Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

Hi John,

But if Wallace did it, we can be fairly sure of two things: firstly the controlled, stoical personality he needed to plan it, go through with it and never crack, even under the intense scrutiny that was bound to follow him to his own grave; and secondly his need to make absolutely certain Julia was quite dead before he left that house - which would explain the overkill. He didn't have time to hang around in case she might regain consciousness, so why would he not have used the greatest force possible, to deliver enough blows in quick succession to do the job?



Well Julia wasn't stabbed like Tabram, for a start, and do we know for a fact that Julia's killer could not have attacked her from behind? Would he have risked letting her see him coming at her with the weapon, whoever he was?

With poison - and no other obvious cause of death - it would have been looked for, with the very real risk of evidence for it being found, which would inevitably have left Wallace right in the soup. Strangulation or suffocation takes time - and as much strength as beating to death. And to be fair, nobody to this day can describe the precise 'technique' applied to the ripper victims.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.

Well, poisonings can be attributed to death by natural causes; and don't forget Wallace's interest in chemistry. For instance, George Chapman managed to poison several of his wives, without initially attracting suspicion. And, of course, more recently Harold Shipman poisoned over 200 of his patients. An autopsy would have no doubt revealed the truth, however, for that to happen the death would have to be regarded as suspicious; but as there was no evidence of any animosity in their relationship, and therefore no motive for murder, I think that would have been an unlikely scenario.

Strangulation, or suffocation, would have had a number of advantages over simply beating his wife to death. For instance, if Wallace was the killer his biggest problem was time pressure. However, if he used either of the aforementioned alternative methods he would have avoided the time-consuming requirement of washing blood off himself, getting dressed after attacking his wife and whilst naked (as the police suggested), as well as having to dispose of a murder weapon.

[louisa]

Also, they found that piece of cloth - described as a kind of 'diaper'? - attached inside her underwear, despite no signs of her menstruating, if I recall what Goodman wrote about it. Could she have been intending to use it to hide a multitude of sins from hubby when he came home to bed?

"A multitude of sins?" Hmmm

Women of a certain age tend to leak urine, don't they? I'm nowhere near that age so I'm just guessing.

There were no Tena Lady pads in those days so presumably women had to make their own pads.

I'm just guessing but I'd say Julia could be described as a woman of a 'certain age', who would probably be flattered by a little male attention after living a dull existence with Mr. Boring.

Gordon Parry, wouldn't have been genuinely interested in Julia though, but maybe wanted to get his own back on Wallace for snitching to the bosses about his pilfering. He may have visited Julia on other occasions, fairly innocently, just a bit of flirting, but this time the knowledge that folding money was up there on the shelf, so close, was all too much. Julia came in and tried to take the tin from him.....a scuffle ensued and he hit her - and thought he'd better finish the job, so kept on hitting her.

Although, If she was expecting her fancy man then surely she would have tarted herself up a bit. I know nobody looks their best when they're lying in a pool of blood with their brains spilling out, but it looks like she was wearing an old cardie....and I would think those Nora Batty stockings would be a real passion killer for most men.
.
.

[John G]

Hi again John,

So on balance, who do you believe? Did Lily Hall see Wallace talking to another man or not? If she did, why did Wallace deny it? If she was mistaken, her evidence counts for nothing - for or against.



Not that strange really. Kate McCann said "They've taken her", when she reported her daughter Madeleine missing from their holiday apartment in Portugal. When an unknown person is involved, it's normal - and perfectly good English - to use "they" for the singular "he" [or "she" as the case may be]. It would be odder to say: "He's finished her", with no clue who "he" could be.



I agree. But has anyone ever put forward the theory that Julia did have a secret lover, who only visited her when Wallace was going to be out of the house? If Wallace didn't know about any such visits, "musical" or otherwise, he could not have recorded them in his diary, could he? What if Julia and her lover were the conspirators, plotting to lure the innocent, unsuspecting husband out of the house that Tuesday evening? Might that explain the bolted doors perhaps? Was there a row between the couple that ended in her brutal murder? Did the unknown killer then stage a quick robbery in case she had told anyone about him, before slipping out of the back door - possibly while Wallace was trying the front door in vain?



