Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

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?

I read the point as being Wallace would have made sure to be there at the time the call was made to bolster his alibi, if he had the benefit of working with someone else who made the call.

[NickB]

In any case, Beattie could have declined to take a message.

Qualtrough: “Is Mr Wallace there?”

Beattie:”No, and I don’t know if he will come tonight. But if he does, he will be here in about half an hour - so I suggest you try again then. Bye!”

[AmericanSherlock]

In any case, Beattie could have declined to take a message.

Qualtrough: “Is Mr Wallace there?”

Beattie:”No, and I don’t know if he will come tonight. But if he does, he will be here in about half an hour - so I suggest you try again then. Bye!”

Who do you think that implicates more?

[AmericanSherlock]

Thought this was interesting. From Jonathan Goodman's Guardian Obituary.

While in Liverpool in the 1960s, Goodman, who had already written a crime novel Instead of Murder (1961), and the entertaining Bloody Versicles, an anthology of crimes in rhyme, researched the celebrated case of William Wallace, convicted in 1931 of the murder of his wife Julia and freed by the court of appeal on the unusual grounds that the court was unhappy with the verdict rather than that there had been a misdirection by the judge. Goodman became convinced that Wallace was indeed not guilty and, together with his friend and fellow crime-writer Richard Whittington-Egan, challenged the man he believed responsible. Although subsequent research has shown that Wallace probably was the killer, The Killing of Julia Wallace (1969) was a great success and Goodman's new career took off.

[sdreid]

Thought this was interesting. From Jonathan Goodman's Guardian Obituary.

While in Liverpool in the 1960s, Goodman, who had already written a crime novel Instead of Murder (1961), and the entertaining Bloody Versicles, an anthology of crimes in rhyme, researched the celebrated case of William Wallace, convicted in 1931 of the murder of his wife Julia and freed by the court of appeal on the unusual grounds that the court was unhappy with the verdict rather than that there had been a misdirection by the judge. Goodman became convinced that Wallace was indeed not guilty and, together with his friend and fellow crime-writer Richard Whittington-Egan, challenged the man he believed responsible. Although subsequent research has shown that Wallace probably was the killer, The Killing of Julia Wallace (1969) was a great success and Goodman's new career took off.

Obviously they have some informed people there at the Guardian.

[AmericanSherlock]

Obviously they have some informed people there at the Guardian.

Stan, it appears you believe that Wallace was guilty and acted alone. As do I. I suspect that this is the minority view nowadays, but does seem to be gathering some steam.

[sdreid]

Stan, it appears you believe that Wallace was guilty and acted alone. As do I. I suspect that this is the minority view nowadays, but does seem to be gathering some steam.

Yes, it was January thus it was dark when Wallace left so then why did he have to light the lamp in the room where Julia was found?

Did the murderer kill her in the darK? -- Not realistic.

Did the murderer take the time to turn out the light? -- Why?

Or, was she killed before it was dark outside? -- Most likely.

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, it was January thus it was dark when Wallace left so then why did he have to light the lamp in the room where Julia was found?

Did the murderer kill her in the darK? -- Not realistic.

Did the murderer take the time to turn out the light? -- Why?

Or, was she killed before it was dark outside? -- Most likely.

I think the sun would set around 4:30 in Liverpool though...total darkness would set in a bit later, but probably before 6 PM.

[John G]

As I've noted before, I think it unlikely that Wallace committed the murder, due to lack of sufficient time: and I certainly don't accept that he could have avoided getting substantial amounts of blood on himself. I consider it highly unlikely thstvge made the Qualtrough phone call, as I doubt he was told have been able to disguise his voice sufficiently when speaking to someone he new well.

On the other hand, according to John Parkes Parry had a habit of using the garage phone to make prank phone calls, where he would disguise his voice.

Although Parry has an alibi I think Julia could have been killed later than the police believed-it's now known that estimating time of death is very imprecise. On that basis, Parry could have left the Brine household significantly eatlier than the "around 8:30" he claimed. Of course, Mrs Brine may then have been unwilling to contradict him, reasoning that, whatever his read on for lying, he still couldn't be responsible based upon the time of death estimate.

[AmericanSherlock]

As I've noted before, I think it unlikely that Wallace committed the murder, due to lack of sufficient time: and I certainly don't accept that he could have avoided getting substantial amounts of blood on himself. I consider it highly unlikely thstvge made the Qualtrough phone call, as I doubt he was told have been able to disguise his voice sufficiently when speaking to someone he new well.

On the other hand, according to John Parkes Parry had a habit of using the garage phone to make prank phone calls, where he would disguise his voice.

Although Parry has an alibi I think Julia could have been killed later than the police believed-it's now known that estimating time of death is very imprecise. On that basis, Parry could have left the Brine household significantly eatlier than the "around 8:30" he claimed. Of course, Mrs Brine may then have been unwilling to contradict him, reasoning that, whatever his read on for lying, he still couldn't be responsible based upon the time of death estimate.

What was the motive then for murder? If the motive wasn't murder, then why make the call the day before?

[John G]

What was the motive then for murder? If the motive wasn't murder, then why make the call the day before?

I would say most likely robbery, i.e. theft of the insurance money. However, Parry may have had additional motives. For instance, by making the Qualtrough call his intention may have been to make Wallace look foolish; and he might have even hoped that Wallace himself would be suspected of the theft. In this respect, he could've been seeking revenge for Wallace reporting his previous theft of the insurance money.

However, I would speculate that something went wrong, for instance Julia catching him in the act. Perhaps he pleaded with her not to tell her husband, fearing this time he could lose his job and face possible imprisonment. If Julia refused he could then have attacked her on impulse.

Regarding time of death. The original estimate was around 8:00pm, which would have virtually exonerated Wallace. However, inexplicably this was then changed to about 6:30pm, without any additional information. It seems the authorities were determined to get Wallace, by fair means or foul!

[sdreid]

This would have been an very elaborate plan; and just to steal a few pounds? The scales just don't balance.

[John G]

This would have been an very elaborate plan; and just to steal a few pounds? The scales just don't balance.

Hi Stan,

Unlike Wallace,who had no obvious motive, Parry had a long history of criminal conduct. For instance, he served 3 years in prison, with hard Labour, for stealing a car. He was also convicted of embezzlement and, more sinister, he was accused of assaulting Lily Fitzsimons after offering her a lift home.

Crucially, he was reported by Wallace for failing to pay in the full amounts he collected during a period when he was covering part of Wallace's round (the matter was smoothed over my Parry's influential father who repaid the money.)

Therefore, in addition to theft, revenge may have been an added motive: as noted in my earlier post, perhaps he was trying to make Wallace look stupid by sending him off on a wild goose chase whilst stole the money. And maybe he was hoping that Wallace would be blamed for the theft.

The evidence of John Parkes is also very damning. Thus, on the evening of the murder Parkes stated that Parry took his car to his garage for cleaning, arriving in an agitated state. He then found a blood stained glove in the compartment, before it was snatched away by Parry, who commented, "if the police found thst, it would hang me." He then told him that he disposed of a bar down a grid outside a doctor's house.

If Parkes was telling the truth then I would submit that Parry's comments amounted to a virtual confession.

[ColdCaseJury]

Regarding time of death. The original estimate was around 8:00pm, which would have virtually exonerated Wallace.

If the time of death was 8pm, Wallace did not kill his wife. This does not mean he was not involved, of course. If Wallace wanted his wife murdered AND he was as clever as people suggest, he would have wanted a cast iron alibi. And as you say he had one, assuming he had an accomplice, until the time of death was changed.

A conspiracy theory - and I hate them - fits the facts. It explains his suspicious behaviour on the night of the murder, why the Qualtrough call was made, the noises heard by the next door neighbours at around this time, the Lily Hall sighting, and the original estimate for the time of death, and so on. It is one explanation that cannot be ruled quite so easily as I would have liked. Even if you prefer other explanations, or think the prior improbability of a conspiracy reduces its likelihood, it nevertheless remains a viable explanation in this case.

BTW, I was up at the National Archives in London again and dug out the trial transcript. I have to say, I do not think Lily Hall was a bad witness, at least at the trial. There appears to be a typo (or mistake on her part) when the time is given as twenty PAST nine rather than twenty TO nine - but this was not spotted and cleared up by the legal counsel.

[John G]

If the time of death was 8pm, Wallace did not kill his wife. This does not mean he was not involved, of course. If Wallace wanted his wife murdered AND he was as clever as people suggest, he would have wanted a cast iron alibi. And as you say he had one, assuming he had an accomplice, until the time of death was changed.

A conspiracy theory - and I hate them - fits the facts. It explains his suspicious behaviour on the night of the murder, why the Qualtrough call was made, the noises heard by the next door neighbours at around this time, the Lily Hall sighting, and the original estimate for the time of death, and so on. It is one explanation that cannot be ruled quite so easily as I would have liked. Even if you prefer other explanations, or think the prior improbability of a conspiracy reduces its likelihood, it nevertheless remains a viable explanation in this case.

BTW, I was up at the National Archives in London again and dug out the trial transcript. I have to say, I do not think Lily Hall was a bad witness, at least at the trial. There appears to be a typo (or mistake on her part) when the time is given as twenty PAST nine rather than twenty TO nine - but this was not spotted and cleared up by the legal counsel.

Hi Cold Case Jury,

Thanks for the information about Lily Lloyd.

Do you think Wallace and Parry could have conspired together? If so, why would Wallace be prepared to trust a scoundrel like Parry?

That said, I agree about what a conspiracy cannot be ruled out, and at one point this was my favoured option.