Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AS,

I’d go with around 95% too.

I wonder when Wallace last spoke to Parry before the murder? I cant recall if its even been mentioned in the books? You can guess where I’m going with that question though. Could he have let slip plans for a 21st birthday party in conversation? Rod would say that I was clutching at straws with that one and, for once, he would probably be correct

It could just have been a coincidence after all. A far more believable one than the phonecall being a prank which the killer just happened to take advantage of

Wallace and Parry would both be aware that 21 was an age that insurance policies were regularly set up. I genuinly think that it was just a coincidence and not a particularly spectacular one. Taken alongside all the other evidence it’s not a point that worries me but you are definitely right to explore points from both sides. I could name someone who would do well to take a leaf out of your book

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

Youve contributed to the debate far more than i have over time ive just added a few thoughts in recent months. Of course I agree that, viewed objectively, everything points to Wallace as the likeliest candidate.

The point that youve made here is a very good one. I dont think that its been highlighted before to my memory. A sneak-thief certainly couldnt bank on Julia needing the loo or on how long that she would be up there if she did. Of course he could have asked permission to use the loo himself but he couldnt have known that she wouldnt have come out into the hallway with him to point the way. Or that she would have left the parlour for some other reason whilst he was supposed to be upstairs.
As ever with the sneak-thief plan far too much is left to chance for it even to be grace it with the title ‘plan.’ And as we have said before the sneak-thief would have undertook the whole enterprise fully prepared for Julia to have been able to have identified him as the thief. So what really changed with Julia catching him in the act? No one heard any screams. If Julia appeared to be about to get hysterical it would have been no problem for our sneak-thief to put a hand over Julia’s mouth and threatened her into silence. Its also worth asking if noisily wrenching a door off a cupboard is really the act of someone who wished to remain undiscovered? Then we add that to the fact that he ignored Julia’s bag which logic would tell anyone contained her purse. Overall the attempt to find cash or valuables was pathetic to say the very least.

So what could have made someone change from a sneak-thief who was prepared to have been identified by Julia into a brutal murderer? It really makes no sense. This is surely the least believable of robbery scenes? Equally surely the scene was part of the least believable robbery scenario? Add these facts to sheer over-the-top and unnessecary brutality and we are left with the only logical conclusion. This was not a robbery gone wrong. It was a pre-planned and vicious murder and if this was the case then there really is only one suspect. Wallace himself.

Apologies AS for removing the ‘lol’s’ from your quote but i had to to fit in my own.

Hi Herlock, incisive points as usual. The bold especially highlights how the robbery gone wrong scenario is logically inconsistent.

I'm more convinced than ever of Wallace's guilt.

So let me try to play Devil's Advocate, because unlike other geniuses who are convinced they have "the correct solution", I like to consider opposing viewpoints and cover every angle, being intellectually honest regardless of what narrative it suits.

My main cause to pause over the years was the caller mentioning a 21st as that seemed a strong hinter towards Parry as the caller, since he mentioned something about getting an invitation to Leslie Williamson's 21st in his statement. A bit suspicious, for sure.

But it turned out not only was a 21st a common policy, but that there was an RJ Qualtrough who had a daughter who was celebrating a birthday (20th not 21st but still pretty spooky, no? ) that very night of the 19th, when the call was placed.

That mitigates somewhat of the implication of Parry's guilt in at least making the call IMO, because it implies anyone who came up with the idea of using this Qualtrough as part of the hoax, whether it was Wallace or whether it wasn't, probably got the idea of a "21st birthday policy" from researching him and knowing of his daughter's birthday on that very night.

Or if this was not the case, then it sure shows coincidences happen, no?!

I still find it mildly suspicious, because it would be one thing if we just considered Parry was in that age range and turned out to be busy arranging a 21st party celebration, but it seems a slightly higher order of incriminating that he mentioned it in his statement. As if it was in the back of his mind from that very night for other reasons; obviously if this was the case, then it was a substantial slip-up by Parry to mention it.

Another possibility is that a guilty Wallace was seeking to incriminate Parry somehow by mentioning this. Or it could just be coincidence.

I mention all of this not because I have serious doubts that Wallace was guilty. Rather precisely the opposite; because of the increasing strength of my belief in his probable guilt (in no small part to your clever arguments), I am looking to consider any worthwhile points to the contrary to feel I've thoroughly examined all angles.

I would put my belief in Wallace's guilt at around 95 percent.

PS. I agree, they really need to fix the emoticons thing! It should be 5 per message, NOT including quoted messages one is replying to!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry haven't posted much because Herlock and others have basically solved what is an open case. What I mean is, this case can't be proved against anyone beyond reasonable doubt, but pretty much every angle has been covered to demonstrate it was most probably Wallace.

One further minor train of thought I had along the same lines:

If the killer wasn't Wallace but a "sneak thief whether Qualtrough himself or someone working in conjunctioning with Qualtrough (And Qualtrough could be anyone but most who view Wallace as innocent think he was Parry), then what was his ploy to distract Julia in order to rob the joint? I've see some odd theories on this, like relying on Julia's incontinence. But remember there would be a time factor? Could this "sneak thief" rely on Julia needing to use the loo in the time period available? Such a person would have no clue at what point Wallace would give up on his journey and head home? Of course, there was limited reason to be confident he would go at all. Let's cast that aside for the sake of argument (aren't I generous?) and say this sneak thief felt confident in assuming Wallace would be gone for nearly 2 hours as was the case (although the significance or lack thereof of this totally depends on who really was behind the murder.)

