Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

John G- I'm afraid your issue is not with me- it's with every forensic science text book I've ever consulted.

Penny,

Well, I'd be really interested to know what text books you've consulted. Thus, as Payne James, et al. 2003, point out, "Tables are given, particularly in the older German literature, as to how fast different liquids, vegetables, and meals leave the stomach. These are not considered accurate and should not be relied upon."

Since 1966 more accurate radioscopic tests have been available. However, even these tests only serve to highlight the difficulties in this area. Thus, DiMiaio and DiMiaio (2001), referring to the aforementioned Brophy study, note: Thus, this study demonstrates that the gastric emptying of either solids or liquids is subject to relatively wide differences in the same and different individuals even if the same meal is ingested. If, in addition to this, we added differences in the weight, caloric content, and composition of the meal, we would see even greater differences in half emptying times. (ibid, p39)

I would therefore ask you to cite a research study which supports your argument.

[John G]

1. That's assuming a murder plot, if it was a robbery plot only, then Qulatrough would have more important things to worry about, like how he would get away with the robbery with Julia there; if he wasn't prepared to murder Julia, then he would know they would eventually discover a robbery, and it would be obvious what had happened with WHW coming back from the fake address. The robbery plot doesn't compute and Qualtrough creating an elaborate scenario with the goal of murdering Julia or at least the willingness to does not make sense at all. What does make sense is a planned murder where Qualtrough is Wallace...

2. I agree and playing chess doesn't make people devious. I'm a pretty poor chess player myself , but the point I think was less about the chess and more the fact that Wallace's alibi seemed to good to be true...i.e. contrived. I thought it was interesting that this was the personal opinion of the judge who summed up (correctly imo with the evidence given at the trial) for acquittal. Because, I agree with him.

3. RWE changed his mind after Murphy's book, in which new information was made available. Parry had an alibi for the night of the murder with 5 separate people there at the house of Olivia Brine thru 8:30 PM. It can be argued that all were lying, or that he left earlier than stated, but the fact is he had an alibi nonetheless that covered him for the time of the murder. Lily Lloyd's alibi was for the night of the phone call, which she retracted after being jilted. This is a major piece that Goodman etc. had wrong (as does the movie Man from the Pru) and the Radio City productions, the Final Verdict book etc... Parry HAD an alibi the police were satisfied with and it was NOT from Lily Lloyd. This does not mean she was lying when she retracted it, it is possible he lied when questioned about the night of the phone call, people lie all the time if they don't have an answer to police questioning or to make their alibi seem more airtight; it does not mean they are guilty. Similarly, one could ask why did Parry's parents want him out of the country if he was innocent, again the cloud of suspicion is enough to create desperation.

Parry was also examined at the police station the night of the murder (interview started before Midnight and ended after) and he was examined very closely including under fingernails and found to be totally free of blood or signs of distress anywhere. It could be argued of course that he had time to clean up before the interview etc..., however the point here is not that this absolutely proves his innocence, rather that the narrative that there was a
"conspiracy of silence" against Wallace and to exonerate Parry unfairly seems false. Wallace himself discovered the body, smeared blood on the notes etc..so he actually had an excuse to have some blood on him when the police came. It was only on his journey that he had to be visibly free of blood.

As far as John Parkes story, I picked up in 1 book on the subject that Parry told the police Parkes was mentally slow and he was joking about it after hearing about the murder. That seems more likely to me than Parry wearing a fisherman's outfit with thigh high boots as Parkes recounts, which means that Parry went over to the Wallace's that night with the intention of committing pre-meditated murder. Highly unlikely imo.

Parry strikes me as a rogue, and probably someone who had sociopathic tendencies. Your typical low level conman with enough requisite charm in his youth to pull of a few things here and there, but ultimately a criminal failure. I seriously doubt he committed the perfect murder.

I would have to disagree with nearly all of this. For instance, where's the evidence that Wallace had blood on his person when the police arrived? And where did the blood smeared notes come from? When did Wallace have the opportunity to wash off the blood after arriving home?

Parkes didn't say that Parry was wearing a fisherman's outfit; he merely noted that he had previously borrowed fisherman's oilskins from someone in the neighbourhood. He also said that Parry admitted to disposing of an iron bar down a grid outside a Doctor's on Priory Road. Crucially, there were two doctors practicing on Priory Road and there are grids outside both which were never searched.

There weren't five people witnesses at the Brine residence until 8:30, but only three. And Olivia Brine was the only adult. Two of those witnesses gave testimonies, however, they could only say that he left at "about 8:30."

[Penny_Dredfull]

I hope you don't mind me asking another question: what was the question you were seeking to answer that made you investigate the Wallace case?

Yes, many more opinions and perspectives are usually better. And this is a preserve of male writers, generally. A pioneer of female crime writers was possibly Yseult Bridges, but I have issues with her work!

