Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[caz]

We have not only bad luck for Wallace if innocent but good luck for another killer if guilty... another point would be the Johnston's heard the milk boy knock at the door but no one else.

Also, would the neighbourhood not have been on higher alert at the time because of the Anfield housebreaker? More aware of strangers hanging about in the evenings, knocking on doors, calling at houses and so on? Yet nobody heard or saw anyone supposedly watching and waiting for Wallace to leave the house, either on the Monday or Tuesday evening; nobody saw anyone calling at the house after the milk boy, talking to Julia and being invited in. And wouldn't Julia herself have been more cautious than usual about who she allowed past her front door while her husband was out, either at the chess club or on business? Was she not aware that Parry himself was light-fingered and not to be trusted? And what about a complete stranger turning up unexpectedly, claiming to be the person who had arranged for her husband to go out specifically to see him? She'd have had to be rather stupid not to smell a rat, unless he forced his way in once she opened the door and managed to keep her from making a sound.

So who managed to hoodwink Julia so completely, without anyone seeing or hearing anything remotely suspicious? Wallace or The Invisible Man?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi AmericanSherlock and Herlock - thanks for your responses.

I did initially find Wallace wearing different coats on the same day odd and perhaps suspicious. However, there seems a reasonable explanation for that.

If Wallace is innocent though, I have difficulty in understanding what Julia was doing with his mackintosh when she was attacked. If her purpose was to put it in front of the fire to dry, I would have thought it more likely that she would have done that around the time Wallace got home and took it off.

I also doubt that she would have put the mackintosh out to dry with a guest in the room. Certainly not a sneak thief she didn't know posing as the potentially influential Qualtrough. Possibly she might have done it with Parry there but, if not him, we again have to seriously think about Wallace.

It seems very unlikely that she would have mistaken Wallace's mackintosh as one of her own coats and taken that to wear herself, even if she was in a panic to get out of the house. If she was in such a panic, would she have even bothered with a coat?

Perhaps a sneak thief murderer took possession of the mackintosh and used it himself to stop blood splattering. Possibly but, if so, he seems to have quickly thought of that on his feet and been fortunate that the mackintosh was readily available.

As with so much of this enigmatic case, nothing conclusive and only thoughts. However, they don't lean towards Wallace's innocence.

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Julia may have put the mackintosh in front of the fire to dry off when Wallace went back out that afternoon in his coat. He wouldn't necessarily have seen her doing this. If the parlour was left empty after that, the mackintosh could still have been there when Julia and her killer entered the room that evening. Could she have gone into the parlour to retrieve the dry mackintosh and put it back on its hook in the hall when the killer struck? If this was Wallace, what other reason would there have been for Julia going into the parlour? If it was anyone else, she may have been receiving that person in the 'posh' room, when she saw the mackintosh still there and went to remove it to the hall.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

To be more accurate Wallace stated that he'd worn his mackintosh in the morning but the weather turned out fine and so he wore his fawn coat in the afternoon.

Ah, so he may have been reasonably confident he wouldn't be needing his mackintosh that evening when going off to meet Qualtrough?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Wallace wore his mackintosh on his afternoon round but decided not to wear it in the evening due to fact that evening was dry. This means that Wallace had at least 2 coats. I can't recall any mention of a third coat.

Morning HS,

I've only just caught up to your post above, from a couple of weeks back, so apologies if I'm repeating what others have said since.

I still believe Wallace was the most likely murderer, but this gives me slight pause. He couldn't have predicted the weather, so if it had still been raining that evening it would have looked very suspicious if he'd gone off to meet Qualtrough wearing his coat, and not his mackintosh. In short, he'd only have been safe to use the mackintosh during the murder and to leave it at the scene if he checked beforehand that it was dry outside. But I suppose if it had still been raining he'd have worn the mackintosh, and his other coat or something similar would have been used instead during the attack?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm back.

Did you all miss me ?

Welcome back AS.

Herlock. I believe the theory in the Parry making the call scenario is that he was driving his car. Parry did have one and actually mentioned it in his alibi. This would cut travel time and allow him to maybe see Wallace without Wallace seeing him.

However, this creates more problems than it is worth for me.

Would Parry park his car outside the phone box and risk being seen? If the call was meant as anything more than a prank, this was very risky. Even if Parry could see Wallace leave, he would have to chase a bit to make sure which direction he was headed in; that we would not pass the phone booth himself. This actually might be harder to do by car than by foot.

Good points. What if Wallace had headed for the phone box? Parry would have had to drive away to avoid being seen, but to a place where he could still see if Wallace boarded the tram. A car seen driving away from the phone box only to park somewhere near might have attracted attention?


We both think Wallace took the route past the phone box, but even if he did not, that was clearly a plausible route to take. Parry could not have known Wallace would not go that way, save stalking him repeatedly before on the way to the chess club which seems exceedingly unlikely (And remember Wallace missed the previous FOUR meetings). Then, Parry has to park right outside the phone box, leaving his car there and make the call.

Definately a risk.

Both the 19th and 20th were also rainy, sleety, and foggy. The phone call happened in the pitch black of the night; early evening but at a time of year in Liverpool where the sun set before 5 PM. This might be an argument to mitigate some of the risks Parry would have to take in being seen.

But then, wouldn't this also make it much harder for Parry to see Wallace from his car across the road, see which direction he was going etc? And to be sure he was gone the other way, headed to the chess club, and race to the box to be there 3 minutes later on the line, panting after exiting his car and having just got done stalking Wallace.

Exactly AS. I hadnt factored in the weather. We recall that Wallace had been wearing his mackintosh up until the tuesday evening. At a distance of 220 yards Wallace would have been even more difficult see and identify for certain.

Incidentally, the dark, foggy night in my mind is a good point against those who argue that the "distinctive" gangly Wallace wouldn't risk being seen.

It also difficult to judge height at such a distance.

On the other hand, a car was not the most common thing at the time in Liverpool (not unheard of but the Wallaces for example did not have one). Parry would be taking a bigger risk, even at night, to be speeding away from 29 Wolverton in a car (and presumably to it ) as well as parking to make the call.

Cars from that era all looked the same to ke but Wallace might have been able to recognise Parry’s.

If one argues the call was not set up to start the commission of a crime, or perhaps only a hopefully incognito "sneak thief" ( ) robbery, then it's understandable why Parry might not view being seen in his car that much of a risk.

Accepted.

But it is still odd, isn't it that no car was seen by anyone right outside the phone box, that no car was seen by anyone including the milk boys or neighbors near 29 Wolverton St. before or after the murder.

Almost as odd as no stranger being seen in Wolverton Street on that night. And no one hearing the knock at the door or the conversation with Julia explaining the Qualtrough mix-up.

Wallace remains the one person perfectly in the frame for making the call, and the one person we know for a fact that saw Julia Wallace before she died after Alan Close left.

What do you think? Am I wrong and it was a "sneak thief" after all?

Of the theories the sneak-thief one is the least likely. By a mile and for so many reasons.

Wallace is overwhelmingly the likeliest suspect in my opinion.

[AmericanSherlock]

I'm back.

Did you all miss me ?

Herlock. I believe the theory in the Parry making the call scenario is that he was driving his car. Parry did have one and actually mentioned it in his alibi. This would cut travel time and allow him to maybe see Wallace without Wallace seeing him.

However, this creates more problems than it is worth for me.

Would Parry park his car outside the phone box and risk being seen? If the call was meant as anything more than a prank, this was very risky. Even if Parry could see Wallace leave, he would have to chase a bit to make sure which direction he was headed in; that we would not pass the phone booth himself. This actually might be harder to do by car than by foot.

We both think Wallace took the route past the phone box, but even if he did not, that was clearly a plausible route to take. Parry could not have known Wallace would not go that way, save stalking him repeatedly before on the way to the chess club which seems exceedingly unlikely (And remember Wallace missed the previous FOUR meetings). Then, Parry has to park right outside the phone box, leaving his car there and make the call.

Both the 19th and 20th were also rainy, sleety, and foggy. The phone call happened in the pitch black of the night; early evening but at a time of year in Liverpool where the sun set before 5 PM. This might be an argument to mitigate some of the risks Parry would have to take in being seen.

But then, wouldn't this also make it much harder for Parry to see Wallace from his car across the road, see which direction he was going etc? And to be sure he was gone the other way, headed to the chess club, and race to the box to be there 3 minutes later on the line, panting after exiting his car and having just got done stalking Wallace.

Incidentally, the dark, foggy night in my mind is a good point against those who argue that the "distinctive" gangly Wallace wouldn't risk being seen.

On the other hand, a car was not the most common thing at the time in Liverpool (not unheard of but the Wallaces for example did not have one). Parry would be taking a bigger risk, even at night, to be speeding away from 29 Wolverton in a car (and presumably to it ) as well as parking to make the call.

