Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Incidentally, Wyndham-Brown's 1933 "The Trial of William Herbert Wallace" is now freely available on the Internet Archive.

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.220695/2015.220695.The-Trial#page/n3/mode/2up

My original copy cost £150.

Thanks, I haven't read Murderer Scot Free or Two Studies in Crime by Yseult Bridges. Those are the 2 I'd like to read. Do you know which side the author camed down on?

I believe Yseult Bridges thought WHW guilty, but no clue about Murderer Scot Free.

Thanks, Rod

[AmericanSherlock]

From reading The excellent article on the Wallace case at chessbase that has been posted here before numerous times, I can see Hussey came down on the side of Wallace's innocence.

[ColdCaseJury]

From reading The excellent article on the Wallace case at chessbase that has been posted here before numerous times, I can see Hussey came down on the side of Wallace's innocence.

AS,

Two Studies in Crime by Yseult Bridges compares the murders of Lord Russell and Julia Wallace. She finds Wallace Guilty.

Re: the improbable bad luck of Wallace (if innocent), remember the police eliminated Parry even though it was obvious that Parry had misled them in his original statement. So there was some bad luck here.

Rod's theory is a good one, although no theory has total explanatory power i.e. in this case there is always some evidence unaccounted for, and/or contains implausible premises. For Rod's theory, for example, Hall's evidence must be set aside as unreliable and no neighbour heard anyone knock at the front door of No. 29 after the milkboy called. BTW, if they had, it would surely be game over. Another bad break for Wallace, I hear you say, AS! Wallace Alone has to discount, for example, Hall, Parkes, Parry's misleading statement at the time of the call, the lack of blood traces on Wallace and in the bathroom.

My current position is that Wallace Alone has the higher prior probability (i.e. before any evidence is taken into account) and Rod's Parry Collaboration theory is arguably the best theory for accounting for the evidence working from plausible premises (remember we need to include Parry's movements and actions on both nights in the evidence set). Hence, for me the decision is a close call. It seems the decision is easier for you, Rod, and most other people!

[AmericanSherlock]

AS,

Two Studies in Crime by Yseult Bridges compares the murders of Lord Russell and Julia Wallace. She finds Wallace Guilty.

Re: the improbable bad luck of Wallace (if innocent), remember the police eliminated Parry even though it was obvious that Parry had misled them in his original statement. So there was some bad luck here.

Rod's theory is a good one, although no theory has total explanatory power i.e. in this case there is always some evidence unaccounted for, and/or contains implausible premises. For Rod's theory, for example, Hall's evidence must be set aside as unreliable and no neighbour heard anyone knock at the front door of No. 29 after the milkboy called. BTW, if they had, it would surely be game over. Another bad break for Wallace, I hear you say, AS! Wallace Alone has to discount, for example, Hall, Parkes, Parry's misleading statement at the time of the call, the lack of blood traces on Wallace and in the bathroom.

My current position is that Wallace Alone has the higher prior probability (i.e. before any evidence is taken into account) and Rod's Parry Collaboration theory is arguably the best theory for accounting for the evidence working from plausible premises (remember we need to include Parry's movements and actions on both nights in the evidence set). Hence, for me the decision is a close call. It seems the decision is easier for you, Rod, and most other people!

Antony,

I think the amount of evidence unaccounted for/ number of implausible premises left standing should not be the only method for determining which theory was the most likely. For 2 reasons.

1. One theory could leave more evidence unaccounted for/needing explanations but all of this "contrary evidence" could be easily explained away...in other words there could be 3 or 4 things left to wrestle with but all of them are plausibly explained vs. only 2 things left to wrestle with in another theory, but those 2 are virtual dealbreakers.

2. More critically, I would say that the logic behind certain scenarios being plausible in general should have some weight, not just picking whichever scenario requires the least explanation. For example, I think if we were going to try to come up with a scenario that requires the least jumbling around mentally...one that was most consistent with the facts and puzzle pieces on the face of it we would go with the Wallace Conspiracy one, as you seemed to pick in your postscript. But my issues with that option are not based solely in the evidence, but in the thought process of the characters involved that my logic tells me is difficult to reconcile with what happened.

