Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Charles Daniels]

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.

AH!
If he didn't know the area well, and if it was served by tram or bus, he could have simply alighted one or two stops too early.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does anyone know of an online map of the case. Local area etc. Location of phone box, tram stops. You get the picture

[AmericanSherlock]

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.

Hi Charles,

Wallace, if he was the caller, has a free shot. He gets to feel out how it went. He can arrive at the club and see how Beattie presents it to him. If there is no suspicion there, if would be obvious to Wallace he was in the clear. If Beattie says "come on man was that you having a laugh?" then Wallace could scrap the plan.

[AmericanSherlock]

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

Cheers Caz, and a very important point here; consider if someone other than Wallace was the killer, most agree that only an unplanned impulsive killing makes sense. But then this hardly jibes with the controlled crime scene and lack of blood track and mess everywhere.

It would actually behoove those arguing for another killer to think it was by accident then. This is a bit of a catch they're in, isn't it? Isn't it they who all along argued that there would definitely be blood everywhere contaminating the killer? Anyways, assuming the killer just got lucky and somehow managed to avoid tracking the blood all over the place, we can file this in another odd coincidence. Since as you note, this lack of blood mess is just another factor that would happen to benefit Wallace more than it would an independent killer!

[NickB]

AS (replying to your previous post) - I don't think it is quite that simple.

After the murder Beattie had to focus more on the question of whether or not it could have been Wallace's voice, and what he would say about it in sworn evidence. Wallace, if it had been him on the call, did not just have to worry about Beattie's initial reaction but how equivocal he would be after careful consideration.

[AmericanSherlock]

AS (replying to your previous post) - I don't think it is quite that simple.

After the murder Beattie had to focus more on the question of whether or not it could have been Wallace's voice, and what he would say about it in sworn evidence. Wallace, if it had been him on the call, did not just have to worry about Beattie's initial reaction but how equivocal he would be after careful consideration.

Nick, my logic would tell me that if I had fooled someone enough that they not only didn't think it was me but fully bought in to the extent where they likely would never have even considered it could be me, that they would be very unlikely to change their mind (and contradict themselves in a way) when questioned.

[Charles Daniels]

Hi Charles,

Wallace, if he was the caller, has a free shot. He gets to feel out how it went. He can arrive at the club and see how Beattie presents it to him. If there is no suspicion there, if would be obvious to Wallace he was in the clear. If Beattie says "come on man was that you having a laugh?" then Wallace could scrap the plan.

But if he intended to kill Julia sometime soon anyway -- wouldn't he risk this strange behaviour being uncovered?

It might not prove anything -- unless he stupidly tried the same prank on someone else and tried to start a similar scheme.

But "Why were you calling around pretending to be other people, near the date of the murder?" Would surely raise an eyebrow.

[Charles Daniels]

Nick, my logic would tell me that if I had fooled someone enough that they not only didn't think it was me but fully bought in to the extent where they likely would never have even considered it could be me, that they would be very unlikely to change their mind (and contradict themselves in a way) when questioned.

Under heavy questioning people have been known to falsely confess to capital crimes.

Surely putting the pressure on someone could get them to say there was the remotest possibility it could have been.

Note how the police forced the milk delivery boy on his times.

[caz]

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

Indeed it did, Nick. My better half happened to see that bbc news link and thought I might find it interesting. I wonder if there are any similarities with the Wallace case which can tell us anything.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

To be fair, Charles, whoever killed Julia had to leave and hope nobody would notice any blood on him. My point was that Wallace would have had the more pressing need not to drip blood or leave bloody finger or footprints in or around the house. An intruder wouldn't have cared so much about the interior, but I agree, it would not have been in anyone's interest to be seen outside with visible blood on them. That's why I doubt very much that Parry would have let Parkes see a bloody mitten if he was involved.

Love,

Caz
X

[NickB]

fully bought in to the extent where they likely would never have even considered it could be me

But Wallace did not know if Beattie was that certain, and could not have asked him if he was without creating suspicion.

[caz]

Cheers Caz, and a very important point here; consider if someone other than Wallace was the killer, most agree that only an unplanned impulsive killing makes sense. But then this hardly jibes with the controlled crime scene and lack of blood track and mess everywhere.

It would actually behoove those arguing for another killer to think it was by accident then. This is a bit of a catch they're in, isn't it? Isn't it they who all along argued that there would definitely be blood everywhere contaminating the killer? Anyways, assuming the killer just got lucky and somehow managed to avoid tracking the blood all over the place, we can file this in another odd coincidence. Since as you note, this lack of blood mess is just another factor that would happen to benefit Wallace more than it would an independent killer!

A most ingenious paradox, AS.

Very little blood and mess where one would think there would be plenty of both makes it seem implausible that Julia could have been attacked on the spur of the moment by an intruder who never meant to do her physical harm. Why would anyone other than Wallace have taken pains to clean up anything but himself and his clothes?

The very lack of any bloody tracks from the crime scene can only therefore be explained if there were none to leave [which means the killer couldn't have been dripping blood anywhere] or they were cleaned up [by a killer with a good reason to do so].

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Under heavy questioning people have been known to falsely confess to capital crimes.

Surely putting the pressure on someone could get them to say there was the remotest possibility it could have been.

Note how the police forced the milk delivery boy on his times.

But what if Beattie had said that, on further reflection, he now thought it just possible [or even quite likely] it was Wallace himself asking him to pass on a message to, er, Wallace? A decent defence would have ripped this to shreds as too little, too late and arguably subjective, if Beattie privately thought Wallace must have dunnit. It certainly wouldn't have amounted to the requisite 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

It's clear from the jury's initial verdict that they believed Wallace was Qualtrough, without Beattie's help. But luckily for Wallace, on appeal, it was rightly acknowledged that the evidence against him for the murder was lacking.

If Beattie had changed his tune it could surely have had no effect on the appeal judgement. Nobody should be convicted of murder on the strength of an ear witness for the defence who changes his mind to become one for the prosecution.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

A most ingenious paradox, AS.

Very little blood and mess where one would think there would be plenty of both makes it seem implausible that Julia could have been attacked on the spur of the moment by an intruder who never meant to do her physical harm. Why would anyone other than Wallace have taken pains to clean up anything but himself and his clothes?

The very lack of any bloody tracks from the crime scene can only therefore be explained if there were none to leave [which means the killer couldn't have been dripping blood anywhere] or they were cleaned up [by a killer with a good reason to do so].

Love,

Caz
X

And for an unplanned murder (that’s to say a thief who panics after being caught in the act) we would surely have to prefer a complete unknown as a suspect (and, as we know, Wallace said that Julia wouldn’t have admitted a stranger) or we would have to believe that Parry was prepared to steal cash and be the only suspect for the crime.

[NickB]

A decent defence would have ripped this to shreds as too little, too late

At the chess club Beattie had no reason to suspect that someone phoning Wallace might be Wallace disguising his voice. Unless of course he recognised Wallace despite the disguise.

He was not asked: “Is it possible that the voice on the phone could have been Wallace?” This was asked of him only after the murder. So if he had replied “yes” to that as a possibility he would not necessarily be changing his mind.

Regardless of any overall verdict, I consider Beattie’s clear rejection of the suggestion a significant point in favour of Wallace not having made the call.