Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

I see someone has returned to misrepresent what was said in the tape again.

The point about intimidation was called out previously on the other thread last year, to another "misrepresenter", who is now banned.

I hope deliberate misrepresentation will be subject to sanction.

And we were having such a pleasant discussion....

[Abby Normal]

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.

Thanks herlock and Rod
so let me get this straight-Parkes only comes forward with his story to the police (moore)after Wallace is convicted?


When did he tell adkinson this story?


does Moore or adkinson corroborate any of this?

[RodCrosby]

Parkes (says he) told the boss and his sons the following morning.
This is corroborated by Mrs. Atkinson.

The boss told Parkes to "not have anything to do with it."
Parkes said he told the boss they would have to come forward if Wallace was convicted.
The boss accepted this.

When Wallace was convicted, the boss rang Superintendent Moore, who came to interview Parkes.
After hearing his story, Moore him "I think you've made a mistake."

There is some further slight corroboration for all this, perhaps...
Sergeant Harry Bailey's son, whose father had promised in 1931 to tell Scholefield Allen something interesting "when I retire",
told Roger Wilkes in 1981 that the Police had been on to Parry, and "stripped down" his car, but his alibi was "unshakeable." (Olivia Brine, presumably)

What would drive the Police to strip down the car of a man with an unshakeable alibi?

[RodCrosby]

Parkes, and a penny belatedly dropping?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see someone has returned to misrepresent what was said in the tape again.

The point about intimidation was called out previously on the other thread last year, to another "misrepresenter", who is now banned.

I hope deliberate misrepresentation will be subject to sanction.

And we were having such a pleasant discussion....

Perhaps it was naive of me to hope that things had changed at that the Mr Reasonable act could be maintained.

Someone disagrees with you and you call for sanctions. I have misrepresented nothing. If I’ve made an error you are free to point this out.

Parry turns up at a garage where he’s neither trusted or liked to have his car washed by someone who neither trusts or likes him. He leaves a bloodied glove in a box in the car which Parkes finds easily. He then tells Parkes that the glove could get him hanged and then, without need or prompting, he tells him where the murder weapon has been hidden. And this after taking the time to come up with the Qualtrough plan.

What part of this is a misrepresentation?

As for the intimidation part, if there’s something that was said a year ago and I’ve forgotten you are free to remind me without the accusation.

[RodCrosby]

The bit you have now left out about intimidation? [so he now quickly adds that, having read this]

Oh, my fillet knife is still the quickest and the sharpest...

And it's not an error or something you have forgotten from a year ago. You could have listened to the tapes again, which I have kindly posted again.
After removing them because they were being deliberately misrepresented, or ignored.

Is the cycle to be repeated with another busted thread? I don't really care.

Others might.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Oh, I was probably just teasing you. I'm sorry you got upset. I know you're a decent guy, really.

But I always said I had only 'closed' the case, based on the available EVIDENCE. And more than once I publicly recognised the possibility that something new might emerge - completely from left field - upending my conclusion. But it would be a long time in coming, I think we'd agree...

But anyhow, back to the EVIDENCE, and where it might lead.

Do you have anything you'd like to offer?
__________________

Remember this Rod?

You purported attempt at being reasonable?! A call for open debate?! Didn’t last long did it? I make one post and you call for me to be ‘sanctioned.’

I ask again, what have I misrepresented?

[etenguy]

Maybe we can agree to disagree about how sceptical we are about the Parkes' information. I personally struggle to accept that Parry would go to all the trouble of the Qualtrough plan and the establishment of an alibi to then pretty much confess to someone who is not on the best of terms with him. Wherever we land in the spectrum of believing the Parkes evidence, the case against Parry has merit and is worthy of greater exploration.

[RodCrosby]

HS
Listen to the tapes.
Then come back and tell us.

[Abby Normal]

The part about parry incriminating himself to parkes sounds almost unbeleiveable and yet the whole story involving the boss and others parkes told and then going to the police does sound beleiveable.

What to make of it all?

Perhaps parry did take the car there to be cleaned and some of it is true but parkes embellished a bit?

The fact that parkes told his boss who instructed him to wait and then eventually going to the police does have the ring of truth about it as a reasonable narrative.

But why in samhain would parkes go to a garage to have his car cleaned? He didnt kill her in the car- how dirty could it be? Let alone then incriminate himself.

What a cluster fork this is.

[RodCrosby]

Abby, people sometimes incriminate themselves before they've even committed the crime!

My favourite, and the funniest.

On the 12th of April 1953, Mrs. Merrifield told her friend, Mrs. Brewer, that she had to go home to lay out an elderly woman. The friend naturally enquired who had died and she replied “She’s not dead yet, but she soon will be.”

(Third to last woman to be hanged in the UK)

[etenguy]

The part about parry incriminating himself to parkes sounds almost unbeleiveable and yet the whole story involving the boss and others parkes told and then going to the police does sound beleiveable.

What to make of it all?

Perhaps parry did take the car there to be cleaned and some of it is true but parkes embellished a bit?

All the information about the encounter with Parry, stems from Parkes. It is the detail of the Parkes encounter with Parry which it is difficult to understand. Those he then tells react in an understandable, if somewhat disappointing, manner. especially if Parkes did tell the police and they did nothing. You would have thought they would have at least have checked for the murder weapon.

The fact that parkes told his boss who instructed him to wait and then eventually going to the police does have the ring of truth about it as a reasonable narrative.

But why in samhain would parkes go to a garage to have his car cleaned? He didnt kill her in the car- how dirty could it be? Let alone then incriminate himself.

What a cluster fork this is.

If Parkes did have a Walter Mitty moment and made up the story, it may have been inspired by a moment of truth which he then built on. This would make the story sound more believable. But your last question is the one I struggle to find a credible answer and which ultimately leads me to question the story.

[Abby Normal]

Abby, people sometimes incriminate themselves before they've even committed the crime!

My favourite, and the funniest.

On the 12th of April 1953, Mrs. Merrifield told her friend, Mrs. Brewer, that she had to go home to lay out an elderly woman. The friend naturally enquired who had died and she replied “She’s not dead yet, but she soon will be.”

(Third to last woman to be hanged in the UK)

Lol. Mrs. Merrifield wasnt fukking around.

[Abby Normal]

All the information about the encounter with Parry, stems from Parkes. It is the detail of the Parkes encounter with Parry which it is difficult to understand. Those he then tells react in an understandable, if somewhat disappointing, manner. especially if Parkes did tell the police and they did nothing. You would have thought they would have at least have checked for the murder weapon.



If Parkes did have a Walter Mitty moment and made up the story, it may have been inspired by a moment of truth which he then built on. This would make the story sound more believable. But your last question is the one I struggle to find a credible answer and which ultimately leads me to question the story.

Hi eten
Thanks. It does all come from parkes but is apparently corroberated by his boss, right? Who told him to hold off unless wallace is convicted, then go to the police. Then when he is convicted his boss calls the police, and moore comes to interview parkes, who tells him.

Therefore its a logical corroberated documented chain of events no?

[etenguy]

Hi eten
Thanks. It does all come from parkes but is apparently corroberated by his boss, right? Who told him to hold off unless wallace is convicted, then go to the police. Then when he is convicted his boss calls the police, and moore comes to interview parkes, who tells him.

Therefore its a logical corroberated documented chain of events no?

Not in terms of the main interaction between Parkes and Parry. That is all Parkes. His boss is only reacting to what Parkes told him, he had no input into the content of the story of Parry visiting Parkes. Same with Moore, he heard the story and did nothing. The only reason I think he did that is because he thought Parkes was a time waster.