Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[OneRound]

Thanks for that Caz. I might contact the tv company

Hi Herlock - an approach to the tv company might just result in success. Although the programme was made as far back as 1975, that was still three or four years after tapes had stopped being routinely wiped. Consequently, there has to be a decent chance it still exists. Whether it can be found may be another matter. I've looked before and again now on YouTube but with no joy.

I would love to be able to see the programme.

Best regards,

OneRound

[AmericanSherlock]

Thanks, AS.

As you appreciate, I'm not going to die in a ditch supporting the someone set out to humiliate Wallace and it all went horribly wrong scenario. Just putting it out there as a possibility for consideration.

My initial thoughts when I first came to look at this case was to be sympathetic towards Wallace and to attribute his odd behaviour to him being an odd individual. A rather lonely, downtrodden, sickly, geeky, chess playing, lowly insurance man - what more do you want?

However, various posts - particularly from you and Herlock (vey good recent one about the tram stops) - now make me feel I was originally too generous in respect of Wallace. Your reference to the numerous coincidences also certainly seems pertinent.

As a bit of an aside, it is a shame that Rod invites ridicule with the manner of his posts. He obviously has some knowledge concerning the case and a different take on things from many here. It would be good to sensibly debate matters from another viewpoint and is disappointing that he is unable to do that.

Best regards,

OneRound

OneRound,

I agree Wallace could have just been an odd personality. It certainly seems he was of a strange, sad, and rather "geeky" personality. One can find some sympathy for such a man, at least I can.

However, I still see many concerning coincidences that cannot be explained by Wallace's character.

Some of these like the timing of the call and the location of it have alternative explanations (if the killer/caller was someone else he would have stalked Wallace and called right after Wallace passed the box etc.) I find this straining credulity a bit, but it is not totally implausible.

However, some do not seem to me to have obvious explanations that could reconcile an innocent Wallace apart from unusual coincidence.

If Wallace were truly innocent, it would mean that the caller

1. Happened to choose the correct night to stalk Wallace and make the call to the club for the 1st time, after Wallace had missed the previous FOUR meetings at the chess club. Or conversely, he had tried this whole charade in the past and somehow was so into his convoluted plan that he was down to try it again after it failed when Wallace didn't show up.

2. Not only was relying on Wallace making it to the club that night, but was relying on the fact that the message would be remembered correctly, delivered, and followed up on the following night by Wallace, which would necessitate the caller going thru the whole thing the following night of stalking out Wallace and waiting for him to leave etc. before hitting up 29 Wolverton St.

3. Even if the plan was simply a prank that later went wrong (say the pranker(s) decided to see if Wallace was leaving the Tuesday night and then entered 29 Wolverton, to revel in it and chat up his clueless, friendly (although apparently suspicious and forlorn) elderly wife ), this would still mean that the perpetrators would have gotten awfully lucky that Wallace had actually gone on the journey, hadn't consulted a map, and had stayed out so long. They could have easily been caught in the act otherwise, despite the fact that their initial intention might have just been to laugh at the situation or Wallace when he returned, even if to themselves or himself (whether it was 1 or 2 people involved)

On the other hand Wallace if truly innocent would be very unlucky.

It would mean he

1. Left just at around the time where his candidacy could be considered quite plausible and only a few minutes after a milk boy, who was later than usual arrived. If he was guilty, he would have had to have waited for the milk boy to come and go as had happened. If he was innocent, he could have left whenever and if he had left before or even as the milk boy was there, he would be totally in the clear. One could also argue an earlier departure time would make more sense if innocent going to an address he did not know across town, of which he began asking desperately for almost right away. Consider he arrived in the area barely on time, if he had KNOWN the address.

2. Going on official business, somehow decided that despite the 400 other leads he called on that miserable day, that this was important enough to follow up on (understandable somewhat in regards to wanting a commission or being flattered by professional recognition), yet for the punctual, precise Wallace somehow NOT important enough to look at a map and realize MGE did not exist. Even if he had decided to go anyway and assumed the address was incorrectly transcribed (I've seen this argument before as to why he kept searching) it would take away a significant piece of his alibi--the asking incessantly about the phony address.

3. Fell hook line and sinker into a plot, whether or not it was a malicious murder/robbery plot or simply a mean prank, that implicated him horribly in his wife's murder when this would not have been the case if any number of things had shaken out differently.

He could have not decided go

He could have gone and come back early, perhaps he would have been in danger himself in such a scenario, but it would be unlikely he would be the sole suspect in his wife's murder as he was in 1931.

Julia could have not let in the killer, she almost certainly wouldn't if it wasn't someone she knew. If it was, she may or may not depending on how she felt etc. Remember she had a bad cold that night!


People in the neighborhood could have seen anything suspicious pointing to someone else. A car lingering on either of the 2 nights etc. The milk boys were observed for example, so this wouldn't be such a crazy thing to expect if another perpetrator drove away from the scene panicked.

None of these.

In regards to Rod,

I agree the man is obviously not stupid. For someone clearly competent to discuss the case, it is a shame he comports himself in the manner he does. Unfortunately, I have found out that intelligence (and I do think he is of a higher than normal aptitude) does not necessarily correlate with civil discourse or fair and logical thinking (not a criticism of his position which simply in my opinion is not likely, but of the complete certainty he ascribes to it). In fact, I would say often times intelligence seems directly inversely proportional to these 2 virtues!

If he came back and behaved in a different manner, I would be more than willing to let bygones be bygones and move on from any past squabbles to have a pleasant discourse about the case. I also engaged in some reactive back and forth posting which wasn't my finest moment, none of us are perfect and I don't hold a personal grudge; I have never met Rod and can only respond to how he portrays himself online.

It seems unlikely such a reconciliation would happen, but I would welcome him with open arms if it does. The more genuine people discussing this interesting case, the better in my opinion.

PS. In regards to the 1975 Who Killed Julia Wallace production, I believe someone had tried many years ago to get it replayed and the company simply and to the point wrote back "We have no plans to air that at this time"

In the era of Web 2.0 and youtube's endless catalogue of videos though, I somehow feel we might stand a better chance of getting this aired or at least available somewhere online.

[Spitfire]

Hi again Herlock - I actually thought that's the way you would go. Entirely fair and sensible to my mind.

I totally agree about a mock trial. In his later years, I became friendly with the late actor Eric Longworth (best known - if at all - for a small semi-recurring role in the UK comedy series Dads' Army). It was only after his death that I found out he had played the part of Wallace in a well regarded tv production of the case. I wish I had known that earlier and discussed the role with him.

Best regards,

OneRound

Eric's obituary, written by his son, seems to indicate that the actor thought his character guilty.

[AmericanSherlock]

Eric's obituary, written by his son, seems to indicate that the actor thought his character guilty.

Hi Spitfire,

Thanks for this

That is not surprising to me since I believe that production hints strongly at Wallace's guilt. So much so that Jonathan Goodman wrote an angry letter about it!

It also has no mention of Parry. The 1981 Radio City production finally naming Parry (Goodman did not do so until then as Parry was still alive in 1969 when his book was first published out of fear of libel laws), turned the case around in many's eyes.

The 1990 Man From the Pru hinted strongly at Parry's guilt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Questions.

After re-reading Murphy, and because im a bit bored at the moment, i thought that id list some questions/statements about the case. These are questions/statements id put to someone who believe Wallace innocent and Parry, or another, guilty.

1. As an unpremeditated killer would have been unlikely in the extreme to have taken any precautions against being covered in blood, and there was certainly no evidence of a clean-up. This speaks of a planned kill.

2. Eleven blows speaks of anger rather than a spur of the moment killing to silence.

3. Why would a spur-of-the-moment killer have taken the time to have turned off the downstairs lights?

4. Why would ‘Qualtrough’ have had any reasonable level of certainty that Wallace had ‘taken the bait’ when there were so many ways that the plan could have failed?

5. Why did Wallace, at his trial and in a statement to the police, indicate that on the monday evening, he went to a tram stop 3 times further away than the ones that have been suggested?

6. Why should be think that Parry’s alibi’s for the monday and tuesday were false? We have no evidence that witnesses lied.

7. Why should we accept Parkes unbelievable story as true?

8. Why did Wallace, on exiting the kitchen on the tuesday evening, and with the parlour door in touching distance, did he walk past it to go looking upstairs?

9. Why did a thief/killer not search drawers and Julia’s bag for cash? Why did he leave her jewellery untouched?

10. What reasonable/plausible other reason is there for the presence of Wallace’s mackintosh other than the possibilty that Wallace used it in some way to shield himself from blood?

11. Who was the only person that would have been certain that Wallace had fallen for the Qualtrough call? Only Wallace himself.

12. Who is the only suspect that can definitely be placed at the scene of the crime?

13. If we posit that thief would have had to have accepted the fact that Julia could have identified him why kill her if she’d caught him in the act?

14. Why didnt the thief go in while Wallace was at chess?

15. Because Wallace was an infrequent attender at the chess club how many times would Parry have been prepared to sit and wait for him to go to chess so that he could make the call? Especially if, as it has been alleged, that he was desperate for cash.

16. Why did Wallace not point the finger at Parry earlier but only after he was acquitted?

17. Why did no-one see or hear any strangers in Wolverton Street on the night of the murders? He would, after all, have knocked on the door and had a short conversation with Julia.

18. If a sneak-thief wore gloves, and its surely likely, why did he take away a weapon that couldnt have been connected to him in any way?

19. Why did Wallace persevere in his search after being told that MGE did not exist?

20. Why should we discount the inconvenient testimony of Curwen, Wilson and Mathers who spoke against the ‘happy marriage’ and Wallace’s character?

21. Why didnt the meticulous Wallace check the location of MGE during the day on Tuesday?

22. Why did Wallace initially keep quiet about having visited Crewe at his home?

23. Can any other suspect be placed near the scene of the crime that night?

24. If we discount the sneak-thief would a thief/killer have been likely to have replaced the cash box?

25. Who would have had access to chemicals which might jave helped in achieving a more thorough clean up?

26. Should we just dismiss the fact that the police, after a thorough investigation, believed that they had their man?

27. Who benefitted most from speaking in a ‘gruff’ voice to Beattie but a normal one to the phone operators but Wallace?

28. If we accept that there was anger/resentment/hatred in those 11 vicious blows who else but Wallace could be suspected?

29. If Wallace had a wash before going out on the tuesday why was the towel in the bathroom completely dry and yet the nail brush was still wet?

These were just thoughts that came to me in around an hour or so. There are more. Could anyone taking an unbiased view conclude other than the fact that Wallace is quite overwhelmingly the likeliest suspect. In fact i would go so far as to say that he is the only suspect for the murder of Julia.

[Pcdunn]

Herlock,

Re #2 about the eleven blows speaking to the killer being enraged at his victim, and probably a relative or acquaintance, I have come across a case of a serial rapist/murderer/ thief who targeted elderly women, strangers or near-strangers, and always used excessive brutality against them.

His name was Andrew Dillon, and his case was featured on the ID channel's true crime documentary series "The Coroner: I Speak for the Dead" featuring Dr. Graham Hetrick.

http://truthinjustice.org/gladden1.htm

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6739210/?ref_=ttep_ep3

I'm not saying you're wrong in pinning Julia's murder on her husband, but *sometimes* the less common suspect can be to blame. And sometimes burglars turn into murderers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

Re #2 about the eleven blows speaking to the killer being enraged at his victim, and probably a relative or acquaintance, I have come across a case of a serial rapist/murderer/ thief who targeted elderly women, strangers or near-strangers, and always used excessive brutality against them.

His name was Andrew Dillon, and his case was featured on the ID channel's true crime documentary series "The Coroner: I Speak for the Dead" featuring Dr. Graham Hetrick.

http://truthinjustice.org/gladden1.htm

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6739210/?ref_=ttep_ep3

I'm not saying you're wrong in pinning Julia's murder on her husband, but *sometimes* the less common suspect can be to blame. And sometimes burglars turn into murderers.

Thanks for that Pat

Youre absolutely right of course that nothing is ever black and white and that the brutality of the murder isnt an absolute clincher for the ‘Wallace was guilty’ side. If Parry had a sidekick for eg (which i dont believe he did) he ‘might’ have had a predisposition to excessive violence that came to the fore during the robbery. I do feel that its a likelier pointer to Wallace though.

[AmericanSherlock]

I would say the difference here is that the phonecall the night before implied a cool, calculated and premeditated plan. So the idea of a highly strung robber, who hadn't pre-planned his actions striking 11 times out of panic seems unrealistic.

I don't find the idea of some serial attacker plausible either, since this was the only crime of this type in Liverpool in 1931 and didn't resemble the Anfield Housebreaker either (which was non violent anyway).

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would say the difference here is that the phonecall the night before implied a cool, calculated and premeditated plan. So the idea of a highly strung robber, who hadn't pre-planned his actions striking 11 times out of panic seems unrealistic.

I don't find the idea of some serial attacker plausible either, since this was the only crime of this type in Liverpool in 1931 and didn't resemble the Anfield Housebreaker either (which was non violent anyway).

The killer had to be either Wallace or someone that talked his way inside. From what we know of Julia (from Wallace himself) that would have only have been someone that Julia knew (for eg Parry who had an alibi for the time.) The suggestion that this person could have been ‘Qualtrough’ isnt impossible but there is no evidence for it as opposed to the mountain of evidence that points to Wallace.

While not ‘concusive’ the brutality of the attack tends to point us towards anger, resentment, hatred etc rather than the idea of someone caught in the act (especially when the idea of being described/identified to the police would have been an accepted risk when going in.) Its hard to imagine that Julia would have taken much ‘silencing.’ Add to this a question like ‘why would a sneak-thief or thief-killer have taken the time to turn off all the downstairs lights after making the most feeble attempt at a robbery ever?’ and we cant help but turn in the direction of a planned kill with the phonecall as a ruse to allow Wallace to be far away from the crime scene.

[caz]

Hi All,

A guilty Wallace would have had to make absolutely sure he had killed Julia, so the number and force of the blows could have been a combination of repressed rage, finally coming out after all the careful planning, plus the need to ensure they would be fatal. She must have been a tough old bird in some ways if she could pass for a much younger woman.

Leaving very little blood or mess outside the parlour; turning off the downstairs lights; replacing the cash box; and finally removing the murder weapon from the house, all point to someone in the process of carrying out a premeditated crime, but one whose attention to detail was a character trait not easily deviated from, even when his 'tidiness' would have seemed inappropriate for an intruder.

Had there been a trail of blood from parlour to back door, for instance; had the lights been on and the cash box left open on the floor; and had the weapon been left, but with no fingerprints, this would all have been consistent with an intruder wearing gloves.

I don't believe this crime was committed by an intruder who went out of his way to make it look like Wallace, being too fastidious for his own good. It's simpler and makes more sense to see this as Wallace himself, being too Wallace-like for his own good.

Love,

Caz
X

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi All,

A guilty Wallace would have had to make absolutely sure he had killed Julia, so the number and force of the blows could have been a combination of repressed rage, finally coming out after all the careful planning, plus the need to ensure they would be fatal. She must have been a tough old bird in some ways if she could pass for a much younger woman.

Leaving very little blood or mess outside the parlour; turning off the downstairs lights; replacing the cash box; and finally removing the murder weapon from the house, all point to someone in the process of carrying out a premeditated crime, but one whose attention to detail was a character trait not easily deviated from, even when his 'tidiness' would have seemed inappropriate for an intruder.

Had there been a trail of blood from parlour to back door, for instance; had the lights been on and the cash box left open on the floor; and had the weapon been left, but with no fingerprints, this would all have been consistent with an intruder wearing gloves.

I don't believe this crime was committed by an intruder who went out of his way to make it look like Wallace, being too fastidious for his own good. It's simpler and makes more sense to see this as Wallace himself, being too Wallace-like for his own good.

Love,

Caz
X

I agree with the jist of this post.

I would say that the crime scene and structure of the whole story testifies against an intruder committing an unplanned murder due to panic.

Therefore excluding outlier and conspiracy theories, we are left with 2 options.

1. Wallace was the killer and deliberately sought to make it seem like someone else was, but made some mistakes characteristic of 1st time killers out of force of habit.

2. Someone else was a pre-meditated murderer and took enormous added unnecessary risk to make it seem like Wallace was the killer in a bizarre attempt to frame him for his wife's murder.

What makes more sense?

What seems more likely?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Caz and AS,

You’ll not be surprised to hear me totally agreeing with your 2 posts.

Everything points to this being an intended kill as opposed to a robbery gone wrong. Of course some go for the former but if we consider the latter to be likeliest there really is only one suspect.

It’s a pity that we can’t add a poll to this thread.

I have heard no argument that puts any serious doubt on Wallace’s guilt. Parry had alibi’s for the Monday and the Tuesday. To doubt them is to accuse people of lying to the police with no good grounds.

95% Wallace and rising.

[caz]

Hi Guys,

All a guilty Wallace really had to do was create just enough reasonable doubt that he could have done the deed in the time between the milk boy's latest possible departure and the earliest possible sighting of himself on the way to meet his non-existent prospective customer. He didn't actually need an alternative identity for Qualtrough, as long as nobody could prove it was Wallace himself. And with any doubt cast over his opportunity to commit the crime [and nothing whatsoever to prove the means or motive], Qualtrough could have been literally anyone. No other suspect is required when one can show reasonable doubt.

In this respect, it was a perfect murder, if Wallace planned to kill his wife and managed to get away with it - eventually. Most spouse killers slip up somewhere along the line because they didn't do enough to create that essential element of doubt, or because it was done in the heat of the moment, which often results in a confession when the evidence against them seems overwhelming.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Guys,

All a guilty Wallace really had to do was create just enough reasonable doubt that he could have done the deed in the time between the milk boy's latest possible departure and the earliest possible sighting of himself on the way to meet his non-existent prospective customer. He didn't actually need an alternative identity for Qualtrough, as long as nobody could prove it was Wallace himself. And with any doubt cast over his opportunity to commit the crime [and nothing whatsoever to prove the means or motive], Qualtrough could have been literally anyone. No other suspect is required when one can show reasonable doubt.

In this respect, it was a perfect murder, if Wallace planned to kill his wife and managed to get away with it - eventually. Most spouse killers slip up somewhere along the line because they didn't do enough to create that essential element of doubt, or because it was done in the heat of the moment, which often results in a confession when the evidence against them seems overwhelming.

Love,

Caz
X

Good points Caz

It might also be said that Wallace was the ‘perfect murderer. The mild-mannered, happily married, intelligent, cultured, chess-playing, respectable middle-aged insurance salesman with health issues.

Doubts were the key. They were all that he really needed. Apparently tight timings - surely he would have been splattered in blood? - what reason did he have to kill her? And it was these ‘doubts’ that saw him acquitted.

[AmericanSherlock]

I think the Qualtrough ruse, while we can poke (correct in my opinion!) holes in the likelihood of its genuineness, was the best alibi Wallace could hope for.

I've seen it argued that if he was really the killer , why not just kill Julia on the way to chess the Monday night and not introduce the whole Qualtrough business. But this offers no "alternative" suspect. The Anfield Housebreaker wasn't violent for example. And, for a self-styled intellectual man like Wallace, I'm sure a complex plot would be more to his liking than a random killing and hoping he could pass it off on an intruder.

The key point however is the Qualtrough plot actively shifts the focus onto an outsider, who could be absolutely anyone. Much more so than the passive suggestion of an intruder by way of staged robbery. (Which of course Wallace necessarily would have to do as well.) Everyone knows that if a spouse kills their loved one and seeks to get away with it, they must stage the crime scene. The "burden of logic" is in a way still on the spouse to demonstrate his innocence from a logical perspective in this scenario, whereas in the Qualtrough scenario, it sort of implies that someone else did the crime, and one has to demonstrate that Wallace masqueraded as Qualtrough.

Note: I'm using "burden of logic" in terms of a logical sense, not legally. It would still be on the prosecution of course to PROVE Wallace's guilt even if the logic points to him. That is the legal "burden of proof." But of course one is best served having the obvious implicit logic point away from him as the most likely perpetrator rather than towards him. The "Qualtrough Ruse" achieves that, whereas a random killing and staging, say on the Monday night would not achieve that. Of course, in my opinion, with careful analysis delving beyond the surface obvious implication that Wallace would not ring himself at the chess club (a significant psychological factor as to why Beattie might have been fooled IMO!), we can deduce that Wallace very likely was Qualtrough indeed. But it requires work and niggling doubts remain. If Wallace was in fact the killer, this was a very cleverly structured plot. However, he did make quite a few mistakes, mostly in execution but also somewhat in planning, although I would say if the killer, the overall jist of his plot was enough to create significant doubt despite these mistakes and therefore could be categorized in a broad sense as the perfect murder. With all I've indicated to point towards his guilt, there is an alternative explanation to each of my points, even if quite unlikely. There is still a sliver of reasonable doubt. I would have to acquit if I were a juror.

PS. Please note that if Wallace was not the killer, then there would be no need for the Qualtrough ruse, as the true killer could have visited on the Monday night himself! It is only Wallace who benefits from this subterfuge, not anyone else. This holds true whether the killing was planned or a robbery gone wrong. Only convoluted scenarios such as a prank call etc. can really reconcile this. This is why I say when one examines the logic in depth of the structure of this case, all signs point back to WHW.