Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

In fact, it should now be obvious to the discerning reader that this thread was a kind of "clickbait", to flush out any maladjusted, ignorant, individual - to allow them to make a public fool of themselves in answering the question...

'Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?'

...in the affirmative.

Because, we already knew that since 19th May 1931 the legal position has been that there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace (and nothing has come to light to disturb that view)

Hence the only people who would answer in the affirmative in the absence of any evidence are, at best, dreamers with too much time of their hands, and little grasp of the case, or the simply prejudiced...

The more profitable question is therefore, not 'Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?', but...

'Who killed Julia Wallace?'

and that is the question I have answered, using the actual evidence (some of which is relatively new), and abductive reasoning...

Anyhow, you can read all about it, soon enough.

For me, it's been a worthwhile and satisfying exercise...

[Herlock Sholmes]

In fact, it should now be obvious to the discerning reader that this thread was a kind of "clickbait", to flush out any maladjusted, ignorant, individual - to allow them to make a public fool of themselves in answering the question...

'Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?'

...in the affirmative.

Because, we already knew that since 19th May 1931 the legal position has been that there was NO EVIDENCE against Wallace (and nothing has come to light to disturb that view)

Hence the only people who would answer in the affirmative in the absence of any evidence are, at best, dreamers with too much time of their hands, and little grasp of the case, or the simply prejudiced...

The more profitable question is therefore, not 'Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?', but...

'Who killed Julia Wallace?'

and that is the question I have answered, using the actual evidence (some of which is relatively new), and abductive reasoning...

Anyhow, you can read all about it, soon enough.

For me, it's been a worthwhile and satisfying exercise...

I really can’t waste anymore time arguing with an idiot. The evidence is obvious. It’s the evidence that you’ve been kicked out and banned from virtually every Forum or group on the net for being an offensive, no-nothing Troll. You, in your warped way, see it as a badge of honour, whereas anyone else see it as anything but.

You have proved absolutely nothing except your own mental deficiencies. I’m heartily sick of the ease at which I’ve repeatedly kicked your arse over the last few months on here over your laughable theory. For someone who clearly throws his toys out of the pram when he’s disagreed with its surprising that you keep coming back for more.

The pattern is regular. You turn up, get humiliated then you disappear (as you did last time when it became obvious that you had no answers.) Again - And a note here to Antony - you arrive back on the thread and straight away it’s just mindless insults mixed in with a few cut and paste quotes - nothing that requires any thinking of course.

So before you send your reply, which with brilliant insight and wit, will probably talk about ‘crashing and burning’ or ‘trolls’ or any other crap, save yourself the time.

You don’t debate because you don’t have the ability (anyone can read the threads and see this.)
You can’t converse because you aren’t evolved enough (anyone can read the threads and see this.)
You’ve ‘solved’ nothing. A ‘scenario’ isn’t a ‘solution.’ You lose again joker

[RodCrosby]

As I've said, gentle reader.

"I rest my case."

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I've said, gentle reader.

"I rest my case."

And as I’ve said, I’ve destroyed your arguments so many times that I’m not prepared to waste my time doing it again. Everyone is free to re-read this thread.

Others are free to converse with you if they wish to but if your included I won’t be. There’s only so much of your life you can waste on a pointless Troll.

IGNORED.

[AmericanSherlock]

And as I’ve said, I’ve destroyed your arguments so many times that I’m not prepared to waste my time doing it again. Everyone is free to re-read this thread.

Others are free to converse with you if they wish to but if your included I won’t be. There’s only so much of your life you can waste on a pointless Troll.

IGNORED.

I have put Rod on ignore as well

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have put Rod on ignore as well

I can go into a pub and find people hurling insults at each other so I’m not getting drawn into it on here again.

A Rod-free world is a better world

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

Good post. I'll reply in more detail as soon as I have more time (McFall wasn't the only forensic expert called, and as the police expert it's pretty obvious from the trial transcript that he tried to make the best possible case against Wallace, even to the extent of changing the time of death.) However, to be fair, I think you've made the most convincing argument in favour of Wallace that could be made. My preferred theory would he roberry gone wrong, with Parry having the role of Qualtrough. I'd not completely rule out Parry working alone, although that essentially comes down to a Brine for Parkes debate.

Let me ask you a question. Regarding the Qualtrough call , how do you think Wallace could have controlled the situation?

Thus, let's say Wallace made the call. Now he has an immediate problem: if his voice is recognized the plan essentially fails.

What about Parry making the call as a hoax, which Wallace suspected and simply took advantage of the situation or, say, being tricked into it by Parry?

In that case I don't see how he can use it to his advantage, i.e. by relying on Close as a kind of alibi, as there are simply too many variables. Thus, if Close arrives too early the police would argue he has plenty of time to kill his wife. If he arrives too late, then Wallace misses the tram to get him to the appointment on time, which would be disastrous, as the police would argue that he was late on account of murdering his wife.

And all of this relies on Close being aware of the time he arrived and telling the truth. Ironically none of those things happened-Wallace had to rely on Wildman's fortuitous evidence, something he couldn't possibly have predicted.

What if the Qualtrough call was just a coincidence, which had nothing to do with the murder, and Wallace therefore had no intention of using Close as an alibi? In that case, why delay to the last possible moment? Why not just kill Julia as soon as he arrived home at 6:00pm.

Thanks John. I'm trying to lower the temperature down here and resume normal conversation with an opposing POV.


You make some good points especially regarding Close and the tenuousness of a possible albi for WHW in the event he was guilty.

As far as the call, yes it could be tickets for the plan if his voice was recognized. On the other hand, he has a free shot at it, and will see Beattie later that night and have the message passed on. He will be able to tell if Beattie looks at him oddly or says something like "come on man was that you having a laugh?" He can tell if Beattie suspects nothing. It is a somewhat risk free plan. Now, of course if Beattie does recognize his voice, it puts Wallace in an awkward position (I doubt he would care what Beattie thinks of him too much and could contrive some explanation for the odd behavior) but it makes it difficult for him to enact any other murder plan, at least in the near future, since Beattie could come forward and describe "the odd incident" of Wallace suspiciously trying to hoax the club. I think it boils down to if one thinks A) Wallace could hoax Beattie (I think definitely especially in 1931 and with the context of the call) and B) He was willing to risk the plan being nixed right at the start and perhaps to make future other plans difficult for Wallace as well. I think this would be a risk Wallace was willing to take if he was ailing, and desperate to get rid of his elderly wife that he may have cared little for.

Keep in mind that the "Qualtrough call" has made little sense to many because clearly whether the caller was Wallace/someone working for him or it was someone else and Wallace was innocent, clearly on the face of it the better move would be to strike the Monday night. I mean if it was someone else, they were relying on Wallace heading to the club that night (I wonder how this other caller could be so sure he would go and get the message though, perhaps he would have been better waiting at a callbox near the club and seeing Wallace pass THERE. This would probably a risk Wallace himself wouldn't want to take!!!) But even though I think it a tenuous plan, if the caller was someone else, he was relying on Wallace's appearance at the club to receive the message in the 1st place. So why not just go that night? In fact this person if known to JW could visit any time Wallace was at work etc. The ONLY explanation for this is that the caller as someone JW knew did not want to risk being identified and was not planning a murder but a robbery. This is how the whole Parry and accomplice theory was dreamed up I suppose---to explain the call as a method to set up an unknown accomplice to JW to be able to gain admittance the following night. That is the best I can say for this theory---my objections to it are numerous but I will wait to read Antony's book to fully respond to it with my criticisms.


On the other hand, if the caller was Wallace, while on the face of it he could have just done the whole ploy the Monday night and then rush off to the chess club, hoaxing a robbery (perhaps hoping it looked like the Anfield housebreaker), the reality is in this situation he has not cast suspicion on anyone else.


With the introduction of Qualtrough, Wallace gets to imply that there is another strong specific suspect out there---a man who posed as Qualtrough and someone who knew where Wallace's insurance money was. He names Parry, Marsden, and Young as possible suspects.

The advantage of the Qualtrough plan for Wallace therefore is the creation of a strongly implied alternative suspect and motive for someone else.


