Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[ColdCaseJury]

Phenomenal post.

I agree Wallace and Accomplice ticks the most but I favor Wallace alone because there are bigger problems with Wallace and accomplice that outweigh it ticking more boxes if that makes sense.

It seems we are in total agreement on this case independently.

Interesting on many levels. First, it is not just a question of the number of evidential areas (the tick boxes), one also has to consider the weight or importance of each one. Second, some of the biggest issues for non-Wallace proponents are the lack of forensics, timing issues, weapon disposal, and the behaviour of the caller in the call box. And I suggest these ought to decrease the posterior probability of Wallace Alone in anyone's evaluation. But, at first blush, Wallace + Accomplice, would address these.

So what are the reasons that propel Wallace above Wallace + Accomplice in your view? You both state it's your preferred theory of the two but don't specifically say why.

[AmericanSherlock]

The intention, when proposing a scenario to describe how the murder of Julia occurred, must be to answer as many of the questions that are asked regularly on this thread (how was the weapon disposed of, timings, the voice on the phone all etc?) Of course it doesn’t mean that our scenario is correct just because it answers some or many of those questions but answering those questions must be the criteria.

All theories leave, as yet, questions not conclusively answered. Even the scenario that I strongly favour (Wallace alone) leaves us with questions that we cannot difinitively answer. And so if we look at it dispassionately which scenario ‘answers’ most questions? I was thinking about this last night and realised how obvious the answer was (to me anyway.)

It’s Wallace and an accomplice (naming the accomplice is unimportant.)

The only question that I can think of that it doesn’t answer is the question of Parkes which doesn’t concern me as I consider him an obvious fantasist.

Questions and ‘answers’ on the Wallace/accomplice scenario.

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


The many ways that the plan could have failed from the start - It was Wallace’s plan and he controlled the circumstances.

The Hall sighting - Wallace with his accomplice.

The brutality of the murder - Wallace’s build up of resentment and hatred.

The missing weapon - Disposed of by the accomplice.

Clean up after the murder - The accomplice got rid of Wallace’s soiled clothing or the accomplice committed the actual murder.

The tight timings for Wallace to get to chess - The accomplice has a car (or access to one) and drives Wallace to his first stop.)

The mackintosh - Wallace used it as an excuse to get Julia into the Parlour. “ Could you bring me my mackintosh dear?”

The poorly staged robbery - Perhaps the accomplice made the poor job in the front bedroom whilst Wallace was downstairs?

Why were the lights off? - Wallace not wanting anyone to knock on the door and see lights on but getting no response.

Wallace continuing to look for the non-existent MGE - He needs to be away from the house as part of his plan.

Why didn’t Wallace check for MGE on the Monday? - Because he already knew that it didn’t exist.

Julia admitting a stranger. - A few possibles here. She didn’t admit a stranger, Wallace did via the backdoor. Or, if she did admit a stranger, Wallace told her “oh by the way dear a Mr Qualtrough will call tonight. Just put him in the Parlour will you, I won’t be gone long.”

Why Wallace left the Parlour until last? - He wanted to check his accomplices handiwork upstairs and that he’d made no blunders.

Of course the question will be asked “how did the mild-mannered, law abiding Wallace find such a desperado to help him? - Wallace collects rents. He gets to know a man who’s permanently in arrears (possible facing eviction.) His wife has left him because he can’t find work (this is partially due to the fact that he has a criminal record.) He’s desperate. Wallace plants the seeds... Or perhaps Wallace finds out that one man has been having an affair and he threatens to break up his family by informing his wife so he blackmails him into a peripheral role (phonecall, disposal of weapon etc.)

If we have license to propose any scenario which might explain the events of that Monday and tuesday then we are engaged in a box ticking exercise.

Wallace + Accomplice ticks most boxes. (I still go for Wallace alone though.)

Phenomenal post.

I agree Wallace and Accomplice ticks the most but I favor Wallace alone because there are bigger problems with Wallace and accomplice that outweigh it ticking more boxes if that makes sense.

It seems we are in total agreement on this case independently.

[Batman]

Moral of the story is that when you get a stranger to alibi your pre-arranged phone call calls, don't insist he remembers the exact time he took it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The intention, when proposing a scenario to describe how the murder of Julia occurred, must be to answer as many of the questions that are asked regularly on this thread (how was the weapon disposed of, timings, the voice on the phone all etc?) Of course it doesn’t mean that our scenario is correct just because it answers some or many of those questions but answering those questions must be the criteria.

All theories leave, as yet, questions not conclusively answered. Even the scenario that I strongly favour (Wallace alone) leaves us with questions that we cannot difinitively answer. And so if we look at it dispassionately which scenario ‘answers’ most questions? I was thinking about this last night and realised how obvious the answer was (to me anyway.)

It’s Wallace and an accomplice (naming the accomplice is unimportant.)

The only question that I can think of that it doesn’t answer is the question of Parkes which doesn’t concern me as I consider him an obvious fantasist.

Questions and ‘answers’ on the Wallace/accomplice scenario.

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


The many ways that the plan could have failed from the start - It was Wallace’s plan and he controlled the circumstances.

The Hall sighting - Wallace with his accomplice.

The brutality of the murder - Wallace’s build up of resentment and hatred.

The missing weapon - Disposed of by the accomplice.

Clean up after the murder - The accomplice got rid of Wallace’s soiled clothing or the accomplice committed the actual murder.

The tight timings for Wallace to get to chess - The accomplice has a car (or access to one) and drives Wallace to his first stop.)

The mackintosh - Wallace used it as an excuse to get Julia into the Parlour. “ Could you bring me my mackintosh dear?”

The poorly staged robbery - Perhaps the accomplice made the poor job in the front bedroom whilst Wallace was downstairs?

Why were the lights off? - Wallace not wanting anyone to knock on the door and see lights on but getting no response.

Wallace continuing to look for the non-existent MGE - He needs to be away from the house as part of his plan.

Why didn’t Wallace check for MGE on the Monday? - Because he already knew that it didn’t exist.

Julia admitting a stranger. - A few possibles here. She didn’t admit a stranger, Wallace did via the backdoor. Or, if she did admit a stranger, Wallace told her “oh by the way dear a Mr Qualtrough will call tonight. Just put him in the Parlour will you, I won’t be gone long.”

Why Wallace left the Parlour until last? - He wanted to check his accomplices handiwork upstairs and that he’d made no blunders.

Of course the question will be asked “how did the mild-mannered, law abiding Wallace find such a desperado to help him? - Wallace collects rents. He gets to know a man who’s permanently in arrears (possible facing eviction.) His wife has left him because he can’t find work (this is partially due to the fact that he has a criminal record.) He’s desperate. Wallace plants the seeds... Or perhaps Wallace finds out that one man has been having an affair and he threatens to break up his family by informing his wife so he blackmails him into a peripheral role (phonecall, disposal of weapon etc.)

If we have license to propose any scenario which might explain the events of that Monday and tuesday then we are engaged in a box ticking exercise.

Wallace + Accomplice ticks most boxes. (I still go for Wallace alone though.)

[AmericanSherlock]

It makes no sense AS.

I've PMEd you

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Qualtrough's goal was to steal the insurance money first and foremost upon finding only 4 pounds were there (according to Wallace himself) then why not steal obvious other things at the scene. This would be a disappointing haul.

It makes no sense AS.

[AmericanSherlock]

If Qualtrough's goal was to steal the insurance money first and foremost upon finding only 4 pounds were there (according to Wallace himself) then why not steal obvious other things at the scene. This would be a disappointing haul.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I meant to add...

An empty house would mean no handbag or wallet for a burglar to rifle through. But knowing the woman of the house would be at home to let him in, Qualtrough would also have been aware that her handbag would be around somewhere. And it was easy enough to find on this occasion, which makes it all the more puzzling why he didn't think to empty it, or even grab it on his way out, but spent precious seconds turning off all the lights instead!

Wallace, on the other hand, might have felt a bit queasy about tampering with his wife's handbag if he was trying to stage a robbery, or feared leaving his fingerprints on it.

Love,

Caz
X

It’s certainly difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a sensible reason why Qualtrough would have ignored Julia’s bag which was clearly on view and easily accessible and yet spend the time and effort (and noise) required to wrench a door from a cupboard.

[caz]

I meant to add...

An empty house would mean no handbag or wallet for a burglar to rifle through. But knowing the woman of the house would be at home to let him in, Qualtrough would also have been aware that her handbag would be around somewhere. And it was easy enough to find on this occasion, which makes it all the more puzzling why he didn't think to empty it, or even grab it on his way out, but spent precious seconds turning off all the lights instead!

Wallace, on the other hand, might have felt a bit queasy about tampering with his wife's handbag if he was trying to stage a robbery, or feared leaving his fingerprints on it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I ordered my copy yesterday and look forward to when it finally arrives!

For me, the fact that Julia's handbag was untouched, and there was no forced entry to the house, makes it unlikely that the primary motive for the crime was financial gain by someone who first had to con his way into the Wallace home. The Monday night phone call implies a carefully thought-out plan by whoever "Qualtrough" was, knowing Julia would be there in Wallace's absence, and could prove an obstacle to the plan's success. The brutality of her murder would then indicate that she did indeed prove to be an obstacle while alive, whereas if Wallace killed her, that would have been the whole object of the exercise.

Burglars tend to favour an empty house, but are often prepared to do what is necessary if surprised by an occupant already there or arriving unexpectedly. But on this occasion, Qualtrough knew with 100% certainty that Julia would be there and would need to be 'negotiated' with in some way. That strikes me as unusual to begin with. The recent housebreaking in the vicinity is in stark contrast, and should have showed Qualtrough - if not a wife killer - how to do his thing without the additional worry of an unwanted audience.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes very cogent points my friend. I am looking forward to reading the accomplice theory in the book though. Antony is a very reasonable guy so I think he will do the best job of "Steel manning" this theory to it's very best. I don't like it for many of these reasons we are listing though and they seem like dealbreakers to me.

I’m just disappointed that I’m going to have to wait so long for the book to arrive. With the book being out on November 1st I didn’t expect the possibility of having to wait until after Christmas to receive it.

[AmericanSherlock]

It would make no sense AS if the plan was to wait for Julia to go to the loo. How long would Q have been prepared to wait? Julia might not have gone to the loo in which case Q would have needed to absent himself from the Parlour (probably under the pretext of needing the loo himself.) This raises the question: would a ‘sneak thief’ hoping to steal money from the cash box undetected risk noisily pulling a cupboard door from its hinges with Julia in the next room? At the same time completely ignoring Julia’s bag which would be a pretty obvious target for someone looking for cash.

Does any of this sound plausible for a sneak thief?

Yes very cogent points my friend. I am looking forward to reading the accomplice theory in the book though. Antony is a very reasonable guy so I think he will do the best job of "Steel manning" this theory to it's very best. I don't like it for many of these reasons we are listing though and they seem like dealbreakers to me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would make no sense AS if the plan was to wait for Julia to go to the loo. How long would Q have been prepared to wait? Julia might not have gone to the loo in which case Q would have needed to absent himself from the Parlour (probably under the pretext of needing the loo himself.) This raises the question: would a ‘sneak thief’ hoping to steal money from the cash box undetected risk noisily pulling a cupboard door from its hinges with Julia in the next room? At the same time completely ignoring Julia’s bag which would be a pretty obvious target for someone looking for cash.

Does any of this sound plausible for a sneak thief?

[AmericanSherlock]

This is an important point AS. If Qualtrough took on the role of sneak thief then being recognised and possibly identified by Julia at some future point was all par for the course. Being identified by Julia shouldn’t have worried him so why did he suddenly brutally murder her just because she caught him in the act? He could have just fled and nothing would have changed. If Julia made a noise (and none of the neighbours heard anything) it wouldn’t have been to difficult for Qualtrough to just stick his hand over Julia’s mouth.

It’s also important, as you’ve said, that if Qualtrough was caught in the act (the kitchen) how did they end up in the Parlour. If I recall correctly Rod said that Julia became ‘suspicious’ in the Parlour after the ‘robbery.’ If this was the case what was Qualtrough doing chatting away in the Parlour with Julia when the job was done. He should have been long gone.

Yes, and this highlights another fatal (p.i.) logical flaw to the whole plot. To gain entrance, Qualtrough would have to contrive a story that the message had been garbled and he was instead due to meet Wallace here at his house.

Obviously, this would raise questions to the paranoid and forlorn Julia, how did this man have Wallace's home address for one? But assuming she let him in, he would have to stay there and wait for Wallace to return to not raise an alarm bell. Obviously though, if planning to steal the money, he would not want to do this and would want to be out of there as soon as possible. What contrivance could he come up with to leave? Julia would want him to stay there to get the mess sorted out.

The plot just makes no sense unless the goal was murder from the get go which seems so very unlikely. And what did Parry do, give the guy a map of the house and tell him to wait for Julia to go to the bathroom (in limited time as well with the possibility of WHW returning?) And why was the money in JW's handbag and the jewelry not taken?