Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[caz]

The car wouldn’t have been ‘drenched’ in blood. There was no DNA at that time. He could easily have cleaned it himself. Indeed if Parry had planned this crime surely he’d have factored in cleaning the car. If so he would have surely realised the suicidal stupidity of taking it to Parkes.

Good point, except that either way it would have been daft to get anyone else to clean a car, specifically to get rid of blood from a murder victim. Drenched in blood? Out of the question. A few smears? Easily missed by anyone not looking for blood, but the same danger if they were noticed by the person washing them off.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Creating a co-conspirator to facilitate a scenario is all well and good but it also means that others can do the same. And so...

We have Wallace wanting rid of his wife (remembering the nurse, the doctor, the servant and the colleague who all said that the Wallace’s marriage wasn’t the happy one that everyone thought.)

He has a client that’s behind in his payments. He gets talking to him. He’s also in arrears with his rent. He’s unemployed (maybe a criminal conviction causes difficulties?) He even tells Wallace that his wife might leave him. Wallace gradually tests the water and finds that ( for a payment) the man is a willing co-conspirator. Wallace is confident that the man won’t go to the police afterwards due to his (even peripheral) involvement. Wallace might even tell him that if he tries going to the police he’ll point the finger at him (telling them of his debts, his conviction, perhaps he might even say “I remember him asking me what nights I played chess!)

He gets ‘Mr Q’ to make the phonecall.

Then on the evening of the murder (while Wallace kills Julia, cleans up and attempts to set up a bungled robbery scene) ‘Mr Q’ waits in the alley for Wallace to leave. As he does Wallace hands him a parcel or a bag containing an iron bar which he takes away and disposes of.

Off Wallace goes in search of the mythical MGE.

I’d call this my ‘ Possibly Correct Solution.’ All I’ve done is invent a co-conspirator

One possible flaw, HS - why wouldn't Wallace have got Qualtrough to call the chess club when he was already there, and say: "Good evening, I have a business proposition for a Mr Wallace for tomorrow evening. Could I possibly have a word with him or leave a message?" That would have given Wallace the perfect alibi for the Monday evening. The belief at the time was that if Wallace didn't make that call, he was innocent, and whoever Qualtrough was, must have been Julia's killer.

Love,

Caz
X

[AmericanSherlock]

One possible flaw, HS - why wouldn't Wallace have got Qualtrough to call the chess club when he was already there, and say: "Good evening, I have a business proposition for a Mr Wallace for tomorrow evening. Could I possibly have a word with him or leave a message?" That would have given Wallace the perfect alibi for the Monday evening. The belief at the time was that if Wallace didn't make that call, he was innocent, and whoever Qualtrough was, must have been Julia's killer.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, I believe that because of this point, which I believe you were the 1st to make it ever, rules out the possibility of a conspiracy with Wallace and anyone else. (As well as if Wallace had hired someone else to commit the actual murder, then why return home at all on the night of the murder. The obvious move if having hired someone would be to make the appointment for 6:30 PM the following night and just leave straight from work so you are out of the frame for the killing)

I think HS was just giving a hypothetical though to show how anyone can do so and that they aren't necessarily "the correct solution"

Anyway, I think it's safe to say either Wallace acted alone or somebody(ies) else committed the crime.

You know what direction I lean in

[caz]

Hi AS, HS,

Petty criminals after petty cash tend not to go in for elaborate plots to get the man of the house out for the evening so they can get in, knowing the woman of the house will be there.

They much prefer to watch and wait, like the Anfield Housebreaker, until a house is left totally unoccupied so they can fill their boots without being seen and without having a pesky witness - however old and frail - potentially kicking up a fuss, getting in the way or later being able to identify the culprit.

Yes, old women have all too often been murdered in their own homes by a thief only interested in their valuables, but generally in those cases the criminal either breaks in not knowing anyone is at home, or they are hardened, vicious types, who go prepared to use violence against the vulnerable person they know is inside, and have no conscience about doing so if it makes it easier for them to get away with the spoils - all the available spoils.

In the Wallace case something just doesn't add up, because the killer presumably knew in advance that Mrs Wallace would be at home, and might need to be 'dealt with', and he would not have wanted to leave without taking everything of value, if that had been the whole point of getting Wallace out of the house and getting his wife to let him in.

It screams 'domestic' to me, by someone who had to get himself into the mind of the type of intruder he needed for the job, but who ended up with an awkward, implausible hybrid of the petty sneak thief and violent, hardened criminal. Too clever by half, but missing the mark.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

One possible flaw, HS - why wouldn't Wallace have got Qualtrough to call the chess club when he was already there, and say: "Good evening, I have a business proposition for a Mr Wallace for tomorrow evening. Could I possibly have a word with him or leave a message?" That would have given Wallace the perfect alibi for the Monday evening. The belief at the time was that if Wallace didn't make that call, he was innocent, and whoever Qualtrough was, must have been Julia's killer.

Love,

Caz
X

Can’t argue with that one Caz. Good point

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AS, HS,

Petty criminals after petty cash tend not to go in for elaborate plots to get the man of the house out for the evening so they can get in, knowing the woman of the house will be there.

They much prefer to watch and wait, like the Anfield Housebreaker, until a house is left totally unoccupied so they can fill their boots without being seen and without having a pesky witness - however old and frail - potentially kicking up a fuss, getting in the way or later being able to identify the culprit.

Yes, old women have all too often been murdered in their own homes by a thief only interested in their valuables, but generally in those cases the criminal either breaks in not knowing anyone is at home, or they are hardened, vicious types, who go prepared to use violence against the vulnerable person they know is inside, and have no conscience about doing so if it makes it easier for them to get away with the spoils - all the available spoils.

In the Wallace case something just doesn't add up, because the killer presumably knew in advance that Mrs Wallace would be at home, and might need to be 'dealt with', and he would not have wanted to leave without taking everything of value, if that had been the whole point of getting Wallace out of the house and getting his wife to let him in.

It screams 'domestic' to me, by someone who had to get himself into the mind of the type of intruder he needed for the job, but who ended up with an awkward, implausible hybrid of the petty sneak thief and violent, hardened criminal. Too clever by half, but missing the mark.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz, one day I’ll have to find a post of yours that I disagree with (maybe I’ll ask Mr Orsam )

Nothing about this case says robbery-gone-wrong to me. A plan with more holes in it than a tramp’s vest. A criminal mastermind who risks all to get his car cleaned then spills the beans to someone that neither likes or trusts him. A piddling amount of cash when the mastermind would have known when the best time to rob would have been. A thief that commits a brutal murder when he has no need to. Wallace’s relentless search for MGE as if it’s the Holy Grail. Wallace entering the house to find his wife, refusing to take the few seconds to check the parlour but dashing upstairs to look in a room that Julia would never have gone into. The blood smear on the notes upstairs. The feeble attempt to search for cash or valuables. No marks of defence on Julia.

I don’t like to quote myself....but I will

“Add this to the level of overkill. Eleven blows when it was likely that Julia hit the floor dead. This speaks of premeditated murder to me. Anger, resentment. Julia had a very narrow circle of acquaintances or friends. This kind of anger and resentment usually takes time to build up and fester. There’s only one person who fits this bill.”

[AmericanSherlock]

You guys (and gals I think?) have pretty much said just about all there is to say. It's quite satisfying to know there are others out there who view this case in the same way. It was the 1st case I was ever fascinated with having heard about it back in 2000 as a 10 year old. I read it in a true crime book I'd gotten from the school library and couldn't sleep. My mom was mad that I read scary stuff before bed. It does seem our opinions are somewhat in the minority for whatever reason. Although the weight is swinging back to our aide in popular opinion since Murphy's book.

One other point, Jonathan Goodman was quite biased in his approach. He focused on Parry as a suspect since it matches his theory and Wallace had hinted at him, hounded him down and decided Parry was guilty from a meeting outside his front door in 1966 where Parry was polite and "smiling and laughing" but Goodman felt he was secretly an evil murderer. It was only after That, when continuing calling Parry and harassing for more info that he was told to buzz off. All of this was before Parkes testimony on radio city in 1981 following Parrys death and it makes me think Goodman searched hi and low for any people willing to implicate Parry, rather than them coming forward on their own volition.

The case against Parry (or Parry and accomplice) is far weaker than against Wallace. It amazed me that some people think Parry is a more viable suspect than WHW. He does have a cast iron alibi for one thing.

It seems characteristic of this case that the more it's studied and the more information that comes out, the more people tend to be convinced of Wallace's guilt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s also worth mentioning that Wallace himself slipped Parry into the frame by giving his name to the police.

[AmericanSherlock]

I think its possible Wallace was trying to frame Parry and had him in mind from the get go. Caz already pointed this out I think but the dodgy young insurance guy that got canned for unscrupulous behavior would make a good fall guy, no?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think its possible Wallace was trying to frame Parry and had him in mind from the get go. Caz already pointed this out I think but the dodgy young insurance guy that got canned for unscrupulous behavior would make a good fall guy, no?

Ideal. Let's face it its unlikely that Wallace would have associated with many, 'dodgy characters.' And what could be better than a dodgy character that his wife might have let into the house, relieving him of the nessesity of staging a break in.

[AmericanSherlock]

Another point that was made before but bares repeating:

1. If it was a sneak thief, it seems unlikely he showed up with his own weapon

2. But if he used something from the house and took it with him, then why was Wallace unable to identify anything missing from the house that could have been the murder weapon?

[Pcdunn]

I think the most suspicious thing Wallace did was claim the door would not unlock to his neighbors. We've only his word that it was so, and as soon as they are there to witness him going in, the door suddenly seems to open all right. Was he wanting witnesses to see him go inside? Just always struck me as weird.

[AmericanSherlock]

I think the most suspicious thing Wallace did was claim the door would not unlock to his neighbors. We've only his word that it was so, and as soon as they are there to witness him going in, the door suddenly seems to open all right. Was he wanting witnesses to see him go inside? Just always struck me as weird.

It does appear that he was trying to put on a contrived show, doesn't it?

[caz]

Ideal. Let's face it its unlikely that Wallace would have associated with many, 'dodgy characters.' And what could be better than a dodgy character that his wife might have let into the house, relieving him of the nessesity of staging a break in.

Hi HS,

Wallace was not stupid either. Guilty or innocent, he'd have known that he would be the first - and last - man suspected, as the husband of a woman murdered in her own home, if he couldn't provide an immaculate alibi and if the police had nobody else with the requisite means, motive and opportunity. Step forward Parry aka "Qualtrough".

Does it work as well the other way round? While Parry would know that Wallace would become the obvious suspect, was he smart enough to reason that calling the chess club when Wallace wasn't there would allow the police to suspect Wallace of making the call himself? I don't know. And how could he have engineered it to leave Wallace with a shaky alibi? Had he decided not to go home for tea on the Tuesday, before going off to look for MGE, he'd have been totally in the clear, leaving Parry the only other obvious suspect.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS,

Wallace was not stupid either. Guilty or innocent, he'd have known that he would be the first - and last - man suspected, as the husband of a woman murdered in her own home, if he couldn't provide an immaculate alibi and if the police had nobody else with the requisite means, motive and opportunity. Step forward Parry aka "Qualtrough".

Does it work as well the other way round? While Parry would know that Wallace would become the obvious suspect, was he smart enough to reason that calling the chess club when Wallace wasn't there would allow the police to suspect Wallace of making the call himself? I don't know. And how could he have engineered it to leave Wallace with a shaky alibi? Had he decided not to go home for tea on the Tuesday, before going off to look for MGE, he'd have been totally in the clear, leaving Parry the only other obvious suspect.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

It’s always difficult to judge someone’s thinking in retrospect. As you’ve said, was he thinking “if I call the club well before Wallace gets there the police might think that he made the call himself.” How clever or stupid was Parry? If the Parkes episode happened then the latter is the case. It’s difficult to square ‘smart’ enough to call before Wallace hets to the club with ‘astronomically dumb’ enough to get his car cleaned by Parkes (spilling the Heinz in the process!) I just can’t see the Parkes episode as an error of judgment and the blabbing as something done in panic. The likeliest is, for me, that it never happened. Maybe it was just Parkes trying to get some kind of revenge on Parry. Or Parkes seeking his 15 minutes in the spotlight.
Another example of stupidity would have been the police completely dismissing a witness who was virtually handing them the culprit on a plate. True, they felt that they already had their man and wouldn’t have wanted to have been shown to have been wrong but surely it would have been far worse to have Parkes evidence shown to be correct after Wallace had been hanged (and that they had dismissed it without further examination?)
The police would have only have to have taken a few minutes to search for the weapon where Parry allegedly told Parkes that he’d dumped it to conclusively prove the value of Parkes testimony?