Printable View
Possibly true about Parry's over imagination - even if it did cast him in a bad light and put himself in it so to speak but we still have the 'There are lots of things I could tell you etc etc, Wallace was sexually odd, peculiar, Promised my father, not for £1000 or whatever it was...
However, Julia did invent an elaborate story about her parents and their origins and professions and tried to conceal this. Actually who was this intended for and how was it proven otherwise?
Parry did seem to revel in being a menace (or perceived as one:)). Maybe he was attention seeking (but who would want that sort of publicity?) I don't know about you but I find it odd that Wallace would discuss his sexual preferences/behaviour with Parry. I just cannot imagine such a conversation ever having taken place!
No, but I wonder if Julia did during one of their 'meetings', if indeed they did take place?
burkhilly..I'm glad you enjoyed the Radio Broadcasts. I think a lot of us now think the Wallace Murder was planned by,but couldnt have been actually carrried out by WHW,...it seems more likely now that PARRY was used as QUALTROUGH..but that the actual murder was carried out by a.n.other..I'm hoping that John Gannon's forthcoming book may finally give us more about the mysterious MARSDEN,who John clearly thinks did the battering(see his blog. on COLD CASE CLOSED JULIA WALLACE)for update. I think theft can be ruled out ..as can the ANFIELD BURGLAR..who never went anywhere near this type of MO.IAN (FJumble)Quote:
Originally Posted by burkhilly
I don't suspect the Anfield Housebreaker either Ian but can you clarify 'anywhere near this type of MO. for me please? Ta.
MARK..did you ever get anymore on your assertion that Whittington-Egan reneged on his belief that PARRY was QUALTROUGH..I find this very hard to accept. I think its clear that WHW must have known JULIAS' real age eventually,but the point is surely,when did he find out. I cant see WHW,from what we know of his so called stoic upright persona,being a party to fraud on his wedding day..surely he wouldn't have gone ahead if he knew she was 52 in 1914..or indeed if he knew he was being duped! The afternoon musical intervals...are purely from what RGP bragged to JG & RWE on the doorstep..every other possible confirmation of these sessions seems to draw a total blank.IAN (FJumble)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------
Thanks ROD..I agree with your points..but the fact that its a "parlour game" makes it so fascinating. No wonder Raymond Chandler was on to LUSTGARTEN so much about it and claimed the case was unbeatable! To your main points,I'd simply add surely theft was not the motive.The killing was cold-blooded and planned & not a random act.The phone-call to the chess club & the wild-goose chase alibi prove these 2 assertions...would a random thief or the Anfield Burglar have gone to such elaborate trouble? Regards IAN(FJumble)
---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------
Sorry GED..I meant the Anfield Burglar was a sneak thief,an opportunist..who was,so far as I know never used violence.His Modus Operandi was NEVER to assault & rob! IAN(FJumble) Are you/MARK going to Prof.Simpson lecture tomorrow?
Hey Mark if you want a proof reader I'll do it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
Ian - thanks for that Blog info...........am just going to have a read.
An upright person that wouldn't be party to fraud but invariably plan the murder of his wife:slywink:Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
Yes Ian, Whittington-Egan did renege on it. I'll have to dig it out (I've got literally tons of material re: the Wallace Case that I've collected down the years and will have to sift through it!)
Unfortunately I can't make the Simpson lecture tomorrow. Would have liked to have attended that! if anyone goes, let us know what it was like.
We don't know how the MO of a particular burglar works. As I've said before - there was more than one burglar active. Some have a different MO to others. Marsden isn't that mysterious. He was 28 - worked for the Prudential and lived in Adelaide Road. I think the idea that Marsden killed Julia has about as much credibility as Slemen's assertion that John Johnston committed the murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
MARK,I didn't mean his standing in the 1931... I meant his perceived "pillar of society" personna at the time of his wedding..he was after all a liberal party agent!! He wouldn't have looked good if,say, his sister-in-law stood up & shouted she's not 37 she's 52..especially if he was aware of it(I dont see how he could have been!!) He must surely have discovered this lie at a later date!! Looking at the BeatlesLiverpoolandMore site for John Gannon's preview of THE DEVIL IN THE DETAIL he says that Richard Whittington-Egan is considering doing a piece for the book..hardly seems likely IF he has changed his mind abot PARRY being QUALTROUGH!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
The question of MO is that the Anfield Burglaries NEVER involved violence or duping people to leave their homes..so its a Red Herring...
When you say you are coming around to thinking WHW did it,I take it you mean as part of a conspiracy..you surely dont think WHW battered JULIA do you?? Looking forward to Prof Keith Simpson tonight..he was involved in a lot of very famous murder cases..as I've said before,its a shame he wasnt involved at Wolverton Street or we'd have had NO MYSTERY!! IAN (FJumble)
---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 AM ----------
Sorry for delay in responding ATU..just to say I personally agree with you completely!! That STANDARD LIFE calandar would be nice to turn up for a WALLACE CASE museum at, say The PRUDENTIAL,which is still going locally...Regards IAN(FJumble)Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse
Sorry, can't make tonight Ian, but please do report back.
