** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[moste]

Caz , it sounds one sided to me. I requested help with the solicitors scribble, and was promptly told there were seed potatoes to get into the ground.

[caz]

She's right, you know, moste.

We always are.

[ColdCaseJury]

Another book published on the Wallace case... but don't get excited. It is a reprint of the Final Verdict by Roger Wilkes, re-branded as The Wallace Case: Britain's Most Baffling Unsolved Murder. Nevertheless, it has a brand new introduction, so I was curious to see what Wilkes would say about his theory (Parry) now we know that the police file shows that Gordon Parry was alibied by Olivia Brine and not Lily Lloyd (as he originally believed). And, drum roll, he states that the prima facie case against Parry remains as strong today as it did in 1981. And that is almost all he says. This is hugely disappointing. The prima facie case against Parry was undermined with the release of the police files. Wilkes still believes the police files were "weeded" but how can we know that? That seems like a free lunch to believe whatever you want to believe. Why this book has been republished without a stronger and more comprehensive introduction is, to put it mildly, baffling. You can read the new intro for free as part of the Kindle sample.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another book published on the Wallace case... but don't get excited. It is a reprint of the Final Verdict by Roger Wilkes, re-branded as The Wallace Case: Britain's Most Baffling Unsolved Murder. Nevertheless, it has a brand new introduction, so I was curious to see what Wilkes would say about his theory (Parry) now we know that the police file shows that Gordon Parry was alibied by Olivia Brine and not Lily Lloyd (as he originally believed). And, drum roll, he states that the prima facie case against Parry remains as strong today as it did in 1981. And that is almost all he says. This is hugely disappointing. The prima facie case against Parry was undermined with the release of the police files. Wilkes still believes the police files were "weeded" but how can we know that? That seems like a free lunch to believe whatever you want to believe. Why this book has been republished without a stronger and more comprehensive introduction is, to put it mildly, baffling. You can read the new intro for free as part of the Kindle sample.

Staggering dishonesty. Parry has to be entirely dismissed as the killer. I won’t be wasting my cash on this one. Although I’m almost tempted to buy the Knidle version just so that I can leave an Amazon review.

Thanks for posting it Antony

[moste]

Staggering dishonesty. Parry has to be entirely dismissed as the killer. I won’t be wasting my cash on this one. Although I’m almost tempted to buy the Knidle version just so that I can leave an Amazon review.

Thanks for posting it Antony

Yeah me too Herlock.
I read the original , then listened to the Liverpool’s ‘city radio ‘ 3 part programme from Jan ‘81, covering all of John Parkes testimony .After which , not being impressed by any of it, I was sufficiently convinced to look harder at the theory that Wallace was the culprit.

[ColdCaseJury]

Staggering dishonesty. Parry has to be entirely dismissed as the killer. I won’t be wasting my cash on this one. Although I’m almost tempted to buy the Knidle version just so that I can leave an Amazon review.

Thanks for posting it Antony

Instead of quoting Murphy, Wilkes should have discussed the Olivia Brine alibi. After all, it is included in Murphy, Gannon and my own book. Indeed, how can any new book not mention it? I spoke to Wilkes when I was writing Move To Murder (several years ago now). I explained the situation and asked why he still believed in Parry's guilt. The answer was Parkes, of course. When I pointed out that Parry might have been involved but was not the killer - and I specifically mentioned Prank, Conspiracy, Accomplice theories - he replied that he did not want to speculate on subsequent theories. I therefore did not include his comments in my book, really out of respect for him because they were clearly jarring with the evidence.

I will include an overview of The Wallace Case in my updated edition of Move To Murder and make the points above. Do you think I'm being reasonable?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Instead of quoting Murphy, Wilkes should have discussed the Olivia Brine alibi. After all, it is included in Murphy, Gannon and my own book. Indeed, how can any new book not mention it? I spoke to Wilkes when I was writing Move To Murder (several years ago now). I explained the situation and asked why he still believed in Parry's guilt. The answer was Parkes, of course. When I pointed out that Parry might have been involved but was not the killer - and I specifically mentioned Prank, Conspiracy, Accomplice theories - he replied that he did not want to speculate on subsequent theories. I therefore did not include his comments in my book, really out of respect for him because they were clearly jarring with the evidence.

