Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony

I'm surprised to see you put this so cut and dry. I guess Wallace Alone is not a plausible one of 4 theories anymore in your view. Also, if you believe the evidence points to a sneaky robbery as you said, then the conspiracy masterminded by Wallace is ruled out and he is totally innocent. Seems like Rod persuaded you! Oh dear...

AS, I said it is a pointer to his innocence. An experienced pathologist rules out his guilt on this basis, however. Also, I note for he first time in our long discussion on this fascinating case, AS, you completely ignored my point - about the importance of the forensic evidence. However, I note later you said Wallace might have used the toilet to clean himself. But as John G correctly pointed out the drains were tested, and Charles St Hill (the pathologist) said it would have been found. I will follow the evidence, and no one theory for me is probable (greater than 0.5 probability). It seems I have more doubt than you, as you seem absolutely sure Wallace is guilty.

[Harry D]

Not if Parry was involved in the crime, i.e. if the purpose of the Qualtrough ruse was to get Wallace out of the house in order to effect a robbery (he was a bit of a charmer and still on good terms with Julia, and therefore might have considered that she could be easily distracted whilst he stole the takings. Additionally, sending Wallace off on a fool's errand whilst he committed a robbery might have seemed amusing to him (it would also be a means of revenge for Wallace reporting the misappropriation.)

And he might not have wanted to speak to Wallace directly in case he recognized his voice.

Why not just stage the robbery while he was at the chess club that night?

[RodCrosby]

Why not just stage the robbery while he was at the chess club that night?

110 pages of comments, and we're still going round in circles.

a) they could not be certain he was going to the club
b) even if he was, it was too near for comfort
c) there was no chance of a stranger gaining entry on the Monday (and it had to be a stranger) - the only chance was via the Qualtrough ruse, and that seed had not yet been planted...
d) Tuesday was the financially optimal night

[AmericanSherlock]

AS, I said it is a pointer to his innocence. An experienced pathologist rules out his guilt on this basis, however. Also, I note for he first time in our long discussion on this fascinating case, AS, you completely ignored my point - about the importance of the forensic evidence. However, I note later you said Wallace might have used the toilet to clean himself. But as John G correctly pointed out the drains were tested, and Charles St Hill (the pathologist) said it would have been found. I will follow the evidence, and no one theory for me is probable (greater than 0.5 probability). It seems I have more doubt than you, as you seem absolutely sure Wallace is guilty.

Hi Antony,

The toilet water theory was something that had been suggested earlier on this thread and had gone unchecked (including by yourself) that I was curious about. I don't know how drains work, but if the pathologist said it would have been detected then I absolutely believe him. I also find the clot found on the rim of the bowl odd. This was NEVER part of my theory. I thought Wallace could have avoided visible blood, something which many people have found ridiculous and considered impossible. Fair enough.

I also have maintained from the beginning that I would NOT convict Wallace as I do not believe his guilt is evident beyond a reasonable a doubt. Not sure where you're getting "absolutely certain" from.

Most importantly, I was not using an ad hominem (as you suggested in the previous post.) I'm not arguing that my complaint has anything to do with the facts of the case. However, I do stand by what I said, based on this.

-You've long maintained the difficulties with Wallace Alone, and chose the Conspiracy, with Wallace as the mastermind in your postscript. Then you all of a sudden eliminated the book you wrote and decided to write a new one and include "Rod's theory". Now the tone with which you are talking about the case has shifted.

Note:

"The bath was dry. There was no presence of blood in the bath or the house drains. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the killer did not wash in the house. WHW must have had some blood splatter on him (this is not to say he was covered in blood). Yet, there was not a spot on him and the house was clean.

The forensic evidence points to his innocence, whatever we might say about his behaviour or state of mind."

To be fair, you did not think Wallace acted alone from the beginning, but I do feel this was put in such a "cut and dry" way as to make me wonder what changed, or why you ever even thought of that as a theory worth considering if those were always your thoughts.

But then to make matters cloudier in my mind, you also seem to prop up a new theory (one that is different from your original one in the book you pulled)

"This is a good argument against Parry Alone. I think I pointed out in my e-book, Parry did not need to make the Qualtrough call if his intention was to pop round and rob and/or murder Julia. However much you are unpersuaded by Rod's theory, Parry Accomplice does explain the need for the call and why the robbery could not happen on the night of the call. The theory has flaws just like any other, but it does explain some key points of evidence."

If you were really persuaded by Rod, that's fine, but then I feel that should be made transparent.

Also, perhaps part of my issue is with the tone in which this is being discussed now. (Not your fault.)

Look at the previous post, 2 examples in response to a totally legitamite and friendly inquiry by another user:

"110 pages of comments, and we're still going round in circles. " with a roll-eye emoticon at the end.

"there was no chance of a stranger gaining entry on the Monday (and it had to be a stranger) - the only chance was via the Qualtrough ruse, and that seed had not yet been planted...:

Yes, there is no chance of anything else, except a completely novel, never before heard of idea, anything else would not be the one and only way it could have happened.

We had different conclusions from the beginning, so this has nothing to do with an argument over positions. I'm finding the vibe here to become a bit unbearable. Perhaps I need a break.

[John G]

Apparently the benzidine test is not the most sensitive. For example, benzidine has been shown to produce a positive result from a dilution of blood equal to 1:300000. However, the comparison for luminol was 1:5000000 as was phenolphthalin. See: Grodsky, Wright, Kirk (1951).
Of course, there's always the issue of false negatives: http://documentslide.com/documents/i...ine-test.html# Although I believe the main issue with benzidine has been false positives.

[John G]

Hi Antony,

The toilet water theory was something that had been suggested earlier on this thread and had gone unchecked (including by yourself) that I was curious about. I don't know how drains work, but if the pathologist said it would have been detected then I absolutely believe him. I also find the clot found on the rim of the bowl odd. This was NEVER part of my theory. I thought Wallace could have avoided visible blood, something which many people have found ridiculous and considered impossible. Fair enough.

I also have maintained from the beginning that I would NOT convict Wallace as I do not believe his guilt is evident beyond a reasonable a doubt. Not sure where you're getting "absolutely certain" from.

Most importantly, I was not using an ad hominem (as you suggested in the previous post.) I'm not arguing that my complaint has anything to do with the facts of the case. However, I do stand by what I said, based on this.

-You've long maintained the difficulties with Wallace Alone, and chose the Conspiracy, with Wallace as the mastermind in your postscript. Then you all of a sudden eliminated the book you wrote and decided to write a new one and include "Rod's theory". Now the tone with which you are talking about the case has shifted.

Note:

"The bath was dry. There was no presence of blood in the bath or the house drains. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the killer did not wash in the house. WHW must have had some blood splatter on him (this is not to say he was covered in blood). Yet, there was not a spot on him and the house was clean.

The forensic evidence points to his innocence, whatever we might say about his behaviour or state of mind."

To be fair, you did not think Wallace acted alone from the beginning, but I do feel this was put in such a "cut and dry" way as to make me wonder what changed, or why you ever even thought of that as a theory worth considering if those were always your thoughts.

But then to make matters cloudier in my mind, you also seem to prop up a new theory (one that is different from your original one in the book you pulled)

"This is a good argument against Parry Alone. I think I pointed out in my e-book, Parry did not need to make the Qualtrough call if his intention was to pop round and rob and/or murder Julia. However much you are unpersuaded by Rod's theory, Parry Accomplice does explain the need for the call and why the robbery could not happen on the night of the call. The theory has flaws just like any other, but it does explain some key points of evidence."

If you were really persuaded by Rod, that's fine, but then I feel that should be made transparent.

Also, perhaps part of my issue is with the tone in which this is being discussed now. (Not your fault.)

Look at the previous post, 2 examples in response to a totally legitamite and friendly inquiry by another user:

"110 pages of comments, and we're still going round in circles. " with a roll-eye emoticon at the end.

"there was no chance of a stranger gaining entry on the Monday (and it had to be a stranger) - the only chance was via the Qualtrough ruse, and that seed had not yet been planted...:

Yes, there is no chance of anything else, except a completely novel, never before heard of idea, anything else would not be the one and only way it could have happened.

We had different conclusions from the beginning, so this has nothing to do with an argument over positions. I'm finding the vibe here to become a bit unbearable. Perhaps I need a break.

I greatly value your contribution AS and you have clearly put forward cogent arguments in respect of various theories, in particular as regards Wallace as the main suspect.

I still think that Parry working alone is the most likely option, although I accept this argument as many problems. The argument for an accomplice is problematic because I doubt Wallace would have trusted Parry-and Hall's testimony has been undermined-and there is no evidence in respect of Parry working with someone else, simply an hypothesis.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony,

The toilet water theory was something that had been suggested earlier on this thread and had gone unchecked (including by yourself) that I was curious about. I don't know how drains work, but if the pathologist said it would have been detected then I absolutely believe him. I also find the clot found on the rim of the bowl odd. This was NEVER part of my theory. I thought Wallace could have avoided visible blood, something which many people have found ridiculous and considered impossible. Fair enough.

I also have maintained from the beginning that I would NOT convict Wallace as I do not believe his guilt is evident beyond a reasonable a doubt. Not sure where you're getting "absolutely certain" from.

Most importantly, I was not using an ad hominem (as you suggested in the previous post.) I'm not arguing that my complaint has anything to do with the facts of the case. However, I do stand by what I said, based on this.

-You've long maintained the difficulties with Wallace Alone, and chose the Conspiracy, with Wallace as the mastermind in your postscript. Then you all of a sudden eliminated the book you wrote and decided to write a new one and include "Rod's theory". Now the tone with which you are talking about the case has shifted.

Note:

"The bath was dry. There was no presence of blood in the bath or the house drains. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the killer did not wash in the house. WHW must have had some blood splatter on him (this is not to say he was covered in blood). Yet, there was not a spot on him and the house was clean.

The forensic evidence points to his innocence, whatever we might say about his behaviour or state of mind."

To be fair, you did not think Wallace acted alone from the beginning, but I do feel this was put in such a "cut and dry" way as to make me wonder what changed, or why you ever even thought of that as a theory worth considering if those were always your thoughts.

But then to make matters cloudier in my mind, you also seem to prop up a new theory (one that is different from your original one in the book you pulled)

"This is a good argument against Parry Alone. I think I pointed out in my e-book, Parry did not need to make the Qualtrough call if his intention was to pop round and rob and/or murder Julia. However much you are unpersuaded by Rod's theory, Parry Accomplice does explain the need for the call and why the robbery could not happen on the night of the call. The theory has flaws just like any other, but it does explain some key points of evidence."

If you were really persuaded by Rod, that's fine, but then I feel that should be made transparent.

Also, perhaps part of my issue is with the tone in which this is being discussed now. (Not your fault.)

Look at the previous post, 2 examples in response to a totally legitamite and friendly inquiry by another user:

"110 pages of comments, and we're still going round in circles. " with a roll-eye emoticon at the end.

"there was no chance of a stranger gaining entry on the Monday (and it had to be a stranger) - the only chance was via the Qualtrough ruse, and that seed had not yet been planted...:

Yes, there is no chance of anything else, except a completely novel, never before heard of idea, anything else would not be the one and only way it could have happened.

We had different conclusions from the beginning, so this has nothing to do with an argument over positions. I'm finding the vibe here to become a bit unbearable. Perhaps I need a break.

AS, I pulled all the books when I signed a publishing deal - it was insisted on by the publisher. They also wanted updates to the books, and - for this one - jumped at the chance of including Rod's theory.

I have not made up my mind, yet.

[John G]

AS, I pulled all the books when I signed a publishing deal - it was insisted on by the publisher. They also wanted updates to the books, and - for this one - jumped at the chance of including Rod's theory.

I have not made up my mind, yet.

Hi CCJ,

As you know, I thoroughly enjoyed your book on the subject, and I for one, would be very interested in an updated version.

[RodCrosby]

This thread is not far off overtaking the JonBenet Ramsey Murder case thread, in terms of views. I reckon about +30,000 views since I posted my theory.

[John G]

This thread is not far off overtaking the JonBenet Ramsey Murder case thread, in terms of views. I reckon about +30,000 views since I posted my theory.

Hi Rod,

Would you mind summarizing your theory?

[AmericanSherlock]

AS, I pulled all the books when I signed a publishing deal - it was insisted on by the publisher. They also wanted updates to the books, and - for this one - jumped at the chance of including Rod's theory.

I have not made up my mind, yet.

So it's no longer accessible to those who purchased it?

[RodCrosby]

Hi Rod,

Would you mind summarizing your theory?

Sure, John.


Parry was stalking Wallace
Evidence:
Parry unexpectedly appears at the chess club in November 1930, in the very room were the games are being played, shortly after the tournament is announced. "He wasn't playing chess...", notes Wallace.
Wallace 'bumps into' Parry on at least two further occasions around Christmas 1930, once on a bus, and then in Missouri Road in early 1931.

Parry made the phone call on Monday 19th January 1931
Evidence:
Parry had form for making hoax calls (witness Parkes) and stealing from phone boxes (criminal convictions).
But Parry makes a slip and mentions a "21st birthday" to Beattie during the call. He later forgets this, and repeats a story about a "21st birthday" both to Lily Lloyd and to the Police. [He also repeats this tale to Goodman in 1966.]
The box was little over a mile (3 minutes drive) from Lily Lloyd's, and Parry makes an unexpected brief visit there only minutes after the call.
Parry lies completely to the Police about his whereabouts on the Monday night.

Parry followed Wallace to the chess club on Monday 19th January 1931
Evidence:
Parry returns to Lily Lloyd's around 9pm, and makes another slip, saying he has been to "Park Lane". Park Lane is to all intents and purposes a continuation of North John Street, the location of the Chess Club...
Parry lies completely to the Police about his whereabouts on the Monday night.

Parry was in the vicinity of Wolverton Street on Tuesday 20th January 1931, although shortly after the time of the murder
Evidence:
By his own admission, Parry was driving around the area, only a couple of minutes from Wolverton Street, just at the time Wallace would be expected to arrive home from Menlove Gardens. Parry offered no fewer than five 'alibis' for this half-hour period between 8.30pm and 9pm., but the Police only checked the first and the last, which do in fact seem watertight.
His bizarre introduction to his third alibi, however, is suggestive of a man who is mentally fixing the point at which he must begin concealing something from the Police.
In 1966, Parry lied again, this time to Goodman, when he stated 'the Police had verified his innocence when he produced some friends with whom he had been arranging a birthday celebration' on the night of the murder. No such statement from the friends exists, and the birthday 'friend', Williamson, volunteered nothing to that effect when he called the Radio City phone-in in 1981, and revealed that far from being a 'friend', Parry was a con-artist, and a 'vicious character with a dual personality'.

Parry was intimately involved in the crime, but was not the murderer
Evidence:
Parkes noticed no bloodstains on Parry, which in any case Lily Lloyd and her mother would have noticed when he arrived at theirs at 9pm, had he been the killer.
However Parry demanding that Parkes wash the car inside and out, his distressed state, the discovery of the bloodstained mitten and Parry's confession to disposing of the iron bar are all highly incriminating.
Parry's exclamation 'that would hang me!' in reference to the glove is suggestive of a man one step removed from the actual murder.
Parkes' aside that shortly afterwards Parry and a mysterious 'other chap' returned to put the frighteners on him leads inexorably to the solution...

Parry was the brains behind an intended robbery, and the 'other chap' was his accomplice, who panicked and killed Julia when discovered.

