Date unknown, an American speaker poses the following to Goodman. Video not yet available but transcription below:
1. Do you consider it odd, that neither Wallace nor any of his chess playing friends, questioned that not only was it possible for Qualtrough to KNOW Wallace played chess, but also as to where and when he played chess.
2. In your book, you indicated that Beattie assumed – before answering the call from Qualtrough – that it was probably in the nature of Wallace’s business. Now, why would he assume that?
3. Why didn’t Wallace simply look up Qualtrough’s telephone number, and was there such a thing as an unlisted telephone number in 1931?
4. What do you suppose happened to the kitchen poker? It remains an enigma to this day, because it was never found.
5. Why didn’t Hubert Moore take Parkes’ statement concerning Parry seriously.
6. I’ve got the impression that Wallace did not have any truly close friends, I believe his best friend was his wife, do you agree?
7. Do you think Lord Hewart would have felt better about the appeal, if Oliver had put forth the motion at the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, to have the charges dropped for lack of evidence.
8. What do you make of the mackintosh?
9. Is it your opinion that Wallace was a frustrated intellectual?
10. Why, after 16 years of loyal service, was Wallace never promoted?
11. It is my opinion, that MacFall, despite his rather lofty reputation, was not at the time of the Wallace trial, a particularly competent forensic pathologist. He failed to take notes, he did not take which at the time was considered the best test for pinpointing time of death – rectal temperature. He contradicted himself, and in general seemed a very confused man. Do you agree?
12. What a pathetic witness Miss Hall was. You would have thought the prosecution could have done a much better job of coaching her.
13. Raymond Chandler made a number of comments on the Wallace case, the most bizarre being: “It’s impossible to believe that Wallace murdered his wife, it’s also impossible to believe that anybody else could have murdered her.” Having arrived at this most startling conclusions, we are left with the inescapable impression, that Mrs. Wallace somehow managed to commit suicide by repeatedly tapping a heavy blunt instrument upon her head with sufficient force to render her dead.
14. Jon, do you have an opinion as to why Lord Hewart took such a long time to render his decision? I think because he believed in the jury system to such a fanatical degree, that for him to dismiss a jury verdict was akin to extracting teeth.
15. Leslie Walsh made a statement to Roger Wilkes, that to me defies comprehension. Walsh stated that it was his belief that the milk boy Close, did not speak to Mrs. Wallace on the murder night, but Mr. Wallace wearing one of his wife’s dresses. Now Wilkes countered this by saying that Mr. Wallace was well over a foot taller than his wife, wore glasses and had a moustache. Walsh brushed this aside and said “well it was dark and anyway the encounter lasted only a few seconds.” I can only assume that Mr. Walsh was either joking at the time he made these comments, or was suffering from some form of insanity.
16. I don’t believe that Parry, if he was the murderer, intended to kill Julia Wallace. I think his sole intention was to steal the money. Now, making sure not to leave any incriminating evidence (such as fingerprints), and hoping that nobody saw him either enter or leave the Wallace home, it would simply boil down to her word against his. No evidence, no case.
17. P.C. Rothwell’s testimony is so ridiculous, it’s not worth commenting on – so I don’t know why I did.
18 to 31. (Unrelated to Wallace).
32. A very lengthy description of the David Hendricks case, referenced later in relation to Wallace.
33. (Unrelated to Wallace).
34. Jon I would like to ask of you one last question about the Wallace case: In your opinion, how is it possible for Wallace to be tried, convicted, and sentenced to death, on what amounted to nothing more than mere speculation. How did this mockery of justice take place.
AUDIO TAPE TURNS OVER
—
“Jon according to a BBC dramatization about the Wallace case, I now understand that Qualt-Row, and not Qual-Truff, is the correct pronunciation of his name.”
Proceeds to list parallels between the Wallace and David Hendricks case, referencing a book titled “Reasonable Doubt” by Steve Vogel:
. In the Wallace case no blood was found in the murder room, except for a single spot of blood found on the lavatory pan in the Wallace bathroom. Hendricks case, no blood except in the murder rooms, with the exception of a single smear of blood found on a sink in one of the Hendricks’s bathrooms.
. Both Wallace and Hendricks were accused of staging a robbery.
. Both men were accused of pre-arranging an alibi.
. Both judges in the trial did not believe guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
. The time element is crucial to both cases.
. Both Wallace and Hendricks displayed very little emotion, which did not help their case.
. Both Wallace and Hendricks directly accused people that they knew of committing the murders.
. Lily Hall testified she saw Wallace talking to some man shortly before he arrived home, which Wallace vehemently denied. Hendricks was supposedly seen by two men leave his home on the night of the murders at ~9 PM and Hendricks denied it.
. Both men were gone over from head to toe but police found no trace of physical evidence to link them to the murders.
. Both Wallace and Hendricks were accused of what the prosecution thought were “inappropriate remarks”.
. The telephone played a major role in both cases.
. In both cases there was no physical or direct evidence whatsoever.
. Both Wallace and Hendricks were convicted on what amounted to basically nothing more than speculation.
