And possibly - a more stringent police force these days, not the one knocked up in 1931 that made glaring errors.
Printable View
And possibly - a more stringent police force these days, not the one knocked up in 1931 that made glaring errors.
Hi again GED...surely the 2nd volume would be ROGER WILKES 1981 book"Who Killed Julia"(based on the Radio City investigation)which heavily involved GOODMAN & named RICHARD GORDON PARRY for the first time? FJumbleQuote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Thanks for clearing that up Ian and John. So I take it Murphy's book holds no credence with yourselves. Not suggesting it should but what do you think of it. Obviously John, your book comes to a different conclusion altogether than all 3 mentioned so i'm wondering why praise would be heaped on any previous books reaching what must be in your mind, an incorrect conclusion :ninja:
Mark. It goes without saying I look forward to your publication. John, can't wait for your offering either and already, you've highlighted the full Parry, Lily Lloyd and her mother's statements which i've not seen before. :handclap:
Hi John. Thanks for that. Didn't know about the other book that you will be vying against though I might end up with them both. Both close on the heels of Tom Slemen's version of events too. Just like the buses along Scottie when waiting to go the match one time. None, then 3 all at once.
My sentiments exactly GED...you wait ages for a bus.... Thanks very much JOHN for bringing the R.BARTLE new book to our attention. The publisher's informaton gives no indication about which aspect of the case the author concentrates on..but it would appear to be a legal treatise. However, the title,encouragingly suggests emphasis on the MURDER itself rather than the TRIAL(?). It may perhaps,not add any new theories/facts,but I for one will buy anything new on the case...I even bought TOM SLEMEN's latest fantasy. l was pleased with the MURPHY book at the time ..if only for the bomb-shell about JULIA'S age..though I could never agree with his conclusion that WHW personally killed JULIA & then coolly set off on his abortive tram journey! I'm still convinced this is impossible for all the many reasons we've stated previously!! Though,nowadays,as you know,I cannot rule out WHW's involvement in his wife's killing using R.G.PARRY as Qualtrough & possibly J.MARSDEN as the hit-man(perhaps clearer when I've read John's book!!) Maybe by the time the 81st anniversary comes around, we will all have a new view on who killed Julia & WHY!! FJumble
I too have just bought Tom Slemen's book - Murder on Merseyside, published by regular Yo Contributor Colin Wilkinson of Bluecoat Press.
There are 24 murder cases covered. Not sure you can do the Julia Wallace one justice in such a short amount of pages but reading it now.
A couple of things ive notice right away is that TS says WHW attended the chess club almost every week though he had missed several weeks before the murder which may prove to be vital (as in would Qualthrough had known he was definitely going that night and thereby receive his message. The chess tie he was due to play meant nothing as he'd missed previous ones and was playing catch up. However, I wonder if this tie HAD to be played by that night or he'd forfeit his place?
TS also says the phone box is in Breck Road which of course it wasn't.
I will report back. What did you conclude of it Ian, I notice you call it a fantasy.
Just to clear one thing up Mark. TS did not say JSJ sent WHW around the front of the house again, that was my mistake.
The final fixtures for the championship were February 21st so I would have assumed the members had up to then to resolve their sequences of matches. Wallace wasn't the only erratic member to visit the club. Others also missed some games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
It was on the corner of Rochester Road and Breck Road so technically he is half right!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Thanks GedQuote:
Originally Posted by Ged
[QUOTE=Ged;375366]I too have just bought Tom Slemen's book - Murder on Merseyside, published by regular Yo Contributor Colin Wilkinson of Bluecoat Press.
A couple of things ive notice right away is that TS says WHW attended the chess club almost every week though he had missed several weeks before the murder which may prove to be vital (as in would Qualthrough had known he was definitely going that night and thereby receive his message. The chess tie he was due to play meant nothing as he'd missed previous ones and was playing catch up. However, I wonder if this tie HAD to be played by that night or he'd forfeit his place?
I will report back. What did you conclude of it Ian, I notice you call it a fantasy.
Hi Ged.. YES as a pure "pot-boiler" its not a bad read..I'm actually interested in one or two of the other murders covered(ie.The Hanging-Boy Case in Edge Lane in 1948) With his WALLACE chapter, I wish he'd have just covered the case with as much as is known at present..instead of trying to solve it...especially fingering the JOHNSTON's..with no evidence whatsoever... he might just as well as "fingered" poor Alan Close the milkboy or Hubert Moore ..hence in my opinion... "FANTASY"!! Your point about WHW not being too regular at the Chess Club in the previous weeks is a good one.You know I feel PARRY is QUALTROUGH(he ticks all the boxes!)...but if he was in league with WHW,then he must have had prior knowledge that WHW would be presnt about 7.45..& so the alibi begins.... FJumble
Has Rochester Road been renamed? Having a look at the area on google maps and no Rochester road nearby.
Yes it is now Lower Breck Road (the side by the Liverpool Supporters Club)Quote:
Originally Posted by Max
[QUOTE=IAN DAVID FRYER;375415]Hi again GED.I recently picked up a fine 1969 1st edn copy of GOODMAN in nice dustjacket,a book I've been after for a long time.I checked my existing copy & its a 1976 "Revised" edn..though I cant see any difference..no obvious changes to lay-out or Illust etc.I know I have a recent paperback edn. somewhere which might possibly have been updated(?) Anyway,in the back of my old 1976 book I found the TOM SLEMEN original newspaper article from 2001(I cant believe its 10 years ago!!) & the headline screams"WE SOLVE WALLACE MURDER RIDDLE"..which of course is a bit different to the conclusion of his piece in MURDER MERSEYSIDE which ends with : "It would of course be terribly arrogant of me to claim that I had solved the Wallace Murder Case." You're telling me!! IANQuote:
Originally Posted by Ged
I noticed that too Ian. I think Tom uses a bit of poetic licence in his assumptions of what the Johnston's and Wallaces said and thought at times, probably putting his own spin on it. I've added his 'findings' onto the Wallace page on my site simply because I wouldn't do a dis-service to anybody that's had a go at solving the case and it is another avenue that's been explored. As with the other avenues, i've tried not to sway the reader one way or the other so as they can try to make their own minds up.
Looking good! Hope it's ready for Christmas. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JGannon
Good book cover :PDT11
And a bold statement to go with it too 'Finally Solved'. I eagerly await..............
That sounds good. :PDT11
Thanks JOHN..just noticed update...thats even better than Jan....I sure hope its out next month!! I like the dustjacket very much,but what happened to "The Devil In The Detail" title...is it now subtitled on the title page??? IAN(FJumble)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGannon
I'm intrigued what is the other case, as the 50th anniversary of the "Murder in the fog" is in December
Thanks JOHN,thats good,as you know I like the full title!! Your publishers website needs updating as well as it doesnt even mention your new book ...unlike the forthcoming "LEGAL" book. Incidentally,I hope this other January release looks at the trial itself,as that is worth a book on its own!! How on earth Hemmerade got a "GUILTY" verdict on the evidence presented is almost as big a mystery as the killer's identity!!!The jury must have been already convinced it was WHW,because the prosecution certainly proved nothing..Cant wait to read your book..Good Luck with sales..hope its a Best-Seller!! Regards IAN(FJumble)Quote:
Originally Posted by JGannon
The jury was sourced local enough to have read the papers which unlike today, carried the story as it unfolded with no press blackout. I think they did already have their murderer hung.
An index. Something Murphy's was lacking but Goodman's/Wilkes' comes in very handy.
YES,I agree any reference book without an index is troublesome! In anticiapation of JOHN'S new book I have been re-reading some of the earlier pieces on the case..& there are many! The "old-timers" generally adopt the "official police line" that even though it was surely impossible for WHW to have battered JULIA to death,because of the obvious time difficulty & complete lack of blood etc.then he somehow must have done it because it couldnt be anyone else. I have just read the chapter on the case in the MAMMOTH BOOK OF UNSOLVED CRIMES(edited by ROGER WILKES no less!)Its by F.TENNYSON JESSE,from 1951 & states its the first time its been published.Its very good & very fair ..but in conclusion she says he must have done it very quickly ,in a frenzy & washed himself in the sink in the scullery & caught the tram...hmmm It wasnt till GOODMAN(1969) that a viable alternative suspect(Mr.X) was discovered,
because,JG,very sensibly decided from the outset IT COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been WHW, so he concentrated on how/who else could be the murderer.When WILKES in 1981 on Radio City & the subsequent book developed the theme first naming RICHARD GORDON PARRY with Jonathan Goodman,progress was being made...but as JG stresses,they didnt have access to the Police File & crucial WITNESS STATEMENTS. Lets hope THE DEVIL IN THE DETAIL moves things on again.....IAN(FJumble)
I am sure this thread will be resurrected fairly substantially after the release of the 2 new books next month.