As you know, I find it difficult to believe Wallace, working with someone else, wouldn't be AT the chess club to receive the call. Caz first made that point here, and you disagreed. I can understand your disagreement with us. But what about the night of the murder. If working with someone else , I find it incredibly hard to imagine why Wallace would come home AT ALL that night. Why not make the appointment for 6:30 PM and go straight from work and have a foolproof alibi? Now of course, if a given scenario is overwhelmingly consistent with the facts, and the others are totally implausible, I would go with the one that is consistent with the facts, even if I can't understand it logically. But I don't see one scenario above and beyond totally consistent with the facts here anyway, so I also consider if things make sense logically.

As far as Rod's theory, I find it more confusing and less simple than Wallace acting alone. Without John Parkes testimony, I don't think there is much to connect Parry to the crime. To me the biggest problem with it, is it appears to me an assassin with the motive of murdering JW acted out his plan in the house that night. Because of the location of the attack, the money and jewelry not taken!!!, the lack of a struggle, the neighbors not hearing a sound etc etc. I find these issues more hard to explain than the timing/Wallace avoiding blood splatter, when it's clear the killer had some method to avoid tracking blood all over the place and leading to the door. I'd argue this ALSO indicates pre planning; a planned murder.

[ColdCaseJury]

Antony,

I think the amount of evidence unaccounted for/ number of implausible premises left standing should not be the only method for determining which theory was the most likely. For 2 reasons.

1. One theory could leave more evidence unaccounted for/needing explanations but all of this "contrary evidence" could be easily explained away...in other words there could be 3 or 4 things left to wrestle with but all of them are plausibly explained vs. only 2 things left to wrestle with in another theory, but those 2 are virtual dealbreakers.

2. More critically, I would say that the logic behind certain scenarios being plausible in general should have some weight, not just picking whichever scenario requires the least explanation. For example, I think if we were going to try to come up with a scenario that requires the least jumbling around mentally...one that was most consistent with the facts and puzzle pieces on the face of it we would go with the Wallace Conspiracy one, as you seemed to pick in your postscript. But my issues with that option are not based solely in the evidence, but in the thought process of the characters involved that my logic tells me is difficult to reconcile with what happened.

As you know, I find it difficult to believe Wallace, working with someone else, wouldn't be AT the chess club to receive the call. Caz first made that point here, and you disagreed. I can understand your disagreement with us. But what about the night of the murder. If working with someone else , I find it incredibly hard to imagine why Wallace would come home AT ALL that night. Why not make the appointment for 6:30 PM and go straight from work and have a foolproof alibi? Now of course, if a given scenario is overwhelmingly consistent with the facts, and the others are totally implausible, I would go with the one that is consistent with the facts, even if I can't understand it logically. But I don't see one scenario above and beyond totally consistent with the facts here anyway, so I also consider if things make sense logically.

As far as Rod's theory, I find it more confusing and less simple than Wallace acting alone. Without John Parkes testimony, I don't think there is much to connect Parry to the crime. To me the biggest problem with it, is it appears to me an assassin with the motive of murdering JW acted out his plan in the house that night. Because of the location of the attack, the money and jewelry not taken!!!, the lack of a struggle, the neighbors not hearing a sound etc etc. I find these issues more hard to explain than the timing/Wallace avoiding blood splatter, when it's clear the killer had some method to avoid tracking blood all over the place and leading to the door. I'd argue this ALSO indicates pre planning; a planned murder.

Hi AS, do not forget the importance of prior probability - this covers much of what you talk about here about Wallace and consistency with evidence not being everything. If Wallace was working with someone else, then him avoiding going home for tea might be a better plan. A good point.

Your points about "the location of the attack, the money and jewelry not taken!!!, the lack of a struggle" I will address in the chapter on Rod's theory. Briefly, the theft was planned, not the murder, and the target was the insurance money. Once Julia was murdered, any thought of taking any other money, even if there was any, would be quickly abandoned. The lack of struggle does not imply Julia was taken completely by surprise - she was frail and timid, don't forget. The location is the stronger objection, imo, and I'm working with Rod to get a plausible reconstruction.

Again, I wish to stress that Wallace IS very much in frame because of the higher prior probability of uxoricide. Nothing rules him out - and the timings are suspiciously bad luck and his behaviour odd - BUT nothing directly connects Wallace to the crime either. Parry has the busted alibi on the night of the call, odd movements on the night of the murder, and Parkes/Atkinson. And, on Rod's theory, Parry was not the killer, don't forget!

[RodCrosby]

Without John Parkes testimony, I don't think there is much to connect Parry to the crime.

With respect AS, there were plenty reasons in 1931 to suspect Parry as being involved in some way, and not only Wallace suggested him. There was at least one anonymous detailed letter to, IIRC, Munro and you have heard at least two people who took the trouble, after 50 years, to phone in to Radio City in 1981 [before Parkes came forward with his explosive recollections, btw.]

Parry was even mentioned by name during Wallace's trial, and his name[concealed or redacted] appeared in early published works on the crime:- "Mr. P" [1932] and "Harris" [1934].

The Police considered him a serious suspect, interviewed him, checked some of his alibis, and according to Parry and others even searched his house, examined his clothes and partially dismantled his car [again all before Parkes said he came forward]. We may deduce then that there was at least as much circumstantial evidence against Parry as against Wallace in 1931, and nothing we have heard since gainsays that view. On the contrary, we now know even more about Parry's malignant personality and behaviour, both before and after the 1931 crime.

However, Richard Gordon Parry did not kill Julia Wallace, and the lazy, incompetent, embarrassed Liverpool Police - confronted with that legal headache - decided to press a "simpler" case against her husband, which ended in their humiliation with a unique reversal at the Court of Appeal.

[AmericanSherlock]

With respect AS, there were plenty reasons in 1931 to suspect Parry as being involved in some way, and not only Wallace suggested him. There was at least one anonymous detailed letter to, IIRC, Munro and you have heard at least two people who took the trouble, after 50 years, to phone in to Radio City in 1981 [before Parkes came forward with his explosive recollections, btw.]

Parry was even mentioned by name during Wallace's trial, and his name[concealed or redacted] appeared in early published works on the crime:- "Mr. P" [1932] and "Harris" [1934].

The Police considered him a serious suspect, interviewed him, checked some of his alibis, and according to Parry and others even searched his house, examined his clothes and partially dismantled his car [again all before Parkes said he came forward]. We may deduce then that there was at least as much circumstantial evidence against Parry as against Wallace in 1931, and nothing we have heard since gainsays that view. On the contrary, we now know even more about Parry's malignant personality and behaviour, both before and after the 1931 crime.

However, Richard Gordon Parry did not kill Julia Wallace, and the lazy, incompetent, embarrassed Liverpool Police - confronted with that legal headache - decided to press a "simpler" case against her husband, which ended in their humiliation with a unique reversal at the Court of Appeal.

Hi Rod,

Sorry I might have to clarify. I agree there are multiple reasons to suspect Parry's involvement. What I meant was from a legal standpoint, there really is not much of a case; the Parkes testimony is the closest thing to one there is. Without it, I would argue that the case against Wallace would certainly be stronger than the one against Parry. Perhaps we disagree on this point. However, I also agree that both cases would be weak, and I do NOT think Wallace should have been convicted. If guilty, he did a sufficient job in covering his tracks, no visible blood on him on his journey, the murder weapon not conclusively found, and there is enough general doubt around the timing of the murder and the phone call (could he hoax a voice etc), that not guilty was the correct verdict. And I think the appeals court made the correct decision; my view is very similar to that of Justice Wright, the judge at the original trial who summed up for acquittal and must have been pleased that the jury's verdict was reversed eventually, but privately thought Wallace guilty.

