Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock what is your opinion of the Hussey book?

Has he made a good case for sneak theft?

I’m about 90 pages in and it could have been written by you-know-who.

He appears to have just fleshed out what Hussey is saying. Hussey is totally biased (no surprise there.)

He basically tries to make out that those who believe Wallace to be guilty believe that his motive was that Julia talked too much. And this is just because, in his diary, Wallace mentioned missing her ‘aimless chatter.’

I’m not impressed 90 pages in. To be honest, I wasn’t impressed 30 pages in.

[AmericanSherlock]

Ive just seen a hand drawn map in the Hussey book which has answered this point. It looks like the Murphy map is an older one which shows an Osborne Rd which, in the Hussey map, is Castlewood Road (which has been extended.)

Herlock what is your opinion of the Hussey book?

Has he made a good case for sneak theft?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I decided to re-read Murphy. I’m only up to page 58 but I thought that I’d list a few things here. These aren’t “aha, Wallace was guilty” points. They are just....well, points. They may have been answered before (possibly even later in the book) but I have an unreliable memory. One of the points is simply a request for help. Apologies for repetition but here goes.

This is one that I just need someone to clarify for me. When Wallace got home on the Tuesday was he trying to get into the back door using a key? Johnston offered to go and get his key if Wallace wasn’t able to get in so, to me, this suggests that Wallace didn’t have his backdoor key? If this is the case why was Wallace so surprised that he couldn’t get in? At his trial Wallace said that he’d told Julia to lock the door and that this was their usual practice. I must be missing something here. please put me out of my misery on this one guys.

~

As it has been said that the Menlove Gardens area was an affluent one (one that would certainly have tempted Wallace with the thought of a high commission) why did Beattie call it “ a bad place to be knocking about after dark.” Sounds more like Whitechapel 1888.

~

If Bertha and Walter Holme of number 27 heard a knocking on the Wallace’s front door at around 6.30 from a position in their kitchen at the back of the house why did they hear no one else knock the door (probably only 10 or 15 minutes later?) Especially our mythical Qualtrough who would have proceeded to have a conversation with Julia explaining the ****-up.

~

Why did Wallace stutter and appear nervous when he spoke to Constable Serjeant in Green Lane? After all, he wasn’t up to anything

~

Why did Wallace use the phrase “her mackintosh and my mackintosh” when he later stated that he’d never seen Julia in a mackintosh (which implies that she didn’t even own one?)

~

To me this is just a little curious....no more. When Wallace and PC Williams entered the middle bedroom Williams approached the curtained recess. Wallace informed him that that was where his wife kept her clothes and that they hadn’t been touched. Williams then opened the curtains and checked. Why would Wallace, when searching for Julia, and in the short time that he was upstairs, have checked to see if Julia was behind a curtain in a small clothing storage area? Also isn’t the fact that Wallace had drawn the curtain back before he went on with his search slightly reminiscent of the returned cash box?

~

In the front bedroom why would a thief, presumably looking for cash and valuables, have pointlessly thrown two pillows into the fireplace but not bothered to check the dressing table drawers? Money, jewellery.....

~

I mention this purely because it seems a little strange and nothing more. How many of us would insist that they wanted to sleep that night in the very house where their beloved wife had been brutally murdered?

~

This is a request for help. Am I going blind?

When asked about the route that he’d taken on the Tuesday night he said......Richmond Park, Sedley Street, Newcombe Street, Castlewood Road and Belmont Road.

I’ve gone over the street map in Murphy with a magnifying glass but I can’t see a Castlewood Road? I’m not reading anything into this but I’m just curious as to where it was.

~

Looking at the photograph taken from the parlour door it’s immediately obvious how little space there was on Julia’s right. When Wallace first entered the room it was in total darkness and he didn’t know that Julia was dead (he thought that she might have had some kind of fit.) When he went to the left gas jet how did he avoid stepping in Julia’s blood? It seems unlikely in the extreme given the lack of space? Between the first photograph and the second someone moved the chair to a place between the sideboard and the door (Wallace had already left for the police station so we know wasn’t him.) In it’s new position the chair would have impeded the opening of the door (which had been removed) so we can say with confidence that it wasn’t the original position of the chair. It was likely moved either by the photographer or a police office to allow the photographer to enter, with his equipment, and avoid the blood.
With the chair in its ‘new’ position it gives the appearance of their being more space for Wallace to have walked to the gas jet avoiding blood. With the chair in its original ‘first photograph’ position it’s hard to see how Wallace avoided the blood in the dark.

