Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

At the very least an embellishment - though in the interview Parkes says that Moore dismissed his story as a mistake so definitely inconsistent.



I believe Parry was checked out during the two or three days after the murder, and his car (or a car) was checked by the police. If Parkes is lying, the car wash could have been inspired by hearing about the checks.



That's my understanding from the interview that was broadcast - Atkinson warned about the back Alley, the police (Moore) dismissed Parkes' story.



The Atkinsons seemed to believe Parkes, hence the avoid the dark back alley remark. I have only seen reference to Parry's car being checked before Parkes said anything to the police.



It does sound like a statement made up of the rumours, except Parkes did tell the Atkinsons the day after the murder before some of the investigation had taken place. Though how the story grew and became embellished is not entirely clear - Dolly only talked about the car wash - nothing about drains and bars. I can quite believe that Parry visited the garage with a friend after the murder, but Parkes did not suggest he was threatened by him - only that Atkinson suggested he avoid the dark back alley.

This is why ideally the call in segment of Radio City in its entirety ought to be uploaded because some of the remarks like Ada Cook's are important. Wilkes etc. have it but as a cassette.

Anyway, when the man and Gordon turned up to the garage I thought Parkes wasn't there? It was during the day shift I thought? And then the Atkinsons who were there at the time warned Parkes later.

I don't think it's ever specified when certain checks were done. Just that at SOME point these things were done. It may be that the story was told, then the police searched the car and/or drain and THEN told him "you must have made a mistake" because there was nothing, rather than outright refusing to listen. They might have checked his clothes the days after the crime, but not the car.

It's not in the police files but lots of things are legitimately missing from the official file. They have been cut down to save space.

Josh who posted here before who some people know think Gordon might have gone there after the police interview because it terminated in the AM hours.

I'm not certain it's an embellished story but it sounds it. Maybe even played up specifically for the radio. I don't think Parkes was paid but someone who "knew someone who knew him" tried to extort Wilkes and the crew to put him in touch, so they tracked down the garages themselves to avoid the extortion.

Was it meant to be Parkes himself who requested to speak to Moore, or did one of the people he told go to the cops? Did that even happen at all? Did he just feel guilty because he was questioned about not telling cops?

I think they're not meant to have gone to the cops until after the arrest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Time for a vague scenario (this is without books so fact checks are welcome)

First we remember that Parry isn’t popular at the garage.

The next night Parry turns up at the garage and asks Parkes to wash his car he also asks him to give the inside a clean while he’s at it. Parkes discusses this with the Atkinson’s and they connect this to the murder and advise him to go to the police which he does. The police check out Parry and his car and clear him.
Parkes, in his statement mentions potentially washing away evidence and he worries about people’s response to this. He then decides to place Parry’s visit to a short time after the murder (rather than the same night) so that he could say that when Parry arrived he was unaware of Julia’s death and for all he’d known Parry might have been involved in a fight or a robbery.
So now we have that Atkinson’s able to back up the story of the visit. Later on Parkes adds details: the glove; the weapon and the story about Moore ignoring his story.
Didnt Parkes say something about his evidence to Moore helping to exonerate William? Might this not show a desire to big himself up? To get his 15 minutes of fame? Parkes would now be able to say: “I gave them the solution to the Wallace case but they ignored me.”

[WallaceWackedHer]

Time for a vague scenario (this is without books so fact checks are welcome)

First we remember that Parry isn’t popular at the garage.

The next night Parry turns up at the garage and asks Parkes to wash his car he also asks him to give the inside a clean while he’s at it. Parkes discusses this with the Atkinson’s and they connect this to the murder and advise him to go to the police which he does. The police check out Parry and his car and clear him.
Parkes, in his statement mentions potentially washing away evidence and he worries about people’s response to this. He then decides to place Parry’s visit to a short time after the murder (rather than the same night) so that he could say that when Parry arrived he was unaware of Julia’s death and for all he’d known Parry might have been involved in a fight or a robbery.
So now we have that Atkinson’s able to back up the story of the visit. Later on Parkes adds details: the glove; the weapon and the story about Moore ignoring his story.
Didnt Parkes say something about his evidence to Moore helping to exonerate William? Might this not show a desire to big himself up? To get his 15 minutes of fame? Parkes would now be able to say: “I gave them the solution to the Wallace case but they ignored me.”

I was waiting for your input, yes. I thought he had said Parry came on the night of the murder though?

Some time that night after Ken the policeman told him there'd been a bit of trouble at Wolverton Street I thought.

Did he actually say it was a different night?

Parkes would have probably brought it up to Parry in conversation, apparently he knew Gordon was William's friend. Whether that's true I don't know. But still you'd probably bring up big news like that to someone.

Maybe he felt Gordon acted sus. I don't think he's only a jealous man, still bitter half a century later. I think he probably was legitimately quite convinced Gordon killed the woman.

The Pru worker guy says the people at the Pru thought he did it too. And the university sister story etc, I suppose there were rumours against Gordon and many people were convinced he's a killer.

Lily Lloyd in Wilkes' book blames the crime for her breakup with Gordon IIRC.

[Herlock Sholmes]

U

I was waiting for your input, yes. I thought he had said Parry came on the night of the murder though?

Some time that night after Ken the policeman told him there'd been a bit of trouble at Wolverton Street I thought.

Did he actually say it was a different night?

Parkes would have probably brought it up to Parry in conversation, apparently he knew Gordon was William's friend. Whether that's true I don't know. But still you'd probably bring up big news like that to someone.

Maybe he felt Gordon acted sus. I don't think he's only a jealous man, still bitter half a century later. I think he probably was legitimately quite convinced Gordon killed the woman.

The Pru worker guy says the people at the Pru thought he did it too. And the university sister story etc, I suppose there were rumours against Gordon and many people were convinced he's a killer.

Lily Lloyd in Wilkes' book blames the crime for her breakup with Gordon IIRC.

Parkes did say that Parry’s visit was in the early hours just after the murder but I was suggesting that maybe Parkes visited 24 hours later and then, because he was concerned that people might have blamed him for wiping away evidence of murder, he lied and said that the visit was just a few hours after the murder which would have allowed him at the time to have said “well I hadn’t heard about a murder so how could I have known Parry hadn’t just gotten into a fight?”

And so - a day after the murder Parry gets his car washed - Parkes might have thought that he was behaving strangely - he tells the Atkinson’s (by now they’ve all heard about the murder) - he contacts Moore who checks Parry’s car and clothes and finds nothing - later on Parkes changes the day of Parry’s visit to the night of the murder so he can say “well I didn’t know about any murder...” - later still he elaborates by inventing the story about the mitten and the glove.

I just think it’s interesting that Parkes seemed keen to suggest that his evidence helped save Wallace. Possibly a nobody trying to be a somebody?

[WallaceWackedHer]

U

Parkes did say that Parry’s visit was in the early hours just after the murder but I was suggesting that maybe Parkes visited 24 hours later and then, because he was concerned that people might have blamed him for wiping away evidence of murder, he lied and said that the visit was just a few hours after the murder which would have allowed him at the time to have said “well I hadn’t heard about a murder so how could I have known Parry hadn’t just gotten into a fight?”

And so - a day after the murder Parry gets his car washed - Parkes might have thought that he was behaving strangely - he tells the Atkinson’s (by now they’ve all heard about the murder) - he contacts Moore who checks Parry’s car and clothes and finds nothing - later on Parkes changes the day of Parry’s visit to the night of the murder so he can say “well I didn’t know about any murder...” - later still he elaborates by inventing the story about the mitten and the glove.

I just think it’s interesting that Parkes seemed keen to suggest that his evidence helped save Wallace. Possibly a nobody trying to be a somebody?

Oh, I see what you mean now. Yeah that could be the case although he seems to be saying it was after he was told (having been told the night of, by the police officer, was it Ken Wallace?). Josh suggests the 24th of January (a.m. hours, so like the night of the 23rd) when Parry finished giving his police statement as when he actually attended the garage.

It is pretty messed up to give elaborate statements like that because it sticks, and people interested in research are always going to have this issue of the Parkes testimony that can't really just be dismissed. Although it seems embellished to me with the stakeouts, iron bar and such... Possible (the iron bar would not be the Wallace's parlour one though, so a different iron bar), but it seems it might not be legit... At least in parts.

That's probably as much as can realistically be said.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Here's another Parry tale from John Gannon:

I visited Atkinson’s garage, still open at the time, and talked to one of their grandsons who was running the business at the time. He showed me around the place – including the part of the garage where Parry brought his car in: the hose nozzle was still there on the ceiling – photo’s attached. He also took me upstairs to a small, dingy room, the walls of which were plastered with magazine and newspaper pages (nothing of any interest – girlie stuff and racing cars…); he told me it was in this room that Parry and few other men would gather after hours for a came of snooker, drinks, etc. I thought the it had to have been a small snooker table – you get three men in there and a snooker table, it had to be pretty intimate! The grandson told me, his father told him, that one night, when Parry used to frequent there, a gun went missing from one of the drawers, or a wardrobe, and it was felt that Parry had stolen it. He said it was a service revolver his grandfather had from the war (I presumed WW1): something like a ‘Bull Pistol’??? I thought this story to be too obscure and unverifiable to be of any consequence for the book.

And a photo of the hose still standing there:

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has that photo of the hose been published before WWH? I don’t recall seeing it but then again I have the memory of a goldfish. I wonder if Gannon took any other photos that haven’t been seen?

On ‘Bull Pistol?’

This rings a bell as a Sherlock Holmes fan. When Watson was thinking of moving in with Holmes they were asking each other about their faults and Watson said that he kept a Bull Pup. Well, this ‘dog’ never appeared in any of the stories but researchers discovered that he might have been referring to a gun as that’s what a Bull Pup was.

Im a mine of useless information like that.

[etenguy]

Parkes would have probably brought it up to Parry in conversation, apparently he knew Gordon was William's friend. Whether that's true I don't know. But still you'd probably bring up big news like that to someone.

Parkes certainly said he told the policeman, Ken Wallis, that he knew Wallace was Parry's friend (in the 'conspiracy of silence' section of the Wilkes broadcast) when Ken told him of the murder. He said it in such a way that it seemed to me he knew Wallace himself. It is a connection between Parkes and Wallace that I had suspected might be there.

[etenguy]

Im a mine of useless information like that.

You need to heed the thoughts of your favourite detective:

'Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.'

[Joshua Rogan]

On ‘Bull Pistol?’

This rings a bell as a Sherlock Holmes fan. When Watson was thinking of moving in with Holmes they were asking each other about their faults and Watson said that he kept a Bull Pup. Well, this ‘dog’ never appeared in any of the stories but researchers discovered that he might have been referring to a gun as that’s what a Bull Pup was.

Im a mine of useless information like that.

Unlikely, I think, Herlock.

A bull pup rifle is one with the firing action behind the trigger, thus enabling a weapon to be shorter and less unwieldly than a conventional rifle with the same barrel length.
Although the concept existed in the Victorian age, the first practical bull pup rifle wasn't made until around the turn of the century. Etymology is a bit vague.. I think the term itself ihas been around since the 19th century, but isn't known to have been applied to firearms until the 1930's.

But I haven't checked Google ngrams

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unlikely, I think, Herlock.

A bull pup rifle is one with the firing action behind the trigger, thus enabling a weapon to be shorter and less unwieldly than a conventional rifle with the same barrel length.
Although the concept existed in the Victorian age, the first practical bull pup rifle wasn't made until around the turn of the century. Etymology is a bit vague.. I think the term itself ihas been around since the 19th century, but isn't known to have been applied to firearms until the 1930's.

But I haven't checked Google ngrams

http://www.johnhwatsonmd.com/i-keep-a-bull-pup-stud/

I found this reference to it Joshua but I know absolutely nothing about weapons . I hope the link works.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Lets keep our facts straight here.
The bullpup carbine was one of the first designs, but there were others before that, around the beginning of the 20th century, it's nothing more than the trigger ahead of the action.
So it's possible that Doyle was actually referring to a weapon, considering he died in 1930.

I also found this on another website. It appears that the weapon was post Holmes and Watson but pre-Doyle’s death. Doyle made many errors of detail as he was more interested in simply creating a good story.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Has that photo of the hose been published before WWH? I don’t recall seeing it but then again I have the memory of a goldfish. I wonder if Gannon took any other photos that haven’t been seen?

On ‘Bull Pistol?’

This rings a bell as a Sherlock Holmes fan. When Watson was thinking of moving in with Holmes they were asking each other about their faults and Watson said that he kept a Bull Pup. Well, this ‘dog’ never appeared in any of the stories but researchers discovered that he might have been referring to a gun as that’s what a Bull Pup was.

Im a mine of useless information like that.

Just the one I think. The photo isn't anywhere else (it's actually like 3 or 4 photos but of the same thing, that's the best pic).

I'm not sure if anyone can do more to discover precisely how true Parkes' statement is?

I think the next major one is Lily Hall. I am very certain Gannon was wrong about the entry Lily says one of the men went down.

We know the man she calls Wallace and another man were sighted by her at the "entry opposite the institute", which makes it sound like she means the opposite side of the road, AKA the Wolverton Street entry. But we know from clarification that she meant the entry beside it when she referred to the entry.

Now Gannon says she saw a man go down Wolverton Streets's entry because she says the man went down the entry, then that the entry is "opposite Parish Hall (the institute)". She's using the word opposite in the same misleading way in both. On the trial she is asked several times in a row to be very specific about the entry and she clarifies she means the person went down the entry by the church/institute thing (towards Sedley Street).

She sees one man go down the entry towards Sedley Street, one towards Breck Road.

NOW, if the statement is correct, because of the sighting by Mr. Greenlees reported to Munro which Gannon also places just after Lily, the "other man" has gone down that entry, crossed left to Sedley Street, then as he emerged from Sedley Street saw Mr. Greenlees and crossed over from there to talk to him... While Wallace went "towards Breck Road" because the entry he used is actually not directly opposite the Parish Hall entry but a little towards Breck Road diagonally... Only by a few yards or so but enough to walk diagonal in that direction.

The descriptions of the man are the same in the giving of "stocky build" except the hat style.

If it is the same person it really crushes the idea that this is Marsden entirely. The murderer would have at least some blood on him or at least be nervous he might. In any case he wouldn't want to loiter the area and especially not approach anyone in the streets for a face to face discussion, with a memorable mention of the fake address.

Not only did he "accost" this man but actually crossed the road in order to do so...

I think what's happened is Lily Hall was walking by there as Wallace was returning home. The stocky man was maybe standing aside at the entry waiting for him to pass because the entry is narrow. She might not even see Wallace yet depending on the viewing angle... But this stocky man has stood there waiting for Wallace to pass so when she sees Wallace go by him etc. she thinks they've been talking (do notice by the way that it is around 8.35ish in an era before cars, and she does not mention HEARING that a conversation was going on even as crossing the road close to the men, she just sees them apparently in conversation).

But actually she just saw the men pass each other in the street. Wallace going home and the weird man down the entry, possibly in search of the non existent home or who knows what. Then is frazzled shortly after and went up to Mr. Greenlees for directions...

I think this man might not want to come forward because it's eerie and would make him seem suspect if he's hanging around near the scene of a murder asking for a fake address when we know the husband had apparently been asked away also to visit a fake address.

That would be dangerous.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Regarding the two men running story also, keep in mind the time given for this by the witness Anne Parsons is 8 to 8.15 PM. Way before Lily's sighting of the apparently clandestine meeting (out in the open streets for anyone to see).

The corroboration is not a corroboration, when the other woman is penned in a margin it just says "saw the 2 men". It's a completely different document and doesn't say which two men, and doesn't even say she is at home (he uses her home address to say where she'd seen the men). There is nothing to suggest at all that she had been asked or testified about the two men running, only that two men were seen.

No time, specifics on who, or where this is. That part is disregardable.

