Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

please excuse any errors writing on phone..

If there are 4 scenarios and scenario 1 is 45 percent likely, and the other 3 are 55 percent combined, with all less than 45 individually, the scenario 1 has a plurality. That means that if you have to pick any one option , than scenario 1 is the most likely of the 4. But it isn't rational to think scenario 1 is right, it's still more likely that 1 of the other 3 is right because they represent 55 percent of the likelihood cumulatively. I'm familiar with this concept in sports gambling. The most likely to win in a tennis tournament for instance usually has implied odds of less than 50 percent...it is more likely that "the field" wins, even if any 1 player from the field is a worse bet than the favorite. An "odds on" favorite would be one that is not only the favorite but actually likely to win, not just most likely to win.

As far as reasonable doubt, I typically consider it at 98 or even 99 percent. Something like the OJ Simpson case would be beyond reasonable doubt. A pre DNA example would be Lizzie Borden.

[ColdCaseJury]

please excuse any errors writing on phone..

If there are 4 scenarios and scenario 1 is 45 percent likely, and the other 3 are 55 percent combined, with all less than 45 individually, the scenario 1 has a plurality. That means that if you have to pick any one option , than scenario 1 is the most likely of the 4. But it isn't rational to think scenario 1 is right, it's still more likely that 1 of the other 3 is right because they represent 55 percent of the likelihood cumulatively. I'm familiar with this concept in sports gambling. The most likely to win in a tennis tournament for instance usually has implied odds of less than 50 percent...it is more likely that "the field" wins, even if any 1 player from the field is a worse bet than the favorite. An "odds on" favorite would be one that is not only the favorite but actually likely to win, not just most likely to win.

As far as reasonable doubt, I typically consider it at 98 or even 99 percent. Something like the OJ Simpson case would be beyond reasonable doubt. A pre DNA example would be Lizzie Borden.

Hi, yes I agree. The Cold Case Jury is asked to pick the most likely verdict among the set provided, not back a cumulative option.

I was actually expecting your second point - about reasonable doubt. The problem is most people cannot genuinely proportion belief with such granularity. If I assign a 9/10 strength to a belief (and many people would struggle to quantify even this roughly), I would say it is beyond reasonable doubt for me. It would certainly be remarkable for someone to say: "That evidence provides the 3% difference that makes this verdict beyond reasonable doubt for me"!

Are you familiar with the Charles Bravo case? It is not as evidence-rich as the Wallace case, but it is a mysterious poisoning which can be interpreted in different ways. It is the subject of my first book Poisoning at the Priory. I would love to get your perspective on the case, if your interested (you should start a new thread, if you do).

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi, yes I agree. The Cold Case Jury is asked to pick the most likely verdict among the set provided, not back a cumulative option.

I was actually expecting your second point - about reasonable doubt. The problem is most people cannot genuinely proportion belief with such granularity. If I assign a 9/10 strength to a belief (and many people would struggle to quantify even this roughly), I would say it is beyond reasonable doubt for me. It would certainly be remarkable for someone to say: "That evidence provides the 3% difference that makes this verdict beyond reasonable doubt for me"!

Are you familiar with the Charles Bravo case? It is not as evidence-rich as the Wallace case, but it is a mysterious poisoning which can be interpreted in different ways. It is the subject of my first book Poisoning at the Priory. I would love to get your perspective on the case, if your interested (you should start a new thread, if you do).

I will purchase the book when I'm back home tomorrow and give it a good read thru. I'm unfamiliar with the case, but the synopsis intrigues me. I really enjoy your writing style, have you ever thought of writing a full length Ripper book?

So, if it were distilled down to 2 options Wallace being guilty (in any capacity either murderer or planner) or not (totally innocent), which one do you pick? (assuming guilty due to the post-script, but maybe the question being framed this way could alter your answer)

I enjoy studying other mysteries and domestic cases (Sam Sheppard is a good one that is quite debatable). However, there is something about the setting, locale, and dramatis personae involved in the Wallace case that is just unrivaled. So atmospheric, like a Dickens novel. I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

[NickB]

Isn’t what makes this mystery so interesting the Qualtrough phone call and (if Wallace is innocent) its assumed causal connection to the murder?

I can’t help thinking that the ‘robbery gone wrong’ solution is the least explored because it is the most boring.

[AmericanSherlock]

Isn’t what makes this mystery so interesting the Qualtrough phone call and (if Wallace is innocent) its assumed causal connection to the murder?

I can’t help thinking that the ‘robbery gone wrong’ solution is the least explored because it is the most boring.

Nick, I agree part of the intrigue of the case is due to the idea of the call being a planned murder.

I think the planned robbery is considered quite a bit though. Many times, it's suggested if Parry is thought of as guilty. Maybe even most scenarios involving him. The Man From the Pru movie (which can be found on youtube) appears to hint at a planned murder with Parry being guilty,,,again not probable in my view. It means he would be willing to kill Julia over a squabble with Wallace, and with the likely goal of framing Wallace.

It would just seem an insane revenge plan to be a planned murder and not make a lot of sense in my opinion with Parry or somebody (ies) else behind it. Yet, in my opinion, the call is clearly to set up a murder. That is exactly why I think Wallace was guilty,

The reason why I think the call was to set up a murder is I don't get why:

A robber would need to get Julia out of the way too. Maybe he figured she was old and feeble and it would be easy, but then the core problem is still, why not just go when Wallace was at the chess club to receive the call? Maybe you can explain that away, but then also how would a robber, if he didn't expect a confrontation and possible violence, think he would get away with it? It appeared to be someone Julia knew. How could he steal money, leave, and then have Wallace return, tell Julia of his fruitless journey. She would piece two and two together...anyone who wasn't totally senile, which she wasn't, would.Maybe you could argue it was someone she knew that she didn't want Wallace to know the extent of their relationship and this person felt they could get away with it...I don't know. But if that person, let's say Parry, had something on her to that extent...no need for this risky, elaborate plan...just rob her. Maybe you could argue the plan was to rob, but with the willingness to engage in a violent confrontation if needed. Again though, why go to all this trouble to rob a particular couple; there is clearly a personal element to it.

That's why the possibility of a prank is appealing, which Wallace then seizes the opportunity, as P.D. James suggests. However, I can't believe that Wallace would be able to plan the murder in less than a day. Also, Wallace could have a fixed point alibi to be somewhere and try to make the time frame implausible the night before at the chess club, or any time he could be seen somewhere. The additional part of the alibi that the call provides is that Wallace now has a mysterious somebody else to blame/have as a suspect. But that only works if he knows the call is a prank, which I don't see how he would. Otherwise the alibi is no better than any other, if he were to really meet up with Qualtrough, because that would take Qualtrough out as a suspect. How would he know the call is a prank? Why would he think all of a sudden this is the perfect opportunity to murder? And then of course, him planning it overnight. Not likely imo.

So that's why I come back to the call being a planned murder and that's why I think Wallace is guilty. Whether he acted alone or not is another question.

[Pcdunn]

I am curious about the raincoat Mrs Wallace was lying on. How did that happen? Was she made unconscious first and moved onto it? Seems probable, but why? A burglar isn't going to worry about protecting the rug or carpet, is he? The homeowner, on the other hand...

Always seemed the oddest piece of evidence about the case, to me.

[caz]

Hi All,

If an outsider planned this without Wallace's knowledge, hoping to frame him for the crime, it would have been no good if either the phone call or the ruse which got Wallace out of the house had left him with a genuine cast-iron alibi which would have eliminated him and forced the police to concentrate on other potential suspects.

This is why, on balance, I have to go with Wallace being guilty. His alibi never could have been as watertight as he would have liked - if he carried out the murder. And it wasn't watertight - quite.

Love,

Caz
X

[sdreid]

Regarding Bravo, I always thought Mrs. Cox was the most likely culprit although, unlike Wallace, I would have her at under 50%. The Bravo Case also has the added possibilities of suicide, accident and even manslaughter; none of which exist in the Wallace Case.

[NickB]

If Wallace planned it so carefully, why did he not include a forced entry?

Anyway, I think I’ve found the instrument – it was an umbrella!

‘The police are anxious to obtain identification of a man who on the night of the crime was driven from a garage near Wolverton Street to Kingsley Road and disappeared in the direction of Princes Park. “Drive me quickly, I am in a hurry,” he told the driver to whom he also exclaimed: “You will not kill me will you?” The man is said to be about five feet eleven inches in height with hair turning grey. He was of thin build with sharp features. He was wearing a dark overcoat and carried an umbrella.’

[Yorkshire Post, 26-Jan-31]

[AmericanSherlock]

If Wallace planned it so carefully, why did he not include a forced entry?

Anyway, I think I’ve found the instrument – it was an umbrella!

‘The police are anxious to obtain identification of a man who on the night of the crime was driven from a garage near Wolverton Street to Kingsley Road and disappeared in the direction of Princes Park. “Drive me quickly, I am in a hurry,” he told the driver to whom he also exclaimed: “You will not kill me will you?” The man is said to be about five feet eleven inches in height with hair turning grey. He was of thin build with sharp features. He was wearing a dark overcoat and carried an umbrella.’

[Yorkshire Post, 26-Jan-31]

That article is a great find, Nick! However, I doubt that an umbrella would be capable of the damage done.

Apparently 70 people made false confessions to the murder. This isn't a confession even, but my point is I wouldn't put too much stock in it. It is very interesting, though.

I still think that because either the murderer was Wallace or was someone Julia knew and let in, that it would be very hard if the murderer wasn't Wallace to have made the phone call and reasonably expect to rob the place and get away with it. It seems like a very poor, and convoluted robbery plan with much better options available.

It seems clear to me the call was NOT to set up a robbery. It was either a murder plot or a prank. So either Wallace made the call and murdered his wife, was the mastermind behind the plot to murder his wife, or Parry made the call as a prank, and Wallace seized the opportunity to murder his wife.

The fact that the neighbors heard the milk boy come but no one else is an additional supporting idea and would point to Wallace acting alone.

I fail to see a reasonable scenario where Wallace isn't implicated in some way.

[ColdCaseJury]

I fail to see a reasonable scenario where Wallace isn't implicated in some way.

I have to agree. Put another way, of the major theories advanced to solve the case (there are really four, in my view), three involve Wallace. Although it would be fallacious to state that all three have equal probability, I believe the three combined outweigh the one theory where Wallace is not involved (i.e. Parry alone killed Julia Wallace). Interestingly, the current verdict of the Cold Case Jury is consistent with this view.

Gordon Parry murdered Julia Wallace........................................... .42
William Wallace alone murdered his wife........................................24
Wallace masterminded a plan that involved others killing his wife.......24
Wallace killed his wife after Parry made a prank call........................10

58% of Cold Case Jurors think Wallace was involved in the murder. Although AmericanSherlock would have this probability far higher, it still bears out his point.

BTW, AmericanSherlock, this is another reason why, I suggest, your 95% confidence in Wallace's guilt is a little high - it means all the other theories put together amount to 5%. I would say that the probability that Gordon Parry was the murderer is greater than 5%. I cannot criticize your argument or conclusion (they are rationally held) but I think your confidence level is too high.

[AmericanSherlock]

I have to agree. Put another way, of the major theories advanced to solve the case (there are really four, in my view), three involve Wallace. Although it would be fallacious to state that all three have equal probability, I believe the three combined outweigh the one theory where Wallace is not involved (i.e. Parry alone killed Julia Wallace). Interestingly, the current verdict of the Cold Case Jury is consistent with this view.

Gordon Parry murdered Julia Wallace........................................... .42
William Wallace alone murdered his wife........................................24
Wallace masterminded a plan that involved others killing his wife.......24
Wallace killed his wife after Parry made a prank call........................10

58% of Cold Case Jurors think Wallace was involved in the murder. Although AmericanSherlock would have this probability far higher, it still bears out his point.

BTW, AmericanSherlock, this is another reason why, I suggest, your 95% confidence in Wallace's guilt is a little high - it means all the other theories put together amount to 5%. I would say that the probability that Gordon Parry was the murderer is greater than 5%. I cannot criticize your argument or conclusion (they are rationally held) but I think your confidence level is too high.

There is a difference between the percentage of people that hold a given position, and the level of confidence each individual has in the position he holds. There's no way to know to what level of confidence people have based on a poll which asks to vote for the most likely scenario, unless the question of "how sure are you?" was asked separately.

I think it's extremely unlikely Gordon Parry was the murderer.

I've just purchased your book Poisoning at the Priory and am enjoying it as we speak.

[ColdCaseJury]

There is a difference between the percentage of people that hold a given position, and the level of confidence each individual has in the position he holds.

I accept that. But I still think 0.95 probability is far too high.

[AmericanSherlock]

I accept that. But I still think 0.95 probability is far too high.

I think the case has all the hallmarks of a domestic murder. Perhaps a compromise would be to say that 95 percent combines all 3 theories where Wallace is guilty in some capacity (with Wallace acting alone combining a significant majority of that)

Still, you said that is too much, because you think the odds of Gordon Parry being guilty are more than 5 percent. I can't agree with that; consider these points against Parry acting alone:

The fact that if Qualtrough was Parry, he was implicating himself if a robbery was the goal by showing up on the same night, at the same time, Wallace was on a fruitless journey and stealing money. It would be so much easier and make so much more sense to visit Julia when Wallace was thought to be out as he had seemingly done in the past without the need for the phone call. The extra motivation for getting back at Wallace would be completely outweighed by how suspicious and obvious it would be for Parry to arrive, either ask to borrow or steal money, and leave, later having Wallace to have returned on a wild goose chance. Also, it was 18 months after his having left the Pru. I could still see the revenge "prank" aspect of it as possible, but no more, which would implicate the "opportunistic Wallace" theory.

Otherwise, the whole plan makes no sense as a robbery one; you agreed with me that you think whoever Qualtrough was, he was either the murderer or part of the murder plot. And Parry plotting to murder Julia makes absolutely no sense to me. The Man from the Pru movie seems to be suggesting that Parry murdered her to get at Wallace and then obviously tried to frame him. That is beyond what I can believe, but I think that is what is required to think if you believe Parry alone to be guilty.

Let's cast disbelief or motive aside and assume that both Wallace and Parry absolutely had the capacity to be deviously evil and put nothing past either one.

Still, I ask you, who is more likely to have masterminded the plot to drag Wallace out of the house right before his wife was murdered to a fake address to meet a non existent man?

Is it Parry, a 22 year old low level criminal who seemed far from any sort of mastermind who seemed more interested at obtaining money than elaborate murder plots?

Or is it Wallace an old, bitter Stoic over thinking the perfect murder by creating a detailed and bizarre alibi for himself, taking more risks than Parry would, in the effort to kill his wife and achieve an intellectual satisfaction?

Then look Wallace's suspicious seeming alibi crafting on the journey. I understand asking 1 or 2 people when lost and frustrated, but that many and to that level of desperation. You could argue he was desperate because he felt a commission slipping out of his hands; then why not consult a map beforehand? We know what time he left his house approximately and when he arrived at the stop; if he was innocent, he was allowing a very tight window to be on time for Qualtrough, without even knowing where the address was. One then wonders why he didn't consult a map beforehand, those who say they haven't either in similar circumstances or casually assumed they'd find it, should realize this doesn't tally with Wallace's desperation and the fact that if he was genuine in his story, was expecting to have a business appointment shortly with only a vague idea of where he was going.


And also, I just can't discount the alibi Parry had from Olivia Brine compared to Wallace's lack of one.

I agree with you that there is something about this case we do not know that might change significantly how we think about it. I do not think it is out of the realm of possibility that Parry knew what happened, without being guilty of the actual murder, involved in the plot, or without even having made the call as a prank.

If I was going to hypothetically view Parry as guilty, a possible scenario to entertain would be Julia being in on the plot to lure Wallace out (to be alone with Parry (a bit risque?) and something going wrong once he arrives. Him asking for money and her refusing like in your scenario, her threatening to reveal aspects of their relationship etc... This still has problems that have been mentioned before, if Parry knew Julia a bit more than originally thought (either way between a romantic element or only a motherly type of coddling as you suggest in your scenario), he would have been at the house before as he claimed to Goodman in the 60's, and have opportunities to go there at other times, and there would be little need for the whole complicated ruse.

Again, I don't rule out a twist in this case like that being possible. Because I do have the feeling there is something that we don't know that changes the way this case looks in a major way. But, I still think it is way more likely Wallace was guilty than not, and very unlikely that Parry was alone guilty.

[ColdCaseJury]

Perhaps a compromise would be to say that 95 percent combines all 3 theories where Wallace is guilty in some capacity (with Wallace acting alone combining a significant majority of that).

I think there is far greater justification and warrant for holding that there is 95% probability of Wallace being involved (i.e. 3 theories combined), although I might still not place it that high. Further, I think you are saying: of the four major theories, the combined probability is 95%.

As an aside, Cold Case Jurors might be selecting Parry as a not-Wallace option. There is little evidence to point to someone else (and hence really difficult for me to create a scenario), but that may be because the evidence we have is incomplete.

I sense I'm more sanguine about my views on the case. I don't feel so strongly about one verdict or the other. If the murderer was to step forward from the mists of history, and it was Wallace (alone or collaborating) it would make sense, but I would not be shocked if it was Parry or even someone we have never heard of!

With Cold Case Jury, I am interested in hearing what others think, especially when the view is as interesting and well argued as yours. As you know, I present the key evidence and major theories side by side and as impartially as possible - this is rarely done in most true crime books (the author often has an angle, especially to arrive at a new "solution").

Changing the subject from probabilities to testimony. Have you read the transcript (abridged or full) of Wallace's court testimony?