Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[NickB]

One part of Wallace’s testimony that struck me was:

Hemmerde: “Although you gave the police the names of certain people who might have been admitted to the house, is there one you have the slightest suspicion of being guilty of this murder?”

Wallace: “Not one.”

Even if he didn’t want to finger Parry in court, he could have at least given a non-committal reply.

This is why I asked (if he planned it) about the lack of forced entry. Without this it was almost certain that his wife had let in someone. Indeed this was what the defence team proposed:

When Wallace had left the house a watcher called and was admitted for the purpose of ‘leaving a note’ for Wallace.

But Wallace then said that his wife would only let in someone she knew and supplied a list of these people. By declaring none of them were suspicious he seemed to be saying they didn’t do it either.

Another thing that struck me was in Wallace’s written account of the proceedings. Even if it was ghosted I presume he approved it.

This is how he describes the jurors:

“I should like to put on record here that never in my life had I ever imagined any jury of my fellow men should appear so utterly stupid. Twelve blank, unintelligent, and, as it proved, unfriendly faces. I have since been told by spectators in court that they were described as ‘twelve morons’ and ‘not an ounce of real intelligence or sense amongst the lot of them’.

“The opinion of everyone in court with the exception of the jury who were, all too obviously, a class mentally apart from the normal run of humanity ...”

Of course he had reason to be upset with them, but to me this reveals a streak of malice behind the calm exterior.

Although he did have a nice line in unintentional humour:

Oliver: Did you lay a hand upon your wife that night?

Wallace: I think in going out the back door I did what I often enough do; I just patted her on the shoulder.

[ColdCaseJury]

Nick, thanks for the interesting quotes. Am I right in thinking that your view is that if Wallace was guilty he would have been motivated to point the suspicion elsewhere when asked that question?

[NickB]

I think that if Wallace had planned the murder he must have considered the question: who else could have done it?

The best position would be that anyone else could have done it. I gather this is what his defence team would have liked to pursue and I still think it is a legitimate possibility. But he effectively ruled this out by (having not staged a forced entry) agreeing that his wife would not have let in a stranger. He even ruled out the ‘intruder sneaked in through the scullery door” option by saying Julia did not walk to the gate with him.

If his position was that Parry - or at least someone on the list - did it then I would have expected at least a “don’t know” type of answer. But my overall point is that he was boxed in - in a way that could have been wholly anticipated in the planning stage.

[AmericanSherlock]

I think there is far greater justification and warrant for holding that there is 95% probability of Wallace being involved (i.e. 3 theories combined), although I might still not place it that high. Further, I think you are saying: of the four major theories, the combined probability is 95%.

As an aside, Cold Case Jurors might be selecting Parry as a not-Wallace option. There is little evidence to point to someone else (and hence really difficult for me to create a scenario), but that may be because the evidence we have is incomplete.

I sense I'm more sanguine about my views on the case. I don't feel so strongly about one verdict or the other. If the murderer was to step forward from the mists of history, and it was Wallace (alone or collaborating) it would make sense, but I would not be shocked if it was Parry or even someone we have never heard of!

With Cold Case Jury, I am interested in hearing what others think, especially when the view is as interesting and well argued as yours. As you know, I present the key evidence and major theories side by side and as impartially as possible - this is rarely done in most true crime books (the author often has an angle, especially to arrive at a new "solution").

Changing the subject from probabilities to testimony. Have you read the transcript (abridged or full) of Wallace's court testimony?

Antony,

Yes I have. I've seen nothing in there that would either indicate guilt or innocence.

Are you familar with the JonBenet Ramsey case? It is the source of much discussion on this very sub-forum. I believe the Wallace case bares an oblique similarity, in that the case smacks of an inside job, but there are also difficulties with that explanation alone. Stephen Singular, an author about the case, has said "I don't think either of the two prevalent scenarios -- the Ramseys did it or an intruder did it -- can explain both the hard evidence coming from outside the family and a ransom note that appears to have come from within the house. Three-and-a-half years into the case, both scenarios have led nowhere." I see some parallels, because of the seemingly impossible nature of the case--hard to reconcile Wallace acting alone, hard to imagine anyone else doing it. There may be a missing piece to the puzzle, something we're not thinking about entirely or putting together, so that the most common theories fall up short. (I still believe Wallace acted alone, but I do agree that it is not an entirely satisfying resolution of some of the baffling aspects of this crime.)

I've created a thread for Poisoning at the Priory, another well -written book by Antony in the same format as the Wallace one. I urge those familiar with that case to comment and consider reading the book.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=392180#post392180

[ColdCaseJury]

I am not familiar with the JonBenet Ramsey case (although I have heard of it), largely because I like pre-1950 historical whodunnits. However, you are absolutely correct that modern cases can potentially throw light on older cases (or vice versa, of course).

