Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[etenguy]

The same cannot be said for Parry.

I actually think the Police took Parry seriously as a suspect, but came up against his teflon alibi for the time of the murder.
Then they turned away, figuring "Wallace must have done it - somehow!" without considering one final possibility before leaving Parry.

That other possibility is where I believe the Truth lies, and there is strong circumstantial evidence, and even belated testimony evidence [John Parkes and Mrs. Atkinson] pointing clearly in that direction.

The story of the car wash and bloody glove is suspect, in my view, given it was 50 years between the event and the story coming out. But even if based on truth, I would wonder what embellishments were included to make a good story for the media. If Parry really did dream up the whole Qualtrough plan, then simply to basically confess, seems contradictory.

Also, I wonder if any money changed hands for Parkes story?

[RodCrosby]

The story of the car wash and bloody glove is suspect, in my view, given it was 50 years between the event and the story coming out. But even if based on truth, I would wonder what embellishments were included to make a good story for the media. If Parry really did dream up the whole Qualtrough plan, then simply to basically confess, seems contradictory.

Also, I wonder if any money changed hands for Parkes story?

Parkes had his story before the world at large had heard the name Parry. Why would he nurture a falsehood for 50 years?

In the critical section, he was supported by his late employer's widow, a very elderly lady. Why would she go out of her way to endorse a falsehood from an underling, after 50 years, which portrays them all in a bad light - "Conspiracy of Silence"?

Parkes seems to be consistent in his story, repeating the key details without variation. He does not embellish, although he is given to flights of fancy to "explain" an odd aspect of his story. Parry's lack of bloodstains.
But Parkes is clear to not say that Parry turned up in waders at the garage, only that it seems [to him] a likely reason for the lack of bloodstains. If it were all lies, why would Parkes put a hole in his own story, when he could simply have said he saw blood on Parry's trousers or shirt, etc? [Answer: it wasn't a "hole", but a clue to the truth, which Parkes himself didn't fathom. Parry didn't kill Julia, but was implicated in some way]

As for confessing, it was a very oblique confession from Parry. Again one might have expected Parkes to have been more 'florid' in his tale, if it were lies. In reality, criminals or people in a panic often either confide in or make compromising statements to friends or relatives.

Roger Wilkes and Michael Green are both award-winning journalists of the greatest integrity. There is no evidence money changed hands. Indeed, Wilkes relates an attempt from someone to cash-in for a modest sum, which they sidestepped by a brilliant piece of detective work of their own, which tracked down Parkes to a hospital bed. [nb. Parkes did not "come forward": he was tracked down! And tape-interviewed at his bedside the following day...]

There is no evidence anyone tried to cash-in after the revelations either, with a book, etc. Parkes was dead within the year [dying a wealthier man than Gordon Parry, btw], Mrs. Atkinson retreated to her widowhood a dozen miles from Liverpool, and Atkinson's Garage continued to operate happily for several more decades...

[moste]

Moste,

Yes I made this suggestion but it was pooh-poohed.

The prosecution said: “He gets back somewhere about 8.30 and 8.35.” yet he appears to have returned at 8.45. It seems to me there is more time to play with at the back end than the front end.

Nick

Hi Nick. Mmmmh, I agree. The times are all manipulated by Wallace.
Also, Qualtrough as a surname , I asked around , I haven’t found anyone who have ever come across it. The two chaps that Wallace left and took the tram with from the chess club, apparently alluded to the name and agreed they had never heard of it.
Have you?

[RodCrosby]

James Caird, Wallace's chess buddy, testified in court he told Wallace on their journey home that he had heard of one person of the name Qualtrough.

I have given other reasons up thread why it was not unheard of in Liverpool...

Manx names starting with "Qu" are not unheard of in Liverpool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Quilliam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiggins

[etenguy]

Parkes had his story before the world at large had heard the name Parry. Why would he nurture a falsehood for 50 years?

In the critical section, he was supported by his late employer's widow, a very elderly lady. Why would she go out of her way to endorse a falsehood from an underling, after 50 years, which portrays them all in a bad light - "Conspiracy of Silence"?

