Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

While I think there is more to point to Wallace as the caller than Parry, I thought the "21st" bit pointed a bit more to Parry than Wallace. As I pointed out the peculiar coincidence of Parry mentioning actually being invited to a 21st birthday himself is not as strong of a pointer in his direction as previously thought because the event in question happened after the call and the story seems legitimate (i.e. it seems Parry really did obtain an invite on the night of the murder from Miss Williamson for him and his girlfriend to attend LW's 21st)

We don't know if Parry was anticipating being invited to LW's 21st when visiting his mother as HS points out, but in any case he clearly had friends around that age, his girlfriend was 20 as well etc.

But the flipside as both HS and Caz have pointed out is this would be an obvious tack for Wallace to use to implicate Parry if he had him in mind as a fall guy, and if Wallace was guilty, it seems clear he did. So we really are no closer to unwraveling this then we were at the start. Also keep in mind a 21st birthday policy was quite a common policy that would yield dividends and so could easily be what Wallace's idea of a good lure would be if this all was a contrivance of his. (And of course in the incredible duality of this case, it also would be what "Qualtrough" or Parry would think could lure Wallace in.)

Another note, Gannon asserts that R.J. Qualtrough a joiner was a client of the Pru and it was this customer's complaints that led to Marsden being canned. This is where the whole Marsden thing comes in and he claims that's where they got the idea (Marsden and Parry in Gannon's scenario) for the name for the call. I think this is good research from Gannon about R. J. Qualtrough and he shows he probably was a Pru client. However, I don't think Gannon demonstrates that this R.J. Qualtrough had complaints which led to anyone's firing, it seems speculative. In any event, as a former client of the Pru especially if he was involved in some dispute with the company or its employees, Wallace equally could have been aware of the name Qualtrough. (Remember in Gannon's theory he has Wallace as the mastermind.)

The final interesting thing to note is that there was a Qualtrough who celebrated her 20th birthday the very night of the call as I have previously noted. However, her biological father was dead. But could this indicate some research done, an overly contrived effort, someone very detailed oriented getting a kick out of the perfect plan. Maybe someone who had the idea of Qualtrough in his mind already as a good name to use and looked up Qualtroughs in the directory and spotted one celebrating a birthday that day? Of course 20th is not 21st but it sure could give one the idea to use that pretense.

I would argue that this type of detailed contrivance would be more in line with Wallace's character than Parry. Of course, it could all be a coincidence, but then it shows that coincidences do happen and on the balance of it all, it's hard to say it points more to either Wallace or Parry. (The using of the name Qualtrough and the 21st birthday mention.)

Finally, one could argue perhaps Parry knew the Qualtrough girl in question being around the same age, although I think it would be unlikely. The name was investigated thoroughly at the time and it seems to me far from being a suspect the police weren't interested in as some authors have intimated, at the start of the investigation Parry was under heavy suspicion and interrogated, his movements surveilled, and personal relationships investigated in depth.

As RWE, who accompanied Goodman to confront Parry and had once believed in his guilt puts it upon further research, Parry was "rightly eliminated."

[Herlock Sholmes]

While I think there is more to point to Wallace as the caller than Parry, I thought the "21st" bit pointed a bit more to Parry than Wallace. As I pointed out the peculiar coincidence of Parry mentioning actually being invited to a 21st birthday himself is not as strong of a pointer in his direction as previously thought because the event in question happened after the call and the story seems legitimate (i.e. it seems Parry really did obtain an invite on the night of the murder from Miss Williamson for him and his girlfriend to attend LW's 21st)

We don't know if Parry was anticipating being invited to LW's 21st when visiting his mother as HS points out, but in any case he clearly had friends around that age, his girlfriend was 20 as well etc.

But the flipside as both HS and Caz have pointed out is this would be an obvious tack for Wallace to use to implicate Parry if he had him in mind as a fall guy, and if Wallace was guilty, it seems clear he did. So we really are no closer to unwraveling this then we were at the start. Also keep in mind a 21st birthday policy was quite a common policy that would yield dividends and so could easily be what Wallace's idea of a good lure would be if this all was a contrivance of his. (And of course in the incredible duality of this case, it also would be what "Qualtrough" or Parry would think could lure Wallace in.)

