http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkCaKYi4czo
Printable View
I concur fully with your opinion acrosstheuniverse! I think each writer in each decade has made an arugment based on the material available at that time.Until GOODMAN you either thought WHW did kill his wife or you didnt(I was always of the opinion that he couldnt possibly have committed the murder..for all the obvious reasons)then we had an alternative suspect who became PARRY in ROGER WILKES Radio/Book "WHO KILLED JULIA"..I was then very happy to "hang" R.G.PARRY,who as you say was surely QUALTROUGH.But it wasnt till MURPHY that, for me,a viable motive was unearthed..that JULIA was nearly 70 and seems to have lied regularly about her age(I know all women do,but surely not by that much!!) From what I know of the forthcoming John Gannon book,we can now expect some more new pieces in the jigsaw puzzle. Reading LILY LLOYD'S MOTHER's witness statement..she actually mentions LESLIE WILLIAMSON who phoned the Radio Station in Jan.1981 during the live phone-in after the programme..of course nobody in the studio realized the full significance of just who they had on the lin & let him go!! There is so much posting on the thread at the moment its difficult to know where to start...long may it continue IAN(FJumble)
Yes, what a big fish to let go - and also the Clubmoor picture house manager rang in - where Lily Lloyd played the old joanna.
This is one great thread! The one book I want to read is James Murphy's investigation. As the book is something like £45.00 online, I had a look at the online library service and Kensington Library have a copy, so I may give them a ring tomorrow.
Some of the names being mentioned as possible suspects I've not heard of before, like Marsden. He is mentioned very briefly in the books I have, but only in passing. I'm going to read the statements that JG has put on later, which I'm looking forward to.
Thanks GED,YES,Roger Wilkes/Jonathan Goodman certainly gave the picture house Manager plenty of questions,I think his name was Ted Jackson & very interesting he was...In the programme itself they interviewed the telephonist,who as a young girl, took the actual call from QUALTROUGH..I forget her name(it was something like Margaret Kelly) but she was then living in USA I think(?) I remember her saying it was a very ordinary voice & they remembered it especially because of the fuss the caller made about his "non-connection" I remember, at the time, thinking would WHW have drawn attention to himself..especially so near to his house! Regards IAN (FJumble)
Yes Ian that's right. I have the recording of the Who Killed Julia? Programme. It was Lilian Martha Kelly and yes, she was living in New York at the time (1980-81). The operators also said that RMQ pronounced cafe as ca-fay (incidentally, there is a cafe opened yards away from no.24 on North John Street called the Cafay:shock:...)
Thanks MARK.did you also record the aftermath phone in with Ted Jackson/Russell Johnston/Leslie Williamson etc etc ??? I've just been re-reading(must get a life!!) James Murphy's version of how the naked WHW killed his wife,had a bath then was on a tram miles away at 7.06 pm... its so bad it rather spoils an excellent book!! IAN(FJumble)
Hi Ian no, I don't have the aftermath phone in. Get a life? Nonsense. What would we have to talk about?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
Yes, I am in complete agreement with you regarding James Murphy's book. It is an excellent account. I just don't believe Wallace had the time to do all the things he would have had to do and without avoiding blood spatter. It was also pretty well investigated regarding the bath being used and tests showed that it hadn't. I know techniques of the day left a lot to be desired but I think if the bath would have been used, especially with so much blood being spilt, police and forensics wouldn't have failed to notice something.
So Parry's alibi for 19th January is full of holes?
Three problems with Murphy's book/hypothesis:
-The notion Wallace made the call. Sorry, but no way Beattie wouldn't recognize him. Never mind that he 'wasn't expecting' to him and therefore didn't pick up on it. And no way Wallace would risk being heard (never mind being seen!) to make that call. One slip up or the slightest suspicion from Beattie and he would be toast.
-The timing is ludicrous. Even if one believes Wallace did acheive it in exactly that amount of time, the problem becomes could he plot beforehand and allow himself such a tight time?...if anything goes even slightly wrong...takes a minute too long and he's screwed. The timing is precariously tight (and Murphy's setting it back to 6:35 from 6:45 with such certainty is laughable) but even assuming a miracle, it is way too iffy to be planned out as such. Murphy's counter-argument to this is Wallace could make his timeframe up as he went along and then leave immediately to create the perfect alibi. Um...does Murphy forget Wallace had the fixed appointment time of 7:30 with Qualtrough? I believe the murder happened later (at around 7:30) when Wallace was out being seen mid-trip searching for Qualtrough. It was only the poor work of J Mcfall and the picking apart of the milk boy's initial 6:45 statement that created doubt in the juror's minds of Wallace's perfect alibi. Of course I believe Wallace planned the murder, so I don't feel too sorry for him that his perfect plan fell apart a little bit.
-Lastly, Murphy doesn't even attempt to explain how the drains could be free of blood. I have heard some explanations that while straining credulity a bit, are at least somewhat plausible invoving caustic materials and such. But Murphy doesn't even address the idea. Of course, if Wallace did have to clean the drains, this would have added to the timeframe required.
There is so much that supports the "Parry & A.N. Other did it together" theory then. Far, far more, imho, than supports any other theory.
John Parkes saying "Parry & A.N. Other" tried to lean on him afterwards is the icing on the cake.
Case closed, I think.
Rod do you think Wallace was involved or not?
No, Wallace wasn't involved. Parry set him up. He had the means, motive and opportunity.
Parry also knew he would be a suspect, so had to recruit A.N. Other to burglarise the house, posing as Qualtrough. It went wrong and Julia died.
The Qualtrough plan was ingenious, and double-edged. It was designed to send Wallace on a wild goose chase to Menlove Gardens, and to also persuade Julia to admit Qualtrough when he instead came knocking at Wolverton Street.
It all fits like a glove.
Rod, if it was another that Julia knew (Marsden perhaps?) then why would he need to pretend to be Qualtrough to gain entry? And how would this person, even if Julia did not know him, explain his reason for being there and think that he could get alone for enough time to get away with committing the robbery and leave undetected without struggle?
I don't think it was anyone Julia knew, which rules out Marsden. Whoever it was, in league with Parry, knew that there would be at least an hour before Wallace returned. Plenty of time.
All Qualtrough had to say was "there must have been a mix up. I distinctly left the message to say I would call here tonight at 7.30 on an important matter!" Julia would be covered in confusion, and reassured that there was indeed a Mr. Qualtrough from Mossley Hill [after all that was where poor William was bound for at that very moment] would most likely admit him to await William's return.
That was the gamble anyhow, and it worked...
but how could this man rob the place and get away undetected and unrecognized...or expect to without violence?
in fact how could ANY robbery motive be plausible considering the point I just made?
"but how could this man rob the place and get away undetected and unrecognized...or expect to without violence?"
Do you read the papers? It happens all the time, especially to old folks...
Sometimes it goes tragically wrong, however.
Julia wasn't senile yet.... nevertheless I do think your idea is inventive and clever. I just can't see it ever working in any practice. So you would have to assume Parry was genius enough to invent all these angles but stupid enough to think it could work.
Imagine Wallace returning home and Julia telling him what happened...surely they would be very suspicious and investigate, seeing that they were ripped off? Julia would remember the man no doubt.
"Julia wasn't senile yet..."
but she was incontinent. Perhaps Qualtrough thought his opportunity to steal would arise when she went to the loo.
The fact that coins were scattered around the hearth suggests to me that Qualtrough grabbed the money rapidly and carelessly while Julia's back was turned...
Perhaps Julia noticed these coins when she returned downstairs, and smelt a rat.
Perhaps she took down the mackintosh because she was about to leave the house.
Qualtrough couldn't let her do that, of course...
Re: the telephone call. As much as Beattie recognising the voice I also find it completely out of character for someone as perceived as intelligent as Wallace to be seen using a call box in Anfield. Many in the area knew him and as you know he was hardly discreet - he was 6 "2 and probably stood out like a sore thumb. Also the fact that the call was traced. I don't go for the old 'nobody knew calls could be traced in those days.' Wallace was of a scientific mind and a regular subscriber to scientific magazines. I'm pretty sure he would recognise the fact that it could be traced. I concur with you as well regarding the timing. As I say, if Alan Close's bicycle hadn't been damaged he wouldn't have called when he did. Where does that leave a 'perfectly executed plan?'
Yes the blood...The biggest thing in Wallace's favour imho. I've also heard Wallaceites claim that 'he could have evaded spatter or it might not have been that bad.' This is nonsense of course. Nothing bleeds like a head wound and blood has been the curse of prospective killers throughout history. A pint to a pint and a half was spilled, which is an incredible amount. The old argument that 'there was none outside the parlour so he evaded it' holds no credibility either. Whoever was in that room must have been spattered.
---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------
But what if Wallace decided not to go up to Menlove Gardens? Or was notified beyond ALL reasonable doubt that there was no such place? Yes, I know the Gardens hadn't been a residential area for long and that is a point. Qualtrough was taking a massive risk in pinning his hopes on Wallace following it all through though...Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby
"But what if Wallace decided not to go up to Menlove Gardens? Or was notified beyond ALL reasonable doubt that there was no such place? Yes, I know the Gardens hadn't been a residential area for long and that is a point. Qualtrough was taking a massive risk in pinning his hopes on Wallace following it all through though... "
There was no risk. Or rather, the only risk was the risk of not being able to carry the plan all the way to execution, due to the non-compliance of Wallace or Julia. In which case we wouldn't be discussing "the Wallace Case" at all, would we?
To go to the lengths of murder though there IS a risk. Why would Qualtrough put so much faith in a false address when he could have sent Wallace to a genuine address in the same area? He would have had adequate time to do what he had to do in the time Wallace would have travelled to and from Menlove Gardens.Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby
"To go to the lengths of murder though there IS a risk. Why would Qualtrough put so much faith in a false address when he could have sent Wallace to a genuine address in the same area? He would have had adequate time to do what he had to do in the time Wallace would have travelled to and from Menlove Gardens."
I don't think it was conceived as a murder, but as a robbery. The false address bought more time, as they rightly figured Wallace would try at the other Menlove Gardens before giving up. It probably didn't make much difference in reality, but they thought it might, so why not include it the plan? Maybe it was just a personal touch, an extra wind-up for Wallace, part of a jolly jape that was only supposed to end in theft. Let's see if Wallace, the chess giant, can figure out how he's been had...
I'm in complete agreement with acrosstheuniverse on this latest thread. Having been raised in a very similiar house(but in Walton),the front living room (THE PARLOUR as it iwas always called) was usually only used for VISITORS. JULIA would only admit someone she knew & unfortunately the idea of an unknown QUALTROUGH being admitted with the idea of robbery just doesnt add up. JULIA knew both PARRY & MARSDEN for CERTAIN & she would willingly have admitterd either or both.....PARRY was QUALTROUGH. AS MARK R points out, would WHW have been so stupid as to make the call to the chess club himself & the fiddle the coins..NO CHANCE!! AS you say, the time factor & lack of ANY blood stains make it impossible for WHW to have done the deed...but I'm more convinced now that he organised it!!
Again I agree completely with MARK R about MURPHY's conclusion....it was much the same as the prosecution came up in 1931..just plain IMPOSSIBLE!! IAN(FJumble)
It annoys me when people say "They wouldn't do that. There isn't much in it" or "So little to be gained from it." Criminals have and always will commit crimes opportunistically. I read today of a thug that assaulted a 92 year woman and took £30.
Just found a link for it here:
http://www.manchesterwired.co.uk/new...oorstep-attack
I think the "Robbery Gone Wrong" theory is a smoke screen.... doubtless encouraged by WHW...especially with the Anfield Burglar on the prowl. I agree of course, as you point out, that awful almost pointless crimes occur daily,especially in the drug crazed minds of modern thugs..but Julia Wallace's murder was no on the spot panic attack.. it was PLANNED!! IAN(FJumble)
Yes Ian. MacFall said that it was a case of frenzy thereby telling us the obvious but Oliver argued the fact that it was a premeditated act - thereby ruling out an insanity plea due to MacNaughten rules - diminshed responsibility due to it (not that an insanity plea was going to be considered by Wallace:)). It makes the murder even more chilling to think that someone stood on that corner of Rochester Rd making a telephone call with the intention of carrying out a murder, be it Wallace or Qualtrough...
Ian, yes that's exactly what I was saying. I'm glad RodCrosby brought it up because I think it can be expanded to eliminate ANY robbery motive. This was clearly a murder plot...robbery doesn't make any sense at all...getting Wallace out of the house doesn't mean Julia would be.
The Qualtrough call rules out stuff like a random robbery, the Anfield housebreaker etc.. IMO. Very clearly a planned murder from the get-go. Now ask yourself who would go to such great lengths to plan something like this?
"because I think it can be expanded to eliminate ANY robbery motive."
Sorry, you've lost me. What can be expanded?
So far, I've seen nothing that is inconsistent with my theory that Parry & A.N. Other cooked up a plan to rob, which went badly wrong. On the contrary it all fits.
Some great posts on here since I last logged in. If Parry wasn't a suspect in laymans minds before, the statements that John Gannon posted up is further evidence but now we must ask, Why didn't the police notice a glaring discrepincy in something we've all noticed - or did they but it didn't fit with their growing notion that it was WHW?
Maybe the police thought they just didn't have enough on Parry that would "stick." I'm not sure Parry could ever have been charged with murder. Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could opine?
Yet they thought that flimsy circumstantial evidence which involved co-ercing a witness to put back his time (Alan Close), Poo pooing John Parkes and Mr Atkinsons account (assuming it did happen) and jiggling about the Anfield Harriers time trials to suit their purpose, not coming up with any motive or account for the lack of bloodstaining on Wallace and MacFall being inept on at least 3 counts would stick. Well it very nearly did due to a possibly prejudiced jury who could have read the papers and had a pre-conceived opinion of Wallace. This despite Justic Wright all but directing them to find WHW not guilty?
I went up to the street for the first time yesterday. I was wondering how Wallace was running from and to the back of the house to gain access when he returned home on the murder night. Seeing how close the entry is to the house has now explained this for me.
Where the phone box was. The 68 bus stops there and goes through to the terminal at Penny Lane roundabout. Was there any tram in 1931 that took this route? if so why did he go the longer route ( 26/27 Sheild road )
Ged, the plod just play the numbers game. Most people are murdered by someone they know, often spouse or other family member. Therefore if a spouse or family member has acted in the remotest way suspiciously, they become suspect #1. Poor Wallace found himself in this position, and the plod simply tailored the evidence to fit their own conclusion.
I wonder if 29 was a rented property or their own ??
Just wondering if it's been mentioned -- don't feel like trawling through 100 odd pages to find out :)
It has sometimes been suggested along the way the Wallace may have got fed up of his life with Juila and wanted rid of her so he could live out the rest of his days without her - - well, in that case he could have just walked out of the marriage - done a disappearing act so to speak (and saved himself all the trouble) - It has been done many times before - a spouse escaping a marriage and disappearing.
If the house was their own then maybe Wallace wouldn't walk away from his share of it - but if the house was rented there would be nothing to lose.
Somewhere along the line I saw mention of a possibility that Julia could have been having an affair or even paying someone for, shall we say intimate favours - - no, I can't believe that theory at all. Judging by Julia's appearance - her being a rather antiquated person - and by all accounts having incontinence problems ! I'm sure any kind of premarital hanky panky was unlikey !!
My grandmother told me that Julia was known to be a staid and old fashioned kind of woman - to use my grandmother's turn of phrase, 'antwacky'. :)
Just a thought .. but poor Julia losing any last bit of dignity by having her undergarments and incontinence discussed by all and sundry. :eek:
Poor woman :(
intimate favours
What are they Chocolates?
Ha,ha, sounds like it Spike :)
Most people of the Wallace's class or below rented their homes at that time, and I think I've seen it stated definitively somewhere that they rented.
We now have evidence that:
i) Parry had the means, motive and opportunity to engineer a robbery at the Wallace's house with the help of an accomplice.
ii) Parry could have made the phone call on the Monday
iii) Parry could have picked someone up in his car near Wolverton Street on the Tuesday before Wallace arrived home from Menlove Gardens.
It's the only theory that fits all the known facts.
I've thought that too. Also in books I've read their "back" kitchen is described as shabby! In the photos I've seen it doesn't look shabby at all - it looks clean and furnished of the time. As for "antwakky" that's a word all my family continue to use - it's a real Scouse word.Quote:
Originally Posted by lindylou
I definately don't buy Mrs Wallace having an affair, but have thought perhaps that when Mr Wallace arrived home and couldn't get the either door open, the murderer was perhaps still there. Another theory, although unlikely.
Rod, you still have the (in my opinion glaring) problem of Julia being in the house. How could one expect to get away with it...even if she didn't notice money taken...it would be clear that they had been had when Wallace returned home with the story and Julia told him 'Qualtrough' had visited. This just smacks of a murder plot. If Parry was so desperate to specifically rob William Herbert Wallace, that he concocted an in depth, multi-layered scheme then you would think it would have some way of realistically working out.
I think those who say well there are botched robberies all the time are missing the point. The telephone call and the planning indicated a murder plot from the get-go. All that for a very bad chance at getting away with it for an unknown sum of money?
Interesting stuff to say the least from John Gannon.