One of my issues is you claim to have "solved" the case, so I would wonder armed with the information you have now, would you find Parry guilty as an accomplice (forgetting the legal ins and outs of exactly what he was guilty of) and whoever you think "Qualtrough" was guilty of murder? How could we even determine at all who Qualtrough was if you think he had to be someone not known to JW as part of the plan (I agree given your scenario, that makes sense). Can you direct me to where Parkes says Parry "and another fellow" threatened him. I need to listen to the 4 radio city broadcasts in depth time permitting, so I trust you are accurate with this. If so, I can see the pieces of the puzzle constituting your theory falling into some place.

I do understand the suspicion around Parry, particularly for making the phone call, the fact Beattie insisted the caller wasn't Wallace (still think that doesn't mean as much as others do), the fact the caller mentioned a 21st, Parry's character and criminal history etc.

But I still find it hard to imagine a robbery plot centered around a phone call that would only get WHW out of the house, and still leave Julia to contend with. A robbery plot carried out by someone other than Parry, that Parry had to trust (and apparently he made a bad choice in a partner if your theory is correct!). A robbery plot that centers around WHW being at the chess club, when it was plain to see he missed many meetings recently before the night in question. Ar robbery plot that required Wallace not only to receive the message, but to go to the address. A robbery plot that would probably require one or both of the plotter to stalk Wallace on both the night of the call AND the night of the murder.

I tend to agree with Murphy when he argues that it would be so much simpler and more reliable for "Qualtrough" to slip a note under the door. It had been argued before here that someone wouldn't want their handwriting on record, but if your theory is correct "Qualtrough" with the help of Parry was willing to be SEEN by JW. And as you've noted, we should remember the plan at this point was likely robbery, nor murder.

I understand Parry was a suspicious character from the beginning, and you are correct about him being referred to as "Harris", which as you know, is a cognate of Parry--both meaning "Son of Harry."

However, I assert that Parry may have struck Wallace as a good fall man in the same way, he mentioned him right away and a large part of the early suspicion of Parry (before Goodman) came from Wallace's own comments.

I agree Parry cannot evade suspicion entirely, but I would argue that on the face of it, the testimony of Olive Brine etc. is more reliable than that of John Parkes etc.

[John G]

Hi AS, do not forget the importance of prior probability - this covers much of what you talk about here about Wallace and consistency with evidence not being everything. If Wallace was working with someone else, then him avoiding going home for tea might be a better plan. A good point.

Your points about "the location of the attack, the money and jewelry not taken!!!, the lack of a struggle" I will address in the chapter on Rod's theory. Briefly, the theft was planned, not the murder, and the target was the insurance money. Once Julia was murdered, any thought of taking any other money, even if there was any, would be quickly abandoned. The lack of struggle does not imply Julia was taken completely by surprise - she was frail and timid, don't forget. The location is the stronger objection, imo, and I'm working with Rod to get a plausible reconstruction.

Again, I wish to stress that Wallace IS very much in frame because of the higher prior probability of uxoricide. Nothing rules him out - and the timings are suspiciously bad luck and his behaviour odd - BUT nothing directly connects Wallace to the crime either. Parry has the busted alibi on the night of the call, odd movements on the night of the murder, and Parkes/Atkinson. And, on Rod's theory, Parry was not the killer, don't forget!

Hi CCJ,

I remember reading that during the week of the murder Wallace had collected the weekly collections, however, importantly not the monthly collections. Wallace, therefore, would obviously be aware that this would be poor timing to stage a robbery, i.e. because he could have maximized his return if the robbery had taken place during the monthly collections week.

In this respect, a theory of a staged robbery involving Wallace and an accomplice, is somewhat undermined.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi CCJ,

I remember reading that during the week of the murder Wallace had collected the weekly collections, however, importantly not the monthly collections. Wallace, therefore, would obviously be aware that this would be poor timing to stage a robbery, i.e. because he could have maximized his return if the robbery had taken place during the monthly collections week.

In this respect, a theory of a staged robbery involving Wallace and an accomplice, is somewhat undermined.

Hi John,

I agree with you here, I also think that if Wallace had the benefit of working with someone else, then it is surprising he returned home at all on the night of the murder. Why not make the appointment for 6:30 PM and go straight from work, being seen by all and having a more foolproof alibi.

I think either Wallace acted alone or other(s) did, and if it wasn't Wallace, it was certainly a robbery gone awry, not a planned murder.

[RodCrosby]

Hi Rod,

Sorry I might have to clarify. I agree there are multiple reasons to suspect Parry's involvement. What I meant was from a legal standpoint, there really is not much of a case; the Parkes testimony is the closest thing to one there is. Without it, I would argue that the case against Wallace would certainly be stronger than the one against Parry. Perhaps we disagree on this point. However, I also agree that both cases would be weak, and I do NOT think Wallace should have been convicted. If guilty, he did a sufficient job in covering his tracks, no visible blood on him on his journey, the murder weapon not conclusively found, and there is enough general doubt around the timing of the murder and the phone call (could he hoax a voice etc), that not guilty was the correct verdict. And I think the appeals court made the correct decision; my view is very similar to that of Justice Wright, the judge at the original trial who summed up for acquittal and must have been pleased that the jury's verdict was reversed eventually, but privately thought Wallace guilty.

One of my issues is you claim to have "solved" the case, so I would wonder armed with the information you have now, would you find Parry guilty as an accomplice (forgetting the legal ins and outs of exactly what he was guilty of) and whoever you think "Qualtrough" was guilty of murder? How could we even determine at all who Qualtrough was if you think he had to be someone not known to JW as part of the plan (I agree given your scenario, that makes sense). Can you direct me to where Parkes says Parry "and another fellow" threatened him. I need to listen to the 4 radio city broadcasts in depth time permitting, so I trust you are accurate with this. If so, I can see the pieces of the puzzle constituting your theory falling into some place.

I do understand the suspicion around Parry, particularly for making the phone call, the fact Beattie insisted the caller wasn't Wallace (still think that doesn't mean as much as others do), the fact the caller mentioned a 21st, Parry's character and criminal history etc.

But I still find it hard to imagine a robbery plot centered around a phone call that would only get WHW out of the house, and still leave Julia to contend with. A robbery plot carried out by someone other than Parry, that Parry had to trust (and apparently he made a bad choice in a partner if your theory is correct!). A robbery plot that centers around WHW being at the chess club, when it was plain to see he missed many meetings recently before the night in question. Ar robbery plot that required Wallace not only to receive the message, but to go to the address. A robbery plot that would probably require one or both of the plotter to stalk Wallace on both the night of the call AND the night of the murder.

I tend to agree with Murphy when he argues that it would be so much simpler and more reliable for "Qualtrough" to slip a note under the door. It had been argued before here that someone wouldn't want their handwriting on record, but if your theory is correct "Qualtrough" with the help of Parry was willing to be SEEN by JW. And as you've noted, we should remember the plan at this point was likely robbery, nor murder.

I understand Parry was a suspicious character from the beginning, and you are correct about him being referred to as "Harris", which as you know, is a cognate of Parry--both meaning "Son of Harry."

However, I assert that Parry may have struck Wallace as a good fall man in the same way, he mentioned him right away and a large part of the early suspicion of Parry (before Goodman) came from Wallace's own comments.

I agree Parry cannot evade suspicion entirely, but I would argue that on the face of it, the testimony of Olive Brine etc. is more reliable than that of John Parkes etc.

AS, there is nothing but a poorly-sourced throwaway remark allegedly made by Lord Wright years later from which to draw any inference that he "privately" thought Wallace guilty. Who, after reading his summing-up in 1931, can seriously believe that he did think him guilty?

One of the points I've raised is the perspective of the Police, and how they might or ought to have gone about constructing a case against Parry, and how insuperable that really was, from an evidential and legal-technical standpoint, at least prior to John Parkes' bombshell. This is a fascinating aspect, and I have called for professional opinions from lawyers and detectives to shed some more light on this area.

I don't think we'll ever know who Qualtrough was now. The last opportunity to find out was probably in 1981, but Wilkes, Goodman et al were so full of themselves in finally 'nailing' Parry that they let the opportunity slip through their fingers, despite several clues that their conclusion wasn't quite right.

Parkes talks briefly about the "other chap" from 20m 40s. He doesn't say the word "threatened", although the implication is clear.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jv4vtb239oa1tvm/03-1981%20Radio%20City%20-%20Conspiracy%20of%20Silence.mp3?dl=0

I don't find Parry's plot remotely "hard to imagine". It's exactly the kind of 'high jinx' any clever jack-the-lad with a criminal bent might have come up with.
Recall his friend Tattersall: "I admit he and I were a couple of bad lads. But there's a difference between pinching money out of phone boxes and pinching cars, and killing someone. Isn't there?"
Yes there is, Jimmy, but if you are unsophisticated petty criminals you need to factor in the possibility of something going badly wrong one day...

I've gone into some detail with CCJ how everything happened on the Monday and Tuesday nights, but to see that you'll have to buy the book, I guess!

Btw, Murphy and your good self appear to overlook a rather obvious counter-argument to the "Wallace rarely showed up at the chess club" conundrum.

Yes, it was me who put the chess guy right in 2008 on the significance of "Harris". Amazing what can be staring one in the face, yet is seemingly baffling...

I don't see how the testimony of Olivia Brine is inconsistent with the evidence of John Parkes, and - more to the point - both are consistent with my theory of the crime.

[RodCrosby]

"Tattersall" seems an odd fish, btw. Fifty years later he was still carrying around yellowed newspaper cuttings of all of Parry's brushes with the law.

Why?

[I put him in quotes, as I can't seem to find any trace of such a person in public records...]

[AmericanSherlock]

]AS, there is nothing but a poorly-sourced throwaway remark allegedly made by Lord Wright years later from which to draw any inference that he "privately" thought Wallace guilty. Who, after reading his summing-up in 1931, can seriously believe that he did think him guilty?[/B]

One of the points I've raised is the perspective of the Police, and how they might or ought to have gone about constructing a case against Parry, and how insuperable that really was, from an evidential and legal-technical standpoint, at least prior to John Parkes' bombshell. This is a fascinating aspect, and I have called for professional opinions from lawyers and detectives to shed some more light on this area.

I don't think we'll ever know who Qualtrough was now. The last opportunity to find out was probably in 1981, but Wilkes, Goodman et al were so full of themselves in finally 'nailing' Parry that they let the opportunity slip through their fingers, despite several clues that their conclusion wasn't quite right.

Parkes talks briefly about the "other chap" from 20m 40s. He doesn't say the word "threatened", although the implication is clear.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jv4vtb239oa1tvm/03-1981%20Radio%20City%20-%20Conspiracy%20of%20Silence.mp3?dl=0

I don't find Parry's plot remotely "hard to imagine". It's exactly the kind of 'high jinx' any clever jack-the-lad with a criminal bent might have come up with.
Recall his friend Tattersall: "I admit he and I were a couple of bad lads. But there's a difference between pinching money out of phone boxes and pinching cars, and killing someone. Isn't there?"
Yes there is, Jimmy, but if you are unsophisticated petty criminals you need to factor in the possibility of something going badly wrong one day...

I've gone into some detail with CCJ how everything happened on the Monday and Tuesday nights, but to see that you'll have to buy the book, I guess!

Btw, Murphy and your good self appear to overlook a rather obvious counter-argument to the "Wallace rarely showed up at the chess club" conundrum.

