Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Charles Daniels]

Completely guessing here but could there have been something that would be in the safe by the next night, that wasn't there on the night of the chess match so the person had to set up another excuse to get him out of the house in order to have access?

Could a member of the cheers club been the murderer?
Someone who's absence from the chess club would be suspicious, or they felt out might, thus excluding that night as one for the crime?

It would make sense of why not enter the house when Wallace was at the chess club.

If the murder happened when someone of good attendance wasn't in attendance at the time of the crime.

Sort of reaching for outlier scenarios here

[AmericanSherlock]

Could a member of the cheers club been the murderer?
Someone who's absence from the chess club would be suspicious, or they felt out might, thus excluding that night as one for the crime?

It would make sense of why not enter the house when Wallace was at the chess club.

If the murder happened when someone of good attendance wasn't in attendance at the time of the crime.

Sort of reaching for outlier scenarios here

Well the caller was said to sound like an older man.

However, wouldn't Beattie have recognized his voice, then?

If you think not, then you also have to accept Beattie might have been wrong about Wallace's voice.

[John G]

There is an unlikely outside possibility:

The call was a simple prank

Wallace asked some people about this address

A person became aware that Wallace had the appointment and may attend it

So they decided to use that opportunity to enter his home

So someone known to Wallace, or someone who overheard the discussion about the address or heard the message delivered to him?

Yes, this is certainly possible. In my opinion Parry then becomes the most likely caller, on the basis of Parkes' claim that he had a history of making prank phone calls from the garage phone, and also on account of his interest in amateur dramatics.

Therefore, the Qualtrough call may just be coincidental, i.e. have nothing to do with the murder; or the killer could simply have taken advantage of a fortuitous event; or Parry may have been tricked into making the call, by the killer, on some other pretext. In fact, this might explain why he appeared to arm himself with so many alibis on the night of the murder, i.e. because he started to suspect that he was being set up.

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, this is certainly possible. In my opinion Parry then becomes the most likely caller, on the basis of Parkes' claim that he had a history of making prank phone calls from the garage phone, and also on account of his interest in amateur dramatics.

Therefore, the Qualtrough call may just be coincidental, i.e. have nothing to do with the murder; or the killer could simply have taken advantage of a fortuitous event; or Parry may have been tricked into making the call, by the killer, on some other pretext. In fact, this might explain why he appeared to arm himself with so many alibis on the night of the murder, i.e. because he started to suspect that he was being set up.

I find Charles Daniels theory very intriguing and intelligently conceived. However, I see similar problems with it as I do to other "outsider" theories. If the killer was not WHW, then Julia let him in and either knew him, or somehow felt comfortable enough to let him in.

If it had been someone who overheard Wallace would be out the night of the killing, then let's just assume they came to presumably rob the place and told Julia they were a friend of Wallace's from the club or perhaps it was someone she already knew. But what reason would they give for coming over? How did they think they could get away with it? Before I noted that one of the reasons against someone like Parry (or anyone other than WHW being the caller or a mastermind of a conspiracy) is that the caller would have to know Wallace would return ruffled from a fruitless journey, and the couple could easily put 2 and 2 together with a robbed place and a strange visitor who just happened to come before Wallace was sent on the goose chase.

In this case, there is an appeal in the theory in that the guilty party wouldn't know that the call was a prank. But even if such a perpetrator had assumed Wallace really would meet a Qualtrough (not knowing the call was a prank), Wallace would still return and the couple would eventually notice money was missing, Julia would relay who the visitor was, which would have to be someone they knew. They would be easily caught or at least strongly suspected. Seems a very strange, convoluted thing to come up with on the fly upon hearing Wallace would be gone for a awhile the following night. Unless such a person was already planning on murder to cover his robbery tracks, which seems incredibly unlikely to me. I guess a possibility could be if the person was really desperate for money/the Anfield Housebreaker (although this would be a totally new method of robbery for them) and had planned to split town immediately after, without planning murder. Of course with Julia silenced, such a person wouldn't need to necessarily leave, although I just strongly doubt a planned murder scenario and it's a significant stretch to make all these assumptions. I do think it belies belief a bit. An interesting twist on this would be the Johnstone theory, that they somehow got wind, maybe from Julia that Wallace was leaving for a mysterious journey, and they thought it would be a good time to rob the place. (Whether or not they were the Anfield Housebreakers.) A little twist on Slemen's crackpot theory.

