Tweet
There is the phrase innocent until proven guilty. This is true, but let's note two key facts:
1) There is no real proof Wallace DIDN'T kill Julia.
2) There is proof Parry didn't.
This is likely why the book focuses on the idea of Parry using an accomplice to commit the crime.
Now let's focus on key issues...
- PARRY VS WALLACE AS THE CALLER -
Parry:
1) Parry had no alibi for the call.
2) Parry was known to make prank calls by some (not that reliable) sources. Even if he wasn't planning a crime, it's possible he could make such a call.
3) Beattie claims the voice sounded nothing like Wallace.
4) He may have refused to call when Wallace is there as Wallace may potentially recognize his voice.
5) He was invited to a 21st birthday or something the next day.
6) The Qualtrough nonsense helps to set up a possibility of Julia admitting such a person into the house... Though it takes a small leap of faith that Wallace would definitely give her all the facts, and a note would serve the purpose better as it makes it more likely she would see it, and avoid more witnesses which a phone call creates. Especially given the house is so close to the phone booth, it certainly wasn't due to convenience.
Wallace:
1) Wallace would have been at/passing by the phone booth around the time the call was made.
2) Wallace was physically unable to call back later as he obviously can't call himself unless we're in some Mulholland Drive dream world lol.
3) The phone booth was coincidentally very close to Wallace's house, yet the caller apparently did not know this as he requested his address.
4) A phone call serves him well in setting up an alibi, as he then has someone to corroborate the facts given on the call.
5) Unless staking out his home (a possibility), the caller couldn't have known Wallace would definitely go to the chess club.
- WAS THE CRIME A BURGLARY GONE WRONG? -
1) Julia was in the parlor, the "sneak" burglar she supposedly caught was stealing insurance money from a different room, so she would have been killed in the kitchen.
2) If she caught a burglar she would scream or shout, the neighbors were home and heard Wallace's soft knocks on the door, but didn't hear Julia scream? This shows the blow was most likely unexpected, and that she was not suspicious in any way at the time she was killed.
3) If she caught a burglar she would run to the phone or door to escape. She would not be found battered in the parlor with no evidence of a struggle.
4) Many things were NOT taken which easily could have been. The killer took care to even replace the insurance box.
---
Therefore it makes sense that if it was a burglary, killing Julia was in fact part of the plan all along, and that she was likely killed before any such burglary began taking place.
Assuming this is true, something caused the burglar to panic and leave quickly (maybe a noise outside, hypothetically) before swiping any other very easy to reach valuables.
I conclude that even in the event of a burglary, Julia was killed before the burglary took place.
- WAS THE CRIME A PLANNED MURDER? -
1) The fact Julia was probably killed before the burglary/faking of a burglary began, indicates that murder was part of the plan all along.
2) There is no tracking of blood out of the room. Blood marks found upstairs could very well have been left after the witnesses and police arrived. In fact that seems most likely considering there is no blood elsewhere. Clearly the killer took MANY precautions to ensure the act was clean. To be able to pull something like that off in a split second without premeditation is very unlikely.
3) The burglary seems clearly staged.
---
I'm inclined to think it was a planned assassination because of the lack of things taken from the home. The only reason for this would be if the killer believed they had very little time to act. For example due to an outside noise that spooked them...
Though if this was true, it takes a huge stretch of the imagination to believe they would take the trouble of turning out the lights, before fleeing the scene. Also that someone who had just committed murder would take time to replace the insurance money box.
- DID GORDON PARRY COMMIT OR MASTERMIND THE PLAN? -
1) Based on other crimes he has been caught for committing, Gordon Parry appears to be a sloppy criminal with little to no forethought, not someone who could engineer something so cunning.
2) Gordon Parry has an alibi for the time of the murder from a number of different people (hence the accomplice theory suggested in this book).
In my opinion, if Parry had an accomplice, his accomplice was the smarter of the two, and is the one who concocted the plan and carried out the killing. Maybe Parry brought up the idea of robbery or murder and his accomplice came up with the scheme.
There are also numerous reasons why the Qualtrough plan, if it was not Wallace, is not very good, mainly that it takes several leaps of faith (OR would require staking out the home):
First that Wallace would go to the chess club, second that Beattie would remember to deliver the message and get the details correct (if not written down), third that Wallace would not look up the location or name in advance to see it doesn't exist, fourth that Wallace would be gone for a long time if he did go out (and not find out quickly he's been duped), fifth that his wife would be told the details that Wallace was meeting Qualtrough. ALSO that when they saw Wallace leave his house, that he really WAS going to Menlove, and not just making a quick trip to a local newsagents or whatever.
Being a mere 3 minutes from Wallace's home, it would have been easy for an accomplice to deliver a note. Here's a plan I propose a real killer/burglar would use:
1) Deliver a note to Wallace suggesting a REAL address much further away than Menlove Gardens (Wallace covered a very large area of Liverpool when called out on business meetings), so it's more likely he'd not be suspicious and actually go.
Why? There's a higher chance of Julia finding out the details, less chance people would find out about those details (which means less potential witnesses or people who could have their suspicions raised), and it ensures Wallace would receive the message with the correct details, and Wallace will be gone for a longer period of time.
2) Wait for Wallace to leave, then the accomplice would go to the door as Qualtrough. A ruse would be used to gain admittance (since she may not let him in if she knows her husband will be gone for a long time, or if too recent, he may be told to chase him).
3) Julia would set up the parlor for the guest, and he would then attack her and begin robbing the home (or staging one, for some unknown reason). Knowing Wallace would be gone for a long time, the killer would have ample time to collect things, and to wash himself off in the shower or sink.
- DID WALLACE COMMIT OR MASTERMIND THE PLAN? -
1) He was placed near the phone booth from which the call to Beattie was made at the time of the call.
2) Telling the story over the phone insures he has people to corroborate his story and back up the idea that it was a genuine call from a mystery man. Receiving a call at his home or a note means only he and his wife would know about it.
3) His behavior in asking many people and describing his story to many people on his way to Menlove Gardens is unusual. It is very consistent with other crimes in which killers have attempted establishing alibis. Same with how he mentioned it so much to his chess buddies etc.
4) The robbery is very likely staged.
5) He only claimed to call at his friend's house who was a local to Menlove AFTER finding out his friend was not home. He claimed he said so in a statement, but there was no record of this.
6) He was apparently seen talking to a mysterious man matching Marsden's description soon before arriving home. Wallace looks VERY distinctive and tall, and it's hard to imagine someone mistaking him for someone else, especially knowing him by sight so well. Unless she lied..
7) Wallace made many blunders and contradictions, I'll list them as follows:
i. Claims the killer was still in the house when he arrived. Later changes this claim and says he must have been mistaken.
ii. Said the locks were not like that in the morning, but a locksmith said they had been that way for years.
iii. Considering he believed someone was in his house he did not call out or vocalize in any way, as someone might in such a situation in real life. And if so he would go around the house in more of a hasty frenzy once inside, shouting for his wife as soon as he entered. Of course he retracted this claim.
iv. Claims his wife bolted the back yard door. Went back on this.
v. Said his wife accompanied him down the entry. Went back on this.
vi. Arguable blunder on the light in the kitchen debacle. Apparently refused to let the officer test if light could escape through the curtain.
vii. Claims he spoke to nobody on the way home but then says maybe he would've greeted someone if he knew them.
viii. Arguable blunders about the bolts on the doors. The constable remembers hearing no bolt withdrawn on the front door. He also said he may have thought the back door was bolted, but not anymore.
8) He left his neighbors outside, even though apparently at the time he thought there was someone in the house. Seems dangerous.
9) Did not notice an iron bar was missing, and claimed to have never seen it before. This seems incredibly doubtful, especially seeing as it was propped up in an obvious place.
10) With Wallace's character, it is almost inconceivable that he wouldn't look up the address in advance to ensure he'd be punctual to make his appointment. Not just turn up in the district running around asking people. Particular seeing as he was a "total stranger to the district" (despite having been proven to be somewhat familiar with that general area).
11) What sort of killer makes sure they turn off all the lights and stove before leaving?
- ODDITIES -
1) Said he had not been into the bedroom in 2 weeks. Seems weird for a married couple?
2) Have your eyes ever actually watered in cold weather?
3) Hesitates regarding matters surrounding the mackintosh and kitchen light (did not want the constable to test if light could escape the curtain). Unsure why.
1) There is no real proof Wallace DIDN'T kill Julia.
2) There is proof Parry didn't.
This is likely why the book focuses on the idea of Parry using an accomplice to commit the crime.
Now let's focus on key issues...
- PARRY VS WALLACE AS THE CALLER -
Parry:
1) Parry had no alibi for the call.
2) Parry was known to make prank calls by some (not that reliable) sources. Even if he wasn't planning a crime, it's possible he could make such a call.
3) Beattie claims the voice sounded nothing like Wallace.
4) He may have refused to call when Wallace is there as Wallace may potentially recognize his voice.
5) He was invited to a 21st birthday or something the next day.
6) The Qualtrough nonsense helps to set up a possibility of Julia admitting such a person into the house... Though it takes a small leap of faith that Wallace would definitely give her all the facts, and a note would serve the purpose better as it makes it more likely she would see it, and avoid more witnesses which a phone call creates. Especially given the house is so close to the phone booth, it certainly wasn't due to convenience.
Wallace:
1) Wallace would have been at/passing by the phone booth around the time the call was made.
2) Wallace was physically unable to call back later as he obviously can't call himself unless we're in some Mulholland Drive dream world lol.
3) The phone booth was coincidentally very close to Wallace's house, yet the caller apparently did not know this as he requested his address.
4) A phone call serves him well in setting up an alibi, as he then has someone to corroborate the facts given on the call.
5) Unless staking out his home (a possibility), the caller couldn't have known Wallace would definitely go to the chess club.
- WAS THE CRIME A BURGLARY GONE WRONG? -
1) Julia was in the parlor, the "sneak" burglar she supposedly caught was stealing insurance money from a different room, so she would have been killed in the kitchen.
2) If she caught a burglar she would scream or shout, the neighbors were home and heard Wallace's soft knocks on the door, but didn't hear Julia scream? This shows the blow was most likely unexpected, and that she was not suspicious in any way at the time she was killed.
3) If she caught a burglar she would run to the phone or door to escape. She would not be found battered in the parlor with no evidence of a struggle.
4) Many things were NOT taken which easily could have been. The killer took care to even replace the insurance box.
---
Therefore it makes sense that if it was a burglary, killing Julia was in fact part of the plan all along, and that she was likely killed before any such burglary began taking place.
Assuming this is true, something caused the burglar to panic and leave quickly (maybe a noise outside, hypothetically) before swiping any other very easy to reach valuables.
I conclude that even in the event of a burglary, Julia was killed before the burglary took place.
- WAS THE CRIME A PLANNED MURDER? -
1) The fact Julia was probably killed before the burglary/faking of a burglary began, indicates that murder was part of the plan all along.
2) There is no tracking of blood out of the room. Blood marks found upstairs could very well have been left after the witnesses and police arrived. In fact that seems most likely considering there is no blood elsewhere. Clearly the killer took MANY precautions to ensure the act was clean. To be able to pull something like that off in a split second without premeditation is very unlikely.
3) The burglary seems clearly staged.
---
I'm inclined to think it was a planned assassination because of the lack of things taken from the home. The only reason for this would be if the killer believed they had very little time to act. For example due to an outside noise that spooked them...
Though if this was true, it takes a huge stretch of the imagination to believe they would take the trouble of turning out the lights, before fleeing the scene. Also that someone who had just committed murder would take time to replace the insurance money box.
- DID GORDON PARRY COMMIT OR MASTERMIND THE PLAN? -
1) Based on other crimes he has been caught for committing, Gordon Parry appears to be a sloppy criminal with little to no forethought, not someone who could engineer something so cunning.
2) Gordon Parry has an alibi for the time of the murder from a number of different people (hence the accomplice theory suggested in this book).
In my opinion, if Parry had an accomplice, his accomplice was the smarter of the two, and is the one who concocted the plan and carried out the killing. Maybe Parry brought up the idea of robbery or murder and his accomplice came up with the scheme.
