Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[sdreid]

Is there a photo of Amy Wallace anywhere?

Also, when did Puss return? If I recall, The Man From the Pru shows him back the day after the murder but is that correct?

[John G]

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.

But wasn't the story about the iron bar, like Parkes' evidence, unsubstantiated and only referred to in a single book? And didn't the police completely dismantle the fire place?

Moreover, we can't even be sure that the murder weapon as an iron bar as McFall changed his mind about this, subsequently stating that it was a large heavy instrument.

[John G]

Is there a photo of Amy Wallace anywhere?

Also, when did Puss return? If I recall, The Man From the Pru shows him back the day after the murder but is that correct?

Puss Stan? Do you mean the missing cat? Based upon the British colloquial definition of "puss", of course!

[sdreid]

Puss Stan? Do you mean the missing cat? Based upon the British colloquial definition of "puss", of course!

Yes, that's the only name I've heard when referring to the cat. Did it have a proper name? I have seen a theory that it might have been snatched as part of the supposed plot.

[John G]

Yes, that's the only name I've heard when referring to the cat. Did it have a proper name? I have seen a theory that it might have been snatched as part of the supposed plot.

Not sure when the cat returned, but it had been missing for several days. Of course, the theory suggests that the cat was stolen by the Johnstons with the intention of luring Julia next door so that John Johnston could steal the insurance money: http://detectiveandrews.tripod.com/prufour.html

[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.

The cleaning lady reported that a piece of iron and a small poker were missing. Either, or both, of these could have been used by Parry as the murder weapon. This, of course, would mean the murder was not necessarily pre-meditated.

Parry could have then have taken the weapon away with him for disposal, concerned that it would be covered in his fingerprints.

[AmericanSherlock]

The cleaning lady reported that a piece of iron and a small poker were missing. Either, or both, of these could have been used by Parry as the murder weapon. This, of course, would mean the murder was not necessarily pre-meditated.

Parry could have then have taken the weapon away with him for disposal, concerned that it would be covered in his fingerprints.

What makes me suspicious of an impulsive murder, is the mackintosh. I don't see why a killer in a fit of rage would throw a mackintosh over Julia before battering her. It has been suggested that the positioning of the mackintosh was ambiguous as to how it got there (was it really thrown over her head first), however a supporting idea to this was that there was no rust found in her wounds.

Looks like it was a pre-meditated murder to me...

[John G]

What makes me suspicious of an impulsive murder, is the mackintosh. I don't see why a killer in a fit of rage would throw a mackintosh over Julia before battering her. It has been suggested that the positioning of the mackintosh was ambiguous as to how it got there (was it really thrown over her head first), however a supporting idea to this was that there was no rust found in her wounds.

Looks like it was a pre-meditated murder to me...

Yes, I agree that if, say, Anthony's scenario is correct-and it was certainly persuasively argued-then it's less likely that the murder was an impulsive act.

The problem is, of course, that the crime scene was seriously compromised, which makes any attempted 're-enactment extremely difficult. For instance, before photographs were taken the body was probably repositioned, and we know the coat was removed to allow Wallace the opportunity to examine it.

All we know with reasonably certainly is that the Macintosh was originally under the body, crumpled, and close to the head.

However, on that basis, other scenarios are possible. For instance, Julia may have been entertaining a lover and the coat laid out for them to lie on. Or it could have been utilized as a pillow.

Not sure I understand your rust argument, though.

[Pcdunn]

Not sure I understand your rust argument, though.

I took that to refer to the absence of rust flakes from the poker or iron bar in Mrs. Wallace's wounds.

[John G]

I took that to refer to the absence of rust flakes from the poker or iron bar in Mrs. Wallace's wounds.

Okay, but we don't know for certain that either the poker or piece of iron were used as murder weapons. And we're they rusty?

[AmericanSherlock]

Okay, but we don't know for certain that either the poker or piece of iron were used as murder weapons. And we're they rusty?

It's not conclusive proof, but generally there will be some rust in wounds from any sort of iron bar/poker if used in a blunt force attack that violent. If you couple that with the positioning of the mackintosh, I think it's strongly suggestive that it was used in the murder to minimize immediate blood contamination, or at least with the goal of that. Also, the mackintosh was burned in parts, that suggests to me that it was either accidentally burned in the attack and therefore placed over Julia's head before the blows or that it was purposefully burned in the parts that bore the blow marks. And these 2 are actually mutually exclusive. It seems significantly less likely to me that the mackintosh was randomly placed there after the fact, and part of it accidentally burned. All of this points toward a pre-meditated murder in my view, which points away from Parry or other suspects. I guess it would still be consistent with a conspiracy theory, though.

[John G]

It's not conclusive proof, but generally there will be some rust in wounds from any sort of iron bar/poker if used in a blunt force attack that violent. If you couple that with the positioning of the mackintosh, I think it's strongly suggestive that it was used in the murder to minimize immediate blood contamination, or at least with the goal of that. Also, the mackintosh was burned in parts, that suggests to me that it was either accidentally burned in the attack and therefore placed over Julia's head before the blows or that it was purposefully burned in the parts that bore the blow marks. And these 2 are actually mutually exclusive. It seems significantly less likely to me that the mackintosh was randomly placed there after the fact, and part of it accidentally burned. All of this points toward a pre-meditated murder in my view, which points away from Parry or other suspects. I guess it would still be consistent with a conspiracy theory, though.

Have you a source for the argument that rust will be found in the wounds following an iron bar attack? Moreover, the cleaning lady didn't say an iron bar was missing, merely a piece of iron about a foot long, i.e. appreciably shorter than an iron bar.

Doesn't this further undermine the evidence about an iron bar being discovered many years later? And what happened to the poker?

[caz]

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!

Thanks AS! Number 1 for me. I read there had been burglaries in the area but it seems a bit elaborate to have lured Wallace away to an address that didn't exist in order to burgle his house, considering his wife would still be there. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence of an affair gone wrong on her part, does there?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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?

Hi CCJ,

You only quoted this part of my post:

...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 went on to acknowledge and address the very point you make:

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.

It would not have been beyond the wit of a pair of perfect murderers to get Beattie to take the call and the message, while Wallace was there but pretending to be otherwise occupied. It would then have been relayed to him 'in the presence of others' as you suggest. It just seems rather clumsy to have allowed for the possibility that Wallace made that call himself if it could so easily have been avoided.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I very much doubt Wallace could have acted alone; there simply wasn't enough time to commit some brutal murder, stage a Robbery, wash off all the blood etc.

Hi John,

The thing is, if Wallace did act alone he had the time to plan everything very carefully down to the smallest detail: from the timing of his phoney phone call, using a phoney voice and selection of an address he knew to be phoney; to how quickly he must do the deed and cover his tracks when the time came, in order to make a phoney alibi look as solid as possible. The husband is always going to be suspected first and last, no motive required, in the absence of evidence against a third party. This fact of life would have made it imperative for Wallace not to leave himself with the means and a moment's more opportunity than was absolutely unavoidable. By rights the phantom phone caller - if this was anyone else - should have handed Wallace an unbeatable alibi on a plate with that wild goose chase, so the fact that he still had a window of opportunity, however narrow, makes him either a wife killer who was very lucky not to hang, or a very unlucky chap indeed.

Love,

Caz
X