Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

Happy Birthday John!

Hope you all had a Merry Christmas and wishing you a Happy New Year

I think the timeline of events is very significant. I'm trying to say this without sounding prejudiced to my conclusion; If Wallace was guilty, then the timing lines up exactly with what you would expect. At least from my POV, he would not be able to act until the milk boy had come and left and then he would have to spring into action right away.

Whether you think this is even possible is another question we've debated in the past as regards to the limited time he would have, being bloodfree, and the weapon disposal. But I think it's a bit odd that the time line fits that scenario, when if he left literally just a few minutes earlier, he would be totally in the clear.

And as CAZ points out, one could be forgiven for expecting that he would do so.

Therefore it becomes important to consider whether it is reasonable that he left when he did, changed collar, had tea etc. It strikes me if he was that casual about heading on business to an unfamiliar address across town, it is odd he went all.

His going on a lousy winter's evening when his wife was sick with cold, on a day he made 400 calls shows that for some reason he found it very important to go. He could be forgiven for not going at all and blowing Qualtrough off or assuming it was a prank. In his shoes, I probably would have done so. Instead, he decides to go, showcasing how critical this prospective client was to him. One could argue that he was sufficiently enticed by the chance at a commission or "professional recognition", but then why was he so casual with the timing, arriving in the neighborhood right before 7:30 without knowing precisely where he was going? This also, to my mind, makes it more surprising that he did not consult a map beforehand for such a crucial business venture.

Thanks for the birthday greetings, AS!

I agree that he could be forgiven for not going to the appointment at all. As you graphically point out, he'd already had an arduous day at work, which must have involved a great deal of walking as he didn't have a car. And, of course, he was also disabled and was recovering from the flu.

However, although I think the decision must have been marginal-he indicated to Caird that he might not go- ultimately he might have just needed the money. For instance, he'd been off work for a significant period, and as this was the 1930s I doubt he would have qualified for sick pay. And his salary was probably largely, if not entirely, commission based anyway.

Nonetheless, once he decides to go, I think the timeline makes sense, I.e. arriving home just after 6:00pm, following his last regular appointment, has a light tea, and then a quick wash and change of dress before leaving for the tram.

Why didn't he consult a map? Well, to begin with I assume he didn't possess one. Moreover, he might have only decided to go at the last minute: He told Caird that he might not go and Beattie had mentioned it was a bad place to be after dark.

I also think there was a certain arrogance about the man. For instance, he stated at the chess club, "I belong to Liverpool. I have a tongue in my head."

Moreover, timewise would it have been practical for him to have consulted a map on the day of the visit, i.e. from a library, considering he had no car and had numerous appointments to attend?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too, Herlock. Although I'm a bit late for the Merry Christmas, I'm afraid! Mind you, as it's my birthday today I shall be enjoying an extended New Year celebration!

Happy birthday John. Have a good one

[John G]

Happy birthday John. Have a good one

Thanks Herlock. And Happy New Year!

[Harry D]

I think Wallace did it. Conveniently, the call was made before he got to the chess club. You'd think that if someone was trying to send him on a wild goose chase they'd want to speak with him to deal with any questions or misgivings he might have. Why create a convoluted plot when they could just rob the place while he was at the chess club? That obviously wouldn't work for Wallace if he was planning to off his old lady, so he had to create a scenario wherein he was lured away from the family home, hence all that faffing about looking for Menlove Gardens East, calling the attention of any Tom, Dick or Harry he could find. It smacks of someone creating their own alibi. Yes, I'm sure there are reasonable rebuttals to these points (I've read most of them) but Wallace's behaviour along with the implausibility of a set-up put me firmly in the guilty camp.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Happy Birthday John!

Hope you all had a Merry Christmas and wishing you a Happy New Year

I think the timeline of events is very significant. I'm trying to say this without sounding prejudiced to my conclusion; If Wallace was guilty, then the timing lines up exactly with what you would expect. At least from my POV, he would not be able to act until the milk boy had come and left and then he would have to spring into action right away.

Whether you think this is even possible is another question we've debated in the past as regards to the limited time he would have, being bloodfree, and the weapon disposal. But I think it's a bit odd that the time line fits that scenario, when if he left literally just a few minutes earlier, he would be totally in the clear.

And as CAZ points out, one could be forgiven for expecting that he would do so.

Therefore it becomes important to consider whether it is reasonable that he left when he did, changed collar, had tea etc. It strikes me if he was that casual about heading on business to an unfamiliar address across town, it is odd he went all.

His going on a lousy winter's evening when his wife was sick with cold, on a day he made 400 calls shows that for some reason he found it very important to go. He could be forgiven for not going at all and blowing Qualtrough off or assuming it was a prank. In his shoes, I probably would have done so. Instead, he decides to go, showcasing how critical this prospective client was to him. One could argue that he was sufficiently enticed by the chance at a commission or "professional recognition", but then why was he so casual with the timing, arriving in the neighborhood right before 7:30 without knowing precisely where he was going? This also, to my mind, makes it more surprising that he did not consult a map beforehand for such a crucial business venture.

Hi AS, a Happy New Year to you.

One thing to remember when we talk about how much time Wallace had to complete his ‘plan’ is that the plan was seriously impaired by Alan Close’s bicycle. We can safely assume that Julia would have dealt with the milk deliveries and so Wallace wouldn’t have wanted to kill Julia until close had been and gone. Obviously it would have been deeply suspicious if, for the first time ever, Wallace himself had appeared at the door to take delivery. And so he would have intended to kill Julia earlier in the evening. With Close being late he would have started to get nervous (after all, if he had to abandon the murder he wouldn’t have been able to use the Qualtrough plan again.) He would have been panicking about having time to complete the crime and still get to Menlove Gardens. Maybe it was only then that he came up with a way to minimise the blood contamination by using the mackintosh as a shield (although that might have already been a part of his plan.) After all we have no other reasonable explaination for why it was found beneath Julia.

[OneRound]

Hi AS, a Happy New Year to you.

One thing to remember when we talk about how much time Wallace had to complete his ‘plan’ is that the plan was seriously impaired by Alan Close’s bicycle. We can safely assume that Julia would have dealt with the milk deliveries and so Wallace wouldn’t have wanted to kill Julia until close had been and gone. Obviously it would have been deeply suspicious if, for the first time ever, Wallace himself had appeared at the door to take delivery. And so he would have intended to kill Julia earlier in the evening. With Close being late he would have started to get nervous (after all, if he had to abandon the murder he wouldn’t have been able to use the Qualtrough plan again.) He would have been panicking about having time to complete the crime and still get to Menlove Gardens. Maybe it was only then that he came up with a way to minimise the blood contamination by using the mackintosh as a shield (although that might have already been a part of his plan.) After all we have no other reasonable explaination for why it was found beneath Julia.

Hi Herlock and all,

Forgive my ignorance but was it usual for Close to be seen by his customers?

I would have expected the young milko to leave a pre-arranged order on the doorstep and then scoot off to make the next delivery. [That's always been my experience of milk deliveries in this country from the early 1960s to today.]

Unless he was a strong believer in customer care, there seems little reason on the face of it for Close to waste his own time in stopping to see Julia.

Accordingly, would Wallace have been able to rely on Close seeing Julia?

As a bit of an aside although it's currently influencing my thinking - Wallace's actions on the night were not what many of us would have done and indeed were odd. However, rather than being a murderer, maybe that just demonstrates he was ... errrh ... odd.

With best wishes for the New Year to all,

OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock and all,

Forgive my ignorance but was it usual for Close to be seen by his customers?

I would have expected the young milko to leave a pre-arranged order on the doorstep and then scoot off to make the next delivery. [That's always been my experience of milk deliveries in this country from the early 1960s to today.]

Unless he was a strong believer in customer care, there seems little reason on the face of it for Close to waste his own time in stopping to see Julia.

Accordingly, would Wallace have been able to rely on Close seeing Julia?

As a bit of an aside although it's currently influencing my thinking - Wallace's actions on the night were not what many of us would have done and indeed were odd. However, rather than being a murderer, maybe that just demonstrates he was ... errrh ... odd.

With best wishes for the New Year to all,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Milk bottles were in use in the 30’s but perhaps not everywhere as Close said that he would bring milk and the customer would fill their own jug from it. So he would have expected to see Julia as it would have been a part of the housewive’s ‘job’ in those days. No modern men around of course

Your right of course that odd behaviour doesn’t necessarily equate to guilt.

Best wishes for the New Year to you too.

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound,

Milk bottles were in use in the 30’s but perhaps not everywhere as Close said that he would bring milk and the customer would fill their own jug from it. So he would have expected to see Julia as it would have been a part of the housewive’s ‘job’ in those days. No modern men around of course

Your right of course that odd behaviour doesn’t necessarily equate to guilt.

Best wishes for the New Year to you too.

Hi Herlock - thanks for confirming matters about the milk delivery. Appreciated.

As we know, Close was late with his delivery that evening. If he had been a bit earlier than usual, he would have been outside the house and seen Julia before Wallace got home - that's right, isn't it? If so, that would have hindered (although probably not totally prevented) a guilty Wallace from using the milk delivery and sighting of Julia as part of his defence.

Even if Wallace did kill his wife (and some of you folks have got me thinking more along the lines he might have done), was Close really intended to be a key part of his defence? As I've mentioned before, Wallace's defence about the sighting of Julia by Close wasn't helped by Close on his own but by another person being able to pinpoint the time of Close's delivery which, as far as I'm aware, was random and unexpected.

Btw, in case my cyber friend Caz is looking in, you're on your own with any quips about housewives' jobs!

Best regards,

OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock - thanks for confirming matters about the milk delivery. Appreciated.

As we know, Close was late with his delivery that evening. If he had been a bit earlier than usual, he would have been outside the house and seen Julia before Wallace got home - that's right, isn't it? If so, that would have hindered (although probably not totally prevented) a guilty Wallace from using the milk delivery and sighting of Julia as part of his defence.

Even if Wallace did kill his wife (and some of you folks have got me thinking more along the lines he might have done), was Close really intended to be a key part of his defence? As I've mentioned before, Wallace's defence about the sighting of Julia by Close wasn't helped by Close on his own but by another person being able to pinpoint the time of Close's delivery which, as far as I'm aware, was random and unexpected.

Btw, in case my cyber friend Caz is looking in, you're on your own with any quips about housewives' jobs!

Best regards,

OneRound

Wallace, if guilty, would have seen Close’a appearance as the starter’s gun for the evenings events. If he’d have answered the door to Close then the police would have inferred that it was because Julia was already dead. Cross being late would have worried him, as time went on, because of the time that it would have left him. There would have come a point when he’d have had to have said either a) “looks like no milk delivery today so on with the plan.” - Unlikely in the extreme in my opinion. A milk delivery would have been made somehow.
Or b) “I don’t have enough time now. I have to cancel my plan.” - Likely - this would have meant though that he’d have to come up with another plan (another mysterious phonecall would be a non-starter.)

I can’t recall exactly, and I have no books near, if Close being on time would have found Wallace back home yet or not. Wallace would only have had to have checked the milk jug though to see whether Close had been or not.

I’m confident of Caz’s sense of humour OneRound. Plus.....she doesn’t know where I live

[caz]

Hi Herlock - thanks for confirming matters about the milk delivery. Appreciated.

As we know, Close was late with his delivery that evening. If he had been a bit earlier than usual, he would have been outside the house and seen Julia before Wallace got home - that's right, isn't it? If so, that would have hindered (although probably not totally prevented) a guilty Wallace from using the milk delivery and sighting of Julia as part of his defence.

Hi OneRound,

I think the idea was that a guilty Wallace simply could not have risked killing Julia until after the milk boy had been and gone, regardless of what time that was, or whether he would later confirm seeing Julia alive at that time. I'm not sure how much it would have mattered if he had delivered early, before Wallace got home, if he was only likely to have seen Julia in any case. Wallace could have checked if the milk had already been delivered when he got home and acted accordingly. He could then only have done his best to make the first sighting of himself, after leaving Julia dead, as close in time as humanly possible to the last sighting of her alive by the milk boy, whenever that turned out to be.

Even if Wallace did kill his wife (and some of you folks have got me thinking more along the lines he might have done), was Close really intended to be a key part of his defence? As I've mentioned before, Wallace's defence about the sighting of Julia by Close wasn't helped by Close on his own but by another person being able to pinpoint the time of Close's delivery which, as far as I'm aware, was random and unexpected.

I think it was probably just a bonus for Wallace if the milk boy saw Julia and gave a time that would allow for reasonable doubt that he could have done the deed and been on his way that quickly. As you suggest, there was no guarantee that Close would guess the time correctly, or have it pinpointed by anyone else. Erring on the early side would have left Wallace with a slightly weaker alibi, but erring on the late side could effectively have saved his bacon if accepted.

Love,

Caz
X

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi All,

As you know today is the 87th anniversary of the phone call to the club and tomorrow is the anniversary of the murder,

One further thought I had is that if the killer was not Wallace, the only reason he could have to take the weapon with him would be to avoid fingerprints being found, but there was a mackintosh right there ready made to wipe any off.

It seems unlikely a killer, hoping for a smooth entry and sneak theft would bring a weapon with him. If it was something he found in the house and used in the commission of the killing in a moment of panic or rage, then it simply does not make sense that he would risk taking it with him.

If the killer was Wallace, then it was a risky tactical error to get rid of the weapon in my opinion, but much more understandable how he could think it would be necessary. If this is really what happened, then it was a gamble that ended up working for him (Killers often attempt to get rid of weapons even if the weapon itself could not be proved to have been used by them; cases put forth against any defendant simply "seem" significantly compromised without a weapon being found.)

The lack of signs of a struggle, the money that could have been taken that wasn't (blood smeared notes), the cash box being replaced, the odd mackintosh positioning indicating pre-planning, the containment of the blood (it wasn't tracked out of the parlor), and the weapon being removed seem to me to all point towards careful planning and an inside job.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AS.

Good points.

I can’t recall which book I read it in but didn’t someone find an iron bar years later pushed to the back of the fireplace? Couldn’t this have been the murder weapon? If so then it would surely have been more likely to have been put there by Wallace. Perhaps he planned to put it there all along after first washing off any blood? I’m unsure though how accessible this part of the fireplace was though? Obviously Wallace wouldn’t have wanted to spend time dismantling the fireplace just to hide the weapon. But if it was fairly easy to get to, hidden amongst the dust and soot, could the police have known how long it had been there? As it happens the police didn’t look there.

It seems to me that if the weapon had been found, even with no prints, the police would have perhaps thought it more likely to have been used by Wallace. That a violent robber, willing to kill, wouldn’t have left it to chance to find a suitable weapon in the house.

On the subject of the mackintosh AS, the more I think about it the more I feel that it might have been used as a shield by Wallace. I can think of no other sensible reason why Julia would have had it with her. The only other suggestion that I mentioned previously was could she have been drying it in front of the fire over the back of a chair? I keep going for ‘shield’ though.

[John G]

Hi All,

As you know today is the 87th anniversary of the phone call to the club and tomorrow is the anniversary of the murder,

One further thought I had is that if the killer was not Wallace, the only reason he could have to take the weapon with him would be to avoid fingerprints being found, but there was a mackintosh right there ready made to wipe any off.

It seems unlikely a killer, hoping for a smooth entry and sneak theft would bring a weapon with him. If it was something he found in the house and used in the commission of the killing in a moment of panic or rage, then it simply does not make sense that he would risk taking it with him.

If the killer was Wallace, then it was a risky tactical error to get rid of the weapon in my opinion, but much more understandable how he could think it would be necessary. If this is really what happened, then it was a gamble that ended up working for him (Killers often attempt to get rid of weapons even if the weapon itself could not be proved to have been used by them; cases put forth against any defendant simply "seem" significantly compromised without a weapon being found.)

The lack of signs of a struggle, the money that could have been taken that wasn't (blood smeared notes), the cash box being replaced, the odd mackintosh positioning indicating pre-planning, the containment of the blood (it wasn't tracked out of the parlor), and the weapon being removed seem to me to all point towards careful planning and an inside job.

Hi AS,

In respect of the murder weapon, I think it comes back to the basic problem: as regards Wallace, he had an incredibly small area where he could have realisticly disposed of it-essentially the house and the area between his address and tram stop-and this area was thoroughly searched by the police. Therefore, as I see it, baring a miraculous event, Wallace effectively exonerated on this ground alone.

Regarding any other possible suspect, all sorts of scenarios are possible. For instance, as you point out he could have taken the weapon with him becuse of the fingerprints issue; and I don't think wiping it on the heavily bloodstained Macintosh would have been a sensible option as he would have risked transfering even more blood to his person.

[John G]

Hi AS.

Good points.

I can’t recall which book I read it in but didn’t someone find an iron bar years later pushed to the back of the fireplace? Couldn’t this have been the murder weapon? If so then it would surely have been more likely to have been put there by Wallace. Perhaps he planned to put it there all along after first washing off any blood? I’m unsure though how accessible this part of the fireplace was though? Obviously Wallace wouldn’t have wanted to spend time dismantling the fireplace just to hide the weapon. But if it was fairly easy to get to, hidden amongst the dust and soot, could the police have known how long it had been there? As it happens the police didn’t look there.

It seems to me that if the weapon had been found, even with no prints, the police would have perhaps thought it more likely to have been used by Wallace. That a violent robber, willing to kill, wouldn’t have left it to chance to find a suitable weapon in the house.

On the subject of the mackintosh AS, the more I think about it the more I feel that it might have been used as a shield by Wallace. I can think of no other sensible reason why Julia would have had it with her. The only other suggestion that I mentioned previously was could she have been drying it in front of the fire over the back of a chair? I keep going for ‘shield’ though.

Ah, the iron bar in the fireplace story. It was mentioned in a book but frankly, I think this has to be, to coin a phrase, fake news. Thus, we know the police completely dismantled the fireplace and found nothing. Moreover, the piece of iron that was allegedly found-it wasn't described as an iron bar-was not referred to as being caked in dried blood and gore, as the actual weapon must have been, and as I'm sure this "find" would have been had that been the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, the iron bar in the fireplace story. It was mentioned in a book but frankly, I think this has to be, to coin a phrase, fake news. Thus, we know the police completely dismantled the fireplace and found nothing. Moreover, the piece of iron that was allegedly found-it wasn't described as an iron bar-was not referred to as being caked in dried blood and gore, as the actual weapon must have been, and as I'm sure this "find" would have been had that been the case.

Perhaps it is fake news John. Someone looking for their 15 minutes.. But do we know for certain that the police dismantled the fireplace? They might have done but I just can’t recall reading about it (that in no way suggests that it hasn’t been mentioned) As for the bar being caked in blood and gore...Wallace could have wiped the bulk off on the mackintosh then cleaned the rest under the tap in the back kitchen. If it was slightly damp when placed in the grate it would have gotten coated in dust and soot, especially if it was rolled to the back.
I just think that unless we can be certain that this story was a hoax it has to remain a possible explaination. Of course if we are certain that the police looked right to the back of the fireplace (and it would have been criminally remiss of them if they didn’t) then we can dismiss the story.