Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[caz]

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...

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...

So you don't have a problem with Parry stupidly making the Qualtrough call himself, with the result that he wouldn't have an alibi for the Monday? Had this mystery accomplice made the call instead, there were several advantages to be had, besides Parry's opportunity to set up a rock solid alibi for himself, and no disadvantages: nobody would recognise the caller's voice so he could have spoken directly to Wallace; no need to rely on him turning up later, getting a faithful version of the message and deciding to act on it; and a golden opportunity to tempt Wallace with the business proposition and gain his assurances firsthand that he would make the appointment.

And you don't have a problem with Parry being nearly as sloppy on the Tuesday evening, when he could have made sure to be seen out in public for the whole time his accomplice was busy committing the crime for him?

How long did Parry spend planning for this cunning joint enterprise? All of ten minutes?

And how could Parry have known that Julia would recognise the name Qualtrough and let this complete stranger into her home? If Wallace had told her everything, she'd have known the arrangement was for him to go to Qualtrough's house and not the other way round. He may even have mentioned the address and the fact that he'd need to ask on the way for directions. In those circumstances I'd have smelled a rat if Qualtrough turned up on my doorstep unexpectedly while hubby was out trying to find his house!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Parry didn't kill Julia - the accomplice did, while Parry was sitting a stone's throw away in Olivia Brine's house.!

If you were using an accomplice to do a crime for you [any crime], would you seriously not give yourself a better alibi than this? I'd have sat in a busy pub, with lots of people who knew me, and a good deal more than a stone's throw away!

This is child's play.

Love,

Caz
X

[RodCrosby]

If you were using an accomplice to do a crime for you [any crime], would you seriously not give yourself a better alibi than this? I'd have sat in a busy pub, with lots of people who knew me, and a good deal more than a stone's throw away!

This is child's play.

Love,

Caz
X

Parry's alibi was good enough. It was then and (try as some might) still is today, unimpeachable...

How deeply inconsiderate of him not to have chosen another, supposedly "better" one, just to suit you!!

Brine's house was "a stone's throw" by car, which is the relevant consideration.

[AmericanSherlock]

If you were using an accomplice to do a crime for you [any crime], would you seriously not give yourself a better alibi than this? I'd have sat in a busy pub, with lots of people who knew me, and a good deal more than a stone's throw away!

This is child's play.

Love,

Caz
X

Maybe Rod can post more videos for us from the local Liverpudlian pubs

[RodCrosby]

My Stalker has been up all night playing with himself again....

I hope you got some kind of relief, and cleaned up your mess!

[AmericanSherlock]

So you don't have a problem with Parry stupidly making the Qualtrough call himself, with the result that he wouldn't have an alibi for the Monday? Had this mystery accomplice made the call instead, there were several advantages to be had, besides Parry's opportunity to set up a rock solid alibi for himself, and no disadvantages: nobody would recognise the caller's voice so he could have spoken directly to Wallace; no need to rely on him turning up later, getting a faithful version of the message and deciding to act on it; and a golden opportunity to tempt Wallace with the business proposition and gain his assurances firsthand that he would make the appointment.

And you don't have a problem with Parry being nearly as sloppy on the Tuesday evening, when he could have made sure to be seen out in public for the whole time his accomplice was busy committing the crime for him?

How long did Parry spend planning for this cunning joint enterprise? All of ten minutes?

And how could Parry have known that Julia would recognise the name Qualtrough and let this complete stranger into her home? If Wallace had told her everything, she'd have known the arrangement was for him to go to Qualtrough's house and not the other way round. He may even have mentioned the address and the fact that he'd need to ask on the way for directions. In those circumstances I'd have smelled a rat if Qualtrough turned up on my doorstep unexpectedly while hubby was out trying to find his house!

Love,

Caz
X

The bold is really case closed on this whole embarrassing Accomplice theory as far as I'm concerned. As usual, you make incisive points that I would not have considered myself. I did always think this "theory" had a nutty, conspiracy theory element to it (above and beyond simply involving multiple people.) Come to find out its proponent is an internet famous known conspiracy nut!

[RodCrosby]

So you don't have a problem with Parry stupidly making the Qualtrough call himself, with the result that he wouldn't have an alibi for the Monday? Had this mystery accomplice made the call instead, there were several advantages to be had, besides Parry's opportunity to set up a rock solid alibi for himself, and no disadvantages: nobody would recognise the caller's voice so he could have spoken directly to Wallace; no need to rely on him turning up later, getting a faithful version of the message and deciding to act on it; and a golden opportunity to tempt Wallace with the business proposition and gain his assurances firsthand that he would make the appointment.

And you don't have a problem with Parry being nearly as sloppy on the Tuesday evening, when he could have made sure to be seen out in public for the whole time his accomplice was busy committing the crime for him?

How long did Parry spend planning for this cunning joint enterprise? All of ten minutes?

And how could Parry have known that Julia would recognise the name Qualtrough and let this complete stranger into her home? If Wallace had told her everything, she'd have known the arrangement was for him to go to Qualtrough's house and not the other way round. He may even have mentioned the address and the fact that he'd need to ask on the way for directions. In those circumstances I'd have smelled a rat if Qualtrough turned up on my doorstep unexpectedly while hubby was out trying to find his house!

