Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony,

Do you know when your new book will be published?

Yes, 2 November 2017.

I will make an announcement here nearer the time. BTW, discussing this case with you, AS, Rod and others have helped shape my views. It contains a new theory - the Accomplice theory - as well as evidence presented for the first time: timing tests, MacFall's original, unsigned autopsy report and excerpts from Wallace's unpublished memoir. I also provide a fresh analysis of the phone call, having spoken to experts about the phone system. So, I hope some things will be clearer, but overall the case is unsolvable i.e. you cannot prove one solution to be correct. In fact, I would say that 2-3 of the 5 theories are close to each other, in terms of plausibility, based on the evidence we have.

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, 2 November 2017.

I will make an announcement here nearer the time. BTW, discussing this case with you, AS, Rod and others have helped shape my views. It contains a new theory - the Accomplice theory - as well as evidence presented for the first time: timing tests, MacFall's original, unsigned autopsy report and excerpts from Wallace's unpublished memoir. I also provide a fresh analysis of the phone call, having spoken to experts about the phone system. So, I hope some things will be clearer, but overall the case is unsolvable i.e. you cannot prove one solution to be correct. In fact, I would say that 2-3 of the 5 theories are close to each other, in terms of plausibility, based on the evidence we have.

Hi Antony,

I am looking forward very much to this. I will order it as soon as possible. Will it be available in paperback or hard form?

I think that despite whatever disagreements we have about the case, it is undeniable that your upcoming book will be the most thorough dissection of all the angles and possible permutations ever written. By considering all possibilities from various sources and previous scholars, and with the benefit of the most up to date info available, I don't think there is a discussion as well informed that has ever happened about JW's murder than the one occurring right now on these boards. This is as a result of your 1st book, this thread here, and now the 2nd updated book coming out shortly.

I also credit the scholarship of the 21st century for really moving things forward from an informational standpoint. Murphy unearthing several new facts (including JW's real age and Parry's true alibi.) And whether one agrees with his theory or not, John Gannon's book definitely was the most chock full of pure particulars and raw factual information. The knowledge base has really expanded in the last 2 decades as compared to what Jonathan Goodman was working with. But ultimately, I have to think your book will consider the Wallace case more comprehensively than it ever has been.

I think you, and we as a collective to a smaller extent, are doing this case justice!

[AmericanSherlock]

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?

John,

Thanks! We seem to be on the same train of thought regarding the problems of Parry and an Accomplice or even Parry by himself.

Do you think we should give some more weight in our discussions to outlier scenarios, such as the lover one you mentioned? Perhaps, the current options we are considering, although they seem to rightly be the dominant few most likely, have so many problems with them that outlier possibilities are a better option despite how seemingly obtuse they might appear.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony,

I am looking forward very much to this. I will order it as soon as possible. Will it be available in paperback or hard form?

I think that despite whatever disagreements we have about the case, it is undeniable that your upcoming book will be the most thorough dissection of all the angles and possible permutations ever written. By considering all possibilities from various sources and previous scholars, and with the benefit of the most up to date info available, I don't think there is a discussion as well informed that has ever happened about JW's murder than the one occurring right now on these boards. This is as a result of your 1st book, this thread here, and now the 2nd updated book coming out shortly.

I also credit the scholarship of the 21st century for really moving things forward from an informational standpoint. Murphy unearthing several new facts (including JW's real age and Parry's true alibi.) And whether one agrees with his theory or not, John Gannon's book definitely was the most chock full of pure particulars and raw factual information. The knowledge base has really expanded in the last 2 decades as compared to what Jonathan Goodman was working with. But ultimately, I have to think your book will consider the Wallace case more comprehensively than it ever has been.

I think you, and we as a collective to a smaller extent, are doing this case justice!

AS, thank you for your comments. Yes, this forum has been truly outstanding for the quality of the posts. The case could have been solved at the time, in my opinion. That is not to say the police did not have the correct verdict, but if they did, they did not demonstrate it. Better forensics, better follow-ups on all suspects etc...

Yes, I agree that Murphy and Gannon are important books. Murphy did some excellent research and is good at advancing an argument, but I was disappointed with two aspects. He assumed it was either Wallace or Parry (perhaps that is understandable given the historical context) and he was very selective in his facts in exonerating Parry from having any involvement with the call, and a little selective in his evidence regarding the milk boy.

What is interesting is the debate has moved on from a dichotomy to examining other possibilities, including P. D. James. This does not mean the more recent theories are correct, of course. But as you say, the case has been examined more thoroughly.

I have tried to examine the case impartially, placing all the theories side by side. In my examination of the trial, I highlight where I believe Wallace's testimony/statements are the most perplexing (regarding locks and bolts), so there is no shying away from any theory! I'm sure this will reinforce your verdict, but other aspects might give you second thoughts, too.

[AmericanSherlock]

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.

Antony,

There are some good points here which I think clearly put the theory of Wallace simply making a mistake on somewhat shaky ground.

I guess I view it algebraically. Theory A or Theory B. We agree both are implausible on the face of it (A- a robber wouldn't replace the cashbox, B- Wallace wouldn't have it as part of his plan to mimic that). So, which is the best alternative explanation for each of these theories? What is more likely?

I would like to note that if the cash box being replaced was due to sneak-thievery, this implies that JW did NOT catch the culprit in the act. Otherwise, we are back with the original problem (that mandates the sneak theft as an explanation in the 1st place; why would a thief neatly put back the box on the hi shelf with the lid on it AFTER committing a brutal murder.) This narrows the possibility in my view, because now the only plausible explanation is that the murderer managed to successfully steal some money and replace the cash box and went undetected and was only LATER caught by JW. This seems unlikely to me, but I understand this is the view of some. Rod asserts that perhaps the coins on the floor tipped off JW and that is how the culprit was caught after the fact.

So let's compare the 2 scenarios in entirety to explain the cash-box. Either Wallace makes a mistake, pumping full of adrenaline or a thief manages to rob JW and go undetected for some time, until he is later caught for some reason, but only after he has replaced the cash-box in an effort to go undetected?

[AmericanSherlock]

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.

My theory would be that Wallace has simply made a mistake and it did not occur to him. In the same way that you say it took 40 years for Hussey to put forth the theory, perhaps Wallace did not consider, at least until some time later, the significance of his putting the cash box back on the shelf.

Also, in response to a point you made in the other post, perhaps if Wallace was guilty, he was trying specifically to pin the blame on one particular person; Gordon Parry. There are problems with this; the cash haul was small and we are in a similar predicament as with the cash-box...it would appear Wallace wouldn't try to frame someone else (or at least create reasonable doubt by diverting suspicion onto someone else) with such a paltry sum. But then again couldn't the same argument be made for Parry as being part of any plot. I am aware there is some ambiguity about what RGP would know in regards to the amount that would be likely to be there...perhaps this could be cleared up some more. Could Wallace have been so cheap/ fastidious that he just couldn't bare to steal too large a sum of his own insurance takings, even if it weakened his life or death plot to seem innocent?

Anyways, my over-arching point would not be that Wallace was attempting to make it look like sneak thievery, just a theft gone wrong in general, and simply screwed up (out of habit) by meticulously doing what he had done several times, without thinking about it in a rushed and panicked state after bashing his wife's brains in. I am not as convinced as you that this is something he would necessarily quickly realize needed correcting. (You rightly suggest that he would have had time to think about it on his journey and a brief opportunity to rectify any mistakes.)

[AmericanSherlock]

AS, thank you for your comments. Yes, this forum has been truly outstanding for the quality of the posts. The case could have been solved at the time, in my opinion. That is not to say the police did not have the correct verdict, but if they did, they did not demonstrate it. Better forensics, better follow-ups on all suspects etc...

Yes, I agree that Murphy and Gannon are important books. Murphy did some excellent research and is good at advancing an argument, but I was disappointed with two aspects. He assumed it was either Wallace or Parry (perhaps that is understandable given the historical context) and he was very selective in his facts in exonerating Parry from having any involvement with the call, and a little selective in his evidence regarding the milk boy.

What is interesting is the debate has moved on from a dichotomy to examining other possibilities, including P. D. James. This does not mean the more recent theories are correct, of course. But as you say, the case has been examined more thoroughly.

I have tried to examine the case impartially, placing all the theories side by side. In my examination of the trial, I highlight where I believe Wallace's testimony/statements are the most perplexing (regarding locks and bolts), so there is no shying away from any theory! I'm sure this will reinforce your verdict, but other aspects might give you second thoughts, too.

That is the aspect that I think is the best about the discussion here and your books; everything is being questioned. It feels much more "3 dimensional" and I think a more modern approach.

I am not married to WHW's guilt or him acting alone BTW. It is what I think currently is the BEST theory (and I do think it is >50 percent likelihood). But, my mind is totally open to new information or new ways of viewing the whole picture.

[ColdCaseJury]

That is the aspect that I think is the best about the discussion here and your books; everything is being questioned. It feels much more "3 dimensional" and I think a more modern approach.

I am not married to WHW's guilt or him acting alone BTW. It is what I think currently is the BEST theory (and I do think it is >50 percent likelihood). But, my mind is totally open to new information or new ways of viewing the whole picture.

AS, I certainly do not have conviction in any of the theories. Today, police would TIE - Trace, Incriminate or Eliminate. I suggest, Wallace and Parry were never both eliminated from being involved, and neither was fully incriminated. The key for Wallace is MONDAY night. If he was observed (say by a conductor) getting on a tram or bus near the kiosk, I suggest this would be decisive evidence that he lied and acted alone. Parry had to be checked out for both nights, I suggest. I'm sure the police would have solved this case today, at least one of the two main suspects would have been properly eliminated... unless Lily Hall did recognise Wallace and Gannon is looking in the right direction. I have an exhibit "Conversation in the Dark" that examines Hall's evidence.

[John G]

John,

Thanks! We seem to be on the same train of thought regarding the problems of Parry and an Accomplice or even Parry by himself.

Do you think we should give some more weight in our discussions to outlier scenarios, such as the lover one you mentioned? Perhaps, the current options we are considering, although they seem to rightly be the dominant few most likely, have so many problems with them that outlier possibilities are a better option despite how seemingly obtuse they might appear.

Hi AS,

Yes. Although it's hard to believe that someone like Julia would have a secret lover, I don't see how it's less plausible then any other theory which has been proposed, as they all suffer from major problems.

[ColdCaseJury]

My theory would be that Wallace has simply made a mistake and it did not occur to him. In the same way that you say it took 40 years for Hussey to put forth the theory, perhaps Wallace did not consider, at least until some time later, the significance of his putting the cash box back on the shelf.

Also, in response to a point you made in the other post, perhaps if Wallace was guilty, he was trying specifically to pin the blame on one particular person; Gordon Parry. There are problems with this; the cash haul was small and we are in a similar predicament as with the cash-box...it would appear Wallace wouldn't try to frame someone else (or at least create reasonable doubt by diverting suspicion onto someone else) with such a paltry sum. But then again couldn't the same argument be made for Parry as being part of any plot. I am aware there is some ambiguity about what RGP would know in regards to the amount that would be likely to be there...perhaps this could be cleared up some more. Could Wallace have been so cheap/ fastidious that he just couldn't bare to steal too large a sum of his own insurance takings, even if it weakened his life or death plot to seem innocent?

Anyways, my over-arching point would not be that Wallace was attempting to make it look like sneak thievery, just a theft gone wrong in general, and simply screwed up (out of habit) by meticulously doing what he had done several times, without thinking about it in a rushed and panicked state after bashing his wife's brains in. I am not as convinced as you that this is something he would necessarily quickly realize needed correcting. (You rightly suggest that he would have had time to think about it on his journey and a brief opportunity to rectify any mistakes.)

Hi AS,

Let's assume Wallace wanted to pin the blame on either Parry or Marsden (evidence: his second statement where he spends 10 paragraphs on both). If so, the pool of suspects (other than Wallace) is two. But Marsden was not known to frequent the cafe and hence was unlikely to know when Wallace played a chess match. So, it boils down to Parry (unless Wallace did not know the implications of his call).

However, Wallace could not know whether Parry would have an alibi for 20/1/31. If Parry had cast-iron alibi (step forward Mrs Brine) Wallace is in a tight jam (because if Parry is eliminated the finger points at Wallace). Surely, he would want to make it look like a "theft gone wrong in general" (we agree), and inflate the number of suspects; so he should not touch the cashbox.

Your counter: it was a mistake, stupid. Aren't you listening?

My counter-counter: yes, but it was a mistake in planning to touch the cashbox and in execution to replace it. If someone can devise the Qualtrough call and the fiddle with the locks, could he not see the implications of touching the cashbox? It was a BIG mistake for someone so allegedly aware of small details. If someone can pull off the forensically flawless crime (if it was Wallace) would they not get the robbery right?

[John G]

Regarding the cash box, what do you think of this theory? A sneak thief removes the cash box whilst Julia is out of the room. He then takes out the notes and pockets them. However, Julia returns unexpectedly, catching him in the act. She calmly asks him to replace the cash box and await the return of her husband; this he agrees to do. Unfortunately for Julia, he changes his mind and decides instead to silence her, before making his getaway.

[AmericanSherlock]

Regarding the cash box, what do you think of this theory? A sneak thief removes the cash box whilst Julia is out of the room. He then takes out the notes and pockets them. However, Julia returns unexpectedly, catching him in the act. She calmly asks him to replace the cash box and await the return of her husband; this he agrees to do. Unfortunately for Julia, he changes his mind and decides instead to silence her, before making his getaway.

Hi John, I think that is the most likely scenario if a sneak-thief really was the culprit. Consider this:it would make perfect sense for such a thief to replace the box if his goal was to go undetected and not arouse suspicion. This meshes well with such a person expecting or at least hoping not to have a confrontation and be forced into violence to silence JW. But then the question becomes how did this person get caught? If the cashbox is where it should be, what went wrong?

Your explanation here is the most plausible to me. I can think of 3 possible ways to reconcile this problem and the other 2 do not past muster. One is what has been suggested before as part of the "Qualtrough Parry Accomplice" theory (although it could apply to any robber theory). That something tipped off Julia. The coins on the floor has been suggested. To my way of looking at things, it seems very odd that a thief would manage to take the money, then cover the box with a lid and put it back where it was on the high shelf while Julia was in the kitchen or loo undetected with the entire goal being his theft going unnoticed, but not spot other obvious errors like coins strewn on the floor. I think this is more indicative of a poor and thoughtless staging job or something that happened under duress--perhaps the coins fell out of the pocket of the killer whoever he was while committing the murder.

The 2nd alternative I can think of is the unlikely event that JW caught the kille right as he was finishing the theft. So, if she walked back in the room in the couple second window after "Qualtrough" pocketed the money, and the cash box was being put on the shelf, when it would be obvious that something was wrong--that this strange man was fiddling around with things. The odds of this are rather slim though IMO.

Therefore, I'd say your scenario is the most likely to explain the whole cash box debacle in the event that Wallace was not the killer.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

Let's assume Wallace wanted to pin the blame on either Parry or Marsden (evidence: his second statement where he spends 10 paragraphs on both). If so, the pool of suspects (other than Wallace) is two. But Marsden was not known to frequent the cafe and hence was unlikely to know when Wallace played a chess match. So, it boils down to Parry (unless Wallace did not know the implications of his call).

However, Wallace could not know whether Parry would have an alibi for 20/1/31. If Parry had cast-iron alibi (step forward Mrs Brine) Wallace is in a tight jam (because if Parry is eliminated the finger points at Wallace). Surely, he would want to make it look like a "theft gone wrong in general" (we agree), and inflate the number of suspects; so he should not touch the cashbox.

Your counter: it was a mistake, stupid. Aren't you listening?

My counter-counter: yes, but it was a mistake in planning to touch the cashbox and in execution to replace it. If someone can devise the Qualtrough call and the fiddle with the locks, could he not see the implications of touching the cashbox? It was a BIG mistake for someone so allegedly aware of small details. If someone can pull off the forensically flawless crime (if it was Wallace) would they not get the robbery right?

Hi Antony,

You make a good point here. I read what you are saying as even if Wallace made a mistake in replacing the cash box, the entire idea of using it to fake the robbery creates problems.

I suspect you may find this an unsatisfying retort; but consider Wallace as being a bit on the spectrum-- these types may focus very strongly on details and forget the bigger picture.

Perhaps, he had figured he had done enough to create significant reasonable doubt by hoaxing Beattie. Once it is obvious he is not suspected of making the call himself after the hubub at the chess club over the mysterious caller and Beattie relaying it to him, perhaps WHW figured this was all he needed to get off. If he really was the caller he might have waited to see the reaction after arriving at the club. It is like when Murphy said he makes hiw own timeframe; here Wallace can judge the reactions of the club members and specifically Beattie in relaying it to him before processing with the plan. It is only in retrospect that we view it as an unbroken chain. Of course, he would try his best in every facet to look innocent, but I'm not sure he would connect every implication up in his mind. Maybe he wasn't trying to frame Parry so much as create reasonable doubt and realized he was someone he could point to after he found himself unexpectedly under heavy police fire. (After perhaps arrogantly thinking; Beattie will tell them it wasn't my voice on the line, I'm scot free)

Again I suspect you will find this an unsatisfying explanation

[John G]

Does anyone else think that the Roger Wilkes interviews, as good as they were, were ultimately an opportunity lost? Personally, I think he was too deferential, which is understandable when you consider the series of interviews must have represented something of a coup, and he was therefore probably eager not to offend anyone.

Thus, When Dolly Atkinson speaks vaguely about the blood he doesn't press her for more details, i.e. in order to ascertain if her recollection wss the same as Parkes'. Nor does he ask any of the interviewees how they could be so certain of the facts after almost half a century. In fact, he doesn't even ask Dolly Atkinson how she first heard of the account or who from-this is important because we have to consider the possibility of a "Chinese whispers situation. He doesn't even ask when she first heard the story, assuming she even remembered. I mean, it could have been days or even weeks after the event.

And without any sense of irony he states that "of course" they would have come forward had the appeal been rejected, without bothering to question why they failed to come forward before or during the trial or, indeed, at the tone of the appeal.

[John G]

Yes, 2 November 2017.

I will make an announcement here nearer the time. BTW, discussing this case with you, AS, Rod and others have helped shape my views. It contains a new theory - the Accomplice theory - as well as evidence presented for the first time: timing tests, MacFall's original, unsigned autopsy report and excerpts from Wallace's unpublished memoir. I also provide a fresh analysis of the phone call, having spoken to experts about the phone system. So, I hope some things will be clearer, but overall the case is unsolvable i.e. you cannot prove one solution to be correct. In fact, I would say that 2-3 of the 5 theories are close to each other, in terms of plausibility, based on the evidence we have.

Thanks CCJ, I'm very much looking forward to your new book, especially the new theories and the section on Wallace's unpublished memoirs. If Wallace was somehow involved it does seem strange that he would point the finger at Parry in an unpublished document. However, do you think he was intending to publish the memoirs? If so, then clearly that would put a different sllant on things.