Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Interesting insight into your antecedents....Thanks for sharing

Meanwhile...





'The jury was of a type that could not recognize a non sequitur...’ Gerald Abrahams in The Legal Mind (London, 1954)

Perhaps someone else would care to explain to this pair their silly error of fact and logic?

Why are you debating by using irrelevant quotes

What the hell has the jury got to do with it?

I wonder if you’d be able to follow and understand the points being made if we typed slower

[John G]

Okay, first of all let me say that I have a great deal of respect for all the posters who have contributed to this thread. However, I do feel that things of gone astray, particularly as the consensus seems to be that Wallace was probably guilty. What I therefore intend to do is to focus on the substantive scientific evidence; evidence for which no amount of speculation or theorizing about the obstacles that another assailant might have had can take precedence over.

As an overview, in response to claims that "Wallace is the only suspect", you have to question why he's a suspect at all. Thus, at the trial John Johnston, the next door neighbour who must have known them well, under cross-examination described the Wallace's as , "a very loving couple, very affectionate, I thought." In fact, as far as I'm aware, there's not a shred of evidence of any marital discord between the couple whatsoever. And no amount of speculation about Wallace's demeanour after the discovery of the murder, or "I've seen a grainy picture of the man and he looks like a demented serial killer to me, is going to change that. Particularly as nobody on this board has even met the man.

Now for the crucial scientific evidence. What I will show is that for Wallace to have been the killer he would, in effect, have to be some sort of Marvel Comic evil genius, who I will refer to as Super Shield Man.

Thus, Dr McFall, a Professor of Forensic Medicine, described how Julia was struck eleven times: the first blow resulted in arterial spray, the other ten blows were struck whilst she was on the ground.

As a consequence of the first blow blood flew out in every direction: hitting the violin case, which was on the ground, the walls and the furniture. PuLse McFall conceded that the assailant would have got blood on his left hand, on his face, his hair, and possibly under his fingernails, which would have been very difficult to remove. Moreover, as additional blows were struck whilst Julia was on the ground he would have got blood on his legs.

The problem is, of course, forensic evidence proved that William had not washed off the blood in the house. Now, it's speculated that he may, theoretically, have used the coat as a shield. However, unless he put it over his head, or held it in front of his face. But in that case he wouldn't be able to see, although that might explain the number of blows! Additionally, unless he had the super power of foresight, how would he know which direction the blood would spray? Thus, putting the coat over his head would leave the lower half of his body unprotected, a real problem if he was wearing his suit. I mean, it's not as if he had time to head off to the nearest dry cleaners!

But let's say he miraculously avoided any blood splatter. What does he do next? Well, crazily he places the Macintosh under Julia's shoulders. However, as Dr McFall conceded, this would necessitate the assailant lifting up the head and shoulder, which would leave him "dabbled in blood", the very thing that is super cunning plan was intended to avoid! I mean, what an idiot! Or maybe telekinesis was another one of his powers.

What about the murder weapon that was never found? This again relates to substantive evidence. We know the police carried out an extensive search of the house and surrounding area. It's also the case that William had hardly any time to hide the weapon, maybe just a few spare seconds, and his very limited options extended to the house or between the house and the tram stop. So was the ability to make solid objects invisible another one of his amazing powers?

And why would be take the weapon from the house anyway. For starters, it would be a huge risk to leave the house swinging an iron bar covered in blood and gore. And if he hides it under his suit, then that garment's going to get stained.

However, if he struck Julia with, say, the poker-Sarah Draper said a poker was missing-he can just discard this common household item in the room. Yes, it would have his fingerprints on, but it would have anyway, seeing as though it was his poker. Also, with any luck, Parry may have been asked to stoke the fire by Julia during one of his many visits, do his fingerprints would also be on the poker, thus incriminating him.

What of timing issues? Well, based upon Wildman's evidence, he may have only had seven minutes to commit a murder, possibly get dressed, hide the murder weapon so thoroughly that it was never found, and stage a robbery. At the very least, considering his age and poor health, it makes it unlikely. But some people have concluded that, to the contrary, it makes him the only suspect, or at least the most viable.

In conclusion, it should be evident that the weight of scientific research evidence rules William out. Against this, any other assailant would simply have to avoid being seen going into the house and exiting the house.

What of Parry? Well, if he did it I don't think the murder was planned, more likely a robbery gone wrong. And yes, he would have to have luck, debit wouldn't be physically impossible for him to have done it. I suppose it largely comes down to whether you believe Brine or Parkes, but that's for another post.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is there evidence of you having solved anything? I thought you solved the case. Where is the evidence?

There is none.

Rod believes that if you can manufacture a scenario that might possibly explain what happened then it’s game over.

Let’s be glad that the police don’t follow the Crosby Method

[AmericanSherlock]

There is none.

Rod believes that if you can manufacture a scenario that might possibly explain what happened then it’s game over.

Let’s be glad that the police don’t follow the Crosby Method

There would be a prison overpopulation problem. Potential sneak thieves and accomplices in jail If they protest their innocence, just explain it was "solved" using the Crosby method

[AmericanSherlock]

Okay, first of all let me say that I have a great deal of respect for all the posters who have contributed to this thread. However, I do feel that things of gone astray, particularly as the consensus seems to be that Wallace was probably guilty. What I therefore intend to do is to focus on the substantive scientific evidence; evidence for which no amount of speculation or theorizing about the obstacles that another assailant might have had can take precedence over.

As an overview, in response to claims that "Wallace is the only suspect", you have to question why he's a suspect at all. Thus, at the trial John Johnston, the next door neighbour who must have known them well, under cross-examination described the Wallace's as , "a very loving couple, very affectionate, I thought." In fact, as far as I'm aware, there's not a shred of evidence of any marital discord between the couple whatsoever. And no amount of speculation about Wallace's demeanour after the discovery of the murder, or "I've seen a grainy picture of the man and he looks like a demented serial killer to me, is going to change that. Particularly as nobody on this board has even met the man.

Now for the crucial scientific evidence. What I will show is that for Wallace to have been the killer he would, in effect, have to be some sort of Marvel Comic evil genius, who I will refer to as Super Shield Man.

Thus, Dr McFall, a Professor of Forensic Medicine, described how Julia was struck eleven times: the first blow resulted in arterial spray, the other ten blows were struck whilst she was on the ground.

As a consequence of the first blow blood flew out in every direction: hitting the violin case, which was on the ground, the walls and the furniture. PuLse McFall conceded that the assailant would have got blood on his left hand, on his face, his hair, and possibly under his fingernails, which would have been very difficult to remove. Moreover, as additional blows were struck whilst Julia was on the ground he would have got blood on his legs.

The problem is, of course, forensic evidence proved that William had not washed off the blood in the house. Now, it's speculated that he may, theoretically, have used the coat as a shield. However, unless he put it over his head, or held it in front of his face. But in that case he wouldn't be able to see, although that might explain the number of blows! Additionally, unless he had the super power of foresight, how would he know which direction the blood would spray? Thus, putting the coat over his head would leave the lower half of his body unprotected, a real problem if he was wearing his suit. I mean, it's not as if he had time to head off to the nearest dry cleaners!

But let's say he miraculously avoided any blood splatter. What does he do next? Well, crazily he places the Macintosh under Julia's shoulders. However, as Dr McFall conceded, this would necessitate the assailant lifting up the head and shoulder, which would leave him "dabbled in blood", the very thing that is super cunning plan was intended to avoid! I mean, what an idiot! Or maybe telekinesis was another one of his powers.

What about the murder weapon that was never found? This again relates to substantive evidence. We know the police carried out an extensive search of the house and surrounding area. It's also the case that William had hardly any time to hide the weapon, maybe just a few spare seconds, and his very limited options extended to the house or between the house and the tram stop. So was the ability to make solid objects invisible another one of his amazing powers?

And why would be take the weapon from the house anyway. For starters, it would be a huge risk to leave the house swinging an iron bar covered in blood and gore. And if he hides it under his suit, then that garment's going to get stained.

However, if he struck Julia with, say, the poker-Sarah Draper said a poker was missing-he can just discard this common household item in the room. Yes, it would have his fingerprints on, but it would have anyway, seeing as though it was his poker. Also, with any luck, Parry may have been asked to stoke the fire by Julia during one of his many visits, do his fingerprints would also be on the poker, thus incriminating him.

What of timing issues? Well, based upon Wildman's evidence, he may have only had seven minutes to commit a murder, possibly get dressed, hide the murder weapon so thoroughly that it was never found, and stage a robbery. At the very least, considering his age and poor health, it makes it unlikely. But some people have concluded that, to the contrary, it makes him the only suspect, or at least the most viable.

In conclusion, it should be evident that the weight of scientific research evidence rules William out. Against this, any other assailant would simply have to avoid being seen going into the house and exiting the house.

What of Parry? Well, if he did it I don't think the murder was planned, more likely a robbery gone wrong. And yes, he would have to have luck, debit wouldn't be physically impossible for him to have done it. I suppose it largely comes down to whether you believe Brine or Parkes, but that's for another post.

