Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘to’ should read ‘too’of course.

[John G]

Wouldn’t the risk of Parry spilling the beans about the plot have been to great? What would have prevented Parry going to the police and explaining that he’d made the phone call because Wallace told him that he needed to get out of the house to meet a woman? Especially as he knew Julia and had visited the house, he may have worried about being suspected?

But then Parry would run the risk that we would be accused of being a co-conspirator, i.e. conspiracy to murder. Wallace could even say it was Parry's idea.

[John G]

It's a clever idea I think there is still, from your POV, the problem of how Wallace executed the plot since we still have all the problems of timing, distance, and weapon disposal as this plot implies WHW committed the murder himself.

I'm planning to go through the blood evidence shortly, and then consider whether it effectively rules Wallace out as the murderer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But then Parry would run the risk that we would be accused of being a co-conspirator, i.e. conspiracy to murder. Wallace could even say it was Parry's idea.

That’s certainly true John but would Wallace have been certain of Parry thinking that way? It just seems to me that Wallace would have been taking a big risk that Parry might have had a burst of conscience. He wasn’t the steadiest of characters after all.

[AmericanSherlock]

That’s certainly true John but would Wallace have been certain of Parry thinking that way? It just seems to me that Wallace would have been taking a big risk that Parry might have had a burst of conscience. He wasn’t the steadiest of characters after all.

I agree, I find the theory interesting because it is odd Parry seemed to lie or equivocate about where he was on the night of the call and I feel Wallace was clearly implicated as well (I mean we know he was right there near the phone box at the time of the call), so unless you think Wallace was being stalked, you might conclude both were involved. But because a conspiracy theory has numerous flaws (CAZ and others have pointed them out), an interesting twist would be "an unwitting conspiracy" where Wallace somehow gets Parry to make the call without knowing what it would lead to.

Ultimately, I think it is still significantly more likely Wallace made the call himself and Parry just didn't have a great alibi for the call, but did for the murder. I don't think exaggerating, equivocating, or even lying about an alibi necessarily implies guilt or complicity. I also think Jonathan Goodman searched hi and low for anyone willing to buttress his theory (he practically stalked Parry multiple times for years BEFORE the whole Parkes business). Considering Parry was a shady character, I don't find it surprising people were willing to speak up and some of them suggesting his guilt in a well publicized murder that he was known to be a suspect in. Even though his name wasn't published until after his death, I think all of Liverpool practically knew he was a suspect along with Wallace, as evidenced by numerous accounts.

So I just can't take Parkes testimony seriously or anyone who tangentially supported him from the garage 50 years post event. Consider 70 lunatics confessed to JW's murder in the days and weeks following. Someone claimed they heard John Johnstone confess on his deathbed which confessed Tom Slemen this was the "solution." I saw someone write on a blog detailing John Gannon's book, that Gannon had gotten it almost right with the whole sex scandal bit, but the real story was that Wallace was visiting gay prostitutes, Parry was one of them, and Julia knew---that's why she was killed!!! He said he knew this because his own dad confessed to being gay for pay for Wallace!!! It sounded very convincing in isolation and jibed with the whole Parry calling Wallace "sexually odd." But it was very likely someone just spouting absolute nonsense 80 years after the crime. The point being you can't really know what someone's motivations are for coming out with BS and you certainly can't figure "why would they lie, they have no reason to". This is particularly true with Parkes who seemed to dislike Parry's entire character. Some of what he says seems based on common knowledge of the case (Parry being perfect for the call because he made prank calls when the phone call was a well known element reported everywhere about the case.) That being said, Parry cannot escape suspicion entirely when you consider his shaky alibi, the 21st birthday mention, and the fact that he was an amatauer dramatic. There is definitely some ambiguity there, even though I do believe Wallace made the call and carried out the murder.

There are certain forms of eye witness testimony that is very important and it is up to investigators or armchair detectives to decide if they are likely accurate or not. But they should be considered very serious and not dismissed. Unfortunately, nothing of that sort exists in this case as far as I'm concerned.

[caz]

It's possible that Parry went round to see Julia that night, unbeknownst to Wallace. After all, he seemed to be blissfully unaware of the "musical interludes." I agree that he couldn't be certain that Wallace was leaving for the chess club, but the odds have to be overwhelming that he was, i.e. when you consider the timing.

Fair point, John. If Parry did pop in to see Julia on the Monday evening, he could have confirmed with her that Wallace was indeed going to play chess.

And I certainly don't think it would have been likely that he would have been visiting a client outside of normal office hours as this doesn't seem to be his normal practice.

And yet, if Qualtrough was Parry, he was relying on Wallace doing just that on the Tuesday evening, or the whole plan to get him out of the house would have gone tits up.

In fact, he seemed very uncertain as to whether he was even going to attend the Qualtrough appointment, despite the prospect of a significant commission.

If Wallace set the whole thing up, he was only pretending to be very uncertain. If Parry set it up, and Wallace was indeed very uncertain about going, the chances of the plan working at all would not have been good. Even if Wallace was seen leaving the house, he could have turned back at any time during that ill-fated journey, for any number of reasons: the weather, his health, worry over Julia's health, or the first person he asked telling him the address he had been given did not exist. Only Wallace could control what Wallace chose to do and when.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Fair point, John. If Parry did pop in to see Julia on the Monday evening, he could have confirmed with her that Wallace was indeed going to play chess.



And yet, if Qualtrough was Parry, he was relying on Wallace doing just that on the Tuesday evening, or the whole plan to get him out of the house would have gone tits up.



If Wallace set the whole thing up, he was only pretending to be very uncertain. If Parry set it up, and Wallace was indeed very uncertain about going, the chances of the plan working at all would not have been good. Even if Wallace was seen leaving the house, he could have turned back at any time during that ill-fated journey, for any number of reasons: the weather, his health, worry over Julia's health, or the first person he asked telling him the address he had been given did not exist. Only Wallace could control what Wallace chose to do and when.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes, you make some very good points. Parry, though, doesn't strike me as a mastermind-even less so if Parkes is to be believed!-so I doubt that any plan he might have constructed would be foolproof.

Regarding the call, I keep coming back to the two pieces of substansive: the fact that Parry lied about his alibi, and Beattie's certainty that the caller wasn't Wallace (and we need to bear in mind the fact that Beattie had known Wallace for 8 years so the two where well acquainted.

In fact, when asked at the trial if the caller sounded anything like Wallace he replied, " certainly not." He added that, "it would be a great stretch of the imagination for me to say it was anything like that."

From Wallace's perspective it would also be a very risky venture. I mean, all Beattie would have to say is that the voice sounded a bit like Wallace, or that it could conceivably be him, and Wallace would be in deep trouble.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi Caz,

Yes, you make some very good points. Parry, though, doesn't strike me as a mastermind-even less so if Parkes is to be believed!-so I doubt that any plan he might have constructed would be foolproof.

Regarding the call, I keep coming back to the two pieces of substansive: the fact that Parry lied about his alibi, and Beattie's certainty that the caller wasn't Wallace (and we need to bear in mind the fact that Beattie had known Wallace for 8 years so the two where well acquainted.

In fact, when asked at the trial if the caller sounded anything like Wallace he replied, " certainly not." He added that, "it would be a great stretch of the imagination for me to say it was anything like that."

From Wallace's perspective it would also be a very risky venture. I mean, all Beattie would have to say is that the voice sounded a bit like Wallace, or that it could conceivably be him, and Wallace would be in deep trouble.

But Wallace has a free "shot" at it, he can listen and see how Beattie reacts to the call both on the line and at the club. If there is no hint of odd behavior or suspicion on Beattie's behalf, he is in the clear. They even discussed the address etc.

I understand the counter to this is Wallace would be risking Beattie being suspicious in the back of his mind or whatever, I don't feel this is as strong of a point as many suggest. It is a calculated and worthwhile risk with little downside in my opinion and quite clever (if that's what happened" because Wallace can see it play out, before deciding to act further.)

And as it turned out as you say, Beattie did not think it was Wallace at all. Perhaps that's because it really was not him. But I think the real question should only be "Could Wallace fake his voice to fool Beattie" not "would he take that risk?" . It is similar to the timing issue, where the question as Murphy points out, is not whether Wallace would allow such a tight timeframe, since he can make his timeframe as he goes along, but simply only whether the time frame itself was plausible for one to achieve all that the killer would have had to do.

[AmericanSherlock]

Fair point, John. If Parry did pop in to see Julia on the Monday evening, he could have confirmed with her that Wallace was indeed going to play chess.



And yet, if Qualtrough was Parry, he was relying on Wallace doing just that on the Tuesday evening, or the whole plan to get him out of the house would have gone tits up.



If Wallace set the whole thing up, he was only pretending to be very uncertain. If Parry set it up, and Wallace was indeed very uncertain about going, the chances of the plan working at all would not have been good. Even if Wallace was seen leaving the house, he could have turned back at any time during that ill-fated journey, for any number of reasons: the weather, his health, worry over Julia's health, or the first person he asked telling him the address he had been given did not exist. Only Wallace could control what Wallace chose to do and when.

Love,

Caz
X

Some great points here. I'd add in reference to the bold, if Parry was already over there on the Monday night sure that Wallace was out of the house, what would the point be of needing to come again Tuesday night???

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the point that I keep finding myself returning to. Why didn’t Parry strike on the Monday as soon as he knew that Wallace had gone to chess? At this point in time I find that I can’t get past this simple chain of thought:

It’s overwhelmingly likely that Julia’s killer knew her.

Therefore it’s likely that he would have known about the habits and ‘goings on’ at number 29.

Therefore it’s likely that he would have known the times that Julia was alone in the house.

Therefore there would have been no need to concoct a plan to get Wallace out of the house (especially one with such obvious risks of failure.)

Therefore the only explaination for the Qualtrough phone call is as an alibi for Wallace.

[AmericanSherlock]

This is the point that I keep finding myself returning to. Why didn’t Parry strike on the Monday as soon as he knew that Wallace had gone to chess? At this point in time I find that I can’t get past this simple chain of thought:

It’s overwhelmingly likely that Julia’s killer knew her.

Therefore it’s likely that he would have known about the habits and ‘goings on’ at number 29.

Therefore it’s likely that he would have known the times that Julia was alone in the house.

Therefore there would have been no need to concoct a plan to get Wallace out of the house (especially one with such obvious risks of failure.)

Therefore the only explaination for the Qualtrough phone call is as an alibi for Wallace.

Herlock,

I agree with what you've laid out here. I would say the "logic" of the case points only towards Wallace as the architect of the plot. It is the details which are more ambiguous and could make one doubt Wallace's guilt.

My conclusion is that Wallace was guilty and that these details are some combinations of red herrings, result of Wallace himself trying to shift suspicion, and crime writers thruout the years looking to make the pieces fit with novel theories.

[John G]

This is a summary of the forensic evidence revealed at the trial. According to Professor McFall there was blood on the furniture and walls of the room. In fact, he conceded that as a consequence of the first blow, which severed an artery, blood spurted all around the room:

Oliver: "You have pointed to the jury it has been spurting all round the room."

McFall: "That was from the first blow."

Under cross examination, Professor McFall conceded that the assailant would have got blood on his face and hair from the first blow, and on his feet and lower part of his legs from the subsequent blows that were struck whilst the victim was on the ground: the fact that he may have been wearing a Macintosh would have made no difference, as the garment would not have covered his feet or the lower part of his legs.

It's also worth noting that Dr McFall was an expert witness for the prosecution, so he had no reason to give an opinion favourable to Wallace.

For the defence Professor Bible made this observation as regards the amount of blood that would have covered the assailant:

"I should say that he could hardly escape being splattered and covered with blood all over."

The conclusions of the forensic experts are, of course, deeply problematic from the perspective of Wallace's candidacy, i.e. because we know that no blood was found either on his person or his clothing when examined by the police. And neither did any other witness, such as the tram passengers, notice any blood on the visible parts of his body, such as his face or hair.

Moreover, the forensic tests also conclusively demonstrate that the blood was not washed off in the sink or bath.

On that basis, as things stand, the forensic evidence would appear to exonerate Wallace as regards the murder of his wife.

[caz]

I'd add in reference to the bold, if Parry was already over there on the Monday night sure that Wallace was out of the house, what would the point be of needing to come again Tuesday night???

Hmmm, you have a good point there, AS!

It does seem like a very odd and convoluted plot. Qualtrough has to know Wallace is going to play chess on the Monday evening, or the message luring him out on the Tuesday evening may not reach him. Even if it does, only Wallace knows if he will go or not, and he doesn't need to decide until the last minute anyway. It's actually quite absurd if you think about it, unless there is some reason why it has to be the Tuesday, or it's all about sending Wallace on a wild goose chase, and what happens in his absence is something that was never part of the original plan.

Could this be the answer? Does Parry make the call, in a petty attempt to get one back on Wallace, then decide to pay Julia a visit on the spur of the moment, eager to find out if Wallace has actually fallen for it? Is there a conversation between them, which winds Parry up further against Wallace, to the extent that he decides, again on the spur of the moment, to take a much more terrible revenge while he has Julia on her own?

Does this work with the other evidence, such as the mackintosh and the missing murder weapon? Could Parry have used the mac to ward off excessive blood stains and taken the iron bar or poker away with him in a panic, in case of fingerprints? What about the cash box? Did he take the money as an additional act of revenge, not caring that this would lead to him being suspected?

I still favour Wallace as Qualtrough and Julia's killer, in line with the vast majority of murders which happen in the victim's home and appear designed to lead suspicion away from the spouse.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a summary of the forensic evidence revealed at the trial. According to Professor McFall there was blood on the furniture and walls of the room. In fact, he conceded that as a consequence of the first blow, which severed an artery, blood spurted all around the room:

Oliver: "You have pointed to the jury it has been spurting all round the room."

McFall: "That was from the first blow."

Under cross examination, Professor McFall conceded that the assailant would have got blood on his face and hair from the first blow, and on his feet and lower part of his legs from the subsequent blows that were struck whilst the victim was on the ground: the fact that he may have been wearing a Macintosh would have made no difference, as the garment would not have covered his feet or the lower part of his legs.

It's also worth noting that Dr McFall was an expert witness for the prosecution, so he had no reason to give an opinion favourable to Wallace.

For the defence Professor Bible made this observation as regards the amount of blood that would have covered the assailant:

"I should say that he could hardly escape being splattered and covered with blood all over."

The conclusions of the forensic experts are, of course, deeply problematic from the perspective of Wallace's candidacy, i.e. because we know that no blood was found either on his person or his clothing when examined by the police. And neither did any other witness, such as the tram passengers, notice any blood on the visible parts of his body, such as his face or hair.

Moreover, the forensic tests also conclusively demonstrate that the blood was not washed off in the sink or bath.

On that basis, as things stand, the forensic evidence would appear to exonerate Wallace as regards the murder of his wife.

They undoubtedly are John. As you know, i favour Wallace but I’m certainly not 100%. I feel that ‘events’ point more to Wallace than anyone else but the blood evidence is the strongest point in Wallace’s favour. The only point that I would make, and I don’t propose myself as any kind of expert, is that if someone strikes a heavy blow (or a series of them) it would be impossible to predict the direction of the blood spurt. Adding the fact that the attacker would have been moving around, especially his head, it surely could have been possible that the assailant got far less blood on him than might have been predicted. In short, maybe Wallace was just lucky. And that luck combined with the use of the mackintosh as a shield meant that he didn’t get much blood on him.
I’m certainly not denying the difficulty of the blood evidence though John.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was just going over the events of the murder in my mind last night after John’s post about the blood evidence. The phrase ‘cui bono’ came to mind with regard to getting rid of bloodstains. And so my thinking was....

Firstly, I apologise for re-stating facts that everyone on the thread is fully familiar with.

This surely wasn’t a robbery that went wrong? The only suspect is Parry and it’s unthinkable that he would have visited Julia (after getting rid of Wallace via a phonecall that he didn’t need to make [he could have acted any time Wallace went to chess]) and stolen money leaving Julia alive to tell the tale.

If he intended to kill Julia and steal the cash he wouldn’t have bothered putting the cash box back on the shelf. If he’d made the Qualtrough phonecall he’d have had reason to believe that Wallace would have been gone for a considerable time. This would have allowed him to pretty much ransack the house in search of cash but he didn’t. So much so that it gives the distinct impression of being a staged robbery.

And then there’s the blood (or rather the lack of it.) This is where my ‘cui bono’ comes in. If it’s suggested that Wallace would have been heavily bloodstained then the same must have applied to Parry. Apart from the smear of blood on the cash and the blood clot on the toilet bowl there was no blood upstairs. We would expect a burglar/murderer to leave extensive traces upstairs as he searched for cash but this wasn’t the case. This suggests that the person that went upstairs wasn’t covered in blood and so must have cleaned himself up beforehand. Who, of the two suspects, was more likely to have cleaned himself up thoroughly after killing Julia? Parry would have left the property alone, in the dark to go to his car. He may even have used the back gate and the alleyway to stay out of sight of neighbours. Then he would have then had plenty of time to go home or somewhere else private and clean himself up. Would he have wasted valuable time cleaning up? There was no risk as long as he made sure that he left no fingerprints. Wallace, on the other hand, knew that he was going to be using well lit trams, talking to conductors and others and so it would have been absolutely vital for him to clean himself up fully. So, to me, the lack of blood in the corridors, on the stairs and in the bedrooms points far more to Wallace than a burglar/murderer.

It’s true of course that no evidence of anyone washing away blood in the sink was found but I have to say that this was 1931. How rigorous were the tests compared to today’s? Also Wallace had his own chemistry lab. Is it impossible that he had some kind of chemical/bleach that would have cleaned the sink (and his hands) thoroughly? He might even have bought it especially for that purpose after doing some research on how to remove blood evidence?

Finally I’ve always been a little confused at why, when he re-entered the house later that night looking for Julia, the Johnston’s said that they saw a light go on in the lab? Surely the only room in the house that Wallace could have been certain not to have found Julia in? Could an explaination for this be that when Wallace entered the back kitchen he noticed that he’d left out the bottle of chemicals/bleach and so his first priority was to return it to the lab where no one would have suspected it’s use? This would explain why he went to the lab in priority over the Parlour.

I think it has to be at least possible that Wallace used something to clean the sink (and his hands?) The suggestion that, in haste, he left the bottle in the kitchen, is pure conjecture of course. But it does explain a couple of mysteries. In my opinion that is