Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry haven't posted much because Herlock and others have basically solved what is an open case. What I mean is, this case can't be proved against anyone beyond reasonable doubt, but pretty much every angle has been covered to demonstrate it was most probably Wallace.

One further minor train of thought I had along the same lines:

If the killer wasn't Wallace but a "sneak thief whether Qualtrough himself or someone working in conjunctioning with Qualtrough (And Qualtrough could be anyone but most who view Wallace as innocent think he was Parry), then what was his ploy to distract Julia in order to rob the joint? I've see some odd theories on this, like relying on Julia's incontinence. But remember there would be a time factor? Could this "sneak thief" rely on Julia needing to use the loo in the time period available? Such a person would have no clue at what point Wallace would give up on his journey and head home? Of course, there was limited reason to be confident he would go at all. Let's cast that aside for the sake of argument (aren't I generous?) and say this sneak thief felt confident in assuming Wallace would be gone for nearly 2 hours as was the case (although the significance or lack thereof of this totally depends on who really was behind the murder.)

Would this be enough time to be confident Julia would slip out to the bathroom? Enough to base an entire plan around? In any case, this villainous mystery killer would want to be long gone by the time Wallace came back. He wouldn't have a lot of time to act, and would have to hope that Julia afforded him the opportunity to pillage the cash undisturbed. This isn't something he could possibly rely on from my way of looking at things.

The killer was either Wallace or someone else who planned to kill Julia from the getgo (very unlikely I reckon). A panicked theft gone wrong just does not add up as part of this intricate plan. Everything points away from that.

Hi AS,

Youve contributed to the debate far more than i have over time ive just added a few thoughts in recent months. Of course I agree that, viewed objectively, everything points to Wallace as the likeliest candidate.

The point that youve made here is a very good one. I dont think that its been highlighted before to my memory. A sneak-thief certainly couldnt bank on Julia needing the loo or on how long that she would be up there if she did. Of course he could have asked permission to use the loo himself but he couldnt have known that she wouldnt have come out into the hallway with him to point the way. Or that she would have left the parlour for some other reason whilst he was supposed to be upstairs.
As ever with the sneak-thief plan far too much is left to chance for it even to be grace it with the title ‘plan.’ And as we have said before the sneak-thief would have undertook the whole enterprise fully prepared for Julia to have been able to have identified him as the thief. So what really changed with Julia catching him in the act? No one heard any screams. If Julia appeared to be about to get hysterical it would have been no problem for our sneak-thief to put a hand over Julia’s mouth and threatened her into silence. Its also worth asking if noisily wrenching a door off a cupboard is really the act of someone who wished to remain undiscovered? Then we add that to the fact that he ignored Julia’s bag which logic would tell anyone contained her purse. Overall the attempt to find cash or valuables was pathetic to say the very least.

So what could have made someone change from a sneak-thief who was prepared to have been identified by Julia into a brutal murderer? It really makes no sense. This is surely the least believable of robbery scenes? Equally surely the scene was part of the least believable robbery scenario? Add these facts to sheer over-the-top and unnessecary brutality and we are left with the only logical conclusion. This was not a robbery gone wrong. It was a pre-planned and vicious murder and if this was the case then there really is only one suspect. Wallace himself.

Apologies AS for removing the ‘lol’s’ from your quote but i had to to fit in my own.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

Youve contributed to the debate far more than i have over time ive just added a few thoughts in recent months. Of course I agree that, viewed objectively, everything points to Wallace as the likeliest candidate.

The point that youve made here is a very good one. I dont think that its been highlighted before to my memory. A sneak-thief certainly couldnt bank on Julia needing the loo or on how long that she would be up there if she did. Of course he could have asked permission to use the loo himself but he couldnt have known that she wouldnt have come out into the hallway with him to point the way. Or that she would have left the parlour for some other reason whilst he was supposed to be upstairs.
As ever with the sneak-thief plan far too much is left to chance for it even to be grace it with the title ‘plan.’ And as we have said before the sneak-thief would have undertook the whole enterprise fully prepared for Julia to have been able to have identified him as the thief. So what really changed with Julia catching him in the act? No one heard any screams. If Julia appeared to be about to get hysterical it would have been no problem for our sneak-thief to put a hand over Julia’s mouth and threatened her into silence. Its also worth asking if noisily wrenching a door off a cupboard is really the act of someone who wished to remain undiscovered? Then we add that to the fact that he ignored Julia’s bag which logic would tell anyone contained her purse. Overall the attempt to find cash or valuables was pathetic to say the very least.

So what could have made someone change from a sneak-thief who was prepared to have been identified by Julia into a brutal murderer? It really makes no sense. This is surely the least believable of robbery scenes? Equally surely the scene was part of the least believable robbery scenario? Add these facts to sheer over-the-top and unnessecary brutality and we are left with the only logical conclusion. This was not a robbery gone wrong. It was a pre-planned and vicious murder and if this was the case then there really is only one suspect. Wallace himself.

Apologies AS for removing the ‘lol’s’ from your quote but i had to to fit in my own.

Hi Herlock, incisive points as usual. The bold especially highlights how the robbery gone wrong scenario is logically inconsistent.

I'm more convinced than ever of Wallace's guilt.

So let me try to play Devil's Advocate, because unlike other geniuses who are convinced they have "the correct solution", I like to consider opposing viewpoints and cover every angle, being intellectually honest regardless of what narrative it suits.

My main cause to pause over the years was the caller mentioning a 21st as that seemed a strong hinter towards Parry as the caller, since he mentioned something about getting an invitation to Leslie Williamson's 21st in his statement. A bit suspicious, for sure.

But it turned out not only was a 21st a common policy, but that there was an RJ Qualtrough who had a daughter who was celebrating a birthday (20th not 21st but still pretty spooky, no? ) that very night of the 19th, when the call was placed.

That mitigates somewhat of the implication of Parry's guilt in at least making the call IMO, because it implies anyone who came up with the idea of using this Qualtrough as part of the hoax, whether it was Wallace or whether it wasn't, probably got the idea of a "21st birthday policy" from researching him and knowing of his daughter's birthday on that very night.

Or if this was not the case, then it sure shows coincidences happen, no?!

I still find it mildly suspicious, because it would be one thing if we just considered Parry was in that age range and turned out to be busy arranging a 21st party celebration, but it seems a slightly higher order of incriminating that he mentioned it in his statement. As if it was in the back of his mind from that very night for other reasons; obviously if this was the case, then it was a substantial slip-up by Parry to mention it.

Another possibility is that a guilty Wallace was seeking to incriminate Parry somehow by mentioning this. Or it could just be coincidence.

I mention all of this not because I have serious doubts that Wallace was guilty. Rather precisely the opposite; because of the increasing strength of my belief in his probable guilt (in no small part to your clever arguments), I am looking to consider any worthwhile points to the contrary to feel I've thoroughly examined all angles.

I would put my belief in Wallace's guilt at around 95 percent.

PS. I agree, they really need to fix the emoticons thing! It should be 5 per message, NOT including quoted messages one is replying to!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AS,

I’d go with around 95% too.

I wonder when Wallace last spoke to Parry before the murder? I cant recall if its even been mentioned in the books? You can guess where I’m going with that question though. Could he have let slip plans for a 21st birthday party in conversation? Rod would say that I was clutching at straws with that one and, for once, he would probably be correct

It could just have been a coincidence after all. A far more believable one than the phonecall being a prank which the killer just happened to take advantage of

Wallace and Parry would both be aware that 21 was an age that insurance policies were regularly set up. I genuinly think that it was just a coincidence and not a particularly spectacular one. Taken alongside all the other evidence it’s not a point that worries me but you are definitely right to explore points from both sides. I could name someone who would do well to take a leaf out of your book

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

I’d go with around 95% too.

I wonder when Wallace last spoke to Parry before the murder? I cant recall if its even been mentioned in the books? You can guess where I’m going with that question though. Could he have let slip plans for a 21st birthday party in conversation? Rod would say that I was clutching at straws with that one and, for once, he would probably be correct

It could just have been a coincidence after all. A far more believable one than the phonecall being a prank which the killer just happened to take advantage of

Wallace and Parry would both be aware that 21 was an age that insurance policies were regularly set up. I genuinly think that it was just a coincidence and not a particularly spectacular one. Taken alongside all the other evidence it’s not a point that worries me but you are definitely right to explore points from both sides. I could name someone who would do well to take a leaf out of your book

I agree it is simply overwhelmed by the evidence pointing in the other direction. For 1, Parry had an alibi for the next night! (And not the Lily Lloyd one. )

I view it as a similar thing as the fact the killer replaced the cash box, which would point towards Wallace. Unfortunately for Wallace, there are about 10 of these "coincidences" pointing towards him.

I believe Wallace and Parry last spoke in November according to Wallace at the City Cafe. Like many parts of this case, this could be viewed in multiple ways.

I do think Wallace's relationship with Parry seemed off for someone who supposedly he knew to be so unscrupulous. Perhaps, he was scouting out his "fall guy?"

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree it is simply overwhelmed by the evidence pointing in the other direction. For 1, Parry had an alibi for the next night! (And not the Lily Lloyd one. )

I view it as a similar thing as the fact the killer replaced the cash box, which would point towards Wallace. Unfortunately for Wallace, there are about 10 of these "coincidences" pointing towards him.

I believe Wallace and Parry last spoke in November according to Wallace at the City Cafe. Like many parts of this case, this could be viewed in multiple ways.

I do think Wallace's relationship with Parry seemed off for someone who supposedly he knew to be so unscrupulous. Perhaps, he was scouting out his "fall guy?"

Yes it is a bit strange. You would think that Wallace, the straight-laced, conservative, do-everything-by-the-book type would have wanted nothing to do with a guy who might as well have walking around in a striped shirt and a mask.

Ive been thinking again recently about Wallace in relation to Parry. He mentions Parry to the police as one of a list of people who Julia would have let in. He doesnt suggest him as the murderer though. And yet after hes finally acquitted Wallace becomes convinced of Parry’s guilt. Why? What new information has come to Wallace’s attention? Surely if hed have suspected him all along might have mentioned it to the police when he was on trial for his life? What can we deduce from this....if anything?

Could this be a pointer toward a Wallace/Parry partnership? He mentions his name during the investigation because it might have looked suspicious if someone had mentioned that Parry had done Wallace’s work whilst he was ill (which would show that he would have been familiar to Julia.) Later, when Wallace knew that he didnt have long to live, he left the incriminating accusation in his diary. He might have felt that a) Parry couldnt say “no, we were in it together.” Or that b) if Parry denied it the public might have felt ‘why would Wallace bother making an accusation that would only come to light after his death? Theres also the matter of the ‘respectable’ Wallace versus the criminal Parry.

Unsure

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes it is a bit strange. You would think that Wallace, the straight-laced, conservative, do-everything-by-the-book type would have wanted nothing to do with a guy who might as well have walking around in a striped shirt and a mask.

Ive been thinking again recently about Wallace in relation to Parry. He mentions Parry to the police as one of a list of people who Julia would have let in. He doesnt suggest him as the murderer though. And yet after hes finally acquitted Wallace becomes convinced of Parry’s guilt. Why? What new information has come to Wallace’s attention? Surely if hed have suspected him all along might have mentioned it to the police when he was on trial for his life? What can we deduce from this....if anything?

Could this be a pointer toward a Wallace/Parry partnership? He mentions his name during the investigation because it might have looked suspicious if someone had mentioned that Parry had done Wallace’s work whilst he was ill (which would show that he would have been familiar to Julia.) Later, when Wallace knew that he didnt have long to live, he left the incriminating accusation in his diary. He might have felt that a) Parry couldnt say “no, we were in it together.” Or that b) if Parry denied it the public might have felt ‘why would Wallace bother making an accusation that would only come to light after his death? Theres also the matter of the ‘respectable’ Wallace versus the criminal Parry.

Unsure

Hi Herlock, there are some definite aspects of the case that could point to a collaborative effort.

When Gannon's book came out, I felt there was a possibly he could be on to something minus the sex for sale bit with Julia of which there was just no evidence. There are clearly curiosities about this mystery that would be reconciled with a conspiracy. And then a 3rd member which is Marsden in Gannon's book or a "sneak thief" in other theories.

There was a post somewhere in relation to Gannon's book from some guy claiming his dad who grew up in Liverpool at the time told him Wallace was a gay man who sought male prostitutes, of which Parry was one, and that is why JW was murdered as the threatened to go public with it.

All very strange, but the post was detailed. Likely tosh, like all sorts of weird claims made about this case (John Johnstone confessing etc.), but it always stuck with me a bit, like the 21st birthday thing. The idea that maybe the answer to this case, while very unlikely to be that specific tall tale, might be something like that. A confluence of strange things that would be impossible to guess at, like a sophisticated password for your PC. And this would explain why this case has remained so enigmatic.

But there are serious problems with a conspiracy which have been stated ad nauseam by all including yourself:

1. Why didn't Wallace make sure to be at the club when the call came, erasing any doubt as to his possibly being the caller, if he had the benefit of a confederate.

2. Why not leave straight from work and head to MGE (he could have made the appointment for 6:30), completely removing himself from the frame of time of the murder. Coming home right before would be flat out stupid in the scenario he had someone else prepared to commit the actual murder.

3. Why name Parry so ardently? You've raised some decent points as to reasons he might want to, particularly since it was only once he in serious trouble, he seemed to focus in on him. If guilty along with Parry, he could figure that he'd have nothing to lose to try to shift perceived guilt a bit, and hope to get off. Parry wouldn't be able to say anything without confessing himself.

Still, before he was arrested, it "suddenly" occurred to him to mentions Parry and Marsden as persons of interest. This simply seems odd to create that trouble for himself. It is possible he worked with other people, but I think most agree if Wallace did work with someone, Parry would likely be part of the plan.

4. Why the need for the confusing MGE plan? This one is probably the least insurmountable as I always maintained the positives of the plan were the mystery, intrigue, confusing alternative mystery suspect etc. etc. So you can make the case Wallace would enjoy employing the plan whether he worked alone or with someone else. However, to my mind, if he had the benefit of someone else to commit the murder, he could completely exonerate himself seemingly if he had gone alone with my 2 suggestions in points 1 and 2 , so there would just be no need for the plan, and the possible negative side to it, which is it, as we have noted, seems very suspicious and contrived. Of course though there is a high chance if Wallace was guilty, he got too cute for his own good in any case, whether he worked with someone else or not.

Ultimately, there are just too many issues with the Conspiracy theory.

Even the idea of more than one other person working together seems unlikely to me when you consider the tight struture and complicated planning that seems to have gone into this.

It seems to me either Wallace worked alone or someone else did.

You know which side I come firmly down on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is very weird. I responded to AS post around 2 hours ago but its gone. What did i do wrong? Its late now so ill respond again tomorrow

[AmericanSherlock]

This is very weird. I responded to AS post around 2 hours ago but its gone. What did i do wrong? Its late now so ill respond again tomorrow

I'm afraid the illuminati has gotten to you. That or a sneak-thief.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wallace and Parry, for me, counts out the idea of Parry as the killer for me. If Parry was intended as the one that did the deed then he would have gone in as soon as Wallace left for chess. Wallace could easily have made some excuse to Julia for leaving by the front door thus leaving a very good chance of a neighbour seeing him waive goodbye to a very much alive Julia.
In its favour, the plan with Parry involved and Wallace as the killer, gives Wallace more time as Parry could have driven him to his tram. It would also have provided someone to get rid of a murder weapon.
I dont think a ‘partnership’ is impossible but i still go for Wallace alone. Wallace and Parry had very little in common so its hard to see the level of trust required in an enterprise that could have had such serious consequences.
Ill be interested to see how Antony arrives at Wallace with help?

[OneRound]

Hi Herlock, there are some definite aspects of the case that could point to a collaborative effort.

When Gannon's book came out, I felt there was a possibly he could be on to something minus the sex for sale bit with Julia of which there was just no evidence. There are clearly curiosities about this mystery that would be reconciled with a conspiracy. And then a 3rd member which is Marsden in Gannon's book or a "sneak thief" in other theories.

There was a post somewhere in relation to Gannon's book from some guy claiming his dad who grew up in Liverpool at the time told him Wallace was a gay man who sought male prostitutes, of which Parry was one, and that is why JW was murdered as the threatened to go public with it.

All very strange, but the post was detailed. Likely tosh, like all sorts of weird claims made about this case (John Johnstone confessing etc.), but it always stuck with me a bit, like the 21st birthday thing. The idea that maybe the answer to this case, while very unlikely to be that specific tall tale, might be something like that. A confluence of strange things that would be impossible to guess at, like a sophisticated password for your PC. And this would explain why this case has remained so enigmatic.

But there are serious problems with a conspiracy which have been stated ad nauseam by all including yourself:

1. Why didn't Wallace make sure to be at the club when the call came, erasing any doubt as to his possibly being the caller, if he had the benefit of a confederate.

2. Why not leave straight from work and head to MGE (he could have made the appointment for 6:30), completely removing himself from the frame of time of the murder. Coming home right before would be flat out stupid in the scenario he had someone else prepared to commit the actual murder.

3. Why name Parry so ardently? You've raised some decent points as to reasons he might want to, particularly since it was only once he in serious trouble, he seemed to focus in on him. If guilty along with Parry, he could figure that he'd have nothing to lose to try to shift perceived guilt a bit, and hope to get off. Parry wouldn't be able to say anything without confessing himself.

Still, before he was arrested, it "suddenly" occurred to him to mentions Parry and Marsden as persons of interest. This simply seems odd to create that trouble for himself. It is possible he worked with other people, but I think most agree if Wallace did work with someone, Parry would likely be part of the plan.

4. Why the need for the confusing MGE plan? This one is probably the least insurmountable as I always maintained the positives of the plan were the mystery, intrigue, confusing alternative mystery suspect etc. etc. So you can make the case Wallace would enjoy employing the plan whether he worked alone or with someone else. However, to my mind, if he had the benefit of someone else to commit the murder, he could completely exonerate himself seemingly if he had gone alone with my 2 suggestions in points 1 and 2 , so there would just be no need for the plan, and the possible negative side to it, which is it, as we have noted, seems very suspicious and contrived. Of course though there is a high chance if Wallace was guilty, he got too cute for his own good in any case, whether he worked with someone else or not.

Ultimately, there are just too many issues with the Conspiracy theory.

Even the idea of more than one other person working together seems unlikely to me when you consider the tight struture and complicated planning that seems to have gone into this.

It seems to me either Wallace worked alone or someone else did.

You know which side I come firmly down on.

Hi AS and all - the planning was undoubtedly complex and that in itself is significant to me.

I struggle to accept that the end purpose of such an involved and carefully crafted plan was for a thief to lay his hands on whatever cash he could find in the home of a small time insurance official. It just seems inadequate reward for so much thought and work.

Far more likely to me, the aim of the whole enterprise was to bump off Mrs Wallace or, in a near psychotic way, to humiliate Wallace himself. If the latter, things somehow snowballed and ended disastrously. I appreciate that last possible scenario goes some way in Rod's direction. Whilst I find major flaws in Rod's solution and his confidence in it to be near ridiculous, I don't totally dismiss all of his theorising although you, AS, and others have caused me to look for the murderer closer to home.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AS and all - the planning was undoubtedly complex and that in itself is significant to me.

I struggle to accept that the end purpose of such an involved and carefully crafted plan was for a thief to lay his hands on whatever cash he could find in the home of a small time insurance official. It just seems inadequate reward for so much thought and work.

Far more likely to me, the aim of the whole enterprise was to bump off Mrs Wallace or, in a near psychotic way, to humiliate Wallace himself. If the latter, things somehow snowballed and ended disastrously. I appreciate that last possible scenario goes some way in Rod's direction. Whilst I find major flaws in Rod's solution and his confidence in it to be near ridiculous, I don't totally dismiss all of his theorising although you, AS, and others have caused me to look for the murderer closer to home.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound

One of the main issues for me (and im sure that AS agrees) about the plan is that there were so many ways for it to fall apart from the very beginning for Parry, whether working alone or with someone else.

Wallace might not have gone to chess that night.
Beattie might have forgotten to pass on the message.
Wallace might have decided not to bother going to MGE.
Wallace might have had plans for that night.
Julia might have had a visitor; her sister-in-law for eg.
Julia might not have let ‘Qualtrough’ in.
Someone at the chess club might have said something like “my brother lives in Menlove Gardens West. There is definitely no Menlove Gardens East.”
Wallace might have checked a directory or made other enquiries during the day on Tuesday and discovered that MGE didnt exist.

All these would have scuppered the plan. How long could a desperate for money Parry have waited until he could come up with another plan that would work? Wallace could be patient though. He was in no hurry.

Then we have a ‘robbery’ that doesnt really resemble a robbery. And, as you mentioned, the level of overkill. How many blows would it take with an iron bar to kill a frail 70 year old woman. 1, 2, 3 maybe 4 or even 5 but certainly not 11! This seems to speak of something personal. A level of anger. No one knew Julia well enough to develop that level of anger apart from William.

Like AS i dont think that we can dismiss Wallace with someone’s help but imcertainly favour Wallace alone.

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound

One of the main issues for me (and im sure that AS agrees) about the plan is that there were so many ways for it to fall apart from the very beginning for Parry, whether working alone or with someone else.

Wallace might not have gone to chess that night.
Beattie might have forgotten to pass on the message.
Wallace might have decided not to bother going to MGE.
Wallace might have had plans for that night.
Julia might have had a visitor; her sister-in-law for eg.
Julia might not have let ‘Qualtrough’ in.
Someone at the chess club might have said something like “my brother lives in Menlove Gardens West. There is definitely no Menlove Gardens East.”
Wallace might have checked a directory or made other enquiries during the day on Tuesday and discovered that MGE didnt exist.

All these would have scuppered the plan. How long could a desperate for money Parry have waited until he could come up with another plan that would work? Wallace could be patient though. He was in no hurry.

Then we have a ‘robbery’ that doesnt really resemble a robbery. And, as you mentioned, the level of overkill. How many blows would it take with an iron bar to kill a frail 70 year old woman. 1, 2, 3 maybe 4 or even 5 but certainly not 11! This seems to speak of something personal. A level of anger. No one knew Julia well enough to develop that level of anger apart from William.

Like AS i dont think that we can dismiss Wallace with someone’s help but imcertainly favour Wallace alone.

Hi Herlock - I don't actually disagree with anything you (or, earlier, AS) say. I feel you make a very decent argument on the balance of probabilities for Wallace being guilty of murder.

Amongst the issues making it impossible though for any rational poster to determine matters with total confidence (and I appreciate that you and AS don't claim to do so) is that we don't actually know the purpose of the plan.

Was it to steal money? To murder Julia Wallace? To humiliate Wallace himself? Or some combination of those?

Unlike when I first looked in on here, you make me look much more towards the second option above. The point of my previous post was really to rule out the first option as the sole purpose of the plan. I feel that there was too much involved beforehand for the only aim to be to steal a few quid. If a crook could be that inventive in his pre-planning, I would expect him to go after a bigger haul and to then accomplish it far more efficiently.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock - I don't actually disagree with anything you (or, earlier, AS) say. I feel you make a very decent argument on the balance of probabilities for Wallace being guilty of murder.

Amongst the issues making it impossible though for any rational poster to determine matters with total confidence (and I appreciate that you and AS don't claim to do so) is that we don't actually know the purpose of the plan.

Was it to steal money? To murder Julia Wallace? To humiliate Wallace himself? Or some combination of those?

Unlike when I first looked in on here, you make me look much more towards the second option above. The point of my previous post was really to rule out the first option as the sole purpose of the plan. I feel that there was too much involved beforehand for the only aim to be to steal a few quid. If a crook could be that inventive in his pre-planning, I would expect him to go after a bigger haul and to then accomplish it far more efficiently.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound

I totally agree that we cannot be certain of the motive behind the plan, although im quite happy to discard the ‘practical joke taken advantage of by the killer’ scenario.
In deciding between ‘to get Wallace out of the house’ and ‘to provide Wallace with an alibi’ i have to come down strongly in favour of the latter. With all the ways that i mentioned of how the former plan could have fallen at the first hurdle only Wallace could have known that these eventualities would never happen.
Add this to the events surrounding murder and the act itself plus the absence of signs for a genuine robbery it has to be Wallace for me.
No one should ever say that they are 100% certain (unless they have an out of control ego.) Wallace might have been innocent. He might have had an accomplice who either did the actual murder or who just helped in other ways. On balance though, for me, its Wallace at 90+%

[OneRound]

Hi again Herlock - with you having taken things into the balance, would you now be prepared to find Wallace guilty of murder?

Genuine question, genuinely interested.

Thanks,

OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi again Herlock - with you having taken things into the balance, would you now be prepared to find Wallace guilty of murder?

Genuine question, genuinely interested.

Thanks,

OneRound

No. I still wouldnt want to send the man to prison let alone the gallows. At a distance of 87 years i could definitely be wrong. We all could. There could have been a killer with a motive that we arent aware of.

It would be interesting to hear a mock trial on the Wallace case.