Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Regarding the time of death, this is an excerpt from Jonathan Goodman's book, page 48...

    "McFall's conclusion, which he arrived at within a matter of minutes and never altered, was the Julia Wallace had been dead for at least four hours. In other words, since before six o'clock"

    We all know that McFall got it wrong, but I'm just saying that this was his first remark concerning the time of death, and he maintained it.
    .
    This is simply my opinion

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Penny_Dredfull View Post
      ColdCaseJury- What other possible motive could be offered for Parry apart from theft? We might as well say Horace Dimbleby (I'm making that up by the way!) from across the road did it- or the milk boy, for that matter- if we don't need to have any motive in order to be put forward anyone as a suspect.

      Parry's name only came up because Wallace himself brought him up. HE offered Parry as a potential suspect. That's fishy to me. The main suspect is suggesting to the police to look elsewhere. The police had no evidence on Parry nor any clue linking him to the crime at the time they arrived on the scene and started investigating. In other words, the evidence didn't lead them to Parry, Wallace did.

      You say "whoever was the murderer, we do not know what the motive was", which is not entirely true: logic allows us to postulate reasonable motives for Julia's killer. The most probable motives are theft, if a third party did it, or a domestic incident if Wallace did it. Having removed theft from the crime, and considering it to be a case of domestic murder staged to look like a burglary, then the perpetrator is the husband.
      Hi Penny, what other possible motive for Parry? According to author John Gannon, sex and blackmail.

      Wallace led the police to Parry, yes, but as I explain in my book that could be because of the cash box. Put yourself in Wallace's shoes and assume he is innocent. The location of the cash box was known only to a few people and therefore Wallace would see the fact that apparently the murderer knew its location as an important clue, and told the police.

      Sorry to be picky, but logic alone tells us absolutely nothing. To make an inference, or an argument, you need premises, assumed statements of fact. We do not know the relationship between Julia and Parry, for instance, so we cannot say with any certainty what the motive was. How about this. Julia owed Parry some money and paid him £4 from the cash box, hence returning the cash box (explaining one puzzling aspect of the case), but an argument ensued and in a rage over some other matter Parry killed Julia. I'm not putting this forward as theory, only to show that one cannot assume theft was the only motive Parry had to commit murder.
      Author of Cold Case Jury books: Move To Murder (2nd Edition) (2021), The Shark Arm Mystery (2020), Poisoned at the Priory (2020), Move to Murder (2018), Death of an Actress (2018), The Green Bicycle Mystery (2017) - "Armchair detectives will be delighted" - Publishers Weekly. Author of Crime & Mystery Hour - short fictional crime stories. And for something completely different - I'm the co-founder of Wow-Vinyl - celebrating the Golden Years of the British Single (1977-85)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
        . How about this. Julia owed Parry some money and paid him £4 from the cash box, hence returning the cash box (explaining one puzzling aspect of the case), but an argument ensued and in a rage over some other matter Parry killed Julia. I'm not putting this forward as theory, only to show that one cannot assume theft was the only motive Parry had to commit murder.
        It's more likely that Parry owed Julia money. Maybe she felt maternal towards him, and a bit sorry for him. She had no children of her own after all. He may have kept on borrowing (and she hadn't liked to refuse) and it amounted to quite a lot that he owed Julia. Naturally she wouldn't have told her husband because it was her and Parry's secret. He made her promise not to.

        Then Julia started asking for the money. Parry could see an easy way of clearing his debt.....kill Julia and make it look like a robbery gone wrong.

        All he had to do was make one phone call.
        This is simply my opinion

        Comment


        • Originally posted by louisa View Post
          It's more likely that Parry owed Julia money. Maybe she felt maternal towards him, and a bit sorry for him. She had no children of her own after all. He may have kept on borrowing (and she hadn't liked to refuse) and it amounted to quite a lot that he owed Julia. Naturally she wouldn't have told her husband because it was her and Parry's secret. He made her promise not to.

          Then Julia started asking for the money. Parry could see an easy way of clearing his debt.....kill Julia and make it look like a robbery gone wrong.

