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

[John G]

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.

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

[John G]

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.

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

[John G]

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.

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

[John G]

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.



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?

[WallaceWackedHer]

her body thus adopting the position in which she was originally found by Wallace and the Johnstons: on her side; her right arm hidden underneath her body, her left arm resting across her chest and feet on their sides, slightly apart, toes pointing to the window.

Oh that's quite major... I need to think on this.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, fair points, particularly about the hair being ripped and the cardigan torn, which I was unaware of.

It also appears that the body had been moved by the police prior to the photo being taken. Mr Johnstone, under oath at the trial, was asked to look at the photographs. He remarked, when asked, "Is that how she was lying?" "No, she was not like that when I went in; there was no mackintosh when I was there."

Mrs Johnstone commented, " It [the mackintosh] was almost hidden under the body, you see."

She subsequently agreed with Roland Oliver that Julia may have thrown the mackintosh over her shoulders to answer the door.

I agree that Lily Hall's statement is questionable, particularly as it's difficult to imagine a scenario in which Wallace, who seemed to have few if any close friends, would conspire with anyone. Put simply, who exactly would he have been prepared to trust?

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.



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.

[John G]

I don't think it went on the coat on purpose and Julia was moved by her hair and cardigan most likely. Her hair was ripped out and there's a tear in the back of her cardigan. There's a bruise on her inner arm on one side too, said to be recent. The blood on Julia's body was on the front.

She's a dead weight. Heavy. I think they've just dropped her down away from the fireplace and it happened to be on the jacket. Maybe chucked her legs out of the fender away from the fire.

We actually know her body to very likely have been moved because she went into the fire apparently and that's not how we find her. Unless those skirt burns are incidental and it doesn't seem so.

Moving her was necessary because her skirt had caught light.

Julia was free of blood on the back of her body which is interesting and maybe telling in some way. Of course it was on the back of her head but Parry we see of Parkes is accurate had one glove. So there's evidence of covered hands involved.

Whoever did this would have been soaked in blood, there's no getting away from it. No clever mac shield would have saved them. Whether it be Wallace or a hitman. They have blood on them.

...

In any case even if this is a hit I heavily question Lily Hall's statement.

I don't see a hitman going in and lingering around with a dead body until some special set meeting time of the argument is that he had already got away and returned to see Wallace. For what purpose could this even be? If the job's done Wallace's going to find out about 20 paces later. And especially - since we know the killer is sprayed with blood - I can't imagine him standing around chatting.

He'd go in, kill her, and get out as soon as possible and be GONE.

Lily Hall's statement changed dramatically over time. Originally she never said she saw the men part. I see a possibility Wallace and a random stranger crossed paths without speaking a word to each other. From the description the other man sounds like a little boy (he was short and had a cap on, juvenile fashion at the time). Maybe nothing to do with this whatsoever.

I would rather buy a hit job without her sighting playing a part.

I ALSO don't see a hitman lingering for the getaway car with an arranged time with GORDON. Seems wholly unnecessary. Any killer as said is going to want to get in, and get out and AWAY as soon as possible and never come back. If Gordon is a getaway driver more likely I see him driving the guy down to a road nearby and waiting at the car. Cars were very rare so you couldn't park close to the road or it'd be obvious... The guy would go in then get out and rush back to the car and they're away.

That's how I'd imagine a hit job going.

No bizarre "okay go in the house, kill my wife in the bloodiest way possible, then stay there - though you don't know if neighbours heard suspicious noises and reported it - and only come out at 8.30ish and then come chat to me in plain view while you're covered in blood and meet Gordon who will come collect you."

How utterly recklessly dangerous for the killer in such a scenario.

Yes, fair points, particularly about the hair being ripped and the cardigan torn, which I was unaware of.

It also appears that the body had been moved by the police prior to the photo being taken. Mr Johnstone, under oath at the trial, was asked to look at the photographs. He remarked, when asked, "Is that how she was lying?" "No, she was not like that when I went in; there was no mackintosh when I was there."

Mrs Johnstone commented, " It [the mackintosh] was almost hidden under the body, you see."

She subsequently agreed with Roland Oliver that Julia may have thrown the mackintosh over her shoulders to answer the door.

I agree that Lily Hall's statement is questionable, particularly as it's difficult to imagine a scenario in which Wallace, who seemed to have few if any close friends, would conspire with anyone. Put simply, who exactly would he have been prepared to trust?

[WallaceWackedHer]

That is, of course, a possible scenario. However, placing Julia's body on top of the coat, thereby handling the heavily bloodstained body, would presumably have left the assailant covered in blood. My question is therefore the same as before: why take such an unnecessary risk, when the coat could simply have been discarded anywhere in the room?

Amazing news about the Houston summit. Please keep us updated, as I would be very interested to hear the expert's forensic analysis.

I don't think it went on the coat on purpose and Julia was moved by her hair and cardigan most likely. Her hair was ripped out and there's a tear in the back of her cardigan. There's a bruise on her inner arm on one side too, said to be recent. The blood on Julia's body was on the front.

She's a dead weight. Heavy. I think they've just dropped her down away from the fireplace and it happened to be on the jacket. Maybe chucked her legs out of the fender away from the fire.

We actually know her body to very likely have been moved because she went into the fire apparently and that's not how we find her. Unless those skirt burns are incidental and it doesn't seem so.

Moving her was necessary because her skirt had caught light.

Julia was free of blood on the back of her body which is interesting and maybe telling in some way. Of course it was on the back of her head but Parry we see of Parkes is accurate had one glove. So there's evidence of covered hands involved.

Whoever did this would have been soaked in blood, there's no getting away from it. No clever mac shield would have saved them. Whether it be Wallace or a hitman. They have blood on them.

...

In any case even if this is a hit I heavily question Lily Hall's statement.

I don't see a hitman going in and lingering around with a dead body until some special set meeting time of the argument is that he had already got away and returned to see Wallace. For what purpose could this even be? If the job's done Wallace's going to find out about 20 paces later. And especially - since we know the killer is sprayed with blood - I can't imagine him standing around chatting.

He'd go in, kill her, and get out as soon as possible and be GONE.

Lily Hall's statement changed dramatically over time. Originally she never said she saw the men part. I see a possibility Wallace and a random stranger crossed paths without speaking a word to each other. From the description the other man sounds like a little boy (he was short and had a cap on, juvenile fashion at the time). Maybe nothing to do with this whatsoever.

I would rather buy a hit job without her sighting playing a part.

I ALSO don't see a hitman lingering for the getaway car with an arranged time with GORDON. Seems wholly unnecessary. Any killer as said is going to want to get in, and get out and AWAY as soon as possible and never come back. If Gordon is a getaway driver more likely I see him driving the guy down to a road nearby and waiting at the car. Cars were very rare so you couldn't park close to the road or it'd be obvious... The guy would go in then get out and rush back to the car and they're away.

That's how I'd imagine a hit job going.

No bizarre "okay go in the house, kill my wife in the bloodiest way possible, then stay there - though you don't know if neighbours heard suspicious noises and reported it - and only come out at 8.30ish and then come chat to me in plain view while you're covered in blood and meet Gordon who will come collect you."

How utterly recklessly dangerous for the killer in such a scenario.

[John G]

I've always felt it was obvious the jacket was thrown down and stamped out and Julia's body was then dumped on top of it. No planned move to have it hidden under her, she just happened to be dumped on top of it in that way.

I've always felt Julia was put on top of the jacket as opposed to the jacket being put under Julia.

For the record this expert wishes to present this case at an AAFS summit in February next year in Houston. They get an hour to present a historic case in front of an audience of experts from around the country.

That is, of course, a possible scenario. However, placing Julia's body on top of the coat, thereby handling the heavily bloodstained body, would presumably have left the assailant covered in blood. My question is therefore the same as before: why take such an unnecessary risk, when the coat could simply have been discarded anywhere in the room?

Amazing news about the Houston summit. Please keep us updated, as I would be very interested to hear the expert's forensic analysis.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Thanks. This case is certainly proving to be complicated from a forensic perspective.

There are some interesting exchanges between Roland Oliver and McFall. For example:

Oliver: "Suppose it [the coat] was round her shoulders and she collapsed, do you not see the possibility of the bottom of the mackintosh falling into the fire and getting burned too?"

McFall: "There is the possibility."

Oliver also questioned McFall about the mackintosh being pushed under the shoulders, and whether that would hsve left the assailant "heavily dabbled with bloood", i.e. as the shoulders were lifted up and the mackintosh placed underneath.

The apparent placement of the mackintosh under the body by the assailant certainly seems a strange thing to have done (and a completely crazy thing for Wallace to have done if he was the assailant). I mean, what purpose did it serve? Why take the risk of being covered in blood?

I do wonder if it could have ended up in that position on the basis of Julia draping the coat over her shoulders, i e. as she went to answer the door, before being struck and falling to the ground. I wonder how this works from a forensic perspective.

I've always felt it was obvious the jacket was thrown down and stamped out and Julia's body was then dumped on top of it. No planned move to have it hidden under her, she just happened to be dumped on top of it in that way.

I've always felt Julia was put on top of the jacket as opposed to the jacket being put under Julia.

For the record this expert wishes to present this case at an AAFS summit in February next year in Houston. They get an hour to present a historic case in front of an audience of experts from around the country.

[John G]

An item from the home may have been grabbed by a killer during an unplanned attack, i.e. in the case it is something like a distraction robbery scenario where the attack was unforeseen.

The piece of iron referenced was straight and relatively small. Desribed as 12" by 1". Enough to do the damage but it appears to have been present, just lost behind the fireplace by the day of the murder.

The bar could potentially have been wrapped in the jacket or any fabric although I am told if the jacket had been on Julia's head during any of the hits there would likely be damage to the material, I imagine hiding whatever you killed the woman with to be beneficial in any case.

Any killer who had touched something from the house without gloves would be forced to take that with him e.g. if it had been the iron bar.

There were two pokers the larger of which was still in the living kitchen when Draper arrived. The other poker appears to be present there by the fire.

With all three things present the only item confirmed missing is the dog lash but Wallace claimed it hadn't been seen for 12 months (along with something else like a wood chopper they found under the stairs). So it goes to an item brought by the attacker or an item nobody knew was missing or which was protected during the attack by fabric or something.

An item being brought by the perpetrator is more indicative of a planned attack.

As for the skirt burning I see it noted on trial that it was the bottom part of the skirt whereas Gannon says the groin. I have noted factual errors in Gannon's book however... MAJOR ones which can change the entire opinion of the verdict... So I would cross check every claim... Roland Oliver seems to imply the bottom front.

Another Gannon or Goodman claim is that the burns are from three vertical beams on the gas fire. But there are no such beams? The trial and appeal trial notes consistency with contact with the fireclays which means the top front part (the fake coals on the Sunbeam which is the brand of their fireplace).

Oliver's series of events gains credibility with the new facts. Julia stooping to the fire possibly to the gas tap or having just lit it when struck or shoved. Her skirt going into the main portion of the fire... As one possibility...

More forensic analysis is needed I think. I need to know if Julia was lighting the fire or doing the tap or anything like that.

I also need to know if the lounger was sat on by anyone before the photo was taken. It appears someone had been sitting or reclining there by the set up of the cushions. One is actually shoved down into a little crevice there you'll notice.

You will note what I presume to be her usual seat - the armchair - was not used - which you can tell by the case being across the arms. But there is a chair near the sideboard. I do not expect that was its usual place? But we can ascertain if she had a visitor she probably had just one she admitted. Unless two men sat on the lounger.

Perhaps the attacker was sat on the lounger as Julia did the fire even.

I also need to know the orientation of Julia's head when hit. If she is facing the fire it is at odds with her being threatened or hearing a sound from the kitchen etc. Unless it was a shove

Thanks. This case is certainly proving to be complicated from a forensic perspective.

There are some interesting exchanges between Roland Oliver and McFall. For example:

Oliver: "Suppose it [the coat] was round her shoulders and she collapsed, do you not see the possibility of the bottom of the mackintosh falling into the fire and getting burned too?"

McFall: "There is the possibility."

Oliver also questioned McFall about the mackintosh being pushed under the shoulders, and whether that would hsve left the assailant "heavily dabbled with bloood", i.e. as the shoulders were lifted up and the mackintosh placed underneath.

The apparent placement of the mackintosh under the body by the assailant certainly seems a strange thing to have done (and a completely crazy thing for Wallace to have done if he was the assailant). I mean, what purpose did it serve? Why take the risk of being covered in blood?

I do wonder if it could have ended up in that position on the basis of Julia draping the coat over her shoulders, i e. as she went to answer the door, before being struck and falling to the ground. I wonder how this works from a forensic perspective.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Yes, I agree. The bar makes no sense as a murder weapon, and a poker was still present, so it couldn't have been that.

Thus, from the perspective of a killer other than Wallace, why use the bar? To begin with, they would risk getting caught when it was initially removed-it had been missing for some time. Moreover, why try and hide it on the premises, where it might have been discovered, rather than simply taking it with them when they left, and then disposing of it in a more secure location. Moreover, Sarah Draper doesn't actually describe it as a bar, she refers to a "piece of iron", so as a murder weapon it could have been cumbersome to wield.


From Wallace's perspective, he could simply have used a household implement, such as the poker, which he wouldn't have needed to remove or hide: when his fingerprints were found on it he simply says, "of course they are, it's my poker, I've used hundreds of times!" He could then argue that the actual perpetrator must have used gloves. Or with any luck, Parry may have used it during his many visits, thus potentially implicating him.

An item from the home may have been grabbed by a killer during an unplanned attack, i.e. in the case it is something like a distraction robbery scenario where the attack was unforeseen.

The piece of iron referenced was straight and relatively small. Desribed as 12" by 1". Enough to do the damage but it appears to have been present, just lost behind the fireplace by the day of the murder.

The bar could potentially have been wrapped in the jacket or any fabric although I am told if the jacket had been on Julia's head during any of the hits there would likely be damage to the material, I imagine hiding whatever you killed the woman with to be beneficial in any case.

Any killer who had touched something from the house without gloves would be forced to take that with him e.g. if it had been the iron bar.

There were two pokers the larger of which was still in the living kitchen when Draper arrived. The other poker appears to be present there by the fire.

With all three things present the only item confirmed missing is the dog lash but Wallace claimed it hadn't been seen for 12 months (along with something else like a wood chopper they found under the stairs). So it goes to an item brought by the attacker or an item nobody knew was missing or which was protected during the attack by fabric or something.

An item being brought by the perpetrator is more indicative of a planned attack.

As for the skirt burning I see it noted on trial that it was the bottom part of the skirt whereas Gannon says the groin. I have noted factual errors in Gannon's book however... MAJOR ones which can change the entire opinion of the verdict... So I would cross check every claim... Roland Oliver seems to imply the bottom front.

Another Gannon or Goodman claim is that the burns are from three vertical beams on the gas fire. But there are no such beams? The trial and appeal trial notes consistency with contact with the fireclays which means the top front part (the fake coals on the Sunbeam which is the brand of their fireplace).

Oliver's series of events gains credibility with the new facts. Julia stooping to the fire possibly to the gas tap or having just lit it when struck or shoved. Her skirt going into the main portion of the fire... As one possibility...

More forensic analysis is needed I think. I need to know if Julia was lighting the fire or doing the tap or anything like that.

I also need to know if the lounger was sat on by anyone before the photo was taken. It appears someone had been sitting or reclining there by the set up of the cushions. One is actually shoved down into a little crevice there you'll notice.

You will note what I presume to be her usual seat - the armchair - was not used - which you can tell by the case being across the arms. But there is a chair near the sideboard. I do not expect that was its usual place? But we can ascertain if she had a visitor she probably had just one she admitted. Unless two men sat on the lounger.

Perhaps the attacker was sat on the lounger as Julia did the fire even.

I also need to know the orientation of Julia's head when hit. If she is facing the fire it is at odds with her being threatened or hearing a sound from the kitchen etc. Unless it was a shove