Or, it could have been any of the 560 people on Wallace's round:unibrow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
(Jeez, my relatives were amongst that lot and I think Linylou's were as well:shock:)
Printable View
Or, it could have been any of the 560 people on Wallace's round:unibrow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
(Jeez, my relatives were amongst that lot and I think Linylou's were as well:shock:)
yes, makes you think !! :shock: :)
It always says that Wallace collected in 'Clubmoor' (as he did) but I'm positive his round incorporated some of Anfield as well. My great aunt and grandparents lived in Clarendon Road and I'm sure he collected from them there. I don't think Clarendon was/is in Clubmoor but Anfield...
Could always widen it to a few hundred thousand city dwellers or even more if from outside the city but I somehow think our man is amongst my little list ;)
Mark R, yes the timing is insane and I thought of the drains myself...how could he bathe and clean them out with some scientific concoction in that amount of time? Makes no sense.
Ged, good idea. Mark you are right though that there are numerous possibilities... why don't we just vote on Wallace' guilt or innocence. Guilt could mean he committed the actual murder or was in somehow involved in the murder and its planning. Innocence would mean he was innocent completely of the murder and did not plan it. I realize there is not currently enough evidence to convict so a guilty vote just means you think (higher than 50 percent chance) that he was guilty.
I vote guilty.
Oooh that's a tough choice and here's why for me.
Did he did the murder himself - Innocent. (timings, alibi and blood)
Could he have planned it - ?
Did he have nothing to do with it - Probable.
So, given that his guilt has to be beyond reasonable doubt for him to be found guilty. I would have to say innocent.
Re: Menlove Gdns East. I know the lure of commission would be great but it was quite a way out of his district for calling-collecting money. Did he have any other customers this far out that would require all that travelling every time he collected?
Firstly,as this is my first post, can I say that I think WALLACE is 100% innocent & that PARRY was at least R.M.Qualtrough.I have had a lifelong fascination with the case & having read all the 76 pages of the thread,I dug out my tapes of the wonderful RADIO CITY programme from January 1981(at that time 50 years after the murder) Roger Wilkes based his later book
"WALLACE;The Final Verdict" on the programme. In the most interesting discussion/phone in that followed,its a shame Roger & Jonathan Goodman etc did not realize the significance of the first caller..LESLIE WILLIAMSON(then aged 71)as it was at the WILLIAMSON house PARRY called on the murder night to try to get an invite to LESLIE'S forthcoming 21st birthday party.... & who,in part,gave him his alibi!!! They just thanked him for calling & confirming what they already knew,that PARRY was a conman.unknowingly,missing a great oppurtunity!! The House Manager,Mr Ted Holmes, of the Clubmoor cinema where Lily LLoyd worked also rang in & was a bit vague on the times Miss Lloyd would have been playing,but again agreed that she could not have been with PARRY at the time of the killing,as she would have been at work! Also, amongst the callers was of course Mr Russell Johnston,the grandson of the Johnstons...Now after nearly 80 years ..the case still grips...IAN(FJumble)
Thanks Ian. A great imput for your first post on the subject. Parry has to be guilt (at least in part) IF we believe John Parkes.
Thanks for the response GED! I remember thinking at the time that PARKES testimony sounded far fetched..especially the glove...but having listened to him again recently..I not so sure.The, presumably upstanding, members of the Atkinson family who owned the garage & were interviewed certainly had no doubt he was telling the truth.I noticed one of the earlier posts highlighted the testimony that "he came back to the garage later to see PARKES..WITH ANOTHER CHAP!!"..highly significant...if PARRY was QUALTROUGH & had an accomplice..MARSDEN(?)......IAN(FJumble)
Fantasic Ian. I had the tapes, but have lost them! :disgust:Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
Is there any way you could upload them, or get me a copy on CD. I would of course cover any costs.
I agree with you. Parry was Qualtrough but didn't kill Julia. Here's how it happened...
Quote:
Parry had a car. Parry had criminal propensities. Moreover, Parry had demonstrated his criminal propensities extended to cars. (the North John St incident.)
