Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

If by "Setty" you mean "Stanley Setty", he was the victim. I forget the name of the killer who dumped his body out of an airplane, and subsequently was to kill a second time years later. Tony Mancini admitted what happened (though we have to remember it's his version, and there were no other living witnesses). He explained it was an argument that led to an accidental death - and there are grounds to believe he was telling the truth. It was Tony's bad luck that he planted his victim in the identical spot as another killer (probably a local abortionist) in the Brighton Train station in a large trunk in the baggage room. The revelation of the other murder led (prematurely) to the revelation of his crime. Had he gone to the cops (instead of running) he might have just faced a manslaughter charge. But he had a record as a small time criminal, and thought he might vanish in the midst of London and then go somewhere else.

Jeff

Correct. Donald Hume!
Just checking someone was paying attention...

[John G]

IF WALLACE WAS GUILTY - you really need to believe ALL of these things.

1. Well-known-in-the-district, "peculiar-looking" Wallace, the "elongated walking-stick", chose the closest phone-box to his own home to make the Qualtrough call (when he could have chosen any phonebox), and then proceeded with the murder, without knowing whether he had been spotted. We could add that he also seemed to do things which increased the probability of the call being traced to that box, apparently merely to diddle the phone company out of the princely sum of one penny...

2. Wallace was content to speak to Beattie, a man who knew him well, on the phone, and not 30 minutes later essentially repeat the same conversation with Beattie at the chess club without the possibility of being detected as the caller. Even if he got that far, and gambled on proceeding with the murder, he had to hope Beattie would not hesitate later with the Police or at Court in his certainty it was not Wallace. Upon reflection, and a little 'encouragement' from the Police, Beattie might have decided "Hey, maybe, or I can't be sure...", in which case, Wallace would be going for the long drop at Walton Prison. Wallace had spent his first 37 years nowhere near Merseyside. It's practically certain he had a distinctive, non-local accent (Cumbrian, with a tinge of Yorkshire, possibly). Nor is there a scintilla to suggest Wallace had ever practised changing his voice and yet, aged 52, he suddenly risks all on this one-time performance.

3. Wallace scored a rare victory in his chess-game, while simultaneously cogitating this 'perfect murder' - a mere secondary pursuit for this genius, clearly!

4. Wallace's timings would have had to be based on his expectation of milk-boy Alan Close's appearence. But Close was running up to half-an-hour late that night, due to his bicycle being repaired. Wallace couldn't have known that.

5. Wallace managed to execute the crime in a matter of minutes while ensuring a complete lack of bloodstains on himself, and no signs of washing at Wolverton Street.

6. Wallace managed to secrete the murder weapon, although there was no obvious place or time for him to do so, and he defeated the Police's best efforts to find it.

7. Despite all these attendant devilish contrivances, the best plan Wallace can come up with is to present the clod-headed Police with a murder scene that gives every appearance of a humdrum domestic incident, with him as prime suspect #1.

8. Wallace managed to bamboozle a whole host of intelligent, upstanding people, including an entire Trade Union, the Church of England and the Court of Appeal, led by a Chief Justice who had spent his professional life expounding on 'the impeccability of the English Jury system', yet is persuaded to volte-face in this case alone.

9. Despite his conviction being quashed, Wallace unaccountably continued to accuse Parry in his private diary.

10. Despite his conviction being quashed, Wallace unaccountably continued to agonize over his loss and whether he would meet Julia again in 'the great beyond', in his private diary.

11. Despite getting away with 'the perfect murder', Wallace somehow lost the will to live, and refused surgery which could have prolonged his life.

12. Despite getting away with 'the perfect murder', and there being no double-jeopardy law, Wallace inconsiderately failed to admit his genius, or even leave any confession. [Other lesser 'geniuses' did - Setty, Mancini, etc.]

Hi Rod,

These are all excellent points. In fact, if Wallace was the murderer it seems totally inexplicable that he would subsequently accused Parry in his "private diary". I also agree with your argument that Parry could have left the Brine household at 8:20 considering that the witnesses, and Parry himself, were only able to estimate his time of departure, i.e. "around 8:30."

[John G]

I recall reading somewhere that Parry, who apparently enjoyed "musical interludes" with Julia, that Wallace was probably unaware of as they're not mentioned in his diary, claimed that he and Julia made "sweet music" together. Is this correct? If so, "sweet music" is clearly an obvious euphemism! Of course, if Parry and Julia were having a relationship this could give him a personal motive.

[RodCrosby]

I recall reading somewhere that Parry, who apparently enjoyed "musical interludes" with Julia, that Wallace was probably unaware of as they're not mentioned in his diary, claimed that he and Julia made "sweet music" together. Is this correct? If so, "sweet music" is clearly an obvious euphemism! Of course, if Parry and Julia were having a relationship this could give him a personal motive.

A 22-year old lad with a steady girlfriend, and a "very old-fashioned" 69 year-old woman of questionable personal hygiene?

Nah, I doubt it. I reckon that was just silver-tongued Parry playing with Goodman in 1966.

[ColdCaseJury]

Rod, I will come back on your 12 points a little later (when I have a bit more time). I don't particularly subscribe to any one theory but like to "stress test" all the theories. I have a question re Parkes.

What did Parry do with the bloody glove (mitten) after he snatched it off Parkes?

If he puts in back in the car, it defeats cleaning the car inside and out.

If he puts in his jacket, he will get blood on his clothes.

If he throws it away at the garage, then Parkes has proof of his story.

Now, I think Parkes never says what happened to it. It's important an omission, don't you think?

I don't doubt that Parkes cleaned Parry's car that evening. I don't doubt that he told the Atkinson's about it. What is central evidence for any Parry theory is that there was a bloody mitten.

[RodCrosby]

Rod, I will come back on your 12 points a little later (when I have a bit more time). I don't particularly subscribe to any one theory but like to "stress test" all the theories. I have a question re Parkes.

What did Parry do with the bloody glove (mitten) after he snatched it off Parkes?

If he puts in back in the car, it defeats cleaning the car inside and out.

If he puts in his jacket, he will get blood on his clothes.

If he throws it away at the garage, then Parkes has proof of his story.

Now, I think Parkes never says what happened to it. It's important an omission, don't you think?

I don't doubt that Parkes cleaned Parry's car that evening. I don't doubt that he told the Atkinson's about it. What is central evidence for any Parry theory is that there was a bloody mitten.

Well you can hardly blame Parkes for failing to answer a question that was never put to him. It's hard to blame Wilkes either, since the interview was time-limited on the instructions of the medical staff at the hospital.

Any blood on the glove would be well dried by the early hours of the 21st January. If Parry was careful after snatching it away from Parkes, I reckon it would leave no trace. He could have just held it in his hand until he left garage. Perhaps placed it on the passenger seat while he was driving home, and then just to be sure did some further cleaning of that particular spot himself at his leisure, after disposing of (burning?) the glove.

[Elizabeth] "Dolly" Atkinson, who would be about 75+ at the time of her interview, said:-
[at 27.16] "I remember Mr Parkes told me and my husband that he had to wash the car... 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 his work. And I saw "Pukka" [Parkes] every morning, like, and he was just like a friend to us all. ... And he told Wilf, as well, that it happened. He wouldn't make up such a story as that. No, no, no! And we'd known him for years. [later, at 30.13] He [Parry] must have done it, because he wouldn't come and ask a car to be washed, to a friend and make him wash it, and wash everything that was, er... got blood on. No..."

[There's also some stuff about someone saying "you should go to the Police. No, you've got to wash that car" but it's poorly edited, and unclear who is being referred to]

[John G]

A 22-year old lad with a steady girlfriend, and a "very old-fashioned" 69 year-old woman of questionable personal hygiene?

Nah, I doubt it. I reckon that was just silver-tongued Parry playing with Goodman in 1966.

Yes, that makes sense. However why would Parry subsequently imply that his younger self was involved in a relationship with a much older woman?

[John G]

Rod, I will come back on your 12 points a little later (when I have a bit more time). I don't particularly subscribe to any one theory but like to "stress test" all the theories. I have a question re Parkes.

What did Parry do with the bloody glove (mitten) after he snatched it off Parkes?

If he puts in back in the car, it defeats cleaning the car inside and out.

If he puts in his jacket, he will get blood on his clothes.

If he throws it away at the garage, then Parkes has proof of his story.

Now, I think Parkes never says what happened to it. It's important an omission, don't you think?

I don't doubt that Parkes cleaned Parry's car that evening. I don't doubt that he told the Atkinson's about it. What is central evidence for any Parry theory is that there was a bloody mitten.

I think they if Parry went to Atkinson's garage on the evening then he's deeply implicated. Thus, he gave a very detailed account of his whereabouts on the evening in question, effectively cloaking himself in an army of alibis. Why then would he not refer to garage visit? I think that tbe only viable explanation is that he had something to hide

[RodCrosby]

Yes, that makes sense. However why would Parry subsequently imply that his younger self was involved in a relationship with a much older woman?

