This Cameo thread you've already posted on Lord Dick.
http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/sho...ighlight=cameo
It's quite some pages long, have you not read it from the start?
Printable View
This Cameo thread you've already posted on Lord Dick.
http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/sho...ighlight=cameo
It's quite some pages long, have you not read it from the start?
Thanks for your support and encouragement Paulette:PDT11.Quote:
Originally Posted by naked lilac
Yes, I agree Lord Dick. They could have been culpable without Wallace's knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Dick
In that Echo piece Gannon claims that Wallace knew he was dying and didn't want to spend his last years with Julia. This is sheer speculation of course. Gannon also claims that Wallace wanted to spend his days in his nice bungalow with his hobbies...This is ridiculous - Wallace was NOT guaranteed the bungalow (or ANY bungalow). It was by pure luck that Wallace managed to get the bungalow in Bromborough. The court case and the cost of the defence crippled him. He had about ?150 in the bank. His brother Joseph contributed a few hundred pounds to the case and thre Pru sent the bulk of the donations. Wallace sued some of the press for slander and sold his story enabling him to put money towards the house. Wallace carried on working/commuting to Liverpool to his office job on Dale Street. Hardly retiring to the good life.
The murder (from a Wallace pov) was fraught with danger and hazardous to say the least. The method was highly dubious and anything could have gone wrong. As I have said on another post, if Wallace wanted to kill his wife, why go to such messy and difficult measures? Why didn't he just go on a holiday somewhere and push her over a cliff? Sure, there could be a doubt that he killed her but you can guarantee there would be less possibility of anything going wrong.
Gannon also mentioned that Mr 'M' (for murderer:rolleyes: but I think we know he means 'Marsden':)) was getting paid to have sex with Julia...dear oh dear. I think this is ludicrous. He was 28 and she, 69...I know it might be argued but I cannot see it myself...
This couple didn't know - until their taxi driver told them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/...on-Street.html
.
I wonder did they ever notice people taking random photo's of the house, or pointing to it, before the taxi driver revelation? Or the Shiverpool guided groups all parked outside the front window?
A lesson for us all when buying a new place.
1. Valuation
2. Full structural survey.
3. Doing a full house history search............Priceless!
Ha ha Dazza - I'd live there at the drop of a hat:). Yes, Ged, Kevin Firth (I believe a Liberal Councillor). I think they have moved now. Here's a photo of the steps at the back of Sedley/Letchworth Streets.Quote:
Originally Posted by dazza
Thanks for that link to Gannon's Crimespace Ged. Yes, I've seen that Crimespace site with Gannon's blog (or should that be 'blag'?!!). Unfortunately, the Wallace Case now seems to have descended into a trashy/journalistic-type case with self-proclaimed 'experts' suddenly jumping on the bandwagon (a la Whitechapel/Ripper case). Gannon's claim that it was Marsden is hardly earth shattering. I named him as a possible suspect years ago and I cannot take any credit for that, after all, Wallace mentioned him as a possible suspect at the time. I believe the person Gannon is referring to is Joseph Caleb Marsden of 24 Adelaide Road (you heard it on Yo! first lol). When Marsden collected for a time, one of his possible clients on his round was an "R.J Qualtrough"...)
Interesting to also note that in his recommendation Gannon doesn't mention Murphy's book. Although I have made comments about Murphy's book, it is one of the essential reading books that should NOT be overlooked...
Interesting read about Kevin and the new Julia.. What a coincidence to have the same name as the lady that died...spooky...:002:
Well Julie - near enough NL :)
I have renewed vigour in this case. Gannon's notion falls down right away that Wallace was involved in precuring the help of Parry and blackmailing Marsden as Wallace pointed the finger at both of them during his questioning.
I would like to find out if an iron bar is down those grids of Priory Road though, that could solve the mystery and quantify Parkes' story once and for all methinks.
I agree Ged. Why would Wallace act in collusion with both/either THEN inform on them? It doesn't make sense...Either could turn King's evidence and Wallace would have definitely swung...