If Wallace was "sexually odd", in a way that left Julia feeling frustrated in the bedroom, I could easily see how she might have taken a lover without wanting to hurt her husband or end the marriage. She could then have been instrumental in making sure he would leave in time to keep the Qualtrough appointment, and letting her lover in when both Close and Wallace had been and gone. Also, they found that piece of cloth - described as a kind of 'diaper'? - attached inside her underwear, despite no signs of her menstruating, if I recall what Goodman wrote about it. Could she have been intending to use it to hide a multitude of sins from hubby when he came home to bed?

Please tell me something of the sort could not have happened, as I think I would still prefer it to have been Wallace!

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz (again!),

The evidence of Lily Hall is actually quite difficult to undermine, as I argued in Post 430. Moreover, I would still contend that Wallace was distinctive looking, therefore difficult to confuse with someone else, especially if he looked like a meerkat!

I also believe that it's perfectly plausible that she had a secret lover, perhaps even Parry, and you make some very good points to support this argument. I would also still maintain that the fact Wallace didn't refer to the "musical interludes", that his wife and Parry engaded in, in his diary might suggest she had something to hide. And, regarding the Macintosh, is it possible that Julia could have spread this on the floor so that she could lie on it with her lover?

However, I think the robbery is the biggest problem with this theory. Thus, having murdered Julia, in what was probably an unplanned attack, wouldn't a secret lover's first instinct be to flea the scene of the crime? Would he have risked drawing the attention of neighbours by ransacking the room?

[John G]

John, I like the points you make in your last post. I guess my point is logical. Think of all the evidence that points to Wallace's guilt. Let call this set, E. I believe E is completely consistent with Wallace acting as part of conspiracy, except we can add to it Hall's testimony and it neutralises any timing issues (time of death, sufficient time to do everything, including dispose of weapon).

Wallace's motive doesn't change whether he acted alone or with others. I think the trust issue is a problem for the theory. But what if Wallace hired someone?

In other words, isn't the body of available evidence most consistent with Wallace acting with someone, perhaps someone we don't know? This does not mean it is the most likely theory because we need to take in the antecedent improbability that Wallace hired a killer or trusted someone else.

Hi CCJ,

I think the hired hit man theory is problematic. For instance, how would Wallace have come into contact with such a person? After all, this was 1930s Liverpool, not 1930s Chicago!

And how would Wallace, who wasn't that well off, have afforded the services of an assassin? You may argue that the insurance money was the intended payment, but I somehow doubt this would be sufficient. Moreover, once the accomplice became aware of the insurance money, why not simply rob the place, rather than risk the gallows by committing a murder?

[John G]

"A multitude of sins?" Hmmm

Women of a certain age tend to leak urine, don't they? I'm nowhere near that age so I'm just guessing.

There were no Tena Lady pads in those days so presumably women had to make their own pads.

I'm just guessing but I'd say Julia could be described as a woman of a 'certain age', who would probably be flattered by a little male attention after living a dull existence with Mr. Boring.

Gordon Parry, wouldn't have been genuinely interested in Julia though, but maybe wanted to get his own back on Wallace for snitching to the bosses about his pilfering. He may have visited Julia on other occasions, fairly innocently, just a bit of flirting, but this time the knowledge that folding money was up there on the shelf, so close, was all too much. Julia came in and tried to take the tin from him.....a scuffle ensued and he hit her - and thought he'd better finish the job, so kept on hitting her.

Although, If she was expecting her fancy man then surely she would have tarted herself up a bit. I know nobody looks their best when they're lying in a pool of blood with their brains spilling out, but it looks like she was wearing an old cardie....and I would think those Nora Batty stockings would be a real passion killer for most men.
.
.

Hi Louisa,

As these were more conservative times, and Julia was a woman of a certain age, maybe she only possessed dowdy clothing!

Moreover, if Parry was the lover, and assuming his "alibi" had any credence at all, I think it's safe to assume that he must have called round very late, I.e. close to the time Wallace was expected back. That would imply that he'd initially, at least, changed his mind about the assignation; in fact, maybe he was planning to end the relationship, and that could have lead to an argument, ultimately resulting in Julia's death. In such circumstances, it's reasonable to assume that Julia would have changed back into her everyday clothing as she awaited her husband's return.

[louisa]

Hi Louisa,

As these were more conservative times, and Julia was a woman of a certain age, maybe she only possessed dowdy clothing!

Probably. Unlike today, where anything goes, whatever age you happen to be.

Thanks John.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi CCJ,

I think the hired hit man theory is problematic. For instance, how would Wallace have come into contact with such a person? After all, this was 1930s Liverpool, not 1930s Chicago!

And how would Wallace, who wasn't that well off, have afforded the services of an assassin? You may argue that the insurance money was the intended payment, but I somehow doubt this would be sufficient. Moreover, once the accomplice became aware of the insurance money, why not simply rob the place, rather than risk the gallows by committing a murder?

Don't forget that when we talk of a 'hit man' we are not talking about a gun-carrying gangster so your reference to Chicago is a little misleading. We are taking about someone who bludgeoned Julia - that could be any able bodied male, perhaps one out of work and desperate for cash. There were plenty of those in Liverpool in the 1930s, unfortunately.

I agree a 'hit man' theory would have problems, just like all the others. You raise good questions, but miss my point perhaps. First look at the evidence we do have - where does it point?

[caz]

Hi Caz.

Well, poisonings can be attributed to death by natural causes; and don't forget Wallace's interest in chemistry. For instance, George Chapman managed to poison several of his wives, without initially attracting suspicion. And, of course, more recently Harold Shipman poisoned over 200 of his patients. An autopsy would have no doubt revealed the truth, however, for that to happen the death would have to be regarded as suspicious; but as there was no evidence of any animosity in their relationship, and therefore no motive for murder, I think that would have been an unlikely scenario.

Hi John,

Julia was neither old nor suffering from any obviously life-threatening illness. She was middle aged and had a cold. If her killer had poisoned her, whether gradually over several days or weeks, or with one fatal dose on the night in question, the doctor would still have required a cause of death before issuing a death certificate. Her eventual or sudden collapse would have been suspicious - or at least puzzling enough - in its own right to warrant a post-mortem examination. And Wallace would no doubt have hanged as a result.

Chapman was operating in less enlightened times, and Shipman targeted elderly patients who were, in the main, expected to shuffle off at any time, and his profession helped him to disguise their deaths as natural and avoid any suspicion falling on himself (until the sheer numbers woke enough people up).

Love,

Caz
X

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi John,

Julia was neither old nor suffering from any obviously life-threatening illness.

Hi Caz, she was 69 when she died. I don't know if this qualifies as old or middle-aged! According to her doctor, she was quite sickly (but nothing serious, as you say).

[John G]

Don't forget that when we talk of a 'hit man' we are not talking about a gun-carrying gangster so your reference to Chicago is a little misleading. We are taking about someone who bludgeoned Julia - that could be any able bodied male, perhaps one out of work and desperate for cash. There were plenty of those in Liverpool in the 1930s, unfortunately.

I agree a 'hit man' theory would have problems, just like all the others. You raise good questions, but miss my point perhaps. First look at the evidence we do have - where does it point?

Okay, you make a fair point about the Chicago analogy. However, if Wallace recruited someone who was, say, down on his luck he would have been taking an enormous risk. I mean, surely the most likely scenario is that such an individual would just take the money and run. I also think there's a reasonable likelihood that such an amateur would botch the murder attempt.

However, what do you think of theory that Wallace could have been involved in a relationship with another man? Parry, for instance, implied that he was sexually odd when speaking to Jonathan Goodman. Of course, if Julia found out about the relationship, which at the time would have constituted a criminal offence, and threatened to go to the authorities, he would have been facing the prospect of a prison sentence. In such circumstances, I can see how his lover might agree to commit murder.

Just returning to the point as to whether Wallace was distinctive looking, Parry also told Goodman that he was, "a very strange man, very peculiar looking and immensely tall."

[John G]

Hi John,

Julia was neither old nor suffering from any obviously life-threatening illness. She was middle aged and had a cold. If her killer had poisoned her, whether gradually over several days or weeks, or with one fatal dose on the night in question, the doctor would still have required a cause of death before issuing a death certificate. Her eventual or sudden collapse would have been suspicious - or at least puzzling enough - in its own right to warrant a post-mortem examination. And Wallace would no doubt have hanged as a result.

