Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Itís still difficult to see why Parry would knowingly tell a lie so easily disprovable that its hard to imagine a toddler trying it. I think he simply forgot because he had no reason to remember it. Yes he could remember Tuesdays events but some things we remember some get forgotten or confused with other times.

    But I agree that we canít ignore it however we interpret it.
    But the Lloyds remembered what he said he had gone. But Parry could not. I don't buy it. As for the disprovable lie, perhaps Parry did arrive at 5:30pm most days and expected/hoped the Lloyds would not remember this specific occasion. You appear to give Parry all the breaks but not Wallace (I'm sure you think I do the opposite!)

    And this is important because it reveals a fundamental difference between us about the case. And as you know all too well, difference should not entail animosity.
    Last edited by ColdCaseJury; 02-09-2019, 06:25 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
      WWH, back to the evaluation of the call. This time looking at the case for Parry in the call box. I'm sure this is where the controversy starts, but at least we will be able to see where our differences might lie.

      1. Parry misled the police as to his whereabouts on the night of the call, saying he went to the Lloyd's house at 5:30pm and stayed 6 hours, even though he actually turned up in his car minutes after the call ended, stayed a few minutes with his girlfriends' mother, left after a few minutes to go to Park Lane and then returned at 9pm. A good rule of thumb in an investigation is to follow the lies or false statements. And this is the only known one in the case.

      Now look at Parry's alibi for the Tuesday night. Assume Parry told the truth when he took his circuitous route from the Brine's to the Lloyd's. But if he can recall in lucid detail what he did on Tuesday night how come his memory is somehow fogged for the previous night? And it must be remembered that Parry told the Lloyds on the Monday that he had been to Park (or Lark) Lane, something the Lloyds were both able to tell the police a few days later in their statements but Parry was not. Put simply, if he told the truth about the Tuesday, there is no plausible reason for him not to remember what he did on the Monday night, and it is rational to believe he was lying about the Monday.

      Could Parry have mislead the police for another reason? Possibly, but the timing of him turning up at the Lloyds* means he could have been in the vicinity of the call box at the right time. The difference with Wallace is that we think Wallace might have lied and might have been in the vicinity of the call box at the right time - but we know Parry lied and might have been in the vicinity of the call box at the right time. Now much is made of the coincidences in the case against Wallace, and yet this one is just swept under the carpet.

      Now consider there are really only two people who could make the call. Wallace and Parry (who knew Wallace attended the chess club, knew enough about the insurance industry to have made the call and could have been at the call box at the appropriate time), and we know one of them lied.

      And it wasn't Wallace.

      Follow the lies, and you see this is the biggest factor by far in considering who made the call.

      * Murphy conveniently accepts Jospehine Lloyd's time of Parry's arrival (about 7:15 PM) and ignores that of Lilly (about 7:35 PM) who fixed the time more accurately in her statement. If we take an average of the two times (seems a rational and fair procedure) we have Parry arriving at about 7:25 PM, almost to the second when he would have arrived in his car if the phone was put down in Anfield 1627 at 7.22 PM (see Waiting for an Alibi).
      Okay true Parry made the call, now let's discuss the crime, the purported burglary.

      In this burglary:

      1) The burglar was tall enough to reach that cash box without putting a chair or whatever over there to grab it (7 foot 2 inches high in the air).

      2) The mastermind Parry decides that it's best to lure only William out of the house instead of making up some way to get them both out and have the guy break in, as is most common for burglars.

      3) The burglar decided it wasn't quite fair to take all the money from the box so left a little bit in there as a token of his condolences.

      4) Felt extra bad before leaving so moved the rest of the stolen money into a vase upstairs, smeared in blood.

      5) Knew there would be someone in the house but did not bring his own weapon just in case things turned sour.

      6) Had premeditated the attack so far that he managed to avoid the blood, yet was so unprepared he had to rely on tools and items of clothing in the household to carry out his plan.

      7) Did not take any of the other extremely easy to reach valuables which were in plain sight.

      8) Hides the murder weapon behind the fireplace for some reason. He managed to find this convenient weapon even though Wallace who lived there his entire life didn't notice it ever existed.

      9) Did not use the sinks to wash himself off.

      10) Ripped a cupboard door off for absolutely no reason at all.

      11) Was committing the act knowing the husband was given a fake address which had a higher risk of him returning early (unless Beattie f*cked up and they said west). With a real address, the time you have to act is more definite and predictable.

      12) Turned out all the lights (though I'd probably do this as well).

      13) If panicked, he managed to have the presence of mind to not leave ANY other clues whatsoever and turn out all the lights before leaving.

      Now the "sneak" burglary:

      1) A man comes to the door saying he's Qualtrough. For some reason Julia decides to let him in even though I think she would have said her husband will meet him tomorrow, or for contact details so they can arrange to meet another night. I guess he had another girl's birthday party the next day so it had to be tonight.

      2) The tall Qualtrough takes the cash box. He takes some of the money, but not all of it, because he's generous that way.

      3) Julia walks in the room and sees all the coins on the floor, and him rifling through their insurance money. The two just look at each other in silence.

      4) At this point Julia decides to make herself comfortable and light a fire in the parlor so she can relax.

      5) The burglar comes in with (possibly wearing) her husband's mackintosh. She does not find this remotely odd, then allows him to pick up the heavy iron bar.

      6) She asks if he'd like the fire lit, he says he would, so she leans forward to light it and he smashes her round the head.

      ---

      Or the significantly more plausible idea that it's a murder with a pathetically staged burglary. Lmao. Or a purposeful framing of Wallace. I think I wrote out a much more detailed and ridiculous series of events that would have to take place for the sneak burglary theory. It is literally more likely that the f*cking POPE turned up at the home and wacked her for disobeying God or something.

      Murphy is a liar who says the milk boy came at 6:30 lmao.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        Yes he could remember Tuesdays events but some things we remember some get forgotten or confused with other times.
        But how do we know he truthfully recalled Tuesday's events between the time of 8:30pm and 9:00pm? His alibi between these times was not verified. Perhaps he was lying on both Monday and Tuesday. I think your response might be that it was so easily disprovable that he would not risk it. But perhaps he did visit Hignetts that night but much earlier (it goes dark at 4:30pm in Liverpool in January). Perhaps he did visit Mrs Williamson but on some other day. Perhaps the conman was hoping his story would just squeak through. In 1932, when Parry was caught red-handed sitting in someone else's car, Parry said that he had mistaken the car for his, which was parked in front. He got out and walked to the car in front. When he could not get the get into the second car, he bolted and the owner of the first called the police. Parry was a conman whose response was always to lie however hopeless the situation.

        Comment


        • Dumb police logic exposed:

          1) Wallace was seen talking to a man matching Marsden's description on the way home (which he was BLATANTLY evasive about), Marsden had a client called "R J Qualtrough", and his "iron clad alibi" was that he was "in bed with flu". Welp, guess we better not investigate him any further, he obviously had nothing to do with it.

          2) Parry has a great alibi for the murder night, and CLEARLY the person who made the call MUST be the same person who went and murdered the wife, so obviously he couldn't have been the one who made the call. Guess we should just forget about him too.

          3) Let's not even BOTHER to investigate anyone else who may have hated Julia, considering she was estranged by her own family, so evidently not a very liked person by any accounts.

          4) Let's not even BOTHER to investigate anyone at the chess club apart from Beattie and some useless questions to Caird etc. without determining where they were when the call took place and on the night of the murder. Also not asking if anyone at the club turned up AFTER Wallace did.

          ---

          Pitiful really... I mean Wallace is such a strong suspect as either the mastermind or the actual killer himself, that I guess they thought it wasn't worth even bothering doing their duty.
          Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-09-2019, 07:20 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

            Okay true Parry made the call, now let's discuss the crime, the purported burglary.

            In this burglary:

            1) The burglar was tall enough to reach that cash box without putting a chair or whatever over there to grab it (7 foot 2 inches high in the air).

            2) The mastermind Parry decides that it's best to lure only William out of the house instead of making up some way to get them both out and have the guy break in, as is most common for burglars.

            3) The burglar decided it wasn't quite fair to take all the money from the box so left a little bit in there as a token of his condolences.

            4) Felt extra bad before leaving so moved the rest of the stolen money into a vase upstairs, smeared in blood.

            5) Knew there would be someone in the house but did not bring his own weapon just in case things turned sour.

            6) Had premeditated the attack so far that he managed to avoid the blood, yet was so unprepared he had to rely on tools and items of clothing in the household to carry out his plan.

            7) Did not take any of the other extremely easy to reach valuables which were in plain sight.

            8) Hides the murder weapon behind the fireplace for some reason. He managed to find this convenient weapon even though Wallace who lived there his entire life didn't notice it ever existed.

            9) Did not use the sinks to wash himself off.

            10) Ripped a cupboard door off for absolutely no reason at all.

            11) Was committing the act knowing the husband was given a fake address which had a higher risk of him returning early (unless Beattie f*cked up and they said west). With a real address, the time you have to act is more definite and predictable.

            12) Turned out all the lights (though I'd probably do this as well).

            13) If panicked, he managed to have the presence of mind to not leave ANY other clues whatsoever and turn out all the lights before leaving.

            Now the "sneak" burglary:

            1) A man comes to the door saying he's Qualtrough. For some reason Julia decides to let him in even though I think she would have said her husband will meet him tomorrow, or for contact details so they can arrange to meet another night. I guess he had another girl's birthday party the next day so it had to be tonight.

            2) The tall Qualtrough takes the cash box. He takes some of the money, but not all of it, because he's generous that way.

            3) Julia walks in the room and sees all the coins on the floor, and him rifling through their insurance money. The two just look at each other in silence.

            4) At this point Julia decides to make herself comfortable and light a fire in the parlor so she can relax.

            5) The burglar comes in with (possibly wearing) her husband's mackintosh. She does not find this remotely odd, then allows him to pick up the heavy iron bar.

            6) She asks if he'd like the fire lit, he says he would, so she leans forward to light it and he smashes her round the head.

            ---

            Or the significantly more plausible idea that it's a murder with a pathetically staged burglary. Lmao. Or a purposeful framing of Wallace. I think I wrote out a much more detailed and ridiculous series of events that would have to take place for the sneak burglary theory. It is literally more likely that the f*cking POPE turned up at the home and wacked her for disobeying God or something.

            Murphy is a liar who says the milk boy came at 6:30 lmao.
            Some great points, WWH. And I will get back to them. I've noted the post number (#2253). But we haven't gone through all the evidence that suggests Parry was the caller. Or are you prepared to say that, on balance, Parry probably made the call?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

              Some great points, WWH. And I will get back to them. I've noted the post number (#2253). But we haven't gone through all the evidence that suggests Parry was the caller. Or are you prepared to say that, on balance, Parry probably made the call?
              Yeah sure, let's throw our hat in with Parry. I think the evidence is kinda weak (against both Parry and Wallace to be honest). Let's say the strongest candidate is Parry though, I can buy it for sure.

              What is pretty clear though, is that the sneak thief idea is not a good one. In fact it seems like a whole idea based around trying to find a way to get away from the tiny factor that the cash box was replaced, and around the fact Parry had a good alibi. Whoever went in there, I think we can say that MOST LIKELY they went there to kill Julia and didn't care about theft. Or did care about theft but went in with the intention of killing her... Like let's just be honest, I think we can all see that's most probably the case right?

              To come up with ways to patch up all the GAPING holes in that theory, you would end up making it look like a Three Stooges episode... Place two people in the home and you have a stronger case. I still don't buy it much (as a burglary).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                Yeah sure, let's throw our hat in with Parry. I think the evidence is kinda weak (against both Parry and Wallace to be honest). Let's say the strongest candidate is Parry though, I can buy it for sure.

                What is pretty clear though, is that the sneak thief idea is not a good one. In fact it seems like a whole idea based around trying to find a way to get away from the tiny factor that the cash box was replaced, and around the fact Parry had a good alibi. Whoever went in there, I think we can say that MOST LIKELY they went there to kill Julia and didn't care about theft. Or did care about theft but went in with the intention of killing her... Like let's just be honest, I think we can all see that's most probably the case right?

                To come up with ways to patch up all the GAPING holes in that theory, you would end up making it look like a Three Stooges episode... Place two people in the home and you have a stronger case. I still don't buy it much (as a burglary).
                OK. So, looking at the three other main evidential areas (the crime scene, the timing before 7pm and Wallace's behaviour after 7pm), do you think these all point to Wallace?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

                  OK. So, looking at the three other main evidential areas (the crime scene, the timing before 7pm and Wallace's behaviour after 7pm), do you think these all point to Wallace?
                  I think Wallace, Parry, AND Marsden could all be collaborators in this killing. I have a VERY hard time believing Wallace had NO involvement whatsoever.

                  Let's admit the burglary looks so blatantly staged (to the point that it makes you think he was framed - surely nobody could stage a burglary THAT poorly, right?). In fact, ironically, that is pretty much the only thing that makes me think perhaps Wallace had no involvement. Like the staging is SO poor it's like someone wants him to get caught for it.

                  Lily Hall's testimony is the sticking point that prevents me from going all in on Wallace acting alone though, and the potential that Parry had made that call... The combination of the two things. But mainly Lily Hall. Wallace is not exactly a generic looking person, he's a lanky giant with a distinctive and easily recognizable face, I don't see her mistaking him for someone else... And even before hearing her testimony, he was VERY evasive to police about whether he'd spoken to anyone on the way home, a very clearly unnatural answer.

                  If Wallace acted alone (or just Parry and Wallace), I think he had Marsden in mind as a fall guy. It was the first person he named as a suspect right? The guy has a client called "R J Qualtrough" lmfao. Wallace works at the Pru, he could easily have access to this information. Marsden's alibi is truly pathetic though and I don't know why the cops just forgot about him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                    I think Wallace, Parry, AND Marsden could all be collaborators in this killing. I have a VERY hard time believing Wallace had NO involvement whatsoever.

                    Let's admit the burglary looks so blatantly staged (to the point that it makes you think he was framed - surely nobody could stage a burglary THAT poorly, right?). In fact, ironically, that is pretty much the only thing that makes me think perhaps Wallace had no involvement. Like the staging is SO poor it's like someone wants him to get caught for it.

                    Lily Hall's testimony is the sticking point that prevents me from going all in on Wallace acting alone though, and the potential that Parry had made that call... The combination of the two things. But mainly Lily Hall. Wallace is not exactly a generic looking person, he's a lanky giant with a distinctive and easily recognizable face, I don't see her mistaking him for someone else... And even before hearing her testimony, he was VERY evasive to police about whether he'd spoken to anyone on the way home, a very clearly unnatural answer.

                    If Wallace acted alone (or just Parry and Wallace), I think he had Marsden in mind as a fall guy. It was the first person he named as a suspect right? The guy has a client called "R J Qualtrough" lmfao. Wallace works at the Pru, he could easily have access to this information. Marsden's alibi is truly pathetic though and I don't know why the cops just forgot about him.
                    So, on balance, you opt for John Gannon's Conspiracy theory?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

                      So, on balance, you opt for John Gannon's Conspiracy theory?
                      I think John Gannon tries to go in with something about gigolos. And he might exonerate Wallace and say it was Parry and Marsden. IIRC anyway, I don't really remember...

                      I would potentially go for something similar based on:

                      1) The "R J Qualtrough" name and pathetic Marsden alibi.

                      2) The testimony of Lily Hall.

                      3) Parry showing up at his girlfriend's home near the phone booth shortly after the call.

                      4) Wallace's constantly changing stories, evasive statements, weird statements (e.g. to Beattie), and odd behavior in general.

                      If it wasn't for Lily Hall I'd say he did it alone (and had Parry and Marsden in mind as potential fall guys) or was framed. But there are oddities that implicate Parry and Marsden too. But the idea of Wallace being completely oblivious is hard to buy - and the idea that this crime was a sneak robbery is downright ludicrous.

                      You could make a semi-good sneak robbery theory with two men in the home but then it's pure fiction without even the most marginal shred of evidence. For Wallace you could say he might have had someone else stay behind in there, based on Lily Hall's testimony.

                      ---

                      For the record I also believe the police officer who claims to have seen Wallace weeping. Some people get watery eyes in cold weather, but I've literally never seen anyone in my entire life have that issue, and also I think dabbing your eyes looks a lot different to what the officer described as "looking bereaved".

                      I don't know WHAT the **** exactly happened that made him feel he had to kill her (or want to kill her), but it seems like something did. I find it almost fantastical to believe he had no idea what was going to happen that night when he went off in search of MGE. You could probably make almost as strong of an argument about Lizzie Borden being innocent (FYI the lack of blood on her and time frame which was deemed impossible for her to have cleaned up from was used as her defence)... Not quite as strong, but still, it's getting up there.

                      And the solo sneak thief idea is LESS believable than Borden or OJ being innocent.
                      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-09-2019, 08:04 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                        I think John Gannon tries to go in with something about gigolos. And he might exonerate Wallace and say it was Parry and Marsden. IIRC anyway, I don't really remember...

                        I would potentially go for something similar based on:

                        1) The "R J Qualtrough" name and pathetic Marsden alibi.

                        2) The testimony of Lily Hall.

                        3) Parry showing up at his girlfriend's home near the phone booth shortly after the call.

                        4) Wallace's constantly changing stories, evasive statements, weird statements (e.g. to Beattie), and odd behavior in general.
                        1) But Marsden knew both Wallace and Parry. So, the name could have been discussed or known about. Marsden has no alibi but this does not mean he's implicated.

                        2) I discuss Hall's evidence in my book. Alas, it is not as clear as it could have been.

                        3) OK

                        4) Odd behaviour could be because he was odd, of course. You believe Wallace was evasive over meeting people on the way home. He did show inconsistency over the locks, but other than that he is quite consistent, I would say.

                        BTW, your own ideas are worthy of discussion and if they are good they will rise to the top. You don't have to put other theories down. Let's look for agreement first. It appears we both think Parry was probably in the call box.
                        Last edited by ColdCaseJury; 02-09-2019, 08:34 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

                          1) But Marsden knew both Wallace and Parry. So, the name could have been discussed or known about. Marsden has no alibi but this does not mean he's implicated.

                          2) I discuss Hall's evidence in my book. Alas, it is not as clear as it could have been.

                          3) OK

                          4) Odd behaviour could be because he was odd, of course. You believe Wallace was evasive over meeting people on the way home. He did show inconsistency over the locks, but other than that he is quite consistent, I would say.

                          BTW, your own ideas are worthy of discussion and if they are good they will rise to the top. You don't have to put other theories down.
                          I think if I say some idea that is totally implausible it should be said so, and explained why that is. Anything really unlikely should be ruled out or altered IMO. Like I said, if you can find a way to put two men at that scene in a sneak thief scenario, now you can make something plausible. But as the crime scene stands, there is just no way at all the theory presented is correct. With two men, there are still a few holes in it, but you seal off the most obvious.

                          Without Lily's testimony I'm more inclined to believe Wallace acted alone on the night of the killing. Why is her testimony poor?

                          Yes I think both Wallace and Parry worked at the Pru, both could be familiar with the name I would have thought (Wallace slightly more likely). At least heard it in passing. And there was a butcher shop not far from that booth called "Qualtrough's". Wallace acted like he'd never heard of such a name before in his entire life. He made a big song and dance about it in fact... And Qualtrough isn't really even THAT strange of a name. It's a bit unusual but I'd hardly be discussing it hours later.

                          Still, Marsden's alibi is ridiculous and there is no investigation on him (was he sick the day before, after?) so we'll never have enough information to put him in the picture for certain.

                          Oh and by the way, Wallace wasn't seen on his way to the tram OR on his entire journey home. If he was in some conspiracy with Parry, he could've had a ride in the car, both ways, and narrow the time frame significantly.

                          As for Wallace being consistent, no chance. No chance at all. He retracted many statements about the locks (as you mentioned), retracted his initial suggestion that the killer was still in the home, claimed he knew Menlove Avenue quite well then later DIRECTLY contradicted himself by saying he didn't know it well:

                          Wallace's initial statement:

                          Had you ever suggested to anybody that you had never heard of Menlove Avenue ? ó No. I knew there was such a place, quite well.
                          Later in the same trial:

                          Did you not know Menlove Avenue quite well ? ó No, I did not.
                          Carefully worded difference. But he's then claiming later he had no idea it was near the Plaza cinema etc. Also had no idea where Menlove Gardens could possibly be... Pretty obvious I would have thought... And seemed to be aware enough to think Beattie said west. Seems like he knew a little more about the area than he was letting on. But he liked to tell everyone that he was a "complete stranger in the district".

                          What about the curtain that light "could not escape" through?

                          What about how he tried to explain how he felt uneasy. Then said he didn't feel uneasy. Then said he felt both easy and uneasy and didn't know what to think.

                          Said he thought his wife could have gone to the post box, but said to the Johnstons Julia wouldn't be out of the house because of her cold.

                          What about saying he noticed the mackintosh as soon as he went in the room, and then only when he went in the second time with the Johnstons, and then that it could have been the first or the second time.

                          There's actually so many retractions and weird answers given about being seen on his way home etc. in statements and on trial. SO much. To say he's consistent is totally untrue!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                            Without Lily's testimony I'm more inclined to believe Wallace acted alone on the night of the killing.
                            But how does Lily Hall's testimony affect whether Parry was probably in the call box or not? Or are you saying, Parry made the call and Wallace was the killer, i.e. Prank theory or even Wallace Accomplice.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

                              But the Lloyds remembered what he said he had gone. But Parry could not. I don't buy it. As for the disprovable lie, perhaps Parry did arrive at 5:30pm most days and expected/hoped the Lloyds would not remember this specific occasion. You appear to give Parry all the breaks but not Wallace (I'm sure you think I do the opposite!)

