Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

Okay, I've been thinking about this. If Parry had a co-conspirator, i.e. "M", who actually committed the murder, why did M not simply dispose of the glove and murder weapon himself? After, all wouldn't that be his first instinct, because the longer he holds on to them the greater the risk? And why risk leaving them to Parry to get rid of?

If M intimated that he'd only "slightly injured", or merely threatened Julia, wouldn't Parry be a bit suspicious once he was handed the blood stained mitten, and an iron bar covered in blood and gore?

[RodCrosby]

Okay, I've been thinking about this. If Parry had a co-conspirator, i.e. "M", who actually committed the murder, why did M not simply dispose of the glove and murder weapon himself? After, all wouldn't that be his first instinct, because the longer he holds on to them the greater the risk? And why risk leaving them to Parry to get rid of?

If M intimated that he'd only "slightly injured", or merely threatened Julia, wouldn't Parry be a bit suspicious once he was handed the blood stained mitten, and an iron bar covered in blood and gore?

M was waiting to be picked up any minute by Parry, at the deserted recreation ground, a stone's throw from Wolverton Street. Why not wait until safely in the car to decide what to do with the gloves and bar? And then ... well Parry, you're going to have to get rid of these for me...
Hardly a "risk" for M, more like an insurance policy, in fact.

The recreation ground is pitch black dark. The interior lights of Parry's car are dim, or even non existent.
Parry is not expecting the news he receives from M, and is not sure he even understands it correctly. Maybe he doesn't even hear the bar slip from M's sleeve on to the footwell floor, and only discovers it later. Maybe M just throws the bloody glove(s) on the floor also.

Only later does the penny drop, and Parry realise just how desperately implicated he now is... Who would believe him?

[AmericanSherlock]

Okay, I've been thinking about this. If Parry had a co-conspirator, i.e. "M", who actually committed the murder, why did M not simply dispose of the glove and murder weapon himself? After, all wouldn't that be his first instinct, because the longer he holds on to them the greater the risk? And why risk leaving them to Parry to get rid of?

If M intimated that he'd only "slightly injured", or merely threatened Julia, wouldn't Parry be a bit suspicious once he was handed the blood stained mitten, and an iron bar covered in blood and gore?

I agree with this point. I don't think An accomplice would hand Parry a blood stained glove to keep in his car. Nor would Parry accept it...definitely not would he bring it hours later to a car wash with the glove still in it.

[RodCrosby]

I agree with this point. I don't think An accomplice would hand Parry a blood stained glove to keep in his car. Nor would Parry accept it...definitely not would he bring it hours later to a car wash with the glove still in it.

With an unexpected turn of events, in darkness, can you say Parry was really in control, at this point?

He'd probably 'budgeted' no more than a couple of minutes to pick up "M", divvy-up the spoils of the robbery, and have a good old laugh at Wallace's expense, before heading off again to the location of his next carefully-constructed 'alibi'.

"M" was in control at this point, and Parry just wanted to meet his own pre-planned deadlines.

'Something has gone wrong. No time to dwell on it. Just get the hell out of here. What was that he dropped on the footwell floor? I need to think this through once I get home...'

[John G]

M was waiting to be picked up any minute by Parry, at the deserted recreation ground, a stone's throw from Wolverton Street. Why not wait until safely in the car to decide what to do with the gloves and bar? And then ... well Parry, you're going to have to get rid of these for me...
Hardly a "risk" for M, more like an insurance policy, in fact.

The recreation ground is pitch black dark. The interior lights of Parry's car are dim, or even non existent.
Parry is not expecting the news he receives from M, and is not sure he even understands it correctly. Maybe he doesn't even hear the bar slip from M's sleeve on to the footwell floor, and only discovers it later. Maybe M just throws the bloody glove(s) on the floor also.

Only later does the penny drop, and Parry realise just how desperately implicated he now is... Who would believe him?

Okay, interesting theory. But isn't it undermined by Lily Hall's evidence? Moreover, in respect of the bar and the glove, even if "M" was trying to draw Parry further into the conspiracy, in order to guarantee his silence, surely it wouldn't have taken Parry several hours to detect the presence of the glove and iron bar in his vehicle.

[Harry D]

A fascinating case. I haven't studied it as extensively as some of you here but I'd say the bottom-line is if there's any reasonable doubt that Wallace offed his old lady then justice was served.

[RodCrosby]

Okay, interesting theory. But isn't it undermined by Lily Hall's evidence? Moreover, in respect of the bar and the glove, even if "M" was trying to draw Parry further into the conspiracy, in order to guarantee his silence, surely it wouldn't have taken Parry several hours to detect the presence of the glove and iron bar in his vehicle.

You must attach whatever weight you think to Lily Hall's testimony, and Wallace's denial. The Trial Judge didn't seem to think it that relevant.

Remember, by his own and the Lloyds' statements, Parry didn't have much opportunity to do much about the bar (or collect his thoughts) until several hours later, after 11pm. I addressed your other point passim.

[RodCrosby]

Btw, fellow-sleuths, remember Goodman and others saying that there was a case that Parry was involved in, an alleged assault on a woman, but they never discovered the outcome?

Well, I found out what happened, only a couple of days ago, in of all places a 1936 Australian newspaper! [the Aussies at that time were big on UK news, and the free online database is excellent - I previously discovered my grandfather had another family Down Under via this source, and we reunited 85 years later as a result...]

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/212505469

Parry truly had the luck of the devil, didn't he?

[John G]

Btw, fellow-sleuths, remember Goodman and others saying that there was a case that Parry was involved in, an alleged assault on a woman, but they never discovered the outcome?

Well, I found out what happened, only a couple of days ago, in of all places a 1936 Australian newspaper! [the Aussies at that time were big on UK news, and the free online database is excellent - I previously discovered my grandfather had another family Down Under via this source, and we reunited 85 years later as a result...]

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/212505469

Parry truly had the luck of the devil, didn't he?

Thanks for this Rod, a great find. It appears that Parry had previously violently assaulted, and attempted abduct, a young woman. It makes you wonder what else he was capable of!

[ColdCaseJury]

Okay, interesting theory. But isn't it undermined by Lily Hall's evidence? Moreover, in respect of the bar and the glove, even if "M" was trying to draw Parry further into the conspiracy, in order to guarantee his silence, surely it wouldn't have taken Parry several hours to detect the presence of the glove and iron bar in his vehicle.

Hi John, Parry Alone and Parry Conspiracy theories are both undermined by Lily Halls' testimony, if we accept it as true. Why would Wallace lie about talking to a man if Parry alone had killed his wife?

The only to reconcile Hall and Parkes is via a theory like Gannon's in which Wallace is working with Parry. But then Wallace shops Parry almost immediately. Gannon, in my opinion, has a weak answer to this point in his book. Further, could Wallace really coerce Parry (and Marsden) into murder? There is no evidence at all for this - Gannon lapses into wild sexual speculation to explain this.

Rod's conspiracy theory is stronger here. It assumes that it was a carefully planned robbery that went wrong. Could Parry convince a friend, perhaps hard up and criminally minded, into sharing the spoils of (what was expected to be an easy) £100 during an economic depression? There is no evidence on this point either, but I know which I find more plausible between the two.

[RodCrosby]

Thanks for this Rod, a great find. It appears that Parry had previously violently assaulted, and attempted abduct, a young woman. It makes you wonder what else he was capable of!

Except he was found "not guilty", despite seeming strong evidence.

Liverpool juries, eh? A contrary lot!

[AmericanSherlock]

Except he was found "not guilty", despite seeming strong evidence.

Liverpool juries, eh? A contrary lot!

Rod, do you think it would be possible to track down any photos of Parry in later life, after the mug shot one where he is about 25?

They must exist somewhere, always curioua what Goodman saw when he met him in the 60s on his doorstep.

[RodCrosby]

Rod, do you think it would be possible to track down any photos of Parry in later life, after the mug shot one where he is about 25?

They must exist somewhere, always curioua what Goodman saw when he met him in the 60s on his doorstep.

Absent his immediate family offering them up, I doubt it. His daughter may still be alive, aged 79, although he moved out of her life in the 1940s, and remarried.

To be fair to Parry, he did seem to "settle-down" somewhat, once he married Miriam Traverse in 1937.

[AmericanSherlock]

Absent his immediate family offering them up, I doubt it. His daughter may still be alive, aged 79, although he moved out of her life in the 1940s, and remarried.

To be fair to Parry, he did seem to "settle-down" somewhat, once he married Miriam Traverse in 1937.

I know who his daughter is on FB but I think best to leave her in peace, not the 1st daughter, but the 2nd one from his 2nd wife , she is around 70 now.

What would the penalty have been if your scenario is correct for Parry?

[RodCrosby]

I know who his daughter is on FB but I think best to leave her in peace, not the 1st daughter, but the 2nd one from his 2nd wife , she is around 70 now.

What would the penalty have been if your scenario is correct for Parry?

Penalty, as in joint enterprise?
I don't know although, at first glance, it seems he would be eligible for death.
Derek Bentley was hanged in 1953, despite being in police custody at the time of the alleged murder, although he was belatedly exonerated on the grounds he did not receive a fair trial.
The "joint enterprise" liability has been revised somewhat in the UK in the past decade.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30817269

I think the problem the Police had in 1931 was they didn't have the name of the actual killer. My theory must surely have passed some copper's mind, but "how the hell do we begin to prove it, absent Parry's confession and naming M?"