Printable View
"The evidence is quite consistent with some unknown criminal, for some unknown motive, having got into the house and executed the murder and gone away...
If there was an unknown murderer, he has covered up his traces. Can you say it is absolutely impossible that there was no such person?"
Mr. Justice Wright, summing up in R v Wallace
Yes it was rented Linda. 14s. 3d. a week.Quote:
Originally Posted by lindylou
Linda my grandparents said the same as your grandmother - that Julia was old fashioned...Quote:
Originally Posted by lindylou
---------- Post added at 08:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 PM ----------
Burkhilly, interesting you say that someone could have been inside the house - Wallace actually said at first that he thought somebody was in the house when he arrived back from his Menlove Gardens sojourn. He retracted it though. Many Wallaceites believe that Wallace had realised it wouldn't have fit in with anything and thereby dismissed that idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by burkhilly
---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ----------
Spike - I think the most direct route at the time involved travelling along Queens Drive. A few routes were suggested to Wallace but he said that he would travel into town (to Smithdown Lane), then travel to Penny Lane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGannon
John, the first thing I noticed was the differing dates and thought that the statement must have ran past midnight and yes, since he was at Lily Lloyds that night, he had clearly gone to make the statement thereafter. I also thought it strange that the staff at Miaden Lane post office where he bought his newspaper and ciggies that night, or at Hignetts where he went for his accumulator battery were never quizzed to corroborate his story, but then why would Parry complicate the story if it were not true. What of Parry's dad saying his son was having trouble with his car battery that night on Breck Road?
I would say the call was botched up not to exonerate Wallace from having made the call but to finger him as the caller - if it was not just a ploy to try and swindle a free call - not knowing the operator could see what button had been pressed.
If it was Parry who made the call and was not expecting to be quizzed on it, that may well be why he didn't think he needed an alibi.
---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------
They rented the house for fourteen shillings and sixpence per week from their landlord, Samuel Evans who resided in nearby Anfield Road.
Apropos of not a lot, just a bit of scene-setting at the time: my mother was a young unmarried woman of almost 25 at the time. One of her friends, Mona Crane, used to live not far from Wolverton Street. and was used to seeing Wallace walking in the district. After the trial and subsequent upheld appeal, she was always a bit scared when seeing Wallace approaching -so much so, that she used to cross over the road to avoid passing close to him. Something , I believe, in which she was not alone. Wallace continued to be a figure of suspicion in Liverpool and widely regarded as having `got away with it`- theories as to how he did so were many and rife. Wallace would obviously not be unaware of this, which probably led to his leaving Liverpool and may have contributed to the illness from which he eventually succumbed.
Right, it's not Justice Wright's job to come up or hash out the specifics of another possible motive...it was just a summing up for acquittal...nothing more or nothing less. He never mentions a robbery...just that the motive was unknown. And with the evidence presented at the trial, I would have summed up/ voted not guilty myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby
Quoting edits from JG's post:
“Why did the police not conduct the statement at his house, place of work, or at the bridewell at their convenience and not Parry’s. The Lloyd/Brine/Denison statements being taken the following Monday, 26th January. It is noteworthy that police, despite my relentless researches, appear to have taken no statements from William Hodgson or his wife Mary (Post Office Maiden Lane); Walter, Catherine, Samuel or Josephine Hignett, nor any members of the staff at Hignett’s; nor Annie Williamson (49 Lisburn Lane).
………………………………………… ………………………………………… ………………………………………… …………………..
“At the end of Radio City’s ‘Who Killed Julia’ series of programmes Roger Wilkes signed off with, “The controversy goes on whether police like it or not; the Wallace case will not lie down or go away ... we have done what we can; and there, sadly and uneasily, the case must rest.” This forum, however, maintains the spirit of determination in these sentiments – well done to you all.”
I'm wondering if anyone has a copy of Roger Wilkes' original programme for Radio City? I seem to remember that he made much of the fact that the police investigation was conducted in an appallingly sloppy manner, something that JG touches on here. For all Mark R's & Ged's admirably detailed study of the case this element seems to be missing, if true.