There are also numerous reasons why the Qualtrough plan, if it was not Wallace, is not very good, mainly that it takes several leaps of faith (OR would require staking out the home):
First that Wallace would go to the chess club, second that Beattie would remember to deliver the message and get the details correct (if not written down), third that Wallace would not look up the location or name in advance to see it doesn't exist, fourth that Wallace would be gone for a long time if he did go out (and not find out quickly he's been duped), fifth that his wife would be told the details that Wallace was meeting Qualtrough. ALSO that when they saw Wallace leave his house, that he really WAS going to Menlove, and not just making a quick trip to a local newsagents or whatever.
Being a mere 3 minutes from Wallace's home, it would have been easy for an accomplice to deliver a note. Here's a plan I propose a real killer/burglar would use:
1) Deliver a note to Wallace suggesting a REAL address much further away than Menlove Gardens (Wallace covered a very large area of Liverpool when called out on business meetings), so it's more likely he'd not be suspicious and actually go.
Why? There's a higher chance of Julia finding out the details, less chance people would find out about those details (which means less potential witnesses or people who could have their suspicions raised), and it ensures Wallace would receive the message with the correct details, and Wallace will be gone for a longer period of time.
2) Wait for Wallace to leave, then the accomplice would go to the door as Qualtrough. A ruse would be used to gain admittance (since she may not let him in if she knows her husband will be gone for a long time, or if too recent, he may be told to chase him).
3) Julia would set up the parlor for the guest, and he would then attack her and begin robbing the home (or staging one, for some unknown reason). Knowing Wallace would be gone for a long time, the killer would have ample time to collect things, and to wash himself off in the shower or sink.
- DID WALLACE COMMIT OR MASTERMIND THE PLAN? -
1) He was placed near the phone booth from which the call to Beattie was made at the time of the call.
2) Telling the story over the phone insures he has people to corroborate his story and back up the idea that it was a genuine call from a mystery man. Receiving a call at his home or a note means only he and his wife would know about it.
3) His behavior in asking many people and describing his story to many people on his way to Menlove Gardens is unusual. It is very consistent with other crimes in which killers have attempted establishing alibis. Same with how he mentioned it so much to his chess buddies etc.
4) The robbery is very likely staged.
5) He only claimed to call at his friend's house who was a local to Menlove AFTER finding out his friend was not home. He claimed he said so in a statement, but there was no record of this.
6) He was apparently seen talking to a mysterious man matching Marsden's description soon before arriving home. Wallace looks VERY distinctive and tall, and it's hard to imagine someone mistaking him for someone else, especially knowing him by sight so well. Unless she lied..
7) Wallace made many blunders and contradictions, I'll list them as follows:
i. Claims the killer was still in the house when he arrived. Later changes this claim and says he must have been mistaken.
ii. Said the locks were not like that in the morning, but a locksmith said they had been that way for years.
iii. Considering he believed someone was in his house he did not call out or vocalize in any way, as someone might in such a situation in real life. And if so he would go around the house in more of a hasty frenzy once inside, shouting for his wife as soon as he entered. Of course he retracted this claim.
iv. Claims his wife bolted the back yard door. Went back on this.
v. Said his wife accompanied him down the entry. Went back on this.
vi. Arguable blunder on the light in the kitchen debacle. Apparently refused to let the officer test if light could escape through the curtain.
vii. Claims he spoke to nobody on the way home but then says maybe he would've greeted someone if he knew them.
viii. Arguable blunders about the bolts on the doors. The constable remembers hearing no bolt withdrawn on the front door. He also said he may have thought the back door was bolted, but not anymore.
8) He left his neighbors outside, even though apparently at the time he thought there was someone in the house. Seems dangerous.
9) Did not notice an iron bar was missing, and claimed to have never seen it before. This seems incredibly doubtful, especially seeing as it was propped up in an obvious place.
10) With Wallace's character, it is almost inconceivable that he wouldn't look up the address in advance to ensure he'd be punctual to make his appointment. Not just turn up in the district running around asking people. Particular seeing as he was a "total stranger to the district" (despite having been proven to be somewhat familiar with that general area).
11) What sort of killer makes sure they turn off all the lights and stove before leaving?
- ODDITIES -
1) Said he had not been into the bedroom in 2 weeks. Seems weird for a married couple?
2) Have your eyes ever actually watered in cold weather?
3) Hesitates regarding matters surrounding the mackintosh and kitchen light (did not want the constable to test if light could escape the curtain). Unsure why.
Comment