Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Okay, but surely if he arrived at the tram stop earlier then that gives him even less time to have committed the murder. In fact, based on this hypothetical scenario he might already have been en route for the tram when Close spoke to Julia.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to make myself clearer. I was responding to this:

"Hi Caz.

I would just note that the problem with the Qualtrough alibi is that it was never likely to work for Wallace. The fact that it did was as a consequence of somewhat miraculous circumstances that Wallace couldn't please possibly have foreseen.

Thus, in order to make the appointment he needed to leave his house at around 6:45, which is the time he claimed he left. However, Alan Close normally delivered the milk between 6:00 and 6:30, so on that basis it could be always be argued thst he would have had time to commit the murder."

My point is in response to that. If the milk boy had come earlier as you argue Wallace would have expected, then he would have the same alibi as he would make his alibi as he goes along and have the same time between the milk boy seeing Julia Wallace alive and being seen at the tram stop. As long as the time he is seen at the tram is roughly in line with a 7:30 appointment, it doesn't matter exactly when it is. What matters is the time between when the milk boy comes and when he is seen at the tram stop.

What part of that don't you understand?

[ColdCaseJury]

My point is in response to that. If the milk boy had come earlier as you argue Wallace would have expected, then he would have the same alibi as he would make his alibi as he goes along and have the same time between the milk boy seeing Julia Wallace alive and being seen at the tram stop. As long as the time he is seen at the tram is roughly in line with a 7:30 appointment, it doesn't matter exactly when it is. What matters is the time between when the milk boy comes and when he is seen at the tram stop.

I've highlighted the key phrase. If Close calls at, say, 6:05pm then Wallace would have been out by 6:15pm (he needs a short time window for the alibi to be effective) for a 7:30pm appointment. Of course, if he stays inside and leaves at 6:45pm then the alibi is blown - he's would have had 40 minutes.

The journey from door to Menlove Avenue took 40 minutes. Assuming he leaves at 6:15pm, I would say, as I'm sure you would, this would look suspicious, especially to the police. If leaves at the earlier time but hangs around somewhere before going to the tram stop at, say, 7pm then he risks being seen and, even if he was not, what would he tell the police? Whatever he said, would the police view it as the time when was disposing of the weapon? I suggest this increases risk appreciably.

Further, if Wallace was expecting the milk boy at, say, 6:00pm does this mean he is cowering upstairs naked waiting for nearly 30 minutes for Close's late arrival? Or does this imply that his plan was to only to head upstairs to undress after Close had arrived? In which case, he has to do even more in ten minutes.

Perhaps John's point can be made another way. At what time would you have expected Wallace to leave the house if he was innocent? I think most people would say around 6:45pm. So, Alan Close's late arrival is fortuitous in that it allows Wallace to leave at just the time we would expect him to if he was innocent.

I'm not saying Wallace is innocent or not involved, but trying to be fair to everyone's position, I hope.

[AmericanSherlock]

I've highlighted the key phrase. If Close calls at, say, 6:05pm then Wallace would have been out by 6:15pm (he needs a short time window for the alibi to be effective) for a 7:30pm appointment. Of course, if he stays inside and leaves at 6:45pm then the alibi is blown - he's would have had 40 minutes.

The journey from door to Menlove Avenue took 40 minutes. Assuming he leaves at 6:15pm, I would say, as I'm sure you would, this would look suspicious, especially to the police. If leaves at the earlier time but hangs around somewhere before going to the tram stop at, say, 7pm then he risks being seen and, even if he was not, what would he tell the police? Whatever he said, would the police view it as the time when was disposing of the weapon? I suggest this increases risk appreciably.

Further, if Wallace was expecting the milk boy at, say, 6:00pm does this mean he is cowering upstairs naked waiting for nearly 30 minutes for Close's late arrival? Or does this imply that his plan was to only to head upstairs to undress after Close had arrived? In which case, he has to do even more in ten minutes.

Perhaps John's point can be made another way. At what time would you have expected Wallace to leave the house if he was innocent? I think most people would say around 6:45pm. So, Alan Close's late arrival is fortuitous in that it allows Wallace to leave at just the time we would expect him to if he was innocent.

