intimate favours
What are they Chocolates?
intimate favours
What are they Chocolates?
BE NICE......................OR ELSE
Ha,ha, sounds like it Spike
Most people of the Wallace's class or below rented their homes at that time, and I think I've seen it stated definitively somewhere that they rented.
We now have evidence that:
i) Parry had the means, motive and opportunity to engineer a robbery at the Wallace's house with the help of an accomplice.
ii) Parry could have made the phone call on the Monday
iii) Parry could have picked someone up in his car near Wolverton Street on the Tuesday before Wallace arrived home from Menlove Gardens.
It's the only theory that fits all the known facts.
Celeriter Nil Crede
I've thought that too. Also in books I've read their "back" kitchen is described as shabby! In the photos I've seen it doesn't look shabby at all - it looks clean and furnished of the time. As for "antwakky" that's a word all my family continue to use - it's a real Scouse word.Originally Posted by lindylou
I wonder if 29 was a rented property or their own ??
Just wondering if it's been mentioned -- don't feel like trawling through 100 odd pages to find out
It has sometimes been suggested along the way the Wallace may have got fed up of his life with Juila and wanted rid of her so he could live out the rest of his days without her - - well, in that case he could have just walked out of the marriage - done a disappearing act so to speak (and saved himself all the trouble) - It has been done many times before - a spouse escaping a marriage and disappearing.
If the house was their own then maybe Wallace wouldn't walk away from his share of it - but if the house was rented there would be nothing to lose.
Somewhere along the line I saw mention of a possibility that Julia could have been having an affair or even paying someone for, shall we say intimate favours - - no, I can't believe that theory at all. Judging by the the appearance of Julia - her being a rather antiquated person - and by all accounts having incontinence problems ! I'm sure any kind of premarital hanky panky was unlikey !!
My grandmother told me that Julia was known to be a staid and old fashioned kind of woman - to use my grandmother's turn of phrase, 'antwacky'.
Just a thought .. but poor Julia losing any last bit of dignity by having her undergarments and incontinence discussed by all and sundry.
Poor woman
I definately don't buy Mrs Wallace having an affair, but have thought perhaps that when Mr Wallace arrived home and couldn't get the either door open, the murderer was perhaps still there. Another theory, although unlikely.
Rod, you still have the (in my opinion glaring) problem of Julia being in the house. How could one expect to get away with it...even if she didn't notice money taken...it would be clear that they had been had when Wallace returned home with the story and Julia told him 'Qualtrough' had visited. This just smacks of a murder plot. If Parry was so desperate to specifically rob William Herbert Wallace, that he concocted an in depth, multi-layered scheme then you would think it would have some way of realistically working out.
I think those who say well there are botched robberies all the time are missing the point. The telephone call and the planning indicated a murder plot from the get-go. All that for a very bad chance at getting away with it for an unknown sum of money?
Interesting stuff to say the least from John Gannon.
"The evidence is quite consistent with some unknown criminal, for some unknown motive, having got into the house and executed the murder and gone away...
If there was an unknown murderer, he has covered up his traces. Can you say it is absolutely impossible that there was no such person?"
Mr. Justice Wright, summing up in R v Wallace
Celeriter Nil Crede
Yes it was rented Linda. 14s. 3d. a week.I wonder if 29 was a rented property or their own ??
Just wondering if it's been mentioned -- don't feel like trawling through 100 odd pages to find out
Linda my grandparents said the same as your grandmother - that Julia was old fashioned...My grandmother told me that Julia was known to be a staid and old fashioned kind of woman - to use my grandmother's turn of phrase, 'antwacky'.
---------- Post added at 08:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 PM ----------
Burkhilly, interesting you say that someone could have been inside the house - Wallace actually said at first that he thought somebody was in the house when he arrived back from his Menlove Gardens sojourn. He retracted it though. Many Wallaceites believe that Wallace had realised it wouldn't have fit in with anything and thereby dismissed that idea.
---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ----------
Spike - I think the most direct route at the time involved travelling along Queens Drive. A few routes were suggested to Wallace but he said that he would travel into town (to Smithdown Lane), then travel to Penny Lane.
It is Accomplished
John, the first thing I noticed was the differing dates and thought that the statement must have ran past midnight and yes, since he was at Lily Lloyds that night, he had clearly gone to make the statement thereafter. I also thought it strange that the staff at Miaden Lane post office where he bought his newspaper and ciggies that night, or at Hignetts where he went for his accumulator battery were never quizzed to corroborate his story, but then why would Parry complicate the story if it were not true. What of Parry's dad saying his son was having trouble with his car battery that night on Breck Road?
I would say the call was botched up not to exonerate Wallace from having made the call but to finger him as the caller - if it was not just a ploy to try and swindle a free call - not knowing the operator could see what button had been pressed.
If it was Parry who made the call and was not expecting to be quizzed on it, that may well be why he didn't think he needed an alibi.
---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------
They rented the house for fourteen shillings and sixpence per week from their landlord, Samuel Evans who resided in nearby Anfield Road.
Apropos of not a lot, just a bit of scene-setting at the time: my mother was a young unmarried woman of almost 25 at the time. One of her friends, Mona Crane, used to live not far from Wolverton Street. and was used to seeing Wallace walking in the district. After the trial and subsequent upheld appeal, she was always a bit scared when seeing Wallace approaching -so much so, that she used to cross over the road to avoid passing close to him. Something , I believe, in which she was not alone. Wallace continued to be a figure of suspicion in Liverpool and widely regarded as having `got away with it`- theories as to how he did so were many and rife. Wallace would obviously not be unaware of this, which probably led to his leaving Liverpool and may have contributed to the illness from which he eventually succumbed.