Unless he knew that it was there of course

Ive just seen a hand drawn map in the Hussey book which has answered this point. It looks like the Murphy map is an older one which shows an Osborne Rd which, in the Hussey map, is Castlewood Road (which has been extended.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

Let's hope we can solve this one way or another.

As you say, if the more detailed description of the call which appears in Murphy, and then Gannon as well as Antony's book is correct, then this is very damning towards Wallace.

Any other caller would not want to ask the address because he would have no way of knowing that Beattie did not have it. He would be in a major pickle as to what to say next if Beattie gave him the address. It is not a line of questioning that "Qualtrough" would want to go down at all. Hard to reconcile this with any caller who was not Wallace.

It is hard for me to believe Murphy just made it up and the following writers copied him.

I think the fact that Murphy was the 1st author who had access to the entire case files is a clue that he did not make it up.

On the other hand, that is not conclusive proof and this more in depth account of the call does not appear anywhere else.

We must get to the bottom of it.

Here is James Murphy's twitter. Unfortunately he hasn't been active in a couple years it looks like. He's also posted promoting his Wallace book on a couple forums in the last few years and even posted here a decade or so ago. He had said he tracked down Parry's co workers from later years who knew him as left-handed. The forensics suggested a right handed killer. I think he would be receptive to conversation if we could get a hold of him.

https://twitter.com/jamesmurphy1946?lang=en

Hi AS,

We can dismiss ‘error’ because there’s been nothing in print to get the error from. And as you say I simply cant believe that Murphy made this up. Someone who have to be a pretty colossal idiot to believe for a single second that he could get away with such a lie. The possible fact that Murphy had greater access to the files than previous authors points to genuine for me. If so Wallace was surely the man.
It’s perhaps a pity that Antony didn’t contact him whilst researching his book.

[AmericanSherlock]

I recently contacted The Bluecoat Press to see if there was any chance of them passing on a question to James Murphy. I got a reply from Colin Wilkinson who said the unfortunately he’d had no contact with Murphy for 15 years and that he believed that he’d gone to live in Cumbria (William Wallace territory!)

I just wanted to ask him where he got the statement from that ‘Qualtrough’ asked Beattie if he knew Wallace’s address as it appears in no other book (apart from Gannon which came later.)

Of course if this is correct it blows a massive hole in any other suspect as only Wallace could have known that no-one at the club knew his address.

Murphy is either mistaken (its hard to see how such an ‘error’ could be possible,) lying ( I need proof to call someone a liar. Plus, would Murphy have been so stupid as to make something up like this which could easily have been proven false.) Or else he was telling the truth and just repeating something he’d read in the files. And therefore Wallace was almost certainly the caller (either him or the worlds stupidest man.)

So we have....

Option A - highly unlikely.

Option B - highly unlikely.

Option C - likely.

We need more info.

Herlock,

Let's hope we can solve this one way or another.

As you say, if the more detailed description of the call which appears in Murphy, and then Gannon as well as Antony's book is correct, then this is very damning towards Wallace.

Any other caller would not want to ask the address because he would have no way of knowing that Beattie did not have it. He would be in a major pickle as to what to say next if Beattie gave him the address. It is not a line of questioning that "Qualtrough" would want to go down at all. Hard to reconcile this with any caller who was not Wallace.

It is hard for me to believe Murphy just made it up and the following writers copied him.

I think the fact that Murphy was the 1st author who had access to the entire case files is a clue that he did not make it up.

On the other hand, that is not conclusive proof and this more in depth account of the call does not appear anywhere else.

We must get to the bottom of it.

Here is James Murphy's twitter. Unfortunately he hasn't been active in a couple years it looks like. He's also posted promoting his Wallace book on a couple forums in the last few years and even posted here a decade or so ago. He had said he tracked down Parry's co workers from later years who knew him as left-handed. The forensics suggested a right handed killer. I think he would be receptive to conversation if we could get a hold of him.

https://twitter.com/jamesmurphy1946?lang=en

[Herlock Sholmes]

I recently contacted The Bluecoat Press to see if there was any chance of them passing on a question to James Murphy. I got a reply from Colin Wilkinson who said the unfortunately he’d had no contact with Murphy for 15 years and that he believed that he’d gone to live in Cumbria (William Wallace territory!)

I just wanted to ask him where he got the statement from that ‘Qualtrough’ asked Beattie if he knew Wallace’s address as it appears in no other book (apart from Gannon which came later.)

Of course if this is correct it blows a massive hole in any other suspect as only Wallace could have known that no-one at the club knew his address.

Murphy is either mistaken (its hard to see how such an ‘error’ could be possible,) lying ( I need proof to call someone a liar. Plus, would Murphy have been so stupid as to make something up like this which could easily have been proven false.) Or else he was telling the truth and just repeating something he’d read in the files. And therefore Wallace was almost certainly the caller (either him or the worlds stupidest man.)

So we have....

Option A - highly unlikely.

Option B - highly unlikely.

Option C - likely.

We need more info.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS,

This is an important concept you've elucidated---there really are only 2 main suspects. 1 of them has many alibis and 1 has none...

Also, let's think about this a bit. Wallace himself said Julia would let in very few people. Either he was innocent and this was genuine musing on his part, or a guilty Wallace was trying to pin the crime on Parry.

It seems like as we've discussed at length, if Wallace was in fact the guilty party, he had Parry in mind as a fall guy. Saying his wife would only open the door to very few people, then listing Parry as 1 of the people, along with describing his dodgy history is either the actions of an innocent man trying to solve the case or a guilty man trying to put another fellow in the frame. Might sound obvious put that way, but I think we can rule out Wallace being guilty but not trying to frame (or at least divert suspicion) onto Parry. Because it would be stupid otherwise to reduce the list of possible suspects by saying JW wouldn't let in pretty much everyone except a few guys he listed who used to work for the Pru.

This might seem like it doesn't solve much because there is still the possibility Wallace was innocent and just genuinely trying to make sense of what happened, but it does go some way to explaining why Parry seems like an appealing suspect on the face of it, if you feel the rest of the evidence points to Wallace.

Previously, it was thought that maybe the 2 worked together on the crime which would explain why both seemed guilty. In reality, I would posit it's because Wallace carefully selected a fall guy (or 2 or 3).

Remember he named Marsden and Stan Young as well. Marsden at least was also canned for irregularities in collecting. Wallace contrives the plot around making it look like an insurance cash-box theft. (This is why he doesn't think to steal jewelry or other obvious stuff (Julia's handbag etc. ) He has the perfect guys in mind and indeed may have come up with the idea of the insurance money as the "bait" because of these financial irregularities and dodgy fellows he knew who were canned for their behavior. He can't know for sure who will or won't have alibis or how strong they will be, so he names 3 separate people initially. Now, to be fair, Marsden had a pretty weak alibi "in bed with the flu", and Parry actually had stronger alibis as we have pointed out. But we don't know if Wallace knows this, what we do know is Parry is the one who knew the Wallaces the best, who helped him when he was sick on his rounds and who seemed somewhat friendly and familiar with the couple. Wallace of course is keenly aware of this and in prison, seeing his plan fall apart, he starts singling in on Parry out of desperation. This explains why he initially named a few possibilities, but zeroed in on the best target all along in Parry when he was up against it in jail.

That's my theory anyway.

In any case, whether or not that seems bunk conjecture or quite plausible doesn't change the calculus.

The fact remains Parry had multiple alibis and sever people would have to have been lying really for no good reason(and maintained their lies forever) for him to have been guilty.

A recanted alibi that doesn't even cover the time of the murder (for after 9 pm) on the Tuesday night by Lily Lloyd after Parry jilted her says nothing to me. (And in later years, she said she believed his innocence.)

Nor does an old man 50 years after the fact who disliked Parry and told a contradictory story or his garage mates also 50 years after the fact backing him up that Parry was a dodgy guy, which everyone knows anyway.

Also, as you point out Josephine Lloyd gave him an alibi for the call time, he technically could have made the call and rushed to the Lloyd's if the timing was slightly off but it would have been a huge rush. Also if he was killing time and bored enough to barge in on Lily's music lesson before it was over for no good reason, then there is no reason he could not have committed the crime right then and there, since he clearly didn't have plans until at least later that night---some have suggested that perhaps he was busy that night and that is why he had to set it up for the following night...

