Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

Criminals don't operate on certainties. They operate on possibilities or opportunities. And the jails are all full... And some are not in jail merely for the fact that they abandoned the opportunity that presented itself, because their intended victim changed their plans or some other obstacle arose. So we never get to hear about them. And a few, a very few, succeed in their crimes and get away Scot-free....

"The evidence is quite consistent with some unknown criminal, for some unknown motive, having got into the house and executed the murder and gone away... If there was an unknown murderer, he has covered up his traces."
Mr. Justice Wright in Rex v Wallace

"Are you not really saying that if it be assumed that this man committed the murder, other circumstances fit in with that?"
The Lord Chief Justice, Court of Criminal Appeal 19 May 1931(1932) 23 Cr. App. R. 32

"The Court will quash a conviction founded on mere suspicion" [headnote]
Court of Criminal Appeal 19 May 1931(1932) 23 Cr. App. R. 32

So all we have yet again is the misuse of the word "Only..." when he means "I fancy...", and most of his verbiage doesn't even support "I fancy..." and points in fact in the opposite direction.

And now we have fresh evidence which leads to the Correct Solution. [ignored, misreported or dismissed by the Wallace-fanciers, of course]

[AmericanSherlock]

Just a few questions.

Why do you say that, "only Wallace could reasonably have had the level of anger/ resentment..."? We have no idea what motivated the killer, moreover, William and Julia appeared to be in a living relationship: there is zero evidence to the contrary.

The points about Wallace remaining blood free and removing the murder weapon are interesting, as they virtually exonerate him.

Why do you say Wallace delayed the discovery of Julia's body?

Why is it relevant that only Wallace was "certain" to go in search of Menlove Gardens East?

What do you mean by, "only Wallace would have been unconcerned about the paltry amounts of cash..."?

When would Wallace have had the opportunity to consult a directory? What evidence is there that Wallace possessed a directory? Why would Wallace have needed to consult a directory, considering he was familiar with the Menlove Gardens area?

What do you mean by "only Wallace would have known for certain that no-one at the chess club would have known his address"? Why is this relevant?

Why would Wallace be the only one who benefited from removing the murder weapon from the crime scene, considering that an alternative assailant might not have worn gloves?

What do you mean by "only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the Macintosh..."? Why is this relevant?

What do you mean by "only Wallace could have benefited from turning of the downstairs light"? Why is this relevant?

What evidence have you for arguing that Wallace intentionally delayed the discovery of the body? Why is this relevant?

What do you mean by "Only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the Macintosh in the parlour that night"? How is this relevant?

John, obviously Herlock can answer the intended meaning of his own individual points better than I can.

I would just say I'm a bit confused by most of the "how is this relevant" questions? Clearly if he thinks only Wallace could have done something or that anyone else was unlikely to do so, then this points somewhat towards Wallace. What is the misunderstanding? Surely your issue is more with whether or not the supposition is true, not the plain to see relevance of it if it were true?

[John G]

I was thinking about how many times I’d thought ‘only Wallace could reasonably have done that. Or, only Wallace could have benefitted from that’ so I thought that I’d compile a list:

Only Wallace could have known for certain that he would be attending chess club on that Monday night.

Only Wallace would have known for eg that he wouldn’t have asked Crewe about the whereabouts of Menlove Gardens East (as he lived in the area) and been told that there was no such place. Or that he wouldn’t have consulted a directory.

Only Wallace would have known for certain that no one at the chess club would have known his address. It could also be said that Wallace would have known his friend Caird’s routine and that he wouldn’t have arrived at the chess club by the time of the phonecall. This point, of course, has to be qualified by the fact that only Murphy and Gannon mention Qualtrough asking for Wallace’s address. Personally I find it difficult in the extreme to see Murphy (the earlier author) simply making this up.

Only Wallace could have been certain that he would go in search of Menlove Gardens East that night.

Only Wallace would have been unconcerned about the paltry amount of cash in the cash box that evening.

Only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the mackintosh In the Parlour that night.

Only Wallace could reasonably have had the level of anger/resentment to have delivered 11 brutal blows to a frail old woman.

Only Wallace definitely needed to remain blood free or to clean himself up that night and thereby leave no blood outside the parlour. He had to go to Menlove Gardens East.

Only Wallace benefitted from removing the murder weapon from the crime scene.

Only Wallace could have benefitted from turning off the downstairs lights after the murder of Julia.

Only Wallace could have delayed the discovery of Julia’s body.

Just a few questions.

Why do you say that, "only Wallace could reasonably have had the level of anger/ resentment..."? We have no idea what motivated the killer, moreover, William and Julia appeared to be in a living relationship: there is zero evidence to the contrary.

The points about Wallace remaining blood free and removing the murder weapon are interesting, as they virtually exonerate him.

Why do you say Wallace delayed the discovery of Julia's body?

Why is it relevant that only Wallace was "certain" to go in search of Menlove Gardens East?

What do you mean by, "only Wallace would have been unconcerned about the paltry amounts of cash..."?

When would Wallace have had the opportunity to consult a directory? What evidence is there that Wallace possessed a directory? Why would Wallace have needed to consult a directory, considering he was familiar with the Menlove Gardens area?

What do you mean by "only Wallace would have known for certain that no-one at the chess club would have known his address"? Why is this relevant?

Why would Wallace be the only one who benefited from removing the murder weapon from the crime scene, considering that an alternative assailant might not have worn gloves?

What do you mean by "only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the Macintosh..."? Why is this relevant?

What do you mean by "only Wallace could have benefited from turning of the downstairs light"? Why is this relevant?

What evidence have you for arguing that Wallace intentionally delayed the discovery of the body? Why is this relevant?

What do you mean by "Only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the Macintosh in the parlour that night"? How is this relevant?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock, there are all very salient pointers to the sheer improbability of an innocent Wallace.

Later when I have more time, I will try to compile a list of a few "unfortunate coincidences" for Wallace in the event he was innocent of his wife's murder.

That is to say, I see several instances where 1. The entire murder could have been averted or at least 2. Wallace could have evaded suspicion due to an unimpeachable alibi. In each case, if he truly was innocent, due to a combination of bad luck and questionable decisions even without foresight on his behalf, he remains in the frame.

These probabilities combined start to bely belief IMO. If Wallace really was innocent and went thru the torture of his wife's murder and then almost being hung for it, I will attempt to demonstrate he was unlucky to an incredibly improbable magnitude.

PS. Has anyone read Dorothy Sayers full work on the crime? I have read a couple pages online, but it seems that is not all she wrote on it, or am I mistaken?

In CCJ's book, he has a magnificent summing up of all the major sources and their opinions on the case thru the years (really valuable tool), but he concludes Sayers thought Wallace was guilty. From my reading, she appears to lean towards his innocence. Perhaps I am mistaken?

Hi AS,

I look forward to your list of coincidences.

I haven’t read Sayers work but I’ve just ordered The Anatomy Of Murder which has a chapter which his her take on the case. After I’ve finished the Bartle book I have this online version of Murder Most Mysterious by Hargrave Lee Adam to read. It has his chapter The Clue Of The Telephone Message.

http://www.archive.org/stream/murdermostmyster00adam#page/n19/mode/2up

[AmericanSherlock]

I was thinking about how many times I’d thought ‘only Wallace could reasonably have done that. Or, only Wallace could have benefitted from that’ so I thought that I’d compile a list:

Only Wallace could have known for certain that he would be attending chess club on that Monday night.

Only Wallace would have known for eg that he wouldn’t have asked Crewe about the whereabouts of Menlove Gardens East (as he lived in the area) and been told that there was no such place. Or that he wouldn’t have consulted a directory.

