Originally Posted by ColdCaseJury
Let's tackle the logic and evidence together. Your counter is that if someone can conceive of sneak-thievery, Wallace could of. Yet, it took 40 years for someone to think of the sneak-thievery scenario. My point is that returning the cashbox is not what you would expect someone to do if they were staging a robbery, not that someone could not conceive it but the planner would reject it as too risky.
I think your appeal to circular reasoning is not accurate, in my view, especially when Wallace writes about the case (in his unpublished memoir) he never mentions sneak-thievery as an explanation. Remember, we are assuming Wallace is guilty so when he writes his memoir we are getting a good idea of his plan, what he wants us to think happened. I also find it bizarre and inconsistent that Wallace would think a burglar would drop coins and leave the cabinet lid on the floor but return the cashbox. Even if Wallace was in a rush; it was so central to his plan.
BTW, in my book I publish extracts from his memoir that have never been published before. You will find them very interesting, I'm sure.
My theory would be that Wallace has simply made a mistake and it did not occur to him. In the same way that you say it took 40 years for Hussey to put forth the theory, perhaps Wallace did not consider, at least until some time later, the significance of his putting the cash box back on the shelf.
Also, in response to a point you made in the other post, perhaps if Wallace was guilty, he was trying specifically to pin the blame on one particular person; Gordon Parry. There are problems with this; the cash haul was small and we are in a similar predicament as with the cash-box...it would appear Wallace wouldn't try to frame someone else (or at least create reasonable doubt by diverting suspicion onto someone else) with such a paltry sum. But then again couldn't the same argument be made for Parry as being part of any plot. I am aware there is some ambiguity about what RGP would know in regards to the amount that would be likely to be there...perhaps this could be cleared up some more. Could Wallace have been so cheap/ fastidious that he just couldn't bare to steal too large a sum of his own insurance takings, even if it weakened his life or death plot to seem innocent?
Anyways, my over-arching point would not be that Wallace was attempting to make it look like sneak thievery, just a theft gone wrong in general, and simply screwed up (out of habit) by meticulously doing what he had done several times, without thinking about it in a rushed and panicked state after bashing his wife's brains in. I am not as convinced as you that this is something he would necessarily quickly realize needed correcting. (You rightly suggest that he would have had time to think about it on his journey and a brief opportunity to rectify any mistakes.)