Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

Is it not in the police record somewhere that moore interviewed parkes about parry coming to the garage???

No, it is not, Abby. The Police refused to release the file for 70 years as it was "not in the public interest...", in their view.

By the time they did finally release it, it was suspected any embarrassing material had been removed.

Alternatively, the Police in those days were not subject to any strict rules on how they operated. They were basically a law unto themselves.

They may not have recorded any action, if any, they took on Parkes's story.

So we'll never know the truth of the matter. We have to draw inferences, as to the veracity of Parkes,
and from other snippets, such as Parry's car being "stripped down".

Also, there seemed to be several policemen offering to come forward with information, long after the dust had settled.
Which is rather unusual. Did they have guilty consciences, like Parkes and the Atkinsons?

There was something clearly very odd about this case, and how it was handled by the Police.

[RodCrosby]

There are two issues to consider with the Parkes story:
a) did they come forward at the time they state
b) was the interaction as described by Parkes

Let's assume they did tell Moore: he then did nothing. Why? incompetence, didn't believe Parkes or did not want to upset the case against Wallace? All possible, but given how easy it would have been to check, surprising. No interview with Parry either.
It was the 1930s. It was the Police. It was the Liverpool Police... The same Police who refused for 70 years to release the file, even after demands were made in Parliament. "Not in the public interest" was the reply.

Was Parkes story true? Seems unlikely at best. Stretches credibility to its limits. That some criminals do tell/boast about their crimes is not in question. That criminals would tell someone antagonistic towards them - I have not heard of previously and it would beggar belief that they would - unless they wanted to get caught. Especially given the sophisticated plan that would have had to be in place for Parry to be guilty of masterminding the crime.
It's all a bit ex post facto rationalization, I fear. Parry has all the hallmarks of a psychopathic personality, either full-blown or sub-clinical. Victims of psychopaths report later that they continued to do their bidding, long after they suspected they were 'a bad un', because the psychopath was so "entertaining" or "exciting". Psychopathic charm... Parkes in 1981 is of course going to put as much distance between himself and the man he is accusing of murder. Their relationship up to that night in 1931 was probably far more ambivalent, and I think that is evidenced even during Parkes's interview, and similarly from the two contributors to the phone-in who remembered Parry.
It also stretches believability that they would wait until Parry died to mention this story, given he had moved away from Liverpool and the case has attracted a lot of attention over the years.
I don't see why. They had done their best in 1931. No-one seemingly paid any attention, although Wallace's neck was somehow saved. Then best to let sleeping dogs lie. If Goodman and a host of authors were scared to mention Parry by name, I don't see why a lowly garage-hand should suddenly become a crusader for justice, going head-to-head against the Police. The Liverpool Police....Life's too short.

We cannot dismiss it entirely - strange events do occur - but it is highly suspect I think.

We will have to disagree.

[RodCrosby]

Parry's former next door neighbour, Les Hill, told Roger Wilkes in 1981 that he knew Parry had been interviewed for three hours at Atkinson's Garage, and that his father knew a senior policeman who was absolutely convinced Parry was the murderer.

After 50 years, old men's memories may be fallible in their details of how it all fits together...

But not, I suggest, in the pieces of the jigsaw.
Parry. Atkinsons. The car. Policemen wanting to tell...

[Abby Normal]

No, it is not, Abby. The Police refused to release the file for 70 years as it was "not in the public interest...", in their view.

By the time they did finally release it, it was suspected any embarrassing material had been removed.

Alternatively, the Police in those days were not subject to any strict rules on how they operated. They were basically a law unto themselves.

They may not have recorded any action, if any, they took on Parkes's story.

So we'll never know the truth of the matter. We have to draw inferences, as to the veracity of Parkes,
and from other snippets, such as Parry's car being "stripped down".

Also, there seemed to be several policemen offering to come forward with information, long after the dust had settled.
Which is rather unusual. Did they have guilty consciences, like Parkes and the Atkinsons?

There was something clearly very odd about this case, and how it was handled by the Police.

Thanks Rod
so the parkes telling Moore story only comes from Parkes also? well that puts a chink in that then dosnt it?

[Abby Normal]

Parry's former next door neighbour, Les Hill, told Roger Wilkes in 1981 that he knew Parry had been interviewed for three hours at Atkinson's Garage, and that his father knew a senior policeman who was absolutely convinced Parry was the murderer.

After 50 years, old men's memories may be fallible in their details of how it all fits together...

But not, I suggest, in the pieces of the jigsaw.
Parry. Atkinsons. The car. Policemen wanting to tell...

Hi Rod

Parry's former next door neighbour, Les Hill, told Roger Wilkes in 1981 that he knew Parry had been interviewed for three hours at Atkinson's Garage, and that his father knew a senior policeman who was absolutely convinced Parry was the murderer.

parry? or did you mean parkes?

[RodCrosby]

Thanks Rod
so the parkes telling Moore story only comes from Parkes also? well that puts a chink in that then dosnt it?