But Anne Parsons almost certainly saw two men running. Someone else (a man she knows) wrote the police on her behalf AFTER she herself had, asking that they please take her statement seriously because they hadn't even responded to her or something like that.

Regarding Phyllis Plant... She is absent from the statements of both Harold Denison and Parry. Brine says she called but never actually says she had come into the home. Apparently Denison and Parry did not see her or I think Gordon would have mentioned it if it weren't a woman he was cheating on Lily with... And Denison might have just said it anyway... Though he got to the house at 6 pm and Gordon turned up about 5.30 by Brine, so Phyllis may have been there and left before 6.

Antony's version of Gordon's statement is slightly altered in mostly non-important ways. Gannon's version is the correct one:

https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/case-files/richard-gordon-parry-full-statements/

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just the one I think. The photo isn't anywhere else (it's actually like 3 or 4 photos but of the same thing, that's the best pic).

I'm not sure if anyone can do more to discover precisely how true Parkes' statement is?

I think the next major one is Lily Hall. I am very certain Gannon was wrong about the entry Lily says one of the men went down.

We know the man she calls Wallace and another man were sighted by her at the "entry opposite the institute", which makes it sound like she means the opposite side of the road, AKA the Wolverton Street entry. But we know from clarification that she meant the entry beside it when she referred to the entry.

Now Gannon says she saw a man go down Wolverton Streets's entry because she says the man went down the entry, then that the entry is "opposite Parish Hall (the institute)". She's using the word opposite in the same misleading way in both. On the trial she is asked several times in a row to be very specific about the entry and she clarifies she means the person went down the entry by the church/institute thing (towards Sedley Street).

She sees one man go down the entry towards Sedley Street, one towards Breck Road.

NOW, if the statement is correct, because of the sighting by Mr. Greenlees reported to Munro which Gannon also places just after Lily, the "other man" has gone down that entry, crossed left to Sedley Street, then as he emerged from Sedley Street saw Mr. Greenlees and crossed over from there to talk to him... While Wallace went "towards Breck Road" because the entry he used is actually not directly opposite the Parish Hall entry but a little towards Breck Road diagonally... Only by a few yards or so but enough to walk diagonal in that direction.

The descriptions of the man are the same in the giving of "stocky build" except the hat style.

If it is the same person it really crushes the idea that this is Marsden entirely. The murderer would have at least some blood on him or at least be nervous he might. In any case he wouldn't want to loiter the area and especially not approach anyone in the streets for a face to face discussion, with a memorable mention of the fake address.

Not only did he "accost" this man but actually crossed the road in order to do so...

I think what's happened is Lily Hall was walking by there as Wallace was returning home. The stocky man was maybe standing aside at the entry waiting for him to pass because the entry is narrow. She might not even see Wallace yet depending on the viewing angle... But this stocky man has stood there waiting for Wallace to pass so when she sees Wallace go by him etc. she thinks they've been talking (do notice by the way that it is around 8.35ish in an era before cars, and she does not mention HEARING that a conversation was going on even as crossing the road close to the men, she just sees them apparently in conversation).

But actually she just saw the men pass each other in the street. Wallace going home and the weird man down the entry, possibly in search of the non existent home or who knows what. Then is frazzled shortly after and went up to Mr. Greenlees for directions...

I think this man might not want to come forward because it's eerie and would make him seem suspect if he's hanging around near the scene of a murder asking for a fake address when we know the husband had apparently been asked away also to visit a fake address.

That would be dangerous.

I’m starting to think that I shouldn’t have started posting again until I get my pad back as I’m really struggling to read large chunks of text on a phone!

Ive just read your appraisal of Lily Hall’s evidence on your website WWH and agree 100% although she does her best to be confusing! There can be no doubt for me which entry she saw ‘Wallace’ near (although as you pointed out she irritatingly uses ‘opposite’) and we know that she’d have crossed over to the Letchworth Street side.
Your suggestion about her seeing him pass the opposite entry is plausible. My only question is the timing seems a little early for William but it’s difficult to quibble over a very few minutes.

Ill read about the other sighting later.