Tweet
It is an interesting narrative. It doesnt read like "If I did it" but rather "I didn't do it and I know who did but won't tell". For the benefit of the thread, allow me to summarise what I think are the key points in the article.
Wallace claims he knows a man who thought there would be loads of money in the cashbox that night, as every Tuesday, and somehow persuaded Julia to let him wait for Wallace to return. He describes the murder events with precision. Of course, if he did it he was merely retelling events as though standing outside himself, perhaps as a stoic would.
However, he says he is of a gentle nature, and as a chemist, could have gotten away with murder by poisoning, which he could have made painless. This is feasible, and would suggest that if Wallace wacked her it was likely due to an emergency of some kind. I think a man whose self-image was that of a stoic would be unlikely to lose his temper, although it is not impossible of course.
He claims to know the name of the killer, and that he has form as a thief. He claims to be afraid that this man will try to kill him. Surely he should at least tell the police, although he explains they seem to have stopped listening.
If on a jury I would be hard pressed to decide the truth from this.
On the one hand, he could simply be in denial, telling us how he did it whilst denying it. We only have his word for it that he is capable of great stoicism and so appears callous whilst churning inside. In this case, his motive for the article is clear: he suffers opprobium from just about everyone and would like to be rid of it.
On the other hand, he might remain in a state of shock, agonising each day on what must have happened to his poor wife in his absence. As a chess player, he would have been able to weigh up likely actions to explain how the end game came about in the parlour that remorseful day. It does not prove he was present. In this case he is merely surmising about the murder weapon and how the mackintosh was used.
On the third hand, he doesn't use the words you tend to get from those who agonise over bad events: if only I had done this, it would .. what I should have done...etc.
Wallace claims he knows a man who thought there would be loads of money in the cashbox that night, as every Tuesday, and somehow persuaded Julia to let him wait for Wallace to return. He describes the murder events with precision. Of course, if he did it he was merely retelling events as though standing outside himself, perhaps as a stoic would.
However, he says he is of a gentle nature, and as a chemist, could have gotten away with murder by poisoning, which he could have made painless. This is feasible, and would suggest that if Wallace wacked her it was likely due to an emergency of some kind. I think a man whose self-image was that of a stoic would be unlikely to lose his temper, although it is not impossible of course.
He claims to know the name of the killer, and that he has form as a thief. He claims to be afraid that this man will try to kill him. Surely he should at least tell the police, although he explains they seem to have stopped listening.
If on a jury I would be hard pressed to decide the truth from this.
On the one hand, he could simply be in denial, telling us how he did it whilst denying it. We only have his word for it that he is capable of great stoicism and so appears callous whilst churning inside. In this case, his motive for the article is clear: he suffers opprobium from just about everyone and would like to be rid of it.
On the other hand, he might remain in a state of shock, agonising each day on what must have happened to his poor wife in his absence. As a chess player, he would have been able to weigh up likely actions to explain how the end game came about in the parlour that remorseful day. It does not prove he was present. In this case he is merely surmising about the murder weapon and how the mackintosh was used.
On the third hand, he doesn't use the words you tend to get from those who agonise over bad events: if only I had done this, it would .. what I should have done...etc.
Comment