Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

Yawn...

Logic - and vaporising "straw-man" arguments - is my speciality...

They did try to eliminate everything that could go wrong.

Remember?
'It was planned with extreme care and extraordinary imagination...', James Agate in Ego 6, 1944

Anything that could have gone wrong - except the unforeseen event that actually did go wrong - would have been inconsequential, and afforded a risk-free exit from the plot at every step...

Therefore, every reason to proceed with such a clever plot...

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Originally Posted by RodCrosby View Post
I could not be certain of getting the job, so I didn't bother applying...
I could not be certain of winning the lottery, so I didn't buy a ticket...
I could not be certain of being alive in the evening, so I didn't get out of bed in the morning...

And so, according to that wonderful piece of logic, when coming up with a plan there’s no need to try and elimininate things that could go wrong.

‘Qualtrough’ - “ hey Gordon I’ve just thought of around 8 ways that this plan could go completely t*ts up!”

Parry - “Don’t worry about it. S*@t happens. You never know, we might be lucky?”

‘Qualtrough’ - “If you say so Master.”

Parry- “I do. Now off you go a steal the cash while I take all the risks drinking tea at a friends house.”

‘Qualtrough’ - “You know best o wise one.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

A little 'strange' - most criminals, by definition, are - but then...


"Life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of man could invent. We would not dare to conceive the things which are really mere commonplaces of existence. If we could fly out of that window hand in hand, hover over this great city, gently remove the roofs, and peep in at the queer things which are going on, the strange coincidences, the plannings, the cross-purposes, the wonderful chains of events, working through generations, and leading to the most outré results, it would make all fiction with its conventionalities and foreseen conclusions most stale and unprofitable".

Sherlock Holmes in A Case of Identity, 1891


What a shame you've earned and learned nothing from your subscriptions to the (cough) "Sherlock Holmes Society"...

You obviously haven’t spent your time away from the Forum learning how to debate I see.

Your response, therefore, to any contradictions or anything that doesn’t add up is “ well, mad things happen.” You should have been a Barrister.

Same old boring, childish insults

For someone who mocks someone with an interest in Sherlock Holmes you tend to quote the man pretty often.

[RodCrosby]

Quite a strange individual.

A little 'strange' - most criminals, by definition, are - but then...


"Life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of man could invent. We would not dare to conceive the things which are really mere commonplaces of existence. If we could fly out of that window hand in hand, hover over this great city, gently remove the roofs, and peep in at the queer things which are going on, the strange coincidences, the plannings, the cross-purposes, the wonderful chains of events, working through generations, and leading to the most outré results, it would make all fiction with its conventionalities and foreseen conclusions most stale and unprofitable".

Sherlock Holmes in A Case of Identity, 1891


What a shame you've earned and learned nothing from your subscriptions to the (cough) "Sherlock Holmes Society"...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Our ‘sneak-thief’ is certainly a man of contradictions.

On the one hand - Hes gullible enough to agree to a part in a crime where he takes all the risks whilst Parry is safely away from the scene taking no risks.

On the other - He’s mature and plausible enough to impersonate a respectable man wanting to do business with Wallace.

On the one hand - He’s cool and brazen enough to carry out the deception knowing that he could be identified by Julia.

On the other - He flies into a frenzy and beats her brains out just because she either caught him in the act or raised her suspicions.

On the one hand - He’s so easily panicked into a brutal murder.

On the other - He calmly, and for no apparent reason, turned off or down all of the lights.

On the one hand - He’s so desperate for cash to add to the paltry haul from the cash box that he pulls a cupboard door off.

On the other hand - He can’t be bothered to look in Julia’s bag (the most obvious location for at least ‘some’ cash.)

On the one hand - He’s cautious enough to wear gloves and so leave no prints.

On the other hand - He walks away from the scene with a bloodied weapon that can, in no way, be tied to him.

Quite a strange individual.

And that’s before we get onto Parry going out later and blabbing about the whole affair to someone who doesn’t like or trust him. Even to the extent of telling him where the weapon is hidden.

Belief can only be suspended so far.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Afternoon All,

I keep coming back to Herlock's observation that so many elements were left to chance, any of which could have scuppered Qualtrough's master plan, if the idea was to get Wallace out of his house for a couple of hours on the Tuesday evening for whatever purpose.

Whoever answered the phone to Qualtrough had to take the message seriously, make a note of all the essential details - customer name, time and address - and pass it on faithfully.

Wallace had to attend the chess club that evening and not decide to give it a miss. He and his wife were both, or had recently been quite unwell, and the weather in January would be unpredictable.

Qualtrough couldn't know for sure that Wallace had attended and got the message. He could hardly have followed him all the way to the club after making the call from the box near Wallace's home.

Without knowing if Wallace was even aware of the message on Tuesday morning, Qualtrough would equally have no idea if the Wallaces both woke up feeling well enough for husband to leave wife alone again for a second evening on the trot.

Qualtrough would also have no idea what Wallace's movements were going to be that day, even supposing Wallace himself did and stuck to them. Qualtrough would have to be in position and watching that house - front and back?? - from late afternoon, or he wouldn't know if or when Wallace might return home for tea, and if or when he might leave again.

If it suddenly began bucketing down with rain, for example, would Wallace not sensibly decide to stay indoors, rather than set out on that winter's evening to visit a stranger at an unfamiliar destination? How long was Qualtrough planning to loiter close to the house, waiting to see if Wallace would indeed emerge, before giving up if he failed to do so?

Even if he did see Wallace emerge, how could he be certain that it was in response to his message? If it was, how could he know that Wallace, using the tongue in his head to ask for precise directions, would not ascertain from the first person he met on the way, that MGE didn't exist, and head straight back home?

The only person who had any control over the events of the Monday and Tuesday evening was Wallace himself. And he had total control over his own movements, right up until the discovery of Julia's body in the presence of their neighbours.

Love,

Caz
X

And of course Caz the Sneak Thief theory demands that Wallace mentions Qualtrough’s name and business to his wife which allowed her to admit him. It’s ludicrous to suggest that anyone could be certain that Wallace would do this.

To make matters worse, if they could be worse, we know that Julia took no interest in William’s work so it’s unlikely that he would have gone into any detail about where he was going. It’s also likely that Parry would have been aware of this fact.

[RodCrosby]

Yup.

Wallace did it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein (attrib.)

And your playbook was thrown out on 19th May, 1931...

[caz]

In other words, there doesn't seem much point in Qualtrough making that call on the Monday evening, hoping to set off a very specific chain of events, if he was just going to sit back and trust entirely to luck that the end result would be Julia letting him into the house on the Tuesday evening and Wallace being absent - and remaining absent - for the duration of whatever nasty little scheme Mr Q had in mind.

Is it feasible that he would not have put some footwork into checking Wallace's movements for himself, so he had at least some inkling of whether the phone call might produce the desired effect?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed...

'The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.' Albert Einstein


And the Wallace Case is now solved...

Yup.

Wallace did it.

[RodCrosby]

Indeed...

'The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.' Albert Einstein


And the Wallace Case is now solved...

[AmericanSherlock]

Some things never change...

[caz]

My plan is to get a job, so I'm leaving my application form on the pavement outside my neighbour's house and relying on him to see it, pick it up and post it for me.

My hope is to win the lottery, so I'm hiding my ticket in the dog's basket, trusting him not to chew it up.

My plan to get Wallace out of the way on Tuesday evening will mean going out of my way, every step of the way, in an effort to check if he is where I want him to be, and not where I don't want him to be, or I might just as well stay in bed for the next 48 hours and forget it.

Love,

Caz
X

[RodCrosby]

Yawn....

I could not be certain of getting the job, so I didn't bother applying...
I could not be certain of winning the lottery, so I didn't buy a ticket...
I could not be certain of being alive in the evening, so I didn't get out of bed in the morning...

[caz]

Afternoon All,

I keep coming back to Herlock's observation that so many elements were left to chance, any of which could have scuppered Qualtrough's master plan, if the idea was to get Wallace out of his house for a couple of hours on the Tuesday evening for whatever purpose.

Whoever answered the phone to Qualtrough had to take the message seriously, make a note of all the essential details - customer name, time and address - and pass it on faithfully.

Wallace had to attend the chess club that evening and not decide to give it a miss. He and his wife were both, or had recently been quite unwell, and the weather in January would be unpredictable.

Qualtrough couldn't know for sure that Wallace had attended and got the message. He could hardly have followed him all the way to the club after making the call from the box near Wallace's home.

Without knowing if Wallace was even aware of the message on Tuesday morning, Qualtrough would equally have no idea if the Wallaces both woke up feeling well enough for husband to leave wife alone again for a second evening on the trot.

Qualtrough would also have no idea what Wallace's movements were going to be that day, even supposing Wallace himself did and stuck to them. Qualtrough would have to be in position and watching that house - front and back?? - from late afternoon, or he wouldn't know if or when Wallace might return home for tea, and if or when he might leave again.

If it suddenly began bucketing down with rain, for example, would Wallace not sensibly decide to stay indoors, rather than set out on that winter's evening to visit a stranger at an unfamiliar destination? How long was Qualtrough planning to loiter close to the house, waiting to see if Wallace would indeed emerge, before giving up if he failed to do so?

Even if he did see Wallace emerge, how could he be certain that it was in response to his message? If it was, how could he know that Wallace, using the tongue in his head to ask for precise directions, would not ascertain from the first person he met on the way, that MGE didn't exist, and head straight back home?

The only person who had any control over the events of the Monday and Tuesday evening was Wallace himself. And he had total control over his own movements, right up until the discovery of Julia's body in the presence of their neighbours.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

The telephone call and bogus address were unnecessary, when his attendance at the Chess club would have provided a good and less suspicious alibi. Though, equally, a third party who knew he was attending the Chess club would have no need to send him on a wild goose chase to get him out of the way.

That leads to three potential options:
* William Wallace was not the murderer.
* The murderer was not able to commit the murder on chess club night and so needed to get William out of the way.
* The phone call and murder are not connected.

Most of what I have read about this case has centred on William Wallace, the mystery around the call and his behaviour that evening - though it is not a case I have looked into greatly. I wonder if there is any reason to consider Julia Wallace's life and any enemies she may have had.

Hi Etenguy,

No researcher as far as I know has come up with any pointers to someone from her past who might be considered a suspect although Julia was less than honest about her family and life before William.

A few days ago on here I came up with a ‘scenario’ looking at the idea of the culprit being someone from Julia’s past. It’s not impossible but there’s no evidence for it as far as I know.