Only Wallace would have known for certain that no one at the chess club would have known his address. It could also be said that Wallace would have known his friend Caird’s routine and that he wouldn’t have arrived at the chess club by the time of the phonecall. This point, of course, has to be qualified by the fact that only Murphy and Gannon mention Qualtrough asking for Wallace’s address. Personally I find it difficult in the extreme to see Murphy (the earlier author) simply making this up.

Only Wallace could have been certain that he would go in search of Menlove Gardens East that night.

Only Wallace would have been unconcerned about the paltry amount of cash in the cash box that evening.

Only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the mackintosh In the Parlour that night.

Only Wallace could reasonably have had the level of anger/resentment to have delivered 11 brutal blows to a frail old woman.

Only Wallace definitely needed to remain blood free or to clean himself up that night and thereby leave no blood outside the parlour. He had to go to Menlove Gardens East.

Only Wallace benefitted from removing the murder weapon from the crime scene.

Only Wallace could have benefitted from turning off the downstairs lights after the murder of Julia.

Only Wallace could have delayed the discovery of Julia’s body.

Hi Herlock, there are all very salient pointers to the sheer improbability of an innocent Wallace.

Later when I have more time, I will try to compile a list of a few "unfortunate coincidences" for Wallace in the event he was innocent of his wife's murder.

That is to say, I see several instances where 1. The entire murder could have been averted or at least 2. Wallace could have evaded suspicion due to an unimpeachable alibi. In each case, if he truly was innocent, due to a combination of bad luck and questionable decisions even without foresight on his behalf, he remains in the frame.

These probabilities combined start to bely belief IMO. If Wallace really was innocent and went thru the torture of his wife's murder and then almost being hung for it, I will attempt to demonstrate he was unlucky to an incredibly improbable magnitude.

PS. Has anyone read Dorothy Sayers full work on the crime? I have read a couple pages online, but it seems that is not all she wrote on it, or am I mistaken?

In CCJ's book, he has a magnificent summing up of all the major sources and their opinions on the case thru the years (really valuable tool), but he concludes Sayers thought Wallace was guilty. From my reading, she appears to lean towards his innocence. Perhaps I am mistaken?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was thinking about how many times I’d thought ‘only Wallace could reasonably have done that. Or, only Wallace could have benefitted from that’ so I thought that I’d compile a list:

Only Wallace could have known for certain that he would be attending chess club on that Monday night.

Only Wallace would have known for eg that he wouldn’t have asked Crewe about the whereabouts of Menlove Gardens East (as he lived in the area) and been told that there was no such place. Or that he wouldn’t have consulted a directory.

Only Wallace would have known for certain that no one at the chess club would have known his address. It could also be said that Wallace would have known his friend Caird’s routine and that he wouldn’t have arrived at the chess club by the time of the phonecall. This point, of course, has to be qualified by the fact that only Murphy and Gannon mention Qualtrough asking for Wallace’s address. Personally I find it difficult in the extreme to see Murphy (the earlier author) simply making this up.

Only Wallace could have been certain that he would go in search of Menlove Gardens East that night.

Only Wallace would have been unconcerned about the paltry amount of cash in the cash box that evening.

Only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the mackintosh In the Parlour that night.

Only Wallace could reasonably have had the level of anger/resentment to have delivered 11 brutal blows to a frail old woman.

Only Wallace definitely needed to remain blood free or to clean himself up that night and thereby leave no blood outside the parlour. He had to go to Menlove Gardens East.

Only Wallace benefitted from removing the murder weapon from the crime scene.

Only Wallace could have benefitted from turning off the downstairs lights after the murder of Julia.

Only Wallace could have delayed the discovery of Julia’s body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AmericanSherlock and Herlock - thanks for your responses.

I did initially find Wallace wearing different coats on the same day odd and perhaps suspicious. However, there seems a reasonable explanation for that.

