Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wallace Case - Latest major breakthrough (27th June 2020)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

    As far as I know the difference in the body position is just that one of the arms was hidden beneath the body when found.

    Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot_20200629-051620_Opera.jpg Views:	0 Size:	170.9 KB ID:	736718

    Gannon is seemingly wrong again by the way. That's Julia's left arm (the window side arm) under her body unless she was found on her back. That would be huge if so... If she's face down however that's her left arm on the window side which seems depicted under her body, the right arm (armchair side) over her.

    What a strange contorted position. Her arm over her back? I ought to fact check this. If she was found on her back that's another massive turn of events.

    As for who he could trust it depends on the motive. There are several reports he was a gay man, which was something very serious back then; you could even do prison time for being gay. Julia was devoutly religious, she would not likely be very liberal about the idea of a gay husband.
    The sketch is a bit unclear, but it does look as though she was found face down, suggesting she was struck from behind.

    By the way, I know this has been discussed before but what do you make of Parkes' evidence, which deeply implicates Parry? I know it's been much criticised, but Dolly Atkinson, who obviously knew him well, believed him and considered him trustworthy: her radio broadcast interview also makes clear that Parkes came forward with his allegations contemporaneously, i.e. it wasn't just a story he made up 50 years later.

    I also find Parry's alibi questionable. For instance, what was he doing at the Brine household for two and half hours? Wasn't the purpose of the visit to pick up a birthday invitation? Why did it take hum so long? Considering Brine's husband was away at sea, as well as Parry's own reputation, could they have been having an affair? And, of course, we know Parry had previously given a false alibi, i.e. in respect of his whereabouts at the time of the Qualtrough call.

    And what of Brine's 15 year old nephew, Harold Dennison, who also alibied Parry? As I've argued before, the dapper ladies man, with his bright shiny car-at a time when car ownership itself would have been uncommon-must have seemed a world away from Dennidon's snotty-nosed school friends. I think it perfectly plausible that Parry could have convinced him to lie about the time he left (and Dennison only gave an approximate time anyway). If Olivia realized he was going to back up Parry she would have been left in a difficult position, i.e. if she gave contradictory evidence then her nephew could have been in real trouble. And it wasn't as if other witnesses gave questionable evidence during the inquiry: Close, Lilly Hall, Parry etc.

    Much is made of the way Wallace apparently accumulated alibies during the Qualtrough journey. But what of Parry on the night of the murder? Two and half hours spent with Olivia; the visit to the post office; calling for his accumulator at Hignett's; the visit to Mrs Williamson, before finally arriving at Missouri Road. Isn't this apparent accumulation of multiple alibies on the night of the murder equally suspicious?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by John G View Post

      The sketch is a bit unclear, but it does look as though she was found face down, suggesting she was struck from behind.

      By the way, I know this has been discussed before but what do you make of Parkes' evidence, which deeply implicates Parry? I know it's been much criticised, but Dolly Atkinson, who obviously knew him well, believed him and considered him trustworthy: her radio broadcast interview also makes clear that Parkes came forward with his allegations contemporaneously, i.e. it wasn't just a story he made up 50 years later.

      I also find Parry's alibi questionable. For instance, what was he doing at the Brine household for two and half hours? Wasn't the purpose of the visit to pick up a birthday invitation? Why did it take hum so long? Considering Brine's husband was away at sea, as well as Parry's own reputation, could they have been having an affair? And, of course, we know Parry had previously given a false alibi, i.e. in respect of his whereabouts at the time of the Qualtrough call.

      And what of Brine's 15 year old nephew, Harold Dennison, who also alibied Parry? As I've argued before, the dapper ladies man, with his bright shiny car-at a time when car ownership itself would have been uncommon-must have seemed a world away from Dennidon's snotty-nosed school friends. I think it perfectly plausible that Parry could have convinced him to lie about the time he left (and Dennison only gave an approximate time anyway). If Olivia realized he was going to back up Parry she would have been left in a difficult position, i.e. if she gave contradictory evidence then her nephew could have been in real trouble. And it wasn't as if other witnesses gave questionable evidence during the inquiry: Close, Lilly Hall, Parry etc.

      Much is made of the way Wallace apparently accumulated alibies during the Qualtrough journey. But what of Parry on the night of the murder? Two and half hours spent with Olivia; the visit to the post office; calling for his accumulator at Hignett's; the visit to Mrs Williamson, before finally arriving at Missouri Road. Isn't this apparent accumulation of multiple alibies on the night of the murder equally suspicious?
      1) I was wrong she's actually on her side not flat on her stomach. That's the initial positioning and it's quite strange actually. She's face down with her head but her body is not flat down. Her right arm is under her body and her left arm over her. Imagine she's lying in bed looking sideways. That kinda thing.

      I do not think William claims to have moved her, so I suppose that is how she is left, with her body on its side. I notice her feet are drawn further away from the kerb than in photos, I'm not sure if that is accurate.

      The jacket I'd think would be more visible in this position because Julia's stomach isn't covering it... The idea it was unrecognizable and hidden etc. seems to be a myth because we know Fred Williams the first officed on the scene noticed it was a raincoat and asked Wallace who confirmed it as his.

      The jacket had not been moved by Wallace he only fingered it.

      2) I think it's legitimate unless proven otherwise. Parry paid Parkes 5 shillings, or about a third of the rent Wallace paid per week to keep his home. That's hush money. Turning up the next day with another man suggests he was just going there to test the waters to see if Parkes had said anything.

      Parry was a very regular visitor to that garage. Even though Parkes didn't necessarily like him Gordon may have considered him a friend - they'd known each other since school. Gordon also thought of the Williamsons as friends though they hated him - he seemed to have a number of one-way friendships. He would go to the garage just to socialize and would often stay very late chatting to Parkes and whoever else was there.

      To have suddenly stopped ever going to the garage is strange and if corroborated (that he stopped attending) I would say backs up that something like what Parkes claimed really happened.

      3) Actually no he wasn't there arranging a birthday party. That was the Williamsons he visited for 10 minutes after Brine's. Gordon never once mentioned his REAL alibi in his entire life. It was only discovered because of the case file being made public. Gordon and his father came up with many different "alibis" when interviewed, but never gave the true one that absolved him of responsibility when interviewed by Goodman etc. who was basically accusing him of murder.

      The "alibis" he or his father claimed absolved him of guilt was arranging a party with the Williamsons, mending his car on Breck Road, or being with Lily. None of these were the real alibi.

      Gordon could not convince a family to furnish him with a fake alibi for murder unless they have a personal vested interest e.g. they are involved. I don't even think they'd do it for money unless VERY desperate because the repercussions for aiding a murderer are severe. Harold is a minor and would not receive such heavy punishment if he made something up.

      However I think they WOULD lie for Gordon if it was necessary to protect a relative, for example if one of Olivia Brine's relatives did this with Gordon. If he had this other relative pose as Qualtrough (and by the way we know by later newspaper reports that Gordon uses "my girl" to mean girlfriend, so if he's the caller he's saying his girlfriend's 21st, not daughter - so a younger man could pose as Qualtrough in their mind) then that would explain it.

      Gordon was not friends with Harold Denison. Parry's friend was the older William Denison, who was also involved in the theatre and dramatics etc. The home of William and Harold Denison is only around a minute away from Olivia's. Harold is apparently at Olivia's, where is William Denison? He was never questioned.

      It seems very strange that Gordon would go and spend three hours with an old lady and two children without seeing his friend who he knows them through (a Phyllis Plant was also there apparently... Who she is I have no idea - how long she stayed there I have no idea - why she was there I have no idea... There is no statement left in the files if she gave one). There is speculation he was visiting Phyllis... Why he is hanging out with her there would still seem strange, surely she has her own home?

      It is odd that he would NOT be with his friend William Denison or even call on his house to see if he's home. It'd be like going and spending 3 hours with your best pal's parents and little brother and not even knocking on your friend's door which is like two blocks away.

      That is strange and it's why I have William Denison as the murderer.

      I suspect the reason he never mentioned his true alibi (Lily Lloyd was even unaware of it seemingly, because when trying to clear Gordon's name to Wilkes she failed to mention it) is because it's false and his friend William Denison is involved in the crime, hence why he managed to get this false alibi.

      4) People should note Gordon told Lily's mother he'd gone to Hignett's (a house not a shop by the way, Hignett sold things through newspaper ads from his home) for a battery for his wireless radio but told police it was a battery for his car.

      If he left the Brine household at 8.30 a normal Post Office would be shut at this time. It would have to have been a mixed sort of shop like the one Wallace visited on Allerton Road - which it was if he bought cigarettes and a newspaper there. I would still want to see when the place shut.

      Usually in those days what would stay open later into the night would be little kiosk type things which sold cigarettes and what not.

      ...

      I'm not sure Gordon was ever at Olivia Brine's house given he went down to the garage and had it powerhosed down and had a mitten in his car etc. it suggests his car was near the scene when the murder took place (near, because cars are so rare parking too close is dangerous).

      If a killer had left the house and escaped they probably wouldn't wait until meeting Gordon to get rid of everything. It would already be gone, down a drain, in a river, in a bush. They're not running home with weapons and such and then giving it to Gordon later in my view. The report that weaponry and such had been shoved down a grid near the house is more likely... I think someone chucked the mitten in that glove box and it was forgotten about or Gordon was panicked/shaken up not paying attention and only realized it was still there when Parkes pulled it out.

      Cars were uncommon so the idea he lent his car to someone becomes less probable because only a small number of people knew how to drive. But it's a possibility.

      ...

      If we are narrowed down to a conspiracy like Gannon's idea or Parry and a friend robbing the joint (which I think we are), then in both cases I don't see the person waiting around covered in blood/with the body for a meeting time with Gordon (if it's a hit) or walking down there and back in a robbery scheme when there is a car available to them.

      Much like how I suspect the weapon would be quickly disposed of, in a hitman scenario I suspect the person would get in, out and AWAY fast too. Not hang about for an unnecessary length of time beyond what's needed to wait for this predetermined 8.30 getaway, nor hang about alleyways chatting to William when there's no need... Especially in terraced housing where you don't know what the neighbours might have heard...

      Wallace could have orchestrated the murder to take place past 8 but then his appointment time for Menlove Gardens is stupid, you'd think he'd want her killed at 7.30 when he's miles away from the house.

      I think Gordon would drive the person to a nearby road, then wait for them (if it's either a hit and he's the getaway driver or if it's a solo robbery by his friend), or go with them if it's a distraction robbery and he's gonna get in through the back.
      Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 06-29-2020, 11:03 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

        1) I was wrong she's actually on her side not flat on her stomach. That's the initial positioning and it's quite strange actually. She's face down with her head but her body is not flat down. Her right arm is under her body and her left arm over her. Imagine she's lying in bed looking sideways. That kinda thing.

        I do not think William claims to have moved her, so I suppose that is how she is left, with her body on its side. I notice her feet are drawn further away from the kerb than in photos, I'm not sure if that is accurate.

        The jacket I'd think would be more visible in this position because Julia's stomach isn't covering it... The idea it was unrecognizable and hidden etc. seems to be a myth because we know Fred Williams the first officed on the scene noticed it was a raincoat and asked Wallace who confirmed it as his.

        The jacket had not been moved by Wallace he only fingered it.

        2) I think it's legitimate unless proven otherwise. Parry paid Parkes 5 shillings, or about a third of the rent Wallace paid per week to keep his home. That's hush money. Turning up the next day with another man suggests he was just going there to test the waters to see if Parkes had said anything.

        Parry was a very regular visitor to that garage. Even though Parkes didn't necessarily like him Gordon may have considered him a friend - they'd known each other since school. Gordon also thought of the Williamsons as friends though they hated him - he seemed to have a number of one-way friendships. He would go to the garage just to socialize and would often stay very late chatting to Parkes and whoever else was there.

        To have suddenly stopped ever going to the garage is strange and if corroborated (that he stopped attending) I would say backs up that something like what Parkes claimed really happened.

        3) Actually no he wasn't there arranging a birthday party. That was the Williamsons he visited for 10 minutes after Brine's. Gordon never once mentioned his REAL alibi in his entire life. It was only discovered because of the case file being made public. Gordon and his father came up with many different "alibis" when interviewed, but never gave the true one that absolved him of responsibility when interviewed by Goodman etc. who was basically accusing him of murder.

        The "alibis" he or his father claimed absolved him of guilt was arranging a party with the Williamsons, mending his car on Breck Road, or being with Lily. None of these were the real alibi.

        Gordon could not convince a family to furnish him with a fake alibi for murder unless they have a personal vested interest e.g. they are involved. I don't even think they'd do it for money unless VERY desperate because the repercussions for aiding a murderer are severe. Harold is a minor and would not receive such heavy punishment if he made something up.

        However I think they WOULD lie for Gordon if it was necessary to protect a relative, for example if one of Olivia Brine's relatives did this with Gordon. If he had this other relative pose as Qualtrough (and by the way we know by later newspaper reports that Gordon uses "my girl" to mean girlfriend, so if he's the caller he's saying his girlfriend's 21st, not daughter - so a younger man could pose as Qualtrough in their mind) then that would explain it.

        Gordon was not friends with Harold Denison. Parry's friend was the older William Denison, who was also involved in the theatre and dramatics etc. The home of William and Harold Denison is only around a minute away from Olivia's. Harold is apparently at Olivia's, where is William Denison? He was never questioned.

        It seems very strange that Gordon would go and spend three hours with an old lady and two children without seeing his friend who he knows them through (a Phyllis Plant was also there apparently... Who she is I have no idea - how long she stayed there I have no idea - why she was there I have no idea... There is no statement left in the files if she gave one). There is speculation he was visiting Phyllis... Why he is hanging out with her there would still seem strange, surely she has her own home?

        It is odd that he would NOT be with his friend William Denison or even call on his house to see if he's home. It'd be like going and spending 3 hours with your best pal's parents and little brother and not even knocking on your friend's door which is like two blocks away.

        That is strange and it's why I have William Denison as the murderer.

        I suspect the reason he never mentioned his true alibi (Lily Lloyd was even unaware of it seemingly, because when trying to clear Gordon's name to Wilkes she failed to mention it) is because it's false and his friend William Denison is involved in the crime, hence why he managed to get this false alibi.

        4) People should note Gordon told Lily's mother he'd gone to Hignett's (a house not a shop by the way, Hignett sold things through newspaper ads from his home) for a battery for his wireless radio but told police it was a battery for his car.

        If he left the Brine household at 8.30 a normal Post Office would be shut at this time. It would have to have been a mixed sort of shop like the one Wallace visited on Allerton Road - which it was if he bought cigarettes and a newspaper there. I would still want to see when the place shut.

        Usually in those days what would stay open later into the night would be little kiosk type things which sold cigarettes and what not.

        ...

        I'm not sure Gordon was ever at Olivia Brine's house given he went down to the garage and had it powerhosed down and had a mitten in his car etc. it suggests his car was near the scene when the murder took place (near, because cars are so rare parking too close is dangerous).

        If a killer had left the house and escaped they probably wouldn't wait until meeting Gordon to get rid of everything. It would already be gone, down a drain, in a river, in a bush. They're not running home with weapons and such and then giving it to Gordon later in my view. The report that weaponry and such had been shoved down a grid near the house is more likely... I think someone chucked the mitten in that glove box and it was forgotten about or Gordon was panicked/shaken up not paying attention and only realized it was still there when Parkes pulled it out.

        Cars were uncommon so the idea he lent his car to someone becomes less probable because only a small number of people knew how to drive. But it's a possibility.

        ...

        If we are narrowed down to a conspiracy like Gannon's idea or Parry and a friend robbing the joint (which I think we are), then in both cases I don't see the person waiting around covered in blood/with the body for a meeting time with Gordon (if it's a hit) or walking down there and back in a robbery scheme when there is a car available to them.

        Much like how I suspect the weapon would be quickly disposed of, in a hitman scenario I suspect the person would get in, out and AWAY fast too. Not hang about for an unnecessary length of time beyond what's needed to wait for this predetermined 8.30 getaway, nor hang about alleyways chatting to William when there's no need... Especially in terraced housing where you don't know what the neighbours might have heard...

        Wallace could have orchestrated the murder to take place past 8 but then his appointment time for Menlove Gardens is stupid, you'd think he'd want her killed at 7.30 when he's miles away from the house.

        I think Gordon would drive the person to a nearby road, then wait for them (if it's either a hit and he's the getaway driver or if it's a solo robbery by his friend), or go with them if it's a distraction robbery and he's gonna get in through the back.
        Thsnks for the comprehensive reply, you obviously have a vast knowledge of the case. I agree It's odd that he failed to give his supposedly cast iron alibi, especially to Goodman. Am I right in thinking that both Olivia Brine and Harold Dennison were still alive when Goodman wrote his book? If so, he would have presumably have attempted ti interview them if Parry presented them as an alibi Did this concern Parry? If the alibi is false, or only partially true, he could have been concerned about what they might say. Maybe there'd been a falling out and he no longer considered them reliable. Or aftersuch a passage of time perhaps he couldn't fully remember what the concocted alibi was-he doesn't seem to have had the best of memories!

        I remember reading somewhere a theory that was proposed, whereby Parry kept giving false alibis, and hints that he knew more than he was letting on, out of a sense of mischievousness, or that he was happy to cultivate a "bad boy" image, knowing that in the final analysis he was protected by his "cast iron" alibi. However, this seems very far-fetched to me.

        I don't know much about William Dennison. Doesn't Gannon mention him? I've bought his book but have only had the time to skim through it. However, you present an interesting theory, and it certainly would explain why Olivia and Harold would alibi Parry, i.e. on the basis that he was involved in a conspiracy with William. William could possibly have been Qualtrough on account of his amateur dramatics training, however, I still consider Parry to be by far the most likely candidate, especially as he gave a false alibi for the night of the call.

        Incidentally, McFall's time of death cannot be remotely relied on. It's certainly possible that Julia could have been killed much later, say, after 8:00pm. On that basis I reckon Parry could have been directly involved, i.e. on the basis that the Brine alibi was partially true, but he left significantly earlier than he claimed, say, 7:30-7:45 before driving over to Wolverton Street.



        Last edited by John G; 06-29-2020, 05:30 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by John G View Post

          Thsnks for the comprehensive reply, you obviously have a vast knowledge of the case. I agree It's odd that he failed to give his supposedly cast iron alibi, especially to Goodman. Am I right in thinking that both Olivia Brine and Harold Dennison were still alive when Goodman wrote his book? If so, he would have presumably have attempted ti interview them if Parry presented them as an alibi Did this concern Parry? If the alibi is false, or only partially true, he could have been concerned about what they might say. Maybe there'd been a falling out and he no longer considered them reliable. Or aftersuch a passage of time perhaps he couldn't fully remember what the concocted alibi was-he doesn't seem to have had the best of memories!

          I remember reading somewhere a theory that was proposed, whereby Parry kept giving false alibis, and hints that he knew more than he was letting on, out of a sense of mischievousness, or that he was happy to cultivate a "bad boy" image, knowing that in the final analysis he was protected by his "cast iron" alibi. However, this seems very far-fetched to me.

          I don't know much about William Dennison. Doesn't Gannon mention him? I've bought his book but have only had the time to skim through it. However, you present an interesting theory, and it certainly would explain why Olivia and Harold would alibi Parry, i.e. on the basis that he was involved in a conspiracy with William. William could possibly have been Qualtrough on account of his amateur dramatics training, however, I still consider Parry to be by far the most likely candidate, especially as he gave a false alibi for the night of the call.

          Incidentally, McFall's time of death cannot be remotely relied on. It's certainly possible that Julia could have been killed much later, say, after 8:00pm. On that basis I reckon Parry could have been directly involved, i.e. on the basis that the Brine alibi was partially true, but he left significantly earlier than he claimed, say, 7:30-7:45 before driving over to Wolverton Street.


          1) I THINK the Denisons were alive even when Wilkes aired I believe. If so, odd they never made any comment when they supposedly can prove him innocent. Olivia was alive when Goodman did his interview I think. I would need to check these things.

          2) Gannon mentions William as being Gordon's friend and the link between him and Olivia Brine etc.

          ...

          The case is just heinous in difficulty. Though I WILL get it solved.

          I realize now how bad that back door is. If even the maid can't get in sometimes then that is one BROKEN-ASS door. And I have someone coming in the back after Julia lets them go to the bathroom in my idea. I'm not actually 100% sure they'd get in anymore.

          Julia would definitely have followed the guest out if he needed the bathroom and probably waited in the middle kitchen or back kitchen because of how god-awful the door is. If she went back in the parlour she'd know her guest could be trapped in the yard lol...

          What if the PLAN was they expected Julia to wait in the parlour and the "Qualtrough" guy could rob the place solo (no Gordon in the back) but it failed because she followed him due to the terrible door. Then he might just wack her and take the cash after they go back into the parlour because the plan hasn't worked, maybe he eyed the box as he went through the kitchen and back, told where to expect it by Gordon.

          But then contend with the lack of blood on handles and the cash box and such. Bloodstained notes would be useless so the person would have to take the cash in a way that avoided that if they really cared about the money. Yes. Also Wallace, the neighbours, and many others put their fingers all over everything.

          But still I can't figure that out right now I'm gonna need to get expert opinion from people familiar with crime scene investigation.

          ...

          I don't see anyone fudging an hour for Gordon that's beyond an honest mistake. I don't see them helping at all if they believe he's a murderer without personal interest in doing so. Even Lily Lloyd didn't fudge much for him and she was madly in love with him.

          Ada Cooke said Gordon's parents were friendly with her own and they begged for help smuggling Gordon out of the country. She said her parents had a huge argument because I think her mom wanted to help them while her dad would not and in the end her dad won.

          The idea Gordon is messing with Parkes etc by purposefully making himself seem guilty is ridiculous as hell. His dad also claimed false alibis, it's not just Gordon. It's also not the type of crime you'd want to be associated with carrying out, battering a frail innocent old lady to death.
          Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 06-29-2020, 07:54 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

            1) I THINK the Denisons were alive even when Wilkes aired I believe. If so, odd they never made any comment when they supposedly can prove him innocent. Olivia was alive when Goodman did his interview I think. I would need to check these things.

            2) Gannon mentions William as being Gordon's friend and the link between him and Olivia Brine etc.

            ...

            The case is just heinous in difficulty. Though I WILL get it solved.

            I realize now how bad that back door is. If even the maid can't get in sometimes then that is one BROKEN-ASS door. And I have someone coming in the back after Julia lets them go to the bathroom in my idea. I'm not actually 100% sure they'd get in anymore.

            Julia would definitely have followed the guest out if he needed the bathroom and probably waited in the middle kitchen or back kitchen because of how god-awful the door is. If she went back in the parlour she'd know her guest could be trapped in the yard lol...

            What if the PLAN was they expected Julia to wait in the parlour and the "Qualtrough" guy could rob the place solo (no Gordon in the back) but it failed because she followed him due to the terrible door. Then he might just wack her and take the cash after they go back into the parlour because the plan hasn't worked, maybe he eyed the box as he went through the kitchen and back, told where to expect it by Gordon.

            But then contend with the lack of blood on handles and the cash box and such. Bloodstained notes would be useless so the person would have to take the cash in a way that avoided that if they really cared about the money. Yes. Also Wallace, the neighbours, and many others put their fingers all over everything.

            But still I can't figure that out right now I'm gonna need to get expert opinion from people familiar with crime scene investigation.

            ...

            I don't see anyone fudging an hour for Gordon that's beyond an honest mistake. I don't see them helping at all if they believe he's a murderer without personal interest in doing so. Even Lily Lloyd didn't fudge much for him and she was madly in love with him.

            Ada Cooke said Gordon's parents were friendly with her own and they begged for help smuggling Gordon out of the country. She said her parents had a huge argument because I think her mom wanted to help them while her dad would not and in the end her dad won.

            The idea Gordon is messing with Parkes etc by purposefully making himself seem guilty is ridiculous as hell. His dad also claimed false alibis, it's not just Gordon. It's also not the type of crime you'd want to be associated with carrying out, battering a frail innocent old lady to death.
            Thanks for the reply. Yes, I agree, it's very unlikely Parry would have been winding Parkes' up, especially as the consequences of implicating himself could have been severe. As you suggest, it would also be a pretty disturbed/ sick thing to have done.

            I've just been re-reading Olivia Brine's statement. She says, " just before last Christmas he [Parry] commenced calling on me with my nephew William Denison." She therefore mentions William, but somewhat strangely, she fails to mention why he didn't accompany Parry on the evening in question.

            CCJ in his book also points out that there is identical wording in the salient part of the statements of Brine and Dennison. They both say, " He remained till about 8:30 when he left."

            This I find very odd. It's as if the wording had been rehearsed. Moreover, by saying "about 8:30% they were both clearly estimating his time of departure. Strange then that they confidentially give the exact same estimated time.

            CCJ also points out that the police should have interviewd Savona Brine, Phyllis Plant, the Hignetts and post office staff and Mrs Williamson. But it appears they did not. This suggests to me that they were just going through the motions, convinced of William's guilt. If so, they may not have questioned Olivia and Harold as closely as they perhaps should have.
            Last edited by John G; 06-29-2020, 08:51 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by John G View Post

              Thanks for the reply. Yes, I agree, it's very unlikely Parry would have been winding Parkes' up, especially as the consequences of implicating himself could have been severe. As you suggest, it would also be a pretty disturbed/ sick thing to have done.

              I've just been re-reading Olivia Brine's statement. She says, " just before last Christmas he [Parry] commenced calling on me with my nephew William Denison." She therefore mentions William, but somewhat strangely, she fails to mention why he didn't accompany Parry on the evening in question.

              CCJ in his book also points out that there is identical wording in the salient part of the statements of Brine and Dennison. They both say, " He remained till about 8:30 when he left."

              This I find very odd. It's as if the wording had been rehearsed. Moreover, by saying "about 8:30% they were both clearly estimating his time of departure. Strange then that they confidentially give the exact same estimated time.

              CCJ also points out that the police should have interviewd Savona Brine, Phyllis Plant, the Hignetts and post office staff and Mrs Williamson. But it appears they did not. This suggests to me that they were just going through the motions, convinced of William's guilt. If so, they may not have questioned Olivia and Harold as closely as they perhaps should have.
              In a robbery the issue with the timing is that they might assume Wallace to be at Menlove Gardens at 7.30. They might roughly know the tram journey time, but essentially the ideal time to turn up would be a little before 7.30.

              Much later and you're increasing the risk Wallace returns home before the job is done. You'd want to strike ideally right as he's arriving at Menlove Avenue.

              So anything roughly around 8.30 would be incredibly dangerous in terms of timing. If you assume he finds out very shortly after he gets to the Gardens that he's been duped, he's going to be home by about 7.55 (his journey from his back door to Menlove Gardens West was 25 minutes).

              I'd expect a burglar to turn up at 7.30 or a little before like 7.20.

              They don't need to stake him out. Just knock and the door and ask if he's home. If yes, make an excuse and leave. No crime. If no, carry out the robbery.

              I do not think Antony (CCJ) can say they weren't interviewed. The police files have been heavily pruned to save space over the years. Unless some document officially states they were not interviewed, I think the statements have just been lost/pruned.

              Like Marsden's statement.

              Using the exact same wording does seem rehearsed, is it possible police just wrote it down that way ignoring their specific words? If you had all four statements and they all used the same exact line that'd be very bizarre.

              In the newspapers years after, a detective said Parry was able to produce 6 people he'd been with. So I assume they mean his movements were verified by 6 people. I guess all four at Brine's house, Lily Lloyd and Lily's mother (actually we have her statement and her mother's so we know they have those two).

              Maybe two at Brine's, Lily and her mother, then Walter Hignett and Williamson? Either way, six was the claim.

              Regarding Parkes statement I actually find Slemen's "Stan"'s testimony far more compelling. Stan's testimony about the missing cat requires very deep obscure knowledge of the case - he even gave the cat's name. It's mentioned in passing once in Goodman's book and in one newspaper report as a footnote. It's so obscure that I think it came from somewhere.

              Be it the rumour mill from the time of the murder I don't know... I don't have a clue who could come up with a story like that with such intimate knowledge of the case, and such novel inventive use of some trivial detail almost always glossed over and ignored.

              To invent a story about Gordon coming in with a mitten, you don't need intimate knowledge of the case... I don't think it is invented though... I don't think anyone corroborated that he stopped ever going to that garage after that day, but if they did that would be very damning that SOMETHING happened considering he was such a regular.

              It's difficult reconciling a seemingly impossible to invent testimony about an obscure overlooked detail, with Parkes' story which is also seemingly accurate. Another caller to Wilkes said she heard a rumour the murder weapon was dropped down a grid, which is where Parkes also claims he was told it was put... Where the other called heard this rumour I'd be interested to know.

              Comment


              • #22
                There seems to have been a definite rumour about the murder weapon being dropped down a grid. Gannon refers to Ada Cook's signed statement given ro Thomas Brady She stated: "I heard, I don't know where from, thar the murder implement wss dropped down a grid near the Clubmoor Cinema where Lily worked.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Parkes said that Parry admitted disposing of an iron bar outside a doctor's on Priory Road. According to the Inner City Living site there were two doctors practising on Priory Road at the time. There were grids outside both which were never searched.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by John G View Post
                    There seems to have been a definite rumour about the murder weapon being dropped down a grid. Gannon refers to Ada Cook's signed statement given ro Thomas Brady She stated: "I heard, I don't know where from, thar the murder implement wss dropped down a grid near the Clubmoor Cinema where Lily worked.
                    That's right that's who I refer to, and the Clubmoor Cinema is at the bottom of Priory Road which is where Parkes claims the grid was. I wonder if the rumour originated from Parkes and reached Ada through the grapevine. Or if Parkes heard it from someone else and just added it to his story.

                    Gannon's map doesn't mark Priory Road but it's the one above the triangular plot of land where the cinema is. Also that triangular plot of land is where the call box was.

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot_20200630-085658_WhatsApp.jpg
Views:	58
Size:	202.2 KB
ID:	736792

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by John G View Post
                      Parkes said that Parry admitted disposing of an iron bar outside a doctor's on Priory Road. According to the Inner City Living site there were two doctors practising on Priory Road at the time. There were grids outside both which were never searched.
                      Was the second doctor not Dr. Dunlop's surgery? That's right by the cinema.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                        Was the second doctor not Dr. Dunlop's surgery? That's right by the cinema.
                        According to the Inner City Living site there were two doctors practising on Priory Road in 1931: Dr George Thomson Bogle at number 111 and, ironically, Dr Louis Curwen at number 9, Wallace's own doctor. Number 9 is described on the site as being near the Cabbage Hall triangle, and therefore the logical option. Dr Curwen also had a practice in Anfield Road.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by John G View Post

                          According to the Inner City Living site there were two doctors practising on Priory Road in 1931: Dr George Thomson Bogle at number 111 and, ironically, Dr Louis Curwen at number 9, Wallace's own doctor. Number 9 is described on the site as being near the Cabbage Hall triangle, and therefore the logical option. Dr Curwen also had a practice in Anfield Road.
                          Yeah it's just now I see Ada Cooke said NEAR the cinema. Parkes said Priory Road. It's probably Curwen then... Bogle is right up north of that road, a killer wants to get rid of the thing fast, I'm not sure they'd go allll the way up Priory Road. I can easier buy it being Curwen's.

                          I would update my site as I've claimed it as Dunlop's surgery as I thought Ada said OUTSIDE the cinema, but I only have a mobile right now so it's cumbersome.

                          Some other things I just found through a friend. It's on Radio City but surprisingly I haven't actually bothered to listen because I only have 3 of the 4 parts (uploaded to my site) and I feel really bad about that so I've only listened to Parkes speaking. If anyone has the call-in segment of the show PLEASE send it to me.

                          Gordon Atkinson I am told corroborared Parry never went back to the garage (they never saw him again). He also corroborated Parkes had mentioned Parry going there for a powerclean on the murder night which is two corroborations. But him never returning, THAT is very condemning.

                          If none of this car wash stuff happened, why would Parry stop turning up? He's a very regular visitor. Not just to wash his car, but also for social visits. He'd stay into the early hours chatting. Then he just abruptly stops visiting the place ever. That is damning.

                          Dolly Atkinson also says Gordon claimed he was washing the car for a "friend". THAT is something else I buy more than the modern Parkes statement given in the 80s, because that must have been what Parkes had relayed to them at the time. The story he told at the time I believe would be the most accurate.

                          I'm not sure if any of Gordon's friends could drive, but if so he could have lent his car. Driving was a rare skill then however, and anyone who could drive I assume would have their own car. So I think his car is near the murder scene, and then Brine's alibi is false, and then WHY is it false?

                          ...

                          Stan's testimony gives me issue but it did not go directly to Slemen it is from Keith Andrews who has a very bad reputation for being a bit of a James Murphy (often lying and falsifying things)... All Slemen's claims I have checked are true, the ones he himself I think got from the files. That testimony came to him through Keith though...

                          I'd say work with the framework of Parry involved, likely with another man, and that will resolve the case.

                          The two pieces of actual evidence against Wallace are discredited: First the raincoat which is claimed to have been worn by himself, all forensic experts I have hired and even McFall said the perpetrator would get blood on them. McFall was reluctant to admit it but Oliver cornered him into admitting blood would be on the killer's hair, face, hands, lower trouser legs. McFall could only then try to minimize the amount...

                          But essentially I am told by experts there is no way the raincoat shield would work, in any iteration including naked Wallace underneath, they don't think the markings on the jacket are even consistent with what would be expected.

                          The other evidence is Lily Hall. Her statement evolved over time. If this is a hit-job, Wallace will want his killer to commit the crime when he himself is as far away as possible. So think 7.30, his appointment time, as ideal.

                          His killer would get in and out. In an isolated countryside property maybe not so much, but in terraced housing this woman has admitted him, probably made small talk, then he's bashed her skull into the ground. I personally would feel VERY paranoid to then sit there with the body for an hour for no reason for a set time of 8.30 when I can leave. I would feel VERY paranoid to see or talk to Wallace. I would get in, do it, and get the F*CK away from there as soon as possible.

                          By the description it sounds like the other man was a young boy, he was short and wore a cap. I don't think adults wore caps back then. Maybe she saw Wallace as this other man was walking by and Wallace and this man never spoke

                          Whatever the case I rather question the other man is a killer or anyone involved. They're not going to want to hang about near a murder scene - ESPECIALLY the killer who we have determined would have blood upon him. They want to be far away. And why would WALLACE need to chat to the guy, if the job's done his wife is dead. That's it...

                          ...

                          Then you come to his knocking and this is very strange. If that man was his killer, why is he knocking? He knows his wife is dead inside and he just saw his hired gun leave. It is sheer luck the Johnstons heard him knock... If he wanted to be noticed he would've made sure he was heard.

                          However to do this he's placing a LOT of trust in his hired gun. He's searching for witnesses before he himself has even entered the property. What if his killer left incriminating evidence? That takes a massive amount of trust. If I'd done this and had a hitman, I'd make sure I'm noticed a little before getting home (e.g. on the final tram), and enter my house through the front door just to make sure everything's right. Then rush out for neighbours. I think that's safer.

                          In any case I don't think Lily Hall's testimony is likely to be accurate based on the fact Wallace would want this job done earlier and I can't imagine any killer or involved party hanging round the streets by a murder scene to........... do what exactly? Tell Wallace "it's done"? Why?

                          The car would already be ready and waiting for the escape when the killer goes to the house, the killer would be in and out FAST. Weapons would be disposed of FAST. No lingering sprayed with blood. It's kind of crazy.

                          ...

                          So I have to say with solo Wallace forensically not possible, Parry almost definitely involved, and Lily Hall's sighting inaccurate - and the "gentle" and "ordinary" (according to Florence Johnston) door knocking act for absolutely nobody when he knows his wife is dead inside... I think you have to consider the man to be innocent.

                          In any case the Brine alibi is questionable at best, and the fact it only ever came out in the case files is suggestive.

                          So I have to stick to Parry and a relative of Olivia Brine. I don't imagine them lying for a random friend of a nephew who isn't even there, especially if you have reason to suspect he's a murderer... If you're Parry and need a false alibi, why go to your close friend's aunt begging rather than ask your friend. Why not tell your girlfriend who is in love with you that she has to pretend you were with her all day. Why Olivia Brine? That doesn't add up. The alibi itself seems odd when Parry's friend William Denison's house is about 2 blocks away and Parry did not even call on him.

                          So yeah I'm working with that still, thinking it through in depth like that.

                          It's possible a solo robbery was attempted by Denison, where the two men assumed Julia would stay in the parlour while he went to the bathroom but DIDN'T. And is then stuck there in the parlour with her, he wants the money, there's no other way to get it, the plan has failed.

                          Or a distraction robbery which is possible but could fail due to the completely broken back door.
                          Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 06-30-2020, 11:46 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                            Yeah it's just now I see Ada Cooke said NEAR the cinema. Parkes said Priory Road. It's probably Curwen then... Bogle is right up north of that road, a killer wants to get rid of the thing fast, I'm not sure they'd go allll the way up Priory Road. I can easier buy it being Curwen's.

                            I would update my site as I've claimed it as Dunlop's surgery as I thought Ada said OUTSIDE the cinema, but I only have a mobile right now so it's cumbersome.

                            Some other things I just found through a friend. It's on Radio City but surprisingly I haven't actually bothered to listen because I only have 3 of the 4 parts (uploaded to my site) and I feel really bad about that so I've only listened to Parkes speaking. If anyone has the call-in segment of the show PLEASE send it to me.

                            Gordon Atkinson I am told corroborared Parry never went back to the garage (they never saw him again). He also corroborated Parkes had mentioned Parry going there for a powerclean on the murder night which is two corroborations. But him never returning, THAT is very condemning.

                            If none of this car wash stuff happened, why would Parry stop turning up? He's a very regular visitor. Not just to wash his car, but also for social visits. He'd stay into the early hours chatting. Then he just abruptly stops visiting the place ever. That is damning.

                            Dolly Atkinson also says Gordon claimed he was washing the car for a "friend". THAT is something else I buy more than the modern Parkes statement given in the 80s, because that must have been what Parkes had relayed to them at the time. The story he told at the time I believe would be the most accurate.

                            I'm not sure if any of Gordon's friends could drive, but if so he could have lent his car. Driving was a rare skill then however, and anyone who could drive I assume would have their own car. So I think his car is near the murder scene, and then Brine's alibi is false, and then WHY is it false?

                            ...

                            Stan's testimony gives me issue but it did not go directly to Slemen it is from Keith Andrews who has a very bad reputation for being a bit of a James Murphy (often lying and falsifying things)... All Slemen's claims I have checked are true, the ones he himself I think got from the files. That testimony came to him through Keith though...

                            I'd say work with the framework of Parry involved, likely with another man, and that will resolve the case.

                            The two pieces of actual evidence against Wallace are discredited: First the raincoat which is claimed to have been worn by himself, all forensic experts I have hired and even McFall said the perpetrator would get blood on them. McFall was reluctant to admit it but Oliver cornered him into admitting blood would be on the killer's hair, face, hands, lower trouser legs. McFall could only then try to minimize the amount...

                            But essentially I am told by experts there is no way the raincoat shield would work, in any iteration including naked Wallace underneath, they don't think the markings on the jacket are even consistent with what would be expected.

                            The other evidence is Lily Hall. Her statement evolved over time. If this is a hit-job, Wallace will want his killer to commit the crime when he himself is as far away as possible. So think 7.30, his appointment time, as ideal.

                            His killer would get in and out. In an isolated countryside property maybe not so much, but in terraced housing this woman has admitted him, probably made small talk, then he's bashed her skull into the ground. I personally would feel VERY paranoid to then sit there with the body for an hour for no reason for a set time of 8.30 when I can leave. I would feel VERY paranoid to see or talk to Wallace. I would get in, do it, and get the F*CK away from there as soon as possible.

                            By the description it sounds like the other man was a young boy, he was short and wore a cap. I don't think adults wore caps back then. Maybe she saw Wallace as this other man was walking by and Wallace and this man never spoke

                            Whatever the case I rather question the other man is a killer or anyone involved. They're not going to want to hang about near a murder scene - ESPECIALLY the killer who we have determined would have blood upon him. They want to be far away. And why would WALLACE need to chat to the guy, if the job's done his wife is dead. That's it...

                            ...

                            Then you come to his knocking and this is very strange. If that man was his killer, why is he knocking? He knows his wife is dead inside and he just saw his hired gun leave. It is sheer luck the Johnstons heard him knock... If he wanted to be noticed he would've made sure he was heard.

                            However to do this he's placing a LOT of trust in his hired gun. He's searching for witnesses before he himself has even entered the property. What if his killer left incriminating evidence? That takes a massive amount of trust. If I'd done this and had a hitman, I'd make sure I'm noticed a little before getting home (e.g. on the final tram), and enter my house through the front door just to make sure everything's right. Then rush out for neighbours. I think that's safer.

                            In any case I don't think Lily Hall's testimony is likely to be accurate based on the fact Wallace would want this job done earlier and I can't imagine any killer or involved party hanging round the streets by a murder scene to........... do what exactly? Tell Wallace "it's done"? Why?

                            The car would already be ready and waiting for the escape when the killer goes to the house, the killer would be in and out FAST. Weapons would be disposed of FAST. No lingering sprayed with blood. It's kind of crazy.

                            ...

                            So I have to say with solo Wallace forensically not possible, Parry almost definitely involved, and Lily Hall's sighting inaccurate - and the "gentle" and "ordinary" (according to Florence Johnston) door knocking act for absolutely nobody when he knows his wife is dead inside... I think you have to consider the man to be innocent.

                            In any case the Brine alibi is questionable at best, and the fact it only ever came out in the case files is suggestive.

                            So I have to stick to Parry and a relative of Olivia Brine. I don't imagine them lying for a random friend of a nephew who isn't even there, especially if you have reason to suspect he's a murderer... If you're Parry and need a false alibi, why go to your close friend's aunt begging rather than ask your friend. Why not tell your girlfriend who is in love with you that she has to pretend you were with her all day. Why Olivia Brine? That doesn't add up. The alibi itself seems odd when Parry's friend William Denison's house is about 2 blocks away and Parry did not even call on him.

                            So yeah I'm working with that still, thinking it through in depth like that.

                            It's possible a solo robbery was attempted by Denison, where the two men assumed Julia would stay in the parlour while he went to the bathroom but DIDN'T. And is then stuck there in the parlour with her, he wants the money, there's no other way to get it, the plan has failed.

                            Or a distraction robbery which is possible but could fail due to the completely broken back door.
                            I would be grateful if you could provide a link to your website-I had it previously but seem to have lost it-as it looked to be an extremely useful resource.

                            I believe Parkes account as far as it implicates Parry. He may have exaggerated, misrememberered certain things, or even got a little confused at times, but this is to be expected after almost 50 years. However, I don't believe he's going to forget Parry incriminating himself, or going to the police. I wish I could find the link to the Dolly Atkinson broadcast, which was posted on hear some time a go. She was a lot more vague as to her recollections, but she confirmed that Parkes came forward at the time-it wasn't a story he just invented 50 years later-and also gave him a powerful character reference: she was clearly fond of the lad, and she had no doubt he was telling the truth. This is important because jo one today knew Parkes in the 1930s, so are in no position to judge.

                            I accept your argument concerning the unliklihood of Brine giving Parry a false alibi, but agree that it is suspicious William Dennison wasn't present-I also think it odd that he stayed over 3 hours. Moreover, his failure to refer to the "cast iron" alibi, even to Goodman-instead choosing to lie- is highly suspicious. I don't think he wanted those witnesses questioned by any investigator. The question is why?

                            Wallace is a hopeless candidate. The forensic evidence rules him out, and your expert has confirmed this. Also I just don't think he had enough time to complete all the ingredients of the crime.

                            And what did he do with the murder weapon? It couldn't have been hidden in the house because it was thoroughly searched. He's not going to leave the house wielding a heavily blood stained iron bar, because that's got to look suspicious!

                            If he puts it into a bag then I would expect the blood to seep through, creating a huge problem. Plus, if he's seen, how does he explain the bag? He can't carry it under his jacket because the jacket will then be heavily stained. Additionally, he would have to hold it in place, so his arm would be in an unnatural position, again suspicious.

                            And where did he hide it? He has to get rid of it before he reaches the tram, so gis options are severely limited. And the neighbourhood was extensively searched.

                            Micheal Banks in his essay on CCJ's site suggests that he might have found an unlocked gate and dumped the weapon. But this would be trusting to look, would be crazily reckless-if he's seen he's done for (in fact, I don't see how he could explain being anywhere that is not on route to the tram stop), and it would be almost certainly found.

                            Michael Banks also questions why he continued for so long on his quest to find Menlove Gardens East. I don't see this as a problem. Once he's decided to visit Qualtrough he's crossed the Rubican. He has to explore all possibilities because otherwise he has to admit he's totally wasted his evening. Moreover, two locals informed him that it might be a continuation of Menlove Gardens West, giving him hope it might exit. Eventually he calls at 25 Menlove Gardens West but it's the wrong address (I think have was always likely to try this option, i.e. he had originally written down "West" before being corrected; and he might have thought the address had originally been written down wrongly.

                            I think it extremely likely that the Qualtrough call is connected to the murder. Beattie confirmed that it wasn't Wallace who made the call, however, it could have been Parry. Parry lied about his alibi for the time of the call, had a history of making prank calls (according to Parkes), and could have altered his voice on account of his theatrical training.

                            I dont, however, see Wallace conspiring with Parry. I don't think he would have trusted him, and ge must have realised he was an extremely bad criminal, on account of the fact he kept getting caught! Perhaps the sort of hopeless criminal who would stupidly confess his involvement to Parkes and then regret it!

                            However, I don't think Parry was evil, and he seemed genuinely fond of Julia. I therefore don't think he would have been involved in a plan to murder her, but a robbery gone wrong in which she's murdered by an accomplice...

                            Maybe the guilt of what happened simply overwhelmed him, thus promoting his Parkes' confession.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by John G View Post

                              I would be grateful if you could provide a link to your website-I had it previously but seem to have lost it-as it looked to be an extremely useful resource.

                              I believe Parkes account as far as it implicates Parry. He may have exaggerated, misrememberered certain things, or even got a little confused at times, but this is to be expected after almost 50 years. However, I don't believe he's going to forget Parry incriminating himself, or going to the police. I wish I could find the link to the Dolly Atkinson broadcast, which was posted on hear some time a go. She was a lot more vague as to her recollections, but she confirmed that Parkes came forward at the time-it wasn't a story he just invented 50 years later-and also gave him a powerful character reference: she was clearly fond of the lad, and she had no doubt he was telling the truth. This is important because jo one today knew Parkes in the 1930s, so are in no position to judge.

                              I accept your argument concerning the unliklihood of Brine giving Parry a false alibi, but agree that it is suspicious William Dennison wasn't present-I also think it odd that he stayed over 3 hours. Moreover, his failure to refer to the "cast iron" alibi, even to Goodman-instead choosing to lie- is highly suspicious. I don't think he wanted those witnesses questioned by any investigator. The question is why?

                              Wallace is a hopeless candidate. The forensic evidence rules him out, and your expert has confirmed this. Also I just don't think he had enough time to complete all the ingredients of the crime.

                              And what did he do with the murder weapon? It couldn't have been hidden in the house because it was thoroughly searched. He's not going to leave the house wielding a heavily blood stained iron bar, because that's got to look suspicious!

                              If he puts it into a bag then I would expect the blood to seep through, creating a huge problem. Plus, if he's seen, how does he explain the bag? He can't carry it under his jacket because the jacket will then be heavily stained. Additionally, he would have to hold it in place, so his arm would be in an unnatural position, again suspicious.

                              And where did he hide it? He has to get rid of it before he reaches the tram, so gis options are severely limited. And the neighbourhood was extensively searched.

                              Micheal Banks in his essay on CCJ's site suggests that he might have found an unlocked gate and dumped the weapon. But this would be trusting to look, would be crazily reckless-if he's seen he's done for (in fact, I don't see how he could explain being anywhere that is not on route to the tram stop), and it would be almost certainly found.

                              Michael Banks also questions why he continued for so long on his quest to find Menlove Gardens East. I don't see this as a problem. Once he's decided to visit Qualtrough he's crossed the Rubican. He has to explore all possibilities because otherwise he has to admit he's totally wasted his evening. Moreover, two locals informed him that it might be a continuation of Menlove Gardens West, giving him hope it might exit. Eventually he calls at 25 Menlove Gardens West but it's the wrong address (I think have was always likely to try this option, i.e. he had originally written down "West" before being corrected; and he might have thought the address had originally been written down wrongly.

                              I think it extremely likely that the Qualtrough call is connected to the murder. Beattie confirmed that it wasn't Wallace who made the call, however, it could have been Parry. Parry lied about his alibi for the time of the call, had a history of making prank calls (according to Parkes), and could have altered his voice on account of his theatrical training.

                              I dont, however, see Wallace conspiring with Parry. I don't think he would have trusted him, and ge must have realised he was an extremely bad criminal, on account of the fact he kept getting caught! Perhaps the sort of hopeless criminal who would stupidly confess his involvement to Parkes and then regret it!

                              However, I don't think Parry was evil, and he seemed genuinely fond of Julia. I therefore don't think he would have been involved in a plan to murder her, but a robbery gone wrong in which she's murdered by an accomplice...

                              Maybe the guilt of what happened simply overwhelmed him, thus promoting his Parkes' confession.
                              If Parry has a pal do this with him I wonder if it's been considered that Gordon's friend spoke to the cafè people and Gordon just put the call through because he knew the phone number and name of the place etc.

                              Doesn't seem that way in my opinion... but in a scenario with more people than simply Wallace and/or Gordon it seems smart. Maybe less important if it's supposed to be a robbery...

                              Gladys Harley at the cafè heard operator speaking to the caller - something about him being told to insert two pennies. So I'm curious when the voice changed from normal, Liverpudlian and well-spoken, to gruff strong confident and elderly.

                              I do think William could have taken clothing away wrapped up in his briefcase. The officers combed his route for weaponry etc. They never bothered checking anywhere else nearby, just his own possible route. I guess that is the point at which they knew they were going to make sure they charge this man.

                              I can by the way see William conspiring with Gordon. He can't ask a totally law-abiding citizen to go murder his wife. You'd have to be asking someone dodgy lol. I'm shocked Gordon would partake without a strong personal motive e.g. exposure of homosexuality... There were a few reports written that Wallace was a gay man and Parry was bisexual or something of that nature.

                              You can find my site here:

                              https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/

                              I have the entire crime scene colourized now including the exteriors. And all the main "characters" who I have photos of.

                              I have one full dialogue with a forensic expert on there, she is a student with a phd who has worked live homicide cases with police forces. The current expert is more senior, as said he's the forensic consultant for CSI the TV show lol. I will put his dialogue up once we have reached a conclusion.

                              ...

                              Parkes testimony, I am surprised neither Gordon Atkinson nor Dolly specifically said they heard about the bloodied mitten or iron bar. They seemed to have heard he'd been there in an agitated state to get his car cleaned claiming he was doing it for a friend.

                              I will have to listen to the radio city thing now. It is on my site I just am heartbroken I am missing a part. Rod Stringer ought to have it somewhere but he does not talk to me.
                              Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 06-30-2020, 10:35 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                                If Parry has a pal do this with him I wonder if it's been considered that Gordon's friend spoke to the cafè people and Gordon just put the call through because he knew the phone number and name of the place etc.

                                Doesn't seem that way in my opinion... but in a scenario with more people than simply Wallace and/or Gordon it seems smart. Maybe less important if it's supposed to be a robbery...

                                Gladys Harley at the cafè heard operator speaking to the caller - something about him being told to insert two pennies. So I'm curious when the voice changed from normal, Liverpudlian and well-spoken, to gruff strong confident and elderly.

                                I do think William could have taken clothing away wrapped up in his briefcase. The officers combed his route for weaponry etc. They never bothered checking anywhere else nearby, just his own possible route. I guess that is the point at which they knew they were going to make sure they charge this man.

                                I can by the way see William conspiring with Gordon. He can't ask a totally law-abiding citizen to go murder his wife. You'd have to be asking someone dodgy lol. I'm shocked Gordon would partake without a strong personal motive e.g. exposure of homosexuality... There were a few reports written that Wallace was a gay man and Parry was bisexual or something of that nature.

                                You can find my site here:

                                https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/

                                I have the entire crime scene colourized now including the exteriors. And all the main "characters" who I have photos of.

                                I have one full dialogue with a forensic expert on there, she is a student with a phd who has worked live homicide cases with police forces. The current expert is more senior, as said he's the forensic consultant for CSI the TV show lol. I will put his dialogue up once we have reached a conclusion.

                                ...

                                Parkes testimony, I am surprised neither Gordon Atkinson nor Dolly specifically said they heard about the bloodied mitten or iron bar. They seemed to have heard he'd been there in an agitated state to get his car cleaned claiming he was doing it for a friend.

                                I will have to listen to the radio city thing now. It is on my site I just am heartbroken I am missing a part. Rod Stringer ought to have it somewhere but he does not talk to me.
                                Thanks for the link, much appreciated. At the trial Gladys Harley described the voice as an "ordinary voice", whereas Beattie said it was, "strong and rather gruff."

                                Beattie also said that he knew Menlove Gardens West, so was familiar with the general area. He also consulted another member who was from Allerton, called Deyes. Therefore if Wallace had any involvement with the call he was taking a big risk: Beattie or Deyes could have said Menlove Gardens East doesn't exit, or they could have consulted a map.

                                During the trial Superintendent Moore confined there had veen an extensive search for the murder weapon. They searched the drains, all the streets, and the nearby wasteland off Richmond Park.

                                If Wallace puts anything blood stained into his briefcase then presumably the briefcase, and any papers he puts into the briefcase, would presumably be blood stained. And I assume the briefcase was searched.



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X