Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Another point to consider: John Parkes claims Parry said he threw the murder weapon, an iron bar, down a grid outside of a doctor's house in Priory Road.

If the murderer was Parry and it was a robbery-gone-wrong then he would have found the iron bar in the Wallace house, and why carry it with him then? The implication appears to be Parry pre-meditated murder.

Parkes confirms this saying Parry was dressed complete with gloves, and thigh high fisherman wader boots. Likely? I think not.

[ColdCaseJury]

Consider the fact that Wallace

1. did not consult a map, as he would certainly be in the habit of doing as an insurance agent

2. arrived at the tram stop at 7:08, not on very good time for a 7:30 meeting of which he did not know the precise address. You're telling me the fastidious, detail oriented Wallace on official business looking to make a sizable commission does not consult a map, assumes he'll find an address, and then starts asking randomly, making a big scene everywhere. Seems rather unlikely to me.

Yes, but these points are equally consistent with Wallace working with an accomplice as working alone.

To point (2), I have discussed this with many friends and other readers of my book. A point raised is that, given his personality, Wallace might have been on the spectrum for autism (such as suffering from Asperger's or the like) and, I am told, the repeated asking of questions is classic behaviour when such a person is placed in an unfamiliar situation. Of course, Wallace could have read a map beforehand, as you say, but if he was busy he might not have done. Or he might have taken pride in not examining a map and being able to get anywhere in the city (being an insurance agent).

Overall, I think it is suspicious behaviour, but I do not hold this view strongly. I think you have to allow there might be other explanations, too.

[ColdCaseJury]

1. I disagree about the timing, I've explained it already a few times, so we can agree to disagree. In the book, it appears Antony agrees the timing allowed for it to be possible, if just barely.

It is possible to bludgeon someone to death and get out the house in a minute. However, it would be impossible for there not to be blood on the attacker and blood traces throughout the house.

It is the forensically clean nature of Wallace and his house that is a problem for me. Wallace MUST have cleaned himself, even if he was wearing a space suit he is likely to get blood on him when he takes it off :-) and this means a wash and clean-up - so good that no trace is left, not even a smear (ignoring the bank notes in the middle bedroom). And he has to deal with the weapon; at the very least clean and/or wrap it, if he disposed of it outside the house, again without leaving a trace. Can he do all of this in ten minutes and not make a mistake? I think it improbable.

[John G]

Yes, but these points are equally consistent with Wallace working with an accomplice as working alone.

To point (2), I have discussed this with many friends and other readers of my book. A point raised is that, given his personality, Wallace might have been on the spectrum for autism (such as suffering from Asperger's or the like) and, I am told, the repeated asking of questions is classic behaviour when such a person is placed in an unfamiliar situation. Of course, Wallace could have read a map beforehand, as you say, but if he was busy he might not have done. Or he might have taken pride in not examining a map and being able to get anywhere in the city (being an insurance agent).

Overall, I think it is suspicious behaviour, but I do not hold this view strongly. I think you have to allow there might be other explanations, too.

I think the argument about the map is a weak one. Firstly, where is the evidence that Wallace even possessed a map? And I presume that the vast majority of his clients would be regulars, so he certainly wouldn't need ed a map to find them.

However, more importantly is the conversation that Wallace had with club member James Caird. Although neither Wallace or Caird had heard of Menlove Gardens East, they decide (not unreasonably) that it is probably near Menlove Avenue. Moreover, Wallace (not unreasonably) tells Caird that if he struggles to find the place he can simply enquire, telling Caird: "It's right, I've got a tongue in my head, I can enquire." They then discuss the bus and team routes to Menlove Avenue.

And far from being hopeful of a hefty commission, right from the beginning Wallace seemed ambivalent as to whether he would go at all. In fact, he told Caird that he might not go at all. Maybe he suspected a hoax all along; there are certainly indications of it. Thus, regarding the Qualtrough name, hee told Beattie, "Qualtrough...I don't know him, who is he? And to Caird, 'Qualtrough is a funny name. I've never heard of it, have you?"

[John G]

It is possible to bludgeon someone to death and get out the house in a minute. However, it would be impossible for there not to be blood on the attacker and blood traces throughout the house.

It is the forensically clean nature of Wallace and his house that is a problem for me. Wallace MUST have cleaned himself, even if he was wearing a space suit he is likely to get blood on him when he takes it off :-) and this means a wash and clean-up - so good that no trace is left, not even a smear (ignoring the bank notes in the middle bedroom). And he has to deal with the weapon; at the very least clean and/or wrap it, if he disposed of it outside the house, again without leaving a trace. Can he do all of this in ten minutes and not make a mistake? I think it improbable.

I absolutely agree. And, as your book suggests, if Wildman's timings are preferred to Close's-and its submitted that Close was an unreliable witness as he kept changing his account-there is hardly any way Wallace would have had sufficient time. And the time available may have been a good deal less than ten minutes.

From memory, I believe your book also states that not even a microscopic amount of blood was found in the sink. Okay, I believe it's been argued that Wallace could have avoided getting blood on his person. However, as your post makes clear, this is completely untenable. Thus, Julia was clearly subjected to a sustained and ferocious attack. And blood existed her body so violently that there were blood stains on the furniture and on the wall, which reached seven foot high!

And would Wallace even be physically capable of such a frenzied and sustained attack? I mean, he was seriously ill, having lost one kidney with a diseased and inoperable second kidney (I believe he would die a couple of years later.).

The argument about Wallace planning the crime as meticulously as a military campaign is also riddled with inconsistencies . For instance, why would such a fastidious individual be crazy to enough to make the Qualtrough call from a phone kiosk just 400 yards from his home, where he ran a serious risk of being recognized by a local? He also ran the risk of the call being traced, which would reveal the proximity of the kiosk to his home. Moreover, he could easily have been seen by a police officer, as they had a ongoing presence in the area, due to the Anfield Housebreaker.

I also consider it highly unlikely that Beattie wouldn't recognize his voice as Wallace was well-known to him. I would at least expect him to state, "It may have been Wallace." On the other hand, Parry had a keen interest in amateur dramatics and, according to Parkes, had a reputation for making prank calls.

Then there's the method chosen to commit the crime. Why on earth would a fastidious individual like Wallace, who supposedly planned the crime down to the finest detail, be insane enough to commit a frenzied assault that would almost certainly risk him being covered in blood? At the very least he would have to be aware of the unpredictability of such a strategy. And why not simply poison Julia, or select some other less risky method?

[AmericanSherlock]

The phone box was out of sight. Murphy's book "The Murder of Julia Wallace" answers many of your questions actually. I don't view it as the end all be all, but I have the impression you have not read it. I completely accept someone having a different point of view which is what makes this case fun to discuss, but John, you don't answer rebuttals or address points that I've made in previous posts at all. Just seems that you are rather dismissive and have your mind made up already.

[John G]

Another point to consider: John Parkes claims Parry said he threw the murder weapon, an iron bar, down a grid outside of a doctor's house in Priory Road.

If the murderer was Parry and it was a robbery-gone-wrong then he would have found the iron bar in the Wallace house, and why carry it with him then? The implication appears to be Parry pre-meditated murder.

Parkes confirms this saying Parry was dressed complete with gloves, and thigh high fisherman wader boots. Likely? I think not.

Yes, it's a good point about the iron bar, although we don't know that he would have been wearing gloves at the time of the murder.

It's also possible that Parry was in the habit of keeping the bar in his vehicle-considering his long criminal record I wouldn't be surprised if he was involved in burglaries. In this scenario, he could have initially accepted his fate, or at least feigned to Julia that that that was the case, but then changed his mind. He therefore leaves the house, collects the iron bar from the car, returns l, and launches the frenzied assault, giving Julia no time to defend herself.

And there are, of course, other ways Parry could have carried out the murder, either by himself or as part of a conspiracy. Even if you reject Parkes' evidence, which I think you've alluded to yourself.

[John G]

1. I disagree about the timing, I've explained it already a few times, so we can agree to disagree. In the book, it appears Antony agrees the timing allowed for it to be possible, if just barely.

