Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

I have responded. No-one else thought anything odd about the message, and indeed encouraged and advised Wallace as to where Menlove Gardens East would be found.

We could add, not limited to.
a) the telephone in 1931 signified wealth, but was at least as useful a scammer's tool of "social engineering" as it is today...
b) Menlove Gardens, then as now, also signified wealth, to those with any knowledge of Liverpool. [as demonstrated, a Mr. Parry, worth the equivalent of £4 million, lived there... ]
c) Wallace possibly felt an irrational sense of pride and satisfaction having - maybe for the first time in his life - been "recognised" publicly in front of his fellows and peers at the Chess Club, as "the man to go to" for an Insurance Policy...
d) It's generally accepted that people in 1931 were more trusting/naive than they are today.
e) Wallace was busy on his normal rounds on Tuesday 20th January 1931. As demonstrated above, he had no reason to doubt the message [indeed, every reason to anticipate a hefty commission]. This may have clouded his judgment, or he simply didn't have time to visit a post office or library to examine a directory of Liverpool during his normal rounds. He could always - as he in fact did do - examine such directory in the Allerton area, should he encounter any unexpected difficulty in finding the address....

[RodCrosby]

The ego has landed!

Read your words:

) The accomplice killed Julia when rumbled, after rifling and replacing the cash-box, as planned, while her back was turned.

So the plan was that the accomplice, under some pretence, convinces Julia to let him in (we assume that she would only have done this if she had known him....as per Wallace himself)
He then attempted to steal the cash without Julia knowing (by obvious inference then without the need to kill her)

She catches him in the act and he kills her.

So the plan was basically to steal the cash without her knowing and scarper?

So what happens next Rod?

Wallace comes home. Probably doesn’t check the box until the next day (as the burglar has considerately put it back on the high shelf) when he finds the cash missing.

What does Wallace do?

‘Did You take any money Julia?’ Hardly.

Has anyone else been in the house?

Yes, Mr X

Allow me to congratulate you on your brilliant reasoning

Good! Keep it up. You'll get there in the end...

“Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart
until, in our own despair, against our will,
comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.” - Aeschylus

[Herlock Sholmes]

No response or explaination.

Speaks volumes!

[RodCrosby]

Has it crossed your mind that, if Wallace believed in Qualtrough - the extent of undertaking an arduous journey across Liverpool on a cold January night, meek Mrs. Wallace would also believe in Qualtrough, at least initially?

The Rosetta Stone of the case, I submit...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have responded. No-one else thought anything odd about the message, and indeed encouraged and advised Wallace as to where Menlove Gardens East would be found.

We could add, not limited to.
a) the telephone in 1931 signified wealth, but was at least as useful a scammer's tool of "social engineering" as it is today...

I’m unclear but are you suggesting that because Wallace might have believed that Qualtrough had a phone that there was money to be had? If so, how why wouldn’t Wallace have considered that he might be using a public phone box?

b) Menlove Gardens, then as now, also signified wealth, to those with any knowledge of Liverpool. [as demonstrated, a Mr. Parry, worth the equivalent of £4 million, lived there... ]

So obvious a chance at rich pickings that he told Caird that he wasn’t even sure that he would bother going.

c) Wallace possibly felt an irrational sense of pride and satisfaction having - maybe for the first time in his life - been "recognised" publicly in front of his fellows and peers at the Chess Club, as "the man to go to" for an Insurance Policy...

Oh I get it. It’s ok for you to suggest a ‘possibly’ but when anyone else does it then they have no analytical skills. He’d received a phone call not The George Cross.

d) It's generally accepted that people in 1931 were more trusting/naive than they are today.

Ok. No problem with that.

e) Wallace was busy on his normal rounds on Tuesday 20th January 1931. As demonstrated above, he had no reason to doubt the message [indeed, every reason to anticipate a hefty commission]. This may have clouded his judgment, or he simply didn't have time to visit a post office or library to examine a directory of Liverpool during his normal rounds. He could always - as he in fact did do - examine such directory in the Allerton area, should he encounter any unexpected difficulty in finding the address....

He had no reason to doubt...except for the fact that even a bloke that lived in the Menlove Gardens area had never heard of a Menlove Gardens East. In fact no one had. Most people might have asked various people that they had contact with during the day. There must come a stage, after finding repeatedly that no one had heard of the place that just a slight suspicion might have arisen. If someone wanted to contact an Insurance Agent for the purposes of business it’s surely a little unusual for them to contact them at a club? Not impossible of course but Wallace, or indeed anyone, might have found it curious.

There are two sides to many parts of this case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has it crossed your mind that, if Wallace believed in Qualtrough - the extent of undertaking an arduous journey across Liverpool on a cold January night, meek Mrs. Wallace would also believe in Qualtrough, at least initially?

The Rosetta Stone of the case, I submit...

Whatever that statement means and I fully admit that I dont see what you’re getting at, it still doesn’t explain how you can believe that the thief could expect to steal the cash (without killing Julia) and remain undetected?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok.

Do you mean that Mr X turns up and claims to be Qualtrough and Julia let’s him in?

If so then if he had stolen the cash and left without killing Julia (as you suggested) then Julia would have been able to give a detailed description of him to the police. Surely too great a risk?

[RodCrosby]

He was guided by someone who knew Julia intimately, including perhaps her toilet habits, the normal processes of the Prudential, and the layout of 29 Wolverton Street, including the location of cash-box, extraordinarily well?

Anyone come to mind?

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was guided by someone who knew Julia intimately, including perhaps her toilet habits, the normal processes of the Prudential, and the layout of 29 Wolverton Street, including the location of cash-box, extraordinarily well?

Anyone come to mind?

Yes Parry.

But again, do you really think that the aim was to steal without killing?

[RodCrosby]

Ok.

Do you mean that Mr X turns up and claims to be Qualtrough and Julia let’s him in?

If so then if he had stolen the cash and left without killing Julia (as you suggested) then Julia would have been able to give a detailed description of him to the police. Surely too great a risk?

A risk any determined petty criminal stranger to Julia might take. Such crimes are commonplace, after all.
On occasion, they too end in unintended murder...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just can’t see that.

Let’s face it if Parry and accomplice (I’m assuming here that this man unknown to you?) set up this idea would the accomplice really undertake such an uneven share of risk? He gets seen by Julia but all Parry risks is Mr X saying ‘Parry told me to do it’ to which Parry replies ‘no I didn’t.’

[AmericanSherlock]

I just can’t see that.

Let’s face it if Parry and accomplice (I’m assuming here that this man unknown to you?) set up this idea would the accomplice really undertake such an uneven share of risk? He gets seen by Julia but all Parry risks is Mr X saying ‘Parry told me to do it’ to which Parry replies ‘no I didn’t.’

Indeed. It is difficult to say which is more laughable: Rod's 100 percent belief in this theory to the point he will denigrate anyone else who is not in complete agreement (that is also quite scary too--imagine this fool as a juror on a case you're involved in!!!) OR the sheer impossibility and holes in this quack theory.

I guess it the combination of the 2 that is so humorously idiotic.

[RodCrosby]

As I have said, a commonplace crime...

Often a female is the decoy who befriends an elderly or vulnerable person, while the male ransacks the house.

Just an ingenious variation on a theme in the Wallace case...

Parry knew he couldn't do it alone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He did well to find the world’s most stupid accomplice. Someone willing to take all the risks for a share.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I have said, a commonplace crime...

Often a female is the decoy who befriends an elderly or vulnerable person, while the male ransacks the house.

Just an ingenious variation on a theme in the Wallace case...

Parry knew he couldn't do it alone.

So are you now saying that they were both in the house that night?