Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[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]

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]

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]

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.

This is your strongest point, I believe.

The suggestion that 2 separate experts just got the exact same part of the testimony wrong is beggaring belief.

Is it up there with the sneak-thief theory

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is my Correct Solution AS.

Wallace either made a fatal mistake by suggesting stop that wouldn’t have taken him to the chess club that night or he was asking everyone to believe that he went to a stop 3 or 4 times further away by an unnecessarily circuitous route (avoiding the quicker route that he himself with Caird used that night). That he didn’t use the quickest stop to get to (the one by the phonebox) and he also walked past stops in Breck Road.

If only the police had looked at the Monday night trams anything like as closely as the Tuesday night ones?

[AmericanSherlock]

This is my Correct Solution AS.

Wallace either made a fatal mistake by suggesting stop that wouldn’t have taken him to the chess club that night or he was asking everyone to believe that he went to a stop 3 or 4 times further away by an unnecessarily circuitous route (avoiding the quicker route that he himself with Caird used that night). That he didn’t use the quickest stop to get to (the one by the phonebox) and he also walked past stops in Breck Road.

If only the police had looked at the Monday night trams anything like as closely as the Tuesday night ones?

HS, it is a very good catch by you. Worthy of a mention in a book for sure. Much more grounded in reality than sneaky Fake-Qualtroughs with sticky fingers

It appears the police focused mainly on the details of the Tuesday night journey and timing and not the Monday night in any great depth.

It does seem like Wallace tripped himself up (making the same "error" twice) which is to put it mildly, suspicious.

Very amateurish police work though.

The 1 thing I agree with Jonathan Goodman on about this case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS, it is a very good catch by you. Worthy of a mention in a book for sure. Much more grounded in reality than sneaky Fake-Qualtroughs with sticky fingers

It appears the police focused mainly on the details of the Tuesday night journey and timing and not the Monday night in any great depth.

It does seem like Wallace tripped himself up (making the same "error" twice) which is to put it mildly, suspicious.

Very amateurish police work though.

The 1 thing I agree with Jonathan Goodman on about this case.

Thanks AS.

Just think, all it would have needed would have been for one detective to have said “ just for the record Mr Wallace exactly which stop did you catch your tram from on the Monday night?” One answer catches him in a blatant lie the other raises red flags as to why he took the longest route to get to the most out of the way stop.

I can’t help feeling, and I’ve had this feeling since before the ‘ Monday tram issue,’ that the case against Wallace is probably as strong as it could be. Even to make Parry ‘available’ for the crime we have to assume that people lied to give him an alibi. Something that we have no good reason to suspect.

The location of the phonebox and the content of the call point overwhelmingly to Wallace as he was the only person that could be sure that the potential 8 pitfalls in the plan wouldn’t occur.

The returned cash box, lack of blood outside of the parlour and the feeble staging of a ‘robbery’ points overwhelmingly at Wallace.

The fact that the lights were turned off points at Wallace rather than an intruder.

The fact that no one saw or heard anyone else around 29 Wolverton Street at the time. And no one saw or heard ‘Qualtrough’ having a discussion with Julia at the front door points away from a stranger.

The fact that Wallace didn’t hammer on the front door or call out Julia’s name is suspicious to say the least.

Wallace’s continued search for MGE despite being told categorically that it didn’t exist speaks of someone pursuing a plan rather than a genuine search.

The fact that Wallace ignored the parlour, when the door was in reaching distance, to go searching upstairs for Julia is also deeply suspicious.

Why would the respectable, upright, conscientious Wallace keep company with an untrustworthy, womanising thief like Parry. Allowing him into his home for musical evenings. Unless he was lining him up to take the blame for Julia’s murder.

Obviously I could go on and on and on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks AS.

Just think, all it would have needed would have been for one detective to have said “ just for the record Mr Wallace exactly which stop did you catch your tram from on the Monday night?” One answer catches him in a blatant lie the other raises red flags as to why he took the longest route to get to the most out of the way stop.

I can’t help feeling, and I’ve had this feeling since before the ‘ Monday tram issue,’ that the case against Wallace is probably as strong as it could be. Even to make Parry ‘available’ for the crime we have to assume that people lied to give him an alibi. Something that we have no good reason to suspect.

The location of the phonebox and the content of the call point overwhelmingly to Wallace as he was the only person that could be sure that the potential 8 pitfalls in the plan wouldn’t occur.

The returned cash box, lack of blood outside of the parlour and the feeble staging of a ‘robbery’ points overwhelmingly at Wallace.

The fact that the lights were turned off points at Wallace rather than an intruder.

The fact that no one saw or heard anyone else around 29 Wolverton Street at the time. And no one saw or heard ‘Qualtrough’ having a discussion with Julia at the front door points away from a stranger.

The fact that Wallace didn’t hammer on the front door or call out Julia’s name is suspicious to say the least.

Wallace’s continued search for MGE despite being told categorically that it didn’t exist speaks of someone pursuing a plan rather than a genuine search.

The fact that Wallace ignored the parlour, when the door was in reaching distance, to go searching upstairs for Julia is also deeply suspicious.

Why would the respectable, upright, conscientious Wallace keep company with an untrustworthy, womanising thief like Parry. Allowing him into his home for musical evenings. Unless he was lining him up to take the blame for Julia’s murder.

Obviously I could go on and on and on.

Just to add.....maybe they did ask the question? Maybe they too assumed that the trams ran from Belmont Road to the chess club on Monday nights?

. Very amateurish police work though

I couldn’t agree more AS.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone seen Rod

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to remind all posters.....

From Rodders.

.
Fear not, gentle reader. The best book on the Wallace Case is at the printers...

This was posted on the 4th of March this year.

4 months ago!

We’re waiting Rod

[AmericanSherlock]

Just to add.....maybe they did ask the question? Maybe they too assumed that the trams ran from Belmont Road to the chess club on Monday nights?



I couldn’t agree more AS.

Hi Herlock, it is possible that they just assumed this.

Apparently, they seemed satisfied with not checking up in any depth on Wallace's route the Monday night. Only focused on the Tuesday night's journey and the phone call from the Monday. A mistake for sure.

In either case, they either failed to ask a pertinent, obvious question or did so and were satisfied with an answer that should have raised serious eyebrows and required further questioning.

An unprofessional job. They may very well have tried to get the milk boy to lie about the timing (which is clearly an immoral tactic), but they also, perhaps out of sheer stupidity, failed to grill Wallace on inconsistencies in his statement in a way that he may have been unable to wring himself out of.

[AmericanSherlock]

Anyone seen Rod

Institutionalized is a significant possibility.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, it is possible that they just assumed this.

Apparently, they seemed satisfied with not checking up in any depth on Wallace's route the Monday night. Only focused on the Tuesday night's journey and the phone call from the Monday. A mistake for sure.

In either case, they either failed to ask a pertinent, obvious question or did so and were satisfied with an answer that should have raised serious eyebrows and required further questioning.

An unprofessional job. They may very well have tried to get the milk boy to lie about the timing (which is clearly an immoral tactic), but they also, perhaps out of sheer stupidity, failed to grill Wallace on inconsistencies in his statement in a way that he may have been unable to wring himself out of.

Perhaps if it was the case that the police were just blinkered in their pursuit of Wallace they wouldn’t have wanted the chance of a conductor saying that he ‘might’ have picked Wallace up at a stop other than the one near to the phone box.

It’s hard to come up with a reasonable explanation for why they didn’t investigate the Monday night trams. Especially when one tram stop would have placed Wallace at the phone box at the time of the call.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Institutionalized is a significant possibility.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A small point:

When Wallace spoke to Constable Serjeant he said that he appeared nervous and was stuttering.

Can anyone suggest why Wallace might appear nervous on a perfectly innocent business trip