Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS.

Good points.

I can’t recall which book I read it in but didn’t someone find an iron bar years later pushed to the back of the fireplace? Couldn’t this have been the murder weapon? If so then it would surely have been more likely to have been put there by Wallace. Perhaps he planned to put it there all along after first washing off any blood? I’m unsure though how accessible this part of the fireplace was though? Obviously Wallace wouldn’t have wanted to spend time dismantling the fireplace just to hide the weapon. But if it was fairly easy to get to, hidden amongst the dust and soot, could the police have known how long it had been there? As it happens the police didn’t look there.

It seems to me that if the weapon had been found, even with no prints, the police would have perhaps thought it more likely to have been used by Wallace. That a violent robber, willing to kill, wouldn’t have left it to chance to find a suitable weapon in the house.

On the subject of the mackintosh AS, the more I think about it the more I feel that it might have been used as a shield by Wallace. I can think of no other sensible reason why Julia would have had it with her. The only other suggestion that I mentioned previously was could she have been drying it in front of the fire over the back of a chair? I keep going for ‘shield’ though.

Hi Herlock, I agree with your points here. I just can't think what on earth the mackintosh was there for in that position, except as part of a planned shield type thing. It seems to fit with the fact that there was less blood than you would expect outside of the immediate vicinity leading away from the parlor. An effort at containment and minimization of blood splatter.

The only other explanation is Julia was wearing the mackintosh over her shoulders like a shawl for some reason; perhaps she was chilly. Again though, why on earth would a robber, having been caught in the act, attack Julia with her back to him in the process of putting out the fireplace, in a different room altogether from the cashbox, with a mackintosh draped over her head?

Does anyone think its possible the mackintosh was used to cover the weapon?

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

In respect of the murder weapon, I think it comes back to the basic problem: as regards Wallace, he had an incredibly small area where he could have realisticly disposed of it-essentially the house and the area between his address and tram stop-and this area was thoroughly searched by the police. Therefore, as I see it, baring a miraculous event, Wallace effectively exonerated on this ground alone.

Regarding any other possible suspect, all sorts of scenarios are possible. For instance, as you point out he could have taken the weapon with him becuse of the fingerprints issue; and I don't think wiping it on the heavily bloodstained Macintosh would have been a sensible option as he would have risked transfering even more blood to his person.

What about a garbage bin anywhere along the way? Keep in mind it was pitch black in Liverpool at that time. Or the grate theory that was applied to Parry based on Parkes testimony? I'm assuming you mean that in particular the route Wallace would have travelled at least on the way to the tram was known and therefore it would be extremely difficult for him to get rid of the weapon somewhere along the way without it being found. That is a good point indeed. And clearly it is difficult to imagine him carrying the weapon with him on the tram lol.

Or did Wallace have some plan and a place to hide it in the meantime until he could execute (no pun intended) his plan later? Remember he was only apprehended 2 weeks later. A culprit other than Wallace would definitely have an easier time in immediately getting rid of the weapon.

On the other hand, however I do find it quite odd the weapon was never found. It was either the iron bar (which I agree with you it probably was not) or it was something that was effectively disposed of (perhaps in a body of water etc.) so that it has never been found. This is not something I would tend to associate with a killer that has just committed likely his first murder and an unplanned one at that. I would expect a more messy disposal and the weapon being found eventually.

[OneRound]

Hi All,

As you know today is the 87th anniversary of the phone call to the club and tomorrow is the anniversary of the murder,

One further thought I had is that if the killer was not Wallace, the only reason he could have to take the weapon with him would be to avoid fingerprints being found, but there was a mackintosh right there ready made to wipe any off.

It seems unlikely a killer, hoping for a smooth entry and sneak theft would bring a weapon with him. If it was something he found in the house and used in the commission of the killing in a moment of panic or rage, then it simply does not make sense that he would risk taking it with him.

If the killer was Wallace, then it was a risky tactical error to get rid of the weapon in my opinion, but much more understandable how he could think it would be necessary. If this is really what happened, then it was a gamble that ended up working for him (Killers often attempt to get rid of weapons even if the weapon itself could not be proved to have been used by them; cases put forth against any defendant simply "seem" significantly compromised without a weapon being found.)

The lack of signs of a struggle, the money that could have been taken that wasn't (blood smeared notes), the cash box being replaced, the odd mackintosh positioning indicating pre-planning, the containment of the blood (it wasn't tracked out of the parlor), and the weapon being removed seem to me to all point towards careful planning and an inside job.

Hi AS and all - I certainly take the points in the highlighted paragraph. From examination of Julia's wounds, was any estimate able to made of the size and length of the murder weapon?

It would seem reasonable to think that the murder weapon would have to be fairly small if carried by and hidden on him by a sneak thief.

It also seems unlikely that a sneak thief picked up something in the house to kill Julia and then took it with him when he left. Had that occurred, wouldn't an innocent Wallace at some point have noticed it was missing and reported it to the police?

With thanks and best regards,

OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

I still find it extremely difficult to accept the ‘sneak thief’ scenario. The thief/killer could have been easily identified by Julia during any investigation. It’s even less likely if we accuse Parry (how could he have expected to steal the cash and remain uncharged?)
I also can’t help thinking that the savagery of the attack and the amount of blows point to more than ‘silencing.’ How many blows would it have taken a man with a heavy object to kill a slightly built and frail old lady like Julia?

Answering AS’s question about whether the mackintosh could have been used to cover the weapon- it could have been but I still favour it being used as a shield. Could Wallace (or whoever) have put the mackintosh over Julia’s head and bludgeoned her through it?

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi Herlock and One Round,

I agree with many of the points both of you made. It seems to me Julia Wallace was an intended victim. It is difficult therefore to see Wallace as innocent, because then that means someone else went there with the intention of murdering JW and framing WHW. Not so likely IMO.

[John G]

What about a garbage bin anywhere along the way? Keep in mind it was pitch black in Liverpool at that time. Or the grate theory that was applied to Parry based on Parkes testimony? I'm assuming you mean that in particular the route Wallace would have travelled at least on the way to the tram was known and therefore it would be extremely difficult for him to get rid of the weapon somewhere along the way without it being found. That is a good point indeed. And clearly it is difficult to imagine him carrying the weapon with him on the tram lol.

Or did Wallace have some plan and a place to hide it in the meantime until he could execute (no pun intended) his plan later? Remember he was only apprehended 2 weeks later. A culprit other than Wallace would definitely have an easier time in immediately getting rid of the weapon.

On the other hand, however I do find it quite odd the weapon was never found. It was either the iron bar (which I agree with you it probably was not) or it was something that was effectively disposed of (perhaps in a body of water etc.) so that it has never been found. This is not something I would tend to associate with a killer that has just committed likely his first murder and an unplanned one at that. I would expect a more messy disposal and the weapon being found eventually.

Hi AS,

Thanks. According to Superintendent Moore at the trial they searched everywhere between the back of Wolverton Street and the tram stop. In fact, they even searched some waste ground located just off Richmond Park. As regards the drains, the City Surveyor was called up to search the drains of the house. I assume the drains in the locality were also searched-it would have been extremely remiss of the police not to do so-but this isn't expressly stated at the trial.

I wondered myself if it could have been dropped into a bin. The problem is, in my experience waste bins are almost exclusively located at the back of the property, although I don't know if that was usual practice in 1930s Liverpool (maybe someone could find out!) Of course, if he had to access the back of a neighbouring property, assuming access was available anyway, he would have been taking a big risk on being caught or seen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AS,

Thanks. According to Superintendent Moore at the trial they searched everywhere between the back of Wolverton Street and the tram stop. In fact, they even searched some waste ground located just off Richmond Park. As regards the drains, the City Surveyor was called up to search the drains of the house. I assume the drains in the locality were also searched-it would have been extremely remiss of the police not to do so-but this isn't expressly stated at the trial.

I wondered myself if it could have been dropped into a bin. The problem is, in my experience waste bins are almost exclusively located at the back of the property, although I don't know if that was usual practice in 1930s Liverpool (maybe someone could find out!) Of course, if he had to access the back of a neighbouring property, assuming access was available anyway, he would have been taking a big risk on being caught or seen.

Hi John,

I had the same thoughts about the possibility of the murder weapon being dropped into a bin. I’d also assumed that bins would have been kept in the back yard or even in some kind of outhouse which would have made access risky at best.

I do have the trial transcript but haven’t gotten around to reading through it all yet. Did the police specifically say that they had actually dismantled the firegrate? I don’t want to harp on about the story of later residents finding an iton bar but if it’s stated that the police looked right to the back of the grate then it would pretty much be a case of ‘thats that.’ Without that certainty then it would be harder to dismiss the story.

[John G]

Hi John,

I had the same thoughts about the possibility of the murder weapon being dropped into a bin. I’d also assumed that bins would have been kept in the back yard or even in some kind of outhouse which would have made access risky at best.

I do have the trial transcript but haven’t gotten around to reading through it all yet. Did the police specifically say that they had actually dismantled the firegrate? I don’t want to harp on about the story of later residents finding an iton bar but if it’s stated that the police looked right to the back of the grate then it would pretty much be a case of ‘thats that.’ Without that certainty then it would be harder to dismiss the story.

Hi Herlock,

Sorry my memory seems to have let me down. There's only a very brief discussion at the trial about the search and they end up saying they searched everywhere. James Murphy, in his book, mentions that the police removed the fireplace for examination.

Now, he doesn't specifically say it was dismantled, but it must surely have been subjected to a thorough examination, considering they were searching for a crucial piece of evidence.

Moreover, if someone subsequently removed the piece of iron then it couldn't have been wedged in, meaning that it would presumably have rattled about as the police were removing, and replacing, the fireplace, thus alerting them to its presence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Sorry my memory seems to have let me down. There's only a very brief discussion at the trial about the search and they end up saying they searched everywhere. James Murphy, in his book, mentions that the police removed the fireplace for examination.

Now, he doesn't specifically say it was dismantled, but it must surely have been subjected to a thorough examination, considering they were searching for a crucial piece of evidence.

Moreover, if someone subsequently removed the piece of iron then it couldn't have been wedged in, meaning that it would presumably have rattled about as the police were removing, and replacing, the fireplace, thus alerting them to its presence.

Cheers for that John.

As you say, I think we have to consider it overwhelmingly likely that the police made a rigorous search for the murder weapon which would have had to have included a thorough look at the grate. I think I’ll have to file this particular story as ‘unlikely.’

[AmericanSherlock]

I am satisfied the iron bar found later was most likely either not the murder weapon or the entire story was bogus. I still wonder why the actual weapon was removed if it had not been something a sneak thief had brought with him, and that seems implausible to me. Even if one doesn't think the thief could wipe fingerprints off, what is the likelihood of someone planning a robbery and then snapping for some unknown reason and using a weapon FROM the house and then carrying it away with him AND Wallace not noticing anything missing.

As OneRound, pointed out, Wallace could not suggest what the weapon could be; he couldn't account for any common household missing that might have been the weapon (for ex. a candlestick, iron bar, wrench etc).

Maybe one could make the argument that the culprit carried a weapon that could also look innoucuous like a wrench with him everywhere in case confronted while committing robberies. But this implies a seasoned thief, like the Anfield Housebreaker, which does not jibe with the elaborate plot and the phone call the previous night. It also does not jibe with Parry (or Parry and someone else working in tandem) and as Herlock pointed out, how could anyone expect to get away with it if he were known to the Wallaces.

I think the evidence shows whoever was the murderer either specifically planned to kill Julia Wallace or at the very least was willing and open to that possibility.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Taking a simplified view I just can’t see why Parry would have gone to the needless trouble of the Qualtrough phone call? He knew Wallace was a member of the chess club. He’d have known which nights that the club met. There’s no reason why he would have been aware that Wallace didn’t attend every single meeting. He could easily have loitered around on chess night and entered when he saw Wallace leave.
The Qualtrough plan just introduced unnecessary risks: a) Wallace might have decided to ignore the message and not go to MGE. b) The message might not have been passed on to Wallace. c) Wallace might have actually been at the club to take the call. For me, Wallace is the only one that benefitted from a ‘plan.’

A question of geography?

I’m not at home at the moment and so can’t access any books (also I’m not really familiar with the locations.) Was the phonebox on Wallace’s likeliest route to the chess club?

[AmericanSherlock]

Taking a simplified view I just can’t see why Parry would have gone to the needless trouble of the Qualtrough phone call? He knew Wallace was a member of the chess club. He’d have known which nights that the club met. There’s no reason why he would have been aware that Wallace didn’t attend every single meeting. He could easily have loitered around on chess night and entered when he saw Wallace leave.
The Qualtrough plan just introduced unnecessary risks: a) Wallace might have decided to ignore the message and not go to MGE. b) The message might not have been passed on to Wallace. c) Wallace might have actually been at the club to take the call. For me, Wallace is the only one that benefitted from a ‘plan.’

A question of geography?

I’m not at home at the moment and so can’t access any books (also I’m not really familiar with the locations.) Was the phonebox on Wallace’s likeliest route to the chess club?

Excellent points with which I agree entirely. I know it has been claimed it is plausible he went in the other direction as he himself stated. However, my understanding is he could have gone in either direction or that it depends if he took the tram or quicker bus (JM asserts this as a possibilityin his book) and nobody, even those who have noted the tight time frame has ever suggested the location of the box prohibited Wallace from making the call and making it to the club when he did.

Please note he himself said he left at 715 and the call box location was traced due to a mechanical fault with the phone that the caller could not have foreseen. This was at 718 and 300 yards from Wallace's house...exactly a 3 minute walk.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AS,

I just wondered at the likelihood of Wallace passing the phonebox on the way to the Chess Club? If Parry had made the phone call wasn’t he taking an unnecessary risk of being seen by Wallace?

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

I just wondered at the likelihood of Wallace passing the phonebox on the way to the Chess Club? If Parry had made the phone call wasn’t he taking an unnecessary risk of being seen by Wallace?

I think so. If Parry made the call he almost certainly did so after seeing Wallace walk by. That's a great point. Also it implies that Wallace walked by or near the phone box in either scenario if you think about it...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think so. If Parry made the call he almost certainly did so after seeing Wallace walk by. That's a great point. Also it implies that Wallace walked by or near the phone box in either scenario if you think about it...

I’ve been thinking about that point for a while but I haven’t been able to check through the books and my knowledge is still that of a newbie. So I wasn’t sure of the likelihood that Wallace would have passed the phone box or what were the alternatives(and how likely they were.)

If you have time, just for my own understanding, could you explain what you mean by ‘either scenario,’ please. Also, is there a decent map of the area online which highlights the relevant locations (phone box, chess club, tram stops etc?) Id appreciate a link if possible. I need to become more familiar with the locale and routes etc. Cheers