Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What are the chances that a Court Stenographer and a Police Officer taking a statement could both get completely wrong exactly the same part of Wallace’s story about events on the Monday night before the murder? We have assumed that Wallace was saying that he’d caught the tram at the stop in Breck Road just before the junction with Belmont Road as opposed to the ‘incriminating’ one near to the phonebox. A reasonable question to ask of course would be ‘why did he walk past the stops at the ends of Richmond Park and Newcombe Street? Nevertheless Wallace was understandably adamant in saying that he didn’t use the tram stop near to the call box.

When we read his court statement we find Wallace saying: “ I walked up Richmond Park (notice that he uses ‘up’ to mean ‘along’) turned the corner by the church and up Belmont Road, and there caught a tram.”

Then in his police statement of 22/11/31 we find him saying: “When I left home on Monday night to go to the chess club I think I walked along Richmond Park to Breck Road and then up Belmont Road, where I boarded a tram car....”

By any understanding of the English language both of these statements speak of Wallace actually walking along Belmont Road to get to his tram. It’s the only interpretation that we can reasonably arrive at. When I first pointed out the court testimony Rod claimed a transcription error. Besides this he stated that the trams that usually were available in Belmont Road didn’t go near to the chess club on Monday nights. I asked about the stop at the junction of West Derby Road (the one that Wallace and Caird alighted at later that evening?) Couldn't he have been talking about that stop? Yes it was 3 or 4 times further away but, if asked, Wallace might have said ‘I like the walk’ or ‘the fair is cheaper from there.’ It’s even more suspicious because Wallace could have taken a much quicker route to this stop. Rod refused to answer my question. Then when I pointed out the police statement appears to confirm what he said in court I also got no response.

Fortunately for Wallace the police didn’t pursue the story of the Monday night trams choosing instead to focus on the Tuesday night ones. They spoke to no Monday night tram conductors. In fairness, with Wallace not making himself conspicuous on the Monday night, those conductors would have no reason to remember him and so if one have them had said ‘I don’t recall seeing Wallace on my tram’ it would have been easy for the defence to say ‘well why would he?’

Might we have an even simpler explanation than the West Derby Road stop though? As it would have been much more likely for Wallace to have used the much closer stops whenever he went to chess and taken that we have no reason to believe that Wallace was in any way expert in tram timetables is it not the simple and most likely answer that Wallace just assumed that the Belmont Road trams operated on the same routes on Monday nights? He made an error and got away with it because no one asked him. They just assumed that he was talking about the Breck Road stop near to the junction of Belmont Road.

Given that the 2 statements have Wallace actually walking along Belmont Road to catch his tram to the chess club. And given that the West Derby Road stop was so far away and harder to defend as a choice do we have to look to the simpler explanation?

I think that Wallace was lucky. I think that if the police had pressed him on the point he would have named a tram stop that wouldn’t have taken him to the chess club and he would have been caught in a lie. I think Wallace was guilty.

[AmericanSherlock]

Exactly. If it was my wife or your wife or anyone’s wife and you were worried that something might have happened to her I think we can be sure that a fair bit of loud door hammering and calling out would have been reported by neighbours (including the Johnston’s.) And it wasn’t so.....

The excuse usually offered to explain this is that Wallace was just a stoic, inexpressive type of fellow.

Yet, no mention from these apologists on how flustered and what a show the "stoic" Wallace put on just an hour earlier in searching for Menlove Gardens East. The normally brusque, robotic insurance man created such a scene several people remembered him and he started his incessant questioning and pestering before he was even obviously lost.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't believe so re the front door, and we know the show with the back door and the Johnstons. Totally contrived behavior IMO.

Exactly. If it was my wife or your wife or anyone’s wife and you were worried that something might have happened to her I think we can be sure that a fair bit of loud door hammering and calling out would have been reported by neighbours (including the Johnston’s.) And it wasn’t so.....

[AmericanSherlock]

I don’t have my books with me at the moment so I’ll ask a question. Was it ever stated that Wallace ever knocked on the front door, or even the back door? If he was as worried as he said he was surely he would have done some pretty vigorous knocking on the front door in case Julia had fallen asleep. Maybe even a bit of shouting through the letterbox? Isn’t that what anyone who was concerned for the safety of his wife would have done?

I don't believe so re the front door, and we know the show with the back door and the Johnstons. Totally contrived behavior IMO.

