing William on numerous occasions in the City Cafe.And there’s another very important question to be asked here too…how likely is it that Parry is going to know the telephone number of anywhere else that Wallace frequents??…very, very UNLIKELY, I’d suggest!! But knowing the telephone number of a place he knows for certain that Wallace visits gives him the ideal opportunity to leave a very plausible message there that Wallace may well act upon.And as I’ve also said before, checking to see if Wallace left his house on a Monday evening to attend his chess club, and then making the bogus call really WOULD have been incredibly easy!!
Cheers everybody, and thanks for reading.
Dave.
Hi David,
Good to have you back.
I did not suggest that a better plan would be for Qualtrough, identifying himself as such, to call on Julia during the day with Wallace absent. As you point out, this wouldn’t work.
I suggested that the elaborate Qualtrough ruse would not be necessary for a simple distraction robbery during the day.
There are many variants of this trick. This would be a robbery focussed only on the Pru cash box and it could be done in under a minute. Returning the box to the shelf would delay discovery of the theft. To use your words David, a distraction robbery involves “deception, sneak thievery, and the minimum of fuss.” The risky Qualtrough arrangement with it’s inherent uncertainties is an unnecessary complication.
The official “paying in day” was Wednesday but Wallace often did it on Thursdays.
With Wallace as the killer the Qualtrough ruse provides him with witnesses from start to finish. And this is the only scenario which guarantees Wallace will take the bait and go to Menlove Gardens.
I know you favour Parry as the caller David so why didn’t he disguise his voice and speak to Wallace directly at the chess club thereby removing uncertainty that Wallace would take the bait. Wallace spoke to hundreds of clients and several colleagues each week. Would he recognise Parry’s disguised voice in those circumstances at the club on the lo-fi telephones of that era? I think not.
Mike
Parry may have actually thought Wallace might be there to speak directly to at 7.20pm and was flummoxed when he wasn’t which caused him to make 2 mistakes as he faltered his lines. He says do you have Wallace’s address and then changes it to no he must visit me at MGE. He also mentions the 21st Birthday event as in the insurance policy for his ‘girl’, something which is fresh in his mind IE. The Williamson’s birthday event and again something the police didn’t add together. This only reinforces the notion it was Parry. Wallace speaking to Harley and Beattie directly who he would see only half an hour later is by far too much of a risk, especially with what would follow. The phone box call is a risk in itself. Eye witnesses may be asked did they see a man matching Wallace’s ungainly description, a local man, known about the area but would not be asked did the see a man matching Parry’s description which would be harder to describe.
Re: Wallace’s statements. You’d think if he was procuring all these witnesses and fixed on blaming Parry from the planning stage that he’d mention them all at once in his first statement but he doesn’t. He only mentions going to MGW, seeing the bobby and going to both shops. Those in themselves would be good enough. It’s only later the stories come from the tram drivers/inspectors not Wallace and Parry is only mentioned during the second statement after Wallace has had time to think about the question of who would have been allowed into the house.
Some points about the Qualtrough call:
There was a fault in the mechanism of this call box. Leslie Heaton, telephone engineer, visited the box and rectified it. There was no attempt to scam a free call. So Parry’s dishonesty, often cited as evidence that he was Qualtrough is irrelevant.
Qualtrough mentioning the 21st birthday of “my girl” was the excuse he gave for being unable to call back later. It was not to do with his potential business with Wallace. It was Wallace who inferred that it might be but this was by no means certain.
The caller asking for Wallace’s address wasn’t a mistake. It was to distance Qualtrough from being Wallace himself. A positive reply would have produced : “ Oh, on second thoughts its better if he calls on me tomorrow, I’m too busy etc……”
Voice recognition by Ms Harley or Mr Beattie is all to do with context. This fellow wants to speak to Wallace. The notion that it is in fact Wallace himself who is calling never occurs to either of them. It is much less of a risk than it first appears. Even so Ms Harley described the voice as that of “an elderly gentleman.”
People bustling home on a cold winter’s evening cannot be expected to clock details of a man in a telephone box, a man waiting at a bus stop across the street, or a man posting a letter, or leaning on a lamppost reading a newspaper. These are everyday mundane events and would so to speak go in one eye and out of the other.
Mr Beattie claimed he knew Wallace’s voice very well. I cannot agree. They met only at the chess club and they had I assume never spoken on the telephone.
The implication is that Beattie would be able to pick out Wallace’s voice from say ten random males, disguised voices allowed, calling him on the phone anonymously under test conditions. With of course, no guarantee that Wallace was one of the test callers. It is a pity that such a test was never done.
Morning Mike. Do you have a copy of Leslie Heaton’s statement or it’s whereabouts please?
Regardless of how Q mentioning his girls 21st Birthday came about, it is still a huge coincidence you must agree that the very following night Parry is at the Williamson’s discussing a 21st Birthday. I think it was a freudian slip when Parry had to speak for longer than intended during that call. A call that lasted so long, with two people and then Harley having to go to a chess table and raise Beattie and he take down a long name letter by letter and read it back. A call that lasted so long that W could then not make it to the club, encountering a tram diversion and be sat down playing a game 10 minutes before Beattie came over to him according to W’s statement.
If I am not used to putting voices on, and i’m not, and I call my Pool captain in my absence saying is Ged there i’m pretty sure he would start laughing, immediately know it was me and say ‘What do you want Ged’.
Don’t forget, the next day a murder happens, if W is guilty he knows this murder is going to happen and now he depends on Beattie coming down on his side so strongly that it basically eliminates him from being the caller, he can’t know that security measure will happen as B might be racking his brain to think, do you know what, it did sound a bit like him and now this murder has happened it puts it all into context.
Beattie had no need to say he knew Wallace’s voice well enough to know it wasn’t him. What does Beattie get out of saying that? Harley does describe the voice as that of an elderly gentleman but that seems to be a changed voice from those that the telephone operators encountered going off their descriptions of it.
People bustling home on a cold winters night indeed cannot be expected to clock details of a man in a phone box but that man had to walk to it and walk away from it, and if W, then get onto a tram (at an unfamiliar stop as usual to him) As mentioned on previous posts, there was a Cinema, there were 2 pubs yards away, there were trams and buses going up and down. Wallace cannot know for certain he hasn’t been seen by one of his many of hundreds of clients or will be noted by a tram driver or inspector. Was he even asked to produce his ticket by the police?
Hi Ged,
“As soon as Miss Kelly had obtained the number required by the caller she made an official note that at 7.15 pm a defect had been reported from public call box Anfield 1672 and accordingly next morning Leslie Heaton a telephone mechanic was sent to inspect the instrument, subsequently reporting that he had found “a fault in the mechanism” which he had corrected.”
Two studies in murder
Yseult Bridges 1959
page 168.
So it is clear that Annie Robertson creates the docket giving N.R (“No reply”) and the box number for transmission to the engineer so that he can investigate. Otherwise, why create the docket?
Mr Heaton does not mention this visit to repair the defect either in his statement or in his trial testimony. both available on this forum. At the trial he was questioned only about the lighting in the call box starting by a firm opinion that there was none and ending by admitting he didn’t know. Not surprising if he was there during daylight hours. He was clearly familiar with this box describing it as “more public” i.e. free-standing and not in enclosed premises like a library.
Also I question whether the account of his cross examination at the trial is complete. Yseult Bridges writes that no verbatim record of the complete trial was available in 1959.
Nobody at the time advanced the idea that Qualtrough tried to scam a free call. This seems to have been part of the “Parry as Qualtrough” version which snowballed later.
Is it credible that just by telling the operator you had paid for your call but hadn’t been connected, you would be put through for free?
Would Qualtrough on this night of all nights try the scam leading to a longer conversation with the operators and the possibility that some record might be made?
Both Parry and Wallace can be seen as potential scammers. The dishonest Parry and the abstemious penny-pinching Wallace with Parry being the best bet. But the above evidence convinces me that there was no attempt at fraud; it was just Qualtrough’s bad luck that the phone box he chose was on the blink.
I will address your other points later.
Mike
I agree completely that Qualtrough mentioning the 21st birthday and Parry about to be invited to the Williamson 21st is either pure coincidence or, as you say, a slip of the tongue by Parry as Qualtrough.
I think it was part of a clever plan to introduce information into the call which distances Wallace from Qualtrough:
1. The false name itself
2. Wanting to speak with Wallace.
3. “Not knowing” Wallace’s address
4. Having a 21 year old daughter, Wallace being childless.
5. Being “too busy” later to ring back. Wallace was expected at the chess club
6. Giving an address in the Menlove Avenue area. Beattie may not have known Wallace’s exact address but knew he was friendly with Mr Caird who lived near him in Anfield.
Seen like this the 21st becomes an element in a careful plan to dismiss any fleeting idea in Beattie’s subconscious mind that Qualtrough could be Wallace himself.
At several stages in this saga Wallace, as you say Ged, cannot be sure that he has not been seen by one of his neighbours or Prudential clients. But being seen is quite different from being remembered. Wallace, to coin a phrase, was part of the Anfield / Clubmoor furniture. A very distinctive and familiar figure over six feet tall and with outmoded clothes. He must have tipped his hat to many people on the street every day.
It was this very familiarity which enabled him to “hide in plain sight.” People saw him around so often that a single sighting would not be recalled as anything special. Nobody came forward claiming to have seen him on the first tram to Menlove Gardens, a tram he boarded in his own neighbourhood. Nobody recalled his arrival at the chess club etc.
It was only when he drew attention to himself that he was remembered and this was not by people he knew but by tram conductors and residents/police in the Menlove area.
I find it amusing that because WHW was not reported as being seen in the telephone call box, it is said he couldn’t have made the call to the Chess Club on Monday night.
But when Lily Hall saw him in Richmond Park on Tuesday night in conversation with the mystery man – it is said it wasn’t him!
“As I was going up the stair,
I saw a man who wasn’t here,
He wasn’t there again today.
How I wish he’d go away.”
Taking into account Ged’s description of the area around the phone box: tram stop, two pubs, a cinema etc. I would not be surprised if Wallace had indeed been seen and even identified by someone passing by, if indeed it was he was Qualtrough. But he was such a familiar figure and one who admitted using that phone box regularly that it would just be a fleeting impression with no reason whatsoever for it to register as remarkable in anyone’s memory. At least three days went by before the police canvassed for anyone who might have seen anything – enough time for a momentary glimpse of Wallace to have been entirely forgotten.
Morning Mike and Tilly.
Always nice to log on and see an account of what may or may not have happened. Yes, except on this occasion, possibly Liverpool’s biggest murder hunt is on and Wallace is in the frame and the local newspaper is reporting it. If W was seen that night, there is no doubt in my mind that it would have been remembered because you often think to yourself what YOU were doing that night which brings about the remembrance.
Tilly, can you tell me then what W had to hide by saying, yes I remember now, I did speak to someone for all of 5 seconds, he asked me for a street name (Can be replaced with*, a pub name, a persons name, a cinema name I did not recognise. Mr Greenlees and Lily Hall both put themselves exactly at the same time in Richmond Park yet neither of them see each other. Hall, who in the end mentioned the wrong time and the wrong day had her evidence dismissed by the Judge, it was so unreliable and it took her dad a week to come forward with the evidence as she was in bed sick.
Regarding the call box. Unless the author Bridges was there in the courtroom and taking notes, I don’t then know how that conclusion is reached but under evidence Lilian Martha Kelly says ‘The telephone box is a modern one, I know when the money is in, I observed a light on my board which indicated the money had been returned to the subscriber. She also told Wilkes in 1980 ‘The subscriber obviously pressed the wrong button B instead of button A and cut himself off. Kelly heard W speak at the trial and said I could not have sworn that it was the same man. Like i’ve said before, it is a pity that during the investigations, the police did not write down a sentence with the word Cafe in it and ask the suspects or witnesses helping the police with their enquiries to read it out.
Hi Ged,
I do get your point about people casting their mind back in retrospect: “I passed that phone box on the Monday evening. Did I notice anything?” I’m sure many people racked their brains on this but the significance of the phone call only became evident on the Thursday when, to Inspector Moore’s delight, the call had been traced. So people having routine lives, passing the box on their way home every single night, might not be certain as to what they saw and on what date.
And this was not the search for Lobby Lud (younger readers – look it up!). It was a murder investigation and any uncertainty about the sighting of Qualtrough might provoke “I’m not getting involved.”
I do believe that in spite of being a poor witness, Lily Hall did see Wallace talking to a stranger and it is a mystery, as you say Ged, why Wallace denied it unless it appeared to negate his statement that he “hurried” home.
The author Ronald Barthe (“The telephone murder”) says that Yseult Bridges was quoting from “the official report” when describing Mr Heaton finding and rectifying a fault in the phone mechanism. This doesn’t help us at all.
I emphasise that nobody – defence, prosecution, phone operator, or any of the authors which I have read – mentions the possibility of a potential scam to get a free call. This notion was introduced later to bolster the case in favour of Parry being the caller.
A strong indicator that the payment mechanism in the box was faulty comes from the operator who put the call through manually for free. Phone companies do not make money by giving away free calls. Qualtrough was unable to confirm the connection by pressing Button A so the connection had to be made manually at the exchange by the operator.
If the box had been operating normally this manual connection by the operator would not be needed.
By saying that Button B had returned the coins to the caller Operator Kelly is confirming what anyone would do after pressing button A and not getting the connection. Pressing B was not a mistake. I am old enough to have used this type of phone and operation of it is child’s play (when its working correctly.)
The police not recognising the significance of Qualtrough’s pronunciation of “café”
– sufficiently unusual to evoke a comment by the operator, was a major blunder. A test, along the lines you describe would have been very useful.
Mike
Hi Mike, regarding witnesses casting their minds back a few days. What I mean is, people used to seeing Wallace might say (when all this came out) well I saw him one day last week near the phone box, now let me see. I didn’t go out on Wednesday so it wasn’t then. I was out on Tuesday but I was on the bus going to town and got on by the Library so it must have been Monday, yes it was Monday when I was going to buy tickets at the cinema. This thinking aloud are how these remembrances tend to ding the lightbulb in the brain as i’ve done it myself. My missus might say, Neil next door has been bad and i’ll say well I saw him on Saturday by the park and she’ll say, you weren’t near the park on Saturday as we went to my mums, do you mean friday and i’d say ah yes of course, it was friday. It only took a nosy neighbour, a passer by etc to do this but the important thing is this!!!! Wallace could not have known who might have seen him and even if nobody did, he couldn’t know that. And of course, after the murder, the investigation will be involving this phone call and Wallace should at least suspect that the call will be looked into, the time, the voice and even the police making investigations into tracing it and they did and they struck gold.
If the call had not been traced it could have come from anywhere in Liverpool and beyond. I don’t think Qualtrough ever dreamed that it would be traced to that particular call box so he wasn’t particularly concerned about being seen. Once the police suspected that Wallace had made the call they might ask for witnesses around any of the public phones near his home but he could have called from anywhere and delayed his arrival at the chess club so they would be looking for a needle in a haystack.
I agree with the points you raise about narrowing down when he might have been seen. But even if he was actually seen in that phone box at the relevant time it is such a mundane everyday thing among hundreds of mundane everyday things which happened to you in the three days since the sighting. Could you, hand on heart, be absolutely sure of it? Unless the answer is an unequivocal “YES”, better keep quiet.
The police only traced the call/phone box because they actively tried and it came up trumps. It’s like these days if you were making a call, you’d know it could be traced and there might be no reason to think it wouldn’t be back then, especially as everything had to go through the local exchange nearest the phone box.
Nobody on that day would be saying ‘Ah there’s Wallace in a phone box’, because as you say, nobody knows they are going to need to remember it, however if your mate said to you so and so died today, you might say, ‘Oh I only saw him at the local chippy the other week’. Now if you only go that chippy every other Friday then you might be able to narrow it down. Things like this can and do happen and in the buzz of excitement this case was causing locally, people would be switched on and tuned in, maybe even to be part of the mystery solving.
On the night of the phone call – nobody reported seeing WHW leave his home, travel to town or even arrive at the Chess Club. Why would they notice him in the call box?
Similarly on the night of the murder, nobody saw him on the bus home, walking from the bus stop to his home at teatime, leaving the house, walking to the tram stop, getting on the tram to Smithdown Road.
No – the only people reported as noticing WHW were the people he selected to speak to with his constant blabbering about Qualtrough and MGE. He wanted them to notice him.
Imagine his surprise when Lily Hall pops up as seeing him on Richmond Park .This didn’t fit in with his plan and so of course he denied it.
By the way, nothing has been said about the Halls and the Cairds only living 2 doors apart on Letchworth Street. Surely gossip in the area would have been rife in the days after Julia’s death. So maybe Caird encouraged the Halls to take Lily’s testament seriously and report it to the police. After all Caird was supposed to be WHW’s closest friend and was present on Thursday night when WHW questioned Beattie about the phone call when WHW claimed he wasn’t a suspect.
In my view there was only a small chance that Mr Beattie would recognise Wallace’s voice. But even this, and possible recognition while making the call, could have been avoided with a different plan: sending a note in the post from Mr Q to Mr Wallace care of Club Captain Beattie with the MGE address and appointment details. Mail deliveries were super reliable in those days. Wallace, on receipt of the note at the chess club, could react just as he did with the phone message, drawing attention to it. After the murder, asked where the note was now, Wallace could say quite plausibly that he had thrown it away in disgust on being deceived about MGE.
No questions on recognition, timing etc so why didn’t he do it?
Hi Tilly Mint. Nobody was asked if they saw W on his journey to the chess club though but I presume the police did ask for witnesses as to was anyone seen by the phone box, if they weren’t then why not as you would do these days. Wallace did not timestamp the most important tram, the first one on Belmont Road which cements the time he left his house on the murder night. It’s like if a murder happens today, they don’t ask for witnesses as to what the suspect was doing 2 weeks ago when it doesn’t matter what he was doing.
We have to remember, the police obviously asked for witnesses up at MGE as W couldn’t have known those people’s names to give to the police in his statements so the police must have been actively requesting for witnesses. Just the tram drivers, Katie Mather, the bobby and shops would have done, why go through a charade with 3 other people (one of whom didn’t come forward)
Again, we have to ask why W wouldn’t just admit to talking to a stranger on his way home, no guilt in that? Whether Caird and the Hall’s conversed on the matter is conjecture but even so it proves nothing. W explained why he thought he was no longer a suspect by just having been told by the police the phone box call was 7pm and so he knew it couldn’t have been himself as he only left the house at 7.15pm.
Hi Mike. I think what sways it that W wouldn’t chance his voice being recognised by Beattie is the fact he (if guilty) knew he would be speaking to him at length in about 20 minutes time, that is just to soon for comfort. Maybe if he wasn’t seeing him and we don’t know how distinctive Wallace’s voice was, maybe that’s why Beattie was so sure it could not have been him but we have to believe Beattie under oath. However, we do have an amateur dramatics enthusiast in our midst who was in the middle of rehearsals that week and was used to calling people on phones and putting voices on don’t we 😉
Please accept my advance apologies for the length of this post, but as I have said previously, I am trying to come at this case from an entirely different angle – the state of WHW’s mind.
Ged correctly points out that we have no knowledge of the Police’s requests for witnesses to WHW’s movements over the 19th – 20th January. If witnesses had come forward, would their testaments even be recorded? We do not know.
So much of the Police investigation is a complete anathema compared to today’s standards, which are now mainly based on CCTV and scientific techniques unimaginable in the 1930s. The timings are a critical factor in this case but as people were looking at clock or watch faces – not digital displays as we have now – nobody can guarantee it was the correct time, only an approximation. On numerous occasions, I have myself glanced at a clock and mistaken the time. I am sure we all have. Based on this, I do not wish to consider any timings from witnesses as they are likely to be inaccurate.
I agree that the evidence presented was not sufficient to hang WHW, however it did not point to anyone else.
As I have said previously it was WHW who put Parry in the frame in the first place when he not only included him as a potential visitor to the house that Julia would admit – but placed him at the top of the list and with so much detail of Parry’s personal circumstances it suggests some obsession with him. Why not provide the same level of detail for the others? It is WHW who mentions Parry’s interest in Amateur Dramatics and eludes to his ability to act out characters, putting on voices.
So much emphasis has been put on Parry doing the insurance collections when WHW was ill over a period of a couple of weeks in December 1928. Such a short period and so long before the murder. Also implicating Marsden seems a bit odd. According to the diaries, WHW had been warned by Bamber that Parry needed watching. So why would WHW allow Parry to suggest another ex-Prudential agent who had also been suspected of financial irregularities to help him do the rounds? It wasn’t WHW’s call to make that decision and he should have sought the agreement of his superiors before allowing it. There is no mention of this anywhere.
Another glaring omission is who covered for WHW during June-July 1930 when he was in hospital? Who arranged this? Why wasn’t this event recorded in WHW’s diaries?
Talking of which, the diaries start in 1928 and up to November of that year, the entries are mainly to do with the illnesses and complaints WHW and Julia suffered and religious matters. It is a catalogue of disappointment and misfortune, nothing regarding his happy marriage. There is no mention of thinking of starting a hobby that involves Julia?
The entries I quote have come straight from the transcriptions given on this forum.
In November 1928 we have WHW’s visits to Mr Crewe for violin lessons, which would give him some familiarity with the surrounding area which he later admits to a certain extent. Menlove Gardens would still be under construction at this time and the newspapers of the day record adverts of new homes for sale in the area. There may have been builder’s advertising hoardings on the streets to the same effect. So, there is a possibility that WHW was aware that Menlove Gardens existed and where it was situated.
Tuesday December 19th – Bamber alerts WHW to Parry’s need for close supervision relating to company business. WHW then appears to be absent from work with bronchitis up to 31st December, where the entry says that Parry has done the work (no mention of Marsden!) and was not methodical enough.
Early 1929 is a repeat of 1928 – constant references to illness and religion. Then in March, Julia is finally mentioned in the diary but in quite a derogatory fashion.
20 March 1929: Listened to ‘The Master Builder’ by Ibsen. This is a fine thing, and shows clearly how a man may build up a fine career, and as the world has it, be a great success, and yet in his own mind feels that he has been an utter failure, and how ghastly a mistake he has made to sacrifice love, and the deeper comforts of life in order to achieve success. Curious that Julia did not seem to appreciate this play! I feel sure she did not grasp the inner significance and real meaning of the play.
For those not familiar with Ibsen’s work, this play is not the easiest to understand. But WHW states it is ‘curious’ that Julia does not appreciate it or grasp the inner significance suggesting it is blatantly obvious why she should.
The protagonist is a man who is a builder who starts with a modest business. He succeeds in life through the misfortunes of his wife’s family. She came from wealthy stock and after the death of her parents. they inherit and go to live in her ancestral home, where they start a family. Shortly after the birth of twin boys, a fire breaks out in the house which destroys it completely. The shock of the fire affected his wife’s ability to breastfeed and as a result the babies died. They had no more children and although he has not caused his wife pain intentionally, he feels that her inability to produce any more children has made their life intolerable and he feels he owes her a debt by staying married to her and building a hew home.
His wife confesses that the loss of the twins and her family home, sealed the end of their relationship. and she forces herself to be obedient to her husband because that was in their wedding vows – it is her duty to obey him.
Although not a professionally trained architect, the man concentrated on his building business and constructed on the site of his wife’s family estate, a number of houses which would bring him wealth and kudos. As the years go by, the business expands, and he becomes the ‘Master Builder’ of the title and ruthless of any other competition that he considers may stand in his way. He spends all his time ruminating about the past and is paranoid that the younger generation is going to ruin him, his reputation, and his years of hard work.
His wife is reasonably concerned with this and discusses the matter with the family doctor. However, when the doctor comes to call, the builder accuses his wife and doctor of plotting against him and suggesting he is going mad.
I won’t go any further in case I spoil the plot for anyone who wants to know what happens in the end. However, although Julia could not seem to see a significance, there are some similarities to WHW’s life.
This is not just my interpretation – it has been reported as;
Conclusion Ibsen‟s The Master Builder touches upon many issues that weigh on a career person who finds himself in a rut. Life around him progresses very fast while he grows older and feels he cannot keep pace with the vigor of the young. Solness feels threatened and while he is busy combatting his insecurities, he brings about his ruin. He thinks that playing blind and deaf along with stubbornness can save his name and prolong his already fading career.
What I find interesting is this suggestion of madness. One of the tip-off letters makes this suggestion about Wallace. It states the writer is aware that Mrs Wallace tried to have WHW committed as insane. Also, the letter was handwritten on paper headed with the address of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange which was situated on Edmund Street in the same street where Beattie worked as a cotton broker’s manager. I am not suggesting Beattie wrote the letter, but you must admit it does seem coincidental.
In the summer of 1929, Amy Wallace returned to England. She stayed 2 weeks at Wolverton Street and went on holiday with them. But this is not mentioned in the diary – why? You would think that WHW would be happy to see his sister-in-law after such a long time but it does not seem to be worth a single word in his writings. He only records visits to her flat in Ullet Road in the November.
1930 continues with the illness theme. In May WHW makes several references regarding Mr Crewe, this may have had something to do with his upcoming surgery and need to have cover provided during his absence. But again mysteriously, there is no mention of his illness, surgery or convalescence. Julia apparently looked after him at home, but he negates any word of thanks or gratitude towards her.
By October 1930 , there is mention of mental trouble but does not refer to whom it applies.Two days later WHW makes a statement regarding immortality, suggesting that it is he who has the problem.
This negativity continues in November when the chess tournament is announced.
6 November 1930: The tournaments (chess) are now up, and I see I am in class three. This about represents my strength of play. I suppose I could play better, but I feel it is too much like hard work to go in for chess whole heartedly, hence my lack of practice keeps me in a state of mediocrity. Good enough for a nice game, but no good really for first class play.
In December, WHW records his concern when Julia failed to return home until the early hours of the morning after a trip to Southport. I have already given my views on this in a previous post.
However, in January 1931, WHW sheds light on the inner workings of his mind when he records his interest in a book he had recently read.
Jan.14 Wednesday: Reading very interesting book. by J Lays published in 1889.](Wallace has made a mistake, the author’s name is J Leys (John Kirkwood Leys)).
This is the premise of the story – it is about a young man called Alec Lindsay who has a rich uncle who wants him to join his business with a view of taking it over in the future. However the young man wants to become a lawyer so refuses the offer and goes to university to train. Three years later the uncle is in very bad health and his doctor tells the uncle’s cousin and carer that he is end of life. He advises her to prepare the uncle for his soon death and to put his affairs in order. After receiving the news -his nephew Alec calls on him.
The uncle is jealous of the nephew for his youth and good health. He asks the nephew to help him write a letter to a Scottish Church Minister to inform him of his situation. The Minister goes to see the uncle who tells him he doesn’t know what to do with his estate and who to leave it to. He suggests that if he leaves his wealth to the Church he may get a better chance of redemption for his sins in Heaven. The Minister advises that a legal trust is set up and offers to be the Trust secretary. The Trust specifies money to be left to nearest relatives but the bulk of the wealth to the Church. The relatives to inherit any residue are names as the uncle’s two nephews – Alec Lindsay and James Semple. The uncle tells Alec his intentions in the will and asks Alec to oversee it. However, the other nephew James Semple finds out what is in the will and feels that he has been done out of his true inheritance and sets about a plan to change the content of the will to his advantage. He does this by burning the original will and replacing it with a forgery. When the uncle dies the will is read. The Church only received a small legacy whilst the bulk of the wealth goes to the 2 nephews. As Alec Lindsay supposedly drew up the will and was the major beneficiary he is accused of fraud and imprisoned and sent for trial. He was found not guilty and acquitted. Shortly after his acquittal Alec Lindsay was diagnosed with consumption. His love interest in the story went to live in Brighton as a nurse/governess. Two years later they met again and all lived happily ever after.
There is no particular evidence of why WHW found this book so interesting but again the similarities with Wallace’s circumstances are remarkable! And all this before the crime is committed.
I rest my case – comments welcomed but please don’t write off simply as conjecture of a would-be Miss Marple!
Tilly Mint
Hi Tilly Mint,
No need to apologise for the length of your thought-provoking posting.! Some points which I would raise:
I agree with your comments on reported times of events. They have to be taken as approximate. Everyday events remembered days later with extreme precision on timing – I don’t believe it.
It was indeed Wallace who introduced Parry into the story. This, in my view, was a reaction to Wallace being told on the Thursday evening that the call had been traced to a box near his home. He had not foreseen this so in spite of saying earlier “I have no suspicion of anybody” he goes into some detail about Parry to divert suspicion about his own involvement. On this evening too, still reeling from news of the call being traced, he quizzes Beattie at the tram stop about the time of the call.
Wallace had one remaining kidney and this was failing fast. Kidney failure is not like heart disease or liver failure etc, it is almost unique in that key symptoms are mood changes and specifically expressions of anger which make life very trying for relatives and carers. This alone wouldn’t make him kill his wife but it has to be factored in to any consideration of motive and the state of Wallace’s mind at the time.
With respect, I do not think it was Wallace who highlighted Parry’s supposed ability to change his voice and his proclivity for making spoof phone calls – this information came from John Parkes. And only John Parkes. Is this a reliable source?
Re “The master builder” Wallace’s diary entry shows that he considered himself intellectually superior to Julia.
In his diary entries there is not a single hint of humour or irony. He comes across as a depressive and as you say it is always about himself with little about Julia. Except when he describes his bungalow in Bromborough as “the kind of house that Julia (note “Julia” not “We’) always wanted.” I wonder how often she reminded him of it!
Mike
A great piece Tilly Mint and good response Mike.
We must remember that there were few blank pages in the diary and what we must remember is that the snippets published here are only those used in court…..
Text from this site –
Personal diary entries written by Wallace, courtesy of Ronald Bartle, John Gannon and Roger Wilkes. These diaries were not written to be read or published, but they were made use of in court and after his death. At court the police had four diaries from 1928 to 1931, presumably one for each year. In each diary Wallace had written his height, weight and age, as well as his glove, hat, and coat size. Few pages were left blank, and yet few pages have been made public. Sadly I believe these diaries are now lost. Entries enclosed in square brackets are summaries by the police, the actual text is unknown.
So, now you have listed what the prosecution used, likewise we can see that:-
W is concerned by Julia’s ill health, coughing in bed etc
They are out together in Settle on 9.9.29
On 25.3.30 W records that we are pleased and contented with life as much as anyone.
15.12.30 W is anxious and worried about Julia going missing in Southport, worried enough to go to the police. This is just a month before her murder.
7.1.31 I persuaded Julia to go to Stanley Park to see the frost on the leaves etc, she was equally charmed. This is less than 2 weeks before her murder.
Then of course, the talk about how Julia would have loved the bungalow.
If Wallace thought there was anything of detriment in those diaries he could well have destroyed them on their burner at any time previous to the murder. Likewise, he could have entered very loving entries including what they would both be doing in the summer – just to prove they had plans. He could even drop those plans into conversations with Caird, The Johnston’s, Amy or Edwin etc.
Regarding the timings, I disagree with some of that and here’s why.
The Holy Trinity church clock was set weekly (the trial made a big mention of this) and the Workhouse church bells were rung religiously at 6.30pm. No fewer than 4 of the witnesses use these set times as gospel (pardon these puns) as to how long their foot journey would have taken them to various addresses in the locality.
also the trams are set to a timetable and on these routes trams had to physically punch a timestamp.
Parry is mentioned by W on Thurs 22/1 on the same day as he is confronted with the phone box location. I can’t find which came first. W though was simply answering a question put to him as to who might be allowed into the house. For all we know W might well have cottoned onto Parry’s ‘musical’ evenings with Julia and was suspicious of him and of course of Julia too. Imagine W IS innocent for a minute. Why wouldn’t he think of Parry, knowing what he knows about having blown up his financial irregularities. Also, why would W not speak to Beattie on the Thurs 22/1 now W is aware of the (false 7pm) call box time. He is bound to want to get it more accurate, I would if I were innocent. Also, here we have again, W talking to Beattie. This man he doesn’t talk to very often supposedly. What if during all these conversations Beattie twigs the caller was indeed W.
Parry and Marsden being Pru employees (and at this point no irregularities were present) so why wouldn’t W be ok with them doing his rounds. We do not know he didn’t get the ok from his superiors but they were not just 2 scallies off the street, they were employees.
I have been to Crewe’s house on Green Lane, and on a pitch black January evening during our group walk of the area. Approached from Allerton Road as W says was usual, you would not have any reason to know the other end of this road up at Menlove Gardens.
And there rests my case for the defence 🙂
Hi Ged,
Wallace gave Parry’s name as someone who Julia would have admitted to No 29. If I recall correctly the list comprised some 14 names including neighbours, friends, and several Prudential colleagues (much to the chagrin of the latter!). But Parry is the only one who gets the full treatment with remarks on his dubious character, his engagement to Lily Lloyd, his address etc. Wallace is singling him out apart from the others as “a person of interest.”
Wallace’s diaries can be taken either at face value with expressions of domestic content and harmony or as a cynical record preparing the ground for the crime knowing that they would be read after his death. In particular I found his post-appeal entries about how much he missed Julia rather over the top and unconvincing. He also says his “sole remaining mission in life” is to unmask Parry as the killer and bring him to justice. All hot air because he did nothing.
As you say Ged he could have dropped references to future plans into conversations with others. He didn’t, but he did tell several of his Pru clients how happily married he was which has always struck me as odd.
The tram stop conversation with Beattie: Wallace had been told by the police that the call had been logged at ~ 7.00 pm. This time was confirmed In Beattie’s first answer to Wallace’s question. At this point Wallace has been given the same time by two independent sources who are best placed to know the time. An innocent Wallace would not know that ~ 7.00 pm was about 20 minutes too early. An innocent Wallace would accept ~7.00 pm as definitive. But he didn’t – he continued to question Beattie to the point where Beattie advised Wallace to stop “as it might be misconstrued.”
I take your point on the timings determined with reference the church clock or workhouse bells but when people live routine lives passing the same point at about the same time each evening there is always the possibility of confusing one day with another. But its a good point.
Have a good weekend,
Mike
Hi Mike. Confusing one day with another like Lily Hall you mean who a week later couldn’t seem to remember the correct time or day or does confusion only count for those where it fingers Wallace 😉
Yes, I know all about Wallace fingering Parry quite badly but my reply was in response to this you said below:-
”It was indeed Wallace who introduced Parry into the story. This, in my view, was a reaction to Wallace being told on the Thursday evening that the call had been traced to a box near his home. He had not foreseen this so in spite of saying earlier “I have no suspicion of anybody” he goes into some detail about Parry to divert suspicion about his own involvement. On this evening too, still reeling from news of the call being traced, he quizzes Beattie at the tram stop about the time of the call.”
You make it look like Wallace only fingered Parry after learning about the location of the phone box but there is no record of whether he gave this statement before or after learning of the phone box location as both were on Thurs 22/1. I read somewhere that Wallace only learnt of the location not long before he left to see Beattie on the corner and therefore it was still fresh in his mind so it’s likely he had already given that Parry fingering statement earlier on that day.
I also believe he fingered Parry the most was because he was hardly likely to think other friends who might be let into the house such as Caird, the Johnston’s etc would do it. He knew Parry had tried to rob the Pru, he knew of him as a wide boy (probably after he’d allowed him his round whilst ill) and he’d fingered him again there so revenge could be a motive.
According to the prosecution, the diaries hardly present themselves in his favour so why didn’t he just get rid of them?
Have a good weekend too. Looking forward to the next round of too-ing and fro-ing lol.
Thanks for your responses.
I am still of the mind that WHW killed Julia for whatever reason.
Yes – he could have chosen another modus operandi- poison, strangulation, pushing her downstairs, etc but as Julia seldom left the house the murder would have to be indoors and when he wasn’t present. He was silly enough to try and create the RMQ alibi and pass the crime as a bungled burgalry but the actual attack was perfect.
His question to the Johnstons of had they heard anything unusual does not make sense. If I came home and found my doors locked and knowing my partner was inside I would be banging on the doors and windows to let them know I was trying to get in. If nobody answered I would then think they had popped out on an errand and would wait for their return. If my neighbours came out while I was waiting I would simply ask if they had seen my partner leave and when – if they said they hadn’t I would not ask them to hang on while I attempted to open the doors again! It just doesn’t make sense.
Similarly when he finds the body – he is the one who suggests a robbery by pointing out the broken cabinet door.
The murder had to occur in the parlour so as to confirm the murderer was a visitor not a resident – the bogus RMQ fitted this description perfectly.
WHW assumed that the crime would be accepted as attempted robbery and that would be that. The reason there was no blood or weapon found was to ensure that he could not be implicated in any way.
The Police would waste time looking for RMQ, forensics, weapons to no avail and he would play the grieving husband.
He didn’t expect to be a suspect he thought his plan was watertight. He did not have the foresight to think that switching the gas and lights off was odd or replacing the money box on its high shelf after removing £4 would be the acts of a burglar.
WHW probably placed the money in the jar upstairs earlier in the evening.
Even his supposed influenza the previous weekend was probably put on. If you have flu you are in bed for days afterwards, especially with his renal problems his recovery would probably take longer. You certainly wouldn’t be entertaining your relatives on Sunday night and playing chess on Monday! The pretend illness ensured he had an excuse to not to do his collections so that there would be a deficiency in money in the house. That way there would be no or little inconvenience to himself or his employers.
It was only when he discovered that the Police would not accept his version of his events he gave additional details of Parry, the discovery of the call coming from the local call box must have terrified him. Hence his weird conversation with Beattie.
Even after his acquittal he continued with his nonsensical claims that Julia had no relatives – he told this to the landlady of the guest house in the Lakes where he stayed after his acquittal. It must have been WHW who gave the police Amy Dennis’ contact details. Although Edwin Wallace stated they met Amy Dennis at the railway station, WHW does not acknowledge it. He didn’t have the guts to face Amy Dennis when she had travelled up from Brighton. Instead of meeting with her at Amy Wallace’s flat, even if there was no space to stay, he purposely asked to return to Wolverton Street. This is suspicious behaviour don’t you think.
Obviously no love lost between them as Amy Dennis returned home the next day leaving a note for Wallace ( re Julia’s fur coat) and a communication to the police. There is no record of either of these notes so we will never know what she said.
I remain convinced he did it- don’t know how but that is the mystery that has kept us talking for nearly 100 years and why he was acquitted on appeal.
Hi Ged,
At 10.45 am on the 22nd january Wallace reported to Dale Street police station telling Inspector Gold that he had important information. He went on to give Parry’s name and details along with other names.
It was that evening (Thursday 22 January 1931) at 7.45 pm that Superintendent Thomas told Wallace that the call had been traced and logged at around 7.00 pm.
So you are quite right Ged. This shows that it wasn’t the shock of the call being traced which led to Wallace pointing out Parry – he had already decided to do that on arrival at Dale Street.
Source” “Checkmate” by Mark Russell
Hi Tilly,
“Have you heard anything unusual?” is, as you say, a strange question in the circumstances. He may have been seeking confirmation that the Johnstons had not heard sounds of any commotion earlier that evening when Julia was killed.
Surely one’s first thought is that Julia, not being well, had gone to bed early and was sound asleep upstairs.
Mike
Good Day Tilly Mint and Mike.
Thanks Mike, I thought that was the case regarding the timings on Thurs 22/1.
Tilly. So we have the master planner making sure the murder was in the parlour so as to give off the impression it was a caller, yet this master planner overlooked quite a few other simpler things like just saying The bolt was on from the very beginning. (It was very obvious the Police would be quizzing quite strongly as to why he couldn’t gain access) There are a whole host of other things he could have done or said if he was the killer acting out scenes of innocence. It looks to me like the no risk phone call to get him out of the way actually worked.
It would not be so impossible for the murder to happen in the kitchen when the caller is caught in the act of robbery by Julia. As for W suggesting robbery by pointing to the broken cupboard door on the floor, what else would you think it is lying there for? Why wouldn’t one draw attention to it?
It is clear that Wallace, if guilty, was not a “Master Planner.” There are many points in the case where he could have said something to his advantage or done something in a better way. But none of this contributes to the case for his innocence; it just shows he was, like all of us, a flawed human being who didn’t think of everything.
In particular he was unable to see that Qualtrough, planning either a murder or a robbery, would be unlikely to leave the chess club message due to it’s many potential failure points, any one of which would have scuppered his plan completely. Only Wallace knew with absolute certainty that he, W H Wallace, would go in search of Menlove Gardens East as instructed. Qualtrough would have had a better plan; Wallace didn’t need one.
This was a “one shot” plan which had to work first time; there would be no possibility of repeating it without raising suspicion. In fact it has many features of something conceived and executed at short notice. As if there was a triggering event which pushed Wallace over the edge into action.
This could have been Wallace’s consultation with Dr Curwen in December at which it is fairly sure he would be told of the state of his remaining kidney, with possibly an estimate of the time he had left.
Much has been made of the Wallaces’ apparent financial security, but with Wallace gone Julia would have been reduced to poverty without any help from her estranged family. Maybe Wallace’s expressions of affection for Julia were quite genuine and this was a mercy killing to spare her from a further decline into inevitable penury. This however doesn’t fit with the sustained ferocity of the attack which may indicate the venting of long-held frustration and resentment.
It is worth remarking that compared to most killers, Wallace had little to lose whether found guilty or innocent. Obviously “Innocent” is better than “Guilty” so that he can die in a hospital bed but either way he was a dead man walking and he knew it.
Those who believe Wallace to be guilty see his difficulty in gaining access to his home as a charade intended to attract witnesses to his eventual discovery of Julia’s body. I have always had doubts about this because if the Johnstons had not emerged at 8.45 pm he would have had to alert a neighbour himself after trying the front and back doors without any witnesses and without success.
If Wallace had told Julia that he would not go to Menlove Gardens and that a musical evening was planned she might bolt the front door after speaking with Alan Close as no further use of that door was expected that evening. Wallace would not know this and he left by the back door. He was initially unsure about the bolt but at his trial definitely said that the front door was bolted so he could not get in.
Which leaves the back door lock: anyone reading the locksmith’s report can see that this was in a terrible condition and erratic in operation. Didn’t Mrs Draper once lock herself out and had to be admitted by Julia? So this is consistent with Wallace failing at first to unlock the back door then on his return with the Johnstons, it unexpectedly worked. Also we have only Wallace’s word that he couldn’t get the back door to open on his first try.
So this business with the doors may have an “innocent” explanation and Wallace’s surprise at being unable to open the front door may have been genuine.
Yet Wallace never thought to himself. I can’t go leaving a message for myself at the chess club, it’s never happened before, why would anyone do that, it is quite unbelievable and what if my voice is recognised, and then the murder of my wife because of it whilst i’m out attending the reason for the call, the police would be all over it. What even if somebody saw me at the box making the call, spotted me on the way to it or coming from it and said’ Evening Mr Wallace’ then there is my plan up in smoke. what if somebody saw me from the bus or tram but I didn’t see them. What if i’m noticed coming into the club only at 7.45 when the rules say 7.30? Not only is it unbelievable that somebody else would do it (though there is no risk if it doesn’t work) it is even more unbelievable that he would attempt it. Yet somebody did it and the one with no risk seems simpler to me.
Hi Mike and Tilly Mint. I am also reading this which goes into great detail about the call and possible fault. The engineer found no fault with the box, it seems it was with the line.
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/social-chat/other-mysteries/749725-the-murder-of-julia-wallace/page8
I would recommend ignoring information that isn’t in a case file. Is there a document about that? I think that could be a misinterpretation of what the electrician said about the light in the box on trial, rather than anything about the phone itself?
The electrician’s statements are published, I don’t recall anything about the operating condition of the phone.
https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/case-files/telephone-exchange-operators-and-supervisor-testimony/
Hi RMQ,
I agree that it is unwise to rely on information not backed up by documentary evidence. And in view of the difficulty placing the call it is puzzling why Leslie Heaton, the ‘phone engineer, wasn’t questioned about it. It would seem that he had visited this specific phone box and it wasn’t to see if there was a light in it because he finally admitted that he didn’t know.
Incidentally Hemmerede later in the trial confirmed that there was no light in this phone box.
I am convinced there was no attempt to scam a free call because:
1, This was not mentioned by the operators or anyone else as a possibility at he trial.
2. The operator’s final instruction to Qualtrough was “Insert your two pennies please” once she had made the connection (Gladys Harley Statement No 2). So he paid for his call.
3. Qualtrough, even if he was a scammer, would surely not have tried to scam this call in particular. A longer conversation than usual with the operator could be foreseen as well as the risk of the call being noted in some way (as it was.)
I agree with Ged that it appears the problem was with the line connection rather than the coin mechanism of that particular box. Maybe Mr Heaton found the mechanism to be O.K. which is why he didn’t mention it.
I don’t think anyone checked the cafe phone. However I find it seems quite coincidental that William sought multiple corroborations at every single point (various chess club members that a call was received, various tram conductors, various people walking around the Menlove area, various shopkeepers), and it so happens that there are multiple telephone operators to corroborate it too.
Possibly it was done on purpose, so when the story comes out in the news etc, there will more likely be people to say “oh yes I remember putting a call through to that cafe on that night” and possibly be able to provide some rough idea of what time that was.
The corroborations which you mention, and I agree they were deliberate and planned in order to support Wallace’s narrative of receiving the message, going to MGE, and discovering Julia’s body.
I too considered the business with the phone call might be once again a deliberate gathering of witnesses. He might gain a recording of the time giving him a short time to get to the club but he risks the source of the call being recorded which would be a major clue for any investigator so on balance I don’t think it was deliberate – just an unlucky glitch on the line.
HI GED,
It was on the Thursday that the call was traced to the Anfield phone box. I imagined the following:
The police call at my home on a Friday and inform me that my next door neighbour is suspected of using a fake credit card at the ATM in the lobby of the local bank. Did I see him anywhere near the bank on Monday evening? My answer would be that I see him out and about in the neighbourhood almost every day. I have seen him regularly near the bank, in the supermarket, waiting for a bus etc. etc. but this is such a regular thing that a specific sighting doesn’t register in my mind. I had no reason to remember seeing him near the bank on Monday or any other time as it was such common occurrence.
So if Wallace chose his moment e.g. between trams, for entering the phone box and kept his head down in that unlit space I do believe he could get away, perhaps not unseen, but certainly unremembered by anyone who knew him who happened to be passing by.
Voice recognition by Mr Beattie was in my view a small risk for reasons given previously. Add to these that Wallace, staid and serious, was the last person one would suspect of pulling a practical joke of this kind.
But then imagine the police ask your neighbour on the other side who says ‘I only go out for my weekly takeaway on a Monday evening as my local place does a deal for pensioners. The only other evening I go out is on a Thursday to Bingo in the other direction. Yes I do recall seeing him coming out of the bank, I was going to let on but he was walking with his head down but it was definitely him, I even recognise the hoodie he wears.
Wallace not only had to negotiate not seeing anyone (but more importantly not being seen by anyone) and he couldn’t have known he hadn’t been – ala Lily Hall – or anybody on any passing bus or tram – even the one he got on – at not his usual stop.
I’ve said to my missus many a time, saw your Martin (or another) yesterday. Oh what did he say? ‘We didn’t speak, he didn’t see me, I just saw him across the road but I was in a rush’. – It would only have taken somebody, anybody to blow his story sky high.
That is a bigger risk than a stranger Q making the call, who nobody would be asking about and indeed the call itself is no risk. No voice ID, no problem if W doesn’t fall for it – just everything to gain.
How different a path this case may have taken if the Police had just checked out Parry’s statements more thoroughly but the stubborn and under pressure Moore went directly for the first suspect he could get his hands on, it was easy meat. This even in light of the tram times not fitting and having to lean on the pesky Alan Close.
Our different points of view about Wallace being seen making the phone call do not take into account that Wallace never thought the call would be traced to his local phone box. If it had not been traced it could have come from anywhere so, although he took basic precautions, if seen and recalled by a witness he could say the witness was mistaken as he regularly used that phone and there would be nothing concrete to link him to the Qualtrough call.
As you say, an encounter with a neighbour who exchanged greetings near the phone box at 7.15 pm on that night would put him in an awkward spot but he could postpone the call and the follow-up until another time. One can never be 100% sure that one hasn’t been seen but Wallace must have felt confident enough to go ahead.
Maybe he didn’t see it that way. He expressed weird ideas about exonerating himself with the time of that call (see his answer when forced to give one on trial).
We all know Wallace was no master chess player, he even says so himself (yet some publications make a lot out of the chess side of things, even on their covers)
However, everyone seems to agree he was meticulous, stoic and set in his ways regarding planning, details and timings and yet we have this fumbling man trying to make sense of the murder who seems to go to pieces when asked seemingly simple questions that he would surely have known were coming the minute the police arrived.
Here in my mind is what a guilty Wallace does and it takes no genius.
Firstly, don’t involve blood, but we know this does so let’s go with what we know.
On the night of the call, why make it from a call box in the opposite direction of where he will be heading afterwards. Whether or not he knows it is going to be traced, just make it from Church st or Lord st then toddle into the club 10 or 15 minutes later.
Unless he’s making sure Close sees Julia alive before he commits the murder, then he has from 6.05 until about 6.45 to do this. Yet he somehow decides they’ll have a last supper first of scones and tea, even read the evening paper. The meal finished at 6.30 so he’s already just lowered his time to do this by more than half and the paper boy still hasn’t been, in fact he’s been arriving anytime up to 7pm lately according to neighbours. If he isn’t waiting for Close then what is he waiting for, just do it sooner. He has time to make the robbery look more believable and then bolts the front door to facilitate what is to happen later which is a gimme. These aren’t afterthoughts by us would be sleuths, anyone committing this would need to know they need a reason for not being able to gain entry on arrival back there later.
Next step, he knows he must make himself known on the first tram as that timestamps him having left the house when he said he did. He doesn’t even have to talk to the tram driver on tram 2 unless he really doesn’t know which tram takes him to Menlove as he only ever approached Crewe’s house from Allerton Road on a totally different route. On the third tram he only needs to ask to be put off as close to the Menlove Gardens area as possible which he does. Up at Menlove, Katie Mather is a good and solid witness, the bobby is a coincidence, he doesn’t go looking for one. The two shops, even one of them suffices. It is his actual true doggedness that keeps him up there having gone all that way – remember the Manchester shoe shop episode of his that comes later.
Arriving back at his front door, it is bolted, he is bemused so he knocks and no answer but hey ho let’s try the back, he doesn’t gain access (he’s maybe not to know the char lady and the locksmith will come to his aid about the defective mechanism or maybe he does know, who knows what conversations he and Julia had about it, he could make one up to the police couldn’t he, she’s not there to deny it. Maybe put a diary entry in a month before saying, reminder to see to back door lock. I mean why not, detractors use his diary to try to finger him, in fact burn the diaries as part of his plan if they are no help to him. So he goes back around to the front and bangs loudly, shouting Julia’s name through the letterbox instead of depending on the million to one shot of meeting the Johnston’s leaving their house at the never before unearthly time of gone 8.45pm in the pitch black cold January night to a visit their daughter wasn’t even expecting? Why drop himself in it by saying he knocked gently, why the uncertainty over whether the key turned or not or was the bolt on or not. Even if he’d forgotten to do it beforehand, he was the one who let the first policeman, Williams in, in fact Mr’s Johnston couldn’t even open the door, one just the same as hers next door.
Wallace saw crying as a fault in a man of the house. He cried in front of Mrs Johnston yet, she said, he seemed to pull himself together when in the presence of the police, a very strange manner from someone pretending to be grief stricken? Why not just be a blabbering wreck, sat at the table with his head in his hands?
Regarding identifying his mackintosh, which he did a number of times to the police but then hesitated when Moore asked him – why? It doesn’t prove guilt any more than it proves innocence. Perhaps he’s thinking why do they keep asking me this, maybe it’s not. What does he mean by whatever was she doing with my mackintosh – her mackintosh. More muddied waters.
When asking Beattie on the Thursday night if he could pinpoint the time of the phone call more accurately, he was asked by the police why did he ask Beattie. Wallace again doesn’t help himself by apologising that it was indiscreet of him. Why didn’t he just say because you (the Police) told me it was made at 7pm (which was factually incorrect but were the police trying to test him out or were they trying to say he had time to make it and into the chess club instead of only the 20 mins or so he actually had) so therefore Wallace was wanting to substantiate that he was still in his house until 7.15pm.
He could have made it all a lot better on himself for sure innocent or guilty and these are just some of the events I can think of offhand and i’m sure there are more.
But he didn’t do those things lol…
To his credit I think he did a marginally better job than some other killers like Scott Peterson who pretended to be partying by the Eiffel Tower with Pierre on the phone as an alibi.
Maybe if when he’d gone down to the police station when she was late home, hoping to hear there’d been an “accident” and there had in fact been one, he would never have had to carry out his evil wifewacking plans.
By the way he knocked “gently” at the front door, which wasn’t heard by anyone. I suggested a possibility he didn’t knock at the front and thus specified “gentle” knocking at the front door as a pre-emptive excuse for why nobody heard him.
Hi Ged,
I agree with all the points you raise where a guilty Wallace could have “done it better.” I imagine many a killer now in prison has had the same thoughts about his/her own crime.
It is likely that Wallace having been told by the police that the call had been traced and logged at around 7 pm prompted his remark to Mr Beattie that the police had cleared him as he claimed to have left home at 7.15. An innocent Wallace would be satisfied with this but Wallace asks Beattie for his recollection of the time . “About 7 pm or shortly after.” An innocent Wallace would be delighted by this confirmation of a time which exonerates him from making the call. But, far from being delighted, Wallace presses Beattie further: “Can’t you get it closer than that?”
This remark indicated to me that Wallace in reality is not at all happy with their timing of ~ 7 pm because if he had left home earlier that he said he had plenty of time to make the call and get to the chess club by 7.45 pm. By “get it closer than that” Wallace was hoping Beattie might say “Come to think of it, it was later – around 7.15 pm.” Because Wallace knew the call was at ~ 7.20 giving him a tight window of time and doubt about whether he had enough time to get to the club.
Beattie’s error about the time is understandable but why did the police tell him it was around 7 pm? A miscommunication within the police or a deliberate deception to throw Wallace off -guard?
It could be that Wallace did think he had made himself known on the first tram but the conductor completely forgot about it.
I think Wallace would have gone ahead with the murder even if Alan Close had delivered the milk at 7 pm. After all, the appointment with Qualtrough at 7.30 pm was a myth and if questioned Wallace could say Julia was ill which delayed his departure.
You can see he was asked to explain his reasoning. Most times he refused to elaborate with weird cryptic riddle replies, but was forced to explain on trial and did so.
RMQ – ”but he didn’t do those things lol”
Yes you are correct, he is innocent, therefore he didn’t. i’m telling you what anyone with half a brain would have done.
”By the way he knocked “gently” at the front door, which wasn’t heard by anyone.”
Yes, I didn’t say he didn’t. I’m suggesting that a guilty Wallace would have made a damn good racket to be noticed, you know, like you say he made a racket with the tram staff to be noticed.
Mike – How does Beattie moving the time he took the call to 7.15 make it better for W, it is no different from 7pm. because at either of these times W still wasn’t at the call box if he only left the house at 7.15 like he says he did? If Beattie remembers it was 7.20 then it puts W right there so this questioning is bad for W not good so that is a plus point for him.
If Wallace had made some fuss on the first tram or done/said something memorable, I’m sure he would have made comment of it the Police to back up his short time period for having to have committed the murder and leave the house. This then could be traceable to the driver etc.
I’ve just come across yet another incarnation of the casebook forum threads as it keeps getting closed down (the last time was due to some arguments between RMQ/Josh on here with another poster) Anyway, the most recent thread is now closed too but I wish I could have got to comment on it whilst it was live as there are some wild theories on it. Luckily Antony Brown is on it to bring some semblance of reality to it.
That’s not how reality works. Like “Scott Peterson pretended to be raving at the Eiffel Tower with “Pierre” as an alibi and that was dumb, therefore he is innocent”? Lol.
Throw out all the invented “evidence” (anything not backed by a reference to a documented file i.e. invented bs by authors and random townsfolk recollections half a century later) and the case is over. I don’t even think about it anymore.
OK so if W is so dumb as to not see the inevitable questions that will come, let’s have no more about how meticulous he is with this and that, master planner, time keeper etc. If he is guilty he is very lucky to have got away with murder.
Wallace never uses Alan Close as an alibi or excuse. If he purposely waited for his arrival he would do so knowing he can only kill Julia afterwards. We know he was on that 7.10 tram at Lodge lane so we know the latest he can leave his house is 6.49 . Are you expecting me to believe that Wallace having had from 6.05 until 6.49 to commit the murder waited until after Close left and didn’t use him to prove he couldn’t have done it?
The fact he never heard him arrive at all and he wasn’t even sure if the milk had been delivered or not when questioned puts himself in it until close comes forward as he has potentially nearly three quarters of an hour to commit the murder so why does he leave it until the last minute after Close has been.
If you want to stick to documented file, stop inventing that the killer had no blood on him because you recruited some would be townsfolk 21st century amateur scientist because the suggestion of such according to McFall, Moore who were at the crime scene is ludicrous.
Meaningless noise. The drains could have been used so blood is irrelevant, benzidine “facts” about the drains are inventions by pseudointellectual authors never corroborated by any documented evidence, and in any case would not be reliable inside drains. There’s a reason these low rate writers are creating books read by all of 100 people and not working as P.I.s or detectives. The case is closed. Husband kills wife yet again, what a surprise.
Even bank jobs stealing hundreds of thousands of pounds aren’t as elaborate as this alleged cash box heist of what was expected to be ~£20 or whatever (a few grand).
The case is over, time to find another hobby. Perhaps the Merseyside crime crew can all get into crafting miniatures?
Wallace thought the time given to him by the police and Mr Beattie (~ 7.00 pm) cleared him as he claimed to have left the house at 7.15 pm. But he’s on thin ice because he could be said to have lied about leaving at 7.15. If Wallace was guilty he knew the call was at 7.20 pm and he was hoping Beattie would confirm this by giving a time of 7.15 to 7.20 pm. Yes, I agree it makes it possible for him to have made the call but the tight time window for him to get to the club by 7.45 pm would introduce doubt that he could have done it. As in fact it did.
Thank you Mike, I see your reasoning now. Another double sided argument, like so many in this case which can go either way. Wallace will probably expect that Beattie and Harley will be able to near accurately pin point the call time, in fact Harley says that phone did not ring for half an hour before the Q call (further proving the failed call was probably due only to the dodgy line between the exchange and the club) so she had an eye for gauging times etc. If Beattie say started his game at 7.15, he’d have an idea that he was called away from it only about 5 minutes into it etc.
As i’ve said before, having re-enacted the whole scenario of the failed call incl 3 operators involved, then, Harley having to fetch B, then the writing down and spelling out of the name and re-reading it back etc, it is a good estimate that the whole call took no less than 5 minutes and possibly more like 7. Wallace then only had to slide in unannounced and claim he’d been there since 7.40 to make that call be an impossibility.
Yes I agree that Wallace, not thinking that the call would be traced and the time logged, hoped that Beattie and/or Harley would be able to give a fairly accurate time. In this he was to be disappointed with Beattie quoting “7.00 pm or shortly after” and Ms Harley saying it was between 7 and 8 pm!
These are normal reactions of people asked to recall the time of (at the time) an unimportant event. This alone is enough to make me sceptical of any timings based only on individual recollections throughout the case. These can only be approximate e.g. the milk delivery, re-enactions of Alan’s deliveries with the police notwithstanding.
Ah yes but the milk delivery is corroborated by Elsie Wright hearing the service church bells at 6.30pm and Wildman checked Holy Trinity church which was set correctly every week. We know those to be correct as can the trams who have to time stamp into physically calling points.
How frustrating it would be to a guilty Wallace to not only have to overcome the diverted traffic and potential congestion due to said diversion but a faulty line resulting in him spending some more time on the phone than necessary whilst cutting down the time Beattie would hear his voice twice.
RMQ – You’ve closed the case without answering questions and with not a shred of palpable evidence against Wallace which is just as conceited as Gannon or anyone claiming the final verdict.
We know the drains were searched, the bath taken out etc, the house was inhabitable.
Are you saying you’ve never put yourselves in the shoes and mind of the killer who had forever to plan this and the questions that would be asked (If W is the killer) It is only right that we do so. We say, now how would I have done that. It’s not hindsight, it’s how would we do it.
None of that means anything, there is zero documented evidence whatsoever that testing was done to determine that blood hadn’t been washed down the drains, rendering much about the case’s “impossibility” moot. The only reason to even think he didn’t slay his wife to begin with is that it’s allegedly impossible, but that was based on fictional evidence that seemingly doesn’t exist (since nobody can produce proof of the claims) and which is entirely invented or misonstrued by sensationalist authors and pseudointellectuals.
Thousands of convicted wife wackers or husband murderers had some dumb attempt at an alibi. The fact they had a terrible “plan” doesn’t mean they’re innocent. They did it and so did Wallace.
Question to all who read here:
If Wallace was guilty. Why did he spend his time walking around Menlove as though he was actually looking for a place. He didn’t need to, just call at MGW then head down to Crewe’s but just say to the unsuspecting police that he traipsed all around MGN/S/W etc, it adds nothing. He knows he’s going the post office and shop if it’s all pre-planned and so he knows he has his alibi. Yet he is seen exactly where he says he was. Meeting the bobby would be a fortunate bonus.
GED this hindsight game is ridiculous. The guy wanted to impress upon as many people as he could his supposedly vain search for MGE. The “why didn’t he do this or that” game could be applied to literally virtually any planned murder. We also see in many cases of obviously guilty people the “how did they escape blood” bit.
The hindsight game, if we’re gonna do it, could be applied much much better to this supposed Parry and accomplice insane theory. Parry convinces “M” someone who has never been in 29 Wolverton to go because he made a convoluted call that may or may not get Wallace out the next night and for M to take all the risk with the wife still in the house. Just LOL at thinking that’s what happened. Not to mention this plan has M not planning to kill Julia but entering with a weapon and exploding on her and running from another room into the parlor and smashing her brains out viciously and seeming personally rather than running away.
It’s comedy level as a working theory. Discuss over your next pint and Shepherd’s pie.
PS: It has been told to you many times I am not Calum. We have posted pictures together so why the RMQ/Josh addresses? This isn’t good detective work from Rod and you guys lol.
Why did he spend so much “unnecessary” time traipsing around Menlove Gardens?
1. He was gathering as many witnesses as possible to testify as to his determination to find Mr Qualtrough.
2. He was told categorically by a local resident within 10 minutes of his arrival that 25 MGE did not exist. He even said “Its funny there’s no East.” But he persisted, talking with anyone he met. Even confirmation that the address was bogus by the local policeman didn’t stop his quest for more supporting witnesses at the PO and newsagent, long after the time of his “appointment” had passed.
Yes I agree this was “overkill” (no pun). “Just get two witnesses and head back home.” But he couldn’t be sure they would all come forward or be traced so there is a belt, braces, and elasticated waistband aspect to it.
He didn’t go to 25 Menlove Avenue did he.
A good point. That would be an innocent Wallace’s first thought: Mr Beattie wrote “Gardens East” instead of “Avenue.”
Menlove Avenue is some 3 miles long and I don’t know if the low numbers are close to Menlove Gardens or at the other end as it were.
It’s literally the second house by Menlove Gardens West lol… See Google Maps. I think he may have even walked right by it.
Well, that certainly is interesting making it even more surprising that he didn’t check it out. Of course if, in a one in a million chance, a Mr Qualtrough had been living there this would have become known very quickly.
It seems that once Wallace had enough witnesses in the Gardens he was ready to go home.
So hang on a minute Mike and Herlock Sholmes and Wallace Whacked Her (Calum and Josh) You say we can’t use hindsight or muse how it should/could have been yet yous go on in some detail about what he should have done regarding 25 Menlove Avenue. Comedy central ha ha.
Yeah exactly the point, I perfectly illustrated how bullsh*t and meaningless these types of musings are. Do you think it proves he murdered her that he should have gone to 25 Menlove Avenue? Neither do your hindsight musings have any bearing whatsoever on the case, it is just noise obscuring the clarity of what happened here. You know, you might try playing Bridge or something instead… Or perhaps Rod can take you up in his Make-a-Wish gyrocopter.
We can all think of many ways in which a guilty Wallace could have “done it better” and improved his chances. Although entertaining, these musings don’t support Wallace’s innocence. They just show he was fallible.
His not checking Menlove Avenue No 25 is quite different. It is something one would expect an innocent Wallace to do, especially as it was nearby, after being told at least twice that 25 MGE didn’t exist.
Sorry Ged/Rod/Antony your point is a non sequitur…
We aren’t theorizing on what he “should have done” just noting what he didn’t do and what that might tell us. You are saying because he didn’t do it exactly how you would ot means he’s innocent. So sorry not analogous comparisons.
I find it comical that the bearded fat guy kicked me out of the group instantly after I was let back on. You guys can’t handle the heat?
Invite me to a pub meetup and I’d make quick work of everyone—-with words of course! Everyone would be agreeing Husseys sneak thief theory is bunk and Wallace is the likely man before nights end. I’d even buy you guys a round of Heinekens and a beef pie because I’m a generous guy.
Hi Josh,
You seem to have a thing about groups meeting in pubs and eating beef pies while discussing the case. Are you a vegetarian tee-totaller?
Mike
Let’s stick with the clarity of what happened then. ALL from documented evidence.
Wallace makes a phone call at 7.20 on the Monday from Rochester Road. Three operators (due to a faulty line) and 2 recipients at the chess club later, he puts the receiver down at approx 7.27 – going by my subjective re-enactment of the whole transcript incl fetching of Beattie by Harley.
Wallace is at his table playing around 7.45 despite, according to him, catching the tram at his usual stop on Breck Road and tunnel excavation subsidence causing a tram diversion and who knows what knock on congestion.
On the Tuesday, Wallace arrives home at 6.05
Alan Close sees Julia alive approx 635/6.40 (Workhouse bells/Holy Trinity clock)
(So Wallace doesn’t murder her in the first 30/35 mins of opportunity but instead has scones and tea with her)
At approx 6.40 onwards Wallace murders her and puts £4 from the cashbox into a jar upstairs as there is blood on one of the notes. He cleans himself of any blood as soc state the murderer will have blood on him. (McFall and Moore confirm this) in the meantime the newspaper is opened on the table at some point.
Wallace exits his home at 6.49 to make the first tram in time to reach the 2nd tram by 7.10. The police time trials find this impossible without running, jumping on a moving tram or getting on at the wrong stop which was a request stop before St Michael’s church.
Do you have any problems with this up to now?
Yes lmao these facts are largely incorrect. The “tunnel diversion” didn’t affect his route (the only route he “wasn’t sure” is the one he actually took by the way):
…on January 19th. last between the hours of 7.0 p.m. and 8.0 p.m. the only cars running from Belmont Road via Church Street to Pier Head were the No.14 cars and that the intervals between cars would be 8 to 9 minutes…
…At this date owning to the Tunnel subsidence under Dale Street, the No.13 cars via Dale Street and also some of the Church Street cars [to the East of where Whitechapel meets Lord Street] were diverted…
Do you see it now? He would have boarded a No.14. The diverted cars are No.13s. Diversion is irrelevant noise and can be discarded.
7.27 is invented in your mind. Obviously the conversation wasn’t instant, but this is completely unreliable and can be discarded.
Wallace thinks he arrived to the club at 7.50 rendering his arrival time uncertain. The penalty applies to scheduled matches by the way, he didn’t play the scheduled match as his opponent didn’t show up.
He has lots of time to get on these trams. He says he left his house at 6.45, in which case he has around the run time of a long pop song like “I Want to Know What Love Is” (he showed Julia what it is) up to a Genesis prog rock track run time like In The Cage (which he soon ended up in) to slay his wife and leave the house. Plus a little extra on top… Up to two “I Want to Know What Love Is”s, give or take.
I take issue with McFall and Moore’s apparent conviction that the killer would be blood-stained. The following factors are relevant:
The distance between killer and victim during the attack.
The number of blows administered after death.
Whether the weapon was muffled e.g by being in the sleeve of the mac
Whether the attacker was kneeling when giving the final blows to the prostrate body
Whether the mac was used as a shield.
The position of the victim (sitting / crouched near the gas fire?).
The length of the murder weapon.
Was the killer initially facing or behind Julia?
All these are unknown so I do not see how anyone can be categorically certain that the killer would be blood-stained.
Michael. I can’t have you both telling me to discard things you don’t like such as the length of the phone call involving 6 people and that Moore put out an APB to lodging houses and train stations etc looking for a blood soaked man – you told me to stick to what is known at the trial and I am and now it is yous moving the goal posts and adding in after thoughts, like I was told not to do. You will say next it wasn’t 11 blows but only 3 so he could have done it quicker. Can you please all make your minds up.
RMQ. I’m not sure if you have ever personally been in a situation where your normal route is saturated with other traffic because of a diversion of the said other traffic into your usual route. Now do you get it that there may have been some delay as to what was usually expected.
I do love the In the cage medley my friend but he was also soon out of it because your evidence, just like back in 1931 does not stack up.
The diversion is not relevant in this case, it affected a route he did not take. That is why it was not used by his defense counsel and why the report Maddock did for them only says the other route would likely have taken longer, rather than saying it as a generality that due to the diversion his trip would likely have taken longer. I think the comment was made by Maddock to pre-empt suggestions by the prosecution that he could have taken a No.13 and did tests on the now diversion-free 13 route.
Hi Michael lmao at your quip about the teetotal veggie 🙂
You said this:
”Yes I agree this was “overkill” (no pun). “Just get two witnesses and head back home.” But he couldn’t be sure they would all come forward or be traced so there is a belt, braces, and elasticated waistband aspect to it.”
He could be sure that the police officer would be traced as well as the workers in both shops though. Along with Katie Mather, that was well enough.
Any ideas why W didn’t kill Julia between 6.05 and 6.40 which only left him 9 minutes assuming he did the deed only seconds after the door closed on Close (5 mins if you believe W left at 6.45 which is more likely as he didn’t run to the first tram like the police did)
Maybe Julia was insistent she didn’t want to play music until after they’d had dinner, or some other pre-occupation.
RMQ says:
”Wallace thinks he arrived to the club at 7.50 rendering his arrival time uncertain. The penalty applies to scheduled matches by the way, he didn’t play the scheduled match as his opponent didn’t show up.”
But it was a scheduled match. The fact Chandler didn’t show up is irrelevant as W couldn’t have known he was not going to show up. A guilty W would be telling everyone he was there early – not late, making it possible he could have called. Do you not think a guilty W had a brain in his head.
7.50 is the figure he gave to his defence team, before he knew that the others at the club had placed him there at 7.45. After this statement, defence received testimony from club members like Beattie that placed him there at 7.45. Suddenly as if by magic Wallace’s next statement says 7.45 now he realizes he can get away with blagging earlier than he thinks he arrived. Even if he was innocent which he isn’t, he has a vested interest in lowering that time when given the opportunity to do so.
By the way Beattie says inquiring around Wallace was not there before 7.45, so 7.45 is the absolute minimum if you trust them. If matches had allegedly strictly enforced penalties and he didn’t get docked, Beattie would be able to feel more certain that he wasn’t there “after” such time.
Hi Ged,
Yes, Wallace would, as you say, have enough traceable witnesses with Katie Mather, the policeman, and the people in the PO and the newsagents. But after Katie Mather who told him 25 MGE didn’t exist he collared potentially untraceable people he met at random in the street. It was only at the end of his search that he met the policeman and the other traceable witnesses. Had he met them at the start of his search he might have said “That’s enough, I’m off home.”
If Wallace made the call he imposed a tight time schedule on himself by fixing the appointment at 7.30 pm. Qualtrough could have said “Call on me until 9 pm, I will be in that evening.” This fixed time and the choice of the Tuesday evening can be seen as fitting very well with Parry’s planed 3 hour (alibi?) visit to Mrs Brine from 5.30 until 8.30 pm.. I mention this to show that Wallace’s guilt is, for me, by no means proven beyond doubt.
Mike
I’m not asking for the length of the phone call to be discarded. Beyond doubt, when taken into account, it is a tight squeeze for Wallace to get to the chess club on time. Likewise with Moore, quite correctly, putting out an APB for blood-stained men in lodging houses etc. It is the right thing to do assuming the killer is blood-stained. However this remains an assumption as there is so much we don’t know about the circumstances of the attack as I outlined previously.
It isn’t overly tight given the window of 7.45 to 7.50 which has been provided through evidence. It’s actually possible for him to make the call and walk all the way to the tram stop he claimed he used (the only route he refused to commit to, and maintained an uncertain attitude as to his route to chess), board all the way over there, and still show up to the club at 7.50 PM which he initially claims is the time he arrived there. That is very significant in itself because the primary reason to think anyone other than he slayed his wife is some alleged notion of impossible timing.
The majority of times in this case cannot be expected to be completely accurate and should be used as a ballpark. Apart from for example the trams on the killing night, the time logged at the call center (albeit it is a nice round number, presumably off an analogue clock since digitals didn’t exist then), and Elsie’s hearing of the church bells.
It is not realistic to expect someone to recall to the minute something that took place the day before, unless they were expecting they would need to remember it. If I asked what time you passed a certain church clock on your drive back from the supermarket yesterday it would be ridiculous to expect you to be accurate to the minute as there was no reason to commit the time to memory. Using random testimony of times which the person had no reason to recall so specifically as an exact to the minute figure to work out some probability chart is just mental masturbation. You do have to allow some level of ballpark unless the time is more rigid i.e. trams, church bells, the call centre log etc.
Wallace’s clients’ statements show the issues with determiming extremely precise timing, as he provides the order in which he visited each client, rendering some of their times given impossible. For example it might be that client #4 says he came at 3.45 but client #5 who he went to after says he arrived at 3.30. This is the reality of relying on people to give timestamps like this… This is also the case with Gordon’s 8.30, unless they had reason to commit this to memory or he made special mention “oh it’s 8.30 I better get going” then it is not realistic that this figure is exact. He likely left in actuality a bit before or after.
The same is true of many things… Oh I think I waited about two minutes for X. Oh I think Y took about ten minutes. Oh I think I was at Z place for five minutes. None of this is reliable. Subjective experience can alter perception of time, where ten minutes in a waiting room feels like twenty because nothing is happening. Or being on hold on a call. Or having a conversation on the phone. Or walking to a certain place. But ten minutes at the pub with friends might feel like two.
I couldn’t agree more with your comments on timing. I’ve been beating this particular drum myself. A good example is Beattie’s recollection of the phone call (‘7 or shortly after’) and Ms Harley’s (‘between 7 and 8 pm’).
Whenever I read of debate on whether Wallace left for MGE at 7.49 or 7.50 pm it makes my hair curl.
All good comments. Mike you mentioned:
It was only at the end of his search that he met the policeman and the other traceable witnesses. Had he met them at the start of his search ”HE MIGHT HAVE SAID” “That’s enough, I’m off home.”
When I say Wallace might have, or would have or could have, it is constantly pulled up by RMQ. There is absolutely a ton of stuff a guilty W with all this planning time Might have, would have thought of, Could have and should have done with only half a brain.
One of these is to make his time to do all this impossible. Such as timestamping the first tram and definitely saying he arrived at the chess club in the shortest possible time ever, so saying 7.40 even is more likely to come from his mouth than 7.50.
RMQ: Why wouldn’t a guilty W commit to his chess club tram stop route if guilty?
RMQ: You seem to concede at last that church bells for instance are a reliable source to timestamp something so you concede then as per Alan Close’s original statement, backed up by Wildman and Wright that Close could not have been on the doorstep at 6.30 like the Police MADE HIM change it to. Now I wonder why they’d have to do that?
He wouldn’t commit to it if he didn’t take that stop. By failing to commit and only “think” he took that route but isn’t sure, it helps to offer protection if someone comes forward and calls out the lie. Claiming he maybe posted a letter would achieve the same if he boarded at the stop by the post box, and was seen waiting there or something like that. Then he can suddenly remember that oh yes he boarded there because of the letter he stopped to post.
6.30 is an irrelevant time, doesn’t matter, I haven’t seen 6.30 claimed by people who know he did it because that amount of time is longer than necessary to carry out the task.
Neither me nor Josh is the “Gordon” poster unless you mean the text below, that sounds like one of mine. If Parry didn’t know what time the call was made or where it was made from (or even that the location was traced at all), which he wouldn’t if he didn’t make it, he doesn’t know what time specifically he would need to cover himself for. If he was just driving around somewhere, and that happened to coincide with when the call was made, the true fact that he had just been driving around places wouldn’t protect him very well especially if alone. Blocking off a large amount of time claiming to have been with someone all day avoids the possibility of being accused of, for example, stopping off at a kiosk while driving somewhere.
I don’t know his actual thought process but it’s the sort of ancillary noise found in a majority of homicide cases that aren’t just like “dude shoots drug dealer and many witnesses saw that Tyrone did it”. Lily would have no clue if Gordon did or didn’t do it unless he showed up to her house soaked in blood or told her “hey Lily by the way I just murdered someone how are you?”. She’s using the same suggestions of having “secret knowledge” that Mark R did for years before releasing his book containing literally zero secret hidden info. And Whittington-Egan too saying he saw “something” in the files. And some of the detectives in the newspapers after the case pretending they have “secret proof” Wallace did it but refused to elaborate. Time and time again it is shown that “secret knowledge” in this case just means they actually have no hidden info at all, they just want to gain credibility as though they have seen proof so you should listen to them, or some other bizarro motives.
This is from the Casebook Forum.
Is this you RMQ or Josh?
Herlock Sholmes
Commissioner
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 18330
#305
02-05-2021, 12:04 PM
.
POSTED BY GORDON:
”Well, I understood that Lily Lloyd repudiated the alibi she’d given Parry for the night of the murder, after he threw her over, saying she couldn’t have been with him that night anyway because she was playing the piano at the Cosy Cinema in Boaler Street, Clubmoor, until late in the evening. Whether this was a mere act of spite is debatable, but it does seem to call the matter into question”
HERLOCK SHOLMES REPLY TO GORDON:
”Its not Lily Lloyd that’s important though Graham. He was alibi’d by 4 people at Knocklaid Road until 8.30. Parry also named 2 places that he went to directly after leaving the Brine’s (although there’s nothing to show that these 2 were checked. They were certainly checkable though.)”
OK so let’s look at this in more detail:
We know Parry lied about his Monday night activities – Period. Why?
We know the Parry had an alibi from his best mates Aunt for Tuesday, yet no best mate is present? This ‘unshakable – we keep hearing) alibi is very sparse, just that they sat for many hours, no mention of what they did, discussed, where it could be verified. The alibi seems to be taken as gospel. Maybe if the police had checked his Monday night statement properly, they’d look a bit more into Tuesdays, maybe visiting the people who gave the alibi separately to question them.
Parry’s alibi after half 8 is very detailed – when it doesn’t really matter. When it doesn’t really have to be?? He probably did visit those checkable places then. This is a ploy by people who will give detailed checkable things during a time that didn’t matter to help substantiate and make it look like co-operation when it’s the earlier time that matters.
Although Lily Lloyd’s alibi for the Tuesday night is from 8.30 onwards so doesn’t count anyway, why does she give their meeting as 8.30 if in fact it is for much later, why was she coerced by Parry (that surely must be the case) what was he up to at 8.30 pm. He couldn’t have been meeting another lady friend, as Lily is in on this lie.
I don’t see it as a woman spurned btw as she is sticking to this story even in 1981 and says that ‘If she is the last person who knows what truly happened that night then it will go to the grave with her’ – or words to that effect. Not exactly exonerating Parry is it?
No RMQ. I’m asking if you or Josh is Sherlock Holmes?
So… If you are saying Wallace is lying, I assume it is ok for me to say Parry is lying about the Brine Alibi and they have covered for him. I mean it is his best mate’s aunt, her and Harold’s alibi are almost word for word – contrived even and not saying too much.
I mean if saying Wallace is lying is ok, it is ok for me to say this too – right?
The thing i’m getting at is if Lily Lloyd is too not a liar, she was asked by Parry to cover for him – right? Not for the murder time but for a couple of hours after.
The post box was outside the library so posting a letter still doesn’t take him off his usual route to his tram stop by Belmont Road.
6.30 is relevant, very much so to the police who coerced Close into changing it as such. You keep telling me to go with what we know, what is documented.
Nah, I always used the same username on there and so did Josh.
I don’t think Lily Lloyd is lying to the cops. The Radio crew just assume she’d covered for him in the murder window. I think her “later that evening” she references is the time she told cops he’d shown up. With the radio crew I think she kind of enjoyed playing into the mystery with them to some extent (hence implying secret knowledge with cryptic words instead of just saying X or Y secret). She has no fear of ever seeing the files released in her lifetime so she can play into it with these interviewers freely, acting like she’s some big player in a Poirot episode.
She didn’t lie for him about the Monday evening and neither did her mother.
I definitely don’t think she is relevant in this. The Brines are but now you’re approaching sort of conspiratorial areas and it’s just simpler the less people involved in alleged cover ups unless there’s strong evidence for it.
The post box is towards Belmont I know, you’re not understanding. There is a closer stop near the post box on the same route. If he’d actually boarded the tram at that earlier tram stop, it could be a cover here. Refusing to commit to using the stop at Belmont provides an “out” and mentioning he maybe or maybe didn’t post a letter etc could be used as an “out” in the way mentioned, where if someone came forward and said “he didn’t board at Belmont I saw him waiting for the tram/get on the tram at the top of Richmond Park!” (near the post box), it would allow something along the lines of “oh yes I remember now, I boarded there because I stopped off to post a letter at the box there and saw the tram arriving”.
6.30 is not a correct or relevant time for Alan’s arrival. I’m pretty sure all this is on my solution page.
To provide balance the case for Parry’s involvement may be summarised as follows:
1. Character
He was dishonest, money-hungry, knew Wallace’s routine and the location of the cash box, and was accused later of assault on a young woman, which I incidentally believe to be true, although it was thrown out of court.
2.The Qualtrough call
Parry’s account of calling on Lily Lloyd as she was giving a music lesson has enough slack in it in my view for him to have made the call. He was in the neighbourhood and had his car. Parry initially gave an untrue account of his whereabouts that evening.
3. The Brine alibi
The choice of that Tuesday evening for the robbery and the fixed time of 7.30 pm for Wallace’s appointment guarantee that Parry has a strong alibi for the robbery itself. This could be deliberate.
4. John Parkes
On the face of it: unbelievable. But damning evidence of his involvement if it is true.
The Brine alibi which satisfied the police rules out Parry as the killer which leaves him as a potential fixer for the robbery to be done by accomplices. Here the case against him hits a brick wall. We can speculate endlessly about likely candidates and men running in the neighbourhood but there isn’t a shred of solid evidence to support this scenario.
The circumstantial case for Parry’s involvement is real but it is far weaker than the circumstantial case against Wallace, which, although not perfect is far more convincing in my opinion.
Hi Mike. A fair summary but some omissions. For other evidence against Parry we either also have to believe Ada Pritchard, Jonathan Goodman and Richard Whittington-Egan or believe that they too, as well as Parkes and the Atkinsons are liars. We also have to believe Lily Lloyd lied about fabricating a later alibi. We have to bear in mind Dolly Atkinson and Lily Lloyd are rubbishing themselves in this matter because Dolly is admitting to witholding evidence and besmirching the good family name and reputation for no good reason as is Lily.
I also feel given both characters as we know of them. Parry is more likely (than W) to make a dodgy call and put voices on, knowing he won’t be heard again 20 minutes later by the same people. Parry is more likely to do or know people that would do the deadly dead.
RMQ. Please tell me where you think the post boxes are because as far as I can tell both are West of Richmond Park so their location does not put you anywhere near any other tram stop East of Richmond Park or near to the phone box. That is to say if you come out of Richmond Park onto Breck Road, both post boxes are to the left uphill, not right downhill.
Yes, before the files were released it is clear in Goodman’s book he thinks Lily has vouched for Parry during the murder time. However, even after the murder time is known, so in 1933 Lily is approaching Wallace’s solicitor to claim she saw him much later than the 9pm she originally claimed. Lily’s persona does not for me seem like she is coveting publicity or to be any part of this unpleasantness. She, like Parkes had to be sought out. Parkes got his off his chest, Lily says anything she knows must die with her. What a strange thing to say if there’s nothing to hide.
Lily’s statement about Parry arriving at her house at 9 pm was supported by her mother. Wallace’s solicitor, although he was an old man when asked, had no memory of Lily recanting her 9 pm timing. Did Lily admit to doing this? Otherwise I don’t know where this story came from. Its relevant that neither Lily or her mother noticed anything unusual in Parry’s behaviour or demeanor which I would expect if he had just been told of the murder.
Lily, when tracked down in later life, was reluctant to even discuss the case so it may have been her marginal role in the story rather than any private knowledge which she took to the grave.
On the face of it Dolly Atkinson and her family are indeed hiding evidence but this only applies if they believed Parkes’s story. I cannot believe that they would withold his story about a customer they didn’t like if they believed it.
There are several stops towards Belmont Road, one not far from the library post box. It’s on my final solution page, there should be a map where I marked these things.
OK so he comes along Richmond Park and turns left into Breck Road and does what he usually does which is proceed up the hill towards a tram stop and he may have posted a letter en route or not. How does that fit in with him being down between the phone box and Richmond Park and the letter being an excuse when the letter boxes are up beyond Richmond Park heading in the direction of the city. The posting of a letter or not is a red herring and doesn’t even have to be brought into the equation as the letter box isn’t by the phone box. The prosecution would just say why didn’t you use the letter box by the library? It doesn’t even come into it. It sounds like he’s just thinking aloud trying to remember his very movements.
You haven’t comprehended the point still. It is a good excuse if someone calls out that they in fact saw him waiting/boarding at the tram stop near the library. It can then be said “oh yes I remember now, I didn’t board at Belmont Road, I boarded at Richmond Park because I had stopped off to post a letter and saw the tram approaching” or variants of that.
Failing to commit to the route and claiming he maybe posted a letter but isn’t sure etc, allows easy retracting of the statement if in fact he lied about boarding at Belmont and instead boarded at a different stop, for example the one near the post box that is closer and requires less walking distance from the phone box.
There isn’t any known congestion on his route, it affected trams he couldn’t have taken from those stops.
Mike. She rings in on the 1981 programme saying they believed Pucker. It isn’t up for debate if we are going off what we ‘know’ like i’ve been told to do. Parry was a wide boy, a known lout. Parkes had nothing to gain telling the Atkinson’s some wild fantasy and neither did Ada Pritchard. We have to believe there were a lot of liars – all with no axe to grind.
It’s Pukka I think? And he is an aged moron, though at the time of the crime he was a young moron, so only half the moron he was at the time of the interview.
Mike Green et al omitted some of “Pukkas” more unusual claims from the show so he didn’t come across like a kook. Those claims which included stakeouts etc, not corroborated in any file not even Munro’s defence files (though many people who felt they had important information for the defence contacted Munro), were sent to me by Wilkes.
Please pay attention to the events as they unfolded. Parkes learned about the murder from a cop before Gordon arrived. When the cop told him Julia was killed, he immediately replied “that’s Parry’s friend!” i.e. he was already thinking of Gordon in connection to the crime before he even saw Gordon. He also is likely to have brought it up to Parry if he turned up later that evening with the car. Because of these factors, as well as his admitted distrust of Gordon at the time, it would be easy for him to misconstrue Parry’s words and behavior.
Agreed. Parkes’s remark “That’s Parry’s friend” is curious: Parry and Wallace were not friends. They were ex-colleagues who only ran into each other by chance on the street and exchanged greetings and small talk. It may show that Parkes had a mild obsession about Parry and was already primed to link him to the murder by misconstruing his behaviour with some embellishment of his own.
PS – RMQ. I have just lifted this from you ‘My Solution’
”The phone is generally agreed to have gone down earlier than 7.26 (around 7.24 to 7.25)” so why do you keep dissing my suggestion it was around 7.27 like it is miles out 🙂
This then means he may make it into the chess club for 7.50 but only if the tram is right there and there is no 6-8 minute wait and does not take into account any added congestion due to the re-route of the other trams and traffic.
He can literally walk all the way to Belmont Road and board there after the phone goes down and STILL be at the club at the time he gave. It is an example to showcase that he DOESN’T EVEN have to be lying about the tram stop he boarded at and could STILL have made the call AND arrived at the club at 7.50, the time he claims he got there in his first statement. Even boarding all the way over at Belmont Road. And that’s not jogging from the box to Belmont, it’s walking.
No RMQ it is you not comprehending. Listen and watch. The whole idea you are saying that W can use the excuse of a letter only works if he makes the call and used the tram stop down on the corner of Townsend lane by the call box. To use any of the other stops higher up towards Belmont road are his usual stops anyway.
To use your own map for instance. Wallace’s natural route from his house takes him along Richmond Park and there is a stop right at the end on Breck Road so he’d look down, see no tram coming so turn left to the next stop at the end of Newcombe. The talk of perhaps a letter being posted here cannot be a ruse of any sort as he’d be up that end of Breck Road anyway so it doesn’t act as a reason for him being seen coming from the phone box area.
He can only be at the club if he gets a tram straight away with no waiting minutes and if the subsidence diversion causes no extra delay on his route. He gets into the club, has to establish Chandler isn’t there, gets asked by Caird to play, reject this and find McCartney and start playing, all before Beattie comes over with the message.
You make a lot of Parkes saying ‘That’s Parry’s friend’ How come people would go straight for him. Why didn’t he say ‘Hmm do you think it was her husband’ (If wife murders are always supposed to be the husband) To think outside the box like that would seem to point to Parry being a first thought rather than Wallace.
You didn’t get it again lol… What if we suppose he DIDN’T get on the tram at Belmont Road, because he was lying to increase the distance between his alleged point of boarding the tram and the call box? What if he told that lie, committed to it (rather than being “unsure”) and someone had spotted him boarding one of the earlier stops along that route?
The tram stop by the post box is closer to the phone booth than Belmont Road. If he made the call and only has to walk to Richmond Park, it is a slightly shorter walk than all the way to Belmont Road. The further he has to walk after putting down the phone the less likely it is to make the club at the specified time, hence why you might want to try to create distance.
You understand that it is easier to hang up the phone and get to Richmond Park, than it is to hang up the phone and get to Belmont Road right? So then you understand a possible motive to try to push his boarding location as far up as he thinks he can bluff. Though he COULD STILL have boarded at Belmont AND arrived at the club, and anything about delays and whatever is speculation. It is also possible that there are less trams running the route from Belmont (Maddock says ONLY the #14 was running through there, presumably there were usually more than just one number tram) and hence it took less time than usual. These ideas are speculative and can be discarded.
However I think you should get the thing about the letter etc now, and see how it might provide an easy out if he tried to blag boarding at Belmont when he boarded a stop not so far a walk.
Would a ticket issued by a tram be any confirmation of the tram no, route and time it was issued. It’s been that long since I used a bus, not sure what information if any it holds and was Wallace asked if he had any of his tram tickets or is the information on them useless. I’m thinking here he could have still had his first tram ticket on the murder night. I also believe trams en route to the city centre had to make a stop and timestamp at a machine on village street as it descends to the city centre. (Goodman’s book)
Parkes sounds compos mentis when giving his interview to Radio City I must say. He says, it is clear in my mind as it was back then. It was confirmed that Mr Atkinson told him not to use the back entries on his way to work in the future. I wish he elaborated more on the 2nd visit Parry made the day after with his ‘friend’
Let’s not forget, if Parkes was lying, he could have said Parry was full of blood or exaggerated other aspects of the alleged meeting. But he didn’t, he actually said it baffled him why he had no blood on him. Not a very good fantasist is he?
How about Ada Pritchard/Cook. Is she a liar too. Her story is damning
How about the relationship between Moore and his PA ?
He doesn’t sound “compos mentis”, in fact I think he’s on a dementia ward or in an asylum, because if you read the book by Wilkes you will see that in order to speak to Parkes, they had to gain permission from his son (power of attorney?) rather than ask Parkes himself. If Parkes was “compos mentis” I don’t know why he wasn’t capable of granting them permission to talk to him by himself.
Nothing about Ada’s tale is damning? She’s recalling a conversation she heard as a child 50 years earlier, and it is quite obvious Gordon’s parents were terrified when their son is being investigated for murder lmao. It is also logical that her parents in the circumstance could assume Parry must have done it.
Moore and his PA is approaching 9/11 truther stuff. Moore letting a murderer go free AND knowingly send an innocent man to his death over some mid tier at best job. Secretary? Lmao.
RMQ: It is quite laughable that Ada Pritchard, Jonathan Goodman, Richard Whittington-Egan and John Parkes are all liars when it comes to this case and Beattie is mistaken etc 🙂 Nothing damning about Ada Pritchard saying she heard a conversation whereby it’s being asked to get Parry spirited out of the city on a ship which then causing a big argument between her mum and dad after the Parry’s have left.
Yet, a woman Parry was calling on for 3 hours whilst her husband is away and who happens to be the aunt of his bezzie (who wasn’t even there) should be believed. Comedy gold actually.
Regarding the letter box: Let’s suppose W is guilty so after leaving the phone box he walks up Breck Road towards the tram stops and he is spotted by someone, so you are saying he will say he was just posting a letter. Well to post a letter in that post box he still wouldn’t be anywhere near down on that stretch of road between the phone box and even Newcombe st as his natural route to that box is along Richmond Park to the end and there is the letter box.
As far as Moore is concerned and the possibility of a framing is not so far fetched if you are aware of Herbert Balmer. I thought better of you RMQ. 🙁
If his PA is taking dictation and letters down for her boss, which is her job after all, I at least expect she will be keeping Parry in the picture.
Parry liked to remain in the picture, even as late as 1966 when he mentioned he knew a lot more about the case than he was prepared to say as he’d promised his father not even for £2000 would he talk about it. Talk about what exactly? He knew also about Edwin’s death which was only reported in the Far East.
We are to discard all of this though of course.
I’m not saying if he’s seen walking towards Belmont Road, but if he’s seen BOARDING at Richmond Park stop, e.g. by the conductor, or seen standing around there visibly waiting for the tram at Richmond. He COULD make it ALL THE WAY to Belmont Road after making the call and make the time, but it’s easier if he had caught the tram at Richmond Park, and if a tram had been coming he may have done so, and tried to blag a further stop.
Here is an example and you will definitely understand:
W: “I think I boarded at Belmont Road, I am not sure and maybe I’m mistaken, I may or may not have stopped to post a letter.”
Conductor: “Hello officers, I just saw that Wallace claimed to get on at Belmont Road on the chess night, that is quite impossible as I was the conductor on that tram and noticed him board at Richmond Park!”
Cops: “Hey W, why did you lie about getting on the tram at Belmont Road, a conductor saw you board at Richmond Park!”
W: “Oh yes, that’s right I remember now, I was going to go to Belmont but now I recall that I did in fact stop off to post that letter at the library, and then saw a tram approaching so boarded it at the Richmond Park stop near the post box instead”.
And variations of. It would be harder to retract statements about routes he committed to without seeming to have been purposefully deceptive.
I could go into all of those other things but I already explained Ada’s testimony for example, and I’m not sure if you actually don’t see what I was saying. She is trying her best to recollect accurately a conversation 50 years earlier, which she wasn’t even in the room for and eavesdropping, which even if took place exactly to the letter what she said, it is not very surprising that the parents of someone being investigated for murder (with the husband actively trying to claim it was Parry) would be nervous for his safety. If these randoms are actually taken at their word then some rando relative of Parry claims his car and clothes were taken apart to the seams. It isn’t in the files anywhere, there is no verification that this actually happened, the person claiming it wasn’t even alive at the time just relaying I guess what she heard, and should not be relied upon. That would be an example of the type of low quality tabloid journo work done by Goodman. Who printed that John Bull was ghostwritten based on a letter of Munro saying he “suspects” it must be ghostwritten on the basis that he was too shocked that Wallace would actually have said those things. This is low tier journalist work at best, mostly relying on rumours written into him by mail by random strangers, like when Tom Slemen put out his radio thing requesting information.
Hi GED you should really stop using RWE as an example of someone who “would have to be lying.” In his final book he fingers Wallace as the killer. Along with Roger Wilkes (who ended up favoring a conspiracy masterminds by Wallace instead) both changed their mind.
What’s more is in Goodman’s obituary it says his work was a great succcess “although Wallace was likely the killer”, the obituary says it was written by friends and family.. we can do the math.
Not that anyone’s opinion proves anything but since you still keep using this as an argument…
And what would RWE ever “have to be lying” about? He simply said he accompanied Goodman and would probably backup Goodman that Parry was nasty or creepy; then again if innocent I don’t think many would like to be confronted by aspie true crime writers with an axe to grind about a murder you were the main “alternative suspect” of.
When people are suspects tons of people pop out of the woodworks with weird damning stories. Fortunately for Parry he had somewhat of an alibi(even if we don’t fully believe the entirety of it) and when we look at the whole picture with the structure of the plan,Parry not even attending the club on the days Wallace was there for chess, Wallace missing the majority of the previous few meetings combined with what we know now is a bogus benzidine test that proved nothing and a 7:30 not 7:45 start time (showing the rule wasn’t really enforced and people barely paid attention), most of the reasons to think Wallace wasn’t involved go by the wayside.
Ada’s testimony means very very little. His parents wanted him out of the country with cops closing in on their petty criminal son for a crime which the penalty was hanging. This may have been before the cops were satisfied with his alibi, which by the way he was giving it to police the night of the 22nd and it ran into the 23rd early morning. This seems a more likely time Parry visited the garage rather Han the murder night since it was claimed to be at around 1 Am. That the low iq Parkes could get the wrong end of the stick (our outright lie) and the Atkinsons would back him up 50 years later for a tabloid show that was seeking info about a wide boy they didn’t like is not surprising.
Wallace also had many people over the years hinting at and claiming his involvement. None of this ps anything either way, we can keep going back and forth with this.
What I do know is especially once the benzidine test was shown to be bunk and the regular start time was 7:30 for chess, many of the reasons to think that it couldn’t be Wallace go away. And then obviously for a multitude of reasons without this in his favor, he has to be at the top of the suspect list. It’s no longer this “impossible murder” that the early crime writer fantasists and Asperger’s believed.
Yes of course, the primary reason to think Wallace couldn’t be guilty is the alleged “”””””evidence”””””” of benzidine proving drains weren’t used etc, which curiously never appears in any report or any statement. John Parkes claimed a pretty close relationship with the cops at the time, they were staking out the garage allegedly (lol). No reference to this. And I guess invested the energy and manpower into staking out a garage rather than simply opening the storm drain Parkes told them the weapon could be found down.
If it isn’t in the file, it didn’t happen, is probably a safer bet with a lot of this garbage journalism and hack writings.
Nice to see you again Josh: You say – ”Parry not even attending the club on the days Wallace was there for chess, Wallace missing the majority of the previous few meetings”
You have no evidence of any of this. Parry saw W at least 3 times on a Thursday and we don’t know how many other times he may have attended there. Just because the play was over does not stop him going in there, he worked in town. You have no evidence that W never attended on the day of the games he didn’t play. As with Chandler on the Monday night, W may have attended but his opponent did not which is why the game never went ahead. Beattie says W attended once or sometimes twice a week – even if it were only once every other week it is claimed he attended when he could.
Yes I thought Ada’s testimony may count for very little, as does everybody else where it doesn’t fit the W guilty narrative. She is not trying to remember something, it is clearly something stuck in her mind with very little difficulty recalling it, a bit like Parkes, a bit like Lily lloyd.
The reason I bring up do you also think Goodman and RWE are liars is they say they are sure they met the murderer that night. They recount the story of ‘Not for £2000 he promised his dad etc’
So I ask you, what do you think this is about then?
I also ask you why W had tea and scones with Julia as some sort of last supper instead of just doing away with her anytime between 6.05 and 6.49?
Also why didn’t he just say he didn’t even go home that night, that he went straight from Clubmoor to Allerton?
Don’t say in case someone saw him not do that, because when I give that as a reason that he didn’t make the phone call, it is twisted that nobody would have seen him. You can’t have it both ways.
This has been explained to you before I remember lol. You seem to forget and repeat the thing a month or so later. Some of these things though were explained within the last few days and you ought not to have forgotten already.
Also how is it “lying” that Goodman said he met the murderer? He thinks he did lmao. I am positive he believes he met the killer that night in the same way 3 year old infants who go meet Santa at the local shopping centre truly believe they just met Santa lmao.
Ged, your argument is Wallace missed scheduled tournament games but he might still have been at the chess club? Lol, what sense does that make. And more importantly it isn’t about whether or not he was actually there (although clearly he wasn’t) but the impression this would leave on a would be schemer in yours, Antony, Rod and the brilliant old timers pet theory.
Now admittedly the chess board is nearly indecipherable to a lay person, but as has been pointed out this was a “one shot” deal that had to work the 1st time whether it was Wallace or someone else behind it, so pretty lucky he attended that night/it was the first night Parry tried (assuming he was the caller.) Not sure how you can deny this.
One unfortunate aspect of this case is the intellectual dishonesty where people refuse to concede even minor points that goes against their theory. For example, I can admit the call in isolation has a Parryish flavor to it. But you won’t even concede the unreliability of the plan if Wallace wasn’t involved and there to make sure he went to the club and got the messsage. Rod wouldn’t concede Justice Wright thought Wallace guilty because of an obvious meaning quote about common sense which Stringer twisted. Antony won’t concede he wrote an original version of his book which has since been disappeared like a photo of an old communist dictator in a new regime; and chose Rod’s Hussey rip off theory because the publishers wanted a more exciting angle (read: less likely.)
Concessions are an important part of having an honest conversation and being an adult.
Antony also rigs democratic votes like a communist dictator. Percentages of each result miraculously identical after supposedly 500 to 1000 more votes.
The statistical probability of this being a genuine poll and not rigged, given hundreds and hundreds more votes and identical percentages is about 1 in 100,000,000—about the same as the chosen Parry Accomplice theory likelihood.
Real life isn’t an episode of Poirot or Columbo. We don’t need convoluted abducements from people desperate to be right or people trying to make a buck off old cases and murdered victims to arrive at the most likely conclusion. In fact, this is counterproductive.
Do you both not see that Wallace could turn up at the chess club and his opponent is not there (rather like on Mon 19th) So therefore we have no evidence that Wallace had not been attending for weeks. Beattie says differently, that Wallace went once or sometimes even twice a week. Beattie knew Wallace’s voice well enough to commit to it not being Wallace by any stretch of the imagination.
If Wallace is guilty, why didn’t he just say, I never even went home that night, I went straight from Clubmoor in search of MGE. I know what you will counter – what if he was seen, his story would be blown away. Yet when I say he wouldn’t have made the call or got on at a different stop because he may have been seen, you dismiss this. You can see the double standards upheld here by the W is guilty people.
For all we know, the reason Parry’s parents go storming around to Ada Cook’s parents begging them to get Parry out of the city could well be because he admitted some part in it. After all he decides to sign up for the Army in Aldershot (where he still can’t keep out of trouble) then he moves to London and when found there in 1966 he disappears into the middle of nowhere in North Wales and most tellingly, he keeps tabs on the case, his Father makes up some story about a car problem on Breck Road when asked about that night, Parry says he promised his father not to speak about it – speak about what? He admits to visiting Julia behind Wallace’s back. Yet you dismiss all of this as nothing.
Also, I don’t know why you keep bringing Rod, Antony or anybody else into my posts, I was writing about this on forums many years before any of them, my interest having begun in 1981 when my dad suggested I listen it as he remembered the case as an 11 year old.
Btw, you’ve not answered any of my previous questions, so trying to get out of it by saying you’ve answered these but i’ve forgotten doesn’t wash with me.
I must admit I do love your wit the pair of you, like a comedy double act though sadly as bad as Cannon & Ball. 🙂 and though i’ve said it before, I love the work you’ve done on this site.
Addressed months before as I recall spending time explaining this, was why the logic you are now using again is fail: you’re using the same sort of arguments that allow atheists to humiliate Christians over and over and over in debates… E.g. when they say “but you have no evidence God DOESN’T exist” and get schooled. That’s where the cringe “spaghetti monster” memes and flying teacup thing comes from, because it’s a failure to grasp the burden of proof.
You have no proof James Caird WASN’T best friends with the real Prudential client R. J. Qualtrough so how can you dismiss it? Yes certainly Caird is friends with R. J. Qualtrough, you also have no proof he DOESN’T know where the cash box is and what’s in it. You have no proof he doesn’t know Gordon and Marsden also. So we can conclude Caird masterminded the plot? Lmao.
You will eventually comprehend that again like how you presumably understand the thing about the letter and tram stops now, and then in a month or two you will say something about the letter excuse not mattering because it’s on his walk towards Belmont Road. And then claim like you’ve never heard it before… I don’t know how long until the two men running circles back in as if it wasn’t previously discussed?
There isn’t actually anything to support Gordon going into the cafe on any Monday ever, and if he looked at the chart it says games have to start at 7.30. He went there and saw the chess club playing on Thursdays only (and only a couple of times). The case was solved. Rod thinks he’s Poirot, which makes sense because Poirot is fictional and written by a woman with zero experience in any sort of detective endeavour and who would never be able to solve any sort of real case.
Ged, we can play the why didnt X do Y game with every theory.
Whatever happened it wasn’t a perfect crime. But since the 2 main reasons to think it wasn’t Wallace have been evaporated regarding the nonsense benzidine test and 7:30 vs 7:45 start time, Wallace alone has to rise to the top of theories.
Anything else is highly convoluted.
This is either a very very elaborate unreliable robbery plan cooked up by 2 impulsive wide boys with IQs similar to the old timers club average IQ (and why not just go that Monday night if they were so sure Wallace was at the club to get the message, instead of adding in another night and its unreliability—for what the possibility of slightly more money in the cashbox…lol please) OR it’s a murder plan made to look like a convoluted robbery plan by a somewhat intelligent, but likely on the spectrum man planning to kill his wife.
A man who fits the profile of a domestic murderer quite well.
A man who wrote an O.J. Simpson esque if I did it snippet in John Bull.
A blunt force head killing (extremely common in domestic homicide, very rare otherwise.)
In order of likelihood, I would say.
1. Wallace alone
2. Wallace with help of others.
BIG GAP
3. Parry alone (and Brine alibi is inaccurate)
4. Johnstons
5.Hussey/Rod/Antony/Old Timers theory
6. Someone from the chess club
Ged, this if X was guilty why didn’t he do Y could be applied to any theory…
The main 2 reasons to think Wallace wasn’t guilty (benzidine test and timing on night of the call (730 start vs 745) ) have both been shown to be nonsense, so naturally he rises to the top of the suspect list.
Is is either a convoluted 2 day robbery plan with Parry and “M” (lol), two wide boys with IQs around the average of the old timers crew or a complicated plan to murder one’s wife and look like a robbery by an intelligent, but autistic man. I favor the latter.
We also have blunt force head trauma in a room where the cashbox is not. A sneak thief who Julia doesn’t know could just run away or silence her with one blow from anything.
Blunt force head trauma murder is extremely common in domestic homicides and extremely uncommon otherwise. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
Sorry for the double post guys, was just very eager to provide some reality and create smackdowns for those that are asking for it…
Anyway here is a quasi haiku for you all:
In his gyrocopter Rod’s crash will offer us the best of treats
As he caroms and crashes onto London streets
And he is killed and burned to ashes
And Antony sick with grief and pain
ODs on fentanyl laced cocaine
Ha ha love it but so many inaccuracies in your posts it’s equally as funny.
If you read any forum there are posters saying he would have done this, you are guilty of it yourselves, saying he got on at a different stop AND JUST WOULD HAVE SAID I WAS POSTING A LETTER Ha ha. Sorry for the capitals, just emphasising the two faced aspect of it all. But no, he never used any excuse about posting a letter and that’s why he was seen walking up from near the call box. All superfluous.
Just as I can’t prove Parry could have been in that cafe 10 times in January 1931, you can’t prove he wasn’t either but it is madness to think that he was only ever there at the times Wallace saw him, what about the possible times Wallace never saw him, are you saying it’s 100% that Parry say didn’t call in for his lunch on a Wednesday when Wallace wasn’t there. It doesn’t matter anyway, the noticeboard was even up in November when Parry was there.
So what we have is Wallace committing the murder between 18.40 and 18.49 when he could have committed it anytime from 18.05 and then leaving the house bloodstained with a weapon. Please don’t say he didn’t have even the tiniest blood speck on him when the experts who were there said he’d be covered – mackintosh or not – it had spattered up to the ceiling and 7ft plus up on the walls. Then he calmly gets on 3 trams and makes himself visible and talkative to just about everyone according to you.
Not forgetting, the night before, he calls from right by his house where he could be seen in the box or walking to it or from it and to or from a different tram stop (his nearest stop was the corner by the phone box) Not forgetting he will speak to Beattie twice in 30 mins and Beattie won’t twig and yet there are supposed to be no risks in any of this – yet the only risk for Parry was he didn’t get the message or go to MGE 🙂
ps Josh. Your No2 solution. Wallace with the help of others. Do you not think he would have kept himself away from his home on the Tuesday by going to MGE straight from Clubmoor. – Job done. I’d make the Johnston’s theory higher up than that 🙂
“But no, he never used any excuse about posting a letter and that’s why he was seen walking up from near the call box. All superfluous.”
He wasn’t reported to have been seen walking anywhere that night? Will this wrongness be repeated in a couple months again once you forget? And you’re still doing “you can’t prove Jesus DIDN’T resurrect!” stuff that Christians get owned by Chris Hitchens types for.
William can board all the way at Belmont and make the chess club at the time he said he arrived. I’m merely suggesting a possibility that nothing really hinges on being what happened or not. Like when excellent real trained detective Mark Fuhrman speculates that Michael Skakel may have claimed he was chucking stones into the treeline as being a way to potentially pre-empt being seen making striking motions near the trees (or something like that). The letter posting claim could be a similar pre-empt in case seen loitering the wrong stop near the post box waiting for a tram there. But nothing hinges on it as he can make the club after the call from the stop he did claim to use and arrive at the time stated.
The case is solved, every reason for it to be not solved was false evidence not in the files, what is the point of this?
Hi GED glad to see you still have your good humor about you, can’t say that about all members of your crew. Meant sincerely.
Yes Wallace if he had the help others could have created better alibis for himself either night and that is a mark against a conspiracy like that.
However it’s possible he could believe the voice being not his was enough to get away. People often rely on one or two exonerating details they think will get them off and don’t always bother with other stuff. There could be other reasons he’d want to not be at the club on the night of the call or at home before the murder if going off to MGE, particularly if he thought another voice on the call and Beattie’s relaying of it would exonerate him.
The problem with the Johnston is I don’t think John is a good candidate for the call. If it is them I’d favor an exploited theory (similar to Parry prank then Wallace exploits the opportunity). In other words they get wind Wallace is headed out and try for a robbery then.
Neither of these are my favorite theories but they aren’t impossible.
Like Calum/RMQ I think with many of the marks against Wallace acting alone diffused by really dealing with the actual facts and debunking lies, he must rise to the top of the suspect list.
BTW, Antony favors a conspiracy theory with Wallace as the mastermind deep down. That’s what he wrote originally and admitted to me he only changed it because of publisher pressure and desire to have an exciting theory. Although Rod’s convoluted theory is a rip off of Hussey, that book wasn’t that well known, so this solution seems more novel despite its implausibility.
Fat Antony is now dead
Rod had aspie rage and hit him on his head
Up in heaven Antony eats cakes and will sing
From the gallows Stringer will swing
Ged’s dead with a bullet in his head
Bang bang smoking gun
Now Rod’s on the run
Flying off in his copter
Crashing down someone call a doctor
Make a Wish granting wishes
To this autist man who got no bitches
What does it matter?
When he crashed his body splattered
Smoking engine rising flames
Antony crying eating cakes
Ding dong the bitch is dead
Ding dong his name was ged
Antony Brown, AKA the Wishmaster
Granting Rod’s wishes with his literary disaster,
Rigging polls for years like he’s Saddam Hussein
1000 more votes yet the percentage didn’t change?
Don’t dare waste his time if you have no degree
Don’t you know he graduated from university?
Was his subject something useful like biology?
No of course not, it was philosophy-
(HA! Lame!)
Trying to bamboozle fools with “Bayes theorem”
So they will finally accept his theoretical delirium,
What’s that, a “solution”? Let’s bring it back to the middle
Let’s get ontological in this homicidal riddle
How about an interesting case that’s not as old as time?
Something about Jonbenet or Moxley would be fine
Something more relatable than green bicycle crimes
Too scared of getting sued, so I guess nevermind…
Did Rod ever get caught???
No never never never why??
Cuz he’s a deadly autistic guy
Rod’s the cracker rapper
The lady attacker
The Liverpool cops think they know him
But the Scousers they can’t blow him
Because the Liverpool middle aged autistic raper
Is just the tip of this caper
Mark R has gone missing
Last we saw he and GED were kissing
Antony doesn’t care all he does is eat cake
And watch toon porn Simpsons deep fake
Antony, Mark R, Rod, and GED have gone missing
Last we saw they were busy with ugly autists at the meetup kissing
Unable to handle the heat from my deadly rhymes so they are at the pub
Discussing bogus theories and giving each other a tug and a rub
Ha ha not sure what it is with Antony and cakes or Rod being autistic and a raper but I found them childishly funny – somehow.
For all we know your solution is correct…..
For all we know my solution is correct…….
For all we know neither are correct and it was just the good old Anfield burglar……
Hey GED. I’ll be in England this summer and wouldn’t mind a day trip up to Liverpool. How about we all grab a pint at the old timers meet up pub? We can let bygones be bygones and hopefully no one gets “intro trouble.” I can help you fellows realize the reality of this domestic homicide.
I have no problem with that at all Josh, not sure about Rod though, I think the venom between you and him goes both ways. Keep in touch.
For all on here:
If you could go back to that Monday or Tuesday night and if you were allowed stand in one place and observe. What would it be. I assume the Parlour.
Though bear in mind, if a stranger’s face unknown to us commits the murder we will still be in suspense as we will not know the build up (the phone caller, the way into the house etc etc)
I’d be on my best behavior. But if he got out of line I would have to incapacitate him. Surely he’s not a coward and would refuse to meet up?!
I’d choose to observe the phone box on the 19th from 7:15 to 7:25 pm.
Just reading the re-booted A6 Murder case on the Casebook forum and there are plenty of posts like this one from Cobalt.
”The crime is botched badly and JH must now ditch the murder weapon and the car to avoid detection. However time is on his side: he has around 4 hours until daylight, and even when the victims are discovered (he assumes they are both dead) it may take time to identify them and link the car back to Malcolm Gregsten. His best option would surely be to dump the weapon and ammunition in some forlorn spot, abandon the car in a railway station car park, then catch an early train to Liverpool in order to establish his alibi. JH does none of this.”
This, like many others, is a case of a forum user stating what James Hanratty should have/could have done. It is only natural for this line of questioning, it is after all what police use in their investigations and what Prosecutors use to build their case – none of it is proven.
‘Wallace would have walked down to the call box, made the call and got on at Townsend lane tram stop’ – ‘Close would have had time to make all his calls and be at 29 Wolverton st for 18.30’ ‘Parry is eliminated from our enquiries as the caller as he was with his lady from 5.30pm until 9pm on the Monday night’
Everything is based on building a picture of what happened. I watch enough wall to wall sky real life tv documentaries and series to know this.
The who killed Billie Jo Jenkins is one yous should watch and would enjoy, the similarities with the Wallace case kept jumping out at me. Anyway, I digress. So I am building up a picture in my mind of what Wallace would have done if he’d done this murder and it is nothing like it panned out.
Wasn’t James Hanratty proven guilty by modern DNA tests? I don’t read about that case but I recall seeing that his surviving family (or whatever) had the stuff tested for DNA expecting him to be exonerated and it showed he did it lmao.
Your earlier comment about where I’d stand made me check maps. I see there are other ways out of Wolverton Street so there isn’t actually anywhere you could reliably stand to see anyone come to or depart from 29 Wolverton Street.
Hanratty is more guilty than Antony loves pies lol
Rod was beaten at the old boys club with endless punches and pushes
Getting what he deserved lying face down in the bushes
This aspie tried to stop underage drinking
All that resulted was he went home bloody and stinking
GED’s buddy Mark R’s book majorly sucked
The conclusion was correct but as readers we felt fucked
Mark worked on this for many decades so we feel bad
GED tries to forget and smokes some meth to not feel sad
As funny as these poems are because I know the people represented, they will mean nothing to Mike, Tillymint or others perusing this brilliant site. Please don’t undo all your hard work by flooding it with nonsense. We have enough of that in you unconditionally and totally exonerating Parry of any wrong doing whatsoever 😉
Ged, I haven’t really put much hard work since it’s Calum who made the site. We are not the same person as I keep saying 😉
However, I will ease on the poetry for awhile to respect your wishes and reopen the flow of conversation. Hopefully you’ll accept my offer for a pint and maybe I can run a few more by you. I have some haikus involving Rod, Mark R, and a bonobo that could make a stern old school teacher laugh.
I don’t exonerate Parry totally from wrongdoing; clearly he committed various petty crimes culminating in what was almost certainly a sexual assault he got away with. I just think he is a red herring in this case.
To me both Wallace and Parry seem like possible callers but the timing fits perfectly with Wallace calling. For Parry to have been the caller it requires more stretches of logic (he would have had to have stalled Wallace out for an indefinite period of time and then made the call as soon as Wallace left his home with zero way of knowing the call would be received accurately or at all) and certainly zero way of knowing Wallace would go to MGE the following night.
I admit aspects of the call seem like Parry is the caller and there wouldn’t be a need for a voice disguise but also recall the one person spoken to who the caller had no need to disguise their voice to said the caller sounded like an older man.
Wallace is the only one who knows he will be at the club to get the messsge for sure; he is the only one who knows he will go for sure the following night, and a possibly robbery plan still has Julia to contend with the next night (and Wallace out of the house the Monday night to receive the message so why not go then?)
Conspiracies involving both Wallace and Parry (and maybe someone else) resolve some things but create even more issues.
The plan, call, and crime just make a lot more sense if Wallace did them all alone.
This may be relevant to the question of Mr Beattie speaking to Qualtrough:
“Telephones have been using a limited frequency range of 300 hertz to 3.4 Kilohertz for over 100 years. While the frequency spectrum of the human voice ranges from about 50 Hertz to 8 Kilohertz, speech remains quite intelligible when transmitted at the very limited bandwidth.”
So it is clear that the phone, even now, transmits only the middle frequency range of the human voice with significant losses at both the low frequency (deep voice) end as well as the high frequency (high pitched) end. In my view Mr Beattie had previously had only limited interaction with Wallace’s voice at irregular intervals and possibly never over the phone.
Asking him whether the phone voice sounded like Wallace was asking him to compare his limited exposure to the full bandwidth of Wallace’s face-to-face voice with the limited frequency response squark box tones of the 1931 telephone. Add this to the curious circumstances of the call (“Wallace asking to speak to ….Wallace?”).
No wonder he replied as he did.
I don’t think we have enough knowledge to determine that. It is also possible his voice was a little different due to being sick with flu, like perhaps his voice was a little hoarse. But we don’t really know these things for sure to actually use them as a cornerstone.
It is possible that some people weren’t sure if he was innocent or guilty, and know that their words could be used to hang the man (the man who was sometimes their friend, or their neighbour), so were more cautious in what they were stating. In both Johnstons’ statements, their original typecopied words are crossed out and altered in some important parts. Wallace still maintained for example that he told them to wait while they both reversed their position.
You will see Moore discuss this in regards to the Johnstons and Crewe who change their statements.
If for example these people said they went outside because they heard Wallace making commotion at the back door, that might be bad for him. I could see a scenario where people are simply not wanting to say something that could be responsible for hanging a possibly innocent man who they have known years and think is so timid etc.
But you can’t use these things as more than speculations. And it’s not needed to make the strong case.
Michael I agree I think people underestimate how poor the audio quality was on older phones like this
Josh, RMQ,
Undoubtedly the poor audio quality of the phone line is to be added to the other factors, particularly context, which taken together would make it hard for Beattie to recognise who’s voice was on the other end.
I particularly agree that of all the questions asked at the trial, Beattie’s possible recognition of Wallace’s voice would have been pivotal. I don’t believe it ever crossed Beattie’s mind that it was Wallace calling and even if it did he would deny it in answering the question because after all he might be mistaken and Wallace seemed to be such a harmless old coot.
Did Wallace do a dry run of the call by phoning Mr Beattie at the Cotton Exchange, posing as e.g. a Mr Jenkinson and asking for example if any jobs were on offer? If he was rumbled he could deny any involvement and the Qualtrough plan would bite the dust. Just a thought.
”Did Wallace do a dry run of the call by phoning Mr Beattie at the Cotton Exchange, posing as e.g. a Mr Jenkinson and asking for example if any jobs were on offer? If he was rumbled he could deny any involvement and the Qualtrough plan would bite the dust. Just a thought.”
You see. This is the sort of thing I say and get slated over it. If I say wouldn’t wallace just say the bolt was on – game over for the police. Wouldn’t Wallace just need the constable, Katie Mather and the shops as enough evidence.
We all have a why didn’t he just say this if he was guilty. I’m sorry, he’s not so gullible or infinitely thick as to rely on getting away with this because there might not be enough circumstantial evidence which of course still counts for something.
If he had a cold which changed his voice on the phone then this cold would still be changing his voice when face to face.
Parry, as we know, as could anyone, could suspect by looking at the notice board that Wallace would attend. It’s gobbydegook to understand anyway and you canot tell when he didn’t last attend. Just because a game did not go ahead the last time it should have doesn’t mean Wallace didn’t attend, it could have been his opponent that didn’t attend – just like Chandler didn’t attend on the 19th yet Wallace did. Parry and/or another only have to stand in the Cabbage Hall car park to see Wallace turn out of Richmond Park en route to his tram and hey presto. If he doesn’t then no great loss. Try next week. The reason Parry’s accomplice didn’t just do this on the Monday when Wallace was out anyway is well documented. 1) There would be x amount more bounty on the Tuesday but more importantly they need a ruse to gain entry into 29 Wolverton st and Qualtrough is it.
Wallace admitting he asked the Johnston’s to wait there is worse for him. It is better he let Johnston take the initiative and say ‘We will wait here’ as it puts themselves in the finding of Julia along with Wallace as a doing of their choice – not his.
William Herbert Wallace vs Richard Gordon Parry
Regarding personality traits only:
Wallace was of fine character and was always found to be honest and reliable in his work in precuring new business and in handling cash, paying in the correct amounts and in fact highlighting, potentially against his own safety, instances when others paying in on his behalf were short (aka fiddling) There are a number of accounts of his marriage described as being loving and normal by Caird, Edwin, Amy and the Johnston’s. Albert Wood, a Pru employee goes as far as saying Devoted. Wallace’s diaries and actions by and large go to substantiate this. Eg. His worry when Julia was late home. His requesting Drs attendance, Julia stating William shouldn’t be in the cold room whilst suffering flu, trips to Stanley and Calderstones parks.
Parry has consistently shown himself to be dishonest and unreliable. Described as a source of sorrow and anxiety to his parents by Court Clerk Henry Harris, his kleptomania resulting in a number of arrests and if we are to believe he is unlucky enough to be caught every time, then there are other misdemeanours unaccounted for, who knows how many. An alleged sexual assault was dismissed though there was some evidence in the way of broken ear-rings found in the debris where both admit they were. Parry has been described by a number of people including the Atkinsons, John Parkes, Ada Cook and Mr Williamson to be conniving, a crook, dishonest, deceitful.
The traits described above are often in the genes, the genetic make up of a person whether that be natural empathy and goodness or evilness and untrustworthiness. We often hear born evil though nurture and opportunism can play a part. Just look at Hanratty or the Moors Murderers, even more recently the Bulger or Rhys Jones murderers. There is an ingrained probability.
We are to believe one of these men mentioned above (Wallace or Parry) suddenly turned gangster, crook, murderer or at least an accomplice to murder.
Which one is your money on. Which one, if all these facts were presented to a member of the public who had never heard of this case, would they go for.
We know which one the public went for, they convicted him.
Ged, from a profiling standpoint Wallace is a much likelier killer. Look up stats about domestic homicides, blunt force head trauma, overkill etc. Investigate the traits of people who carry out these carefully planned family annihilations have and compare them to Wallace.
The fact that Wallace had more scruples than the rogue Parry is less important from a profiling standpoint. Parry would be a better suspect for a simple robbery not a murder not even in the same room as the cash following a complex call the night before.
Admittedly this is not proof beyond reasonable doubt, profiling itself can never be but I’d definitely look at it that way rather than Wallace=virtuous and Parry=wide boy. Might be true to a surface extent but profile wise we also have to match up the personalities to the crime committed.
All of Gordon’s known crimes are impulsive/opportunistic and not thought out to any extent whatsoever. He’s the type of dude to just see a drawer with cash and take it when the person’s not looking, or see a car and decide to just jump in it and drive off. Literally zero foresight at all.
Not shown in his prior known crimes to have the patience to stalk people and etc (and the fact it actually isn’t possible to watch all Wolverton Street exit routes at once), moreso just see unattended money and take it immediately with no consideration of consequence.
If his prior crimes were used as a demonstration of how he prefers to commit them, that would be more like just walking in there Monday and taking the marginally lesser collection money, and doing it even though he’d obviously be caught out. That is obv moreso the actions of an impulsive type of criminal, rather than someone who premeditates crimes.
Yes, whoever planned this crime, whether the original intention was robbery or murder gave it much foresight. Jonathan Goodman describes the killer as “one of the most fastidious planners in criminal history.” Of course he is unfortunately incorrect about many things but was most likely right about this.
What makes more sense for such intricate planning? A weird, unreliable 2 day robbery plot involving multiple people with a plethora of logical flaws and uncertainties cooked up by an impulsive 95 IQ wide boy or a carefully planned domicide by a self styled intellectual middle aged scientific minded man?
Without the fake evidence (e.g. makebelieve benzidine etc) and finding the publicly displayed club times etc, I don’t even know what there is to argue. It’s like 9/11 truther or OJ innocent type lunatic stuff. The case was already resolved ~a century ago… Like OJ, everyone knew he did it despite begrudgingly having to exonerate due to insufficient evidence. He even wrote a piece about how he killed Julia in John Bull like OJ did in “If I Did It”.
As Ged says: Wide boy dishonest Parry vs quiet respectable Wallace – which one would you go for? According to the polls a majority favour Parry’s direct or indirect involvement. As there is no golden bullet of evidence pointing to either party it boils down to impressions and Parry’s bad character holds sway. The Liverpool jury in 1931 did not consider alternative suspect Parry and it was Wallace’s cold clinical demeanour at the crime scene and in the court which left a bad impression on the jury and got him convicted based on gut feeling rather than anything else. “He’s just the type.”
However gut feeling is a dangerous emotion which has led to several miscarriages of justice and delayed discovery of heinous crime down the years. John Christie, John Wayne Gacy, and most notably Harold F Shipman were all seen as “good eggs” and pillars of their local community until their crimes were revealed to an unbelieving public. In the end, the community’s gut feeling about these men counted for nothing. They had been duped.
This applies to the apparent respectability and undoubted bad character which surround Wallace and Parry respectively. These should not be ignored but neither should they be given too much weight as a guide to their potential involvement in the murder. Wallace vs Parry ?: the good character of the one and the bad character of the other are not major considerations in my plumping for Wallace as the more likely candidate.
Just to clarify, Gordon Parry was in fact mentioned by name in the trial as a suspect. I forget how much was divulged to the jury exactly.
With respect I believe there was a passing reference to an alternative suspect (Parry) at the trial but the Judge unsurprisingly ruled that he should not be named in open court.
This to avoid a possible libel/slander claim. There was certainly
nothing divulged to the jury regarding the case against Parry. This, in Parry’s absence, would be enough to cause a mistrial. Wallace’s trial was not the place to give doubts about Parry an airing.
Parry’s name was used I checked, line 976. Read out from William’s statement which listed Parry as his suspect. Again named on line 3651 by prosecution.
The judge said the opposite to wanting it redacted, he said it’s not right to have mystery in this case.
Fair enough. I stand corrected. I should have checked the trial transcript but I have difficulty reading it and scrolling down is a nightmare. Anyway well done RMQ – all is clear now.
Just to clarify. Wallace’s route from Wolverton st can be viewed. How many exits do you think you need, only the final one from Richmond Park onto Breck Road for the Monday. Parry or Denison would not need to look near the phone box, it is one of them who made the call.
Secondly Parry’s name was not read out as a suspect, just clarification of Wallace’s statement and in fact Hemmerde even makes a statement that Wallace says he does not suspect Parry Q3651.
Regarding the answer : ‘We know which one the public went for, they convicted him’ Yes but wrongly according the appeal court. The first time ever a ruling was reversed based on the fact the jury got it wrong based on the evidence presented (some of which, just like the preliminary case in Dale st was flawed) It is also widely believed that Justice Wright is veering the jury away from a guilty verdict in his summing up.
There isn’t only one tram route to get to the club lol. So yes all the exit points from the street matter.
GED this last post is a new low for you lol
Imagine the weeks or days leading up to the murder:
Yes, Parry is no mastermind and is more impulsive as you say, but since Christmas he’s been friends with a William Denison, they sometimes call around to Denison’s aunts, Olivia Brine. One day, maybe at Brines or not, Denison says hey Richard, what about these Anfield burglaries. Bloody wannabe’s on our patch. Parry says, I know where there could be up to £100 right now and we need to get it before they do. I can get into the house pretty much any time I want but I couldn’t take it as it’d be bang on.
Dennison: Then we have to get it before the wannabe’s do. How do we do it.
Parry: Well the geezer goes to play Chess on a Monday but the real dosh would be in the house on a tuesday. He’s in insurance and makes cash collection and he pays it in on wednesdays or thursdays to his office.
Dennison: Then we have to get him out the house on a tuesday night. Is he married, how about his wife, can we get them both out and break in?
Parry: No, the old dear hardly ever goes out of a night, I quite like her, she deserves better than that stuck up oddity she’s with.
Dennison (after a period of silence): How about we call his chess club one Monday night and send him on a wild goose chase the following night. You can put a voice on if you speak to him direct or I can speak to him, he doesn’t know me……………..
If Parry only attends the club for rehearsals on a thursday and knew from the notice board that Wallace attends every Monday (as far as he knows) there is no reason to think Wallace is haphazard in his attendance there. This is why he says’ But he will be there?’ to Beattie. Having expected he might speak Directly to Wallace with a voice on and suddenly he is told he’s not there yet, he has to improvise which makes him say things like ‘What is Wallace’s address’ (as he doesn’t really want that but can get out of it if it was forthcoming) it also makes him give away much more than he intended to – ref His girls 21st – there was a real one that only Parry knew about.
This may be not too wide of the mark…………
Josh – GED this last post is a new low for you lol
Let’s not forget, you are favouring a guilty version when it has already been thrown out, quite rightly, by an appeal court. Tell me what makes your version any better.
My post could not be as low as your attempts at poetry now could it?
Wordsworth, you are safe in your grave lol.
GED you are senile. You keep repeating yourself over and over and parroting Rod. The things you posted and are arguing have been explained many many times to you. You just go back to repetition mode unfortunately many times and are incapable of even the most minor of “concessions” to the other side. Sorry dude but it’s pretty straightforward; Parry was named as a suspect at trial. This is like Rod denying Wright thought Wallace guilty based on an obvious meaning quote later in life which he twisted. Even Antony agreed Rod was being dishonest and a little snot nosed cunt because it was so ridiculous. Yes, Wright summed up for acquittal because there’s a difference between guilt beyond reasonable doubt and likelihoods.
You come with the stance that I can’t favorite a guilty version because it’s been thrown out then what is the point of discussion? You basically want to me bully me into agreement with this as some sort of a trump card so why even discuss it. If on a jury, I might not convict Wallace because there is no smoking gun and it may not be beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems to me like he probably did it.
Believe it. Accept it. Move on from it.
I also wonder why Antony and Rod don’t have the guts to post here. Or that fat bearded loser from the pub meet group.
If you guys tried me in real life you’d be surprise. I’m the “final boss” tier level type. You can’t defeat me. I’d bang Rod’s wack eyed sister then own him on true crime as well. Antony might get some donuts from me. I’m a generous guy.
You guys are very very wrong indeed and the sooner you realize it the better. The problem is you are also all cowards.
I suspect Antony, Rod and Mark see you both as nuts, they ask me why I bother giving you the time of day but I like discussion. So you obviously think that Parry planning the phone call with Denison (or another who isn’t so impulsive) is absolutely a non starter. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think that cannot be a possibility whatsoever.
RMQ: There isn’t only one tram route to get to the club lol. So yes all the exit points from the street matter.
Tell me why Wallace if innocent would use any other tram route than the Breck Road one to town. The trams on Belmont (like he used on Tues) head South and go a longer way. He would only be using the one on the corner of Townsend if he was guilty of using the phone box but if he is being watched then he is not guilty so would not be using that one.
Many various reasons, maybe a stop at a newsagents for smokes, maybe taking the bus for some unknown reason, maybe stopping off at the nearby telephone box for innocent reasons, maybe he was visiting a relative like Amy and going from her place. The latter being an example of the fact you wouldn’t know that he was necessarily at home at the time you were “staking it out” either. Caird went straight from work for example, if they were staking out Caird’s house they’d never see Caird leave for the club.
The point is an outside person wouldn’t know this and can’t rely on him coming out a specific way or even being at the home they’re staking out.
A reclusive middle-aged man is duped into leaving his home for an appointment with a man with an unusual name. The recluse has been promised a large financial reward from this meeting. He finds that neither the man with the unusual name or his address exist and he hurries back home only to find his home has been the scene of a serious crime while he was away.
This is the plot of “The Adventure of the Three Garridebs,” a Sherlock Holmes short story published in 1925 in “The Strand” magazine and again in “The casebook of Sherlock Holmes” in 1927.
The common features with the Wallace case : the unusual name (in this case Garrideb), the bogus address, the financial gain as the lure to the expected meeting, and the crime committed in the man’s home while he was away.
Taking into account when it was published, could this have been the inspiration for the Qualtrough ruse?
Apologies if I have raised this point previously but I think it worthy of discussion.
Hello herlock, it is okay to admit that it is you. Hope you are doing well.
Sounds much like it doesn’t it Mike though i’ve never heard of it myself. However, how much of a recluse was this man. He took his wife to two parks we know of. Got up in front of students to lecture at the Polytech college and visited once if not sometimes twice a week on occasion to play chess according to Beattie. He traipsed the streets of Clubmoor 3 or 4 times a week and visited Amy who likewise visited him with Edwin for music. Wallace also visited Crewe for violin lessons and we know he went the shop with Julia when it was mentioned here is the boy who found my key in the lock – Harold Jones was it who said they were known in the area as Darby & Joan. He also went into town to pay his takings into the Pru so I think a duller picture may have been portrayed of him than is true, even I don’t get out that much. 🙂
Yes but he never went to pub meetups to discuss true crime, you adventurous devil GED you.
Yes, Wallace doesn’t merit the label “recluse.” In fact he was quite a chatterbox once he got going: “I have a tongue in my head.”
Conan Doyle’s character is reclusive – an amateur scientist (!) who collects fossils and rarely goes out so he has to be lured away while a robbery (!) takes place in his home. While not a recluse, Wallace seldom went out in the evenings so subterfuge had to be used to get him away.
Incidentally, Wallace claimed at the trial that he made 560 calls on clients per week. With a paying-in day each week, Fridays at home doing his books, and a half day on Saturday this figure of 560 calls is hard to believe.
Hi GED, Antony spent years sending me long emails and even offered me a free copy of his book. We remained on good terms until I challenged him one too many times with truth bombs. He has a fragile ego.
Not sure about Mark R, doesn’t seem he’s on good terms with even you anymore lol.
As far as Rod, he is a lunatic that has been kicked off endless sites and Wikipedia for being an absolute autistic menace; the guy was actually beaten up (lol) for trying to stop supposedly “underage drinking” at his old boys club. Trust me I am not politically correct nor do I care much about political opinions but his are so extreme that he believes in tin foil stuff. He claims the holocaust never happened etc.and supports this with “google search trends data”
If you ask what this has to do with the Wallace case, it is because he uses the same tactics, prescriptive arguments and insanity when discussing Wallace. All is good if you agree with him completely.
I question anyone’s judgement who meets him and doesn’t realize instantly he is an absolutely freak because I know he acts no differently in person as I heard him on a recorded video discussing the case breathing heavily sounding insane while driving past case “sights”. He was definitely on something or if not, he needed to be.
Antony may deny it now but so have our entire email exchange and he many times hinted at how touched Rod is.
Back to the case, GED when did I say “it’s a non starter”. I have explained many times why the caller seems like it could have been Parry but why I still think Wallace is the killer and the caller. This is not black and white or set in stone. I am not Rod or you. Please pay more attention if you want to have a fruitful discussion.
I take your points RMQ (Always well thought through) and a stranger to W indeed would not know his habits, but Parry would. He would know his client routes, having done them himself, his rough finishing time at work, the time he would normally be at the chess club, so work that back and you will see the half hour window in which to expect him to leave the house for the club. It’s a no risk strategy because if it doesn’t work that day, nothing lost, try another.
Josh: I told Rod I don’t believe Julia would see the robbery in action and end up somehow being killed in the parlour, some distance away. More likely she was in the parlour with someone when she hears the cupboard door breaking off as the thief stands on it to gain access to the cash box and in the melee the coins drop to the floor and she says what was that, goes to get up and was whacked.
Mike. 560 sounds exaggerated to me too for a 3 and a half day week in which he also travels home and back after lunch too.
Dear All
I have been rather disappointed in the recent posts going ‘off piste’ with regards to the aim of this website and forum.
The childish name calling and accusatory language maybe brushed aside as playful banter but it is quite off putting and threatening to others who are more purist in their intentions in contributing their thoughts on the case.
However, regarding the number of calls made by Wallace:-
It depends on how you interpret the evidence. WHW has about 560 clients in total. We know that his collections were both monthly and weekly. Therefore not all clients would have a weekly call. Some would be fortnightly or monthly. This accounts for the variations in the amounts he cashed in at the Pru.
Bearing in mind he didn’t start his round until after 10am he returned home at lunchtime for at least an hour and was usually home by 5.30pm. He had alternative Monday afternoons off, he did his paperwork at home and cashed in one day and didn’t collect Fridays and Sundays.
I reckon the maximum number of calls he would visit per week would be 140 or maybe 25-30 per day.If you look and map out the calls he did on the day of the murder (discounting the times as they don’t make sense!) The houses are terraced a couple of doors or so apart, on opposite side of the street or on parallel or adjacent streets. It therefore wouldn’t be such an effort to amble along.
Incidentally just by chance, I met a retired Prudential agent who had been with the company over 30 years. He told me that it was not possible for an agent to choose who would cover for them sickness or holidays. Also taking calls outside the allocated area although allowed had to be sanctioned by a supervisor.
He said if he was in the Chess Club and was told a business call had come through, he would immediately phone his supervisor to
inform him. It was then the supervisor’s decision who would follow up with the potential client. This usually was the agent local to the client’s area.
Whether this policy was as a result of the Wallace case I have no idea. But it seems a rational one for any company to have.
Happy to contribute further – if we can dispense with the silliness please.
Tilly Mint
Hi Tilly, I think you have raised some good points about Wallace from a profiling standpoint.
I would be interested in your thoughts on my recent other post (5/24) about the extreme unlikelihood of the posited scenario by some others.
I also point out blunt force head trauma is almost always perpetrated by a husband on a married female who is murdered–this is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is highly suggestive.
On the other hand, I would say if you can’t handle or don’t like the language here, you could create your own site or take up a less conflictual hobby than debating true crime online with strangers—perhaps knitting.
Let’s just suppose for a minute Wallace is guilty.
Do you think he is using Tuesday night for the murder because he would be expected to have more money in the cash box on Tuesday and therefore finger Parry or Marsden (a dangerous ploy to limit the suspect pool) or do you think it had to be Tuesday come what may anyway because the call had to be to the chess club on Monday night.
(ps – don’t say it is not a dangerous ploy because Parry or Marsden could have told any number of associates about the cash box, because it is still limiting the number of suspects down to a few in the know)
Hi Ged, In my view the Tuesday was chosen as it was only 24 hours after receipt of the chess club message. Qualtrough, whoever he was, didn’t want to leave much time for e.g. Mr Caird to check a directory and warn Wallace that it might be a trick.
The Innocent Wallace option is that Tuesday corresponds nicely with Parry’s regular visits to Mrs Brine and gives him an alibi while his pals go to No 29.
I think, had it been a planned robbery, much more study would have been made of the potential haul e.g by waiting for a monthly collection. Surely they would have known via Parry that the cash box contents could vary widely depending on Wallace’s health etc. To strike on a random Tuesday hoping to get lucky especially after the elaborate Qualtrough deception just doesn’t fit for me.
Hi GED, the 2nd one.
One more point GED, the suspect pool is limited no matter what. If Wallace did it, there’s not that many possible people that would know enough about him, his attendance at the chess club, and cash box etc to be able to do it. There would still enough possibilities to cast doubt that he is the killer in his mind IMO especially if he can fool Beattie.
If he is innocent then obviously the same thing applies with regards to a limited suspect pool and the perpetrstor(s) would be one of them in this remarkably symmetrical case. Admittedly, an advantage for this theory is if the original plan was robbery and not murder , the risk is less.
A disadvantage I would argue is the suspect pool is even narrower in a plan if Wallace is innocet; it basically has to be a former or current pru worker who has been in Wallace’s house before to know where the cash box is and mention of R M Qualtrough being similar to the pru client R J is suggestive.
I don’t think we can glean much about Wallace’s guilt or innocence based on the suspect pool size.
Regarding the chess club, theoretically the suspect pool could include any member of the chess club, anyone who may have visited the cafe during chess club events, anyone known to these individuals, i.e. on the basis that that Wallace’s attendance might have been discussed,, anyone who worked at the cafe or was associated with someone who worked at the cafe, anyone who visited the cafe saw fixture list, anyone they may have spoken to etc. As regards the cash box, anyone who was who knew that he was an insurance agent would presumably assume that there could be a large amount of cash on the premises, and that might have included a great number of people.
Hi John agreed in theory.
In practice I think the caller very likely would have to be someone who
1. Knew Wallace’s chess habits to some degree.
2. Not only knew he was an insurance agent and might have cash on hand but know that he did have a cash box and probably know where the cash box was located in his house.
Yes Mike and I take in all you say, as always, but given the time lapse since Parry last worked for Wallace, would Parry be expected to know when the monthly collection would be there as I believe it was every four weeks so no set date.
By phoning Pru HQ and posing as a forgetful policy-holder Parry could ask whether the premium on his monthly policy would be collected this week or next. But Ged, you highlight a worrying aspect to a potential robbery plan. It is the very poor quality of the intelligence which dates from Parry’s filling-in for Wallace some three years earlier: the uncertainty about the size of the prize, whether Wallace is still using that old cash box kept in the same place and whether the paying in day has changed. Its all too airy-fairy to justify the Qualtrough preparative step.
It reminds me of “In cold blood” where Dick Hickok badgers cell mate Floyd Wells as to whether wealthy rancher Herb Clutter has a safe. Wells, who worked for Herb several year earlier has no idea but eventually tells Dick that he does. Based on this faulty intelligence Hickok, when released, meets up with ex-con Perry Smith and tragedy ensues. Total haul: a Zenith transistor radio.
I can agree somewhat Mike but Wallace was a creature of habit. He used the same times, the same days for his clients and paying in, his accountancy at home on Fridays, half days on Saturdays, the same meal times, the same days to Chess. What has worked for him before is probably what he did for life and Parry might well suspect this and at least suspect there will be some bounty or other to be had – before the Anfield burglar stumbles upon it. Let’s not forget Parry’s self confessed visits to Julia where he might glean some further information by just ‘innocently’ enquiring about William to Julia as though he’s bothered. I wonder if she might even have had time to unwittingly tip Parry off that William may be/is out visiting a client tonight…….
Josh says: One more point GED, the suspect pool is limited no matter what.
Not if he is innocent and also wrong about any Parry/Marsden connection. As is well documented, it is crazy of him if guilty to just point the finger at one or two people who might well have a solid alibi.
If we exclude that the tuesday/more money in the cash box tie in is just a coincidence, then the phone call luring away could be just about anyone, or anyone at least who knew he regularly played chess on a monday. I expect that as well as the phone no being in the chess club etched into the glass, it would also be in the telephone directory.
The chess club phone was a public coin-operated phone box which seems to have doubled as the phone of Cottle’s cafe because waitress Gladys Harley answered it’s ring several times a day. As a public phone it would not be in the usual phone directory. Qualtrough was familiar with this phone and had noted it’s number. He had probably seen Gladys answer the phone so he knew what to expect when he called on the 19 January 1931.
GED, sorry if I didn’t make myself clear enough. There just aren’t that many people who could have been able to make that call. The person has to know a lot about Wallace: his chess club attendance habits, the cash box etc. It also has to be someone Julia would let in (I know you buy the Qualtrough open sesame), and also crucially collection habits if you think the Tuesday was crucial to the plan in hoping to maximize proceeds. (And whether this even was an assumption someone would reasonably make who had worked for the pru is up for debate.)
The entire plan can only be done by a very limited number of people no matter if the goal was robbery or murder or who was behind it.
You are switching the discussion a bit to ask why Wallace Parry and Marsden, this doesn’t change how limited the suspect pool is. It is a valid question why he would restrict it two people (although a separate point than what we were talking about) but in actual fact he also mentioned Stan Young and then in a broader sense other workers at the pru. He did seem to cast particular suspicion on Parry which is not uncommon for guilty people to do this, whether or not they know the person they are fingering has an alibi or not.
Edited last paragraph:
You are switching the discussion a bit to ask why Wallace named Parry and Marsden, this doesn’t change how limited the suspect pool is. It is a valid question why he would restrict it to two people (although a separate point than what we were talking about) but in actual fact he also mentioned Stan Young and then in a broader sense other workers at the pru. He did seem to cast particular suspicion on Parry which is not uncommon for guilty people to do this, whether or not they know the person they are fingering has an alibi or not.
It’s Friday night come come on turn Rod’s sister on
Eyes far apart like autistic spawn
I bang Rod’s sister
while he calls Antony mister
No commission to Rod for his chapter
Antony cared more about the cake factor
GED posts from the old person’s home
with whacked out theories he got in his dome
Arguing with this aspie hurts my soul
but I like owning fools; Im on a roll
Every place to discuss the Wallace case online has been systematically recked.
This is the only site that stands erect.
So autistic fools, scam authors, and loser fat pub chumps
Are forced to congregate here and get the truth on their face like cum dumps
Antony love shepherds pie
It gives the corpulent author a high
He cares less about correct solutions
So he will go along with Rod’s special ed abductions
Hey, Antony Brown here, these pies taste so good!
I like shepherd’s pie myself, but moderation in everything my friend. Hopefully you didn’t eat Rod’s commission for his “original” “on balance the most likely expalnation” solution.
He really needs the money man the guy is on benefits for autism from the NHS! You’re doing this dude wrong.
If there was a spent match in the folds of the crumpled mac, has anyone ever given any thought that the mac was set alight deliberately, or does the fact there were bits of macintosh possibly stamped out totally disprove this possibility. I am wondering how the match got there, maybe when the body was dragged away from the fire by the hair which would only have needed to happen if it was in danger of catching fire. This I assume is why Julia’s head ended up near the door and the opposite end from the fire.
Inspector Moore observed the body then noticing the crumpled mac tucked in at Julia’s side but not underneath her said “‘Let’s have it up.” The mac was then lifted for examination. I don’t recall any mention of a spent match in the folds of the mac before it was lifted. One may have been under the mac on the floor but it could have been there before the murder.
I think scorching of the mac happened when Julia was struck the first time and fell on the hot clays of the fire. The mac being burned at the same time is consistent with it being cast over her head as a shield from blood spray, but this is speculation. I can’t see any advantage to be gained by setting fire to the mac deliberately.
I think Julia was attacked as she turned off the gas fire on learning the musical evening wouldn’t take place, but it is possible she was lighting the fire (hence the match) but the clays would not be hot enough to scorch the mac/skirt so I prefer the “turning off” version.
I agree the body was dragged away from the fire accounting for it’s position when found.
Hi Mike. If the mac had been thrown over Julia’s head surely there would be evidence of pieces of material battered down into her skull/brain of which there is none. This I think is what somebody using the mac would have done which would also have reduced any noise made. This makes me feel that Julia had the mac around her shoulders. There are some inconsistencies about the scorch mark – 3 parallel clay marks – were there even clays on this type of fire, I can’t see any. Also no burns on the underskirt. I wonder if this scorch mark was from an earlier episode?
I’m currently looking for a copy of Dr Curwen’s statement about the Wallace’s. I don’t seem to be able to locate it on this site, any clues?
Underskirt is irrelevant because it’s flowing material, if you fall in a skirt, as you can imagine it sort of billows out. The skirts don’t stay glued together like a corset.
I hesitate to speculate about what happened in that parlour because there’s so much that we simply do not know. That said, the main risk of blood spatter on the attacker is with the first blow when the victim’s heart is pumping at full pressure. Julia falls towards the fire clays, is dragged off the fire before her underskirt is scorched and further blows (the overkill) are delivered while she’s on the floor.
The mac over Julia\s head provides a material barrier between the weapon (an iron bar presumably) and the blood pumping from the wound following that first blow. It reduces the chance of the bar spraying blood all over the room and onto the attacker.
Macs in those days were often “rubberised” to make them waterproof. I don’t think blows would drive pieces of fabric into the wound.
The fire clays are the honeycomb – patterned ceramic elements which in this fire are at about 45 degrees to the horizontal. On modern fires the clays are vertical. I think Julia fell onto the hot clays, scorched the mac and her skirt, and was then dragged away and finished off. The mac fell away from her which accounts for the spatter on the walls and furniture as the final blows were delivered.
But, as I say, its all speculation.
From McFall’s statement:
”The head was badly battered in on the left side above and in front of the ear, where there was a large open wound approximately half an inch by three inches, from which bone and brain substance was protruding. At the back on the left side of the head, there was a great depression of the skull, with severe wounds. The matted hair obscured the detail of the wounds.”
If the body was pulled away from the fire towards the position it was found in (to save it/the mac setting alight any further) then I cannot believe that the killer would not have blood on his hands.
I therefore expect McFall’s and Moore’s theories (and other experts subsequently) that the killer would have blood on them to be correct. Any killer could not know that a tiny splash or splatter would not be on them and found later upon examination on a piece of their clothing that it could not have got onto innocently, like when bending over the body later to examine it as in the case of Wallace.
Since this case has been basically beaten into the ground like a dead horse, I can’t really offer much new in the way of musings, but I admit to enjoying the mental masturbation of it, despite its circularity and repetitiveness, so I will once again point out what the favored theory of many here and in the meet up group requires to illustrate the implausibility of this:
1. Gordon Parry, a handsome but likely dim witted wide boy of 22 who hasn’t been at the cafe since his amateur dramatics concluded in November remembers that Wallace plays chess at the club and/or the chess notice board and concocts an elaborate scheme 2 months later to get Wallace out of the house on a particular night.
2. This scheme is a 2 day plan with elements that make no sense.
3. How does Parry know/how can he rely on that Wallace will be at the club when his attendance had been so sporadic? Either Parry was keeping tabs on Wallace or he wasn’t for the last few chess club meetups/looking at the bulletin board over the last couple months. If you argue he wasn’t, which is obviously more likely, then he got lucky that Wallace just so happened to attend that night to receive the message. Please absorb this point.
4. How can Parry be confident that the message will be relayed correctly (to be honest it seems that it might not have been at first) and more critically that Wallace will go the following night? And please don’t argue “well he did go; this is a circular argument because we don’t know if Wallace is behind the crime or not, to argue “well he did go” is presupposing that he was not.
5. What is the point of not going the Monday night and waiting another night for all this unreliable schtick to possibly unfold? Extra possible commission? How much extra?
6. Furthermore what really is the point of Parry wanting Wallace out of the house when Julia is still there to contend with? The answer I often see is it easier to sneak thieve with her just there and not William. But are you telling me there is no other way? Particularly if Parry is involving another person in this scheme. Distraction robberies which many of you guys have pointed out were relatively common at the time did not require a phone call the night before in any other case I can think of.
7. This plan requires that Parry has a sidekick who is willing to go along with ALL of this, willing to take ALL of the risk, willing to wait out another day and HOPE Wallace got the message and will leave for a sufficient amount of time the following night so as to not interrupt this sidekick, shall we call him “M” . He also must somehow be kept abreast of things by Gordon, co-ordinating with him this extremely complex plan to be commissioned and carried out in a house he has never been in before with a woman he has never met.
8. This plan, although highly flawed and laughably unreliable does have a certain complicated Moriarty esque intelligence to it. At the very least it is very complex and convoluted. We are attributing all this to a petty impulsive criminal. It appears Parry did commit a rather severe crime (seems more likely than not he raped Lily Fitzsimmons) but this plan has him as some Iago like master manipulator. None of his crimes showed planning at any point.
This is a guy who didn’t have money for bus fare at one point and was (ironically) a phone operator. The guy was a loser lol not some criminal mastermind.
8. IF all of this in fact did happen as claimed, and “M” made noise or drew attention to himself fiddling with the cashbox, the vicious silencing of Julia would be very unusual. M would be much better off running away, knocking her out once at worst etc. The whole point is she doesn’t know him, so he wouldn’t be easily identified. One tries not to backwards rationalize too much (a great and unfortunate crime of logic committed by many commentators on this case), so I will grant we may not know for certain what a highly strung robber might do. But 11 vicious bloody blows speaks of something more personal and is unnecessarily over the top to a bizarre degree to silence/attempt to silence her. Let us recall that the cashbox is not even in the same room as where Julia was struck.
Please look up the statistics on mortal blunt force head trauma and who the perpetrator overwhelmingly likely is, particularly if the victim is a married female.
Josh,
A convincing summary of the case against Parry’s involvement.
Mike
Hi Josh, a fair but not totally convincing summary I would think it more fair to say.
Are you saying, (your words), the plan was complex and convoluted which required some criminal mastermind so is more likely to be Wallace and yet this same fella didn’t think ahead enough to know all he had to say was the bolt was on and even Mrs Draper had trouble with the back door – job done. I’m sure Julia/Sarah Draper would have made Wallace aware of the back door lock problem and so Wallace could easily use this excuse. As it was even Flo Johnston couldn’t open the front door.
I would also say that a little planning might go into robbing from phone boxes or robbing cars. I don’t believe that Parry was ever just walking past a phone box and thought hey up, a phone box. He would have thought beforehand, i’ll get some money tomorrow or later from a phone box in town and if I don’t get enough to get home, I can always try some car doors etc… Was there no planning in abducting and raping Lily Fitzsimmons, he must have known where to take her to that wasteland for instance.
One thing i’ve thought of though. If it was Parry who made the phone call. Would’nt it have been more beneficial to him to speak directly to Wallace? This would surely have reduced the possibility of other members in the club discussing it and therefore Wallace finding out in advance that there was no such place. I’ve often wondered why a real place but a bit further out, maybe in Garston or Speke would not have served the same purpose to keep Wallace out for a couple of hours.
You see I have my preferred theory but it does not mean I also have a closed mind.
Hi GED,
Thanks. My mind isn’t made up completely. If I was a juror I probably wouldn’t convict Wallace. I don’t think it’s beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think there are mistakes and confusing elements to the plan regardless of who was behind it. Whether it was Parry and a planned robbery or Wallace planning to kill his wife, both made errors in both the call and commissioning out of the crime.
But from a profiling standpoint, I think such a convoluted, complex call is more likely to be made by a middle aged, intelligent, possibly (probably) embittered and spiteful man than a petty pleasure seeking crook. It is just one way of looking at it though and not conclusive.
I will admit that the mention of a 21st and the supposed Parry prank calls at the garage raise an eyebrow so my mind isn’t totally closed either.
One other reconciliation of things would obviously be that Wallace hired Parry to place the call as part of a conspiracy, but I decided this creates more problems than it solves.
An interesting twist on this would be Wallace having Parry make the call on some false pretext.
Overall I think Wallace probably did it all by himself but to about a confidence level of about 80 to 85 percent. Maybe him having involvement in some way so being essentially guilty (either doing it himself or hiring it done) I could put at 90 to 95 percent but this doesn’t rise to beyond a reasonable doubt which to me is more like 97.5 percent plus.
I think the Goodman files if you look on this site about Parry are interesting. I had already read the account about the meeting with Parryin 1966 but that page has two versions of the account, the 2nd which has slightly different and new details to me.
It seems to me Goodman and RWE were very rigid thinkers with an unjustified level of confidence in their belief. Interestingly, RWE apparently changed his mind some years later fingering Wallace as the likely culprit in a mediocre book (somewhere between Antony’s and Shakespeare) he wrote with his wife.
Roger Wilkes also seemed to change his mind as he endorses Gannon’s book.
And the infamous Mark R. also seemed to change his mind because the tone of his posts on yoliverpool indicated an “I don’t know but I’m leaning somewhat towards innocence” vibe the entire way…
Thanks Josh. I will read the Goodman files again. I think Wallace working with A.N. Other (especially Parry can be ruled out) Wallace wouldn’t even need to go home from work and could make his way straight to MGE at an earlier time, making the phone call appointment 7pm instead. This puts him nowhere near the house and out of the frame totally.
If Wallace were to procure the services of Parry as the caller on another false pretext, I’m sure then that Parry would have come forward when the poo hit the pan, Taking great delight too in getting revenge on Wallace.
Regarding the Goodman files. If we believe Goodman & RWE are not liars like Parry, Pritchard and others… then what does Parry mean by the following:
a)” I promised my father that not for £2000 would I discuss the case” (why not? What was Parry’s father afraid of his son revealing)
b) There are certain facts that only he knew about the case.
c) ”Trouble over the case definitely shortened his mother’s life”. (why would it – what trouble? – Ada Cook incident and possibly others?
d) Trouble over the case caused a rift between himself and Lily Lloyd. (why would it? What trouble. The fact Lily wanted to retract her statement – whether the time she gave initially mattered anyway or not – suggests that she was asked or coerced into providing a false time, even if that time was later than the murder so why?
e) He implied Wallace was a ”sadist, pervert and a strange man. ” Was this information gleaned from his clandestine meetings with Julia? How did Parry and Julia arrange these and why? How would Parry know when Wallace was out or that Amy Wallace would not be calling etc? These meetings took some planning yet Parry was not a planner to read some views on here and elsewhere?
I think Parry was toying with J Goodman and RW-E on his doorstep. His father was wise to advise Parry not to discuss the case. There was nothing for him to gain and anything he said, especially to a writer like JG, could be twisted and might re-ignite the dead embers of the case.
Parry’s remark that he knew more about the case is pure braggadocio (“Wouldn’t you like to know?”)
He didn’t give details of Wallace’s supposed sexual proclivities, merely remarking that W was sexually “odd.” Which may have been another throw-away line to get JG/RW-E salivating.
Lily Lloyd allegedly recanting her timing of Parry’s arrival at her home implies that in a case of brutal murder of a defenceless woman in her own home Lily was prepared to give false information to help the guy she was expecting to marry!!
“Trouble over the case shortened his mother’s life.” Impossible to confirm this but I can imagine the police checking out Parry’s car, clothing, alibis, etc wouldn’t help any family member of a nervous disposition especially as they knew Parry got up to all kinds of mischief and may have wondered whether in fact he was involved.
In summary, if guilty, Parry would have had nothing to do with these two writers. At this point the case was dead and he would want it to remain so. His constant smile throughout the interview says a lot.
You see, I am not putting Parry in the frame here, Parry is……..He wants to be.
As i’ve said before, if Wallace is committing this murder, he is home from 18.05 yet I am expected to believe that instead, he decides to wait until Close calls as this shows Julia was still alive at 18.35 to 18.40 and yet it is only by luck that Close comes forward, Wallace doesn’t even use him as his alibi that he had no time to do it. Very strange for a man facing the noose.
I’m not having it.
I think Wallace was unaware that Close was running late due to his broken bike. Close’s usual time for milk delivery was shortly after 6.00 pm which would give Wallace, as you say, more than enough time to do it, clean up, and get underway. He wanted Julia to be seen by Close whatever time he came. He planned the murder for immediately afterwards with a quick departure for the tram. If Close had delivered at his usual time the tight time window could be a ~6.15 pm murder and boarding a tram at ~6.30 pm “To be in good time to find 25 MGE as I didn’t know where it was.” Otherwise the last independent sighting of a living Julia was by Neil Norbury the bread boy at ~ 4.00 pm.
It was only by luck, and reluctantly, that Close came forward but if he hadn’t, a routine enquiry of regular deliveries in Wolverton Street would have quickly identified him. I agree that it is strange that Wallace’s defence didn’t make a key point out of the tight time window between Close’s delivery and Wallace boarding the 7.06 pm tram.
But the tight timing was part of Wallace’s plan whatever time Close made his delivery. In my humble opinion, as always!
Let’s examine various alibis.
Wallace asks 3 tram staff en route to Menlove Avenue. Btw, only when he alights does he say I am a complete stranger to this area. If we believe he only recognises Green Lane (where Joseph Crewe lives) a little later after walking the length of Menlove Gardens North to its end at Green Lane, (which is further along Menlove Ave) then indeed he was, as he always approached Crewe’s house via Allerton Road on a different tram route.
Wallace then speaks to 7 people up at Menlove. It can seem excessive but it is also excessive and more than he needs even if he is guilty as he only needs Katie Mather and the Post office for instance as proof, they wouldn’t be able to deny he was there and then he gets lucky with PC Serjeant so these will do. Although the constable says it doesn’t exist, why does he then suggest the police station or post office directory (just in case?) We know the area was still being built.
Also take into consideration Wallace’s trip after release to buy some shoes in Manchester. Doesn’t he go overboard there in asking everyone with the ‘tongue in his head’.
Let’s now move to Parry’s alibi for the murder night.
Lo and behold he goes over and above with 7 people too. Assuming Parry was asked to cover his movements right up until when Wallace spoke to the Johnston’s in his back yard at 20.45, Parry tells us he was with Olivia Brine, Harold Denison and Savona Brine before going out to 3 shops and finishing up at Mrs Williamsons. (Mr Williamson on the 1981 Radio City 50th Anniversary phone in does not even mention that Parry called on the murder night Hmmm – you’d think he would have) Lily Lloyd is then his last port of call (Though Lily will later change her statement that he in fact arrived later)
Parry’s alibi for Mon 19th.
As we know, this is a complete fabrication. If he didn’t make the call he can tell the truth. If he did, he can’t. If we take Lily Lloyd’s statement into account, Parry was 150 yards away from Cottle’s cafe that evening.
Hi Mike. You said:
It was only by luck, and reluctantly, that Close came forward but if he hadn’t, a routine enquiry of regular deliveries in Wolverton Street would have quickly identified him. I agree that it is strange that Wallace’s defence didn’t make a key point out of the tight time window between Close’s delivery and Wallace boarding the 7.06 pm tram.
There seems to have been a lot of luck for this to have worked as it did.
Lucky Wallace saw PC Serjeant up at Menlove
Lucky the Johnston’s were coming out like never before at 8.45pm to an unplanned visit to a daughters they were moving into next day
Lucky that Close came forward and that Wallace having used Close’s chat to Julia as part of his alibi, he never mentioned it in any statement.
However Mike, I would say that the defence did use it once known. Doesn’t it in fact form the crux of it couldn’t have been Wallace in that short time frame.
Parry’s visits to see Julia on the sly?
Do we believe this?
If we do, did Julia leave the back gate and door open for Parry to visit that night.
Did he come in and sneak someone in with him that Julia wasn’t aware of and it all went wrong from there. Parry might think to himself, if he stays within sight of Julia for his length of time there, then he cannot be blamed for any later discovered theft.
This does away with someone knocking on the font door as Q. Nobody was heard at the front door that evening.
Against this clandestine visit scenario we have Parry’s Brine alibi for the murder evening which satisfied the police. To place Parry at 29 Wolverton Street on the murder evening this alibi has to be rigged which in a case of brutal murder I cannot believe. And why would Julia choose this evening for Parry’s visit when he had long periods every day when Wallace was absent?
No neighbour ever heard music in the afternoons which would have been the case if Parry, as he claimed, visited Julia behind Wallace’s back. In brief, we have only Parry’s word that he visited Julia. Why would he volunteer this information as it draws him closer to the Wallace couple. If it was true I’d expect him to keep quiet about it.
Thanks Mike, so we have JG and RWE to add to the ever growing list of liars that keeps Parry out the frame.
Why didn’t W just stage a break in during a chess night, make a better do of the robbery, he could have said any amount of personal money had been taken and let the blame fall on the never identified Anfield housebreaker.
I don’t think JG and RW-E were liars. I do think they approached their 1960’s Parry interview already convinced he was Julia’s killer. His bogus charm and confident attitude confirmed this for them, although RW-E later changed his mind. I think Parry enjoyed playing with their feet with his throw away “revelations” about Wallace, the secret visits to No 29. and his store of knowledge which he wasn’t going to reveal even for £2,000. “That should give them something to think about.” And it did – we’re still discussing it 60 years on as if every word is Holy Writ instead of a shoal of red herrings.
Are there any links please anyone to JG and RWE changing their minds.
Yes Mike, Parry could be toying with them. What do you reckon about Ada Cook? Is she making it up too?
I can’t make a judgement on Ada Cook whether she’s honest, mistaken, or making it up due to lack of information on her character etc.
With Parry’s cocksure wide-boy persona he would enjoy tricking these nosey journalists. He (P) may well be telling the truth but blind acceptance of every word he says is unwise where there isn’t any supporting evidence that his nuggets of information are true: Wallace being odd, the secret trysts with Julia, and him knowing more about the case than he is prepared to reveal. Scepticism is justified.
Parry’s “revelations” in this interview suggest he was much more than the lad, barely out of his teens, who helped Wallace with collections three years earlier when he was ill. He portrays himself not only as having intimate knowledge of the Wallaces but knowing much about the murder itself. Why would a guilty Parry do this? Surely he would want to distance himself from the whole business saying he met Wallace occasionally in the street and they exchanged a few friendly words but in fact he had little contact with Wallace or Julia in the last few years
Either way he was, thirty years after the murder, home and dry and he found it amusing to throw out these straws in the wind. Wallace remarked to a client on his rounds that he suspected “a friend of my wife” (i.e. not one of “my” friends) of the murder. Maybe Parry did visit behind Wallace’s back and Wallace discovered these clandestine visits and this was, along with other things, enough to bring about the tragedy.
So we have a theory there and are fitting the facts to measure.
We can’t have a ‘Parry is making it up’ as his defence and then a ‘Parry is right about his trysts’ and this is why Wallace killed her.
Regarding Parkes.
He said the baffling thing was, Parry had no blood on him and he couldn’t fathom it out. If his statement is all fantasy, why didn’t he just go the whole hog and say Parry was covered in blood and be done with it.
I am just presenting alternative interpretations of the evidence. It could be Parry is making it up to befuddle JG/RW-E or he could be telling an embellished version of the truth. In my view he’s playing with them but I can’t prove I’m right and I may well be wrong. That however is my considered opinion, no more.
The thing about Parkes for me is that in the recording of his interview with Roger Wilkes he comes across as totally believable. The story is told clearly with conviction and he regrets that there was no independent witness “to back him up.” Just imagine if it was true and nobody believed him because it is on the face of it literally unbelievable. But unbelievable things do sometimes happen.
Parkes is labelled by some as an old man and is not to be believed, on his deathbed etc. He lived a whole year after this and it wasn’t dementia he had. Also there is no record of him receiving any money for this, that was a go between trying to make a fast buck to put JG in touch with him.
We have to take Parkes story in two parts. There are things he says he saw and heard first hand. This to me if correct can not be anything but undeniable. That is as I say as long he too hasn’t embellished anything, but why not embellish blood being on Parry?
The second part is where he says he heard or was told second hand, The Ellis delivery driver for instance. This part is less believable, almost totally unbelievable but he is trying to make sense of why Parry had no blood on him so is giving it some credence.
What Parkes hasn’t taken into account is Parry having an accomplice.
Hi Ged, I agree that we have to distinguish between what Parkes says he witnessed first hand, and bits of information which he picked up later (borrowed fisherman’s cape/waders etc.) In a way we cannot hold him responsible for this latter and more outlandish part because he’s just repeating what he heard from others. I also picked up the detail that Parry hurried away and didn’t linger once the car was washed. Was this to avoid the chance of a taxi turning up with the driver as a witness to his visit?
And as you say, what did Parkes gain from this story? Without a witness it was deniable by Parry but by telling the Atkinsons about it Parkes put himself in some danger. I’m sure they didn’t keep such a hot potato to themselves.
Its the detail of the mitten which bugs me. Why not just say it was a glove?
On balance it happened as Parkes said and either
1 Parry was in a panic because he had been saddled with the bloody glove by his accomplices on learning that things had gone wrong.
2 Parry played a sick practical joke on the gullible Parkes.
If you twist my arm I’d have to go for No 2. But its a puzzle.
A further thought: Parkes repeated the story he was told about the cape/oilskins etc without any indication that he didn’t believe it. In fact he seemed to think it supported his story of Parry’s involvement. Does this show that Parkes was a gullible fellow who would believe anything he was told?
I don’t think it happened as Parkes said. I believe something happened during a possibly panicked visit to the garage. The veracity of the details has to be called into question.
Also note: Parkes says it happened the night of the killing at 1 am; this is integral to his story. But Parry has a police interview running past night 2 nights later from the 22nd into early morning of the 23rd.
To me it seems more logical Parry visited the garage after that and maybe explained the police pressure he was under. Parts of Parkes story are almost definitely not true and some seem like they might be untrue (which night it was.)
This imo casts considerable doubt on the accuracy of the claims made. Parry also clearly wasn’t loved by anyone at the garage.
I don’t know what condition Parkes was in at the time of the interview but permission had to be given by his son so that says something, no? I would also argue he sounds somewhat out of it but that might be a matter of interpretation.
Hi Mike. Ref Parkes gullibility. Parkes was certainly not detective material and I think he’s trying to make sense out of why Parry had no blood on him and like I say if he’s making this up out of some anger or dislike against Parry A) Why not say he had blood on him. B) Why not go to the police no matter what Mr Atkinson says and C) Why put himself in danger by peddling such a story about a man he is clear wary of, it just makes no sense. Having to watch his back, look over his shoulder, change his route from the back entry to the main road etc.
Also regarding him not being Detective material. A) He hasn’t put two and two together that Parry isn’t the killer but his accomplice was. B) The real detectives were not very good either in thinking from day 1 that Q has to be the killer.
Hi Josh. Parkes to me sounds very alert and is recounting something from 50 years earlier like it was yesterday, there are no hesitations or eerms or pauses or corrections. It is only etiquette that permission should be sought to speak to a man that is after all obviously ill in hospital and about something he might not want to talk about. Let’s not forget that as well as telling the Atkinson’s this story at the time, the go between also knew it so he has not kept this to himself or seemingly made it up. It’s just a pity Parkes wasn’t pressed more about the alleged second visit by Parry (and a friend – Denison?) the day after where Parkes was told to keep quiet.
Also if you read the transcript of what Parkes says he is clearly meaning 1am to mean 5 hours after the murder and not 1am on the Thursday. Why would Parry keep the car a whole 29 hours after the murder to clean it. Parkes says he came in after he spoke to Constable Ken Wallace.
The alleged second visit by Parry + friend to the garage must have been late at night when Parkes was starting his night shift. It has always been inferred that this was to remind Parkes to keep quiet about Parry’s visit the night before but I can’t recall seeing this stated explicitly anywhere.
The fact that Parry was with a friend supports the notion of an accomplice.
I agree that Parry is unlikely to have waited until after his police interview late on Thursday evening to get the car washed. Something that would have raised police eyebrows if they found out about it.
We are expected to believe that Wallace had all of 9 minutes (Less according to Alan Closes’ original statement and that of Wildman and Wright) to commit the murder making sure not a speck of blood got onto him, clean up, get out, dispose of the weapon and then act quite naturally, not anxious or out of breath – to no fewer than 9 people who he offered himself up to that night (as much is made of)
Likewise, we are equally expected to believe (by some) that Parry was the killer or at least knew about the murder but was able to present himself to his young lady Lily Lloyd sometime after 9pm where he stayed for a couple of hour unperturbed by it all.
He, as the murderer can only be possible if his alibi for say 7.30 to 8.30 is a lie. Brine and his best mates brother, Harold Denison offer an alibi. Is it fake or not? The 8.30pm overly detailed alibi/s are not required. Is this a question of being overly detailed when it doesn’t really matter and they don’t have to be but being unusually devoid of anything substantial when it does matter? There is no statement made by Savona Brine, Olivia’s 13 year old daughter, nor by a Miss Plant who Brine says called but neither Parry nor Harold mention her.
If Parry is just the driver who collects his accomplice at 8.30pm and is told of the robbery gone wrong resulting in the killing, and knows of the bloodied glove then I doubt he’d be driving around with it all calmly to the Lloyds until 11pm – Unless…. he doesn’t know about the glove or the killing at that point and only goes to meet his accomplice/s at 11pm – and then we have the Parkes story?
There are still things to make sense of such as why a mitten – hardly any use in a robbery. Does the accomplice put the glove in the compartment without Parry even knowing and then when Parkes opens it, there it is and the impromptu shock and unrehearsed babbling from Parry?
When Wallace comes home after being at Menlove. He tries the front door which is his normal way of entering when that late at night. I need to understand if it is documented anywhere how he found the back yard gate and back door into the house once he went around the back to try to gain entry into the house.
The gate was obviously unbolted but it should not have been. Was it wide open or closed over? Some gates will automatically swing closed. Was the back door into the house bolted or locked with a key because Wallace and the Johnston’s seem to say he just turned the knob but it wasn’t working. Why would he expect to be able to gain entry into the back door by just turning the knob if the routine would be for Julia to lock or bolt this from inside once Wallace goes out at night time. I expect he could say Julia normally bolts it but the killer must have unbolted it to escape but how about a key lock, did it even have one, I would suspect so?
There was a mention in one book of a car with people, possibly hawkers selling something like maybe a vacuum cleaner, in Wolverton Street on the afternoon of the murder. Men calling at the houses whilst a woman was sat in the car. I can’t find it now, can anybody pinpoint it please?
I can’t be certain but I think this comes from Mark Russell’s book “Checkmate. They called at the Holmes house; it was to do with the repair of an Electrolux device. I will check it out later.
At approx 3.45 pm a car pulled up outside 27 Wolverton St. Mrs Holme answered the door to 2 men. A woman sat in the back of the car. The men said they were from Electrolux in response to a complaint Mrs Holme had made about her appliance. The men examined it, said it was OK but she could part-exchange for a new one. The man said he would call back in a few days’ time.
Source: “Checkmate” p 23.
Ah so it was a legitimate call then. Thanks Mike.
All from statements and itemised brilliantly on this site by RMQ. There is no way Alan Close was on that doorstep before 6.35 and more likely around 6.40. (see below) This fits in with W saying he might have been getting ready upstairs when the milk was delivered as he didn’t hear or know if it had been. 5 minutes later at 6.45 he was being seen out of the back gate by Julia, it all fits like a jigsaw.
Lets bear in mind, the whole idea of this phone call for a visit up to Menlove is for a guilty Wallace to introduce another person, the killer into the fold but in no way does it act as an alibi for him because he never attempts to use Alan Close as an alibi/witness at 6.40 so as far as he thinks, and the police think (until Alan Close comes forward and puts a spanner in the works) he still has from 6.05 until 645 (maybe 6.49 according to the Anfield Harriers) to commit this murder.
Taken from this site/the witness statements of the delivery kids.
After the police time tests had been carried out. According to Radio City interviews, the police were not pleased with Alan’s 18:45 claim and said something along the lines of “well if you aren’t sure, maybe it was 18:35.”
As per Elsie Wright, Wolverton Street is his last stop before Redford Street. According to Allan to get to Redford Street he walks onto Richmond Park and along from there. Allan says he checked his watch at Redford Street (~0.1 miles, a ~2 minute walk at an average walking speed) and noted the time was 18:45. His watch is 1 or 2 minutes fast so that would make it 18:43 or 18:44 when he checked his watch. He therefore may have left the doorstep of 29 Wolverton Street (if it was his last stop in the street) at around 18:41 by his own watch.
This aligns more with the statements of other delivery boys and girls who were around at the time.
Allison Wildman (the oldest witness) implies that Elsie Wright was in fact waiting for Allan in Wolverton Street. She does not make mention of this herself, only references the time she passed him. Wildman claims to have arrived in Wolverton Street at around 19:37 or 19:38, by passing through an entry by “Campbell’s Dancing Rooms”. According to John Gannon he would emerge “5 doors down from 29 Wolverton Street”, presumably this would then mean the entry beside 21 Wolverton Street.
Wildman delivers papers at various houses in Wolverton Street: Nos. 28, 27, 22, 20, and 18 (as seen, most on the “Evens” side of the street, which would be across the road). At the time he got to and completed the delivery of the newspaper at 27 Wolverton Street (the Holme’s house) having presumably walked up from 21 Wolverton Street, he said the milk boy was still standing at the doorstep of Wolverton Street which was wide open.
The order he delivers papers in the street was not stated, but one can assume it would probably be most convenient to deliver at #27 first since it is the side of the road he emerges on, then cross the road diagonally to 28 (situated right at the top of the road), walking down to 22, 20, then 18 to complete the “Evens” side deliveries. Just a few doors down from #18 there is an entry which he would go through to get to Redford Street.
Walter Holme of 27 Wolverton Street stated he usually receives his newspaper delivery from Wildman at 18:40. The sound he heard regarding the door of 29 Wolverton Street (apparently ~5 minutes before this) could not then be Julia closing the door on Allan, because Allan was still at the doorstep of #29 with the door wide open after Wildman delivered the paper to Mr. Holme and departed that evening.
According to Allan he waited on the step for one or two minutes before Julia returned with the empty milk jugs, they then exchanged a few short words about their respective illnesses. Wildman did not see or hear Alan speaking to anyone and did not see Julia at the door of Wolverton Street. We may say that the door closed on Allan at 19:39 to 19:41 depending on the length of conversation and how soon after Wildman departed she arrived back at the door with the empty jugs. Unfortunately Wildman did not say whether the milk boy was still in the road after he completed all five of his newspaper deliveries in the street. Only that the boy was still standing at the step when he left #27.
Nobody had noticed any light coming from 29 Wolverton Street’s parlour, the only light noticed was then in the middle kitchen.
Elsie Wright (Allan’s Coworker):
ELSIE WRIGHT of 63, Sedley Street, Anfield, Liverpool, Schoolgirl, will say:-
I am 13 years of age, and work mornings and evenings at Close’s Dairy, 51, Sedley Street. Alan Close is the son of the people who keep the Dairy. It was his job to deliver milk in Wolverton Street and other neighbouring streets, and I delivered in Pendennis Street, which is next to Sedley Street. Sometimes if Alan was late I would do the deliveries in Wolverton Street. I did so on Monday 19th January, and among other houses I called at 29, Wolverton Street, where Mrs. Wallace took the milk in. I know her, but not Mr. Wallace.
On Tuesday evening, 20th January, I left our shop at about ten past six, and Alan was then out delivering in Breck Road, on a bicycle. Before going to Wolverton Street, he would come back to the shop, put in the bicycle, and get cans, which he would deliver on foot.
I went to deliver in Twyford Street, and then came down Breck Road. It would take me about five minutes to get to Twyford Street, and I would be about another five minutes delivering there. It runs into Breck Road, and when I came back into Breck Road I heard the bells of the Belmont Institute ringing for half past six service. I then went to the Vicarage of Holy Trinity in Richmond Park, and was kept there for about five minutes. Before I got to the Vicarage the bells had stopped. When I left the Vicarage I went up Richmond Park towards Letchworth Street, where I was going to deliver. I passed Alan Close on foot holding cans while I was in Letchworth Street. I then delivered at my Aunt’s house, No. 12, Letchworth Street. When I passed Alan he was going in the direction of Wolverton Street. His round is Letchworth Street, Richmond Park, Wolverton Street, and Redford Street. When I passed him it would be about twenty to seven. [E.M.W. this was his regular round & he goes on it every day.]
The next morning I asked Close if he had delivered milk to Mrs. Wallace the previous night, and he said “Yes”. No time was then mentioned. When I saw him again in the evening in the Dairy we talked about it again and I asked him what time he got to Mrs. Wallace’s, and he said “Oh, about a quarter to seven“. He said he had been on his way there when he met me.
Later, I met Metcalf and another boy in Richmond Park, and Kenneth Caird came up later on. We talked about the murder, and Metcalf asked me if Close had told the Police that he was at the house the night before. I said he had not, and just then Close came up shortly after Caird had joined us. Metcalf said to Close “You ought to go and tell the Police you were at the Wallace’s”. Then he asked him what time he was there, and Close said “A quarter to seven”. Alan said he had not said to the Police he had been there the previous night. Metcalf said “If you’ll go back we’ll go with you”. He said it was most important to tell the Police. We all went to Wolverton Street with Close, and we knocked at the door. A Policeman came and said “What, you back again?” (This was said because Close and I had called the same evening to see if Milk was wanted). Close said “I’ve come to tell you that Mrs. Wallace answered the door to us last night”. I did not hear him say any time. The Policeman told him to come in, and we waited.
On the way up the passage to 29, Wolverton Street, Close had said something about being the missing link, and had treated it all as rather a joke.
I did not know Close had told the Police half past six until I saw it in the paper. The time was first given in the paper as 6.35, and then it became 6.31. I have never mentioned it to Close, as I didn’t think it was anything to do with me. The Police have never interviewed me.
In our place we do not have any delivery books or anything else of the kind.
Elsie M. Wright.
The scenario and timings given in the above account would be more convincing if the various witnesses had been wearing synchronised watches which recorded the exact time at each stage. Clearly this was not so and instead we have the recollections of youngsters going about their normal jobs as they did on every evening. At best, the times which they give are approximate and estimates to within five or even ten minutes are more valid than the 6.41s or 6.34’s which feature here.
Mrs Johnston estimated her milk delivery on that evening to be about 6.30 pm which might indicate a window between 6.25 pm and 6.35 pm.
Nest we have the unreliability of Alan Close’s testimony. On the stand he denied saying “missing link,” denied being reluctant to go to the police and denied being persuaded by his pals to do so. I can almost hear the doubt in Judge Wright’s voice when he asked him pointedly” “You did SEE Mrs Wallace, didn’t you?”
None of this proves that Wallace had time to spare for the murder. It does however cast doubt on any claim that these given timings exonerate him.
Did you consult your watch at around 7 pm last night? What time did it give?
All times are likely to be approximate with various degrees of closeness unless there is a fixed point in time like church bells and call log times. Elsie’s “5 minutes” of conversation is approximate whereas the bells are not (and 5 minutes of thrilling conversation might feel like 2, and 5 minutes of boring old biddies might feel like 10). The only possibility where the bells are not accurate would be a lapse in memory regarding when the bells were heard by her, or some human error at the church in regards to ringing them. But it is quite a safe point in time.
People ought to try to remember exact events and their respective times and order from yesterday, and see how close you are (many devices and websites log precise times, your comment was at 9.41 am for example, which can be used as reference).
Agreed. None of us can be precise about the timing of everyday events which, at the time, have no significance whatsoever.
There are 2 things that time this delivery. Holy Trinity Clock and the Church Bells of the Institution, so no need for unreliable youngsters at all though Mike. We know from the Church Bells alone which had ended before Elsie Wright even got to the Vicarage and she was kept there for about five minutes she says. If the church bells ring for even only 2 minutes, this means it’s 6.37 when Elsie sets off for Letchworth street and passes Alan Close on his way to Wolverton Street. Meantime James Wildman says he arrived in Wolverton st at 6.37-6.38 and he still has to make a few paper deliveries on the evens sides before crossing over to post into the Holmes letterbox where he sees Close on the doorstep of No.29.
Close would normally be delivering the milk at about 6.30 but for his bike being broken so perhaps Flo Johnston is working on usual times and we do tend to round up or down to quarters when recalling ‘about’ times but we know for sure it is not 6.30 due to the bells, the bells as Quasimodo (not Qualtrough) might say.
So to repeat, what do we have. A phone call by Wallace that does not even prevent him being the killer from 6.05 until 6.49. A phone call made at 7.20 when he knows he has to meet his chess opponent by 7.45 therefore he could have made the call at 7pm. He also knows he has to speak face to face to the person he’ll be trading a 5 minute call with, re-reading back the Qualtrough spelling etc.
For me, the Police got to Alan Close. A fairer test would have been taking Elsie Wrights fool proof version of the bells timing before starting his round timing. It’s a bit like the tram tests, all skewed in the balance of the police agenda.
Sometime in the mid 1960’s a GI was on Route 66 in New Mexico hitching rides back to his base. A limousine appeared and pulled up. The driver had spent time in the army in Germany and they swapped tales of military life. Three of the driver’s pals were seated in the back. En route they stopped at a roadside diner to use the bathroom, creating something of a stir.
Back at his base, the soldier couldn’t wait to tell his pals: the driver had been Elvis Presley on his way to Hollywood to make another of those ghastly films. His mates accused him of spending too long in the sun. They didn’t believe it.
On his day off he returned to the diner, remembering that photos had been taken. He obtained copies and was able to show himself with his new chum, Elvis.
I often think of this tale in relation to John Parkes’ story. Sometimes, something absolutely unbelievable…is true.
A great story Mike. Love it.
I am drawn back to the kids statements, they are adamant Close said In these words – A Quarter to Seven, not 6,30 to 6.45 – not even 6.45 as kids don’t often use timings in this way but say twenty past, twenty five to etc – certainly little scousers would.
Wildman looked at Holy Trinity Church clock at 25 to 7 and it takes him 2 minutes to walk to Wolverton st (about right) When he walked away from No27 Close was still on the step of 29.
Wright heard the bells and saw the clock, after the Vicarage she still had to go to Letchworth st where she passed Close on his way to Wolverton st. Without any corroboration with Wildman at all these times fit in.
Caird and Metcalfe are equally as adamant with what they all heard but they don’t have to just believe Close said ‘A Quarter to 7’ they lived it too, they knew it was about right due to their own timings.
Hemmerde does his best bless him to try to bully the kids into thinking they heard it differently but they’re having none of it. He tries to question how long it was since the boys gave statements to the police and did they speak to Munro before or afterwards etc but luckily these children had all told their parents straight away once the murder became apparent. They weren’t remembering from 2 weeks or a month ago but from the very night afterwards.
The important thing here is, the phone call does not give Wallace an alibi, it only introduces the possibility of another person that cold have done this. Why then point the finger at Parry who might have a solid alibi, he has his suspect, Qualtrough.
GED I’m not sure why this is debatable. There is a plethora of evidence that the time was around 6:37 when the door opened/the convo happened and you could maybe say the door closed at about 6:38. Almost everything carefully analyzed the kids said corroborated mske this like pieces to a puzzle. It’s beyond reproach imo. This is the timing that Antony himself uses btw.
In that case Wallace is innocent because to do all he had to do takes more than the 11 minutes which the police say he could have done it in as they agree 7.49 is the latest he could have left, if we take the Anfield Harriers timings seriously and he only has 7 minutes if he left at 6.45pm when he said he did. Add to this that it’s only Alan Close being so late and coming forward to throws all this doubt. Basically Wallace being Qualtrough makes no real sense in that Wallace still had from 6.05 until 6.49 without the pesky Alan Close. If you are going to say Wallace introduced Qualtrough as the person getting him out of the house then he doesn’t even have to point at Parry who might have a cast iron alibi (and he supposedly does), he has his man, Qulatrough, the person he invented.
It doesn’t take more than 11 minutes. It is definitely interesting to point out the various mistakes he made when slaughtering his wife, clearly he isn’t as ingenious as he thought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adn-NoDOezs
Gerard, I find the fixation on the time factor interesting as the difference between what Wallace claimed and the police admitted was the latest he could have left is a mere 4 minutes. I think it’s a red herring.
He has enough time either way particularly since the benzidine test has been demonstrated as nonsense (and the weapon could easily have been a household object), particularly if he was waiting to spur into action as soon as Close leaves and act as quickly as possible. The facts and timing seem to fit that scenario very well just like facts of time and distance for him very well for the previous night of the call.
The other points you’ve made are separate threads, not sure what they have to do with the timing, you just sort of threw them in there but we can re litigate those too and I can again show you the error of your ways if you would really like.
A good summary of what probably happened Josh. A few additional remarks:
I don’t think the milk delivery was any part of Wallace’s original plan because if Alan had not been delayed the milk may well have been delivered already when Wallace arrived home at ~ 6.05 pm. Alan’s lateness gave Wallace a problem; he could not murder Julia until after the milk had been delivered because Julia not answering Alan’s knock, or himself taking in the milk, would cause suspicion of Wallace. He also wanted to wait until the Echo had been delivered in order to place it, opened at the central pages, on the kitchen table to suggest Julia having had time to read part of it.
Regarding the time available to him, detailed discussion is futile because we have only estimates not facts. I would just say that an awful lot can be done within a few minutes if one is determined.
It is possible the mac, in addition to it’s role as a shield from blood spatter was used as a cover for the body acting as a blanket to delay cooling. It was found at the side of the body with no part trapped underneath it.
The first tram: it is likely that Wallace used the request stop on Belmont Road to the right of Castlewood Road and not the stop he claimed he used (a further 275 yards at St Margaret’s Church). The request stop was much closer to his home.
Mike
I have a couple extra minutes now so just a couple notes
1. The end of the 2nd to last paragraph contains a typo but I mean it’s interesting isn’t it how for both the night of the murder and the call Wallace is exactly in the frame but only just so which matches up very well for him having been both the caller and killer but tried to act as quickly as possible.
2. Wallace has an incentive to make it seem like someone else could be the killer so it’s better if she is killed as late as possible. He cannot know how good or poor of a job Mcfall will do (obviously as we know he did an atrocious job.) Also, if he remembers the milk boy is coming he will not want to act until the milk boy has come, seen Julia as per usual, and then gone.
3. The introduction of Qualtrough in the event of Wallace’s guilt would be an attempt to make it seems that someone else designed this. It’s not a common crime and Wallace knew few people. Distraction robberies were common, crimes like this were not. He is limited somewhat but a narrowest suspect pool but it is the best he can do. The focusing on a particularly suspicious false suspect happens all the time when crimes are committed without people knowing what kind of alibi the suspects they are trying to divert blame onto may have.
About the mackintosh – from Flo Johnston who also report Wallace breaking down sobbing, shoulders heaving, hands to face a number of times, so no real coldness about him at all as is sometimes reported.
” I looked, and saw the mackintosh tucked round her body, behind her, and touching the body. She looked as if she was lying on it. It looked as though a knock had come to the front door, and she had pulled the mackintosh round her shoulders, as she had a cold, before answering the knock.”
She was one of the first 3 people along with Wallace and her husband to see the mac, before it had been manhandled and held up by the police was Wallace to identify.
If Julia did, as Mrs Johnston suggests, put the mac around her shoulders to answer the front door to admit a visitor wouldn’t we expect her to put it back on the hall stand as she passed it before ushering the visitor into the parlour?
The macintosh was “tucked round her body” (actually only on the right hand side) and it may well have given the impression that she was lying on it but when Inspector Moore said “Let’s have it up” it was lifted without any need to move the body.
The mac was found close to Julia’s body parallel to it along it’s full length and giving Mrs Johnston the impression of having been “tucked in.” Unfortunately the mac had been raised for examination by the time the crime scene photos were taken and it is no longer in it’s original position.
Wallace’s mac was 50 inches long and in my view there is no way that it would have fallen with the body and ended up in this neat parallel “tucked in” position. It is however consistent with the mac being used as a blanket to cover the body to retain body temperature and delay cooling. I also suspect the gas fire was left on a low light withe same objective. On Wallace\s “discovery” of the body he simply lifted it on the left hand side placed it in the parallel position in which it was found. He then turned off the fire.
Wallace was banking on a body temperature being taken which, although approximate, would suggest a time of death during his absence.
In answer to your first question Mike, no I don’t think Julia would have hung it straight back up as it would have been cold in the parlour too, hence the lighting of the fire.
Regarding the mac being all crumpled either alongside or underneath her (it doesn’t matter which) as this would have occurred when Julia was pulled by her chignon, back away from the fire which is why her head ended up at the opposite end of the fire.
The fire would have been turned off in the panic of the mac catching fire, rather like turning a cooker ring off if a chip pan caught fire. The singe on Julia’s skirt is consistent with her falling forwards before being pulled back.
We have to bear in mind that if this was Wallace he must have had to do all this within seconds of the door closing on Close. The late milk delivery, the fire, burning, stamping out, pulling back etc were all things costing panic and time that he wouldn’t have accounted for.
Also we have McFall’s post mortem saying 3 to 4 blows, the examination having taken place the day after the murder and once Julia’s head had been shaved. What then made him change his mind on the witness stand to 10 or 11 blows. This could have a huge bearing on the frenzied vs not frenzies attack.
I do agree that it would have been cold in the parlour. I have memories of our “front room” at home in the 1950s. In those pre-central heating days it was warmer outside!Which leads me nicely to my point : I do not think Julia was lighting the fire when the blows were struck. It takes a few minutes for such a fire to heat the clays to the point where they would scorch a garment falling onto them. I think she was turning the fire off after Wallace told her that they wouldn’t have a musical evening and that he would go to his appointment with Mr Qualtrough.
The position of the mac by the side of the body and parallel to it’s length is suspicious. It was quite a substantial coat fitting the 6 foot 2 inch tall Wallace. If it had been used as a shield against blood spatter as I suspect, then simply thrown on the floor I would not expect to find it parallel to Julia’s body along it’s length, “scrunched up” and giving the impression of having ben “tucked in.”
I agree that the body was quickly dragged away from the fire. Julia didn’t fall into the position where she was found. But I cannot see that this would leave the mac “neatly” by the side of the body.
McFall was a disgrace to his profession. With his illustrious career behind him and occupying important positions he had lost sight the basics of his job. No thermometer. Changing from 4 blows to 11 blows. And giving his insights into the psychology of the killer: “a frenzied attack.”
Does anyone have any information on the nurse called Wilson who supposedly lived with the Wallace’s for three weeks giving a less than complimentary take on their relationship? I think Inspector Gold may have uncovered her in his investigations?
It’s ok now, got the info I required. Thanks.
At risk of telling you something you already know Ged: Florence Mary Wilson was matron of the Remand Police Home, 31 Derwent Road. She nursed Wallace through a bout of pneumonia about eight years prior to the murder. She described the Wallaces as a very peculiar couple with a strained attitude to each other. Wallace seemed to have had a keen disappointment in life and Mrs Wallace was peculiar and “dirty”.
This is from Inspector Gold’s report May 11, 1931.
The important thing for me is that Mrs Wilson’s impressions date from eight years before the murder so it would seem that the marriage had been in trouble for a long time before the 1931 tragedy.
Wallace could have taken a tip from me: after 50 years of marriage I still refer to my beloved as “my current wife.” It keeps her on her toes!
Please guys stop being avocado heads lol
What is an avocado head?
I wouldn’t say the marriage is in trouble just because a nurse who will have saw them at their worst during bouts of illness says they had a strained attitude towards each other and this being eight years previously so why didn’t he kill her in the mid 1920s then?
They diaries after that and his worry during her late night home due to the train crash don’t point to any strain and that was only a few weeks before her death. This is also a report by a matron from a police remand home given to a policeman who is obviously working for the prosecution at this point so hardly unbiased. Did she live in with the Wallace’s for a period or just visit?
Hi Ged,
You’re right: people are never at their best when there is illness in the house, especially, in those pre-antibiotic days, pneumonia which with Wallace’s delicate health could have seen him off.
And he took up the violin only two years before the murder in order to accompany Julia’s piano playing…..
Wallace is still my prime suspect but it is a case of “Faute de mieux”as they say in Barnsley: he’s the best bet in a lousy field of runners. If I were a juror I still couldn’t find him guilty on what we know so far.
I’ve been looking at a forum from years ago that goes on for a couple of years, reading all the posts, it goes back pre this site when RMQ was still new to the case and is asking questions and putting together his scenario. John Gannon and Antony Brown (two authors on the case are also on it) Rod Stringer who also puts forward a scenario in Antony’s book is on there, we were on a site called Yo Liverpool which goes back pre facebook to 2005 talking about it with another author of the case, Mark Russell. I am putting together my own proposal of a scenario which does away with some of the doubts and answers questions on the forum though that forum is now locked as a read only platform.
For me, a Wallace pre-planning all this could just have strangled Julia, over in seconds, no blood, clean up (or worry he had just one dot on him) no weapon to dispose of. He came home at 6.05pm and says he left at 6.45pm – certainly no later than 6.49pm – there is no alibi as he has over 40 minutes to kill her and he doesn’t even present Alan Close as his trump card, the kids do that themselves.
All the call does if it were Wallace is introduce A.N. Other but denying the murder and the Anfield housebreaker being so prevalent introduces A.N. Other anyway. Therefore there is no need for any elaborate phone call if you’re Wallace, he could have done it on the Monday before leaving for Chess after smashing a window in the yard by taping it up first to prevent the noise – or as I say, the less time consuming and messier strangulation. If you say he planned it to make it look like somebody was after more takings in the cashbox on the Tuesday night, then you are saying he was framing Parry or Marsden and lowering the suspect pool as they would have had to have been involved, even if only telling somebody else about Wallace’s domestic arrangements and of course Wallace couldn’t know if either of these had cast iron alibi’s. Parry does (allegedly) for the murder time, Marsden’s is less concrete and it was never corroborated (in bed with the flu)
It is indeed surprising that Wallace’s defence didn’t highlight the tight time window after Alan Close delivered the milk. But then Wallace’s defence was lacking in other respects. Why tell the jury that they might find the case for the defence unlikely. It implies that Olivier himself found it unlikely. No wonder Wallace was convicted.
Also surprising is the police not asking Close if he was the regular milk delivery boy when he and Elsie Wright called at No 29 on the 21st January to ask if any milk was needed.
Wallace would not have killed his wife before the milk was delivered. She had to be allowed to answer the door establishing that she was alive. Close being late was unforeseen by Wallace. He wasn’t too concerned about this tight timing because his plan was to simulate a much later time of death:
1. by leaving the gas fir on a low light to maintain room/body temperature.
2. by covering the body with the mac as insulator. It was peeled back on his “discovery” of the body.
3. by leaving the Echo open on the kitchen table as if Julia had been reading it.
4. by going through the charade of the locked doors and suggesting there was still someone in the house.
This accounts for his extended enquiries in Menlove Gardens. He knew any estimate of time of death would be approximate and he wanted to be away from No 29 at the estimated time, which ideally from his point of view would be 8 pm plus or minus an hour. In this respect Wallace overestimated the competence of the pathologists (no thermometer!) and the precision of any estimate even one based on body temperature.
The case is full of aspects where with hindsight we can suggest better ways to have done it. If Wallace was still with us he would no doubt be able to give cogent reasons why he made the choice he did. Hindsight is seldom 20:20.
I look forward Ged to reading your scenario when it is available.
Mike
Hi Everyone,
Not posted for a good while, so I hope you’re all well.There’s another aspect of this case that maybe doesn’t quite get the attention it deserves, although it’s a well-known aspect, and I definitely think a hugely important one.It’s Parry’s drive to Hignetts on the night of the murder…when he says in his statement that after buying his cigarettes and newspaper in the Post Office on Maiden Lane, that as he was turning he suddenly “remembered” that he’d promised to pick up his accumulator from Hignetts on West Derby Road.One day last week, I decided I’d walk and time the route Parry said he took that night.So I set off from Worcester Drive, which is about 15 yards past the Post Office, and would have been the road Parry was about to turn into when he just so happened to remember his accumulator!! Following exactly the same route, walking at a steady pace, it took me 27 minutes to arrive at where Hignetts once stood.After a short rest and a drink of water, I then continued walking back towards my starting point at Worcester Drive, passing 43 Knoclaid Road along the way.This second walk took me 13 minutes.Which means that Parry took a route to Hignetts that was TWICE as long as the one he could have taken.Now, does anyone seriously believe he did this just for the sheer hell of it? I certainly don’t!!
There are some crucial things that need to be kept in mind when looking at this issue.For a start, Parry was local to this area.His own house at 7 Woburn Hill was no more than a mile away from that Post Office as the crow flies.And as both a regular caller to Lily Lloyd’s house, and a keen motorist, he’d have been extremely well acquainted with that particular neighbourhood.So there’s no way he wouldn’t have known that by performing a simple U-turn by Worcester Drive, and heading back in the direction he’d originally come from, he’d have arrived at Hignetts much quicker.So what was he up to? Why has he taken a noticeably longer journey than he needed to? I’m convinced it’s because somewhere in the vicinity of Lower Breck Road, possibly by Breckside Park, he’s picked someone up.At one point on his journey along Lower Breck Road, he’d have been less than 200 yards from Wolverton Street.And if the times he gave in his statement are true, he’d have been at this point about 5 minutes before Wallace discovered Julia’s body.Are we seriously expected to believe this was just a coincidence? But there’s more.After leaving Hignetts, Parry would have driven along West Derby Road, before turning left into Lisburn Lane, where he went to Mrs.Williamson’s house at number 49, and received the 21st Birthday invitation. But before he turns into Lisburn Lane, he’d have had to drive past Marlborough Road…where his friend (and possible accomplice) William Denison lived, number 29 to be exact.William’s brother Harold also lived here, both of whom were mentioned in their aunt Olivia Brine’s statement.Again, are we expected to believe that Parry driving past this road at this time was pure coincidence? I think it’s feasible to suggest he’s possibly dropped Denison off here, after picking him up a few minutes earlier.Although it’s also possible he’s picked someone else up other than Denison on his longer than necessary journey from Worcester Drive.We can’t be certain, but Parry’s car was a two seater apparently, so picking up two people may well have been difficult.But I’m totally convinced he definitely HAS picked someone up.And there’s a possibility that whoever he picked up had blood on them…hence his late night visit to Atkinson’s garage to have his car cleaned.I think at some point between 9pm and the visit to Atkinson’s, Parry discovers his plan has gone horribly wrong…and he’s now in huge trouble.
This is something I’ve believed for a long time.There has to be a reason Parry took that journey, because as has been made clear, he could have made it in a much quicker time.So why didn’t he? I can’t accept he suddenly just decided to take that route.And with everything we know about the case, and the actual locations and timings involved in this route he took, you simply have to seriously suspect it had been planned.Parry has NOT just taken this route on a whim!!
Well, that’s my theory!! What does anyone else think about Parry’s journey?
Cheers…Dave.
Hi Dave, nice to see you back.
I’m in the middle of re-reading Gannon’s book and whilst I don’t agree with his theory I am compelled to believe Ada Cook’s statement about what happened between her parents and Parry’s parents. I wish I was able to speak with the researcher who found her.
Whenever Parry is put up as a suspect involved in this we are told that:
His Mon night statement is just a honest mistake, yet his statement for the 8.30 onwards on the murder night is very overly detailed, no mistakes there for what he did just the night after.
Also Parkes is just an old man after 15 mins of fame, yet he wasn’t in 1931 when he told this to the Atkinsons. Either this or we’re asked to believe Parry was just winding him up, putting his neck on the line in the process.
Anne Parsons seeing 2 men legging it down Hanwell st, the first street you come to in Richmond Park if leaving the Wallace’s rear entry is just a coincidence, there were also 2 other people to part corroborate this, Jane Smith and a man whose name i’ve forgotten.
Ada Cook, well, she is just another 15 mins of fame person.
Parry commenting about knowing much more than he would say, not for £2000 as he promised his father is just more wind ups for JG and RWE.
Now onto your theory Dave.
The biggest problem here is, If Parry picked up his accomplice/s around 8.30pm but did not go into Atkinson’s until after midnight and in between times went to the Lloyd’s – at what point does he find out they’ve killed Julia?
Now, people will say are we expected to believe that Parry went to his girlfriends where he will have seen 2 people and was all calm and collected. Yet the same people expect us to believe that Wallace killed his wife in a rush (as Close was unexpectedly late) and acted all calm and collected to around a dozen people, one of them a policeman.
A way around this is if Parry picked up the accomplice after they’d dropped the iron bar down the grid, perhaps wrapped in one of the gloves, after Anne Parsons had seen them, and they did not inform Parry of Julia’s death, perhaps even just said we had to bash her on our way out, one of them gets the lift and shoves the remaining glove in the glove box without Parry noticing.
Later that night after Parry leaves the LLoyd’s about 11.30pm like he says he did, word reaches Parry about Julia’s death, he might even go back to his accomplice’s house to find out what really went on. In a blind panic he says i’m gonna have to get this car cleaned, the rest we know.
It is clear Leslie Williamson was no friend of Parry and the likelihood of the invite to his 21st was because Mrs Williamson and Josephine Lloyd were fellow piano teachers and good friends. When Leslie rings Radio City in 1981 he is not only scathing of Parry but also crucially does not mention Parry called on the murder night, something that surely would have stuck in his mind.
Parry commenced visiting Olivia Brine’s with her Nephew William Denison around Christmas 1930, so just a few weeks before the murder, yet on this night, William is not with him – Why, where is he?
The police files do not contain statements from Joseph Caleb Marsden or Savona Brine or Miss Phyllis Plant. Parry is not asked about his friend Marsden who by now Wallace has said was a friend of Parry’s. Olivia Brine/Harold Denison statements look sparse and concocted. Theirs mention people present that Parry’s doesn’t and Parry’s mentioned someone present that Olivia and Harold don’t.
I also have another idea about how the accomplice/s could have gained silent entry through an open back door without the need for a lengthy conversation at the front door about being Qualtrough here for a meeting with Mr Wallace.
Hi also again to Mike
If I were Wallace’s defence team I would have been asking the judge for a no trial based on there being insufficient evidence to convict the defendant. I don’t see how this would go against Wallace or sway the jury to think something was amiss. In the event of the Judge throwing out that request and the case going ahead ,it would sway me to think I will listen to this case even more clearly now as what do the defence mean by lack of evidence?
Hi Ged,
The appeal court judges also expressed surprise that “No case to answer” was not introduced by Wallace’s defence at the start of the trial. Wallace’s team feared that if the judge disagreed with this submission it would look like the judge thought there was a case against Wallace and this would influence the jury. Using that logic “No case to answer” would never be used by anyone’s defence team. From Judge Wright’s summing up in favour of Wallace it is likely in my view that he would have accepted the lack of concrete evidence and stopped the trial at that point.
Hi Dave,
Welcome back. A lot to chew on but on the point of Parry’s long journey to Hignett’s: Isn’t it possible that Parry was en route to his next destination when, as he said, he “remembered” his promise to call at Hignett’s for his battery. So he turns around or whatever and makes his way there having taken a much longer route than if he had gone there directly.
Mike
Hi Mike
I can reply for Dave as not sure when he will make his next appearance here but we know Parry’s intentions. He says he was on his way to his young lady’s house.
”About 8.30p.m. I then went out and bought some cigarettes – Players No. 3, and the evening Express from Mr. Hodgson, Post Office, Maiden Lane, on the way to my young lady’s house.
When I was turning the corner by the Post Office I remembered I had promised to call for my accumulator at Hignetts in West Derby Road. I went there and got my accumulator and then went down West Derby, Tuebrook and along Lisburn Lane to Mrs. Williamson, 49, Lisburn Lane,”
I can’t though see where it says which route he took TO Hignett’s, only the route back FROM Hignetts?
Yes, he doesn’t say how he got to Hignett’s and as you have pointed out previously he even gives the spurious detail of the brand of his ciggies. Irrelevant detail is sometimes an indicator of lies. Once the police had confirmed his Brine alibi I don’t suppose they checked out his post 8.30 pm story and as Dave mentioned, his visit to the Williamsons wasn’t mentioned by the family member who phoned in to the 1981 radio discussion.
Hi Mike. I notice Olivia Brine uses the phrase ‘called’ as the same for Parry, Harold Denison and Phyllis Plant. This would suggest Miss Plant was in the house, not just at the doorstep yet there are no police statements for her or Savona who is only mentioned by Parry. There doesn’t seem to be any police statements from Mr Hodgson from the Post office or from Hignett’s either. There is no questioning of Parry regarding Marsden and no statement in the police files from Marsden, just a note in the margin of a piece of paper saying in bed with flu – not great or corroborated.
All three, Parry, Brine and Denison say Parry left at ‘about’ 8.30pm – none are specific. This leaves it open that Parry could have left 5 or 10 minutes earlier than that and still went to both those places before picking up any accomplice. (William Denison/Marsden)
Also, if Parry was willing to lie about his Monday night movements (the only known lie in any statements) knowing they could be checked out, what’s to stop him thinking he could lie about his Tuesday night movements.
We know McFall used the least reliable method for timing the death and took no notes. He then changed his autopsy findings from 3 or 4 blows to 11 under oath – why?
He is trying to say a frenzied attack which would fit more in line with a spur of the moment than a pre-planned effort.
Just watched a Sky crime programme last night, I watch them most nights actually. This one, the murder of Brian McKandie near Aberdeen struck me as very Wallace like in its execution. Head stove in during a limited amount of time, lots of blood spatter, many blows, no witnesses, circumstantial evidence towards a killer.
As it was I think they got the right man but even the prosecution say the verdict was not a foregone conclusion. This frenzied attack wasn’t by a spouse, just by a near neighbour who got greedy for cash.
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/crime-courts/6554559/brian-mckandie-documentary-sneak-peek/
James Allison Wildman, the 16 year old paper lad who posted the Liverpool Echo trough the letter box of No.27 (Walter James Holmes) at about 6.40pm on Tuesday 20th January 1931 just as the Collegiate School cap wearing Alan Croxton Close was delivering milk to Julia Wallace.
Here is a photo of him in later life and a look at some of his memoirs which mention the area he lived and the murder case which was big news at the time.
https://wildies.wordpress.com/…/upl…/2013/05/memoirs.pdf
Hi Ged and Mike,
Continuing the theme of Parry’s journey to Hignetts on the evening of the murder.Apologies again for the use of upper case letters…as always, I’m just aiming for a bit of emphasis.In Antony Brown’s book, the suggested route is described as being possible.But when you read Parry’s statement, you quickly realise that it almost certainly WAS the route he took.As Ged has pointed out, Parry states that after collecting his accumulator he drove down West Derby Road and then Lisburn Lane.If he’d taken the noticeably shorter route, this would have been the other way round…he’d have driven back up Maiden Lane, then Knoclaid Road, Lisburn Lane, then turning right towards West Derby Road.
But there are a couple of other things that make this whole journey extremely suspect.Firstly, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt when he said he suddenly remembered he’d promised to go to Hignetts as he was turning into Worcester Drive.Fair enough.But at what point on his journey does he also “remember” he had to call at Annie Williamson’s house on Lisburn Lane? And I use the inverted commas deliberately!! If you’re prepared to take his statement at face value, then it means that even AFTER buying his fags and newspaper in the Post Office, and also AFTER getting in his car and heading towards his girlfriend’s house, it was only THEN that he remembered not only the visit to Hignetts, but also the visit to Mrs.Williamson!! Obviously it’s not impossible, but does anyone believe it’s likely? I certainly don’t.And even if it’s true and all perfectly innocent, then why hasn’t he taken the much shorter route? As I said in my previous post, he was exceptionally well acquainted with that neighbourhood, and would definitely have known he had no need to take the route he did.
Secondly, his visit to Annie Williamson is also rather odd.It seems to have been generally accepted that this woman wasn’t particularly enamoured with Parry, and only tolerated him due to her friendship with Lily Lloyd, a piano teacher like herself.I think her son Leslie confirmed this when he telephoned Radio City in 1981 for the 50th anniversary broadcast.Now, you’d imagine our friend Parry would have had SOME inkling that Annie Williamson didn’t much like him, so why’s he calling at her house without Lily being with him? Lily certainly hasn’t asked him to call there on her behalf, or she’d have said so in her own statement.Did he actually call there SPECIFICALLY for Leslie’s 21st Birthday party invitation? Or was that just given to him on the spur of the moment? We don’t find out.But if he DIDN’T call for the birthday invite, then what DID he call for? Leslie Williamson mentioned something in that broadcast about Parry interrupting one of his mother’s piano lessons before the murder, asking to borrow a sheet of music, if I’m not mistaken.So, could the REAL purpose of his visit there that night have been to return this sheet of music, and also kill a bit of time?
I’m convinced that what Parry was doing after leaving Olivia Brine’s was padding out that all important half hour between approximately 8.30pm and 9.If we accept he genuinely WAS in Brine’s house between 5.30pm and 8.30(though I’m STILL a bit sceptical!!) then it means he’s got his alibi for the robbery.But he also needs to conceal the fact he’s picked somebody up…very possibly by the recreation ground on Lower Breck Road.That’s why he pads things out, going into unnecessary detail about his visits to the Post Office, Hignetts and Annie Williamson, before going to his girlfriend’s.When questioned by the police, which he knows is likely to happen, he wants them to think he couldn’t have had the time to pick anyone up.From saying virtually nothing about the three hours he spent in Brine’s house, he’s suddenly going into all sorts of details!! A classic case, according to a criminal psychologist called Richard Wiseman, of someone believing that the more true but trivial details they give, the more substance they believe it gives to their alibi, because trivial but true details can be checked out and verified.Of course, it’s what they’re NOT telling you that’s the real issue!! And in Parry’s case, what he wasn’t telling anyone was the fact that on his rather convoluted trip that night, he’d picked someone up.
But the ironic thing for me is that he may not have needed to do all this between 8.30 and 9….because it’s very obvious from the outset of the investigation that Hubert Moore believes Wallace is his man.And it’s also pretty obvious that he doesn’t believe a robbery actually took place…he clearly thinks Wallace has faked the robbery himself.As a result, as I’ve said before,I think the robbery angle doesn’t get anything like the attention it deserves.And for Parry and his accomplices (I still think there could have been two of them!!) this is a huge slice of fortune.If Moore doesn’t believe there was a robbery, and also believes the time of death to be anywhere between 6.30pm and Wallace leaving at 6.49pm at the latest, then the three hours Parry spent in Brine’s covers him.He didn’t have to worry about picking up whoever DID attempt to carry out the robbery…because Moore didn’t think it ever happened!! I also believe that this blinkered approach on the part of Moore and his colleagues was also a plus for Parry.Moore appeared focused completely on proving Wallace was the killer, and Parry’s statement is little more than an exercise in ticking boxes when it clearly should have been looked into in far greater depth, considering the obvious discrepancies in it.Like I say, Moore’s dismissal of the robbery means the very reason for everything that happened is just NOT properly investigated.
Cheers….Dave.
We don’t have a definitive solution so all theories on this case deserve a fair hearing. Following a robbery by Parry’s cronies there would be a planned meet-up afterwards to discuss how it went down and to divide the spoils. Logically this would be after Parry left Mrs Brine and before he arrived at Lily Lloyd’s house. Would he make these various calls – cigarettes, Williamsons, Hignetts – if he had just been told Mrs Wallace had been murdered? Very unlikely in my view and this explains why he arrived at Lily’s calm and behaving normally.
This changes at some point after he left Lily’s at 11 pm. He arrives at Atkinson’s garage agitated, nervous, and anxious to unburden himself of the details of the crime.
Maybe there was no firm plan for a meeting that evening, after all Parry had a full programme, but in the light of the murder the cronies had to speak with Parry. They reasoned he could be at Lily’s and spotted his car outside her house. After a long discussion of what to do, he drove them home then went to Atkinson’s arriving after 12 midnight.
I agree Dave that when the Qualtrough call was traced to the Anfield box Moore’s strong suspicions of Wallace gelled into a virtual certainty and from that point on any other enquiries were simply ticking boxes. The short statements by Brine and Denison were enough – Parry could be eliminated.
There are problems with this scenario among which is:
the robbers, unlike Parry, being unknown to Mrs Wallace could have left without killing her if the robbery was rumbled by Mrs Wallace.
Another scenario……………
Wallace tells of Julia having a bad cold on the Monday night and suggests she goes to see Dr Curwen. This she does, that much is known. In order to get there she would be passing near the phone box around the same time that Parry is in the vicinity either before or around the time of the call or after his swift visit to see Lily (but she’s giving a piano lesson)
Parry knows by now that Wallace will be out tomorrow, on his wild goose chase, as it is him sending him there and tells Julia he’s heard on the insurance grapevine that William will be out on business tomorrow night and to set up the parlour for one of his visits (The visits he tells JG about in 1966)
This chance meeting has saved Parry knocking to inform Julia all this (whilst Wallace is at Chess or the following day) and of course Julia won’t mention this meeting to William and is not in the least surprised when William later that night or in the morning tells Julia of his business meeting lined up in the Calderstones district which he confirms she encourages him to go to.
Parry doesn’t really want to visit Julia though but instead he knows Julia will leave the back door and gate unbolted (which is why Wallace doesn’t hear her bolt it) This would be Julia’s usual practice when entertaining Parry which is why nobody ever saw him entering, they both of course had to be very discreet. He’ll just make his apologies next day to Julia that he couldn’t make it in the end.
This is also why there was no need for any lengthy conversation at the front door from a Mr Qualtrough pleading a mix up of addresses for the business meeting which even in itself might not have resulted in him gaining entry to the house.
We know that Walter Holmes and Florence Johnston heard door knocking and door closing during the busy tea time period and even heard Wallace knocking upon returning home from Menlove, even though they lived in the middle kitchen towards the rear of their houses.
This then sets the scene for Tuesday evening when Julia goes into the cold parlour with the mac around her shoulders to light the fire ready to entertain Parry for an hour or so. However, Parry has other plans and already his mate William Denison and A.N. Other (possibly Marsden) are instructed to enter No.29 at the back which will be open and to be as quick as possible getting that likely possible £100 out of that cashbox.
Denison has been Parry’s companion whenever they visited Denison’s aunt, Olivia Brine, but not tonight, Parry is there alone, his part is over until about 8.30 when he will go to collect his mate and his bounty.
Perhaps Denison is even meant to go alone but takes along a friend for courage. Denison is shorter than Wallace and to reach the cashbox he opens the bottom cupboard door to stand on it and reach up to the cashbox which is never taken down. Just as the replaces the cashbox lid and puts it back, an act to delay discovery of the theft and to give the impression there has been nobody at the property at all, the door, previously broken and mended breaks, Denison comes crashing down as do some coins which spill out of his hand.
The commotion causes Julia to call inquisitively from the Parlour, is that you Richard which alerts Denison’s mate who was just about to go mooching in the parlour for any more valuables as he waits for Denison – too late, they see each other, he wasn’t expecting this, he pushes her backwards towards the fire, causing the new bruise on her arm.
She still has the mac on her until it warmed up a bit, it catches fire as she turns to get her bearings to get up, her skirt is singed and he spots the iron bar and pulls her backwards by her chignon which is later found wrenched from her head. He bashes her once more and stamps out the flames, turning off the sparking fire at the same time. He bashes her twice more, he turns down the light worrying someone outside might see, Denison is saying what have you done as they flee.
Anne Parsons is heading home up Hanwell street as she sees two men running like hell down towards Lower Breck Road. Hanwell st is the first street you come to if you leave 29 Wolverton street by the back entry and head towards Richmond Park and turn right.
With the bar wrapped inside a hastily removed glove it is shoved down a grid outside a Drs in Priory Road, just across the road from Lower Breck Road. Parry collects Denison, the murderer has ran off. Denison puts the remaining glove in the glove box without Parry noticing. Denison is sweating saying I brought a mate with me (or if it was the plan for two of them all along he says eg. Marsden had to bash her, I’ve got the money here but it doesn’t look much, we had to get out, no time for searching.
Parry drops him off and goes to Lily Lloyd’s, disappointed with the haul but none the wiser regarding Julia’s condition. Parry leaves Lily’s about 11.30pm and only within the next hour finds out about the murder, he is panicked, agitated, stressed, he knows he needs to get to Atkinson’s garage and get that car washed inside and out.
Parkes opens the glove box and pulls out the glove, Parry is mortified and grabs at it. Parkes is later perplexed as to how Parry had no blood on him but of course he didn’t because he wasn’t there but he is an accessory. If Parkes was lying, why didn’t he just say Parry had blood on him…………
Hi Ged,
In the scenario above Parry tells Mrs Wallace that William will be out on business the following evening even before Wallace himself receives the invitation from Qualtrough via Mr Beattie. Why didn’t Wallace mention it when he had tea with Julia at ~ 6.15 pm that evening? Julia’s suspicions would be aroused when Wallace told her of the chess club phone message which then and only then initiated his trip to Menlove Gardens.
The whole thing is predicated on Wallace taking the bait which was by no means certain.
Parry’s clandestine visits to meet Julia were in the afternoons, not the evening according to Parry’s account to JG/RW-E. An evening tryst was risky; Wallace might return home directly on hearing from the policeman on point duty that MGE didn’t exist.
Was Julia in the habit of walking around inside her home with Wallace’s mac over her shoulders for warmth? No question here of answering the door because in the scenario described the back door has been left unlocked for Parry’s arrival.
The plan depends on Julia being in the parlour when the would-be thieves arrive. Having lit the gas fire isn’t she more likely to be in the warm kitchen/diner reading the Echo?
These are some of the reasons why I think this scenario is flawed. It is consistent with the two men running in Hanwell Street but this is, in my view, outweighed by the points described above.
Mike
Hi Dave. some real talking points about this case.
Moore and Co wrongly believe from the start that the caller (Q) is the killer. Once you get off on the wrong footing, you’re then making the facts fit your agenda.
Moore and Co don’t seem to have checked out why Parry lied about his whereabouts on the Monday night.
Moore and Co don’t interview Elsie Wright because they won’t like what she’s got to say about Close’s timings – see point 1 above.
Parry never mentions his visit to Brines either to Lily Lloyd or even to JG/RWE in 1966. WHY? This would have been an obvious thing to do if there is nothing in it.
Imelda Moore, daughter of Supt Moore – head of the murder case being John Parry’s secretary cannot go understated here either in my book. Even Wallace’s customer Herbert Gold was not taken off the case. We only usually see such close inter-relations in Coronation Street.
Hi Mike,
The important thing to remember here is Parry made these calls to The Post Office, to Hignetts, and to Mrs.Williamson’s BEFORE he would have known Julia had been killed.He may have discovered things hadn’t gone as planned when he meets up with his accomplice or accomplices after 8.30pm, but it’s quite feasible he doesn’t find out Julia has actually been killed until a couple of hours later.I was saying on the Facebook site earlier today that the person he picked up in the vicinity of Lower Breck Road may well have been the actual murderer.I’m convinced that William Denison is involved, but he very possibly wasn’t the murderer, only the thief….meaning he’d have had no blood on him.He also only lived a 10 minute walk from Lower Breck Road, so he could have easily made his way home without drawing attention to himself.
But if the person who DID kill Julia wasn’t from that neighbourhood, and clearly had blood on his clothing, then there’s obviously no way he can make his way home without drawing attention to himself.He certainly can’t get on a tram or bus with blood on his clothing.So there’s a possibility he’s demanded Parry take him home to avoid this.This could be the reason Parry didn’t arrive at Lily’s house at 9pm, as he claimed in his statement.Lily herself admitted two years later that Parry did NOT arrive at 9pm as she’d originally told the police, but sometime later than that, although she couldn’t remember the exact time.This would explain Parry’s late night visit to Atkinson’s Garage once he discovers precisely what’s happened…because he’s had somebody sitting in the passenger seat of his car with Julia’s blood on them.
Of course, the original plan could well have been for Parry to pick Denison up and then drop him off as he drove past Marlborough Road, where Denison lived, before he continues padding out his alibi at Mrs.Williamson’s on Lisburn Lane.But if a second accomplice killed Julia, and doesn’t live around there, then the plan may change dramatically for the reasons I’ve stated.
Hi Dave,
As you know, I believe Wallace killed Julia but definite proof is lacking.
In the Parry + accomplices scenario I agree that Parry is unlikely to have heard about the murder until after he left Lily Lloyd’s at around 11 pm. He may then have driven someone home before going, in an agitated state, to Atkinson’s garage.
As for Denison’s involvement we have only his absence from the Brine meet-up and subsequent convictions attesting to his bad character although I have never seen any evidence of the latter. Have you?
A further point is how Denison (+/- another) persuaded Mrs Wallace to let them in. They, being young men, could hardly pretend to be Qualtrough who had a 21 year old daughter.
Finally, as I said before, if the visitors were not known to Mrs Wallace and she rumbled the distraction robbery of the cash box they could simply leave without any violence. There was no evidence of the house being ransacked in a search for valuables after the murder.
So the Parry + accomplices scenario, while possible and somewhat attractive, is problematic when it comes to hard evidence supporting it.
Mike
Hi Mike
”In the scenario above Parry tells Mrs Wallace that William will be out on business the following evening even before Wallace himself receives the invitation from Qualtrough via Mr Beattie. Why didn’t Wallace mention it when he had tea with Julia at ~ 6.15 pm that evening? Julia’s suspicions would be aroused when Wallace told her of the chess club phone message which then and only then initiated his trip to Menlove Gardens.”
Parry is telling Julia this when she goes to see Dr Curwen which is after Wallace has left for the chess club. It could have been that someone has told Parry my friend will contact Mr Wallace tonight about a business meeting. Julia cannot tell Wallace this as it confirms their clandestine meetings and if you remember, Wallace says Julia encouraged him to go during their discussion about it so it doesn’t balance on him taking the bait.
Julia could have gone into the Parlour to light the fire, gone back out until it warmed up and was back inside waiting for Parry’s arrival and upon hearing the noise and calling out was leaving the Parlour with the mac to hang it back up when confronted. The intruder having bolted the front door to ensure his pal had a free reign on the cash box.
Hi Mike. In reply to your reply to Dave.
”A further point is how Denison (+/- another) persuaded Mrs Wallace to let them in. They, being young men, could hardly pretend to be Qualtrough who had a 21 year old daughter.”
”Finally, as I said before, if the visitors were not known to Mrs Wallace and she rumbled the distraction robbery of the cash box they could simply leave without any violence. There was no evidence of the house being ransacked in a search for valuables after the murder.”
My scenario allows for their entry to 29 Wolverton st unseen and unheard, if Parry mentioned previously to Julia he will call tomorrow/tonight and to leave the back door open. The reason for no further searching for valuables is the robbery went wrong and fearing being identified later the thief gave her a few bashes.
I’ve just watched 2 back to back real lift cases on Sky Crime where a perp unknown to the victim did just this and if you read the newspaper articles on this very site about housebreakers m.o. putting on front door bolts and battering the householders, you will see it was not uncommon.
Regarding the telephone conversation and how long it took. We don’t have to worry about what went before with the first two operators as the Supervisor, Annie Robertson says the call was put through at 7.20 and recorded due to what seems to have been a fault on the line at Cottles City Cafe. This we know as Gladys Harley confirms the phone did not ring during the first two attempts to put the call through so this wasn’t a fudge or attempted swindle by Parry or anyone else.
This is roughly how the conversation went by gleaning information from Police statements, solicitors notes and the the trial transcripts of those involved.
7.20
AR: Bank 3581
GH: Yes (then a slight delay), long enough for GH to speak again
GH: Do you require this number?
AR: Yes, Anfield calling you, hold the line.
AR to Q: Put the pennies in
Q: Is that the Central Chess Club?
GH: Yes.
Q: Is Mr Wallace there, it is something connected to the chess club
GH: I will go and get him.
(GH then goes to find Beattie and relay whom the caller is asking for and to say she doesn’t know what he’s on about)
B: Hello.
Q: Hello, can I speak to Mr Wallace?
B: No, he is not here.
Q: Will he be there
B: I cannot say, he may or may not, if he is coming he will be here shortly
Q: Can you give me his address?
B: No I can’t
Q: Will you be sure to see him?
B: I do not know
Q: Could you get in touch with him as it is a matter of importance to Mr Wallace.
B: I am not sure, I suggest you ring later.
Q: Oh no I can’t, I am too busy, It is my daughter’s 21st birthday and want to do something for her which would be in the nature of business for Mr Wallace. I want to see him particularly.
B: If I cannot get Mr Wallace himself I could possibly get in touch with him through a friend, perhaps you know him, Mr Caird who is fairly certain to be here tonight and I will try to get the message delivered through him.
Q: Will you ask him to call on me tomorrow night at 7.30, you had better take my address.
B: I will if I see him but I can’t promise that Mr Wallace will get the message. I am standing at the telephone and can take it.
Q: The name is R.M. Qualtrough. Q.U.A.L.T.R.O.U.G.H.
B: R.M. Qualtrough. Q.U.A.L.T.R.O.U.G.H.
Q: The address is 25 Menlove Gardens East, Mossley Hill.
B: Menlove Gardens East, Mossley Hill.
It is then said Q hangs up, no mentions of pleasantries or a goodbye.
During the trial Q285 which is to Beattie is:
‘And you had altogether quite a conversation with the voice’
Beatie replies ‘Yes, I should say so’
This is quite a lengthy conversation including a slight delay and a longer one whilst AR fetched B. The length of it seems to be somebody in no particular rush as Wallace might have been given it took a few minutes of speaking with the first two operators and failed attempts at a connection prior to all this.
Hi Ged,
You may have missed my reply to your scenario (Aug 15 8.05 pm) but to recap:
It would in my view be extremely risky for Parry to arrange a clandestine evening visit to Mrs Wallace. Wallace might return home sooner than expected when told e.g. by a policeman that 25 MGE didn’t exist. Plus the whole plan depends on Wallace taking the bait in the first place.
If Parry was used to entering the back yard unobserved on his afternoon visits why would he avoid a gentle tap on the door by suggesting the door was left unlocked, especially with Wallace away and on a dark night.?
Clearly this would be a social call without music within earshot of the neighbours. Why not arrange it for when Wallace was at the chess club until past 10 pm.
So although nothing can be ruled out in this case, and I do believe Parry visited Julia in the afternoons occasionally, I have problems with this scenario for the reasons above.
Mike
Mike, I agree completely
I am concerned that I am not being allowed in the facebook group, yet GED is allowed to post here. This seems unfair. I respect GED and his thoughtful contributions (as well as his dioramas).
I think GED should lobby for me to be allowed in the facebook group if he does not want his posting privileges here revoked. Nothing against him personally, but I believe GED has sway among the “pub crew”.
What’s fair is fair.
Hi Mike. Wallace could return anytime for lunch and for tea by the looks of the short hours he puts in of a daytime. He doesn’t seem to start until 10am pffft 🙂
There’s nothing here to say whether it was day or night?
”He described Julia Wallace as a ‘very sweet, charming woman’. He said that he used to sing as a young man, and would often go to tea at 29 Wolverton Street, where Julia would accompany his singing on the piano.”
Hi Josh. Ha, I don’t hold any sway being just a member and not admin but i’ll ask for sure as I don’t think RMQ was banned.
Hey Josh. Just catching up with a 2018-2020 thread on the casebook forum. Oh how times and opinions have changed. This is from you aka WWH.
I wish I had been part of that debate as there is so much selective misinformation, particularly by Herlock Sholmes.
”With Parry and Marsden, the evidence the prosecution could have put forward would have been far more damning. Parry’s lack of alibi for the call, Marsden’s lack of alibi for the murder, plus the more reputable word of Wallace saying they knew where the cash box was. I strongly believe if Parry had confessed to the call, Wallace would’ve been let off. I do not believe anyone would have believed Parry’s word of Wallace having put him up to it.
That’s my view on the matter. And yeah if he acted alone he couldn’t know they wouldn’t have alibis. But if he knew they both did it, he KNEW they couldn’t have. It was a very traitorous but smart move.
Antony and Rod please return I need more Wallace debate.”
Josh is inevitable. When he visits me I will simply have him post from my account. Rod posting would be nice but he doesn’t speak to me because he is an aspie schizophrenic who thinks I’m also my best friend. Makes me feel kind of like the Tony Hawk existential crisis meme.
Hi GED, while my opinion has changed on this case as has pretty much everyone’s, people opinions have never been my issue with most of you. Rather the disgusting way in which some of you conduct yourselves (you are a minor offender here my friend)
ALSO, as has been explained to you MANY times I am NOT Calum and my username was NOT WWH. My username was AmericanSherlock. We are however friends and discussed/worked on the case at length. I introduced him to it and he did most if not all of the work.
This has been explained many times and one would have to be a paranoid schizophrenic to think otherwise.
You are lucky you are allowed to even post here so don’t come with baseless accusations fed to you by our favorite Blundellsands businessman. And I didn’t see a reply about allowing me back in the Facebook group.
The senile old coots are too out of touch with modern times to comprehend two people communicating via WhatsApp. In their day, all communication happened via carrier pigeon.
Hi Josh. My reply to you is further up ^^^^ and sent yesterday, I will try. As for being lucky in allowing to post here, who would if it was not Mike, Dave and myself?
ps: My apologies if you were American Sherlock – though you claim to be British, so please excuse the mix up.
pps. I’ve not seen or spoken to Rod since our last Wallace meet up some months back.
ppps. My reply above was to say I have no influence with the admin on the Wallace facebook group but I will ask.
pppps. Yes, you are right that your opinion has changed as has pretty much anyone’s but you will see from as far back as the first forums in 2005 that mine hasn’t. Things learned since then only reinforces my belief.
Speak soon.
I follow true life crime documentaries on T.V. and 2 cases jumped out at me recently.
1) The case of Brian McKandie of Aberdeenshire whose head was stove in during a robbery. Not a personal murder, the killer lived 3 miles away in a caravan on land belonging to his parents. So proving that a frenzied attack does not have to be by a spouse only, I always thought to suggest so was ludicrous anyway. By the way, the hapless McFall’s post mortem findings were 3 or 4 strikes. He changed this at the trial only to frenzies, maybe after the police had got to him as they did Alan Close.
2) The recent horrendous shooting in my city, Liverpool of a child named Olivia Pratt-Korbel. This week there is a four part documentary on how they caught the killer Thomas Cashman. He was a go to hired hitman as well as a killer in his own right. How was he caught?. By going straight to someone he knew and spilling the beans. Could this remind you maybe of Parry at the Atkinson’s garage, it certainly did me.
Hi GED,
I’ve never claimed to be British, not sure where you got that from. I lived in NYC for most of my life and now I live in California. I have traveled all over Europe including England and London where I visited Calum. Part of the hostility I feel is because it is constantly one odd and incorrect personal claim after another (and claims that match schizo theories that both Rod and Antony have said to me), so it is difficult to believe you are acting in good faith.
Your opinion has never changed in that you did appear to always lean towards Wallace’s innocence (judging by the yoliverpool posts), although I would say you weren’t very explicit in this, just a general flavor but I concede this point.
However, this is a very different thing than favoring the particular theory of Hussey (which Rod somehow branded his own and Antony claims is new). On this, you do appear to have shifted.
Mark R., who I believe you wrote the inacityliving site about the case with appeared to do a drastic about face in his book (like you he never explicitly stated his belief in Wallace’s innocence) but appeared to lean somewhat in that direction. He claims he is working on a book for 10 years, then when it comes out it goes against what he has appeared to think for a decade; really weird.
The inacityliving site is ambiguous and I think was meant to be informational, so it is hard to tell the opinion of the writers (you and Mark R) but I agree both your yoliverpool posts lean somewhat towards a belief in innocence (As well as Mark R’s posts on casebook.)
The thing is never changing one’s opinion I don’t view as a badge of honor or dishonor. Being open to change is important if new information is presented. What I find annoying however is denial of certain facts or realities that are obvious if they don’t match the narrative one believes at the time. I believe I have never done this, but many are guilty of this (admittedly pro Wallace guilt authors too). This is called “sharpening and levelling”.
I think Wallace made the call and killed the wife but I can admit Parry in isolation seems like a better candidate for the call.
I concede if Wallace did it he had some luck on his side etc.
On the other hand, all I get is arguments if some basic facts are presented in the other direction. People make up their minds and then try to post hoc fit all the facts to match that; things don’t work that way.
Critically, the reliability of the benzidine test being misrepresented and the 7:30 start time making a joke of the “late penalty” or “Wallace getting to the club on time if he was the caller” (when obviously no one paid much attention to the time or the rules) are two powerful points in my opinion. I find it difficult to accept people who cannot deal with the nuance of the reality that not all the facts will fit their theory (Rod is a particularly nasty and egregious offender here), rather than not allowing for dissenting opinions which anyone is welcome to.
I do believe however at this point with every single piece of evidence possible out there for the public to see (largely thanks to Calum’s work), and particularly because of the previous 2 points I mentioned about the club start time (which also makes it very odd for a stakeout if Parry was the caller if he thinks the matches start at 7:30) and the benzidine test being shown to be bunk that it would be difficult to sway me off my position now. I feel it is final because all the evidence, files etc are out there now, which was not nearly the case until the last few years. In concept though, I would always be open to change my mind if presented with new information.
Regards,
Your American Friend J.L.
“Critically, the reliability of the benzidine test being misrepresented” actually was just never done on the drains even if it turned out to be possible to find anything noteworthy like that. Possibly just not done period, as it isn’t in the files, so just the ramblings of the much ballyhooed Goodman.
Hi Josh, I have made representations for your return to the fb site and the Admin informed me he came on here and still saw you calling us/them The pub crew, schitzos etc, that doesn’t help if i’m trying to convince him you have changed and just want to debate.
Anyhow, back to the case. The fact is the killer wouldn’t know which tests the forensics might use, they could in fact use such as the ninhydrin test, just as Wallace couldn’t know that just one tiny speck of blood on his glasses frame or anywhere might not hang him. He also was home from 6.05 until 6.45 or later so there was no alibi anyway, the phone call in that case only introduced A.N. Other but his denial did this anyway. We know he was playing his game by 7.45 and I estimate having done a mock call/transcript of the call myself that it took at least 6 minutes from 7.20pm and adding potential congestion to his journey due to other traffic diversions there is no way in my book he had time to make the call or commit the murder.
We also have to discount Ada Cook, John Parkes and even Parry’s false alibi itself.
Worst of all, why didn’t this great planner Wallace just strangle her and do away with blood and a weapon disposal.
He had time to make the call AND then walk all the way across to the tram stop he claimed to use, he had time to bash his wife’s head in AND listen to Home by the Sea. Time isn’t an issue, he has no alibi (you can’t have a legit alibi for something you did lol). I wasn’t able to make the call 6 minutes in mock tests even when I was actively trying to prove his innocence btw.
On another note Mark did go for an innocent Wallace on YoLiverpool and did change tack. Regarding my Inacitylivingblogspot. It was put together without any agenda for information purposes only for the reader to decide as I was bemused with Murphy’s book as the text for the most part was making it look like an innocent Wallace only to change for the conclusion.
The Police were absolutely rubbish right from the crime scene contamination thru to thinking the caller had to be the kilelr then onwards and after the 18 errors in the committal proceedings which of course there were no reporting restrictions and so a potential jury would have preconceptions.
RMQ. During Gladys Harleys testimony she even says there was a 1 or 2 minute gap between Annie Robertson’s first conversation with her and her next, so much so in fact that Gladys had to intervene and say ‘Do you want this number?’ That alone takes it to possibly 7.22 and she has yet to speak to Q and go and find B, explain the situation to him and for him to go to the call. There is all the palava of ‘Is he there’, ‘I don’t know’ ‘But he will be there?’ etc then asking for Wallace’s address, spelling out his name and getting it read back to him letter by letter then giving his address. We will just have to agree to disagree, it is just opinions on how long the call took. If these timings were so easy for Wallace to do, I wonder why the Police time trialists had to run or catch trams at the wrong stops etc. Why didn’t he call from near the chess club?, why didn’t he strangle her?
Also, it would appear the police files have been ‘trimmed down’ for lack of a better description. I wonder why? Where is Marsden’s statement – just a note in a margin about him having flu. Where are the details of the bath and fireplace being removed? Where are the tram time trials for the Monday night, are you telling me the police did none? Where is the follow up statement from Parry that should exist IF the police did their job and found there was a huge discrepancy between his statement and the Lloyds? It almost seems as if Ken Oxford was not releasing the Police files in 1981 until anything that painted the police in a bad light was removed.
The defence did tram time tests which show Wallace could have reached the club after making the call AND walking to the farthest stop he claims to have used. The defence also got better times than the “Anfield Harriers” (Goodman invention?), they beat the police by a minute.
All distances were listed by the surveyor and also Maddock, and you can literally do the math to figure out the walking speed and how long it would take to get to whatever location. You can make any of the locations given, including the furthest tram stop if he walked ALL THE WAY over to the stop he said he used that’s waaay over from the phone box. If you don’t think so you can crunch the numbers, the distances are provided.
Remember it this time as it’s important.
I’ve seen Maddocks timings, he used 4mph walking. I used to run at 8mph, that’s bloody fast, so is 4 for walking. Maddocks cannot know how long the call took so it’s all pie in the sky ifs, buts and maybes. I’ve yet to see an answer as to why a planner, with weeks or months in the making needs an on the spot frenzied attack, he could just strangle her in 30 seconds, rob some other stuff, knock very loudly creating a fuss at the door, lots of things you’d think to do easier and better for yourself with all this time in the planning. He certainly wouldn’t be faffing about in a call box having to redial, asking unnecessary questions such as his own address, going into details about a 21st, using the longest name on earth to spell out and have it spelt back to him – all when he has a chess match to get to by 7.45pm.
Hi Ged,
As you say from the phone call to Wallace’s arrival at the club we are not dealing with definitive cast iron evidence on timing. The lady who made out the 7.20 pm notification for the call should have been questioned about the accuracy of this time. Was the docket filled in at the time or as an afterthought – an estimate? Mr Beattie reckoned “7.00 pm or shortly after.”
At the other end, nobody saw and timed Wallace’s arrival at the club. So here again we have a wooly situation on timing.
As regards the caller faffing about: the glitch on the line was unforeseen and his asking for his own address, the 21st birthday, and using the exotic name were all designed to hammer home the idea that this was nor WH Wallace calling.
Yes he could have strangled his wife, shot her, or poisoned her but this does not make his beating her to death less likely.
Hi Mike, regarding your last paragraph, I certainly think it does, just again a matter of opinion. In planning a murder where you know you’re going to be a suspect, maybe even the prime suspect, I can think of quicker and less messier ways. A way that does away with a weapon, the disposal of same, blood, cleaning up and worrying about contamination.
Also, if any neighbour had been looking out their back bedroom window at the time of him leaving for Menlove, they could have repudiated seeing him with Julia at the back gate, just another instance (like the phone box and tram stop) whereby if he was lying, he couldn’t know he hadn’t been seen by someone.
Actually, Amy Johnston had seen Julia across the front bay window that very morning (in the messed room) so it is not far fetched to say anybody could have seen anything.
I recall that story sounding BS, not that it has literally any bearing on the case, but didn’t they say she saw Julia from their own home’s bay window, rather than somewhere that makes sense like the street?
Hi Everyone…hope you’re all well.
Just been away on holiday, so not been on here the last week or more.But just reading some of the recent comments, and it looks like it’s been lively!!
Anyway, I’ll get on with what I want to say.And it’ll be no surprise that, yet again, it concerns our friend Parry!! I posted recently that his journey to Hignetts on the evening of the murder was deeply suspicious, and nothing is likely to change my mind on that.But there’s something else concerning him that I find very odd too…and extremely unlikely in my personal opinion.
It links his statement to the police on the 23/24th of January 1931 to his being quizzed by Goodman in London in May 1966, 35 years after the murder.The dates on Parry’s statement mean that it was started late on Friday evening the 23rd, and was completed early on Saturday morning the 24th.Now… imagine you’re 22 years old and in the same situation as Parry.It’s very late on a Friday night, and you’re sitting in a police station giving a statement in connection to the murder of a woman whom you knew reasonably well.A murder that took place in a house that you’d visited on numerous occasions, and in a room that you’d actually sat in.But the connection goes further…this woman had also been married to a man whom you also knew well.In fact, up until about 18 months earlier, this man had not only been a work colleague of yours, you’d sometimes covered his work for him when he was ill.Now, sitting in a police station at midnight and the early hours of the morning, and being asked questions about a murder is NOT something the average 22 year old is going to do on a regular basis!! So I’d imagine that for most people under these type of circumstances, this is likely to be a very unusual and very stressful experience, and not one you’re likely to ever forget in a hurry…if at all.
Yet fast forward 35 years to 1966, and Parry doesn’t mention a single thing about it when speaking to Goodman.Why not if he was totally innocent of ANY involvement whatsoever in this case??…Does anyone on here seriously believe that he’s genuinely and completely forgotten about an experience like this?? No chance.I’m fortunate enough to have a decent memory, so I can comfortably remember what I was doing back in 1989, which is also 35 years ago.Where I was working, people I was hanging about with, girls I went out with etc….all sorts of things.But even without a good memory, there’s simply no way you’d completely forget about sitting in a police station giving a statement about a murder.And you’re even LESS likely to forget if you’re doing it in the middle of the night!! There’s not a cat in hells chance Parry has simply just forgotten all about this, so why won’t he talk about it? This reluctance on Parry’s part ties in with his determination to keep people away from his alibi, and there HAS to be a reason for this.And I believe the reason is far more serious and significant than Parry just playing games with Goodman, whom he knows can’t possibly have seen the official police files.I think it’s down to the fact that in 1966, there were at least 11 people still alive who had a connection to both Parry and the case itself.And Parry almost certainly knew this.I listed the names of these people and their connections to Parry on the Facebook site a few months ago, and I’ll do it again on here later.But I’m off to watch something on the telly now!! But I’ll be back soon!!
Cheers…Dave.
Hello Folks,
As promised in my last post, here is a list of the people who in various ways were acquainted with Parry that were definitely still alive in 1966 when Goodman and Whittington-Egan spoke to him outside his London flat.These are 12 people who were mentioned either in his own statement, plus the the statements of both Olivia Brine and Harold Denison, or were connected to him via family, friendship, work, romance, or were just acquaintances.
So, here goes…
1.His father, William John Parry, who told his son to promise to never speak about the case.Which is a bit strange if his son truly had nothing whatsoever to do with it!! Parry Senior was still living at 7 Woburn Hill in Liverpool in 1966, which in itself is quite possibly relevant.Goodman mentioned that Parry seemed unusually up to speed with people involved in the case when he met him in 1966, which is a bit odd considering he now lived 200 miles from Liverpool.For example, Parry knew that the milk boy Allan Close had died.I think it’s likely that it was father who was keeping him up to speed…through local gossip, just keeping his ear to the ground, and also by reading obituary columns in the local newspapers.Parry Senior died very shortly after Goodman spoke to him.
2.Olivia Brine…statement.
3.Savona Brine…statement and daughter of Olivia.
4.William Denison…statement and friend.
5.Harold Denison…statement.
6.Phyllis Plant…statement.
7.Lily Lloyd…statement and ex-girlfriend.
8.Leslie Williamson…acquaintance and son of Annie Williamson.The Williamsons lived at 49 Lisburn Lane, where Parry called after collecting his accumulator on his strangely convoluted journey on the evening of the murder.Leslie Williamson also contacted Radio City during the 50th anniversary broadcast in 1981, and confirmed that, for various reasons, Parry wasn’t a popular figure in the Williamson household.So why is he calling at a house where he knows he’s not much liked?
9.John Parkes…acquaintance from Atkinson’s Garage.
10.Joseph Marsden…old friend of Parry’s who worked with both himself and Wallace at one time at the Prudential.Also mentioned in Wallace’s statement.
11.Ada Cook nee Pritchard…her parents were close friends with Parry’s parents, who she said visited her house very soon after the murder to plead with her father, a seaman, to get Parry on a ship out of Liverpool.Ada also remembered Parry attempting to chat her up outside a fish shop in St.Helens in 1941.She was married by this time, and living in the town, and Parry had failed to recognise her.
12.Jimmy Tattersall…former friend of Parry’s from the 1920’s and early 30’s.He makes an appearance in Roger Wilkes book “Wallace:The Final Verdict”.Tattersall contacted Wilkes after the Radio City broadcast.They met in a Liverpool pub, where Tattersall attempted to defend Parry, saying he wasn’t capable of murder, was squeamish, and likely to run away from a fight.
So…there you have it.12 people, all connected to Parry.And far more importantly, every single one them still alive in 1966 when Goodman tracks Parry down to his London flat.Camberwell, if I’m not mistaken.And I’m convinced this is why Parry makes no mention of his alibi, no mention of his statement given at midnight, and doesn’t give Goodman with a single name, despite telling him that the police seemed satisfied when he was able to provide them with the names of some people he was arranging a birthday party with.So why doesn’t he tell Goodman the names of some of these people if he’s got nothing to hide? It’s a marvellous chance to clear his name.If that was me, and I had absolutely nothing to do with the case, I’d be telling Goodman as many names as I could remember, particularly the names of people on my statement.And I think anybody who felt wrongly suspected of involvement in a crime, especially a murder, would also jump at the chance to prove they weren’t involved.So why isn’t Parry making the most of this opportunity? The reason is simple…he HAS got something to hide!! And there’s no way he wants Goodman to go searching for some of these people.Even after 35 years, it only takes one of them to inadvertently say something that makes Goodman suspicious, and suggests Parry’s involvement.And there are certain people on this list who Parry DEFINITELY won’t want Goodman going anywhere near…William Denison, Lily Lloyd and John Parkes to name but three.Antony Brown nails it in Move to Murder, when he talks about Parry being guarded and evasive about the murder for the rest of his life…and there HAS to have been a reason for that.A genuinely innocent person would have no need to be guarded and evasive.I also seriously believe that Goodman tracking him down to London is one the reasons he moved to a remote village in North Wales just two years later…not long before Goodman’s book was published.He doesn’t want any other journalists or writers asking him awkward questions, and that’s because he was up to his neck in it!!
Anyway, sorry for the long post!! But hopefully it’ll spark a bit of debate.
Cheers everyone…Dave.
Goodman is like a random nobody “The Sun” level reporter showing up to his door harassing him and implicitly accusing him of being a murderer. It is unsurprising he didn’t want to furnish the hack with his life story and send him to old friends to harass them also.
I agree with RMQ. By 1966 the Wallace murder had been consigned to history. And here were two nosey journalists turning up on Parry’s doorstep implying that he was involved! They were lucky he agreed to speak with them at all but he’d been warned by his father of their visit and it might be amusing to spin a few false trails. Above all, whether he was involved or not, he had absolutely nothing to gain by giving names of people who could corroborate his alibi etc. Who knows what these two would print in articles/books twisting and mis-interpreting what he said (as indeed happened to some extent.) . Interest in the case would be revived and more journalists would be knocking on his door. “Let sleeping dogs lie.”
Parry didn’t mention his 3 hour Brine visit to Lily Lloyd or her mother when he arrived at their home. I suspect this hints at his relationship with Mrs Brine or Phyllis Plant rather than anything more sinister. Another reason why he wouldn’t want either of them to be traced and questioned.
R M Qualtrough says:
August 23, 2024 at 7:58 pm
I recall that story sounding BS, not that it has literally any bearing on the case, but didn’t they say she saw Julia from their own home’s bay window, rather than somewhere that makes sense like the street?
It does have bearing on the case. Your own photo on this site of yours shows how by looking out of her own upstairs front bedroom bay window, it is only a few metres away from the Wallace’s upstairs front bedroom bay window. It means Julia was in the messed up room that morning and the possible bedsheet on the kitchen table is perhaps being mended and so that was not a burglar or anyone ransacking the room. William says he had not been in that room in about 2 weeks. It all makes perfect sense.
There is no bedsheet on the table just so you know, it’s a schiz delusion by Gannon. Julia would have to literally be IN the window and so would the neighbor, btw, at the same time. It would be weird if she was legit in there as it might suggest she was no longer sharing a bed with William, and was instead sleeping in the other room away from him due to marital unrest.
It was never mentioned at the time of the crime.
Hemmerde is all over the place on his questioning, asking a defendant and jury to follow this is comical.
Q 3280. I thought you did know. On the Monday night you say you knew he (Crewe) had been to the Cinema (but Wallace had said in answer to a question just earlier that it was the Tuesday night which was correct)
Then….
Q3353. Did it ever occur to you when you were in difficulties that night on the 20th just to look in and ask Mr Crewe?
A: I have given evidence that I did look in (and he was out)
Pfft. It seems Wallace (as Justice Wright commented) was very consistent with all his statements which is more than can be said for the prosecution who offered nothing in the way of proving any guilt.
Looking at the recent Olivia Korbel case in a 4 part documentary last week and the hoops the detectives had to jump through to get CPS approval to prosecute, this would and should never have got off the ground.
Hi Mike,
Neither Goodman or Whittington-Egan were journalists, they were both authors and historians.Indeed, Whittington-Egan was only there to provide some moral back up for Goodman who was obviously a bit nervous about meeting Parry.I could be wrong here, but I don’t think Whittington-Egan ever had more than a passing interest in the case, and that was only because of the Liverpool connection.I think a lot of his writing was predominantly about the history of Liverpool in general, he certainly didn’t specialise in crime and murder.Goodman was a crime author and historian, but a Sun like journalist as RMQ describes him he certainly wasn’t.
Getting to the actual case, I’m afraid I disagree in regard to the three hours Parry spent at Olivia Brine’s house.I think he was there purely for the benefit of his alibi.I don’t think it’s impossible there was some sort of relationship between him and Brine, but I don’t think he had any shenanigans planned for this particular night.The reason being that her 13 year old daughter was in the house when he called…something that was always likely to be the case if he was calling at 5.30.After all, she’d probably only finished school an hour or so earlier…something Parry would surely have known even if he WAS carrying on with Brine, which we can only speculate about anyway.So he can’t exactly jump into bed with her while her daughter is there!! I also think it’s significant that Harold Denison shows up at the house just half an hour after Parry.I think this is something he’s been asked to do by his brother William, and possibly Parry too.Harold’s appearance adds substance and credibility to Parry’s alibi.After all, he can just say he was expecting to find his brother William there when he called at his Aunt’s house, so he’ll hang around and wait for him…which is exactly what Parry can claim he was doing too.Of course, William never appears at Knoclaid Road…probably because he was never meant to.And it’s odd the police don’t appear to have checked on his whereabouts considering his Aunt Olivia actually mentions him in her statement.As I’ve said previously on here, if Parry began calling with him before Christmas, then why is Parry calling on his own on this particular night? And as I’ve just said, he won’t be calling for sexual purposes if he knows her daughter is going to be there.I’m convinced he’s there simply killing time until he can pick up his accomplice, or accomplices, from somewhere on Lower Breck Road…one of whom is likely to be William Denison.If it were possible, I’m willing to bet that William Denison was one of the two men seen running at speed down Hanley Street towards Lower Breck Road shortly before 8.15pm that night by Anne Parsons.And it’s why Parry took his unnecessarily convoluted route to Hignetts, because he was meant to meet them somewhere in the Lower Breck Road vicinity.Probably Breckside Park, which even today can be rather dark near the entrance gates.I used to play football there myself many years ago, and about 15 years ago used to take my son for football training there.Believe me, it’s not exactly well illuminated at night!! So imagine what it was like in 1931 with maybe only gas lamps there??…very useful for a clandestine meeting, I’d say.
And I’m sorry Mike, I also disagree that Parry couldn’t have given Goodman some names in 1966 if he was totally innocent of any involvement.Okay, if he HAD been carrying on with Brine or Plant, then it’s understandable he’d be reluctant to give Goodman their names, even though we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that he was carrying on with either of them.But what was stopping him giving Goodman the names of William and Harold Denison, or Leslie Williamson, if everything he said he did that night was 100% genuine and had nothing whatsoever to do with the events that unfolded in Wolverton Street?? What’s his problem here?? After all, he received a 21st Birthday party invitation for Leslie Williamson when he called at 49 Lisburn Lane.And he told Goodman the police seemed satisfied when he was able to produce some some friends with whom he’d been arranging a birthday party.So why can’t he give Goodman Williamsons’ name if this is the birthday party he’s referring to? I don’t see a problem with that at all if it’s honest and straight.And even if Leslie Williamson didn’t like Parry, I’m sure he’d have confirmed to Goodman that what Parry had told him about a birthday party was true as far as he could recall.
Sorry, but I can’t accept that he won’t tell Goodman anything simply because he wants to let sleeping dogs lie, or because he may or may not have been carrying on behind Lily’s back.The reason he didn’t tell Lily or her mother about the three hours he spends in Brine’s is because it’s his alibi for a robbery that he knows he’s going to be questioned about anyway, even if it goes according to plan.He’ll know that Wallace is surely going to give the police his name as someone who knew where he kept the cash box.At some point he might have to tell Lily where he was, but even then he can just say he was at Brine’s waiting to meet his mate William Denison.
Sorry Mike and RMQ…but Parry is STILL up to his neck in it!!
Cheers…Dave.
Would you send a tabloid cuck like Goodman to harass your friends and spin up a tale about you in his “research”. Half of the stories in his book are rumours. As Rod says “prejudice and fancy”, like the thing about finding the bar behind the fireplace, or benzidine. A real “historian” wouldn’t do that. He’s a tabloid tier journo writing sensationalist novellas to capture the interest of housewives.
RMQ – The list of people we have to ignore is getting longer don’t you think.
Ada Cook, John Parkes, Samuel Beattie, Anne Parsons, the other two witnesses, John Smith is one of them and now Amy Johnston.
Her sighting of Julia Wallace that morning clearly shows that Julia was in the room where the bedsheets were disturbed. Wallace says under oath that Julia would usually sew, or read, or play piano, or do some domestic duties whilst he is out. There is something on the kitchen table, make of that what you will.
We do know the drains were checked, Wallace might not know that if guilty so may wash any blood off then get caught – just like so many in the real life crime series I watch.
Also, is anyone going to tell me yet why this master planner with weeks or months to plan this doesn’t just strangle poor frail old Julia? Instead he has to turn into this frenzied monster for all of 2 minutes then calmly talk to 10 people 🙂
There’s no bedsheet on the table, that is schizo Gannon stuff. Please purchase the Murder Casebook magazine which has the photos in high quality, looks more like a skirt with sequins, which would make sense since William didn’t allow his wife to buy clothes, and instead made her wear “homemade” rags so he could spend all their money on his crappy microscope.
Hi Dave,
I don’t have it to hand but I recall Goodman’s account of meeting Parry as virtually a list of snippets of information volunteered by Parry: his father’s advice to say nothing, his afternoon visits with Julia, his opinion of Wallace (“sexually odd” ) etc. etc. Obviously Goodman and W-E had to avoid direct accusations. (W-E was there for back-up in case of fisticuffs as much as anything.) I get the impression that Parry did most of the talking, throwing a few straws in the wind along the way but adding little of consequence. So I don’t think his visitors questioned him in any depth, if at all, about his alibi for the murder evening particularly not asking for names in order to confirm it. Such a request would be futile anyway for reasons already given.
I can only repeat: Parry was home and dry in 1966. He had nothing to gain, particularly if he was involved, by giving information which would revive the case. In fact, I’m surprised he said as much as he did. I wouldn’t have given them the time of day.
RMQ says: It would be weird if she was legit in there as it might suggest she was no longer sharing a bed with William, and was instead sleeping in the other room away from him due to marital unrest. It was never mentioned at the time of the crime.
Just to correct your error here: Not only did Wallace say to Gold. Our bedroom is the middle bedroom as being above the middle kitchen it is warmer but Q3573 at the trial.
3573. Your wife’s bedroom would look down on the yard? Yes.
Zero errors made. She was allegedly seen in the FRONT bedroom. I.e. NOT the one she allegedly shared with William. Which could suggest she was in fact sleeping in the FRONT bedroom due to marital unrest, a fact that was not stated at the time.
Mike says; I can only repeat: Parry was home and dry in 1966. He had nothing to gain, particularly if he was involved, by giving information which would revive the case. In fact, I’m surprised he said as much as he did. I wouldn’t have given them the time of day.
Not quite, JG told him he was writing a book. Parry said he had no objection to him being mentioned as long as it wasn’t by name or he would sue them. In that respect he was not home and dry on a cold case still unsolved. However, a simple, see Mrs Brine who back then lived in Clubmoor and she will back me up as to where I was just as she did in 1931 would suffice to never hear from them again and no need to drop tasty nuggets of info or to disappear into the middle of nowhere in North Wales.
R M Qualtrough says:
August 29, 2024 at 6:04 am
Zero errors made. She was allegedly seen in the FRONT bedroom. I.e. NOT the one she allegedly shared with William. Which could suggest she was in fact sleeping in the FRONT bedroom due to marital unrest, a fact that was not stated at the time.
It was not stated at the time as you have just made that up. It is said on at least 2 occasions that I have clearly pinpointed above that they slept in the middle bedroom. Julia was seen in the front bedroom by Amy Johnston on the day of her murder, proof that she was in the room that was messed up. Why was it messed up (and not really messed but a couple of pillows on the floor and the bedspread pulled across – her hats were on the bed. Possibly because she was sewing a sheet or something on the table. Are you not paying attention to the content within your own site?
If she was in fact seen in the FRONT ROOM, which is a bedroom, when they were alleged to be occupying the MIDDLE ROOM, it could potentially suggest she was sleeping in the FRONT ROOM instead. A possible reason could be unstated marital disharmony, which caused her to no longer sleep in the MIDDLE ROOM with her murderer husband.
Making the bed in a room that nobody had been in or slept in for weeks? Or because she was actually sleeping there.
There’s no bedsheet on the kitchen table. The photos are available. It is invented and that’s why bedsheets on the table are not mentioned anywhere. It is just fictional bullshit borne out of schizophrenia. In front of her chair where she was sewing you will see some dark material which looks like it’s covered in sequins (like a dress, because her murderer husband made her wear rags made/repaired at home, to save funds for his microscopes).
From The Munro files:
We occupied the middle bedroom; the front room was cold and dark. The middle room, being over the kitchen, was much warmer. The small bedroom I used as a work room. I did photography and chemistry and microscopic work (botanical).
Case closed on that one.
Hi Ged,
Why didn’t Wallace simply strangle Julia avoiding potential blood stains etc?
We can also ask:
Why did Dr Shipman use morphine to kill his victims? A very stable and easily detectable alkaloid when many hard to detect poisons were, with his medical training, known to him?
Why did Crippen (if you believe he was guilty) poison his wife, then chop up her body which was never found apart from a few internal organs buried in his coal cellar? Poisoners usually want the death passed off as natural – why dismember her?
Why did Christie murder several women in his own home and hide the bodies there when he could have met them in a rented room far away?
Just three examples, among many, of murders which, with the benefit of hindsight, could have been done differently and with reduced risk of detection. Wallace himself said he could have poisoned his wife using an undetectable poison although I think Wallace’s knowledge in this field was minimal.
I do agree that on the face of it Wallace (if it was he) chose a messy way to do it. With Julia’s frail health her sudden death from poison, particularly if her true age were to be discovered, would be passed off as natural. Estranged from her relatives and with few friends, nobody would be asking awkward questions.
Mike
Hi Mike. Shipman used a drug that he could be quite naturally prescribing his victims and thus allow him to kill them with no suspicion. Remember it was his forging of wills which led to his downfall, his methods of murder went unnoticed until his forgeries were found out.
Crippen’s poisonings again were a more natural way, actually just like Wallace might do with his knowledge of poisoning. Crippen cutting them up just proved him as evil and mad – not a label ever thrown at Wallace in court.
Christie got a sexual pleasure from his methods and kept them as trophies. The cases you use are of serial killers. Wallace could quite easily have planned a lot of things better, it doesn’t need hindsight, just simple things. For example. He has no need to say one minute the front door key won’t turn and then on his second visit it does turn but slips back (as Moore found too) He only had to say the snib was on and it wouldn’t turn either time. These are not great knowledge with hindsight but would be things Wallace would be expecting to get quizzed with and so would think it through beforehand. Imagine you or I not being able to get into our house tonight with our key, we’d have to think beforehand how that could occur, he only had 4 or 5 real tasks to accomplish when you think about it.
Stage a break in by smashing a window at the back and make the robbery look realistic. Strangle Julia. Say the snib was on and agree with Sarah Draper that the back door was iffy and even Julia had to let her in on occasions. Make himself known only to the first and last tram driver and at MGW to Katie Mather and all is done.
If he is pointing towards an insurance cash robbery and Q being the perp then no need for the smashed window. None of this is rocket science and doesn’t need any great thought. Leave the light on, go in the parlour before upstairs – that part really doesn’t make much difference.
Why did OJ brutally stab the shit out of his wife bro, this is proof he is innocent. A guilty OJ would surely strangle his cheating druggy wife to avoid bringing blood back to his Brentwood mansion.
Must have been framed by that racist cop Mark Fuhrman.
Ged,
Here’s another perplexing one for you.
If the members of the pub meet up crew really wanted to solve the case and arrive at the correct solution (rather than talking in circles, some members likely hopped up on amphetamines and shattered dreams), then why not allow back in a superior level IQ American into the group?
That’s the way I “would do it” if I really wanted to solve the case rather than just “being right” with a “new, clever” theory.
As you can see, people do not always act in predictable ways.
I have championed your return Josh, have you re-applied to join? The site admin popped on here and saw you still name calling, that doesn’t help does it? I am not name calling you, RMQ or Mike because I have a different theory and as you can see I don’t agree with my mate Mark and don’t agree with Rod. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that Parlour that evening.
I make occasional contributions to the Lindbergh case forum based in the USA. Virtually all the contributors are Americans. Two of them are Michael and Joe who have diametrically opposite views as to whodunnit and for literally 20 years they have been arguing the toss on the case often descending (in my view) to name calling and giving their views on the other’s personality.
This got to such a pitch that (Fools rush in) I opined that the reason other contributors had stopped posting was that they were, like myself, fed up with this schoolboy name calling and character denigration.
Michael, the forum coordinator, posted that he and Joe were veteran students of the case of long standing. “We have great respect for each other.” He admitted that in the heat of the moment intemperate language was used but it was recognised as such by both parties and “no real harm done.”
So, dare I say, we Brits like to think we conduct ourselves without resorting to personal comments as to character and motivation on the part of any poster. I tend to agree with Michael that no real harm is intended by our American friends. Its just a question of style.
By the way, after my intervention both Joe and Michael were more careful about the language they used!
Hi Mike, yes unfortunately, the Casebook Forum which I believe started off as a JTR Forum but now has other murder cases on it including the Wallace case has had threads opened and closed before, about 3 times, due to it descending into farce and name calling. Antony Brown, the Move to Murder author started one thread which lasted 194 pages with countless posts, RMQ was on it as was Josh and Rod and another few good posters. Lots were learning of the case as it went along and chipped in with ideas. I think we are all entitled to our own hunches and opinions and those should only be countered by other opposite facts/opinions and not cast as the solution.
From what I see of the trial, both the prosecution and defence do themselves no great justice in getting muddled up along the way on occasions. Poor old Wallace doesn’t help himself on occasions either, i’ve gotten to shouting at the computer why didn’t you just say this, that or the other in reply to that question. Sometimes Oliver will jump in to help dig him out, but not out of a lie he’s told but out of something he’s misremembering which I saw earlier he’d said. Hemmerde does a lot of assuming and trying to put words in Wallace’s mouth I see.
Hi Mike and GED,
I agree there are some stylistic differences between USA and UK and being an American and having visited Britain and all over Europe, the style is definitely more confrontational here even among friends.
I would also say there is a history here so it isn’t a case of respect but just more aggressive language in expressing disagreements (which I agree is more of an American cultural thing.) Unfortunately I do recognize that being insulting can put people off even if I feel it is justified based on the history. Most of the frustration I have is geared towards a certain poster (you will see the first thread was humming along fine until he entered). And Antony Brown changing positions (you can no longer find his first edition) because the publishers wanted a “more exciting theory” made me annoyed and questioning his seriousness. Also his defense of the aforementioned poster who has been banned from several forums and Wikipedia for trolling in a similar manner.
Ironically, the issue started because I (politely) did not agree with this poster’s very prescriptive, rigid theory and absolute confidence in it as well as rude dismissals of other theories. I think of that saying “if you stare into the abyss too long…” so I will try to keep things more respectful as I feel the discussion is better here. Differences of opinions are fine and make things interesting and I never demand someone agree with my theory, just hope we can all make our cases in the best faith way possible.
Back to the case,
Let’s play a game “steel man” the opposing position or in other words what worries you the most about your position’s correctness/other theories maybe being right.
For me it’s the call itself and the content of it (mention of 21st birthday, peremptory tone, guts it would take to make the call (and obviously more stressful if it’s Wallace and murder is the aim etc) all point towards Parry as the caller.
But for other reasons due to timing, implausibility of the plan if Parry is calling etc., I do think Wallace still is the caller.
And for many other reasons as well which have already been stated I believe he is the killer too. Parry being less of a dodgy character though would certainly have helped him be less of a suspect.
Hi Josh,
A great contribution. I too was appalled that Antony Brown changed his opinion of how Julia was killed because his publisher wanted a more exciting ending as if his book were a novel, not a serious factual account. Shocking!
I too believe Wallace to be the caller/killer but there are unresolved problems with this:
1. Motive
Apart from three individuals describing the relationship as strained and lacking in affection (Dr Curwen /Nurse caring for Wallace) and Wallace being sour, bitter and fed up with his job (Prudential colleague), there was unanimous agreement that the Wallaces were everything to each other and a devoted couple.
There was no financial gain from her death and no hint of extra-marital relationships if we discount Parry’s claimed afternoon visits which I believe were social rather than anything else.
2. Menlove Gardens
Wallace’s dogged quest to find Mr Q at 25 MGE is expected behaviour of a Prudential agent prospecting lucrative new business. It was unlikely that Mr Beattie had taken down the wrong address so having travelled 4 miles Wallace was not going to accept that it didn’t exist until he had examined all options.
3. 25 MGE
Wallace made no attempt to check the location of this address during working hours on the 20 th January. Why should he? Wallace was essentially of the Victorian era where much business was conducted in that telephone-free era face-to-face. Approaching complete strangers in the street for information was completely natural to him.
4. Cause of death
Here, with a nod to Ged, I agree that beating in his wife’s head with an iron bar is somehow out of character for the calm placid Wallace. If we recall the Armstrong case of some 10 years earlier, Major Armstrong poisoned his wife with arsenic and he got away with it until he tried the same thing on a rival solicitor which raised the alarm. With Julia’s delicate health and her malnourished state her death, although sad, would be unremarkable in that era when people were dying like flies from TB, flu, pneumonia etc. Against the background detailed above of a loving marriage, no suspicion would attach to Wallace.
Gradual poisoning does not require Wallace to establish an alibi of any kind. And you don’t need specialised knowledge of poisons. The dogs in the street know arsenic is poison.
I have avoided the usual exculpatory facts exonerating Wallace – no blood on him, the tight timing, the non recognition of him as Mr Q on the phone – because I believe these can be explained in terms of his guilt.
The above is a summary of why, as a juror, I could not vote in favour of Wallace’s conviction for murder.
But I still think he did it!
Mike
Michael,
Thanks, I agree largely with your post.
As a juror, I could not vote guilty because I do not believe the case quite meets the threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt”, (which I absolutely think is the correct standard in a criminal and especially capital case, and has been the staple of British and now American jurisprudence for hundreds of years.) But I definitely think he did it.
I trip up more with the call than anything else but I think the 7:30 starting time thing is very important (I believe you found it) as it makes the possibility of someone staking out Wallace to leave and then make the call even less (as he would be very late at that point). It also shows the arrival time rule was not strictly enforced at the club as some have claimed. Also, since the time Wallace leaves and the location of the call box dovetail with him being the caller, I can get past my slight unease about Parry on the face of it seeming a more likely candidate to have made the call.
I also think the flaws with benzidine test (and Wallace’s scientific background meaning he likely knew this) was also a dramatic seemingly “innocence” point that really turned out not to be a fact after all. Like finding out Parry had an alibi with the Brines (separate from his Lily Lloyd alibi.) One can question the veracity of this alibi, but it is an alibi nonetheless, and puts a damper on Goodman and Radio City et al. assertion of a “conspiracy of silence.”
As far as motive, I agree this is challenging. I think of Gannon’s theory, which I definitely do not buy into (both the conspiracy and the soap opera esque sex angle), but the one aspect of it that makes me think is the suddenness of the need to get rid of Julia. Maybe something occurred that we just don’t know about that made Wallace felt the urgent need to get rid of Julia. Hard to say what that could be and perhaps it isn’t likely but we just don’t know. It is also possible he wanted to commit the perfect crime and had grown sick of his elderly (I definitely believe he knew her real age) possibly burdensome wife. It’s very hard to get in someone else’s head, so I agree with Hemmerde that motive does not need to be demonstrated if the case is proven in other ways. I just think it wasn’t quite, although it’s still a strong case.
I believe there is something critical about the Wallace case that we do not know about–and now never will; something about Wallace or maybe Julia and her past etc. that is majorly related to what occurred and would make more sense of things if transparent.
Unfortunately, now all we can do is speculate forever.
Hi Josh,
Your point about the suddenness of Wallace’s decision to kill Julia: we do know that Wallace consulted Dr Curwen in December. This was probably about his kidney deterioration which even in 1931 could be monitored accurately by urine analysis. The news cannot have been good. Wallace was in terminal decline and unlikely to last more than a few years. Plus, in his condition he would be vulnerable to any attack of flu or pneumonia which could carry him off at any time. All this is speculation of course.
The Wallace’s lived in rented accommodation, had collectively only a few hundred pounds in the bank, were estranged from relatives and had few friends. If Wallace kicked the bucket Julia, now alone, would descend to absolute poverty. I know its far fetched but the murder – a quick death after all – may have been Wallace’s solution. To save his beloved Julia from this inevitable fate.
Wallace was nothing if not a philosopher. Unlike most killers he had in a sense little to lose – whether found guilty or innocent he was going to die anyway. Obviously, “innocence” was preferable so he took pains with his plan. His demeanour throughout was calm and unemotional , even before his appeal – consistent with his stoic philosophy of all life’s events being pre-determined.
It was a mercy killing – just an idea.
P.S. Wallace had been ill with the flu the week before the murder. This may have been a stark reminder of his precarious health and Dr Curwen’s prognosis. He decided to act without further delay and for the first time in two months, he went to the chess club….
Mike,
Yes, this is interesting. I could see Wallace realizing that he has not much time left and how perilous his health was and that if anything were to happen to him, Julia would be screwed. Knowing her age, he might have felt it was a way for them “to go together.”
Twisted of course, but certainly not unheard of in criminal history. There could also be a blend of motivations as human psychology is complex; maybe he partially or mostly felt it was a mercy killing and because of a negative diagnosis did feel an obligation to act quickly (hence his first arrival at he club in 2 months) but also enjoyed the idea of living out his last stretch alone.
Wallace strikes me as someone who might hyperfocus on certain details and he probably thought his plan was perfect (once Beattie says the voice wasn’t mine, they cannot convict me.)
I found Murphy’s book to be important because it was the first that revealed the case documents in full and Parry’s actual alibi, but it is riddled with errors and basically lies which is disappointing because I agree with his conclusion although maybe not to the same confidence level.
He does have a “profiling” chapter where he compares Wallace to American family annihilator John Emil List (who claimed his killings were mercy killings); the direct comparison between the two is slightly tenuous but the general point I found hit home with me. Wallace, with his disappointing life, sour demeanor, and quotidien yet intellectually pretention stoic philosophy fits the profile of a “family annihilator” very well. Also if getting a bad diagnosis put Wallace over the edge in some ways, he could be prone to desperation at thinking what might happen next once he dies/to Julia etc. That kind of desperation can cause horrific domestic crimes when perpetrated by people who tend to hyperfocus and feel trapped without being able to see ways out/the larger picture. For lack of a better word, I suspect Wallace was somewhat “on the spectrum” who comforted himself with philosophy and also a rigid thinker who once mind made up, even if about to embark on something terrible/dangerous would not be able to dissuade himself.
This is all speculative and does not at all by itself prove a case and I understand why people are wary of profiling; it is everyone’s worst nightmare for someone to be convicted of a crime they didn’t commit and profiling tropes can often be overly applied. That said, these types of profiles tend to be very and surprisingly accurate. I think Wallace fits the “family annihilator” profile exceptionally well.
Hi Josh,
I like your idea of a “blend of motivations.” Julia Wallace was an intelligent cultured lady who had already suffered a dramatic fall in her standard of living by marrying William and moving from Harrogate (a spa town) to a rented house in an Anfield back street. That was seventeen years earlier when William was 35 years old and would have been looking forward to advancement in his new job with the Prudential. This never materialised and now he was 52 and doing the same job which was normally done by much younger men e.g. Parry when he helped him out.
Julia was aware of Wallace’s fragile health, especially his kidney problem, and she must have dreaded the prospect of becoming a poverty-stricken widow. Did she hold Wallace responsible for their situation due to his lack of ambition and lack of achievement? More importantly, did she let him know this? Constant hints of his failure to provide for their future would give Wallace an additional motive to put an end to it.
I just read about the List murders and there are undoubted similarities with this theory of the Wallace case: murder to put an end to financial problems in the family.
Although far from being “Case closed” this theory is a contender.
Goods posts by you both though I don’t personally think the mercy killing to be believable simply because doing such out of a duty or fear for his good lady he would surely not bludgeon her to death but make it as peaceful for her as possible.
Bear in mind only 3 weeks earlier he was worried about her lateness home and only the night before had urged her to go to Dr Curwen. When Wallace was speaking to his colleague after the appeal, at the Pru building in Dale st, he asked his advice about what may be forthcoming regarding his health and what ‘he would do’ so it seems he wasn’t aware of his impending death just yet and in fact would last nearly another two years.
What proof is there that his visit to the chess club was his first in two months. Beattie says he hadn’t seen him since before xmas but that was only a month earlier.
Yeah three weeks earlier he went to the cops hoping to hear she’d been killed in an accident. Unfortunately for him she was alive and just late, so he had to put her down himself, like Old Yeller. More doctor’s bills? But he needs his crappy laboratoy (from which zero discoveries were ever made)! How sad that on the day of her demise, she was slaving on her homemade rags and hiding money in her underwear lest William find out there were pennies unaccounted for… She didn’t even get to spend her final day in a nice outfit 🙁
I don’t give much credence to the Johnston’s being involved but this was a post put forward on the aforementioned casebook forum. It would mean that Johnston would have had to have some knowledge about Wallace’s work and chess pastime though and make the call (As fantasist Tom Slemen/Stan claims)
”But anyway back onto the Johnstons, here are things about them which are a bit weird or coincidental:”
1) Them suddenly materializing outside on Wallace’s return – coincidence? We are led to believe this, that it was just lucky timing.
2) Mr. Johnston not knowing Julia’s name… Despite the couple having lived next door to her for a decade, received postcards from her in their absence saying what a nice time she was having on holiday etc. and apparently the walls were so thin they could hear everything. Especially the visits of Amy Wallace… But not once in 10 years had Mr. Johnston heard the name “Julia” uttered? – I know you all can see why this may be construed as odd.
3) The prosecution made a point against Wallace about him saying “whatever have they used?” – If you think this is suggestive evidence from the prosecution, then remember that it was actually apparently MRS. JOHNSTON who had said that while glancing around the room.
4) Their coincidental move the very next day, like the “Bagel King” Jerry Steuerman.
5) Them hearing basically all of the events of that day, but all other sounds mysteriously absent… They heard Wallace lightly knock on his own door, the milk boy’s arrival, conversations with Amy through the walls… Yet suspicious in its absence is their recollection of ANY sound that might indicate someone entering the home. No door opening, no doorstep conversation of a man explaining he is “Mr. Qualtrough” or whatever, that is the claim we are to believe.
6) The Johnstons looked after the Wallace’s home (and cat) when they were away on vacation. Supposedly Mrs. Johnston had only ever seen the parlor of that home, and supposedly only ever been in there when Julia was there and Wallace was out… And Mr. Johnston, well apparently he had never stepped foot into the home in his life.
7) Mrs. Johnston, having seen the gruesome sight of the badly battered Julia, with exposed brains, and blood/brain tissue sprayed all over the walls… Consider how she reacted? Would you expect such calmness from Mrs. Johnston having walked in on that?
8) Mr. Johnston is also a short man and could have matched the sighting of Lily Hall.
9) The sudden re-appearance of the missing and ever-enigmatic Puss. Who, on a side note, despite the parlor door apparently being open, had not approached Julia or tracked bloody pawprints around the home shortly after the crime had occurred, and was apparently not at all exhibiting any sign of anxiety over what was clearly a savage attack, not hiding, not running out of the home (if they had a cat flap), etc. Cats are NOT unconscious beings, if they felt they were under threat they would most certainly exhibit signs of fear or anxiety… And those are just a few on-the-spot points on top of Puss’s mystical reappearance.
10) They DID have a key for the home. But I am not so sure it was used to be honest… I think Julia willingly admitted someone(s) into the home, and furthermore, I think she had trusted this person(s).
11) Wallace strangely omitted the Johnstons from the list of people Julia would admit into the home. Was he an innocent man who knew there was a riff between them? Was he trying to avoid police investigating the Johnstons more heavily? Or was it simply an oversight?
12) Mr. Johnston apparently had a friend who lived at Menlove Gardens West.
It is also claimed they could have come out at the same time having heard the knock solely so they could go back inside the Wallace’s to check they’d not botched it or to even get blood on them in case any was still on them from the murder. It seems the police never bothered to hold them as suspects or look in their house. It also seems the daughter was not expecting them and they were moving in next day anyway. The future son-in-law met Mr Johnston on his way to the police station where he says Mr J told him, I’ve got to get Florence out of that house. I read a rumour somewhere that Flo was discussing the case sometime later with a neighbour only for John to usher her in and she was later seen with a black eye. Has anyone else read that too.
Whilst we’re on a roll with outlandish theories 🙂
I stress, the points above are not mine.
It’s a lesson for all, to see how far the mind has to contort when presented with lies by schizophrenic tabloid cucks like Goodman, autismal weirdos like Rod Stringer, and greedy pretentious authors who scrounge off their wife (kind of Wallace behaviour [spelling quickly corrected from behavior lest spastic Rod thinks I’m American again], since it appears Wallace used Julia for her wealth – selling her Harrogate mansion of which she was landlady – and discarded her when the pot ran dry).
The lesson is essentially, that if the “pieces don’t quite fit” in any orientation, it makes more sense to review the pieces instead of trying to abstract outwards even further to try to find some means by which they can fit together. I.e. the pieces themselves are likely wrong. And on review you do find that, yes, things relied upon as being facts which prevented the easy slotting together of the puzzle, were indeed invented by useless journalists, fantasists (as per the ones you mentioned and Parkes), and wannabe authors. A randomer sent me a letter claiming they heard a tale from a friend that the bar was found? Better include that in my book.
And then you look back in great embarassment, as you realize you showed people humiliating low IQ theories about distraction robberies, for something literally anyone on the planet can easily see is an almost definite domestic homicide. Cringe-inducing for sure.
Yet still there is no evidence whatsoever to convict him beyond he was there. The police file was trimmed – why? The police themselves invented stuff such as the 18 mistakes at the committal proceedings and not releasing witnesses to the prosecution – why? They acted as though the caller had to be the killer – why? It could be said the police did the very thing you are accusing the authors of and trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Once they had their man, everything else was found an excuse for incl the coercing of Alan Close and the tram trial tests to name but two. Ada cook and Anne Parsons need to be dismissed and the master planner with weeks at his disposal to do a run through in his mind doesn’t just strangle her then say the door was bolted from the off. Strange isn’t it.
“Why wouldn’t you strangle her?!” So now we’re entering the phase of “let’s assume the criminal is a mastermind, let’s assume he’s smart”. The guy is a retard, we’re always in the 70s with IQ with all these domestic homiciders. But I love the reasoning “it doesn’t make sense to bludgeon some innocent woman”, yes, we agree, he’s doing evil shit and he’s a dumb motherfucker.
Hi Ged,
In my view the case against Johnston is no more outlandish than Parry + accomplices. Supporting the latter is:
1. Parry’s bad character.
2. His knowledge of Wallace’s home / routine / cash box location.
3. Lying initially to the police about his alibi. So stupid in a murder enquiry that there has to be an innocent explanation for it.
4. He could feasibly have made the Qualtrough call.
5. Parry’s Brine alibi satisfied the police but this doesn’t stop the Parry bandwagon: Mrs Brine lied. The corrupt police scapegoated Wallace due to intervention of Parry’s father. Parry gave detailed instructions to his cronies who had never been inside No 29 before. These will o’ the wisp accomplices are even named (Denison, Marsden etc) without a shred of evidence.
My front runner is Wallace and far behind him is Johnston, not Parry. You raise several points Ged which I hadn’t thought of. Mrs Johnston was unnaturally calm and collected if that was the first time she had seen Julia’s body.
After living next door to the Wallace’s for so many years Johnston would certainly know of Wallace’s chess club membership.
Local burglaries ceased when Johnston moved out of the area.
Yes, its a weak case against Johnston too but there has always been one aspect which sticks out. If he did have a workmate who lived in Menlove Gardens West and Johnston visited him there (ref Tom Slemen) what are the chances of this being a mere coincidence? It would probably make Johnston one of the few people in Liverpool who knew MGE didn’t exist and who also knew Wallace.
The source of the black eye story is again Tom Slemen in his book “Liverpool murders” or somesuch. Slemen has been dismissed as a fantasist due to his books on the supernatural but I found his suspicions of Johnston, although far from conclusive, to be well presented.
Mike
Hi Mike
5. Parry’s Brine alibi satisfied the police but this doesn’t stop the Parry bandwagon: Mrs Brine lied. The corrupt police scapegoated Wallace due to intervention of Parry’s father.
Parry’s Mon night alibi also satisfied the police – but why?
Parry never mentions the Brine alibi ever again, not to Goodman or anyone – why?
His excuse for being late to Lily Lloyd is his (10 minute) visit to the Williamson’s where it seems from later testimony he wasn’t at all welcome, mind you he’d even swindled the Lloyds but was welcome there. No mention of his 3 hours at the Brines. Gannon has him as possibly carrying on with Phylis Plant though.
Parry may not worry too much about saying where he really was on the Monday because he knows it’s not the murder night and that he didn’t do it and that he can’t be linked to the call anyway. UNLESS the police tell him why they want to know where he was on the Monday night and then still do nothing about asking why he lies when it is uncorroborated. Imelda Moore of course is working for Parry’s dad during all this time he is being questioned too. Maybe Supt Moore is also in Parry Snrs pocket.
“Why wouldn’t you strangle her?!” So now we’re entering the phase of “let’s assume the criminal is a mastermind, let’s assume he’s smart.
It doesn’t really have to take you to be smart to do a premeditated killing the easiest way does it, nor to wonder hmm won’t the police ask why I couldn’t get in the house. Ah, i’ll just say it was bolted -nah too easy this.
There are after all 3 or 4 books and websites using the chessboard as their covers as if to say the Q call planning and his MGE alibi gathering was that of a mastermind.
Then we have the Parry was just a thick thief, always getting caught. Though maybe his accomplice was more savvy.
There is a common assertion being mentioned on here a number of times now about there having been no Benzidine test carried out as though this is fact. Antony/Rod have never said there was no test, just that there is no evidence in the police files for it having been done but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t. Home office pathologist Dr. Charles St. Hill was adamant in 1981 on the Radio City broadcast that it was done and he was in medical training in the 1930s.
It appears the files were trimmed out after 1981 (Ken Oxford would not release the police files to Radio City in 1981 even though the 50 year rule was up citing the police were coming in for a hammering on the show so they’d listened with keen ears to it. Afterwards they were released but it is said they were trimmed down. Now I wonder why? Are we asked to believe that the police really did not act upon Parry’s failed Monday night statement, no that Joseph Celeb Marsden was not questioned because we know he was, where is his statement? Where are the statements of Savona Brine or Phyliss Plant? How about that of Parkes which was pooh pooh as he must be mistaken – words uttered by Moore a few weeks earlier to Alan Close.
I could also add, are we asked to believe that the police did not test the Monday night tram timings too. If they didn’t then they are fools. Absence of evidence is not evidence as absence as Antony has just replied to me.
That’s like, a Christian thing to counter atheists lol. It’s the flying teapot in space thing. Wallace is so guilty people are turning to RELIGION to believe he dindu nuffin?
You should look at how benzidine tests even work. Drains where there’s been running water are not a good candidate for this kind of test. Probably why they didn’t do it.
Hi Ged,
It was on the Thursday as I recall that the news came through that the source of the Qualtrough call had been traced. This solidified Inspector Moore’s already grave suspicion of Wallace into a virtual certainty. It was on this day that Wallace gave names of people Julia would have admitted to No 29, concentrating on Parry and giving details about him. Parry was checked out by the police but they were convinced it was Wallace and this may have been done, I agree, less thoroughly than it should have been.
There are many cases where the police homed in on a suspect early in the investigation and discounted any evidence indicating they are wrong.
You are right in highlighting the police being reluctant to release the full file on the Wallace case even after 50 years. It has the distinct smell of circling the wagons to repel an attack by indians. The Radio City programme clearly upset the Liverpool police because it re-ignited interest in an essentially dead case. If there was nothing to hide the files should have been released “in toto.”
We need look no further than the potted biography of Inspector Herbert Balmer on their website. No mention that he was exposed as a corrupt officer who sent at least two innocent people to the gallows with perjured evidence. Its all “Good Old Bert.”
The benzidine test for blood has been discredited because the test reacts positively to a range of vegetable matter and fruit residues. So whether it was done or not is, for me, a moot point.
The Jack the Ripper files have also not been released. They do this to protect the identities of still living people or their families, who may have given confidential statements with embarassing admissions (e.g. maybe their alibi is that they were off cheating on their wife). Especially police informants, as they don’t want to discourage people in the future from ratting out lest they be exposed as a rat after their likely death.
Hi Mike. Good post. There was also the ninhydrin test available. It seems the drains were taken out and looked at, Wallace was denied entry to the house from Thursday onwards as it was inhabitable. It’s amazing they allowed him back in there to sleep there on the Wednesday. I expect they didn’t just put a pair of glasses on to see if there was a bit of red here or there? Would have been good to see some documentation on what was done though.
RMQ. The burden is on you to prove it. In that case you will need to do better than the police and prosecution. The release date of files is what it is to protect still living people who were involved. There weren’t that many by 1981 when Radio City came snooping. One who was though was Lily Lloyd and she confirmed she gave a false alibi and even though that was for a later time, it does mean it was requested of her by Parry, so why? It also seems she was playing piano at the Clubmoor Cinema until 10pm on the murder night. It also seems we’re doing a better job at finding out these things than the police ever did.
It doesn’t work that way. Will you also soon be claiming Gordon actually confessed to the murder in a secret police interview and it is just lost from the files, and I must prove it’s not the case?
I thought Anthony was a staunch atheist but he’s been reduced to literal religious arguments that Christians use to prove the existence of Yahweh. Soon it will be ontological arguments about the existence of literally anything at all and whether we can be sure Julia even existed. Maybe a paranormal entity called the chess club.
This guy slaughtered his wife btw. You will spend eternity trying to show otherwise, because it’s NOT otherwise and it’s as simple as that. Willy Wallace took a wrench and gave his wife’s skull fifty dents, and when he saw what he did do (i.e., he diddu sumfin) he gave her another fifty two. If you felt the case was solved would that like, kill the mood at pub meet though? Like maybe you want it to be a mystery to have stuff to chat about, like a hobby club?
Hello again!
Tilly Mint is back in the room.
It is clear that the police files have been cleansed over the years. What evidence remains allows for the theories that fuel this forum.
However I am convinced that the arrival of Amy Dennis, Julia’s sister on Wednesday 21st January had some bearing on the case.
1. How did Amy get to know of the murder? WHW was with the police. Did he tell them? I don’t think so as he maintained she had no family.
Who would know how and where to contact her?
It was said that there were letters in Julia’s handbag – who were they from?
She had few friends so presumably family?
Was Amy planning to visit Julia on that day anyway?
Was this an influential factor for the time of the murder?
How did she organise her visit so quickly from Brighton?
2. Why isn’t Amy’s visit recorded anywhere except in a statement made by Edwin?
He is the only one who mentions meeting Amy at Lime Street Station.
Amy had lived in Brighton for over 30 years but Edwin infers they were meeting a relative “coming from Yorkshire”?
Was Amy visiting all her relatives in the North of England and had arranged to drop in on Julia on her way back to Brighton.
This would explain the disarray of the front bedroom of Wolverton Street. Julia may have been preparing the room for Amy?
Edwin also says that WHW was also there and had permission from the police to attend. Neither WHW or the detectives say this.
Even at trial WHW says on that day he was with the police all day and when asked was he treated with consideration. He replied “I was not allowed to leave when I wanted to”. When asked if he was given meals, he said “I was , because I was not allowed to go out for them”. There is nothing in the police files regarding this event.
It must have happened as Amy Dennis’ stay at Ullett Road was the reason that WHW supposedly stayed that night at 29 Wolverton Street.
3. That one night stay at Wolverton Street again is not mentioned only by WHW who said he was driven there in a police car. The police officers who drove him there never mention it.
How did he enter if the police had the keys?
Amy and Edwin say they were expecting him at their flat but he didn’t arrive. Amy said that afterwards WHW told her where he spent the night.
At trial – Hubert Moore said he would not allow WHW to go back to Wolverton Street under any circumstances. So there is clearly something awry here. The following week WHW had to request to return to collect some fresh clothes from the house and went under police supervision.
This leaves the question if WHW just said he went to Wolverton Street or somewhere else?
In my eyes, if I had spent all day with police I would want to be with my family but WHW deliberately avoids the situation. Yes – the lack of accommodation may have been an issue but I firmly believe that WHW was avoiding Amy Dennis.
4. According to all sources ( No I am not quoting the Weather Girls! – hahaha) Amy Dennis left Liverpool the following morning leaving a note for the police and a request for Julia’s coat. What was in the note for the police – was it damning evidence against WHW?
If the police had informed Miss Dennis they should have taken a statement even just to corroborate WHW’s back story. But she disappeared back to Brighton as mysteriously as she had arrived.
5. Very soon after the trial and WHW’s sentence to death. Julia’s brother George Smith Dennis wrote to the police requesting Julia’s property believing WHW would hang. He had no truck with WHW and wanted back what he believed was Dennis family property. There appears to be no further communication?
I have a hunch that Amy Dennis could identify that the woman purportedly living as Julia was not her sister. That would give clarity to the facts on the marriage certificate being nonsense. It would explain the move to Liverpool, the estrangement from other family members. Nobody in Liverpool knew what the true Julia Dennis looked like.
I believe that Julia Dennis had an inheritance and an income from Taylor’s Chemists possibly as a shareholder. WHW knew this and was guilty of embezzlement. That is the reason he didn’t appear to be bothered about advancement in his job. He didn’t need the money but preferred to live an inconspicuous life in the back streets of Anfield.
We know Julia lived in Dragon Parade in Harrogate until 1910. After that she appears as Jane / J Dennis at 11 St Mary’s Avenue.
The man who witnessed the Wallace marriage was the manager of Taylor’s Chemist Harrogate branch and a neighbour of 11 St Mary’s Avenue but he travelled across the country from branch to branch and may have not known Julia or WHW very long to question any history. The move to Liverpool was sudden – why?
Wallace did the crime and I believe that pride was his motive. For whatever reason he and his wife had been living on Julia’s money and they were about to be found out.
He was prepared to murder his wife for fear she would let the secret out. Hence the elaborate plan and the avoidance of Amy Dennis.
Wallace was not the mild mannered insurance man but a conniving trickster. He thought by implicating the wide boy Parry that he could escape his deadly deed, but the police saw through him. The evidence could not be found to be presented at court it was circumstantial. So on appeal he walked free.
Afterwards a person who escaped the noose would not subject themselves to ‘Hello’ magazine articles such as those published in John Bull. Yes – they were ghost written but it was Wallace posing in new photos smiling in his new home. Again playing the tortured soul under the never ending threat of Parry.
Wallace was a master of manipulation and he definitely did it!
But the real mystery is what happened to Julia Dennis?
Tilly
RMQ – Oh but British justice does work that way. The burden of proof is on you matey. Let’s hear your best version, are you just copying Murphy’s book which for 9 tenths of the text is showing an innocent Wallace and then he suddenly comes up with rubbish.
1) Let’s dismiss Parkes altogether in your world
2) Let’s dismiss Lily Fitzsimmons in your world
3) Let’s dismiss Anne Parsons in your world
4) Let’s dismiss Alan Close before police manipulation in your world
5) Let’s dismiss Ada Cook in your world
6) Let’s dismiss that a planned murderer has no need to bludgeon to death.
7) Let’s dismiss Parry’s alibi lie as a mistake yet Wallace isn’t afforded the same
8) Let’s dismiss Parry’s dad telling him never to discuss it with anyone ever
I could go on……..
No it doesn’t, this is just rage because you are beginning to see you are wrong and your worldview is crumbling down around you like the dioramas of Liverpool, long since disposed of…
“You can’t show me God DOESN’T exist, therefore he exists” = “you can’t show me benzidine (which wouldn’t even work in drains btw) wasn’t used, therefore it was”. No defence team in any country can just ASSERT something was done/happened on the basis of “you can’t show me it DIDN’T”.
Literally every case in the history of time has weird bullshit people and false confessors (not Gordon, the schiz weirdos who wrote in that they did it). Literally I think there might not be any exceptions. Every defence trial has witnesses to call to support a guilty client’s innocence. See: Adnan Syed as a recent example. Every case has a “Parkes”… People on Radio City also said Gordon’s car and clothes were tested down to the seams. Not in any file, but I suppose I can assert that as fact also? Lol.
The schizo cat ladies and pub crews got MURDERER Adnan Syed out of prison via the same shenanigans being pulled here. It’s just like, embarassing really. Some schizo “saw” Wallace and Amy down at the docks trying to flee the country at like 8pm that night. Lily Hall is very sure she saw William speaking to a man of near identical description to a man seen to be in the error by another local resident minutes prior/after. That would be the man William never mentioned talking to (he knows that guy didn’t kill his wife, of course, since he did himself, so no matter of importance).
“Oh boy two men were seen running down a road towards a tram stop! That must be Gordon and A.N.Other!” Just lol. It’s over.
Hi Tilly Mint, nice to hear from you again Soul sister ha ha.
Wild theory there though but glad to read it, digest it and dissect it 🙂
There have been accusations of homosexuality and Wallace being blackmailed or blackmailing someone else, being in collaboration with Amy Wallace, being in collaboration with Marsden and Parry as Julia was selling herself, the Johnston’s using Puss the cat as bait while they raided the home – yet they had a key and minded the place at times and now this one.
Are we to assume then that Wallace also did away with the real Julia? If he embezzled the money, where was it, he was living in a tiny rented terraced house and had £150 in the bank, only £60 more than Julia. He was also working whilst living a bit of a dogs life with his kidney complaint whereas the motivation behind embezzlement is usually to retire in luxury?
It is said his dad got him the job in Liverpool, hence the move. To implicate Parry and limiting the suspect pool to one is dangerous when Wallace couldn’t know if Parry had a sound alibi or not. I believe the John Bull articles were not ghost written, or at least had input and the ok from Wallace as Munro was found to hold the original drafts signed by Wallace. I’ve posted your theory on another forum though to see what their thoughts are and will let you know if anybody finds anything I haven’t thought of or finds it plausible.
RMQ. The burden of proof is forever on the prosecution so show me it.
Please copy Lily Hall’s testimony out and post it here. In the end she can’t even get the time or the day correct so Justice Wright threw it out as unimportant rightly or wrongly.
It would have been nothing for Wallace to say, ‘Do you know what, she is quite correct. A man was asking me the whereabouts of the Thirlmere public house so I pointed him in the direction of Breck Road. Wallace would hardly be rendezvousing with his hit man right outside the entry would he? Not this mastermind of the Qualtrough call that didn’t get one spot of blood on him and ran to the first tram stop as the Anfield Harriers did.
Read these words and absorb them:
William Herbert Wallace in 1931: About the trial verdict:
Even at that awful moment I could hear a tone of grim satisfaction, almost pride in that foreman’s voice, a note of jubilance. Then throughout the court, before and behind me, rushed one great gasp of absolute amazement. Even the Clerk of Assizes looked dumbfounded. I have since learnt that all those sitting on the bench, sheriff, chaplain, clerks and even the judge were shocked at the unexpected verdict.
Lily Lloyd from home on the Isle of Man 1981:
If it were true that i’m the only person still alive that knows the truth about the Wallace case, then the truth will never be told.
Parry went and saw her at the time she claimed originally. Maybe she thinks he used her as his alibi (i.e. rather than him saying he was with Brine, maybe she thinks he told cops he was with her from 5 o clock or whatever it was), and doesn’t even know herself that it was just the same account she gave.
But yeah. Ex-fiancè Lily Lloyd claimed to have Wallace secrets and cryptic secret Gordon knowledge (before the case was public so she could just pretend she was his alibi), Wallace dindu nuffin, that’s it boys shut it down.
Hi Ged
What is the other forum and can I join?
Tilly
GED,
It seems you come in here and repeat talking points from the group that can’t handle me being a member due to extreme thin skin and inability to deal with disagreements with a half baked ripped off theory (You are just parroting Hussey in essence over and over). I don’t know what other explanation there is for you just answering pretty much every post with talking points, many of which are unrelated to the post’s content and which I have seen many times before from other people.
You also recently mentioned you talk things over in the group. Let them know if they can’t handle me personally one on one (LOL) and since they are feeding you what to say, if they actually address me personally with coherent arguments in this weird proxy manner, I would be happy to dismantle their logical fallacies one by one.
Tilly Mint,
While I agree Wallace was the killer I can’t agree with anything else about your post. There’s absolutely no evidence for any of your claims, and what is worse is you state very questionable supposition as fact. I actually had to read the post a few times to realize you were being serious.
Thank you Ged and Josh for your replies.
I know my ideas are wacky to say the least, but no sillier to some others I have read.
However I realise when to back off and not to ruffle any feathers.
So I will now go back to my knitting and my cats and leave all you gentlemen to fight another day.
Best wishes and over and out
Tilly Mint
Hi Tilly,
Your theory is far fetched and speculative.
So welcome back, it is just what this forum needs. Instead of us endlessly stirring the pot of Parry, Qualtrough, bloodstains and timings it is refreshing to see that you are thinking outside the box (or the pot!). So often in this case we can’t see the wood because the trees are in the way.
Amy ’s visit: The only way that Amy Wallace, Julia’s sister, could have been informed so quickly of the murder is via the police in Brighton receiving her address on the phone from the Liverpool police. Wallace maintained she had no relatives so Amy’s address may indeed have been on one of the letters in Julia’s handbag. Even so she managed apparently to “drop everything” and arrived in Liverpool on Wednesday, the day after the murder. This haste is surprising; its not as if she was especially close to Julia.
There is a central unknown fact in this case which if/when it is discovered will turn most existing theories on their head and make sense of the apparent contradictions. I’m not saying you, Tilly, have found it but I for one appreciate your sharing this version of events.
I want to get this off to encourage your further contributions. I may have more to say later.
Mike
Hi Tilly. If you are on facebook just search for the murder of Julia Wallace.
Hi Josh. The admin say you have not re-applied to join the above. If you do I expect you will be allowed back, I did say this some time ago if you look back.
Tilly. Regarding your scenario.
Wallace did the crime and I believe that pride was his motive. For whatever reason he and his wife had been living on Julia’s money and they were about to be found out.
He was prepared to murder his wife for fear she would let the secret out. Hence the elaborate plan and the avoidance of Amy Dennis.
I’m sure that any damning statement in Amy Dennis’s letter to the police which would bolster their case against Wallace would have certainly been used against him.
Likewise, if something about their embezzlement was about to come out, why didn’t it still come out separately, or as part of the case against Wallace.
Might make a good novel or fiction drama though. 😉
Hi Tilly,
The pathologist examining Julia’s corpse described it as that of a woman “about 55 years of age.” Wallace seemed strangely vague on the subject saying she was “about 52.” Is it a coincidence that both estimated Julia’s age at 15 to 17 years younger than the 69 calculated from the birth certificate of Julia Dennis ?
Mike
RMQ: ”Parry went and saw her at the time she claimed originally. ”
Impossible as she was playing piano at the Clubmoor cinema. She was obviously asked to say it was earlier to fill in the gap of time between his 10 minute spell at the Williamsons and actually getting to see her. He doesn’t mention his visit to the brines. She does however though ask him why he’s late and blames the Williamson visit. Her mum hears Lily ask him why he’s late and he blames his visit not just to Williamsons but Hignetts too – again never mentioning the Brines. If he was late and she was not in until after 10pm due to her cinema job then just how late was he?
She’s talking about his alibi for the killing. I.e. she thinks they’re talking about the 6 45 to 8 45 period. The journalists are telling her Gordon said he couldn’t have killed J because he was with her at the time. This was later exposed as fake news because literally nobody claimed this.
All three, as in including Lily’s mother, say he came at 8.30 to 9-ish, closer to 9. None of these times btw, are when the nosy-neighbour saw two men running towards a tram stop.
Hi Folks,
It’s obvious some people on here clearly believe Wallace was guilty, and Parry had no involvement whatsoever.One simple question then…please explain to me why, on the night of the murder, he took a journey in his car to Hignetts to pick up his accumulator that was TWICE as long as the route he could have taken? A route that also meant he’d have HAD to drive past Hanwell Street, where Anne Parsons saw the two men running just before 8.15pm, he’d have HAD to drive past Richmond Park, and be less than 200 yards from Wolverton Street as he did, and he’d have HAD to drive past Marlborough Road, where his friend William Denison lived.The William Denison who rather strangely doesn’t turn up at Olivia Brine’s house that night during the three hours Parry is there!! So…am I right here in thinking that those people who genuinely believe that Parry had no involvement at all in the case, seriously believe that he made this convoluted journey just for the good of his health? He just fancied a little drive on a cold January night, is this what you’re actually saying?? And it’s PURE coincidence that he just happened to be driving past those roads and streets at about 5 or 10 minutes before Julia’s body is discovered?? REALLY??…
Come on!! He’s picked someone up en route after what he’s hoped has been a successful robbery!! And THAT’S the real reason he’s taken this route!! I think it’s patently obvious!! Anyone who thinks otherwise, please PLEASE explain to me what possible justification he’s had for making a journey that was much longer than it needed to be!!
Oh, and by the way RMQ, the two men running down Hanwell Street towards Lower Breck Road were most definitely NOT running towards a tram stop…no trams ran along Lower Breck Road in 1931.In fact, no trams have ever run along Lower Breck Road!!
Cheers…Dave.
Not only did trams run there (it’s the stop claimed by the cops), they (as busses now) STILL run there:
https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/img-2024-09-12-23-33-06.png
And past:
https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Screenshot_20231017_091203_Kindle.jpg
Hanwell Street included in the image. This is the location of the stop Wallace was alleged to have used after he placed the call used to bash his wife’s brains in. However, it would also be possible for him to have boarded at the stop he did claim to use after placing the call used to bash his wife’s brains in.
I will also track Gordon’s route for you:
https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/img-2024-09-12-23-46-23.png
More:
https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/west-derby.png
Wolverton Street is not even in the frame? It’s to the left of this. Possibly you have been misled by reciting Gannon, a classic blunder! Please check all witness testimony, the route is: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 (there are zero testimonies placing Gordon at the “3” marker Gannon just stuck on there to try to make Gordon go past Wallace’s street (time which doesn’t even align with the Lily sighting he claims is Wallace and Marsden)). The route I mapped is also shorter by the way.
Hi Dave,
When I was turning the corner by the Post Office I remembered I had promised to call for my accumulator at Hignetts in West Derby Road, Tuebrook.
Parry’s statement 23/1/31
The key word here is “remembered.” Parry was on his way to Lily’s when he recalled that he had to pick up his accumulator at Hignetts so he made a detour and drove there to pick it up. He then drove to the Williamsons, then to Lily’s. This is why his journey from the Brine’s to Lily’s is by an indirect longer route than one would expect. Secondly, if he had picked up his cronies as you suggest and received the bad news wouldn’t he have told the police that he drove directly to Lily’s without mentioning the call for ciggies or the detour for his battery during which he picked up his pals, and as you suggest drove them home? Thirdly, after receiving the staggering news of Julia’s murder how did he arrive calm as a cucumber at Lily’s without Lily or her mother noticing anything awry?
Mike
I believe Dave mistakenly believes – possibly due to Gannon – that Gordon went along Townsend and down Lower Breck Road etc, when that testimony doesn’t exist. That’s why he mentions “u-turn”, he thinks Gordon went along Townsend and down past Wallace’s house instead of going back on himself. In a car it wouldn’t be the biggest deal ever (obviously there’s no point in walking it, that seems kind of useless, Google can show the distance easily), but this is fairytales invented by authors anyway.
I have checked a number of times now in case I am missing something here, since Dave is so assured, but I don’t think so.
The case in many ways has been butchered worse than Julia was by lame fiction writers.
Hi RMQ,
That’s NOT Lower Breck Road, it’s Breck Road.It’s a bit confusing, but they’re different roads.There’s also a Walton Breck Road around there.And the nearest tram stop to the telephone kiosk was actually on Townsend Lane.I know all this this because I live a 20 minute walk from there and having travelled up and down these roads hundreds of times over the years for various reasons, I can safely say I know this area extremely well!! A lot better than you, I’d suggest.That’s why I know for a fact that Richmond Park comes out onto both Breck Road AND Lower Breck Road.Parry would have driven past Richmond Park where it emerges onto LOWER Breck Road…which is less than 200 yards from Wolverton Street.Trust me, this is FACT.
And you didn’t have to track Parry’s route for me, because I know EXACTLY what route he took.I walked it a few weeks back, and it took me 27 minutes from just after the Post Office on Maiden Lane to get to where Hignetts once was.I then walked the route he COULD have taken from just past the Post Office, when he suddenly “remembered” his accumulator, and it took me 13 minutes to get where Hignetts once was….less than half the time.All Parry had to do was perform a simple U-turn and head back in the direction he’d come from, towards Brine’s house on Knoclaid Road, and he’d have been at Hignetts far quicker.So why hasn’t he done this?? He knew that neighbourhood back then as well as I know it now, so there’s no way he wouldn’t have known that he was making a much longer journey than necessary.So WHY has he made it? Why has he so obviously gone out of his way when he didn’t need to?? Or do you still think he just fancied a relaxing drive on a cold, dark January night? Yeah, that’s REALLY likely isn’t it?!!…Not a chance!! He’s picked someone up who was at Wolverton Street.
Cheers…Dave.
Check again, your route is wrong. See the map with the location stamps:
https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/west-derby.png
Now watch:
Starts at 1: Brine’s house “5.30p.m. and called upon Mrs. Brine, 43, Knoclaid Road.”
Goes to 2: Post office “until about 8.30p.m. I then went out and bought some cigarettes – Players No. 3, and the evening Express from Mr. Hodgson, Post Office, Maiden Lane”
[U-TURNS HERE]
Goes to 4: Hignetts “When I was turning the corner by the Post Office I remembered I had promised to call for my accumulator at Hignetts in West Derby Road, Tuebrook. I went there and got my accumulator”
Goes to 5: Lisburn Lane to discuss birthday parties “I went there and got my accumulator and then went down West Derby Road and along Lisburn Lane to Mrs. Williamson, 49, Lisburn Lane, and saw her”
Goes to 6: “and then I went to 7, Missouri Road, and remained there till about 11 to 11.30p.m. when I went home.”
The Priory Road tram stop is the one I referenced that the two men were running towards, i.e. the one Wallace allegedly used (but didn’t have to to get to the club on time). They were running from Richmond Park, towards Lower Breck Road, through Hanwell Street. There’s a tram stop right there, you come out of the road and go left, that’s it.
Nobody has claimed this is the route Gordon took:
https://i.imgur.com/E8Z7FHq.png
Check the statements if you think anyone anywhere has claimed he took that route. I don’t see how you could have come up with that notion except by reciting Gannon who decided to just stick a “3” stamp on that map as if Gordon ever went that way?
This is the shorter route here:
https://i.imgur.com/bvKSk4P.png
Hignetts is apparently even further along that road than I marked but it doesn’t matter because it’s just even shorter then.
R M Qualtrough says:
September 12, 2024 at 7:19 pm
She’s talking about his alibi for the killing. I.e. she thinks they’re talking about the 6 45 to 8 45 period. The journalists are telling her Gordon said he couldn’t have killed J because he was with her at the time. This was later exposed as fake news because literally nobody claimed this.
All three, as in including Lily’s mother, say he came at 8.30 to 9-ish, closer to 9. None of these times btw, are when the nosy-neighbour saw two men running towards a tram stop.
How could he call at 8.30 to 9 when she’s in the cinema playing honky tonk woman???
There was no nosey neighbour. Anne Parsons was returning from a church choir I think it was and passed them running down Hanwell st as she was walking up.
Evidently she wasn’t, since both she and her mother say she was at home. I wonder what would happen if everyone with a Wallace secret called up the show. Maybe they could get on that batty old crank who said he saw Wallace and Amy fleeing to the docks, or Tom Slemen’s informant.
The guy trying to accurately recall the whereabouts of an aquaintance 50 years prior didn’t even see her that evening I thought? Didn’t he just say yeah she totez would’ve been playing there that night. Well that’s reliable lol.
Hi RMQ,
Sorry, but this is an example of you not knowing the local geography of the neighbourhood.If he’d taken the shorter route, he’d have U-turned by Worcester Drive, which is about 20 yards past the Post Office, and was where he would have needed to drive down to get to Missouri Road.He’d have performed the U-turn here, then drove back up Maiden Lane, past the Post Office in the opposite direction to which he’d just come.He’d then have driven up Knoclaid Road, re passing Brine’s house, then onto Lisburn Lane before turning right onto West Derby Road.But he doesn’t do this.The giveaway is the fact that he clearly states that he picked up his accumulator, then drove down West Derby Road, then drove down Lisburn Lane to call at Annie Williamson’s house at number 49.If he’d taken the shorter route, he’d have driven up Lisburn Lane BEFORE driving down West Derby Road.It’s impossible not to if he HAD taken this noticeably shorter route….but he didn’t.Taking the shorter route would also have enabled him to call at Mrs.Williamson’s first, then onto Hignetts.But according to his own statement, he’s gone to Hignetts BEFORE Mrs.Williamson’s.And at no point in his statement does he ever mention making a U-turn near the Post Office or Worcester Drive.He didn’t mention it because he didn’t make a U-turn!! And had no intention of making one.And he hasn’t suddenly “remembered” he’d promised to collect his accumulator either.That’s always been part of the plan.Here’s the route he DID take, the one I recently walked:
He gets in his car outside the Post Office after buying his cigarettes and newspaper, then drives down Maiden Lane towards Townsend Lane, ignoring the left turn into Worcester Drive, where he claimed he was turning into when his memory suddenly sprang into life!! He was NEVER intending to turn left here.He actually turns left about 200 yards further on, onto Townsend Lane and drives up towards Lower Breck Road.He’s then turned left onto Lower Breck Road.As he was doing this, he’d actually have been little more than 10 yards from the telephone kiosk from where he’d set this all in motion the previous evening.He’s then driven down Lower Breck Road, past Hanwell Street, and past Richmond Park which leads up to Wolverton Street.At some point around here, I’m convinced he’s picked up an accomplice.He’s then continued down Lower Breck Road toward West Derby Road.He then turns left onto West Derby Road and heads to Hignetts.He gets his accumulator, gets back in his car, and continues down West Derby Road before turning left onto Lisburn Lane.His own statement confirms this particular part of the journey.And as I’ve said, if he’d taken the shorter route, he’d have HAD to have driven up Lisburn Lane BEFORE driving along West Derby Road.He clearly hasn’t done this, so he clearly hasn’t taken the shorter route.So the question remains…why hasn’t he taken it? Which in turn leads to a second question…what was he up to by taking a route that’s twice as long as the one he chose NOT to take??
By the way, there’s a very good map in Antony Brown’s book showing the long-winded journey that Parry took, and the one I walked.Page 189, if you want to check.
Cheers…Dave.
To totally exonerate Parry of being involved in any way I have to satisfy myself of a number of things.
1) Why lie on his alibi for Monday night?
2) Why haven’t the police picked up on this?
3) Why lie about the time he met Lily on Tues, as she was playing piano?
4) Why does Ada Cook talk of the meeting of the Parry’s and her parents?
5) Why doesn’t Parkes just say Parry was full of blood if he is lying?
6) Why does Parry’s dad not want him to talk about it, not for £2000?
7) Why does Parry not mention the Brine’s visit to Lily?
8) Why does Parry not fend off nosey journalists by just mentioning his Brine’s visit?
9) Why does Parry say the police were satisfied when I was able to produce some people with whom I was arranging a birthday party with when that visit was 8.30pm +
10) Why does Lily Lloyd say. ‘If it is true that I am the only person still alive that knows the truth about the Wallace case then the truth will never be told’ This indicates a lie has been told and that she doesn’t want the truth to be told?
11) Why, in 1933 does Lily retract her statement for Parry when she must know by then that the time of the murder and the time for the alibi she gave him are well apart anyway?
R M Qualtrough says:
September 13, 2024 at 9:53 am
I wonder what would happen if everyone with a Wallace secret called up the show.
Maybe nobody did because there was nobody who had a Wallace secret?
The night of the show was the first time Parry’s name had been uttered and it didn’t take long for his name to be sullied did it?
Hi Mike:
Michael says: Thirdly, after receiving the staggering news of Julia’s murder how did he arrive calm as a cucumber at Lily’s without Lily or her mother noticing anything awry?
The same way Wallace supposedly arrived calm as a cucumber to several tram staff and people up at Menlove and yet that is accepted as fact.
As described earlier. If Parry only found out ‘we had to give the old girl a bash’ after his visit to Lily’s then that of course is possible. He was a night owl after all (The Lily Fitzsimmons episode tells us that alone whether he was guilty or innocent)
Hi Ged,
Wallace prided himself on not showing any external sign of emotion. He followed stoic philosophy saying he felt emotion like everyone else but had disciplined himself not to show it (his own words). This cover wasn’t 100% though: he broke down at the crime scene but quickly recovered and the policeman who spoke with him in Menlove Gardens described him as “nervous.” It was his cool unemotional demeanour at the trial which was his undoing as much as anything else.
If there is anything in the Parry + cronies scenario then I agree he must have heard of the tragedy after leaving Lily Lloyd’s. This would account for his agitated state at the Atkinson’s garage. Why did Parkes immediately conclude that the mitten was stained with blood. Blood stains on fabric or leather when 5 hours old are dark brown. One’s first thought would be dirt, oil, or grease not blood.
And how had Parry, if he wasn’t involved, hear about the murder if he left the Lloyds at 11.00 pm ? No local radio in those days.
“C’est une probleme” as they say in Wigan.
Mike
Hi Mike. Stoicism tends to be in line with, when things happen to you, it is a ”what will be will be”. For example his illness, something he has no control over or very little. However, actually creating the scenario is a different kettle of fish, it would be much harder to hide. He broke down in front of Mrs Johnston yet pulled himself together when the police and more people were present. Surely a guilty Wallace does the opposite, like we see on tv these days with boyfriends or husbands who are guilty, crying like a baby at the press conferences to throw the scent off them.
Parkes only had to say Parry was full of blood if he had it in for him. Parkes strikes me as wary and concerned about Parry so would hardly be placing himself in danger voluntarily. He was warned by the Atkinson’s not to use the entry coming to work in the dark for instance and nobody seemed to enforce Parry not coming to the garage after all.
Parry could have arranged to see his cronies after his visit to Lily. Perhaps it was only after leaving Lily he heard on the local grapevine about the happenings that night and went to his cronies to learn for the first time how badly it went wrong. The weapon was wrapped in one glove and disposed of by the cronies earlier – down the grid. The other glove was shoved in the glovebox by one of his cronies during this late night encounter. Parry, now up to his neck in it had to get the car cleaned in case it was gone over by the police which could be anytime now – and it was apparently.
For those who continue to say ‘Oh yeah and he just spills the beans to Parkes’. Well he wasn’t expecting Parkes to see the glove and so was not prepared for what he would say. Even the most evil criminals just blurt it out never mind this small time petty crook. You may have heard of the terrible most recent killing of a young girl by notorious hit man Thomas Cashman. well read this, he did just the same.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/thomas-cashmans-final-desperate-message-26790389
Cop comes, tells Parkes Julia has been killed.
Parkes instantly connects Gordon to this.
Later on Gordon arrives (allegedly), Parkes doesn’t mention to Gordon that his pal Julia has been slain?
This is a ridiculousness, quite clearly. You’ve literally put all of your faith into The Sun tier reporters actually being legit sources of info, and making snippets of conversations provided via The Sun tier reporters into cryptic secret messages. Maybe you should peruse the files and see all the nonsense info sent to the cops by people like Parkes. Crazy person fake confessors, dock sightings of William and Amy fleeing the country, random women who claim to have seen Wallace.
Cloud fantasist land. I wonder is it a grand conspiracy involving 100 people conspiring to protect Gordon (including Lily’s mother “yeah bro let me help protect your murderer criminal boyfriend as I surely want you to keep dating him”, or are the tidbits of local rumous collected 50 years after the fact just nonsensical and fractured memories of the real events? These people are HACKS bro.
Especially off air. Goodman made two different notes of his conversation with Gordon. The words are different in each. These are like, curated paraphrased conversations about events half a century ago. Keep in mind even the Parkes conversation is edited, the original has Parkes discussing stakeouts, unlike witness statements which are not given full context and are carefully curated for a tabloid or radio show selling you a certain story. I could have made a radio show and found the one crank in Liverpool like Slemen did when he found Stan. He found a crank to tell tales of Johnston confessing.
Where did “Dave” go?
Seems like he was proven wrong and then just beat a hasty retreat. LOL.
Couldn’t even say “Oh I see guess you were right, my bad.” Inability to admit when one is wrong is a very unfortunate characteristic of some. Makes discourse very unproductive.
OK RMQ: Reading the Casebook forum from years ago, it seems yous had some zany ideas yourselves but that aside, let’s put Parkes one side then, let’s Park Parkes 🙂
Ada Pritchard. Someone with no skin the barney – discuss.
We already have it from you that Parry just made a mistake about his Monday night alibi and that Parkes is a liar (even though if lying he could just have said Parry was full of blood) we also have it that Anne Parsons was a curtain twitcher, even though she was outside lol. We even have it that Parry is just jesting and playing tricks on Goodman and RWE yet he doesn’t disclose that he was at the Brines, that statement is not revealed until after the 50 years is up.
So, let’s discuss Ada Pritchard.
“We already have it from you that Parry just made a mistake about his Monday night alibi”
Where?
Ada is the one who said about her parents right? If it happened it’s pretty obvious Gordon’s parents are terrified because their son is being investigated for murder.
The stuff about Parkes is ridiculous, Gordon comes in during the A.M. how can he believably be soaked in blood still? Obviously if Gordon went to the garage that night, local idiot Parkes already knows that: 1) Julia has been killed and that 2) Parry is friends with Julia, he makes this connection straight away when the cop tells him BEFORE Gordon shows up (he’s already thinking of Gordon in connection with the murder). Gordon comes in later that night. It is quite obvious that the story presented by Parkes is incomplete if not inaccurate… By Parkes’ tale he himself is completely mute and just a silent receiver of Gordon’s instructions and words, which is dumb and obviously not the case. He is giving you only one side of a conversation, paraphrased, from half a century prior, presenting ONLY snippets of the conversation that allegedly happened, entirely without context.
Two random men (without description) running, towards the direction of a tram stop, at the wrong time (Gordon is being alleged to have gone to pick up his pals after 8.30) is also just like, meaningless. There were many such tidbits of local information sent in. The man asking the cab driver “you won’t kill me will you?!” is more sus than that, except they found that guy as he came forward, and he didn’t do it.
Hi RMQ. It may have been Josh if not you but there seems to be a lot of ignoring or excuse making for Parry, like he misremembered what he was up to Monday night yet for Tuesday night he remembers absolutely everything perfectly well.
Why would Parry’s parents be so concerned as to want their son spirited out of the country and then practically sent to Aldershot to join the army.
Parkes is always portrayed as dumb and was only remembering 50 years later. Are you forgetting he mentioned the bar to the Atkinson’s the morning after the murder, before it was even known about any bar. He didn’t even come forward, he was traced and somebody else was told of his story, the man who tried to gain money out of it. Parkes could always have lied more convincingly by saying there was blood on his suit, on his fingernails, whatever his fancy took him.
Parry’s dad has him tending to his car battery on the murder night which is different to a radio accumulator from Hignett’s but Hignett’s doesn’t clear him anyway as that was 8.30pm + and then we have his dad telling him not to talk about it for £2000.
Here is what Lily Lloyd also said.
‘I gave a statement to the police investigating the Wallace murder but it was only partly true. This was because I only saw Gordon later on the night of the crime. I can’t remember how much later.
Let’s analyse that. ‘Partly true’ doesn’t mean the same as ‘The statement I gave him was for after the murder anyway’ as that is FULLY TRUE. Partly true suggests that she was asked to give a statement that she saw him from 9pm but that she only saw him later on in the night, so where was he and why was she asked to supply a statement that she saw him from 9pm.
Parry, Brine and Denison all say Parry left ‘about 8.30’ but that could be 8.20 – it’s very open to ‘near enough’.
Regarding the man in the cab. Is there any proof that he came forward. I see ‘Wallace whacked Her’ on the casebook forum saying many time he believes it could have been Joseph Wallace heading off to the flat he rented in Princes Park or to Amy’s in Ullet Road after murdering Julia and was wanting proof of when he arrived in the UK.
First pointer towards Wallace being innocent. Let’s analyse his so called alibi.
If Close had called at his normal time of anywhere between 6pm and 6.30pm – Where exactly is the alibi? An alibi is a provable statement to say I was somewhere else when the crime was committed so if Close calls at 6.15, 6.20,6.25, 6.30 etc – just where is the alibi, it actually doesn’t exist.
All what happens then is it throws a doubt as to someone is trying to get him out the house to commit the murder whilst he’s gone but the murder is committed whilst he is capable of being in according to you so it doesn’t even work out that way for him.
It therefore has to be the worst alibi ever put forward, and remember, it is not just him putting it forward but everyone connected to that call.
Pointer No.2:
According to Julias autopsy report, her stomach contained about four ounces of semi-fluid food consisting of currants, raisins and unmasticated lumps of carbohydrate. According to Wallace’s statement, this was the remains of the meal (tea and scones) he and Julia had had at around 6.15/6.25pm. If this is so and the science seems to prove it, this would indicate that Julia was probably murdered sometime between 7.30 and 8.30 p.m. (an hour and a half to two and a half hours after her meal) and not between 6.37 and 6.50pm. If Julia had been murdered between the latter times, the food in her stomach would not have been as broken down by digestive fluids, as the process would have been halted by her death. Gannon alludes to this in his book too.
Have you been believing Gannon’s book again? I hired several forensic pathologists, you can’t discern time of death scientifically in a window of time narrower than is provided by Close to Johnstons. Almost every single thing in that book is inaccurate btw lol, basically every single thing apart from the genealogy is inaccurate somehow. Re: cab guy yes there is proof, it’s in the newspapers, various articles. Could be BS as we have seen newspaper people are like that, but various different newspaper publications.
This is all just “mental masturbation”, going over an edited tabloid show and the writings of tabloid people, and statements where people “recall” events that happened over half a century ago word for word. Goodman has two different versions of the Gordon interview, and everyone else interviewed in any case has 50 years at the back of them. All of the evidence in favor of Wallace is like that, either involving large scale coverups or tabloids and rumors, primarily those recounted half a century after it took place. If you think witness recollection is waning after days, consider 50 years lol.
It is more than obvious that Parkes’ story is out of context at best. It shouldn’t even be contended, it is very obvious, where he says he was told earlier before he saw Gordon about the killing. And he already knew Gordon knew Julia. It shouldn’t even be contended that Parkes was clearly not just a mute who said literally nothing while Parry spoke at length about killings… Earlier that night Gordon had picked up an accumulator for his car, presumably he was working on his car in some way. Wouldn’t even shock me to discover the gloves were covered in engine grease if it even happened at all. Maybe mute Parkes wasn’t so mute after all and actually remarked on it in some way.
The case is 100% solved, what do we do now with our time?
Hi Ged,
Pointer No 1: Wallace’s alibi.
The period between his arrival home at ~ 6.05 pm and his alleged departure at ~ 6.45 pm does not give Wallace an alibi if the evidence shows that Julia was murdered approximately within this time frame. If Close had been on time he could have done it shortly after her doorstep encounter and left immediately with the excuse that he didn’t know where MGE was, and wanted tp be in good time. But Close was late which was unforeseen by Wallace so the murder took place later, fortuitously giving Wallace a tight time window between the Julia/Close meeting and the 7.06 pm tram. But this tight window could not have been part of his plan because he hadn’t known Close would be late.
What was, in my view, a key part of his plan was to arrange conditions in the parlour so that a competent pathologist (e.g. by measuring body temperature) would estimate a later time of death than it actually was. He did this by leaving the gas fire on a low setting to maintain an equable room (and body) temperature. And he covered the body with the macintosh for extra insulation, peeling it back and tucking it in on his “discovery” of the body and switching the gas fire off.
He knew any estimate of time of death would be approximate so he stayed in Menlove Gardens much longer than necessary gathering witnesses to his presence to give himself some leeway relative to the expected estimate.
Pointer No 2. Digestion.
Yes, digestion of food does stop after death but it does not come to a dead stop (no pun intended.) The enzymes responsible for breaking down protein, fats, and cardohydrates work best at the normal body temperature of ~ 37 degrees. If the body temperature is artificially prevented from falling quickly as I outlined above, the digestive processes continue, albeit at a slower rate. This would account for the “later” time of death indicated by the stomach contents.
Even as late as 10 pm Julia’s hand was stated to be slightly warm. This, in my view, would be impossible if she had been lying dead and uncovered on the floor of an unheated parlour for more than three hours with the only heat source being the dying kitchen fire. In mid winter.
Of course Wallace’s plan didn’t pay the dividends he expected. Estimates of time of death based on rigor mortis varied widely and no body temperatures were taken.
And, as usual in this case, both these points – warmth of the body / state of digestion – are consistent with Wallace’s innocence: she was killed by A N Other at around 8 pm.
But my money is still on Wallace.
OK so what I am saying is, and you seem to be agreeing with is Wallace’s plan (if guilty) did not and would never and could not include him being out of the house somewhere else during the killing because if he is guilty then he was obviously still in the house committing the murder. I’m glad we got that one out of the way so that begs the question, why the phone call at all then if you are a guilty Wallace.
The only answer of course is to try to put A.N. other into the frame who is trying to get him out of the house so that he can get in. But in denying the murder, you are already putting A.N. Other into the frame, whether it be the Anfield Housebreaker, some random or his Pru acquaintances for whom he did not know had a solid alibi or not. Of course his Pru acquaintances could also be in collaboration with dodgy pals, supplying them info about the cash box.
So that still leaves the dodgy Parry Mon night alibi and what to me is not a watertight alibi for the murder night, whether that be a coerced alibi with Brine or what seems to be a coerced alibi with Lily LLoyd who for once questions why he is late.
I am still to hear why Ada Pritchard’s parents were begged by Parry’s parents to get him out of the country at any cost. I am still yet to be thoroughly convinced that there isn’t some truth in what Parkes tells us of his first hand encounter with Parry which was relayed within hours to the Atkinson’s who have no beef in this episode except to admit to tarnishing their name in keeping silent.
It is quite obvious and unsurprising that Gordon’s parents might have been scared that their criminal son is being investigated for murder, and hence tried to get him away from it. According to the cock and bull radio show, if equal credence is given to all of the senile chumps who called in, Gordon was having his clothes and car taken apart to the seams for blood testing.
Pro-Wallace “evidence” is pretty much always like this, Chinese whispers, bizarre tales from locals like Stan, he-said she-saids, and eavesropped conversations revealed over 50 years after they allegedly took place, with edits from the authors/broadcasters (who for example removed Parkes’ discrediting rambles about stakeouts of the garage, as it ruined their “angle” for the program), and an assortment of disgraced money-hungry authors butchering the evidence of the case which you then believe.
He has plenty of time to do all of the things mentioned, so what exactly is the problem? The “impossible timing” is made up. He easily could have slaughtered his wife. The sole reason to think otherwise is the assertions that it is not possible, but the things which made it “not possible” are invented by the con-artists and hacks mentioned.
There is 0% odds that Parkes’ tale happened as stated, the reasons for this have been covered, in particular as mentioned many times the fact that Parkes already knew of the murder and Julia’s connection to Gordon before seeing Gordon that evening, which duh would colour the interaction and also be strange if Parkes never actually even brought it up. It’s legit dumb. You could easily find a Parkes to paint anyone you want as guilty, as shameless Tom Slemen did well.
“Parkes already knew of the murder and Julia’s connection to Gordon before seeing Gordon that evening”
Parkes says he was told of the murder by a PC Ken Wallace but how did PC Wallace or Parkes know that Parry was connected to the Wallace menage? The connection was old and temporary: Parry had helped W with his collections some three years earlier and since then he exchanged greetings with Wallace when they met by chance. They were hardly bosom pals or “friends” as Parkes described them.
I find it strange that Parkes knew of this tenuous connection.
“Why the phone call….?
Wallace could have said that Mr Qualtrough approached him while on his rounds, gave him the 25 MGE address and directions of how to get there/find it, and an appointment was agreed. Very simple. No phone call etc. But his doesn’t provide Wallace with witnesses which feature in the chess club, on the trams, and in Menlove Gardens .These confirm his receipt of the message and his supposed unfamiliarity with the journey and Menlove Gardens. The whole thing is theatre, a performance, and the witnesses are the audience.
I too think Parry’s Monday night alibi is too loose and would allow him time to make the phone call.
The Brine alibi, of which we know only the bare detail that “he was there.,” is suspect because it enters the case only in the 1990s when the weeded police files were released. Parry, Lily and her mother don’t mention it. You’d think with Parry collaborating with magazine articles e.g. “Wallace accused me!” that Mrs Brine would step forward for her 15 minutes of fame saying “He was at mine.” It emerged only when almost everyone who could confirm it was conveniently dead.
Its impossible to comment on the Ada Pritchard story with knowing more. Were the Pritchards ideally placed, e.g. with maritime connections, to spirit Parry away? As if he would evade justice by fleeing!!
The best I can do with Parkes is to suggest that Parry was there and saw an opportunity to wind up the gullible Parkes with a cock and bull story. The Atkinsons humoured Parkes but not wishing to appear fools, they did nothing with it and felt no guilt about their inaction.
There seems to be an awful lot of misremembering and winding up going on in this murder most foul case doesn’t there. As if you’d be doing that when your neck is in the noose. Parry did it to the ‘gullible’ Parkes, Parry did it to the ‘gullible’ JG and RWE whilst lying about his Tues night alibi to them. We’re not allowed to say ‘Wallace could have’ Mike, this is according to RMQ/Josh previously. Wallace could have done a lot of things if guilty such as strangle her, knock loudly on the door attracting attention, just say the bolt was on all the way through.
We are expected to believe that Wallace was there with no alibi, in the house with plenty of time to do this murder, clean himself, run to the trams like the police did and there is nobody else in the frame so why wasn’t he hung – it’s a closed case isn’t it?
I don’t know about any Parkes stakeout story RMQ – Where can I find that? Ada Pritchard’s dad worked on the ships and back then you could put forward names like my father-in-law did as a Cunard Yank. The 2 men running down Hanwell street is not the wrong time and we are told when saying Wallace is guilty that the trams are every 7 mins so why be legging it?
Why would Parkes have to mention the killing of Julia to Parry when he says he came in agitated, says wash the cash inside and out and Parkes says I know why I was doing it (but he was obviously scared to say no and knew the score about saying nothing, he didn’t need to be told)
The Atkinson’s didn’t just humour ‘gullible’ Parkes, in fact they came forward in favour of Pukka, showing themselves in a bad light as withholding information.
So up to now the list of reasons/excuses regarding Parry being involved is:
1)We have to ignore that Parry had a monetary and revenge motive against Wallace
2)Parry was just mistaken or misremembering his Monday night movements
3) The Police just made a mistake not picking up on the false Monday night alibi
4) Brine’s alibi is unshakable – I don’t think it is with further questioning
5) Parry goes into greater detail after 8.30 pm on his Tues night alibi
6) Parry was just winding up the gullible fool Parkes
7) Why/how could Ada Cooks dad do anything, she must be lying
8) Parry was just winding up the gullible Goodman and RWE in 1966
9) Lily LLoyd said to revisit those times would cause great stress
10) Lily LLoyd said ‘The truth will never be told’ What truth?
All seems a bit fishy to me. I’d never say case closed like RMQ did earlier. That is the realms of Goodman and Rod isn’t it – the very people he rubbishes.
We have literally discussed the stakeout thing many times (as in you were actively participating in those conversations), Wilkes told me about that himself via email, I think I have included these emails on this site, probably on the Parkes page.
“We are expected to believe that Wallace was there with no alibi, in the house with plenty of time to do this murder, clean himself, run to the trams like the police did and there is nobody else in the frame so why wasn’t he hung – it’s a closed case isn’t it?”
Yes it is lol. It is as closed as OJ Simpson who was also found innocent despite the fact he is guilty of killing Nicole and Ron and wrote a book where he discussed precisely how he killed them (like Wallace describing exactly how he spanner’d his wife in the John Bull articles, ASSERTED with ZERO evidence to be “ghostwritten” by Goodman: based on Munro saying he “can’t believe” (aka zero evidence) Wallace would have written that). These baseless claims based on “I can’t believe it!” and “a friend of a friend of a friend once saw Gordon confess to murder bro” are typical of the disgraceful butchering of justice committed by Goodman.
“Running” to the trams is another thing you keep forgetting over and over is invented fiction. Check the distance, calculate the walking speed (yes he can WALK to the tram and make it in time – and on Monday too, he can even walk ALL THE WAY to Belmont Road from the telephone call box and reach the club within the range of times he provided). I don’t know how tall you are but for Wallace, these paces are a “brisk walk”. Defence beat the police times. All of these things have been discussed ad nauseum.
Your mind is just stuck in an abyss of obsession with 50 years-after-the-fact tabloid hit pieces where the interviews were carefully curated (as mentioned for example: Parkes’ discrediting rambles about stakeouts removed, and Goodman’s multiple slightly different accounts of his interview with Gordon). Basically if you didn’t read “The Sun” entertainment “news” type stuff, you would think William obviously did it? The only thing making you think he didn’t just batter his wife is in the same league as Tom Slemen’s radio show where he had Stan say Johnston did it all. What are we even doing here then? The case is over, literally everyone else already knows he killed Julia, so I doubt this provides value to anyone outside of like 20 of us who got really into the case.
Hi Ged,
The Ada Pritchard contribution is a conversation Ada overheard as a girl some fifty years previously but let us assume it is substantially true. I was interested to read that your father in law Ged could “put names forward.” This surely was to recommend friends for employment on the ships. They would not need the recommendation of an insider to travel as a passenger.
This could be an understandable effort by Parry’s parents, after he was questioned in the murder enquiry, to “straighten him out” by getting him away from Liverpool and his dubious pals e.g. Denison. Parry was sociable and of good appearance – ideal as a potential steward on the Cunard ships.
We know this effort was futile so Parry was strong-armed to join the Army. Hardly something he would do voluntarily.
I do not see any advantage to Parry “fleeing the scene.” It was this that was the undoing of Crippen. Where would he go? Did the Parrys have relatives in the USA who could take him in? Suddenly leaving his job in insurance? It doesn’t fit.
No stakeout discussed anywhere, there is no Parkes page on this site only my transcription of his recorded interview and one of the Goodman files is no longer available so I haven’t a clue what you are on about, who is staking out who?
Now let’s dispel some of your myths here:
The first Anfield Harrier jumps onto a moving tram to make it in time…
867. On the first of your tests, you took 15 minutes. You got on to a moving tramcar
that happened to be passing Belmont Road as you came to it? Yes.
868. That came, I suppose, as a bit of luck? Yes.
869. Then on your second experiment, you did not do that, but you did what the
prisoner says he did, namely, after getting into Belmont Road turning to the left and
walked as far as there and then took the tram? Yes.
870. On your second experiment, which took 18 minutes, did you board the tram at the Church corner at 6.52? Yes.
Another of the Anfield Harriers gets on at a request stop that Wallace didn’t even use:
879. Are you a Detective Sergeant of the Liverpool City Police? I am.
880. On the 27th of January, last did you leave the back door of 29 Wolverton Street at 6.49? I did.
881. I think you were with an officer called Gilroy? I was.
MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: That is the same date as Prendergast?
MR HEMMERDE: That is so, my Lord, but at different times.
882. Did you go along the route shown in red as far as Belmont Road? I did.
883. And did you pick up a tram there immediately? Yes, there was a car there as we
arrived at the junction of Castlewood Road.
884. Did you go on that as far as Lodge Lane? I did.
885. Did you notice what the time was when you got on to it? 6.52 pm.
886. Did you notice what the time was when you arrived at the junction of Lodge Lane? I did, it was 6 minutes past 7.
887. So you had taken 17 minutes? That is so.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR ROLAND OLIVER.
888. You boarded the car not at the Church but immediately you got into Belmont
Road? That is so.
889. Was it coming along as you went out? Yes. Just as we got out, we stopped the car.
890. You headed it off? That is so.
So you see, instead of smokescreens as to distances which only work if both parties are doing the same pace of walking and actually going the same route, they mean nothings and I would add, the fact they had to make shortcuts in jumping on moving trams or heading off one at a request stop proves they weren’t very confident of making the times doing this test as they should have – following Wallace’s said route.
Ada was 17 years of age not 7 and I can remember much more menial happenings at 17 and that is nearly 50 years ago. I can remember the killing of a 2 year old twin on waste ground near my home in 1973 when I was 11 and this is because it’s not every day back then that things like the Wallace case or the one I know of were regular occurrences. Ada would remember this like it happened just last week.
So to add to my list earlier, we are to believe Beattie was just fooled, that 18 factual errors by Bishop at the committal hearing was just one of those things – or 18 of those things. That the prosecution wouldn’t release files to the defence regarding witnesses they had interviewed. That 5 different children that evening were lying for no reason that Alan Close said ‘A quarter to six’ and that to substantiate this we have church bells having stopped ringing in Elsie Wrights testimony and Wildman checking his watch. We know you now agree on a 18.37/18.38 timing for the doorstep but why did Moore want it to be 18.30 if he was so sure he didn’t need it to be.
We have the snidy, thieving, chancer, liar with the opportunity and motive versus the straight laced honest, mild upright citizen who had nothing to gain but everything to lose. 🙂
You are doubting me or? I’m not Goodman. See below, email from the Radio City team:
“Calum,
I spoke to Mike Green who has a copy of the unedited interview with John Parkes, and he listened through to it for me, sending me the following notes:
John Parkes talks about the bloody glove and hosing the car down inside and out. He also says
that the police later took possession of the car and examined it for blood, but found nothing.
He says Parry claimed to have dropped an iron bar down a drain in front of a doctor’s house
In Priory Road. There’s no description of the bar (or where it came from) and Parkes said he saw nothing
else in the vehicle apart from the bloody glove, which he says was like a leather mitten.
He claims he was told that Parry borrowed thigh boots and a mac from two people before the murder, but he
was dressed “normally” when he visited with the motor car, a “dicky” Swift. He says the car was
Parry’s own, not his father’s and he often brought it round.
Interestingly, he claims that the police staked out the garage after the murder and warned him that
he needed to be careful using the back alley from his house, implying they were suspicious of Parry.
He also says Parry turned up a few days later with a man of similar age and implies that
he might have been an accomplice.
Parkes says he told Gordon Atkinson and his two sons what had happened the day after Parry visited.
He does not mention Dolly.
If you use any of this, please credit Mike Green as the interviewer.
Hope this is of some use.
Regards,
Roger
Roger Wilkes”
Incidentally we have literally discussed this many times, and that being no more than a year or so. If you don’t remember the minutae of conversations from a year or two, consider people trying to recall word for word conversations and precise events exactly as they took place over half a century before. Also:
“So you see, instead of smokescreens as to distances which only work if both parties are doing the same pace”
You don’t know what you’re talking about lol. The distances for the exact route can be found easily, I put them all on my solution page I think? But they can be found by anyone at any time. Then:
https://www.calculator.net/pace-calculator.html
There is no smokescreen involved in the literal fixed mathematical distances, easily checkable (I think various surveyors and defence team like Maddock gave exact distance measurements in yards, and it’s down to within a yard accuracy) and the speeds to walk those distances. It is “brisk walk” pace. On the solution page I worked out all of these.
You might notice that Maddock made no mention of “running”. Where does it come from? By “Anfield Harriers” it’s obviously just more tabloid CUCK Goodman and other assorted reporters who also wrote that Johnston kicked the back door in to open it for Wallace. That’s what garbage publications do. Maddock beat all of their times. They “headed off” the tram at the request stop, obviously what has happened is they arrived there just as the tram started to leave and they hopped on the back, not like Jason Bourne action movie stuff (trams are fairly slow-ish not like modern cars). The case is closed this is ridiculous and you are just talking like a moon landing conspiracy person now. Remove all the fake crap “johnston kicked down the door” tier garbage invented by the press (Goodman included in this) and it is obvious there IS no impossible time anywhere, all do-able, even when steelmanned the other way (to make him not board by the phone booth but place the call and then also walk (walk not run) all the way over to the Belmont stop). What a waste of time.
Assuming that Ada Pritchard’s recollection is substantially true, as I do in my post, I suggest why Parry’s parents wanted. as she says, to get him on a ship out of Liverpool. It wasn’t to flee and avoid further questioning which would have been sheer madness. It may have been to find him employment which would hopefully get him away from his environment and straighten him out. Instead the army was seen as a solution, but it wasn’t as we know.
RMQ – I don’t see anywhere that anyone has ever suggested Johnston kicking in the back door for Wallace, why are you adding untruths. Why are the Anfield Harriers using other the tram stops Wallace says he never used (which could easily be refuted by the driver or somebody on the tram)
Mike – Both sets of parents (Parry’s and Ada’s) met and knew each other from church. They had other opportunities to see each other later in the week or at the weekend to ask about a simple job for Parry. This meeting between all 4 of them resulted in a blazing row afterwards. No, not having it that they hadn’t yet thought of asking Mr Pritchard for a simple job for their lad.
A question to you both.
If Wallace is guilty there is no need to mention his trip to Calderstones to Julia. He doesn’t know Amy is going to call on her so he certainly doesn’t know that Julia will tell Amy about it even if he did. A guilty Wallace has Julia setting up the parlour for music in the first place. I think that is game, set and match.
This is apart from Beattie not recognising Wallace 1 iota (who would have had a distinctive voice having lived two thirds of his life elsewhere)
This is apart from Close leaving Wallace around 10 minutes to do everything including making sure not one dot of blood was in his hair, on his glasses, on the back of his trouser leg etc.
This apart from Parry offering a lie because he wasn’t expecting the police to know where the call was made from or expect to be questioned regarding the Monday night.
This apart from Parry never ever confirming his Brine visit to Lily or JG – only ever mentioning his visit to the Williamson’s which was after 8.30pm.
It was in the newspapers at the time, available to view on the newspaper archives, it was either someone kicking the door in or forcing it open in some way, rather than accurately depicting that it opened easily without force in Johnston’s presence. Are you actually doubting me again? While adding the actual untruth that Wallace had a regional accent (Munro was specifically asked this and said Wallace didn’t have such an accent).
Your questions aren’t relevant to be honest, plus have been discussed ad nauseam and you forgot again, we covered the hack Goodman and his hacky works very recently especially (btw you literally WROTE the page on this site where the Parkes stakeout thing is included lol, it has your name at the top of the transcript, AND you commented under it, before completely forgetting it exists? – but people will remember word for word conversations half a century ago?).
If the Pritchard/Parry family conclave wasn’t to get Gordon a maritime job, and it wasn’t to book him a regular passage, exactly what did Parry’s parents want? To take him as a stowaway?
I have lived 60% of my life outside the UK. Nobody has ever told me that I have a distinctive voice apart from my Northern accent which is still intact.
Agreed there was no absolute need for Wallace to mention his Qualtrough trip to Julia except to prepare the ground early by expressing some doubt as to whether he would go, and to suggest a musical evening if he didn’t..
Opinions as to whether the assailant would receive blood spray have varied widely. We do not know:
If/how the mac was used as a shield
The type of weapon
It’s length (determines distance between victim and attacker}
Position of victim when first blow fell
Whether the weapon was muffled eg with the sleeve of the mac
Bear in mind too that this was a female victim with a mass of hair around the impact zones
By common agreement most blows fell when Julia was already dead. Blood pressure zero.
In these circumstances any “opinion” as to blood on the killer is guesswork.
Yes, there are worrying aspects to Parry’s evasions and untruths but it remains a fact that he was checked out by the police less than a week after the murder and cleared of all suspicion by them. To discount this is to allege staggering incompetence or deep rooted corruption in the Liverpool police at the time and I do not believe either to be the case.
GED,
2 errors in fact you have committed as far as I can see:
1.Goodman does claim Johnston knocked down the door or somehow busted it open with zero evidence.
2. Wallace was described as not having an accent that stood out by several accounts including his own counsel.
A further equivocation:
The row Ada Pritchard overhead was between her own parents, not between her parents and the Parry family; you don’t outright say what you mean, but just adding this for clarification purposes. The Parrys felt the police were hot on Gordon’s tail (which they were) and he needed help; the Pritchards were unwilling to give it. This assuming all of this is true even. Anyways, that’s it; can’t see what can be gleaned from that.
A common theme is you, Rod, Antony etc. assert one thing, but the facts and sources say another. So which is truth. Do you lie to Josh?
Josh thinks you are wrong.
Glasses man, you explain to Joe how you calculate walking pace from distance travelled. Tiny hat man say you must sprint to get to tram on time, so which is truth? Do you lie to Joe?
GED, Antony, and Rod lied to Joe
Mike you say: Agreed there was no absolute need for Wallace to mention his Qualtrough trip to Julia except to prepare the ground early by expressing some doubt as to whether he would go, and to suggest a musical evening if he didn’t..
A guilty Wallace doesn’t have to prepare any ground to Julia about going out on business, in fact him staying in for a musical evening IS the way a guilty Wallace would easily get her into the parlour. Only a Wallace in collaboration with someone else tells Julia he is going to Calderstones to prepare the ground for her to let Qualtrough in when he says ‘Oh dear, I was meant to come here, can I come in and wait for him’. A guilty Wallace doesn’t have to do this and mention he’s going anywhere.
Mike says: Yes, there are worrying aspects to Parry’s evasions and untruths but it remains a fact that he was checked out by the police less than a week after the murder and cleared of all suspicion by them.
Let’s re-read that. And cleared of all suspicion by them. Really – The Monday night alibi – even the sketchy Brine alibi which was very sparse and only 2 of the said 4 people in attendance giving an alibi. And then Parkes, rightly or wrongly – Why doesn’t his statement exist and we only know about it at all due to luck. The luck that Radio City are putting together a broadcast, the luck that they must have put it out there they were looking for info, the luck that a middle man came forward, the luck that paying money was refused but the team did their own investigations and the Atkinsons garage still existed, the luck that it was still in the same ownership 50 years later, the luck that Parkes was just about still alive and coherent.
Calum/Josh. I don’t know who Joe is so can’t answer you. Ref the stakeout i’m supposed to have forgotten. You interpretation of a stake out and mine are just two different things, nobody mentions a stakeout of sorts, unless you mean keeping an eye open.
For what it’s worth I don’t agree with Rod’s repeated ‘He was found not guilty so he isn’t guilty’ stance. It may be the legal outcome but as you say based on a lack of evidence. For me though the lack of evidence isn’t because there was any better evidence to be put, in fact, I’d go as far to say that there was some jumped up evidence put before the jury – not to mention the deliberate 18 statement of mis-fact at the committal proceedings.
Regarding the row, yes I know it was between Ada’s parents – ask yourself why.
Agreed that Wallace didn’t HAVE TO prepare the ground with Julia at lunchtime on the 20th January. But he did mention it and Julia mentioned it to Amy later that afternoon during Amy’s unplanned visit.
I cannot see how this throw away remark prepares the ground for her to let a bogus Qualtrough into the house. As if she would be in the parlour alone waiting for the arrival of a man she didn’t expect.
I have no problem accepting that there are many aspects to Parry’s alibis and prevarications which are suspicious. But we armchair detectives are at a profound disadvantage compared with the police in 1931. We have only the written record of what took place: the trial transcript, the various statements etc. This represents a TINY FRACTION of what happened – there is no way that every interview, every house call, every phone call, and most importantly every impression gained could be committed to paper.
An example is the very brief Brine statement – just a few lines. The police must have been satisfied as to the reason Parry was there, Mrs Brine’s good reputation, what they discussed for three hours, the nature of the various relationships e.g with Ms Plant etc etc . None of this was recorded but they were satisfied that the alibi was sound.
I am tempted to say “How dare we, almost a century later, with only a faction of the facts available to us, question this conclusion which was made by experienced police dealing face to face with the people concerned.?” It borders on arrogance to suggest that they were bamboozled but we know better.
These officers had wives and often daughters at home. They were not going to turn a blind eye to let the fiend who murdered Julia Wallace escape justice.
I don’t know why Gordon invented his Monday movements, but I do know very well that the list of murder cases where suspects gave false alibis and yet were later proven innocent of involvement is extremely long. The most common reasons are to do with hiding affairs. I.e. in some cases, people like Gordon have said they were somewhere else because they don’t want to admit they are cheating on their girlfriend, or involved in some other untoward activity.
If Gordon did not even know the significance of the Monday, he would be even more likely to simply invent his movements for that evening if he was actually doing something he found embarassing or difficult to admit for reasons other than “he made the call”.
I would also add to the above. The prosecution witheld from the defence witnesses that they had taken statements from but were not calling (no wonder because it made the case for the defence better) and we have the manipulation of McFall’s 4-5 blows at the autopsy to 111 blows to make it look like a personal killing and the manipulation of Alan Close’s original time of ‘A quarter to 6’ verified by 5 other witnesses, one of whom checked his watch and another of whom said the church bells for half 6 service had stopped before she’d even let onto Close in Letchworth street. Also add the letters from a policeman and his wife about the corruption in this newly relatively newly formed force after the 1919 strike saw half of them sacked and the books which vilify the police at this time.
I won’t go into the conspiracy theories regarding Insp Duckworth (marriage relative of Marsden – Gannon) or Moore (His daughter was Parry’s dads PA) or Herbert Balmer (Mr. Corruption himself who joined the Liverpool CID in 1930) or that 2 police officers had sworn to spill the beans that it wasn’t Wallace but died beforehand etc…
Wallace’s relationship with his wife Julia has several characteristics which today suggest psychological spouse abuse. Sadly we know much more of this syndrome now than in 1931.
Wallace was keen to maintain the fiction that Julia had no living relatives, telling his landlady in Cumbria even after the appeal that she was of French origin (a lie) and that she had no living relatives in the UK (another lie.)
Isolation of the victim from relatives is a common feature of spouse abuse – nobody to ask questions.
Julia had no friends. During her weekly visits to church she would chat with others but no relationships developed and she would scurry home afterwards.
He considered himself her intellectual superior, a compensation for his “bottom of the pack” position at the Prudential.
The contrast between Julia’s life/circumstances and those of Amy her sister-in-law could not be greater. Amy was smart, outgoing, and lived in a comfortable apartment. Julia wore drab home-made clothes and was a virtual recluse. Her fur coat probably dated from her time in Harrogate.
Wallace certainly kept an eye on the pennies. The pound notes sewed into Julia’s undergarment may have been to hide them from her husband.
Wallace in contrast had treated himself to expensive photographic equipment and a microscope. He paid his chess club dues and in some accounts he played bowls.
When Julia was delayed on her return from Southport Wallace sarcastically recorded in his diary that when he got back from the police station “her majesty” had returned home.
Both of them were essentially Victorian figures and appearances had to be maintained: a loving relationship had to be shown to the outside world.
In reality Wallace was content to see his wife become a drab shadow of the confident woman he had married in Harrogate.
Julia would be less than human if she didn’t remind him of her reduced circumstances and who she held responsible for them.
I agree with the author of this site’s comprehensive analysis and conclusions. He used DEDUCTIVE reason as opposed to the more autistic and flawed backwards rationalizing ABDUCTIVE reasoning.
Also one of the highlights of my life was putting Rod in his place and owning him when I was 60 and he was 35.
Thank you Kentigern, it is so nice to hear from you. Presumably you could ask Julia yourself up in heaven who did the crime.
Hi Mike, We don’t know that Julia might not have got on with her siblings and was quite happy to keep up the pretence that they didn’t exist, after all none of them attended her wedding nor her funeral so perhaps there was no love lost hence Wallace going along with that at her request. We also don’t know for sure that Wallace knew Julia’s past or parentage occupations or origins do we?
You bring up that she had no friends and yet that she was also out in Southport so where was she? They were also known as Darby and Joan in the locality according to one of the delivery lads who had also had to return her keys on occasions.
They attended walks in the park, he wrote of her both before and after he death in loving ways and there was no other romance during or after his partnership with her so it’s all purely conjecture.
Pray tell Kentigern Smith. I thought at first you must be a plant/acquaintance of Josh/Calum with using the term autistic against Rod. Hope to hear from you again.
Kentigern and Rod were involved in a legal case in 1999 whereby Kentigern and others had to pay out of court compensation to Rod plus court fees. This put considerable financial pressure on Kentigern and his family, eventually leading to Kentigern and his son being involved in bankruptcy proceedings some years later.
I think it is clear that ‘Kentigern Smith’ is related to RM Qualtrough and clarifies his and Josh’s poor opinion of Rod.
What this has to the Wallace case is unfathomable.
Why go off script on personal vendettas?
Sorry to rock the boat gentlemen but this is so unchallenging, and somewhat predictable of your state of minds to outdo each other regarding this case after you have being arguing your theories for so long.
Happy arguing
Tilly
PS Looking forward to the expected vitriol from you after this post. But it needed to be said. Please grow up!
Are you sure? I think it might genuinely be the ghost of Kentigern, back from the grave to exact a second beatdown on Rod.
Kentigern in life was such a high-testosterone alpha male badass that he, as a 60+ year old pensioner, beat the living crap out of Rod who was in his 30s, and made him go crying to “the man” (the government/legal system) to protect himself from the wrath of Kentigern.
The thing to learn here is that even an old man like Wallace is capable of carrying out a vicious attack of this nature when the motivation is right.
Tilly,
Listen babe,
This site isn’t yours, if you don’t like the tone here you can join the Facebook group and discuss autism theories with 60 year old men that live with their mom (literally). Your whacked out theory would probably fit in better there (although they were viciously dissing it from what I saw) We like to discuss actual possible things here on this site based on evidence.
PS. Kentigern is a hero. A hero! Alpha Chad Kentigern 60 plus destroying virgin Rod in his 30s for trying to prevent a basic alcohol sale. Doesn’t get much more heroic than that.
Yes – it was reported in the newspapers that the court case related to an assault at a club between Rod and ‘a member of the club’. You purport this to be definitely Kentigern?
Rod was suspended from the club and sought recompense by taking the club to court.
The analogy to WHW is somewhat tentative – comparing Kentigern and Rod brawling in a club bar to Wallace battering vulnerable Julia to pulp is a bit of a difference don’t you think?
Tilly
Really RMQ, you don’t want to bring your great site down to this level do you. It only make you look unstable not Rod who it would seem from what I read did nothing wrong.
Back to the case and it seems i’ve stumped you.
1) We know Close was coerced to saying nearer 6.30pm, 5 other kids say so, he clearly said ‘Quarter to 7’ plus the Belmont institute bells don’t lie and neither does Holy Trinity clock or the watch of Wildman.
2) McFall suddenly changes his autopsy 4 or 5 blows to 11 to suit Moore’s assumption this was a personal attack, tighten the noose around Wallace’s neck.
3) Allow timings for tram testing where you can jump on moving trams or get on at requests stops elsewhere (Castlewood road)
4) Call the phone call an alibi and yet Wallace had from 6.05 to 6.49 to commit this murder so the phone call was not an alibi at all, it just introduced another suspect.
5) Wallace could have murdered Julia on the Monday without all this risk of calling from his local phone box, getting on a tram stop he said he didn’t, risking his voice being recognised by Beattie etc etc
6) We know Brine and Denison gave an alibi for their fried (where are Phyllis Plant and Savona Brines statements btw?) but why was Lily made to give Parry an alibi from 9pm when she later states ‘This was only partly true as he came much later but I cannot remember how much later’. She also states ‘If it is true that i’m the only person still alive who know the truth about the Wallace case then the truth will never be told’
Strange thing to say – she’s admitting she hasn’t told the truth then.
I could go on, Parkes, Atkinsons, Ada Pritchard, Anne Parsons, Parry not for £2000, Parry false Mon night alibi (oh it was just a mistake) yeah yeah….
Nothing can bring this site down. Part of what makes it so good is freedom of speech unlike the Facebook group where that weird fat guy who looks like he’s a little too proud of his beard and may use expensive beard balms bans and deletes everything. This site is the number one resource on the case by far and has totally made a mockery of anything previous; including yours and Mark R’s site, anything Antony Brown wrote or “case expert” Rod’s non-existent site.
Freedom to slag off the Blundlesands “businessman” (what business exactly I have no idea, since it seems he’s a lifelong NEET who still lives with his mom at 60+) is critical indeed.
Rod has engaged in “bantz” also, the only difference is that mine is actually amusing lol.
I’m not “stumped” dude by the way lol, it’s like “do you know the reason OJ knifed his wife to death instead of merely strangling her? No? You are stumped!” Or “do you know which model of knife OJ used?”
It’s just that these are like, little satellite musings not core to the case in any way. Almost solely revolving around half-century past the date of the event “recollections” and rumours dialled in by people who weren’t even there.
As an example, perhaps you need to discuss Josephine Lloyd also since if Lily told “untruths” her mother also told untruths to help the guy (who presumably revealed he was a violent murderer) avoid prison and keep dating her daughter. There are many possible explanations for this but it isn’t important to the case. One possibility out of a myriad, maybe the tabloid people kept pestering her suggesting she knows more than she’s letting on and she was like “oh, well, right whatever, if I know secrets I guess they’ll just die with me then”. Or she’s basking in her 15 minutes of fame like Parkes pretending his garage was the center of the mystery with cops staking it out and mysterious mafiosa tier visits from Gordon and “A.N. Other”. Lily also supposedly said she is sure he didn’t do this so what “secret” could be there in any case is likely irrelevant also.
The points you’re raising just aren’t relevant or just aren’t important details in the case, and often revolve around tabloid insinuations and rumours. Ironically the entire radio show was genuine actual “prejudice and fancy”, where some tabloid loser like Goodman invited callers to ring up and slag off dead Gordon who couldn’t ring in to defend himself from every Tom, Dick and Harry in Merseyside calling in to say they saw him running from the scene in fishing waders or whatever these worthless people were saying. Fish and chip shop flirtations, wtf is this in a serious investigation for? It is no different than Tom Slemen, professional ghost hunter extraordinaire, inviting everyone in England to ring in and dish the dirt on Mr. Johnston. It’s dumb and Goodman is a disgraced author like the rest.
This is ALL superfluous and meaningless. All 6 points. Should I take aim at another? For example 1: irrelevant because the time is agreed upon, it’s like 6.35 to 6.40-ish. It is irrelevant what Alan initially said or what cops allegedly forced him to say, because we have many of the neighbourhood kids giving input and the time of the delivery is agreed upon. It is irrelevant and superfluous.
3. is also irrelevant in every conceivable way. The time taken to walk to that stop (walk) can be determined absolutely via the physical distance and calculating the pace. No running is required. You have been told 100 times the defence beat this time. There was no “running”. The point is a lie/defeated. Every single point raised is like this.
Ged,
Wallace’s claim that Julia was a fluent French speaker is a strange thing to invent unless it is true. There isn’t much call for this skill in Harrogate so I am wondering whether Julia spent considerable time in France before meeting Wallace. This might account for the “missing years” in her life story as we know it.
I agree its quite possible that Wallace went along with Julia’s wish to exclude her relatives by denying they existed but why continue this falsehood once Julia was gone by lying to his landlady in Cumbria? Its not crucial to the case but its strange none the less.
Hi Kentigern and his fan club!
This site is a useful source and it is a pity that it descends into anarchy every now and again. Does it have to do with a waxing moon that all the weirdness comes out?
As for free speech – I am entitled to say what I like here as you do. I get the feeling that you are misogynistic and prefer this to be what you would term ‘alpha male’ territory so you can shamelessly slag each other off to no avail.
Please note I am not anyone’s ‘babe’ just a free thinking woman, with an interest in this fascinating case like the rest of you. I heard somewhere that researching Julia’s murder is like entering a rabbit hole – once you are in, you cannot escape.
The gaps in evidence open up all sorts of theories, unanswered questions and likelihoods that nobody will ever be able to prove or explain nearly 100 years after the fact.
Why my rants should be considered any different to other opinions in this respect I cannot fathom.
But if you really wish me to leave this forum I will do so, safe in the knowledge that I have my dignity intact and have not lowered myself to your depths and bullyboy tactics.
By the way have you considered psychiatric help for your outbursts? You certainly do have some kind of multiple personality disorder!
Adieu
Miss T Mint
Lol it’s hilarious though… By the way, beta male Rod dishes out insults, so what you’re really upset about is how humiliatingly outmatched he is in this regard. Like if a puny little cuck tried to hit prime Mike Tyson and Tyson just turned around and hit him back full force lol.
IMO it’s fair game and very amusing. People generally find internet drama to be hilarious… The fact is, he was physically outmatched by Kentigern after snitching like a ho, and he’s verbally outmatched by Kentigern’s fan club here after “showing cheek”. It’s not anybody’s fault that he’s so severely outclassed lol.
Like Tilly I joined this site to debate the Wallace case and the various theories as to whodunnit.
I find this backbiting and bitchiness a distraction and more suited to the locker room at a girls’ school.
“People in general find internet drama (so that’s what it is!) amusing.” The participants find it amusing – nobody else does.
No one is forcing anyone here. Much of the drama stems from the Facebook group “The Murder of Julia Wallace” and constant references to it. There was literally zero drama until a certain person entered the fray dating back to the days when this topic was on casebook.
Avoiding discussing the personal drama is a choice; one some might decide to not want to do. If you want, join the Facebook group and see how pleasant it is there 🙂
Again, no one is being held at gunpoint to come and visit this site. Personally, I agree with Calum and find it funny when unreasonable or schizoid punks get “owned”
Antony and some short fat guy won’t let me back on their site
Their fear is so strong they are fighting with all their might
Antony will say anything to make a buck and fudges his polls
Rod lives at home at 60 with his mom and like Antony has fat rolls
Wow Josh this was a truly inspired piece of literature. Thank you so much for sharing it with us. Your talents are appreciated by all.
‘Sock Puppet says’ This site is the number one resource on the case by far and has totally made a mockery of anything previous; including yours and Mark R’s site, anything Antony Brown wrote or “case expert” Rod’s non-existent site.
I agree, this site is the number one resource, it also makes a mockery of your own findings on forum such as this:
”In The Telephone Murder (I believe it is) it is stated that he regularly took the route down Pendennis (like when he went on the wild goose chase to Menlove). That was the author’s strongest point actually, that he took an odd route. It’s also something I find somewhat strong.
That is an important factor. He said he went that way to mail a letter – I tend to err on the side of this being an excuse, and err on the side of it being really weird he went that route… The mailing of a letter excuse does help to explain away any witnesses who may have seen him walking the wrong way up Richmond Park. But the tram route is so easily verifiable, and of course it is dangerous to lie moreso than it is to just tell the truth ESPECIALLY if he doesn’t even know the call was traced. So what happened there? The police were very biased, did they bury evidence? Even if they did, why didn’t William’s defence team check it? We may never know, so sadly we have to let it go… But in my honest opinion, I THINK he probably took the route he claimed, just to be safer than telling an outright lie, which makes it impossible he placed the phone call.”
As for my site, nothing can be made a mockery of that site as I don’t have my own agenda on it. I put the story out and leave others to read it and decide.
As for the facebook site. If the participants and information on it is so bad then why are you begging for Josh to come back?
As for the banter/mockery and the fact Josh and Calum and whichever one of them is Kentigern are all talking to each other and patting each others backs on here I find that all highly amusing and I do LOL but that’s probably because i’ve never grown up and proud of it ha ha.
So let’s get this straight then once and for all. When it comes to anything that might point in Parry’s direction, even his own false alibi and questionable Tues night alibi that goes from sparse to ridiculously overtold, it’s all dubious journalists or Parry having a little play with peoples minds ha ha. Yes yous are so hilarious.
PS. I do hope Mike and Tilly Mint are not scared off, even if I don’t agree with their conclusions.
Anything that starts with “according to (book name)” or, “(author name) says that” you just know the following is worthless. The authors involved in this case, aside from Wilkes, are really the most bottom of the barrel writers since the two Betsy Aardsma books. Different case but wow you should see how bad those books are, it makes the Wallace authors seem like Pulitzer prize candidates.
The majority of Wallace books are genuinely worse than the average The Sun article. That isn’t just a funny joke, that’s genuinely the professionalism we’re getting here. One Wallace book calls Gordon “Reginald” throughout. And this got published. The case is a joke for the most talentless authors to write the equivalent of 1950s clickbait.
Parry has been explained in great depth, especially the false alibi. I know nobody actually reads the solution page I made over a year ago, but I think I have discussed the angles.
Well lets diss one thought you’ve put as fact. Nobody encouraged anybody to ring into the 1981 show to disparage Parry, they just happened to do so, why is that I wonder. Even Leslie Williamson who claimed Parry conned his mother and Lily Lloyd’s mother. A man in the know. I have read your final solution but it doesn’t mean it’s solved, to say that just puts you in the same mould as JGannon , Wilkes, Rod etc with their ‘final solutions’.
Nobody needs convincing that Gordon Parry was a bad ‘un. The evidence speaks for itself: the car thefts, the many swindles of Pru customers, his pocketing of insurance premiums, and the alleged sexual assault charge which I happen to believe. He is in many ways the ideal alternative to Wallace for involvement in the crime.
This has led to the debate being reduced to a contest between Wallace and Parry as suspects. The Brine alibi has to be a fabrication for Parry to be suspected as the killer. Police corruption and/or incompetence have to be invoked which I don’t believe.
The case against Parry as the planner with his cronies at No 29 is the fall back position and I don’t say its impossible, just that there is nothing but speculation, often incredibly detailed with names, meet-up points and itineraries offered as “support.”
We also have a veritable constellation of what RMQ described as “satellites.” A series of stories which reflect badly on Parry: the attempt to get him on a ship, the Parkes episode, the men running in Hanwell street, his refusal to ever mention the Brine alibi by name, his claim to know more which even for £2,000 he would not reveal etc. etc. These should not be dismissed out of hand but they do not provide a coherent narrative supporting his guilt.
My money is still on Wallace but I agree it is far from being “case closed.”
Lurking in the background is a Mr X who made the Qualtrough call and duped Mrs Wallace into admitting him to the house. When his pal, who had “gone to the toilet,” was heard dropping the cash box Mr X struck before the alarm could be raised. Not a shred of evidence to support this of course but neither can it be ruled out.
The 7.30 chess club start time listed on the noticeboard at the cafè is significantly damaging to the idea. I believe historical weather data should show that it was heavy sleet at the time that the stakeout was allegedly taking place.
It is probably about as likely as the neighbors simply placing the red herring call, then going in and assassinating Julia and stealing the money.
Good posts both. The Parry and accomplice is not my fall back position but my No.1 position. Whoever made the call is involved I think we can all agree. The case against Wallace is he might have had time to make the call. The case against Parry is that he couldn’t prove he didn’t and the timings can fit neatly with what he was known to do that evening and of course the false alibi.
Maybe the question is why make the call at all. It is not an alibi for Wallace as he’s home from 6.05 until 6.45 – He could kill 4 people based on the time he is supposed to have from 7.37 to 7.49 maximum to kill Julia because he hasn’t a clue what time Close will call. For Wallace the call would only introduce another suspect who got him out of the house but his chess fixtures list can act as this too, he only had to make it plain in the week prior that he’d be there to all and sundry. For Parry the freeing up of Tuesday as opposed to Monday to get the largest possible bounty can be the only reason otherwise he could organise the robbery for the Monday night. Neither seem totally satisfactory to be honest yet someone called. Oh pheerlease don’t say Mr Johnston. 🙂
Hey Ged, the Papa Smurf looking little bearded gnome-cel ejected me from the group so I won’t be able to post facts or memes in the hugbox anymore.
Mr. Johnston is a much better suspect than Gordon. Mr. Johnston doesn’t need to stand out in the 0 to 5 celsius weather past the point where the guy has missed his chess game (7.30 start time, based on the leaflet). Mr Johnston would match the old man voice reported by Gladys. The Johnstons fingerprints are at the scene (not reported, but he and his wife did enter the house and touch things, Flo helped stoke the kitchen fire). They have a few steps to go to “escape”, and it helps explain the lack of noise reported through the thin party wall.
I assume you will unban me from the group when I have new findings. Josh is commissioning a video to be made.
A video will be made yes. I’m paying for it out of my own pocket. There will be a comprehensive explanation of this basic domestic homicide, how it was perverted by sensationalist journalists and greedy corpulent authors. As well as David Icke holocaust deniers who insist they are the only ones that have come up with the right solution when it’s really just a rip off of another theory. I am not politically correct and really don’t care what someone’s opinions are; I’m pro freedom of speech/center-right but let’s not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a lunatic with Rod Stringer.
I also happen to know that Antony has frauded the poll on his website to a confidence interval of 1 in 650,000 based on unchanging results after around one thousand more votes. All mathematical calculations came up with a similar result if not lower odds of this occurring. (Keep in mind a rounding difference 24.4 vs 24.5 would change the result but we see 4 of the 5 theories have the same exact percentage after many more votes). Of course his “pet theory” is at the top.
Personally, based on other factors which he would dispute, I know the real odds of fraud are 100 percent. But let’s just stick to the math and science because that is the only language these rigid aspies knows. You can’t rely on these guys for basic intuition or common sense lol.
Even Antony’s explanation left the odds very low that the results were genuine; much lower than his own standard for “reasonable doubt.” And even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, the fact that the votes are not updated in real time and instead a thousand votes (after there were around 300 for years) were added manually by Antony himself (supposedly by mail-in ballots) obviously raises a serious possibility of massive voter fraud. That is not the way to tabulate votes. Imagine if they did this in elections lol.
I will be paying over a thousand dollars out of my own pocket, the case will be vivisected, Antony will be insulted, Rod will be insulted beyond belief, and various other people will be “put in their place” including the short guy with the bad beard and criminally dishonest authors (not just Antony). By the way, I have the email where he admits he changed his theory because the publishers wanted a more sensationalist one. His original book picked Gannon’s retarded theory and is now out of print suspiciously.
The person who creates these takedown true crime videos and exposes charlatans is very talented and busy so this may take a month or two but it’s in the works.
Coming to a theater near you…
The 5’4 bearded guy is Steve Heidstrom? Is he the one too embarassed to even use a photo of himself on his Facebook account?
It is true that Antony rigs his polls yes. I have the commentary confirming that he claims to be manually updating the polls on his site (manually inputting 1000 email-in votes? And really many more than that due to there being numerous cases on his site). This is quite a serious fraud considering the only point of his books is the jury poll angle, but he refuses to pay even £16.50 per month to have working polls. Which does go to show he is just out to squeeze wallets.
The only thing he collects from the polls is personal data, under the guise of wanting to know the demographics of the voters for personal curiosity. Most likely the demographics are actually used to help the marketing campaign of his books.
Johnston on his way home from work and at the tram stop exchanges a few words with Wallace who says he is on his way to the chess club. Johnston makes the Qualtrough call. If Wallace is heard leaving the house on the 20th it is almost certain he has taken the bait. Johnston lures Julia out of the house telling her that Puss is in a nearby alley or has been taken in by a neighbour at No 13. In her absence he enters No 29 using his key, is disappointed to find only £4 in the cash box but puts it back in order to delay discovery of the theft. Julia returns earlier than expected and in panic Johnston hides in the parlour not knowing that that its exactly where Julia is headed. She has the gas fire on because she planned to re-arrange her music scores in comfort during Wallace’s absence. She is shocked to discover Johnston in there and….
Johnston returns home and quickly prepares to go on an unplanned visit to his daughter who he will see the following day anyway.
This particular night is the last chance Johnston will have as next door neighbour to pull off the robbery.
Yes, Mr J is my No2 suspect too.
Mike said: Police corruption and/or incompetence have to be invoked which I don’t believe.
Apart from the Police suffering a recruitment process of half its force in just the preceding decade and promotions from within which were deemed unsatisfactory I can list the following just off the top of my head:
Not securing the crime-scene…Over 12 in there incl suspects.
Altering the crime scene…For the photo – the body position etc
Allowing cross-contamination…Possible reason for the pan and note blood
Not taking notes…McFall and Williams
Being drunk…Can’t remember which one, was it Gold
Not cross-checking alibis…Parry and Marsden jump out
Not looking for (or suppressing) exculpatory evidence…
Presenting a case at the Committal that had 18 prejudicial, factual errors…
Persuading witnesses to change their evidence…Close
Refusing to respond to defence requests for the names of witnesses
Thinking the caller had to be the killer
Conflicting interests -Imelda Moore is John Parry’s secretary
Relying on Rigor Mortis
No check on the call box coins for prints
No check on any suspects saying the word Cafe as Caffay.
I have to admit Ged that this is a formidable list which screams incompetence. It is remotely possible that some of these things were actually done/investigated but not committed to paper. But if anything relevant had been discovered it would have been mentioned at the trial.
Mr Q’s pronunciation of Cafe as Caffay is likely to be the way he always said it even if he was using a disguised voice so it was a golden opportunity missed.
That said, and even though the police were convinced about Wallace, they investigated Parry extensively even after Brine and Denison had given him an alibi in their short statements. Which suggests to me that they were not easily fobbed off and continued until they were satisfied he was in the clear.
Morning Mike
If Parry was really investigated extensively we would see corroborating evidence from Lily and Josephine Lloyd (not a contradiction) and statements from Phyllis Plant, Savona Brine, The Hignett’s staff and the post office staff.
Let’s reverse what you say about ‘if anything relevant has been discovered it would have been mentioned at the trial’. That means of course that anything discovered that pointed Wallace in a good light would have been suppressed. We know the delivery kids statements for instance, possibly the Mon night tram tests, how many more we don’t know of as the Police wouldn’t play ball. It might be where new C.I.D. rookie Bert Balmer learnt his fitting up as he would do twice later on.
I was watching yet another real life crime documentary on sky crime last night. The murder of Sabrina Nesse in London by Albanian Koci Selamaj. The silver bullet of evidence that got him was the tiniest speck of blood on his trainer. Just like a tiny speck of blood on Wallace would have had him hanged with no appeal on earth getting him off with it.
RMQ/Josh. I look forward to seeing your video. Why not do a youtube video that points interested parties to this site of yours. I didn’t get to see the post that got RMQ/Calum banned from the FB group but contrary to popular belief I have no jurisdiction over its members. It is Steve’s group but I do go along with there being no need to get personal. Let’s just stick to facts, opinions and scenarios and discuss.
I used a tame slur against the holocaust-denier neo-Nazi dude, referring to him as a “self important incel”. It’s a joke and Steve should be ashamed, protecting a literal Hitler supporter virgin, when said virgin could easily just block me (is he too low IQ to find the block button?) without deleting me from groups.
Either that or Antony initiated a covert op once I exposed his poll rigging. I wonder if people would still buy his books if they knew the voting gimmick is a fraud? Probably not. Antony himself being in league with the neo Nazi aspie who tells the families of Holocaust victims to “look for” their slaughtered relatives because they are probably still alive. Lmao… He is a freak, an incel, a virgin, and an autist (none of these are insults, they are facts you can confirm with him) and he will soon be taken out.
You can definitely feel the generational gap here. I’m a millenial, we were raised “on these streets” with internet culture etc. Olds like Steve can’t handle the internet really. If he just unbans me to post the new video when it’s done that would be fine.
Btw it isn’t remotely realistic to compare criminimal forensic investigation in 2021 to 1931. It’s literally so insane of a comparison to draw you must realize that lol. In 1931 most forensic work was carried out with the naked eye, e.g. benzidine colour change determined by eye not by spectrophotometers.
Trial Questions 3402-3403 In reply to what Julia would usually do when W was at the chess club.
‘Sometimes she sat in the kitchen sewing or occupied in various domestic duties. Very rarely would she go out to friends. Sometimes she would go in the front room and light up and play a tune or two for possibly half an hour.’
Could this provide an answer as to why she was in the parlour?
Also RMQ: Any stalker worth his salt would be on the look out from about 7am just in case Wallace left earlier to perhaps call to a shop for cigarettes before the chess club once in town or in Breck Road before his tram journey. Why leave it until the last minute and miss him altogether. I’ve even done it myself when playing a prank on my brother. If Parry is at in his car with his friend in the Cabbage Hall car park, it doesn’t even matter if it were cold or raining.
Doesn’t make sense and also didn’t happen. You probably meant 7pm which doesn’t make sense because “from 7pm” is like the latest time you can stalk the place assuming a 7.30 start time.
None of this happened, and surprisingly 1931 cars were not very well insulated with aircon and heating built in etc.
Well spotted Ged. Either the musical evening with Wallace which didn’t happen or with Wallace absent she was in there attending to her music. “Light up” presumably refers to the gas fire.
“He was always so polite. I used to see him with his wife in the neighbourhood. A devoted middle-aged couple with her arm linked in his. He would always tip his hat to the ladies.”
Statement by a neighbour of John and Ether Christie shortly after Ethel’s body had been found under the floorboards of Christie’s living room. So much for appearances!
So we all agree the ‘stakeout’ which is basically just Parry and maybe a friend sitting in a car smoking, talking and watching could have happened and we all agree Julia did go in the parlour on occasions to play the old Joanna without William and yes, appearances mean nothing – look at killer Dr Shipman and killer nurse Lucy Letby.
Sitting in the car smoking in a poorly insulated tin box without heating, in 0 to 5 C weather, for like an hour, and sat there like 15 minutes beyond the time you think he has to leave to be at the club on time. This didn’t happen.
More could be said but obviously it didn’t happen on the face of it. It would be an insult to your intellect to go on beyond this.
Why are you stating misinformation about the weather conditions?
It was 7 to 8 degrees on 19/1 as can be checked on weatherspark.com.
This scenario was mooted in court and is very realistic. More so than your Amy+Parry+Johnstons mad theories.
Parry saw the chess chart and doesn’t know there have been times Wallace hasn’t attended, he is the common denominator in knowing everything about the crime scene and even getting into it with no problem. He has the motive and means. He lies to the police. It’s not rocket science.
You are making untrue or unproven statements and passing them off as fact. Very Stringer/Brown of you.
Weatherspark is notoriously unreliable for historical climatological data and indeed offers broad ranges of “estimated” temperatures for time periods thruout days in the distant past. One could conclude the data is tantamount to being made up or a very broad guessing game.
The met office data shows a morning low of between 39.9 and 40.1 degrees for January 19, 1931, but an absolute low of 38 degrees for the 24 hour period. The high temperature was 46.8, but the sun sets before 4:30. The warmest part of day therefore is almost certainly going to be around 1 or 2 pm. The diurnal ranges(difference between hi and low) are also small at this time of year so if the low was 38 for the night of the 19th and we are in pitch black rainy Liverpool, we are probably already close to that by later evening. We can reasonably conclude that the temperature around 7 pm to 715 pm on the night of the 19th was at or slightly below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. I could not find data for anywhere exactly in Liverpool (another reason to think the broad range weatherspark data is rubbish), but I used Southport which is just a bit up north and has the exact same January average as Liverpool (Hi 43 Lo 35 Fahrenheit).
Certainly not “7 or 8 degrees” Celsius but more like barely 5 if that. Anyways, we may be splitting hairs; the point is it is not comfortable weather. Goodman describes a drizzle that was persistent and made one suddenly realized they were drenched by the way for the entire night.
You state your last paragraph as fact; there isn’t even evidence Parry was at the club since mid November and also while the chart is admittedly nearly indecipherable , as it turns out Wallace had frequently not attended so if Parry had tried this ruse before it probably would not have worked. The one time he tries it; it works (according to your theory) and in uncomfortable conditions waiting significantly past a reasonable time it could be concluded Wallace would not be emerging and headed to the club. Another interpretation is Wallace just did it himself.
The vast majority of domestic homicides are perpetrated by the husband, even more so if the method of murder is blunt force head trauma. Julia wasn’t even killed in the same room as the cash box. You are right, it’s not rocket science!
A Mr J Parry was a member of the chess club in 1931. He took part in the championship competition but was eliminated early. Just thought I’d throw this into the mix for what its worth, probably nothing…
Mike, that is interesting for sure but I am pretty sure it is an unrelated Parry. It seems that it was not an uncommon last name in Liverpool at the time. A big deal was made of George Parry etc., so if this Parry was related I think we would know.
A Mr J E Parry (same guy?) was listed among the Vice Presidents of the Central Chess Club.
Source: Checkmate by M Russell.
No Josh, this is very Stringer/Brown
”Sitting in the car smoking in a poorly insulated tin box without heating, in 0 to 5 C weather, for like an hour, and sat there like 15 minutes beyond the time you think he has to leave to be at the club on time. This didn’t happen.”
Who says it didn’t happen – RMQ 🙂
Another, just for good measure….
”Doesn’t make sense and also didn’t happen. You probably meant 7pm which doesn’t make sense because “from 7pm” is like the latest time you can stalk the place assuming a 7.30 start time.”
And….
”None of this happened, and surprisingly 1931 cars were not very well insulated with aircon and heating built in etc.”
Here is the Weatherspark link and it’s Liverpool airport not Southport.
https://weatherspark.com/h/d/147787/1931/19/Historical-Weather-on-Monday-January-19-1931-at-Liverpool-Airport-United-Kingdom
In any case, sitting off in a car for half an hour nattering to your mate whilst keeping watch is hardly a chore, something some people might even do anyway but especially when a nice little bounty is in the planning.
Also, because there is no proof Parry being in the club after rehearsals for his play finished does not mean he never went in there again you know. In fact his mate Jimmy Tattersall even talks of meeting him in a basement cafe in North John street during and after this period. He also tried nicking cars in North John st, He worked in town and was local to here quite apparently.
I have contacted the Met Office. All over a few celsius where it is still blatantly winter weather. They have emailed back and confirmed the request has been sent to the relevant department and I should get real weather data soon (AI gave me the original figures). I will publish that.
The rest seems a bit low IQ and requires some thinking cap time. Let’s see for example:
“from 7pm” is like the latest time you can stalk the place assuming a 7.30 start time.”
He left his house at something like 7.10, 7.15 and turned up at the club at 7.45 to 7.50. The club match starts at 7.45, but the noticeboard tells people like Parry it’s 7.30. This is a difference of 15 minutes… So if he left his house around 7.15, what do you get when you minus 15 minutes from this?
“surprisingly 1931 cars were not very well insulated with aircon and heating built in etc”
This is also accurate information. Though I am no longer able to provide all public info as a little gnome cuckold bearded beta male “Snow White and the 7 dwarves” Heigh-Ho Heigh-Ho it’s off to work we go 5’6 “Honey, I shrunk the Steven” Stuart Little virgin motherfucker banned me from viewing the group. Banning from posting would be whatever, but sometimes there was actual info like timetables etc I could put here for the rest of the world outside of the Holocaust denial group you’re in, but I can’t view these now.
Here is the weather, WeatherSpark have the right measurement (although not at an airport? It’s at the Bidston observatory):
https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/case-files/weather-conditions/
It was overcast with light rain at 6 PM (Beaufort lettering “o/ro”), which would be unpleasant to stand outside in (cars were not very common at the time, nobody seemed to spot any cars loitering), aside from just the cold winter temperature. Inacityliving has reported “sleet” for some reason:
https://inacityliving.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-wallace-murder-case.html
It looks like I was wrong about the temperature, so I apologize. Rain often warms the air in the winter when the temperature is barely above freezing.
However I still maintain this is uncomfortable conditions and as Calum has pointed out your own site Ged, claims “sleet”
Buddy GED, I don’t know if you are senile or what but we dealt with this already ad nauseam. I provided you with the most accurate possible info available and my logically based reasoning. This is not an easy task with ancient climatological data that dates back to you Rod and Antony’s childhood.
Your link actually doesn’t work by the way but I can see you attempted to link to the weatherspark site which I pointed out gives broad ranges of temperatures for a given time and seems frauded and you didn’t attempt to refute.
As an example, the site you attempted to link to was using Liverpool airport which opened in July 1933.
It would be interesting to check the weather around 6-7 pm on the 20th January 1931. Wallace claimed he left his mac which he had worn that day on the hall stand and wore his “fawn coat” to MGE because the weather had improved.
Please see my prior link, I included the weather, it was blue skies and 5.8C.
https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/case-files/weather-conditions/
Hi RMQ/Josh. So what if Parry read that the chess matches started at 7.30pm so he’d just stake out from 6.45 then and eventually they would see Wallace at 7.20 ish – no biggie. If he’s been there practising his play for weeks he probably knows when people start turning up to play and that the 7.30 and even the 7.45 was never enforced. Tentative enquiries might even have confirmed this to him on the pretence he was thinking of joining – nobody would know him.
Mike. We know he changed from his mac worn during his morning collections to his fawn overcoat for the afternoon due to an improvement in the weather so perhaps this improvement stabilised or continued.
The greatest reveal just lately I found was that Julia would indeed play the piano alone to pass the time whilst William was out. Whether she did on that night with her cold is just another variation but in my recent scenario, she is in the parlour because she is expecting Parry and there is nothing I can find about his visits behind Wallace’s back to being just in the afternoons. Of course, he has his alibi (maybe) and it wasn’t Parry who showed up…………
It’s 11C outside today and even now at this temp it is unpleasant, I have the fire on. This isn’t a realistic proposition. They don’t even really know he is home to begin with, he could be visiting Amy or something, for example, and going to chess from there. He could even have decided to go out the other way and take another route or visit a shop in the other direction before, be out late at a client’s place conducting business (allegedly he is going out for 7.30 PM at night to do just that on the following evening).
It isn’t very realistic as a proposition.
Parry’s club never met on Mondays by the way. He only saw the club on a totally different day, and would hardly be paying much attention to the times people start filing in months before any of this went down. And if he did, the notice would make it seem that the time must have changed.
Ged,
Quite apart from his apparently solid alibi, how did Parry expect to get away with a distraction theft? Assuming he was successful in pocketing the cash undetected, and having replaced the cash box back on the shelf to delay discovery he would then make his excuses and leave.
The only witness to his visit is Julia who having welcomed Parry during his clandestine visits might not wish to mention this evening call to Wallace when the theft was discovered. So Parry would have to rely on Julia’s collusion to cover up his involvement.
If on the other hand the afternoon visits never happened Julia would certainly mention Parry’s visit and when the theft was discovered the game would be up for him.
If it wasn’t Parry who showed up but his pal(s), perhaps claiming to be Mr Q and the theft takes place as described and undetected Julia would certainly mention this visit of Mr Q who “had to dash off to another appointment.” Parry would make sure that the fake Mr Q didn’t know Julia so she wouldn’t be able to name him, just give a description. Even if she heard noises in the kitchen/diner during the theft they could just scarper without the need for any violence.
Julia Wallace knew her killer. Very well indeed.
It was a cafe, open to anyone, any day, Parry was not limited to just Thursdays, he met his mate Jimmy Tattersall in cafes in North John st. Michael, if you read my possible solution it doesn’t involve Parry doing the robbery., just making the call to clear the way for his mate. I also offer a solution as to how the thief got in without being Mr Q at the front door.
Hi Ged,
If we accept for the moment that Parry’s pal or pals were responsible and entry to the house was done as you suggest, we are still confronted with the murder following discovery by Julia of “something wrong” or a ”strange noise” in the kitchen diner. Otherwise we have to assume that the murder was pre-planned by Parry’s pal(s) which can be discounted.
The confrontation between Julia and the thief is most likely to be in the kitchen/diner which doesn’t fit with the murder happening in the parlour. But putting this aside, the perp, not being known to Julia, would only have to get out of the house before she raises the alarm.. No violence. No murder. A shaken Julia would be able to offer only a description of the thief.
The only way I can square this circle is to assume Parry’s mate to be a psychopath who would react to a challenging situation with violence, without thinking of the consequences if caught. This isn’t far-fetched. These people exist. I suppose you too Ged watch the excellent series on BBC TV “Parole” where convicts who have murdered someone in a “red mist” moment of madness (one of many in some cases!) apply for release on parole after their latest prison sentence.
One of the names suggested has been Parry’s mate Denison who is said to have had convictions later on but we don’t know if these were for violence.
Hi Michael. I take it you’ve not read back to my scenario, I actually think you might have commented on it at the time but I have Julia waiting in the parlour for Parry but being confronting by one of the two burglars and the murder not being premediated but as a consequence of ‘oh fk’ and if it was Marsden – recognition’ (Denison or another at the cash box)
For me:
Wallace never uses Close as an alibi and never even mentions him.
Wallace never uses the Q visit as an alibi as he has from 6.05 until 6.50 so it’s not.
Wallace doesn’t have time from 6.37 and in my book (and McFall’s/The Police) would have blood on him.
Wallace had no need to tell Julia of the Q visit and in fact a night in would be discussed.
A guilty Wallace would sew easy facts up in his planning (Just as the McCann’s would have if they were involved)
Parry if innocent would be bringing his own book out but he had something to hide which he never wanted uncovering whilst certain people were still alive.
Mike.
”Ged,
Quite apart from his apparently solid alibi, how did Parry expect to get away with a distraction theft? ”
Just how solid is that alibi anyway.
Never told to his dad
Never told to Lily Lloyd
Never told to JG
Never told to RWE
4 witnesses supposedly present but only short near identical statements from 2.
It could well be he was there for part of that time but………………
If Marsden was there and she recognised him, and if the theft was undetected at the time, so there was no murder, how did Marsden hope to get away with it? I suppose if Julia was expecting Parry, and Marsden arrived she might not want to mention any visit to Wallace.
I totally agree about Parry’s alibi with Mrs Brine especially so because as you say nobody knew about it until the police files (what was left of them) were released, probably as a reaction to the Radio City programme.
The implication is that Wallace was put up for trial as an Aunt Sally, on weak evidence and likely to be acquitted. But these are deep waters involving police corruption to get Parry off the hook and I don’t want to go there.
Julia was never meant to see the burglars. Parry set it up to visit her but never would. she would leave the back gate and door unlocked like for his normal visits so he could swan in unseen as nobody ever saw him call or knock on the door any other time. She would be waiting for him in the parlour. However, it went wrong whilst Marsden ventured into the parlour as Denison was stood on the cupboard door to reach and rifle the cashbox without ever taking it down. He gets out his paltry sum, he doesn’t want a dollar or stamps and once the cash box is replaced and he’s ready to jump back down the (one before repaired) door breaks and coins spill out of his hand. After the bludgeoning, there is no time for looking for more money, they have to get out of there. It is these two that Anne Parsons see legging it down Hanwell street.
If you don’t want to go there about police corruption that is up to you but it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen and anyone who has read about Bert Balmer who incidentally had just joined the CID in 1930 will enlighten you but he can be googled, basically he got innocent men hung after framing them. Goodman’s book will also tell you of the state of the police in the 1920s and up to 1931 and there are even 2 letters on this site from a policeman and his wife about the corruptions going on.
Moore (whose daughter was Parry seniors PA) didn’t want a pesky Parkes statement anymore than he wanted Alan Close saying the mantra ‘Quarter to seven’ which he’d clearly said to 5 other delivery mates. He was under pressure from the local press and it was his first big test since becoming Superintendent. In his mind he had his man just as in his mind the caller had to be the killer which we know could be untrue. Also in his mind the killer had to be full of blood (see his APB on the murder night) but when some scenarios like this blood or Close didn’t suit him he soon dropped those ideas.
Cool story bro
Lol what? What do you mean? She’s sat in the parlour waiting for Gordon to have a clandestine visit (like sexual you mean?) entering in the back, and then both Marsden and Denison sneak in the back door instead?
What do you mean like wouldn’t Julia hear the back door open and think it’s Gordon coming in? Lol. Why is she necessarily going to be waiting inside the parlour rather than just setting the fireplace and waiting in the kitchen because of the dodgy sticky back door she might need to let him in?
Like wait, if she’s just waiting in the parlour and Gordon is expected, and she just sits in the parlour, hears the back door open etc, and then later all the money is gone from the cash box, how is she not going to think Gordon stole the money?
Gordon standing on a street corner stalking Wallace, doesn’t know Wallace is actually at home to begin with (he could be at Amy’s or at a client’s place or at a violin lesson or seeing a friend, and be going to the club directly from there), seeing him leave, you don’t know where he’s going. It would be far more prudent to stake out the club, then call about half hour later and simply say to the person who picks up “hi can you write down a message for me and pass it to Mr. Wallace?”
Lol at this case.
I agree with the points raised by RMQ below.. The scenario of a sneak theft rather than a distraction theft depends on Julia not being in the kitchen diner which is a risky assumption given that the parlour was rarely used. Even assuming she expected Parry, she may well have been waiting at the dining room table, the gas fire in the parlour ablaze in anticipation of his arrival. Nobody in their right mind would undertake such a risky venture.
“Julia was never meant to see the burglars.”
Assuming they entered undetected while Julia was in the parlour, why on earth would Marsden go there? He knows Julia must be in there because she is expecting Parry’s visit.
Police corruption
I wasn’t born yesterday. Police corruption has always existed but it cannot be assumed without evidence to support it and that is why I don’t want to go there. Inspector Moore would not be the first senior investigator, or the last, to form an early opinion as to whodunnit (Wallace in this case) and to stick with it dismissing evidence supporting an alternative suspect. This is pig headedness, not corruption.
That said, like it or not, Parry’s alibi for the murder night satisfied the police but they continued with an examination of his car, his clothing, and they spoke to the Lloyds. We can bring up the short rubber-stamp statements, Parry keeping quiet about Mrs Brine, the mysterious Phyllis Plant etc etc but the fact remains that he was cleared by the police on the ground in 1931 and although these are valid questions they are not enough, in my view, for us to reach a different conclusion.
I will submit to paper yet another story so I know where to find it when required again. It is often said, particularly by one particular poster on the Casebook Forums (Herlock Sholmes) why would Parry give such an easily checkable lie for his Monday alibi and that it must surely have been either a mistake or a cover for where he really was with another woman for instance.
Well, watching Sky Crime as I do and following the story of the murder of 16 year old Mhairi Julyan by 55 year old Gavin Maguire. His alibi was very specific. He was nowhere near the Stagecoach bus depot where her body was found, in fact he was in Kilmarnock at a pub called The Tudor until 10.45pm. Now, he wouldn’t give such an easily checkable alibi would he. Well he did and you’ve guessed it, he wasn’t there.
I’m truly amazed at the number of mistakes and let offs for Parry as opposed to Wallace. A guilty Wallace with weeks or even months to plan this only had to look at the main things to overcome to prevent the gallows. The first one would certainly be the method of murder and then trying to explain why he couldn’t get in the house in the most simplest terms and that is just to say the bolt was on from minute one. Not messing with locks to see if they are rusty etc. Simple stuff really for this chess mastermind. He could even have sent himself to Bootle instead of somewhere he was tried to be shown he knew well.
RMQ. Yes, by Parry’s own admissions he used to call on Julia and you know that. This must have been pre-arranged so as William not to be there so there is no reason this one would not be pre-arranged just like before. Once the money has gone and goes to plan (IE No murder) all Parry has to say to Julia the next time he sees her is ‘Sorry I couldn’t come on Tuesday but Lily’s mother needed a lift somewhere’ and she’d say ‘Oh Gordon, the most terrible thing happened, we were robbed’ – no proof.
Parry, or good old Gordon as you call him knows Wallace’s routine to a tee and he is a creature of habit. It’s a work day, he’ll be home about 6pm for his tea and then to the chess club and the next night will be similar only he’ll be off to MGE after his tea. Not rocket science is it.
Lol he’s a creature of habit but his visits to the chess club are unreliable enough to have to “stake out” his home? Even if you see him leave his house you literally have no idea where he’s going and have to guess by the time he’s likely going to the club (even though he’s left his house too late to actually get to the club by the time matches start).
Clearly it is smarter to stake out the cafe if anything, and then you can just call and ask the person who answers it to write down the message for you.
It is not rocket science to figure out that if Gordon has said he’s coming and to leave the back door open, and Julia hears the back door open, and just sits there for a bit and then hears it close, like who is she meant to think it was that came? Lmao, like not the one guy who said he was going to come and told her to leave the door open, and it happened around the time he told her he’d be coming?
Lol like what is Julia going to do, she hears the back door open, she’s not going to call out like “Gordon?” or walk into the kitchen to greet him, or even be sat there in the warm waiting for him, especially since the back door is tricky.
“The Trial of William Herbert Wallace” edited by F Wyndham Brown, written in 1933, is hard to find these days. Gyan books based in New Delhi, India are a reprint house who print and publish rare books on demand from a master copy.
I ‘m aware that the trial transcript is available on this site but in parts I find it difficult to read. More important for me is that a book is portable whereas my computer is a fixed desk top and often occupied by my wife!
The book arrived yesterday. It is a handsome affair with a leather spine bearing the title in embossed gold leaf. The corners of the end boards are also leather. The print is crystal clear and on a good quality heavy paper. There are 320 pages, 50 of which give a well -written overview of the case by the author.
The illustrations have not reproduced very well but Gyan advised me of this asking if I wished to proceed with my order. As they are the pictures we are all familiar with it doesn’t really matter.
It isn’t cheap coming in at around 70 euros but now that I have it in my hands I consider it money well spent and any serious student of the case might want to consider its purchase.
RMQ – Staking out the cafe and seeing him arriving before calling lmao. As if Beattie would take a message when Wallace could be called over sitting a few yards away.
As if the burglars would announce their arrival by slamming doors open and shut. The idea is that they sneak in and out within minutes if it wasn’t for the hapless Marsden seeing what was of value in the parlour thinking Julia might be waiting for Parry upstairs.
Mike, call it pig headedness or corruption, I call it the latter as would the Birmingham 6 or Oliver Campbell or Tomasz Komande to name but a few and if you are going to cite that the fact remains that Parry was cleared by the police in 1931 (despite his false alibi) then i’ll sign off by saying that the fact remains that the Criminal Court of Appeal found Wallace not guilty of this murder beyond all reasonable doubt in 1931 which means that any other outcome is unreasonable. 🙂
The book sounds good. Hope the trial transcript tallies with the pages RMQ kindly copied onto here.
“Hi, is this the City Chess Club? Is Mr. Wallace there? I don’t want to disturb Mr. Wallace’s chess, could you take down a message for me and pass it along?”
Versus just seeing him leave his house, at the wrong time (he would be late for any chess match by the public noticeboard) and guessing he’s off to the club, and even presuming he’s home to begin with and not visiting Amy, or making some other late night call to a different client (he was evidently willing to venture out after work hours for business, as seen from his Qualtrough search), or at a violin lesson.
What do you mean Julia waiting upstairs for Gordon? Lol man, so literally they’re meant to be having an affair and she’s lying there spreadeagled in bed with the back door open while her cuckold husband is out looking for a fake address? So why are two men going into the house in any case? Why is Marsden and Denison going in, lol. Why do you need both of them to pull off this crime?
She could literally be IN THE KITCHEN waiting, yes she will hear the back door opening then. She would probably hear it ANYWAY, with the stiff crappy old door with messed up mechanisms, even from the middle bedroom which by the way overlooks the yard (see floor plans) where the back door is. You realize this isn’t correct, right? She knew someone was there (because obviously it was her bitter old husband, William), so she had her back turned to regulate the fire, and didn’t see the strike coming to the back of her head, and so didn’t end up with defensive bruising/wounding on her arms from putting her arms up to prevent a guy who just wandered in unexpectedly smashing her face in with the pipe she sees coming.
It is literally more believable that Puss did it. Julia fed Puss sour old milk, and it was late too due to loser Alan. For Puss this was the final straw. As Julia bent down to the fire readying herself for a little piano, Puss LEAPT on Julia, knocking her headfirst into the fire. Puss then began to batter her and claw at her skull (see the tram marks, surely cat claws). “That’s the last time you ever feed me sour milk you incontinent old bag!”
GED, the call could have been made so that while Wallace wasn’t at the club yet, he was almost there (from a box nearer the club). This would increase the chances of the call being relayed correctly too. Of course, this doesn’t work if you buy into the aspie house stakeout theory which has potential framing implications too.
In either event, there would be no reason to believe the 15+ minute late Wallace who had just had 2 bouts of illness and missed many sessions would show up at much less get or follow up on a message like that.
Ha ha – love the puss did it but what do yous both mean, one minute RMQ says the stakeout is outside the club, the next Josh says it’s just before he enters the club, it’s make your mind up time. You’d have to literally be standing in the phone box waiting to make the call and hope to see him heading for the club and I do think Beattie would say, here is Mr Wallace himself, it would be natural and more unbelievable if the caller was putting off actually speaking to Wallace himself.
I have 2 people there just for dutch courage and back up, is it so unbelievable when your own investigations has house burglars even working in threes – see your own site with the news cuttings.
Also, the fire couldn’t just be being lit as the clays had to be hot enough for the scorch marks on her skirt – do keep up.
I cannot see this crime without Parry having some sort of involvement. I cannot see Wallace who showed no motive even after his freedom to have done this either. In fact his diaries, writings and actions showed quite the opposite even without the danger of double jeopardy.
“Also, the fire couldn’t just be being lit as the clays had to be hot enough for the scorch marks on her skirt – do keep up.”
She was bending down to regulate the flame after it had already been lit, just as Wallace said in his confession “If I Did It” OJ Simpson piece, when he then smashed her with a wrench. The claim about the clays and how long they’d need to heat, or even the functionings of the fireplace, by the way, is from Gannon as per usual, where he’s just guessing things about the fireplace. Like every other part of the book he is merely guessing.
“RMQ says the stakeout is outside the club”
RMQ says it didn’t happen, because it isn’t Gordon, obviously. But it would have made it more definite he is actually going to be there. Rather than just guessing? The time isn’t even correct for that to be where he’s headed. You should make up your mind in fact, is this what you’re settling on? Why are you even inserting Marsden lol. Wallace told you how he killed his wife.
We had a gas fire for years in Council houses in Liverpool, the type with clays, these were similar but Robinson Willey gas fires. They were originally white but down the years would scorch to orange then black. I believe they would have to bit hot to scorch Julia’s skirt and that would take some time to be hot enough to scorch material
so i’m not going off Gannon here but through knowing how these fires work having had them.
Another point that is usually made is that a bludgeoning has to be by someone known to the victim. I refer to yet another Sky Crime episode, you can read it here. Victim and killer unknown to each other. In fact, your own house burglar newspaper cuttings on here show how these people would batter the elderly to within an inch of their live.
https://news.sky.com/story/psychopath-guilty-of-pensioner-murder-10476795
Happy reading.
We don’t know for sure that Julia was regulating the gas fire when she was attacked. However in view of the scorching of mac and skirt it is likely. If she had been lighting the fire, in my view the fire clays would not be hot enough in the few seconds after ignition, as she rose, to produce the scorching observed. So if indeed she was regulating the gas fire she was more likely to be turning it either down or off with the fire clays at red heat.
Statistics apart, it is the “overkill” nature of this attack – 11 blows – which suggests the venting of anger etc . A psycho stranger as in the example you give Ged is possible but it also indicates the venting of a long-held grievance by someone known by the victim. Psychos, and this is a generalisation, don’t go in for elaborate pre-planning (the Qualtrough call) but are opportunist killers living in the present doing what they have to do and not thinking further ahead than the next few minutes. That said, it is a possibility which has not received much attention because there’s no meat to chew on as with Parry or Wallace. It would answer a lot of questions, timing, alibis, motive which bedevil the cases against P and W.
That news story isn’t relevant because it doesn’t say about a lack of defensive wounds? The point is that if Julia was facing the attacker, even if it was her psycho murderer husband, and saw something coming at her face, she’s likely to throw her arms up or do something to try to block the strike. And that leaves things like bruises on the victim, cuts, other things, showing where they have tried to prevent themselves from getting hit.
It seems more likely she was clubbed over the head while bending down to regulate the gas fire (likely because it had been left full for a bit to heat the room). Simply because seeing a random unexpected person coming into the room (as she would from the couch) and swinging a pipe at you, it isn’t very sensical she’d just stand there arms at her side not reacting at all.
Which is what William said happened… it seems quite likely he would know better than us how he killed his wife, and he says it was as she bent to regulate the gas.
From even a neutral standpoint why did McFall keep changing his opinions and they shouldn’t be opinions but observations based on fact. I tend to go with his Autopsy report of nearer 4 blows – 11 seems to have been added during the trial after the police had got to him to make it seem like a spouse attack. The cop on the Bike at Maiden lane says in his statement that W had his hands in his pocket. On trial W was wiping his eyes – make your mind up. Close says Quarter to Seven (heard by 5 others) then denies it under oath, again after the police said you must be mistaken. W doesn’t actually say this is how I killed my wife lmao to coin your phrase. He could quite well have admitted it freely though given no double jeopardy.
Mcfall doesn’t matter, whether he said one blow (look up Krauseneck, one axe strike by the way) or 1000, his testimony isn’t relevant to whether or not the guy did it. Her skull was literally smashed open with her brains visibly mushed and leaking out. I don’t think anybody uses McFall’s report, because he’s unreliable, it isn’t relevant here.
Jail/execution isn’t the only thing to be worried about lol. He was already being threatened in the streets randomly and couldn’t keep his normal job because clients were too scared to see him… If he literally just started gloating that he killed her, I can’t even imagine. He’d be fired and repelled from everywhere and everyone.
Also honestly I’d feel terrified of bizarre deep obscure legal loopholes or legal changes where they can just grab me and sentence me anyway. For example if he got arrested on a different trumped up charge.
Wallace’s confession doesn’t specify the number of blows if I remember right. He simply explains how he smashed her when she bent down to the fire. I wish he’d offered a confession for the prior night too, just so the whole story is laid out beginning to end.
RMQ – You keep saying certain things are not relevant. Regarding the things I have posted what is relevant is this. It doesn’t have to be a deranged disappointed husband for a bludgeoning – period, I can post many where killers have even cut people up and didn’t even know their victims. Authors need to stop using this against Wallace. Also there is no differentiating between whether these types of murders are spur of the moment or premediated, i’m sure between us we watch enough crime documentaries to know it’s very open ended. Watched yet another last night whereby the perp viciously attacked someone they only knew by sight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Paige_Doherty
You say Wallace’s confession – it is not a confession lmao
You say on one hand how he can’t confess due to all what you said in the prior 2 paragraphs then say it is – make your mind up.
RMQ says… That news story isn’t relevant because it doesn’t say about a lack of defensive wounds?
What are you on about?…. Really?…..
It doesn’t say about lack of defensive wounds because there are none. The programme says he got into the property by pretending he was from help the aged and he even dropped the leaflet inside her hallways once he was in, his fingerprints were on it. She was taken as much by surprise as was Julia.
The point i’m making is that the victim DOES NOT have to be known by the killer for it to be a bludgeoning as your own news cuttings on this site confirm. This myth needs to be stopped being pedalled as to why it was Wallace.
Apart from he didn’t have time, didn’t use Close in his defence, he incidentally just came forward, didn’t even have an alibi without Close. No weapon found – which a different perp would have had time to dispose of, but not Wallace. Then all the dodginess of Parry which are put down to him fooling around, having fun, winding people up – when his neck is on the line – open your eyes.
Yeah she was taken by surprise, from behind (by her husband), not a stranger or someone unexpected just wandering in while she’s sat at the couch, and then being walked up on and not trying to throw her arms up or anything as this dude comes at her with a pipe. Just sat there happily chilling as an iron bar (spanner) is swung at her skull.
This isn’t correct and didn’t happen. There are also old ladies who got attacked in their beds while asleep. There are also serial killers who creep in the window and machete attack families. That is not the same situation, Julia is awake, and would have seen her unexpected attacker enter. That is why it is not relevant, because the context is completely different.
The theory is a cope and didn’t happen. This is just like “Sisyphus” tier wanting to maintain mystery to have something to do and friendship groups to hang with etc. It’s just a hobby lol.
It IS Wallace. He TOLD YOU how he murdered his wife step by step, what weapon he used, how the fire happened. He laid it all out in the articles he wrote which 90% consisted of bragging about his accomplishments and insulting others (and a whole two page spread on how much he hates women and their “poison tongues”). He insulted the other prisoner’s intellect saying they suffer from “imbicility”. He thinks he’s better than them. He thinks he’s smarter than you. He probably is. But it is beside the point.
And this lanky gremlin motherfucker is going to get away with it because one of the laundry list of names he provided to the cops fabricated his whereabouts on Monday? That’s it? I covered this over and over on my main page which you haven’t read.
Ha, your mini page. I’ve read the casebook forum where you name everyone from Parry, Marsden, Wallace, Johnston with sometimes them even working with each other.
I have seen your solution but forgive me if I don’t go with it. I will need you to answer the questions I raised about Parry some time back which all just seemed to be he was mistaken about his whereabout just 3 nights prior.
I’ll also need to know where this spanner is, how Wallace had time to wash the blood off (it’s agreed by all there would be blood on the assailant) and don’t say some new fangled forensic expert you plucked out of nowhere said there’d be none. Why Wallace didn’t even make the appointment for 7pm so that he wouldn’t have 45 minutes to commit the murder or why he didn’t even use Close as his obvious alibi.
As the judge says, Wallace’s many statements are very consistent and nobody comes forward to rubbish any of them, not the trams times for Monday, which stop he got on, anything. And please don’t say Maddock says he could make it to the club via any stop as firstly I can’t see that it does say that anyway. Please stop on the 7.30pm start time too, even Beattie in court says it’s 7.45pm so maybe it’d changed and the rules just not updated as it was never enforced anyway, I mean, it seems you could even miss your schedule and still not be penalised, just play it later.
I mean you can get angry that your hero, a literal murderer, told you how he did the murdering, it is what it is. I didn’t pluck anyone “out of nowhere” by the way. That is also when I was really hoping for someone to say they agreed with that notion and they didn’t and basically said it’s totally BS.
Not that it’s relevant, since the idea it’s proven the drain wasn’t used is literal bullshit. Who first invented that? Was it tabloid incel Goodman? Was it greedy Gregg’s sausage roll gobbling poll-rigging fatass authors? Was it Gannon?
Maybe he shoved the spanner up his ass. There are infinite possible real speculations. It might not even be gone from the house. Maybe it was wiped off with the mac. Maybe it was rinsed in the sink when he washed the blood off his own hands, maybe it was wrapped in cloth which was then chucked in the fire. No such item was ever tested.
7.30 is what’s displayed on the noticeboard. That is the time a randomer wandering in would see. I.e. Gordon inspecting the chart, would see 7.30. Do you understand this?
You’re basically just like a religious cult member. What is the point of this? I would have more luck walking into the middle of a church service and telling everyone that religion is a scam and blatant bullshit. Which is fitting because 90% of your ideas are religious in nature and Russell’s Teapot tier stuff like failed philosopher Antony now uses himself to sell embarassing books to low IQ invalids like Rod while being too cheap to have a working and fair and accurate poll on his site. Where are Rod’s royalty checks? Where are my royalty checks for him using expert opinions I paid a lot of money for? We all know where they are, they’re converted to Mr. Kipling cakes and shoved down the fat cuck’s gullett.
Imagine if you legit just came out like “yeah okay he did it”. Imagine how quickly Rod would ban you from the group meetings at his mum’s house that he’s lived at his entire life at the age of 60+ (the same age successful family man Kentigern was when he battered the shit out of Rod who was still in his physical prime at 30) while pretending to be a bitcoin millionaire and denying the holocaust. He has as much bitcoin as he has had sexual encounters. And about as much bitcoin as he has IQ points. The fact you seemingly don’t notice this literal turbo autist is a turbo autist, is illuminating in itself on many grounds. Josh said Rod posted a video driving around literally shaking with autism. It’s actually very likely I’d never insult him again if I had seen that for myself or met him, because he’s probably like a literal disabled person with mental retardation.
Maybe there’s some new information that I’m just missing here, but I wouldn’t know since you banned me from your conspiracy theorist group. Or rather had the Stasi do it in the form of a little bearded 5’4 goblin who is too ashamed of his pathetic stature to even put a picture of himself on his social media pages.
Why do you even do this? Is it just loneliness? It does sometimes feel like it’s just lonely old men keeping alive mysteries for the purpose of having friendships. Like that author dude who would say “come over and let’s discuss Wallace, old boy”.
How come in the same John Bull article he practically names Parry then and mentions how he’s had to put security lighting up etc. Even his post appeal behaviour and continued diary entries which nobody would see suggest his innocence.
Whereas Parry’s post trial behaviour escalated and he even kept tabs on who was still alive or dead and then his father telling him what to do and not do regarding the case.
How many interviews did OJ Simpson do where he discussed helping find the “real” killer (which is, by the way, himself). OJ Simpson as you probably know, wrote a book titled “(if) I Did It” where he “hypothetically” walks through the exact way he would have killed his wife and Ron Goldman, in a manner reminiscent of the John Bull articles where Wallace walks through exactly how “someone” killed his wife in bizarrely great detail.
As you will see from Wallace’s John Bull writings, he was shunned from society and had to flee his home. What you are saying here, is not something exclusive to Wallace. Every single murderer on death row says they dindu nuffin. Our prison systems must be completely broken because if we go by the words of the convicted, there are a total of zero guilty murderers in prison.
How long and how hard did he search for his wife’s true murderer exactly? He has a whole fucking magazine series penned by himself. Where is the “if you reading this have any information whatsoever about the murder of my wife please get in touch with X”. I have that on here and it’s not even my wife. There was no further contact with police or government or anything like that urging them to continue looking for the killer (sure, he has lost faith in the cops, but there are still avenues for this. See John Ramsey still searching for his daughter’s killer (probably his wife) interviewing with news outlets etc to this day despite being completely embittered by the Boulder P.D.). There’s no search for the real killer because there isn’t one to find. He IS the killer.
Julia literally owned a house, she was a landlady. Wallace was infirm due to his kidneys and couldn’t have the sorts of jobs he felt he should have been able to do (like his brother Joseph). At the time of their death, their combined bank balance was what? Check it. I think it was, allegedly, pathetic like £200. What happened to all the money? They were renters in Liverpool. He married this MUCH older woman, used up her funds making chemistry labs, buying retarded microscopes etc, and then once she was no longer useful and actively USING up money with her doctor’s bills etc, he bumped her off lmao. It’s not sus he married an ancient rich woman like 15 years older than himself? You can see by her RAGS and sewing money into her clothes, and Wallace’s diary alluding to money troubles, that money was a stressor in this relationship.
Oh brother…
There is some sort of invoice to him for a private detective, you do know that, but no further details of it. He knows the killer, he says so in the very John Bull articles that you so much rely on for Wallace’s guilt. They had today’s equivalent of a good few thousand pounds. Money was definitely found not to be any motive, you are trying to re-write history.
No there isn’t any such invoice. He wrote he “had half a mind to” get a detective alongside the other BS he wrote. Thanks for the misinformation bro.
A good few thousand is literally broke tier. She had a giant house, she was a landlady, now she’s in rags sewing pennies into her skirt so her miserly pathetic husband doesn’t know she has money he’s not accounting for. Can you believe that scumbag Goodman dared to suggest she was dirty etc by choice lol. She was a baroness type woman, proper, look at her big hats in her sole photo.
His diary says they had money troubles. “£, d, s” troubles. He’s a miserly old crote, their bank balance is pathetic and their health conditions are hemmorhaging funds. She used to be a pay-pig (rich oldass ancient lady with a big house he married). Maybe HE thought she had more and expected he would find out he’s set to inherit a sack of dollar dollar bills yo. But alas, she was spent.
Ha ha they are not haemorraghing anything, she had £90 (£8k) He had even more. She was not baroness like but a paid nanny. In Munro’s accounts there is a cost for some private detective work, do your research. Her dad, a broken farmer ended up a drunken landlord of a pub. You are buying into her fantasy land. Nobody made her move to Liverpool, she’d worked in smoggy London too.
Yeah that’s a dogsh*t amount. She had a huge house and moved to a poverty area (Anfield is for poors, really the entire of Liverpool is impoverished if we’re being honest). The amount of cash is pathetic, if I owned a huge house and ended up with 8K in a poverty area renting a small house I’d be enraged.
Show the private detective commissioning lmao. Was that after he got away with the crime he committed?
Show me the huge house she had and how she got the money to pay for it. As far as I know she along with her siblings inherited some property so who know what she was worth if anything? Enlighten us.
I’d also add they were married for around 16 years was it (without me bothering to check) She was not ‘Made’ to stay with him, were known affectionately as Darby and Joan in the area, seemed at least contented and loving by up to a dozen people who knew them, diary entries sound ok. Nothing ever alerted the police or prosecution to your re-writing of history.
Turbulence ahead. Fasten your seat belts!
The Qualtrough phone call
1. The Anfield telephone exchange
In 1931 most of the exchanges were manual including the one at Anfield . When a call came in a bulb lit up above a socket on the Home Board of the operator. The Home Board had separate sections for coin-operated boxes and calls from private subscribers. She inserted a jack plug and asked the caller for the number which he required then made the connection to this number on the main board in front of her. She stayed on the line until satisfied that the caller had the corespondent then went off-line.
If the caller told the operator that there was difficulty getting through to the desired number, R F Wyndham Brown tells us what happened:
“When there is a delay in obtaining a number and it is found necessary to communicate (this situation) to the operator it is usual for the exchange to ask for the number of the telephone from which a request is made for connection.”
The Trial of W H Wallace. R F Wyndham Brown 1933.
and Hemmerde:
“We know as a matter of fact where the message came from. In the ordinary way, if you telephoned and got through at once it would not be easy. I think it might not be possible to trace the origin of the call. But in this particular case some difficulty was experienced by the person ringing up from a public call-office in getting through, and, as a result we can trace the call as having come from a callbox four hundred yards from the house in Wolverton Street.”
Opening speech for the Crown
So the reporting of difficulty with the connection would prompt a “tracing” of the call by the operator asking for the caller’s number, otherwise the source of the call would be unknown.
Note: there was no display of incoming numbers at the exchange. Displays date from the 1980’s. There was no permanent historic record of every call as today with hard drives etc.
The only way for the operator to get the caller’s number was to ask him for it!
There was no need for the exchange to know the caller’s number in normal operation because all calls were pre-paid either from coin-operated boxes or from the monthly rental of a domestic phone.
2. Belt, Braces, and Elasticated waist-band
Just to be sure, I have exchanged e mails with these sources :
(a) The Telephone Museum located in Wolverton (!!) near Milton Keynes:
“You are right, she would not know the number.”
(b) The History of the Telephone website. Mr Bob Freshwater has been most helpful:
“He could give a wrong number.”
(c) The BT Archive information centre:
Still waiting for a response to my query.
These experts and enthusiasts have confirmed that a manual exchange in 1931 would have no knowledge of the caller’s phone number unless, in the case of a reported fault, they asked the caller for it so that a note of it could be made.
In this case the “fault” was of short duration and the call was put through on the second attempt. It is likely that the docket was created as a reference in case there were future complaints from that number – this would prompt an investigation.
Leslie Heaton, the telephone technician, described the phone box Anfield 1627 at the trial but didn’t know if there was an internal light. There wasn’t. He did not confirm that he had even visited the box to investigate or to fix a fault.
If you Google Manual Telephone Exchange Operation you will be able to access a short movie showing the switchboard of a manual exchange in action in the 1950’s. At several points you can hear the operator asking a caller “Would you give me the number you are calling from.”
3. Implications
The phone box at the corner of Lower Breck Road ( Anfield 1627) may have been the source of Mr Qualtrough’s call to the chess club. But we can no longer be sure that it was.
The caller could have been anywhere in the catchment area of the Anfield exchange. He could give the false number Anfield 1627 to deceive the operator and leave the impression that he was phoning from the box close to Wallace’s home and far from the chess club when in fact he wasn’t..
If the caller wasn’t Wallace he could give Anfield 1627, not to frame Wallace, but to suggest a Mr Qualtrough monitoring Wallace’s movements prior to making the call from there.
If the caller was Wallace the implications are covered later.
4. Blowback
Some will say this cannot be true because it would have been spotted long ago.
Investigators and amateur detectives alike have, down the years, been beguiled by the word “traced”. It implies automatic detection of the source of the call and the result being free of human influence. In fact the only way to “trace” the call was by human intervention (asking the caller where he was) which, when dealing with honest people is !00% effective. When dealing with criminals it isn’t.
At no point do any of the the phone operators say that they asked Qualtrough for his phone number. So there is no mention of this in the written record. However, asking the caller for his number is the only way the operator could obtain it. So it is a safe assumption that this happened.
It was such a “mundane detail” and standard practice when a fault was reported that nobody thought to mention it. This is not surprising: It was several days after this call that the operators were asked to recall the details of it having handled probably hundreds of calls in the interim. Their recall would be understandably hazy.
The police were already strongly suspecting Wallace when news that the call had been traced by the exchange came through. They were delighted that their suspicions were being confirmed. Confirmation bias.
When you go to the doctor and he says your blood test results show sugar levels in the ideal range you don’t ask him for details of the test, its reliability etc. You assume he knows what he’s doing.
The police have a long record of rejecting pesky details which don’t support their pre-conceived ideas.
However, this finding does not exonerate Wallace……
5. Timing etc
How could anyone using the Anfield 1627 box at night, manage to read the number of the phone in that dark, unlit cabin?
MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: How can he do anything in darkness?
For Wallace it could be an integral part of his plan to claim difficulty in getting through so that his number was asked for. He would have the number Anfield 1627 in his pocket in anticipation of the operator’s request.
5.1 Only Qualtrough knows the time his conversation with Mr Beattie ended. The docket records that the call was put through at 7.20 pm. Is it unreasonable to estimate say 7.28 pm as the time it ended? This would make it difficult for Wallace, calling from Anfield 1627 near his home to arrive at the chess club at 7.45 pm (as per Mr Caird’s recollection.)
But if Wallace was using a phone box, still in the Anfield exchange catchment area, but much closer to the city centre it would be only a short hop to the club and he would arrive on time. He would give Anfield 1627 as his number and alibi for the time of the call and this would be noted on the docket.
5.2 This would also support Wallace’s theory of a Mr Qualtrough surveilling his departure from home before going to the nearby phone box and calling the chess club.
5.3 This scenario also helps to explain Wallace’s persistent questions to Beattie at the tram stop about the time of the call. Beattie’s estimate of “Seven o’clock of shortly after” just would not do if Wallace knew it was close to 7.30 pm when it finished. So he pressed Beattie until Beattie advised him to stop! When asked about this, Wallace could not justify his behaviour except to say he had certain theories, without saying what these were.
5.4 It would also help answer Ged’s point that the familiar figure of Wallace would surely have been noticed making the call from his local phone box. Not if he wasn’t there.
5.5 If Wallace really was phoning from Anfield 1627 near his home and the difficulty with the connection was genuine, would he have given this number to the operator knowing the call might be traced? Again, how could he read it in that dark kiosk? He could give any number if he thought the call might be traced.
He would give Anfield 1627 confident that his prompt arrival on time at the chess club would show that he could not have been at Anfield 1627 at the time of the call and that Qualtrough, the man who killed his wife, was there.
“As I was going up the stair,
I saw a man who wasn’t there,
He wasn’t there again today,
How I wish he’d go away.”
6. Conclusion
In my view this does not bring us much closer to discovering who murdered Julia
Wallace.
However it does challenge one of the “sacred cows” of the Wallace case: that Qualtrough (whoever he was) phoned the chess club from Anfield 1627.
“It ain’t necessarily so……”
Mike
Thanks for that effort. I checked all statements here:
https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/case-files/telephone-exchange-operators-and-supervisor-testimony/
I notice they have not made mention of asking for the box number. I also notice that they reference 1627 being a “modern” type box regarding the way the coin system worked. It looks like this could be determined by lights on the board that show when money is in? And there are presumably a number of boxes then, that do not work that way (are not of the modern type), and would then hinge on some small amount of luck to have chosen another box that worked the same as 1627.
I also notice that the operator appears, by the earlier statement, to have been able to discern the connection her colleague was trying to make (to the cafe) by sight? Didn’t their switchboard work by an array of ports for each telephone being on the switchboard, an incoming call lighting the incoming location, then they plug into that to talk to the caller. Then connect their call by plugging the other end of the cable into the port for the location it is going to (roughly speaking, with some minor differences in the actual functioning)?
“In 1931, switchboard systems operated using a system of electromechanical indicators to alert the operator about an incoming call. Here’s how it worked in detail for a line like Anfield 1627:
Line Circuit Activation: When the caller at Anfield 1627 picked up the receiver, it closed a circuit in the telephone line connected to the exchange (switchboard). This action signaled the exchange equipment that the line was active and requesting service.
Indicator Lights or Drops: Each subscriber line was assigned a specific position on the switchboard panel. This position often included an indicator light or drop indicator associated with that line. When Anfield 1627’s circuit closed, it triggered the corresponding indicator, either lighting up a small bulb or causing a mechanical “drop” to fall on the panel.
