Went to Wolverton Street at 6.30 pm tonight before the excellent LFC match. Just walked up one side & down the other & paused at No.29,but it was the first time I had seen the street in the dark & this is with modern street lights,not gas lamps...miust have been very dark in 1931.Previously,like most of us interested in the case,I had retraced WHW footsteps on the murder night..but of course you cannot do this properly anymore because of tha alley gates! IAN (FJumble)
The darkness makes me think that someone could have easily been waiting/lurking for a signal (Wallace leaving) come in and left in a car undetected. What do you think, Ian?Originally Posted by IAN DAVID FRYER
YES I do,as I said ,my previous visits have always been in broad daylight & seeing it on a dark Jan. evening gives a different perspective! Thats exactly what I think happened ON BOTH NIGHTS!! Of course his routes are completely different..MONDAY to Lower Breck Road to go to the CAFAY! & TUESDAY to Belmont Road(to catch the first tram to Menlove Gardens)...in the opposite direction.With Wolverton Street being a small cul de sac(closed off at the far end) it would be easy for "QUALTROUGH" & or his accomplice to watch the back door & back entry(rear passageway) They would also know thats how he habitually left his home that way & just wait till (& of course IF) WHW came out..... using the darkness as cover..especially as they were locals - familiar with the lay-out!!! The car wouldnt actually have been required certainly on the Monday night as the phone box is only a few minutes walk away.If, as seems probable, WHW left his house at about 7.10 to make his chess match in time,then QUALTROUGH(RGP)sees him leave & walks round the corner & makes the call to the cafe...or, if he was certain of WHW's normal route to the city centre(as he surerly was) he could have just waited in Lower Breck Road watching the tram stop near the RICHMOND PARK junction & then walked back down to the phone box... IAN(FJumble)
All seems very feasible to me. Sounds like you had a good night all in all Ian.
Yes, that is a good point Ged. Alan Hayhurst claims Wallace more than likely befriended a widow on his rounds, and began a relationship with her. While he is entitled to that opinion, facts don't bear it out. Two points;
1) If Wallace was found guilty, and executed, he wouldn't have had a relationship, except with the hangman.
2) If Wallace was freed (as he was on appeal) he could hardly have indulged in any subsequent relationship without it being public knowledge. I am sure the rumour mongers wouldn't have missed such a opportunity to announce it to the press...
It is Accomplished
GED. I meant to say he could have watched the tram stop near the junction of RICHMOND PARK & "BRECK" ROAD..not of course LOWER Breck Road!!
MARK. I think the most unlikely idea of WHW having another woman probably has re- surfaced since the "MAN FROM THE PRU"where AMY WALLACE was played by the lovely SUSANNA YORK...as we know he HAD to leave WOLVERTON St.& surely his brother's flat in Ullet Road was the obvious place.She of course shared the flat with her son EDWIN.Its an odd coincidence that WHW's sister-in-law & Julia's sister are both named AMY!! I admire the way you deal with the threads on the poor casebook:jackthe ripper WALLACE blog..some of the points are just plain stupid..especially when based solely on reading just one book..admittedly the MURPHY book is v.good..but not infallible by any means!! You must have a lot of patience! IAN(FJumble)
Thanks Ian. I know what you mean regarding the Casebook JW thread. Yes, some idiots read books and are completely influenced by them, which is fine but a lot of authors do have an agenda to make their case... I have to say that I have NEVER been influenced by any book that I've read regarding the Wallace Case. I just go by the files, trial transcript and contemporary accounts (newspapers etc). I know newspapers don't always state facts but I have practically every newspaper cutting from the three Liverpool papers of the day and they do print a lot of fact as far as I can see...I think Murphy's book is excellent. Anybody can see there are points on both sides, guilty and innocent. I have to say that I am not a big fan of the Ripper case. There seems to be a plethora of self-appointed opinionated experts...
As for patience...Sometimes it is like talking into a dead phone.
You're right - Wallace had no choice but to stay at 83 Ullet Road. In fact, he wanted to stay at 29 WS that same night but the police absolutely forbade him, due to their investigations.
Yes - both women called Amy. I have to say if the real Amy looked like Susannah York, I wouldn't have blamed WallaceThere were also a lot of 'Lily's' as well. Lily Lloyd, Lily Hall (who claimed she saw Wallace talking to a man in Richmond Park on the night of the murder), Lilian Martha Kelly (telephone operator) & Lily Pinches (Allday's newsagent).
Some say that 'Q' couldn't have covered all the angles to see Wallace leaving for Menlove Gardens. Here's something that I don't think anyone has ever mentioned - footsteps - If 'Q' was waiting in the entry at the junction side of where the narrow entry meets the broader one, Qualtrough could have covered at least three angles. I am also assuming that the entry was extremely dark. I am pretty sure that 'Q' could have heard the front door being closed (if Wallace went by the front). We know it was his usual practice to use the back door until late at night. 'Q' could have known this. I am also sure that 'Q' could have heard Wallace's footsteps and anyone else about to approach the alleyway...Just a thought.
It is Accomplished
Thanks a lot MARK for your very full response!! I've always been a committed PARRYCITE,as much as anything else,because I just can't see WHW as a killer!! I 'm currently very interested in LILY HALL..as she lived nearby,she must have known a distinctive & odd looking figure as WHW at least by sight .So why put herself through all the police hassle & courtroom if she wasnt certain of who she saw!! IF she was correct & WALLACE did talk to a man on his way back to W.S...why deny it?? Of all the many witnesses to WHW movements on the 2 nights..SHE SEEMS THE ONLY ONE WHO DOESNT help his case or confirm his alibi...having stood in the courtroom,I'm not really surprised she blew it under cross examination..I probably would have done so too..... IAN(FJumble)
Mark: when you say "waiting in the enty at the juntion side, where the narrow entry meets the broader one, Qualtrough could have covered at least three angles", would that be at the bottom of the entry at the back of Wolverton Street? At the 'T' junction? If this is so, what three angles could he have covered? If Qualtrough could only hear Wallace closing his front door - how would he know that it was Wallace leaving his house and not somebody else leaving theirs?
Mark: the earlier thread the GED post came from was LIVERPOOL BOOKS.
Thanks Ian
Yes, Lily Hall…Richard Waterhouse wrote a book back in 1994 which he dedicated to Lily Hall. He has Wallace in collusion with a contract killer. I’m not sure whether Wallace would be daft enough to meet up with the killer on his own doorstep so to speak, especially on the night in question. It is possible that Ms Hall saw Wallace there another night and she might have been mistaken. At the trial her testimony reads like something from a Will Hay sketch.
Serpico
I mean the narrow middle entry half way up Wolverton Street. That way, ‘Q’ could have looked down the narrow entry into Wolverton Street and along the wide entry at the back of 29 to see if Wallace would have gone to the Breck Road tram stop, or thirdly to the Richmond Park way alongside the Church Institute (the way that Wallace claimed he went). All rather suspect I know but just a thought. Yes, you’re right of course regarding the front door but I think if Wallace would have walked past, he would have been noticeable to ‘Q.’
Thanks for that Serpico. Btw great Avatar. Great film. Lumet is one of my favourite directors
It is Accomplished
Thanks a lot Mark.
As you say, ‘rather suspect’: Goodman uses the same possibility, ‘By standing at the top of the entry between No 19 and No 21 (the end farthest from the street, where it meets the entry running behind the houses), Qualtrough would have had both exits covered: the back-yard door of No 29 would have been fully visible to him; and, if Wallace had decided to leave by the front, Qualtrough would have seen him as he walked along the street and passed the bottom of the entry’. In this, I assume Goodman had to have been working under the assumption that Qualtrough would have seen him journeying to St Margaret’s to get his tram – surely Goodman wouldn’t have thought that Wallace would have taken a convoluted route to the Rochester Road stop to get a bus up Breck Road (this would assume that Wallace would have used the entry between 12 and 14 Wolverton) when there was a stop at the end of Richmond Park. If he would have used the front door to reach the Richmond Park Stop through the entry by the dance hall, how would Qualtrough have know that shadowy figure at the end of the darkened entry was Wallace?
If this was the case - how would Qualtrough know he was using the St Margaret's Church Tram Stop?
MARK do you know if the road - ROCHESTER Road/Lower Breck Road was known locally in 1931 as PRIORY ROAD...which of course it is a continuation of..the reason I ask is that the nice period photo. opp.P.49 of "THE WALLACE CASE" by John Rowland(1949)is clearly captioned "The Telephone Kiosk At The Corner Of Breck Road & PRIORY ROAD"..what is still called called "the triangle"...IAN(FJumble)
Hi again MARK..I'm interested in the PRIORY ROAD problem because John Parkes has RGP mumbling about leaving the weapon down a grid outside a doctors in PRIORY ROAD..which seems to be in the wrong direction for him to be heading..unless he meant the continuation of PRIORY ROAD ie Lower Breck Road...?
I know,for example, in WALTON people regularly refer to WALTON ROAD still as COUNTY ROAD,even after the name changes....
Was that book you mentioned by Richard Waterhouse fiction? I dont know it...
I agree with your Lily Hall point that WHW wouldnt be daft enough to arrange to meet a killer almost on his own door step..but I'm concerned that WHW denied emphatically speaking to someone..when LILY HALL clearly says he did & she of course knew WHW & Julia.! It is possible, as you suggest, that she got the day wrong...but then why didnt WHW correct her & say it must have been on the MONDAY night when I was talking to my friend CAIRD in LETCHWORTH STREET(Goodman P.24) after a chess match?? As you mention the poor girl went to pieces in the witness box..just like a WILL HAY sketch!!! IAN (FJumble)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks