Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

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

There are any amount of similar crimes, with similar "stupid" criminals to analyse...

And your point was?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m off to bed.

[RodCrosby]

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

Of course not !

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are any amount of similar crimes, with similar "stupid" criminals to analyse...

And your point was?

Or any amount of similar crimes that are planned by an intelligent man.

can we think of an intelligent man involved in the case?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course not !

Then why the female decoy/male ransacker analogy?

[RodCrosby]

Or any amount of similar crimes that are planned by an intelligent man.

can we think of an intelligent man involved in the case?

Superficially, yes, but....

‘And there were other equally powerful arguments, such as that the man was a chessplayer (to the author’s knowledge the worst that ever moved a pawn) and consequently capable of concocting great schemes of devilry and deception. The jury was of a type that could not recognize a non sequitur.’

‘Journalists have agitated their readers for many years with the question: was Wallace guilty?

There are three approaches to this question:

(1) Legally, it is academic. There was no evidence against him.

(2) Personally. His acquaintances (excluding those who revel in the troubles of their “friends”) seem convinced of his innocence. The author takes the view that to vest Wallace with guilt in the circumstances is to credit him with a mental power, a skill, an agility, a cold-blooded nerveless efficiency, of which he seemed utterly incapable.

(3) Scientifically, it is a much easier hypothesis to assume another person as murderer, whose task would have been easier, mental effort less. By the principle of simple explanations Wallace was innocent.

Gerald Abrahams [a Liverpool barrister and chess-player] in The Legal Mind (London, 1954)

[John G]

a) Parry wanted the money.
b) The chess tournament was an opportunity too good to miss to lure Wallace away. 19th/20th January was in fact the last possible opportunity.
c) But Parry knew he could not enter the house and steal.
d) Therefore he recruited an accomplice, to split the proceeds 50/50.
e) "Qualtrough" was chosen to be memorable, as it would be the "open-sesame" to 29 Wolverton Street for the accomplice...
f) The accomplice killed Julia when rumbled, after rifling and replacing the cash-box, as planned, while her back was turned.
g) Parry rendezvoused with the accomplice as planned, as is deduced from his statement of his movements between 8.30pm and 9.00pm.
h) The accomplice's bar and glove were left in Parry's car, causing him to panic and seek the assistance of John Parkes.

Despite all the tiresome "noise" and gnashing of teeth, no-one has yet put so much as a dent in the theory, either evidentially or logically.

Therefore it is the solution to the Wallace Case...

In theory, there's no reason why Parry couldn't have entered the house and stolen the money himself, as he could then simply have accused Wallace of being thief, assuming he wasn't caught in the act, of course.

I'm afraid your theory is ultimately a weak one as it relies almost entirely on the uncorroborated evidence of John Parkes, presented almost half a century after the event and only after Parry had died.

In fact, on the spectrum of reliability even Lily Hall must take precedence over Parkes-not that there aren't problems with her evidence- because at least she was willing to attend court and allow herself to be cross examined, something Parkes was obviously keen to avoid!

I would also point out that you haven't the slightest evidence for Parry conspiring with another individual, even Parkes didn't suggest that, so the case I'm afraid remains far from being solved.

[RodCrosby]

What a pity you have resorted to peddling untruths...

In theory, there's no reason why Parry couldn't have entered the house and stolen the money himself, as he could then simply have accused Wallace of being thief, assuming he wasn't caught in the act, of course.
Criminals do this all the time, of course, and often get away with such a cunning plan. I think even Baldrick would hesitate, before proffering such nonsense...

I'm afraid your theory is ultimately a weak one as it relies almost entirely on the uncorroborated evidence of John Parkes, presented almost half a century after the event and only after Parry had died.
Wrong. As I have demonstrated
a) it was corroborated, by people who especially had no reason to corroborate an untruth.
b) it was "presented" - the morning after the murder, but Parkes was advised to do nothing for the time being by his boss [He claimed he later told the Police, who weren't interested]
c) Parkes [via an intermediary] attempted to come forward in January 1981 with his information about Parry before the name "Parry" was publicly disclosed. He had no reason to know Parry was recently deceased either.

More relevantly, the Correct Solution does not rely on Parkes, who was slightly off the mark in any case. I deduced the truth only after having read Parry's and Lily Lloyd's statements which weren't released until 2001, twenty years after Parkes's statements.

In fact, on the spectrum of reliability even Lily Hall must take precedence over Parkes-not that there aren't problems with her evidence- because at least she was willing to attend court and allow herself to be cross examined, something Parkes was obviously keen to avoid!
Parkes was a weak, intimidated, young man in 1931. Human beings are often weak - even more mature people like the Atkinsons were also weak. And Peter denied Christ three times... So what's new?

I would also point out that you haven't the slightest evidence for Parry conspiring with another individual, even Parkes didn't suggest that, so the case I'm afraid remains far from being solved.
Wrong again! Parkes did state that Parry and "another" came round to intimidate him after the murder, but didn't even grasp the significance of this himself!

[AmericanSherlock]

Rod is the one peddling untruths.

Parkes said a throwaway comment about Parry "coming by with another fellow". It was neither mentioned NOR IMPLIED that there were any threats.

The loose inferences Rod is making and accepting as pure fact are seriously scary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Parry was hardly Professor Moriarty, his criminal achievements amounted to short-changing the Pru and hoping that no-one would notice. Why would he go for the ‘Qualtrough phone call/next-day murder’ plan when a much simpler plan was obvious?

They watch Wallace leave for the chess club then enter Wallace’s house while Julia’s alone.

[John G]

What a pity you have resorted to peddling untruths...

Are you winding me up? You can't rely on the totally uncorroborated evidence of a man who couldn't even be bothered to attend the trial, despite what was at stake for Wallace, but decides to publicize his "story" almost half a century later, and after the only person who could contradict his account had died.

And even if there's any truth to Parkes' account, who knows how much he accurately remembered after auch a lengthy passage of time. I mean, human memory doesn't work like a video recorder, which has previously been explained to you.

And by the way, according to Parkes the reason he didn't come forward at the time is because his boss advised him not to. And I wonder why that was. Could it be that Atkinson had reason to believe he had a reputation as a complete fantasist?

And frankly, thy idea that Parry would simply drive around for possibly several hours with incriminate evidence in his possesion, making no effort to dispose of it, before making a virtual confession to man who clearly despised him, is bordering on the ridiculous.

We only have Parkes' word, decades after the supposed event that he was threatened by Parry and another, and even if he wss it doesn't mean the other person was Parry's accomplice.

And you seriously call of this wild speculation absolute proo? Hilarious!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does the word ‘proof’ have some alternative definition that I’m unaware of

[Herlock Sholmes]

Was Parry the stupidest criminal ever?

He robs from the Pru hoping that no one will notice.

He creates a phonecall plan to lure Wallace away when he could have simply ‘gone in’ whilst Wallace was at the chess club.

He picks a house that he has a ‘connection’ to.

He’s one of the very few that knew where the cash box was kept.

Then after the murder he takes his car to be cleaned and all but coughs up to a bloke that didn’t really like him.

Yet this is obviously the solution to the case?

[RodCrosby]

Rod is the one peddling untruths.

Parkes said a throwaway comment about Parry "coming by with another fellow". It was neither mentioned NOR IMPLIED that there were any threats.

The loose inferences Rod is making and accepting as pure fact are seriously scary.

Another peddler of untruths determined to parade his malignant stupidity for the world to see...

From the Radio City broadcast, from award-winning journalists:-
"Any guilt that Parry felt would have been tinged with fear - the fear that Parkes may tell his story to the Police. John Parkes, realising this, began to fear for his own safety. These fears grew some time later when Parry re-appeared at the garage. This time he was not alone.

John Parkes: 'After the murder, and his opening his mouth to me, he suddenly came round with another chap. Then Mr. Atkinson and the sons said to me: 'You come down the back entry of a night, don't you, to work, in the dark? ... Well you don't come down any more in the dark!'"

[AmericanSherlock]

Another peddler of untruths determined to parade his malignant stupidity for the world to see...

From the Radio City broadcast, from award-winning journalists:-
"Any guilt that Parry felt would have been tinged with fear - the fear that Parkes may tell his story to the Police. John Parkes, realising this, began to fear for his own safety. These fears grew some time later when Parry re-appeared at the garage. This time he was not alone.

John Parkes: 'After the murder, and his opening his mouth to me, he suddenly came round with another chap. Then Mr. Atkinson and the sons said to me: 'You come down the back entry of a night, don't you, to work, in the dark? ... Well you don't come down any more in the dark!'"

Where was the threat? Why didn't Parkes state what they did or told him?

You are a complete buffoon, Mr.Stringer.

You strike me as the type to, when proven wrong, continue to argue your position anyway.

Your theory sucks, there is no evidence for it and is illogical.

Even if it was a plausible theory, it wouldn't mean that others aren't either or that you have in any way "solved" this case.

And it certainly wouldn't excuse your childish behavior here. I pity those who have to put up with you in real life.