The Murder of Julia Wallace (1931) - Full DPP case files

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH!

I see you completely evade the point about the strawman.

Julia screaming when Cadwallader entered the room unexpectedly is due to FRIGHT. It's a well-known, instinctive phenomenon (a bit like jumping on hearing a very loud noise). Getting up and seeing someone rifling through your cash box is SHOCK, and that can cause a temporary freeze. I hope it's clear to everyone else, the Accomplice theory is not "almost impossible". You truly believe Wallace is innocent, Parry made the call, an unknown accomplice enters through the front door etc like Accomplice BUT you consider a theory whereby Wallace is guilty and Wallace made the call etc is more likely than Accomplice. I suspect this makes as little sense to others as it does me.

And, of course, problems confront Accomplice Plus and Accomplice alike. For instance, why did the accomplice neatly fold the burnt mackintosh and place it under Julia's shoulder? And, even though it was barely recognisable as a mackintosh, Wallace recognised not only as a mackintosh but also identified it as his? I mention this point on p. 62, Move to Murder. See also Sydney Scholefield-Allen in the police files.

I have made the points I wanted. I shall return to humble posting retirement, but good luck with your new site.

AMB

I didn't evade it, I explained in depth why I think it's impossible here and on the article I wrote. Of course you can disagree but what I feel is impossible is as I said:

Julia encountering a burglar, then either going into the parlour of her own accord or being dragged in there, with no real signs of any struggle or defensive wounds (a bruise on the arm - not even proven to be related to the crime)... Furniture unmoved... Julia is apparently quite content to let this dangerous man grab her and drag her into a parlour and force her down onto a chair, where she then allows him to smash her head in with some sort of blunt instrument - evidently without raising her arm to defend herself.

WHY would a burglar who has decided to murder this woman drag her into a parlour and shove her down onto a chair? Literally WHY? Why doesn't he bash her over the head in the hallway as she goes to flee, or even in the kitchen? There is legitimately no conceivable reason I can see.

What we have to believe for your book's presentation to work is that Julia is totally paralyzed by fear and does not make a sound. Then, when grabbed, still, she does not make any kind of cry... Now, with this ruffian manhandling her violently and mute with fear, she seemingly MAKES NO STRUGGLE AT ALL and makes NO attempt to fight as he drags her into the parlour. She's not struggling at all, no furniture is displaced by a struggle, no other marks apart from that single bruise.

Then after he shoves her down on the chair for NO REASON at all, he uses his other hand (I suppose one is still holding her arm) to pick up some sort of weapon - Julia sees him grab something since she's looking right at him, he raises it up: She then STILL remains mute and LETS him smash her over the head with it without even attempting to put her arm up and defend herself from the blow.

I'm sure you see what I'm saying? This is what I mean by near impossible. I don't think that can happen, I don't think you can believe it can.

It's legit not bias. I was marginally unhappy I was referred to negatively while sharing ideas, but I have legitimately said the exact same thing regarding the accomplice theory from day one. I have even told Rod his idea is impossible and he should consider two people or that the killing was planned as a prelude to a robbery.

Also in absolutely no scenario did anyone neatly fold a mackintosh and shove it under Julia's body - for one thing it wasn't neatly folded. But moreso clearly the burning mackintosh was stamped out on the rug and Julia dragged on top of it (or something LIKE that, anything where the body naturally ends up on top of it).

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, good points about the suspect pool and Chess fixtures. I think the most important thing about Close is that, to be an alibi at all, he's got to hope he notes the time with some accuracy; but why would he do that, considering he didn't even have a watch?

Regarding the iron bar. He could have wrapped it in cloth, but that just creates additional problems, i.e. if that's what happened then we have both the murder weapon and the blood stained cloth unaccounted for.

Regarding the cloth, it would simply be chucked into the fire. Anything like newspaper, cloth, would be so trivial to destroy entirely. And then the blunt weapon needn't be removed from the house at all.

I hadn't considered the reliance on Close to be accurate with his time, very good suggestion.

I agree about the jacket. Plus if we imagine he is purposefully putting it into the flames, and taking it out, then he's putting his hand into fire or a flaming mackintosh to remove it - which seems like a lot of effort to conserve something that will blatantly incriminate you.

What's more, there's a perfectly good kitchen stove which would have incinerated it with absolute ease.

Again though we can't know the thought processes in people's mind and he might have just overlooked these things.

[ColdCaseJury]

Julia didn't bolt the back door. I've read in a book Wallace said Julia bolted the yard door and being protected would thus not bolt the back door! Someone who jumped the yard wall would be able to get in with a dupe key.

I've thought of this before.

Also the stranger can unbolt it of course - but it is far better that he never ventures out into the kitchen.

As you posted here, the passage to me is legitimately almost impossible and it's not bias. Indeed my idea is very similar to yours but the differences I think make it impossible. Julia paralyzed by fear from making any sound while the guy drags her into the parlour (not disturbing any furniture in this struggle), and forces her down into the chair?

Come on man... You know that didn't happen. He would just bash her in the hallway... This is why it's last, I even put a note about it - it's a great idea but the way it's presented is impossible.

Plus Julia screamed when Mr. Cadwallader entered their bedroom at night. I mean I'm sure being grabbed is scarier but there's some slight evidence she wouldn't go mute.

Hi WWH!

I see you completely evade the point about the strawman.

Julia screaming when Cadwallader entered the room unexpectedly is due to FRIGHT. It's a well-known, instinctive phenomenon (a bit like jumping on hearing a very loud noise). Getting up and seeing someone rifling through your cash box is SHOCK, and that can cause a temporary freeze. I hope it's clear to everyone else, the Accomplice theory is not "almost impossible". You truly believe Wallace is innocent, Parry made the call, an unknown accomplice enters through the front door etc like Accomplice BUT you consider a theory whereby Wallace is guilty and Wallace made the call etc is more likely than Accomplice. I suspect this makes as little sense to others as it does me.

And, of course, problems confront Accomplice Plus and Accomplice alike. For instance, why did the accomplice neatly fold the burnt mackintosh and place it under Julia's shoulder? And, even though it was barely recognisable as a mackintosh, Wallace recognised not only as a mackintosh but also identified it as his? I mention this point on p. 62, Move to Murder. See also Sydney Scholefield-Allen in the police files.

I have made the points I wanted. I shall return to humble posting retirement, but good luck with your new site.

AMB

[John G]

I've come out of posting retirement - very briefly - to warn everyone to beware of commentators creating strawmen.

This is how Julia Wallace ends up in the parlour according to my interpretation of Accomplice (other variations are possible): "He glanced up to see the slight figure of Julia standing by the door, the sepia glow of the gas lamp illuminating the shocked expression on her face. Her instincts were always to avoid confrontation, and they prevailed even now. "Mr Qualtrough," she said faintly, her voice quivering with fear. "I forgot I'm due round at my neighbour's. I'm late as it is. You'll have to leave now." She turned, hoping it was the last time she would see the man, and grabbed a mackintosh from the coatstand in the hall. She draped it around her shoulders and headed to the front door. At this point the intruder should have bolted by the back door and left with the money as planned. This was the rational course of action, but Parry had unwittingly enlisted the services of a man with a short fuse whose response to confrontation was invariably the same: violence. Already angered by the perceived betrayal of the trifling spoils, he believed Julia was fleeing to raise the alarm. A primeval fight-or-die instinct flared up like a forest fire within him. Julia felt a grip tighten like a python around her left arm, pulling her back and then forcing her into the parlour. Paralysed by fear, she could not cry out, as if all the air in her lungs and been squeezed from her. Without saying a word, the intruder shoved her into the large armchair to the left of the fireplace. His eyes were crazed with panic and rage. Glancing down, he saw an iron bar standing on the hearth..." (Move to Murder, p. 124)

This is summarised by WWH as: "What she wouldn't do after finding out a stranger is not who he says he is (as per CCJ's idea), is go and cozy herself by the fire."

Now a brief point on Accomplice Plus (Parry the caller, Marsden the sneak thief, an unknown man the distractor). I like many points of this theory, but if Accomplice Plus is true, then Wallace is innocent, and when he says that Julia invariably bolted the backyard gate and bolted the back door, leaving Wallace to enter at the front when he returned at night, we should believe him. In which case, no duplicate key is going to get a second accomplice into the house through the back (the counter that the back door and gate were found unbolted by Wallace on his return is not effective because the killer almost certainly left by both). And Marsden cannot enter through the front because then he would be identified by Julia and the whole Qualtrough ruse would fall apart anyway.

At this point, if I had an agenda, I should just say "Unfortunately, Accomplice Plus is impossible" and leave it at that. However, I like the theory and there is a neat way to save it from this potential defeater. The distractor in the parlour asks to go the lavatory. Julia will almost certainly send him to the outside WC - meaning he has to unbolt the back door and is then able to unbolt the back gate, which is adjacent to the outside WC. The second accomplice (Marsden) is waiting in the entry and will enter the house a minute after the distrator has gone back inside. Good plan, eh?

However, this means Accomplice Plus borrows even more from Accomplice: "His words were exactly as Parry had instructed. 'I’m sorry to impose, Mrs Wallace, but can I use the lavatory?' As he expected, Julia directed him to the outside toilet, as she had done with Parry many times when he had called for musical afternoons." (Move to Murder, p. 122). Indeed, Accomplice Plus and Accomplice are identical on all the key evidentiary areas (Wallace = innocent, Parry = Caller, Brine = True, Parkes = True, Hall = mistaken) which means logically, for any reasonable person, Accomplice Plus cannot be the best (#1) and Accomplice the worst (#10). Of course, Accomplice Plus might be superior to Accomplice, and it might be the best overall theory, too.

Hi CCJ,

Yes, some well thought out scenarios. Julia draping the cloth over her shoulder seems the most plausible explanation of how the Macintosh got burned. I certainty don't see Wallace setting fire to himself in his own home. And the idea that he was trying to destroy evidence is just absurd. Firstly, if he was he didn't do a very good job, as the coat was only modestly scorched. Secondly, I can't see him wasting even more of his previous time with such an endeavour: for such a strategy to he effective, i.e. to eliminate the blood evidence, he would have had to spend time pretty much setting light to the whole coat. And if he was crazy enough to do that he may well have ended up burning his own house down!

[John G]

Well with the bar, in fairness if it was wrapped (which I'd expect if Wallace did it), there wouldn't be blood stains - but then I wouldn't imagine he'd hide it either.

Regarding Close, if we assume Wallace is guilty then had Close come earlier he would simply have arrived at Menlove Gardens earlier (as it happens, he only had 10 minutes to spare).

However even if he killed Julia I don't think Alan Close was ever accounted for. If he was, and he was the be all and end all of the alibi, when cops asked Wallace who last saw Julia alive he's instantly going to say the milk boy. The milk boy didn't even come forward straight away did he? I think I saw he came on Sunday on the trial, though he told his pals on the Wednesday. He's a bit of a mess on the stand so I can't tell... But if he came Sunday, Wallace must surely have been sweating thinking his alibi is not going to say anything.

Wallace's plan if he killed Julia would be a little ridiculous. He destroys his own defence with a lot of his later statements. For example: say he left his home at 18:45, if he knows Alan is so vital (which even if guilty I don't think he accounted for), why wouldn't he fudge 5 minutes? The police could hardly deem him guilty/the courts could hardly hang him for being 5 minutes out on his time estimate!!!

He is also much better off with a more normal name and real address slightly further away to destroy the objections like "why didn't you check a directory in advance?" or "why didn't the bizarre name make you suspicious?"... And if he's going to use Qualtrough he's clearly attempting to frame Parry/Marsden....... But why? He says Julia would never admit strangers, only the cash box is ransacked.

Isn't it more likely he'd get away with a crime if he just looted Julia's handbag and obvious items instead of being like "oh yeah by the way the cash box was stolen from and only about 3 people know where I keep it."

Is he really THAT lucky that out of this tiny suspect pool he's forced upon the case the guy he names as his prime suspect just so happens to give a false alibi, and one of the others has "flu"? What are the odds?!

Is he smart enough to foresee the cafè being so perfect to frame Parry due to the chess fixtures being publicly visible and Parry having seen him there while he was at chess before?

I'd say unless he already knew for sure Parry and/or Marsden had no alibi (such as in a conspiracy) to know he could throw them under the bus, it would be utterly stupid to tighten the suspect pool to all of 3 or 4 people or w.e... I really don't think there's much chance at all of a solo Wallace theory.

Yes, good points about the suspect pool and Chess fixtures. I think the most important thing about Close is that, to be an alibi at all, he's got to hope he notes the time with some accuracy; but why would he do that, considering he didn't even have a watch?

Regarding the iron bar. He could have wrapped it in cloth, but that just creates additional problems, i.e. if that's what happened then we have both the murder weapon and the blood stained cloth unaccounted for. Moreover, in order to remove the cloth he would have to have handled it, thus getting his hands covered in blood, which we know didn't happen.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I've come out of posting retirement - very briefly - to warn everyone to beware of commentators creating strawmen.

This is how Julia Wallace ends up in the parlour according to my interpretation of Accomplice (other variations are possible): "He glanced up to see the slight figure of Julia standing by the door, the sepia glow of the gas lamp illuminating the shocked expression on her face. Her instincts were always to avoid confrontation, and they prevailed even now. "Mr Qualtrough," she said faintly, her voice quivering with fear. "I forgot I'm due round at my neighbour's. I'm late as it is. You'll have to leave now." She turned, hoping it was the last time she would see the man, and grabbed a mackintosh from the coatstand in the hall. She draped it around her shoulders and headed to the front door. At this point the intruder should have bolted by the back door and left with the money as planned. This was the rational course of action, but Parry had unwittingly enlisted the services of a man with a short fuse whose response to confrontation was invariably the same: violence. Already angered by the perceived betrayal of the trifling spoils, he believed Julia was fleeing to raise the alarm. A primeval fight-or-die instinct flared up like a forest fire within him. Julia felt a grip tighten like a python around her left arm, pulling her back and then forcing her into the parlour. Paralysed by fear, she could not cry out, as if all the air in her lungs and been squeezed from her. Without saying a word, the intruder shoved her into the large armchair to the left of the fireplace. His eyes were crazed with panic and rage. Glancing down, he saw an iron bar standing on the hearth..." (Move to Murder, p. 124)

This is summarised by WWH as: "What she wouldn't do after finding out a stranger is not who he says he is (as per CCJ's idea), is go and cozy herself by the fire."

Now a brief point on Accomplice Plus (Parry the caller, Marsden the sneak thief, an unknown man the distractor). I like many points of this theory, but if Accomplice Plus is true, then Wallace is innocent, and when he says that Julia invariably bolted the backyard gate and bolted the back door, leaving Wallace to enter at the front when he returned at night, we should believe him. In which case, no duplicate key is going to get a second accomplice into the house through the back (the counter that the back door and gate were found unbolted by Wallace on his return is not effective because the killer almost certainly left by both). And Marsden cannot enter through the front because then he would be identified by Julia and the whole Qualtrough ruse would fall apart anyway.

At this point, if I had an agenda, I should just say "Unfortunately, Accomplice Plus is impossible" and leave it at that. However, I like the theory and there is a neat way to save it from this potential defeater. The distractor in the parlour asks to go the lavatory. Julia will almost certainly send him to the outside WC - meaning he has to unbolt the back door and is then able to unbolt the back gate, which is adjacent to the outside WC. The second accomplice (Marsden) is waiting in the entry and will enter the house a minute after the distrator has gone back inside. Good plan, eh?

However, this means Accomplice Plus borrows even more from Accomplice: "His words were exactly as Parry had instructed. 'I’m sorry to impose, Mrs Wallace, but can I use the lavatory?' As he expected, Julia directed him to the outside toilet, as she had done with Parry many times when he had called for musical afternoons." (Move to Murder, p. 122). Indeed, Accomplice Plus and Accomplice are identical on all the key evidentiary areas (Wallace = innocent, Parry = Caller, Brine = True, Parkes = True, Hall = mistaken) which means logically, for any reasonable person, Accomplice Plus cannot be the best (#1) and Accomplice the worst (#10). Of course, Accomplice Plus might be superior to Accomplice, and it might be the best overall theory, too.

Julia didn't bolt the back door. I've read in a book Wallace said Julia bolted the yard door and being protected would thus not bolt the back door! Someone who jumped the yard wall would be able to get in with a dupe key.

I've thought of this before.

Also the stranger can unbolt it of course - but it is far better that he never ventures out into the kitchen.

As you posted here, the passage to me is legitimately almost impossible and it's not bias. Indeed my idea is very similar to yours but the differences I think make it impossible. Julia paralyzed by fear from making any sound while the guy drags her into the parlour (not disturbing any furniture in this struggle), and forces her down into the chair?

Come on man... You know that didn't happen. He would just bash her in the hallway... This is why it's last, I even put a note about it - it's a great idea but the way it's presented is impossible.

Plus Julia screamed when Mr. Cadwallader entered their bedroom at night. I mean I'm sure being grabbed is scarier but there's some slight evidence she wouldn't go mute.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, I agree Parry's alibis for later in the evening were probably correct, although he did seem intent on accumulating as many albis as possible that night. I wonder why?

The Goodman story is nonesense and uncorroborated. As you say, the police supposedly dismantled the fireplace. Moreover, the bar would still have been blood stained, which it wasn't, it was merelu described as rusty..

Regarding Wallace, why would he be crazy enough to think the Qualtrough plan would work? Thus, Close would pretty much have to arrive within a gloden few minutes. If he's early, the police will say he had enough time; if he's late, Wallace misses his tram, which would be disastrous, as the police would say that was because he was busy murdering his wife.

The problem his, Close didn't arrive at a set time, neither did he possess a watch, as far as I know, and Wallace couldn't be sure he'd have checked and accurately remembered the time anyway. In any event, Close did neither of those things: he simply lied. It was only because of Wildman's evidence that Wallace is alibied, something he couldn't possibly have foreseen.

Well with the bar, in fairness if it was wrapped (which I'd expect if Wallace did it), there wouldn't be blood stains - but then I wouldn't imagine he'd hide it either.

Regarding Close, if we assume Wallace is guilty then had Close come earlier he would simply have arrived at Menlove Gardens earlier (as it happens, he only had 10 minutes to spare).

However even if he killed Julia I don't think Alan Close was ever accounted for. If he was, and he was the be all and end all of the alibi, when cops asked Wallace who last saw Julia alive he's instantly going to say the milk boy. The milk boy didn't even come forward straight away did he? I think I saw he came on Sunday on the trial, though he told his pals on the Wednesday. He's a bit of a mess on the stand so I can't tell... But if he came Sunday, Wallace must surely have been sweating thinking his alibi is not going to say anything.

Wallace's plan if he killed Julia would be a little ridiculous. He destroys his own defence with a lot of his later statements. For example: say he left his home at 18:45, if he knows Alan is so vital (which even if guilty I don't think he accounted for), why wouldn't he fudge 5 minutes? The police could hardly deem him guilty/the courts could hardly hang him for being 5 minutes out on his time estimate!!!

He is also much better off with a more normal name and real address slightly further away to destroy the objections like "why didn't you check a directory in advance?" or "why didn't the bizarre name make you suspicious?"... And if he's going to use Qualtrough he's clearly attempting to frame Parry/Marsden....... But why? He says Julia would never admit strangers, only the cash box is ransacked.

Isn't it more likely he'd get away with a crime if he just looted Julia's handbag and obvious items instead of being like "oh yeah by the way the cash box was stolen from and only about 3 people know where I keep it."

Is he really THAT lucky that out of this tiny suspect pool he's forced upon the case the guy he names as his prime suspect just so happens to give a false alibi, and one of the others has "flu"? What are the odds?!

Is he smart enough to foresee the cafè being so perfect to frame Parry due to the chess fixtures being publicly visible and Parry having seen him there while he was at chess before?

I'd say unless he already knew for sure Parry and/or Marsden had no alibi (such as in a conspiracy) to know he could throw them under the bus, it would be utterly stupid to tighten the suspect pool to all of 3 or 4 people or w.e... I really don't think there's much chance at all of a solo Wallace theory.

[ColdCaseJury]

I've come out of posting retirement - very briefly - to warn everyone to beware of commentators creating strawmen.

This is how Julia Wallace ends up in the parlour according to my interpretation of Accomplice (other variations are possible): "He glanced up to see the slight figure of Julia standing by the door, the sepia glow of the gas lamp illuminating the shocked expression on her face. Her instincts were always to avoid confrontation, and they prevailed even now. "Mr Qualtrough," she said faintly, her voice quivering with fear. "I forgot I'm due round at my neighbour's. I'm late as it is. You'll have to leave now." She turned, hoping it was the last time she would see the man, and grabbed a mackintosh from the coatstand in the hall. She draped it around her shoulders and headed to the front door. At this point the intruder should have bolted by the back door and left with the money as planned. This was the rational course of action, but Parry had unwittingly enlisted the services of a man with a short fuse whose response to confrontation was invariably the same: violence. Already angered by the perceived betrayal of the trifling spoils, he believed Julia was fleeing to raise the alarm. A primeval fight-or-die instinct flared up like a forest fire within him. Julia felt a grip tighten like a python around her left arm, pulling her back and then forcing her into the parlour. Paralysed by fear, she could not cry out, as if all the air in her lungs and been squeezed from her. Without saying a word, the intruder shoved her into the large armchair to the left of the fireplace. His eyes were crazed with panic and rage. Glancing down, he saw an iron bar standing on the hearth..." (Move to Murder, p. 124)

This is summarised by WWH as: "What she wouldn't do after finding out a stranger is not who he says he is (as per CCJ's idea), is go and cozy herself by the fire."

Now a brief point on Accomplice Plus (Parry the caller, Marsden the sneak thief, an unknown man the distractor). I like many points of this theory, but if Accomplice Plus is true, then Wallace is innocent, and when he says that Julia invariably bolted the backyard gate and bolted the back door, leaving Wallace to enter at the front when he returned at night, we should believe him. In which case, no duplicate key is going to get a second accomplice into the house through the back (the counter that the back door and gate were found unbolted by Wallace on his return is not effective because the killer almost certainly left by both). And Marsden cannot enter through the front because then he would be identified by Julia and the whole Qualtrough ruse would fall apart anyway.

At this point, if I had an agenda, I should just say "Unfortunately, Accomplice Plus is impossible" and leave it at that. However, I like the theory and there is a neat way to save it from this potential defeater. The distractor in the parlour asks to go the lavatory. Julia will almost certainly send him to the outside WC - meaning he has to unbolt the back door and is then able to unbolt the back gate, which is adjacent to the outside WC. The second accomplice (Marsden) is waiting in the entry and will enter the house a minute after the distrator has gone back inside. Good plan, eh?

However, this means Accomplice Plus borrows even more from Accomplice: "His words were exactly as Parry had instructed. 'I’m sorry to impose, Mrs Wallace, but can I use the lavatory?' As he expected, Julia directed him to the outside toilet, as she had done with Parry many times when he had called for musical afternoons." (Move to Murder, p. 122). Indeed, Accomplice Plus and Accomplice are identical on all the key evidentiary areas (Wallace = innocent, Parry = Caller, Brine = True, Parkes = True, Hall = mistaken) which means logically, for any reasonable person, Accomplice Plus cannot be the best (#1) and Accomplice the worst (#10). Of course, Accomplice Plus might be superior to Accomplice, and it might be the best overall theory, too.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Parry's alibi is hardly rock solid. I find it extremely odd that he spent 3 hours at Brine's house with a 15 year old boy! And, as I noted, Parry could have been having an affair witj Brine, and I don't think he would have had too much trouble persuading Denison to be economical with the truth. In fact, it's really no alibi at all. How did they no it was "around 8:30; the fact that they estimated proves that, at the very least, no one checked the clock.

And why would Parkes lie? No one on here has ever met him, so we're in no position to question his veracity. Dolly Atkinson, who did no him, his convinced he told the truth. Her opinion therefore takes precedence. And it's completely wrong that he didn't say a word for 50 years-he told the Atkinson's at the time, as confirmed by Dolly Atkinson.

Against Parry we have some sort of Marvel Comic super anti-hero. A man capable of avoiding blood splatter, despite the fact that the forensic experts said that the assailant would have had blood on him; the power to make murder weapons disappear; tge power to disguise his voice, to the extent it wouldn't be recognized by someone he'd known for years...unbelievable!

Good point about the Brine timing precision. It's a shame we don't have Phyllis Plant's testimony (she may well have left before 8:30 and be unable to corroborate that part).

Thinking on the house number thing, it occurred to me that I don't think maps would show house numbers or whether streets are even or odd. Therefore the pick of 25 is either pot luck, or the caller has either been there before or used a directory.

In a directory I assume it would be much easier to find roads where there's a North South and West but no East (for example) if the whole "no East" thing was done on purpose.

In such a case the directory will be in alphabetical order, so someone looking for such an address by flicking through a directory would see Albert Road West East and South first - given it's an "A", it would be right near the start.

I'm not sure if that has any significance whatsoever but just throwing that out there anyway.

[John G]

Very true about the weapon.

I recall Wallace said a wood chopper had been missing for 12 months and that was then found in a closet under the stairs, so it seems maybe the home is a tad cluttered and items tend to get lost - so I couldn't be positive anything really was missing. Goodman's claim the iron bar was later found is debatable given the police supposedly took the fireplace unit out of the wall (it was apparently under the fireplace the residents found it).

Wallace though, clearly has no need to remove anything if he himself battered Julia. In fact, it's dangerous to risk going out with an iron bar shoved up his sleeve or something.

My view is that Parry's movements on the murder day for the most part are probably true, up until later in the evening.

So the accumulator thing etc. I tend to believe, although like you said I don't think we should say with certainty a man proven to have falsified alibis is telling the truth about these movements. But I tend to think that is probably true.

Now assuming this is in fact a robbery plan, there are no mobile phones back then. If Gordon and his pals had arranged a late night meeting for when there's few people around to share the proceeds, Gordon won't know what's happened until word spreads to him or he meets these pals.

And then with Lily's partly false alibi for him, where she extends the time further back... If Parry has made her say he came to see her earlier, that very, very heavily suggests that during that time (from the faked time he saw Lily to the real one), he was doing something he really should not have been doing. So maybe this would be the point where he meets his pals, pushes the weapon down a grid on Priory Road etc.

Sadly we don't have testimony from people at Hignett's etc. as to what his behaviour was like even if he did arrive. I can only assume he was acting totally normal. But then something happens (finding out about Julia) and he becomes anxious... Even in a prank call scenario he would naturally become very anxious to hear that Julia has been murdered while Wallace was out looking for Menlove Gardens lol...

---

I should add here, that I did some following up on the Redditor's suggestion that "Men Love" Gardens was chosen because Parry thought Wallace was "sexually odd".

I've checked for other similar addresses the person could have used, as if there are others it would (marginally) strengthen the idea the address was used for that reason.

And there is in my brief research, one right by Sefton Park:

Albert Road South, East and West. No North.

I'm not sure how I go about checking when streets were first built, but it looks like the caller had options in this respect if those roads were there at the time.

I will inquire with Liverpool locals to see if there are others. Google Maps doesn't allow wildcards for some reason so it's not easy to search * road north (etc.) for example.

Myself and my friend Josh have also considered a possibility the caller either used East by accident (confused East and West), or did not know there wasn't an East... The fact he gives the house number 25 suggests some familiarity (West is all odd numbers - its counterpart East therefore would be as well), but for example chess club member Deyes lived opposite the Gardens and didn't know there wasn't an East (just hadn't heard of it).

Yes, I agree Parry's alibis for later in the evening were probably correct, although he did seem intent on accumulating as many albis as possible that night. I wonder why?

The Goodman story is nonesense and uncorroborated. As you say, the police supposedly dismantled the fireplace. Moreover, the bar would still have been blood stained, which it wasn't, it was merelu described as rusty..

Regarding Wallace, why would he be crazy enough to think the Qualtrough plan would work? Thus, Close would pretty much have to arrive within a gloden few minutes. If he's early, the police will say he had enough time; if he's late, Wallace misses his tram, which would be disastrous, as the police would say that was because he was busy murdering his wife.

The problem his, Close didn't arrive at a set time, neither did he possess a watch, as far as I know, and Wallace couldn't be sure he'd have checked and accurately remembered the time anyway. In any event, Close did neither of those things: he simply lied. It was only because of Wildman's evidence that Wallace is alibied, something he couldn't possibly have foreseen.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, I find the fact that he continued to accumulate alibis later in the evening to be suspicious; it's almost as if he thought he might need them

Wallace had absolutely no need to remove or even hide the murder weapon. Thus, if he elects to kill Julia with the poker it will have his finger prints on it. But so what...It's his poker, which he must have used many times, of course it'll have his prints on! If there are no other prints on the poker apart from Julia's then he simply argues the assailant must have worn gloves. In fact, with any luck Parry may have used the poker during one of his many visits, even Marsden.

Just one of many errors from a supposed assailant who was supposed to be a criminal mastermind!

Very true about the weapon.

I recall Wallace said a wood chopper had been missing for 12 months and that was then found in a closet under the stairs, so it seems maybe the home is a tad cluttered and items tend to get lost - so I couldn't be positive anything really was missing. Goodman's claim the iron bar was later found is debatable given the police supposedly took the fireplace unit out of the wall (it was apparently under the fireplace the residents found it).

Wallace though, clearly has no need to remove anything if he himself battered Julia. In fact, it's dangerous to risk going out with an iron bar shoved up his sleeve or something.

My view is that Parry's movements on the murder day for the most part are probably true, up until later in the evening.

So the accumulator thing etc. I tend to believe, although like you said I don't think we should say with certainty a man proven to have falsified alibis is telling the truth about these movements. But I tend to think that is probably true.

Now assuming this is in fact a robbery plan, there are no mobile phones back then. If Gordon and his pals had arranged a late night meeting for when there's few people around to share the proceeds, Gordon won't know what's happened until word spreads to him or he meets these pals.

And then with Lily's partly false alibi for him, where she extends the time further back... If Parry has made her say he came to see her earlier, that very, very heavily suggests that during that time (from the faked time he saw Lily to the real one), he was doing something he really should not have been doing. So maybe this would be the point where he meets his pals, pushes the weapon down a grid on Priory Road etc.

Sadly we don't have testimony from people at Hignett's etc. as to what his behaviour was like even if he did arrive. I can only assume he was acting totally normal. But then something happens (finding out about Julia) and he becomes anxious... Even in a prank call scenario he would naturally become very anxious to hear that Julia has been murdered while Wallace was out looking for Menlove Gardens lol...

---

I should add here, that I did some following up on the Redditor's suggestion that "Men Love" Gardens was chosen because Parry thought Wallace was "sexually odd".

I've checked for other similar addresses the person could have used, as if there are others it would (marginally) strengthen the idea the address was used for that reason.

And there is in my brief research, one right by Sefton Park:

Albert Road South, East and West. No North.

I'm not sure how I go about checking when streets were first built, but it looks like the caller had options in this respect if those roads were there at the time.

I will inquire with Liverpool locals to see if there are others. Google Maps doesn't allow wildcards for some reason so it's not easy to search * road north (etc.) for example.

Myself and my friend Josh have also considered a possibility the caller either used East by accident (confused East and West), or did not know there wasn't an East... The fact he gives the house number 25 suggests some familiarity (West is all odd numbers - its counterpart East therefore would be as well), but for example chess club member Deyes lived opposite the Gardens and didn't know there wasn't an East (just hadn't heard of it).

[John G]

Parry's alibi is hardly rock solid. I find it extremely odd that he spent 3 hours at Brine's house with a 15 year old boy! And, as I noted, Parry could have been having an affair witj Brine, and I don't think he would have had too much trouble persuading Denison to be economical with the truth. In fact, it's really no alibi at all. How did they no it was "around 8:30; the fact that they estimated proves that, at the very least, no one checked the clock.

And why would Parkes lie? No one on here has ever met him, so we're in no position to question his veracity. Dolly Atkinson, who did no him, his convinced he told the truth. Her opinion therefore takes precedence. And it's completely wrong that he didn't say a word for 50 years-he told the Atkinson's at the time, as confirmed by Dolly Atkinson.

Against Parry we have some sort of Marvel Comic super anti-hero. A man capable of avoiding blood splatter, despite the fact that the forensic experts said that the assailant would have had blood on him; the power to make murder weapons disappear; tge power to disguise his voice, to the extent it wouldn't be recognized by someone he'd known for years...unbelievable!

[John G]

I think we're of one mind... I'm also uncertain about Parry's alibi. It doesn't 100% cover him from killing Julia by the way (just very strong - he'd have like 5 minutes if he did) but there's evidence from others that there was coercion at play:

Firstly Lily Lloyd admits to partially falsifying an alibi.

Secondly on Radio City (I think in the part I am missing - there are 4 parts I have 3), someone said when they were a child Parry's parents came over and tried convincing her parents to get Gordon out of the country.

So there's good evidence something like that could have gone on. But Phyllis Plant was also given as a name (we just don't have her statement - so she may well have left before 20:30 for all we know). If Phyllis was able to corroborate 20:30 that would be three people persuaded to lie for someone they know to be a probable murderer.

(It should be noted it was Leslie Williamson with whom he arranged a birthday party, it wasn't while at Brine's house.)

Furthermore, his recollection of movements after leaving Brine's are detailed and all very innocuous. They were never checked so they could be invented, but he discusses buying cigarettes, collecting an accumulator part for his car, etc... It's not until 11 at night that he goes to John Parkes.

Now, let's assume he really did go about his business buying cigarettes etc, it seems unlikely he would be doing this if he knew he was now involved in a murder and knew he had murder weapons (etc.) that he had to get rid of... To me, by the description of the tale given by Parkes, it seems like Parry received those murder instruments unexpectedly - hence his anxiety blurting out about the iron bar etc. So I think what happened is when he drove down to meet the accomplice(s) they dumped these things on him.

I'm not sure if the mitten was even worn but may have been grabbed and used to wipe down a blood-splattered weapon. I say this only because it seems peculiar to keep only one...yet OJ Simpson also had one singular glove in his car. Weird how that could go down - but I assume it's because the first glove they take off is taken off with a hand wearing a glove, it's when they take the second one off they'd be putting their bare hand on it. I haven't thought on it too much but very roughly something to do with that?

---

As for the murder weapon if Wallace did it, I'm of the opinion it was likely never removed from the house at all.

If this is such a premeditated ingenious scheme, then surely he would have thought to wrap up the murder weapon in something like newspaper so he can do the deed, leave the item where he found it (throwing the newspaper into the fire or flushing it down the toilet of course), and not have to go out on a trip with an iron bar shoved up his sleeve.

But like I said I don't think a bad plan means it's necessarily not a real one. Wrapping it is the smartest choice, but whether or not someone would necessarily think of that is uncertain.

Yes, I find the fact that he continued to accumulate alibis later in the evening to be suspicious; it's almost as if he thought he might need them

Wallace had absolutely no need to remove or even hide the murder weapon. Thus, if he elects to kill Julia with the poker it will have his finger prints on it. But so what...It's his poker, which he must have used many times, of course it'll have his prints on! If there are no other prints on the poker apart from Julia's then he simply argues the assailant must have worn gloves. In fact, with any luck Parry may have used the poker during one of his many visits, even Marsden.

Just one of many errors from a supposed assailant who was supposed to be a criminal mastermind!

[WallaceWackedHer]

The innocuous actions weren't checked though. The alibi he gave for the night of the call was also easily checked and turned out to be nonsense.

In regards to Parry we have:

1. A confession which is known to be false.

2. A statement from Lily Lloyd that she fudged a minor part of Gordon's alibi (of course when ensuring the evidence is seen all from one angle this will be discredited as her being jilted - though we know they kept in contact their entire life even after this).

3. A statement that Parry's parents attempted to coerce friends into having him shipped off to another country (which you can choose to not believe, and also they may do this even if he's innocent but suspected).

---

In any case, even with the single false alibi alone, there is proof that Parry's word as to his movements should not be taken at face value until proven to be true. Maybe he "was mistaken" about his days again for all we know?

---

I think the mitten strengthens what Parkes said, because it's such an unusual thing. In a straight up lie I'd expect him to say it was a leather glove. If he was a proven liar then I'd be inclined towards the practical joke.

Not sure about the rendezvous. There's two men in the house I think, not sure so much that Gordon is a getaway driver. Not sure so much when he would go to see them. But if Parkes is accurate then taking Parry's movements (which we shouldn't technically believe without proving, considering what I mentioned) as truthful, it looks strongly like he does not know what's happened until later and then panics. On the surface that is the impression, though of course it could be that he becomes anxious when he sees Parkes has found incriminating evidence...

So if he's acting all innocent, then suddenly anxious and panicked, it seems most probable that it would be at the point where his behavior switched that he realized what had happened and how he was implicated.

Parkes did not receive money for the statement, and given there were friends who knew about this tale - including those on Radio City - unless they are also liars then he did in fact tell people what had happened at the time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Parry’s alibi for the time of the murder is rock solid. We have no reason for suspecting that the Brine’s lied. There were at least four people that were there that night. What motive could they have had for providing a false alibi in a murder investigation? Average people were unlikely to have wanted to have risked getting in trouble with the police for providing a false alibi. Parry then said that he went to get cigarettes and a newspaper at a Post Office in Maiden Lane which was therefore checkable. As was Hignett’s shop where he went to collect his accumulator battery. Then there was the Williamson’s of course. This left Parry with zero time to go to Wolverton Street to kill Julia.

It also pretty much discounts the idea that Parry went to rendezvous with his accomplice. The murder took place sometime between 6.35 and 8.45. Anyone getting in to number 29 on Party’s suggestion would undoubtedly have been told “you need to be out of there by x o’clock.” It’s unlikely in the extreme that Parry would have pushed it as late as 8.45 because he couldn’t know how persistent William would have been. If someone was watching for when William left it’s also unlikely in the extreme that they’d have left it too long before going in. If they were using the 7.30 meeting time excuse then 7.30 would appear to have been the likeliest time. How likely is it that our mystery man would have sat around chatting to Julia for 45 minutes before springing into action? So even at the latest we would have to conclude that the robbery/murder was done and dusted by around 8.00.

So does Parry dash to rendezvous with his sidekick to collect his share of the spoils from wherever he’s waiting for him? No, he continues chatting at the Brine’s until 8.30. So does he then go and meet his sidekick? No he goes and buys cigarettes and a newspaper. Hardly an unavoidable task? So is it then off to meet the sidekick? Nope it’s off to Hignett’s to pick up his accumulator battery. Something he could have easily done the next day. This would have taken him to say 8.45. Then he goes to the Williamson’s for 10 minutes or so (another checkable alibi) by which time it’s around 9.00. His sidekick has been kicking his heels somewhere for the biggest part of an hour. Nothing Parry did that night speaks of any involvement in any way.

We can also add that after going to see his sidekick and despite finding out that this simple robbery was now a murder and that the gallows were looming and despite being lumbered with a bloody mitten and murder weapon he turns up at Lily Lloyd’s looking and behaving perfectly normally and calmly. None of this is believable.

But nothing in this case is as unbelievable than Parkes nonsense.

It’s been said that Parry arrived at the garage at 11.00. I don’t know where this comes from. Parkes said the early hours of the morning. So Parry waits hours before deciding not to try cleaning the car himself (or with his accomplice) somewhere private. He chooses a garage where he’s neither welcome or trusted. As soon as Parkes sees the mitten (again, who uses a mitten in a robbery?) he immediately coughs. In a dimly lit 1930’s garage couldnt he have said that it was an old mitten that he used for painting or whatever? No, straight to a confession. Then, completely without prompting he tells this man (who has recently told him to his face that he didn’t trust him) where he’d hidden the murder weapon! And just to top it all off (and much to Rod’s annoyance when I pointed this out) at no point in the proceedings does Parry tell Parkes to keep his mouth shut. This story is nonsense. At very best it might have been Parry trying to drop Parkes in it with the police. And talking of the police. Can we really believe that the police were handed the killer on a plate and couldnt even be bothered to send an officer to check the drain. Not at all worried that someone else might do it and present the weapon to them or even to the press? And despite this fantastic story being common knowledge around the garage according to one of the Atkinson’s it never once seeps out to become widely known. And Parkes never breathes a word of this until he’s revealed by mystery man looking for a payout 50 years later!

The Parkes story really should be recognised for the utter twaddle that it is.