Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Graham]

First off, I'm trying to remember where I read it......very likely in an internet article which I'm looking for.

Second, I find it very difficult/impossible to accept that Wallace was guilty, therefore obviously I don't think he confessed to something he didn't do - if you follow my reasoning. As you say, without a signed affidavit a verbal confession is worthless; however, if there actually is a signed affidavit knocking around somewhere, then it would be worth a small fortune, plus you can bet your life that it would have been made public before now.

Apart from all that, death-bed confessions to murder are pretty rare.

Graham

[ColdCaseJury]

First off, I'm trying to remember where I read it......very likely in an internet article which I'm looking for.

Second, I find it very difficult/impossible to accept that Wallace was guilty, therefore obviously I don't think he confessed to something he didn't do - if you follow my reasoning.

I'd love to read the article, Graham, if you stumble across it again. I know how frustrating it is to lose a source like this!

Your logic is a little a priori - that is to say, you are in danger of dismissing contrary evidence on the basis that you already claim to know the verdict. I guess a Wallace Theorist might counter that testimony about the existence of a confession should be taken as evidence, like other testimony. If it is rumour, however, without any solid basis for it then I suggest it can be rejected until evidence is produced. As you say, genuine death-bed confessions are rare and this makes the Wallace confession intrinsically improbable without evidence.

Following the philosopher David Hume, we could adduce a maxim for death-bed confessions: the evidence for the confession must be strong enough that the falsehood of the confession is deemed less likely than the improbability of a true death-bed confession.

Apologies for getting philosophical but philosophy is another passion of mine, along with unsolved historical murders!

[NickB]

The Jack Johnston deathbed confession was mentioned on a Granada TV programme ...

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Wallace+murder+solved%3F%3B+Author+tells+of+deathbed+confession+by...-a078161134

[Graham]

I now remember that the article about Wallace was on a Liverpool website called InaCityLiving. But, clunk-head that I am, it referred not to Wallace himself but to his next-door neighbour Mr Johnstone. It also jogged my failing memory that this particular 'death-bed confession' has also been mentioned on this thread.....hey ho. Your David Hume quote is very apposite.

Graham

[ColdCaseJury]

The Jack Johnston deathbed confession was mentioned on a Granada TV programme ...

Thanks Nick for the link. I note this line in the text:

Mr Johnston had died in January, 1960, of senile dementia at an old folks' home... days before Mr Johnston died, he confessed to killing Julia Wallace.

I rest my case.

[ColdCaseJury]

Your David Hume quote is very apposite.

As I'm sure you know, David Hume's quote was about evidence and miracles. I simply amended it for death-bed confessions and would-be murderers!

[louisa]

Regarding the elusive Mr. Qualtrough.....

Is that not an unusual name? I know there are people with this surname but - without consulting a phone directory - I would imagine there are not an awful lot of people in the country called this? And how many would there have been in the Liverpool area at the time of JW's murder?

What am I thinking is that whoever called the chess club must have got the name Qualtrough from somewhere.

He wanted a name that was unusual and for what it's worth I believe that when a person wants to assume another identity they draw from their own experience of names. Maybe the caller went to school with somebody of that name? Maybe he knew somebody distantly? Perhaps his uncle's grandmother had a dog called this? Or whatever. It's the kind of name that sticks in your mind.

Do you think that anyone with the name Qualtrough should perhaps have been questioned and asked whether they knew William Herbert Wallace or Gordon Parry, even distantly? An affirmative wouldn't have been conclusive but it would have been something.

Or had this already been done?

[ColdCaseJury]

Do you think that anyone with the name Qualtrough should perhaps have been questioned and asked whether they knew William Herbert Wallace or Gordon Parry, even distantly? An affirmative wouldn't have been conclusive but it would have been something.Or had this already been done?

The police did question Qualtroughs to seek a connection to the mysterious caller. An ex-Pru agent called Marsden (who was friends with Parry) had a customer called R. J. Qualtrough. There was also a local shop (a few kilometres from Wolverton Street) bearing the name Qualtrough, which anyone local might have known about.

What the police needed to do was to effectively eliminate Parry from their inquiry. Parry misled the police to his whereabouts on the night of the call, but as Wallace was the prime suspect, it appears the police failed to pursue this line of inquiry.

[Pcdunn]

Lousia-- check out this link, by the descendents of the Qualtrough family living in Wallace's town. It should answer a few of your questions.

http://qualtrough.org/articles/articles-uk/rm-wallace.html

I think Wallce could also have known of the name, if he walked by the family's shop while on this collecting routes.

[louisa]

Thanks for that, Pat. It made interesting reading.

I had thought that Qualtrough was a highly unusual name.

I feel very ignorant now. Everyone here is miles ahead of me in my knowledge of the case. I think I'll have to go back to the beginning of this thread and read all the posts that I've missed.

[Pcdunn]

Thanks for that, Pat. It made interesting reading.

I had thought that Qualtrough was a highly unusual name.

I feel very ignorant now. Everyone here is miles ahead of me in my knowledge of the case. I think I'll have to go back to the beginning of this thread and read all the posts that I've missed.

Don't feel bad, I'd never heard of the case before coming here!

Try this thread too:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=141

[ColdCaseJury]

I would like to say your book is absolutely fantastic, logically sound, and you are well served by not trying to steer the reader to a conclusion and allowing us to be the jury. I recommend everybody "pick it up"...for only a couple dollars/pounds it's absolutely worth every penny and then some!

American Sherlock,

Thank you for your generous comments about my book. I found your post insightful and knowledgeable. You clearly know this case as well as I do.

To some of your points.

I agree that “Menlove Gardens EAST” is something of a red herring for the reasons you state. The point is that Wallace went to an area of Liverpool that involved him being away for at least an hour.

The cash box intrigues me. You say it points more to Wallace. Possibly, when he realised his mistake (of putting the cash box back on the shelf), Wallace mentioned to the police others who knew about the cash box (e.g. Parry and Marsden) to throw suspicion away from himself. However, as I say in my book, if Wallace was innocent he would have realised the cash box was a vital clue and would have been strongly motivated to tell the police about those who knew about it. Nevertheless, I agree with you – on balance, the oddity of replacing the cash box points slightly more towards Wallace.

You also say the murder was planned rather than spontaneous. The Qualtrough Call was to set up a murder not a robbery. Again, I agree.

So is there any rational disagreement between us? Only concerning two judgements, I suspect. Firstly, I have difficulty in accepting that Wallace waited patiently for the delayed milk boy (Alan Close), killed his wife and tidied up so perfectly in ten minutes. Anyone can disagree with me on this point (my own mother does!) but, logically, if you accept there was insufficient time for Wallace to commit the murder and dispose of the murder weapon (so effectively, by the way, we do not even know what it was) then of course you cannot accept that Wallace committed the murder. The interesting point is that even accepting this premise (that there was not enough time), I believe Wallace was involved.

In my book, I examine the logic of the problem. Wallace creating an alibi (by repeatedly asking bystanders) or making a phone call is equally consistent with conspiracy as with Wallace working alone. Such points cannot be used to support the Wallace Theory over, say, The Conspiracy Theory. Timing is the key differentiator here. You have to make your judgement. You have and I respect it. I may well be mistaken in my view. And views like yours make me re-think my own position. This is what rational debate is all about, isn’t it?

I also have difficulty (like Hector Munro, Wallace’s solicitor) in believing that Wallace’s plan (if it was his) could ever have been an effective alibi for him. If Wallace, acting alone, had planned this murder, he surely would have worked on the assumption that the milk would have been delivered at normal time (usually between 6:00pm and 6:30pm - and if it had been delivered at say 6:15pm that would have left a whopping 35 minutes for the murder - that's no alibi!). So on the night Wallace had FAR less time than he would have planned for. This might support your contention of panic, leading to the cash box mistake, but it also means he had considerably less time to clean up and dispose of the murder weapon without making a mistake. Interestingly, there would have been no time pressure or panic if the plan had been for Wallace to leave the house in time to catch the trams and for someone else to kill Julia at, say, 7:30pm.

To the second point of disagreement. Wallace may have incriminated Parry and Wallace because he worked with someone else (someone unknown to us). I would also point out that Parry misled the police concerning his whereabouts on the night of the call. This must be given due weight. In my mind it reduces the probability that Wallace made the call. In addition, I think it is more probable (based on the timings) that Wallace left the house when he said he did on the night of the call. If you think that Parry is the more likely candidate for Qualtrough then this also weighs against Wallace as being the lone murderer, of course.

I can be persuaded on the timing issues – but I was unconvinced by Murphy’s account, which only shows that it was possible that Wallace was the lone murderer. It is indeed possible, but is it the most probable account given the evidence we have?

Like you, I am fascinated by this case. So much so, that I want to know what you and other people think. This is the main premise behind Cold Case Jury. Like you, I also never forget this was a brutal murder – I hope this comes across in the Epilogue – The Indignities of Murder – in my book.

Based on your post, I would ask all Casebookers one question: how reliable a witness was Lily Hall? I believe that she recognised Wallace talking to another man, although I can be persuaded otherwise.

Once again, thanks again for your post.

[AmericanSherlock]

Antony,

Thanks for your reply. Interesting and good points you bring up.

You touched upon an important point I forgot to mention with regards to the timeline...I agree that while I think it possible for him to have committed the murder in the window of time that he had, it would be very tight for him to pre plan it if you consider him being seen at the tram stop at 7:06 as part of the plan. But you have to consider he is creating his time frame as he goes along. It is only looking back on it that we have the times set in stone. Wallace could work freely, knowing that it didn't matter if he was first seen at 7:05 or 7:15 for instance. He did have the 7:30 time set as the meeting with Qualtrough, so if he was too late it could be suspicious, but there is some flexibility there.

In regards to Wallace having worked with someone else other than the men he named (Parry, Marsden, and someone named Stan Young (I think)), that is certainly possible and would explain why he mentioned them, without precluding the possibility of him working in tandem with others. Of course, the "team" theory is appealing because it neatly explains away many of the perplexing aspects of this case. I don't see any specific evidence for Wallace working with others though other than to say it's possible.

Likewise, Murphy's account of the timing to show that it's possible, was good enough for me. Because, I think as long as you accept that it's possible, Wallace goes to the front of the suspect list. Consider the quote by Raymond Chandler " I call it the impossible murder because Wallace couldn’t have done it, and neither could anyone else." I think a larger part of that impossibility is the timing, so it's important to show that it was in fact possible. Of course, this does not prove that Wallace did it.

Finally, I'm not sure what to make of Lily Hall's account. There could be a few explanations for it, whether you think Wallace was guilty (either of the actual murder or planning) or innocent. Not sure it's a smoking gun, but definitely raises an eyebrow, assuming she wasn't mistaken.

Interesting, so your mom thinks Wallace was guilty?!

I take it you lean slightly towards Wallace and Parry working together.

One great thing about your book is you present all the theories and aren't biased in any way to a conclusion. So there is no manipulating of the facts to get you to a certain outcome. Would still be interesting to know which way you would vote on the Jury.

[ColdCaseJury]

But you have to consider he is creating his time frame as he goes along. It is only looking back on it that we have the times set in stone. Wallace could work freely, knowing that it didn't matter if he was first seen at 7:05 or 7:15 for instance.

I see your point - it was one of James's Murphy's main points as well - but I disagree that he could work freely. If the milk boy had called at 6pm and Wallace was first seen at 7:15pm, the police would have said: "you had over an hour to to kill your wife, clean up and dispose of the weapon." This is not an good alibi, I suggest. He has to work FAST or there is no alibi at all. And I remain doubtful he could work as fast as he did without making mistakes - but this is debatable.

I present my views in the online Postscript at www.coldcasejury.com - this is only available after you have delivered your verdict, so I do not influence the Cold Case Jury!

[AmericanSherlock]

I see what you mean, it's a good point.

To play devil's advocate:

I would suggest though that you are on one hand saying there may have been to little time for Wallace to have done it or at least planned to have used it as an alibi, and then conversely saying if too much time was available to Wallace it would be a poor alibi that he wouldn't have come up with, because the cops would say he had enough time to have done it.

I get this line of reasoning, but it seems a bit prejudiced to its conclusion. In other words, it seems to be implying that Wallace needed an alibi that would make it seem impossible for him to have done it timewise(obviously this sounds ideal as an alibi), which is the reason someone would hire another person to do it.

But if Wallace did act alone, I think this is the alibi he would have concocted, or at least its as good as one could have when acting alone. The milk boy seeing her alive at a given point is about as good as you can ask for in regards to an old, solitary woman who rarely ventured out.

I suspect he was counting on MacFall to indicate a later time of death. It may not be that he would have killed Julia right after the milk boy left, if he had come at 6, but that he needed the milk boy to come first, before he could be free to do it. So, if the milk boy had come at 6, he would wait until 6:45 to kill her anyway. An ailing Wallace may have suspected he did not have much to live and was willing to take some risks, knowing there would be no smoking gun, but also no proof against him.

With that said, your point about the milk boy's time of arrival not being fixed throwing a wrench in the alibi is persuasive and has caused my conviction to waver a bit. I also read your postscript and it makes sense.

This case is so incredibly frustrating, just when you think you have a small grip on it, your mind goes back in the other direction ad infinitum...

I see you've mentioned about none of us having all the facts, and that there i probably something we do not know about this case that would be a game changer. Any idea at all what that could possibly be--even what umbrella it would fall under? I find that thought fascinating.

I agree with you and others who have said that this case will never be solved.