Comments

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

477 Responses to Comments

  1. Some guy says:

    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.

  2. Ged says:

    Also looking forward to seeing it, this site is a fantastic resource. Well done to RMQ.

  3. Tilly Mint says:

    Hey Just wanted to ask if it’s ok to use info and images from your website for my YouTube channel? Ta!

  4. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

      • Michael Fitton says:

        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.

  5. Tilly Mint says:

    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

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  6. Ged says:

    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?

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  7. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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!

  8. Tilly Mint says:

    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.

  9. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  10. Ged says:

    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?

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  11. Tilly Mint says:

    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

  12. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  13. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  14. Tilly Mint says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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

  15. Ged says:

    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/

  16. Tilly Mint says:

    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

  17. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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

  18. Ged says:

    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.

  19. ged says:

    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.

  20. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  21. Ged says:

    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.

  22. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  23. Tilly Mint says:

    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.

  24. Ged says:

    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.

  25. Ged says:

    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.

  26. Ged says:

    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.

  27. Michael Fitton says:

    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?

  28. Tilly Mint says:

    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

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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!

  29. Tilly Mint says:

    I think you mean 12 months not 10 years.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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

  30. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  31. Dave Metcalf says:

    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.

  32. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  33. Ged says:

    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.

  34. Ged says:

    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.

  35. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  36. Ged says:

    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?

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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

  37. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  38. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  39. Tilly Mint says:

    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!

  40. Michael Fitton says:

    “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.

  41. Ged says:

    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.

  42. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  43. Ged says:

    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.

  44. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  45. Ged says:

    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.

  46. Tilly Mint says:

    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.

  47. Michael Fitton says:

    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?

  48. Ged says:

    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 😉

  49. Tilly Mint says:

    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

  50. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  51. Ged says:

    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 🙂

  52. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  53. Ged says:

    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.

  54. Tilly Mint says:

    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.

  55. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  56. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  57. Ged says:

    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?

  58. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  59. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  60. Ged says:

    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.

  61. Ged says:

    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

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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/

      • Michael Fitton says:

        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.

        • R M Qualtrough says:

          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.

          • Michael Fitton says:

            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.

  62. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  63. GED says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

      • R M Qualtrough says:

        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).

  64. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

      • R M Qualtrough says:

        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.

  65. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  66. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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?

  67. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  68. Ged says:

    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.

  69. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  70. Ged says:

    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.

  71. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  72. Ged says:

    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.

  73. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  74. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      He didn’t go to 25 Menlove Avenue did he.

      • Michael Fitton says:

        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.

        • R M Qualtrough says:

          It’s literally the second house by Menlove Gardens West lol… See Google Maps. I think he may have even walked right by it.

          • Michael Fitton says:

            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.

  75. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  76. Josh Levin says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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

  77. Ged says:

    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?

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  78. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  79. Ged says:

    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)

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      Maybe Julia was insistent she didn’t want to play music until after they’d had dinner, or some other pre-occupation.

  80. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  81. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  82. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

      • Michael Fitton says:

        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.

  83. Ged says:

    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?

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  84. Ged says:

    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?

  85. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  86. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  87. Ged says:

    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.

  88. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  89. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  90. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

      • Michael Fitton says:

        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.

  91. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  92. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  93. Ged says:

    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 ?

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  94. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

    • Josh Levin says:

      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.

      • R M Qualtrough says:

        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.

  95. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  96. Josh Levin says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      Antony also rigs democratic votes like a communist dictator. Percentages of each result miraculously identical after supposedly 500 to 1000 more votes.

      • Josh Levin says:

        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.

  97. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

    • Josh Levin says:

      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

    • Josh Levin says:

      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.

  98. Josh Levin says:

    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

  99. Ged says:

    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 🙂

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      “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?

    • Josh says:

      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.

  100. Josh Levin says:

    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

  101. Josh Levin says:

    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

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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…

  102. Josh Levin says:

    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

  103. Josh Levin says:

    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

  104. Josh Levin says:

    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

  105. Ged says:

    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……

  106. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  107. Ged says:

    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)

  108. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  109. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  110. Josh Levin says:

    Hanratty is more guilty than Antony loves pies lol

  111. Josh Levin says:

    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

  112. Josh Levin says:

    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

  113. Ged says:

    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 😉

    • Josh Levin says:

      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.

  114. michael Fitton says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  115. Josh Levin says:

    Michael I agree I think people underestimate how poor the audio quality was on older phones like this

  116. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  117. Ged says:

    ”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.

  118. Ged says:

    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.

  119. Josh Levin says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  120. Josh Levin says:

    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?

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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”.

  121. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

      • Michael Fitton says:

        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.

        • R M Qualtrough says:

          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.

          • Michael Fitton says:

            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.

  122. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      There isn’t only one tram route to get to the club lol. So yes all the exit points from the street matter.

  123. Josh Levin says:

    GED this last post is a new low for you lol

  124. Ged says:

    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…………

  125. Ged says:

    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.

  126. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  127. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  128. Ged says:

    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.

  129. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  130. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  131. Ged says:

    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. 🙂

    • Joshua Levin says:

      Yes but he never went to pub meetups to discuss true crime, you adventurous devil GED you.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  132. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  133. Ged says:

    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.

