Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

Nope. It only goes against Murphy's off-the-wall idea that anyone could perform reliable statistical analysis from looking at the board.

The board still was a template, for a watch and wait plan, and as I've demonstrated, that might have involved only a couple of actual dates where Parry and friend had to stake out Wallace.

[AmericanSherlock]

Nope. It only goes against Murphy's off-the-wall idea that anyone could perform reliable statistical analysis from looking at the board.

The board still was a template, for a watch and wait plan, and as I've demonstrated, that might have involved only a couple of actual dates where Parry and friend had to stake out Wallace.

It would make perfect sense to me that one could deduce Wallace's odds of showing up in part by the fact that he had missed several previous meetings. Regardless of how accurate this was, that is what an observer would see.

What's more, in your scenario, if they had tried to stalk the route previously and didn't see Wallace, that would be effectively equivalent to seeing he didn't show up on the chess board bulletin---in either case a potential caller would know Wallace was unreliable, unless they luckily decided to enact their plan for the 1st time on January 19th.

[RodCrosby]

It would make perfect sense to me that one could deduce Wallace's odds of showing up in part by the fact that he had missed several previous meetings. Regardless of how accurate this was, that is what an observer would see.

What's more, in your scenario, if they had tried to stalk the route previously and didn't see Wallace, that would be effectively equivalent to seeing he didn't show up on the chess board bulletin---in either case a potential caller would know Wallace was unreliable, unless they luckily decided to enact their plan for the 1st time on January 19th.

Take a look at 5th January. According to the "board", only one person showed up - Ellis (I bet you thought it was McCart##ney ) and seemingly won without his partner managing to register a loss.

At least 16 days later [the earliest the Police photo could have been taken] no-one had bothered to update the board with the true state of affairs - whatever that was...

Who on earth could possibly make head-nor-tail of these hieroglyphics, or even care to try?

Only Murphy - probably after staring at it for years - came out with his ludicrous "gotcha" that somehow "proved" it could only be Wallace who killed his wife...

The problem with this case is that it has been over-analysed in quite unrealistic - even ridiculous - ways, no doubt off the back of faraway authors who swooned over its "unsolvability" way back in the 1930s.

Those authors did not have all the facts we now have and - to be honest - were not always even in command of the facts they did have. Some crazy woman, whose name escapes me for the moment, once wrote that Wallace had obviously disposed of the murder weapon in the River Mersey !

This crime is eminently solvable. It might help to forget everything we have read, and just consider the facts.

[AmericanSherlock]

Take a look at 5th January. According to the "board", only one person showed up - Ellis (I bet you thought it was McCart##ney ) and seemingly won without his partner managing to register a loss.

At least 16 days later [the earliest the Police photo could have been taken] no-one had bothered to update the board with the true state of affairs - whatever that was...

Who on earth could possibly make head-nor-tail of these hieroglyphics, or even care to try?

Only Murphy - probably after staring at it for years - came out with his ludicrous "gotcha" that somehow "proved" it could only be Wallace who killed his wife...

The problem with this case is that it has been over-analysed in quite unrealistic - even ridiculous - ways, no doubt off the back of faraway authors who swooned over its "unsolvability" way back in the 1930s.

Those authors did not have all the facts we now have and - to be honest - were not always even in command of the facts they did have. Some crazy woman, whose name escapes me for the moment, once wrote that Wallace had obviously disposed of the murder weapon in the River Mersey !

This crime is eminently solvable. It might help to forget everything we have read, and just consider the facts.

Rod,

It doesn't matter whether the board was accurate or not, what matters is what it would have looked like to a prospective caller. It looks clear that Wallace had missed meetings, and again in your own scenario you place Parry and/or his accomplice trying weeks before "stalking out" the tram waiting for Wallace.

I find that unrealistic, so my point stands that for the 1st time calling, if Qualtrough really wasn't Wallace, he got lucky that that was the night Wallace went to the club to receive the message. In the context of our debate here, you may be right that the chess club bulletin is a red herring, because it doesn't really change the meat of our disagreement.

Murphy gave the chess board as one supporting idea of many; he didn't say it proved Wallace's guilt. I think Murphy and Antony's books are both great in different ways; I don't think Murphy's book was perfect. He is more sure than I am and slightly equivocates some facts that point in other directions. Nevertheless, his book is way better than Goodman's both in logic and more critically, he was simply working with way more information as Goodman did not have access to the complete case files and compounded that mistake by making several factual errors.

What I like about Antony's book is it is a very clear vivisection of the various possible permutations and combinations, and while he tentatively chooses a solution, his mind seems very flexible. Interested to see where he sides in the new version. Whereas Murphy and Goodman are much more steadfast in their belief--in opposite directions. My conviction is between someone like Antony's and Murphy... I think WHW was most likely guilty, but not enough to convict. You seem to be very certain, more than I am but in the opposite direction, that Wallace was not only "not guilty" in a legal sense, but plainly innocent. I also sense close to certainty in your belief of the true culprit "Parry and another", with the "another" being the robber turned murderer. I find your theory elegantly conceived but I do not see a justification for your unwavering belief in it.

As far as the case being "eminently solvable", I don't think so. I believe this case will never be solved. I'm not one of those who likes mysteries to go on just for the sake of it. Nothing would make me happier with regards to this case than to see the true culprit brought to justice--even if in name only. I don't know how this is possible after all this time. Even if you could prove your theory correct (not sure if that's feasible at all), how could you ever find out who Parry's accomplice was? Almost certainly, the true murderer is no living.

[John G]

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".

This board makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I used to play chess, albeit for fun!

I mean, what do all the numbers mean? In fact, if I was to hazard a guess I would say that Wallace played every week -because none of his numbers appear to have been struck through- with the exception of the 15th Dec, where there's an X, whilst conversely, Walsh missed three consecutive weeks from Nov 24 to Dec 15. However, I bet I'm wrong!

We also can't be sure that the perpetrator ever visited the cafe. For instance, the call was made from a phone box just 400 yards from where Wallace lived. It's not therefore a reasonable proposition that the perpetrator was stalking Wallace on that particular night, assuming the caller wasn't Wallace himself of course!

And if the caller was Parry, he possibly knew about the chess matches, and the days they were held, on account of his familiarity with the Wallace's.

[RodCrosby]

Maybe I should have said "was" eminently solvable, if you were expecting an actual conviction. But I still think, as your namesake would say. "Once you eliminate the impossible whatever remains must be the truth". Even without a name, we can certainly detect a shape and a form to this crime and that in itself should bring us a little closer to a name.

Besides, I'm now on the case and all things are possible.

I started with a theory.
I had no idea whether the person or persons even existed.
I had no idea of their name(s), if they existed.
I had no idea where on the planet they might be, if they existed.
All I knew was that if they existed, they vanished over 80 years ago.

After cogitating the problem and much research, I picked up a phone and dialled a number in Tasmania.
And I was right first time...

[RodCrosby]

John G.

Yep. Murphy burst his balls cracking this Rosetta Stone, then claimed anyone could have seen the same in a flash, that Wallace was probably never going to turn up at all...

Ludicrously WRONG on so many levels.

[ColdCaseJury]

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

If Monday 19 was the first stakeout, it seems improbably lucky, as you say. Yet, we're talking about short periods spread across a few Mondays at the most. Nevertheless, your point (I assume) is that the longer this went on, the more implausible it is.

I think the real-terms cash incentive that Parry believed was there during depression-hit Liverpool was possibly more than enough motivation. Yet, if my point about the Tournament Rules is noted, it might well be that Parry devised his plan over the Xmas when he believed Wallace had missed matches, and hence likely to come sometime in the new year. Hence, he stakes out Mon 5 and Mon 19. Speculation, of course, but so is Wallace washing himself down in the bath,for example. There is no evidence for either. These are narrative-building theories.

When the police took the photo of the noticeboard, a postcard of the pyramids was pinned over the 2nd class schedule! (Nothing probative in this, but quite amusing given the attention the schedule has generated since!)

[RodCrosby]

When the police took the photo of the noticeboard, a postcard of the pyramids was pinned over the 2nd class schedule!

"So glad you got my message!
Wish you were here...
R.M. Qualtrough"

[AmericanSherlock]

Extreme outlier scenario: Wallace and Parry are working together-- not to murder Julia but to stage a robbery of the insurance takings and split the profit. Julia is in on it. The money is not a significant amount split 2 ways, but it's enough to be worth it and the fact that the amount kept in the Walalce house at the time is not as high as it could be is to divert any suspicion away that it's an inside job. Alon with this, perhaps WHW is involved in other robberies with or without Parry. The Anfield housebreaker stopped after the killings--those who thought the Johnstone's guilty used this as evidence against them (they moved the day after the murder.)

Parry comes to stage the robbery with a bar, smacking things around, but something goes wrong...he's high strung, perhaps Julia catches him snooping around, trying to take something he shouldn't ---he whacks her over the head in panic without thinking.

Wallace knows Parry is guilty, but can't possibly tell the story..not only would he be implicated for robberies, but no one would believe it and think he must be guilty of murder, or at pleast plotting the murder. This makes sense of his diary entries etc as well fingering Parry. It explains the seeming "inside job" nature of this case too.

Do I think this is what happened? No, I doubt it. But you see how I can make a theory semi-consistent with the facts out of thin air? It doesn't make it true or even likely to be true.

[RodCrosby]

Extreme outlier scenario: Wallace and Parry are working together-- not to murder Julia but to stage a robbery of the insurance takings and split the profit. Julia is in on it. The money is not a significant amount split 2 ways, but it's enough to be worth it and the fact that the amount kept in the Walalce house at the time is not as high as it could be is to divert any suspicion away that it's an inside job. Alon with this, perhaps WHW is involved in other robberies with or without Parry. The Anfield housebreaker stopped after the killings--those who thought the Johnstone's guilty used this as evidence against them (they moved the day after the murder.)

Parry comes to stage the robbery with a bar, smacking things around, but something goes wrong...he's high strung, perhaps Julia catches him snooping around, trying to take something he shouldn't ---he whacks her over the head in panic without thinking.

Wallace knows Parry is guilty, but can't possibly tell the story..not only would he be implicated for robberies, but no one would believe it and think he must be guilty of murder, or at pleast plotting the murder. This makes sense of his diary entries etc as well fingering Parry. It explains the seeming "inside job" nature of this case too.

Do I think this is what happened? No, I doubt it. But you see how I can make a theory semi-consistent with the facts out of thin air? It doesn't make it true or even likely to be true.

a) No evidence that Wallace needed money, or had accumulated his existing savings other than by thrift, not theft. Wallace has absolutely no criminal "form".
b) Why pick the worst-possible day, takings-wise, to run this one-time paltry scam? There's only about £100 each for them in today's money.
c) Why would Parry "kill-the-golden-goose"? Surely him and Wallace working together in continued criminal partnership would ensure a bright future?
d) Why use a phone-box that could cast suspicion on one or other of them?
e) Why concoct such a suspicious and complicated alibi for Wallace? The robbery could be arranged to occur while he was surrounded by a dozen witnesses at the chess club.
f) Why risk Parry being seen by neighbours entering/leaving the house if Julia is supposed to claim it was a stranger.
g) Why not just arrange for both Wallace and Julia to be out, and let the "Anfield Housebreaker" work his magic?
h) If Wallace and Julia are "in on it" why do they need Parry at all? They could just invent a phantom visitor/burglar and steal the takings themselves.
i) Parry still has an cast-iron alibi, and couldn't have killed Julia, in any case.
j) Wallace is charged with murder and his life is on the line. What has he got to lose by "fessing up" to the lesser charges and fingering Parry for the murder, if [ignoring his alibi] he actually did it?

I'm rather partial to Swiss Cheese, AS. Thanks!

[AmericanSherlock]

a) No evidence that Wallace needed money, or had accumulated his existing savings other than by thrift, not theft. Wallace has absolutely no criminal "form".
b) Why pick the worst-possible day, takings-wise, to run this one-time paltry scam? There's only about £100 each for them in today's money.
c) Why would Parry "kill-the-golden-goose"? Surely him and Wallace working together in continued criminal partnership would ensure a bright future?
d) Why use a phone-box that could cast suspicion on one or other of them?
e) Why concoct such a suspicious and complicated alibi for Wallace? The robbery could be arranged to occur while he was surrounded by a dozen witnesses at the chess club.
f) Why risk Parry being seen by neighbours entering/leaving the house if Julia is supposed to claim it was a stranger.
g) Why not just arrange for both Wallace and Julia to be out, and let the "Anfield Housebreaker" work his magic?
h) If Wallace and Julia are "in on it" why do they need Parry at all? They could just invent a phantom visitor/burglar and steal the takings themselves.
i) Parry still has an cast-iron alibi, and couldn't have killed Julia, in any case.
j) Wallace is charged with murder and his life is on the line. What has he got to lose by "fessing up" to the lesser charges and fingering Parry for the murder, if [ignoring his alibi] he actually did it?

I'm rather partial to Swiss Cheese, AS. Thanks!

The point isn't that I think what I said is plausible. I wasnt seriously advancing is as a theory. I made that clear that that was the point., to show a theory can be consistent with the facts but be logically unsound. Just like yours.

Points E D and possibly B apply to your theory as well.Many other logical objections too. I still think Wallace was guilty. I prefer mozzarella anyhow

[RodCrosby]

Hi AS

b) doesn't apply, because an external robber can simply be unlucky. Wallace robbing himself wouldn't be unlucky, and since he knows there's next-to-nothing there on 20th January, why bother?
d) doesn't apply, if an external robber is forced to use that box, because he is watching and waiting nearby to see Wallace go off to the club, and knows he can not risk speaking to Wallace himself because he is known to Wallace. He has to be certain his message arrives before Wallace does, and that's the safest box from which to achieve that outcome. The negligible risk of being linked to the box is outweighed by the necessity of the external [known] robber to use it. Wallace robbing himself has no such constraints. The call can be made from any box, and Wallace can even receive the call at the chess club himself, pretending he has no idea who is calling.
e) doesn't apply, as an external robber has to maximise his available time by luring Wallace far away on a complicated wild-goose chase. The chess club is too close for comfort. Wallace robbing himself has no such constraint. He could fake a rendezvous at the chess club, and Julia could verify that the 'robber' was only in the house for a few minutes and achieved the robbery while she was unfortunately answering a call of nature, and was gone with the money before she pulled the chain...

You've yet to identify anything that is "logically unsound" with my theory.

[RodCrosby]

This board makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I used to play chess, albeit for fun!

I mean, what do all the numbers mean? In fact, if I was to hazard a guess I would say that Wallace played every week -because none of his numbers appear to have been struck through- with the exception of the 15th Dec, where there's an X, whilst conversely, Walsh missed three consecutive weeks from Nov 24 to Dec 15. However, I bet I'm wrong!

We also can't be sure that the perpetrator ever visited the cafe. For instance, the call was made from a phone box just 400 yards from where Wallace lived. It's not therefore a reasonable proposition that the perpetrator was stalking Wallace on that particular night, assuming the caller wasn't Wallace himself of course!

And if the caller was Parry, he possibly knew about the chess matches, and the days they were held, on account of his familiarity with the Wallace's.

Well, according to Professor Murphy, the renowned Egyptologist...

underlined take Black [the board helpfully says this]
The numbers refer to the relevant opponent scheduled for each match.
L and W and D indicate "Lost" or "Won" or "Draw", although sneakily these refer to the owner of the number next to which they appear, not the owner of the row in which they appear.
X means a "bye".
[what the possible strikeouts are is anyone's guess, and may just be artefacts of the image, or someone's slovenly pen]

Of course, he can have no idea with what diligence the board had been updated throughout the tournament [the photo was obviously only taken sometime after the murder], and 5th and 19th January results still seem unrecorded, suggesting that no-one was in any particular hurry to update the board. Had they ever been in any hurry?

Just as fatal for Murphy, the shown results are obviously only of completed matches, giving no indication of when they were actually played, or who was actually present in the club on any particular date. Anyone who has ever engaged in a shambolic, piffling tournament such as this one would recognise this as being all quite normal.

Taken literally, the board indicates Wallace had failed to show on the 19th. But of course that was nonsense. It was his scheduled opponent Chandler who failed to show, so Wallace played McCartney instead, and Wallace's match and presence in the club went unrecorded... [The outcome of the McCartney-Wallace match, originally scheduled for 24th Nov, is still not recorded by the time the photo was taken, which again suggests no-one was taking any of this remotely seriously. Who failed to turn up on the 24th Nov, btw? Wallace or McCartney? Both? Who can tell?]

Therefore Murphy's thesis that anyone looking at the board at any particular time would have any idea of anyone's likely future attendance - in particular, Wallace's - by correctly deducing their previous pattern of attendance goes up in smoke, accompanied by the sound of laughter...

Putting this nonsense to one side, and looking at the facts, we know Wallace was never away from the club for long. It was his major social outlet, and had been for years... [One author even goes as far to assert that Wallace had helped found the damn thing!]

Wallace states that the last time he saw Parry in the club was in November, which would be not long after the tournament schedule was posted on the board. He was actually crossing the room where the players, including Wallace, were seated at their boards.

"He wasn't playing chess.", noted Wallace, laconically - leaving us to ponder the real reason for his presence...

All Parry had to do was to note the eight dates of the scheduled matches, and watch and wait.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS

b) doesn't apply, because an external robber can simply be unlucky. Wallace robbing himself wouldn't be unlucky, and since he knows there's next-to-nothing there on 20th January, why bother?
d) doesn't apply, if an external robber is forced to use that box, because he is watching and waiting nearby to see Wallace go off to the club, and knows he can not risk speaking to Wallace himself because he is known to Wallace. He has to be certain his message arrives before Wallace does, and that's the safest box from which to achieve that outcome. The negligible risk of being linked to the box is outweighed by the necessity of the external [known] robber to use it. Wallace robbing himself has no such constraints. The call can be made from any box, and Wallace can even receive the call at the chess club himself, pretending he has no idea who is calling.
e) doesn't apply, as an external robber has to maximise his available time by luring Wallace far away on a complicated wild-goose chase. The chess club is too close for comfort. Wallace robbing himself has no such constraint. He could fake a rendezvous at the chess club, and Julia could verify that the 'robber' was only in the house for a few minutes and achieved the robbery while she was unfortunately answering a call of nature, and was gone with the money before she pulled the chain...

You've yet to identify anything that is "logically unsound" with my theory.

But in the case of b), Parry would be part of the plan and as an insurance agent who worked closely with Wallace in the past, he would know when the most profitable times were. As it was Wallace said Thursday was actually the day premiums were turned in, so a Wednesday night would have been even better...and anyway this week was not the peak time of the month. Something Parry would have known or could have easily found out about.

In d), this contradicts where you said that Qualtrough had to be someone unknown to JW, so he could claim to be Qualtrough to be let in. (shaky premise to begin with imo.) Because if it was someone working with Parry and unknown to JW, he would very likely also be unkown to WHW.

In e) the same argument can and has been made with respect to WHW being behind the murder; that if he was guilty, why didn't he murder her the Monday night? The answer is that the "Qualtrough" ruse naturally diverts suspicion away from him and onto an unknown mystery man.

I think WHW was guilty, but if I had to choose between Parry acting alone or with someone else, I would choose alone.