Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[ColdCaseJury]

I would suggest though that you are on one hand saying there may have been to little time for Wallace to have done it or at least planned to have used it as an alibi, and then conversely saying if too much time was available to Wallace it would be a poor alibi that he wouldn't have come up with, because the cops would say he had enough time to have done it...

I see you've mentioned about none of us having all the facts, and that there i probably something we do not know about this case that would be a game changer. Any idea at all what that could possibly be--even what umbrella it would fall under? I find that thought fascinating..

Good points. Yes, I believe that 10 minutes is too little time (my judgement, everyone is free to differ). And I'm saying that without rehearsals, Wallace could not know how long it would take him, nor would he know when the milk boy would call... and if he takes too long (or misses the appointment time) the putative alibi is dead. Therefore, I suggest conservative Wallace would not have taken this risk. I note he himself said that he would not have bludgeoned Julia, if he had wanted to kill his wife, but poisoned her. I think this fits far better with what we know of Wallace. For Wallace to bludgeon Julia I suggest it must have been in a fit of rage... yet, we both agree this was planned. Little pointers away from Wallace, perhaps?

POTENTIAL GAME CHANGERS. Almost certainly these will connected with the tangled web of interpersonal relationships. What if Olivia Brine (Parry's alibi for the night of the murder) was having an affair with Parry? I don't think this is true, but it would be a game changer, casting doubt on his alibi.

We know nothing of Julia's life between 1875 and 1905. What if Julia had married during this time (or was involved in a relationship) - it sounds plausible to me - but acrimoniously separated from her first husband? Something Wallace was totally ignorant of. Perhaps, it took years for him to track her down... Or you might add, Wallace found out, providing a motive at last!

I am not lending a shred of credence to these wild conjectures of mine... I am merely pointing out that knowing more about the PEOPLE involved might paint a different picture on the case.

What do you think?

[ColdCaseJury]

I see you've mentioned about none of us having all the facts, and that there i probably something we do not know about this case that would be a game changer. Any idea at all what that could possibly be--even what umbrella it would fall under? I find that thought fascinating.

Oh, I forgot to add the most compelling bit of evidence would eye-witnesses that either saw Wallace on the BUS on the night of the call (Wallace Guilty - he lied about his movements to the chess club) or saw Wallace on the EARLIER tram (Wallace Innocent - he could not have made the call). That would surely influence your verdict?

[AmericanSherlock]

Good points. Yes, I believe that 10 minutes is too little time (my judgement, everyone is free to differ). And I'm saying that without rehearsals, Wallace could not know how long it would take him, nor would he know when the milk boy would call... and if he takes too long (or misses the appointment time) the putative alibi is dead. Therefore, I suggest conservative Wallace would not have taken this risk. I note he himself said that he would not have bludgeoned Julia, if he had wanted to kill his wife, but poisoned her. I think this fits far better with what we know of Wallace. For Wallace to bludgeon Julia I suggest it must have been in a fit of rage... yet, we both agree this was planned. Little pointers away from Wallace, perhaps?

POTENTIAL GAME CHANGERS. Almost certainly these will connected with the tangled web of interpersonal relationships. What if Olivia Brine (Parry's alibi for the night of the murder) was having an affair with Parry? I don't think this is true, but it would be a game changer, casting doubt on his alibi.

We know nothing of Julia's life between 1875 and 1905. What if Julia had married during this time (or was involved in a relationship) - it sounds plausible to me - but acrimoniously separated from her first husband? Something Wallace was totally ignorant of. Perhaps, it took years for him to track her down... Or you might add, Wallace found out, providing a motive at last!

I am not lending a shred of credence to these wild conjectures of mine... I am merely pointing out that knowing more about the PEOPLE involved might paint a different picture on the case.

What do you think?

An intriguing idea...let's say Julia had a man from her past who was bitter, tracked her down etc... the part of the scenario that fails a bit for me is that whoever killed Julia Wallace went to the trouble of making the call (or arranging for someone else to) the day before, knew of Wallace's putative attendance at the chess club etc etc, possibly even knew when his insurance takings were (we both agree the motive was murder but still) etc etc.

This is why the case smacks of Wallace's guilt to me. We have a planned murder with someone who knows a great deal about the cast of characters involved and clearly put a lot of thought and devious genius into it.

It's not impossible that a jilted lover or some other enemy from the past could track Julia down and enact this plan, but it seems more likely to me that such a person would act more impulsively in confronting her or just wait for Wallace to leave ( if he didn't want to deal with him) Concocting the whole chess club Qualtrough ruse seems far fetched to me for a past enemy and also some of the same problems that led me to believe Wallace was behind it come into play; most of all if someone was relying on Wallace to be at the club to get the message, then why not just go murder/rob Julia that Monday night?!?

Either the person wanted to have the additional satisfaction of committing whatever crime he intended to while having Wallace set out on a wild goose chase, or even more sinisterly, he was also actively looking to frame Wallace for his wife's murder. (Not so likely, imo.)

One tidbit in favor of a "past lover/enemy" was that I believe the operator said the caller sounded like an older man. And then Crewe, said it was absolutely not Wallace. I believe the caller was also said by the operators to have sounded "gruff." Parry was known to be able to change his voice (and Wallace certainly would try to alter his if he was the caller), but still I found that a tad interesting.

My ultimate issue that leads me towards believing in Wallace's guilt, at least in some capacity, is how elaborate and bizarre the set-up was, in depth and calculated. And how strange and out of character his concocted alibi seemed, complete with him making several perhaps over the top attempts to be seen at a given place at a given time and announce his fruitless journey.

It's possible someone else could have gone to the same trouble who was seeking revenge on Julia and/or Wallace himself for some reason. But, I see it as a stretch for someone who didn't know the couple well and wasn't comfortable in the area (lived there for awhile etc.) The nature of the phone call the night before rules out the Anfield Housebreaker, a random attack, the Johnstone theory etc. I find it difficult especially to see someone like Parry being the mastermind of such an in depth ruse, being a petty sort of wide boy, who was far from any sort of criminal mastermind.

[ColdCaseJury]

An intriguing idea...let's say Julia had a man from her past who was bitter, tracked her down etc... the part of the scenario that fails a bit for me is that whoever killed Julia Wallace went to the trouble of making the call (or arranging for someone else to) the day before, knew of Wallace's putative attendance at the chess club etc etc, possibly even knew when his insurance takings were (we both agree the motive was murder but still) etc etc.

I agree with you - I was not advancing the idea as a theory, only as one interesting game changer (and perhaps you are right: this one would not be such a game changer). I think the insurance takings is a red herring, BTW. If you read Wallace's evidence thoroughly, I believe he said the takings were highest on a Wednesday because he paid in on a Thursday.

You also say: "most of all if someone was relying on Wallace to be at the club to get the message, then why not just go murder/rob Julia that Monday night?"

A great point - I make this in my book too. But why didn't Wallace kill her on a Monday and then go to the Chess Club (where he would be identified by people he knew without the need for any suspicious behaviour)? The Qualtrough Quest was unnecessary. Surely, Wallace would have seen this?

Surely, a better plan would have been on Monday 19 January 1931:

7:05pm Kill Julia

7:15pm Leave to go to Chess Club

7:35pm Arrive at Chess Club

Of this assumes that he could do everything in ten minutes. You many counter, "ah, but he needed the identification of the milk boy for a last independent sighting before killing her in quick order" and hence he devised his plan for 20 January. But I re-iterate: on 20 January Wallace would have expected the milk boy to call earlier and, similarly, his alibi for the 20th would have failed too (see previous post). Or put another way, it was fortuitous for Wallace that the milk boy called when he did. Hardly, a foolproof plan by a mastermind if it relies on luck, is it?

So, in your view, would the Monday night plan have been better for Wallace? Is there anything that would have prevented him executing this simple (and therefore less risky) plan?

[AmericanSherlock]

I agree with you - I was not advancing the idea as a theory, only as one interesting game changer (and perhaps you are right: this one would not be such a game changer). I think the insurance takings is a red herring, BTW. If you read Wallace's evidence thoroughly, I believe he said the takings were highest on a Wednesday because he paid in on a Thursday.

You also say: "most of all if someone was relying on Wallace to be at the club to get the message, then why not just go murder/rob Julia that Monday night?"

A great point - I make this in my book too. But why didn't Wallace kill her on a Monday and then go to the Chess Club (where he would be identified by people he knew without the need for any suspicious behaviour)? The Qualtrough Quest was unnecessary. Surely, Wallace would have seen this?

Surely, a better plan would have been on Monday 19 January 1931:

7:05pm Kill Julia

7:15pm Leave to go to Chess Club

7:35pm Arrive at Chess Club

Of this assumes that he could do everything in ten minutes. You many counter, "ah, but he needed the identification of the milk boy for a last independent sighting before killing her in quick order" and hence he devised his plan for 20 January. But I re-iterate: on 20 January Wallace would have expected the milk boy to call earlier and, similarly, his alibi for the 20th would have failed too (see previous post). Or put another way, it was fortuitous for Wallace that the milk boy called when he did. Hardly, a foolproof plan by a mastermind if it relies on luck, is it?

So, in your view, would the Monday night plan have been better for Wallace? Is there anything that would have prevented him executing this simple (and therefore less risky) plan?

Great question and point you make about this. Obviously, Wallace could use arriving at the chess club as an alibi in the same way that being seen on his journey was.Then he would hope to work quickly, get a favorable time of death from the forensic expert, and be thought to not have enough time to have committed the crime. All the same as if he made the call and waited to do it on Tuesday.

But that doesn't cast suspicion on anyone else, in this case the unknown Mr. Qualtrough. It's something that he could do at any point, if he had somewhere to go or be seen shortly after. (Chess club, work, social event etc.) The purpose of the call, assuming Wallace's guilt, would be to make it seem like somebody else was out to lure him away and murder Julia. It creates a mysterious, unknown suspect out of thin air to direct focus away from him.

[ColdCaseJury]

But that doesn't cast suspicion on anyone else, in this case the unknown Mr. Qualtrough. It's something that he could do at any point, if he had somewhere to go or be seen shortly after. (Chess club, work, social event etc.) The purpose of the call, assuming Wallace's guilt, would be to make it seem like somebody else was out to lure him away and murder Julia. It creates a mysterious, unknown suspect out of thin air to direct focus away from him.

Your point, of course, is that Wallace's plan needed two components:

1) A quick kill and out, to cast doubt on whether he had sufficient time;

2) Cast suspicion onto Mr Qualtrough.

This would explain why he did not kill Julia on Monday, for example.

Excellent points. I should point out, however, that an alternative explanation is that Parry made a prank call the night before and Wallace seized the opportunity the following night, after thinking about it all day (we do not have to accept James' Wallace-in-Drag scenario to entertain this theory). I hope you agree that your explanation now places tremendous weight on the Qualtrough call and who most likely made it.

Parry misled the police about his whereabouts at the time of the call. Other factors also suggest Parry cannot be dismissed as Qualtrough. If I was in your epistemic position (i.e. believe that Wallace had the time and ability to kill his wife on the Tuesday), I would have to strengthen my belief in the Prank theory. Indeed, my verdict would hinge on my judgement about the call. How can you be so sure that Wallace made the call? Obviously you are too smart to use circular reasoning i.e. "because Wallace killed her!" This is why I spent a long time in my book examining the call - not only the content of the call, but also the timings on whether it is probable that Wallace made it and reached the chess club when he did. My own view is that, considering all the evidence impartially as I can and forced to choose between Parry and Wallace, I think the evidence points slightly more to Parry.

Love to hear your views.

[AmericanSherlock]

Your point, of course, is that Wallace's plan needed two components:

1) A quick kill and out, to cast doubt on whether he had sufficient time;

2) Cast suspicion onto Mr Qualtrough.

This would explain why he did not kill Julia on Monday, for example.

Excellent points. I should point out, however, that an alternative explanation is that Parry made a prank call the night before and Wallace seized the opportunity the following night, after thinking about it all day (we do not have to accept James' Wallace-in-Drag scenario to entertain this theory). I hope you agree that your explanation now places tremendous weight on the Qualtrough call and who most likely made it.

Parry misled the police about his whereabouts at the time of the call. Other factors also suggest Parry cannot be dismissed as Qualtrough. If I was in your epistemic position (i.e. believe that Wallace had the time and ability to kill his wife on the Tuesday), I would have to strengthen my belief in the Prank theory. Indeed, my verdict would hinge on my judgement about the call. How can you be so sure that Wallace made the call? Obviously you are too smart to use circular reasoning i.e. "because Wallace killed her!" This is why I spent a long time in my book examining the call - not only the content of the call, but also the timings on whether it is probable that Wallace made it and reached the chess club when he did. My own view is that, considering all the evidence impartially as I can and forced to choose between Parry and Wallace, I think the evidence points slightly more to Parry.

Love to hear your views.

Thanks, as usual thought-provoking.

I'm not at all sure Wallace made the call. Just to clarify I was dealing with the hypothetical of why Wallace would wait until the following night and make the call, rather than killing her on Monday in the scenario that he was guilty. Of course, you're right it would be circular reasoning to just say he made the call because I believe he killed her, when trying to determine if he did or did not in fact make the call (or if it was even possible for him to.)

Again, what I like about your take on the case is the unbiased nature of how you look at all the facts and do not allow them to prejudice a conclusion.

As much as I liked James Murphy's book, he obfuscated facts he must have had regarding Parry. As you point out, he did in fact lie about his whereabouts the night the call was made. Of course, this doesn't necessitate his guilt of making the call, as it is possible he did not have an adequate alibi and liedduring questioning to look less suspicious, even though he wasn't involved.

I can understand why you would think he is slightly more likely to have made the call than Wallace though--also the mentioning of a "21st birthday" is supsicious and could have been a slip up on Parry's behalf if he did make the call.

I think we have both agreed with the issues of Parry having made the call and working alone, so that leaves the possibility of him having made the call but working with Wallace. My problem then becomes Olivia Brine's alibi of the murder night...perhaps that's where a 3rd party (Gannon's Marsden?) comes into play..also we may disagree on this account, but I find it implausible Wallace and Parry worked together on it, considering the manner in which Wallace named and spoke of him when interviewed by police.

PD James' theory I think needs to be examined in some more depth... I thought it was absolutely ridiculous and still don't believe in it,,, but I must say, it is appealing in that it solves the "impossible" nature of the case and neatly wraps everything up. It reconciles and explains a lot. In the same way, Wallace having worked with Parry does, and then additionally solves the issues I have with that, including Parry's alibi for the murder night plus the aforementioned point about Wallace naming him (I suspect we disagree on that point.) She doesn't say whether Wallace knew the call was a prank or not. Presumably not; so did he expect to actually find Mr. Qualtrough at Menlove Gardens East after having committed the murder? He couldn't have foreseen the wild goose chase then, so imagine how rattled he would be not being able to find it and create a time reference point upon meeting Qualtrough--would make his frenzied alibi searching make even more sense. Also, it would explain the nature of the call more, a prank with no intention at all of ever robbing or murdering Julia Wallace, also it would explain Parry and Wallace's actions and statements following the murder --Parry secretive, seeming to know much, suspicious--but in fact innocent, and would know that Wallace was very likely guilty, and Wallace trying to cast suspicion back to Parry...

Another thought, What if Parry and Wallace worked on it together, but Parry made the call and Wallace committed the actual murder? Wallace figures that the voice would be identified as not him and he would be cleared. A bit crude, and goes against the typical nature of hiring someone else in a murder plot, where the mastermind doesn't want to commit the actual crime himself. But then again, nothing about this case is typical.