Hi John,

I don't have time to respond in full right now, but I will just say I don't agree that it is "scientifically impossible" for Wallace to have been the killer. I do agree the forensics (particularly the benzidine test) leaves reasonable doubt, which is why I wouldn't convict Wallace. I do think he was guilty though. Macfall was pretty incompetent all across the board.

I think we might be underestimating the risks an ailing Wallace, who wanted to get rid of his wife, might have taken. As well as overestimating the necessity of blood splatter. For example, if it was a robbery gone wrong, then how did the panicked killer manage to leave the room without tracking blood anywhere?

What is your preferred theory though? Parry alone, Parry and an accomplice, or Wallace as guilty but a mastermind and hiring Parry and/or someone else?

I think it's a bit of a stretch to insist the thread has gone astray because people disagree with your conclusion. I just don't understand how you can insist it's IMPOSSIBLE for Wallace to have been guilty. I mean is every single person who ever argued for that being even possible totally off base? You are making it out like the forensic evidence would require Wallace to be able to fly for him to have been guilty.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As an overview, in response to claims that "Wallace is the only suspect", you have to question why he's a suspect at all. Thus, at the trial John Johnston, the next door neighbour who must have known them well, under cross-examination described the Wallace's as , "a very loving couple, very affectionate, I thought." In fact, as far as I'm aware, there's not a shred of evidence of any marital discord between the couple whatsoever. And no amount of speculation about Wallace's demeanour after the discovery of the murder, or "I've seen a grainy picture of the man and he looks like a demented serial killer to me, is going to change that. Particularly as nobody on this board has even met the man.

Sorry John but this is simply untrue.

Mrs Wilson, who stayed at the house for three weeks nursing them through an illness said “Their attitude toward each other appeared to be strained and that the feeling of sympathy which one usually found existing between man and wife appeared to be entirely absent. They were not the happy and devoted couple some people thought.”

Alfred Mather, a former colleague of Wallace’s called him “the most cool, calculating, despondent and soured man”he had ever met. A man with a bad temper who felt his job beneath him.

Dr Curwen said the William appeared indifferent to Julia’s health and that Julia felt Wallace to be malingering when he was ill.

Add this to Julia taking 16 years off her true age and this hardly speaks of a happy marriage. And so we have a motive for William.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Thus, Dr McFall, a Professor of Forensic Medicine, described how Julia was struck eleven times: the first blow resulted in arterial spray, the other ten blows were struck whilst she was on the ground.

As a consequence of the first blow blood flew out in every direction: hitting the violin case, which was on the ground, the walls and the furniture. PuLse McFall conceded that the assailant would have got blood on his left hand, on his face, his hair, and possibly under his fingernails, which would have been very difficult to remove. Moreover, as additional blows were struck whilst Julia was on the ground he would have got blood on his legs.

Professor MacFall and Doctor Pierce gave a statement to Moore saying that the killer could have struck Julia at such an angle that the blood flew away from him and only his left hand might have gotten bloodstained which he might have washed off upstairs.

Also why should we baulk at the possibility that Wallace also had a measure of good fortune?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.What about the murder weapon that was never found? This again relates to substantive evidence. We know the police carried out an extensive search of the house and surrounding area. It's also the case that William had hardly any time to hide the weapon, maybe just a few spare seconds, and his very limited options extended to the house or between the house and the tram stop. So was the ability to make solid objects invisible another one of his amazing powers?

And why would be take the weapon from the house anyway. For starters, it would be a huge risk to leave the house swinging an iron bar covered in blood and gore. And if he hides it under his suit, then that garment's going to get stained.

However, if he struck Julia with, say, the poker-Sarah Draper said a poker was missing-he can just discard this common household item in the room. Yes, it would have his fingerprints on, but it would have anyway, seeing as though it was his poker. Also, with any luck, Parry may have been asked to stoke the fire by Julia during one of his many visits, do his fi

Things get hidden and not found John. Wallace would have made plans. If one thing is impossible it’s saying that Wallace couldn’t have disposed of the weapon and it not being found.

If the intruder brought the weapon with him (explaining why he took it away) then it was premeditated murder. Can we explain who would have wanted Julia dead John?

If a sneak thief used something from inside the house he would have worn gloves (no prints anywhere) and so the weapon could have in no way been tied to him. Therefore why would he take away a bloodied iron bar?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
What of timing issues? Well, based upon Wildman's evidence, he may have only had seven minutes to commit a murder, possibly get dressed, hide the murder weapon so thoroughly that it was never found, and stage a robbery. At the very least, considering his age and poor health, it makes it unlikely. But some people have concluded that, to the contrary, it makes him the only suspect, or at least the most viable.

