Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

Regarding Parry's movements between 8.30pm and 9.00pm, I have already demonstrated.

a) there is no verification for any of it
b) Parry's story bears hallmarks of deception, according to forensic linguistics [in my opinion]
c) Parry seemed to know this time-period was critical, even though he was fireproof for the time of the actual murder
d) Parry's story changed over the years

[etenguy]

Rod’s scenario has Parry picking up the accomplice in his car after the ‘robbery.’ It’s reasonably, plausible and likely that Parry the Planner would have given his accomplice a ‘You need to be away from there by....’ time. I’d suggest 8.00 or 8.15 (any later, say 8.30, would only have required Wallace to have given up slightly earlier allowing him to return via the tram before the one that he eventually caught.)

So we have the accomplice leaving between 8.00 and 8.15.

It’s unlikely that the pre-arranged meeting place would have been any great distance from Wolverton Street so let’s say 5 minutes.

So we have the accomplice arriving at the meeting place between 8.05 and 8.20.

Parry leaves the Brine’s at 8.30. Does he go, as part of the plan, to pick up the accomplice? No, hegoes off to get a packet of cigarettes and a newspaper. Let’s say 5 minutes.

It’s now 8.35.

Does he then go and pick up his accomplice? No, he remembers that he has to go to Hignett’s Garage to pick up an accumulator battery. How long? Let’s say 10 minutes.

It’s now 8.45.

He finally gets to pick up his accomplice at around 8.50. As part of the ‘plan’ he’s left the accomplice standing around for between 30 and 45 minutes whilst he does things that could have been easily done at another time.

Then, after being told by the accomplice that he’s now implicated in a murder and could end up on the gallows for £2 he goes to the Williamson’s for a chat and then to his girlfriends. None of whom say that he was anything other than calm and entirely normal.

As ever Rod is silent on any ‘uncomfortable’ points but I’ll ask everyone ‘hand on heart’ do these actions speak of a man enacting a pre-arranged plan? And let’s not forget we can’t fall back on ‘well he might not have picked him up. He might have gone to the accomplice’s house to collect his share for example because, for the plan to ‘fit,’ we have to have the accomplice in Parry’s car for Parry to have need of his car cleaning by Parkes.

I think you are entirely correct to point out issues with the timing if we follow Rod's theory to the letter. I personally would make an adjustment to Rod's theory. I wouldn't have Parry going to pick up the accomplice. I'd have Parry lend the accomplice his car (if the accomplice did not have his own) with instructions to return it by 8.30 ready for Parry to go about his business.

[etenguy]

We don't even know the Police ignored it. It merely seems they (Moore) did.

But what could they do, individually or collectively? Wallace was convicted by that time. It was legally out of the Police's hands. I can't think of a case where the Police waltz into a court, and announce "Shucks, guys, I guess we got it wrong...", even where it is later proven they did get it wrong... The 'justice' system simply doesn't work like that.

Here's an entirely left-field idea, and I accept it's a bit "out there."

Something unique (among several unique things) happened in the Wallace Case.

The Church of England intervened on behalf of a convicted murderer.

An astonishing, dramatic step, never repeated.

What prompted this extraordinary intervention? Clerics are not lawyers. But they are not fools either.

Did someone, in desperation, reveal strong evidence that Wallace was innocent, and someone else guilty, and the Police had made a terrible mistake?

Someone from the Police? Moore himself? Moore was supposed to be a devout Roman Catholic (so we might imagine had a conscience that might bother him if he was now certain an innocent man would hang)...

It is within the realms of possibility and an interesting suggestion.

[etenguy]

Regarding Parry's movements between 8.30pm and 9.00pm, I have already demonstrated.

a) there is no verification for any of it
b) Parry's story bears hallmarks of deception, according to forensic linguistics [in my opinion]
c) Parry seemed to know this time-period was critical, even though he was fireproof for the time of the actual murder
d) Parry's story changed over the years

You are, of course, quite correct, but even 8.30 is a little late for an accomplice to hang about. But if Parry was not expecting a murder (and so no blood stained accomplice), he may not have considered that a problem.

[RodCrosby]

I think you are entirely correct to point out issues with the timing if we follow Rod's theory to the letter. I personally would make an adjustment to Rod's theory. I wouldn't have Parry going to pick up the accomplice. I'd have Parry lend the accomplice his car (if the accomplice did not have his own) with instructions to return it by 8.30 ready for Parry to go about his business.

But Brine said he came in his car. Alone. [although there is an idea buzzing in my head that I am unable to reveal for the moment, if at all, without further research...]

[etenguy]

But Brine said he came in his car. Alone. [although there is an idea buzzing in my head that I am unable to reveal for the moment, if at all, without further research...]

Hi Rod - I don't want to hijack your theory (which is why I didn't mention this before) but it strikes me that Parry did arrive in his car, alone, at the Brine's. The accomplice could then have picked it up an hour or more later and returned it before 8.30. I think it makes the timing issues go away and explains the blood in the car better (as it would have been wetter and fresher when the accomplice got in the car). Dried blood is less likely to leave the stains that have been speculated.

[RodCrosby]

Hi Rod - I don't want to hijack your theory (which is why I didn't mention this before) but it strikes me that Parry did arrive in his car, alone, at the Brine's. The accomplice could then have picked it up an hour or more later and returned it before 8.30. I think it makes the timing issues go away and explains the blood in the car better (as it would have been wetter and fresher when the accomplice got in the car). Dried blood is less likely to leave the stains that have been speculated.

Well, it's an interesting idea, and not impossible, but:-

a) what if one of the Brine gathering noticed or heard someone taking Parry's car, or returning it?
b) or noticed that it had gone?

Or are the Brine witnesses concealing something?

[RodCrosby]

Regarding Parry's movements between 8.30pm and 9.00pm, I have already demonstrated.

a) there is no verification for any of it
b) Parry's story bears hallmarks of deception, according to forensic linguistics [in my opinion]
c) Parry seemed to know this time-period was critical, even though he was fireproof for the time of the actual murder
d) Parry's story changed over the years

e) we also know for certain Parry lied about his Monday-night movements, so we have evidence he was prepared to lie.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Regarding Parry's movements between 8.30pm and 9.00pm, I have already demonstrated. You’ve demonstrated exactly zilch.

a) there is no verification for any of it - What more verification do we need in addition to 4 people (including a child) who all said that Parry was at the Brine’s until 8.30? Why would he mention the PO and the garage if they were false alibi’s and could easily have been discounted. Point a) is nonsense.

b) Parry's story bears hallmarks of deception, according to forensic linguistics [in my opinion] - of course it would (in your opinion) because you see everything with the ‘Wallace was innocent’ goggles on.

c) Parry seemed to know this time-period was critical, even though he was fireproof for the time of the actual murder - how do you work that little gem out? The period was sooo critical that he nipped out for a packet of cigarettes and a newspaper then it was off to the garage. And then after finding out that he was now implicated in a murder he popped over to the Williamson’s for a chat. Yeah right.
d) Parry's story changed over the years - did he? Memories aren’t always accurate especially with the passage of years..

Back to the drawing board again Rodders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

e) we also know for certain Parry lied about his Monday-night movements, so we have evidence he was prepared to lie.

Or that he made a mistake?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Rod - I don't want to hijack your theory (which is why I didn't mention this before) but it strikes me that Parry did arrive in his car, alone, at the Brine's. The accomplice could then have picked it up an hour or more later and returned it before 8.30. I think it makes the timing issues go away and explains the blood in the car better (as it would have been wetter and fresher when the accomplice got in the car). Dried blood is less likely to leave the stains that have been speculated.

This is a point worth making. The blood on the mitten would have been drying for three hours by the time Parkes saw it. Dried blood surely doesn’t stay bright red? The mitten (a man’s) would likely have been a darker colour of leather.

How did he immediately know that it was blood?

[etenguy]

Well, it's an interesting idea, and not impossible, but:-

a) what if one of the Brine gathering noticed or heard someone taking Parry's car, or returning it?
b) or noticed that it had gone?

Or are the Brine witnesses concealing something?

I don't wish to malign the Brines, I don't have any reason to believe they told anything but the truth. But they were inside the house and so I would suggest they simply did not know the car had disappeared for a while. But you are right, this suggestion introduces the risks you mention.

[etenguy]

This is a point worth making. The blood on the mitten would have been drying for three hours by the time Parkes saw it. Dried blood surely doesn’t stay bright red? The mitten (a man’s) would likely have been a darker colour of leather.

How did he immediately know that it was blood?

Blood darkens and heads towards brown when dried, but is usually recognisable as a blood stain. It may be more difficult to see on a dark leather material.

[RodCrosby]

How did he immediately know that it was blood?

Maybe he didn't.
But when Parry snatched it away, with "if the Police got that, it would hang me...", even though he was no Einstein, Parkes would draw an inference.

[moste]

Pot-kettle-black

Wallace was overwhelmingly likely to have been guilty. No one else is in the frame.

The police certainly weren't going to be looking for anyone else, when Wallace was freed after his appeal , they closed the case!