Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

I also have a degree-First Class Honours, as it so happens- but I'm not sure what relevance it has to the matter in hand. For instance, there was a poster on this thread who stated they had a PhD, and then proceeded to get totally confused about time of death issues.


To be fair, you've made some excellent posts, and I've actually learned a great deal from you. However, when a poster implies that they've suddenly become an expert in an area they've just stumbled on then I'm afraid I simply cannot take it seriously. Although, actually, what precisely are your conclusions?

And, with respect, posting on a blog is not the same as publishing peer-reviewed academic research, but I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that.

By the way, I bet you got the General Election result wrong, but to be honest so did I, although I did much better with the American Presidential Election, only wrongly calling Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan for Clinton-for obvious reasons-thus beating most of the so called experts.

I repeat, I don't have to be an expert to understand an expert paper, and I have never implied that "I am" an expert in the subject. They usually have a digestible section called "Conclusions" for idiots like me...

All models for the 2017 GE were rendered moot by the campaign, probably the first in my lifetime to significantly change the outcome of an election.

Loss of a by-election weeks before, disastrous local elections, record approval for PM May and 20% poll leads all presaged meltdown for Labour, but PM May threw it all away in the space of a couple of weeks, as Corbyn radiated authenticity, good humour and a "new kind of politics."

I actually noted in emails to my circle that the early June Ipsos/MORI Political Monitor poll revealed an unprecedented and catastrophic falling away in approval of Theresa May. I further noted that when applying these numbers to the Lebo & Norpoth PM approval model (a second-order autoregressive equation found in the expert paper) the central forecast outcome would be a Hung Parliament. Matt Lebo had made his final prediction of a Tory landslide, based on earlier highly-positive MORI polls for PM May, and I don't think ever updated his final prediction with the extraordinary final poll. I never came to a firm view, but kept my options open until the exit poll, when I made a couple of £k.

Re Trump. I tipped him in Feb 2016 to win, five days before Professor Norpoth did the same based on his Primary Model. I stuck to my prediction throughout and in September said the pollsters and pundits would be "eating the biggest banquet of crow since 1948." In the event I won £40k on President Trump...

[John G]

I repeat, I don't have to be an expert to understand an expert paper, and I have never implied that "I am" an expert in the subject. They usually have a digestible section called "Conclusions" for idiots like me...

All models for the 2017 GE were rendered moot by the campaign, probably the first in my lifetime to significantly change the outcome of an election.

Loss of a by-election weeks before, disastrous local elections, record approval for PM May and 20% poll leads all presaged meltdown for Labour, but PM May threw it all away in the space of a couple of weeks, as Corbyn radiated authenticity, good humour and a "new kind of politics."

I actually noted in emails to my circle that the early June Ipsos/MORI Political Monitor poll revealed an unprecedented and catastrophic falling away in approval of Theresa May. I further noted that when applying these numbers to the Lebo & Norpoth PM approval model (a second-order autoregressive equation found in the expert paper) the central forecast outcome would be a Hung Parliament. Matt Lebo had made his final prediction of a Tory landslide, based on earlier highly-positive MORI polls for PM May, and I don't think ever updated his final prediction with the extraordinary final poll. I never came to a firm view, but kept my options open until the exit poll, when I made a couple of £k.

Re Trump. I tipped him in Feb 2016 to win, five days before Professor Norpoth did the same based on his Primary Model. I stuck to my prediction throughout and in September said the pollsters and pundits would be "eating the biggest banquet of crow since 1948." In the event I won £40k on President Trump...

Well you've certainly demonstrated excellent political insight. I thought May would win convincingly, although I'm glad she didn't as she's far too intractable. Of course, the Survation poll got it bang on, but then they assumed people were telling the truth and therefore didn't make adjustments for secret Tories! And the polls were far less uniform than, say, in 1983 when Thatcher beat Foot, so I suppose I shouldn't have been that surprised.

I want shocked that Trump best Clinton, despite her so-called "firewall", as both candidates were clearly unpopular with independents. However, I've a suspicion that Sanders would have beaten Trump, as we wasn't tainted like Clinton, and I'm sure he would have had much more appeal to working-class voters in vital states like, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

[AmericanSherlock]

I think it will be a shame if you leave the thread, as you've clearly made some valuable contributions. And I wouldn't worry about being reported because your responses to Rod's posts have been extremely mild compared with some of the posts I've received and seen on the JtR threads!

I agree that Rod has displayed a certain self-righteousness, at least in my opinion-although he's also provided some very good arguments-but you are always free to ignore, or even block, him.

I didn't realize that was an option. I have decided to do just that. Thanks.

I think we should consider the weapon and why it was taken out of the house. It seems to me that whoever committed the crime would have been best served to leave it in the house. Unless it was something from the house that would seem suspicious (i.e. an unorthodox weapon that obviously Wallace himself would only use) If fingerprinting was an issue, then how does the whole "glove" theory fit in? Or was it a mitten rather than a glove after all... Food for thought

I would like to know 2 things.

1. How common were larger celebrations for a 21st birthday in those days? Is it feasible that it is something someone other than Parry would say, even though he mentioned it in his statement 2 days later.

Was it maybe a common request for a policy around that time, and a well known thing in insurance circles? This would explain how Wallace himself could have said it, and make the coincidence seem a bit less.

The Johnstone theory also has been floated around. I know the daughter living with them at the time was 18 years old. The voice was said to sound like an older gentleman. I don't believe in this theory, but I'm trying to consider every possible thing, other than being laser focused on 1 theory only

2. It appears motorcars were somewhat uncommon back then. I know it was dark at the time of the murder, as the sun sets around 4:30 and total darkness sets in before 5 at that time of the year in Liverpool. I still find it odd that no car was seen racing in the area. I find it odd that Parry would drive a car filled with incriminating evidence, including a bloody glove right to a garage where he was not well liked and had been caught stealing in a heavily patrolled area.

Is this accurate? How common was a car...it seems like it was a rarity for a given person to have one.

The milk kids didn't see any cars apparently, no one did, coming or leaving. The Johnstones claimed they heard the door shut when Wallace left, but nothing else. Outside of the two ambiguous thumps much later on (after 8). Unless one believe they themselves were guilty, is this not suspicious?

[AmericanSherlock]

Excellent question!

And it goes back to an important elephant in the room.
There is a TON about JW's former life that we appear to know sod all about.

We can't rule out some past lover or rival, who perhaps took time in tracking her down.

Hi Charles, yes I agree completely. Julia appears to have been estranged from her family and an odd person with a mysterious past. (One who fudged her age by over 15 years) It is not beyond comprehension that someone else could have tracked her down, seeking revenge.

I see some problems with that, it strikes me that it would make more sense to confront her in a different way, and we still have the issue of Wallace falling for the ruse hook, line and sinker. Perhaps it really was bad luck for him though.

I also liked a previous theory of yours...I believe it was that perhaps someone at the chess club heard of the meeting the following night and that Wallace was planning on attending, and then decided to use that oppoprtunity to rob the place. As you noted, this would explain the issue of "why not rob/kill Julia on the Monday night?"

But we still have the problem that the murder looked like an assasination, with Julia hit from behind while seemingly lighting or putting out the fireplace.

I still believe Wallace was in all probability guilty, but I am always open to considering every permutation of this fascinating case.

[John G]

I didn't realize that was an option. I have decided to do just that. Thanks.

I think we should consider the weapon and why it was taken out of the house. It seems to me that whoever committed the crime would have been best served to leave it in the house. Unless it was something from the house that would seem suspicious (i.e. an unorthodox weapon that obviously Wallace himself would only use) If fingerprinting was an issue, then how does the whole "glove" theory fit in? Or was it a mitten rather than a glove after all... Food for thought

I would like to know 2 things.

1. How common were larger celebrations for a 21st birthday in those days? Is it feasible that it is something someone other than Parry would say, even though he mentioned it in his statement 2 days later.

Was it maybe a common request for a policy around that time, and a well known thing in insurance circles? This would explain how Wallace himself could have said it, and make the coincidence seem a bit less.

The Johnstone theory also has been floated around. I know the daughter living with them at the time was 18 years old. The voice was said to sound like an older gentleman. I don't believe in this theory, but I'm trying to consider every possible thing, other than being laser focused on 1 theory only

2. It appears motorcars were somewhat uncommon back then. I know it was dark at the time of the murder, as the sun sets around 4:30 and total darkness sets in before 5 at that time of the year in Liverpool. I still find it odd that no car was seen racing in the area. I find it odd that Parry would drive a car filled with incriminating evidence, including a bloody glove right to a garage where he was not well liked and had been caught stealing in a heavily patrolled area.

Is this accurate? How common was a car...it seems like it was a rarity for a given person to have one.

The milk kids didn't see any cars apparently, no one did, coming or leaving. The Johnstones claimed they heard the door shut when Wallace left, but nothing else. Outside of the two ambiguous thumps much later on (after 8). Unless one believe they themselves were guilty, is this not suspicious?

Hi AS,

Welcome back, good to see you posting again. As usual, you raise some very interesting points. Car ownership in the 1930s was over a million vehicles, so it would have been relatively uncommon but not rare: http://www.transport-museum.com/visi...8_to_1939.aspx.

Nonetheless, you make a very fair point about no one noticing a vehicle, and of Parry was responsible I think he must have travelled by car. It is, of course, possible that he parked the vehicle some distance from the Wallaces' address, but that would indicate that his actions were premeditated, and I can't see him walking a considerable distance anyway.

I agree that it would be pretty stupid to leave incriminating evidence in the vehicle, particularly as he had several hours to dispose of it before his alleged encounter with Parkes. Therefore, this issue clearly weakens Parkes' evidence.

It'd also odd that the murder weapon was removed. I agree that by far the best option would have been to leave it in the house, and concern about fingerprints is the only reason I can think of for removing the weapon. Of course, that would indicate that the murder wasn't planned which, in my opinion, goes against Wallace being the killer, as it's difficult to think of any viable way he could have been responsible unless it was premeditated.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

Welcome back, good to see you posting again. As usual, you raise some very interesting points. Car ownership in the 1930s was over a million vehicles, so it would have been relatively uncommon but not rare: http://www.transport-museum.com/visi...8_to_1939.aspx.

Nonetheless, you make a very fair point about no one noticing a vehicle, and of Parry was responsible I think he must have travelled by car. It is, of course, possible that he parked the vehicle some distance from the Wallaces' address, but that would indicate that his actions were premeditated, and I can't see him walking a considerable distance anyway.

I agree that it would be pretty stupid to leave incriminating evidence in the vehicle, particularly as he had several hours to dispose of it before his alleged encounter with Parkes. Therefore, this issue clearly weakens Parkes' evidence.

It'd also odd that the murder weapon was removed. I agree that by far the best option would have been to leave it in the house, and concern about fingerprints is the only reason I can think of for removing the weapon. Of course, that would indicate that the murder wasn't planned which, in my opinion, goes against Wallace being the killer, as it's difficult to think of any viable way he could have been responsible unless it was premeditated.

Hi thanks for the link, John.

That's an interesting point you make at the end, and 1 I had not considered myself. I see what you are saying, the removal of the weapon makes most sense if it was not a planned murder, but rather a spur of the moment attack, and then the murderer panicked, realizing his fingerprints were on the weapon.

One thing I find baffling is Wallace could not concieve of what the murder weapon could have been or reported noticing anything missing to the police.

How does this jibe with another killer? It seems to indicate to me that the logical conclusion was if someone else was responsible that they brought in the weapon themselves. Why, if the murder was not pre-planned? Would Julia not panic if Parry or "Qualtrough" showed up carrying an iron bar? Yet, she was attacked seemingly from behind with no struggle.

If Wallace was the killer himself, I agree with you it is confusing as to why he took the risk of disposing of the weapon on his journey, instead of leaving it in the house. I have previously thought perhaps the iron bar found by the cleaning lady much later was the weapon, but on further reflection I think it is unlikely that is the case. Another killer would not go to the trouble of hiding it under the fireplace. Wallace himself might (to keep the weapon under his control for awhile). But it would seem to me to be too great of a risk, because if found by police it would be highly incriminating. Again, why not just leave the weapon there. I would assume he had a pair of gloves, and that fingerprinting would not be an issue. (If it was a household object, both of their fingerprints might be all over it anyway.)

[John G]

Hi thanks for the link, John.

That's an interesting point you make at the end, and 1 I had not considered myself. I see what you are saying, the removal of the weapon makes most sense if it was not a planned murder, but rather a spur of the moment attack, and then the murderer panicked, realizing his fingerprints were on the weapon.

One thing I find baffling is Wallace could not concieve of what the murder weapon could have been or reported noticing anything missing to the police.

How does this jibe with another killer? It seems to indicate to me that the logical conclusion was if someone else was responsible that they brought in the weapon themselves. Why, if the murder was not pre-planned? Would Julia not panic if Parry or "Qualtrough" showed up carrying an iron bar? Yet, she was attacked seemingly from behind with no struggle.

If Wallace was the killer himself, I agree with you it is confusing as to why he took the risk of disposing of the weapon on his journey, instead of leaving it in the house. I have previously thought perhaps the iron bar found by the cleaning lady much later was the weapon, but on further reflection I think it is unlikely that is the case. Another killer would not go to the trouble of hiding it under the fireplace. Wallace himself might (to keep the weapon under his control for awhile). But it would seem to me to be too great of a risk, because if found by police it would be highly incriminating. Again, why not just leave the weapon there. I would assume he had a pair of gloves, and that fingerprinting would not be an issue. (If it was a household object, both of their fingerprints might be all over it anyway.)

Hi AS,

Yes, I agree. If Julia was killed by anyone other than Wallace it's difficult to believe that they showed up with the murder weapon. A good point about a household object being used: as you suggest, in Wallace's case it wouldn't be disastrous if such a weapon was left in the house, even if he didn't use gloves- which would be pretty negligent if the attack was planned- as he could simply say that he must have come in contact with the object on many occasions and therefore his fingerprints would be bound to be on it.

[ColdCaseJury]

I find it odd that Parry would drive a car filled with incriminating evidence, including a bloody glove right to a garage where he was not well liked and had been caught stealing in a heavily patrolled area.

AS. welcome back. This is like a family gathering!

Re: your point. I have pondered on Parkes' evidence a great deal. For research on another book, I interviewed a man who was remembering events from 70 years previously (he was 85, the events occurring when he was 15). His memory appeared sharp. Everything said with conviction. Yet, it was impossible for the man to have been at the scene of the crime, which he was claiming (I won't bore you with the details). He was conflating times and places.

I believe Parry drove to Atkinson's Garage at midnight. I believe he was instructed to wash the car inside and out. He was most insistent on this point during his interview with Wilkes. I'm less certain about the mitten (although it is surprising enough to be true) and sceptical about Parry mentioning the iron bar. I wonder if Parkes had conflated events 50 years on - remember the bar being the murder weapon had been in the public domain for the same amount of time. It does not mean he was lying. The elderly gentleman (above) was not lying. He was simply mistaken. Time affects memory - something you will realise as you get older!

Dolly Atkinson confirms Parkes mentioned to her washing Parry's car (on the morning after) but does not confirm the reference to the mitten or the iron bar.

[RodCrosby]

Dolly Atkinson confirms Parkes mentioned to her washing Parry's car (on the morning after) but does not confirm the reference to the mitten or the iron bar.

She did mention BLOOD though, Antony.

[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 the blood on. No..."

[John G]

Dolly Atkinson, like Parkes, is trying to recall events from half a century ago, so we must question the reliability of her recollections. Moreover, her comments are confusing anyway. I mean, when she comments about the blood are these her own contemporaneous recollections, or is she just responding to comments subsequently made by Parkes in his radio interview? This is certainly possible as she initially makes no reference to the blood, simply saying, "I remember Mr Parkes told me and my husband that he had to wash the car."

[RodCrosby]

Dolly Atkinson, like Parkes, is trying to recall events from half a century ago, so we must question the reliability of her recollections. Moreover, her comments are confusing anyway. I mean, when she comments about the blood are these her own contemporaneous recollections, or is she just responding to comments subsequently made by Parkes in his radio interview? This is certainly possible as she initially makes no reference to the blood, simply saying, "I remember Mr Parkes told me and my husband that he had to wash the car."