When I first heard about the bar down the Priory Road grid, I wanted to round up a few mates and have a look:)
I did take a look down them on friday from street level of course on my way into town but both sewers were halfway filled with water. I would imagine that although now clean of blood and fingerprints, the weight of any bar down there, if at all, would mean it would still be in situ. As luck would have it, both doctors that were there in 1931, have grids outside of them but I would imagine it would be No 9 which is the one closest to the triangle but could be the other.
I also took a look around Wolverton st, the back entries, Richmond Park and Wallaces' insurance round/route - apart from the vehicles and purple wheelie bins, the setting looks very much the same.
That's excellent Ged. Glad you got around the area. Yes, it looks very much the same (as you say apart from the bins etc). Yes, I think one of the doctors on Priory was Dr Curwen. He was the Wallace's GP and yes, you are right - there were two doctors situated on Priory. Imagine going down the sewer in a diving suit?!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Lisburn Lane, Knoclaid Road, Maiden Lane - all very much the same and as it was a workday, not many cars outside their houses so it was easy to imagine it was January 1931 on that grey dull friday last - very atmospheric.
Also took a look around Missouri rd and Pennsylvania. I wonder what happened to Wallaces old house?
Mark, I was shocked to read all the mistakes and assumptions made by the prosecution during Wallaces opening appearance at Dale st and further still that when he intervened to correct them ,he was shushed by the copper. Did he not have a defence lawyer at this point.
We need to write to as many people as possible that may be interested in seeing what that sewer has to yield. Radio City - seeing as it was Roger Wilkes programme that Parkes contacted with the info, NW water? Merseyside Police. Any surviving members of either Julia's or William's family?
There could be a near 80 year mystery waiting to be solved.
Hi Ged
Yes, prosecuting solicitor J.R. Bishop made 18 mis-statements of fact at the committal proceedings. Wallace was represented by Sydney Scholefield Allen and every time Allan objected to a mis-statement, he was met with disdain by Bishop. Apparently at the time of the proceedings a joke was made by somebody in the court - "Wallace, the chess player, got rid of his queen. Now he's having trouble with a bishop."
I'm sure the original houses in Pennsylvania and Missouri Roads were demolished. Strange thing is though, the new houses in Pennsylvania are minus number 26. That was the number the Wallace's lived at for a short time:-).
I'm sure Julia has a nephew in the North-East (Douglas Birch). I am also pretty sure WHW has family somewhere.
[QUOTE=Mark R;206880]Hi Ged
Yes, prosecuting solicitor J.R. Bishop made 18 mis-statements of fact at the committal proceedings. Wallace was represented by Sidney Scholefield Allan and every time Allan objected to a mis-statement, he was met with disdain by Bishop. Apparently at the time of the proceedings a joke was made by somebody in the court - "Wallace, the chess player, got rid of his queen. Now he's having trouble with a bishop."
Mark, I fully agree with you about Bishop. This guy was a disgrace to the legal profession. He was still apparently misrepresenting facts in 1950. Reading The Cameo Conspiracy and the chapter on the committal proceedings, he treated Kelly's solicitor with the same disrespect and disdain.
However, I don't think he could have got away with such behaviour without the compliance of the Committal magistrates, who also seemed to think the accused was guilty, even before a full trial!
In the Cameo case this was a certain Mr Gordon, whom, I understand, along with Bishop, behaved similarly in the Devlin & Burns case. ( I don't know who the Committal magistrate was in the Wallace case) I heard that Bishop was a very close friend of several detectives, including the notorious Balmer, who handled both of the 1950's cases.
[QUOTE=Lord Dick;206960]That doesn't surprise at all Lord Dick...There were two prosecuting solicitors at the Magistrates Court that presided over the Wallace Committal Proceedings. Firstly, Richard Joseph Ward (who was getting on in years and not used to the case of murder). The second was Stuart Deacon, who was a more liberal minded man, but as you say, a lot of them believed that if a person was brought before the magistrates, they must be guilty...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
Ref - The Wallace case.
Even Justice Wright wasn't au fait with murder trials was he and the prosecution barrister had all sorts of gambling and divorce costs against him and it was somewhat a surprise that the young upstart got the case after moaning that being the city recorder he was being overlooked for big jobs.
Yes Ged. Hemmerde wasn't liked among the brass in the city. The Wallace Trial gave him another chance at the big time. Also unbelievable is the fact that Justice Wright asked for the trial to be over in 4 days...Can you imagine a murder trial now lasting 4 days?? It would be unheard of. This put immense pressure on the defence (and dare I say it the prosecution) but it was more to the advantage of the prosecution. Maybe Justice Wright thought the jury would acquit...Mind you, I think that was the norm in those days...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
[QUOTE=Mark R;207339]Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Dick
A Bit confused here Mark. You mentioned Stuart Deacon as a "prosecuting solicitor". But wasn't he the Stipendiary magistrate before Arthur McFarland? If so, then stipendiarys were not Committal magistrates, nor where they prosecuting in the then "Police Courts". Also, didn't Mr justice Wright lapse into mental illness after the Wallace case?
[QUOTE=Lord Dick;207360]Yes, I meant Magistrates. Deacon was Magistrate on Wallace's first appearance at the Police Courts on 3rd February 1931. It was RJ Ward thereafter. I don't think Justice Wright was forced to stop after the Wallace Trial. I'm sure he was still presiding over other trials after the Wallace one. J.F. Stephen wasn't apparently a full shilling during the Florence Maybrick Trial and suffered mental decline in older age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
[QUOTE=Mark R;207370]Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Dick
My mistake. It was indeed Mr Justice Stephen in the Maybrick case who became mentally ill (some said he was even mentally ill during the Trial).
The combination of an half-educated, pro-police Committal magistrate and an arrogant, imprecise and overbearing prosecutor - as with Alderman Gordon and Bishop in the Cameo and Cranborne Road murder cases - was deadly as far as justice for the accused was concerned...and these biased incompetents got away with it!! Looking at all the facts in both these cases, had the Committal court been conducted properly, they would have been thrown out of court and not have even reached the Assizes and the subsequent death sentences.
They weren't called "Police Courts" for nothing!!
EDIT: Just a quick note...sorry I saw my first post which was a similar introductory post showed up now...it hadn't showed up for ahwile and needed a mod approval so not sure if people saw it. Also this is a more detailed post so I am deleting that one. Up to mods, but I hope they keep this one.
Hi all, I have long been fascinated by this case. I recently contacted John Gannon on the Wallace crimespace board (I am John Levin) and he was most kind in replying back to me with extensive info on this case, including a remarkable dossier of RG Parry's life which included details I have never before seen that are not in any book. Say what you will, but the man has certainly done his research.
John never disclosed his theory to me, so I read it in the newspaper article online when it first came out. I was stunned at first...but the more I thought about it the more this theory seemed to reconcile baffling aspects of this case. The case seems to point at an "inside job". However, Wallace couldn't have done it yet it seems he HAD to. This of course leads to the conclusion he hired it done. The problem with this is Parry seems a very strong suspect to have made the Qualtrough call, yet his alibi is iron clad for the night of the murder and he and Wallace working together crumbles because both seem to have alibis.. (Wallace's being the timing which in my opinion is beyond 'tight' and into the 'impossible' category. It is an intriguing theory nonetheless. (In fact Richard Waterhouse suggested this in his book) Adding a third party however does seem to make more sense out of this.
Now of course, I will need to see the actual facts to be convinced of Gannon's theory beyond a doubt...but I don't see why the theory isn't at least considered groundbreaking.We know Marsden was dishonest like Parry (he too was short on payments), we know he and Parry were desperate for money. Which leads me to another point...why is it so inconceivable Parry and Marsden would sleep with an old woman for cash. After all , they were pretty desperately short of money... people do all kinds of things for money...expecially someone like Parry who wanted to live a high life. Also, it is well known there has been innuendo that Parry knew Julia on an intimate level.
Mark R, you seem to be a very well respected poster here and have a vast knowledge of this case. Why do you find this theory bunk? The fact Wallace pointed the finger at Parry and Marsden doesn't seem strange at all to me. After all, it might stand out if he DIDN'T. He could have told them to have a perfect alibi ready because he would mention them as suspects. Like I said I'm not ready to convict..and have no particular investment in this theory being right. I am open to any and all ideas on why this is an implausible theory...but to me the theory, if proven correct, would serve to answer a lot of questions about the case.
The reason I say Gannon's theory isn't groundbreaking is for the simple fact, it isn't. I suggested Marsden many years ago, and as I say, I cannot take any credit for that as he (Marsden) was named by WHW from practically day one.
The theory that WHW was in collusion with Parry and/or Marsden is ludicrous. He named both as possible suspects. A man in collusion would NOT do this...
I am not convinced Parry (or Marsden) were short of money. When both had their incidents regarding missing payments, it was three years before. Parry came from a well-to-do family. Julia was nearly 70. I find it appalling and absolutely ridiculous that one man of 22 and another of 28 would sleep with her. She was incontinent. I also think this is absolutely disrespectful to Julia's memory (and dare I say it, the memory of possibly two innocent men).
As for Julia being close to Parry - I think too many people have been watching The Man From The Pru film. Neither of the neighbours in 27 or 31 Wolverton Street ever heard any of these 'musical' interludes. Parry was a 'wide' boy, there is no denying that but I'm not convinced he was a killer.
I find the theory 'bunk' for the simple reason of Parry or Marsden turning King's evidence. It is a different thing naming people who would possibly be accepted into the Wallace house but to name them as a suspect is a different thing. It was about 2-3 years since either Marsden or Parry had been at number 29.
Mark, I appreciate your reply. I did not mean any disrespect to any involved... like I said I will have to read the book and see the facts (or lack there of) to be convinced of guilt. I agree those involved are entitled to innocent until 'proven' guilty.
What is turning King's evidence? I am American so I did not understand what you meant by that lol.
Also Julia was claiming nearly 20 years younger wasn't she? I am sorry I do not find it inconceivable that something like that could occur between two men in their twenties and woman who claims/is known as around 50. It is risque and somewhat disturbing but not out of the realm of possibility.
Lastly, what is your theory? I ask because most theories I have seen collapse completely under scrutiny. Am curious what you think as you seem to know a great deal.
King's (or Queen's if the Monarch is female) Evidence means 'to turn state's evidence when an accused or convicted criminal testifies as a witness for the state against his associates or accomplices. Turning state's evidence is occasionally a result of a change of heart or feelings of guilt, but more often is done in response to a generous offer from the prosecution, such as a reduced sentence or a favourable location for serving time.' A good example of this is the Burke and Hare case - after a month of questioning the police had little evidence to secure a prosecution and finally the Lord Advocate, Sir William Rae, offered Hare immunity to turn King's Evidence and testify against Burke which he readily did.
The problem with the Wallace case is that it happened so long ago, and determining 'who' was guilty is (for me anyway) an impossibility. Sure, there are many persuasive factors but I have to be honest here - I have never been influenced by any book I have ever read on it. Believe me, as a supporter of victims and victim support, nothing would please me more than seeing the 'true' killer be brought to justice (at least in name).
My theory? I tend to fall on the side of Wallace being innocent, mainly due to the fact of the complete absence of bloodstaining on his person/clothing. There is the possibility of robbery occuring at the scene. Some say that the robbery was 'staged' because there was £4 left in the vase upstairs but the thief could quite easily have overlooked it. After all, there was about £4 missing from the cashbox Wallace owned. As for possible suspects? There were nearly 600 people on Wallace's collection round and ALL of them knew he had money. Couple this with the other people that knew of him and his occupation who weren't Prudential clients and the number is substantial. Whilst it would be hypocritical of me to suggest somebody in particular, there is the possibility that the Anfield Housebreaker could have been active on the 20th January.
Kings evidence/Queens evidence is where somebody who is usually involved in the crime gives evidence agaist his/her co-accused and usually under the incentive of immunity of prosecution or a reduced sentence.
Okay thanks to both of you. Glad to have some British jargon down!
Mark, you make some very good points. Have you read Wallace the final Verdict though by Richard Wilkes? There does seem to be a very good case made against Richard Gordon Parry. I am not convinced of the whole of John Parkes testimony...he was an old man who had never come forward and was now doing so on a hospital bed?!? But, some aspects of his story about Parry do ring true. Evn discounting Parkes though the book does raise some points against Parry. I think the author wants you to believe he did it...I am not persuaded he committed the actual murder but I am somewhat persuaded he made the Qualtrough phone call. What are your thoughts about this?
Again, just wanted to add I haven't seen enough evidence against anyone that I would convict on a jury.
Yes, I have read Wilkes' book. It is persuasive and he makes some excellent points. I have to say that Parkes did actually mention the garage/bloody glove in Parry's car at the time of the murder. Parkes notified the owners of the garage (Wilf & Dolly Atkinson and their sons) at the time and Parkes claimed that DSI Moore interviewed him but refused to believe Parkes' testimony. I have accessed the police files and there is nothing in it regarding Parkes' interview with Moore. Saying that, it could have disappeared or not even been recorded or it never happened.
I don't know if you have read James Murphy's excellent The Murder of Julia Wallace? He gives Parry a possible alibi for the evening of the 19th January, 1931 at the approximate time of the 'Qualtrough' phone call. There is the possibility though that the time of Parry's alibi wasn't as cast-iron as is made out by Murphy.
Here's a photo of Atkinson's garage (4th May 2009):
wow Mark, cool photo. Looks different than I thought it would, the architecture and what I can tell of that part of town does not look too far off from an area in Brooklyn that I lived in for awhile growing up. I wonder if the garage and that area of town is relatively unchanged in the past 75-80 years. I found it kind of funny that Parry rifled thru coats there. He seems to have been a hilarious British scoundrel of the sort one would encounter in a stage production of Oliver Twist.
You are right about Parkes claiming he came forward; my error. Still seems that aspects of his story were quite farfetched. (The oilskin cape? Really?!?)
As for the book, I have not read it. It is quite hard to get books on the Wallace case in America. I remember seeing a copy on Amazon for like 300 bucks or something that was a crime in and of itself. I am assuming you consider it to be a well written book? I know that Murphy concludes Wallace was guilty... (I find Wallace commiting the actual murder very implausible) although this says nothing of the research he did and how well the book was written. I would love to read it at some point, but cannot for the life of me seem to get my hands on it.
I agree this case has an incredible amount of mystery and intrigue surrounding it.
I used to walk past that garage with my mum when I was a kid and didn't know the supposed significance of it at the time. It was only in 1981 that it came to a wider audience (regarding Parry & Parkes). I was stunned when I saw it and heard of its connection with the Wallace Case. I don't know if you have seen the photo of Parry & Lily Lloyd at the school play? (It is in Wilkes' book). I went to Lister Drive school myself in the 1970's so that was another connection!! Interesting to hear that the garage area looks like Brooklyn!! I think it retains a lot of its character (apart from the metal shutters on the front) and also an added side building.
Yes, Parry does seem to have been a bit of a rogue. He was in trouble with the authorities from a young age. He was going to school one day when he pushed a wall over. The builders were annoyed at who the culprit was so they kept a look out and they found out that it was a young Parry doing it on his way to school. Yes, the oilskins/thigh high boots seems a bit far-fetched. I think the blood would drip off such a material and there would be traces of it through 29 Wolverton Street.
Yes, the Murphy book is well written and researched but he does speculate on a lot of things, and some of it is sheer supposition...If I were you, I would wait. Bluecoat Publishers here in Liverpool might reprint Murphy's book. I can tell you now that $300 is a lot of money. Bluecoat do have a habit of reprinting previous books.
Mark, got to head to bed soon (after 3 here in California, would be after 6 if I was home in NYC).
Got a few minutes left, so onto it..
I saw that photo (they must be around 13?). You can tell in that photo Lily Lloyd would grow into a very attractive woman. I also stumbled upon an apparently rare photo of Parry in his late teens which I think was for a drama playbill or headshot etc. (It's at the bottom of the article which is in Spanish)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_neT8fdNk1L...y+(cuadro).jpg
Awesome that you went to Lister Drive School..did you have a school yearbook? Was it a k-12 school? (I know it burned down recently.) I was in contact with a woman who claimed her grandmother had a yearbook with Lily Lloyd in it. I think she was hot air though because she disappeared when I asked her for proof lol.
I will wait to read Murphy's book when it is at a price that is not that exorbitant. I would be willing to pay quite a bit though for some rare books on the Wallace case, but not 300 dollars. The only books I've read are the Killing of Julia Wallace and The Final Verdict which John generously sent me in pdf format. How he got the books into pdf I have no idea! I do think I have a pretty good knowledge of most of the books general direction from reading both this forum and the Casebook forum on Wallace.
Yes, that photo of Parry is a good one. Goodman had that in his reprinted book in 1987.
I have to say that we didn't have a yearbook when I went to Lister Drive (or if we did, I never received one lol). It was a primary school (age from 5-11)
That doesn't surprise me that you never heard from the lady again!!
Mark, just a thought...if the Anfield Housebreaker was behind it, he must have known much about Wallace...at least enough to know his collection habits and that he would have most money on a Tuesday (or most Tuesdays). And it appears that it is someone that Julia knew reasonably well. This does seem to rule out a lot of people and take away from a "random thief" scenario.
Tom Slemen's theory always struck me as crackpot nonsense...can't believe JSJ could have done it for numerous reasons. What do you think about that?
[QUOTE=Mark R;206880]
I'm sure the original houses in Pennsylvania and Missouri Roads were demolished. Strange thing is though, the new houses in Pennsylvania are minus number 26. That was the number the Wallace's lived at for a short time:-).
QUOTE]
--------------
did a quick scan through this whole thread last night - it's amazing how this case still generates interest and I'm sure this must be the longest thread we have on a serious topic. 76 pages up to now :shock: :)
Missouri rd and Pennyslvania rd are mentioned and I remembered I have pics:
1- Missouri, 2 Pennyslvania -
I have this book. Didn't realise it was worth that sort of money!Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse
''Mark R, you seem to be a very well respected poster here and have a vast knowledge of this case. Why do you find this theory bunk? The fact Wallace pointed the finger at Parry and Marsden doesn't seem strange at all to me. After all, it might stand out if he DIDN'T. He could have told them to have a perfect alibi ready because he would mention them as suspects.''
Hello Acrossthe universe.
I agree that Mark is THE MAN.
I would suggest the only perfect alibi is a real one. If he has a real one then Parry couldn't have done it - but does he have a real one?
He was late arriving at Lily Lloyds on the night of the murder which she duly noted. Mark, did the police ever take Parry's possible involvement seriously enough to check with Hignetts that he did go there for his accumulator, you would think that possibly WHW defence team would check out all possibilities on all other possible suspects.
Parkes also mentioned Parry telling him he disposed of an iron down a grid outside a doctors on Priory Road. I wonder?
Hope i've got those sequence of events on the murder night right Mark. Was it the night of the 19th that Lily Lloyd gave an alibi for Parry then later retracted it when they'd split up - but even that could be because of a woman scorned etc....
Acrosstheuniverse:
Regarding the Johnston theory...I've never been convinced it was them. The idea that they could monitor Wallace's movements and do other things are a possibility but I don't think it was them. The arguments Tom Slemen put forward that Julia was asleep in the front room, putting the heater on to keep warm (whilst she had a cold) is, to me anyway, not likely. Surely she would have been better (and warmer?) in the back kitchen/room were the range was? Or possibly even in bed? If I remember correctly, Slemen stated that Johnston killed her not for the money, but for some item that was in the Wallace house. Slemen alluded to it being something that would be detrimental to Johnston and that Johnston was eager to get his hands on it, whatever it was...I think he also stated that the Johnston's were watching the movements of WHW and Julia on the evening of the 20th January, and that Wallace walked up the entry with Julia. The Johnston's believed that Julia had gone out with Wallace on his errand to Menlove Gardens. this is not consistent with the facts. Wallace said that Julia went to the back door and 'closed the door behind me.' On the other hand if Wallace was guilty, then Julia was dead at this time so she couldn't have been in the yard/entry. It makes no sense that Julia walked up the entry with Wallace. I think maybe that idea arose from Fred Williams (the first policeman on the scene) who claimed that Wallace had said to him that Julia walked down the entry with him. I believe PC Williams misheard (or misconstrued) what Wallace said/meant.
I think Slemen also claimed that Johnston was the elusive 'Housebreaker'...
Ged you flatter me!! Murphy claims the police followed up Parry's 'alibis.' I have to say that I never found anything of Parry's statement(s) among the Police Files...The alibi Lily Lloyd gave Parry was for the murder night (20th) Ged. I think she said that he picked her up about 9.00pm at the Clubmoor cinema. You are right of course - he could have been late on the evening before. Lily Lloyd's mother gave Parry an alibi in the fact that he visited her house (7 Missouri Road) at about 7.15 on the 19th. The phone call from Box 1627 was logged at between 7.15-7.24. But Mrs. Lloyd could have been wrong in her testimony. People can get times wrong. Perfect example of this is Sidney Hubert Green's remark that he saw WHW near MG West at about 7.10. This is impossible - Wallace was travelling along Smithdown Road at this time. He alighted on the corner of Menlove Gardens West at 7.20pm...
Yes, you would think the Wallace defence team would have looked for other possibilities. I think though in all their wisdom, the main thing was getting Wallace off with it more than another theory, but then again, Roland Oliver did make the assumption that it could have been somebody else. One thing I have always found intriguing is the fact that Hubert Moore's daughter Imelda was Parry's fathers' secretary...
Yes, Parkes' mention of the iron bar...I wonder if it is (still???) there?!!
Great photos Lindylou. I was in Clubmoor last week. The area still looks very oldie-worldie:)
I have managed to get a pdf of The Murder of Julia Wallace and read thru it today (only had about 15 minutes) but was able to look thru some of the most pertinent parts. I must say while the book is well written and provides a thorough digestion of the case there are clear places where Murphy appears prejudiced to his conclusion and obfuscates facts he must have in order to promote his hypothesis. The timing for the murder he proposes is ridiculous.
Yes.
Didn't they nickname the coppers doing the replicated Wallace walk from Wolverton St to the corner of Belmont Rd/West Derby Road the Anfield Harriers or something as they had to run it in the end to make the timings possible.
Whilst it's true that any murderer could have just done it on the Monday when they knew Wallace would be at the Chess club, if they wanted to frame Wallace, they'd have to make the Qualtrough phone call from Wallaces' local phone box making sure it was traceable (though that could have been accidental and incidental when petty thief 'Parry' tried to con the exchange out of the cost of the call by saying he pressed button 'A' when in fact he'd pressed 'B'.
Giving him a bum steer as in a none existant address would ensure he was well out of the way for a time.
I have read Murphy's book a few times - he makes some valid and excellent points. There were no traces the bath had been used...also MacFall's and Pierce's idea that Wallace could have avoided blood spatter - this I also believe is a ridiculous assumption...Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse
Yes Ged. They were christened the 'Anfield Harriers' and also 'Spring-heeled Jacks' :) I have always thought 'Q' using Box 1627 to be in Wallace's favour. Why he (Wallace) would use a phone in the Anfield area beggars belief. Murphy claims that Wallace had no choice to use it as it was 'dark and isolated' then goes on to say that Wallace couldn't use a call box near the chess club as it would be suspicious if he was seen...This is contradictory. Surely there was more chance of Wallace being recognised in his own area than one less conspicuous with him?
Only one word to say to all of that 'Agreed'.
So then.
Was it Parry, Marsden, Johnston, the anfield house breaker?
And if either of the first two - were they in collusion with Wallace?
Let's narrow it down.