Tweet
Menlove Gardens West should/would naturally then, have been the stop indicated by a conductor,alert to Wallace’s appeal .
-
-
Just to preface I am currently indulging in LSD detective work, I am basically having to phone in this message to you via ****in' NASA satellite I'm so far up in the stratosphere.Originally posted by moste View Post
However, what you said is indeed a matter of some importance. As you rightly indicated I don't think Wallace's trip to Crewe's would have taken him up Menlove Avenue, but rather quite naturally along Allerton Road, but also what you said RE: the route to get to Calderstones. That is important too. But right now I think I will utilize the moment to stare at the crime scene photos (which tends to help - the sort of thing you're discussing is more of a matter for a sober mind to ponder).
Though for your amusement (before I get back to work staring at the crime scene and morgue photos) it might entertain you to know that my Wallace avatar is dancing around a little for me. The face is becoming obscured like that famous painting where the guy's holding an apple in front of the businessman's face or w.e. you know the one I mean... It's super famous.
You know, no joke but that would make for GREAT "blotter art". That painting but with Wallace as the businessman. Or even just my Wallace avatar, that's damn good artwork.
Anyway okay okay okay enough messing around back to work.Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 03-14-2020, 03:30 AM.Comment
-
No No NO ! If it’s going to be one of those evenings, I’m going to crack open my first of a half dozen pints of Boddingtons cream ale .Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
So talk tomorrow . It’s only 8 30 pm here on the west coast.Comment
-
Well I think I've exhausted what I can do with that. I played with the photo contrast, brightness, everything, but nothing new jumped out at me.
I'll just have to go into more files and stuff.
I can just kind of pin down the positioning of the killer and Julia etc. thanks to forensics.
Julia in the armchair (roughly, somewhere in that region). The killer if we're looking at the main crime scene photo is on the right of her in front of the fireplace.
I can't say she's doing anything with the fireplace because I believe the gas valve is on the opposite side. She can't be in the middle of the fireplace because of where the blood is and isn't. She's closer to the armchair.
The weapon is probably something long-ish, due to the extent of the injury. Like the iron bar or poker whichever is longer and heavier. Maybe both were used (the bar on the front, poker on the back).
The strike hits the front-ISH part of her head. Put your finger in front of your left ear a couple of inches and up about 5 inches. The wound starts roughly at the temple points of her hair. That's the first strike.
The jacket is unlikely used as a shield or worn.
Her body is moved and some sort of fire is put out, and she's now in the position she's found in. Then multiple blows after the first one (now she's moved) are rained down onto the back of her head pushing brain matter out of the hole in her head.
The fact the first strike is frontal-ish rather than more to the back is strange. The burning is strange. The movement of the body is strange. The jacket is strange. I don't understand it. Does anyone else?Comment
-
And so as a result of all this, it’s looking more and more like Wallace was not the killer is it?Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
And it’s beginning to emerge that Parry with assistance(s) was the more likely culprit?Comment
-
Almost certainly not the killer, but not guilty is a different matter which I think falls upon Lily Hall to a reasonable extent.Originally posted by moste View Post
Gannon only provided excerpts from the committal trial regarding Lily. He didn't include the actual trial, which is obvious BS on his part since it sounds like she clearly says he goes down the entry towards Sedley Street.
He would have known this and must have purposefully omitted it to force his solution. Which makes me keen to see the committal trial in case there's more he's hiding. This is what I got from her statements see if you can make anything of it:
I THINK that's what she's saying with those maps I drew with the markers.
Her original statement makes no mention of the way Wallace was dressed (only the short guy) nor of seeing the two men part company. This only came during the trials from what I understand.
Reading the trial it is also confirmed to me I was right about the gas valve on the fire, it's to the right of the fireplace - in other words whatever she's doing down there is unlikely to do with regulating the gas as she's in the wrong position for that.
If you look on the mantlepiece there seems to be a strong collection of splatter marks behind and to the left of the photo frame furthest left. If she was positioned in front of that photo more towards the fireplace I think (but I will need to ask an expert about this) the frame would block the splatter from hitting that point.
The full trial goes into a lot of detail with McFall. Wyndham-Brown left a lot out. McFall thinks the first strike would soak the attacker, it's the subsequent blows that shouldn't be quite as bad in that regard... Though it would get on the ankles/trousers in any case.
Had he been kneeling there would be obvious patterning on the jacket to show that.
I'm tempted to disregad it just for now because it was very very unlikely worn or held up like a shield and therefore seems Red Herring-ish.
---
The removal of a weapon if you believe it is something from the home makes me think whoever did this crime was not wearing gloves and thus was afraid of fingerprints. Or the bar bent if it was William himself.
If William has a hitman which is what Lily Hall's testimony implies, it would be quite peculiar for a hitman to not bring a weapon. And also to pick something so long and bulky. I'd expect him to bring a hammer or something of that nature and remove it, and also expect him to strike her on the back of her head rather than waiting for her to light the fire and sit down then attacking.
If the bar and poker are missing from the house it's a strong implication someone for William (or William himself) bent the items while attacking Julia, or that he's entirely innocent.
If he is taking such levels of precaution, I should imagine it's far more trivial to avoid a weapon being covered in blood than yourself as you can actually cover it completely. If the weapon is not bent there would be no indication at all that it had even been used, so no need to take it away.
You have to think of the risk vs. reward because taking it requires risk and therefore to do so anyway must mean it was so incriminating as to be worth it... Taking a long iron bar out with you walking around in public is risky, Hemmerde suggests William hid it up his sleeve on his trip (so he would have zero use of that arm).
The whole route he took was covered and searched, turning up nothing. They didn't search anywhere he didn't go (such was their conviction they had their man). Which means they didn't check Priory Road.
If the bar/poker is the weapon I think there's a fear of fingerprinting which suggests whoever went in there did not plan to commit a murder (hence no gloves) or was simply very careless.Comment
-
I have now written two biographies and life timelines for both Julia and William. These are far more organized than Gannon's since he has information spreadeagled all through the book in random spots. I am currently working on Parry's, which I suspect will take a little more time... There is quite a bit more to be written about such a devilish young lad with multiple criminal exploits.
Julia Biography and Timeline:
https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...life-timeline/
William Biography and Timeline:
https://www.williamherbertwallace.co...life-timeline/
Included are images of census forms, marriage certificates, death certificates, and the homes which they resided at.
Please aware me if any information is off. I sourced the information from various books and books on this case are notorious for false information.
I also think I was right earlier about Rod Crosby's theory being previously invented by Robert F. Hussey. On a re-read it does seem that he is NOT saying Parry is the man attempting to sneakily thieve from the home, but someone else known to Parry.
Here on these pages he briefly touches upon the idea that any man giving the name "Qualtrough" would be admitted. I consider the idea of the "Qualtrough" name being used to be invented by Roland Oliver in any case, as well as William himself in his ghostwritten articles, so it was a rather common idea floating around:
http://www.williamherbertwallace.com...e-92-93-94.jpg
And here is his recreation of the sneak thieving events he believe took place:
http://www.williamherbertwallace.com...e-86-87-88.jpg
The images are very large hence I have provided links rather than pasting the images here.
---
I have looked more into the housebreaking gang I had brought up and I missed information in my very own newspaper findings... I can now confirm with almost complete certainty that at least 5 of the boys were, at the time of the murder, out on bail awaiting trial.
And I missed, which I have now seen, that the boys committed a housebreaking on the 19th of January 1931, the same night the call was made: They broke into 28 Ranelagh Drive, and stole over Ł50 in cash and jewelry. They were not caught for this until the 23rd of January when one of the boys was confronted at his home, upon which he immediately confessed to the crime and gave up his friends. His friends when questioned in turn did the same.
Considering they were going to burgle that home on the 19th, it is simply not possible that they would be able to rob 29 Wolverton Street on the Monday when Wallace was out at chess. It may be for this extremely mundane reason that the Monday night was not chosen - simply put the intended burglars were busy that night, breaking into a house which was COMPLETELY unoccupied and getting a handsome haul of loot.
I have ALSO noticed something else which I did not see before... The chess club does not meet every two weeks. It is USUALLY every two weeks but look at the dates on the chart, on December it runs two weeks in a row. On the 19th of January, the match to be played next is over a month later.
By the statements of both Wallace and Parry, I can confirm that on one of the Thursdays in November (the 6th or 13th of November 1930), Wallace attended the chess club and was seen there by Parry. Parry saw him on two prior occasions as well although Wallace does not mention that. Parry claims that prior to these sightings he was not aware that Wallace was a member of the chess club there.
Based on the dates on which the boys would have been in custody, if the boy "Stonehouse" is in any way needed for such a scheme, then the chess match on the 24th of November would not be possible, because he was in custody. For the other boys involved in the robebry at Ranelagh Drive - James Stephen Hall, James Herbert King, Robert James Fisher, John James Hughes, and Harold Charles Paine - Based on the times they were in custody the 5th of January would also not be possible.
Therefore the only dates they could use would be:
The 10th of November, 8th of December, 15th of December, 19th of January, and 21st of February…
However considering that by the 19th of January the boys were out on bail but “awaiting” trial (feeling certain they would be sent to prison for three years), if they were involved, it is possible the 21st of February would have been out of the question too.
---
Wallace and Parry had seen each other twice in December. The dates of which are unclear, but Parry states "about three weeks ago" which would mean the very end of December, where he saw Wallace on a bus from Victoria Street.
Wallace saw Parry in his car at Missouri Road at some point in December, and it is then that Parry gave him the gift of the calendar.
The contents of these conversations could be vital if (for example) Parry had brought up chess in any sort of casual manner and managed to gain some useable information. Not only for those reasons of course, there could be many things in those conversations that would be very much telling.
---
I have commissioned colourization of ALL crime scene photos, and those will be up in the coming month or so as my colourizer completes them. For fun I am also having Parry, Julia, and the Johnstons colourized. I realize just now that I ought to include William.
I have also reached out to private detectives requesting they look into the Anfield housebreakings - particular the burglary at 19 Wolverton Street in December 1930 - and the youths in the gang I have mentioned, as well as any possible links Parry may have had to criminals active in the area at the time.Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-08-2020, 11:23 PM.Comment
-
Also just noticed something about the chess schedule... If there is a number there without a letter people are saying it means he didn't turn up.
That's not necessarily true. It might also mean that his partner didn't show up while he himself did.
Look at the 19th. We know Wallace turned up and played a match, but by the column it just says 1 with no letter because CHANDLER didn't turn up.
I should also correct my previous post, it's possible Parry saw Wallace at the chess club on BOTH Thursdays at the beginning of November, both the 6th and 13th. But at least one of those for definite.
Glayde's Honour was performed on the 17th of November and Parry says he had seen Wallace at the chess club about 3 times before that performance during rehearsals, including in that November.
Parry's club rehearsed every Tuesday and Thursday. Wallace's club met Mondays and Thursdays. So it would have been only Thursdays that Parry could have seen him there.
Parry says prior to these three sightings during rehearsals for Glayde's Honour he did not know Wallace was a member of the chess club there.Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-09-2020, 10:13 AM.Comment
-
I also found more thefts by Parry. He didn't only commit two carjackings... He committed over three (sounds like 6 in total). Some he did because he was SO broke and in debt he couldn't afford a tram fare. So he'd steal cars to drive to where he had to go, then leave them (not keep them).
Anyone know precisely why he's SO in debt?
he also thieved from 6 kiosks at the beginning of 1932 along with these carjackings.Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-10-2020, 08:35 AM.Comment
-
I have got in contact with another forensic expert of an even HIGHER caliber. He is the main forensic expert for the county police force of a certain county in America.
He to this day investigates scenes of death with suspicious circumstances and actually testifies in court cases. I am in the process of hiring him.
He said in preliminary back and forths having seen the evidence etc. that the idea of William holding the jacket like a shield and avoiding blood on his clothing by doing so is "utterly absurd".
So toreador blood shield idea is DONE. Lmfao. Two forensic experts have said so including one with a doctorate in the field etc. who is the top in his field.
The jacket was 100% NOT held up as a shield as William belabored his wife to death.
100%. Discard that theory immediately. It's finished. Done and dusted.
He is yet to deep dive but purchased Gannon and Goodmans books. I explained they both have some facts wrong which I will need to correct... He didn't buy them for the logic facts but specifically for forensic information they may contain. Not sure why he chose those two but he got the paperback of Gannon LOL - the absolute impenetrable MESS of a book... Murphy falsified the forensic report as Antony pointed out in his book, literally took out a paragraph and inserted one he made up.
...Continuing my own research I looked into Parry's time at the Prudential and as we know his supervisor was also Mr. Crewe. Parry has a car, he doesn't need to take a tram. He would have visited Crewe numerous times and from Woburn Hill to Crewe's house all natural routes go right along Menlove Avenue passing both Menlove Gardens West and North.
William would have gone down Allerton Road and alighted at the Green Lane stop since Crewe's home is much closer to there than the stops on Menlove Avenue. In fact his statement did say so, and Crewe's on trial...
...
Also in my research I looked closer at the money in the cash box. I have never checked this before but do we realize how much money is in there in modern currency?
In 1931 money it's Ł30 to Ł40 per week says William, up to Ł80 to Ł100.
Maybe as low as Ł20.
Has anyone ever bothered to check how much that actually is? That's the equivalent of OVER Ł1000 AT THE ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM - all or mostly in CASH. More likely Ł2000 minimum. That's by the inflation alone but also remember the actual cost of living itself was much lower. A house back then for example was about 80% cheaper even using monetary inflation equivalence. As were cars, petrol, groceries, etc. So that money would take you much further back then than it would now.
William collected four days a week.
One extra day of collecting is NOT trivial. Missing one day means losing out on a QUARTER of the bounty, we're talking very significant sums of money here, not chump change...
Especially to someone dirt broke and in debt. The new paper report I have on Parry, Parry's father is quoted as saying his son is in debt.
Given R. M. Qualtrough is flubbed (should be R. J. clearly - the real Pru client), then it raises the chances East is flubbed too.
---
Gannon has also flubbed another fact I found. As well as claiming William said "Julia never wore a mackintosh" which is WRONG. I have the full statement he's quoting, William says THE mackintosh.
But he has also claimed the chess club met in the basement. On trial Gladys Harley was asked about where the meetings took place. She said the café had 4 rooms all on the ground floor.
They don't have a basement rofl. He's actually interpreted ground floor as meaning a basement lmao. Like damn... That means any old tosspot could be sitting there in the café and see William come in there. And possibly the reason Parry went down to potentially Park Lane (does not work if Lark Lane) which is one street down from the John Street strip of town, comprising North and South John Street.
He's also called the ARMCHAIR a two seater chair. It's a ******* armchair. Clearly seen. He makes it sound like it's the lounger chair or some type of sofa.
Seriously someone mega dedicated needs to go through and just correct all the big time errors he's made.
Including Lily Hall's statement where he's omitted her full police trial statement and also omitted the full main trial testimony where she says very clearly he went down towards Sedley Street, not down the entry to Wolverton.
Outrageous... These are like CRUCIAL mistakes that could completely change someone's opinion on the verdict.Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-18-2020, 08:18 AM.Comment
-
You guys ought to have checked the chess schedule chart more carefully when discussing easily seeing he didn't show up:
November 24th: Wallace's column shows a 4 with no letter. McCartney's column shows a 6 with no letter.
December 8th: Wallace's column shows a 5 with no letter. T. Moore's column shows a 6 with no letter.
January 5th: Wallace's column shows a 7 with no letter. J. Walsh's column shows a 6 with no letter.
Did McCartney, Moore, and Walsh also all fail to attend on those specified dates?
January 19th: Wallace's colum shows a 1 with no letter. F.C. Chandler's column shows a 6 with no letter.
We know Wallace turned up...
We also know that Wallace turned up for at least one non-match game in November, either the 6th or 13th. We know this because Parry saw him on a Thursday in November while rehearsing for Glayde's Honour while Wallace was there for chess. We also know Parry saw and spoke to Wallace twice in December - once on a bus, once in Clubmoor in his car - but contents of these conversations is unknown.
---
Does anyone know Wallace's collection days for definite? It might be 3 even rather than 4. He might make some collections on Friday but it wasn't a definite scheduled round. He collected on Saturdays, Mondays, Tuesdays.
---
There's something about collection and pay-in days I need to investigate... I'll post about it later.Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-18-2020, 09:54 PM.Comment
-
Hi Wallace, glad to see your still at it. Things have been quiet since Herlock departed the scene and he had the knowledge of the case to keep the debate lively. Looking forward to the forensic input though, that'll be interesting, especially with another modern comparison.
As for someone "mega dedicated" straitening out the errors in Gannon's book, and the case generally? I can name at least one person, got his own website, accessed and photographed the full case files, hired private specialists and can identify an antique gas fire at 100 paces. I seem to recall politely telling him to eff off once. Keep it up.Thems the Vagaries.....Comment
-
I will go through it but I must admit his book - as a book - is just awful. It is honestly difficult to read, even for someone obsessed with the case as I am. And some of his facts are difficult-to-impossible to check.Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
Murphy's book I am outright wary of as Antony called him out in Move to Murder for making up information and claiming it is the official forensic report. Some of it I would not be able to check like him saying Parry is left handed. That left-handedness would tend to rule him out as the attacker based on forensic positioning, although an American baseball bat type swing would be left handed, it seems a better fit for a right handed individual. The bar is to the right of the fireplace, and the strike hits JULIA'S left side of her skull (AKA the right of her head from the attacker's perspective).
That in my opinion is stronger than his alibi - given we know there's proven falsification in his alibis, and Lily Lloyd telling Wilkes she falsified the time he arrived... It does strike one as rather peculiar that he failed to ever mention this get out of jail free card to any of the many people harassing him - and that Lily did not mention this alibi to Wilkes, I'd expect Parry to have told her... She was on friendly terms with Parry, they kept in contact throughout their entire lives, and she tried to clear his name to Wilkes by saying she doesn't believe he could possibly have done it... So if she DID know about this alibi I'm surprised she did not think to throw it out there.
If it wasn't for the Corona lockdown I could get the rest of the files which would be the police files down in Liverpool. The ones I've got for you all are from Kew Gardens, and they're the DPP/Home Office files.
---
Following from my prior post, here's what I said I was going to investigate - just had to do a little fact checking. The monthly collections are every 4 weeks. The collections are marked as the Monday of the week they are paid in, even though they are often paid on Wednesday or Thursday. For example in January it was the 12th (but likely paid in by Wallace on the 14th or 15th). "Every 4 weeks" as Crewe claims would be - going back as far as the chess schedule - December 22nd, November 24th.
Wallace was due a no-show on the 15th of December and then a big break until January, so the 22nd of December week would not be realistically targetable with this trick. The 24th of November is targetable if the person had the idea in their mind at that time - though Wallace failed to show so if they had waited outside his home, they would see he failed to leave.
The same goes for January the 5th, the person would also then have to set up an appointment over a week into the future which intuitively one would expect to lower the odds of him going on that trip (it would have to be set for the 13th of January) and give him more time to perhaps sus something out or mention the trip to Crewe or whatever else.
However to have known when this date would fall would be extremely difficult for someone who did not currently work for the Pru. One would need to get a calendar, ascertain when the last one was that they knew of, and go 4 weeks after 4 weeks through perhaps the calendars of several years to find the right dates. And also hope the Pru did not change protocol. If it's Parry behind it, he left the Pru 12 to 15 months earlier.
---
The other thing I wanted to get at in the prior post was the pay-in days.
So agents sometimes paid in on Thursdays but mostly Wednesdays. In Crewe's words agents would pay in collections to the head office: usually on Wednesdays, but often on Thursdays.
Wallace seems to have preferred the Thursdays. If pay-in occurred on the Thursday, then the cash box would have more money in it on Wednesday as it would have the Wednesday collection morning's money too... However it could also have literally nothing in it potentially lol.
---
Not sure if important but wanted to get it down in writing in any case.
---
It looks like he collected 4 days a week but I might be wrong and I REALLY need to verify that, as the less days he collects the more major of a difference an extra day would make... In whatever case it would be significant, but 3 for example would be much moreso than if he collected 5 or 6.
---
I believed the thread to be permanently dead I am surprised to see any response at all. I think many people will stop posting after the forensic evidence as the jacket thing is so vital to many people's case/theory, and many people are quite tied to their idea in terms of ego. I do hope it picks up.Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-18-2020, 10:29 PM.Comment
-
A curious quote I found in Goodman's book which seems rather similar to Rod Stringer's new and unique open sesame theory:
Wallace's collection rounds seem to be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday.“No; an open-sesame was needed. And perhaps this was why the murderer chose to call himself Qualtrough. Qualtrough … an unusual name … a name that sticks in the mind. If Wallace mentioned it to Julia she was almost sure to remember it. And if, on the Tuesday night, someone called at the house—someone saying that his name was R. M. Qualtrough, that he had arranged to meet Mr Wallace but had been held up for some reason or other, and asking if he could wait for Mr Wallace’s return, as the business matter he wanted to discuss was urgent, had to be settled at once—Julia, thinking of the commission her husband received on life and endowment policies, would invite him in.”
Friday he stayed home working on his accounts usually, and Sunday as is traditional was a day off. Whether he worked on Thursday I cannot ascertain...
Wednesday was the usual pay in day for Pru employees. Wallace sometimes paid in on Wednesday which was the "rule" (albeit not strictly enforced), but usually paid in on Thursdays. After Julia's murder he paid in the following day on the Wednesday, accompanied by his nephew Edwin.Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-19-2020, 12:20 AM.Comment
-
Going through Murphy's "work" I think it ought to be said that this man is not only someone making honest mistakes, but an actual outright fabricator and liar who needs to be publicly shamed and disgraced.
My friend sent me a magazine article written by Murphy.
Every single page contains not only mistakes but knowing lies. Utterly disgraceful that this shameful human being is clearly using this woman's death as some sort of personal trophy.
I thought he just lied about the forensic report (as in, you can see in black and white - unfortunately for him [since I published the pages in the public domain]) but it goes deeper.
We already know that this liar and fantasist disgrace of a man literally pulled entire paragraphs out of McFall's actual forensic report, and actually is pathetic enough to have MADE UP HIS OWN PARAGRAPHS AND INSERTED IT IN THERE PRETENDING IT'S THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT.
I dare this man to show his face. This is almost fable-like in the moral lesson here... He doctored and lied his way to """fame""", bragging all over social media, but now that's his own downfall - because he can't unpublish his book or words, and yet now the files he has doctored are public so everyone can forever and eternally see that the man is a liar.
Aesop tier...
Antony said so in his book too, since clearly he too seeing the files was shocked and appalled to find what this man has done, but is too nice to outright insult him whereas I'm not.
Frankly I am furious. Because I considered maybe he had some secret OTHER report and maybe hadn't doctored it but now I see that's definitely not the case...
In his "work" what he has also knowingly lied and doctored is other crucial elements like the position of the killer and Julia. He has written that the evidence was given that the attacker had walked up behind her and hit her on the back of the head. This isn't a mistake, it's a lie, he's a fame-hunting joke of a man.
Anyone can now EASILY see on the public domain the actual testimony and see that even forensics at the time said she was hit on the front left side of the head first. McFall said outright she was sitting on the armchair as his suggestion.
He has also subtley suggested DNA evidence existed back then. I can see what he's doing and it made me so angry. He was saying nobody could find a single hair or fiber outside of the parlour of this intruder. Wtf are you talking about hairs and fibers, it's 1931 you twat.
Tram conductor evidence... See for yourself the tram conductor's testimony on trial and compare it to what he claims was said.
I can of course go on, because on basically every page turn you find new lies which are now permanently exposed and the man now permanently disgraced thanks to the files being put into the public domain for all to see.
I simply urge that everyone shame this man wherever he dares to rear his head. Don't let him get away with this. He thought being the only man to see the files at the time he could get away with it. Yeah well, this is what happens to people like this isn't it.Comment
Comment