Yes, it was me who put the chess guy right in 2008 on the significance of "Harris". Amazing what can be staring one in the face, yet is seemingly baffling...

I don't see how the testimony of Olivia Brine is inconsistent with the evidence of John Parkes, and - more to the point - both are consistent with my theory of the crime.

Me. I have no reason to distrust that, even if it's "poorly sourced". Many quotes and detials about this case are "poorly sourced". Maybe it's not true, who knows? It doesn't prove anything either way anyway. Just thought it was interesting. There is a big difference between thinking someone not guilty legally and innocent of a crime. I would have summed up for acquittal as well.

Please enlighten me on the obvious counter argument to Wallace not being at the club. Guess I'm stupid, because I don't see one. I do realize one possible argument is that the caller asked and Beattie assured him Wallace would get it (maybe assured is a strong word), but he did have some measure of safety in that. I doubt that's what you meant though.

Could JT have been the murderer? Who knows? Complete conjecture, though.

Earlier Antony contrasted the 2 because the Parry theory involved him acting alone. You are correct that in your theory, the 2 do not contradict eachother.

As far as the details of your theory, would be nice to hear them before waiting for the book, which I will buy for sure, as I did Antony's out of print one now. Don't you think I've earned some inside info after wrangling it out with you guys for pages and pages?

[AmericanSherlock]

Incidentally, "James Tattersall" is a medium to high end clothing store based in London that is very popular here in the states.

[RodCrosby]

Please enlighten me on the obvious counter argument to Wallace not being at the club. Guess I'm stupid, because I don't see one.

You plan this crime based on the opportunity that Wallace will be at the chess club to receive a hoax message. But of course - as Murphy notes - you can't be certain he will turn up on any particular night listed on the schedule... He or Julia might be ill, have a visitor, have lost interest in chess, or have just plain forgotten.

So you MUST watch and wait. The easiest place to watch and wait is on Breck Road where you can see both possible tram stops he might take. And there is a rather obvious vantage point that covers both stops, still there today.

Week 1: No show
Week 2: No show
Week 3: No show
Week 4: Bingo! There he is! It's now or never, as there's only one more week listed on the schedule, which for all we know he'll not show. [We're bored with waiting anyhow ]

Simple, really, isn't it?

[John G]

AS, listen to Dolly Atkinson at 27 minutes in...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jv4vtb239oa1tvm/03-1981%20Radio%20City%20-%20Conspiracy%20of%20Silence.mp3?dl=0

Also listen to Leslie Williamson at 10m 20s on the phone-in.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ai4l8m284gc04d6/04-1981%20Radio%20City%20-%20Phone%20In.mp3?dl=0

Amazingly, Williamson was part of Parry's 'alibi' for the night of the murder, but no-one in 1981 knew this !! [Parry's police statement was not published until many years later, in Murphy's 2001 book for the first time, I think]

Parry had no fewer than FIVE 'alibis' for an half-hour period, between approx 8.30pm and 9.00pm on the night of the murder, and the Police only checked the first and the last [Brine and Lloyd].

Having listened again to Leslie Williamson, do you think Parry called between 8.30pm and 9.00pm on the night of the murder "for about 10 minutes"... to receive an invitation to Leslie's 21st birthday party?

Interesting radio broadcast Rod. Thanks for that. Williamson doesn't mention Parry calling on the night of the murder. However, there seems little doubt that he seriously disliked Parry and even believed that he had conned his mother into handing over his insurance cards.

On the face of it, therefore, it would seem unlikely that Williamson would invite Parry to his 21st birthday party. However, I would make three points. Firstly, Williamson doesn't refer to dates in the radio interview: He might therefore have been on reasonably good terms with Parry at the time of the murder. Secondly, would Parry have been reckless enough to give a false alibi that the police could easily have checked? After all, he surely has to assume that the police would thoroughly check any alibi he might give. Thirdly, would he be crazy enough to give as a false alibi someone who strongly disliked him and therefore would, presumably, be highly unlikely to support such an alibi?