Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

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

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

    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.’

    Leave a comment:


  • ColdCaseJury
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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?



    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
    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.


    Click image for larger version Name:	WilkesBaffling.jpg Views:	0 Size:	56.8 KB ID:	759803
    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
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-05-2021, 07:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ColdCaseJury
    replied
    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.


    Click image for larger version  Name:	WilkesBaffling.jpg Views:	0 Size:	56.8 KB ID:	759803
    Last edited by ColdCaseJury; 06-05-2021, 06:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    She's right, you know, moste.

    We always are.

    Leave a comment:


  • moste
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    I served 33 years with husband number two, and I regularly point out I'd have got far less for murder.
    Maybe you would have got off on Appeal Caz

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    I served 33 years with husband number two, and I regularly point out I'd have got far less for murder.

    Leave a comment:


  • OneRound
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Not at all, OneRound. In my experience, and on my third husband, I can confirm that being "a married woman" is very much a full time occupation - but without the pay packet at the end of the week.

    I'm afraid I can't help with the deciphering - I have three floors to wash.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Hi Caz,

    Ha! Amazingly Mrs OneRound is still on her first husband - i.e. me. She regularly says everyone is entitled to one mistake.

    Best wishes,
    OneRound

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by OneRound View Post

    Hi again Herlock - apologies for my approaching this with the speed of a tortoise with a grade A hangover but a brief comment now about the opening wording as now in bold above.

    I reckon it's ''woman'' not ''women'' and part of what was probably one option for a fairly typical legal declaration at the time. I think Amy is describing herself as ''a married woman'' as if it were her occupation. If that doesn't get me a spanking from Caz, nothing will!

    Amy then uses the word ''say'' as to mean ''do declare as follows''.

    Now for the more tricky rest ....

    Best regards,
    OneRound
    Not at all, OneRound. In my experience, and on my third husband, I can confirm that being "a married woman" is very much a full time occupation - but without the pay packet at the end of the week.

    I'm afraid I can't help with the deciphering - I have three floors to wash.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • OneRound
    replied
    Originally posted by Ironmiller View Post
    Regards any financial irregularities, wouldn't they have emerged during the investigation and if there were any suspicions would tge Prudential Staff Union have backed his defence.
    Hi Ironmiller - a lot of the financials could have been and probably were checked during the investigation. However, there would still be an element dependent upon what Wallace said was in the cash box when its contents were taken. By way of illustration only (I'm making up the amount), Wallace might have claimed there was 20.00 in it and his / the Prudential records might show that should have been the case. However, that doesn't mean the money was actually there and he hadn't already spent most of it on himself.

    That's what I was getting at the other week. However, Herlock politely but effectively rather kicked that idea into touch by highlighting various other personal monies freely and legitimately available to Wallace.

    Best regards,
    OneRound
    Last edited by OneRound; 03-07-2021, 06:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • OneRound
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Thank Dupin and Mr and Mrs Moste

    I’ve started a ‘deciphering’ thread to leave this for discussing the case.


    Thanks for the new 'deciphering' thread, Herlock.

    Best,
    OneRound

    Leave a comment:


  • Ironmiller
    replied
    Regards any financial irregularities, wouldn't they have emerged during the investigation and if there were any suspicions would tge Prudential Staff Union have backed his defence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Thank Dupin and Mr and Mrs Moste

    I’ve started a ‘deciphering’ thread to leave this for discussing the case.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X