Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

The only risk in an incorrect address would be one that was unambiguously incorrect. "Mr. Simpkins of 25 Qualtrough Gardens, Mossley Hill", for example, could easily be verified as non-existent in advance.

Perhaps whoever dreamed up "25 Menlove Gardens East" rightly guessed that - if the bait was taken - Wallace might not unreasonably knock at the other Gardens, buying a little more time for the robbery at Wolverton Street to be completed.

Remember, I think it was only Sydney Green the first person to tell Wallace unequivocally that there was no such address (he thought). Wallace stated that prior to this a woman coming out of a house in MG North had actually suggested East might be a continuation of MG West!

Just because Wallace had occasionally visited specific places in the general area, it surely does not give him omniscience about the existence of every street? Can any of us honestly state otherwise? I certainly wouldn't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of a district three or four miles from my own. I might know the main thoroughfares (Menlove Avenue, for instance) but certainly not every obscure residential side-street.

Wallace was told at the chess club that the Gardens existed, and exactly where to find them (off Menlove Avenue). I don't think there's anything suspicious about him setting off, armed with that information, ready to make further enquiries, if necessary, when he got there. There was no SatNav in those days, or Google Maps, and Wallace was the kind of guy, I guess, who imagined himself as the pro-active, get-up-and-go type, as many people of that era did. "Ask a Policeman" was a catch-phrase of the times, and Wallace duly did just that, once he had exhausted his own devices.

The forensics do bear further analysis, but McFall and the Police made such a balls-up of the scene and the inferences they drew from it, it's hard, I think, at the distance of 86 years, to exclude every particular scenario in which Julia might have been attacked.

Only a jury of half-asleep idiots thought Wallace was guilty. Almost everyone else, those who knew him, the Court of Appeal, the Trial Judge, the Church of England, the Prudential Staff Union, et al thought Wallace was innocent.

Even Tattersall (Parry's mate), who only met him once, briefly, didn't think he could have done it [while Parry, of course, was seemingly the only man in Liverpool who wouldn't proffer an opinion...]

Everything to me screams "Parry" in big red neon lights, although the twist is, he wasn't the actual killer. A clever one, indeed!

Btw, the 1981 radio shows should still be available via this link.

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?3494-Julia-Wallace-Murder-Case&p=319916&viewfull=1#post319916

Very atmospheric to hear people who were there on the night. Hal Brown's testimony is quite moving, in demonstrating that Wallace almost certainly hastened his own death, through grief and despair...
Parkes and the two Atkinsons who support him also come across well, I think. Parkes' fantasy about the borrowed waders being involved in the crime adds credibility, in an odd way....
A simple man (probably with slight learning difficulties), unburdening himself virtually on his death-bed, and trying to make sense of everything in his childlike way.

Hi Rod,

I enjoyed that upload before from the yoliverpool boards, thanks for that.

[RodCrosby]

You might have guessed that I think the "R" in "R M Qualtrough" stood for Richard (Parry) and the "M" for his accomplice (Michael? Martin? ??).

Just another of Parry's little pranks...


Incidentally, probably nothing more than a coincidence, but a year after the birth of Richard G Parry in Liverpool, there was born a Richard G Qualtrough in Liverpool! (who died as a baby, I believe).

[AmericanSherlock]

You might have guessed that I think the "R" in "R M Qualtrough" stood for Richard (Parry) and the "M" for his accomplice (Michael? Martin? ??).

Just another of Parry's little pranks...


Incidentally, probably nothing more than a coincidence, but a year after the birth of Richard G Parry in Liverpool, there was born a Richard G Qualtrough in Liverpool! (who died as a baby, I believe).

I always thought R.M. could have stood for "Resident Magistrate" if not random initials concocted by the perp.

What do you make of P.D. James theory that the call was in fact made by Parry but as a prank to get Wallace out on a long, fruitless trek, and then Wallace who was already planning to murder his wife, took the opportunity to do so?

A ridiculous coincidence? I think so, but it does fit all the facts as well.

[RodCrosby]

I've filed James' theory away with "Were there two lone nuts shooting independently in Dealey Plaza?" and "Did the Titanic really sink?"

She also believed in the "Wallace-in-drag" theory. ;-)

Aside from it's inherent sheer improbability, it doesn't fit all the facts.

There are pieces left over:- Parkes' testimony.

[RodCrosby]

It all fits rather perfectly, really.

Why was there no blood on Parry when he arrived at the garage?
Because he wasn't the killer....

Why would Parry blab to Parkes?
Because he wasn't the killer, but found himself in a highly unexpected, panic-inducing situation....

I've often wondered if under the law at the time Parry could have been charged with murder under the "joint enterprise" doctrine. I'm genuinely unsure. Perhaps the Police were unsure too, absent the identity of the one who wielded the fatal blows...

Parry seemed to believe it, though. I've often thought that his snatching the glove from Parkes with "that would hang me... " is more suggestive of recognition of his precarious predicament, rather than an actual confession of guilt.

[ColdCaseJury]

It all fits rather perfectly, really.

Why was there no blood on Parry when he arrived at the garage?
Because he wasn't the killer....

Why would Parry blab to Parkes?
Because he wasn't the killer, but found himself in a highly unexpected, panic-inducing situation....

I've often wondered if under the law at the time Parry could have been charged with murder under the "joint enterprise" doctrine. I'm genuinely unsure. Perhaps the Police were unsure too, absent the identity of the one who wielded the fatal blows...

Parry seemed to believe it, though. I've often thought that his snatching the glove from Parkes with "that would hang me... " is more suggestive of recognition of his precarious predicament, rather than an actual confession of guilt.

Hi Rod,

I'm away for a few days and there's a flurry of activity on the thread! I've enjoyed your posts.

Now, your theory is that it was a Parry-orchestrated conspiracy, which is original. In your first post you say M was the killer, correct? Surely M going anywhere near Wallace that evening, especially the chess club, was risky. He might have also been seen entering the Wallace house the night later. Ignoring that, how did they know Wallace had taken the bait?

I certainly agree that there are aspects of the call that point to Parry as making the call. But this is consistent with the Prank Call Theory, as AS points out. Forget the Wallace-in-drag scenario, how do you rule this out? In your post you say it is not consistent with all the facts. Are you saying your theory is consistent with all the known evidence? If so, under your theory, why would Wallace deny speaking to a man in Richmond Park at 8:40pm? If you say that Lily Hall was mistaken then you are discounting her evidence, the same as, say, AS can discount that of Parkes. The difference being, of course, Hall made her statement within five days, Parkes waited 50 years.

[RodCrosby]

Hi Rod,

I'm away for a few days and there's a flurry of activity on the thread! I've enjoyed your posts.

Now, your theory is that it was a Parry-orchestrated conspiracy, which is original. In your first post you say M was the killer, correct? Surely M going anywhere near Wallace that evening, especially the chess club, was risky. He might have also been seen entering the Wallace house the night later. Ignoring that, how did they know Wallace had taken the bait?

I certainly agree that there are aspects of the call that point to Parry as making the call. But this is consistent with the Prank Call Theory, as AS points out. Forget the Wallace-in-drag scenario, how do you rule this out? In your post you say it is not consistent with all the facts. Are you saying your theory is consistent with all the known evidence? If so, under your theory, why would Wallace deny speaking to a man in Richmond Park at 8:40pm? If you say that Lily Hall was mistaken then you are discounting her evidence, the same as, say, AS can discount that of Parkes. The difference being, of course, Hall made her statement within five days, Parkes waited 50 years.

Several points.

a) We know Wallace was unaware he was being stalked by the Police and the Press in the immediate aftermath of the murder. Is it not possible he was also unaware he had been stalked by Parry and "M" prior to the murder?
b) If M was a stranger to the Wallaces is it not possible M would be confident enough to follow Wallace all the way to the City Cafe on the Monday? After all it was a public cafe, with people coming and going all the time, presumably not just the chessplayers that Monday night? [there were also other Cafes and vantage points in North John Street for M to observe the City Cafe from, to at least ensure that Wallace was settled in there for the night to play chess, and had not suddenly emerged again for some reason, raising doubt whether he had received the message]
c) The Lloyds stated that Parry, after paying them a flying visit just after the time of the Qualtrough call, returned again at about 9pm, stating he had been to Park/Lark Lane. Is it not possible Parry had travelled to the city centre to rendezvous with M, to receive an update on whether Wallace had in fact entered the City Cafe? [Park Lane is in the city centre, almost a continuation of North and South John Street].

Lily Hall was destroyed under cross-examination. The date, the time, the direction of and reason for her alleged encounter with Wallace all fell apart. I think it belongs with the statement of the copper, that Wallace was crying his eyes out on the afternoon of the murder. Unreliable evidence. She may have seen Wallace on another date, and was pressured to think it was the 20th. As we know, the Police were not averse to manipulating the evidence of children in this case...

Parkes claimed he did in fact tell the Atkinsons immediately, and subsequently the Police after the conviction in 1931 [not just waiting 50 years], and he was in substance supported in this by two Atkinsons in 1981. Nothing suggests this was a fabrication (unlike say the Diary of JTR). Parkes died the following year, and neither he nor the Atkinsons sought to profit in any way, from a book, etc.

I have always believed this crime involved more than one person.
a) The contrast between the smooth sophistication of the preparation of the crime, and the senseless brutality of its execution strongly suggests to me that two people were involved.
b) The logistics of such an intricate and expansive plot also indicate that at least two pairs of eyes were required.

Occam's Razor indicates that the phone call and the murder had the same nexus, in the same way that shots being fired at JFK simultaneously from two different directions would indicate a conspiracy, not just two independent lone nuts...

[RodCrosby]

I also think the newspaper is an intriguing detail.

Julia would surely not sit down to read the paper until her husband had left the house, or thereabouts. How long would it take to reach the middle pages when, presumably, she was interrupted?

IIRC, the Liverpool Echo was quite a dense broadsheet in 1931...

[RodCrosby]

Another note...JW showed no sign of struggle or distress. It appears she was attacked from behind lighting or putting out the fire. That does not mesh with a robbery gone wrong---it hints at an assassin--pre-meditated murder.

She had a small, recent bruise on her left upper arm. Indicating possibly that she had been grabbed forcibly by someone.

Perhaps by someone standing facing to her front left, grabbing and swinging her to his right?

[AmericanSherlock]

James Murphy said the facts of the case indicated a right handed killer and he interviewed a couple people who worked with Parry in later years and they thought he was left handed. Interesting, although I need more information. For one, does anyone know what indicated a right handed killer?

[John G]

Several points.

a) We know Wallace was unaware he was being stalked by the Police and the Press in the immediate aftermath of the murder. Is it not possible he was also unaware he had been stalked by Parry and "M" prior to the murder?
b) If M was a stranger to the Wallaces is it not possible M would be confident enough to follow Wallace all the way to the City Cafe on the Monday? After all it was a public cafe, with people coming and going all the time, presumably not just the chessplayers that Monday night? [there were also other Cafes and vantage points in North John Street for M to observe the City Cafe from, to at least ensure that Wallace was settled in there for the night to play chess, and had not suddenly emerged again for some reason, raising doubt whether he had received the message]
c) The Lloyds stated that Parry, after paying them a flying visit just after the time of the Qualtrough call, returned again at about 9pm, stating he had been to Park/Lark Lane. Is it not possible Parry had travelled to the city centre to rendezvous with M, to receive an update on whether Wallace had in fact entered the City Cafe? [Park Lane is in the city centre, almost a continuation of North and South John Street].

Lily Hall was destroyed under cross-examination. The date, the time, the direction of and reason for her alleged encounter with Wallace all fell apart. I think it belongs with the statement of the copper, that Wallace was crying his eyes out on the afternoon of the murder. Unreliable evidence. She may have seen Wallace on another date, and was pressured to think it was the 20th. As we know, the Police were not averse to manipulating the evidence of children in this case...

Parkes claimed he did in fact tell the Atkinsons immediately, and subsequently the Police after the conviction in 1931 [not just waiting 50 years], and he was in substance supported in this by two Atkinsons in 1981. Nothing suggests this was a fabrication (unlike say the Diary of JTR). Parkes died the following year, and neither he nor the Atkinsons sought to profit in any way, from a book, etc.

I have always believed this crime involved more than one person.
a) The contrast between the smooth sophistication of the preparation of the crime, and the senseless brutality of its execution strongly suggests to me that two people were involved.
b) The logistics of such an intricate and expansive plot also indicate that at least two pairs of eyes were required.

Occam's Razor indicates that the phone call and the murder had the same nexus, in the same way that shots being fired at JFK simultaneously from two different directions would indicate a conspiracy, not just two independent lone nuts...

You say Lily Hall was destroyed under cross examination. I must admit that's what I read, but CCJ stated that he checked the archive -I believe he accessed the trial transcripts- and there was no indication of this.

[RodCrosby]

OK, the record seems to be unclear on this. I did find that the trial Judge suggested the jury put Hall's evidence "to one side", as it was just her word against Wallace's.

[ColdCaseJury]

OK, the record seems to be unclear on this. I did find that the trial Judge suggested the jury put Hall's evidence "to one side", as it was just her word against Wallace's.

Hi Rod, it was Goodman who suggested that Lily Hall's evidence was not credible. For example, he said she was going to the cinema that evening but was walking away from the cinema towards her home in Letchworth Street. Yet, she was going home first (from work) then on to the cinema.

I've looked at transcript, and I can find nothing wrong with it. I'd welcome other views.

Re: Parkes. My view is always: treat late revelations as suspicious. If they can be corroborated, then they must be taken seriously. If they can't, suspend judgement. Also, look at what else was said. Parkes repeated the rumour that Parry was dressed in oilskins to avoid getting any blood on his clothes. We both agree that is obvious nonsense.

And what did Parkes pull out of the glove box? A bloody mitten. Why was this is Parry's car? Where did it come from? What was it used for? Why didn't Parry dispose of it earlier?

[RodCrosby]

Hi Rod, it was Goodman who suggested that Lily Hall's evidence was not credible. For example, he said she was going to the cinema that evening but was walking away from the cinema towards her home in Letchworth Street. Yet, she was going home first (from work) then on to the cinema.

I've looked at transcript, and I can find nothing wrong with it. I'd welcome other views.

Re: Parkes. My view is always: treat late revelations as suspicious. If they can be corroborated, then they must be taken seriously. If they can't, suspend judgement. Also, look at what else was said. Parkes repeated the rumour that Parry was dressed in oilskins to avoid getting any blood on his clothes. We both agree that is obvious nonsense.

And what did Parkes pull out of the glove box? A bloody mitten. Why was this is Parry's car? Where did it come from? What was it used for? Why didn't Parry dispose of it earlier?

When you say "transcript", do you mean Wyndham-Brown?

Parkes seems highly credible to me. His statement is restrained, and he tries to fill in blanks with his own (silly) speculation about the waders, to explain Parry's own lack of bloodstains. Why not be more florid if it were lies? "Aye, he was covered in blood and told me all about bashing her brains in!"
Two Atkinsons, one a very elderly, upstanding lady, verified that he had told his story on 21st January 1931. Neither of these people, nor Parkes, tried to make any profit from their revelations past the radio broadcast in 1981, nor would they have any obvious reason to endorse a fabrication of one of their long-forgotten junior employees, a story which doesn't exactly portray them in the best light - '"Don't get involved" said their father, the garage boss.'

Parry picked up the murderer around 8.30pm from the vicinity of Wolverton Street. That's how the bar and gloves ended up in his car. Maybe Parry was intending to burn the gloves at home later, or perhaps he had temporarily forgotten they were in the glove-box, concentrating on getting rid of the bar.

It's only when you retrace Parry's steps, as I did in 2008, with a stopwatch, that you realise just how eminently possible this all was. Maybe I'll do it again sometime, with a dashcam.

He was quite possibly in the immediate vicinity of the phone box on the 19th (and lied about his whereabouts).
He was quite possibly in the immediate vicinity of Richmond Park around 8.30pm on the murder night (and I think his statement of his movements is lies in that respect - too carefully specific. Why?)

[ColdCaseJury]

When you say "transcript", do you mean Wyndham-Brown?

Parkes seems highly credible to me. His statement is restrained, and he tries to fill in blanks with his own (silly) speculation about the waders, to explain Parry's own lack of bloodstains. Why not be more florid if it were lies? "Aye, he was covered in blood and told me all about bashing her brains in!"
Two Atkinsons, one a very elderly, upstanding lady, verified that he had told his story on 21st January 1931. Neither of these people, nor Parkes, tried to make any profit from their revelations past the radio broadcast in 1981, nor would they have any obvious reason to endorse a fabrication of one of their long-forgotten junior employees, a story which doesn't exactly portray them in the best light - '"Don't get involved" said their father, the garage boss.'

Parry picked up the murderer around 8.30pm from the vicinity of Wolverton Street. That's how the bar and gloves ended up in his car. Maybe Parry was intending to burn the gloves at home later, or perhaps he had temporarily forgotten they were in the glove-box, concentrating on getting rid of the bar.

It's only when you retrace Parry's steps, as I did in 2008, with a stopwatch, that you realise just how eminently possible this all was. Maybe I'll do it again sometime, with a dashcam.

He was quite possibly in the immediate vicinity of the phone box on the 19th (and lied about his whereabouts).
He was quite possibly in the immediate vicinity of Richmond Park around 8.30pm on the murder night (and I think his statement of his movements is lies in that respect - too carefully specific. Why?)

Rod, I certainly agree with your point about Parry being a credible candidate for the call (I said as much in my book). I know how Gannon involves the mitten in his theory of the murder. Why does the murderer "M" have one bloody mitten on him?