Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

I agree that Parry's alibi should be given preference to Parkes' account. However, I still don't think that Parkes' should be completely discarded. For instance, he would have had to be pretty disturbed to implicate a completely innocent man in a murder, particularly as he had no obvious motive for doing so.

As regards Parry's alibi, it's unfortunate that no one, including Parry himself, knew exactly what time he left the Brine Household: they simply estimated "about 8:30." And I still think people of this period would have been less conscious of the precise time than today, and the younger witnesses might not even have possessed a watch.

Frustratingly, we have no clear idea of the time of death, initially estimated as 8:00pm, although modern forensic science has determined that time of death cannot be accurately estimated, except within, say, a few hours, as they're too many variables.

I do feel that the failure to determine a motive for Wallace, apart from speculation based on no evidence, particularly as the evidence against Wallace is extremely weak, not to say virtually non existent.

For instance, there is no confession, no forensic evidence linking him to the crime, and no witness testimony placing him at the scene of the crime when the murder was carried out (essentially because we don't know when the murder occured.)

In fact, what evidence there works on Wallace's favour: the fact that he was seriously ill, and recovering from the flu, but still supposedly carried out a frenzied and sustained assault; murder weapon not found; no blood evidence in the sink or drains, even though the killer must have been covered in blood; lack of time to undertake the murder, based upon Wildman's evidence.

And the method chosen to carry out the murder, as I've noted before, was very inefficient. I mean, such an assault was always going to be unpredictable-in such a frenzied attack, the victim may have had the opportunity to resist or even cry out-and the perpetrator couldn't avoid getting blood on his person. This is even more problematic when you consider that Wallace was supposed to have planned the murder in fine detail.

In a previous post I argued that it was more like Tabram than Stride. This is aptly illustrated by Keppel et al (2005), who argued JtR evolved as he became more experienced:

"In the first murder linked to Jack the Ripper, Martha Tabram, the killer attacked her from the front. Because of the stabbing frenzy, this assault would have left the killer literally soaked in the victim's blood, increasing the likelihood of being discovered. He learned quickly and adapted his MO to attack the victims from behind and slash their throats...so as to incapacitate the victim, diminish the amount of blood on his apparel, and/or decrease the chances of discovery."

[John G]

I should, of course, add that Beattie's failure to recognize Wallace as Qualtrough is another piece of evidence that is inconsistent with Wallace being the killer, assuming the Qualtrough call wasn't a coincidence.

[caz]

Hi All,

I'm currently reading Goodman's book and have come across something I don't quite understand. Wallace's neighbour, Mrs Johnston, described in her police statement how she had heard his 'usual' knock at his back door. If she was telling the truth it would suggest that when Wallace went out of an evening he generally knocked - at the back door - on his return and waited for Julia to let him in. This in turn suggests a sensible routine of Julia bolting both front and back doors while she was home alone. Why else would her husband have had to knock to get in?

But I see a few problems here in connection with what Wallace himself claimed. Firstly, he said in his own statement that he became "suspicious" and "hurried back home" on concluding that Menlove Gardens East didn't exist. He also claimed that Julia would not have let anyone in she didn't know or trust. So far so good.

Now we come to what he told the Johnstons. According to Goodman they saw him hurrying towards his yard door, which was standing open. But he didn't express any concern over this. Instead he told them he had tried the front door and found it locked against him, and wondered if they had heard anything unusual. But what would have been unusual about the front door being locked against him if Julia was accustomed to locking it against unwelcome callers and going to the back door to let her husband in? It gets odder. Next he told the Johnstons he had been to the front and the back and couldn't open the back kitchen door either. Again, why would he expect to find either door unlocked and openable if he usually had to wait for Julia to open up the back one?

Any surprise or anxiety should have been on account of getting no response from his wife to his knocking; not his discovery that both doors appeared to be locked against him. If her 'usual' security precautions meant her own husband was unable to get into the house without her assistance, did he really need to worry that someone else, taking deliberate advantage of his absence, might have gained entry?

Logic suggests that an innocent Wallace would have knocked again, more loudly and for longer, when he got no response. Becoming annoyed that Julia had fallen asleep, or worried that she may have collapsed, he'd have tried the door, not expecting to be able to open it, but of course it should have opened as easily as it did when the killer, having done the deed, opened it to let himself out, leaving it unbolted and openable on Wallace's return - just as it proved to be when he tried the door handle in the presence of the Johnstons.