In both PD James scenario and this one, there still is the problem of the timing and whether Wallace himself could have or not possibly committed the murder, though. And if he could have, would he have been so risky to allow a narrow window, as we had spoken about yesterday.

[NickB]

Perhaps the 'prank call' theory works better without implicating Wallace – i.e. the murderer had no knowledge of the call, but saw Wallace leave the house.

[AmericanSherlock]

Perhaps the 'prank call' theory works better without implicating Wallace – i.e. the murderer had no knowledge of the call, but saw Wallace leave the house.

Nick,

that's a possible and intriguing idea.

I would argue that it would be a big coincidence, because Wallace would step out of his house on many occassions, the night before to go to the chess club being just 1 of them, so it would be a major coincidence that the murder would occur the day after the phone call.

[caz]

More questions than answers

Hi All,

Interesting posts as always! One thing I keep coming back to is the fact that if Wallace was guilty (whether acting alone or with help) he would have known that the first person the police will question and seek to eliminate is always - always - the victim's other half, particularly when the victim is killed in the marital home. And unless your name is Henry VIII you are very unlikely ever to kill more than one spouse, in which case it will be a one-off and therefore likely to be described, inaccurately if understandably, as "out of character" where there are no obvious signs of an abusive or turbulent relationship. A man who plans to murder his wife, and does his level best to get away with it, is slightly less likely to be rumbled if nobody saw it coming, least of all his wife, and he seemed "set in his ways" - a pipe and slippers kind of man, with no obvious yearning to be a widower.

If anyone else killed Julia, according to a carefully set up plan to get her old man out of the house, they would effectively be handing Wallace an alibi in the process, but that couldn't really be helped. If Wallace did it, however, a robust alibi would have been top priority, and it had to work for him.

Assuming this murder was planned, an outside job had to appear like an inside one (a domestic), while a domestic had to appear like an outsider dunnit.

So I just wonder whether the known events point more towards the meticulous planning of an alibi by a wife killer, or someone who needed the husband to be somewhere else while the deed was done, but at the same time wanted the police to suspect him and nobody else?

Have a good weekend all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sand87]

Parry is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. At least one of the people (an adolescent) who gave him an alibi for the actual time of the murder outlived him by many years and had no reason at that point to maintain their account if it wasn't true.

Really, no reason at all? What about saving face etc?

[AmericanSherlock]

Parry does have an alibi for the murder along with forensic tests on his car and clothing. We can aim to poke holes in these facts, but it should be noted and accepted. I personally don't think he could have committed the murder, but don't completely rule him out of being part of a conspiracy.

[ColdCaseJury]

Parry does have an alibi for the murder along with forensic tests on his car and clothing. We can aim to poke holes in these facts, but it should be noted and accepted. I personally don't think he could have committed the murder, but don't completely rule him out of being part of a conspiracy.

I agree that the evidence we have points away from Parry acting alone. The evidence we don't have (why the police did not fully investigate Parry's alibi for the night of the murder, and establish his whereabouts on the night of the call) is needed to eliminate him for sure. Whether Parry was involved the killing (as per one of your previous posts) is open to debate.

Back to your contention that Wallace alone was most likely the perpetrator. I do have issues with this position (well documented above), but I admire the strength of your argument (made a few posts back - the possibility that Wallace is guilty makes him the leading suspect), which I believe comes down to this. Or put another way, this is my reconstruction of what you said.

If we knew nothing about the circumstances of the case, except that a married woman was killed, we would most likely believe that her husband was guilty (until we looked at the evidence). Therefore, the greatest prior probability (before any evidence of the case is considered) is that William Wallace was guilty.

Here some facts from academic reports:

- Female homicide victims are most likely to be killed by someone they knew (approx 78%), with around 47% of female victims being killed by a partner or ex-partner.

- Intimate partner homicide affects women more than men, in many countries a third to a half of the homicides of women are committed by intimate partners.

If we ignore the theory that Parry was intimate with Julia Wallace, it seems reasonable to conclude that the prior probability that her husband killed her is 0.5. This will be far greater than a platonic acquaintance (estimated at about 0.35, and a stranger at about 0.15). So Wallace starts as the leading suspect, just as you said.

You could then state that even if the overall evidence points slightly more towards William Wallace being guilty, it is not strong enough to overcome the difference in prior probabilities. Therefore, it is rational to believe William Wallace killed his wife over the other possible verdicts.

I have been mulling this reconstructed argument for a few days. I guess the issues would be:

- We do not know the relationships between all those involved (see an earlier post). If Parry was doted on like a son by childless Julia (a conjecture), the relationship becomes more intimate, whether or not there is any physicality.

- The likelihood of Intimate Partner Homicide decreases with age. It is far more likely in younger couples (ages >30).

Both of these factors would tend to decrease prior probability that it was the husband in this case. So I'm still mulling.

In short, you argument is good one. Perhaps the best case I've seen made against Wallace (with some interpretation of my own).

AmericanSherlock, would this be a fair reconstruction and evaluation of your position?

[AmericanSherlock]

I agree that the evidence we have points away from Parry acting alone. The evidence we don't have (why the police did not fully investigate Parry's alibi for the night of the murder, and establish his whereabouts on the night of the call) is needed to eliminate him for sure. Whether Parry was involved the killing (as per one of your previous posts) is open to debate.

Back to your contention that Wallace alone was most likely the perpetrator. I do have issues with this position (well documented above), but I admire the strength of your argument (made a few posts back - the possibility that Wallace is guilty makes him the leading suspect), which I believe comes down to this. Or put another way, this is my reconstruction of what you said.

If we knew nothing about the circumstances of the case, except that a married woman was killed, we would most likely believe that her husband was guilty (until we looked at the evidence). Therefore, the greatest prior probability (before any evidence of the case is considered) is that William Wallace was guilty.

Here some facts from academic reports:

- Female homicide victims are most likely to be killed by someone they knew (approx 78%), with around 47% of female victims being killed by a partner or ex-partner.

- Intimate partner homicide affects women more than men, in many countries a third to a half of the homicides of women are committed by intimate partners.

If we ignore the theory that Parry was intimate with Julia Wallace, it seems reasonable to conclude that the prior probability that her husband killed her is 0.5. This will be far greater than a platonic acquaintance (estimated at about 0.35, and a stranger at about 0.15). So Wallace starts as the leading suspect, just as you said.

You could then state that even if the overall evidence points slightly more towards William Wallace being guilty, it is not strong enough to overcome the difference in prior probabilities. Therefore, it is rational to believe William Wallace killed his wife over the other possible verdicts.

I have been mulling this reconstructed argument for a few days. I guess the issues would be:

- We do not know the relationships between all those involved (see an earlier post). If Parry was doted on like a son by childless Julia (a conjecture), the relationship becomes more intimate, whether or not there is any physicality.

- The likelihood of Intimate Partner Homicide decreases with age. It is far more likely in younger couples (ages >30).

Both of these factors would tend to decrease prior probability that it was the husband in this case. So I'm still mulling.

In short, you argument is good one. Perhaps the best case I've seen made against Wallace (with some interpretation of my own).

AmericanSherlock, would this be a fair reconstruction and evaluation of your position?

Antony,

That's a very good summary of my position. A loosely parallel analogy to think about : Imagine you and your girlfriend of 2 years have a vacation planned. You do not live together; she lives across town with her mother. She cancels it at the last moment because she says her mother has just died. The odds that her mother died on that particular day right before the vacation by themselves would be quite low, but you determine that the odds that your girlfriend is lying are lower. Therefore, the odds her mother died that day are (significantly) >50 percent by your subjective judgement. In other words, if there are only 2 options, and you deem Option B to be more improbable than Option A, then Option A is by definition the most likely.