At the risk of stating the obvious, a car is a very useful tool for a criminal to have. It enables one to move very quickly from one place to another, and is ideally suited for stalking people. Wallace was a particularly easy target to stalk, with his distinctive height and dress, and probable poor eyesight.
Parry was intimately acquainted with the Wallaces, the layout of their home and Wallace's business methods. Parry was also intimately acquainted with the City Cafe and the North John St area.
Parry may have borne a grudge against Wallace, or the Prudential or both. In any case, he was aware of the criminal opportunities offered at the Wallace home.
Parry was accomplished at amateur dramatics, and could plausibly have disguised his voice.
Parry seemed to have a large circle of friends, and it's possible some of them had criminal propensities similar to his own.
However, Parry would know (and as it transpired, correctly) that the finger of suspicion would automatically point to him if anything untoward occurred at the Wallace house....
Therefore, how to achieve his goal of robbing Wallace and the Prudential while ensuring his liberty?
Parry needed a plan, an accomplice and an alibi....
THE PLAN
Parry had cased the Wallace house on many previous occasions during his visits. He knew exactly where the money was kept in the kitchen. He had witnessed Wallace's methodical, plodding dedication to his job. He knew Wallace might fall for a telephone message (in 1931 ownership of a telephone signified wealth. That was something he had learned during his own time working for the Pru. "A telephone call is a great prospect!" all the boys said...)
He further knew of Wallace's well-publicised chess-matches held at the City Cafe. He had often seen Wallace there, and acknowledged him on the occasions Parry was at the Cafe for his amateur dramatic nights. What better place to leave a spurious telephone message for Wallace? Is it just a co-incidence that the last time Wallace said he saw Parry in the City Cafe was in November 1930, just at the time the chess championship listing was posted up on the board?
Like most young men with a new car, Parry had travelled far and wide across Liverpool at all hours, exploring its highways and rat-runs. One evening he had wound up in Mossley Hill, and turning his car into Menlove Gardens he had discovered this triangular affair had no Menlove Gardens East. How curious! he remarked to himself, committing the fact to memory.
Later, this address came to mind as a location to which Wallace might be lured. Parry was meticulous in his planning. How long might it take for Wallace to get there? Parry spent an evening in his car following trams from Belmont Road to Menlove Avenue. He watched them stop at Smithdown Rd, disgorging passengers, who then boarded another tram on to Penny Lane and Menlove Avenue. Nearly 30 minutes! And the same on the way back, don't forget. A whole hour. Throw in the time it would take for Wallace to walk to/from Wolverton Street, and knowing that pettifogging old Wallace would not leave Menlove Gardens or Mossley Hill until he had exhausted all possibilities, and that time would rise to about an hour and a half. Tops, say.
Plenty of time for someone to screw the Wallace house. But that someone can't be me, for obvious reasons...
Enter Mr."Z", another wide-boy in Parry's own mould. Parry and "Z" go through the plan several times, while stalking Wallace around Anfield in the car. There he his! the old bugger! What a lark! To see the look on Wallace's miserable face when he realises he's been had.
Monday 19th January, 1931. 7.00pm Parry and "Z" sit in the car at a vantage point where they can see Wallace heading for the tram. Wallace appears at about 7.14pm. Mr "Z" exits the car and follows Wallace to the tram stop. Perhaps he even boards the tram and follows Wallace all the way to the chess club, just to be sure.
Parry makes the Qualtrough phone-call to the City Cafe at 7.15. He is nervous, a problem with the call-box and Beattie's non-committal responses lead Parry into a slip. To impress upon Beattie the urgency of his message Parry dreams-up on the spur of the moment "my girl's 21st" [Parry is expecting a formal invitation to a 21st birthday party for "his girl" and himself from Leslie Williamson.] The Anfield exchange logs the call, but the timing is only rough, to the nearest 5 minutes.