Visual Alert for the Operator: This light or drop acted as a visual alert, immediately notifying the operator that a call was originating from the specific line position assigned to Anfield 1627. Switchboard panels had hundreds of these positions, each corresponding to different subscriber lines within the exchange area.
Line Connection Process: Once the operator saw the indicator for Anfield 1627, they could insert the appropriate plug into that line’s jack to connect to the calling party. The caller would then verbally request the number they wanted to reach (in this case, Bank 3351).
Manual Completion of the Call: The operator would take a second cord and plug it into the jack corresponding to Bank 3351, completing the connection and allowing communication between the two lines.
This method was reliable because each line had a dedicated position on the switchboard, so the operator could always see exactly which subscriber line was initiating the call based on the indicator’s position on the panel. The system was entirely manual but highly organized to allow for rapid, straightforward connections.”
I also notice that Wallace AKA Qualtrough rang twice. They seem to have realized that it was the same caller both times, by statements it appears they knew straight away it was the same caller before he explained anything the second time.
HI RMQ,
Thanks for your prompt response. If I take a helicopter view of your remarks, you are suggesting that the operators at the exchange had some visual indication of the source telephone number of incoming calls. And therefore asking the caller to give his number was not necessary.
This is not the opinion of Bob Freshwater who runs the History of the Telephone web page. He wrote that the operators would not know the number of the caller. He is accessible at : bob@britishtelephones.com and is quite willing to answer any queries as “I get lots of them.”
Hemmerde stated that in normal operation i.e. with no fault being reported, it might not be possible to ascertain the caller’s number.
In the movie which I mentioned, why would the operators be asking for the caller to give his/her number if they already knew it from an indicator of some kind?
My understanding of a manual exchange is that calls come in, not to the main board which is for outgoing connections, but to a 10 port Home Board directly in front of the operator. This has no indication of the number calling. The operator asks for the number required then plugs a lead from the Home Board port into one on the giant main board vertically in from of her. In this case it would be a relay to the BANK exchange which then connected the caller to the cafe.
So for me its still an open question. If you contact Bob, I would of course like to hear what he has to say.
Mike
If you can provide me the full email exchanges I will post them. I don’t really know what to do with it though. It might be correct but I am not sure enough to make up any ideas that hinge upon it.
The fact is that any sort of criminal planning to commit a crime hinging on the call would be less likely to give a truthful answer (though of course even if asked, they couldn’t be CERTAIN that the other end wouldn’t know the real answer right?) plus it is very possible in any case for William to have made the call from that box AND walk to Belmont Road stop AND still arrive at the club inside the window of time provided by himself. If it doesn’t have to be that box obviously his trip becomes even more ridiculously trivial lol. One might mistakenly think sticking themselves at a box miles back would be enough to get them out of the running, so that would be amusing karmic irony indeed if he lied and STILL was in the window of possibility.
I respect the authority and knowledge of the opinions but for something so major I would really want a statement of FACT rather than just opinion, before using it as a cornerstone to further convict the already convicted chump Wallace. E.g. is there some surviving manual from Anfield exchange in particular or knowledge of the machinery used at that particular exchange? Anything like that could be used to determine a fact and then it could be used.
You also noticed the 7.30 time on the chess club noticeboard. Is there any chance you will be able to notice any more small details like these things soon? Because keep them coming. And try to pin this phone thing down.
Without being too aggressive, it is pathetic that figures like Goodman put out “comprehensive” books of crappy misinformation when the infrastructure and witnesses were still alive to get these details from. Instead of visiting the Anfield telephone exchange and trying to get tram timetables etc, or attempt to track down the tram conductors from Monday in case they were missed, he spent his time gathering garbage rumours. The fate for these books? Furnace.
HI RMQ,
I will wait a few days hoping to have a reply to my query from BT archives before sending you the e mails.
If I send them to you on this forum they will already be posted so maybe you could clarify this for me.
Personally I think it is best to wait until we have a fuller picture either confirming or refuting the theory.
I agree that we need hard facts about the Anfield exchange in 1931 and the answer must surely be in Liverpool itself. Which would mean enquiry at museums and with the local branch of British Telecom. It is after all a simple question: “Would the operator be totally dependent on the caller telling the truth about the number he was calling from?”
We do not know when this phone call ended so any calculation as to whether Wallace could have made it in time to the chess club from Anfield 1627 is approximate at best. Wallace, if it was him, must have been confident that he hung up the phone at a time late enough to make it almost impossible, if of course the theory is sound.
Although I sketched out a scenario incriminating Wallace we can do the same for any caller who wanted to mis-direct investigation to Anfield 1627 when he wasn’t there.
I will continue my enquiries but I can’t guarantee any novel insights in future! These things just pop up and are often “hidden in plain sight” e.g. the 7.30 pm starting time for the chess matches.
Best regards,
Mike
Great thanks. I guess this is probably the reality of investigation, I guess you have to question literally EVERYTHING. I think I will go through everything again and see if there’s anything more. I know my grandpa found something resembling the description of the iron bar on the fireplace hearth in the crime scene photo (size and shape, with a knob shaped end).
Obviously I was dramatically more motivated before but in my mind I literally feel it’s a solved case since when I wrote the last iteration of the solution page lol. However things like this are still very exciting.
Great posts by you both. Isn’t it better when we all play nicely and not deter other would be posters with possible other insights or even oversights.
Mike. In response to your 5.1
You mention the call lasting to 7.28 and I myself timed the call doing it myself virtually of course, with response times, imaging GH going to summons Beattie from his game etc and I too arrived at about 7.28 which was immediately poo pooed by RMQ.
Wallace on a mission to make it to the club at 7.45 never mind 7.30 would not be hanging around having to make second calls and spelling out a long name like Qualtrough which then had to be spelt back to him plus asking irrelevant questions such as do you have Wallace’s address don’t you think.
Also ref 5.1 You say…
”But if Wallace was using a phone box, still in the Anfield exchange catchment area, but much closer to the city centre it would be only a short hop to the club and he would arrive on time. He would give Anfield 1627 as his number and alibi for the time of the call and this would be noted on the docket.”
How would Wallace not only know the number of the phone box and secondly how would he know he needed to know it when he doesn’t know the operator is going to ask him for it as he doesn’t know there is going to be a difficulty getting the call connected.
Mike you further say:
5.3 This scenario also helps to explain Wallace’s persistent questions to Beattie at the tram stop about the time of the call. Beattie’s estimate of “Seven o’clock of shortly after” just would not do if Wallace knew it was close to 7.30 pm when it finished. So he pressed Beattie until Beattie advised him to stop! When asked about this, Wallace could not justify his behaviour except to say he had certain theories, without saying what these were.
Wallace does indeed justify it quite clearly under oath when Oliver asks why he persisted. It was because if the call was pre-7.15pm then how could it be him as he knows he only left the house at 7.15. This goes a long way to show that he is telling the truth, he is not even thinking the police will say ‘Well we only have your word you left at 7.15’.
Ref 5.5. This is the most spot on paragraph. Wallace if the caller would not be dropping himself in it by giving the call box location as being 400 yards from his home unless he has a death wish as it was the very point which sealed his fate with Supt Moore.
RMQ in reply to you:
If you are saying a line lights up in the exchange saying Anfield 1627 then the location of the call box was never a mystery, even if the call wasn’t faulty so this cannot be the case can it. Only the time of 7.20 was written in pen as a result of the fault, not the location.
You say it was known by the operators that the second call was also by the same person from the same call box but only after he’d said I have not received my correspondent yet was that known.
I think this possible new light unearthed by Mike throws even more innocence on Wallace. The Wyndham Brown book written during the times of how these exchanges worked is probably a truer reflection. I’ve never gone in for the older books as they were written before the witness statements were released for our own eyes but if we trust what they saw and heard at the trial are written correctly without an agenda like Murphy et al, then they are probably gold dust. Well done Mike.
Yeah 7.28 is not realistic at all. Even Antony’s scam book doesn’t attempt to push that. I did it numerous times way back and couldn’t possibly contrive it to be that long even when going off to “fetch Beattie” and root around for paper to write on etc. I mean, we are literally talking a few minutes here when the arrival time at the chess club is a “?”. Beattie says he can confirm Wallace did not arrive BEFORE 7.45 after asking numerous people, he didn’t actually say the times some of these people gave, because if he asked many people and nobody said any figure before 7.45, one wonders what higher figures some of the members might have floated around. One member, Wallace, thought 7.50. It is hairsplitting when it doesn’t make that much difference unlike a legitimately timed event like the trams or call docket note. And still 7.28 is kind of ridiculous.
The time element in this case is literally the only reason anyone other than crazies and wine aunts think Wallace might be innocent. You understand that if he could be calling from literally any box in the catchment, then him getting to the club within the given times goes from being “definitely possible” to literally undisputably possible and easily so.
How many people would think Wallace didn’t do this if he showed up to the club an hour after the call and left home an hour after Julia was last seen alive by anyone but him? Well the murder night timing, that can be shown to be comfortably possible, and was, and you can check the walking pace required to make the tram stop at a given time and see irrefutably that this is trivial… and the chess club, he could have walked over to Belmont and still just about made it on time after even making the call. But if the tightness is just fictional it’s literally like, there is literally zero reason at all to even think it’s remotely difficult for him to have done this in time. The whole notion of why this is a “tough case” is “It had to have been Wallace, but it COULDN’T have been” (that’s a quote from some old time author). If there’s no “couldn’t” then it’s literally just “it has to have been Wallace” lmao.
If this pseudo-intellectual thought he was being smart whereby he called from a totally different box and thought he could make it look like someone was watching his house while believing it would be impossible for himself to be accused of being the caller (for example in his mind he thinks the trip to the club from that box would be much longer than it was and much longer than from where he was)… or that’s just one of the only boxes which number he had memorized, and there was a genuine issue at the other box such that he had not pre-prepared to do this and thus that number is one of the only ones in his mind that occurred to him he could give at the moment (if it only occurred to him right then and there to lie, you did not consider this did you?)… I do not know. I don’t know which. If it was on purpose I wouldn’t be shocked since literally every other element of the crime, irrespective of the guilty party, is so pathetically and deeply contrived. But essentially the reality would be this: Wallace has zero time alibi at all, and could easily and trivially have got to the club if this is the case. As in, easily rather than “definitely but it’s tight”.
If the accused man is robbed of the ONLY semi-alibi he has, he literally has nothing anymore. Nothing at all can be used to suggest it would be difficult at all for it to merely just be him that did it.
Firstly, I do not think Wallace on a tight schedule would be faffing about in that box, spelling out the long name Qualtrough letter by letter, getting it read back to him letter by letter then asking do you know his address etc, explaining the call is to do with a 21st for his girl etc. He speaks to no fewer than 2 or 3 operators then 2 people at the cafe. All this you reckon in less than the length of the Beatles Hey Jude song which is 8 minutes.
Then we have to believe some scenarios such as he hopes he’s not seen at the junction where there’s a cinema and 2 pubs and it’s not 7.30pm yet. We have it that there is practically no wait time for the tram and then there’s the Fitzclarence st time stamp by the conductor and any possible congestion at the bottom of Islington due to the tunnel collapse and wouldn’t a guilty Wallace who supposedly arrived at the club un-noticed not say I arrived at about 7.40 to 7.45 and not drop himself further in it like he always seems to be doing during this case?
This is just the Monday night which I cannot believe the police did not time check. On the Tuesday it’s even more bizarre. Moore things Wallace has plenty of time to do the deed until Alan Close and friends take centre stage not only making it practically impossible but Wallace doesn’t even use this lad he’s been waiting for to call as an alibi? Wallace is hapless throughout, the things that help cast the beyond reasonable doubt are all accidents he couldn’t have planned for.
Yeah it was, I did all that too and got 3 and a half minutes. He already had Gladys there. So the main “hold” here is just getting Beattie from- was it the same room? Or was it the next room? I think it was the same room? I can spell the name in under 15 seconds letter by letter. Do it… Q… U… A… L… T… R… O… U… G… H… And then obviously read back.
He didn’t speak to 3 operators in 8 minutes for example. This is known. The time was logged after Annie Robertson got the call through. Yes all the operator stuff took around 5 minutes and this is known. And it’s then 7.20. Maybe this is where your error lies. All of that, with the phone box, they say took from around 7.15 to 7.17 pickup, to 7.20 connection. This is the reality. You think it took the same amount of time as that to deliver a rudimentary message with a couple of offhand remarks thrown in. And the time of the call starts there from Gladys because that time is logged.
The stuff you have said btw is not different from many other killers. It isn’t exclusive to him. You have heard the advice “don’t speak to cops without your lawyer present”? Yes this is why. He thinks he’s a genius but he’s a midwit, and blabbed crucial information thinking he was smarter than them. Then got owned. Obviously you could also ask infinite “whys” about why a robber who is a complete stranger to Julia would go back into the parlour or not only hit her to escape or just run out the door (yes you don’t even need to hit her at all, she doesn’t even know you), but literally bash her brains in all over the floor.
Obviously someone did it, and thus someone did something with many useless “whys”. You could give Wallace a real address further out of town and increase the odds he goes on the trip or doesn’t find out too early that it’s fake and return home early. This proves it wasn’t Gordon and A.N. Other? It is an irrelevant way of thinking.
Wallace’s only alibi. His ONLY alibi for this. Is that the timing appears impossible. Well that is a lie, it’s very achievable but tight. And if he can be at ANY box in the catchment, the tightness of getting to the club is literally non existent. This is like… critical death blow… It leaves him only one singular tight time, and we know it’s 6.38 ish not 6.45, that she was last seen, and Hey Jude is an easy length of time to do what he did if he can use drains etc… If you read his confession explaining how he did it, see how basic it is… She bent to regulate the gas, he hit her, he took two strides out and grabbed his mac, he came back in, stomped out the flame and pulled her away from the fire, then battered her. This is easy. Yes he could have staged it back home even on the other end, but even to do that, chuck a few pennies on the ground and stick the notes in the vase upstairs when you go up there to quickly check yourself for blood and rinse it off etc.
What is the reason if this is true, that it’s not possible he could have done this? The sole thing that ever had ANYONE believe he might be innocent, is a lie, then what? Literally a century of discussion over a 100% solved case, where the circumstances supposedly showing he “couldn’t have done it” are all based on made up bullshit like fake non-existent chemical tests of drains, fake chess start times, and is this now fake phone box too? Great, cool, very nice.
Hi Ged,
To answer the points you raise:
My time of 7.28 pm for the end of the Qualtrough call was pure guesswork but not unreasonable considering Ms Harley having to go to Mr Beattie’s table, tell him the tale etc. In fact I’m breaking my own rule in being apparently precise because there’s so much we don’t know. Has anyone seen a photo of the docket bearing 7.20 pm and NR? To be accepted as evidence it would have to bear the phone number called, and that of the caller. And we have only our estimates for the time the call finished. Then he has to walk to the tram stop, wait for the next tram and you’re quickly past 7.30 pm before he’s underway.
IF Wallace adopted the stratagem of using a phone other than Anfield 1627 but claiming to the operator that the caller was at Anfield 1627, this would be part of a clever plan and he would have the phone numbers he needed to hand, prepared in advance.
How could he be sure the operator would ask for his number? By faking a difficulty getting through e.g. the buttons A/B fiasco. He may have encountered a genuine difficulty some time in the past and been asked to provide his number. On this occasion he might even have asked the operator why she required it and if she said “We always fill in a docket…” Nuff said.
Wallace was not at all happy with the police and Mr Beattie timing the call at “~7 o’clock.” If Wallace really had left his house at 7.15 he would be delighted because he had already told the police this time before he was informed of their time of the call. So Wallace’s “7.15 leaving home” time could not be a lie in response to the Police/Beattie’s ~ 7.00 pm time. However a guilty Wallace would know that the time was closer to 7.20 and this would be confirmed by the docket and this is where his false alibi plan clicks in.
It occurred to me too: Wyndham Brown writing in 1933 would be familiar with telephones and their workings, coin boxes etc. He may have had difficulty with a connection and been asked for his number.
Although I have sketched a scenario consistent with Wallace’s guilt, the unreliability of the call being from Anfield 1627, if confirmed, is a neutral finding equally consistent with Wallace’s innocence. Indeed, as you say Ged, it removes one of the key things held against him – that he definitely phoned from his local phone box.
I have two lines of enquiry still open. I will post any news when (if) I receive it.
Mike
I would trust the docket time because unless it is literally just a lie, the docket was literally viewed. It may even have been an item in evidence, and the contents of the docket were given. Something with N.R. in the margin.
It is more about when exactly Annie went to produce the docket and how accurate the exchange clock was. Like for example is she rounding to a nice round figure (obviously she has no reason to believe this time will be critical), did she make the note after she connected to Gladys right away, did she return to her desk and do it there? I mean I would just accept okay, 7.20, it is reliable enough.
I know the call was put through at 7.20 but i’m saying I cannot see Wallace, stuck to the time schedule you are giving him, faffing about any longer than minimally required to make the call and get it over with and this includes some comical getting it wrong on purpose by pressing wrong buttons and now premeditating a fake call in order to be asked to supply his call box number (when we know the real reason for the troublesome call was at the cafe end as confirmed by Gladys Harley saying the phone hadn’t rang once in the previous half an hour. Also, the Anfield catchment area means just that so where are the other phones and how would he get to the chess club from this other box off the beaten track tram route – comical 🙂 To suggest Wallace has some prior knowledge of the operators not having a clue which box he is using is more comical than my thoughts that frequent user of the cafe Parry would know the chess playing times and routines even if he asked about them.
Also why does the fact the Q address was not a real address somewhere else prove it wasn’t Parry anymore than it proves it wasn’t Wallace. a guilty Wallace has more to gain if the address is somewhere other than a district he was found to know a bit about.
Also Wallace cannot know that using the drains will be risk free and the police would be incompetent (If indeed they were not checked and don’t forget that no evidence in the files does not mean they were not and it is reported the bath was taken out with discussion of it in court) Wallace also could not know that he hadn’t been seen near the box or that he didn’t have one speck of blood on him. The not knowing is what could hang him. I’ve watched plenty of crime docs where a partial footprint, a speck of blood in a car or on a trainer is all that’s needed.
To top it all though Wallace somehow doesn’t use simple methods to help cast doubt on his innocence by time stamping the first tram, by just saying the bolt was on the front door, by saying Close came at 6.45 then Julia saw me to the book door immediately afterwards – just really simple things. Have we forgotten the police tram trials required them jumping on moving trams at the incorrect stops. It’s keystone cops stuff.
“Also, the Anfield catchment area means just that so where are the other phones and how would he get to the chess club from this other box off the beaten track tram route – comical”
Are you joking? There are phone boxes absolutely everywhere back then, and tram routes absolutely everywhere. Buses too of course.
Wallace DID try to claim he was a stranger to the district. And as you probably know it’s a district with a good chance for a weird address since the missing East is so conspicuous. As he mentioned to the woman at 25 West way before ending his search something like “how strange there is no East!” allegedly.
“frequent user of the cafe Parry would know the chess playing times and routines even if he asked about them.”
He isn’t a “frequent user”. His drama club met there once a week for a short period, the last meeting being months before. Do you purposefully post the fake information to prompt a reply? It is like an attack upon all of my work on the site since the entire idea of publicising all of the files is to cut through the fake information. And you KNOW these things you’re coming out with are fake.
You are deluded RMQ. You have grasped onto a nothing story about this phone box, let’s look at it. You are giving this 3rd rate chess player more credit as a mastermind than he deserves.
If Wallace was aware that a fudged call would result in the operator asking for the callers phone box number, he only had to record the number of a phone box near Parry’s house, Lloyd’s house or one anywhere other than one by his own home ha ha ha pherrrlease.
Being a local Liverpool Historian and Author on the subject incl my own FB Website on the matter, I am furnished with where every tram route was, why would he be in Anfield somewhere calling?
I for instance attended Everton football club home games as a season ticket holder from 1978 until 1998. I couldn’t tell you now most of the roads on the periphery of the stadium. Wallace used to approach Crewe’s house from the Allerton Road tram route which he then went by foot UP green Lane. At best he used the tram to Calderstones Park 2 or 3 times a year he said. He would use the tram route to Amy’s only as far as the Penny Lane terminus. This is well documented during the case and still the judge directs the jury to a not guilty verdict and still the appeal judges see no importance to it.
Jimmy Tattersall claims to have regularly attended a cafe with Parry in North John Street. Parry worked in the city centre. Parry rehearsed there on Thursdays. Parry stole cars from North John st. He was basically never away from the place. Stop making excuses for him. 🙂
You have literally inputted one single accurate fact in your 1,000,000 posts, that being the weather fact which was 100% dead on accurate and great. That’s it. Maybe there’s one more thing that wasn’t just invented or rumours that I’m presently forgetting. Every single other thing has been wrong in some way. I can’t really trust you as a source of history. Your own site made with Mark R has the same weather fact you got correct here, but wrong, claiming sleet. I can’t just trust you on these historic facts. I have the maps of the area too. Even within a small bird’s eye view of Wallace’s house there are 5 tram stops. They’re everywhere because few people had cars. There are many maps from the time which I used to show the old library location which also show telephones and tram lines.
In the same way, there are many places on North John Street. You are a “historian” claiming Gordon must have always been in the cafe because he went to North John Street, one of the main town strips with various businesses. That’s the only cafe in town? Stop lying to yourself bro. No serious historian just throws out suspicions as facts.
I already answered all the things you brought up btw. There is even a possibility that the error with the call is real, and he only thought about lying once the opportunity arose to do so when he was asked for the box number. And in that case, he may not have a pre-planned idea of utilizing some box near Gordon’s house is or w.e., he might only remember 1627, and thus gave 1627 simply because a) he wasn’t there and b) he actually knew that one/remembered it.
Obviously it doesn’t benefit anybody to NOT lie if they knew 100% they could and could get away with it too, since they know 100% the call is going to be linked to a crime, whether it’s robbery or murder.
My previous enquiries were to websites devoted to telephones in general. I recently found Telephone Exchanges UK who have expertise specifically devoted to exchanges and their operation. I have just received this reply from them:
Hi Michael,
I passed your enquiry onto my friend, John Cranston, who is more knowledgeable than myself regarding telephones in that period.
Here is response which I hope you will find helpful:
In 1931, Anfield exchange was a (central battery) CB10 manual exchange. Each line connected to it had a separate ‘appearance’ on the switchboard. When the caller placed two pennies in the kiosk coinbox and lifted the receiver, a lamp would glow above the plug socket (‘jack’) in the exchange allocated to the kiosk’s line. The lamp cover would have been red, to indicate to the operator that it was a payphone line, and the jack would have had the number of the calling line engraved next to it – in this case 1627. The operators would not have asked the caller, or needed to have asked, the number of the phone box. Hope that helps.
Regards,
Mike Fletcher
I still have an enquiry pending with BT archives but I think we can take the above answer as definitive. I didn’t include the number Anfield 1627 in my query, referring only to a crime in Liverpool in 1931 to keep it simple, but Mr Cranston includes it in his reply. Maybe he’s a Wallace buff!
I was also beginning to have doubts about it:
Wallace would have time-stamped his conversation with Beattie by saying “Oh, by the way, do you have the time? I’m hurrying off to my daughters etc”
He would also have made sure the time of his arrival at the chess club was noted.
Ho Hum
Mike
Thanks for that, please find more “hidden in plain sight” challenges to established facts if you can. I wonder if such things are more likely to be seen in photos, or found via words.
So one minute the call fudge is premeditated to take advantage of being a bit nearer the chess club (even though he’d still have to be in Anfield 🙂 ) and the next minute you flip flop to he may not have premeditated it but just knew that number so gave it. Why would he memorise that particular number, he claims to have used that box only once before. Did you ever go around memorising the call box numbers you used cos I certainly didn’t, it’d be a bit strange. What if he gave that number and the operator said ‘No you’re not’ he wouldn’t know why they’re asking, it might just be for clarification.
On the contrary, you put Parry down as hardly ever being in NJ street but i’ve proven otherwise so it is you with the incorrect information. Imagine you claiming that in defence of him in a court of law and me bringing in the policeman who arrested him there, the car owner of the car he sat in, Jimmy Tattersall. His drama teacher, Wallace etc – loads of people who’d seen him on different occasions in NJ Street and these are just the ones we know about.
The weather for the Monday was sleet in the day which cleared up in the evening which is what I’ve said. There were no tram lines/routes in Lower Breck Road for instance – somewhere you said the 2 men were running down Hanwell st to a tram ha ha. I have the 3 Paul Bolger books and others on Edwardian maps of the city and it’s tram routes through Victorian times, you cannot catch me out. Main arterial routes had trams such as main roads into the city centre from the North, East and South. If he was in a phone box say on Whitefield Road he’d have to walk for 10 minutes to get to Breck Road and back on the tram/bus route so that would put him even later at the chess club. He is actually only on the very edge of Anfield as it is because just further along Breck Road he’d be entering the Everton District.
Go away, have a think about the above, list my inaccuracies and we’ll debate again. I am not dissing your site or work by the way, it’s very commendable but it doesn’t mean I have to agree you’ve solved the case anymore than you think Rod has.
I never said “HARDLY EVER IN NJ STREET”, one of the main town strips people were in all the time, I said he is not known to have literally ever gone into that cafe outside of the drama club meetings, and definitely not at the times when the chess club met (because nothing else matters, since the chess board he COULD have seen and is proven he could have seen, has the wrong time written on it). No “historian” would claim he must have been in there all the time, if he was he was only noticed by Wallace and vice versa once… When was that? During the drama club meeting. The times he was proven to have been at the cafe. Yes there is a tram stop at the end of that street the men were running down. It’s the stop right by the phone call box. The one Wallace was accused of using. How do you think you get to that stop, down Hanwell Street, take a left. So you are “caught out” yes… I didn’t say they WERE doing that (like a fake “historian” would), I said they could have been for all we know. We don’t even know their ages. 18? 35? 50?
“Go away and have a think about” the IQ test and post results and then we’ll debate again. I didn’t “solve the case”, the cops did, nearly a century ago. There is just slight new evidence like for example the chess club arrival time range being extended to 7.50 by Wallace, the public noticeboard saying 7.30, etc which turn “possible” into proven do-able.
Your tram ideas are garbage by the way, I have maps also. This is literally like when David was trying to ASSERT he is definitely right about Parry’s route on account of him (David) having lived there and walked the route and all that. He was literally completely wrong… Now it’s supposed to be that because you have been to Everton football club you must be right, wow… I’m not talking about your opinions on my site, I’m saying it’s an attack on my work BECAUSE the entire point of the site is to publicize all case files and dispel the crap rumours and misinfo in books by frauds like Goodman. That’s the entire reason it exists, and you constantly come in with fake facts. For example Gordon was in North John Street sometimes so he was always in the cafe, one of many businesses in the town, wtf sort of historian would do this. Proof of sleet for example? You got the other weather element correct, have you done a “fake historian” and asserted sleet based on nothing or are you right on that part too? Cops didn’t need to run to make the tram, what happened was a tram was right there at the request stop and was just headed off and they ran and hopped on that one. That’s one of many tests including Maddock’s test who wasn’t sprinting and managed a better time.
Have you even seen the distance between his back door and the tram stop he used? Do you understand that spatial relations don’t change based on who’s walking the route? Do you understand you can literally find a walking pace by the distance and time taken? You can very literally calculate this mathematically. A real historian would do that instead of discussing keystone cops because one of many tests they ran for the request stop tram that was just leaving. It isn’t a matter of opinion it’s mathematically proven that you don’t need to run to make the tram on time from the point he left his house. This is proven bro it’s not open to opinion.
This is what I mean, it is an attack on my work (“work” as in going to the archives and taking photos and doing some transcriptions lmao) in the sense that the point of everything here is to do the exact opposite and make it so BS including my own can be proven or disproven. Every trash fake fact is something a visitor could read and be misled by.
Mike, that’s a brilliant find so well done. So no deliberate or accidental fudging of the call necessary for knowing the callers origin call box then. So, if a reasonably educated and frequent call box user would suspect or even expect this series of events would happen within the exchange it is reasonable to assume that if you were Wallace you would not use that box but if you were Parry not only would it not matter but it might even point the finger in Wallace’s direction.
You sound a bit rattled? I only enquired as to why we should take an account of a policeman hopping on a moving tram at a request stop when Wallace didn’t do that or why we should discount Jimmy Tattersalls’ account of going in a cafe in NJ Street with his friend Parry. You just carry on picking and choosing which versions you want to believe. With Mike’s new evidence that the line lights up showing quite well which call box was used, Wallace wouldn’t be using a box local to his home. If he was ever trying to frame Parry he could have rang from near Lily Lloyd’s house then jumped on the tram there, a few stops ahead of his normal tram. After all the Wallace guilty brigade have him not worrying about getting on at any old stop nor being seen by tram staff or clients at any old stop. I think for now i’ll go along with the judge and appeal panel.
Neither the judge nor appeal court think he’s innocent. Nobody thought the teflon don Gotti was innocent but you have to begrudgingly let people go if the burden of proof was not met, which is what happened.
The particular test where they hopped on at the request stop was one of the slower test times, nobody is using this. I know the distance and thus the walking speeds required, these were all carefully measured. He can board at St Margarets church without running. He can board at Belmont Road and get to the club within the time range after making the call, without running. That is the only thing that matters. Maddock did not run and easily beat every cop time by a full minute, while trying to actually defend the guilty man. It is proven possible and we already know these things.
It isn’t relevant what cops did or didn’t do when trying to arrest the guilty man. Unless they literally changed the evidence we are using to determine he did it, we have all the facts necessary to render an opinion. What you have is religion and religious belief. You aren’t going to admit to yourself that the man obviously did it anymore than a devout Christian is going to admit their book is makebelieve.
It’s relevant that the cops got Alan Close to change his timing, why did they do that?
How do you know the judge and appeal panel did not think him innocent? Neither they nor the prosecution found anything to convict him, in fact the judge says the defendants statements are wholly consistent. No timings are proven possible that Wallace could have done it, only that walking a certain pace or the call finishing in 5 minutes makes it possible – none of which is proven.
That means it is proven possible… Impossible would mean you couldn’t make it even if you were Usain Bolt. But the paces required to make the times are not Usain or even running. They are walking to brisk walking pace, less brisk for a tall man due to stride length. And this is very generous, steelmanning to make it so he isn’t boarding by the phone box but going all the way to Belmont Road.
7.45 is the EARLIEST he could have arrived based on Beattie asking many members. Wallace believes 7.50. Do you think EVERY person Beattie asked at the club said 7.45? That was the earliest they gave. What do you think the latest might have been since one member, Wallace, thought 7.50.
Well I think a guilty Wallace would say timings that make it impossible for him to have done the deed, don’t you? Such as he only left his house on Monday at 7.20pm that he actually left his house on Tuesday at 6.40 and he doesn’t think the milk boy had been – things like that. Just like I think he’d have just said the bolt was on the front door and not things like ‘It wasn’t like that this morning’ etc and it’s funny how Sarah Draper knew the back door was dodgy yet Wallace didn’t use it as a ready made excuse. You asked earlier why the thief didn’t just turn on his heels and run, i’ve explained this by saying if it was Marsden or even Parry himself, Julia knew them. For all we know she might even have know Denison or any other of Parry’s friends – who’s to say not, we don’t know everyone she did or didn’t know.
Murders happen to this day, killers give info to cops leading to their own arrest just like Wallace did. This is what happens when simpleton 90 IQ pseudointellectuals like Wallace think they’re too clever for the cops and speak without their lawyer present. You know he did this, or you are lying to yourself because it’s a hobby.
I thought you’d dropped that theory that definitely didn’t happen where she’s waiting in the parlour or bedroom. It is as likely as Joseph Wallace sailing over from Asia and posing as William in Menlove Gardens to help him murder his rotten old wife, or Wallace dressed as Julia at the door. Even Rod must be saying like “bro, this didn’t happen” lol.
Holmes: “Then there is the curious business of Wallace’s briefcase.”
Watson: ”But nobody mentions Wallace’s briefcase. The Menlove witnesses, the police, nobody. The police searched the house and don’t mention finding and examining Wallace’s briefcase.”
Holmes: “ That, my dear Watson, is the curious business.”
I make no apology for re-visiting this topic. A Prudential agent and his briefcase were inseparable. Literally: the Pru briefcase supplied to all agents has a wrist cuff secured around the agent’s wrist. It is unthinkable that an agent out to arrange new business with a client, Mr Qualtrough, would not take it with him full of brochures and documents related not only to the expected policy for his daughter but to cover any potential new business with other members of his family. Its what Pru agents always did.
It is hard to believe it was found and examined by the police but this was not recorded. The only option is that Wallace didn’t take it with him, even for versimilitude, because he knew he wouldn’t need it or its contents. But where was it?
The fact it isn’t mentioned does not mean he didn’t take it, rather like it was just expected he did, just like the fact the call box number light lit up in the exchange wasn’t mentioned because it was known that it did. Either that or another piece of police incompetence but Wallace does mention that he got some documents together that he thought he would need so in that it is safe to say he did take some whether in his briefcase or inside pocket.
Hi Ged,
If we look closely at the Qualtrough phone call, Mr Q mentions being busy with arranging his daughter’s (or his girl’s) 21st birthday. This is given as the reason why he can’t call back later. It was nothing to do with the business he expects to conclude with Wallace. In fact Mr Q was vague about this saying only that he wanted to meet Wallace – it was something to do with his business.
It was Wallace who inferred (he says) that the “business” was likely to be related to the daughter’s 21st. He did, as you say, put together some papers that he thought he might need (based on his assumption about the daughter.) But this would be very unprofessional for a seasoned Pru man like Wallace. What if Qualtrough wanted to take out a sickness/medical expenses policy for himself or/and his wife? Wallace wouldn’t have the correct documents with him.
As for stuffing a few papers into the inside pocket of his coat – it beggars belief.
I suspect he didn’t take the briefcase with him to MGE because he knew he wouldn’t need it. But even if he did why is it not recorded as having been thoroughly examined by the police (for obvious reasons.)?
Bro it was intermittently raining through the day. Imagine just sticking A4 papers in his jacket pockets lmfao. Taking out rumpled papers from his pocket to convince a guy to get big commissions.
Yes, I agree it is safe to say he assumed it was about this 21st but what if the police said to Wallace, show me your briefcase. He would point to it wherever he kept it and in there would be all his normal documentation he carried with him everyday and it wouldn’t prove whether he’d taken it with him to MGE or not? To suspect he never took it and prove it are two different things, like most of this case. We can suspect the bolt was or wasn’t on but cannot prove it except to say Flo Jo couldn’t open the front door (from inside) either. Which to my mind goes in Wallace’s favour.
”Bro it was intermittently raining through the day. Imagine just sticking A4 papers in his jacket pockets lmfao. Taking out rumpled papers from his pocket to convince a guy to get big commissions.”
I didn’t say he ‘DID’ do that, just that he could have and his inside pocket would be dry but I suspect the fact the police have not pulled him on this is because he did take his briefcase and even if he didn’t – how would they know he didn’t because when asked he would just say he did. Please read my last post, the one you are replying to, I said all this already.
Murderer Julius Jones’ parents said he was at home with them when the murder was committed. Julius DENIED this alibi. Why would a guilty Julius not just agree he was at home playing Monopoly with the family like they said, instead of putting himself in the frame for the murder?! This proves he is innocent, let him out of death row like the innocence project says!
Phenomenal logic at play here. Real intellectual powerhousery.
There’s like 10000 witnesses of his pathetic trip around the Menlove district. Flo and John saw him return fucking around with the door, they could be asked also.
Wallace taking his briefcase to MGE is neutral as regards an indication of guilt or innocence. Either an innocent Wallace took it really hoping to meet Mr Q or a guilty Wallace took it along as part of his pose as a Pru agent out on business.
Wallace not taking his briefcase is hard to justify in terms of his innocence and may indicate that he knew he wouldn’t need it or its contents.
Guilty or innocent, on arrival back at No 29 and after the business with the doors he would put the case down immediately on entry and begin his search for Julia. It would therefore be in full view when the police arrived and no doubt, as his story unfolded, of great interest to them.
It is entirely possible that it was examined but was never specifically mentioned in reports etc as it was found to be “clean.” I would expect Wallace’s defence to have mentioned this at the trial along with the absence of blood on his person.
Its all very strange when we have details of the contents of Julia’s hand bag on the kitchen chair, the Echo open on the table etc. but no briefcase!
”There’s like 10000 witnesses of his pathetic trip around the Menlove district.”
More fake news – name all 10,000 🙂 Having walked the very route he said he did, in the pitch black of January last year it is clear that traversing the whole triangle and having walked up to Dudlow Lane then down Green Lane it is very feasible and took pretty much exactly the time he was actually out. In reality he only needed to ask Katie Mather as an alibi, the copper alibi could not have been planned or foreseen – of that you must agree.
I agree Mike, but as we’ve seen in this case, if something happened that was natural, there is no great detail on it IE The drains do seem to have been searched going by reports at the time, there is no great mystery surrounding how the call was traced, as you have found out, it was natural. His briefcase not being there would surely have been mentioned equally by the prosecution so therefore it must have been.
Case closed – pardon the pun.
So he has a briefcase, then it is no longer very difficult to remove items from the home. Evidently this briefcase if existent wasn’t tested in any way. He was also laughably allowed to re-enter and spend time alone in the house just a couple of days or so after the crime, so more opportunity for tampering if something had accidentally been overlooked. Allegedly the cops were just 100% gunning for him, like all the “innocent” convicted murderers, but let their suspect back into the crime scene without supervision.
Katie Mather yes, that would be the woman to whom he said “how odd, there is no East!” (or something like that, it is in her statements), before continuing his hunt. Yes his hunt should have ended there, he was already “suspicious” as he says, that something terrible may have happened to his wife (actually, suspicious something was up due to the string of robberies). And the cop who said he appeared very nervous, yes, that would be another witness. Yes they had tunnel vision, a tunnel that led them straight to the killer. Like every single murder case ever where the cops begin closing in on the murderer before making an arrest.
Would he remove a bloodied bar or spanner in a briefcase that he could expect would be turned over and inside out by the police? If he did why wasn’t blood found. Oh you have him wrapping the weapon up in newspaper or something as though that is blood proof or was that Herlock Sholmes as i’ve lost count of the number of idiotic claims on that casebook forum 🙂
Yes, a guilty Wallace only needs to time stamp the first and/or last tram and Katie Mather so to continue, just because he’s spent all that time going up there and now he’s there he may as well look plus the disappointment of not realising his own commission bounty, it is quite understandable.
Oh well that’s convincing yes, nobody has committed any murder ever because why would a guilty _ do _? Just let them all free. They dindu nuffin. Why would a guilty OJ stab Nicole to death when he has to catch a limo ride so soon afterwards? Why not merely strangle her to avoid all the blood that was found inside his Bronco and on his property or wait until he has more time? I guess he didn’t do it guys.
I’m not sure how spontaneous OJ’s killing was, did he take months to consider and plan it like it’s said Wallace did? If he did take months or even weeks he was a bad planner and yet still got away with it, what does that say – innocent probably if the brains of the C.I.D. couldn’t pin anything on him.
I’ve also lost count of the number of crime docs I watch where the killers say something or openly admit to the murders and just keeping schtum would see them off with it, almost like the burden of guilt being lifted from them, some even owning up to cold cases or old cases they were suspected of, it happens all the time.
Wallace denied guilt upon his arrest, at trial and upon his sentencing.
Lol what? Kevin Cooper says he is innocent. Julius Jones says he is innocent. Rodney Reed says he is innocent. Rudy Guede says he is innocent. Marcellus Williams says he is innocent… SCOTT PETERSON says he is innocent… Not only do they say they are innocent, so do hundreds upon thousands of low IQ retards on TikTok and the scam artists of the Innocence Project. Just like Wallace has Kim Kardashian tier intellects in his corner.
James Krauseneck says he is innocent. Michael Peterson says he is innocent. Sam Sheppard says he is innocent and inspired TV shows about his innocence (The Fugitive). Lizzie Borden says she is innocent, even after she got away with it. Adnan Syed says he is innocent and he’s SO guilty that even though some corrupt ho freed him from prison they’re trying to put him back in. The evidence to get him out was bogus of course.
The commonality being that ALL of these guilty people have huge “innocence” movements behind them, because people are very easy to manipulate if you just put some nice piano music over photos of the murderer as 6 year old and lie through your teeth, a la benzidine in the drainpipes. Jonathan Goodman is the same as the modern Innocence Project figures who distort things to portray very guilty people as innocent. 90% of his book is just flat out inaccurate factually, filled with rumours.
James Krauseneck put an axe through his wife’s skull. There’s a secondary Parry type figure in that case too except that guy actually confessed to doing it, Ed Laraby. He lived just down the road and was in prison at the time of confession because he broke into women’s homes and raped and/or killed them. That is a far stronger suspect than Gordon? Gordon made up his whereabouts on Monday. Well he didn’t do the crime, which introduces more figures for Tuesday, and bizarro scenarios which definitely did not happen like Marsden wandering into the parlour while Julia waits upstairs in the bedroom to get serviced by Gordon. Like put that out of your mind right away, I can assure you that in particular didn’t happen. The only way to legitimately believe Wallace didn’t do this is if he COULDN’T, because barring some near-impossibility, he is very clearly the strongest suspect given all of the facts of the case. And all things making it impossible have now been exposed as fictitious. So that’s really it for him.
Wallace did this like all those other people with swathes of innocence supporters in their corner. I think Lizzie Borden and OJ are just the most famous of these, but see all the others too.
RMQ are you seriously asking me to compare this absolute circus with a real trial:
The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson was a criminal trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court, in which former NFL player and actor O. J. Simpson was tried and acquitted for the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, who were stabbed to death outside Brown’s condominium in Los Angeles on June 12, 1994. The trial spanned eight months, from January 24 to October 3, 1995.
Though prosecutors argued that Simpson was implicated by a significant amount of forensic evidence, he was acquitted of both murders on October 3.[1][2][3][4] Commentators agree that to convince the jury to acquit Simpson, the defence capitalized on anger among the city’s African-American community toward the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), which had a history of racial bias and had inflamed racial tensions in the beating of Rodney King and subsequent riots two years
Political correctness, Woke bias and racial tensions played a big part in his acquittal quite obviously. No more comparing this sh1t show with Wallace pherllease.
The difference is, all those you list claimed innocence (as did OJS) when in fact a plethora of damning evidence shows them as guilty. If you can stick to like for like where there is absolutely no evidence of guilt – ala Wallace then I will consider your rants. Maybe such as the killing of billie jo which was contentious.
The circumstantial evidence against the man is well known. And it is strong enough that it literally requires some form of impossibility to suggest another person did it. The evidence exclusive to the other suspect is that he told lies about where he was on Monday. Which isn’t something OVERTLY rare in real life, where an innocent man lies about where he was because of various reasons and I listed that on my page along with some real life examples.
What is crucial is that some assumed proven elements like the chess start being displayed on board, are gone, and various time elements like Wallace giving 7.50 as arrival, benzidine BS. Basically, these previously assumed proven things have been reduced to possibilities at best, and for that reason are no longer strong enough to make the alternate suspect better than the blatant one.
The evidence against Krauseneck and Sam Sheppard is also circumstantial.
This is what I put previously:
As if the burglars would announce their arrival by slamming doors open and shut. The idea is that they sneak in and out within minutes if it wasn’t for the hapless Marsden seeing what was of value in the parlour thinking Julia might be waiting for Parry upstairs.
I never said she was waiting upstairs for Parry. I said Marsden might think that so stop putting words in my mouth. In not hearing Julia, it is possible he thought the house was empty even or she was asleep upstairs but then was confronted by her as he opened the parlour door.
It is only a theory, perhaps it WAS even Parry himself, given the dodgy sparse almost coerced pre meditated sound alike alibi’s by Brine and her nephew. Not a mention about why Parry stayed there for 3 hours when his mate William Denison wasn’t even there.
P.S. If anyone wants to read the poo show trial that RMQ has at least half a dozen times not mentioned in comparison to the Wallace case, here it is and is even more of a soap opera than I first remember it 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_trial_of_O._J._Simpson
Verdict: Withheld information galore – Guilty as sin.
RMQ says: ”The circumstantial evidence is strong enough that it literally requires some form of impossibility to suggest another person did it”
This is clearly false and in fact part of Wallace’s defence is in fact that somebody else did do it which is upheld otherwise quite clearly, anything saying it HAD to be him would have resulting in his hanging.
IE. The circumstantial evidence IS NOT strong enough to convict him and therefore that alone is not enough to convict him.
Verdict: The weight of the prosecution evidence against Wallace is not strong enough to convict him which is why the appeal judges over ruled the jury verdict which in itself contrary to what was directed by Justice Wright.
It is probably why there were gasps in the public gallery and why the unprecedented event of a Cathedral Mass was said in Wallace’s honour and why a dry run trial at the HQ of the Pru etc were all on Wallace’s side.
P.S. It is not just the Monday night lie by Parry that put’s him in the frame for me. I’m sure if it had been him and his supposed alibi’s undergoing some serious questioning we might have got to the bottom of it at the time.
I meant to reach the bar of “did he do it”, not the bar of “beyond reasonable doubt”. Incidentally the circumstantial evidence against Sam Sheppard and James Krauseneck may also on paper not be strong enough to actually convict, yet it is quite obvious that they did do it. Sam I know less about but Jim definitely did it. They were all convicted despite this, like Wallace, and I think Sam was also released on appeal. Possibly also from death row.
Those realistically are solved cases and so is this. As in, if it’s not literally near impossible they did it, it’s so blatantly them. Despite having to begrudgingly let them all go. Even if Gordon didn’t exist you would have to acquit legally. Remember that the appeal judges were not furnished with most of the things you use about Gordon and still acquitted.
We aren’t making judgements on his life. We are saying “who did it”. Obviously you must think William once the impossibility is exposed as a lie, and anything else is like vested interest or crazy person stuff.
The debate seems to have boiled down to “it was either Parry or Wallace.” Justice Wright said that based on the evidence it is hard to find any individual responsible for Julia’s murder. It could have been a stranger who called, was admitted on whatever pretext, murdered Julia and left. However, because we know little or nothing about these alternative suspects, our focus is on the two principals.
To believe it was either Wallace or Parry we have to jump through several hoops. In the case of Wallace his good character, lack of apparent motive, and the tight timing on both evenings etc.
With Parry we have his alibi for the murder evening, his record of spontaneous criminality (car theft etc) as opposed to a planned caper, and his pattern of being a lone operator instead of working with cronies.
Dismissing Parry’s alibi for the murder evening as “arranged” has to invoke staggering incompetence or corruption on the part of the police, outright “turning a blind eye” to someone who may have been guilty of a brutal murder, or collusion by Mrs Brine.. This is for me an insurmountable obstacle. Parry was a sneak thief, not a planner. A planner would have chosen the night when a full monthly collection was in the cash box. And would anyone, the haul being uncertain, plan it with colleagues who would want their share?
As for Wallace. Nice guys do commit murder. The examples are legion. Motive is a problem, but the advanced state of Wallace’s kidney disease probably pushed him over the edge. The timing has been dealt with by RMQ and I agree he could have made it to the club and to the tram in time.
So although I’m not as committed as RMQ I have Wallace as my front runner with anyone else, and it wouldn’t be Parry, a distant second.
Hi. Parry was in a planner in some respects. He obviously planned to go to try car doors or whatever, it wasn’t that spontaneous, he might go into town knowing he would have no money to get back and think, i’ll just rob a car – that’s planning even if he doesn’t know what type of car it will be. He might plan to go o town with no money but assume he will get some from one call box or another, that is planning.
If we look at what Herbert Balmer who coincidentally had joined the C.I.D. in 1930 got away with then police corruption (see the letter on this site and Goodman’s take on the state of the police in 1931) also in collaboration with Moore was under pressure and thought he had his man early on and didn’t want that disrupting (I’ve mention this and that pesky Alan Close before) and then ‘Where was pal William Denison?’ then why such a short statement from Olivia and Harold with no substance to it and then Moore working with Imelda Parry and then Ada Pritchard, Parry’s dad £2000 etc etc and it is not insurmountable to me that’s all.
This is literally “Innocence Project 101”. Please note the allusions that the man was innocent but cops were just “pressured” or had “tunnel vision”, then proceed to look at every piece by the Innocence Project which uses the exact same reasoning and word for word terminology to make it seem that the cops don’t care about finding the person who killed a woman, and just want to frame an innocent person for doing it so a vicious murderer of old ladies can continue to wander the community to kill someone else.
This is how OJ got away with his crime, because fantastic cop Mark Fuhrman was a racist, so they alleged that the cops worked to frame OJ for nefarious reasons. Mark IS a racist, on that there is no doubt, but it is a mistake to believe that his racism means he can’t possibly be correct in his investigative findings or would plant evidence just to frame an innocent black man.
Now, it is actually pathetic to do the same with Moore. It is actually really severely distorted thinking, even beyond any of the stuff I came up with while stoned years ago, to suggest cover up to protect Gordon and risk his entire career and insane jail time (aiding and abetting a murderer, max penalty in 1931?) because his daughter has an average as fuck easily-replaceable receptionist job with the Parrys (proof btw? Is it just Gannon’s severe autism again or is this definite). Even I never suggested anything like that lol.
You’re so easily swayed by like, random BS like rumours and tabloid pieces. 99% of your thinking revolves around rumours, and like inconsequential ambiguous statements. Maybe Gordon was fishing for 5K from the loser failed-historian Goodman (i.e. Not even for 2K, hint hint offer me 3 you autist cuck ). Maybe his dad doesn’t trust him given his history and isn’t himself absolutely confident in his son’s non-involvement (literally how the fuck would he know). Even for an innocent man why draw attention back on yourself in connection with a murder?
These are the types of things you are easily impressed by. You are probably impressed by the rumour that Schofield Allen was at his bedside when Wallace was dying and Wallace made a strange comment about winning. You probably just accept this is something that happened.
Hi GED the 2k comment was obviously a money ploy to Goodman; probably hoping for a higher offer.
Note it is mentioned in Goodman’s notes that he was promised money by John Rowland and never received it, so the subject must have come up.
No one said Parry was a choir boy; he was definitely angling for easy money before deciding he could tell these aspies off.
This says absolutely nothing one way or another about his guilt or innocence. Please try to use some more deductive reasoning (note not: “abductive” which is an obsolete word and is misused by Rod.) Some more deductive logic from you would help things run snappier here and be more pleasant for all.
Goodman has numerous versions of the same exact conversations. He’s a hack and a failed historian who filled a book, intended to be a historical account, with local rumours and Chinese whispers of a guy who knows a guy who knew a guy who knew they found the iron bar.
If precise wordings and accounts of conversations are important, Goodman is the absolute last person to trust. He can’t even keep it straight between his own notes. What a joke. In one version Gordon implies Wallace is a homo. In another Gordon says Wallace is a sadomasochist rather than sexually odd. The dude is garbage and probably autistic judging by the radio city show he was on.
If the short “rubber stamp” statements from Mrs Brine and the Denison lad were all we had regarding Parry’s alibi it would raise suspicion that the police were convinced Wallace did it and were not going to investigate Parry or anyone else seriously. But they also examined his clothing, his car, and interviewed Mrs Lloyd and Lily about his movements. These two must have been convinced of his innocence because the engagement to Lily continued for some time afterwards.
It was barely 48 hours after the murder that Wallace gave Parry’s name to the police. At this early point, even with the phone call being traced to Anfield 1627, all leads were being followed up including the whereabouts of Marsden.
Its also notable that although many people disliked Parry, having been duped by him on some scam or other, there was no bandwagon protesting his guilt. Nobody wrote “Parry did it” on a wall at the dead of night. And his employment with the Gresham Insurance company was unaffected.
That Parry was a bad lot and an inveterate liar is accepted but it takes more than these straws in the wind – Ada Pritchard, £2,000, Parkes…. – to build anything like a convincing case against him.
I like the way Ada Pritchard is airbrushed out in less than 1 sentence 🙂
It is much more easy to be swayed and impressed by ‘it is always the husband’ when i’ve pointed to instances in the past when it wasn’t. The police files were undoubtedly pruned after Ken Oxford Refused permission for them to be seen in January 1981 – why by the way? Where is Marsden’s statement? Why was Parry at Olivia Brine’s with no pal William present? Where are the statements from Phyllis and Savona from the night at Brine’s? Why didn’t the police re-question Parry under caution after the police got the Lloyd’s statements – as that would be the process. I’ve also listed over half a dozen high profile police corruption cases so to suggest Moore (promoted after the 1929 police strike) couldn’t have done this under pressure of the biggest case in his life doesn’t wash with me either. Yes, we do accept these things of Parry, just like we accept that Wallace was a decent, upstanding, honest citizen with no previous record of absolutely anything untoward who can be suddenly imagined to be a killer.
It’s airbushed in a sentence because that’s literally all that is required to dismantle these nothing-statements… Like wow that’s crazy dude you mean Gordon’s parents were scared their son was being investigated for murder? This is groundbreaking. What explanation could there possibly be except that he did it (which they couldn’t know obviously unless he decided to tell them since he wasn’t home).
Every one of these desperate musings can be obliterated in perhaps one sentence. Literally this is just the ridiculous and desperate death rattle of a man who has been thoroughly debunked beyond belief… Literally Google your exact wording regarding pressure and corruption and see the precise exact same thing pop up in relation to guilty murderers like Julius Jones. Usually alongside, of course, photos of them as 6 year olds or in graduation caps and gowns. Because you know look, how could this kind man have done this crime he’s SMILING! How could this put bull be dangerous look it’s wearing a FLOWER CROWN. The latter being something championed by the truly lowest IQ members of our species.
Krauseneck was an upstanding citizen. Sam Sheppard was a doctor. Crippen was a doctor also right, another upstanding citizen? Lord Lucan is an upstanding citizen… The BTK (Bind Torture Kill) killer Dennis Rader was an upstanding citizen and did stuff for the church… OJ Simpson was more than just an upstanding citizen he was a national hero and global icon.
Nothing “washes” with you. Except literally the most mundane Tom Slemen-esque musings like the mentioned Ada. You’re legitimately impressed by that lol, that a murder suspect’s parents were afraid for their tearaway son’s life. Wow how shocking. Who could imagine that? These are literally ghost story tier happenings, very inconsequential and explainable in one or two sentences tops, I feel like I’m at a campfire roasting marshmallows with this BS bro.
There is a world of difference between events that could have a sinister interpretation – police corruption, Ada Pritchard etc – and those which, supported by solid evidence, become established facts. The various points which you raise supporting Parry’s involvement Ged are possibilities. As such I don’t dismiss any of them. But for any point to be promoted into the “probable” column we need more background information and at this point we simply don’t have it.
Why did Mr Chandler not show up for his chess game with Wallace? Could he be Qualtrough who didn’t want his voice to be recognised so soon after the phone call? Yes, it sounds crazy but its not impossible until proved so to be.
So these various points should not be dismissed but placed on the very crowded back burner pending the discovery of supporting information.
I would add that my late Aunt Hilda also thought her doctor was a “decent, upstanding, honest citizen.” You will find Hilda Fitton in the list of Dr Shipman’s victims.
RMQ please stop citing other totally unnecessary cases, I’ve seen them all and none bear any relation to the Wallace case. Here’s some facts:
Apart from 18 Prejudicial errors at the Committal proceedings with no reporting restrictions and the well documented police incompetence at the crime scene and in their statement taking and cross referencing, i’ve been looking at how 3 witnesses for sure changed their statements in court. No doubt after Police coercion as with Alan Close, the milk boy.
James Edward Rothwell statement 30.1.31
I saw Mr Wallace walking at a very fast pace and was looking on the ground and appeared to me as if he was crying. He had his hands in his pockets of his overcoat which was a light fawn coloured one.
Trial: Q399-401: His face was haggard and drawn and he was very distressed – unusually distressed. He was dabbing his eyes with his sleeve and appeared as if he’d been crying. I have never seen him like that before.
John Edward McFall. Post Mortem 21.1.31
I am of the opinion that death was due to fracture of the skull by someone striking the deceased 3 or 4 times with terrific force.
Trial: Q1795: 12 blows quite definitely. 11 I am sorry. It is rather doubtful so I have put it definitely as to 11. It was a frenzied attack.
Alan Croxton Close. 21.1.31
Between 6.30 and 6.45
Statement on 20.2.31:
I passed Holy Trinity church at 6.25 I went to the dairy at Sedley st and on to 29 Wolverton st.
(incorrect as he had deliveries first at Letchworth st (where Elsie Wright saw him) and then at Richmond Park before the Wallace’s)
Trial: What time did you deliver the milk that night: Half past 6.
Okay bro yes everyone was got to by the cops to frame the innocent man. I notice literally zero people including Alan put Alan at the door at 6.45 including various kids who weren’t manipulated by the cops . I’ve been re-checking these facts.
“I then went along Wolverton Street to Richmond Park and then to Redford Street and then went home. When I got to Redford Street I looked at my watch and it was then a quarter to seven. My watch is a minute or two fast.”
I.e. Alan’s two minute fast watch showed 6.45 after he’d left Wolverton Street and reached Redford Street. So he was in Redford Street at 6.43 or 6.44. Which is after Wolverton as he says. Which makes sense because that would make his time align with when the other dude saw him at the doorstep, and is closer to all the others including the latest guesstimate by Elsie (who gave an “about” 6.40 she saw Alan headed to Wolverton). Roughly all of the timings given, it is already accepted as being something within the region of 6.40. Give or take on either side. This doesn’t need debating and isn’t overtly critical. Wallace thinks he left his house at 6.45 which is another testimony about Alan’s timing, because obviously Julia cannot both be taking in cans and simultaneously walking down the back yard with her husband to lock the gate behind him.
Some of your pals are less charitable and say 6.37 or 6.38 like Antony. I provide a later time to steelman the position.
By the way can you provide proof about Imelda working for Gordon’s dad? It’s not something that matters re guilt, but it would be amusing if it’s literally just more bullshit from Goodman’s tabloid. I think it might just be another falsehood from the pathetic wannabe as I can’t find any source for it except people just asserting it.
We all know about changing statements yeah. Like the visits to Crewe’s house. Lolz. Sorry your hero is a murderer bro. Blame Goodman, a lifelong hack who put out rumour mill bullshit for money and notoriety, and dared to present himself like a real historian. What a joke. His pals in his obituary say he was wrong which is very funny tbh. Kicking a man while he’s literally down… Don’t be like Goodman. If you want to LARP as a historian, then it is critical to get these events correct and corroborated reliably.
Nobody cares much about what MacFall thinks or says. He is sort of a hack or guessing on a lot I things, but even more importantly, the techniques of the time were not adequate for this sort of time window or precision anyway. Rothwell wrote in to Goodman’s rumour mill and reiterated his statement but of course the tabloid loser joke of a man just ignored him. Not that his statement matters that much, but helps shed light upon the farcical nature of the man known as Goodman. He’s literally as bad as James Murphy, not even exaggerating.
I obviously have no affinity to either Goodman nor Wallace RMQ I’m just stating what is already apparently researched and in print.
I have a spreadsheet of the different callers and their part proven times 9by the church clock and institute bells, own watches etc and yes i’d say 6.38 is fair. I also note that Maddox and the Police timings mean Wallace couldn’t have left any later than 6.50 but he says 6.45 and therefore I do not think that Wallace could have done what he had to do in 7 minutes. We know the bath was taken out and we know the gas fire was taken out, it is why the house was inhabitable for Wallace to return to on the Thursday (in fact he should never have been allowed to on the Wednesday) but that’s the Police in this case for you. Btw McFall is supposed to be a professor in his field but he made the point of pushing, without being asked, that this was a frenzied attack as I believe that would help the jury sway towards Wallace and I wonder who could have put that idea in his mind when his Autopsy should be the conclusion to go off.
I just don’t see the relevance, because I think I have said before, what these people did or didn’t think isn’t really of relevance since I don’t think anyone is paying much attention to MacFall for example… Whereby even if he were an incredible elite tier forensic pro, was too limited by the technology of the time for this case to benefit much at all from his findings.
And similarly with the other elements, it is not impactful here because we aren’t being swayed by them. MacFall probably thought he was like Poirot tier and imposed his own conclusions in the courtroom. Possibly. Well forensics even in 2024 are largely subjective interpretations of objective facts. It only changed with DNA where you can say, yes there’s 1 in 250 billion chance this blood is anyone else’s other than the accused. And that is not a subjective element anymore.
Wallace says 6.45 yes, I think like Alan, times of this nature are more typically “abouts”. When we say quarter past 7, rarely is it literally exactly 7.15, they’re the sort of numbers we say when we glance at a clock and it’s like 7.13, 7.16, 7.17, etc… I think to do this in 7 minutes is easy. Even if the drains weren’t used the thing then was that it could be done but it would involve more presumption… E.g. There is evidence of burning. A man could quite easily wipe his face with a handkerchief and throw it into the fire. Or wrap a weapon in it then chuck the fabric in the fire… Without a promise that drains are not used, it expands the avenues which could have been used. Which matters because there is a blood spot, with splash streak, on the toilet rim, so someone at some point you must say at the very least, has been in there with blood upon them.
I steelman the staging but the reality is the man entered the house alone while neighbours waited outside. It is possible that the staging could have been done to some degree here. E.g. Grabbing some notes from the box, taking them upstairs to the bedroom jar… We know the man went upstairs while the neighbours waited outside. There are so many possibilities but I purposefully limit it, because the fact is it can be shown to be very much plausible even in the most generous assumptions. E.g. That he used all the tram stops he said he did rather than boarding by the call box, that Alan comes at 6.40 rather than 6.37, staging after he kills Julia and before leaving the house. And having his walking speed at 3 mph which for a taller man is kind of slow even if he wasn’t rushing. Even with all of these things being true, he can still have done this, with leeway.
Here’s one for you all to ponder over.
One of the first things the police thought of: Was there any use of the bath or wash basins. Indeed these were checked, removed and no trace of blood or recent usage noted, only a damp nail brush, no wet towels.
Let’s suppose Wallace is guilty. He could (time permitting to do everything from 6.38 to 6.49 max) have washed himself in the scullery/downstairs sink, wiped himself dry on a towel then burnt it on the open fire in the kitchen. Upon inspecting Julia’s body with Flo Johnston upon his return, he could have manhandled her in a way that he would purposely get blood on himself, then say, Oh dear, I am full of Julia’s blood, burst out crying again and said he must wash it off and gone to the very sink and washed the blood down the drains – even use the very towel, so no need to burn it at all. No need for the police to have the drains removed as there would be a perfectly normal reason now for blood to be present in the pipes. Funny how that didn’t happen isn’t it?
You mean the kind of thing he did when he told the cop to look then put his hands on the bloodstained notes in the jar in the upstairs middle bedroom, but with sinks? I don’t think any murderer who washed themselves off has ever tried such a ploy… Should we just go ahead and release them? Because obviously they would have done that if they really did the killing, so not doing this thing is proof they’re innocent. Should we actually just go ahead and release every murderer in fact, because there are things 100% of them hypothetically could have done and didn’t.
I mean just literally take every single piece of evidence in every case and say “well if he really did it he could have simply chucked out the bandana they found with his DNA all over it, therefore he can’t have done this crime”.
Your paradigm is such that literally only people with zero evidence against them whatsoever are guilty, because any possible thing indicating guilt is something a person who was guilty would apparently just get rid of, lol. So you can just be like “why would a guilty Gordon not simply use the Brines to cover for him on BOTH nights?” and for you this is absolute proof he didn’t do it because, well, if he was actually guilty surely he would do X Y Z bro, and not doing that therefore proves he didn’t do anything.
James Edward Rothwell statement 30.1.31
“I saw Mr Wallace walking at a very fast pace…. ” This is confirmation that when the occasion demanded it Wallace could move quickly. Presumably much faster than the conservative 3 mph used in RMQ’s calculation that Wallace had time to spare on both the 19th and the 20th January.
Yes, Wallace could have, as you say Ged, covered himself in blood examining Julia’s body then washed it off at the sink etc. But there are many things with hindsight that he could have done to reduce, if he was guilty, his chances of discovery. The Qualtrough plan was not only faulty. it had more holes in it than Swiss cheese. He could have done much better but he didn’t. That he went ahead with such a ramshackle scheme shows that he wasn’t the ice cold master planner that some have claimed him to be.
These failings to “do it better” don’t contribute to a belief in his innocence.
Just to reference those calcs:
“Assuming the average walking speed of 3 mp/h we can deduce the walk time between each stop:
The distance between the phone box and Richmond Park request stop is 233 yards【𝟮𝟭𝟯.𝟬𝟲 𝗺】, about a 2½ minute walk.
The distance between the Richmond Park request stop and the compulsory Newcombe Road stop is 157 yards【𝟭𝟰𝟯.𝟱𝟲 𝗺】, about a 1¾ minute walk.
The distance between the compulsory Newcombe Road stop and compulsory Belmont Road stop is 133 yards【𝟭𝟮𝟭.𝟲𝟮 𝗺】, about a 1½ minute walk.
The entire stretch from the telephone box to the Belmont Road stop is 523 yards【𝟰𝟳𝟴.𝟮𝟯 𝗺】, about a 6 minute walk at this average pace. There is even slight leeway depending on walking speed if he did walk across to Belmont Road. For example, a pace of 3.5 mp/h makes it a 5¼ minute walk, and 4 mp/h makes it 4½ minutes. If Wallace was trying to create as much distance between himself and the box as possible when boarding a tram, he may have walked at these brisker paces. For a man as tall as he was, stride length would make brisker walking paces more comfortable.”
To note here, the trams came every 8 to 9 minutes that evening, and we might expect Wallace, irrespective of guilt or innocence, to have boarded at one of these request stops had a tram been coming. And as such could postulate that for the time taken to walk between the Richmond Park request and Belmont Road stops (4 and a half minutes), no tram had been coming. And guesstimate from this tram times and wait times a little better.
For example, if it had JUST left the Richmond request before he could reach it, by the time he got to Belmont Road he would have to wait there around 3 and a half to 4 and a half minutes (it’s a 4 and a half minute walk and the trams come every 8/9 minutes).
I know something like this was brought up on trial, but may be for the other night.
Its safe to assume that on both the 19th and 20th January Wallace would want to put as much distance between himself and the incriminating phone call and murder respectively. He wasn’t out for an evening stroll so even 4 mph might be on the low side for the estimated walking speed of a determined tall man in these circumstances. You’re right: he had time to spare.
Ha ha I love the way RMQ latched right onto Mike’s incorrect initial assumption that the telephone exchange would receive a call from anywhere in the Anfield catchment area and this could put Wallace nearer the chess club when he made the call. Caught, game over, end of, period – bang to rights. Only to be disappointed once again when Mike got the correct info eventually that it was never any mystery which call box was used as the call box number lit up in the telephone exchange.
Now he is doing it again with this false evidence by Rothwell, like Wallace is racing along ha ha and Mike, you’re falling for it too to back up ever flagging evidence. I have found Rothwell to be a liar with his contradictory evidence about where Wallace’s hands were which changed from in his pockets (statement), to wiping his eye with his sleeve (trial – months later) when Wallace said not only did he not do this but if he had a watery eye he would dab it with a handkerchief under his glasses.
RMQ said: ”Your paradigm is such that literally only people with zero evidence against them whatsoever are guilty,” How do you work that out? What??? Only people with Zero evidence against them are guilty?? Really. No, I think only people with genuine evidence against them are guilty actually.
The ‘blood’ on the note was never confirmed to be even blood let alone Julia’s and there is no evidence anywhere that he ever had Julia’s blood on his hands – though I have found it incredible that such a fact was never confirmed.
So what you’re saying is he had the presence of mind to take the copper up to notes that didn’t even need to be there if he was guilty and then he made sure he put his blood stained hands on them (so the blood would have been noted as fresh ha ha – so comical this – even the keystone copper would surely note that – pardon the pun)
Yet this mastermind never thought to feign having to wash his hands in order to rid himself of any blood and therefore do away with any need for a mackintosh at all.
Also, if he is using this mackintosh as a shield when kneeling, he is therefore nearer the door than the fire with Julia’s body between him and the fire and the ‘shield’ is between himself and Julia, just how do you provide a scenario where this mac catches fire. It was clearly draped over Julia’s shoulders just like Flo thinks and like what women used to do, usually with a shawl and i’ve even seen women do to this date with a coat.
RMQ – Murderers wouldn’t normally try to wash the blood off in their own sink simply because usually the murderer is long gone and is hardly ever the first person alone to find the dead person they’ve just killed. Why would a murderer do this. The police upon checking the drains would say how is the victims blood in the drainage system, in the sink, in the bath etc – only the husband could have done it. None of Julia’s found in the Wallace’s drains despite your lone protestations that the test wasn’t done which you cannot prove. But it would have been so easy for Wallace to overcome that anyway by using the drains an then doing as I say he would have done and taken a wash afterwards in the presence of Flo. A bit like the bolt on the door – could have been done once he got back home at 20.45 if he’d forgotten to do it before or after the murder.
These are not mastermind thinking, there are only a few main things he has to plan.
Blood coverage (i’ve already mentioned the other methods which do away with any need to consider this) but ok in the event of blood, just wash himself off then create the wash charade in front of Flo making sure she sees him do it. He’ll also need to be swift as he has 11 minutes at best thanks to pesky Alan Close. The murder weapon – ah yeah, we’ve never properly solved that one have we, nor anyone, not even the keystone cops who scoured the area. 🙂
As for the Brines and why didn’t he use them as alibi’s twice. Parry didn’t know he’d be needing one for the Monday night as murder was never intended.
Are you drunk? This whole post is insane cognitive dissonance because your mind is slowly understanding it is wrong. Yeah it’s blood on the note. I am noting the possibility (I can define this word if needed) it was already there from earlier, and now he touches them in front of a witness. This was brought up explicitly in court with this exact implication, hence it’s why it’s Hemmerde not Oliver asking if he had blood on his hands then.
1616. Will you put those notes back in the ornament exactly as you found them? I did
not put them back; the accused did.
1617. But as far as you know, how they were. As far as my recollection goes, the notes
were like that, and with my height and the lowness of the mantelpiece, I could see there
were notes in the pot. (The witness illustrated).
1618. You did not draw attention to them first? No, I did not.
1619. MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: You mean the notes are right inside? Yes, my Lord.
1620. MR HEMMERDE: I want this quite clear. How far did he lift them out before you
stopped him? I should say about that. (Indicating).
1621. Then you told him to drop them? To replace them.
1622. And they were replaced? Yes, he put them back.
MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: About an inch or an inch and a half.
1623. MR HEMMERDE: About halfway, my Lord, and then he put them back. (To the
witness): Apart from that, was anything done to disturb them or arrange their order?
Nothing at all.
Page 75 of 224
1624. You are sure? Yes.
1625. Did you on that evening at any time see any blood upon him? I did not.
1626. Hands, clothes or anywhere? I did not.
Because Oliver was trying to use this action to explain the blood just prior, and Hemmerde is trying to shut down the notion.
Every single thing suggesting a person did it, in your paradigm (do you know that word?) can’t be real because if they did it, they would surely do X Y Z to avoid that evidence existing. The murder took place before Gordon was interviewed. So yes he could “do XYZ” and have himself covered for the entire period. The Brines were interviewed after Gordon. If they will lie for him for Tuesday they can lie for Monday. So yeah he has “the presence of mind to get them to lie for Tuesday but not for Monday!” Shall we list all the things “mastermind” Gordon “could have done”? Will that then prove to you it can’t be Gordon?
You see how this is literally mental midget-ism and embarassing. Like bottom set of every class, special needs tier.
https://test.mensa.no/home/test/en
Legit please just do the test bro lol. Do the test, post the result. Unlike the makebelieve benzidine fabrication tests which btw wouldn’t have worked if done.
The person who finds a dead body always starts out as the prime suspect AFAIK.
