Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[ColdCaseJury]

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.

Hi AS, I think the prior probability is very important to the Wallace Alone theory. You imply that Wallace Alone is the most logically consistent with all the elements of the case. Yet, regarding (arguably) the most important logical aspect of the case - the identity of Qualtrough - you concede might point more to Parry.

Why is the identity of Qualtrough logically so important? If Wallace was not Qualtrough, Wallace Alone is false.

[RodCrosby]

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

http://www.rotary-ribi.org/clubs/pag...67&ClubID=1132

Thanks, AS. He and I attended the same school, although I've never met him. He's about 15 years older than me...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Mary%27s_College,_Crosby

It had American Eagles on the gate. Few but me know why.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS, I think the prior probability is very important to the Wallace Alone theory. You imply that Wallace Alone is the most logically consistent with all the elements of the case. Yet, regarding (arguably) the most important logical aspect of the case - the identity of Qualtrough - you concede might point more to Parry.

Why is the identity of Qualtrough logically so important? If Wallace was not Qualtrough, Wallace Alone is false.

Hi Antony,

I said the content of the call points more towards Parry. There are still a couple of possibilities---

1. Wallace was trying to frame Parry to divert suspicion away from himself (Not necessarily as cut and dry as Rod said, of course WHW couldn't reliably plan it so Parry was arrested and hanged for the murder, but just to plant some suspicion to divert away from himself. Remember he named Parry right away and focused on him the most (and Marsden to a smaller degree) in the aftermath of the murder.)

2. The bolded is not technically true in all cases. We could accept PD James theory (minus the ludicrous Wallace in drag bit). Therefore Parry made a prank call and WHW is still guilty.

As far as the timing of the call pointing towards Parry as has been recently discussed...that's true, but it also fits in perfectly with WHW making the call at the beginning of the journey on his way to the chess club.

Some said he couldn't have possibly done it in time (similar to the arguments about the following night!) Murphy suggests Wallace could have used the bus instead of a tram and anyway I think that point has been conceded here --Antony at least has agreed both are in the frame timewise. It would be a perfect match for WHW timewise considering he probably would have left his house around 7:15 to go to the chess club. Both Parry AND Wallace are in the frame for it.

Another thing to perhaps consider in regards to the call--January 12 1931 was R. Parry's 22nd birthday... that also might be a decent argument as to why Parry did not try to call the week before at the chess club--he was otherwise engaged. Trying to be fair with everything that comes to mind.

The problem with Parry making a prank call and Wallace seizing the opportunity is we still are faced with the same questions of timing, and cleanup that many who believe Wallace innocent have put forth all along. They are unlikely to be convinced. One also wonders could WHW have gone thru with it and planned the intricacies out in a day even if he had been toying with the idea before (one of his recent diary entries does talk about death and his lack of belief in a meaningful reincarnation, lack of belief in God and how Julia failed to grasp a play's significance). But would he have the cajones to enact the plan immediately?

I do think , on the face of it, the call makes most sense as a prank call if Parry made it. However, considering what happened the following night, I have to think it's more likely the caller was the murderer than not.

[AmericanSherlock]

Thanks, AS. He and I attended the same school, although I've never met him. He's about 15 years older than me...

I think more than that; he's 70 now.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi Rod, now I see where you get the Crosby from in your name.

Talking about schools reminds me of Mark R. from the yoliverpool boards. I was surprised to see him positively review Murphy's book on Amazon as well as recently on a message board, because he was quite critical of it at times. Not that surprising he went with the theory that WHW was guilty which he always said he wavered back and forth, although I did think he leaned a bit more towards innocence. Apparently, he had been working on a book about the case for years but haven't heard anything...

He always used to talk about going to Lister Drive school in the 70's which is where Parry first met Lily Lloyd. Apparently the school burned down under suspicious circumstances.

[ColdCaseJury]

The Phone Call Scam?

The 'Qualtrough' phone call. Did the caller use a scam to get the call free or was there a genuine fault/mistake?

I believe it was the latter because the exchange operators had indicator lights that lit up when the money was returned. If it was a scam, (i.e. caller pushed B when he said he pushed A), I believe they would have known.

In her deposition, Kelly said she spoke to the caller and then observed the money-return indicator light up. I believe from the statement, she said "Caller press B to return your two pennies". This is because the A/B phone box required you insert two pennies BEFORE speaking to the operator.

Sp, caller inserts two pennies. Speaks to operator. Connection not made but Pushes A (loses money into box). Speaks to no one. Caller inserts another two pennies. Speaks to operator. Operator says push B to return two pennies and puts call through (after failing at least once).

Hence, the call cost the caller 2 pennies and it was logged by the exchange (because of the first problem).

P.S. For terminology, I refer to whoever made the call as Qualtrough. Of course, with Rod's theory the accomplice says he's Qualtrough on the night of the murder. I will have to handle this carefully in the book!

[ColdCaseJury]

The Cash Box Clue

The most surprising element in this case, for me, is that the cash box was replaced on the bookshelf by the killer.

What is the most plausible explanation for you?

A) The killer was Wallace and planned the assassination carefully, he staged the robbery but made a massive blunder in replacing the cash box and not taking the money in his wife's bag.

B) The killer was someone else, they killed Julia first, and then only stole the money from the cash box which they replaced and decided against ransacking the place (even though they only got £4) because they panicked.

C) The killer was someone else, they replaced the box because it was a sneaky theft i.e. done while Julia was still alive, but was caught just after the act by Julia.

Any thoughts?

[RodCrosby]

The 'Qualtrough' phone call. Did the caller use a scam to get the call free or was there a genuine fault/mistake?

I believe it was the latter because the exchange operators had indicator lights that lit up when the money was returned. If it was a scam, (i.e. caller pushed B when he said he pushed A), I believe they would have known.

In her deposition, Kelly said she spoke to the caller and then observed the money-return indicator light up. I believe from the statement, she said "Caller press B to return your two pennies". This is because the A/B phone box required you insert two pennies BEFORE speaking to the operator.

Sp, caller inserts two pennies. Speaks to operator. Connection not made but Pushes A (loses money into box). Speaks to no one. Caller inserts another two pennies. Speaks to operator. Operator says push B to return two pennies and puts call through (after failing at least once).

Hence, the call cost the caller 2 pennies and it was logged by the exchange (because of the first problem).

P.S. For terminology, I refer to whoever made the call as Qualtrough. Of course, with Rod's theory the accomplice says he's Qualtrough on the night of the murder. I will have to handle this carefully in the book!

Wyndham-Brown in 1933 writes:-

'The strongest point, however, against the case for the Prosecution, that Wallace himself telephoned the message, is to be found in the behaviour of the person who went into the call-box. It has already been stated that for Wallace to use a call-box so close to his own house was a dangerous and unnecessary expedient. He was on his way into the city, there were many other call-boxes which would have served his purpose, and the later the time of making the call the greater the probability that the message would be delivered to him on his arrival at the club. A stranger to the district, however, had nothing to lose, and, even, in certain eventualities, something to gain by making the call from a box within such a short distance from the house of the accused. It is also necessary to remember the circumstances under which the call was recorded by the exchange. When there is a delay in obtaining a number, and it is found necessary to communicate with the operator, it is usual for the exchange to ask for the number of the telephone from which a request is made for a connection.

On the occasion with which we are concerned, the person in the call-box apparently told the operator that he had pressed button A, but had not had his correspondent. But, if button A was pressed, as the number required had not replied, it must have been done either through ignorance or with a purpose. On the evidence of one of the operators, however, it appears that the money had been returned, and, in that case, it must have been button B that was pressed, and not button A. But, of course, it was not necessary to press either button for the “correspondent” to be heard, and the statement must have seemed unusual to the operator. It might even be suggested not only that the person in the telephone box had no fear of the number being discovered, but that he purposely adopted a procedure and a mode of expression calculated to impress the call on the mind of the operator.

It is, unfortunately, not clear on the evidence if the operator, after the statement was made, asked for the number of the call-box, and received it. In such circumstances, however, it appears very probable, as the incident and the words used were, in fact, recorded, that the usual procedure was followed, and that the number was requested and noted. But, even if the number was not actually given to the exchange by the person in the call-box, it must surely have been obvious to anybody of intelligence, even occupied with a less dangerous purpose, that the exchange in such a case would probably keep a record of the number. On these facts it appears almost incredible that anyone planning a murder for the next night, in his own house, only four hundred yards away, would have committed such a remarkable blunder.

On the evening in question, it was even doubtful if a direct appeal to the operator was necessary, as the evidence showed that the number of the City Cafe had not been engaged for half an hour preceding the call from ‘Qualtrough’ One operator, indeed, stated that at 7.15 she put a call through to the City Cafe, which was immediately answered. But, on the assumption that there was a difficulty in obtaining the number required, it seems highly improbable that Wallace — the man who, it was said, had “ skilfully and cunningly planned the whole thing ” — would have added so substantially to the risks and increased the chances of discovery by deliberately putting himself into verbal communication on the matter with the operator, thereby making it almost inevitable that the number of the call-box would sooner or later come to the knowledge of the police. Any other person, however, could have rung up from that particular call-box, and made any request or complaint to the operator, without any fear of complications dangerous to himself.

It seems, on this important part of the case, that we are compelled, either to accept the view that it was “ Qualtrough ” who was responsible for the telephone message, or that Wallace committed an elementary and unnecessary folly, inconsistent with all his other actions, and one which he must have known, unless the view taken by the Prosecution as to his criminal ability was entirely wrong, was certain to subject him, a little later, to grave suspicion.'

Sounds decidedly iffy, as if he's trying something on, whether or not he actually succeeded.
Did you really have to put money in to contact the operator, CCJ? I never remember that on the later boxes.

There's a page here about the old boxes and some scams.

http://www.1900s.org.uk/1940s50s-free-calls.htm

Amusingly, the Liverpool Police were the worst offenders...

[ColdCaseJury]

Did you really have to put money in to contact the operator, CCJ? I never remember that on the later boxes.

Lilian Kelly deposition (committal hearings): "The telephone box is a modern one where the money is put in before making the call. I know when the money is in."

[RodCrosby]

Lilian Kelly deposition (committal hearings): "The telephone box is a modern one where the money is put in before making the call. I know when the money is in."

Maybe Kelly was just too scared to admit she might have been conned, or was actually conned without knowing it?

There are people on these forums claiming the A/B boxes were easy to fiddle in a way that sounds almost identical to "Qualtrough's" actions.

"It wasn't unknown, also, for us lads to get connected via the Operator but press B to get our money back. Obviously the bell didn't ding but we got away with it so far as I recall." [Darren-UK]

https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47638

"I would often phone the homes of the school pals to ask if they were coming out to play. These phone calls were never payed for because I would phone the operator and tell them that I had phoned a number, got a connection and pressed my money in and the line went dead. The operator would then ask me what the number was, then put me through. It worked every time." [zakes]
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=745692

[ColdCaseJury]

Maybe Kelly was just too scared to admit she might have been conned, or was actually conned without knowing it?

There are people on these forums claiming the A/B boxes were easy to fiddle in a way that sounds almost identical to "Qualtrough's" actions.

"It wasn't unknown, also, for us lads to get connected via the Operator but press B to get our money back. Obviously the bell didn't ding but we got away with it so far as I recall." [Darren-UK]

https://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47638

"I would often phone the homes of the school pals to ask if they were coming out to play. These phone calls were never payed for because I would phone the operator and tell them that I had phoned a number, got a connection and pressed my money in and the line went dead. The operator would then ask me what the number was, then put me through. It worked every time." [zakes]
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=745692

Extremely interesting. However, how come the 2nd operator Kelly could not get connected to Bank and had to ask for the supervisor? Suggests a fault rather than a scam? But the fact they were scammed is pertinent and surely something Parry was far more likely to know than Wallace.

Any views?

[RodCrosby]

It's hard to give an opinion as I've never seen all the original statements Antony.
There's probably no definitive answer anyhow. But I think it's a possibility we can't discount that it was Parry up to one of his tricks.

[John G]

The most perplexing thing for me is the issue of the weapon. Thus, if Wallace was responsible what did he do with it? If, however Parry or, say, an accomplice of Parry, committed the murder that suggests that they entered the Wallace residence with the weapon-an iron bar or some such implement -and in those circumstances it's difficult to argue that murder wasn't the actual intent, which undermines the robbery gone wrong theory. Otherwise, what were they doing by entering the house carrying an iron bar? And presumably the weapon must must have been concealed in some way, otherwise why would Juilia admit such a person?

Then there's the fact that Julia appears to have been taken by surprise: lack of defensive wounds or evidence that she cried out in alarm, I.e. the Johnson's didn't hear anything untoward. This suggests that the murder was premeditated, which further undermines the robbery gone wrong argument.

[AmericanSherlock]

The most perplexing thing for me is the issue of the weapon. Thus, if Wallace was responsible what did he do with it? If, however Parry or, say, an accomplice of Parry, committed the murder that suggests that they entered the Wallace residence with the weapon-an iron bar or some such implement -and in those circumstances it's difficult to argue that murder wasn't the actual intent, which undermines the robbery gone wrong theory. Otherwise, what were they doing by entering the house carrying an iron bar? And presumably the weapon must must have been concealed in some way, otherwise why would Juilia admit such a person?

Then there's the fact that Julia appears to have been taken by surprise: lack of defensive wounds or evidence that she cried out in alarm, I.e. the Johnson's didn't hear anything untoward. This suggests that the murder was premeditated, which further undermines the robbery gone wrong argument.

John,

I agree, as well as the fact that the money taken wasn't that much and split both ways would be even less and Parry would have known this.

The Johnston's heard the milk boy knock, but didn't hear anyone else...

The reason why I keep coming back to WHW despite the problems with it is it looks like an assassin's work. And who else would want JW dead?

[ColdCaseJury]

If, however Parry or, say, an accomplice of Parry, committed the murder that suggests that they entered the Wallace residence with the weapon-an iron bar or some such implement -and in those circumstances it's difficult to argue that murder wasn't the actual intent, which undermines the robbery gone wrong theory. Otherwise, what were they doing by entering the house carrying an iron bar? And presumably the weapon must must have been concealed in some way, otherwise why would Juilia admit such a person?

John G, I may have misunderstood, but this appears like circular reasoning to me.

Assume X enters the house with a iron bar. Therefore, X already has the intent to murder because X would not have entered the house with an iron bar if the intent was only theft.

The first premise is disputed. If the plan was theft, and not murder, then there was no need to bring a weapon, and the iron bar by the fireplace was used in the eventual attack. Or the thief might have wanted to be armed... just in case things go wrong.

A more pertinent point against robbery gone wrong is perhaps this. If the plan was robbery using 'Qualtrough' as the pretext to allow an accomplice to enter, and the plan was only theft, then the collaborators (Parry + X) knew that Julia would be able to give the police a description of X after he flees with the cash. What's different if X gets caught in the act? Surely, he flees just the same. What provokes the murder? I think the only answer is panic...