Provided and photographed by John Gannon.
…
To:- Mr Munro.
C/o: Messrs Davis, Berthen & Munro.
Solicitors.
36,Dale St.,Liverpool.
re :- W.H.Wallace – case.
Dear Sir,
I trust you will pardon me for not desiring my identity to be known in connection with the writing of this letter, as I have my occupation to think of. I therefore do hope that the letter will not be shown to a third-party for any reason.
It must be clearly understood that I do not propose to make any definite accusation against any person concerning the case with which you are dealing. All I wish to make to you is a suggestion or __ concerning one person.
Attached to this letter [not present] I forward a visiting card, the original owner of the card you will observe is the __ __ _ __ ___ but I would direct your attention to the person’s hand-writing on the back of the card, in pencil. His address is also stated. The card was given to me some two years ago or more when the youth wished to give me his address for business purposes.
The youth named was up to a short while ago an employee of the same Company as Mr W.H.Wallace and I know him exceedingly well. I have been given to understand that while Mr Wallace was incapacitated from work through illness not long ago the youth was assisting is the collection of premium for Mr Wallace. It is safely assumed that he knew the late Mrs Wallace very, very well. I also understand that he at that time visited the home of Mr Wallace frequently.
The youth although not now employed by the office concerned, has it is suggested, been recently asking present agents for the loan of money. You will observe by the printed address on the visiting card that the lady resided at Clubmoor at the time the card was given to me. She was then, and I presume now, the companion of the youth concerned and named on the other side of the card. She then worked as pianist at a cinema in or about that district close to the home of Mr Wallace.
Collection of premiums of most agents almost finishes on Tuesday evenings each week. It is suggested that, an ex-employee must of course be aware of the fact. Could not the real motive of such a crime in the first instance be robbery ?. If the person was known to the woman and invited into the house and the home was burgled, would not the woman, if alive, be in a position to say the name of the person who called ?. This of course could not be done in the circumstances which we now know. Mrs Wallace has gone.
Some employees of the Company would and could I suggest give you an account of the sucpicions which surrounded the youth named on the card, when he was working with them. I suggest that a new line of enquiry should be adopted by the police. I suggest that certain enquiries should be made concerning the whereaboutes of this youth at the time of the telephone message on that previous night [Gordon gave a fake alibi for this time] and also at the time the crime was committed on the Tuesday night [Gordon has an alibi for 5 or 5.30 to 8.30 PM on the murder night with the Brines, Knoclaid Road].
The youth is known to me and I have seen him since he left the employ of the Company. He possesses a motor car, or perhaps I should say, drives on. He may say that he was out of town on that night, but that of course must be proved if the police were to make enquiries.
Yes. I know still more concerning the youth and happenings which occurred during his employ in the insurance business, but I consider it not my duty to inform any person of such suspicions. It is the duty of any other person or persons under whose authority he worked.
Mr Wallace was also known to me. I only knew him as a perfect gentleman and business man. I know that he was far from being in good health. Finally, I feel and express to you that in my humble opinion Mr Wallace could not possibly have the physical strength to do the deed of which he is accused, neither could he have the reasoning power to premeditate such a crime on his own wife.
What does any visitor here make of that?