How do we know WHW ever found out about Julia's true age - she fooled MacFall - even in death.
The Anfield housebreaker is ruled out for me simply because of the hoax phone call. It certainly would have been an unusual 'diversion' from his/their usual tack - pardon the pun.
Because there was no perceived violence in any of the burglaries doesn't mean it can be ruled out. It just might have been that the burglar wasn't caught in the act. I know of cases where violence has been perpetrated by the most unbelievable of suspects...
I don't think it matters in the slightest that he was a Liberal agent. Many people in this world have been party to some of the most inhuman acts irrespective of race, political bent or colour.
No I don't believe for a second that it is a conspiracy between Wallace and Parry, Marsden, Young or Johnston. That is wishful thinking by sensationalists looking for a story to tie it to. It is all pernicious nonsense. We might as well discuss Tom Slemen's belief in the Johnston theory - it is no different. I don't want to say too much as many things I have written on forums down the years have been jumped upon.
I can tell you Ian, Whittington-Egan HAS reneged. I managed to find it last night:
Murder on File: The World's Most Notorious Killers (published in 2005).
Richard and Molly Whittington-Egan
Not only does RW-E say that it wasn’t Parry, he also names Wallace, hence the name of the book.
“Parry’s alibi for the night of the murder did not, as has been previously suggested, depend upon the evidence of his friend Miss Lily Lloyd. His alibis were thoroughly checked and verified by the police, and tests carried out on his clothes and car proved negative. He was, therefore, rightly eliminated.”
I'm sure I also have a letter from RW-E from a few years ago that he sent me re: Parry. I gave it to a friend and am awaiting her response to what it was exactly that he said regarding Parry. I'm sure he mentions it.
Thanks MARK..NONE of the Anfield Burglaries involved ANY violence or DUPING of victims...the murder of JULIA was a PLANNED assasssination & the killer certainly made certain she was dead..sorry, it cant have been a random act of theft that went wrong. Regarding WHW's political persuasion at the time of his marriage,frankly I dont care if he was a committed Monster Raving Loony Supporter (or whatever they had in those days).....I'm simply saying,in 1914, he was still ambitious & very concious of his position in the world.I dont think,at that time, he would KNOWINGLY allow Julia to "perjure" herself(I dont think thats the correct legal term-but I dont know what is the term for lying under oath....)
Thanks for the most useful update on RWE..still cant believe thats really his view though! IAN (FJumble)
Ian, just because none of the Anfield burglaries involved violence or duping of victims does not mean robbery can be ruled out. If it was a planned assassination then it only points to one person - Wallace. If he did it, he did it alone. There is NO way he would have hired a contract killer then named them. There is no collusion, conspiracy theory or any other de Vinci Code type conspiracy involved.
Here's what Whittington-Egan replied in a letter to me:
"Goodman and I met Parry and faced him up with the fact that Wallace had so accused him. Frankly, I did not care for him and found him rather sinister but I am not convinced of his guilt, especially since reading Murphy's excellent The Murder of Julia Wallace."
Thanks very much MARK..so RWE was swayed by MURPHY..I'd still like to know his current assessment! I thought you were convinced WHW couldnt possibly have battered JULIA?(for all the many obvious reasons..the blood alone being enough!) IF he didnt then someone else sure as anything battered her(?) Again,if RGP's alibi for the Tues.murder night is watertight,but his alibi for the Monday phonecall night is full of holes..surely there can be only one conclusion? It must have been a conspiracy..there is surely no other explanation that stands up..unless your Tom Slemen....Off to Prof. Simpson talk now...IAN(FJUmble)
I don't know about you Ian but I have to say that I've never read a book that has swayed me - I go by reading the trial transcript, police reports and (some!) newspaper reports. Murphy's book is a great book but it is completely biased towards a guilty verdict. Nothing wrong in that of course but there are points in Wallace's favour that Murphy excludes. I am convinced Wallace couldn't have battered her (because of the lack of blood on him and yes, as you say many other factors) but I'm convinced it couldn't be anyone else (please excuse if that makes no sense at all!) I think Chandler said something similar along the lines of 'Wallace couldn't have committed it, and neither could anyone else'). That is why this case drives me around the bend. As I've said - some days I get up and believe it was Wallace, other days I believe his innocence. Ha ha Slemen...He's been too busy recently solving the Jack the Ripper case ;)
Have a great time at the Prof Simpson talk.
I wouldn't say a planned assassination could only point to WHW. What if Julia was about to spill the beans on Parry over an affair or something?