Parry knew he could charm himself into the house, but he also knew he could not escape arraignment when a robbery was discovered after he had left... Therefore he must recruit an accomplice, and stay safely in the background himself. He could plan the crime, set it into motion, and arrive afterwards to divide up the spoils - and have a good laugh at Wallace's expense...

But Wallace must be lured far away, and the accomplice granted entry to the house by Julia. The Qualtrough ruse brilliantly served both purposes, and the Chess tournament offered the perfect timetable, too good to ignore. Leave a message on a Monday at the club, to get him out of the way on the Tuesday night, the best night to hit the jackpot takings. Monday 19th January was in fact the last possible date on that timetable. It was now or never...

The phone box was chosen not because it was near Wallace's house, but because it was the closest to the vantage point from which Parry and his accomplice had observed Wallace heading for the tram on the Monday night. The message must arrive at the club before Wallace because Parry was not confident he would not be recognised by Wallace if he spoke to him directly. The accomplice actually hopped on the same tram as Wallace and went all the way to North John St to verify that he did in fact enter the chess club and remain long enough to draw the reasonable inference that he had received the message. That is why Parry later headed towards North John St, after first establishing a brief 'alibi' at Lily Lloyd's. To rendezvous with the accomplice, get an update, and make final preparations for the Tuesday night...

Parry knew Julia well, and knew there was a high chance she would need to use the lavatory after receiving her visitor. That would be the opportunity to strike, with a backup that Qualtrough could ask to use the lavatory himself, if necessary.

The replaced cash-box is almost conclusive evidence that it was rifled while Julia was alive, when her back was turned. But there was a fatal error...
Qualtrough was clumsy, and in his haste spilled loose coins from the box onto the hearth. Why was he clumsy?
Evidence:
'It was a thumb, and all fingers', said Parkes, in reference to the mitten-glove he later discovered in Parry's car.

Upon returning to the kitchen, Julia notices the coins and realises what is going on. She attempts to leave the house, which was why she was carrying the mackintosh. There is some kind of confrontation in the parlour. Qualtrough grabs the first object to hand - the bar - and brains her. Qualtrough takes the bar with him, for protection, in case he encounters a returning Wallace, or anyone else, and makes the short walk to the pre-arranged pickup point, the pitch-black dark recreation ground opposite Richmond Park...

Minutes later, Parry arrives, grinning from ear-to-ear, only to find out that something has gone very, very wrong. Not much time for talking, they must get away. Qualtrough is dropped off at his home, and Parry is left with the bar and the glove to dispose of. The enormity of his situation doesn't fully register until Parry returns home from Lily Lloyd's after 11pm, and learns for certain of the murder. He races round the corner to Atkinson's garage where he knows only simple, pliable John Parkes will be on duty in the early hours. But he has some kind of breakdown in front of Parkes, giving enough concern for Parkes to confide in his boss, and the boss's wife the following morning. But no-one cracks until Wallace is convicted...


The Great Detective once said "There should be no combination of events for which the wit of man cannot conceive an explanation." [The Valley of Fear, 1915]

My theory fits the combination of events, and the available evidence almost perfectly. There is nothing outlandish or improbable about it. Therefore it is the correct solution.

[John G]

Sure, John.


Parry was stalking Wallace
Evidence:
Parry unexpectedly appears at the chess club in November 1930, in the very room were the games are being played, shortly after the tournament is announced. "He wasn't playing chess...", notes Wallace.
Wallace 'bumps into' Parry on at least two further occasions around Christmas 1930, once on a bus, and then in Missouri Road in early 1931.

Parry made the phone call on Monday 19th January 1931
Evidence:
Parry had form for making hoax calls (witness Parkes) and stealing from phone boxes (criminal convictions).
But Parry makes a slip and mentions a "21st birthday" to Beattie during the call. He later forgets this, and repeats a story about a "21st birthday" both to Lily Lloyd and to the Police. [He also repeats this tale to Goodman in 1966.]
The box was little over a mile (3 minutes drive) from Lily Lloyd's, and Parry makes an unexpected brief visit there only minutes after the call.
Parry lies completely to the Police about his whereabouts on the Monday night.

Parry followed Wallace to the chess club on Monday 19th January 1931
Evidence:
Parry returns to Lily Lloyd's around 9pm, and makes another slip, saying he has been to "Park Lane". Park Lane is to all intents and purposes a continuation of North John Street, the location of the Chess Club...
Parry lies completely to the Police about his whereabouts on the Monday night.

Parry was in the vicinity of Wolverton Street on Tuesday 20th January 1931, although shortly after the time of the murder
Evidence:
By his own admission, Parry was driving around the area, only a couple of minutes from Wolverton Street, just at the time Wallace would be expected to arrive home from Menlove Gardens. Parry offered no fewer than five 'alibis' for this half-hour period between 8.30pm and 9pm., but the Police only checked the first and the last, which do in fact seem watertight.
His bizarre introduction to his third alibi, however, is suggestive of a man who is mentally fixing the point at which he must begin concealing something from the Police.
In 1966, Parry lied again, this time to Goodman, when he stated 'the Police had verified his innocence when he produced some friends with whom he had been arranging a birthday celebration' on the night of the murder. No such statement from the friends exists, and the birthday 'friend', Williamson, volunteered nothing to that effect when he called the Radio City phone-in in 1981, and revealed that far from being a 'friend', Parry was a con-artist, and a 'vicious character with a dual personality'.

Parry was intimately involved in the crime, but was not the murderer
Evidence:
Parkes noticed no bloodstains on Parry, which in any case Lily Lloyd and her mother would have noticed when he arrived at theirs at 9pm, had he been the killer.
However Parry demanding that Parkes wash the car inside and out, his distressed state, the discovery of the bloodstained mitten and Parry's confession to disposing of the iron bar are all highly incriminating.
Parry's exclamation 'that would hang me!' in reference to the glove is suggestive of a man one step removed from the actual murder.
Parkes' aside that shortly afterwards Parry and a mysterious 'other chap' returned to put the frighteners on him leads inexorably to the solution...

Parry was the brains behind an intended robbery, and the 'other chap' was his accomplice, who panicked and killed Julia when discovered.

Parry knew he could charm himself into the house, but he also knew he could not escape arraignment when a robbery was discovered after he had left... Therefore he must recruit an accomplice, and stay safely in the background himself. He could plan the crime, set it into motion, and arrive afterwards to divide up the spoils - and have a good laugh at Wallace's expense...

But Wallace must be lured far away, and the accomplice granted entry to the house by Julia. The Qualtrough ruse brilliantly served both purposes, and the Chess tournament offered the perfect timetable, too good to ignore. Leave a message on a Monday at the club, to get him out of the way on the Tuesday night, the best night to hit the jackpot takings. Monday 19th January was in fact the last possible date on that timetable. It was now or never...

The phone box was chosen not because it was near Wallace's house, but because it was the closest to the vantage point from which Parry and his accomplice had observed Wallace heading for the tram on the Monday night. The message must arrive at the club before Wallace because Parry was not confident he would not be recognised by Wallace if he spoke to him directly. The accomplice actually hopped on the same tram as Wallace and went all the way to North John St to verify that he did in fact enter the chess club and remain long enough to draw the reasonable inference that he had received the message. That is why Parry later headed towards North John St, after first establishing a brief 'alibi' at Lily Lloyd's. To rendezvous with the accomplice, get an update, and make final preparations for the Tuesday night...

Parry knew Julia well, and knew there was a high chance she would need to use the lavatory after receiving her visitor. That would be the opportunity to strike, with a backup that Qualtrough could ask to use the lavatory himself, if necessary.

The replaced cash-box is almost conclusive evidence that it was rifled while Julia was alive, when her back was turned. But there was a fatal error...
Qualtrough was clumsy, and in his haste spilled loose coins from the box onto the hearth. Why was he clumsy?
Evidence:
'It was a thumb, and all fingers', said Parkes, in reference to the mitten-glove he later discovered in Parry's car.

Upon returning to the kitchen, Julia notices the coins and realises what is going on. She attempts to leave the house, which was why she was carrying the mackintosh. There is some kind of confrontation in the parlour. Qualtrough grabs the first object to hand - the bar - and brains her. Qualtrough takes the bar with him, for protection, in case he encounters a returning Wallace, or anyone else, and makes the short walk to the pre-arranged pickup point, the pitch-black dark recreation ground opposite Richmond Park...

Minutes later, Parry arrives, grinning from ear-to-ear, only to find out that something has gone very, very wrong. Not much time for talking, they must get away. Qualtrough is dropped off at his home, and Parry is left with the bar and the glove to dispose of. The enormity of his situation doesn't fully register until Parry returns home from Lily Lloyd's after 11pm, and learns for certain of the murder. He races round the corner to Atkinson's garage where he knows only simple, pliable John Parkes will be on duty in the early hours. But he has some kind of breakdown in front of Parkes, giving enough concern for Parkes to confide in his boss, and the boss's wife the following morning. But no-one cracks until Wallace is convicted...


The Great Detective once said "There should be no combination of events for which the wit of man cannot conceive an explanation." [The Valley of Fear, 1915]

My theory fits the combination of events, and the available evidence almost perfectly. There is nothing outlandish or improbable about it. Therefore it is the correct solution.

Hi Rod,

Thanks for the reply and I will give a line item response. I think the evidence for Parry stalking Wallace is quite weak, bearing in mind that the incidents you refer to could just be coincidence. And I don't see any reason for Parry "stalking" Wallace over such a protracted period: if he was involved in the robbery he simply needed to make sure Wallace attended the chess club on the night of the Qualtrough call and to confirm his departure for the Qualtrough appointment (something he didn't even bother to do if his alibis are to be accepted.)

The evidence for Parry making the Qualtrough call is much stronger, akthiugh it's worth noting that Josephine Lloyd estimated that he arrived at 7:15 on the 19th which, if correct, would mean that he couldn't have made the call.

There is no evidence that Parry lied in respect of the alibis he provided after 8:30. For Instance, in respect of the birthday invitation, Parry actually informed Lloyd that he had obtained an invitation for both of them, and I don't see why he would lie about this. Moreover, in the radio broadcast Leslie referred to Lloyd as "a lovely girl", so it makes sense she would have been invited, which presumably also means Parry would also have received an invitation, regardless of Leslie's animosity towards him, as they were a couple.

Your argument about the blood stains is well made, and I agree that they would most likely have been noticed by Lily and her mother.

Parkes' testimony is questionable to say the least. Thus, he only came forward publicly half a century after the event, by which time, somewhat conveniently, there was no one left alive who could have contradicted him. Moreover, Parkes was clearly no friend of Parry's, but we're expected to believe that the latter was stupid enough to virtually confess to a murder: "if the police found that it would hang me."

Regarding the accomplice. There was no evidence of a break-in and Wallace himself made it clear that Julia wouldn't admit anyone she didn't know personally. Therefore, following, the robbery, the accomplice could presumably be identified by Julia just as easily as Parry would have been. And why he would an accomplice be prepared to take nearly all the risks, whilst Parry's involvement was essentially limited to making a phone call?

I don't agree with your reasoning for the perpetrator leaving with the weapon; it's far more likely that he was concerned about the issue of fingerprints. Nor is there any evidence for a confrontation: the neighbours heard nothing and there were no defensive wounds. In fact all the evidence points to Julia being taken completely by surprise, whilst she sat quietly in the chair.

I also think it unlikely that the perpetrator would have entrusted Parry with the responsibility of disposing of the incriminating evidence. Much more likely that he would have disposed of it himself as soon as possible. In fact, it would be incredible if he were to wonder around the neighbourhood with an iron bar covered in blood and gore, calmly awaiting Parry's arrival.

Nor am I convinced with the breakdown theory. Parry spent two hours at his girlfriend's house without giving himself away, assuming he had any involvement, so why should he then suffer a mental collapse in front of Parkes who, as I noted earlier, was obviously no friend?

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi Rod,

Thanks for the reply and I will give a line item response. I think the evidence for Parry stalking Wallace is quite weak, bearing in mind that the incidents you refer to could just be coincidence. And I don't see any reason for Parry "stalking" Wallace over such a protracted period: if he was involved in the robbery he simply needed to make sure Wallace attended the chess club on the night of the Qualtrough call and to confirm his departure for the Qualtrough appointment (something he didn't even bother to do if his alibis are to be accepted.)

The evidence for Parry making the Qualtrough call is much stronger, akthiugh it's worth noting that Josephine Lloyd estimated that he arrived at 7:15 on the 19th which, if correct, would mean that he couldn't have made the call.

There is no evidence that Parry lied in respect of the alibis he provided after 8:30. For Instance, in respect of the birthday invitation, Parry actually informed Lloyd that he had obtained an invitation for both of them, and I don't see why he would lie about this. Moreover, in the radio broadcast Leslie referred to Lloyd as "a lovely girl", so it makes sense she would have been invited, which presumably also means Parry would also have received an invitation, regardless of Leslie's animosity towards him, as they were a couple.

Your argument about the blood stains is well made, and I agree that they would most likely have been noticed by Lily and her mother.

Parkes' testimony is questionable to say the least. Thus, he only came forward publicly half a century after the event, by which time, somewhat conveniently, there was no one left alive who could have contradicted him. Moreover, Parkes was clearly no friend of Parry's, but we're expected to believe that the latter was stupid enough to virtually confess to a murder: "if the police found that it would hang me."

Regarding the accomplice. There was no evidence of a break-in and Wallace himself made it clear that Julia wouldn't admit anyone she didn't know personally. Therefore, following, the robbery, the accomplice could presumably be identified by Julia just as easily as Parry would have been. And why he would an accomplice be prepared to take nearly all the risks, whilst Parry's involvement was essentially limited to making a phone call?

I don't agree with your reasoning for the perpetrator leaving with the weapon; it's far more likely that he was concerned about the issue of fingerprints. Nor is there any evidence for a confrontation: the neighbours heard nothing and there were no defensive wounds. In fact all the evidence points to Julia being taken completely by surprise, whilst she sat quietly in the chair.

I also think it unlikely that the perpetrator would have entrusted Parry with the responsibility of disposing of the incriminating evidence. Much more likely that he would have disposed of it himself as soon as possible. In fact, it would be incredible if he were to wonder around the neighbourhood with an iron bar covered in blood and gore, calmly awaiting Parry's arrival.

Nor am I convinced with the breakdown theory. Parry spent two hours at his girlfriend's house without giving himself away, assuming he had any involvement, so why should he then suffer a mental collapse in front of Parkes who, as I noted earlier, was obviously no friend?

These are just fantastic points. Some of which I would not have thought of myself. Particularly that Parry's behavior from what we know after 8:30 on the 20th does not mesh with the supposed break down to John Parkes. I do agree he cannot completely evade suspicion for the call.

[John G]

These are just fantastic points. Some of which I would not have thought of myself. Particularly that Parry's behavior from what we know after 8:30 on the 20th does not mesh with the supposed break down to John Parkes. I do agree he cannot completely evade suspicion for the call.

Thanks AS. It's easy to be dismissive of Wallace as a suspect, however, the more I think about this other scenarios seem about as equally implausible.

I'm fact, I think we are all agreed that whatever happened must have been something extraordinary. For instance, even if Parry made the Qualtrough call it doesn't by itself prove he had any involvement in the murder, as the call could have simply been intended as a practical joke, and therefore in this scenario the murder/robbery would simply be coincidental.

And the more I think of Parkes' evidence the more problematic it becomes. As I noted in my reply to Rod, if Parry was involved then we have to accept that he was able to maintain an air of normality in the company of both his girlfriend and her mother for some two hours. It therefore doesnt seem reasonable to me that he would then breakdown in front of Parkes, especially to the extent of blurting out a virtual confession..