ColdcaseJury- Yseult Bridges, yes- I've read her books on Constance Kent, Florence Bravo and Adelaide Bartlett. I guess in some ways they are products of their time - ie mid 1950's to early 1960's. They are notable because it is a woman author writing about female murderers. The victims are all male, however!

You ask what question I was trying to answer by researching the Wallace case- well, there really isn't a question for which I'm seeking answers. That's not how I tend to approach material. I like to acquaint myself closely with the material and then examine it from every angle possible. I see what I notice and what comes up. Sometimes I find facets which haven't been recognized before, or new connections and patterns. But I'm not inventing or speculating for the sake of novelty. I'm casting a fresh set of eyes on things. It's like reopening a cold case.

[AmericanSherlock]

I would have to disagree with nearly all of this. For instance, where's the evidence that Wallace had blood on his person when the police arrived? And where did the blood smeared notes come from? When did Wallace have the opportunity to wash off the blood after arriving home?

Parkes didn't say that Parry was wearing a fisherman's outfit; he merely noted that he had previously borrowed fisherman's oilskins from someone in the neighbourhood. He also said that Parry admitted to disposing of an iron bar down a grid outside a Doctor's on Priory Road. Crucially, there were two doctors practicing on Priory Road and there are grids outside both which were never searched.

There weren't five people witnesses at the Brine residence until 8:30, but only three. And Olivia Brine was the only adult. Two of those witnesses gave testimonies, however, they could only say that he left at "about 8:30."

I don't understand how you can disagree with nearly all of it, when more than half of it was factual information. Some of what you're disagreeing with is inferences from what I said, rather than the actual content itself. I'm happy to debate this case, and think it would be boring if we all agreed, but just because we have opposing viewpoints doesn't justify casting aside all of what the other person says.

The one area where you are correct is it was 3 people providing Parry with the alibi the night of the murder, I was thinking of Lily Lloyd and her mother as 2 more, but their alibi was for the previous night, totalling 5 people providing Parry alibis for the night of the murder, and for the night of the phone call. All 5 would have to be lying for Parry to have been guilty.

The point regarding Wallace was he discovered her body, touched her etc, so he wouldn't have to account for small amounts of blood on his person, as he had a built in excuse.

What's your opinion then, do you think Parry was guilty on his own or with another OR do you think Wallace was behind it and put him and/or someone else up to it?

I could see Wallace hiring Parry and/or someone else to commit the murder. I don't think it's likely for many reasons I've stated previously, but I think it's much more likely than Parry acting alone or with someone else, but without Wallace being behind it.

It appears you think it's most likely Wallace was totally innocent (neither committed the crime nor masterminded it) Is that correct?


And as a final note, in response to the bold, Parkes DID say Parry was wearing thigh high boots, which was supposedly part of the outfit and would have been a very odd thing to wear, even in January.

[ColdCaseJury]

I have challenged anyone here to put forward any direct evidence that Parry is the murderer and I haven't seen any yet. Many point their fingers at him, but none of the actual evidence does.

There has to be a measure of suspicion over Parry because he misled the police about his whereabouts at the time of the call (19.1.31). There are many reasons why he might have wanted to mislead, but the police did not chase down this important loose end. This does not reach the standard of direct evidence of him being the murderer, but it does provide grounds for thinking Parry might have been involved.

By contrast, is there direct evidence of Wallace being the murderer? The judges overturned his conviction citing Section 4 of The Criminal Appeal Act (1907) - the jury's verdict could not be supported by the evidence!

In my view, it is the preponderance of indirect evidence that needs to be assessed in this case.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

The thing is, our light-fingered Parry struck Wallace the same way - and this was before he was allowed into the Wallace household and shown exactly where the takings were kept. Wallace was by all accounts a careful man and he wasn't a stupid one. So why did he put temptation Parry's way like this? Was he already working on a plan to commit the perfect murder himself and let the blame fall naturally on the perfect suspect - Parry?

Look at the salient points people use to point the finger at Parry. How many of these were known to Wallace when he named him to the police as someone Julia would readily have invited in? If he even wondered for a moment that the oily Parry may have been sniffing round his flattered wife, that would provide one heck of a motive for killing her and hoping to see Parry hang for it. But he'd have had to be careful not to over-egg the pudding himself, but hope the police would see for themselves the potential for Parry as Qualtrough. Evidently their enquiries failed to turn up any hard evidence for this, or for Parry committing the murder, and Wallace could not have done anything about it if the police were satisfied with Parry's alibi for either night.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, I agree. Alfred Mather a one time colleague, described Wallace as "the most cool, calculating, despondent, and soured man" he had ever met a man with "an evil temper." Yes, it's just my opinion and no it's not proof by any stretch, but I could totally see Wallace committing the crime with the intention to see Parry hang for it. The crime was committed the night before his takings, a point Wallace made clear to the police. He also was very quick to name Parry.

On first look, it seems like a botched robbery. But I think with closer examination, we see in fact it was much more likely a planned murder and a staged robbery.