If Wallace is innocent though, I have difficulty in understanding what Julia was doing with his mackintosh when she was attacked. If her purpose was to put it in front of the fire to dry, I would have thought it more likely that she would have done that around the time Wallace got home and took it off.

I also doubt that she would have put the mackintosh out to dry with a guest in the room. Certainly not a sneak thief she didn't know posing as the potentially influential Qualtrough. Possibly she might have done it with Parry there but, if not him, we again have to seriously think about Wallace.

It seems very unlikely that she would have mistaken Wallace's mackintosh as one of her own coats and taken that to wear herself, even if she was in a panic to get out of the house. If she was in such a panic, would she have even bothered with a coat?

Perhaps a sneak thief murderer took possession of the mackintosh and used it himself to stop blood splattering. Possibly but, if so, he seems to have quickly thought of that on his feet and been fortunate that the mackintosh was readily available.

As with so much of this enigmatic case, nothing conclusive and only thoughts. However, they don't lean towards Wallace's innocence.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound

The proponent of the sneak thief theory as you might have read believes that during the course of the evening Julia became suspicious and slipped on her husbands coat, even though her own coat would have been there, and said to ‘Qualtrough’ “i just have to pop next door” in an attempt to escape but this just doesn’t stack up whichever way you look at it.

There appears to be no ‘normal’ reason why it should be in the room. The likeliest explaination would appear to be that the killer used it to protect himself from blood spatter. Either by wearing it, or as AS and I have suggested as a shield, hanging over the left arm whilst striking the blows with the right. There was no blood outside the parlour except for the clot on the toilet bowl and the smear on the money upstairs.

A stranger killer, especially a sneak thief killing on the spur of the moment, are unlikely to have used it. A killer might have still escaped to safety, in the dark, with blood on him, especially if he took a coat off to kill then put it back on. Also, he might have had a car nearby. Wallace had to be blood-free though to continue with his trip to Menlove Gardens. So if the mackintosh was used as protection against blood Wallace appears the likeliest candidate.

[OneRound]

Hi AmericanSherlock and Herlock - thanks for your responses.

I did initially find Wallace wearing different coats on the same day odd and perhaps suspicious. However, there seems a reasonable explanation for that.

If Wallace is innocent though, I have difficulty in understanding what Julia was doing with his mackintosh when she was attacked. If her purpose was to put it in front of the fire to dry, I would have thought it more likely that she would have done that around the time Wallace got home and took it off.

I also doubt that she would have put the mackintosh out to dry with a guest in the room. Certainly not a sneak thief she didn't know posing as the potentially influential Qualtrough. Possibly she might have done it with Parry there but, if not him, we again have to seriously think about Wallace.

It seems very unlikely that she would have mistaken Wallace's mackintosh as one of her own coats and taken that to wear herself, even if she was in a panic to get out of the house. If she was in such a panic, would she have even bothered with a coat?

Perhaps a sneak thief murderer took possession of the mackintosh and used it himself to stop blood splattering. Possibly but, if so, he seems to have quickly thought of that on his feet and been fortunate that the mackintosh was readily available.

As with so much of this enigmatic case, nothing conclusive and only thoughts. However, they don't lean towards Wallace's innocence.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;443265]

Hi OneRound,

Wallace wore his mackintosh on his afternoon round but decided not to wear it in the evening due to fact that evening was dry. This means that Wallace had at least 2 coats. I can't recall any mention of a third coat.
An interesting point is that, in his first (I think) statement to the police Wallace said "My wife has never worn a mackintosh to my knowledge."
Notice that he doesn't say her mackintosh. This implies that she didn't even own a mackintosh so it's impossible to believe them when someone suggests that she put on Wallace's mackintosh in error. Her own coat would have been there too.

To be more accurate Wallace stated that he'd worn his mackintosh in the morning but the weather turned out fine and so he wore his fawn coat in the afternoon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=OneRound;443261]

I couldn’t agree more AS. It’s a great point. A request, out of the blue, to get Wallace to trudge off, out of work hours, might be considered a little ‘unconventional.’ However, if it was made to look like the original intent was just to acquire Wallace’s address so that Qualtrough could visit him then it looks more ‘normal.’ And as we’ve said, only Wallace could ask that question of Beattie and know that he couldn’t reply “ yes, it’s 29 Wolverton Street.”

Could Wallace have intended to frame Parry all along? If he was guilty then he came up with a plan to give himself an alibi and a reason to be absent from number 29. He wouldn’t have wanted the problems involved with setting up a convincing break-in and so he would have thought about how to make it likely that someone could have been let in by Julia. A ‘Qualtrough’ has been suggested of course. But considering how readily Wallace was to mention Parry to the police, and to go into depth about his shady past, is it not possible that Wallace intended from the start to set Parry up as the murderer of Julia?[/QUOTE]

Hi Herlock and all - I appreciate why you ask the questions but I very much doubt it.

If Wallace was responsible for his wife's murder (I'm not convinced he was although various posts over recent months have left me less convinced of innocence on the part of our insurance official), he might well under police questioning have pointed them towards Parry in an effort to reduce the heat on him. However, that's not the same as setting out to frame Parry from the start.

The major problem of attempting to frame someone else from outset for any major crime and why I think it so unlikely is that the real culprit just doesn't know where his patsy will be at the time of the crime and whether the patsy will be able to produce witnesses or other evidence to prove his innocence. I and far more distinguished posters have used this reasoning before in attempts to counter ''Hanratty was framed'' arguments which periodically get raised on the A6 thread.

On the other hand, if Wallace was actually innocent, he could of course have brought up Parry's name in the honest belief that he was a bad egg who might have been involved.

While I'm here, I'll raise a separate matter with apologies for it probably being something I should know and only highlighting my ignorance. Anyway, here goes. How many coats did Wallace have? Why didn't he wear his mackintosh when he set off to the Menlove Gardens area that fateful January night? What coat did he wear to work earlier that day and if he changed it, why?

With thanks and best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Wallace wore his mackintosh on his afternoon round but decided not to wear it in the evening due to fact that evening was dry. This means that Wallace had at least 2 coats. I can't recall any mention of a third coat.
An interesting point is that, in his first (I think) statement to the police Wallace said "My wife has never worn a mackintosh to my knowledge."
Notice that he doesn't say her mackintosh. This implies that she didn't even own a mackintosh so it's impossible to believe them when someone suggests that she put on Wallace's mackintosh in error. Her own coat would have been there too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And of course the success of his plan wasn't reliant on Parry being charged. He could safely throw Parry into the mix and if he was charged, all well and good. After all he couldn't know whether Parry had an alibi or not.

One point made by Bartle. Why did Wallace claim to take the longer route to the tram on the way to the chess club when he took a considerably shorter one coming home with Caird?

[AmericanSherlock]

[QUOTE=OneRound;443261]

I couldn’t agree more AS. It’s a great point. A request, out of the blue, to get Wallace to trudge off, out of work hours, might be considered a little ‘unconventional.’ However, if it was made to look like the original intent was just to acquire Wallace’s address so that Qualtrough could visit him then it looks more ‘normal.’ And as we’ve said, only Wallace could ask that question of Beattie and know that he couldn’t reply “ yes, it’s 29 Wolverton Street.”

Could Wallace have intended to frame Parry all along? If he was guilty then he came up with a plan to give himself an alibi and a reason to be absent from number 29. He wouldn’t have wanted the problems involved with setting up a convincing break-in and so he would have thought about how to make it likely that someone could have been let in by Julia. A ‘Qualtrough’ has been suggested of course. But considering how readily Wallace was to mention Parry to the police, and to go into depth about his shady past, is it not possible that Wallace intended from the start to set Parry up as the murderer of Julia?[/QUOTE]

Hi Herlock and all - I appreciate why you ask the questions but I very much doubt it.

