Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

I simply don't buy into thime argument that Wallace was the meticulous sort, and therefore would have been expected to consult a map prior to the Qualtrough call. It simply echoes the police argument that Wallace was an evil criminal genius on the basis he was an average chess player.

Moreover, we should remember that Wallace was in two minds whether to even attend the appointment. Did he suspect a hoax? He opined to James Caird that Qualtrough is a funny name, "I've never heard of it. Have you?"

He also had every reason to believe that Menlove Gardens East was located on the Menlove Gardens Estate, which he clearly did know how to find. And as he said to Deyes, who came from Allerton, but wasn't familiar with the street name, "It's alright, I've got a tongue in my head, I csn enquire." Which, of course, is precisely what he did.

[caz]

Brine's house was "a stone's throw" by car, which is the relevant consideration.

The only relevant consideration here is your capacity for talking bollocks.

A stone's throw away by car??? How does that even work?

You are having a hat and scarf.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Parry had an unusual skillset, which the accomplice didn't have, including:-

a) actor
b) experienced confidence trickster
c) supreme self-confidence
d) knowledge of insurance
e) knowledge of Wallace
f) knowledge of the City Cafe and the Chess Club
g) knowledge of Menlove Gardens

Criminals when working together usually divide their labour according to their strengths. It would be odd indeed for the person ideally suited to making the phone call, to delegate that task to the one unsuited, thereby risking him messing the whole thing up at the get go, still less letting such an unskilled person speak to Wallace directly...

And yet this unskilled buffoon, who could mess up a very simple scam phone call, was supposedly trusted by Parry to commit the actual crime without mishap, which first relied on his ability to charm his way into an unknown woman's home under false pretences? Clearly he messed that one up royally, if the intent was a mere robbery with a 50/50 split, but ended up with a defenceless old dear needing to have her head caved in. No wonder Parry panicked when he found out what a total numbnuts he had chosen for the job.

Also, Parry did attempt to set-up an alibi directly after the phone-call, by arriving unexpectedly and purposelessly at Lily Lloyd's house, and leaving almost immediately. It was no more than a three-minute drive by car from the phone box.

So not so smart then. I suppose that fits with choosing Numbnuts T. to do the deed for him on the Tuesday.

If Wallace believed in Qualtrough, Julia would too.

Not the point. Wallace would have believed in Qualtrough being where he said he'd be at 7.30, in which case Julia would have believed the same, and Mr Q would be the last person she'd expect to be knocking at her door. There could hardly have been an innocent mix-up with the arrangements by either party, given that Mr Q had included an address along with the time. And if it's true that Julia hated the insurance business and wanted no part in it, as one witness claimed, there'd have been even less reason to let in a total stranger while Wallace was out on a fruitless mission to find this same stranger at his own place! And of course there's no guarantee Wallace would have given his wife the details anyway. Did he always tell her the names of prospective new clients he went to see? Or just when they had an unusual surname?

Telephones in the UK in 1931 were rare and uncertain instruments. It was possible that a 2nd hand message had been passed on incorrectly, and the dutiful, mousy wife would receive Mr. Qualtrough to await her husband's return.

I find that unlikely, given the nature of the message. Julia would assume Wallace was not best pleased to find no Mr Q at the given address, and would be even less amused to return home and find the idiot sitting there waiting for him.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only relevant consideration here is your capacity for talking bollocks.

A stone's throw away by car??? How does that even work?

You are having a hat and scarf.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You need to study this case a little more before expounding on it, grasshopper.

OLIVER: Had you at that time considered the possibility of a man coming and giving the name “ Qualtrough ” to your wife ? Looking at it now, if someone did come and give the name of “ Qualtrough ” to your wife on that night, do you think she would have let him in ?
WALLACE: Seeing I had gone to meet a Mr. Qualtrough, I think she would, because she knew all about the business.

OLIVER: If she had let him in, where would she have taken him ?
WALLACE: Into the front room. There is no question about that.

