Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[etenguy]

Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty of the murder of his wife Julia?

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.

[AmericanSherlock]

Qualtrough had said he wants to speak to Wallace to arrange an insurance policy for his daughter's 21st... there is some debate on whether he said "Daughter" or "girl"...but even if he said "girl", the intent would most likely seem to be for a daughter, not a girlfriend I think. Especially when you consider the operators said the caller sounded like an older man and Beattie described it as gruff, but certainly didn't say it sounded like a young man or anything. Also consider the nature of business; seems obvious the caller would be thought to be an older man with a family etc.


So what kind of plan would this be for Parry to make the call, pose as an older man with a daughter who is looking to do business related to that, and then have someone show up who was his age? Not a very good plan. For Parry's accomplice to be remotely plausible as "Qualtrough" to Julia Wallace, he would have to be around 50 or older.


Does it seem likely Parry would have an accomplice in his 50's?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Harry, I can only repeat my previous post to Herlock:



In either situation, Beatty would have been given more than enough detail of Qualtrough's message to confirm to the police that the caller had wanted to arrange a meeting with Wallace for the following evening. And what's more, Beatty would have known beyond all possible doubt that Qualtrough and Wallace were two different people!

With Wallace at the club when the call came in, he would have been 100% in the clear for having made the call himself - which was obviously what the prosecution hoped to establish! If Wallace made that call, he was also responsible for his wife's murder. Simple as. By being absent when the call came in, Wallace could only have helped the prosecution win their case against him. He'd have been insane to do that, if he'd had an accomplice to make that call for him. You don't buy a dog and bark yourself.

I'm not sure I can put this any more clearly for you, Harry.

HS? AS? Anyone? Help!

Love,

Caz
X

I don’t think you need help on this point Caz

I understand the point Harry was making of course but the accomplices role would have been to make sure Beattie got enough info about what he wanted before he went to fetch Wallace.

[AmericanSherlock]

It is pretty plain to see.

Anyway, there is no good explanation for why Wallace should come home at all the following night and put himself in frame if he had someone working with him.

[caz]

Harry, I can only repeat my previous post to Herlock:

Easy enough for the accomplice to have given Beatty his reason for calling:

"Oh hello, my name is Qualtrough and I'm trying to arrange a business appointment for tomorrow evening with a member of the chess club. Is it possible to speak to him? His name is Wallace."

Alternatively, Wallace could have nipped off to the loo on hearing the phone, and his accomplice could have told Beatty he was in a hurry and left the message with him to pass on.

In either situation, Beatty would have been given more than enough detail of Qualtrough's message to confirm to the police that the caller had wanted to arrange a meeting with Wallace for the following evening. And what's more, Beatty would have known beyond all possible doubt that Qualtrough and Wallace were two different people!

With Wallace at the club when the call came in, he would have been 100% in the clear for having made the call himself - which was obviously what the prosecution hoped to establish! If Wallace made that call, he was also responsible for his wife's murder. Simple as. By being absent when the call came in, Wallace could only have helped the prosecution win their case against him. He'd have been insane to do that, if he'd had an accomplice to make that call for him. You don't buy a dog and bark yourself.

I'm not sure I can put this any more clearly for you, Harry.

HS? AS? Anyone? Help!

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

They had a witness, Harry - Beatty, who answered the phone!

As I explained in the post you quoted from, there were at least two very simple ways of using Beatty as a witness to Qualtrough's request for a Tuesday evening visit from Wallace, without the need for Wallace himself to be absent when that call came in.

With an accomplice to make the call, and Wallace right there at the club, the question of whether Beatty might have been fooled by Wallace disguising his voice would never have come up.

Love,

Caz
X

But let's say Wallace & Mr. X conspire to make the call while Wallace is at the club, then there's no message for Beatty pass on, the details of the call would only be relayed between Wallace & Mr X. At least the other way Beatty can vouch that someone called wanting Wallace to visit 25 Menlove Gardens East.

[caz]

They had a witness, Harry - Beatty, who answered the phone!

As I explained in the post you quoted from, there were at least two very simple ways of using Beatty as a witness to Qualtrough's request for a Tuesday evening visit from Wallace, without the need for Wallace himself to be absent when that call came in.

With an accomplice to make the call, and Wallace right there at the club, the question of whether Beatty might have been fooled by Wallace disguising his voice would never have come up.