As I’ve said in another post the staging of the robbery could have been done beforehand easily. The murder would have taken all of 30 seconds or a minute. This leaves 6 minutes for any kind of clean up (if required at all.) The weapon disposed of after he left the building. Even if it had been found the Defence would have said “why do you assume Wallace dumped it? It might have been Qualtrough?”

If Prosecution had said “but it was found on the route that Wallace took” the Defence could have said “we’ll Qualtrough mentioned MGE so it’s possible he came from that sort of area and so would have headed in that direction.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

. What of Parry? Well, if he did it I don't think the murder was planned, more likely a robbery gone wrong. And yes, he would have to have luck, debit wouldn't be physically impossible for him to have done it. I suppose it largely comes down to whether you believe Brine or Parkes, but that's for another post.

Parry has an alibi and so can be eliminated.

I genuinely can’t see how anyone can possibly take Parkes seriously. A complete fantasist in my opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.As an overview, in response to claims that "Wallace is the only suspect", you have to question why he's a suspect at all.

You also have to ask the question ‘why was Parry ever suspected?’

Because Wallace fed his name to the police.

[RodCrosby]

Sorry John but this is simply untrue.

Mrs Wilson, who stayed at the house for three weeks nursing them through an illness said “Their attitude toward each other appeared to be strained and that the feeling of sympathy which one usually found existing between man and wife appeared to be entirely absent. They were not the happy and devoted couple some people thought.”

Alfred Mather, a former colleague of Wallace’s called him “the most cool, calculating, despondent and soured man”he had ever met. A man with a bad temper who felt his job beneath him.

Dr Curwen said the William appeared indifferent to Julia’s health and that Julia felt Wallace to be malingering when he was ill.

Add this to Julia taking 16 years off her true age and this hardly speaks of a happy marriage. And so we have a motive for William.

Lol.

The Police also trawled the alehouses and flophouses for any tittle-tattle or wild theory - the police file is full of it. Unsurprisingly, none of it was offered into evidence at court....

Neither were any of the above quotes offered into evidence.

Wilson had met the Wallaces once eight years previously. At the time her musings were taken down she was the matron of the Police remand home!

Mather didn't like Wallace, the only person seemingly who didn't. His ramblings reveal that he felt 'slighted' in some petty way by Wallace or his wife, and bore a malicious grudge.

Curwen's observations don't amount to anything more than the commonplace.

It should be reminded that these characterizations only exist in second-hand form - in the words of Inspector Gold.

That would be the same Inspector Gold who turned up drunk at Wolverton Street on the night of the murder... The same Inspector Gold whose first act in the "investigation" was to stagger upstairs and relieve himself, perhaps destroying vital evidence in the bathroom in the process...


The actual evidence, and the only evidence tendered, from people who lived next door to them for years, and from someone who visited them weekly right up to the time of the murder paints a different picture.

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.


OLIVER KC: Did you ever see the Wallaces together ?
MR JOHNSTON: Yes.

OLIVER KC: So far as you could judge, what were their relations ?
JOHNSTON: A very loving couple, very affectionate, I thought.

OLIVER KC: You never heard any quarrelling going on ?
JOHNSTON: No, never.


OLIVER KC: So far as you know, were their relations together quite happy ?
MRS JOHNSTON: Yes, as far as I know.

OLIVER KC: Your two houses are absolutely touching each other ?
MRS JOHNSTON: Yes.

OLIVER KC: And I suppose you can hear what goes on in one house from the other ?
MRS JOHNSTON: Yes.

But unsurprisingly, the "Wallace-fanciers" cling to their prejudices and fancies, and ignore the actual evidence, and logic is a foreign continent to them...

[John G]

Hi John,

I don't have time to respond in full right now, but I will just say I don't agree that it is "scientifically impossible" for Wallace to have been the killer. I do agree the forensics (particularly the benzidine test) leaves reasonable doubt, which is why I wouldn't convict Wallace. I do think he was guilty though. Macfall was pretty incompetent all across the board.

I think we might be underestimating the risks an ailing Wallace, who wanted to get rid of his wife, might have taken. As well as overestimating the necessity of blood splatter. For example, if it was a robbery gone wrong, then how did the panicked killer manage to leave the room without tracking blood anywhere?

What is your preferred theory though? Parry alone, Parry and an accomplice, or Wallace as guilty but a mastermind and hiring Parry and/or someone else?

I think it's a bit of a stretch to insist the thread has gone astray because people disagree with your conclusion. I just don't understand how you can insist it's IMPOSSIBLE for Wallace to have been guilty. I mean is every single person who ever argued for that being even possible totally off base? You are making it out like the forensic evidence would require Wallace to be able to fly for him to have been guilty.

