Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[caz]

In my opinion, arguing there may have been disharmony in the Wallaces' Marriage is putting the cart before the horse, I.e. assuming Wallace was guilty and then looking for a motive.

Hi John,

The case is unsolved, and the spouse is always the prime suspect in the absence of any hard evidence against A.N.Other, so I see no harm in exploring possible motives, whether they be for Wallace, Parry or anyone else. It's always going to involve guesswork when we don't know who the killer was. Even when we do, it's not always easy to establish motive, because many killers don't really know themselves what possessed them to take the most extreme of measures.

There is, in fact, no substantive evidence that they had anything but a happy marriage: even Parry, who had every reason to argue otherwise, described them as a "devoted couple."

Are you not assuming here that Parry was guilty for the sake of your argument [no bad thing, IMHO, I hasten to add]? Yes, if he was guilty, you'd think he'd have painted them as anything other than devoted to each other, whether they were or not. So the fact that he did describe them this way ought to be a point in favour of his innocence if anything. He apparently had no reason to stray from what he thought was the case.

But how many times have we heard about families, which were 'thought' to be perfectly happy and harmonious, turning out to be anything but, when some awful domestic tragedy strikes out of the blue? "If only we knew his wife/the little ones were in danger..."

I realise it's a bit circular, but if Wallace had harboured plans to be rid of his other half before she became too much like hard work for him, not a well man himself, he'd have been wise to try and keep up a 'devoted couple' charade, both in the home and out of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Eleven blows with a heavy object is a frenzied attack by anyone’s standards. Far more than would be needed for a strong, fit young man like Parry to silence/kill a frail old woman like Julia.

Thinking about the mode and ferocity of the attack, it does appear to suggest someone who had to be absolutely certain she wouldn't be able to scream the place down and raise the alarm with the neighbours, or survive long enough to tell the tale. Someone she knew, who would know if the walls were thin, and was also in a tearing hurry to leave and set up an alibi?

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

It probably has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the case, but a Mr John Qualtrough, joiner, of 4 Hunt Street, was a customer of the Pru, but his agent was a Mr Botts and not Wallace. I wonder if whoever made that infamous call used the name 'Qualtrough' knowing that Wallace would recognise the name as a customer of the Pru? However, I would rather suspect that if Wallace was aware of someone called Qualtrough who insured with the Pru, he would possibly have contacted the office to check why Qualtrough should ask for him, Wallace, and not Mr Bates.

I don't know where Hunt Street is in relation to Menlove Gardens, but it suggests that even if Wallace recognised the name Qualtrough he didn't know his correct address. The Qualtrough Family website lists four Qualtroughs in Liverpool at the time, as I believe was mentioned on this thread ages ago.

Just thinking aloud here.

Graham

[caz]

He could have used poison if he’d wanted to kill her but it would have been a huge risk in my opinion. There would only have to have been a suggestion/suspicion of foul play and the finger would have been pointed straight away at the man with the chemistry lab.

Hi HS,

I've made the same point in the past but I think you've nailed it here.

Blows to the head plus a robbery would have allowed for an intruder scenario, possibly even screamed it, despite no evident signs of forced entry, whereas death by poisoning could only have had one outcome for Wallace if discovered, with or without his chemistry lab grinning evilly over the scene. Contrary to what he claimed himself in his memoirs, that this is how he'd have done it [which to me strikes an odd note in itself], I actually think it would have been the last method chosen by any intelligent man who should have known his expertise with poisons and their effects would need to be second to none to be sure of imitating 'death by natural causes'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Wallace was guilty I wonder if he had a ‘plan B?’

If, after making the Qualtrough phone call, one of the chess club members had said ‘ oh, my brother lives in Menlove Gardens West, I know the area well. There’s definately no Menlove Gardens East,’ then it would surely have been match abandoned. I often wonder if (again if Wallace was guilty) he might have been better off choosing an actual address? No chance of the above issue occurring and also the added alibi: “yes I remember that chap calling and asking if a Mr Qualtrough lived here.”

[caz]

The lack of blood tracks leading out of the parlor is very critical in my opinion. For all the talk of "how could Wallace possibly have avoided blood splatter/not used the drains/cleaned up in the time he had", it is clear SOMEONE had some system for limiting blood spray. There were marks on the wall up to 7 feet high yes, but the blood was also contained largely in one pool. The killer clearly had a method to avoid getting blood on him, particularly his shoes/boots/pants.This STRONGLY implies pre-meditation IMO. Regardless of how much time an independent killer would have had compared to Wallace (I see this argument frequently, that "Qualtrough" would have more time and could have obviously gotten rid of the weapon easier at his leisure) NONE of this explains how a killer avoided traipsing blood everywhere if the blood was such a mess. For the people who insist it's impossible that someone could avoid being contaminated and regard it is a silly and implausible scenario, I would suggest that the alternative implicates Wallace more, when we consider the only other possibility hints at a calculated effort.

We have 1 of 2 options

1. The blood mess wasn't as significant as people like to make out and not prohibitive

2. The killer had some technique for avoiding this (as possibly evidenced by lack of blood in places you would expect to find it).

(Of course it could be a combination of both)

Option 1 negates one of the major obstacles to Wallace's cadidacy as the killer, Option 2 actually increases the likelihood that he is the killer.

Great points, AS.

Who would have had the most pressing need to leave as little incriminating blood evidence as possible, both at the scene and on his person, if not the man of the house? But then it would depend on whether the lack of blood is not really so surprising and could have been achieved by accident, or is so remarkable it had to be by design.

If by design, why would anyone else have cared about any blood anywhere in the house?

If by accident, it rules nobody out, but Wallace would still have had more to gain, guilty or innocent.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

If Wallace was guilty I wonder if he had a ‘plan B?’

If, after making the Qualtrough phone call, one of the chess club members had said ‘ oh, my brother lives in Menlove Gardens West, I know the area well. There’s definately no Menlove Gardens East,’ then it would surely have been match abandoned. I often wonder if (again if Wallace was guilty) he might have been better off choosing an actual address? No chance of the above issue occurring and also the added alibi: “yes I remember that chap calling and asking if a Mr Qualtrough lived here.”

If it was Wallace himself who made the call to the club, I rather suspect he'd have done his homework and chosen not only the name of a customer of the Pru, but also the correct address, which in the case of John Qualtrough was 4 Hunt Street. He could have gone to Hunt Street, met Mr Qualtrough, been told that there was a mistake, but alibi confirmed all the same. Pure speculation.

Parry, as we know, once worked as an agent for the Pru, and if it was him who made the call then I'd suggest he chose a name that isn't easy to forget, the name of a known customer of the Pru, but deliberately gave a wrong address. Maybe he figured Wallace would think that a relation of John Qualtrough of Hunt Street had asked for a call on the recommendation of John Q. Pure speculation again.

Graham

[caz]

Talking of severe head injuries combined with robbery, here is an interesting and infamous case where the murder victim and killer(s) were known to each other:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_John_Alan_West

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

If it was Wallace himself who made the call to the club, I rather suspect he'd have done his homework and chosen not only the name of a customer of the Pru, but also the correct address, which in the case of John Qualtrough was 4 Hunt Street. He could have gone to Hunt Street, met Mr Qualtrough, been told that there was a mistake, but alibi confirmed all the same. Pure speculation.

Parry, as we know, once worked as an agent for the Pru, and if it was him who made the call then I'd suggest he chose a name that isn't easy to forget, the name of a known customer of the Pru, but deliberately gave a wrong address. Maybe he figured Wallace would think that a relation of John Qualtrough of Hunt Street had asked for a call on the recommendation of John Q. Pure speculation again.

Graham

Speculation is the name of the game with this case Graham Both good points. The chance of someone in the chess club knowing that MGE didn’t exist would still be the same if Parry had made the call of course.

[Graham]

Speculation is the name of the game with this case Graham Both good points. The chance of someone in the chess club knowing that MGE didn’t exist would still be the same if Parry had made the call of course.

Mate, I've been on these boards for longer than I care to think, and if it weren't for speculation (and never mind what Holmes said in Silver Blaze) there'd be hardly any posts on any subject! See my by-line!

But what you say is absolutely true - whoever made the call would be running the (perhaps slight) risk that someone at the club would spot that MGE didn't exist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

2 risks?

Wallace took a risk using a phone box so close to his house.

Parry took a risk using that phone box on a night he knew that Wallace attended chess club and would possibly/probably pass it.

Whose risk was most fatal to the plan?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mate, I've been on these boards for longer than I care to think, and if it weren't for speculation (and never mind what Holmes said in Silver Blaze) there'd be hardly any posts on any subject! See my by-line!

But what you say is absolutely true - whoever made the call would be running the (perhaps slight) risk that someone at the club would spot that MGE didn't exist.

I’d spotted your by-line straight away (massive Holmes fan and collector here )

Every time I settle my mind on a point in this case someone makes a post that throws me back to the drawing board

[Herlock Sholmes]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...882#post411882

Unfortunately those links don’t work Nick. Something to do with Dropbox ‘can’t display.’

I’ll keep looking. Thanks anyway

[Graham]

Can someone with better knowledge of this case than I, please confirm or deny that Mr Beattie, the man at the chess-club who took the call, stated that he heard two voices on the phone, or one person speaking with two distinct voices?

Thanks.

Graham

[NickB]

Talking of severe head injuries combined with robbery, here is an interesting and infamous case where the murder victim and killer(s) were known to each other:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_John_Alan_West

Love,

Caz
X

I don't know if this is what reminded you of the case, but there was article about it posted yesterday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-42370943