Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

The night was cold and dark. If the murderer was wearing black he wouldn't have been noticed and neither would any blood. And he could have parked his car a few roads away. He's hardly likely to have been 'speeding desperately' as very few cars were on the roads in those days. He would have tried to behave - and drive - in a normal fashion.

Imo.

The amount of cars on the road would have little to do with how desperate a murderer supposedly soaked in blood would try to get home or to a place where he could clean up, without fear of being seen.

Just because it was at night doesn't mean people couldn't see you... Lily Hall supposedly saw Wallace (I have issues with her testimony), but nonetheless no one ever said "wasn't it too dark?"

Anyways, that was the least crucial part of what I wrote. I should maybe stick to the most important points, because the extra stuff I throw in there to try to reinforce or add to points is usually a bit more tenuous, and then people focus on refuting that, rather than the meat of my argument.

[ColdCaseJury]

I recommend the link below to everyone. It is a short excerpt from James Murphy in a murder magazine this very year. It starts on page 10, near the beginning. It is about a 10 to 15 minute read at the most. It addresses this specific point, as well as many others asked on this thread.

The one issue I anticipate many might have is he is a bit casual with the timing, he says Close saw Julia alive last at 6:30 and Wallace left at 6:45....in reality I would guess that 15 minute frame could have been as low as 10 minutes...something like 6:35-6:40 to 6:48...I never found the timing as definitive of an argument as many, more the lack of blood (which Murphy deals with very well here I believe)

The actual killing itself would take only a few moments then a couple minutes to stage the robbery, get composed etc. The real issue is avoiding the blood, and the assumption that cleaning it up would take time. But I don't think a substantial clean up was needed. Murphy argues very convincingly here that the evidence shows somehow the killer managed to avoid significant blood on his person. And if the killer was soaked in blood and someone else, isn't it very fortunate they got away unseen and undetected? No bloody clothed murderers seen speeding desperately in motorcars...Remember the Johnston's didn't hear anything after Wallace left until well after 8 PM.

https://casebookclassiccrime.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/issue-2-how-to-murder-your-wife-or-significant-other-sept-15.pdf

I wish there was some way I could get in contact with James Murphy. I know that he had posted here before. I find his work very well written and persuasive.

AS, where is the bit he deals with the blood? I missed that bit.

Well, my view is Murphy is sharpening and levelling at several points. For instance, he quotes Mather as saying how mean Wallace was, but neglects to say others found Wallace a complete gentleman. He fails to mention that Parry misled the police about his whereabouts at the time of the call.

He says it was a staged robbery. This is an assumption. The robbery might have been a piece of opportunism by someone after the killing. Why would Wallace stage a robbery by replacing the cash box?

Most of Murphy's argument centers on the bizarre behaviour of Wallace on the trams etc. So, if timing was critical to his from from perfect alibi, why didn't Wallace (literally) bump into the first stranger he met after leaving his house to get met remembered sooner? And - IF Lily Hall saw him at 8:40pm - why did he deny it?

I'm not arguing that Wallace Alone is the wrong conclusion, but I am suggesting these arguments as not as strong as perhaps you think.

[Pcdunn]

American Sherlock, thank you for the link to "Casebook: Classic Crimes", it is new to me, and I liked the Hitchcockian tone to the issue's introduction. I will need to read the whole issue later at my leisure.

I read most of the Wallace article (except for a blacked out portion that did not load properly onto my iPad), and enjoyed it. The photo of the crime scene was particularly interesting. The author lays out his case against Wallace as a murderer very well. I'm still not sure how Wallace avoided getting covered in blood, nor leaving bloody footsteps anywhere in the house.

[AmericanSherlock]

American Sherlock, thank you for the link to "Casebook: Classic Crimes", it is new to me, and I liked the Hitchcockian tone to the issue's introduction. I will need to read the whole issue later at my leisure.

I read most of the Wallace article (except for a blacked out portion that did not load properly onto my iPad), and enjoyed it. The photo of the crime scene was particularly interesting. The author lays out his case against Wallace as a murderer very well. I'm still not sure how Wallace avoided getting covered in blood, nor leaving bloody footsteps anywhere in the house.

PC, appreciate it and glad you enjoyed it.

I agree with you it is a mystery how the killer avoided leaving bloody footprints, but the fact that this was the case mitigates against the "Wallace couldn't have avoided blood" theory, since it's clear whoever the killer was, he did to some extent. Of course, the lack of bloody footprints doesn't totally explain in and of itself how if the killer was Wallace, he avoided blood on his clothes--but I think it's an interesting thing to note.

I think the case is rather persuasive against Wallace.

[John G]

I recommend the link below to everyone. It is a short excerpt from James Murphy in a murder magazine this very year. It starts on page 10, near the beginning. It is about a 10 to 15 minute read at the most. It addresses this specific point, as well as many others asked on this thread.

The one issue I anticipate many might have is he is a bit casual with the timing, he says Close saw Julia alive last at 6:30 and Wallace left at 6:45....in reality I would guess that 15 minute frame could have been as low as 10 minutes...something like 6:35-6:40 to 6:48...I never found the timing as definitive of an argument as many, more the lack of blood (which Murphy deals with very well here I believe)

The actual killing itself would take only a few moments then a couple minutes to stage the robbery, get composed etc. The real issue is avoiding the blood, and the assumption that cleaning it up would take time. But I don't think a substantial clean up was needed. Murphy argues very convincingly here that the evidence shows somehow the killer managed to avoid significant blood on his person. And if the killer was soaked in blood and someone else, isn't it very fortunate they got away unseen and undetected? No bloody clothed murderers seen speeding desperately in motorcars...Remember the Johnston's didn't hear anything after Wallace left until well after 8 PM.

https://casebookclassiccrime.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/issue-2-how-to-murder-your-wife-or-significant-other-sept-15.pdf

I wish there was some way I could get in contact with James Murphy. I know that he had posted here before. I find his work very well written and persuasive.

I have looked at the link and no mention is made as to how he could have avoided the blood. Moreover, you fail to mention how he disposed of the murder weapon or the time it would have taken him to get dressed.

[ColdCaseJury]

You've missed the jist of my point, which was that blood wasn't traced thruout the house, so whoever was guilty somehow evaded the splatter enough that it didn't drip off of them at all or that their shoes didn't track it, which doesn't fit the "the killer must have been covered in blood, so Wallace was innocent" narrative.

Hi everyone, a new year. The Wallace murder will be 86 years old later this month, and we are still talking about it.

AS makes a good point. Whoever was the killer was not dripping in blood. Whoever was the killer did not leave bloodied footprints or carry blood traces through the house.

However, it seems to me, the "the killer must have been covered in blood, so Wallace was innocent" is a not the strongest way to put this idea. The killer must have had SOME blood on his body or clothes, therefore either the killer cleaned himself thoroughly at the house or left to clean up later, with much more time before the police examined him (if they ever did). Wallace was seen later that night by the police (if the killer was someone else they were not seen by police within hours of the crime). So, if Wallace was the killer, he did a good job in cleaning himself up and leaving no trace on him or in his bathroom in ten minutes, possibly less. If Wallace committed the murder naked, this would explain why there was no traces on his clothes, unlike an outside murderer, who must have had SOME blood on his clothes.

This is where a judgement must be made, I guess.

[John G]

Hi everyone, a new year. The Wallace murder will be 86 years old later this month, and we are still talking about it.

AS makes a good point. Whoever was the killer was not dripping in blood. Whoever was the killer did not leave bloodied footprints or carry blood traces through the house.

However, it seems to me, the "the killer must have been covered in blood, so Wallace was innocent" is a not the strongest way to put this idea. The killer must have had SOME blood on his body or clothes, therefore either the killer cleaned himself thoroughly at the house or left to clean up later, with much more time before the police examined him (if they ever did). Wallace was seen later that night by the police (if the killer was someone else they were not seen by police within hours of the crime). So, if Wallace was the killer, he did a good job in cleaning himself up and leaving no trace on him or in his bathroom in ten minutes, possibly less. If Wallace committed the murder naked, this would explain why there was no traces on his clothes, unlike an outside murderer, who must have had SOME blood on his clothes.

This is where a judgement must be made, I guess.

Hi CCJ,

Yes, I think this is a very good summary. If the police were correct, for example, the raincoat would have protected some parts of the body from blood splatter, but it obviously wouldn't have totally covered Wallace. This doesn't explain why no blood was found on Wallace's or his clothing, or why there wasn't a trace found in the drains or sinks.

Moreover, if their theory is correct, that he was naked under the raincoat, further time needs to be added for him to have got dressed. And, presumably, he would have got further blood on his person whilst placing the raincoat underneath the body.

[AmericanSherlock]

I'm reading Jonathan Goodman's book thru carefully again.

He lambasts MacFall for not carrying out a test on Julia's stomach , when in fact he did and this test can be seen in the official files and is contained in Murphy's book.

There are quite a few errors or oversights of this nature because Goodman did not have access to the full case files at the time (although I suspect that particular example might have just been an oversight by Goodman) You can't entirely blame him for information he did not have, but it does make one wonder if his book is rendered obsolete due to the lack of information he had compared to 21st century scholarship on the case.

Where one can criticize him and what is worthy of some analysis is the section towards the end where he argues for Wallace's innocence based on some undisputed aspects of the case that we can all agree on, so it is just up to one's interpretation.

2 examples:

He says that the milk boy's timing was crucial to Wallace's alibi and since he was late due unforeseen circumstances (bike breaking down the day before) which Wallace couldn't have known or relied upon, therefore this points away from Wallace being guilty as he would have been unable to plan it. This is a topic that has been discussed here before and debated back and forth. My opinion is that Wallace needed the milk boy to come and the time frame jibes exactly with Wallace committing the crime right after the milk boy left.

I think he was suspiciously late for a 7:30 business meeting where he didn't know where he was going that, again that would jibe with the milk boy being later than he had expected.

But this topic has been spoken about before and is a matter of opinion...where Goodman goes astray imo and is a bit intellectually dishonest is he says that the milk boy normally would be there at 6, 5 minutes before Wallace came home, and therefore the milk boy wouldn't be part of a possible plan in Wallace's mind. The point of the plan was surely for the milk boy to see Julia Wallace alive! Not when WHW was home or not. Besides, how do we know what time he got home, besides what he told us? Are we saying it would be impossible for him to arrive home at 6 or before if he wanted to? How does Goodman know this? The only time constraint on Wallace is he would want to act as quickly as possible after the milk boy sees Julia, and then be seen on his journey shortly thereafter. If the milk boy had come at say 6:05, Wallace could be seen at the tram 15-20 minutes later and in the Menlove area before 7. Again, all that matters really is Wallace is seen out not too far after the milk boy sees Julia Wallace alive.

Also, of course WHW if guilty had to know this wasn't foolproof; you can't "outpace reality"..the goal would just to be to create doubt. The real hope was Qualtrough would have thought to have been guilty, and that ruse would have created enough to divert away from him.

The 2nd point, Goodman argues that if Wallace were the killer, there would be no need to create the ruse the night before, that he could have used the perfectly good alibi of the chess club on Monday night. He thinks the call the night before and the crime being committed on the following night is in line with another killer who would "need" it to be that way. I can't quite see what he's getting at here. This is funny, because he also argued that the milk boy alibi which he felt Wallace couldn't have relied upon was critical to the plan; there would be no milk boy or anyone to see Wallace right before he left the night before; Wallace was due to play a match at 7:45 at a chess club he knew well, not more than 30 minutes away, it would seem suspicious if he left right after the milk boy came on the Monday night, and showed up very early to the chess club. What's more Goodman argues that it would be simpler for Wallace to just kill his wife with no Qualtrough plan and have people think it was the "Anfield Housebreaker"

He is basically suggesting that the plan incriminated Wallace more than helped him and he would have been better off to just kill Julia without it. First of all the Anfield Housebreaker had not killed anyone, and 2nd of all the call provides Wallace with a phantom suspect that wouldn't exist otherwise, besides a general "someone else did it" Now it's true, perhaps Wallace overthought this as I think he was guilty and there are parts of the ruse that are rather transparent! But this is hardly evidence of his innocence!

When reading thru the book and considering these points and others, I kept coming back to another point JG tried to argue; he tried similar ruses on friends and tells of one in particular claiming his friend went searching for a fictitious address and asked many people where it was etc.

But, Wallace was a businessman; an insurance man who certainly knew how to consult a map. He was curious enough at the prospect of a handsome commission to go on a fruitless journey to a location he did not know; arrive at a time such that he'd almost certainly be late without knowing exactly where he was going, and yet we are to believe he never once thought of finding out precisely where to go with the prospect of a commission at stake?

Similarly, JG argues that it's very hard to disguise one's voice on the phone to people you know and that he tried it and was easily found out... if Wallace was guilty, he carefully planned this, carefully executed it and he was calling a bustling chess club, to speak to someone who the last thing on his mind would be that it would be WHW. I wonder if Goodman tried calling someone he knew only in 1 context and asked to leave a message for himself with a carefully disguised voice or he just called someone up and made an amateur attempt at disguising his voice, was found out, and decided it was impossible? Again, if someone called to ask to speak to someone you knew only in 1 context, say a work colleague, and in a strange voice asked to leave a message for that person, would you ever connect it could be that person? You have every subconscious reason to never think it could be the person themselves, unless you have very strong reason to believe otherwise.

This is another example of what I believe to have been a false equivalency in Goodman's book.

With that said, it's still an entertaining read. And it's clear Jon had a talent, because the book is beautifully descriptive and humorous in parts. I'm just disappointed in that he seems a bit intellectually dishonest in parts in some of the same ways that he criticized the Liverpool PD etc. for.

[AmericanSherlock]

Today is the 86th anniversary of the Wallace murder.

The greatest unsolved murder mystery in history lives on.

[John G]

Today is the 86th anniversary of the Wallace murder.

The greatest unsolved murder mystery in history lives on.

Thanks for this post AS. The anniversary was something I was unaware of.

[ColdCaseJury]

Today is the 86th anniversary of the Wallace murder.

The greatest unsolved murder mystery in history lives on.

Indeed it is, AS. I tweeted a picture with a similar msg earlier today. I also agree that it is the most baffling unsolved murder of all time.

I have a question for you and other Wallace posters.

If I said that a woman was murdered in her house in England between 2008 and 2015 (for when there is data), what is the chance that the culprit turned out to be her partner, a friend or a stranger?

[Mayerling]

Indeed it is, AS. I tweeted a picture with a similar msg earlier today. I also agree that it is the most baffling unsolved murder of all time.

I have a question for you and other Wallace posters.

If I said that a woman was murdered in her house in England between 2008 and 2015 (for when there is data), what is the chance that the culprit turned out to be her partner, a friend or a stranger?

Most murders (especially in the home of the victim) are domestic, and so are by partner/spouse, family member, or friend/neighbor. The idea of the murder being committed by a total stranger is not impossible, but least likely. I'd go with the partner/spouse/family member about 40% of the town.

Jeff

[John G]

Hi CCJ,

Ah, I think this is an argument for which the phrase lies, damned lies and statistics is appropriate!

Of course, each case must be decided on its merits. For instance, if a woman was murdered in her own house and several witnesses saw a complete stranger, covered in blood, run out out of the house and then flee the scene, what would be the chances the victim was murdered by a partner?

[AmericanSherlock]

Indeed it is, AS. I tweeted a picture with a similar msg earlier today. I also agree that it is the most baffling unsolved murder of all time.

I have a question for you and other Wallace posters.

If I said that a woman was murdered in her house in England between 2008 and 2015 (for when there is data), what is the chance that the culprit turned out to be her partner, a friend or a stranger?

I would have to guess that in cases where she had a boyfriend or husband, he would be the culprit in significantly more than half of the instances.

I will say this, even though I'm quite convinced Wallace was guilty and acted alone, or at a stretch hired someone else to do it, I concede there is a small possibility he was totally innocent. If this was the case, I feel truly sorry for him to have gone thru such an awful and nightmarish ordeal.

[RodCrosby]

"THE SOLUTION", entirely consistent with the evidence...

FACTS
Parry had a car. Parry had criminal propensities. Moreover, Parry had demonstrated his criminal propensities extended to cars. (the North John Street incident, and others)
At the risk of stating the obvious, a car is a very useful tool for a criminal to have. It enables one to move very quickly from one place to another, and is ideally suited for stalking people. Wallace was a particularly easy target to stalk, with his distinctive height and dress, and probable poor eyesight.
Parry was intimately acquainted with the Wallaces, the layout of their home and Wallace's business methods around Anfield and Clubmoor. Parry was also intimately acquainted with the City Cafe and the North John St. area.
Parry may have borne a grudge against Wallace, or the Prudential, or both. In any case, he was aware of the criminal opportunities offered at the Wallace home.
Parry was accomplished at amateur dramatics, and could plausibly have disguised his voice.
Parry seemed to have a large circle of friends, and it's possible some of them had criminal propensities similar to his own (he would later be convicted of car theft, acting with others).
However, Parry would know (as it transpired, correctly) that the finger of suspicion would automatically point to him if anything untoward occurred at the Wallace house...

Therefore, how to achieve his goal of robbing Wallace and the Prudential while ensuring his liberty?
Parry needed a plan, an alibi and an accomplice....

THE PLAN
Parry had 'cased' the Wallace house on many previous occasions during his visits. He knew exactly where the money was kept in the kitchen. He had witnessed Wallace's methodical, plodding dedication to his job. He knew Wallace might fall for a telephone message (in 1931 ownership of a telephone signified wealth. That was something he had learned during his own time working for the Pru. "A telephone call is a great prospect!" all the boys said...) He further knew of Wallace's well-publicised chess-matches held at the City Cafe. He had often seen Wallace there, and acknowledged him on the occasions Parry was at the Cafe for his amateur dramatic nights. What better place to leave a spurious telephone message for Wallace? Is it just a co-incidence that the last time Wallace recalled seeing Parry in the City Cafe was in November 1930, just as the chess championship listing was posted up on the board?

Like most young men with a new car, Parry had travelled far and wide across Liverpool at all hours, exploring its highways and rat-runs. One evening he had wound up in Mossley Hill and, turning his car into Menlove Gardens, he had discovered this triangular affair had no Menlove Gardens East. How curious! he remarked to himself, committing the fact to memory.

Later, this address came to mind as a location to which Wallace might be lured. Parry was meticulous in his planning. How long might it take for Wallace to get there? Parry spent an evening in his car following trams from Belmont Road to Menlove Avenue. He watched them stop at Smithdown Rd, disgorging passengers, who then boarded another tram on to Penny Lane and Menlove Avenue. Nearly 30 minutes! And the same on the way back, don't forget. A whole hour. Throw in the time it would take for Wallace to walk from/to Wolverton Street, and knowing that pettifogging old Wallace would not leave Menlove Gardens or Mossley Hill until he had exhausted all possibilities, and that time would rise to about an hour and a half. Tops, say. Plenty of time for someone to screw the Wallace house. But that someone can't be me, for obvious reasons...

Enter Mr."M", another wide-boy in Parry's own mould, perhaps a little older. Parry and "M" go through the plan several times, while stalking Wallace around Anfield in the car. There he his! the old bugger! What a lark! To see the look on Wallace's miserable face when he realises he's been had.

THE CRIME
Monday 19th January, 1931, 7.00pm. Parry and "M" sit in the car at a vantage point where they can see Wallace heading for the tram. Wallace appears at about 7.14pm. Mr "M" exits the car and follows Wallace to the tram stop. Perhaps he even boards the tram and follows Wallace all the way to the chess club, just to be sure. Parry makes the Qualtrough phone-call to the City Cafe at 7.15pm. Parry, who has convictions for robbing phone boxes, cannot resist bamboozling the operator into giving him a free call. The Anfield exchange logs the call. He is nervous, and Beattie's non-committal responses lead Parry into a slip. To impress upon Beattie the urgency of his message Parry dreams-up on the spur of the moment "my girl's 21st" [Parry is expecting a formal invitation to a 21st birthday party for "his girl" and himself from Leslie Williamson.] On hanging up, Parry jumps back in his car and makes the 3-minute drive to Missouri Rd, arriving a little after 7.20pm. Perhaps later that evening Parry travels into Liverpool city centre to rendezvous with "M", or to observe Wallace leaving the chess club a little after 10 pm. In any event they calculate that Wallace has taken the bait, and go through the final preparations for the following night...

Tuesday 20th January, 1931. Wallace returns to Wolverton Street a little after 6pm. After tea and scones with Julia, Wallace prepares for his journey to Mossley Hill. The newspaper drops on the mat, and a few minutes later, at around 6.40pm Julia takes in the milk from Alan Close. At around 6.45pm Wallace and Julia walk down the back-yard, and Wallace takes his leave, Julia bolting the back-yard gate. Julia commences clearing away the tea things, then sits down to read the Liverpool Echo at 7pm....

She has reached the middle-pages of the paper, when just after 7.15pm she hears a faint rapping on the front-door letterbox. Startled, she rises and approaches the front door.
"Who's there?" she calls.
"Is Mr. Wallace there?" a voice replies.
"Who is it?", Julia repeats.
"I have an appointment with Mr. Wallace. My name is Qualtrough!"
Julia opens the door.
"I'm sorry I'm a little early. I take it Mr. Wallace got my message?" says Qualtrough.
"Yes, but..... I don't understand. I suppose you'd better come in Mr. Qualtrough. There seems to have been a misunderstanding."

Julia Wallace shows Qualtrough into the front parlour, and she stoops to light the fire as Qualtrough carries on chatting. "I don't understand it Mrs. Wallace. I was very clear in my message, that I would be coming here tonight at 7.30pm to see your husband on an important insurance matter..." Confused, and a little embarrassed, Julia bids him sit on the chaise-longue. "I'm very sorry, Mr. Qualtrough, but there has obviously been a mix-up. I cannot understand it. How odd? Would you mind waiting until my husband returns? Let me take your coat..."
"Not at all, Mrs. Wallace.." says Qualtrough, as he hands her his coat.
"Would you like a cup of tea? I don't suppose my husband will be long, once he realises the mistake."
"No thank-you. Indeed, my wife will explain to him what has occurred.", says Qualtrough as he relaxes into the cushions on the chaise-longue... Julia notices Qualtrough is wearing a pair of leather gloves. It must be cold outside, she muses to herself.
Julia leaves Qualtrough in the parlour, hangs up his coat in the hall and returns to the back kitchen, her mind a whirl. How could William make such a mistake? How awful. Poor Mr. Qualtrough, coming all this way. William will be annoyed with himself when he gets back. But I suppose he's not to blame. It must be that something got garbled on the telephone at the chess club...

Julia, a bit nervous and cold after answering the front door needs to spend a penny. The effects of the previous cups of tea are now working, and in any case Julia suffers from long-term incontinence... She traipses up the stairs to the bathroom.

She cannot hear Qualtrough creep quietly into the vestibule, and slip the bolt on the front door... Entering the middle kitchen, Qualtrough hears the floorboards creak in the bathroom directly above him. He moves straight to the bookshelves to the left of the range. In a flash, he has jumped on a chair, taken down the cash-box and broken its catch. Qualtrough snatches the bank notes and replaces the box. He does not notice in his haste that a few coins have scattered on the floor to the right of the range... Qualtrough hears the chain being pulled above him, and quietly slips out of the kitchen and back into the parlour. ...

Julia clumps down the stairs and enters the parlour. "Are you sure you wouldn't like a cup of tea, Mr. Qualtrough?"
"No thank-you" he replies quietly.
Julia vaguely notices that Qualtrough has not yet taken-off his gloves....

While pottering around the kitchen and back-kitchen, Julia notices some coins on the floor. An uneasy feeling begins to rise in the pit of Julia's stomach. Where is William? Dear God, let him return soon to deal with this strange man...

Julia looks at the clock on the mantelpiece in the kitchen. It is a little past 8pm. Where did William say he was going? Mossley Hill? Julia is not a native of Liverpool, and she does not have an intimate knowledge of its geography. But she has a funny idea Mossley Hill is not far from Calderstones Park, where she and William spent a pleasant afternoon recently. Gulp. That was quite a long way. They were there for several hours. Panic begins to rise in Julia's breast for the first time. What to do... What to do.... I can't confront him, but I can't stay in this house a moment longer with him! Calm down, Julia!
Julia enters the hall, and quietly takes down William's mackintosh from its hook. She detects an aroma of William on it, which gives her a little comfort....

"Oh, Mrs. Wallace!"
Julia freezes. "Yyyess?"
"Would you come here a moment?"
Julia enters the parlour with the mackintosh over her right arm.
"Going... somewhere?" asks Qualtrough, nonchalantly eyeing the mackintosh.
"Why no! Well, yes, I .. I just need to ask the neighbours something. The cat! I think they have my cat!" Julia stammers, her eyes fixed on Qualtrough's still leather-clad hands.
Qualtrough sees the fear in her eyes, and rises from the chaise-longue. "Perhaps I'd better go..."
"Yes! No... wait a minute. My husband will be back any moment. I.. I'm going for... just next door for a moment."
"I can let that happen!" says Qualtrough, grabbing her left arm, and flinging her across the room. Julia Wallace falls in a heap, partially over the gas fire, losing her grip on the mac', which immediately catches light. In a panic, Qualtrough snatches the iron bar from next to the fire and batters Julia over the head. "Damn you, you silly cow!" Blood spurts from right to left across the room, and Julia rolls over onto her back near the settee. She is still alive, and moaning. Qualtrough grabs the mac' away from the fire and pats down the flames with his feet. He rolls Julia on to her front and administers another 10 blows to the back of her head with the iron bar...

Qualtrough runs upstairs and quickly searches around for further valuables. In the middle-bedroom he finds a jar. "Just my luck! Stinking 'Treasury Notes' - about to be phased out, and probably traceable in any case... Leave this crap [Parry, you bloody idiot...]"

Qualtrough glances at his watch. Christ! It's nearly twenty-past eight. Time to be going. Better take that iron bar with me...
Qualtrough retrieves his coat from the hall and slips out through the back kitchen. He pauses at the yard-gate for a moment, listening for any sound, before slipping the bolt and exiting down the alley. He turns right into Redbourn St, down the alley, then crosses Lower Breck Rd, and goes into the darkened recreation ground, his pre-arranged pickup point. It is two minutes since he left number 29 Wolverton Street...

It is a little after 8.20pm. Richard Gordon Parry looks nervously at his watch. "Well, Mrs. Brine, I'd better be getting off to Lily's now. Thanks for the tea..." Parry leaves 43 Knocklaid Rd and jumps in his car, and realises he needs more cigarettes. He has been chain-smoking all evening. It is a 40 second journey from Number 43 Knocklaid Rd to the Post Office on Maiden Lane. Another 30 seconds and Parry is off again, up Maiden Lane. He turns left into Townsend Lane. Parry is beaming. "I wouldn't miss this for the world!", he chuckles. "To see the look on that old fool's face, as he trudges back to Wolverton Street. He'll be getting off his tram anytime now. That'll teach you, Wallace, to poke your nose into my affairs!"
Parry turns left at the Triangle into Lower Breck Road, and left again into the pitch-black darkness of the recreation ground. The journey from the Post Office has taken a little over three minutes...

"M" emerges from the shadows and slides into the passenger seat. "How did it go?", asks Parry breathlessly, grinning from ear to ear.
"M" is tense, his face ashen. "Badly..." he tersely replies.
"How do you mean?" asks Parry.
"Well, there wasn't much money, and.... she's not as daft or as doddery as you said she was... She smelt a rat, and I...I had to give her a 'tap'...", says "M".
"That's a gutter..." Parry replies, the grin instantly disappearing from his face.
"Listen Parry..." says "M", "you are in this with me up to your neck. Take me home now and.....Get Rid of These!" "M" pulls out a pair of leather gloves from his pocket, and stuffs them into the glove compartment in front of him. He simultaneously slips an iron bar from his sleeve onto the footwell floor....

Later, in the early hours, Parry slips the bar down the drain outside Dr. Curwen's house on Priory Road, and takes his car for a wash at Atkinsons' Garage...

A week later, having regained a semblance of calm, Parry and "M" return to Atkinsons' together, and intimidate vulnerable John Parkes into silence.