Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

All demonstrably wrong, as usual...

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s nothing demonstrable about it Rod. You can no more ‘prove’ that Parkes’ statement is true than I can ‘prove’ it’s false. We interpret what is known. For it to be true we have to accept the following:
That for some reason Parry goes to the worst possible garage to get his car cleaned by the worst possible person.
That Parry and his accomplice couldn’t have deduced that it would have been infinitely less risky if they’d cleaned the car themselves. Especially as they had plenty of time to do so.
That Parry for some reason retains a blood soaked mitten (after discarding the other one apparently.)
That Parry leaves that incriminating mitten in a place where Parkes couldn’t have failed to have seen it.
That a mitten would have been used in the first place as opposed to a glove.
That Parry, rather than come up with some excuse, immediately tells Parkes that the glove could get him hanged as soon as Parkes picks it up.
That Parry then, totally unprompted or in any way that could be interpreted as a slip of the tongue, tells Parkes where he’s hidden the murder weapon.
That after pretty much putting his neck in the noose, Parry doesn’t even tell Parkes to keep his mouth shut.
That Parry does all of this when, according to your theory, he didn’t commit the murder himself and has an unshakeable alibi for the time that Julia was being killed and so could deny all knowledge.
That two unconnected people, for no explicable reason, come to the garage to tell Parkes that Parry had borrowed oilskins and some waders. As if everyone knew that Parry was connected to the crime.
That Parkes, in an unrecorded interview, hands the police the murderer on a plate, and yet they completely ignore him despite that fact that Parkes or an associate could easily have wandered down to Priory Roadnto retrieve the murder weapon and present it to the police or even the press.
That despite this story allegedly being ‘common knowledge’ around the garage no one mentions it until Parkes is ‘tracked down’ 50 years later.

How can anyone not say that this isn’t at least ‘suspicious.’

[RodCrosby]

All disinformation and special pleading...

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s no point in trying reasoned debate in an integrity vacuum. There isn’t a single, solitary thing in my post # 1862 that isn’t completely true unless you’ve read another statement by Parkes that no-one else has seen? I know the statement is an embarrassment but you could at least make a cursory effort to defend the facts. But you never do do you? I wonder why? I might as well buy a parrot.

[cobalt]

I am finding the latest format difficult to navigate. I hope this is temporary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am finding the latest format difficult to navigate. I hope this is temporary.

I think that this is how it’s going to be. I had a change like this on another Forum that I post on. It certainly takes a while to readjust.

[moste]

This format is awful! who comes up with this stuff?

[etenguy]

This format is awful! who comes up with this stuff?

Give it a couple of weeks - it can take a while to get used to.

[moste]

Post 1862. Spot On. Game, set, and match!

[moste]

"There’s no point in trying reasoned debate in an integrity vacuum. There isn’t a single, solitary thing in my post # 1862 that isn’t completely true unless you’ve read another statement by Parkes that no-one else has seen? I know the statement is an embarrassment but you could at least make a cursory effort to defend the facts. But you never do do you? I wonder why? I might as well buy a parrot." Ha Ha Ha Preferably a 'Norwegian Blue' they tend to speak less!

[etenguy]

"There’s no point in trying reasoned debate in an integrity vacuum. There isn’t a single, solitary thing in my post # 1862 that isn’t completely true unless you’ve read another statement by Parkes that no-one else has seen? I know the statement is an embarrassment but you could at least make a cursory effort to defend the facts. But you never do do you? I wonder why? I might as well buy a parrot." Ha Ha Ha Preferably a 'Norwegian Blue' they tend to speak less!

Just to add some balance re: Parkes (and this is difficult because I struggle to accept his statement), we would have to consider why Parkes might invent the meeting with Parry. To borrow Herlock's structure,

For Parkes to have invented the story:
Parkes must have known Parry was not with anyone else at the time he quoted.
Parkes had to be prepared to lie to his employer - with whom he appears to have a good relationship.
Parkes had to be prepared to commit a crime himself by lying to the police and potentially being prosecuted.
Parkes would have to be prepared to waste police time looking down drains for a weapon.
Parkes would need to square his conscience with possibly interferring in a murder investigation - or worse allowing a murderer to go undetected for longer and possibly kill someone else.
Parkes would need to have a motive, and putting Parry in the frame for murder is quite extreme.
Parkes would need to be prepared for a beating, or worse, once Parry found out (and given he was scared of Parry, he probably didn't want to piss him off).

This looks just as unlikely as the list in #1862 - one of these lists has to be true though.

[APerno]

There’s nothing demonstrable about it Rod. You can no more ‘prove’ that Parkes’ statement is true than I can ‘prove’ it’s false. We interpret what is known. For it to be true we have to accept the following:
1. That for some reason Parry goes to the worst possible garage to get his car cleaned by the worst possible person.
2. That Parry and his accomplice couldn’t have deduced that it would have been infinitely less risky if they’d cleaned the car themselves. Especially as they had plenty of time to do so.
3. That Parry for some reason retains a blood soaked mitten (after discarding the other one apparently.)
4. That Parry leaves that incriminating mitten in a place where Parkes couldn’t have failed to have seen it.
5. That a mitten would have been used in the first place as opposed to a glove.
6. That Parry, rather than come up with some excuse, immediately tells Parkes that the glove could get him hanged as soon as Parkes picks it up.
7. That Parry then, totally unprompted or in any way that could be interpreted as a slip of the tongue, tells Parkes where he’s hidden the murder weapon.
8. That after pretty much putting his neck in the noose, Parry doesn’t even tell Parkes to keep his mouth shut.
9. That Parry does all of this when, according to your theory, he didn’t commit the murder himself and has an unshakeable alibi for the time that Julia was being killed and so could deny all knowledge.
10. That two unconnected people, for no explicable reason, come to the garage to tell Parkes that Parry had borrowed oilskins and some waders. As if everyone knew that Parry was connected to the crime.
11. That Parkes, in an unrecorded interview, hands the police the murderer on a plate, and yet they completely ignore him despite that fact that Parkes or an associate could easily have wandered down to Priory Roadnto retrieve the murder weapon and present it to the police or even the press.
12. That despite this story allegedly being ‘common knowledge’ around the garage no one mentions it until Parkes is ‘tracked down’ 50 years later.

How can anyone not say that this isn’t at least ‘suspicious.’

1. Why is this the worst possible garage?
2. I agree, who ever heard of hosing down the inside of a car anyway?
3. I always wondered how O.J. Simpson could get rid of all the evidence, (weapon, bloody clothes and shoes) but somehow leave one bloody glove at the crime scene and the other on his own property so the cops cold find it. That always seemed odd to me, but maybe Parry is just incompetent. But I agree, it doesn't seem likely.
4. Same as number 3, it makes no sense.
5. Maybe the old man calls all gloves 'mittens.' I knew a guy that did that.
6. Yea, agree again, that sounds like an old man telling a story.
7. Yes, very absurd. And as you say later on, if Parkes cared so much for justice why not take the police to the murder weapon?
8. I thought he did, in a way, tell Parkes to keep quiet. I thought Parkes said he felt threatened.
9. Not sure what you are saying here, guess you are replying to Rod.
10. I thought Parry was a known suspect, but even so, why tell Parkes about it; why didn't they tell the police?
11. This goes to the belief that Parry was connected and the police were in the process of a 'rush to judgment." -- There were some earlier posts that suggest that the police were in disarray do to a major shake-up and that the inspector was under much pressure to deliverer an acceptable suspect, i.e. Wallace was acceptable, Parry was a political problem especially for an unsure (insecure) inspector.
12. Agree again, way too long to go unspoken.

If I was on a jury (50 years later) I would have to ignore Parkes testimony. Often, when a convict gets out on a habeas corpus technicality and there is a call for a re-trial, prosecutors (the DA) would often decide that 20 years is too long to bring witnesses back on the stand (in the box) and would forgo the retrial; a witness coming forward 50 years later is an unacceptable witness.

It does smack of an old man looking to get his 15 minutes of fame. I am kind of surprised he didn't get a book deal.

P.S. I like the new format better than the old one.

[RodCrosby]

I agree, who ever heard of hosing down the inside of a car anyway?

Parry's car probably looked like this, a 1931 Swift 2-seater. Pretty basic...






PAINTED METAL, WOOD, LEATHER, BRASS...

strange [to us] things do happen...
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...od-video-viral

But perhaps not so strange in 1931?

[RodCrosby]

Why is this the worst possible garage?

Of course it wasn't.

It was two streets away from Parry
The lone chump there that night knew Parry "exceptionally well"
Parry had often been there "until 3 or 4 in the morning"
Parry, in the words of a third-party, was "a friend of yours [Parkes]" and they were on first-name terms
Parry had bamboozled Parkes previously, but Parkes continued to lap it up...
Parkes was a weak character - by his own admission - before, during, and after the incident

It was in fact a godsend to Parry to have this chump nearby, and there was nowhere else he could realistically go after midnight on 21st January 1931, in any case...

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.