Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Another thought I had for those who suspect Parry.

I have seen suggestions that his alibi for the 20th from 5:30 to 8:30 from Olivia Brine (and others) may have not false, but could have embellished. That is to say that he could have been there for part of the time, but not all of it. Thus, giving him an opportunity to have committed the murder.

But consider this: he could not have committed the murder and then gone to visit there in that timeframe. If you are one who thinks Wallace would have been covered in blood, surely the same would apply to Parry.

My personal belief is Wallace would have had a method to avoid blood splatter; if Parry was the killer it seems unlikely it would be pre-meditated and it is hard to imagine he would not be a mess (not to mention highly stressed and emotional) following his first murder and unplanned one at that. It is difficult to imagine him committing the murder at close to 7 PM and then heading over to the Brines right after.

What if Parry left the Brines earlier than 830 and committed the crime late--- say around 8 pm? The problem here is if Parry had been the caller and stalked Wallace the night before all in the hope of enacting this convoluted plan, he would again want to stalk Wallace and make sure he left the following night. Most books that have Parry or someone like him as the killer (Robert F Hussey's Murderer Scot Free for example) have this as part of their theory and it's just the logical conclusion of assuming such a person went to the immense trouble of making the call as part of an elaborate criminal/robbery plot. Clearly, if Parry had been near 29 Wolverton from 6:15 or so on waiting for Wallace to leave, it seems unlikely he visited the Brines and stayed for any length at 5:30.

It seems to me that either several people were lying and completely fabricated an alibi for Parry on the night of the 20th or he was innocent. I don't see this "gray area" of an exaggerated alibi.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another thought I had for those who suspect Parry.

I have seen suggestions that his alibi for the 20th from 5:30 to 8:30 from Olivia Brine (and others) may have not false, but could have embellished. That is to say that he could have been there for part of the time, but not all of it. Thus, giving him an opportunity to have committed the murder.

But consider this: he could not have committed the murder and then gone to visit there in that timeframe. If you are one who thinks Wallace would have been covered in blood, surely the same would apply to Parry.

My personal belief is Wallace would have had a method to avoid blood splatter; if Parry was the killer it seems unlikely it would be pre-meditated and it is hard to imagine he would not be a mess (not to mention highly stressed and emotional) following his first murder and unplanned one at that. It is difficult to imagine him committing the murder at close to 7 PM and then heading over to the Brines right after.

What if Parry left the Brines earlier than 830 and committed the crime late--- say around 8 pm? The problem here is if Parry had been the caller and stalked Wallace the night before all in the hope of enacting this convoluted plan, he would again want to stalk Wallace and make sure he left the following night. Most books that have Parry or someone like him as the killer (Robert F Hussey's Murderer Scot Free for example) have this as part of their theory and it's just the logical conclusion of assuming such a person went to the immense trouble of making the call as part of an elaborate criminal/robbery plot. Clearly, if Parry had been near 29 Wolverton from 6:15 or so on waiting for Wallace to leave, it seems unlikely he visited the Brines and stayed for any length at 5:30.

It seems to me that either several people were lying and completely fabricated an alibi for Parry on the night of the 20th or he was innocent. I don't see this "gray area" of an exaggerated alibi.

I’ve always thought that you would be hard pressed to find a ‘suspect’ with a better alibi than Parry. How many people are we prepared to believe would be willing to lie for him?

He left work at 5.30 and went to see Mrs Brine at Knocklaid Road. Her daughter Savona and her nephew Harold were there. He stayed until 8.30. (I may be getting mixed up hear but can I recall a Miss Price being mentioned or was that elsewhere?) He then went a bought cigarettes and a paper from Mr Hodgson of Maiden Lane PO. Then to Hignett’s of West Derby Road to pick up his accumulator battery. Then on to Lisburn Lane for a 10 minute chat with Mrs Williamson. He then went to the Lloyd’s at Missouri Road where he stayed until 11.00/11.30.

So that’s at least 6 alibi’s before he even got to the Lloyd’s so we have a pretty widespread ‘conspiracy’ here. It’s simply not believable. Parry has to be dismissed as a potential murderer.