Parry didn't kill Julia Wallace and he wasn't a conspirator in a sneak theft.

That's my correct solution.

AS, I think we have to accept that there’s a very good chance that Wallace might have had Parry in mind all the time as the fall guy for Julia’s murder. We’re all familiar with the phrase ‘opposites attract’ but this is pushing it a little. Why would Wallace (upright, conservative, intelligent, cultured) and Julia (70 years old, genteel, retiring, classical music loving) maintain a friendship with Parry (22 years old, dodgy, womanising scally that had even stolen money from Wallace’s own round.) It makes no real sense. Initially it made me think that Wallace could have gotten Parry involved in the plan to kill Julia but I now think it more likely that he was preparing a fall guy.

I also noticed recently a quote where Wallace had said that Julia would only have admitted someone that she knew ‘personally.’ I’m not with my books at the moment so I can’t pinpoint it. If that was exactly what Wallace said though it would be yet another blow to the sneak thief theory as Julia didn’t know ‘Qualtrough’ personally.

As for Parkes....well.

I just can’t see how this can be taken seriously. Murphy demolishes it fully but I have to say, it’s not difficult to do. A pack of lies in my opinion.

One thing that I’ve always meant to say is ‘who uses a mitten for a robbery!’ Find me a thief in the history of crime that used a mitten (or mittens) as opposed to gloves. If it’s postulated that the mitten was Julia’s then it’s an I’ll-prepared thief that doesn’t bring gloves! Also, if it was Julia’s, what happened to the other one? Would Parry just keep the blood soaked one and discard the other? Wasn’t it Gannon that suggested a dark object on the sideboard as possibly being the other mitten? Wouldn’t it have been mentioned as strange by the police that there was a single mitten? They were looking for anything missing after all so it wouldn’t have needed Sherlock Holmes to deduce that Julia had 2 arms and so would require 2 mittens!

AS, it shows how much I’ve been taken over by this case I’ve even ordered The Last Sentence by Goodman.

Also, I assume that you’ve heard this. I only heard it today. Just a curiosity.

https://ia802608.us.archive.org/35/items/OTRR_Secrets_Of_Scotland_Yard_Singles/SecretsOfScotlandYardxx-xx-xx_xxx_MusicMurderandaMackintosh.mp3

It was interesting for me in that it was narrated by Clive Brook who was the first ‘talking’ Sherlock Holmes in movies.

[AmericanSherlock]

HS,

This is an important concept you've elucidated---there really are only 2 main suspects. 1 of them has many alibis and 1 has none...

Also, let's think about this a bit. Wallace himself said Julia would let in very few people. Either he was innocent and this was genuine musing on his part, or a guilty Wallace was trying to pin the crime on Parry.

It seems like as we've discussed at length, if Wallace was in fact the guilty party, he had Parry in mind as a fall guy. Saying his wife would only open the door to very few people, then listing Parry as 1 of the people, along with describing his dodgy history is either the actions of an innocent man trying to solve the case or a guilty man trying to put another fellow in the frame. Might sound obvious put that way, but I think we can rule out Wallace being guilty but not trying to frame (or at least divert suspicion) onto Parry. Because it would be stupid otherwise to reduce the list of possible suspects by saying JW wouldn't let in pretty much everyone except a few guys he listed who used to work for the Pru.

This might seem like it doesn't solve much because there is still the possibility Wallace was innocent and just genuinely trying to make sense of what happened, but it does go some way to explaining why Parry seems like an appealing suspect on the face of it, if you feel the rest of the evidence points to Wallace.

Previously, it was thought that maybe the 2 worked together on the crime which would explain why both seemed guilty. In reality, I would posit it's because Wallace carefully selected a fall guy (or 2 or 3).

Remember he named Marsden and Stan Young as well. Marsden at least was also canned for irregularities in collecting. Wallace contrives the plot around making it look like an insurance cash-box theft. (This is why he doesn't think to steal jewelry or other obvious stuff (Julia's handbag etc. ) He has the perfect guys in mind and indeed may have come up with the idea of the insurance money as the "bait" because of these financial irregularities and dodgy fellows he knew who were canned for their behavior. He can't know for sure who will or won't have alibis or how strong they will be, so he names 3 separate people initially. Now, to be fair, Marsden had a pretty weak alibi "in bed with the flu", and Parry actually had stronger alibis as we have pointed out. But we don't know if Wallace knows this, what we do know is Parry is the one who knew the Wallaces the best, who helped him when he was sick on his rounds and who seemed somewhat friendly and familiar with the couple. Wallace of course is keenly aware of this and in prison, seeing his plan fall apart, he starts singling in on Parry out of desperation. This explains why he initially named a few possibilities, but zeroed in on the best target all along in Parry when he was up against it in jail.

That's my theory anyway.

In any case, whether or not that seems bunk conjecture or quite plausible doesn't change the calculus.

The fact remains Parry had multiple alibis and sever people would have to have been lying really for no good reason(and maintained their lies forever) for him to have been guilty.

A recanted alibi that doesn't even cover the time of the murder (for after 9 pm) on the Tuesday night by Lily Lloyd after Parry jilted her says nothing to me. (And in later years, she said she believed his innocence.)

Nor does an old man 50 years after the fact who disliked Parry and told a contradictory story or his garage mates also 50 years after the fact backing him up that Parry was a dodgy guy, which everyone knows anyway.

Also, as you point out Josephine Lloyd gave him an alibi for the call time, he technically could have made the call and rushed to the Lloyd's if the timing was slightly off but it would have been a huge rush. Also if he was killing time and bored enough to barge in on Lily's music lesson before it was over for no good reason, then there is no reason he could not have committed the crime right then and there, since he clearly didn't have plans until at least later that night---some have suggested that perhaps he was busy that night and that is why he had to set it up for the following night...

Parry didn't kill Julia Wallace and he wasn't a conspirator in a sneak theft.

That's my correct solution.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For those in the UK, the author is throwing in a free "van ride" thru Liverpool to tour the scene as a way to sweeten the deal

Murphy's really is the best book on the case.

You’ll certainly get no argument from me on that score.

If we step away from the minutiae of the case for a while and just consider that Parry had an unshakeable alibi then what more do we really need to know as there are only 2 suspects. We have Mrs Brine, her daughter and her nephew. Then, while Parry was there a Miss Plant called as well as Mrs Brine’s other nephew Harold. Then Parry went for cigarettes when he left at 8.30 and names Mr Hodgson who sold him them (who could have been questioned.) He then went to the garage to get his accumulator battery which could be checked out. Then he visited Mrs Williamson and chatted about the birthday party. Then he went to Missouri Road.

How many were involved in this conspiracy to exonerate a guilty Parry?!

Even Rod had to accept his unshakeable alibi and so invent the sneak thief theory.

Unfortunately for Rod, Josephine Lloyd gives Parry an alibi for the time of the phone call too.

Parry must have had more gullible, easily manipulated acolytes than David Koresh or Jim Jones

[AmericanSherlock]

I wasn’t impressed with Sayers thinking but it’s been a while since I’ve read it. I might reread when I’ve finished with Murphy.

$0.49!!

I’m not paying that much for it!

For those in the UK, the author is throwing in a free "van ride" thru Liverpool to tour the scene as a way to sweeten the deal

Murphy's really is the best book on the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the Rowland book is just basically a very boring account.

What did you think of Sayers opinion on the case?

"Sneak Thief Accomplice:The Correct Solution" will be available in September self published on Amazon Kindle for $0.49

I wasn’t impressed with Sayers thinking but it’s been a while since I’ve read it. I might reread when I’ve finished with Murphy.

$0.49!!

I’m not paying that much for it!

[AmericanSherlock]

Even the Bridges book is £20. I’ll wait for a cheaper copy to turn up. Of course we have Antony’s book to look forward to.

And of course there’s.......nah.

I think the Rowland book is just basically a very boring account.

What did you think of Sayers opinion on the case?

"Sneak Thief Accomplice:The Correct Solution" will be available in September self published on Amazon Kindle for $0.49

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even the Bridges book is £20. I’ll wait for a cheaper copy to turn up. Of course we have Antony’s book to look forward to.

And of course there’s.......nah.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s a pity that the Rowland book is so expensive though.

[AmericanSherlock]

I’ve just ordered the Hussey book for £2.80.

Get ready for sneak-thievery