Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

The word is probative, and your assertions are, as usual, wrong.

Close enough to home? On the outskirts of Liverpool, only a few months ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5018199/Great-gran-80-beaten-death-burglar-neighbour.html

Tell me again about "exceedingly rare"...

[AmericanSherlock]

The word is probative, and your assertions are, as usual, wrong.

Close enough to home? On the outskirts of Liverpool, only a few months ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5018199/Great-gran-80-beaten-death-burglar-neighbour.html

Tell me again about "exceedingly rare"...

I know what word you meant, and I wrote the word I meant.

One example does not a rule make.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Correct Solution explains:-

a) the crime plan: why the Tuesday not the Monday, why that particular Tuesday, why that phone box, why 'Qualtrough', why the '21st birthday'.
b) the crime scene: why the replaced cash-box, why the coins, why the mac' and why the missing weapon.
c) Parry's statements: his lies and evasions about his movements on both the Monday and Tuesday nights, yet an unimpeachable alibi for the time of the crime.
d) Parkes's testimony: Parry's lack of blood, the 'glove' that was really a mitten, the subsequent 'visitation' by Parry and A.N. Other.

Therefore, I have solved the Wallace case.

Only to your own satisfaction Rod and I’m afraid that that’s simply not good enough.

Every statement above can be argued against. For eg. Why replace the cashbox? Because Wallace made an error by force of habit whilst setting the scene to look like the murder was a robbery by the mysterious Qualtrough.

Why is it that you can’t except that someone who wasn’t guilty, but might become a suspect, might lie about his alibi? Yet you can accept without a problem the fact that the plan was full of holes?

Who do we rely upon for the proof of the ‘visitation’ and are they beyond reproach as witnesses.

The crime didn’t have to happen on Tuesday. It’s just a suggestion of yours to make the scenario fit.

Parry’s lack Of blood - he wasn’t involved.

Why the Mac - used by Wallace to shield himself from blood spatter.

Nowhere near solved.

[caz]

It's not a canard Rod. By coming up with a plan we can say that the culprit had given it some thought. Getting Wallace out of the house, getting Mr X admitted to the house knowing of Julia's reluctance to let people in that she didn't know. And let's remember that you'd said that it was a meticulous plan (I can't recall your exact words but that was the gist.) So on one hand we have a meticulous planner but on the other we have someone completely oblivious to or unconcerned about childishly obvious things that could scupper the plan at the outset. You can't have your cake and eat it.

In addition, and you'll have to forgive my memory, when it's been mentioned in the past that Parry could have committed the crime at any other time without a Qualtrough plan and when there was more cash in the house, didn't you give some kind of reason why it had to be that night? If that was indeed the case then your 'sometimes plans just fail...' doesn't really hold up.

Morning All,

This was my point recently. For some reason, whoever committed this horrible crime planned for it to happen on the Tuesday night. Everything hinged on whether Wallace would take the bait. And boy, did he take it.

The plan didn't work out very well if it was all about gaining a few lousy quid - hardly diamonds, as in Rod's example - and if murder hadn't been on the agenda.

But it could hardly fail with Wallace in the driving seat, and murder on his mind. He'd instantly know on arrival at the chess club whether his "Qualtrough" message would be given to him, along with the green light for Tuesday night. Nobody else would be around to scupper his plan - although the milk boy came close [Close - sorry!] by being much later than usual. If Wallace knew his kidney troubles would carry him off, painfully, before too long, the risk of the hangman's noose may not have put him off. He knew he could do the deed, but could he get away with it? Yes, if the jury thought there was reasonable doubt that he could have done it in the time available, and that's precisely what would have spurred him on to act as quickly as possible once he was alone again with Julia, and then get the hell out of the house and put himself about so there would be plenty of witnesses to his earnest attempt to make his own bogus appointment.

As we know from the cases featured in the BBC's recent series, Murder, Mystery and My Family, there would not necessarily have been much blood on him to worry about, despite what was around the room itself, and time of death is recognised today as being almost impossible to pinpoint accurately by science alone, which relies heavily on other known factors, like last sightings, but not so much on stomach contents, which can be highly misleading.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I remember that too AS. He certainly couldn’t have chosen a worse place to get his car cleaned or a worse person to spill his guts too.

He could certainly have cleaned the car himself. Rod says ‘in the dark’ but Parry would have no reason to believe that he would be suspected that night. He wouldn’t have been expecting a visit therefore. He could have done a clean as best he could then double checked in the morning.

Rod has again called it an ‘ingenious’ plan! But it’s a plan that relies on too many things not to go wrong. Then Parry chooses the worst possible place to get his car cleaned and blabs to someone that doesn’t like him! These are the actions of an idiot.

Hi HS,

If the whole point would have been to get any blood cleaned off the car, in the immediate wake of a murder that will shortly make all the headlines for its brutality, would it make any sense at all to get someone else to do it for you? Whether the chap hates your guts or thinks you're a decent enough cove, you'd have to be off your chump to risk it. If that is Rod's argument, that Parry was really that stupid, how did he think up the Qualtrough plan and manage to avoid the hangman?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

If the whole point would have been to get any blood cleaned off the car, in the immediate wake of a murder that will shortly make all the headlines for its brutality, would it make any sense at all to get someone else to do it for you? Whether the chap hates your guts or thinks you're a decent enough cove, you'd have to be off your chump to risk it. If that is Rod's argument, that Parry was really that stupid, how did he think up the Qualtrough plan and manage to avoid the hangman?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Rod says that criminals often slip up under the pressure of the situation. This is undoubtedly true. They might leave something at the crime scene or let a word or two slip out that might cause suspicion or simply behave suspiciously in the aftermath due to nerves. That said, I find it bordering impossible that Parkes would have been stupid enough to have taken his car to be cleaned at a garage where he was known, mistrusted and disliked. And then to cap it all, with no prompting, he spills the beans to someone who doesn’t like him. Even to the point of telling him where he’s dumped the murder weapon. I also can’t fail to notice that Party didnt mention a mysterious co-conspirator.
The car wouldn’t have been ‘drenched’ in blood. There was no DNA at that time. He could easily have cleaned it himself. Indeed if Parry had planned this crime surely he’d have factored in cleaning the car. If so he would have surely realised the suicidal stupidity of taking it to Parkes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Creating a co-conspirator to facilitate a scenario is all well and good but it also means that others can do the same. And so...

We have Wallace wanting rid of his wife (remembering the nurse, the doctor, the servant and the colleague who all said that the Wallace’s marriage wasn’t the happy one that everyone thought.)

He has a client that’s behind in his payments. He gets talking to him. He’s also in arrears with his rent. He’s unemployed (maybe a criminal conviction causes difficulties?) He even tells Wallace that his wife might leave him. Wallace gradually tests the water and finds that ( for a payment) the man is a willing co-conspirator. Wallace is confident that the man won’t go to the police afterwards due to his (even peripheral) involvement. Wallace might even tell him that if he tries going to the police he’ll point the finger at him (telling them of his debts, his conviction, perhaps he might even say “I remember him asking me what nights I played chess!)

He gets ‘Mr Q’ to make the phonecall.

Then on the evening of the murder (while Wallace kills Julia, cleans up and attempts to set up a bungled robbery scene) ‘Mr Q’ waits in the alley for Wallace to leave. As he does Wallace hands him a parcel or a bag containing an iron bar which he takes away and disposes of.

Off Wallace goes in search of the mythical MGE.

I’d call this my ‘ Possibly Correct Solution.’ All I’ve done is invent a co-conspirator

[Herlock Sholmes]

And of course the ‘Alternative Possibly Correct Solution’ would be that Wallace simply paid ‘Mr Q’ to kill his wife for cash.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Caz,

Rod says that criminals often slip up under the pressure of the situation. This is undoubtedly true. They might leave something at the crime scene or let a word or two slip out that might cause suspicion or simply behave suspiciously in the aftermath due to nerves. That said, I find it bordering impossible that Parkes would have been stupid enough to have taken his car to be cleaned at a garage where he was known, mistrusted and disliked. And then to cap it all, with no prompting, he spills the beans to someone who doesn’t like him. Even to the point of telling him where he’s dumped the murder weapon. I also can’t fail to notice that Party didnt mention a mysterious co-conspirator.
The car wouldn’t have been ‘drenched’ in blood. There was no DNA at that time. He could easily have cleaned it himself. Indeed if Parry had planned this crime surely he’d have factored in cleaning the car. If so he would have surely realised the suicidal stupidity of taking it to Parkes.

Bloody predictive text! Obviously that should read Parry and not Party.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Caz,

Rod says that criminals often slip up under the pressure of the situation. This is undoubtedly true. They might leave something at the crime scene or let a word or two slip out that might cause suspicion or simply behave suspiciously in the aftermath due to nerves. That said, I find it bordering impossible that Parkes would have been stupid enough to have taken his car to be cleaned at a garage where he was known, mistrusted and disliked. And then to cap it all, with no prompting, he spills the beans to someone who doesn’t like him. Even to the point of telling him where he’s dumped the murder weapon. I also can’t fail to notice that Party didnt mention a mysterious co-conspirator.
The car wouldn’t have been ‘drenched’ in blood. There was no DNA at that time. He could easily have cleaned it himself. Indeed if Parry had planned this crime surely he’d have factored in cleaning the car. If so he would have surely realised the suicidal stupidity of taking it to Parkes.

Should be Parry of course

[AmericanSherlock]

Herlock, I think the Parry Accomplice theory has been so thoroughly debunked and discredited, we can cast it aside with "far out there ideas".

Like for example maybe a young Churchill was the killer.

Nevertheless, I will debunk it some more

To me the biggest thing discrediting the likelihood of someone other than Wallace planning it is the sheer unreliability of the plan combined with the fact that such a person would by definition have to rely on Wallace being out the whole Monday night at the chess club for the plan to work in the 1st place, so why not do it then.

Explanations that such a person (usually Parry) feared identification from Julia and enlisted someone else to do it the next night with the "Qualtrough open sesame" don't really past muster. Julia may or may not open. More uncertainty. Yes criminals take risks...but why such an elaborate and confusing plan from presumably two low level criminals. Parry was a "dunderhead" who was a complete criminal failure. Such a plan would be stupid (in character for Parry actually ) But also bizarrely detailed and intricate in comparison with the impulsive, wide boy crimes that defined him.

Furthermore, an accomplice in this role would also risk identification. Just because Julia didn't know him doesn't mean a crime wouldn't be reported. It would be obvious when Wallace got back that they were the victim of an elaborate and threateningly dangerous home robbery. Major risk for such a person, who may already be a hardened criminal if he would agree to such a thing, with fingerprints on record. All in an unfamiliar home, taking ALL the risk for his friend Parry, with a woman he didn't know.

The genius plan would be to "rob the cashbox" and hope the woman there doesn't notice.

This is just not a theory that warrants serious consideration.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree AS.

I also think that it's reasonable to ask why, if Qualtrough was prepared to possibly be identified by Julia as the sneak thief and take the consequences , he would resort to brutally murdering her just because she had caught him in the act. Even if she'd panicked and screamed (and there's absolutely no evidence that she did) he could have just left. Nothing would have changed or worsened in his situation. So not only was the murder unnecessarily brutal it was also completely unnecessary.

[AmericanSherlock]

I agree AS.

I also think that it's reasonable to ask why, if Qualtrough was prepared to possibly be identified by Julia as the sneak thief and take the consequences , he would resort to brutally murdering her just because she had caught him in the act. Even if she'd panicked and screamed (and there's absolutely no evidence that she did) he could have just left. Nothing would have changed or worsened in his situation. So not only was the murder unnecessarily brutal it was also completely unnecessary.

Yes that's a great point. Either the person wasn't willing to take the risk of being identified and wouldn't agree to such a plan or if he went along with the plan (and by definition was accepting that risk) then there would be nothing different in Julia suspecting him. (He clesarly wasnt caught directly in the act since the cashbox was replaced and Julia looks like she was killed in another room at the fireplace.) He could just leave right then and there. It would be no different if he had gotten away without being suspected until later.

The only counter argument...that there was some commotion and the thief panicked without thinking in fear is completely belied by the crime scene, the vicious prolonged attack, the lack of defensive wounds (and likely Julia wasn't even facing her killer), and most tellingly the fact that JW wasn't even in the same room as the cashbox when murdered.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes that's a great point. Either the person wasn't willing to take the risk of being identified and wouldn't agree to such a plan or if he went along with the plan (and by definition was accepting that risk) then there would be nothing different in Julia suspecting him. (He clesarly wasnt caught directly in the act since the cashbox was replaced and Julia looks like she was killed in another room at the fireplace.) He could just leave right then and there. It would be no different if he had gotten away without being suspected until later.

The only counter argument...that there was some commotion and the thief panicked without thinking in fear is completely belied by the crime scene, the vicious prolonged attack, the lack of defensive wounds (and likely Julia wasn't even facing her killer), and most tellingly the fact that JW wasn't even in the same room as the cashbox when murdered.

I think that this point alone shoots a considerable hole in ‘The Correct Solution.’ Even if Qualtrough had gotten away Julia could have still have identified him if caught. If she’d caught him ‘in the act’ she could still have identified him. Being caught on the spot changes nothing. Julia wouldn’t have performed a citizens arrest and detained him! She couldn’t phone the police! I think we can safely say that it’s unlikely that Julia would have chased him down the street shouting “stop thief!” So by the time the police got involved he’d have been miles away.

Panic doesn’t cover it by any stretch. Any sneak-thief would accept the possibility of being surprised in the act. If he’d gotten away he’d have known that the odds were in his favour of getting away with it. No cctv to catch him in flight unlike the perils of being a sneak thief today. And if he had been arrested at a later date he’d probably have had an alibi set up.

A short prison sentence if caught hardly compares to the the gallows. For what...£2?

Add this to the level of overkill. Eleven blows when it was likely that Julia hit the floor dead. This speaks of premeditated murder to me. Anger, resentment. Julia had a very narrow circle of acquaintances or friends. This kind of anger and resentment usually takes time to build up and fester. There’s only one person who fits this bill.

[AmericanSherlock]

The circumstantial evidence against Wallace is overwhelming, that much is for sure.