The only reason that he was suspected in the first place was because Wallace mentioned him and then we have Parkes and the crime’s least believable testimony ever.

As you’ve said AS, the idea of him ‘slipping away’ and brutally murdering Julia and then either sneaking back with no one noticing his absence or persuading these people to lie to defend a murderer is a leap way too far. Especially considering the fact that he would have probably have had blood on him and that he would have been ‘stressed’ to say the least.

There really is only one suspect.

One who might have had reason to hate/resent Julia.
One who can be placed at the scene.
One who was the only one who could have been certain of the success of the Qualtrough plan.
One who would have had to have changed his voice when talking to Beattie on the phone.
One who would have arrived at the phone box at exactly the time of the call had he turned right into Breck Road instead of left as he claimed.
One who illogically walked past the murder room whilst ‘searching’ for Julia.
One who managed to avoid stepping in blood, in the dark in a very tight space.

I could go on and on and on

[Herlock Sholmes]

A New ‘Correct Solution.’

As far as I’m concerned there is only one suspect for the murder of Julia Wallace and that’s her husband William. For me Richard Gordon Parry is a complete red herring dangled in front of the faces of the police by Wallace himself - possibly intentionally. Parry’s alibi for the night of the murder is pretty unshakeable and comes from at least a half a dozen people. He should therefore be dismissed as the actual murderer.

Some are so convinced that Wallace was innocent though that they desperately look for an alternative scenario which allows them to shoehorn Parry into the frame as a criminal mastermind who used an accomplice to carry out the crime and so we get presented with the ‘sneak thief’ theory. We’ve discussed that baseless theory on here ad nauseum and it simply doesn’t hold water. Some appear to believe that by simply coming up with a scenario that might possibly explain events that we have the solution to the case. This is obvious nonsense. We could undoubtedly come up with any number of ‘scenarios’ to explain events but this doesn’t make any of them true of course. A while ago I came up with an imagined scenario where Wallace had a female accomplice and this explained how Alan Close could have seen ‘Julia’ at the door when she was actually already dead. Of course I never suggested that I believed in a female accomplice it was just an exercise to show how easy it is to come up with scenarios.

I decided to come up with another scenario. My aim was to make it at least as likely as the ‘sneak thief’ theory and to ‘explain’ more of the questions that are still asked about the case. This idea has been mentioned before but I just cant recall where it was mentioned or who by? My ‘scenario’ involves Julia being intentionally murdered by someone from her past. An ex-suitor perhaps. I’ll call him ‘Mr Q.’

Mr Q and Julia’s relationship ended acrimoniously. Perhaps her family felt that he was unsuitable or perhaps they felt he was very suitable and they were angry that she split with him? Over the years Mr Q became unbalanced in some way or blamed Julia for the way that his life had ended up. He finds out where Julia is living and goes to Liverpool. He finds a place to stay and watches William and Julia. He finds out about their lives and habits. He wants revenge and has already decided to kill Julia. As a bonus he believes that he can achieve this and point the police in William’s direction as the culprit.

He comes up with the Qualtrough plan. He makes the phone call then visits Julia the next night. She doesn’t want to let him in but he says something like “you can either give me ten minutes now or I can call back tomorrow when your husbands here?” They go into the Parlour where William’s mackintosh is drying over a chair. She picks up the coat; Mr Q tries an embrace; they scuffle; the coat catches light. Together they put out the fire with Julia’s skirt getting singed in the process. Mr Q pulls out a weapon from his coat pocket and strikes Julia on the head. She falls to the ground with the mackintosh underneath her. Mr Q moves the chair out of the way, putting it in front of the sideboard. He then kneels at Julia’s side and in a rage rains down more blows. He gets blood on his overcoat so he takes it off and rolls it up with the weapon inside. He goes into the kitchen pulls off a door of the cupboard but there’s nothing inside worth removing. He spots the cash box; takes it down, removes the cash and puts it back knowing that this would look suspicious for a genuine robbery. He goes upstairs and makes a mess in the front bedroom. He puts the cash into the vase to plant suspicion against Wallace. He leaves by the back door and goes to his car which is parked in Richmond Park.

