Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Antony, if WHW wasn't the caller or put someone else up to it, then more bad luck for him. Because somebody else could have easily tried to get in contact with him on 1 of the several occasions he was not at the chess club and missed meetings. But the 1 time he shows up less than a half hour later to perfectly receive the message from Beattie is the only 1 time the caller rings. I don't buy Qualtrough stalking Wallace repeatedly each week as an explanation for this, assuming he actually was stalking Wallace, even if he didn't see Wallace on the way on a previous week...why not call the chess club and see if his message can be relayed to Wallace...what is there to lose?

Somehow the caller just knew the perfect night and time to call so everything went just according to plan...

[RodCrosby]

The difficulty I have with Parry's contribution being relatively trivial, such as picking someone up after a robbery, is why would an accomplice be willing to share the proceeds of the robbery with him in such circumstances? In fact, why would they need a driver at all? Surely this wasn't essential?

Hence, the person committing the robbery would be taking all the risks-and there was never going to be a king's ransom to share, as Parry must have known. In contrast, as you suggest Parry's role in such a scheme would be trivial and, of course, he had the opportunity to accumulate alibis to protect himself, thereby further minimizing any risks to himself. There is the Qualtrough call of course, but again I don't see why an accomplice would have needed him for that purpose as he could just as easily have made the call himself.

From everything we know about Parry, he seems to have had effortless powers of manipulation and domination, and superior intelligence.

So he concocts the devilish Qualtrough plan, and recruits some malleable chump to be his instrument of robbery.
Of course, he has to meet the guy immediately after the robbery, to ensure there's no last-minute double-cross. And he has probably convinced the guy that leaving by car is the safest method of escape. "I'll get rid of the gloves for you, and take you straight home."

[John G]

Antony, if WHW wasn't the caller or put someone else up to it, then more bad luck for him. Because somebody else could have easily tried to get in contact with him on 1 of the several occasions he was not at the chess club and missed meetings. But the 1 time he shows up less than a half hour later to perfectly receive the message from Beattie is the only 1 time the caller rings. I don't buy Qualtrough stalking Wallace repeatedly each week as an explanation for this, assuming he actually was stalking Wallace, even if he didn't see Wallace on the way on a previous week...why not call the chess club and see if his message can be relayed to Wallace...what is there to lose?

Somehow the caller just knew the perfect night and time to call so everything went just according to plan...

I would agree that if Qualtrough wasn't Wallace then he got a little bit lucky. And I also think it unlikely that he would have been stalking Wallace, possibly for several weeks.

Nonetheless, Wallace was back at work, having just recovered from the flu, and he was down to play in a competition match on the night in question. Moreover, if he didn't arrive by 7:45, when his match would have been due to commence, penalties would have been imposed. It would therefore be reasonable for a hoaxer to assume it very likely that Wallace would not only attend, but attend on time.

And would it be disastrous, from the hoaxer's perspective, if Wallace didn't attend? Surely he could have just modified his plans, by say postponing the theft and either sending Wallace a message by some other means, i.e. a letter, or via the chess club on another date.

[John G]

From everything we know about Parry, he seems to have had effortless powers of manipulation and domination, and superior intelligence.

So he concocts the devilish Qualtrough plan, and recruits some malleable chump to be his instrument of robbery.
Of course, he has to meet the guy immediately after the robbery, to ensure there's no last-minute double-cross. And he has probably convinced the guy that leaving by car is the safest method of escape. "I'll get rid of the gloves for you, and take you straight home."

Yes, that makes sense. However, would Parry have trusted such a relatively dim-Witted accomplice to successfully commit the theft by means of trickery/diversion?

Then there's the fact that there was no signs of forced entry coupled with William's claim that Julia would only admit someone she knew. That would drastically reduce the number of possible accomplices that Parry could have selected from.

And I find Anthony's point concerning how much insurance money could have been on the premises on a good day-£130-more and more intriguing. As I noted in an earlier post, only £4 insurance money was actually taken, meaning that this was probably just about the worst day to have chosen for a robbery. And considering the fact that Parry had previously undertaken William's round, and possibly new that he'd only just returned to work from a bout of flu, he must surely have known this.

And as I also noted, it creates problems from the perspective of William staging a robbery: In such circumstances, why would he draw attention to the fact that £5 remained untouched in an upstairs bedroom, a sum greater than the amount of insurance money taken?

Another difficulty with any robbery scenario is: why the need for the elaborate Qualtrough ruse? In other words, why not simply commit the robbery whilst William was at work?

However, as I suggested earlier, for Parry it could have been about more than money; maybe he wanted to humiliate Wallace and possibly hope that he would be blamed or suspected, an objective that wouldn't have worked as well if the money was stolen whilst he was at work.

[ColdCaseJury]

Antony, if WHW wasn't the caller or put someone else up to it, then more bad luck for him. Because somebody else could have easily tried to get in contact with him on 1 of the several occasions he was not at the chess club and missed meetings. But the 1 time he shows up less than a half hour later to perfectly receive the message from Beattie is the only 1 time the caller rings. I don't buy Qualtrough stalking Wallace repeatedly each week as an explanation for this, assuming he actually was stalking Wallace, even if he didn't see Wallace on the way on a previous week...why not call the chess club and see if his message can be relayed to Wallace...what is there to lose?

Somehow the caller just knew the perfect night and time to call so everything went just according to plan...

This is the too-good(or bad)-to-be-true counter that you have done much to promulgate, AS. And very effectively, may I add. Now, I need to understand your point, even if I sound dim. I believe you are saying: Parry would not have staked out Wallace. He would have simply called the chess club at anytime, asking for the message to be relayed (to Wallace).

If my understanding of your position is correct, the answer is timing. Parry phones, say, on the 5th January, leaving the message. What date does he say Wallace should meet him? January 6th? Well, Wallace turns up on the 19th, and the message is redundant. If I have understood you correctly, it reminds me of a point Hemmerde (prosecution) said at the trial. Why phone? The phone box was only 400 yards from Wallace's house? Why not pop round and deliver a note? This conflates what a genuine Qualtrough would do versus an insidious Qualtrough (e.g. Parry).

There was never a genuine Qualtrough; this is one thing we all agree on.

[John G]

This is the too-good(or bad)-to-be-true counter that you have done much to promulgate, AS. And very effectively, may I add. Now, I need to understand your point, even if I sound dim. I believe you are saying: Parry would not have staked out Wallace. He would have simply called the chess club at anytime, asking for the message to be relayed (to Wallace).

If my understanding of your position is correct, the answer is timing. Parry phones, say, on the 5th January, leaving the message. What date does he say Wallace should meet him? January 6th? Well, Wallace turns up on the 19th, and the message is redundant. If I have understood you correctly, it reminds me of a point Hemmerde (prosecution) said at the trial. Why phone? The phone box was only 400 yards from Wallace's house? Why not pop round and deliver a note? This conflates what a genuine Qualtrough would do versus an insidious Qualtrough (e.g. Parry).

There was never a genuine Qualtrough; this is one thing we all agree on.

Hi CCJ,

But if he delivered a note by hand might he not have been seen, i.e. by a neighbour? Of course, he could have posted a letter, or even phoned the insurance company. However, I would have thought that contacting the chess club on that particular night would have been the most effective way of ensuring that he quickly got the message.

Incidentally, do you consider it significant that Wallace had just recovered from a bout of flu? For instance, it could be argued that a potential robber would have good reason to delay striking until this time-because there would be no insurance money whilst Wallace was away from work-and the subsequent chess match presented the ideal opportunity to put his plan in motion.

[RodCrosby]

As I suspected, John Parkes died in 1982, just eleven months after his hospital-bed interview. [Probate record]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qbhuxf4lycnw5zy/Parkes1982.png?dl=0

He was aged 75, having been born on 5th May 1906.

[RodCrosby]

Parry's probate record. Interesting that he was only half as wealthy as Parkes... The wages of sin, and all that?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lcp1g4pla9rpzu1/Parry1980.png?dl=0

Mind you his cottage looks quite idyllic. You could have rented it quite economically at some point in the recent past. Presumably one pic is of the bedroom where he was found dead in bed...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-12840723.html

More pics from a recent sale of the property...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-34101418.html

Interesting how Parry was on the move quite frequently. I have him in Stockport in 1939, then London, before finally ending up in the "Land of My Fathers" in the 1970s.

I don't think he ever returned to Liverpool, stopped calling himself "Gordon" and became known as "Dick".

[AmericanSherlock]

This is the too-good(or bad)-to-be-true counter that you have done much to promulgate, AS. And very effectively, may I add. Now, I need to understand your point, even if I sound dim. I believe you are saying: Parry would not have staked out Wallace. He would have simply called the chess club at anytime, asking for the message to be relayed (to Wallace).

If my understanding of your position is correct, the answer is timing. Parry phones, say, on the 5th January, leaving the message. What date does he say Wallace should meet him? January 6th? Well, Wallace turns up on the 19th, and the message is redundant. If I have understood you correctly, it reminds me of a point Hemmerde (prosecution) said at the trial. Why phone? The phone box was only 400 yards from Wallace's house? Why not pop round and deliver a note? This conflates what a genuine Qualtrough would do versus an insidious Qualtrough (e.g. Parry).

There was never a genuine Qualtrough; this is one thing we all agree on.

Hi Antony, an attempt to clarify:

The caller could have theoretically called any one of the previous weeks when Wallace did not show up to the chess club and their plan would not have run smoothly. But the 1 and only time he calls out of weeks and weeks of possible chess club meetings where Wallace did not show, is the 1 time that Wallace shows up on schedule to receive the message and unwittingly, if he truly was innocent, puts the plan into motion.


John makes 2 good points, if Qualtrough knew Wallace was sick for weeks, maybe he had good reason to not have tried until he was well, although I don't think it is clear Wallace was sick for that long.

Also, it may not be a disaster if Qualtrough reached Beattie but the plan could not be put into motion...but we know the caller did not reach anyone from the chess club before the night of January 19th.

So the caller picked not only the perfect day of the week in his 1 and only attempt at it and also the perfect time to call (a time that also left Wallace in the frame for making the call), but he picked the correct night, one in which Wallace actually attended and received the message as planned.

[RodCrosby]

AS, what if you were watching the tram stops? You'd only have to watch them for about half an hour on each appointed day to know whether he was [most likely] heading for the Chess Club.

If you see him, it's "Green for Go" and you make the call.

[John G]

I've been reconsidering Lily Hall's evidence and I wonder if it's possible that she could have been an attention seeker, although I accept that on the face of it such a scenario seems implausible.

Thu, the strongest part of her evidence is the timing of the alleged sighting of Wallace conversing with another man at Richmond Park: 8:40 is exactly the time you would have expected Wallace to have been at that location based upon his eventual return home at 8:45.

However, three things strike me as odd. Firstly, she was totally convinced about her identification of Wallace, despite admitting that she only knew him by sight and, as Anthony points out in his book, it was a "dark, moonless night."

Secondly, she didn't come forward for several days, although she surely must have realized how crucial her evidence was. And presumably in the intervening period she could have read details of the murder in the newspapers.

Thirdly, her evidence implies that her last sighting of the men, whilst they were parting company, occurred whilst she was looking over her shoulder. Why would she do this? It strikes me as a distinctly odd thing to do, bearing in mind there was no obvious reason why she needed to be so inquisitive, i.e. as the incident she witnessed couldn't have appeared to be out of the ordinary.

[AmericanSherlock]

I've been reconsidering Lily Hall's evidence and I wonder if it's possible that she could have been an attention seeker, although I accept that on the face of it such a scenario seems implausible.

Thu, the strongest part of her evidence is the timing of the alleged sighting of Wallace conversing with another man at Richmond Park: 8:40 is exactly the time you would have expected Wallace to have been at that location based upon his eventual return home at 8:45.

However, three things strike me as odd. Firstly, she was totally convinced about her identification of Wallace, despite admitting that she only knew him by sight and, as Anthony points out in his book, it was a "dark, moonless night."

Secondly, she didn't come forward for several days, although she surely must have realized how crucial her evidence was. And presumably in the intervening period she could have read details of the murder in the newspapers.

Thirdly, her evidence implies that her last sighting of the men, whilst they were parting company, occurred whilst she was looking over her shoulder. Why would she do this? It strikes me as a distinctly odd thing to do, bearing in mind there was no obvious reason why she needed to be so inquisitive, i.e. as the incident she witnessed couldn't have appeared to be out of the ordinary.

I think she either made it up, was mistaken, or some combination of both. She may have known the timing from the new reports, especially since she came forward several days later, as you said.

[AmericanSherlock]

AS, what if you were watching the tram stops? You'd only have to watch them for about half an hour on each appointed day to know whether he was [most likely] heading for the Chess Club.

If you see him, it's "Green for Go" and you make the call.

I find it implausible that they waited and watched several weeks in a row, without abandoning the plan

[RodCrosby]

I think Murphy overcooks his theory about the notice board.

Remember, according to the board, Wallace didn't turn up on the 19th January either!

But of course he did. It was Chandler who failed to turn up, so Wallace played McCartney instead...

Note also that there has been no update to the outcome of the Wallace-McCartney match, which should originally have been played on 24th November - at least by the time the Police took their exhibit photo.

This club was a third-rate, informal affair held in the basement of a dreary cafe, and Murphy wrongly attaches the paper notice with the significance and accuracy of an Olympic scoreboard.

We cannot be certain who turned up when for what during the course of the entire tournament merely from looking at the board. Neither could anyone else.

Therefore it's mostly a red herring.

Remember the first match was listed for 10th November. The idea of the Qualtrough plan may not have struck Parry immediately. Maybe not for a week or so.

Then there's a lot of thinking and planning. Then maybe a "dry run". Wallace may have actually turned up on one of the days that the board "shows" he didn't...

Then Wallace has a "bye" on the 15th December, in any case.
Then a break for Christmas...

Now we're running out of dates. The tournament is past the half-way point. Time to get serious.

OK, 5th January it is then. But perhaps Wallace really is a no-show that night.
Drat! We've only got two more real chances.
And on 19th January? Bingo!

So perhaps in reality they may have loitered near the tram stops on just three occasions, over the course of about six weeks. Hardly a ball-ache, considering the potential prize.

One dry run, one no-show, and then "success".

[AmericanSherlock]

Rod you say

"We cannot be certain who turned up when for what during the course of the entire tournament merely from looking at the board. Neither could anyone else.

Therefore it's mostly a red herring."

But then this goes against the entire idea that this notice was what created the idea in Parry's mind and that that is what he relied on to plan the robbery in the 1st place.