Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

Maybe I'll send you a signed copy.

You don't seem to have many...books.

[AmericanSherlock]

Maybe I'll send you a signed copy.

You don't seem to have many...books.

As I said before, I will not tolerate this behavior. You are insulting Herlock for no reason like you do anyone else who doesnt agree with you 100 percent. You will shape up or you will no longer post here.

Judging from your bitter posts on numerous other forums (as well as your picture) I don't blame you for being so angry. You obviously lost at life. That is no reason to make arrogant, unfounded claims and ruin discussion on message boards though.

[RodCrosby]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe I'll send you a signed copy.

You don't seem to have many...books.

I have around 1000 books at the moment. Only 4 on the Wallace case. Yours will never be added because it will never happen. No matter how many childish statements like...watch this space, you wish to make.

No one believes you or your theory Rod. No one. Unless you self publish you will never in a million years persuade anyone to fund a book about a theory that has been trashed by everyone that has read about it.

How many crimes could be ‘solved’ by inventing a Mr X.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)

[AmericanSherlock]

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

Yes, you should study that article. It might explain why you fight with everyone wherever you go.

Also :

Ah... my stalker is getting his rocks off in public, on my youthful indiscretions. I'm flattered, really...

Someone hand him a tissue so he doesn't make a mess of himself.

[and he probably thinks Wikipedia is the Oracle of Truth, rather than a Leftoid Propaganda Outfit which battle-scars any morally-courageous person wears with pride]

[Herlock Sholmes]

My un-qualified opinion is that - putting the Police cross-contamination and altering of the crime-scene, and the temperature blunders to one side - MacFall was basically correct in his view that Julia was attacked in a frontal assault while on or near the left-hand chair, and the Defence theory of an attack while lighting the fire doesn't stand up.

We can be certain of very little.

There were no blood-stains in the right-hand corner of the room, near the gas-tap. All were in the left, near and behind the chair...

So Julia was not immediately killed by her killer; she died after a period of seeming normality in their encounter.

Like a period of 2 or 3 seconds say? Absolutely no suggestion of a period of normality but if there was such a period it could equally apply to Wallace being the killer.

Which fits with her rumbling a sneak-thief at about 8pm, and some sort of confrontation leading to her instant death.

But unfortunately none of the other evidence fits the idea of a sneak-thief. Or any kind of thief for that matter. It reeks of a staged robbery.

The mac is there because she was intent on leaving the house, most likely on some pretext "I've forgotten to collect the cat from next door" or "I don't know what's happened to my husband - I'd better go out and look for him, you'll have to come another time Mr. Q" etc., etc.

Why didn’t she use her own coat? If she went to get the coat why didn’t she just leave rather than return to the parlour with it, especially assuming that Qualtrough was in there (if he was elsewhere she could have just left). She didn’t even have it on so why carry it back to the parlour? The killer went upstairs after the murder and so how long would he have waited in the parlour before committing the theft? Not long I’d have thought. So what could he have done or said in such a short time to panic Julia enough into formulating an escape plan? The suggestion of using the mackintosh as a shield against blood spatter is vastly more reasonable and likely than this.

The small recent bruise on her arm suggests she was grabbed, and possibly flung onto the fire, which would explain the burning.

Which could equally have been done by Wallace.

Mostly speculative, I accept. We'll never be able to recreate the sequence perfectly, not least because the photos are not a true representation of the original scene.

“Mostly speculative....” is this the first time that you’ve ever admitted to not knowing something for certain?

I hope someone does try to recreate it someday.

Amazing for all that violence there is not a picture out of place, not a cracked plate or vase, not a tottering music-stand falling over, nor a teetering sheaf of music sliding hopelessly to the floor...

Yeah...it’s just as if the murderer knew the victim well and had an intimate knowledge of the room.....like Wallace for example

One of the most iconic and baffling photos in the history of Murder...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/klt4qegzqa...lour2.JPG?dl=0

I didn’t think that anything was baffling to you Rod

[Herlock Sholmes]

A few thoughts...

The suggestion that Wallace used the mackintosh as a shield might also explain the singeing that was found. He follows Julia into the parlour with the mackintosh over his right arm. She would just think that he intended to wear it when he went out. She’s near to the fire and Wallace is at the far side of her. He reaches down to pick up the poker/iron bar in the grate. As he does so he accidentally dangles part of it in the fire causing it to smoulder. He strikes the first blow knocking Julia to the floor unconscious or semi-conscious. He uses his hand to stop the smouldering then kneels next to Julia. Rolling the mackintosh around his left arm he lifts that arm up to the level of his chin allowing it to cover the 3 feet or so from chin to carpet. He then delivers the rest of the blows with his right. He might have gotten some blood on his face or his right hand/arm.
To prevent blood on his shirt sleeves Wallace might have entered the parlour with his sleeves rolled up. I can recall my grandfather getting ready to go out. The very last thing that he’d do would be to stand in front of the mirror, roll down his sleeves (as he’d just washed his hands and face) and fasten his cuff and cuff-links then fasten his collar and tie up his tie.
Wallace being an intelligent chap might well have done some research beforehand. This might have made him realise that blood spatter on the mackintosh might lead the police to deduce what it had been used for? To combat this he wedges it under Julia’s body so that the blood would smear the spatter marks.
The timing might be tight but achievable I believe. Especially when we could potentially add 2 or 3 or even 5 minutes due to the uncertainty of the milkboy’s delivery time. Would Wallace have felt any time pressure. Not too much. It wouldn’t have been the end of the world if he’d missed his first tram. He’d have caught the next. There was no Qualtrough to complain about him being late after all.

[AmericanSherlock]

A few thoughts...

The suggestion that Wallace used the mackintosh as a shield might also explain the singeing that was found. He follows Julia into the parlour with the mackintosh over his right arm. She would just think that he intended to wear it when he went out. She’s near to the fire and Wallace is at the far side of her. He reaches down to pick up the poker/iron bar in the grate. As he does so he accidentally dangles part of it in the fire causing it to smoulder. He strikes the first blow knocking Julia to the floor unconscious or semi-conscious. He uses his hand to stop the smouldering then kneels next to Julia. Rolling the mackintosh around his left arm he lifts that arm up to the level of his chin allowing it to cover the 3 feet or so from chin to carpet. He then delivers the rest of the blows with his right. He might have gotten some blood on his face or his right hand/arm.
To prevent blood on his shirt sleeves Wallace might have entered the parlour with his sleeves rolled up. I can recall my grandfather getting ready to go out. The very last thing that he’d do would be to stand in front of the mirror, roll down his sleeves (as he’d just washed his hands and face) and fasten his cuff and cuff-links then fasten his collar and tie up his tie.
Wallace being an intelligent chap might well have done some research beforehand. This might have made him realise that blood spatter on the mackintosh might lead the police to deduce what it had been used for? To combat this he wedges it under Julia’s body so that the blood would smear the spatter marks.
The timing might be tight but achievable I believe. Especially when we could potentially add 2 or 3 or even 5 minutes due to the uncertainty of the milkboy’s delivery time. Would Wallace have felt any time pressure. Not too much. It wouldn’t have been the end of the world if he’d missed his first tram. He’d have caught the next. There was no Qualtrough to complain about him being late after all.

Hi Herlock, this is a critical and important point. We only view Wallace's actions as an unbroken chain of events after the fact. During the commission of the crime, in the event he was guilty, he had no set time frame to follow, just the general putative meeting time of 7:30 across town. He didn't seem to be particularly on time since he arrived just around that time anyway in the vicinity, without knowing exactly where he was going. But in any event, a few minutes here or there wouldn't make the difference.

Murphy put it well when he said Wallace makes his time frame as he goes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Reviewing the ‘sneak-thief’ theory

If we consider the suggestion that Julia was killed by a thief whose intention was to steal and not kill and also the notion that the mackintosh was in the parlour because Julia tried to leave, then there appears to me to be two scenarios.

Mr X is ‘Qualtrough’ of course.

Qualtrough turns up and explains to Julia that there’s been some kind of mix up or that he’s had to change his plans. Julia, who we know was extremely reluctant to admit someone that she didn’t actually know, let’s him in and takes him into the parlour.

Scenario one: After a while Qualtrough, wanting to commit the robbery and go, asks to leave the room (probably to go to the bathroom.) He goes into the kitchen, empties the cash box and puts it back on the shelf. Julia discovers this. Either by catching him in the act or by seeing him come out of the kitchen (where he had no reason to be.) This would have taken seconds so why would Julia pretty much ‘follow’ Qualtrough out of the room? After that point Julia couldn’t have made any excuse to leave the house. She’d caught a thief; ‘popping out’ would not have been an option. So if she had made an excuse to go out she must have made it before catching Qualtrough in the act.

Scenario two: For some reason, in the short time that Qualtrough and Julia are engaging in small talk in the Parlour Julia becomes suspicious of him. What could he have done or said? If she left the room, put on her husbands mackintosh (not her own coat) and then told Qualtrough that she was ‘popping out’ he would have had to have prevented this. The game would have been up. So what next? He gets her back into the parlour, threatens her to keep quiet then goes to rob the cash box. Or does he simply kill her there and then before committing the robbery as opposed to just fleeing the scene? This would show a preparedness to kill and not simply a panic or necessity kill. As there was the blood smear on the note upstairs it means that Qualtrough must have gone upstairs after killing Julia. (The suggestion that a policeman smeared the blood accidentally and kept quiet about it or didn’t notice has to be far less believable.) And so, Qualtrough then goes back into the parlour and brutally murders Julia. Why? If he was a sneak thief, prepared to possibly be identified as the thief by Julia, why kill her because he’d been discovered in the act? Nothing has changed. Even if Julia screamed, and no one heard anything, he didn’t need to kill her because our sneak thief was absolutely unconcerned about the possibility of being identified by Julia or else he wouldn’t have attempted the robbery in the first place. And why would Julia have screamed at that point? After all she hadn’t screamed or caused a panic when she had first learned that Qualtrough was a thief. He could have put his hand over her mouth and waited for her to calm down and be quiet. He then goes upstairs, finds the cash in the vase, decides that he doesn’t want it and goes back downstairs. Added to this, as he would have been covered in blood because he would have taken no precautions, he leaves no blood outside of the parlour.

Neither scenario is remotely believable.

The sneak-thief theory doesn’t hold water. The theory that this was a vicious murder staged to look like a robbery does.

[caz]

Hi Herlock, this is a critical and important point. We only view Wallace's actions as an unbroken chain of events after the fact. During the commission of the crime, in the event he was guilty, he had no set time frame to follow, just the general putative meeting time of 7:30 across town. He didn't seem to be particularly on time since he arrived just around that time anyway in the vicinity, without knowing exactly where he was going. But in any event, a few minutes here or there wouldn't make the difference.

Murphy put it well when he said Wallace makes his time frame as he goes.

We can add to that the fact that Wallace would have been expecting the milk boy a lot sooner. If he set up the Qualtrough appointment for 7.30, this would normally have allowed him to kill Julia after the milk boy had been, clean up and leave the house in good time. As it was, it does seem suspicious to me that he left as late as he did, to see a stranger at an address he was unfamiliar with. If he was innocent he wouldn't have needed to wait until after the milk boy had been, and it shouldn't have taken him very long at all to prepare for his evening appointment once he had decided to go for it.

Once again, the circumstances did not pan out happily for an innocent husband.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Two more points against a stranger:

1) Even if we allow for Wallace telling Julia all about the message from Qualtrough, which Qualtrough had no way of knowing he'd do, would she not have been very wary indeed about letting "Mr Qualtrough" in, wanting to know who had given him their home address, and what he was doing there, given that he had wanted her husband to go to his address in another district? How long was she expected to 'entertain' this stranger for, while Wallace tried unsuccessfully to get an answer at that address, gave up and made his way back home, presumably not in the best of humours?

2) No screams were heard, which points against Mr X doing anything to scare Julia into acting defensively, and points towards her having no qualms and being taken completely off guard by whoever made the decision to bash her head in so brutally and finally. That person, I maintain, had most reason not to let her scream blue murder.

I wonder - did the recent burglaries in the vicinity encourage someone's idea to make this crime look like a staged robbery?

Love,

Caz
X

[RodCrosby]

We can add to that the fact that Wallace would have been expecting the milk boy a lot sooner. If he set up the Qualtrough appointment for 7.30, this would normally have allowed him to kill Julia after the milk boy had been, clean up and leave the house in good time. As it was, it does seem suspicious to me that he left as late as he did, to see a stranger at an address he was unfamiliar with. If he was innocent he wouldn't have needed to wait until after the milk boy had been, and it shouldn't have taken him very long at all to prepare for his evening appointment once he had decided to go for it.

Once again, the circumstances did not pan out happily for an innocent husband.

Love,

Caz
X

Why the need to invent things, Caz?

Wallace arrived at Menlove Gardens West at 7.20pm, in plenty of time for his appointment in - what he believed to be - an adjacent street!

Proof that he did not in fact "leave late"...

[RodCrosby]

Two more points against a stranger:

1) Even if we allow for Wallace telling Julia all about the message from Qualtrough, which Qualtrough had no way of knowing he'd do, would she not have been very wary indeed about letting "Mr Qualtrough" in, wanting to know who had given him their home address, and what he was doing there, given that he had wanted her husband to go to his address in another district? How long was she expected to 'entertain' this stranger for, while Wallace tried unsuccessfully to get an answer at that address, gave up and made his way back home, presumably not in the best of humours?

2) No screams were heard, which points against Mr X doing anything to scare Julia into acting defensively, and points towards her having no qualms and being taken completely off guard by whoever made the decision to bash her head in so brutally and finally. That person, I maintain, had most reason not to let her scream blue murder.

I wonder - did the recent burglaries in the vicinity encourage someone's idea to make this crime look like a staged robbery?

Love,

Caz
X

i) Wallace's home address was in the directory, listing him as an insurance agent. Julia Wallace would believe in Qualtrough, because her husband obviously believed in Qualtrough. Second-hand telephone messages can get garbled. Sh1t happens... Qualtrough could have set her at ease by saying "my wife will explain to him what has occurred", implying Wallace was probably already on his way home after being informed of his "mistake".

ii) People are often found with their brains bashed in (by robbers, etc.). Screams are seldom heard.

Everything Wallace and his wife did that night was perfectly natural and commonplace, for 1931 certainly, and even for today.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We can add to that the fact that Wallace would have been expecting the milk boy a lot sooner. If he set up the Qualtrough appointment for 7.30, this would normally have allowed him to kill Julia after the milk boy had been, clean up and leave the house in good time. As it was, it does seem suspicious to me that he left as late as he did, to see a stranger at an address he was unfamiliar with. If he was innocent he wouldn't have needed to wait until after the milk boy had been, and it shouldn't have taken him very long at all to prepare for his evening appointment once he had decided to go for it.

Once again, the circumstances did not pan out happily for an innocent husband.

Love,

Caz
X

This is an important point Caz. Wallace was the meticulous type. He wouldn’t have wanted to be late for an appointment. I can’t imagine Wallace leaving himself only 30 minutes to find an address that even one of the chess club members who lived in the area hadn’t heard of. Then there are trams which could have been missed. Wallace was surely risking of being late? If he was innocent he could have left the house earlier allowing him plenty of time.

If he was innocent.......