Well he would say all that if he was the mysterious Qualtrough, wouldn't he? He'd hardly have observed that Julia would never have invited Mr Q in, or that she'd never have gone into the front room with him.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

And yet this unskilled buffoon, who could mess up a very simple scam phone call, was supposedly trusted by Parry to commit the actual crime without mishap, which first relied on his ability to charm his way into an unknown woman's home under false pretences? Clearly he messed that one up royally, if the intent was a mere robbery with a 50/50 split, but ended up with a defenceless old dear needing to have her head caved in. No wonder Parry panicked when he found out what a total numbnuts he had chosen for the job.



So not so smart then. I suppose that fits with choosing Numbnuts T. to do the deed for him on the Tuesday.



Not the point. Wallace would have believed in Qualtrough being where he said he'd be at 7.30, in which case Julia would have believed the same, and Mr Q would be the last person she'd expect to be knocking at her door. There could hardly have been an innocent mix-up with the arrangements by either party, given that Mr Q had included an address along with the time. And if it's true that Julia hated the insurance business and wanted no part in it, as one witness claimed, there'd have been even less reason to let in a total stranger while Wallace was out on a fruitless mission to find this same stranger at his own place! And of course there's no guarantee Wallace would have given his wife the details anyway. Did he always tell her the names of prospective new clients he went to see? Or just when they had an unusual surname?



I find that unlikely, given the nature of the message. Julia would assume Wallace was not best pleased to find no Mr Q at the given address, and would be even less amused to return home and find the idiot sitting there waiting for him.

Love,

Caz
X

Again, but this time doubled Caz,

[Herlock Sholmes]

By the way Caz, you do realise that your trampling on someone’s dream here

[caz]

Statement of Amy Wallace, who had visited the house on the afternoon of the murder day, and stated that Julia had mentioned the message received at the chess club the night before, and that William would be heading to "Calderstones" that evening on business...

It seems unlikely that a murderer would go to the trouble of telling his intended victim what his 'alibi' was going to be...

So where is the evidence that Julia knew either the name of the person her husband was planning to do business with or the actual address? She doesn't appear to have shared those details with Amy, or at least Amy wasn't able to recall her doing so, when giving her statement in the wake of the murder.

If Wallace wanted to get away with murder, he had to tell Julia as soon as possible that he would be going out that night and why. He had to act as he would have done normally. It would have looked very odd if Julia had told Amy that day that she was looking forward to a cosy night in with hubby, clearly oblivious to Wallace's plans to go out on business and leave her alone for a second evening on the trot. This really shouldn't be hard to figure out.

Love,

Caz
X

[RodCrosby]

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?

More factual inaccuracies. Tut-tut.

Look, I'm sorry to have demolished your theory so completely, ...

LOOOOOOOOOOL !!!!!!!!!

...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.

Guess again, Herbert....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8wNZWYSW1uvNThMWFBYT1htZ3c/view?usp=sharing

Merry Xmas, little fabulist...

[Herlock Sholmes]

So where is the evidence that Julia knew either the name of the person her husband was planning to do business with or the actual address? She doesn't appear to have shared those details with Amy, or at least Amy wasn't able to recall her doing so, when giving her statement in the wake of the murder.

If Wallace wanted to get away with murder, he had to tell Julia as soon as possible that he would be going out that night and why. He had to act as he would have done normally. It would have looked very odd if Julia had told Amy that day that she was looking forward to a cosy night in with hubby, clearly oblivious to Wallace's plans to go out on business and leave her alone for a second evening on the trot. This really shouldn't be hard to figure out.

Love,

Caz
X

Our resident genius posted this on the subject of whether Julia had heard of Qualtrough and her husbands upcoming voyage.

“Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
Statement of Amy Wallace, who had visited the house on the afternoon of the murder day, and stated that Julia had mentioned the message received at the chess club the night before, and that William would be heading to "Calderstones" that evening on business...

It seems unlikely that a murderer would go to the trouble of telling his intended victim what his 'alibi' was going to be...

It also tends to negate the ludicrous idea that Wallace "came down naked under a mackintosh to have a spontaneous musical interlude with Julia in the parlour immediately before killing her..."

"I'm flattered, William, really I am, but you really need to be running along to your appointment with Mr. Qualtrough!"





Amy apparently said:

“I called at 29 Wolverton Street on Tuesday afternoon....Mrs Wallace told me that her husband had been down to chess the night before, and had had a telephone message to go to see someone in the Calderstones district, but Mr Wallace didn’t know anyone in that district, but she thought it was for business,’

So she knew that he was going to see someone. I don’t see how this can be used to make it appear that she would have known the name Qualtrough though and would therefore let him in (despite the fact the plan was for Wallace to visit him of course) I think we’re down the rabbit hole here

[caz]

By the way Caz, you do realise that your trampling on someone’s dream here

Oh I think I must do it all the time, HS. It would certainly explain why the precious few whose dreams are most in danger of being trampled tend to sound so cross with me - and so precious.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Amy apparently said:

“I called at 29 Wolverton Street on Tuesday afternoon....Mrs Wallace told me that her husband had been down to chess the night before, and had had a telephone message to go to see someone in the Calderstones district, but Mr Wallace didn’t know anyone in that district, but she thought it was for business,’

So she knew that he was going to see someone. I don’t see how this can be used to make it appear that she would have known the name Qualtrough though and would therefore let him in (despite the fact the plan was for Wallace to visit him of course) I think we’re down the rabbit hole here

Well that rather puts the tin hat on the theory that Julia only let her killer in because he said his name was Qualtrough! If those were Amy's words they imply that Wallace didn't tell Julia this someone's name, but just gave her enough to let her 'think' he would be going out on business to see a prospective customer. In fact, the bit about Wallace not knowing 'anyone' in that district would have been superfluous if he mentioned the person's name and knew nobody called Qualtrough anywhere. Unless he was in the habit of telling Julia the names of everyone he called on, I very much doubt he did it on this occasion either, in which case why did he lie about Julia knowing the name and being willing to let someone in by that name? If he was innocent all he'd have known was that Julia must have had a reason to let her killer in, Qualtrough or A.N.Other.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

More factual inaccuracies. Tut-tut.


LOOOOOOOOOOL !!!!!!!!!


Guess again, Herbert....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8wNZWYSW1uvNThMWFBYT1htZ3c/view?usp=sharing

Merry Xmas, little fabulist...

What factual inaccuracies? Oh, I know, there are none, as anyone who bothers to listen to the radio broadcasts will know .Will you stop making stuff up in a desperate attempt to bolster your weak theory because you're starting to appear very silly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh I think I must do it all the time, HS. It would certainly explain why the precious few whose dreams are most in danger of being trampled tend to sound so cross with me - and so precious.

Love,

Caz
X

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well that rather puts the tin hat on the theory that Julia only let her killer in because he said his name was Qualtrough! If those were Amy's words they imply that Wallace didn't tell Julia this someone's name, but just gave her enough to let her 'think' he would be going out on business to see a prospective customer. In fact, the bit about Wallace not knowing 'anyone' in that district would have been superfluous if he mentioned the person's name and knew nobody called Qualtrough anywhere. Unless he was in the habit of telling Julia the names of everyone he called on, I very much doubt he did it on this occasion either, in which case why did he lie about Julia knowing the name and being willing to let someone in by that name? If he was innocent all he'd have known was that Julia must have had a reason to let her killer in, Qualtrough or A.N.Other.

Love,

Caz
X

It appears to Caz. Wallace himself said that he’d told Julia the name but, as he’s a suspect himself and would naturally have said so, it can’t really be used as proof that she did know.

Added to that, even if she did know would a woman who only let in people that she knew personally let in someone that she’d only heard her husband mention once? At night, when she was alone in the house, with the guy claiming to be the one that her husband had gone to see, after receiving a message left for him in a cafe etc etc.

It’s a masterful plan Caz don’t you think