The more you look into it, the whole scenario doesn't play out to it being WHW. He could have done away with her less messily shall we say.
Printable View
The more you look into it, the whole scenario doesn't play out to it being WHW. He could have done away with her less messily shall we say.
GED..YES, of course as has been well mentioned previously,WHW was an amateur scientist..so if he had planned to silence JULIA,some kind of "chemical" solution to his problem would seem more obvious....rather than a crude battering! Nearly every writer on the case & there have been many..seems to hit a brick wall with 1) WALLACE could not possibly have battered JULIA 2) IT must be WHW,because nobody else would have wanted her dead!!
Unfortunately,most of the writers up to & including WILKES did not have access to the Police Files & of course,as we now know,the witness statements tell a vey different story. Lets hope the 2 forthcoming books move us on a little more...IAN(FJumble)
As I can't see past Parry's involvement somewhere along the line.
1) His statement for the phone call night not measuring up to Lily Lloyd's or her mothers.
2) John Parkes 'statement' to the police about the bloodied glove - did it get as far as a statement - would Parkes had known there was a grid outside a doctors in Priory road etc and are we questioning the integrity of the Atkinson's too.
3) Parry's demeanour to RW Egan and Goodman about WHW - sexually odd etc..... and mentioning he promised his dad to keep sctum and not for a thousand pounds etc - and 'there's a lot more I could say..
Then I have to ask myself.
Did he hate WHW enough to arrange the murder of Julia due to:
1) His being dismissed/let go from the Pru because of the premiums shortage - noticed and reported by WHW.
2) Some news that was about to come out about his 'making music with Julia'
3) because he was rumbled by her during a robbery at the house.
Either way it seems an accomplice was used?
[QUOTE=Ged;385965]As I can't see past Parry's involvement somewhere along the line.
Thanks GED. I think you've already agreed with me that PARRY was QUALTROUGH(P.83-#826 of this thread)...good grief its 2 years ago!! I know "acrosstheuniverse" for one at least ...also agrees..does MARK? Hopefully, we may get more on the bloodied mit & perhaps on JOHN PARKES claims in JOHN GANNONS book...he hints as such on his review of his book on the BEATLES blog.site(?) On your 3 points about PARRY'S attitude to WHW,its obvious he didnt like WALLACE,it seems very few people did! I cant really believe the "making music with Julia" was any more perhaps than RGP boasting & showing off his singing talents by singing to Julia's piano playing...she was nearing 70 for goodness sake! Again,I think the "robbery" was just staged...poorly! The "accomplice" is seeming more & more likely....IAN(FJumble)
AMAZON have details of the forthcoming books on the case & are quoting 28/2/2012 for release date on both titles.The second book is called "THE TELEPHONE MURDER-The Mysterious Death Of Julia Wallace" & is a H/B priced at £18.99. The details suggest perhaps it isnt the legalistic approach(ie the trial),I was hoping for(?),but it gives WHW as dying in 1953...hmmm
Some of the prices of earlier books on the murder are eye-opening GOODMAN is quoted at £72.95 & that is for the reprinted PAPERBACK edition!! ROWLAND is £24.99(No Dustwrapper)..Even MURPHY is expensive now & that was remaindered(ie sold off cheap)
Thanks Ian.
1953? I wonder if that is Amazon getting it wrong...I would certainly hope so...otherwise it doesn't look good for the book! I've seen Wallace's death listed as 1953 in several other published accounts down the years.
The W.F. Wyndham-Brown book costs about £200 in todays market. F.J.P. Veale's extremely rare account will set the collector back about £120. Serious money!
Just ordered Bartle from the Book Depository for £14.99 including free shipping...
http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Tele.../9780854901029
:PDT11
Btw, the cheapest I've seen Gannon's book is £11.21 at WHSmith (for instore delivery)
http://www.whsmith.co.uk/CatalogAndS...=9781445605067
Otherwise Amazon at £12.74 inc free shipping
Well my hint for book tokens for xmas paid off so i'm just waiting for the publications to hit the shelves now ;)
There was a murder in Waltham Road where 42 year old Gaynor McGlynn was stabbed to death. Waltham Road is the first on the right on Townsend Lane after Rochester/Lower Breck Road and barely a hundred yards from where Box 1627 stood.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...0252-30020740/
Bill Morrison died on 7th December. He produced the Who Killed Julia? radio programme for City in 1981.
Morrison is in the middle (standing). Bottom left is Chris Bond who played the part of John Sharpe Johnston in the radio production.
Attachment 24113
Something to be considered that I think rules out a botched robbery and indicates a planned murder.
I know this is not a new point as I think it was mentioned in the Radio City Broadcast..but why could the caller if he knew Wallace was at the chess club, and he DID rely on that for the plan to work, why couldn't he just rob Julia that night (the Monday.) The one day difference at best to possibly maximize profits (before Wallace's Wednesday collection) hardly seems like a reason.
Not only that, but I think this more than just indicating a planned murder, indicated Wallaces' involvement. Wallace could much more likely be counted on to be at the chess club to receive the message (and remember even though he hadn't attended recently, the caller sure thought that he would be there, since he went ahead with the plan, yet another fishy aspect). Not only that but he would be at the chess club for a decently long and fixed period of time, rather than an unknown period of time searching for a fake address, if he went at all.
The phone call and Qualtrough plot is too contrived for Wallace not to have been behind it. It strains credulity to believe otherwise. That's the mystery for which this case is famous; it stems from the impossibility of the timing of Wallace being the killer, yet everything else points to a contrived plot by him. Thus leading us irresistibly to the conclusion it was a hired job.
So are you saying WHW is the murderer or just behind it? Who was Qulatrough?
I'm saying he was behind it at the very least. I think the timing and lack of blood spatter makes it difficult for him to have committed the crime. I believe Qualtrough was Parry (mention of girl's 21st, when his girlfriend was 21 and he was organizing a birthday party with friends that night (part of his alibi) ...also it was his birthday January 12th. So Wallace was the mastermind and Parry was Qualtrough. The real murderer could be anyone, I'll wait to read the upcoming book to see if the evidence is strong enough to convince me of Marsden. But The Wallace mastermind, Parry Qualtrough (but not murderer) theory is really the only conclusion which fits the facts.
What was Wallace's motive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse
There was a motive for Parry or someone else in the know financial gain expecting a bumper monthly premium payout, but what did Wallace gain from his wifes death..................
I just can't see a WHW and RGP collaboration in this unless there was a blackmail by one against the other that we don't know about for some reason. Introducing yet a third player (the murderer) into the equation too seems just too complicated and messy.
Why would Parry point the finger at himself being Qualtrough by mentioning the obvious 21st birthday party connection - best not over elaborate and mention what it was for surely?
There is the new found evidence of Parry's incorrect statement for the phone call night - unforgivably edited from James Murphy's book if John Gannon is to be beleived.
The bumper monthly premium payout never happened as WHW had been ill and never collected. WHW is not known to have gained anything from JW's death.
Parry was desperately in need of money we all know that. It's obvious Wallace didn't make the call, yet Parry was almost certainly involved somehow...really guys just think about this a little.
Remember Julia was killed bending to light the fireplace...no signs of struggle...so random robbery...no way. It was someone she knew and let in without a fuss, not a random 'Qualtrough' who could count on not being recognized. Just think; if the robbery was pulled off, Julia and William would surely know they 'had been had'. And look to indentify and apprehend Qualtrough.
There are many reasons why an ersatz intellectual like Wallace might want to knock off his elderly, 'intellectually inferior' wife who it seems had lied rather badly about her age. Motive doesn't need to be proved, and it isn't enough to convict to say 'who else would have wanted her dead but him?" but you guys are coming up with the opposite argument. The truth is if we make motive an issue at all, Wallace's motive is the only one that makes any sense in an obvious murder plot.
A. Qualtrough didn't know for certain if Wallace was going to the chess club. "But he will be there?" he asked Beattie.
B. So Monday was too early to commit the crime. Wallace could have arrived back from who-knows-where at any time.
C. Secondly, an essential part of the Qualtrough/Menlove Gardens plot was that Julia got to hear about it, so the robber could come knocking at the door the next night - his only chance of admittance being his claim to be Qualtrough.
D. So Tuesday it had to be. It was the only chance of getting Wallace far out of the way AND setting up Julia for the sucker-punch.
Murder is usually committed by either a family member or someone known to the the victim, random murders are the exception not the rule.
If Parry had arrived with a companion or on his own , the idea keep Julia busy whilst companion or Parry if on his own goes to toilet and grabs cash, One of them might have just seen a opportunity to hit her when she turned her back and bent to light the fire.....again a lot murders are spur of the moment acts gone wrong.
As for Julias age I think that is a red herring we look at the age gap through 20th century eyes, they were Victorians and large age gaps with married couples were quite common.
I think you're nearer the mark Rod. We could either say Julia knew of the up and coming visit to Menlove either because the Wallace's conversed, she was bound to ask where William was going that night etc - or it was so that when Qualtrough called unexpectantly on tuesday, he would be let in to wait to William's return.
We could go further and say the stranger then planned to do the sneak robbery only and it did go wrong when she spotted him and he had to commit the murder or that the murder was planned all along and the robbery was just done to make it look like that was the sole intention?
Either way, and especially because of the false statement given to the police which should have been checked out more thoroughly, Parry has to be involved. I'm thinking Parry, the amatuer actor who expected WHW to be at the cafe is Qualtrough - the false statement fits it too. But, he is not the murderer but did pick him up afterwards and dispose of the weapon which then fits with John Parkes/the Atkinson's story.
If only the police had taken that seriously, they may have searched those Priory Road drains and this thread would be a whole lot shorter ;)
Useless nob heads !Quote:
If only the police had taken that seriously, they may have searched those Priory Road drains and this thread would be a whole lot shorter
Someone please answer me how Qualtrough could expect to get away with the robbery...how would the Wallace's not know was up...it just makes no sense at all. Anyway this is beating a dead horse; everyone's entitled to their own opinions
Come on, whether they would get away with it is irrelevant. Crimes like this happen all the time. Conmen and women who prey on old folk, gain entrance to their homes on a pretext, then rob them. Occasionally it goes disastrously wrong and a murder occurs.
The real question is: which strategem would offer the greatest chance of success?
Well, a person who knew the Wallaces well, the layout of their home, etc. might enlist an accomplice to do the deed, while staying firmly in the background themselves (for obvious reasons.)
Someone like Parry, for instance...
No, it matters whether they would get away with it. This isn't just a planned robbery, where I would obviously agree that there are poorly thought out plans/high risk ones. This is a carefully crafted, bordering on ingenious plot that was started the night before with a phone call.Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby
To have this careful plot lead to: an accomplice of Parry is going to go posing as Qualtrough, rip Julia off, and leave undetected never to be heard of again and share the proceeds with Parry, while in the meantime the Wallace's forget about it and Julia is unable to finger the man just makes no sense at all to me and is not in the character of the plot. (Remember the man is already in trouble even if he is unable to steal; Parry would have dragged him into this Qualtrough scam.) Why have such an intricate plot for such a lame, risky, and measly reward. Why complicate things so much and 'go to such problems?!?'
I admit I am somewhat prejudiced as I have some inside info about Gannon's upcoming book. I have no doubt whatsoever Wallace was the mastermind.
Your 'inside info' sounds juicy ATU but we can only go on what's known and published at the moment, or I can anyway.
If Q is the robber (assuming robbery was initially at one stage the sole intention) it could well be that whether it be Parry or someone else, they planned to get WHW out of the house so that they could carry out the robbery more easily. Parry would have known to expect a nice pile of monthly money, he might not have known about WHW having been off ill - but wasn't the monthly collection the week later anyway?
The robbery could be achieved by calling upon Julia and saying WHW got it wrong and could he come in and wait for his return. It could of course be nothing of the sort. Isn't the multiple possibilities something that makes this case so intriguing.
Unless blackmail was involved, can you see Parry, who was grassed up to the Pru bosses by WHW and who called him sexually odd and told RWE in 1966 that he knew a lot more but promised his dad that not for 1000 pounds would he talk about it, being involved with WHW?
JG's book might well change my mind, but until then...........;)
I don't think the ingenuity of the crime can reveal per se what type of crime it was intended to be. There are sophisticated frauds, clumsy frauds, clever murders and stupid murders.
No reason why a sophisticated fraud should not turn into a stupid murder, either. Perhaps all the more so if two people were involved...
I do hope Gannon is not going for a variation on "The Insurance Man" book. A huge disappointment, if so. It's a ludicrous theory.
I have to say that my first thoughts are that WHW, Parry and Marsden working together on this murder is not only unnecessarily messy but highly unlikely due to the relationships between the 3 beforehand.
I take it nobody is giving any credence to Tom Slemen's theory that it was John Johnston?
That theory to me exonerates Parry which I cannot see myself.
Also, was it such a masterplan or just bad detective work with an attitude of 'we have our man' despite other possible avenues to explore which weren't - even including his route and timing to the chess club on the Q night.
Why would Wallace, even before he was arrested himself, try to finger Parry? He would only be putting a noose around his own neck, as well as Parry's, if he was truly the prime mover of the plot to kill Julia.
It's nonsense.
Wallace, after his conviction was overturned, continued to accuse Parry in his private diary. He would have no earthly reason to do this, if they really were co-conspirators.
I'd love to know where Winifred Duke got the name 'Harris' from as early as 1934. Wallace was dead by then, so presumably not from him. But from whom? Someone in the Police? John Parkes? Or did she have access to Wallace's diaries? That is a fascinating question...
Wallace's diary is obviously written for an audience...think outside the box fellows.
This is getting silly. If Wallace wanted an audience he could have confessed to his part in the murder - after his conviction was quashed - and had the satisfaction of watching Parry & whoever hanged for a crime he had orchestrated. [there being no double jeopardy in 1931].
That would truly have been The Perfect Murder....
The Qualtrough plan was obviously a murder plot from the get go; your planned robbery theory with Parry as the mastermind is silly. You've been stating it or some version of it for as long as I can remember and don't answer criticisms of it... I still don't get why they couldn't just rob Wallace whenever Parry knew he was out (like the night previous at the chess club)...and also I don't getwhy Parry couldn't come and do it himself. The crime scene indicated a poorly staged robbery...Murphy may have made critical mistakes; but he pretty much eviscerated the planned robbery scenario **** well in his book.
WHW could even admitted to the murder or to his part in the murder (with Parry as an accomplice) on his deathbed, never mind not having to face double jeapardy. WHW used to go on quite walks with Julia into the park, he had an amatuer laboratory - far easier ways for her to meet her end than to be bludgeoned with blood everywhere.
I like Murphy's book for its atmosphere, he also discovered the age gap (even if the captions to one of the pics in the book showing the marriage cert is incorrect) but i'm afraid his cherry picking of the Parry statement to provide the conclusion that the murderer was WHW was unprofessional and as bad a failure to investigate all possibilities as was the police in 1931. Murphy overly makes too much of it being dark on that night and criminal profiling too. If we now add what we know about Parry's true statement into that book, it gives a whole new dimension to the conclusion.
I did once think that the murder could have been commited at anytime WHW was known to be out, even on the monday night while he was at the chess club but can only come to the conclusion that if he'd just gone there to play the game and get back home to his ill wife as soon as possible, this may only have allowed a shorter period of time to commit the murder.
I'm still at odds to how the murderer knew for sure that WHW got the message and actually went to Allerton. It would have meant two vantage points having to be covered and in the fog and dark too.
If you start with the viewpoint that this was an intended robbery, you don't have to beat yourself up over all of that. At every stage there was a risk-free getout.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
1. If Wallace didn't get the message, game over. Qualtrough would have found Wallace and Julia at 29 Wolverton Street on the Tuesday, but could however have talked his way out of the situation, alas empty-handed...
2. If Wallace didn't go to Allerton, game over. Qualtrough would have found Wallace and Julia at 29 Wolverton Street on the Tuesday, but could however have talked his way out of the situation, alas empty-handed...
3. If Wallace went to Allerton but Julia refused to admit Qualtrough, game over. Qualtrough could however have talked his way out of the situation, alas empty-handed...
In which case Julia Wallace might have lived on in obscurity, and perhaps herself have eventually forgotten the name Qualtrough....
The crime could only proceed if ALL pieces fell into place. If they didn't - well, there was a risk-free exit available at every step, and back to the drawing board...
The tragedy was that they all DID fall into place - but instead of a paltry, trivial robbery, something went disastrously wrong, and Julia lost her life in an extremely brutal manner.
As an aside, Julia must have been a smart cookie, and smarter than her husband ever gave her credit for. Ironically, her intelligence would cost her her life...
And, btw, in terms of keeping tabs on Wallace, to anticipate/confirm his movements on Monday/Tuesday, it goes without saying that TWO pairs of eyes would be more useful than one...
How could Parry talk his way out of it....and Wallace might and probably would get the message eventually. Parry got booted from the Pru for stealing..if he was gonna rob Wallace and his wife, he might try with a plot that had a chance of working out. Not go to absurd lengths that gained barely any advantage over just randomly coming in and robbing them to gain a measly profit, with incredible risk.
Your theory is so implausible on so many levels. Even if you think Parry was behind it, why then not do it himself? How could he get someone else to go along with, be the guilty face (and the crime assuming it went off without a hitch and perfectly (huge assumption there) WOULD be reported and he would numero uno suspect.)
The reason why this has been such a mystery is the juxtaposition of Wallace's seeming alibi based on time, blood spatter avoidance, and the missing weapon with the fact that the Qualtrough plan was so obviously a contrived murder plot.
"How could Parry talk his way out of it?"
Try to keep up. Parry wouldn't have had to talk his way out of anything, being the mastermind in the background...
It was his accomplice (Mr."X"), who the Wallaces didn't know from Adam, who could easily "talk his way out", if the cards indicated "Game Over", at any of the steps I indicated above.
The tragedy was that the signals indicated "Game On", but the game turned to unexpected murder....
How sure are you of your theory, Rod? I mean, what percentage value would you assign to it.
It's the only one that is compatible with all the known facts*, and does not venture into the realm of pure speculation/fantasy#...
* including Parkes' 'testimony'
# Slemen, Gannon?, "The Insurance Man"?
I'd give my theory about a 90% chance of being, in broad brush terms, correct.
to wit:-
Parry: the Mastermind
Mr. X: the Instrument (of a robbery, which unexpectedly and catastrophically escalated to Murder)
Okay, 90 percent?
I'd give my theory a 95 percent chance of being correct...with Wallace's guilt at about 99.9. I'd give your theory 0.05 percent chance.
"I'd give my theory a 95 percent chance of being correct"
Whatever. Can we have a full exposition again, so we can pick it to pieces?
By the way, the diary which you use as evidence against my theory has a kicker that will stun all of you. You know my theory already. Wallace is the mastermind...Parry made the call...Marsden did the deed.
“Never forget that Wallace was a chessplayer. ... I should say that, broadly speaking, any man with common sense would have said that Wallace’s alibi was too good to be true, but that is not an argument you can hang a man on.”’ -Justice Wright the presiding trial judge who summed up for acquittal.