So did Wallace slip up at first by claiming he couldn't open either door and feigning bewilderment, then realising his mistake knew he had to find one open (by which the killer had left) and it was better for him to do so with the Johnstons as witnesses, rather than to let one of them try it and find it opened immediately without any trouble whatsoever? With Wallace doing it himself, he could always reason it had taken a second, more determined effort, to appreciate it had not been locked or bolted after all. And that would have been the moment to panic, and suspect Qualtrough had got him out of the way on false pretences, leaving Julia vulnerable. Not only had his dear wife not responded to his usual knock; but the back door could have been opened by anyone.

Any reasonable ways of reconciling all the above will be gratefully received and chewed over with care.

Love,

Caz
X

[ColdCaseJury]

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).

Hi Caz, yes, it SHOULD have been cast-iron alibi but MacFall changed his mind about the time of death, moving it from 8pm to before 6pm (yes before 6pm, which is impossible, as Close saw Julia at 6:40pm). This suspicious amendment is consistent with the narrative of the police fitting the evidence to frame their suspect e.g. Alan Close testimony.

Because of MacFall we are left in this position: there is no reliable evidence to say at what time Julia Wallace was killed. Some banging noises were head by Mrs Johnston at about 8:25pm - the only noises heard, by the way.

IF Wallace wanted a cast-iron alibi he had to get someone else to kill his wife.

[Penhalion]

This is a really fascinating case and one for which I don't have a definitive explanation. As ever, I just seem to have lots of questions.

My instinct says that Wallace is not the murderer. As has been established, even a young, fit person would be challenged to complete everything that needed to happen for Wallace to be the killer. And yet, who else? If it is a conspiracy then it is one of the tightest ever. The problem with conspiracies is that the ties between the individuals must be incredibly close for it not to break. Who could Wallace have been THAT close to, guaranteed not to break, when he seems to have been a rather cold fish without many friends? I'm afraid a conspiracy on Wallace's part doesn't seem probable.

[ColdCaseJury]

I'm currently reading Goodman's book and have come across something I don't quite understand. Wallace's neighbour, Mrs Johnston, described in her police statement how she had heard his 'usual' knock at his back door. If she was telling the truth it would suggest that when Wallace went out of an evening he generally knocked - at the back door - on his return and waited for Julia to let him in. This in turn suggests a sensible routine of Julia bolting both front and back doors while she was home alone. Why else would her husband have had to knock to get in?

Hi Caz, there is possible an explanation, I suggest. Wallace told Julia to bolt the back YARD gate. Hence, he used the front door when he returned. He then went round the back, found the gate open and then could not open the back DOOR. The back door lock was problematic - and this was confirmed by the cleaner, Sarah Draper. Hence, he would have then knocked.

I think the unbolted back gate is interesting. Why didn't Julia lock it when Wallace left? Either she was dead and hence could not bolt it or, as Wallace suggested, the killer went out through the back yard.

[ColdCaseJury]

Wallace's neighbour, Mrs Johnston, described in her police statement how she had heard his 'usual' knock at his back door.

According to Wallace at his trial, he agreed that he usually used the back door apart from when he came back late. In this case, he would typically ask his wife to bolt the back door, and he would use the front door on his return.

So, Wallace
(a) Expected to get in at the front door, but could not.
(b) Went to the back, found yard gate open, and went to the back door. It would be at this point that he might have knocked, expecting it to be locked, or because he thought it was locked when he could not enter.
(c) Went to front door again
(d) Returned to back door, bumping into Johnstons.

Does this version make any sense?

[John G]

Hi All,

I'm currently reading Goodman's book and have come across something I don't quite understand. Wallace's neighbour, Mrs Johnston, described in her police statement how she had heard his 'usual' knock at his back door. If she was telling the truth it would suggest that when Wallace went out of an evening he generally knocked - at the back door - on his return and waited for Julia to let him in. This in turn suggests a sensible routine of Julia bolting both front and back doors while she was home alone. Why else would her husband have had to knock to get in?

But I see a few problems here in connection with what Wallace himself claimed. Firstly, he said in his own statement that he became "suspicious" and "hurried back home" on concluding that Menlove Gardens East didn't exist. He also claimed that Julia would not have let anyone in she didn't know or trust. So far so good.

Now we come to what he told the Johnstons. According to Goodman they saw him hurrying towards his yard door, which was standing open. But he didn't express any concern over this. Instead he told them he had tried the front door and found it locked against him, and wondered if they had heard anything unusual. But what would have been unusual about the front door being locked against him if Julia was accustomed to locking it against unwelcome callers and going to the back door to let her husband in? It gets odder. Next he told the Johnstons he had been to the front and the back and couldn't open the back kitchen door either. Again, why would he expect to find either door unlocked and openable if he usually had to wait for Julia to open up the back one?

Any surprise or anxiety should have been on account of getting no response from his wife to his knocking; not his discovery that both doors appeared to be locked against him. If her 'usual' security precautions meant her own husband was unable to get into the house without her assistance, did he really need to worry that someone else, taking deliberate advantage of his absence, might have gained entry?

Logic suggests that an innocent Wallace would have knocked again, more loudly and for longer, when he got no response. Becoming annoyed that Julia had fallen asleep, or worried that she may have collapsed, he'd have tried the door, not expecting to be able to open it, but of course it should have opened as easily as it did when the killer, having done the deed, opened it to let himself out, leaving it unbolted and openable on Wallace's return - just as it proved to be when he tried the door handle in the presence of the Johnstons.

So did Wallace slip up at first by claiming he couldn't open either door and feigning bewilderment, then realising his mistake knew he had to find one open (by which the killer had left) and it was better for him to do so with the Johnstons as witnesses, rather than to let one of them try it and find it opened immediately without any trouble whatsoever? With Wallace doing it himself, he could always reason it had taken a second, more determined effort, to appreciate it had not been locked or bolted after all. And that would have been the moment to panic, and suspect Qualtrough had got him out of the way on false pretences, leaving Julia vulnerable. Not only had his dear wife not responded to his usual knock; but the back door could have been opened by anyone.

Any reasonable ways of reconciling all the above will be gratefully received and chewed over with care.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.

I would just note that the problem with the Qualtrough alibi is that it was never likely to work for Wallace. The fact that it did was as a consequence of somewhat miraculous circumstances that Wallace couldn't please possibly have foreseen.

Thus, in order to make the appointment he needed to leave his house at around 6:45, which is the time he claimed he left. However, Alan Close normally delivered the milk between 6:00 and 6:30, so on that basis it could be always be argued thst he would have had time to commit the murder.

However, on the night of the murder Close was late because he had to deliver the milk on foot: on account of his bicycle being in for repair, something that Wallace, of course couldn't have known about.

Close himself then proved to be a terrible witness. He originally told his friends that he arrived at 6:45, but then changed his testimony following a police 're-enactment.

However, fortunately for Wallace another witness, James Wildman, saw Close delivering the milk at about 6:38-and this time can be regarded as accurate as, luck would have it, he glanced at the clock just beforehand.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi Caz.

I would just note that the problem with the Qualtrough alibi is that it was never likely to work for Wallace. The fact that it did was as a consequence of somewhat miraculous circumstances that Wallace couldn't please possibly have foreseen.

Thus, in order to make the appointment he needed to leave his house at around 6:45, which is the time he claimed he left. However, Alan Close normally delivered the milk between 6:00 and 6:30, so on that basis it could be always be argued thst he would have had time to commit the murder.

However, on the night of the murder Close was late because he had to deliver the milk on foot: on account of his bicycle being in for repair, something that Wallace, of course couldn't have known about.

Close himself then proved to be a terrible witness. He originally told his friends that he arrived at 6:45, but then changed his testimony following a police 're-enactment.

However, fortunately for Wallace another witness, James Wildman, saw Close delivering the milk at about 6:38-and this time can be regarded as accurate as, luck would have it, he glanced at the clock just beforehand.

I see the point you are making here.

I always thought that if Wallace was innocent and genuinely taken in by the ruse, he really didn't give himself plenty of time to make the appointment on time, especially considering he did not know exactly where he was going. Likewise, if he was guilty, then he did a poor job of mimicking what an innocent man would do in trying to be punctual with a possibly lucrative business meeting, especially for a man who was as fastidious and detail oriented as Wallace was known to be.

An alternative explanation could be that Wallace had expected the milk boy to come earlier and then when would have sprung into action whenever that occurred. He was probably accustomed to a time around 6:15, but whenever it would be Wallace would jump into his plan right away. Remember, as Murphy points out, Wallace makes his time frame as he goes along. The fixed starting point in terms of creating an alibi would be the milk boy seeing Julia alive, and the fixed end point would be Wallace seen at the tram stop. He is in complete control of how long this period is, based simply on how quickly he can achieve everything. And I would argue that Wallace setting up the 7:30 time as "Qualtrough" would jibe very well an expected visit at around 6:15 or so from the milk boy, in which case he could be seen at the tram stop around 10 to 7, which would make more sense, considering he would want to be on time and he did not know exactly where he was going. My suspicion is if the milk boy had been a few minutes later, Wallace would have had to abandon the plan. I do believe the milk boy came no later than 6:35, but that's another story.

[John G]

I see the point you are making here.

I always thought that if Wallace was innocent and genuinely taken in by the ruse, he really didn't give himself plenty of time to make the appointment on time, especially considering he did not know exactly where he was going. Likewise, if he was guilty, then he did a poor job of mimicking what an innocent man would do in trying to be punctual with a possibly lucrative business meeting, especially for a man who was as fastidious and detail oriented as Wallace was known to be.

An alternative explanation could be that Wallace had expected the milk boy to come earlier and then when would have sprung into action whenever that occurred. He was probably accustomed to a time around 6:15, but whenever it would be Wallace would jump into his plan right away. Remember, as Murphy points out, Wallace makes his time frame as he goes along. The fixed starting point in terms of creating an alibi would be the milk boy seeing Julia alive, and the fixed end point would be Wallace seen at the tram stop. He is in complete control of how long this period is, based simply on how quickly he can achieve everything. And I would argue that Wallace setting up the 7:30 time as "Qualtrough" would jibe very well an expected visit at around 6:15 or so from the milk boy, in which case he could be seen at the tram stop around 10 to 7, which would make more sense, considering he would want to be on time and he did not know exactly where he was going. My suspicion is if the milk boy had been a few minutes later, Wallace would have had to abandon the plan. I do believe the milk boy came no later than 6:35, but that's another story.

But as he had to leave about 6:45 to get to the tram on time, surely the police would argue that a 6:15 arrival time from Close would represent no alibi at all. After all, in direct contradiction to the witness testimony, they argued that arrival time as late as 6:31 would have given him sufficient time.

[John G]

This is a really fascinating case and one for which I don't have a definitive explanation. As ever, I just seem to have lots of questions.

My instinct says that Wallace is not the murderer. As has been established, even a young, fit person would be challenged to complete everything that needed to happen for Wallace to be the killer. And yet, who else? If it is a conspiracy then it is one of the tightest ever. The problem with conspiracies is that the ties between the individuals must be incredibly close for it not to break. Who could Wallace have been THAT close to, guaranteed not to break, when he seems to have been a rather cold fish without many friends? I'm afraid a conspiracy on Wallace's part doesn't seem probable.

A very well-thought out post Penhalion, which I would agree with.

[John G]

Hi Caz, yes, it SHOULD have been cast-iron alibi but MacFall changed his mind about the time of death, moving it from 8pm to before 6pm (yes before 6pm, which is impossible, as Close saw Julia at 6:40pm). This suspicious amendment is consistent with the narrative of the police fitting the evidence to frame their suspect e.g. Alan Close testimony.

Because of MacFall we are left in this position: there is no reliable evidence to say at what time Julia Wallace was killed. Some banging noises were head by Mrs Johnston at about 8:25pm - the only noises heard, by the way.

IF Wallace wanted a cast-iron alibi he had to get someone else to kill his wife.

Hi CCJ,

See my post 353, where I argue that it was never likely to be a cast iron alibi. Regarding time of death, contrary to crime fiction we now know that time of death cannot be accurately determined, even by modern forensic science, because there are too many variables. In fact, the current advice from the Forensic Science Regulator is that it shouldn't even be attempted: see the opinion of forensic pathologist Dr Biggs, Marriott, 2013.

You may also find this highly informative book useful, as it highlights the various problems of any method that is utilized: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...mortis&f=false

As the authors point out, "Unfortunately, all methods now in use to determine the time of death are to a degree inaccurate and unreliable."

Interesting that you refer to the banging noises at about 8:25. If Julia was murdered at this time, doesn't that seriously undermine Parry's alibi? Thus, if say he left the Brine household at 8:10-8:15, how long would it have taken him to cover the distance by car?

And, as I pointed out in an earlier post, all of the witnesses, including Parry himself, were imprecise about the exact time he left, simply saying around 8:30.

[AmericanSherlock]

But as he had to leave about 6:45 to get to the tram on time, surely the police would argue that a 6:15 arrival time from Close would represent no alibi at all. After all, in direct contradiction to the witness testimony, they argued that arrival time as late as 6:31 would have given him sufficient time.

You are not understanding the part where I say he creates the timeframe as he goes along. There is no "on time" to get to the tram stop. It is whenever he is seen there first. And as I said, arriving there when he did (at 7:06) was a bit late for someone who did not know where he was going to make a 7:30 PM appointment, but that is secondary to the main point I'm making. He has no time at all where he has to be at the tram stop, only what would roughly jibe with trying to make the 7:30 appointment with "Qualtrough."

[John G]

You are not understanding the part where I say he creates the timeframe as he goes along. There is no "on time" to get to the tram stop. It is whenever he is seen there first. And as I said, arriving there when he did (at 7:06) was a bit late for someone who did not know where he was going to make a 7:30 PM appointment, but that is secondary to the main point I'm making. He has no time at all where he has to be at the tram stop, only what would roughly jibe with trying to make the 7:30 appointment with "Qualtrough."

Okay, but surely if he arrived at the tram stop earlier then that gives him even less time to have committed the murder. In fact, based on this hypothetical scenario he might already have been en route for the tram when Close spoke to Julia.

[John G]

Hi All,

I'm currently reading Goodman's book and have come across something I don't quite understand. Wallace's neighbour, Mrs Johnston, described in her police statement how she had heard his 'usual' knock at his back door. If she was telling the truth it would suggest that when Wallace went out of an evening he generally knocked - at the back door - on his return and waited for Julia to let him in. This in turn suggests a sensible routine of Julia bolting both front and back doors while she was home alone. Why else would her husband have had to knock to get in?

But I see a few problems here in connection with what Wallace himself claimed. Firstly, he said in his own statement that he became "suspicious" and "hurried back home" on concluding that Menlove Gardens East didn't exist. He also claimed that Julia would not have let anyone in she didn't know or trust. So far so good.

Now we come to what he told the Johnstons. According to Goodman they saw him hurrying towards his yard door, which was standing open. But he didn't express any concern over this. Instead he told them he had tried the front door and found it locked against him, and wondered if they had heard anything unusual. But what would have been unusual about the front door being locked against him if Julia was accustomed to locking it against unwelcome callers and going to the back door to let her husband in? It gets odder. Next he told the Johnstons he had been to the front and the back and couldn't open the back kitchen door either. Again, why would he expect to find either door unlocked and openable if he usually had to wait for Julia to open up the back one?

Any surprise or anxiety should have been on account of getting no response from his wife to his knocking; not his discovery that both doors appeared to be locked against him. If her 'usual' security precautions meant her own husband was unable to get into the house without her assistance, did he really need to worry that someone else, taking deliberate advantage of his absence, might have gained entry?

Logic suggests that an innocent Wallace would have knocked again, more loudly and for longer, when he got no response. Becoming annoyed that Julia had fallen asleep, or worried that she may have collapsed, he'd have tried the door, not expecting to be able to open it, but of course it should have opened as easily as it did when the killer, having done the deed, opened it to let himself out, leaving it unbolted and openable on Wallace's return - just as it proved to be when he tried the door handle in the presence of the Johnstons.

So did Wallace slip up at first by claiming he couldn't open either door and feigning bewilderment, then realising his mistake knew he had to find one open (by which the killer had left) and it was better for him to do so with the Johnstons as witnesses, rather than to let one of them try it and find it opened immediately without any trouble whatsoever? With Wallace doing it himself, he could always reason it had taken a second, more determined effort, to appreciate it had not been locked or bolted after all. And that would have been the moment to panic, and suspect Qualtrough had got him out of the way on false pretences, leaving Julia vulnerable. Not only had his dear wife not responded to his usual knock; but the back door could have been opened by anyone.

Any reasonable ways of reconciling all the above will be gratefully received and chewed over with care.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.

My understanding is that upon returning he tried to enter via the front door but his key wouldn't work. He then went round the back after Julia failed to respond to his tapping. The back door wouldn't open either, so he knocked again but got no reply. He then went back to the front door but still no luck. So, he hurried back to the back door at which point he was greeted by the Jounstons.

I believe, unfortunately, that there are errors in Goldman's book. For instance, the back door couldn't at this point be "standing open" because at this point Mr Johnston told him to try it again and that he would fetch his key if it still didn't open. William then turned the handle and the door opened.

It has, of course, been argued that this is a bit suspicious, however, Sarah Draper would testify that the latch on both the front and back door were defective, and the police also examined the front door and confirmed there was a problem. Oddly enough, Wallace's response at the time was "that's strange, it wasn't like that this morning, " which seems inconsistent with Draper's account.

Of course, I say "oddly", because if it was a ruse by Wallace you would have expected him to confirm that both doors were defective.