Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

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.

I think Lily Hall's account strongly implies Wallace's involvement in some capacity. Clearly something unusual happened because as you said, if the case was straightforward it would have been solved by now. There is no permutation of events that makes sense and doesn't have significant problems.

[Charles Daniels]

Oh sorry, I thought I'd linked them previously...

Part One of the 1981 Radio City show - "Who killed Julia?"

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w0g22us7ey649a4/01-1981%20Radio%20City%20-Who%20Killed%20Julia%20part1.mp3?dl=0

This is going to drive me nuts -- the first voice, the presenter, who is that?
I recognise the voice but can't place the name.

Cheers!

[RodCrosby]

It's Michael Green, who was 194 Radio City's first news presenter and producer, from 1974 of the flagship news programme City at Six.

He came up with the idea of the 50th anniversary "Who killed Julia?" programmes, and was the guy who tracked down Atkinsons' Garage and John Parkes, and who interviewed and recorded Parkes at his hospital bedside...

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/michael-green-48683a55

[Charles Daniels]

1. That WHW would get the message and decide to go without consulting a map (he could arguably see the address was wrong and still go and try the others, but the whole idea of him going seems tenuous)

I would have been more swayed with this notion, had I never moved to the UK.

The UK is a pretty weird place when it comes to streets.
Streets can up and change their names for random portion of the road.
This really baffled me when I first moved here, because you'd suddenly discover that the street you thought you were on had suddenly changed it's name and even gone back again in some cases.

In Oxford, where I live for example, it's possible to walk along a straight path and find that you've walked down the Thames river, the Isis River, and then back to the Thames River, without ever actually doing anything but putting one foot in front of the other in a straight line.

If you do something exciting like cross a small bridge, you might find you've also walked along the Cherwell.

So it makes sense to me, a lot of sense, that someone would think "Oh, Menlove Gardens. I know where that is. I'll find it." And not bother to consult a map.

It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that there was either
1) A tiny often overlooked branch road

or

2) A part of Menlove Gardens West/South/North that very briefly became Menlove Gardens East.


The street names and place names in the UK can be terribly confusing.
But people aren't constantly rushing to look at maps unless they are tourists.

It may result in some wild goose chases and fool's errands, but especially with native local residents there's a feeling that you should be able to just find places easily.

I've lived in Oxford for about 13 years, and whenever I encounter an address I don't know, I just ask for a landmark like a church or a pub it's near.

If someone told me "It's just off Cowley road", there are loads of tiny streets and unassuming streets off Cowley road, and no one ever remembers which is which, but I probably wouldn't bother to look it up. I think the Menlove Gardens situation is probably the same.

[John G]

I would have been more swayed with this notion, had I never moved to the UK.

The UK is a pretty weird place when it comes to streets.
Streets can up and change their names for random portion of the road.
This really baffled me when I first moved here, because you'd suddenly discover that the street you thought you were on had suddenly changed it's name and even gone back again in some cases.

In Oxford, where I live for example, it's possible to walk along a straight path and find that you've walked down the Thames river, the Isis River, and then back to the Thames River, without ever actually doing anything but putting one foot in front of the other in a straight line.

If you do something exciting like cross a small bridge, you might find you've also walked along the Cherwell.

So it makes sense to me, a lot of sense, that someone would think "Oh, Menlove Gardens. I know where that is. I'll find it." And not bother to consult a map.

It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that there was either
1) A tiny often overlooked branch road

or

2) A part of Menlove Gardens West/South/North that very briefly became Menlove Gardens East.


The street names and place names in the UK can be terribly confusing.
But people aren't constantly rushing to look at maps unless they are tourists.

It may result in some wild goose chases and fool's errands, but especially with native local residents there's a feeling that you should be able to just find places easily.

I've lived in Oxford for about 13 years, and whenever I encounter an address I don't know, I just ask for a landmark like a church or a pub it's near.

If someone told me "It's just off Cowley road", there are loads of tiny streets and unassuming streets off Cowley road, and no one ever remembers which is which, but I probably wouldn't bother to look it up. I think the Menlove Gardens situation is probably the same.

I would agree with this. Wallace did actually research the general location where he needed to be because, on the way home, he discussed bus and tram routes to Menlove Avenue with James Caird. It's also worth pointing out that he was ambivalent about whether he would actually make the appointment, telling Caird that he might not go at all.

And earlier, after another club member, Dyes, informed him that he didn't know where the address was, he responds by saying, "It's alright, I've got a tongue in my head. I can ask."

[John G]

Reflecting again on Lily Hall's account. I thought it might be useful to view a modern map of the local area: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...28eb7bed8032ff

Now, Hall stated in evidence that she saw Wallace talking to another man at the entry to Richmond Park. She then crossed over to Letchworth Street, whilst one of the men went down the entry and the other man went along to towards Breck Road.

As can be seen from the map, assuming the geography of the district hasn't fundamentally changed, Breck Road is moving away from Wolverton Street. Conversely, if you enter Richmond Park, from the Breck Road junction, Wolverton Street is a turning on the left as you follow the road round, just past the turning to Letchworth Street, which is on the right.

Unfortunately, Hall was unable to say which of the men entered Richmond Park.

[John G]

And here's a map of Menlove Gardens, Liverpool: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...01fc7e9a3b4d03

As you can see, there's no Menlove Gardens East. Unfortunately Wallace wouldn't have had had access to Google Maps!

[John G]

Here's an interesting study on the accuracy of long-term memory: Bahrick et al (1975): https://www.simplypsychology.org/long-term-memory.html

Thus, after 48 years the accuracy rate for remembering the names of people in a graduate class was just 30%. Interestingly, Parkes was attempting to recall much greater detail from 48 years earlier. And that, of course, assumes he wasn't being economical with the truth in the first place!

[ColdCaseJury]

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.

AS, of course that is possible, but is it probable? What was Parry up to that he could not tell the police even though he was being question in connection with a murder charge?

I appreciate you believe Wallace is involved in the murder of his wife, and prefer Wallace Alone as the best theory. I respect your arguments, too. However, it is perfectly rational to be believe Parry's lie raises the probability that he made the call. Remember, it is not the only evidence connecting him.

If we are being honest, what if Wallace was found lying about any of his evidence? Let's say that he said that he had never used Anfield 1627, but this was proved to be a lie. If someone explained this away, perhaps by saying Wallace was scared of being implicated in the call if he admitted he had used the phone box on a previous occasion, how would you react?

[AmericanSherlock]

And here's a map of Menlove Gardens, Liverpool: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...01fc7e9a3b4d03

As you can see, there's no Menlove Gardens East. Unfortunately Wallace wouldn't have had had access to Google Maps!

I wonder if Wallace would have preferred Samsung or Iphone

[AmericanSherlock]

AS, of course that is possible, but is it probable? What was Parry up to that he could not tell the police even though he was being question in connection with a murder charge?

I appreciate you believe Wallace is involved in the murder of his wife, and prefer Wallace Alone as the best theory. I respect your arguments, too. However, it is perfectly rational to be believe Parry's lie raises the probability that he made the call. Remember, it is not the only evidence connecting him.

If we are being honest, what if Wallace was found lying about any of his evidence? Let's say that he said that he had never used Anfield 1627, but this was proved to be a lie. If someone explained this away, perhaps by saying Wallace was scared of being implicated in the call if he admitted he had used the phone box on a previous occasion, how would you react?

Hi Antony, I agree it appears more likely Parry made the call if we look solely at the facts surrounding the call for both WHW and Parry, (mainly their own statements) and don't consider anything else.

Is it a logical fallacy to allow my belief that Wallace was guilty (for other reasons) or that Parry was not guilty (also for other reasons, although overlapping) influence who I think made the call? It seems like it might be, however if I wanted to be most likely to be correct about the identity of "Qualtrough" (say my life depended on it!), I would consider EVERYTHING in terms of who I thought made the call. That would include some working backwards logically.

There are also scenarios where Parry is the caller but not guilty or even complicit, so this isn't a foolproof way of looking at things by any means.

If I wasn't thinking about this holistically and allowing my view on A to influence my view on B and so forth (again please tell me if this is circular reasoning or not in your view?), and just was simply asked independent of ANY other facts of the case, ONLY going by the statements of Wallace and Parry regarding the night of the call, the facts surrounding this (the fact Parry lied, his history of prank calls, Beattie not recognizing his voice etc.), then I would agree that it seems Parry was the caller...

An aside related to your question about Wallace lying: Do you think Murphy was making a salient point when he noted Wallace claimed to be unfamiliar with the Menlove area but had frequently visited Crewe, his superintendent near Calderstone Park?

[AmericanSherlock]

I would have been more swayed with this notion, had I never moved to the UK.

The UK is a pretty weird place when it comes to streets.
Streets can up and change their names for random portion of the road.
This really baffled me when I first moved here, because you'd suddenly discover that the street you thought you were on had suddenly changed it's name and even gone back again in some cases.

In Oxford, where I live for example, it's possible to walk along a straight path and find that you've walked down the Thames river, the Isis River, and then back to the Thames River, without ever actually doing anything but putting one foot in front of the other in a straight line.

If you do something exciting like cross a small bridge, you might find you've also walked along the Cherwell.

So it makes sense to me, a lot of sense, that someone would think "Oh, Menlove Gardens. I know where that is. I'll find it." And not bother to consult a map.

It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that there was either
1) A tiny often overlooked branch road

or

2) A part of Menlove Gardens West/South/North that very briefly became Menlove Gardens East.


The street names and place names in the UK can be terribly confusing.
But people aren't constantly rushing to look at maps unless they are tourists.

It may result in some wild goose chases and fool's errands, but especially with native local residents there's a feeling that you should be able to just find places easily.

I've lived in Oxford for about 13 years, and whenever I encounter an address I don't know, I just ask for a landmark like a church or a pub it's near.

If someone told me "It's just off Cowley road", there are loads of tiny streets and unassuming streets off Cowley road, and no one ever remembers which is which, but I probably wouldn't bother to look it up. I think the Menlove Gardens situation is probably the same.

Hi Charles,

thanks for this, appreciate it. I've been to UK once when visiting London as a teenager a decade ago. But don't remember much of it.

I still find it suspicious WHW didn't consult a map of any kind (been told here that would be "useless") or if that failed, and he really was going to ask around as he had relayed at the chess club the night prior, then why did he show up right at 7:30 in the neighborhood for what should be official business. He was apparently desperate to make himself known on the journey and relay his story in a supposed search for Qualtrough, yet couldn't think to come a bit early in case he had trouble finding a confusing address?Of course, if he was guilty, he had no choice but to leave when he did, as he would need the milk boy (who was late due to events Wallace could not have foreseen) to have come and gone before he could act.

[John G]

Joseph Crewe lived at Green Lane, Mossley Hill, Liverpool. Green Lane crosses Menlove Avenue, and Menlove Gardens North is a turning to the right:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Green+Ln,+Liverpool+L18+6HA/@53.3870386,-2.9011365,16z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x487b202551a79c69:0x58f85eb76dd37e2e

Nonetheless, under cross examination, Crewe noted: "Menlove Gardens are behind the main road, and I would suggest very few people, only those that reside in those gardens, ever came through them."

By main road, I assume he's referring to Menlove Avenue, the A562. Of course, Wallace may have been able to see this main road from Green Lane without knowing what it was called.

[John G]

I wonder if Wallace would have preferred Samsung or Iphone

I could imagine him being a traditionalist, so probably a phone with a lead on it!

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony, I agree it appears more likely Parry made the call if we look solely at the facts surrounding the call for both WHW and Parry, (mainly their own statements) and don't consider anything else.

Is it a logical fallacy to allow my belief that Wallace was guilty (for other reasons) or that Parry was not guilty (also for other reasons, although overlapping) influence who I think made the call? It seems like it might be, however if I wanted to be most likely to be correct about the identity of "Qualtrough" (say my life depended on it!), I would consider EVERYTHING in terms of who I thought made the call. That would include some working backwards logically.

There are also scenarios where Parry is the caller but not guilty or even complicit, so this isn't a foolproof way of looking at things by any means.

If I wasn't thinking about this holistically and allowing my view on A to influence my view on B and so forth (again please tell me if this is circular reasoning or not in your view?), and just was simply asked independent of ANY other facts of the case, ONLY going by the statements of Wallace and Parry regarding the night of the call, the facts surrounding this (the fact Parry lied, his history of prank calls, Beattie not recognizing his voice etc.), then I would agree that it seems Parry was the caller...

An aside related to your question about Wallace lying: Do you think Murphy was making a salient point when he noted Wallace claimed to be unfamiliar with the Menlove area but had frequently visited Crewe, his superintendent near Calderstone Park?

AS, given we have the following theories (there are others):

Wallace (Wallace killer, Wallace caller)
Prank (Wallace killer, Parry caller)

then we do have to look at the evidence for the killer and caller separately to differentiate between the two. If you are certain that Parry was the caller then you are also certain that the Wallace theory is false. However, we are not dealing with certainties. So, if you think Parry is the caller you increase the probability of Prank and reduce probability of Wallace (in proportion to the strength of evidence), but there may be other evidence that reduces the probability of Prank (which I think is true by the way), leaving Wallace as the most likely scenario of the two (remember, there are other theories). However, if you are consistent, you would have to say that your belief in Wallace is not as strong as it was because you have doubts about who made the call (which is also true, it appears, from your previous posts).

The only position of which I am certain is that you cannot be certain in the Wallace case!