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

As you probably know, my objection to the above would be that if Wallace's accomplice made the call to put Wallace in the clear, then logically I'd have expected them to go the one step further and have Wallace already at the club when the call came in - the perfect alibi. :

On the other hand, the conspirators may have preferred a witness to corroborate Qualtrough's phonecall, otherwise it could be argued it was an unrelated phone call that Wallace used for an alibi on the night of Julia's murder.

Not that I believe that to be the case.

[caz]

Cheers HS.

I do think the whole alibi thing makes Wallace + accomplice a non-starter.

How incompetent would this pair have had to be, to end up with no provable alibi for Wallace on either night?

1) He wasn't at the club on the Monday when the call came in, so could have been in the call box making it himself. In fact, it makes zero sense to have any one else make the call for him, but not make sure he was seen at the same time, either at the club or anywhere other than the call box!

2) He was at home with Julia, albeit for only a short time, so could still have been there when she was killed. Obviously he'd have left as soon as physically possible afterwards, to create that essential element of doubt, so we would not expect him to have hung around for a second longer than absolutely necessary. With an accomplice, however, he didn't need to come home for his tea at all. He could have claimed that he told Julia he'd be going straight off to look for MGE after work.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

As you probably know, my objection to the above would be that if Wallace's accomplice made the call to put Wallace in the clear, then logically I'd have expected them to go the one step further and have Wallace already at the club when the call came in - the perfect alibi. Easy enough for the accomplice to have given Beatty his reason for calling:

"Oh hello, my name is Qualtrough and I'm trying to arrange a business appointment for tomorrow evening with a member of the chess club. Is it possible to speak to him? His name is Wallace."

Alternatively, Wallace could have nipped off to the loo on hearing the phone, and his accomplice could have told Beatty he was in a hurry and left the message with him to pass on.

But then, as has already been mentioned, why bother with the Qualtrough charade in the first place, if the murder could have been committed on the Monday evening, while Wallace had a totally credible alibi courtesy of the chess club, and a handy accomplice to help out wherever necessary?

I can't help thinking that Wallace acting alone on both the Monday and Tuesday evenings, makes the best possible sense of the Qualtrough business, for the very simple reason that one person cannot be in two places at once. The only reason to involve an accomplice in a plot of this nature would surely have been to set up a 100% solid alibi on both occasions for the guilty husband in the case.

Love,

Caz
X

Couldnt agree more Caz My only excuse (and there’s no excuse really) is that in my haste to put up my post I didn’t think that particular point through enough.

[caz]

The Qualtrough ‘voice’ question - it was the accomplice that made the call.

Hi HS,

As you probably know, my objection to the above would be that if Wallace's accomplice made the call to put Wallace in the clear, then logically I'd have expected them to go the one step further and have Wallace already at the club when the call came in - the perfect alibi. Easy enough for the accomplice to have given Beatty his reason for calling:

"Oh hello, my name is Qualtrough and I'm trying to arrange a business appointment for tomorrow evening with a member of the chess club. Is it possible to speak to him? His name is Wallace."

Alternatively, Wallace could have nipped off to the loo on hearing the phone, and his accomplice could have told Beatty he was in a hurry and left the message with him to pass on.

But then, as has already been mentioned, why bother with the Qualtrough charade in the first place, if the murder could have been committed on the Monday evening, while Wallace had a totally credible alibi courtesy of the chess club, and a handy accomplice to help out wherever necessary?

I can't help thinking that Wallace acting alone on both the Monday and Tuesday evenings, makes the best possible sense of the Qualtrough business, for the very simple reason that one person cannot be in two places at once. The only reason to involve an accomplice in a plot of this nature would surely have been to set up a 100% solid alibi on both occasions for the guilty husband in the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[AmericanSherlock]

HS, I propose we do just that in the near future. We can use Bayesian induction to go through everything. Everyone can select the weights as they see fit for each evidential area, so we are not looking for consensus in outcome but consensus in approach. And, we can always take an average, and say that is the group position, although everyone is free to have a dissenting opinion.

And I would like to see Wallace Accomplice as one of, say, 5-6 theories.

