Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[caz]

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?’

Hi HS,

I think you hit on another important observation here. A guilty Wallace would have had every reason to keep his head down on his journey to the chess club on the Monday night, assuming he took the tram from the nearest stop to the call box. But the opposite would have applied on the Tuesday night if he needed plenty of witnesses to his fruitless search for MGE. And he did make himself 'conspicuous' to a fault, almost from the start of that journey, for someone who must have known roughly how to get to the right area, if not the actual address, knowing someone he had previously visited in the Menlove Avenue vicinity.

If he was innocent he'd have been able to leave himself more time, and only ask for directions once he got close to Menlove Avenue and was unable to find a Menlove Gardens East. I don't wish to sound sexist, but men in my experience are notorious for not asking anyone for directions [or reading instruction manuals while I'm at it!] until they have exhausted every other avenue - excuse the pun - and have to admit defeat. Yet Wallace made it his business to ask anyone and everyone at the first opportunity. But only when he was already out of the house and on his way. He had all day on the Tuesday while on his rounds to ask the people he saw if they knew the address he had been given by "Qualtrough" the previous evening. But to my knowledge nobody came forward to say they were asked during the day on the Tuesday, unlike the evening of the murder itself. The last thing he'd have wanted before the murder was to be told definitively that the address simply didn't exist. But if he was innocent that information would have saved him a wasted journey that evening.

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.

Another point to make is that Wallace might have been better off to admit it if he used the tram stop nearest the call box, because he was suspected anyway, when the call was traced and its proximity to his home established. He'd have been sunk if he had denied it and someone who knew him had seen him getting on the tram near the call box, or if someone had pointed out that the one he claimed to catch either didn't run on a Monday night or involved an unfeasibly long walk on a winter's evening. Didn't he only just make it to the club for the 7.45pm deadline? Even more reason not to walk any further than necessary at the start of his journey there.

If he'd planned this any more thoroughly, he could have worked out for himself that "Qualtrough" - if someone else - would have wanted to make sure Wallace was on his way to the club that night and would get the phoney message, so it would have been perfectly logical for the call to be made from a box near to the tram stop an innocent Wallace had actually used! The fact that it looks very much like Wallace lied about this can only work against him, since "Qualtrough" could have had no idea where Wallace was going if Wallace himself had been nowhere near that call box.

Love,

Caz
X

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi HS,

I think you hit on another important observation here. A guilty Wallace would have had every reason to keep his head down on his journey to the chess club on the Monday night, assuming he took the tram from the nearest stop to the call box. But the opposite would have applied on the Tuesday night if he needed plenty of witnesses to his fruitless search for MGE. And he did make himself 'conspicuous' to a fault, almost from the start of that journey, for someone who must have known roughly how to get to the right area, if not the actual address, knowing someone he had previously visited in the Menlove Avenue vicinity.

If he was innocent he'd have been able to leave himself more time, and only ask for directions once he got close to Menlove Avenue and was unable to find a Menlove Gardens East. I don't wish to sound sexist, but men in my experience are notorious for not asking anyone for directions [or reading instruction manuals while I'm at it!] until they have exhausted every other avenue - excuse the pun - and have to admit defeat. Yet Wallace made it his business to ask anyone and everyone at the first opportunity. But only when he was already out of the house and on his way. He had all day on the Tuesday while on his rounds to ask the people he saw if they knew the address he had been given by "Qualtrough" the previous evening. But to my knowledge nobody came forward to say they were asked during the day on the Tuesday, unlike the evening of the murder itself. The last thing he'd have wanted before the murder was to be told definitively that the address simply didn't exist. But if he was innocent that information would have saved him a wasted journey that evening.



Another point to make is that Wallace might have been better off to admit it if he used the tram stop nearest the call box, because he was suspected anyway, when the call was traced and its proximity to his home established. He'd have been sunk if he had denied it and someone who knew him had seen him getting on the tram near the call box, or if someone had pointed out that the one he claimed to catch either didn't run on a Monday night or involved an unfeasibly long walk on a winter's evening. Didn't he only just make it to the club for the 7.45pm deadline? Even more reason not to walk any further than necessary at the start of his journey there.

