Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Graham]

Two other little oddities:

1] it seems that Wallace at that time was only an infrequent visitor to the chess club. During the few weeks previous to the murder he had been booked to play, but several times hadn't turned up. Seems strange that the phone-call came on an evening when he did make what was evidently quite a rare appearance at the club, as though whoever made the call was fully aware that he would be there.

2] Wallace had a friend called Joseph Crewe who occasionally gave him violin lessons and who lived in Green Lane which was close to Menlove Gardens. Crewe told the police that Wallace had been to his house on many occasions, but on that particular evening he had gone to the cinema with his wife. Yet Wallace made a point of asking many people where Menlove Gardens was situated, and asked the tram-conductor several times where he had to get off. After calling at Crewe's house he stopped a patrolling policeman, PC Serjeant, to ask where Menlove Gardens East was, and was told (yet again) that it didn't exist. Serjeant stated that Wallace seemed very adamant to fix the time of their encounter, as though it mattered a great deal to him.

Sorry if these points have been raised before on this thread, but they do to my mind at least tend to swing the pendulum back towards William......

Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

Two other little oddities:

1] it seems that Wallace at that time was only an infrequent visitor to the chess club. During the few weeks previous to the murder he had been booked to play, but several times hadn't turned up. Seems strange that the phone-call came on an evening when he did make what was evidently quite a rare appearance at the club, as though whoever made the call was fully aware that he would be there.

2] Wallace had a friend called Joseph Crewe who occasionally gave him violin lessons and who lived in Green Lane which was close to Menlove Gardens. Crewe told the police that Wallace had been to his house on many occasions, but on that particular evening he had gone to the cinema with his wife. Yet Wallace made a point of asking many people where Menlove Gardens was situated, and asked the tram-conductor several times where he had to get off. After calling at Crewe's house he stopped a patrolling policeman, PC Serjeant, to ask where Menlove Gardens East was, and was told (yet again) that it didn't exist. Serjeant stated that Wallace seemed very adamant to fix the time of their encounter, as though it mattered a great deal to him.

Sorry if these points have been raised before on this thread, but they do to my mind at least tend to swing the pendulum back towards William......

Graham

Hi Graham,

Those points have been made but there’s no need to apologise for raising them off your own bat.

On the first point, only William would have known for definite that he intended to attend chess club on that particular night (unless he’d mentioned it to Julia of course.) Those arguing for a guilty Parry might say that he could have assumed that Wallace attended every session or that he might have seen the notice board and realised that Wallace was late in playing his tournament match and wouldn’t have wanted to forfeit the game.

On the second point, from my posts you will have gathered that I still think that Wallace’s behaviour was ‘strange.’ I’m working from a very fallible memory here but I have a feeling that Wallace said that it wasn’t until he’d walked around a little that he realised that he was near to Crewe’s house. Crewe was Wallace’s Superintendant at The Pru. I wonder why he didn’t just contact Crewe during the day ask about Menlove Garden’s East after no one else seemed to know anything about it.

[Graham]

Hi HS,

As the notice-board carrying 'fixture list' would have been visible to anyone attending the City Cafe, then yes, Parry could have viewed it and realised that Wallace wouldn't have wanted to miss an important match.

Sorry, I meant to add that Crewe was Wallace's boss at the Pru. I said recently that Wallace could have phoned his office to ask about R M Qualtrough and Menlove Gardens East, but he plainly didn't do that. Which I find a little odd.

I can't help feeling that Wallace was constructing an alibi and that he intended to be out of his house at what he saw as being a crucial time. I've read quite recently a theory that Wallace could have hired a hit-man to dispose of poor Julia...well, you never know. I'm beginning to turn against our Willie just a little bit!

I was never an avid student of this case, and felt that Richard Whittington-Egan and Jonathan Goodman, together with Roger Wilkes, had nailed it, after Joe Gaute had discovered Parry's whereabouts, and later when Roger Wilkes tracked Parry down to North Wales. Parry had died not long before (in early 1980) but Wilkes pressed on and subsequently found Lily Lloyd, who had provided Parry with his alibi for the fatal evening and which was shown to be false. Wilkes also found John Parkes, and learned about the 'bloody glove' in Parry's car. For me, these investigators clinched it: Parry was guilty. Now, though, I ain't quite so sure....

Graham

[NickB]

Wallace made a point of asking many people where Menlove Gardens was situated, and asked the tram-conductor several times where he had to get off. After calling at Crewe's house he stopped a patrolling policeman, PC Serjeant, to ask where Menlove Gardens East was, and was told (yet again) that it didn't exist. Serjeant stated that Wallace seemed very adamant to fix the time of their encounter, as though it mattered a great deal to him.

I think the way that Hemmerde describes this wild goose chase around Menlove Gardens is masterful. You can almost hear the jury laughing at various cues.

It is indeed the sort of case that can pull you different ways.

[NickB]

Except we know Wallace must have arrived home at around the time he said he did based upon his return tram journey. And that would have given him a matter of seconds to carry out all the components of the crime prior to alerting the neighbour, which isn't realistic.

The prosecution said: “He gets back somewhere about 8.30 and 8.35.”

Isn’t the time between then and 8.45 similar to the time period available before he left?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

As the notice-board carrying 'fixture list' would have been visible to anyone attending the City Cafe, then yes, Parry could have viewed it and realised that Wallace wouldn't have wanted to miss an important match.

Sorry, I meant to add that Crewe was Wallace's boss at the Pru. I said recently that Wallace could have phoned his office to ask about R M Qualtrough and Menlove Gardens East, but he plainly didn't do that. Which I find a little odd.

I can't help feeling that Wallace was constructing an alibi and that he intended to be out of his house at what he saw as being a crucial time. I've read quite recently a theory that Wallace could have hired a hit-man to dispose of poor Julia...well, you never know. I'm beginning to turn against our Willie just a little bit!

I was never an avid student of this case, and felt that Richard Whittington-Egan and Jonathan Goodman, together with Roger Wilkes, had nailed it, after Joe Gaute had discovered Parry's whereabouts, and later when Roger Wilkes tracked Parry down to North Wales. Parry had died not long before (in early 1980) but Wilkes pressed on and subsequently found Lily Lloyd, who had provided Parry with his alibi for the fatal evening and which was shown to be false. Wilkes also found John Parkes, and learned about the 'bloody glove' in Parry's car. For me, these investigators clinched it: Parry was guilty. Now, though, I ain't quite so sure....

Graham

Hi Graham,

I’m pretty much a newcomer to the case myself. I read about it 20 or 30 years ago (in the Murder Casebook magazine first I think then a book, but I can’t remember which one.) Then I got interested in the Ripper and poor old Julia got forgotten! I’ve become intrigued and maddened by it recently though. I’d certainly never bet money on a solution. As it stands I’m slightly in the Wallace ‘guilty’ camp but there are many doubts of course. Tight timings, Wallace’s poor health, an apparently happy marriage etc but still I have doubts that surface.
As you probably know it’s even been suggested that Wallace and Parry could have been in cahoots (with Parry doing the dirty work of course.)

As you’re moving toward Wallace as the culprit I’ll probably re-read something that will make me turn toward Parry!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the way that Hemmerde describes this wild goose chase around Menlove Gardens is masterful. You can almost hear the jury laughing at various cues.

It is indeed the sort of case that can pull you different ways.

I can almost hear Leo McKern as Rumpole or Charles Laughton as Sir Wilfred Robarts saying them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The prosecution said: “He gets back somewhere about 8.30 and 8.35.”

Isn’t the time between then and 8.45 similar to the time period available before he left?

Hi Nick,

If Wallace had killed Julia on his return McFall would surely have been able to say that the murder had occurred within the last hour?

[NickB]

If Wallace had killed Julia on his return McFall would surely have been able to say that the murder had occurred within the last hour?

I thought he arrived at about 10 and after lengthy tests said the murder occurred approximately 2 hours before his arrival. Much later, after consulting with Pierce, this was changed to 4 hours before – but we know she was still alive then.

I just thought this might be worth exploring to explain the ‘rage’ aspect. I find it difficult to get my head round him flying into a rage immediately after the milkman called and before setting out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I thought he arrived at about 10 and after lengthy tests said the murder occurred approximately 2 hours before his arrival. Much later, after consulting with Pierce, this was changed to 4 hours before – but we know she was still alive then.

I just thought this might be worth exploring to explain the ‘rage’ aspect. I find it difficult to get my head round him flying into a rage immediately after the milkman called and before setting out.

I agree Nick. It’s always good to look at all the angles. As far as I know I don’t think anyone else has considered a ‘post MGE’ murder before.

For me, I can’t help feeling that it was a planned kill rather than a spur of the moment rage killing. But I could be wrong of course.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi HS,

As the notice-board carrying 'fixture list' would have been visible to anyone attending the City Cafe, then yes, Parry could have viewed it and realised that Wallace wouldn't have wanted to miss an important match.

Sorry, I meant to add that Crewe was Wallace's boss at the Pru. I said recently that Wallace could have phoned his office to ask about R M Qualtrough and Menlove Gardens East, but he plainly didn't do that. Which I find a little odd.

I can't help feeling that Wallace was constructing an alibi and that he intended to be out of his house at what he saw as being a crucial time. I've read quite recently a theory that Wallace could have hired a hit-man to dispose of poor Julia...well, you never know. I'm beginning to turn against our Willie just a little bit!

I was never an avid student of this case, and felt that Richard Whittington-Egan and Jonathan Goodman, together with Roger Wilkes, had nailed it, after Joe Gaute had discovered Parry's whereabouts, and later when Roger Wilkes tracked Parry down to North Wales. Parry had died not long before (in early 1980) but Wilkes pressed on and subsequently found Lily Lloyd, who had provided Parry with his alibi for the fatal evening and which was shown to be false. Wilkes also found John Parkes, and learned about the 'bloody glove' in Parry's car. For me, these investigators clinched it: Parry was guilty. Now, though, I ain't quite so sure....

Graham

Hi Graham,

Believe it or not but RWE has changed his tune.

He gives credit to James Murphy for having solved the Wallace case (finding WHW guilty) in his 2011 book "Murder on File." (He also wrote a foreword for John Gannon's book, although that might just have been a money ploy but he doesn't actually endorse what JG wrote it appears, just suggests it's a good book.) In his own recent book, he notes that Parry was "rightly eliminated." as a suspect and says Murphy has made an "Exceedingly powerful case" for the guilt of Wallace. I concur with him.

Awhile back when Jonathan Goodman died in 2008 (RWE himself sadly died last year I believe), there were 2 long obituaries, one was in the Guardian and part of it reads:

"Goodman became convinced that Wallace was indeed not guilty and, together with his friend and fellow crime-writer Richard Whittington-Egan, challenged the man he believed responsible. Although subsequent research has shown that Wallace probably was the killer, The Killing of Julia Wallace (1969) was a great success and Goodman's new career took off."


I assume Goodman's family and friends, perhaps RWE himself contributed to this!

[AmericanSherlock]

A most ingenious paradox, AS.

Very little blood and mess where one would think there would be plenty of both makes it seem implausible that Julia could have been attacked on the spur of the moment by an intruder who never meant to do her physical harm. Why would anyone other than Wallace have taken pains to clean up anything but himself and his clothes?

The very lack of any bloody tracks from the crime scene can only therefore be explained if there were none to leave [which means the killer couldn't have been dripping blood anywhere] or they were cleaned up [by a killer with a good reason to do so].

Love,

Caz
X

Bingo, you've succinctly phrased it better than I ever could!

[AmericanSherlock]

Under heavy questioning people have been known to falsely confess to capital crimes.

Surely putting the pressure on someone could get them to say there was the remotest possibility it could have been.

Note how the police forced the milk delivery boy on his times.

Whoever the killer was, he must have taken some risk. (Even if the killer was not Wallace and planned only a robbery, he was taking a significant risk)

Many wife murderers have taken much more significant chances than Wallace did. With an ailing, elderly wife who rarely ventured out, this whole scheme with a mysterious Qualtrough was about the best he could hope for. As far as risks, go this is a minor and benign one in my opinion. As Caz pointed out, reasonable doubt would be there by the very virtue of Beattie announcing to Wallace that someone else had called for him and the whole club discussing it etc.

[AmericanSherlock]

But Wallace did not know if Beattie was that certain, and could not have asked him if he was without creating suspicion.

By virtue of Beattie expressing no suspicion and telling Wallace about it (and the whole club discussing it), Wallace could rightly assume that there would be significant reasonable doubt regardless of what Beattie ended up saying. And of course as we know Beattie DID say the voice wasn't Wallace. But of course, I recognize this is a bit of a circular argument, as one could just say well, that's because it WASN'T Wallace after all

[AmericanSherlock]

I agree Nick. It’s always good to look at all the angles. As far as I know I don’t think anyone else has considered a ‘post MGE’ murder before.

For me, I can’t help feeling that it was a planned kill rather than a spur of the moment rage killing. But I could be wrong of course.

For sure.

All the following indicate a planned kill :

1. Julia struck from behind with no sign of struggle whatsoever, no defensive wounds, nothing underneath Julia's fingernails etc.

2. Controlled crime scene, especially blood indicating pre planning.

3. Mackintosh presence indicating pre-planning.

4. Evidence of a poorly staged robbery, similar to many domestic homicides. Money and jewelry that could be taken wasn't. Cash box was replaced suggesting force of habit. Blunt force trauma to head/face causing death extremely common in domestic homicides, extremely uncommon otherwise.