Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Rosella]

Wallace might have thought there were two burglars who broke in, I suppose. Perhaps he just wasn't thinking straight that evening, when he said that.

[ColdCaseJury]

What do you think of his supposed comment "They've killed her..." -- why did he use the plural?

I suggest this is an idiom of English. We often use "they" as the pronoun when we refer to an unknown person rather than saying "he or she". Would it have made any difference if Wallace had said: "he's killed her"? A possible inference from the last statement is that Wallace was referring to a person he knew.

Personally, I do not believe we should read too much into such phrases. It only becomes significant if there is other evidence that suggests more than one person was involved.

[Pcdunn]

Hi, CCJ, you're right about the English phrase, of course, and the only reason I didn't ignore it was because I've just found out there were two possible murder weapons missing from the house. Either fact, taken alone, may be insignificant, but taken together they may become "suggestive" as the lawyers say.

Do you mind if I ask what your personal take is on Wallace's guilt or innocence?

[Spitfire]

I am convinced that the Court of Criminal Appeal got it right when allowing Wallace's appeal against conviction. There was just no evidence that Wallace did it. There was a great deal of suspicion. Then in 1931, as now, just over half the murders of females in the UK are committed by the victim's spouse (then) or partner (now). The prosecution took that suspicion and to it added the theory that Wallace had the time to murder his wife, and that it was all part of a well rehearsed plan which had its genesis certainly before the infamous phone call of 19 January.

My own view is that it is more likely than not that Wallace did not kill his wife, but her death was deliberately made to look like Wallace had been the murderer.

My main reasons are as follows:-

1. Qualtrough in making the call on 19th January did so in a manner that would probably mean that the call was traceable to the phone box near to Wolverton Street. If Wallace had been Qualtrough he would have realised that he might have been compromised when he spoke to THREE of the operators in getting put through to BANK 3851 at the chess club. It was either an act of extreme carelessness by the methodical killer Wallace, or it was someone else who was keen that origin of the telephone call should be discovered. I favour the latter.

2. The trial judge (after he retired from the bench) was reported to have said that Wallace's alibi was too good to be true. But was it? Wallace got home from his afternoon round's collections at about 6.05 pm and left for his Menlove Gardens expedition at 6.45 pm, so he had 40 minutes or so to kill his missus. Wandering round the Menlove Gardens area at around 7.30 pm to after 8pm would not provide an alibi for a murder committed an hour or more earlier.

3. However the time available for the murder is cut down by the fact that Alan Close (milk delivery boy) saw Julia alive at some time between 6.30 and 6.45pm. It is this sighting which provided (or should have provided) the prosecution with its biggest problem in proving guilt. It is not clear from what I have read as to whether Wallace was aware that Alan Close was going to be later in delivering the milk, his usual time was nearer 6pm but his bike had needed repair and he was doing his round on foot.

4. If Wallace had killed Julia with a weapon which came from 29 Woverton Street and then, as part of the meticulous plot, had disposed of it. The fact that the extensive searches of the police did not uncover its whereabouts tends to suggest that either the plotting was extremely meticulous or it just did not happen that way.

5. But if the plotting had been as meticulous that, then why was it not so in the areas where Wallace (as murderer) fell down. Those areas are, the traceability of the phone call the previous day; the fact that there was no sign of a break-in; that the 'burglar' replaced the cash box; he did not ransack Julia's handbag and then turned off the gas fire and gas lights before leaving.Surely Wallace would have realised that all these oversights would point the finger at him?

6. The complete lack of forensic evidence directly linking Wallace to the murder, particularly the lack of blood on either Wallace or his clothes or any evidence that the blood had been washed away by any of the sanitary facilities at 29 Wolverton Street, tends to indicate that the absent occupier was not responsible for the murder.

7. Finally, the absence of a murder weapon tends to indicate that the murderer took it away from the crime scene and disposed of it later. He could not leave it at the scene as it might exonerate Wallace and implicate him. But if it had been Wallace using part of the 29 Wolverton Street fire irons to kill Julia, why not leave it there? Provided it did not have a Wallace bloody fingerprint on it, it would have been better leaving it there than wondering round the streets of Liverpool looking for a place to ditch it.

There are points against Wallace. The most forceful being the peculiar way in which he effected his ingress into No 29 prior to his discovery of his wife's demise. How could he not get in either through the front door or the back? That's the question and the answer it is suggested is that he could get in the back door, but wanted a witness to him discovering Julia's body,

[ColdCaseJury]

Do you mind if I ask what your personal take is on Wallace's guilt or innocence?

Well, in my books I always adopt an impartial standpoint and ask the readers to deliver their verdicts. I provide my view in the online Postscript. As you ask, I believe the weight of evidence points more away from Wallace as being the killer (I provide more details in the Postscript). This does not preclude Wallace being involved in his wife's murder, however.

Overall, I believe the truth is probably lost to history. I suspect there are key facts about the Wallaces we do not know, and hence the crime will remain unsolved. In the Postscript I select one of the four major theories as the most likely given the evidence we do have. But even this conclusion is tentative.

[Rosella]

I urge anyone who is interested in the Wallace murder to get ColdCase's book. I've just finished it and wholeheartedly recommend it as a terrific read.