If he'd planned this any more thoroughly, he could have worked out for himself that "Qualtrough" - if someone else - would have wanted to make sure Wallace was on his way to the club that night and would get the phoney message, so it would have been perfectly logical for the call to be made from a box near to the tram stop an innocent Wallace had actually used! The fact that it looks very much like Wallace lied about this can only work against him, since "Qualtrough" could have had no idea where Wallace was going if Wallace himself had been nowhere near that call box.

Love,

Caz
X

It took me a few times reading this to grasp the significance of this point.

Oh my God, what a good one!

[AmericanSherlock]

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.

I think it's possible the police had a narrow minded view of how Wallace committed the crime and didn't bother doing the proper work.

Ironically, in my belief, because of this they ended up lacking the more proper circumstantial evidence they probably could have gotten to nail him and make sure he didn't get off, which as we know, in the end he did.

I have to say both you and Caz are making unreal points lately. My conviction strengthens in the belief of Wallace's guilt. The circumstantial evidence is quite overwhelming.

Either Wallace is 1 in a billion bad luck at "appearing guilty" or he in fact was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

I think you hit on another important observation here. A guilty Wallace would have had every reason to keep his head down on his journey to the chess club on the Monday night, assuming he took the tram from the nearest stop to the call box. But the opposite would have applied on the Tuesday night if he needed plenty of witnesses to his fruitless search for MGE. And he did make himself 'conspicuous' to a fault, almost from the start of that journey, for someone who must have known roughly how to get to the right area, if not the actual address, knowing someone he had previously visited in the Menlove Avenue vicinity.

If he was innocent he'd have been able to leave himself more time, and only ask for directions once he got close to Menlove Avenue and was unable to find a Menlove Gardens East. I don't wish to sound sexist, but men in my experience are notorious for not asking anyone for directions [or reading instruction manuals while I'm at it!] until they have exhausted every other avenue - excuse the pun - and have to admit defeat. Yet Wallace made it his business to ask anyone and everyone at the first opportunity. But only when he was already out of the house and on his way. He had all day on the Tuesday while on his rounds to ask the people he saw if they knew the address he had been given by "Qualtrough" the previous evening. But to my knowledge nobody came forward to say they were asked during the day on the Tuesday, unlike the evening of the murder itself. The last thing he'd have wanted before the murder was to be told definitively that the address simply didn't exist. But if he was innocent that information would have saved him a wasted journey that evening.

Have we met Caz? The ‘instruction manual’ comment is me all over!

You’re absolutely right though. Wallace made no attempt to find out exactly where MGE was during the day which could have been fairly easily achieved (a quick phone call to Crewe might have done it for eg.) He might reasonably assumed that it was somewhere in the vacinity of Menlove Gardens though. Let’s face it, he wasn’t looking for the source of the Nile here. The badgering of conductors; the way he asked an Inspector when the Conductor had already given him the information all seems like overkill.


Another point to make is that Wallace might have been better off to admit it if he used the tram stop nearest the call box, because he was suspected anyway, when the call was traced and its proximity to his home established. He'd have been sunk if he had denied it and someone who knew him had seen him getting on the tram near the call box, or if someone had pointed out that the one he claimed to catch either didn't run on a Monday night or involved an unfeasibly long walk on a winter's evening. Didn't he only just make it to the club for the 7.45pm deadline? Even more reason not to walk any further than necessary at the start of his journey there.

There was a 7.45 chess deadline. Leaving the house at 7 would surely have meant that he would have wanted the quickest route.

If he'd planned this any more thoroughly, he could have worked out for himself that "Qualtrough" - if someone else - would have wanted to make sure Wallace was on his way to the club that night and would get the phoney message, so it would have been perfectly logical for the call to be made from a box near to the tram stop an innocent Wallace had actually used! The fact that it looks very much like Wallace lied about this can only work against him, since "Qualtrough" could have had no idea where Wallace was going if Wallace himself had been nowhere near that call box.

I agree with AS. This is a great point Caz

Love,

Caz
X

There’s not much wiggle room for Wallace at this point. Every aspect of the case points toward his guilt.

[caz]

Cheers chaps! Good to know you don't think I'm talking total crap, as I am so often accused of doing concerning a certain hoaxed diary!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Another thought....

When Wallace found his wife brutally murdered, he'd have instantly appreciated - if he was innocent - how cunning and evil this "Qualtrough" was. It would have gone from a wild goose chase to something infinitely more sinister. Surely Wallace would have beaten himself up for the rest of his life for going off to that appointment, at an address he didn't know, without having done his homework beforehand. Had he done so, and suspected it was a scam because the address didn't exist, he would have stayed at home and his wife would still be alive.

Did he ever express his deep regret over the decision to go out that night, never having heard of either "Qualtrough" or the address he was given? I'd have been absolutely devastated to lose a loved one in such a terrible way because I'd fallen for a scam which I could have prevented with a little more thought.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Points for discussion or dismissal

I decided to re-read Murphy. I’m only up to page 58 but I thought that I’d list a few things here. These aren’t “aha, Wallace was guilty” points. They are just....well, points. They may have been answered before (possibly even later in the book) but I have an unreliable memory. One of the points is simply a request for help. Apologies for repetition but here goes.

This is one that I just need someone to clarify for me. When Wallace got home on the Tuesday was he trying to get into the back door using a key? Johnston offered to go and get his key if Wallace wasn’t able to get in so, to me, this suggests that Wallace didn’t have his backdoor key? If this is the case why was Wallace so surprised that he couldn’t get in? At his trial Wallace said that he’d told Julia to lock the door and that this was their usual practice. I must be missing something here. please put me out of my misery on this one guys.

~

As it has been said that the Menlove Gardens area was an affluent one (one that would certainly have tempted Wallace with the thought of a high commission) why did Beattie call it “ a bad place to be knocking about after dark.” Sounds more like Whitechapel 1888.

~

If Bertha and Walter Holme of number 27 heard a knocking on the Wallace’s front door at around 6.30 from a position in their kitchen at the back of the house why did they hear no one else knock the door (probably only 10 or 15 minutes later?) Especially our mythical Qualtrough who would have proceeded to have a conversation with Julia explaining the ****-up.

~

Why did Wallace stutter and appear nervous when he spoke to Constable Serjeant in Green Lane? After all, he wasn’t up to anything

~

Why did Wallace use the phrase “her mackintosh and my mackintosh” when he later stated that he’d never seen Julia in a mackintosh (which implies that she didn’t even own one?)

~

To me this is just a little curious....no more. When Wallace and PC Williams entered the middle bedroom Williams approached the curtained recess. Wallace informed him that that was where his wife kept her clothes and that they hadn’t been touched. Williams then opened the curtains and checked. Why would Wallace, when searching for Julia, and in the short time that he was upstairs, have checked to see if Julia was behind a curtain in a small clothing storage area? Also isn’t the fact that Wallace had drawn the curtain back before he went on with his search slightly reminiscent of the returned cash box?

~

In the front bedroom why would a thief, presumably looking for cash and valuables, have pointlessly thrown two pillows into the fireplace but not bothered to check the dressing table drawers? Money, jewellery.....

~

I mention this purely because it seems a little strange and nothing more. How many of us would insist that they wanted to sleep that night in the very house where their beloved wife had been brutally murdered?

~

This is a request for help. Am I going blind?

When asked about the route that he’d taken on the Tuesday night he said......Richmond Park, Sedley Street, Newcombe Street, Castlewood Road and Belmont Road.

I’ve gone over the street map in Murphy with a magnifying glass but I can’t see a Castlewood Road? I’m not reading anything into this but I’m just curious as to where it was.

~

Looking at the photograph taken from the parlour door it’s immediately obvious how little space there was on Julia’s right. When Wallace first entered the room it was in total darkness and he didn’t know that Julia was dead (he thought that she might have had some kind of fit.) When he went to the left gas jet how did he avoid stepping in Julia’s blood? It seems unlikely in the extreme given the lack of space? Between the first photograph and the second someone moved the chair to a place between the sideboard and the door (Wallace had already left for the police station so we know wasn’t him.) In it’s new position the chair would have impeded the opening of the door (which had been removed) so we can say with confidence that it wasn’t the original position of the chair. It was likely moved either by the photographer or a police office to allow the photographer to enter, with his equipment, and avoid the blood.
With the chair in its ‘new’ position it gives the appearance of their being more space for Wallace to have walked to the gas jet avoiding blood. With the chair in its original ‘first photograph’ position it’s hard to see how Wallace avoided the blood in the dark.

Unless he knew that it was there of course

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cheers chaps! Good to know you don't think I'm talking total crap, as I am so often accused of doing concerning a certain hoaxed diary!

Love,

Caz
X

Maybrick - Liverpool

Wallace - Liverpool



You always make excellent points Caz. You must have a great memory that you can keep up with the diary stuff (electricians etc) and the details of the Wallace case. My brain hurts coping with one subject at a time. What is it that they say about women and multi-tasking

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another thought....

When Wallace found his wife brutally murdered, he'd have instantly appreciated - if he was innocent - how cunning and evil this "Qualtrough" was. It would have gone from a wild goose chase to something infinitely more sinister. Surely Wallace would have beaten himself up for the rest of his life for going off to that appointment, at an address he didn't know, without having done his homework beforehand. Had he done so, and suspected it was a scam because the address didn't exist, he would have stayed at home and his wife would still be alive.

Did he ever express his deep regret over the decision to go out that night, never having heard of either "Qualtrough" or the address he was given? I'd have been absolutely devastated to lose a loved one in such a terrible way because I'd fallen for a scam which I could have prevented with a little more thought.

Love,

Caz
X

And another good point. I’d never considered that.

Wallace seemed more concerned with pointing the finger directly at Parry something that he didn’t do while the investigation and trial was still ongoing. No sign of an ‘if only I hadn’t gone on that stupid search.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

I decided to re-read Murphy. I’m only up to page 58 but I thought that I’d list a few things here. These aren’t “aha, Wallace was guilty” points. They are just....well, points. They may have been answered before (possibly even later in the book) but I have an unreliable memory. One of the points is simply a request for help. Apologies for repetition but here goes.

This is one that I just need someone to clarify for me. When Wallace got home on the Tuesday was he trying to get into the back door using a key? Johnston offered to go and get his key if Wallace wasn’t able to get in so, to me, this suggests that Wallace didn’t have his backdoor key? If this is the case why was Wallace so surprised that he couldn’t get in? At his trial Wallace said that he’d told Julia to lock the door and that this was their usual practice. I must be missing something here. please put me out of my misery on this one guys.

~

As it has been said that the Menlove Gardens area was an affluent one (one that would certainly have tempted Wallace with the thought of a high commission) why did Beattie call it “ a bad place to be knocking about after dark.” Sounds more like Whitechapel 1888.

~

If Bertha and Walter Holme of number 27 heard a knocking on the Wallace’s front door at around 6.30 from a position in their kitchen at the back of the house why did they hear no one else knock the door (probably only 10 or 15 minutes later?) Especially our mythical Qualtrough who would have proceeded to have a conversation with Julia explaining the ****-up.

~

Why did Wallace stutter and appear nervous when he spoke to Constable Serjeant in Green Lane? After all, he wasn’t up to anything

~

Why did Wallace use the phrase “her mackintosh and my mackintosh” when he later stated that he’d never seen Julia in a mackintosh (which implies that she didn’t even own one?)

~

To me this is just a little curious....no more. When Wallace and PC Williams entered the middle bedroom Williams approached the curtained recess. Wallace informed him that that was where his wife kept her clothes and that they hadn’t been touched. Williams then opened the curtains and checked. Why would Wallace, when searching for Julia, and in the short time that he was upstairs, have checked to see if Julia was behind a curtain in a small clothing storage area? Also isn’t the fact that Wallace had drawn the curtain back before he went on with his search slightly reminiscent of the returned cash box?

~

In the front bedroom why would a thief, presumably looking for cash and valuables, have pointlessly thrown two pillows into the fireplace but not bothered to check the dressing table drawers? Money, jewellery.....

~

I mention this purely because it seems a little strange and nothing more. How many of us would insist that they wanted to sleep that night in the very house where their beloved wife had been brutally murdered?

~

This is a request for help. Am I going blind?

When asked about the route that he’d taken on the Tuesday night he said......Richmond Park, Sedley Street, Newcombe Street, Castlewood Road and Belmont Road.

I’ve gone over the street map in Murphy with a magnifying glass but I can’t see a Castlewood Road? I’m not reading anything into this but I’m just curious as to where it was.

~

Looking at the photograph taken from the parlour door it’s immediately obvious how little space there was on Julia’s right. When Wallace first entered the room it was in total darkness and he didn’t know that Julia was dead (he thought that she might have had some kind of fit.) When he went to the left gas jet how did he avoid stepping in Julia’s blood? It seems unlikely in the extreme given the lack of space? Between the first photograph and the second someone moved the chair to a place between the sideboard and the door (Wallace had already left for the police station so we know wasn’t him.) In it’s new position the chair would have impeded the opening of the door (which had been removed) so we can say with confidence that it wasn’t the original position of the chair. It was likely moved either by the photographer or a police office to allow the photographer to enter, with his equipment, and avoid the blood.
With the chair in its ‘new’ position it gives the appearance of their being more space for Wallace to have walked to the gas jet avoiding blood. With the chair in its original ‘first photograph’ position it’s hard to see how Wallace avoided the blood in the dark.

Unless he knew that it was there of course

Just to let admin know that the **** up wasn’t swearing (but it was ‘fowl’ language )

[AmericanSherlock]

I decided to re-read Murphy. I’m only up to page 58 but I thought that I’d list a few things here. These aren’t “aha, Wallace was guilty” points. They are just....well, points. They may have been answered before (possibly even later in the book) but I have an unreliable memory. One of the points is simply a request for help. Apologies for repetition but here goes.

This is one that I just need someone to clarify for me. When Wallace got home on the Tuesday was he trying to get into the back door using a key? Johnston offered to go and get his key if Wallace wasn’t able to get in so, to me, this suggests that Wallace didn’t have his backdoor key? If this is the case why was Wallace so surprised that he couldn’t get in? At his trial Wallace said that he’d told Julia to lock the door and that this was their usual practice. I must be missing something here. please put me out of my misery on this one guys.

~

As it has been said that the Menlove Gardens area was an affluent one (one that would certainly have tempted Wallace with the thought of a high commission) why did Beattie call it “ a bad place to be knocking about after dark.” Sounds more like Whitechapel 1888.

~

If Bertha and Walter Holme of number 27 heard a knocking on the Wallace’s front door at around 6.30 from a position in their kitchen at the back of the house why did they hear no one else knock the door (probably only 10 or 15 minutes later?) Especially our mythical Qualtrough who would have proceeded to have a conversation with Julia explaining the ****-up.

~

Why did Wallace stutter and appear nervous when he spoke to Constable Serjeant in Green Lane? After all, he wasn’t up to anything

~

Why did Wallace use the phrase “her mackintosh and my mackintosh” when he later stated that he’d never seen Julia in a mackintosh (which implies that she didn’t even own one?)

~

To me this is just a little curious....no more. When Wallace and PC Williams entered the middle bedroom Williams approached the curtained recess. Wallace informed him that that was where his wife kept her clothes and that they hadn’t been touched. Williams then opened the curtains and checked. Why would Wallace, when searching for Julia, and in the short time that he was upstairs, have checked to see if Julia was behind a curtain in a small clothing storage area? Also isn’t the fact that Wallace had drawn the curtain back before he went on with his search slightly reminiscent of the returned cash box?

~

In the front bedroom why would a thief, presumably looking for cash and valuables, have pointlessly thrown two pillows into the fireplace but not bothered to check the dressing table drawers? Money, jewellery.....

~

I mention this purely because it seems a little strange and nothing more. How many of us would insist that they wanted to sleep that night in the very house where their beloved wife had been brutally murdered?

~

This is a request for help. Am I going blind?

When asked about the route that he’d taken on the Tuesday night he said......Richmond Park, Sedley Street, Newcombe Street, Castlewood Road and Belmont Road.

I’ve gone over the street map in Murphy with a magnifying glass but I can’t see a Castlewood Road? I’m not reading anything into this but I’m just curious as to where it was.

~

Looking at the photograph taken from the parlour door it’s immediately obvious how little space there was on Julia’s right. When Wallace first entered the room it was in total darkness and he didn’t know that Julia was dead (he thought that she might have had some kind of fit.) When he went to the left gas jet how did he avoid stepping in Julia’s blood? It seems unlikely in the extreme given the lack of space? Between the first photograph and the second someone moved the chair to a place between the sideboard and the door (Wallace had already left for the police station so we know wasn’t him.) In it’s new position the chair would have impeded the opening of the door (which had been removed) so we can say with confidence that it wasn’t the original position of the chair. It was likely moved either by the photographer or a police office to allow the photographer to enter, with his equipment, and avoid the blood.
With the chair in its ‘new’ position it gives the appearance of their being more space for Wallace to have walked to the gas jet avoiding blood. With the chair in its original ‘first photograph’ position it’s hard to see how Wallace avoided the blood in the dark.

Unless he knew that it was there of course

Hi Herlock some good points as usual. Wallace sure looks guilty, doesn't he?

In regards to the key issue, according to Wallace he had already tried the front door which he couldn't get open and had also knocked on it hoping to get Julia's attention, tried the back door which wouldn't open, then back to the front which wouldn't open again and BACK to the back door where he saw the Johnston's, told them what was going on, noted that Julia wouldn't be out because of her cold. It was then that Johnston said to try again or he would go get his key. This time, miraculously, it opened.

So Wallace had his key all along. Obviously, also the locks were imprudent as Johnston's key would have worked as well. (Might be seen as a slight eyebrow raise in the Johnston's direction, however makes a joke of Tom Slemen's theory which was that the Johnston's needed Julia to be "lured" out with the cat)

Anyway, apparently Wallace's key suddenly worked for the 1st time in 4 tries in both doors with the Johnston's watching.

The whole thing seems contrived, doesn't it?

[caz]

Just to let admin know that the **** up wasn’t swearing (but it was ‘fowl’ language )

You cocked up, Herlock. Leave out the hyphen next time, and the space, then you can write about Qualtrough's cockup to your heart's content.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

You cocked up, Herlock. Leave out the hyphen next time, and the space, then you can write about Qualtrough's cockup to your heart's content.

Love,

Caz
X

Cheers Caz

Not the first time that I’ve made this cockup.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock some good points as usual. Wallace sure looks guilty, doesn't he?

In regards to the key issue, according to Wallace he had already tried the front door which he couldn't get open and had also knocked on it hoping to get Julia's attention, tried the back door which wouldn't open, then back to the front which wouldn't open again and BACK to the back door where he saw the Johnston's, told them what was going on, noted that Julia wouldn't be out because of her cold. It was then that Johnston said to try again or he would go get his key. This time, miraculously, it opened.

So Wallace had his key all along. Obviously, also the locks were imprudent as Johnston's key would have worked as well. (Might be seen as a slight eyebrow raise in the Johnston's direction, however makes a joke of Tom Slemen's theory which was that the Johnston's needed Julia to be "lured" out with the cat)

Anyway, apparently Wallace's key suddenly worked for the 1st time in 4 tries in both doors with the Johnston's watching.

The whole thing seems contrived, doesn't it?

Cheers AS

I knew that he had his front door key but I couldn’t work out if he had a backdoor key too. Especially as under normal circumstances he wouldn’t have needed it.

[AmericanSherlock]

Does anyone know if Dorothy Sayers essay on the case is available anywhere online? I had read a brief article she wrote, but that is apparently not the main one she is famous for. I think it is contained in the Anatomy of Murder, so I may just have to spring for that.

She comes down on the side of Wallace's innocence.