Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Loving this thread atm. Haven't seen a theory so thoroughly debunked since the Walter Sickert nonsense

I mean damn...

Our resident genius luckily has a helicopter he can fly away in to avoid further embarrassment

[Herlock Sholmes]

He’s strangely absent

[AmericanSherlock]

I found it interesting that Wallace's counsels seemed to have questions about his innocence. In Wilkes' book (which is very Pro Wallace and names Parry as the murderer) he concedes that a journalist spoke with counsel Hector Munro who had "a great deal of doubt on Wallace's innocence." Scholefield Allen his junior counsel has said he found it very strange for an innocent man to say to him "Well we won sonny, didn't we?" (Wallace said this to him on his death bed.) I don't know what Roland Oliver thought. I know Justice Wright thought he was guilty even though he correctly summed for acquittal. I concur with his opinion of likely, but not proven guilt.

To be fair to Wallace, he was consistent on blaming Parry. A recent account his him telling a visitor in jail that he thought Parry was the true killer. And we know he blamed him in the John Bull Articles (these were ghostwritten however). Wallace seemed very bent on pinning this crime on Parry...

[John G]

Regarding Parkes' evidence, I think the issue of the mitten needs to be considered. Thus, if murder was the intent I think it highly unlikely that the assailant would have worn a mitten, as this would have allowed for hardly any grip whilst wielding the iron bar or other such murder weapon. And I certainly can't imagine an assailant striking Julia several times, whilst clumsily trying to keep hold of the murder weapon.

No, if anything was worn on the hands it surely had to be gloves. Similarly if robbery where the motive, the mitten would not have allowed for sufficient dexterity when attempting the theft, i.e. whilst gripping the money.

[AmericanSherlock]

Regarding Parkes' evidence, I think the issue of the mitten needs to be considered. Thus, if murder was the intent I think it highly unlikely that the assailant would have worn a mitten, as this would have allowed for hardly any grip whilst wielding the iron bar or other such murder weapon. And I certainly can't imagine an assailant striking Julia several times, whilst clumsily trying to keep hold of the murder weapon.

No, if anything was worn on the hands it surely had to be gloves. Similarly if robbery where the motive, the mitten would not have allowed for sufficient dexterity when attempting the theft, i.e. whilst gripping the money.

Good points here.

And I add, if gloves were worn (so no fingerprints would be left), then what was the point of the murderer taking the weapon with him, when he could just leave it there to incriminate Wallace and not risk carrying it out with him?

[John G]

Good points here.

And I add, if gloves were worn (so no fingerprints would be left), then what was the point of the murderer taking the weapon with him, when he could just leave it there to incriminate Wallace and not risk carrying it out with him?

Yes, excellent point AS. If he was wearing gloves, then presumably their would be no need to remove the murder weapon.

Another point about the mitten, how would the assailant be able to get enough purchase in order to deliver an effective blow? I mean, he would be more likely to drop the weapon than be able to strike with sufficient force.

And if he does drop the weapon, how would he be able to pick it back up using the mitten? I could imagine that could have taken several hours, although repeatedly dropping the bar after striking with modest force might explain why the killer needed to deliver up to eleven blows!

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, excellent point AS. If he was wearing gloves, then presumably their would be no need to remove the murder weapon.

Another point about the mitten, how would the assailant be able to get enough purchase in order to deliver an effective blow? I mean, he would be more likely to drop the weapon than be able to strike with sufficient force.

And if he does drop the weapon, how would he be able to pick it back up using the mitten? I could imagine that could have taken several hours, although repeatedly dropping the bar after striking with modest force might explain why the killer needed to deliver up to eleven blows!

You've made a strong argument in my opinion that no mitten was worn and I doubt gloves were worn because of the reason I gave.

This would play into the 2 scenarios of either 1. Wallace did it himself or 2. Someone else committed a spur of the moment unplanned murder (probably a robber caught in the act)

Dorothy Sayers suggested whoever removed the weapon made a tactical mistake. Whether it was Wallace or someone else.

I believe I can argue the opposite. If it was Wallace, then he has to remove it because his fingerprints will be on it and while it might be excused if it's a common household item, it is not worth the risk. It is also not worth it for him to wear gloves, because he will have to dispose of them and he risks them being found. If he doesn't dispose of them, even if he somehow cleans them, his wearing them will be noted on his journey, by the police when he comes back etc.

If it was someone else who commits the murder unplanned in a fit of panic or rage, then he has to remove it because he will not have worn gloves and his fingerprints will be on the weapon.

