Lily Lloyd and Josephine Lloyd – Full Statements

The statements of Gordon Parry’s girlfriend, Lily Lloyd, and her mother Josephine Lloyd. Courtesy of John Gannon.

Statements taken to ascertain the whereabouts of suspect Gordon Parry.

Josephine Ward Lloyd 26/01/1931:

7, Missouri Road.
26.1.31.

Josephine Ward LLOYD, 7, Missouri Road, says:-

I am the wife of Reginald Lloyd and I have a daughter, Lillian Josephine Moss Lloyd, 20 yrs. My daughter is a music teacher. She is keeping company with R.G.Parry of 7, Woburn Hill.

On Monday the 19th of January 1931 Mr.Parry called at my house at about 7.15p.m. as near as I can remember. I can fix the time as about 7.15p.m. because my daughter has a pupil named Rita Price, of Clifton Road, who is due for a music lesson at 7p.m. or a bit earlier every Monday. Last Monday (19th inst.) she was a few minutes late and she had started her lesson when Parry arrived in his car. He stayed about 15 minutes and then left because he said he was going to make a call at Lark Lane. He came back in his car at about 9 to 9.15p.m. and stayed until about 11p.m. when he left.

On Tuesday the 20th January Mr.Parry called at about 9p.m. and remained here until about 11p.m. He came in his car which he left outside. On Monday and Tuesday nights of last week (19th and 20th) Parry was dressed in a black jacket and vest, and striped trousers and spats when he called. On Wednesday and Thursday or Thursday or Friday he was wearing a navy blue suit, I think it was Thursday and Friday because on Saturday he had his striped trousers on again. [Calls at the house every day?]

(Signed) Josephine W.Lloyd.

Josephine Ward Lloyd further states:-

When Parry called at about 9p.m. or a little after on Tuesday the 20th my daughter told him he was late [often arrives before 9?] and he said he had been to Mrs.Williamson’s, Lisburn Lane, and to Hignetts at Tuebrook about a battery for his wireless. He was wearing his dark overcoat that night. He has a check grey tweed overcoat. He also has a brownish plus fout suit and another brown tweed suit.

(Signed) Josephine W.Lloyd.

Lilian Josephine Moss Lloyd 26/01/1931:

7, Missouri Road.
26.1.31.

Lillian josephine Moss LLOYD says:-

I am 20 years of age and reside with my parents at 7, Missouri Road. I am a music teacher. I am keeping company with R.E(sic).Parry, 7, Woburn Hill. On Monday the 19th inst. I had an appointment at my home with a pupil named Rita Price, 14a, Clifton Road, at 7p.m. I cannot remember properly but either Rita Price was late or I was late. It was not more than 10 minutes. I gave my pupil a full three quarters of an hour lesson and about 20 minutes before I finished Parry called. That would be about 7.35p.m. I did not see him and when I finished the lesson he had gone. I know he called because I heard his car and his knock at the door and I heard his voice at the door. I do not know who answered the door. He returned between 8.30 and 9p.m. and remained until about 11p.m. He told me he had been to, I think he said, Park Lane.

On Tiesday the 20th inst. Parry called between 8.30p.m. and 9p.m. but I think it was nearer 9 than 8.30p.m. He told me in answer to my question as to where he had been that he had been to a Mrs.Williamsons, 49, Lisburn Lane. I know Mrs.Williamson, she is a friend of mine. He told me that he had got an invitation for myself and him to Leslie Williamson’s 21st birthday party in April. I do not remember whether or not he told me he had received the invitations that night but I got the impression that he had. He remained until about 11p.m. and then went home. He came in his car. I think Parry wore his striped trousers on Monday night and his blue suit on Tiesday and Wednesday, and I think he has worn his striped trousers every day since, but I’m not sure about Friday and Saturday.

(Signed) Lilian J.M.Lloyd.

This entry was posted in Case Files, Statements. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Lily Lloyd and Josephine Lloyd – Full Statements

  1. Michael Fitton says:

    Its interesting that around 9 pm on the murder evening in answer to Lillian Lloyd’s question “Where have you been?” Parry says he has been to see Mrs Williamson who invited Lilly and Gordon to the 21st birthday party. He doesn’t mention the three hours he spent that evening from 5.30 to 8.30 with Mrs Brine & Co. Why not? The Brine alibi accounts for most of his time that evening but he doesn’t want girlfriend Lilly to know about it! As Mr Metcalf has posited elsewhere on this forum, it raises questions about the nature of the relationship between Mrs Brine and Parry casting consequent doubt on any alibi she provided for him.

