Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[harry]

Julia Wallace was an intended victim,in my opinion.If Parry's intention was robbery,by luring Wallace away from home,there was still Julia to contend with,a fact Parry would have known.How could he reasonably be expected to search with her present?So is it suggested the plan involved the premeditated murder of Julia in furtherance of robbery? Would anyone go that far?
I have read of no information,that would suggest the Wallace household was a likely source of wealth on that Tuesday evening.A fact that would surely be apparent to anyone that knew the Wallace's.

[Rosella]

Marsden had worked for the Prudential until 1928. One of his clients, incidentally, was a joiner called RJ Qualtrough. Gannon speculates that it was this customer's complaints that led to Marsden's being sacked from the Pru.

Marsden had been introduced by Parry to Wallace. According to Wallace "He was an agent for the Prudential Company for two or three years and had left before I did my work. I gave him the job because he was out of work.'

Marsden was a bookmaker's clerk (horse racing betting) living on the Wirral (outside Liverpool) at the time of the murder. When Wallace pointed the finger in Marsden's direction he stated 'While he was working for me he often came to my house to see me on business. He also knew the interior arrangements of my house.'

Marsden stated that at the time of the murder he was in bed with the flu. Don't know if that was ever checked by the police though.

I have Goodman, Gannon and ColdCase's books on the case. In spite of errors, necessary omissions etc, I've always had a fondness for Goodman's account, especially his tracking down of Parry! Gannon and ColdCase have all the facts of the case at their fingertips now papers on the case have been released, but, as I've stated before, I have reservations about conspiracy theories. Julia blackmailing, paying for sex? Can't see it myself but then that's just me!

I don't believe Wallace killed his wife. The main suspect for me is Parry, a man who charmed Julia, and whom she would let into the house in an instant. Don't know his motive, though!

[Rosella]

Incidentally, Parry was a member of the Mersey Dramatic Society, an amateur group who held their rehearsals at the City Cafe where Wallace played chess!

Parry may, just may, have been persuading the old duck to 'lend' him a fiver or tenner or so on previous visits to Julia (I don't believe he was having sex with her for money as Gannon suggests might be the case.) She may not have been cooperative about money this time, might have asked for some of it back, may have threatened to tell her husband, who knows. However whoever killed her did so after a disagreement, I believe.

[ColdCaseJury]

Whoever killed her did so after a disagreement, I believe.

Roz, I agree. In fact, in my reconstruction of the Parry thoery it is this scenario I describe. Parry lures Wallace out because he wants to speak to Julia, who has been lending Parry money. She refuses this time (because it is a larger than usual amount), especially after he suggests that he could "loan" some cash from the collection box. He snaps.

If you read the book, let me know if you find this account plausible. In my judgement, most of the other Parry scenarios do not hang together well, as you suggest.

[ColdCaseJury]

I have reservations about conspiracy theories... I don't believe Wallace killed his wife. The main suspect for me is Parry, a man who charmed Julia, and whom she would let into the house in an instant. Don't know his motive, though!

I hate conspiracy theories too. And Parry appears to be involved somehow in this crime. Why else would he promise his father not to speak about the case? But how do you accommodate Lily Hall's statement, which was flatly denied by Wallace? And you have to agree, even if you think him innocent, that Wallace's behaviour IS suspicious.

[Robert]

Hi CCJ

Do you know where Parry was in 1939?

[Rosella]

I am obviously not ColdCase and don't know where Parry was at the outbreak of the war. I do know that he was charged with several theft offences and an assault on a girl after the Wallace years.

ColdCase, Tony, I found your book on this remarkable case very interesting indeed. I do believe, because there are so few people that Julia would admit to her home, that Parry is a prime suspect and a man very very fond of money. If he could charm Julia out of some and then, not succeeding, lash out at her as you do suggest in your book, then I think he would.

As for the other points, heavens, I don't know! This case has so many mysterious points that nobody now can clear up and nobody has the answers any more! All I can suggest, as far as Lily Hall is concerned, is that it was an extremely cold and very dark night when she saw the two males talking.

As has been talked about many times on these forums, gas light from street lamps gave light around the lamp post but otherwise it could be Stygian darkness. No houses had electricity, so they wouldn't be giving any light as she went past either.

She would probably have been walking quickly in an effort to get home out of the cold and she would have just given the men a swift glance. There wouldn't have been any need to look at them. A case of mistaken identity perhaps or am I being too partisan?

I do wonder whether Lily's statement was given in the spirit of the swift rush to judgement of this man which occurred before Wallace's arrest, during his trial and after it, by neighbours, clients and of course, the police.

[harry]

Electricity was used as lighting in houses.My parents moved home to a new house in 1931,and electric lighting was installed,but fair to say the Wallace home and street lighting were probably by gas,as,especially in older districts,gas was still used intensively.

[Rosella]

Yes, Harry, I think there was a national electricity grid set up in Britain by 1931, (late 1920's perhaps, can't remember) but many many houses still had gas for lighting even as late as the Second World War. I have read accounts of rural cottages still having Paraffin lamps and candles into the 1950's.
I was talking about the street Lily was walking along!

[Graham]

Per Rosella's construction, I am now coming very much round to believing that Parry lured Wallace out of the house to enable him to be alone with Julia for purposes, I'm certain, of conning money out of her. As in the five hundred quid, or part of it, she had in the bank. Seems to me that Julia told him where to go, that an argument ensued, that Parry lost his temper, and the rest is history. There are, of course, other possibilities - not a lot was known about Parry even then, except that he was a wide boy with an expensive lifestyle he couldn't support, and perhaps Julia knew things about him that he'd rather not have been made public. Could also be that Parry had something on Julia - one never knows. But whatever the reason for killing her, I do not believe that it was premeditated.

One argument against all this is that when he was out trying to find Menlove Gardens East Wallace, it seems, made sure that he was seen and spoken to by as many people as possible. I don't think I buy this, on reflection; I think it was how Wallace really was, a fussy, determined man who had a job to do and went to any length to do it, but eventually had to give up.

By the way, I can actually remember domestic gas-lighting in the early 1960's! A friend of mine had a grandmother who lived in an old house near Watford, and we visited her one time. She had electricity laid on, and cooked and heated with it, but still resolutely kept her gas lighting. Once lit, the gas-flame heated the refractory ceramic mantle until it was incandescent, and the light it gave off was surprisingly bright, but at the same time soft. Two mantles in her sitting-room gave more than enough light.There is a company in Yorkshire that still manufactures gas-mantles for use in gas camping-lighting.

Graham

[ColdCaseJury]

Parry lured Wallace out of the house to enable him to be alone with Julia for purposes, I'm certain, of conning money out of her. As in the five hundred quid, or part of it, she had in the bank. Seems to me that Julia told him where to go, that an argument ensued, that Parry lost his temper, and the rest is history.

Graham, this is extremely close to the scenario I paint in Fool's Mate (Part Seven) of Move To Murder. I believe my account is original. I found previous accounts of Parry wholly convincing. There is no question that he had a lifestyle that outstripped his means (he admitted this to Goodman). I surmised that Julia, childless and probably lonely, doted on the young Parry like a son, and Parry exploited this to get loans from Julia (which he never paid back, of course). I speculate that he wanted a larger loan than usual, lured Wallace away, and when Julia refused he lost his temper, violently. All is described in my book.

This is entirely speculative as far as the motive is concerned - but there is nothing in this case but conjecture regarding motivation, whether Wallace, Parry or whoever. I also show how Parry could have made the call, and committed the murder.

This does not imply that the Parry theory is the best, rather I think this is the best Parry theory.

[Spitfire]

If all Parry wanted to do was to speak to Julia without Wallace being present, why didn't he just go round to 29 Wolverton Street when Wallace had gone out to the chess club on 19 January? The opportunity was there then and there was no need for the Qualtrough/Menlove Gardens East charade.

[ColdCaseJury]

If all Parry wanted to do was to speak to Julia without Wallace being present, why didn't he just go round to 29 Wolverton Street when Wallace had gone out to the chess club on 19 January? The opportunity was there then and there was no need for the Qualtrough/Menlove Gardens East charade.

An excellent point, and one I raise in my book against the Parry theory. Again, I'm not suggesting the scenario is the best theory, only the best Parry theory. As a conjecture, I suggested that "real life might have intruded" and that he could not go round that night. As Dickson-Carr pointed out, real-life does not follow the "tidy, clipped maze" of crime fiction.

[Mayerling]

An excellent point, and one I raise in my book against the Parry theory. Again, I'm not suggesting the scenario is the best theory, only the best Parry theory. As a conjecture, I suggested that "real life might have intruded" and that he could not go round that night. As Dickson-Carr pointed out, real-life does not follow the "tidy, clipped maze" of crime fiction.

Sometimes I wonder if crime fiction follows that "tidy, clipped maze". After looking at some of the classics of Agatha Christie and Dorothy Sayers, with their reliance on "time-table" plots or "clockwork" plotting, I study the inner workings and find holes all over the place.

Jeff

[Graham]

I think it was Sir James Paget who, after Victorian suspected husband-poisoner Adelaide Bartlett was found not guilty of the murder of her husband (when everyone and his dog was convinced that she did do it), said that, "Now that she has been found not guilty, perhaps in the interests of science she should tell us how she did it". Wallace, who surely knew that his days were numbered, could have done the same had he been guilty, but he never did. I'm not saying for one instant that he was actually guilty, just that if he had been, he had nothing to lose after his acquittal by owning up.

Graham