Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

I'm afraid you're seriously over complicating matters. Wallace couldn't possibly have believed that either Close or the Qualtrough call could provide him with an alibi.

What actually matters is whether he had sufficient time to commit the murder: pure and simple.

Thus, if Close delivers the milk at 6:10 and Wallace arrives at the tram stop at 7:01, then the police would argue he had more than sufficient time to commit the murder, i.e. 21 minutes to travel to the stop would allow him 30 minutes to commit the murder etc.

If, however, Close arrives at 6:30 and Wallace leaves at 6:35, arriving at the stop at, say, 6:55, then clearly it would be argued he had no where near enough time.

No, as I've pointed out before, what provided him with an alibi was an event he couldn't possibly have predicted: James Wildman seeing Close deliver the milk at 6:38 after previously checking the time by the clock.

I'm sorry but I don't know how many times I can explain what I'm saying. I'm not overcomplicating anything. I'm responding to something that you are saying, in fact you said it again in this post! I agree that all that matters is if Wallace had enough time, but you are the one who keeps asserting Wallace couldn't have possibly planned the murder, because the fact that he had an alibi was circumstance. If you simply believe Wallace didn't have enough time to do it, because of the timing of the milk boy, then fine! We disagree, but I understand your position.

But again you seem to be saying what you've said in the last few posts, that Wallace wouldn't have had an alibi if the milk boy had come at his regular earlier time, because that would leave Wallace with too much time between that time and when he was seen at the tram stop. I highlighted the part where you AGAIN seem to be saying that and that's explicitly what you said in the last few posts. My answer to that is in that case his arrival time at the tram would be earlier too and the time between milk boy arrival and tram stop arrival would be the same either way.

It's funny that you again seem to be saying that in this post, then change the argument to Wallace not having enough time to have done it based on the timing we do have, which is another argument altogether and I have no qualm with that, we can agree to disagree.

Again, all of this is a response to a point you keep making, then you move the goalposts when I respond to it and argue other separate points.

[John G]

I'm sorry but I don't know how many times I can explain what I'm saying. I'm not overcomplicating anything. I'm responding to something that you are saying, in fact you said it again in this post! I agree that all that matters is if Wallace had enough time, but you are the one who keeps asserting Wallace couldn't have possibly planned the murder, because the fact that he had an alibi was circumstance. If you simply believe Wallace didn't have enough time to do it, because of the timing of the milk boy, then fine! We disagree, but I understand your position.

But again you seem to be saying what you've said in the last few posts, that Wallace wouldn't have had an alibi if the milk boy had come at his regular earlier time, because that would leave Wallace with too much time between that time and when he was seen at the tram stop. I highlighted the part where you AGAIN seem to be saying that and that's explicitly what you said in the last few posts. My answer to that is in that case his arrival time at the tram would be earlier too and the time between milk boy arrival and tram stop arrival would be the same either way.

It's funny that you again seem to be saying that in this post, then change the argument to Wallace not having enough time to have done it based on the timing we do have, which is another argument altogether and I have no qualm with that, we can agree to disagree.

Again, all of this is a response to a point you keep making, then you move the goalposts when I respond to it and argue other separate points.

Firstly, I can confirm that my position is that Close arrived around 6:38 and that Wallace left for the tram at 6:45, giving him nothing like enough time to commit the murder and other actions, as I've set out in detail in other posts.

However, perhaps I haven't explained the importance of Close as an alibi too well, and if that's the case I apologize for any confusion.

Okay, let me explain it this way. If you believe Wallace murdered Julia then I think you have to accept the police argument that it was part of a meticulous plan. And essential to that plan was not only the Qualtrough ruse, but also the reliance on Close as an alibi.

You have to accept that, because otherwise why didn't he just murder Julia when he first arrived home at 6:05? What was he waiting for? However, in any event waiting as long as he must have done was clearly a crazy idea, because it gave him so little time to commit the murder and the other actions- in fact, as noted above, I would argue no where near enough time.

Moreover, we both seem to be in agreement that this part of the plan wouldn't have worked anyway: Close usually arrived between 6:00 am and 6:30, so an arrival time close to six and the police would argue he had sufficient time, whereas close to 6:30 gives him possibly insufficient time-although the police still argued that an arrival time of 6:31 would have been adequate.

And you can't simply argue that he could have taken a later tram. If he misses the 7:06, then he's not going to arrive in time for his meeting-and there would be witnesses on the tram that could confirm he took a later one-and that's going to look highly suspicious (It's also noting that the police argued that the reason he spoke to the tram conductors was to establish an alibi, i e. to confirm that he was traveling on a tram that would have got him to his destination in time for the appointment.)

Therefore, an essential part of the police narrative is seriously undermined, and with it the entire case against Wallace.

[AmericanSherlock]

Firstly, I can confirm that my position is that Close arrived around 6:38 and that Wallace left for the tram at 6:45, giving him nothing like enough time to commit the murder and other actions, as I've set out in detail in other posts.

However, perhaps I haven't explained the importance of Close as an alibi too well, and if that's the case I apologize for any confusion.

Okay, let me explain it this way. If you believe Wallace murdered Julia then I think you have to accept the police argument that it was part of a meticulous plan. And essential to that plan was not only the Qualtrough ruse, but also the reliance on Close as an alibi.

You have to accept that, because otherwise why didn't he just murder Julia when he first arrived home at 6:05? What was he waiting for? However, in any event waiting as long as he must have done was clearly a crazy idea, because it gave him so little time to commit the murder and the other actions- in fact, as noted above, I would argue no where near enough time.

Moreover, we both seem to be in agreement that this part of the plan wouldn't have worked anyway: Close usually arrived between 6:00 am and 6:30, so an arrival time close to six and the police would argue he had sufficient time, whereas close to 6:30 gives him possibly insufficient time-although the police still argued that an arrival time of 6:31 would have been adequate. If he misses the 7:06, then he's not going to arrive in time for his meeting-and there would be witnesses on the tram that could confirm he took a later one-and that's going to look highly suspicious (It's also noting that the police argued that the reason he spoke to the tram conductors was to establish an alibi, i e. to confirm that he was traveling on a tram that would have got him to his destination in time for the appointment.)

Therefore, an essential part of the police narrative is seriously undermined, and with it the entire case against Wallace.

thanks for trying to address my points, but I'm afraid there is still some confusion. The point I'm making is that whenever the milk boy came, whether it was 6:10 or 6:35 would be in line with the plans because as soon as he leaves, the plan would be to kill Julia, get dressed leave, show up to the tram where his alibi would start. However long the unaccounted time for is would be the same in any case whenever the milk boy came, if he came 20 minutes earlier than he did, then Wallace would simply be seen at the tram stop at around 6:46 not 7:06. It simply does not change his alibi based on when the milk boy comes, as long as he comes not so late that the tram stop arrival doesn't seem to late for a 7:30 meeting. Or so early that it would be suspicious, something like being at the tram stop at 6:15 for a 7:30 appointment might seem odd.

I don't know how else to explain this, all I'm asserting is in response to the claim that Close coming late by chance gave Wallace his alibi; and therefore it could not have been a planned alibi, therefore Wallace was innocent. My point is the plan was to carry out the murder and be seen at the tram stop as quickly as possible after, and that works whenever Close comes within reason (615 works, 635 works etc) I don't mean works for the particular timing we have already which you seem to think I mean, I mean just in response to your point, in THEORY as a possible plan for the murder it would make sense for a plotter to have some wiggle room with when the milk boy would come as the time he would be seen at the tram stop would just be adjusted exactly in line and the TIME BETwEEN the 2 events stays the same no matter. So the fact that Close came at a different time than expected, doesn't invalidate anything. Make sense?

[Foxx]

Hello, sorry to butt in.

This is a fascinating case and I can see the discussion has been going for a long time. I haven't yet read the preceding posts, it would take a while to do so.

This question has probably already been answered somewhere in your prior posts, but can somebody explain briefly what Wallace's motive would be for murdering his wife?

I have read two or three books on the case but nothing recently.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hello, sorry to butt in.

This is a fascinating case and I can see the discussion has been going for a long time. I haven't yet read the preceding posts, it would take a while to do so.

This question has probably already been answered somewhere in your prior posts, but can somebody explain briefly what Wallace's motive would be for murdering his wife?

I have read two or three books on the case but nothing recently.

Hi, no need to apologize. Welcome to the thread.

The short answer is: there is no known motive for Wallace or anybody else. Some conjecture that Wallace killed his wife because he was tired of her and the life they were leading. Some think that Parry killed Julia Wallace because he needed money... it was a clumsy robbery or, perhaps, extortion that ended in violence.

But even if there was a clear motive, the ambiguous nature of the case would remain. The lack of an obvious motive only adds to the mystery.

[Foxx]

Hello,

Thanks for that.

Yes, it's certainly one of the most interesting cases. I see there are a couple of newer books on the case that I haven't yet read.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hello,

Thanks for that.

Yes, it's certainly one of the most interesting cases. I see there are a couple of newer books on the case that I haven't yet read.

In my book, Move to Murder, I compare the four main theories side by side. It has been reviewed on Amazon.

[Foxx]

Thanks! I've just found it.

I'll let you know what I think. I'm sure I'll enjoy it.

[John G]

thanks for trying to address my points, but I'm afraid there is still some confusion. The point I'm making is that whenever the milk boy came, whether it was 6:10 or 6:35 would be in line with the plans because as soon as he leaves, the plan would be to kill Julia, get dressed leave, show up to the tram where his alibi would start. However long the unaccounted time for is would be the same in any case whenever the milk boy came, if he came 20 minutes earlier than he did, then Wallace would simply be seen at the tram stop at around 6:46 not 7:06. It simply does not change his alibi based on when the milk boy comes, as long as he comes not so late that the tram stop arrival doesn't seem to late for a 7:30 meeting. Or so early that it would be suspicious, something like being at the tram stop at 6:15 for a 7:30 appointment might seem odd.

I don't know how else to explain this, all I'm asserting is in response to the claim that Close coming late by chance gave Wallace his alibi; and therefore it could not have been a planned alibi, therefore Wallace was innocent. My point is the plan was to carry out the murder and be seen at the tram stop as quickly as possible after, and that works whenever Close comes within reason (615 works, 635 works etc) I don't mean works for the particular timing we have already which you seem to think I mean, I mean just in response to your point, in THEORY as a possible plan for the murder it would make sense for a plotter to have some wiggle room with when the milk boy would come as the time he would be seen at the tram stop would just be adjusted exactly in line and the TIME BETwEEN the 2 events stays the same no matter. So the fact that Close came at a different time than expected, doesn't invalidate anything. Make sense?

Yes, I agree Close doesn't represent any sort of alibi. However, if he was the killer, and if Close arrived at 6:31 as the police argued, which I don't accept, then he was giving himself perilously little time to commit the murder, and all the other actions he had to carry out- I would argue insufficient time- and still be in time for the 7:06 tram.

And if he missed that tram I doubt they'd be another one along in a couple of minutes. He may have had to wait some considerable time, and as a consequence would not arrive in Menlove Gardens in time for the appointment and, as you accept, that's going to look highly suspicious.

It therefore seems that Close would have to be integral to any well-thought out plan-otherwise why not simply murder his wife when he arrived home at 6:05, giving him far more time?

However, there is one possibility. I'd assumed that it was Julia who had come to the door upon seeing Close arrive, rather than Close knocking on the door-I don't think the sources are clear on this point. Personally, I don't see why Close would be in the habit of knocking on the door for the occupier, unless it was the day he collected the money. However, if that was the case then Wallace would have to delay until Close's arrival, otherwise he might knock at the door whilst he's committing the murder, or in the immediate aftermath when he's covered in blood.

Of course, he could refuse to answer, but that would also look highly suspicious.

[louisa]

I have a query.

This case happened before I was born but even so, I can still remember in the sixties it was quite the normal thing for families to leave their front doors open all day - hooked back against the wall. And this was in London.

Presumably in even earlier times it would have been even more common for people to have done this?

My point is that if somebody was after money and knew that the Wallaces kept the folding stuff in a tin on a shelf, then surely all they had to do was wait for a quiet time and simply walk in and take it, without having to resort to committing a brutal and bloody murder?

I think I read that Wallace stated his doors were locked but perhaps people locked them after dark?

[ColdCaseJury]

I have a query.

This case happened before I was born but even so, I can still remember in the sixties it was quite the normal thing for families to leave their front doors open all day - hooked back against the wall. And this was in London.

Presumably in even earlier times it would have been even more common for people to have done this?

My point is that if somebody was after money and knew that the Wallaces kept the folding stuff in a tin on a shelf, then surely all they had to do was wait for a quiet time and simply walk in and take it, without having to resort to committing a brutal and bloody murder?

I think I read that Wallace stated his doors were locked but perhaps people locked them after dark?

A good point, Louisa. I should also add that in Wolverton Street the same key would open the doors to several houses! Can you imagine that today?

[louisa]

What? I've made a good point?! Thanks for that. I thought that after seeing so many posts on this thread that all the good points would have been raised already.

Your Evidence website is interesting btw. I haven't read it all but I will have a good look a bit later. You've laid it out well.

[John G]

It does seem, however, that the Wallace's were particular about locking the doors. According to William as he left for the Qualtrough appointment he asked Julia to bolt the back door as she went back inside, as was their usual practice, even though it was only 6:45 and Julia, of course, would still be at home.

Moreover, unlike most residents I suspect, the Wallace's kept significant sums of money in the house, i.e on account of the insurance takings, so it would make sense to be extra vigilant, particularly when you consider that Wallace had already been robbed of the takings on one occasion, i.e. by Parry.

Interesting pointnt though, Louisa. And one I'd not previously considered.

[louisa]

Yes, point taken.

Parry - my money's on him being the murderer but I may change my mind if the evidence against Wallace is compelling enough. I haven't read all there is to read on this case yet.

I don't think the age difference would have been any kind of motive though, as CCJ suggests on the Evidence website, because I would think a man would be happy to have a younger wife; one who can look after him in his old age.

[AmericanSherlock]

Louisa, it was the other way around, Julia was 17 years older than WHW.

JohnG, Parry robbed the pru, not Wallace personally.