Julia Wallace Murder Case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark R

Hi Ian. Since the publication of Murphy's book. I think Whittington-Egan never said that he was convinced that Parry was Q anyway, it was more Goodman. Of course this doesn't mean that Parry wasn't Q:) No one can say for definite that he wasn't in the call-box...

---

Considering all the current facts, how could Parry not have been Qualtrough though. I mean, as Ian has said, the mentioning of a 21st birthday party is just a tremendous coincidence. It strains credulity to put someone else other than Parry in that phonebooth.

Thanks MARK. I would have thought that Whittington-Egan has become MORE convinced since 1981 as new evidence(albeit somewhat circumstanial) has surfaced.Even on the Radio City phone in,Goodman states that he & RWE were BOTH convinced of PARRY's "guilt"(ie QUALTROUGH).You say it was more GOODMAN,but on what evidence can you say that? IAN

Parry admitted himself he knew more about it than what he was prepared to say. That's according to RWE and JG

Parry's actions at the Atkinsons garage put him in the frame. That's according to JP and 5 Atkinson members. I know the Atkinson's can only go on what JP told them but he was like a son to them and besides, where in those days would JP have got the money from to give to Mr Atkinson, the money that Parry gave him for washing the car.

Parry's false alibi for the phone call time. - Why? What was he up to really?

Parry's dad saying Gordon was having trouble with his car battery on Breck Road - that's at odds with Parry's alibi unless he got the car battery and accumulator battery mixed up - and the street names???

There's too many according to's................... They can't all be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Acrosstheuniverse

Considering all the current facts, how could Parry not have been Qualtrough though. I mean, as Ian has said, the mentioning of a 21st birthday party is just a tremendous coincidence. It strains credulity to put someone else other than Parry in that phonebooth.

---

It doesn't mean it was him in the call-box though. Coincidences do occur. Murphy puts a convincing case forward with regard to Wallace being in the call-box (although it doesn't convince me personally). I just cannot believe Parry would disclose any connection to a murder to a third party (ie John Parkes). I'm sure the 'battery alibi' was put forward by William Parry (father to RGP) in 1966 - a long time after the event.

Murphy makes a lot of the street lighting etc doesn't he in his eagerness to put WHW in the call box. He could still have been spotted though and his voice recognised. Were prints not taken from the receiver, what was the likelihood of it being used often from the time taken to make the call, to the time taken to trace the call?

THANKS GED..yes I completetely agree with your PARRY points!! As you say the "phoney"(sic)alibi smells of something to hide..if he was not involved why not just say exactly where he was & what he was doing..sounds very guilty to me! IAN(FJumble)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ged

Murphy makes a lot of the street lighting etc doesn't he in his eagerness to put WHW in the call box. He could still have been spotted though and his voice recognised. Were prints not taken from the receiver, what was the likelihood of it being used often from the time taken to make the call, to the time taken to trace the call?

---

Yes he does Ged and he also states that 'Wallace had to use that call-box' but I refute this. He could have used one on the way or in the city centre without the risk of being recognised/noticed compared to using Box 1627. Murphy also says that a telephone was a luxury few could afford in 1931 but I think that misses the point - some of the general public more than likely still used phones - after all they were public telephones! Much was also made that the light was broken in the kiosk but light or no light, it would seem suicidal (in every sense) for Wallace to have used it. I assume prints were taken but maybe not...The call was traced the next day? So it would be interesting to know how many people had used it in the interim. Can you imagine what that phone receiver would be worth now? :shock:

I can imagine the agitated Parry putting out a fag in the phone box after finishing the call. What price DNA back then ;)

Thanks for that GED..good thought! At least we know they would have been PLAYERS No.3 from his OTT details on his statement..guilty or what! We also know that WHW was a heavy smoker,but I wonder if JULIA enjoyed a drag also? No wonder the Wallaces were always ill with chest complaints!! IAN(FJumble)

Well I've just finishing listening to the radio programmes I downloaded a couple of weeks ago. They were made all the more interesting by actually hearing from people involved in the case and who knew Mr Wallace and Parry. Thanks for downloading they were brilliant.

I know that many on this thread believe that Parry did it with perhaps someone else involved. Would this be Marsden? Who is he? If you think he's involved, why? I thought Marsden's name was just mentioned in passing. Certainly in the couple of books I've read he barely gets a mention.

If you don't think Parry did it, why?

Marsden was another ex employee of the Pru, a possible aquaintance of Parry's? John Gannon puts all 3, WHW, Parry and Marsden in the frame as accomplices.

This is getting to be a parlour game - a veritable chorus line of characters in Wallace's parlour, battering poor Julia's brains out.
It's only a matter of time before someone says the milk-boy done it, in league with Leslie Williamson!

For me, this much is clear.
Wallace didn't make the phone call and didn't kill Julia.
Parry did make the phone call, but didn't kill Julia.

And that, sadly, is as much as I believe we'll ever know with confidence...

I would go along with what you think 100% Rod.

For me, it's just a matter of who Parry was in collusion with. Marsden or another but certainly not Wallace.

I still believe Wallace was the mastermind and here are some points I have not yet mentioned which should also serve to counter some recent arguments made to the contrary.

First off, Wallace and Parry were in fact in contact after 1928. In Wallace's second statement to the police, he says : “I forgot to mention that I believe Mr Parry owns a motor car or has the use of one, because I was talking to him about Xmas time in Missouri Road and he had a car then which he was driving. He gave me one of his company calendars.” I would argue that this not only shows Wallace and Parry were in contact; it also seems to hint that their relationship was amicable.

Wallace adds “I have now found by the calendar that Mr Parry's employers are The Standard Life Assurance Company, whose head office is at 3, George Street, Edinburgh." Interesting that Wallace would be referring to Parry's calendar... if he was not friendly with him, why would he use Parry's calendar.... did he have it up pinned on his wall? I'm sure as an insurance agent he was issued his own calendar as is standard practice.

I think Parry clearly made the Qualtrough call and Wallace and Parry's lives seem to have been far more intwined than a casual acquaintanceship that soured. Branching off from that, one can see that both Wallace and Parry have good alibis for the actual murder itself which leads to an inevitable conclusion.

Since I've not the foggiest whodunnit, I also cannot totally rule out that version of events either ATU. :PDT11