This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

265 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

    • 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.


  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.

  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?

  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?

    • 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.

  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.


  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.


  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.


  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.


  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!


  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,


  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.

  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.

    • 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.

      • 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?

  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.

  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
    Join Date: May 2017
    Posts: 18330
    02-05-2021, 12:04 PM
    ”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”

    ”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?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *