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

[WallaceWackedHer]

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.

Indeed but Gladys described it as an elderly man too. It's not clear whether she means the voice ITSELF sounded elderly in quality, or if the way he spoke gave that impression (e.g. we know he spoke rather upper class: cafè with the accented "e" and such).

I have searched extensively for two things but turned nothing up:

Firstly Wallace's accent. Hemmerde references a faked "accent" on the unabridged form of the trial but whether he means literal accent (i.e. Liverpool accent) or as a manner of speaking to mean the voice in general, I cannot ascertain.

The Liverpool accent was also very different at the time... But if Wallace had a Yorkshire accent that was clearly different from a local man (which my knowledge of historic accents does not allow me to determine), then the operators you'd imagine would have picked up on this fact. Neither defence nor prosecution pursued this matter. Wilkes interviewed the operators who never brought up anything about, for example, noticing a regional accent... One of the operators to Wilkes said hearing Wallace's voice during the trial she could not have sworn it was the same man - which is again joyfully ambiguous like everything.

Secondly, the briefcase...

I have found zero reference to anyone seeing him with a briefcase or having one when he came back. Nobody seems to have mentioned it. I have the Kindle forms of Goodman, Gannon etc. so I've used the search function and turned up nothing. Nor in Wyndham Brown's trial text in PDF format, again the search turns up no matches for briefcase.

This is quite ridiculous because of course if he went OUT with a briefcase and returned without one that's like, proof of guilt type stuff. He gathered papers for his trip to conduct business, you'd assume it was checked that he in fact did this. Another point neither prosecution nor defence touched.

Nobody ever asked Wallace if he had to unlock the back kitchen door with his key or if he tried it then found it already unlocked and simply bolted. He used "locked against me" referencing both doors but it seems he means it in the ambiguous sense, because of course he had his own key and it seems was simply unable to get in - claiming he believes the doors were bolted.

...

If this case had facts laid out straight, no ambiguous statements or mistakes in the facts, just pure clarity and questioning the things that really matter, I don't suppose it would be nearly as difficult. The investigation done on this case at the time as well as the ensuing trial was poor... Very, very poor... There's no close up photos of blood staining just the useless single clot on the upstairs toilet... Imagine being at a murder scene and taking only five photos inside (four in the same two rooms and one in the kitchen where the robbery is meant to have taken place). That's absolutely pathetic, something worthy of a firing.

Where's the "disturbed" spare room for example?... Though hardly "disturbed" or even "staged", it sounds totally ordinary... Two pillows kind of stacked by the fireplace on the window side, the "bed clothing" (bedsheets) semi off the mattress across the fireplace. That's it judging by Hubert Moore.

Sadly I don't have the witness statements given to the police as I have not as of yet been to see the police files. I have contacted Hill Dickenson for the solicitor files but received no response during the COVID pandemic.

Because of serious errors by many authors in the translation of documents I have photographed to text, the mixing of fact with rumour/assumption, and MOST annoyingly paraphrasing (like seriously WRITE THE WHOLE STATEMENT AS IT APPEARS) it is nearly impossible to discern what exactly was said by pretty much anyone. Simple differences in even single words can change everything, so there's no room for messing about like that... I really do want/need those original statements...

[John G]

Indeed but Gladys described it as an elderly man too. It's not clear whether she means the voice ITSELF sounded elderly in quality, or if the way he spoke gave that impression (e.g. we know he spoke rather upper class: cafè with the accented "e" and such).

I have searched extensively for two things but turned nothing up:

Firstly Wallace's accent. Hemmerde references a faked "accent" on the unabridged form of the trial but whether he means literal accent (i.e. Liverpool accent) or as a manner of speaking to mean the voice in general, I cannot ascertain.

The Liverpool accent was also very different at the time... But if Wallace had a Yorkshire accent that was clearly different from a local man (which my knowledge of historic accents does not allow me to determine), then the operators you'd imagine would have picked up on this fact. Neither defence nor prosecution pursued this matter. Wilkes interviewed the operators who never brought up anything about, for example, noticing a regional accent... One of the operators to Wilkes said hearing Wallace's voice during the trial she could not have sworn it was the same man - which is again joyfully ambiguous like everything.

Secondly, the briefcase...

I have found zero reference to anyone seeing him with a briefcase or having one when he came back. Nobody seems to have mentioned it. I have the Kindle forms of Goodman, Gannon etc. so I've used the search function and turned up nothing. Nor in Wyndham Brown's trial text in PDF format, again the search turns up no matches for briefcase.

This is quite ridiculous because of course if he went OUT with a briefcase and returned without one that's like, proof of guilt type stuff. He gathered papers for his trip to conduct business, you'd assume it was checked that he in fact did this. Another point neither prosecution nor defence touched.

Nobody ever asked Wallace if he had to unlock the back kitchen door with his key or if he tried it then found it already unlocked and simply bolted. He used "locked against me" referencing both doors but it seems he means it in the ambiguous sense, because of course he had his own key and it seems was simply unable to get in - claiming he believes the doors were bolted.

...

If this case had facts laid out straight, no ambiguous statements or mistakes in the facts, just pure clarity and questioning the things that really matter, I don't suppose it would be nearly as difficult. The investigation done on this case at the time as well as the ensuing trial was poor... Very, very poor... There's no close up photos of blood staining just the useless single clot on the upstairs toilet... Imagine being at a murder scene and taking only five photos inside (four in the same two rooms and one in the kitchen where the robbery is meant to have taken place). That's absolutely pathetic, something worthy of a firing.

