Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[ColdCaseJury]

If Parkes was telling the truth then I would submit that Parry's comments amounted to a virtual confession.

Odd that he should virtually confess when he had an alibi from Olivia Brine (not to be confused with the so-called Lily Lloyd alibi), don't you think? Of course, you may reject this alibi as bogus (let's fact it Parry was VERY CAGEY in talking about the case later in life, which is surprising if he had such a strong alibi).

[ColdCaseJury]

Do you think Wallace and Parry could have conspired together?

Only IF he his plan was to frame Parry for it all along OR that when he realised his alibi had failed (e.g. the changed time of death did not exonerate him) and he was in the frame for murder he dished the dirt.

Personally, I think that IF it was a conspiracy, Wallace had another accomplice, person unknown. The one objection might be that Julia would only let in people she knew, so this reduces the number of accomplices. To this I would say: we only have Wallace's word that she only let in people she knew. Read his statements carefully (they are both in my book) and, if I recall correctly, Julia let in Marsden quite easily when it appears that he was not that well known to her.

[AmericanSherlock]

If it were a conspiracy, I harken back to a post where a man said his father admitted being a gay prostitute for Wallace...and that Parry and Marsden were as well. Julia knew this...and threatened to reveal it...this is why she was killed. I think that scenario is more likely than Parry and Marsden sleeping with Julia for money, and Wallace blackmailing them. Parry's comments referring to WHW as "sexually odd" would jibe with either scenario, although I would say that it sounds most like a euphemism for homosexuality to me.

[John G]

Odd that he should virtually confess when he had an alibi from Olivia Brine (not to be confused with the so-called Lily Lloyd alibi), don't you think? Of course, you may reject this alibi as bogus (let's fact it Parry was VERY CAGEY in talking about the case later in life, which is surprising if he had such a strong alibi).

In respect of the Olive Brine alibi, I wonder if he could have told a half-truth. In other words, as I indicated in my earlier post, maybe he was there but left significantly earlier than he claimed. Thus, he stated that he arrived at 5:30 and left at 8:30. But what if he actually left closer to 7:30? As noted earlier, the witness might have been reluctant to contradict him, reasoning that, if the murder did take place at around 6:30 as the police claimed, then Parry must still be innocent.

What I also find a little suspicious is the way in which Parry continued to accumulate alibis later on in the evening: after leaving the Brine household he stated that he then visited the post office to buy a newspaper and some cigarettes; then he called at Hignet's for his accumulater; from there he went to a Mrs Williamson's and chatted for about ten minutes; and finally he arrived at Lily Lloyd's.

[John G]

Only IF he his plan was to frame Parry for it all along OR that when he realised his alibi had failed (e.g. the changed time of death did not exonerate him) and he was in the frame for murder he dished the dirt.

Personally, I think that IF it was a conspiracy, Wallace had another accomplice, person unknown. The one objection might be that Julia would only let in people she knew, so this reduces the number of accomplices. To this I would say: we only have Wallace's word that she only let in people she knew. Read his statements carefully (they are both in my book) and, if I recall correctly, Julia let in Marsden quite easily when it appears that he was not that well known to her.

Yes, it's clearly a possibility that someone could have tricked their way into the house, and your point about Marsden is well made. However, a major difficulty I have with the conspiracy theory is this: how could he have persuaded another party to savagely murder his wife? What would be their motive? I mean, surely the insurance money would be an insufficient incentive, as it was hardly a fortune.

[John G]

If it were a conspiracy, I harken back to a post where a man said his father admitted being a gay prostitute for Wallace...and that Parry and Marsden were as well. Julia knew this...and threatened to reveal it...this is why she was killed. I think that scenario is more likely than Parry and Marsden sleeping with Julia for money, and Wallace blackmailing them. Parry's comments referring to WHW as "sexually odd" would jibe with either scenario, although I would say that it sounds most like a euphemism for homosexuality to me.

This was clearly hearsay evidence. And the idea that Parry, Marsden and this other man were all gay prostitutes seems completely far fetched to me.

[AmericanSherlock]

This was clearly hearsay evidence. And the idea that Parry, Marsden and this other man were all gay prostitutes seems completely far fetched to me.

I'm just playing around with the conspiracy theory. As you said, there isn't much motive for others to be drawn into a conspiracy without some sort of blackmail. What Gannon suggests is similar as well and jibes with the "sexually odd" comment. Parkes' story is hearsay as well.

My belief is still strongly that Wallace was guilty and acted alone. Mainly because the motive of the call plainly seemed like murder to me. If Parry's goal was to rob the house as you suggest, how did he think he could get away with it without arousing suspicion on himself? How did he even know WHW would take the bait? Too many questions and loose ends. It was also a full 18 months after he was sacked from the pru.

[ColdCaseJury]

In respect of the Olive Brine alibi, I wonder if he could have told a half-truth. In other words, as I indicated in my earlier post, maybe he was there but left significantly earlier than he claimed. Thus, he stated that he arrived at 5:30 and left at 8:30. But what if he actually left closer to 7:30? As noted earlier, the witness might have been reluctant to contradict him, reasoning that, if the murder did take place at around 6:30 as the police claimed, then Parry must still be innocent.

I agree the half-truth alibi is a possibility. Unfortunately, the police were so keen on finding evidence against Wallace they appear not to have questioned the alibi. I wonder whether Phyllis Plant (a visitor to the Brine house that evening) would have confirmed the full alibi or a half-truth version?

[AmericanSherlock]

A curious discrepancy. Goodman in the Radio City interview says he confronted Parry with RWE "on a Monday night in the summer of that year"...the date given in various books (I think by RWE as well although not sure) of the encounter was March 30 1966 (early spring). Also, that was a Wednesday.

