Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

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?

An excellent post that I agree with entirely. I would add, if Parry had an accomplice, why did Parry allow the accomplice to throw the iron bar down a grid in Priory Road as Parkes claims Parry told him, but throw his bloody glove in Parry's car and then split, leaving Parry to incriminate himself hours after a murder to the garage hand who despises him?

[John G]

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...

Nonetheless Gordon Atkinson is recalling a version of events that he heard from his father, who in turn was recalling events that he heard from Parkes. And who knows as to what extent things could have been embellished, misrembered or simply misunderstood.

And memory isn't perfect, as CCJ perfectly illustrates in his post. Nor would you expect to have anything like perfect recall over a period of almost half a century. And just out of interest, how old was Gordon when he heard the story from his father? Would he have been a child at the time?

And none of this explains why none of them came forward publicly with information which may have been vital to Wallace's defence. In fact, as I've noted before, they didn't appear at the trial for the defence. They didn't come forward after Wallace was found guilty and the judge pronounced sentence of death. Nor did they come forward during the appeal process. All of which I find extremely odd.

[John G]

An excellent post that I agree with entirely. I would add, if Parry had an accomplice, why did Parry allow the accomplice to throw the iron bar down a grid in Priory Road as Parkes claims Parry told him, but throw his bloody glove in Parry's car and then split, leaving Parry to incriminate himself hours after a murder to the garage hand who despises him?

Thanks AS. And, of course,if Parry deemed it essential to get his car washed, and I'm really not sure why he would given that there wouldn't be likely to be much of blood stain from the glove-which he could have given an alternative explanation for anyway-why not drive to a garage outside the area where he wasn't known? Rather than see Parkes who, as you point out, clearly despised him?

[RodCrosby]

Nonetheless Gordon Atkinson is recalling a version of events that he heard from his father, who in turn was recalling events that he heard from Parkes. And who knows as to what extent things could have been embellished, misrembered or simply misunderstood.

And memory isn't perfect, as CCJ perfectly illustrates in his post. Nor would you expect to have anything like perfect recall over a period of almost half a century. And just out of interest, how old was Gordon when he heard the story from his father? Would he have been a child at the time?

And none of this explains why none of them came forward publicly with information which may have been vital to Wallace's defence. In fact, as I've noted before, they didn't appear at the trial for the defence. They didn't come forward after Wallace was found guilty and the judge pronounced sentence of death. Nor did they come forward during the appeal process. All of which I find extremely odd.

Now you're waffling. Read again the sequence of events that led to Parkes in 1981. Atkinson effectively told Parkes's story before Parkes did himself. There was no embellishment, or misremembering.

Don't be silly. There are legions of cases where witnesses have not come forward or their evidence has been suppressed. Have you ever "come forward" for anything? Have you ever taken on the "establishment", big or small? Have you ever stood utterly alone? I have - several times - and I can tell you it's never a pleasant experience. Most people are sheeple who seek safety in numbers, who "know their place", who defer to "experts" and "authority", etc., etc. Plato enjoined everyone to "Know Thyself", and few people even get that far in their lives...

Besides, Parkes did come forward, eventually, and the Police had their answer ready for him, as they have had for so many others. And he came forward again to the world at large, on his deathbed, to finally try and "make it right". Or more accurately, was tracked down to a hospital bed by a brilliant journalist named Roger Wilkes.

Did you expect him, in 1931, to burst into the solemn grandeur of St. George's Hall or the Royal Courts of Justice and in a croaking voice cry..."Wait !!!!" ?

That kind of crap only happens in third-rate TV movies...

[John G]

Now you're waffling. Read again the sequence of events that led to Parkes in 1981. Atkinson effectively told Parkes's story before Parkes did himself. There was no embellishment, or misremembering.

Don't be silly. There are legions of cases where witnesses have not come forward or their evidence has been suppressed. Have you ever "come forward" for anything? Have you ever taken on the "establishment", big or small? Have you ever stood utterly alone? I have - several times - and I can tell you it's never a pleasant experience. Most people are sheeple who seek safety in numbers, who "know their place", who defer to "experts" and "authority", etc., etc. Plato enjoined everyone to "Know Thyself", and few people even get that far in their lives...

Besides, Parkes did come forward, eventually, and the Police had their answer ready for him, as they have had for so many others. And he came forward again to the world at large, on his deathbed, to finally try and "make it right". Or more accurately, was tracked down to a hospital bed by a brilliant journalist named Roger Wilkes.

Did you expect him, in 1931, to burst into the solemn grandeur of St. George's Hall or the Royal Courts of Justice and in a croaking voice cry..."Wait !!!!" ?

That kind of crap only happens in third-rate TV movies...

Now, now let's cut the personal insults, especially considering that you reported AS for supposedly doing just that, so that would be hypocritical, wouldn't it? And you may think that because you write blogs that somehow gives you a special status on here, but that cuts no ice with me I'm afraid.

As for Atkinson telling Parkes' story, so what? Who knows how many times Atkinson senior and Parkes discussed the case over the years, and therefore to what extent Parkes' "story" may have been gradually embellished and exaggerated.

Parkes eventually came forward? Well good luck with finding any documented evidence of that.

And you may think that Parkes' failure to come forward, such as by giving his evidence to the defence team, was a trivial matter, but I don't. If he was telling the truth then his evidence could have saved Wallace from the rope, especially as the prosecution case was that he acted alone, and therefore if the Jury believed anyone else was involved they would have had no alternative but to acquit. But he elected not do so, although he was much more forthcoming half a century later when interviewed by a radio broadcaster!

[RodCrosby]

Aye, it was just a wankfest of embroidery and tittle-tattle that they had all been obsessively nurturing for FIFTY YEARS, just on the off-chance that a radio program might someday name Parry (why would it ever, if he was as innocent as a lamb?). So they could then come forward and falsely admit their "Conspiracy of Silence" in 1931 that nearly sent an innocent man to hang...

And a charming naivety about how the Police operate, even to their own, even to the present day...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-29080776

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34443926

Are there any sharper tools in the box here, or are we done?

[ColdCaseJury]

Are there any sharper tools in the box here, or are we done?

Rod, can we lower the temperature a bit, please. I think the following pages boil down to this: is there any corroboration that Parkes told the Atkinson family, or anybody else, specifically about the mitten or the bar? That he told the family the morning after that he had washed down Parry's car is not in question.

From my research, there is no specific corroboration. I accept there is corroboration about blood - but this could be about blood being swilled away from the car. This is highly significant in itself, of course.

This issue is important in terms of detail, not necessary in terms of the broader picture.

[AmericanSherlock]

Rod, can we lower the temperature a bit, please. I think the following pages boil down to this: is there any corroboration that Parkes told the Atkinson family, or anybody else, specifically about the mitten or the bar? That he told the family the morning after that he had washed down Parry's car is not in question.

From my research, there is no specific corroboration. I accept there is corroboration about blood - but this could be about blood being swilled away from the car. This is highly significant in itself, of course.

This issue is important in terms of detail, not necessary in terms of the broader picture.

I'd also ask how does any of this prove Parry's accomplice theory at all? I don't think Parry was guilty, but I would say there was a higher chance he was than that he enlisted another person to do the dirty work for him, that this person split, and left Parry with the bloody mitten in his car to drive to a slow garage hand's garage hours later and incriminate himself.

So, why is this accomplice theory better than Parry acting alone. Because Parry had an alibi? Because JW would recognize Parry (so better to let someone else take the risk)? These seem to me to be reasons why Parry's candidacy as the killer might be flawed, not reasons to contrive an elaborate accomplice theory in a haphazard attempt to make the pieces fit.

The only other thing I can think of is that Parkes supposedly said "Parry and another fellow" came by to threaten him or something to that affect. Of course that was an off hand, bumbling comment with 0 corroboration of what one would think might be an important point. I find the "selective focus" interesting here.

