A good un that one Mark, you do find them don't you.
Printable View
A good un that one Mark, you do find them don't you.
I didn't find it Ged - DaisyChains put me onto it!! Wish we could find one of Julia though...
Well done DC then. Yes JW ones hard to come by.
thanks mark :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
Where did that pic come from ?
I found it on Getty Images.com
Some of the criticisms I have are in the introduction. Murphy claims that past writers have indulged in supposition and speculation, yet I think this could apply to Murphy's book. Also (in Murphy's words) of being able to produce a profile of Julia's killer and beyond a reasonable doubt, his name. I don't believe it proves the guilt of Wallace beyond a reasonable doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
He makes some excellent points but it didn't sway my opinion towards Wallace being the killer.
:)Just watched Man From the Pru again.
What a great piece of TV.
Really well acted and very dark to reflect the seriousness of the crime I thought.
Only wish we could get the other tv show now! But Mark tells me it would cost £250!! Whip round anyone??:)
I could put a fiver towards it:unibrow:Quote:
Originally Posted by DaisyChains
I'll put a tenner!:unibrow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
count me in for £15
The fund is growing!!!:)
DaisyChains & Rod
You're both making me look like a cheapskate now :shock:. Ok I'll make it £20.
We only need £200 now...
hehe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
We need to have a fundraiser!:shock:
Although not book-length I would also recommend the accounts The Murder of Julia Wallace (Dorothy L. Sayers) and William Herbert Wallace (Edgar Lustgarten)Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby
oohh brilliantQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
i have the unsolved one, but not the other :shock:
There was a letter in the latest True Detective Monthly commenting on last month's article. In it the correspondent states that she had always believed Wallace guilty only to believe him innocent then guilty again after reading Murphy's The Murder of Julia Wallace. Some of the points she states towards Wallace's guilt are:
1). That 'Qualtrough' wouldn't have known WHW had received the message or that if he did, he might not take on the enterprise, also stating that Wallace might have passed it over to another agent.
Although the first point is a credible argument the latter two aren't. If Wallace could have received a possible substantial commission from the meeting he would hardly hand it over to another agent.
2). That Wallace knew the Menlove area well. He took violin lessons from his boss, and also went to the local park.
While he did take violin lessons and did visit Calderstones Park it could be argued that he didn't know the area well. Indeed Jospeh Crewe didn't know whether Menlove Gardens East existed or not. And also a woman coming out of a house on Menlove Gardens North told him it might be a continuation of 'West.'
3) That the Wallaces were not the loving couple that many believe - none of their close friends said they were and there are no entries in his diaries where Wallace shows any affection for his wife.
This is totally incorrect. James Caird (among others) stated that they appeared to get on quite well. The diaries do show Wallace with affection for Julia. One night when she was late returning Wallace showed considerable concern. He also made reference to their 15 wedding anniversary claiming 'Neither of us regrets the move.'
Regarding the 1st point Mark. The killer would have known that Wallace acted on the message if he'd been hiding, lying in wait for the all clear though wouldn't he. Also if it was Parry or another person known to Wallace, ie. the Johnsons etc - they could have made an excuse up of just visiting if they'd found WHW at home and not having acted on the message.
Yes I agree Ged - it is also quite possible (and not an impossibility) that 'Qualtrough' could have entered the Chess Club and seen the message relayed to him there...
Hi MarkQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
Since as far as I know "Qualtrough" has never been identified, isn't that a possible indication that Wallace's story was a lie?
Chris
Why?
Hi Ged
He names a man who doesn't exist and a road that doesn't exist either. Suspicious or what? :rolleyes:
Chris
But the fact they don't exist only comes into play as soon as the murder is commited.
What if the caller had said. Frank Smith, Childwall road?
As long as you invented something that couldn't be checked immediately
You could even argue why would Wallace have named a location whereby some are now saying he may have knew quite well - bang on - why not send yourself further out to Speke say?
Why not make sure you send yourself to a street that actually exists.
I don't think the name of the person or the street name gives rise for the verdict one way or the other really.
Hi Chris,
Yes it could be said - but it could also apply the other way as well...
I've always thought that if it was Wallace, why didn't he say something like 11 Menlove Gardens North or South? The houses in both these streets were (and still are) even-numbered. He could have had many witnesses to his presence there, knocking at numbers 10 & 12 on both sides to enquire. I know most Wallaceites believe Wallace used a non-existent address so he could wander around but he didn't really have to spend that long in the area. It would have taken him at least an hour to just get there and back. His actions could just have been dogged persistence in gaining a commission.
Hi Ged and Mark
The question occurs to me why a stranger would name a non-existent street when Wallace might be expected to have a good idea of the streets or have a Liverpool street gazetteer which would tell him it didn't exist. If though he came up with a non-existent street himself, combined with the timing of taking the tram, he might have known the journey would take him away from the house for just the right amount of time away from home and thus provide him with an alibi for the time of the murder. I do grant that "Qualtrough" and "25 Menlove Gardens East" could though be read both ways, either as the invention of a stranger or of Wallace himself.
Chris
He could have sent himself to an exisiting street though and even residents in Menlove Gardens West/North and area didn't seem to know there wasn't an East.
If pointed out to him why didn't he check first if it existed or not or the location, he could have said 'Do you think I would make up an address where I could easily have found that it didn't exist'
Good reasoning there, Ged. :PDT11Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
I just got "Wallace - The Final Verdict" through in the post today. There are two interesting points that I had forgotten, and which Murphy omits to mention in his book.
i) There were two witnesses who substantiated John Parkes' story, albeit as hearsay: Dolly and Gordon Atkinson, who were his former employers, and who could have no motive to endorse a fabrication. Moreover, they state that Wilf Atkinson contacted the Police after Wallace was convicted, and Parkes was interviewed, only to be "pooh-poohed" by Hubert Moore. There's lots of interesting background on Parry, including the fact that he was suspected of rifling through wardrobes at Atkinsons in search of money. Incidentally, I have always felt that Parry fits the profile of a psychopath. [See Robert D. Hare "Without Conscience" 1999 http://www.amazon.com/review/product...ateDescending]
ii) Hal Brown, a friend of Wallace's at the Pru, whose interview convincingly indicates that Wallace lost the will to live after the trial. Whoever killed Julia was also indirectly responsible for Wallace's early death.
Re Menlove Gardens East. The fact that the address "didn't exist" is a red herring. Menlove Gardens did exist, and it's not unreasonable to assume that, even if Wallace had somehow discovered in advance that East was non-existent, he would still have made the journey in the belief that he would find Qualtrough at North, South or West. Moreover, whoever concocted the plan perhaps foresaw correctly that Wallace's plausible search for Qualtrough in the other Gardens would be more time-consuming than simply luring him to an existing, unambiguous address.
Wallace's first statement to the Police reveals that he was confused as to the address he had been looking for - he describes it as 25 Menlove Avenue East, hardly the error a cool, calculating killer might make.
Thanks for that Rod. As i've only ever had James Murphy's and Roger Wilkes' accounts to go off, the extra insight from 'The final verdict' convinces me further of WHW innocence. I like the Murphy book for almost everything but his verdict.
Thanks for your input, Rod. You bring up some interesting and salient points.
Chris
Here's another couple of snippets from Wilkes' W-TFV.
"[In] 1932...Parry had admitted three charges of stealing money from telephone kiosks in Liverpool cafes, and was fined fifteen pounds...Parry had asked the court to take into consideration...two further offences of stealing money from phone boxes."
In my view, Qualtrough's fumbling with the buttons in the Anfield 1627 kiosk may just have been an attempt to bamboozle the operator into giving him a free phone-call, the sort of thing a relentless, habitual con-artist with a penchant for ripping-off phone-boxes might do without a second thought...
Wilkes' interview with Jimmy Tattersall, Parry's boyhood friend, was illuminating. "Parry said it was very sad that Wallace had been accused of the murder."
The whole of Liverpool was divided over the case, with everyone having an opinion, one way or another as to Wallace's guilt. It's odd that Parry seemed to be the only person without one, and his studied impartiality amd mock-sympathy stick out like a sore-thumb, in my view.
As you may guess, I'm convinced Parry was Qualtrough, but not convinced he murdered Julia Wallace! In other words, he had to have an accomplice, who did the foul deed. That solution fits the facts far better if you think about it closely.
Regarding the bloodied glove and the statement to the effect of 'Give it back here, that'll get me hanged'
Would it have though, if he were only an accomplice? Maybe, but definitely if he was the murderer.
Would an accomplice trust him to get rid of the gloves and iron bar, why not just dispose of them down the grid (if he did) himself. The glove/s being in his car indicate to me (if that story is true) that he is the murderer.
Just to work out now how he got all that blood off him before getting his alibi?
Well we need something to keep us guessing don't we?
On the other hand, Parry's "alibi" for the time of the killing rests on Mrs. Olivia Brine (nee Claus), who was aged 39 in 1931. Murphy gallantly praises Mrs. Brine for her bravery in coming forward to provide the alibi, but fails to ask a rather obvious question. "I am a married woman, my husband is away at sea. I have known RG Parry for two years......"
What was the nature of Parry's relationship with Mrs. Brine? Is it possible she was blackmailed into providing the alibi by Parry? As I said, I'm convinced Parry was a psychopath, so anything is possible....
On another topic, my research indicates Lily Lloyd moved to the Isle of Man after her marriage in 1937. Quite ironic that she ended her days (she must be dead now; she'd be 97 if alive) in a place where the name Qualtrough is rather commonplace....
Yes - a lady I correspond with from the Isle of Man tells me that the area Lily Lloyd moved to has connections with the name Qualtrough. Also the Green Lane area has links with the Isle of Man. Parry lived in Woburn Hill...
Wallace also told PC James Serjeant that name the name he was looking for was Qualthorpe.
In The Killing of Julia Wallace Jonathan Goodman tells a story of how he phoned a friend up (unbeknownst to him) and asked him to call at 25 Belgrave Mews East at 7.30 the following evening regarding a business appointment. Like the Menlove Area it was made up of North, South and West. The next time Goodman phoned the friend was vexed. Goodman apologised and asked whether he went. Yes, the friend replied and stated that he had spent over half an hour looking for it. When Goodman asked whether he had consulted a directory, the friend said 'no'...
Because a street name is not in a directory doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. The Menlove Gardens area had properties that weren't that long built. It happens today that some streets aren't in the directory so I'm sure it could be possible back then.
Yes, I've always thought that Parry had a certain thing with older women...
As I indicated previously, Parry has high scores on most aspects of the Psycopathy checklist. For those who are unfamiliar with the topic, here are two lists; the original developed by Dr. Hervey Cleckley in the 1940s, and the current list, developed by the acknowledged world-expert, Canadian Professor Robert D. Hare.
http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/narci...checklist.html
Hare's PCL-R 20-item checklist is based on Cleckley's 16-item checklist, and the following is a discussion of the concepts in the PCL-R.
Cleckley's original list of symptoms of a psychopath:
1. Considerable superficial charm and average or above average intelligence.
2. Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking
3. Absence of anxiety or other "neurotic" symptoms considerable poise, calmness, and verbal facility.
4. Unreliability, disregard for obligations no sense of responsibility, in matters of little and great import.
5. Untruthfulness and insincerity
7. Antisocial behavior which is inadequately motivated and poorly planned, seeming to stem from an inexplicable impulsiveness.
7. Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior
8. Poor judgment and failure to learn from experience
9. Pathological egocentricity. Total self-centeredness incapacity for real love and attachment.
10. General poverty of deep and lasting emotions.
11. Lack of any true insight, inability to see oneself as others do.
12. Ingratitude for any special considerations, kindness, and trust.
13. Fantastic and objectionable behavior, after drinking and sometimes even when not drinking--vulgarity, rudeness, quick mood shifts, pranks.
14. No history of genuine suicide attempts.
15. An impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated sex life.
16. Failure to have a life plan and to live in any ordered way, unless it be one promoting self-defeat.
"...More often than not, the typical psychopath will seem particularly agreeable and make a distinctly positive impression when he is first encountered. Alert and friendly in his attitude, he is easy to talk with and seems to have a good many genuine interests. There is nothing at all odd or q.u.e.e.r about him, and in every respect he tends to embody the concept of a well-adjusted, happy person. Nor does he, on the other hand, seem to be artificially exerting himself like one who is covering up or who wants to sell you a bill of goods. He would seldom be confused with the professional backslapper or someone who is trying to ingratiate himself for a concealed purpose. Signs of affectation or excessive affability are not characteristic. He looks like the real thing.
"Very often indications of good sense and sound reasoning will emerge, and one is likely to feel soon after meeting him that this normal and pleasant person is also one with high abilities. Psychometric tests also very frequently show him of superior intelligence. More than the average person, he is likely to seem free from social or emotional impediments, from the minor distortions, peculiarities, and awkwardnesses so common even among the successful. Such superficial characteristics are not universal in this group but they are very common..."
"...It must be granted of course that the psychopath has some affect. Affect is, perhaps, a component in the sum of life reactions even in the unicellular protoplasmic entity. Certainly in all mammals it is obvious. The relatively petty states of pleasure, vexation, and animosity experienced by the psychopath have been mentioned. The opinion here maintained is that he fails to know all those more serious and deeply moving affective states which make up the tragedy and triumph of ordinary life, of life at the level of important human experience..."
Hare's Checklist
1. GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM -- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example.
2. GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.
3. NEED FOR STIMULATION or PRONENESS TO BOREDOM -- an excessive need for novel, thrilling, and exciting stimulation; taking chances and doing things that are risky. Psychopaths often have a low self-discipline in carrying tasks through to completion because they get bored easily. They fail to work at the same job for any length of time, for example, or to finish tasks that they consider dull or routine.
4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.
5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.
6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.
7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.
8. CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.
9. PARASITIC LIFESTYLE -- an intentional, manipulative, selfish, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack of motivation, low self-discipline, and inability to begin or complete responsibilities.
10. POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.
11. PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR -- a variety of brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of sexual partners; the maintenance of several relationships at the same time; a history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity or taking great pride at discussing sexual exploits or conquests.
12. EARLY BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS -- a variety of behaviors prior to age 13, including lying, theft, cheating, vandalism, bullying, sexual activity, fire-setting, glue-sniffing, alcohol use, and running away from home.
13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.
14. IMPULSIVITY -- the occurrence of behaviors that are unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation, frustrations, and urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, and reckless.
15. IRRESPONSIBILITY -- repeated failure to fulfill or honor obligations and commitments; such as not paying bills, defaulting on loans, performing sloppy work, being absent or late to work, failing to honor contractual agreements.
16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.
17. MANY SHORT-TERM MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS -- a lack of commitment to a long-term relationship reflected in inconsistent, undependable, and unreliable commitments in life, including marital.
18. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY -- behavior problems between the ages of 13-18; mostly behaviors that are crimes or clearly involve aspects of antagonism, exploitation, aggression, manipulation, or a callous, ruthless tough-mindedness.
19. REVOCATION OF CONDITION RELEASE -- a revocation of probation or other conditional release due to technical violations, such as carelessness, low deliberation, or failing to appear.
20. CRIMINAL VERSATILITY -- a diversity of types of criminal offenses, regardless if the person has been arrested or convicted for them; taking great pride at getting away with crimes.
I think somebody has already mentioned this but there is a Murder Most Foul walk on Easter Monday 24th March. It starts from outside the Cunard Building at 2.00pm and costs £3. You don't have to book.
I went on the last one Mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
It was ok. I left after the Wallace part by Moorfields.
The problem is, it's only the centre and there arehardly any sites left standing, so you are looking at nothing, and always trying to use your imagination!
They could cover the Chess Club, Prudential Building, Cheapside Bridewell, Magistrates' Courts, and Dale Street Police Office. But I don't think they will...Quote:
Originally Posted by DaisyChains
No, we just stood outside Moorfields station and looked across Dale St!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R