Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[caz]

Another point is that 'Qualtrough' told Beattie that he wanted Wallace in connection with his own daughter's 21st - "It's my daughter's twenty-first..." [page 22, Murphy] - so if Parry made the call he'd have needed to make his voice sound like a man in his forties - double his own age. Would he have made it that difficult for himself? Beattie would have been instantly suspicious if Qualtrough had sounded like an average 22 year-old!

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

While I think there is more to point to Wallace as the caller than Parry, I thought the "21st" bit pointed a bit more to Parry than Wallace. As I pointed out the peculiar coincidence of Parry mentioning actually being invited to a 21st birthday himself is not as strong of a pointer in his direction as previously thought because the event in question happened after the call and the story seems legitimate (i.e. it seems Parry really did obtain an invite on the night of the murder from Miss Williamson for him and his girlfriend to attend LW's 21st)

We don't know if Parry was anticipating being invited to LW's 21st when visiting his mother as HS points out, but in any case he clearly had friends around that age, his girlfriend was 20 as well etc.

But the flipside as both HS and Caz have pointed out is this would be an obvious tack for Wallace to use to implicate Parry if he had him in mind as a fall guy, and if Wallace was guilty, it seems clear he did. So we really are no closer to unwraveling this then we were at the start. Also keep in mind a 21st birthday policy was quite a common policy that would yield dividends and so could easily be what Wallace's idea of a good lure would be if this all was a contrivance of his. (And of course in the incredible duality of this case, it also would be what "Qualtrough" or Parry would think could lure Wallace in.)

Another note, Gannon asserts that R.J. Qualtrough a joiner was a client of the Pru and it was this customer's complaints that led to Marsden being canned. This is where the whole Marsden thing comes in and he claims that's where they got the idea (Marsden and Parry in Gannon's scenario) for the name for the call. I think this is good research from Gannon about R. J. Qualtrough and he shows he probably was a Pru client. However, I don't think Gannon demonstrates that this R.J. Qualtrough had complaints which led to anyone's firing, it seems speculative. In any event, as a former client of the Pru especially if he was involved in some dispute with the company or its employees, Wallace equally could have been aware of the name Qualtrough. (Remember in Gannon's theory he has Wallace as the mastermind.)

The final interesting thing to note is that there was a Qualtrough who celebrated her 20th birthday the very night of the call as I have previously noted. However, her biological father was dead. But could this indicate some research done, an overly contrived effort, someone very detailed oriented getting a kick out of the perfect plan. Maybe someone who had the idea of Qualtrough in his mind already as a good name to use and looked up Qualtroughs in the directory and spotted one celebrating a birthday that day? Of course 20th is not 21st but it sure could give one the idea to use that pretense.

I would argue that this type of detailed contrivance would be more in line with Wallace's character than Parry. Of course, it could all be a coincidence, but then it shows that coincidences do happen and on the balance of it all, it's hard to say it points more to either Wallace or Parry. (The using of the name Qualtrough and the 21st birthday mention.)

Finally, one could argue perhaps Parry knew the Qualtrough girl in question being around the same age, although I think it would be unlikely. The name was investigated thoroughly at the time and it seems to me far from being a suspect the police weren't interested in as some authors have intimated, at the start of the investigation Parry was under heavy suspicion and interrogated, his movements surveilled, and personal relationships investigated in depth.

As RWE, who accompanied Goodman to confront Parry and had once believed in his guilt puts it upon further research, Parry was "rightly eliminated."

Hi AS,

I think it’s important to remember that the age 21 would have held far more significance in the U.K. in the 1930’s than it would today (18 is far more significant these days.) It would have been common-place for someone wishing to take out some kind of policy to begin it from the age of 21. Therefore I don’t really see the fact of Parry mentioning a 21st birthday party as anything other than a very mild coincidence.

A question that perhaps might be asked is ‘would Parry use a 21st birthday as part of a plan to lure Wallace away from Wolverton Street when a part of his alibi was organising a 21st birthday party?’ Is this another example of the ‘fiendish criminal mastermind’ Parry being a bit stupid?

[AmericanSherlock]

While I think there is more to point to Wallace as the caller than Parry, I thought the "21st" bit pointed a bit more to Parry than Wallace. As I pointed out the peculiar coincidence of Parry mentioning actually being invited to a 21st birthday himself is not as strong of a pointer in his direction as previously thought because the event in question happened after the call and the story seems legitimate (i.e. it seems Parry really did obtain an invite on the night of the murder from Miss Williamson for him and his girlfriend to attend LW's 21st)

We don't know if Parry was anticipating being invited to LW's 21st when visiting his mother as HS points out, but in any case he clearly had friends around that age, his girlfriend was 20 as well etc.

But the flipside as both HS and Caz have pointed out is this would be an obvious tack for Wallace to use to implicate Parry if he had him in mind as a fall guy, and if Wallace was guilty, it seems clear he did. So we really are no closer to unwraveling this then we were at the start. Also keep in mind a 21st birthday policy was quite a common policy that would yield dividends and so could easily be what Wallace's idea of a good lure would be if this all was a contrivance of his. (And of course in the incredible duality of this case, it also would be what "Qualtrough" or Parry would think could lure Wallace in.)

Another note, Gannon asserts that R.J. Qualtrough a joiner was a client of the Pru and it was this customer's complaints that led to Marsden being canned. This is where the whole Marsden thing comes in and he claims that's where they got the idea (Marsden and Parry in Gannon's scenario) for the name for the call. I think this is good research from Gannon about R. J. Qualtrough and he shows he probably was a Pru client. However, I don't think Gannon demonstrates that this R.J. Qualtrough had complaints which led to anyone's firing, it seems speculative. In any event, as a former client of the Pru especially if he was involved in some dispute with the company or its employees, Wallace equally could have been aware of the name Qualtrough. (Remember in Gannon's theory he has Wallace as the mastermind.)

The final interesting thing to note is that there was a Qualtrough who celebrated her 20th birthday the very night of the call as I have previously noted. However, her biological father was dead. But could this indicate some research done, an overly contrived effort, someone very detailed oriented getting a kick out of the perfect plan. Maybe someone who had the idea of Qualtrough in his mind already as a good name to use and looked up Qualtroughs in the directory and spotted one celebrating a birthday that day? Of course 20th is not 21st but it sure could give one the idea to use that pretense.

I would argue that this type of detailed contrivance would be more in line with Wallace's character than Parry. Of course, it could all be a coincidence, but then it shows that coincidences do happen and on the balance of it all, it's hard to say it points more to either Wallace or Parry. (The using of the name Qualtrough and the 21st birthday mention.)

Finally, one could argue perhaps Parry knew the Qualtrough girl in question being around the same age, although I think it would be unlikely. The name was investigated thoroughly at the time and it seems to me far from being a suspect the police weren't interested in as some authors have intimated, at the start of the investigation Parry was under heavy suspicion and interrogated, his movements surveilled, and personal relationships investigated in depth.

As RWE, who accompanied Goodman to confront Parry and had once believed in his guilt puts it upon further research, Parry was "rightly eliminated."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Caz,

Good point.

Parry was 22.

The problem is, I suppose, that someone might say that it points toward Parry coming up with the plan himself. If Wallace had Parry in mind however as a possible fall guy it might be the kind of detail that he would hope would point at Parry.

[caz]

Hi AS, HS,

Parry would perhaps inevitably have known young people who were 21, or were coming up to their 21st, as he was around that age himself, wasn't he?

If Wallace was well aware of Parry's age, and had him in mind as a useful 'likely suspect', it might have made sense to him to base the Qualtrough call around a 21st birthday insurance product.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Rod will return to save us from our sins and right the record when the time is right...

I hadn't give this case much thought the last few weeks as we dissected it into the ground.

One final point, I realized the whole 21st birthday thing is likely a red herring, Parry DID go to Leslie Williamson's as verified by LW on the Radio City broadcast (even if he was badmouthing Parry's character) and it was LW's 21st brithday in early April of that year. This was on the night following the call (night of the murder.) I see no reason Parry would make up the 21st birthday detail days later in police questioning when there would be no reason to; the point was he visited LW and spoke with his mother which appears to be true and it was after the phone call, so it wouldn't be something that would be fresh on his mind during the Qualtrough call. It's a coincidence.

I was also looking at the Jonbenet Ramsey thread and there are a lot of similarities between the 2 cases. There are plenty of "Parry's" in the Jonbenet case---shady people to pin the crime on and "amazing coincidences" linking them to it.

But at the end of the day you know the Ramseys were guilty. Just like WHW was.

Good point AS.

Can we be certain that he’d known about the plan for the 21st birthday party on the Monday?

[AmericanSherlock]

Rod will return to save us from our sins and right the record when the time is right...

I hadn't give this case much thought the last few weeks as we dissected it into the ground.

One final point, I realized the whole 21st birthday thing is likely a red herring, Parry DID go to Leslie Williamson's as verified by LW on the Radio City broadcast (even if he was badmouthing Parry's character) and it was LW's 21st brithday in early April of that year. This was on the night following the call (night of the murder.) I see no reason Parry would make up the 21st birthday detail days later in police questioning when there would be no reason to; the point was he visited LW and spoke with his mother which appears to be true and it was after the phone call, so it wouldn't be something that would be fresh on his mind during the Qualtrough call. It's a coincidence.

I was also looking at the Jonbenet Ramsey thread and there are a lot of similarities between the 2 cases. There are plenty of "Parry's" in the Jonbenet case---shady people to pin the crime on and "amazing coincidences" linking them to it.

But at the end of the day you know the Ramseys were guilty. Just like WHW was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just thought I’d pop back on for a look around.


Hallooooooo

Are you there Rod?


Your book was at the printers around 3 months ago.


Any sign???



Thought not

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi All,

Here is another thing that occurred to me about the Johnstons testimony: as we know they claimed they heard the milk boy come, but didn't hear anyone else come or anything else at all, save for two thumps at 8.25. I think pretty much everyone, including those who believe Wallace was innocent, would agree it is pretty unlikely the murder occurred that late. Also I believe one of the Johnstons (apparently there were 5 living there and 3 generations) had said in later years that she thought the thumps were made by her father so it was unlikely they overheard the murder at this time.

In any case, the main point being that clearly the Johnstons could hear visitors. If "Qualtrough" had come soon after Wallace departed, it would be soon after the milk boy had been there, yet they heard nothing. So far, I think this point is good but has already been made.

But consider this: If the killer was not planning the murder, but was there in hopes of a "sneak theft" or even an innocent visit or to ask for money etc. and it somehow "turned" murderous, then he would have no reason to keep quiet or be stealthy.

For example, if it was Parry, there is no reason he wouldn't be boisterous and his usual rogue self on the doorstep to Julia, who would probably be surprised and perhaps delighted to see him. Why would he be quieter than the milk boy?

And even moreso if the killer was "Qualtrough". You could argue such a person would obviously be in the commission of a crime and therefore would want to keep a low profile, but for this theory to be true, he would have to be willing to be identified anyway and know he would be seen by Julia at least (if he hadn't planned the killing from the get go.)

What's more, he would have NO CHOICE regardless of his intention but to be loud and have a prolonged interchange on the doorstep. Julia wouldn't want to open to a strange man. She would have questions. He would have to convince her, tell her the whole contrived "Qualtrough spiel" the whole shebang and debacle, presenting himself as R.M. Qualtrough and say the time or location of the meeting got mixed up. Even if we put aside the implausibility of Julia opening in such a scenario, and assuming she would for the sake of her husband's business, there is still no way this wouldn't happen until after a lengthy, confusing, and noisy interchange with Qualtrough outside the door trying to finagle his way in and Julia puzzled and fearful, asking plenty of questions.

Yet, the Johnstons heard none of this. But they heard the milk boy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

I think your rendition of things is probably quite accurate.

I think people really make all too much a fuss about the supposed impossible nature of the crime or the implausibility of its commission being done by Wallace.

It has been shown in other cases the killer was able to avoid blood splatter. If that was the case here, then the timing is also not a factor. How long would it take to strike?

The mackintosh and the fact that blood was not transferred away from the scene in terms of being tracked out of the room (but was upstairs begging the question why the killer didn't take the notes?), strongly indicates pre planning.

For those who point out that even if this was the way it could have happened, would Wallace take all these risks? I would just point out he was a man who died 2 years later of a life long kidney problem and who could have easily known he was ailing and have been willing to take a few risks in an effort to commit the perfect murder.

Ironically, these same people (namely Rod) are okay with thinking Parry/Qualtrough took all sorts of risks on their own that defy logical sense.

In that vein, you may remember when I pointed out that Justice Wright who Rod kept quoting in an attempt to shut down debate here, was actually of the belief that Wallace was guilty (he just thought as you and I do that the evidence was not strong enough to convict.)

I had cited the quote where he says in a later interview "Any man with common sense would think Wallace's alibi was too good to be true, but that is not an argument you can hang a man on."

Rather than concede the point like any person with decency and honesty in a debate would, he doubled down getting insulting and saying some convoluted spiel about how Wright must have meant "common sense" as that commoners like us would have, but that a man with proper sense like himself knew Wallace was innocent. Or something absurd to that affect.

We roasted him for it and as we should have.

Well I found a longer quote from the same interview, which should leave no doubts. Even Rod would have to concede. Critical part is the last sentence, which I have put in bold.

"So many strange things happen in life. I should not and never did demand a motive for any crime. Very often the only motive is mere impulse and you must remember that Wallace was a highly strung man. But if Wallace did murder his wife, as the jury thought, there might have been a motive. After the trial, the station master at Birkenhead station mentioned the case to me as I waited for a train. He said it was the opinion of people in the district that there was another woman in the case. That certainly never came out at the trial. But at the time I could not help thinking that Wallace found domestic felicity a little boring, as it is apt to be occasionally to anybody.

Now, I don't think Wallace was having an affair, or at least there was no evidence for it.

However, it can not be argued that Wright did not think Wallace was the killer. He simply felt it wasn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sorry to rehash this, but came across it and had to add to our deconstruction of Rod's outrageous claims.

I think it’s ‘job done’ on that score AS. Obviously Wright wouldn’t have openly said that Wallace was guilty and that the Appeal Court judges got it wrong but he left no room for doubt that that’s what he believed.

Like you I don’t really go for the ‘other woman’ suggestion but it’s not impossible. Let’s face it he would have been in the company of many women while their husbands were at work during his collecting rounds. The problem is that if he wanted rid of Julia because of the other woman then what happened to her after the Appeal? Wallace lived out his life alone.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS

We cant know with any real certainly how long Wallace took to do what he needed to before he left Wolverton Street that night but we know that he didn’t have abundant time. After just making a post about the likelihood of Wallace being flustered due to Close’s lateness it might seem strange that I now make a post suggesting how Wallace might have given himself more time. I don’t see any contradiction though as Wallace’s actions in my ‘scenario’ are still under time pressure and the pressure of avoiding being discovered. Plus it allows for the fact that we can’t know how long any ‘clean up’ might have taken.

Is it possible that Wallace could have done most of the staging of the robbery before Julia was killed?

So....my ‘scenario.’

Wallace knows that Alan Close is due in a few minutes. While Julia is in the back kitchen he goes into the kitchen and pulls off the door of the cupboard (this cupboard door could have been loose for months for all we know.) He tells Julia that the cupboard door has come off as he was opening it. He tells her not to worry “just leave it there dear I’ll see if I can mend it tomorrow.” He then empties the cash box, putting the money in his pocket. He drops a few coins to make it look like the ‘thief’ dropped them in his rush. If Julia happened to have noticed the coins Wallace could easily have said “oh I dropped a few coins earlier but I thought that I’d picked them all up.” No issue there.
Close turns up and Julia goes to the door. Wallace goes upstairs. He puts the money from the cash box into the vase and makes a mess of the bed. He then throws two pillows into the fireplace and heads back downstairs. He goes into the parlour as Julia is going back to the door with the milk jug. When he hears the front door close he calls out to Julia “could you bring me my mackintosh please dear?” Julia enters carrying the mackintosh.

The stage is now set for Wallace to kill Julia. The murder takes 1 or 2 minutes. A combination of the use of the mackintosh as a shield and maybe a bit of good fortune and who knows how much blood, if any, Wallace might have gotten on him? He wraps the weapon in paper or a bag that he’s kept ready, washes himself, cleans the sink (possibly using chemicals from his lab) and leaves.

I’ve often wondered if, when Wallace returned and finally gained entry, the reason that he went in alone (he later said that he’d thought that the killer might still be inside - so why didn’t he ask Mr Johnston to accompany him?) was that he wanted one last chance to make sure that he hadn’t made any stupid mistakes. I’ve also wondered if he’d forgotten to return a bottle of chemicals which he did when he ‘checked’ his lab to see if Julia was there.

The lit fire in the parlour has caused much debate. Murphy suggests that Wallace had told Julia to light it so that they could have a musical evening. It’s also possible that, as Wallace was going out ‘on business’ Julia might simply have decided on a bit of piano playing herself and so lit the fire without Wallace suggesting it.

Herlock,

I think your rendition of things is probably quite accurate.

I think people really make all too much a fuss about the supposed impossible nature of the crime or the implausibility of its commission being done by Wallace.

It has been shown in other cases the killer was able to avoid blood splatter. If that was the case here, then the timing is also not a factor. How long would it take to strike?

The mackintosh and the fact that blood was not transferred away from the scene in terms of being tracked out of the room (but was upstairs begging the question why the killer didn't take the notes?), strongly indicates pre planning.

For those who point out that even if this was the way it could have happened, would Wallace take all these risks? I would just point out he was a man who died 2 years later of a life long kidney problem and who could have easily known he was ailing and have been willing to take a few risks in an effort to commit the perfect murder.

Ironically, these same people (namely Rod) are okay with thinking Parry/Qualtrough took all sorts of risks on their own that defy logical sense.

In that vein, you may remember when I pointed out that Justice Wright who Rod kept quoting in an attempt to shut down debate here, was actually of the belief that Wallace was guilty (he just thought as you and I do that the evidence was not strong enough to convict.)

I had cited the quote where he says in a later interview "Any man with common sense would think Wallace's alibi was too good to be true, but that is not an argument you can hang a man on."

Rather than concede the point like any person with decency and honesty in a debate would, he doubled down getting insulting and saying some convoluted spiel about how Wright must have meant "common sense" as that commoners like us would have, but that a man with proper sense like himself knew Wallace was innocent. Or something absurd to that affect.

We roasted him for it and as we should have.

Well I found a longer quote from the same interview, which should leave no doubts. Even Rod would have to concede. Critical part is the last sentence, which I have put in bold.

"So many strange things happen in life. I should not and never did demand a motive for any crime. Very often the only motive is mere impulse and you must remember that Wallace was a highly strung man. But if Wallace did murder his wife, as the jury thought, there might have been a motive. After the trial, the station master at Birkenhead station mentioned the case to me as I waited for a train. He said it was the opinion of people in the district that there was another woman in the case. That certainly never came out at the trial. But at the time I could not help thinking that Wallace found domestic felicity a little boring, as it is apt to be occasionally to anybody.

Now, I don't think Wallace was having an affair, or at least there was no evidence for it.

However, it can not be argued that Wright did not think Wallace was the killer. He simply felt it wasn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sorry to rehash this, but came across it and had to add to our deconstruction of Rod's outrageous claims.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AS

We cant know with any real certainly how long Wallace took to do what he needed to before he left Wolverton Street that night but we know that he didn’t have abundant time. After just making a post about the likelihood of Wallace being flustered due to Close’s lateness it might seem strange that I now make a post suggesting how Wallace might have given himself more time. I don’t see any contradiction though as Wallace’s actions in my ‘scenario’ are still under time pressure and the pressure of avoiding being discovered. Plus it allows for the fact that we can’t know how long any ‘clean up’ might have taken.

Is it possible that Wallace could have done most of the staging of the robbery before Julia was killed?

So....my ‘scenario.’

Wallace knows that Alan Close is due in a few minutes. While Julia is in the back kitchen he goes into the kitchen and pulls off the door of the cupboard (this cupboard door could have been loose for months for all we know.) He tells Julia that the cupboard door has come off as he was opening it. He tells her not to worry “just leave it there dear I’ll see if I can mend it tomorrow.” He then empties the cash box, putting the money in his pocket. He drops a few coins to make it look like the ‘thief’ dropped them in his rush. If Julia happened to have noticed the coins Wallace could easily have said “oh I dropped a few coins earlier but I thought that I’d picked them all up.” No issue there.
Close turns up and Julia goes to the door. Wallace goes upstairs. He puts the money from the cash box into the vase and makes a mess of the bed. He then throws two pillows into the fireplace and heads back downstairs. He goes into the parlour as Julia is going back to the door with the milk jug. When he hears the front door close he calls out to Julia “could you bring me my mackintosh please dear?” Julia enters carrying the mackintosh.

The stage is now set for Wallace to kill Julia. The murder takes 1 or 2 minutes. A combination of the use of the mackintosh as a shield and maybe a bit of good fortune and who knows how much blood, if any, Wallace might have gotten on him? He wraps the weapon in paper or a bag that he’s kept ready, washes himself, cleans the sink (possibly using chemicals from his lab) and leaves.

I’ve often wondered if, when Wallace returned and finally gained entry, the reason that he went in alone (he later said that he’d thought that the killer might still be inside - so why didn’t he ask Mr Johnston to accompany him?) was that he wanted one last chance to make sure that he hadn’t made any stupid mistakes. I’ve also wondered if he’d forgotten to return a bottle of chemicals which he did when he ‘checked’ his lab to see if Julia was there.

The lit fire in the parlour has caused much debate. Murphy suggests that Wallace had told Julia to light it so that they could have a musical evening. It’s also possible that, as Wallace was going out ‘on business’ Julia might simply have decided on a bit of piano playing herself and so lit the fire without Wallace suggesting it.

[AmericanSherlock]

Herlock,

You raise a critical issue about Close.

If Wallace was guilty, he must have been extremely flustered at Close's late arrival. The window would be closing---as it was he made it just on time in the area for an address which he supposedly didn't know exactly where to go to find it. If much more time had transpired, he would have to scrap the plan and come up with some other plan (could hardly use the Qualtrough one again).

So in this scenario, he'd be very flustered on the verge of calling it quits with the plan and probably cursing inside at his bad luck---then Close arrives and he realizes he has just enough time but has to act quick. He's already irritated, annoyed, nervous...on top of the stress of trying to commit murder and get away with it.

In the event he was guilty, doubt the stoic Wallace would have much emotion or stress over ending his wife's life the way you or I might be burdened with guilt and apprehension, but you sure can bet he'd be frustrated and worried about saving his own skin and executing the murderous plan properly.

Totally understandable how he could "cockup" the staged robbery in such a scenario.

On the other hand, the scene makes no sense for a genuine botched robbery. It is an incongruous mess of carefully planned with the cashbox replaced and no blood tracked out of the room indicating pre planning mixed with panic--money that could be taken not taken, jewelry that could be taken not taken. Julia attacked in a room different from where the cashbox was belying any "Caught in the act" scenarios. Doesn't fly.

The only reasonable explanation for the scene was a panicked, agitated man botching a staged robbery, which is so very common in domestic murders.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Blood!

I’ve just read something in Hussey that I can’t recall reading anywhere else (but that could just be down to my memory.)

“And that comprises the whole of the evidence on this major point except that Inspector Gold said he collected Wallace’s suit (Exhibit 33) from Wolverton Street bedroom two days after (!) the crime and sent it to City Analyst Roberts. The latter belatedly made benzidine tests but found no blood on it save two negligible spots inside a pocket probably from a minor cut or hangnail.”

Blood is blood! We cannot therefore say that Wallace was completely blood free unless they only count blood evidence that is a larger amount. Wallace could have cleaned up and missed a speck on his finger. This could also be where the smear on the note upstairs came from. Of course there could be a perfectly innocent explanation for it but why has it been dismissed?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The main argument that is thrown up against the possibility of Wallace’s guilt is one of timing. Did he have enough time from when Alan Close left to kill Julia, clean up, stage a robbery and get to his 2nd tram at 7.06? It’s obviously a very necessary debate. Time is important but not just when looking at Wallace’s actions. What about our ‘thief?

If he watched Wallace leave, to ensure that he actually went on his Menlove Gardens East trek, he would have had a pretty decent idea of how long Wallace would have been away searching for a non-existent address. How long....an hour? Forty five minutes? More than an hour? The point is, of course, that he would have had ample time to ransack the house in the search for money and valuables. And yet we have a cash box emptied, coins on the floor which he didn’t bother to gather up, a cupboard drawer pulled off, Julia’s bag untouched, the sideboard drawers, the kitchen drawers and the cupboard drawers upstairs untouched. We have a ‘messed up’ bed and two pillows pointlessly thrown into the fire place. We have money in a vase untouched. Can anyone imagine a more unconvincing robbery scene?

If the excuse used is that he panicked after killing Julia then we are justified in asking why he took the time to turn off the lights? It’s been mentioned that perhaps he didn’t want any light lighting up his exit but wouldn’t a thief have taken the much safer back door exit via the alleyway rather than into the street?

It might be asked why Wallace made such a poor show of staging a robbery? Well we know that due to a problem with his bike Alan Close turned up a few minutes later than normal. As Wallace was usually at home on Tuesday evenings he would have been aware of this. Every week Close turns up at the same time, give or take a minute or two, and he is the last ‘visitor’ of the day. Therefore Wallace plans around this ‘fact.’ A fact which never has any bearing on Wallace’s life until that night. And ‘would you believe it?’ On the very night when Wallace needs him to be on time he turns up late! Hence Wallace’s rushed staging of the robbery.

We cant know how much blood, if any, Wallace got on him requiring a clean up but no matter how ‘tight’ the timing appears to be (and considering the times gleaned by the Anfield Harriers’) Wallace surely had enough time to do what he did. But he certainly didn’t have as much time as our ‘sneak thief’ or robber turned murderer had to perform the least thorough robbery in the history of crime.