Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

'We have no idea when he came up with it?' So we can say 'he wasn't inferring that the oilskins in his opinion had anything to do with the murder?

Oh he was. But we have to ask:-

If this is all a fabulation, why does Parkes go to the trouble of putting a hole ("lack of bloodstains") in his own belief ("Parry killed Julia"), and then struggle to find an explanation, before coming up with a daft theory about oilskins, based on things he had heard at some-time-or-other from elsewhere?

It would surely be simpler for him to claim he saw a spot of blood on Parry's hand, face or shirt, etc. if it was all lies.

I tend to go with "Truth is always stranger than fiction. Because fiction has to make sense."

[etenguy]

I tend to go with "Truth is stranger than fiction. Because fiction has to make sense."

There are plenty of examples that support this adage, but if we apply this to Parkes, we must then also apply it to Johnstone.

I am not seriously resurrecting the 'Johnstone as killer' theory, but I could make as strong a case as we can for Parkes about his confession. For example:

Johnstone was close to death and he felt the need to clear his conscience before meeting his maker. He was suffering from dementia, but one of the consequences for a number of dementia sufferers is that they retreat to the past where older memories are more vivid while recent memories aren't retained (see alzheimers.org extract below). Dwelling on his memory of the murder may have added to his need to confess, especially as his present was not being retained.

Memory loss affects each person differently, as do all aspects of dementia. For example, some people with dementia retain certain skills for much longer, while others need assistance earlier on. A person may recall a surprising range of facts or experiences, especially memories from earlier in their life, but may forget recent events or familiar.

[etenguy]

Parkes is a sufficient but not necessary condition of Parry's involvement.

I agree with this statement completely. I also understand we cannot simply disregard what Parkes says. I just wonder how much the story suffers from false memory over time and/or what misunderstandings might have occurred at the time.

[RodCrosby]

I am not seriously resurrecting the 'Johnstone as killer' theory, but I could make as strong a case as we can for Parkes about his confession.

Objectively, I don't think so.

Parkes went on the record in 1981. We can hear him in his own words. Whereas the Johnston story only comes second-hand from an unidentified person, "Stan" via the filter of Tom-"the case of the werewolf cabby"-Slemen.

Parkes was supported in part by another person, who it seems could have no reason to endorse a fabrication which also paints her and her family in a somewhat bad light. There is no endorsement whatsoever for the Johnston tale, and indeed vehement denunciation from relatives who were with him at his death.

Parkes was tracked down by award-winning investigative journalists, who later published a serious book on the case. "Stan" is supposed to have come forward to a well-known purveyor of tall-tales, who promised a book almost 20 years ago, but none has appeared.

[etenguy]

Objectively, I don't think so.

Parkes went on the record in 1981. We can hear him in his own words. Whereas the Johnston story only comes second-hand from an unidentified person, "Stan" via the filter of Tom-"the case of the werewolf cabby"-Slemen.

Parkes was supported in part by another person, who it seems could have no reason to endorse a fabrication which also paints her and her family in a somewhat bad light. There is no endorsement whatsoever for the Johnston tale, and indeed vehement denunciation from relatives who were with him at his death.

Parkes was tracked down by award-winning investigative journalists, who later published a serious book on the case. "Stan" is supposed to have come forward to a well-known purveyor of tall-tales, who promised a book almost 20 years ago, but none has appeared.

I am now really interested in reading 'the case of the werewolf cabby'

Seriously - point taken.

[RodCrosby]

Take a stiff drink first. I'm sure it will help (...your credulity)

https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/16136494.haunted-wirral-the-strange-case-of-the-werewolf-cabby/

[etenguy]

Take a stiff drink first. I'm sure it will help (...your credulity)
https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/1...erewolf-cabby/

A salutary lesson in checking your sources.

The gay couple, ghosts from the future story was the better story though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Parkes statement.

According to Parkes, Parry came to Atkinson’s Garage: “Late that night or early morning,” so we can reasonably assume 1am or later. If we say, hypothetically of course, that the killer left 29 Wolverton Street by 8pm this would make Parry’s visit 5 hours or more later. This raises our first questions. We might ask why he waited for five hours but it’s reasonable to suggest that he might have waited until the garage was quieter. More pertinent is why he chose to go to a garage at all, let alone Atkinson’s. Parry might have expected, at some point, to have been questioned by the police as he knew the Wallace’s but he couldn’t have expected a call anything like so soon. So its difficult, if not impossible, to use the ‘time pressure’ or ‘panic’ excuse. If someone wanted to remove incriminating evidence of a capital crime why would they go to a garage? Surely Parry and his accomplice could have laid their hands on a hosepipe and found a less conspicuous location where they could have cleaned the car away from prying eyes or potential witnesses? But no, he chose a garage. And one where he was well known.

Parkes stated that Parry once asked him: “Do you like me?” To which Parkes responded “I don’t trust you.” Parkes was adamant that he’d told Parry this straight to his face. So there was no friendship or trust between them. No reason to expect discretion. Parkes also claimed about Parry: “ He wanted money badly and tried to rob the sons of the garage. He was caught going through the wardrobe where one of the sons kept money.” The garage had other experience of Parry too. According to Parkes: “As a matter of fact the Atkinson’s overhauled his engine for him and never got paid.”

So, at the barest minimum and going on Parkes statement, we can ask two initial questions. Why did Parry choose a garage to clean his car instead of doing it in private with his accomplice’s help? And, could Parry have possibly chosen a worse garage than the Atkinson’s and a worse person in John Parkes?

Parry comes into the garage and asks Parkes to clean his car with the hose inside and out despite Parkes saying that it looked clean to him. Parkes said: “As I was doing this I saw a glove inside a box in the car and I pulled it out to stop it getting wringing wet. Parry snatched it of me. It was covered in blood and Parry said to me ‘if the police found that - it would hang me!’ Well I was a bit dubious about things, and then he started rambling about a bar which he’d hidden outside a doctors house in Priory Road. He said he’d dropped it down a grid outside the house.

More questions. Why over the previous five hours hadn’t Parry disposed of such an incriminating piece of evidence? Especially when he appears to have gotten rid of the other glove? Can this really be put down to panic or an oversight? To leave the one piece of incriminating evidence in plain view in a location where he was directing someone to clean? Next we might ask why, when Parkes picked up the glove, did Parry suddenly spill the beans? Blood dried over 5 hours ago might not have obviously been identifiable as blood on a dark glove. Why didn’t Parry just say that it was an old glove with paint on it or some other substance? No, he immediately owns up but not only that, and with absolutely no prompting he tells about the iron bar. We simply cannot put this down to panic. This admission makes absolutely no sense unless Parry was under some suicidal delusion. More questions without logical answers. Then we can add two points. Firstly it’s very noticeable that Parry, who has just potentially put his neck in the noose, at no time tells Parkes to keep his mouth shut. A man of whom he can have absolutely no expectation of loyalty or discretion. I ask any person of reason - is this credible? Also we of course have to ask why Parry would ‘own up’ to crime for which he could hang when he didn’t actually commit the murder? He had an unshakeable alibi for the time of Julia’s murder and afterwards. This makes absolutely no sense.

Next, we have a relatively minor point. Wilkes describes the glove as a ‘leather mitt,’ Parkes actually describes the ‘glove’ and he appears to be describing a mitten. Let’s face it, who would think that he needed to describe what a glove looks like? If this was a mitten we have to ask why anyone would use such a clumsy thing when the main part of the ‘job’ was to get notes out of a fairly small cash box? Why restrict yourself by using a mitten? Surely between them Parry and his accomplice could have laid their hands on a glove?

Then we have Parkes saying: “He was in an agitated state. I could tell that by what he said.” Parkes also said (whilst talking quickly and excitedly according to Wilkes): Parry was in a state of insanity....he had to do something....had to tell somebody.....and he told me everything.” Is this believable? Why is it that , hours earlier, and just after he’d discovered that he was now implicated in a horrible crime that carried the death penalty, a crime that he’d planned to be a simple robbery where no one got hurt, Parry visited the Williamson’s acting perfectly calmly and normally? He then went to his girlfriends where she and her mother saw him acting perfectly normally and calmly. So why, a few hours later is he acting as Parkes said that he was? Again, does this make any logical sense. I’d have to say...not in any way.

Then we have Parkes stating that two people, at two different times told him that Parry had borrowed oilskins and waders. The oilskins were from a policeman and Parry never returned them. Parkes theorises that Parry wore them to protect himself from blood whilst he killed Julia. We have to ask why would two people come to tell Parkes this news? Was he the local sorting house for all Parry related news? The idea of Parry borrowing oilskins and waders is ludicrous but there’s no getting away from the fact that Parkes stated that this was what he was told.

Then we have Parkes handing the killer of Julia Wallace to Superintendent Moore on a plate only to have him reject it casually. Is this believable? Police corruption existed of course. As did police incompetence but we can’t just fall back on those reasons without hard evidence. Why wouldn’t Moore undertake to spend a few minutes of police time to send a Constable to check the drain in Priory Road for the weapon? This was only just after Wallace was charged let’s not forget? What if someone else, like Parkes or a friend of his, had found the weapon and gone to the press? What if Parry had simply told the press or anyone about his story? What if the story had surfaced after Wallace had been hanged. We can’t put this down to police incompetence because it’s far beyond that. Can we put it down to corruption? I see no specific evidence of that.

Does any of this entire episode sound believable when we look at it closely? To me nothing about it makes sense. And if, as was suggested, that this story was common knowledge around the garage why did it not leak out over the ensuing fifty years. After all, after the Maybrick poisoning case at the end of the last century this was Liverpool’s most famous, most talked about case. It simply beggars belief that no one would have mentioned the story of Parry and his car until Parkes was tracked down fifty years later.

Do we think that this story is obviously true or obviously false? Or do we think that it could be true but it has so many unbelievable elements? You can guess which one I favour but we have to remember this. If it wasn’t true then the case against Parry or Parry and his accomplice pretty much collapses as all that would be left would be the undoubted fact that Parry knew the Wallace’s. That Parry knew about Wallace’s business dealings. And that Parry knew where Wallace kept his takings. Not exactly bang-to-rights is it.

And by the way I don’t mind any responses or no responses at all, but could we avoid these words and phrases - yawn, misinformation, disinformation, logical fallacies also any pointless Latin or pointless quotes from lawyers or judges and even more importantly no graphs. Or any other method of avoiding the issues.

Much appreciated.

[RodCrosby]

Everything has been addressed. Everything is possible and indeed plausible.

Special pleading, amongst all the other logical fallacies, doesn't cut it.

And look up "accessorial liability", as it may have applied - or appeared to Parry to apply - in 1931...

[ColdCaseJury]

I agree with this statement completely. I also understand we cannot simply disregard what Parkes says. I just wonder how much the story suffers from false memory over time and/or what misunderstandings might have occurred at the time.

I agree. I think the partial confirmation by Atkinson must be given due weight in considering that something like Parry's late-night car wash occurred. That said, false memories are a reality.

A story from a different case. I'll keep it very brief. In researching Death of An Actress, I was made aware of a 85-year-old man who, as a young lad, worked on the Durban Castle when Gay Gibson disappeared (Oct 1947). He repeatedly told stories to friends and others that he spoke to Gay Gibson and also knew James Camb (the deck steward who was found guilty of her murder). Excitedly, I went to interview him for my book. He was extremely lucid, with a sharp recollection of the past.

However, under my gentle but persistent questioning, I established he first went to sea in 1948 and he first worked on the Durban Castle in 1951. Even when I pointed out the obvious, he still had some difficulty in accepting he had not spoken to either. Was the man a fantasist? In my opinion, no. He clearly liked to be a raconteur, but I believe he had mixed up events (Camb was not the last stewards to be arrested on ship). I learned much about false memories that day.

Naturally, he did not make it into my book.

[RodCrosby]

My Dad was a "bit" (read a LOT) like that, an ex-seafarer too... Hence, after a lifetime's experience, I am quite well-attuned to detecting BS...

All of this, however, is true

https://oraclecancertrust.org/one-worlds-longest-survivors-pharyngeal-pouch-cancer-dies/

[cobalt]

HS,

Well argued and lucid regarding Parkes' account.
Do we know when Parry became aware of the murder of Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

My Dad was a "bit" (read a LOT) like that, an ex-seafarer too... Hence, after a lifetime's experience, I am quite well-attuned to detecting BS...

All of this, however, is true
https://oraclecancertrust.org/one-wo...h-cancer-dies/

Exchange ‘detecting’ for ‘talking’ and I’ll give it a

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS,

Well argued and lucid regarding Parkes' account.
Do we know when Parry became aware of the murder of Julia Wallace?

Thanks Cobalt,

We don’t know when he found out or how. Possibly on the local grapevine?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Everything has been addressed. Everything is possible and indeed plausible.

Special pleading, amongst all the other logical fallacies, doesn't cut it.

And look up "accessorial liability", as it may have applied - or appeared to Parry to apply - in 1931...

More meaningless waffle.

You believe Parkes because you have to. Pure self-interest.

The story is nonsense.