Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

I just can't help smiling when I see that the clown has posted but I can't read his drivel!

No more sneak thief fantasies.

The body in the parlor near the fireplace in a whole other room from the cashbox does the theory no favors

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that a sneak thief wearing gloves wouldn't have taken the weapon away kills the dumb theory.

The fact that only Wallace could possibly have known that neither Beattie or any other club member didn't know his address proves that Parry didn't make the call.

The chorus of "but what did Wallace do with the weapon" has a very plausible response.

Parry's so-called confession to Parkes beggars belief.

The eleven vicious blows speak of premeditated murder.

The poor choice of night for cash reward speaks against Parry.

Game over for the laughable sneak thief joke.

[AmericanSherlock]

The fact that a sneak thief wearing gloves wouldn't have taken the weapon away kills the dumb theory.

The fact that only Wallace could possibly have known that neither Beattie or any other club member didn't know his address proves that Parry didn't make the call.

The chorus of "but what did Wallace do with the weapon" has a very plausible response.

Parry's so-called confession to Parkes beggars belief.

The eleven vicious blows speak of premeditated murder.

The poor choice of night for cash reward speaks against Parry.

Game over for the laughable sneak thief joke.

Indeed

Add in the totally different decription of voice from Beattie vs the operators. If it was Parry, he had no need to disguise his voice.

Wallace on the other hand would have incentive to have spoken in the "gruff" voice to Beattie after speaking in his normal voice to the operators (which was described as sounding like "an older gentleman")

[RodCrosby]

Different words spoken to different people DO sound different to THEM. It's entirely subjective, based even more so in 1931 on education and social class. So quite impossible to say the voice "changed" between interlocutors... Unless one said he sounded like a Chinaman, and another said like an Irishman. Even then it would be tenuous, at best.

So you're reaching... failing... and falling... in a tail-spin. Again.

Parry was a habitual voice-change scam artist and actor, on the other hand.
And Wallace was none of those things...

At the Court of Appeal:-

'Mr. Justice Branson asked Mr. Hemmerde:

''Assuming the murder was not committed by the appellant, what evidence is there that the telephone call was put through by him?"

There was of course no such evidence.'

Murder Most Mysterious by Hargrave Lee Adam (1932)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed

Add in the totally different decription of voice from Beattie vs the operators. If it was Parry, he had no need to disguise his voice.

Wallace on the other hand would have incentive to have spoken in the "gruff" voice to Beattie after speaking in his normal voice to the operators (which was described as sounding like "an older gentleman")

Exactly. 3 people, none of whom mentioned gruff or anything like it. Yet Beattie said specifically 'gruff' and 'peremptory.' I.e someone not comfortable using another voice and so speaking in short, sharp sentences. Unlike Parry who, it would be assumed, have a bit more confidence.
'Older' is obviously suggestive.

All roads appear to lead to Wallace. Unless you are an insanely biased crackpot of course.

[RodCrosby]

Oliver KC: Do you know Mr. Wallace’s voice well ?
Beattie: Yes.

Oliver KC: Did it occur to you it was anything like his voice ?
Beattie: Certainly not.

Now judge who is the 'insanely biased crackpot', if you've somehow missed the previous 200 pages of trolling...

[Herlock Sholmes]

And of course we have to remember the times. Phones were new. Not everyone was a regular phone user. The notion of a ‘prank’ phonecall wouldn’t have occurred to Beattie for a minute. He was a sensible, serious man. As was Wallace. And he would assume that anyone wishing to do business with Wallace would be likewise.

Today we might think ‘hold on, this is a bit suspicious. William is that you?’

This was 1931.

The man had a gruff voice and spoke in short, sharp, businesslike sentences. Beattie wouldn’t have been in the slightest bit suspicious.

There was no recognisable accent or speech defect. A gruff voice is pretty much a gruff voice.

Could Wallace have disguised his voice and fooled Beattie. Easily.

Plus, it’s worth repeating, he was the only man in the world who knew for certain that neither Beattie or anyone else there would have known his address.

The only one that would have known was Caird. But Caird was his friend. He lived close by. He knew Caird’s routine about going to the club after closing up his shop. He’d have known that Caird wouldn’t have been at the club yet. Parry wouldn’t.

[Spitfire]

Does anyone know where I can get Robert F Husseys Murderer Scot Free? This is apparently the only book on the case that champions the sneak thief idea. There is no ridiculous accomplice in his theory though

Amazon. Where else? Have several for sale ranging in price from £19/$31 plus delivery.

[AmericanSherlock]

Amazon. Where else? Have several for sale ranging in price from £19/$31 plus delivery.

Spitfire, thanks . I'll check that out. The prices sound better than I thought. I'd given up on Amazon for these types of books awhile back when they had Murphy for 250 something pounds !

Many libraries and bookstores in Australia seem to have Wallace books.

You never ever see a Wallace book in an American bookstore. Even those with extensive true crime sections. The closest would be a generalized book with several chapters and 1 on the Wallace murder like something by Colin Wilson

[AmericanSherlock]

And of course we have to remember the times. Phones were new. Not everyone was a regular phone user. The notion of a ‘prank’ phonecall wouldn’t have occurred to Beattie for a minute. He was a sensible, serious man. As was Wallace. And he would assume that anyone wishing to do business with Wallace would be likewise.

Today we might think ‘hold on, this is a bit suspicious. William is that you?’

This was 1931.

The man had a gruff voice and spoke in short, sharp, businesslike sentences. Beattie wouldn’t have been in the slightest bit suspicious.

There was no recognisable accent or speech defect. A gruff voice is pretty much a gruff voice.

Could Wallace have disguised his voice and fooled Beattie. Easily.

Plus, it’s worth repeating, he was the only man in the world who knew for certain that neither Beattie or anyone else there would have known his address.

The only one that would have known was Caird. But Caird was his friend. He lived close by. He knew Caird’s routine about going to the club after closing up his shop. He’d have known that Caird wouldn’t have been at the club yet. Parry wouldn’t.

Why the heck would Parry ask for Wallace's address? That would curb his whole plan if Beattie gave it to him. A pretty strong indicator of who made the call IMO

Maybe Beattie was a sneak-thief though and working with Parry

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why the heck would Parry ask for Wallace's address? That would curb his whole plan if Beattie gave it to him. A pretty strong indicator of who made the call IMO

Maybe Beattie was a sneak-thief though and working with Parry

Maybe you could write a book AS

In a very complex case this is surely a simple part.

The caller asked for Wallace’s address.

Why would Parry ask this as he had absolutely no way of knowing that no-one at the club would know it. Wallace was a founder member so he’d also be the joint longest serving member. Clubs often take subscription details or just contact details. How was he to know that a club member hadn’t been invited to Wallace’s house? He categorically couldn’t.

By asking this unnecessary question Parry could have scuppered his own plan before it got out of the starting blocks. It beggars belief! He might as well have said “yes my name is Parr...err I mean Qualtrough.”

The only person in the world who could have asked that question, to give the request more credence, and known categorically that no one could have presented him with his address was Wallace.

Therefore Wallace is quite overwhelmingly the likeliest person to have made the call.

[RodCrosby]

"The caller asked for Wallace’s address."

Not one of the celebrated authors who documented this case supports this assertion, and it was a rather short phone call to document correctly...

Not Lee-Adam. Not Wyndham-Brown. Not Sayers. Not Lustgarten. Not Goodman. Not Wilkes or Radio City.
Gannon or Murphy seem to have made it up [If someone can produce Beattie's actual Police statement I'll happily stand corrected.]

And it would be a crazy thing to do for anyone hoping to advance the criminal design that we know subsequently unfolded, whoever was the culprit.

In 1931, and most likely still today, a stranger ringing out of the blue and demanding from a club captain a member's address would be given short shrift.

At best, they would be viewed as socially-inept, and quite possibly as rather suspicious.

A private members' club, such as the chess club, is exactly that. Private.
Whether or not Beattie knew Wallace's address, he would not have passed it on to a stranger over the phone. That would still be considered a huge faux-pas for anyone to commit. And any caller with half-a-brain in 1931 would know what the almost certain response would be.

Even if Beattie did know Wallace's address, he would have said "I'm afraid I can't give it to you. I suggest you look in Kelly's directory. You may find it there."

Moreover, it would raise suspicion in both Beattie and Wallace. "Why would he want your address if he wants you come to him?", and Beattie [a cotton-broker] would have surely mentioned the fact to Wallace when passing on the message.

So, no logic and no evidence (apparently) that this alleged question was ever asked, or has any bearing on the case...

Keep scrabbling around in the ash-bin for something you can stick on Wallace. It is beyond hilarious...

[AmericanSherlock]

Maybe you could write a book AS

In a very complex case this is surely a simple part.

The caller asked for Wallace’s address.

Why would Parry ask this as he had absolutely no way of knowing that no-one at the club would know it. Wallace was a founder member so he’d also be the joint longest serving member. Clubs often take subscription details or just contact details. How was he to know that a club member hadn’t been invited to Wallace’s house? He categorically couldn’t.

By asking this unnecessary question Parry could have scuppered his own plan before it got out of the starting blocks. It beggars belief! He might as well have said “yes my name is Parr...err I mean Qualtrough.”

The only person in the world who could have asked that question, to give the request more credence, and known categorically that no one could have presented him with his address was Wallace.

Therefore Wallace is quite overwhelmingly the likeliest person to have made the call.

Absolutely. The counter-argument I've seen given is that Parry slipped up without thinking and/or it wasn't a dealbreaker anyway since he could talk his away out of it and still demand a message be left for Wallace to come to his place at 25 MGE the following night.

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume these are valid. (I don't think they are but hypothetically). The question still remains as to why on earth would Parry start with that. If he was the caller, it would have been part of an elaborate plot to undertake a criminal enterprise. He would have it planned out that he was going to try to lure Wallace to 25 MGE the following night. Asking for Wallace's address from Beattie would be the last thing on his mind!!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolutely. The counter-argument I've seen given is that Parry slipped up without thinking and/or it wasn't a dealbreaker anyway since he could talk his away out of it and still demand a message be left for Wallace to come to his place at 25 MGE the following night.

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume these are valid. (I don't think they are but hypothetically). The question still remains as to why on earth would Parry start with that. If he was the caller, it would have been part of an elaborate plot to undertake a criminal enterprise. He would have it planned out that he was going to try to lure Wallace to 25 MGE the following night. Asking for Wallace's address from Beattie would be the last thing on his mind!!!

Exactly, it’s difficult to think of a more stupid or damaging thing for him to have said. The very first part of the plan.

We keep being asked to accept that criminals are stupid (whilst making brilliant plans) or that any childishly stupid or insane mistake can be put down to ‘panic.’

Qualtrough is so panicked by a frail old lady, even though he was quite prepared to be recognised, that he batters her 11 times to death with an iron bar.

Then, despite there being no way that he can be connected to the weapon, he is somehow panicked into taking thegrisly item away with him.

Then Parry gets in on the ‘panic’ and without any coercion or reason he goes off to blab to Parkes and tell him where he hid the weapon.

The useof these kind of arguments in desperation just serve to illustrate the weakness of the case for a sneak-thief.

[AmericanSherlock]

Exactly, it’s difficult to think of a more stupid or damaging thing for him to have said. The very first part of the plan.

We keep being asked to accept that criminals are stupid (whilst making brilliant plans) or that any childishly stupid or insane mistake can be put down to ‘panic.’

Qualtrough is so panicked by a frail old lady, even though he was quite prepared to be recognised, that he batters her 11 times to death with an iron bar.

Then, despite there being no way that he can be connected to the weapon, he is somehow panicked into taking thegrisly item away with him.

Then Parry gets in on the ‘panic’ and without any coercion or reason he goes off to blab to Parkes and tell him where he hid the weapon.

The useof these kind of arguments in desperation just serve to illustrate the weakness of the case for a sneak-thief.

All solid points. Also why in the heck would he come in with the bloody glove STILL in his car and say "that would hang me". This was supposedly around midnight, so Parry would have had hours to clean up etc.

Discounting all the other reasons why it's ridiculous for a second and assuming Parry wanted blood cleaned out of his car from some guy who hated him for unknown reasons, why the heck would he bring the blood soaked glove with him still in his car hours later?

It belies belief.

A ridiculous scenario. Arthur Conan Doyle would laugh at it as the type of story a drunk 1st year college student might write.