My appertite for all these new books on the subject is certainly whetted that's for sure.
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 !!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 beenOriginally 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)
---------- 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.
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.
It is Accomplished
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'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.
It is Accomplished
Mark empty your inbox!!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks