Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[ColdCaseJury]

AS,

To me the logical conclusion of your ponderings is that a Parry prank call was followed by an unconnected visitor.

When I suggested this before you said that would be too much of a co-incidence. But if it wasn’t Wallace, does there need to be a causal link between the phone call and the murder?

I think the trouble is we want there to be a causal link because it makes the case far more interesting.

Hi Nick, if it was an impromptu prank call with no causal connection then:
a) Parry just happened to see WHW leave for a rare excursion to the chess club
b) He thought up the details of the ruse on the spot
c) The very day WHW goes to meet Qualtrough a visitor just happens to turn up and is admitted by Julia (according to Wallace, this would mean she knew the visitor or it was connected to WHW's business)
d) The visitor is intent on robbery or murder
e) This visitor apparently knows the location of the cashbox (according to WHW, this reduces the visitor to 1 of 15 people, or to someone who was told about its location)

I would say the probability of (a)-(e) is extremely low.

[John G]

The problem for me is it seems it would take someone to go out of their way to stalk Wallace, wait for him to leave, and then call. Had the person tried this ruse before? It seems not because the chess club never received a prior call...but if not, the caller got lucky since the one and only night he called was the night Wallace showed up to the club, received the message, and fell for the trap hook, line, and sinker. Keep in mind Wallace has missed the last few meetings...

Perhaps the caller had tried the watching and stalking before and Wallace had not left home so he did not call the chess club? But then this would imply a lengthy and complicated plot. If it was for a prank, it seems too convoluted. If it was truly to engage in a criminal enterprise, it seems too unreliable.

One theory could be that Parry killing time before visiting Lily (she said in her statement he came during a music lesson she was giving which was sacrilege, perhaps he wasnt due until 8 and bored) happened to see Wallace leave by chance and decided to prank the old codger who he harbored a minor grudge towards. He figured WHW must be headed to the chess club he's seen the postings of and has a laugh while diddling the phone to try to get his money back.

It is only some time later, perhaps that night, perhaps even on the 20th that he realizes it is a good opportunity to hit up Julia for cash or try to rob her. A twist on the PD James theory with the "pranker" as guilty, but perhaps he didn't plan it out like that to even be a robbery, let alone a murder. This might explain why parts of the theory don't make sense to us.

Of course, the problem is Parry's alibi the following night. I guess this is where the theory of an accomplice comes in. But then that implies a lengthy pre planned plot, which I again find hard to wrap my brain around for aforementioned reasons. And If the call really was a spur of the moment thing, then I doubt Parry could find a willing accomplice to do the dirty work in such short notice.

I agree with you about the accomplice argument, particularly as Parry's role would have been negligible. However, I'm now stating to wonder about Marsden. Thus, he was a friend of Parry; he'd previously covered for Wallace, so presumably would have known where to find the cash box; according to Wallace he might have been involved in financial irregularities; Wallace named him as one of the few people who Julia would have allowed into the house-important when you consider that there were no signs of forced entry or evidence of a struggle/argument-the Johnstons certainly didn't hear anything; and, crucially, he's the only suspect with a connection to the name Qualtrough, as a person with that name was a former client.

What about this as a speculative theory. Parry decides to play a hoax on Wallace, which he mentions to his friend Marsden. Marsden then suggests he uses the name Qualtrough, which at least as got to be less suspicious than Smith or Jones!

However, at some point Marsden decides to to take advantage of this situation by calling on Julia whilst Wallace is sent on a wild goose chase and stealing the money-Parry may have been unaware of the plan, although he could have suspected, hence the alibis.

Unfortunately for Marsden he's caught in the act. Julia threatens to inform her husband, so Marsden kills her.

I think at the very least this theory explains why any robbery attempt wasn't made whilst, say, Wallace was at work or during his visit to the chess club.

[ColdCaseJury]

I agree with you about the accomplice argument, particularly as Parry's role would have been negligible. However, I'm now stating to wonder about Marsden. Thus, he was a friend of Parry; he'd previously covered for Wallace, so presumably would have known where to find the cash box; according to Wallace he might have been involved in financial irregularities; Wallace named him as one of the few people who Julia would have allowed into the house-important when you consider that there were no signs of forced entry or evidence of a struggle/argument-the Johnstons certainly didn't hear anything; and, crucially, he's the only suspect with a connection to the name Qualtrough, as a person with that name was a former client.

What about this as a speculative theory. Parry decides to play a hoax on Wallace, which he mentions to his friend Marsden. Marsden then suggests he uses the name Qualtrough, which at least as got to be less suspicious than Smith or Jones!

However, at some point Marsden decides to to take advantage of this situation by calling on Julia whilst Wallace is sent on a wild goose chase and stealing the money-Parry may have been unaware of the plan, although he could have suspected, hence the alibis.

Unfortunately for Marsden he's caught in the act. Julia threatens to inform her husband, so Marsden kills her.

I think at the very least this theory explains why any robbery attempt wasn't made whilst, say, Wallace was at work or during his visit to the chess club.

Hi John G,

But when Joseph (Marsden) is on the doorstep he cannot pretend to be Qualtrough - Julia knows him. So, the name drops out as irrelevant, I would suggest. When Wallace notices the money has been stolen it would be obvious Marsden was the robber. So, your speculative theory would work better if the killer was a friend of Parry's who was unknown to the Wallaces and uses Qualtrough as a pretext to enter the house (Julia would admit people connected to Wallace's business). And this is getting close to the reasoning of Rod. In fact, all you need to do is have a formal connection between the killer and Parry, and you have the Accomplice theory!

Moral: being careful of your speculations!

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi John G,

But when Joseph (Marsden) is on the doorstep he cannot pretend to be Qualtrough - Julia knows him. So, the name drops out as irrelevant, I would suggest. When Wallace notices the money has been stolen it would be obvious Marsden was the robber. So, your speculative theory would work better if the killer was a friend of Parry's who was unknown to the Wallaces and uses Qualtrough as a pretext to enter the house (Julia would admit people connected to Wallace's business). And this is getting close to the reasoning of Rod. In fact, all you need to do is have a formal connection between the killer and Parry, and you have the Accomplice theory!

Moral: being careful of your speculations!

Antony, this was a common objection of mine in regards to the Parry theory, that he either would have to have planned murder (seems unlikely), or been okay with the idea that he would be suspected strongly of robbery (and probably the hoax call). However, in your Parry scenario, it is the same thing--once Wallace notices the money is gone, it would be obvious Parry is guilty! I think it is a problem for that theory, or the Marsden theory, but not necessarily a fatal one (pun intended). It would be Parry or Marsden's word against Wallace's. There wouldn't be proof of anything.

I think John G meant that Qualtrough would be less likely to seem an obvious hoax to Wallace than a very common last name. (BTW, I have a good friend across the pond in England with the last name Jones )

Rod's theory does resolve some of these issues (in my opinion it seems overly contrived to do so) , but as I've stated before raises significant issues of its own, perhaps greater than the ones it is trying to solve.

AS,

To me the logical conclusion of your ponderings is that a Parry prank call was followed by an unconnected visitor.

When I suggested this before you said that would be too much of a co-incidence. But if it wasn’t Wallace, does there need to be a causal link between the phone call and the murder?

I think the trouble is we want there to be a causal link because it makes the case far more interesting.

Hi Nick,

Some good points here. I see what you are saying, but when I said too much of a coincidence, I meant in the scenario you are describing where the murderer is somebody totally unrelated to the whole thing and just meanders into the Wallace's on that night. I think Antony explains well why that seems unlikely.

I was considering more the outlier scenarios that the call was a prank and the killer was Wallace exploiting the prank, Parry himself (but he hadn't planned it that way), or someone who overheard of the whole thing, perhaps someone at the chess club, Marsden, the Johnstons. In these instances, while there is still a coincidence, it still involves someone exploiting knowledge they have. Versus a totally unrelated incident, which would seem too great a coincidence to be possible. But, you never know!

[John G]

Hi John G,

But when Joseph (Marsden) is on the doorstep he cannot pretend to be Qualtrough - Julia knows him. So, the name drops out as irrelevant, I would suggest. When Wallace notices the money has been stolen it would be obvious Marsden was the robber. So, your speculative theory would work better if the killer was a friend of Parry's who was unknown to the Wallaces and uses Qualtrough as a pretext to enter the house (Julia would admit people connected to Wallace's business). And this is getting close to the reasoning of Rod. In fact, all you need to do is have a formal connection between the killer and Parry, and you have the Accomplice theory!

Moral: being careful of your speculations!

Hi CCJ,

In the theory I proposed Qualtrough is an unusual name suggested by Marsden to Parry for the purposes of his planned hoax. However, I'm not suggesting that Marsden used the name himself, merely that he may have simply taken advantage of the fact that Wallace had been lured away and that Parry, who's intention was simply to make a fool of Wallace, may have been unaware of his plan. In other words, Marsden is acting alone.

If Julia would admit anyone who said that they wished to speak to her husband about a matter of business, i.e. they were interested in an insurance policy, then there would be no need for the Qualtrough ruse: such a person could call round anytime Wallace was away, I.e. whilst at work or the chess club.

I accept that it would be obvious Marsden was the robber, and this creates problems, particularly as he was about to hit the financial jackpot by marrying into a wealthy family.

However, he may have needed money urgently, such as to repay a moneylender, or because he was being blackmailed in such a way that placed his forthcoming marriage at risk.

[John G]

Antony, this was a common objection of mine in regards to the Parry theory, that he either would have to have planned murder (seems unlikely), or been okay with the idea that he would be suspected strongly of robbery (and probably the hoax call). However, in your Parry scenario, it is the same thing--once Wallace notices the money is gone, it would be obvious Parry is guilty! I think it is a problem for that theory, or the Marsden theory, but not necessarily a fatal one (pun intended). It would be Parry or Marsden's word against Wallace's. There wouldn't be proof of anything.

I think John G meant that Qualtrough would be less likely to seem an obvious hoax to Wallace than a very common last name. (BTW, I have a good friend across the pond in England with the last name Jones )

Rod's theory does resolve some of these issues (in my opinion it seems overly contrived to do so) , but as I've stated before raises significant issues of its own, perhaps greater than the ones it is trying to solve.






Hi Nick,

Some good points here. I see what you are saying, but when I said too much of a coincidence, I meant in the scenario you are describing where the murderer is somebody totally unrelated to the whole thing and just meanders into the Wallace's on that night. I think Antony explains well why that seems unlikely.

I was considering more the outlier scenarios that the call was a prank and the killer was Wallace exploiting the prank, Parry himself (but he hadn't planned it that way), or someone who overheard of the whole thing, perhaps someone at the chess club, Marsden, the Johnstons. In these instances, while there is still a coincidence, it still involves someone exploiting knowledge they have. Versus a totally unrelated incident, which would seem too great a coincidence to be possible. But, you never know!

Thanks AS. Yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting.

[John G]

AS,

To me the logical conclusion of your ponderings is that a Parry prank call was followed by an unconnected visitor.

When I suggested this before you said that would be too much of a co-incidence. But if it wasn’t Wallace, does there need to be a causal link between the phone call and the murder?

I think the trouble is we want there to be a causal link because it makes the case far more interesting.

Hi Nick,

Yes, a very good point. And if it's the case that Julia would simply admit anyone who claimed to be calling round to see her husband about a matter of business, then there would be no need for the convoluted Qualtrough ruse.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi CCJ,

In the theory I proposed Qualtrough is an unusual name suggested by Marsden to Parry for the purposes of his planned hoax. However, I'm not suggesting that Marsden used the name himself, merely that he may have simply taken advantage of the fact that Wallace had been lured away and that Parry, who's intention was simply to make a fool of Wallace, may have been unaware of his plan. In other words, Marsden is acting alone.

If Julia would admit anyone who said that they wished to speak to her husband about a matter of business, i.e. they were interested in an insurance policy, then there would be no need for the Qualtrough ruse: such a person could call round anytime Wallace was away, I.e. whilst at work or the chess club.

I accept that it would be obvious Marsden was the robber, and this creates problems, particularly as he was about to hit the financial jackpot by marrying into a wealthy family.

However, he may have needed money urgently, such as to repay a moneylender, or because he was being blackmailed in such a way that placed his forthcoming marriage at risk.

Hi John G, I don't think Julia would have admitted anyone - someone at Wallace's office or, in this instance, someone she believed her husband was going to meet. In other words, they were not unknown to her because Wallace had spoken about them to her (and this is true of Qualtrough).

[NickB]

We don’t really know who Julia would have admitted.

The defence suggested: “When Wallace had left the house a watcher called and was admitted for the purpose of ‘leaving a note’ for Wallace.”

Also, a locked cabinet was broken into. This does not suggest that the intruder “knows the location of the cashbox” and goes straight for it.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi John G, I don't think Julia would have admitted anyone - someone at Wallace's office or, in this instance, someone she believed her husband was going to meet. In other words, they were not unknown to her because Wallace had spoken about them to her (and this is true of Qualtrough).

Antony,

I think the whole "Qualtrough" idea is tenuous. Such a person, if working with Parry would have to be involved in a substantial plot, perhaps one that took weeks of trial and error to materialize...that relied on eassentially a prank call being taken seriously. He would have to totally trust Parry and be willing to take all the real risk of the endeavor. He would still be suspected obviously in much the same way as Parry or Marsden or someone Julia knew would be. True, she would not know him, and might not be able to finger him, but it does strike me as a risk vs. breaking into a random house. I don't see the substantial upside to the "distract an elderly lady for a bit and hope tosteal some insurance money quickly, but leave other money/jewelry untouched, and hope she doesn't notice until it's over with" plot versus other sorts of crimes. (Contrast this supposed robbery with the Anfield Housebreaker.)

Also, I disagree with the idea that Julia necessarily wouldn't let someone else in she didn't know. I think it's probably unlikely, but not definite. And if we go with the train of thought that she wouldn't, is it really such a thing to bank on that she would have let "Qualtrough" in. Qualtrough has to trust Parry, has to believe Wallace will go out--and not just step out---but leave in his vain search and not return or be told quickly the address does not exist and abandon the idea. And critically that Wallace will have told Julia not only that he is going on this business meeting but mention the name to him. And that Julia, who apparently is too nervous and fragile to let someone she doesn't know in, will be OK with allowing him into her home because she might see a putative business opportunity slipping away if she doesn't.

All this uncertainty, all these moving pieces--just doesn't pass the smell test in my opinion.

[John G]

Another point is that there's no substantive evidence whatsoever for Parry working with an accomplice, except Wallace, as a consequence of Hall's account. It's also worth noting that the amount of money stolen was relatively modest, even more so if split two ways. That reduces the likelihood that, say, Parry would have been willing to work with an accomplice.

I also feel that it would be highly unlikely that Parry would trust a complete stranger, particularly as this person might very well implicate him if he were caught. And if it wasn't a complete stranger, who exactly was this mysterious Mr X?

It also seems a little odd to me that we've gone from arguing that timid Julia would only admit a small, select group of people, to effectively saying that she would let in all and sundry, i.e. on the basis that all a total stranger had to do was mention that he'd come to see Wallace about a business matter.

Well, if that's the case, why did Mr X need Parry?

[AmericanSherlock]

Another point is that there's no substantive evidence whatsoever for Parry working with an accomplice, except Wallace, as a consequence of Hall's account. It's also worth noting that the amount of money stolen was relatively modest, even more so if split two ways. That reduces the likelihood that, say, Parry would have been willing to work with an accomplice.

I also feel that it would be highly unlikely that Parry would trust a complete stranger, particularly as this person might very well implicate him if he were caught. And if it wasn't a complete stranger, who exactly was this mysterious Mr X?

I think it has been argued that perhaps Parry suspected a larger amount would be there. I have seen conflicting information about this and what he would have been expected to know having worked for the company.

In any case, the bold is a very good point.

Do you find it suspicious Marsden "called in sick" on the 20th?

[ColdCaseJury]

Another point is that there's no substantive evidence whatsoever for Parry working with an accomplice, except Wallace, as a consequence of Hall's account. It's also worth noting that the amount of money stolen was relatively modest, even more so if split two ways. That reduces the likelihood that, say, Parry would have been willing to work with an accomplice.

I also feel that it would be highly unlikely that Parry would trust a complete stranger, particularly as this person might very well implicate him if he were caught. And if it wasn't a complete stranger, who exactly was this mysterious Mr X?

It also seems a little odd to me that we've gone from arguing that timid Julia would only admit a small, select group of people, to effectively saying that she would let in all and sundry, i.e. on the basis that all a total stranger had to do was mention that he'd come to see Wallace about a business matter.

Well, if that's the case, why did Mr X need Parry?

To be fair John, there is no substantive evidence it was Wallace, Parry or Marsden. Two facts: Parry lies about his whereabouts at the time of the call and had an alibi for the time of the murder.

[AmericanSherlock]

To be fair John, there is no substantive evidence it was Wallace, Parry or Marsden. Two facts: Parry lies about his whereabouts at the time of the call and had an alibi for the time of the murder.

It is possible Parry lied since he felt he didn't have an adequate alibi, but was nonetheless still innocent of even making the call. If you don't buy this then...

We could still explain it by using 2 of the 4 scenarios in your book. In fact, the 1 you tentatively chose as the most likely, the Wallace and Parry working together conspiracy would explain this. As would PD. James Prank theory.

To my mind, Rod's "Qualtrough" accomplice theory is the least likely compared to all 4 of the scenarios you originally listed, except for the PD James Prank one, although it is close since there are appealing aspects to that theory. Perhaps even that one is better if we throw out the milk boy seeing Wallace in drag nonsense. I honestly believe that, not just because of Rod's behavior on this thread.

[John G]

To be fair John, there is no substantive evidence it was Wallace, Parry or Marsden. Two facts: Parry lies about his whereabouts at the time of the call and had an alibi for the time of the murder.

Yes, I agree, although the police obviously felt there was substantive evidence against Wallace. Fair point about Parry, who I still think most likely made the Qualtrough call. And I also think it a bit suspicious that he continued collecting alibis after leaving the Brine residence.

Nonetheless, even if he made the hoax call it's still possible Parry had no involvement in the robbery/murder. For instance, it could just be a coincidence. Or he could have confided in a friend about how he thought it would be hoot to send Wallace on a wild goose chase, and the friend simply decided at the last minute to take advantage of Wallace being drawn away from home.

Of course, this would all be extremely unlikely, however, I think whatever happened must have involved at least one implausible scenario, otherwise the case would have been solved by now!

And, of course, Rod's theory implies a rejection of Lily Hall's evidence, despite the unliklihood of there being a Wallace look a like-who never comes forward for elimination purposes-in pretty much the exact general location where you would expect Wallace to have been at that time.