  134. Tilly Mint says:

    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

    • Josh Levin says:

      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.

  135. Ged says:

    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)

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

    • Josh Levin says:

      Hi GED, the 2nd one.

    • Josh Levin says:

      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.

      • John Greaves says:

        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.

        • Josh Levin says:

          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.

  136. Ged says:

    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.

  137. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  138. Ged says:

    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…….

  139. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  140. Josh says:

    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.

  141. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  142. Josh Levin says:

    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

  143. Josh Levin says:

    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

  144. Josh Levin says:

    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

  145. Josh Levin says:

    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

  146. Antony M. Brown says:

    Hey, Antony Brown here, these pies taste so good!

    • Josh Levin says:

      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.

  147. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  148. Ged says:

    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?

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  149. Ged says:

    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.

  150. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  151. Ged says:

    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.

  152. Josh Levin says:

    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…

  153. Ged says:

    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.

  154. Ged says:

    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?

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  155. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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!

  156. Ged says:

    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.

  157. Ged says:

    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.

  158. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  159. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  160. Ged says:

    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?

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  161. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  162. Ged says:

    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.

  163. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  164. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  165. Michael Fitton says:

    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?

  166. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  167. Ged says:

    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.

  168. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  169. Ged says:

    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?

  170. Ged says:

    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?

  171. Ged says:

    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?

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

      • Michael Fitton says:

        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.

  172. Ged says:

    Ah so it was a legitimate call then. Thanks Mike.

  173. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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?

      • R M Qualtrough says:

        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).

        • Michael Fitton says:

          Agreed. None of us can be precise about the timing of everyday events which, at the time, have no significance whatsoever.

  174. Ged says:

    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.

  175. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  176. Ged says:

    A great story Mike. Love it.

  177. Ged says:

    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.

  178. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  179. Ged says:

    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.

  180. Josh Levin says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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

  181. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  182. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  183. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  184. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.”

  185. Ged says:

    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?

  186. Ged says:

    It’s ok now, got the info I required. Thanks.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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!

  187. Josh Levin says:

    Please guys stop being avocado heads lol

  188. Ged says:

    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?

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  189. Ged says:

    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)

  190. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  191. David Metcalf says:

    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.

  192. Ged says:

    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?

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  193. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  194. Ged says:

    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?

  195. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  196. Ged says:

    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.

  197. Ged says:

    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/

  198. Ged says:

    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

  199. David Metcalf says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  200. Ged says:

    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…………

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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

  201. Ged says:

    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.

  202. Ged says:

    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.

  203. David Metcalf says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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

  204. Ged says:

    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.

  205. Ged says:

    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.

  206. Ged says:

    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.

  207. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  208. Josh Levin says:

    Mike, I agree completely

  209. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  210. Ged says:

    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.

  211. Ged says:

    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.”

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

      Tony Hawk's Extreme Existential Crisis

  212. Josh Levin says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  213. Ged says:

    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.

  214. Ged says:

    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.

  215. Josh Levin says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      “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.

  216. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  217. Ged says:

    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.

  218. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  219. Ged says:

    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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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.

  220. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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?

  221. Dave Metcalf says:

    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.

  222. Dave Metcalf says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  223. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  224. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  225. Ged says:

    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.

  226. Dave Metcalf says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  227. Ged says:

    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 🙂

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  228. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  229. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  230. Ged says:

    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.

  231. Ged says:

    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?

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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).

  232. Ged says:

    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.

  233. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  234. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

    • Josh Levin says:

      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.

  235. Ged says:

    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.

  236. Michael Fitton says:

    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!

  237. Ged says:

    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.

  238. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  239. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  240. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  241. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  242. Michael Fitton says:

    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….

  243. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  244. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

  245. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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 🙁

  246. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  247. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      “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.

  248. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  249. Ged says:

    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.

  250. Ged says:

    “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.

  251. Ged says:

    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.

  252. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  253. Michael Fitton says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  254. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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?

  255. Tilly Mint says:

    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

  256. Ged says:

    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……..

  257. R M Qualtrough says:

    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.

  258. Ged says:

    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.

  259. Ged says:

    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.

  260. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  261. Tilly Mint says:

    Hi Ged

    What is the other forum and can I join?

    Tilly

  262. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  263. Tilly Mint says:

    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

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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

  264. GED says:

    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. 😉

  265. Michael Fitton says:

    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

  266. Ged says:

    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?

  267. R M Qualtrough says:

    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.

  268. Dave Metcalf says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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

      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.

      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.

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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

      • R M Qualtrough says:

        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.

  269. Dave Metcalf says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  270. GED says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  271. Dave Metcalf says:

    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.

  272. Ged says:

    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?

  273. Ged says:

    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?

  274. GED says:

    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)

    • Michael Fitton says:

      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

  275. Ged says:

    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

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      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.

  276. Josh Levin says:

    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.

  277. Ged says:

    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.

    • R M Qualtrough says:

      “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.

  278. Ged says:

    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.

  279. Ged says:

    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 Julia’s 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.

    • R M Q