Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

I was thinking about how many times I’d thought ‘only Wallace could reasonably have done that. Or, only Wallace could have benefitted from that’ so I thought that I’d compile a list:

Only Wallace could have known for certain that he would be attending chess club on that Monday night.

Only Wallace would have known for eg that he wouldn’t have asked Crewe about the whereabouts of Menlove Gardens East (as he lived in the area) and been told that there was no such place. Or that he wouldn’t have consulted a directory.

Only Wallace would have known for certain that no one at the chess club would have known his address. It could also be said that Wallace would have known his friend Caird’s routine and that he wouldn’t have arrived at the chess club by the time of the phonecall. This point, of course, has to be qualified by the fact that only Murphy and Gannon mention Qualtrough asking for Wallace’s address. Personally I find it difficult in the extreme to see Murphy (the earlier author) simply making this up.

Only Wallace could have been certain that he would go in search of Menlove Gardens East that night.

Only Wallace would have been unconcerned about the paltry amount of cash in the cash box that evening.

Only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the mackintosh In the Parlour that night.

Only Wallace could reasonably have had the level of anger/resentment to have delivered 11 brutal blows to a frail old woman.

Only Wallace definitely needed to remain blood free or to clean himself up that night and thereby leave no blood outside the parlour. He had to go to Menlove Gardens East.

Only Wallace benefitted from removing the murder weapon from the crime scene.

Only Wallace could have benefitted from turning off the downstairs lights after the murder of Julia.

Only Wallace could have delayed the discovery of Julia’s body.

Just a few questions.

Why do you say that, "only Wallace could reasonably have had the level of anger/ resentment..."? We have no idea what motivated the killer, moreover, William and Julia appeared to be in a living relationship: there is zero evidence to the contrary.

The points about Wallace remaining blood free and removing the murder weapon are interesting, as they virtually exonerate him.

Why do you say Wallace delayed the discovery of Julia's body?

Why is it relevant that only Wallace was "certain" to go in search of Menlove Gardens East?

What do you mean by, "only Wallace would have been unconcerned about the paltry amounts of cash..."?

When would Wallace have had the opportunity to consult a directory? What evidence is there that Wallace possessed a directory? Why would Wallace have needed to consult a directory, considering he was familiar with the Menlove Gardens area?

What do you mean by "only Wallace would have known for certain that no-one at the chess club would have known his address"? Why is this relevant?

Why would Wallace be the only one who benefited from removing the murder weapon from the crime scene, considering that an alternative assailant might not have worn gloves?

What do you mean by "only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the Macintosh..."? Why is this relevant?

What do you mean by "only Wallace could have benefited from turning of the downstairs light"? Why is this relevant?

What evidence have you for arguing that Wallace intentionally delayed the discovery of the body? Why is this relevant?

What do you mean by "Only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the Macintosh in the parlour that night"? How is this relevant?

[AmericanSherlock]

Just a few questions.

Why do you say that, "only Wallace could reasonably have had the level of anger/ resentment..."? We have no idea what motivated the killer, moreover, William and Julia appeared to be in a living relationship: there is zero evidence to the contrary.

The points about Wallace remaining blood free and removing the murder weapon are interesting, as they virtually exonerate him.

Why do you say Wallace delayed the discovery of Julia's body?

Why is it relevant that only Wallace was "certain" to go in search of Menlove Gardens East?

What do you mean by, "only Wallace would have been unconcerned about the paltry amounts of cash..."?

When would Wallace have had the opportunity to consult a directory? What evidence is there that Wallace possessed a directory? Why would Wallace have needed to consult a directory, considering he was familiar with the Menlove Gardens area?

What do you mean by "only Wallace would have known for certain that no-one at the chess club would have known his address"? Why is this relevant?

Why would Wallace be the only one who benefited from removing the murder weapon from the crime scene, considering that an alternative assailant might not have worn gloves?

What do you mean by "only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the Macintosh..."? Why is this relevant?

What do you mean by "only Wallace could have benefited from turning of the downstairs light"? Why is this relevant?

What evidence have you for arguing that Wallace intentionally delayed the discovery of the body? Why is this relevant?

What do you mean by "Only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the Macintosh in the parlour that night"? How is this relevant?

John, obviously Herlock can answer the intended meaning of his own individual points better than I can.

I would just say I'm a bit confused by most of the "how is this relevant" questions? Clearly if he thinks only Wallace could have done something or that anyone else was unlikely to do so, then this points somewhat towards Wallace. What is the misunderstanding? Surely your issue is more with whether or not the supposition is true, not the plain to see relevance of it if it were true?

[RodCrosby]

Criminals don't operate on certainties. They operate on possibilities or opportunities. And the jails are all full... And some are not in jail merely for the fact that they abandoned the opportunity that presented itself, because their intended victim changed their plans or some other obstacle arose. So we never get to hear about them. And a few, a very few, succeed in their crimes and get away Scot-free....

"The evidence is quite consistent with some unknown criminal, for some unknown motive, having got into the house and executed the murder and gone away... If there was an unknown murderer, he has covered up his traces."
Mr. Justice Wright in Rex v Wallace

"Are you not really saying that if it be assumed that this man committed the murder, other circumstances fit in with that?"
The Lord Chief Justice, Court of Criminal Appeal 19 May 1931(1932) 23 Cr. App. R. 32

"The Court will quash a conviction founded on mere suspicion" [headnote]
Court of Criminal Appeal 19 May 1931(1932) 23 Cr. App. R. 32

So all we have yet again is the misuse of the word "Only..." when he means "I fancy...", and most of his verbiage doesn't even support "I fancy..." and points in fact in the opposite direction.

And now we have fresh evidence which leads to the Correct Solution. [ignored, misreported or dismissed by the Wallace-fanciers, of course]

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a few questions.

Why do you say that, "only Wallace could reasonably have had the level of anger/ resentment..."? We have no idea what motivated the killer, moreover, William and Julia appeared to be in a living relationship: there is zero evidence to the contrary.

Dr Curwen, who knew them both and attended them when they were ill said “they didn’t lead the happy life that everyone supposed that they did.”
Mrs Wilson, Matron of the Police Remand Home, who nursed Wallace when he was ill said “their attitude toward each other appeared to be strained, and that feeling of sympathy and confidence one usually found existing between man and wife appeared to be entirely absent.”
Alfred Mather, a former colleague of William’s called Wallace “the most cool, calculating, despondent, soured man that he’d ever met.” And that he was a “bad tempered devil.”
I’m sure that I also read somewhere that Mrs Draper the charwoman also had detrimental things to say.
Also Julia was old enough to be his mother. A fact that she’d concealed from him. Looking forward to nursing an old woman when his own life expectancy was in doubt might have easily pushed him toward resentment and anger.

The points about Wallace remaining blood free and removing the murder weapon are interesting, as they virtually exonerate him.

A stranger entering number 29 to commit a robbery/murder wouldn’t have wanted to leave fingerprints and so would pretty certainly have worn gloves. If there were no fingerprints on the weapon then the weapon could in no way be connected to a stranger killer and so he would have no reason to take it away with him. Indeed he would be adding the unnessecary risk of further contamination or even being caught in possession. A weapon that was a household item would surely point to the householder. Therefore Wallace benefitted from getting rid of it.

Why do you say Wallace delayed the discovery of Julia's body?



I just felt that by spending ages searching for a non-existent address, then faffing around trying to get in followed by leaving the parlour until last (suspiciously in my opinion) created a larger gap of time between murder and discovery and examination. Wallace might have felt that this might muddy the water in regard to time of death?

Why is it relevant that only Wallace was "certain" to go in search of Menlove Gardens East?

What I meant is that even after leaving the message, and even if it was certain that Wallace has received the message, another killer/plotter could still not be certain that Wallace would go looking for MGE allowing the plan to go ahead. Only Wallace knew foe certain that he would go.

What do you mean by, "only Wallace would have been unconcerned about the paltry amounts of cash..."?

Parry would have known the best day to commit a robbery at Wallace’s house. When the cash box would have been at its fullest. The fact that Tuesday was a bad day and that the cash haul was extremely poor wouldn’t have bothered Wallace if he was setting the scene as a robbery.

When would Wallace have had the opportunity to consult a directory? What evidence is there that Wallace possessed a directory? Why would Wallace have needed to consult a directory, considering he was familiar with the Menlove Gardens area?

He had all day Tuesday to find a directory (post office etc) He could have called Crewe and been told that MGE didn’t exist. It’s strange that Wallace was reluctant to admit his familiarity with the area. He didn’t even mention going to Crewe’s house until a later statement.

What do you mean by "only Wallace would have known for certain that no-one at the chess club would have known his address"? Why is this relevant?

If Parry, for example, had asked Beattie for Wallace’s address he couldn’t have known that Beattie or anyone else couldn’t have provided it thereby scuppering the plan to get him to MGE. If Wallace made the call he could have asked the question without any risk and still proceeded with the plan.
This point John, is based on both Murphy and Gannon, who both said that the caller first asked for Wallace’s address. As Rod pointed out though this doesn’t appear in any other book. He believes that Murphy made it up but I find it hard to believe. Maybe it was in a statement that Murphy saw or in the full trial transcript. Until we can know for certain my point is on hold.

Why would Wallace be the only one who benefited from removing the murder weapon from the crime scene, considering that an alternative assailant might not have worn gloves?

It seems unlikely that anyone would have wanted to just kill Julia (although John Gannon would disagree) so a robber would naturally have worn gloves. Even a killer though might not have wanted to risk leaving prints and so have worn gloves.

What do you mean by "only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the Macintosh..."? Why is this relevant?

It’s just that the location of the mackintosh has raised questions. If it was used in the murder (worn or as a shield) it’s far more likely to have been Wallace than a stranger.

What do you mean by "only Wallace could have benefited from turning of the downstairs light"? Why is this relevant?

Why would a stranger, kill Julia then turn out the lights downstairs? It makes no sense. There’s no reason. Wallace might have wanted to give the impression that no-one was in so that if anyone called there would have been no suspicion when they got no reply. If this was a family member it might cause panic and a call to the police. Wallace wanted the police to think Julia had been killed later on. If someone knocked and got no answer at 6.50 it would point to Julia being dead earlier and nearer the time when Wallace was still at home.

What evidence have you for arguing that Wallace intentionally delayed the discovery of the body? Why is this relevant?

Continuing to search for an address despite being told twice (once by a police officer) that it didn’t exist. The messing around with the front and back doors. The fact that he checked the 2 kitchens but walked past the parlour to search upstairs including the only room in the house that he could have been sure that Julia wasn’t in (his lab) before returning to the parlour. It’s not a major point John but Wallace might have felt that the bigger the gap between murder and medical examination might muddy the water as far as T.O.D went.

What do you mean by "Only Wallace provides a sensible reason for the presence of the Macintosh in the parlour that night"? How is this relevant?

The question exists why was his mackintosh in the Parlour and beneath Julia? He’d hung it up. What would she be doing with it. Rod’s ‘popping out’ idea isn’t believable to anyone but him.
If Wallace used it in the murder (to wear or as a shield) it would explain its presence.

Good to see you back on the thread by the way John

[AmericanSherlock]

Some awful coincidences for Wallace if he were truly innocent.

1. On the night of the phone call, the call comes from a box 400 yards away from Wallace's house at a time THREE minutes after he himself said he had left. As suggestive as this is, it might be the weakest of my points here! Mainly because, at least there is a possible counter-argument; that Wallace was being stalked and the stalker made the call purposefully right after Wallace dropped out of sight. This seems implausible to me, however it would explain the suspicious timing. But this leads us into the harder to argue against Point 2...

2. Wallace has missed the last FOUR meetings at the chess club. The board at the club has been marked to donate this; however it has been argued the board is indecipherable or could have even lead one to erroneously believe someone else to believe Wallace had shown up consistently. Let's, for the sake of argument, grant this point for the time being. Why did Qualtrough not try the ruse any of the previous FOUR times? Obviously if Qualtrough tried to get his message passed on and it failed, he would be unlikely to try again. And we would almost certainly know of it if the club had received a similar call in the past. An obvious argument to this is that Qualtrough had to stalk Wallace out first to see that he was headed to the club BEFORE making the call; this is why the call came on the one night Wallace indeed did go to the club, because Qualtrough finally saw him leave (presumably for the club, but how on earth could Qualtrough be sure???) So, are we to assume that Qualtrough had, several times in the past stalked Wallace out, waited for him to leave, been disappointed he hadn't and had tried again and again over subsequent weeks until Wallace appeared possibly on the way to the club. And that this spurred Qualtrough to rush to the call box to make the call? All to enact a convoluted plot in which he would still have Julia Wallace to contend with in the house? Or was this the first time Qualtrough tried his ruse and he just got lucky that for the FIRST time in FIVE meetings Wallace decided to show and received the message all perfectly according to the devious R. M. Qualtrough's plan...

Consider of course that Qualtrough has to rely on Wallace actually going to the club and not somewhere else; if Qualtrough HAD in fact stalked Wallace out before and seen Wallace NOT go to the club on numerous occasions when he was supposed to, he could be forgiven for not being very sure Wallace was headed there this night and not somewhere else altogether.

If he HADN'T tried this ruse before, then he got darn lucky that Wallace decided to go on this particular night after missing the last FOUR.

This is not even getting into the unreliability of Wallace deciding to follow up on the message, not consult a map, not decide it was risky to go or possibly a prank. It also implies to possibly attempt to counter these unknowns, Qualtrough AGAIN would have to lurk the following night to watch and wait for Wallace to leave. Of course, he would have now way of knowing, even if Wallace did leave if he was in fact going to see Qualtrough and how long he would be gone; perhaps he might change his mind upon being told by the 1st person the address didn't exist and head back home quickly.

What are the odds of all this working out just perfectly for an outside criminal?

3. On the night of the murder, the milk boy comes later than he usually does due to unforeseen circumstances (a bike malfunction.) Jonathan Goodman argues that Wallace could not have known this and if his alibi was the milk boy coming at around 6:15, there would be too much time between that and when Wallace was seen at the tram stop for an alibi.

Goodman fails to see a rather obvious point. As Murphy says, Wallace makes his time frame as he goes. The only thing that matters is the time BETWEEN when the milk boy leaves and Wallace is seen at the tram stop. IF the milk boy was there at 6:15, then if he were guilty, Wallace would jump into action right away and be seen on an earlier tram. I have seen it the argument that "Would a teenage milkboy be relied upon to give a time for an alibi?" (and as we saw, this was in fact difficult to get an accurate time). Also consider then, that the milk boy was likely seen as obstacle to be OVERCOME, possibly more than simply an alibi. It is very possible I suggest, WHW felt that by introducing the mysterious Qualtrough and having some question around timing, that would be enough to suggest reasonable doubt. It seems that many have agreed with that over the years in any case...

But the main point is a guilty Wallace CANNOT act until the milk boy has come again. If he was expecting the milk boy to come around 6:15 or so and leave at between 6:25 or 6:30 arriving at the tram around 6:45 would that not make sense? I don't think it would be too early, he would be in the MGE area after 7 PM without having consulted a map, not knowing the street where he was going and having to inquire and search for it. You might think the conscientious Wallace to know where his official business was before going, especially if a handsome commission could be involved. Putting that objection aside for a second and just accepting for whatever reason he did not do that, wouldn't you at least expect him to then allow some time to search for the address?

Instead, he arrives at just shortly before 7:30 and starts inquiring some more and searching fruitlessly. That would seem a bit on the late side for the punctual Man From the Pru---unless of course a late milk boy forced him to leave later than he had intended to. Of course in this scenario, a guilty Wallace would know there was no Menlove Gardens East and no Mr. Qualtrough to find, but he would want to have the appearance of being on a genuine search. His "cutting it close" time of departure without having clarified the precise address he was going to would seem to be out of character. Perhaps his hand was forced by the unusually late Alan Close?

Here comes the unlucky part: If Wallace were truly innocent, and he had left even a FEW minutes earlier, as you could argue would make more sense for him timing wise in his search for the unknown address, then he would be in the CLEAR. What time did the milk boy come? Murphy argues it was 6:35. I think CCJ /Antony has shown that it was definitely neither 6:30 as the prosecution claimed nor 6:45 as the defense says Alan Close claimed (and he may well have) before being coached by the police. The real time is not ambiguous if we take several testimonies including other milk boys and kids on the street who were definitely not coached by the police, as well as other deliveries made on the street. It was clearly sometime just after 6:35 and clearly before 6:40. I agree with Antony's time of 6:37 or 6:38. I think we can say the latest the milk boy left was 6:38 and that this should befair and uncontroversial.

Now back to Wallace, If he leaves, before the milk boy arrives at 6:30 or 6:35, he is in the clear, IF he leaves AFTER the milk boy arrives (and most agree it was 6:37ish) but only a couple minutes after, say around 6:40 and makes it to the tram stop before 7, he is pretty much in the clear.

But no, he leaves having left himself perhaps just the amount of time needed, creating a time frame you might expect of a man acting as quickly possible after the milk boy's departure, then heading off to the tram stop. If he had left JUST A BIT earlier, he would be in the clear. But he did not. How unlucky if truly innocent...

[RodCrosby]

You do realise the Police trawled the alehouses and flop-houses of Liverpool to seek any malicious gossip they could find? The Police file is full of it, but none of it, strangely, made it in to court. Random winos rambling incoherently about "Life Insurance policies" and "another woman."

OLIVER KC: "They got on pretty well together, as far as you could see ?
JANE SARAH DRAPER: "Yes. I always found them on pretty friendly terms."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some awful coincidences for Wallace if he were truly innocent.

1. On the night of the phone call, the call comes from a box 400 yards away from Wallace's house at a time THREE minutes after he himself said he had left. As suggestive as this is, it might be the weakest of my points here! Mainly because, at least there is a possible counter-argument; that Wallace was being stalked and the stalker made the call purposefully right after Wallace dropped out of sight. This seems implausible to me, however it would explain the suspicious timing. But this leads us into the harder to argue against Point 2...

2. Wallace has missed the last FOUR meetings at the chess club. The board at the club has been marked to donate this; however it has been argued the board is indecipherable or could have even lead one to erroneously believe someone else to believe Wallace had shown up consistently. Let's, for the sake of argument, grant this point for the time being. Why did Qualtrough not try the ruse any of the previous FOUR times? Obviously if Qualtrough tried to get his message passed on and it failed, he would be unlikely to try again. And we would almost certainly know of it if the club had received a similar call in the past. An obvious argument to this is that Qualtrough had to stalk Wallace out first to see that he was headed to the club BEFORE making the call; this is why the call came on the one night Wallace indeed did go to the club, because Qualtrough finally saw him leave (presumably for the club, but how on earth could Qualtrough be sure???) So, are we to assume that Qualtrough had, several times in the past stalked Wallace out, waited for him to leave, been disappointed he hadn't and had tried again and again over subsequent weeks until Wallace appeared possibly on the way to the club. And that this spurred Qualtrough to rush to the call box to make the call? All to enact a convoluted plot in which he would still have Julia Wallace to contend with in the house? Or was this the first time Qualtrough tried his ruse and he just got lucky that for the FIRST time in FIVE meetings Wallace decided to show and received the message all perfectly according to the devious R. M. Qualtrough's plan...

Consider of course that Qualtrough has to rely on Wallace actually going to the club and not somewhere else; if Qualtrough HAD in fact stalked Wallace out before and seen Wallace NOT go to the club on numerous occasions when he was supposed to, he could be forgiven for not being very sure Wallace was headed there this night and not somewhere else altogether.

If he HADN'T tried this ruse before, then he got darn lucky that Wallace decided to go on this particular night after missing the last FOUR.

This is not even getting into the unreliability of Wallace deciding to follow up on the message, not consult a map, not decide it was risky to go or possibly a prank. It also implies to possibly attempt to counter these unknowns, Qualtrough AGAIN would have to lurk the following night to watch and wait for Wallace to leave. Of course, he would have now way of knowing, even if Wallace did leave if he was in fact going to see Qualtrough and how long he would be gone; perhaps he might change his mind upon being told by the 1st person the address didn't exist and head back home quickly.

What are the odds of all this working out just perfectly for an outside criminal?

3. On the night of the murder, the milk boy comes later than he usually does due to unforeseen circumstances (a bike malfunction.) Jonathan Goodman argues that Wallace could not have known this and if his alibi was the milk boy coming at around 6:15, there would be too much time between that and when Wallace was seen at the tram stop for an alibi.

Goodman fails to see a rather obvious point. As Murphy says, Wallace makes his time frame as he goes. The only thing that matters is the time BETWEEN when the milk boy leaves and Wallace is seen at the tram stop. IF the milk boy was there at 6:15, then if he were guilty, Wallace would jump into action right away and be seen on an earlier tram. I have seen it the argument that "Would a teenage milkboy be relied upon to give a time for an alibi?" (and as we saw, this was in fact difficult to get an accurate time). Also consider then, that the milk boy was likely seen as obstacle to be OVERCOME, possibly more than simply an alibi. It is very possible I suggest, WHW felt that by introducing the mysterious Qualtrough and having some question around timing, that would be enough to suggest reasonable doubt. It seems that many have agreed with that over the years in any case...