Parry jumps back in his car and makes the 3-minute drive to Missouri Rd, arriving a little after 7.20. Perhaps later that evening Parry travels into Liverpool city centre to rendezvous with "Z", or to observe Wallace leaving the chess club a little after 10 pm. In any event they calculate that Wallace has taken the bait, and go through the final preparations for the following night....
Tuesday 20th January, 1931. Wallace returns to Wolverton Street a little after 6pm. After tea and scones with Julia, Wallace prepares for his journey to Mossley Hill. The newspaper drops on the mat, and a few minutes later, at around 6.40pm Julia takes in the milk from Alan Close. At around 6.45 Wallace and Julia walk down the back-yard, and Wallace takes his leave, Julia bolting the back-yard gate. Julia commences clearing away the tea things and sits down to read the Liverpool Echo at 7pm....
She has reached the middle-pages of the paper, when just after 7.15 she hears a faint rapping on the front-door letterbox. Startled, she rises and approaches the front door.
"Who's there?" she calls.
"Is Mr. Wallace there?" a voice replies.
"Who is it?", Julia repeats.
"I have an appointment with Mr. Wallace. My name is Qualtrough!"
Julia opens the door.
"I'm sorry I'm a little early. I take it Mr. Wallace got my message?" says Qualtrough.
"Yes, but..... I don't understand. I suppose you'd better come in Mr. Qualtrough. There seems to have been a misunderstanding..."
LATER...
It is a little after 8.20pm. Richard Gordon Parry looks nervously at his watch. "Well, Mrs. Brine, I'd better be getting off to Lily's now. Thanks for the tea.." Parry leaves 43 Knocklaid Rd and jumps in his car, and realises he needs more cigarrettes. He has been chain-smoking all evening. It is a 40 second journey from Number 43 Knocklaid Rd to the Post Office on Maiden Lane. Another 30 seconds and Parry is off again, up Maiden Lane. He turns left into Townsend Lane. Parry is beaming. "I wouldn't miss this for the world!", he chuckles. "To see the look on that old fool's face, as he trudges back to Wolverton Street. He'll be getting off his tram anytime now. That'll teach you, Wallace, to poke your nose into my affairs!"
Parry turns left at the Triangle into Lower Breck Road, and left again into the pitch-black darkness of the recreation ground. The journey from the Post Office has taken a little over three minutes...
"Z" emerges from the shadows and slides into the passenger seat.
"How did it go?", asks Parry breathlessly, grinning from ear to ear.
"Z" is tense, his face ashen."Badly..." he tersely replies.
"How do you mean?" asks Parry.
"Well, there wasn't much money, and.... she's not as daft or as doddery as you said she was... She smelt a rat, and I...I had to give her a 'tap'...", says "Z".
"That's a gutter..." Parry replies, the grin disappearing from his face.
"Listen Parry..." says "Z", "you are in this with me up to your neck. Take me home and.....Get Rid of These!" "Z" pulls out a pair of leather gloves from his pocket, and stuffs them into the compartment in front of him. He simultaneously slips an iron bar from his sleeve on to the footwell floor....
Thanks ROD for response..I have to say that your well thought out theory is more or less what I think happened! Even the very poor police force of 1931 thought PARRY was a likely suspect,even allowing for the fact that Wallace named him as such.His sister claimed that the police investigation of her brother was VERY thorough. PARRY'S statements to the police are clearly full of lies & the fact that he was relying on the Lloyd ladies to support his alibi is surely crucial to police attention focusing entirely on poor WALLACE.....no wonder she tried to retract her statement with Hector Munro some time later! This is clearly an important decision by Miss Lloyd & must have been very important to her..lying to the police in a murder enquiry was a very dangerous & risky action in 1931.I dont really go with "the woman scorned theory"as the entire reason Munro told her to forget it..she was risking jail for no real advantage except salving her troubled conscience.MUNRO,who is actually interviewed on the tape as a very old man-he died a few weeks later-would surely have advised Lily Lloyd of the serious consequences for HER never mind Parry.
Another point..why did the police move the body? The scene of crime photgraphs(as used for example on the cover of the MURPHY book)do not show the body as it was found...see page 187/188 of GOODMAN-John Johnston in his witness account at the trial ...
