** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[Herlock Sholmes]

They didn’t find Curwen or Wilson or Mather in alehouses and flophouses. It’s just a desperate attempt to dismiss the inconvenient.

Ive asked this before but no one has ever provided a list of all of these people who claimed the Wallace’s were happy. We can discount Wallace’s customers of course. This leaves a very small list and most of those only saw them occasionally at Wolverton Street where the Wallace’s were hardly going show any discontent in public. It’s become the accepted image of the ‘happy couple’ as per William.

Happy, contented William’s diary entries:


[Jan 8 Sunday: Feeling of depression. Cannot settle.]

[Jan 16 Monday: Nerves and temperament.]

[Mar 19 Monday: Had a day of deep depression, cold on kidney.]

[Mar 29 Thursday: Invalid for years a great worry and care.]

[Apr 10 Tuesday: Dislike of work job uncongenial.]

[Aug 17 Monday: 51st Birthday, little to show for 50 odd years.]

[March 3rd: Wallace ill and feeling depressed.]

[Oct. 24th: Reference to Mental trouble.]

So why worry about a life hereafter which has no meaning for me. > is he think “we’ll if there’s no hell”



Yet his defence claimed that his marriage was almost idyllic and William had nothing to be unhappy about. So if we add Wallace’s own words to the words of Curwen, Wilson and Mather (and even the Doctor that wrote to Antony Brown) we can see that it was far from a fact that William was entirely happy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hmmm... Let's see.

I DON'T claim to know better than the Trial Judge, and the Judges of Appeal

That was 90 years ago and irrelevant to now. By that reasoning anyone found guilty by a court of law 90 years ago simply can’t have been innocent.

I DON'T claim to know better even than the Prosecution !!!

Hemmerde was human. Unless you know otherwise

I DO understand the Law

Of course you do. You’re a legend in your own mind.

I DO understand the difference between Evidence, and mere Prejudice and Fancy

Evidently not. You have a theory. It is your opinion based on your interpretation of what’s known. That does not equate to case closed. It’s very simple.

I DO use Abductive Reasoning, instead of Superstition

No. You use ego and bias. You believe that if something is your opinion then it must be true.

I DO know how NOT to make a public ass of myself

Thats why you’ve been banned from forum after forum. You were even suspended from Wikipedia.

And I never, ever, flounce

Yawn...

Flounce?

I just don’t want to go back down the rabbit-hole of your humongous ego. It’s boring to hear you going through the same tired old routine. The ‘yawns,’ the childish attempts at boasting about how much money you allegedly have. Debating with a petulant toddler is boring.

[jmenges]

Is it that time of year again already?
Sneaks up on you.
Wallace thread peeps- simmer down.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is it that time of year again already?
Sneaks up on you.
Wallace thread peeps- simmer down.

JM

[barnflatwyngarde]

Is it that time of year again already?
Sneaks up on you.
Wallace thread peeps- simmer down.

JM

Absolutely Mod!

It's enough to make you want to pick up a poker.

[RodCrosby]

You were even suspended from Wikipedia.

Yep, most newbies are, until they figure out "them's the [byzantine] rules"...

It was THIRTEEN years ago, FFS...

What . a . sad . little . stalker . you . are ...

And I don't boast. But if you try your hopeless beta attempts to diss me, I'll simply hand you your ass with the facts.

So don't go there?

[ColdCaseJury]

Absolutely Mod!

It's enough to make you want to pick up a poker.

Or even an iron bar!

Is there a compelling piece of evidence for you that points to Wallace's guilt?

I have to say - trying to be objective as I can - Russell's arguments were not as good as his narrative. He relied heavily on Murphy and inherits some of the same mistakes. For example, that the caller was the killer. That was only "generally accepted" in the 20th century. Also, he dismisses important objections too easily. I see no rational grounds in his book to dismiss Lily Hall, for example. On a subject close to Herlock's heart, Russell also suggests that Parry might have misled the police about his whereabouts at the time of the call because he was with another woman. True, that would be uncomfortable for him in 1931 when he was dating Lily Lloyd, but in 1966 when he was interviewed by Goodman? How come he didn't come clean then? Why was he so evasive, especially when he knew Wallace had pointed the finger of suspicion at him?

Also, as I point out in my second edition, Russell (and he is not alone) completely overlooks the bloodstains on the floor, the most important by the armchair, and modern forensic analysis. It is worthy of The Second Stain... I hope that is enough of a tease!

AMB

[jmenges]

Yep, most newbies are, until they figure out "them's the [byzantine] rules"...

It was THIRTEEN years ago, FFS...

What . a . sad . little . stalker . you . are ...

And I don't boast. But if you try your hopeless beta attempts to diss me, I'll simply hand you your ass with the facts.

So don't go there?

FFS don’t ignore me.
As that just pisses me off.

JM

[Abby Normal]

FFS don’t ignore me.
As that just pisses me off.

JM

yeah me neither you guys! your too busy sniping to answer my noob question about Parry being cleared! In the immortal words of Glenn close-I will not be ignored! : )

So Ill ask again-whats the evidence that recently(?) clears parry of the actual murder-was it discovery of a new strong alibi or something?

[RodCrosby]

yeah me neither you guys! your too busy sniping to answer my noob question about Parry being cleared! In the immortal words of Glenn close-I will not be ignored! : )

So Ill ask again-whats the evidence that recently(?) clears parry of the actual murder-was it discovery of a new strong alibi or something?

No offence. But this is a complex case, with some confusion propagated for many years.
Some evidence was not released until quite late in the day, leading several - including Goodman and Wilkes - slightly astray from the Correct Solution.

The evidence can be found in Murphy's book [2001], in Antony's book, and in my monograph [linked in my signature, below]

Kind Regards

[Herlock Sholmes]

yeah me neither you guys! your too busy sniping to answer my noob question about Parry being cleared! In the immortal words of Glenn close-I will not be ignored! : )

So Ill ask again-whats the evidence that recently(?) clears parry of the actual murder-was it discovery of a new strong alibi or something?

From Parry’s police statement Abby:

On Tuesday [20 January 1931], I finished business at 5:30pm and called upon Mrs Brine, 43 Knoclaid Road. I remained there with Mrs Brine, her daughter Savona (13 years old), her nephew Harold Denison, until about 8:30pm. I then went out and bought some cigarettes – Players No. 3 – and the Evening Express from the post office in Maiden Lane, on the way to my young lady’s house. When I was turning the corner by the post office I remembered I had promised to call for my accumulator at Hignetts in West Derby Road. I went there and got my accumulator and then went down West Derby Road and along to Mrs Williamson, of 49 Lisburn Lane, and saw her. We had a chat about a 21st birthday party for about 10 minutes, and then I went to 7 Missouri Road, and remained there till about 11pm to 11:30pm, when I went home.

…….

So for Parry to have required his car cleaning for blood the accomplice would have had to have met up with Parry soon after the murder and wet with blood (or it wouldn’t have transferred to the car requiring a wash) Where would this planned meeting have taken place with Parry not leaving the Brine’s until around 8.30 then going to the Post Office, then to Hignetts, then to the Williamson’s then to Missouri Road?

Then we have Parry acting perfectly normally at his Girlfriend’s house for up to 2 hours? Showing no rush to go and get his car cleaned and not concerned at having found that he was now be implicated in a murder with a part share in paltry £5 after expecting a pile of cash.

Parry also, for some inexplicable reason, retains a bloodied mitten (because when you’re planning a robbery and you know that you’ll be grabbing pound notes from a cash box a fingerless glove is ideal of course) He’s also dumped the weapon but holds on to this most incriminating piece of evidence and not only that he leaves it plain view where Parkes can’t fail to find it. Why not dump the glove with the weapon? He then all but coughs up to the murder, tells Parkes that he’s dumped the weapon and after putting his life in Parkes hands not once does he say “I’d rather you didn’t tell anyone about all this old chap.”

Really?

[RodCrosby]

Of course, Parry's middle-three "alibis" are entirely unsupported and implausible, and, moreover, display clear markers of deception, which were generally and independently confirmed by several papers published in 2013 [on what to look for, in deceptive statements].

So what was Parry really doing, and why the lies?

Not rocket-science, when abductive reasoning places these facts together with the rest of the available evidence....

[RodCrosby]

The evidence can be found in Murphy's book [2001]...

Although Murphy was too dim to spot it, wrapped-up as he was with his crazed obsession of Wallace's guilt, and how the bumbling, piffling chess schedule was some kind of "Rosetta Stone" to the case...

Murphy went to my school.

I don't remember him. "B" stream material, at best....

[Abby Normal]

From Parry’s police statement Abby:

On Tuesday [20 January 1931], I finished business at 5:30pm and called upon Mrs Brine, 43 Knoclaid Road. I remained there with Mrs Brine, her daughter Savona (13 years old), her nephew Harold Denison, until about 8:30pm. I then went out and bought some cigarettes – Players No. 3 – and the Evening Express from the post office in Maiden Lane, on the way to my young lady’s house. When I was turning the corner by the post office I remembered I had promised to call for my accumulator at Hignetts in West Derby Road. I went there and got my accumulator and then went down West Derby Road and along to Mrs Williamson, of 49 Lisburn Lane, and saw her. We had a chat about a 21st birthday party for about 10 minutes, and then I went to 7 Missouri Road, and remained there till about 11pm to 11:30pm, when I went home.

…….

So for Parry to have required his car cleaning for blood the accomplice would have had to have met up with Parry soon after the murder and wet with blood (or it wouldn’t have transferred to the car requiring a wash) Where would this planned meeting have taken place with Parry not leaving the Brine’s until around 8.30 then going to the Post Office, then to Hignetts, then to the Williamson’s then to Missouri Road?

Then we have Parry acting perfectly normally at his Girlfriend’s house for up to 2 hours? Showing no rush to go and get his car cleaned and not concerned at having found that he was now be implicated in a murder with a part share in paltry £5 after expecting a pile of cash.

Parry also, for some inexplicable reason, retains a bloodied mitten (because when you’re planning a robbery and you know that you’ll be grabbing pound notes from a cash box a fingerless glove is ideal of course) He’s also dumped the weapon but holds on to this most incriminating piece of evidence and not only that he leaves it plain view where Parkes can’t fail to find it. Why not dump the glove with the weapon? He then all but coughs up to the murder, tells Parkes that he’s dumped the weapon and after putting his life in Parkes hands not once does he say “I’d rather you didn’t tell anyone about all this old chap.”

Really?

Thanks Herlock!

I went back and found this by CCJ recent post.

now we know that the police file shows that Gordon Parry was alibied by Olivia Brine and not Lily Lloyd (as he originally believed).

so does this evidence prove Parry could not have commited the actual murder??

[ColdCaseJury]

Thanks Herlock! I went back and found this by CCJ recent post. so does this evidence prove Parry could not have commited the actual murder??

Abby, it doesn't prove Parry was innocent of the killing. However, what grounds do we have for dismissing the alibi? I suggest we would need a very strong case against Parry such that it outweighed the evidential value of Brine's statement. So, for example, if two eyewitnesses saw Parry in Wolverton Street at 6:50pm and 7:20pm, we would then have good grounds to reject the alibi.