Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[louisa]

Louisa, it was the other way around, Julia was 17 years older than WHW.

JohnG, Parry robbed the pru, not Wallace personally.

Ah, thanks for that. I'd better go and read my books again.

Yes, if she was that much older than her husband that could have had a bearing on things.

[AmericanSherlock]

Ah, thanks for that. I'd better go and read my books again.

Yes, if she was that much older than her husband that could have had a bearing on things.

No.problem. your point about locking doors was a good one. Glad you found this interesting case and that we have another mind at work

[John G]

Louisa, it was the other way around, Julia was 17 years older than WHW.

JohnG, Parry robbed the pru, not Wallace personally.

Yes, of course you're correct. Parry was supposed to pay over the insurance takings to Wallace, but it was subsequently discovered that he hadn't handed over all the money he'd collected.

He also had a long and varied criminal history, which included a period of imprisonment. And, of course, he knew where the takings were kept.

[John G]

Yes, point taken.

Parry - my money's on him being the murderer but I may change my mind if the evidence against Wallace is compelling enough. I haven't read all there is to read on this case yet.

I don't think the age difference would have been any kind of motive though, as CCJ suggests on the Evidence website, because I would think a man would be happy to have a younger wife; one who can look after him in his old age.

Hi Louisa,

Yes, I agree that Parry is the strongest candidate. However, it's possible that more than one person was involved, i.e. a conspiracy, as Anthony discusses in his book.

Personally, I find this a fascinating csse. The celebrated crime fiction writer, Raymond Chandler, wrote: "The Wallace case is the non pareil of all murder mysteries...I call it the impossible murder because Wallace couldn't have done it, and neither could anyone else...The Wallace case is unbeatable; it will always be unbeatable."

You may also find this highly informative website on the case useful: http://inacityliving.blogspot.co.uk/...rder-case.html

[OneRound]

Hi all,

With apologies, I'm very late to the Wallace party and have a lot of catching up to do. Certainly a fascinating case.

One thing that does seem clear is the role of the milk boy was very significant. What is far less clear is whether Wallace deliberately manufactured his alibi to run from Close seeing Julia Wallace or whether this sighting and its timing was innocently fortuitous.

My early thoughts are to be sympathetic to the insurance official.

If Wallace was guilty and to get away with it, he needed to show there wasn't enough time - or at least, there were serous doubts as to whether he had sufficient time - for him to commit the murder and do everything else that evening. As it happened, Wallace was considerably helped by Close being later than usual due to a specific reason and his arrival time being noticed by Wildman. Unless we speculate about Close and/or Wildman being ''in on it'', there is no way that Wallace could have anticipated that.

If Wallace was gearing an alibi around Close's delivery, I feel he was (probably uncharacteristically) leaving a fair bit to chance. Should Close have arrived in the later end of his usual half-hour window, say 6:25 pm, that would not have helped Wallace if Close could only recall he arrived ''somewhere between six and half-past as usual, guvnor''. All things being equal, why should Close know when he delivered the milk to the Wallaces? Furthermore, there would normally not be any evidence of the delivery time.

I'll also throw in another very basic question. Regardless of the time of delivery, could Wallace even rely upon Close seeing his wife at all that evening? Wouldn't Close be more concerned with leaving the milk on the step and hurrying on to the next delivery? [I'm assuming here that Close didn't need to speak to Mrs Wallace.]

Best regards,

OneRound

[louisa]

John - Yes, the Wallace case is probably the greatest "whodunnit" of all time.

Thanks for the link, it looks interesting. I used to be a big Beatles fan - way back in time.

I recently did a Google Maps street view trying to find the Cavern Club but was a bit disappointed to see it was in a pedestrian-only road. I understand it is not the original one but has been re-built using some of the old bricks.


OneRound - Yes, a milkman only needed to speak to his customers on a Saturday, when the weekly milk bill was payable.

[John G]

Hi all,

With apologies, I'm very late to the Wallace party and have a lot of catching up to do. Certainly a fascinating case.

One thing that does seem clear is the role of the milk boy was very significant. What is far less clear is whether Wallace deliberately manufactured his alibi to run from Close seeing Julia Wallace or whether this sighting and its timing was innocently fortuitous.

My early thoughts are to be sympathetic to the insurance official.

If Wallace was guilty and to get away with it, he needed to show there wasn't enough time - or at least, there were serous doubts as to whether he had sufficient time - for him to commit the murder and do everything else that evening. As it happened, Wallace was considerably helped by Close being later than usual due to a specific reason and his arrival time being noticed by Wildman. Unless we speculate about Close and/or Wildman being ''in on it'', there is no way that Wallace could have anticipated that.

If Wallace was gearing an alibi around Close's delivery, I feel he was (probably uncharacteristically) leaving a fair bit to chance. Should Close have arrived in the later end of his usual half-hour window, say 6:25 pm, that would not have helped Wallace if Close could only recall he arrived ''somewhere between six and half-past as usual, guvnor''. All things being equal, why should Close know when he delivered the milk to the Wallaces? Furthermore, there would normally not be any evidence of the delivery time.

I'll also throw in another very basic question. Regardless of the time of delivery, could Wallace even rely upon Close seeing his wife at all that evening? Wouldn't Close be more concerned with leaving the milk on the step and hurrying on to the next delivery? [I'm assuming here that Close didn't need to speak to Mrs Wallace.]

Best regards,

OneRound

Hi OneRound,

Excellent analysis, which I completely agree with.

[John G]

John - Yes, the Wallace case is probably the greatest "whodunnit" of all time.

Thanks for the link, it looks interesting. I used to be a big Beatles fan - way back in time.

I recently did a Google Maps street view trying to find the Cavern Club but was a bit disappointed to see it was in a pedestrian-only road. I understand it is not the original one but has been re-built using some of the old bricks.


OneRound - Yes, a milkman only needed to speak to his customers on a Saturday, when the weekly milk bill was payable.

Hi Louisa,

Thanks. Very good point about the milkman only needing to speak to customers on a Saturday. This implies that, if Wallace were the killer, he had no need to wait for Close's arrival before committing the act (of you accept he would have been useless as an alibi) and other actions, such as staging the robbery, cleaning off all the blood, changing into his suit etc. , until leaving for the tram.

And, as I've noted before, based upon the time he departed, he was clearly cutting fine as regards making the Qualtrough appointment on time: had he been forced to take a later tram, he may have arrived late for his appointment in Menlove Gardens, which would have seemed very suspicious, i.e. the police would have no doubt attributed the delay to the fact that he was murdering his wife

[louisa]

It has been said - and I'm sure it will be on this thread somewhere - that Wallace committed the murder whilst he was naked and then washed himself (hence the blood spot on the lavatory seat that he may have overlooked) and got dressed to go to his appointment.

I just can't see that scenario, though it's probably possible.

He would have had to plan the murder extremely carefully, and of course, being a chess player he was used to forward thinking and anticipating his next move.

It's difficult to believe the coincidence that Wallace had decided to murder his wife on the same evening that a hoaxer lured him from home thus giving him an alibi.

P.D. James builds a picture of Wallace as a man worn down by failure and disappointment who eventually cracked: "Perhaps when he struck the first tremendous blow that killed her, and the 10 afterwards delivered with such force, it was years of striving and constant disappointment that he was obliterating."

Having said all of that, I still think Parry was the more likely suspect.

[ColdCaseJury]

I'll also throw in another very basic question. Regardless of the time of delivery, could Wallace even rely upon Close seeing his wife at all that evening? Wouldn't Close be more concerned with leaving the milk on the step and hurrying on to the next delivery? [I'm assuming here that Close didn't need to speak to Mrs Wallace.

OneRound, a warm welcome to the thread. You raise a good point: it is possible that Close could have delivered the milk without seeing Julia. Although, I suspect it would be quite likely that she would be seen by him because I think he only delivered to the Wallaces and the Johnstons. However, I think your point is that Wallace could not presume this would be so and, despite the set-up call the night before, everything would hang on Close seeing Julia; Wallace was playing by the odds, rather than deterministic planning.

[OneRound]

OneRound, a warm welcome to the thread. You raise a good point: it is possible that Close could have delivered the milk without seeing Julia. Although, I suspect it would be quite likely that she would be seen by him because I think he only delivered to the Wallaces and the Johnstons. However, I think your point is that Wallace could not presume this would be so and, despite the set-up call the night before, everything would hang on Close seeing Julia; Wallace was playing by the odds, rather than deterministic planning.

Thanks, ColdCaseJury.

In order to benefit Wallace if he were guilty and looking to manufacture an alibi from the young milko - as well as it being essential that Close saw Julia, Close (or someone else) would also have to be able to specify the time he did, especially if he arrived towards the end of his usual half-hour delivery window. As I mentioned in my earlier post, if Close had seen Julia at, say, 6:25 pm that would not have helped Wallace's alibi much if Close could only say the delivery was some time between 6 o'clock and half-past as it usually was and no-one else could add anything to that.

In that scenario, Wallace murdering his wife and doing everything else at breakneck speed from 6:25 pm wouldn't really have been of any consequence or benefitted any alibi as he could have had from 6:00 pm to do it as far as the police and jury would have been concerned.

As it happened, Wildman vouched for the time of the late delivery. However, Wallace could not have foreseen that happening. Well, I assume he couldn't and further assume that Wildman was a thoroughly reputable witness.

Best regards,
OneRound

[ColdCaseJury]

If Close had seen Julia at, say, 6:25 pm that would not have helped Wallace's alibi much if Close could only say the delivery was some time between 6 o'clock and half-past as it usually was and no-one else could add anything to that.

OneRound, I see your point. However, Close wore a wristwatch and had sight of nearby church clock, so he might have been able to provide a more specific time, rather than just a half an hour slot. And, as AmericanSherlock points out, had Close seen Julia at 6:25pm then the timeline shifts forward by 15 minutes; not a huge problem for Wallace.

I think your stronger point is that, in devising his plan, Wallace could never be certain that Close would see Julia. Without this sighting, Wallace would have had from the time he arrived home to kill his wife, and his alibi would have been sunk. Would he have risked this?

Thoughts anyone?

[John G]

OneRound, I see your point. However, Close wore a wristwatch and had sight of nearby church clock, so he might have been able to provide a more specific time, rather than just a half an hour slot. And, as AmericanSherlock points out, had Close seen Julia at 6:25pm then the timeline shifts forward by 15 minutes; not a huge problem for Wallace.

I think your stronger point is that, in devising his plan, Wallace could never be certain that Close would see Julia. Without this sighting, Wallace would have had from the time he arrived home to kill his wife, and his alibi would have been sunk. Would he have risked this?

Thoughts anyone?

I would still maintain that Close would be a poor alibi however you look at it. Thus, if Close arrives late, say 6:45 as he originally claimed, then clearly he's not going to be able to make the 7:06 tram. Therefore, if he, say, arrives at the tram stop at 7:20 the police are still going to argue he had sufficient time. Worse, he's now got to explain why he left so late, i.e. to a point where he was obviously not going to be on time for the Qualtrough appointment.

[OneRound]

OneRound, I see your point. However, Close wore a wristwatch and had sight of nearby church clock, so he might have been able to provide a more specific time, rather than just a half an hour slot. And, as AmericanSherlock points out, had Close seen Julia at 6:25pm then the timeline shifts forward by 15 minutes; not a huge problem for Wallace.

I think your stronger point is that, in devising his plan, Wallace could never be certain that Close would see Julia. Without this sighting, Wallace would have had from the time he arrived home to kill his wife, and his alibi would have been sunk. Would he have risked this?

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks again, ColdCaseJury.

My (too?) early thoughts are that Wallace's alibi was genuine and not manufactured.

Little is impossible but I struggle to buy the concept of this sickly middle aged man stripping off and then in the nuddy doing his wife in. Also, if Wallace had arranged for someone else to kill Julia, why not make sure it happened whilst he was ordinarily elsewhere (for example, at work or the chess club) rather than going off on a fool's errand to see the non-existent Qualtrough which was always going to attract suspicion?

More likely in my opinion at this stage that the Qualtrough call was to get Wallace out of the way. Sure, some of Wallace's actions on the night seem odd but - and there's a joke fighting with a serious point here - probably not that odd for a geeky, chess playing insurance official.

Anyway, I'll leave it there for now. A lot more reading to do.

Best regards,
OneRound

[John G]

It has been said - and I'm sure it will be on this thread somewhere - that Wallace committed the murder whilst he was naked and then washed himself (hence the blood spot on the lavatory seat that he may have overlooked) and got dressed to go to his appointment.

I just can't see that scenario, though it's probably possible.

He would have had to plan the murder extremely carefully, and of course, being a chess player he was used to forward thinking and anticipating his next move.

It's difficult to believe the coincidence that Wallace had decided to murder his wife on the same evening that a hoaxer lured him from home thus giving him an alibi.

P.D. James builds a picture of Wallace as a man worn down by failure and disappointment who eventually cracked: "Perhaps when he struck the first tremendous blow that killed her, and the 10 afterwards delivered with such force, it was years of striving and constant disappointment that he was obliterating."

Having said all of that, I still think Parry was the more likely suspect.

Hi Louisa,

Julia was subjected to a frenzied and sustained attack. Blood was found on the furniture, and on the walls it reached 7ft high. Her assailant therefore must have been covered in blood.

The question, therefore, is how did Wallace clean the blood off his person? No traces were found in the drains, sinks or bath despite chemical testing. Only single gobule, a sixteenth of an inch in diameter, was found on the toilet rim, and even that may have been caused by one of the police officers who were traipsing through the house.

And what of the murder weapon? What did Wallace do with it? The police searched the locality, including the drains, extensively and found nothing. Moreover, he could hardly have walked out of the house carrying a poker or iron bar covered in blood. He therefore must have secreted it on his person, but that would mean that blood would get on to his clothing. However, his clothing was examined at the police station and not a trace of blood was found.