[AmericanSherlock]

As we have already listed around 6 ways that the Qualtrough plan could have fallen at the first hurdle (Beattie forgetting to pass on the message, Wallace deciding not to go, someone telling him for a fact that MGW didn’t exist etc) I think that we can add another way that the plan could have failed later on and specifically with regard to the sneak-thief theory.

This ‘plan’ relies on the fact that Julia would at least heard the name Qualtrough with regard to Wallace’s business that evening at Menlove Gardens West. That familiarity would have, according to the plan, meant that Julia would have let him in. But what if she had never heard the name?

Julia was known to have taken little or no interest in Wallace’s business affairs so how could Parry (as the mastermind) have known that Wallace would have gone into any detail? After all he might have just said “oh by the way I have to go out on business this evening. I shouldn’t be too long though.” That being possibly the case then Julia would have been extremely unlikely to have asked Qualtrough in.

Another fault in this brilliant plan.

It's just a plan that no one of sound mind would ever come up with. Dolty criminals would never think of something this in depth and complex. And smart or sane people would see its obvious faults. Saying that "criminals have to take risks" doesn't explain how these criminals were bright enough to conceive of, yet couldn't see how it was doomed to failure.

It is only something that a person married to an idea might concoct decades after... not anything remotely plausible IRL

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t have my books with me at the moment so I’ll ask a question. Was it ever stated that Wallace ever knocked on the front door, or even the back door? If he was as worried as he said he was surely he would have done some pretty vigorous knocking on the front door in case Julia had fallen asleep. Maybe even a bit of shouting through the letterbox? Isn’t that what anyone who was concerned for the safety of his wife would have done?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As we have already listed around 6 ways that the Qualtrough plan could have fallen at the first hurdle (Beattie forgetting to pass on the message, Wallace deciding not to go, someone telling him for a fact that MGW didn’t exist etc) I think that we can add another way that the plan could have failed later on and specifically with regard to the sneak-thief theory.

This ‘plan’ relies on the fact that Julia would at least heard the name Qualtrough with regard to Wallace’s business that evening at Menlove Gardens West. That familiarity would have, according to the plan, meant that Julia would have let him in. But what if she had never heard the name?

Julia was known to have taken little or no interest in Wallace’s business affairs so how could Parry (as the mastermind) have known that Wallace would have gone into any detail? After all he might have just said “oh by the way I have to go out on business this evening. I shouldn’t be too long though.” That being possibly the case then Julia would have been extremely unlikely to have asked Qualtrough in.

Another fault in this brilliant plan.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah yes, I agree . Cosmos real

And maybe the deviation is I do have some sort of belief in a higher power. The humanists usually go to that. Burden of proof and all.

But I do agree in thinking the belief in any specific dogma based text is just very unlikely that your 1 chosen book is correct and all the others are wrong. Wouldn't pass any sort of critical thinking muster.

Back to Wallace, actually he mentioned a sort of crisis in faith in his diary and the lack of belief in an afterlife worth caring about. I think it was only a few months before the killing when he said something about how even if there was a past life for him he cannot remember it and therefore any future life similarly would have no meaning to him, even if it existed. Perfectly reasonable (hate to resort to centuries old tried and true : blame the atheist!)

But it does show a man grappling with life's questions and perhaps the impeding ending of his. This was around the same time he noted Julia failed to grasp "the master Builder" play they both witnessed. Although to be fair he does seem to show concern about her being out late 1 night and fear she was in an accident---or perhaps did that fear put an idea in his head on reflection??

As we know, this was a man whose favorite work he lived by was Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Marcus has a quote there about leading a good life and nothing would be lost if there are no Gods...and if there are and just, they wouldnt care how fervently one believed. Sort of a twist on Pascal's Wager

Well, killing one's spouse might not be considered be leading a good life.

On the other hand, Wallace's cold, stoic personality might have made getting rid of a "problem" easier, no?

I agree AS. Maybe this was a guy constantly reminding himself and re-enforcing the belief that there was no fiery pit awaiting him for killing Julia?

[AmericanSherlock]

Ah yes, I agree . Cosmos real

And maybe the deviation is I do have some sort of belief in a higher power. The humanists usually go to that. Burden of proof and all.

But I do agree in thinking the belief in any specific dogma based text is just very unlikely that your 1 chosen book is correct and all the others are wrong. Wouldn't pass any sort of critical thinking muster.

Back to Wallace, actually he mentioned a sort of crisis in faith in his diary and the lack of belief in an afterlife worth caring about. I think it was only a few months before the killing when he said something about how even if there was a past life for him he cannot remember it and therefore any future life similarly would have no meaning to him, even if it existed. Perfectly reasonable (hate to resort to centuries old tried and true : blame the atheist!)

But it does show a man grappling with life's questions and perhaps the impeding ending of his. This was around the same time he noted Julia failed to grasp "the master Builder" play they both witnessed. Although to be fair he does seem to show concern about her being out late 1 night and fear she was in an accident---or perhaps did that fear put an idea in his head on reflection??

As we know, this was a man whose favorite work he lived by was Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Marcus has a quote there about leading a good life and nothing would be lost if there are no Gods...and if there are and just, they wouldnt care how fervently one believed. Sort of a twist on Pascal's Wager

Well, killing one's spouse might not be considered be leading a good life.

On the other hand, Wallace's cold, stoic personality might have made getting rid of a "problem" easier, no?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps religion and the cosmos?

I think organized religion is a bit silly.

I’m a member of Humanists UK and so a non-believer. I certainly have more of an issue with organised religion compared to just religion itself. The dangerous ‘my religion is better and more important than your religion’ kind of belief.

On the Cosmos.......I’m convinced of its existence. The evidence is pretty strong.

[AmericanSherlock]

AS were going to have to find something that we disagree on Our opinions on JTR seems to tally up exactly. Overwhelmingly likely an unknown. Of the known suspects Kosminski and Druitt (I’d add Bury too.)

It certainly can’t be dismissed that Wallace might have had Parry in mind as a fall guy all along. If guilty he set up a scene that would imply a killer/thief who knew where the money was kept and could go straight to it and one that a suspicious Julia would have let in. He points the police in the direction of Parry but never goes so far that the police might suspect him of trying to shift the blame from himself to Parry. Perhaps this is why he became certain of Parry’s guilt only after he’d been convicted and then acquitted. After all, how could he have come into any more information after the appeal that would increase his belief in Parry’s guilt? He made no investigation of the crime and no more info came to light.

Parry was a pretty much made to measure scapegoat. Unfortunately for Wallace though Parry had an alibi and the police eliminated him. How angry might Wallace have been to think that he gave the police Parry on a plate and they didn’t take him. Hence his efforts to accuse Parry after the event.

Perhaps religion and the cosmos?

I think organized religion is a bit silly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

AS were going to have to find something that we disagree on Our opinions on JTR seems to tally up exactly. Overwhelmingly likely an unknown. Of the known suspects Kosminski and Druitt (I’d add Bury too.)

It certainly can’t be dismissed that Wallace might have had Parry in mind as a fall guy all along. If guilty he set up a scene that would imply a killer/thief who knew where the money was kept and could go straight to it and one that a suspicious Julia would have let in. He points the police in the direction of Parry but never goes so far that the police might suspect him of trying to shift the blame from himself to Parry. Perhaps this is why he became certain of Parry’s guilt only after he’d been convicted and then acquitted. After all, how could he have come into any more information after the appeal that would increase his belief in Parry’s guilt? He made no investigation of the crime and no more info came to light.

Parry was a pretty much made to measure scapegoat. Unfortunately for Wallace though Parry had an alibi and the police eliminated him. How angry might Wallace have been to think that he gave the police Parry on a plate and they didn’t take him. Hence his efforts to accuse Parry after the event.

[AmericanSherlock]

Herlock and CAZ,

Sorry, but I totally disagree with your recent posts.

Just kidding of course , there won't be much surprise but I concur with both of the points made.

The somewhat friendly and cordial relationship with Parry even after his dismissal from the Pru was distinctly odd in contrast with the picture Wallace paints of him when seeming to finger him as a top suspect.

I would also agree that if Wallace was the killer and architect of the Qualtrough plan it wouldn't make sense for him not to have some sort of a "fall guy type" in mind, if not one person to particularly point the finger at first, at least somebody who would be the type to be Qualtrough. A younger man (remember operators said the caller sounded like an older man though!), someone who worked for the Pru maybe in the past and had a grudge against Wallace etc... these would be all very obvious things a guilty Wallace would think of.

This isn't prejudiced to one's conclusion, because I am not saying this proves or even indicates Wallace was Qualtrough.

Instead, I am asserting if he was, then he would almost certainly have in mind a type of fellow Qualtrough could be, if not a particular man in mind. It would be dumb if he didn't.

Therefore, it is not a stretch to think Wallace if guilty had Parry or a Parry type in mind and might make some of the stuff pointing towards Parry a bit make more sense if the rest of the evidence points towards Wallace.

In other words, it is not a valid objection to say, as I have seen before that it is a reach to think Wallace "framed Parry".

Let's exclude outlier scenarios for a second.

Either the killer was Qualtrough or it was Wallace.

If Qualtrough, he had an elaborate plan to at the very least get Wallace out of the house the next night and enact some sort of criminal enterprise, if not to actively plan to murder JW and frame her husband.

If Wallace, he hoped to murder JW and frame Qualtrough. It would always be part of the plan anyway if Wallace was the guilty party.

Ask yourself: Which of these 2 scenarios seems more in accordance with reality?

[caz]

Hi Both,

It's a double-edged sword, because if Wallace didn't kill his wife there was someone out there - Parry or A.N Other - who did, but managed to avoid becoming the prime suspect.

If Wallace did it, he'd have been a fool not to have an alternative 'likely suspect' in mind for the police to focus on. But he couldn't afford to make this too obvious. He had to hope that this other suspect would pop up naturally as a result of their enquiries into recent events in the lives of the Wallaces. He could help this along rather well before the murder, but not so much immediately afterwards, when it would look more contrived.

As has been pointed out, Wallace couldn't have known what kind of alibi Parry might have had, but being a 'dodgy' character would have been a start.

The respectable Wallace only needed his Qualtrough 'alibi' to create a little reasonable doubt, and if Parry then couldn't establish his whereabouts 100%, it would have been a bonus.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Caz and Herlock.

Hope both of you are well and I agree with both of your points.

A thought I had about the caller mentioning "21st birthday" for his daughter.

Some of you have noted that even though this is suspicious for Parry, who mentioned getting invites to a 21st in his testimony (which he was in fact for Leslie Williamson), that

1. a 21st policy was common at that time for a daughter
2. The real Qualtrough, R J Qualtrough had a daughter who had a birthday that very day ( a 20th) (so anyone who may have looked him up to use as a hoax might have know). Or if not, this certainly shows coincidences do happen.
3. Buttressing off the last past, it was just a coincidence.

I agree with all of these rebuttals to a slightly confounding aspect of the case.

One more I thought of:

It was RGP's 22nd birthday on January 12th 1931. As someone who knew him at least somewhat well, Wallace very well may have been aware of this and it could have given him the idea if he had his man in mind.

Like many aspects of the case, this could be seen in two ways...

Perhaps one is standing on shaky ground to conflate Wallace's very likely guilt with his hope to frame Parry from the beginning, because the 2nd is certainly not as clear to me as the 1st, and I wouldn't want it to take away from the mountain of circumstantial evidence we have pointing towards Willie.

But I don't think it's a stretch to think he had a "plausible" fall guy in mind from the beginning if he was the killer. In fact, it would be weird if he didn't. I believe CAZ has made the comparison with the unfortunate Christie/Evans case before.

He did take awhile to get hot on the trail of blaming Parry; perhaps RGP was more of a "divert suspicion away if needed" type of fall guy than a straight up "hope to frame him" (mainly because WHW couldn't know how good of an alibi Parry would have etc.)

It would fit with immaculate planning that seems to have gone into this crime. And explain why Wallace kept the sleazy Parry around as a loose sort of a friend and said he would be someone Julia would let in, despite being a known scoundrel and thief at the same time.

Thoughts, all?

Good points AS,

Friends, however casual, usual have at least something in common to cause them to remain ‘friends.’ Can anyone really think why a genteel couple like Wallace’s, with interests like classical music, literature, chemistry and chess would want to maintain any kind of contact with a disreputable dude like Party? Why would Wallace allow him to take over his round when he was ill?

The fact that the ‘thief’ made so little effort to ransack the place for money and valuables (avoiding Julia’s bag for example) but made a beeline for a cash box stashed away on a high shelf could be seen as a hint at someone familiar with the house and the cash arrangements. Perhaps Wallace felt that he’d been too subtle in merely mentioning Parry as someone that Julia would have allowed in and also having the cash box targeted? Perhaps this why it was only after the appeal that Wallace began specifically accusing Parry (only in private writings of course.)

I think it’s quite possible that Wallace always had Parry in mind as someone that he could dangle under the noses of the police.