Chapman was operating in less enlightened times, and Shipman targeted elderly patients who were, in the main, expected to shuffle off at any time, and his profession helped him to disguise their deaths as natural and avoid any suspicion falling on himself (until the sheer numbers woke enough people up).

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I take your point about Chapman and Shipman, although as Antony points out, Julia was 69 at time when life expectancy for women was only around 62: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html.

Of course, the real question isn't whether Wallace would have got away with poisoning Julia, but whether he would have believed that he would.

[caz]

Hi Caz, she was 69 when she died. I don't know if this qualifies as old or middle-aged! According to her doctor, she was quite sickly (but nothing serious, as you say).

Point taken, CCJ. I don't recall Goodman mentioning Julia's real age, and I've only just started Roger Wilkes's book. Could you explain the age discrepancy for me please?

Many thanks.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I take your point about Chapman and Shipman, although as Antony points out, Julia was 69 at time when life expectancy for women was only around 62: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html.

Of course, the real question isn't whether Wallace would have got away with poisoning Julia, but whether he would have believed that he would.

Thanks John. Well if his interest in chemistry was known about - or could easily have come to light - he'd have been taking a double risk by choosing poison and hoping her death certificate would record some natural cause and not be questioned.

The method adopted by the killer doesn't help to clear or incriminate Wallace. But if he was guilty it wasn't a bad choice, because it was plausibly a spur-of-the-moment act of brutality by someone who picked up the nearest blunt instrument, which would not fit well with Wallace setting the whole thing up with the Qualtrough call the night before. It would fit better with someone who wanted access to Julia and/or the family valuables, but hadn't intended to commit the capital crime of murder.

I still think it's possible that Julia and a lover arranged the Qualtrough business - the unfamiliar name and non-existent address - to give themselves some more time together, and something went horribly wrong. Sex is a strong enough motivator to want a husband out of the way, but with Julia still in the house and not a huge amount to steal, a money motive would seem weaker, and smacks to me of a red herring.

I realise a lover would have preferred to get out sharpish after killing the object of his being there, but he'd have felt safer in the long run to stage the robbery if there was any chance that Julia had confided in a friend about his existence. It would be unlikely, in my view, that Julia would have gone into fine details with a friend about times and places, but she might have let a name slip, or something else that could help identify the man. If the police found him and asked questions, at least the robbery would suggest a motive other than adultery.

Incidentally, Parry wouldn't necessarily have been the lover if she took one. It could have been anyone really, as she must have gone out shopping and so on by herself on occasions, and there will always be men out there who can use flattery to good advantage, and don't care who they use it on if it does the trick. If there was a sexual imbalance between the Wallaces, or perhaps a lack of physical affection on his part (he said he patted her on the shoulder as he left, not even a peck on the cheek), a woman of 69 was not too old to yearn for some intimacy. Either of them could have been feeling the age difference more keenly by this stage of the relationship, with Wallace possibly losing interest in the physical side, and Julia in turn needing reassurance that she wasn't totally past it.

Blimey, I'd better watch out, I am older than my old man to the tune of four and a half years.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

By the way, while I take the point about lower life expectancy in the early 1930s, it would depend on whether the figures include infant mortality, let alone all the infectious illnesses, industrial accidents and so on, which would have finished a person off long before they could make old bones, and which have become far less common these days or been virtually wiped out. With no antibiotics, and precious few health and safety considerations, you either survived to an old age not far removed from today's, due to immunity, strong genes or good fortune, or you didn't. I wonder if the proverbial three score years and ten have really shifted all that much over the centuries when such factors are taken into account.

Love,

Caz
X

[ColdCaseJury]

Point taken, CCJ. I don't recall Goodman mentioning Julia's real age, and I've only just started Roger Wilkes's book. Could you explain the age discrepancy for me please?

Many thanks.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, Julia Wallace (nee Denis) was born in 1861. This biographical bombshell was discovered by James Murphy, and verified by John Gannon. It appears Julia lied about her age when she got married. As I point out in my book, William must have realised that she was a lot older than she said, especially ten years into the marriage... yet, he told the police she was 52 years old when she died.

An important upshot is that we know nothing of Julia's life from (approx) 1875 - 1905. What happened in these 'lost' 30 years? Does it have any bearing on her death? We don't know.