No announcement yet.

Amy Wallace, was she involved?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WallaceWackedHer

    7. So anyway, I noticed the mention of the horizontal burn marks on Julia's skirt.

    As ALL of us have had trouble with, it simply makes no sense at all how she can "fall into the fire" from the position she was in. But then I had a thought... Maybe rather than Julia being taken to the source of heat, the source of heat has been brought to her...

    In no photos online (even when I try to scan photos across where it's clearly visible) can you see this very well but there's a grid on the bottom of this fireplace. Gannon says the grid is removable... Presumably what would happen to operate this fire, is you'd take off the covering, light the gas, then put the covering back on. Turning off the fire you'd just use the gas tap to turn the gas off... When the fire has been on this grate would be SCALDING hot... You can SORT of see it in this which I scanned across from my computer:

    This advertisement shows it better, I think this is in fact the exact model of fireplace they owned (advert from 1926), it looks identical:

    There you can definitely see the grate...

    So Julia has just been hit getting up from the chair and she's flopped forward onto the ground face first. The attacker has at some point - I'm not sure when - perhaps removed this grid while the fire is still on, and put it aside where it has made contact with Julia's skirt and caused the horizontal patterned burn marks... Julia's skirt didn't catch fire, it's contact burns - even on trial they say "contact" but with the "fireclays" whatever that is... FIRE just spreads, it doesn't follow neat little lines. Whatever burned her skirt then - if they're like, neat patterened lines, is contact with a hot object but not fire.

    The reason for removing this grid - and I think if the prosecution had used this they could've ****ed Wallace bad - would be to get access to the BARE flame. The attacker wants to incinerate things. I would expect the money and DEFINITELY the check to be incinerated if so - anything that had been handled and would burn. If that jacket had been used as a rag as I suggested (again - I can PROVE forensically with multiple modern forensic expert's testimony that this thing was not worn or used as a shield so we HAVE to think of alternative reasons), maybe an attempt was made to burn it but caused too much smoke etc. etc. so they pulled it out.

    I don't know why the grid has been put back on. So again I might be wrong.

    7. The reason the burning of the jacket (given it was 1000% not used as a shield and I can prove it) is important is for the same reason as the removal of the iron bar/poker (Goodman claims the iron bar was found - which ironically hinders my case despite him using it to prove innocence - but luckily there was a poker gone too)...

    Removing an item you just battered someone with is danger. To expose yourself to such danger, there's a good reason. A good reason is fingerprints.

    The attacker burned things due to a fear of fingerprints. He can't burn the weapon if it's a big piece of iron or w.e. so he's just wiped that off and taken it with him. He perhaps thinks the jacket can't be burned fully, not sure why... Smoke, fire hazard, smell, thinking someone's back at the house... I don't know... But it's not been fully incinerated, so instead it's been put into a pool of blood to remove the prints.

    8. As you can imagine, doing stuff like that requires staying in the home, and so putting off the lights is even more beneficial than normal, since if people knock WHILE HE'S INSIDE and lights are on, that's really bad lol. Naturally anyone with half a brain would have flipped the bolt on the front door too, otherwise anyone with a key or a returning William can just walk in while he's in the front room with the corpse lmaoooo.

    The light idea is a bizarre one anyway, because ANYONE benefits from their crime being discovered as late as possible to give them time to get away - not only William - very weird point...

    9. At whatever point, the killer is satisfied he's done a good job of avoiding leaving incriminating evidence, and has left through the back door or an unsecured window.


    In other words some of my theories are close to that but basically probably BS and most likely my grandpa rekt me and got a hole in one in minutes. Just lol.

    Hussey then would be the most accurate. Rod actually combined Goodman and Hussey's idea but has Julia catch the man red handed and he's invented sort of this pantomime thing of Julia being physically dragged into the front room and shoved down onto the seat for a beating.


    I'm sure I will have to refine this and work on it more. I have TOPPPP level forensics working for me and I'm waiting for them to render an opinion on certain things. I expect they will take a few weeks as they are working live murder cases and have to testify in court so that of course takes priority for them.

    Leave a comment:

  • WallaceWackedHer
    Right okay.........

    I think I see what's gone on here, for real...

    FIRST OFF another HUGE "error" by Gannon (not an error but just unproven claims given as being 100% certain): Marsden's "flu" alibi. There is NO statement saying that this is his alibi, he has made this assumption based 100% on a note that doesn't even say Marsden's name on that handwritten part. Just a scrawling on the side of Wallace's list of suspect names.

    Now if you look at the page he makes this assumption based on, you can see why. It definitely does look like it's saying it's his alibi:

    But then look just directly below that, another note - more in depth actually, but covers multiple names. Bamber, Albert Wood, Jenkinson etc... The way the lines are drawn there even the bottom alibi includes the end of the description into Marsden.

    So it looks like it was his given alibi - but it's not a CERTAIN FACT, though it is now accepted as such.


