Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[caz]

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?"

Hi John,

If Wallace was guilty he dreamed up the hoax, but needed it to seem like he was the one being hoaxed by a mysterious stranger who wanted him out of the house. For that to work as well as it did, it makes sense to me that he would research a reasonable sounding address which he will never find and come up with a 'funny' name which he can genuinely claim rings no bells with him. It would be no good using a real address (which he would then be obliged to locate relatively quickly and call at) or a common name he could hardly feign a complete lack of recognition at hearing.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Hi John,

If Wallace was guilty he dreamed up the hoax, but needed it to seem like he was the one being hoaxed by a mysterious stranger who wanted him out of the house. For that to work as well as it did, it makes sense to me that he would research a reasonable sounding address which he will never find and come up with a 'funny' name which he can genuinely claim rings no bells with him. It would be no good using a real address (which he would then be obliged to locate relatively quickly and call at) or a common name he could hardly feign a complete lack of recognition at hearing.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.

The difficulty I have with Wallace as a suspect is that I think Wildman's evidence is much more convincing than that of Close's. Thus, initially Close claimed that he spoke to Julia around 6:45, and this evidence was supported by Wildman, who stated that he sighted Close. Moreover, unlike Close, Wildman actually glanced at the Holy Trinity Church clock, which we know was spot on because it had recently been set to the correct time.

Close, of course, would later change his testimony, but this seems to have been based on little more than a police 're-enactment-suggesting that he arrived at 6:31-but who knows how accurate that was, particularly as the police clearly considered Wallace to be guilty, and I would argue were determined to get him by fair means or foul.

Moreover, even based on the dubious 6:31 timing, this hardly gives Wallace enough time (17 mins approx) to commit a violent and sustained attack, which considering his poor health he may not have been physically capable of; remove all the bloodstaining (of which not a microscopic trace was discovered in any of the sinks); fake a robbery; and light the gas mantle.

Consideration also needs to be given to the fact that he didn't get on the tram in a distress state, implying he must have walked to the tram stop at a steady pace: the ludicrous police 're-enactment involved much younger, fitter officers sprinting to the tram stop, hurdling fences and running through private gardens. In fact, so absurd was this exercise that they were known locally as the "Anfield Harriers"!

And what did Wallace do with the murder weapon? This has never been remotely satisfactorily explained.

Regarding the Qualtrough call. The evidence suggests that Parry was far more likely to be the perpetrator. For instance, according to Parkes he had a history of making prank calls. Moreover, he was a member of an amateur dramatics group, so I doubt that he would have had difficulty in disguising his voice: and I don't believe he was known to the chess club members. Also, he lied as regards his alibi for the time of the call.

In contrast, Wallace, unlike Parry, was well-known to the recipient of the call, Simon Beattie, who would surely have recognized Wallace's voice. At the very least, I would have expected him to say something like, "it could have been Wallace, but I can't be certain." Instead, he was adamant he didn't recognize the caller and neither, incidentally, did the waitress who first took the call.

Finally, we're asked to believe, somewhat implausibly, that Wallace planned the murder like a military operation. Okay, so why was he stupid enough to make the Qualrtrough call from a local phone box, where he risked being seen? And bear in mind, even if he's seen by a local in the vicinity of the phone box he's in trouble.

And why was he insane enough to be embark on an extremely risky strategy when he could, for example, have opted for poison? I mean, it was even a wing and a prayer as to whether Close would represent a reasonable alibi, because by Close's own evidence his time of arrival widely varied, and I believe he didn't even posses a watch by which to confirm the time.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi CCJ,

You only quoted this part of my post:



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



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

This really is a sign that Wallace made the call, which then means obviously he's guilty and acted alone. Definitely a strong point, and one I hadn't thought of myself.

[caz]

Hi AS,

Yes, I do think it rules out a conspiracy involving Wallace, at the very least, because the obvious thing to do would have been to have his co-conspirator make the call at a time when Wallace could prove his own whereabouts. To get round the problem CCJ had with Wallace being at the club to take the call himself, he could have been anywhere, as long as there were witnesses to the exact time he was there, and the exact time the call was made.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Moreover, even based on the dubious 6:31 timing, this hardly gives Wallace enough time (17 mins approx) to commit a violent and sustained attack, which considering his poor health he may not have been physically capable of; remove all the bloodstaining (of which not a microscopic trace was discovered in any of the sinks); fake a robbery; and light the gas mantle.

