Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Another thought, why didn't Qualtrough just flee if Julia caught him stealing? Wasn't the whole point she wouldn't know who he was? Keep in mind she was killed from behind at the fireplace in a different room from the cash box which was replaced carefully on the hi shelf.

This is an important point AS. If Qualtrough took on the role of sneak thief then being recognised and possibly identified by Julia at some future point was all par for the course. Being identified by Julia shouldn’t have worried him so why did he suddenly brutally murder her just because she caught him in the act? He could have just fled and nothing would have changed. If Julia made a noise (and none of the neighbours heard anything) it wouldn’t have been to difficult for Qualtrough to just stick his hand over Julia’s mouth.

It’s also important, as you’ve said, that if Qualtrough was caught in the act (the kitchen) how did they end up in the Parlour. If I recall correctly Rod said that Julia became ‘suspicious’ in the Parlour after the ‘robbery.’ If this was the case what was Qualtrough doing chatting away in the Parlour with Julia when the job was done. He should have been long gone.

[AmericanSherlock]

Some really good points here, HS.

If Wallace did indeed say that he became concerned about Julia's welfare, on realising he had been hoodwinked by this mysterious Qualtrough character into leaving her home alone, how does that even begin to equate with his claimed reaction, on first seeing her lying on the parlour floor, which was to think she may have had some kind of fit?? Surely his worst fears would have been realised instead, that Qualtrough must indeed have done Julia some dreadful harm, after sending him off for a bogus appointment at a made-up address.

While any husband, not knowing any better, might naturally have assumed - and hoped - it was some kind of blackout, from which she would shortly recover, the fact that this husband had claimed to enter his house already in a state of worry over his wife's well-being, as a direct result of a nasty ploy to get him out of the way, must surely militate against him having genuinely assumed or hoped anything of the sort.

What's more, why would an innocent Wallace have automatically felt concern about Julia's welfare on realising a trick had been played on himself? Firstly, the trick could have been entirely related to himself and his insurance work, and been played by a colleague merely having a laugh at his expense - arguably more likely, at first thought, than a contrived robbery or murder plot! Secondly, Wallace said that Julia would only have invited in someone she knew and trusted, yet he claimed to be worried that she was in danger from this stranger called Qualtrough.

All very strange!

Love,

Caz
X

Some good points here Caz. To play devil's advocate, it could be argued Wallace conflated a bad feeling he had that the appointment was bogus with what he discovered later if genuinely innocent in recalling the night.

The point about Julia only letting in someone she knew is a good one. There shouldn't be much reason to worry then on the face of it.

Another thought, why didn't Qualtrough just flee if Julia caught him stealing? Wasn't the whole point she wouldn't know who he was? Keep in mind she was killed from behind at the fireplace in a different room from the cash box which was replaced carefully on the hi shelf.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
What's more, why would an innocent Wallace have automatically felt concern about Julia's welfare on realising a trick had been played on himself? Firstly, the trick could have been entirely related to himself and his insurance work, and been played by a colleague merely having a laugh at his expense - arguably more likely, at first thought, than a contrived robbery or murder plot! Secondly, Wallace said that Julia would only have invited in someone she knew and trusted, yet he claimed to be worried that she was in danger from this stranger called Qualtrough.

All very strange!

Good points Caz. Wallace would have had no reason to believe that anyone had any enmity toward Julia or would have meant her any harm. This was a woman, after all, who rarely left the house and had the social circle of your average hermit.

Your second point about Julia only admitting someone that she knew is another point in my opinion that severely weakens the idea of a sneak-thief. The Qualtrough plan, as we know, could have fallen at the first hurdle in numerous ways unless of course the caller was Wallace who was in control of the circumstances. The sneak-thief plan though relies on Julia knowing of Qualtrough which allowed her to feel safe letting him in. BUT there is no way that Parry (if he were the planner) could have been anything approaching confident that Julia would have known about the name Qualtrough? The ST plan assumes that Wallace would have told Julia about Qualtrough but it doesn’t follow by any means. Julia took little or no interest in Wallace’s business and so Wallace might simply have said to her earlier in the day “oh by the way, I have to go out on business this evening.” Qualtrough shows up. Julia’s never heard of him and doesn’t admit him. Plan over.

[caz]

The problem with this is Wallace’s state of mind when he approached the house. Let’s recall:

1. After he finally came to accept that Menlove Garden’s East didn’t exist he said that he became concerned about his wife’s welfare - the first alarm bell.

2. He asks the Johnston’s if they’d heard anything suspicious - as soon as he got back the alarm bells were still going off.

3. He can’t get into the house - giving the possibility of someone being inside the house - more alarm bells.

4. He sees that the cupboard door in the kitchen has been wrenched off - louder alarm bells.

So when Wallace arrives at the kitchen/hall door he isn’t thinking as if these were normal circumstances. It’s not a reasonable statement to suggest that Julia wouldn’t have been in a rarely used Parlour especially with the door closed, no sound of the piano or in the dark. Wallace would have been by now, if he was innocent, frantic with worry that has wife had met with foul play. For me, under those circumstances, there’s not a chance that he wouldn’t have checked the Parlour before going upstairs.

Additionally Wallace adds another contradiction. When he finally opens the Parlour door and sees Julia on the floor, again with the alarm bells going off, he makes out that he thought that Julia might have had some kind of fit, I.e. natural causes. He doesn’t appear at all suspicious that his wife was in a room that wasn’t often used, in the dark, with the door closed.

This aspect of the case alone points overwhelmingly towards a guilty Wallace for me. And that’s without the question of how Wallace managed to avoid stepping in Julia’s blood in such a confined space?

Some really good points here, HS.

If Wallace did indeed say that he became concerned about Julia's welfare, on realising he had been hoodwinked by this mysterious Qualtrough character into leaving her home alone, how does that even begin to equate with his claimed reaction, on first seeing her lying on the parlour floor, which was to think she may have had some kind of fit?? Surely his worst fears would have been realised instead, that Qualtrough must indeed have done Julia some dreadful harm, after sending him off for a bogus appointment at a made-up address.

While any husband, not knowing any better, might naturally have assumed - and hoped - it was some kind of blackout, from which she would shortly recover, the fact that this husband had claimed to enter his house already in a state of worry over his wife's well-being, as a direct result of a nasty ploy to get him out of the way, must surely militate against him having genuinely assumed or hoped anything of the sort.

What's more, why would an innocent Wallace have automatically felt concern about Julia's welfare on realising a trick had been played on himself? Firstly, the trick could have been entirely related to himself and his insurance work, and been played by a colleague merely having a laugh at his expense - arguably more likely, at first thought, than a contrived robbery or murder plot! Secondly, Wallace said that Julia would only have invited in someone she knew and trusted, yet he claimed to be worried that she was in danger from this stranger called Qualtrough.

All very strange!

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m a bit disappointed that I’ve just had a revised delivery date for receiving Antony’s book of between November 26th and December 29th.

Looks like I’m in for a lengthy wait?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

There was also that other case from the same era, with many parallels to Julia's murder, which was the subject of a recent tv prog: Murder, Mystery and my Family. I don't think it's sensible for anyone to ignore the forensic reproduction of that particular crime, which resulted - albeit unexpectedly - in no blood ending up on the person or clothes [white overalls!] of the 'killer' conducting the experiment.

As far as I recall, there was no attempt to avoid the fake blood; it just happened to leave the person wielding the blunt instrument untouched. That's not to say the actual murderer managed to avoid all the blood; merely that a suspect couldn't be ruled out on the basis of none being found. Rather crucial when considering the Wallace case.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes I saw that one and though ‘Wallace’ straight away. I know people tend to baulk when the word luck is mentioned but that might just have been the case. Wallace could simply have been lucky and when you combine that with the possibility that he used the mackintosh to shield himself there’s nothing particularly ‘’remarkable’ about it.

[caz]

Hi HS,

There was also that other case from the same era, with many parallels to Julia's murder, which was the subject of a recent tv prog: Murder, Mystery and my Family. I don't think it's sensible for anyone to ignore the forensic reproduction of that particular crime, which resulted - albeit unexpectedly - in no blood ending up on the person or clothes [white overalls!] of the 'killer' conducting the experiment.

As far as I recall, there was no attempt to avoid the fake blood; it just happened to leave the person wielding the blunt instrument untouched. That's not to say the actual murderer managed to avoid all the blood; merely that a suspect couldn't be ruled out on the basis of none being found. Rather crucial when considering the Wallace case.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Every aspect of the case points to Wallace.

He was at the scene.
He’s the only one with a possible motive for such a vicious crime.
The poorly staged robbery. So he bungled the most important aspect of his well-planned crime Perhaps this was due to Alan Close arriving later than expected? Perhaps Wallace thought that his efforts were good enough to fool the police?
He was the only person that could have been certain that the ‘Qualtrough plan’ would work.
The disguised ‘gruff’ voice when talking to Beattie. The phone operators saying it was the voice of an older man. Beattie spoke to Qualtrough for 4 minutes and did not think it was Wallace, who he spoke to again 30 minutes later It’s difficult to see how this message could have taken 4 minutes to convey? This was 1931 though, phones were relatively new. Beattie was a serious businessman with no concept of the idea of a prank call. He wouldn’t have been analysing the voice. It’s was a gruff voice - Wallace didn’t have a gruff voice. I don’t see any issue with this.
He’s the only one that had a plausible reason for turning off the lights.
Leaving the Parlour until last when it was in touching distance makes no sense at all.
Edging through a small gap, with a pool of blood, in the dark, without stepping in it. Police thought there was enough borrowed light from Kitchen that he did not need to light a match. But didn’t they find matches on the floor? According to Wallace though he didn’t see any blood because he thought that his wife might have had some kind of fit. The gap between the chair and Julia’s body was small and there was a large patch of blood. It’s difficult to see how he could have avoided stepping in it unless he knew that it was there.
Continuing with the search for MGE despite being told categorically that it didn’t exist.Need to take account of personality We also need to take account of the fact that Wallace was an intelligent man. After already being told that there was no MGE he gets this rubber-stamped from the best possible source a Bobby on the beat and yet he continues on his futile quest. If he gets worried for his wife’s safety after checking in the shop a few minutes later why isn’t he worried after being told by a policeman that he’s on a wild goose chase?

What other suspect has even a quarter of this against him?

The ‘raincoat as a shield’ appears to have been misunderstood as a suggestion. 1st blow knocks Julia to the floor Possible blood splatter. He then drapes the mackintosh over his left arm. He kneels next to Julia and holds his left arm somewhere near to his throat allowing the mackintosh to hang to the floor and delivers the other blows with his right hand Head exposed to blood splatter. He then pushes the mackintosh under Julia’s body smearing the splashes. How does the mackintosh catch fire? How did he drag Julia's body (almost pulling her hair piece off) without getting any blood on him? It was just a suggestion but it beats the ludicrous suggestion of Julia popping on her husband’s coat to nip out and look for the cat while Mr X sits in the Parlour looking suspicious!

The room wasn’t exactly a charnel house. Blood spatter is pretty random. It’s not at all impossible that Wallace could simply have been lucky. If there was a struggle at the fireplace the mackintosh could have just dangled in the fire. Maybe it happened before the struggle with Julia accidentally dangling the coat in the fire. As she was patting out the flames William struck?
Why did he need to drag Julia’s body as we can’t know the exact spot that Julia was standing? She could have just fallen where she was found.

I’m afraid the Wallace was guilty theory holds far more water than the ‘Julia the nymphomaniac theory.’ Or the ‘sneak thief’ Theory. And what do we have against Parry. Oh yes, Wallace names him plus the most unbelievable witness in the history of true crime - Parkes. Wallace is a country mile ahead. Almost certainly guilty.

Well, at least you have some doubt!

I have loads of doubts on this case Anthony. I’m just as certain as I can be in my own mind about Wallace’s guilt though.

So, how much blood does Wallace get on him during the attack? And how does he clean up?

I don’t think that anyone can know that. I just don’t think it’s impossible that he got very little on him. He could have cleaned up in the sink. He might have cleaned himself and the sink using chemicals from his lab?

[ColdCaseJury]

Every aspect of the case points to Wallace.

He was at the scene.
He’s the only one with a possible motive for such a vicious crime.
The poorly staged robbery. So he bungled the most important aspect of his well-planned crime
He was the only person that could have been certain that the ‘Qualtrough plan’ would work.
The disguised ‘gruff’ voice when talking to Beattie. The phone operators saying it was the voice of an older man. Beattie spoke to Qualtrough for 4 minutes and did not think it was Wallace, who he spoke to again 30 minutes later
He’s the only one that had a plausible reason for turning off the lights.
Leaving the Parlour until last when it was in touching distance makes no sense at all.
Edging through a small gap, with a pool of blood, in the dark, without stepping in it. Police thought there was enough borrowed light from Kitchen that he did not need to light a match
Continuing with the search for MGE despite being told categorically that it didn’t exist.Need to take account of personality

What other suspect has even a quarter of this against him?

The ‘raincoat as a shield’ appears to have been misunderstood as a suggestion. 1st blow knocks Julia to the floor Possible blood splatter. He then drapes the mackintosh over his left arm. He kneels next to Julia and holds his left arm somewhere near to his throat allowing the mackintosh to hang to the floor and delivers the other blows with his right hand Head exposed to blood splatter. He then pushes the mackintosh under Julia’s body smearing the splashes. How does the mackintosh catch fire? How did he drag Julia's body (almost pulling her hair piece off) without getting any blood on him? It was just a suggestion but it beats the ludicrous suggestion of Julia popping on her husband’s coat to nip out and look for the cat while Mr X sits in the Parlour looking suspicious!

I’m afraid the Wallace was guilty theory holds far more water than the ‘Julia the nymphomaniac theory.’ Or the ‘sneak thief’ Theory. And what do we have against Parry. Oh yes, Wallace names him plus the most unbelievable witness in the history of true crime - Parkes. Wallace is a country mile ahead. Almost certainly guilty.Well, at least you have some doubt!

So, how much blood does Wallace get on him during this attack? And how does he clean up?

[AmericanSherlock]

Goodpost AS

Since this thread was last really active I introduced 3 friends/acquaintances to the Wallace case. As far as I know they’ve all read An Impossible Murder online. All 3 have read Goodman. 2 have read Wilkes. All 3 have read Murphy. And one has read Bartle. They are all intelligent guys with no previous knowledge of the case and they’ve all pretty much said when I asked who they thought did it “Wallace.....pretty obviously.”

I think there’s an element of a ‘crusade’ mentality with the Wallace case. We like to uncover a miscarriage of justice. We like to defend ‘the little man.’ Looked At coldly Wallace is the only suspect in this case. The phone call points to Wallace. The brutality of the murder points to Wallace. The MGE expedition points to Wallace. His actions on returning to the house points to Wallace. The setup of the house points to Wallace. Every angle = Wallace.

This is interesting and is in line with what I have observed in general about opinion on this case.

It seems it goes like this: initial opinion for most people is Wallace guilty, know some more about the case including about Parry and the supposedly tight timings etc, and it's Wallace is innocent, know ALL about the case including the info unearthed since and including Murphy (2001) and it's strongly back to Wallace confirming their gut reaction.

[ColdCaseJury]

I have to agree with my friend Herlock here.

To say Wallace should have been ruled out as even a suspect is just absurd and not worthy of discussion really. I mean I'm sorry but you are basically saying Antony is wrong for even including that theory in his book then.

I would also say I carefully read the posts on the last page, and it appears Antony that you said you don't believe Wallace was a murderer in part from reading his memoir? I'm not trying to straw man I understand that wouldn't be the only reason for your conclusion, however from the wording here it does seem you have abandoned Wallace as mastermind as your verdict. As it sounds you are making judgements on his persona (so this would mean he didn't contrive the crime either which would be basically the same thing). I don't think this is a logical leap.

It seems to me in the new book the conclusion would be the Mr. X and Parry theory. That is probably the least likely theory. I know you had also said when I criticized it that it just may fit all the facts...

The only other one left if Wallace is innocent is the Parry alone? From reading your posts and thoughts on the case in this thread I would doubt that is where you are going.

I still know the book will be great from your writing style in the previous one and the way you consider every permutation and combination is unique in this field. I really enjoy the probabilistic approach and I'm confident the book will be worth the read regardless of its conclusion.

However, assuming I'm piecing things together correctly---and I may not be, I'm not sure what could change my mind on how ridiculous this theory is. It is the one theory that can't really have any new evidence for it, in contrast to the fascinating new information you discovered which either bolsters or reduces the odds of other theories. Short of finding a mysterious sneak thief accomplice to Parry who has reliably immortalized his confession with all the details intact, what can really speak to this theory? The cause for this is part of my problem with the theory in the 1st place--- it is so oddly contrived to explain away the problems or perceived problems of other scenarios, there is nothing really that can verify or even point towards or against it in terms of new evidence coming out etc. It's like cultists saying the rapture is coming, but not in this lifetime. Well, okay.

Of course, I have already listed my problems with this theory based on the evidence we alread have, which dont bear repeating until I read the book.

In terms of "making sense", I honestly think the Wallace exploiting a prank call ticks more boxes than Parry and a sneak thief accomplice concocting this whole thing and relying on about 10 different moving pieces to all go their way and against Wallace's, and all goes just according to plan.

AS,

I think Wallace is probably innocent primarily because of the timing/forensics/identity of caller. However, he is very much a suspect in my view. I also believe that there was evidence that the police never brought to the table - evidence that was uncomfortable for their case (like no blood on the wet nailbrush and in the bathroom. The blood clot on the toilet seat was not fresh when it was dropped i.e. at least an hour old).

You will disagree with my conclusion, AS. But the point of my book is not to persuade you or anyone else of my view. I genuinely have grave doubts about this case, and want to know what other people think when they've read the case and seen the key evidence and theories laid out side by side. Everyone can winnow the evidence, or sharpen and level evidence to support a theory. I refuse to do that.

I think it best to ignite the debate again after the book is out

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed about Gannon's book and I'm sure Antony's will be good as well and am looking very much forward to it as I said.

However as you are pointing out, it hard to see how Wallace can evade strong suspicion for many factors.

At the very least, the Parry and Accomplice theory has been chewed up and spit out here.

In the even that that is the preferred verdict by CCJ, I will have to vehemently protest.

I am open to any new evidence and not idelogically marrried to any position. I think before it was pointed out by someone that I might not like that theory because of who it was coming from.

Well the truth is the friction with that person began BECAUSE I didn't find the theory plausible, so it's much the other way around.

And regardless of any personal feelings, I would like to think I'm posthumously doing the characters of this case justice by thinking honestly and making an intellectually truthful conclusion. (Obviously my own opinion and online posts won't matter at all in the grand scheme of things , but I still like to on principle be fair minded.)

Just can't remotely see this theory being anything except extremely unlikely, unless there is some new and earth shattering evidence for it, in which case I will be more than glad to reconsider my opinion.

Goodpost AS

Since this thread was last really active I introduced 3 friends/acquaintances to the Wallace case. As far as I know they’ve all read An Impossible Murder online. All 3 have read Goodman. 2 have read Wilkes. All 3 have read Murphy. And one has read Bartle. They are all intelligent guys with no previous knowledge of the case and they’ve all pretty much said when I asked who they thought did it “Wallace.....pretty obviously.”

I think there’s an element of a ‘crusade’ mentality with the Wallace case. We like to uncover a miscarriage of justice. We like to defend ‘the little man.’ Looked At coldly Wallace is the only suspect in this case. The phone call points to Wallace. The brutality of the murder points to Wallace. The MGE expedition points to Wallace. His actions on returning to the house points to Wallace. The setup of the house points to Wallace. Every angle = Wallace.

[AmericanSherlock]

I’m certainly looking forward to Antony’s book too even if I do end up disagreeing with the conclusion. I thought John Gannon’s book was very good and well researched but I still disagree with his conclusion. In the Ripper field for example pretty much everyone agrees that Sugden’s book is one of the finest ever written but I still disagree with him when he said that, of the suspects so far named, that Chapman was the likeliest.

We can discuss of course but we really need the book to debate Antony’s conclusions. In John’s previous post he mentioned the ‘well he looks guilty’ point. Conversely though we could also say that some take the ‘that kindly, respectable old gent’ couldn’t have done it viewpoint. After all some said that they appeared to be a devoted couple. And yet a doctor and a nurse, who both spent time in the Wallace home (some might say when guards are down and professional confidences might have been relied upon) both talked about difficulties in the marriage. An ex-colleague of Wallace’s (Mather) called him the most soured man he’d ever met. And then there’s the huge lie of the age gap. And Julia’s health. Taken together these give a perfectly plausible motive for a brutal murder. A motive that no one else has.

When I look at every single aspect of this case, for me, it all points to Wallace and Wallace alone.

Agreed about Gannon's book and I'm sure Antony's will be good as well and am looking very much forward to it as I said.

However as you are pointing out, it hard to see how Wallace can evade strong suspicion for many factors.

At the very least, the Parry and Accomplice theory has been chewed up and spit out here.

In the even that that is the preferred verdict by CCJ, I will have to vehemently protest.

I am open to any new evidence and not idelogically marrried to any position. I think before it was pointed out by someone that I might not like that theory because of who it was coming from.

Well the truth is the friction with that person began BECAUSE I didn't find the theory plausible, so it's much the other way around.

And regardless of any personal feelings, I would like to think I'm posthumously doing the characters of this case justice by thinking honestly and making an intellectually truthful conclusion. (Obviously my own opinion and online posts won't matter at all in the grand scheme of things , but I still like to on principle be fair minded.)

Just can't remotely see this theory being anything except extremely unlikely, unless there is some new and earth shattering evidence for it, in which case I will be more than glad to reconsider my opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m certainly looking forward to Antony’s book too even if I do end up disagreeing with the conclusion. I thought John Gannon’s book was very good and well researched but I still disagree with his conclusion. In the Ripper field for example pretty much everyone agrees that Sugden’s book is one of the finest ever written but I still disagree with him when he said that, of the suspects so far named, that Chapman was the likeliest.

We can discuss of course but we really need the book to debate Antony’s conclusions. In John’s previous post he mentioned the ‘well he looks guilty’ point. Conversely though we could also say that some take the ‘that kindly, respectable old gent’ couldn’t have done it viewpoint. After all some said that they appeared to be a devoted couple. And yet a doctor and a nurse, who both spent time in the Wallace home (some might say when guards are down and professional confidences might have been relied upon) both talked about difficulties in the marriage. An ex-colleague of Wallace’s (Mather) called him the most soured man he’d ever met. And then there’s the huge lie of the age gap. And Julia’s health. Taken together these give a perfectly plausible motive for a brutal murder. A motive that no one else has.

When I look at every single aspect of this case, for me, it all points to Wallace and Wallace alone.

[AmericanSherlock]

Wallace is not only the likeliest suspect he is the only suspect. Parry had an alibi and so can be dismissed. What we are left with are invented Mr X’s or mystery men.

Every aspect of the case points to Wallace.

He was at the scene.
He’s the only one with a possible motive for such a vicious crime.
The poorly staged robbery.
He was the only person that could have been certain that the ‘Qualtrough plan’ would work.
The disguised ‘gruff’ voice when talking to Beattie. The phone operators saying it was the voice of an older man.
He’s the only one that had a plausible reason for turning off the lights.
Leaving the Parlour until last when it was in touching distance makes no sense at all.
Edging through a small gap, with a pool of blood, in the dark, without stepping in it.
Continuing with the search for MGE despite being told categorically that it didn’t exist.

What other suspect has even a quarter of this against him?

The ‘raincoat as a shield’ appears to have been misunderstood as a suggestion. 1st blow knocks Julia to the floor. He then drapes the mackintosh over his left arm. He kneels next to Julia and holds his left arm somewhere near to his throat allowing the mackintosh to hang to the floor and delivers the other blows with his right hand. He then pushes the mackintosh under Julia’s body smearing the splashes. It was just a suggestion but it beats the ludicrous suggestion of Julia popping on her husband’s coat to nip out and look for the cat while Mr X sits in the Parlour looking suspicious!

I’m afraid the Wallace was guilty theory holds far more water than the ‘Julia the nymphomaniac theory.’ Or the ‘sneak thief’ Theory. And what do we have against Parry. Oh yes, Wallace names him plus the most unbelievable witness in the history of true crime - Parkes. Wallace is a country mile ahead. Almost certainly guilty.

I have to agree with my friend Herlock here.

To say Wallace should have been ruled out as even a suspect is just absurd and not worthy of discussion really. I mean I'm sorry but you are basically saying Antony is wrong for even including that theory in his book then.

I would also say I carefully read the posts on the last page, and it appears Antony that you said you don't believe Wallace was a murderer in part from reading his memoir? I'm not trying to straw man I understand that wouldn't be the only reason for your conclusion, however from the wording here it does seem you have abandoned Wallace as mastermind as your verdict. As it sounds you are making judgements on his persona (so this would mean he didn't contrive the crime either which would be basically the same thing). I don't think this is a logical leap.

It seems to me in the new book the conclusion would be the Mr. X and Parry theory. That is probably the least likely theory. I know you had also said when I criticized it that it just may fit all the facts...

The only other one left if Wallace is innocent is the Parry alone? From reading your posts and thoughts on the case in this thread I would doubt that is where you are going.

I still know the book will be great from your writing style in the previous one and the way you consider every permutation and combination is unique in this field. I really enjoy the probabilistic approach and I'm confident the book will be worth the read regardless of its conclusion.

However, assuming I'm piecing things together correctly---and I may not be, I'm not sure what could change my mind on how ridiculous this theory is. It is the one theory that can't really have any new evidence for it, in contrast to the fascinating new information you discovered which either bolsters or reduces the odds of other theories. Short of finding a mysterious sneak thief accomplice to Parry who has reliably immortalized his confession with all the details intact, what can really speak to this theory? The cause for this is part of my problem with the theory in the 1st place--- it is so oddly contrived to explain away the problems or perceived problems of other scenarios, there is nothing really that can verify or even point towards or against it in terms of new evidence coming out etc. It's like cultists saying the rapture is coming, but not in this lifetime. Well, okay.

Of course, I have already listed my problems with this theory based on the evidence we alread have, which dont bear repeating until I read the book.

In terms of "making sense", I honestly think the Wallace exploiting a prank call ticks more boxes than Parry and a sneak thief accomplice concocting this whole thing and relying on about 10 different moving pieces to all go their way and against Wallace's, and all goes just according to plan.