Another note, Gannon asserts that R.J. Qualtrough a joiner was a client of the Pru and it was this customer's complaints that led to Marsden being canned. This is where the whole Marsden thing comes in and he claims that's where they got the idea (Marsden and Parry in Gannon's scenario) for the name for the call. I think this is good research from Gannon about R. J. Qualtrough and he shows he probably was a Pru client. However, I don't think Gannon demonstrates that this R.J. Qualtrough had complaints which led to anyone's firing, it seems speculative. In any event, as a former client of the Pru especially if he was involved in some dispute with the company or its employees, Wallace equally could have been aware of the name Qualtrough. (Remember in Gannon's theory he has Wallace as the mastermind.)

The final interesting thing to note is that there was a Qualtrough who celebrated her 20th birthday the very night of the call as I have previously noted. However, her biological father was dead. But could this indicate some research done, an overly contrived effort, someone very detailed oriented getting a kick out of the perfect plan. Maybe someone who had the idea of Qualtrough in his mind already as a good name to use and looked up Qualtroughs in the directory and spotted one celebrating a birthday that day? Of course 20th is not 21st but it sure could give one the idea to use that pretense.

I would argue that this type of detailed contrivance would be more in line with Wallace's character than Parry. Of course, it could all be a coincidence, but then it shows that coincidences do happen and on the balance of it all, it's hard to say it points more to either Wallace or Parry. (The using of the name Qualtrough and the 21st birthday mention.)

Finally, one could argue perhaps Parry knew the Qualtrough girl in question being around the same age, although I think it would be unlikely. The name was investigated thoroughly at the time and it seems to me far from being a suspect the police weren't interested in as some authors have intimated, at the start of the investigation Parry was under heavy suspicion and interrogated, his movements surveilled, and personal relationships investigated in depth.

As RWE, who accompanied Goodman to confront Parry and had once believed in his guilt puts it upon further research, Parry was "rightly eliminated."

Hi AS,

I think it’s important to remember that the age 21 would have held far more significance in the U.K. in the 1930’s than it would today (18 is far more significant these days.) It would have been common-place for someone wishing to take out some kind of policy to begin it from the age of 21. Therefore I don’t really see the fact of Parry mentioning a 21st birthday party as anything other than a very mild coincidence.

A question that perhaps might be asked is ‘would Parry use a 21st birthday as part of a plan to lure Wallace away from Wolverton Street when a part of his alibi was organising a 21st birthday party?’ Is this another example of the ‘fiendish criminal mastermind’ Parry being a bit stupid?

[caz]

Another point is that 'Qualtrough' told Beattie that he wanted Wallace in connection with his own daughter's 21st - "It's my daughter's twenty-first..." [page 22, Murphy] - so if Parry made the call he'd have needed to make his voice sound like a man in his forties - double his own age. Would he have made it that difficult for himself? Beattie would have been instantly suspicious if Qualtrough had sounded like an average 22 year-old!

Love,

Caz
X

[AmericanSherlock]

Another point is that 'Qualtrough' told Beattie that he wanted Wallace in connection with his own daughter's 21st - "It's my daughter's twenty-first..." [page 22, Murphy] - so if Parry made the call he'd have needed to make his voice sound like a man in his forties - double his own age. Would he have made it that difficult for himself? Beattie would have been instantly suspicious if Qualtrough had sounded like an average 22 year-old!

Love,

Caz
X

Great point.

Also remember the operators said the voice sounded like a gruff, older man.

Interestingly Beattie did NOT say the voice sounded like an older man, just that it did not sound like Wallace.

Even if Parry somehow inexplicably decided to make it harder than need be, why the need for the charade starting with talking to the operators whom he would not need to fool?

Perhaps it was a charade in reverse? The man spoke with his normal cadence to the operators and then a put on voice to Beattie?

[Harry D]

But at the end of the day you know the Ramseys were guilty. Just like WHW was.

Guilty of what?

The common theory is that Burke killed his sister and the parents covered it up. I dunno about that. They could've pretended she fell down the stairs or slipped in the bath, but instead they garroted her still-warm body so tightly the wire was almost invisible? Unless you think nine year-old Burke did the whole thing? He was interviewed by the police & the grand jury but never slipped up or exhibited this kind of sadosexual behaviour again.

Problem is, while the murder itself suggests an intruder, the ransom letter incriminates the Ramseys.

[AmericanSherlock]

Guilty of what?

The common theory is that Burke killed his sister and the parents covered it up. I dunno about that. They could've pretended she fell down the stairs or slipped in the bath, but instead they garroted her still-warm body so tightly the wire was almost invisible? Unless you think nine year-old Burke did the whole thing? He was interviewed by the police & the grand jury but never slipped up or exhibited this kind of sadosexual behaviour again.

Problem is, while the murder itself suggests an intruder, the ransom letter incriminates the Ramseys.

Hi Harry I agree, and I think there are similarities with the Wallace case with evidence pointing in conflicting directions. The difference is I obviously don't think either parent intentionally killed Jonbenet. But I believe they either accidentally did it or were involved in something that made them want to cover for whoever did. I do not think Burke was the killer as so many seem to.

One thing that made me very suspicious about the Ramseys is that the detective who was on the scene said the 10 am deadline for the ransom when the Ramseys were supposed to be contacted again came and went with no mention or panic from either parent as to what was happening. Remember the body was not discovered until the afternoon. Wouldn't you be panicking if you were the parents waiting to hear from kidnappers?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another point is that 'Qualtrough' told Beattie that he wanted Wallace in connection with his own daughter's 21st - "It's my daughter's twenty-first..." [page 22, Murphy] - so if Parry made the call he'd have needed to make his voice sound like a man in his forties - double his own age. Would he have made it that difficult for himself? Beattie would have been instantly suspicious if Qualtrough had sounded like an average 22 year-old!

Love,

Caz
X

I’ll echo AS, excellent point Caz.

I’m no expert in the art of impersonation but I’d suspect that the most difficult task for someone changing their voice would be to sound younger or older (apart from changing sex of course.) Anyone trying to double their age would risk sounding like Clive Dunn in Dad’s Army. As AS said, the two phone operators and the supervisor all described the voice as an normal voice of an older man whilst Beattie said ‘gruff.’ The phone operators descriptions are suggestive though. A normal voice becomes decidedly ‘gruff’ for Beattie’s benefit which suggests that Beattie might have recognised the callers normal voice.

Much has been made about Beattie’s confidence that the voice wasn’t Wallace’s. What we must remember though is that the notion of a ‘prank call’ would have been unheard of to a man like Beattie. Unheard of to most of the population in 1931 for whom telephones were a relatively new thing. Beattie was a serious man; a business man. Wallace too was a serious man. Beattie would have instinctively taken a business call seriously without anylising the voice to see if someone was winding him up. If I recall correctly, although I can’t recall the actual words, he also made it clear that the speaker spoke in a peremptory tone. Short sharp sentences. This speaks of a man who just wants to get his message across and end the call and not engage in small talk which would increase his chance of slipping up and giving the game away.

Everything about the caller speaks of an older man whose normal voice would have been recognised by Beattie. Who does that describe, Parry or Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll echo AS, excellent point Caz.

I’m no expert in the art of impersonation but I’d suspect that the most difficult task for someone changing their voice would be to sound younger or older (apart from changing sex of course.) Anyone trying to double their age would risk sounding like Clive Dunn in Dad’s Army. As AS said, the two phone operators and the supervisor all described the voice as an normal voice of an older man whilst Beattie said ‘gruff.’ The phone operators descriptions are suggestive though. A normal voice becomes decidedly ‘gruff’ for Beattie’s benefit which suggests that Beattie might have recognised the callers normal voice.

Much has been made about Beattie’s confidence that the voice wasn’t Wallace’s. What we must remember though is that the notion of a ‘prank call’ would have been unheard of to a man like Beattie. Unheard of to most of the population in 1931 for whom telephones were a relatively new thing. Beattie was a serious man; a business man. Wallace too was a serious man. Beattie would have instinctively taken a business call seriously without anylising the voice to see if someone was winding him up. If I recall correctly, although I can’t recall the actual words, he also made it clear that the speaker spoke in a peremptory tone. Short sharp sentences. This speaks of a man who just wants to get his message across and end the call and not engage in small talk which would increase his chance of slipping up and giving the game away.

Everything about the caller speaks of an older man whose normal voice would have been recognised by Beattie. Who does that describe, Parry or Wallace?

Too late to rectify the appalling spelling of ‘analysing.’

[AmericanSherlock]

I’ll echo AS, excellent point Caz.

I’m no expert in the art of impersonation but I’d suspect that the most difficult task for someone changing their voice would be to sound younger or older (apart from changing sex of course.) Anyone trying to double their age would risk sounding like Clive Dunn in Dad’s Army. As AS said, the two phone operators and the supervisor all described the voice as an normal voice of an older man whilst Beattie said ‘gruff.’ The phone operators descriptions are suggestive though. A normal voice becomes decidedly ‘gruff’ for Beattie’s benefit which suggests that Beattie might have recognised the callers normal voice.

Much has been made about Beattie’s confidence that the voice wasn’t Wallace’s. What we must remember though is that the notion of a ‘prank call’ would have been unheard of to a man like Beattie. Unheard of to most of the population in 1931 for whom telephones were a relatively new thing. Beattie was a serious man; a business man. Wallace too was a serious man. Beattie would have instinctively taken a business call seriously without anylising the voice to see if someone was winding him up. If I recall correctly, although I can’t recall the actual words, he also made it clear that the speaker spoke in a peremptory tone. Short sharp sentences. This speaks of a man who just wants to get his message across and end the call and not engage in small talk which would increase his chance of slipping up and giving the game away.

Everything about the caller speaks of an older man whose normal voice would have been recognised by Beattie. Who does that describe, Parry or Wallace?

Excellent points Herlock. You're right it was Beattie who said the caller sounded "gruff", not the operators who said he sounded like a self assured older man.

I think you are correct that changing one's voice to sound significantly younger or older is probably the most difficult thing that one could do vocally besides altering one's apparent gender.

Also, if the caller was Parry and he was trying to sound older (let's say more distinguished to sound like a prodigious businessman "Qualtrough) how come he sounded like this to the operators but NOT to Beattie. That is the reverse of what you would expect. Furthermore to me "older" signifies 50+, Wallace at 52 would actually be at the lower end of that but just judging from his appearance and frail health, I could easily see him having an "older" sounding voice.

Parry? Even if he somehow wanted to put on a "wealthy, established" front to sound like a rich prospective client and even casting aside why the operators noted his older voice but Beattie didn't and just found him peremptory (As if the caller was trying to hide his true voice), could he really fake an "older man's voice". It's one thing to sound like a businessman in his 30s or 40s, it's another to sound notably "old" that different people commented on it. It seems far fetched to me.

One explanation I've seen by those who favor Parry as the caller is that he had dramatic training (they also claim he saw the chess club board due to this as they shared space I think) or made prank calls, said by the unreliable sounding John Parkes who already knew the facts of the case and disliked Parry (as most seemed to) 50 years later. This seems a bit far fetched to me that he could have faked his voice like this just due to being into the theatre.

I also know that the operators laughed at the callers pronunciation of cafe as "cafay" (which is how I as an American would pronounce it incidentally) and that was not a common way to say it in the area. But as I recall this was not the way either Parry or Wallace would say it so it did not point to either one of them. It seems unlikely the caller was someone other than 1 of the 2 to me though.

Again, I see no reason why Parry would have to disguise his voice, if he was the caller. Particularly if his goal was not murder, but some minor and hopefully unprovable criminal offense the following night at the Wallace's as most reasonably "Parry" theories posit. What difference would it make, who could ID him especially as from his POV, if the caller, little would come of it---he wouldn't be anticipating a murder to occur or an investigation of that seriousness to happen at that point.

However if the caller was Wallace as part of a murder plot, he would know he would become the prime suspect and have to answer for a lot. He would know the call would be dissected. The more important part would be talking to and fooling Beattie. Hence his "peremptory" and "gruff" tone.

But the operators as well would be asked what the voice sounded like that, he would have to know that. Also if WHW was the caller, he would have been frustrated and surprised with the diversion in trying to get connected and having to talk to operators. He might not have been in his full on "gruff, quick, fool Beattie" voice yet and began talking in his normal "old man" voice but upon realizing the possible danger of not disguising voice to the operators who would certainly be asked what the caller's voice sounded like after the murder occurred, decided to throw in some misleading idiosyncracies.

This is admittedly speculative, but if one thinks Parry was the caller, how do you explain the "old man voice" to operators where his voice wouldn't matter, then the very different, gruff, quick and brief (evasive and hoping to be undetected?") voice to Beattie?

The possibility of another caller seems unlikely to me, but it shouldn't be ruled out 100 percent. Just 99 percent.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Excellent points Herlock. You're right it was Beattie who said the caller sounded "gruff", not the operators who said he sounded like a self assured older man.

I think you are correct that changing one's voice to sound significantly younger or older is probably the most difficult thing that one could do vocally besides altering one's apparent gender.

Also, if the caller was Parry and he was trying to sound older (let's say more distinguished to sound like a prodigious businessman "Qualtrough) how come he sounded like this to the operators but NOT to Beattie. That is the reverse of what you would expect. Furthermore to me "older" signifies 50+, Wallace at 52 would actually be at the lower end of that but just judging from his appearance and frail health, I could easily see him having an "older" sounding voice.

Parry? Even if he somehow wanted to put on a "wealthy, established" front to sound like a rich prospective client and even casting aside why the operators noted his older voice but Beattie didn't and just found him peremptory (As if the caller was trying to hide his true voice), could he really fake an "older man's voice". It's one thing to sound like a businessman in his 30s or 40s, it's another to sound notably "old" that different people commented on it. It seems far fetched to me.

One explanation I've seen by those who favor Parry as the caller is that he had dramatic training (they also claim he saw the chess club board due to this as they shared space I think) or made prank calls, said by the unreliable sounding John Parkes who already knew the facts of the case and disliked Parry (as most seemed to) 50 years later. This seems a bit far fetched to me that he could have faked his voice like this just due to being into the theatre.

I also know that the operators laughed at the callers pronunciation of cafe as "cafay" (which is how I as an American would pronounce it incidentally) and that was not a common way to say it in the area. But as I recall this was not the way either Parry or Wallace would say it so it did not point to either one of them. It seems unlikely the caller was someone other than 1 of the 2 to me though.

Again, I see no reason why Parry would have to disguise his voice, if he was the caller. Particularly if his goal was not murder, but some minor and hopefully unprovable criminal offense the following night at the Wallace's as most reasonably "Parry" theories posit. What difference would it make, who could ID him especially as from his POV, if the caller, little would come of it---he wouldn't be anticipating a murder to occur or an investigation of that seriousness to happen at that point.

However if the caller was Wallace as part of a murder plot, he would know he would become the prime suspect and have to answer for a lot. He would know the call would be dissected. The more important part would be talking to and fooling Beattie. Hence his "peremptory" and "gruff" tone.

But the operators as well would be asked what the voice sounded like that, he would have to know that. Also if WHW was the caller, he would have been frustrated and surprised with the diversion in trying to get connected and having to talk to operators. He might not have been in his full on "gruff, quick, fool Beattie" voice yet and began talking in his normal "old man" voice but upon realizing the possible danger of not disguising voice to the operators who would certainly be asked what the caller's voice sounded like after the murder occurred, decided to throw in some misleading idiosyncracies.

This is admittedly speculative, but if one thinks Parry was the caller, how do you explain the "old man voice" to operators where his voice wouldn't matter, then the very different, gruff, quick and brief (evasive and hoping to be undetected?") voice to Beattie?

The possibility of another caller seems unlikely to me, but it shouldn't be ruled out 100 percent. Just 99 percent.

Couldn’t agree more AS.

We know that Parry had met Beattie at the club, introduced by Wallace, but I can’t recall how many times they’d met. It wasn’t many though, say 2 or 3 times? These would have been very brief introductions and hello’s and not prolonged, in depth conversations. As far as we are aware there was nothing particularly memorable about Parry’s voice. A normal 22 year old local. So why would Parry need to significantly change his voice to speak to Beattie? What would have been the chances of Beattie recognising him? Also, as Parry’s acting skills often get mentioned, why didn’t he adopt, say a Scottish accent to disguise his voice completely?

It seems rather convenient that, for me the most unbelievable witness in the history of crime, Parkes, is the one to ‘mention’ that fact that Parry was adept at prank calls. It’s a wonder that he didn’t mention his skill at wrenching the doors off cupboards or his obsession with turning off lights or his well known reluctance at touching a women’s handbag or even his mackintosh fetish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

William Wallace finally gets in through the back door of 29 Wolverton Street on that Tuesday evening. He’s desperate to see if his wife is ok. He’s been worrying all the way home since he’d realised that he’d been sent on a fools erreand to the non-existent Menlove Garden’s East.

Before he gained entrance what did he do? Does he hammer loudly at both doors? Does he knock on the windows? Does he shout her name through the letterbox? No. He just keeps trying the doors with his key until the back door opens.

He enters. Alone. Even though he suspects that an intruder might be inside he doesn’t ask Mr Johnston to accompany him.

He sees straight away that she’s not in the back kitchen. Ok, next room.

Into the kitchen. No Julia’s not in the most used room in the house. His concern is increasing. He goes to the kitchens second door that leads to the hallway. Next room.

Wait. Decision time?!

From the kitchen door he can pretty much touch the Parlour door. In less than 5 seconds he could check the Parlour and either find his wife or eliminate the room from his search. But no. He ignores it and goes upstairs.

He checks the back room - his laboratory and the least likely room in the entire house for Julia to be found in. He checks the other rooms then goes back downstairs. He’s saved the best til last!

Now.......

The more that I think about it Wallace’s absolutely incomprehensible ignoring of the parlour almost alone convinces me that Wallace was guilty. The frankly pathetic argument that he would have ignored the Parlour because it wasn’t used very often is risible. Julia’s piano was in there for a start. The door was within reach. I’d say, being conservative, that 999 out of 1000 people would have checked the Parlour before going upstairs. But not Wallace. Why?

One main reason that I’d suggest is that Wallace wanted to have one final check of the rooms, to make sure that he hadn’t committed some blunder, before ‘finding’ Julia. In a previous post I made a suggestion (for which I have no proof) that possibly Wallace used chemicals to clean the kitchen sink and that maybe he’d forgotten to return the bottle to his lab?

Wallace avoiding he Parlour is illogical and unnatural for a man desperate to find his wife. It’s a massive red flag for me. The act of a guilty man.

And then I’d ask you to look at the crime scene photo taken from the doorway. Look where Julia’s head is in relation to the chair in front of the sideboard. Notice the small gap. Notice the large pool of blood.

We are asked to believe that Wallace edged between the chair and Julia’s body without stepping in any of that large pool of blood? Wallace himself said that he thought that Julia might have had some kind of fit. He didn’t think that she was dead and so he didn’t know the blood was there. Yet Wallace completely avoided it. I think that we might be able to guess why? Because he knew that it was there.

These two points alone point very powerfully to Wallace’s guilt. Add the rest of the points against and we can come to only one conclusion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One very small point that I’d made a note to respond to from ages ago but I forgot. I think!

Gannon asks whether a small dark shape on the sideboard might have been the ‘other’ mitten?

Answer...no.

Do we really think that the police were so stupid that, when looking for clues, that they wouldn’t have noticed a single mitten without asking where the other one was? Especially when they noticed that Julia had two hands.

[AmericanSherlock]

Herlock is putting the final nail in the "Maybe Wallace wasn't guilty" coffin IMO.

This in addition to the odd structure of the call and the crime the following night which implies a planned murder (and who else but WHW would want this?), the timing for both nights in which a few minutes here or there could have exonerated WHW but he always remains in the frame, the odd decisions Wallace made in deciding to go but not consulting a map barely making it to the neighborhood in time if he knew where he was going, and his odd behavior seeking out Menlove Gardens East.

Not to mention how if the caller was somebody else, the whole plot wouldn't make sense, he could have easily done what he wanted the Monday night if he was so sure Wallace was on the way to the chess club (which how on earth could he be?, Yet we have to assume this independent mastermind was certain for the plot to make any sense at all) An interesting "trap" I think for those who think Qualtrough and Wallace were not one and the same.

Already because of all these factors (and quite a few more) pointing to Wallace, I suspected that although there is no smoking gun in this case when one thinks about the combined permutations and unlikelihood of the alternative explanations being correct in each case, there is a high chance of his guilt.

When you add Herlock's points about his extremely suspicious behavior on returning home, avoiding the one room which would be most obvious to search, and which happened to contain her body, one has to wonder why? Just another coincidence??? Or did he know where she was beforehand, want to avoid messing up the scene or incriminating himself in any way, and then "discover" the body with the Johnstons present?

Coincidences can and do happen, and they in my mind helped to make Parry an alternative viable suspect (although WHW if he was guilty probably had this dodgy guy in mind as the fall guy).

I am also aware, to be fair, that when one has a suspect in mind there is often an effort to act like a Prosecutor and cast everything in a bad light for the "defendant" in order to bolster the case against him.

However, there reaches a point where objectively speaking coincidences conspire to such a point, that it would be absurd to think there isn't fire where there is smoke.

I think a careful analysis of this case brings us to that point with regards to Wallace's guilt. He would have to be unlucky to an infinitesimally small percentage chance to be innocent.

[AmericanSherlock]

One very small point that I’d made a note to respond to from ages ago but I forgot. I think!

Gannon asks whether a small dark shape on the sideboard might have been the ‘other’ mitten?

Answer...no.

Do we really think that the police were so stupid that, when looking for clues, that they wouldn’t have noticed a single mitten without asking where the other one was? Especially when they noticed that Julia had two hands.

Yeah I recommend the Gannon book to everyone because of the sheer amount of research. I know for some it's boring and I think editing could have been done for the main part of the book, and perhaps give some of the extemporaneous stuff later.

Personally, I find this kind of genealogical research fascinating to set the scene and I think the book is worth it because of that.

However, there is a lot of "speculation" in Gannon's book. From the soap opera esque gigolo rolling in the hay with near 70 year old woman to the missing mitten, there is just not the evidence there to support these assertions, I would argue they aren't only not proved or at least shown to be likely, but in fact they seem unlikely. And they are unfortunately passed off as fact.

I have to say all 3 major books this century on the case (Murphy, Gannon, Antony/CCJ's) are worth buying and all 3 implicate Wallace in one form or another. Murphy is the only one who thinks Wallace acted alone.

None of them are without their flaws however. Antony's was a fresh breath of air to me as he considered every angle and all permuations whereas I felt someone like Murphy whom I agree with the most was a bit suppressive of information that went against his theory, rather than fully dealing with it. Gannon also has a bit of this same certainty in his position and seems to cast aside or not deal with possible opposing arguments.

However, I think Antony suffers from the opposite problem. He is too speculative to the point of not coming firmly down on one side or another. I think an author should have a solid opinion on a case, even if it is not definitive. I am looking forward to the updated book, although I haven't heard word of it and think everyone should buy it.

Hopefully, there won't be too much attention given to "sneak thief" teams.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cheers AS.

It’s a pity that Anthony wasn’t posting when I joined the thread as I’d liked to have heard his opinion on my issue with Wallace’s Monday night tram story? Rod was strangely silent on the issue