Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Hi John,

Wallace’s statement can only be given credence if we are 100% certain of his innocence.
On the second point, there would be no definite proof against him but, with his record and with him being the only other person in the house apart from the Wallace’s he would have been the only suspect.

[John G]

Hi John,

Wallace’s statement can only be given credence if we are 100% certain of his innocence.
On the second point, there would be no definite proof against him but, with his record and with him being the only other person in the house apart from the Wallace’s he would have been the only suspect.

Hi Herlock,

Not necessarily. He could simply accuse the Wallaces of stealing the money, and perhaps of an attempt to set him up via the bogus Qualtrough call. Of course, people might suspect he was lying but, ultimately, how would they prove it?

Consideration also needs to be given to the relatively meagre takings, which even Wallace referred to in the trial. Thus, Parry could argue that, if he intended to commit a theft, he would have chosen a more rewarding opportunity, i.e. on the occasion of the monthly takings.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Not necessarily. He could simply accuse the Wallaces of stealing the money, and perhaps of an attempt to set him up via the bogus Qualtrough call. Of course, people might suspect he was lying but, ultimately, how would they prove it?

Consideration also needs to be given to the relatively meagre takings, which even Wallace referred to in the trial. Thus, Parry could argue that, if he intended to commit a theft, he would have chosen a more rewarding opportunity, i.e. on the occasion of the monthly takings.

You’re right that they probably wouldn’t be able to prove it but, of Wallace and Parry, the police would surely be more likely to look with greater interest at Parry?

Parry was primarily a petty thief though. A full days takings would have been decent amount.

[John G]

You’re right that they probably wouldn’t be able to prove it but, of Wallace and Parry, the police would surely be more likely to look with greater interest at Parry?

Parry was primarily a petty thief though. A full days takings would have been decent amount.

Absolutely, Herlock. Parry-my favourite suspect, incidentally!- may, as a petty thief, be perfectly satisfied, in reality, with such meagre takings, particularly if he was desperate for money. However, he could, of course, have argued the opposite!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolutely, Herlock. Parry-my favourite suspect, incidentally!- may, as a petty thief, be perfectly satisfied, in reality, with such meagre takings, particularly if he was desperate for money. However, he could, of course, have argued the opposite!

I certainly don't discount Parry as a suspect ( I certainly don't go for an accomplice though) I'm a newbie to this case, I'm currently reading the Goodman book, and so far I have to say that I lean more toward Wallace. I don't think that the case will ever be solved though John. Unless new evidence turns up of course.

[John G]

It's worth pointing out that even Wallace, during the trial, emphasised how paltry the insurance takings were, meaning that this was one of the worst times to commit a robbery.

Now, from Parry's perspective, as he'd covered Wallace's round on a number of occasions, he could argue that he was aware of this, and therefore if he intended to commit a theft he would have chosen a more advantageous opportunity.

It matters nought that Parry had a reputation for petty theft: the prosecution couldn't have referred to such incidents as this would have resulted in a mistrial.

[AmericanSherlock]

Absolutely, Herlock. Parry-my favourite suspect, incidentally!- may, as a petty thief, be perfectly satisfied, in reality, with such meagre takings, particularly if he was desperate for money. However, he could, of course, have argued the opposite!

This case has an incredible duality to it , doesn't It?

[AmericanSherlock]

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.

Or perhaps Parry asked for money was refused and snapped killing her then taking the money after in a panic.

Still don't see what the point of the phone call to lure Wallace away was when he could have visited Julia any time and the plan was not that reliable and would take tons of stalking Wallace and preparation to make sure it worked.

[AmericanSherlock]

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?

There is definite reasonable doubt here when considering the points you've made. Clearly you are correct in pointing out some of the difficulties in accepting WHW as the murderer.

I would argue that if Wallace was the killer, he simply would have to have been willing to take some risks. He would have gotten a kick out of the whole "clever plan". Let's keep in mind Wallace had severe health problems of his own and died only 2 years after the murder. (His poor health has been used actually to suggest he couldnt have carried out the attack in the time available etc.)

I can't help but think the killer had some technique to minimize blood splatter since there were no tracks leading out of the room and out of the house. Either the blood mess wasn't as significant as we think it was or (if you understandably think this is a ludicrous suggestion) then the killer had some plan in mind before committing the crime. Combine this with the Macintosh and Julia seemingly being struck from behind and there seems to have been foresight here which obviously points towards Wallace IMO.

I understand the drains were tested and not used but what do you make of there not being blood tracked towards the exit or really anywhere outside of the parlor? And what of the blood smeared note upstairs near the bathroom?

If the killer went upstairs it is strange he didn't take the money that was up there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

John dont you think that 11 savage blows to a slightly built, frail old lady is overkill? For someone wanting to 'silence' her you would think maybe 2 or 3 blows to the skull with a heavy iron bar would suffice. I can't help feeling that 11 blows speaks of some kind of rage?

I've mentioned it before but I've wondered if Wallace somehow found out about Julia' s true age? Maybe he was looking into policies and found her birth certificate? This might be a motive? Pure conjecture of course.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi John,

Wallace’s statement can only be given credence if we are 100% certain of his innocence.
On the second point, there would be no definite proof against him but, with his record and with him being the only other person in the house apart from the Wallace’s he would have been the only suspect.

I agree I think this is unlikely a plan for Parry when you combine the obvious suspicion he would be under with the convoluted aspect of it!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or perhaps Parry asked for money was refused and snapped killing her then taking the money after in a panic.

Still don't see what the point of the phone call to lure Wallace away was when he could have visited Julia any time and the plan was not that reliable and would take tons of stalking Wallace and preparation to make sure it worked.

The question then would be, why put the box back?

[AmericanSherlock]

I certainly don't discount Parry as a suspect ( I certainly don't go for an accomplice though) I'm a newbie to this case, I'm currently reading the Goodman book, and so far I have to say that I lean more toward Wallace. I don't think that the case will ever be solved though John. Unless new evidence turns up of course.

Goodman's book also had quite the opposite effect than intended for me! I came away questioning his logic in many parts and slightly more convinced of the " Man from the Pru's" guilt!

[AmericanSherlock]

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

Love,

Caz
X

Good enough as an alibi if one of us kicks the bucket, he'd argue.

[AmericanSherlock]

The question then would be, why put the box back?

Yes, makes no sense. Unless he was actively trying to frame Wallace (makes no sense)