I still cannot see past Parry due to the findings of Goodman/Egan when confronting him nor the statements of the Atkinsons or John Parkes who all must have been lying. Then there is Parry's false statement?
The police made plenty of mistakes. Those still thinking it was WHW could say the police may have botched up the examinations of the bath/sink and that he did have a wash?
Thanks GED .. lets hope the thread goes mad again shortly! YES, as you know I too cant see past PARRY as Qualtrough..he ticks every box... As we've said previously,it only need one witness to spot the most distinctive figure of WHW leaving the phone-box..& he was a very familiar sight locally...yet the police couldnt find one and yet they made no effort to trace fellow passengers on the tram going to the chess club meeting! Poor LILY HALL was adamant she saw,& clearly recognised WHW talking to another man just prior to the murder..shame she broke down so badly in the witness box.
One good point JESSE makes is that the cold aloof WHW was not liked & was instantly disliked by the jury & that it was a bad mistake by the defence to allow him into the box to give evidence. IAN(FJumble)
They didn't time his tram journey to the chess club on the Qualtrough phone call night either.
Aside all that. They obviously didn't check out Parry's statement against lily Lloyd's nor take Parkes' statement seriously - including checking the grids (nor Close's) timings - probably because they thought they had their man and anything else was just in the way of that agenda.
GED,I wonder if the defence itself tried to find any passengers/witnesses on the journey to North John Street...if they had, surely it could have weakened the police's belief that WHW was himself Qualtrough-though I think BEATTIE did that for them anyway at the trial. Certainly the Radio re-enactment clearly implied strong police pressure by Hubert Moore being applied to young Alan Close to bring his timing back to 6.30 ish to make the scenario just about possible......possible maybe, but still, I would suggest, only by someone like Spring-Heeled Jack & with the luck of the devil!!! Incidentally,going back to JESSE,I remember MARKR covering the "washing away of the blood" at Wolverton Street by pointing out that,on this point alone the police were very thorough..removing all the pipes,toilet fittings,drains etc....and, of course, even in those days the benzadrine test was very accurate.We can surely safely assume NOBODY washed away any blood in the house itself. IAN(FJumble)
Yet the police had used the very toilet upon entering the address that a blood clot was later found on. I too think the defence could have been more thorough for WHW, especially in checking out Parry's/Lloyd's statements themselves after WHW pointed him out as a suspect. Perhaps only if Parkes and the Atkinson's had made their findings known to to Wallace's counsel too instead of just the police who poo pooed it.
As you said earlier Ged, the Police believed they had the right person, and failed to pursue other evidence. I am looking forward to reading John's book and hope that new information comes to light.
Having said this, the knowledge on this thread is brilliant - and I've learned so much.
Just been reading on a genealogy site that the surname Qualtrough derives from the Isle of Man and means Son of Walter.
Wasn't the other neighbours name Walter Holmes?
ALAN CLOSE was 16 in Jan.1931..so not a child. Going back to the pressure the police applied to CLOSE to change his timing back 15 min.to 6.30 pm. Its interesting to compare the contrast between the cocky "I'm the missing link" ALAN CLOSE when with the group of fellow youngsters on the Wed.evening ...to the surly hostile young man who gave evidence in court..where he completely denied everything he had said previously to the other children concerning the timing & events on the murder night.As we know,poor Alan Close lost his life in WW2,but it would have been great if he could have been asked why the complete difference in the two versions of the murder night events.All 3 of the children(14 year olds,so not primary school age)gave evidence that CLOSE clearly told them he delivered the fresh milk to JULIA at about 6.45pm.Of course the ECHO had wrongly printed that WHW had left home at 6.15 & McFaul originally had the time of death at 6.00 at the latest..later brought forward to suit the police's "it must be Wallace" solution.It seems clear to me that JULIA was therefore murdered AFTER 6.45..and therefore AFTER WHW had left for his tram journey to Menlove Gdns...IAN(FJumble)
I didn't know about the Echo misprinting the time WHWleft the house or if i've read it, i've forgotten it but don't think I have. That of course could further have swayed the jury.
