YO! Liverpool
Page 38 of 51 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... LastLast
Results 1,111 to 1,140 of 1511

Thread: Julia Wallace Murder Case

  1. #1111
    Senior Member Mark R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Sorry for putting the answers up Ian!!
    Of course many have written about the Wallace Case - Winifred Duke, WF Wyndham Brown, Nigel Morland, Martin Fido and Liverpool's own John Brophy, Vincent Burke and Gerald Abrahams amongst them. Don't ever recall reading (or hearing) if Alfred Hitchcock and Agatha Christie had an opinion about it.
    I listened to your phone-in and it was very interesting. Great to hear the views of the panel. I think the only down side was the perpetual phone line cock ups! It was good listening to Roger Wilkes struggling through it . Still great to hear it though.

    It is Accomplished

  2. #1112
    Senior Member burkhilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Liverpool, of course
    Posts
    376
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I've not the time to listen to the programmes yet - but will listen to all of them shortly. What I have listened to is the "phone-in" which is interesting in that it gives people's views of Parry's character. Not a very nice person by all accounts, but did he do it?

  3. #1113
    Senior Member Mark R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I'm not convinced Parry did it burkhilly. Yes, you're right - by all accounts he was an unsavoury character. Did John Parkes have a reason for his actions? Did Parry actually take a car into the garage? Or did Parkes have a grudge against Parry? It seems severe to say the least that Parkes would point the finger at him because he had a grudge...Or did Parry really take the car in to be cleaned? We'll never know...

    The Wallace Case has always had two generally accepted theories - the Wallaceite (those convinced of his guilt) and Qualtroughite (that he was innocent). I suppose you could also say what I refer to it as - the Quallaceite - (Wallace in collusion with a contract killer) not a new theory by any means, but it would take an incredible amount of trust... I still think that the Anfield Housebreaker cannot be ruled out.
    It is Accomplished

  4. #1114
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Reasons for Parry's involvement.

    The phony alibi on the Qualtrough phone call night.

    His demeanour to Whittington-Egan and Jonathan Goodman in 1966 and his saying he could say a lot more about the case but promised his father he wouldn't - Why?

    His admitting to going to see Julia some afternoons to make 'sweet music' - Of what kind?

    Him being blown up to the Pru superindant Joseph Crewe by WHW - thereby giving him a motive (as if the aforementioned clandestine meetings and his perpetual shortage of money didn't already)

    But..... I would still like to know what Harry Bailey could have told WHW solicitor Sydney Scholefield Allen after he retired that would have 'Interested him immensely'.

    With the changes of findings by MacFall (3 at least), the co-ercing of witnesses (Alan Close and John Parkes) by Moore and the farcical Anfield Harriers routine - all manufacturered to make the crime fit the person rather than the person fit the crime, then Parry at the very least cannot be ruled out.

    I must admit though, take Parry out of the equation and the way for instance Russell Johnston put that talk across, seeing things as they unfolded during those two nights with the only evidence that was available to the police at that time, you could just as easily go for Wallace as the killer. (though we don't know what Parry evidence they chose to ignore because they thought they had their man in Wallace and didn't want to deviate from it/the Moore-Parry senior connection factor too)
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  5. #1115
    Senior Member John Doh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Phew! Quite an impressive summing up there, m'Lud! Well, at least one member of the jury that's still sitting had a bit more to think about...

  6. #1116
    Senior Member IAN DAVID FRYER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    122
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    THANKS Ged..EXCELLENT PIECE! I think MARK, I've been a "Qualtroughite"all my life as WALLACE couldnt possibly have battered JULIA himself! In recent times,I swung to become "Quallaceite" on the basis that obviously somebody badly want JULIA dead & WHW is the obvious(only?)candidate & now a plausible motive has surfaced(her old age & lying about it!). PARRY was surely Qualtrough. I think theft & the Anfield Burglar can both be dismissed..the killer/Wallace tried to point the police towards the theft/breakin theory..but importantly,JULIA KNEW her killer & showed him into the "parlour" & lit the gas for him(strange thing to do for a sneak-thief/House Burglar!!!) Also, if the Anfield Burglar was in the habit of battering his victims why wer'nt his other robberies carried out like this? With John Parkes statements,I initially thought them far fetched...but the Atkinsons clearly believed him & backed him up.I dont think he would have tried to frame PARRY because he had a grudge against him..for 50 years?? Also,he was terrified of Gordon Parry..he was brave to go as far as he did at the time & the police must have convinced everyone at Atkinsons that they had the killer(WHW) & Parry was in the clear!! FJumble(IAN)

  7. #1117
    Senior Member Mark R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    There is still no evidence though to say that Parry WAS Qualtrough Ian! I cannot believe Wallace didn't know Julia's correct age. The photo we all know of Julia was more than likely taken many years before - maybe 30 years before - she certainly doesn't look older than 40 on it (well I don't think so anyway).
    On the contrary, I still think one of the Anfield Housebreaker's is still a viable possibility. I have to say, there is no proof that it was one burglar targeting the area. Many people (a lot of them elderly) have and still allow complete strangers into their homes. A stranger could have told Julia that he was Qualtrough and that he has called on Wallace and that he could wait for his return...It is not an impossibility. After bludgeoning her to death he could have been caught in an overwhelming state of panic and fled - the only doubt I have about that is the lack of blood outside the room...Surely a fleeing killer would have left traces...or if he didn't, then Wallace didn't (which drives me around the bend thinking how he managed to avoid spatter, something which I cannot believe!!)
    I'm just not convinced that Wallace would devise such a plan with an accomplice when he could have dispatched her in a much easier method - and without anyone else knowing.
    With regards to Parkes - he said he was scared of Parry, yet said to his face he didn't trust him. It doesn't sound like he was that scared of him. Yes, it is possible for a deep rooted hatred to fester for 50 years. I'm not saying Parkes was making it up - maybe he wasn't - but I find it ludicrous that a guilty Parry would have disclosed his connection with a murder,
    saying to Parkes regarding the glove; 'if they found that it would hang me...' Hey maybe it was Parkes in collusion with Wallace thereby framing Parry. Parkes worked late at night giving him time to execute the phone call and the murder


    ADVERTISING


    It is Accomplished

  8. #1118
    Member Acrosstheuniverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    76
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    But the Anfield Housebreaker committed all sorts of crimes without ever involving an ingenious phone message the day before. I think this was a much more personal plan from the get-go.

  9. #1119
    Senior Member Mark R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse View Post
    But the Anfield Housebreaker committed all sorts of crimes without ever involving an ingenious phone message the day before. I think this was a much more personal plan from the get-go.
    We don't know that exactly though. I think the only way it can be called an 'ingenious' phone call is if Wallace made it (and I wouldn't call it ingenious then either!). If it wasn't Wallace 'Qualtrough' was taking a chance just by hoping that Wallace would carry it through. He was putting all his faith on him falling for it and making the trek. He didn't know for definite that Wallace would make the journey to Menlove Gardens and if he didn't go up to Menlove Gardens 'Q' could hardly try the same trick again without Wallace being suspicious.
    If it was Wallace that made the phone call he took one of the biggest risks ever. I'm sure he would never have wanted the call traced but managed to get it traced - I wouldn't call that ingenious!
    It is Accomplished

  10. #1120
    Member Acrosstheuniverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    76
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark R View Post
    We don't know that exactly though. I think the only way it can be called an 'ingenious' phone call is if Wallace made it (and I wouldn't call it ingenious then either!). If it wasn't Wallace 'Qualtrough' was taking a chance just by hoping that Wallace would carry it through. He was putting all his faith on him falling for it and making the trek. He didn't know for definite that Wallace would make the journey to Menlove Gardens and if he didn't go up to Menlove Gardens 'Q' could hardly try the same trick again without Wallace being suspicious.
    If it was Wallace that made the phone call he took one of the biggest risks ever. I'm sure he would never have wanted the call traced but managed to get it traced - I wouldn't call that ingenious!
    Mark, I completely agree with the difficulties you presented for Wallace not being Qualtrough.....that is why I think he was in effect (I believe he was not the actual caller, but the mastermind.) I think you're splitting hairs...so let's say instead of ingenious perhaps 'elaborate' would be a better adjective.

  11. #1121
    Senior Member Mark R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse View Post
    Mark, I completely agree with the difficulties you presented for Wallace not being Qualtrough.....that is why I think he was in effect (I believe he was not the actual caller, but the mastermind.) I think you're splitting hairs...so let's say instead of ingenious perhaps 'elaborate' would be a better adjective.
    I cannot believe someone as educated as Wallace would even contemplate using a call box so near to his house. If Wallace was the mastermind, wouldn't he have been better planning to have Julia murdered on the Monday instead? He could have spent the whole evening at the chess club. Or was the Tuesday chosen to give a contract killer a better security of mind in that Wallace had less of a 'concrete' alibi? 'Strangers on a Train' film springs to mind...
    It is Accomplished

  12. #1122
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Whoever sent WHW on that wild goose chase could never have known his pedantic searching and asking would have resulted in such a strong alibi - which in effect it turned out to be.

    If Parry sent WHW up to Menlove, he could reasonably assume he'd know the route and not have to ask tram conductors, maybe ask one or two people when he found it difficult to find then come home with maybe any persons he asked would not be found when the police appealed for them?

    But then, maybe it could also be assumed he'd consult a street map. I doubt, given the possible commission available he'd pass it over to the local Allerton agent.

    I still think WHW had nothing to do with it.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  13. #1123
    Senior Member Mark R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    But then, maybe it could also be assumed he'd consult a street map. I doubt, given the possible commission available he'd pass it over to the local Allerton agent.

    I still think WHW had nothing to do with it.
    Yes that is a good point re: the commission Ged. I think it is James Murphy (and other Wallaceites) who say he should have passed the business over to another agent, one in the Allerton/Mossley Hill area. Why would anyone do this when the individual stands to gain in commission? Also the idea that instead of the elaborate phone call 'Qualtrough' could have posted a note through 29 WS. This also, doesn't hold any water. It would be a risky venture in case of being seen, or the handwriting being identified.
    It is Accomplished

  14. #1124
    Senior Member RodCrosby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Crosby, Merseyside
    Age
    54
    Posts
    122
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    For Wallace to be Qualtrough you must accept two things.

    i) tall, distinctive, well-known-in-the-district Wallace would risk being spotted at a phone box around the corner from his own house!
    ii) Cumberland native Wallace would risk his voice being recognised on the phone, when speaking to someone he knew!

    Either one is a huge risk. Taken together they must point to Wallace's innocence....
    Celeriter Nil Crede

  15. #1125
    Senior Member Mark R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
    For Wallace to be Qualtrough you must accept two things.

    i) tall, distinctive, well-known-in-the-district Wallace would risk being spotted at a phone box around the corner from his own house!
    ii) Cumberland native Wallace would risk his voice being recognised on the phone, when speaking to someone he knew!

    Either one is a huge risk. Taken together they must point to Wallace's innocence....
    Also the idea that the call was traced. Murphy & others state that it wasn't common knowledge at the time that a call could be traced. Wallace was of a scientific mind - I'm pretty sure he could have had an idea it could be traced, thereby the likelihood of a guilty Wallace using a call box in Anfield is highly suspect.
    It is Accomplished

  16. #1126
    Member Acrosstheuniverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    76
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Yes, I think it's plain that Wallace did not make the phone call. That says nothing about whether or not he set everything up. I see tremendous difficulty with a planned robbery scenario. I won't list all the reasons why again; at this point it's beating a dead horse.

    So Wallace being innocent means you have to accept someeone else plotting the murder of Julia Wallace and framing her husband. This seems remarkably implausible.

  17. #1127
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Not necessarily framing her husband.

    The red herring Qualtrough business deal may have been no more than getting him out of the way.

    The fact he was put in the frame due to everything that happened consequently might just be the icing on the cake for the real murderer/s.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  18. #1128
    Senior Member burkhilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Liverpool, of course
    Posts
    376
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I'm a defo Wallace didn't do it. Two things which bother me about the case are:

    1. The murder weapon.........we have Mr Wallace saying that an iron bar was missing from the house, the police assuming that this was the weapon, which was probably but down a drain. According to Jonathan Goodman's book an iron bar very similar to the missing one was found some years later in the Wallace house during the change from coal to gas fires. There was a space below the fire grate, and this is where the iron bar was. This information was apparently reported to the police, who were not interested.

    2. It's always bothered me that Mr Wallace, having arrived home on the fateful night, couldn't open the back door or the front door, which he believed were locked when he initially tried. I'm quite convinced that there was someone in the house when he arrived home.

    Any responses to the above?

    I have always believed that there was only one person involved in Mrs Wallace's murder, but now I'm beginning to think that there may have been two involved after reading all the theories on the thread.

  19. #1129
    Senior Member Mark R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Burkhilly Wallace didn't say that an iron bar was missing - it was the cleaner Sarah Jane Draper who said that. Wallace said he didn't know anything about the iron bar. I think Murphy is more than likely correct in his book when he says there wouldn't have been an iron bar hidden behind the fire - I think Goodman is probably wrong about that. The place was taken apart and I'm sure an iron bar wouldn't have escaped the attentions of the police (no matter how incompetent they were meant to be!)
    Your second point: Initially Wallace said he thought that there might have been someone in the house when he returned. When asked by the police if he though he heard someone inside, Wallace replied 'No.' Wallaceites believe this was Wallace considering making out there was someone inside the house but dismissing it as it wouldn't have fitted in with his modus operandi.
    It is Accomplished

  20. #1130
    Senior Member John Doh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    What makes Murphy so sure that there wouldn't have been anything hidden behind the fire? (Sorry, I haven't been able to read the book yet...) If it were pushed through a small gap it would not necessarily have occurred even to an efficient police force to have excavated the whole fireplace, let alone the incompetent bunch who were in charge of this investigation!

  21. #1131
    Senior Member Mark R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Doh View Post
    What makes Murphy so sure that there wouldn't have been anything hidden behind the fire? (Sorry, I haven't been able to read the book yet...) If it were pushed through a small gap it would not necessarily have occurred even to an efficient police force to have excavated the whole fireplace, let alone the incompetent bunch who were in charge of this investigation!
    I think it is because the place was stripped right down during the police investigations. I don't really think it points to guilt whether there was a bar there or not. Those who believe Wallace was guilty claim that the lack of a weapon found points to his guilt. I don't think this is so. Anyone coming to the house with a weapon would more than likely take it away with them.
    It is Accomplished

  22. #1132
    Senior Member IAN DAVID FRYER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    122
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I agree with you burkilly that WALLACE himself couldnt possibly have battered JULIA.I rather put the "someone was still in the house" theory with the Anfield Burglar..as a total red herring...either an innocent WHW assuming she'd been the victim of a robbery gone wrong..or,more likely in my opinion, WHW returning & trying to point the authorites towards a random killer.Again,I agree with MARK about the iron bar,it couldnt have been overlooked even by these appalling police officers!! PARKES claiming Parry dropped it down a grid outside a doctors house(possibly WHW's own doctor!) in Priory Road sounds very plausible to me. I think you are correct in coming round to the idea that this murder was not carried out by one person...but only WALLACE could have wanted her dead(& as we have said he didnt batter her!)QUALTROUGH is crucial to the case & he is PARRY for sure.... hopefully the forthcoming book by John Gannon will give us all more info. about the possible 3rd member of the group(MARSDEN)who I personally know next to nothing about at the moment..IAN (FJumble)

    ---------- Post added at 02:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 PM ----------

    Sorry MARK I missed this post,I have had a lot of trouble with my home PC! Apart from the blood issue,which you adequately cover,there is the equally important question of TIME..no,WHW couldn't possibly have battered JULIA. I have to admit that the evidence for PARRY being Qualtrough is circumstantial..but it is strong evidence. 1)Experienced in amateur Dramatics 2)Known to regularly disguise his voice & make hoax phone calls 3)ConMan who couldnt resist trying his trick of a free call by pressing the wrong button 4)Familiar with WHW arrangements especially regarding 24B North John Street..and now his apparent pre-occupation with trying to organise a 2ist celebration!! I go with GOODMAN & Whittington-Egan PARRY was QUALTROUGH...IAN(FJumble)

  23. #1133
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Hi Ian. If you are saying only WHW could have wanted her dead and that Parry is the phone hoaxer then are you saying they were in collusion. WHW could have killed her in a far less messy way - out of the house even on one of their walks.

    We don't know Parrys/Julia's liasons and if there's another reason Parry could have wanted her dead as it was a frenzied attack.