Hi AS,

Good post. I'll reply in more detail as soon as I have more time (McFall wasn't the only forensic expert called, and as the police expert it's pretty obvious from the trial transcript that he tried to make the best possible case against Wallace, even to the extent of changing the time of death.) However, to be fair, I think you've made the most convincing argument in favour of Wallace that could be made. My preferred theory would he roberry gone wrong, with Parry having the role of Qualtrough. I'd not completely rule out Parry working alone, although that essentially comes down to a Brine for Parkes debate.

Let me ask you a question. Regarding the Qualtrough call , how do you think Wallace could have controlled the situation?

Thus, let's say Wallace made the call. Now he has an immediate problem: if his voice is recognized the plan essentially fails.

What about Parry making the call as a hoax, which Wallace suspected and simply took advantage of the situation or, say, being tricked into it by Parry?

In that case I don't see how he can use it to his advantage, i.e. by relying on Close as a kind of alibi, as there are simply too many variables. Thus, if Close arrives too early the police would argue he has plenty of time to kill his wife. If he arrives too late, then Wallace misses the tram to get him to the appointment on time, which would be disastrous, as the police would argue that he was late on account of murdering his wife.

And all of this relies on Close being aware of the time he arrived and telling the truth. Ironically none of those things happened-Wallace had to rely on Wildman's fortuitous evidence, something he couldn't possibly have predicted.

What if the Qualtrough call was just a coincidence, which had nothing to do with the murder, and Wallace therefore had no intention of using Close as an alibi? In that case, why delay to the last possible moment? Why not just kill Julia as soon as he arrived home at 6:00pm.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lol.

The Police also trawled the alehouses and flophouses for any tittle-tattle or wild theory - the police file is full of it. Unsurprisingly, none of it was offered into evidence at court....

Irrelevant.

Neither were any of the above quotes offered into evidence.

Wilson had met the Wallaces once eight years previously. At the time her musings were taken down she was the matron of the Police remand home!

So what? She spent 3 weeks in their home seeing them at close quarters.

Mather didn't like Wallace, the only person seemingly who didn't. His ramblings reveal that he felt 'slighted' in some petty way by Wallace or his wife, and bore a malicious grudge.

Of course it could be that he was just giving an honest opinion He might have had very good reason to dislike Wallace.

Curwen's observations don't amount to anything more than the commonplace.

They’re as important as the Johnston’s. Unless you have the Wallace goggles on of course.

It should be reminded that these characterizations only exist in second-hand form - in the words of Inspector Gold.

That would be the same Inspector Gold who turned up drunk at Wolverton Street on the night of the murder... The same Inspector Gold whose first act in the "investigation" was to stagger upstairs and relieve himself, perhaps destroying vital evidence in the bathroom in the process...

Irrelevent.


The actual evidence, and the only evidence tendered, from people who lived next door to them for years, and from someone who visited them weekly right up to the time of the murder paints a different picture.

And who after all those years still didn’t know Julia’s Christian name. Real busom-buddies then..

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.


OLIVER KC: Did you ever see the Wallaces together ?
MR JOHNSTON: Yes.

OLIVER KC: So far as you could judge, what were their relations ?
JOHNSTON: A very loving couple, very affectionate, I thought.

OLIVER KC: You never heard any quarrelling going on ?
JOHNSTON: No, never.


OLIVER KC: So far as you know, were their relations together quite happy ?
MRS JOHNSTON: Yes, as far as I know.

OLIVER KC: Your two houses are absolutely touching each other ?
MRS JOHNSTON: Yes.

OLIVER KC: And I suppose you can hear what goes on in one house from the other ?
MRS JOHNSTON: Yes.

But unsurprisingly, the "Wallace-fanciers" cling to their prejudices and fancies, and ignore the actual evidence, and logic is a foreign continent to them...

I’d have thought the term Wallace fancier described you more than anyone as you appear to worship the man. I still harbour some suspicion that you might be in some way related to him as it might explain you blind faith in him and willingness to clutch at any straw.

The Johnston’s were a couple who would have expected, should Wallace have been found guilty, to have continued to live next door to him. It might have been a bit difficult if they’d have stood up in court and said ‘the Wallace’s hated each other.’ Therefore they have far more reasons to be distrusted than a doctor and a nurse.

Let it go Rod.

You’ll feel better.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. OLIVER KC: And I suppose you can hear what goes on in one house from the other ?
MRS JOHNSTON: Yes

Well Mrs J did you hear anyone knocking at their door? No

Did you hear Mrs W having a conversation on her doorstep? No

Did you hear Mrs W cry out? No

Thank you Mrs J