Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

"intrinsically difficult to accept" ???

Not in any real world...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sneak-thief+OR+burglary-gone-wrong+murder

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sneak-thief+OR+burglary-gone-wrong+murder&tbm=nws&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilmoeCqOfZAhXICsAKHdkfA80Q_AUIDCgD&biw=1366&bih=700&dpr=1

[AmericanSherlock]

No opinion on Gerry?

Citing random cases of a sneak thief has nothing to do with whether or not it's a remotely plausible possibility in a particular case.

Also, none of those involve anything even slightly resembling an accomplice robbery that was set up the night before by another complicit party. Not at all comparable in any way.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"intrinsically difficult to accept" ???

Not in any real world...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sneak-thief+OR+burglary-gone-wrong+murder

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sn...&bih=700&dpr=1

Other cases are largely irrelevant. We're talking about the Wallace case and are concerned only with the facts of the case.
It shouldn't be impossible for anyone to accept that someone might hold a different opinion. Especially if that person holds an opinion that no one else agrees with.

[RodCrosby]

I only know Abrahams by his few published works, although I recognise a superior intellect when I see one.

There is nothing implausible about the Correct Solution - never mind 'intrinsically implausible' - given what we know about the protagonists and the fact this occurred in 1931.

An early example of a telephone scam. They still happen...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=telephone+scam

Ingenious, yes.

Implausible? Only if you've not heard of Richard Gordon Parry...

And before telephones, there were telegrams...

'The case which occurred at Liverpool a short time ago was the work of a bright man. The circumstances related to me by a newspaper man are as follows: “One day Messrs. Oldfield & Co., of Liverpool, received a telegram purporting to come from Mrs. Brattlebank, of Garston, then staying in London, ordering a quantity of diamonds to be sent to her Garston residence. Mrs. Brattlebank being a wealthy customer and well known to this jewelry house, a package of valuable stones was made up and sent by registered post, after being insured for $5,000.

“After the arrival of the package in Garston, a well-dressed gentleman representing himself to be Mr. Laing Miller, a wealthy South African ship owner and a friend of the Brattlebanks, called at the residence, having previously explained by telephone that he was coming to take the package to Mrs. Brattlebank in London. The whole affair seemed so open and aboveboard, and the appearance of Mr. Miller so honest and convincing, that the valuable package was handed over to him without question. Neither Mr. Miller, who is now suspected to be one of the most expert confidence men in the Kingdom, nor the diamonds have ever been seen since.”'
The Right Way To Do Wrong: An Exposé of Successful Criminals By Harry Houdini (1906)

[AmericanSherlock]

I only know Abrahams by his few published works, although I recognise a superior intellect when I see one.

There is nothing implausible about the Correct Solution - never mind 'intrinsically implausible' - given what we know about the protagonists and the fact this occurred in 1931.

An early example of a telephone scam. They still happen...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=telephone+scam

Ingenious, yes.

Implausible? Only if you've not heard of Richard Gordon Parry...

And before telephones, there were telegrams...

'The case which occurred at Liverpool a short time ago was the work of a bright man. The circumstances related to me by a newspaper man are as follows: “One day Messrs. Oldfield & Co., of Liverpool, received a telegram purporting to come from Mrs. Brattlebank, of Garston, then staying in London, ordering a quantity of diamonds to be sent to her Garston residence. Mrs. Brattlebank being a wealthy customer and well known to this jewelry house, a package of valuable stones was made up and sent by registered post, after being insured for $5,000.

“After the arrival of the package in Garston, a well-dressed gentleman representing himself to be Mr. Laing Miller, a wealthy South African ship owner and a friend of the Brattlebanks, called at the residence, having previously explained by telephone that he was coming to take the package to Mrs. Brattlebank in London. The whole affair seemed so open and aboveboard, and the appearance of Mr. Miller so honest and convincing, that the valuable package was handed over to him without question. Neither Mr. Miller, who is now suspected to be one of the most expert confidence men in the Kingdom, nor the diamonds have ever been seen since.”'
The Right Way To Do Wrong: An Exposé of Successful Criminals By Harry Houdini (1906)

The link just goes to a search.

Do you not rate James Murphy's intellect as highly?

Would you still suspect Parry and Accomplice if you had not heard Radio City 1981 production? Your theory seems designed to perfectly explain the "evidence" contained in that show.

(Although as I said before, Parkes does not state that Parry and another threatened him not is it implied)

[RodCrosby]

Murphy is a dunderhead, as I have shown, not least by demolishing his stupid 'analysis' of the chess schedule.

It is the supreme irony that Murphy was the first person to publish the evidence which leads to the Correct Solution - Parry and Lloyd's statements - and he missed their significance entirely, in his hopeless, desperate attempt to nail Wallace...

Parkes is important, although as I have shown, being none too bright, he himself missed the significance of his own evidence too, and led Wilkes and Goodman into a siding, just as the truth was tantalisingly within sight. I honestly believe the name of the killer could have been discovered in 1981, if Wilkes and Goodman had not been asleep...

Parkes and the Atkinsons did feel that Parkes was at least implicitly threatened, as I have shown. That is why the Atkinsons advised him to change his route to work...

[AmericanSherlock]

Murphy is a dunderhead, as I have shown, not least by demolishing his stupid 'analysis' of the chess schedule.

It is the supreme irony that Murphy was the first person to publish the evidence which leads to the Correct Solution - Parry and Lloyd's statements - and he missed their significance entirely, in his hopeless, desperate attempt to nail Wallace.

Parkes is important, although as I have shown, being none too bright, he himself missed the significance of his own evidence too, and led Wilkes and Goodman into a siding, just as the truth was tantalisingly within sight. I honestly believe the name of the killer could have been discovered in 1981, if Wilkes and Goodman had not been asleep...

Parkes and the Atkinsons did feel that Parkes was at least implicitly, threatened as I have shown. That is why the Atkinsons advised him to change his route to work...

If in your scenario, the accomplice killer came with Parry to threaten Parkes, surely he wouldn't introduce himself using his real name?

Murphy was the first to uncover ALL the complete evidence to the public. He deserves credit for that. Before that we were dealing with Goodman's flawed assumptions based on incomplete evidence. JM showed that RGP had an alibi for the timing of the murder that did not include Lily Lloyd. He also demonstrated JW's true age.

Wilkes endorsed John Gannon's book. Thoughts on that?

Goodman's book is full of fallacious logic.

Interestingly, RWE who accompanied him to confront Parry on the doorstep and was instrumental in the charge against him that culminated with the 81 radio city production following Parry's death, was convinced by Murphy's book! He wrote a book of his own with his wife Molly saying so in 2006, crediting JM for changing his mind.

Goodman's 2008 obit in the guardian states that his Wallace book was a great hit that propelled his career, even though "subsequent research shows that Wallace probably was the killer". Presumably the obituary was written by or at least with significant help from family.

None of this proves anything of course, but quite interesting that Goodman's colleagues turned against his opinion!

[Herlock Sholmes]

No opinion on Gerry?

Citing random cases of a sneak thief has nothing to do with whether or not it's a remotely plausible possibility in a particular case.

Also, none of those involve anything even slightly resembling an accomplice robbery that was set up the night before by another complicit party. Not at all comparable in any way.

And after all that’s been imagined we still have the fact that Parry (either alone or with an accomplice) had no need for a plan as they could have ‘gone in’ at any time that Wallace wasn’t there (and when there would have been greater reward). Furthermore they didn’t need to concoct a plan that had around seven different ways of completely failing at the first hurdle. Simply sitting in Parry’s car in Wolverton Street on chess night would have been a better option. They might have had a few ‘no shows’ but they would have eventually been able to go in.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The question shouldn’t really be about whether Parry and Mr X threatened Parkes but rather ‘why would Parry be so astronomically stupid as to go to Parkes and blab in the first place?”

[AmericanSherlock]

And after all that’s been imagined we still have the fact that Parry (either alone or with an accomplice) had no need for a plan as they could have ‘gone in’ at any time that Wallace wasn’t there (and when there would have been greater reward). Furthermore they didn’t need to concoct a plan that had around seven different ways of completely failing at the first hurdle. Simply sitting in Parry’s car in Wolverton Street on chess night would have been a better option. They might have had a few ‘no shows’ but they would have eventually been able to go in.

Another point, Murphy argues that if the caller had seen the board, he would see that Wallace hadn't shown recently and could be forgiven for assuming Wallace again wouldn't show on the 19th (therefore implying a caller other than Wallace doesn't make sense.) Others have tried to argue the board was confusing and Murphy was wrong in thinking that would be obvious to someone who observed it.

Okay, let's ACCEPT that fact. Let's assume "Qualtrough" sees the board and it is confusing so therefore he doesn't grasp that Wallace hasn't shown the last 4 meetings. He assumes there is a good chance Wallace will show at a scheduled meeting. I'm accepting this for the sake of argument, but even STILL, if Qualtrough tried this ruse on any other night when Wallace was due at the chess club and had failed to show (he in facthadn't shown up the previous 4 meetings!), then he would have failed and be unlikely to try the plot again.

Lucky for Qualtrough he just happened to get the EXACT date Wallace finally decided to show up, no???!!!

Of course if Qualtrough was Wallace, he would know that he would be attending for the 1st time in 5 meetings to receive the message!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another point, Murphy argues that if the caller had seen the board, he would see that Wallace hadn't shown recently and could be forgiven for assuming Wallace again wouldn't show on the 19th (therefore implying a caller other than Wallace doesn't make sense.) Others have tried to argue the board was confusing and Murphy was wrong in thinking that would be obvious to someone who observed it.

Okay, let's ACCEPT that fact. Let's assume "Qualtrough" sees the board and it is confusing so therefore he doesn't grasp that Wallace hasn't shown the last 4 meetings. He assumes there is a good chance Wallace will show at a scheduled meeting. I'm accepting this for the sake of argument, but even STILL, if Qualtrough tried this ruse on any other night when Wallace was due at the chess club and had failed to show (he in facthadn't shown up the previous 4 meetings!), then he would have failed and be unlikely to try the plot again.

Lucky for Qualtrough he just happened to get the EXACT date Wallace finally decided to show up, no???!!!

Of course if Qualtrough was Wallace, he would know that he would be attending for the 1st time in 5 meetings to receive the message!

This is an important point when we try and see this as a ‘well thought out plan.’
Wallace might not have turned up/ Beattie might have forgotten to give him the message/Wallace might have decided not to go to MGE(Parry couldn’t have been certain of this)/Julia might not have let Qualtrough in/Julia might have had a visitor/Wallace and Julia might have planned to go out that night.

Any plan, whether it’s by Napoleon or Fred Bloggs, would make considerations to how it could go wrong. They wouldn’t just rely on chance. That’s not a plan.

[RodCrosby]

I've nailed this canard time and again.

Do all criminals succeed? Sometimes they just get lucky.
Sometimes they fail at the first hurdle, and creep away to think of a better plan. Do we get to hear about such silent failures?
Does that stop them from trying?

Last time I looked the jails were all full....

[RodCrosby]

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...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've nailed this canard time and again.

Do all criminals succeed? Sometimes they just get lucky.
Sometimes they fail at the first hurdle, and creep away to think of a better plan. Do we get to hear about such silent failures?
Does that stop them from trying?

Last time I looked the jails were all full....

It's not a canard Rod. By coming up with a plan we can say that the culprit had given it some thought. Getting Wallace out of the house, getting Mr X admitted to the house knowing of Julia's reluctance to let people in that she didn't know. And let's remember that you'd said that it was a meticulous plan (I can't recall your exact words but that was the gist.) So on one hand we have a meticulous planner but on the other we have someone completely oblivious to or unconcerned about childishly obvious things that could scupper the plan at the outset. You can't have your cake and eat it.

In addition, and you'll have to forgive my memory, when it's been mentioned in the past that Parry could have committed the crime at any other time without a Qualtrough plan and when there was more cash in the house, didn't you give some kind of reason why it had to be that night? If that was indeed the case then your 'sometimes plans just fail...' doesn't really hold up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

'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.'

They might let a word or a sentence slip out. They might act strangely. They might leave something at the crime scene.

They wouldn't make a journey that they didn't need to, to get something done that they could easily and safely done themselves and then blab about a Capitol crime to a person that they are aware doesn't really like them.

That's stretching things too far.