He was 13.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
Thanks MARK.He was actually 14 according to GOODMAN(P.80)I was confusing him with the newspaper boy,ALLISON WILDMAN who was 16. GED.on the next page(81) at the very bottom,it states that the LIVERPOOL ECHO(21.1.31)said that"Mr Wallace left home at 6.15 and got back at 7.45" sic & sic again!! Too my mind IF he had got back at 7.45..he'd be right in the frame...IAN(FJumble)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
Hi all,
Forgive me - I truly thought this was a forum - a place for discussion! Mark, am so sorry mate, I had no idea I was intruding here. Wishing all a wonderful Festive Season.
Warmest
John Gannon
Ged you better remove the police photos from your Wallace Page :slywink:
Hi MARKR.has something gone wrong with the thread,or is it just my computor? I was just going to ask you about the letter from Goodman & query your post about someone called KATE(?)..but its gone completely...have we got a glich somewhere? IAN(FJUmble)
Hi again MARK.I think you may have tried to send me a personal note(?)..but.if so, it didnt get thru...my computor seems to have blocked it.IAN(FJumble)
I keep reading ALAN CLOSE's testimony/witness statements..which as we we know vary markedly. he told 4 youngsters(Elsie Wright,Kenneth Caird, & 2 newspaper boys Harold Jones & Douglas Metcalf) that he'd seen & spoken to JULIA at a "Quarter to Seven" & then, in front of them all, he did his "I'm the missing link"piece(seems hard to believe all four children could make this up) ...yet in court he was surly,very hostile, totally uncooperative, AND DENIED everything saying, when pressed, "No.between 6.30 & 6.45"
(Harold Jones seems to have been missed off the list as OLIVER only says 3 witness's) I wonder what the 4 youngsters attitude was to ALAN CLOSE was after the trial..because he'd called the all liars..did they speak to him again or what...does anybody know? IAN
It's not difficult to think that perhaps his brief told him he'd best just go along with the police as 'forensic experts' cannot be wrong and it'd make you look silly if you stuck to your 6.45 story and perhaps you were mistaken (even though he knew he wasn't and the recently set clock on Holy Trinity bore this out)
No doubt the police and prosecution also poured scorn on his version of events bringing his young age into it etc etc.
Hi Ian
Yes you're right regarding the youngsters with Close. Their testimonies were that Close said 'a quarter to seven' and Close said he said 'between 6.30 and a quarter to seven.' I have always thought of the irony of the police/Prosecution trying to get the time back as much as possible. If Close wouldn't have called at No 29 they would have been pushing the time forward in order to give Wallace adequate time to have carried the killing out etc. :smirk:
As with regards any subsequent relationships between the kids I'm not sure... Maybe Close would have said that he was 'advised' by the police to stick to his guns so to speak, and wasn't necessarily calling them liars but they might have heard it wrong (which I don't believe they did!)
Thanks MARK..Yes,thats a good point you make about the police having to revise the time of the murder..because of course they were told initially by the "forensic experts"..she was dead before 6 pm.They then had to do an about turm when ALAN CLOSE said he spoke to her at 7.45 pm.I wonder if the big age discrepancy-McFall being told she was in her early fifties-(but Murphy,in 1981,first discovered she was actually almost 70))had a bearing on his rigour mortis estimate? Perhaps in his experince the frail aged body suggested death had occurred much earlier than in fact it had?
Just going back to the testimony of the other children regarding what CLOSE actually said the day after the murder...WILKES just refers to the 3 children all being totally united & unmoved by what ALAN CLOSE told them..he spoke to her at 6.45 ..but on checking there was of course the 4th person HAROLD JONES(called DAVID by R.F.HUSSEY)who was "over 20" but delivered the Echo to 29, Wolverton St.at 6.35(according to HUSSEY changed from earlier 6.30)but "I see nobody"...perhaps he should have seen the milkboy if he was actually changing the milk at about 6.30 or 6.35....it was clearly LATER...WILDMAN(16) was of course only a few feet away from CLOSE & said CLOSE was at No.29 at 6.37pm. All this goes al long way to convince me that JULIA WAS still alive & reading the spread out Echo when WHW left for Menlove Gardens at about 6.50(as he must have left no later!)..IAN(FJumble)