I see the advantage of such a plan for another suspect, say Parry, as less obvious and the whole possible spoils as inadequate reward for such a convoluted and complicated plan. I also wonder how he enlisted someone else to do the dirty work for him??? As I said, I will wait and reserve judgement before lobbying further critcisms in depth against this theory.


As far as Close, I believe Jon Goodman has made a similar point. Close normally came nearer 6:15 I believe and only did not show up due to a malfunction on his bike that occurred the night before; he had to deliver the milk by foot. Clearly, Wallace could not have foretold this. However, the time frame for committing the murder quickly and casting doubt by being seen soon after doesn't really change. As soon as Close leaves, Wallace springs into action. He is seen at the tram stop (perhaps by making sure to make a note of himself???) the same amount of time after, regardless of when precisely comes. In fact, one could argue Wallace was bordering on suspiciously late for his appointment as he had no idea where he was going and just arrived in the neighborhood barely on time if he knew his precise destination; this an appointment for official business for the punctual Wallace! If Wallace was guilty, he COULDN'T act until Close had come and gone---and we find the timing line up with that chain of event. If Close has come much later, say after 7, Wallace may have had to scrap the plan.


Now another good question might be, could Wallace ever rely on Close at all as an alibi? To rely on a 14 year old boy or friends who might be with him/neighbors who might have seen him as an alibi to make the timing seem tight may seem very tenuous and shaky. However, I would argue that Wallace may have seen Close as not so much of an alibi, but an obstacle to get out of the way. He simply CAN'T kill Julia until Close has come and gone. A bonus would be to have doubt cast on the timing by Close, but he will always be seen on the journey and at the tram stop if he makes himself known as he did. It would be impossible for Wallace to "outpace reality" in the event he was the killer, so the real hope would be to get all obstacles out the way, make the timing seem as tight as possible, and crucially cast reasonable doubt by the introduction of "Qualtrough" as the obvious fall guy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just received a copy of Murder In Mind - the Wallace edition which I hadn’t seen before.

Looking at the photograph on page 11 I was again struck by the space between Julia’s body and the sideboard. When we take the chair and put it in its original position and see the very narrow gap that would have existed and the sizeable pool of blood it’s hard to see how Wallace could have avoided stepping into the it unless he knew that it was there of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. In fact, one could argue Wallace was bordering on suspiciously late for his appointment as he had no idea where he was going and just arrived in the neighborhood barely on time if he knew his precise destination; this an appointment for official business for the punctual Wallace! If Wallace was guilty, he COULDN'T act until Close had come and gone---and we find the timing line up with that chain of event. If Close has come much later, say after 7, Wallace may have had to scrap the plan.

This is a point worth emphasising AS. Catching the 7.06 tram does appear to be leaving it a bit late for a 7.30 appointment considering that Wallace didn’t know exactly where Menlove Gardens East was. The impression that we unmistakably get of Wallace is of someone who does everything ‘by the book.’ Can any of us see Wallace as anything other than a man that would hate to be late for a business appointment as it would make him appear unprofessional? Surely therefore Wallace would have left the house earlier to give himself ample time to find Menlove Gardens East. Better 10 minutes early than 10 minutes late?

So we have to ask ourselves why did he leave it so late to set off? I think that it’s quite a powerful point.

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...

"...it is difficult to see that any idea can be obtained of his guilt from the mere fact that he did not step on the body or step in the blood....
I have not heard that any one of these police officers or doctors did actually step in the blood, and if they did not I do not see why he should."

Mr. Justice Wright, summing-up in Rex v Wallace

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn’t it great not having to read the drivel

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...

ARTHUR THOMPSON: 'I boarded my car at Penny Lane at 7.15 on January 20th. We then left for Calderstones...

When the car arrived at Menlove Gardens West, I beckoned to the prisoner, and I pointed out Menlove Gardens West, and said :
“That is Menlove Gardens West ; you will probably find Menlove Gardens East is in that direction.’’'

Menlove Gardens West is less than 600 yards from Penny Lane. The trams travelled at 12mph.

Therefore, Wallace got off at Menlove Gardens West no later than 7.20pm, with ten minutes in hand for his appointment with 'Qualtrough'....


As I said: "....at best, dreamers with too much time of their hands, and little grasp of the case, or the simply prejudiced..."

Such fun filleting these fools in public!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsL5acnXTNM

[RodCrosby]

Isn’t it great not having to read the drivel

Perhaps you should....

before you press "submit" ? ....

[Herlock Sholmes]

. "...it is difficult to see that any idea can be obtained of his guilt from the mere fact that he did not step on the body or step in the blood....
I have not heard that any one of these police officers or doctors did actually step in the blood, and if they did not I do not see why he should."
Mr. Justice Wright, summing-up in Rex v Wallace

Just to respond to this laughable quote.

Because the police officers knew that the blood was there. According to Wallace he didn’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not wishing to labour a point but when you are facing every aspect of the case being twisted to exonerate Wallace points have to be reiterated and stressed.

Motives as we know are often be difficult or impossible to ascertain so we are left, in the Wallace case, to decide whether Wallace had an at least plausible motive for murdering his wife. I say that he did.

The point has been made that the police searched pubs and such like for any rumours that might possibly incriminate Wallace but found nothing. This is hardly surprising. Wallace wasn’t exactly Keith Richard was he and there are hermits with wider social circles than Julia had?

Then we have Sarah Draper the char lady. Wallace didn’t even know her name when asked. So it’s logically likely that Sarah would have done the bulk of her work when Wallace was out at his work. I’ve no doubt that she saw them together now and then but a couple are hardly going to fall out in front of a servant are they? So her testimony is of limited value.

Then the Johnston’s are paraded. A couple that didn’t even know Julia’s Christian name. Little more than nodding acquaintances. When were they likely to get any real incites into the Wallace’s marriage? They didn’t hear any arguments but not all unhappy marriages end up in screaming matches. Slow, grinding resentment can build up. How many times in the history of true crime have we heard the words “they seemed like a normal, happy couple” just after a murderer has been charged?

Giving an opposing viewpoint we have Mrs Wilson who actually stayed in their home for three weeks. She would have seen the Wallace’s ‘warts and all.’ The fact that it was 8 years earlier means nothing. If they were unhappy then things could have grown even worse in the ensuing years. Wilson has no reason to lie unless we believe that Gold was so drunk that he could get a statement 100% wrong or that he was part of a conspiracy to get Wallace which cause him to invent Wilson’s statement.

What reason would Dr Curwen have for lying? Another who actually saw them in their home environment.

It’s now claimed that Wallace’s ex-colleague Mathers had a grudge against him which led to his statement. Is there any evidence for this? In a word...no. If someone says something detrimental about someone we cannot assume that he was lying or that he had some ulterior motive. Mathers might well have been truthful.

Apart from these statements are there any other factors which might have given Wallace a motive? They appear fairly obvious. Wallace was an intelligent man. He lectured in chemistry and had his own laboratory. The was a cultured man (or at least had cultural pretensions.) He played chess, he was learning the violin, he studied Marcus Aurelius, he listened to highbrow plays on the radio. And yet after 15 years or so he was still tramping the streets collecting rents. A respectable and decently payed job but hardly the job of an ‘achiever.’

And as Wallace knew that his health was poor and might have suspected that he wouldn’t have a long life what had he to look forward to? A life taking care of a woman who was, unknown to him, old enough to be his mother and who was almost constantly ailing. The signs of her advanced years must have been apparent to William whether he knew the truth or not. We might even speculate ‘what if William had somehow found out Julia’s true age? What kind of effect would the fact that their marriage had been based on a lie have had on William?

Taking all this into consideration we surely have to admit that Wallace might have had a very plausible motive for murder.

In addition when we consider the viciousness and brutality of the murder which surely speaks more of a ‘personal’ murder than a murder by a person who, by the very nature of his role, had no problem at all with being identified by Julia. Someone who wanted to silence her and get away. Someone who could have simply ran away and his own personal circumstances and risk wouldn’t have altered one iota.