Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[NickB]

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

I’ll keep looking. Thanks anyway

They did work. It looks like the files have been removed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They did work. It looks like the files have been removed.

With a bit of luck they might re-appear somewhere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hi Graham,

The call was first taken by a waitress who handed the phone to Beattie as captain of the club. Only Beattie spoke to Qualtrough.

The three women at the telephone exchange said that the voice that they heard was a normal one; one of an older gentleman I think they said.

Beattie however was quite specific that it was a gruff voice. He also used the word ‘peremptory.’

We can’t be certain of course but I’ve suggested a possibility that this favours Wallace as the caller as only Wallace would need a heavily disguised voice to speak to Beattie. As far as we know Beattie didn’t know Parry and so as long as Parry didn’t have any distinguishing features to his voice (like a Scottish accent for eg) he couldn’t be identified. Even if he was presented with Party’s voice the best that he would have been able to say would have been ‘well it could have been him and probably 5000 other men too.’

One of the operators was taken by the way the caller pronounced cafe as ‘Cafay.’ It wasn’t the way that most people pronounced it (i assume that they would say ‘caff’ or ‘caffee.’ Cafe spoke of a measure of sophistication or even pretension. Again that surely points to Wallace rather than Parry.

Nothing certain though....as ever

[OneRound]

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.”

Hi Herlock and all - just to build on the speculation concerning this post.

If Wallace was guilty (I don't think he was but don't rule anything in or out!) and looking to manufacture an alibi around his visit, he would have been rather stuffed had he turned up at a chosen actual address and no one was there at that time.

Admittedly, he could have then knocked on a neighbour's door and sought an alibi from them. However, a neighbour might have been quickly dismissive and not remembered much of the detail of his visit. Wallace certainly would have no reason to ask a policeman or consult a post office map which definitively confirmed when and where he was.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock and all - just to build on the speculation concerning this post.

If Wallace was guilty (I don't think he was but don't rule anything in or out!) and looking to manufacture an alibi around his visit, he would have been rather stuffed had he turned up at a chosen actual address and no one was there at that time.

Admittedly, he could have then knocked on a neighbour's door and sought an alibi from them. However, a neighbour might have been quickly dismissive and not remembered much of the detail of his visit. Wallace certainly would have no reason to ask a policeman or consult a post office map which definitively confirmed when and where he was.

Best regards,

OneRound

Good point OneRound,

Maybe he could have checked out the area and found a bit of an out of way address giving him the excuse to ask around for directions. Then speak to the residents or the neighbours if they weren’t at home.

Perhaps Wallace (if guilty of course ) accepted the outside chance that some member of the chess club might have known the Menlove Gardens area well. If so he would have to go to some kind of plan B. After all there was surely no reason why Julia had to die on that particular day?

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

The call was first taken by a waitress who handed the phone to Beattie as captain of the club. Only Beattie spoke to Qualtrough.

The three women at the telephone exchange said that the voice that they heard was a normal one; one of an older gentleman I think they said.

Beattie however was quite specific that it was a gruff voice. He also used the word ‘peremptory.’

We can’t be certain of course but I’ve suggested a possibility that this favours Wallace as the caller as only Wallace would need a heavily disguised voice to speak to Beattie. As far as we know Beattie didn’t know Parry and so as long as Parry didn’t have any distinguishing features to his voice (like a Scottish accent for eg) he couldn’t be identified. Even if he was presented with Party’s voice the best that he would have been able to say would have been ‘well it could have been him and probably 5000 other men too.’

One of the operators was taken by the way the caller pronounced cafe as ‘Cafay.’ It wasn’t the way that most people pronounced it (i assume that they would say ‘caff’ or ‘caffee.’ Cafe spoke of a measure of sophistication or even pretension. Again that surely points to Wallace rather than Parry.

Nothing certain though....as ever

Hello HS,

Just been doing a bit of background reading on this perplexing case.

You say that as far as you know Beattie didn't know Parry, yet Parry was a member of what I believe was an amateur-dramatic society that also met at the cafe. This of course does not prove that the two men knew each other, but does I think suggest that they may have.

It also seems that Parry, as a member of an amateur dramatics society, was pretty good at assuming voices and accents. As he knew Wallace both regarding work and also apparently socially, then he would be quite aware of Wallace's accent and tone and very likely could well be able to reproduce them.

Parry was the son of quite well-off parents, and assuming that he didn't speak with a comic Scouse accent, which I am sure he didn't, then his pronunciation of the word 'cafe' (with an acute accent on the 'c') would very likely be "caff-ay". Maybe Wallace would also pronounce the word in that way, but from what I've read about him he had quite a high-pitched nasal voice and an accent which did not suggest he came from any upper stratum of society. However, I am equally certain he didn't pronounce 'cafe' as 'caff' or 'caffee'. But we really just don't know, do we?

All good stuff.

Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello HS,

Just been doing a bit of background reading on this perplexing case.