Right, it's not Justice Wright's job to come up or hash out the specifics of another possible motive...it was just a summing up for acquittal...nothing more or nothing less. He never mentions a robbery...just that the motive was unknown. And with the evidence presented at the trial, I would have summed up/ voted not guilty myself.
Quoting edits from JG's post:
“Why did the police not conduct the statement at his house, place of work, or at the bridewell at their convenience and not Parry’s. The Lloyd/Brine/Denison statements being taken the following Monday, 26th January. It is noteworthy that police, despite my relentless researches, appear to have taken no statements from William Hodgson or his wife Mary (Post Office Maiden Lane); Walter, Catherine, Samuel or Josephine Hignett, nor any members of the staff at Hignett’s; nor Annie Williamson (49 Lisburn Lane).
………………………………………… ………………………………………… ………………………………………… …………………..
“At the end of Radio City’s ‘Who Killed Julia’ series of programmes Roger Wilkes signed off with, “The controversy goes on whether police like it or not; the Wallace case will not lie down or go away ... we have done what we can; and there, sadly and uneasily, the case must rest.” This forum, however, maintains the spirit of determination in these sentiments – well done to you all.”
I'm wondering if anyone has a copy of Roger Wilkes' original programme for Radio City? I seem to remember that he made much of the fact that the police investigation was conducted in an appallingly sloppy manner, something that JG touches on here. For all Mark R's & Ged's admirably detailed study of the case this element seems to be missing, if true.
Yes Mark, I have to agree with you there. No way Wallace should have been found guilty. The fact that the appeal worked (unprecedentedly) and the conviction was quashed speaks to the incompetence of the jury. Wallace was quite unlucky and I'm sure the public sentiment against him and the strange Qualtrough aspect clouded the jury's minds. Along with the chess-player and stoic hocus pocus.
It is similar to the OJ Simpson trial (but without DNA!), as I believed OJ was probably guilty at the time (now it's definitely!), but the state bungled the case badly enough that not guilty was the only way to vote. I do think the police could have solved the case if they had done everything they were supposed to.
Another parallel I'd like to draw is what Stephen Singular, an expert on the JonBenet Ramsey case said:
'I don't think an intruder killed JonBenet. I don't think either of the two prevalent scenarios -- the Ramseys did it or an intruder did it -- can explain both the hard evidence coming from outside the family and a ransom note that appears to have come from within the house. Three-and-a-half years into the case, both scenarios have led nowhere. This is an extremely complicated case, which is what the police and the media have never wanted it to be.'
The Wallace case is similar in the fact that I think certain lines of reasoning and apparent sound logic hit a dead end. That is why so many people have called the Wallace case 'impossible' 'Wallace had to have done it but couldn't have etc' I think one has to really think outside the box to solve this and the police certainly did not at the time.
Right. My take on it.
I'm sure Parry has some involvement in it as the inside man.
He set up the hoax Qualtrough call (I'm unsure as to whether he just tried to fiddle the call box money or he actually had the brains to try and use such a local box and confuse the operators so it could be traced to WHW to finger him into it - it isn't a million miles from Clubmoor and Lily lloyds in any case so could well be en route for him as so its location and WHW's had no underlying connection)
The unsure part for me is did he intend his accomplice to just do a robberywhich went wrong resulting in the murder and the robbery having to be terminated quickly resulting in the aghast Parry grabbing the bloodied glove and saying it's get him hung/i've disposed of a weapon down a grid as he tried to rid the car of the blood evidence, or whether it was always intended as a murder - but if so, what was the motive?
GED, as I see it there are 3 possibilities. By 'did it' I will mean was involved in any way (including and especially the planning.)
Either A) Somebody (ies) other than Wallace did it as a planned robbery gone wrong
B) Somebody (ies) other than Wallace did it as a planned murder.
C) Wallace did it as a planned murder.
I have a lot of problems in theory with both A and B and none with C. What I mean by this is not so much that I am on the face of it convinced C is right, rather that A and B both present obvious and glaring problems which C does not.
We agree Parry made the call... but a planned robbery seems very unlikely for several reasons, many of which I have already expressed to Rod Crosby. How could Parry hope to get away with the cash? Why go to such trouble for an unknown (and what turned out to be rather paltry some of money) As Murphy puts it:
‘How much simpler, how much more lucrative it would have been, for Qualtrough to have slipped a note to Wallace through his front door on Monday, 12 January [sic – an intentional reference to the previous week], asking him to call at 25 Menlove Gardens East the following night.
That Qualtrough chose Wallace’s putative attendance at the chess club, rather than the night when he could maximize his gain, as the starting point for his plan, again testifies to the fact that robbery was not a significant motive in the crime.’
I think if one then comes to the conclusion that this was a planned murder (that much I do feel can be proved beyond doubt, then one must look at scenario B and create a non-probematic scenario.
Parry is involved...that much we know. The only 2 possibilities seem to be either Parry planned the murder Julia Wallace or William Herbert Wallace planned the murder of Julia Wallace. Which is more likely?
Just learnt that RUSSELL JOHNSTON(grandson of "The Johnston's" - 31,Wolverton St) is giving a talk tomorrow evening on the case(Tues.25th Jan.at 7.30 till 9.30)at a Rotary Club meeting at Prenton Bowls Club 63,Prenton Road West(on the way up to Tranmere Rovers F.C.) I'll be going,as its open to all!! Might finally see some of you there!!! I suggest we dont mention TOM SLEMEN!!! IAN(FJumble)
Last edited by IAN DAVID FRYER; 01-24-2011 at 12:46 PM. Reason: put wrong date
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks