Ian, too bad I'm in NYC!
Ian, too bad I'm in NYC!
Ste, I dunno what Murray said mate cos my book's by Murphy - I know, I know nit pickin' agen - soz ha ha.
Yeah, it was such a good book up to that last chapter, then he let me down by actually saying he thought it was Wallace but the thought of him in the nak doin' his arl girl then having to get a bath and dried when there was no evidence for this was too much for me to believe, especially with the way Parry acted that night in the garage with the bloodied glove and what he said to the young apprentice. Just goes to show you that the garage owner must've known all along but kept schtum just because Parry was a 'good customer'
Wallace was a stoic character and his calmness made him even more of a suspect, I mean who sits there calmly lighting a ciggie unless she's gonna be insured for a million and it's coming your way?
__________________
"it isn't a million miles from Clubmoor and Lily lloyds in any case so could well be en route for him as so its location and WHW's had no underlying connection."
There is a rather obvious connection, actually. If Wallace was being watched on the Monday night it is the phone box we would expect the watchers to use, once they saw Wallace leave the house...
‘“Is Mr Wallace there?”
“No, I’m afraid not”, Beattie said.
“But he will be there?”
“I can’t say. He may or may not. If he’s coming he’ll be here shortly.
Note the anticipatory "But he will be there?"
Celeriter Nil Crede
A few things that if WHW is innocent - didn't help his cause.
Not consulting an A-Z before making the journey - though Beattie or a member of staff could easily have pulled one out in the cafe. An excuse could then have been, they're still building up there and it may be new so i'll try anyway.
His stoic behaviour after the discovery of Julia's body.
His insistence on seeing and speaking to as many people as possible on his MGE journey. (though isn't this something that anyone who is unsure of the area might well do)
Debate over whether he was unsure of the area at all - since he's visited Joseph Crewe, Amy Wallace and Calderstones park in the past using the same route.
Ged, I think not consulting a map of sorts is the most glaring one. If he was so gung ho to get a commission that he was asking all around, making himself known etc....why did he not know where he was going? If the business was so important...how could he have not known beforehand there was no Menlove Gardens East.
I think the address that doesn't exist is a strong indicator of a phony plot (one concocted by Wallace to make it seem as if he was tricked.) If the motive was to get Wallace out of the way, it would have been in fact much better to send him to an existing address and confuse him rather than have him possibly find out the address doesn't exist beforehand and not go at all.
Murphy contends Wallace actually meant to say West and Beattie got it wrong; not likely in my opinion. (Perhaps Parry said it wrong?) But I do think Wallace would have been better off picking an existing address. He could have gone there and created a further alibi with another person and then made it seem like maybe he thought Beattie got it wrong and gone to the other existing two Menlove Gardens. I think using an existing address would have actually benefited the plotter whether it was Wallace or not.
GED.I do wonder if WHW's stoicism is purely based on D.L.SAYERs assumpition that because he had a copy of MARCUS AURELIUS he must be a stoic..I might(I don't) own a copy of MEIN KAMPF but it doesnt make me a nazi! IAN(FJumble)
"how much more lucrative it would have been, for Qualtrough to have slipped a note to Wallace through his front door on Monday, 12 January [sic – an intentional reference to the previous week], asking him to call at 25 Menlove Gardens East the following night."
Murphy hasn't done his research.
Monday 12 January 1931 just happened to be RG Parry's 22nd birthday, and we may assume he was otherwise engaged that night...
In any event, a note leaves forensics, whereas a phone call does not, or so Parry thought. Unhappily for Wallace the tracing of the call threw suspicion on him instead of Parry.
Celeriter Nil Crede
How co-incidental or premeditated was the address he was sent to anyway.
Why would Wallace send himself to an address or area he might have been accused of knowing quite well (as indeed he was) and thus making his constant questioning of the conductors etc seem overkill (as indeed it did seem to be)
---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------
I may go if I can but i'd certainly mention Tom Slemen's take on itOriginally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
You've probably all seen this one, but I came across this -
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4428
He didn't say he never knew the area though. He asked 'Is it Menlove Avenue?' thereby indicating that he knew something of the area. I agree with you though that if it was Wallace (or even Qualtrough) either would have been better off using a genuine address. I also concur with you regarding Murphy's assumption that he misheard Beattie - I don't think it likely that whoever said it meant 'West.'
---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------
I might try and make it.
It is Accomplished
be great if you could make it Mark, Im sure it would be very intetesting.
Prenton - too much of a hike for me.
I've just been speaking to Johnnyblue regarding the choice of venue for Russell Johnston's talk, as it's a pity it's not in say, the Liverpool supporters club given its location right facing where the R.M. Qualtrough call box was. Perhaps whoever goes, and I may myself yet, could propose this to him for the future.
---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:14 PM ----------
This is the debating society who are putting on this talk tomorrow evening.
http://www.wirraltalks.co.uk/index.html
.
That is a great suggestion - right in the location! As Linda says it is a bit of a hike. I bet there is still a big turnout.
It is Accomplished
The Wallace MurderS
This isn't a great start
http://www.wirraltalks.co.uk/html/program_2010_11.html
.
They'll probably say they mean Wallace as well! That he was a 'victim' of R.M.Q.The Wallace MurderS
This isn't a great start
http://www.wirraltalks.co.uk/html/program_2010_11.html
.
Hey, that thirty years of Murder about forensics & Keith Simpson on Feb 15th looks good!
It is Accomplished
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks