Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

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.

Hi AS,

Yes, a very good point about Wallace. The fact is, Wallace as part of a conspiracy essentially relies on the evidence of one young witness. Moreover, witnesses who make casual observations are often mistaken, even when they know the person they claim to have seen- and the sighting was at night time and appears to have been a relatively brief one. Consider for example, the very confusing testimony of Tom Patterson, the postman who claimed to have seen the Beaumont children, who he knew, on the day of their abduction.

And, as I've noted before, is it remotely likely that Wallace would have trusted a scoundrel like Parry, especially when you consider his previous misappropriation of the insurance takings when he was covering his round-something Wallace could easily have been blamed for?

[John G]

An important issue with this case is that we don't know the time of death. Thus, it's perfectly possible that Julia could have been killed, say, around 8:00pm.

Regarding Parry's alibi. As I've noted before, the two crucial witnesses, Olivia Brine and Harold Dennison, said that he left at "about 8:30 pm" which incidentally is exactly what Parry said. Now this suggests to me that both witnesses were somewhat non-committal as to timings, or/and no one was paying close attention to the time; and as this was the 1930s I don't believe people would have been conscious of the time to the extent they are today.

I would therefore argue that it's perfectly possible that Parry left significantly earlier than suggested, say, around 7:50. In such circumstances he may have had sufficient time to commit the murder.

In respect of Leslie Williamson, Parry didn't of course give him as an alibi, and neither did he specifically state that he had been invited to his 21st birthday party. Instead, he stated that he spoke to Mrs Williamson for about 10 minutes and that they "had a chat about a twenty-first birthday party."

[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?

Hi Rod,

Harold Dennison also gave a statement, which supported Brine and Parry's testimony.

[RodCrosby]

An important issue with this case is that we don't know the time of death. Thus, it's perfectly possible that Julia could have been killed, say, around 8:00pm.

---
I would therefore argue that it's perfectly possible that Parry left significantly earlier than suggested, say, around 7:50. In such circumstances he may have had sufficient time to commit the murder.

In respect of Leslie Williamson, Parry didn't of course give him as an alibi, and neither did he specifically state that he had been invited to his 21st birthday party. Instead, he stated that he spoke to Mrs Williamson for about 10 minutes and that they "had a chat about a twenty-first birthday party."

Yes, I think all times have to be assumed as approximate. My working assumption is +/- 15 minutes for most witnesses, without some specific reason to believe in higher accuracy.

So 40 minutes is a bit of a stretch to accept, especially when seemingly contradicted by two witnesses.

Moreover, if, for the sake of argument, we accept that Parry was involved, it doesn't make much sense for Parry to make his key-move towards the end of a carefully planned timeline. Too much chance of it going wrong, surely, unless Parry's key-move was essentially trivial in the overall scheme? Picking someone up after a robbery was over was such a trivial move. [And that's before we look at other reasons which negate the idea that Parry killed Julia.]

Lily Lloyd thought Parry had told her he'd been to the Williamsons' on the night of the 20th and obtained the invitation to Leslie's party.

It's odd that Williamson should have a clear memory of Parry's interactions with his household during the week of the murder, but should nevertheless forget [or be unaware of] a call on the night of the murder, even if the conversation involved his mother - a visit that was never verified by the Police.

[RodCrosby]

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 [...]

There are several reasons why a note would be of no use.

a) a note-writer's fingerprints and/or handwriting might be traced.
b) a note-writer would have to visit the house twice, increasing the chance of being remembered by neighbours, etc.
c) a note-writer would have to risk one of the Wallaces hearing the note drop on the mat, and running out after the poster to invite him in there and then.
d) a note-writer could scarcely leave a note saying "Please call at 25 Menlove Gardens East", etc. and then turn up at Wolverton Street claiming there was some kind of misunderstanding...

A telephone call avoids all these problems, and in 1931 was something of a novelty. Unexpected enough for Wallace to perhaps suspend his better judgment and follow the instructions.
Today we'd call it "social engineering", and scammers still make full use of the telephone to exploit their victims. As I've suggested previously there was possibly something of a "pride" factor in Wallace's dogged but pathetic attempt to rendezvous with Qualtrough.

Whoever made the call was a skilled - indeed brilliant - manipulator of people...

[AmericanSherlock]

There are several reasons why a note would be of no use.

a) a note-writer's fingerprints and/or handwriting might be traced.
b) a note-writer would have to visit the house twice, increasing the chance of being remembered by neighbours, etc.
c) a note-writer would have to risk one of the Wallaces hearing the note drop on the mat, and running out after the poster to invite him in there and then.
d) a note-writer could scarcely leave a note saying "Please call at 25 Menlove Gardens East", etc. and then turn up at Wolverton Street claiming there was some kind of misunderstanding...

A telephone call avoids all these problems, and in 1931 was something of a novelty. Unexpected enough for Wallace to perhaps suspend his better judgment and follow the instructions.
Today we'd call it "social engineering", and scammers still make full use of the telephone to exploit their victims. As I've suggested previously there was possibly something of a "pride" factor in Wallace's dogged but pathetic attempt to rendezvous with Qualtrough.

