Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

We still need to get to the absolute bottom for this to put it to rest and find the source for the telephone exchange, but from reading Gannon I'm almost certain the caller asking for Wallace's address was genuine. He provides details Murphy did not; the caller asks if Wallace will be there and Beattie says he can't say for sure! (because Wallace had missed the last few times). It is then that the caller asks about the address. Considering Gannon thinks differently from Murphy...that Parry made the call (but working for Wallace) and there is more detail given, it seems almost impossible he just copied made up details from Murphy and added extra made up in depth details!

To my thinking if the caller was Parry or Qualtrough and assuming Wallace's innocence (so the caller wouldn't be working for Wallace), if this caller had stalked Wallace, seen him leave and then called the club and was told he wasn't coming, the caller was in a tough spot. He would either just be forced to abandon his convoluted plan, or if he was determined and convinced that Wallace was indeed likely going after having seen him leave (although how could he know for sure where WHW was going), he could demand Beattie leave a message "in case" Wallace showed up. Asking for Wallace's address would be the last thing he would do and wouldn't make much sense. If Beattie gave it to him, it would further curb the faltering plan.

Crucial point here... If however the caller was Wallace, then knowing Beattie doesn't have his address, it would be a tactic to implicitly explain why he needed to ask Wallace to call around to his address instead. Because he does not have Wallace's address, so Wallace will have to come to him! This is quite obvious and stands out in Gannon's full version of the exchange as the caller after being told to ring later, refuses and asks Wallace to come to his address instead. This right after asking for Wallace's address. Whether the caller was Wallace or it wasn't, whoever this man was, it appears was working on some sort of devious script with an agenda. If the caller was Parry (and not working for Wallace), he would have no way to know Beattie did not have WHW's address, so this would almost certainly not be one he would have come up with.

What do you think?

PS. Beattie ends up taking down the address and repeating it back to the caller and actually says he will give it to Wallace "if he sees him, but he may not be here tonight" If the caller was truly not Wallace or working for him, then you couldn't blame him for being VERY unconvinced that Wallace would get the message at all or that he did , it would be accurate. Let alone that he would follow up on it! And LET ALONE that Wallace would tell Julia about "Qualtrough" so she would let him in as the ridiculous Parry Accomplice theory goes. As we know, Wallace did tell Julia about Qualtrough, but there is an alternative explanation for that

Since this exchange is so detailed, it is very difficult for me to believe Gannon made it up. It has to be in the full police file and/or trial transcript IMO.

Final point: Although I agree with Murphy on practically everything, he does say that perhaps the caller said West and it was taken down as East. If Beattie repeating it back to make sure is accurate, this seems unlikely. Although perhaps if the caller was Wallace as I suspect, he didn't want to stay on too long and start correcting Beattie In any case, West or East really makes little difference.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's pretty much impossible to come up with a remotely plausible reason why a sneak-thief or a murderer might turn off the lights before leaving. It couldn't really be argued that he'd want to make his escape in the dark as a combination of gaslight and thick curtains would have made it dark enough anyway. He might even have taken the back alley route (especially if someone had come to the door).

Would Wallace have had a reason to turn off the lights? Well his plan was for him to discover Julia's body. Its also the case that he wouldn't have wanted anyone to have reason to believe that Julia was dead 5 minutes after he'd left the house. If he'd left the lights on and someone had called (a family member for example) and got no reply they might have raised the alarm. A house in complete darkness though would cause no alarm to a caller.

So for me, the fact that the downstairs lights were off points more to Wallace.

[AmericanSherlock]

Isn't the trial transcript that's online the full one then?

Also AS was I correct in saying that all the downstairs lights were off when Wallace got home on the night of the murder?

No it is not the full one.

Yes you are correct. It has been suggested that 1. it is suspicious WHW stepped over her body in the dark before turning the light on and 2. Parry would be unlikely to turn the lights off before leaving if he was the murderer (or Qualtrough)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn't the trial transcript that's online the full one then?

Also AS was I correct in saying that all the downstairs lights were off when Wallace got home on the night of the murder?

[AmericanSherlock]

I agree AS that it would be instructive to see the full file. Rod said that Murphy/Gannon just made this up but I’m always wary of making accusations like this. Both authors show themselves to be thorough researchers and have both written excellent books albeit with different conclusions. They both knew how much this case is debated and couldn’t hope to get away with a made up fact. So for me, it’s either that it was written in a file that we haven’t all seen or they were in error by repeating something that they’d seen somewhere else. If the latter we would then have to ask ‘where did that person get the info?’

This is important. We need to know

Herlock, it is important.

My hunch is most authors worked off of W F Wyndam Brown's "The Trial of William Herbert Wallace" which was written a couple years after the trial and is admittedly a recap and incomplete. Roland Oliver's opening is not contained in it.

It is also written somewhat in a "recap form" and the author states he has edited repetitive or superfluous details to make it more readable.

I can only conclude Murphy had access to the full official trial transcript which wasn't available until he accessed the police file. I also believe Gannon worked off the full police file.

In the interest of fairness and objectivity, I would agree we need more proof to get to the bottom of this. Perhaps Antony could clarify.

As previously stated, he also presents the asking of the address as a factual occurrence and even concedes it as a point towards Wallace being the caller.