Hi Abby

Gordon Atkinson, after first directing Michael Green to John Parkes, was interviewed at the garage by Green for the radio show.

"this particular account was told to me by not only my father, but my uncles. It was discussed quite openly. As far as I'm concerned everybody knew about it. As far as I'm concerned my father definitely wouldn't have made that sort of a story up. It would be fact, as far as I'm concerned"

Are we to believe that the Atkinsons were not in agreement with everything Parkes said - in particular about grandfather Atkinson contacting Moore?

I can see no evidence for that. They claimed to have known Parkes's story for 50 years, and Parkes recited it entirely spontaneously from a hospital bed into Michael Green's Uher tape-machine.

I suppose the final program was more interested in hearing Parkes's story from his own lips, rather than following up every detail with the Atkinsons. But, as I say, there's no evidence the Atkinsons didn't know what Parkes would say, and Gordon Atkinson just gave it blanket agreement, as far as he was concerned...[ he wasn't even born in 1931]

[RodCrosby]

Hi Rod


parry? or did you mean parkes?

Hill said Parry was questioned at Atkinson's Garage for three hours. [Wilkes, 1985, p265]

Crossed wires after 50 years? Probably, but still evidence I suggest that lots of people had been quietly holding the same pieces of the jigsaw puzzle for many years...
Parry. Atkinsons. The car.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Gordon Atkinson, after first directing Michael Green to John Parkes, was interviewed at the garage by Green for the radio show.

"this particular account was told to me by not only my father, but my uncles. It was discussed quite openly. As far as I'm concerned everybody knew about it. As far as I'm concerned my father definitely wouldn't have made that sort of a story up. It would be fact, as far as I'm concerned"

Are we to believe that the Atkinsons were not in agreement with everything Parkes said - in particular about grandfather Atkinson contacting Moore?

I can see no evidence for that. They claimed to have known Parkes's story for 50 years, and Parkes recited it entirely spontaneously from a hospital bed into Michael Green's Uher tape-machine.

I suppose the final program was more interested in hearing Parkes's story from his own lips, rather than following up every detail with the Atkinsons. But, as I say, there's no evidence the Atkinsons didn't know what Parkes would say, and Gordon Atkinson just gave it blanket agreement, as far as he was concerned...[ he wasn't even born in 1931]

thanks Rod
yes theres corroboration for the story, would be nicer to have seen corroboration from Moore and or in the police record, but apparently this all only came out much later.

[Abby Normal]

Hill said Parry was questioned at Atkinson's Garage for three hours. [Wilkes, 1985, p265]

Crossed wires after 50 years? Probably, but still evidence I suggest that lots of people had been quietly holding the same pieces of the jigsaw puzzle for many years...
Parry. Atkinsons. The car.

thanks Rod

re the car-as I mentioned before-what could pary be so concerned about the car having evidence, assuming blood of course, that he wanted it washed?

she was killed in the house.

blood tranfer from clothes I assume?

[RodCrosby]

thanks Rod

re the car-as I mentioned before-what could pary be so concerned about the car having evidence, assuming blood of course, that he wanted it washed?

she was killed in the house.

blood tranfer from clothes I assume?

It would seem logical. And from the bar the Accomplice left in the footwell, which Parry had disposed of down the grid.

There may not have been any obvious bloodstains, but Parry just wanted to be "sure", before the knock on his door from the Police that he was now certain would come...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why didn’t Parry dump the bloodied glove in the three hours or so after the murder and his alleged visit to the garage? He surely wouldn’t have kept the other glove so why only keep the bloodied one and keep it in a box where someone cleaning the car was sure to find it? Parkes saw no blood anywhere else in the car after all. The glove was the incriminating item. Parry wouldn’t have needed to be a criminal genius to think ‘I better dump the glove before I get the inside of the car cleaned.’

[RodCrosby]

In a panicked or agitated state, trying to cover their tracks, criminals may make mistakes or forget things?
Maybe Parkes just got to the glove before Parry had an opportunity to retrieve it from the glove-box?

[Abby Normal]

In a panicked or agitated state, trying to cover their tracks, criminals may make mistakes or forget things?
Maybe Parkes just got to the glove before Parry had an opportunity to retrieve it from the glove-box?

echoes of OJ

[RodCrosby]

echoes of OJ

I hadn't thought of that! Clever you!

Why can't criminals be more careful and more tidy?

[Herlock Sholmes]

In a panicked or agitated state, trying to cover their tracks, criminals may make mistakes or forget things?
Maybe Parkes just got to the glove before Parry had an opportunity to retrieve it from the glove-box?

So in the three hours or so before he got to the garage we are being asked to believe that Parry had one clean glove and one bloodied glove. He discards the clean one but keeps the bloodied one in his car when he could have dumped it in any number of places. How far are we prepared to go before we accept that this makes little or no sense?

How ‘agitated’ must have been to go to the worst place imaginable to have his car cleaned just after a murder with a bloodied glove that he’d inexplicably retained and to blab about his guilt and the location of the murder weapon to someone who neither liked or trusted him.