Love,

Caz
X

Parry had an unusual skillset, which the accomplice didn't have, including:-

a) actor
b) experienced confidence trickster
c) supreme self-confidence
d) knowledge of insurance
e) knowledge of Wallace
f) knowledge of the City Cafe and the Chess Club
g) knowledge of Menlove Gardens

Criminals when working together usually divide their labour according to their strengths. It would be odd indeed for the person ideally suited to making the phone call, to delegate that task to the one unsuited, thereby risking him messing the whole thing up at the get go, still less letting such an unskilled person speak to Wallace directly...

Also, Parry did attempt to set-up an alibi directly after the phone-call, by arriving unexpectedly and purposelessly at Lily Lloyd's house, and leaving almost immediately. It was no more than a three-minute drive by car from the phone box.

Parry's alibi for Tuesday for the time of the intended robbery was unimpeachable...

If Wallace believed in Qualtrough, Julia would too. Telephones in the UK in 1931 were rare and uncertain instruments. It was possible that a 2nd hand message had been passed on incorrectly, and the dutiful, mousy wife would receive Mr. Qualtrough to await her husband's return.
Even if you consider it a long-shot, notwithstanding the different social dynamics of 1931, there was little to be lost in trying such long-shot...

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would also be odd indeed, or just unbelievably lucky, that Parry could find an accomplice so incredibly stupid and gullible as to take all the risks. Any criminal with half a brain would have asked ‘why am I the one showing myself?’

It’s equally as unbelievable as you’re suggestion that the thief intended to steal the cash and leave Julia unharmed. With this doltish accomplice described in detail to the police.

But she caught him in the act. Luckily for Parry Mr X wasn’t the kind of crook just to scarper with at least a chance of not being found or even if he was found being charged with attempted burglary. No luckily he was a violent madman who repeatedly bludgeoned a defenceless women to death.

[AmericanSherlock]

It would also be odd indeed, or just unbelievably lucky, that Parry could find an accomplice so incredibly stupid and gullible as to take all the risks. Any criminal with half a brain would have asked ‘why am I type one showing myself?’

It’s equally as unbelievable as you’re suggestion that the thief intended to steal the cash and leave Julia unharmed. With this doltish accomplice described in detail to the police by Julia.

But she caught him in the act. Luckily for Parry Mr X wasn’t the kind of crook just to scarper with at least a chance of not being found or even if he was found being charged with attempted burglary. No luckily he was a violent madman who repeatedly bludgeoned a defenceless women to death.

Also, where did he get the weapon from? If he brought it with, obviously he intended to use it or at least had it as an option. Where did he hide it so he would be let in with no fuss?

If he didn't bring a weapon, then how did he easily have a weapon of opportunity right there. Remember Julia was hit from behind while putting out the fireplace.

Also why did he carry the blood soaked weapon out with him when he could have left it there? Fingerprints? In Rod's crackpot theory, he has this Mr. X wearing gloves that cause him to fumble with the coins he's trying to steal
"alerting Julia"(yes he presented that in depth fantasy as absolute 100 percent not to be questioned truth as well)

Also, let's note this violent co-conspirator, willing to beat an innocent woman to death does not take the jewelry off her body or money from her handbag and makes witha measly 4 pounds after replacing the cash box.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As Caz said, in this plan how could they be sure that Julia would let ‘Qualtrough’ in. Even if she recalled the name she didn’t actually know him. Wallace was clear that she would only admit people that he knew. It’s even possible that Parry knew that too. Nope this plan doesn’t hold water.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also, where did he get the weapon from? If he brought it with, obviously he intended to use it or at least had it as an option. Where did he hide it so he would be let in with no fuss?

If he didn't bring a weapon, then how did he easily have a weapon of opportunity right there. Remember Julia was hit from behind while putting out the fireplace.

Also why did he carry the blood soaked weapon out with him when he could have left it there? Fingerprints? In Rod's crackpot theory, he has this Mr. X wearing gloves that cause him to fumble with the coins he's trying to steal
"alerting Julia"(yes he presented that in depth fantasy as absolute 100 percent not to be questioned truth as well)

Also, let's note this violent co-conspirator, willing to beat an innocent woman to death does not take the jewelry off her body or money from her handbag and makes witha measly 4 pounds after replacing the cash box.

Good points. Also, how is the mackintosh’s presence explained in this ‘plan?’

[AmericanSherlock]

As Caz said, in this plan how could they be sure that Julia would let ‘Qualtrough’ in. Even if she recalled the name she didn’t actually know him. Wallace was clear that she would only admit people that he knew. It’s even possible that Parry knew that too. Nope this plan doesn’t hold water.

Absolutely. It is relying on too many moving parts and too convoluted.

[AmericanSherlock]

Good points. Also, how is the mackintosh’s presence explained in this ‘plan?’

It isn't.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A simple point.

For it to be ‘case solved’ we would have to conclusively disprove any other theory. Parry could have done it on his own. Therefore....case unsolved

[RodCrosby]

It would also be odd indeed, or just unbelievably lucky, that Parry could find an accomplice so incredibly stupid and gullible as to take all the risks. Any criminal with half a brain would have asked ‘why am I the one showing myself?’

It’s equally as unbelievable as you’re suggestion that the thief intended to steal the cash and leave Julia unharmed. With this doltish accomplice described in detail to the police.

But she caught him in the act. Luckily for Parry Mr X wasn’t the kind of crook just to scarper with at least a chance of not being found or even if he was found being charged with attempted burglary. No luckily he was a violent madman who repeatedly bludgeoned a defenceless women to death.

"Odd indeed"...
So there has never been such a crime or criminal in human experience. Not one?

Tosh. Such crimes are all too commonplace. Ten a penny...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=murder+burglary&oq=murder+burglary&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.11328j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8