Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Penny_Dredfull]

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.

Louisa- CCJ's book? What is this book?

I too have done extensive research on this case as part of a PhD. Obviously you yourself don't believe what someone says about a crime merely because they've done a book on it- otherwise you would have accepted Diane Janes's book on the Croydon poisonings at face value and not have exercised your own judgement.

There's a lot to be said for the well informed amateur- as most of us are here on the Case Forum website. Most of the facts in this case are there for anyone to see or read. No amount of extensive research is likely to turn up new or earth-shattering evidence. All that's there is all that is ever going to be there. It's how you interpret it that counts. And the interpretation of the case is limited to the existing evidence. We have to ask ourselves- would this theory be enough for an arrest warrant, would it hold up in court or obtain a conviction?
There's no need to introduce or invent new suspects or motivations just to be innovative or unique - although some do just that, no matter how improbable. But that's entertainment, not detective work.

[louisa]

I had to take Diane Janes to task because she was making ridiculous suppositions in a story that I knew like the back of my hand.

The Wallace case is one I only know from reading two books on the subject plus what I have read on the internet.

I have to bow to the superior knowledge of those who have studied the case in far more detail.

I would probably be a lot more knowledgeable if I had taken the time to read every post on this thread because I suspect that most of my questions have already been answered.

http://www.coldcasejury.com/

.

[Charles Daniels]

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.
.

Very well argued and stated.
I couldn't say it better myself.

The entire case hinges on a milk delivery.

[Charles Daniels]

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.

The Milk Boy's memory was not faulty.
He was observed, without his bike, by a neighbour, in the area at 6:38pm.


Unless MY memory is faulty....LOL

[Charles Daniels]

Parry's name only came up because Wallace himself brought him up. HE offered Parry as a potential suspect. That's fishy to me. The main suspect is suggesting to the police to look elsewhere.

Well obviously when Wallace denied doing it, the police asked who might of.

Wallace obviously thought of Parry because Parry had robbed him before.

And far from trying to get the police and courts to look elsewhere, the man said under oath that he couldn't imagine anyone who might actually be guilty of the murder. Definitely not from the list of people he assumed Julia would allow inside the house.

[Charles Daniels]

Also, we have to assume that Wallace was a genius at murder.
But couldn't stage a simple robbery?

[AmericanSherlock]

Was Reading the Chess and the Wallace Murder site which some of you may be familiar with by now.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/wallace.html

The site is unbiased, but does include many different writer's opinions on the case and is quite a good read. There had been an abridged version I had seen awhile ago; this is the full version. There are no new facts, but it includes many blurbs from many sources and had a bit of a "new feel" for me.

2 interesting things to me, one a point that can be deduced to be in favor of Wallace's guilt from Murphy's book, and the second the opinion of Lord Justice Wright, who summed up strongly for acquittal in the original trial; the jury went against his summation, but as we know fortunately for Wallace he won his appeal. Justice Wright here is not to be confused with Lord Hewart who presided over Wallace's successful appeal. Anyway, here they are with my commentary below in parentheses:

1. "On page 119 Murphy suggested that, if robbery were the motive, it was unnecessary for the murderer to make a telephone call to the chess club:

‘How much simpler, how much more lucrative it would have been, for Qualtrough to have slipped a note to Wallace through his front door on Monday, 12 January [sic – an intentional reference to the previous week], asking him to call at 25 Menlove Gardens East the following night.

That Qualtrough chose Wallace’s putative attendance at the chess club, rather than the night when he could maximize his gain, as the starting point for his plan, again testifies to the fact that robbery was not a significant motive in the crime.’"

(I think this really warrants examination. Murphy is correct that the call itself is suspicious and seems unlikely to mesh with a planned robbery. I would add that from Qualtrough's perspective the likelihood of Wallace having been at the chess club that particular night was in doubt; there would, in the words of Murphy have been much "simpler" ways to go about it. Unless of course, Qualtrough was Wallace himself!)

2. "On page 171 Hussey wrote: ‘Barrister Abrahams states: “The judge ... summed up strongly for acquittal.”’ He did indeed, and it is perhaps surprising to find the following on page 309 of Goodman:

‘A few years before his death, in an interview with a Liverpool Echo reporter, he [Mr Justice Wright, who took the title Lord Wright of Durley] said:

“Never forget that Wallace was a chessplayer. ... I should say that, broadly speaking, any man with common sense would have said that Wallace’s alibi was too good to be true, but that is not an argument you can hang a man on.”’ "

(Quite interesting IMO. Because my opinion is similar, the case back then wasn't proved enough to convict, but common sense tells you he's guilty. Credit to Goodman here for including this, even though he was writing in favor of Wallace's innocent. The site includes many quotes from Goodman, including an article he wrote in response to a newspaper that said they had changed their mind and found Wallace's guilt very evident following the 1975 Who Killed Julia program. He argues in a somewhat acrimonious manner for Wallace's innocence and suggests the makers of the program, not Wallace, were the ones who got away with murder! This is where he claims that because the walls were "stippled with blood", that Wallace could not have used the mackintosh to avoid blood spatter. This is also around the time that he started hinting seriously at Parry's identity, which finally was put out there following his death in 1981. I wonder what Goodman would think if he knew that Richard Whittington Egan (who accompanied him to confront Parry in 1966) now thinks Wallace was guilty and Parry was "rightly exonerated!)

[Charles Daniels]

AmericanSherlock- Yes, no one could have known Wallace's movements on any given day except Wallace himself. Only Wallace would have known when he would be at the chess club,

Unless the caller knew him by sight, and took a guess when he'd head off for the tram.

And once seeing Wallace, made the call, assured that Wallace could not have possibly arrived yet.

Only Wallace would know if he was going to go out on the fateful night in search of the mysterious caller.

Unless of course the killer watched the house or the tram station, or the route between the two, and waited to see Wallace board the tram or head off in that direction.

The call box from which the Qualtrough call was made was just 400 yards from his home, and adjacent to where he caught the tram to the chess club. This strongly suggests that Wallace himself was the caller, and that it was part of a ruse to provide himself with an alibi.

Possibly.
But it could also indicate a stalker, as I have laid out above.

[Charles Daniels]

Louisa- I suggest you read the transcripts of the trial. Then you will see that such a scenario doesn't hold up given the evidence.

The timing of the phone call from "Qualtrough" and of the murder for when Wallace was out is very telling. The prosecution got Wallace to admit that "Qualtrough" had no way of knowing whether he would receive the message that night, because no one knew he would be at the club.

Again, unless the caller saw Wallace in route.

So, without knowing Wallace would even go to look for Menlove Gardens East, the assailant was waiting that night for his departure? That the killer would have to watch both front AND back doors, as he wouldn't know which exit Wallace would use? That the killer had no idea if Wallace would get the message or even act on it? That Wallace may consult a directory first, learn there IS no Menlove Gardens East and then not go at all?

If Julia was murdered nearer 8o'clock he need not watch the house at all.
He could probably be inconspicuously in the area of the tram station.
Observe Wallace near 7pm-ish, and then casually stroll to the house.

Another point the prosecution focused upon- the burned and bloody macintosh belonging to Wallace that the killer placed under the body. Who would have had an interest in doing this? Why would a stranger (or Parry) want to destroy SOMEONE ELSE'S macintosh?

Why would Parry want to destroy his own Macintosh?
And was it placed under the body or did the body merely fall on top of it?

[ColdCaseJury]

Was Reading the Chess and the Wallace Murder site which some of you may be familiar with by now.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/wallace.html

The site is unbiased, but does include many different writer's opinions on the case and is quite a good read. There had been an abridged version I had seen awhile ago; this is the full version. There are no new facts, but it includes many blurbs from many sources and had a bit of a "new feel" for me.

2 interesting things to me, one a point that can be deduced to be in favor of Wallace's guilt from Murphy's book, and the second the opinion of Lord Justice Wright, who summed up strongly for acquittal in the original trial; the jury went against his summation, but as we know fortunately for Wallace he won his appeal. Justice Wright here is not to be confused with Lord Hewart who presided over Wallace's successful appeal. Anyway, here they are with my commentary below in parentheses:

1. "On page 119 Murphy suggested that, if robbery were the motive, it was unnecessary for the murderer to make a telephone call to the chess club:

‘How much simpler, how much more lucrative it would have been, for Qualtrough to have slipped a note to Wallace through his front door on Monday, 12 January [sic – an intentional reference to the previous week], asking him to call at 25 Menlove Gardens East the following night.

That Qualtrough chose Wallace’s putative attendance at the chess club, rather than the night when he could maximize his gain, as the starting point for his plan, again testifies to the fact that robbery was not a significant motive in the crime.’"

(I think this really warrants examination. Murphy is correct that the call itself is suspicious and seems unlikely to mesh with a planned robbery. I would add that from Qualtrough's perspective the likelihood of Wallace having been at the chess club that particular night was in doubt; there would, in the words of Murphy have been much "simpler" ways to go about it. Unless of course, Qualtrough was Wallace himself!)

2. "On page 171 Hussey wrote: ‘Barrister Abrahams states: “The judge ... summed up strongly for acquittal.”’ He did indeed, and it is perhaps surprising to find the following on page 309 of Goodman:

‘A few years before his death, in an interview with a Liverpool Echo reporter, he [Mr Justice Wright, who took the title Lord Wright of Durley] said:

“Never forget that Wallace was a chessplayer. ... I should say that, broadly speaking, any man with common sense would have said that Wallace’s alibi was too good to be true, but that is not an argument you can hang a man on.”’ "

(Quite interesting IMO. Because my opinion is similar, the case back then wasn't proved enough to convict, but common sense tells you he's guilty. Credit to Goodman here for including this, even though he was writing in favor of Wallace's innocent. The site includes many quotes from Goodman, including an article he wrote in response to a newspaper that said they had changed their mind and found Wallace's guilt very evident following the 1975 Who Killed Julia program. He argues in a somewhat acrimonious manner for Wallace's innocence and suggests the makers of the program, not Wallace, were the ones who got away with murder! This is where he claims that because the walls were "stippled with blood", that Wallace could not have used the mackintosh to avoid blood spatter. This is also around the time that he started hinting seriously at Parry's identity, which finally was put out there following his death in 1981. I wonder what Goodman would think if he knew that Richard Whittington Egan (who accompanied him to confront Parry in 1966) now thinks Wallace was guilty and Parry was "rightly exonerated!)

Good points, as always, AS. An ex-detective always tells me that armchair detectives like us always look too clinically at the evidence in a case like this. Just because something is obviously simpler - or even better - does not necessarily mean that someone would choose that option. Life is messier.

Nevertheless, as you know, I think the most likely scenario is Wallace was involved in the killing of his wife. My counter to the Durley point would be that, if he worked alone, Wallace's plan was never going to give him a strong alibi (as Wallace's solicitor was always at pains to point out), something antithetical to a chess player, perhaps.

[louisa]

1. "On page 119 Murphy suggested that, if robbery were the motive, it was unnecessary for the murderer to make a telephone call to the chess club:

‘How much simpler, how much more lucrative it would have been, for Qualtrough to have slipped a note to Wallace through his front door on Monday, 12 January [sic – an intentional reference to the previous week], asking him to call at 25 Menlove Gardens East the following night.

But that would entail leaving an evidence trail, i.e. notepaper and handwriting, which 'Mr. Q' may have thought the police would be able to trace.

‘A few years before his death, in an interview with a Liverpool Echo reporter, he [Mr Justice Wright, who took the title Lord Wright of Durley] said:

“Never forget that Wallace was a chessplayer. ... I should say that, broadly speaking, any man with common sense would have said that Wallace’s alibi was too good to be true, but that is not an argument you can hang a man on.”

Yes, Wallace was a chess player, but he was a rubbish one. Wasn't somebody quoted as saying "if Wallace was to be hanged at all then it should have been for his abominable chess playing"?

I wonder what Goodman would think if he knew that Richard Whittington Egan (who accompanied him to confront Parry in 1966) now thinks Wallace was guilty and Parry was "rightly exonerated!)

Really? Even after talking to Parry on his doorstep and getting an unfavourable impression?

I haven't read the reasons behind why RWE would think that Wallace was guilty but from what I have read (so far) I would say that Parry was by far the most likely culprit.

He belonged to a dramatic society that had it's HQ in the City Cafe building so Parry was likely to have seen the noticeboard with Wallace's name written on it, due to play a match on the Monday night.

Parry was a ham actor and could put on different voices.

Parry's gave a false alibi for the night of the murder. Why would an innocent person do this?

The blood found on items in Parry's car at Parkes Garage.

Julia knew and trusted Parry and would have let him into the house if he had knocked.

And most telling of all....Parry was a known thief and was always short of money.

.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Charles Daniels- The macintosh wasn't Parry's- it was Wallace's. And it was clear to investigators that it was placed under the head of the victim. The medical examiner stated at trial that it was splashed by blood from in front- which implies that the killer was wearing it when Mrs. Wallace was attacked.

[ColdCaseJury]

I too have done extensive research on this case as part of a PhD.

Your PhD sounds interesting, presumably on some aspect of criminology? Was there a particular aspect of the Wallace case you were examining?

[Penny_Dredfull]

But that would entail leaving an evidence trail, i.e. notepaper and handwriting, which 'Mr. Q' may have thought the police would be able to trace.



Yes, Wallace was a chess player, but he was a rubbish one. Wasn't somebody quoted as saying "if Wallace was to be hanged at all then it should have been for his abominable chess playing"?



Really? Even after talking to Parry on his doorstep and getting an unfavourable impression?

I haven't read the reasons behind why RWE would think that Wallace was guilty but from what I have read (so far) I would say that Parry was by far the most likely culprit.

He belonged to a dramatic society that had it's HQ in the City Cafe building so Parry was likely to have seen the noticeboard with Wallace's name written on it, due to play a match on the Monday night.

Parry was a ham actor and could put on different voices.

Parry's gave a false alibi for the night of the murder. Why would an innocent person do this?

The blood found on items in Parry's car at Parkes Garage.

Julia knew and trusted Parry and would have let him into the house if he had knocked.

And most telling of all....Parry was a known thief and was always short of money.

.

Louisa- Where to begin.

Although Wallace was often down to play matches, he just as often didn't turn up to them. So no one could rely on the chess club match schedule as a certain way to know Wallace's whereabouts.

Likewise, the Qualtrough call was a clumsy and unreliable way to ensure Wallace would be out and Julia would be at home alone. There was no way to know if Wallace would even take the bait, or whether he would find out the address was bogus and not go at all. It was impossible to know if he was leaving the house by which exit and for how long. And why choose the area of Menlove Gardens- why not choose an address which would lure Wallace further away so as to give the murderer more time to commit his crime?

No- as the prosecution pointed out, "The wrong address is essential to the course of evidence for an alibi". Wallace was familiar with that area as he was taking music lessons there. His immediate supervisor at work, Mr. Crewe, lived in that vicinity- why didn't he call on him FIRST and ask about the Menlove Gardens East address? As the prosecution put it to him "...You never said until today you called at Mr. Crewe's. Of course, you realize now the importance of the point that you were quite near your superintendent, who knew the district well, and yet you asked everybody else instead of going to see him?"

As to the other issues which you see as making Parry guilty:

He was a thief- but there was no theft.
The blood supposedly on items in his car- this story comes from a third party and dates from the 1980's. The reliability of it is suspect. There WERE no bloody items found in his car.

In answer to your question "Why would an innocent person give a false alibi?"- it happens all the time. The reason being that they are guilty of or hiding SOMETHING, just not the murder.

You don't need to be a "ham actor" to make the Qualtrough call- Parry wouldn't have needed to disguise his voice. It's Wallace himself who may have needed to do that.

And finally, there are likely many others Mrs. Wallace would have gladly answered the door to when her husband was out- not least of which the neighbours and the milk boy. Are they all equally suspect?

[Penny_Dredfull]

Your PhD sounds interesting, presumably on some aspect of criminology? Was there a particular aspect of the Wallace case you were examining?

ColdCaseJury- Thanks! Yes, the Wallace case has always fascinated me. It's the mundane domestic setting and the woman murdered in her own home that most interests me. When I first saw the crime scene photos of the interior of 29 Wolverton Street I was hooked. It's not often you get such a direct glimpse into an ordinary dwelling of that time- probably not much different from all the other homes in that street. Except this home has become something else far more intriguing because murder has intruded and interrupted its stolid domesticity.
That was the initial thing that got me interested. I have researched other related cases- my PhD isn't exclusively about the Wallace case. And no, I'm not doing a degree in criminology. It's critical and cultural theory. Although a lot of my work intersects with criminology and history of crime.

My first degree, by the way was almost exclusively on JTR. Go figure. I think there should be more women like me writing about and researching these aspects of criminological history, which have for so long been, with few exceptions, the preserve of males.

Cheers for asking!