Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

‘All Will be revealed soon...’

How many times have we heard that?

And how many times is anything revealed?

Have you been ‘communing’ with Julia a la Conan Doyle

LOL!

[AmericanSherlock]

Why not. At the very least it might have added weight to his story. He knew that his wife spoke to a few people so it might only strengthen his story if Julia happened to mention it to family or an acquaintance. The more people that heard of Qualtrough and the meeting the better. If she didn’t so what, a little wasted breath. Think man, think,

Correct How on God's green earth, does Wallace mentioning the Qualtrough affair to Julia make it less likely he killed her? There are multiple obvious reasons he would want to tell her of his "plan"; even if you discount that, there is zero downside if he was going to kill her anyway! I just don't understand the level of logic here, but you dealt with it well.

[RodCrosby]

Transparently not. Because in your world at every single occasion of doubt it’s a case of heads or tails and Wallace wins. I’m honest enough to say that a doubt or an incident of suspicious behaviour isn’t proof of Wallace’s guilt. I’ll say again...Wallace could have been innocent. But you go to any length, any twist of logic (like your amazing MGE/policeman sleight of hand) to brush them aside and plough on with your fingers in your ears.
If you look at any case and decide ‘I’ll consider anything as long as it bolsters my theory’ then you don’t need a genius to explain the outcome.

Wallace’s Menlove Gardens East odyssey/continuing after being told by a policeman - suspicious
Going back to his wife’s bludgeoned body and poking around without any need to - suspicious
The lid back on the cash box - suspicious
The blood on the money in the vase - suspicious
The Qualtrough call (normal voice for the operators, gruff voice for Beattie) - suspicious.
Wallace trying to get Beattie to be more specific about the time of the call - suspicious
Wallace looking in his lab (a room she never entered) before the Parlour (which she did use, and he was only feet away from!) - suspicious.
Wallace being the only person that knew he would be at the chess club - suspicious
The doctor, the nurse, the char women (and possibly one other?) who said that the Wallace marriage wasn’t as rosy as it appeared to outsiders - suspicious

None of these prove Wallace’s guilt. You may think that these are all easy to dismiss but you can’t do it conclusively.

Just taking the first, for the sake of not clogging bandwith with tediousness.

Joseph Crewe, who lived not 400 yards from the mythical Menlove Gardens East, did not know whether or not it existed...

OLIVER: Did you, as a matter of fact, know whether there was a Menlove Gardens East or not ?
CREWE: Menlove Gardens are behind the main road, and I would suggest very few people, only those that reside in those Gardens, ever came through
them.

OLIVER: Just answer my question. Did you know whether there was such a place or not ?
CREWE: No.

OLIVER: How long have you known Mr. Wallace ?
CREWE: Twelve years and a few months.

OLIVER: What is your opinion of his character ?
CREWE: An absolute gentleman in every respect.

OLIVER: Scrupulously honest ?
CREWE: Absolutely.

OLIVER: What about his accounts, were they always in order ?
CREWE: Always to a penny.

OLIVER: There was no question of his ever being wrong in his accounts ?
CREWE: None whatever.

OLIVER: Was his job in life collecting money for the Prudential ?
CREWE: Yes.

OLIVER: How long had that been his job ?
CREWE: Fifteen years.

So we have from his boss that Wallace was a scrupulously honest, dedicated long-serving employee of the Prudential. Aside from any personal benefit that might accrue in the quest for Qualtrough, Wallace knew [or honestly believed] he was first and foremost on Prudential business. Such dedicated company man would naturally leave no stone unturned, out of his own sense of professionalism, and not least in case "Qualtrough" magically re-appeared the following day with a complaint that Wallace had not kept the appointment.

It would be perfectly natural for anyone, not least someone in Wallace's predicament that night in 1931 to check a directory, as the last, folorn throw of the dice, before returning home. He could then honestly say when reporting the incident [as he no doubt would have done to Prudential HQ] that there was no Menlove Gardens East [source: the Policeman] and that there was no Qualtrough to be found in any quarter of the district [source: the Directory].

As I have said before, only if you choose to apply different standards to Wallace than you would apply to Phillips, Angus, Thompson, the woman in Menlove Gardens North, and indeed Crewe himself, can anything Wallace did that night be construed as 'suspicious', which of course is unreasonable...

His fellow insurance agents, who surely knew this game in 1931 better than you or I or the gatepost, also agreed. After a mock trial in London, hearing all the evidence for both sides, they unanimously agreed to defray the cost of the Defence out of the Prudential Staff Union funds. That was a unique act, btw, never repeated in this country, as I understand.

All the other points can, and have been dismissed by me and other students of the crime, numerous times, or are of such nebulous relevance as to not be worth the effort...

The case was a disgrace - a carnival of prejudice and hysteria [some things never change, alas ], a circus of Police incompetence and bad-faith, a mockery of justice which was only halted by the unusual sight of the Lord Chief Justice of England choosing very publicly to stand on his head!

And the real killer got away with it...

[AmericanSherlock]

When is Antony's book coming out?

I'm looking forward to it especially now to laugh at the "Rod Chapter"

Although, if it's presented as a serious part of the book, I'm not sure I want to waste my money on tabloid level garbage. I could just read hundreds of thousands of online posts from this conspiracy nut instead for free!

Apparently the 2 met; I wonder if Antony got the full "tour" of Liverpool inside a dodgy van.

James Murphy's book remains the best on this case IMO. If you read that, you can come to only 1 conclusion as to what is most likely to have occurred when you consider the balance of the facts.

I still would let Wallace off the hook in a time before no DNA, since the murder weapon wasn't found etc... and the "Qualtrough business" has a (probably designed) element of dual symmetry to it, I would suggest there is a slight reasonable doubt so I do not go as far as Murphy in willingness to convict.

However, his argument highlighting Wallace's suspicious behavior and the unreliability of the Qualtrough call if commissioned by anyone else is very persuasive. Far more so than far-fetched conspiracy theories!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just taking the first, for the sake of not clogging bandwith with tediousness.

Joseph Crewe, who lived not 400 yards from the mythical Menlove Gardens East, did not know whether or not it existed...

OLIVER: Did you, as a matter of fact, know whether there was a Menlove Gardens East or not ?
CREWE: Menlove Gardens are behind the main road, and I would suggest very few people, only those that reside in those Gardens, ever came through
them.

OLIVER: Just answer my question. Did you know whether there was such a place or not ?
CREWE: No.

OLIVER: How long have you known Mr. Wallace ?
CREWE: Twelve years and a few months.

OLIVER: What is your opinion of his character ?
CREWE: An absolute gentleman in every respect.

OLIVER: Scrupulously honest ?
CREWE: Absolutely.

OLIVER: What about his accounts, were they always in order ?
CREWE: Always to a penny.

OLIVER: There was no question of his ever being wrong in his accounts ?
CREWE: None whatever.

OLIVER: Was his job in life collecting money for the Prudential ?
CREWE: Yes.

OLIVER: How long had that been his job ?
CREWE: Fifteen years.

So we have from his boss that Wallace was a scrupulously honest, dedicated long-serving employee of the Prudential. Aside from any personal benefit that might accrue in the quest for Qualtrough, Wallace knew [or honestly believed] he was first and foremost on Prudential business. Such dedicated company man would naturally leave no stone unturned, out of his own sense of professionalism, and not least in case "Qualtrough" magically re-appeared the following day with a complaint that Wallace had not kept the appointment.

It would be perfectly natural for anyone, not least someone in Wallace's predicament that night in 1931 to check a directory, as the last, folorn throw of the dice, before returning home. He could then honestly say when reporting the incident [as he no doubt would have done to Prudential HQ] that there was no Menlove Gardens East [source: the Policeman] and that there was no Qualtrough to be found in any quarter of the district [source: the Directory].

As I have said before, only if you choose to apply different standards to Wallace than you would apply to Phillips, Angus, Thompson, the woman in Menlove Gardens North, and indeed Crewe himself, can anything Wallace did that night be construed as 'suspicious', which of course is unreasonable...

His fellow insurance agents, who surely knew this game in 1931 better than you or I or the gatepost, also agreed. After a mock trial in London, hearing all the evidence for both sides, they unanimously agreed to defray the cost of the Defence out of the Prudential Staff Union funds. That was a unique act, btw, never repeated in this country, as I understand.

All the other points can, and have been dismissed by me and other students of the crime, numerous times, or are of such nebulous relevance as to not be worth the effort...

The case was a disgrace - a carnival of prejudice and hysteria [some things never change, alas ], a circus of Police incompetence and bad-faith, a mockery of justice which was only halted by the unusual sight of the Lord Chief Justice of England choosing very publicly to stand on his head!

And the real killer got away with it...

Nope. You’re just stretching what 99.999% would regard as strange behaviour to suit yourself.
Wallace set out with no one being able to tell him where Menlove Gardens East was. Even Mr Deyes at the chess club who lived in the area. So Wallace must surely have thought, at the very least: ‘that’s a bit strange.’ But Fairplay that wouldn’t necessarily prevent him going. On the journey, no one could tell him that MGE existed. When he got to the area no one could tell him where it was. Surely an alarm bell or two would be going off. He was then told there was no such place. Another alarm bell or two. Then he runs into a police officer who, in your own words ‘authoritatively’ tells him that MGE doesn’t exist. For anyone, especially someone who later said that when he couldn’t find MGE he became concerned for his wife, that would have been game over. But no....he’s that ‘concerned’ about his wife that he trudges on to find a post office. Then he trudges off to another shop.
How can anyone say that this isn’t strange behaviour? It’s baffling?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Correct How on God's green earth, does Wallace mentioning the Qualtrough affair to Julia make it less likely he killed her? There are multiple obvious reasons he would want to tell her of his "plan"; even if you discount that, there is zero downside if he was going to kill her anyway! I just don't understand the level of logic here, but you dealt with it well.

There’s very little ‘logic’ being provided here AS. All roads lead away from Wallace apparently. Even when you aren’t saying that Wallace was definitely guilty any point against him is dismissed by logic worthy of Lewis Carroll. To listen to RC’s analysis this was an open and shut case! I’m a newbie to this case. I fully admit to knowing less about the details of the case than any poster on here so I often find that I have to consult a book to refresh my memory on some things but I can still recognise poor reasoning when I see it. I can still see someone whose basic attitude is ‘I’ve solved it so stop trying to spoil my theory.’

[RodCrosby]

Nope. You’re just stretching what 99.999% would regard as strange behaviour to suit yourself.
Wallace set out with no one being able to tell him where Menlove Gardens East was. Even Mr Deyes at the chess club who lived in the area. So Wallace must surely have thought, at the very least: ‘that’s a bit strange.’ But Fairplay that wouldn’t necessarily prevent him going. On the journey, no one could tell him that MGE existed. When he got to the area no one could tell him where it was. Surely an alarm bell or two would be going off. He was then told there was no such place. Another alarm bell or two. Then he runs into a police officer who, in your own words ‘authoritatively’ tells him that MGE doesn’t exist. For anyone, especially someone who later said that when he couldn’t find MGE he became concerned for his wife, that would have been game over. But no....he’s that ‘concerned’ about his wife that he trudges on to find a post office. Then he trudges off to another shop.
How can anyone say that this isn’t strange behaviour? It’s baffling?

Factually inaccurate, yet again.

Abject appeals to imaginary galleries, yet again.

One of the types identified by Gerald Abrahams "that could not recognize a non sequitur"

Or terminally obtuse. In common-parlance, a troll.

Anyhow, my life's bigger than all this.
I've moved on to other great challenges, having nailed this one. My Stalker will no doubt tell you all about them, in due course.