    Anyway I think I see what's happened here. I think I'm probably wrong and this - which incorporates my grandpa's idea is probably right. I feel I can't put this in any way that doesn't sound insulting (lol) but he has a criminal mind, and he was brought up in that sort of era. So he's been destroying me with ease on this case.

    But anyway, I can forensically prove that the jacket wasn't used which is one of the vital pieces of evidence against William doing everything... I think what's happened is this...


    1. First of all as I already mentioned about the chess schedule earlier, anyone can see when Wallace is expected, and CAN'T see when he hasn't been - because if someone doesn't turn it up, be it Wallace OR his partner, no letter is put by the number which makes it look like both failed to show using the logic provided by many authors about this chart. Furthermore - you can't completely exclude the possibility someone had tried on a prior date but saw that Wallace did not leave his house so did not make the call.

    Right by the very publicly visible noticeboard is the door, and on it the phone number of the café.

    Now on the night of the call, the 19th, you see that whoever called the club was near the house and knew his address. So you have to wonder why they didn't leave a note...

    I think it's done on purpose for two reasons: First off because they don't want anyone or police in subsequent inquiries to know the caller knew where the address was (if Murphy isn't lying about the caller asking for the address - sadly it seems he is as per usual) - they'd have to consider the possibility of people who didn't know the address but were given it by Beattie - widening the suspect pool. According to Josh he thinks that's a crap suggestion but I like it so it goes here.

    But importantly if it's a phone call, and this is Josh's suggestion which I think is probably correct and better than my own, it allows for the possibility of the message being a mix up which can then be used to gain entry into the home.

    This is important. Because I think what's happened is they've got a stranger to go in there pretending he's there for the appointment telling Julia there's been some sort of mistake.

    2. So roughly around the appointment time (probably just before) "Mr. Qualtrough" turns up for the appointment - claiming there must have been a mix-up in the taking of the message. Many authors have made what I think is a false leap of faith here in assuming the caller needed Julia to know the name to get in. I don't think so at all. I think even if she doesn't know the name etc. with the guy turning up around this time etc. and knowing about the call etc. it's probably going to fool her.

    William's trip to/from the Gardens is about 20 minutes at the minimum isn't it. That's with insane luck and moving like Jack Flash. So if he'd turned up at the Gardens at 19.30 as requested, he's not getting home until past 19.50 at the absolute minimum.

    The nature of the robbery is such that it's so stupid-simple it could be done in 5 minutes. They might turn up at say, 7.20 or something like that.

    3. So because of the call as opposed to a note being used, this claim can be believed, and Julia lets him in. As with any stranger she takes him into the parlour of course. She sets it up as you would expect and sits herself down in the armchair.

    The attacker has like many before me have suggested has made an excuse to go out the back into the kitchen where the cash box is kept:

    He gets the cash box, probably hoisting himself up onto the cabinet thing there if he's a shorter man like average height back then.

    But now tragedy strikes for this criminal: They open the box and find £4. LOL. Not all of it is even in useable money, some of it is in the form of a check.

    4. This is where my grandpa made a suggestion, and I had to edit my own site etc. because I think I'm probably wrong and what he said is probably right...

    I mean he asked me unprompted why there's only £4 in there, and then was like "how much should there have been?" and then was like "oh that's what's happened then isn't it". Lol. I mean I didn't know what he meant.

    But he said what's happened is someone's gone in there expecting there to be a huge sum of money in that box, at least £20 etc. (and that's over £1,000 in modern money - and beyond that the cost of living was cheaper so that amount took you further than it would today), seen there's only £4, and thought the "rest of it" is being hidden by the Wallaces somewhere else in the house.

    So they've opened up William's little photography cabinet there thinking it might be in there, but there's nothing, and become even MORE frustrated.

    5. Because this is a stranger to Julia, he just outright confronts her and demands to know where they're hiding the "rest of the insurance money". The weapon was suggested by my forensics as being long - which doesn't seem like something a criminal would bring to commit a robbery like this, you'd expect something small and concealable... If Goodman is right that the bar was found, then he's taken the poker from the kitchen (the room where the cash box is) and gone back in there to threaten her with to give up the location of the hidden money.

    Not only does HE want more money, but he's going to be worried about going back to Parry with £4, because Parry will think he's lying about that being all there was and probably beat his ass thinking he's pocketed the rest for himself. So it's two-fold.

    There should be at the minimum of £16 more and she either refuses to tell him where more money is, or he doesn't believe her claim William was ill, so he cracks her with whatever weapon he was holding... She was apparently leaning forward in the armchair so it might even be that she was in the middle of getting up when he struck her... Actually that might even explain the lack fo defensive wounds which I find weird regardless of the attacker (the strike has come from in front of her and hit her on the front side of her head - I'd expect her to have seen it coming whoever did it).

    (This is the position of the body after being moved by the way, not the originalposition).

    6. Julia flops down, the attacker is soaked in blood.

    But keep THIS in mind... Regarding footprint trails leaving the room, remember that blood doesn't pool instantly, he could still right now (until there's pooling he's stood in) walk around the home leaving no trail of footprints whatsoever.

    He's standing there you must remember, holding what would be a large weapon soaked in blood, his hands probably bloodied, his face, clothes... There's nothing in that room you could easily use like a towel/rag. I thought that thing on Julia's chair was a cloth but actually it's a cushion says the City Analyst, other items like the tableclothes have items on top you'd need to move. So if you needed a towel-like item you would need to leave the parlour to find something convenient. William's jacket is just outside the door on the peg and would be the first useable item to hand.

    I can PROVE with modern forensic expert testimony that the jacket wasn't used as a shield or worn by the attacker - so we have to think of alternative possibilities and this is one that occurred to me but I really don't know what to think.

    The use of the thing as a rag is just one possibility I thought of and as I said may be way off base.

    [TBC due to image limit]
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-24-2020, 02:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • WallaceWackedHer
    Disregard the above it's another false fact. What is up with literally everyone even witnesses ******* up their own testimony?

    Gannon claims she said originally in her original statement that she asked if it was HIS box of matches and he said yes, then just said something different on trial. Their placement matches with him having lit the lamp on the right of the mirror, because Julia's on the left I presumed if she'd set up the parlour they'd be in her pocket or on the left sideboard.

    It's just unreal, not only do we have a century of rumours (often perpetuated in books) but also basically every witness themselves saying about 20 completely different mutually exclusive things.

    Beattie gives about 1000 different accounts of what the caller said, Mr Johnston can't decide if he went to the police before or after William checked the cash box, Lily Pinches (well not much even needs to be said about that lmao, just read her testimony on trial, unreal), Lily Lloyd can't decide whether the guy she thinks was William is going down one entry or the complete opposite other.

    William himself doesn't seem to know what's going on. The prosecution tells him he said "whatever have they used" and he accepts he said it when we know Florence did LOL.

    Man...... Was everyone back then just on heroin or whatever like McFall?

    The hunt goes on.

    If it's William's box then where's Julia's? I would expect them to be taken away like the bar since the bar's removal signifies fingerprint fear. And the attacker would probably want a light source of some kind to navigate out of the home.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-21-2020, 11:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • WallaceWackedHer
    Here's a new clue for you... Julia's own box of matches seems very out of place.

    They're found on the table at the very back right of the room in the main "famous" crime scene photo of the parlour. There are two tables in that corner/side of the room, both have plants on them... Julia's matches are on the table at the farthest back.

    What I want to know is... She's lit the lamp, right, then the fireplace, then sat in the armchair. What are her matches doing over there? Florence found them in this position.

    Who put them there? Did William find them first and place them there?

    He likely had his own box as when William entered the house he lit the kitchen, and lit a match in the threshold of the door, then the lamp on the right side of the mirror above the fireplace.

    If Julia's been battered to death by the fireplace how have her matches teleported over there? If she put them there herself why? Why would you get up from lighting the fire then go put the box of matches on the opposite side of the room then go back to the armchair to the left of the fire?

    Has someone else been using them? Did people back then keep their box in their pockets? I imagine they might as there's no electric switches and you'd want to be able to see when walking into a pitch black room. You'd probably need them a lot at night wouldn't you? So I wonder if they did.

    The cushions on the lounger couch make it seem it was sat on. But could have been an officer who did that.

    If so, wouldn't Julia put them back in her pocket after she's done lighting the fire and lamp? Then has the killer taken them out of her pocket? If her skirt is twisted and had a pocket and the match box is in there is this why it's twisted?

    Why does the person need matches if they aren't going to light any more lights unless it's to illuminate the way as they move in darkness?

    I am not sure. I think just this has been overlooked and needs mentioning for consideration.
    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 04-20-2020, 07:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • WallaceWackedHer
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • WallaceWackedHer
    A curious quote I found in Goodman's book which seems rather similar to Rod Stringer's new and unique open sesame theory:

    “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.”
    Wallace's collection rounds seem to be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday.

    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • WallaceWackedHer
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • WallaceWackedHer
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • WallaceWackedHer
    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 £30 to £40 per week says William, up to £80 to £100.

    Maybe as low as £20.

    Has anyone ever bothered to check how much that actually is? That's the equivalent of OVER £1000 AT THE ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM - all or mostly in CASH. More likely £2000 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.

    Leave a comment:

  • WallaceWackedHer
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • WallaceWackedHer
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • WallaceWackedHer
    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:

    William Biography and 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:

    And here is his recreation of the sneak thieving events he believe took place:

    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 £50 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.

    Leave a comment:

  • WallaceWackedHer
    Originally posted by moste View Post

    And so as a result of all this, it’s looking more and more like Wallace was not the killer is it?

    And it’s beginning to emerge that Parry with assistance(s) was the more likely culprit?
    Almost certainly not the killer, but not guilty is a different matter which I think falls upon Lily Hall to a reasonable extent.

    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • moste
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
    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?
    And so as a result of all this, it’s looking more and more like Wallace was not the killer is it?

    And it’s beginning to emerge that Parry with assistance(s) was the more likely culprit?

    Leave a comment: