Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Correct.

Interesting, I understand the thought process now

[RodCrosby]

Listen again to what Parkes said, and what Dolly and Gordon Atkinson said, and my recent comments about their testimonies.

The bit of Parkes' story that is undoubted nonsense is not material. He makes clear it's his own speculation to explain a very odd aspect of his actual testimony - Parry's lack of bloodstains.

There is a simpler explanation, consistent with everything else in the case, including Parkes own testimony about being "leaned on" by Parry & another shortly afterwards.

Why, oh why, Roger Wilkes were your journalistic antennae not functioning that day at the Liverpool Hospital?

"I don't suppose you remember the other chap's name John?" was all you had to ask...

Then, finally, and in truth, we may have obtained the definitive answer to "Who killed Julia?"

Actually, I tease.

Logic again dictates that the most likely answer Wilkes would have received from Parkes, had he bothered to ask the question, was:-
"No, I'd never seen him in my life before - or since."

So, my fellow sleuths, we will never know the identity of the killer of Julia Wallace.

[ColdCaseJury]

Because it had to be someone who could claim they were Qualtrough, and therefore someone Julia did not know?

But Julia would have let Parry or Marsden in anyway because she knew them.

[AmericanSherlock]

But Julia would have let Parry or Marsden in anyway because she knew them.

true, I think his theory has holes

[RodCrosby]

true, I think his theory has holes

I thought the penny had dropped. No?

OK. How could Parry (or Marsden for that matter) burglarise the house without being caught? He couldn't, in essence, because he was known to the Wallaces. If money had been discovered missing after one of his social visits, well goodbye Gordon, you're going to jail...

So what would you do, in his shoes?

[AmericanSherlock]

I thought the penny had dropped. No?

OK. How could Parry (or Marsden for that matter) burglarise the house without being caught? He couldn't, in essence, because he was known to the Wallaces. If money had been discovered missing after one of his social visits, well goodbye Gordon, you're going to jail...

So what would you do, in his shoes?

I agree with you there, I've long harped on that point against Parry being the killer as a planned robbery gone wrong. Glad we agree on that. But if that's the case, then let's say that as the real reason the 2nd man couldn't be Marsden...Parry need a 2nd guy who wasn't known to the Wallaces and couldn't be fingered in the aftermath. Are we on the same page?

[ColdCaseJury]

I thought the penny had dropped. No?

OK. How could Parry (or Marsden for that matter) burglarise the house without being caught? He couldn't, in essence, because he was known to the Wallaces. If money had been discovered missing after one of his social visits, well goodbye Gordon, you're going to jail...

So what would you do, in his shoes?

The facetious answer - by killing her first.

I reconstruct the murder four ways in my book, based on the four major theories. For the Parry murder (Wilkes) I suggest that Parry was sponging off a doting Julia (we know he loaned money off others without paying back). When she refused this time he got angry... It's far from perfect, but I think it is a more plausible scenario than Wilkes came up with.

How do you rule out Wallace has having any involvement?

[AmericanSherlock]

I still think Wallace as the killer takes the least leaps of faith

Off topic, anyone watching the tennis match currently?

[ColdCaseJury]

On curious thing about Parkes' interview. He says Parry started "rabbiting about the bar" telling him that "he had dropped the bar down a drain outside a doctor's house in priory road."

How did Parkes know what Parry was talking about? Parkes did not even know at this time how Julia had been killed, let alone with the iron bar.

So, let's move on to the murder weapon. Under your theory, M killed Julia with the iron bar from the fireplace. WHY DID "M" TAKE THE BAR WITH HIM? The natural instinct is to leave it if he wore gloves (or mittens) because there would be no fingerprints. And, as Dorothy Sayers pointed out, had this iron bar been found lying next to Julia it would have strengthened the case against WALLACE because it meant the weapon had not been brought in from outside. It would look like a domestic murder.

[ColdCaseJury]

One more question, Rod, so I fully understand your theory. Doesn't your theory rely on Wallace telling Julia about the call? In which case, how did Parry know that Wallace had done so and mentioned the caller's name? For all Parry knew, Wallace might have decided against going and did not even tell his wife about the call. I guess the plan would have been aborted had Julia refused to let Qualtrough in?

[RodCrosby]

One more question, Rod, so I fully understand your theory. Doesn't your theory rely on Wallace telling Julia about the call? In which case, how did Parry know that Wallace had done so and mentioned the caller's name? For all Parry knew, Wallace might have decided against going and did not even tell his wife about the call. I guess the plan would have been aborted had Julia refused to let Qualtrough in?

All M had to do was to loiter somewhere on the Tuesday night from around 6.30pm. If Wallace emerged, he was almost certainly going to Menlove Gardens, (and had with a practical certainty told Julia why he was going out).

And as you say, there was a risk-free abort at every step, and it would be back to the drawing-board for the boys...

It's all so simple really!

[I'll answer your question about Wallace shortly - just nipping out for a bit]

[RodCrosby]

On curious thing about Parkes' interview. He says Parry started "rabbiting about the bar" telling him that "he had dropped the bar down a drain outside a doctor's house in priory road."

How did Parkes know what Parry was talking about? Parkes did not even know at this time how Julia had been killed, let alone with the iron bar.

So, let's move on to the murder weapon. Under your theory, M killed Julia with the iron bar from the fireplace. WHY DID "M" TAKE THE BAR WITH HIM? The natural instinct is to leave it if he wore gloves (or mittens) because there would be no fingerprints. And, as Dorothy Sayers pointed out, had this iron bar been found lying next to Julia it would have strengthened the case against WALLACE because it meant the weapon had not been brought in from outside. It would look like a domestic murder.

I thought Parkes said that PC Ken Wallace [no relation] had already visited the garage and spoken of "a bit of trouble in Wolverton Street."?
Perhaps Parkes didn't quite join-up-the-dots in real-time, as he was washing Parry's car, as he seemed to claim, but that's surely a minor point. It soon dawned on him what the significance might be, and he told the Atkinsons the following morning.

I'm not sure that M, having unexpectedly killed Julia, would be thinking that rationally, least of all how to cast suspicion on WH Wallace. Perhaps he took the bar with him for protection. Having killed once, he might need to use it again, if he encountered anyone blocking his escape...

[ColdCaseJury]

I thought Parkes said that PC Ken Wallace [no relation] had already visited the garage and spoken of "a bit of trouble in Wolverton Street."?
Perhaps Parkes didn't quite join-up-the-dots in real-time, as he was washing Parry's car, as he seemed to claim, but that's surely a minor point. It soon dawned on him what the significance might be, and he told the Atkinsons the following morning.

I'm not sure that M, having unexpectedly killed Julia, would be thinking that rationally, least of all how to cast suspicion on WH Wallace. Perhaps he took the bar with him for protection. Having killed once, he might need to use it again, if he encountered anyone blocking his escape...

I am happy to agree that the Qualtrough call points more to Parry than Wallace, although the latter cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, the only firm evidence linking Parry to the crime is the testimony of Parkes. Now, what did Parkes tell his boss the next day? Having listened to the tapes of the show, I did not hear Dolly Atkinson confirm that Parkes had told her father the next day about the finding of a bloody glove. All I heard was that Parkes had washed down Parry's car. Is that your understanding? Or have I misheard that?

What prevents us from thinking Parry acted alone (a simpler a priori theory)? The Brine Alibi. Parry left about 8:30pm (which you plausibly suggest could have been 8:20pm). I'm still suspicious about this (i.e. the police did not validate with everyone present). Nevertheless, if we accept it on good faith, then Parry Conspiracy is viable, and rules out Parry Alone.

So, for you, what rules out Wallace Alone? This is an important question.

P.S. M running out with a bloodied bar takes huge courage (even if he had hidden it on him). I think if he had gloves on he would have dropped it instinctively in the house. This does not rule out your theory - they all have wrinkles.

