Who Killed Julia Wallace? - New Evidence

[WallaceWackedHer]

Btw sorry but I think I misremembered the crime scene layout. Just put it back up. Her body has definitely been shifted but not exactly as I believed from memory. Her feet are on the wrong side of the room though.

She could have faceplanted into the fireplace though even pulling her out of the fire, her feet have been pulled round to the opposite side.

I feel surprised they didn't discuss the fact the body was clearly moved if MacFail's interpretation was a accurate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

None of this makes any sense. It's clearly bad for William if someone knocks too soon after he left, regardless of the state of the lighting in the house (which did have lights on - purposefully so if he went upstairs after killing her, since two were left burning allegedly). It's clearly bad for another killer if someone arrives and the light is up showing someone is in the parlour, or if Wallace isn't an accomplice and returns as well, he'd see there's a guest. If Wallace killed Julia, he may have potentially not put the light on at all, which would be the ideal scenario for him. That would necessitate working by match-light and fire-light.

The lights that were on upstairs were in the bathroom and the middle bedroom and so not visible from the front door. A visitor arriving after Wallace left would have been confronted with a house apparently in complete darkness and so would probably have assumed that both William and Julia were out. Unless you are proposing the Accomplice Theory (I know that you don’t of course) then there’s no reason for a thief/killer to have spent any length of time in the parlour. If someone had knocked the door then they would have simply left via the backdoor. The lighting being off points to William for me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
The matches are highly suggestive of something being surveyed or done in the darkness. There are several matches actually under the body itself as well, by the way, in the sleeve of the jacket, and the box of matches elsewhere in the room which Florence picked up with her bare hands.

A stranger killer would hardly have wanted to fumbling around in the dark. Why would he have being doing anything in the parlour after Julia had been killed? If he’d switched the lights of around the house and used matches why were loose matches only found in the parlour?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Any risk associated with incinerating that jacket is infinitely less than leaving it under her body then immediately shutting down his own defence claiming she never wore it. It's just dumb. Going through all the trouble of wiping down containers or w.e. then leaving the sole most incriminating piece of evidence stuffed under the body simply doesn't add up at all. Doing literally anything else with it would be better than that, and the kitchen stove is blatantly more suitable for burning it since the living room fire has a safety grid. He didn't need to stay for any burning, throw it into the kitchen stove then leave... He may have assumed the parlour fireplace would do the trick but was mistaken.

Wallace would have needed to prevent himself getting covered in blood so he had to use something. If he’d have used. Anything else he’d have been saddled with the time consuming and extremely risky business of disposing of it. A small unburnt fragment found in the fire by the police and Wallace would have been stuffed. The item hidden and then found somewhere along his route and he’d have been stuffed. The mackintosh is the perfect item. It in no way points to Wallace’s guilt as far as the police would have been concerned. Just because there wouldn’t have been an explanation for her having it near her is no great issue.

There is still no reasonable explanation for the presence of the mackintosh. The chances of it ending up where it did by chance are for me close to non-existent. The presence of the mackintosh points strongly to a guilty William.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I think Amy has a case to answer to as a suspect, and she should have been pressed more in questioning.

I genuinely can’t see why? She appeared to get on quite well with Julia (she was asking her to attend a pantomime with her.) All of the issues for a stranger killer would apply to Amy (no blood outside the room, how would she have prevented herself getting covered in blood etc?) The phone caller was a man. It’s difficult to see a middle aged woman viciously bludgeoning her sister in law to death. What could possibly have compelled her?

Unless some positive evidence turned up I’m confident that Amy can be eliminated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the police made too much of a phone call which is likely to be a practical joke to properly investigate certain suspects... Although William placing a call to himself ties things up in a neat little Columbo episode package, the facts are there that it's more likely than not that he DIDN'T place the call.

I think that it’s overwhelmingly likely that William made the call. There’s absolutely nothing about the call that discounts him or even counts against him. The chances of the call being a prank are a 1000-1 at least. It’s not even a good prank because Parry wouldn’t have been there to see William’s anger and confusion at being tricked. I just can’t accept that Parry makes a prank call and then in less than 24 hours William has used it as a cover for killing his wife.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
An exploit is another easy possibility. Bludgeoning her remorselessly doesn't really mean anything if someone actually planned to kill her to burgle her, there's not even consensus on how many strikes she received for one. But if you want to silence someone permanently, you make damn sure they're dead. If they regain consciousness even briefly they can talk. People have actually been caught because of that. There's a special legal term for a witness statement from a dying victim.

But who might have planned such a brutal murder? The chances of the phone call and the murder being unconnected are virtually non-existent. Are we to believe that someone randomly decided to brutally murder Julia on the off chance of stealing whatever money was available (and yet they made no effort to ransack the house) on the very night that her husband received a fake call taking him out of the house?

There were the Anfield Housebreakings of course but none of them resulted in violent death and we surely can’t think that Parry made a prank call causing Wallace to leave the house conveniently for a random killer/burglar to enter?

Im 99% certain in my own mind that the caller and the killer were the same person.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
You can't just see nothing to feel suspicious, that's not really how criminal investigations work lol. If someone is there when the body is discovered, or at the scene on the day of the crime etc, they are automatically a suspect. That means the Johnstons who were there when the body was discovered, and Amy who had been in the parlour around the time Julia was allegedly killed (4 to 8 PM window by forensics), are both automatically suspects in any investigation. In a good investigation they would have been questioned much more extensively. It was a crap investigation... Imagine not even tracking down kids who worked on that street around the time your prime suspect claims to have left the house? Imagine having to wait for them to come forward lmao.

I accept of course that you have to consider people as suspects until they can be eliminated but as were looking back at the case we need something to point the finger of suspicion and I see nothing with Amy, Caird or the Johnston’s. Parry can be eliminated because he had a cast iron alibi. So again I come back to Wallace. I know that you disagree WWH but for me Wallace is a country mile ahead of every other suspect. No one comes remotely close.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Im 99% certain in my own mind that the caller and the killer were the same person.

Everyone thinks that, which is perhaps why it's a case people struggle with despite a limited pool of potential solutions.

Who said Amy was inviting Julia to a pantomime? Amy is the one who said that, so it's not very reliable if she has any involvement... She was in the parlour during the window in which the murder took place according to forensics, meaning she's a suspect and needs to be questioned and looked at as such, along with the Johnstons... Doesn't matter if it's looking years back into the past, it doesn't make it any less true... And a good investigator could also have pressed the Johnstons further because of those postcards while they were claiming to be essentially complete strangers to her.

I don't know why a murderer loitered in a darkened home but they likely did so in the parlour at the least. Someone said there were spent matches in the other rooms such as the kitchen too. I can't recall who said it... In your scenario William would have used the matches for light to avoid turning up the lights in the parlour which could provide a visible timestamp to those outside...

The jacket is essentially the sole piece of evidence used by the police, so it was seen as important. Even the most incompetent killer would know that having his own jacket beneath the body then saying it's his and the victim never wore it, is highly incriminating... So if he did this, an attempt was likely made to dispose of the jacket which did not work.

The evidence is all there that:

1. Gordon Parry was driving past the phone booth at the same time Wallace was inside it placing a call to murder his wife, or flipped, he drove past William and called himself on the back of that phone call (in which case it was not planned).

If Wallace was tricked there's some chance he did not use the call to provide an alibi to himself, but murdered his wife on that same day in a completely unrelated incident. I do not believe Alan Close was used for an alibi, it was just chance he luckily provided one. The trip may be the same deal.

2. Somebody stood around in the darkness of that room lighting several matches for whatever reason. Because Wallace was in that house twice before anyone saw what had happened (before and after the trip) when these matches were placed is not certain... However Wallace lit the gas lamp in the parlour before admitting the Johnstons, so on the return there's no need to use many matches.

The matches may have been from earlier when Amy visited. The body was moved, so it may have wound up on top of spent matches which were already there.

3. Anyone who arrived at that home to visit the Wallaces would have knocked regardless of lighting. This is a time when people lived in the middle of the home. It wouldn't be strange to not see lights on in the spare bedroom and parlour.

...

Considering you said if Wallace wasn't the caller you believe it's a prank, and you think a prank call is 1000 to 1, it's essentially saying the odds anyone else called is 1000 to 1 which is wrong.

It's very heavy bias... Evidence suggests the crime was not carried out in the way Murphy described. The actual evidence points to another person ringing, it legitimately does. Feeling he did is not evidence. The accent is off and route off etc. You can't just excuse Parry's falsified alibi by feeling he would have done a better job of giving one or feeling he was confused either. He lied and we can outright prove it.

This crime didn't happen in the manner of any conventional solution aside from perhaps Wallace and Parry together. Most facts point to Parry calling, Wallace killing his wife and not doing a very good job of it at all, and time factors not being purposefully used to establish any alibi. Going by nothing other than the facts this is what is shown on the surface level.

I think someone else could have killed her too, though. It would not be difficult to do this at all. Good criminals only steal money by the way, stealing items is not smart at all. Items can tie you to crimes while cash cannot, plus the value of items sold is significantly lower than the real value while cash value remains 1:1. Good criminals purposefully only steal cash.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Everyone thinks that, which is perhaps why it's a case people struggle with despite a limited pool of potential solutions.

I think that most people believe that because it’s likeliest to have been true. We are being asked to believe that Parry just happened to make his first ever prank on Wallace which just happened to give Wallace the opportunity to murder his wife. Even purely on odds it’s unlikely. As I said earlier it’s not even a good prank.

Who said Amy was inviting Julia to a pantomime? Amy is the one who said that, so it's not very reliable if she has any involvement... She was in the parlour during the window in which the murder took place according to forensics, meaning she's a suspect and needs to be questioned and looked at as such, along with the Johnstons... Doesn't matter if it's looking years back into the past, it doesn't make it any less true... And a good investigator could also have pressed the Johnstons further because of those postcards while they were claiming to be essentially complete strangers to her.

Are we certain that Amy was in the Parlour? In all cases there are those suspects that we have to say “well it’s not impossible that they might have been guilty.” Amy is just one of those. The problem is that there’s just nothing to raise any real suspicion. It’s not impossible that it could have been a chess club member but there’s no evidence for it. It’s not impossible that it could have been someone from Julia’s past but there’s no evidence for it.

I don't know why a murderer loitered in a darkened home but they likely did so in the parlour at the least. Someone said there were spent matches in the other rooms such as the kitchen too. I can't recall who said it... In your scenario William would have used the matches for light to avoid turning up the lights in the parlour which could provide a visible timestamp to those outside...

Why is it likely? The matches mean very little as we don’t know how long they had been lying around. Julia was known not exactly to have been a stickler when it came to house work. The lights being out point to Wallace over a random killer.

I don’t understand this sentence - in your scenario William would have used the matches for light to avoid turning up the lights in the....

Im suggesting that the lights weren’t on and Wallace used the matches to light the gas light. Occasionally matches don’t strike properly or they go out to quickly (this is more possible if he’d struck a match in the doorway and it went out as he walked to the gas jet.) Also we have to remember that one or two of the matches could have been from when Wallace found the body.

The jacket is essentially the sole piece of evidence used by the police, so it was seen as important. Even the most incompetent killer would know that having his own jacket beneath the body then saying it's his and the victim never wore it, is highly incriminating... So if he did this, an attempt was likely made to dispose of the jacket which did not work.

There was far less risk in putting the Mac under the body than there was of trying to burn it. He might have dripped blood from it, it might not have burned fully leaving a piece that he didn’t notice etc. I’m guessing that he simply felt that alternative explanations would have been available to the police. For it might have been suggested that Julia had just dried the coat over a chair by the fire.

The evidence is all there that:

1. Gordon Parry was driving past the phone booth at the same time Wallace was inside it placing a call to murder his wife, or flipped, he drove past William and called himself on the back of that phone call (in which case it was not planned).

Are we absolutely certain that the only route that Parry could have taken on that night must have taken him past the call box? I’m not disputing here WWH I genuinly don’t know. Couldn’t he have possible taken a route which didn’t pass the box?

If Wallace was tricked there's some chance he did not use the call to provide an alibi to himself, but murdered his wife on that same day in a completely unrelated incident. I do not believe Alan Close was used for an alibi, it was just chance he luckily provided one. The trip may be the same deal.

I don’t say that Close was used as an alibi only that his lateness might explain any errors.

2. Somebody stood around in the darkness of that room lighting several matches for whatever reason. Because Wallace was in that house twice before anyone saw what had happened (before and after the trip) when these matches were placed is not certain... However Wallace lit the gas lamp in the parlour before admitting the Johnstons, so on the return there's no need to use many matches.

The matches may have been from earlier when Amy visited. The body was moved, so it may have wound up on top of spent matches which were already there.

I don’t get this WWH. The matches don’t prove anything. We don’t know how long they had been there.

3. Anyone who arrived at that home to visit the Wallaces would have knocked regardless of lighting. This is a time when people lived in the middle of the home. It wouldn't be strange to not see lights on in the spare bedroom and parlour.

Yes but if he’d gotten no answer with the lights all on the visitor would have wondered why no reply. If the lights were off then they’d simply think that the Wallace’s were out. A visitor who knew them might easily have raised the alarm if they hadn’t answered the door.

...

Considering you said if Wallace wasn't the caller you believe it's a prank, and you think a prank call is 1000 to 1, it's essentially saying the odds anyone else called is 1000 to 1 which is wrong.

I disagree. The chances of a first ever prank call occurring on the night before the murder and that prank call facilitated that murder is unlikely in the extreme.

It's very heavy bias... Evidence suggests the crime was not carried out in the way Murphy described. The actual evidence points to another person ringing, it legitimately does. Feeling he did is not evidence. The accent is off and route off etc. You can't just excuse Parry's falsified alibi by feeling he would have done a better job of giving one or feeling he was confused either. He lied and we can outright prove it.

Accents can be faked. It was an older man’s voice. It was Wallace.

You can’t prove that Parry lied. He gave evidence that was incorrect. He might have lied or he might have made an error. I’m wary of assigning a level of monumental stupidity to a witness just to make it easier to accuse him of something.

This crime didn't happen in the manner of any conventional solution aside from perhaps Wallace and Parry together. Most facts point to Parry calling, Wallace killing his wife and not doing a very good job of it at all, and time factors not being purposefully used to establish any alibi. Going by nothing other than the facts this is what is shown on the surface level.

Sorry but I disagree (surprise, surprise) I think that we are in danger of over complicating in an attempt to come up with an alternative. Everything points to Wallace. I don’t think that Richard Gordon Parry played any part in this case and yet he’s become the man on the grassy knoll.

I think someone else could have killed her too, though. It would not be difficult to do this at all. Good criminals only steal money by the way, stealing items is not smart at all. Items can tie you to crimes while cash cannot, plus the value of items sold is significantly lower than the real value while cash value remains 1:1. Good criminals purposefully only steal cash.

But the alleged thief didn’t even search for cash. He didn’t even look in Julia’s bag.

I think that William Wallace, feeling that he hadn’t got many years left, decided to rid himself of the burden of a wife that acted more like his invalid mother. He used a phone call to the chess club as a reason to be out of the house. He went on a bogus journey doing an impression of a man exploring darkest Africa. He persevered Asia he was looking for the Holy Grail. He returned home and play acted with the doors to give the impression that the killer might still have been in the house. I suspect that if the Johnston’s hadn’t appeared when they did he’d have told the police that he’d heard footsteps running down the alleyway.

Wallace stands head and shoulders above the other suspects imo.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I think that William Wallace, feeling that he hadn’t got many years left, decided to rid himself of the burden of a wife that acted more like his invalid mother. He used a phone call to the chess club as a reason to be out of the house. He went on a bogus journey doing an impression of a man exploring darkest Africa. He persevered Asia he was looking for the Holy Grail. He returned home and play acted with the doors to give the impression that the killer might still have been in the house. I suspect that if the Johnston’s hadn’t appeared when they did he’d have told the police that he’d heard footsteps running down the alleyway.

Wallace stands head and shoulders above the other suspects imo.

Parry lied. And shoving your half burnt jacket under your dead wife is legitimately the worst thing possible. There actually isn't a single thing worse you could even do with it to be quite frank, than to literally shove it in with the dead body then say it's yours and Julia would never have worn it.

He never said the jacket was left hanging by the fire to dry.

But the fact is, the jacket is incriminating, and it IS there. It's stupid for him to leave it, just as stupid as Gordon lying about what he did a couple of days earlier. He couldn't even say what fake address he supposedly picked his girlfriend up from... It's stupid but the fact remains it IS bogus, and the odds are nearly none that it's a mistake. Objectively speaking. You can do with the facts what you like but that is a fact... At best he faked an alibi because he was doing something else illegal at the time... To excuse it is clear bias.

The natural route from where Gordon had been to his girlfriend's house, is along Breck Road. The odds are so stacked against him, it's mad to not see that... I mean imagine investigating a case, and when someone lies about their whereabouts, you just say they must be mistaken and not be suspicious of them at all lol... The guy likely called the club, say 70 to 75%. You legitimately have to reach a lot, and sharpen and level a lot, to explain away Parry's suspicious acts, and to condemn William to being the caller when the facts largely don't support it.

I'm not sure Wallace ever intended for the journey to be his alibi. At least the timing certainly was not part of the alibi. He didn't need to impress himself on anyone except maybe one or two conductors and the people residing in 25 Menlove Gardens West. That's all he needs... The fake address in and of itself is dumb as a plan - so is using a weird name. I can assure you those things are factually not a necessity.

If someone knocks and assumes the Wallaces are both out, what do you think is going to happen when they find out she was murdered? Or when the police via this witness find out there was no visitor in the parlour when they arrived at a time when the visitor is potentially meant to have been there? You wouldn't get away with it.

I feel very sure that Parry is the caller taking into account the totality of evidence, and I feel the killer if it's a named individual, based on facts we have to hand, is most likely to have been one of the following: William Herbert Wallace, Amy Wallace, Gordon Parry/someone he knew well, the Johnstons/someone they knew well, or James Caird... By instinct I don't think Caird killed her, but he's one of the very few people proven to have both opportunity and knowledge to have committed this crime... Parry's murder alibi, I don't think is as solid as it appears, albeit I don't think he did it. He was at Brine's alright, but I'm not sure if anyone but her vouched for the time that he left. I think the other visitors left while Gordon was still there.

I can double check but I think Amy had been in the parlour. The matches may be from then.

A prank call being unlikely is kind of the Gambler's Fallacy in a way. It's unlikely on the face of it, but not when we use knowledge of the evidence. If you asked me to flip Heads 10 times in a row, I'd tell you there's no way I can do it. But if I had flipped 9 and you said to flip the 10th, the odds of the 10th flip being Heads is 50/50... A prank call seems unlikely, but not when we know Parry falsified an alibi, would have likely been passing that very box on his way to Lily's, was a known and notorious prank caller, had a Liverpool accent, and that the caller attempted to scam a call, etc... There's too much to have no suspicion at all of him having been the caller unless extremely biased.

Wallace may have called but Parry is objectively better supported by the facts for that aspect of the case. And the call and crime being purposefully linked is unproven.

If Wallace killed Julia, I don't believe he was rushing to beat the clock so he could get away with it, waiting for Alan to arrive etc. I think more likely things just fortunately worked out in his favour. I don't think he's this ingenious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You can state that Parry lied as a fact if you want and call me biased but it’s strange when you won’t admit to the possibility of him making a mistake. That Parry lied is not a fact it’s one of two possible explanations. I’m always wary, when looking at any kind of evidence, of implying monumental, suicidal stupidity as a reason for accepting evidence especially when we have no reason to believe that Parry was a humongous moron. He might well have lied. We might even call it likely but it’s not certain. Parry was no genius but he was used to dodgy dealing. He’d no about alibis and their importance. He’d surely have had enough dodgy mates willing to have provided him with an alibi and yet, with plenty of time available, he casually drops himself right in it by telling a lie that an 8 year old could have disproved. I haven’t a single qualm about suggesting that Parry might simply have been mistaken.

I realise that he never said that the jacket was drying. All I’m suggesting is that the police, when thinking about why the jacket was where it was, might have considered that Julia might have just dried it by the fire and that she had it in her hands when the killer arrived. The fact that she had William’s coat doesn’t incriminate him in the slightest. Who knows what she ‘might’ have been doing with the coat? If she’d have died with a milk bottle in her hand they wouldn’t have suspected Close. If Wallace committed the murder then he simply had to ensure that he didn’t get covered in blood. He couldn’t have burnt it before he left or when he got back because he wouldn’t have had time. He couldn’t have just left it to chance that the police wouldn’t rake through the coals and find his partially burnt coat. If he’d used anything else he’d have still had to have disposed of it unlike the coat which belonged in the house. He had little choice but to use the coat and even less chance of doing anything else with it apart from pushing it under her body. In addition can anyone really come up with an innocent explanation for its presence? I’m yet to hear one. There’s simply no way that it could have ended up where it did. It was put there purposely...by Wallace.

So it was the natural route but not the only route. We can’t assume a natural route. He might have gone a certain way by habit.

I really don’t understand your point about visitors. This point is black and white. Visitors turn up. Lights on but no response increases the chance that they will become suspicious and raise the alarm. Lights out and they walk away believing the Wallace’s to have been out. Only Wallace would have turned the lights out. No one else.

Of the suspects that you’ve named, for me it’s Wallace 95%, the Johnston’s 0%, Amy 0%, Parry 0%, other explanation 5%.

Objectively the caller was overwhelmingly likely to have been Wallace. Call box right by his house, older man’s voice, asking for his address, Caffay etc. The accent is no issue at all Wallace would have had to have disguised his accent so he adopted the accent that he’d heard every single day of the week for 16 years. Only Wallace, after making the call, could have been certain that he’d have gone to Menlove Garden’s East. Killer and caller were the same person for me and I’ve seen nothing to change my mind on that. The prank call is such a freak occurrence as to be highly unlikely.

Parry is the bogey man of the Wallace Case. We’re looking for a murderer and have a convenient petty crook handy. There can be little doubt of Wallace’s guilt. Parry has a cast iron alibi so we cast about to try and shoehorn him into the case somehow. The chances of the call and the murder being unconnected are remote. As is the chance of Wallace acting on the spur of the moment after this call.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes I don't think there IS a possibility of a mistake, being entirely fair and reasonable. I'm talking as likely as Rod's theory. And Parry not being the caller would sure make my life easier (since I can do a chess club member like Chandler as the caller - Chandler no-shows and Caird can swoop in and play him)... But I have accepted the fact the evidence is good it was him. If anything he lied to cover for some other dodgy activity. He was not mistaken about his movements 2 days earlier, like really, come on with that man........... Even the way he says it sounds B.S. where he picks her up but can't remember where from, like it's NONSENSE.

I don't see why it's even such a big deal? Why can't you accept he likely BS'd the alibi? It doesn't even necessarily change anything. Just say he lied due to the fact he was off robbing a car at the time if you so badly want Wallace to have called. The mistake thing is silly.

The caller and killer aren't definitely the same person man... Even Gannon has another man calling, Waterhouse, etc, there are so many scenarios where it could be someone else and they aren't entirely without merit.

Wallace as the caller is simply less likely than Gordon.

The call box being near his house obv makes sense if someone was either following him (which I don't think is what went down coz I see the evidence stacks against Gordon) or passed him. Caffay is how Gordon Parry pronounced the word, not Wallace, and I believe the caller was either put up to it by Wallace, or coincidentally saw Wallace and made the call. But I mean Wallace is faking his voice to operators in your scenario so I don't think that's such a big deal. Like in your version he fakes the pronunciation to frame Parry (same with rifling the cash box and nothing else, and giving a huge list on him to police as the #1 suspect to look into).

If he did that, he'd have to have something very personal against Parry, and may have believed he was banging his wife. Otherwise you wouldn't just randomly frame some innocent person.

The call is crap as any form of plan, be it a murder or robbery plot. A fake name and address lol. It's so garbage. What if the people at the club just say it's a non-existent place? Deyes very nearly did. What if people ask why he didn't look it up before going? They actually did. There's NO use in a fake address or weird name except invented reasons. Dave Smith at 21 Menlove Gardens West works just as well.

Wallace isn't Moriarty, he's some oldass man who sucks at chess, and the time-made alibi is probably sheer luck.

If you are happy it's Wallace then there's no point debating since no evidence at all could possibly make you even consider the answer might be something else... The fact it can be proven he frauded his voice to operators is new info. So he frauded two separate fake voices, and used Parry's pronunciations too... You probably would've convicted this poor bastard lol, of a crime there IS a chance he didn't commit. Like damn... Nobody believes the milk boy came at 6:31. It's legit forcing puzzle pieces, it's so obv the strong consensus (including from one adult aged worker who saw him) is that it was later... If you won't even budge on that fact, and just wanna stick with the Holmes family because they're adults (yet not working so no reason to note the time down to the minute, while the entire workforce out on that street went by the calibrated clocktower), then even a photo of Gordon with the phone in his hand laughing and pointing at the camera jovially wouldn't convince you of anything.

I legit want to know what happened for real.

[WallaceWackedHer]

To have made the call, Wallace's route doesn't match, his accent doesn't match, nobody said the voice was remotely like his including any of the operators who heard him in court or the waitress, or of course, Beattie.

You can't just say Wallace obv lied about the route because the tram was empty or got confused, or Parry obv got his days mixed up in his ridiculous false alibi... The same Parry who kicks and screams being dragged off by cops and gets caught instantly whenever he does anything and comes up with TERRIBLE excuses (like during that carjacking). That Parry apparently couldn't possibly have actually given a crap fake alibi, he must have forgotten what he did two days ago.

I know it destroys the mystique of the case because the magic of the case is in the Poirot-esque murder alibi call, but it is what it is. If Wallace wants his wife gone so bad, she has terrible bronchitis, cook her up something in his chemistry lab. Don't need some weird crappy alibi etc... Not that it means he didn't do it, but the ridiculous notion that he's some murderous mastermind has to stop.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll make a longer post tomorrow but I have to ask why Mrs Lloyd is ignored? She said that Parry got to her house on the Monday night at about 7.15. The call began at 7.15. The caller didn’t get put through until 7.20 (this was recorded and so we know that it’s correct) How long did the call take? 4 or 5 minutes (including the brief chat with Gladys Harley and then her going to get Beattie? Then Beattie writing out the message) Let’s be generous and say 4. Parry leaves the box and gets into his car wherever it was parked (approx 7.25) and then drives half a mile to the Lloyd’s house. This would mean that Parry would have arrived at something like 7.27/7.28. If the call had taken 5 minutes we might even be talking closer to 7.30. If Mrs Lloyd was reasonable close with her ‘about 7.15,’ at say 7.20 Parry couldn’t have made the call. If she was a huge 10 minutes out it would still have been close to impossible for Parry to have made the call.

Its also worth noting the apparent difference in the voice that the phone operators heard (normal) and the voice that Beattie and Harley heard (gruffish) So it appears that the caller altered his voice for Beattie and Harley. I can’t recall if Parry ever met Beattie? He might have met him very briefly at the club so it would have been almost miraculous if Beattie could have identified his voice. No one ever mentioned that Parry had a particularly distinctive voice. So who, out of Wallace and Parry, would have needed to alter the tone of his voice significantly? I’ve little doubt that had Parry used his own voice Beattie still wouldn’t have recognised or identified it. This very obviously points more to Wallace.