The above quote is unsourced, and quite possibly apocryphal. Even if genuine it's at least 50 years old hardly relevant in the light of more recently disclosed facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse
Printable View
The above quote is unsourced, and quite possibly apocryphal. Even if genuine it's at least 50 years old hardly relevant in the light of more recently disclosed facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse
I hope any new found diary 'kicker' can also be proven as it is known that what still existed of WHW diary had already been gone over. I would hope at least a copy of the relevant entry in WHW's handwriting would be supplied in the book as that would surely be critical evidence against him. I am all for anything that brings the mystery ever closer to a conclusion.
Oh dear...Yes Ged. Others now putting their beliefs in another diary. I thought we'd had enough with this one :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Attachment 24173
Btw Ged, I went to the National Archives, Kew in November. I copied the complete Wallace files. I also managed to view the Who Killed Julia Wallace? docu-drama. I'm hoping to add a chapter on this to the book.
Regards, Mark
Really enjoyed catching up on all the recent posts!! For what its worth,I find my self agreeing 100% with ATU..sorry ROD,but I've never thought robbery as a motive, was anything other than a poor smokescreen! PARRY ticks ALL the boxes as Qualtrough.WHW could not possibly have killed JULIA himself,though I think lying about her age is at least a possible motive..but we really dont know what the REAL situation was between the "happy" couple do we...I agree the diary was written purely for "public consumption" as were his strange JOHN BULL reflections(?) Nothing we know about WHW would suggest he would sensationally exclaim "YES,it was me all along"...seems totally out of character too me & in reality,very few aquitted murderers admit fully to guilt afterwards(offhand, I can only recall Donald Hume)
Just reverting back to the time JULIA was last seen alive...presumably JAMES ALLISON WILDMAN is now dead,or well into his 90's(?)... I note that James Murphy in his book mentions a conversatuion with WILDMAN at the Childwall Fiveways pub.on 4th Dec.1995(P.216).I wish we had a full transcript,because I've just found a newspaper cutting from about 10 years ago from J A WILMANN(sic)Green Lane headed THE PAPER BOY SPEAKS OUT which states that ALAN CLOSE stated that he handed her the milk at 6.30 and that it was the paperboy who was able to prove to the defending solicitors that the time was 6.45..how did he know,he WAS the the paperboy....IAN (FJumble)
He died in 2005.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
That thing came out in 1975. I can't remember if I watched it or not. I was only ten. But I DO remember watching something about Wallace as a child. The final scene remains with me. It was of Wallace on a pushbike(!) leaving Wolverton Street to the scornful glare of neighbours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
Was that the same fillum?
I would love to have known what the first policeman on the scene was going to discuss some years later with the WHW trial solicitor (was it), only death intervened.
"I would love to have known what the first policeman on the scene was going to discuss some years later with the WHW trial solicitor (was it), only death intervened."
Well it would scarcely be something pointing towards Wallace as the killer. Something pointing away, or to someone else in particular, I would have thought...
I think so too otherwise why would it be such a thing of value. It would be of no value to say, we had our man, it was Wallace.
It looks like a conspiracy theory but Wilkes reporting of the connection between Moore and the Parry's might hold more water that we'd first give credit to. The police were certainly blinkered in not wanting to investigate Parry further though his sister maintains they went right through his car and clothes.
"offhand, I can only recall Donald Hume."
Tony Mancini (Brighton Trunk murder No.2) was another, but in his case the confession probably still didn't amount to a confession of murder...
---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:07 PM ----------
The dying copper may have wanted to clear his conscience, that yes, Parry was deliberately ignored by corrupt superiors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
It had to be something as startling as that...
The sooner we solve this crime the better !:rolleyes:
It's amazing how much interest there still is in this unsolved murder. This thread was started January 2007.
Actually I thought it would have been a bit longer. Anyway 138 pages down the line and still going strong. :)
Imagine if we suddenly found out who did it ! :surprised
There'd be a stunned silence probably! ;) and would the thread grind to a halt? :)
ROD, the quote of Justice Wright was in a news article supplied by Jonathan Goodman who believed in Wallace's innocence. It almost certainly wasn't apocryphal. Anyways, it was just an interesting quote, not sure why you have to insult is 'irrelevant.' Especially since pages back you quoted Justice Wright yourself summing up for acquittal. I'm entitled to quote anything; I didn't say it proved anything did I?
MARK, at least have the courage and manners to address me instead of just referring to me as 'another'. How long have you been writing a book for now? Are you any closer to having any theory on the case than you were 10 years ago?
I think I'll be taking a break from the forum for a while unless anything interesting or new comes up...too many people want to insult others ideas or laugh at them, while promoting old, implausible ideas that have led nowhere in almost 80 years or just sitting on the sidelines nitpicking.
War has broken out, get Sherlock quick !!
MARK,
everyone knows all the current facts that you are aware of. We've all read the inacityliving page you and GED made. Slemen's theories have been put out there and rightly derided. Another man comes along and before his theory is even out, everyone here is nitpicking, making fun of it, insulting those who give it any credence etc. Wait for the book...read it...make up your mind....the negative attitude on this forum is amazing.
Anyone is entitled to believe what they wish, but so many here won't even consider other trains of thought. Maybe not such a bad idea when Rod's theory is 'Parry and another did it.' and yours is 'I don't know but look at how stupid and lame others are for trying to solving it.' Rod and you have basically been stating the same stuff for 100+ pages.
It's a bit like a court of law. You have to knock holes in the other fellow's tale to make progress. Don't take it personally. And don't call it nitpicking... It's supposed to be Demolition!
I don't mind anyone debunking any theories I may have as I may well have overlooked something which would make my theory look quite ridiculous in retrospect.
Do we all agree Parry has to be involved?
The Parry/Marsden/Wallace theory is nothing new. As Rod Crosby stated Waterhouse covered it in The Insurance Man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse
You must be joking - I do have a theory - read Murphy's book and you have it. As for the Parry/Marsden scenario - sorry but that is utter nonsense. I've read all the files and there is nothing amongst them to suggest anything other than Wallace being the killer - and Wallace ALONE.
As for taking 10 years to write - it is 7 actually and if you read my posts or knew anything about me you would know that I have always said I would not write a book until I had accessed all the files, which I now have done.
MARK I'm sorry but this is right out of order ..I find your language offensive ..surely a forum is to voice everyones opinion..whether the Senior Members happen to agree or not? What does GED think? I happen not to agree with ROD,who I've met few times & found to be a great lad..but I would never **** him off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark R
What book is "hare-brained" garbage..MURPHY'S(?) ..it cant be GANNON'S,because, unless I've missed something, it hasnt even been published yet(?) Can we please return to sensible discussion & orderly debate! IAN(FJumble)
Yes that's the one.Quote:
Originally Posted by RodCrosby
---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
With respect Ian, you find it offensive yet quote it? You don't find the publishing of photographs of a naked elderly woman on a mortuary table in order to make money offensive? Or the blackening of an innocent man's name offensive?
Yes it is Ian - and I am entitled to mine. You know the saying, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.:slywink:Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------
Certainly not Murphy's...Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 PM ----------
I'm convinced he had nothing to do with it Ged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
My appertite for all these new books on the subject is certainly whetted that's for sure. ;)
Judging by Marks reply, you may need to read them again Ged, as for me, I know nothing of the case and having read many posts on here it hasn't helped me much !!Quote:
My appertite for all these new books on the subject is certainly whetted that's for sure.
Read this then Marty if you want. It's pretty much a combination of Goodman's, Wilkes' and Murphy's findings with just latterly Tom Slemen's theory thrown in to be considered or debunked as you wish and also John Gannon's findings that Murphy unceromoniously edited Parry's monday night statement which for me loses a bit of his credibility. I have not drawn any conclusions, leaving that for the reader and hope not to have swayed anyone by overloading the text with what I think. It's just all the facts.
http://inacityliving.piczo.com/?g=50980053&cr=7
There's a lot of reading to do Ged, will give it another go tomorrow !
With respect Ian, you find it offensive yet quote it? You don't find the publishing of photographs of a naked elderly woman on a mortuary table in order to make money offensive? Or the blackening of an innocent man's name offensive?
Yes it is Ian - and I am entitled to mine. You know the saying, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------
[/COLOR]
Certainly not Murphy's...
---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 PM ----------
I'm convinced he had nothing to do with it Ged.[/QUOTE]
---------- Post added at 10:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 AM ----------
MARKR You obviously have an advanced copy of the forthcoming book by JOHN GANNON,which I havnt!! I didnt know the new book shows JULIA'S corpse on the mortuary slab..are you certain of this?Again,how on earth,can you talk about "blackening an innocent man"(MARSDEN) unless you have read the book...where did you get a copy? I'm so looking forward to getting my copy next month having ordered a copy (thanks to ROD!)..despite your verdict that it is "hare-brained" garbage.
Strange to learn that your personal take on who killed JULIA is MURPHY'S...which of course is the same as HEMMERDE & the police back in 1931..ie WHW battered JULIA naked then,washed himself so completely that not a drop of blood was found..then coolly walked to catch the tram all within a few minutes of JULIA taking in the milk...I cant wait to read your forthcoming book if you can make that posssible!!! IAN(FJumble)
Thanks Marty. Believe me it's a sort of recap/the relevant bits of sort of 3 or 4 books - so hopefully, a lot less reading than it could have been ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty1
I've been told it is do-able in about 3 hours (mind you, he then rang me and asked what it was about) :PDT_Aliboronz_24:
---------- Post added at 11:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 AM ----------
Murphy's was my first book on the subject after vaguely remembering the man from the pru dramatisation and the Radio City re-enactment/phone-in etc. It was all I had to go on until I looked into it a bit more seriously but even then, although I like the book for its atmosphere and new findings I could not bring myself to come to the same conclusion as to the murderer. Now, i'm even more sure the book reaches the incorrect conclusion but i'm still open minded as to the actual mechanics of what was done, by whom and how. Isn't that just what makes it so intriguing, the facts there's two sides to almost every aspect of the case.
HNW Ged...I agree with your take on MURPHY..I devoured it in 2001 on publication & I was very happy with it initially..especially JULIA's age...but I lost faith in it as soon as he reverted to the old chestnut "that it must have been WHW,so I'll make the facts suite this theory"like Hubert MOORE,HEMMERDE SAYERS et al(& now MARKR!) He relies far too much on modern "offender profiling"(DOUGLAS) and his notion that WHW had a quick bath afterwards (especially the "wet" nailbrush-see P.176) is ridicules.Just refer to Home Office pathologist Charles St Hill in WILKES'S 1980's book (or on the actual RADIO CITY phone in) "the complete absence of blood on WALLACE is enough to convince me"(that WHW didnt batter JULIA). MARKR now thinks PARRY wasnt involved..hmm...IAN(FJumble)
If Parry isn't as guilty as hell of being involved somewhere along the line then he's doing a good job of being one of those maniacs who try to put themselves in the firing line. I don't believe Tom Slemen's take on this murder but he explains Parry's actions away as being one of these such maniacs (there were two others who admitted to the murder too). However, Parry couldn't have known the police were going to botch up investigating him when he gave the false alibi for the phone call night. That lie alone puts him in the frame as being involved for me.
Thanks GED.I agree with you that PARRY must be Qualtrough,even disregarding his phoney alibi........it is too far fetched to imagine 52 year old WHW ringing the Chess Club & convincing a man he knew well ...BEATTIE himself said "it would be a great stretch of the imagination for me to say it was anything like that"(Wallace's voice)...and drawing attention in the telephone exchange by drawling "CAFAY"
..........................WALLACE? no chance......PARRY..most certainly!! IAN(FJUmble)
I haven't got an advanced copy Ian. I haven't got the Slemen one either. Ged kindly sent me it. I have all the books/files on Wallace that I need. In everything I have accessed/read on this case there is nothing that even remotely implicates Joe Marsden. These allegations are completely unfounded. If a member of your family was accused of a heinous crime with no proof whatsoever, I'm sure you would deem it unacceptable. I know I certainly would. I can see why others want an angle/suspect to pin it on but I am not of that mentality. Of course I accept people's opinions on who they think it is/might be. The true crime book world is full of it - the Ripper/Whitechapel Murders notably - that case has practically a new book (and suspect) out on average once a month.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
I have been given permission to use the mortuary photographs in the book but wouldn't even consider using them. I have too much respect for the victim/family.
Wrong Ian - MarkR has never believed it was Parry in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
I have respect for those on this thread that clearly know every in and out of this case except all of them lack in one thing - the identity of the murderer for sure. The fact that there are those with all that knowledge stored that still come to different conclusions make this mystery what it is. After learning of Murphy's editing of the Parry alibi according to the Gospel of St John (Gannon that is) ;) I still wasn't totally sure to trust everything I read, JG could be adding that piece into the statement to make it fit his conclusion - just like Murphy edited it - (if he did) - if you get what I mean.
I've met and do trust Mark though and he tells me that having now been to Kew, he confirms that Murphy did edit that statement either knowingly or unknowingly - but it was edited.
I can trust Mark's collation of the facts and he tells me he's found nothing to incriminate Marsden then I believe him unless there is some other information lurking somewhere that John G has access to. If the diary entry ATU alludes to can be proven - and this theory of blackmail of not allowing Marsden to marry into money unless he agrees to be part of this murder plot also carries more weight than imagination alone then I don't mind being swayed in another direction.
Just to clarify MARK...if you havnt got the book or seen a copy how on earth do you know A)its got the mortuary photographs in it? B) JOSEPH MARSDEN is complety in the clear,when you dont even know what JOHN GANNON has to say? I certainly dont..but I cant wait to get the book FIRST before I offer an opinion. Sorry for the slip MARK.....I didnt realize you ALWAYS thought R.G.PARRY was not involved & that WHW battered his wife alone as per MURPHY etc.? Are we to ignore LILY LLLOYDS efforts to quash his alibi? Are we also to ignore his blatent lies in his statements to the police.or just edit what suits like MURPHY did in his book? IAN(FJumble)
Well I certainly hope there's no mortuary photos in any books - I'd be sick and regardless of anything else I'd think "poor Julia" in death no dignity.
My feeling is that Wallace didn't do it, and will be most disappointed if evidence proves he did!
a) Gannon was claiming it was to include the mortuary photographs (which he claimed quite wrongly had never been published before. They have - in different guises) b) I keep having to say this...Everything I have read in ALL the files has NO evidence of Joe Marsden being the killer, or anything even remotely linking him to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
Mark empty your inbox!!!
:oQuote:
Originally Posted by burkhilly
Mark and I are obviously in possession of the mortuary photographs, myself if I remember, thanks to Mark. We decided against putting them on the 'inacityliving' webpage out of courtesy to Julia and possibly still existing family.
I too would be disappointed in WHW if I found him to not only be the killer or having had anything to do with it. However, i'm not so blinded in my faith in him as to discount any proven evidence against him. With this in mind, I eagerly await any new evidence from anywhere - including the 3 new books in the making.
---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 PM ----------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Across the Universe.
You have mentioned 2 things which intrigue me, no doubt i'll learn more about them when John Gannon's book is published but in the meantime, you mention in post 1343 that you have inside information about the up and coming book and in post 1359 you mention a kicker in Wallace's diary that will stun all of us.
Would you tell us what connection you have to John Gannon or the book or how you found these things out. I admit that John Gannon saving and revealing the Parry monday night statement in full until his book launch would have been a stunner in itself for me.
I have had a read Ged, far to much information for me to grasp to be honest, but I now understand better, why it's of interest to youes.
Thanks Marty. I'm afraid i've even filled my 3 daughters head full of it and even taken them to Wolverton St (on the sly, I might add whilst passing up that way) :)
I wish I still lived in our old house in Wolverton st ! :) I could invite everyone around for a 'Wallace evening' in our front parlour, and we could dissect the case while looking out across at number 29! :PDT_Piratz_26: