Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

It beggars belief that Parry and his accomplice, one an actual murderer and the other implicated, would want to risk bringing someone into their confidence when there was a very simple alternative. And let’s not forget that they had plenty of time as there was no way that Parry could have expected a visit from the police so soon after the event. They could easily have cleaned the car themselves. Unless we are suggesting that the accomplice was dripping with blood and sat in more than one place in the car then a clean up would have been pretty much confined to the passenger seat. A clean up at some secluded spot would have been easy.

The fact that the garage was local is irrelevant when considering the insane risk compared to the very simple alternative.

“Why was it the worse possible garage?” - because Parry wasn’t welcome, trusted or liked there, either by the Atkinson’s or Parkes. He’d been found rummaging through a wardrobe containing cash and Parkes had told him to his face that he didn’t trust him. Not only could Parry have no expectation of silence (and apparently he didn’t get it either) but he didn’t even tell Parkes to keep quiet. Can anything be more unbelievable? He pretty much coughs up to a murder but doesn’t tell Parkes that his silence would have been appreciated!

Im sorry but Rod’s points in defence are simply feeble and desperate. If we can’t, at the very very least, admit that Parkes statement is difficult to accept then we really are down the rabbit hole.

Indeed Herlock. It is difficult to accept Parkes' statement. It is equally difficult to accept that he simply fabricated the story given the potential consequences for Parkes if it was discovered to be a lie. And yet one of these two options has to be true. Parry either spilled his guts with no concern about the consequences or Parkes fabricated a story with no concern about the consequences. And even more bizarre, neither of them suffered any consequencies.

There is also the issue of interpretation and embellishment. This seems most likely to me. Parry said something which was short of Parkes statement, but Parkes interpreted that conversation in the way he relayed it to his employers. He may even have embellished it somewhat either consciously or unconsciously. Miscommunication and misunderstanding. Though it is difficult to reconcile this with Parkes confident statement which contains quotes of the conversation.

[RodCrosby]

It beggars belief that Parry and his accomplice, one an actual murderer and the other implicated, would want to risk bringing someone into their confidence when there was a very simple alternative. And let’s not forget that they had plenty of time as there was no way that Parry could have expected a visit from the police so soon after the event. They could easily have cleaned the car themselves. Unless we are suggesting that the accomplice was dripping with blood and sat in more than one place in the car then a clean up would have been pretty much confined to the passenger seat. A clean up at some secluded spot would have been easy.

The fact that the garage was local is irrelevant when considering the insane risk compared to the very simple alternative.

“Why was it the worse possible garage?” - because Parry wasn’t welcome, trusted or liked there, either by the Atkinson’s or Parkes. He’d been found rummaging through a wardrobe containing cash and Parkes had told him to his face that he didn’t trust him. Not only could Parry have no expectation of silence (and apparently he didn’t get it either) but he didn’t even tell Parkes to keep quiet. Can anything be more unbelievable? He pretty much coughs up to a murder but doesn’t tell Parkes that his silence would have been appreciated!

Im sorry but Rod’s points in defence are simply feeble and desperate. If we can’t, at the very very least, admit that Parkes statement is difficult to accept then we really are down the rabbit hole.

All disinformation and special pleading, argumentum ad ignorantiam "they couldn't have done this, because they might have done something else"... Yawn

And the something else is a non-starter, in any case...

The accomplice was long gone.
Parry had been at Lloyd's until 11pm.
Parkes didn't start work until 11.30pm.


Parkes's own testimony shows an ambivalent relationship with Parry, and a weakness of character.

We know unsophisticated criminals sometimes make compromising statements to friends and acquaintances, especially when panicked. Google is your friend...

The real great detective would of course understand such things as the meat and drink of criminology.

You can either believe it or disbelieve Parkes's story, but to insist it is intrinsically implausible is just another tedious logical fallacy...

And then we have a witness who endorses most of it, in effect painting herself and her own family as moral cowards, on the supposed lies of an underling...

Was it all a fabrication against some random dude (Parry), that they had been obsessively nurturing for 50 years, on the off-chance someone might track them down before they all died, and permit them to falsely "fess-up" to their "Conspiracy of Silence"? Wow, that certainly is... some conspiracy theory!

The only thing I see as "feeble and desperate" is the person who once announced that because he had paid a subscription to the [cough] "Sherlock Holmes Society" he was entitled to be taken seriously, despite being demonstrably incapable offering anything but an endless stream of disinformation and logical fallacies...

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only thing I see as "feeble and desperate" is the person who once announced that because he had paid a subscription to the [cough] "Sherlock Holmes Society" he was entitled to be taken seriously, despite being demonstrably incapable offering anything but an endless stream of disinformation and logical fallacies...

Unsurprisingly this is an utter lie.

In a previous thread Rod kept quoting Holmes as if he was some kind of expert on the subject and that he was giving me the benefit of his ‘knowledge.’ I merely said that, as someone with a longstanding interest in all things Doyle and Holmes (including being a member of the SHSOL) I required no lessons on Holmes from him. Or words to that effect. I categorically did not say that it gave my opinions on the Wallace case any greater weight than anyone else.

And typically of Rod, after repeatedly quoting Holmes I might have mentioned something about knowing more about Holmes than him, he then resorted to mocking people who were interested in the subject! He’s like the kid who says to a friend ‘ those sweets that you’ve got are my favourites. Can I have one please?’ And when the friend says no he answers ‘well I don’t want one of your horrible sweets.’ Basically a joke.

So yet again....a lie.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As for the rest of Rod’s tediously parroted post ( can’t you just turn off the broken record for once?) the less said the better. He appears to be the only person that simply cannot admit that there are serious issues with Parkes statement. This is blinkered dishonesty for all to see. As I’ve said before Antony, who favours Rod’s scenario, is quite open and fair in admitting parts of the case that either speak against Wallace’s innocence or show doubts in theories involving Parry. I’ve admitted to areas of doubt myself despite heavily favouring Wallace’s guilt. But can anyone on here recall a single instance when Rod has been honest enough to make similar concessions. The answer, as we all know, is no. To read his posts you would think that this is an open and shut case. This is unbounded ego. Embarrassingly blinkered thinking. No matter what points are brought up and by whom (usually me of course) Rod will go to any embarrassing length to defend a point. Some of us can retain a level of integrity....

The Holmes quote that’s part of your signature is just a joke.

[cobalt]

We keep referring to Parkes' statement.
Did he actually make a statement to the police at the time? I don't think there is any record that he did.
In which case it is more accurately Parkes' recollection 50 years later, not a statement.

In evidential terms it is little more than garden fence gossip.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We keep referring to Parkes' statement.
Did he actually make a statement to the police at the time? I don't think there is any record that he did.
In which case it is more accurately Parkes' recollection 50 years later, not a statement.

In evidential terms it is little more than garden fence gossip.

There is no record of Parkes ever having talked to the police Cobalt (probably because he never did). And so the old-chestnut of police corruption has to be wheeled out. For some unknown reason they had some kind of vendetta against Wallace and so despite being handed Parry on a plate they chose to ignore him and go after Wallace. It makes little or no sense.

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...


There were even letters from ex-policemen in 1931 to Hector Munro discussing the Liverpool force and its corruption...

Then down the years... Just a selection

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Were+these+men+also+innocent%3F+Paddy+Shennan+talks+to+author+George...-a0313661905

https://www.thejusticegap.com/rose-heilbron-cameo-cinema-murders/

http://wolfiewiseguy.blogspot.com/20...rpool-cop.html
http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/sho...r-thread/page2
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...murder-3490228

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/senior-detective-risked-officers-for-bribe-from-britains-top-drug-baron-1200337.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jan/10/10

https://iaingould.co.uk/case-reports...sorderly-case/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gs-dealer.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...yside-14400790
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...uggled-3324364
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...egrity-7847837
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...ified-10323297
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...rking-13340623

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yawn...


There were even letters from ex-policemen in 1931 to Hector Munro discussing the Liverpool force and its corruption...

Then down the years... Just a selection

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Were+these+men+also+innocent%3F+Paddy+Shennan+talks+to+author+George...-a0313661905

https://www.thejusticegap.com/rose-heilbron-cameo-cinema-murders/

http://wolfiewiseguy.blogspot.com/20...rpool-cop.html
http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/sho...r-thread/page2
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...murder-3490228

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/senior-detective-risked-officers-for-bribe-from-britains-top-drug-baron-1200337.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jan/10/10

https://iaingould.co.uk/case-reports...sorderly-case/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gs-dealer.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...yside-14400790
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...uggled-3324364
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...egrity-7847837
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...ified-10323297
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...rking-13340623

Not interested.

Any fool could understand that it doesn’t follow that all police were corrupt.

Utter bias and self interest.

[ColdCaseJury]

I feel I have some posts to respond to, including Herlock's famous #1862, but have limited time over the next two weeks. A quick reply on the issue of police corruption. It is a fact, acknowledged by police historians, that Liverpool Police was corrupt. Of course, corruption takes many forms. What is also undeniable is the modus operandi of many police forces at the time - the police's job was to nick someone for the crime. If the police thought they had their man, exculpatory evidence would not be sought, or even ignored if uncovered, i.e. not handed over to the defence. This practice continued well into the late 20th century. In fact, the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act (1996) for the first time statutorily obliged police to handover all evidence. But we've had cases in the UK were malpractice still continues and older cases in the US come up quite regularly. Just watch Making A Murderer or The Innocent Man on Netflix if you have any doubt.

So, it is entirely plausible to believe that Moore would not have submitted a report on any Parkes interview, especially as this was after the case had gone to court and we also know there is not a scrap of evidence about investigations into tram movements on the Monday night; no evidence that the hairbrush was tested for blood (when of course it had to have been given the police case); the massaging of Close's evidence and so on.

Whether you affix the label "corrupt" to the Liverpool CID or not, they were focused on sharpening and leveling the evidence against Wallace because they believed they had their man.

Of course, they might have been right. And the above does not in itself does not rebut any of the arguments laid out in #1862.

[RodCrosby]

Corruption and Incompetence go hand-in-hand, with a fuzzy boundary between the two.

And we certainly know the police in the Wallace case were incompetent, just as we know the force in general was notorious for corruption [although there would still be "good Jacks"]

Not securing the crime-scene...
Altering the crime scene...
Allowing cross-contamination...
Not taking notes...
Being drunk...
Not cross-checking alibis...
Not looking for (or suppressing) exculpatory evidence...
Presenting a case at the Committal that was riddled with prejudicial, factual errors...
Persuading witnesses to change their evidence...
Refusing to respond to defence requests for the names of witnesses...
[and, quite possibly, other stuff we don't know about...]

[RodCrosby]

So whether you choose to characterise it as Corruption or mere Incompetence is immaterial.

The Police were GUILTY of ALL of the ABOVE...

And there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace. Nada. Rien. Nichts. Zippo...


The Court of Appeal, after listening to the nonsense of the case, blew a raspberry at the Jury of idiots and turned him loose.


Anyone who still thinks Wallace killed his wife is, unfortunately, prone to mere Superstition...

[Herlock Sholmes]

So whether you choose to characterise it as Corruption or mere Incompetence is immaterial.

The Police were GUILTY of ALL of the ABOVE...

And there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace. Nada. Rien. Nichts. Zippo...


The Court of Appeal, after listening to the nonsense of the case, blew a raspberry at the Jury of idiots and turned him loose.


Anyone who still thinks Wallace killed his wife is, unfortunately, prone to mere Superstition...

The above is no more or no less than what I’d expect from such a biased source. Just because the police in general had been guilty of both corruption and incompetence we simply cannot keep using that fact as a convenient ‘get out’ clause when the inconvenient occurs. Unless of course you are suggesting that every single police officer was corrupt and every single investigation was therefore invalid. This is nonsense of course.

What is the EVIDENCE for Parry’s guilt? The sum total is Parkes. That’s it. Far more points to Wallace.

Insulting a jury of very normal average citizens who listened to the prosecution and the defence and found Wallace guilty. Not because they were stupid but because what they heard convinced them. Maybe they were corrupt too?

Those who feel Wallace the likeliest culprit have simply looked at the facts without creating an imaginary friend scenario which still hasn’t convinced anything like a majority.

[APerno]

Killing one's wife: What are the elements of a 'perfectly' planned murder?

1. My alibi would be secured BEFORE the murder is committed so I could back out if the alibi couldn't be secured. (Wallace )

2. I would organized it so that there were no time restraints involved. (Wallace )

3. The murder would occur at a location I commonly visited, therefore making any trace (forensic) evidence found, that can be associated with me, meaningless. (Wallace )

4. I would arrange it so that someone else found the body. (Wallace )

5. I would arrange it so that the first time I could possibly hear about the murder I am alone; therefore no one could testify as to my reaction. (Wallace )

6. There would be no accomplice; the Ben Franklin maxim about keeping a secret applies here. (Wallace )

7. The murder weapon would be something that I could totally destroy not merely dispose of; anything if it still exist can be found. (Wallace )

7a. All evidence, bloody clothes, shoes, ETC. must also be destroyed not hidden. (Wallace )

8. I would insure that there was no (financial) motive that can be pointed to. (Wallace )

9. I would readily accept suspicion but would seek to avoid guilt; I would not offer the police a false narrative or an alternative killer; I would not leave false clues. I.e. If you try to send the police down a rabbit hole, they will find a mistake in your lie and then a jury will see you as guilty. (Wallace )

10. I would 'lawyer-up' even before my first conversation with the police; regardless of whether I cooperate or not, the police will see me as the main suspect anyway (see suspicion vs. guilt); better to have a 'mouth-piece' already in place serving as my advocate. I.e. Never talk to the police without a lawyer, even if you are innocent. (Wallace )

11. I would readily cooperate with the media (via my lawyer) but not the police. (Wallace - His worst possible post murder decision occurred here. )


Wallace succeeded in meeting only a few of these requirements; if Wallace did commit this murder I do not see it as well planned.


Of course I have no clue how I would do all this, I have never murdered anyone . . . yet.

[cobalt]

Al Perno,

If I were you, I wouldn't bother. There are so many holes in your reasoning, best to leave your wife alone in the kitchen. Better all round.

The timing of Julia Wallace's murder is the strongest element in her husband's innocence. The milkboy effectively exonerates him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is nothing about the timing that exonerates Wallace. We cannot just keep quoting 6.45. It’s quite reasonable to say that Close left well before then. Maybe 6.37 or even 6.40. This would have given Wallace between 10 and 13 minutes which could have been more than ample time. We can’t keep saying things like ‘he would have needed time to clean up’ because he might not have needed to. The removal of the cash and the ripping off of a cupboard door would have been a work of seconds. What else could have taken up any great time?