Ref - The Wallace case.
Even Justice Wright wasn't au fait with murder trials was he and the prosecution barrister had all sorts of gambling and divorce costs against him and it was somewhat a surprise that the young upstart got the case after moaning that being the city recorder he was being overlooked for big jobs.
Yes Ged. Hemmerde wasn't liked among the brass in the city. The Wallace Trial gave him another chance at the big time. Also unbelievable is the fact that Justice Wright asked for the trial to be over in 4 days...Can you imagine a murder trial now lasting 4 days?? It would be unheard of. This put immense pressure on the defence (and dare I say it the prosecution) but it was more to the advantage of the prosecution. Maybe Justice Wright thought the jury would acquit...Mind you, I think that was the norm in those days...Originally Posted by Ged
It is Accomplished
[QUOTE=Mark R;207339]
A Bit confused here Mark. You mentioned Stuart Deacon as a "prosecuting solicitor". But wasn't he the Stipendiary magistrate before Arthur McFarland? If so, then stipendiarys were not Committal magistrates, nor where they prosecuting in the then "Police Courts". Also, didn't Mr justice Wright lapse into mental illness after the Wallace case?
[QUOTE=Lord Dick;207360]Yes, I meant Magistrates. Deacon was Magistrate on Wallace's first appearance at the Police Courts on 3rd February 1931. It was RJ Ward thereafter. I don't think Justice Wright was forced to stop after the Wallace Trial. I'm sure he was still presiding over other trials after the Wallace one. J.F. Stephen wasn't apparently a full shilling during the Florence Maybrick Trial and suffered mental decline in older age.
It is Accomplished
[QUOTE=Mark R;207370]
My mistake. It was indeed Mr Justice Stephen in the Maybrick case who became mentally ill (some said he was even mentally ill during the Trial).
The combination of an half-educated, pro-police Committal magistrate and an arrogant, imprecise and overbearing prosecutor - as with Alderman Gordon and Bishop in the Cameo and Cranborne Road murder cases - was deadly as far as justice for the accused was concerned...and these biased incompetents got away with it!! Looking at all the facts in both these cases, had the Committal court been conducted properly, they would have been thrown out of court and not have even reached the Assizes and the subsequent death sentences.
They weren't called "Police Courts" for nothing!!
EDIT: Just a quick note...sorry I saw my first post which was a similar introductory post showed up now...it hadn't showed up for ahwile and needed a mod approval so not sure if people saw it. Also this is a more detailed post so I am deleting that one. Up to mods, but I hope they keep this one.
Hi all, I have long been fascinated by this case. I recently contacted John Gannon on the Wallace crimespace board (I am John Levin) and he was most kind in replying back to me with extensive info on this case, including a remarkable dossier of RG Parry's life which included details I have never before seen that are not in any book. Say what you will, but the man has certainly done his research.
John never disclosed his theory to me, so I read it in the newspaper article online when it first came out. I was stunned at first...but the more I thought about it the more this theory seemed to reconcile baffling aspects of this case. The case seems to point at an "inside job". However, Wallace couldn't have done it yet it seems he HAD to. This of course leads to the conclusion he hired it done. The problem with this is Parry seems a very strong suspect to have made the Qualtrough call, yet his alibi is iron clad for the night of the murder and he and Wallace working together crumbles because both seem to have alibis.. (Wallace's being the timing which in my opinion is beyond 'tight' and into the 'impossible' category. It is an intriguing theory nonetheless. (In fact Richard Waterhouse suggested this in his book) Adding a third party however does seem to make more sense out of this.
Now of course, I will need to see the actual facts to be convinced of Gannon's theory beyond a doubt...but I don't see why the theory isn't at least considered groundbreaking.We know Marsden was dishonest like Parry (he too was short on payments), we know he and Parry were desperate for money. Which leads me to another point...why is it so inconceivable Parry and Marsden would sleep with an old woman for cash. After all , they were pretty desperately short of money... people do all kinds of things for money...expecially someone like Parry who wanted to live a high life. Also, it is well known there has been innuendo that Parry knew Julia on an intimate level.
Mark R, you seem to be a very well respected poster here and have a vast knowledge of this case. Why do you find this theory bunk? The fact Wallace pointed the finger at Parry and Marsden doesn't seem strange at all to me. After all, it might stand out if he DIDN'T. He could have told them to have a perfect alibi ready because he would mention them as suspects. Like I said I'm not ready to convict..and have no particular investment in this theory being right. I am open to any and all ideas on why this is an implausible theory...but to me the theory, if proven correct, would serve to answer a lot of questions about the case.
The reason I say Gannon's theory isn't groundbreaking is for the simple fact, it isn't. I suggested Marsden many years ago, and as I say, I cannot take any credit for that as he (Marsden) was named by WHW from practically day one.
The theory that WHW was in collusion with Parry and/or Marsden is ludicrous. He named both as possible suspects. A man in collusion would NOT do this...
I am not convinced Parry (or Marsden) were short of money. When both had their incidents regarding missing payments, it was three years before. Parry came from a well-to-do family. Julia was nearly 70. I find it appalling and absolutely ridiculous that one man of 22 and another of 28 would sleep with her. She was incontinent. I also think this is absolutely disrespectful to Julia's memory (and dare I say it, the memory of possibly two innocent men).
As for Julia being close to Parry - I think too many people have been watching The Man From The Pru film. Neither of the neighbours in 27 or 31 Wolverton Street ever heard any of these 'musical' interludes. Parry was a 'wide' boy, there is no denying that but I'm not convinced he was a killer.
I find the theory 'bunk' for the simple reason of Parry or Marsden turning King's evidence. It is a different thing naming people who would possibly be accepted into the Wallace house but to name them as a suspect is a different thing. It was about 2-3 years since either Marsden or Parry had been at number 29.
It is Accomplished
Mark, I appreciate your reply. I did not mean any disrespect to any involved... like I said I will have to read the book and see the facts (or lack there of) to be convinced of guilt. I agree those involved are entitled to innocent until 'proven' guilty.
What is turning King's evidence? I am American so I did not understand what you meant by that.
Also Julia was claiming nearly 20 years younger wasn't she? I am sorry I do not find it inconceivable that something like that could occur between two men in their twenties and woman who claims/is known as around 50. It is risque and somewhat disturbing but not out of the realm of possibility.
Lastly, what is your theory? I ask because most theories I have seen collapse completely under scrutiny. Am curious what you think as you seem to know a great deal.
King's (or Queen's if the Monarch is female) Evidence means 'to turn state's evidence when an accused or convicted criminal testifies as a witness for the state against his associates or accomplices. Turning state's evidence is occasionally a result of a change of heart or feelings of guilt, but more often is done in response to a generous offer from the prosecution, such as a reduced sentence or a favourable location for serving time.' A good example of this is the Burke and Hare case - after a month of questioning the police had little evidence to secure a prosecution and finally the Lord Advocate, Sir William Rae, offered Hare immunity to turn King's Evidence and testify against Burke which he readily did.
The problem with the Wallace case is that it happened so long ago, and determining 'who' was guilty is (for me anyway) an impossibility. Sure, there are many persuasive factors but I have to be honest here - I have never been influenced by any book I have ever read on it. Believe me, as a supporter of victims and victim support, nothing would please me more than seeing the 'true' killer be brought to justice (at least in name).
My theory? I tend to fall on the side of Wallace being innocent, mainly due to the fact of the complete absence of bloodstaining on his person/clothing. There is the possibility of robbery occuring at the scene. Some say that the robbery was 'staged' because there was £4 left in the vase upstairs but the thief could quite easily have overlooked it. After all, there was about £4 missing from the cashbox Wallace owned. As for possible suspects? There were nearly 600 people on Wallace's collection round and ALL of them knew he had money. Couple this with the other people that knew of him and his occupation who weren't Prudential clients and the number is substantial. Whilst it would be hypocritical of me to suggest somebody in particular, there is the possibility that the Anfield Housebreaker could have been active on the 20th January.
It is Accomplished
Kings evidence/Queens evidence is where somebody who is usually involved in the crime gives evidence agaist his/her co-accused and usually under the incentive of immunity of prosecution or a reduced sentence.
Okay thanks to both of you. Glad to have some British jargon down!
Mark, you make some very good points. Have you read Wallace the final Verdict though by Richard Wilkes? There does seem to be a very good case made against Richard Gordon Parry. I am not convinced of the whole of John Parkes testimony...he was an old man who had never come forward and was now doing so on a hospital bed?!? But, some aspects of his story about Parry do ring true. Evn discounting Parkes though the book does raise some points against Parry. I think the author wants you to believe he did it...I am not persuaded he committed the actual murder but I am somewhat persuaded he made the Qualtrough phone call. What are your thoughts about this?
Again, just wanted to add I haven't seen enough evidence against anyone that I would convict on a jury.
Yes, I have read Wilkes' book. It is persuasive and he makes some excellent points. I have to say that Parkes did actually mention the garage/bloody glove in Parry's car at the time of the murder. Parkes notified the owners of the garage (Wilf & Dolly Atkinson and their sons) at the time and Parkes claimed that DSI Moore interviewed him but refused to believe Parkes' testimony. I have accessed the police files and there is nothing in it regarding Parkes' interview with Moore. Saying that, it could have disappeared or not even been recorded or it never happened.
I don't know if you have read James Murphy's excellent The Murder of Julia Wallace? He gives Parry a possible alibi for the evening of the 19th January, 1931 at the approximate time of the 'Qualtrough' phone call. There is the possibility though that the time of Parry's alibi wasn't as cast-iron as is made out by Murphy.
Here's a photo of Atkinson's garage (4th May 2009):
It is Accomplished
wow Mark, cool photo. Looks different than I thought it would, the architecture and what I can tell of that part of town does not look too far off from an area in Brooklyn that I lived in for awhile growing up. I wonder if the garage and that area of town is relatively unchanged in the past 75-80 years. I found it kind of funny that Parry rifled thru coats there. He seems to have been a hilarious British scoundrel of the sort one would encounter in a stage production of Oliver Twist.
You are right about Parkes claiming he came forward; my error. Still seems that aspects of his story were quite farfetched. (The oilskin cape? Really?!?)
As for the book, I have not read it. It is quite hard to get books on the Wallace case in America. I remember seeing a copy on Amazon for like 300 bucks or something that was a crime in and of itself. I am assuming you consider it to be a well written book? I know that Murphy concludes Wallace was guilty... (I find Wallace commiting the actual murder very implausible) although this says nothing of the research he did and how well the book was written. I would love to read it at some point, but cannot for the life of me seem to get my hands on it.
I agree this case has an incredible amount of mystery and intrigue surrounding it.
I used to walk past that garage with my mum when I was a kid and didn't know the supposed significance of it at the time. It was only in 1981 that it came to a wider audience (regarding Parry & Parkes). I was stunned when I saw it and heard of its connection with the Wallace Case. I don't know if you have seen the photo of Parry & Lily Lloyd at the school play? (It is in Wilkes' book). I went to Lister Drive school myself in the 1970's so that was another connection!! Interesting to hear that the garage area looks like Brooklyn!! I think it retains a lot of its character (apart from the metal shutters on the front) and also an added side building.
Yes, Parry does seem to have been a bit of a rogue. He was in trouble with the authorities from a young age. He was going to school one day when he pushed a wall over. The builders were annoyed at who the culprit was so they kept a look out and they found out that it was a young Parry doing it on his way to school. Yes, the oilskins/thigh high boots seems a bit far-fetched. I think the blood would drip off such a material and there would be traces of it through 29 Wolverton Street.
Yes, the Murphy book is well written and researched but he does speculate on a lot of things, and some of it is sheer supposition...If I were you, I would wait. Bluecoat Publishers here in Liverpool might reprint Murphy's book. I can tell you now that $300 is a lot of money. Bluecoat do have a habit of reprinting previous books.
It is Accomplished
Mark, got to head to bed soon (after 3 here in California, would be after 6 if I was home in NYC).
Got a few minutes left, so onto it..
I saw that photo (they must be around 13?). You can tell in that photo Lily Lloyd would grow into a very attractive woman. I also stumbled upon an apparently rare photo of Parry in his late teens which I think was for a drama playbill or headshot etc. (It's at the bottom of the article which is in Spanish)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_neT8fdNk1L...y+(cuadro).jpg
Awesome that you went to Lister Drive School..did you have a school yearbook? Was it a k-12 school? (I know it burned down recently.) I was in contact with a woman who claimed her grandmother had a yearbook with Lily Lloyd in it. I think she was hot air though because she disappeared when I asked her for proof
I will wait to read Murphy's book when it is at a price that is not that exorbitant. I would be willing to pay quite a bit though for some rare books on the Wallace case, but not 300 dollars. The only books I've read are the Killing of Julia Wallace and The Final Verdict which John generously sent me in pdf format. How he got the books into pdf I have no idea! I do think I have a pretty good knowledge of most of the books general direction from reading both this forum and the Casebook forum on Wallace.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks