Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[ColdCaseJury]

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.

I agree, possibility does not make a theory true or likely to be true. But what makes Wallace Alone any different in this respect? The police went to great lengths (e.g. caught buses and reworked the rounds of milk boys) just to show it was possible that Wallace was guilty. They showed little more. However, I concede they were trying to build a case of circumstantial evidence.

As far as we know, however, Wallace never lied. Parry did. This is why some people think Parry was involved.

[AmericanSherlock]

I agree, possibility does not make a theory true or likely to be true. But what makes Wallace Alone any different in this respect? The police went to great lengths (e.g. caught buses and reworked the rounds of milk boys) just to show it was possible that Wallace was guilty. They showed little more. However, I concede they were trying to build a case of circumstantial evidence.

As far as we know, however, Wallace never lied. Parry did. This is why some people think Parry was involved.

You yourself have given prior probability as a reason. But this is not the only reason. We also have to consider what is most logically consistent with the elements of the case, the dramatis personae etc... This is not necessarily the same as what reconciles the most pieces of evidence and facts, as certain facts may be incorrect, or are more easily overcome with rational counter-arguments than others.

This is the point I've been trying to make over the last several pages.

[RodCrosby]

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.

AS

b) In answer to Oliver KC, Wallace stated that Wednesday was the normal accounting day, but stated as a rule he accounted on a Thursday. [see Wyndham-Brown, p.169]
Crewe, in his evidence, agreed that the normal accounting day was Wednesday, and could sometimes be Thursday, but that anyone who knew Wallace would expect him to have the bulk of the cash by Tuesday night. [p.106]
Incidentally, my theory also explains why the robber didn't maximise his profit by striking on the "monthly" collection date, when - so the argument goes - Parry would have known when that was.
Parry was indeed working to a timetable - but it wasn't the Prudential's. It was the chess club's ! Because that was the only timetable he could use to effect any kind of robbery at all...

d) It contradicts nothing. Parry was known to Wallace, so couldn't speak to him on the phone; Parry was also known to Julia, so couldn't enter the house to rob. Therefore Parry must leave a message, and have an accomplice enter the house.

e) This was indeed the Police theory, and the Court of Criminal Appeal found that it "cannot be supported having regard to the evidence."

My theory is the only one that IS consistent with all the evidence, and is not intrinsically improbable on its face.

Therefore, I have solved the Wallace case.

[RodCrosby]

A little ironic, isn't it - that some people are so certain Wallace could have fooled Beattie on the phone, while Parry [the consummate, practised actor] wasn't confident he could fool Wallace...

[AmericanSherlock]

AS

b) In answer to Oliver KC, Wallace stated that Wednesday was the normal accounting day, but stated as a rule he accounted on a Thursday. [see Wyndham-Brown, p.169]
Crewe, in his evidence, agreed that the normal accounting day was Wednesday, and could sometimes be Thursday, but that anyone who knew Wallace would expect him to have the bulk of the cash by Tuesday night. [p.106]
Incidentally, my theory also explains why the robber didn't maximise his profit by striking on the "monthly" collection date, when - so the argument goes - Parry would have known when that was.
Parry was indeed working to a timetable - but it wasn't the Prudential's. It was the chess club's ! Because that was the only timetable he could use to effect any kind of robbery at all...

d) It contradicts nothing. Parry was known to Wallace, so couldn't speak to him on the phone; Parry was also known to Julia, so couldn't enter the house to rob. Therefore Parry must leave a message, and have an accomplice enter the house.

e) This was indeed the Police theory, and the Court of Criminal Appeal found that it "cannot be supported having regard to the evidence."

My theory is the only one that IS consistent with all the evidence, and is not intrinsically improbable on its face.

Therefore, I have solved the Wallace case.

What is there to talk about then? Absolutely insufferable. I could address your rebuttals one by one (again) but if your mind is already made up, what's the point? I don't find your tone reasonable and it really ruins the conversation for me, regardless of how clever it makes you feel behind a computer.

[RodCrosby]

What is there to talk about then? Absolutely insufferable. I could address your rebuttals one by one (again) but if your mind is already made up, what's the point? I don't find your tone reasonable and it really ruins the conversation for me, regardless of how clever it makes you feel behind a computer.

I shouldn't tease so much, AS, and I apologise for any offence. I welcome any challenge to the theory. That is the usual scientific method of arriving at the truth of anything, and I'm sure we both desire the truth in this matter.
But before we can get there we must first be accurate with the known facts [see above, and I'm not being nasty - I too have made errors over the years. We always have to check the original sources]

Do carry on.

[AmericanSherlock]

I shouldn't tease so much, AS, and I apologise for any offence. I welcome any challenge to the theory. That is the usual scientific method of arriving at the truth of anything, and I'm sure we both desire the truth in this matter.
But before we can get there we must first be accurate with the known facts [see above, and I'm not being nasty - I too have made errors over the years. We always have to check the original sources]

Do carry on.

