Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

Quote"I think you are veering off into rubber suit territory here."

Ha Ha Ha . Actually, have you heard the 3rd of 3 1981 Liverpool radio city
programmes They interview in depth a so called witness to Parry's skulduggery, a Mr. John Parkes. tells an incredible story filled with intrigue,
where at one point talks of Parry borrowing a policeman's waterproof cape( for crying out loud) and from another person a pair of rubber , thigh high,
fishing waders! When I heard this I thought I wish we could introduce this Parkes dude to poster Spitfire, 'What great larks eh'?

I should listen again...
Parkes makes clear he is theorising here, not stating he saw waders or a cape.
He advances this (silly) idea, to explain an odd fact. That Parry was dressed normally when he arrived at the garage and there was no trace of blood on him.

A simpler explanation is that Parry didn't kill Julia Wallace...

[Abby Normal]

I dont find it odd wallace had trouble with the doors trying to het in when he returned. I do find it bery odd that as soon as the johnstoms appeard...bang hes in.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS,
I can see that Wallace might have been trying to create a general impression with his lock difficulties rather than attract the close attention of a particular neighbour.

His suspicion that someone was still in the house is a bit puzzling however. If Wallace was guilty then the whole point of the Qualtrough phone call was to create a time slot in which, theoretically, his wife was murdered by an intruder. His fictional thief who had got him out of the house would hardly be careless enough to be still mooching around for valuables two hours later.
As a man interested in biology, Wallace would have assumed the time of death could be estimated better than it actually was, which again counts against the culprit hanging around the house any longer than necessary. So I can see little advantage in Wallace’s plan requiring the murderer to have slipped out the front door while he was trying his key in the back door, as it undermines the purpose of the Qualtrough phone call.

Can we clarify what exactly Wallace meant by his words? After all, there was still someone in the house when he entered: Julia. Did he just mean that he was confident she was still on the premises, alone or otherwise? For a man who allegedly suspected an ill-intentioned visitor, Wallace seemed pretty relaxed about investigating the house with the assistance of no more than a box of matches. His actions seem more in line with a man who has been sent on a wild goose chase, is frustrated that the door locks are troublesome, and is becoming a little anxious about his wife who has probably gone to bed early due to ill-health.

This is what was said at the trial.

Do you remember Inspector Gold asking you whether
you thought there was someone in the house when you got
back ? I think that was page 53. That was when the
statement. Exhibit 42, was taken. Do you remember him
asking you if you thought anyone was in the house when
you got back, and do you remember your answer ? — No,
I do not.

“ I thought someone was in the house when I went to
the front door because I could not open it, and I could not
open the back door.” Do you remember saying that ? —
No, I do not.

Do you still think that when you were there you thought
there was someone in the house ? — No, I do not.

You have given that theory up ? — ^Yes.

213



THE TRIAL OF WILLIAM HERBERT WALLACE

Did you ever believe it ? — I might have done at the
moment.

It always seems strange to me that Wallace said that he couldn’t remember mentioning that he’d thought that someone was still in the house. How could he forget mentioning what he was thinking at such an important time? Then when he’s asked “You have given that theory up?” He replies “yes” showing that it was indeed what he’d ‘though.’ And then when asked if he’d ever believed it he says “I might have done.” Sounds like a reluctant admission to me.

[moste]

Had the Appeal been lost, I think the Home Secretary (J. R. Clynes) would have commuted the sentence to imprisonment.

In which case, kindly consider my sentence amended.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is what was said at the trial.



It always seems strange to me that Wallace said that he couldn’t remember mentioning that he’d thought that someone was still in the house. How could he forget mentioning what he was thinking at such an important time? Then when he’s asked “You have given that theory up?” He replies “yes” showing that it was indeed what he’d ‘though.’ And then when asked if he’d ever believed it he says “I might have done.” Sounds like a reluctant admission to me.