  2. Dave Metcalf says:

    Just had another read of the statements provided by both Lily Lloyd and her mother.There’s one very intriguing part in the statement provided by Lily…where she says that on the night of the phone call,Parry first called at her house at 7.35,but then left before she completed the piano lesson with her pupil,Rita Price.If Lily’s timings are accurate in regard to her piano lesson running 10 minutes late, this would mean Parry left her house before 7.55.This leads to two very obvious questions…firstly, why has he suddenly had to rush off after only being there 10 minutes, maybe even less than that, and without actually even seeing Lily? And secondly, and more importantly, where did he go?….We know that the failure of the police to pick up on the fact that Parry had clearly lied to them about his whereabouts on the night of the phone call was one of the main stumbling blocks in this case.
    As some of you know, I’m convinced that this was a robbery, orchestrated from Parry’s “knowledge”, that somehow went badly awry. I’m convinced Parry watched Wallace leaving his house on the Monday night at 7.15, and assuming he was heading to the City Cafe for his chess club, he then made the infamous Qualtrough call…from a call box that was also on the way to Lily Lloyd’s house, barely a mile away.The call apparently ends just after 7.20…and by 7.35, according to Lily’s statement, Parry is at her house. A trip that can easily be completed by car in just a few minutes.In fact, it only took me 17 minutes to walk from the exact location of where the call box once stood, to Lily’s house at 7 Missouri Road…and I’m 60!! But the interesting part is why Parry only stays in Lily’s for such a short time, before going back out again. He’s ASSUMED Wallace has gone to the Chess Club, and made the call….but he can’t actually KNOW he’s gone for certain.If you look at the call itself, “Qualtrough” appears to be looking for confirmation from Samuel Beattie, the club captain, that William will definitely be there…note the tone of his questioning…”But he will be there?”.Of course,Beattie was unable to provide this confirmation that “Qualtrough” was seeking.Which is why I believe Parry suddenly decides to leave Lily’s house…a lingering sense of uncertainty may mean he wants to check for himself that Wallace has indeed gone to the Chess Club.And it certainly wouldn’t be difficult…any member of the public could just walk into the City Cafe….they never had bouncers on the door!! Parry, who knows the place exceptionally well himself don’t forget, simply has to spot Wallace, and then immediately leave.Now he doesn’t have to assume Wallace went to the Chess Club…he KNOWS Wallace is there…and has very likely received the telephone message. This could also be why he told Lily and her mother about calling at Park Lane. Park Lane in those days would have been a 5 minute drive from the City Cafe in North John Street, maybe not even that. Could Parry have gone here to meet his accomplices, to tell them that their planned robbery for the following night looked like it could be possible? Obviously the Park Lane aspect is just speculation on my part, but I DO firmly believe that Parry was up to something odd when he suddenly left Lily’s house after only arriving there a few minutes earlier. And the fact that he never returned there until between 8.30 and 9 according to the statements given by Lily and her mother, gave him ample time to do what I’ve suggested. But the biggest mystery in this part of the case has to be why the police failed to interview Parry again, when it was so obvious he was lying to them about what he was doing and where he was when the Qualtrough call was made.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      One thing: Lily and her mother said two places, one said Park Lane, the other said Lark Lane. One of the two is close to the cafè.

      Of course Gordon could easily have gone to the cafè, but I think the Greenlees corroboration of Lily Hall’s sighting looks quite bad. I haven’t bothered with this case for a while, but I remember it seemed strangleholded by the locks, sighting, and neighbours. The lock failing to even turn I thought would mean a key on the inside. But there wasn’t a key inside when William went in, so if that had happened the person removed it and went out the back. But that’s when the neighbours were outside. That’s why I think they ought to be considered suspect as they had a key.

      To be honest I think the neighbours are lying about what they heard etc. Flo mentions thuds initially. Never again. Both her and her husband altered their statements in unison. I think maybe they had come out of their house not to visit their daughter but because there was commotion next door, like the thuds Florence mentioned.

      I forget some of the fine details I used to go over.

  3. Michael Fitton says:

    I think that whatever our opinion on the Wallace case we can all agree that it was planned either as a robbery or as a murder. I agree that based on Lily Lloyd’s timings Parry could have made the Qualtrough phone call at ~7.20 arriving at Lily’s at ~7.35. But Wallace was by no means a regular attender at the chess club. His previous attendance had been two months earlier. The notion of Mr Q hanging round the phone box at that time each Tuesday and Thursday on the off chance Wallace would appear on his way to the club can be dismissed. Even seeing Wallace board the tram is no guarantee that he’s going to the club. So how did Mr Q know that Wallace, given his erratic attendance, would go the play chess on that particular evening?

    Parry dashing off just after arriving at Lily’s could be seen as him confirming Wallace’s arrival at the chess club, but even then there’s no guarantee that Wallace would act on the message. The robber/killer is in Wolverton street the following evening so simply by watching Wallace’s back door his departure for Menlove Gardens can be verified. Even then, he may be going to the library. There was no need for the Monday evening detour to the city centre.

    Parry’s evasions and untruths regarding his whereabouts at certain times do suggest he has something to hide. I suspect he was deceiving Lily Lloyd by “keeping company” with another girl; for the rest of his life he didn’t expand on his murder-evening alibi with Mrs Brine, Phyllis Plant and Co which might indicate his wish to avoid them being questioned with embarrassing consequences for all.

    The Qualtrough ruse is so full of weak links and uncertainties. They only crystallise into certainty if Wallace himself was Qualtrough.

  4. Michael Fitton says:

    Hi RMQ,
    It was never determined that Mr Johnston, the neighbour, did have a key which fitted Wallace’s back door. He merely offered to try his key when Wallace couldn’t gain entry but this proved to be unnecessary. If the Johnston key did fit Wallace’s door why would he offer to demonstrate this beyond any doubt if he was guilty of the murder? If they had come outside after hearing a commotion next door, why didn’t they say so? The “visiting our daughter” story is indeed fishy because of the late hour (8.45) and their planned move the following day to go and live with her. What was so urgent? Also, once the Johnstons had moved, the activity of the Anfield burglar ceased.
    For me there is still doubt about the time the murder occurred; Julia’s hand was still “slightly warm” after supposedly lying in that frigid parlour for three hours. The Johnstons should certainly have been examined more closely than they were.

  5. Dave Metcalf says:

    Hi Michael…always good hearing from you on this site.Hope you’re keeping well.In response to your comments about Wallace not being a regular attendee of his Chess Club…well, that’s certainly true.That’s why I believe Parry May well have suddenly decided to leave Lilly’s house and make sure for himself that he HAD actually gone there on that Monday evening.As I said in my previous post, Parry knows that Wallace has PROBABLY gone to his Chess Club, which is why he’s made the bogus call, but he can’t know that he’s DEFINITELY gone there.The only guaranteed way he’s got of knowing for certain that Wallace has gone there is to go there himself and check.And if he does do this, the very moment he glimpses Wallace, he can immediately leave and contact his accomplices….accomplices who are looking to carry out what I believe was a “distraction” robbery….a robbery possible, if it goes to plan, due to Parry’s knowledge of William’s working habits and routine. Parry is now able to tell his accomplices that Wallace HAS gone to the Chess Club….and has very possibly received the message.Of course this in itself doesn’t guarantee that Wallace will act upon that message.But Parry is simply keeping his accomplices up to speed….he’s letting them know that the very fact Wallace has definitely gone to the Chess Club means their plan is very much viable, provided he takes the bait and heads for Menlove Gardens the following night.You could say he’s letting them know that a couple of boxes in the plan have been ticked….the Qualtrough call has been made, and Wallace IS in the Chess Club.
    And Parry wouldn’t have needed to have had to wait around the telephone kiosk to see Wallace.All he needed was to see Wallace leave his house and head for Breck Road, where he’d catch his tram into the city centre. If it’s a Monday evening, and Wallace DOES head for Breck Road via Richmond Park, which is what he told police he did, then once Parry sees him, he can assume he’s off to the Chess Club and make the call.From a call box he has to drive past on his way to Lilly’s house.It was actually quite easy to watch Wallace’s house and see if people left by the front or back door…even easier if there were a couple of you watching.I remember a documentary about the case many years ago, where someone mentioned this.And I think this is what Parry has done: he’s watched the house, seen Wallace leaving at 7.15, and heading down Richmond Park to Breck Road.He assumes, correctly, he’s off to his club.He then drives to the phone box, makes the call, but doesn’t get the definite confirmation from Beattie he’s seeking that Wallace will be there.Nevertheless, he still leaves his message, and ends the call.He then drives to Lilly’s, arriving just before 7.35.But the desire to know for certain that Wallace has gone to the club makes him leave Lilly’s and head to the City Cafe himself to check.He spots Wallace, leaves the cafe, and drives to nearby Park Lane to inform his accomplices the plan could well be on.He then drives back to Lilly’s, arriving there between 8.30 and 9pm. That’s my theory anyway!!😀 Sorry for yet another long post by the way!!

  6. Michael Fitton says:

    Hi David,

    Thanks for your kind remarks. Maybe by maintaining regular contributions, time permitting, we can encourage others to pitch in with their ideas on the case.

    The scenario which you outline is predicated on Parry’s guilty involvement with confederates and his knowing that on that Monday evening either (a) Wallace was definitely going to play chess, or (b) there was a high probability that he would do so.

    If Wallace attended the club every Monday this would not be a problem; his presence, barring illness, could be virtually guaranteed. But his irregular attendance was not just skipping a Monday here and there; he had not been at the club on the previous eight Mondays! With this track record even Mr Beattie wasn’t sure he would attend on that particular evening.

    “Parry knows that Wallace will probably go to the Chess Club.” The balance of probabilities is that he wouldn’t attend. Only two people knew definitely that Wallace would go to the club: Wallace and his wife Julia.

    “..then once Parry sees him he can assume he’s off to the Chess Club and make the call.” As shown above, Parry would be assuming too much. With Parry as Qualtrough this is a single strike plan. If he rings the club, speaks to Beattie and Wallace doesn’t turn up he can’t try the same thing next week without raising suspicion on Wallace’s part. The whole thing would have to be abandoned. Assuming Wallace has gone to play chess just on the basis of him catching a tram after an eight week absence from the club is too risky.
    Was Qualtrough watching for Wallace’s potential movements the previous Monday, the one before that…? I think not.
    Qualtrough has to be sure, and he can’t be.

    As a socially active young crook in a hurry Parry had an elastic relationship with the truth and we would dearly like to know more about his alibis (Brine/Plant/Lloyd) etc than we do at present. If Parry told me it was raining I would need to look out of the window before agreeing with him. So I take his comments on Lark Lane, Park Lane, Wallace’s sexual habits, clandestine musical afternoons with Julia etc with a handful of salt until independent corroboration is available.

    As regards checking that Wallace is at the club and has received the message all Qualtrough had to do would be to ring the club again later knowing from his previous call that Gladys Hartley, the waitress, will answer as the members are all now busy playing chess. He then says “Hello Miss, Me again. Did Mr Wallace get my message earlier?” Gladys would reply “Yes, Mr Beattie told him….” “Oh that’s fine. Sorry to cut you off. Thank you very much.. I’m in a hurry. My girl’s 21st y’know. Good evening.” Job done.

    Of course this hypothetical follow-up call is possible only if Qualtrough isn’t Wallace.

    Its a trap I try not to fall into: assuming that because “I would never have done it like that” that nobody else would either! Sometimes plans full of holes and weak points do (amazingly) work. So while the scenario you have described, David, is possible assuming Parry’s guilt and against all the odds, the cards falling his way , I do not find it probable for the above reasons.

    Incidentally you don’t need to apologise for a long posting! My brain just turned 80 and it enjoys the stimulation that study of this labyrinthine case never fails to provide. I’m sure other readers of this forum would agree.

    Best regards,

    Mike Fitton

  7. David Metcalf says:

    Hi Mike,
    Sorry it’s taken a while to reply. I think there are two quite plausible reasons why Parry didn’t ring the City Cafe Chess Club a second time, following his first call at 7.20pm, on the Monday evening.Firstly, he may simply not have had the money to make a second call.It’s well documented that Parry was a young man regularly strapped for cash.He often borrowed from friends, and was always on the lookout for easy money.He admitted himself 35 years later to Jonathan Goodman and Richard Whittington-Egan outside his flat in Brixton, London, that he lived beyond his means back in his younger days.But I think it’s the second reason that could be more likely…Parry might well think it could look suspicious if he rings the City Cafe again at about 8pm.After all, he’d told Samuel Beattie that he was “far too busy with his girl’s birthday” to ring back…and that had only been 40 minutes earlier.Gladys Harley may have taken the call, but she may not have been able to tell him that Wallace had arrived, and asked Beattie to come to the phone again, just as she did the first time.Even if Gladys Harley HAD seen Wallace arrive, she’d have had to bring him to the phone, or tell him that Mr.Qualtrough had called back, and wanted to know if he’d received the earlier message.If Gladys had said “Yes Mr.Qualtrough, he arrived earlier…I’ll go and fetch him for you”, that would have suited Parry perfectly.But he’d obviously have to terminate the call before Wallace stepped into the City Cafe kiosk to speak to him.He couldn’t run the risk of Wallace recognising his voice.And that in itself would have looked suspicious.Even more so if Beattie had discovered that Qualtrough had made a second call 40 odd minutes after telling him he was far too busy to do so, and then informed Wallace of this.Picture the scene:a man who Wallace has never heard of rings him at the City Cafe before he arrives.He then gives Beattie an address to pass to Wallace, an address that Wallace isn’t familiar with, also telling Beattie he’s too busy to call back.But then he DOES call back, but isn’t on the end of the line when Wallace picks up the receiver!! Wallace speaks to Beattie again, who says “He rang back?…that’s odd, he told me he was far too busy to ring back.And now he’s not even there at the other end of the line when you’ve gone to speak to him!!” Which is why Parry possibly thinks a second call is going to look suspicious.And is also the reason why I think he’s suddenly left Lily Lloyd’s house so soon after arriving there at 7.35…he’s decided to check for himself if Wallace has gone to his Chess Club at the City Cafe.Nagging curiosity, the need to know has made his mind up.Strangely, the fact that Lily’s pupil hasn’t finished her piano lesson may have played a part in his decision.He’s probably been sitting there thinking “Surely Wallace MUST have gone to the City Cafe?…It’s Monday night, I know he’s due to play a game because I saw it on the notice board, and I saw him leave his house at 7.15 and head towards Breck Road.Which is where gets the tram into the city centre.He HAS to have gone to the City Cafe!! And if he has gone, surely someone passed him the message?” But if he wants certainty, but feels a second telephone call is risky, there’s only one surefire to find out…he’s got to go there.And for a man with a car, this isn’t difficult.He gets up, tells Lily’s Mum or Dad he’ll be back after Lily has finished with her pupil as he’s just remembered he needs to see someone, jumps in his car and heads for North John Street and the City Cafe, about a 15 minute drive away, maybe less than that.Once there, the only person he might have to worry about seeing other than Wallace himself, is Gladys Harley, who presumably also works at the cafe on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, when Parry goes there for his Amateur Dramatics meetings.But even if he saw her, he could come up with some cock and bull story as to why he was there on a Monday, and not his usual Tuesday or Thursday.The moment he eyeballs Wallace, he leaves.He’s got the confirmation he wanted.He can now tell his accomplices that their plan might just be on the following night.Of course, Parry doesn’t actually need go to the City Cafe.Whoever the person masquerading as Qualtrough the following night is, simply has to knock at the front door of number 29 and hope that William doesn’t answer it.If he does, then he clearly didn’t take the bait, and the robbery plan is dead in the water.But from Parry’s perspective, he probably thinks he DOES need to go to the City Cafe.The knowledge that Wallace has indeed gone to the Chess Club and very likely received the Menlove Gardens message has probably boosted Parry’s confidence that his dubious little scheme might just come off.It’s also something positive he can report to his accomplices….namely, the person who’s going to pretend to be Qualtrough when he knocks on the front door of 29 Wolverton Street at 7.30 less than 24 hours later, and also the person who’s going to get in the back way and raid the cash box while Qualtrough keeps Julia talking in the parlour for 20 minutes or so.This person I think could well be 19 year old William Denison….Parry’s friend, and the young man who Olivia Brine actually mentions in her statement to the police.He wasn’t with Parry at Brine’s house on the murder night as he apparently usually was, and we have no idea of his whereabouts.Nor was he ever questioned, or asked to provide a statement.Don’t forget either that Julia is going to have no idea whatsoever as to who Qualtrough actually is…which is probably why Parry got him involved.But going back to the Monday evening and the phone call, I’m convinced that Parry has suddenly left his girlfriend’s house because he feels that knowing for certain that Wallace has gone to the City Cafe and received his message could be beneficial, not only to him, but his accomplices in particular, who’ll be carrying out this robbery, set up via Parry’s knowledge.As I said earlier, he doesn’t really need to make this visit to the City Cafe.Indeed, he’s risking having to call the robbery off if Wallace by some chance happens to spot him lurking about in the cafe.But it’s important to remember that Parry is NOT a master criminal…far from it!! He’s a chancer, an opportunist, a petty thief who somehow feels that knowing for certain that Wallace HAS gone to his club on that Monday evening and received that bogus message gives him and his accomplices that bit more knowledge and control of the situation.

