Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

I was considering an unlikely scenario. Thus, let's say Wallace decides to murder his wife but realises he needs an alibi. After all, as the husband he's bound to be a suspect. He therefore approaches an unwitting Parry and informs him that he's having an affair with a woman who he just has to see on the 20th. However, he obviously has to have an excuse for leaving the house, especially as his wife is the suspicious type, and therefore asks Parry if he'll do him a small favour: pretending to be a potential new client-Qualtrough (Wallace can't be Qualtrough because there's too big a risk that his voice will be recognized). He says to Parry that, as a fellow red-blooded male, he's sure he'll understand, and possibly offers him a small cash inducement for his trouble.

Of course, one problem is: why did Parry phone from Wallace's local phone box? However, Wallace could have arranged to me meet him, as he left for the Chess club, to confirm arrangementss and to make sure he was still prepared to go ahead with it.

Afterwards, Parry realises, belatedly, that he's been duped but remains silent in case he's suspected as being an accomplice to murder.

What do you think?

I like the idea. I think that the solution to this case involves something like that, whether or not that exact theory is correct. (which although an outlier scenario, it makes sense). Something unexpected, with the cast of characters relating to eachother in an unexpected way like in your example is what I feel might make some of the more baffling aspects of this case more understandable.

There are simply too many coincidences of timing and distance, as well as logical gaps for me to believe WHW was not involved somehow in either the planning or execution of his wife's murder. If he truly wasn't, then it was an extremely tightly constructed puzzle. But I have to lean towards his involvement in one way or another.

Unfortunately, every theory has its flaws, and it still is hard for some to imagine how if Wallace was the murderer (and in this scenario he is still essentially working alone), how he managed everything in such a tight time frame, with no blood on him, drains not used etc. What happened to the weapon? I think the hints are too strong that WHW was behind it to ignore, despite all the mitigating points, which I find strong points, but not "fatal" to his candidacy as the murder.

If Parry was tricked into making the call, perhaps paid a small amount for what he thought was to help Wallace have an affair, then that might explain the "sexually odd" comment. Perhaps he told his parents what happened, and that's why they wanted him out of the country but still stood by him.

[John G]

I like the idea. I think that the solution to this case involves something like that, whether or not that exact theory is correct. (which although an outlier scenario, it makes sense). Something unexpected, with the cast of characters relating to eachother in an unexpected way like in your example is what I feel might make some of the more baffling aspects of this case more understandable.

There are simply too many coincidences of timing and distance, as well as logical gaps for me to believe WHW was not involved somehow in either the planning or execution of his wife's murder. If he truly wasn't, then it was an extremely tightly constructed puzzle. But I have to lean towards his involvement in one way or another.

Unfortunately, every theory has its flaws, and it still is hard for some to imagine how if Wallace was the murderer (and in this scenario he is still essentially working alone), how he managed everything in such a tight time frame, with no blood on him, drains not used etc. What happened to the weapon? I think the hints are too strong that WHW was behind it to ignore, despite all the mitigating points, which I find strong points, but not "fatal" to his candidacy as the murder.

If Parry was tricked into making the call, perhaps paid a small amount for what he thought was to help Wallace have an affair, then that might explain the "sexually odd" comment. Perhaps he told his parents what happened, and that's why they wanted him out of the country but still stood by him.

Thanks AS. I agree that a problem with excluding Wallace is that all other theories seem equally implausible. It also seems to me that Parry seemed to have made an effort to surround himself with numerous alibis on the night of the murder.

But why? Based upon my scenario it could be argued that he started to become suspicious-not in respect of believing Wallace was about to set him up for murder but possibly robbery-and therefore decided to take extreme precautions to protect himself.

[John G]

The fact the murder weapon wasn't found is obviously a huge problem for any argument suggesting Wallace acted alone. However, is it feasible that he simply placed it into a local resident's refuse bin during his journey to visit "Qualtrough"?

Were the bins on his route that night, of which there must have been a large number, checked by the police before they were collected?

Did residents usually place their bin at the rear of the property? If so, it would surely create problems for Wallace as he would have to take a major risk by accessing the back of the property.

[AmericanSherlock]

The fact the murder weapon wasn't found is obviously a huge problem for any argument suggesting Wallace acted alone. However, is it feasible that he simply placed it into a local resident's refuse bin during his journey to visit "Qualtrough"?

Were the bins on his route that night, of which there must have been a large number, checked by the police before they were collected?

Did residents usually place their bin at the rear of the property? If so, it would surely create problems for Wallace as he would have to take a major risk by accessing the back of the property.

Hi John,

I'd be interested to know about that. I know that Parkes said Parry claimed the weapon was an iron bar that was disposed down a grid outside a doctor's house in Priory Road. Whoever the murderer was made a tactical mistake by taking the weapon outside of the house imo, although clearly he got away with this error.

A refuse bin is a good idea to dispose of it, albeit risky, although almost anything would be for any murderer who had acted either pre planned or on the spur of the moment, so I don't think that's probative against anyone's candidacy.

