Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

It makes no sense at all AS.

We could also ask what happened to the other glove? Why keep one? If he threw one incriminating glove away why not the other?

He might as well have had a t-shirt printed

[John G]

Except, if the murder wasn't planned, if, say, robbery was the actual motive, could Parry, completely overwhelmed by guilt, once the enormity of what he'd done had sunk in, have felt the need to confess to someone? Might he not at this stage, whilst under extreme mental duress, have been planning to confess to the police?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another point but first a question as I have no books to hand at the moment.

Am I correct in saying that there were no lights on when Wallace got home that night?

[AmericanSherlock]

Except, if the murder wasn't planned, if, say, robbery was the actual motive, could Parry, completely overwhelmed by guilt, once the enormity of what he'd done had sunk in, have felt the need to confess to someone? Might he not at this stage, whilst under extreme mental duress, have been planning to confess to the police?

But then the asking of his car to be cleaned and shouting "that could hang me" warning Parkes supposedly to keep his mouth shut would be in conflict with guilty conscience ridden behavior.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Except, if the murder wasn't planned, if, say, robbery was the actual motive, coukd Parry, completely overwhelmed by guilt, once the enormity of what he'd done had sunk in, have felt the need to confess to someone? Might he not at this stage, whilst under extreme mental duress, have been planning to confess to the police?

Hello John,

It would seem a bit of a strange choice of confessors though. I can’t see it myself. After all Parry could never have hoped to get away with a robbery at the Wallace’s house without being named.

I wonder if you can answer a question John? It’s about the phone message. Gannon and Murphy both have Qualtrough asking for Wallace’s address but Rod, quite rightly, points out that this question seems to appear nowhere else. Any ideas?

[AmericanSherlock]

It makes no sense at all AS.

We could also ask what happened to the other glove? Why keep one? If he threw one incriminating glove away why not the other?

He might as well have had a t-shirt printed

If that's really what happened and Parry was guilty as a murderer or accomplice, then he deserves his freedom for getting away with the most incriminating and sloppy behavior after a murder perhaps in history. It would have been divine intervention!

Also all these folks at the garage and Parkes supoosedly were going to come forward if Wallace was pinned for the crime. Well, what were they waiting for? A lengthy torturous trial, followed by a guilty verdict and a death sentence weren't enough for them to come forward? So what, if the appeal failed, then they'd come forward?

Either Parkes and co. were evil or the story was bogus.

[John G]

But then the asking of his car to be cleaned and shouting "that could hang me" warning Parkes supposedly to keep his mouth shut would be in conflict with guilty conscience ridden behavior.

Yes, that's a good point AS. However, perhaps he was conflicted. Moreover, if he was overwhelmed by gulit, once the enormity of what he'd done had sunk in, we can't assume that his though processes would be logical in character.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hello John,

It would seem a bit of a strange choice of confessors though. I can’t see it myself. After all Parry could never have hoped to get away with a robbery at the Wallace’s house without being named.

I wonder if you can answer a question John? It’s about the phone message. Gannon and Murphy both have Qualtrough asking for Wallace’s address but Rod, quite rightly, points out that this question seems to appear nowhere else. Any ideas?

Herlock, one possibility could be that authors before Murphy's book in 2001 were not working with the full police file.

It also appears in Antony (CCJ)'s book and he accepts it as fact and even denotes it as a point in favor of Wallace making the call.

[John G]

Herlock, one possibility could be that authors before Murphy's book in 2001 were not working with the full police file.

It also appears in Antony (CCJ)'s book and he accepts it as fact and even denotes it as a point in favor of Wallace making the call.

Thanks for this AS. Apologies to Herlock, as I'd clearly missed his post. I hope to spend a bit more time on this thread, as I've clearly been AWOL for a while!

[AmericanSherlock]

Thanks for this AS. Apologies to Herlock, as I'd clearly missed his post. I hope to spend a bit more time on this thread, as I've clearly been AWOL for a while!

Thanks John, I'd add also that Gannon's book was the most thoroughly researched and he seems very precise on the details so I don't think hed be wrong on this point.

I would like to see the file myself though just to end the ambiguity.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree AS that it would be instructive to see the full file. Rod said that Murphy/Gannon just made this up but I’m always wary of making accusations like this. Both authors show themselves to be thorough researchers and have both written excellent books albeit with different conclusions. They both knew how much this case is debated and couldn’t hope to get away with a made up fact. So for me, it’s either that it was written in a file that we haven’t all seen or they were in error by repeating something that they’d seen somewhere else. If the latter we would then have to ask ‘where did that person get the info?’

This is important. We need to know

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for this AS. Apologies to Herlock, as I'd clearly missed his post. I hope to spend a bit more time on this thread, as I've clearly been AWOL for a while!

No problem John

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, that's a good point AS. However, perhaps he was conflicted. Moreover, if he was overwhelmed by gulit, once the enormity of what he'd done had sunk in, we can't assume that his though processes would be logical in character.

I agree that if Wallace was innocent then the murder was unplanned and the killer probably panicked after.

[AmericanSherlock]

I agree AS that it would be instructive to see the full file. Rod said that Murphy/Gannon just made this up but I’m always wary of making accusations like this. Both authors show themselves to be thorough researchers and have both written excellent books albeit with different conclusions. They both knew how much this case is debated and couldn’t hope to get away with a made up fact. So for me, it’s either that it was written in a file that we haven’t all seen or they were in error by repeating something that they’d seen somewhere else. If the latter we would then have to ask ‘where did that person get the info?’

This is important. We need to know

Herlock, it is important.

My hunch is most authors worked off of W F Wyndam Brown's "The Trial of William Herbert Wallace" which was written a couple years after the trial and is admittedly a recap and incomplete. Roland Oliver's opening is not contained in it.

It is also written somewhat in a "recap form" and the author states he has edited repetitive or superfluous details to make it more readable.

I can only conclude Murphy had access to the full official trial transcript which wasn't available until he accessed the police file. I also believe Gannon worked off the full police file.

In the interest of fairness and objectivity, I would agree we need more proof to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps Antony could clarify.

As previously stated, he also presents the asking of the address as a factual occurrence and even concedes it as a point towards Wallace being the caller.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn't the trial transcript that's online the full one then?

Also AS was I correct in saying that all the downstairs lights were off when Wallace got home on the night of the murder?