          All he had to do was make one phone call.
          Louisa, this is remarkably close to the Parry scenario I describe in my book! The point, of course, is that Parry may not have gone to 29 Wolverton Street with the purpose of robbery.
          Author of Cold Case Jury books: Move To Murder (2nd Edition) (2021), The Shark Arm Mystery (2020), Poisoned at the Priory (2020), Move to Murder (2018), Death of an Actress (2018), The Green Bicycle Mystery (2017) - "Armchair detectives will be delighted" - Publishers Weekly. Author of Crime & Mystery Hour - short fictional crime stories. And for something completely different - I'm the co-founder of Wow-Vinyl - celebrating the Golden Years of the British Single (1977-85)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by louisa View Post
            Regarding the time of death, this is an excerpt from Jonathan Goodman's book, page 48...

            "McFall's conclusion, which he arrived at within a matter of minutes and never altered, was the Julia Wallace had been dead for at least four hours. In other words, since before six o'clock"

            We all know that McFall got it wrong, but I'm just saying that this was his first remark concerning the time of death, and he maintained it.
            .
            It is true to say that this is what Goodman wrote, but Goodman was incorrect. MacFall's provisional report to the police estimated the TOD to be 8pm. MacFall later testified that the TOD was before 6pm, which of course is false because of the testimony of Alan Close, which MacFall refused to believe.
            Author of Cold Case Jury books: Move To Murder (2nd Edition) (2021), The Shark Arm Mystery (2020), Poisoned at the Priory (2020), Move to Murder (2018), Death of an Actress (2018), The Green Bicycle Mystery (2017) - "Armchair detectives will be delighted" - Publishers Weekly. Author of Crime & Mystery Hour - short fictional crime stories. And for something completely different - I'm the co-founder of Wow-Vinyl - celebrating the Golden Years of the British Single (1977-85)

            Comment


            • Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

              Originally posted by caz View Post
              Again, thanks Penny, but this wasn't what I was asking Penhalion to explain.

              It's not as if we know for certain when the milk boy left Julia alive or the precise second Wallace left to catch his tram. Watches and clocks were not guaranteed to be accurate, and how many people even think of checking the time when nothing out of the ordinary is going on?

              Incidentally, I'm not sure how you calculated a time of death of around 8pm, even if you had been correct about the stomach contents indicating that Julia had eaten her last meal 0-2 hours before she was killed. How do you get to determine the point on the scale from 0 to 2 that would have applied in Julia's case, and what made you favour the upper end of it, so it was tea just after six and no murder until your maximum of two hours later? Anything between 0 and 2 hours would imply that death could as easily have come within a very short time of her last mouthful of scone or Close's milk delivery (whichever was the later) as it could at 8pm or any time between the two.

              I wouldn't like to choose between time of death estimates and the times given by suspects and witnesses alike.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Caz- I was explaining how Dr. McFall arrived at his estimate of time of death being 6 pm. he stuck to that at trial even when pressed under cross-examination to explain how that could be when Mrs. Wallace was last seen alive by the milk boy at 6:45 pm. Dr. Pierce put time of death at 8pm- ie four hours before her last meal which he estimated to be 6:00 pm based on her stomach contents and Wallace's account.

              To counter this somewhat, the prosecution produced three more milk boys who called the time of the first milk boy's (Alan Close) sighting of Mrs. Wallace into question. One said he saw Alan Close on the Wallace's doorstep at either 6:30 or 6:35, NOT 6:45. The other two said Close told them the next day that he saw Mrs. Wallace at 6:45. They are all witnesses, but only Close claims to have seen Mrs. Wallace. And if he did, he's the last person (apart from the killer) to see her alive.
              Last edited by Penny_Dredfull; 12-07-2016, 03:06 PM. Reason: correction

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
                It is true to say that this is what Goodman wrote, but Goodman was incorrect. MacFall's provisional report to the police estimated the TOD to be 8pm. MacFall later testified that the TOD was before 6pm, which of course is false because of the testimony of Alan Close, which MacFall refused to believe.
                Thanks for clarifying that point CCJ.
                This is simply my opinion

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
                  Hi Penny, what other possible motive for Parry? According to author John Gannon, sex and blackmail.

                  Wallace led the police to Parry, yes, but as I explain in my book that could be because of the cash box. Put yourself in Wallace's shoes and assume he is innocent. The location of the cash box was known only to a few people and therefore Wallace would see the fact that apparently the murderer knew its location as an important clue, and told the police.