I don’t see how this is a less believable scenario than the ‘sneak thief’ theory but does it ‘answer’ any questions that the ‘sneak thief’ theory doesn’t? I think so......

it might explain the apparent family rift.
if Julia and Mr Q had had an abusive relationship it might explain Julia’s reclusiveness.
it might also explain why Julia appeared to want to distance herself from her past.
it would explain why Julia let someone into the house on that night.
it would explain the level of brutality; a premeditated revenge murder.
it would explain the telephone operators hearing the voice of an ‘older man.’
it would explain the poorly staged robbery; to incriminate William.
it would explain the lack of a weapon with the premeditated killer removing his own.
-there would be no timing issues.

There are probably more that could be added but even as it stands I’d still say that this is a more believable ‘solution’ than the ‘sneak thief’ theory. It shows that a scenario doesn’t equate to a solution.

[caz]

Good job, HS.

The only problem I would have with such a scenario is why this as yet unidentified blast from Julia's past would feel the need to stay around effecting the poorly staged robbery. The obvious suspect - perhaps the only one - would be Wallace anyway, if he couldn't prove the attack took place while he was out of the house. Without the robbery motive, staged or otherwise, things would only have looked worse for the husband in the case, because the motive would then appear to be personal.

I still wonder about Julia's age discrepancy, which doesn't seem to have been generally known about at the time. Might this have had some significance to the case, possibly providing her killer - an old flame if not Wallace himself - with a motive nobody could have guessed at? Yet the staged robbery does look more like something Wallace alone would have hoped to benefit from.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good job, HS.

The only problem I would have with such a scenario is why this as yet unidentified blast from Julia's past would feel the need to stay around effecting the poorly staged robbery. The obvious suspect - perhaps the only one - would be Wallace anyway, if he couldn't prove the attack took place while he was out of the house. Without the robbery motive, staged or otherwise, things would only have looked worse for the husband in the case, because the motive would then appear to be personal.

I still wonder about Julia's age discrepancy, which doesn't seem to have been generally known about at the time. Might this have had some significance to the case, possibly providing her killer - an old flame if not Wallace himself - with a motive nobody could have guessed at? Yet the staged robbery does look more like something Wallace alone would have hoped to benefit from.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I was only thinking that Mr Q might have seen pointing the police in Williams direction as a bonus?

I certainly agree about the age thing. I’ve mentioned it previously on here. What if, for example, whilst William was looking into some kind of insurance policy he discovered Julia’s true age? Being lied to for years leaving him with a life where all he had to look forward to was caring for a wife who was old enough to be his mother might have tipped him over the edge? And with his illness and low life expectancy he might have thought ‘what have I got to lose?’

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I was only thinking that Mr Q might have seen pointing the police in Williams direction as a bonus?

Hi HS,

I could see that more if Mr Q was worried that he might be identified as a person of interest himself - if for example Julia had talked to a friend about her past. If he was confident that nobody could link him to the Julia Wallace of 1931, he had no need to point the police any further in her husband's direction than would automatically be the case. In fact, it could have backfired if his poorly staged robbery had come across as a bungled one, by an intruder, which could only have helped Wallace by providing that essential element of reasonable doubt.

I certainly agree about the age thing. I’ve mentioned it previously on here. What if, for example, whilst William was looking into some kind of insurance policy he discovered Julia’s true age? Being lied to for years leaving him with a life where all he had to look forward to was caring for a wife who was old enough to be his mother might have tipped him over the edge? And with his illness and low life expectancy he might have thought ‘what have I got to lose?’

Agreed, HS. That would surely be motive enough for a man whose best years had been spent under the same roof as a woman who had deceived him all along.

Love,

Caz
X

[AmericanSherlock]

Nice work Herlock. I think you've demonstrated that the "best solution" isn't necessarily one that "is oddly contrived to explain everything away."

[ColdCaseJury]

Move To Murder Published Next Month

Hi All - a very long time since I posted here. I have not kept up with the latest threads, apart from seeing HH and AS united in their (plausible) view that Wallace was guilty!

My book, Move To Murder, was due to published in November 2017, but was put back a year. Death of an Actress (Camb case) was published second. Move to Murder is now due out next month!

My book is not to push a theory, but to examine the events and evidence impartially and let you, the reader, deliver your verdict (online). FIVE theories are examined (Wallace Alone, Parry Alone, Parry Accomplice, Conspiracy and Prank Call). At the end, I present my judgement as to what I regard as the best explanation for the one of the most baffling murders in criminal history, but it is 3 pages out of 270. And it is only one opinion.

I would say this to HS and to my friend AS. I agree about coincidences adding up (I understand inductive logic and Bayesian probability) but this MUST be weighed up against the fact that:

a) Death might have occurred as late as 8PM (MacFall's original estimate and consistent with witness testimony that Julia's body was warm to touch). As I point put in my book, MacFall's trial testimony on everything is virtually worthless because he changed his opinion without explanation (to fit the police case), so his initial opinion should be given more weight (although that still might not amount to much, I agree).

b) Death was not by frenzy. The original autopsy report - published in full in my book - shows MacFall thought death was by as little as three blows from a large-headed implement - until the police told him the murder weapon could be an iron bar 1" in diameter. Wallace had very little opportunity to hide the weapon, which has not been recovered in 80 years.

c) Timing. Wallace left between 6:45PM and 6:49PM. The door closed with Julia alive between 6:38PM and 6:45PM. A very tight time frame for Wallace to commit a bloody murder and leave no forensic evidence linking him to the crime.

d) Although he was being interviewed as part of murder inquiry, Parry lied about his whereabouts for the time of the call. In my humble opinion (and it is only that) it is more difficult to explain that away than some of WHW's idiosyncratic behaviours e.g. ignoring the parlour on his way in (just a gentle point, HS).

e) Why did the caller say "Operator I have pushed Button A..." A new analysis of the call, after speaking to heritage telephony experts, is included in my book.

f) The police threw everything at Wallace and the best case they came up is the one we are discussing 80 years later! Why is there no evidence of interviewing tram conductors from the night of the call? Why didn't the police test the nailbrush for the presence of blood? (I think they did both, but they threw up negative results for their case). Also, no mention at the trial that sinks and pipes were tested for blood which came up negative.

The biggest mistake in life (and even science) is to look for confirming evidence and not to weigh it against disconfirming evidence.

However, that said, Wallace is still very suspicious!

I hope you all enjoy the book and deliver your verdicts! It should be fascinating to see whether the COLD CASE JURY will deliver a majority verdict, and which verdict will come out on top!

PS Also included in the evidence file - the timing report by the defence (Wallace could have taken the tram and arrived at the chess club by 7:45PM - more ammo for Wallace proponents); an analysis of Lily Hall's testimony; and extracts from Wallace's unpublished memoir (I received permission from Dickinson Hill LLC to publish 1500 words from his 55-page memoir. See what Wallace was saying about the murder a year later!)

[AmericanSherlock]

Antony, thrilled to see this out. Is there a place I can pre order it? I am looking forward to reading this book as much as any. I have no doubt that it will be the most comprehensive and up to date dissection on the case. Probably after this, presented with all the facts, people can make up their own minds knowing everything has been considered.

I have some thoughts on the points you made, but will reserve comment until reading the book.

Cheers!

[ColdCaseJury]

Antony, thrilled to see this out. Is there a place I can pre order it? I am looking forward to reading this book as much as any. I have no doubt that it will be the most comprehensive and up to date dissection on the case. Probably after this, presented with all the facts, people can make up their own minds knowing everything has been considered.

I have some thoughts on the points you made, but will reserve comment until reading the book.

Cheers!

AS,

Some points! I think you have many! And, I have to say, your arguments for the guilt of Wallace have been persuasive as any I have seen. And these influenced me in the writing of the book.

But, as you know so well, I don't believe Wallace did it. How sure am I? Not very. But then again, if someone is convinced that some particular theory is correct that is probably good evidence that they are not giving all the evidence due weight in this case.

So, for future debate (and wouldn't be great to have a WallaceCon at some point!) why do I reject Wallace Alone?

- Call. I don't think he made it. See my book. Logically, if I don't believe Wallace made the call, I have to reject Wallace Alone. Even if all his suspicious beaviours (on the night of the call) were overwhelming, this would lead me to endorse the Prank or Conspiracy theory (both of which are consistent with all his suspicious behaviours). If you disagree, we can discuss later. An appeal to simplicity can be made (for Wallace Alone), but this has to be balanced against all the evidence, including:
- Forensics. I don't think he could have committed this murder and not have a trace of blood on him or avoided leaving a chemically-detectable trace in the sinks etc.
- Time. Not enough, IMO. Based on all the evidence, I actually believe that Julia closed the door at 6:43 and Wallace left at no later than 6:49.

However, I do concede that some of his actions are suspicious (actually his behaviour after he returns is more significant in this respect than his quest for Qualtrough), and they need to be weighed cumulatively.

I have also read and re-read Wallace's 55-page memoir and read and re-read the transcripts and I don't think he is a murderer. Could I be wrong? Probably! But if we all agreed on this case, then there would be a preponderance of evidence that every reasonable person accepted as showing his guilt or innocence.

You will find plenty in my book that supports your theory. And nothing would delight me more than, after reading it, you find that your belief in Wallace's guilt has strengthened. With my books, I never set up to prove or disprove a theory, but wish to present all the key evidence and arguments. I genuinely want to know what other people think and, of all the cases, the verdict of the CCJ on this one intrigues me the most.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Antony,

As someone who believes that Wallace is the only suspect for this crime I’m really looking forward to your book to see if you can either convince me otherwise or to lessen my confidence in Wallace’s guilt (which is around 95% at the moment.)

There will be much to discuss when your book comes out but one small point speaks volumes for me. Wallace finally gets into the house, he’s concerned for his wife’s safety. She’s not in the back kitchen, she’s not in the kitchen. He might have seen the cupboard door off which would confirm that an innocent explaination is unlikely. He goes to the door from the kitchen to the hall, the Parlour door is in touching distance. It would have taken him 3 seconds to check if his wife was in there and yet he completely ignores it and goes upstairs to search other rooms (including the least likely room in the house for Julia to have been in.) No one in those circumstances would do that. They would check the Parlour first. For me there is no innocent explaination for this. It’s completely illogical for a man who was desperate to find his wife to act in this way.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony,

As someone who believes that Wallace is the only suspect for this crime I’m really looking forward to your book to see if you can either convince me otherwise or to lessen my confidence in Wallace’s guilt (which is around 95% at the moment.)

There will be much to discuss when your book comes out but one small point speaks volumes for me. Wallace finally gets into the house, he’s concerned for his wife’s safety. She’s not in the back kitchen, she’s not in the kitchen. He might have seen the cupboard door off which would confirm that an innocent explaination is unlikely. He goes to the door from the kitchen to the hall, the Parlour door is in touching distance. It would have taken him 3 seconds to check if his wife was in there and yet he completely ignores it and goes upstairs to search other rooms (including the least likely room in the house for Julia to have been in.) No one in those circumstances would do that. They would check the Parlour first. For me there is no innocent explaination for this. It’s completely illogical for a man who was desperate to find his wife to act in this way.

First of all, it's great to have you on this thread which I started some time ago now! And, as I said in my last post, if my book strengthens your belief that Wallace is guilty, I would be delighted because it shows I have presented the evidence and theories impartially.

As for avoiding the parlour here is my interpretation.

1) Wallace is uneasy. He wants to find his wife quickly (I don't think this is in dispute).
2) Kitchen gas lamp on - borrowed light in the hall (again not in dispute, including the last point - tested by police).
3) He sees the parlour door shut and assumes his wife is not in there because (1) it is only used for entertaining (themselves or others) and the only reason she would be in there that night would be to play piano (and even this is very doubtful); and (2) if she were in the room the door would be open, light on and (probably) piano playing.

Given (3) he (reasonably) assumes she's not in there and further WHW expects his wife to be in two places: kitchen or in the middle bedroom (he testified as much). So given (1) and (3), Wallace goes upstairs first. Perfectly reasonable. He then checks every room up there because, given the circumstances (3), the parlour is the least likely room JW would be in and he's now upstairs.

I have an integral garage in my house - internal door in the dining room. If I was anxious to find my wife in my house, I would quickly check lounge, dining room and then our bedroom. I would not take the three seconds to check the garage because I would not expect her to be there, just like WHW with the parlour. So, no doubt you would find me highly suspicious, too! And yes, the comparison with the garage is correct, in my view. The parlour was virtually a spare, unused room.

So, if this were a Bayesian analysis, and we had to say how surprising this is, you would say (no doubt) "very" and increase PR(WHW is Guilty) while I would discount it as "not very" given what we know about the situation.

I believe my analysis is justified but this does not mean another interpretation is invalid.

Far more suspicious - in my view - are the problems with the door locks and the fact that the house is in darkness.

[Herlock Sholmes]

First of all, it's great to have you on this thread which I started some time ago now! And, as I said in my last post, if my book strengthens your belief that Wallace is guilty, I would be delighted because it shows I have presented the evidence and theories impartially.

As for avoiding the parlour here is my interpretation.

1) Wallace is uneasy. He wants to find his wife quickly (I don't think this is in dispute).
2) Kitchen gas lamp on - borrowed light in the hall (again not in dispute, including the last point - tested by police).
3) He sees the parlour door shut and assumes his wife is not in there because (1) it is only used for entertaining (themselves or others) and the only reason she would be in there that night would be to play piano (and even this is very doubtful); and (2) if she were in the room the door would be open, light on and (probably) piano playing.

Given (3) he (reasonably) assumes she's not in there and further WHW expects his wife to be in two places: kitchen or in the middle bedroom (he testified as much). So given (1) and (3), Wallace goes upstairs first. Perfectly reasonable. He then checks every room up there because, given the circumstances (3), the parlour is the least likely room JW would be in and he's now upstairs.

I have an integral garage in my house - internal door in the dining room. If I was anxious to find my wife in my house, I would quickly check lounge, dining room and then our bedroom. I would not take the three seconds to check the garage because I would not expect her to be there, just like WHW with the parlour. So, no doubt you would find me highly suspicious, too! And yes, the comparison with the garage is correct, in my view. The parlour was virtually a spare, unused room.

So, if this were a Bayesian analysis, and we had to say how surprising this is, you would say (no doubt) "very" and increase PR(WHW is Guilty) while I would discount it as "not very" given what we know about the situation.

I believe my analysis is justified but this does not mean another interpretation is invalid.

Far more suspicious - in my view - are the problems with the door locks and the fact that the house is in darkness.

But as Wallace passed through the kitchen he would surely have noticed that the cupboard door had been pulled off (how could he have missed it?) This would have meant that any thoughts of an innocent explaination would have been gone. With this in mind there would be no reason to avoid the Parlour. Also Wallace said that he became concerned about his wife when he finally accepted that there was no MGE. Obviously this means that he was concerned about foul play so the fact that the Parlour door was closed and the light was off wouldn’t have dissuaded him from checking the room before he went upstairs.

Even if there was no cupboard door I still don’t think that someone desperate to find his wife would stand next to a door weighin up likelihood’s and percentages on whether to try the door or not. I think that if you put 1000 people in that position 999 of them would check the Parlour.

I think that Wallace was allowing himself one last chance to check the house to make sure that he’d made no howlers and also a minute or two to prepare himself for his ‘role’ of grieving husband.

The fact that the house was in darkness is one that I’ve raised on here before. I can see no reason why any murderer (other than Wallace) or any burglar or sneak thief would bother turning off the lights. But Wallace had a plan and he wanted to see it though to the end. The last thing that he’d have wanted was a visitor at say 7.00 seeing lights on but getting no response and deciding to raise the alarm.

[AmericanSherlock]

But as Wallace passed through the kitchen he would surely have noticed that the cupboard door had been pulled off (how could he have missed it?) This would have meant that any thoughts of an innocent explaination would have been gone. With this in mind there would be no reason to avoid the Parlour. Also Wallace said that he became concerned about his wife when he finally accepted that there was no MGE. Obviously this means that he was concerned about foul play so the fact that the Parlour door was closed and the light was off wouldn’t have dissuaded him from checking the room before he went upstairs.

Even if there was no cupboard door I still don’t think that someone desperate to find his wife would stand next to a door weighin up likelihood’s and percentages on whether to try the door or not. I think that if you put 1000 people in that position 999 of them would check the Parlour.

I think that Wallace was allowing himself one last chance to check the house to make sure that he’d made no howlers and also a minute or two to prepare himself for his ‘role’ of grieving husband.

The fact that the house was in darkness is one that I’ve raised on here before. I can see no reason why any murderer (other than Wallace) or any burglar or sneak thief would bother turning off the lights. But Wallace had a plan and he wanted to see it though to the end. The last thing that he’d have wanted was a visitor at say 7.00 seeing lights on but getting no response and deciding to raise the alarm.

This is very damning. It is difficult to imagine someone committing a brutal and unplanned murder, carefully turning off all the lights before they beat a hasty retreat.

OTOH, as you say, there is a lot of sense in turning the lights off if Wallace was the killer. It also allows him more control to "discover" the body in front of the Johnstons. Keep in mind he knew apparently where to walk in the dark room to not stumble into Julia's corpse before turning the light on!

I would like to re-iterate a point. If the killer was someone else other than Wallace and Wallace was not involved in the planning (i.e. totally innocent), then such a person was relying on a few factors to come to fruition. Not only would such a fellow have to count on WHW going to the club the night before, assuming he stalked him as he left, but he would be relying on Wallace going out again the following night on a fruitless journey. Again, he would have to stalk and wait and see Wallace leave 29 Wolverton on the way to MGE. But as we know, Wallace did not leave until near 6:50. What time would such a person expect WHW to leave? How long would he be there waiting, seeing the milk boys on the street, seeing Close knock etc. and yet Wallace has still not left yet...


Critically, this man would have to strike quickly after Wallace had left. Even if the goal was only undetected robbery and not murder, perhaps even especially if this was the goal, this would be a very difficult thing to do---to act quickly or have any control over the timing. If such a person was waiting until the incontinent Julia needed to use the bathroom or something like that, he might have to be there for awhile. There would be no surefire quick way to act, but this "Qualtrough" would have to know Wallace could return soon--he could find out the address was bogus and decide to come back and virtually any point on the journey.


Even if one assumes "Qualtrough" here was willing to take all these risks, and had some planned quick way of distracting Julia in order to steal the insurance money, it is obvious he would be better served by acting as quickly as possible. Both in arriving quickly after Wallace left---which we are oft reminded was only a few minutes after the milk boy rang, and also in committing the robbery and leaving quickly after. Committing an unplanned murder might have made this thief panic and linger, but there is no reason he would not want to show up and get in and out as soon as possible. He would almost certainly come soon after Wallace left.


Yet no one saw or heard such a person, either stalking in a car beforehand, or calling at 29 Wolverton. This despite it was likely only a few minutes after the milk boys were on the block which was witnessed by a few people, and a few minutes after the Johnstons heard the milk boy ring and Wallace leave, but heard nothing else after that until the thumps after 8, which was admitted could have come from another room in their house.

You would think that "Qualtrough" would have to be loud in explaining himself to gain entrance...

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Yet no one saw or heard such a person, either stalking in a car beforehand, or calling at 29 Wolverton. This despite it was likely only a few minutes after the milk boys were on the block which was witnessed by a few people, and a few minutes after the Johnstons heard the milk boy ring and Wallace leave, but heard nothing else after that until the thumps after 8, which was admitted could have come from another room in their house.

You would think that "Qualtrough" would have to be loud in explaining himself to gain entrance...

Excellent post AS.

I don’t have my books with me and I just can’t recall the name of the Wallace’s neighbours on the other side but they heard the milk boy at the Wallace’s door from the back of their own house and yet neither they, or anyone else, heard anyone knock on the Wallace’s door after 6.45. As you say, Julia and our mystery man would have had some kind of conversation on the doorstep which you would expect to have lasted at least 30 seconds before Julia decided to let him in. Yet no one saw or heard anything. No one saw a stranger in the street either. This wasn’t the wee small hours either. Kids might have still been out playing, men might have been off to the pub, women chatting on doorsteps. No one saw or heard anything. Not conclusive of course but it does throw doubt on the idea of a stranger killer who simply knocked on the door and talked his way in.