What do you think?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That the killer didn’t wear gloves and therefore had to take away the weapon due to fingerprints is surely the correct interpretation unless someone wants to postulate that the killer used a weapon with his name engraved on it

[caz]

By the way Caz, are you just over on this thread to take a break from angering Mr Orsam in Diaryland ?.

Who's Mr Orsam? Never heard of him.

Actually, I really enjoyed catching up with all the posts here on the Wallace case. When I want to take a break I might nip over to see what the kiddies have been up to in Diaryland in my absence. I doubt they'll be missing me though.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

It never fails to amaze me how much ire the diary appears to generate. It’s minefield that I’m steering well clear of. I’d need to spend a month just re-familiarising myself with the points. It’s definately the Wallace case that’s got my interest at the moment

[caz]

Loving this thread atm. Haven't seen a theory so thoroughly debunked since the Walter Sickert nonsense

I mean damn...

Our resident genius luckily has a helicopter he can fly away in to avoid further embarrassment

I expect he's only a stone's throw away by helicopter.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

You've made a strong argument in my opinion that no mitten was worn and I doubt gloves were worn because of the reason I gave.

This would play into the 2 scenarios of either 1. Wallace did it himself or 2. Someone else committed a spur of the moment unplanned murder (probably a robber caught in the act)

Dorothy Sayers suggested whoever removed the weapon made a tactical mistake. Whether it was Wallace or someone else.

I believe I can argue the opposite. If it was Wallace, then he has to remove it because his fingerprints will be on it and while it might be excused if it's a common household item, it is not worth the risk. It is also not worth it for him to wear gloves, because he will have to dispose of them and he risks them being found. If he doesn't dispose of them, even if he somehow cleans them, his wearing them will be noted on his journey, by the police when he comes back etc.

If it was someone else who commits the murder unplanned in a fit of panic or rage, then he has to remove it because he will not have worn gloves and his fingerprints will be on the weapon.

What do you think?

Thanks AS.

You pose some interesting questions, which I've been considering. Okay, if an assailant other than Wallace commits the murder then it makes sense for him to wear gloves-not mittens!-if it was planned, but to leave the murder weapon behind. If not planned, he presumably wouldn't have worn gloves, therefore he would, by necessity, have to take the murder weapon with him; although thinking outside of the box, not necessarily if it was Parry and he elected to use a common household item such as the poker- because he visited the house on numerous occasions and he could therefore argue that he'd used the poker to tend the fire on a previous visit to see Julia, hence the presence of his fingerprints.

If Wallace was the murderer I don't think it would make sense for him to remove the weapon under any circumstances. Thus, his best option would be to utilise the poker, or other household item that he must have handled before, as this, of course, would explain the presence of his fingerprints: He could then argue that the presence of only his and Julia's fingerprints on the item must mean the assailant wore gloves-or if he gets really lucky, maybe Parry had handled it on a previous visit, which would partially implicate him.

However, if he elects to remove the weapon, this creates all sorts of problems. For instance, how does he transport it? He's hardly going to be crazy enough to leave the house swinging an iron bar covered in blood and gore. If he secretes it under his suit then his clothing would be stained, placing him in serious trouble. You might argue that he used some sort of bag to carry it in, but that results in other problems: It would mean he's now got an additional item to dispose of, and if anyone sees him carrying the bag how would he explain it?

Moreover, he would not only be under intense time pressure, but would have a very small geographical area in which to dispose of the weapon, as well as running the risk of being seen doing so, so he has to assume the police would eventually find it. So why bother, as the whole risky exercise would almost certainly end up being counter productive?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have to say that I find the ‘thief caught in the act’ angle more than a bit difficult to accept. It presupposes that thief was quite prepared to be described in detail to the police by Julia after being left alive. Especially as we know that she would only admit someone that she knew. For me pretty much everything points to murder as the primary aim of the enterprise.

[John G]

I have to say that I find the ‘thief caught in the act’ angle more than a bit difficult to accept. It presupposes that thief was quite prepared to be described in detail to the police by Julia after being left alive. Especially as we know that she would only admit someone that she knew. For me pretty much everything points to murder as the primary aim of the enterprise.

Except Wallace stated that Julia would admit someone calling themselves Qualtrough. And if, say, Parry was the thief, and wasn't caught in the act, there would be suspicion but no proof against him.

[John G]

Who's Mr Orsam? Never heard of him.

Actually, I really enjoyed catching up with all the posts here on the Wallace case. When I want to take a break I might nip over to see what the kiddies have been up to in Diaryland in my absence. I doubt they'll be missing me though.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I really have great respect for David, but have you noticed that he has a tendency not to concede, or give ground, on a point under any circumstances?