Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[louisa]

But shouldn't there have been more money in the cash box that night? The killer may have been expecting to find more in it. If it was robbery, and I tend to agree that it wasn't.

If the motive was robbery the thief could have come the night before when Wallace was at the chess club.

Wallace named eighteen men that he believed Julia would admit to the house.
That's quite a lot. I have to assume they were interviewed.

It comes back down to the two most likely suspects - Wallace and Parry.

I honestly don't think that either Wallace or his wife were having affairs. I don't think there was any intrigue going on.

If Parry wasn't after the money why would he have killed Julia?

[Penny_Dredfull]

But shouldn't there have been more money in the cash box that night? The killer may have been expecting to find more in it. If it was robbery, and I tend to agree that it wasn't.

If the motive was robbery the thief could have come the night before when Wallace was at the chess club.

Wallace named eighteen men that he believed Julia would admit to the house.
That's quite a lot. I have to assume they were interviewed.

It comes back down to the two most likely suspects - Wallace and Parry.

I honestly don't think that either Wallace or his wife were having affairs. I don't think there was any intrigue going on.

If Parry wasn't after the money why would he have killed Julia?

Louisa- How would the thief necessarily know when Wallace would be out? There was no way of knowing for sure when he would be at the chess club. Some of the matches he was down for he didn't show up.

Even if you argue that the thief/killer is "Qualtrough", how could this person have known for sure that Wallace would take the bait? On most other evenings the two of them would have been at home together. How to know which evening is which?

And then there is the problem that although Wallace is out, his wife is at still at home. So this person will have to realize and accept beforehand that, although she will willingly admit him, he will have to end up killing her to steal.

And where is the guarantee that a substantial amount of cash would be kept there on any given evening that not only would be worth stealing, but would also be worth killing for?

And why commit murder and only take four pounds and leave other cash and valuables untouched?

Your question contains its' own answer- theft wasn't the motive for the murder. And if theft isn't the motive, then Parry (at least Parry acting alone) isn't the murderer.

[AmericanSherlock]

Louisa- How would the thief necessarily know when Wallace would be out? There was no way of knowing for sure when he would be at the chess club. Some of the matches he was down for he didn't show up.

Even if you argue that the thief/killer is "Qualtrough", how could this person have known for sure that Wallace would take the bait? On most other evenings the two of them would have been at home together. How to know which evening is which?

And then there is the problem that although Wallace is out, his wife is at still at home. So this person will have to realize and accept beforehand that, although she will willingly admit him, he will have to end up killing her to steal.

And where is the guarantee that a substantial amount of cash would be kept there on any given evening that not only would be worth stealing, but would also be worth killing for?

And why commit murder and only take four pounds and leave other cash and valuables untouched?

Your question contains its' own answer- theft wasn't the motive for the murder. And if theft isn't the motive, then Parry (at least Parry acting alone) isn't the murderer.

Excellent points!!!

[AmericanSherlock]

Louisa- How would the thief necessarily know when Wallace would be out? There was no way of knowing for sure when he would be at the chess club. Some of the matches he was down for he didn't show up.
Even if you argue that the thief/killer is "Qualtrough", how could this person have known for sure that Wallace would take the bait? On most other evenings the two of them would have been at home together. How to know which evening is which?

And then there is the problem that although Wallace is out, his wife is at still at home. So this person will have to realize and accept beforehand that, although she will willingly admit him, he will have to end up killing her to steal.

And where is the guarantee that a substantial amount of cash would be kept there on any given evening that not only would be worth stealing, but would also be worth killing for?

And why commit murder and only take four pounds and leave other cash and valuables untouched?

Your question contains its' own answer- theft wasn't the motive for the murder. And if theft isn't the motive, then Parry (at least Parry acting alone) isn't the murderer.

This is a very strong point, perhaps the strongest that isn't often discussed. Very damning if you think about it.

Both suggestions I've seen to explain this: 1. It could have been someone else from the chess club or 2. The perpetrator (most think Parry) could have watched him leave for the club (AND then also watched him leave the next night) bely belief and really don't past muster IMO. And also of coruse, they still come up short in explaining the other factors you mentioned.

[louisa]

This is a very strong point, perhaps the strongest that isn't often discussed. Very damning if you think about it.

Both suggestions I've seen to explain this: 1. It could have been someone else from the chess club or 2. The perpetrator (most think Parry) could have watched him leave for the club (AND then also watched him leave the next night) bely belief and really don't past muster IMO. And also of coruse, they still come up short in explaining the other factors you mentioned.

So are we saying that robbery was not the motive?

We can't entirely rule it out because people have been killed for a lot less. But there remains the problem of other valuables being left untouched.

If we rule out robbery then we rule out Parry.

Who does that leave? Wallace. It's possible he had motives of his own. Still waters run deep.

When the Johnstons first saw Wallace in the back alley he was coming from the direction of Breck Road. Had he been lurking - waiting for somebody to emerge from one of the houses so that he could accidentally bump into them and give them the story that he could not gain access to his house?

And another little point - he told the police that when he left home Julia had accompanied him to the back gate and he had told her "don't forget to bolt the gate". Yet upon his return he was able to simply open the gate and go up to the back kitchen door (which is the one he says he had trouble with).
.

[ColdCaseJury]

If we rule out robbery then we rule out Parry.

Do we know that Parry had no other motive apart from financial gain? This does not seem like a cogent premise to me! Whoever was the murderer, we do not know what the motive was. I think motive should be set to one side, find where most of the evidence points, then speculate about possible motive.

