Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

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...

This is a good point. 'Qualtrough' could have panicked in the moment; you could argue there is a difference in being willing to be seen and described later vs. in the moment if one is caught...he could be scared that she would scream (maybe she started to) or run after him...alert someone and he would be apprehended trying to flee.

I still think that the plan doesn't make much sense. Why would someone else agree to being the "front man" and risk being caught? You can bet the Wallace's would report the robbery; particularly a fuming WHW returning home and realizing he had been had and was robbed. And split 2 ways for what Parry had to know wasn't that much. Just strange to me.

[AmericanSherlock]

Interesting comment section here

http://staffblogs.le.ac.uk/english/2013/11/05/julia-wallace/

a few comments, James Murphy comes in to say he solved the case and others argue including another author (LOL) (alan hamilton) who theorized Wallace and Parry worked in tandem.

A certain Mark comments praising Murphy's book, the same Mark who reviewed his book positively. He says it is "definitive" which really is surprising since this seems to me to be Mark Russell who argued against Murphy's book and got mad when people said anything about he case is clear cut. Unless it is an impostor, but I doubt it.

I do agree Murphy's book is very good though.

I realize anyone can post anything, but I did find this comment interesting:

steve delacourt November 28, 2014 at 9:06 am | Permalink | Reply
I met Sydney Scoffield Allen on a few occasions. He was an MP and a colleague of my father’s , Charles Smith who was also an MP in 1945. Scoffield Allen was the junior counsel of Wallace. He (Allen) often told the story that he was summoned to the dying Wallace. Wallace’s last words to Allen were along the lines of “well we won sonny, didn’t we” Allen, for the rest of his life thought that these were very strange words for a man if he had been innocent.

[RodCrosby]

Interesting comment section here

http://staffblogs.le.ac.uk/english/2013/11/05/julia-wallace/

a few comments, James Murphy comes in to say he solved the case and others argue including another author (LOL) (alan hamilton) who theorized Wallace and Parry worked in tandem.

A certain Mark comments praising Murphy's book, the same Mark who reviewed his book positively. He says it is "definitive" which really is surprising since this seems to me to be Mark Russell who argued against Murphy's book and got mad when people said anything about he case is clear cut. Unless it is an impostor, but I doubt it.

I do agree Murphy's book is very good though.

I realize anyone can post anything, but I did find this comment interesting:

steve delacourt November 28, 2014 at 9:06 am | Permalink | Reply
I met Sydney Scoffield Allen on a few occasions. He was an MP and a colleague of my father’s , Charles Smith who was also an MP in 1945. Scoffield Allen was the junior counsel of Wallace. He (Allen) often told the story that he was summoned to the dying Wallace. Wallace’s last words to Allen were along the lines of “well we won sonny, didn’t we” Allen, for the rest of his life thought that these were very strange words for a man if he had been innocent.

Even if true, it's perfectly consistent with innocence. Just thanking the guy before he died. Ironic even. They "won". Justice prevailed. But Wallace's life was still wrecked, and he lost the will to live.

Btw, Mark has been teasing people for 10 years about his book. I'll believe it when I see it...

[RodCrosby]

Re the chess schedule.

The last game was down to be played on 21st February 1931, which for some reason was a Saturday. [all the others were played on a Monday]

So unless it's some kind of error, 19th January was the last realistic date that Parry could strike with his plan...

Parry could hardly ask if the 21st Feb was an error, could he?

We have incontrovertible evidence that Tuesday night would be the best night to strike.

If Crewe knew that, Parry would know that also...

And, as if sent by Satan himself, here comes a chess tournament to be played - in Wallace and Parry's club - on Monday nights, with Wallace scheduled to put in six appearances.

None of those dates may have coincided with the Pru's "monthly" week, or if it did it might have just been Parry's bad luck that Wallace didn't show that week. [The week was never identified in open court, probably for obvious reasons.]

By the 19th he's getting desperate. One last chance. And he's unlucky again. Wallace has been ill, and the takings are very low.

[John G]

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...

Hi CCJ,

Okay, and I suppose we don't really know what the murder weapon was. And a perpetrator like Parry might be in the habit of carrying a weapon like, say, a cosh for "personal protection."

But why the Qualtrough ruse? After all, it ran the risk of going wrong, i.e. because Wallace failed to attend the chess match or if he decided not to make the Qualtrough appointment. And, after all, if the only purpose was to ensure that Wallace was out of the house all Parry, or an accomplice, has to do is call whilst he's at work during the day.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi CCJ,

Okay, and I suppose we don't really know what the murder weapon was. And a perpetrator like Parry might be in the habit of carrying a weapon like, say, a cosh for "personal protection."

But why the Qualtrough ruse? After all, it ran the risk of going wrong, i.e. because Wallace failed to attend the chess match or if he decided not to make the Qualtrough appointment. And, after all, if the only purpose was to ensure that Wallace was out of the house all Parry, or an accomplice, has to do is call whilst he's at work during the day.

Rod suggests Qualtrough was relying on WHW telling Julia about the call and his trip so she would let him in when he said his name. Don't see the need for this whole multifaceted complex ruse, why not just show up and say he wanted business with Wallace , JW would be as likely to let him in , if she sensed business imo. A bizarre plan if true.

[John G]

Rod suggests Qualtrough was relying on WHW telling Julia about the call and his trip so she would let him in when he said his name. Don't see the need for this whole multifaceted complex ruse, why not just show up and say he wanted business with Wallace , JW would be as likely to let him in , if she sensed business imo. A bizarre plan if true.

I would agree with this. In fact, surely Parry, or for that matter Marsden, would have been admitted by Julia, as they were both on the list of 17 names who Wallace himself said Julia would let in (and if Parry was telling the truth about the "musical interludes" he seemed to be on particular good terms with her despite the issue of the misappropriated insurance money.)

I suppose the only way Rod's argument makes sense is if the murderer was someone unknown to Julia: I seem to remember that Rod's suggestion was that they would give the name Qualtrough, claiming there had been some sort of mix up as to the venue of the meeting.

[AmericanSherlock]

I would agree with this. In fact, surely Parry, or for that matter Marsden, would have been admitted by Julia, as they were both on the list of 17 names who Wallace himself said Julia would let in (and if Parry was telling the truth about the "musical interludes" he seemed to be on particular good terms with her despite the issue of the misappropriated insurance money.)

I suppose the only way Rod's argument makes sense is if the murderer was someone unknown to Julia: I seem to remember that Rod's suggestion was that they would give the name Qualtrough, claiming there had been some sort of mix up as to the venue of the meeting.

Hi John,

That's correct. But I don't see why someone who was known to Julia (in this case Parry) couldn't enact the plan himself without having to involve someone else (complicating it by having to split the money and trust someone else (someone who failed badly if Rod's theory is correct.)

I myself have often said wouldn't be Parry be afraid of being identified if he wasn't planning murder, since WHW would come back explaining it was a prank, JW would relay that Parry came over and they would eventually put 2 and 2 together. But I don't think involving someone else solves this, because then the other person faces the same scrutiny. You could argue such a person who was unknown to JW figured he couldn't be fingered or described easily (I believe this is Rod's rationale as to why Parry came up with the plan involving "Qualtrough")

But it all seems a bit messy and complicated to me. One alternative explanation is that Parry went over himself and figured that JW wouldn't want to tell Wallace he came over. I know WHW listed him as someone JW would possibly admit, but I'm not sure if he was welcome in their home. If something was going on between them (not necessarily sexual, but maybe her doting on him as was the scenario in Antony's book), maybe Parry felt emboldened and entitled to come over having gotten Wallace out of the house and that it would be kept a secret even if money suspiciously went missing.

My gut feeling is still that WHW was guilty, but I feel in the clear minority here

[AmericanSherlock]

Even if true, it's perfectly consistent with innocence. Just thanking the guy before he died. Ironic even. They "won". Justice prevailed. But Wallace's life was still wrecked, and he lost the will to live.

Btw, Mark has been teasing people for 10 years about his book. I'll believe it when I see it...

Hi Rod, if you wrote a book, I'd purchase it even though I'm not convinced of your theory. I give most authors a fair shot since I don't think there is a clear resolution to this case and would want to consider everything.

It's disappointing about Mark's book and a bit irksome to keep being promised a nonexistent book. I think he and Ged Fagan created the inacityliving site detailing the case, which is along with the chessbase article the best brief informational dissection of every angle. I suspect that is all we'll see from him.

[John G]

Hi Rod, if you wrote a book, I'd purchase it even though I'm not convinced of your theory. I give most authors a fair shot since I don't think there is a clear resolution to this case and would want to consider everything.

It's disappointing about Mark's book and a bit irksome to keep being promised a nonexistent book. I think he and Ged Fagan created the inacityliving site detailing the case, which is along with the chessbase article the best brief informational dissection of every angle. I suspect that is all we'll see from him.

I agree that the Inner City Living site is extremely detailed with well-reasoned arguments. Interestingly, they seem to have removed the argument that Lilly Hall's evidence was all over the place since Anthony pointed out that wasn't correct-I wonder if that's just a coincidence!

The site also claims that Marsden's and Young's alibis were checked by the police. Is this correct?

[AmericanSherlock]

I agree that the Inner City Living site is extremely detailed with well-reasoned arguments. Interestingly, they seem to have removed the argument that Lilly Hall's evidence was all over the place since Anthony pointed out that wasn't correct-I wonder if that's just a coincidence!

The site also claims that Marsden's and Young's alibis were checked by the police. Is this correct?

Hi John,

That site is constantly updated the authors may well have been reading this thread!

I'm not sure that is correct. As far as I know, Marsden claimed to be in bed sick that day, which isn't a very good alibi. I don't think that can really be checked.

[John G]

Hi John,

That site is constantly updated the authors may well have been reading this thread!

I'm not sure that is correct. As far as I know, Marsden claimed to be in bed sick that day, which isn't a very good alibi. I don't think that can really be checked.

Thanks AS, you're probably right about the site's authors! Marsden's alibi seems a bit shaky to me. I mean, this case seems to through up a lot of coincidences, and Marsden suddenly falling ill at the relevant time is clearly another one!

[RodCrosby]

Btw, fellow-sleuths, remember Goodman and others saying that there was a case that Parry was involved in, an alleged assault on a woman, but they never discovered the outcome?

Well, I found out what happened, only a couple of days ago, in of all places a 1936 Australian newspaper! [the Aussies at that time were big on UK news, and the free online database is excellent - I previously discovered my grandfather had another family Down Under via this source, and we reunited 85 years later as a result...]

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/212505469

Parry truly had the luck of the devil, didn't he?

From the Illustrated Police News, before the case was dismissed.
"Tommy rot!" said Parry...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/577sirgepibub70/Parry1936.pdf?dl=0

Looking at the rest of the cases, it really was a different world, wasn't it? See the advert for condoms. "Hercules washable. Will last for years. Cash returned if not satisfied..."

[John G]

Thanks AS, you're probably right about the site's authors! Marsden's alibi seems a bit shaky to me. I mean, this case seems to through up a lot of coincidences, and Marsden suddenly falling ill at the relevant time is clearly another one!

Oops! Should of course be "throw up" not "through up". Obviously a predictive text issue!

[John G]

From the Illustrated Police News, before the case was dismissed.
"Tommy rot!" said Parry...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/577sirgepibub70/Parry1936.pdf?dl=0

Looking at the rest of the cases, it really was a different world, wasn't it? See the advert for condoms. "Hercules washable. Will last for years. Cash returned if not satisfied..."

Excellent piece of research, Rod, which further highlights what a thoroughly disreputable character Parry was.

Just returning to your theory. As I understand it the accomplice, rather than Parry, carries out the theft, because presumably the accomplice would be unknown to Julia.

However, in that case, and assuming Julia caught the accomplice attempting to steal the money, why murder her? After all, the obvious implication is that he would be assumed to be the thief even if he wasn't actually caught in the act, but as he was unknown to Julia he would be unlikely to be identified.