Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Spitfire]

Hi again Herlock - I actually thought that's the way you would go. Entirely fair and sensible to my mind.

I totally agree about a mock trial. In his later years, I became friendly with the late actor Eric Longworth (best known - if at all - for a small semi-recurring role in the UK comedy series Dads' Army). It was only after his death that I found out he had played the part of Wallace in a well regarded tv production of the case. I wish I had known that earlier and discussed the role with him.

Best regards,

OneRound

Eric's obituary, written by his son, seems to indicate that the actor thought his character guilty.

[AmericanSherlock]

Thanks, AS.

As you appreciate, I'm not going to die in a ditch supporting the someone set out to humiliate Wallace and it all went horribly wrong scenario. Just putting it out there as a possibility for consideration.

My initial thoughts when I first came to look at this case was to be sympathetic towards Wallace and to attribute his odd behaviour to him being an odd individual. A rather lonely, downtrodden, sickly, geeky, chess playing, lowly insurance man - what more do you want?

However, various posts - particularly from you and Herlock (vey good recent one about the tram stops) - now make me feel I was originally too generous in respect of Wallace. Your reference to the numerous coincidences also certainly seems pertinent.

As a bit of an aside, it is a shame that Rod invites ridicule with the manner of his posts. He obviously has some knowledge concerning the case and a different take on things from many here. It would be good to sensibly debate matters from another viewpoint and is disappointing that he is unable to do that.

Best regards,

OneRound

OneRound,

I agree Wallace could have just been an odd personality. It certainly seems he was of a strange, sad, and rather "geeky" personality. One can find some sympathy for such a man, at least I can.

However, I still see many concerning coincidences that cannot be explained by Wallace's character.

Some of these like the timing of the call and the location of it have alternative explanations (if the killer/caller was someone else he would have stalked Wallace and called right after Wallace passed the box etc.) I find this straining credulity a bit, but it is not totally implausible.

However, some do not seem to me to have obvious explanations that could reconcile an innocent Wallace apart from unusual coincidence.

If Wallace were truly innocent, it would mean that the caller

1. Happened to choose the correct night to stalk Wallace and make the call to the club for the 1st time, after Wallace had missed the previous FOUR meetings at the chess club. Or conversely, he had tried this whole charade in the past and somehow was so into his convoluted plan that he was down to try it again after it failed when Wallace didn't show up.

2. Not only was relying on Wallace making it to the club that night, but was relying on the fact that the message would be remembered correctly, delivered, and followed up on the following night by Wallace, which would necessitate the caller going thru the whole thing the following night of stalking out Wallace and waiting for him to leave etc. before hitting up 29 Wolverton St.

3. Even if the plan was simply a prank that later went wrong (say the pranker(s) decided to see if Wallace was leaving the Tuesday night and then entered 29 Wolverton, to revel in it and chat up his clueless, friendly (although apparently suspicious and forlorn) elderly wife ), this would still mean that the perpetrators would have gotten awfully lucky that Wallace had actually gone on the journey, hadn't consulted a map, and had stayed out so long. They could have easily been caught in the act otherwise, despite the fact that their initial intention might have just been to laugh at the situation or Wallace when he returned, even if to themselves or himself (whether it was 1 or 2 people involved)

On the other hand Wallace if truly innocent would be very unlucky.

It would mean he

1. Left just at around the time where his candidacy could be considered quite plausible and only a few minutes after a milk boy, who was later than usual arrived. If he was guilty, he would have had to have waited for the milk boy to come and go as had happened. If he was innocent, he could have left whenever and if he had left before or even as the milk boy was there, he would be totally in the clear. One could also argue an earlier departure time would make more sense if innocent going to an address he did not know across town, of which he began asking desperately for almost right away. Consider he arrived in the area barely on time, if he had KNOWN the address.

2. Going on official business, somehow decided that despite the 400 other leads he called on that miserable day, that this was important enough to follow up on (understandable somewhat in regards to wanting a commission or being flattered by professional recognition), yet for the punctual, precise Wallace somehow NOT important enough to look at a map and realize MGE did not exist. Even if he had decided to go anyway and assumed the address was incorrectly transcribed (I've seen this argument before as to why he kept searching) it would take away a significant piece of his alibi--the asking incessantly about the phony address.

3. Fell hook line and sinker into a plot, whether or not it was a malicious murder/robbery plot or simply a mean prank, that implicated him horribly in his wife's murder when this would not have been the case if any number of things had shaken out differently.

He could have not decided go

He could have gone and come back early, perhaps he would have been in danger himself in such a scenario, but it would be unlikely he would be the sole suspect in his wife's murder as he was in 1931.

Julia could have not let in the killer, she almost certainly wouldn't if it wasn't someone she knew. If it was, she may or may not depending on how she felt etc. Remember she had a bad cold that night!


People in the neighborhood could have seen anything suspicious pointing to someone else. A car lingering on either of the 2 nights etc. The milk boys were observed for example, so this wouldn't be such a crazy thing to expect if another perpetrator drove away from the scene panicked.

None of these.

In regards to Rod,

I agree the man is obviously not stupid. For someone clearly competent to discuss the case, it is a shame he comports himself in the manner he does. Unfortunately, I have found out that intelligence (and I do think he is of a higher than normal aptitude) does not necessarily correlate with civil discourse or fair and logical thinking (not a criticism of his position which simply in my opinion is not likely, but of the complete certainty he ascribes to it). In fact, I would say often times intelligence seems directly inversely proportional to these 2 virtues!

If he came back and behaved in a different manner, I would be more than willing to let bygones be bygones and move on from any past squabbles to have a pleasant discourse about the case. I also engaged in some reactive back and forth posting which wasn't my finest moment, none of us are perfect and I don't hold a personal grudge; I have never met Rod and can only respond to how he portrays himself online.

It seems unlikely such a reconciliation would happen, but I would welcome him with open arms if it does. The more genuine people discussing this interesting case, the better in my opinion.

PS. In regards to the 1975 Who Killed Julia Wallace production, I believe someone had tried many years ago to get it replayed and the company simply and to the point wrote back "We have no plans to air that at this time"

In the era of Web 2.0 and youtube's endless catalogue of videos though, I somehow feel we might stand a better chance of getting this aired or at least available somewhere online.

[OneRound]

Thanks for that Caz. I might contact the tv company

Hi Herlock - an approach to the tv company might just result in success. Although the programme was made as far back as 1975, that was still three or four years after tapes had stopped being routinely wiped. Consequently, there has to be a decent chance it still exists. Whether it can be found may be another matter. I've looked before and again now on YouTube but with no joy.

I would love to be able to see the programme.

Best regards,

OneRound

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound,

As regards to your humiliating Wallace idea, I think that's quite clever and I touched upon that concept in my last couple posts on the previous page. The call is made as a joke and the visit the following night unplanned or at least casual to revel in the prank and something goes wrong. This explains why the plot doesn't really make sense for a robbery.

The thing is it still doesn't explain Wallace's odd behavior and the numerous coincidences that point to him. He would still have to have been extremely unlucky to a large magnitude imo to not have been involved at all.

Thanks, AS.

As you appreciate, I'm not going to die in a ditch supporting the someone set out to humiliate Wallace and it all went horribly wrong scenario. Just putting it out there as a possibility for consideration.

My initial thoughts when I first came to look at this case was to be sympathetic towards Wallace and to attribute his odd behaviour to him being an odd individual. A rather lonely, downtrodden, sickly, geeky, chess playing, lowly insurance man - what more do you want?

However, various posts - particularly from you and Herlock (vey good recent one about the tram stops) - now make me feel I was originally too generous in respect of Wallace. Your reference to the numerous coincidences also certainly seems pertinent.

As a bit of an aside, it is a shame that Rod invites ridicule with the manner of his posts. He obviously has some knowledge concerning the case and a different take on things from many here. It would be good to sensibly debate matters from another viewpoint and is disappointing that he is unable to do that.

Best regards,

OneRound

[AmericanSherlock]

Well i got my replacement copy of the Murphy book today and something stood out in it at a quick glance.

