Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

Maybe only one was bloodstained? From the hand that wielded the weapon?
Perhaps M tore it off and pushed it into the glove-box?
Another ring of truth from Parkes' story?

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi, Rod and Antony,

I'd just like to note it's not clear to me from the 1981 Radio City broadcast if the Atkinsons verified that Parkes told that exact story with the glove in the car at the time, just that he had suspected/knew Parry was guilty and relayed that to him. It is a bit ambiguous whether they were saying he had told them that specific story at the time or just that he told them Parry confessed to him or something of the like.

Anyway, parts of the story are clearly false, like the waders/oilskin rubbish.

I admire your elaborate theory and the thought that went into it but I wouldn't say it's the only scenario that fits all the facts uniquely.

This is an extremely complicated case and while I strongly think Wallace was guilty, I also appreciate Antony's book because it lays out the scenarios and permutations without bias, because there isn't one that really is obvious or fits all the facts plainly imo.

[ColdCaseJury]

Maybe only one was bloodstained? From the hand that wielded the weapon?
Perhaps M tore it off and pushed it into the glove-box?
Another ring of truth from Parkes' story?

As you know, Parkes said the glove was a mitt. So, "M" the murderer dispatched Mrs Wallace wearing mittens?

[RodCrosby]

As you know, Parkes said the glove was a mitt. So, "M" the murderer dispatched Mrs Wallace wearing mittens?

I've just listened again, and I don't hear the word "mitt" or "mitten" anywhere. "Glove" is the word Parkes repeats over and over.
Even if they were mittens, so what? Just as good for avoiding fingerprints, I would have thought...

[AmericanSherlock]

I have managed to now read every single book on this case I believe.

My opinion is the only ones worth getting other than for collector's purposes/intrigue are James Murphy Murder of Julia Wallace and Antony's Cold Case. Both contain the most up to date information from the official police file. Antony's is critical that he lays out every scenario and permutation.

John Gannon's contains the most exhaustive information, at times too much, so just for that it might be worth it if you're a total Wallace nut, but his conclusion is questionable to say the least.

I render Goodman's obsolete now with the new information and I don't agree with many of his inferences and theories, even those made in regards to evidence that is accepted as true to this day.

[RodCrosby]

Hi, Rod and Antony,

I'd just like to note it's not clear to me from the 1981 Radio City broadcast if the Atkinsons verified that Parkes told that exact story with the glove in the car at the time, just that he had suspected/knew Parry was guilty and relayed that to him. It is a bit ambiguous whether they were saying he had told them that specific story at the time or just that he told them Parry confessed to him or something of the like.

Anyway, parts of the story are clearly false, like the waders/oilskin rubbish.

I admire your elaborate theory and the thought that went into it but I wouldn't say it's the only scenario that fits all the facts uniquely.

This is an extremely complicated case and while I strongly think Wallace was guilty, I also appreciate Antony's book because it lays out the scenarios and permutations without bias, because there isn't one that really is obvious or fits all the facts plainly imo.

I think you need to listen again, AS.
I've already said Parkes' speculation is almost certainly misplaced about the waders. But he makes clear this is his own theorising, independent of his testimony about the encounter with Parry and his car.
The salient point is surely why Parkes would fabricate a story with such a seeming hole in it [Parry's lack of bloodstains]. Except it isn't a hole, but a clue to the truth, missed by everyone, including Parkes himself.

Far from being "elaborate", I submit mine is the simplest theory that fits the facts, and therefore the most likely to be true.

[AmericanSherlock]

I think you need to listen again, AS.
I've already said Parkes' speculation is almost certainly misplaced about the waders, But he makes clear this is his own theorising, independent of his testimony about the encounter with Parry and his car.
The salient point is surely why Parkes would fabricate a story with such a seeming hole in it. Except it isn't a hole, but a clue to the truth, missed by everyone, including Parkes himself.

Far from being "elaborate", I submit mine is the simplest theory that fits the facts, and therefore the most likely to be true.

He was in an old person's home at the time, senile probably and seemed like he might have been mentally slow anyway...

[RodCrosby]

He was in an old person's home at the time, senile probably and seemed like he might have been mentally slow anyway...

He was not a learned man obviously, but his story seems cogent, clear and consistent. As I understand it he was not in a "home". He had lived independently in the same house for decades. He was interviewed in a Liverpool hospital while recovering from a routine operation.
I believe he died the following year.

[ColdCaseJury]

I've just listened again, and I don't hear the word "mitt" or "mitten" anywhere. "Glove" is the word Parkes repeats over and over.
Even if they were mittens, so what? Just as good for avoiding fingerprints, I would have thought...

In Wilkes' book it states it was a leather mitt. Parkes said "it was a thumb and all fingers."

Assuming this to be the case, don't you think it would look a little odd, "M" sitting there with mittens on? Also, they are notoriously bad for holding and gripping things. But your key point is that the glove in Parry's car was used in the attack by M.

You say your theory is the simplest that fits the facts. But as I've pointed out, it doesn't fit with Lily Hall's evidence. In my view none of the theories fit all the facts. Perhaps some facts are not facts, or we don't know all of them.

What is your key reason(s) for eliminating Wallace as having any involvement?

And, per earlier question of yours, by transcript I mean the full transcript taken from the shorthand notes at the trial.

[AmericanSherlock]

Another point, around 70 lunatics confessed to killing Julia Wallace at the time.

also, someone who Tom Slemen got a hold of said he was there when John Johnstone died and that JJ had confessed to killing JW. One of JJ's grandkids who was there was ready to sue, saying no such thing had happened.

so clearly, testimony like this isn't always accurate. In Parkes case, the fact that part of his story is demonstrably false, and also that Parry was disliked by all at the garage for stealing (rifling thru coats) casts considerable doubt on the veracity of his story.

Surely, it isn't conclusive, we can agree?

[RodCrosby]

Another point, around 70 lunatics confessed to killing Julia Wallace at the time.

also, someone who Tom Slemen got a hold of said he was there when John Johnstone died and that JJ had confessed to killing JW. One of JJ's grandkids who was there was ready to sue, saying no such thing had happened.

so clearly, testimony like this isn't always accurate. In Parkes case, the fact that part of his story is demonstrably false, and also that Parry was disliked by all at the garage for stealing (rifling thru coats) casts considerable doubt on the veracity of his story.

Surely, it isn't conclusive, we can agree?

Listen again to what Parkes said, and what Dolly and Gordon Atkinson said, and my recent comments about their testimonies.

The bit of Parkes' story that is undoubted nonsense is not material. He makes clear it's his own speculation to explain a very odd aspect of his actual testimony - Parry's lack of bloodstains.

There is a simpler explanation, consistent with everything else in the case, including Parkes own testimony about being "leaned on" by Parry & another shortly afterwards.

Why, oh why, Roger Wilkes were your journalistic antennae not functioning that day at the Liverpool Hospital?

"I don't suppose you remember the other chap's name John?" was all you had to ask...

Then, finally, and in truth, we may have obtained the definitive answer to "Who killed Julia?"

[AmericanSherlock]

Listen again to what Parkes said, and what Dolly and Gordon Atkinson said, and my recent comments about their testimonies.

The bit of Parkes' story that is undoubted nonsense is not materiel. He makes clear it's his own speculation to explain a very odd aspect of his actual testimony - Parry's lack of bloodstains.

There is a simpler explanation, consistent with everything else in the case, including Parkes own testimony about being "leaned on" by Parry & another shortly afterwards.

Why, oh why, Roger Wilkes were your journalistic antennae not functioning that day at the Liverpool Hospital?

"I don't suppose you remember the other chap's name John?" was all you had to ask...

Then, finally, and in truth, we may have obtained the definitive answer to "Who killed Julia?"

Do you think if your scenario is true, that the other chap was likely to have been Marsden?

[RodCrosby]

Do you think if your scenario is true, that the other chap was likely to have been Marsden?

Nope, logic says it could not be Marsden [for the same reason the person who entered the house was not Parry].

[AmericanSherlock]

Nope, logic says it could not be Marsden [for the same reason the person who entered the house was not Parry].

Because it had to be someone who could claim they were Qualtrough, and therefore someone Julia did not know?

[RodCrosby]

Because it had to be someone who could claim they were Qualtrough, and therefore someone Julia did not know?

Correct.