Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Isn't the trial transcript that's online the full one then?

Also AS was I correct in saying that all the downstairs lights were off when Wallace got home on the night of the murder?

No it is not the full one.

Yes you are correct. It has been suggested that 1. it is suspicious WHW stepped over her body in the dark before turning the light on and 2. Parry would be unlikely to turn the lights off before leaving if he was the murderer (or Qualtrough)

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's pretty much impossible to come up with a remotely plausible reason why a sneak-thief or a murderer might turn off the lights before leaving. It couldn't really be argued that he'd want to make his escape in the dark as a combination of gaslight and thick curtains would have made it dark enough anyway. He might even have taken the back alley route (especially if someone had come to the door).

Would Wallace have had a reason to turn off the lights? Well his plan was for him to discover Julia's body. Its also the case that he wouldn't have wanted anyone to have reason to believe that Julia was dead 5 minutes after he'd left the house. If he'd left the lights on and someone had called (a family member for example) and got no reply they might have raised the alarm. A house in complete darkness though would cause no alarm to a caller.

So for me, the fact that the downstairs lights were off points more to Wallace.

[AmericanSherlock]

We still need to get to the absolute bottom for this to put it to rest and find the source for the telephone exchange, but from reading Gannon I'm almost certain the caller asking for Wallace's address was genuine. He provides details Murphy did not; the caller asks if Wallace will be there and Beattie says he can't say for sure! (because Wallace had missed the last few times). It is then that the caller asks about the address. Considering Gannon thinks differently from Murphy...that Parry made the call (but working for Wallace) and there is more detail given, it seems almost impossible he just copied made up details from Murphy and added extra made up in depth details!

To my thinking if the caller was Parry or Qualtrough and assuming Wallace's innocence (so the caller wouldn't be working for Wallace), if this caller had stalked Wallace, seen him leave and then called the club and was told he wasn't coming, the caller was in a tough spot. He would either just be forced to abandon his convoluted plan, or if he was determined and convinced that Wallace was indeed likely going after having seen him leave (although how could he know for sure where WHW was going), he could demand Beattie leave a message "in case" Wallace showed up. Asking for Wallace's address would be the last thing he would do and wouldn't make much sense. If Beattie gave it to him, it would further curb the faltering plan.

Crucial point here... If however the caller was Wallace, then knowing Beattie doesn't have his address, it would be a tactic to implicitly explain why he needed to ask Wallace to call around to his address instead. Because he does not have Wallace's address, so Wallace will have to come to him! This is quite obvious and stands out in Gannon's full version of the exchange as the caller after being told to ring later, refuses and asks Wallace to come to his address instead. This right after asking for Wallace's address. Whether the caller was Wallace or it wasn't, whoever this man was, it appears was working on some sort of devious script with an agenda. If the caller was Parry (and not working for Wallace), he would have no way to know Beattie did not have WHW's address, so this would almost certainly not be one he would have come up with.

What do you think?

PS. Beattie ends up taking down the address and repeating it back to the caller and actually says he will give it to Wallace "if he sees him, but he may not be here tonight" If the caller was truly not Wallace or working for him, then you couldn't blame him for being VERY unconvinced that Wallace would get the message at all or that he did , it would be accurate. Let alone that he would follow up on it! And LET ALONE that Wallace would tell Julia about "Qualtrough" so she would let him in as the ridiculous Parry Accomplice theory goes. As we know, Wallace did tell Julia about Qualtrough, but there is an alternative explanation for that

Since this exchange is so detailed, it is very difficult for me to believe Gannon made it up. It has to be in the full police file and/or trial transcript IMO.

Final point: Although I agree with Murphy on practically everything, he does say that perhaps the caller said West and it was taken down as East. If Beattie repeating it back to make sure is accurate, this seems unlikely. Although perhaps if the caller was Wallace as I suspect, he didn't want to stay on too long and start correcting Beattie In any case, West or East really makes little difference.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I couldn’t agree more AS. It’s a great point. A request, out of the blue, to get Wallace to trudge off, out of work hours, might be considered a little ‘unconventional.’ However, if it was made to look like the original intent was just to acquire Wallace’s address so that Qualtrough could visit him then it looks more ‘normal.’ And as we’ve said, only Wallace could ask that question of Beattie and know that he couldn’t reply “ yes, it’s 29 Wolverton Street.”

Could Wallace have intended to frame Parry all along? If he was guilty then he came up with a plan to give himself an alibi and a reason to be absent from number 29. He wouldn’t have wanted the problems involved with setting up a convincing break-in and so he would have thought about how to make it likely that someone could have been let in by Julia. A ‘Qualtrough’ has been suggested of course. But considering how readily Wallace was to mention Parry to the police, and to go into depth about his shady past, is it not possible that Wallace intended from the start to set Parry up as the murderer of Julia?

[AmericanSherlock]

I couldn’t agree more AS. It’s a great point. A request, out of the blue, to get Wallace to trudge off, out of work hours, might be considered a little ‘unconventional.’ However, if it was made to look like the original intent was just to acquire Wallace’s address so that Qualtrough could visit him then it looks more ‘normal.’ And as we’ve said, only Wallace could ask that question of Beattie and know that he couldn’t reply “ yes, it’s 29 Wolverton Street.”

Could Wallace have intended to frame Parry all along? If he was guilty then he came up with a plan to give himself an alibi and a reason to be absent from number 29. He wouldn’t have wanted the problems involved with setting up a convincing break-in and so he would have thought about how to make it likely that someone could have been let in by Julia. A ‘Qualtrough’ has been suggested of course. But considering how readily Wallace was to mention Parry to the police, and to go into depth about his shady past, is it not possible that Wallace intended from the start to set Parry up as the murderer of Julia?

Absolutely. I think, let's assume for a minute that the 2 didn't collaborate on the crime and that it wasn't a robbery gone wrong (so either a planned murder by Parry or a planned one by Wallace).

These have been the 2 main theories on the case in the early years before the "sneak thief" or "conspiracy theories". Most who believed Qualtrough (or Parry) was guilty have posited that such a person was almost certainly looking to not only kill Julia but frame WHW for the murder. I think we can agree this seems very implausible but I agree with the logic in the unlikely event that Parry was guilty of a planned murder as Goodman and Man From The Pru suggest (which is part of the reason I think no one but Wallace was responsible.

But few people have noted the obvious symmetry of the implied flip side. If Wallace was guilty, then just as equally he must have been trying to frame Parry. Who better as a fall guy than the dodgy ex insurance agent that his wife would let in , that he mentioned to the police, to visitors in jail, and in his meant to be read diary? It would be weird, especially with the whole Qualtrough ruse, if Wallace didn't have a fall guy in mind.

So what's more likely, Parry killed Julia and sought to frame Wallace of the murder.

Or Wallace killed his wife, and sought to divert suspicion onto Parry?

The conclusion is OBVIOUS.

Of course, I am not saying these are the only 2 options.

But it is something to consider about the 2 most popular theories of the case which have both been the subject of voluminous literature, especially since we have also deconstructed the flaws in other subsequent theories.

[OneRound]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;443255]I couldn’t agree more AS. It’s a great point. A request, out of the blue, to get Wallace to trudge off, out of work hours, might be considered a little ‘unconventional.’ However, if it was made to look like the original intent was just to acquire Wallace’s address so that Qualtrough could visit him then it looks more ‘normal.’ And as we’ve said, only Wallace could ask that question of Beattie and know that he couldn’t reply “ yes, it’s 29 Wolverton Street.”

Could Wallace have intended to frame Parry all along? If he was guilty then he came up with a plan to give himself an alibi and a reason to be absent from number 29. He wouldn’t have wanted the problems involved with setting up a convincing break-in and so he would have thought about how to make it likely that someone could have been let in by Julia. A ‘Qualtrough’ has been suggested of course. But considering how readily Wallace was to mention Parry to the police, and to go into depth about his shady past, is it not possible that Wallace intended from the start to set Parry up as the murderer of Julia?[/QUOTE]

Hi Herlock and all - I appreciate why you ask the questions but I very much doubt it.

If Wallace was responsible for his wife's murder (I'm not convinced he was although various posts over recent months have left me less convinced of innocence on the part of our insurance official), he might well under police questioning have pointed them towards Parry in an effort to reduce the heat on him. However, that's not the same as setting out to frame Parry from the start.

The major problem of attempting to frame someone else from outset for any major crime and why I think it so unlikely is that the real culprit just doesn't know where his patsy will be at the time of the crime and whether the patsy will be able to produce witnesses or other evidence to prove his innocence. I and far more distinguished posters have used this reasoning before in attempts to counter ''Hanratty was framed'' arguments which periodically get raised on the A6 thread.

On the other hand, if Wallace was actually innocent, he could of course have brought up Parry's name in the honest belief that he was a bad egg who might have been involved.

While I'm here, I'll raise a separate matter with apologies for it probably being something I should know and only highlighting my ignorance. Anyway, here goes. How many coats did Wallace have? Why didn't he wear his mackintosh when he set off to the Menlove Gardens area that fateful January night? What coat did he wear to work earlier that day and if he changed it, why?

With thanks and best regards,

OneRound

[AmericanSherlock]

[QUOTE=OneRound;443261]

I couldn’t agree more AS. It’s a great point. A request, out of the blue, to get Wallace to trudge off, out of work hours, might be considered a little ‘unconventional.’ However, if it was made to look like the original intent was just to acquire Wallace’s address so that Qualtrough could visit him then it looks more ‘normal.’ And as we’ve said, only Wallace could ask that question of Beattie and know that he couldn’t reply “ yes, it’s 29 Wolverton Street.”

Could Wallace have intended to frame Parry all along? If he was guilty then he came up with a plan to give himself an alibi and a reason to be absent from number 29. He wouldn’t have wanted the problems involved with setting up a convincing break-in and so he would have thought about how to make it likely that someone could have been let in by Julia. A ‘Qualtrough’ has been suggested of course. But considering how readily Wallace was to mention Parry to the police, and to go into depth about his shady past, is it not possible that Wallace intended from the start to set Parry up as the murderer of Julia?[/QUOTE]

Hi Herlock and all - I appreciate why you ask the questions but I very much doubt it.

If Wallace was responsible for his wife's murder (I'm not convinced he was although various posts over recent months have left me less convinced of innocence on the part of our insurance official), he might well under police questioning have pointed them towards Parry in an effort to reduce the heat on him. However, that's not the same as setting out to frame Parry from the start.

The major problem of attempting to frame someone else from outset for any major crime and why I think it so unlikely is that the real culprit just doesn't know where his patsy will be at the time of the crime and whether the patsy will be able to produce witnesses or other evidence to prove his innocence. I and far more distinguished posters have used this reasoning before in attempts to counter ''Hanratty was framed'' arguments which periodically get raised on the A6 thread.

On the other hand, if Wallace was actually innocent, he could of course have brought up Parry's name in the honest belief that he was a bad egg who might have been involved.

While I'm here, I'll raise a separate matter with apologies for it probably being something I should know and only highlighting my ignorance. Anyway, here goes. How many coats did Wallace have? Why didn't he wear his mackintosh when he set off to the Menlove Gardens area that fateful January night? What coat did he wear to work earlier that day and if he changed it, why?

With thanks and best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

I agree with you that to outright attempt to frame someone would be a challenge for Wallace as he couldn't be sure Parry wouldn't have an alibi. And in fact Parry DID have an alibi for the night of the murder, although as we can see it has been called into question. One thing to consider though is that there were 2 nights in which suspicion could be cast onto Parry, and many seem to think he is a better candidate for having made the call.

I think in the event that Wallace was guilty, perhaps a compromise between the 2 scenarios is most likely. He had Parry in mind as a possible person among a few to divert suspicion onto and once he realized suspicion was sticking onto Parry more than the others and that there was some ambiguity about his alibis, he lasered in on Parry. Wallace initially said he could think of no one suspicious, but then later mentioned Parry and Marsden. By the time he was in prison and until the end of his life, he focused only on Parry. He might have tried using the dodgy salesman as someone to widen the possibilities out and create reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law without seeking to outright frame him.

Of course, none of this demonstrates that Wallace was guilty in any way, rather it is a supposition of what his guilt might imply, similarly I would look at the same for his innocence. Looking at the different implications, perhaps it can help to slightly move the balance of "what most likely" happened in 1 direction or another.

Not sure about the coat! Will have to re-read Gannon in depth as I believe he is the only author to go into such details.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And of course the success of his plan wasn't reliant on Parry being charged. He could safely throw Parry into the mix and if he was charged, all well and good. After all he couldn't know whether Parry had an alibi or not.

One point made by Bartle. Why did Wallace claim to take the longer route to the tram on the way to the chess club when he took a considerably shorter one coming home with Caird?

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=OneRound;443261]

I couldn’t agree more AS. It’s a great point. A request, out of the blue, to get Wallace to trudge off, out of work hours, might be considered a little ‘unconventional.’ However, if it was made to look like the original intent was just to acquire Wallace’s address so that Qualtrough could visit him then it looks more ‘normal.’ And as we’ve said, only Wallace could ask that question of Beattie and know that he couldn’t reply “ yes, it’s 29 Wolverton Street.”

Could Wallace have intended to frame Parry all along? If he was guilty then he came up with a plan to give himself an alibi and a reason to be absent from number 29. He wouldn’t have wanted the problems involved with setting up a convincing break-in and so he would have thought about how to make it likely that someone could have been let in by Julia. A ‘Qualtrough’ has been suggested of course. But considering how readily Wallace was to mention Parry to the police, and to go into depth about his shady past, is it not possible that Wallace intended from the start to set Parry up as the murderer of Julia?[/QUOTE]

Hi Herlock and all - I appreciate why you ask the questions but I very much doubt it.

If Wallace was responsible for his wife's murder (I'm not convinced he was although various posts over recent months have left me less convinced of innocence on the part of our insurance official), he might well under police questioning have pointed them towards Parry in an effort to reduce the heat on him. However, that's not the same as setting out to frame Parry from the start.

The major problem of attempting to frame someone else from outset for any major crime and why I think it so unlikely is that the real culprit just doesn't know where his patsy will be at the time of the crime and whether the patsy will be able to produce witnesses or other evidence to prove his innocence. I and far more distinguished posters have used this reasoning before in attempts to counter ''Hanratty was framed'' arguments which periodically get raised on the A6 thread.

On the other hand, if Wallace was actually innocent, he could of course have brought up Parry's name in the honest belief that he was a bad egg who might have been involved.

While I'm here, I'll raise a separate matter with apologies for it probably being something I should know and only highlighting my ignorance. Anyway, here goes. How many coats did Wallace have? Why didn't he wear his mackintosh when he set off to the Menlove Gardens area that fateful January night? What coat did he wear to work earlier that day and if he changed it, why?

With thanks and best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Wallace wore his mackintosh on his afternoon round but decided not to wear it in the evening due to fact that evening was dry. This means that Wallace had at least 2 coats. I can't recall any mention of a third coat.
An interesting point is that, in his first (I think) statement to the police Wallace said "My wife has never worn a mackintosh to my knowledge."
Notice that he doesn't say her mackintosh. This implies that she didn't even own a mackintosh so it's impossible to believe them when someone suggests that she put on Wallace's mackintosh in error. Her own coat would have been there too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;443265]

Hi OneRound,

Wallace wore his mackintosh on his afternoon round but decided not to wear it in the evening due to fact that evening was dry. This means that Wallace had at least 2 coats. I can't recall any mention of a third coat.
An interesting point is that, in his first (I think) statement to the police Wallace said "My wife has never worn a mackintosh to my knowledge."
Notice that he doesn't say her mackintosh. This implies that she didn't even own a mackintosh so it's impossible to believe them when someone suggests that she put on Wallace's mackintosh in error. Her own coat would have been there too.

To be more accurate Wallace stated that he'd worn his mackintosh in the morning but the weather turned out fine and so he wore his fawn coat in the afternoon.

[OneRound]

Hi AmericanSherlock and Herlock - thanks for your responses.

I did initially find Wallace wearing different coats on the same day odd and perhaps suspicious. However, there seems a reasonable explanation for that.

If Wallace is innocent though, I have difficulty in understanding what Julia was doing with his mackintosh when she was attacked. If her purpose was to put it in front of the fire to dry, I would have thought it more likely that she would have done that around the time Wallace got home and took it off.

I also doubt that she would have put the mackintosh out to dry with a guest in the room. Certainly not a sneak thief she didn't know posing as the potentially influential Qualtrough. Possibly she might have done it with Parry there but, if not him, we again have to seriously think about Wallace.

It seems very unlikely that she would have mistaken Wallace's mackintosh as one of her own coats and taken that to wear herself, even if she was in a panic to get out of the house. If she was in such a panic, would she have even bothered with a coat?

Perhaps a sneak thief murderer took possession of the mackintosh and used it himself to stop blood splattering. Possibly but, if so, he seems to have quickly thought of that on his feet and been fortunate that the mackintosh was readily available.

As with so much of this enigmatic case, nothing conclusive and only thoughts. However, they don't lean towards Wallace's innocence.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AmericanSherlock and Herlock - thanks for your responses.

I did initially find Wallace wearing different coats on the same day odd and perhaps suspicious. However, there seems a reasonable explanation for that.

If Wallace is innocent though, I have difficulty in understanding what Julia was doing with his mackintosh when she was attacked. If her purpose was to put it in front of the fire to dry, I would have thought it more likely that she would have done that around the time Wallace got home and took it off.

I also doubt that she would have put the mackintosh out to dry with a guest in the room. Certainly not a sneak thief she didn't know posing as the potentially influential Qualtrough. Possibly she might have done it with Parry there but, if not him, we again have to seriously think about Wallace.

It seems very unlikely that she would have mistaken Wallace's mackintosh as one of her own coats and taken that to wear herself, even if she was in a panic to get out of the house. If she was in such a panic, would she have even bothered with a coat?

Perhaps a sneak thief murderer took possession of the mackintosh and used it himself to stop blood splattering. Possibly but, if so, he seems to have quickly thought of that on his feet and been fortunate that the mackintosh was readily available.

As with so much of this enigmatic case, nothing conclusive and only thoughts. However, they don't lean towards Wallace's innocence.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound

The proponent of the sneak thief theory as you might have read believes that during the course of the evening Julia became suspicious and slipped on her husbands coat, even though her own coat would have been there, and said to ‘Qualtrough’ “i just have to pop next door” in an attempt to escape but this just doesn’t stack up whichever way you look at it.

There appears to be no ‘normal’ reason why it should be in the room. The likeliest explaination would appear to be that the killer used it to protect himself from blood spatter. Either by wearing it, or as AS and I have suggested as a shield, hanging over the left arm whilst striking the blows with the right. There was no blood outside the parlour except for the clot on the toilet bowl and the smear on the money upstairs.

A stranger killer, especially a sneak thief killing on the spur of the moment, are unlikely to have used it. A killer might have still escaped to safety, in the dark, with blood on him, especially if he took a coat off to kill then put it back on. Also, he might have had a car nearby. Wallace had to be blood-free though to continue with his trip to Menlove Gardens. So if the mackintosh was used as protection against blood Wallace appears the likeliest candidate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was thinking about how many times I’d thought ‘only Wallace could reasonably have done that. Or, only Wallace could have benefitted from that’ so I thought that I’d compile a list:

Only Wallace could have known for certain that he would be attending chess club on that Monday night.

Only Wallace would have known for eg that he wouldn’t have asked Crewe about the whereabouts of Menlove Gardens East (as he lived in the area) and been told that there was no such place. Or that he wouldn’t have consulted a directory.

Only Wallace would have known for certain that no one at the chess club would have known his address. It could also be said that Wallace would have known his friend Caird’s routine and that he wouldn’t have arrived at the chess club by the time of the phonecall. This point, of course, has to be qualified by the fact that only Murphy and Gannon mention Qualtrough asking for Wallace’s address. Personally I find it difficult in the extreme to see Murphy (the earlier author) simply making this up.

Only Wallace could have been certain that he would go in search of Menlove Gardens East that night.

Only Wallace would have been unconcerned about the paltry amount of cash in the cash box that evening.

Only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the mackintosh In the Parlour that night.

Only Wallace could reasonably have had the level of anger/resentment to have delivered 11 brutal blows to a frail old woman.

Only Wallace definitely needed to remain blood free or to clean himself up that night and thereby leave no blood outside the parlour. He had to go to Menlove Gardens East.

Only Wallace benefitted from removing the murder weapon from the crime scene.

Only Wallace could have benefitted from turning off the downstairs lights after the murder of Julia.

Only Wallace could have delayed the discovery of Julia’s body.

[AmericanSherlock]

I was thinking about how many times I’d thought ‘only Wallace could reasonably have done that. Or, only Wallace could have benefitted from that’ so I thought that I’d compile a list:

Only Wallace could have known for certain that he would be attending chess club on that Monday night.

Only Wallace would have known for eg that he wouldn’t have asked Crewe about the whereabouts of Menlove Gardens East (as he lived in the area) and been told that there was no such place. Or that he wouldn’t have consulted a directory.

Only Wallace would have known for certain that no one at the chess club would have known his address. It could also be said that Wallace would have known his friend Caird’s routine and that he wouldn’t have arrived at the chess club by the time of the phonecall. This point, of course, has to be qualified by the fact that only Murphy and Gannon mention Qualtrough asking for Wallace’s address. Personally I find it difficult in the extreme to see Murphy (the earlier author) simply making this up.

Only Wallace could have been certain that he would go in search of Menlove Gardens East that night.

Only Wallace would have been unconcerned about the paltry amount of cash in the cash box that evening.

Only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the mackintosh In the Parlour that night.

Only Wallace could reasonably have had the level of anger/resentment to have delivered 11 brutal blows to a frail old woman.

Only Wallace definitely needed to remain blood free or to clean himself up that night and thereby leave no blood outside the parlour. He had to go to Menlove Gardens East.

Only Wallace benefitted from removing the murder weapon from the crime scene.

Only Wallace could have benefitted from turning off the downstairs lights after the murder of Julia.

Only Wallace could have delayed the discovery of Julia’s body.

Hi Herlock, there are all very salient pointers to the sheer improbability of an innocent Wallace.

Later when I have more time, I will try to compile a list of a few "unfortunate coincidences" for Wallace in the event he was innocent of his wife's murder.

That is to say, I see several instances where 1. The entire murder could have been averted or at least 2. Wallace could have evaded suspicion due to an unimpeachable alibi. In each case, if he truly was innocent, due to a combination of bad luck and questionable decisions even without foresight on his behalf, he remains in the frame.

These probabilities combined start to bely belief IMO. If Wallace really was innocent and went thru the torture of his wife's murder and then almost being hung for it, I will attempt to demonstrate he was unlucky to an incredibly improbable magnitude.

PS. Has anyone read Dorothy Sayers full work on the crime? I have read a couple pages online, but it seems that is not all she wrote on it, or am I mistaken?

In CCJ's book, he has a magnificent summing up of all the major sources and their opinions on the case thru the years (really valuable tool), but he concludes Sayers thought Wallace was guilty. From my reading, she appears to lean towards his innocence. Perhaps I am mistaken?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, there are all very salient pointers to the sheer improbability of an innocent Wallace.

Later when I have more time, I will try to compile a list of a few "unfortunate coincidences" for Wallace in the event he was innocent of his wife's murder.

That is to say, I see several instances where 1. The entire murder could have been averted or at least 2. Wallace could have evaded suspicion due to an unimpeachable alibi. In each case, if he truly was innocent, due to a combination of bad luck and questionable decisions even without foresight on his behalf, he remains in the frame.

These probabilities combined start to bely belief IMO. If Wallace really was innocent and went thru the torture of his wife's murder and then almost being hung for it, I will attempt to demonstrate he was unlucky to an incredibly improbable magnitude.

PS. Has anyone read Dorothy Sayers full work on the crime? I have read a couple pages online, but it seems that is not all she wrote on it, or am I mistaken?

In CCJ's book, he has a magnificent summing up of all the major sources and their opinions on the case thru the years (really valuable tool), but he concludes Sayers thought Wallace was guilty. From my reading, she appears to lean towards his innocence. Perhaps I am mistaken?

Hi AS,

I look forward to your list of coincidences.

I haven’t read Sayers work but I’ve just ordered The Anatomy Of Murder which has a chapter which his her take on the case. After I’ve finished the Bartle book I have this online version of Murder Most Mysterious by Hargrave Lee Adam to read. It has his chapter The Clue Of The Telephone Message.

http://www.archive.org/stream/murdermostmyster00adam#page/n19/mode/2up