I'm not saying Wallace is innocent or not involved, but trying to be fair to everyone's position, I hope.

Is there a reference to when the milk boy usually came or is it just 6 to 6:30? Wouldn't he come normally at around the same time each day? I would think that could be pinpointed with accuracy better than 30 minute range. However taking that range as the best we can get, there is no way to know around what time in that range the milk boy usually came. I would think it would be usually roughly the same time each day. I do see your points though. However, I'd say assuming the milk boy came early, I don't see why Wallace being seen early would look suspicious...let's say the milk boy was being expected to come around 6:15. The time between when the milk boy sees JW and when Wallace is seen at the stop is the same no matter when the milk boy comes. I think you mean that it would be suspicious to be so early for a 7:30 appointment. This is where the "fake address" might help Wallace as he can search endlessly for it and claim he left early because he didn't know exactly where he was going. I don't necessarily believe this as I think there's a good chance that Murphy is right in that the address was a mistake, but it can be argued either way. Overall, the timing of the milk boy's visit vs. his usual time of arrival is certainly not conclusive to me or a real mark against Wallace's guilt. The real question is could Wallace have achieved all he set out to do in the time he had.

You suggest that if Wallace was guilty, it would be a fortuitous coincidence that Wallace ends up leaving right at the same time you'd expect him to leave if he were innocent. To flip this around, isn't it interesting that Wallace had just barely enough time to have made the phone call and then show up at the club , and on the nihgt of the murder had just barely enough time to have committed the murder, then show up at the tram? Both are borderline and very debateable as some argue it was not enough time. But, since it's borderline, one could argue that that is a large coincidence and would be in line with someone trying to achieve what he set out to do in as narrow a time window possible and try to create an alibi so quickly that it would be seen as not enough time to be guilty; but in both cases I think he couldn't quite work fast enough to "exonerate"himself.

Finally, I would claim that if Wallace were innocent, his leaving time of 6:45 actually would be a bit late, because he would arrive only just on time if he knew exactly where he was headed.

[ColdCaseJury]

Is there a reference to when the milk boy usually came or is it just 6 to 6:30? Wouldn't he come normally at around the same time each day? I would think that could be pinpointed with accuracy better than 30 minute range. However taking that range as the best we can get, there is no way to know around what time in that range the milk boy usually came. I would think it would be usually roughly the same time each day. I do see your points though. However, I'd say assuming the milk boy came early, I don't see why Wallace being seen early would look suspicious...let's say the milk boy was being expected to come around 6:15. The time between when the milk boy sees JW and when Wallace is seen at the stop is the same no matter when the milk boy comes. I think you mean that it would be suspicious to be so early for a 7:30 appointment. This is where the "fake address" might help Wallace as he can search endlessly for it and claim he left early because he didn't know exactly where he was going. I don't necessarily believe this as I think there's a good chance that Murphy is right in that the address was a mistake, but it can be argued either way. Overall, the timing of the milk boy's visit vs. his usual time of arrival is certainly not conclusive to me or a real mark against Wallace's guilt. The real question is could Wallace have achieved all he set out to do in the time he had.

You suggest that if Wallace was guilty, it would be a fortuitous coincidence that Wallace ends up leaving right at the same time you'd expect him to leave if he were innocent. To flip this around, isn't it interesting that Wallace had just barely enough time to have made the phone call and then show up at the club , and on the nihgt of the murder had just barely enough time to have committed the murder, then show up at the tram? Both are borderline and very debateable as some argue it was not enough time. But, since it's borderline, one could argue that that is a large coincidence and would be in line with someone trying to achieve what he set out to do in as narrow a time window possible and try to create an alibi so quickly that it would be seen as not enough time to be guilty; but in both cases I think he couldn't quite work fast enough to "exonerate"himself.

Finally, I would claim that if Wallace were innocent, his leaving time of 6:45 actually would be a bit late, because he would arrive only just on time if he knew exactly where he was headed.