  8. Michael Fitton says:

    Hi David,
    Great to hear from you.
    I agree that being short of money was unlikely to prevent Parry from making a second call to the chess club. The following evening he had enough to pay for cigarettes, newspaper, and presumably the re-charging of his accumulator battery at Hignett’s.

    Qualtrough could have avoided the suspicion aroused by a second call by saying at the outset “Please don’t disturb the chess players. I’d just like to know if Mr Wallace arrived and got my message.” He would of course wish to avoid any further conversation with Mr Beattie or (if Mr Q was Parry) with Wallace himself.

    Parry rushing downtown to check Wallace’s presence at the club is certainly possible. I just think there were easier ways to check, avoiding the trip. This is one of those aspects where one says “I wouldn’t have done it like that,” and assumes that nobody else would either! But Parry was on the spot, knew all the circumstances, and acted accordingly. We, on the other hand, have only the written records to go by – incomplete and sometimes unreliable which makes it hard to draw definite conclusions. We can only speculate.

    Why did Qualtrough use the phone box only 400 yards from Wallace’s home? The usual answer is that he wanted to make the call after seeing Wallace board the tram assuming he was going to play chess. A fragile assumption seeing that Wallace hadn’t attended the club for the last two months.
    This uncertainty could be avoided by Q using a call box close to the chess club then waiting to see if Wallace arrived at the cafe. Q still wouldn’t know whether Wallace would receive the message from Beattie (although very likely) or that he would take the bait the following evening (not guaranteed) but at least one weak link had been removed.

    As you say David, none of this is strictly necessary: Mr Q could simply show up at 29 Wolverton Street the following evening and hope that Wallace isn’t at home.

    As regards a planned distraction (non murderous) robbery at 29 Wolverton Street I don’t see how, even if they got away with the cash, how they could get away with the crime. Let us assume the plan worked:
    Mrs Wallace admits Mr Qualtrough (e.g .William Dennison) after being told there’s been a misunderstanding about the appointment. Mrs W welcomes him into the parlour to wait for Wallace’s return. An excuse is made e.g to visit the toilet, or an accomplice enters via the back door and the cash box is emptied successfully. Qualtrough returns, says he can’t wait any longer but will be in touch. When the cash is found to be missing it can only be the mysterious visitor who is responsible.
    Wallace will immediately suspect Parry or one of his dubious friends and Mrs Wallace is available for an I.D. if required. And because it is not Wallace’s money but that of the Prudential you can be sure that the police would be under pressure to solve the crime.

    Sadly, it is true that we have no evidence that W Dennison was interviewed. It seems that the police suspected Wallace right off the bat and neglected other avenues of enquiry. After the phone call had been traced on the Thursday their suspicions focussed on him and him alone. It was at this point, after saying on the Tuesday that he “had no suspicion of anyone” that Wallace, feeling the heat, changed his tune and suggested Parry and possibly Marsden as suspects.

    Best regards,

    Mike

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.