Re TAPES-I'm really not very good with modern technology & a friend was good enough to transfer the tapes onto CD's for me,so I can listen in my car!.I'll see what I can do after the holiday.(IDFryer@aol.com)
Lily Lloyd wasn't even working at the Clubmoor cinema on the evening of 20th January 1931. If it was Parry and/or Marsden, they left a hell of a lot to chance and the complete faith in Wallace even going to Menlove Gardens...
I enjoyed reading that Rod. Ian, it'd be easier to transfer from cd to another cd than from the tapes again I think.
Yes, it doesn't have to be Marsden that was in collaboration with Parry. Was Marsden known to Julia? Were Parry and Marsden that friendly?
Parry having a car though, it'd help in the stalking of whw process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
I somehow think the phone call fumble wasn't an accident.
It was either to make sure the call was traceable as in to finger wallace or it was a ploy by Parry to cheat them out of the cost of the call not even realising it would be traced.
The 'girls 21st' statement is just too much of a coincidence to me.
Wallace named both Parry and Marsden (and Stan Young) as three that would be admitted to the house by Julia, so I presume she knew all three.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
I agree Ged. I don't think the phone call was fumbled accidentally. Let us not forget Qualtrough tried getting through at 7.15 - then at 7.17 and was finally connected proper at 7.20. Surely an intelligent Wallace would find the possiblity that the call could be traced? He was of a scientific mind...James Murphy claims that it wasn't common knowledge in 1931 that a call could be traced. But my argument to that is the fact that it WAS traced and I believe anybody with a scientific mind could have an idea it COULD be traced. As I have said before it is almost beyond belief that Wallace would use a callbox so close to his home...
Nobody in the area said they saw a car in the vicinity or near Wolverton Street though. I know that doesn't mean there wasn't one there but it does suggest that such a vehicle would surely have been noticed by someone in the area. There weren't many cars on the roads in 1931. Certainly not in Wolverton Street.
Not sure Wallace had poor eyesight. He was never short in his accounts and read quite a bit. Yes, he wore glasses but that doesn't necessarily mean he had poor eyesight.
The last time Parry was in the Wallace's home was in 1928. Wallace could have changed the layout in the time between and up to January 1931.
I cannot understand though why Parry/Marsden would rob the takings on a weekly take. It would surely be more benefitial to steal the takings on a 'monthly' round.
Wallace wasn't a great attender at the chess club. It wasn't definite that he would be there on the 19th January.
I believe Parry/Marsden would surely leave a proper address for Wallace. They took a ridiculous chance that the whole plan could have been scuppered from the off...All it would have taken was any of the members at the club notifying WHW that no such place existed...Surely they would have given him an actual address? He would have been out of the house for well over an hour - substantial time to steal and murder...
The call ended no earlier than 7.24...
Yes. I would suggest glasses give you near as dammit 20/20 vision - isn't that their very reason.
But....whoever did send Wallace on that wild goose chase - even if it was himself - did so with a phoney address like it or not.
I agree the takings wouldn't be as much, also if he had been getting stalked, it would've been noted he was ill and hadn't collected as much as normal that week anyway.
There was a lot left to chance - unless....there's more to it we don't know about like someone making sure he took the bait.
If it was Parry or Marsden and they knocked at the house and the plan hadn't worked, it wouldn't be the end of the world (as known acquaintences to both Wallaces to just be calling anyway like they had in the past.)
I agree - the murder might not have been part of the original plan.
This thread is hotting up again :PDT11
havn't got time to read all these latest posts .. will sit and study them later. :)
I think along with Edgar Lustgarten, I must be the worst fence-sitter ever regarding the Wallace Case :)
Well you're in good company Mark.
Regarding the address, it wasn't wholly ficticious. Even if someone in the Chess club had said categorically "There's no Menlove Gardens East, but there are other Menlove Gardens.", there was a strong chance Wallace would have still gone, on the reasonable assumption that Beattie had simply misheard the message, and Qualtrough would be found at West, North or South. Wallace had no doubt had similar experiences in the past in his long career as a door-to-door collector, and, given what we know about his character, may even have been determined to "get to the bottom" of the mysterious call.
