Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Last post before 100 pages. A little over 500 posts to go to break the yoliverpool thread record.

In Sayers book, she mentions the part of the prosecution where Hemmerde notes that the call was made at 7:18; WHW said he left for the chess club at 7:15 and the phone box was roughly 3 minutes away.

Therefore, I would say 1 of these 2 is almost certainly true:

1. Wallace was the caller (and therefore guilty).

2. Wallace was innocent and the caller was stalking Wallace, saw him leave for the chess club and made the call as soon as he was out of sight.

In other words, if Wallace wasn't being stalked, then he was guilty, barring another incredible coincidence. Is there something factually or logically wrong in this premise?

Consider the fact the call was made at exactly to the minute when Wallace would have rung if he was the caller. I'm not saying this proves Wallace's guilt, I concede the possibility that the time coincided because he was observed leaving his house, springing "Qualtrough" into action.

The possibility that the caller rang at precisely that time unrelated to seeing Wallace seems to bely belief to me. Because even though it could be argued that this was in the general window of time when "Qualtrough" would be expected to ring, that window of time would constitute a considerable number of minutes by the most conservative estimation. I think it had been pointed out somewhere that it might have been to Wallace's advantage to call as late as possible (and therefore use another phone box that was not only 400 yards away from his home) to make sure the message was remembered and relayed by Beattie. There are obvious counter-arguments to this that sprung to mind for me. But the pertinent point is it seems that all these objections would apply equally to someone else. Like so many aspects of this case, we are in a stalemate. One possible point we could make against another caller ringing too late is that he did not want to risk having to speak to Wallace if he was known to him. This would apply to Parry of course. Knowing that Wallace was due by 7:45 at the lastest and not wanting to cut it fine, he might not risk calling after 7:30. It could be argued that he would not want to call too early, (again because he wants to make sure his message is relayed properly.) I still see a rough window of half an hour that "Qualtrough" would have where he could have called and been confident that his message would be received and relayed, and that WHW wasn't there yet. (Say 7 to 7:30.) And that is arrived at by whittling down the time frame as much as possible, perhaps unrealistically. Yet the call was made exactly 3 minutes after Wallace left home (according to himself) at a distance that was roughly 3 minutes away by foot.

I think this could be phrased in a way that would make a very powerful argument for Wallace's guilt. For example: "Wallace is guilty unless in the unlikely event he was being stalked."

I admit however that this possibility is not neccessarily negligible; in fact it is part of Rod's theory. Is it probable, though? You be the judge...

[RodCrosby]

In Wallace's favour, he said he caught the tram from the next stop, considerably south of the phone box, which would indeed be the logical one to get for the Chess Club, and despite the Police going to great lengths to track his movements on the Tuesday night, they made no effort to track which tram/stop he got on, on the Monday.

Or if they did, they kept the results to themselves...

[AmericanSherlock]

In Wallace's favour, he said he caught the tram from the next stop, considerably south of the phone box, which would indeed be the logical one to get for the Chess Club, and despite the Police going to great lengths to track his movements on the Tuesday night, they made no effort to track which tram/stop he got on, on the Monday.

Or if they did, they kept the results to themselves...

That is an inexcusable oversight on their behalf. If it could be proven that Wallace took the tram, then he could have been exonerated. On the other hand if it could be proven he lied (and took a but like Murphy suggested), then that would strongly point toward his guilt.

Shoddy police work.

[RodCrosby]

That is an inexcusable oversight on their behalf. If it could be proven that Wallace took the tram, then he could have been exonerated. On the other hand if it could be proven he lied (and took a but like Murphy suggested), then that would strongly point toward his guilt.

Shoddy police work.

Or worse. The Liverpool police were famous for it...

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/echo-murder-files-double-murders-9269795

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/murder-most-foul-hanged--3488330

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/convicted-murderer-eddie-gilfoyle-a-11543241

[John G]

In other words, if Wallace wasn't being stalked, then he was guilty, barring another incredible coincidence. Is there something factually or logically wrong in this premise?

Consider the fact the call was made at exactly to the minute when Wallace would have rung if he was the caller. I'm not saying this proves Wallace's guilt, I concede the possibility that the time coincided because he was observed leaving his house, springing "Qualtrough" into action.

The possibility that the caller rang at precisely that time unrelated to seeing Wallace seems to bely belief to me. Because even though it could be argued that this was in the general window of time when "Qualtrough" would be expected to ring, that window of time would constitute a considerable number of minutes by the most conservative estimation. I think it had been pointed out somewhere that it might have been to Wallace's advantage to call as late as possible (and therefore use another phone box that was not only 400 yards away from his home) to make sure the message was remembered and relayed by Beattie. There are obvious counter-arguments to this that sprung to mind for me. But the pertinent point is it seems that all these objections would apply equally to someone else. Like so many aspects of this case, we are in a stalemate. One possible point we could make against another caller ringing too late is that he did not want to risk having to speak to Wallace if he was known to him. This would apply to Parry of course. Knowing that Wallace was due by 7:45 at the lastest and not wanting to cut it fine, he might not risk calling after 7:30. It could be argued that he would not want to call too early, (again because he wants to make sure his message is relayed properly.) I still see a rough window of half an hour that "Qualtrough" would have where he could have called and been confident that his message would be received and relayed, and that WHW wasn't there yet. (Say 7 to 7:30.) And that is arrived at by whittling down the time frame as much as possible, perhaps unrealistically. Yet the call was made exactly 3 minutes after Wallace left home (according to himself) at a distance that was roughly 3 minutes away by foot.

I think this could be phrased in a way that would make a very powerful argument for Wallace's guilt. For example: "Wallace is guilty unless in the unlikely event he was being stalked."

I admit however that this possibility is not neccessarily negligible; in fact it is part of Rod's theory. Is it probable, though? You be the judge...

Of course, the time Parry arrived at his girlfriend's would also fit perfectly with him being the Qualtrough caller. And, in this respect, in order to provide an alibi he told a serious lie, claiming to have arrived over two hours earlier than was actually the case.

[John G]

In Wallace's favour, he said he caught the tram from the next stop, considerably south of the phone box, which would indeed be the logical one to get for the Chess Club, and despite the Police going to great lengths to track his movements on the Tuesday night, they made no effort to track which tram/stop he got on, on the Monday.

Or if they did, they kept the results to themselves...

If Wallace did, indeed, take the tram from the next stop would that have effectively exonerated him in respect of the Qualtrough call?

I agree that it is completely inexplicable that the police didn't check his tram alibi for the Monday, considering that they were cleanly determined to get Wallace, by fair means or foul.

It seems to me that the obvious inference is that the police did check and witnesses confirmed Wallace did get on the tram he claimed to have taken.

And what about the tram closer to the phone box? Again, isn't the obvious inference that the police did check to see if he'd taken that team but could find no witnesses?

[RodCrosby]

If Wallace did, indeed, take the tram from the next stop would that have effectively exonerated him in respect of the Qualtrough call?

I agree that it is completely inexplicable that the police didn't check his tram alibi for the Monday, considering that they were cleanly determined to get Wallace, by fair means or foul.

It seems to me that the obvious inference is that the police did check and witnesses confirmed Wallace did get on the tram he claimed to have taken.

And what about the tram closer to the phone box? Again, isn't the obvious inference that the police did check to see if he'd taken that team but could find no witnesses?

It gets better, John....

Much, much better.

Both Lily Lloyd and her mother said that after Parry had payed his flying visit around 7.30pm on the Monday, he took off again and returned around 9pm.

If Lily Loyd's hearing was better than her mother's, Parry told her he had been to Park Lane.

I attach a 1928 map of Liverpool. The red star is the Chess Club, the blue star is the start of Park Lane...

500 little yards

[ColdCaseJury]

Last post before 100 pages. A little over 500 posts to go to break the yoliverpool thread record.

In Sayers book, she mentions the part of the prosecution where Hemmerde notes that the call was made at 7:18; WHW said he left for the chess club at 7:15 and the phone box was roughly 3 minutes away.

Therefore, I would say 1 of these 2 is almost certainly true:

1. Wallace was the caller (and therefore guilty).

2. Wallace was innocent and the caller was stalking Wallace, saw him leave for the chess club and made the call as soon as he was out of sight.

Agreed. I made a similar point in my e-book. Anything else is a priori improbable.

Interestingly, according to the engineer's report made for the defence, the journey time to the cafe, was 24-33 minutes regardless of whether Wallace used the tram stop by the kiosk or the one he said he did.

This means:

WHW innocent, leaves @ 7.15, arrives at club 7:39 - 7:46;

WHW guilty, phone call ends @ 7.24, arrives at club, 7:48 - 7:57.

If WHW arrived at 7:45pm or just before, it is far more likely that the former is true. We do not have a precise arrival time, however. Had members 'clocked in' we might be able to solve this!

What about the bus? The is no evidence that the bus was quicker than a tram, as Murphy contends in his book. The engineer's report shows at least two trams travelling at an average speed of 10mph (the same speed Murphy claims for the bus).

[AmericanSherlock]

Of course, the time Parry arrived at his girlfriend's would also fit perfectly with him being the Qualtrough caller. And, in this respect, in order to provide an alibi he told a serious lie, claiming to have arrived over two hours earlier than was actually the case.

John, you're right that is very suspicious. My point is that then if the caller was Parry (or anyone else), the odds are very high he was stalking Wallace.

[AmericanSherlock]

Agreed. I made a similar point in my e-book. Anything else is a priori improbable.

Interestingly, according to the engineer's report made for the defence, the journey time to the cafe, was 24-33 minutes regardless of whether Wallace used the tram stop by the kiosk or the one he said he did.

This means:

WHW innocent, leaves @ 7.15, arrives at club 7:39 - 7:46;

WHW guilty, phone call ends @ 7.24, arrives at club, 7:48 - 7:57.

If WHW arrived at 7:45pm or just before, it is far more likely that the former is true. We do not have a precise arrival time, however. Had members 'clocked in' we might be able to solve this!

What about the bus? The is no evidence that the bus was quicker than a tram, as Murphy contends in his book. The engineer's report shows at least two trams travelling at an average speed of 10mph (the same speed Murphy claims for the bus).

Interesting, thanks for that explanation. So scrapping the difference of 9 minutes you use for the call + entering/exiting etc and realizing his mode of travel doesn't matter, this still leaves us in a quandary.

Considering there is only a 9 minute call time difference, it is impossible to tell without a precise clock in time. And with some debatable timing overlap (as you indicate) with regards to precise travel timing and how fast WHW walked, it may still be difficult to ascertain.

So frustrating.

I thought members of the club were supposed to arrive at 7:45 or before for matches, so one could argue even if the rule wasn't inforced, that Wallace might not risk it as it would look suspicious. However, in such a rinky dink club with such poor record keeping, he might know that it was totally casual and no one would notice, especially as nothing was suspicious yet.

[AmericanSherlock]

Another possibility is that Wallace was working with someone and either briefly met them (yes that would be a risk) or had a pre set time schedule for everything and that is why the timing coincided so perfectly and coincidentally.

I have stated my issues with that (why not be at the chess club to take the call, why come home the night of the murder at all), but the possibility can not be discounted totally as every solution has its flaws in this case.

I still say WHW acted alone, though (most likely).

[John G]

John, you're right that is very suspicious. My point is that then if the caller was Parry (or anyone else), the odds are very high he was stalking Wallace.

Yes, I totally agree. I cannot see any other reason why, say, Parry would need to use a call box so close to Wallace's address. If Parry was responsible, the obvious conclusion is that he needed to make certain that Wallace was going to the Chess club that night.

However, if Parry was responsible it doesn't necessarily mean he was involved in the murder as Wallace could have tricked him into making the call.

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, I totally agree. I cannot see any other reason why, say, Parry would need to use a call box so close to Wallace's address. If Parry was responsible, the obvious conclusion is that he needed to make certain that Wallace was going to the Chess club that night.

However, if Parry was responsible it doesn't necessarily mean he was involved in the murder as Wallace could have tricked him into making the call.

Hi John,

Interesting. That sounds slightly different from working together. What do you mean by tricked?

[RodCrosby]

So Parry made two big slips...

[John G]

Hi John,

Interesting. That sounds slightly different from working together. What do you mean by tricked?

Hi AS,

I was considering an unlikely scenario. Thus, let's say Wallace decides to murder his wife but realises he needs an alibi. After all, as the husband he's bound to be a suspect. He therefore approaches an unwitting Parry and informs him that he's having an affair with a woman who he just has to see on the 20th. However, he obviously has to have an excuse for leaving the house, especially as his wife is the suspicious type, and therefore asks Parry if he'll do him a small favour: pretending to be a potential new client-Qualtrough (Wallace can't be Qualtrough because there's too big a risk that his voice will be recognized). He says to Parry that, as a fellow red-blooded male, he's sure he'll understand, and possibly offers him a small cash inducement for his trouble.

Of course, one problem is: why did Parry phone from Wallace's local phone box? However, Wallace could have arranged to me meet him, as he left for the Chess club, to confirm arrangementss and to make sure he was still prepared to go ahead with it.

Afterwards, Parry realises, belatedly, that he's been duped but remains silent in case he's suspected as being an accomplice to murder.

What do you think?