My belief is whatever problems there are with the idea that Wallace was guilty and acted alone (timing, motive, all the other evidence which could be interpreted in 2 ways etc.), there are more profound and serious problems with any alternative explanation. This is to the extent, that I believe all the other permutations combined, including Wallace as guilty in the role of a mastermind, are less likely than the probability that Wallace acted alone. I believe Wallace as the sole guilty man to a high confidence, around 95 percent I would say.

The 50 percent stat about domestic murders is a great one, you then add some interesting facts which could mitigate that a bit (The Wallace's age, Julia's unknown relationship with Parry), I think that is greatly outweighed by the nature of the case and all the evidence against Wallace. Perhaps evidence is the wrong word, all we have is "supporting ideas" with this crime. I think what many of the writers who have intimated that this case is "impossible" or some variation of that "Wallace must have been guilty, but he couldn't have done it" etc etc. were getting at the fact that intuition so clearly points towards Wallace's guilt, but for the reasons of timing, lack of motive, the way the evidence could be interpreted in 2 ways etc, it seemed hard to say or even impossible that Wallace was guilty, which flies in the face of all the reasons it seems he has to be. My belief is that none of the reasons that supposedly make it impossible or very difficultfor him to have committed the crime are valid enough or come close to the reasons that point towards his guilt. As we both agreed, the timing, while tight and perhaps improbable, still allowed Wallace to have done it. That was the important take-away to me; I think if one disagrees with that then I understand thinking he's innocent, at least of the actual murder. If it becomes possible that he could have done it in that time frame, then any improbabilities are greatly outweighed by the improbabilities of someone else (or a conspiracy) being responsible. Therefore, I believe in Wallace's sole guilt to be most likely, because one of those options has to be true.

Of course, one could argue that Wallace being solely guilty is the most likely, but still less than 50 percent (your verdict reckoner has Parry guilty alone as most likely but it's 40 something percent). Obviously, this makes sense with multiple options. My belief happens to be that Wallace was very likely guilty and acted alone to a significantly greater than 50 percent probability, but I could understand someone else having a different one; I find your scenario plausible and as good as mine objectively speaking.

I think most of the early writers and jury's intuition was correct, but the jury was wrong to convict and the appeal court was right because it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There is still some small doubt in my mind. Not having the murder weapon was a major problem for the prosecution imo.

I found reconstructing the other scenarios helpful, they made me sway a bit and "dig deeper" mentally to consider the case more deeply, but I am still quite resolute in my belief.

[ColdCaseJury]

The 50 percent stat about domestic murders is a great one, you then add some interesting facts which could mitigate that a bit (The Wallace's age, Julia's unknown relationship with Parry), I think that is greatly outweighed by the nature of the case and all the evidence against Wallace.

I agree with much of what you said in your last post, so I'm highlighting the bit I'm less sure about. In fact, I would say that the Pr(Wallace is guilty) decreases from 0.5 - you disagree profoundly here, as you think it rises to 0.95. Your 0.95 is too high, BTW - it basically means you find Wallace guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and should have convicted, if you had been a juror, which you say you would not have done.

This does not mean your argument is wrong, however, because if the probability falls only to 0.45 and the next best theory is at 0.35, then clearly it is rational to believe Wallace is guilty. This is how I am interpreting the argument. Of course, if it rises above 0.5 then it must be your verdict (given that the burden is which of the four potential verdicts is the most likely), if it is to be rationally held.

As an example of how evidence impacts the prior probability, take the factor about Wallace having time to make the call and reach the Chess Club in time (I think this is discussed in Part Six of my book). While I contend it is possible that Wallace took a bus (enabling him to do both), I think it is far more probable that he took the tram he said he did because it allows more time (late trams, longer tram stops) and still arrive at the Chess Club on time. So, for me, this factor would lower the 0.5 probability. Of course, other factors would higher or lower it again. There is one other dimension that would need to be taken into account - the weighting (or importance) of each factor, but I will let that pass for now.

My own view - again different to yours - is that all the final probabilities are below 0.50. In this respect, I think the current result of the Cold Case Jury is correct!