Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

I think that if Lily Hall did witness Wallace speaking to someone at 8:40 as she claimed, possibly a co-conspirator, then that person is very unlikely to be Parry.

Thus, he claimed that he left the Brine residence at about 8:30, and this is supported by witnesses, although I've hypothesized that he could have left a little earlier, say, 8:15. According to his girlfriend, Lily Lloyd, she saw him between 8:30 and 9:00, but closer to 9:00. However, in the intervening period he bought some cigarettes and a paper from the post office on Maiden Lane, purchased an accumulator from Hignett's on West Derby Road, and then called to Mrs Williamson-to receive a 21st invite- at Lisburn Lane, who he chatted to for 10 minutes. That surely leaves insufficient time for him to have met Wallace at 8:40.

[louisa]

The call was received at the exchange at 7:15pm, the precise time that William said he left home in order to catch the tram.

Said he left home. Hmmm
.

[John G]

Said he left home. Hmmm
.

Yes, but he would be taking an enormous risk if he actually took the bus, rather than the tram, and then lied about it, as there were presumably lots of passengers, as well as the conductor, who could potentially identify him, particularly when you take into consideration his distinctive appearance. And if he didn't at least take the bus, he wouldn't have been able to arrive at the club at the time he did.

[Pcdunn]

I think as regards the money, Wallace took as many precautions as were reasonable in the circumstances, I.e. securing the takings in a cash box and instructing Julia to bolt the doors after he left. Thus, he wasn't particularly well off so I would doubt if he could afford a safe. Moreover, the takings only amount to £4, which even in today's money would only equate to about £245: http://inflation.stephenmorley.org . In fact, there was more personal money in the house, which was untouched, such as the money in Julia's purse and £5 which was kept in a dish in the bedroom.

All of this, of course, undermines the argument that the central motive was robbery.

Thank you for the information, John.

Okay, let's think about this: if it isn't a robbery that included a murder, was it possibly a murder meant to be blamed on the recent break-in culprit? Or at least lumped in with the other burglaries?

[AmericanSherlock]

Thank you for the information, John.

Okay, let's think about this: if it isn't a robbery that included a murder, was it possibly a murder meant to be blamed on the recent break-in culprit? Or at least lumped in with the other burglaries?

I think more a murder meant to be blamed on "Qualtrough". The call the night before indicated that; if the plan was to look like it was the Anfield Housebreaker, then the call itself belies that. The housebreaker likely wouldn't call the chess club as Qualtrough.

[louisa]

The gas fire in the parlour was lit. I think it is doubtful that the Wallaces would light a fire in a room that was not in use, which makes me think that Julia lit the fire for her guest - whoever that was.

The Wallaces used to have their music gigs in that room but on the night of the murder only Julia was home. If she was not expecting a guest she would have stayed in the warm kitchen, mending her clothes.

And if she had an unexpected visitor she probably wouldn't have lit the fire unless she knew the person and wanted them to stay awhile.

Another thought.....if Wallace was the murderer then surely he would have put on more of a show of grief? The fact that he sat calmly by the stove, stroking the cat is probably exactly how this particular man would have reacted.


And an unrelated point and from a girly perspective - I feel rather sorry for poor Julia - having her personal and secret 'unconventional' underpinnings revealed for the world to speculate upon for evermore.

Let that be a lesson to women everywhere. Always be wearing nice, or at least, reasonably decent underwear, even if you think no-one's going to see it.
.

[John G]

The gas fire in the parlour was lit. I think it is doubtful that the Wallaces would light a fire in a room that was not in use, which makes me think that Julia lit the fire for her guest - whoever that was.

The Wallaces used to have their music gigs in that room but on the night of the murder only Julia was home. If she was not expecting a guest she would have stayed in the warm kitchen, mending her clothes.

And if she had an unexpected visitor she probably wouldn't have lit the fire unless she knew the person and wanted them to stay awhile.

Another thought.....if Wallace was the murderer then surely he would have put on more of a show of grief? The fact that he sat calmly by the stove, stroking the cat is probably exactly how this particular man would have reacted.


And an unrelated point and from a girly perspective - I feel rather sorry for poor Julia - having her personal and secret 'unconventional' underpinnings revealed for the world to speculate upon for evermore.

Let that be a lesson to women everywhere. Always be wearing nice, or at least, reasonably decent underwear, even if you think no-one's going to see it.
.

Hi Louisa,

I think you've highlighted an important point. The parlour was actually the last room Wallace checked after gaining entry to the house: he initially searched for his wife in the kitchen, before rushing upstairs to check the bedrooms, bathrooms and his laboratory, believing his wife may have retired to bed on account of her heavy cold; the parlour was the last place he checked, implying that it was the the last place he expected his wife to be.

I also think it relevant that William made repeated reference to the Macintosh, telling Florence Johnson, "Whatever is she doing with her Macintosh...and my Macintosh." Therefore, if he was the killer is it likely that he would be minded to draw repeated attention to this important clue?

[louisa]

Yes, I think the Mackintosh has some relevance. It seems strange that it was burnt at the hem. Julia's skirt was also burnt. Could the killer have been wearing the mac when he attacked Julia and there was a bit of a struggle, both of them going against the fire, before his hand alighted on something to clobber her with?

He took off the mac when he left because it was covered in blood and just chucked it down beside Julia.

All this has probably already been covered on this thread but I am just now re-reading my books. I haven't got far, as you can see.

A couple more little points....Wallace bolted the back door after Johnstone left to find a policeman, which is a bit odd.

When the Johnstones were present Wallace reached up and removed the cash tin (and saw money had been stolen) then replaced it neatly back up there instead of leaving it open on the kitchen table for the police to see.
.

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, I think the Mackintosh has some relevance. It seems strange that it was burnt at the hem. Julia's skirt was also burnt. Could the killer have been wearing the mac when he attacked Julia and there was a bit of a struggle, both of them going against the fire, before his hand alighted on something to clobber her with?

He took off the mac when he left because it was covered in blood and just chucked it down beside Julia.

All this has probably already been covered on this thread but I am just now re-reading my books. I haven't got far, as you can see.

A couple more little points....Wallace bolted the back door after Johnstone left to find a policeman, which is a bit odd.

When the Johnstones were present Wallace reached up and removed the cash tin (and saw money had been stolen) then replaced it neatly back up there instead of leaving it open on the kitchen table for the police to see.
.

There were no signs of defensive wounds and it seems Julia was hit from behind, possibly while lighting the fireplace, although not necessarily. The lack of any sign of a struggle points further to a premeditated act imo.

[John G]

Yes, I think the Mackintosh has some relevance. It seems strange that it was burnt at the hem. Julia's skirt was also burnt. Could the killer have been wearing the mac when he attacked Julia and there was a bit of a struggle, both of them going against the fire, before his hand alighted on something to clobber her with?

He took off the mac when he left because it was covered in blood and just chucked it down beside Julia.

All this has probably already been covered on this thread but I am just now re-reading my books. I haven't got far, as you can see.

A couple more little points....Wallace bolted the back door after Johnstone left to find a policeman, which is a bit odd.

When the Johnstones were present Wallace reached up and removed the cash tin (and saw money had been stolen) then replaced it neatly back up there instead of leaving it open on the kitchen table for the police to see.
.

The police argued that Wallace murdered his wife whilst wearing the Mac, otherwise being naked (apparently this strategy had been used before). However, this would not have prevented him getting a considerable amount of blood on his person, due to the ferocity of the attack, as evidenced by the fact that blood was found on the furniture, and on the walls where it reached seven foot in height.

[louisa]

The police argued that Wallace murdered his wife whilst wearing the Mac, otherwise being naked (apparently this strategy had been used before). However, this would not have prevented him getting a considerable amount of blood on his person, due to the ferocity of the attack, as evidenced by the fact that blood was found on the furniture, and on the walls where it reached seven foot in height.

I don't think Wallace was guilty. He probably wouldn't have had time to clean up sufficiently and compose himself enough to be able to go out and seem quite normal to others.

Although... stranger things have happened.

I wonder why the killer dragged Julia's body away from the fire? The book I'm reading says it looked as though someone had dragged her, first by the neckline of her clothing and then by her hair. Why not let her stay where she fell?
.

[ColdCaseJury]

I don't think Wallace was guilty. He probably wouldn't have had time to clean up sufficiently and compose himself enough to be able to go out and seem quite normal to others.

Although... stranger things have happened.

I wonder why the killer dragged Julia's body away from the fire? The book I'm reading says it looked as though someone had dragged her, first by the neckline of her clothing and then by her hair. Why not let her stay where she fell?
.

In my book, I suggest she fell partially onto the gas Sunbeam fire when first struck. This would account for burning of her skirt and the mackintosh, as well as why she was moved.

[louisa]

I think that if Lily Hall did witness Wallace speaking to someone at 8:40 as she claimed, possibly a co-conspirator, then that person is very unlikely to be Parry.

I think Lily Hall simply wanted her 15 minutes of fame. She wanted to be part of the story. And she succeeded.

Thanks CCJ for clarification re: Julia's skirt and the mac.
.

[Charles Daniels]

Thank you for setting these points out so clearly. I agree with you that these are points that Wallace could not count on. What it also helps to explain, perhaps, is why the call was made from a phone booth close to the Wallace home- the caller kept an eye on the house waiting for Wallace to leave so that caller could first be sure that he was going that night (which was not guaranteed) and second that while he was going he was not there yet.

Cheers!
Thanks!
Yes that makes perfect sense to me.

The testimony about the voice is absolutely vital.
To me it leaves only the possibilities of Wallace as innocent, Wallace with a co-conspirator, or silly season if we assume it's innocently unconnected.

I think it rules out Wallace acting alone, without some call to Wallace inventing and preparing for the perfect crime in a mere 24 hours

[Charles Daniels]

There is an unlikely outside possibility:

The call was a simple prank

Wallace asked some people about this address

A person became aware that Wallace had the appointment and may attend it

So they decided to use that opportunity to enter his home

So someone known to Wallace, or someone who overheard the discussion about the address or heard the message delivered to him?