Anyone following this thread might recall the point that i made about Wallace, in the court transcript, saying that on the monday night he went ‘up Belmont’ to get his tram. Rod said that this was obviously an error of transcription at the court because there were no trams to be caught in Belmont Road on the monday night. He stated, as others have believed, that Wallace caught his tram in Breck Road at the stop near to the junction of Belmont Road. I suggested the tram that stopped at the corner of West Derby Road (the stop that Wallace and Caird arrived back at later that night) but Rod, for reasons only known to himself, refused to answer my question: “would the tram that Wallace and Caird returned on (that stopped at West Derby Road) have taken Wallace to the chess club on the monday night?”) Plenty of mockery and insults but no response except ‘it was an error in the court transcript’ and ‘he caught the tram in Breck Road by the junction of Belmont.’

Then i saw this part of Wallace’s Police statement made on 22/11/31 in which he states:

“When i left home on Monday night to go to the chess club i think i walked along Richmond Park to Breck Road and then up Belmont Road, where i boarded a tramcar and got off at the corner of Lord Street and North John Street.” This should speak for itself.

So Rod. Not only did the court apparently transcribe Wallace’s words incorrectly but so apparently did the police!.

The stop that Rod and others believe that used was in Breck Road before a traveller even got to Belmont Road.

The only reasonable interpretation of these 2 sources (which cant both be errors) is that Wallace, as he said, went up Belmont Road, i.e. he went along Belmont Road. And so the only stop that he could have used was the one at the corner of West Derby Road.

So what do we gain from this?

While we have debated whether Wallace used the stop in Breck Road or the one near to the phone box we have Wallace telling us that, for some unknown reason, he walked to a stop three times further away than both alternatives!

Its also noticeable that, in that police statement he says “i think i walked...” Why was he unsure about a route that he would undoubtedly have taken every time that he went to the chess club?”

The only conclusion, based on the evidence, is that Wallace lied to try to put himself far away from the tram stop near the incriminating phone box. And if Wallace lied we can say with a high level of certainty that he was indeed guilty of killing Julia.

Hi, Herlock

Well done!

I think it is hard to explain away why an innocent Wallace would take the longer route and if he didn't then why did he lie about it? Definitely an odd inconsistency you've picked up on.

Somehow, I doubt Rod would concede

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well i got my replacement copy of the Murphy book today and something stood out in it at a quick glance.

Anyone following this thread might recall the point that i made about Wallace, in the court transcript, saying that on the monday night he went ‘up Belmont’ to get his tram. Rod said that this was obviously an error of transcription at the court because there were no trams to be caught in Belmont Road on the monday night. He stated, as others have believed, that Wallace caught his tram in Breck Road at the stop near to the junction of Belmont Road. I suggested the tram that stopped at the corner of West Derby Road (the stop that Wallace and Caird arrived back at later that night) but Rod, for reasons only known to himself, refused to answer my question: “would the tram that Wallace and Caird returned on (that stopped at West Derby Road) have taken Wallace to the chess club on the monday night?”) Plenty of mockery and insults but no response except ‘it was an error in the court transcript’ and ‘he caught the tram in Breck Road by the junction of Belmont.’

Then i saw this part of Wallace’s Police statement made on 22/11/31 in which he states:

“When i left home on Monday night to go to the chess club i think i walked along Richmond Park to Breck Road and then up Belmont Road, where i boarded a tramcar and got off at the corner of Lord Street and North John Street.” This should speak for itself.

So Rod. Not only did the court apparently transcribe Wallace’s words incorrectly but so apparently did the police!.

The stop that Rod and others believe that used was in Breck Road before a traveller even got to Belmont Road.

The only reasonable interpretation of these 2 sources (which cant both be errors) is that Wallace, as he said, went up Belmont Road, i.e. he went along Belmont Road. And so the only stop that he could have used was the one at the corner of West Derby Road.

So what do we gain from this?

While we have debated whether Wallace used the stop in Breck Road or the one near to the phone box we have Wallace telling us that, for some unknown reason, he walked to a stop three times further away than both alternatives!

Its also noticeable that, in that police statement he says “i think i walked...” Why was he unsure about a route that he would undoubtedly have taken every time that he went to the chess club?”

