Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[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.

[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]

.
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]

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.

Yes, and this highlights another fatal (p.i.) logical flaw to the whole plot. To gain entrance, Qualtrough would have to contrive a story that the message had been garbled and he was instead due to meet Wallace here at his house.

Obviously, this would raise questions to the paranoid and forlorn Julia, how did this man have Wallace's home address for one? But assuming she let him in, he would have to stay there and wait for Wallace to return to not raise an alarm bell. Obviously though, if planning to steal the money, he would not want to do this and would want to be out of there as soon as possible. What contrivance could he come up with to leave? Julia would want him to stay there to get the mess sorted out.

The plot just makes no sense unless the goal was murder from the get go which seems so very unlikely. And what did Parry do, give the guy a map of the house and tell him to wait for Julia to go to the bathroom (in limited time as well with the possibility of WHW returning?) And why was the money in JW's handbag and the jewelry not taken?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would make no sense AS if the plan was to wait for Julia to go to the loo. How long would Q have been prepared to wait? Julia might not have gone to the loo in which case Q would have needed to absent himself from the Parlour (probably under the pretext of needing the loo himself.) This raises the question: would a ‘sneak thief’ hoping to steal money from the cash box undetected risk noisily pulling a cupboard door from its hinges with Julia in the next room? At the same time completely ignoring Julia’s bag which would be a pretty obvious target for someone looking for cash.

Does any of this sound plausible for a sneak thief?

[AmericanSherlock]

It would make no sense AS if the plan was to wait for Julia to go to the loo. How long would Q have been prepared to wait? Julia might not have gone to the loo in which case Q would have needed to absent himself from the Parlour (probably under the pretext of needing the loo himself.) This raises the question: would a ‘sneak thief’ hoping to steal money from the cash box undetected risk noisily pulling a cupboard door from its hinges with Julia in the next room? At the same time completely ignoring Julia’s bag which would be a pretty obvious target for someone looking for cash.

Does any of this sound plausible for a sneak thief?

Yes very cogent points my friend. I am looking forward to reading the accomplice theory in the book though. Antony is a very reasonable guy so I think he will do the best job of "Steel manning" this theory to it's very best. I don't like it for many of these reasons we are listing though and they seem like dealbreakers to me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes very cogent points my friend. I am looking forward to reading the accomplice theory in the book though. Antony is a very reasonable guy so I think he will do the best job of "Steel manning" this theory to it's very best. I don't like it for many of these reasons we are listing though and they seem like dealbreakers to me.

I’m just disappointed that I’m going to have to wait so long for the book to arrive. With the book being out on November 1st I didn’t expect the possibility of having to wait until after Christmas to receive it.

[caz]

I ordered my copy yesterday and look forward to when it finally arrives!

For me, the fact that Julia's handbag was untouched, and there was no forced entry to the house, makes it unlikely that the primary motive for the crime was financial gain by someone who first had to con his way into the Wallace home. The Monday night phone call implies a carefully thought-out plan by whoever "Qualtrough" was, knowing Julia would be there in Wallace's absence, and could prove an obstacle to the plan's success. The brutality of her murder would then indicate that she did indeed prove to be an obstacle while alive, whereas if Wallace killed her, that would have been the whole object of the exercise.

Burglars tend to favour an empty house, but are often prepared to do what is necessary if surprised by an occupant already there or arriving unexpectedly. But on this occasion, Qualtrough knew with 100% certainty that Julia would be there and would need to be 'negotiated' with in some way. That strikes me as unusual to begin with. The recent housebreaking in the vicinity is in stark contrast, and should have showed Qualtrough - if not a wife killer - how to do his thing without the additional worry of an unwanted audience.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I meant to add...

An empty house would mean no handbag or wallet for a burglar to rifle through. But knowing the woman of the house would be at home to let him in, Qualtrough would also have been aware that her handbag would be around somewhere. And it was easy enough to find on this occasion, which makes it all the more puzzling why he didn't think to empty it, or even grab it on his way out, but spent precious seconds turning off all the lights instead!

Wallace, on the other hand, might have felt a bit queasy about tampering with his wife's handbag if he was trying to stage a robbery, or feared leaving his fingerprints on it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I meant to add...

An empty house would mean no handbag or wallet for a burglar to rifle through. But knowing the woman of the house would be at home to let him in, Qualtrough would also have been aware that her handbag would be around somewhere. And it was easy enough to find on this occasion, which makes it all the more puzzling why he didn't think to empty it, or even grab it on his way out, but spent precious seconds turning off all the lights instead!

Wallace, on the other hand, might have felt a bit queasy about tampering with his wife's handbag if he was trying to stage a robbery, or feared leaving his fingerprints on it.

Love,

Caz
X

It’s certainly difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a sensible reason why Qualtrough would have ignored Julia’s bag which was clearly on view and easily accessible and yet spend the time and effort (and noise) required to wrench a door from a cupboard.

[AmericanSherlock]

If Qualtrough's goal was to steal the insurance money first and foremost upon finding only 4 pounds were there (according to Wallace himself) then why not steal obvious other things at the scene. This would be a disappointing haul.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Qualtrough's goal was to steal the insurance money first and foremost upon finding only 4 pounds were there (according to Wallace himself) then why not steal obvious other things at the scene. This would be a disappointing haul.

It makes no sense AS.

[AmericanSherlock]

It makes no sense AS.

I've PMEd you

[Herlock Sholmes]

The intention, when proposing a scenario to describe how the murder of Julia occurred, must be to answer as many of the questions that are asked regularly on this thread (how was the weapon disposed of, timings, the voice on the phone all etc?) Of course it doesn’t mean that our scenario is correct just because it answers some or many of those questions but answering those questions must be the criteria.

All theories leave, as yet, questions not conclusively answered. Even the scenario that I strongly favour (Wallace alone) leaves us with questions that we cannot difinitively answer. And so if we look at it dispassionately which scenario ‘answers’ most questions? I was thinking about this last night and realised how obvious the answer was (to me anyway.)

It’s Wallace and an accomplice (naming the accomplice is unimportant.)

The only question that I can think of that it doesn’t answer is the question of Parkes which doesn’t concern me as I consider him an obvious fantasist.

Questions and ‘answers’ on the Wallace/accomplice scenario.

The Qualtrough ‘voice’ question - it was the accomplice that made the call.


The many ways that the plan could have failed from the start - It was Wallace’s plan and he controlled the circumstances.

The Hall sighting - Wallace with his accomplice.

The brutality of the murder - Wallace’s build up of resentment and hatred.

The missing weapon - Disposed of by the accomplice.

Clean up after the murder - The accomplice got rid of Wallace’s soiled clothing or the accomplice committed the actual murder.

The tight timings for Wallace to get to chess - The accomplice has a car (or access to one) and drives Wallace to his first stop.)

The mackintosh - Wallace used it as an excuse to get Julia into the Parlour. “ Could you bring me my mackintosh dear?”

The poorly staged robbery - Perhaps the accomplice made the poor job in the front bedroom whilst Wallace was downstairs?

Why were the lights off? - Wallace not wanting anyone to knock on the door and see lights on but getting no response.

Wallace continuing to look for the non-existent MGE - He needs to be away from the house as part of his plan.

Why didn’t Wallace check for MGE on the Monday? - Because he already knew that it didn’t exist.

Julia admitting a stranger. - A few possibles here. She didn’t admit a stranger, Wallace did via the backdoor. Or, if she did admit a stranger, Wallace told her “oh by the way dear a Mr Qualtrough will call tonight. Just put him in the Parlour will you, I won’t be gone long.”

Why Wallace left the Parlour until last? - He wanted to check his accomplices handiwork upstairs and that he’d made no blunders.

Of course the question will be asked “how did the mild-mannered, law abiding Wallace find such a desperado to help him? - Wallace collects rents. He gets to know a man who’s permanently in arrears (possible facing eviction.) His wife has left him because he can’t find work (this is partially due to the fact that he has a criminal record.) He’s desperate. Wallace plants the seeds... Or perhaps Wallace finds out that one man has been having an affair and he threatens to break up his family by informing his wife so he blackmails him into a peripheral role (phonecall, disposal of weapon etc.)

If we have license to propose any scenario which might explain the events of that Monday and tuesday then we are engaged in a box ticking exercise.

Wallace + Accomplice ticks most boxes. (I still go for Wallace alone though.)

[Batman]

Moral of the story is that when you get a stranger to alibi your pre-arranged phone call calls, don't insist he remembers the exact time he took it.