Upon further reflection...
The fine legal point
appears to be whether Parry was aware that "M" had entered the house with a deadly weapon, in pursuit of a robbery. It seems not, as M probably didn't!
The Police were flummoxed ("how the hell do we pin anything on Parry?") as was Parry himself ("that (the bloodstained glove) would hang me!")
Far better to let a jury decide whether Wallace could have been guilty in a "simpler" scenario. Someone has to answer to this charge. Poor guy....
As an aside, I reckon Parkes' and Atkinson's testimony eventually filtered through the back-channels to the "Establishment", and even to the Court of Appeal. They gave no specific reasons for quashing the verdict against Wallace, but I bet they knew by then [the aforementioned only came forward after Wallace was convicted, remember...]
The fine legal point

The Police were flummoxed ("how the hell do we pin anything on Parry?") as was Parry himself ("that (the bloodstained glove) would hang me!")
Far better to let a jury decide whether Wallace could have been guilty in a "simpler" scenario. Someone has to answer to this charge. Poor guy....

As an aside, I reckon Parkes' and Atkinson's testimony eventually filtered through the back-channels to the "Establishment", and even to the Court of Appeal. They gave no specific reasons for quashing the verdict against Wallace, but I bet they knew by then [the aforementioned only came forward after Wallace was convicted, remember...]
Comment