                  Sorry to be picky, but logic alone tells us absolutely nothing. To make an inference, or an argument, you need premises, assumed statements of fact. We do not know the relationship between Julia and Parry, for instance, so we cannot say with any certainty what the motive was. How about this. Julia owed Parry some money and paid him £4 from the cash box, hence returning the cash box (explaining one puzzling aspect of the case), but an argument ensued and in a rage over some other matter Parry killed Julia. I'm not putting this forward as theory, only to show that one cannot assume theft was the only motive Parry had to commit murder.
                  ColdCaseJury- The beauty of logic and sticking to the facts means that I don't need to introduce suspects or motives that aren't there- that we have absolutely no evidence for. It's entertaining, but it's not good investigative practice.

                  The Parry thing doesn't hold water. The police looked into him and it went nowhere. If the police could have put the dodgy Parry forward as a serious suspect then they would have done in preference to the mousy husband. But it was Wallace who was charged and tried. Parry became the suspect du jour in the 1980's, and the theory is a tissue of conjecture, second-hand information and hearsay. There is no hard, direct evidence linking him specifically to the murder.
                  Sex and blackmail? It's a good plot for a TV drama, but you may as well say Mrs. Wallace had knowledge of a paedophile conspiracy and had to be hushed up. There's no evidence for that either.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by louisa View Post
                    It's more likely that Parry owed Julia money. Maybe she felt maternal towards him, and a bit sorry for him. She had no children of her own after all. He may have kept on borrowing (and she hadn't liked to refuse) and it amounted to quite a lot that he owed Julia. Naturally she wouldn't have told her husband because it was her and Parry's secret. He made her promise not to.

                    Then Julia started asking for the money. Parry could see an easy way of clearing his debt.....kill Julia and make it look like a robbery gone wrong.

                    All he had to do was make one phone call.
                    Louisa- I suggest you read the transcripts of the trial. Then you will see that such a scenario doesn't hold up given the evidence.

                    The timing of the phone call from "Qualtrough" and of the murder for when Wallace was out is very telling. The prosecution got Wallace to admit that "Qualtrough" had no way of knowing whether he would receive the message that night, because no one knew he would be at the club. So, without knowing Wallace would even go to look for Menlove Gardens East, the assailant was waiting that night for his departure? That the killer would have to watch both front AND back doors, as he wouldn't know which exit Wallace would use? That the killer had no idea if Wallace would get the message or even act on it? That Wallace may consult a directory first, learn there IS no Menlove Gardens East and then not go at all?

                    Another point the prosecution focused upon- the burned and bloody macintosh belonging to Wallace that the killer placed under the body. Who would have had an interest in doing this? Why would a stranger (or Parry) want to destroy SOMEONE ELSE'S macintosh?

                    Comment


                    • Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

                      For those of you positing Parry as the killer, I have some challenges for you.

                      First, what can you tell from the basic evidence (such as we know) of that night, and from an examination of the crime scene that would point directly to Parry? Not just to an unknown third party, but SPECIFICALLY to Parry and to no one else?

                      Second, what was the murder weapon? And, yes, this is sort of a trick question!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        Hi AS,

                        I couldn't agree more. Wallace would have been obliged to wait for Close to come and go, and it's a fairly safe bet that if he set up the Qualtrough ruse so he could kill his wife and convince the police he was out at the time, he'd have done the deed as soon as possible after Close's delivery, which he would have been expecting around 6. In fact, he would have checked on arriving home if the boy had been yet, and found he hadn't. Tea would then have been prepared and eaten while waiting for that day's milk delivery. I bet he would have called it sod's law having to wait so long on this of all evenings, if his intentions were murderous. But he'd have had little choice in the matter.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Exactly what I think happened. Imagine his frustration waiting for the milk boy. The tension. Yikes, quite morbidly funny

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Penny_Dredfull View Post
                          Louisa- I suggest you read the transcripts of the trial. Then you will see that such a scenario doesn't hold up given the evidence.

                          The timing of the phone call from "Qualtrough" and of the murder for when Wallace was out is very telling. The prosecution got Wallace to admit that "Qualtrough" had no way of knowing whether he would receive the message that night, because no one knew he would be at the club. So, without knowing Wallace would even go to look for Menlove Gardens East, the assailant was waiting that night for his departure? That the killer would have to watch both front AND back doors, as he wouldn't know which exit Wallace would use? That the killer had no idea if Wallace would get the message or even act on it? That Wallace may consult a directory first, learn there IS no Menlove Gardens East and then not go at all?

                          Another point the prosecution focused upon- the burned and bloody macintosh belonging to Wallace that the killer placed under the body. Who would have had an interest in doing this? Why would a stranger (or Parry) want to destroy SOMEONE ELSE'S macintosh?
                          Exactly, it just doesn't make any logical sense that someone else could count on all that happening as part of some elaborate plan. The only way it makes sense is if the caller had control of Wallace's actions-- i.e. Wallace himself.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Penny_Dredfull View Post
                            ColdCaseJury- The beauty of logic and sticking to the facts means that I don't need to introduce suspects or motives that aren't there- that we have absolutely no evidence for. It's entertaining, but it's not good investigative practice.

                            The Parry thing doesn't hold water. The police looked into him and it went nowhere. If the police could have put the dodgy Parry forward as a serious suspect then they would have done in preference to the mousy husband. But it was Wallace who was charged and tried. Parry became the suspect du jour in the 1980's, and the theory is a tissue of conjecture, second-hand information and hearsay. There is no hard, direct evidence linking him specifically to the murder.
                            Sex and blackmail? It's a good plot for a TV drama, but you may as well say Mrs. Wallace had knowledge of a paedophile conspiracy and had to be hushed up. There's no evidence for that either.
                            Well, I agree, but it was you who asked "What other possible motive could be offered for Parry apart from theft?". I have pointed out that motive is not evidentially relevant in this case.
                            Author of Cold Case Jury books: Move To Murder (2nd Edition) (2021), The Shark Arm Mystery (2020), Poisoned at the Priory (2020), Move to Murder (2018), Death of an Actress (2018), The Green Bicycle Mystery (2017) - "Armchair detectives will be delighted" - Publishers Weekly. Author of Crime & Mystery Hour - short fictional crime stories. And for something completely different - I'm the co-founder of Wow-Vinyl - celebrating the Golden Years of the British Single (1977-85)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Penny_Dredfull View Post
                              For those of you positing Parry as the killer, I have some challenges for you.

                              First, what can you tell from the basic evidence (such as we know) of that night, and from an examination of the crime scene that would point directly to Parry? Not just to an unknown third party, but SPECIFICALLY to Parry and to no one else?

                              Second, what was the murder weapon? And, yes, this is sort of a trick question!
                              The evidence of John Parkes links Parry to the murder, at least by implication. What evidence do you have that Herbert Wallace was responsible? What was the murder weapon? What did he do with the murder weapon?

                              Comment


                              • In order to get the tram at St. Margaret's Church Wallace would have had to have left home at 6.49pm at the latest. That would have given him 4 minutes in which to commit the murder, clean up, bolt the doors etc.

                                I haven't made up my mind yet whether it was Wallace or Parry who killed Julia but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence which points to Parry. He was fond of making prank phone calls wasn't he?

                                Motive for either party - well that's something we may never know.

                                Wallace - if indeed he was the culprit - may have taken great pleasure in working out his plan to the finest detail, possibly long before he carried it out.

                                He was familiar with the route to the tram stop and may have already selected a hiding place for the iron bar to be disposed of. Maybe he had seen a suitably deep crevice in somebody's front garden by an old wall or something. All he would need to do is drop it into the hole, push the soil over it with his foot and maybe put a bin on top. He had probably rinsed the weapon before he left home and concealed it up his sleeve.


                                A couple of small points.....why would the murderer have extinguished the gas lights in the parlour before he made his escape? And presumably he turned off the gas fire as well because there is no mention of it being on when Wallace (or the Johnstons) first went into the parlour.

                                The gas fire must have been lit when the murderer was present because the mackintosh got burned and so did Julia's skirt.

                                And why did Wallace light the right hand lamp instead of the left? He would have had to step over Julia's body - surely?
                                Last edited by louisa; 12-08-2016, 05:47 AM.
                                This is simply my opinion

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X