Daisychains, if you look at the message I put up just before Mark's, you'll see that I thought it was the talks being given at the big history festival in the St. George's Hall this coming weekend. Local crime historian Vincent Burke (who has a voice for such occassions) is giving the talks and you can usually grab his attention between 'gigs' to talk about the likes of the Wallace or Maybrick cases if he doesn't already mention them.
I met up with Vincent at the Trial of James Maybrick at Allerton Cricket Club back in May. You're right Ged, he does have a voice for such an occasion. I have the account he narrated on Radio Merseyside titled The Man From The Pru. He's slightly out with some of his facts but well worth a listen.
It is Accomplished
Hiya Mark. I think I may have mentioned earlier in this thread or on another about having Vincent Burke's BBC Radio Merseyside dvd on the Wallace case. I think the conclusion is a bit unsatisfactory and I was let down by him not mentioning Parry or the subsequent Radio City episode on the matter.
The DVD was very disappointing I think.
Nothing against Vincent Burke at all, but the DVD omitted loads of relevant stuff. It was a much pared down version of the Wallace case.
The CD I have (that was broadcast on the radio) did mention Parry. His conclusion was that maybe Wallace hired Parry to commit the crime. I'm not convinced of this theory. Two points why:
1) If Wallace did hire Parry, it would surely have been more convincing (and beneficial) when Wallace had a larger hoard of money in the house.
2) I don't think Wallace would have named Parry as a major suspect after using him to murder Julia. He would have obviously named him as someone who would have been admitted to the house but I cannot believe Wallace would have hired him and then gone to the point of actually naming him as a suspect.
It is Accomplished
I agree Mark. All things considered, I definitely edge towards Parry as acting alone (the only dodgy bit being his alibi for the phone call to the chess club - I think???)
Hi Ged his alibi for the phone call isn't 100% convincing if you give or take ten minutes, however his alibi for the night of the murder is very convincing with several people confirming his whereabouts
cheers
Steve
All The Best
Steve
The question of Parry's alibi. For many years it was stated that Lily Lloyd gave Parry an alibi for the 20th January but agreed to sign an affidavit (two years later), claiming that she was only with him for the later part of the evening. I know Murphy claims that several witnesses were with him (Parry) throughout the evening, although it isn't exactly true that someone was with him all evening. From about 8.30 - 9.00 he claimed he went to the Post Office on Maiden Lane to buy cigarettes and a copy of the Evening Express and also went to pick up his accumulator at Hignetts on West Derby Road. I don't think he would have had the time to commit the murder etc in that time though. Could the alibis that were given for him have been fabricated? I know Parry told Jon Goodman (in 1966) that he was having his car repaired in Breck Road, which Goodman claimed was a new one on him. I have to say that there are no statements concerning Parry amongst the file currently held by Merseyside Police (which was a big disappointment).
Last edited by Mark R; 09-11-2007 at 08:20 PM.
It is Accomplished
Steve/Mark. Yes, I knew one of the alibi's was dodgy and aboult Lily Lloyd retracting hers, that's dodgy enough in itself in my view. He had form as a thief then there was the bloodied glove episode (if it's to be believed) The water just gets muddier.
Just been to the lecture on criminal trials at St George's Hall. The lecturer was Steve Binns. Had an interesting discussion with him about the Wallace Case.
It is Accomplished
I've spoken to him about it too and Vincent Burke - both so good at what they do. Steve was there over the weekend too, knowledgeable man.
I just found this spot while looking up the Wallace murder (being a longtime crime buff) and must point out that the authority on the case is Jonathan Goodman, who is the one who identified Parry as the killer and whose book was probably the basis for the TV movie (though not credited). The fact of the matter is that there had recently been a corruption scandal in the Liverpool police force which resulted in many experienced officers being canned. The inexperienced cops who investigated the Wallace case made up their minds that he was guilty, despite evidence to the contrary, and used deception and coercion of witnesses to make the case against him. Even the judge summed up in Wallace's favor, but the jury convicted him in an hour. (I believe they have since been reincarnated as the O.J. Simpson jury.) Poor Wallace, who died of cancer a couple of years later, was just another victim of the killer.
This was the first case ever reversed by the Criminal Court of appeal on the grounds that the verdict was not consistent with the evidence.
Now just ask me about Lizzie Borden.....
Yes, Goodman did indeed mention Parry in all but name but Wallace did mention him as a possible suspect. I think if anything, the basis for the TV movie was Roger Wilkes' book The Final Verdict. Wallace actually died of Pyelonephritis and Uraemia. I do largely agree with you though in the fact that it probably wasn't Wallace that committed the crime.
It is Accomplished
Bookmarks