Also, Menlove Gardens had only just been built and other streets were in the process of construction, so an element of fuzziness in the address would not automatically arouse suspicion.
And if Wallace was being stalked, as seems likely, there was no great downside. The culprits would know he hadn't taken the bait, and if he hadn't taken it, we wouldn't be discussing it here now!
Thanks MARK R ..I dont blame you for sitting on the fence...with the WALLACE case, almost every point can be seen 2 ways,depending on whether or not you think WALLACE was the killer.I agree with ROD regarding the Menglove Gardens East..everything we know about the stoic WALLACE suggests he would follow a sales lead tenaciously.I also agree with you regarding the site of the phone box & its close proximity to Wolverton Street..surely the fact that the police immediately thought this incriminated WHW was proof that he was NOT Qualtrough..poor WHW loses both ways as usual!IF WHW was the criminal mastermind he needed to be,surely he wouldnt have been so stupid as to use the nearest phone box,as he could easily have been recognised..never dirty your own doorstep...The police made little effort to trace his tram journey on the MONDAY night in case he was seen on the tram when the long ish phone calls took place! Can I ask MARK why you are certain that LILY LLOYD was not playing at the Clubmoor Cinema on the TUESDAY night..the only reference I can find seems to be a totally unsubstantiated statement in MURPHY?
Thanks GED..it will have to be CD to CD! CHEERS IAN(FJumble)
The Times, Tuesday 19th May 1931
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/wall...ceappeal1a.pnghttp://www.titanictown.plus.com/wall...ceappeal1b.png
Having read the Wallace case a good few years ago, I have not really been keeping up with the discussion on the forum. However, I have been reading these accounts of the case over the last couple of days and although I would need to read more about it to be in a position to make any comments. I would like to make an observation regarding the false address.
- If Wallace was guilty of the crime, he could not give a real address because he would have had to visit the said address. He could not do this if he was the one who was going to commit the crime. By giving a none-existing address it could not be proved or disproved that he had not tried to locate the address, thereby giving him some sort of alibi.
- If someone else committed the crime, they in turn could not give him a real address to visit because he would have eventually have turned up at the said address, thus proving he was not at his own house at the time of the crime.
- The odds on anyone from the Anfield area of Liverpool knowing there was a Menlove Gardens East would be to my mind, pretty remote, considering the era and times the crime was committed. The type of people related to the crime would not be very mobile and be familiar with areas outside of their own district.
- This to me seems to indicate Wallace set it up.
Don?t shoot me down in flames, I am only making an observation!
(Even if it seems like gobbledegook)
Wow this thread is burning up, cool!
Samp, it could be argued that Wallace could have just gone to the nonexistent address and then come back...it would still leave enough time for someone else to do it (if he hired it to be done) Or if he committed it himself all that matters is the time he left and was first seen at the tram stop. (If he did do this then he certainly cut it very close as this was not seen as a foolproof alibi.)
I think the fake address was just used to prolong the time Wallace would have an excuse for being out. I agree with your general premise; I think there are many aspects of the facts that smack of an inside job. I will go into more detail later when I have the time lol.
The fact Wallace's 5 page statement about Parry and Marsden knowing the layout of his house, were always short of money, would have been let into the house, had a record for stealing money, had a grudge too against Wallace having shopped them to the pru and so therefore a doulbe motive - was seemingly suppressed and the fact that Lily LLoyd's withdrawn alibi statement was never persued nor that the John Parkes/Parry/glove issue not persued I think means that had they been, there wouldn't even be a case against Wallace for us to talk about on here. Given all that, I think the wrong man was taken into custody.
The murder weapon was not found....When the house was renovated many years later the builders took out the old fireplace and found an old poker with dark red stains? Make of that what you will.
Some blood spots were found in the toilet bowl...A pity they were not preserved as today we might have been able to identify from DNA.
I always thought the intellectual husband was weary of his wife and took up the 'challenge' to rid himself of her and fool Mr Plod to boot.
There are so many books on poor JULIA's murder..its difficult to sift actual fact from rumour,guesswork & theory! The idea that the clever chess playing WHW planned the perfect murder of his wife because he was bored,was a guess at "motive" by DOROTHY L.SAYERS..without,as far as I know any evidence whatsoever! WHW was a stoic,yes,but he was no more than an ordinary chess player. I'm not certain, but I think the poker,(with dark patches!) found years later behind the fire is just another unsubstatiated rumour(?) The bloodclot(singular),not a blood splash- that was found upstairs on the toilet bowl was dealt with thoroughly at the Committal..see GOODMAN.P.138 139 & 140. What is certain that no blood whatsoever was found on WALLACE or his clothes..surely another massive plus on the innocent WHW! If the police had done the job properly in 1931,then we wouldnt have a mystery....IAN(FJumble)
Correct. Are we now to believe that apart from everything else, Wallace killed Julia with the poker in the lounge (hey it's starting to sound like a game of cluedo) and had time to take out the fireplace, put the poker there then re-instate the fireplace. Nah.
Thanks GED..yes I think your CLUEDO comparison is fair....even the v.poor policework of the time couldnt surely have missed the murder weapon!! They actually removed most of the pipework in the house trying to find signs of blood,without success.The killer,it follows, left the scene with some blood stains on him,because he definately did'nt wash in 29, Wolverton St.(perhaps not a lot of staining if the the mackintosh was used as a shield(?) ..but more than enough to convict if he'd been caught....plus the murder weapon,probably a poker, hidden under his (over)coat.ROD's theory of PARRY waitng in the car for the killer fits well with this.....but again it surely CANNOT possibly be WHW!!! IAN(FJumble)
There's also John Parkes later testimony that Parry got rid of the iron bar down a grid outside a doctors on Priory Road?
Somewhere there was somebody and something with blood.
GED, I have serious problems with John Parkes testimony...do you take it as wholly accurate?
I don't know. To me just another piece in the jigsaw with some missing bits and we all know how frustrating that can be. Do we take Parry's testimony as wholly accurate or do we discount Lily Lloyd's alibi withdrawal? I would be interested to know what your serious problems are with it though.
Am I right in thinking that Parkes reported the bloodied glove incident to the garage owner Mr Atkinson at the time but it was hushed up as Parry was a good customer? Perhaps because all's well that ended well - ie. WHW eventually got off with it and that's all Munro aspired to, then additional information forthcoming from Lloyd and Parkes carried no weight. The police didn't persue another line of enquiry (which is usually their way of saying we had our man, our only suspect and he was tried and got off with it so why bother)
I also had some reservations about JOHN PARKES ..but he actually sounds more convincing on tape. "Young Pucka", as the Atkinsons called him ,was known to be a very honest young man(24) & the Atkinsons do confirm that he reported the PARRY late night "car-wash" to them partly because of the obvious legal implications(he was scared of PARRY) & also because the car wash was chargeable to the garage(I cant see RGP being a good customer as he pinched from them!)He said "the glove was INSIDE A BOX in the car" & "was covered in blood"...hmmm! The surviving family members did confirm(in1981) that they believed everything PARKES claimed....Mr William Atkinson even ordering him to change his route to & from the garage. We obviously cannot do anything about his claim that the iron bar was put down the grid in Priory Road...but has anyone researched the car PARRY was driving..was it registered in his name or his Father's(or maybe MARSDEN'S)? ..do ATKINSON'S records record the reg.no.? PARKES said he thought the car was a "Little SWIFT" I agree with ROD that the car could be very important in the murder,especially when PARKES said that when RGP returned later he was with another chap!! IAN(FJumble)
According to Wilkes, Parkes also said that Parry was always winding people up on the phone, changing his voice.
There are just too many things that scream Parry=Qualtrough, but not nearly enough to say he was the killer. My accomplice theory fits the bits of the jigsaw together better, I think.
Goodman and Wilkes did a generally good job in reviving the case, but they slipped-up at the final fence...
The contrast between the smooth sophistication of the preparation of the crime, and the senseless brutality of its execution strongly suggests to me that two people were involved...
The logistics of such an intricate and expansive plot also indicate the same.
I've been reading all the previous posts during the long holiday break.I think its fair to say that nearly all people think WALLACE innocent(?) & a lot feel PARRY was surely QUALTROUGH(?)...very few,if any, are in favour of the Johnstons involvement(?) & the idea of an accomplice with PARRY is gaining favour!!
JOHN PARKES testimony is currently interesting me greatly..why would the bloodied glove be "inside a box"...why only ONE glove? Why did nobody in 1981 ask for a description of the "other chap" who came with RGP on the return visit to Atkinson's garage?(could have been a description of MARSDEN!),which could have answered a lot of questions..we already know at least they knew each other!! IAN(FJumble)
Roger Wilkes is still kicking about. He has just written a book on the Jeremy Bamber case [which could turn out to be the greatest miscarriage of justice evermore, and has a couple of similarities with Wallace - the telephone is important, as well as timing.]
Perhaps someone could entice him here to share his thoughts on the Parry accomplice theory, and if there is anything he discovered which might downgrade it.
What does anyone think of the 'Conspiracy of Silence' chap;ter of Wilkes' book 'The final conflict'?
Why did the police dismiss the Atkinsons'/Parkes story out of hand.
The police, Parry, Parry's sister and Lily Lloyd claim they went over his clothes, car and house at the time.
What of the relationship; between Hubert Moore and William and George Parry. William was the City asst treasurer, George, the chief librarian to the city. Both attended functions that the chief of police did too. Moore's daughter was W.Parry's typist. The cathedral held a memorial to G. Parry upon his death which was attended by Moore.
The case was handled abysmally in any case with Gold turning up drunk and using the upstairs toilet, possibly flushing any other blood apart from the droplet known about and adding his fingerprints to the chain.
Prof McFall used the unreliable rigor mortis method to determine the time of death which was at odds with the findings of another scientist. He never used a rectal thermometer at all.
Too many loose ends, too many grey areas.
If the case was brand new and Lily Lloyd's alibi didn't exist and Parkes' statement was taken seriously - would there be a need for this thread right now? Did Parkes and Atkinson not offer their findings to Munro or Oliver and if not why not and if so why weren't they used?????
GED, I think that the murder was planned with a large amount of careful genius. It may have been handled poorly but I think it would have been very difficult for the Police to initially arrest anyone or see it leading in any direction. I do think in the subsequent months the Police should have been able to delve deeper and get to the bottom of it but did not do so for somewhat corrupt reasons...Whatever that's worth...
Rod, in Murphy's book he compares Bamber to Wallace (assuming both were guilty.) I have always wondered if Bamber could be innocent, and wow that would be an awful miscarriage of justice. What makes you think he might not be guilty?
Across the universe. I think the police pretty quickly made up; their mind they had their man in WHW and would not or could not be swayed from it.
Not even when their own time trials and admission that the killer would have had blood on him failed to conclusively nail wallace. All they could do was poo poo Alan closes' testimony and John Parkes and the Atkinsons.
They apparently didn't even check the time it would have taken for WHW to make the call on the 19th then make it to the chess club. Nor to see if Lily Lloyd was playing piano in the clubmoor cinema on the murder night.
Parry also seemed to have different alibis. His car broke down on Breck road, it was in a garage, he was with Lily Lloyd. One thing is for sure, he admits he was in his car in the Breck Road area on the night.
While one man was hounded, it seems another man with a record, a motive, the means of entry into the house and in the area was being overlooked.
What is your take on the Parkes testimony then? He took no money for the interview and it's not like he only came out with the story in 1981 for some fame as he'd already offered it in 1931. It wasn't even he who approached radio city, a friend of Parkes arranged the meeting.