Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

Just a few reflections on Parkes' evidence. Firstly, as noted earlier the supporting account of Dolly Atkinson is clearly important for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it confirms that Parkes' account originated close to the date of the murder, so it wasn't just something he dreamt up on a whim after Parry died.

Secondly, she refers to blood evidence, which supports Parkes' recollections, at least in part.

Thirdly, she clearly knew Parkes well and concluded that he wouldn't have made up the story. This is important because it demonstrates that he wasn't the sort of lad given to telling tall stories.

However, the difficulty is this: human memory doesn't work like a video recorder, so how could Parkes accurately remember so much detail after half a century had elapsed?

The answer is that he probably couldn't, so he may well have misrembered certain important details. Nonetheless, he clearly believed that Parry had incriminated himself in some crucial way, otherwise why go to the police?

But even if he was guilty, why would Parry do this? Why confess to what at the time was a capital crime?

Firstly, I think he might have expressed himself in more ambigious terms than Parkes' subsequent account suggests.

Secondly, although Parry was obviously a bit of a rogue, I don't see him as a psychopath. Therefore, if he had murdered Julia, say, on the spur of the moment and whilst in a state of panic, I think he would have regretted his actions.

It's therefore possible, in this scenario, that when he spoke to Parkes he was having some sort of mental breakdown, or at least mental crises. Maybe he felt he just had to unburden himself by confessing to someone, alebit in slightly ambiguous terms. And perhaps Parkes was someone he had little respect for and didn't see as a threat; and ultimately, it would just be his word against Parry's. Or, if was having some sort of breakbown, driven by remorse, perhaps he didn't reflect on the matter at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No worries, it was a good point you made, I just happened to know that tidbit being a "Wallace geek".

The only unsolved case I know more about is probably Sam Sheppard, sort of an American version (in a very loose sense). I think there is about an equal probability of the guilt of Sam Sheppard and Wallace---high, but not definite. In both cases, there is a strong alternative suspect--- Richard Gordon Parry and Richard Eberling, but in the end I think the husbands were probably guilty.

Thanks AS,

I can vaguely remember reading a book on the Sheppard case years ago but that’s all my memory gives. Damn! I sense another case I may have to revisit?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I called Leslie Williamson Gordon Williamson! It's certainly a very confusing and complex case.

Hi John.

I keep trying to come up with alternative scenarios but every one so far bites the dust when an annoying ‘fact’ rests its ugly head.

[John G]

Hi John.

I keep trying to come up with alternative scenarios but every one so far bites the dust when an annoying ‘fact’ rests its ugly head.

Hi Herlock,

Yes, that's the problem. Take for instance the important issue of Parkes' damning evidence. How seriously did the Atkinson's take it? On one hand we're told, I believe by Parkes, that Superintendent Moore was informed but took no action.

Then, in the Atkinson radio interview, we're informed that they would have come forward if Wallace lost his appeal, which makes you wonder why they didn't come forward earlier.

And didn't Parkes say that Atkinson advised him not to get involved? That sounds like he at misgivings about the account, or didn't take it too seriously.

[AmericanSherlock]

Just a few reflections on Parkes' evidence. Firstly, as noted earlier the supporting account of Dolly Atkinson is clearly important for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it confirms that Parkes' account originated close to the date of the murder, so it wasn't just something he dreamt up on a whim after Parry died.

Secondly, she refers to blood evidence, which supports Parkes' recollections, at least in part.

Thirdly, she clearly knew Parkes well and concluded that he wouldn't have made up the story. This is important because it demonstrates that he wasn't the sort of lad given to telling tall stories.

However, the difficulty is this: human memory doesn't work like a video recorder, so how could Parkes accurately remember so much detail after half a century had elapsed?

The answer is that he probably couldn't, so he may well have misrembered certain important details. Nonetheless, he clearly believed that Parry had incriminated himself in some crucial way, otherwise why go to the police?

But even if he was guilty, why would Parry do this? Why confess to what at the time was a capital crime?

Firstly, I think he might have expressed himself in more ambigious terms than Parkes' subsequent account suggests.

Secondly, although Parry was obviously a bit of a rogue, I don't see him as a psychopath. Therefore, if he had murdered Julia, say, on the spur of the moment and whilst in a state of panic, I think he would have regretted his actions.

It's therefore possible, in this scenario, that when he spoke to Parkes he was having some sort of mental breakdown, or at least mental crises. Maybe he felt he just had to unburden himself by confessing to someone, alebit in slightly ambiguous terms. And perhaps Parkes was someone he had little respect for and didn't see as a threat; and ultimately, it would just be his word against Parry's. Or, if was having some sort of breakbown, driven by remorse, perhaps he didn't reflect on the matter at all.

John, I have thought about this myself and the theory you've put forth of a sort of middleground--Parkes wasn't entirely accurate in his recollection, but also that there was a kernel of truth in it is a strong one. I also agree that Parry seems more like a low level conman/rogue type and someone who would probably panic after committing a brutal unplanned murder. Can that explain away what seems like very odd actions if Parkes is telling the truth? I'm not sure.

One thing I wonder is why, if Parry needed his car cleaned, did he drive it to a garage where he was already hated with a garage hand who didn't trust him? Was that really the only way to clean his car out? Obviously this was before DNA. Was that the only garage he could visit? Is it not something he could have done himself? A very stupid action if Parry really was guilty that only would make sense if he suffered temporary insanity at the panic upon realizing what he had done.

[AmericanSherlock]

Thanks AS,

I can vaguely remember reading a book on the Sheppard case years ago but that’s all my memory gives. Damn! I sense another case I may have to revisit?

I recommend it! It's a great mystery imo, sort of like the Wallace case except Sam claims he faced the killer--"a bushy haired stranger" dead on and sustained injuries that supposedly proved it!

Some other similarities are both cases had hallmarks traditionally associated with domestic murder occurring.


1. the victim is killed at home

2. the victim is bludgeoned in the face/head area (extremely common in domestic homicides, extremely rare otherwise)

3. there is another crime that is "staged" so that the murder appears to be tangential to it

Also like the Wallace case, Sam was initially convicted (he served many years in prison) and then was acquitted and lived on but as a broken man (although he did remarry--a woman with Nazi ties!) before dying soon after. At one point, Sam was a freakshow type of attraction in professional wrestling!

Finally, like the Wallace case, public perception has shifted considerably from 1. most likely guilty to 2. most likely innocent to 3. some movement back towards guilt and a split general public. There was a time, similar to the 80s and 90s with most thinking Parry guilty that in the 90s and early 0s most thought Richard Eberling was guilty.

The Fugitive TV series with Harrison Ford is a spin off loosely based on the crime where Dr. Richard Kimble is on the run (Sam was Dr. Sam Sheppard). The premise of the show is Kimble is innocent. Similarly, the Man From the Pru portrays Parry as guilty.

However recent scholarship in both cases seems point the finger back a bit at both Wallace and Dr. Sam, and mitigate some of the evidence against the "strong alternate suspect".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Parkes only came forward after the death of Parry which occurred in April 1980, 9 months before the Radio City presentation on the 50th anniversary of the murder in January 1981. For the same reason, Goodman refers to Parry as Mr. X in his book.

Hi AS,

I’ve just noticed this in Gannon’s book which has confused me a little.
It’s on page 136:

‘Soon after newspaper reports of Wallace’s arrest had been circulated around the city, garage hand John Parkes asked his boss, William Anderson, to inform the police of his encounter with Parry on the night of the murder; and it was not long before Superintendant Moore arrived at Atkinson’s garage. Parkes told Moore his story of the night he had washed down Party’s car, about the bloodstained mitten and Parry telling him of the bar that he had thrown down a drain.’

Moore’s reaction was ‘ Pooh, pooh; I think you’ve made a mistake.’

So according to this it seems that the police were given Parry’s evidence at the time but dismissed it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Yes, that's the problem. Take for instance the important issue of Parkes' damning evidence. How seriously did the Atkinson's take it? On one hand we're told, I believe by Parkes, that Superintendent Moore was informed but took no action.

Then, in the Atkinson radio interview, we're informed that they would have come forward if Wallace lost his appeal, which makes you wonder why they didn't come forward earlier.

And didn't Parkes say that Atkinson advised him not to get involved? That sounds like he at misgivings about the account, or didn't take it too seriously.

Hi John,
I could be wrong but the impression that I get is that initially they had agreed not to come forward with Parry’s story unless Wallace was convicted. But as the story of his arrest became widespread in the news Parry asked Atkinson to inform the police. So it appears that Parry was keener to come forward than the Atkinson’s. Maybe the Atkinson’s were a bit ‘shady’ and didn’t relish the police lurking around?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I recommend it! It's a great mystery imo, sort of like the Wallace case except Sam claims he faced the killer--"a bushy haired stranger" dead on and sustained injuries that supposedly proved it!

Some other similarities are both cases had hallmarks traditionally associated with domestic murder occurring.


1. the victim is killed at home

2. the victim is bludgeoned in the face/head area (extremely common in domestic homicides, extremely rare otherwise)

3. there is another crime that is "staged" so that the murder appears to be tangential to it

Also like the Wallace case, Sam was initially convicted (he served many years in prison) and then was acquitted and lived on but as a broken man (although he did remarry--a woman with Nazi ties!) before dying soon after. At one point, Sam was a freakshow type of attraction in professional wrestling!

Finally, like the Wallace case, public perception has shifted considerably from 1. most likely guilty to 2. most likely innocent to 3. some movement back towards guilt and a split general public. There was a time, similar to the 80s and 90s with most thinking Parry guilty that in the 90s and early 0s most thought Richard Eberling was guilty.

The Fugitive TV series with Harrison Ford is a spin off loosely based on the crime where Dr. Richard Kimble is on the run (Sam was Dr. Sam Sheppard). The premise of the show is Kimble is innocent. Similarly, the Man From the Pru portrays Parry as guilty.

However recent scholarship in both cases seems point the finger back a bit at both Wallace and Dr. Sam, and mitigate some of the evidence against the "strong alternate suspect".

Hi AS,

Do you have any recommended books on the Sheppard case?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AS,

I’ve just noticed this in Gannon’s book which has confused me a little.
It’s on page 136:

‘Soon after newspaper reports of Wallace’s arrest had been circulated around the city, garage hand John Parkes asked his boss, William Anderson, to inform the police of his encounter with Parry on the night of the murder; and it was not long before Superintendant Moore arrived at Atkinson’s garage. Parkes told Moore his story of the night he had washed down Party’s car, about the bloodstained mitten and Parry telling him of the bar that he had thrown down a drain.’

Moore’s reaction was ‘ Pooh, pooh; I think you’ve made a mistake.’

So according to this it seems that the police were given Parry’s evidence at the time but dismissed it?

Apologies - Parry’s car and not Party’s car - I truly hate predictive text!

And it’s was Parkes’s evidence not Parry’s of course👍

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi John,
I could be wrong but the impression that I get is that initially they had agreed not to come forward with Parry’s story unless Wallace was convicted. But as the story of his arrest became widespread in the news Parry asked Atkinson to inform the police. So it appears that Parry was keener to come forward than the Atkinson’s. Maybe the Atkinson’s were a bit ‘shady’ and didn’t relish the police lurking around?

More silly errors on my part.

Subsitute Parkes For Parry here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thinking aloud

Just a few thoughts, for what they’re worth, as I’ve just started reading through the trial transcript.

Why did Wallace check upstairs immediately he accessed the house? Johnston saw lights going on upstairs. It wasn’t 9pm yet so why would he assume that Julia was upstairs?