Where's the "disturbed" spare room for example?... Though hardly "disturbed" or even "staged", it sounds totally ordinary... Two pillows kind of stacked by the fireplace on the window side, the "bed clothing" (bedsheets) semi off the mattress across the fireplace. That's it judging by Hubert Moore.

Sadly I don't have the witness statements given to the police as I have not as of yet been to see the police files. I have contacted Hill Dickenson for the solicitor files but received no response during the COVID pandemic.

Because of serious errors by many authors in the translation of documents I have photographed to text, the mixing of fact with rumour/assumption, and MOST annoyingly paraphrasing (like seriously WRITE THE WHOLE STATEMENT AS IT APPEARS) it is nearly impossible to discern what exactly was said by pretty much anyone. Simple differences in even single words can change everything, so there's no room for messing about like that... I really do want/need those original statements...

Thanks for the website link, it's an excellent resource, particularly as regards the crime scene photos and the Court of Appeal transcript-I was surprised how much detail it contained, I'd always assumed it was just a brief hearing.

Regarding the Roger Wilkes interview, recollections from half a century ago should be considered with caution; I don't believe someone could remember what a voice sounded like, after that length of time, particularly if the conversation was brief. This is an issue for Parkes as well, of course, but I don't think he'd forget about Parry seriously incriminating himself, otherwise why report the incident to the Atkinsons. From memory I don't think Dolly Atkinson confirms that they went to the police, which is frustrating.

I think Wallace would have to be crazy to put a blood stained weapon into the briefcase, resulting in inevitable soiling to the case and documents. It is frustrating that witnesses don't seem to have confirmed whether he had the briefcase with him and, as you say, if he did have it on the tram, and he doesnt have it when he returns, his fate his pretty much sealed, so a crazy risk to take.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Thanks for the website link, it's an excellent resource, particularly as regards the crime scene photos and the Court of Appeal transcript-I was surprised how much detail it contained, I'd always assumed it was just a brief hearing.

Regarding the Roger Wilkes interview, recollections from half a century ago should be considered with caution; I don't believe someone could remember what a voice sounded like, after that length of time, particularly if the conversation was brief. This is an issue for Parkes as well, of course, but I don't think he'd forget about Parry seriously incriminating himself, otherwise why report the incident to the Atkinsons. From memory I don't think Dolly Atkinson confirms that they went to the police, which is frustrating.

I think Wallace would have to be crazy to put a blood stained weapon into the briefcase, resulting in inevitable soiling to the case and documents. It is frustrating that witnesses don't seem to have confirmed whether he had the briefcase with him and, as you say, if he did have it on the tram, and he doesnt have it when he returns, his fate his pretty much sealed, so a crazy risk to take.

The version of the trial on my site is also much fuller than Wyndham Brown's version just so you know, Wyndham Brown omitted a lot of stuff, it's basically an abridged version.

The way Wilkes quotes the interviewed operator, she is speaking in the contemporary fashion, as in when she at the time heard Wallace's voice on trial she realized she couldn't have sworn it was the man she spoke to. It was never expanded upon, he never asked her what she meant and whether she thought it sounded very different from or similar to the voice, etc.

[John G]

Deleted

[WallaceWackedHer]

It seems "InACityLiving" is incorrect about the doctor's addresses. Curwen is at 111 Priory Road, Bogle is at 9 Priory Road, so I think if Parkes' statement is fully accurate, the bar was down the grid outside Dr. Bogle's house.

[John G]

It seems "InACityLiving" is incorrect about the doctor's addresses. Curwen is at 111 Priory Road, Bogle is at 9 Priory Road, so I think if Parkes' statement is fully accurate, the bar was down the grid outside Dr. Bogle's house.

Thanks for this. With this case everything needs to be double checked!

interestingly, Parkes claimed to have spoken to Parry in the early hours of the morning, just about the only period he's not alibied for!

[WallaceWackedHer]

I transcribed the Dolly and Gordon Atkinson conversation on Wilkes' radio show. I'm not sure they verify what Parkes said except that the car was washed. They don't mention weapons or mittens. Dolly is basically rambling yes, you can listen yourself she's hard to make out but that's why her quote sounds messed.

Rod made the claim the men turned up day after. Parkes does not say this from what I can tell. The radio host says Parry turned up with another man "some time later". Parkes says "suddenly". There is no mention I can see that it was the very next day.

Dolly Atkinson:

“I remember that Mr. Parkes told me that and my husband that he had to wash the car, and that he said well you should go to the police, so he said oh no he said you’ve got to wash that car, I insist you wash that car you see. I hadn’t seen the car but I know that he told me that. It was the morning yes, the morning after… yes, before he went home from work. I saw Pukka [John Parkes] every morning, like, he was just like a friend to us all. And then he told Wilf as well that it had happened. He wouldn’t make up such a story as that, we had known him for years… He [Gordon Parry] must have done it because he wouldn’t have come and asked a car to be washed to a friend, and make him wash it, and wash everything that got the blood on. No. And I say that it was him [Gordon] that did it.”

Gordon Atkinson:

“This particular account of the Wallace case was told me by not only my father, but my uncles, and anyone who was associated with him in that time, and it was discussed quite openly. as far as I’m concerned everybody knew about it… Unfortunately my father died 18 months ago, and as far as I’m concerned he definitely wouldn’t have made that sort of a story up, it would be fact, as far as I’m concerned.”