Merry Xmas, little troll...

Merry Xmas, little stalker...

[Herlock Sholmes]

“So we have from his boss that Wallace was a scrupulously honest, dedicated long-serving employee of the Prudential. Aside from any personal benefit that might accrue in the quest for Qualtrough, Wallace knew [or honestly believed] he was first and foremost on Prudential business. Such dedicated company man would naturally leave no stone unturned, out of his own sense of professionalism, and not least in case "Qualtrough" magically re-appeared the following day with a complaint that Wallace had not kept the appointment.”

He wouldn’t have course have thought it strange that a potential customer from a pretty affluent area should choose to contact him by telephone in a cafe? Would he not have thought, even for a few minutes ‘how would this bloke know that I attend a chess club here?’ Or ‘why didn’t he just send a letter to my house?’ Or ‘why especially me? Why didn’t he just contact the Pru at their office?’
Even dedicated company men who were always thought to be scrupulously honest have committed crimes.
As well as being dedicated he was also intelligent. A policeman says the place doesn’t exist, he goes home.
How could the Pru possibly criticise him? All he had to say was ‘I searched for ages and a policeman told me there was no such place.’
Simple really......and logical

[Herlock Sholmes]

Factually inaccurate, yet again.

Abject appeals to imaginary galleries, yet again.

One of the types identified by Gerald Abrahams "that could not recognize a non sequitur"

Or terminally obtuse. In common-parlance, a troll.

Anyhow, my life's bigger than all this.
I've moved on to other great challenges, having nailed this one. My Stalker will no doubt tell you all about them, in due course.

Merry Xmas, little troll...

Merry Xmas, little stalker...

You’ve lost the argument to a newbie. Questions dodged. Logic and reason Twisted to breaking point. Your life consists of loitering on pub car parks on your own at night! Everyone can see you for what you are. No debate skills, no clue, resort to childish insults. Utterly feeble and pathetic. You spent so many years studying the case to achieve zilch. Booted off forums for spewing drivel. Great cv that. Very admirable. Please find people to debate with on your own level. Try the zoo.

[AmericanSherlock]

As a "stalker", I could post the picture of Rod he uses while trolling various political boards before he was banned. (Not stalking at all, he linked them himself earlier on this thread).

But as the picture is not very flattering (I'm sure it was a bad day!) and since I'm sure resorting to a frivolous attack on one's personal appearance would be considered an ad hominem as well as unkind, I will refrain from doing so.

I'm truly in the Christmas spirit!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh, so he’s a very flexible troll then

[AmericanSherlock]

“So we have from his boss that Wallace was a scrupulously honest, dedicated long-serving employee of the Prudential. Aside from any personal benefit that might accrue in the quest for Qualtrough, Wallace knew [or honestly believed] he was first and foremost on Prudential business. Such dedicated company man would naturally leave no stone unturned, out of his own sense of professionalism, and not least in case "Qualtrough" magically re-appeared the following day with a complaint that Wallace had not kept the appointment.”

He wouldn’t have course have thought it strange that a potential customer from a pretty affluent area should choose to contact him by telephone in a cafe? Would he not have thought, even for a few minutes ‘how would this bloke know that I attend a chess club here?’ Or ‘why didn’t he just send a letter to my house?’ Or ‘why especially me? Why didn’t he just contact the Pru at their office?’
Even dedicated company men who were always thought to be scrupulously honest have committed crimes.
As well as being dedicated he was also intelligent. A policeman says the place doesn’t exist, he goes home.
How could the Pru possibly criticise him? All he had to say was ‘I searched for ages and a policeman told me there was no such place.’
Simple really......and logical

This is an important point. Wallace could have been forgiven for not going AT ALL on the odd business. He made hundreds of calls on the very day of JW's murder, so this would be just another 1--perhaps more lucrative sounding than the others, but also much more suspicious. If I were in Wallace's shoes, I would assume it was a prank.

But not only does he decide to go, he doesn't at least check a directory, a map, anything! He just starts asking excitedly all over the place on his journey.

Here is a brief article James Murphy wrote last year for a magazine summarizing his position. There are some slight points of debate I would challenge him on, mainly the timing I think he is trying to extend to bolster his case, but in general the jist of what he has written is powerful.

It runs from pages 10-16.

In particular, it shows just how aberrant Wallace's behavior was on his journey; how out of character. It included details I did not know before.

https://casebookclassiccrime.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/issue-2-how-to-murder-your-wife-or-significant-other-sept-15.pdf

Even if you think Wallace innocent, it is not intellectually honest to disregard his behavior as not strange or very suspicious-- that is one of the hallmarks of what makes this such a celebrated case!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh he’s gone, the pub car park beckons.

I can chuck this away then.



Night all

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is an important point. Wallace could have been forgiven for not going AT ALL on the odd business. He made hundreds of calls on the very day of JW's murder, so this would be just another 1--perhaps more lucrative sounding than the others, but also much more suspicious. If I were in Wallace's shoes, I would assume it was a prank.

But not only does he decide to go, he doesn't at least check a directory, a map, anything! He just starts asking excitedly all over the place on his journey.

Here is a brief article James Murphy wrote last year for a magazine summarizing his position. There are some slight points of debate I would challenge him on, mainly the timing I think he is trying to extend to bolster his case, but in general the jist of what he has written is powerful.

It runs from pages 10-16.

In particular, it shows just how aberrant Wallace's behavior was on his journey; how out of character. It included details I did not know before.

https://casebookclassiccrime.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/issue-2-how-to-murder-your-wife-or-significant-other-sept-15.pdf

Even if you think Wallace innocent, it is not intellectually honest to disregard his behavior as not strange or very suspicious-- that is one of the hallmarks of what makes this such a celebrated case!

If you are strange yourself then it’s perhaps understandable that you can’t recognise strangeness in others

If you were say an accountant and somebody left a message at your local to go to their house the next night at 7.30, an address that no one has heard of, to conduct some accountancy business, what would most normal people do?

Cheers for the link AS I’ll have a read in the morning

[John G]

Repeating and adding to your falsehoods won't make them true.

Have you forgotten Dolly Atkinson? Or is she lying too about her own moral equivocation back in 1931? Why?

I am too clever to use the word "proof", and have never done so. So more inane lies.

This is like shooting some decidedly odd fish in a barrel.

Most satisfying and amusing.

Are you still winding me up with your nonsense. As I've explained to you before, Dolly Atkinson's own recollections were from half a century after the events in question question, therefore questionable. Not that she remembered very much anyway; just talked vaguely about "the blood."

And due to the interviewer's failure to ask pertinent questions, we have no idea how she first came across Parkes' story, who informed her, how accurately they may have retold the story or, indeed, when she found out.

And didn't Dolly Atkinson say that they would have come forward after the appeal, which is bizarre in itself considering the fact that they allowed Wallace to go through the trial and be condemned to death without giving evidence? Because that's different to what Parkes said: He reckons he came forward after the trial.

Anyway, getting back to basics, what does your "evidence" for an accomplice amount to? Not that you even have a clue who this accomplice was!

Oh, I know. Parkes' memory from half a century previously that he had some perception or notion that Parry and AN Other were intimidating him! And on this thin thread your theory depends.

And have you bothered to consider why Atkinson allegedly advised Parkes not to come forward immediately but only if Wallace was found guilty? Because on the face of it, it was a monstrous thing to elect to do, considering he was prepared to allow Wallace go through the trauma of a trial, be found guilty, and sentenced to death before coming forward. Could it be that he didn't really believe Parkes himself, or considered that he might have been the victim of a hoax?

Look, I'm sorry to have demolished your theory so completely, but now at least you'll be able to abandon this nonsense and utilize the free time to take up a more rewarding pastime, like fishing or dominions, for example.