Doesn’t it seem a bit cold (although not in itself evidence of murder) that before Johnston goes for the police that Wallace points out that the cabinet door had been wrenched off then he checks the cash box.

Johnston asked ‘is everything alright upstairs before I go for the police?’ Wallace goes upstairs but, according to Johnston, he’d already been up there. So what did he go up again?

Again doesn’t it seem a little cold that Wallace returns to the Parlour, for no real reason, and on seeing the mackintosh stoops down next to the body of his battered to death wife to check it.

Wallace said that when he realised that there was no Menlove Gardens East he became suspicious and went home (intimating that he was concerned for his wife’s safety.) He was told by a clerk that there was no Menlove Gardens East. Then a police officer. He didn’t appear ‘suspicious’ then as he continued to the Allerton Road P.O. still in search of the non-existent Menlove Gardens East.

The Prosecuting Council said that the money found upstairs was the same amount that Wallace said was missing from the cash box. I’m assuming this is where one of the notes had a blood smear? Isn’t it therefore possible or even likely that Wallace took the cash from the cash box and put it upstairs to make it look like a robbery?

It was said that before he went out Wallace gathered together documents that he felt that he might need. As he didn’t know the details of the business that may have been quite a few documents. Was he carrying them when he got back? Obviously he wasn’t under suspicion then so he wasn’t searched but wouldn’t he have taken some kind of briefcase? I suppose there’s no way of knowing.

These are just a few thoughts as I progress slowly through the trial transcript. I find my suspicion of Wallace increasing slightly

[John G]

Hi John,
I could be wrong but the impression that I get is that initially they had agreed not to come forward with Parry’s story unless Wallace was convicted. But as the story of his arrest became widespread in the news Parry asked Atkinson to inform the police. So it appears that Parry was keener to come forward than the Atkinson’s. Maybe the Atkinson’s were a bit ‘shady’ and didn’t relish the police lurking around?

Hi Herlock,

I need to listen to Parkes' radio broadcast again as to when exactly they came forward , as this is clearly a crucial point. According to CCJ's book, Atkinson originally advised Parkes not to have anything to do with it and to change his route to work. However, when pressed Atkinson agreed they should come forward if Wallace was convicted (if that was the case, I'm not suprised Moore was so dismissive, particularly as he'd just secured a conviction and the delay in coming forward must have raised a suspicion-after all, Lilly Hall came forward to give evidence at the trial and, on the surface, all she witnessed was two blokes having a chat!)

[Herlock Sholmes]

I need to stop mixing Parry and Parkes names

[John G]

John, I have thought about this myself and the theory you've put forth of a sort of middleground--Parkes wasn't entirely accurate in his recollection, but also that there was a kernel of truth in it is a strong one. I also agree that Parry seems more like a low level conman/rogue type and someone who would probably panic after committing a brutal unplanned murder. Can that explain away what seems like very odd actions if Parkes is telling the truth? I'm not sure.

One thing I wonder is why, if Parry needed his car cleaned, did he drive it to a garage where he was already hated with a garage hand who didn't trust him? Was that really the only way to clean his car out? Obviously this was before DNA. Was that the only garage he could visit? Is it not something he could have done himself? A very stupid action if Parry really was guilty that only would make sense if he suffered temporary insanity at the panic upon realizing what he had done.

I think if Parkes' account is accurate, or broadly, accurate, we have to assume that Parry was in a state of mental turmoil when he headed over to the garage, as the enormity of what he'd done-possibly as a result of panic following a botched robbery-began to sink in; someone not really thinking about the consequences of "confessing" to Parkes, or at least not seeing him as a threat, and maybe even considering handing himself in or disappearing abroad.

Ada Pritchard's account is interesting in this respect because, if true, it suggests that Parry had at least confessed to his parents, demonstrating that he had a need to unburden himself. But, like so many things in this case, can her account be regarded as reliable?