There may be a missing piece to the puzzle, something we're not thinking about entirely or putting together, so that the most common theories fall up short. (I still believe Wallace acted alone, but I do agree that it is not an entirely satisfying resolution of some of the baffling aspects of this crime.)

I agree, of course; this case cannot be resolved satisfactorily. I think there is a piece missing which would resolve the case. I believe that the piece is more likely to show Wallace acted alone than anything else, BUT the evidence we have is inclusive and contradictory (I think you can understand my conclusion, even if you may disagree with it). The evidence that would clinch for me, for example, would be how and when Wallace traveled to the chess club on 19 January.

And there is another BUT.

In my line of work, I have read many trial transcripts, and Wallace's testimony does have an indefinable quality that seems like truth. It is not an irrational feeling but a cognition that is hard to explain (the philosopher Wittgenstein called such things "imponderables"). However, I would hardly advance it as important evidence...

BUT...

And that is the thing with the Wallace case, isn't it? There are too many BUTs!

[AmericanSherlock]

I am not familiar with the JonBenet Ramsey case (although I have heard of it), largely because I like pre-1950 historical whodunnits. However, you are absolutely correct that modern cases can potentially throw light on older cases (or vice versa, of course).



I agree, of course; this case cannot be resolved satisfactorily. I think there is a piece missing which would resolve the case. I believe that the piece is more likely to show Wallace acted alone than anything else, BUT the evidence we have is inclusive and contradictory (I think you can understand my conclusion, even if you may disagree with it). The evidence that would clinch for me, for example, would be how and when Wallace traveled to the chess club on 19 January.

And there is another BUT.

In my line of work, I have read many trial transcripts, and Wallace's testimony does have an indefinable quality that seems like truth. It is not an irrational feeling but a cognition that is hard to explain (the philosopher Wittgenstein called such things "imponderables"). However, I would hardly advance it as important evidence...

BUT...

And that is the thing with the Wallace case, isn't it? There are too many BUTs!

I know what you are getting at. I would just suggest as the symmetrical "opposite explanation", of which this case has so many, that perhaps Wallace was of a personality type that would leave one with a false impression, similar to how a psychopath can beat a lie-detector. I think it is more likely that Parry has anti-social traits, perhaps an impulsive sociopath, but I think that Wallace may have been on the autistic spectrum; aspergers or something of the sort.

One hates to diagnose people without knowing them personally and intricately; especially post-mortem. I myself have many interests that could be consider bizarre and intricate, detective work like this is 1 of them in fact! But there was something extra cold in Wallace I feel that would be typical of someone oddly unaffected and unemotional, and that may have allowed him to give off an aire of truth and genuine-ness that wasn't based in reality. Not something you can hang a man on, though.

I agree that the key to the case that could bury Wallace would be finding more evidence that would link him to making the phone call on Monday night. Right now, we know little of his movements that night, only the time that he arrived at the chess club.

I think the fact that the call box was so close to his house is damning, remember it was only traced because of a malfunction, and I disagree with people who suggest he would have known or suspected it could have been. It was certainly not a common practice then. Because of this, I also reject the notion that someone else (likely Parry) made the call, hoping Wallace would be suspected. This would also mean that the culprit was planning a murder and hoping to frame Wallace; extremely unlikely imo. In fact, in your Parry scenario, it is a spur of the moment attack.

[ColdCaseJury]

I think the fact that the call box was so close to his house is damning.

I see your point - and it is a good one. This call box was the only viable one for Wallace to make the call. Nevertheless, to my knowledge, it was the closest one to Parry's girlfriend's house (1 mile distant), where Parry turned up 5 minutes later in his car after the call ended and then tried to use his presence at this house as his alibi.

Wallace has the coincidence of geography, Parry the coincidence of timing.

Given just these facts (for the moment), who is more likely to have made the call do you think?

[AmericanSherlock]

I see your point - and it is a good one. This call box was the only viable one for Wallace to make the call. Nevertheless, to my knowledge, it was the closest one to Parry's girlfriend's house (1 mile distant), where Parry turned up 5 minutes later in his car after the call ended and then tried to use his presence at this house as his alibi.

Wallace has the coincidence of geography, Parry the coincidence of timing.

Given just these facts (for the moment), who is more likely to have made the call do you think?

Given just those 2 facts, I think they're even odds and cancel eachother out. So common with this case. I would argue Wallace has the coincidence of timing, the call was 25 minutes before he arrived at the chess club that night, a perfect timeframe emerges of him going to the club right after making the call.

Almost hilarious how both Wallace and Parry could have made the call, but just barely...while I strongly believe in Wallace's guilt, I can't deny the "perpetual check" nature of this case.

[AmericanSherlock]

read a response from J. Goodman to the 1975 Who Killed Julia tv movie that implies Wallace's guilt. He chastises the program and argues for the, in his view, innocent Wallace. I'm sure he preferred Man From the Pru.

One of the points he makes is that it would have been impossible for Wallace to avoid blood spatter, and that the theory Wallace put the mackintosh over her head before bludgeoning her doesn't jibe with the fact that the walls were stippled with blood. However, he doesn't consider that the mackintosh could have been worn by Wallace either naked, or over clothes.

[ColdCaseJury]

One of the points he makes is that it would have been impossible for Wallace to avoid blood spatter, and that the theory Wallace put the mackintosh over her head before bludgeoning her doesn't jibe with the fact that the walls were stippled with blood. However, he doesn't consider that the mackintosh could have been worn by Wallace either naked, or over clothes.

Interesting point from Goodman. Of course, just because a mackintosh is placed over someone's head does not mean it was done perfectly, or that no blood escaped - on either himself or the walls.

I believe whoever committed this crime had some blood splatter on him. Both Parry and Wallace (and clothes) were examined. No blood traces were found on either. Both could have washed (Parry having far greater time to do this).

[AmericanSherlock]

Interesting point from Goodman. Of course, just because a mackintosh is placed over someone's head does not mean it was done perfectly, or that no blood escaped - on either himself or the walls.

I believe whoever committed this crime had some blood splatter on him. Both Parry and Wallace (and clothes) were examined. No blood traces were found on either. Both could have washed (Parry having far greater time to do this).

Parry would have had more time, however I think Wallace would be under less scrutiny to be totally free of blood, I mean he discovered the body and smeared blood on the notes. I would assume he was found to be generally free of visible blood, but that's all.

[sdreid]

The Wallace Case is #9 on the Top 1000+ Classic (over 20 years old) Unsolved Murder list that I'm working on (I'm up #735 at present). Ahead in order are Cleveland Torso, JtR, Texarkana Phantom, Black Dahlia, Jack the Stripper, Original Night Stalker, Boston Strangler and New Orleans Axeman. Zodiac rounds out the top 10. #735 is the Alicia Showalter Reynolds murder from 1996 so even at 735 there's still a high level of intrigue.

I don't know if this link will work if you're not registered but give it a shot.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?145606-Most-interesting-classic-unsolved-murder-cases/page58

I'm up to #775 now and hope to have at least 1035 up by the end of 2018. Belinda was adding details up through #405 but left, according to one source, due to some health issues. Hopefully she will be able to return.

[caz]

Hi All,

Given that it was only Wallace's absence from the club when the phone call was received that allowed for him to have disguised his voice and made it himself, to help set up his alibi in advance, it strikes me that if he'd had someone helping him, he would have made sure he was at the club when his co-conspirator made that call. I realise the point would have been to have a third party answering the phone and taking the message, but between them they could easily have got that person to take the message anyway, whether Wallace was in the middle of a game or had just excused himself and disappeared to the loo on hearing the first ring.

I don't believe someone else acted alone, nor that they could have made that phone call knowing Wallace would not be there to receive it, and if Wallace had help, it wasn't planned as well as it might have been, to cast suspicion away from Wallace and onto this mysterious unidentified caller.

Love,

Caz
X

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi All,

Given that it was only Wallace's absence from the club when the phone call was received that allowed for him to have disguised his voice and made it himself, to help set up his alibi in advance, it strikes me that if he'd had someone helping him, he would have made sure he was at the club when his co-conspirator made that call. I realise the point would have been to have a third party answering the phone and taking the message, but between them they could easily have got that person to take the message anyway, whether Wallace was in the middle of a game or had just excused himself and disappeared to the loo on hearing the first ring.

I don't believe someone else acted alone, nor that they could have made that phone call knowing Wallace would not be there to receive it, and if Wallace had help, it wasn't planned as well as it might have been, to cast suspicion away from Wallace and onto this mysterious unidentified caller.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, you make excellent point here. I think you've succinctly made a very good case against Wallace working with somebody else. He could have created a far better alibi if he had been, as you point out.

It looks to me as if you lean towards thinking Wallace acted alone, making the phone call and carrying out the murder. and I believe so as well.

However, to play devil's advocate, in reference to the bold, I think a contrarian could still argue that it's possible somebody else could have made the call and not minded if Wallace was there. This would obviously rule out framing Wallace for the murder, but if the goal wasn't murder at all, let's say robbery, that could still be in play. But, it's strong evidence against the purpose of the call having been a murder if someone else other than Wallace was behind it.

This leaves us with 2 options:

1. Wallace acted alone, made the call, and committed the murder.

2. Someone else made the call who was not working with Wallace, and the goal of the call was not murder, but something else. In this case, perhaps such a person who was disguising their voice, wouldn't necessarily fear the prospect of having to speak with Wallace in quite the same way they would if they had murderous plans.

Scenario 1 looks much, much more likely to me though. What do you think?

Great points!

[ColdCaseJury]

It strikes me that if he'd had someone helping him, he would have made sure he was at the club when his co-conspirator made that call.

In which case the phone would have been passed to Wallace... surely the point was that someone else (i.e. Beattie) took the message and then it was relayed to Wallace in the presence of others?