Hi John,

I think you'd be surprised how long 17 minutes actually is, in terms of what can be achieved in that time by anyone with strong enough reasons.

And what did Wallace do with the murder weapon? This has never been remotely satisfactorily explained.

The same would apply to whoever did it. Once removed from the house (assuming it ever was) the killer had to dump it somewhere close by or carry it with him further afield. Wallace himself 'discovered' the crime on his return from the phoney errand, so he'd have had similar opportunities to anyone else and would have been able to plan the disposal of the weapon beforehand.

In contrast, Wallace, unlike Parry, was well-known to the recipient of the call, Simon Beattie, who would surely have recognized Wallace's voice. At the very least, I would have expected him to say something like, "it could have been Wallace, but I can't be certain." Instead, he was adamant he didn't recognize the caller and neither, incidentally, did the waitress who first took the call.

Some people don't like to admit they were duped. There was no reason on earth for Beattie to wonder if a caller asking for Wallace was none other than Wallace himself. That would have been odder than odd. He would have been programmed not to recognise the voice as Wallace's, whether it was or wasn't. If it was, the voice would obviously have been disguised in some way, but that would not necessarily be obvious to Beattie. When you hear a voice over the phone the range and quality of the sounds made are not nearly as wide or clear as speaking face to face and the human ear has to adjust accordingly. I can sometimes not recognise my husband's voice straight away on the home phone because he rarely uses it to call me and I'm not expecting it.

And why was he insane enough to be embark on an extremely risky strategy when he could, for example, have opted for poison?

Poison? Wouldn't that have been even more insane, for a husband wanting to murder his wife and blame it on an unknown intruder? What was a burglar meant to do? Make her a cuppa, slip the poison into it then wait for her to drink it and keel over before looking for the swag?

Who else but Wallace would have been suspected - and almost certainly hanged - if she had been poisoned to death?

Love,

Caz
X

[AmericanSherlock]

Caz, some more good points. Yes, it rules out the conspiracy effectively. It's true that doesn't necessarily mean Wallace was guilty.

That leaves the possibility of somebody (ies) else or Wallace. There are many, many problems with the planned roberry or even try go get Julia to lend money scenario imo. Needing the call to do that doesn't make sense. If the point was to prank Wallace, that doesn't make sense either to then go there and try to rob/ask for money. If murder was the plan all along, then that makes no sense outside of a bizarre fiendish revenge plot to effectively bump off both Wallace's , but even if you attributed that kind of devious criminal genius to a Parry (or someone else), some of the same problems with the planned robbery scenario would remain(How would the caller know Wallace was taken in, even if they watched to see him leave how did they know where he was going/that he wouldn't return a few minutes later etc. etc.)

Nothing besides Wallace working alone makes sense to me by the process of elimination. One final twist of an idea, the PD James theory of Parry making the call as a prank, but with no intent to rob/murder and then Wallace seizing the opportunity to murder his wife, would also fit in the framework of events, but just seems quite unlikely and coincidental to me that Wallace would have already been planning to knock Julia off and this great "prank call" afforded him the chance and that he could have planned his move and timing and gone thru with it with less than 24 hrs time to think it over. Not very likely to me. But again, even this scenario has a guilty Wallace.

Final Verdict? Wallace acted alone in both making the phone call and murder.

CCJ: What do you think of the point that if Wallace had been the mastermind of a conspiracy, he would have had the caller (whoever it was, possibly Parry) call when Wallace himself was at the club to give him an airtight alibi for making the phonecall and therefore seemingly the murder? This is the most effective argument against a conspiracy I've seen.

[John G]

Hi John,

I think you'd be surprised how long 17 minutes actually is, in terms of what can be achieved in that time by anyone with strong enough reasons.



The same would apply to whoever did it. Once removed from the house (assuming it ever was) the killer had to dump it somewhere close by or carry it with him further afield. Wallace himself 'discovered' the crime on his return from the phoney errand, so he'd have had similar opportunities to anyone else and would have been able to plan the disposal of the weapon beforehand.



Some people don't like to admit they were duped. There was no reason on earth for Beattie to wonder if a caller asking for Wallace was none other than Wallace himself. That would have been odder than odd. He would have been programmed not to recognise the voice as Wallace's, whether it was or wasn't. If it was, the voice would obviously have been disguised in some way, but that would not necessarily be obvious to Beattie. When you hear a voice over the phone the range and quality of the sounds made are not nearly as wide or clear as speaking face to face and the human ear has to adjust accordingly. I can sometimes not recognise my husband's voice straight away on the home phone because he rarely uses it to call me and I'm not expecting it.



Poison? Wouldn't that have been even more insane, for a husband wanting to murder his wife and blame it on an unknown intruder? What was a burglar meant to do? Make her a cuppa, slip the poison into it then wait for her to drink it and keel over before looking for the swag?

Who else but Wallace would have been suspected - and almost certainly hanged - if she had been poisoned to death?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I would apply a occam's razor approach to the problem. In this respect, it is submitted that, in respect of Wallace, we have to accept numerous implausibilities-some of them verging on the impossible-in Parry's case, only one: he gave a false alibi.

Thus, the 17 minute time scale given by the police is not realistic. Firstly, this was based upon an assumption that it would have taken Wallace 17 minutes to leave his house and arrive at the tram stop. However, this was based upon police officers recreating his route-their average times amounted to 17 minutes-but we know that on occasion they were sprinting, and even hurdling fences. Wallace, on the other hand, was a middle aged man, who was seriously ill, and recovering from a bout of flu. Moreover, as noted in my earlier post, he arrived at the tram stop without exhibiting any signs of distress, indicating that he must have walked the distance at a fairly leisurely pace.

Secondly, it means accepting a revised time for Close's arrival-he initially estimated 6:45, which would have made it impossible for Wallace to have committed the crime. However, Wildman is clearly by far the better witness as he glanced at the clock prior to seeing Close outside the Wallace residence: the time was 6:38. And that would have meant Wallace would have had as little as 7 minutes to launch a sustained and frenzied attack; stage a robbery; wash the blood off himself so that not even a microscopic trace was discovered; light the gas mantle; change into his suit (based upon the police argument that he was naked under the Macintosh); and finally, take perhaps a couple of minutes to recover from his exertions

It is submitted that this is not only unlikely but highly unlikely. So that's implausibility number one.

As noted, not a trace of blood was found in the sinks or drains. Considering Wallace must have washed the blood off, I'm not sure that's even scientifically possible.

So that's implausibility number two.

Would Wallace, who as noted was seriously ill and recovering from the flu, have had the physical strength to murder Julia in such a frenzied way? I very much doubt it.

So that's implausibility number three.

Wallace, we are told, planned the murder like a military opeation. However, we're expected to believe that he elected to kill his wife using just about the least clinically efficient method possible, one that would be time-consuming, tiring, and guaranteed to leave him covered in blood: more Tabram than Stride. And, of course, there were other options. He could have surprised his wife by coming up behind her and slitting her throat, for example. And I would still argue that poison was better alternative, especially as Wallace had a keen interest in chemistry when he was younger. Yes, he would have been an obvious suspect, but that doesn't mean there would have been proof. And it's always possible that her death would be attributed to natural causes.

So that's implausibility number four.

Disposing of the murder weapon was far more problematic to Wallace than, say, Parry. I mean he can hardly have walked out of the house carrying a blood stained iron bar whilst he looked for a disposal site. And where was that disposal site, as the local area was extensively searched? If he secretes the weapon under his suit, then his clothing would be blood stained. And this is a far more serious problem for Wallace-who would be returning home in the same clothing- than say, Parry, who could have disposed of his clothes, and the weapon, at his leisure. And we might hypothesize that he would have a car parked close by, which would have made things even easier for him.

So that's implausibility number five.

Regarding the Qualtrough call, of course Beattie might not have fully recognized Wallace's voice. However I think it very likely, in the course of what was hardly a brief call, that he would have suspected it was, or at least might have been, Wallace. And I don't think Wallace would have used a local phone box, where he ran the risk of being noticed in the neighbourhood, especially as he could have used a phone box on his insurance round.

So that's implausibility number six.

No, I wouldn't rule Wallace out as being part of a conspiracy, but I think Wallace as the killer is easily the least likely scenario.

[ColdCaseJury]

CCJ: What do you think of the point that if Wallace had been the mastermind of a conspiracy, he would have had the caller (whoever it was, possibly Parry) call when Wallace himself was at the club to give him an airtight alibi for making the phone call and therefore seemingly the murder? This is the most effective argument against a conspiracy I've seen.

Gosh, a lot of posts while I've been away!

First, apologies to Caz for missing her point (many posts ago now).

Second, to your question AS. I agree it IS an argument against conspiracy, but whether this eliminates conspiracy as a possibility is entirely another matter. You could counter argue that there was a risk that, even if Wallace was cleverly indisposed at the critical time, Beattie would have said "He's here somewhere. Phone back later". This would kill the alibi dead. Therefore, Wallace could not be present at the club. Perhaps in the planning stage - if there ever was one - this risk outweighed the possibility that it left Wallace open to the charge that he made the call himself. Perhaps, this last fact was not even considered. A plan is rarely perfect.

Also, remember to eliminate conspiracy and say Wallace acted alone you have to believe at least that (a) Wallace had sufficient time to kill etc - and I do not believe he had 17 minutes, but 10 at the most; and (b) that Lily Hall was mistaken about recognising Wallace, who vehemently denied being seen. Based on comments on this forum I went up to the National Archives in London to look at the trial transcript - Lily Hall was not a bad witness. Goodman (in his book) was mistaken about her testimony.

So, I would say, Caz has a point against conspiracy and this should be factored in to any rational evaluation of what most likely happened. And I am bound to point out that there are points for and against every possibility - it is how you weigh up each bit of evidence that determines your view and verdict.

As was at a dinner party last night and the Wallace case came up (it is an occupational hazard, but one that I enjoy). As you can imagine, I ask for people's opinions and rarely give me own, at least on the verdict. Most people feel Wallace is innocent because he had little motive to kill (he was dying anyway), and certainly not in such a cold, premeditated way. I'm not saying this will impress AS or Caz, but I'm finding this is a common theme, and perhaps explains the current verdict.

[AmericanSherlock]

Gosh, a lot of posts while I've been away!

First, apologies to Caz for missing her point (many posts ago now).

Second, to your question AS. I agree it IS an argument against conspiracy, but whether this eliminates conspiracy as a possibility is entirely another matter. You could counter argue that there was a risk that, even if Wallace was cleverly indisposed at the critical time, Beattie would have said "He's here somewhere. Phone back later". This would kill the alibi dead. Therefore, Wallace could not be present at the club. Perhaps in the planning stage - if there ever was one - this risk outweighed the possibility that it left Wallace open to the charge that he made the call himself. Perhaps, this last fact was not even considered. A plan is rarely perfect.

Also, remember to eliminate conspiracy and say Wallace acted alone you have to believe at least that (a) Wallace had sufficient time to kill etc - and I do not believe he had 17 minutes, but 10 at the most; and (b) that Lily Hall was mistaken about recognising Wallace, who vehemently denied being seen. Based on comments on this forum I went up to the National Archives in London to look at the trial transcript - Lily Hall was not a bad witness. Goodman (in his book) was mistaken about her testimony.

So, I would say, Caz has a point against conspiracy and this should be factored in to any rational evaluation of what most likely happened. And I am bound to point out that there are points for and against every possibility - it is how you weigh up each bit of evidence that determines your view and verdict.

As was at a dinner party last night and the Wallace case came up (it is an occupational hazard, but one that I enjoy). As you can imagine, I ask for people's opinions and rarely give me own, at least on the verdict. Most people feel Wallace is innocent because he had little motive to kill (he was dying anyway), and certainly not in such a cold, premeditated way. I'm not saying this will impress AS or Caz, but I'm finding this is a common theme, and perhaps explains the current verdict.

CCJ, good points as usual.

I get odd stares when asking about famous cases, it doesn't seem to be a hot topic here among millenials

Of the people I know that are aware of this case, including friends from college who studied law/criminology most are also of the opinion that Wallace was innocent. It's definitely the more popular view currently.

I think that Goodman and particularly the 1981 Radio City 4 parter with Parkes testimony almost made the case shut against Parry in many's eyes...Man from the Pru which came out in '91 has Parry as the culprit.

It's the recent work this millennium, starting mainly with Murphy who seemed to change some minds (including RWE), and Gannon (although his view is the conspiracy) that has moved some minds back towards viewing Wallace as guilty.

I think some of the same things that may have prejudiced a contemporary jury/public against Wallace (old, strange, intellectual, aspergery) are the same things that may prejudice some modern analysts of the case in favor of Wallace (in favor meaning believing in his innocence). The old and strange becomes sweet in our eyes. Seeming "nerdy" adds to that and many bristle at the dimwitted clods who seemed destined to get him back then. We have learned a lot about crime and pathological behavior and because the contemporaries of Wallace seemed so coarse and corrupt and convinced of his guilt for the wrong reasons, I think some of the more enlightened minds since feel a strong sense of injustice on Wallace's behalf (despite him eventually cheating the gallows.) But, I still believe he is quite likely to have been guilty anyway, if one just looks at the facts and jigsaw puzzle of the case.

This isn't to suggest that people can't have valid or logical reasons for believing his innocence separate from that, of course. The whole case comes down to the timing and blood splatter avoidance. Either you think it's possible or not. If it is possible/at least somewhat plausible then I think he becomes the most likely suspect by a large margin based on all the other facts as well. If not, then there's nothing to discuss: he's innocent.

[ColdCaseJury]

I get odd stares when asking about famous cases, it doesn't seem to be a hot topic here among millenials.

I think that Goodman and particularly the 1981 Radio City 4 parter with Parkes testimony almost made the case shut against Parry in many's eyes...Man from the Pru which came out in '91 has Parry as the culprit.

Believe me, the only reason is gets raised with me is because people know my quirky interest in historical cold cases! That said, when people hear about some of these cases, Wallace being a prime example, many people seem genuinely interested and intrigued.

I agree that the Wilkes programme in 1981 has been a major opinion former - and for the wrong reasons. Firstly, Goodman's proof against Wallace's guilt is fallacious (it is an inductive argument against his guilt, it fails as a deductive proof). Secondly, the Parkes evidence appears to sway people, and its veracity is questionable.

I've recently finished a masters in Philosophy, so I'm drawn to - what could be called - the philosophy of evidence and testimony. For example, this to me, seems a reasonable rule with cold cases:

Unless there a reason to think otherwise, one should except witness testimony as at least approximately true.

Of course this runs the risk of admitting bogus witness statements, but if you strengthen this principle to, say, Only admit a witness statement unless it can be supported or proved true, then you will have little testimony. And for a cold case, this will be fatal.

With the Parkes statement there is a reason to think otherwise: the 50 year wait until coming forward. His reason for waiting, to me, seems implausible. However, if there is a strong case against Parry independent of this evidence, then its weight increases. So, in the Wallace case wrt to Parry, you have to balance off Brine's alibi for Parry versus Parkes' statement against. It seems to me, that based on my rule, you should favour Brine's alibi. Although, it must be said, I would have preferred it to have been thoroughly checked out. It was not. Nor, it should be added for balance, was Parry's own misleading statement for his whereabouts at the time of the call.

This is not to say there is not an argument - even a good one - for Parry's guilt. I'm only weary of Wilkes' radio show and the "conclusive evidence" that supposedly shut the case.

[ColdCaseJury]

Ah! Typos galore today! I meant to say:

Unless there a reason to think otherwise, one should accept witness testimony as at least approximately true.

I'm wary of Wilkes' radio show and the "conclusive evidence" that supposedly shut the case.

There are probably more. I shall write no more today and only read!

[John G]

Personally I wouldn't completely disregard Parkes' evidence. Not only was his account fairly detailed no one, in my opinion, as given a reasonable explanation as to why he should lie. For instance, I believe it has been suggested that he was jealous of Parry's success with women, but that seems a ridiculous reason to implicate someone in a murder. Could he have been an attention seeker? Well, in that case why did he wait more than half a century before going public? Could he have got the dates mixed up? This seems unlikely as he states that earlier in the evening the local police officer had informed him of the murder and that Wallace had been charged -although this wasn't true as he wouldn't be charged for another 13 days-so the date should have been fixed in his mind.

And, of course, he did state that he informed the police of the conversation after Wallace was convicted, as agreed with Atkinson, so it's not necessarily the case that he waited 50 odd years to come forward.

Interestingly, part of Parkes' account can be verified: he stated that Parry told him that he disposed of a bar down a grid outside a doctors on Priory Road. In fact, there were two doctors on Priory Road and grids outside both, which were never searched.

However, it has to be acknowledged that Parry has an extremely strong alibi. It could be argued that Olive Brine misremembered the time Parry left-she didn't give her testimony until 6 days after the murder, as did Harold Dennison-but Parry would have to have left appreciably earlier than he claimed so it's difficult to see how the witnesses could be that far out in their estimates. I have suggested that Brine may have been prepared to lie if she believed the estimated time of death effectively exonerated Parry anyway, but was this public knowledge prior to the 26th, when she gave her testimony?

Regarding Wallace, I agree with those who say that he had no motive to kill, and certainly not in such a brutal, frenzied manner (in fact, that might be more suggestive of a killer who panicked, acting on mere impulse, whereas it's argued that Wallace must have planned the murder), that was also just about the most inefficient options he could have chosen.

In fact, I don't believe there's a single witness who could point to any degree of disharmony between the couple whatsoever. And, as Anthony mentioned, Wallace was dying anyway and would survive just two more years.

[AmericanSherlock]

Personally I wouldn't completely disregard Parkes' evidence. Not only was his account fairly detailed no one, in my opinion, as given a reasonable explanation as to why he should lie. For instance, I believe it has been suggested that he was jealous of Parry's success with women, but that seems a ridiculous reason to implicate someone in a murder. Could he have been an attention seeker? Well, in that case why did he wait more than half a century before going public? Could he have got the dates mixed up? This seems unlikely as he states that earlier in the evening the local police officer had informed him of the murder and that Wallace had been charged -although this wasn't true as he wouldn't be charged for another 13 days-so the date should have been fixed in his mind.

And, of course, he did state that he informed the police of the conversation after Wallace was convicted, as agreed with Atkinson, so it's not necessarily the case that he waited 50 odd years to come forward.

Interestingly, part of Parkes' account can be verified: he stated that Parry told him that he disposed of a bar down a grid outside a doctors on Priory Road. In fact, there were two doctors on Priory Road and grids outside both, which were never searched.

However, it has to be acknowledged that Parry has an extremely strong alibi. It could be argued that Olive Brine misremembered the time Parry left-she didn't give her testimony until 6 days after the murder, as did Harold Dennison-but Parry would have to have left appreciably earlier than he claimed so it's difficult to see how the witnesses could be that far out in their estimates. I have suggested that Brine may have been prepared to lie if she believed the estimated time of death effectively exonerated Parry anyway, but was this public knowledge prior to the 26th, when she gave her testimony?

Regarding Wallace, I agree with those who say that he had no motive to kill, and certainly not in such a brutal, frenzied manner (in fact, that might be more suggestive of a killer who panicked, acting on mere impulse, whereas it's argued that Wallace must have planned the murder), that was also just about the most inefficient options he could have chosen.

In fact, I don't believe there's a single witness who could point to any degree of disharmony between the couple whatsoever. And, as Anthony mentioned, Wallace was dying anyway and would survive just two more years.

1. 70 people at the time came forward to say they murdered Julia Wallace. Someone else claimed John Johnstone confessed to the murder on his deathbed, Parkes clearly did not like Parry--there could be multiple reasons why he would make up such a story. One possibility might believe he really did suspect Parry, but his story was embellished/invented. He didn't wait 50 years to come forward in the sense that he claims he suspected/had info on Parry, but whatever what he said at the time exactly is not known. Parts of his story are almost certainly false, like what Parry was wearing. It certainly is suspicious he took 50 years to come forward with that specific story, you could argue he was afraid of Parry, however I don't see why. Parry under a cloud of suspicion would be very unlikely to come after him, in fact Parkes himself never mentions that as a reason, but just says they "were satisfied that Wallace got off" and that was that. If anything, I think it's much more likely that after Parry died, Goodman et al. who felt comfortable naming him at that point, searched hi and low for anyone willing to be outspoken and bolster their case.

2. Parry's alibi is extremely strong, with multiple separate witnesses. Alibis of course can be fabricated, but I don't buy the suggestion that it was because Olivia Brine thought he was innocent anyway due to the timing, or that that would even be public knowledge at that point. Even if it was, I think the whole idea that the alibi was false, while definitely possible, is much less likely than Parkes' testimony being false. In other words, that strong of an alibi outweighs Parkes' claim.

3. As far as Wallace, asking for motive seems futile to me. It's impossible to know what goes in between the walls of a house, and the problem is even if we have information about an unhappy marriage, fighting, negative reports of one's character, that of course doesn't mean one is a murderer. FWIW though, Murphy who had access to the full case files, showed both the Wallaces in a different light. There were reports of Wallace and Julia fighting, unhappy, not connected to eachother etc. from a couple sources. Someone who knew Wallace from work described him as "the most , cool, calculating, despondent and sour man." In RWE's 2011 book (who accompanied Jonathan Goodman to interview Parry and thought him guilty initially) he admits Murphy's book changed his mind with some of these new revelations. Again, hardly proof, but I also wouldn't claim Wallace had "no motive." It's not clear if Wallace knew he was sick or dying 2 years prior, but if he did, that could be seen in the opposite light. John Gannon argues that contributed to Wallace wanting to live out his final years in peace, free from a nagging, ill, old wife for whom he cared little. So really, there's no way to tell one way or the other about motive; what we do know is that husbands are more likely than not the perpetrator in a domestic case like this, particularly with blunt force head trauma. Again, proving nothing about an individual case, but it might guide us along with of course the facts of the case to what is "most likely" to have occurred.

[caz]

Hi AS,

Once again, I find myself agreeing with you, particularly regarding motive. I see little enough motive for anyone else making that call (which should have left Wallace with a cast iron alibi if the whole point was to get him well out of the way on the night in question so the real killer could get into the house, commit the crime and get out again before Wallace's return). But no motive is ever required of the surviving spouse for them to be investigated and under suspicion unless or until they can safely be eliminated and/or someone else has been charged.

I have known people with a terminal illness to turn on the person closest to them, even when they had a good relationship previously. If there are already underlying troubles or resentments, things are unlikely to improve when one or other or both become sick and more preoccupied with their own needs. Even if Wallace did not know how ill he was when he set off on that wild goose chase, he knew he was still recovering from flu and that makes you feel like death. I've had it twice in my life and anyone who says they have "a touch" of flu, when it's merely a heavy cold, can never have had the real thing. They say the difference is that if you see a fiver on the pavement outside your window and you have a cold you will go and pick it up, but if you have the flu you can't go and pick it up. I'd agree with that from my own experience.

That brings me to another point. While John argues that Wallace would have been too weak to inflict the damage on Julia (who was a 'lightly-built' woman of 5ft 2), he was not too weak to stay indoors in the warm that January night, rather than respond to a "funny" named stranger's request to call at an address he had never been to before or even heard of, which would involve him in quite some time and exertion in trying - and failing - to locate. There was never any guarantee for anyone else that Wallace would feel up to leaving his armchair and his wife (who was also not feeling that great) and staying out of the house for the required duration. Yet he performed so perfectly for the mystery caller that one might be forgiven for believing he had more of an investment in this Qualtrough fellow than merely hoping for a bit of new business.

The blunt instrument (which the killer made sure was not left at the scene, whether it was the missing poker or iron bar, or a candlestick or piece of lead piping) may have been Wallace's idea of what an intruder was likely to use, and what he, as an outwardly devoted husband, was least likely to use, either by design or in a sudden temper. The method also had to prove quickly fatal, to prevent her screaming blue murder or getting any chance to identify her killer.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

People suffer from 'flu in varying degrees. I've had the same type of flu that you describe, Caz and I was unable to get up from my bed except to drag myself to the bathroom. It lasted almost two weeks.

I've also had flu whereby my back and legs ache and my nose drips. Not nice but still able to function.

People in those days were made of sterner stuff and Wallace had to earn a living. Going on long bus trips to establish new clients may have been a fairly normal thing in the life of an insurance agent.