Julia Wallace Murder Case

Has the Forum ever done a "straw poll" to see peoples opinions of the WALLACE case? ie 1) WHO KILLED JULIA? 2) MOTIVE for murder
3)Who Was Qualtrough? My own views,for what they are worth are currently 1)I cant possibly see how WHW himself could have battered his wife to death..but I'll reserve judgement on whether he organised her death till JOHN GANNON'S book comes out(its well worth checking his piece BeatlesLiverpoolandMore for latest update) 2)Until Murphy's book,I couldnt find a serious motive(like HEMERDE)..but the huge age gap which she must have kept secret as she lied on her marriage certificate,surely gives WHW a reason to feel cheated & bitter(as Stephen Guy mentioned,though I'm not sure about the kids issue) 3) Since 1981,I've never had any doubt that the voice of R.M. QUALTROUGH was Richard Gordon Parry..actor,con-man.even tried to fiddle the coins making the call to the chess club by claiming he'd pressed the wrong button!! I think poor JULIA WALLACE is a real mystery figure,we know next to nothing about the real woman or about the true nature of her relationship with HERBERT(every time Billy Butler called him WILLIAM WALLACE I thought of Braveheart)Her family seemed to have disowned her..but why..did she upset them with her age lie also? As regards the couple appearing "happy & normal together"...how can you really know..I sure the WEST'S neighbours & the people next door to Peter Sutcliffe never imagined they were living next to monsters!! IAN(FJumble)

All very good points Ian.

It seems Julia also fantasised a little and created mythical persona's for her parents.

I think (unless he was really clever and pre-meditated) Wallace's diaries do not bring up anything other than them being pretty mundane and normal. Even when he could have admitted her murder on his deathbed or in his post trial diaries - he never, instead only talking of how Julia would have loved the new bungalow in Wirral.

I would love to be privvy to what Parry and Julia discussed at their meetings - liasons which seem to have been kept a secret from WHW.

I did actually start a Yahoo group in 2007 but shut it down due to lack of interest (and also some strange characters joining...) I installed a poll on whether individuals thought Wallace was a) Guilty b) Not Guilty c) Undecided. If memory serves me correctly, only one member (out of 14 that voted) thought WHW was guilty. A few were 'innocent' and most 'don't know'!!!
I honestly believe Wallace more than likely knew Julia's real age. He said 'My wife, who is about the same age as me...' but it all seemed rather cagey regarding their personal lives. Even MacFall fell into the trap on his post mortem claiming the victim to be about '55 years of age.'
Yes, you're right though re: what we really know about their private lives, although Wallace does seem to be fond of Julia in his diaries (yes, there is the odd criticism but which couple have never had that?) and he did show concern when Julia was late returning one night but was it all an act?

---------- Post added at 12:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 PM ----------

I forgot to mention it, Billy Butler gave me the address for local DVD's

www.liverpoolartistes.com

I've accessed the site and The Man From The Pru can be found here:

http://www.liverpoolartistes.com/ind...=data_home&a=2

About a third of the page down. I bought it a few years ago and the picture & sound quality are not bad. Whatever you may think of the film, it is still essential viewing.

IF he was vain & bitter,which is of couse pure speculation at this stage,then maybe the Diaries were part of his long term plan to rid himself of a fast aging wife & commit the perfect crime..which, if he was behind the murder, then he almost certainly achieved..we are still argueing about it 80 years later!! I always thought it odd that WHW sold his story to JOHN BULL mag.(The Man They Couldnt Hang),this seemed very out of character from the upright, much wronged, pillar of society personna he so groomed.... JULIA'S real age is,for me, the most important real fact to imerge in recent times.I cant think WHW knew she was 52 when he married her or that he allowed her to state he age as 37 on their wedding certificate..is lying on a wedding certificate a crime? is aiding & abetting such deceipt also a crime? I really dont know,but it is,of course, a legal document. ..but I cant believe in 1931 that he was still convinced she was the same age as him....even though he looked at least 10 years older himself!! In your 2007 poll,I would have voted b)NOT GUILTY,now I'd have to say c)NOT SURE..What about MOTIVE & QUALTROGH questions?? IAN(FJumble)

Yes Ian, it could be said that was it a long term plan by Wallace? Like everything in this case it can go either way!! Yes, he looked considerably older than his 52 years at the time. He did sell his story to John Bull but it is believed to have been ghosted and that WHW only gave details and the writer took it from there. He seemed to bask in the limelight too. During the trial he was looking all over the court and following it with great interest (this doesn't make him a murderer!) There are many who say that he was a quiet, unsociable person but I think this isn't completely true - he gave lectures in chemistry for five years and also had a social life (be it chess or music). He wasn't as much Billy-no-mates (or should that be Willy?) as some would imagine.

As has been mentioned before, I would have to say that a plan such as this with so many things that could have gone wrong right from the outset - re: the Qualtrough call (just someone merely recognising a local resident in or near the call box around that time) would all have been enough to hang him. I wouldn't call it the plan of a mind of a chess player (as mediocre at is as he was) but more the plan of someone who thought they were smart and got away with it through luck rather than fantastic planning. Couldn't Wallace have found a less messy way of the dispatching of her? Poisoning, falling on one of their walks, even drowning in a park lake during a walk - anything but blood being splattered everywhere and the elaborate hoax alibi.

I think Parry was Qualtrough as his alibi for that night doesn't get him off with that as he only arrived 'about 7.15'. If not Parry then an accomplice of his but not necessarily Marsden. I still think the police should have taken Parkes' story more seriously, especially about the murder weapon being ditched down a drain in Priory Road.

Yes Ged. The method had so many things that could have gone wrong and Vincent Burke once made a good point - if Wallace was guilty, he must surely have realised that whether he got off with it or not, his life would be destroyed with the consequences - what with the vilification he would be subjected to and media interest etc.
As for the 'time angle' there would have been no alibi if Alan Close's bicycle hadn't been damaged. All this 'precision time scale' doesn't hold any water when it comes right down to it.

Well im new to this so I can not say much. I dont think Wallace could have done it alone. Maybe with others yes...Its a very interesting case. Sadly I doubt the truth will ever come out. Poor Julia still without justice.

You two have got me into this now. I read it again yesterday.

---------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:29 PM ----------

Maybe we should spare a thought on this day to the victim in all this.

R.I.P Julia.

Thanks Spike:PDT11 I'm sure you're right - we''ll never know for definite and you're also right about the victim - they always seem to be the forgotten ones:handclap: It is a sad fact that there are more known photos of Julia in death than in life. What a sad legacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark R

It is a sad fact that there are more known photos of Julia in death than in life. What a sad legacy.

---

Now that is very sad.

Good point MARK about ALAN CLOSE'S bicycle being crucial to WHW's time alibi...but not if WALLACE knew the deed was scheduled for lets say 7.30 pm when was in Menlove Gardens..he could have expected a top home office pathologist to some idea of when she died surely!! The way the public sympathy swung one way & then the other,is I suppose,predictable...but if Wallace knew he only had a year or two left anyway would he have been bothered?Initially he had great support from the PRU.,work collegues & friends & of course his brother JOSEPH but Joe Public thought if the police have arrested him it must mean he killed his wife,then when he was sentenced to death on next to no evidence,opinion swung strongly in favour of WALLACE.But of course when he was finally reprieved,it was perceived that he had got away with murder... I suppose if WHW hated JULIA enough to want her dead,cynically perhaps,MARK,but his diary note about "JULIA would have loved it here in the Wirral Bungalow" might have had been suffixed "He He !!"........ I agree with you GED about surely he could have found an easier, less risky way of getting rid of poor JULIA..but the fact remains SOMEBODY she knew, smashed her head in & it certainly wasnt WHW directly..so who else & why?Whoever it was was VERY VERY lucky on so many counts! If we all agree(?) that PARRY was QUALTROUGH then right away we have considerably reduced the possiblities...it wasnt just a random murder or a burglary that went wrong..it was planned.....IAN(FJumble)

The Atkinson Garage on Mascow Drive. Did the owners have any connection to the Atkinson Bakery in Kremlin Drive ( next road )?

Funny that they both still have the Atkinson name. The Bakery has been sold but the sign has survived the refit. Is the garage still run by the Atkinson family?

My wife remembers the garage well and says it always had Taxi's outside and it had petrol pumps. I went past today and they were outside working on a Taxi Ha ha. This Taxi connection with them goes way back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike

The Atkinson Garage on Mascow Drive. Did the owners have any connection to the Atkinson Bakery in Kremlin Drive ( next road )?

Funny that they both still have the Atkinson name. The Bakery has been sold but the sign has survived the refit. Is the garage still run by the Atkinson family?

My wife remembers the garage well and says it always had Taxi's outside and it had petrol pumps. I went past today and they were outside working on a Taxi Ha ha. This Taxi connection with them goes way back.

---

Spike, as a kid growing up in the area, I always wondered if the two Atkinson's were related. Someone told me they weren't. Yes, your wife is right - it did always have taxis outside and as you say, you still see the odd cab outside. I remember the pumps as well! Yes, I think it is still the Atkinson's who run it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark R

Spike, as a kid growing up in the area, I always wondered if the two Atkinson's were related. Someone told me they weren't. Yes, your wife is right - it did always have taxis outside and as you say, you still see the odd cab outside. I remember the pumps as well! Yes, I think it is still the Atkinson's who run it.

---

Cheers Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER

Good point MARK about ALAN CLOSE'S bicycle being crucial to WHW's time alibi...but not if WALLACE knew the deed was scheduled for lets say 7.30 pm when was in Menlove Gardens..he could have expected a top home office pathologist to some idea of when she died surely!! The way the public sympathy swung one way & then the other,is I suppose,predictable...but if Wallace knew he only had a year or two left anyway would he have been bothered?Initially he had great support from the PRU.,work collegues & friends & of course his brother JOSEPH but Joe Public thought if the police have arrested him it must mean he killed his wife,then when he was sentenced to death on next to no evidence,opinion swung strongly in favour of WALLACE.But of course when he was finally reprieved,it was perceived that he had got away with murder... I suppose if WHW hated JULIA enough to want her dead,cynically perhaps,MARK,but his diary note about "JULIA would have loved it here in the Wirral Bungalow" might have had been suffixed "He He !!"........ I agree with you GED about surely he could have found an easier, less risky way of getting rid of poor JULIA..but the fact remains SOMEBODY she knew, smashed her head in & it certainly wasnt WHW directly..so who else & why?Whoever it was was VERY VERY lucky on so many counts! If we all agree(?) that PARRY was QUALTROUGH then right away we have considerably reduced the possiblities...it wasnt just a random murder or a burglary that went wrong..it was planned.....IAN(FJumble)

---

The problem with the time though Ian is that I think it was Murphy who re-enacts it with precision that Wallace was upstairs as Close knocked, then when he (Close) leaves, he commits the murder naked. It seems to me to conveniently fit the scenario rather than the fact. If Alan Close would have called at 6pm Wallace wouldn't have been in - he would have been by Cabbage Hall or even on his way from Clubmoor. There would not have been anyone else that would have seen Julia from say 6pm until Wallace left at 6.45pm thereby having a full three quarters of an hour to account for. Yes, I suppose he could have left earlier but I think it doesn't justify the term 'precision timing.'
I can't believe the 50th anniversary was 30 years ago - it seems like last week!

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4...songaragef.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7...gemoscowdr.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


.

Great photos Ged. Is that an Austin Cambridge on the top pic? Also note the Green Shield Stamps sign. Was their store on Hanover street just past the Neptune?

It's either an Austin Cambridge or a Morris Oxford - I always got those mixed up. My mate's dad had one in the tennies in the 70s.

Ah yes - I think you're right - it looks more like an Oxford:PDT11

It could be an MG Magnet with those pronounced fins.

Well I've just come in after going out for a meal with some friends (not far from Atkinson's garage actually!). As we all know it's the 80th Anniversary tonight and it's so foggy, just how I imagine it was all those years ago, but know it wasn't.

I'm with Spike to say RIP Mr and Mrs Wallace.

Did anyone else from the forum visit Wolverton Street this evening? I arrived about 6.20 & walked round & then went back to my car (at the Church end of Richmond Park.)As I drove past at about 6.35, I saw 3 people,one with a torch, standing in the middle of the street by No.29...but by the time I'd stopped to go over the trio disappeared through the entry at the right hand end of Wolverton St.where the entry gate was open?? IAN(FJumble)

Welcome John - I was on your crimespace a couple of months ago, when you mentioned your book. Have you got a publisher yet?

Ian - I personally wouldn't go to Wolverton Street, definately not tonight, with the fog being so thick, but find it amazing that 80 years have passed and there's still so much interest in the case. Amazing but frustrating at the same time because we still don't know who did it and probably never will for sure. Although not an expert like some on the thread, I feel so sad that justice wasn't done and the lives of an apparently inoffensive couple were destroyed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER

Did anyone else from the forum visit Wolverton Street this evening? I arrived about 6.20 & walked round & then went back to my car (at the Church end of Richmond Park.)As I drove past at about 6.35, I saw 3 people,one with a torch, standing in the middle of the street by No.29...but by the time I'd stopped to go over the trio disappeared through the entry at the right hand end of Wolverton St.where the entry gate was open?? IAN(FJumble)

---

Hi Ian, yes I was up there tonight with several friends. It might have been us up there. One of my friends was taking night photos with a flash so maybe it was that you seen! Wasn't sure if they were going to make it due to the fog but they were adamant!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGannon

Hi Burkhilly - the book is with a publisher at the moment; unfortunatly the Wallace case in considered a 'niche' market and is so hard to place. I can assure all of you - one way or the other, it will be out at some point this year, and you won't be dissapointed. The book is with P D James at the moment; her agent contacted me (possibly after Whittington Egan reading it) and asked if I might foward her a copy. I read on your posts that you contacted me through crimespace and I didn't reply - forgive me; I really did try to answer all my queries.

---

John you did reply I'm sure because you said that you were looking for a publisher. Keep us informed of the date - I for one will be waiting for the release date!


Mark - I immediately thought of you or Ged as the "other" visitors to Wolverton Street tonight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burkhilly

Mark - I immediately thought of you or Ged as the "other" visitors to Wolverton Street tonight.

---

Yes, it was me Burkhilly.

I haven`t read all the replies on this thread, but surely it has been decided that Wallace was innocent and that the murderer was Richard Gordon Parry, known to Wallace as a petty thief from his insurance work, who had a motive, who in effect `framed` Wallace very cleverly and whose apparent alibi has been broken by the admission, many years later, of the then young woman who provided it that she had in fact lied at the time. Plus, there is the account of a motor mechanic in Tue Brook that he noticed a bloodstained glove in Parry`s car soon after the murder. Parry had influential family connections which helped him avoid too detailed an investigation into his possible involvement. Wallace is reported to have suspected from early on that Parry was the killer.

Thanks MARK..shame I missed the group I would have like to have met some other interested students of the case & of course put a face to some of the people on the forum,but as you know it was cold & the fog was coming in...and I live a fair way from Anfield.
Welcome JOHN,I for one cant wait for the book!!!

ThePenkethPedant - the problem with that is Parry had several other alibis for the night (admittedly not for ALL the evening) but I don't think he could have committed the killing in the time available to him. Where the alibis fabricated? Yes, Lily lloyd gave him an alibi but he was with others during the evening.

---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER

Thanks MARK..shame I missed the group I would have like to have met some other interested students of the case & of course put a face to some of the people on the forum,but as you know it was cold & the fog was coming in

---

Yes, Ian shame we missed meeting up...The street looked deserted when we were there. We then drove the route up to Menlove Gardens. The fog was the same up there as well!!

I think Wallace was guilty as hell. I hope John posts an excerpt of his book here...after corresponding with him previously, he has certainly swayed my mind. I actually find it hard to envision a scenario in which Wallace could be innocent. I really have come around on this I do admit.

But objectively speaking, there are numerous aspects of this case which absolutely smack of an inside job. I agree the verdict based on the evidence should have been 'not guilty.' Thinking someone is probably guilty is not the same as believing it beyond a reasonable doubt with real evidence to back it up. Looking at it years later however I think it is highly likely that Wallace was behind this crime.

Somebody killed Julia Wallace with intense violence and force and that same person or the person who hired them conceived of an ingenius plan, one that is considered the ultimate perfect murder. I find it very hard to attribute this to a Parry type.

Remember im new to these case details. So what I say is just what im seeing.

If Parry was in it with Wallace then I agree with what Ged said. Why would Wallace name him to the police? makes no sense.

Parry could have done it alone ( or with others ) Apart from what Parkes said then is there anything else that links him to it? He may have been a bad lad but that dont make you a killer. How do we know Parkes was telling the truth? We only seem to have his word.

Is it true that the police tested Parry's car at Derby Lane Station? Did they find anything. Even if he had an alibi I would have thought with Parkes saying what he did then they would have grilled Parry.

Myself I have no idea who did it. When presented with what Ged and Mark have written I can blame many but dismiss them as not enough to go on as well. Its all very interesting. I have no idea and I guess the different views will still be going on in another 80 years.

Just one more thing. What if somebody unknown did get Wallace out the house on purpose then went to the house and killed Julia. They would have walked away as free as a bird first from the police and trial and second from those who have studied the case over the years. If that is the true then they comitted the perfect murder.

Im just addicted to all this now :p

I went up there too as I was passing down Breck Road from my brothers in town to collect my daughter from Queens Drive, but it wasn't until 11pm when the house would have been swarming with police 80 years ago.

It was very foggy and atmospheric, there had been fog in January 1931 but by the 29th and 30th had cleared and we had drizzle.

I suspect Johnny blue was up there too at about 8pm as I texted him about the anniversary and he said he was in Anfield.

Hi John and welcome. I too eagerly await your publication.

Something that jumps out right away at me is that Lily Lloyd's, her mother's and Parry's statement do not tally so he could have made the Qualtrough call?

---------- Post added at 10:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePenkethPedant

I haven`t read all the replies on this thread, but surely it has been decided that Wallace was innocent and that the murderer was Richard Gordon Parry, known to Wallace as a petty thief from his insurance work, who had a motive, who in effect `framed` Wallace very cleverly and whose apparent alibi has been broken by the admission, many years later, of the then young woman who provided it that she had in fact lied at the time. Plus, there is the account of a motor mechanic in Tue Brook that he noticed a bloodstained glove in Parry`s car soon after the murder. Parry had influential family connections which helped him avoid too detailed an investigation into his possible involvement. Wallace is reported to have suspected from early on that Parry was the killer.

---

Adding all those things together there looks likes only one suspect, especially if you see the statements that John Gannon has posted too. However, Lily Lloyd's statement never covered Parry at the time of the murder anyway, it was Olivia Brines. Still, it does make you wonder if Lloyd was 'in on it' as in did Parry tell her to give him an alibi - or was it a woman scorned since it was after he discontinued his relationship with her.

---------- Post added at 10:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike

Remember im new to these case details. So what I say is just what im seeing.

If Parry was in it with Wallace then I agree with what Ged said. Why would Wallace name him to the police? makes no sense.

Parry could have done it alone ( or with others ) Apart from what Parkes said then is there anything else that links him to it? He may have been a bad lad but that dont make you a killer. How do we know Parkes was telling the truth? We only seem to have his word.

Is it true that the police tested Parry's car at Derby Lane Station? Did they find anything. Even if he had an alibi I would have thought with Parkes saying what he did then they would have grilled Parry.

Myself I have no idea who did it. When presented with what Ged and Mark have written I can blame many but dismiss them as not enough to go on as well. Its all very interesting. I have no idea and I guess the different views will still be going on in another 80 years.

Just one more thing. What if somebody unknown did get Wallace out the house on purpose then went to the house and killed Julia. They would have walked away as free as a bird first from the police and trial and second from those who have studied the case over the years. If that is the true then they comitted the perfect murder.

Im just addicted to all this now :p

---

Tony, i'm glad you're now hooked too, especially since you're local to some of the addresses that played a part in it all.

It has been said that WHW would have to name Parry as a suspect, just to make it look real and so named a whole host of others to muddy the waters, however, I still don't think they were in anyway close enough to establish a hit-man/customer relationship - unless there was blackmail in the air from one party or the other?

Parry had a grudge motive (WHW dobbing him in to the Pru) and possibly a sexual motive (if he was carrying on with Julia during these musical interludes and she was about to tell on him after refusing to discontinue them?) Even a robbery motive???

See my earlier post about what the policeman said - that he could tell a story about the case after he retires. Also the son of one of the policemen who knew something of it?

How about the conspiracy of silence theory given by Roger Wilkes in his book 'The final verdict' where he says the Parry elders (as in Richard's dad and Uncle being in authoritive positions within Liverpool Corporation and in collusion with the police to remove his son from the frame?

Bloomin Eck Ged send me off on another trail.

Yes his family could well have got him out of the frame. If Parry had a grudge then why wait so long to get Wallace back? Why not do Wallace himself in? Did he have an affair with Julia and plan to rip them off? did she threaten to spill the beans to her hubby? But why the phone call?

This will go on forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike

Bloomin Eck Ged send me off on another trail.

Yes his family could well have got him out of the frame. If Parry had a grudge then why wait so long to get Wallace back? Why not do Wallace himself in? Did he have an affair with Julia and plan to rip them off? did she threaten to spill the beans to her hubby? But why the phone call?

This will go on forever.

---

I often wonder why not just do the deed whilst WHW is in the chess club unless the plan was to get him further out of town - unless of course, the plan was Wallace's? :)

I think Parry doing William himself in would have been bang on, he certainly would have been No.1 suspect for that, but doing it this way was perhaps seen as a great way of getting to him - depriving him of his wife and getting him the blame to boot.

Parry was a member of an amateur dramatics group so could have disguised his voice, not that Beattie would be that familiar with Parry's real voice anyway. Stephen Guy on the Radio Merseyside programme the other day said that Wallace having lived and worked in India and China could have disguised his voice. I thought Guy's reasoning behind some of his notions were a bit skewed but then it's all about opinions.

---------- Post added at 11:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse

I think Wallace was guilty as hell. I hope John posts an excerpt of his book here...after corresponding with him previously, he has certainly swayed my mind. I actually find it hard to envision a scenario in which Wallace could be innocent. I really have come around on this I do admit.

But objectively speaking, there are numerous aspects of this case which absolutely smack of an inside job. I agree the verdict based on the evidence should have been 'not guilty.' Thinking someone is probably guilty is not the same as believing it beyond a reasonable doubt with real evidence to back it up. Looking at it years later however I think it is highly likely that Wallace was behind this crime.

Somebody killed Julia Wallace with intense violence and force and that same person or the person who hired them conceived of an ingenius plan, one that is considered the ultimate perfect murder. I find it very hard to attribute this to a Parry type.

---

Thanks for your opinion. Can you elaborate on why you think WHW is the murderer though. I'm always interested to hear differing opinions and my mind isn't totally closed on this one at all.

Yes Ged the Monday... Some have said to me; "Why didn't the killer do it on the Monday?" I always reply to that - Wallace's takings were at their highest on the Tuesday (the day before his usual deposit). I also say "Well, why didn't Wallace kill her then set off for chess club on the Monday?":) See? Same again - it can work either way!
As regards the 'voice' - I find it more dubious that Wallace would use a box so near to his home. A voice may possibly be disguised but a 6"2 insurance man takes more disguising:)

Ged, I think first of all there was obviously an ingenious plot at play here...complete with the Qualtrough call etc. I think it is plainly clear by now that Parry made that call...the question is did Wallace put him up to it?

The only two options seem to be either Wallace is guilty or Parry is guilty...(well he's guilty in either scenario but I mean of murder.) To accept Wallace's innocence..one must them assume Parry set this whole thing up....as a botched robbery? As Mark has pointed out I think before...it was not a very profitable loot and I can't remember the specifics but something about Wallace's sickness and not having a lot of money on that particular night...something Parry probably knew about...even if he didn't...to go to all that trouble to rob Wallace? After Wallace had fingered him for dishonesty already?

No, if we think Parry is guilty then we are saying he is guilty of premeditated murder, the perfect crime...with nothing but a fiendish, bizarre revenge at a terrible personal risk to him. Parry strikes me as a con-man type and a low level ladies man hustler. I cannot believe he set this whole thing up and killed poor Julia Wallace...and hoped to frame William. Surely he must have known he would face considerable suspicion and that Wallace would finger him...no Parry did not conceive of this plot or do this murder.

Like I said....I'm not at the point where I'm ready to convict...the jury is still out....but I do not have a good feeling about Wallace. And I believed for many years he was innocent.

just wanted to add that I watched Man from the Pru for the first time last night...pretty good performances by Wallace and Parry actors. Of course your heart breaks for Wallace in the movie as it strongly suggests at Parry's guilt. The score is quite good.

Then we have what Parry told Whittington-Egan and about how he promised his father that not even for money would he expand on his knowledge of the case. Then saying Wallace was peculiar and inferred about him being sexually odd?

How about it was nothing to do with Parry at all? That seems harder to reconcile than that Wallace was guilty.

Was a statement taken from Parkes/Mr Atkinson reference their bloodied glove story? Why wasn't it followed up, the iron bar down the drain - it is know the police searched locally for the weapon before this statement and couldn't find it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ged

I went up there too as I was passing down Breck Road from my brothers in town to collect my daughter from Queens Drive, but it wasn't until 11pm when the house would have been swarming with police 80 years ago.

It was very foggy and atmospheric, there had been fog in January 1931 but by the 29th and 30th had cleared and we had drizzle.

I suspect Johnny blue was up there too at about 8pm as I texted him about the anniversary and he said he was in Anfield.

---

Certainly was Ged, had a stroll down Priory Road , looking across towards the location of the phonebox. In despite of the dirty weather there was alot of people on Priory Road last night , probably more 80 years ago, (everyone walked then) in addition, I kept looking down at the grids where the murder weapon could have possibly been thrown, also looking at who could be opportunist burglars.... Intrigueing.

You're right of course Ged - Parry did say that about Wallace. I find idea that would discuss his sexual preferences with Parry as highly dubious:D