In Lancashire Murders, there is a chapter on the Wallace murder by the 2 authors that considers many writers' previous work in detailing the case, eventually the authors conclude Wallace was indeed the murderer. They suggest the murder weapon could have been the iron rod of a metalbase that would be part of "retort" stand that his upstairs laboratory would be likely to have. A bunch of conjecture of course...but I think their implication is the murder weapon could have been something that maybe remained in the house and didn't arouse suspicion. (if the mac was used to cover Julia's head before the blows, maybe the weapon wouldn't appear to have been "used" anyway) I'm not saying I subscribe to this, but I don't see why Wallace would take the weapon out of the house if he was the killer, and if the killer was someone else, again, why risk carrying a weapon out into the open?

In that chapter, they also address Parry well, pointing out a few important migitating things against him being the killer. (This isn't to say this is a perfect summarization, they take the Wallace having an affair theory as fact, when there is no evidence for it.) However, the 1 thing I keep coming back to is the caller mentioning "21st birthday" and Parry's supposed history making pranks (the least we know for sure was he was in the dramatic society).

So for Parry to have made the call, but not be guilty we have to consider 4 scenarios.

1. He was part of a robbery plot with "Qualtrough" as Rod suggests, the robbery went wrong and Julia was murdered.

2. He pranked Wallace like PD James suggests and Wallace, who was already toying with bumping off his tiresome missus, took the opportunity. ( We don't have to accept her ludicrous Wallace in Drag scenario)

3. He was part of a plot working with Wallace to kill Julia. In this case he is guilty of accessory to murder, but not the actual murder. Either the killer is a 3rd man (perhaps Marsden as Gannon suggests) or someone else entirely or Wallace himself.

4. He was tricked into making the call by Wallace under a false pretext as you suggested; William Wallace was the murderer and cleverly connived to cast suspicion on Parry.

One final thing I would consider to try to eliminate other possibilities is the rarity of mentioning a "21st birthday" As we know Parry mentioned it as part of one of his alibis and it is highly suspicious IMO, besides having had his own 22nd birthday recently and his girlfriend being around 20 or 21. However, would this perhaps be a common thing for an insurance agent to deal with and therefore someone trying to trick Wallace or Wallace himself posing as such a person, might use it as a ruse. (I think Wallace himself said he thought it would carry a hefty endowment.)

The operators said the caller sounded like an older man with a gruff voice...if the killer really was John Johnston like Slemen suggested then this would make sense, as there would be no reason for him to hide his voice in the planning of a quick little robbery. It would then also make more sense of why get WHW out of the house if Julia was still there, if they planned to lure her out with the cat (no evidence for this though, pure conjecture by Slemen.) I think the Johnstons had kids or grandkids staying there, does anyone know if they were around 21? Not saying I buy this theory at all, I think it's outrageous Slemen claimed to have solved it and unlikely John Johnston killed Julia after being caught stealing. Because again, JW was attacked from behind with no sign of struggle, and money was not taken that could have been. Looks like an assassin's work. Just trying to consider every scenario and narrow down the possible suspect's.

It seems most of us agree the killer was someone Julia knew, or in Rod's theory someone who was working with someone she knew and who could use a pretext to enter the house. This narrows down the suspect list away from a random stranger/the Anfield Housebreaker. (unless "Qualtrough" was also the Anfield Housebreaker.)

I don't think this case is solvable unfortunately though. Like JTR, it will live on in lore in part due to its unresolved status.

[OneRound]

Hi AS,

I was considering an unlikely scenario. Thus, let's say Wallace decides to murder his wife but realises he needs an alibi. After all, as the husband he's bound to be a suspect. He therefore approaches an unwitting Parry and informs him that he's having an affair with a woman who he just has to see on the 20th. However, he obviously has to have an excuse for leaving the house, especially as his wife is the suspicious type, and therefore asks Parry if he'll do him a small favour: pretending to be a potential new client-Qualtrough (Wallace can't be Qualtrough because there's too big a risk that his voice will be recognized). He says to Parry that, as a fellow red-blooded male, he's sure he'll understand, and possibly offers him a small cash inducement for his trouble.

Of course, one problem is: why did Parry phone from Wallace's local phone box? However, Wallace could have arranged to me meet him, as he left for the Chess club, to confirm arrangementss and to make sure he was still prepared to go ahead with it.

Afterwards, Parry realises, belatedly, that he's been duped but remains silent in case he's suspected as being an accomplice to murder.

What do you think?

Hi John,

I readily acknowledge that I have much to learn about this enigmatic case and so am reluctant to cast aside any possible scenarios. However, I do struggle with this one. For Wallace to have plotted and acted as you speculate, he would have been running the risk of Parry subsequently spilling the beans to the police or even blackmailing him. Too big and dangerous a risk to run imo.

Best regards,

OneRound

[RodCrosby]

Not to mention why does Wallace need Parry, or anyone in the world for that matter, to ring the chess club to set up a spurious appointment?

He could just invent a reason to tell Julia why he was going out for an secret assignation.

I fear we're moving away from facts and logic to the realms of fantasy again...