The only conclusion, based on the evidence, is that Wallace lied to try to put himself far away from the tram stop near the incriminating phone box. And if Wallace lied we can say with a high level of certainty that he was indeed guilty of killing Julia.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS and all - the planning was undoubtedly complex and that in itself is significant to me.

I struggle to accept that the end purpose of such an involved and carefully crafted plan was for a thief to lay his hands on whatever cash he could find in the home of a small time insurance official. It just seems inadequate reward for so much thought and work.

Far more likely to me, the aim of the whole enterprise was to bump off Mrs Wallace or, in a near psychotic way, to humiliate Wallace himself. If the latter, things somehow snowballed and ended disastrously. I appreciate that last possible scenario goes some way in Rod's direction. Whilst I find major flaws in Rod's solution and his confidence in it to be near ridiculous, I don't totally dismiss all of his theorising although you, AS, and others have caused me to look for the murderer closer to home.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

As regards to your humiliating Wallace idea, I think that's quite clever and I touched upon that concept in my last couple posts on the previous page. The call is made as a joke and the visit the following night unplanned or at least casual to revel in the prank and something goes wrong. This explains why the plot doesn't really make sense for a robbery.

The thing is it still doesn't explain Wallace's odd behavior and the numerous coincidences that point to him. He would still have to have been extremely unlucky to a large magnitude imo to not have been involved at all.

[AmericanSherlock]

I wonder if Antony’s book will be out before Rod’s

Rod's is for sale at a local run down garage in the Liverpool area so I've heard.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder if Antony’s book will be out before Rod’s

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi Caz,

Excellent points

Its a point that i cant recall hearing before that Parry would have been helping to draw attention to himself by talking about 21st birthdays after hed mentioned one in the phonecall! He could have said ‘on the occaision of her wedding’ for example. I dont think youre biased at all Caz but i know someone who would call me biased for saying so

As you said, Wallace needed the plan more than another suspect. Killing Julia on chess night would have done himself no favours. He needed to show that he’d been deliberately removed from the scene and sent on a wild goose chase.

I agree that if we looked elsewhere for a suspect then it might have been someone that we havent heard of. Someone from Julia’s (and possibly William’s) past with a motive that we are unaware of. The one thing we can be pretty certain of is that this in no way resembles a proper robbery. It was a murder.

Another point that ive raised recently Caz is that it seems a little strange that during the investigation William mentioned Parry as someone that Julia would have admitted to the house at night but he doesnt cast any direct suspicion against him. And yet after he was acquitted he became ‘convinced’ of his guilt even though no new evidence came out. Why?

Herlock,

yes I agree, this is the crucial point. The Qualtrough plot hurts anyone else who could have gone the same night with less fuss, but it helps only Wallace by introducing mystery and a bogus alternative suspect.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi All,

Re the 21st birthday policy, was this something that would always have been set up on the young person's 'coming of age', back in the 1930s, or was it normally a policy set up at birth, with the maturity date being when the child reached 21? Could a policy have been set up at the age of 20, for example [as with the real Qualtrough's daughter], to pay out with interest a year later, on the 21st birthday?

I'm just trying to look at the options, but it does seem plausible that whoever made the Qualtrough call would have tried to weave fiction with fact to make it sound like a genuine request for Wallace's assistance. And with careful planning like that, Parry would have been an idiot to mention anyone's 21st party in his statement. So call me biased, but I think this again points more to Wallace as Qualtrough than anyone else.

I keep coming back to what any husband would absolutely need to put in place, before even thinking of carrying out the premeditated murder of his wife, if he had any hope at all of getting away with it. Wallace needed a "Qualtrough" more than any other potential suspect; Wallace needed a plausible alibi more than anyone else; Wallace needed a local bad boy with a robbery motive - someone exactly like Parry, who would arguably not have needed a forced entry; Wallace needed to conjure up reasonable doubt more than anyone else, which a convoluted scenario like this one could well provide. Once acquitted, it wouldn't matter if the police went after Parry or some other local ne'er-do-well and found they had rock solid alibis because Wallace could never be tried again.

If it wasn't Wallace, I'd be looking for someone in the couple's past, more probably Julia's past, with a secretly held grudge against one or both Wallaces, who found out enough information about their current lives to commit the crime and disappear back into obscurity, with nobody being any the wiser.

But even that seems a lot less likely than Wallace, with his own secretly held grudge, acting alone, in his home environment and in complete control, holding all the cards and all the info he needed to do what he ultimately did, and get away with murder. Not a well man anyway, with a limited time left to live, was it his final game of chess, which he was prepared to lose, but played his socks off to win? Was their a hint of triumph in his "Well we did it!"? [or something to that effect]

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

I think the only way Wallace could have been innocent is if the plan wasn't a plan at all, just a prank of sorts that the caller say Parry, decided to follow up on the next day to check if Wallace had taken the bait then casually visited Julia, while laughing inside at William, and something went wrong. Maybe he decided then and there to rob the cash box (so it wasn't planned) and got busted, then flipped out and smashed poor Julia's head in out of fear and rage at being caught. Of course, the crime scene as we know does not really seem to jibe with this. Maybe Julia mentioned the Qualtrough business and Parry hinted that he was behind it or laughed a bit and gave it away; Julia was not amused and threatened Parry somehow; he flipped out. This version of events does not seem likely though, does it? Again we are left with more questions than answers.

Any scenarios where the call was the 1st step in a purposeful unbroken chain of events, (in essence a plan), points away from anyone other than Wallace being behind it IMO because I think everyone here has done a good job at showing the unlikelihood of a robbery plan, and if anyone wanted to murder JW, Wallace would have to be the number 1 suspect by far, aside from as you suggest a mysterious person from the past which is possible, but also quite unlikely IMO. And even this person's behavior wouldn't seem to make much sense (why not go that Monday night when he knew Wallace was out after seeing him leave, vs. relying on such a strange and convoluted plan that may or may not pan out only to acheive the same exact set of circumstances the following night). In fact the Monday night would be better if such a person was convinced Wallace was headed to the club for chess, since he would be there for many hours, whereas who knows how long Wallace would be out the following night even if he went searching for the bogus address, he might give up at any stage after being told it didn't exist etc...

I think as ONEROUND hinted at, really the only way I could see Wallace as innocent is if this was some sort of weird prank where Parry and/or someone else did it to humiliate poor old fussy Wallace who might have contributed to getting them canned albeit 18 months prior, and then the following night decided to put a cherry on top and visit his clueless, friendly old wife and hear her talk about. Something goes wrong, Parry or a buddy who was involved hints at being behind the call and pranking old Wallace or decides then and there to take the collection money, JW loses it, threatens to tell Wallace, the cops etc. and gets brained for it.

Unfortunately for this theory, the crime scene doesn't really suit it, and it does little to resolve all the unlucky coincidences for Wallace and his own odd behavior which in my mind goes above and beyond simple odd, and "aspergery" and veers into the bizarre for an innocent man.

The whole Qualtrough plot really does seem like the slightly overcooked and cleverly contrived (although somewhat transparent) concoction of an older, self styled intellectual like Wallace much more than any other scenario, doesn't it?

I'm trying my best to come up with good alternate scenarios, but I would say Wallace's guilt remains a 90 to 95 percent or so likely proposition for me.

Not enough to convict--and certainly not enough for the death penalty (which I am for in principle but against in practice unless in cases where the guilt is beyond any doubt such as video recording or un-coerced confession) but certainly much more likely than not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi All,

Re the 21st birthday policy, was this something that would always have been set up on the young person's 'coming of age', back in the 1930s, or was it normally a policy set up at birth, with the maturity date being when the child reached 21? Could a policy have been set up at the age of 20, for example [as with the real Qualtrough's daughter], to pay out with interest a year later, on the 21st birthday?

I'm just trying to look at the options, but it does seem plausible that whoever made the Qualtrough call would have tried to weave fiction with fact to make it sound like a genuine request for Wallace's assistance. And with careful planning like that, Parry would have been an idiot to mention anyone's 21st party in his statement. So call me biased, but I think this again points more to Wallace as Qualtrough than anyone else.

I keep coming back to what any husband would absolutely need to put in place, before even thinking of carrying out the premeditated murder of his wife, if he had any hope at all of getting away with it. Wallace needed a "Qualtrough" more than any other potential suspect; Wallace needed a plausible alibi more than anyone else; Wallace needed a local bad boy with a robbery motive - someone exactly like Parry, who would arguably not have needed a forced entry; Wallace needed to conjure up reasonable doubt more than anyone else, which a convoluted scenario like this one could well provide. Once acquitted, it wouldn't matter if the police went after Parry or some other local ne'er-do-well and found they had rock solid alibis because Wallace could never be tried again.

If it wasn't Wallace, I'd be looking for someone in the couple's past, more probably Julia's past, with a secretly held grudge against one or both Wallaces, who found out enough information about their current lives to commit the crime and disappear back into obscurity, with nobody being any the wiser.

But even that seems a lot less likely than Wallace, with his own secretly held grudge, acting alone, in his home environment and in complete control, holding all the cards and all the info he needed to do what he ultimately did, and get away with murder. Not a well man anyway, with a limited time left to live, was it his final game of chess, which he was prepared to lose, but played his socks off to win? Was their a hint of triumph in his "Well we did it!"? [or something to that effect]

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Excellent points

Its a point that i cant recall hearing before that Parry would have been helping to draw attention to himself by talking about 21st birthdays after hed mentioned one in the phonecall! He could have said ‘on the occaision of her wedding’ for example. I dont think youre biased at all Caz but i know someone who would call me biased for saying so

As you said, Wallace needed the plan more than another suspect. Killing Julia on chess night would have done himself no favours. He needed to show that he’d been deliberately removed from the scene and sent on a wild goose chase.

I agree that if we looked elsewhere for a suspect then it might have been someone that we havent heard of. Someone from Julia’s (and possibly William’s) past with a motive that we are unaware of. The one thing we can be pretty certain of is that this in no way resembles a proper robbery. It was a murder.

Another point that ive raised recently Caz is that it seems a little strange that during the investigation William mentioned Parry as someone that Julia would have admitted to the house at night but he doesnt cast any direct suspicion against him. And yet after he was acquitted he became ‘convinced’ of his guilt even though no new evidence came out. Why?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I found this, but I don't know if it means it's actually available to view:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5752428/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks for that Caz. I might contact the tv company

[caz]

Hi All,

Re the 21st birthday policy, was this something that would always have been set up on the young person's 'coming of age', back in the 1930s, or was it normally a policy set up at birth, with the maturity date being when the child reached 21? Could a policy have been set up at the age of 20, for example [as with the real Qualtrough's daughter], to pay out with interest a year later, on the 21st birthday?

I'm just trying to look at the options, but it does seem plausible that whoever made the Qualtrough call would have tried to weave fiction with fact to make it sound like a genuine request for Wallace's assistance. And with careful planning like that, Parry would have been an idiot to mention anyone's 21st party in his statement. So call me biased, but I think this again points more to Wallace as Qualtrough than anyone else.

I keep coming back to what any husband would absolutely need to put in place, before even thinking of carrying out the premeditated murder of his wife, if he had any hope at all of getting away with it. Wallace needed a "Qualtrough" more than any other potential suspect; Wallace needed a plausible alibi more than anyone else; Wallace needed a local bad boy with a robbery motive - someone exactly like Parry, who would arguably not have needed a forced entry; Wallace needed to conjure up reasonable doubt more than anyone else, which a convoluted scenario like this one could well provide. Once acquitted, it wouldn't matter if the police went after Parry or some other local ne'er-do-well and found they had rock solid alibis because Wallace could never be tried again.

If it wasn't Wallace, I'd be looking for someone in the couple's past, more probably Julia's past, with a secretly held grudge against one or both Wallaces, who found out enough information about their current lives to commit the crime and disappear back into obscurity, with nobody being any the wiser.

But even that seems a lot less likely than Wallace, with his own secretly held grudge, acting alone, in his home environment and in complete control, holding all the cards and all the info he needed to do what he ultimately did, and get away with murder. Not a well man anyway, with a limited time left to live, was it his final game of chess, which he was prepared to lose, but played his socks off to win? Was their a hint of triumph in his "Well we did it!"? [or something to that effect]

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Herlock,

I found this, but I don't know if it means it's actually available to view:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5752428/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt

Love,

Caz
X