The first table is quite simply this one:

THEORY, CALLER, KILLER, PLANNER
Wallace, Wallace, Wallace, Wallace
Parry, Parry, Parry, Parry
Prank, Parry, Wallace, Wallace (killing)
Conspiracy, Parry, Third Man, Wallace
Parry Accomp, Parry, Accomplice, Parry
Wallace Accom, Wallace (?), Accomplice, Wallace

This table reminds us that evidence, say, counting against Wallace as the killer counts equally against the Wallace and Prank theories. Wallace Accomplice needs some preliminary work to suggest who was in the phone box. For example, if it were Wallace it would explain the coincidental timing, but if it were Accomplice (who was not accustomed to telephones) it might explain how he pushed A at the wrong time, ultimately getting the call logged! And so on. (BTW, there other explanations for what happened in the phone box; I will be interested to hear your views on my analysis of the call in my book.)

All this is exceptionally nerdy, but it could be great fun if you're that way inclined, like me!

All the best for now,

AMB

I can safely say everyone here is a nerd of one sort or another

[ColdCaseJury]

Perhaps one of the strange complexities of the case is that if we drew up an extensive table with various aspects and events of the crime on one axis and on the other axis the various theories/suspects and we ticked the boxes when a theory/suspect provided a reasonable explaination I’d hazard a guess that Wallace + Accomplice might come out on top? And yet it’s not a theory that anyone really proposes?

HS, I propose we do just that in the near future. We can use Bayesian induction to go through everything. Everyone can select the weights as they see fit for each evidential area, so we are not looking for consensus in outcome but consensus in approach. And, we can always take an average, and say that is the group position, although everyone is free to have a dissenting opinion.

And I would like to see Wallace Accomplice as one of, say, 5-6 theories.

The first table is quite simply this one:

THEORY, CALLER, KILLER, PLANNER
Wallace, Wallace, Wallace, Wallace
Parry, Parry, Parry, Parry
Prank, Parry, Wallace, Wallace (killing)
Conspiracy, Parry, Third Man, Wallace
Parry Accomp, Parry, Accomplice, Parry
Wallace Accom, Wallace (?), Accomplice, Wallace

This table reminds us that evidence, say, counting against Wallace as the killer counts equally against the Wallace and Prank theories. Wallace Accomplice needs some preliminary work to suggest who was in the phone box. For example, if it were Wallace it would explain the coincidental timing, but if it were Accomplice (who was not accustomed to telephones) it might explain how he pushed A at the wrong time, ultimately getting the call logged! And so on. (BTW, there other explanations for what happened in the phone box; I will be interested to hear your views on my analysis of the call in my book.)

All this is exceptionally nerdy, but it could be great fun if you're that way inclined, like me!

All the best for now,

AMB

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I think another point that reduces the probability of any Wallace conspiracy is that he surely would have chosen the Monday night for the murder while he was at the chess club for over three hours. That would have given him a genuine alibi, and he really didn't need the Qualtrough call. And explaining the call is one of the most important aspects of this case.

I have to agree Antony. This is the most potent objection to the Wallace/Accomplice theory. As you say, the Qualtrough plan would be surplus to requirements.

Perhaps one of the strange complexities of the case is that if we drew up an extensive table with various aspects and events of the crime on one axis and on the other axis the various theories/suspects and we ticked the boxes when a theory/suspect provided a reasonable explaination I’d hazard a guess that Wallace + Accomplice might come out on top? And yet it’s not a theory that anyone really proposes?

I’m looking forward to getting your book Antony. I may disagree or agree with your conclusion ( we can probably guess that I’ll disagree ) but I’m certain that it will be a welcome addition to the case. And after all, we’re never going to know 100% what happened. And whether your conclusion is the correct one or mine is we still might have the details wrong in some respects.

Unless you have a TARDIS of course........

[ColdCaseJury]

You’re right of course Antony that the case can’t be reduced to a mere box ticking exercise and the some points carry more weight than others but you’ll understand that my scenario/explanation was just to show how many of the difficulties could potentially be overcome. Lily Hall for example is a case in point. She was either mistaken, lying or correct. None of us can know for sure which is the case. I tend to think that she was mistaken as there appears no reason for her to lie. But what if she did actually see Wallace? She knew him after all and wasn’t far away from the person that she claimed to have seen. If she did see Wallace talking to him then it suggests an accomplice.

I go for Wallace alone because I think that it’s plausible that he didn’t need an accomplice and that he would have been unlikely to risk another’s involvement. Of course there are aspects of this case that none of us can definitively know the answer to (no matter how over-confident some appear to be) but that doesn’t rule out a suspect if all the other evidence points to that suspect.

One of the doubts that you raised for example doesn’t worry me in the slightest and that’s the disposal of the weapon. Things get thrown away or hidden and not get found all the time and so I have no issue saying that Wallace dumped the murder weapon and it was never found. I’d point out though that a sneak-thief for example would surely be likely to have been wearing gloves. If so he would have no reason to dispose of the weapon; he could simply have left it at the scene. Wallace however wouldn’t have wanted a household item to be found as the murder weapon as it would have pointed away from a stranger and toward home.

Another issue is the time that it would have taken Wallace to have killed Julia, staged the robbery, cleaned up and left? Again we can’t know for anything like certain how long this would have taken but I have suggested on this thread that, for example, Wallace might have set the scene for a robbery before he killed Julia. Emptying the cash box (dropping a few coins to make it look like a hurried burglary - no problem if Julia had spotted them he could have just said “oh I dropped some coins earlier but I thought I’d picked them all up.) Messing up the front bedroom and pulling off the cupboard door ( he’d tell Julia “ this cupboard door has come off but don’t worry I’ll try and mend it later.) These actions could have saved post-murder time. If he’d used the mackintosh to shield himself from blood and had a little bit of good fortune then no clean up required. How long to kill Julia - a minute? This all reduces the time required.

I see these issues as having explanations that we of course cannot know for certain but in general when I look at the case every aspect for me points at Wallace rather than anyone else.

The brutality of the murder speaks of anger/resentment - only Wallace could have this kind of feeling.

The Qualtrough plan which could have failed at the first hurdle in half a dozen ways but could only be certain to have succeeded if Wallace planned it.

The telephone operators saying the voice was of an older man speaks of Wallace over Parry.

If Wallace left the house when he said that he did on the Monday and went to the tram stop near the call box he’d have passed the box as the call was being made.
Wallace’s Indiana Jones-like persistence in continuing to search for MGE despite being told more than once (and once by a Police Officer) that it didn’t exist.

The fact that it would have taken minimal effort for Wallace, on the Monday, to check the location of MGE.

The weapon being taken away (if a sneak-thief wore gloves.)

Wallace’s bizarre ignoring of the Parlour, which was in touching distance, to go upstairs.

The lights being turned out can be explained in terms of Wallace but no one else.

No stranger was seen or heard in Wolverton Street that night despite the fact that the neighbours heard the milk boy knock. Yet they didn’t hear ‘Qualtrough’ knock and then have a conversation on the doorstep with Julia.

The world’s most ineffective robbery with a feeble attempt to search for cash or valuables and Julia’s bag being ignored.

The fact (obvious though not to be overlooked) that only Wallace can be placed at the crime scene.

The fact that, in a very constricted place and in the dark, Wallace managed to avoid stepping in a large puddle of blood that he allegedly didn’t know was there.

The fact that Parry’s attempts at crime had amounted to stealing cash from collections when he couldn’t have failed to have been discovered doesn’t speak of a planner.

Parry is only suspected because Wallace himself mentioned him.

Then of course there’s my ‘doubt/query’ about Wallace’s Monday night tram movements.

These are just some of the very general points that all say ‘Wallace overwhelmingly likely to be guilty’ in my opinion.

Hi HS, thanks for your thoughtful and detailed reply. I agree with you about Lily Hall (probably mistaken) - see my book. But if she was correct, it would be something of a game changer.

Your list does contains many points that would be true for Wallace Accomplice as well as Wallace Alone. However, at least three points of your points do differentiate between the two, in my opinion:

- The brutality of the murder speaks of anger/resentment - only Wallace could have this kind of feeling.

- If Wallace left the house when he said that he did on the Monday and went to the tram stop near the call box he’d have passed the box as the call was being made.

- Wallace didn’t need an accomplice and that he would have been unlikely to risk another’s involvement.

I think another point that reduces the probability of any Wallace conspiracy is that he surely would have chosen the Monday night for the murder while he was at the chess club for over three hours. That would have given him a genuine alibi, and he really didn't need the Qualtrough call. And explaining the call is one of the most important aspects of this case.

So, for sure, there are some unwanted surprises that are thrown up by Wallace Accomplice that need further assumptions and explaining. But, on the other hand, Wallace Accomplice gets around some of the most cogent objections against Wallace Alone while retaining most of the circumstantial evidence against him (if interpreted that way). In other words, potentially, it could have a surprising degree of explanatory power.

Just food for thought, HS.