[RodCrosby]

IF WALLACE WAS GUILTY - you really need to believe ALL of these things.

1. Well-known-in-the-district, "peculiar-looking" Wallace, the "elongated walking-stick", chose the closest phone-box to his own home to make the Qualtrough call (when he could have chosen any phonebox), and then proceeded with the murder, without knowing whether he had been spotted. We could add that he also seemed to do things which increased the probability of the call being traced to that box, apparently merely to diddle the phone company out of the princely sum of one penny...

2. Wallace was content to speak to Beattie, a man who knew him well, on the phone, and not 30 minutes later essentially repeat the same conversation with Beattie at the chess club without the possibility of being detected as the caller. Even if he got that far, and gambled on proceeding with the murder, he had to hope Beattie would not hesitate later with the Police or at Court in his certainty it was not Wallace. Upon reflection, and a little 'encouragement' from the Police, Beattie might have decided "Hey, maybe, or I can't be sure...", in which case, Wallace would be going for the long drop at Walton Prison. Wallace had spent his first 37 years nowhere near Merseyside. It's practically certain he had a distinctive, non-local accent (Cumbrian, with a tinge of Yorkshire, possibly). Nor is there a scintilla to suggest Wallace had ever practised changing his voice and yet, aged 52, he suddenly risks all on this one-time performance.

3. Wallace scored a rare victory in his chess-game, while simultaneously cogitating this 'perfect murder' - a mere secondary pursuit for this genius, clearly!

4. Wallace's timings would have had to be based on his expectation of milk-boy Alan Close's appearence. But Close was running up to half-an-hour late that night, due to his bicycle being repaired. Wallace couldn't have known that.

5. Wallace managed to execute the crime in a matter of minutes while ensuring a complete lack of bloodstains on himself, and no signs of washing at Wolverton Street.

6. Wallace managed to secrete the murder weapon, although there was no obvious place or time for him to do so, and he defeated the Police's best efforts to find it.

7. Despite all these attendant devilish contrivances, the best plan Wallace can come up with is to present the clod-headed Police with a murder scene that gives every appearance of a humdrum domestic incident, with him as prime suspect #1.

8. Wallace managed to bamboozle a whole host of intelligent, upstanding people, including an entire Trade Union, the Church of England and the Court of Appeal, led by a Chief Justice who had spent his professional life expounding on 'the impeccability of the English Jury system', yet is persuaded to volte-face in this case alone.

9. Despite his conviction being quashed, Wallace unaccountably continued to accuse Parry in his private diary.

10. Despite his conviction being quashed, Wallace unaccountably continued to agonize over his loss and whether he would meet Julia again in 'the great beyond', in his private diary.

11. Despite getting away with 'the perfect murder', Wallace somehow lost the will to live, and refused surgery which could have prolonged his life.

12. Despite getting away with 'the perfect murder', and there being no double-jeopardy law, Wallace inconsiderately failed to admit his genius, or even leave any confession. [Other lesser 'geniuses' did - Setty, Mancini, etc.]

[Mayerling]

IF WALLACE WAS GUILTY - you really need to believe ALL of these things.


12. Despite getting away with 'the perfect murder', and there being no double-jeopardy law, Wallace inconsiderately failed to admit his genius, or even leave any confession. [Other lesser 'geniuses' did - Setty, Mancini, etc.]

If by "Setty" you mean "Stanley Setty", he was the victim. I forget the name of the killer who dumped his body out of an airplane, and subsequently was to kill a second time years later. Tony Mancini admitted what happened (though we have to remember it's his version, and there were no other living witnesses). He explained it was an argument that led to an accidental death - and there are grounds to believe he was telling the truth. It was Tony's bad luck that he planted his victim in the identical spot as another killer (probably a local abortionist) in the Brighton Train station in a large trunk in the baggage room. The revelation of the other murder led (prematurely) to the revelation of his crime. Had he gone to the cops (instead of running) he might have just faced a manslaughter charge. But he had a record as a small time criminal, and thought he might vanish in the midst of London and then go somewhere else.

Jeff