Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Penny_Dredfull]

Penhalion- There are a lot of things we will never know about this case, which makes it both frustrating and intriguing. We don't know that Wallace could have discarded bloody clothes, the murder weapon and incriminating evidence along the way as he undertook his fruitless goose hunt for Menlove Gardens East. He could have shoved such things in dust bins as he made his way up the back alley way or elsewhere. In January it would have been dark quite early and people may not have noticed a stain or two, particularly if he was bundled up and wearing a lot of concealing outerwear. I watched a documentary lately about a murder in Glasgow where the perpetrator continued to wear his blood stained jacket for some weeks after the crime and apparently no one seemed to notice. Having said that, I think Wallace changed before he left the house. The upstairs front bedroom had drawers whose contents were in disarray- not as if rifled through by a thief- but as if someone was changing clothes in a hurry.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Penhalion- More thoughts about the blood spatter evidence, or what we can know about it. The first blow would have opened a wound and caused blood to flow, but not to fly around. Subsequent blows would have caused spatter and there would have been cast-off from the weapon, ie blood thrown from the weapon as it is brought down on the victim multiple times- that may be the blood described as on the walls and surrounding furniture. A blunt force head trauma would represent a medium velocity blood spatter. It would depend on the force and direction of the blows and the position of the victim, but I don't think the murderer would necessarily be covered or dripping with blood. I hate to bring Ol' Lizzie back into this but she got cleaned up and made herself presentable after using a hatchet- twice! She didn't need to wash her hair but she did get rid of the weapon and changed her clothes. I don't think any of these things are huge obstacles, particularly for that time. It was hardly CSI MIami. Today many specially trained forensic technicians would be poring over all the minute evidence. But I'm afraid all that evidence taken together with what we do know already would still convict Wallace. Even without all the forensics I think the case against him is a very convincing one.

[AmericanSherlock]

Penny_Dredfull,

Some truly excellent points you've made!

I'm in agreement with you that nothing else besides Wallace having murdered his wife and having acted alone really makes sense under the microscope of some careful analysis.

And also that the supposed problems with Wallace's candidacy for murderer (timing, lack of obvious blood contamination) are not fatal ones--pun intended.

Great observation about the mackintosh. A rather strong indicator of WHW's guilt IMO.

[Penhalion]

" I watched a documentary lately about a murder in Glasgow where the perpetrator continued to wear his blood stained jacket for some weeks after the crime and apparently no one seemed to notice."

But they deliberately checked Wallace for blood after the crime was discovered. They were trying to find evidence he did it- he really IS the obvious suspect. They found NO blood. No blood on him. No blood or evidence of washing up in the drains. Lots of blood in the room.

[Penny_Dredfull]

AmericanSherlock- Thanks for that! I agree with you that many of the issues that are raised by those who don't think Wallace guilty are not major obstacles to his guilt. In fact, I would say that many of the aspects of the case are so incriminating- however circumstantial- that only Wallace could have been responsible for the crime. The overcoat is a great case in point. What other reasonable explanation is there for it? And there are many other things which are too numerable for me to recount here. Suffice it to say that no one else had motive, opportunity and means than the husband. Some will question what his motive could have been- we will never know. Many couples present a happy facade to the outside world and no one suspects the boredom, hatred and disgust that festers unseen. Perhaps he saw his 17 yrs older wife as a tedious burden, perhaps she complained about his chess club and laboratory hobbies, perhaps she saw him as a shabby little loser who couldn't give her the life she thought she deserved- who knows? At any rate, the motive is actually immaterial. A prosecutor doesn't have to prove motive. Only Wallace could have wanted her dead. There was no robbery- so there is no stranger killer. And we don't need to invent a phantom lover who visited her while her husband was out. She was a fairly reclusive, ailing 69 yr old woman wearing a homemade nappy- hardly how a woman dresses for a romantic tryst! No- there is too much evidence of staging and too many coincidences that point to Wallace's guilt. How very convenient that on the very night he is sent on his silly hunt for Menlove Gardens east by the mysterious Mr. Qualtrough is the very night that his wife is murdered?

[Penny_Dredfull]

Penhalion- As I've said, the blood evidence is not a major problem. It can be explained reasonably wheres other incriminating evidence cannot. The police were only eyeballing him- they didn't have more sophisticated means, such as we have today (luminol for example). Wallace only needed to appear free of obvious blood evidence to the naked eye. He needn't necessarily have had to do more than a quick clean up and clothes change. Any blood stained clothes or towels could have been disposed of elsewhere while he was out and about carrying out his pretense of looking for the non-existent Menlove Gardens East. That busy little journey may in fact have served two useful purposes: to provide a conspicuous alibi and to discard evidence here there and yonder away from him and the house.

[Penhalion]

Well I'm certainly glad we've dispensed with the blood evidence. I know I'll sleep easier tonight knowing that it isn't an issue. /sarcasm

You can't just decide something isn't a problem. It is certainly a problem and one which was considered a problem at the time. Without being able to place him in the room at the time of the murder the case won't hold- and there are witnesses (maybe good, maybe bad but witnesses just the same) who say that they saw Mrs. Wallace after he left. Should we disregard their testimony as well since it inconveniently tends to support the premise that Wallace didn't kill his wife?

Standard disclaimer: I don't know who killed Julia Wallace. William Wallace is definitely a prime candidate but there are problems with time and (frankly) physical ability to do the rather strenuous actions needed to make it work even marginally. We can't disregard those problems, they are vital to understanding the case.

I do agree that she was hardly likely to be waiting for a rendezvous with her fancyman in those clothes with a pad on.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Penhalion- To be fair, I didn't say the blood evidence isn't a problem- I said that it isn't a major or insuperable problem when weighed against all the other evidence. And as I pointed out, we don't really know what the blood evidence is in full or particular. What we know is really rather basic and vague. There's blood in a concentration under the head of the victim, there's some cast-off ( we presume) on surrounding furniture and walls, the overcoat is bloody and there is a "clot" of blood on the toilet basin upstairs. We don't know how much blood there is, exactly where it's located or what form/shape it takes. Has it seeped? Is it dripping/spatter/droplets/spray/cast-off? Is it wet or dry? We don't know. Given that, I don't see how this exonerates Wallace. It's merely a presumption on anyone's part that the murderer would be covered with so much blood that a quick clean up to make himself presentable would be impossible. The two glaring facts that there is no robbery and no one else has any reason to want Mrs. Wallace dead leaves her husband as the obvious suspect. The lack of blood on him two hours later is reasonably explicable. He himself told the police that before leaving the house he went upstairs, washed and changed. He presented that as getting ready to go meet Qualtrough, but it could be read as cleaning up after the murder.
Don't get me wrong- I DO have an open mind about this case. when I first read about it 20 years ago I was more of the opinion that Wallace engaged Parry to commit the murder while he was out building his alibi. There is something to be said for that theory. But over time I have analyzed it backward and forward and now I'm more of the opinion that Wallace did it all by himself. It's the simplest, most straight forward explanation for me. Sure, there are some fuzzy edges and things we can never know. But there is a difference between that and reasonable doubt. Whether one asserts that Wallace did it all off his own bat, or in cahoots with Parry, there is more than enough to hang him. Either way, he's at the centre of it and no one else.

[AmericanSherlock]

A point about the blood, Wallace discovered the body and touched her as well as smeared blood on the notes, so he would not have to be totally free of minute amounts of blood for the police scrutiny, just obvious visible blood on his journey.

Parry on the other hand was thoroughly examined, to the point of the seams in his clothing and underneath his fingernails, as well as having an alibi for the murder night.

These new revelations in Murphy's 2001 book appear to have swayed Richard Wittington Egan who accompanied Goodman, the staunchest believer in Wallace's innocence to confront Parry in the 60s. RWE in a recent book says he now thinks Wallace was guilty. Roger Wilkes who in close conjunction with Goodman spearheaded the early 80s radio city presentation and wrote the final verdict book, now endorsed John Gannons book, believing Wallace was guilty as a mastermind but didn't commit the actual murder. And finally, in Goodman's Guardian obituary a few years ago, presumably written with the help of friends and family, his work on the Wallace case is praised. However, it also states "Although subsequent research has shown that Wallace probably was the killer".

Just FWIW.

[louisa]

A point about the blood, Wallace discovered the body and touched her as well as smeared blood on the notes, so he would not have to be totally free of minute amounts of blood for the police scrutiny, just obvious visible blood on his journey.

Parry on the other hand was thoroughly examined, to the point of the seams in his clothing and underneath his fingernails, as well as having an alibi for the murder night.

These new revelations in Murphy's 2001 book appear to have swayed Richard Wittington Egan who accompanied Goodman, the staunchest believer in Wallace's innocence to confront Parry in the 60s. RWE in a recent book says he now thinks Wallace was guilty. Roger Wilkes who in close conjunction with Goodman spearheaded the early 80s radio city presentation and wrote the final verdict book, now endorsed John Gannons book, believing Wallace was guilty as a mastermind but didn't commit the actual murder. And finally, in Goodman's Guardian obituary a few years ago, presumably written with the help of friends and family, his work on the Wallace case is praised. However, it also states "Although subsequent research has shown that Wallace probably was the killer".

Just FWIW.

That's interesting. I haven't yet read Murphy's book. I can see I'll be ordering that from Amazon today.

I enjoyed reading Jonathan Goodman's book. He turned - what could have been - a dreary case to read in print - to something a reader cannot put down. And his humorous turns of phrase had me chuckling out loud.

As for Parry's bloodstained clothes - would he not have got rid of the clothes he had been wearing that evening (if indeed he was the killer)? The clothes he turned over to the police may have been other items from his wardrobe. And he was bound to have bathed and washed himself thoroughly after the murder.

Getting back to the testimony of Lily Hall (the gal that saw our hero talking to another man on the night in question) - I don't think a single thing she said could be trusted. She said a lot of people were milling about that evening yet she remembered Wallace. She had no reason to remember him as the murder had not yet been discovered.

In cross examination she didn't know what day of the week it was when she (allegedly) saw Wallace. In fact she seemed not to know whether she was on foot or on horseback most of the time.

I think she wanted her 15 minutes of fame.

[Penhalion]

"As for Parry's bloodstained clothes - would he not have got rid of the clothes he had been wearing that evening (if indeed he was the killer)? The clothes he turned over to the police may have been other items from his wardrobe. And he was bound to have bathed and washed himself thoroughly after the murder."

Exactly. The reason the blood evidence is so crucial with Wallace is that he couldn't have had time for a thorough wash and change given time parameters. Looking for blood evidence on Parry several days (or even one day) after the events gives him plenty of time to get rid of items and wash.

[AmericanSherlock]

Parry was interviewed that night and the interview ran into the morning of the 21st. I agree it is not conclusive as he still would have had time to clean up beforehand. He had an alibi with 5 people, but yes it is not foolproof and who knows exactly what time he left that night. (But his alibi was not Lily Lloyd as previously thought, that was for the night of the call).

I think when you take it as a whole though, particularly some of the points Murphy unearthed about WHW and Julia, it does as RWE states in his recent book serve to "cast Wallace and Parry in different lights than before" (loose paraphrase). For awhile starting with Goodman's late 60s book and the Radio City expose of Parry following his death in 1981, many considered it almost beyond doubt he was the guilty party, and Wallace was innocent. I think we can see it is not so cut and dry

[caz]

Without being able to place him in the room at the time of the murder the case won't hold- and there are witnesses (maybe good, maybe bad but witnesses just the same) who say that they saw Mrs. Wallace after he left. Should we disregard their testimony as well since it inconveniently tends to support the premise that Wallace didn't kill his wife?

Hi Penhalion,

Which witnesses claimed they saw Julia alive after Wallace had left the house on the Tuesday evening? Are you going by estimates of the time as given by the individuals in question, including Wallace, and if so what were those times? Or did any witness actually claim to see Wallace leave, then see Julia still alive? In either case I'd imagine their testimony was considered unreliable, or the defence would surely have made much more of it at the original trial.

I'm currently torn between Wallace acting alone, to rid himself of a wife who had become a burden to him, or someone from Julia's past (if not her present) bearing some personal grudge. The robbery thing doesn't work for me, nor does the Qualtrough call as an unrelated prank, nor a conspiracy involving Wallace and A.N. Other. I also take on board the arguments against Julia having a fancy man and plotting with him to get her husband out of the house.

Shaving a massive 17 years off her age at some point is not something I'd tend to associate with a drab little woman who had never had a glamorous bone in her body, and let's face it few women could have got away with it in those days unless they actually looked a good deal younger than their real age. What Julia was like when she died was likely to be a world away from her more youthful self, even if her husband had changed little over the years in looks and personality. Was the killer perhaps someone who had known Julia from before her marriage to the much younger Wallace, and had set out to track her down and settle some old score? Could she have altered her age by so much in an attempt to stop something or someone from her past catching up with her?

Of course, if she did have a 'past', it could have involved something Wallace had only recently discovered about her (did he find a diary or some letters in a bedroom drawer or cupboard?), which so shocked and disgusted him that he did away with her himself.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

Wallace left home and travelled (walked) to Smithdown Road to catch the tram at 7.06pm

The milk boy, Alan Close, saw Julia at 6.45pm., although Det. Moore tried to convince him he saw her much earlier.
.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Caz- Here's a little timeline:

6:05 pm Wallace returns home from a day's work selling insurance and has tea with wife

6:30 pm goes upstairs to wash and change

6:45 pm leaves home by the back door

Then it's a bit confusing, cuz he boarded several trams in succession, but we know he was on one at 7:06 pm cuz the conductor and passengers confirmed it.

8:10 pm Boards tram to make his way home

8:45 the Johnston's (next-door neighbours) see him outside the house

9:10 pm the first constable arrives on the scene and says the body is still warm

10:00 pm Doctor McFall arrives and estimates time of death to be about 8 pm (he later revises this)

11:00 pm Dr Pierce of the Police Medical office arrives and sets time of death at 6:00 pm

At autopsy the stomach contents were found to consist of "semi-fluid food- currants, raisins and unmasticated lumps of carbohydrate". When gastric contents are still identifiable, as here, and semi-digested, that would indicate that the person died 0-2 hours after consuming the meal. As the contents of Mrs. Wallace's stomach were recognizable as the raisin scones she consumed for tea at 6:05 pm, that would then put her time of death at about 8:00 pm or thereabouts. It's not an exact science.
I have some thoughts about this, but what do any of you make about it?