Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi CCJ,

But Wallace wasn't arrested until thirteen days after the murder (and I think it unlikely that a local police officer would be spreading rumours). This raises an interesting possibility. I do believe there was some incident at the garage, but that it happened much later than Parkes remembered. And it would be hardly surprising if events had got mixed up in his mind, considering he was attempting to recall an incident from almost half a century ago.

And, if I'm correct, it's possible that a mischievous Parry was simply winding-up a gullible Parkes, knowing that if he took him seriously, and reported the matter, he was protected by his cast iron alibis.

Hi John,

True, Wallace was not arrested until 2 Feb but the rumours on the night of 20 January 1931 was that Wallace had been. Also, if Parry arrived much later than Parkes remembered, and fished out the mitten, then clearly Parry was involved in some other serious crime we do not know about.

[ColdCaseJury]

I'm starting to think that a "robbery gone wrong" is much less plausible as a scenario than a planned murder. Thus, Wallace made this statement during the trial about the monthly collections:

" Three weeks out of four, the amount may be anything between £30 and £40; each fourth week it may be anything between, say, £80 and £100. It may be more on occasions."

However, on the day of the murder he estimated that he'd collected only £14 (this is partially explained by the fact that he'd been ill on the Saturday because of the flu, therefore there were no collections on that day.)

And out of that £14, he'd had to pay out about £10 in sickness benefits, leaving only about £4 net.

It therefore seems obvious that this was just about the worst possible time to commit a robbery, and therefore a robbery orchestrated by Wallace makes no sense.

What about a robbery committed without Wallace's involvement? Surely in that case the perpetrator would be incensed about the paucity of the expected windfall. He might, for instance, have refused to believe that there was so little in the way of takings, and demanded that Julia tell him where the rest of the money was.

However, this would surely have involved a major altercation, with raised voices at the very least, and possibly signs of struggle. However, there is no evidence for any kind of struggle, and the neighbours heard nothing. It would therefore seem that robbery as the prime motive is unlikely.

John,

If it's a planned murder it's Wallace, in my view. If it's Wallace then it's a staged robbery. Except, Wallace returns the cashbox to the top shelf and drops three coins on the floor and a cabinet lid. Now, who thinks a thief would do that? Superintendent Moore did not. I suggest Wallace would not expect a thief to think like that.

Indeed, Wallace would not want to touch the cashbox if he was planning the crime, I suggest. According to him, only 15 people knew the location of the cashbox in addition to him and Julia. In his unpublished memoir and other places, Wallace also writes that he is convinced the killer knew him and his wife (he provides sound reasons, too). So, if Wallace is the killer and planned his crime meticulously, then he schemed to make it appear that only someone who him well had killed his wife. Not a good plan, I suggest. If all 15 other people had cast-iron alibis (for sake of argument), where would the finger of suspicion point?

[AmericanSherlock]

John,

If it's a planned murder it's Wallace, in my view. If it's Wallace then it's a staged robbery. Except, Wallace returns the cashbox to the top shelf and drops three coins on the floor and a cabinet lid. Now, who thinks a thief would do that? Superintendent Moore did not. I suggest Wallace would not expect a thief to think like that.

Indeed, Wallace would not want to touch the cashbox if he was planning the crime, I suggest. According to him, only 15 people knew the location of the cashbox in addition to him and Julia. In his unpublished memoir and other places, Wallace also writes that he is convinced the killer knew him and his wife (he provides sound reasons, too). So, if Wallace is the killer and planned his crime meticulously, then he schemed to make it appear that only someone who him well had killed his wife. Not a good plan, I suggest. If all 15 other people had cast-iron alibis (for sake of argument), where would the finger of suspicion point?

Hi Antony,

I'm a bit confused with the line of reasoning here. Let's represent the 2 options with A and B, where A is a thief committing the unplanned murder after being caught and replacing the cashbox and B is Wallace himself as the culprit who then stages a robbery and replaces the cashbox.

It seems to me you are suggesting that A is so implausible in theory that it is not something Wallace would contrive of as part of a staged robbery, and that even Moore did not think a thief would behave in this manner. It appears you are turning that argument on its head by saying if it's so unlikely that a thief would replace the cashbox, then it is also unlikely Wallace would have that as part of a plan to deflect blame and make it appear that a thief committed the murder.

I see this reasoning, but how does it then make A any more likely than B? This is a circular argument. B is unlikely because no one would make it look like A since A is so unlikely. How does that make A a better option?

This of course all relies on the premise that these are the only 2 options; while there are obviously others, I think there is a general consensus lately that these 2 are the most likely "competing theories." with some movement away from the collusion angle. Or at least these are the main 2 currently being pitted against eachother. Given this dichotomy, we must find the problem with the line of reasoning that makes both A and B seem incredibly unlikely.

I would posit that there is an explanation for the cashbox being replaced if Wallace was the culprit; a simple mistake borne out of habit with adrenaline running. He must have replaced the lid and put the box on the high shelf hundreds, if not thousand of times.

There is not to my analysis an equally good explanation for a sneak thief doing so. I would imagine one would want to flee as quickly as possible following unexpectedly committing a brutal murder, not take his sweet time to try to leave the box as it was found. You yourself have said as much when you stated that the cash box being put back intact on its high shelf was a small pointer towards Wallace's guilt in much the same way the caller mentioning a 21st could be seen as a small point towards Parry's guilt.

I suspect that you have another idea though, although it went unstated. If the thief was not caught in the act, but attempted a sneak-thievery and was caught later , perhaps because of the coins on the floor etc., then this would explain the cash box being so carefully put back. The thief was trying to hide his action in front of Julia. This is Rod's theory. I have already discussed my problems with this ad nauseam, but I don't see any other theory that would reconcile what you are saying here: that theory A is more likely than B even though the whole reason you say B is unlikely is because A is so ridiculous that no one would conceive of it!

Am I correct that this is what you are leaning toward?

If so, I fear we are unfortunately where we were before; I see the "Parry Accomplice" theory as creating more logical problems than it solves.

[John G]

Hi John,

True, Wallace was not arrested until 2 Feb but the rumours on the night of 20 January 1931 was that Wallace had been. Also, if Parry arrived much later than Parkes remembered, and fished out the mitten, then clearly Parry was involved in some other serious crime we do not know about.

Hi Antony,

But surely the local beat officer would have been in a strong position to ascertain the true facts. Regarding the mitten, assuming Parkes was telling the truth, or that he didn't simply misremember the facts due to the passage of time, how did he know their was blood on the mitten? I mean, by his own evidence he only held it for a very brief period before it was snatched away; if as I suggested, Parry was playing a trick on him-with the incident occurring perhaps several days after the murder-it could have been, say, red paint.

[John G]

John,

If it's a planned murder it's Wallace, in my view. If it's Wallace then it's a staged robbery. Except, Wallace returns the cashbox to the top shelf and drops three coins on the floor and a cabinet lid. Now, who thinks a thief would do that? Superintendent Moore did not. I suggest Wallace would not expect a thief to think like that.

Indeed, Wallace would not want to touch the cashbox if he was planning the crime, I suggest. According to him, only 15 people knew the location of the cashbox in addition to him and Julia. In his unpublished memoir and other places, Wallace also writes that he is convinced the killer knew him and his wife (he provides sound reasons, too). So, if Wallace is the killer and planned his crime meticulously, then he schemed to make it appear that only someone who him well had killed his wife. Not a good plan, I suggest. If all 15 other people had cast-iron alibis (for sake of argument), where would the finger of suspicion point?

Antony,

Regarding suspects. There is always the possibility that Julia had a secret lover, who was not one of the 15 people named by Wallace. Indeed, it's possible they conspired to get Wallace out of the house that evening so they could be together. This individual could then have murdered Julia and staged a robbery.


The cash box issue presents problems for any scenario, as AS mentions in his post. And if we are to postulate that Parry was somehow involved, with robbery being the motive, then surely he must have been aware that this was a very bad time to commit such a crime, i.e. because, as Wallace pointed out at his trial, there was relatively in the way of insurance takings and Parry would presumably have known this.

I still consider it very unlikely that Wallace could have committed the murder. However, if he did then he had to take some considerable risks, although he would have been very unlucky if all 15 named individuals had a cast iron alibi (in fact, as we've discussed before, even Parry's supposed cast iron alibi can be questioned.

[John G]

Hi Antony,

I'm a bit confused with the line of reasoning here. Let's represent the 2 options with A and B, where A is a thief committing the unplanned murder after being caught and replacing the cashbox and B is Wallace himself as the culprit who then stages a robbery and replaces the cashbox.

It seems to me you are suggesting that A is so implausible in theory that it is not something Wallace would contrive of as part of a staged robbery, and that even Moore did not think a thief would behave in this manner. It appears you are turning that argument on its head by saying if it's so unlikely that a thief would replace the cashbox, then it is also unlikely Wallace would have that as part of a plan to deflect blame and make it appear that a thief committed the murder.

I see this reasoning, but how does it then make A any more likely than B? This is a circular argument. B is unlikely because no one would make it look like A since A is so unlikely. How does that make A a better option?

This of course all relies on the premise that these are the only 2 options; while there are obviously others, I think there is a general consensus lately that these 2 are the most likely "competing theories." with some movement away from the collusion angle. Or at least these are the main 2 currently being pitted against eachother. Given this dichotomy, we must find the problem with the line of reasoning that makes both A and B seem incredibly unlikely.

I would posit that there is an explanation for the cashbox being replaced if Wallace was the culprit; a simple mistake borne out of habit with adrenaline running. He must have replaced the lid and put the box on the high shelf hundreds, if not thousand of times.

There is not to my analysis an equally good explanation for a sneak thief doing so. I would imagine one would want to flee as quickly as possible following unexpectedly committing a brutal murder, not take his sweet time to try to leave the box as it was found. You yourself have said as much when you stated that the cash box being put back intact on its high shelf was a small pointer towards Wallace's guilt in much the same way the caller mentioning a 21st could be seen as a small point towards Parry's guilt.

I suspect that you have another idea though, although it went unstated. If the thief was not caught in the act, but attempted a sneak-thievery and was caught later , perhaps because of the coins on the floor etc., then this would explain the cash box being so carefully put back. The thief was trying to hide his action in front of Julia. This is Rod's theory. I have already discussed my problems with this ad nauseam, but I don't see any other theory that would reconcile what you are saying here: that theory A is more likely than B even though the whole reason you say B is unlikely is because A is so ridiculous that no one would conceive of it!

Am I correct that this is what you are leaning toward?

If so, I fear we are unfortunately where we were before; I see the "Parry Accomplice" theory as creating more logical problems than it solves.

Excellent post AS, which succinctly highlights the difficulties with the varuous cash box scenarios.

I agree that the Parry and accomplice theory, with robbery being the motive, has many problems. For instance, as Wallace himself made abundantly clear at his trial, there was relativity little in the way of insurance takings, at least when compared with a good day. The date in question must therefore have been about the worst possible time to commit a robbery. And Parry, who had covered Wallace's round many times, must surely have realized this. Why then take the risk of conspiring to commit a robbery for such a meagre return, particularly as he now has to share the money with somebody else?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony,

I'm a bit confused with the line of reasoning here. Let's represent the 2 options with A and B, where A is a thief committing the unplanned murder after being caught and replacing the cashbox and B is Wallace himself as the culprit who then stages a robbery and replaces the cashbox.

It seems to me you are suggesting that A is so implausible in theory that it is not something Wallace would contrive of as part of a staged robbery, and that even Moore did not think a thief would behave in this manner. It appears you are turning that argument on its head by saying if it's so unlikely that a thief would replace the cashbox, then it is also unlikely Wallace would have that as part of a plan to deflect blame and make it appear that a thief committed the murder.

I see this reasoning, but how does it then make A any more likely than B? This is a circular argument. B is unlikely because no one would make it look like A since A is so unlikely. How does that make A a better option?

This of course all relies on the premise that these are the only 2 options; while there are obviously others, I think there is a general consensus lately that these 2 are the most likely "competing theories." with some movement away from the collusion angle. Or at least these are the main 2 currently being pitted against eachother. Given this dichotomy, we must find the problem with the line of reasoning that makes both A and B seem incredibly unlikely.

I would posit that there is an explanation for the cashbox being replaced if Wallace was the culprit; a simple mistake borne out of habit with adrenaline running. He must have replaced the lid and put the box on the high shelf hundreds, if not thousand of times.

There is not to my analysis an equally good explanation for a sneak thief doing so. I would imagine one would want to flee as quickly as possible following unexpectedly committing a brutal murder, not take his sweet time to try to leave the box as it was found. You yourself have said as much when you stated that the cash box being put back intact on its high shelf was a small pointer towards Wallace's guilt in much the same way the caller mentioning a 21st could be seen as a small point towards Parry's guilt.

I suspect that you have another idea though, although it went unstated. If the thief was not caught in the act, but attempted a sneak-thievery and was caught later , perhaps because of the coins on the floor etc., then this would explain the cash box being so carefully put back. The thief was trying to hide his action in front of Julia. This is Rod's theory. I have already discussed my problems with this ad nauseam, but I don't see any other theory that would reconcile what you are saying here: that theory A is more likely than B even though the whole reason you say B is unlikely is because A is so ridiculous that no one would conceive of it!

Am I correct that this is what you are leaning toward?

If so, I fear we are unfortunately where we were before; I see the "Parry Accomplice" theory as creating more logical problems than it solves.

Hi AS,

Let's take one point at a time.

If Wallace plans the murder and intentionally replaces the cashbox, he must realise the thief knew the location of the cashbox. This limits the number of potential suspects to just 15. He cannot just assume the police will believe the thief threatened Julia to reveal the location - he still had to know there was a cashbox somewhere. So, not only is the murderer most likely one of 15 (or at least someone who knew these 15) but he is knowingly implicating his closest friends and colleagues. Why would Wallace plan like this? Why go for the cashbox at all? The Anfield Burglar was not targeting insurance agents - so why would Wallace make stealing the insurance money his plan?

Let's also see what we can agree on. If Wallace replaced the cashbox it was a mistake. This is what you suggest when you say he might have replaced the cashbox out of habit - that is the reason I use in the Wallace reconstruction in my book, too. But is it plausible when he remembers to scatter three coins and pull off the cabinet lid? And the staged robbery is as central to his plan as the Qualtrough call. He would know exactly what he had to do. The same way with the mackintosh and the clean-up.

BTW, sneak-thievery-gone-wrong as the best explanation for the return of the cashbox was first suggested by the American author, Robert Hussey in 1972 as part of his Parry theory.

[John G]

Hi AS,

Let's take one point at a time.

If Wallace plans the murder and intentionally replaces the cashbox, he must realise the thief knew the location of the cashbox. This limits the number of potential suspects to just 15. He cannot just assume the police will believe the thief threatened Julia to reveal the location - he still had to know there was a cashbox somewhere. So, not only is the murderer most likely one of 15 (or at least someone who knew these 15) but he is knowingly implicating his closest friends and colleagues. Why would Wallace plan like this? Why go for the cashbox at all? The Anfield Burglar was not targeting insurance agents - so why would Wallace make stealing the insurance money his plan?

Let's also see what we can agree on. If Wallace replaced the cashbox it was a mistake. This is what you suggest when you say he might have replaced the cashbox out of habit - that is the reason I use in the Wallace reconstruction in my book, too. But is it plausible when he remembers to scatter three coins and pull off the cabinet lid? And the staged robbery is as central to his plan as the Qualtrough call. He would know exactly what he had to do. The same way with the mackintosh and the clean-up.

Hi Antony,

But if Wallace was directly responsible he would have been under severe time pressure. As a consequence he may have made mistakes. For instance, the coins may have inadvertently been spilled and he doesn't bother to replace them, i.e. because he's stressed and desperate to get to the tram on time.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony,

But if Wallace was directly responsible he would have been under severe time pressure. As a consequence he may have made mistakes. For instance, the coins may have inadvertently been spilled and he doesn't bother to replace them, i.e. because he's stressed and desperate to get to the tram on time.

Hi John,

And when he entered the house alone before getting the Johnstons, could he not rectify any mistakes? If he was guilty, entering the house alone makes good sense - surely he was checking everything was all right. The curtains were drawn, the lamp was out, he was alone - it would have taken seconds to take down the cashbox. If you agree with Murphy's account (you may not) Wallace had the presence of mind to fiddle about drying towels...

I agree it is possible he mistakenly replaces the cashbox and inadvertently spills coins and knocks off the cabinet lid (although he did point out the lid on the floor, which makes it appear staged, if he was guilty). But he is making quite a few mistakes at this point.

We seem to agree that replacing the cashbox is best explained by saying it was a mistake, despite its central importance to his plan that his wife was murdered by a burglar, and his opportunity to correct it later. In fact, I think we all agree on this. But it is a surprising mistake, one you would not have expected him to make. Therefore, it is a weakness in the Wallace theory (because you need another assumption - it was a surprising mistake). There are many others, of course, as there are with any theory, I must stress.

And I suggest, it is even more surprising that he involved the cashbox at all because of the implication that a close friend or colleague was involved. At the very least, they would be questioned.

[ColdCaseJury]

This is Rod's theory. I have already discussed my problems with this ad nauseam, but I don't see any other theory that would reconcile what you are saying here: that theory A is more likely than B even though the whole reason you say B is unlikely is because A is so ridiculous that no one would conceive of it![/B]

Hi AS,

Let's tackle the logic and evidence together. Your counter is that if someone can conceive of sneak-thievery, Wallace could of. Yet, it took 40 years for someone to think of the sneak-thievery scenario. My point is that returning the cashbox is not what you would expect someone to do if they were staging a robbery, not that someone could not conceive it but the planner would reject it as too risky.

I think your appeal to circular reasoning is not accurate, in my view, especially when Wallace writes about the case (in his unpublished memoir) he never mentions sneak-thievery as an explanation. Remember, we are assuming Wallace is guilty so when he writes his memoir we are getting a good idea of his plan, what he wants us to think happened. I also find it bizarre and inconsistent that Wallace would think a burglar would drop coins and leave the cabinet lid on the floor but return the cashbox. Even if Wallace was in a rush; it was so central to his plan.

BTW, in my book I publish extracts from his memoir that have never been published before. You will find them very interesting, I'm sure.

[John G]

Hi AS,

Let's tackle the logic and evidence together. Your counter is that if someone can conceive of sneak-thievery, Wallace could of. Yet, it took 40 years for someone to think of the sneak-thievery scenario. My point is that returning the cashbox is not what you would expect someone to do if they were staging a robbery, not that someone could not conceive it but the planner would reject it as too risky.

I think your appeal to circular reasoning is not accurate, in my view, especially when Wallace writes about the case (in his unpublished memoir) he never mentions sneak-thievery as an explanation. Remember, we are assuming Wallace is guilty so when he writes his memoir we are getting a good idea of his plan, what he wants us to think happened. I also find it bizarre and inconsistent that Wallace would think a burglar would drop coins and leave the cabinet lid on the floor but return the cashbox. Even if Wallace was in a rush; it was so central to his plan.

BTW, in my book I publish extracts from his memoir that have never been published before. You will find them very interesting, I'm sure.

Hi Antony,

Do you know when your new book will be published?

[John G]

It seems to me that the sneak thief theory is plausible. However, it doesn't in itself imply a conspiracy as it works just as well if the perpetrator acted alone.

[John G]

Hi John,

And when he entered the house alone before getting the Johnstons, could he not rectify any mistakes? If he was guilty, entering the house alone makes good sense - surely he was checking everything was all right. The curtains were drawn, the lamp was out, he was alone - it would have taken seconds to take down the cashbox. If you agree with Murphy's account (you may not) Wallace had the presence of mind to fiddle about drying towels...

I agree it is possible he mistakenly replaces the cashbox and inadvertently spills coins and knocks off the cabinet lid (although he did point out the lid on the floor, which makes it appear staged, if he was guilty). But he is making quite a few mistakes at this point.

We seem to agree that replacing the cashbox is best explained by saying it was a mistake, despite its central importance to his plan that his wife was murdered by a burglar, and his opportunity to correct it later. In fact, I think we all agree on this. But it is a surprising mistake, one you would not have expected him to make. Therefore, it is a weakness in the Wallace theory (because you need another assumption - it was a surprising mistake). There are many others, of course, as there are with any theory, I must stress.

And I suggest, it is even more surprising that he involved the cashbox at all because of the implication that a close friend or colleague was involved. At the very least, they would be questioned.

Hi Antony,

Yes, you make some good points. And, of course, assuming Wallace was guilty, we only have Wallace's word that he didn't enter the house before alerting the neighbours to the supposed problem with the door, which would have given him another opportunity to tidy things up.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony,

Yes, you make some good points. And, of course, assuming Wallace was guilty, we only have Wallace's word that he didn't enter the house before alerting the neighbours to the supposed problem with the door, which would have given him another opportunity to tidy things up.

John, that's a good point. In fact, we do not know when Wallace staged the robbery, if he was guilty, apart from it was before the Johnstons entered. So, he would have had all of the tram journey home to think about what he still had to do or anything he had forgotten.

[ColdCaseJury]

It seems to me that the sneak thief theory is plausible. However, it doesn't in itself imply a conspiracy as it works just as well if the perpetrator acted alone.

Absolutely correct. Hussey believed the sneak-thief was Parry.