Quote Originally Posted by Mark R View Post
Thanks God



Yes, I say that I have doubts about his innocence but this case has driven me nuts for years...as you know the lack of bloodstaining on Wallace/his clothing is what has always drawn me towards his innocence and it is something I don't think anyone will ever resolve...That is what is so special about the case - it looks like it couldn't be anyone else yet there are so many doubts. I'm with you regarding the supposed 'age' motive. I'm convinced Wallace would have known her age - I certainly don't think he believed her age was around the same as his. I don't think infidelity can be ruled out but she seems to have been a person that would have found it hard to conceal any sort of relationship (I'm sure the Johnston and Holmes families and other neighbours would have seen any 'goings on'). The Johnston's claimed that they never heard any daytime musical performances (and that isn't a euphemism). I think it was just Parry acting deviously when interviewed by Goodman and RW-E in 1966.
MARK..did you ever get anymore on your assertion that Whittington-Egan reneged on his belief that PARRY was QUALTROUGH..I find this very hard to accept. I think its clear that WHW must have known JULIAS' real age eventually,but the point is surely,when did he find out. I cant see WHW,from what we know of his so called stoic upright persona,being a party to fraud on his wedding day..surely he wouldn't have gone ahead if he knew she was 52 in 1914..or indeed if he knew he was being duped! The afternoon musical intervals...are purely from what RGP bragged to JG & RWE on the doorstep..every other possible confirmation of these sessions seems to draw a total blank.IAN (FJumble)

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

Thanks ROD..I agree with your points..but the fact that its a "parlour game" makes it so fascinating. No wonder Raymond Chandler was on to LUSTGARTEN so much about it and claimed the case was unbeatable! To your main points,I'd simply add surely theft was not the motive.The killing was cold-blooded and planned & not a random act.The phone-call to the chess club & the wild-goose chase alibi prove these 2 assertions...would a random thief or the Anfield Burglar have gone to such elaborate trouble? Regards IAN(FJumble)

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

Sorry GED..I meant the Anfield Burglar was a sneak thief,an opportunist..who was,so far as I know never used violence.His Modus Operandi was NEVER to assault & rob! IAN(FJumble) Are you/MARK going to Prof.Simpson lecture tomorrow?