Yes Mark, I have to agree with you there. No way Wallace should have been found guilty. The fact that the appeal worked (unprecedentedly) and the conviction was quashed speaks to the incompetence of the jury. Wallace was quite unlucky and I'm sure the public sentiment against him and the strange Qualtrough aspect clouded the jury's minds. Along with the chess-player and stoic hocus pocus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
It is similar to the OJ Simpson trial (but without DNA!), as I believed OJ was probably guilty at the time (now it's definitely!), but the state bungled the case badly enough that not guilty was the only way to vote. I do think the police could have solved the case if they had done everything they were supposed to.
Another parallel I'd like to draw is what Stephen Singular, an expert on the JonBenet Ramsey case said:
'I don't think an intruder killed JonBenet. I don't think either of the two prevalent scenarios -- the Ramseys did it or an intruder did it -- can explain both the hard evidence coming from outside the family and a ransom note that appears to have come from within the house. Three-and-a-half years into the case, both scenarios have led nowhere. This is an extremely complicated case, which is what the police and the media have never wanted it to be.'
The Wallace case is similar in the fact that I think certain lines of reasoning and apparent sound logic hit a dead end. That is why so many people have called the Wallace case 'impossible' 'Wallace had to have done it but couldn't have etc' I think one has to really think outside the box to solve this and the police certainly did not at the time.
Right. My take on it.
I'm sure Parry has some involvement in it as the inside man.
He set up the hoax Qualtrough call (I'm unsure as to whether he just tried to fiddle the call box money or he actually had the brains to try and use such a local box and confuse the operators so it could be traced to WHW to finger him into it - it isn't a million miles from Clubmoor and Lily lloyds in any case so could well be en route for him as so its location and WHW's had no underlying connection)
The unsure part for me is did he intend his accomplice to just do a robberywhich went wrong resulting in the murder and the robbery having to be terminated quickly resulting in the aghast Parry grabbing the bloodied glove and saying it's get him hung/i've disposed of a weapon down a grid as he tried to rid the car of the blood evidence, or whether it was always intended as a murder - but if so, what was the motive?
GED, as I see it there are 3 possibilities. By 'did it' I will mean was involved in any way (including and especially the planning.)
Either A) Somebody (ies) other than Wallace did it as a planned robbery gone wrong
B) Somebody (ies) other than Wallace did it as a planned murder.
C) Wallace did it as a planned murder.
I have a lot of problems in theory with both A and B and none with C. What I mean by this is not so much that I am on the face of it convinced C is right, rather that A and B both present obvious and glaring problems which C does not.
We agree Parry made the call... but a planned robbery seems very unlikely for several reasons, many of which I have already expressed to Rod Crosby. How could Parry hope to get away with the cash? Why go to such trouble for an unknown (and what turned out to be rather paltry some of money) As Murphy puts it:
‘How much simpler, how much more lucrative it would have been, for Qualtrough to have slipped a note to Wallace through his front door on Monday, 12 January [sic – an intentional reference to the previous week], asking him to call at 25 Menlove Gardens East the following night.
That Qualtrough chose Wallace’s putative attendance at the chess club, rather than the night when he could maximize his gain, as the starting point for his plan, again testifies to the fact that robbery was not a significant motive in the crime.’
I think if one then comes to the conclusion that this was a planned murder (that much I do feel can be proved beyond doubt, then one must look at scenario B and create a non-probematic scenario.
Parry is involved...that much we know. The only 2 possibilities seem to be either Parry planned the murder Julia Wallace or William Herbert Wallace planned the murder of Julia Wallace. Which is more likely?
Just learnt that RUSSELL JOHNSTON(grandson of "The Johnston's" - 31,Wolverton St) is giving a talk tomorrow evening on the case(Tues.25th Jan.at 7.30 till 9.30)at a Rotary Club meeting at Prenton Bowls Club 63,Prenton Road West(on the way up to Tranmere Rovers F.C.) I'll be going,as its open to all!! Might finally see some of you there!!! I suggest we dont mention TOM SLEMEN!!! IAN(FJumble)
Ian, too bad I'm in NYC!
Ste, I dunno what Murray said mate cos my book's by Murphy - I know, I know nit pickin' agen - soz ha ha.
Yeah, it was such a good book up to that last chapter, then he let me down by actually saying he thought it was Wallace but the thought of him in the nak doin' his arl girl then having to get a bath and dried when there was no evidence for this was too much for me to believe, especially with the way Parry acted that night in the garage with the bloodied glove and what he said to the young apprentice. Just goes to show you that the garage owner must've known all along but kept schtum just because Parry was a 'good customer'
Wallace was a stoic character and his calmness made him even more of a suspect, I mean who sits there calmly lighting a ciggie unless she's gonna be insured for a million and it's coming your way?
__________________
"it isn't a million miles from Clubmoor and Lily lloyds in any case so could well be en route for him as so its location and WHW's had no underlying connection."
There is a rather obvious connection, actually. If Wallace was being watched on the Monday night it is the phone box we would expect the watchers to use, once they saw Wallace leave the house...
‘“Is Mr Wallace there?”
“No, I’m afraid not”, Beattie said.
“But he will be there?”
“I can’t say. He may or may not. If he’s coming he’ll be here shortly.
Note the anticipatory "But he will be there?"
A few things that if WHW is innocent - didn't help his cause.
Not consulting an A-Z before making the journey - though Beattie or a member of staff could easily have pulled one out in the cafe. An excuse could then have been, they're still building up there and it may be new so i'll try anyway.
His stoic behaviour after the discovery of Julia's body.
His insistence on seeing and speaking to as many people as possible on his MGE journey. (though isn't this something that anyone who is unsure of the area might well do)
Debate over whether he was unsure of the area at all - since he's visited Joseph Crewe, Amy Wallace and Calderstones park in the past using the same route.
Ged, I think not consulting a map of sorts is the most glaring one. If he was so gung ho to get a commission that he was asking all around, making himself known etc....why did he not know where he was going? If the business was so important...how could he have not known beforehand there was no Menlove Gardens East.
I think the address that doesn't exist is a strong indicator of a phony plot (one concocted by Wallace to make it seem as if he was tricked.) If the motive was to get Wallace out of the way, it would have been in fact much better to send him to an existing address and confuse him rather than have him possibly find out the address doesn't exist beforehand and not go at all.
Murphy contends Wallace actually meant to say West and Beattie got it wrong; not likely in my opinion. (Perhaps Parry said it wrong?) But I do think Wallace would have been better off picking an existing address. He could have gone there and created a further alibi with another person and then made it seem like maybe he thought Beattie got it wrong and gone to the other existing two Menlove Gardens. I think using an existing address would have actually benefited the plotter whether it was Wallace or not.
GED.I do wonder if WHW's stoicism is purely based on D.L.SAYERs assumpition that because he had a copy of MARCUS AURELIUS he must be a stoic..I might(I don't) own a copy of MEIN KAMPF but it doesnt make me a nazi! IAN(FJumble)
"how much more lucrative it would have been, for Qualtrough to have slipped a note to Wallace through his front door on Monday, 12 January [sic – an intentional reference to the previous week], asking him to call at 25 Menlove Gardens East the following night."
Murphy hasn't done his research.
Monday 12 January 1931 just happened to be RG Parry's 22nd birthday, and we may assume he was otherwise engaged that night...
In any event, a note leaves forensics, whereas a phone call does not, or so Parry thought. Unhappily for Wallace the tracing of the call threw suspicion on him instead of Parry.
How co-incidental or premeditated was the address he was sent to anyway.
Why would Wallace send himself to an address or area he might have been accused of knowing quite well (as indeed he was) and thus making his constant questioning of the conductors etc seem overkill (as indeed it did seem to be)
---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------
I may go if I can but i'd certainly mention Tom Slemen's take on it ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
You've probably all seen this one, but I came across this -
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4428
He didn't say he never knew the area though. He asked 'Is it Menlove Avenue?' thereby indicating that he knew something of the area. I agree with you though that if it was Wallace (or even Qualtrough) either would have been better off using a genuine address. I also concur with you regarding Murphy's assumption that he misheard Beattie - I don't think it likely that whoever said it meant 'West.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse
---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------
I might try and make it.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
be great if you could make it Mark, Im sure it would be very intetesting.
Prenton - too much of a hike for me.
I've just been speaking to Johnnyblue regarding the choice of venue for Russell Johnston's talk, as it's a pity it's not in say, the Liverpool supporters club given its location right facing where the R.M. Qualtrough call box was. Perhaps whoever goes, and I may myself yet, could propose this to him for the future.
---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:14 PM ----------
This is the debating society who are putting on this talk tomorrow evening.
http://www.wirraltalks.co.uk/index.html
.
That is a great suggestion - right in the location! As Linda says it is a bit of a hike. I bet there is still a big turnout.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
The Wallace MurderS
This isn't a great start ;)
http://www.wirraltalks.co.uk/html/program_2010_11.html
.
They'll probably say they mean Wallace as well! That he was a 'victim' of R.M.Q.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Hey, that thirty years of Murder about forensics & Keith Simpson on Feb 15th looks good!
I have spoken to Arthur of the Wirral Debating Society and apparently Russell Johnston is a member there so can bring up subjects to debate on and welcome questions from the floor. Arthur has read up on the case but only Murphy's account so I explained Goodman's, Wilkes and J Gannon's take on it as well - from only what I know.
Apparently, the bowling club is up a narrow alley at the opposite end of Prenton Road West from Tranmere's ground but on the same side as the footy ground. It can be easily missed in the dark so look out for it if you're going.
Anyone going? If so will you report back to the thread. Thanks in advance.
I'm surprised there are still people who think Wallace was guilty, and even someone who has moved to that conclusion after firmly believing in his innocence to begin with! Yet no-one seems to be able to provide any evidence or motive (beyond the realms of outlandish speculation) to support their belief.
I think this quote from Liverpool barrister Gerald Abrahams in 1954 [quoted on the chess site] is a fair and objective view.
"was Wallace guilty?
There are three approaches to this question:
(1) Legally, it is academic. There was no evidence against him.
(2) Personally. His acquaintances (excluding those who revel in the troubles of their “friends”) seem convinced of his innocence. The author takes the view that to vest Wallace with guilt in the circumstances is to credit him with a mental power, a skill, an agility, a cold-blooded nerveless efficiency, of which he seemed utterly incapable.
(3) Scientifically, it is a much easier hypothesis to assume another person as murderer, whose task would have been easier, mental effort less. By the principle of simple explanations Wallace was innocent."
Rod, it seems like I always check this thread minutes after you have posted. I assume you're referring to me.
I agree with 1, yes from a legal standpoint no case has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt thus far. (I await John Gannon's book eagerly to see precisely what he has unearthed.)
2. is ridiculous and doesn't really merit discussion except to say there seemed to be public sentiment against Wallace rather than for him. On the whole though, that shouldn't matter either way.
3. is just plain wrong. The effort would have been much greater if one had to actually carry out the plan rather than fake it.
1. I think Abrahams is more precise than you. There was no evidence. IIRC at the Appeal Court one of the judges interrupted Hemmerde to ask "so all the prosecution case amounts to is 'it could have been him'?" That is legal code for no evidence.
2. I think the fact that so many people stood by Wallace speaks volumes about the man, and cannot be lightly dismissed. Even Christ was thrice denied by Peter, his best friend!
3. I don't get your point. A guilty Wallace creating an alibi in such a fashion is just too fantastical. There was a piece of the jigaw overlooked in 1931, which I suspect is the solution, but plod couldn't get their head around it. There was more than one person involved!
Rod, no idea what you mean by precise. I agree Wallace shouldn't have been convicted. But there was certainly a plethora of circumstantial evidence.
What credence should be given to:
1) John Parkes' story (can't say statement as it seems the police couldn't be bothered taking one) even though surely this was a fantastic breakthrough and was backed by Mr Atkinson.
2) Lily Hall saying she saw WHW talking to a man at Richmond Park entry. No man came forward after an appeal (and if he was up to no good then that wouldn't be surprising) though she did seem to fall apart - or the story's - times and date did in the witness box.
3) Roger Wilkes 'Conspiracy of silence' theory regarding the police heirachy being in with Parry's father and Uncle whom were high up in the Liverpool Corporation.
GED, I think 1 and 3 have aspects of truth, and aspects that are sensationalized/untrue. 2 is probably true.
Hey, that thirty years of Murder about forensics & Keith Simpson on Feb 15th looks good![/QUOTE]
I bet there wouldnt have been a WALLACE MYSTERY for us to discuss if Prof.Keith Simpson had been on the case in 1931!!!! IAN(FJumble)
Ged am I correct in thinking that the information from John Parkes wasn't known until the Roger Wilkes thing?
Also having re-read (very quickly) Jonathan Goodman's book, something I previously missed - the iron bar missing from the Wallace House! This was apparently found when there was some refurbishment of the house (changing from gas to electricity). It had fallen down a space beneath the fireplace. It was reported to the police, who didn't want to know.
