Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[ColdCaseJury]

If a person makes a statement containing, for the sake of argument, 12 ‘facts’ and 2 of them (again for the sake of argument) are unbelievable nonsense. Aren’t we at liberty so say “we’ll if he lied about those 2 ‘facts’ isn’t it at least possible that he lied about the other 10?” Especially if those 10 ‘facts’ are inherently difficult to credit.

What we are expected to believe, if we believe Parkes, is that after the murder 2 apparently unconnected people came into the garage separately and informed Parkes that Parry had borrowed an item of protective clothing from them? Was Parkes the local collater of Parry-related information? I don’t think this is believable as I don’t think that the rest of the statement is believable.

I think your strongest hand is to say the statements about Parry in the garage are inherently difficult to credit. Logically, the other two are distinct. If Parry did not borrow the waders and oilskins, it is does not imply he did not make a late-night dash to the garage.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think your strongest hand is to say the statements about Parry in the garage are inherently difficult to credit. Logically, the other two are distinct. If Parry did not borrow the waders and oilskins, it is does not imply he did not make a late-night dash to the garage.

True Antony, but I believe that Parkes’ claim that 2 unconnected people made the effort to turn up at the garage to inform Parkes that Parry had borrowed those two items decreases the credibility of his story further. He wasn’t theorising hypothetically, he was theorising based on what he was claiming as facts. Why would these two people feel that Parkes needed to know this? Why would they believe this information was relevant for Parkes? If we then postulate that Parkes had told people about Parry’s visit then this in itself would increase the likelihood of the story ‘getting out.’ But, we know that it didn’t until Parkes mentioned it 50 years later.

[RodCrosby]

I don’t think this is believable as I don’t think that the rest of the statement is believable.

Do you think Leslie Williamson and Ted Holmes are believable?

They too had had the misfortune to tangle with Parry, to their disadvantage.

Why is it not believable that Parkes was aware of other people who had been relieved of items by Parry?

You add yet another logical fallacy to your threadbare collection of feeble arguments.

That of 'special pleading'...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you think Leslie Williamson and Ted Holmes are believable?

They too had had the misfortune to tangle with Parry, to their disadvantage.

Why is it not believable that Parkes was aware of other people who had been relieved of items by Parry?

You add yet another logical fallacy to your threadbare collection of feeble arguments.

That of 'special pleading'...

Desperate obfuscation again.

It’s unbelievable that for no logical reason that two entirely unconnected people came and told Parkes that Parry had borrowed oilskins and waders. And this allegedly happened just after the murder. Denying the unlikeliness of this is a deliberate act of looking the other way in face the inconvenient.

You claim that Parkes was truthful.

If you assume that then I assume that you think he was being truthful about being told by two different people about the oilskins and the waders?

I say that two unconnected people coming in to give Parkes random bits of potentially incriminating evidence about Parry is utterly unbelievable.

Therefore, if this part of his statement is not credible why should we assume that the rest of his fairy story is credible?

It’s very simple Rod.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to add.....

If it was the case that people outside of Atkinson’s Garage knew about Parry’s involvement in the murder of Julia Wallace then I’d say that it would be as close to impossible as you could get that not one single person over the ensuing 50 years let the cat out of the bag unless we enter conspiracy theory territory.

And of course we all know why you are so desperate to believe Parkes.

[RodCrosby]

Yes, all logical fallacies

special pleading
argumentum ad ignorantiam
straw man
appeals to imaginary galleries

Yawn...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, all logical fallacies

special pleading
argumentum ad ignorantiam
straw man
appeals to imaginary galleries

Yawn...

Predictably pathetic.
Deliberate avoidance.
Biased interpretations.
Embarrassing lack of content.
Whistling in the dark.

Oh and....yawn.

[moste]

I think your strongest hand is to say the statements about Parry in the garage are inherently difficult to credit. Logically, the other two are distinct. If Parry did not borrow the waders and oilskins, it is does not imply he did not make a late-night dash to the garage.

For the sake of clarity it would be true to say would it not, that Parkes' little side issue of the oil skins and waders, as far as testifying was concerned can only be regarded as 'hearsay 'evidence, and most likely not be admissible in court?
Also, did Parkes' not in fact go to the police and explain his whole experiences with Parry to Det. Moore,, after Wallace was found guilty, as discussed with his employers, the Atkinsons?

[ColdCaseJury]

True Antony, but I believe that Parkes’ claim that 2 unconnected people made the effort to turn up at the garage to inform Parkes that Parry had borrowed those two items decreases the credibility of his story further. He wasn’t theorising hypothetically, he was theorising based on what he was claiming as facts. Why would these two people feel that Parkes needed to know this? Why would they believe this information was relevant for Parkes? If we then postulate that Parkes had told people about Parry’s visit then this in itself would increase the likelihood of the story ‘getting out.’ But, we know that it didn’t until Parkes mentioned it 50 years later.

Parkes knew Parry (from school). It is entirely reasonable to believe that Parkes knew others who knew Parry. That might be the connection. And such people might turn up at the garage for reasons other than to inform Parkes about Parry, but did end up talking about him. Therefore, I think your attack is direct at the possibility that Parkes and others would talk about Parry. Why would they do this? That's a fair point, HS, but I simply don't know enough about the people, their background and the circumstances to say whether this is credible or not.

Your point about the story leaking out is a also fair one. But again we don't know the details. Perhaps Parkes, heeding the direction of garage owner Atkinson not to speak about the incident, only said "Parry was in 'ere that night and acting dead strange." It's enough to ignite a conversation about Parry.

I think your problem here is the alleged conversation between Parry and Parkes was partially corroborated by Dolly Atkinson. She said nothing of waders and oilskins, but recollected Parkes telling her about Parry's late night dash. I concede she did not corroborate the crucial 'bloody' details, but she did confirm the event and its timing.

[RodCrosby]

[at 27.16 on the tape]
"I remember that 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 had happened. He wouldn't make up such a story as that. No, no, no! And we'd known him for years."
[at 30.13]
"He [Parry] must have done it, because he wouldn't come and ask a car to be washed, to a friend and make him wash it, and wash everything that was, er... got the blood on. No... And I say it was him that did it."
Mrs. "Dolly" Atkinson, 1981

[etenguy]

Parkes knew Parry (from school). It is entirely reasonable to believe that Parkes knew others who knew Parry. That might be the connection. And such people might turn up at the garage for reasons other than to inform Parkes about Parry, but did end up talking about him. Therefore, I think your attack is direct at the possibility that Parkes and others would talk about Parry. Why would they do this? That's a fair point, HS, but I simply don't know enough about the people, their background and the circumstances to say whether this is credible or not.

Your point about the story leaking out is a also fair one. But again we don't know the details. Perhaps Parkes, heeding the direction of garage owner Atkinson not to speak about the incident, only said "Parry was in 'ere that night and acting dead strange." It's enough to ignite a conversation about Parry.

I think your problem here is the alleged conversation between Parry and Parkes was partially corroborated by Dolly Atkinson. She said nothing of waders and oilskins, but recollected Parkes telling her about Parry's late night dash. I concede she did not corroborate the crucial 'bloody' details, but she did confirm the event and its timing.

I agree with Herlock regarding Parkes' story. Dolly Atkinson merely reports what Parkes told her, so I do not consider that corroboration of the content of Parkes story, merely corroboration that he stated this occurred at the time of the murder.

There are two reason's I agree with Herlock:
1. Parkes' story was never tested, either by the police or in court. While it was not known in time to be tested during Wallace's court case, the police did not follow up on the story. It may have been because they did not want to reopen the investigation or it may have been they did not consider it credible. In either case, it has not been put to Parry to allow him to defend against the allegation.

2. The conversation Parkes relays seems, prima facie, incredible, that Parry would all but confess to someone with whom he was on bad terms is not the behaviour you would expect from someone who had carried out such a sophisticated plan. Whether Parkes had a grudge against Parry may also have affected his version of what might have happened.

I think these two issues makes it unsafe to rely on such evidence. Just as we cannot rely on the confession made by Mr Johnstone some years after the murder - and indeed both cannot be true.

I would add that this does not invalidate Rod's theory of what might have happened. I think the Parry/accomplice theory has much to commend it though I struggle to decide whether it is a stronger theory than Wallace as killer.

[RodCrosby]

For the sake of clarity it would be true to say would it not, that Parkes' little side issue of the oil skins and waders, as far as testifying was concerned can only be regarded as 'hearsay 'evidence, and most likely not be admissible in court?
Also, did Parkes' not in fact go to the police and explain his whole experiences with Parry to Det. Moore,, after Wallace was found guilty, as discussed with his employers, the Atkinsons?

Wallace was convicted on 25th April 1931. His conviction was quashed on 19th May 1931.

The issue of the oilskins is Parkes's theorising, and we have no idea when he came up with it, and it's not just hearsay but irrelevant to his central testimony about what occurred at Atkinson's garage on the night of the murder.

[moste]

Wallace was convicted on 25th April 1931. His conviction was quashed on 19th May 1931.

The issue of the oilskins is Parkes's theorising, and we have no idea when he came up with it, and it's not just hearsay but irrelevant to his central testimony about what occurred at Atkinson's garage on the night of the murder.

'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?

[RodCrosby]

2. The conversation Parkes relays seems, prima facie, incredible, that Parry would all but confess to someone with whom he was on bad terms is not the behaviour you would expect from someone who had carried out such a sophisticated plan.

https://www.yenisafak.com/en/video-gallery/news/footage-emerges-of-saudi-consulate-cars-being-washed-following-khashoggi-murder-2197851

We know from other cases that criminals - whose "sophisticated plans" go wrong - sometimes panic and make compromising statements to friends, acquaintances or even strangers. I think you are being a bit too prescriptive about how Parkes viewed Parry on the night of 20th January 1931. His testimony shows that his relationship with Parry was more ambivalent, and Parkes seems to be an easy-going, pliable chump...

Of course there isn't any way of trying Parry in a court of law now. But we still look at ancient cold cases, and draw conclusions, where possible.

[ColdCaseJury]

I agree with Herlock regarding Parkes' story. Dolly Atkinson merely reports what Parkes told her, so I do not consider that corroboration of the content of Parkes story, merely corroboration that he stated this occurred at the time of the murder.

But the timing is too much of a coincidence otherwise. I can believe that Parry had his car cleaned without the blood evidence. I cannot believe that Parkes made up the whole story the next morning. I think we broadly agree.

The conversation Parkes relays seems, prima facie, incredible, that Parry would all but confess to someone with whom he was on bad terms is not the behaviour you would expect from someone who had carried out such a sophisticated plan. Whether Parkes had a grudge against Parry may also have affected his version of what might have happened.

In my book I raise a similar point: Parry confesses cheaply.

I would add that this does not invalidate Rod's theory of what might have happened. I think the Parry/accomplice theory has much to commend it though I struggle to decide whether it is a stronger theory than Wallace as killer.

Yes, Parkes provides evidence that Parry was involved. Remove this, there is no direct evidence that either Parry was involved (as indeed there is no direct evidence that Wallace was involved.

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