[ColdCaseJury]

A curious discrepancy.

People do make mistakes over dates and times.

Less is more. Let's say that JG and RWE talked to Parry in 1966. This will be true whichever day of the week or month it was.

[John G]

I'm just playing around with the conspiracy theory. As you said, there isn't much motive for others to be drawn into a conspiracy without some sort of blackmail. What Gannon suggests is similar as well and jibes with the "sexually odd" comment. Parkes' story is hearsay as well.

My belief is still strongly that Wallace was guilty and acted alone. Mainly because the motive of the call plainly seemed like murder to me. If Parry's goal was to rob the house as you suggest, how did he think he could get away with it without arousing suspicion on himself? How did he even know WHW would take the bait? Too many questions and loose ends. It was also a full 18 months after he was sacked from the pru.

I very much doubt Wallace could have acted alone; there simply wasn't enough time to commit some brutal murder, stage a Robbery, wash off all the blood etc.

Parry may have aroused suspicion on himself but there would be no proof, unless he was caught in the act.

Although it was 18 months since he'd left the Pru he may still have born a grudge against Wallace. Moreover, if Parkes was telling the truth about the prank calls he may have, found sending Wallace off on a wild goose chase to be a great joke.

At the end of the day Parry, with a history of theft, had an obvious motive; Wallace didn't.

[John G]

I agree the half-truth alibi is a possibility. Unfortunately, the police were so keen on finding evidence against Wallace they appear not to have questioned the alibi. I wonder whether Phyllis Plant (a visitor to the Brine house that evening) would have confirmed the full alibi or a half-truth version?

Yes, I agree. Your book makes it clear that the police pretty much decided it was Wallace from the moment they arrived, so Of therefore wonder how much time they spent investigating Wallace.

Phyliss Plant, of course, didn't give a statement to the police and neither did Olive Brine or Harold Dennison, which suggests to me that this element of the investigation was shoddy to say the least. However, this being the 1930s, I wonder how aware the younger witnesses have been of the Tim. Would they have had watched, for example? And there certainly would be no tv programmes to estimate the time by!

[AmericanSherlock]

People do make mistakes over dates and times.

Less is more. Let's say that JG and RWE talked to Parry in 1966. This will be true whichever day of the week or month it was.

sure, just found it interesting. Also, the fact that RWE appears to have reversed on Wallaces guilt since then.

[John G]

Yes, I agree. Your book makes it clear that the police pretty much decided it was Wallace from the moment they arrived, so I therefore wonder how much time they spent investigating Parry.

Phyliss Plant, of course, didn't give a statement to the police and neither did Olive Brine or Harold Dennison, which suggests to me that this element of the investigation was shoddy to say the least. However, this being the 1930s, I wonder how aware the younger witnesses would have been of the time. Would they have had a watch for example? And there certainly would be no tv programmes to estimate the time by!

Okay, I've amended post 297 (see above) due to a number of unusual typographical/ predictive text errors!

[AmericanSherlock]

I very much doubt Wallace could have acted alone; there simply wasn't enough time to commit some brutal murder, stage a Robbery, wash off all the blood etc.

Parry may have aroused suspicion on himself but there would be no proof, unless he was caught in the act.

Although it was 18 months since he'd left the Pru he may still have born a grudge against Wallace. Moreover, if Parkes was telling the truth about the prank calls he may have, found sending Wallace off on a wild goose chase to be a great joke.

At the end of the day Parry, with a history of theft, had an obvious motive; Wallace didn't.

1. I disagree about the timing, I've explained it already a few times, so we can agree to disagree. In the book, it appears Antony agrees the timing allowed for it to be possible, if just barely.

2. Parry was on good terms with Julia and if he was the killer, he would have been let in by her. He would be casting considerable suspicion upon himself, and I'm not exactly sure how he thought he could rob the money without her noticing. Perhaps you can argue he was such a suspicious character with a bad history before and after the crime, that impulsive acts like this would be in character. I think Antony's scenario is more likely if you believe it was Parry; that he went there to try to persuade her to lend money and it went awry. I still find it implausible, if you accept Parry was the culprit, you are saying that he combined an elaborate ruse/prank to get Wallace out of the way, assumed it would work and for long enough, and then showed up to try to get money, knowing Wallace would eventually return and tell his wife he had been sent on a fruitless journey. Again, the only thing that even makes this remotely plausible to me is Parry's well documented poor character and John Parkes' testimony. However, Parry was a known suspect and there is similar testimony claiming the Johnstones confessed to the crime, as well as 70 lunatics confessed to the murder themselves. Also consider the fact that Parry had an alibi for the night of the murder, and I don't think it can be as easily deconstructed as you suggest.

3. My main point in not accepting Parry acting alone or perhaps worded better Wallace being innocent, is WHW's actions. I have heard it suggested that people have tried the phone call on friiends as a test and they have gone looking for an address, and because Wallace knew of other Menlove Gardens in the area, it would be reasonable to assume he might be taken in by it.

Consider the fact that Wallace

1. did not consult a map, as he would certainly be in the habit of doing as an insurance agent

2. arrived at the tram stop at 7:08, not on very good time for a 7:30 meeting of which he did not know the precise address. You're telling me the fastidious, detail oriented Wallace on official business looking to make a sizable commission does not consult a map, assumes he'll find an address, and then starts asking randomly, making a big scene everywhere. Seems rather unlikely to me.

Personally, I think the address was a red herring, in that I suspect Wallace made the call and meant to say West. He first asked "west" and was told that no it was "east" by Beattie at the club when he arrived. But that's besides the point if you are assuming Wallace is innocent and looking for the non-existent address. It just simply does not add up.