Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[caz]

Caz- I was explaining how Dr. McFall arrived at his estimate of time of death being 6 pm. he stuck to that at trial even when pressed under cross-examination to explain how that could be when Mrs. Wallace was last seen alive by the milk boy at 6:45 pm. Dr. Pierce put time of death at 8pm- ie four hours before her last meal which he estimated to be 6:00 pm based on her stomach contents and Wallace's account.

I'm sorry, Penny, but your timings above simply don't add up or make any sense. I was referring to your claim that the semi-digested food indicated that death took place 0-2 hours after it was eaten (which implies any time between 6 and 8), and wondered why you plumped for the latest possible time of around 8pm, without even mentioning McFall or Pierce as sources. I also assume you meant to write above that Pierce put her death after her last meal, not before. But 8pm isn't four hours after 6pm in any case. That's pretty "Dredfull" arithmetic.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi All,

One more thought for now...

What was Julia doing in the parlour if Wallace killed her there? Well one could look at it either way. With no evidence of a forced entry, it is assumed she knew her killer and had no qualms about him being in the house. That would apply equally to her husband or a trusted visitor. If it was the latter it makes sense that she would receive him in the parlour, as other guests were received. But of course, if Wallace was trying to plan the perfect murder, he had to make it look like the work of a visitor who would be invited in by Julia - hence the parlour it was.

Knowing that Parry was not only a "plausible" fellow who had a dodgy record with money, but also that he had visited the Wallaces on a number of occasions and would be let in by Julia, and - best of all - had watched as Wallace took the cash box and placed the collected insurance premiums inside, he would make a most convenient scapegoat. Almost too convenient for comfort. Might that not explain why only the cash box money was missing? Was Wallace concentrating a bit too hard on incriminating Parry? Assuming the Wallaces didn't count too many petty crooks and dodgy characters among their friends and associates, he'd have been a bit stuck for alternative ways to lay the blame elsewhere. I would add that I find it a trifle odd that a meticulous chap like Wallace (who instructed Julia to bolt the door or gate behind him) allowed the "plausible" Parry to see where the cash was stashed, putting temptation right in front of him and putting his wife in potential danger on evenings when Wallace left her home alone.

Having said all that, there was still not enough evidence to put Wallace in that parlour when the blows were struck. And that is surely why he didn't hang in the end, and should not have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. What do they say in such circumstances? "We are not looking for anyone else in connection with this offence." That sums it up for me, because there is even less evidence against Parry or A.N.Other.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

In order to get the tram at St. Margaret's Church Wallace would have had to have left home at 6.49pm at the latest. That would have given him 4 minutes in which to commit the murder, clean up, bolt the doors etc.

I haven't made up my mind yet whether it was Wallace or Parry who killed Julia but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence which points to Parry. He was fond of making prank phone calls wasn't he?

Motive for either party - well that's something we may never know.

Wallace - if indeed he was the culprit - may have taken great pleasure in working out his plan to the finest detail, possibly long before he carried it out.

He was familiar with the route to the tram stop and may have already selected a hiding place for the iron bar to be disposed of. Maybe he had seen a suitably deep crevice in somebody's front garden by an old wall or something. All he would need to do is drop it into the hole, push the soil over it with his foot and maybe put a bin on top. He had probably rinsed the weapon before he left home and concealed it up his sleeve.


A couple of small points.....why would the murderer have extinguished the gas lights in the parlour before he made his escape? And presumably he turned off the gas fire as well because there is no mention of it being on when Wallace (or the Johnstons) first went into the parlour.

The gas fire must have been lit when the murderer was present because the mackintosh got burned and so did Julia's skirt.

And why did Wallace light the right hand lamp instead of the left? He would have had to step over Julia's body - surely?

Yes, and I also believe that he would need a significant amount of time to recover from his exertions, considering his poor health and the fact that the assault on Julia was frenzied and sustained.

Regarding the murder weapon, it's difficult to see how he could have rinsed it so thoroughly in the time available, especially as it would have been heavily blood stained. And, if he didn't, there would have been blood evidence on his clothing, which would have been noticed during the police inspection.

I think he would have been extremely fortunate to have found a deep crevice. And where would the soil come from? There would have to be a considerable amount for it to have sufficiently concealed the weapon to the extent it was never found. Wouldn't he have then needed a spade? Even if he pushed the soil over with his shoes, wouldn't they have been heavily soiled? Wouldn't this have taken a considerable amount of time? Wouldn't he have drawn attention to himself?

[John G]

Hi All,

One more thought for now...

What was Julia doing in the parlour if Wallace killed her there? Well one could look at it either way. With no evidence of a forced entry, it is assumed she knew her killer and had no qualms about him being in the house. That would apply equally to her husband or a trusted visitor. If it was the latter it makes sense that she would receive him in the parlour, as other guests were received. But of course, if Wallace was trying to plan the perfect murder, he had to make it look like the work of a visitor who would be invited in by Julia - hence the parlour it was.

Knowing that Parry was not only a "plausible" fellow who had a dodgy record with money, but also that he had visited the Wallaces on a number of occasions and would be let in by Julia, and - best of all - had watched as Wallace took the cash box and placed the collected insurance premiums inside, he would make a most convenient scapegoat. Almost too convenient for comfort. Might that not explain why only the cash box money was missing? Was Wallace concentrating a bit too hard on incriminating Parry? Assuming the Wallaces didn't count too many petty crooks and dodgy characters among their friends and associates, he'd have been a bit stuck for alternative ways to lay the blame elsewhere. I would add that I find it a trifle odd that a meticulous chap like Wallace (who instructed Julia to bolt the door or gate behind him) allowed the "plausible" Parry to see where the cash was stashed, putting temptation right in front of him and putting his wife in potential danger on evenings when Wallace left her home alone.

Having said all that, there was still not enough evidence to put Wallace in that parlour when the blows were struck. And that is surely why he didn't hang in the end, and should not have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. What do they say in such circumstances? "We are not looking for anyone else in connection with this offence." That sums it up for me, because there is even less evidence against Parry or A.N.Other.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I still maintain that Wallace is the least likely suspect. In fact, all the evidence points to the fact that it would have been physically and scientifically impossible for him to have committed the crime.

Moreover, I find it absolutely bizarre that he was ever charged at all. The police had no motive, no confession, no forensic evidence, no witnesses, and not even a murder weapon. In other words they had nada. Frankly, the police conduct throughout this inquiry leaves a lot to be desired-they made their mind up very early on that Wallace was responsible and this clearly effected their judgement and objectivity.

Parry knew where the insurance money was kept, because during a time when William was ill-he had frequent periods of illness-he took over part of his insurance round. He would then call at the Wallaces' to pay in the takings and William would then deposit them in the cash box at the top of the bookcase.

I think overall Parry makes a far better suspect. He had a long criminal record, his alibi for the Qualtrough call is shaky-he also had an interest in amateur dramatics and, according to Parkes, had a reputation for making hoax calls from the garage phone- and he is deeply implicated by the evidence of John Parkes.

[Penhalion]

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

False equivalency. The food isn't saying anything it simply is there and it is up to us to use it's presence and degree of digestion for our purposes. The quote I posted explains in detail why using stomach contents/degree of digestion is not reliable for determining time of death especially in this case where a few minutes either way makes or breaks the case.

If both the stomach contents and the milk boy are flawed as witnesses to Julia's last minutes, then why are you using one but dismiss the other?

[louisa]

Yes, and I also believe that he would need a significant amount of time to recover from his exertions, considering his poor health and the fact that the assault on Julia was frenzied and sustained.

Regarding the murder weapon, it's difficult to see how he could have rinsed it so thoroughly in the time available, especially as it would have been heavily blood stained. And, if he didn't, there would have been blood evidence on his clothing, which would have been noticed during the police inspection.

I think he would have been extremely fortunate to have found a deep crevice. And where would the soil come from? There would have to be a considerable amount for it to have sufficiently concealed the weapon to the extent it was never found. Wouldn't he have then needed a spade? Even if he pushed the soil over with his shoes, wouldn't they have been heavily soiled? Wouldn't this have taken a considerable amount of time? Wouldn't he have drawn attention to himself?

The 'doing away with Julia' idea may have just started as a tiny thought in his mind as he plodded his way around Clubmoor in all weathers. A pleasant thought that grew and grew, and he added more and more details of how it could be achieved and how he could make it foolproof, until one day his plan grew legs (so to speak) and had a life of it's own. It became irresistible. A compulsion. He knew he could commit the perfect crime.

We don't know what he saw on his rounds regarding crevices and holes. Maybe he spotted something that he thought would make a wonderfully suitable place to conceal an iron bar. Who knows? On the night of the murder it would have been dark and he could have planned to drop the bar and cover it. We'll never know. The blood would be fairly easy to wash off when it was new and still in it's liquid form.

I'm still not saying that I am 100% convinced he did it though! Just a theory.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi All,

One more thought for now...

What was Julia doing in the parlour if Wallace killed her there? Well one could look at it either way. With no evidence of a forced entry, it is assumed she knew her killer and had no qualms about him being in the house. That would apply equally to her husband or a trusted visitor. If it was the latter it makes sense that she would receive him in the parlour, as other guests were received. But of course, if Wallace was trying to plan the perfect murder, he had to make it look like the work of a visitor who would be invited in by Julia - hence the parlour it was.

Knowing that Parry was not only a "plausible" fellow who had a dodgy record with money, but also that he had visited the Wallaces on a number of occasions and would be let in by Julia, and - best of all - had watched as Wallace took the cash box and placed the collected insurance premiums inside, he would make a most convenient scapegoat. Almost too convenient for comfort. Might that not explain why only the cash box money was missing? Was Wallace concentrating a bit too hard on incriminating Parry? Assuming the Wallaces didn't count too many petty crooks and dodgy characters among their friends and associates, he'd have been a bit stuck for alternative ways to lay the blame elsewhere. I would add that I find it a trifle odd that a meticulous chap like Wallace (who instructed Julia to bolt the door or gate behind him) allowed the "plausible" Parry to see where the cash was stashed, putting temptation right in front of him and putting his wife in potential danger on evenings when Wallace left her home alone.

Having said all that, there was still not enough evidence to put Wallace in that parlour when the blows were struck. And that is surely why he didn't hang in the end, and should not have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. What do they say in such circumstances? "We are not looking for anyone else in connection with this offence." That sums it up for me, because there is even less evidence against Parry or A.N.Other.

Love,

Caz
X

That's right, Caz. The case was not proved against Wallace IMO, and the court was right to oveturn the verdict. But, I think he was very likely guilty. There was certainly less evidence against anyone else, including Parry.

[John G]

The 'doing away with Julia' idea may have just started as a tiny thought in his mind as he plodded his way around Clubmoor in all weathers. A pleasant thought that grew and grew, and he added more and more details of how it could be achieved and how he could make it foolproof, until one day his plan grew legs (so to speak) and had a life of it's own. It became irresistible. A compulsion. He knew he could commit the perfect crime.

We don't know what he saw on his rounds regarding crevices and holes. Maybe he spotted something that he thought would make a wonderfully suitable place to conceal an iron bar. Who knows? On the night of the murder it would have been dark and he could have planned to drop the bar and cover it. We'll never know. The blood would be fairly easy to wash off when it was new and still in it's liquid form.

I'm still not saying that I am 100% convinced he did it though! Just a theory.

The difficulty is that Julia was the victim of an extremely violent and sustained attack. The murder weapon must therefore have been covered in both blood and gore, which would have taken a significant period of time to thoroughly wash off. And then we're back to the problem that not even microscopic traces were found in the sink or drains.

The police also thoroughly searched the locality and, of course, the locals would have been aware of what had happened. With. The ridiculously limited amount of time Wallace had available-almost certainly too little time to be guilty anyway-he wouldn't have been able to thoroughly hide the weapon. Therefore, anyone who subsequently discovers it is surely going to hand it in to the police.

[louisa]

The difficulty is that Julia was the victim of an extremely violent and sustained attack. The murder weapon must therefore have been covered in both blood and gore, which would have taken a significant period of time to thoroughly wash off. And then we're back to the problem that not even microscopic traces were found in the sink or drains.

The police also thoroughly searched the locality and, of course, the locals would have been aware of what had happened. With. The ridiculously limited amount of time Wallace had available-almost certainly too little time to be guilty anyway-he wouldn't have been able to thoroughly hide the weapon. Therefore, anyone who subsequently discovers it is surely going to hand it in to the police.

I disagree that it would have taken considerable time to wash an iron bar of blood under running water. The blood would have been fresh after all. If he had kept the water running then all residue of blood would have been down the drains and into the sewers.

It may be possible to detect a tiny speck of blood in these circumstances these days but this was back in 1931.

As for hiding it - whoever hid the weapon did a good job. Or maybe builders found it and thought it wasn't significant. It could have simply been part of a load picked up by a JCB when an area of land was being redeveloped.

[Penny_Dredfull]

I'm sorry, Penny, but your timings above simply don't add up or make any sense. I was referring to your claim that the semi-digested food indicated that death took place 0-2 hours after it was eaten (which implies any time between 6 and 8), and wondered why you plumped for the latest possible time of around 8pm, without even mentioning McFall or Pierce as sources. I also assume you meant to write above that Pierce put her death after her last meal, not before. But 8pm isn't four hours after 6pm in any case. That's pretty "Dredfull" arithmetic.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz- As I've explained before, I'm only putting forward the opinions of Drs McFall and Pierce- NOT as MY opinion, but merely as evidence. We can agree or disagree with them, but that is the evidence we have to work with in this case.

Having said that- consult any textbook on forensic science as relates to establishing time of death and you will see that gastric contents which are still recognizable and are undigested indicate a time of death 0-2 hours after consumption. As Mrs Wallace's gastric contents conform to this, I can estimate that she died not long after consuming her last meal of tea and scones. That's all I can say about that.

[ColdCaseJury]

Caz- As I've explained before, I'm only putting forward the opinions of Drs McFall and Pierce- NOT as MY opinion, but merely as evidence. We can agree or disagree with them, but that is the evidence we have to work with in this case.

Having said that- consult any textbook on forensic science as relates to establishing time of death and you will see that gastric contents which are still recognizable and are undigested indicate a time of death 0-2 hours after consumption. As Mrs Wallace's gastric contents conform to this, I can estimate that she died not long after consuming her last meal of tea and scones. That's all I can say about that.

I have no quarrel with your post, except that it tells us very little because we have no independent evidence when Julia last ate. How do we know she did not have another scone at, say, 7:30pm?

The range for time of death is quite simple. Julia Wallace died sometime between 6:40pm and 8:45pm, according to the evidence of independent witnesses (Alan Close and Mrs Johnston respectively). The fact that MacFall's estimate of before 6pm contradicts this evidence speaks volumes about him and his dogmatic belief in his questionable methods.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

There is a lot that we will never know about this case. The evidence- such as it is- is often piecemeal, conflicting and confusing.

However, there is no need to confuse ourselves even further. We can avoid errors and misperceptions simply by acquainting ourselves with the available evidence. Read the available evidence- from various reliable sources. Read the trial transcripts. Check your hunches and ideas against that before speculating. It's much more fruitful that way.

For example- you wonder whether the gas fire in the front room was lit? From studying the trial transcript it is apparent that the gas fire was OFF when the body was found. The prosecution put it to Wallace, under cross examination "Does it strike you as being at all probable that man (ie the killer) would remember to turn off the gas before he went out?"

The prosecution also pointed out that, contrary to the defense's assertion that the front parlour was only used for guests, that Mr. and Mrs. Wallace regularly used it for music. Mrs Wallace played piano and Mr. Wallace the violin. The piano, music stands and music sheets can clearly be seen in the scene of crime photos.

By the way- the prosecution also pointed out that Mr. Wallace was taking violin lessons in the vicinity of Menlove Gardens! So he should have been more familiar with that area than he subsequently made out.

Now- as for the murder weapon: what do we know, if anything, about this missing implement?
The assumption is often that it was a "fire iron" or an "iron bar". The Wallace's hired house cleaner told the police that items of that description were missing from the house following the murder. Searches were made of the house and surrounding areas, but to no avail.
There are two important points to make here:
1) That the murder weapon was a fire iron or bar from the house is merely speculation, for which there is no corroborating evidence. In fact, Dr. McFall's post mortem findings don't support it. At trial he testified that " The appearance was as if a terrific force WITH A LARGE SURFACE had driven in the scalp bursting it in parallel lines with the appearance of several incised wounds but the edges of these wounds were not sharp...Death was due to fracture of the skull by someone striking the deceased three or four times with a LARGE-HEADED instrument." (the emphases are mine)
A fire iron is neither "large headed" nor has a "large surface". It also wouldn't produce the multiple "parallel lines" which gave the appearance of many more strikes than were actually present.
2) If you believe that the murder weapon was a fire iron or bar which was from the scene itself, how is this consistent with an outside killer? Surely such a person would have come prepared, and not left it to chance to find a weapon at the scene? And then why disappear the weapon if it belonged on the scene in the first place?

It isn't just ONE piece of evidence which convicts or exonerates Wallace- it must be ALL the evidence taken and considered together.

[Penny_Dredfull]

I have no quarrel with your post, except that it tells us very little because we have no independent evidence when Julia last ate. How do we know she did not have another scone at, say, 7:30pm?

The range for time of death is quite simple. Julia Wallace died sometime between 6:40pm and 8:45pm, according to the evidence of independent witnesses (Alan Close and Mrs Johnston respectively). The fact that MacFall's estimate of before 6pm contradicts this evidence speaks volumes about him and his dogmatic belief in his questionable methods.

ColdCaseJury- Ok, I think we are nitpicking here. Admittedly, it's Wallace's own statement that he and his wife consumed their tea at 6:05 before he went out. He is the prime suspect, and we can't corroborate his statement as the only other person who would know,Julia herself, is dead. However, her gastric contents, in a way, do provide testimony to the fact that sometime - not long before died- she consumed the scones. The timing of the last meal and her death is a bit tricky. All we can say for sure is she died not long- ie 0-2 hours after eating, give or take an hour either way. Dr. McFall said as much at trial.
And since when is the examination of gastric contents at post mortem "questionable methods"? It's useful when taken with rigor mortis, lividity, last time the person was seen alive, and other things. No ONE point in particular establishes a suppose time of death- it's everything taken together.

[Penny_Dredfull]

ColdCaseJury- And by the way, I quite agree with you in saying Julia died sometime between 6:40 and 8:45 pm. It's what happened during that time that's up for grabs.

[louisa]

I am going to probably agree with CCJ's theories because he has written a book about this case and has done extensive research.

I am a mere novice on this case. Still learning.

Scones though - they seem to be the kind of item that somebody would bring out when they have visitors. Scones are almost cakes after all. Which makes me wonder if Julia had scones with her visitor.

If it wasn't Parry then maybe somebody knocked at the door saying he was Mr. Qualtrough - and could he come in and wait?

I haven't worked out why yet.