It's all good. I admit your theory is captivating, but you seem to hold it with unspeakable conviction. One thing I agree with you on is that the content of the phone call points more towards Parry than Wallace as the voice on the line.

Do you agree that if WHW truly was innocent, that he was incredibly unlucky? Not just in the obvious horrible ordeal he endured but in that so many steps along the way if he had acted in a different manner, things wouldn't have unfolded as they did. He obliviously made all the wrong choices to help this plan along if he was innocent after all.

One quick point before with regards to d).. that was a response to you saying this "and knows he can not risk speaking to Wallace himself because he is known to Wallace."... my point was "Qualtrough" if unknown to JW, would also most likely be unknown to WHW. I understand you believe Parry made the call, not his accomplice "Qualtrough"---but just pointing out if "Qualtrough" made the call, then he wouldn't worry about Wallace hearing him or needing to hoax his voice.

Need some rest, will try to address the other points later. Like John Parkes, I sometimes work nights!

I'm in agreement; I most want the truth to come out. I'm not at all married to my position, nor would I want to blindly maintain it or convince others of it for no good reason. I'm solely in pursuit of truth.

[John G]

AS

b) In answer to Oliver KC, Wallace stated that Wednesday was the normal accounting day, but stated as a rule he accounted on a Thursday. [see Wyndham-Brown, p.169]
Crewe, in his evidence, agreed that the normal accounting day was Wednesday, and could sometimes be Thursday, but that anyone who knew Wallace would expect him to have the bulk of the cash by Tuesday night. [p.106]
Incidentally, my theory also explains why the robber didn't maximise his profit by striking on the "monthly" collection date, when - so the argument goes - Parry would have known when that was.
Parry was indeed working to a timetable - but it wasn't the Prudential's. It was the chess club's ! Because that was the only timetable he could use to effect any kind of robbery at all...

d) It contradicts nothing. Parry was known to Wallace, so couldn't speak to him on the phone; Parry was also known to Julia, so couldn't enter the house to rob. Therefore Parry must leave a message, and have an accomplice enter the house.

e) This was indeed the Police theory, and the Court of Criminal Appeal found that it "cannot be supported having regard to the evidence."

My theory is the only one that IS consistent with all the evidence, and is not intrinsically improbable on its face.

Therefore, I have solved the Wallace case.

Hi Rod,

Although I believe that the most plausible explanation is that Parry alone was guilty I'm no at all confident I'm correct, such are the complexities of this mystery. And, in this regard, I have to acknowledge that AS has made some very good points.

One problem is that so little money was taken: as CCJ has pointed out, on a good day over thirty times as much insurance money would have been available. And Parry must surely have been aware that this was not the week for the monthly takings and, probably, that Wallace had only just returned to work after a period of illness.

I don't agree that Parry needed to work to the Chess club's timetable. In fact, as he was known to Julia, and would have been admitted, he could have committed the theft at any time when William was at work. Okay, this would have been a risk, however, I have no doubt that such an arrogant, outwardly charming, ladies man would have had few qualms about his ability to gain entry, distract Julia, and steal the money. Moreover, his previous misappropriation of the insurance money demonstrates that he was prepared to act recklessly on occasion.

As regards an accomplice. There was no sign of forced entry and William insisted that Julia would only have admitted a few people who were known to her. Therefore, the same logic applies to this individual: they could have carried out the theft whilst William was at work, hence no need for the Qualtrough ruse.

And why would Parry rely on an accomplice? For instance, if this theory is correct the murderer must have been a particularly violent individual, and presumably Parry knew this, thus increasing the level of risk. And if things went wrong, as they must have done in this theory, Parry could not only have been charged as an accomplice, but possibly hanged for murder under the joint enterprise rule.

Then there's my previous point about the accomplice taking the bulk of the risks-surely he would be likely to demand more than a 50-50 share, leaving Parry with very slim pickings.

[John G]

I agree, possibility does not make a theory true or likely to be true. But what makes Wallace Alone any different in this respect? The police went to great lengths (e.g. caught buses and reworked the rounds of milk boys) just to show it was possible that Wallace was guilty. They showed little more. However, I concede they were trying to build a case of circumstantial evidence.

As far as we know, however, Wallace never lied. Parry did. This is why some people think Parry was involved.

Yes, and crucially it was in respect of an alibi for the Qualtrough call. Incidentally, I believe the Qualtrough call took place between 7:20 and 7:24 on the 19th, whereas Lilian Lloyd said that Parry initially arrived at about 7:35 on that evening. Do you know how far the phone box, where the call originated from, was from Lloyd's address?

[John G]

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.

This is about as clear as mud to me-I still can't work out who was playing who on a particular date, let alone who actually turned up. Murphy's crazy if he thinks any of this is remotely obvious.

[RodCrosby]

Do you know how far the phone box, where the call originated from, was from Lloyd's address?

I made comprehensive tests in 2008.
It was about about a mile or 3 minutes driving time.

[John G]

I made comprehensive tests in 2008.
It was about about a mile or 3 minutes driving time.