Whoever made the call was a skilled - indeed brilliant - manipulator of people...

Rod, some good points. I take it you think Parry made the call.

[RodCrosby]

Rod, some good points. I take it you think Parry made the call.

The "21st birthday party" thing is as good as a fingerprint in my book. On top of all the circumstantial evidence: his previous dodgy dealings with phones, amateur dramatics, being in the vicinity at exactly the right time, lying about his whereabouts...

[AmericanSherlock]

The "21st birthday party" thing is as good as a fingerprint in my book. On top of all the circumstantial evidence: his previous dodgy dealings with phones, amateur dramatics, being in the vicinity at exactly the right time, lying about his whereabouts...

I agree it's fishy. A possible counter-argument would be that if WHW were guilty, that he was trying to frame Parry.

[RodCrosby]

I agree it's fishy. A possible counter-argument would be that if WHW were guilty, that he was trying to frame Parry.

How does Wallace even begin to think about 'framing' Parry when he has no idea:-

a) where he is at the time of the call?
b) where he might be at the time of the planned murder?

You might as well try to frame a person plucked at random from the phone book...

Before we even get to the business of trying to con someone [Beattie] who knows you well, with your phony voice, etc.

[John G]

Yes, I think all times have to be assumed as approximate. My working assumption is +/- 15 minutes for most witnesses, without some specific reason to believe in higher accuracy.

So 40 minutes is a bit of a stretch to accept, especially when seemingly contradicted by two witnesses.

Moreover, if, for the sake of argument, we accept that Parry was involved, it doesn't make much sense for Parry to make his key-move towards the end of a carefully planned timeline. Too much chance of it going wrong, surely, unless Parry's key-move was essentially trivial in the overall scheme? Picking someone up after a robbery was over was such a trivial move. [And that's before we look at other reasons which negate the idea that Parry killed Julia.]

Lily Lloyd thought Parry had told her he'd been to the Williamsons' on the night of the 20th and obtained the invitation to Leslie's party.

It's odd that Williamson should have a clear memory of Parry's interactions with his household during the week of the murder, but should nevertheless forget [or be unaware of] a call on the night of the murder, even if the conversation involved his mother - a visit that was never verified by the Police.

Hi Rod,

Yes, some good points, particularly as regards Lily Lloyd. I think, however, whatever happened that night must have been fairly unusual. Thus, I agree that 40 minutes is a stretch, however, maybe the witnesses did realise that Parry probably left significantly earlier than he claimed but were unwilling to contradict him, i.e. because the difference wasn't huge and they possibly thought that Julia had been killed appreciably earlier, thereby putting Parry in the clear.

I also agree that if Parry was the killer he would have been more likely to have gone to the Wallace household much earlier, i.e. just after William left for the Qualtrough appointment. However, I have previously speculated that Parry could have initially changed his mind about the robbery before eventually deciding to go through with it.

The difficulty I have with Parry's contribution being relatively trivial, such as picking someone up after a robbery, is why would an accomplice be willing to share the proceeds of the robbery with him in such circumstances? In fact, why would they need a driver at all? Surely this wasn't essential?

Hence, the person committing the robbery would be taking all the risks-and there was never going to be a king's ransom to share, as Parry must have known. In contrast, as you suggest Parry's role in such a scheme would be trivial and, of course, he had the opportunity to accumulate alibis to protect himself, thereby further minimizing any risks to himself. There is the Qualtrough call of course, but again I don't see why an accomplice would have needed him for that purpose as he could just as easily have made the call himself.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi Rod,

Yes, some good points, particularly as regards Lily Lloyd. I think, however, whatever happened that night must have been fairly unusual. Thus, I agree that 40 minutes is a stretch, however, maybe the witnesses did realise that Parry probably left significantly earlier than he claimed but were unwilling to contradict him, i.e. because the difference wasn't huge and they possibly thought that Julia had been killed appreciably earlier, thereby putting Parry in the clear.

I also agree that if Parry was the killer he would have been more likely to have gone to the Wallace household much earlier, i.e. just after William left for the Qualtrough appointment. However, I have previously speculated that Parry could have initially changed his mind about the robbery before eventually deciding to go through with it.

The difficulty I have with Parry's contribution being relatively trivial, such as picking someone up after a robbery, is why would an accomplice be willing to share the proceeds of the robbery with him in such circumstances? In fact, why would they need a driver at all? Surely this wasn't essential?

Hence, the person committing the robbery would be taking all the risks-and there was never going to be a king's ransom to share, as Parry must have known. In contrast, as you suggest Parry's role in such a scheme would be trivial and, of course, he had the opportunity to accumulate alibis to protect himself, thereby further minimizing any risks to himself. There is the Qualtrough call of course, but again I don't see why an accomplice would have needed him for that purpose as he could just as easily have made the call himself.

I agree, I tend to think the caller was the same person who committed the crime, whether that was Wallace, Parry, or someone else.

[AmericanSherlock]

How does Wallace even begin to think about 'framing' Parry when he has no idea:-

a) where he is at the time of the call?
b) where he might be at the time of the planned murder?

You might as well try to frame a person plucked at random from the phone book...

Before we even get to the business of trying to con someone [Beattie] who knows you well, with your phony voice, etc.

A point about the call. Apparently the operators said the caller sounded like an older gentleman, this was actually before the caller would necessarily be using a "put on" voice.

Particularly since, if Wallace was not guilty, then the caller might not have a need to use a false voice at all. He would know his voice was not recorded and as a random person if he didn't have to speak to Wallace, no one else from the chess club could identify him. And of course this was very likely a robbery plot at that point anyway.

I understand why people think the call points to Parry, but I have doubts about it.

As far as Beattie, I consider that objection almost meaningless. If WHW was using a fake voice, I think he easily could have conned him.

I think you're a bit too sure of your theory Rod.

Even if WHW wasn't guilty, there is no reason why Parry, or someone else entirely couldn't have been guilty on their own.

[ColdCaseJury]

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?

A careful look at the 2nd Class Championship schedule shows only one result for Wallace - a loss on 10 November. Other competitors have several "W", "D" or "L" by their names. Inference (to someone like Parry looking at the schedule) : Wallace has missed many games.

Next to the schedule on the chess noticeboard are the tournament rules. They stipulate that if a competitor has not played 75% of his games (does not specify a time frame) then his entire record is expunged. Inference: if Wallace wants to continue, he will have to play some matches soon.

Therefore, Parry could have staked out Wallace on a Monday night with the reasonable expectation that Wallace would be going to the club soon.

However, this does not circumvent the problem that Parry could not be certain that the message would be passed on. However, given Rod's theory that this was an audacious robbery, there was a failsafe mechanism: if Wallace answered the door on Tuesday night (i.e. message not passed on), the accomplice just asks for directions, or makes some other excuse, and leaves. Yes, the opportunity is blown, but Parry believed there would be rich pickings. Remember, there could have been up to £130 in that cash box - that's £000s in real terms. So Parry might have been prepared to gamble a few pennies and some time, even is success was not guaranteed.

If the plan was murder - an assassination - I find it hard to look beyond Wallace, whether alone or with someone else (and the former has the higher prior probability). Whether AS is correct about the crime scene appearing to be an assassination I'm less sure, as I've said before.

[John G]

A careful look at the 2nd Class Championship schedule shows only one result for Wallace - a loss on 10 November. Other competitors have several "W", "D" or "L" by their names. Inference (to someone like Parry looking at the schedule) : Wallace has missed many games.

Next to the schedule on the chess noticeboard are the tournament rules. They stipulate that if a competitor has not played 75% of his games (does not specify a time frame) then his entire record is expunged. Inference: if Wallace wants to continue, he will have to play some matches soon.

Therefore, Parry could have staked out Wallace on a Monday night with the reasonable expectation that Wallace would be going to the club soon.

However, this does not circumvent the problem that Parry could not be certain that the message would be passed on. However, given Rod's theory that this was an audacious robbery, there was a failsafe mechanism: if Wallace answered the door on Tuesday night (i.e. message not passed on), the accomplice just asks for directions, or makes some other excuse, and leaves. Yes, the opportunity is blown, but Parry believed there would be rich pickings. Remember, there could have been up to £130 in that cash box - that's £000s in real terms. So Parry might have been prepared to gamble a few pennies and some time, even is success was not guaranteed.

If the plan was murder - an assassination - I find it hard to look beyond Wallace, whether alone or with someone else (and the former has the higher prior probability). Whether AS is correct about the crime scene appearing to be an assassination I'm less sure, as I've said before.

Hi Anthony,

Yes, £130 in 1931 would equate to about £7800 today: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/b...nged-1900.html.

However, far less money was actually taken: just £4, or around £240 in today's money. Therefore, if theft was the motive then the robbery was poorly timed. This creates problems for both Wallace and Parry's candidature as suspects on that basis, as Wallace must have known how much insurance money was in the house and Parry should have been able to estimate (it also creates difficulties for Wallace as a suspect on the basis of a staged robbery, particularly as he was the one who drew attention to the fact that £5 remained untouched in the bedroom.)

Of course, Parry may have had additional motives. For instance, he might have blamed William for the fact that he narrowly avoided criminal charges as a result of the misappropriated insurance money; this might seem unfair but parry doesn't strike me as someone who would have been particularly objective in his reasoning and, in any event, he may have felt that William should have given him the opportunity to repay the money rather than reporting the incident.

Moreover, if Parkes told the truth about Parry's habit of making hoax phone calls, then tricking Wallace by stealing the insurance money, whilst sending him off on a fool's errand, might have appealed to his perverse sense of humour.

There's also the possibility that Parry's hand may have been forced. Thus, he clearly had expensive tastes: He owned a car, for example, at a time when car ownership was uncommon. It's therefore possible that he urgently needed to repay a debt to a violent moneylender, although in speculating one must be wary of too much over indulgence!

[AmericanSherlock]

One of my initial impressions about this case was a mob hit.