If Wallace was responsible for his wife's murder (I'm not convinced he was although various posts over recent months have left me less convinced of innocence on the part of our insurance official), he might well under police questioning have pointed them towards Parry in an effort to reduce the heat on him. However, that's not the same as setting out to frame Parry from the start.

The major problem of attempting to frame someone else from outset for any major crime and why I think it so unlikely is that the real culprit just doesn't know where his patsy will be at the time of the crime and whether the patsy will be able to produce witnesses or other evidence to prove his innocence. I and far more distinguished posters have used this reasoning before in attempts to counter ''Hanratty was framed'' arguments which periodically get raised on the A6 thread.

On the other hand, if Wallace was actually innocent, he could of course have brought up Parry's name in the honest belief that he was a bad egg who might have been involved.

While I'm here, I'll raise a separate matter with apologies for it probably being something I should know and only highlighting my ignorance. Anyway, here goes. How many coats did Wallace have? Why didn't he wear his mackintosh when he set off to the Menlove Gardens area that fateful January night? What coat did he wear to work earlier that day and if he changed it, why?

With thanks and best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

I agree with you that to outright attempt to frame someone would be a challenge for Wallace as he couldn't be sure Parry wouldn't have an alibi. And in fact Parry DID have an alibi for the night of the murder, although as we can see it has been called into question. One thing to consider though is that there were 2 nights in which suspicion could be cast onto Parry, and many seem to think he is a better candidate for having made the call.

I think in the event that Wallace was guilty, perhaps a compromise between the 2 scenarios is most likely. He had Parry in mind as a possible person among a few to divert suspicion onto and once he realized suspicion was sticking onto Parry more than the others and that there was some ambiguity about his alibis, he lasered in on Parry. Wallace initially said he could think of no one suspicious, but then later mentioned Parry and Marsden. By the time he was in prison and until the end of his life, he focused only on Parry. He might have tried using the dodgy salesman as someone to widen the possibilities out and create reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law without seeking to outright frame him.

Of course, none of this demonstrates that Wallace was guilty in any way, rather it is a supposition of what his guilt might imply, similarly I would look at the same for his innocence. Looking at the different implications, perhaps it can help to slightly move the balance of "what most likely" happened in 1 direction or another.

Not sure about the coat! Will have to re-read Gannon in depth as I believe he is the only author to go into such details.

[OneRound]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;443255]I couldn’t agree more AS. It’s a great point. A request, out of the blue, to get Wallace to trudge off, out of work hours, might be considered a little ‘unconventional.’ However, if it was made to look like the original intent was just to acquire Wallace’s address so that Qualtrough could visit him then it looks more ‘normal.’ And as we’ve said, only Wallace could ask that question of Beattie and know that he couldn’t reply “ yes, it’s 29 Wolverton Street.”

Could Wallace have intended to frame Parry all along? If he was guilty then he came up with a plan to give himself an alibi and a reason to be absent from number 29. He wouldn’t have wanted the problems involved with setting up a convincing break-in and so he would have thought about how to make it likely that someone could have been let in by Julia. A ‘Qualtrough’ has been suggested of course. But considering how readily Wallace was to mention Parry to the police, and to go into depth about his shady past, is it not possible that Wallace intended from the start to set Parry up as the murderer of Julia?[/QUOTE]

Hi Herlock and all - I appreciate why you ask the questions but I very much doubt it.

If Wallace was responsible for his wife's murder (I'm not convinced he was although various posts over recent months have left me less convinced of innocence on the part of our insurance official), he might well under police questioning have pointed them towards Parry in an effort to reduce the heat on him. However, that's not the same as setting out to frame Parry from the start.

