Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[caz]

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.

Ah, so he may have been reasonably confident he wouldn't be needing his mackintosh that evening when going off to meet Qualtrough?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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,

Julia may have put the mackintosh in front of the fire to dry off when Wallace went back out that afternoon in his coat. He wouldn't necessarily have seen her doing this. If the parlour was left empty after that, the mackintosh could still have been there when Julia and her killer entered the room that evening. Could she have gone into the parlour to retrieve the dry mackintosh and put it back on its hook in the hall when the killer struck? If this was Wallace, what other reason would there have been for Julia going into the parlour? If it was anyone else, she may have been receiving that person in the 'posh' room, when she saw the mackintosh still there and went to remove it to the hall.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

We have not only bad luck for Wallace if innocent but good luck for another killer if guilty... another point would be the Johnston's heard the milk boy knock at the door but no one else.

Also, would the neighbourhood not have been on higher alert at the time because of the Anfield housebreaker? More aware of strangers hanging about in the evenings, knocking on doors, calling at houses and so on? Yet nobody heard or saw anyone supposedly watching and waiting for Wallace to leave the house, either on the Monday or Tuesday evening; nobody saw anyone calling at the house after the milk boy, talking to Julia and being invited in. And wouldn't Julia herself have been more cautious than usual about who she allowed past her front door while her husband was out, either at the chess club or on business? Was she not aware that Parry himself was light-fingered and not to be trusted? And what about a complete stranger turning up unexpectedly, claiming to be the person who had arranged for her husband to go out specifically to see him? She'd have had to be rather stupid not to smell a rat, unless he forced his way in once she opened the door and managed to keep her from making a sound.

So who managed to hoodwink Julia so completely, without anyone seeing or hearing anything remotely suspicious? Wallace or The Invisible Man?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, so he may have been reasonably confident he wouldn't be needing his mackintosh that evening when going off to meet Qualtrough?

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

How strange. Id been thinking of posting about the mackintosh again. Id been looking at it from the angle of - if it had been a miserable day weather-wise how could Wallace be certain that there would be no rain that evening whilst he was trudging around looking for MGE? Had he intended to use his coat as a shield and his mackintosh to wear but either a) as you suggested, Julia was drying it by the fire and so it was to hand or b) Wallace was in the parlour doing up his tie in the mirror and Julia bought in the mckintosh assuming that William would be wearing it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also, would the neighbourhood not have been on higher alert at the time because of the Anfield housebreaker? More aware of strangers hanging about in the evenings, knocking on doors, calling at houses and so on? Yet nobody heard or saw anyone supposedly watching and waiting for Wallace to leave the house, either on the Monday or Tuesday evening; nobody saw anyone calling at the house after the milk boy, talking to Julia and being invited in. And wouldn't Julia herself have been more cautious than usual about who she allowed past her front door while her husband was out, either at the chess club or on business? Was she not aware that Parry himself was light-fingered and not to be trusted? And what about a complete stranger turning up unexpectedly, claiming to be the person who had arranged for her husband to go out specifically to see him? She'd have had to be rather stupid not to smell a rat, unless he forced his way in once she opened the door and managed to keep her from making a sound.

So who managed to hoodwink Julia so completely, without anyone seeing or hearing anything remotely suspicious? Wallace or The Invisible Man?

Love,

Caz
X

Excellent points Caz. I recently made a post about how no one saw or heard any stranger on the night of the murder. How, for example, the Johnston’s heard Wallace knocking on the back door but they heard no one knocking on the front door earlier (where i assume there was a door-knocker.) I hadnt considered your
point about the locals being on higher alert due to the Anfield Housebreaker though

[caz]

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.

Hi HS,

Did Wallace show any surprise, or make any comment, when he found the house in darkness on his return? If innocent he'd have been fully expecting Julia to be awake with the light on, in whichever room she usually occupied of an evening. He may have assumed she'd gone up to bed early, perhaps not feeling well, but do his actions or words support such an assumption? And wouldn't she have left a light on in any case for her husband, when he returned home?

I agree it makes little sense for anyone else to have made a point of turning lights off or down before legging it. If it was Wallace, he had to decide which was the safer option: damned if he turned them off and was the obvious person to have done so; or damned if he left them on and the alarm was raised too quickly as a result.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If I understand the ‘sneak thief’ scenario correctly, with credit to Rod, Julia was upstairs and therefore far enough away not to hear the breaking of the cabinet door. She would not have wanted to leave him unattended but incontinence may have compelled her to do so.

If the robbery was post-death, I don’t think it is obvious that murder had been planned. This would have been ‘a robbery that went wrong’. (Although I confess to disliking that expression, as the converse is a robbery that went right!)

Hi Nick,

But wasn't Julia wearing some form of diaper when her body was found? If she was prone, like many elderly ladies, to a weak bladder and a bit of seepage, she'd have had less need to visit the loo frequently because she'd be protected by the 1930s equivalent of a Tena Lady pad. My late ma-in-law ended up wearing the full Tena 'nappy' as a matter of course because it saved her having to pop down the hall to our downstairs loo more than once or twice a day.

In any case, only Wallace would have been aware of Julia's lavatorial 'regularity', so to speak, so if she did need to 'be excused' while an uninvited guest was present, it would just have been a convenient coincidence for him.

Sorry if that was too much information!

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

Did Wallace show any surprise, or make any comment, when he found the house in darkness on his return? If innocent he'd have been fully expecting Julia to be awake with the light on, in whichever room she usually occupied of an evening. He may have assumed she'd gone up to bed early, perhaps not feeling well, but do his actions or words support such an assumption? And wouldn't she have left a light on in any case for her husband, when he returned home?

I agree it makes little sense for anyone else to have made a point of turning lights off or down before legging it. If it was Wallace, he had to decide which was the safer option: damned if he turned them off and was the obvious person to have done so; or damned if he left them on and the alarm was raised too quickly as a result.

Love,

Caz
X

Try as i might i cant come up with a reasonable reason why a thief/murderer might turn off the lights. I also cant see why Wallace checks the back kitchen, then the kitchen but passes the parlour door which is right next to the kitchen door to go upstairs where he checks his lab (easily the least likely room in the house to find Julia in...alive or dead.) Unsuprisingly Rod thinks that this is ‘normal’ but id suggest that, put in that position, anyone would have checked the parlour before venturing upstairs. It would make no sense not too.

[caz]

Right, I've now caught up with all the posts. If Wallace was innocent and Parry made the phone call, he chose that box for a very specific reason - the reason being that he presumed Wallace would pass that way en route to the chess club. Whether he knew how to ensure the call could be traced [making suspicion fall on Wallace], or didn't anticipate it ever would be, he'd have been in that location hoping he would see Wallace going in the right direction for the club.

So unless Wallace lied about the route he took, Parry must have been wrong about the route he had expected Wallace to take. But if that was also the route anyone in Parry's position might have expected Wallace to take - via that call box - why didn't the innocent Wallace take it? If Wallace was telling the truth, isn't it rather remarkable that he not only went off in a direction that was different from the one "Qualtrough" was expecting him to take, but one which very fortunately for him did not take him past the call box "Qualtrough" was found to have used?

Assuming it was Wallace then, who made the call, killed Julia the following evening then took the murder weapon with him after turning off the lights, might that explain why her handbag wasn't touched? In staging a robbery after the murder, he could safely leave his own fingerprints on anything he would normally have touched, like the cash box and so on, and the lack of a stranger's prints would be put down to them wearing gloves. But would Wallace have risked leaving his own prints on or inside Julia's handbag, even though a genuine thief would have been unlikely to ignore it?

I do have a problem with the idea of a thief who has just murdered Julia, while in pursuit of financial gain, leaving her handbag untouched, but taking the time to turn off the lights, presumably with one glove-wearing hand while still clutching the murder weapon in the other, then sneaking out of the house with it.

You'd have thought a handbag and its contents would have been a bit more tempting to take away than a bloody bit of lead piping.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Right, I've now caught up with all the posts. If Wallace was innocent and Parry made the phone call, he chose that box for a very specific reason - the reason being that he presumed Wallace would pass that way en route to the chess club. Whether he knew how to ensure the call could be traced [making suspicion fall on Wallace], or didn't anticipate it ever would be, he'd have been in that location hoping he would see Wallace going in the right direction for the club.

I suppose that, in fairness, it has to be mentioned that the other phoneboxes locally were indoors, cinema’s, cafe’s etc. And so it might be argued that the one used was selected for its isolation. Also, whichever way that Wallace turned out of Richmond Park he would have been heading for a stop that would have taken him to the chess club.

So unless Wallace lied about the route he took, Parry must have been wrong about the route he had expected Wallace to take. But if that was also the route anyone in Parry's position might have expected Wallace to take - via that call box - why didn't the innocent Wallace take it? If Wallace was telling the truth, isn't it rather remarkable that he not only went off in a direction that was different from the one "Qualtrough" was expecting him to take, but one which very fortunately for him did not take him past the call box "Qualtrough" was found to have used?

The stop in Breck Road near Belmont Road was slightly closer than the one near the phone box but not by much. It’s strange that if he went to the Breck Road stop, as everyone assumes that he meant, why did he walk past two stops?

I’ve recently mentioned that in the trial transcript Wallace said that he went ‘up Belmont.’ Rod believes its an error. But if it isn’t, the ‘up’ means ‘along.’ The only stop that he could have reached by going ‘up’ Belmont Road is the one at the junction of West Derby Road (the stop that Wallace came back to that night with Cairo.) This stop though is 3 times further away.

Assuming it was Wallace then, who made the call, killed Julia the following evening then took the murder weapon with him after turning off the lights, might that explain why her handbag wasn't touched? In staging a robbery after the murder, he could safely leave his own fingerprints on anything he would normally have touched, like the cash box and so on, and the lack of a stranger's prints would be put down to them wearing gloves. But would Wallace have risked leaving his own prints on or inside Julia's handbag, even though a genuine thief would have been unlikely to ignore it?

Good points Caz. Also no blood or prints on the gas jet and the broken cupboard.


I do have a problem with the idea of a thief who has just murdered Julia, while in pursuit of financial gain, leaving her handbag untouched, but taking the time to turn off the lights, presumably with one glove-wearing hand while still clutching the murder weapon in the other, then sneaking out of the house with it.

So do I Caz. It makes no sense. Why take away a bloody weapon that could in no way be connected to you.

You'd have thought a handbag and its contents would have been a bit more tempting to take away than a bloody bit of lead piping.

Maybe he was a Cluedo fan

Love,

Caz
X

If it was a boxing match with a guilty Wallace on the one side and all other suspects on the other then Wallace wins a heavy points victory for me

[Harry D]

When you remove the misconception that Wallace didn't have time to commit the murder, this really isn't the great unsolvable mystery it's made out to be.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When you remove the misconception that Wallace didn't have time to commit the murder, this really isn't the great unsolvable mystery it's made out to be.

I certainly think it makes Wallace the overwhelming favourite Harry.

A random/unnamed killer who knew nothing about the Wallace’s wouldn’t have needed a ‘Qualtrough’ plan.

If Parry was the killer he wouldn’t have needed a ‘Qualtrough’ plan.

If Parry created the plan to allow ‘Qualtrough’ the sneak-thief to get in he would have had to have found a partner-in-crime willing to carry the can for the escapade while Parry kept safely away from the scene free to deny all knowledge.

One who made almost no effort to look for cash or valuables after the paltry haul from the cash tin.

One who goes bizarrely insane and bludgeons a frail old lady 11 times with an iron bar just because she catches him in the act (even though he must have gone into the ‘robbery’ fully prepared for the possibility of being identified by Julia.)

One who takes the bloody weapon away with him despite it being in no way connected to him.

One who respectfully turns out the downstairs lights before leaving.

One who is so stealthy that he’s not seen in Wolverton Street by anyone that night.

One who is so silent that no-one hears him knock the door (despite the Johnston’s later hearing Wallace knocking the back door with his hand.) And no-one hears the conversation that he must have had on the doorstep explaining to Julia about the Qualtrough misunderstanding.

And then, to cap it all, we have Parry taking his car to a garage where he’s not welcome or trusted to be cleaned by someone who doesnt like or trust him (and has told him so,) he then proceeds (under no duress) to blab about the entire escapade (mentioning no accomplice by the way.) He even tells him where the weapon was hidden! Can this be taken seriously?

Not to mention the fact that creating this ‘brilliant’ phone call ploy, Professor Moriarty-Parry fails to even consider the fact that - Wallace might decide not to go to MGE - or that he might not go to chess that night (he was an irregular attendee) - or that Beattie might have forgotten to give him the message - or that someone at the club might have said “oh, my brother lives at Menlove Gardens West. There is no Menlove Gardens East - or that Wallace might have checked a directory during the day on Tuesday (or enquirer of Mr. Crewe who lived in the area.) - or the Wallace might have had other plans for that night - or that Julia might have had a visitor - or that Julia might not have let ‘Qualtrough’ in. Great plan eh. Seven perfectly reasonable ways for this masterpiece to fall at the first hurdle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I certainly think it makes Wallace the overwhelming favourite Harry.

A random/unnamed killer who knew nothing about the Wallace’s wouldn’t have needed a ‘Qualtrough’ plan.

If Parry was the killer he wouldn’t have needed a ‘Qualtrough’ plan.

If Parry created the plan to allow ‘Qualtrough’ the sneak-thief to get in he would have had to have found a partner-in-crime willing to carry the can for the escapade while Parry kept safely away from the scene free to deny all knowledge.

One who made almost no effort to look for cash or valuables after the paltry haul from the cash tin.

One who goes bizarrely insane and bludgeons a frail old lady 11 times with an iron bar just because she catches him in the act (even though he must have gone into the ‘robbery’ fully prepared for the possibility of being identified by Julia.)

One who takes the bloody weapon away with him despite it being in no way connected to him.

One who respectfully turns out the downstairs lights before leaving.

One who is so stealthy that he’s not seen in Wolverton Street by anyone that night.

One who is so silent that no-one hears him knock the door (despite the Johnston’s later hearing Wallace knocking the back door with his hand.) And no-one hears the conversation that he must have had on the doorstep explaining to Julia about the Qualtrough misunderstanding.

And then, to cap it all, we have Parry taking his car to a garage where he’s not welcome or trusted to be cleaned by someone who doesnt like or trust him (and has told him so,) he then proceeds (under no duress) to blab about the entire escapade (mentioning no accomplice by the way.) He even tells him where the weapon was hidden! Can this be taken seriously?

Not to mention the fact that creating this ‘brilliant’ phone call ploy, Professor Moriarty-Parry fails to even consider the fact that - Wallace might decide not to go to MGE - or that he might not go to chess that night (he was an irregular attendee) - or that Beattie might have forgotten to give him the message - or that someone at the club might have said “oh, my brother lives at Menlove Gardens West. There is no Menlove Gardens East - or that Wallace might have checked a directory during the day on Tuesday (or enquirer of Mr. Crewe who lived in the area.) - or the Wallace might have had other plans for that night - or that Julia might have had a visitor - or that Julia might not have let ‘Qualtrough’ in. Great plan eh. Seven perfectly reasonable ways for this masterpiece to fall at the first hurdle.

Ignore this post please im trying to suss out the qoute function. Ive never done it properly.

Nope, i was trying to isolate a passage.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One who goes bizarrely insane and bludgeons a frail old lady 11 times with an iron bar just because she catches him in the act (even though he must have gone into the ‘robbery’ fully prepared for the possibility of being identified by Julia.)

Has it actually worked?

One who respectfully turns out the downstairs lights before leaving.

Please ignore this post all. Just trying to suss this out. Its a bit long-winded with the deleting. Plus im experiencing ‘lag’ at the moment.

[AmericanSherlock]

Right, I've now caught up with all the posts. If Wallace was innocent and Parry made the phone call, he chose that box for a very specific reason - the reason being that he presumed Wallace would pass that way en route to the chess club. Whether he knew how to ensure the call could be traced [making suspicion fall on Wallace], or didn't anticipate it ever would be, he'd have been in that location hoping he would see Wallace going in the right direction for the club.

So unless Wallace lied about the route he took, Parry must have been wrong about the route he had expected Wallace to take. But if that was also the route anyone in Parry's position might have expected Wallace to take - via that call box - why didn't the innocent Wallace take it? If Wallace was telling the truth, isn't it rather remarkable that he not only went off in a direction that was different from the one "Qualtrough" was expecting him to take, but one which very fortunately for him did not take him past the call box "Qualtrough" was found to have used?

Assuming it was Wallace then, who made the call, killed Julia the following evening then took the murder weapon with him after turning off the lights, might that explain why her handbag wasn't touched? In staging a robbery after the murder, he could safely leave his own fingerprints on anything he would normally have touched, like the cash box and so on, and the lack of a stranger's prints would be put down to them wearing gloves. But would Wallace have risked leaving his own prints on or inside Julia's handbag, even though a genuine thief would have been unlikely to ignore it?

I do have a problem with the idea of a thief who has just murdered Julia, while in pursuit of financial gain, leaving her handbag untouched, but taking the time to turn off the lights, presumably with one glove-wearing hand while still clutching the murder weapon in the other, then sneaking out of the house with it.

You'd have thought a handbag and its contents would have been a bit more tempting to take away than a bloody bit of lead piping.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Parry either must have expected 1) Wallace to take the route by the box or 2) go the other way or 3) He did not know which route Wallace would take to the chess club

There is ambiguity regarding which route made the most sense to take; I tend to agree with Herlock that it looks like a slightly roundabout way Wallace took if he was telling the truth. It seems at least we can say the route Wallace claims he took was certainly not the obvious only option.

Wallace claimed he went the other way, so if he really did go in the direction of the box, one has to ask why he lied? If he went the other way, then he might be going a different route than Parry would have expected, in which case wouldn't Parry have serious doubts that Wallace was headed to the club? If that WAS the way Parry expected he would go, then we can rule out any sort of a planned murder/framing, because Parry would not pick a phone box that wasn't part of Wallace's route to the club if he wanted to divert suspicion onto WHW. The same thing goes if Parry did not know which way Wallace planned to go.

The best argument then for Wallace's innocence is that Parry saw Wallace leave and the route WHW took that was in the opposite direction from passing the phone box was the one that either made the most sense, or at least one that did not seem unusual. Parry then makes the call as what was either a prank at the time or a loose idea of a possible robbery/ hit Julia up for cash the following night.

There are still problems here. If Parry did not have a route in mind for Wallace to go to the club, this would further cloud the certainty that WHW was headed to the club and not somewhere else entirely, particularly since he had missed the last FOUR meetings.

Even if Wallace's route going the other way seemed reasonable to Parry as the start of a journey to the club, he would not have time to really see Wallace do more than take his first couple steps before heading the other way to the phone box; even if Parry was driving. (Consider the call was made 3 minutes after Wallace left home according to his own testimony, but Wallace did not know the location of the box and time was traced yet.)

On the other hand if Parry had been expecting Wallace to pass the box, he could see him head a few hundred yards toward the tram stop and pass the box, increasing Parry's "certainty" that Wallace was in fact headed to the club. I put certainty in quotes because it is still very tenuous in my opinion, but at least there would be a modicum of a reason to have some faith that Wallace was heading that way in this scenario.

However, this can't be the case because Wallace said he went the other way and did not pass the box. If he was lying, then what possible innocent explanation is there? Perhaps he felt implicated by passing the box (and anyway in line with the incriminating timing he gave, it seems likely he did not know the call box location was traced at the point of his original testimony to the police). Even if for the sake of argument, we grant this, there is another problem with the timing. Parry being in a car would not help him, if he had to stalk Wallace who was on foot and wait for him to pass the phone box. 3 minutes is just about the right amount of time for Wallace to reach the call box, add in the extra time of Parry trailing him at a distance so he is not seen or suspected, waiting for Wallace to pass the phone box by a bit and be out of sight, park his car, and walk into the phone booth himself, and the timing does not work!