                              And this is important because it reveals a fundamental difference between us about the case. And as you know all too well, difference should not entail animosity.
                              I certainly feel no animosity Antony and would be surprised if you felt that I did.

                              I don’t feel that I’m deliberately trying to give anyone any breaks even though for the last year we’ve had one poster intransigently refusing to admit that anything Wallace did might be seen as possibly suspicious or troubling and who would go to any ridiculous length to provide excuses.

                              I accept, because it’s a fact, that the alibi that Parry provided for the Monday night was untrue. People do give false alibi’s to try cover their tracks and we can’t say for certain that Parry wasn’t doing this. We can watch true crime tv shows any night of the week that show this. But these false alibi’s are pretty much always exposed by unforeseen things. CCTV footage which show the criminal to have been near the seen of the crime; a shop receipt in the wallet which shows the criminal was in the area at the time; a sighting by a third party for examples.

                              Now we know that Parry was no genius but he wasn’t a complete idiot. The word ‘crafty’ might even be used in regard to him. This is why I find it a little difficult to understand or even believe why he would have given such an easily disprovable alibi. He would have known that this alibi would have been checked by the police. Parry’s girlfriend Lily and her mother were interviewed by the police two days after him so if he’d given a knowingly false alibi why didn’t he go and see them to confirm that they’d back up his story (unless he believed that he was telling the truth and that they would do so?) Why then, if he discovered that they wouldn’t be backing him up, did he not ask them to cover for him? Maybe he did and they refused? But this would seem to have caused no discord as they stayed together at least for the near future. We could also ask, if Parry planned this crime why didn’t he arrange for the accomplice to provide him with a false alibi as the police weren’t considering a two man job.

                              And as you say Parry arrived at the Lloyd’s at 5.30 most days so we might also say that he just assumed that that’s what he did on the Monday. As you know I don’t believe that Parry playedany part in this crime whatsoever and so when something like the Monday alibi comes up, whilst I can’t deny the reality of what happened, I have to ask myself if there could have been a reasonable explaination and I think that, without any leaps of faith, that there could have been.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

                                But how does Lily Hall's testimony affect whether Parry was probably in the call box or not? Or are you saying, Parry made the call and Wallace was the killer, i.e. Prank theory or even Wallace Accomplice.
                                Something like that could have happened. Btw I forgot Parry's alibi when mentioning the car ride, he couldn't have been there at the time of the murder. Lily Hall's testimony doesn't mean anything about the call box, just that the man she described sounded like Marsden - paired with Marsden's "alibi" and Wallace's evasiveness about the question, and the "R M Qualtrough" name (even though any of the three could've been aware of the name R J Qualtrough), it adds credence to the idea that he didn't do it alone.

                                For all we know Marsden made the call and Parry had nothing to do with it whatsoever... Focusing on the call is a bit silly because there's not enough evidence to make a strong enough argument for any particular person placing that call. I can agree with you that it's Parry. But I could also believe it was Wallace, or Marsden, or some random someone paid to make the call for them who were too afraid to come forward given that the police thought caller = killer.

                                On the other hand, when discussing the day of the crime, we have way more details and can almost 100% rule out certain ideas, and say that others are quite likely... It would be DIFFICULT to argue a case where Wallace is not only not the killer, but completely ignorant to it all.

                                In fact, even if it was some unknown, if Lily truly saw him talking to someone, that he so adamantly denied speaking to (and initially answered with a VERY odd statement), and nobody came forward either, then it's fishy AF.

                                As overzealous as Mr. Hemmerde was, it has to be admitted that he made Wallace crumble on several of his points. There were a lot of contradictions and retracted statements in there.

                                But this is one of those cases like Borden. There's not enough evidence at the trial to secure a conviction even though it's very likely they did it or had a hand in it. Unfortunately that was how things were back in the pre-advanced forensics era. Nowadays they would be able to give an almost exact time of death, scour the home for invisible forensic clues, DNA match any hairs found on the scene, etc... But he got punished in the same way Lizzie Borden did, by being essentially shunned by the community. He was the "OJ Simpson" of the early 20th century, everyone thought he did it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X