Ian, have you read Murphy's book? I think Murphy, while I disagree with a lot in his book, makes a pretty convincing case that the robbery was staged and it was a planned murder.
Printable View
Ian, have you read Murphy's book? I think Murphy, while I disagree with a lot in his book, makes a pretty convincing case that the robbery was staged and it was a planned murder.
acrossthe universe...YES, I read it avidly when it first came out & I was very impressed at the outset with his research..especially JULIA'S real age!! He linked the known events/times etc..but then blew it for me by eventually believing RGP'S highly dubious alibi(s) & suggesting that WALLACE was the killer...which I feel is IMPOSSIBLE for all the much repeated reasons!!Again,although I have returned to the book again recently.. the lack of an index is very frutrating & time consuming. I'm hoping the promised new book will perhaps give us more on the PARRY plus A.N.OTHER(MARSDEN-?)theory. As you can see,I'm very happy with PARRY'S involvement as QUALTROUGH & car driver..but I'm reluctant to go with MARSDEN without any evidence,other than that he knew PARRY & was mentioned by WALLACE..though,WHW didnt actually name him as a suspect!!! IAN(FJumble)
I too am impressed with Murphy's chapter on Julia. However, despite a copy wedding cert and his text saying they were married in 1914, the caption to the tin chapel where they wed says 1913 - an elementary mistake.
I can't agree with WHW being the murderer or even being involved.
Even more laughable (in Wilkes book) is the suggestion that it was Wallace dressed as Julia who answered to door to Alan Close. Clutching at straws or what?
Also Wallace carried on with his diaries and knew that he didn't have long left when confronted with the ultimatum of an operation or not. If he was of such an astute mind, much has been made of his 'class 3' chess playing. I'm sure he'd have left a note in his diary boasting how he'd fooled the best brains of the Liverpool constabulary and Special branch, knowing that he'd be in his grave when the entries were found.
The fact? it was a weapon from the lounge would indicate it wasn't premeditated though, so I too would edge towards a robbery gone wrong or a staged robbery. Parry just knows too much about it and wasn't where he said he was to make me think he didn't have something to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
It'll be interesting to see this new evidence about Marsden and the money he was marrying into etc that John Gannon's new book will tell us about.
Thanks GED,yes I thought the idea of WHW in drag was almost as preposterous as HEMMERDE's ludicrous notion that he did it naked!! Another thought..when WALLACE returned home,he thought initially that there was someone in the house..IF he was right, then the real killer (maybe MARSDEN?) must have fled out of the back door into the back-entry..missing the JOHNSTONS by seconds! Obviously, if the JOHNSTONES had seen a fleeing figure coming from next door,then WHW would have been off the hook at once. I know the police made no effort to trace the people on the tram on the monday night..but if just one witness had seen WHW on his way to the chess club,then he couldnt have been QUALTROUGH..
If the "little SWIFT" looked like the car I think it was,then the idea of hosing it INSIDE doesnt look so unlikely.I'd love to know why there was only ONE glove & why it was inside a box(cardboard or wooden?)...pity WILKES didnt clarify in 1981,when PARKES was still around..& also get an idea of what RGP's collegue looked like!!! IAN(FJumble)
Parry told Goodman and R.W.Egan that he'd promised his father not to talk about the case. I wonder what that means and why. It's almost like a no comment statement that always smacks of guilt to me.
Thanks GED....yes,I suspect PARRY'S father at least suspected his son of some involvement,but we'll never know on that one. However, I also wonder if PARRY senior bought RGP the little SWIFT & had it registered in his name to save on the insurance cost,as young drivers would pay more premium, even in 1931.If he used ATKINSONS GARAGE for servicing & repairs, it seems likely,from what we know of his methods, that he wouldnt pay his bills & firms tend to keep files on unpaid debts(as I know from personal experience!!)With the garage,even in 1981, being in a "time-warp",it's possible some records survive...we could learn a lot with the Reg.No.!!! IAN(FJumble)
A friend has just told me that the "box" was the old name for what we now call the glove compartment...now it makes more sense!!!
I'd somehow always thought it meant the glovie. Why one glove though or are we to assume one that Parry would reach in and take the other one out too.
Thanks GED.Glad we are up & running again! I'd never heard that name---box for glove compartment--- before,but it makes a lot more sense.PARKES seems very clear that it was just one glove & goes on to give a description of a mit type glove.The killer wore gloves presumably to avoid leaving fingerprints..as his prints were not found on the gaslight which he must have turned out,as the room was in darkness when WHW returned at 8.45. IAN(FJumble)
On this day in 1909 Richard Gordon Parry was born. January of course has a few Wallace anniversaries.
The PARRY's next door neighbour,LES HILL claimed RGP was interviewed for over 3 hours at Atkinsons Garage..strange that there is no police record of this interrogation(?). Stranger still that John Parkes never mentioned it or indeed any of the Atkinson family for that matter..one wonders if it really took place or is another notion that PARRY himself floated to clear his name..like he told his baby sister that the police had thoroughly checked his clothes for blood even removing the seams..hmm.... I also wonder if the bloodied glove which John Parkes describes in such detail ..really a mit with no individual fingers... had a thumb & if so was for a left-hand or a right-hand...not a big point unless only one of the suspects was for example left-handed...IAN(FJumble)
Yes, it's very mysterious that all the Parry statements are missing. Now if that was a government case today there would be uproar and cries of a conspiracy/cover-up etc. Too fishy for him not to be involved somewhere and it makes Wilkes' (what could seem far fetched) proposition about a 'conspiracy of silence' more plausible.
Haven't had time to read all the posts since my last visit so apologies! Regarding Lily Lloyd - I think it is common knowledge that she wasn't in the cinema on the Tuesday night but as typifies this case, it is all rather 'shadowy'...One of my first recollections of the case was when my mother told me years ago that one (gossip??) theory was that Wallace had dressed as Julia, and that he impersonated her. Wilkes also mentions Hemmerde's junior at the trial, (Leslie Walsh) was convinced of this theory. It is preposterous of course - Wallace was 6"2 and Julia 5"3. Wallace surpassed himself not only as a murderer extraordinaire, but also as an impersonator of the calibre of Rory Bremner - first the telephone voice - then making himself look a foot shorter:) Mind you, as a kid, the idea of Wallace speaking in a high falsetto voice rather freaked me out:shock:
Ged, I've been working on the manuscript over the last few days. I can put more into it now I'm over the flu!!
Gordon Parry was surely R.M. Qualtrough. During the 1981 Radio City phone-in, one of the callers was a lady who worked at the telephone exchange at the time in 1931, but didnt take the actual call(s).She stated that all the telephone girls felt the caller wasnt WALLACE as "Qualtrough" pronounced the name of the City Cafe in the rather affected way of City "CAFAY" rather than the expected City "CAFEE"..this drew attention to the caller & they all agreed it surely was not WHW!! Presumably,as local girls,at least some of them may well have been aquainted with the familiar Man From The Pru.... IAN(FJumble)