Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi Herlock,

The observations made by people who knew the Wallace's are interesting, but what do they amount to? The usual kind of tittle-tattle that you would expect when someone's been accused of murdering his wife-and the nurse hardly seemed to know the couple well at all, visiting for just three weeks during strained circumstances.

The fact is no one who knew the couple well suggested there was any serious marital discord-not even Parry , who described them as a "devoted couple", or the next door neighbours.

However, we need to focus on the most important argument: could Wallace have physically committed the murder? The answer to that question I think has to be no, although that doesn't rule out a possible accomplice based on Hall's evidence.

Thus, if you accept Wildman's timings, which I do, it would be practically impossible for Wallace to have committed the murder, washed away all forensic traces, staged a robbery, dressed himself, and then to have taken a steady walk to the tram There simply wasn't enough time.

However, if that's not problematic enough, the forensic evidence effectively exonerates him. The sinks, drains, towels and Wallace's clothing were subjected to the Benzidine blood test-a test even more accurate than modern tests-and not a microscopic sample of blood was detected. And Charles St Hill, the pathologist, said blood would have been found (this is hardly surprising considering that even the prosecution's forensic experts acknowledged that the perpetrator would have got some blood on his person.

Regarding Parry, I accept that the Qualtrough call is highly important, and in this respect Parry is by far the most likely person to have made it: He belonged to an amateur dramatics group, had a history of making hoax calls (according to Parkes) and lied about his alibi for the call.

And what of his alibi for the time of the murder? What does it amount to? Parry, Brine and Dennison all suspiciously say he'd left at "around 8:30." However, Parry had known Brine for two years, and her husband was at sea; it's therefore possible that they were having an affair and Parry blackmailed her. As for Dennison, he was related to Brine, so may have been persuaded to go along with things. Moreover, how did he know it was "around 8:30"? Did he even possess a watch? Wildman and Close, who were of a similar age, didn't, a Close didn't seem to have a clue what time he delivered the milk at, despite the delivery being part of his regular round. Maybe Dennison just simply agreed with Olivia and Gordon because he wasn't really sure and he had no reason to doubt them.

And what of Parkes' evidence? It deeply implicates Parry and I don't believe he completely lied, particularly as Dolly Atkinson and Gordon Williamson offer support (although I think he probably exaggerated). Maybe Parry didn't intend murder and decided to unburden himself to someone he didn't perceive as a threat.

Hi John, I think Parry's alibi for the night of the murder was more legitimate than the phone call. You make a good point in regards to the "about 830" sounding rehearsed... However, I would be surprised if he wasn't at the Brine's house for some time on the evening of the 20th and it would be hard for me to see him leaving there and knocking off JW.

I think Parkes testimony is bogus...I'd like very much to know exactly what Jonathan Goodman did to track him down...and how his original story came about (before the Radio City production)

On the other hand, it does seem as if Parry is the best candidate for making the call on the face of it, doesn't it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Hi John

The observations made by people who knew the Wallace's are interesting, but what do they amount to? The usual kind of tittle-tattle that you would expect when someone's been accused of murdering his wife-and the nurse hardly seemed to know the couple well at all, visiting for just three weeks during strained circumstances.

The fact is no one who knew the couple well suggested there was any serious marital discord-not even Parry , who described them as a "devoted couple", or the next door neighbours.

I have to say that I find it hard to dismiss these views as tittle tattle. What reason would Dr Curwen have for example to give a misleading statement? Whether it points to a motive or not I still get the strong impression that this wasn’t a completely happy marriage. I accept that I could be wrong though.

However, we need to focus on the most important argument: could Wallace have physically committed the murder? The answer to that question I think has to be no, although that doesn't rule out a possible accomplice based on Hall's evidence.

Thus, if you accept Wildman's timings, which I do, it would be practically impossible for Wallace to have committed the murder, washed away all forensic traces, staged a robbery, dressed himself, and then to have taken a steady walk to the tram There simply wasn't enough time.

I agree that the timing is tight John but I don’t think it would have been impossible and, for me, to exonerate Wallace completely we would need to show that it was impossible. Can we be certain that he would have gotten much blood on his clothes? So would he have needed to dress himself? I don’t see much evidence of ‘staging’ a robbery. The cash box was even returned to its original spot.

However, if that's not problematic enough, the forensic evidence effectively exonerates him. The sinks, drains, towels and Wallace's clothing were subjected to the Benzidine blood test-a test even more accurate than modern tests-and not a microscopic sample of blood was detected. And Charles St Hill, the pathologist, said blood would have been found (this is hardly surprising considering that even the prosecution's forensic experts acknowledged that the perpetrator would have got some blood on his person.

I can’t argue with any of that John. Unless he in some way managed to completely avoid blood contamination?

Regarding Parry, I accept that the Qualtrough call is highly important, and in this respect Parry is by far the most likely person to have made it: He belonged to an amateur dramatics group, had a history of making hoax calls (according to Parkes) and lied about his alibi for the call.

I wonder if Wallace could have just used Parry for the phone call without him being involved in the murder? After all, after the murder it’s unlikely that Parry would come forward and admit to making the call and risk being under suspicion of being involved in Julia’s death.

And what of his alibi for the time of the murder? What does it amount to? Parry, Brine and Dennison all suspiciously say he'd left at "around 8:30." However, Parry had known Brine for two years, and her husband was at sea; it's therefore possible that they were having an affair and Parry blackmailed her. As for Dennison, he was related to Brine, so may have been persuaded to go along with things. Moreover, how did he know it was "around 8:30"? Did he even possess a watch? Wildman and Close, who were of a similar age, didn't, a Close didn't seem to have a clue what time he delivered the milk at, despite the delivery being part of his regular round. Maybe Dennison just simply agreed with Olivia and Gordon because he wasn't really sure and he had no reason to doubt them.

Agreed. His alibi is hardly watertight considering who was providing it for him.

And what of Parkes' evidence? It deeply implicates Parry and I don't believe he completely lied, particularly as Dolly Atkinson and Gordon Williamson offer support (although I think he probably exaggerated). Maybe Parry didn't intend murder and decided to unburden himself to someone he didn't perceive as a threat.

I can’t recall if anyone has proposed a reason why Parkes would lie? I seem to recall that he didn’t like Parry but it’s a leap from ‘dislike’ to trying to get someone hanged.

My opinion waivers by the hour on this case John! The only thing that I even approach certainty on is that I can’t see any involvement for Marsden.

[John G]

Hi John, I think Parry's alibi for the night of the murder was more legitimate than the phone call. You make a good point in regards to the "about 830" sounding rehearsed... However, I would be surprised if he wasn't at the Brine's house for some time on the evening of the 20th and it would be hard for me to see him leaving there and knocking off JW.

I think Parkes testimony is bogus...I'd like very much to know exactly what Jonathan Goodman did to track him down...and how his original story came about (before the Radio City production)

On the other hand, it does seem as if Parry is the best candidate for making the call on the face of it, doesn't it?

Hi AS,

According to Parry he arrived at the Brine residence at about 5:30pm; Harold Denison arrived after Parry, at 6:00pm.

Clearly then, Parry stayed for a considerable period. However, I think this makes it even more likely that, say, Denison would have supported his alibi. Thus, over such a significant period Denison, who may not have possessed a watch-if he did, he didn't refer to it when Parry left, because he was only able to estimate the time-could easily have lost track of the time. In such circumstances, he may have been reluctant to contradict Parry, deciding to give him the benefit of the doubt even if he suspected he left earlier than stated.

I also think that Parry, with his flashy manner and flashy car, would have impressed an impressionable teenager. Again, in such circumstances, Denison might have been unwilling to drop him in it.

And, of course, if Denison had stated that Parry left appreciably earlier than he claimed, he also risked implicating a close relative in some sort of conspiracy. Would he have risked that, considering that the police seemed to think that Wallace was responsible for the murder anyway?

As noted, Olivia Brine could have had another motive to be economically with the truth, i.e. she might have been having an affair with Parry.

Incidentally, in his book CCJ highlights an interesting issue with Brine's and Denison's respective statements: they are both recorded as using exactly the same wording: "He remained till about 8:30pm when he left."

However, I can't see Parry being responsible unless he travelled by car. And that creates a difficulty: why did no-one report seeing the vehicle, or a similar vehicle, on Wallace's estate? I mean, from memory it was quite a showy red car that would have stood out, particularly as car ownership was uncommon at this time: there were around 1 million vehicles on Britain's roads in 1930; this might seem a lot, but it compares with about 30 million today.

I also agree that Parry is by far the best candidate for the Qualtrough call.

Regarding Parkes, I certainly think he exaggerated, and may have misremembered facts over the intervening period of almost fifty years. However, I don't think he completely made up the story. For a start, I doubt he would have had the wit to construct such an elaborate fallacy. And then there's the supporting account of Dolly Atkinson. Why would she lie? Okay, she doesn't go into much detail, but she's clear when she says that Parkes wouldn't have made up the story, and she obviously knew him well so was in a good position to judge his honesty. Moreover, she also refers to "the blood", and indicates that Parkes first told the story shortly after the murder.

Overall I would say that Parry did have a conversation with Parkes, and that he did appear to implicate himself in some way, but not to the extent that Parkes subsequently suggests.

[John G]

My opinion waivers by the hour on this case John! The only thing that I even approach certainty on is that I can’t see any involvement for Marsden.

I keep changing my opinion, too, Herlock! The only thing I'm reasonably confident about is that, if Wallace was involved, he couldn't have acted alone.

I agree with you about Parkes. He may have misremebered certain facts over the passage of time, or even exaggerated, but I doubt he would have lied. And, as I noted in my reply to AS, Dolly Atkinson didn't believe for a second that he would have lied, and as she obviously knew him well at the time of the events, she was clearly in a position to judge his character.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I keep changing my opinion, too, Herlock! The only thing I'm reasonably confident about is that, if Wallace was involved, he couldn't have acted alone.

I agree with you about Parkes. He may have misremebered certain facts over the passage of time, or even exaggerated, but I doubt he would have lied. And, as I noted in my reply to AS, Dolly Atkinson didn't believe for a second that he would have lied, and as she obviously knew him well at the time of the events, she was clearly in a position to judge his character.

It’s possibly not a major point but I keep wondering if the usually cautious and conventional Wallace would have made the phone call with the risk of his voice being identified by whichever club member he’d have spoken to. What if Caird had been there and the waitress had have passed the phone to him? Surely there would be a chance, no matter how he disguised his voice, that he might have been recognised. Even if in answer to a question by the police someone might have said ‘well it might have sounded a bit like him.’

As for Parkes, it’s difficult to believe that he would be willing to possibly send someone to the gallows with lie. Even someone he didn’t particularly like.

I may have missed it but did the police search for the weapon where Parry was alleged to have dumped it?

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

According to Parry he arrived at the Brine residence at about 5:30pm; Harold Denison arrived after Parry, at 6:00pm.

Clearly then, Parry stayed for a considerable period. However, I think this makes it even more likely that, say, Denison would have supported his alibi. Thus, over such a significant period Denison, who may not have possessed a watch-if he did, he didn't refer to it when Parry left, because he was only able to estimate the time-could easily have lost track of the time. In such circumstances, he may have been reluctant to contradict Parry, deciding to give him the benefit of the doubt even if he suspected he left earlier than stated.

I also think that Parry, with his flashy manner and flashy car, would have impressed an impressionable teenager. Again, in such circumstances, Denison might have been unwilling to drop him in it.

And, of course, if Denison had stated that Parry left appreciably earlier than he claimed, he also risked implicating a close relative in some sort of conspiracy. Would he have risked that, considering that the police seemed to think that Wallace was responsible for the murder anyway?

As noted, Olivia Brine could have had another motive to be economically with the truth, i.e. she might have been having an affair with Parry.

Incidentally, in his book CCJ highlights an interesting issue with Brine's and Denison's respective statements: they are both recorded as using exactly the same wording: "He remained till about 8:30pm when he left."

However, I can't see Parry being responsible unless he travelled by car. And that creates a difficulty: why did no-one report seeing the vehicle, or a similar vehicle, on Wallace's estate? I mean, from memory it was quite a showy red car that would have stood out, particularly as car ownership was uncommon at this time: there were around 1 million vehicles on Britain's roads in 1930; this might seem a lot, but it compares with about 30 million today.

I also agree that Parry is by far the best candidate for the Qualtrough call.

Regarding Parkes, I certainly think he exaggerated, and may have misremembered facts over the intervening period of almost fifty years. However, I don't think he completely made up the story. For a start, I doubt he would have had the wit to construct such an elaborate fallacy. And then there's the supporting account of Dolly Atkinson. Why would she lie? Okay, she doesn't go into much detail, but she's clear when she says that Parkes wouldn't have made up the story, and she obviously knew him well so was in a good position to judge his honesty. Moreover, she also refers to "the blood", and indicates that Parkes first told the story shortly after the murder.

Overall I would say that Parry did have a conversation with Parkes, and that he did appear to implicate himself in some way, but not to the extent that Parkes subsequently suggests.

Some good points, I still find it difficult to discount the evidence of Lily Hall completely. She turned out to be a much better witness than I had thought initially, my opinion on the veracity of her statements changed significantly for the better upon reading the trial transcript. It should give cause to pause for those who believe Wallace wasn't involved at all, I think.

[AmericanSherlock]

It’s possibly not a major point but I keep wondering if the usually cautious and conventional Wallace would have made the phone call with the risk of his voice being identified by whichever club member he’d have spoken to. What if Caird had been there and the waitress had have passed the phone to him? Surely there would be a chance, no matter how he disguised his voice, that he might have been recognised. Even if in answer to a question by the police someone might have said ‘well it might have sounded a bit like him.’

As for Parkes, it’s difficult to believe that he would be willing to possibly send someone to the gallows with lie. Even someone he didn’t particularly like.

I may have missed it but did the police search for the weapon where Parry was alleged to have dumped it?

Parkes only came forward after the death of Parry which occurred in April 1980, 9 months before the Radio City presentation on the 50th anniversary of the murder in January 1981. For the same reason, Goodman refers to Parry as Mr. X in his book.

[John G]

It’s possibly not a major point but I keep wondering if the usually cautious and conventional Wallace would have made the phone call with the risk of his voice being identified by whichever club member he’d have spoken to. What if Caird had been there and the waitress had have passed the phone to him? Surely there would be a chance, no matter how he disguised his voice, that he might have been recognised. Even if in answer to a question by the police someone might have said ‘well it might have sounded a bit like him.’

As for Parkes, it’s difficult to believe that he would be willing to possibly send someone to the gallows with lie. Even someone he didn’t particularly like.

I may have missed it but did the police search for the weapon where Parry was alleged to have dumped it?

Apparently after Wallace was found guilty Atkinson spoke to Superintendent Moore, but he supposedly refused to believe the story.

According to Parkes, Parry admitted to disposing of an iron bar down a grid outside a doctors on Priory Road. There were in fact two doctors practicing at that location and there are grids outside of both-they were never searched.

Interestingly, years after the event, Ada Pritchard told a researcher that Parry's parents visited her father two days after the murder (they were close friends). She overheard their conversation by listening at the door, during which the parents asked her father to smuggle Gordon out of the country. She also said that her parents subsequently had a blazing row, and her mother told her father not to help Gordon escape the punishment he deserved.

Of course, it could be argued that this story has weak evidential value, as it was told many years after the event, like Parkes's story. Nonetheless, we now have two people deeply implicating Parry. Where they both lying?

[John G]

This has been discussed before, but I think it's worthwhile to have a recap: If Wallace was the sole perpetrator, what did he do with the murder weapon?

The house, of course, was extensively searched, as was the local area, including the drains. And his options would have been severely limited. Thus, he could hardly have walked out of the house carrying a heavily blood stained iron bar. And if he tried to hide it under his coat, then his clothes would have been blood stained, but as we know they were forensically tested.

[AmericanSherlock]

This has been discussed before, but I think it's worthwhile to have a recap: If Wallace was the sole perpetrator, what did he do with the murder weapon?

The house, of course, was extensively searched, as was the local area, including the drains. And his options would have been severely limited. Thus, he could hardly have walked out of the house carrying a heavily blood stained iron bar. And if he tried to hide it under his coat, then his clothes would have been blood stained, but as we know they were forensically tested.

Whoever removed the weapon from the house made a huge mistake IMO as Dorothy Sayers points out. Clearly, it was a mistake this person was able to overcome.

[John G]

Parkes only came forward after the death of Parry which occurred in April 1980, 9 months before the Radio City presentation on the 50th anniversary of the murder in January 1981. For the same reason, Goodman refers to Parry as Mr. X in his book.

Of course, he might have been concerned about being sued for defamation whilst Parry was alive; after all, it was just one person's word against another's.

Nonetheless, the accounts of Dolly Atkinson and Leslie Williamson (I think I refered to him as Gordon earlier!) offer strong supporting evidence for Parkes recounting his story shortly after the murder . In other words, it wasn't just something he dreamt up after Parry died.

And what do you think of Dolly asserting that Parkes wouldn't have lied? She obviously knew him well at the time, so would probably have been aware if he was tge sort of character prone to telling fanciful stories.

[John G]

Some good points, I still find it difficult to discount the evidence of Lily Hall completely. She turned out to be a much better witness than I had thought initially, my opinion on the veracity of her statements changed significantly for the better upon reading the trial transcript. It should give cause to pause for those who believe Wallace wasn't involved at all, I think.

Thanks AS. I find Lily Hall an intrlguing witness. On one hand, she claimed to have known Wallace by sight for three or four years and, although it was dark, she said there was a lamp in the vicinity.

But, on the other hand, she'd never spoken to Wallace and took about a week before coming forward . However, hadn't she been ill in bed with the flu? Also, she mightn't have initially fully appreciated the importance of her sighting: after all, on the face of it it was just two men having a conversation.

That said, why did she pay so much attention to what was, after all, an everyday occurrence? In fact, she admitted under cross examination that she saw lots of other people and didnt pay much attention to them.

In fact, in this case she even continued her observations to witness the men parting, even noticing which direction each man went (would she have had to look over her shoulder to see this?)

However, we have to be even-handed. If it's to be argued that Parkes and Pritchard had no good reason to implicate an innocent man in a murder then the same argument must apply to Hall.

The timing of the sighting is also significant: it was 8:40, pretty much exactly the time that Wallace would have been returning home-he arrived at 8:45-which is a bit of a coincidence, to say the least, if were talking about a made up story or misidentification.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Parkes only came forward after the death of Parry which occurred in April 1980, 9 months before the Radio City presentation on the 50th anniversary of the murder in January 1981. For the same reason, Goodman refers to Parry as Mr. X in his book.

Whenever I feel that the level of posting is too high on a thread I like to chuck in a stupid comment like that one

Sorry guys. I’ll put my brain back on charge

[AmericanSherlock]

Whenever I feel that the level of posting is too high on a thread I like to chuck in a stupid comment like that one

Sorry guys. I’ll put my brain back on charge

No worries, it was a good point you made, I just happened to know that tidbit being a "Wallace geek".

The only unsolved case I know more about is probably Sam Sheppard, sort of an American version (in a very loose sense). I think there is about an equal probability of the guilt of Sam Sheppard and Wallace---high, but not definite. In both cases, there is a strong alternative suspect--- Richard Gordon Parry and Richard Eberling, but in the end I think the husbands were probably guilty.

[John G]

Whenever I feel that the level of posting is too high on a thread I like to chuck in a stupid comment like that one

Sorry guys. I’ll put my brain back on charge

I called Leslie Williamson Gordon Williamson! It's certainly a very confusing and complex case.