Cobalt:

Can we clarify what exactly Wallace meant by his words? After all, there was still someone in the house when he entered: Julia. Did he just mean that he was confident she was still on the premises, alone or otherwise? For a man who allegedly suspected an ill-intentioned visitor, Wallace seemed pretty relaxed about investigating the house with the assistance of no more than a box of matches.

This is a point that I’ve thought about in the past Cobalt. Nothing is conclusive of course but it adds to an accumulation of doubts and suspicions. Wallace had clearly ‘suspected’ that there might have been someone still in the house (or was trying to give that impression.) And yet, as you’ve said, why did he not ask Mr Johnston to accompany him inside just for safety in numbers? Wallace doesn’t give the impression of a man of action or a have-a-go hero.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I should listen again...
Parkes makes clear he is theorising here, not stating he saw waders or a cape.
He advances this (silly) idea, to explain an odd fact. That Parry was dressed normally when he arrived at the garage and there was no trace of blood on him.

A simpler explanation is that Parry didn't kill Julia Wallace...

This simply isn’t the case. It’s actually misinformation to use a favourite word of yours.

According to Parkes someone from Stoneycroft actually told him that Parry had borrowed some thigh boots, as he’d intended on going fishing, and never returned them.

Also, according to Parkes, a policeman had told him that Parry had borrowed an oilskin coat from him and never returned it.

So although Parkes is theorising about what Parry used these items for he’s basing it on things he said that were told to him. And so if it’s believed by some that the ‘events’ actually occurred as Parkes stated then they must surely also assume that he was being truthful about being told Parry borrowed an oilskin coat and waders just before the murder. Unless we believe that Parry intended to attend the 21st birthday party dressed as an angler then we can only assume one reason for him needing them. Or are we cherry-picking Parkes statement now?

Another question is why, say 3 hours later, did Parry appear agitated to Parkes and yet when he was at the Williamson’s for a short time and when he spent a longer time with his girlfriend, earlier in the evening, he was perfectly normal and calm. Surely we would expect to find him more ‘agitated’ just after he’d discovered that his Qualtrough scam had now left him implicated in a brutal murder?

Finally we might reasonably ask why would Parkes make up this story? On the radio show Parkes says something potentially revealing. In the light of Moore rejecting his story ‘someone’ said to him “what you’ve told Moore has saved Wallace’s neck.” The reason being that he’d created doubt in the police’s mind. Nonsense of course but it doesn’t change the fact that Parkes said it. Was this simply an old man, nearing the end of his life, trying to give the impression that his words/effort had saved an innocent man’s life?

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...

I never said that Parkes wasn't told about these things.

Merely that he made 2+2=5...

And as a simple man, unaware of how the legal system actual works, he might reasonably have thought his intervention had had the desired effect.

Come to think of it, who's to say that - in some roundabout way - it hadn't?

Several very odd things happened in this case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn...

I never said that Parkes wasn't told about these things.

Merely that he made 2+2=5...

And as a simple man, unaware of how the legal system actual works, he might reasonably have thought his intervention had had the desired effect.

Come to think of it, who's to say that - in some roundabout way - it hadn't?

Several very odd things happened in this case.

The relevant point is that Parkes stated that he was apparently told by two people that Parry had borrowed waders and an oilskin coat. This was just as much a part of his statement as any other part of it. Why would Parry do this? The inference is an obvious one as Parkes was apparently told it in relation to the murder of Julia Wallace. This is obvious nonsense. Parkes was making this up. And if he could make this up it’s not unbelievable that he made the rest of it up and when we examine how unlikely in the extreme his statement was this is the likeliest conclusion to make. Especially when we can now add the suggestion that Parry’s inexplicable actions and inexplicable ‘confession’ was to a crime that he didn’t actually commit and one that he had an unshakeable alibi for. Could anything be less credible?

I know that I’ve asked the question “how stupid must Parry have been” several times (and rightly so) but we can now add another. “ How stupid must Parry have been to borrow an oilskin coat from a policeman to aid him in committing a robbery/murder and then not even bother to return it to him?

And as a simple man, unaware of how the legal system actual works, he might reasonably have thought his intervention had had the desired effect.

Rightly or wrongly, this belief might provide a motive for Parkes’ statement.

[RodCrosby]

I can't deal with stuff that doesn't even scan.

Only unintelligible nonsense there. Makes a change from the usual plain, intelligible nonsense, I suppose...

But still, no cigar.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another method of avoidance. Makes a change from your usual methods: disappearing from the thread for a time or changing the subject or posting a quote or posting a graph.

Why would you believe other parts of Parkes fantasy and yet baulk at the talk of oilskins and waders? Parkes said that he was told this by two people (one of whom was a police officer.) Why would those two people mention this, in connection to Parry, if they weren’t suggesting that he’d used these items to commit the murder? This is as much a part of Parry’s statement as any other part.

[RodCrosby]

Do you not read what you write, before you press "Submit"?

Clearly NOT...

It still DOES NOT SCAN with respect to any intelligible facts I am aware of.

And as for "avoidance" by leaving the thread... Yawn...

(does he not realise I have a real life, and have far more interesting things to get on with, having already been acknowledged in print as providing, on balance,
"the best explanation..." for the murder of Julia Wallace?)

[ColdCaseJury]

Another method of avoidance. Makes a change from your usual methods: disappearing from the thread for a time or changing the subject or posting a quote or posting a graph.

Why would you believe other parts of Parkes fantasy and yet baulk at the talk of oilskins and waders? Parkes said that he was told this by two people (one of whom was a police officer.) Why would those two people mention this, in connection to Parry, if they weren’t suggesting that he’d used these items to commit the murder? This is as much a part of Parry’s statement as any other part.

HS, although your other criticisms of Parkes seem challenging and well-founded, I don't believe this argument has much weight, at least for me. The fundamental aspect of the Parkes evidence is what Parry allegedly told Parkes. Parry did not tell Parkes about the waders and oilskins. I don't see what others told Parkes about Parry has any bearing on the veracity of his main allegation.

Of course, his motivation might have been publicity. But you still would think he would have come forward sooner even to serve that end.

In my experience of talking to people long after the event, the problem for a witness is not fantasy or mendacity, but false memories.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you not read what you write, before you press "Submit"?

Clearly NOT...

It still DOES NOT SCAN with respect to any intelligible facts I am aware of.

And as for "avoidance" by leaving the thread... Yawn...

(does he not realise I have a real life, and have far more interesting things to get on with, having already been acknowledged in print as providing, on balance,
"the best explanation..." for the murder of Julia Wallace?)

It was aimed at anyone with an adult reading age. Antony appears to understand it. Unfortunately I don’t speak scouse.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS, although your other criticisms of Parkes seem challenging and well-founded, I don't believe this argument has much weight, at least for me. The fundamental aspect of the Parkes evidence is what Parry allegedly told Parkes. Parry did not tell Parkes about the waders and oilskins. I don't see what others told Parkes about Parry has any bearing on the veracity of his main allegation.

Of course, his motivation might have been publicity. But you still would think he would have come forward sooner even to serve that end.

In my experience of talking to people long after the event, the problem for a witness is not fantasy or mendacity, but false memories.

If a person makes a statement containing, for the sake of argument, 12 ‘facts’ and 2 of them (again for the sake of argument) are unbelievable nonsense. Aren’t we at liberty so say “we’ll if he lied about those 2 ‘facts’ isn’t it at least possible that he lied about the other 10?” Especially if those 10 ‘facts’ are inherently difficult to credit.

What we are expected to believe, if we believe Parkes, is that after the murder 2 apparently unconnected people came into the garage separately and informed Parkes that Parry had borrowed an item of protective clothing from them? Was Parkes the local collater of Parry-related information? I don’t think this is believable as I don’t think that the rest of the statement is believable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
(does he not realise I have a real life, and have far more interesting things to get on with,

Which conveniently surface when your wriggling on the hook.

. having already been acknowledged in print as providing, on balance,
"the best explanation..." for the murder of Julia Wallace?)

By one person.

I have no real desire to keep conversing with someone who’s little more than an irrelevant annoyance.