Amy Wallace, was she involved?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the key to deducing who is most likely to have made the call depends on establishing which crime the caller was planning.

There are two possible crimes that could have been planned in the circumstances, either the murder of Julia Wallace or to commit burglary. When we look at the evidence, it seems to me that murder was the intended crime. The reasons I believe that murder was the intended crime are:
* Julia Wallace was murdered.
* There is no compelling evidence Julia disturbed a burglary in progress.
* If Julia had disturbed a burglar in the kitchen, who then lashed out, she would have been killed in the kitchen.
* If Julia had disturbed a burglar in the kitchen and had time to flee, she would have had time to scream and would have headed for an exit - not the parlour.
* If a burglar was using Qualtrough to get Wallace out of the house and to gain entry to the house, he would know ahead of time that Julia would be able to identify him, so being caught in the act by Julia would not change that and he would be away on his toes if she did.
* The attempt to suggest a burglary included a room up-stairs which contained visible money - if a real burglary, they would have taken that.
* No-one saw or heard anyone come to the house after Wallace left for Menlove - that is unusual if someone had knocked at the door.

If murder was the intended crime, then the call was mostly likely made by the murderer and the most likely person to have murdered Julia is Wallace himself.

Good points Eten. If it looks nothing like a real burglary then chances are that it wasn’t a real burglary and so were left with a premeditated murder with an effort made to make it look like a robbery gone wrong perpetrated by someone with insider knowledge.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I think the key to deducing who is most likely to have made the call depends on establishing which crime the caller was planning.

There are two possible crimes that could have been planned in the circumstances, either the murder of Julia Wallace or to commit burglary. When we look at the evidence, it seems to me that murder was the intended crime. The reasons I believe that murder was the intended crime are:
* Julia Wallace was murdered.
* There is no compelling evidence Julia disturbed a burglary in progress.
* If Julia had disturbed a burglar in the kitchen, who then lashed out, she would have been killed in the kitchen.
* If Julia had disturbed a burglar in the kitchen and had time to flee, she would have had time to scream and would have headed for an exit - not the parlour.
* If a burglar was using Qualtrough to get Wallace out of the house and to gain entry to the house, he would know ahead of time that Julia would be able to identify him, so being caught in the act by Julia would not change that and he would be away on his toes if she did.
* The attempt to suggest a burglary included a room up-stairs which contained visible money - if a real burglary, they would have taken that.
* No-one saw or heard anyone come to the house after Wallace left for Menlove - that is unusual if someone had knocked at the door.

If murder was the intended crime, then the call was mostly likely made by the murderer and the most likely person to have murdered Julia is Wallace himself.

The blood upstairs is almost certainly transfer. There was no dsiturbance at all in the money room. The """disturbance""" in the spare bedroom is that the sheets were half off the bed and two pillows on the floor. That's it... It actually looks to me like she had been changing the bed at some point and aborted to go do something else.

Possibly sewing up a bedsheet downstairs on the kitchen table.

A burglar most probably would have to be using a call in order to get a stranger into the home.

There is no necessity Julia disturbed a burglar in the kitchen. If it's one man I suggest he dropped something, and rushed back into the parlour knowing he's made noise to head her off. But if she doesn't know him personally he doesn't have any need to go so far as to kill her (but make no mistake, it still did and does happen).

I suspect a stranger-murderer would only kill Julia if he did not expect her to be there and the shock of it made him attack her in a moment of panic.

I don't think the call is a plan of any kind unless you first accept that the planner is an idiot. If you accept that then you can begin to work from it.

I rather suggest the call has no relation. It's a joke. A murderer does not give a **** about scamming two pennies. A murderer doesn't use expose their voice and implant themselves into numerous people's heads or hang around in a public phone box for longer than required. A murderer would endeavour to get in, make as little impression as possible, leave the message, and get out ASAP.

Personally I think on the night of the killing the Johnstons hear William go out. They can hear Julia chat to the window cleaners out there. They can hear William knocking gently on his own doors.

Forget Stan's statement, here's what I think...

They hear him go out. Shortly after, they hear Julia go out for some reason. Out the back, locking the door behind her. Out the gate which cannot be locked from outside. Possibly searching for her cat down the alley... The milk is just delivered and she would expect it to want to come home around this time as its the cat's usual meal time...

They hear her go out. Potentially even see it from upstairs. She goes down the entries or alley looking for the cat.

They think she's out, they don't see her come back. She's searched the block and come back in the front door. It's still probably before 8 PM now. She has not made supper, not fulfilled any household duties, too early to change for bed and go to sleep. She just wants to rest for a while.

She's set up the fireplace. Put her box of matches on the table right by that couch by the window. The bigger table. Arranged a cushion as a headrest, and lied down.

The neighbours don't know she's returned. They think the house is unoccupied. The yard door is open and the back kitchen door only locked not bolted. Accessible with their spare key.

They go in to rob the place. At some point go into the parlour and Julia's there unexpectedly. Hit with a jemmy as she gets up from the sofa.

Best position logistically to get in and out unseen. Best opportunity logistically to clean up the scene (including on their second time in).

William per Flo clearly didn't give a **** about the missing money. There's a dead woman in the parlour. In a normal scenario you'd expect John to be immediately gone for the cops. The doctor suggestion implies some tiny glimmer of hope she's salvageable, btw, which makes it worse... But instead they're urging him to search for burglary clues even though he doesn't care about the burglary according to them. Why is he sent upstairs? They saw him up there go through the rooms. They could be doing ANYTHING while he's up there. Keep in mind that Florence puts the kitchen fire on. They have better opportunity than any other person but William to have got in and out unseen, and to dispose of evidence or tamper with it. They are also the first people with William to discover the body, and have their prints over the scene.

Here's another coincidence accepted by people who hate coincidences so much... As William comes round to his back door the second time the neighbours are standing in their own gate entry thing. They aren't walking down the entry, they aren't just leaving their house coming up the yard, they are literally standing in the gate JUST as he comes back round. And this is when the door opens. They happen to have a key.

I ask anyone also, that if William were innocent, and those doors WERE locked/bolted against him as he initially thought (no actual new evidence changed his mind), WHO ELSE could have then done it but them? They didn't claim hearing anyone fleeing the scene, or see anyone. If those doors were locked/bolted and William is innocent then as far as I'm concerned they did it. They're guilty. They're murderers.

With innocent William you have to accept the door stuck and they were truly going out visiting and left their gate at that exact precise right time. You have to accept that, late at night, they're going out and leaving their yard gate open. Would you do this?... Julia always follows William down the yard to secure it after him... These people have a large household, why is nobody coming down to bolt it after them? They must not care at all about the security of their home. It can't be locked from outside.

[WallaceWackedHer]

But this is my point.

That Wallace might consult a map - only he knows that he won’t do that.

On the Deyes point - Wallace might have felt that he’d be able to end the conversation before someone started asking round or he might have felt that Beattie wasn’t the type of person to be that helpful.

That Wallace might have just decided not to go - only he knew that he’d go.

You know the other points....all a possibility for a Parry or anyone else. Every one null and void for Wallace. It’s tailor made for Wallace.

A smart man would know that he could be accused of being sus for not doing so. Easily avoidable pitfall. A smart man doesn't rely on fallible and uncertain timestamps to save his life.

Cleary the man must be an idiot.

You know he sucks with names and addresses. It's more likely he would have meant West. East doesn't serve benefit except to make him look sus in the event he is apparently certain of which is that he will be a suspect.

It's tailor made for an idiot. He doesn't anticipate that people will think it's weird a burglar would rely on a fake address? The man's clearly a fool (idiotic like he is at chess, which he was eliminated in the very first match playing in the main tourney that started 1930. Munro got to at least the quarter finals, btw).

[WallaceWackedHer]

I will also add regarding a hitman or other premed murderer who knocked and was admitted... To consider the position of the woman in the room.

They have gone in there to kill the woman not to have a chat with her.

But they have let her go into the parlour (with her back to them I suppose), light the lamps (with her back to them), turn on the gas tap for the fire, light the fire (with her back to them), lay her box of matches down on the table, set up the couch for a lie down, then lied down upon it.

Why is this person going in there with intent to kill her and allowing her to do all this and get cozy by the fireplace? Is this how long it takes for Gannon's Marsden to don a raincoat? The time for a woman of near 70 to totally set up the parlour and fireplace etc. and the couch for a lie down? Is he disabled?

You see how this does not make much sense.

[etenguy]

I will also add regarding a hitman or other premed murderer who knocked and was admitted... To consider the position of the woman in the room.

They have gone in there to kill the woman not to have a chat with her.

But they have let her go into the parlour (with her back to them I suppose), light the lamps (with her back to them), turn on the gas tap for the fire, light the fire (with her back to them), lay her box of matches down on the table, set up the couch for a lie down, then lied down upon it.

Why is this person going in there with intent to kill her and allowing her to do all this and get cozy by the fireplace? Is this how long it takes for Gannon's Marsden to don a raincoat? The time for a woman of near 70 to totally set up the parlour and fireplace etc. and the couch for a lie down? Is he disabled?

You see how this does not make much sense.

Indeed, you make the case well. The most obvious exception would be if the killer was Wallace.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A smart man would know that he could be accused of being sus for not doing so. Easily avoidable pitfall. A smart man doesn't rely on fallible and uncertain timestamps to save his life.

He doesn’t rely on a single fallible time stamp. He relies on a) people believing that he didn’t have time to kill Julia (he knew that the milk boy would come then he’d kill her then leave, and b) people thinking that he had no motive and that he wasn’t the type to be violent.

Cleary the man must be an idiot.

But Wallace was nowhere near an idiot. If he was an idiot he’d have had some kind of menial job. Would an idiot have lectured on chemistry at the local technical college. Idiots don’t usually listen to plays by the likes of Ibsen on the radio or try to learn the violin. Not being a very good chess player isn’t the sign of idiocy. In fact it might only mean that many of the other members were better than him.

You know he sucks with names and addresses. It's more likely he would have meant West. East doesn't serve benefit except to make him look sus in the event he is apparently certain of which is that he will be a suspect.

How do we know that he sucks with names and addresses?

How could he have ‘accidentally’ said “East?”

It's tailor made for an idiot. He doesn't anticipate that people will think it's weird a burglar would rely on a fake address? The man's clearly a fool (idiotic like he is at chess, which he was eliminated in the very first match playing in the main tourney that started 1930. Munro got to at least the quarter finals, btw).

Why is this plan idiotic for William but ok for Parry? You have it completely the wrong way around. I can’t understand why you can’t see this. At least 8 very simple ways for the plan to have gone wrong for Parry. Eight! How many for Wallace? Zero. None.

Wallace controls the plan. Wallace acts like a scared kid out for the first time without his mom. Wallace is more persistent in his search than a cat sitting near a bird table even ignoring a police officer on the best. He lies, he acts weirdly in pretty much everything he does and says and returns to an alleged robbery gone wrong which looks nothing like one.

As I’ve said before, quoting Murphy, if Parry’s desperate for cash why doesn’t he just wait until he has collected a decent amount (at the ideal time of the week like Wallace) and get his mate to ‘mug’ him? What could be simpler and vastly less risky?

[etenguy]

They hear her go out. Potentially even see it from upstairs. She goes down the entries or alley looking for the cat.

They think she's out, they don't see her come back. She's searched the block and come back in the front door. It's still probably before 8 PM now. She has not made supper, not fulfilled any household duties, too early to change for bed and go to sleep. She just wants to rest for a while.

She's set up the fireplace. Put her box of matches on the table right by that couch by the window. The bigger table. Arranged a cushion as a headrest, and lied down.

The neighbours don't know she's returned. They think the house is unoccupied. The yard door is open and the back kitchen door only locked not bolted. Accessible with their spare key.

They go in to rob the place. At some point go into the parlour and Julia's there unexpectedly. Hit with a jemmy as she gets up from the sofa.

Hi WWH

I follow the logic and see how the parts fit together, but

* why would they want to be there for Wallace when he comes home to find the body - they would not know the door would jam
* why kill Julia - wouldn't you just say that they heard a noise, thought it might be a burglar and came round to check
* how short a time was Julia looking for the cat? Went back almost immediately - otherwise the Johnstons would have to let a bit of time go by before they went in to rob them which would have been risky

[Herlock Sholmes]

I will also add regarding a hitman or other premed murderer who knocked and was admitted... To consider the position of the woman in the room.

They have gone in there to kill the woman not to have a chat with her.

But they have let her go into the parlour (with her back to them I suppose), light the lamps (with her back to them), turn on the gas tap for the fire, light the fire (with her back to them), lay her box of matches down on the table, set up the couch for a lie down, then lied down upon it.

Why is this person going in there with intent to kill her and allowing her to do all this and get cozy by the fireplace? Is this how long it takes for Gannon's Marsden to don a raincoat? The time for a woman of near 70 to totally set up the parlour and fireplace etc. and the couch for a lie down? Is he disabled?

You see how this does not make much sense.

Agreed. The hitman idea is a million to one no go.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And let’s not forget if Parry tells his accomplice the plan what happens if the accomplice says:

”what happens if he doesn’t go to chess?”

Does Parry say:

”are you available at the same time next week?”