You say that as far as you know Beattie didn't know Parry, yet Parry was a member of what I believe was an amateur-dramatic society that also met at the cafe. This of course does not prove that the two men knew each other, but does I think suggest that they may have.

It also seems that Parry, as a member of an amateur dramatics society, was pretty good at assuming voices and accents. As he knew Wallace both regarding work and also apparently socially, then he would be quite aware of Wallace's accent and tone and very likely could well be able to reproduce them.

Parry was the son of quite well-off parents, and assuming that he didn't speak with a comic Scouse accent, which I am sure he didn't, then his pronunciation of the word 'cafe' (with an acute accent on the 'c') would very likely be "caff-ay". Maybe Wallace would also pronounce the word in that way, but from what I've read about him he had quite a high-pitched nasal voice and an accent which did not suggest he came from any upper stratum of society. However, I am equally certain he didn't pronounce 'cafe' as 'caff' or 'caffee'. But we really just don't know, do we?

All good stuff.

Graham

Hi Graham,

That’s another good point which I should have mentioned in my post (it wasn’t an intentional omission, honest guv ) He may have met him. Parry could have gone over to say hello to Wallace and Wallace may have introduced him. As you say, we have no way of knowing.

I can’t recall what Goodman said about Parry accent after he’d met him? But your right that we have no reason to believe that his accent was particularly strong.

The only part that’s curious for me is that the three women at the exchange ‘appear’ to describe a different voice to the one that Beattie described but we can’t make any definite assumptions from that. They did say that the voice sounded older though. Maybe he was doing a kind of Clive Dunn/Corporal Jones voice Perhaps not as weird as the suggestion that the ‘Julia’ that Alan Close saw was actually William in a dress!

[Graham]

HS,

not sure if I understand you correctly re: 'he may have known him', but I don't think there is much doubt that Beattie and Parry had at least been introduced to each other.

Also, as is sometimes forgotten, it was Wallace himself (with another person whose name I've forgotten) who established the chess club at Cottle's City Cafe, and therefore would have been very well-known to Beattie. Parry, as we know, was also a sometime member of The Pru's staff, as well as a frequent caller to Wallace's house, so he and Wallace were very well-known to one another. Unless I am missing your point here, that is?

Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS,

not sure if I understand you correctly re: 'he may have known him', but I don't think there is much doubt that Beattie and Parry had at least been introduced to each other.

Also, as is sometimes forgotten, it was Wallace himself (with another person whose name I've forgotten) who established the chess club at Cottle's City Cafe, and therefore would have been very well-known to Beattie. Parry, as we know, was also a sometime member of The Pru's staff, as well as a frequent caller to Wallace's house, so he and Wallace were very well-known to one another. Unless I am missing your point here, that is?

Graham

Now I’m a little confused but it is 11pm and I’m on my second glass of malt (purely medicinal of course.)

You quoted my ‘he may have known him’ bit, then you added ‘but I don’t think that there is much doubt that Beattie and Parry had at least been introduced to each other.’

So I take it that you’re saying that it’s known that they had been introduced? If so, I didn’t know that Graham. I just thought it might have been a possibility.

I didn’t know that Wallace was a co-founder of the club.

Did you get the impression that I was saying that I didn’t know whether Wallace and Parry knew each other when I meant Parry and Beattie?

[AmericanSherlock]

There is no evidence Parry and Beattie knew eachother.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no evidence Parry and Beattie knew eachother.

Didn’t think so AS

[Charles Daniels]

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'm not 100% how the business worked, but if Wallace had called the office to check, wouldn't he be doing himself out a commission?

It might be the honest thing to check. But that might deprive you of a client?

Surely if he was called out on it, Wallace could safely claim he was contacted directly by Qualtrough and none the wiser?

[Charles Daniels]

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?

Well if I am an intruder, and I know I'm going to have to leave this house in short order and make my way through some very crowded streets, its not in my interest to be covered in blood.

[Charles Daniels]

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?

The risk to Wallace would be his voice being recognised by anyone he happened to speak to at the chess club.

Instantly fatal to his alibi.

[Charles Daniels]

Hi Herlock and all - just to build on the speculation concerning this post.

If Wallace was guilty (I don't think he was but don't rule anything in or out!) and looking to manufacture an alibi around his visit, he would have been rather stuffed had he turned up at a chosen actual address and no one was there at that time.

Admittedly, he could have then knocked on a neighbour's door and sought an alibi from them. However, a neighbour might have been quickly dismissive and not remembered much of the detail of his visit. Wallace certainly would have no reason to ask a policeman or consult a post office map which definitively confirmed when and where he was.

Best regards,

OneRound

He could gone to a local shop, purchased a pen and paper and then left an obnoxiously large notice on the front door, stating that he had arrived for the appointment and that no one was there, and explaining that, as he took the time of appointment second hand by message was wondering if there was some error in the message which lead to the time not being right.
Then providing some way of contacting him to arrange another appointment.

He could then gruffily share, with great annoyance, to someone about his appointment not being in.