It is clear whatever happened Monday January 19th and Tuesday January 20th was very unusual (paraphrasing John G here). And I agree with you Antony that not only do we not have all the facts, but that I think it is possible (perhaps likely) that some of the "facts" we think are so are not facts at all!

[John G]

Aye, it was just a wankfest of embroidery and tittle-tattle that they had all been obsessively nurturing for FIFTY YEARS, just on the off-chance that a radio program might someday name Parry (why would it ever, if he was as innocent as a lamb?). So they could then come forward and falsely admit their "Conspiracy of Silence" in 1931 that nearly sent an innocent man to hang...

And a charming naivety about how the Police operate, even to their own, even to the present day...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-29080776

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34443926

Are there any sharper tools in the box here, or are we done?

What is wrong with you? And don't you think you ought to apologize to AS for reporting his post, considering your own personal attacks?

You haven't a shred of evidence to support your theory concerning Parry being involved with another suspect. Not that it makes any sense anyway. I mean, apparently Parry's accomplice threw the blood soaked mitt into the vehicle to incriminate him and, instead of doing what any sane person would do, which would be to dispose of it at the earliest opportunity, Parry just throws it into the glove box where it's discovered by Parkes several hours later! But there's more. Instead of taking his car to be washed at a garage outside of the district, where he wasn't known, he turns up at the local garage and proceeds to give Parkes, a man who clearly despised him, a virtual confession to a brutal murder. Hilarious! I mean, does this seriously make any sense to you?

In the radio interview Dolly Atkinson was clearly perturbed about their failure to come forward-unlike yourself- and we're told that they certainly would have come forward if the Appeal went against Wallace. But that makes no sense. Thus, it would mean that they were prepared to allow Wallace to go through mental torture during the trial, after the guilty verdict, and during the appeal process, only...to what? Arrive like knight's in shining amour just as the hangman was putting the rope around Wallace's neck!

Far more likely that Parry's original "story", assuming it had any credibility whatsoever, was far less incriminating. Maybe Parry did turn up at the garage, but several days later, protected by his alibis, and determined to wind up a gullible Parkes. However, over the years the story was told, 're-told, mangled, embellished and exaggerated, to the point where it didn't really resemble the original account. And frankly, I refuse to believe that half a century later any of them could, with any clarity, remember precisely what had been originally said.

[John G]

Rod, can we lower the temperature a bit, please. I think the following pages boil down to this: is there any corroboration that Parkes told the Atkinson family, or anybody else, specifically about the mitten or the bar? That he told the family the morning after that he had washed down Parry's car is not in question.

From my research, there is no specific corroboration. I accept there is corroboration about blood - but this could be about blood being swilled away from the car. This is highly significant in itself, of course.

This issue is important in terms of detail, not necessary in terms of the broader picture.

But did he tell them the morning after? As I've noted, after fifty years who knows how much of Parkes' original account had been misremenbered.

[AmericanSherlock]

What is wrong with you? And don't you think you ought to apologize to AS for reporting his post, considering your own personal attacks?

You haven't a shred of evidence to support your theory concerning Parry being involved with another suspect. Not that it makes any sense anyway. I mean, apparently Parry's accomplice threw the blood soaked mitt into the vehicle to incriminate him and, instead of doing what any sane person would do, which would be to dispose of it at the earliest opportunity, Parry just throws it into the glove box where it's discovered by Parkes several hours later! But there's more. Instead of taking his car to be washed at a garage outside of the district, where he wasn't known, he turns up at the local garage and proceeds to give Parkes, a man who clearly despised him, a virtual confession to a brutal murder. Hilarious! I mean, does this seriously make any sense to you?

In the radio interview Dolly Atkinson was clearly perturbed about their failure to come forward-unlike yourself- and we're told that they certainly would have come forward if the Appeal went against Wallace. But that makes no sense. Thus, it would mean that they were prepared to allow Wallace to go through mental torture during the trial, after the guilty verdict, and during the appeal process, only...to what? Arrive like knight's in shining amour just as the hangman was putting the rope around Wallace's neck!

Far more likely that Parry's original "story", assuming it had any credibility whatsoever, was far less incriminating. Maybe Parry did turn up at the garage, but several days later, protected by his alibis, and determined to wind up a gullible Parkes. However, over the years the story was told, 're-told, mangled, embellished and exaggerated, to the point where it didn't really resemble the original account. And frankly, I refuse to believe that half a century later any of them could, with any clarity, remember precisely what had been originally said.

I noticed this as well. It's as if Roger Wilkes, or Dolly Atkinson herself all of a sudden realized it might reflect poorly on them that they didn't come forward at the time and on the spot they came up with a rationalization. It makes no sense to wait, not only thru Wallace's entire trial, but thru his whole appeal, with the excuse that only after he would have lost an appeal would they have come forward!

This is pretty damaging to the whole testimony, because it shows several people were either criminally negligent and deeply immoral, or that perhaps what is being told 50 years later isn't exactly what happened and/or wasn't recollected in exactly the same way by Parkes to the others supposedly part of this "conspiracy of silence" in 1931.

[RodCrosby]

Amusing, but unsurprising, to see ignorance of some basic facts, amongst the huffing and puffing.

Parry effectively had no choice but to take the car to Atkinsons, if he was to take it anywhere at all...

[John G]

Amusing, but unsurprising, to see ignorance of some basic facts, amongst the huffing and puffing.

Parry effectively had no choice but to take the car to Atkinsons, if he was to take it anywhere at all...

Are you arguing that there were no other late night garages, or anywhere else where he may have got his car washed? Bearing in mind, there was nothing to stop him driving to another county if necessary.

[John G]

I noticed this as well. It's as if Roger Wilkes, or Dolly Atkinson herself all of a sudden realized it might reflect poorly on them that they didn't come forward at the time and on the spot they came up with a rationalization. It makes no sense to wait, not only thru Wallace's entire trial, but thru his whole appeal, with the excuse that only after he would have lost an appeal would they have come forward!

This is pretty damaging to the whole testimony, because it shows several people were either criminally negligent and deeply immoral, or that perhaps what is being told 50 years later isn't exactly what happened and/or wasn't recollected in exactly the same way by Parkes to the others supposedly part of this "conspiracy of silence" in 1931.

Hi AS,

Yes, I absolutely agree with you about Dolly Atkinson. Another important issue is that human memory is not at all infallible, particularly as regards dramatic incidents: http://www.newyorker.com/science/mar...y-recollection

And, of course, Parkes was trying to recall events that supposedly happened five decades earlier. Nor does Atkinson really support his version. Thus, Parkes is very specific over what he believes actually happened, referring to the blood stained glove he discovered in the compartment. In contrast, Atkinson vaguely speaks of the "blood stained evidence", whatever that may mean. Nor, as far as I know, does Atkinson confirm the date when this incident supposedly took place.

Moreover, in respect of Atkinson's account, all we have is a story told to Wilkes' assistant, from a man who heard the story from his father, possibly decades earlier, who in turn received the story from Parkes. Talk about Chinese whispers!

By the way, in an earlier post CCJ points out that there is no documented evidence that the police tested the drains or sink for blood. Do you think this significantly strengthens the case against Wallace?

[John G]

Aye, it was just a wankfest of embroidery and tittle-tattle that they had all been obsessively nurturing for FIFTY YEARS, just on the off-chance that a radio program might someday name Parry (why would it ever, if he was as innocent as a lamb?). So they could then come forward and falsely admit their "Conspiracy of Silence" in 1931 that nearly sent an innocent man to hang...

And a charming naivety about how the Police operate, even to their own, even to the present day...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-29080776

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34443926

Are there any sharper tools in the box here, or are we done?

If you have any evidence of police impropriety in the Wallace case then please present it.