Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[ColdCaseJury]

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.

I understand. I say in my book: "Wallace would have always been in the frame for the murder the moment that he arrived home for tea to when he left to keep the appointment."

I think this is your point, too.

[louisa]

Hi John - Yes that is a puzzle. I expect ColdCaseJury has an answer but until I get my Kindle working again I won't be able to read it.

It's been a while since I read my two books on this case so I can't quite remember all the details.

I was going to say that maybe he didn't get changed after murdering Julia but simply washed his his hands and face and put his overcoat or mac over the top of his bloody clothes and went out to his appointment, maybe cleaning himself up in a public toilet on his journey back. Perhaps he had a change of clothes in his briefcase? But of course then he would have been back home a lot later. And there is the problem of disposing of his bloody clothes.

He knew he was not going to have to take his coat off at his destination because there was no genuine appointment.

A mac was folded up under Julia's head wasn't it? This is normally a sign that the attacker has some feelings for his victim and has some remorse. A frenzied beating doesn't sound like something a killer would plan but could happen in a sudden burst of anger.

The poker could have been removed from the house by Wallace, put inside an oilskin cover, into his briefcase and disposed of en route. Or else hidden in the house, maybe pushed into the back of the fire grate? Wallace would have known all the nooks and crannies in that house.

[John G]

Hi John - Yes that is a puzzle. I expect ColdCaseJury has an answer but until I get my Kindle working again I won't be able to read it.

It's been a while since I read my two books on this case so I can't quite remember all the details.

I was going to say that maybe he didn't get changed after murdering Julia but simply washed his his hands and face and put his overcoat or mac over the top of his bloody clothes and went out to his appointment, maybe cleaning himself up in a public toilet on his journey back. Perhaps he had a change of clothes in his briefcase? But of course then he would have been back home a lot later. And there is the problem of disposing of his bloody clothes.

He knew he was not going to have to take his coat off at his destination because there was no genuine appointment.

A mac was folded up under Julia's head wasn't it? This is normally a sign that the attacker has some feelings for his victim and has some remorse. A frenzied beating doesn't sound like something a killer would plan but could happen in a sudden burst of anger.

The poker could have been removed from the house by Wallace, put inside an oilskin cover, into his briefcase and disposed of en route. Or else hidden in the house, maybe pushed into the back of the fire grate? Wallace would have known all the nooks and crannies in that house.

Hi Louisa,

I believe Wallace underwent a voluntary search of his clothing at the police station, where he was inspected for traces of blood but none were found. Regarding the poker, it's an interesting idea that it may have been placed into the briefcase, but wouldn't it have been too large to fit?

There was a claim in James Goodman's book that an iron bar was discovered in a narrow channel between the hearth and the back wall, after the fireplace was removed in the mid 1930s.

However, this story doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. To begin with, the police removed the fireplace during the initial investigation and found nothing. Secondly, it wasn't an iron bar that was missing-at least not in the conventional sense-but a piece of iron about a foot long. Thirdly, as far as I know Goldman's story is uncorroborated. Fourthly, as this alleged incident occured only about four years after the crime, presumably there would still be evidence of extensive staining on the bar, i.e. from blood and gore. However, Goldman's book makes no mention of this, and surely the police would not have simply ignored such evidence.

I agree that such a frenzied attack would have been unlikely to have been planed. Of course , the problem is that the police case entirely depends on Wallace planning the crime like an intricate military operation.

[John G]

I understand. I say in my book: "Wallace would have always been in the frame for the murder the moment that he arrived home for tea to when he left to keep the appointment."

I think this is your point, too.

I CCJ,

Yes, I think the point was very well made in your book-and as your account reveals, the police did suspect Wallace almost from the very beginning.

[caz]

The thing is if Wallace was the killer, then he would obviously try to act as quickly as possible and the body would not be discovered until whenever he returned home. So, even forgetting any finical specifics of timing, if he was the killer, then it would naturally follow that there would be a much larger window for someone else to have done it. I don't see this fact changing the probability of him having been the killer, but technically it is true and an interesting way to view it.

Hi AS,

Spot on in my view. If Wallace did it, what would be the point of setting up the elaborate alibi of responding to a bogus telephone message, which would keep him out of the house for a decent period of time, if he then left himself without that alibi by spending too long in the house with Julia between the milk boy's sighting of her and his own departure for the first tram?

Assuming he knew roughly when the milk boy was due, and planned to do the deed as soon as the coast was clear again, I'm not sure it would have mattered when the boy arrived as long as Wallace wasn't kept waiting until it became unfeasibly late to still try and make the appointment. As early as 6pm? No problem. Wallace could have left as soon as possible after that, on the reasonable grounds of not knowing how long it might take him to find the address. Let's face it, he could have spent all night looking and still not found it. 6.45pm? Even as late as 7pm? Again, far from fatal to his plans. Wallace could have left as soon as possible after that, claiming he had been in two minds about going, for a number of perfectly plausible reasons, or had misjudged the time he needed to allow, or had read the clock wrong, or even been stuck on the loo! Such things happen. Better late than never, for a prospective customer who had asked for him by name.

What mattered - arguably all that mattered - was for Wallace to demonstrate reasonable doubt that he could have committed the crime in the time available to him, without leaving any incriminating evidence. Time being of the essence, he'd have been a fool not to leave the house as soon as possible after the milk boy called, regardless of when that was. He couldn't control it, but he had to manage it if he was to take advantage of the Qualtrough business to do it that night. Unlikely that he'd have let a milk boy spoil it all.

Conversely, if Wallace was innocent, the milk boy need not have occupied his thoughts at all. He would be getting ready to leave for the appointment at a suitable time, while the killer would be watching and waiting for the right moment to make his own move. In this case the milk boy's sighting of Julia - regardless of the exact time - proved particularly unlucky for Wallace. He could so easily have left already, and been provably on his outward journey by the time Close saw Julia for the last time, in which case he'd have been in the clear. Ditto if Close had seen Wallace leave the house before he delivered the milk. It must have been a close-run thing either way (no pun intended but gratefully received).

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As per CAZ, the time of death must be between 6:40pm and 8:40pm. Now IF the time of death was estimated at 8pm, then it IS more likely that the murder occurred at 7:45pm or 8:15pm than 6:45pm. And certainly more likely than BEFORE 6pm, which was MacFall's position at the trial, which IS false. So, assuming you accept the 8pm time within a margin of error of say 2 hours then it is, I suggest, a priori more likely that someone else killed her.

Hi CCJ,

I don't see how an estimated time of death (which is inherently unreliable - and was apparently a moveable feast for MacFall) can make it more likely that the murder took place at that precise time, or within 15 minutes of it, than at any other time within the margin of error allowed. Clearly, if we accept the 8pm estimate, and don't allow for up to 2 hours either way, we give Wallace his alibi. If we do allow for any time within that margin of error, in this case from say 6.40 to when the body was seen by the first independent witness, it's anyone's guess.

But wouldn't 8pm have been a problematic estimate for another reason? Would someone who had set up a phoney 7.30 appointment for Wallace the night before, and was eagerly waiting for him to leave the house so he could enter for whatever nefarious purpose, really have been battering Julia to death as late as 8pm?

And then there's Wallace's mackintosh to explain. Goodman suggests the possibility that Julia was wearing it - in the parlour - but doesn't offer a likely explanation for this. Assuming the killer took it off its peg before the murder so he could use it to ward off the worst of any blood splashes, Julia would surely have seen him with it unless she had her back to him all the while. What would she think he was doing with her husband's mackintosh? Whatever it was, it seems she wasn't spooked into screaming or putting up a fierce struggle. But then if it was her husband holding or wearing the mackintosh (concealing the blunt instrument beneath it?), she'd have thought nothing of it, as he was shortly going out on business and this was Liverpool in January. No longer raining? So what? I carry a brolly and sunglasses with me most of the year round as the weather can change in minutes at any time of the year and anywhere in Britain.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello, sorry to butt in.

This is a fascinating case and I can see the discussion has been going for a long time. I haven't yet read the preceding posts, it would take a while to do so.

This question has probably already been answered somewhere in your prior posts, but can somebody explain briefly what Wallace's motive would be for murdering his wife?

I have read two or three books on the case but nothing recently.

Hi Foxx,

If Wallace killed Julia it would almost certainly have been for personal reasons which we are unlikely ever to fathom. If there had been known problems within the marriage he'd have been aware that his chances of getting away with it were pretty poor. But if he was the sort of man who could pull this off, with meticulous planning, and without anyone thinking him capable or in any way dissatisfied with his lot, he would also have been the sort of man to keep his feelings and intentions to himself and put on a good show for his wife, his family and his associates, so he could hope to get away with it if and when he decided she had to go.

To my mind, a motive for anyone else to have murdered Julia is more problematic.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Okay, I think it important to recap on the main reasons why Wallace is such an unlikely suspect, i.e. lack of time to carry out the deeds.

Firstly, what time did Close speak to Julia? On this point Close is a highly unreliable witness. Not only was he not wearing a watch, he initially told two friends that it was about 6:45, which would have completely ruled Wallace out, then lied about it after he revised his timing estimate.

On the other hand, James Alison Wildman is an excellent witness. Thus, he checked a clock-the time was just after 6:35-then about a couple of minutes later he observed Close talking to Julia, i.e. at about 6:38.

How long did this give Wallace to commit the murder and other deeds? Well, he said that he left home at 6:45, and we know he caught a tram at 7:06. The police, however, estimated that he left later, i.e. about 6:48.

But what is the police estimate based upon? Well, using three pairs of officers, during several re-enactments, they were able to reach the tram stop in 19, 15, 17, 20, 18 and 17 minutes respectively, giving an average time of 18 minutes.

However, there are several problems. Firstly, on balance of probabilities I think it doubtful that Wallace would have arrived just as the tram was pulling in at 7:06. He therefore may have arrived at the stop at, say, 7:05, or even earlier.

An even bigger problem is that the officers who were retracing the route were younger and fitter than Wallace, who was 52 years of age, seriously ill and recovering from a bout of flu. Moreover, they were observed by locals sprinting, and even hurdling fences, in their endeavours/desperation to reduce the time. In fact, this created such a spectacle that they were known locally as the Anfield Harriers.

And don't forget, Wallace betrayed no signs of distress when he boarded the tram, suggesting that he must have had a steady walk. I therefore think it possible that it may have taken him as long as 25 minutes-considering that one of the 're-enactments took 20 minutes, giving him just 2 minutes, based upon Wildman's evidence, to commit the murder etc.

Even if we accept that Wallace left at 6:45, as he estimated, that allows for only 7 minutes (although if he arrived at the tram stop at 7:05-it may have been even earlier- then he would have completed the journey as quickly as one of the police attempts, which I consider unlikely).

And what has to occur in that 7 minutes, or less, time frame. Well, assuming he didn't pounce on Julia straight after she finished conversing with Close-and, of course, that conversation would imply a further time delay-there would have been an initial pause.

Next, he had to launch the assault, which would have taken some time as it was a frenzied and sustained attack: and would such a sick person even be capable of such exertions?

He then has to stage the robbery, which in itself would have taken some time, and would further exhaust him.

Then he has to wash all the blood off his person, and clean the bath or sink. And to do so so thoroughly that not a trace of blood was found in the sink, bath or drains: is this even scientifically possible?

He then has to change into his suit, assuming the police were correct about him committing the murder whilst naked; and if they weren't correct, then he's exonerated anyway, as his clothing would be covered in blood, which we know it wasn't.

And surely he would need a minimum of two minutes to recover from these extreme exertions, particularly when you consider his age and the state of his health: don't forget, when he got on the tram he betrayed no sign of physical distress, which would hardly have been likely if he allowed himself no recovery time.

And he did all of this in just 7 minutes maximum, and possibly as little as two minutes.

And he still had to dispose of the murder weapon.

Somehow I don't think so.

[louisa]

Thanks John, that's helpful.

[John G]

Thanks John, that's helpful.

Thanks Louisa! Much appreciated.

[ColdCaseJury]

I don't see how an estimated time of death (which is inherently unreliable - and was apparently a moveable feast for MacFall) can make it more likely that the murder took place at that precise time, or within 15 minutes of it, than at any other time within the margin of error allowed. Clearly, if we accept the 8pm estimate, and don't allow for up to 2 hours either way, we give Wallace his alibi. If we do allow for any time within that margin of error, in this case from say 6.40 to when the body was seen by the first independent witness, it's anyone's guess.

Hi Caz, let me take just one of your points, at least for now. The one above. I believe that when we make an estimate for, say, 8pm, we are saying that 8pm is the most likely time, that's why it is THE estimate within a range of error. We are not assuming that the probability before 6pm (or after 10pm) is zero. It might be negligible but the probability doesn't fall off a cliff - it fades away gradually like a normal curve. And it will increase as we near the estimate (or central tendency).

However, you may be correct in doing away with the estimate and sticking with a flat range: 6pm to 10pm. Now here's an interesting point (I hope!) What circumstantial evidence is there to support the contention that Julia was killed either before or after 8pm? What is so strange about this case is that no noise was heard from the Wallace house that night even though a brutal bludgeoning took place. EXCEPT at one point, and at one point only. The neighbour Mrs Johnston said: "I did not any sound from the Wallaces' house until about 8:25pm... when I heard two loud thumps."

Now (as the song says) this might not impress you much. She might have been mistaken. But it should raise the likelihood for us (even if it is by a small amount) that the death occurred after 8pm. And it fits with MacFall's original estimate (at least according to my interpretation).

Just food for thought.

[John G]

Hi Caz, let me take just one of your points, at least for now. The one above. I believe that when we make an estimate for, say, 8pm, we are saying that 8pm is the most likely time, that's why it is THE estimate within a range of error. We are not assuming that the probability before 6pm (or after 10pm) is zero. It might be negligible but the probability doesn't fall off a cliff - it fades away gradually like a normal curve. And it will increase as we near the estimate (or central tendency).

However, you may be correct in doing away with the estimate and sticking with a flat range: 6pm to 10pm. Now here's an interesting point (I hope!) What circumstantial evidence is there to support the contention that Julia was killed either before or after 8pm? What is so strange about this case is that no noise was heard from the Wallace house that night even though a brutal bludgeoning took place. EXCEPT at one point, and at one point only. The neighbour Mrs Johnston said: "I did not any sound from the Wallaces' house until about 8:25pm... when I heard two loud thumps."

Now (as the song says) this might not impress you much. She might have been mistaken. But it should raise the likelihood for us (even if it is by a small amount) that the death occurred after 8pm. And it fits with MacFall's original estimate (at least according to my interpretation).

Just food for thought.

"About 8:25 pm" could mean just after 8:25. If we hypothesize that it was the assailant that was heard, could it feasibly have been Parry if he left the Brine household at, say, around 8:15-not too far off the "around 8:30" estimate given by Parry and the witnesses?

Does this later time of death hypothesis undermine his alibi?

Could Parry have checked the tram times to estimate, with reasonable accuracy, Wallace's likely time of return? Was he intending all along to use Brine as an alibi? Could he have fiddled with the locks/ latches in order to delay Wallace entering the properly should he arrive home early, giving him time, say, to escape via the back door?

Could both murder and robbery have been a motive? Was he intending to implicate Wallace in the murder?

[caz]

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,

Good to see you here.

My take on it, if Wallace killed his missus, is that Close was an inconvenience to his plans - a close call (sorry!) - rather than anything else. He couldn't risk putting the murder plan into action knowing that Close was due to deliver the milk, in case the boy was expecting to see Julia, or heard or saw something suspicious. Wallace would need to have waited until Close had gone and nobody else was likely to call. I'm not sure the point would have been for Close to see Julia alive at a certain time. Wallace might have been better off if he had no delivery to worry about. As long as he was out of the house for a considerable time, on what was believed to be a wild goose chase set up by the real killer, would he not have been given the benefit of the doubt that the murder could have been committed while he was looking in vain for Menlove Gardens East? The time of death would have been even more tricky to pinpoint without the early parameter of Close seeing Julia alive. Seems to me this didn't help Wallace much because it tended to look like he took his cue from when Close left, in order to commit the crime as quickly as possible before setting off to set up his alibi. With no delivery and no sighting of Julia after say 6pm, Wallace could have taken his time and it would have made little difference to his chances, because who could prove that Julia was not still alive whenever he left the house?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz, let me take just one of your points, at least for now. The one above. I believe that when we make an estimate for, say, 8pm, we are saying that 8pm is the most likely time, that's why it is THE estimate within a range of error. We are not assuming that the probability before 6pm (or after 10pm) is zero. It might be negligible but the probability doesn't fall off a cliff - it fades away gradually like a normal curve. And it will increase as we near the estimate (or central tendency).

However, you may be correct in doing away with the estimate and sticking with a flat range: 6pm to 10pm.

Thanks CCJ. My point was indeed that because we know today how notoriously unreliable time of death estimates were and are, we should perhaps not be using the 8pm one from 1931 as our most likely starting point and working from there.

I do still think the killer - if not Wallace - would have wanted to be in that house, doing what he came to do and getting out again, well before Wallace was likely to return. He must surely have been watching and waiting for Wallace to leave, so assuming he didn't hang about but got Julia to let him in (no sign of forced entry - perhaps she thought it was her husband back, having forgotten something?), what would he have been doing in there for more than an hour if he didn't finally decide to attack her until 8pm or later? What did Julia think he was there for, and did she not suspect something was badly wrong? Did he pinch the cash before or after he killed her? If before, did he do it without Julia realising what he was up to? If afterwards, he took an even bigger risk of Wallace returning while he was still there. If he entered the house much later than say 7pm, bolting the front and back doors to prevent Wallace surprising them, then letting himself out the back while Wallace was trying the front, why so late? If he set up the bogus appointment for 7.30 he would have estimated the time Wallace had to leave, but without watching the house he could have had no idea if Wallace would leave at all.

So many questions - sorry!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

One more observation then I will leave you all in peace for the weekend.

All this time my feeling has been that only Wallace as the murderer - acting alone - makes any real sense. Or perhaps I should say, it seems to be less unlikely and problematic than any other solution. Having said that, you can't convict someone on the grounds of not being presented with an alternative or better suspect! And I do take John G's points on board because time and time again he has made it clear that there are difficulties with the limited opportunity Wallace would have had to do the deed and get clean away. You also can't convict someone on the grounds that while it would have taken very careful planning and been tough for him to execute in the time available, it was not impossible for him to have done it, therefore, as the husband of the victim, he most probably did it.

If some other person, known or unknown, could have been 'Qualtrough'; if someone else could have killed Wallace's wife - for whatever reason - while he was out looking for Qualtrough, he has to have the benefit of the doubt in law and be acquitted for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Still think he did it though.

Love,

Caz
X