That would be marvellous .. and an unusual subject that no one else would have done on Mastermind .
That would be marvellous .. and an unusual subject that no one else would have done on Mastermind .
The problem with most of the questions on MASTERMIND,apart from dates & personalities, is that they would mostly have TWO answers depending on whether or not you think WHW could have killed JULIA! There is a "new" book out by Richard Whittington-Egan(DEC.2009)called "LIVERPOOL MURDERS"..with a chapter on the case..but its only the author's piece from much earlier work(I think it was LIVERPOOL COLONADE or ROUNDABOUT)/...also there is moreinteresting info. about JOHN GANNON's forthcoming book on the CRIMESPACE forum. (GED 12 v 10 = 1-0!!) IAN
Re-reading Murphy's book.
So, Lily Lloyd changing her alibi from being with Parry from 8.30/9pm to a later time wouldn't have made a jot of difference anyway?
So - why the big kafuffle by her and was she asked for the alibi by Parry or gave it because he was with her at that time?
Or was he somewhere else disposing of something.
But what about his alibi from 5.30pm until later - are those people lying too?
GED..I agree with you about LILY LLOYD's statement not really giving RGP an alibi as poor JULIA was surely dead by 9.00pm anyway!. If her evidence wasnt needed by RGP .. why did she attempt to withdraw it? She surely must have known more than she said. Poor Goodman,of course didnt have access to the police staements....I'd love to know where Goodman got this idea that she asked Munro to change her statement...MUNRO seems very vague on the tape..more a question of "IF" she had asked me rather "WHEN" she asked me. Similiarly,I'd like to know why Murphy claimed that Miss Lloyd wasnt working at the cinema that night..how does he know? IAN
HI Ian and Ged - Been scouring the books to see where Lily Lloyd withdrawing her statement might have come from: Wilkes says he got it from Goodman in a letter he received from him when he came on board the Radio City programme as a consultant. Goodman - in his book - says "Regarding his alibi, when interviewed by police (less than forty-eight hours after the murder) he said that he had spent an innocent Tuesday evening in the company of friends, one of whom he named. Seperately interviewed, the friends confirmed that this was so. But two years later, it was admitted that this was a mistake. If the police had investigated properly they would have discovered that it was quite impossible for them to have been together."Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
In researching his book, Goodman had spoken to Harry Bailey, Herbert Gold and William Prendergast: only they could have told him any information regarding Parry's statement - Goodman (like everybody else at the time) had never seen it, how else would he know! The reference "... two years later (1933), it was admitted that this was a mistake", obviously means Lily Lloyd; "If police had investigated properly they would have discovered that it was quite impossible for them to have been together": Lily Lloyd having 'apparently' been working at the Clubmoor Cinema. If it was Bailey, Gold and Prendergast who told Goodmand this - how would they know that Lily Lloyd had been to Munro to retrect her statement? If they had, wouldn't they have rushed off too her house to get that statement? If Lily was working at the cinemat the night of the murder, being two years after the fact, did she have a witness to corroborate that? If Lily wanted to retrect her statement, would she not have gone straight to police - and not Munro? If this is the case - where the police lying yet again?
Wilkes spoke to Lily Lloyd apparently in his research for his radio programme in 1981. He reiterates that she was going to change her statement doesn't she - but why if it was after 9pm anyway. So, is it now suspected or proven that Parry wasn't where he said he was from 5.30pm to 8.30/9pm? ie Is this the vital timing where 'it was admitted that this was a mistake' or are we talking the Lily Lloyd statement.
Hi Ged - I'm only refering to the fact that the contention is that Lily Lloyd was going to retact her statement, and went to Munro to do so. Tantalisingly, Wilkes says this was the case, "Lily Lloyd had confirmed to me that she offered to swear an affidavit to Hector Munro depriving Parry of his crucial alibi", yet, in the quotes he used from the phone call, she doesn't say this, "I gave a statement to police investigating the Wallace murder, but it was only partly true. This was because I only saw Gordon later on the night of the crime". There is no mention of a retraction. If this was the whole point of Wilkes' phone call to her, and she had said this, why had he not included the statement where she says this? Wilkes even says when he asked Munro about it he said, "My recollection is very feeble. I don't remember that at all". If this crucial retraction had been put before him, of all the things he seemed perfectly capable of remembering during his interview with Wilkes for the Radio City programme, would he not have rememberd this?
Ged - another point: if Munro had no recollection of this event, it can't have been him who told Goodman - so, where did Goodman get it from?
I agree serpico. The crucial part of the Alibi for Parry seems to be covered - ie from 5.30pm until his getting to and seeing Lily Lloyd.
Is the Radio City Recording available anywhere - I'd love to hear it.
I wrote to Radio City a few years ago with the possiblility of them releasing it. They didn't even have the decency to reply though...
It is Accomplished
Shortly before his death in 1981, Munro said that he didn't go ahead with Lloyd's retracted statement because he had no client to advise him. Wallace had already died. A solicitor doesn't make a case without a client to ask him.
It is Accomplished
Hi Mark - thanks for the reply. Problem is, Munro actually said “My recollection at this age if very feeble about this sort of thing, and I don’t remember that at all – I doubt if that occurred. If it had occurred I can’t tell you what steps one would have taken. I’ve got to impress that Wallace was dead at that time, and I had no client. A solicitor in England doesn’t act without instructions or just out of the blue, so to speak. It’s very unlikely an English solicitor of any character would, of any kind, would begin to investigate on his own volition without instructions.” I feell, Goodman had to have gotten his Parry statement/Lily Lloyd retraction information from either Bailey, Gold or Prendergast. According to Munro, he had asked Hemmerde and the police for copies of all statements they had gained and had considered not worth following up - he never recieved them. If he had never seen Parry's statement how would he know what his claims for the night of the murder were? Only the police would have known this.
I think that is a big problem with this case Serpico - a lot of what was written in 1981 was too reliant on people's memories of something that happened 50 years before.
It is Accomplished
But Parkes, was he relying on 1981 memories when he claimed he and Mr. Atkinson told the police 'at the time' (in 1931) of the hosing of the car, the blood, the bar down the grid?
Was a statement taken, has anyone seen it. Cue Kew?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks