Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

By entertaining, do you mean a friend or sexual partner she was expecting? Or somebody who showed up unexpectedly.

If she was expecting someone that she didn't Wallace to know about, she must have had it arragned quickly after she found out about Wallace's Qualtrough journey Monday night/Tuesday morning and hope for the visit to last not longer than 2 hours or so.

Yes, I was thinking about an intimate liaison. Of course, the lover could have been Qualtrough.

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, I was thinking about an intimate liaison. Of course, the lover could have been Qualtrough.

Hi John, would this go more with a plot involving Wallace as the mastermind or not?

[John G]

Hi John, would this go more with a plot involving Wallace as the mastermind or not?

Hi AS,

I would say not. Thus, if we theorize that Julia had a secret lover-unlikely I admit-the plan could have been to get Wallace out of the house, via the Qualtrough ruse, so they could be together.

However, something goes wrong, and the lover ends up murdering Julia. At least this would represent an alternative to the "robbery gone wrong" theory, which is very problematic when you consider it was just about the worse day to commit a robber, i.e. on the basis that there was relatively little in the way of insurance takings.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

I would say not. Thus, if we theorize that Julia had a secret lover-unlikely I admit-the plan could have been to get Wallace out of the house, via the Qualtrough ruse, so they could be together.

However, something goes wrong, and the lover ends up murdering Julia. At least this would represent an alternative to the "robbery gone wrong" theory, which is very problematic when you consider it was just about the worse day to commit a robber, i.e. on the basis that there was relatively little in the way of insurance takings.

I think this is my favorite "non Wallace" theory.

However, there is still the problem of the attack seeming to be unprovoked coming from behind Julia. It is hard to see that with a lover's struggle.

What about a plot where JW isn't complicit? Someone jealous from her past employs the Qualtrough ruse and visits her when Wallace is out. He has tracked her down and wants to settle some kind of score. She invites him in out of surprise and curiosity upon recognizing him, but soon asks him to leave. He seethes and pretends to leave but then changes his mind, snaps, and brains her as she puts out the fireplace.

[John G]

I think this is my favorite "non Wallace" theory.

However, there is still the problem of the attack seeming to be unprovoked coming from behind Julia. It is hard to see that with a lover's struggle.

What about a plot where JW isn't complicit? Someone jealous from her past employs the Qualtrough ruse and visits her when Wallace is out. He has tracked her down and wants to settle some kind of score. She invites him in out of surprise and curiosity upon recognizing him, but soon asks him to leave. He seethes and pretends to leave but then changes his mind, snaps, and brains her as she puts out the fireplace.

Good example AS. The jealous lover theory is at least possible.

Just returning to my own theory. It's important to remember that Julia was from a different, and far more conservative, age. Thus, she was born in the eighteenth century, and like her stoically husband, I can't imagine she would be given to histrionics. Moreover, she wouldn't have wanted the neighbours to overhear a lover's tiff, particularly with her husband being away, so that's another reason to be restrained.

Her lover may also have had a motive to be controlled, particularly if he was intent on, or at least considered, murder from the outset.

Consider, therefore, this modified scenario. Julia becomes obsessed with her lover and informs him that she intends to leave William and, assuming he's married, encourages him to leave his wife: maybe she even threatens to make their affair public.

The lover is aghast at this suggestion; it's not what he intended at all. He therefore arranges the Qualtrough ruse in an attempt to make Julia see sense. However, she's adamant about leaving her husband. The lover pretends to accept this but, whilst Julia is relaxed and not on her guard, he bashes her head in as an act of desperation.

Afterwards, he steals the insurance money, to make it look like a robbery gone wrong, with the added bonus that the husband might also be suspected.

[John G]

Here's a major inconsistency with Parkes' account. According to Parkes Parry told him that Wallace had been arrested for Julia"s murder. Accept he hadn't. Not at the time Parkes claimed this conversation took place.

[John G]

Should of course be "except", not "accept." Oops!

[ColdCaseJury]

Here's a major inconsistency with Parkes' account. According to Parkes Parry told him that Wallace had been arrested for Julia"s murder. Accept he hadn't. Not at the time Parkes claimed this conversation took place.

John, I have not had time to catch up on the all the latest posts, but I saw the above. Parkes was told by a copper on the beat that Wallace had been arrested. The policeman, like the rest of Liverpool, was awash with rumours even just a few hours after the murder.

[John G]

John, I have not had time to catch up on the all the latest posts, but I saw the above. Parkes was told by a copper on the beat that Wallace had been arrested. The policeman, like the rest of Liverpool, was awash with rumours even just a few hours after the murder.

Hi CCJ,

But Wallace wasn't arrested until thirteen days after the murder (and I think it unlikely that a local police officer would be spreading rumours). This raises an interesting possibility. I do believe there was some incident at the garage, but that it happened much later than Parkes remembered. And it would be hardly surprising if events had got mixed up in his mind, considering he was attempting to recall an incident from almost half a century ago.

And, if I'm correct, it's possible that a mischievous Parry was simply winding-up a gullible Parkes, knowing that if he took him seriously, and reported the matter, he was protected by his cast iron alibis.

