Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is definite reasonable doubt here when considering the points you've made. Clearly you are correct in pointing out some of the difficulties in accepting WHW as the murderer.

I would argue that if Wallace was the killer, he simply would have to have been willing to take some risks. He would have gotten a kick out of the whole "clever plan". Let's keep in mind Wallace had severe health problems of his own and died only 2 years after the murder. (His poor health has been used actually to suggest he couldnt have carried out the attack in the time available etc.)

I can't help but think the killer had some technique to minimize blood splatter since there were no tracks leading out of the room and out of the house. Either the blood mess wasn't as significant as we think it was or (if you understandably think this is a ludicrous suggestion) then the killer had some plan in mind before committing the crime. Combine this with the Macintosh and Julia seemingly being struck from behind and there seems to have been foresight here which obviously points towards Wallace IMO.

I understand the drains were tested and not used but what do you make of there not being blood tracked towards the exit or really anywhere outside of the parlor? And what of the blood smeared note upstairs near the bathroom?

If the killer went upstairs it is strange he didn't take the money that was up there.

OK, a wild suggestion, could the killer have felled Julia with one blow and no blood on him, he then drapes the mackintosh over his left arm and uses it as a shield as he rains the other 10 blows?

[AmericanSherlock]

OK, a wild suggestion, could the killer have felled Julia with one blow and no blood on him, he then drapes the mackintosh over his left arm and uses it as a shield as he rains the other 10 blows?

Good idea I actually think all 11 blows could have been delivered with the Macintosh over the weapon (it has been noted there was no rust etc in the wounds)--although the reliability of this has been disputed.

If so, this would also clearly indicate pre planning.

[OneRound]

I found it interesting that Wallace's counsels seemed to have questions about his innocence. In Wilkes' book (which is very Pro Wallace and names Parry as the murderer) he concedes that a journalist spoke with counsel Hector Munro who had "a great deal of doubt on Wallace's innocence." Scholefield Allen his junior counsel has said he found it very strange for an innocent man to say to him "Well we won sonny, didn't we?" (Wallace said this to him on his death bed.) I don't know what Roland Oliver thought. I know Justice Wright thought he was guilty even though he correctly summed for acquittal. I concur with his opinion of likely, but not proven guilt.

To be fair to Wallace, he was consistent on blaming Parry. A recent account his him telling a visitor in jail that he thought Parry was the true killer. And we know he blamed him in the John Bull Articles (these were ghostwritten however). Wallace seemed very bent on pinning this crime on Parry...

Hi folks - a rare foray by me over here. I definitely have the interest for this compellingly mysterious case but am conscious my knowledge of the detail is too lacking. I've had the pleasure of driving up and down the A6 thread a few times with Caz but the uncertainties encountered over Hanratty are like a walk in the park compared to the complexities of Wallace.

The quote attributed to Wallace and supplied by AmericanSherlock above is so typical of the case. Yet again, it's odd and creates suspicion. However, it once more proves nothing and could have an innocent explanation. Could Wallace even have been having fun at Allen's expense and ultimately ours? I suppose it was too much to hope that the old boy would have finally settled things with, ''Well we got away with it sonny, didn't we?''!

For all Wallace's oddities and acknowledging I have much to learn here, I can only see Wallace as innocent of his wife's murder. Key aspects for me:

* The lack of any obvious motive. Sure, people can and have murdered for the most trivial of reasons. However, for Wallace to construct and implement such an intricate plan with an obviously deadly risk to himself, I would have expected there to have been something significant in it for him; if not clear at the time, at least emerging down the line.

* The lack of time available to him to do the deed and the unforeseen support of that from Close and especially Wildman.

* Connected with the limited time factor, the lack of incriminating forensic evidence.

* The unlikelihood to my mind of this sickly late middle aged man stripping down to the nuddy before repeatedly bashing his wife with a poker or something similar. It seems to have been a frenzied attack, perhaps suggesting random panic rather than careful planning.

* He was seen on much of his journey to and from Menlove Gardens. So how and where did he get rid of the murder weapon? His journey was so well documented it seems inconceivable that it was never found if discarded that night on that route.

* I also rule out Wallace working with another who actually carried out the murder. Had this been the case, there would have been no need for 'Qualtrough' and 'Menlove Gardens East' which inevitably created suspicion and doubt. All Wallace would have needed to do was make sure he was witnessed being ordinarily elsewhere (eg work, chess club, etc).

As I say, I'm miles off being an expert. Just thoughts and views. However, for now I'm sticking with the view that Wallace's undoubtedly odd actions were more to do with him being odd than a murderer.

Best regards,

OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

On a lighter note for a second. I’ve just been reading Goodman. I was reminded that it was McFall who came up with the suggestion that it was Wallace in Julia’s clothes that spoke to Alan Close on the doorstep

We can all agree that kids were more innocent in the 30’s than they are these days but I’m pretty certain that they all understood that moustache = man?!

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi folks - a rare foray by me over here. I definitely have the interest for this compellingly mysterious case but am conscious my knowledge of the detail is too lacking. I've had the pleasure of driving up and down the A6 thread a few times with Caz but the uncertainties encountered over Hanratty are like a walk in the park compared to the complexities of Wallace.

The quote attributed to Wallace and supplied by AmericanSherlock above is so typical of the case. Yet again, it's odd and creates suspicion. However, it once more proves nothing and could have an innocent explanation. Could Wallace even have been having fun at Allen's expense and ultimately ours? I suppose it was too much to hope that the old boy would have finally settled things with, ''Well we got away with it sonny, didn't we?''!

For all Wallace's oddities and acknowledging I have much to learn here, I can only see Wallace as innocent of his wife's murder. Key aspects for me:

* The lack of any obvious motive. Sure, people can and have murdered for the most trivial of reasons. However, for Wallace to construct and implement such an intricate plan with an obviously deadly risk to himself, I would have expected there to have been something significant in it for him; if not clear at the time, at least emerging down the line.

* The lack of time available to him to do the deed and the unforeseen support of that from Close and especially Wildman.

* Connected with the limited time factor, the lack of incriminating forensic evidence.

* The unlikelihood to my mind of this sickly late middle aged man stripping down to the nuddy before repeatedly bashing his wife with a poker or something similar. It seems to have been a frenzied attack, perhaps suggesting random panic rather than careful planning.

* He was seen on much of his journey to and from Menlove Gardens. So how and where did he get rid of the murder weapon? His journey was so well documented it seems inconceivable that it was never found if discarded that night on that route.

* I also rule out Wallace working with another who actually carried out the murder. Had this been the case, there would have been no need for 'Qualtrough' and 'Menlove Gardens East' which inevitably created suspicion and doubt. All Wallace would have needed to do was make sure he was witnessed being ordinarily elsewhere (eg work, chess club, etc).

As I say, I'm miles off being an expert. Just thoughts and views. However, for now I'm sticking with the view that Wallace's undoubtedly odd actions were more to do with him being odd than a murderer.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

You present some strong ideas that give reason to doubt Wallace as the murderer.

I would still argue that on the balance him being the killer makes more sense than possible alternatives.

One thing I would bring attention to that I have before is the sheer unlucky coincidences that would have had to have happened if Wallace was in fact innocent. How incredibly not fortuitous for him.

For example, on the night of the call, he leaves at 7:15. The call is placed at 7:18. I think this suggests Wallace called himself, which would line up perfectly. Please note the call time and location was only traced due to an error which would not have been expected by the caller. He then makes it to the club just barely giving him enough time to have made the call and show up there in time for 7:45 start. If he made it a few minutes earlier to the club or left a few minutes earlier, then he would be in the clear.

The only other explanation is that someone stalked Wallace, saw him leave, made the call etc. This person of course would have to rely on Wallace getting the message, and not assuming it was a prank (why would someone call Wallace at his chess club and not at his work to reach him?) Then, he would have to rely on Wallace actually going the following night and would presumably have to stalk him again and visit Julia again the next night right after Wallace leaves. And also assume Wallace wasn't just stepping out for a few minutes on an unrelated matter. All for what, a chance to be alone with Julia so he could rob the place, or to hit her up for cash? Why the need for this convoluted plan, why couldn't he do that any time Wallace was out, like the previous night when if he made the call, he would have seen Wallace on the way to the chess club!

But the timing on the night of the murder is the most suspicious and another "unlucky coincidence" for Wallace if he was really innocent. Jonathan Goodman noted that the milk boy came later than normal the day of the murder due to a broken spoke on his bicycle causing him to have to deliver by foot. He suggests this unforeseen event as exonerating Wallace, because it would have messed up a planned alibi...I don't quite follow his logic! The point is the time elapsed between when the milk boy leaves and when Wallace is seen at the tram stop, not the actual time the milk boy arrives (within reason). He normally came closer to 6 than 6:30. On the 20th, the timing was in dispute, but it was definitely after 6:30 and probably a bit after 6:35 (in my expert estimation! ) when you consider all the testimonies of the other milk boys etc. There is just barely enough time for Wallace to have acted, some say there isn't but most concede that while tight it is "borderline" (the real question being more about blood splatter than timing). My point being that even if you think there wasn't enough time, it could also be argued odd that there was just enough time lining up perfectly with Wallace acting as quickly as possible as soon as the milk boy was out of sight.

Here is the critical point: If Wallace were innocent, it does not matter when the milk boy comes; he doesn't have any plan and is oblivious to anything except his journey to Menlove Gardens East. He can leave before, during, or after the milk boy's arrival. How unlucky for him that he then leaves a few minutes after the late milk boy comes, leaving him JUST BARELY in the frame for the crime. A few minutes earlier departure (and therefore being seen at the tram stop) a few minutes earlier would have completely exonerated him. You could argue he might have been expected to leave a few minutes earlier than he did for an address he did not know precisely that he started asking about desperately on the tram (he only arrived in the neighborhood right before 7:30). Of course if he were guilty, he would HAD to have waited for the milk boy to come and go before acting, which unfortunately for him, if he wasn't guilty--is exactly what the timing suggests. And exactly what, with a slight bit of better luck it wouldn't have--just like the timing for the night of the call. In both cases, he remains suspiciously just in the frame--as if he were trying to outpace "reality" to create doubt, but of course couldn't quite do it.

This is an extreme unlucky coincidence in my opinion if he truly had nothing to do with his wife's murder. Perhaps he simply was awfully unlucky, and that is why we don't see many confusing cases like this. There are certainly, as you suggest strong reasons to doubt his guilt from an absolute standpoint. I do tend to view the marks against his guilty as not being "dealbreakers" though and theories of others involvement as even less plausible. That is why I think he was "most likely" guilty.

[AmericanSherlock]

On a lighter note for a second. I’ve just been reading Goodman. I was reminded that it was McFall who came up with the suggestion that it was Wallace in Julia’s clothes that spoke to Alan Close on the doorstep

We can all agree that kids were more innocent in the 30’s than they are these days but I’m pretty certain that they all understood that moustache = man?!

PD James also suggests the Wallace in drag scenario. (One of the most ridiculous things ever). Too bad because the prank part of her theory (that Parry made the call as a prank and Wallace exploited it), while not my first choice as an explanation, is quite clever.

I don't know if children were more innocent back then, I've heard some wild stories from my Grandparents!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another point that I often ponder is the picture that’s painted of the Wallace’s marriage. Most said that they appeared happy and Wallace certainly did. But I find it difficult to completely ignore the doctor, the nurse and the char woman. They all spent time with the Wallace’s in their home and they all said that they weren’t as happy as they made out. One other man (I can’t recall his name but I think that he was a colleague of Wallace’s said he was a ‘soured’ man [I think that was the phrase that he used]. So that at least raises some doubt as to the picture painted by Wallace and others.
Add this to an age difference that Julia had kept from him. I apologise for ‘harping on’ about this but I can’t help wondering if Wallace somehow discovered his wife’s true age? Maybe Julia’s sister Amy let it slip? Maybe he was looking into insurance matters and found her birth certificate? How would that affect Wallace? Might he not think that, apart from being lied to by Julia (and let’s face it, many people shave a few years off their age for vanities sake but not usually 16 years!) that all he had to look forward to (at the age of 52) was a life looking after a woman in poor health, who basically wore a nappy (diaper to AS ) and was theoretically old enough to be his mother! This prospect could, and I only say could, provide a motive for murder.

[OneRound]

Hi AmericanSherlock - thanks for your considered reply.

Interestingly or not, the overwhelming (or unbelieveable) lack of luck experienced by the man tried for murder is a major factor over on the A6 thread as to why so many consider Hanratty guilty. The Court of Appeal effectively said the same in 2002 when dismissing the posthumous appeal made on his behalf in referring to the large number of ''coincidences'' which must have combined against him if he were not guilty.

Anyway back to Wallace. I'm not convinced that the milk boy seeing Julia Wallace and her husband then doing everything at breakneck speed would have necessarily ''created doubt'' (as you say). For doubt to have been created, the time that the milk was delivered would need to have been pinpointed. I don't see that Wallace could rely on that. Close might have only been able to say something along the lines of, ''It was delivered at the usual sort of time, guvnor, give or take twenty either way''. The real blessing here for Wallace was Wildman whose presence couldn't have been anticipated. [I'm assuming there are no doubts over Wildman's credibility.]

Best regards,

OneRound

[John G]

Hi folks - a rare foray by me over here. I definitely have the interest for this compellingly mysterious case but am conscious my knowledge of the detail is too lacking. I've had the pleasure of driving up and down the A6 thread a few times with Caz but the uncertainties encountered over Hanratty are like a walk in the park compared to the complexities of Wallace.

The quote attributed to Wallace and supplied by AmericanSherlock above is so typical of the case. Yet again, it's odd and creates suspicion. However, it once more proves nothing and could have an innocent explanation. Could Wallace even have been having fun at Allen's expense and ultimately ours? I suppose it was too much to hope that the old boy would have finally settled things with, ''Well we got away with it sonny, didn't we?''!

For all Wallace's oddities and acknowledging I have much to learn here, I can only see Wallace as innocent of his wife's murder. Key aspects for me:

* The lack of any obvious motive. Sure, people can and have murdered for the most trivial of reasons. However, for Wallace to construct and implement such an intricate plan with an obviously deadly risk to himself, I would have expected there to have been something significant in it for him; if not clear at the time, at least emerging down the line.

* The lack of time available to him to do the deed and the unforeseen support of that from Close and especially Wildman.

* Connected with the limited time factor, the lack of incriminating forensic evidence.

* The unlikelihood to my mind of this sickly late middle aged man stripping down to the nuddy before repeatedly bashing his wife with a poker or something similar. It seems to have been a frenzied attack, perhaps suggesting random panic rather than careful planning.

* He was seen on much of his journey to and from Menlove Gardens. So how and where did he get rid of the murder weapon? His journey was so well documented it seems inconceivable that it was never found if discarded that night on that route.

* I also rule out Wallace working with another who actually carried out the murder. Had this been the case, there would have been no need for 'Qualtrough' and 'Menlove Gardens East' which inevitably created suspicion and doubt. All Wallace would have needed to do was make sure he was witnessed being ordinarily elsewhere (eg work, chess club, etc).

As I say, I'm miles off being an expert. Just thoughts and views. However, for now I'm sticking with the view that Wallace's undoubtedly odd actions were more to do with him being odd than a murderer.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Some very good points. The biggest difference between the Hanratty case and this one is that, in the former, the forensic evidence appears to support the jury's verdict, whereas in this case it practically exonerates Wallace, at least as things stand at the moment.

In fact, there is no substantive evidence against Wallace at all: no forensic evidence, no confession and no eye witness testimony, unless you count Lily Hall's questionable account- which even the judge rejected in his summing up, which may hint at a conspiracy- and not even murder weapon.

As I see it, any significant hard evidence that we do have points very much against Wallace: the lack of available time, based on Wildman's testimony; lack of explanation as to how he could have effectively disposed of the murder weapon; the forensic evidence; Wallace's relatively frail physical state-he was seriously ill; and the failure of a witness who knew him well to recognize his voice during the Qualtrough call.

[John G]

This case has an incredible duality to it , doesn't It?

Yes, it does!

[John G]

There is definite reasonable doubt here when considering the points you've made. Clearly you are correct in pointing out some of the difficulties in accepting WHW as the murderer.

I would argue that if Wallace was the killer, he simply would have to have been willing to take some risks. He would have gotten a kick out of the whole "clever plan". Let's keep in mind Wallace had severe health problems of his own and died only 2 years after the murder. (His poor health has been used actually to suggest he couldnt have carried out the attack in the time available etc.)

I can't help but think the killer had some technique to minimize blood splatter since there were no tracks leading out of the room and out of the house. Either the blood mess wasn't as significant as we think it was or (if you understandably think this is a ludicrous suggestion) then the killer had some plan in mind before committing the crime. Combine this with the Macintosh and Julia seemingly being struck from behind and there seems to have been foresight here which obviously points towards Wallace IMO.

I understand the drains were tested and not used but what do you make of there not being blood tracked towards the exit or really anywhere outside of the parlor? And what of the blood smeared note upstairs near the bathroom?

If the killer went upstairs it is strange he didn't take the money that was up there.

The blood smeared note and lack of blood tracked towards the exit certainty represent a bit of a conundrum. However, whilst the experts at trial agreed the assailant would have got at least some blood splatter on his person, they disagreed about how much. And I certainly don't think the killer would be covered head to toe in blood!

I keep coming back to the argument that the murder scene was just too messy to represent a planned attack by Wallace. I mean, how did he think he was going to get away with it, considering the time restraints, and the absolute requirement to avoid blood staining and effectively dispose of the murder weapon?

As Wallace himself pointed out, there were less messy, therefore less risky alternatives available: he suggested poisoning, based on his scientific knowledge, but there's also suffocation or strangulation, for example.

The crime scene also implies overkill; I can't believe it would have taken so many blows to kill Julia, which is also problematic from the perspective of a killer desperate to avoid the consequences of blood splatter.

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound,

Some very good points. The biggest difference between the Hanratty case and this one is that, in the former, the forensic evidence appears to support the jury's verdict, whereas in this case it practically exonerates Wallace, at least as things stand at the moment.

In fact, there is no substantive evidence against Wallace at all: no forensic evidence, no confession and no eye witness testimony, unless you count Lily Hall's questionable account- which even the judge rejected in his summing up, which may hint at a conspiracy- and not even murder weapon.

As I see it, any significant hard evidence that we do have points very much against Wallace: the lack of available time, based on Wildman's testimony; lack of explanation as to how he could have effectively disposed of the murder weapon; the forensic evidence; Wallace's relatively frail physical state-he was seriously ill; and the failure of a witness who knew him well to recognize his voice during the Qualtrough call.

Thanks, John.

Whilst I accept that ''Hanratty did it'', I have serious concerns about the fairness of the jury's verdict (based upon both the evidence presented and withheld at trial) and the appeal process.

In Wallace's case, the jury verdict just seems perverse.

Best regards,

OneRound

[caz]

Except Wallace stated that Julia would admit someone calling themselves Qualtrough. And if, say, Parry was the thief, and wasn't caught in the act, there would be suspicion but no proof against him.

Hi John,

I now have a problem with Wallace's claim to have told Julia the name of the person he was due to meet, and therefore she might have invited him in if he turned up on her doorstep.

Firstly, it would have seemed odd to say the least, given that her husband was already out and expecting to meet this Qualtrough chap in another district. How could Qualtrough have got his own wires crossed when he was the one who had made the arrangements?

Secondly, from what Amy Wallace said of her conversation with Julia on the Tuesday, Wallace didn't know anyone in that district, so Qualtrough would have presented as a total stranger to both of them. Again, I think I'd have been uneasy in Julia's shoes.

Thirdly, what Julia told Amy doesn't quite make sense if her husband had told her all about the message to call on a Mr Qualtrough. She said he didn't know anyone in that district and she only thought it was on business. That sounds as if Wallace merely said he was going out that evening and where he was heading, but not who he was seeing or why, leaving Julia to speculate when talking to Amy. It's possible he told her more when he came home for tea, but we'd only have his word for that. Amy doesn't appear to support him. Did he say when he told Julia he was seeing someone called Qualtrough?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I really have great respect for David, but have you noticed that he has a tendency not to concede, or give ground, on a point under any circumstances?

Hmmm, I actually began catching up with his posts yesterday afternoon, and I thought I detected a wee bit of wavering on his previously dogmatic stance regarding a couple of issues. We'll see. There's always hope.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Caz,

I’m with you on this one. I’ve been trying to think what ‘Qualtrough’ could have said to Julia when he arrived on her doorstep that would have sounded remotely plausible to her? Best I can come up with is something like ‘I’ve been out on business and I was kept late. As I was pretty near here I thought I’d try to catch Mr Wallace before he left for my house.’ Not great is it?

And even if she knew the name Qualtrough (and we only have Wallace’s statement) it’s still by no means certain that she would have let him in. If Parry was involved this only potentially works for me if it was Parry himself at the door and not ‘Qualtrough.’ I can’t see Parry planning this whole thing, knowing Julia and her ways as he would, in the hope that she might let a stranger into the house while she was in her own at night.

As I said before, it’s not much of a plan is it?