Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Although I haven't posted for a while I would just reiterate that, based upon the scientific evidence, Wallace is virtually an impossible candidate. There is simply no way that you can get round the opinion of the experts, expressed at the trial, that the perpetrator would have had blood on his person-on account of the arterial spray-which Wallace didn't. In fact, even the prosecution's own expert witness, Dr McFall, accepted this. And no one has given a remotely plausible explanation of what he would have done with the murders weapon.
    Last edited by John G; 06-03-2018, 09:45 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post
      Hi All,

      A guilty Wallace would have had to make absolutely sure he had killed Julia, so the number and force of the blows could have been a combination of repressed rage, finally coming out after all the careful planning, plus the need to ensure they would be fatal. She must have been a tough old bird in some ways if she could pass for a much younger woman.

      Leaving very little blood or mess outside the parlour; turning off the downstairs lights; replacing the cash box; and finally removing the murder weapon from the house, all point to someone in the process of carrying out a premeditated crime, but one whose attention to detail was a character trait not easily deviated from, even when his 'tidiness' would have seemed inappropriate for an intruder.

      Had there been a trail of blood from parlour to back door, for instance; had the lights been on and the cash box left open on the floor; and had the weapon been left, but with no fingerprints, this would all have been consistent with an intruder wearing gloves.

      I don't believe this crime was committed by an intruder who went out of his way to make it look like Wallace, being too fastidious for his own good. It's simpler and makes more sense to see this as Wallace himself, being too Wallace-like for his own good.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      According to Dr McFall Julia was struck 11 times by a killer in an absolutely frenzy. This is overkill in the extreme, and makes no sense whatsoever from the perspective of an organized, planned crime, where the perpetrator would be anxious to avoid blood splatter.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by John G View Post
        Although I haven't posted for a while I would just reiterate that, based upon the scientific evidence, Wallace is virtually an impossible candidate. There is simply no way that you can get round the opinion of the experts, expressed at the trial, that the perpetrator would have had blood on his person-on account of the arterial spray-which Wallace didn't. In fact, even the prosecution's own expert witness, Dr McFall, accepted this. And no one has given a remotely plausible explanation of what he would have done with the murders weapon.
        I dont think that its at all impossible that Wallace, using the mackintosh, could have avoided getting much blood on him. Then he simply cleaned up, possibly using chemicals from his lab. Murphy suggests what he could have done with the weapon. Just because we cant explain that one aspect of the case cant exonerate him in my opinion John. Personally I see no other suspect.

        Welcome back by the way John
        Regards

        Herlock






        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by John G View Post
          According to Dr McFall Julia was struck 11 times by a killer in an absolutely frenzy. This is overkill in the extreme, and makes no sense whatsoever from the perspective of an organized, planned crime, where the perpetrator would be anxious to avoid blood splatter.
          Unless the perpetrator had a plan to avoid blood spatter of course. Surely 11 blows speaks more of anger/resentment and a ‘personal’ murder rather than someone just killing Julia because hed been caught in the act of stealing?
          Regards

          Herlock






          "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by John G View Post
            Although I haven't posted for a while I would just reiterate that, based upon the scientific evidence, Wallace is virtually an impossible candidate. There is simply no way that you can get round the opinion of the experts, expressed at the trial, that the perpetrator would have had blood on his person-on account of the arterial spray-which Wallace didn't. In fact, even the prosecution's own expert witness, Dr McFall, accepted this. And no one has given a remotely plausible explanation of what he would have done with the murders weapon.
            If it's so cut and dry, then why is this such an enduring mystery?

            And, welcome back

            It's good to have more people discussing this, particularly dissenting views.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by John G View Post
              Although I haven't posted for a while I would just reiterate that, based upon the scientific evidence, Wallace is virtually an impossible candidate. There is simply no way that you can get round the opinion of the experts, expressed at the trial, that the perpetrator would have had blood on his person-on account of the arterial spray-which Wallace didn't. In fact, even the prosecution's own expert witness, Dr McFall, accepted this. And no one has given a remotely plausible explanation of what he would have done with the murders weapon.
              Hello John,

              That was their expert opinion, it’s not a fact.

              Or have medical experts never been wrong before?

              Comment


              • "I'll swing for you!"

                Originally posted by John G View Post
                Although I haven't posted for a while I would just reiterate that, based upon the scientific evidence, Wallace is virtually an impossible candidate. There is simply no way that you can get round the opinion of the experts, expressed at the trial, that the perpetrator would have had blood on his person-on account of the arterial spray-which Wallace didn't. In fact, even the prosecution's own expert witness, Dr McFall, accepted this. And no one has given a remotely plausible explanation of what he would have done with the murders weapon.
                Hi John,

                Welcome back. Good to have someone sensible to challenge our basic instincts about this case!

                Back on 7th March, post #1988, I posted this, which you may not have seen:

                Originally posted by caz View Post
                I realise that criminals operate on a 'nothing ventured, nothing gained' basis, but this was very far from an opportunist crime, which makes it very hard for me to understand why more care would not have been taken in the planning stage to avoid the main stumbling blocks to a successful outcome on the Tuesday - the day picked deliberately for this crime, or it would surely have been committed on the Monday night in exactly the same way, but without the whole convoluted Qualtrough business, which could so easily have f...ed everything up from the outset.

                When we consider the above in the light of Wallace being the criminal, however, he'd have had no choice but to have this kind of game plan, seeing the moves in advance like he was playing chess. It worked in the end, but only just.

                There was a similar case the other morning on the BBC's Murder, Mystery and My Family, featuring a woman who was bludgeoned to death with a poker in her Manchester home in 1933. The argument that the convicted man would have had blood on him had he been guilty was seriously undermined by a forensic scientist, who experimented with the original crime scene and blood spatter evidence, putting herself in the position of the murderer and doing a reconstruction using fake blood. She tried it in three different positions, without taking any particular measures to avoid the blood spatter and yet she got no blood on either herself or her disposable white suit.
                Expert opinion is one thing, but if it's not based on this kind of professional and sophisticated reconstruction, which gave a very different result from the one expected in the Wallace case, how reliable can it really be?

                Regarding the overkill, if this was Wallace, who had planned the whole complex Qualtrough business so he could rid himself of his wife, give himself an alibi and throw all the suspicion on this Mr Q, he must have had a lot of pent up resentment and frustration inside him, just waiting for the moment when he was at last able to let it all out on the woman he was prepared to swing for. He'd never hit a woman over the head before, with the object of killing her, so wouldn't know how much strength he would need. Raining down blow after blow made sure she was dead and released all his own emotion and tension at the same time. Might this have left him in automatic pilot mode, instinctively but unwisely replacing the cash box and turning off the lights before leaving in haste to meet the invisible man? If he was wearing gloves he could have left the weapon in the house, but then he'd have needed to take the gloves and dispose of them somewhere instead, which would have been fatal if found and identified as his own.

                Also, if the first blow proved fatal, that would have been the one which caused most, if not all of the blood spatter. So the killer may only have needed to avoid the blood from that first blow to leave himself largely untouched.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Last edited by caz; 06-04-2018, 02:46 AM.
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Also if someone else killed Julia with no attempt to protect themselves from blood spatter and with no attempt made to clean up and they then proceeded to attempt a robbery surely we would expect to see some blood outside of the parlour? If the murderer/thief was wearing gloves, which would seem logical in avoiding fingerprints, he would have no other reason to be cautious about leaving blood evidence. The killer/thief would have fled in the dark (possibly to a car) along the dark streets where it would have been unlikely that anyone would have noticed a patch of blood here or a few drops there.

                  Wallace, on the other hand, had to leave the house blood-free to continue on to MGE. The lack of blood outside the parlour surely points to Wallace more than anyone else?
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                  Comment


                  • Hi folks,

                    The number and severity of the blows is another factor which can be interpreted different ways in this enduring puzzle.

                    Wallace would not have hit his wife that much as he knew he had to avoid blood splatter.

                    Wallace would have hit his wife that much as he knew he had to ensure she was dead.

                    Best regards,

                    OneRound

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by OneRound View Post
                      Hi folks,

                      The number and severity of the blows is another factor which can be interpreted different ways in this enduring puzzle.

                      Wallace would not have hit his wife that much as he knew he had to avoid blood splatter.

                      Wallace would have hit his wife that much as he knew he had to ensure she was dead.

                      Best regards,

                      OneRound
                      Hi OneRound

                      Also, Wallace would have hit his wife that many times if there had been a slow build up of anger and resentment against her.

                      On you first sentence its worth pointing out that if Wallace planned this murder, as opposed to someone killing her as a reaction to being caught stealing, its very likely that he would have taken precautions to avoid or minimise the amount of blood that he might have gotten on him. The mackintosh appears to be the likeliest object to be used for this purpose. A spur-of-the-moment killer would have been likely to have been blood spattered yet no blood was found outside of the parlour except for the clot on the toilet seat and the dried smear on one of the notes upstairs. Only Wallace needed to be blood free as he had to proceed with his plan.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                      Comment


                      • Two other things that occurred to me about Parry as a suspect I'd like to reiterate.

                        The wounds apparently were thought to have indicated a right handed killer. Apparently James Murphy caught up with Parry's coworkers who told him RGP was left handed. Not proof , but interesting.

                        Also in regards to John Parkes scenario, he says Parry came by and had recently borrowed oilskin waders and thigh high boots for "fishing". Unless "recently" means 6 months ago, does this mean Parry was planning to go ice fishing in the Arctic? (The murder took place January 20th)

                        Parkes' tale is rubbish.

                        Comment


                        • I fail to see how anyone can take Parkes story with anything but a very large pinch of salt AS.

                          Good points
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                          Comment


                          • Previously, I have mentioned that RWE, who accompanied Jonathan Goodman to confront Parry and bought into the Parry as killer/Parkes story scenario had reneged on that viewpoint. I don't know what Goodman thought in later years, but it's pretty interesting his right hand man had changed his mind. And Goodman's obit mentions that "Wallace was probably the killer." This was the passage I cited, which was featured in the book he wrote with his wife Molly in 2005. He seems to have been swayed by Murphy and I concur with his opinion.

                            “Parry’s alibi for the night of the murder did not, as has been previously suggested, depend upon the evidence of his friend Miss Lily Lloyd. His alibis were thoroughly checked and verified by the police, and tests carried out on his clothes and car proved negative. He was, therefore, rightly eliminated.”

                            Here is another interesting tidbit I came across though, Mark R from another board emailed RWE to ask about his opinion. (Mark R was a wealth of knowledge on this case and I believe he and GED wrote the inacityliving site. Mark seems like a good chap but he certainly has changed his mind on this case and often without explanation. He used to say he just doesn't know but seemed to lean towards innocence of WHW, often suggesting the Anfield Housebreaker, and he said he can't accept Wallace's guilt because of blood splatter etc... (we've all heard that before.) However he wrote a favorable review of Murphy's book a few years back on Amazon saying he basically solved the case!)

                            Anyway here is RWE's response if we take Mark's word for it:

                            Here's what Whittington-Egan replied in a letter to me:

                            "Goodman and I met Parry and faced him up with the fact that Wallace had so accused him. Frankly, I did not care for him and found him rather sinister but I am not convinced of his guilt, especially since reading Murphy's excellent The Murder of Julia Wallace."

                            Comment


                            • Interesting post AS.

                              Its a compliment worth having if RWE holds your book in high regard as he appeared to with Murphy. Hints that even Goodman came to favour Wallace too.

                              Simply saying that because Parry was ‘dodgy’ then his alibi was ‘dodgy’ too doesnt hold water. Theres no real reason to doubt his alibi so why should we.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                              Comment


                              • Two further things that testify against a killer other than Wallace in my view.

                                1. I think the fact Julia had a bad cold should be considered some more. Would she really let someone in while that under the weather? What pretense could a visitor known to her give that wouldn't be overriden by her saying she was too ill for company. Apparently she was ill enough that Neil Norbury the baker boy noted it and she said it was a touch of bronchitis.

                                If it was "Qualtrough" you could argue she would have let him in to clear up the "misunderstanding" as the "sneak thief" theory goes. Not wanting to let the commission slip thru her and William's fingers I guess...

                                2. Here is another thought that occurred to me though stemming from this... what time would "Qualtrough" in this scenario have arrived? If he was stalking out Wallace and saw him leave, it seems almost blatantly obvious he would have to come soon after that to give him as much time as possible before Wallace returned. (Also it hardly seems likely being right there he would just dawdle around for half an hour before trying to enter 29 wolverton.)

                                The theory that has been suggested as I encapsulated in the previous paragraph is that Julia would allow him in and then they would wait for William to return to clear up the misunderstanding about the address and more importantly get down to business.

                                But if Wallace had just left, and he almost had to have in this "Qualtrough as killer sneak thief" scenario, then obviously Julia would tell Qualtrough this and tell him to follow Wallace and/or head back to Menlove Gardens Area. It is not at all obvious or even likely in my view that she would invite him into her home for a cup of tea and to wait for hours (or that this is a conceivable plan that fake Qualtrough and co. could rely on in planning). Especially with Wallace having left probably just 2 minutes or so before!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X