[Ginger]

I suggest this is an idiom of English. We often use "they" as the pronoun when we refer to an unknown person rather than saying "he or she". Would it have made any difference if Wallace had said: "he's killed her"? A possible inference from the last statement is that Wallace was referring to a person he knew.

Personally, I do not believe we should read too much into such phrases. It only becomes significant if there is other evidence that suggests more than one person was involved.

Exactly. "They" is often invoked to mean "an indeterminate person or persons". They changed the rules. They repainted the sign. They stole my laptop. They gave me a coupon. They flubbed my order.

[louisa]

I always thought that Parry's girlfriend retracted her alibi in later years?

I honestly don't think that Wallace changed from Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde.

A mild mannered man all his life - suddenly and inexplicably turning into a sadistic and violent madman? Not only that, but to have planned it all beforehand. No, I don't think so.

If he was the murderer then he should be applauded by those of us that consider this case to be the greatest whodunnit of all time.

My money has to be on Parry.

[ColdCaseJury]

My own view is that it is more likely than not that Wallace did not kill his wife, but her death was deliberately made to look like Wallace had been the murderer.

I agree with the first point above, the second I'm less sure about, although possible. In your list of points the only one I would take issue with would be (1). Overall, the evidence suggests that there was a fault at Anfield 1627 that forced Qualtrough to speak to the operators. Even if he had intended to have his call traced, it depended solely on the operator noting the time and call box; something he could not have known would happen.

Even if I'm correct about (1), it does not detract from the force of your other arguments. I particularly agree (as I state in my book) that Wallace's alibi was hardly watertight.

[ColdCaseJury]

If he was the murderer then he should be applauded by those of us that consider this case to be the greatest whodunnit of all time. My money has to be on Parry.

I cannot help imagining a scene in the parlour of 29 Wolverton Street in which Parry, Wallace and a few others are gathered, and the real murderer is asked to step forward. Wallace stirs, and Parry too, but someone we don't know strides forward from the back of the room.

[Spitfire]

Overall, the evidence suggests that there was a fault at Anfield 1627 that forced Qualtrough to speak to the operators. Even if he had intended to have his call traced, it depended solely on the operator noting the time and call box; something he could not have known would happen.

I do find it a bit difficult to follow what happened during the phone call (I am not even sure if the phone box had a dial) but it does seem that Qualtrough claimed he had pressed button A and had not got his correspondent, whereas the telephone exchange's machinery indicated that he had pressed button B and got his money back.

The point is, however, that if Qualtrough had been Wallace, then he would have realised after speaking to three operators and generally making a nuisance of himself, that the call might be traced to the phone box nearest his (Wallace's) house and that the police might put two and two together in the investigation of the murder of his wife.

[John G]

I don't believe anyone has referenced this site, which gives an extremely detailed account of the case: http://inacityliving.blogspot.co.uk/...rder-case.html

Personally, I don't think there is any proof whatever that Wallace was guilty, and there doesn't seem to be anything resembling hard evidence against anyone else either, and no obvious motive. Frankly, the case is really perplexing: as Raymond Chandler put it, "The Wallace case is unbeatable; it will always be unbeatable."

[sdreid]

I always thought that Parry's girlfriend retracted her alibi in later years?

Parry had an alibi from three different people for the time of the murder (and some outlived Parry without changing their story) and none of them were his girlfriend. He didn't see her until after the time of the crime. This was one where The Man From the Pru colored the story a bit.

[John G]

What is intriguing is that although Parry accumulated several alibis for the time of the murder, which in itself might be regarded as suspicious, there are problems with his alibi for the Qualtrough call. Thus, the call was made on the Monday evening, the day prior to the murder. Now, according to Parry he was with his girlfriend, Lillian Lloyd, at her parents address where she resided, that evening from 5:30 to 11:30.

However, according to Lloyds statement she was teaching a private pupil that evening and that Parry didn't arrive until 7:35, although she didn't see him. Lloyds mother said that he arrived at 7:15 but stayed only 15 minutes before returning at 9:00-9:15 (Lilly estimated 8:30-9:00).

Clearly these accounts are irreconcilable. It has also been pointed out (in the link that I gave) that Walllace knew the day before Parry gave his statement that the police knew exactly what time the call was made and where from. If Wallace and Parry were accomplices could Wallace have tipped Parry off about what the police knew, therefore requiring him to provide an additional alibi to the one he'd prepared for the day/time of the murder?

[ColdCaseJury]

Clearly these accounts are irreconcilable. It has also been pointed out (in the link that I gave) that Walllace knew the day before Parry gave his statement that the police knew exactly what time the call was made and where from. If Wallace and Parry were accomplices could Wallace have tipped Parry off about what the police knew, therefore requiring him to provide an additional alibi to the one he'd prepared for the day/time of the murder?

I also point out in my book that Parry misled the police on the night of the call. Because the police failed to TIE (Trace and Incriminate or Eliminate) Parry, he is still very much in the frame for that call. I did not suggest that Wallace tipped off Parry. Although its an intriguing idea, is it compatible with the fact that two days after the murder Wallace was telling the police everything he knew about Parry?