View Single Post
Old 05-09-2017, 04:32 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 636

Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Rod,

Thanks for the reply and I will give a line item response. I think the evidence for Parry stalking Wallace is quite weak, bearing in mind that the incidents you refer to could just be coincidence. And I don't see any reason for Parry "stalking" Wallace over such a protracted period: if he was involved in the robbery he simply needed to make sure Wallace attended the chess club on the night of the Qualtrough call and to confirm his departure for the Qualtrough appointment (something he didn't even bother to do if his alibis are to be accepted.)

The evidence for Parry making the Qualtrough call is much stronger, akthiugh it's worth noting that Josephine Lloyd estimated that he arrived at 7:15 on the 19th which, if correct, would mean that he couldn't have made the call.

There is no evidence that Parry lied in respect of the alibis he provided after 8:30. For Instance, in respect of the birthday invitation, Parry actually informed Lloyd that he had obtained an invitation for both of them, and I don't see why he would lie about this. Moreover, in the radio broadcast Leslie referred to Lloyd as "a lovely girl", so it makes sense she would have been invited, which presumably also means Parry would also have received an invitation, regardless of Leslie's animosity towards him, as they were a couple.

Your argument about the blood stains is well made, and I agree that they would most likely have been noticed by Lily and her mother.

Parkes' testimony is questionable to say the least. Thus, he only came forward publicly half a century after the event, by which time, somewhat conveniently, there was no one left alive who could have contradicted him. Moreover, Parkes was clearly no friend of Parry's, but we're expected to believe that the latter was stupid enough to virtually confess to a murder: "if the police found that it would hang me."

Regarding the accomplice. There was no evidence of a break-in and Wallace himself made it clear that Julia wouldn't admit anyone she didn't know personally. Therefore, following, the robbery, the accomplice could presumably be identified by Julia just as easily as Parry would have been. And why he would an accomplice be prepared to take nearly all the risks, whilst Parry's involvement was essentially limited to making a phone call?

I don't agree with your reasoning for the perpetrator leaving with the weapon; it's far more likely that he was concerned about the issue of fingerprints. Nor is there any evidence for a confrontation: the neighbours heard nothing and there were no defensive wounds. In fact all the evidence points to Julia being taken completely by surprise, whilst she sat quietly in the chair.

I also think it unlikely that the perpetrator would have entrusted Parry with the responsibility of disposing of the incriminating evidence. Much more likely that he would have disposed of it himself as soon as possible. In fact, it would be incredible if he were to wonder around the neighbourhood with an iron bar covered in blood and gore, calmly awaiting Parry's arrival.

Nor am I convinced with the breakdown theory. Parry spent two hours at his girlfriend's house without giving himself away, assuming he had any involvement, so why should he then suffer a mental collapse in front of Parkes who, as I noted earlier, was obviously no friend?
These are just fantastic points. Some of which I would not have thought of myself. Particularly that Parry's behavior from what we know after 8:30 on the 20th does not mesh with the supposed break down to John Parkes. I do agree he cannot completely evade suspicion for the call.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote