Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I would agree that the objection of Wallace naming Parry (and Marsden to a smaller degree) does not preclude a collaboration. Especially once he was under the gun and in jail , he might try anything to divert suspicion, knowing they would be unlikely to confess to their role. Also he could act in this manner, if he wasn't satisfied in a conspirator (s) commission of the crime, and felt he had been implicated due to some bungling not of his own doing.

My biggest issue with any conspiracy involving Wallace is why not be at the chess club to receive the message himself? Why come at home at all the night of the murder? Just make the appointment for 6:30 at MGE and head straight from work with a fool proof alibi! If Wallace had the benefit of working with other (s), he unnecessarily implicated himself IMO.

Of course, there are some counterarguments to this. Maybe Wallace didn't think of it...maybe he wanted to be at home before the crime was committed to set things up for the perpetrator and make sure Julia would open the door etc...perhaps the night before he wanted to coach the caller right before making the call...sometimes criminals wish to exert that level of control, especially when trying to plan such a complex "perfect murder." I guess he could have erroneously relying on a much later time of death. Some of the perplexing aspects of this case could be resolved with the conspiracy theory as Gannon puts forth. Also the Lily Hall incident of course.

I just think that the problems with it, even if there are plausible rebuttals to it, outweigh the problems such a scenario "solves" in a logical sense.

Hi AS,

There’s also the point that Wallace needed someone else to hear the message (whether Beattie or another club member).

I agree with you though that the balance of probabilities is against a conspiracy. A conspiracy could be used to create a ‘scenario’ which would answer 3 things which are put forward in favour of Wallace’s innocence. Also one piece of ‘difficult’ testimony.

1. Parry’s voice was less likely to be recognised on the phone.
2. The removal/disposal of the weapon.
3. The apparent tightness of the timing. Parry’s car could have whisked Wallace to his tram stop allowing a later time for leaving number 29.
4. It would explain Lillian Hall’s statement.

It’s still Wallace on his own for me though at this point in time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wallace’s Route to the Chess Club.

Wallace said that, on the Monday evening, he turned left out of Richmond Park into Breck Road. Then from Breck Road he turned into Belmont Road and walked along it to the tram stop (although Gannon says that he caught the tram on the corner of Breck and Belmont.)

This raises questions.

1. Where did the trams go that picked up at the stops at the ends of Richmond Park and Newcombe Street? If they went near to the cafe why did Wallace walk past them to get to Belmont Road ? (I can only assume that the trams that picked up there had a different destination?)

2. Why did Wallace take the roundabout route into Belmont Road when he could have taken the significantly quicker route via Pendennis Street (this was the route he took when he walked home later that night with Mr Caird?) He was basically going in the opposite direction before turning back on himself. It makes no sense.

3. The obvious question. The shortest route would have been to the tram stop near to the phone box. At an estimate, 3 times shorter! This makes even less sense!

Or did he simply turn right out of Richmond Park? In which case he would coincidentally have arrived at the phone box just as the Qualtrough phone call was being made.

Seems pretty obvious to me

[RodCrosby]

Reader beware...More DISINFORMATION from the usual ignoramuses.

"...went out by the back door and up the passage to Richmond Park and then up to Breck Road and got the tram at Belmont Road" - statement of WH Wallace.

By "at Belmont Rd" he obviously means "at the junction of Belmont Rd"

Wallace could NOT have got on a tram in Belmont Road on the Monday as these would have taken him South, and he of course did use this tram route on the Tuesday to head for Mossley Hill.

The 14 tram carried on West, from the junction at Belmont Rd, along Breck Road and then it went around Everton a little, eventually arriving in the city centre.

1. Maybe he wanted to stretch his legs or save a farthing by walking another 200 yards to the Belmont Rd junction. Maybe he saw that no tram was coming and could happily do so. Maybe the 14 didn't stop at these earlier tram-stops (there was a 13 that took a similar route, maybe it stopped at those stops). Why does any of this matter? Of more relevance is the singular lack of effort by the Police to reconstruct Wallace's Monday night movements. They didn't, or if they did, they preferred not to reveal in Court that Wallace was telling the truth! In any case, the defence had an independent survey done which showed that Wallace could not have made the call and still arrived at the Chess Club at 7.45pm

2. His route was the most obvious and simplest one to take, as anyone can see by inspecting a map. It was in no way going in a "roundabout" way or in the "opposite" direction.

3. It was slightly shorter (by about 25%), but in no way "3 times shorter." More relevantly it was in exactly the opposite direction to where Wallace wanted to go! Why would anyone walk 415 yards East then pay possibly a farthing more to be carried by tram 550 yards West to a tram stop they could have walked to in 550 yards?

[AmericanSherlock]

Wallace said that, on the Monday evening, he turned left out of Richmond Park into Breck Road. Then from Breck Road he turned into Belmont Road and walked along it to the tram stop (although Gannon says that he caught the tram on the corner of Breck and Belmont.)

This raises questions.

1. Where did the trams go that picked up at the stops at the ends of Richmond Park and Newcombe Street? If they went near to the cafe why did Wallace walk past them to get to Belmont Road ? (I can only assume that the trams that picked up there had a different destination?)

2. Why did Wallace take the roundabout route into Belmont Road when he could have taken the significantly quicker route via Pendennis Street (this was the route he took when he walked home later that night with Mr Caird?) He was basically going in the opposite direction before turning back on himself. It makes no sense.

3. The obvious question. The shortest route would have been to the tram stop near to the phone box. At an estimate, 3 times shorter! This makes even less sense!

Or did he simply turn right out of Richmond Park? In which case he would coincidentally have arrived at the phone box just as the Qualtrough phone call was being made.

Seems pretty obvious to me

Hi,

I've been in contact with the thread starter CCJ/Antony. He said that he discovered not only could Wallace have made it on time if he took a quicker bus as Murphy suggested he might have, but if WHW was honest and had indeed taken a tram as stated, he still could have made it on time.

This might not please certain readers here

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I’ve said before it’s sadly the case that if you view the thread whilst not logged in you unwarily see posts that you would prefer to ignore.

I’m perfectly prepared to admit another posters greater knowledge of the local geography and the tram system. No shame in that.

He makes a point that Wallace obviously caught the tram at the junction of Breck and Belmont. Gannon appears to agree.

Why then does Wallace, under oath at his trial and in answer to a question by Oliver reply:

“I walked up Richmond Park, turned the corner by the church and up Belmont Road and caught a tram.”

According to the map in Gannon the tram stop was actually in Breck Road near the corner of Belmont so why would Wallace specifically state that he went ‘up’ Belmont.

All I did was interpret the English language. And this indicates that Wallace passed the stop at the junction.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi,

I've been in contact with the thread starter CCJ/Antony. He said that he discovered not only could Wallace have made it on time if he took a quicker bus as Murphy suggested he might have, but if WHW was honest and had indeed taken a tram as stated, he still could have made it on time.

This might not please certain readers here

Who do you mean AS

[AmericanSherlock]

Who do you mean AS

No one in particular, just a general statement

Anyway, apparently CCJ had conducted a detailed examination of the routes available at the time and the possible timings. That isn't to say he necessarily favors that Wallace acting alone and taking a given route is what happened, just that it is certainly possible. Therefore objections against it being possible for that reason (timing, location of routes etc.) are not valid.

Such simple distinctions that a primary school boy could grasp seem lost on certain minds.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one in particular, just a general statement

Anyway, apparently CCJ had conducted a detailed examination of the routes available at the time and the possible timings. That isn't to say he necessarily favors that Wallace acting alone and taking a given route is what happened, just that it is certainly possible. Therefore objections against it being possible for that reason (timing, location of routes etc.) are not valid.

Such simple distinctions that a primary school boy could grasp seem lost on certain minds.

I’m looking forward to reading this book. The more you look into the case the stronger the case for Wallace appears to get.

I’m still interested in this question about Wallace’s Monday evening route though. I just can’t see why it’s assumed that Wallace caught a tram near the junction of Breck and Belmont (a stop that according to the map was in Breck and not Belmont) and yet at his trial he unequivocally says that he went ‘up’ Belmont. Which means past the junction stop and into and along Belmont. I can’t see any other interpretation?

[RodCrosby]

It was only possible:-

if Wallace lied, and moreover lied specifically in a way that he didn't have to lie.
[If you're going to lie you don't lie both about the stop and the means of transport, if one lie is enough. And let's pass over the fact that Wallace had lived in the district for 15 years, and was a distinctive sight to almost every bus/tram driver and clippie, no doubt.]

The Police and Prosecution were unable to offer any evidence whatsoever that he lied.

"OLIVER KC: If he did not send that message, he was an innocent man, and how can it be said that the Prosecution have even started to prove that he sent it ?"

Murphy's book is a pile of tendentious rubbish, as I have already demonstrated in exploding his risible 'analysis' of the chess schedule...

[RodCrosby]

Now the Wallace-fanciers are reduced to searching for misprints, or irrelevant elisions in their hopeless, malignant attempt to slur an innocent man. Pitiful...

Mr. Justice Wright: "...when reference is made to discrepancies in his statement, I cannot help thinking it is wonderful how his statements are as lucid and consistent as they have been."

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just seen Rod’s post. An extract from the trial transcript is now a explained as a misprint because it’s inconvenient!!

Wallace’s own words. Strange how some are quite happy to quote statements and trial transcripts unless inconvenient! The word ‘up’ has obviously been deliberately ignored or misinterpreted by those determined to exonerate Wallace at all costs!

Wallace turned right into Breck Road, made the call, then caught the tram to the club.

GAME OVER.

[AmericanSherlock]

I’ve just seen Rod’s post. An extract from the trial transcript is now a explained as a misprint because it’s inconvenient!!

Wallace’s own words. Strange how some are quite happy to quote statements and trial transcripts unless inconvenient! The word ‘up’ has obviously been deliberately ignored or misinterpreted by those determined to exonerate Wallace at all costs!

Wallace turned right into Breck Road, made the call, then caught the tram to the club.

GAME OVER.

This is a good find from you. Of course there are always excuses and explanations from the peanut gallery. This is a guy who wrote a long post criticizing Parrys statement about his whereabouts saying he proved it was a lie using "linguistic techniques" because he felt Parry was "too detailed". But an obvious inconsistency in Wallaces statements are "irrelevant" or "misprints"!!!

[RodCrosby]

Not because it's inconvenient. Just irrelevant.

Wallace could not physically have caught a tram to the Chess Club IN Belmont Road.
Therefore he would not have really said that he did. No more than anyone would really say they went to the airport and caught a train.
Therefore simple logic says it's a transcription error in the TT or by Wyndham-Brown, or an elision.

Everyone including the Prosecution at the time knew what Wallace was saying, and no-one cared about a piffling elision, if that was what it was.

This rubbish all you got? [rhetorical question]

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a good find from you. Of course there are always excuses and explanations from the peanut gallery. This is a guy who wrote a long post criticizing Parrys statement about his whereabouts saying he proved it was a lie using "linguistic techniques" because he felt Parry was "too detailed". But an obvious inconsistency in Wallaces statements are "irrelevant" or "misprints"!!!

Personally I’d like to see the actual, physical proof that Wallace couldn’t have gotten to the chess club by walking into Belmont Street.

Another point is this, if you couldn’t get a tram to the chess club from Belmont Road or it’s close environs on a Monday night (but you could on other nights) is it impossible (and the answer has to be no before he even says it) that Wallace had forgotten this when he was trying to show that he didn’t go to the phone box. He just gave an alternate route.

Why did no one at the trial, a police officer for example, point out that you couldn’t get a tram from Belmont Street? They would have caught Wallace in a lie...in court!

[RodCrosby]

Personally I’d like to see the actual, physical proof that Wallace couldn’t have gotten to the chess club by walking into Belmont Street.

Why did no one at the trial, a police officer for example, point out that you couldn’t get a tram from Belmont Street? They would have caught Wallace in a lie...in court!

Perhaps because you meant Belmont Road.... [not quick enough to spot all your errors, eh? Tut-tut...]

Or was that a misprint, or irrelevant elision?

Surely you weren't lying? I now have 'proof' you are a brutal murderer!

Yawn.... Are there really no smarter fish in this barrel for me to shoot?



How disappointing...