I will include an overview of The Wallace Case in my updated edition of Move To Murder and make the points above. Do you think I'm being reasonable?

Entirely reasonable Antony. It beggars belief that an author can completely ignore police statements purely because they are inconvenient to a theory. Even if he’d made some desperate attempt to say that the statements were false then that would have been something. It would have been nonsense but at least ‘something.’

[ColdCaseJury]

A major new edition of Move To Murder will be available next month - first as an e-book. I will give more details then. For those of you who believe Wallace is guilty, I thought you would appreciate the cover: Wallace looking every inch a homicidal maniac. You cannot say I'm not fair! But can you guess what the newspaper headlines (underneath the masthead) refer to? It's hardly difficult, but...

[Herlock Sholmes]

The newspaper headlines refer to Richard Gordon Parry. The man who didn’t kill Julia Wallace.

[Abby Normal]

The newspaper headlines refer to Richard Gordon Parry. The man who didn’t kill Julia Wallace.

wait so parry has been definitively ruled out? what happened. soory havent been on here for a while.

[Abby Normal]

A major new edition of Move To Murder will be available next month - first as an e-book. I will give more details then. For those of you who believe Wallace is guilty, I thought you would appreciate the cover: Wallace looking every inch a homicidal maniac. You cannot say I'm not fair! But can you guess what the newspaper headlines (underneath the masthead) refer to? It's hardly difficult, but...

hey cold
congrats! hey can you give me your theory again in a nut shell? sorry havent been on here in a while

[ColdCaseJury]

The newspaper headlines refer to Richard Gordon Parry. The man who didn’t kill Julia Wallace.

I wanted to get a link to Parry without putting a third pic on the cover. And we can say - uncontroversially - that he is at least part of the story.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wanted to get a link to Parry without putting a third pic on the cover. And we can say - uncontroversially - that he is at least part of the story.

It’s a good idea Antony. The cover looks great

[Herlock Sholmes]

hey cold
congrats! hey can you give me your theory again in a nut shell? sorry havent been on here in a while

Hi Abby,

The theory that Antony favours is that Parry made the phone call to get Wallace out of the house and after he’d set off an accomplice of his turns up at Wolverton Street claiming to be Qualtrough; suggesting that there had been some kind of mix up and that he’d actually left a message saying that he would visit Wallace at home rather than Wallace visiting him. He asks Julia if he can come in and wait for Wallace’s return and she shows him into the parlour. Whilst he’s inside he steals the cash (possibly when Julia has gone upstairs or after he’s asked to use the toilet.) She either catches him in the act or she becomes suspicious and the accomplice kills her. Then the accomplice meets up with Parry somewhere (but in Parry’s car) and tells him what’s happened. Then, in the early hours of the morning, Parry gets his car washed by John Parkes.

The main point about this theory Abby is that it provides an explanation as to why the thief put the cash box back on the shelf - because he was trying to steal the cash without Julia knowing.

[RodCrosby]

For those of you who believe Wallace is guilty, I thought you would appreciate the cover: Wallace looking every inch a homicidal maniac. You cannot say I'm not fair!

Yesterday, I met a man who looked a bit like William Herbert Wallace. One of my tenants.

He's just been told he has six months to live.

Of course, the photo of Wallace was taken after his life was destroyed, and he also had not long to live...

So I appreciate Antony's little joke here. Implicitly, being "fair" to those whose analytical abilities do not extend beyond the methods of Matthew Hopkins...

Whereas, his book arrives at the correct solution via the same abductive reasoning employed by [the real] Sherlock Holmes.