Theres would also be more pressure on Parry because if William decided not to go for any reason they can’t try it again. No such problem for William though because he knows he will go.

[WallaceWackedHer]

As I’ve said before, quoting Murphy, if Parry’s desperate for cash why doesn’t he just wait until he has collected a decent amount (at the ideal time of the week like Wallace) and get his mate to ‘mug’ him? What could be simpler and vastly less risky?

To have made a plan like that you have to accept the proposed planner is stupid or a very bad planner. William confuses names and dates in his diary and letters to Munro. Also in his statements he says Menlove AVENUE East, etc.

He is in fact relying on one fallible time stamp, if Alan Close does not come forward or give an accurate time he feasibly DOES have time to kill his wife.

You already said at least one thing that can go wrong for William which is a club person knowing the address is BS and telling him so. He apparently as you believe knows he will be suspected, but doesn't seem to realize it looks sus to have gone out asking around for false addresses. The thing is, most of the fail points are after the killing when people investigate the crime in this tiny suspect pool he has purposefully crafted (though he did NOT need to do this at all).

Apparently even random petty thief Parry would know to make it look like a legit robbery but William wouldn't think to do so.

He must then be a fool or have no ability at all to form an intelligent plan.

You are briefly forgetting that I don't think it is a plan for Parry OR William. I don't think it's part of a plan at all. Unless the details are a mistake or the person is a fool or poor planner. There can be a case for the latter, but there is no doubt the plan is bad. For William it is unnecessarily sus and the timestamps unreliable. For Parry you already know so I don't need to explain (although like I said with an accomplice receipt of the message isn't necessarily one of them).

What are you going to mug from William? £1 that he's carrying in his pocket on an off-work day? A portion of one day's collections (he does his collections in spurts, I think on the murder day he did 3?).

[WallaceWackedHer]

Hi WWH

I follow the logic and see how the parts fit together, but

* why would they want to be there for Wallace when he comes home to find the body - they would not know the door would jam
* why kill Julia - wouldn't you just say that they heard a noise, thought it might be a burglar and came round to check
* how short a time was Julia looking for the cat? Went back almost immediately - otherwise the Johnstons would have to let a bit of time go by before they went in to rob them which would have been risky

I think if they did it then the door was locked/bolted as initially suspected.

I think I would have to write an article tbh with you and I have not as of yet felt the motivation to write something that would be so lengthy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To have made a plan like that you have to accept the proposed planner is stupid or a very bad planner. William confuses names and dates in his diary and letters to Munro. Also in his statements he says Menlove AVENUE East, etc.

He is in fact relying on one fallible time stamp, if Alan Close does not come forward or give an accurate time he feasibly DOES have time to kill his wife.

I dont understand how this is a fallible timestamp? William knew Alan Close was due. He wasn’t hoping....he knew. And as I posted earlier even if Close hadn’t have come forward William could easily have said to the police that he recalled the milk boy coming while he was getting ready to go out. Where is the issue?

You already said at least one thing that can go wrong for William which is a club person knowing the address is BS and telling him so. He apparently as you believe knows he will be suspected, but doesn't seem to realize it looks sus to have gone out asking around for false addresses. The thing is, most of the fail points are after the killing when people investigate the crime in this tiny suspect pool he has purposefully crafted (though he did NOT need to do this at all).

Again, William might not have expected Beattie to have taken an interest in the location of MGE. After Beattie had spoken to Deyes he said something like “i’ll find it. I have a tongue in my head.” He might have been trying to prevent anyone else being asked?

Its wouldn’t have been suss for William to have searched for a false address because because, as per the plan, he didn’t know it was a false address.

We don’t need a suspect pool. There are of course named suspects: William, Parry, Marsden and others on the list that Julia would have let in but there’s also potentially a quantity of unnamed suspects. Any that Parry or Marsden might have mentioned the Wallace’s too. They could exist but unless Parry or Marsden names them how could the police question them? So William categorically doesn’t need an arrest to have been exonerated. How, for example, could they have been certain that Sarah Draper hadn’t told someone about the cash box. She might have learned about Williams Tuesday chess club from conversations with Julia.

Apparently even random petty thief Parry would know to make it look like a legit robbery but William wouldn't think to do so.

Why would he have needed to if he was trying to make it like a job done by someone with insider knowledge?

He must then be a fool or have no ability at all to form an intelligent plan.

The plan is only poor if someone else planned it.

You are briefly forgetting that I don't think it is a plan for Parry OR William. I don't think it's part of a plan at all.

So you would rather accept the million to one chance of Parry making a prank phone call and at the exact time that William is away due to this prank someone is admitted to the house by the reticent and almost reclusive Julia who proceeds to brutally bludgeon her to death after going straight to the cash box and then returning to the shelf? Come on. This is Wallace in a dress territory.

Unless the details are a mistake or the person is a fool or poor planner. There can be a case for the latter, but there is no doubt the plan is bad. For William it is unnecessarily sus and the timestamps unreliable. For Parry you already know so I don't need to explain (although like I said with an accomplice receipt of the message isn't necessarily one of them).

There are no real issues with the plan. Accepting that any murder plan would have risks of course.

What are you going to mug from William? £1 that he's carrying in his pocket on an off-work day? A portion of one day's collections (he does his collections in spurts, I think on the murder day he did 3?).

Come on you didn’t think I meant mug William did you? I meant that like William, Parry would have had his days when he collected a significant amount. So he gets his mate to jump on him during the round and make off with the cash. Parry is too shaken to give chase of course. Far less risky than getting into a house.

Ill make a point again. Most can see that this doesn’t look like a real robbery and certainly not a normal one. The fact that the ‘thief’ appeared to go straight to the cash box and then return it to the shelf strongly shows inside knowledge and not some random thief. And so named suspects we have Parry, Marsden and anyone they might have spoken too. You talk about being an idiot but how utterly moronic would Parry or Marsden have been to have been instrumental in a robbery (which turned to murder) which points to them. And so.....if we eliminate them as extremely unlikely....and I say that a prank call coincidence is cosmically remote.....and I also suggest that a premeditated murder of the reclusive Julia by an unknown is extremely unlikely......so what’s left?

William.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Ill make a point again. Most can see that this doesn’t look like a real robbery and certainly not a normal one. The fact that the ‘thief’ appeared to go straight to the cash box and then return it to the shelf strongly shows inside knowledge and not some random thief. And so named suspects we have Parry, Marsden and anyone they might have spoken too. You talk about being an idiot but how utterly moronic would Parry or Marsden have been to have been instrumental in a robbery (which turned to murder) which points to them. And so.....if we eliminate them as extremely unlikely....and I say that a prank call coincidence is cosmically remote.....and I also suggest that a premeditated murder of the reclusive Julia by an unknown is extremely unlikely......so what’s left?

William.

Many reasons involved in yourself and others convicting him are due to the tiny suspect pool that he himself created by making it look like this insider job - basically his set up tells people that if it's not Gordon or Marsden it's probably him. That's exactly how it looks and is exactly how it is then interpreted by everyone ever.

It's his own making, name directly to Pru (so not even just someone with knowledge he's an agent and goes to the club), cash box directly to a tiny pool of people, claims his wife admits nobody in, stupid address he could have found out was fake. This is apparently the creation of some chess grandmaster.

If he wasn't idiotic or such a terrible planner it wouldn't seem so blatantly suspicious to the point he's arrested within about a week and basically 99% of all the simpletons in the entire county immediately think he must be guilty based just off the suspiciousness of the quest that he himself created, and sad robbery staging putting cash boxes back because he is just that stupid (if a burglar is replacing stuff btw you don't even know what was checked such as drawers and cabinets).

Just look how convoluted and ridiculous it is.

Then getting away with it hinging entirely on a milk boy to volunteer himself forward to say he saw her and give an accurate time, that being the absolute critical element behind the alibi otherwise you don't even have one.

For absolutely no good reason at all... Real address, normal name, and the robbery doesn't appear targeted: It already casts a wider net and seems less suspicious than walking around hunting for non-existent places with bizarro-world names. Hinging on a timestamp he won't even necessarily be provided or if so not necessarily accurate at all.

Avoiding any trace of blood is also cosmically remote according to multiple forensic professionals (no dissenting opinion), you do realistically have to start putting him in balaclavas etc (I haven't actually asked this just assuming it should help). The chance the ONLY real suspect named who could've made that call gives a fake alibi by chance when nobody else did is cosmically remote.

It is either a bad plan hence he looks guilty within about 0.00001 seconds of reading the events, or it's crap because it's not a plan. It's not like a detective novel where you're guessing until the last pages or actually need any thinking skills, it takes about a paragraph before he seems obviously guilty. That is how bad this idea he threw together is that any person suspects him within seconds of hearing any outline of what happened. Even most children would suspect him based on the plan. You don't require any logical reasoning or mental development beyond the age of about 5 to think it's so blatant. Because it does look blatant.

I straight up don't think it's part of any intelligent plan at all. Simple as. It sucks. Even I could do it 1000x better than this genius.

To actually believe the man who looks guiltier than basically any other pre-med killer in human history has come up with a great plan here takes a truly monumental stretch of the imagination. I actually can't think of any pre-med killer ever who so quickly looks so obviously guilty. Pretty sure the jury reached a verdict faster than in most robbery cases.

Even the judge thinks he did it. Just the evidence provided is too weak, if they'd actually not been too scared to test certain variables like the chess tram there wouldn't even be doubt. Even his defence Roland Oliver thinks he did it. You cannot possibly look at this and not immediately think he did it. If you conjure up a plan where everything says "btw I did it and am sus as ****" then your plan sucks.

If you actually admit it is quite clearly a **** suspicious plan with 10000 holes that is something a person can work with because the bar is lower. It's not a grandmaster genius anymore it's a semi-slow aged man who doesn't even know what year it is, and then the blatant mistakes are easy to dismiss - they're mistakes because he's dumb and lacks any foresight. You can't argue this away, it's a crap plan, objectively, reflecting his terrible chess play.

[WallaceWackedHer]

If I am incorrect btw I have a double digit IQ at BEST so you're talking to a verified retard. And even I (as a verified retard) could do it better than this.

I think I would rather call up the place when Caird or anyone else can provide the address to Beattie, THEN make my "oh that's a bit far, can't make it tonight" excuse so it looks like the caller didn't even necessarily know where I lived.

I'd not give a **** about scamming back two pennies the call would be as brief as possible, I'd be in and out ASAP and make no lasting impressions on anyone, just deliver my message and go.

I would generalize the robbery and not make it look so targeted so the net's much wider and doesn't require deep inside knowledge.

I would use a real address, probably an area I know, but keep the round trip to about 45 mins to over an hour to allow time for my fake burglar to go kill my wife.

I would use a random non-bizarro alias, which sounds less suspicious.

I'd not wear my own jacket while killing her.

I'd chuck one of her jackets over her head and hit her through that so there's no spray at all, not on me and I'd anticipate not on the weapon even... Then maybe flick the blood up the walls into each direction. Really depends how aware I would hypothetically be of forensic abilities.

I'd keep all my ticket stubs for the trams. And my first convo would prooobably be on that first tram if I could come up with something plausible. Don't care to talk to the others or anyone in the district except to knock on the real address I gave myself.

Probably would stop off at the newsagents and pick up a pack of cigs then come home.

I'd say in my statement that a paper boy and milk boy usually call some point that day around the time I left my house.

I'd knock 5 or 10 minutes off the time I left home. If they prove it was later it's plausibly deniable.

Realistically, personally, given the era and the fact my wife is known to be sick I'd probably opt to slowly poison her with something that gives the appearance her lung condition worsened. Apparently nobody has ever heard us argue etc, I'd probably bank on that. Wouldn't try that stunt today, in the 1930s though, I'd feel the risk of that is less than the risk of relying on avoiding even a speck of blood (even in the jacket over her head scenario I'd be feeling edgy about the reliability of it).

If he has a motive I think it must be an affair he is having and she doesn't know. Him caring on December 15th about her safety is double-corroborated. So the homicidal urges arose very recently it appears. No arguing which is bizarre, people's first port of call is rarely to just kill a person, better with an affair, rid the wife be with the mistress type deal. Then I'd have a helper because of that, so I could be smarter with the whole thing.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I have requested info from Dr. Schmunk on the balaclava kneeling theory and will update on this.

It occurs to me that William's idea may be bad due to autism/aspergers. From his character I do suspect he is on the spectrum. Someone made a claim he lists his hat size and glove size etc on each diary, and just overall the general eccentric withdrawn manners and interests of the man, and bookish extremely repetitive ways. Trouble showing emotion. Stoicism would be of comfort to someone with ASD. The K Boots tale obsessing over something like that. There are a number of factors.

James Caird described him as a peculiar man. His manner of dress is old fashioned and eccentric. Parry also described William as very peculiar. I think I might be inclined to agree with Gordon's description, and suspect the man is gay and autistic.

Parry in contrast definitely does not seem autistic (only antisocial/sociopathic).

Because his thinking patterns are then perhaps a bit odd in the case of autism, I think someone on the spectrum might be in a better position to just look at the idea and understand the reasoning behind certain elements. I do not know anyone with the affliction but I think there are forums (e.g. WrongPlanet) I have found where I may be able to get some insight from the posters there.