Parkes seems to be consistent in his story, repeating the key details without variation. He does not embellish, although he is given to flights of fancy to "explain" an odd aspect of his story. Parry's lack of bloodstains.
But Parkes is clear to not say that Parry turned up in waders at the garage, only that it seems [to him] a likely reason for the lack of bloodstains. If it were all lies, why would Parkes put a hole in his own story, when he could simply have said he saw blood on Parry's trousers or shirt, etc? [Answer: it wasn't a "hole", but a clue to the truth, which Parkes himself didn't fathom. Parry didn't kill Julia, but was implicated in some way]

As for confessing, it was a very oblique confession from Parry. Again one might have expected Parkes to have been more 'florid' in his tale, if it were lies. In reality, criminals or people in a panic often either confide in or make compromising statements to friends or relatives.

Roger Wilkes and Michael Green are both award-winning journalists of the greatest integrity. There is no evidence money changed hands. Indeed, Wilkes relates an attempt from someone to cash-in for a modest sum, which they sidestepped by a brilliant piece of detective work of their own, which tracked down Parkes to a hospital bed. [nb. Parkes did not "come forward": he was tracked down! And tape-interviewed at his bedside the following day...]

There is no evidence anyone tried to cash-in after the revelations either, with a book, etc. Parkes was dead within the year [dying a wealthier man than Gordon Parry, btw], Mrs. Atkinson retreated to her widowhood a dozen miles from Liverpool, and Atkinson's Garage continued to operate happily for several more decades...

You may be right, but the trouble with information provided after the death of the person it refers to, is that it goes unchallenged. In this case it all centres on one person, Parkes. The journalists and Atkinson are taking Parkes story as fact. It may be.

Alternatively, Parkes and Parry were not friends, Parkes claims to be scared of Parry. The sense I got was it was not just in relation to the car wash that Parkes was scared of him. Parry seems to have intimidated or bullied him in the past. At least he had the reputation of someone who might retaliate if Parkes said anything. Hence, according to Parkes, he kept quiet. So not friends. Possibly even a grudge held by Parkes who may have wanted to get Parry in trouble as a consequence. Or perhaps ruin his reputation. Without the right of challenge, it is hard to rely on this evidence.

[RodCrosby]

Mrs. Atkinson seems clear in her recollection that Parkes told her and her late husband about washing Parry's car, and "everything that [had] got the blood on", the morning after the murder....

[at 27.16] "I remember Mr Parkes told me and my husband that he had to wash the car... I hadn't seen the car but I know that he told me that. It was the morning, yes, the morning after, yes, before he went home from his work. And I saw "Pukka" [Parkes] every morning, like, and he was just like a friend to us all. ... And he told Wilf, as well, that it happened. He wouldn't make up such a story as that. No, no, no! And we'd known him for years. [later, at 30.13] He [Parry] must have done it, because he wouldn't come and ask for a car to be washed, to a friend and make him wash it, and wash everything that was, er... got the blood on. No..."

[caz]

Abby
Wallace had missed a few matches. It would make sense for someone waiting for him to emerge, to watch again and not make the call until he was reasonable certain this time it would not be a wasted call. It was a one-time scam that could not be repeated, obviously.

Parry was in the vicinity of the box at the time of the call, and lied about it.
Wallace said he never went anywhere near the box, and the Police never proved otherwise.

Therefore, I say, Parry made the call. The "21st birthday" and the fiddling with the buttons also point to Parry.

Just saw this response to Abby, which - sorry Rod - makes little sense to me. Probably my fault, but if Parry made the call [shortly before his arrival at Lily's house], how could he possibly have been 'reasonably certain' it would not be wasted, with his unrepeatable scam down the lavatory, since Wallace 'never went anywhere near the box', assuming he had no reason to lie if innocent?

While Parry might have watched to make sure Wallace emerged from his house, he could not have been 'reasonably certain' where he went after that, while he was making his own way to the call box in a different direction.

Love,

Caz
X

[etenguy]

Mrs. Atkinson seems clear in her recollection that Parkes told her and her late husband about washing Parry's car, and "everything that [had] got the blood on", the morning after the murder....

[at 27.16] "I remember Mr Parkes told me and my husband that he had to wash the car... I hadn't seen the car but I know that he told me that. It was the morning, yes, the morning after, yes, before he went home from his work. And I saw "Pukka" [Parkes] every morning, like, and he was just like a friend to us all. ... And he told Wilf, as well, that it happened. He wouldn't make up such a story as that. No, no, no! And we'd known him for years. [later, at 30.13] He [Parry] must have done it, because he wouldn't come and ask for a car to be washed, to a friend and make him wash it, and wash everything that was, er... got the blood on. No..."

So, Mrs Atkinson is clear in her mind what she was told and had drawn the conclusion Parry was the murderer. Car washed, bloody glove, suggested he would be hanged and disposing of a metal rod down a drain. That is pretty much a confession by Parry I would say. And Mrs Atkinson, her husband and Parkes decided they would let an innocent man hang rather than supply the information to the police. Not people of the highest integrity then. Of course, they may have been concerned about repercussions - as would any witness providing evidence against a violent criminal. So they lied by omission at the time when stakes were high and now they say they are telling the truth.

[RodCrosby]

Hi Caz

they didn't need to watch Wallace's house. They only needed to watch his route(s) to the tram!

If they saw him heading for the tram at the appointed time, they could be "reasonably certain" he was heading to the chess club.

I've posted a map up thread showing how easily this could be done, and have actually stood on the spot myself.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cabbage_Hall_Hotel_2016.jpg

I also believe the Accomplice followed Wallace (probably on the same tram) to the chess club, and Parry rendezvoused with him sometime later in central Liverpool, for an update on the situation. I believe the circumstantial evidence shows this quite strongly.

Parry in the vicinity of the box at the time of the call.
Parry in the vicinity of the club, an hour later, four miles away.
Parry then lies to the Police completely about all this...

[RodCrosby]

Parkes said the agreement was to say nothing unless Wallace was convicted.
When Wallace was convicted, Parkes says he came forward, but was dismissed by Supt. Moore.
Wallace's conviction was overturned shortly thereafter, however. Perhaps they believed, as simple folk, the intervention had indeed somehow saved Wallace.
Then they let it "die down."
But Parkes repeats that "it's always been on my mind...", and sounds like he's glad for the opportunity to get it off his chest.

[etenguy]

I think we will go round in circles on this one. That the police would dismiss someone supplying evidence relating to a murder also sounds suspect to me. Particularly where it relates to someone in whom they had suspicions.

That the story may be true has to be acknowledged, stranger things have happened, but I find it problematic to place too much store in this evidence.

I don't think the veracity, or not, of this information, undermines the wider case you make. I find the rest of the case against Parry more compelling.

[RodCrosby]

There are many miscarriages of justice with similar scenarios that have been uncovered in the UK and elsewhere.

People are weak, when they know they have to put their heads above the parapet. They hope they don't have to, that someone else will, saving them the trouble, that things will work out alright without their intervention, etc..

When the wheels of "justice" have already started turning, it's often too late, if they then have second thoughts, and finally "do the right thing..." The juggernaut cannot be stopped, and those who have set it in motion (the Police) have the least incentive to do so.

It was finally stopped by the Lord Chief Justice publicly "standing on his head" uniquely in this single case. Also, the Church of England, uniquely, intervening on behalf of a prisoner awaiting the hangman.

I wonder if Parkes's late intervention, whatever Moore told him to his face, had sparked some other consciences into action, via some hidden channels?

[Abby Normal]

so Parkes never testified at the trial or told the police anything before the trial about parrys trip to the garage, bloody glove etc?


when did they come forward with all this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem with Parkes statement is that it requires us to believe that Parry was almost suicidally stupid.

Not long after the murder, and with no reason to suspect an immediate visit by the police Parry decides not to clean his car in private but to go to a garage. He then chooses a garage where he’s neither trusted or welcome (as he’d been caught rifling through cupboards there.) He asks a man who neither likes or trusts him (and has told him to his face) to hose down the inside of his car. In the time after the murder he’s apparently gotten rid of one glove but kept hold of the bloody one which he conveniently keeps in a box for Parkes to find easily. When Parkes does find it he tells him that if the police found it it would lead him to the gallows. And then, just to be sure to hammer home his guilt to Parkes, he then, without any prompting, tells him exactly where he’s hidden the murder weapon. He’s apparently not at all concerned that Parkes might go to the police. In the recording he doesn’t mention being threatened into silence by Parry. He mention Parry visiting (was it the next day?) with another man but he doesn’t mention any threats or intimidation.
Then when Parkes tells Moore he completely ignores him. The police apparently weren’t at all concerned that Parkes might go and ‘find’ the murder weapon or go to the press and have a journalist find it.

Yes we can say Parkes ‘sounds’ like an honest chap - and he does. But he wouldn’t be the first to try and get his 15 minutes of fame. In itself the story he told is simply not believable in my opinion.

[RodCrosby]

so Parkes never testified at the trial or told the police anything before the trial about parrys trip to the garage, bloody glove etc?


when did they come forward with all this?

Yes, Abby. He says he told Superintendent Moore after Wallace was convicted.