[John G]

I would also add thatch the local beat officer was in a much better position to know, or discover, the full facts of the case than an ordinary, gossiping member of the public.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi CCJ,

But Wallace wasn't arrested until thirteen days after the murder (and I think it unlikely that a local police officer would be spreading rumours). This raises an interesting possibility. I do believe there was some incident at the garage, but that it happened much later than Parkes remembered. And it would be hardly surprising if events had got mixed up in his mind, considering he was attempting to recall an incident from almost half a century ago.

And, if I'm correct, it's possible that a mischievous Parry was simply winding-up a gullible Parkes, knowing that if he took him seriously, and reported the matter, he was protected by his cast iron alibis.

John, I am in agreement with you here. It seems Parkes' story may have been conflated.

Also, I'd like to add that Rod often said Parkes mentioning Parry and another fellow coming by the garage to threaten his silence was strong evidence for his theory.

In actual fact, Parkes merely said Parry came by with another after the 20th and on that occassion the garage owners told him not to allow Parry there because "things aren't safe". The implication being this was the next time Parry dared to show up after his confession.

There was no explicit statement about Parry or this other fellow threatening Parkes, nor was it to my eyes and ears implied at all.

Furthermore, the idea of Parry's appearance after this supposed confession being the catalyst to bar him from the garage is interesting because wasn't he apparently barely welcome anyway due to rifling thru the coats there? Of course, murder is a whole other deal but we have already mentioned the issues with this. (The shocking inaction if the entire garage really knew Parry was the culprit and WHW was innocent.) The entirety of Parkes' story as well as the suppposed corroboration of others in the 1981 radio city presentation seems hazy and inconsistent to me.

[John G]

John, I am in agreement with you here. It seems Parkes' story may have been conflated.

Also, I'd like to add that Rod often said Parkes mentioning Parry and another fellow coming by the garage to threaten his silence was strong evidence for his theory.

In actual fact, Parkes merely said Parry came by with another after the 20th and on that occassion the garage owners told him not to allow Parry there because "things aren't safe". The implication being this was the next time Parry dared to show up after his confession.

There was no explicit statement about Parry or this other fellow threatening Parkes, nor was it to my eyes and ears implied at all.

Furthermore, the idea of Parry's appearance after this supposed confession being the catalyst to bar him from the garage is interesting because wasn't he apparently barely welcome anyway due to rifling thru the coats there? Of course, murder is a whole other deal but we have already mentioned the issues with this. (The shocking inaction if the entire garage really knew Parry was the culprit and WHW was innocent.) The entirety of Parkes' story as well as the suppposed corroboration of others in the 1981 radio city presentation seems hazy and inconsistent to me.

Some very good points AS. The "things aren't safe" quote seems a bit melodramatic to me. I mean, in which respect wasn't it safe?

And if Parry intended to threaten Parkes, why not pick a remote location? Why not wait for him to leave work, or intercept him before his arrival at work. If Parkes' story is to be believed then by turning up at the garage Parry risked other people overhearing their discussion, which would be a problem of something compromising is said.

[AmericanSherlock]

Some very good points AS. The "things aren't safe" quote seems a bit melodramatic to me. I mean, in which respect wasn't it safe?

And if Parry intended to threaten Parkes, why not pick a remote location? Why not wait for him to leave work, or intercept him before his arrival at work. If Parkes' story is to be believed then by turning up at the garage Parry risked other people overhearing their discussion, which would be a problem of something compromising is said.

Good point about the location of this supposed threat; Parry would have to have been very stupid to do that just as he would have to show up to the garage where he's so hated with the bloody glove and his murderous tale. If everything really happened as Radio City (and Rod) wants us to believe, then Parry certainly got very lucky indeed !!!

[John G]

Good point about the location of this supposed threat; Parry would have to have been very stupid to do that just as he would have to show up to the garage where he's so hated with the bloody glove and his murderous tale. If everything really happened as Radio City (and Rod) wants us to believe, then Parry certainly got very lucky indeed !!!

Another point, AS, is that if he wanted to threaten Parkes, and avoid witnesses being present, which would be just common sense, then all he had to do was turn up late at night on an occasion when Parkes was working alone.

[AmericanSherlock]

Another point, AS, is that if he wanted to threaten Parkes, and avoid witnesses being present, which would be just common sense, then all he had to do was turn up late at night on an occasion when Parkes was working alone.

Yes, it doesn't make sense that he would make a big show of threatening Parkes with "another fellow". Supposedly this other fellow, who was the true murderer, allowed Parry to talk him into doing the dirty work of a robbery that went wrong (of people Parry knew but this accomplice didn't), then flipped it on Gordon by convincing Parry to drive his incriminating bloody glove to a garage hand who hated him, clean out the car etc. while this murdering accomplice manages to lurk in the shadows avoiding any heat on himself.

So what does he do then? He comes with Parry and incriminates himself for no reason at all other than to offer "moral support" and I guess lopk more formidable to the dim witted garage hand.