) I won’t say that The Accomplice Theory is impossible though. Very unlikely imo but not impossible. I feel that I can say that because no one has argued more vociferously than myself and AS with Rod on this subject and I’d continue to do so were the debate ongoing. For me Parry has an alibi and so can be discounted as the murderer unless there is evidence of a conspiracy to give him a false alibi (and there isn’t.) The idea that Wallace took advantage of a prank call I have to admit to finding laughable. I don’t think that Wallace used Parry in any way (I know that WWH suspects that Wallace got Parry to make the call but I don’t. It’s not impossible and I could be wrong but my opinion stands.) I genuinely can’t see the Johnston’s being involved in any way (again it’s not impossible but I just don’t see it.) I dont think the killer was a stranger or the Anfield Housebreaker (yet again it’s not impossible but unlikely in the extreme imo.)So from the named theories (obviously we can’t pronounce on unnamed ones
) I think it’s Wallace or the Accomplice Theory in some form. And I’m still 90+% for Wallace alone. There are queries and doubts of course but for me there are far fewer than other theories. My simple view is that over time Wallace grew to despise Julia. His poor health and realisation that he might not have long to live pushed him into believing that he deserved to ‘enjoy’ his last few years without the misery of nursemaiding and constantly ill and complaining old woman. He came up with a plan and carried it out. We can only surmise at the details.Even if we take one point - the viciousness of the murder. Not every time of course but this usually points to a personal motive - anger, resentment, hatred. If that one point is an accurate one in this case then it can only have been Wallace.
We can add the not minor point that only Wallace can be placed at or even near the scene of the crime.
No blood outside of the Parlour implies either excessive caution and care when leaving the house or an effort on the killers part to prevent himself being covered in blood or some form of clean up. Why would a random killer be so careful? Apart from fingerprints of course. It’s surely overwhelmingly likely that a sneak thief/burglar would have worn gloves which would in all likelihood have become bloody during the attack and yet there was no blood on the gas jets or the doors or the door handles. Would another killer have taken off his gloves to leave prints around the house? Wallace could though.
There would have been several ways that a plan to get Wallace out of the house by a phone call might have failed. None of which required any fantastical strokes of ill-fortune, just simple, plausible things that could have occurred. If Wallace was the planner though every one of these issues becomes non-existent. The Accomplice Theory relied implicitly on Wallace mentioning Qualtrough’s name to Julia so that she might (and it was only a ‘might) let him in. There’s just no way that Parry could have even hoped that Wallace would have mentioned the name Qualtrough to a wife that took absolutely no interest in his work.
Parry’s actions on the night of the murder don’t speak of a man taking part in a plan and his visit to the Williamson’s and the Lloyd’s certainly dont speak of a man who has just been told that his scam to get the insurance money has now turned into a hanging offence and that a woman that he might have actually been quite fond of had been bludgeoned to death.
I won’t go into Parkes because this is a long enough post as it is. But can anyone truly say that his testimony is believable? It make no sense at all unless we accept that Parry was suicidally moronic.
I haven’t done a long Wallace post for ages. Nothing new I’m afraid. It’s still Wallace alone for me as the likeliest solution.
PS.
I didn’t even mention Wallace walking past the Parlour this time.
Leave a comment: