Tweet
Originally posted by John G
View Post
The phone call and invention of Qualtrough is intriguing and if connected to the murder, as it surely must be, is vitally important in determining events. You have raised some interesting points about the call, but there are some other things to consider also.
The first point I think we would need to establish is which of our two suspects had the opportunity to make the call at the time we know it was made. When we look at what we know, both Parry and Wallace could have made the call - that is, at the time the call was made we do not know where either Wallace or Parry was, the time between when we know where they were to the time we know they resurface and others can corroborate their whereabouts, is when the call was made.
The voice evidence we have relies solely on Beattie's testimony. I think we have no reason to believe Beattie was telling us anything less than his honest opinion. He was highly confident that the Qualtrough voice he heard did not belong to Wallace, who was well known to him. Does that mean it was not Wallace? I don't think we can say that it was not Wallace. You do not need to be an actor to successfully disguise your voice, even from your family and close friends. I have done so myself and I am sure many others have also. Of course if the caller was Parry, Beattie's evidence is not only his honest opinion but also correct. I don't think Beattie's evidence is sufficiently compelling for us to determine the caller's identity.
Parry either lied about his whereabouts on the night of the call, or he just misremembered his movements. What did you have for dinner five nights ago? You may remember, I can't. This is not to ignore he could have made the call and lied, but that is not the only explanation. But let us assume he lied. He may have many reasons for lying, including to hide that he made the call. But given his lifestyle, there are other things he may not have wanted to reveal. So, even if we believe he lied, we cannot be sure why, but to make the call is one possible reason of many. I do not think this is a substantive piece of evidence that strongly suggests Parry was the killer, it merely fails to allow us to discard the possibility he made the call.
I do not think evaluating the evidence you raise is sufficient on its own to help us determine who the caller was. It also does not allow us to state that it couldn't have been either one of them.
What else might help us? I think taking the call in context of the wider crime might be useful. So which of Parry or Wallace needed the Qualtrough call to take place in order to commit the crime, be that robbery (Parry) or murder (Wallace).
Parry
The suggestion is that Parry needed to get Wallace out of the way on Tuesday night in order that he could commit the crime (or have an accomplice commit the crime). This does not make sense to me since if he made the call, he was in the vicinty of Wallace's house at a time when he knew Wallace was at his chess club - or at least on his way. Why not just commit the crime that night?
Some suggest Parry knew the haul from a robbery would be greater on the Tuesday rather than the Monday. This is logical, but then we might expect that the robbery would have been more thorough on the Tuesday. We know this was not the case and monies very visible in the house were ignored. So maximising the robbery haul does not appear to be an over-riding concern.
Some also suggest Parry needed to introduce the name Qualtrough so an accomplice could gain entry to the house the following night without raising suspiscion. Of course, the phone call to Wallace at the chess club does not ensure the name would be mentioned to Julia and so would be a risky strategy. Also inventing the client does not ensure Wallace would follow up on the enquiry.
Given all of the above, the approach Parry would most likely take, I believe, is to set up the crime for Monday night when Wallace was definitely out at the chess club. The Qualtrough call only serves to make a successful robbery less likely than commiting the crime on Monday when he was surer of Wallace's movements.
Wallace
Wallace needed to invent both a reason to be out of the house Tuesday night as well as a patsy for the murder (Qualtrough) if he were guilty. The phone call does both of these things. The phone call makes the crime and diverting suspiscion successfully more likely than simply commiting the murder on Monday night and using the chess club as an alibi. Without Qualtrough, the police only have Wallace to focus on as the murderer. Qualtrough confuses matters and sends the police down rabbit holes (although in the event this did not happen and the police did focus mostly on Wallace).
I would argue the Qualtrough call is likely to help Wallace divert suspiscion from his commiting the crime and so it nakes logical sense for him to make the call. I would also argue the Qualtrough call would introduce risk that would make Parry successfully engineering the crime less likely than simply commiting the crime on the Monday night.
hi
Comment