Against that, we must also take the context painted by her son, Gordon Atkinson.
"..it was told to me not only by my father, but my uncles, and anyone who was associated with him at that time. it was discussed quite openly. As far as I'm concerned everybody knew about it.. As far I'm concerned my father definitely wouldn't have made that kind of a story up..."

So either it's a very clever conspiracy between a dying-man, and a recently-widowed elderly woman and her son, for no obvious ulterior gain, or it's the truth.

Also a conspiracy that would have had to have been somehow cooked up in a few hours between the Liverpool Echo hitting the streets on 20th January 1981 and a phone call Roger Wilkes received before 6pm on the night of the broadcast (the same night) asking whether they were thinking the killer was (the as yet unnamed) Parry, and whether he would be interested in talking to Parkes....

[RodCrosby]

Plus the fact that Wilkes ignored the call (probably from Parkes's son) and went independently searching for a garage, and found the Atkinsons first...

First-class journalism and detective work.

[John G]

Against that, we must also take the context painted by her son, Gordon Atkinson.
"..it was told to me not only by my father, but my uncles, and anyone who was associated with him at that time. it was discussed quite openly. As far as I'm concerned everybody knew about it.. As far I'm concerned my father definitely wouldn't have made that kind of a story up..."

So either it's a very clever conspiracy between a dying-man, and a recently-widowed elderly woman and her son, for no obvious ulterior gain, or it's the truth.

Also a conspiracy that would have had to have been somehow cooked up in a few hours between the Liverpool Echo hitting the streets on 20th January 1981 and a phone call Roger Wilkes received before 6pm on the night of the broadcast (the same night) asking whether they were thinking the killer was (the as yet unnamed) Parry, and whether he would be interested in talking to Parkes....

I'm sure that at some point Parry went to the garage to get his car washed. However, everything else I have difficulty with. And does Gordon Atkinson completely support Parkes' story? I would also question as to when this all took place. For instance, if Parry arrived at the garage, say, a day or so after the murder, rather than the night itself, that would put a very different complexion on things.

Ultimately, it doesn't seem very credible to me that Parry would be insane enough to virtually incriminate himself in a murder, particularly as by this time he would have had several hours to regain his composure, assuming he was guilty. It also doesn't gel with the complex series of alibis he was able to construct, again assuming he was the killer, which would suggest he was very much in control of the situation.

And, as AS pointed out, why would Parry still be driving around with seriously incriminating evidence in his vehicle, several hours after the deed, unless he was a complete idiot?

[John G]

In an earlier post CCJ pointed out that there was no documented evidence that the sink or drains were tested for blood deposits. Therefore, do you think that significantly weakens the argument that Wallace was innocent? Or is it still the case that he would probably have had insufficient time to commit the murder and dispose of the weapon etc, regardless of this blood evidence?

[RodCrosby]

I'm sure that at some point Parry went to the garage to get his car washed. However, everything else I have difficulty with. And does Gordon Atkinson completely support Parkes' story? I would also question as to when this all took place. For instance, if Parry arrived at the garage, say, a day or so after the murder, rather than the night itself, then that puts a very different complexion on things.

Ultimately, it doesn't seem very credible to me that Parry would be insane enough to virtually incriminate himself as a murderer, particularly as by this time he would have had several hours to regain his composure, assuming he was guilty. It also doesn't gel with the complex series of alibis he was able to construct, again assuming he was the killer, which would suggest he was very much in control of the situation.

And, as AS pointed out, why would Parry still be driving around with seriously incriminating evidence in his vehicle, several hours after the deed, unless he was a complete idiot?

I think you're hair-splitting. Whatever interviews were conducted had by necessity to be edited for broadcast.

Wilkes narrates that Atkinson was told it [Parkes's story] by his father. I take that to mean the totality of the story, including the bar and glove. I can't see Wilkes broadcasting their supportive testimony if there was any doubt or confusion. He's too good a journalist.

Just checking his later book [p.227]. Wilkes makes clear that before Atkinson mentioned the name 'Parkes' they (or Wilkes proxy assistant, Michael Green, to be exact) had a discussion of the night's events and Atkinson is described as telling the story, as told by his own father, that "the cleaner had come across the bloodstained evidence of Parry's atrocity" while being forced to clean the car.

So I don't think there's any doubt that these people were all singing from the same truthful hymn-sheet...