[John G]

Hi John,

I readily acknowledge that I have much to learn about this enigmatic case and so am reluctant to cast aside any possible scenarios. However, I do struggle with this one. For Wallace to have plotted and acted as you speculate, he would have been running the risk of Parry subsequently spilling the beans to the police or even blackmailing him. Too big and dangerous a risk to run imo.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Yes, as I pointed out in my post it's an unlikely scenario. However, I would point out that Parry would, in my opinion, be unlikely to go to the police for fear of being accused of being an accessory.

[John G]

Not to mention why does Wallace need Parry, or anyone in the world for that matter, to ring the chess club to set up a spurious appointment?

He could just invent a reason to tell Julia why he was going out for an secret assignation.

I fear we're moving away from facts and logic to the realms of fantasy again...

Unless he was trying to set Parry up as an alternative suspect, or a telecast muddy the waters, i.e perhaps hoping someone would recognize his voice.

[RodCrosby]

And Parry wouldn't suspect he was being set-up for something?

I would, knowing the tale I was being told was obvious nonsense...

[John G]

And Parry wouldn't suspect he was being set-up for something?

I would, knowing the tale I was being told was obvious nonsense...

As I said, it's an unlikely scenario, and certainly not my favoured alternative. However, the difficulty is I haven't seen a scenario yet which isn't implausible.

And from Parry's perspective, he may have arrogantly believed that Wallace wouldn't even attempt to hoodwink him.

[John G]

One of the major difficulties for me is that any attempt at a solution inevitably means being highly selective with the evidence.

For instance, it's tempting to dismiss Lily Hall's evidence. I myself have pointed out a number of problems. However, there's no substantive evidence that she actually lied or even exaggerated. And if she was telling the truth, Wallace is deeply implicated.

On the other hand Parkes' evidence, which is deeply damming for Parry, raises serious questions. Firstly, why did he wait nearly half a century before coming forward publicly? And isn't suspicious that he only came forward after all of the other protagonists-people who might contradict him-had died?

And isn't his evidence just too good to be true? As I've noted before, I find it hard to believe that Parry would have been idiotic enough to give Parkes what amounted to a virtually confession to murder, at least as an accessory, especially as he was clearly no friend of Parry's.

What also needs to be considered is that Parry allegedly came to the garage several hours after the murder was committed, so if he was involved he had plenty of time to compose himself and to work out exactly what he was going to say.

[RodCrosby]

Hall could simply be mistaken. Eyewitnesses often are.

Parkes did come forward in 1931. He has a supporting witness that he "came forward" the morning after the murder, but was dissuaded from going further by a "Conspiracy of Silence", until after Wallace as convicted.

Parry was at Lily's until 11pm on the night of the murder, and may only have realised how much trouble he was in once he went home. People often implicate themselves when under stress or in a panic.

And Parry had already implicated himself, once to Lily Lloyd prior to the murder, and twice to the Police, after the murder....

[John G]

Hall could simply be mistaken. Eyewitnesses often are.

Parkes did come forward in 1931. He has a supporting witness that he "came forward" the morning after the murder, but was dissuaded from going further by a "Conspiracy of Silence", until after Wallace as convicted.

Parry was at Lily's until 11pm on the night of the murder, and may only have realised how much trouble he was in once he went home. People often implicate themselves when under stress or in a panic.

And Parry had already implicated himself, once to Lily Lloyd prior to the murder, and twice to the Police, after the murder....

Okay, Hall could, of course, be mistaken, and I have already submitted a post critical of her evidence.

Nonetheless, in the interest of objectivity, I will now consider her evidence from a more positive perspective. Firstly, although Hall said she knew Wallace only by sight he was very distinctive looking and, according to her, there was a street lamp. Moreover, she claimed to have known him for about 3 years. In fact, even Wallace, whilst giving evidence at the trial, acknowledged she may have known him: "Possibly. I do not know."

Secondly, she claimed to have seen Wallace at exactly the time you would have expected him to be returning home meaning, if she was wrong, it must have been a huge coincidence. Furthermore, no one else came forward for elimination purposes. Of course, she may have garnered some details from newspaper headlines, but that would imply she was lying. And, if that was the case, she must have been seriously disturbed, bearing in mind she gave evidence at Wallace's trial under oath, and was effectively implicating him in a murder conspiracy.

Thirdly, although she didn't come forward immediately this could be explained: she was, apparently, ill in bed and, after all, on the face of it she had only witnessed what appeared to be an every day event: two people having a conversation. It is only context, that Hall may not have initially considered, particularly if she was ill, that suggests this event was suspicious.

Finally, I would note that the Inner City Living site is still stating that Hall fell apart in the witness box, which is clearly contradicted by the transcript of the evidence published in Anthony's book.

[AmericanSherlock]

I I think John makes very good points. I wasnt aware of all this regarding Lily Hall and her testimony. Not sure what to make of it.

Rod, I don't think there is any theory that isn't fraught with some problems.

[RodCrosby]

If you focus on the uncontroverted evidence, the solution is clear, and would have led a jury to convict, I believe - had there been a proper charge which could have been made against Parry in 1931, which alas there may not have been owing to the technicalities of the law at that time.