Some good points, AS, as always. Yes, 6:45pm might be a little late, possibly, but it is around the time we would expect him to leave if innocent. Let's create a new timeline.

6:05 Close delivers milk
6:15 Wallace leaves house
6:55 Wallace arrives at Menlove Gardens
7:40 Wallace leaves for home

This timings are the same, only the start time differs. Now the police would say, "why are you leaving at 6:15pm for a 7:30pm appointment?" He would reply, I guess, "I didn't know the area, so I left early." It is a plausible reply, but he is still leaving quite early and would still draw suspicion, especially if the time of death was accurately assessed - which is always the big problem, of course. His alibi can NEVER work (you don't believe it even if he had as little as 10 minutes). The fake address, I suggest, is a red herring in this context: it only allows him to spend more time at Menlove Gardens, and that is not the issue.

Of course, if Close usually arrived at the Wallaces at 6:25pm, then this argument looses cogency. However, Close said between 6pm and 6:30pm, suggesting it was a movable feast, so to speak.

The time of call (on the 19th) is indeed exceptionally tight for Wallace to have arrived at the chess club at the time he did. Based on probability, in my view, it is more likely that he took the tram he said he did. But that is but one opinion!

And then there is time of death: was it actually nearer 8pm, as MacFall said in his first report? This fact is always ignored.

[caz]

Hi Caz, there is possible an explanation, I suggest. Wallace told Julia to bolt the back YARD gate. Hence, he used the front door when he returned. He then went round the back, found the gate open and then could not open the back DOOR. The back door lock was problematic - and this was confirmed by the cleaner, Sarah Draper. Hence, he would have then knocked.

I think the unbolted back gate is interesting. Why didn't Julia lock it when Wallace left? Either she was dead and hence could not bolt it or, as Wallace suggested, the killer went out through the back yard.

According to Wallace at his trial, he agreed that he usually used the back door apart from when he came back late. In this case, he would typically ask his wife to bolt the back door, and he would use the front door on his return.

So, Wallace
(a) Expected to get in at the front door, but could not.
(b) Went to the back, found yard gate open, and went to the back door. It would be at this point that he might have knocked, expecting it to be locked, or because he thought it was locked when he could not enter.
(c) Went to front door again
(d) Returned to back door, bumping into Johnstons.

Does this version make any sense?

Hi CCJ,

Thanks very much for this. I will indeed chew over your observations most carefully.

Of course, if the front door was bolted, explaining why Wallace couldn't get in that way with his key, the killer - whoever he was - must have left via the back, leaving both the back kitchen door and yard gate unbolted for when Wallace returned. If he was the killer, he knew he could get back in the same way he left, so he would have been acting and reacting for the Johnstons' benefit. If he was innocent, I do see how the open yard gate might have worried him, having told Julia to bolt it. But I'm still not entirely happy with the back kitchen door handle issue. Something just doesn't feel right. He either knew it could sometimes be troublesome to open or he didn't. My brain is hurting right now but I will give it some more thought.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Finally, I would claim that if Wallace were innocent, his leaving time of 6:45 actually would be a bit late, because he would arrive only just on time if he knew exactly where he was headed.

Hi AS,

I don't know about anyone else, but whenever I use public transport to get somewhere for a certain time (outside of a regular routine like going to work), I like to allow myself much more time than I really need for the journey, in case of delays or breakdowns in the service etc, even if I know exactly how to get there and am meeting up with friends or relations in a social setting, who won't all be arriving at the same time anyway.

There is no way I'd leave it tight if I wasn't 100% sure of where I was going, or was meant to be seeing just one person for the first time, for a potentially important meeting. So I do think Wallace was indeed cutting it fine by leaving when he did, considering what has been said about his character. While he could have been forgiven for not going at all, on the basis of it being a January evening, with his wife nursing a bad cold and himself recovering from flu, and not having been able to speak to this Qualtrough fellow to confirm the details and get directions, once he decided to go I'd have been happier if he had left sooner - and arrived back that much earlier. Just a few minutes would have made a world of difference.

If Wallace was innocent, the real killer would have needed to estimate how long he could expect Julia to be on her own, and between what times. But unless he was hanging around near the house checking his watch to see when Wallace left, he could not have known if his message had even been passed on (or indeed if Wallace had actually turned up at the club), let alone that Wallace would be willing or able to respond to it and then spend a nice long time not finding the given address. Even assuming the real killer was there waiting for Wallace to leave his house, he couldn't know if he intended to make the 7.30 appointment, or was on some other business which took priority, or was just popping round the corner. What if Wallace knew already there was no Menlove Gardens East? What if he found out from the first person he asked, and turned straight back, not best pleased? How long would the killer wait before knocking and trying his luck? And then how long could he afford to stay in the house before getting safely away?

The problem with the time of death issue is that only the killer knew what time that was. If the experts believed they could determine this much more accurately than we know is possible even today, with the latest technology, the killer would arguably have thought so too before committing the crime, but would have found out afterwards exactly how accurate or inaccurate the medical opinions were. As is so often the case, the best guess for everyone else would have been any time between the last reliable sighting of Julia alive and the discovery of her dead body, science be buggered. That gave any expert a fair bit of scope to get it wrong while believing they got it right and handing the killer an alibi.

Love,

Caz
X

[ColdCaseJury]

But I'm still not entirely happy with the back kitchen door handle issue. Something just doesn't feel right. He either knew it could sometimes be troublesome to open or he didn't. My brain is hurting right now but I will give it some more thought.

He did know it was troublesome. I guess the question is: how come it opened so easily when he re-tried it?

I cannot answer this question - we do not know enough about the back or front door locks. I guess we could say - the locks hold the key to solving the case! A dreadful pun, forgive me, it's Friday . Dorothy Sayers made the same point (without the pun, of course).

Have a great weekend.

[ColdCaseJury]

As is so often the case, the best guess for everyone else would have been any time between the last reliable sighting of Julia alive and the discovery of her dead body, science be buggered.

An interesting point. Let's run with this. So that would be between 6:40pm and 8:40pm. Now if we were to assume that there was equal probability of Julia's being killed during this time interval (I am not asserting this, merely asking you to entertain the idea), and knowing Wallace had to leave by 6:50pm then:

There is only 8% chance that Wallace was the killer - that's the 10 minutes out of the possible 120 minutes in which must have Julia died and Wallace could have been the killer.

Of course, you would attack the assumption - and rightly so. But my point remains, without an accurate time of death, there is far more scope for another killer than for Wallace. Ditto for the disposal of the weapon. Ditto for cleaning himself up.

[AmericanSherlock]

An interesting point. Let's run with this. So that would be between 6:40pm and 8:40pm. Now if we were to assume that there was equal probability of Julia's being killed during this time interval (I am not asserting this, merely asking you to entertain the idea), and knowing Wallace had to leave by 6:50pm then:

There is only 8% chance that Wallace was the killer - that's the 10 minutes out of the possible 120 minutes in which must have Julia died and Wallace could have been the killer.

Of course, you would attack the assumption - and rightly so. But my point remains, without an accurate time of death, there is far more scope for another killer than for Wallace. Ditto for the disposal of the weapon. Ditto for cleaning himself up.

The thing is if Wallace was the killer, then he would obviously try to act as quickly as possible and the body would not be discovered until whenever he returned home. So, even forgetting any finical specifics of timing, if he was the killer, then it would naturally follow that there would be a much larger window for someone else to have done it. I don't see this fact changing the probability of him having been the killer, but technically it is true and an interesting way to view it.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

I don't know about anyone else, but whenever I use public transport to get somewhere for a certain time (outside of a regular routine like going to work), I like to allow myself much more time than I really need for the journey, in case of delays or breakdowns in the service etc, even if I know exactly how to get there and am meeting up with friends or relations in a social setting, who won't all be arriving at the same time anyway.

There is no way I'd leave it tight if I wasn't 100% sure of where I was going, or was meant to be seeing just one person for the first time, for a potentially important meeting. So I do think Wallace was indeed cutting it fine by leaving when he did, considering what has been said about his character. While he could have been forgiven for not going at all, on the basis of it being a January evening, with his wife nursing a bad cold and himself recovering from flu, and not having been able to speak to this Qualtrough fellow to confirm the details and get directions, once he decided to go I'd have been happier if he had left sooner - and arrived back that much earlier. Just a few minutes would have made a world of difference.

If Wallace was innocent, the real killer would have needed to estimate how long he could expect Julia to be on her own, and between what times. But unless he was hanging around near the house checking his watch to see when Wallace left, he could not have known if his message had even been passed on (or indeed if Wallace had actually turned up at the club), let alone that Wallace would be willing or able to respond to it and then spend a nice long time not finding the given address. Even assuming the real killer was there waiting for Wallace to leave his house, he couldn't know if he intended to make the 7.30 appointment, or was on some other business which took priority, or was just popping round the corner. What if Wallace knew already there was no Menlove Gardens East? What if he found out from the first person he asked, and turned straight back, not best pleased? How long would the killer wait before knocking and trying his luck? And then how long could he afford to stay in the house before getting safely away?

The problem with the time of death issue is that only the killer knew what time that was. If the experts believed they could determine this much more accurately than we know is possible even today, with the latest technology, the killer would arguably have thought so too before committing the crime, but would have found out afterwards exactly how accurate or inaccurate the medical opinions were. As is so often the case, the best guess for everyone else would have been any time between the last reliable sighting of Julia alive and the discovery of her dead body, science be buggered. That gave any expert a fair bit of scope to get it wrong while believing they got it right and handing the killer an alibi.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, I agree completely with the points you have made here. It just does not add up logically for an independent killer for all the reasons you have spelled out. Even if the goal wasn't murder and the killing was a robbery gone wrong (I believe this unlikely due to the mackintosh among other things), but even if you concede that, then clearly such a person was still engaging in an elaborate plan that they really wanted to work and that made no logical sense. All of the same problems of needing them to be watching waiting for Wallace to leave first of all, and the the problem of Wallace possibly returning at any point would be there. It just belies common sense in my opinion to believe in this scenario.

A conspiracy theory would reconcile some of these issues, but I don't believe it in this case for the reasons I think you agree with. The immense amount of trust it would take, the fact that Wallace named Parry, and the motives of the co-conspirator(s).(I don't buy Gannon's sex blackmail or similar theories)

Much more likely Wallace acted alone methinks and was a very fast worker.

I tend to think he created the time of 7:30 and was hoping to commit the murder and then in turn leave earlier, as I agree with you he was a bit "late" for a mystery appointment. So, the milk boy coming late explains the timing, and explains why he set the time of 7:30 beforehand which would have been in line with the milk boy coming at say 6:15 and Wallace commiting the murder and leaving by 6:30. If he was seen at the tram stop at say 6:45 ish and asking for directions along the way and creating an alibi I think it would actually be more in line with what Wallace would plan to do and what would mimic what an innocent Wallace would do when traveling to a mystery address and wanting to be on time for a lucrative business appointment. I don't think that would seem "fishy" or that it would seem like he had time to get rid of the weapon or whatever as has been suggested, because he would have the same continuous alibi every couple minutes of asking various people where the fictitious address is. As an aside, whether the address is a red herring and/or a mistake as Murphy suggests Wallace meant to say West is still unclear to me. It does seem like it helps him a bit to search for the non existent address, but if the address did exist, he could just keep asking about other Menlove Gardens and act like he was confused and thought he got the information wrong. So, not sure about that. One final point about time of death, it was a very inexact science at the time (and still is albeit to a lesser degree) and is affected greatly by things such as when the victim last ate and age and I'm sure Wallace with his background knew that. Look at how Macfall initially said 6PM, which was obviously untrue.

One final idea could be that Wallace acted alone but the PD James theory was correct about the call being a prank by Parry that Wallace exploited. Like the conspiracy theory, this is attractive because it seems to reconcile some mysterious aspects about the case, but like the conspiracy theory, I believe it falls apart under scrutiny. I don't believe Wallace could confidently plan for and carry out this crime in less than 24 hours time. And I think the 7:30 time seems oddly calculated to jibe with when the murder would have taken plance if Wallace was guilty and then rushing on his journey. Coincidence? you tell me

What do you think Caz, CCJ, and John G (and any others)?

Great Weekend All

[ColdCaseJury]

The thing is if Wallace was the killer, then he would obviously try to act as quickly as possible and the body would not be discovered until whenever he returned home. So, even forgetting any finical specifics of timing, if he was the killer, then it would naturally follow that there would be a much larger window for someone else to have done it. I don't see this fact changing the probability of him having been the killer, but technically it is true and an interesting way to view it.

I accept that point. But I'm trying to get Wallace-theorists to talk about the fact that MacFall originally put the time of death at 8pm! True, he changed his mind. And TOD is always within a margin of error. But another killer has virtually the whole window, Wallace only the (problematic) ten minutes.

Let's put this another way. As per CAZ, the time of death must be between 6:40pm and 8:40pm. Now IF the time of death was estimated at 8pm, then it IS more likely that the murder occurred at 7:45pm or 8:15pm than 6:45pm. And certainly more likely than BEFORE 6pm, which was MacFall's position at the trial, which IS false. So, assuming you accept the 8pm time within a margin of error of say 2 hours then it is, I suggest, a priori more likely that someone else killed her.

This is only another factor to consider. It is hardly decisive. In this case, nothing is!

[John G]

Is there a reference to when the milk boy usually came or is it just 6 to 6:30? Wouldn't he come normally at around the same time each day? I would think that could be pinpointed with accuracy better than 30 minute range. However taking that range as the best we can get, there is no way to know around what time in that range the milk boy usually came. I would think it would be usually roughly the same time each day. I do see your points though. However, I'd say assuming the milk boy came early, I don't see why Wallace being seen early would look suspicious...let's say the milk boy was being expected to come around 6:15. The time between when the milk boy sees JW and when Wallace is seen at the stop is the same no matter when the milk boy comes. I think you mean that it would be suspicious to be so early for a 7:30 appointment. This is where the "fake address" might help Wallace as he can search endlessly for it and claim he left early because he didn't know exactly where he was going. I don't necessarily believe this as I think there's a good chance that Murphy is right in that the address was a mistake, but it can be argued either way. Overall, the timing of the milk boy's visit vs. his usual time of arrival is certainly not conclusive to me or a real mark against Wallace's guilt. The real question is could Wallace have achieved all he set out to do in the time he had.

You suggest that if Wallace was guilty, it would be a fortuitous coincidence that Wallace ends up leaving right at the same time you'd expect him to leave if he were innocent. To flip this around, isn't it interesting that Wallace had just barely enough time to have made the phone call and then show up at the club , and on the nihgt of the murder had just barely enough time to have committed the murder, then show up at the tram? Both are borderline and very debateable as some argue it was not enough time. But, since it's borderline, one could argue that that is a large coincidence and would be in line with someone trying to achieve what he set out to do in as narrow a time window possible and try to create an alibi so quickly that it would be seen as not enough time to be guilty; but in both cases I think he couldn't quite work fast enough to "exonerate"himself.

Finally, I would claim that if Wallace were innocent, his leaving time of 6:45 actually would be a bit late, because he would arrive only just on time if he knew exactly where he was headed.

As I've noted before, the reason Close arrived later on the night of the murder is that he was on foot on account of his bicycle being repaired.
Wallace's leaving time of 6:45 is easily explained. Thus, he left his last regular customer a few minutes before six, according to the customer, and then caught the bus home, arriving home at 6:05, according to Wallace.

He then, quite reasonably, had a light tea and collected some documents before leaving for the Qualtrough call. The reason, therefore, that he didn't take an earlier tram was presumably because of the timing of his last appointment.

Put simply, the Qultrouugh appointment inevitably committed him to a tight schedule, which was probably another reason why he was initially ambivalent about attending the appointment.

[John G]

I'm sorry, I don't know how to make myself clearer. I was responding to this:

"Hi Caz.

