Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You’ve never had a case

[Herlock Sholmes]

A reasoned debate?

Nope......didn’t think so

[Herlock Sholmes]

As we’ve said many times before, simply coming up with a scenario doesn’t qualify as proof of its validity. It would be foolish to be so overconfident. After all, anyone can come up with a scenario by simply imagining an accomplice to ‘explain’ the facts. It’s pretty easy. invents one; I’ll use Parry (at least he existed )

Wallace gets Parry involved in a plot to kill Julia (no more or less believable than Parry and the invisible man.)

Parry makes the Qualtrough phonecall. Wallace kills Julia in the Parlour using his mackintosh to shield himself from blood (as Wallace himself suggested.) He washes his hands, possibly using a chemical from his lab. He puts the weapon into a bag or wraps it in paper. He goes into the kitchen and takes the money from the cashbox and puts it in his pocket and through force of habit combined with the pressure of the situation he puts it back onto the shelf. He drops a few coins on the floor to make it look like the robber did so in the rush. He then pulls the door from the cupboard (he may even have previously loosened it.) Then he goes upstairs and quickly tries to make the room look like it’s been searched by a thief. Wallace feels a bit rushed because the milk boy was late arriving. He takes the notes from his pocket and puts them into the vase. When he’d taken it from the cash box he didn’t notice that he still had a small bit of blood on his hand which he transferred to the notes. By the time he put them into the vase though the blood had dried (explaining why the blood didn’t transfer from one note to the one it touched.) He goes back downstairs notices the bit of blood on his hand and washes it off.
He turns off the lights so that any unwanted visitor (his sister-in-law for eg) won’t raise the alarm when they get no response. He leaves by the back door and meets Parry in Richmond Park. Parry drives Wallace to his tram stop then drives away to dispose of the weapon. Wallace ‘searches’ for Menlove Gardens East before returning home. Whilst he’s been ‘searching’ Parry thinks of something; maybe a part of the plan that concerns him. Parry waits on Richmond Park for Wallace to return. As they are talking they are seen by Lillian Hall.
Wallace goes to the house and goes from back door to front ‘trying to get in. What he’s actually trying to do is a) hoping that someone sees him and b) trying to give the impression that the killer was still inside; escaping via the front door when Wallace enters at the back. He goes inside. He still wants to delay the finding of he body as long as possible thinking that it my muddy the waters as far as time of death. He goes through the back kitchen, checks the kitchen and, despite the fact that the parlour door is right next to the kitchen door he walks past it and goes upstairs. He even checks his lab even though it could be safely assumed that that would be the very last room in the house that Julia went into. (Perhaps Wallace had left the bottle of chemicals that he used to clean up in the kitchen and needed to return it to the lab?) He then ‘finds’ Julia.

I’ve created a simple scenario. I’ve used an accomplice (one that I can name)
This scenario explains:

Why Beattie didn’t suspect the voice on the phone.
Why the killer knew Wallace was going to chess.
Why the killer knew that Wallace would take the bait.
Why no one saw or heard anyone at the door.
Why the lights were turned off.
Why Julia allowed her killer into the parlour.
Why the blood smear was transferred the other notes.
The presence of the mackintosh.
Why Wallace wasn’t covered in blood.
How the weapon was disposed of.
How Wallace got to his first tram by 7.06 or 7.10.
Lillian Hall sighting.
Why Wallace messed around trying to get into the house.
Why he avoided the parlour to go upstairs.

Compare this ‘scenario’ to effort. So why can’t I say that this is The Correct Solution just because the ‘scenario’ fits?

Because I’m not a That’s why.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As we’ve said many times before, simply coming up with a scenario doesn’t qualify as proof of its validity. It would be foolish to be so overconfident. After all, anyone can come up with a scenario by simply imagining an accomplice to ‘explain’ the facts. It’s pretty easy. invents one; I’ll use Parry (at least he existed)

Wallace gets Parry involved in a plot to kill Julia (no more or less believable than Parry and the invisible man.)

Parry makes the Qualtrough phonecall. Wallace kills Julia in the Parlour using his mackintosh to shield himself from blood (as Wallace himself suggested.) He washes his hands, possibly using a chemical from his lab. He puts the weapon into a bag or wraps it in paper. He goes into the kitchen and takes the money from the cashbox and puts it in his pocket and through force of habit combined with the pressure of the situation he puts it back onto the shelf. He drops a few coins on the floor to make it look like the robber did so in the rush. He then pulls the door from the cupboard (he may even have previously loosened it.) Then he goes upstairs and quickly tries to make the room look like it’s been searched by a thief. Wallace feels a bit rushed because the milk boy was late arriving. He takes the notes from his pocket and puts them into the vase. When he’d taken it from the cash box he didn’t notice that he still had a small bit of blood on his hand which he transferred to the notes. By the time he put them into the vase though the blood had dried (explaining why the blood didn’t transfer from one note to the one it touched.) He goes back downstairs notices the bit of blood on his hand and washes it off.
He turns off the lights so that any unwanted visitor (his sister-in-law for eg) won’t raise the alarm when they get no response. He leaves by the back door and meets Parry in Richmond Park. Parry drives Wallace to his tram stop then drives away to dispose of the weapon. Wallace ‘searches’ for Menlove Gardens East before returning home. Whilst he’s been ‘searching’ Parry thinks of something; maybe a part of the plan that concerns him. Parry waits on Richmond Park for Wallace to return. As they are talking they are seen by Lillian Hall.
Wallace goes to the house and goes from back door to front ‘trying to get in. What he’s actually trying to do is a) hoping that someone sees him and b) trying to give the impression that the killer was still inside; escaping via the front door when Wallace enters at the back. He goes inside. He still wants to delay the finding of he body as long as possible thinking that it my muddy the waters as far as time of death. He goes through the back kitchen, checks the kitchen and, despite the fact that the parlour door is right next to the kitchen door he walks past it and goes upstairs. He even checks his lab even though it could be safely assumed that that would be the very last room in the house that Julia went into. (Perhaps Wallace had left the bottle of chemicals that he used to clean up in the kitchen and needed to return it to the lab?) He then ‘finds’ Julia.

I’ve created a simple scenario. I’ve used an accomplice (one that I can name)
This scenario explains:

Why Beattie didn’t suspect the voice on the phone.
Why the killer knew Wallace was going to chess.
Why the killer knew that Wallace would take the bait.
Why no one saw or heard anyone at the door.
Why the lights were turned off.
Why Julia allowed her killer into the parlour.
Why the blood smear was transferred the other notes.
The presence of the mackintosh.
Why Wallace wasn’t covered in blood.
How the weapon was disposed of.
How Wallace got to his first tram by 7.06 or 7.10.
Lillian Hall sighting.
Why Wallace messed around trying to get into the house.
Why he avoided the parlour to go upstairs.

Compare this ‘scenario’ to effort. So why can’t I say that this is The Correct Solution just because the ‘scenario’ fits?

Because I’m not a That’s why.

And just to add.

As the killer had a ‘personal’ reason for killing Julia it also explains the level of violence (11 vicious blows.)

It also explains why Julia’s bag wasn’t searched and that no believable attempt was made to look for more cash or valuables.

Why would Parry help Wallace? Well, as has been posited before, he might have known of some more of Parry’s dodgy dealing and so resorted to blackmail? Or maybe Parry was badly in debt. might say, well Wallace made no withdrawals from his account to pay Parry. True enough but Wallace might have salted a bit of spare cash away over the years. He wouldn’t be the first man in history to keep some cash without his wife’s knowledge.

It would also show why Wallace made such a show of asking so many people about MGE, telling them he was a stranger and confirming the time with the policeman and the newsagent. And why he was so persistent in searching despite being told that MGE didn’t exist.

It also explains why Wallace, during the day on Tuesday, made no attempt to find out where MGE was. Via a directory or Crewe.

It explains why it took so long for Wallace to admit that he knew the area due to visits to Crewe.

I think I’ll write a book

[Herlock Sholmes]

And so an open question (but mainly directed to )

Can anyone explain why my ‘scenario’ is inherently any less believable than ‘The Incorrect Solution?’

I don’t for a minute think that it is. So am I 100% confident that it’s ‘The Solution?’

Of course not. I’d have to be a real to think like that

[AmericanSherlock]

Dunce is on the run!

[AmericanSherlock]

I realized I've never answered the thread question straight up.

"Yup."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dunce is on the run!

I think so AS. I don't think he's answered a straight question for over a week

[Herlock Sholmes]

I realized I've never answered the thread question straight up.

"Yup."

I’ll echo that AS. We can’t be absolutely certain and unless new evidence appears the murder will have to remain unsolved. But every time I look at aspects of this case and the case as a whole I can only see Wallace as by far the likeliest candidate.

And let’s not forget the glaringly obvious. Wallace is the only suspect who can be placed at the crime scene.

[AmericanSherlock]

I’ll echo that AS. We can’t be absolutely certain and unless new evidence appears the murder will have to remain unsolved. But every time I look at aspects of this case and the case as a whole I can only see Wallace as by far the likeliest candidate.

And let’s not forget the glaringly obvious. Wallace is the only suspect who can be placed at the crime scene.

I agree I think the more one examines the case, the harder it is to believe the dizzying array of coincidences and luck (bad for Wallace, good for the real killer) that would have to be true, in order to reconcile Wallace's innocence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If points that go against Wallace are to be countered they have to be countered with unbiased reason.

It can’t just be said that ‘the majority said that the Wallace’s appeared a devoted couple,’ for example and just dismiss opposing opinions on weight of numbers. The Wallace’s weren’t exactly the Kardashians. They didn’t have a hectic social life. They weren’t great mixers. Until the night of the murder the Johnston’s didn’t even know Julia’s first name. Like most couples, even if they had argued, they would have been on best behaviour on social occasions; keeping up appearances, like the Crippens. The doctor and the nurse however saw them over a period time; in their natural environment as it were. Also, as doctors and nurses have a duty of confidentiality, the Wallace’s might have felt less need to put on a show. Their opinions of the Wallace’s are in stark contrast to others and can’t easily be discarded unless bias is involved. Also Mather, an ex-colleague of Wallace’s described him as ‘soured,’ amongst other things. Also that he had a bad temper. Now Mather may have held some kind of grudge against Wallace, we have no way of knowing, but we can see no motive for Curwen and Wilson to lie. Especially knowing the possible consequences for Wallace. This is why it’s almost impossible to call Lillian Hall a liar. Mistaken possibly, probably even, but to lie about a possibly innocent man facing the gallows, and with no reason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I find myself going back to the issue of the lights. I can’t recall it being pointed out as important in any of the books but that could just be my memory. I still can’t think of a feasible reason why a sneak-thief or indeed anyone apart from Wallace might have wanted to leave the house in darkness. (I’m not near any books at the moment so I can’t be sure but wasn’t there a very low light on in the kitchen?) If Julia had a light on in the back kitchen and the kitchen (and if she was moving around in the house would she have kept turning the gas up and down or on and off? Surely not) then the sneak-thief /killer would have had to walk from the parlour to the kitchen and back kitchen to turn them off/down. It makes no sense. What would it achieve?

I suppose that might say that he wanted to ensure that Wallace and no one else found the body (then again he says that his motive was purely financial I believe?)

Wallace is really the only person who needed to be the one who found Julia’s body as late as possible in the evening. The last thing that he would have wanted was someone like his sister-in-law turning up for a visit 5 or 10 minutes after he had left and then raising the alarm when she got no response from a house with the lights on.

[AmericanSherlock]

I find myself going back to the issue of the lights. I can’t recall it being pointed out as important in any of the books but that could just be my memory. I still can’t think of a feasible reason why a sneak-thief or indeed anyone apart from Wallace might have wanted to leave the house in darkness. (I’m not near any books at the moment so I can’t be sure but wasn’t there a very low light on in the kitchen?) If Julia had a light on in the back kitchen and the kitchen (and if she was moving around in the house would she have kept turning the gas up and down or on and off? Surely not) then the sneak-thief /killer would have had to walk from the parlour to the kitchen and back kitchen to turn them off/down. It makes no sense. What would it achieve?

I suppose that might say that he wanted to ensure that Wallace and no one else found the body (then again he says that his motive was purely financial I believe?)

Wallace is really the only person who needed to be the one who found Julia’s body as late as possible in the evening. The last thing that he would have wanted was someone like his sister-in-law turning up for a visit 5 or 10 minutes after he had left and then raising the alarm when she got no response from a house with the lights on.

Herlock,

I would agree that both the lights being turned off and the cash box replaced on the hi shelf both hint towards an inside job. It looks like someone who, while staging a robbery, was acting on force of habit and didn't consider how certain things would look while in a rush.

There are plausible counter arguments; perhaps a "sneak thief" was hoping to not be noticed and that's why he replaced the cash box; it was only later for some reason he was caught or some argument ensued and he committed the murder. Perhaps after striking the blows, he freaked and wanted to beat a hasty retreat, instinctively turning the lights out in response to what he had done...

Just ask yourself how much exactly are these arguments plausible? For me it's just barely, but definitely not likely.

Consider there was also plenty of stuff at the scene that could have been taken that wasn't, there was a cabinet broken for no reason etc... panic...or staging...???

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

Hi AS

I would agree that both the lights being turned off and the cash box replaced on the hi shelf both hint towards an inside job. It looks like someone who, while staging a robbery, was acting on force of habit and didn't consider how certain things would look while in a rush.

Plus it could be argued that Wallace felt a little rushed as Alan Close had turned up later than expected.

There are plausible counter arguments; perhaps a "sneak thief" (you forgot the ) was hoping to not be noticed and that's why he replaced the cash box true but I’ve just thought of something else. How did a sneak-thief hope to pull off the door of the cupboard and not be heard by Julia in the next room? If it’s being postulated that Julia caught someone in the act and he killed her in panic, then we might assume that he fled (not that he went back into the kitchen) After all Rod doesn’t think that he went upstairs now. ; it was only later for some reason he was caught or some argument ensued and he committed the murder. Perhaps after striking the blows, he freaked and wanted to beat a hasty retreat, instinctively turning the lights out in response to what he had done... possibly, why turn off the lights in the kitchen and back kitchen?

Just ask yourself how much exactly are these arguments plausible? For me it's just barely, but definitely not likely. Couldnt agree more AS. For me it’s far more plausible for Wallace himself to have turned off the lights.

Consider there was also plenty of stuff at the scene that could have been taken that wasn't, there was a cabinet broken for no reason etc... panic...or staging...??? I think we both know which option I would go for.

The killer definitely turned out the lights. To me it’s much more of a stretch to think of a reason why anyone other than Wallace would have bothered.

[AmericanSherlock]

The killer definitely turned out the lights. To me it’s much more of a stretch to think of a reason why anyone other than Wallace would have bothered.

Herlock, your point about the cupboard is an important one. The whole idea of a "sneak thief" (I also cant help but chuckle at the term) would go against the ransacking of the house. The only explanation is this was done after JW was killed, but then wasn't the explanation for why the killer didnt take anything else, including obvious money in JW's handbag or her jewelry because he freaked out? If so, smashing a cupboard looking for money wouldn't make sense at all.

It just doesn't add up. A typical poorly staged domestic homicide IMO.