Hi Burkhilly. Roger Wilkes in his book - The final verdict - says that Parkes and Mr Atkinson went to the police as soon as WHW was charged. The story was dismissed as Parry had already been investigated and his car stripped and searched.
You would have thought though that a story of this magnitude would have resulted in a statement being taken and the iron bar down a grid story acted upon. Unless of course Wilkes' conspiracy of silence theory about Mr Parkes senior being in collusion with the police (and in particular Hubert Moore) is true.
Perhaps Moore thought he had his man in WHW and wanted to quickly close the matter and all this extra faffing about was getting in his way so he fitted the crime to the person rather than the person to the crime.
MARK R & GED ..great to finally meet you 2 last night,for what was a thoroughly enjoyable evening! Wasnt it great to hear from the excellent RUSSELL & his cousin directly...especially what they thought of Tom Slemen's efforts to "solve" the case!! Russell hit on something that has bothered me for a long time..WHERE WAS JULIA DENNIS for the long period till she married WHW? We really know next to nothing about JULIA & I'm wondering again if the baby born 28th April 1861 was the same woman murdereed in 1931...even McFaul said the body was a woman in her mid-fifties..bad though he was on the night,surely he was experienced enough to know what a woman of 70 looked like? And its surely very strange,especially as she came from a large family..THAT not one family member came to her wedding OR even the poor woman's funeral!! IAN(FJumble)
Ian, it was a pleasure to meet you and your wife too and was so glad that us outsiders were received with such warmth by the Wirral Debating Society members.
We were eventually thrown out of the room as the caretaker rightly needed to lock up :) however, Russell, Philip, Fiona, another chap, MarkR and myself remained in the pitch black car park for at least another 30 mins discussing all we could find out.
Mark has traced some of Julia's missing 35 years where she was a live-in Governess down south. It was intriguing that one of the audience brought up the fact that it could have been someone from these missing years that committed the deadly deed, though somehow, the Parry/Qualtrough phone call - lying about whereabouts etc really does make me think we know the names already of those involved.
If we are to believe Whittington-Egan. He reckons he spoke to the killer in 1966 - ie Parry (did Parry tell him he could say tell him a lot more but had promised his father not to - not even for money)
If we are to believe John Parkes and Mr Atkinson's son - Parry/the blood/the glove/the bar Then Parkes too spoke to the killer - or his accomplice.
If we are to believe Wilkes, then he claims a policeman involved in the case would spill the beans when he retired as there was more to the case that would interest him.
Too many people have kept schtum on this and now they're not here.
One thing seems for sure - Tom Slemen got it wrong and only brought out his theory (as fact) when he thought there were no living Johnston relatives to rebuke it.
I say above 'if we believe' because one thing which isn't helping the solving of this case is hidden - or not so hidden agendas by authors on the case.
Someone is lying when...............
James Murphy has either cherry picked the Lily Lloyd/Richard Gordon Parry statements to suit his own ends to finger WHW as the killer or John Gannon has tweaked the said statements to finger Parry being involved - at least in the Qualtrough call.
Thanks GED..good thoughts!! Clearly Whittington-Egan thought PARRY was the killer & his actions on the doorstep indicate he knew a lot more than he was saying...if he had been totally innocent with nothing to hide,surely he would have at least answered the questions in a non-aggresive manner(?)..he implied WALLACE was sexually odd,was JULIA also strange? PARKES was clearly scared of PARRY & with good reason from what we know of the man. RUSSELL said he was only in trouble for several minor offences in later life..but a few years after the WALLACE murder, he did threaten a girl to such an extent that in court she said she said she thought he was going to kill her!!(I know it can be claimed this was just an expression..but it shows his violent nature)IAN
Ian - it was great to meet up with you & Anne. I really admire both of your dedication & enthusiasm in the case. Thanks also to Ged for the lift and his enthusiasm as well. And without trying to sound like an academy award winner's speech I'd also like to thank the debating society for making us welcome and for a wonderful evening.
It was great to hear Russell and Philip discussing the case and they put their views across excellently. Russell's presentation was great - he done a thoroughly great job in speaking for 1 hour and 10 minutes. I could have listened to him all night:)
It was nice to meet Fiona as well - at last - to finally meet somebody else who remembers watching Who Killed Julia Wallace? and being terrifed in that Autumn of 1975:)
Once again, cheers Ian & Ged