I would just note that the problem with the Qualtrough alibi is that it was never likely to work for Wallace. The fact that it did was as a consequence of somewhat miraculous circumstances that Wallace couldn't please possibly have foreseen.

Thus, in order to make the appointment he needed to leave his house at around 6:45, which is the time he claimed he left. However, Alan Close normally delivered the milk between 6:00 and 6:30, so on that basis it could be always be argued thst he would have had time to commit the murder."

My point is in response to that. If the milk boy had come earlier as you argue Wallace would have expected, then he would have the same alibi as he would make his alibi as he goes along and have the same time between the milk boy seeing Julia Wallace alive and being seen at the tram stop. As long as the time he is seen at the tram is roughly in line with a 7:30 appointment, it doesn't matter exactly when it is. What matters is the time between when the milk boy comes and when he is seen at the tram stop.

What part of that don't you understand?

I'm afraid you're seriously over complicating matters. Wallace couldn't possibly have believed that either Close or the Qualtrough call could provide him with an alibi.

What actually matters is whether he had sufficient time to commit the murder: pure and simple.

Thus, if Close delivers the milk at 6:10 and Wallace arrives at the tram stop at 7:01, then the police would argue he had more than sufficient time to commit the murder, i.e. 21 minutes to travel to the stop would allow him 30 minutes to commit the murder etc.

If, however, Close arrives at 6:30 and Wallace leaves at 6:35, arriving at the stop at, say, 6:55, then clearly it would be argued he had no where near enough time.

No, as I've pointed out before, what provided him with an alibi was an event he couldn't possibly have predicted: James Wildman seeing Close deliver the milk at 6:38 after previously checking the time by the clock.

[John G]

I accept that point. But I'm trying to get Wallace-theorists to talk about the fact that MacFall originally put the time of death at 8pm! True, he changed his mind. And TOD is always within a margin of error. But another killer has virtually the whole window, Wallace only the (problematic) ten minutes.

Let's put this another way. As per CAZ, the time of death must be between 6:40pm and 8:40pm. Now IF the time of death was estimated at 8pm, then it IS more likely that the murder occurred at 7:45pm or 8:15pm than 6:45pm. And certainly more likely than BEFORE 6pm, which was MacFall's position at the trial, which IS false. So, assuming you accept the 8pm time within a margin of error of say 2 hours then it is, I suggest, a priori more likely that someone else killed her.

This is only another factor to consider. It is hardly decisive. In this case, nothing is!

Let us say the murder took place at around 8:15/ 8:20. Does that underimine Parry's alibi?

Thus, if he left the Brine residence at, say, 8:00pm, could he have driven to Wolverton Street by, say, 8:10/8:15? And let's not forget, no one, including Parry, was exactly sure what time he left at, estimating around 8:30. If Olive Brine, say, actually thought it was about 8:15, she may have been reluctant to contradict him, especially as she would be only estimating the time.

And Harold Dennison might just have gone along with Brine's and Parry's estimate, particularly if he didn't possess a watch.

[ColdCaseJury]

Let us say the murder took place at around 8:15/ 8:20. Does that undermine Parry's alibi?

IF the murder was close to 8pm (let's say +/- 20 minutes) then this would obviously eliminate Wallace - at least as the killer. It does not eliminate him as being involved. But it is a big IF.

To your point. IF the killing was 8:15pm then Parry would have to leave the Brine's at about 8pm, I would say. It would about 15 minutes to drive somewhere near to Wolverton Street, park his car, walk to No. 29, be admitted and then commit the crime. So, half an hour is a bit much to mistake on the part of Mrs Brine, but as you say she might have been influenced by Parry. We don't know.

The problem with a late killing (and obviously Parry is your suspect for this) is that he is leaving it very late. For all he knows, Wallace might be on the next tram back, arriving home sometime after 8pm. Of course, this assumes Wallace was not involved. If Parry was operating alone - leaving it very late - and was in the house when Wallace returned, presumably Parry would have fled via the back door when he heard Wallace at the front.