    Even so, I'm not sure he did it, the phone call yes - but could he have kept his cool and the car free of blood in front of Lily Lloyd until he took it to be cleaned. More likely he was the getaway car driver.
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  24. #1134
    Senior Member Mark R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER View Post
    I go with GOODMAN & Whittington-Egan PARRY was QUALTROUGH...IAN(FJumble)
    Ha ha! Whittington-Egan has reneged in recent years on his belief that Parry was Qualtrough Ian. I honestly don't believe there is any conspiracy theory - I think that is wishful thinking by hack writers and sensationalists who are looking for a story, and I think the Marsden angle is the same. I honestly believe it was either Wallace or some unknown. Certainly not Parry or Marsden. We only have Parkes' word that Parry used to phone people up and use a false voice. Even if he did, it would never stand up in a court of law.

    ---------- Post added at 02:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    Hi Ian. If you are saying only WHW could have wanted her dead and that Parry is the phone hoaxer then are you saying they were in collusion. WHW could have killed her in a far less messy way - out of the house even on one of their walks
    I agree. That is what is unconvincing with the collusion theory Ged. Also Wallace naming Parry, Marsden amongst others. I know it could be regarded that it would look suspicious if Wallace didn't name Parry, but he hadn't been in Wallace's house for over two years. He had no contact with him and wasn't that friendly with him.
    It is Accomplished

  25. #1135
    Senior Member RodCrosby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Crosby, Merseyside
    Age
    54
    Posts
    122
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Also, Parry doesn't have an alibi for
    i) the time of the phone call on the Monday
    ii) the time Wallace could be expected to return from the quest for Qualtrough on Tuesday.

    In fact, our lad was "out and about" in his car at both times, in the vicinity...
    Celeriter Nil Crede

  26. #1136
    Re-member Ged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Here, there & everywhere.
    Posts
    7,197
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Well now that you put it like that Rod
    www.inacityliving.piczo.com/

    Updated weekly with old and new pics.

  27. #1137
    Senior Member RodCrosby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Crosby, Merseyside
    Age
    54
    Posts
    122
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I've created a multi-option poll. It uses the Alternative Vote [which we may soon be using in general elections]

    Who Killed Julia Wallace?
    http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=Wallace

    please rank all the options in the order you think most likely.
    Celeriter Nil Crede

  28. #1138
    Senior Member burkhilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Liverpool, of course
    Posts
    376
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    The missing iron bar had fallen down a gap somewhere by the fire, where is not clear. As Mark said it was the cleaner who reported the bar missing. I live in a 1920s house and have the original fireplace still intact. I've just had a knock on the base and it sounds quite solid. Therefore I suspect you're right Mark and it wouldn't make a jot of difference anyway to the actual case.

    I still think that there was someone in the house when Mr Wallace returned home and I have always thought this since I first became interested in the case 20 odd years ago.

  29. #1139
    Senior Member IAN DAVID FRYER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    122
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Thanks a lot ROD for that ..what about a belief in "WHW + other"S" IAN

    ---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------

    MARK..when did RICHARD Whttington-Egan change his mind? I must have missed that....IAN(FJumble)

  30. #1140
    Senior Member Mark R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    705
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER View Post
    [/COLOR]MARK..when did RICHARD Whttington-Egan change his mind? I must have missed that....IAN(FJumble)
    Hi Ian. Since the publication of Murphy's book. I think Whittington-Egan never said that he was convinced that Parry was Q anyway, it was more Goodman. Of course this doesn't mean that Parry wasn't Q No one can say for definite that he wasn't in the call-box...
    It is Accomplished

Page 38 of 51 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Court case on Aerodrome truck accident + deaths - where to find?
    By snark in forum Work and Industry in Liverpool
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-06-2011, 12:00 AM
  2. Tuebrook Murder
    By Kev in forum Liverpool East
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-16-2009, 10:17 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

For daily updates, to support us further or to join in the conversation: Follow us on Twitter @YOLiverpool / Like our Facebook Page: @yoliverpoolpics / Join the Facebook Group: YO! Liverpool Pictures

× Thanks for coming to the web site. Support our future by turning off your Ad-Blocker or consider a donation via PayPal or Credit Card!