Would this be enough time to be confident Julia would slip out to the bathroom? Enough to base an entire plan around? In any case, this villainous mystery killer would want to be long gone by the time Wallace came back. He wouldn't have a lot of time to act, and would have to hope that Julia afforded him the opportunity to pillage the cash undisturbed. This isn't something he could possibly rely on from my way of looking at things.

The killer was either Wallace or someone else who planned to kill Julia from the getgo (very unlikely I reckon). A panicked theft gone wrong just does not add up as part of this intricate plan. Everything points away from that.

Hi AS,

Youve contributed to the debate far more than i have over time ive just added a few thoughts in recent months. Of course I agree that, viewed objectively, everything points to Wallace as the likeliest candidate.

The point that youve made here is a very good one. I dont think that its been highlighted before to my memory. A sneak-thief certainly couldnt bank on Julia needing the loo or on how long that she would be up there if she did. Of course he could have asked permission to use the loo himself but he couldnt have known that she wouldnt have come out into the hallway with him to point the way. Or that she would have left the parlour for some other reason whilst he was supposed to be upstairs.
As ever with the sneak-thief plan far too much is left to chance for it even to be grace it with the title ‘plan.’ And as we have said before the sneak-thief would have undertook the whole enterprise fully prepared for Julia to have been able to have identified him as the thief. So what really changed with Julia catching him in the act? No one heard any screams. If Julia appeared to be about to get hysterical it would have been no problem for our sneak-thief to put a hand over Julia’s mouth and threatened her into silence. Its also worth asking if noisily wrenching a door off a cupboard is really the act of someone who wished to remain undiscovered? Then we add that to the fact that he ignored Julia’s bag which logic would tell anyone contained her purse. Overall the attempt to find cash or valuables was pathetic to say the very least.

So what could have made someone change from a sneak-thief who was prepared to have been identified by Julia into a brutal murderer? It really makes no sense. This is surely the least believable of robbery scenes? Equally surely the scene was part of the least believable robbery scenario? Add these facts to sheer over-the-top and unnessecary brutality and we are left with the only logical conclusion. This was not a robbery gone wrong. It was a pre-planned and vicious murder and if this was the case then there really is only one suspect. Wallace himself.

Apologies AS for removing the ‘lol’s’ from your quote but i had to to fit in my own.

[AmericanSherlock]

Sorry haven't posted much because Herlock and others have basically solved what is an open case. What I mean is, this case can't be proved against anyone beyond reasonable doubt, but pretty much every angle has been covered to demonstrate it was most probably Wallace.

One further minor train of thought I had along the same lines:

If the killer wasn't Wallace but a "sneak thief" whether Qualtrough himself or someone working in conjunctioning with Qualtrough (And Qualtrough could be anyone but most who view Wallace as innocent think he was Parry), then what was his ploy to distract Julia in order to rob the joint? I've see some odd theories on this, like relying on Julia's incontinence. But remember there would be a time factor? Could this "sneak thief" rely on Julia needing to use the loo in the time period available? Such a person would have no clue at what point Wallace would give up on his journey and head home? Of course, there was limited reason to be confident he would go at all. Let's cast that aside for the sake of argument (aren't I generous?) and say this sneak thief felt confident in assuming Wallace would be gone for nearly 2 hours as was the case (although the significance or lack thereof of this totally depends on who really was behind the murder.)

Would this be enough time to be confident Julia would slip out to the bathroom? Enough to base an entire plan around? In any case, this villainous mystery killer would want to be long gone by the time Wallace came back. He wouldn't have a lot of time to act, and would have to hope that Julia afforded him the opportunity to pillage the cash undisturbed. This isn't something he could possibly rely on from my way of looking at things.

The killer was either Wallace or someone else who planned to kill Julia from the getgo (very unlikely I reckon). A panicked theft gone wrong just does not add up as part of this intricate plan. Everything points away from that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

Good points. I would also add 1 and 2 go together in a sense.

As it was, Wallace was a bit late considering he arrived only right before his appointment time in a neighborhood that he claimed to be unfamiliar with searching for an address whose precise location he did not know. And on business the hopeful commission of which was enticing enough to send him out on a miserable January night nonetheless.

He could have reasonably been in the area "searching" for the address 15 or so minutes before which might have been the original plan before the darned milk boy showed up late (this was due to a fault in his bike that happened the night before, interesting tidbit since the call was also traced due to another sort of mechanical fault. In both cases Wallace (or excuse me "Qualtrough" in the 2nd case) could not have foreseen this.

Anyway, the most critical thing in terms of timing was the time between when the milk boy left, having seen JW alive, and when Wallace was seen at the tram stop (and he damned sure seemed to want to be seen!) This is the same regardless of when the milk boy leaves as Wallace swings into action immediately after. He could never hope to "outpace" reality, only create reasonable doubt.

It is also possible that this was not a crucial part of the plot, and opposing viewpoints have argued about the milk boy's timing being unreliable (I think that objection has been dealt with well though), and Wallace hoping the milk boy could be a reliable witness as also tenuous. This is a more valid point, although I would argue it could be looked at as Wallace just simply COULDN'T act until the milk boy had come and gone which would be the most salient point, but then immediately thereafter he would want to act as quickly possible, with the possible bonus of casting doubt on his candidacy as the murderer due to timing.

Agreed AS

Ive often thought that the time Wallace took to kill Julia, clean up and set the scene wouldnt have taken as long as some might think. I did intend to do a rough run through but ive never gotten around to trying. The physical act of striking the first blow, using the mackintosh as a shield and then delivering the other 10 blows would have, for me, taken a minute tops? Minimal clean up and wiping the weapon, what 2 or 3 minutes? Working quickly? Seconds to take the cash from the box. The cupboard could have been pre-damaged by Wallace to make pulling the door off easier. A dash upstairs and down. 2 minutes?

All id say is that i dont think it would take long. He would have gone through it in his head many times. For me the only ‘unexpected’ might have been that if Wallace had left the smear of blood on the notes upstairs he might have spotted that hed missed a small patch of blood on his hand/finger and would have probably needed to remove it before he left.

[AmericanSherlock]

In the interest of fairness a was doing a bit of ‘devils advocate’ thinking last night ( i once did the same thing on a Diary thread and got pelted with rotten fruit for my pains )

I thought that as the tightness of the timings are most often used in favour of an innocent Wallace i wondered why a guilty Wallace didn't arrange his appointment with Qualtrough for 8.00pm giving him greater time?

In response to myself i came up with two points. If Wallace had rehearsed the crime in his mind he would have had a rough idea of the time required for the deed. And so 1) he wouldnt have wanted the police saying that there was plenty of time for him to have committed the crime before setting out and so a tight timing would work in his favour and 2) he had no way of knowing that Alan Close would turn up later than usual.

Ill be really interested to hear Antony’s take on the timings in his new book.

Herlock,

Good points. I would also add 1 and 2 go together in a sense.

As it was, Wallace was a bit late considering he arrived only right before his appointment time in a neighborhood that he claimed to be unfamiliar with searching for an address whose precise location he did not know. And on business the hopeful commission of which was enticing enough to send him out on a miserable January night nonetheless.

He could have reasonably been in the area "searching" for the address 15 or so minutes before which might have been the original plan before the darned milk boy showed up late (this was due to a fault in his bike that happened the night before, interesting tidbit since the call was also traced due to another sort of mechanical fault. In both cases Wallace (or excuse me "Qualtrough" in the 2nd case) could not have foreseen this.

Anyway, the most critical thing in terms of timing was the time between when the milk boy left, having seen JW alive, and when Wallace was seen at the tram stop (and he damned sure seemed to want to be seen!) This is the same regardless of when the milk boy leaves as Wallace swings into action immediately after. He could never hope to "outpace" reality, only create reasonable doubt.

It is also possible that this was not a crucial part of the plot, and opposing viewpoints have argued about the milk boy's timing being unreliable (I think that objection has been dealt with well though), and Wallace hoping the milk boy could be a reliable witness as also tenuous. This is a more valid point, although I would argue it could be looked at as Wallace just simply COULDN'T act until the milk boy had come and gone which would be the most salient point, but then immediately thereafter he would want to act as quickly possible, with the possible bonus of casting doubt on his candidacy as the murderer due to timing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In the interest of fairness a was doing a bit of ‘devils advocate’ thinking last night ( i once did the same thing on a Diary thread and got pelted with rotten fruit for my pains )

I thought that as the tightness of the timings are most often used in favour of an innocent Wallace i wondered why a guilty Wallace didn't arrange his appointment with Qualtrough for 8.00pm giving him greater time?

In response to myself i came up with two points. If Wallace had rehearsed the crime in his mind he would have had a rough idea of the time required for the deed. And so 1) he wouldnt have wanted the police saying that there was plenty of time for him to have committed the crime before setting out and so a tight timing would work in his favour and 2) he had no way of knowing that Alan Close would turn up later than usual.

Ill be really interested to hear Antony’s take on the timings in his new book.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Afternoon Chaps,

Good points as always. One thing I keep coming back to is motive. For me, the robbery motive just seems weak, and doesn't work as well as the classic spouse-on-spouse killing, from want of domestic bliss.

Both Wallace and Julia had been unwell and it was said [although I can't recall by whom] that whenever Wallace was feeling poorly, with his genuine kidney or other health problems, far from getting any sympathy from his wife, a game of one-upmanship would follow, with her making the most of whatever aches and pains she could claim to be suffering from. Given the fact that she was considerably older than her old man, and neither was getting any younger or fitter, what was his quality of life with her around, and what was it likely to be over the time he had left? Had he already missed out, for instance, by not playing chess as often as he would have liked, because she had nagged him not to leave her alone, or had feigned illness whenever he was planning to go out? So much the worse if she had lied to him about her age when they first became a couple.

This was no spur-of-the-moment loss of temper and control, but the likely result of a slow build-up of secret resentment and bitterness, leading to much thought about a future without such restrictions on his freedom and the increasing burden of caring for a selfish and needy woman, while in poor health himself - a thankless task. It would take much careful planning, because he would be the obvious, perhaps the only suspect, so reasonable doubt would be absolutely vital, but not impossible for a chess player like Wallace to put in place.

Enter Qualtrough.

If Wallace had never spoken over the telephone to anyone at the club, including Beattie, he really didn't have to worry too much that his voice would be recognised by someone who was taking down a message for Wallace, not from Wallace. I imagine he'd have cursed himself when he found out that call was able to be traced. I doubt he considered that risk when making it from a call box just three minutes from home, on his way to the club.

Is it known if Wallace knew about the call being traced when asked which route he took that night? Even if he didn't know, he'd have probably thought it safer to lie, just in case some witness claimed to have seen someone like him using that box.

Love,

Caz
X

Afternoon Caz,

I couldnt agree more. Those 11 brutal blows speak of a personal motive. How many blows from a heavy iron bar would have been required to kill a frail 70 year old woman? 2, 3 maybe 4? Certainly not 11!

Although most described the Wallace’s as a devoted couple appearances can be deceptive (the Crippen’s come to mind.) A doctor and a nurse, both of whom spent time with the Wallace’s in their home environment, both of whom would have been expected to maintain confidentiality and so the Wallace’s wouldnt have needed to put on a ‘front,’ and neither of whom had any axe to grind, both said that the Wallace’s werent a happy couple. Wallace’s ex-colleage Mather called him the most ‘soured’ man that hed ever met and that he was a ‘bad tempered devil.’ Ive always wondered if Wallace had somehow found out Julia’s true age? Maybe from Julia’s family or during the process of setting up some insurance. How might that have affected Wallace knowing that his marriage had been based on a lie?

Whoever made the call wouldnt have wanted the call traced and the box identified just in case someone had seen them in the vacinity. It was even more important for Wallace of course due to the proximity of the box and the timing of the call.

When we add this to the fact that someone who intended murder wouldnt have needed such a plan we are only left with the sneak-thief theory which bares much more than a passing resemblance to a hunk of swiss cheese.

I know that i sound like a broken record but Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest suspect for Julia’s murder.

[caz]

Afternoon Chaps,

Good points as always. One thing I keep coming back to is motive. For me, the robbery motive just seems weak, and doesn't work as well as the classic spouse-on-spouse killing, from want of domestic bliss.

Both Wallace and Julia had been unwell and it was said [although I can't recall by whom] that whenever Wallace was feeling poorly, with his genuine kidney or other health problems, far from getting any sympathy from his wife, a game of one-upmanship would follow, with her making the most of whatever aches and pains she could claim to be suffering from. Given the fact that she was considerably older than her old man, and neither was getting any younger or fitter, what was his quality of life with her around, and what was it likely to be over the time he had left? Had he already missed out, for instance, by not playing chess as often as he would have liked, because she had nagged him not to leave her alone, or had feigned illness whenever he was planning to go out? So much the worse if she had lied to him about her age when they first became a couple.

This was no spur-of-the-moment loss of temper and control, but the likely result of a slow build-up of secret resentment and bitterness, leading to much thought about a future without such restrictions on his freedom and the increasing burden of caring for a selfish and needy woman, while in poor health himself - a thankless task. It would take much careful planning, because he would be the obvious, perhaps the only suspect, so reasonable doubt would be absolutely vital, but not impossible for a chess player like Wallace to put in place.

Enter Qualtrough.

If Wallace had never spoken over the telephone to anyone at the club, including Beattie, he really didn't have to worry too much that his voice would be recognised by someone who was taking down a message for Wallace, not from Wallace. I imagine he'd have cursed himself when he found out that call was able to be traced. I doubt he considered that risk when making it from a call box just three minutes from home, on his way to the club.

Is it known if Wallace knew about the call being traced when asked which route he took that night? Even if he didn't know, he'd have probably thought it safer to lie, just in case some witness claimed to have seen someone like him using that box.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Two very high quality posts, Herlock.

Since the both of us have basically vivisected this case up and down and made mince meat of some of the inane theories floating out there, all that's left is to try to rephrase things to possibly make the point "hit home" and click for people. And I guess, as a way for us to kill boredom, as this case does beat most Agatha Christie books out there (not in sheer mystery on unsolvability, but more in the interesting jig saw puzzle structure)

So I'd say it like this:

There are many things in the structure of the Qualtrough plan that HELP Wallace but HURT an independent killer (even if he was only planning a robbery).

There is just no rational reason, as we already laid out in great detail, that such a convoluted plot could remotely appeal to someone else.

However, there are many reasons such a plan could appeal to Wallace. In fact, I would posit something like it would almost be a necessity from WHW's POV.

Let's take the example of the call being made on the Monday to set up either a murder or at the least a planned robbery the following night. As we have repeated ad nauseam, why if the caller was so confident Wallace was on the way to the club to receive the message, did he not strike that same night? It would HURT and COMPLICATE the plan of a genuine "Qualtrough" (someone other than Wallace posing as Qualtrough). There is just no clear reason to see why this leaving so much to chance and waiting for the next night would be preferable at all. Attempts at explanations include things like "maybe Qualtrough was busy later that night" which is undermined by the fact that apparently he had no problem taking the time to stalk Wallace and make the call, and would be a few hundred yards away from 29 Wolverton St. at that time. Does it make sense he would then leave the neighborhood when he was right there and had seen Wallace leave for a tenuous shot at the following night, relying on a multi faceted plan that could easily fail all only to provide him with the same exact opportunity he had right then to rob the Wallaces with the man of the house out??? (We haven't even touched the fact that Julia would still be in the house and the problems that creates.) For those who think Parry was the caller, we also have Lily Lloyd and her mother's testimony that Parry barged in unexpectedly in the middle of her music lesson some time between 7:30 and 7:45 and the jist of it was this was an unplanned visit to surprise his girl. It seems Parry didn't have much on the go that night--indeed some of those attempting to poke holes in his statement for the night of the call point out inconsistencies and equivocations in his testimony, so you can bet if he had verifiable stuff on the go additional to that, he would have offered it to the police. Clearly, if he had wanted to, Parry could have easily chosen that night of the call to strike, rather than relying on such a ridiculous plot.

Other attempts at explaining away why "Qualtrough" just didn't, after seeing Wallace leave on the 19th, head to 29 Wolverton St. right then and there involved the timing of the "peak" money in the cashbox. As has been shown before though, the peak would be on Wednesday night not Tuesday night and only on a particular Wednesday, typically around the last one of the month. There has been some ambiguity and back and forth about this, but at the very least we can all agree it was certainly NOT likely to be at its peak on its 20th and in fact it wasn't. This is not only due to the fact that Wallace was recently sick as has been claimed before but rather due to this company policy timing which someone like Parry would have known. And in any case, wouldn't someone who was going to this level of trouble to stalk Wallace have a good chance at knowing he had recently been sick and missed the last FOUR sessions at the chess club; this also would clearly minimize the amount of money that would be in the house. Were they ignorant of this or did they not try this plan before and just got lucky that the 1 night they tried it, Wallace headed off faithfully to his club for the first time in ages.

The 3rd explanation, the sneak-thief theory relies on Wallace telling Julia about a "Qualtrough" and this acting as an "open sesame" for Parry's accomplice the following night. This, the confusing and tedious theory goes, would afford the unique chance for someone unknown and unidentifiable to Julia to have a legitimate seeming reason to enter the house and using a name she would presumably remember from her husband telling her (how on earth could anyone rely on this???) as his entry pass. (As we know Wallace DID tell Julia about Qualtrough according to Amy Wallace who spoke to Julia that afternoon, but this demonstrates nothing, since what this implies totally depends on the fact of Wallace's guilt or innocence.) This sneak-thief theory has already been so thoroughly annihilated that I won't go thru its flaws again. All I will say for the purposes of this discussion is would Julia really be more likely to let A) a stranger in if he used he name of someone her husband had told her he was visiting on business vs. say B) a person coming the Monday night claiming he was seeking Wallace out for business then? Neither seem like even remotely plausible scenarios, but if you think they are, then how on earth is A so preferable to B to the point that such a person or persons would be willing to take all the added complications and confusion on of setting up a whole other night with which to contend with. And if you believe the Parry Accomplice bunk, a whole other person with whom to split the profits. Just asinine.


On the other hand, this call structure would HELP Wallace. He would be introducing another suspect. A mysterious figure who wanted him out of the house, who "set him up". An unidentifiable, yet tangible person to blame. Reasonable doubt.

What was the alternative, just stage a robbery, commit the crime and head to the chess club on the 19th? Sure that could be plausible, but then there's no "Qualtrough" to blame. Wallace could hope it would be inferred it was the Anfield Housebreaker, but this infamous house burglar rife at the time was not violent and had not committed a murder.

The Qualtrough ruse gives Wallace a CONCRETE "person to blame" It also creates COMPLEXITY and CONFUSION into the puzzle. Who would desire this?

Does this intricate set-up all seem like the work of a young petty thief and/or his dimwit thug sidekick or a self-styled intellectual older man with a keen mind contriving the "perfect alibi"?

Just like the numerous other aspects of this case on the night of the murder itself (timing, Wallace's behavior on the journey, not looking at a map etc. etc. etc.) what an unlucky coincidence yet again for Wallace, if truly innocent, that the structure of the call and set-up for the crime seems to HURT anyone else's plans but HELP Wallace's.

Makes one think.

And the case for the prosecution is complete...

Its ‘interesting’ to note that we only have Wallace’s word that hed given Julia Qualtrough’s name. He might have mentioned it in the conversation because it was an unusual one. Its worth asking then why didnt Julia mention this unusual name in her conversation with Amy? If she had it would have come out in her police interview. And so we have to ask ‘does the fact that Julia didnt mention the name when explaining her husbands evening expedition to Amy indicate that William hadnt mentioned it to her? After all he already had Beattie to corroborate this and he wouldnt have known that Julia might have also passed the information on to Amy. Theres no conclusive answer but if Wallace had only mentioned that he had to go out on business and the area that he was visiting then the sneak-thief theory is dead-in-the-water.


“Does this intricate set-up all seem like the work of a young petty thief and/or his dimwit thug sidekick or a self-styled intellectual older man with a keen mind contriving the "perfect alibi"?“

This is a very valid point. Parry was no master criminal. This plan smacks of planning by a person who felt that he was cleverer than he actually was. Clever enough to outwit the police at any rate.

We have mentioned many times about the mulriple ways that the plan could have failed; mostly at the first hurdle. Those potential fails are null and void if Wallace was guilty.

[AmericanSherlock]

Two very high quality posts, Herlock.

Since the both of us have basically vivisected this case up and down and made mince meat of some of the inane theories floating out there, all that's left is to try to rephrase things to possibly make the point "hit home" and click for people. And I guess, as a way for us to kill boredom, as this case does beat most Agatha Christie books out there (not in sheer mystery on unsolvability, but more in the interesting jig saw puzzle structure)

So I'd say it like this:

There are many things in the structure of the Qualtrough plan that HELP Wallace but HURT an independent killer (even if he was only planning a robbery).

There is just no rational reason, as we already laid out in great detail, that such a convoluted plot could remotely appeal to someone else.

However, there are many reasons such a plan could appeal to Wallace. In fact, I would posit something like it would almost be a necessity from WHW's POV.

Let's take the example of the call being made on the Monday to set up either a murder or at the least a planned robbery the following night. As we have repeated ad nauseam, why if the caller was so confident Wallace was on the way to the club to receive the message, did he not strike that same night? It would HURT and COMPLICATE the plan of a genuine "Qualtrough" (someone other than Wallace posing as Qualtrough). There is just no clear reason to see why this leaving so much to chance and waiting for the next night would be preferable at all. Attempts at explanations include things like "maybe Qualtrough was busy later that night" which is undermined by the fact that apparently he had no problem taking the time to stalk Wallace and make the call, and would be a few hundred yards away from 29 Wolverton St. at that time. Does it make sense he would then leave the neighborhood when he was right there and had seen Wallace leave for a tenuous shot at the following night, relying on a multi faceted plan that could easily fail all only to provide him with the same exact opportunity he had right then to rob the Wallaces with the man of the house out??? (We haven't even touched the fact that Julia would still be in the house and the problems that creates.) For those who think Parry was the caller, we also have Lily Lloyd and her mother's testimony that Parry barged in unexpectedly in the middle of her music lesson some time between 7:30 and 7:45 and the jist of it was this was an unplanned visit to surprise his girl. It seems Parry didn't have much on the go that night--indeed some of those attempting to poke holes in his statement for the night of the call point out inconsistencies and equivocations in his testimony, so you can bet if he had verifiable stuff on the go additional to that, he would have offered it to the police. Clearly, if he had wanted to, Parry could have easily chosen that night of the call to strike, rather than relying on such a ridiculous plot.

Other attempts at explaining away why "Qualtrough" just didn't, after seeing Wallace leave on the 19th, head to 29 Wolverton St. right then and there involved the timing of the "peak" money in the cashbox. As has been shown before though, the peak would be on Wednesday night not Tuesday night and only on a particular Wednesday, typically around the last one of the month. There has been some ambiguity and back and forth about this, but at the very least we can all agree it was certainly NOT likely to be at its peak on its 20th and in fact it wasn't. This is not only due to the fact that Wallace was recently sick as has been claimed before but rather due to this company policy timing which someone like Parry would have known. And in any case, wouldn't someone who was going to this level of trouble to stalk Wallace have a good chance at knowing he had recently been sick and missed the last FOUR sessions at the chess club; this also would clearly minimize the amount of money that would be in the house. Were they ignorant of this or did they not try this plan before and just got lucky that the 1 night they tried it, Wallace headed off faithfully to his club for the first time in ages.

The 3rd explanation, the sneak-thief theory relies on Wallace telling Julia about a "Qualtrough" and this acting as an "open sesame" for Parry's accomplice the following night. This, the confusing and tedious theory goes, would afford the unique chance for someone unknown and unidentifiable to Julia to have a legitimate seeming reason to enter the house and using a name she would presumably remember from her husband telling her (how on earth could anyone rely on this???) as his entry pass. (As we know Wallace DID tell Julia about Qualtrough according to Amy Wallace who spoke to Julia that afternoon, but this demonstrates nothing, since what this implies totally depends on the fact of Wallace's guilt or innocence.) This sneak-thief theory has already been so thoroughly annihilated that I won't go thru its flaws again. All I will say for the purposes of this discussion is would Julia really be more likely to let A) a stranger in if he used he name of someone her husband had told her he was visiting on business vs. say B) a person coming the Monday night claiming he was seeking Wallace out for business then? Neither seem like even remotely plausible scenarios, but if you think they are, then how on earth is A so preferable to B to the point that such a person or persons would be willing to take all the added complications and confusion on of setting up a whole other night with which to contend with. And if you believe the Parry Accomplice bunk, a whole other person with whom to split the profits. Just asinine.


On the other hand, this call structure would HELP Wallace. He would be introducing another suspect. A mysterious figure who wanted him out of the house, who "set him up". An unidentifiable, yet tangible person to blame. Reasonable doubt.

What was the alternative, just stage a robbery, commit the crime and head to the chess club on the 19th? Sure that could be plausible, but then there's no "Qualtrough" to blame. Wallace could hope it would be inferred it was the Anfield Housebreaker, but this infamous house burglar rife at the time was not violent and had not committed a murder.

The Qualtrough ruse gives Wallace a CONCRETE "person to blame" It also creates COMPLEXITY and CONFUSION into the puzzle. Who would desire this?

Does this intricate set-up all seem like the work of a young petty thief and/or his dimwit thug sidekick or a self-styled intellectual older man with a keen mind contriving the "perfect alibi"?

Just like the numerous other aspects of this case on the night of the murder itself (timing, Wallace's behavior on the journey, not looking at a map etc. etc. etc.) what an unlucky coincidence yet again for Wallace, if truly innocent, that the structure of the call and set-up for the crime seems to HURT anyone else's plans but HELP Wallace's.

Makes one think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who was likeliest to have made the Qualtrough phonecall; Wallace or Parry? Apart from the fact that it depends on who you feel is guilty we would have to say that whoever made it was either a murderer or an accomplice (I can’t see how any credence can be given to the ‘idea’ of a prank call which the killer took advantage of.)

Purely on the question of location Wallace is favourite as he would have been at the phone box at just the right time had he gone in that direction. Proximity can’t be relied upon solely to suggest guilt; it’s just a point worth noting.

On the question of the need for the call then we have to ask why anyone (Parry) would require a plan to get Wallace out of the house. Of course the ‘sneak thief’ plan gives us a ‘reason’ in that it provides ‘Qualtrough’ with a pretext for getting admitted by Julia and avoids the difficult question of why Parry would be either fully prepared to kill Julia to facilitate a robbery or to kill her in cold blood for other, unknown reasons. If the ‘thief’ expected to have to kill Julia then chess nights would have been a less complicated option. However if Wallace was guilty the benefit of having a plan becomes obvious. If he’d have killed Julia on a chess night the police might have thought it strange that a killer gained entrance on the first day that Wallace had been absent from the house in the evening for a month? It’s even more obvious that Wallace couldn’t have gone out on any unlikely pretext like going for a walk. The phonecall gives a reason for his absence whilst introducing the mysterious Qualtrough as a suspect. And so from purely a ‘cui bono’ standpoint Wallace again comes out ahead.

As far as the actual phone call then the witness statements are interesting. The three operators describe the callers voice as being a normal one and of an older gentleman. I would suggest that however difficult it is to disguise your own voice, it must be even more difficult to make yourself sound older (or younger) without going into full Clive Dunn mode. And so an ‘older gentleman’ suggests Wallace ahead of Parry. It was also pointed out about the way the caller pronounced ‘cafe,’ ie as it should be pronounced as opposed to the way that it would have been pronounced by your average local. This might suggest someone more educated or even someone with a greater level of sophistication (or even pretentiousness.) Again this sounds more like Wallace than Parry. Then we have the voice as described by Beattie. ‘Gruff’ is the word that he used. We would have to assume that the three operators would have been perfectly capable of using the word ‘gruff’ to describe the voice but they didn’t. They said a normal voice. And so this points to the fact that the caller presented a different voice to Beattie. Who knew Beattie better and would have had an unavoidable need to disguise his voice? Parry or Beattie? The founder member of the chess club Wallace of course.

It has also been pointed out, reasonably, that Beattie didn’t recognise the voice. Indeed he said that it would have been a stretch of the imagination for the voice to have been Wallace’s. We have to remember that this was the 1930’s though. Phones were relatively new and not everyone used them with any regularity. Also the idea of a prank call was in no way as prevalent as it is today. Beattie was a serious man; as was Wallace. The call was about business. Beattie wouldn’t have been on alert for a prank; he would have absolutely no reason to think that the call was anything other than genuine. The caller had a gruff voice and spoke in short sentences; engaging in no small-talk. It’s not at all surprising or impossible that Beattie didn’t recognise a disguised voice. So the fact that Beattie knew Wallace can in no way preclude Wallace from being the caller.

And so looking at all aspects surrounding the phone call we surely have to conclude that Wallace comes out as easily the likeliest candidate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A thought: If "Qualtrough" was "real", i.e. he was someone other than Wallace making a geniune attempt to dupe Wallace into the journey to Menlove Gardens East for some criminal enterprise, then were there not much better and more reliable ways to try to entice WHW to make the trip?

Why wouldn't "Qualtrough" just slip a note under Wallace's door and ask him to call the following night at 25 Menlove Gardens East? In my mind, this would still be a poor plan, but it would be one that was significantly better than calling the chess club and risking it not even being delivered to Wallace or relayed properly. It would also involve less legwork and stalking; "Qualtrough" would simply wait to see if Wallace headed out the following night (far from a foolproof plan, which is why I think the whole concept of a "Qualtrough" is bunk) but it would present one half or less of the moving pieces and difficulties that the whole chess club ruse does.

I would agree with James Murphy who asserts that the fact that the overly complicated and multi faceted 2 night chess club ruse was employed instead of much more obvious and easy methods "testifies to the fact that robbery was not a significant motive in this crime." To my mind, it would seem to hint at a contrived and intricate staging of events by the perpetrator, WHW himself, rather than a "genuine" attempt to fool Wallace in hopes of commissioning a robbery.

The objection to the note suggestion was that the perpetrator would not want to run the risk of his handwriting being identified. This would make sense if it was Parry. But, the problems with Parry's candidacy or at least sole candidacy have been elucidated ad nauseam. He in fact did have an alibi for the night of the murder, which did not rely on Lily Lloyd. And what's more there are logical problems with him acting alone; Julia would recognize him (obviously) and it would be difficult for him to think he could get away with robbery. A planned murder seems very unlikely. Also, if he was acting alone, there would be no need to strike the next night, why not go that very night the Monday, when he was confident that Wallace was on his way to the club? (And I doubt that he could be confident, which is why again I think anyone else other than Wallace being "Qualtrough" is bunk) BUT whoever "Qualtrough" was, had to be confident that Wallace was on the way to the club in the 1st place for the plan to even get rolling, so why add in the whole unreliable call nonsense and wait for the next night, when one could strike that very night?

All these flaws in the Parry Alone theory is why some (ahem) have come up with the "Parry Accomplice" theory. The theory goes that this explains why the following night was needed, for a stranger who Julia wouldn't recognize and could steal from 29 Wolverton St. easier and without being able to necessarily be identified so easily after to gain access by identifying himself as "Qualtrough" (I think this is a very tenuous theory) But if this was the case, if it really was a "sneak thief" working in conjunction with Parry, then we are back to the problem of why this whole complicated plot with the phone call and 2 separate nights was needed in the first place?

Why couldn't this "Qualtrough" simply write in his handwriting the note? Who would recognize his handwriting? Certainly not Wallace, and if such a character was willing to take all the risk and be the fall guy for Parry, going so far as to have HIS FACE seen by Julia, why the heck would a little hand written note be a problem... one that wouldn't necessarily prove anything, especially if only some money was being planned to be stolen. Obviously he would be risking a lengthy jail sentence, but the point being the inconsistency between such a character not risking his handwriting being identified and Julia seeing him in light of fear of identification after the Wallaces would certainly realize a robbery had occurred, is glaring.

In other words, there is really no good explanation that easier and much more obvious methods weren't used to try to burgle 29 Wolverton St, unless that wasn't really the true motive.

Cui Bono?

Hi AS,

Excellent post

Whatever explaination is put forward it always has a hollow ring about it for me. Why come up with a plan where so many things could go wrong when the killer could just have gone in when Wallace went to chess? This fact has led to the creation of the sneak-thief theory which allows an accomplice to enter the scene whilst Wallace is off searching for the non-existant MGE. The only other ‘explaination’ would be that Parry entered with the intention of killing Julia and its difficult to see why he would either want to do that or be so desperate that he would be prepared to do it.

A list of points against the sneak-thief theory is a long one but a shortened version would look like this:

Why would the accomplice agree to taking all of the risks?
Why would they use a plan that had around 6 or 7 ways of failing at the first hurdle?
Why was there such a pathetic attempt at a robbery?
Why was the killer so vicious in his attack?
Why was there no blood in other rooms when the killer wouldnt have taken precautions if the murder was unpremeditated?
Why did he take away a bloody weapon that couldnt be connected to him?
Why did he turn off the lights before he left?
Why did Parry blab to Parkes when he had absolutely no need to?

And so on.

It just doesnt hold up to any kind of scrutiny. As AS as suggested, a note written in disguised handwriting (especially written by someone known only to Parry) would have been more plausible and, i have to say, a more formal, business-like and therefore believable method of getting Wallace out of the house. It would also have been far less likely to fail.

The ‘Qualtrough’ phone call benefited a guilty Wallace far more by having Beattie able to testify that someone wanted Wallace out of the house.

[AmericanSherlock]

A thought: If "Qualtrough" was "real", i.e. he was someone other than Wallace making a geniune attempt to dupe Wallace into the journey to Menlove Gardens East for some criminal enterprise, then were there not much better and more reliable ways to try to entice WHW to make the trip?

Why wouldn't "Qualtrough" just slip a note under Wallace's door and ask him to call the following night at 25 Menlove Gardens East? In my mind, this would still be a poor plan, but it would be one that was significantly better than calling the chess club and risking it not even being delivered to Wallace or relayed properly. It would also involve less legwork and stalking; "Qualtrough" would simply wait to see if Wallace headed out the following night (far from a foolproof plan, which is why I think the whole concept of a "Qualtrough" is bunk) but it would present one half or less of the moving pieces and difficulties that the whole chess club ruse does.

I would agree with James Murphy who asserts that the fact that the overly complicated and multi faceted 2 night chess club ruse was employed instead of much more obvious and easy methods "testifies to the fact that robbery was not a significant motive in this crime." To my mind, it would seem to hint at a contrived and intricate staging of events by the perpetrator, WHW himself, rather than a "genuine" attempt to fool Wallace in hopes of commissioning a robbery.

The objection to the note suggestion was that the perpetrator would not want to run the risk of his handwriting being identified. This would make sense if it was Parry. But, the problems with Parry's candidacy or at least sole candidacy have been elucidated ad nauseam. He in fact did have an alibi for the night of the murder, which did not rely on Lily Lloyd. And what's more there are logical problems with him acting alone; Julia would recognize him (obviously) and it would be difficult for him to think he could get away with robbery. A planned murder seems very unlikely. Also, if he was acting alone, there would be no need to strike the next night, why not go that very night the Monday, when he was confident that Wallace was on his way to the club? (And I doubt that he could be confident, which is why again I think anyone else other than Wallace being "Qualtrough" is bunk) BUT whoever "Qualtrough" was, had to be confident that Wallace was on the way to the club in the 1st place for the plan to even get rolling, so why add in the whole unreliable call nonsense and wait for the next night, when one could strike that very night?

All these flaws in the Parry Alone theory is why some (ahem) have come up with the "Parry Accomplice" theory. The theory goes that this explains why the following night was needed, for a stranger who Julia wouldn't recognize and could steal from 29 Wolverton St. easier and without being able to necessarily be identified so easily after to gain access by identifying himself as "Qualtrough" (I think this is a very tenuous theory) But if this was the case, if it really was a "sneak thief" working in conjunction with Parry, then we are back to the problem of why this whole complicated plot with the phone call and 2 separate nights was needed in the first place?

Why couldn't this "Qualtrough" simply write in his handwriting the note? Who would recognize his handwriting? Certainly not Wallace, and if such a character was willing to take all the risk and be the fall guy for Parry, going so far as to have HIS FACE seen by Julia, why the heck would a little hand written note be a problem... one that wouldn't necessarily prove anything, especially if only some money was being planned to be stolen. Obviously he would be risking a lengthy jail sentence, but the point being the inconsistency between such a character not risking his handwriting being identified and Julia seeing him in light of fear of identification after the Wallaces would certainly realize a robbery had occurred, is glaring.

In other words, there is really no good explanation that easier and much more obvious methods weren't used to try to burgle 29 Wolverton St, unless that wasn't really the true motive.

Cui Bono?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, but apparently it should be the next book out, so far 2 have been released, and it is the 3rd--next in line, I understand.

My own book is coming out shortly, it has been recognized as the final word on this case by all the people who really matter. I prove Julia, sick and bored with life, killed herself and attempted to frame her husband. It is the correct solution.

Bound to be

Put me down for a signed copy