Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

The intention, when proposing a scenario to describe how the murder of Julia occurred, must be to answer as many of the questions that are asked regularly on this thread (how was the weapon disposed of, timings, the voice on the phone all etc?) Of course it doesn’t mean that our scenario is correct just because it answers some or many of those questions but answering those questions must be the criteria.

All theories leave, as yet, questions not conclusively answered. Even the scenario that I strongly favour (Wallace alone) leaves us with questions that we cannot difinitively answer. And so if we look at it dispassionately which scenario ‘answers’ most questions? I was thinking about this last night and realised how obvious the answer was (to me anyway.)

It’s Wallace and an accomplice (naming the accomplice is unimportant.)

The only question that I can think of that it doesn’t answer is the question of Parkes which doesn’t concern me as I consider him an obvious fantasist.

Questions and ‘answers’ on the Wallace/accomplice scenario.

The Qualtrough ‘voice’ question - it was the accomplice that made the call.


The many ways that the plan could have failed from the start - It was Wallace’s plan and he controlled the circumstances.

The Hall sighting - Wallace with his accomplice.

The brutality of the murder - Wallace’s build up of resentment and hatred.

The missing weapon - Disposed of by the accomplice.

Clean up after the murder - The accomplice got rid of Wallace’s soiled clothing or the accomplice committed the actual murder.

The tight timings for Wallace to get to chess - The accomplice has a car (or access to one) and drives Wallace to his first stop.)

The mackintosh - Wallace used it as an excuse to get Julia into the Parlour. “ Could you bring me my mackintosh dear?”

The poorly staged robbery - Perhaps the accomplice made the poor job in the front bedroom whilst Wallace was downstairs?

Why were the lights off? - Wallace not wanting anyone to knock on the door and see lights on but getting no response.

Wallace continuing to look for the non-existent MGE - He needs to be away from the house as part of his plan.

Why didn’t Wallace check for MGE on the Monday? - Because he already knew that it didn’t exist.

Julia admitting a stranger. - A few possibles here. She didn’t admit a stranger, Wallace did via the backdoor. Or, if she did admit a stranger, Wallace told her “oh by the way dear a Mr Qualtrough will call tonight. Just put him in the Parlour will you, I won’t be gone long.”

Why Wallace left the Parlour until last? - He wanted to check his accomplices handiwork upstairs and that he’d made no blunders.

Of course the question will be asked “how did the mild-mannered, law abiding Wallace find such a desperado to help him? - Wallace collects rents. He gets to know a man who’s permanently in arrears (possible facing eviction.) His wife has left him because he can’t find work (this is partially due to the fact that he has a criminal record.) He’s desperate. Wallace plants the seeds... Or perhaps Wallace finds out that one man has been having an affair and he threatens to break up his family by informing his wife so he blackmails him into a peripheral role (phonecall, disposal of weapon etc.)

If we have license to propose any scenario which might explain the events of that Monday and tuesday then we are engaged in a box ticking exercise.

Wallace + Accomplice ticks most boxes. (I still go for Wallace alone though.)

Phenomenal post.

I agree Wallace and Accomplice ticks the most but I favor Wallace alone because there are bigger problems with Wallace and accomplice that outweigh it ticking more boxes if that makes sense.

It seems we are in total agreement on this case independently.

[ColdCaseJury]

Phenomenal post.

I agree Wallace and Accomplice ticks the most but I favor Wallace alone because there are bigger problems with Wallace and accomplice that outweigh it ticking more boxes if that makes sense.

It seems we are in total agreement on this case independently.

Interesting on many levels. First, it is not just a question of the number of evidential areas (the tick boxes), one also has to consider the weight or importance of each one. Second, some of the biggest issues for non-Wallace proponents are the lack of forensics, timing issues, weapon disposal, and the behaviour of the caller in the call box. And I suggest these ought to decrease the posterior probability of Wallace Alone in anyone's evaluation. But, at first blush, Wallace + Accomplice, would address these.

So what are the reasons that propel Wallace above Wallace + Accomplice in your view? You both state it's your preferred theory of the two but don't specifically say why.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You’re right of course Antony that the case can’t be reduced to a mere box ticking exercise and the some points carry more weight than others but you’ll understand that my scenario/explanation was just to show how many of the difficulties could potentially be overcome. Lily Hall for example is a case in point. She was either mistaken, lying or correct. None of us can know for sure which is the case. I tend to think that she was mistaken as there appears no reason for her to lie. But what if she did actually see Wallace? She knew him after all and wasn’t far away from the person that she claimed to have seen. If she did see Wallace talking to him then it suggests an accomplice.

I go for Wallace alone because I think that it’s plausible that he didn’t need an accomplice and that he would have been unlikely to risk another’s involvement. Of course there are aspects of this case that none of us can definitively know the answer to (no matter how over-confident some appear to be) but that doesn’t rule out a suspect if all the other evidence points to that suspect.

One of the doubts that you raised for example doesn’t worry me in the slightest and that’s the disposal of the weapon. Things get thrown away or hidden and not get found all the time and so I have no issue saying that Wallace dumped the murder weapon and it was never found. I’d point out though that a sneak-thief for example would surely be likely to have been wearing gloves. If so he would have no reason to dispose of the weapon; he could simply have left it at the scene. Wallace however wouldn’t have wanted a household item to be found as the murder weapon as it would have pointed away from a stranger and toward home.

Another issue is the time that it would have taken Wallace to have killed Julia, staged the robbery, cleaned up and left? Again we can’t know for anything like certain how long this would have taken but I have suggested on this thread that, for example, Wallace might have set the scene for a robbery before he killed Julia. Emptying the cash box (dropping a few coins to make it look like a hurried burglary - no problem if Julia had spotted them he could have just said “oh I dropped some coins earlier but I thought I’d picked them all up.) Messing up the front bedroom and pulling off the cupboard door ( he’d tell Julia “ this cupboard door has come off but don’t worry I’ll try and mend it later.) These actions could have saved post-murder time. If he’d used the mackintosh to shield himself from blood and had a little bit of good fortune then no clean up required. How long to kill Julia - a minute? This all reduces the time required.

I see these issues as having explanations that we of course cannot know for certain but in general when I look at the case every aspect for me points at Wallace rather than anyone else.

The brutality of the murder speaks of anger/resentment - only Wallace could have this kind of feeling.

The Qualtrough plan which could have failed at the first hurdle in half a dozen ways but could only be certain to have succeeded if Wallace planned it.

The telephone operators saying the voice was of an older man speaks of Wallace over Parry.

If Wallace left the house when he said that he did on the Monday and went to the tram stop near the call box he’d have passed the box as the call was being made.
Wallace’s Indiana Jones-like persistence in continuing to search for MGE despite being told more than once (and once by a Police Officer) that it didn’t exist.

The fact that it would have taken minimal effort for Wallace, on the Monday, to check the location of MGE.

The weapon being taken away (if a sneak-thief wore gloves.)

Wallace’s bizarre ignoring of the Parlour, which was in touching distance, to go upstairs.

The lights being turned out can be explained in terms of Wallace but no one else.

No stranger was seen or heard in Wolverton Street that night despite the fact that the neighbours heard the milk boy knock. Yet they didn’t hear ‘Qualtrough’ knock and then have a conversation on the doorstep with Julia.

The world’s most ineffective robbery with a feeble attempt to search for cash or valuables and Julia’s bag being ignored.

The fact (obvious though not to be overlooked) that only Wallace can be placed at the crime scene.

The fact that, in a very constricted place and in the dark, Wallace managed to avoid stepping in a large puddle of blood that he allegedly didn’t know was there.

The fact that Parry’s attempts at crime had amounted to stealing cash from collections when he couldn’t have failed to have been discovered doesn’t speak of a planner.

Parry is only suspected because Wallace himself mentioned him.

Then of course there’s my ‘doubt/query’ about Wallace’s Monday night tram movements.

These are just some of the very general points that all say ‘Wallace overwhelmingly likely to be guilty’ in my opinion.

[ColdCaseJury]

You’re right of course Antony that the case can’t be reduced to a mere box ticking exercise and the some points carry more weight than others but you’ll understand that my scenario/explanation was just to show how many of the difficulties could potentially be overcome. Lily Hall for example is a case in point. She was either mistaken, lying or correct. None of us can know for sure which is the case. I tend to think that she was mistaken as there appears no reason for her to lie. But what if she did actually see Wallace? She knew him after all and wasn’t far away from the person that she claimed to have seen. If she did see Wallace talking to him then it suggests an accomplice.

I go for Wallace alone because I think that it’s plausible that he didn’t need an accomplice and that he would have been unlikely to risk another’s involvement. Of course there are aspects of this case that none of us can definitively know the answer to (no matter how over-confident some appear to be) but that doesn’t rule out a suspect if all the other evidence points to that suspect.

One of the doubts that you raised for example doesn’t worry me in the slightest and that’s the disposal of the weapon. Things get thrown away or hidden and not get found all the time and so I have no issue saying that Wallace dumped the murder weapon and it was never found. I’d point out though that a sneak-thief for example would surely be likely to have been wearing gloves. If so he would have no reason to dispose of the weapon; he could simply have left it at the scene. Wallace however wouldn’t have wanted a household item to be found as the murder weapon as it would have pointed away from a stranger and toward home.

Another issue is the time that it would have taken Wallace to have killed Julia, staged the robbery, cleaned up and left? Again we can’t know for anything like certain how long this would have taken but I have suggested on this thread that, for example, Wallace might have set the scene for a robbery before he killed Julia. Emptying the cash box (dropping a few coins to make it look like a hurried burglary - no problem if Julia had spotted them he could have just said “oh I dropped some coins earlier but I thought I’d picked them all up.) Messing up the front bedroom and pulling off the cupboard door ( he’d tell Julia “ this cupboard door has come off but don’t worry I’ll try and mend it later.) These actions could have saved post-murder time. If he’d used the mackintosh to shield himself from blood and had a little bit of good fortune then no clean up required. How long to kill Julia - a minute? This all reduces the time required.

I see these issues as having explanations that we of course cannot know for certain but in general when I look at the case every aspect for me points at Wallace rather than anyone else.

The brutality of the murder speaks of anger/resentment - only Wallace could have this kind of feeling.

The Qualtrough plan which could have failed at the first hurdle in half a dozen ways but could only be certain to have succeeded if Wallace planned it.

The telephone operators saying the voice was of an older man speaks of Wallace over Parry.

If Wallace left the house when he said that he did on the Monday and went to the tram stop near the call box he’d have passed the box as the call was being made.
Wallace’s Indiana Jones-like persistence in continuing to search for MGE despite being told more than once (and once by a Police Officer) that it didn’t exist.

The fact that it would have taken minimal effort for Wallace, on the Monday, to check the location of MGE.

The weapon being taken away (if a sneak-thief wore gloves.)

Wallace’s bizarre ignoring of the Parlour, which was in touching distance, to go upstairs.

The lights being turned out can be explained in terms of Wallace but no one else.

No stranger was seen or heard in Wolverton Street that night despite the fact that the neighbours heard the milk boy knock. Yet they didn’t hear ‘Qualtrough’ knock and then have a conversation on the doorstep with Julia.

The world’s most ineffective robbery with a feeble attempt to search for cash or valuables and Julia’s bag being ignored.

The fact (obvious though not to be overlooked) that only Wallace can be placed at the crime scene.

The fact that, in a very constricted place and in the dark, Wallace managed to avoid stepping in a large puddle of blood that he allegedly didn’t know was there.

The fact that Parry’s attempts at crime had amounted to stealing cash from collections when he couldn’t have failed to have been discovered doesn’t speak of a planner.

Parry is only suspected because Wallace himself mentioned him.

Then of course there’s my ‘doubt/query’ about Wallace’s Monday night tram movements.

These are just some of the very general points that all say ‘Wallace overwhelmingly likely to be guilty’ in my opinion.

Hi HS, thanks for your thoughtful and detailed reply. I agree with you about Lily Hall (probably mistaken) - see my book. But if she was correct, it would be something of a game changer.

Your list does contains many points that would be true for Wallace Accomplice as well as Wallace Alone. However, at least three points of your points do differentiate between the two, in my opinion:

- The brutality of the murder speaks of anger/resentment - only Wallace could have this kind of feeling.

- If Wallace left the house when he said that he did on the Monday and went to the tram stop near the call box he’d have passed the box as the call was being made.

- Wallace didn’t need an accomplice and that he would have been unlikely to risk another’s involvement.

I think another point that reduces the probability of any Wallace conspiracy is that he surely would have chosen the Monday night for the murder while he was at the chess club for over three hours. That would have given him a genuine alibi, and he really didn't need the Qualtrough call. And explaining the call is one of the most important aspects of this case.

So, for sure, there are some unwanted surprises that are thrown up by Wallace Accomplice that need further assumptions and explaining. But, on the other hand, Wallace Accomplice gets around some of the most cogent objections against Wallace Alone while retaining most of the circumstantial evidence against him (if interpreted that way). In other words, potentially, it could have a surprising degree of explanatory power.

Just food for thought, HS.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I think another point that reduces the probability of any Wallace conspiracy is that he surely would have chosen the Monday night for the murder while he was at the chess club for over three hours. That would have given him a genuine alibi, and he really didn't need the Qualtrough call. And explaining the call is one of the most important aspects of this case.

I have to agree Antony. This is the most potent objection to the Wallace/Accomplice theory. As you say, the Qualtrough plan would be surplus to requirements.

Perhaps one of the strange complexities of the case is that if we drew up an extensive table with various aspects and events of the crime on one axis and on the other axis the various theories/suspects and we ticked the boxes when a theory/suspect provided a reasonable explaination I’d hazard a guess that Wallace + Accomplice might come out on top? And yet it’s not a theory that anyone really proposes?

I’m looking forward to getting your book Antony. I may disagree or agree with your conclusion ( we can probably guess that I’ll disagree ) but I’m certain that it will be a welcome addition to the case. And after all, we’re never going to know 100% what happened. And whether your conclusion is the correct one or mine is we still might have the details wrong in some respects.

Unless you have a TARDIS of course........

[ColdCaseJury]

Perhaps one of the strange complexities of the case is that if we drew up an extensive table with various aspects and events of the crime on one axis and on the other axis the various theories/suspects and we ticked the boxes when a theory/suspect provided a reasonable explaination I’d hazard a guess that Wallace + Accomplice might come out on top? And yet it’s not a theory that anyone really proposes?

HS, I propose we do just that in the near future. We can use Bayesian induction to go through everything. Everyone can select the weights as they see fit for each evidential area, so we are not looking for consensus in outcome but consensus in approach. And, we can always take an average, and say that is the group position, although everyone is free to have a dissenting opinion.

And I would like to see Wallace Accomplice as one of, say, 5-6 theories.

The first table is quite simply this one:

THEORY, CALLER, KILLER, PLANNER
Wallace, Wallace, Wallace, Wallace
Parry, Parry, Parry, Parry
Prank, Parry, Wallace, Wallace (killing)
Conspiracy, Parry, Third Man, Wallace
Parry Accomp, Parry, Accomplice, Parry
Wallace Accom, Wallace (?), Accomplice, Wallace

This table reminds us that evidence, say, counting against Wallace as the killer counts equally against the Wallace and Prank theories. Wallace Accomplice needs some preliminary work to suggest who was in the phone box. For example, if it were Wallace it would explain the coincidental timing, but if it were Accomplice (who was not accustomed to telephones) it might explain how he pushed A at the wrong time, ultimately getting the call logged! And so on. (BTW, there other explanations for what happened in the phone box; I will be interested to hear your views on my analysis of the call in my book.)

All this is exceptionally nerdy, but it could be great fun if you're that way inclined, like me!

All the best for now,

AMB

[AmericanSherlock]

HS, I propose we do just that in the near future. We can use Bayesian induction to go through everything. Everyone can select the weights as they see fit for each evidential area, so we are not looking for consensus in outcome but consensus in approach. And, we can always take an average, and say that is the group position, although everyone is free to have a dissenting opinion.

And I would like to see Wallace Accomplice as one of, say, 5-6 theories.

The first table is quite simply this one:

THEORY, CALLER, KILLER, PLANNER
Wallace, Wallace, Wallace, Wallace
Parry, Parry, Parry, Parry
Prank, Parry, Wallace, Wallace (killing)
Conspiracy, Parry, Third Man, Wallace
Parry Accomp, Parry, Accomplice, Parry
Wallace Accom, Wallace (?), Accomplice, Wallace

This table reminds us that evidence, say, counting against Wallace as the killer counts equally against the Wallace and Prank theories. Wallace Accomplice needs some preliminary work to suggest who was in the phone box. For example, if it were Wallace it would explain the coincidental timing, but if it were Accomplice (who was not accustomed to telephones) it might explain how he pushed A at the wrong time, ultimately getting the call logged! And so on. (BTW, there other explanations for what happened in the phone box; I will be interested to hear your views on my analysis of the call in my book.)

All this is exceptionally nerdy, but it could be great fun if you're that way inclined, like me!

All the best for now,

AMB

I can safely say everyone here is a nerd of one sort or another

[caz]

The Qualtrough ‘voice’ question - it was the accomplice that made the call.

Hi HS,

As you probably know, my objection to the above would be that if Wallace's accomplice made the call to put Wallace in the clear, then logically I'd have expected them to go the one step further and have Wallace already at the club when the call came in - the perfect alibi. Easy enough for the accomplice to have given Beatty his reason for calling:

"Oh hello, my name is Qualtrough and I'm trying to arrange a business appointment for tomorrow evening with a member of the chess club. Is it possible to speak to him? His name is Wallace."

Alternatively, Wallace could have nipped off to the loo on hearing the phone, and his accomplice could have told Beatty he was in a hurry and left the message with him to pass on.

But then, as has already been mentioned, why bother with the Qualtrough charade in the first place, if the murder could have been committed on the Monday evening, while Wallace had a totally credible alibi courtesy of the chess club, and a handy accomplice to help out wherever necessary?

I can't help thinking that Wallace acting alone on both the Monday and Tuesday evenings, makes the best possible sense of the Qualtrough business, for the very simple reason that one person cannot be in two places at once. The only reason to involve an accomplice in a plot of this nature would surely have been to set up a 100% solid alibi on both occasions for the guilty husband in the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

As you probably know, my objection to the above would be that if Wallace's accomplice made the call to put Wallace in the clear, then logically I'd have expected them to go the one step further and have Wallace already at the club when the call came in - the perfect alibi. Easy enough for the accomplice to have given Beatty his reason for calling:

"Oh hello, my name is Qualtrough and I'm trying to arrange a business appointment for tomorrow evening with a member of the chess club. Is it possible to speak to him? His name is Wallace."

Alternatively, Wallace could have nipped off to the loo on hearing the phone, and his accomplice could have told Beatty he was in a hurry and left the message with him to pass on.

But then, as has already been mentioned, why bother with the Qualtrough charade in the first place, if the murder could have been committed on the Monday evening, while Wallace had a totally credible alibi courtesy of the chess club, and a handy accomplice to help out wherever necessary?

I can't help thinking that Wallace acting alone on both the Monday and Tuesday evenings, makes the best possible sense of the Qualtrough business, for the very simple reason that one person cannot be in two places at once. The only reason to involve an accomplice in a plot of this nature would surely have been to set up a 100% solid alibi on both occasions for the guilty husband in the case.

Love,

Caz
X

Couldnt agree more Caz My only excuse (and there’s no excuse really) is that in my haste to put up my post I didn’t think that particular point through enough.

[caz]

Cheers HS.

I do think the whole alibi thing makes Wallace + accomplice a non-starter.

How incompetent would this pair have had to be, to end up with no provable alibi for Wallace on either night?

1) He wasn't at the club on the Monday when the call came in, so could have been in the call box making it himself. In fact, it makes zero sense to have any one else make the call for him, but not make sure he was seen at the same time, either at the club or anywhere other than the call box!

2) He was at home with Julia, albeit for only a short time, so could still have been there when she was killed. Obviously he'd have left as soon as physically possible afterwards, to create that essential element of doubt, so we would not expect him to have hung around for a second longer than absolutely necessary. With an accomplice, however, he didn't need to come home for his tea at all. He could have claimed that he told Julia he'd be going straight off to look for MGE after work.

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

As you probably know, my objection to the above would be that if Wallace's accomplice made the call to put Wallace in the clear, then logically I'd have expected them to go the one step further and have Wallace already at the club when the call came in - the perfect alibi. :

On the other hand, the conspirators may have preferred a witness to corroborate Qualtrough's phonecall, otherwise it could be argued it was an unrelated phone call that Wallace used for an alibi on the night of Julia's murder.

Not that I believe that to be the case.

[caz]

They had a witness, Harry - Beatty, who answered the phone!

As I explained in the post you quoted from, there were at least two very simple ways of using Beatty as a witness to Qualtrough's request for a Tuesday evening visit from Wallace, without the need for Wallace himself to be absent when that call came in.

With an accomplice to make the call, and Wallace right there at the club, the question of whether Beatty might have been fooled by Wallace disguising his voice would never have come up.

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

They had a witness, Harry - Beatty, who answered the phone!

As I explained in the post you quoted from, there were at least two very simple ways of using Beatty as a witness to Qualtrough's request for a Tuesday evening visit from Wallace, without the need for Wallace himself to be absent when that call came in.

With an accomplice to make the call, and Wallace right there at the club, the question of whether Beatty might have been fooled by Wallace disguising his voice would never have come up.

Love,

Caz
X

But let's say Wallace & Mr. X conspire to make the call while Wallace is at the club, then there's no message for Beatty pass on, the details of the call would only be relayed between Wallace & Mr X. At least the other way Beatty can vouch that someone called wanting Wallace to visit 25 Menlove Gardens East.

[caz]

Harry, I can only repeat my previous post to Herlock:

Easy enough for the accomplice to have given Beatty his reason for calling:

"Oh hello, my name is Qualtrough and I'm trying to arrange a business appointment for tomorrow evening with a member of the chess club. Is it possible to speak to him? His name is Wallace."

Alternatively, Wallace could have nipped off to the loo on hearing the phone, and his accomplice could have told Beatty he was in a hurry and left the message with him to pass on.

In either situation, Beatty would have been given more than enough detail of Qualtrough's message to confirm to the police that the caller had wanted to arrange a meeting with Wallace for the following evening. And what's more, Beatty would have known beyond all possible doubt that Qualtrough and Wallace were two different people!

With Wallace at the club when the call came in, he would have been 100% in the clear for having made the call himself - which was obviously what the prosecution hoped to establish! If Wallace made that call, he was also responsible for his wife's murder. Simple as. By being absent when the call came in, Wallace could only have helped the prosecution win their case against him. He'd have been insane to do that, if he'd had an accomplice to make that call for him. You don't buy a dog and bark yourself.

I'm not sure I can put this any more clearly for you, Harry.

HS? AS? Anyone? Help!

Love,

Caz
X

[AmericanSherlock]

It is pretty plain to see.

Anyway, there is no good explanation for why Wallace should come home at all the following night and put himself in frame if he had someone working with him.