Thanks Rod. For me, that virtually proves that Parry was Qualtrough. I mean, if he wasn't we're looking at an enormous coincidence: the call finishes at 7:24; Parry arrives at Lily Lloyd's shortly afterwards, at about 7:35, according to Lloyd, but lies about this claiming that he'd been there for the whole period between 5:30 and 11:00pm. And, of course, we have Parkes' evidence that Parry had a history of making prank calls. Another coincidence is that Qualtrough mentions that it's his daughter's 21st, and we know that Parry went to Mrs Williamson's the next day to discuss a 21st birthday party, at least according to him.

The frustrating thing is that this doesn't really rule out any theory, even Wallace acting alone. For instance, it could be argued that Wallace had been planing to kill his wife-or at least thinking about it- for some time but the problem is that, as the husband, he's bound to be a main suspect. In respect of this theory he realises the Qualtrough call is a hoax because he's aware there's no Menlove Gardens East -this is hinted at by the fact that he initially writes the address down wrongly as "Menlove Gardens West". However, the call affords him the perfect opportunity to murder his wife, stage a robbery, and then blame Qualtrough. Therefore, although Parry made the call as prank he had no involvement in the murder.

However, there is a problem with this theory: Qualtrough may have been genuine and Beattie may simply have written down the wrong address, in which case Wallace's alternative narrative would be blown.

[RodCrosby]

Thanks Rod. For me, that virtually proves that Parry was Qualtrough. I mean, if he wasn't we're looking at an enormous coincidence: the call finishes at 7:24; Parry arrives at Lily Lloyd's shortly afterwards, at about 7:35, according to Lloyd, but lies about this claiming that he'd been there for the whole period between 5:30 and 11:00pm. And, of course, we have Parkes' evidence that Parry had a history of making prank calls. Another coincidence is that Qualtrough mentions that it's his daughter's 21st, and we know that Parry went to Mrs Williamson's the next day to discuss a 21st birthday party, at least according to him.

The frustrating thing is that this doesn't really rule out any theory, even Wallace acting alone. For instance, it could be argued that Wallace had been planing to kill his wife-or at least thinking about it- for some time but the problem is that, as the husband, he's bound to be a main suspect. In respect of this theory he realises the Qualtrough call is a hoax because he's aware there's no Menlove Gardens East -this is hinted at by the fact that he initially writes the address down wrongly as "Menlove Gardens West". However, the call affords him the perfect opportunity to murder his wife, stage a robbery, and then blame Qualtrough. Therefore, although Parry made the call as prank he had no involvement in the murder.

However, there is a problem with this theory: Qualtrough may have been genuine and Beattie may simply have written down the wrong address, in which case Wallace's alternative narrative would be blown.

You might add the business of the "trouble" with the buttons in the phone box, most likely to scam a free phone call - which again points to Parry. And that's all before we even consider Parry's intimate knowledge of The Pru, Wallace, Julia, Wallace's home, the Chess Club, the geography of [and his proximity to] the area, and his continuing varied career as a petty criminal, sometimes acting with accomplices...

Only when you are familiar with the geography of the place, can you develop any real insight into a particular crime. I'm just lucky in that I live only 8 miles away, and have walked and driven around the area many times.

I think it does rule it out, for all practical purposes. What opportunity can Wallace have to think carefully about the murderous opportunity supposedly offered by the unexpected phone-call, and who would embark on such a plan without thinking very carefully?

His chess game is interrupted by Beattie, to relay the message. Some surprise is expressed and brief discussions ensue.

Then Wallace returns to concentrating on his game, and scores a rare win, against McCartney, which pleases him immensely.
Wallace goes home, accompanied by his friend Caird for most of the way. The conversation is mostly about how Wallace won his match against McCartney. There is a brief mention of the Qualtrough call. Caird notices nothing unusual.

The next day Wallace goes about his collection business exactly as normal. No-one, not one of his many clients visited that day can say that Wallace was anything other than his usual self.
He returns home at exactly the normal time, has a light meal with Julia, as normal, and then does nothing inconsistent with preparation for leaving shortly for his appointment with Qualtrough, and then does leave the house at precisely the time one would expect him to leave to meet his appointment.

Except of course, he murdered his wife in a frenzy immediately before leaving the house, leaving no bloodstains on himself, no trace of a weapon, and no reason for any of the numerous people he subsequently and immediately encountered to think anything remotely suspicious had occurred.

Well, if you can show me anything in the history of the World, before or since, that has ever even approximated that scenario, I'll be all ears.

Otherwise, WHW was an innocent man.

[RodCrosby]

This is about as clear as mud to me-I still can't work out who was playing who on a particular date, let alone who actually turned up. Murphy's crazy if he thinks any of this is remotely obvious.

Thank-you for being reasonable, John.

Being reasonable is the pre-requisite for solving this crime...

[AmericanSherlock]

If anyone is curious what James Murphy looks like...he is on the left.

http://www.rotary-ribi.org/clubs/page.php?PgID=512967&ClubID=1132