Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Graham]

HS, what you write could describe many, many late-life marriages, but that does not necessarily suggest that the less-than-blissful members of such partnerships would batter each other over the head with a poker or whatever. Life's not like that. People tend to get on, whatever their circumstances.

Whatever other people might have thought of them, I really can't find any concrete reason why Wallace should have wanted his wife dead. If, as you suggest, his marriage to Julia was well-known by others to be a bit rocky, then surely he would automatically be suspect, yet as I understand it, people who didknow him and who might not have liked him, did not nevertheless knee-jerk towards branding him straightaway as his wife's killer.

The fact that Julia was somewhat older than William means nothing. I have a good friend who is about 20 years younger than his (seriously-ill and partially-immobile) wife, yet they are plainly devoted. Your argument in this respect holds very little water.

If I were running a book on who's favourite to be Mr Murderer in this case, it would be odd-on Gordon Parry.

Graham

[AmericanSherlock]

HS, what you write could describe many, many late-life marriages, but that does not necessarily suggest that the less-than-blissful members of such partnerships would batter each other over the head with a poker or whatever. Life's not like that. People tend to get on, whatever their circumstances.

Whatever other people might have thought of them, I really can't find any concrete reason why Wallace should have wanted his wife dead. If, as you suggest, his marriage to Julia was well-known by others to be a bit rocky, then surely he would automatically be suspect, yet as I understand it, people who didknow him and who might not have liked him, did not nevertheless knee-jerk towards branding him straightaway as his wife's killer.

The fact that Julia was somewhat older than William means nothing. I have a good friend who is about 20 years younger than his (seriously-ill and partially-immobile) wife, yet they are plainly devoted. Your argument in this respect holds very little water.

If I were running a book on who's favourite to be Mr Murderer in this case, it would be odd-on Gordon Parry.

Graham

Hi Graham,

I think your tone in this post is unwarranted.

Whenever anyone asks "what was the motive?" it is easy to discount the response with "well I know tons of couples like x, y, and z and the husbands aren't murderers etc..." that isn't the point...

The point is if the question "what was the motive?" is meant to insinuate that there couldn't possibly be a motive, then I think that line of thought has good counterpoints to it, which Herlock laid out.

Of course not every man with an older, ailing wife (who lied about her age), or every man who had a stormy relationship with his spouse, bashed her head in. But I think pointing those things out in assessing the odds of what happened is important.

There are some couples where the odds of murder would seem very low. Even in these cases, you never know what goes on behind closed doors. But I would agree, there is definitely a type of couple, where the motive would seem non-existent and that could weigh into one's perception of whether the husband was likely guilty or innocent.

I would argue the Wallaces were decidedly NOT this type of "low spousal homicide risk" couple. Not that one would ever guess WHW would kill his wife, but rather that after the fact, I don't think it would make sense to act like there is no conceivable motive as a line of thought that would in any way mitigate any of the other facts of the case.

BTW, I'm 28 and my girlfriend is 31. She better watch it.

[Graham]

All well and good, AS, but if for a moment we assume that Wallace DID murder his wife, I ask again: what was his possible motive?

Graham

[John G]

HS, what you write could describe many, many late-life marriages, but that does not necessarily suggest that the less-than-blissful members of such partnerships would batter each other over the head with a poker or whatever. Life's not like that. People tend to get on, whatever their circumstances.

Whatever other people might have thought of them, I really can't find any concrete reason why Wallace should have wanted his wife dead. If, as you suggest, his marriage to Julia was well-known by others to be a bit rocky, then surely he would automatically be suspect, yet as I understand it, people who didknow him and who might not have liked him, did not nevertheless knee-jerk towards branding him straightaway as his wife's killer.

The fact that Julia was somewhat older than William means nothing. I have a good friend who is about 20 years younger than his (seriously-ill and partially-immobile) wife, yet they are plainly devoted. Your argument in this respect holds very little water.

If I were running a book on who's favourite to be Mr Murderer in this case, it would be odd-on Gordon Parry.

Graham

I would tend to agree with this. I consider Parry to be far the most likely suspect and I see no reason why Wallace would brutally murder his wife: at least with Parry, a petty criminal, robbery is a realistic motive.

In my opinion, arguing there may have been disharmony in the Wallaces' Marriage is putting the cart before the horse, I.e. assuming Wallace was guilty and then looking for a motive. There is, in fact, no substantive evidence that they had anything but a happy marriage: even Parry, who had every reason to argue otherwise, described them as a "devoted couple."

[Graham]

I would tend to agree with this. I consider Parry to be far the most likely suspect and I see no reason why Wallace would brutally murder his wife: at least with Parry, a petty criminal, robbery is a realistic motive.

In my opinion, arguing there may have been disharmony in the Wallaces' Marriage is putting the cart before the horse, I.e. assuming Wallace was guilty and then looking for a motive. There is, in fact, no substantive evidence that they had anything but a happy marriage: even Parry, who had every reason to argue otherwise, described them as a "devoted couple."

John, you are quite correct. It always struck me that, even at the time, is was generally assumed that William must have been the murderer, so to hang him all that was needed was a sound motive - which was never identified yet the jury brought in a 'Guilty' verdict anyway. Fortunately for William, the Judge realised that this was the situation, hence the reprieve and quashing of the sentence. I recall reading that after his ordeal Wallace made passionate entries into his diary, mourning the loss of his dear wife. Which of course means very little, but is nevertheless somewhat revealing.

Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

All well and good, AS, but if for a moment we assume that Wallace DID murder his wife, I ask again: what was his possible motive?

Graham

Just because we don’t have a concrete motive it doesn’t mean that Wallace couldn’t have been guilty. In many cases the motive isn’t known until the killer is reveals it. An unknown motive is not a tick in the innocent box. Just as a suggested motive is not a tick in the guilty box.

Of course it doesn’t necessarily follow that Wallace would resort to murder if (and I’m only saying ‘if’) the marriage was unhappy this might provide a motive. It might have been happy on the surface only with Wallace hiding how deeply unhappy he was living with a wife that was more and more resembling an aged and infirm mother.

[Herlock Sholmes]

John, you are quite correct. It always struck me that, even at the time, is was generally assumed that William must have been the murderer, so to hang him all that was needed was a sound motive - which was never identified. Fortunately for William, the Judge realised that this was the situation, hence the reprieve and quashing of the sentence. I recall reading that after his ordeal Wallace made passionate entries into his diary, mourning the loss of his dear wife. Which of course means very little, but is nevertheless somewhat revealing.

Graham

William’s release on appeal was absolutely nothing to do with a lack of motive. The judges felt that the conviction was unsafe based on evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would tend to agree with this. I consider Parry to be far the most likely suspect and I see no reason why Wallace would brutally murder his wife: at least with Parry, a petty criminal, robbery is a realistic motive.

In my opinion, arguing there may have been disharmony in the Wallaces' Marriage is putting the cart before the horse, I.e. assuming Wallace was guilty and then looking for a motive. There is, in fact, no substantive evidence that they had anything but a happy marriage: even Parry, who had every reason to argue otherwise, described them as a "devoted couple."

Sorry John but I can’t help thinking that on any other case the opinions of a char woman who was regularly at the house and saw them in their natural environment with no need for them to assume any kind of ‘public face;’ a respectable doctor who treated them both (in their home a nurse who treated William over a length of time (in their home) and a former colleague would not simply be brushed aside. As I’ve said before I’m not putting this forward as proof of unhappiness but, on from the other side; and in the interest of fairness we shouldn’t just dismiss as inconvenient the opinions of 4 people who, on the face of it, appear to have no reason to make things up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would tend to agree with this. I consider Parry to be far the most likely suspect and I see no reason why Wallace would brutally murder his wife: at least with Parry, a petty criminal, robbery is a realistic motive.

In my opinion, arguing there may have been disharmony in the Wallaces' Marriage is putting the cart before the horse, I.e. assuming Wallace was guilty and then looking for a motive. There is, in fact, no substantive evidence that they had anything but a happy marriage: even Parry, who had every reason to argue otherwise, described them as a "devoted couple."

The emboldened word is surely worth thinking about John?

Eleven blows with a heavy object is a frenzied attack by anyone’s standards. Far more than would be needed for a strong, fit young man like Parry to silence/kill a frail old woman like Julia.

And after this he robs the box and puts it neatly back on the shelf? It doesn’t ring true to me John.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry John but I can’t help thinking that on any other case the opinions of a char woman who was regularly at the house and saw them in their natural environment with no need for them to assume any kind of ‘public face;’ a respectable doctor who treated them both (in their home a nurse who treated William over a length of time (in their home) and a former colleague would not simply be brushed aside. As I’ve said before I’m not putting this forward as proof of unhappiness but, on from the other side; and in the interest of fairness we shouldn’t just dismiss as inconvenient the opinions of 4 people who, on the face of it, appear to have no reason to make things up.

It’s unimportant but I just wanted to point out that the ‘smiley’ was unintentional. I didn’t realise that I’d added it.

[OneRound]

Hi Graham

The char woman Sarah Draper said that they weren’t the happy couple that everyone believed.

Dr Louis Curwen, who attended them both in their home concluded that they didn’t lead the happy life that everyone supposed that they did.

Mr Wilson, matron of the Police Remand Home, who had previously nursed Wallace during an illness at his home said “their attitude toward each other appeared to be strained and that feeling of sympathy and confidence that one usually found between man and wife appeared to be entirely absent.”

Alfred Mather, a retired Prudential agent called Wallace “the most cool, calculating, despondent, soured man that he’d ever met,” and that he was a “bad tempered devil.”

Obviously these aren’t conclusive proofs but it’s difficult to completely dismiss them. Especially as 3 of them spent time with the Wallace’s in their home environment.

Also Julia was actually 16 years older than Wallace (a fact that she’d lied about) and in poor health. Wallace was 52 and might easily have felt that all he had to look forward to was a life nursing a frail old lady?

Hi Herlock and all - I appreciate we're only discussing possibilities here and that we cannot properly judge the mindset of Wallace or anyone else who may have been involved.

However, if Wallace was hacked off at discovering his sickly wife had lied to him about her age and was actually pushing 70, wouldn't he have been more likely to content himself with ''well, with a bit of luck, she'll peg it soon'' rather than coming up with some intricate plan to bash her skull in with a poker?

Best regards,

OneRound

[Graham]

I wasn't implying that lack of a visible motive automatically means that the accused is definitely innocent; nor would the presence of an obvious motive imply that he is definitely guilty. But courts do tend to place a degree of importance to motives, or lack of them. As I discovered many years ago when I served on the jury at a murder trial.

Now I've read nowhere near all the published material on this case, but I've read some, and recall that Colin Wilson mentioned that Wallace was intellectually-inclined, and following his study of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations became a stoic. That is, essentially, someone who expects little out of life, but is nevertheless perfectly happy to work hard and, hopefully, prosper; but if prosperity doesn't result, then the person won't be all that disappointed or concerned. Wallace and his wife were, it seems, of studious, intellectual natures, and basically retiring. If they had domestic arguments, then I don't recall reading that either of their next-door neighbours (they lived in a terrace) reported any raised voices, shouts, or sounds of violence. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

There is, from what I understand of the background to the case, a possible reason that the Wallaces may have had domestic disagreements, and that that he may well have married Julia for her money, which he used to pay off his debts. Now if there is one thing which will arouse domestic ire, it is money.....but I don't see any evidence that the subject of money ever came between them.

Another small but I think germane point: Julia was killed by a number of savage blows to the head. Can't quite relate this to William who, after all, had a home chemistry lab upstairs and, I feel, had he wished to rid himself of Julia would have done it via poison (and then, maybe, claim that she took it by accident when doing housework or whatever). William just doesn't seem the kind of bloke to whack a person to death. But there again, Ruth Ellis didn't seem the sort of person to shoot someone to death.

Intriguing case, to say the least.

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Herlock and all - I appreciate we're only discussing possibilities here and that we cannot properly judge the mindset of Wallace or anyone else who may have been involved.

However, if Wallace was hacked off at discovering his sickly wife had lied to him about her age and was actually pushing 70, wouldn't he have been more likely to content himself with ''well, with a bit of luck, she'll peg it soon'' rather than coming up with some intricate plan to bash her skull in with a poker?

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OR,

yes indeed, we are only discussing possibilities, and what the witnesses mentioned by Herlock actually said about the Wallaces is simply heresay. In fact, even my best friends wouldn't deny that I myself am a bad-tempered so-and-so some of the time, but they don't condemn me for it!

And I mentioned above that it seems Wallace was an Aurelian Stoic, so what you say in your second paragraph strikes true. He might have 'had a word' with her, but I think he would quickly have learned to live with the fact that she'd told him a porkie about her age. But of course we don't really know what his reaction, if any, might have been.

Graham

PS: I see the A6 threads are very quiet at the moment.

[NickB]

PS: I see the A6 threads are very quiet at the moment.

Perhaps there is a settled conclusion now that Hanratty dunnit!

One of the things that betrays Hanratty’s guilt is how he is vague about what happened at the crucial time and precise about what happened either side.

This test cannot be applied in the same way to Wallace, but there are some aspects concerning the night of the murder that raise an eyebrow:

- apparently conflicting claims about whether his wife bolted the back-yard door;

- his claim that the Johnston’s came out of their house “quite accidentally” to be with him at the moment of discovery when they would have heard his knocking;

- his hesitancy in confirming to DC Moore that it was his mackintosh.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wasn't implying that lack of a visible motive automatically means that the accused is definitely innocent; nor would the presence of an obvious motive imply that he is definitely guilty. But courts do tend to place a degree of importance to motives, or lack of them. As I discovered many years ago when I served on the jury at a murder trial.

Now I've read nowhere near all the published material on this case, but I've read some, and recall that Colin Wilson mentioned that Wallace was intellectually-inclined, and following his study of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations became a stoic. That is, essentially, someone who expects little out of life, but is nevertheless perfectly happy to work hard and, hopefully, prosper; but if prosperity doesn't result, then the person won't be all that disappointed or concerned. Wallace and his wife were, it seems, of studious, intellectual natures, and basically retiring. If they had domestic arguments, then I don't recall reading that either of their next-door neighbours (they lived in a terrace) reported any raised voices, shouts, or sounds of violence. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

There is, from what I understand of the background to the case, a possible reason that the Wallaces may have had domestic disagreements, and that that he may well have married Julia for her money, which he used to pay off his debts. Now if there is one thing which will arouse domestic ire, it is money.....but I don't see any evidence that the subject of money ever came between them.

Another small but I think germane point: Julia was killed by a number of savage blows to the head. Can't quite relate this to William who, after all, had a home chemistry lab upstairs and, I feel, had he wished to rid himself of Julia would have done it via poison (and then, maybe, claim that she took it by accident when doing housework or whatever). William just doesn't seem the kind of bloke to whack a person to death. But there again, Ruth Ellis didn't seem the sort of person to shoot someone to death.

Intriguing case, to say the least.

Graham

I take all of you points Graham. They are all valid. And you are correct in that there were no external signs of discord like raised voices heard by neighbours etc. I would say though that motives aren’t always obvious, even when the culprit is discovered. As we don’t have a cast-iron motive we can only postulate especially since the case is largely a two-horse race between Wallace and Parry.

If we go for Parry, with robbery as the motive, there are also objections.

Parry would have known the best time to get away with the most cash (and it wasn’t on a Tuesday.)

It’s a leap from being a petty criminal (yes, I accept that if he was guilty of the assualt on the young woman, it can’t be considered ‘petty’) to a frenzied attack of eleven blows. Risking the gallows if caught.


Also, if we can be guilty of seeing ‘sinister’ behaviour in an ordinary, well-respected guy like Wallace aren’t we also in danger of taking the alternative attitude of ‘Parry was a low-life criminal who needed cash. Taking a life would be part of the territory for him.’ When interviewed by Goodman and Whittington-Egan years later he said that he was very fond of Julia (I can’t recall the exact words.) He could have been lying of course but we can’t just assume so. Indeed it seems that they had spent a few musical evenings together so he may genuinely have been fond of her. How much less likely then would it have been that he’d be willing to bash her brains out? For a few quid.

I certainly take your point about Wallace not seeming the type. We also have to consider that Wallace was in poor health too unlike the vigorous, healthy Parry.

He could have used poison if he’d wanted to kill her but it would have been a huge risk in my opinion. There would only have to have been a suggestion/suspicion of foul play and the finger would have been pointed straight away at the man with the chemistry lab.

Intriguing is one word for the case Graham. Maddening is another!