. Wallace and Hendricks were both released, Wallace on appeal and Hendricks after a second trial.
“I believe Wallace to be completely innocent, but with Hendricks, I just don’t know.”
I’m not sure on the timescale Hendricks had between the murders and setting off on his business trip or if bloodied fingerprints were on any of the murder weapons etc as I haven’t read about the case in any detail other than the wiki entry above, however….
Let’s imagine we’re a dissatisfied Wallace in the Autumn of 1930 and the plan for the murder of Julia is uppermost in his mind and how he will do it and get away with it.
As a hobby scientist he will know that dropping small margins of arsenic into Julia’s food will gradually kill her (James/Florence Maybrick style) and arsenic can easily be obtained from fly papers. Julia’s failing health will not be noticed as anything peculiar as it seems both of them had bouts of illness quite often, no need for any autopsy after this expected death.
Failing this, a push down the stairs with a single hammer blow to the forehead if she’s still alive after the push, to make it look like she’s banged her head heavily on the wooden stairs on the way down may well be the way to go forward.
I could just bludgeon her and hit her once for every time she’s annoyed me in the last month, 11 should do it.
How about leaving blood on himself, at the scene, fingerprints, seeing Julia in that mess etc. OK let’s go for strangulation – easy, easier than a bloodbath that requires some cleaning of oneself just in case.
No, he opts for the messier option, one that requires either being naked, relying on a shield and then cleaning himself just in case a speck is spotted on him during the inevitable examination. But how about when and how I should do it, Wallace muses. Hmmm?
I could do it just before going to Chess on a Monday night but the police would just say you Murdered her just before you left and with no signs of a break in who else could have done it?
How about I tape up one of my windows then hit it with a hammer, to quell the noise, i I could do this tuesday afternoon whilst next door are at work, just a small pane, enough for the Anfield burglar to put his hand in and open the window fully to gain entry. The echo says he’s been prolific in the area, I could even say we always left the kitchen window open for some ventilation for Julia’s chest. Too easy this… there must be a catch (pardon the pun)
I know. I will create an alibi for myself but how can I have an alibi if it is actually me doing the murder as I must be there whilst committing it. The best I can do is to create the possibility that it was someone else by introducing some doubt but how do I do that without being rumbled. Julia tends to the milk boy around 6.15 to 6.30 every day so it has to be after he’s been. Let me think on that one because the police could just say you did it after he called, hmmm ?
In the meantime, when I get back to my house, whether it be from after chess or something else, I will need somebody to witness that I am just returning home and a reason for not being able to get into my own house. Both doors cannot be locked against me as the murderer needs to get out of one of them, I mean he wouldn’t take the time to lock the door after him.
I can put the bolt on the front door from inside then that takes care of that and all I need to say was, the bolt was on, nothing more than that and stick to it. As for the back door, it sticks, Julia has told me she has often had to let the charwoman in because it sticks, the knob just turns without it opening the lock, it slips back. That’s that then. I just need to make a racket at the front door, bang on it, rattle the knob, shouting Julia through the letterbox. They are a nosey lot around there, it won’t take long before the nets are being lifted up to see what all the din is.
Now this alibi, a lightbulb moment. I will call the chess club by the way i’m a prospective client with a hefty commission to put ‘my’ way. A new client popping up this way has never happened before and how would he know I go there to play chess and on a Monday and that Monday. Ah bingo – there is a notice board displaying so – this is easier than I thought. I just have to get past the thought that I may have to speak to that pesky Beattie and hope he doesn’t recognise my voice but I haven’t seen him for over a month. I will call the club from my local phone booth then jump the tram into town to receive my own message, oh dear, little do they know. The murder has to be the day after the call so Monday for Tuesday it is.
I will have to prove I went on the trip. I will feign unfamiliarity with the area i’m going to and that way I can make conversations with the tram drivers and conductors, this will help them remember me when I mention it to the police. I therefore must use an area i’m really not familiar with otherwise i’ll be called out on it. Maybe Bootle or Speke, they are far away enough. I will ask Beattie if he knows of the address, he won’t know anywhere around there and neither will anyone else.
Of course none of this happened. I’m just showing how actually un-easy this method is, that this master chess brain (not) is supposed to have devised with all that time on his hands to pre-plan it all.
Yes those are all other ways he coukd have murdered his wife. Michael Peterson in modern times chose the stairs. Poison can be good. Lizzie Borden attempted to poison her family though and failed. Maybe Wallace tried to poison the hag the same way and that’s why the doctor found her coughing blood.
Strangulation would be very low IQ lol. Maybe hit on the head and then strangling to avoid the noise of a struggle. Of course an unexpected skull crusher is silent as the person goes unconscious or very out of it. Probably a lot quieter than a cash box falling down and cabinet door hitting the ground literally right against the wall where something like 4 or 5 neighbors are sitting.
Even retards can play chess. Proof: see Wallace. No promotions in decades, pure idiot of a man. Probably 90 IQ at best. Potentially goes out with papers in his pockets like a schoolboy without bothering with professional adult stuff like ensuring he will turn up on time due to having consulted a map.