[Penny_Dredfull]

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.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Louisa- I'm quite sure Wallace's instructions to his wife as he left by the back entrance was to be sure to bolt the back door- NOT the back gate. So when he returned, and went round to try the back door, he went in from the alley way and back gate which was open.

[Penny_Dredfull]

This is a very strong point, perhaps the strongest that isn't often discussed. Very damning if you think about it.

Both suggestions I've seen to explain this: 1. It could have been someone else from the chess club or 2. The perpetrator (most think Parry) could have watched him leave for the club (AND then also watched him leave the next night) bely belief and really don't past muster IMO. And also of coruse, they still come up short in explaining the other factors you mentioned.

AmericanSherlock- Yes, no one could have known Wallace's movements on any given day except Wallace himself. Only Wallace would have known when he would be at the chess club, and therefore able to receive the diversionary message from Qualtrough. Only Wallace would know if he was going to go out on the fateful night in search of the mysterious caller.

The call box from which the Qualtrough call was made was just 400 yards from his home, and adjacent to where he caught the tram to the chess club. This strongly suggests that Wallace himself was the caller, and that it was part of a ruse to provide himself with an alibi.

[caz]

Louisa- I'm quite sure Wallace's instructions to his wife as he left by the back entrance was to be sure to bolt the back door- NOT the back gate. So when he returned, and went round to try the back door, he went in from the alley way and back gate which was open.

Hi Penny,

I thought I read that Wallace said he told his wife to bolt the back gate after him. Logical considering the recent burglaries, surely? Wasn't that why he appeared agitated to the Johnston's - because he had found the back gate open (or at least not bolted) on his return? But either way, both the back door and gate would have been unbolted on his return unless the killer had left via the front door, which Wallace claimed to find locked against him.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Wallace left home and travelled (walked) to Smithdown Road to catch the tram at 7.06pm

The milk boy, Alan Close, saw Julia at 6.45pm., although Det. Moore tried to convince him he saw her much earlier.
.

Hi Louisa,

Thanks, but I was asking Penhalion which witnesses could have seen Julia alive after Wallace had left the house to keep his appointment. I know the timings appear tight, but we don't know how accurate they are and I certainly hadn't read anything to suggest a witness actually saw Wallace leave and then saw Julia still alive, which is what Penhalion seemed to be saying. Penhalion hasn't come back to me on that one and nobody else has answered the question I was actually asking.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

Motive doesn't need to be proved because the killer may have had their own motive which may not make any sense to us anyway.

It seems to be rather a coincidence that Wallace had trouble with both the front door lock and the back door lock.

Let us assume Wallace was the killer............

After he killed Julia he may have bolted the front door in order to have an excuse for his key not to work in the lock.

He did not want to be the person who found his wife's body. At least he didn't want to be alone if he was to be the one who found her.

By locking himself out, or even pretending he couldn't turn the keys, gave him a perfect reason for waiting for a neighbour to show up.

If Wallace ended up having to 'discover' the body himself he wanted somebody else to be with him as a witness to the fact that he had only just gained entry.
.

[caz]

Caz- Here's a little timeline:

6:05 pm Wallace returns home from a day's work selling insurance and has tea with wife

6:30 pm goes upstairs to wash and change

6:45 pm leaves home by the back door

Then it's a bit confusing, cuz he boarded several trams in succession, but we know he was on one at 7:06 pm cuz the conductor and passengers confirmed it.

8:10 pm Boards tram to make his way home

8:45 the Johnston's (next-door neighbours) see him outside the house

9:10 pm the first constable arrives on the scene and says the body is still warm

10:00 pm Doctor McFall arrives and estimates time of death to be about 8 pm (he later revises this)

11:00 pm Dr Pierce of the Police Medical office arrives and sets time of death at 6:00 pm

At autopsy the stomach contents were found to consist of "semi-fluid food- currants, raisins and unmasticated lumps of carbohydrate". When gastric contents are still identifiable, as here, and semi-digested, that would indicate that the person died 0-2 hours after consuming the meal. As the contents of Mrs. Wallace's stomach were recognizable as the raisin scones she consumed for tea at 6:05 pm, that would then put her time of death at about 8:00 pm or thereabouts. It's not an exact science.
I have some thoughts about this, but what do any of you make about it?

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]

McFall originally estimated the time of death as 8pm, then inexplicably changed his mind without any further information. In any event, we now know that time of death can not be accurately determined-The Forensic Science Regulator's official guidelines is that pathologists shouldn't even attempt to estimate the post mortem interval.

Indeed so, John. Good point.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Louisa, Wallace's plan could have been to off Julia as soon as the milk boy had come and gone. He couldn't risk the milk boy ringing in the act of it or after. He needed Close to see Julia alive. So, he just waited an extra while, and started his alibi from there. As it was, Wallace was a bit suspiciously late imo for a 7:30 meeting that he didn't have a concrete and exact idea of where it was located.

If he had planned on the milk boy coming 30 minutes earlier, that would have been more in line with a 7:30 meeting at a semi unknown place, requiring tram travel etc. I suspect that was his original plan. If the milk boy, had come much later (say after 7), then Wallace may have been forced to scrap his plan, at least temporarily.

As it was though, Wallace allowed himself some flexibility, with only the putative time of 7:30 as a guide. Other than that, it's important as Murphy points out to remember that Wallace creates his own timeframe as he goes along!

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