Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

It was an ingenious criminal plan. Not all ingenious criminal plans work.

That is the nature of crime.

Last time I looked the jails, etc.

This ingenious criminal plan might fail - certainly - but most likely would fail in such a way that nothing would be lost, i.e. "jail time" for the perps.

Risk-free failure logically leads to them happily attempting such a crime...

[AmericanSherlock]

It was an ingenious criminal plan. Not all ingenious criminal plans work.

That is the nature of crime.

Last time I looked the jails, etc.

This ingenious criminal plan might fail - certainly - but most likely would fail in such a way that nothing would be lost, i.e. "jail time" for the perps.

Risk-free failure logically leads to them happily attempting such a crime...

They'd be wasting a lot of time masterminding such an elaborate plot. If this thug that killed JW was so willing to bash an old lady's head in (In your scenario he stops JW from going out to presumably tell on him so not a totally spur of the moment thing), why would he have wasted his time getting ensnared in such a complex and tenuous plot.

Hed be taking ALL the risk while Parry would be taking none. Such a criminal would be much better off to break into houses when everyone in it was out, like the Anfield Housebreaker.

[RodCrosby]

There was no 'journey'. Atkinsons garage was literally in the next street to Parry, and he was an habitue of the place in any case. His arrival at an unusual hour would seem entirely unremarkable in itself, since he had often done the same.

It was his best chance of covering his tracks, and while a little risky, was not as risky as any other alternative.

a) doing nothing, or amateurishly cleaning his car himself, in the dark.
b) choosing some other faraway all-night garage at random [they were few and far between, and the Police had a habit of stopping motorists out at odd hours. Cars were not so reliable either; breakdown, burst tyre or running out of petrol were all real risks in 1931]

Of course Parkes in 1981 retrospectively paints Parry - the man he is accusing of murder - in the worst possible light, character-wise, but his statement makes clear that for some odd reason everyone had tolerated Parry's repeated transgressions right up to that particular night!

Parry would therefore figure he could bamboozle Parkes yet again, and as shown above, he had little choice in the matter...

[AmericanSherlock]

There was no 'journey'. Atkinsons garage was literally in the next street to Parry, and he was an habitue of the place in any case. His arrival at an unusual hour would seem entirely unremarkable in itself.

It was his best chance of covering his tracks, and while a little risky, was not as risky as any other alternative.

a) doing nothing, or amateurishly cleaning his car himself.
b) choosing some other faraway all-night garage at random [they were few and far between, and the Police had a habit of stopping motorists out at odd hours. Cars were not so reliable either; breakdown, burst tyre or running out of petrol were all real risks in 1931]

Of course Parkes in 1981 retrospectively paints Parry - the man he is accusing of murder - in the worst possible light, character-wise, but his statement makes clear that for some odd reason everyone had tolerated Parry's repeated transgressions right up to that particular night!

Parry would therefore figure he could bamboozle Parkes yet again, and as shown above, he had little choice in the matter...

I no longer have access to the radio city 3 parter. (I believe you took it down )

However, I distinctly remember them saying "there were some who were welcome to stop in the garage for a drink, Parry was not one of them" also making reference to him being caught rifling thru coats there. He wasn't welcome there.

[RodCrosby]

People were ignoring what was in the tapes, or inserting stuff that wasn't, and I got tired of correcting them.

Parkes seems to be referring to a wardrobe in the upstairs flat, and perhaps Parry had indeed been banned from there...

But turning up in a car in the early hours? By the time he drove into the garage it would be too late, for Parkes, alone that night, to do anything.

And people subjected to the kind of psychopathic charm that Parry undoubtedly possessed often report going along with it again, because the charmer is so 'entertaining' and 'exciting' even though, objectively, they know they're a bad 'un...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I no longer have access to the radio city 3 parter. (I believe you took it down )

However, I distinctly remember them saying "there were some who were welcome to stop in the garage for a drink, Parry was not one of them" also making reference to him being caught rifling thru coats there. He wasn't welcome there.

I remember that too AS. He certainly couldn’t have chosen a worse place to get his car cleaned or a worse person to spill his guts too.

He could certainly have cleaned the car himself. Rod says ‘in the dark’ but Parry would have no reason to believe that he would be suspected that night. He wouldn’t have been expecting a visit therefore. He could have done a clean as best he could then double checked in the morning.

Rod has again called it an ‘ingenious’ plan! But it’s a plan that relies on too many things not to go wrong. Then Parry chooses the worst possible place to get his car cleaned and blabs to someone that doesn’t like him! These are the actions of an idiot.

[AmericanSherlock]

People were ignoring what was in the tapes, or inserting stuff that wasn't, and I got tired of correcting them.

Parkes seems to be referring to a wardrobe in the upstairs flat, and perhaps Parry had indeed been banned from there...

But turning up in a car in the early hours? By the time he drove into the garage it would be too late, for Parkes, alone that night, to do anything.

And people subjected to the kind of psychopathic charm that Parry undoubtedly possessed often report going along with it again, because the charmer is so 'entertaining' and 'exciting' even though, objectively, they know they're a bad 'un...

Example, please?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The criminals don't have to watch the board. They just have to watch Wallace [or, to be precise, merely watch his route] for about 30 minutes for a maximum of six Monday nights when he is supposed to appear at the club, according to the board... And I've shown how they could have done that, quite easily, from at least one innocuous vantage point on Breck Road.

19th January 1931 was the last possible date they could strike, and they did.


Oh, and as for Parkes, criminals when stressed or in a panic - or out of their depth - often make incriminating actions or statements to friends or acquaintances.

Nothing to see here...

Exactly. They could have watched at any time for Wallace to go to chess and then commit the crime. No need for Qualtrough.

[AmericanSherlock]

I remember that too AS. He certainly couldn’t have chosen a worse place to get his car cleaned or a worse person to spill his guts too.

He could certainly have cleaned the car himself. Rod says ‘in the dark’ but Parry would have no reason to believe that he would be suspected that night. He wouldn’t have been expecting a visit therefore. He could have done a clean as best he could then double checked in the morning.

Rod has again called it an ‘ingenious’ plan! But it’s a plan that relies on too many things not to go wrong. Then Parry chooses the worst possible place to get his car cleaned and blabs to someone that doesn’t like him! These are the actions of an idiot.

Exactly.

Also, let's keep in mind the claim is the "Correct Solution" is totally consistent with all the facts.

But this isn't true, it doesn't explain Lily Hall's testimony that she saw Wallace talking to a man that evening which he denied. She was steadfast in her testimony.

Now, I think it is quite possible that Lily was mistaken if not lying, her testimony could imply a conspiracy with Wallace (Which I think is very unlikely).

But the point is that why does Rod reject that testimony where Lily Hall came forward so soon after the crime, whereas Parkes waited 50 years.

In other words nothing is "consistent with all the evidence". Some of the evidence is wrong, speculative etc.

This was pointed out by the thread creator.

Hi Rod,

I'm away for a few days and there's a flurry of activity on the thread! I've enjoyed your posts.

Now, your theory is that it was a Parry-orchestrated conspiracy, which is original. In your first post you say M was the killer, correct? Surely M going anywhere near Wallace that evening, especially the chess club, was risky. He might have also been seen entering the Wallace house the night later. Ignoring that, how did they know Wallace had taken the bait?

I certainly agree that there are aspects of the call that point to Parry as making the call. But this is consistent with the Prank Call Theory, as AS points out. Forget the Wallace-in-drag scenario, how do you rule this out? In your post you say it is not consistent with all the facts. Are you saying your theory is consistent with all the known evidence? If so, under your theory, why would Wallace deny speaking to a man in Richmond Park at 8:40pm? If you say that Lily Hall was mistaken then you are discounting her evidence, the same as, say, AS can discount that of Parkes. The difference being, of course, Hall made her statement within five days, Parkes waited 50 years.

Wallace's guilt is consistent with more of the evidence than any other scenario IMO. And logically it is the simplest and the least convoluted when we think of Wallace as the killer vs. all the permutations, chances, and lucky breaks we must assume for "Qualtrough" being the killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that we can also add that the brutality of the murder points more to a ‘personal’ one than a ‘necessity’ killing. How many blows would it have taken for a man to inflict on a frail old woman before he knew that she was dead? Surely 11 is excessive by anyone’s standard and points more to someone that had a personal reason to kill her (like a build up of resentment over a long period?)

[AmericanSherlock]

Macfall concluded the very 1st blow was fatal. But Qualtrough decided to rain down 10 more for kicks.

[RodCrosby]

The number of blows is not probative. There are plenty of "burglarys gone wrong" which show similar or even greater violence.

[AmericanSherlock]

It isn't prohibitive, but it's a clue.

BTW, blunt force trauma to the head/face area is exceedingly common in domestic murders, and exceedingly rare in other kinds including home invasions.

[RodCrosby]

The Correct Solution explains:-

a) the crime plan: why the Tuesday not the Monday, why that particular Tuesday, why that phone box, why 'Qualtrough', why the '21st birthday'.
b) the crime scene: why the replaced cash-box, why the coins, why the mac' and why the missing weapon.
c) Parry's statements: his lies and evasions about his movements on both the Monday and Tuesday nights, yet an unimpeachable alibi for the time of the crime.
d) Parkes's testimony: Parry's lack of blood, the 'glove' that was really a mitten, the subsequent 'visitation' by Parry and A.N. Other.

Therefore, I have solved the Wallace case.

[AmericanSherlock]

The Correct Solution explains:-

a) the crime plan: why the Tuesday not the Monday, why that particular Tuesday, why that phone box, why 'Qualtrough', why the '21st birthday'.
b) the crime scene: why the replaced cash-box, why the coins, why the mac' and why the missing weapon.
c) Parry's statements: his lies and evasions about his movements on both the Monday and Tuesday nights, yet an unimpeachable alibi for the time of the crime.
d) Parkes's testimony: Parry's lack of blood, the 'glove' that was really a mitten, the subsequent 'visitation' by Parry and A.N. Other.

Therefore, I have solved the Wallace case.

Goodnight