Well, he didn't. It was Goodman and others who have imputed that "coloured" meaning.
Maybe Parry meant that he just sang for Julia at the piano. Maybe it was true, maybe it was crap. He had certainly been in the Wallace house on several occasions. Maybe Julia just liked him, and asked him to sing a couple of times. All perfectly innocent, if it actually occurred, in 1929 or so...

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Rod, I'm still stress-testing. Why do you think Parry failed to dispose of the glove at the same time as the weapon? Why was Parry so agitated and "near insanity" at the garage at midnight when between 9pm and 11pm he was behaving normally at his girlfriend's house? I think for a Parry Conspiracy to work Parry disposed of the weapon later, at say 11:30pm (fewer people around) and was interrupted (i.e. nearly seen) and failed to dispose of the glove. Hence, he would be agitated when he visited the garage straight after.

BTW, Murphy says that Parry picked up Lily Lloyd from the cinema at 9pm on the murder night (and hence in a blood stained car), but I did not find that in Lily Lloyd's statement: she says Parry went straight to her house.

[RodCrosby]

Hi Rod, I'm still stress-testing. Why do you think Parry failed to dispose of the glove at the same time as the weapon? Why was Parry so agitated and "near insanity" at the garage at midnight when between 9pm and 11pm he was behaving normally at his girlfriend's house? I think for a Parry Conspiracy to work Parry disposed of the weapon later, at say 11:30pm (fewer people around) and was interrupted (i.e. nearly seen) and failed to dispose of the glove. Hence, he would be agitated when he visited the garage straight after.

BTW, Murphy says that Parry picked up Lily Lloyd from the cinema at 9pm on the murder night (and hence in a blood stained car), but I did not find that in Lily Lloyd's statement: she says Parry went straight to her house.

Maybe Parry thought it best to dispose of them separately, not together. Perhaps Parry had temporarily forgotten about the glove, or maybe Parkes just opened the glove box before Parry expected him to.

Well, it's possible that "M" hadn't said he'd killed or hurt Julia, maybe just "threatened" her, or slightly injured her. Maybe Parry didn't hear about the murder until a few hours later, like Parkes claimed he himself heard, and then he panicked. Maybe he only heard from his father, or someone, when he returned home, post 11pm.

Yes, Parry and the two Lloyds all simply state he called about 9pm and stayed until 11pm or 11.30pm. Nothing about picking Lily up somewhere else. Of significance is that both Lloyds state he was late.

Discussing with M what had gone wrong, and taking him home?

[John G]

I think they if Parry went to Atkinson's garage on the evening then he's deeply implicated. Thus, he gave a very detailed account of his whereabouts on the evening in question, effectively cloaking himself in an army of alibis. Why then would he not refer to garage visit? I think that tbe only viable explanation is that he had something to hide

Okay, I've made one or two predictive text errors with this post! Should read: "I think that if Parry went to Atkinson's garage on the night of the murder then he's deeply implicated. Thus, he gave a very detailed account of his whereabouts on the evening in question, effectively cloaking himself in an army of alibis. Why then would he not refer to the garage visit? I think the only viable explanation is that he had something to hide.

[John G]

Hi Rod, I'm still stress-testing. Why do you think Parry failed to dispose of the glove at the same time as the weapon? Why was Parry so agitated and "near insanity" at the garage at midnight when between 9pm and 11pm he was behaving normally at his girlfriend's house? I think for a Parry Conspiracy to work Parry disposed of the weapon later, at say 11:30pm (fewer people around) and was interrupted (i.e. nearly seen) and failed to dispose of the glove. Hence, he would be agitated when he visited the garage straight after.

BTW, Murphy says that Parry picked up Lily Lloyd from the cinema at 9pm on the murder night (and hence in a blood stained car), but I did not find that in Lily Lloyd's statement: she says Parry went straight to her house.

Hi CCJ,

Did Parkes actually state what time Parry arrived, or did he just imply that it was sometime in the early hours of the morning?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi CCJ,

Did Parkes actually state what time Parry arrived, or did he just imply that it was sometime in the early hours of the morning?

Not precisely, only that it was late. No earlier than 11:30pm (Parkes has to arrive at the garage and speak to PC Ken Wallace). I would estimate a little before midnight. I think the range is 11:30 - 00:30.

[RodCrosby]

Not precisely, only that it was late. No earlier than 11:30pm (Parkes has to arrive at the garage and speak to PC Ken Wallace). I would estimate a little before midnight. I think the range is 11:30 - 00:30.

Parkes mentioned that Parry was sometimes there till "3 or 4 in the morning", and says Parry arrived "later that night... or early morning", as if he's clarifying himself, so I'd think it was most likely in the early, early hours of 21st January.