2. Parry was on good terms with Julia and if he was the killer, he would have been let in by her. He would be casting considerable suspicion upon himself, and I'm not exactly sure how he thought he could rob the money without her noticing. Perhaps you can argue he was such a suspicious character with a bad history before and after the crime, that impulsive acts like this would be in character. I think Antony's scenario is more likely if you believe it was Parry; that he went there to try to persuade her to lend money and it went awry. I still find it implausible, if you accept Parry was the culprit, you are saying that he combined an elaborate ruse/prank to get Wallace out of the way, assumed it would work and for long enough, and then showed up to try to get money, knowing Wallace would eventually return and tell his wife he had been sent on a fruitless journey. Again, the only thing that even makes this remotely plausible to me is Parry's well documented poor character and John Parkes' testimony. However, Parry was a known suspect and there is similar testimony claiming the Johnstones confessed to the crime, as well as 70 lunatics confessed to the murder themselves. Also consider the fact that Parry had an alibi for the night of the murder, and I don't think it can be as easily deconstructed as you suggest.

3. My main point in not accepting Parry acting alone or perhaps worded better Wallace being innocent, is WHW's actions. I have heard it suggested that people have tried the phone call on friiends as a test and they have gone looking for an address, and because Wallace knew of other Menlove Gardens in the area, it would be reasonable to assume he might be taken in by it.

Consider the fact that Wallace

1. did not consult a map, as he would certainly be in the habit of doing as an insurance agent

2. arrived at the tram stop at 7:08, not on very good time for a 7:30 meeting of which he did not know the precise address. You're telling me the fastidious, detail oriented Wallace on official business looking to make a sizable commission does not consult a map, assumes he'll find an address, and then starts asking randomly, making a big scene everywhere. Seems rather unlikely to me.

Personally, I think the address was a red herring, in that I suspect Wallace made the call and meant to say West. He first asked "west" and was told that no it was "east" by Beattie at the club when he arrived. But that's besides the point if you are assuming Wallace is innocent and looking for the non-existent address. It just simply does not add up.

I've addressed the issue of the map in another post. I don't think there would be any difficulty in distracting Julia, particularly as Parry was something big a charmer, and he clearly must have known where to find the insurance money. I mean, surely all he needed to do was ask if she minded making him a cup of tea because he was feeling a bit thirsty!

[John G]

The phone box was out of sight. Murphy's book "The Murder of Julia Wallace" answers many of your questions actually. I don't view it as the end all be all, but I have the impression you have not read it. I completely accept someone having a different point of view which is what makes this case fun to discuss, but John, you don't answer rebuttals or address points that I've made in previous posts at all. Just seems that you are rather dismissive and have your mind made up already.

But he doesn't have to be seen actually making the call. If a witness sees him in the vicinity of the phone box at the relevant time, i e. whilst he's approaching or exiting, then he's in serious trouble. No, for someone who supposedly meticulously planned every detail of the murder, using a local phone box was a crazy idea.

[AmericanSherlock]

But he doesn't have to be seen actually making the call. If a witness sees him in the vicinity of the phone box at the relevant time, i e. whilst he's approaching or exiting, then he's in serious trouble. No, for someone who supposedly meticulously planned every detail of the murder, using a local phone box was a crazy idea.

Thanks for responding to the posts, I appreciate it.

Couldn't the same thing be said about Parry, if he made the call? Whoever was guilty was taking a slight risk of being seen right when entering or exiting. Actually for Wallace , being in the vicinity would make more sense as it was close to home.

[ColdCaseJury]

Couldn't the same thing be said about Parry, if he made the call? Whoever was guilty was taking a slight risk of being seen right when entering or exiting.

Yes, if seen, Qualtrough risked exposure. I take John's point to be that the nearer the call box was to Wallace's home, the greater the risk of him being identified if seen, but perhaps less so for Parry.

The way I look at the call is this. If I gather up all the evidence, I think the call points more to Parry (especially because he misled the police on this point), yet I believe Wallace had the greater need to make that call (to show that someone else was interested in murdering his wife).

[John G]

Thanks for responding to the posts, I appreciate it.

Couldn't the same thing be said about Parry, if he made the call? Whoever was guilty was taking a slight risk of being seen right when entering or exiting. Actually for Wallace , being in the vicinity would make more sense as it was close to home.

No problem, I was always intending to reply but I've been a bit busy!

As Wallace lived in the locality he would be far more likely to be recognized by a neighbour, or some other local. And just being seen out in the locality around the time the call was made would have been deeply damaging for him.

Moreover, it would surely have been far less risky to make the call whilst on his insurance round, i.e. in a neighbourhood where he wasn't known.

As I see it, Parry would have a far greater incentive to make the call from that phone box. Firstly, he might have hoped that the call would be traced, as it was, thus implicating Wallace.

Secondly, he may have been reconnoitering the area in order to see Wallace leaving for the chess club (he was just recovering from flu so there was always the possibility that he would decide not to go, particularly as the weather was was bad. Moreover, there was also presumably the possibility that Wallace would be late home from work, in which case he might have an alibi for the time the call was made.

[John G]

Thanks for responding to the posts, I appreciate it.

Couldn't the same thing be said about Parry, if he made the call? Whoever was guilty was taking a slight risk of being seen right when entering or exiting. Actually for Wallace , being in the vicinity would make more sense as it was close to home.

I would just add that, in my opinion, there are almost as many problems with Party's candidacy as Wallace's for the murder (although I think he's a much stronger candidate for the Qualtrough call, based upon his amateur dramatics training, the fact he lied about his alibi, far less likely to be recognized in the neighbourhood by a casual observer, and Parkes' evidence about the prank calls).

However, consider Parkes evidence. Although Parry was clearly no criminal mastermind, he would have had to be completely stupid to give Parkes what amounted to a virtual confession to a murder, particularly as Parkes was obviously no friend.

Then, of course, Parkes conveniently made this information public several decades after the events, i.e. when all the other protagonists who could have contradicted him had died.

And considering the passage of time, might he not have got confused about the date Parry visited the garage? Because if, say, it was a day or two after the murder, rather than the night of the murder itself, you could argue that he was simply trying to wind up a gullible Parkes, knowing he had a cast iron alibi.

Regarding that alibi, I'm not entirely satisfied with the "half truth" argument, as it's predicted on Olive Brine being aware of the estimated time of death at the time she gave her evidence. And was this information even on the public domain at the time?

[John G]

I wonder if Wallace may have had even less time than as been supposed. Thus, considering he was seriously ill, and recovering from a bout of flu, even if he had the strength to murder Julia in a frenzied and sustained attack then his endeavours would surely have exhausted him (and, of course, he's still got to quickly stage a robbery and get rid of the blood.)

Even in the best case scenario, wouldn't he have needed a few minutes to recover? Also, he would have had to walk to the tram at a fairly steady pace so as to not appear distressed union arrival: clearly if he'd got on the tram sweating profusely and gasping for breath it would have subsequently seemed very suspicious.

And what does he do with the murder weapon? Despite an extensive search no weapon was found at his home, therefore he must have disposed of it after leaving. However this creates all sorts of problems.

Thus, he can hardly leave the house carrying an iron bar covered in blood, as that would have aroused suspicion! If he secretes it on his person then his clothes would be covered in blood. He could have attempted to clean the blood off beforehand, but this would require even more time, and of course not a microscopic trace of blood was found in the sinks.

[AmericanSherlock]

I wonder if Wallace may have had even less time than as been supposed. Thus, considering he was seriously ill, and recovering from a bout of flu, even if he had the strength to murder Julia in a frenzied and sustained attack then his endeavours would surely have exhausted him (and, of course, he's still got to quickly stage a robbery and get rid of the blood.)

Even in the best case scenario, wouldn't he have needed a few minutes to recover? Also, he would have had to walk to the tram at a fairly steady pace so as to not appear distressed union arrival: clearly if he'd got on the tram sweating profusely and gasping for breath it would have subsequently seemed very suspicious.

And what does he do with the murder weapon? Despite an extensive search no weapon was found at his home, therefore he must have disposed of it after leaving. However this creates all sorts of problems.

Thus, he can hardly leave the house carrying an iron bar covered in blood, as that would have aroused suspicion! If he secretes it on his person then his clothes would be covered in blood. He could have attempted to clean the blood off beforehand, but this would require even more time, and of course not a microscopic trace of blood was found in the sinks.

I agree the case hinges on the murder weapon. If the weapon was carried outside of the house, it probably points against Wallace as the killer. However, I believe it was probably the iron bar that was found years later behind a space in the fireplace, that the cleaning lady said had recently gone missing. This would strongly point to Wallace as being guilty imo.