My gut feeling is still strongly that Wallace was guilty, because nothing else makes any sense to me.

[louisa]

Wallace's life of repetition had become boring. He had grown resentful of Julia's nagging - how she was used to having nicer things, better clothes, etc. Alrhough she was fond of her husband, she was fed up with her life of drudgery.

One day, as he was getting ready to leave the house, it all became too much for him and he snapped. In a fit of unaccustomed rage, which surprised even himself, he picked up the poker and hit her with it. It felt so good that Wallace continued to hit her. Julia had fallen against the gas fire which not only burned her skirt, but Wallace's mackintosh. He removed it and left it lying beside her. He put on his other mackintosh, put the poker inside an oilcloth or waxed bag, which he found under the kitchen sink, and placed it in his briefcase.

Now he had to cover himself. He decided to continue on his way to meet Mr. Qualtrough and act as normally as possible. He knew he needed to draw as much attention to himself as possible and imprint himself on the minds of those he met en route.

Before he left the house he took the cash tin down from the shelf, removed the money and replaced the tin. When the police came, as he knew they would, either he or the police would discover the tin empty and assume it had been a burglary gone wrong.

As Wallace was travelling he thought how fortuitous it was that he had an appointment in another part of town. Sitting down gave him time to compose himself.

The phone call to the chess club the evening before had been a hoax call - nothing more. For Wallace it was just a happy coincidence.

And when he arrived home he made a big pretence of not being able to gain access to his house, in order to get the Johnstones involved. He probably hoped one of them would discover the body before he himself had to.
.

[John G]

I think Lily Hall simply wanted her 15 minutes of fame. She wanted to be part of the story. And she succeeded.

Thanks CCJ for clarification re: Julia's skirt and the mac.
.

Initially, I thought the same. However, Lily Hall is surprisingly difficult to break down as a witness. Thus, on the face of it her evidence is hardly sensationalist: all she claimed to see was Wallace talking to a neighbour. In fact, as I've noted before, this could partially explain her failure to come forward for a few days, although she was apparently also in bed with a cold.

Another difficulty is that she stated she saw the incident at 8:40, exactly the time that Wallace would be returning home. Moreover, a case of mistaken identity is problematic as even Parry said Wallace was very distinctive looking, he was a neighbour, and she claimed to have known him by sight for three years.

If she lied, this doesn't explain the timing coincidence. Furthermore, witnesses who lie in case such as this either tend to implicate themselves or some nondescript individual. Consider, for example, the dubious evidence of Matthew Packer and George Hutchinson in the Whitechapel murders. In fact,if she intended to falsely implicate an innocent man in a murder, at least as a conspirator, she must have been psychotic considering the fact he faced the death penalty.

[John G]

Wallace's life of repetition had become boring. He had grown resentful of Julia's nagging - how she was used to having nicer things, better clothes, etc. Alrhough she was fond of her husband, she was fed up with her life of drudgery.

One day, as he was getting ready to leave the house, it all became too much for him and he snapped. In a fit of unaccustomed rage, which surprised even himself, he picked up the poker and hit her with it. It felt so good that Wallace continued to hit her. Julia had fallen against the gas fire which not only burned her skirt, but Wallace's mackintosh. He removed it and left it lying beside her. He put on his other mackintosh, put the poker inside an oilcloth or waxed bag, which he found under the kitchen sink, and placed it in his briefcase.

Now he had to cover himself. He decided to continue on his way to meet Mr. Qualtrough and act as normally as possible. He knew he needed to draw as much attention to himself as possible and imprint himself on the minds of those he met en route.

Before he left the house he took the cash tin down from the shelf, removed the money and replaced the tin. When the police came, as he knew they would, either he or the police would discover the tin empty and assume it had been a burglary gone wrong.

As Wallace was travelling he thought how fortuitous it was that he had an appointment in another part of town. Sitting down gave him time to compose himself.

The phone call to the chess club the evening before had been a hoax call - nothing more. For Wallace it was just a happy coincidence.

And when he arrived home he made a big pretence of not being able to gain access to his house, in order to get the Johnstones involved. He probably hoped one of them would discover the body before he himself had to.
.

But in this scenario his suit/clothing would be covered in blood, as the Macintosh wouldn't completely protect it considering the severity of the attack. What did he do with this clothing? How did he clean the blood of his person, I.e.. hands and face, without leaving a trace in the sinks or drains? What did he do with the murder weapon? How did he carry the murder weapon out of the house?

[John G]

I find Charles Daniels theory very intriguing and intelligently conceived. However, I see similar problems with it as I do to other "outsider" theories. If the killer was not WHW, then Julia let him in and either knew him, or somehow felt comfortable enough to let him in.

If it had been someone who overheard Wallace would be out the night of the killing, then let's just assume they came to presumably rob the place and told Julia they were a friend of Wallace's from the club or perhaps it was someone she already knew. But what reason would they give for coming over? How did they think they could get away with it? Before I noted that one of the reasons against someone like Parry (or anyone other than WHW being the caller or a mastermind of a conspiracy) is that the caller would have to know Wallace would return ruffled from a fruitless journey, and the couple could easily put 2 and 2 together with a robbed place and a strange visitor who just happened to come before Wallace was sent on the goose chase.

In this case, there is an appeal in the theory in that the guilty party wouldn't know that the call was a prank. But even if such a perpetrator had assumed Wallace really would meet a Qualtrough (not knowing the call was a prank), Wallace would still return and the couple would eventually notice money was missing, Julia would relay who the visitor was, which would have to be someone they knew. They would be easily caught or at least strongly suspected. Seems a very strange, convoluted thing to come up with on the fly upon hearing Wallace would be gone for a awhile the following night. Unless such a person was already planning on murder to cover his robbery tracks, which seems incredibly unlikely to me. I guess a possibility could be if the person was really desperate for money/the Anfield Housebreaker (although this would be a totally new method of robbery for them) and had planned to split town immediately after, without planning murder. Of course with Julia silenced, such a person wouldn't need to necessarily leave, although I just strongly doubt a planned murder scenario and it's a significant stretch to make all these assumptions. I do think it belies belief a bit. An interesting twist on this would be the Johnstone theory, that they somehow got wind, maybe from Julia that Wallace was leaving for a mysterious journey, and they thought it would be a good time to rob the place. (Whether or not they were the Anfield Housebreakers.) A little twist on Slemen's crackpot theory.

My gut feeling is still strongly that Wallace was guilty, because nothing else makes any sense to me.

Yes, but if Parry was the offender, although he would be suspected himself, he could simply accuse Wallace of committing the robbery, making the Qualtrough call, and then using his visit as an attempt to deflect suspicion. In fact, any other perpetrator could effectively make the same argument. And, in respect of Parry, if we assume that murder wasn't the motive he might even have intended to suggest that Julia was part of the same conspiracy, i.e by inviting him round for a "musical interlude" whilst her husband was away.

[louisa]

But in this scenario his suit/clothing would be covered in blood, as the Macintosh wouldn't completely protect it considering the severity of the attack. What did he do with this clothing? How did he clean the blood of his person, I.e.. hands and face, without leaving a trace in the sinks or drains? What did he do with the murder weapon? How did he carry the murder weapon out of the house?

The mac would have covered most of his body. He was probably wearing dark trousers which wouldn't have shown the blood spatters. He could have wiped his shoes and washed his hands.

The poker was put into an oilskin bag which he may have found under the sink and placed into his briefcase. He travelled quite a bit on foot in his quest for Menlove Gardens East so could have dropped it en route. There may have been a suitable place, down a drain or something.

[louisa]

In fact,if she intended to falsely implicate an innocent man in a murder, at least as a conspirator, she must have been psychotic considering the fact he faced the death penalty.

She probably didn't think that far ahead. She may have thought he'd get acquitted anyway. To her it may just have been a bit of fun to say she'd seen him. To be part of the drama.

Afterwards when it all became a lot more serious, she decided it was wise to stick to her story rather than for people to see her as the liar she was.

Maybe.

[John G]

The mac would have covered most of his body. He was probably wearing dark trousers which wouldn't have shown the blood spatters. He could have wiped his shoes and washed his hands.

The poker was put into an oilskin bag which he may have found under the sink and placed into his briefcase. He travelled quite a bit on foot in his quest for Menlove Gardens East so could have dropped it en route. There may have been a suitable place, down a drain or something.

Unfortunately, the problem is that his clothing was thoroughly examined at the police station for traces of blood and nothing was found. And I really don't see how the blood could have remained invisible- so as to remain undetected following a close examination-even on dark clothing.

Not even a microscopic trace of blood was found in the sinks or drains: and the test that was carried out would have detected the equivalent of one-fifty thousandth of a teaspoon.) Again, I don't see how this could be the case if he had washed the blood off.

As regards the poker, would it have fitted into a briefcase? Moreover, the police extensively searched his route on the night of the murder and found nothing.

[John G]

She probably didn't think that far ahead. She may have thought he'd get acquitted anyway. To her it may just have been a bit of fun to say she'd seen him. To be part of the drama.

Afterwards when it all became a lot more serious, she decided it was wise to stick to her story rather than for people to see her as the liar she was.

Maybe.

But she would have been implicating him in a murder conspiracy. Frankly, if she thought that was just "a bit of fun" she must have been psychotic, or at least very disturbed! And bear in mind the fact that she gave evidence, under oath, before a jury.

Also, it doesn't explain the coincidence of Hall allegedly sighting Wallace at 8:40, which fits perfectly with the 8:45 time that he eventually arrived home.

[louisa]

.

Not even a microscopic trace of blood was found in the sinks or drains: and the test that was carried out would have detected the equivalent of one-fifty thousandth of a teaspoon.

Even back in those days?

Yes I can see some flaws in my theory. I'll have to go back to the drawing board.
.

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, but if Parry was the offender, although he would be suspected himself, he could simply accuse Wallace of committing the robbery, making the Qualtrough call, and then using his visit as an attempt to deflect suspicion. In fact, any other perpetrator could effectively make the same argument. And, in respect of Parry, if we assume that murder wasn't the motive he might even have intended to suggest that Julia was part of the same conspiracy, i.e by inviting him round for a "musical interlude" whilst her husband was away.

Parry had been sacked from the Pru and was known as a scumbag around town! It was 18 months before, as I point out, so the revenge motive doesn't ring true, but nevertheless he would be a prime robbery suspect. He couldn't possibly think he could try to make it seem like Wallace did it himself or Julia was in on it. Come on. That belies belief.

Again, the robbery motive doesn't compute. The motive was murder and therefore the caller was in on the plot imo. Either Wallace and a conspiracy help who called/killed Julia or Wallace alone. Wallace alone simplest and makes most sense.

[Charles Daniels]

Again, the robbery motive doesn't compute. The motive was murder and therefore the caller was in on the plot imo. Either Wallace and a conspiracy help who called/killed Julia or Wallace alone. Wallace alone simplest and makes most sense.

If Wallace acted alone -

Then how did Wallace disguise voice sufficiently when calling someone who knew him very well for 8 years?

And how on earth did he murder, stage a robbery, and clean up in 10 minutes max, then casually stroll off to the tram?