Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[louisa]

6:45 pm leaves home by the back door.

According to Wallace. Can he be believed? That all depends on whether or not he was the murderer.


McFall estimated the time of death as 6pm.
.

[louisa]

A small detail but possibly a significant one.

I've just been re-reading the book by Jonathan Goodman and the last chapter states that after Wallace was free he and one of Hector Munro's associates went to Manchester because Wallace wanted to buy a pair of boots, a special kind from a particular store.

The associate (forgotten his name) noticed that Wallace stopped a number of people and asked them if they knew where this particular shop was located. He could have simply asked a policeman.

It seems that it was his way, to ask people for directions.

.

[louisa]

The case against Wallace seems to all hinge on the testimony of Alan Close, the milk boy.

It seems that Alan normally took his bike on his rounds to deliver milk but on the day of the murder his bike was broken so he went on foot.

So - that means that he was normally at 79 Wolverton Road at around 6pm but on the day of the murder he was there at about 6.40pm.

Which means that Wallace could not be the murderer. Why? Because he had no reason to think that Alan Close was not going to deliver his milk at his normal time of 6pm (which of course would have given Wallace a huge amount of time in which to kill his wife. And if people could see that he had a huge amount of time in which to kill his wife then they would naturally deduce that he was the murderer.)

We are told that his 'alibi' was that he would not have had enough time to kill Julia before he set off on his quest for Mr. Qualtrough (because he had planned the timings to the last minute between leaving home and returning).

Wallace could have had NO IDEA that Alan Close would not be delivering milk at his usual time of 6pm that evening, so the theoretical alibi that the police spun for him could never have been viable.

The fact seems to be that Wallace did not make up an 'alibi'. He didn't need to because he did not kill his wife.
.

[John G]

According to Wallace. Can he be believed? That all depends on whether or not he was the murderer.


McFall estimated the time of death as 6pm.
.

McFall originally estimated the time of death as 8pm, then inexplicably changed his mind without any further information. In any event, we now know that time of death can not be accurately determined-The Forensic Science Regulator's official guidelines is that pathologists shouldn't even attempt to estimate the post mortem interval.

[ColdCaseJury]

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.

Hi Louisa, I went to Kew to read the court transcript of Lily Hall. She did not come across as a bad witness, in my view. I think the "Hall is an unreliable witness" stems from Goodman, who was trying to prove Wallace innocent don't forget.

Hall said she knew Wallace by sight for three years.

As for 15 minutes, ironically that is the critical time period between 6:30pm, the time Alan Close testified he delivered the milk, and 6:45pm, the time he told his friends he delivered the milk.

If Close delivered the milk after 6:40pm, Wallace is not the murderer. He did not have enough time.

[AmericanSherlock]

The case against Wallace seems to all hinge on the testimony of Alan Close, the milk boy.

It seems that Alan normally took his bike on his rounds to deliver milk but on the day of the murder his bike was broken so he went on foot.

So - that means that he was normally at 79 Wolverton Road at around 6pm but on the day of the murder he was there at about 6.40pm.

Which means that Wallace could not be the murderer. Why? Because he had no reason to think that Alan Close was not going to deliver his milk at his normal time of 6pm (which of course would have given Wallace a huge amount of time in which to kill his wife. And if people could see that he had a huge amount of time in which to kill his wife then they would naturally deduce that he was the murderer.)

We are told that his 'alibi' was that he would not have had enough time to kill Julia before he set off on his quest for Mr. Qualtrough (because he had planned the timings to the last minute between leaving home and returning).

Wallace could have had NO IDEA that Alan Close would not be delivering milk at his usual time of 6pm that evening, so the theoretical alibi that the police spun for him could never have been viable.

The fact seems to be that Wallace did not make up an 'alibi'. He didn't need to because he did not kill his wife.
.

Louisa, Wallace's plan could have been to off Julia as soon as the milk boy had come and gone. He couldn't risk the milk boy ringing in the act of it or after. He needed Close to see Julia alive. So, he just waited an extra while, and started his alibi from there. As it was, Wallace was a bit suspiciously late imo for a 7:30 meeting that he didn't have a concrete and exact idea of where it was located.

If he had planned on the milk boy coming 30 minutes earlier, that would have been more in line with a 7:30 meeting at a semi unknown place, requiring tram travel etc. I suspect that was his original plan. If the milk boy, had come much later (say after 7), then Wallace may have been forced to scrap his plan, at least temporarily.

As it was though, Wallace allowed himself some flexibility, with only the putative time of 7:30 as a guide. Other than that, it's important as Murphy points out to remember that Wallace creates his own timeframe as he goes along!

[louisa]

Louisa, Wallace's plan could have been to off Julia as soon as the milk boy had come and gone. He couldn't risk the milk boy ringing in the act of it or after. He needed Close to see Julia alive. So, he just waited an extra while, and started his alibi from there. As it was, Wallace was a bit suspiciously late imo for a 7:30 meeting that he didn't have a concrete and exact idea of where it was located.

If he had planned on the milk boy coming 30 minutes earlier, that would have been more in line with a 7:30 meeting at a semi unknown place, requiring tram travel etc. I suspect that was his original plan. If the milk boy, had come much later (say after 7), then Wallace may have been forced to scrap his plan, at least temporarily.

As it was though, Wallace allowed himself some flexibility, with only the putative time of 7:30 as a guide. Other than that, it's important as Murphy points out to remember that Wallace creates his own timeframe as he goes along!

Hi Sherlock,

It seems to me that the most important factor about Wallace's journey is the time he left home. He stated that to be 6.45pm.

The first person he spoke to was Phillips the tram conductor and that was at 7.10pm (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Wallace spoke to nobody during the first leg of his journey which would have taken 17 minutes. If Wallace was going to establish an alibi based on timings then surely he would have stopped somebody soon after he left home, and asked the time? Or would that have pinned him down too much, locked him into an exact time?

We know the time he arrived back home. (8.45pm)

The milk boy called at 6.40pm (give or take a minute). I think that's probably one of the established facts in this case. It could be the most important fact.

Wallace left home at 6.45pm (according to him). And if that is true then he could not have murdered his wife.

And another small point......Wallace would have seen the milk boy, wouldn't he, shortly before he left home? Was he ever asked if he had seen Julia take in the milk?

And there's that detail about the delayed milk delivery on that day. Wallace would have been expecting the milk to be delivered just after 6pm - about the same time that he returned home from work.

If Wallace was setting up an alibi then the milk delivery time would have been a crucial factor.
.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Louisa- Sorry, I'm not sure of the point you're making here. The conductor and witnesses said Wallace was on the tram at 7:06 pm. So- are you questioning whether he was home at all before that? He puts himself there.

[louisa]

Hi Penny,

I'm just trying to get the timings in my mind.

Maths has never been a strong point of mine.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Louisa- Wallace himself said he left home at 6:45 pm. It's only his word, but there's no reason to doubt that. He could have claimed he never went home or that he left much earlier- but then he would still have to account for his whereabouts at that time. He could have claimed that he left later- but what's the point when he's seen at a certain time on a tram?

Personally I don't think the milk boy's assertion that he saw Mrs. Wallace at 6:45 pm is a piece of evidence that destroys Wallace's alibi. Of course, time of death is not an exact science, but it IS a science. Milk boy's memories are not to be dismissed entirely, but neither are they sufficient in themselves to exonerate . The state of the stomach contents at autopsy are telling, and stomach contents don't have memories or motivations. The stomach contents are a reliable witness that tell us that Mrs. Wallace died 0-2 hours after her 6:00 tea. That would put her time of death roughly about 8 pm.

IF Julia died around 8 pm, then the milk boy certainly could have seen her alive at 6:45 pm. Wallace could have killed her exactly after that and gone out to catch his tram- although the timing is tight it's not impossible. Or, the milk boy's memory could be faulty. Or- Wallace could have killed her upon his RETURN to the house, and then PRETENDED to discover her dead body. The next door neighbours saw him outside the house looking agitated at 8:45 pm. That was about 30 mins after starting his return journey home. Again, the timing either way you look at it is tight but not impossible.

[louisa]

Whether Wallace could have killed Julia upon his return is an interesting thought.

The Johnstons (and the policeman Williams) both stated the the body was warm.

And there was some missing time.

I'm still leaning more towards Parry being the killer though, just because he was a habitual crook and thief AND Julia would have let him in the house if he had knocked.
.

[Penhalion]

Estimating time of death by stomach contents is NOT considered reliable.

https://books.google.com/books?id=DwUZCwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA190&ots=Oo5euKb2ul&dq=timing%20death%20from%20stomach%20contents&pg=PA190#v=onepage&q=timing%20death%20from%20stomach%20contents&f=false

[Penny_Dredfull]

Penhalion- It's not exact, as I said. But estimating time of death by milk boy isn't so reliable either.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Louisa- Parry's motive (acting alone) would be theft. And there wasn't a theft. We only have Wallace's word for the four quid supposedly missing from a tin in the kitchen (a tin still on the shelf with it's lid on). Julia's handbag (also in the kitchen) contained money and silver, she was still wearing her jewelry and wedding ring and five pounds in cash was left alone upstairs. Julia also had a small amount of money pinned to her undergarments.
A petty thief doesn't want confrontation, much less murder which could get himself hanged- for four quid?! And why leave all the other stuff, which admittedly didn't add up to much of a bounty either?

[Penny_Dredfull]

Louisa- And who brought Parry up in the first place? Wallace. It was- the day after the murder I think- when police asked Wallace if he knew of anyone his wife would have let in in his absence that he immediately mentioned Parry. That's when the name first came on their radar- not because any clue or evidence pointed at Parry. That to me looks like Wallace trying to point the finger of suspicion away from himself.