Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[louisa]

I remember commenting on the name Qualtrough on this thread a while back and the replies came back that it was quite a common name in the Liverpool district.

[Penhalion]

And yet there's almost no way he CAN be the murderer. He was a frail older man, recovering from a significant illness. Between the last solid sighting of Mrs. Wallace and his boarding the trolley there was barely enough time for a much younger and fitter policeman to make the distance with a scant 10 minutes to do the (rather messy) murder, get cleaned up, and leave. He was not in physical distress or even noticeably winded by his apparent sprint even though the police officers (multiple tries) were.

There was no trace of blood in any of the drains, nor was there any bloody clothing found in or around the house. Beating someone to death is a messy business- whoever did it got blood on them, guaranteed. There was no sign of blood on Wallace.

Although he is sometimes presented as being a chess master, from what I have been able to find, he was an enthusiastic amateur but by no means the ace of his chess club.

He was, as far as can be determined, a dull little man in a dull little job leading a dull little life. If by some quirk of fate he decided to kill his wife (who he never showed any signs of intense dislike for), would he kill her in a dull little way or suddenly have a singular flash of criminal mastermind inspiration and create a murder mystery we are talking about 80 years later?

[Penny_Dredfull]

Penhalion- One could say almost the same things about Lizzie Borden. But, like Wallace, she's the most logical and obvious culprit. None of it is exonerating or qualifies as evidence.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Louisa- The police managed to find exactly four people in the Liverpool area named Qualtrough during their investigation. So, not exactly a common name.

[Penhalion]

The same issues do not apply with Lizzie. There's neither a physical reason she couldn't have done it (healthy woman) nor a time issue (she was admittedly in/around the house and didn't have to get from anywhere to anywhere).

With Wallace, there are many problems with him being the murderer- logistics indicate that he couldn't have physically done it. We will never know if he had motivation to kill his wife, but he did not have the physical ability to do it in the time-frame as we understand it.

[louisa]

Louisa- The police managed to find exactly four people in the Liverpool area named Qualtrough during their investigation. So, not exactly a common name.

Somebody on this thread informed me that there was a fairly large store named Qualtrough's in Anfield at the time of the murder.

[Penhalion]

Reading that name is driving me crazy. Is it pronounced Qual-trow to rhyme with 'even though' or is it pronounced Qualt-ruff to rhyme with 'enough'?

[Penny_Dredfull]

Pcdunn- You're curious about the overcoat that was placed under Mrs. Wallace's body, and you're very right to find that interesting. To me, that is one of the most significant aspects of this murder. What could possibly be the point of carefully folding up a random piece of clothing and placing it under the woman you've just cruelly bludgeoned to death? If you suppose that to be the action of a stranger/thief/intruder then it makes no sense. But when you consider that the overcoat belongs to Mr. Wallace, then I offer this scenario: Wallace wears the overcoat to shield himself as much as possible from the blood spatter. His wife won't think it suspicious that he's wearing said overcoat indoors as he's told her he's going out to meet the mysterious Qualtrough. He bludgeons his wife to death then removes the garment and places it under her head- the most bloody part- to conceal the fact that it is ALREADY covered in blood. This removes the need to hide or destroy it. Besides, he has little time to waste and the overcoat belongs on the scene anyway. Some have suggested that Julia herself was wearing the overcoat indoors because she was cold, but I don't find that convincing. In that case, WHY would her murderer then remove the garment, fold it carefully and place it under her head? The fact is that it is Mr Wallace's own overcoat and it is covered in his dead wife's blood and carefully placed under her body. That's pretty damning to me.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Penhalion- Carla Qualtrough the Canadian MP apparently pronounces it to rhyme with "though". If that's anything to go on.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Louisa- Yes, I've seen a previous post on this thread which mentions the shop called "Qualtrough's". There's a certain well-known store called "Harrod's" but I've never met a Mr. Harrod. At any rate, Qualtrough has never been a common name. We can't even figure out on here how it's even pronounced!

[Penny_Dredfull]

Penhalion- Yet those are exactly the reasons that people at the time reckoned Lizzie couldn't have done it, ie she's just a frail woman, how could a daughter and a Sunday school teacher hack her elders to death? Wallace wasn't that old- 52!- and just how much physical strength does it take to knock an ailing, much older- as much as 17 years older!-woman over the head in a blitz attack where he has the benefit of surprise? Much older men who are by no means Olympic athletes have manged to bash their wives' heads in. It doesn't take that much force- just stun them with an initial great whack and then finish them where they lay...to put it frankly. As for the time, that is a debatable issue, given that we only have Wallace's own word for much of it and the time of death could never be reliably determined. Admittedly the timing of it all is tight but wholly possible in my humble opinion.

[Penhalion]

Okay, we have frail Mr. Wallace beating his wife to death (enthusiastically) with a bar like implement, undoubtedly scattering blood everywhere including themselves, their hair, their hands, and any clothing they might be wearing. The blood spatter is described as going 7 feet up the nearby walls.

He's wearing his overcoat which protects most of his clothing but becomes bloody itself. He removes his overcoat (liberally spotted with blood and possibly other things), folds the coat carefully avoiding getting any of that blood on his hands or other clothing, picks up Mrs. Wallace's bloody head while avoiding getting any of that blood (and possible other stuff) on him or his hands, places the coat under her, puts her down and carefully backs away, still not accidently getting any spattered stuff on himself....all while moving as fast as possible. And why was the coat partially burnt?

Was he also wearing gloves so he didn't get blood on his hands? Blood likes to cling to human skin. If you get a quantity on your skin, it will take careful scrubbing to get all of it off. It's not impossible, but it does take a few minutes. We are really short on time here and each minute or two spent cleaning takes away from the time needed for the murder and/or delays his departure from the house.

What about blood in his hair? If he is drawing the bar back to repeatedly to beat Mrs. Wallace further then the blood on the bar is flying around. The walls of the room are described as blood-spattered. How did the blood not get in his hair? It was very light, probably silvery grey, any blood would show up clearly. Did he wash his hair? Did he wear a hat? If he did, where's the hat?

So. Many. Questions.

[louisa]

Louisa- Yes, I've seen a previous post on this thread which mentions the shop called "Qualtrough's". There's a certain well-known store called "Harrod's" but I've never met a Mr. Harrod. At any rate, Qualtrough has never been a common name. We can't even figure out on here how it's even pronounced!

You're missing the point. I mentioned that there was a store in Anfield named Qualtroughs because it was well known in the area and people were used to seeing it and knew the name. Which could be the reason the telephone caller used it. It wasn't a completely unknown name in the area.

[Penhalion]

Penhalion- Yet those are exactly the reasons that people at the time reckoned Lizzie couldn't have done it, ie she's just a frail woman, how could a daughter and a Sunday school teacher hack her elders to death? Wallace wasn't that old- 52!- and just how much physical strength does it take to knock an ailing, much older- as much as 17 years older!-woman over the head in a blitz attack where he has the benefit of surprise? Much older men who are by no means Olympic athletes have manged to bash their wives' heads in. It doesn't take that much force- just stun them with an initial great whack and then finish them where they lay...to put it frankly. As for the time, that is a debatable issue, given that we only have Wallace's own word for much of it and the time of death could never be reliably determined. Admittedly the timing of it all is tight but wholly possible in my humble opinion.

Lizzie was a healthy girl standing 5'4". That's average for a woman today and slightly tall for a woman back in the day. Just because THEY didn't think a woman could hack someone to death doesn't mean she couldn't. I bet she did all kinds of housework that required good strength- heck just working a 'mangler' washing machine takes some good arm strength. The sexist prejudices of a Victorian New England town don't actually reflect on the reality of Lizzie being able to murder her parents.

Mr. Wallace was a frail, ailing man. Although he was only 52 (two years younger than I am now!) he was in terrible condition. He was just recovering from a fairly serious bout of flu (I believe) and he was also feeling the effects of the kidney disease which would kill him two years later. Just look at his pictures. He may have been chronologically 52 but he looks like he's in his 70's.

Mrs. Wallace might not have been fighting back, but it still takes effort to bludgeon someone. When I chop wood, the wood isn't fighting back but it still takes strength and coordination and gets quite tiring quite quickly.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Penhalion- The blood evidence is a tricky thing because we only have rather vague descriptions of it rather than photographic evidence. I've studied the crime scene photos- NOT the originals, mind, only reproductions in books and online-and the only blood I can make out is under the body and in the basin in the upstairs bathroom/toilet. I can't tell how much splatter there is, or if there are drips,flecks,smears,etc. So it's hard to comment as to how much blood there was or where it went. So much about this case is conjecture. As for the burn marks- apparently there were marks that the investigating authorities termed "burns" or "singes" on both Mrs. Wallace's skirt and the overcoat. They suggested that she may have fallen against the fire when struck- but we can't know that for sure. In the entry way to the front parlour were the body was found were several spent matches. Make of that what you will.