But the main point is a guilty Wallace CANNOT act until the milk boy has come again. If he was expecting the milk boy to come around 6:15 or so and leave at between 6:25 or 6:30 arriving at the tram around 6:45 would that not make sense? I don't think it would be too early, he would be in the MGE area after 7 PM without having consulted a map, not knowing the street where he was going and having to inquire and search for it. You might think the conscientious Wallace to know where his official business was before going, especially if a handsome commission could be involved. Putting that objection aside for a second and just accepting for whatever reason he did not do that, wouldn't you at least expect him to then allow some time to search for the address?

Instead, he arrives at just shortly before 7:30 and starts inquiring some more and searching fruitlessly. That would seem a bit on the late side for the punctual Man From the Pru---unless of course a late milk boy forced him to leave later than he had intended to. Of course in this scenario, a guilty Wallace would know there was no Menlove Gardens East and no Mr. Qualtrough to find, but he would want to have the appearance of being on a genuine search. His "cutting it close" time of departure without having clarified the precise address he was going to would seem to be out of character. Perhaps his hand was forced by the unusually late Alan Close?

Here comes the unlucky part: If Wallace were truly innocent, and he had left even a FEW minutes earlier, as you could argue would make more sense for him timing wise in his search for the unknown address, then he would be in the CLEAR. What time did the milk boy come? Murphy argues it was 6:35. I think CCJ /Antony has shown that it was definitely neither 6:30 as the prosecution claimed nor 6:45 as the defense says Alan Close claimed (and he may well have) before being coached by the police. The real time is not ambiguous if we take several testimonies including other milk boys and kids on the street who were definitely not coached by the police, as well as other deliveries made on the street. It was clearly sometime just after 6:35 and clearly before 6:40. I agree with Antony's time of 6:37 or 6:38. I think we can say the latest the milk boy left was 6:38 and that this should befair and uncontroversial.

Now back to Wallace, If he leaves, before the milk boy arrives at 6:30 or 6:35, he is in the clear, IF he leaves AFTER the milk boy arrives (and most agree it was 6:37ish) but only a couple minutes after, say around 6:40 and makes it to the tram stop before 7, he is pretty much in the clear.

But no, he leaves having left himself perhaps just the amount of time needed, creating a time frame you might expect of a man acting as quickly possible after the milk boy's departure, then heading off to the tram stop. If he had left JUST A BIT earlier, he would be in the clear. But he did not. How unlucky if truly innocent...

Good points AS,

I’m sure that if there was a mock trial today to find the likeliest murderer it would be Wallace. Not certain enough to send a man to the gallows but the weight of evidence is surely in favour of his guilt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sadly, when you check out the thread when you’re not logged-in you can see posts that you don’t really want to bother with

Dr Curwen spent time in their company. He saw them at close hand. As did Mrs Wilson. They were respectable, intelligent people with no reason to lie. Why should they be ignored merely because their comments are inconvenient?

Mather was a former colleague who painted a rather different picture of Wallace.

It appears that I was probably wrong about Sarah Draper I was sure that someone else had made detrimental comments about the marriage and I thought that it was her.

Motives aren’t always obvious as they exist in the mind of a murderer. We can only hypothesise.

At least 3 seemingly respectable people with no obvious axes to grind all painted a rather different picture of the Wallace’s. Why is their evidence any less meaningful than someone who met them occasionally and pretty much in passing and says that they seemed happy?

Julia was old enough to be William’s father. Something that she had lied about. He was therefore a man with a life-threatening kidney ailment who could look forward to nursing an old woman.

What if he had, say in the course of sorting out Insurance, have found out Julia’s true age and her lies. Maybe he had learned this from Julia’s family a while ago and it had eaten away at him?

Wallace was an intelligent man with highbrow interests, He had had the same boring job trudging the streets of Liverpool for years without promotion. Is it impossible that he felt under-appreciated. Might not Julia have even pointed this out to him?

Wallace might indeed have had a motive for getting rid of Julia.

[RodCrosby]

In 1931 [in a unique act] the Prudential Staff Union held a mock trial and found Wallace Not Guilty (and agreed to meet the costs of his Defence at the Assizes)...

In 1977 the Merseyside Medico-Legal Society held a re-trial (presided over by Mr. Justice Lawson) and found Wallace Not Guilty...

And if by chance a jury of idiots (drawn exclusively from the nether-parts of this forum) once again found Wallace guilty of the crime, the outcome is clear, set both by precedent and statute:-

"The Court will quash a conviction founded on mere suspicion" [headnote]
Court of Criminal Appeal 19 May 1931(1932) 23 Cr. App. R. 32

"The Court of Criminal Appeal... shall allow the appeal, if they think that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence..."
Criminal Appeal Act 1907, Section 4(1)

And of course, we now have New Evidence, not available to any of the above, which leads directly to the Correct Solution to the Wallace Mystery...

[AmericanSherlock]

Sadly, when you check out the thread when you’re not logged-in you can see posts that you don’t really want to bother with

Dr Curwen spent time in their company. He saw them at close hand. As did Mrs Wilson. They were respectable, intelligent people with no reason to lie. Why should they be ignored merely because their comments are inconvenient?

Mather was a former colleague who painted a rather different picture of Wallace.

It appears that I was probably wrong about Sarah Draper I was sure that someone else had made detrimental comments about the marriage and I thought that it was her.

Motives aren’t always obvious as they exist in the mind of a murderer. We can only hypothesise.

At least 3 seemingly respectable people with no obvious axes to grind all painted a rather different picture of the Wallace’s. Why is their evidence any less meaningful than someone who met them occasionally and pretty much in passing and says that they seemed happy?

Julia was old enough to be William’s father. Something that she had lied about. He was therefore a man with a life-threatening kidney ailment who could look forward to nursing an old woman.

What if he had, say in the course of sorting out Insurance, have found out Julia’s true age and her lies. Maybe he had learned this from Julia’s family a while ago and it had eaten away at him?

Wallace was an intelligent man with highbrow interests, He had had the same boring job trudging the streets of Liverpool for years without promotion. Is it impossible that he felt under-appreciated. Might not Julia have even pointed this out to him?

Wallace might indeed have had a motive for getting rid of Julia.

As my father once said when a homeless drunk on the street shouted insults at him, "Consider the source". This particular source is even worse than that due to unfounded arrogance. 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'

Anyways,

There are multiple motivations a dying "Stoic" Wallace could have had for knocking off his almost 70 year old, sickly simpleton of a wife. It should not be incumbent on us to prove this to anyone. This does not mean he DID kill his wife (tired of straw man arguments), but it means to argue that he DID NOT due to lack of motive is an invalid argument.

Also since our burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt", as we have both stated we would NOT convict in a court of law, nor is W.H. Wallace on trial at this particular time, but rather that we are trying to decipher what most likely happened, these factors about the personalities involved matter. We have to weigh everything to come to the conclusion of what probably occurred.

Not only did the crime itself have several classic hallmarks of a staged domestic homicide, the odd characters and interpersonal relationships of the characters involved as well as the secrets (Julia's real age etc.) are quite typical of this sort of crime as well. I think this goes beyond the normal difficulties any husband and wife, even at odds might have and is worthy of being considered as 1 factor among many. Not to "prove"Wallace guilty, but to have a full picture of the "dramatis personae" to arrive at a measured conclusion in regards to what probably occurred.

To not consider everything, including the odd Wallaces and their odd relationship in this context would be stupid.

[RodCrosby]

In other words:-

"there is no evidence against Wallace, so I am reduced to relying on prejudice and fancy..."

[Herlock Sholmes]

“To not consider everything, including the odd Wallaces and their odd relationship in this context would be stupid.”

Not just stupid but dishonest and prejudiced. But we see enough of that on here

It’s neither conclusive of guilt or innocence but it shows that we simply cannot keep saying “But Wallace had no motive for killing Julia.” Not knowing something for certain can’t mean that that something didn’t exist.

It’s bit like saying that because some fictitious scenario might, with a stretch of the imagination, fit the facts then that scenario must be the truth. You would have to be pretty delusional to believe that

Another coincidence.

I don’t go for the idea of Wallace and a confederate but as most of us on here approach this subject with an open mind I won’t discount it completely.

So the testimony of Lillian Hall is interesting. I think that we would all have to say that it’s unlikely that she lied intentionally and in the full knowledge that her lies might help send an innocent man to the gallows. Therefore the ‘likeliest’ explaination is that she was mistaken.

What a coincidence then that at just the time that Wallace had returned from his MGE expedition he was identified by Hall (and let’s remember that even said that Wallace was distinctive looking) near the passage that lead to his house. And that one of the two men went up the passage.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another ‘interesting’ question for me is ‘why did Wallace directly accuse Parry in his diaries well after he’d been charged with the crime and then had a successful appeal?’

Wallace doesn’t mention coming across any new evidence that convinced him of Parry’s guilt so why, when he appears so certain, did he not mention this certainty to the police during the investigation when he faced the serious possibility of the gallows?

Does anyone else find this ‘strange?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does the fact that Wallace only mentioned the fact that he believed Party guilty in his diaries point to a suggestion that Wallace and Parry might have acted together in the murder of Julia?

Wallace mentioned Parry as someone who would have been admitted to number 29 by Julia. He was careful to point no finger of guilt though. Could this mean that he only mentioned him because he felt that if he hadn’t it might have appeared suspicious if, perhaps via the Pru, the police later learned of his connection to the rather dodgy Parry?

Later Wallace points the finger directly at Parry in his diary. At what risk to him? He might have known that he didn’t have long to live due to his kidney problems and he might have expected to be dead when his diaries were read? How could Parry have reacted if indeed he’d been involved? Would he have admitted to have played some part in the events of those two evenings but not to the actual murder? Unlikely. So he would have been left with a complete denial. And so judgment would have been left to history. The word of a man who’s wife had been tragically murdered and had been falsely accused against the word of a known criminal who had access to the house. Wallace might have just seen this as an opportunity to salvage his reputation?

[AmericanSherlock]

Does the fact that Wallace only mentioned the fact that he believed Party guilty in his diaries point to a suggestion that Wallace and Parry might have acted together in the murder of Julia?

Wallace mentioned Parry as someone who would have been admitted to number 29 by Julia. He was careful to point no finger of guilt though. Could this mean that he only mentioned him because he felt that if he hadn’t it might have appeared suspicious if, perhaps via the Pru, the police later learned of his connection to the rather dodgy Parry?

Later Wallace points the finger directly at Parry in his diary. At what risk to him? He might have known that he didn’t have long to live due to his kidney problems and he might have expected to be dead when his diaries were read? How could Parry have reacted if indeed he’d been involved? Would he have admitted to have played some part in the events of those two evenings but not to the actual murder? Unlikely. So he would have been left with a complete denial. And so judgment would have been left to history. The word of a man who’s wife had been tragically murdered and had been falsely accused against the word of a known criminal who had access to the house. Wallace might have just seen this as an opportunity to salvage his reputation?

Hi Herlock,

I would agree that the objection of Wallace naming Parry (and Marsden to a smaller degree) does not preclude a collaboration. Especially once he was under the gun and in jail , he might try anything to divert suspicion, knowing they would be unlikely to confess to their role. Also he could act in this manner, if he wasn't satisfied in a conspirator (s) commission of the crime, and felt he had been implicated due to some bungling not of his own doing.

My biggest issue with any conspiracy involving Wallace is why not be at the chess club to receive the message himself? Why come at home at all the night of the murder? Just make the appointment for 6:30 at MGE and head straight from work with a fool proof alibi! If Wallace had the benefit of working with other (s), he unnecessarily implicated himself IMO.

Of course, there are some counterarguments to this. Maybe Wallace didn't think of it...maybe he wanted to be at home before the crime was committed to set things up for the perpetrator and make sure Julia would open the door etc...perhaps the night before he wanted to coach the caller right before making the call...sometimes criminals wish to exert that level of control, especially when trying to plan such a complex "perfect murder." I guess he could have erroneously relying on a much later time of death. Some of the perplexing aspects of this case could be resolved with the conspiracy theory as Gannon puts forth. Also the Lily Hall incident of course.

I just think that the problems with it, even if there are plausible rebuttals to it, outweigh the problems such a scenario "solves" in a logical sense.