Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[WallaceWackedHer]

This one is more suspicious.

Tbh I think William was right in his initial assessment. You know what I think.

It isn't the first time the back door failed btw it did so on a number of occasions. The house cleaner had to have Julia let her in. You don't play pantomimes with doors to nobody but yourself, you would do so with the intention of it being noticed.

It is especially hilarious that people pointing out sus behaviours (which ofc I am aware of, moreso than they are likely), are the same ones outright playing off Gordon's legitimately faked alibi.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Basically what you’re saying is that it’s impossible that William could have expected Close to have arrived between 6.15 and 6.30? It just couldn’t have been the case. Yet again you’re projecting your own thinking onto William. This is simple stuff. I can’t for the life of me see why anyone would disagree.

Although very conveniently you don’t find it at all suspicious that an innocent William goes to a business meeting in a very large area where he’s a ‘complete stranger’ and leaves himself only 10
minutes when, for all he knew, the end of MGE might have been a 20 minute walk away? But no, of course that’s fine.

You ask why he would mention the milk boy and say that it would be stupid?

I genuinely can’t understand your point. You made the point - what if the milk boy had come forward of his own accord ? My point is that it wouldn’t have been an issue for William as he could very easily have said to the police “I forgot that when I was upstairs I heard Julia bringing in the milk. So the milk boy had called.”

Where is the problem with this?

I can’t believe the Rod-like lengths that are being gone to to exonerate William.

William wasn’t a genius or an idiot. But he might have been a man that felt that he was cleverer than he actually was. Murderers often do. But of course that won’t be acceptable for William because it doesn’t adhere to the black and white agenda.

Why is everything black and white when it comes to William? William is a rubbish chess player because he’s only in the second of three leagues! We can improve on his Qualtrough plan so he’s stupid! It keeps being implied that I’m claiming Wallace was some kind of genius when I never have. William couldn’t have done the supernatural act of wearing protection against blood but no one questions that our unknown murderer appeared not to be bothered about going outside drenched in blood ( unless blood wasn’t magnetically attracted to him like it apparently was to William) He lies about being a stranger but that’s ok of course. In 4 police interviews he conveniently ‘forgets’ to mention to the house of the only person that he actually knew (in the area where he was a complete stranger) Oh he mentions it to his defence and it’s mentioned after Crewe testifies. This is ok too. We have a door that, for the first time ever, stops him getting in on the exact night that his wife was murdered and he’s playing musical doors!

In the history of crime no suspect can ever have had such desperate efforts to exonerate him. I used to ask Rod if he was related to Wallace?

I have no no issue with anyone saying that they don’t think that Wallace was guilty. He might not have been. But to deny him as a likely suspect is bordering on the delusional. Especially when the thoroughly alibid Parry is persevered with as a suspect and a zillion to one chance Prank is considered.

Your arrogant and prideful response shows that it is you who is "Rod like" Not me. Unlike you and Caz (and Rod), and almost anyone else who has opined on this case I don't have an agenda. I want the right answer, not one that suits my sensibilities or gives personal glory or some misplaced sense of personal accomplishment.

One can still think Wallace guilty but concede minor points. There was a time when Rod wouldn't even concede the plainest of points about a simple quote that was staring him in his face, due to his own need to be right. Here in this case the milk boy's irregularity and lateness is a definite mark in favor of Wallace's innocence. You want to argue it isn't the be all end all and doesn't prove anything, fine. But don't twist it to be some mark AGAINST him and pat each other on the back LOL. I concede how guilty Wallace can look at times but believe the actual evidence outweighs that. We get nowhere when we deny reality or try to distort pieces of evidence.

Think of it like this: there are 3 options.

1. Wallace is guilty and he is factoring in Close's arrival. In this case it is absolutely insane for such a highly detailed planned crime to leave it up to total chance and HOPE Close comes at this or that time, when he could simply make the appointment for 8 PM anyway. It is you and Caz etc who have argued Close isn't meant to be a time stamp anyway (when it was pointed out Wallace could not rely on an arrival time, that Closes bike broke down etc). You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

2. Wallace is guilty and he clean forgot Close in the equation. Besides seeming insanely unlikely, even if we entertain this, then THIS is the extreme luck in the equation, Wallace forgets completely Close is coming and he is cutting it close with time for his departure (I keep hearing this as an argument against him), so he EASILY could have acted a few minutes earlier. A guilty Wallace is EXTREMELY lucky here he didn't kill Julia before Close came or even worse was in the act of whacking her as the boy arrived (no doubt jogging with the milk jugs so be could play an Imaginary game of soccer with local lads in the Liverpool dark)

3. Wallace is innocent so all of this is moot and Close came when he did, Wallace left a few minutes later and was in MG vicinity 10 minutes to.

Which seems more reasonable?

It is not a hard one.

[etenguy]

This isn’t the only time in the trial that William did this. He tried to deny that he’d ‘believed’ that there was someone in the house when he got back. He was forced to admit it though.

This one is more suspicious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are not even seeing the point at all, it literally could not be more obvious...

He is making this plan himself.

He can set the appointment time for ANY TIME he wants.

The milk boy is the single most important detail, EVERYTHING hinges on the milk boy's sighting to show that he has an alibi for the murder.

He would arrange the plan around the time the milk boy has been arriving and be very hypervigilant of when the boy arrives leading up to the crime.

If the milk boy was commonly being very late, and could come at up to 7 PM, then conceivably his choice of appointment time could mean he literally is not able to murder his wife. He literally cannot do it until the boy comes. Period.

There is no reason AT ALL to not pick 8 PM to allow for this recent and therefore probable/possible lateness.

I could only suggest he did not factor in the boy at all. He's spending time working on this scheme and he's spending time up in his lab every day when the boy comes because he just DGAF to actually find out the information that in his plan is more crucial than literally anything else? What is the suggestion exactly? Quite literally the time the boy comes is a matter of life and death, if the boy comes at 7 PM he can't kill her. It's over. Done.

Why do you assume that Wallace would have known that the milk boy might a been late however occasionally? Why is it such a stretch of the imagination that William (who would normally have paid zero attention to the milk deliveries) might have believed that he always came between 6 and 6.30? Perhaps every time he’d seen or heard him that was the time he’d arrived? Perhaps he’d asked Julia under some pretext and that’s what she’d told him? On a kids milk round, pretty much doing the same houses every day it’s surely not over optimistic to think that he wouldn’t vary it times much.

Why did William leave himself only 10 mins to find the unknown MGE. Why isn’t that suspicious?

Why did he arrive at chess on the stroke of the deadline. Why isn’t that suspicious?

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be fair, Herlock - if Wallace was innocent I would expect him to think he took the wrong address with him for some reason - as Wallace stated. Given what happened I can quite believe he thought back and said to himself (and then the Court) I thought it was a bit queer. I don't think this is particularly suspicious.

But to Oliver he says that he could interpret it no other way than an error by Beattie. And this is when Oliver asked him what went through his mind at that moment.

Then, when asked the same thing by Hemmerde (and after being reminded what he’d said to Williams) he talks about seeing the situation as sinister.

So did he think it was sinister or that there was an innocent explanation?

This isn’t the only time in the trial that William did this. He tried to deny that he’d ‘believed’ that there was someone in the house when he got back. He was forced to admit it though.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH

My expectation is that if Wallace murdered his wife, Alan Close was important to his alibi. He was unreliable in his milk delivery timing, sometimes a little after 6pm, sometimes much later. In choosing his appointment timing in Menlove, Wallace had to balance the range of times Close might arrive. If he made the appointment for 8pm and Close came just after 6pm, Wallace would struggle to explain why he left so early for an 8pm appointment (and for the alibi to work Wallace would have to leave soon after the milk delivery). 7.30 gives Wallace a better window for Close arriving and leaving for the appointment. As it turned out, Close was later than Wallace expected leaving him less time to make the appointment and this is evident from the time he left and arrived in Menlove.

Actually he doesn't have to struggle at all, I considered it before. He can leave early without issue and waste time in other ways like stopping off at the newsagents and stuff (also this is when I would want a timestamp btw, STRENGTHENING the alibi more than the one he has as we know it), go to Crewe's thinking he'll be home probably. He's apparently set all of this up himself beginning to end.

You see the variability in Alan makes him a very bad timestamp to rely on in conjunction of course with the sheer assumption the boy doesn't **** up his arrival time which he is likely to do unless he has reason to notice the time... Apparently Alan had said or thought it was 6.45 when it was 6.38. So skew the difference in the other way, 6.31. He's ****ed...

Place the appointment later and establish a true and more solid time alibi another way. I'd probably use a Post Office or Newsagents and get my "timestamp" there before hopping a tram, not from an officer at 7.45, a precise timestamp unimportant to the alibi.

That however is a distraction from the importance of the matter, which is that you do not set up a plan with all this extreme elaborateness and alleged overthinking then choose to use a time where quite literally you might not be able to perform the vital task, which is murder.

It is only important that he is away from home soon after the boy comes. Apparently everything relies on this.

The appointment time choice makes no sense and he must have forgotten the boy was even due, which matches better because he has not done other things that would be critical in a time-based alibi, and is relying on Alan noting and giving an accurate time. There is no good reason or workaround possible. He must have forgot.

Hinging your escape from death on the time provided by a random little boy who could come any time within a 50 minute window is not what a person is likely to do.

[etenguy]

From the trial when Wallace was being questioned about the false address:

Oliver: When you discovered this name and address was non-existent that you had been searching for, what passed through your mind about that?

Wallace: I think I came to the conclusion that a mistake had been made in the telephone message, either that Mr Beattie had got it down wrong or, in some way, the wrong message had been conveyed to me. I could not account for it in any other way.

Later...

Hemmerde: Now I think you told Police Constable Williams that when you could not find Menlove Gardens East you became suspicious and returned home, is that right?

Wallace: I think so yes.

H: Why did you become suspicious?

W: Well, seeing I could not definitely find either the man or the place, I had an idea that something was not quite right, and seeing that there had been in our street only fairly recently a burglary and one about possible eighteen months or two years ago and a number of tragedies in the street, I was rather inclined at first that something of the sort might have been attempted at my own. I did not become unduly uneasy.

Then Hemmerde reminds him...

H: Did it not occur to you that the address might have been taken down wrong on the telephone?

W: I have stated that I have.

H: It did occur to you?

W: It did.

~~~

So he couldn’t account for it in any other way than an error by Beattie.

or,

It could have been something sinister.

Get your story straight William.

To be fair, Herlock - if Wallace was innocent I would expect him to think he took the wrong address with him for some reason - as Wallace stated. Given what happened I can quite believe he thought back and said to himself (and then the Court) I thought it was a bit queer. I don't think this is particularly suspicious.

[etenguy]

He can set the appointment time for ANY TIME he wants.

The milk boy is the single most important detail, EVERYTHING hinges on the milk boy's sighting to show that he has an alibi for the murder.

He would arrange the plan around the time the milk boy has been arriving and be very hypervigilant of when the boy arrives leading up to the crime.

If the milk boy was commonly being very late, and could come at up to 7 PM, then conceivably his choice of appointment time could mean he literally is not able to murder his wife. He literally cannot do it until the boy comes. Period.

There is no reason AT ALL to not pick 8 PM to allow for this recent and therefore probable/possible lateness.

I could only suggest he did not factor in the boy at all. He's spending time working on this scheme and he's spending time up in his lab every day when the boy comes because he just DGAF to actually find out the information that in his plan is more crucial than literally anything else? What is the suggestion exactly? Quite literally the time the boy comes is a matter of life and death, if the boy comes at 7 PM he can't kill her. It's over. Done.

Hi WWH

My expectation is that if Wallace murdered his wife, Alan Close was important to his alibi. He was unreliable in his milk delivery timing, sometimes a little after 6pm, sometimes much later. In choosing his appointment timing in Menlove, Wallace had to balance the range of times Close might arrive. If he made the appointment for 8pm and Close came just after 6pm, Wallace would struggle to explain why he left so early for an 8pm appointment (and for the alibi to work Wallace would have to leave soon after the milk delivery). 7.30 gives Wallace a better window for Close arriving and leaving for the appointment. As it turned out, Close was later than Wallace expected leaving him less time to make the appointment and this is evident from the time he left and arrived in Menlove.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Basically what you’re saying is that it’s impossible that William could have expected Close to have arrived between 6.15 and 6.30? It just couldn’t have been the case. Yet again you’re projecting your own thinking onto William. This is simple stuff. I can’t for the life of me see why anyone would disagree.

Although very conveniently you don’t find it at all suspicious that an innocent William goes to a business meeting in a very large area where he’s a ‘complete stranger’ and leaves himself only 10
minutes when, for all he knew, the end of MGE might have been a 20 minute walk away? But no, of course that’s fine.

You ask why he would mention the milk boy and say that it would be stupid?

I genuinely can’t understand your point. You made the point - what if the milk boy had come forward of his own accord ? My point is that it wouldn’t have been an issue for William as he could very easily have said to the police “I forgot that when I was upstairs I heard Julia bringing in the milk. So the milk boy had called.”

Where is the problem with this?

I can’t believe the Rod-like lengths that are being gone to to exonerate William.

William wasn’t a genius or an idiot. But he might have been a man that felt that he was cleverer than he actually was. Murderers often do. But of course that won’t be acceptable for William because it doesn’t adhere to the black and white agenda.

Why is everything black and white when it comes to William? William is a rubbish chess player because he’s only in the second of three leagues! We can improve on his Qualtrough plan so he’s stupid! It keeps being implied that I’m claiming Wallace was some kind of genius when I never have. William couldn’t have done the supernatural act of wearing protection against blood but no one questions that our unknown murderer appeared not to be bothered about going outside drenched in blood ( unless blood wasn’t magnetically attracted to him like it apparently was to William) He lies about being a stranger but that’s ok of course. In 4 police interviews he conveniently ‘forgets’ to mention to the house of the only person that he actually knew (in the area where he was a complete stranger) Oh he mentions it to his defence and it’s mentioned after Crewe testifies. This is ok too. We have a door that, for the first time ever, stops him getting in on the exact night that his wife was murdered and he’s playing musical doors!

In the history of crime no suspect can ever have had such desperate efforts to exonerate him. I used to ask Rod if he was related to Wallace?

I have no no issue with anyone saying that they don’t think that Wallace was guilty. He might not have been. But to deny him as a likely suspect is bordering on the delusional. Especially when the thoroughly alibid Parry is persevered with as a suspect and a zillion to one chance Prank is considered.

You are not even seeing the point at all, it literally could not be more obvious...

He is making this plan himself.

He can set the appointment time for ANY TIME he wants.

The milk boy is the single most important detail, EVERYTHING hinges on the milk boy's sighting to show that he has an alibi for the murder.

He would arrange the plan around the time the milk boy has been arriving and be very hypervigilant of when the boy arrives leading up to the crime.

If the milk boy was commonly being very late, and could come at up to 7 PM, then conceivably his choice of appointment time could mean he literally is not able to murder his wife. He literally cannot do it until the boy comes. Period.

There is no reason AT ALL to not pick 8 PM to allow for this recent and therefore probable/possible lateness.

I could only suggest he did not factor in the boy at all. He's spending time working on this scheme and he's spending time up in his lab every day when the boy comes because he just DGAF to actually find out the information that in his plan is more crucial than literally anything else? What is the suggestion exactly? Quite literally the time the boy comes is a matter of life and death, if the boy comes at 7 PM he can't kill her. It's over. Done.

[Herlock Sholmes]

From the trial when Wallace was being questioned about the false address:

Oliver: When you discovered this name and address was non-existent that you had been searching for, what passed through your mind about that?

Wallace: I think I came to the conclusion that a mistake had been made in the telephone message, either that Mr Beattie had got it down wrong or, in some way, the wrong message had been conveyed to me. I could not account for it in any other way.

Later...

Hemmerde: Now I think you told Police Constable Williams that when you could not find Menlove Gardens East you became suspicious and returned home, is that right?

Wallace: I think so yes.

H: Why did you become suspicious?

W: Well, seeing I could not definitely find either the man or the place, I had an idea that something was not quite right, and seeing that there had been in our street only fairly recently a burglary and one about possible eighteen months or two years ago and a number of tragedies in the street, I was rather inclined at first that something of the sort might have been attempted at my own. I did not become unduly uneasy.

Then Hemmerde reminds him...

H: Did it not occur to you that the address might have been taken down wrong on the telephone?

W: I have stated that I have.

H: It did occur to you?

W: It did.

~~~

So he couldn’t account for it in any other way than an error by Beattie.

or,

It could have been something sinister.

Get your story straight William.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why? Why would he mention the boy later? It is stupid. It is absolutely stupid AF.

When asked who would be likely to call he mentions the paper boy, why is it hard to have said a paper boy and milk boy? He doesn't even need to say what time, just mention their existence. That's in your mind the ONLY thing that will make cops not suspect you, and you keep it to yourself.

The appointment time is INSANITY not even an autistic William would choose an appointment time where he conceivably can't even kill his wife.

The purposeful time-alibi is ******* ridiculous. It literally doesn't work, not only is the timestamp hinging on an unreliable 14 year old to note the time to the minute, but could even make it IMPOSSIBLE for him to enact his plan due to the appointment time chosen.

I'm not gonna circlejerk agreeing it's clever of William and here's all his clever reasons. Just admit it's stupid. Why is it always some "clever scheme" with clever reasonings? It's already established he can't plan for **** so why would this be any different? He's been dumb AF in literally every other avenue of the plan but here in this one instance he's ingenious.

Basically what you’re saying is that it’s impossible that William could have expected Close to have arrived between 6.15 and 6.30? It just couldn’t have been the case. Yet again you’re projecting your own thinking onto William. This is simple stuff. I can’t for the life of me see why anyone would disagree.

Although very conveniently you don’t find it at all suspicious that an innocent William goes to a business meeting in a very large area where he’s a ‘complete stranger’ and leaves himself only 10
minutes when, for all he knew, the end of MGE might have been a 20 minute walk away? But no, of course that’s fine.

You ask why he would mention the milk boy and say that it would be stupid?

I genuinely can’t understand your point. You made the point - what if the milk boy had come forward of his own accord ? My point is that it wouldn’t have been an issue for William as he could very easily have said to the police “I forgot that when I was upstairs I heard Julia bringing in the milk. So the milk boy had called.”

Where is the problem with this?

I can’t believe the Rod-like lengths that are being gone to to exonerate William.

William wasn’t a genius or an idiot. But he might have been a man that felt that he was cleverer than he actually was. Murderers often do. But of course that won’t be acceptable for William because it doesn’t adhere to the black and white agenda.

Why is everything black and white when it comes to William? William is a rubbish chess player because he’s only in the second of three leagues! We can improve on his Qualtrough plan so he’s stupid! It keeps being implied that I’m claiming Wallace was some kind of genius when I never have. William couldn’t have done the supernatural act of wearing protection against blood but no one questions that our unknown murderer appeared not to be bothered about going outside drenched in blood ( unless blood wasn’t magnetically attracted to him like it apparently was to William) He lies about being a stranger but that’s ok of course. In 4 police interviews he conveniently ‘forgets’ to mention to the house of the only person that he actually knew (in the area where he was a complete stranger) Oh he mentions it to his defence and it’s mentioned after Crewe testifies. This is ok too. We have a door that, for the first time ever, stops him getting in on the exact night that his wife was murdered and he’s playing musical doors!

In the history of crime no suspect can ever have had such desperate efforts to exonerate him. I used to ask Rod if he was related to Wallace?

I have no no issue with anyone saying that they don’t think that Wallace was guilty. He might not have been. But to deny him as a likely suspect is bordering on the delusional. Especially when the thoroughly alibid Parry is persevered with as a suspect and a zillion to one chance Prank is considered.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I get this argument, WWH, and yes, a later appointment time might have made things easier for a guilty Wallace. But was he too much a creature of habit for that? Did he perhaps feel that evening business appointments in the depths of winter would not have been made for as late as 8pm or beyond? He couldn't be sure that Alan would be late again in any case, and whatever time the milk was delivered, Wallace would still have wanted to do the deed in haste and then make himself scarce as soon as possible, so he could get on with establishing his bogus alibi for the evening.

I would turn this argument round and consider a naive and innocent Wallace receiving that message the night before. What is he going to think? Obviously this Qualtrough fellow has heard good things about him as an insurance salesman - always flattering - and has gone the extra mile to contact the chess club, where he has been led to believe he can catch Wallace, and invite him round the very next evening, at 7.30, to discuss a potentially lucrative business opportunity. From Wallace's point of view, would it be a mistake not to go, considering how keen Qualtrough appeared to be to see him at short notice? If he doesn't show up, will Qualtrough spread the word that Wallace is not as reliable as he has been cracked up to be? So Wallace decides not to let this new customer down, but to live up to his expectations of a good and efficient service. And then what does Wallace do? Instead of checking out the address and how to get there, he leaves it until the evening of the appointment, trusting the tongue in his head to get him to MGE, but then fannies about indoors until well after tea time, and is still faffing around when the milk boy comes and goes, finally leaving the house with not much longer than 30 minutes to get to the Menlove Gardens area, locate the actual address and be there promptly for 7.30. Punctuality is the first rule when you are dealing with a new customer, and you need a damned good excuse for being even five minutes late. This would have been even more the case back in the stuffy 1930s and Wallace would have known this.

Something is not adding up for me here.

Love,

Caz
X

I already knew all of this and every suspect thing against the man when concluding that even in spite of how guilty he seems even to a toddler, he just isn't. I could likely write a novel on his suspiciousness alone. An actual 3 year old would easily conclude in half a second that he did it. That's how guilty this genius's plan makes him seem, and just how guilty he seems in general if you just discuss all the sus behaviours.

There is no workaround for that appointment time.

He comes home and eats with his wife at what, a little after 6 roughly? That is his routine? He would likely be there when the milk came if it was arriving at 6.15.

He's making a plan hinging on the milk boy and doesn't even bother to ascertain when the boy is likely to arrive? What is that all about? Any reasonable person would be taking notice of the time the boy comes like a HAWK so as to set the perfect appointment time. Not even him having autism can explain this.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Good points Caz.

Should we also assume what Wallace would or wouldn’t have known? How much attention would he have paid to the milk deliveries? There weren’t many modern men in 1930’s. Wallace didn’t even know Sarah Drapers name.
Close said that he was late on the Tuesday due to his bike being off the road so might he not have turned up the day before nearer 6.15. Maybe the last 3 or 4 times that Wallace had been aware of Close’s arrival it was between 6.15 and 6.30 and so, on a set round, Wallace assumed that was the time that he arrived consistently?
And if Close hadn’t come forward to the police, which would have allowed them to say that Julia might have been killed at 6 or before, William could very easily have mentioned the visit to the police himself so where is the problem?

I really see no issues with Close unless we make assumptions about how much Wallace should have known.

Why? Why would he mention the boy later? It is stupid. It is absolutely stupid AF.

When asked who would be likely to call he mentions the paper boy, why is it hard to have said a paper boy and milk boy? He doesn't even need to say what time, just mention their existence. That's in your mind the ONLY thing that will make cops not suspect you, and you keep it to yourself.

The appointment time is INSANITY not even an autistic William would choose an appointment time where he conceivably can't even kill his wife.

The purposeful time-alibi is ******* ridiculous. It literally doesn't work, not only is the timestamp hinging on an unreliable 14 year old to note the time to the minute, but could even make it IMPOSSIBLE for him to enact his plan due to the appointment time chosen.

I'm not gonna circlejerk agreeing it's clever of William and here's all his clever reasons. Just admit it's stupid. Why is it always some "clever scheme" with clever reasonings? It's already established he can't plan for **** so why would this be any different? He's been dumb AF in literally every other avenue of the plan but here in this one instance he's ingenious.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Why do you assume that he’d have known this? The milk boy would have been dealt with by Julia So there would be know real reason for him to have noticed if he’d turned up late. What if he’d been upstairs in his lab for example?

What is trying to be said exactly? That he's up in his lab every day when the milk comes?

If Alan is meant to be a timestamp, he is thinking about Alan when making his plan and is choosing a time specifically to account for this. And he has then, for no good logical reason (even if he's an autistic lunatic) that could ever be invented, chosen a time where it is very possible he will literally not be able to kill his wife at all.

Even if he is thinking about Alan as an obstacle, he has picked a time when it is possible he actually quite literally cannot kill his wife.

He cannot kill his wife until Alan has been and gone. Period.

If he forgot about Alan entirely THAT'S the insane luck that he didn't wack her earlier when he forgot this boy is even due to turn up.

[caz]

Agreed, Herlock.

Also, the milk delivery detail was better coming independently from Close, because it might have appeared a little odd for Wallace to have brought it up himself, as if he had a particular reason for noting and remembering what time his wife took in the milk, when he was supposedly preoccupied with getting to his appointment on time!

Love,

Caz
X