What if 'Qualtrough' really did call as has been mooted, with the intention being robbery and she rumbled him and he had to make sure she was dead to avoid her pointing the finger at him and then he made his getaway before making it upstairs to the rest of the money.
Murphy has now gone down in my estimation for cherry picking the Parry monday night statement to fit with his own theory, given that John Gannon as allegedly posted the full statement up.
That's what I was saying about a 'possible' robbery Ged. Some bloke was in my brother's class at school years ago and he seemed a very nice lad. Sometime in the 1980's a bloke was beaten to death somewhere off Dale Street. I think the man was gay. Anyway, the bloke robbed the gay man and hit him. I think the man was lying up an entry or side street. The man who hit him went back and smashed his head in (with a brick I think) to 'finish him off' so he wouldn't be recognised. The bloke who done it was the lad in my brother's class... I think what I'm saying here is that some people will do anything when thrown in a situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Yes, that is the fault of the Murphy book. I think he could have still put a case forward for the guilt of Wallace without leaving anything out.
Re: Julia's age. A few points.
1. It was a different world then. Polite people simply didn't discuss such things.
2. As a genealogist, I think I've yet to find a marriage certificate in my own family in which the woman reported her age correctly. Ditto for most of the men!
3. In law, AFAIK, no-one can be a witness to the circumstances of their own birth (fairly obviously), and so cannot give evidence on oath to the same. Consequently, no-one has ever been prosecuted for being less than accurate in this regard..
4. It is quite possible the Wallaces' marriage was more or less platonic (or should that be stoic?), meaning the question or suspicion of Julia's age may never have arisen in Wallace's mind.
5. Alternatively, Julia may have been very well preserved for her age. As someone said previously, she fooled McFall in death. In my youth I had lots of fun with older women [albeit not grab-a-granny, but you know what I mean.] She was only about 50 when Wallace, aged 33, met her. I've been there too....
6. There is a slim chance Murphy has his facts wrong, and there was another, younger, Julia Dennis - perhaps born abroad - who in fact was the woman who died in 1931.
All in all, I wouldn't read too much into this, and trying to link any discrepancy to the events of 1931 is stretching things, IMHO...
I agree with you. I've documents myself that have different ages for the same person. They are far from 100% reliable. Believe it or not Rod, I have wondered the same myself re: Murphy getting the age wrong. As you say, it is probably slim but the possibility IS there.
Mark, you claim that you have researched Julia's family history. If so, you will know that Murphy is correct about Julia's age. Check out the Census records.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
Allen
BRILLIANT..thanks a lot ROD that is really helpful..especially your "grab a granny confession"..though I'm still not certain the corpse of JULIA WALLACE found in 1931 was the same female born in 1861. I agree it seems a distinct possiblity that a mistake has been made somewhere...
Went to the WirralTalk last night on Prof.Keith Simpson & I was again made very welcome. I sat with Russell Johnston,who I didnt get to speak to much last month...great guy..very fair & helpful!! The lecture itself was fascinating as (Dr.) OLGA HIGH worked at Guy's with Prof.Simpson for 30 years & was best friends with his 2nd wife.The WALLACE case naturally came up several times & it was concluded that at least Prof.Simpson would have at least given the police a fairly accurate time of death,which to my mind would have made it impossible for WHW to have actually carried out the killing! IAN(FJumble)
Look at the Marriage certificate and the text that goes with it in James Murphy's book. Even they don't match up :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
1891 census - Julia Dennis, 28yrs, born Yorks
1901 census - Julia Dennis, 30yrs, born Yorks
My guess is that Julia came into some money after 1891, and decided on a change of scenery, knocking a few years off her age. Women do this all the time. It's no big deal.
Allen
Allen, I actually have a copy of her birth certificate and yes it is April 28th 1861. I think what Rod Crosby is hinting at is that records aren't always 100% accurate. I think her actual age is certain to be correct and I think Wallace was quite aware of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by alansimp
---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 AM ----------
Which illustrates such inconsistencies...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Bearing in mind I'm not as well informed as some on the thread, can someone explain something for me? My understanding is that Gordon Parry's alibi for the night of the murder was discredited, because Lily Lloyd was working from about 6.30pm at the cinema and she later actually withdrew the alibi to Mr Wallace's solicitor and the Radio City investigation.
Thanks!
Yes burkhilly, it is claimed that Lily Lloyd tried to withdraw her alibi for Parry for the murder night but as she only ever said she saw him from 9pm ish anyway, it didn't matter as the murder must have been done prior to WHW arriving home at 8.45pm. Parry says he was with olivia Brine and others during the time of the murder which was allegedly checked out.
If though she is saying she didn't see him as early as 9ish - then we have to ask why she gave him an alibi for that time, if he did put her up to giving him an alibi for that time and if so what he was really up to. Perhaps driving the murderer from the scene, disposing of the iron bar, cleaning himself or the murderer up so as to be spotless when he did see her later. However, the car wasn't allegedly washed out until the early hours of the morning after the murder according to Parkes.
Hector Munro doesn't recall Lily Lloyd coming to him to retract the alibi anyway it seems. Even if true, WHW had been acquitted on appeal by then and had in fact died. Some think the attempted alibi retraction were the actions of a woman scorned as Parry had ditched her.
MARK I'm glad you are now as convinced as most of us that WHW couldn't have battered JULIA(you had me worried for a while!)..if he had,he must have been Qualtrough & made the phone call in an "ordinary" voice that his friend Samuel Beattie was adamant was NOT WALLACE. So its back to the big question if not WALLACE then who was Qualtrough..& its back again to a conspiracy of at least one other person if RGP's alibi for the murder night stacks up! IAN(FJumble)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
Is it Wilkes or Goodman who says that Parry's alibi for the murder night is basically fabrication which would have fallen down flat if checked out. If I have his right, what does he mean. I assume Olivia Brine, her daughter and nephew were not all in on it too.
---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------
Josephine Ward Lloyd, the mother of Parry's girlfriend Lily gave a statement to the police that 'On Monday 19th, Parry called at about 7.15pm' 'At about' is obviously loose and critically important because it was 7.15pm when the Qualtrough call was made from the phone box in Rochester Road, just a very short drive away from the residence of Mrs Lloyd at 7 Missouri Road, Clubmoor.
This and Parry's statement is a lie according to Lily Loyd's statement as posted up by John Gannon.
It would appear that lily Lloyd did not get into Parry's car on the 20th as he called at her house around 9ish whilst she was in and there he stayed until 11ish - before perhaps going to get the car washed???
Thanks Ged. What a shame the alibis weren't checked throughly at the time, the way such things are apparently done now. Mind you we probably would be discussing the case now if they had!
I can't believe how at odds Parry's and Lily Lloyd's statements are for the phone call night and why this wasn't looked into - or was it???
I think Goodman and Wilkes were referring to Lily Lloyd's statement Ged (the one that she said she'd 'lied' about). As far as I know, the Brine statements etc were unbeknown to Goodman and Wilkes when their books were published.
---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------
You'd THINK they would!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
I wonder who Parry visited in Lark Lane on Monday 19th when he called to see Lily but she was busy teaching a pupil. Her mother said he got off to Lark Lane, returning at 9pm to see Lily. It is this day that Lily says he called on her part way through the lesson she was giving and the time was 7.35pm, giving him sufficient time to have made the Qualtrough call - though, her mother says it was about 7.15pm when he called (possibly ruling him out of having made the call)
I wonder...He seems a shadowy character to say the least. Isn't Lark Lane fairly near Ullet Road? Maybe he was having a secret tryst with Amy Wallace;)
Perhaps he went to North John Street instead, to check that Wallace was at the chess club, or to pick up his accomplice who had done the same...Quote:
I wonder who Parry visited in Lark Lane on Monday 19th when he called to see Lily but she was busy teaching a pupil. Her mother said he got off to Lark Lane, returning at 9pm to see Lily
Perhaps...Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby
Yes, but wasn't it just an accident that Lily wasn't available to see him, he must not have been expecting she had a pupil - what then - perhaps no Lark Lane/North John st or wherever? I wonder if it was someone residing in Lark Lane or meeting him at a pub there or something. Just my mind working overtime. :)
Just a small point GED..LILY LLOYD'S statement says RGP visited PARK LANE..her mother says LARK LANE....strange the police didnt clarify & question who he claimed to have visited!! IAN(FJumble)
Yes didn't Lily say she thought it sounded like Park Lane, possibly misheard? As it was actually her mother who spoke to him, I took that one to be correct.
GED.... R.G.PARRY must have KNOWN Lily LLoyd was with her music pupil when he said he called in!! Her mother stated that RITA PRICE had a regular Monday slot at 7.00pm(but she was late that night)...so,why did he claim he waited 15 min.when he knew she wouldnt be free of RITA till about 8.10pm....his alibi for Monday night is so full of holes...... I agree with you about the P/LARK LANE being misheard...IAN(FJUmble)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Very good point John. I had overlooked the fact he said he went to an address that 'I cannot for the moment remember' where he picked up Lily when in fact he didn't. Another lie - from an 'innocent' ??? and yet another discrepancy seemingly not checked out by the police. It seems Parry could have said whatever he wanted and he would not have been pulled. Such amateurish covering by himself and even yet worse amateurish detective work. Would it not have been prudent of Hector Munro's team to scour these statements too on behalf of Wallace's defense, in fact, a neglect of duty not to?