The major problem of attempting to frame someone else from outset for any major crime and why I think it so unlikely is that the real culprit just doesn't know where his patsy will be at the time of the crime and whether the patsy will be able to produce witnesses or other evidence to prove his innocence. I and far more distinguished posters have used this reasoning before in attempts to counter ''Hanratty was framed'' arguments which periodically get raised on the A6 thread.

On the other hand, if Wallace was actually innocent, he could of course have brought up Parry's name in the honest belief that he was a bad egg who might have been involved.

While I'm here, I'll raise a separate matter with apologies for it probably being something I should know and only highlighting my ignorance. Anyway, here goes. How many coats did Wallace have? Why didn't he wear his mackintosh when he set off to the Menlove Gardens area that fateful January night? What coat did he wear to work earlier that day and if he changed it, why?

With thanks and best regards,

OneRound

[AmericanSherlock]

I couldn’t agree more AS. It’s a great point. A request, out of the blue, to get Wallace to trudge off, out of work hours, might be considered a little ‘unconventional.’ However, if it was made to look like the original intent was just to acquire Wallace’s address so that Qualtrough could visit him then it looks more ‘normal.’ And as we’ve said, only Wallace could ask that question of Beattie and know that he couldn’t reply “ yes, it’s 29 Wolverton Street.”

Could Wallace have intended to frame Parry all along? If he was guilty then he came up with a plan to give himself an alibi and a reason to be absent from number 29. He wouldn’t have wanted the problems involved with setting up a convincing break-in and so he would have thought about how to make it likely that someone could have been let in by Julia. A ‘Qualtrough’ has been suggested of course. But considering how readily Wallace was to mention Parry to the police, and to go into depth about his shady past, is it not possible that Wallace intended from the start to set Parry up as the murderer of Julia?

Absolutely. I think, let's assume for a minute that the 2 didn't collaborate on the crime and that it wasn't a robbery gone wrong (so either a planned murder by Parry or a planned one by Wallace).

These have been the 2 main theories on the case in the early years before the "sneak thief" or "conspiracy theories". Most who believed Qualtrough (or Parry) was guilty have posited that such a person was almost certainly looking to not only kill Julia but frame WHW for the murder. I think we can agree this seems very implausible but I agree with the logic in the unlikely event that Parry was guilty of a planned murder as Goodman and Man From The Pru suggest (which is part of the reason I think no one but Wallace was responsible.

But few people have noted the obvious symmetry of the implied flip side. If Wallace was guilty, then just as equally he must have been trying to frame Parry. Who better as a fall guy than the dodgy ex insurance agent that his wife would let in , that he mentioned to the police, to visitors in jail, and in his meant to be read diary? It would be weird, especially with the whole Qualtrough ruse, if Wallace didn't have a fall guy in mind.

So what's more likely, Parry killed Julia and sought to frame Wallace of the murder.

Or Wallace killed his wife, and sought to divert suspicion onto Parry?

The conclusion is OBVIOUS.

Of course, I am not saying these are the only 2 options.

But it is something to consider about the 2 most popular theories of the case which have both been the subject of voluminous literature, especially since we have also deconstructed the flaws in other subsequent theories.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I couldn’t agree more AS. It’s a great point. A request, out of the blue, to get Wallace to trudge off, out of work hours, might be considered a little ‘unconventional.’ However, if it was made to look like the original intent was just to acquire Wallace’s address so that Qualtrough could visit him then it looks more ‘normal.’ And as we’ve said, only Wallace could ask that question of Beattie and know that he couldn’t reply “ yes, it’s 29 Wolverton Street.”

Could Wallace have intended to frame Parry all along? If he was guilty then he came up with a plan to give himself an alibi and a reason to be absent from number 29. He wouldn’t have wanted the problems involved with setting up a convincing break-in and so he would have thought about how to make it likely that someone could have been let in by Julia. A ‘Qualtrough’ has been suggested of course. But considering how readily Wallace was to mention Parry to the police, and to go into depth about his shady past, is it not possible that Wallace intended from the start to set Parry up as the murderer of Julia?