If one argues the call was not set up to start the commission of a crime, or perhaps only a hopefully incognito "sneak thief" ( ) robbery, then it's understandable why Parry might not view being seen in his car that much of a risk.

But it is still odd, isn't it that no car was seen by anyone right outside the phone box, that no car was seen by anyone including the milk boys or neighbors near 29 Wolverton St. before or after the murder.

Wallace remains the one person perfectly in the frame for making the call, and the one person we know for a fact that saw Julia Wallace before she died after Alan Close left.

What do you think? Am I wrong and it was a "sneak thief" after all?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This thread is way too quiet

[Herlock Sholmes]

According to any scenario which includes Parry (whether as the actual thief/killer or as the ‘Moriarty’ behind the sneak-thief theory) we would find Parry at the phone box on the Monday evening. So what do we see when we try to recreate it the scene?

Wallace said that he left home between 7.15-7.20pm. He walked to the end of Richmond Park and turned left into Breck Road heading for his tram to take him to the chess club. His other option would have been to have turned right out of Richmond Park and gone to the stop just past the phone box.

Parry couldn’t have known beforehand which route that Wallace would have decided upon. This would have meant that Parry would have had to have seen Wallace first. Rather obviously too he wouldn’t have made the call until he has seen Wallace and been fairly certain that he was on its way too chess.

The phone box was around 220 yards from the corner of Richmond Park and Breck Road.

How well lit was Breck Road? The phone box wasn’t lit. I assume that there was a street light somewhere near though? We’ve all experienced light reflecting on the window of a dark space. So at what point would Parry have recognised Wallace, from inside a phone box in the dark with reflected light, with Wallace coming from a point 220 yards away and then walking away from him. It’s impossible to be certain but there must be some doubt that Parry would have been able, not only to see him from that distance but also to know for certain that it was Wallace? If he stood outside of the box further down Breck Road to see clearer this would have introduced the risk of him being seen by Wallace if he had decided instead to turn right. It also seems obvious that Parry would not have wanted to have been seen loitering in the street anywhere near that phone box on that night.

The other risk for Parry would have been of Wallace turning right into the Breck Road. If it had taken a few yards until he was certain that it was Wallace he would have been virtually trapped in the box at risk of being seen by him.

Let’s just remember again that the distance between Richmond Park and the phone box was 2 football field lengths. At night, from a dark phone box with the possibility of light reflecting on the windows, and a street with 1930’s lighting (and we are unsure of how much.)

Yet more doubts on any plan involving Parry

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry I don't understand. If the robbery was post death then why did he kill her if the murder wasn't planned?

Also, if the goal was to go undetected then a robber could hardly think breaking a cabinet door was a good idea to not be noticed upon JW's return from upstairs. (Just going with this scenario) If it really was a robber, then it would have to have been done post murder which seems unlikely to me.

Herlock, I believe Macfall described Julia as virginal and clean or something. Murphy put it like "there was no evidence of libidinous young men beating a path to her door"

I think Gannon notes the undergarment but Macfall didn't and didn't mention incontinence.

Even if she was though, a thief relying on that seems a stretch.

Thanks for that AS

I like Gannon’s book but it’s impossible for me to view Julia as a kind of geriatric, nymphomaniac. It’s just not likely to put it mildly.

It’s worth reiterating the point that a ‘sneak-thief’, would have had to have accepted the fact that, even if he’d gotten away undetected, Julia would still have been able to identify him as the only culprit (if the police had presented him to her in an ID parade.) So Julia catching him in the act doesn’t compel him to kill her. Even if she’d screamed, and no one reported hearing screams, a frail woman of 70 would have been easily silenced. He could have easily gotten away anyway. No telephone to call the police. No chance of Julia wrestling him to the ground until someone came. And this is without considering the eleven blows!

[AmericanSherlock]

If I understand the ‘sneak thief’ scenario correctly, with credit to Rod, Julia was upstairs and therefore far enough away not to hear the breaking of the cabinet door. She would not have wanted to leave him unattended but incontinence may have compelled her to do so.

If the robbery was post-death, I don’t think it is obvious that murder had been planned. This would have been ‘a robbery that went wrong’. (Although I confess to disliking that expression, as the converse is a robbery that went right!)

Sorry I don't understand. If the robbery was post death then why did he kill her if the murder wasn't planned?

Also, if the goal was to go undetected then a robber could hardly think breaking a cabinet door was a good idea to not be noticed upon JW's return from upstairs. (Just going with this scenario) If it really was a robber, then it would have to have been done post murder which seems unlikely to me.

Herlock, I believe Macfall described Julia as virginal and clean or something. Murphy put it like "there was no evidence of libidinous young men beating a path to her door"

I think Gannon notes the undergarment but Macfall didn't and didn't mention incontinence.

Even if she was though, a thief relying on that seems a stretch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I understand the ‘sneak thief’ scenario correctly, with credit to Rod, Julia was upstairs and therefore far enough away not to hear the breaking of the cabinet door. She would not have wanted to leave him unattended but incontinence may have compelled her to do so.

If the robbery was post-death, I don’t think it is obvious that murder had been planned. This would have been ‘a robbery that went wrong’. (Although I confess to disliking that expression, as the converse is a robbery that went right!)

Hi Nick,

It’s hard to see why a robber would go to the effort of breaking open a cupboard and yet avoid looking in Julia’s bag (with the fairly obvious possibility of her purse being in there) a much simpler and expedient way of looking for cash. There was also the sideboard in the parlour or cupboards upstairs that remained unsearched. It’s difficult to find a reason for such a scanty search, especially considering the poor haul from the cash box.

The fact that there was no blood in the hallway, stairway, bedroom (apart from the smear and the clot) and kitchen would appear to be suggestive as it’s likely that a killer would have gotten blood on him. A spur of the moment kill would have made it unlikely in the extreme that a robber would have protected himself against blood spatter. If he’d have cleaned himself up there would have been evidence of this because he would have had no reason to try and not leave evidence (blood in the sink, a wet towel etc.) If we consider who would have absolutely needed to clean up (an other or Wallace) it surely has to be Wallace. The killer would be escaping in the dark to go home or even to a car. Once home he could clean up. Wallace, on the other hand, had to go to MGE so it would have been imperative that he was blood-free.

As per Rod’s suggestion of a robbery-that-went-wrong we would have to assume that the robber would have worn gloves. Therefore he would have had absolutely no reason to take the weapon away with him. No fingerprints, no DNA, no physical connection (like the weapon being an item missing from his own tool-kit at home for eg.) Indeed taking away a bloodied iron bar could only have increased his risk of capture. Rod suggested ‘panic’ as a reason but this makes no sense if the killer didn’t flee immediately after killing Julia. I don’t even think it’s very believable if he had have fled straight away.

If it was a robbery-that-went-right, ie the robber intended to kill Julia to effect the robbery it’s difficult to explain the level of violence? Julia was a frail woman of near 70. She would surely have been dead after 1, 2 or 3 blows from a heavy iron bar and yet we have 11 crushing blows. Surely more suggestive of a personal, premeditated murder?

Finally, and I could be wrong here (AS might know this) but wasn’t it mentioned somewhere that a doctor didn’t think that Julia was incontinent? I don’t have any books with me at the moment so this could simply be my memory playing tricks.

[NickB]

If I understand the ‘sneak thief’ scenario correctly, with credit to Rod, Julia was upstairs and therefore far enough away not to hear the breaking of the cabinet door. She would not have wanted to leave him unattended but incontinence may have compelled her to do so.

If the robbery was post-death, I don’t think it is obvious that murder had been planned. This would have been ‘a robbery that went wrong’. (Although I confess to disliking that expression, as the converse is a robbery that went right!)

[AmericanSherlock]

Replacing the cash box and turning off the lights are suggestive of Wallace acting out of habit, but not conclusive evidence of such.

To my mind the ‘robber’ (either a genuine robber or the one Wallace was impersonating) smashed the door to the cabinet, saw there was nothing in there and so continued looking and found the cash box. Thinking that he had now found the main treasure pot in the house, even though it was disappointingly bereft, he took the contents and left – not wanting to hang around long anyway.

Hi, Nick B, but if this was a genuine robber, then that cannot be considered a "sneak theft" attempt if Julia was still alive. In this scenario, the robber must have been willing to murder JW rather than hope to get away without her noticing. Or in the event, he did what you describe after her death, then obviously his plan was murder from the get go.

[NickB]

Replacing the cash box and turning off the lights are suggestive of Wallace acting out of habit, but not conclusive evidence of such.

To my mind the ‘robber’ (either a genuine robber or the one Wallace was impersonating) smashed the door to the cabinet, saw there was nothing in there and so continued looking and found the cash box. Thinking that he had now found the main treasure pot in the house, even though it was disappointingly bereft, he took the contents and left – not wanting to hang around long anyway.

[Mayerling]

Dunce is working on the definitive book



To be released in 2030

Shouldn't it be in 2031? Centennial year that one.

Jeff