I’m tired of being forced to respond because of fear a person visiting the site will read some fiction about fairytale tests (which wouldn’t have worked if done) on what I am attempting to maintain as a serious historical resource. I refactored my pages and deleted my own trash musings, so now ideas and possibilities are marked as such, because this is meant to be a historically accurate resource now, and the crap rumour evidence from beta male Goodman and other autists are weeded out due to being unfounded.
Historical fact includes all Rothwell’s contradictory statements as well as Crewe’s contradictory statements about the number of visits and nature of the visits. Pace calculations are accurate facts for example and highly relevant. Rather than reply with corrections in comments I might start cataloguing actual inaccuracies of fact in a separate page so people aren’t misled. The cow goes moo, the pig goes oink, the duck goed quack quack! We can start at infant level basics if needed.
“….this false evidence by Rothwell, like Wallace is racing along.”
Presumably if Rothwell had described Wallace as walking slowly and pausing to catch his breath from time to time this would be taken as solid confirmation of Wallace being incapable of making it to the chess club or tram stop in the time available.
It is accepting or rejecting evidence based on whether it supports or negates a pre-conceived conviction as to his guilt or innocence.
These were observations lasting seconds which assumed importance only after the murder. I too noticed the hands in pockets / dabbing eyes with sleeve discrepancy. This is due to confusion, not lies, as he tries to remember details of a mundane event which had no importance at the time.
Mike, there is no need for Rothwell to mention anything about pace – nor his change of stance regarding the eye dabbing after the police have got to him, just as they did Close but Antony Brown literally ties his lies down to come up with a more realistic 18.38 to 18.40 timing – which i’m glad even RMQ recognises, based even on Close’s own admission that his rounds finished at 18.55 and he only had 2 streets after No.29. You put it down to confusion like most people do to help Parry out, oh he was just confused about Monday night etc…
RMQ- The only thing you said that made any sense in your last post is that the murder suspect is always the spouse and don’t you think Wallace knew this. So why leave notes upstairs, why leave bloodied notes upstairs even. Everything you copied and pasted from the trial I know already, it says nothing which is why he was a free man.
It’s like the mumbo jumbo about the blood clot, it’s shape, the height is was dropped from, whose was it, how did it get there – all irrelevant and took up far too much time than it ever needed to.
“So why leave notes upstairs, why leave bloodied notes upstairs even.”
Murdering someone isn’t a very rational act no matter how hard you try to plan it. The act of murder is in and of itself irrational. It’s why I bring up tangential cases, which are absolutely relevant when you keep doing this. E.g. Why did Julius Jones keep the red bandana? Don’t you think that’s unusual? Does this prove he didn’t do it because the act of keeping a vital clue after killing someone is stupid? Let’s discuss all the things Gordon “COULD HAVE DONE BRO” and if he didn’t do all of those proposed things he is obviously proven innocent, seems legit.
Jesus the list of premeditated murders where the killers made mistakes in spite of trying to plan it out and get away with it. The list is insurmountably long. One of the innocence project (fraudject) murderers who got freed by the innocence project went on to decapitate and dismember a man shortly after his release and “exoneration” (LOL). He went so far as to attempt to wear a disguise to fool cameras. The dude who freed him went on Joe Rogan grovelling saying his therapist is helping him deal with the guilt of having freed a murderer who just murdered again.
Regarding the notes specifically there are numerous possibilities. Many of them. Here is one of 1000000, maybe he didn’t notice there was blood on it when he stuffed the note(s) in there, and it came to his attention later when he inspected the house upon returning and going into every single room including his lab (lol) looking for Julia while the neighbours waited. The day after the killing he paid money into the Pru despite money being stolen. One of the possible motives is financial. This is shown in the diary entry mentioning £ s d worries, his wife’s rags, and the money she kept in a secret compartment of her dress… If that is the type of man he was, perhaps he tried to keep the “stolen” cash because he was to pay a certain amount into the Prudential after her death.
Another element to this is his claim of not knowing how much money his wife had. She had owned a pretty big house, and had supposed high class backgrounds he may not have known was bullshit (check marriage cert w fake dad’s job, check claims of her speaking French and whatever else).
If he is not being deceitful on that point, he may have expected her to have a huge amount of cash he would inherit, only to be surprised like “Qualtrough” when he found £4 in the box. About the same amount found stuffed in the jar. Of course there are 999999 possibilities remaining. You can speculate all day long.
Most death penalty murders in more modern times are premeditated, because first degree usually entails planning. Otherwise it’s called second degree and I think it’s not a death penalty offence then. Every single one of them made a mistake of some kind. What makes you believe this is different? Do you think Wallace is incapable of overlooking something, going right when he should’ve gone left, or of making some stupid mistake like how his own jacket was left under the corpse lol?
Julia was not wearing a possibly damp jacket round her shoulders bro. The jacket had been allegedly left in the hallway to dry owing to the rain earlier. She is sick, she puts this left-to-dry mack round her neck? She doesn’t have her own jackets there? Is this how bad her miserly husband is? Neil Norbury, an alleged statement I can’t now find, found her to have had a scarf around her neck when she came to the door. Or was that Alan? Or both of them? So where’s that?
Hi Ged please stop with this nonsense. You state stuff as facts like it wasn’t blood on the notes that anyone can look up and see every single source says the opposite. You’re making us all go around in a circle. It’s reaching absurd levels. I’m sorry you have personal health issues but please don’t take it out on us who are trying to have rational discussions about the case that lead somewhere.
https://imgur.com/a/VXtdDRW
Nobody has yet answered my question as to provide a scenario where a kneeling Wallace using the mac as a shield nearer to the door than the fire manages to get it burned.
There is no proof Wallace did not know Julia’s financial position and even the police and prosecution do not go down that road, there is no financial motive, in fact Wallace seems to have paid the Pru that week from his own money so stop making things up.
Just seems barmy that this master planner who had about 4 things to consider the police will question him on should take the money out of the cash box and of all places put it bloodied in a jar upstairs that the police would be all over a few hours later.
The idiot cop Fred Williams did not even write down any notes until afterwards and tries to say in Q1613 there was no blood on the mac when in Q1611 he’d already admitted that W could have transferred blood to the pound note from the mac.
By the way, show me anywhere it was confirmed that it was even blood on the note, never mind even fresh blood or Julia’s blood. I won’t hold my breath.
Many thanks for wasting ~30 minutes of my time with this “historian” LARP. Can you get a different job please, maybe one you are qualified for like pushing trolleys at Tesco? Yes it is mentioned in the City Analyst report. Both that it was human blood, AND that it was fresh.
Report: https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/City-Analyst-Police-Report.pdf
I don’t know what you are referencing in regards to kneeling by the door. What Wallace claims “””the killer””” (i.e. himself) did was hit her as she bent at the fire -> took two strides to the hallway where he grabbed his mackintosh that had been left to dry earlier -> came back in and saw her skirt had caught on the fire -> pulled her away (by her hair it looks like) and then looked down and saw the mackintosh had also caught while he was doing that, so stamped it out.
Wallace says to Gold he doesn’t know where Julia kept money. Probably because she was hiding it in her corset from him, because he is a miser psycho.
Is this real? https://i.imgur.com/UiLC11C.png
Julia had a bank account with £90 in it (about 8k today) not bad for a lady in 1931 who is not working and hasn’t for many years. There is no proof that W did not know she had a bank account and I read mention of him seeing the paperwork in a drawer in the house which is how he came to cash it.
Show me where it is confirmed the blood on the notes is from Julia and confirm it cannot be the case the even if it is, W could not have transferred this blood at the time of touching the notes in the presence of PC Fred Williams.
It also says (as we all know) that the mac was heavily bloodstained both inside and out and yet you want me to believe that W would not have had to wash some blood of somewhere.
W is not admitting anything in the John Bull stories otherwise you are omitting him saying He knows who the killer is – (Parry). So I call that selective reading with a preconceived agenda.
So when does W notice her skirt is burning? when he comes back in with the mac after the first hit knocks her onto the fire. How does pulling her backwards by the hair from the near the middle of the room with Julia between W and the fire cause the mac to burn? You/He is saying here that the skirt burn and the mac fire are happening on two separate occasions really which is too far a stretch of the imagination, like a comedy scene by the Marx Brothers.
All questions will be answered once you post result:
https://test.mensa.no/home/test/en
After you made me scour to disprove your claims I saw how mind numbingly boring this case is. It’s actually like a form of torture to read the trial. I guess it’s only interesting to people who are fugue state delusional. It’s like reading 100,000 lines of Lizzie Borden being questioned.
I don’t have to scour about the bank book because during this boring torture I found out that Gold found it. In the front bedroom in a drawer, the room Wallace barely steps foot in (not for a fortnight prior to the killing).
If he believed his wife was upper class from rich vet dad etc, he may well have assumed some untold nest egg. Because yes 90 is bad. Are you on benefits? She owned a house and LARPed about being from good stock. Now they are renters in a slum. What did she sell her house for?
Post test result and I’ll answer all Qs. You should see the amount of suspects far better than Gordon they found in the Jonbenet case. All these insanely strong seeming alternate suspects…
There’s a retard I saw the other day on a short interview, who befriended tonnes of death row inmates. He said the proof they are innocent is that they said they were innocent still as their last words lol. He said everyone he met on death row is innocent and he couldn’t find a single terrorist in Guantanamo Bay. Just a teenager in there for telling someone where to get tomatoes (seems legit). Reminded me of the Wallace diary.
You have no evidence W believed the vet story, you started the sentence with IF but if I start it with IF I get shouted down. The bank book was hardly hidden from W then was it? IF it was proven it was Julia’s blood on the pound note IF W had been seen by the phone box or IF this or IF that.
How many times must I say i’m not interested in other cases like the Jonbenet case (she was strangled just how W could easily have done it – hey presto no blood) Like chalk and cheese with the W case.
Wallace’s diary goes from years before and sometime after – so no comparison again and nothing incriminating ever found. In fact, only weeks before W is going the police station concerned for Julia’s whereabouts – hardly the actions of someone hoping she’s dead and let’s get my hands on her 8k is it?
I suppose why none of these IF’s ever came to fruition is why he walked away an innocent man.
You get shouted down because your ifs are completely retarded, and also often just factually bullshit (usually) and make me waste time crawling through this BORING, DULL, MEANDERING case to recover the thing to show it. Like some of my own retarded ponderings which deserved the same. I’m not sure if you’ve ever brought up a single thing that is a good point because perhaps you just don’t care and spit out stuff like tabloid people do. It’s so rare that I can actually point to and track your correct moments of genius, e.g. weather numbers (your site still says sleet or no?). Usually they just rely upon outright fake info and rumours.
(“in a city living”, I hope is on purpose and not a butchering of “inner city living” lol, which would make sense because Liverpool is mostly a ghetto).
Your ponderings are like, if Gordon did this why not, after realizing someone just slaughtered Julia, and allegedly getting the Brines to lie for him, not simply have them lie for Monday too? And this for you proves he didn’t do it. Because a murderer NEVER overlooks something and never makes any mistake ever. And if they do, it means they didn’t do it.
That is why it is directly analogous to the other cases mentioned. And all other cases mentioned ALSO have other “strong suspects”, much stronger than Gordon, including fake alibis sometimes, who turn out to just straight up not be guilty. Much stronger evidence against them than what you are using as a base from which to devise ideas of Julia, apparently a total nymphomaniac in her old age (dog lash?), waiting up in the bedroom to get f*cked by a barely adult boy.
Stop dodging the IQ test:
https://test.mensa.no/home/test/en
Take test if you want more answers.
If Wallace was guilty it wasn’t to get his mitts on Julia’s money. Nine thousand in today’s pounds is a handy sum but Wallace knew he was a dead man walking and as a widow this amount would be insufficient to keep Julia from descent even further into absolute poverty in that pre-welfare state era. Rented home, estranged family, no supporting offspring – her future was dire and if Wallace believed she was only 52, it may have lasted decades. I have even considered that this might have been a motive for the murder: to spare Julia this gloomy future.
Wallace’s financial position improved greatly after the appeal. He bought his bungalow, probably helped by several successful libel actions against articles in the press which described him as a murderer.
It is common ground that the mac was bloodstained but I can’t see why this means Wallace had to wash blood off his person. The function of the mac was to shield the killer from blood spray so that no washing off would be needed.
Wallace, as you say Ged, admits nothing in the John Bull article. But it is surely curious that an innocent man would speculate in detail, in print, as to how his wife was killed. Maybe payment for the article was a convincer.
Julia was actively tanking money and had, either just before or just after her husband placed the call to tragically end her, paid another medical bill to Dr. Curwen. She’s hiding money from her Scrooge maniac husband, potentially not even sleeping in the same bed as him anymore (see: front room sheets, alleged sighting of Julia in the window (reported on Tabloid City Radio Show), her bank stuff being in the drawer in that room).
Shortly before there had been yet another medical bout where she was coughing blood (perhaps she had a bite or two of Wallace’s perfectly baked arsenic-scones).
So now she was killed because she was 52 and he loved her so much it was to save her from her own poverty 🙂
We know the libel cases paid for his Bungalow, it is documented what he had in the bank on 21.1.1931.
It is documented at the trial that they slept in the same room, please don’t make me have to prove it yet again to you. She was in the front room to remove a bedsheet being mended on the table – stop making unsubstantiated dross up 🙂
There’s no evidence of hiding any money, Wallace being a scrooge or maniac or arsenic poisoner – you are literally like the hapless Echo readers who had him hung based on unrestricted reporting including 18 mis statements at the committal proceedings. Tell me why the police or prosecution have to do that or withold names of witnesses if he is sooo guilty?
For the record, I only started looking at who possibly could be the killer once I satisfied myself that Wallace didn’t have the time to do it and clean up (undisputed in my book and the experts that there’d be blood on him) plus he was so dumb he didn’t even say Hangonamo, the milk boy didn’t even come until 6.40 (even if it was before)
He’d also managed to have his tea of scones with enough mastication in Julia’s stomach to show this murder couldn’t have happened until towards 7pm even if Alan Close had called at 6pm and not 6.38. There are other details such as no way Wallace puts a voice on in a box where he could be seen then race to Cottles and speak to Beattie. I prefer to believe the people who were there at the time.
Bullshit bro. Great job again Mr. “Historian” (lol). Have you considered becoming a weatherman instead, it’s literally the only thing you’ve ever got right, ever, in decades of discussion about the same case. Literally ever. “Now, over to Ged for the weather…” has a nice ring to it tbh.
“It is documented at the trial that they slept in the same room” documented by the murderer yeah. There are minor pointers towards her POSSIBLY sleeping in the front. Though one of the three sources is Tabloid City so I don’t know how much stock to put into that. Or if you include the fact that several people attested that when they were ill, they wouldn’t sleep in the same room (nurse said this or w.e.) and guess what, Wallace had been ill just before the killing, Julia was ill on the day and days surrounding the killing.
There’s no bedsheet on the table Gannon, you are hallucinating again. Maybe buy the Casebook No. 7 magazine with the actual high res images instead. No the “mastication” doesn’t show this. Do you do this on purpose bro? Post IQ. Post IQ or don’t post anything, simple as.
https://test.mensa.no/home/test/en
IQ or back to Facebook you go to discuss autistic Gannon stuff about sheets on the table and bloody mittens on the windowsill based on about 2 pixels with the 60+ year old pensioner LARPing that he’s a bitcoin millionaire while living with and scrounging off of mommy due to severe autism. I promise I won’t ever insult or rag on you again if you’re special needs/low IQ. I’m like, holding you to a different standard and as such you seem to be purposefully shady.
Like with 10000% certainty you are just not cut out for this at all, you are wrong about this murderer husband just like I was and like I brainwashed my poor bestie into being wrong about too. Once the made up shit is gone, yes he has time, easily, no there are zero things preventing it from being him, yes it is a basic domestic homicide. What is your excuse for STILL being wrong and for decades at that? Must be either special needs or trolling on purpose to get a rise out of people. IQ right now or Facebook, pick one.
You’re the one admittedly on the drugs ‘bro’. I’m quite ok thanks. She was sewing something do you agree. The bedsheets were pulled aside, so maybe possibly yes. Not sure if Nurse Wilson who is hardly unbiased in her job for the police said they slept apart but if they did when ill then that proves they didn’t when not ill. Historian of Liverpool by the way has nothing to do with this case and i’m not sure some scousers will be happy with your ghetto slur, they’d probably knock you straight out but enough of that.
Let’s just stick to the facts. Here’s the biggest one. The defendant, despite the alibi etc having more holes in it than swiss cheese according to Mike, was released on appeal after the Jury wrongfully convicted him against the weight of the evidence provided – even after a fit up job. Now go and do that IQ test yourself ‘bro’ 🙂
I’ve done the test, I did a serious one at school too. I’ll share results once you take it… Or you can go ahead and return to Facebook… I just want to understand if you are special needs because like, I obviously won’t hold you to the same standard and will be more understanding instead of constantly insulting and ranting at you.
Which scousers do you refer to? Autistic 60+ year old fat man living with mommy? Or alpha male Kentigern back from the dead like Undertaker in WWE getting out of his coffin to uphold the honor of Merseyside?
Liverpool in large parts is a ghetto that’s why there are so many violent thugs and criminals like those around at the time. Clubmoor is just straight up a ghetto and is where Wallace first moved to from Harrogate. Anfield is like a middle ground. Amy Wallace lived in the wealthier part. She was probably considered like a billionaire for being able to afford a normal home that wasn’t in the slum. I think even around Menlove Gardens, Beattie’s like “uh yeah don’t go there at night bro it’s full of thugs”. Does this imply to you that it’s a nice area? The area is dogshit just like the Beatles who made shit bottom tier music that people only like because they were “on the drugs”, like Grateful Dead fans. You definitely need to be experimenting with some kind of hallucinogenic drug to actually believe this pathetic wife killer is innocent of this crime, beyond “wellll we can’t convict him based on this”. Like deep in an Ayahuasca trip, or just mental retardation.
Where did Rod get knocked straight out, was that in the ghetto part? Where exactly did he get bodied by a man in his 60s while in the prime of his life? Was it near the “tenements” (equivalent to “The Projects” in the Bronx ghetto).
I’m not allowed on your group of literal invalids and pretentious Antony (not Dave, he is not an invalid or pretentious – actually I quite like Dave, and I know there’s some kid there who is likely just fine also – though it’s suspicious to actually just hang out w autismal holocaust denier Rod) because I AM abrasive. I am being abrasive and condescending RIGHT NOW. This is a well known fact, it’s my preferred debate style, i.e. half facts, half ad hominem condescension, with some random alliterations and peculiar catchy sounding sentences. I enjoy this greatly, but apparently aspie incel virgin Rod can’t handle it. Yet you are allowed here always. You could at least do us the courtesy of taking the test, or just go back. Your input is just reckless and plays fast and loose with facts. With one correct fact ever in decades. This isn’t the right job for you.
I admit I do laugh out loud. I probably shouldn’t encourage you 🙂
You only deny certain things because you can’t find them in a heavily pruned case file that Ken Oxford was scared to release in 1981. We even have coppers from the case saying they’ll tell the truth once they retire but alas never did, even a letter on your own site about police corruption. It was as rife then as it is now.
I can’t help you about re-joining the facebook site. I have nothing against you and let’s face it, if Mike and I didn’t come on here nobody would. I’ll always say though a great asset.
Whether Mr and Mrs Wallace occupied the same bed is not a guide to the state of their marriage. Attitudes to age were totally different in 1931 compared with what they are today. People aged faster and died younger. I remember seeing ads in the 1940s: PHYLLOSAN FORTIFIES THE OVER FORTIES. Whatever “fortifies” means, you obviously needed it if you were over 40. People dying in their 60s were said to have had a “good innings.”
Whatever passions existed when they were married, the Wallace’s were now old beyond their years and ailing. Priority would be getting a good night’s sleep free from hearing snores or fighting each other for the blankets. I happen to believe they slept together but if they didn’t it was for the above reason rather than anything else.
You are forgetting someone wandered in ~a year or two prior and saw them in bed together, allegedly, according to the murderer William… The murderer also says that they were in fact sharing the middle bedroom so that does matter in that case also if it’s untrue… Because if they were suddenly not sleeping in the same bed where they were before it would suggest some kind of shift in relationship dynamic:
I.e. even a sharp decline in health. Obviously health concerns could lead to more strain on any relationship, especially combined with the outgoing costs involved with that and signs of the woman hiding money and diary entries which suggest money was a source of tension. William was not sure where Julia kept her money (we know some of it was hidden in her undergarments), so whatever is going on financially, obviously it is not something her husband was 100% in the know regarding. We can circle back on this because there is support for this angle.
Tangentially, he mentioned something about the upstairs front room being cold due to being directly above the parlour, whereas the middle bedroom was above the kitchen (where a fireplace was often on) so benefitted from the heat coming up the chimney to some extent. So it could have a relation to the front parlour fireplace being on if Julia had switched to the front bedroom and left a fire lit to keep that room warmer due to her sleeping in it away from her husband.
Attendants of the house note that they slept apart during bouts of illness, and both had recently been sick so is not completely unfounded to guess that at the time there’s a chance they were not sleeping together. The same attendants suggest these bouts of illness caused stress between the couple: Julia would accuse Wallace of malingering despite the fact he was dying with kidney illness, and Julia was just lazy and useless and did not have any desire to keep the house tidy (this is WIDELY reported, even in tabloids and by almost every witness from Pru employees to nurses hired – nurses also costing money by the way). You can also see this with your own eyes. The place is disgusting. The toilet is vile. The house is a hovel.
The charwoman had not been able to attend for some weeks (another source of outgoing finance, for something which at the time was expected to be a woman’s “household duties” (a term Wallace used to describe Julia’s housework)). So the home had become the disgusting putrid mess we see in the photos. More sources of tension.
The sleeping apart signals something not just because of the very surface level “oh they sleep apart? Must be fighting” but for what that could signify in regards to health conditions and other things that run deeper and contribute to the marital tensions. Them sleeping apart is an educated guess/proposal only, of course. To be very clear. It has circumstantial backing and testimony that could support the claim as a possibility but that’s it. What I am doing is just putting forward a convincing narrative of the events leading up to the crime.
Hi RMQ,
I agree with these points about the Wallaces’ sleeping together. JRH Christie strangled his wife Ethel as they lay together in the marital bed so we can’t draw any binding inferences from their sleeping arrangements!
The house was shabby with the enamel coming off the base of the bath and the door locks, front and back, needing fixing or replacement. You would think that a security-concious Wallace, with the Pru’s cash always in the house, would at least have had his landlord attend to the locks well before they got into their present condition.
Mike
Q: 2992: What were your relations with your wife. A) What I should describe as perfect.
Q: 2993: Were you in any sort of financial difficulty A) None whatever.
None of these were ever disputed, his diaries backed him up as did people they knew. All except a Dr and Nurse who would have seen them ill and at their worst. Subsequently W was found to have today’s equivalent of 12.5k in his account, Julia having 8k in her account. Further writings by W confirm that his lecturing fees were split with his wife and he bought his equipment with his half. A few coins in her nappy or one writing about ‘Just like everybody else we could do with more money’ is not a motive for killing her and neither was it ever suggested or given any credence, even by the Police or prosecution so why should we now when you are scrambling for unfounded reasons?
We might also add that Q3198 TO 3204 make it clear that the room with the hats is not where Julia slept and later he even answers that they slept in the same room.
Q: 3087: No one at the club knew where MGE was I gather? A) No
Not even Beattie or Deyes who lived nearer to MGW that W or most. Katie Mather also confirmed than the area was still being built upon.
Q:3005. Have you ever had a single penny wrong in your accounts. A) No.
In fact it seems he paid the shortfall of the stolen money into the Pru account that week from his own money. So we can sort out straight away that they were not in any financial difficulty that may persuade a man dealing daily with cash to syphon some off somewhere – not a penny unaccounted for.
We must not grasping at straws when in actual fact it is shown quite clearly that there are none there. They were not there in 1931 so they are not there now even with the benefit of actions we are aware of afterwards that the court could not know of course.
Are those answers the ones from the murderer? His diaries suggest “£ s d” worries. Thus whatever his financial situation was, it shows that however you personally interpret his wealth (which is in modern money, not even middle class, hence they’re living in a favela where there are numerous robberies and suicides down that street because it’s trash, and Elsie afraid to walk down an alley by herself), for him it was a worry, and a minor argument with his wife over buying newspapers right?
3005 suggests he was not thieving from the Pru. That is not related to his murder of his wife. I have already suggested this as a possible reason for stashing the notes upstairs in the vase, the knowledge that he would need to pay in the money himself. Could also be he was faking sick so he could collect less and have less to pay in. You can speculate on this.
The doctors and nurses saw them at their worst. So exactly, it is relevant that at the time of the killing they are supposedly both going through bouts of sickness and at their worst. These sicknesses put them at their worst and thus cause tension. I am merely building the narrative behind the murder that William carried out. You could use any singular one, or combine the costings with the tensions spotted between the couple during illness which they both had at the time she was killed.
Most people didn’t see them at their worst is correct.
I would also add. Any defects on this rented property would be down to the landlord and we do not know if W had reported these or not, he may well have.
The charwoman in their once a week procurement was of their choice and the only week she missed was because of the death of her husband. If they couldn’t afford her they would not have her. We have to stop imagining these tensions. In his writings W says that the free time his job allows for his other interests is good so we also have to stop imaging he wants to be management material etc.
We also have to imagine according to Rothwell (but not half a dozen clients that day) that this teary Wallace, so dismayed at what he was about to do, actually went home and say down for some tea and scones instead of sitting up in his room crying just minutes before he would slay her.
Taking your very lame points one by one:
He is not only not the murderer but at no point does he ever say he is, in fact his life story, later ghost serialised in the John Bull mentions another person, contrary to your suggestion so like the police did, embellishing and adding lies at the committal proceedings so please stop this nonsense.
His diaries don’t suggest any such thing as being hard up, just that like everyone else he could probably do with a few more shillings and neither do the prosecution or police even think so. It appears he didn’t even know how much he had in the bank, he had to be told and he agreed saying he’ll accept that. He also shared his lecture fees with Julia.
He cannot be held responsible for there being a burglar in the area, possibly the rowdy lot you have news cuttings of on this site. If you are going to pull up the odd mention of newspapers, I could mention his fear when she was not home, well documented by at least 3 other people too. How about him encouraging Julia to accompany him to the park to see the frost upon the flowers. How about his talk that Julia would have hated all this 9on the murder night, everyone in the house traipsing around) How about his post trial speak of Julia would have loved the new home etc. I suggested he’s never thieved from the Pru because a hard up person in charge of cash may not have the will power to resist the temptation – ala Parry – funnily enough whose hands were always in somebody elses cash till whether it be the Pru’s the place he was sacked from afterwards, the phone boxes etc and it was reported he was asking colleagues and friends for loans of money around the time of the murder. Mr Hard up – always living beyond his means unlike the Wallace’s who had 20k + in the bank and cash in the house.
Why would he have the knowledge that he would have to pay the stolen money back himself, that’s just ludicrous, in fact he was shown to be on works time whilst out looking for more business which is what was put forward by Hector Munro and why the Pru even paid for his legal fees.
So one minute we have Mike suggesting the murder might have been some sort of Mercy killing because W loved her so much he was saving her from a life of poverty after his death (which was still 2 years away) and now it was because there was tension with them being ill, like nobody is ever ill and yet don’t kill each other because of it – laughable. They’d been ill for years and he never killed her in 1928 🙂
Garbage. What do you mean ghost serialized? Lol jesus christ just leave already. Just leave, you have your Facebook where 70 IQ cat ladies can discuss your ideas. You are literally as delusional as the people who think OJ is innocent. That’s you. Pretending the OJ verdict is an outrage, the OJ jury is you bro. That’s you. You are they, they are you.
Every death row inmate maintains their innocence. There are “marks” just like you who go visit these guilty murderers like Kevin Cooper and champion their innocence. Why? Well duh he said he didn’t do it, and said he in fact really loved the family he slayed, so that proves it yeah… You are that “mark”, the type to proclaim “those strippers at the club really liked me!” after getting all of your benefits money rinsed for pathetic lap dances. I mean after all they were soooo interested in your dioramas. Couldn’t get enough of them… In fact as it turns out, they said your dioramas made them feel rather aroused, they said they love a man who creates miniatures…
20K is not even close to middle class. They are impoverished and in a slum with a filthy old lady who pretends to be from money, and a life failure who was doing the job of a young adult with no promotions in years, pretending he was going to make some important scientific discovery in his home lab. They are both pretenders. Gordon’s family were probably dramatically richer based on a number of factors. Gordon owns a car for one example, Wallace has to take public transport like a bitch. There are a lot of Gordons. Right now in fact check the news, lots of Menendez brothers news in circulation. They were rich, and still committed various thefts just like Gordon. Lots of Gordons not only in terms of well off people who commit crimes anyway, but in terms of alternate suspects. All cases have Gordons. Gordon was a strong alternative suspect, you have the fake alibi (I provide examples of other instances of this happening in true crime cases on my main page), and some of the knowledge required to have done this. Yes a very good suspect. Turns out he didn’t have anything to do with it.
This case is boring, meandering, and obvious once you delete the shit books from existence. None of the authors to write on this case have any talent at all. They are basically grifters. One book calls Gordon Reginald. Antony changed his theory for money because he is a scam artist LARPer. He originally was going with Gannon’s conspiracy theory. These are all grifters, LARPers, and charlatans, much like the SHIT books written about Betsy Aardsma by the two autistic hacks I can’t recall the names of.
“We have had a note from the Bank this morning that it was £152. I accept that.”
Wallace’s bank account:
£152
“Then I think you found an insurance policy in the name “Julia Wallace”? Yes, for
£20, and I asked him if there was any other insurance policy on her life: he said “No, that is
the only one”.”
“MR JUSTICE WRIGHT: In the front bedroom? Yes, in the front bedroom: the
jewellery in the middle bedroom. £90, I have a note, in the Savings Bank, not £95”
Julia’s bank + life insurance:
£110
Total:
£262
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator?number.Sections%5B0%5D.Fields%5B0%5D.Value=110¤t_year=2.34537944531668&comparison_year=135.015
It’s £15,082.39, as opposed to over 20K:
“Mr Hard up – always living beyond his means unlike the Wallace’s who had 20k + in the bank and cash in the house.”
Another great piece of input from the Liverpool “historian”. As much a historian as Rod is a “Blundellsands businessman” (what business? He has literally never worked and lives with his mom despite being over 60). Are you not ashamed of yourself doing this or is this just the average level of Liverpudlian competence? According to yourself the cops were all a disgrace, obviously MacFall is a disgrace, the Beatles are a disgrace, is this just the norm?
IMO there’s so much more to this, since she was hiding money in her skirt and kept her own savings in a separate room etc, pretended she is from upper class wealthy stock with a veterinarian dad etc. OWNED A BIG HOUSE at one point, where did that go (use your “historian” skills to get that info if possible) and was a landlady.
My guess is that he thinks she has a lot more hidden away somewhere. That’s just my guess and you can suck it up big boy… Gordon could probably buy Julia from Wallace, these are like “on benefits” tier people with no assets, renting, outgoing costings on medical shit and maids… Gordon has a sikk car and fancy suits, in lovely Stoneycroft, while Wallace and Julia rot in the favela (Anfield). His car alone is probably worth more than their entire life savings LOL. Look up the average cost of a car in 1931 – according to the retard garage attendant, it was a “Swift” so you can search that, and at 21 (or whatever he was), his car alone is worth more than both of these jokers combined.
Firstly if you read back I said OJ is as guilty as sin but why do you keep bringing him and others into it. The John Bull is basically taking Wallace’s own memoirs and adding a bit of flavour. At no point does it infer or admit guilt and in fact the opposite, even says I know who the killer was and then goes on to all but name Parry – everyone not blind can see this.
Also stop trying to re-write history. Neither the prosecution or the Police have any motive, not money, not anything period, finito, end of!!! Parry’s dad may be richer but certainly not your poncy boy who was always on the rob just like those burglars, only he burgled from phone boxes and employers and clearly lived beyond his means, evil he was called from his early days and undoubtedly an assaulter. Do you have proof he owned the car or only had use of it. Why was he robbing other cars then? Maybe, the owner, Daddy was using it those days? It only turns out he doesn’t have anything to do with it in your mind, where’s your proof?
Over 20k like I said: https://www.in2013dollars.com/uk/inflation/1930?amount=262
You’ve mentioned that small change in her skirt now about 4 times, you are obsessed with it, It’s nothing. Wallace gave her money from his lectures which he doesn’t have to.
So based on all the above fact vs your lies and embellishments I rest my case with dust settling on it LOL.
As for me being a published author running a fb site with over 7k active members (and it’s a closed group) with also an exhibit in Liverpool Museum, none of it has anything to do with my thoughts on the Wallace case. You have even less to pontificate about and have to make things up to back your case.
As for Liverpool and The Beatles. I love the fact my favourite group is renowned as the best in the world with countless records to their name and I even liked them as a child before I knew where they were from. As multimillionaires with talent by the bucketful they don’t need me to protect or wax lyrical about them. I’m living in a city with currently the best Football team in Europe and the place is thronging with tourists from the UK and abroad every weekend – what’s not to like?
Meanwhile I can picture you being into some loser grunge band as you sit alone in your room.
You’ve already miffed people off from visiting your site so do yourself a favour and stick to the facts about the case and not some fanciful imagining.
With love. Your site’s biggest contributor.
I obviously don’t need your “contributions”, your contributions are 99.9999% misinformation without the “IMO” or “could suggest” preamble to help people understand it’s a guess/supposition, just flat out asserting things like “yeah this was ghostwritten” lmao, which is bullshit so yeah, misleading and useless. You are literally just a weatherman lol. That should be your role, just go find some weather reports from Google, “contribute” those… Obviously you only comment because you enjoy it or are addicted, it’s not like a magnanimous act lol. The site exists as a resource not a chit chat place… I had comments only to receive possible leads. Michael contributed one regarding the chess notice. Don’t post and watch me not care, the site is not created for this purpose.
I’m sorry to say that “in2013dollars” (Indian SEO Adsense scam site?) is not more credible than the Bank of England. 21K by the way, is also impoverished and not close to middle class, but it’s actually only 15.something. They should have a LOT LOT LOT more from Julia’s house and all sorts, the fact the cash has dwindled down to that is telling. You should indeed be embarrassed tbh.
The Beatles, I mean just lol, I grant it is better subject matter than some modern “yo, yo, ye boi I shot that fool while snorting coke in the Chevy”, granted it at least inspires joy. It is total shit though. Beatles beside Genesis is like a spergy retard shaking maracas beside Beethoven. They’re a joke. If you go to the Beatles tourist places it’s just a sea of American accents, like people fetishizing Britishness basically. Compare to the era just preceding, it’s all cool normal music then 20 years of creepiness, then back to normal. The whole of the 60s/70s is just fucked up with hallucinogenics and weird looking Rod Laver tennis players in creepy shorts with tiny wooden rackets, and Jimmy Savile. Very weird vibes. A creepy time in history… I really do suspect it was all the LSD. It’s not a coincidence IMO that it just so happens that the entire world was creepy and weird at the same time hippies were a thing, i.e. everyone was high on hallucinogenic compounds and as a result the entire world was like a hallucinogenic trip for the period.
You’re just guessing shit about Gordon here I think. Most of those ideas are from hacks like Goodman… Gordon WAS thieving cars, conning people, and raping a woman (let’s be honest he did that) like the Menendez brothers were doing too despite their wealth. I thought his dad said Parry was fixing “his” (i.e. Parry’s) car on whatever night. I thought retard-garagehand Parkes said Parry owned a Swift. Daddy Parry is happy to pay off his Son’s scams of the Pru. Daddy Parry was willing to pay for a boat abroad according to tabloid city, to get his son away from a possible murder charge. They’re well off and the Wallaces are basically on benefits street. On benefits street like “businessman” Rod (in the business of scamming dole money from the gov while watching The Onedin Line). I just know tbat spaz watches Onedin Line, because of his “special interest” in Merseyside and boats. Probably with Ben and Jerry’s from mommy. Spergs are so predictable, jesus.
Parry was handled as a suspect. He did all these things, stole, thieved, raped (opportunistically by the way, no weird plans in any other crime, he just steals brazenly and then kicks and screams being dragged away by cops). His parents did all those things to help him and he did all those crimimal acts, and pretended he was with his girlfriend on Monday. All of that he did, and he didn’t do this particular crime. As mentioned there are Gordon characters in every investigation (which makes sense duh, because of course the shady criminals always seem shady and warrant investigation). Didn’t retard Parkes or one of the Atkinsons in the tabloid show say Gordon just straight up opened their cupboards and stole stuff. None of them appear to have received a mysterious call. He just walked in and stole.
I think Gordon has a better job than Wallace. Much more handsome, better job, hotter girlfriend, cool car, lives in a nicer area, wears nicer clothes, while Anfield is slummy (and Clubmoor, their first locale and where Lily lived, is like actual Brazilian favela tier). At 21 he has achieved more in life than pathetic Wallace. And later he’s a war hero fighting against the Nazis (the same Nazis Rod believes didn’t commit genocides and seemingly idolizes by his favorite books list) while cuckold wimpy sucka beta male Wallace stayed home during WW1. Imagine being a public transport wanker while Gordon drives by in his Benz. Like this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TMApPh9hlRY&pp=ygULRmx5IGJ5IHNvbmc%3D
Yeah I think there’s a financial motive. I suggest a few actually. Quite a few possibilities and according to you the cops are incompetent and corrupt so who cares what they argued? IMO it’s financial combined with growing tensions arising from arguments during bouts of illness (significant because their illnesses were getting worse and Wallace soon died), as witnessed by nurses etc, and also IMO he suspected she had a lot more money somewhere because of her pretending to be rich. That’s what I think. The sheer fact he married a woman near 20 years his elder, who just so happened to have money and LARP about being a baroness from wealth, whose family never attended their wedding, I use as support for this (marrying much richer old people is often sus as to your motive). Visually it would be difficult to buy a 40 year old woman telling you she’s in her 20s or whatever, like come on man as if. It is clearly simpler than involving half of Liverpool in a coverup to help Gordon and frame an innocent man (see how Gordon was charged for later crimes, where is his special protection at then when he was stealing cars)?
Here is what happens next:
https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.2858112779.5145/flat,750x,075,f-pad,750×1000,f8f8f8.webp
The Beatles are rubbish, Liverpool is a slum full of benefit scroungers, some contributors to this forum are retards…….I could continue ad nauseam but I don’t need to. Whether this outpouring of bile is genuine, or a pose to get reaction is academic. In either case it indicates deeply held anger which is looking for a target. As such it should be expressed elsewhere.
As Ged says, this forum is an asset but it has few contributors. New ones are unlikely to contribute if they are to become subject to personal insults just because their view of the case is disagreed with.
You can express yourself elsewhere also. This isn’t a “forum” it’s something akin to an encyclopedia. The only desired contributions are factual in nature. I.e. You have a fact or observation, I add it to the encyclopedia.
Yes the Beatles are shit I’m sorry but that’s a subjective opinion and I absolutely 100% truly believe they are one of the worst bands of all time. Not trolling. I utterly despise them, truly, it has the same vibes as the other 60s and 70s hippy stuff, just really weird and trippy. Literally like acid trip weird feel. Any British hippy stuff I loathe and I’m entitled to that. The positive messaging COOL but the music, I’d love to incinerate.
Here is what has been filled in to me about Liverpool, allegedly:
1. Incompetent cops who frame innocent people.
2. Gangs of criminal youths willing to murder old ladies.
3. Little girls afraid to walk down alleys alone (Elsie) and need protection.
4. Beattie telling Wallace it’s DANGEROUS to be out at night in the Menlove area (a richer area than Anfield which I lovingly called a SLUM full of streets with numerous robberies and suicides – I think the Clubmoor favela claim is from Goodman who is useless in every way so possibly incorrect about that).
5. Large swathes of people willing to aid and abett someone who murdered an old lady for trivial reasons.
This paints a good picture of Liverpool would you say? Is Liverpool so bad that this is actually a positive spin on it? Btw I said benefits street, since they tried to film the series there but the residents said no. It is among the top 10 highest unemployment rate cities in the country. Times have changed but it is relevant for a case with financial motive (if Gordon did it, it’s meant to be a robbery), and I say it as in contemporary, as in 1931. Not 21st century even though it is currently deprived still. If you’re too enamoured with Liverpool to accurately assess things like this where there’s proposed financial motive, that’s not useful.
I feel like we should sing YMCA. You know… Young man, there’s a place you can goooo, I said young man, when you’re short on your dough, you can stay there, and I’m sure you will find many ways! To! Have! A! Good time! And that place you can go is Ged’s Facebook group. They have pub meet ups once in a while. You’ll have a good time…
The documentary about the murder of Dr Brenda Page by her ex-husband Dr Christopher Harrison 45 years ago in Scotland was interesting. The victim was beaten to death with a chisel-like weapon causing about 30 separate wounds, many of them on the head. The murder scene was a bloodbath but not a drop of blood was found on Harrison’s person.
A forensic pathologist was questioned on this:
Q: is it possible that the assailant would have no trace of blood on him/her after such an attack?
A: Yes It is quite possible. In fact we demonstrate this in our training courses. Of course, the more blows that are struck, the greater the chance of some blood ending up on the assailant.
To repeat, Dr Page suffered over 30 separate woulds – but no blood was found on the killer.
In the Wallace case this was also the final (revised) opinion of pathologists Dr Pierce and Professor McFall.
Hi Mike. For clarity. Domestic abuse ensued throughout their marriage and she had a restraining order on him. I’m not familiar with this documentary per se and will look into it but how long was it before he was questioned and how do they know he had no blood on him as I assume he’d made his getaway by then? Wallace as we know had to be out the house and into the public on a tram pretty quickly, even confident enough to approach tram staff and an officer. Personally, McFall was so inept in his practices that night and flip flopped so much afterwards that I wouldn’t believe a thing he said then or since.
Hi Ged,
It was some time before he was questioned as you suggest. The point of my post was the opinion of the forensic pathologist at the trial in 2003: that not only was it possible for there to be no blood on one’s person but that this was being demonstrated as part of today’s training course for pathologists.
I agree about McFall – he changed his opinion so often.
Check out the documentary – its a good one.
Mike
Error: trial date 2023
I will check that out thanks Mike. Even in the 1981 Radio City broadcast ‘Experts’ were at odds as to would he have had blood on him or not. With the ordinary layman having no knowledge of how blood would squirt not only from the victim but also splash and spatter around from wielding a weapon up and down quite a number of times, it would have to be a whole lot of pure luck and not anything done purposely by the perpetrator that would see him clean of just one spot of blood.
Incidentally I might refer you to the case below that I watched on sky crime last night. It involved the killing of a girl by a lad she knew, he’d even got into a taxi with her with other friends and looked directly at the cctv in the communal area of her apartment block before raping and killing her so lord knows how he ever thought he’d get away with it. He stabbed her in the back 9 times and part of the evidence against him was other cctv footage of him walking along the street looking at his bloodied hand. The knife used was probably about the same length of the chisel used in the Dr Brenda Page case you mention and yet we know for sure blood was present in the Megan Newton case I mention so I honestly can’t give much credence to anyone saying for sure there would be no blood on the perpetrator. It’s like OJ Simpson had ‘Experts’ backing him and the victim had ‘Experts’ backing her. One lot is always wrong of course.
https://www.staffordshire.police.uk/news/staffordshire/news/2020/february/teenager-jailed-for-murder-and-rape-of-aspiring-footballer/
Mike, here’s the documentary of the Megan Newton case. Heart breaking that a life can just be stubbed out like this at a whim.
https://www.nowtv.com/watch/what-the-killer-did-next/iYEQYZaTURDhvSViJRZtRA/seasons/1/episodes/1/A5EK3PiSkPquhYE28DcZS
I had a couple of questions about the case that I wanted to ask without seeming foolish but having read through all of the posts since they began appearing in January of this year, it seems like the comments section has dissolved into a personal fight between two people. What in the world The Beatles have to do with a nearly 100-year-old murder case I have no idea. What Genesis has to do with a nearly 100-year-old murder case I also have no idea. But here they both are, mentioned in what I thought was a comment section about a nearly 100-year-old murder case. With all due respect, and thank you all very much for reading, could someone please tell me of a site where I can ask a few questions about the case without upsetting anyone? I’m new to the case and have only read the Goodman book. Are there other ones out there and could someone please direct me to them? Thank you.
I would like to know if there is another site too.
For chit chats and social outings etc, Ged has a Facebook group, the link he will probably be able to send you. The information provided on it is of course very inaccurate and poor quality, but you can cross-reference their answers to official case files archived here.
Pretty much if what someone says about a particular fact, e.g. some scientific testing or whatever else, is not on this site, it didn’t happen.
As long as you check everything they say, as I have been doing for Ged who posts an incorrect statement of fact in almost every single post he has ever made in decades of discussion (check case files against his posts), then you won’t be misled.
You are not allowed to ask questions here; all this needed to get to the bottom of anything ever related to this case is already provided, including the recently added “Armchair Detectives” section which explains a lot about what has been written, theorized, and posted on this case by autists.
Is is all there for you; whether you accept it or not, the facts won’t change.
You should probably give every Wallace book you own the Mackintosh treatment and set them all alight. The Wallace books, like the one written by Goodman, are fictional tales woven from rumours and, possibly, outright makebelieve invented by the author to sell their tale. Every book contains misinformation and unvetted rumours about X figure. Mark Russell’s book if I recall is more factually accurate, and I’m not talking about his conclusions at all, just that I recall less “50 years later Mrs. Bucket revealed Parry came to her and told her he just whacked Julia! Her best friend Gloria backs her up. Case closed!” type fairytales.
More than likely I have accidentally posted misinformation also. Usually because I read it in a book like Gannon’s, or Goodman’s and I accepted it in my mind as a known fact.
That is why the case files are important. It is critical to cross-check every claim by every person including the crappy authors who profiteered off this dead woman. If it isn’t in a case file it probably didn’t happen, or at best cannot possibly be known to have happened.
Watching another one on Sky Crime. Again the perp caught within minutes after a stabbing and guess what, blood all over him.
Funny isn’t it how the ones that don’t get caught right away or on cctv like the Megan Newton case above, experts say they wouldn’t have had blood on them but in those cases where not caught right away and they have time to escape, wash and change, invariably any trainers or clothes found binned, hidden, washed or whatever afterwards are always the giveaway with the victims blood on them.
Happy Christmas to everyone.
Hi Information Please,
Your post echoes my sentiments. It is disappointing when a civilised discussion between holders of different opinions on the case descends into personal abuse and scattergun insults regarding place of residence, musical preferences and mental condition (autism etc.). It is the price we pay for having a free anonymous forum where all opinions can be expressed.
This should not discourage you from posting your questions here. I will not be alone when I do my best to provide answers.
As regards a book recommendation.: most books are slanted towards a preferred suspect, usually Gordon Parry or Wallace himself. The most recent book is by Mark Russell (“Checkmate: The Wallace murder mystery”) which I recommend as being a detailed and balanced treatment of the case although Mark does name his preferred suspect at the end.
Again, don’t hesitate to pose questions. This site has few enough regular posters as it is. New ones are welcome.
Mike
Thank you. Reading ahead to the comments I somehow became involved in; I assure everyone that I’m a real person with a few questions. That Levin guy, Mr. “No questions allowed” should shield his eyes from this point forward because I’m going to ask a question, anyway. I’ve viewed the autopsy photos in the books and on this site and I was wondering, was it common in those days to shave the victim’s head to show the wounds? That’s what it looks like, at least. I did get the Checkmate book and am looking forward to it so thanks a lot for the suggestion.
No questions allowed.
Mark R does come to the right conclusion although probably by luck (he used to post about the case for decades and couldn’t make his mind up, offering very little in the way of insight) but it is probably one of the worst books ever written on the case.
He just states his opinion as fact “It wasn’t him” “But it’s not them, it’s Wallace” without explaining why.
All that is needed to solve this “mystery” is contained on this webpage; everything else is a joke.
I’m not sure if the posters called ‘Information Please’ and ‘Genuinely Interested’ are actually genuine or just more ‘made up characters’ so that the usual suspects can have another dig because I don’t rise to their bait. I’ve never mentioned my musical preference so the site owner and or his friend must have done some facebook digging.
If they are genuine posters, please search facebook for a site called ‘The Murder of Julia Wallace’. It has some genuinely interested and knowledgeable posters on it who have actually driven the routes concerned and re-traced Wallace’s footsteps up at Allerton that do prove the timings to be correct and not out of the ordinary. A few of them have also likewise scoured the police and solicitor records of this case and read many if not all of the books, a few of them are also authors of books on the case.
The mention of burning all the books that have been written is of course a nonsense due to their conclusions not always following the agenda provided here. It is also incorrect that if it is not mentioned here then it didn’t happen. There are things which happened which were so usual for the time, it is not even thought of they’d need recording – one such thing that the poster Mike brought to light was the fact the origins of the call box was never a doubt and wasn’t traced by some Sherlock Holmes detective work by Supt Moore’s team, it was in fact a usual and every day occurrence that the exchange would know due to a light on the switchboard. Just as the site owners here would have us believe that the police had the plumbing taken out which made the house inhabitable for Wallace to stay in and yet that wasn’t done for the reasons of testing for blood, so why? What we also must take into account is the fact the police files were heavily trimmed down after Chief Kenneth Oxford had refused access of them to a Radio City investigation in January 1981. You must draw your own conclusions as to why. He was also the leader of the Merseyside Police whose racial prejudices led to the Toxteth Riots later that same year though maybe not as bad as one of his corrupt as one of his predecessors Herbert Balmer who saw innocent men hung.
Another site which I own is https://inacityliving.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-wallace-murder-case.html which lays out the case and players with no agenda, leaving the reader to make up their own minds. Let’s say it’s a blend of information gleaned from around half a dozen previously published books. There is nothing i’ve posted there or in fact here which is incorrect or misleads anyone. I won’t reciprocate the bad falling towards fellow sites. I have always said and still maintain this site to be a fantastic asset to the case. As for armchair detective, that applies to us all including the owners of this site unless of course I don’t know their true profession 😉
Happy hunting.
Yeah they’re just us bro. Another case solved. Because it would be too difficult to enter the group by just making a new Facebook account called like, Fred Johnson, and joining the group. No for sure we need an “epic ruse” to be allowed into the group, just like Qualtrough, because people definitely need clever “ruses” with fake names in advance to gain access to places, that’s very realistic.
Oh wait, it’s not.
Half the books which should be burned follow the “agenda”, so what now?
Go back to your group when you want to post about made up things that literally never happened. In fact you all just need to go there and stay there in your containment box away from real historical archives lol… Anyone who entertains these notions is like the type of naive individual to go to a psychic reading and sit there like “omg wow how did he know I have an uncle called Dave?”… Uh guys Gordon’s entire wardrobe was tested down to the seams and his fake alibi was actually re checked. The file was “pruned” so we can just make things up now didn’t you hear? So yeah that 100% happened.
The secret pruned testing was also definitely done (hint: it wouldn’t work to reveal blood properly in a drain where there’d been running water). Yeah so basically Gordon’s clothing was all tested, his alibi re checked where he gave a real one they could verify. Yeah definitely happened. It’s not in any file ever but I guess uh, I guess some random called into the radio 50 years later (one of Gordon’s relatives, remember?) and said it did so woooo! See guys I’m a real epic cool genius investigator who comes in to correct the “Keystone cops” just like Hercule Poirot, not just a Simple Simon old fogey desperate for social interaction!
Thanks for the tip on your site. I’m getting ready to review it now. I have a question, though: Regardless of “whodunnit”, what motive did Wallace even have? Finding out that his wife was a lot older than she claimed to be? He had to have figured that out long before she died. She had a couple bucks hemmed up in her underwear? It’s a stretch, but isn’t that the equivalent of what rural Americans called “butter and egg money” when I was a kid? Wives hid money in cookie jars all the time from their husbands back in the day. From what I’ve read so far, it seems like the local cops bungled it like they seemed to do with every crime they encountered back then. There seemed to have been a lot of racism and jumping to conclusions back then. Guys who couldn’t pound a beat got promoted to high positions through backroom deals and lack of manpower. Sorry for going on so long but I really enjoy reading the back on forth on here. Thanks.
Police racism brought up somehow in a case featuring an all white cast, and literally zero minorities of any kind. Then again maybe they thought he was Indian, he does kind of resemble Ghandi…
Back to the facts then: Wallace supposedly waited for Alan Close to call before he could commit the murder yet never once said to the police, hang on, the milk boy only called at 6.40 and Julia put the milk in the fridge then saw me to the back yard gate so how could it be me. It was in fact left to Alan Close off his own bat to tell the other kids who then threw the spanner in the works of the police who made Close change his timings. Hmmm, I wonder why they had to do that, make Wallace’s leaving time of the house different then practically jump onto moving trams at the wrong stops. Funny isn’t it.
All facts – as recorded at the trial. Don’t be lying saying it’s misinformation because it’s not. ps. new fb accounts are not let on any sites I run.
In a trial run some cops doing the tests ran to catch a tram at a request stop (duh, they turned up as a tram was about to leave a request stop and ran to catch it). Their time was slower than a number of other cops who didn’t run, and slower than the defence.
Distance is known, walking speed calculated. Catching the tram from the times given, is not difficult. It can be mathematically proven, AND is also contained in the evidence in the fact that many tests including defence team Maddock’s are faster. At walking speed. Not running. Obviously you don’t have the mental capacity to understand what this means (it means your input is meaningless and misleading, AGAIN), but fortunately 99% of people do.
Back to the facts: It’s time for you to leave. Stop posting. Cya.
Nobody knows Wallace’s walking pace, a man so riddled with illness he is often bedridden and incapacitated and was so just that week, a man so ill he actually dies of this illness just two years later so he’s not blagging is he. Furthermore please explain the literally 8 minutes Wallace had to commit the murder and not wash (as no blood was found anywhere) and dispose of the murder weapon. This murder was so obviously committed by somebody who had time to do all this at pretty much his leisure.
Since you keep bringing up other cases that i’ve found under scrutiny don’t even align with your theories, what i’ve found in countless cases i’ve seen is that blood would have most definitely been present on the perp for a murder of this ‘frenzy’ (A word inserted by McFall after first saying it was only 4 blows at the autopsy) in fact we can quite clearly see it high up on the wall. Only a person leaving the scene covered in blood, with a weapon to dispose of could have committed this. It’s logical and the most sensible conclusion.
Whilst I agree for the most part with your new page on armchair detectives, you cannot dismiss the police cases of corruption that are known to have happened in the past like you are rewriting history. Certainly not least when they were happening in the very force at the very time of the Wallace case.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cases+of+police+corruption+leading+to+wrongful+convictions&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB943GB943&oq=cases+of+police+corruption+leading+to+wrongful+convictions&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRifBTIHCAMQIRifBTIHCAQQIRifBTIHCAUQIRifBTIHCAYQIRifBdIBCjE2Mjg2ajBqMTWoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
We know he can walk, he has told us what times he left from or arrived at his house and the destinations he departed from/got to at roughly what time. We know roughly the tram travel times. He’s not an invalid. Apparently he’s walking past numerous perfectly good request stops to get to the ones he used, something a cripple who can barely walk would be unlikely to do.
The night before the crime he told Caird that his kidney disease wasn’t affecting him at all, so much so that he didn’t bother taking his medication (else too miserly to buy it, which would add fuel to my suggested motive). Check Caird’s statement now, I believe you will find this true. I think it’s the Munro file.
If anything based on his height he should walk faster than average. Calculating for average pace is fair even though his height would in actuality mean a bigger stride length. Fairer than I need to be, even using slightly slower than normal walking paces in most instances. If someone just killed their wife I don’t expect them to be taking a leisurely stroll so yeah, this is being more fair than is really warranted, because you can be this fair and he STILL makes the times.
He actually had about 10 minutes after the milk boy. I could increase this based on the 6.37/6.38 times given. I could make it 12 to 13 minutes. Speedy Gonzalez Maddock’s time, if I recall, eeked out another minute on both nights, without running. Meaning while the cops’ best time showed 9 minutes, Maddock got 10 to spare. Maybe the fact the police trials were done in pairs somehow affected this, as Maddock who went alone seems to have had no issue beating them repeatedly without trying. Weird but true. Math alone in any case can show the sort of times we can expect.
But that length of time to commit the act is not necessary. We can track the killer’s progress through the house. If the blood stains upstairs are not “transfer”, he took money from the box then went upstairs and stuffed it in a vase in the bedroom, then went into the bathroom (presumably to rinse his hands, face, whatever) where a speck of blood was left on the toilet rim under the seat (a man, like he is, was probably the last person to use it if the seat was up for blood to get on it).
Then he left the house. The actual murder itself is documented step by step by William up until the point the criminal discovers there’s only £4 (in his “hypothetical” piece about what the murderer did). And then we can follow these actions. The allotted time is absolutely no problem at all. He spends a couple of minutes alone in the house doing nobody knows what in each room upon his return with the eyewitnesses waiting outside for him to discover the body. Again, absolutely no problem with the time allowed at all. Trivial.
In the tangential cases referenced, on my pages, I listed the exact ways in which they share similarities. That is in the Defence 101 post, next to the other one you read… You sent me a Google link, lol, and most of the entries on that page are themselves BS. The Innocence Project is literally in the search results and all of them mention racism (Wallace wasn’t black so no “Get Out of Jail Free” race card here). The Innocence Project being the ones who got convicted murderer Sheldon Johnson out of prison based on the same thing you linked, who then went and murdered and dismembered another person after his “exoneration”. Maybe you’ll find definite murderer Adnan Syed there too among the alleged victims of corruption, one of the other more recent convicted killers to be released. You know well of course as you have discussed, that OJ was found not guilty based on fake allegations of police corruption (Mark Fuhrman being a racist). It has surely happened a few times but far from the norm, and in the Wallace case it is a lot more fantastical, where it is not just one bad egg like Fuhrman, but essentially the entirety of Merseyside conspiring to “get Wallace” and “protect Gordon”. Who based on the idle gossip and rumour mill and radio show made after his death, was not even very well liked at all. Definitely doesn’t have the “everyone loves OJ” national treasure aura.
Suggesting that all of these high ranking police officials and officers and witnesses are knowingly conspiring and coordinating with each other to protect Gordon and hang an innocent bereaved husband, is venturing extremely far off the reservation. Especially since he was convicted and jailed for numerous other crimes. He’s not Teflon Don John Gotti, the dude was jailed on numerous occasions.
Regarding blood, of course we can rotate the room 180 degrees and see a total of zero specks of blood on that side of the room. Not a single speck on the couch or curtains are reported for instance. How could the couch and drapes be in close proximity to this supposed blood shower and not get any blood upon them? Some of that side of the room would be shielded by the killer’s jacket (and body) presumably, but beside him, above him, no splash in that direction? That is how it works. The couch didn’t even have a nifty blood shield. A person would have to stand the opposite side to what is proposed to get soaked like the walls (it would not be as easy from that side to do the wacking, a bit more cramped). The blood on the ceiling might potentially be disinformation by the way. Please search official sources for this. The colourizers had to just guess what dots were blood if you’re going by the colour photos.
Great new section under “critical thinking” called “information credibility” which gives a good explanation of the fabric of the personality of many of the authors on this case. Discerning readers will be able to understand why these resources aren’t as valuable as the type of hard evidence contained on this site.
https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/critical-thinking/information-credibility/
I like the additional pages and it probably goes for 90% of all cases – try telling that to the Birmingham 6 though. It doesn’t take the whole of Liverpool or the whole of the police force to be bent, just the lead detective. ‘Sir, we have the milk boy Alan Close saying he saw the victim alive at about a quarter to seven’ ‘He must be mistaken’ !!!
There are a few other pieces of misinformation or at least misinterpretations I found.
Firstly, opinions of professional law agents can be no more accurate in some aspects of those otherwise, let’s take Inspector Gonçalo Amaral in the Madeleine McCann case who was removed from it partly due to his bizarre findings and then publishing them as fact. You will also give ratings on the lack of criminal or law qualifications on most authors and yet Edgar Lustgarten who did possess those qualifications doesn’t come out any better.
If James Murphy did distort any facts, yet comes to the conclusion he does, that Wallace is the killer, why does he have to resort to distorting any facts, largely like I think the police did too – so why?
Greenlees sighting may concur with one of the men Lily Hall saw (though different styles of hats are described) but the magic bullet whom was Wallace was not seen by him. There is still no logical explanation for a guilty Wallace standing around talking to an accomplice just like there is no logical explanation as to why Wallace wouldn’t just say yes, a man asked me for directions.
There were not numerous witnesses for Parry on the murder night, there were allegedly four, so I can count them on one hand. I say allegedly because statements for two of those persons don’t even exist and the statements that do are very sparse, almost word for word and look contrived. Statements for where he was after half 8 don’t exist either but they largely don’t matter, he may well have been at those places.
I’m sorry but the biggest piece of misinformation is about Parkes. He did not claim 50 years after the murder etc, He claimed this at the very time and the Atkinson’s (who don’t come out of this smelling of roses) back this up. He did not even come forward in 1981, he had to be discovered. The unbelievable waders story is not his first hand account so that can be dismissed.
It is mentioned that Parry did not escape the law on other more minor offences in Liverpool, so why would he escape this. Well, both offence types are chalk and cheese and yes he did by and large he did get away with other things. It was only down in Aldershot that the judge aghast at what he had got away with in Liverpool, and practically mentioned so, decided to jail him. Parry even tried to hide his earlier misdemeanours until he had to agree to them when confronted with them by JG and RWE.
I notice there is no mention of Ada Pritchard adding some weight to proceedings whether you like it or not.
As I say though, worthy additions to the site but not so sure most if any apply to this case. Parry isn’t a name that came out of the blue after Parkes utterings don’t forget, he was all but named way back.
Parkes and many others, like the waders people, had tales of Gordon to tell straight after the crime. Many people like to pretend they are somehow involved in big cases. Actually I think that’s why you get false confessors like John Mark Karr too… It’s the adult equivalent of “my dad works for Nintendo”.
There is no doubt he told half the town about the apparent confession he was the sole witness to (and we only get one side of the tale, since the other person, Gordon, is dead and can’t defend himself from the allegations) and stake outs of his garage. The Radio City team edited out testimony like that because it makes him sound like a fantasist. It also contradicts his claim of being dismissed… If they are staking out the garage, then obviously they took his claim very seriously and investigated it fully.
This claim is equally as existent as the others. If you believe it happened then the police followed his lead very rigorously and seriously, if you think it’s made up, his entire story, which he had to be hunted down and cornered into retelling, is cast into doubt. Which one do you prefer?
In the Wallace case it isn’t just the lead detective, it’s also supposedly bent witnesses providing him with fake alibis, and the other witnesses on the stand to testify. By the way if they did give him a fake alibi, why not just say Gordon did it all? No need at all for the convoluted, fantastical tale of Gordon and multiple accomplices all coordinating together in an unnecessarily complex plot. There are bank jobs less convoluted than this. If his alibi for the murder is fake just say Gordon did it.
The milk boy WAS mistaken in what he told friends. When in a far more serious environment where rigor was needed, he contradicted his own timing by placing himself in Red-something street at the same time as he was supposedly at the front door, a street he had visited after Wolverton Street. 6.45 is a nice round time. It is a time you spit out, generally, when giving an approximation (o’clocks being the vaguest, e.g. 5 o clock, 6 o clock; then the 15s like 5.15, 5.30, 5.45; then the 5s and 0s like 3.05, 3.10, 3.15, 3.20… you get the point).
We have discerned that Alan was there at some time around 6.40 give or take. So yes he WAS mistaken. You are putting words into the investigator’s mouth that they tried to dismiss and force him to change his story, I doubt they even said what you allege.
I don’t know enough about foreign cases like McCann. It seems from the outset looking in, that the idea a little girl was abducted in a foreign country while the parents left her there alone, is not surprising. We have all heard the warnings about foreign countries. I also don’t want to be xenophobic but I’m not entirely sure non-Western countries have investigators of the same calibre. The Amanda Knox case is also controversial. These people have an actual vested interest in proving the foreigner did it because otherwise it paints their country in a bad light. Would be bad for tourism etc.
Ada Pritchard’s story is of two non-descript men, of non-descript ages, running down a street where a tram stop is at the end and to the left by the phone box. To use this as a basis for crafting a conspiracy theory is kind of ridiculous. Explain how this sighting is more unusual than the guy in the area at the same time Wallace got back, asking for directions to a fake address, yards from where dead Julia lie; or perhaps the guy entering a cab and saying “you won’t kill me will you?!” who police appealed for in the papers to locate, should we create conspiracy theories involving them too?… You are not seeing the point. Lily Hall saw Wallace and a particular man in a hat… By itself, there is no corroboration that this sighting is real or that she has the day correct… The second sighting adds credibility to her sighting by verifying that a man of similar description was seen within minutes of her sighting on the same day. This means that it is less likely she invented the story as at least one part, the short stocky hat man, is now verified to have been seen.
My contention is that Wallace was seen being asked for directions by the man. Much like Greenlees was. Wallace didn’t mention the man because he himself is the murderer, and hence knows this other man is not the killer and has nothing to do with the crime so just kind of brushed it off and paid no attention to the oddity. I understand there are lots of things you think he “should” have done, like use this man somehow I would guess, just as figures like Scott Peterson “should” have done all sorts of things too but didn’t.
If every potential true crime writer were to be be disqualified because he/she lacked law enforcement or legal experience the shelves in the True Crime section of every bookshop would be almost empty. Integrity, common sense, and a command of the language are more important and it seems that some of the authors mentioned fall short on this rather than their background “qualifications.”
Isn’t it ironic that in real life the guilt or innocence of a suspect is decided by twelve random members of the public with no law enforcement of legal training.
The section should be empty, or marked as entertainment like those cancer warnings on cigarettes.
The jury system is a disgrace, I genuinely think juries should be comprised of impartial professionals. E.g. you should have a forensic expert from another county who doesn’t care about the case, perhaps a retired judge, that kind of person. People actually fit to decipher the evidence presented.
Parkes didn’t come forward because he was in hospital and knew nothing of the Radio City broadcast. However, somebody he had obviously told the story too heard it and tried to direct the team to Parkes for money. In the end, only investigative journalism got the team to Parkes for no cost. Not sure about the term stake out. It’s commonly known by Parkes and the Atkinsons that Parry would sometimes visit the garage and they were on alert about not letting him upstairs. They were obviously wary of him, maybe scared (fixed his car without payment for it and didn’t seem to pursue the payment) so just why would Parkes put himself in harms way of this tyrant with this story both in 1931 and thereafter including 1981 when at that point Parkes doesn’t even know that Parry is dead.
You are getting Ada Pritchard mixed up with Anne Parsons. It was Parsons who saw the two men running like hell down Hanwell street, the very street that you’d come to after leaving the back of Wolverton street and exiting the alley into Richmond Park. She wasn’t the only one either as two others are reported whose names escape me (a man and a women all separately)
Ada Pritchard (Cook) of course was the 16 year old who purposely eavesdropped on an alarming conversation between her parents and Parry’s parents which later resulted in her parents rowing about the outcome of that conversation, her mother evidently winning. Instead it seems Parry was sent to Aldershot to get him out of the way. There was no conscription in 1931 and he is the most unlikely of candidates to volunteer for a disciplined existence, proven as such when up to his old tricks he is imprisoned.
Regarding what you say here RMQ:
In the Wallace case it isn’t just the lead detective, it’s also supposedly bent witnesses providing him with fake alibis, and the other witnesses on the stand to testify. By the way if they did give him a fake alibi, why not just say Gordon did it all? No need at all for the convoluted, fantastical tale of Gordon and multiple accomplices all coordinating together in an unnecessarily complex plot. There are bank jobs less convoluted than this. If his alibi for the murder is fake just say Gordon did it.
Assuming the two witness alibi’s are false (one is his best mates aunt and the other his best mates brother – but where is his best mate during these 3 hours?) it is not a giant leap of faith that things like falsifying an alibi for a good friend, more so if he’s directly involved with the said relative would not be impossible. Who knows if Parry was not involved sexually with Olivia Brine too – something happened to make Parry tell JG and RWE that the whole saga broke up his engagement, led to his mother’s earlier death, distressed his father to the point of Parry being made to keep schtum. False alibis happen all the time of course even today.
But, let’s go with what you say and these sparse alibi’s are not fake then there is no other witnesses on the stand lying for Parry. We just have Moore hell bent on making a name for himself, his biggest test yet since his promotion after the police strike and the local press and natives baying for a conclusion. It is not too far fetched when we know of other cases such as The Cameo Murders and the A6 Murder to name but two.
I did. That is worse then, because Ada isn’t evidence of anything important at all lol. Literally it could have 100% happened word for word and doesn’t mean anything at all. It literally means nothing because the Parrys were terrified that their son was being investigated for murder… their son wasn’t with them at the time of the murder, he is a convicted criminal. They are scared for him.
The police pressure big case etc, is one of the desperate defence team tactics. Please check, it’s also levelled at the Boulder PD for example, when they rigorously investigated the murder of Jonbenet and have been accused of the same. I.e. small town, inexperienced police department, massive public pressure, big worldwide case. This is defence tactics 101 when attempting to introduce reasonable doubt about their clearly guilty client.
It does stretch believability the more individuals you start trying to introduce into the conspiracy. If Gordon has no alibi, it’s just Gordon, would be far more believable.
So you mean that despite us strangers defending Parry to the hilt as not the type of person who would commit a murder or have anything to do with one, his parents who reared him think it could be possible – Hmmmm….
There doesn’t have to be loads of people in on anything.
Picture this scenario No1. Parry does it alone – he only has to convince (possible lover/ good friend/mates aunt) Olivia Brine that he didn’t do it but has no alibi and the police would frame him so could she please provide an alibi. She says i’ll make it even better, i’ll say my nephew Harold was here too. Even Parry’s mate William may have convinced his aunt to provide the alibi for him/them.
Picture this scenario No2. Parry puts William Denison onto the robbery but Parry does actually go to the Brines that night. Birds of a feather flock together, Olivia is not going to drop Parry in it and thereby drop her nephew William in it too. Alibi sorted during the planning stage.
The only people that need to be in on this are 3 or 4 who might all be of the same ilk. There are lots of murders still committed where ‘others’ are in on it, you must have heard of joint enterprise where multiple people are convicted because they aided, abetted or were in the know despite there being only one person who stabbed, shot, beat or strangled the victim.
Yes, they are scared. You don’t know what’s gone on, and neither do they because they weren’t there or with him all day. Do you think this meets the bar of even being evidence at all (i.e. not even weak evidence like Anne, since there are WAAAAY more suspicious events in the immediate area during the window of the crime, but the bar of being evidence full stop)?
3 or 4 people being involved in this is much less likely yes. These things happen sometimes, as you can easily find with a Google search or the gang of children robbing houses at the time, but much rarer. And moreso, much rarer in terms of every single individual being able to keep the story straight, actually getting away with it, etc. But you propose that not only are these uninvolved family members (unless they too planned and took part in the crime) in on it and complicit, but also police investigator(s), who allegedly also purposefully aid and abett Gordon while purposefully framing and having innocent bereaved husband Wallace sentenced to death because reasons?
We are not even touching on the other extremely rare and bizarre reactions. Julia did not even discover she was being burgled (at most she has just heard a loud crash in the kitchen, a crash no neighbours heard despite being even closer to the source of the noise than Julia was) but was knocked down and had her brains smashed across the room. They can both just scarper with the cash. In fact, they can just take the entire box if someone has come in the back…
Remind me why you are not just saying Gordon did it all, completely alone by himself, if the Brine alibi is not accepted as genuine? This conspiracy is convoluted and ridiculous, involves too many people coordinating together and agreeing to be complicit in the crime, including law enforcement, and does not follow Occam’s Razor at all when used against the totality of evidence available (i.e. with ALL real documented evidence, what is the simplest answer?).