One possibility if we consider Wallace as a devious plotter would be him hiring Parry and/or someone else, but for a couple reasons this theory falters.

1. As you previously cleverly noted, if Wallace was working with anyone else, he could have done a FAR better job to seemingly exonerate himself by being AT the chess club when the call was made. This is a HUGE obstacle to anyone who thinks Wallace was working with somebody (ies) else.

2. He named Parry/Marsden. This doesn't rule Wallace working with someone else, but the killer was someone Julia knew and trusted enough to let in while her husband was out (assuming for a second it wasn't Wallace). One could argue Julia "might" let so and so in, but the killer had to be [I]sure[/I she would as part of his plan, whether robbery or murder. (I think it was murder for many previously talked about reasons) This likely rules out random culprits and narrows down the suspect list. Even so, Wallace didn't have to play into this and cast the finger of suspicion so readily on Parry and to a lesser degree Marsden. He could have casually mentioned them as to not look suspicious and then mentioned several other possible suspects in his mind. The fact that writers have latched onto Parry and Marsden, because those are the 2 Wallace named is a case of trying to makes the facts fit their theory, rather than the other way around imo.

So like you said before, I come back to either Wallace acted alone--or somebody(ies) else did.

I tend to think Wallace, because I can't see anyone elses' motive for murder, or even more what their plan could possibly be. If it was robbery, then they must know that they might have to kill Julia to get away with it and silence her. And remember there was money in Julia's bag and jewelry on her that was NOT taken!

[AmericanSherlock]

Thanks for all that info, Sherlock.

I don't think I have the book by Murphy. I thought I had it somewhere but I haven't found it amongst my collection, which if you saw it you would understand why.

When I read Murphy's book I will be better informed and will give an opinion, for what it's worth.

Are you saying you think Wallace committed the murder?

Yes, that is my opinion that it is quite likely Wallace committed the murder and acted alone.

[AmericanSherlock]

Louisa- I'm sorry, I don't agree with a single thing here, and I don't find these assertions to be supported by any hard, factual evidence. You're certainly welcome to your opinion, and I don't mean any disrespect.

I agree with the comments above made by AmericanSherlock concerning the unlikely possibility of Parry being the murderer. I also just don't understand why the continual focus on Parry. I don't see why he in particular should be singled out as THE suspect to the exclusion of other possibilities. The so called evidence for him being the killer is to me so forced and so speculative that it would never hold up in court.
IF there was such a damning case to be that Parry was the real murderer and their "innocent' client was facing the hangman - WHY didn't Wallace's defense pursue that angle? If there was a really good case to be made against Parry, if their client was a scapegoated and innocent man whose life was at stake, would they have remained silent?
And as for the "theft"- what theft? Wallace, the prime suspect claimed that the four pounds was taken but we only have his word for it. All the other money and valuables in the house were left alone. The police considered the scene to be staged to look like a theft gone wrong.
Concerning the Qualtrough call- there are too many logical problems with that, which I have already addressed in previous posts. The idea of what voice was on the other end is the least of the problems. You don't have to be an actor to disguise your voice in a phone call, anyway. Heck, even I can do that! And if the people you're phoning don't know your voice anyway, what's the big deal?
I have challenged anyone here to put forward any direct evidence that Parry is the murderer and I haven't seen any yet. Many point their fingers at him, but none of the actual evidence does.

I totally agree regarding Parry. I think it is because of Jonathan Goodman. He searched hi and lo to find someone like John Parkes to support his theory. Parry made a good scapegoat, because of his shady character, but there is just no credible evidence linking him to the crime. Just a lot of effort to make the pieces of the puzzle fit, when they don't.

We should remember 70 random lunatics confessed to Julia Wallace's murder at the time. A man said he was present when John Johnstone confessed to the crime on his deathbed; Johnstones relatives one of whom was there at the time and said no such thing was said and threatened to sue. Parkes questionable story, replete with stuff that strains credulity coupled with Parry being part of a drama society hardly constitute evidence.

Parry was a shady low level rogue; do we really think he committed the perfect murder as part of an ingenious and devious plot?

[louisa]

Yes, that is my opinion that it is quite likely Wallace committed the murder and acted alone.

What about the blood, and the murder weapon?

And he was expecting the milk boy to call at 6pm not 6.40pm.
.

[caz]

And he was expecting the milk boy to call at 6pm not 6.40pm.

Hi Louisa,

We have been through this one many times before. Wallace had no control over when the boy would turn up, so if he planned to kill Julia that evening he knew he had no choice but to wait for Close to deliver the milk and go. I'm sure he'd have preferred the boy to come at his regular time, so he could do the deed as soon as possible after 6pm (instead of fannying about having tea and scones while he waited) and set off for the tram that much earlier, to give a stronger impression of a conscientious salesman leaving himself plenty of time to make a 7.30 appointment with a new customer at an unfamiliar destination.

Love,

Caz
X

[louisa]

Hi Louisa,

We have been through this one many times before. Wallace had no control over when the boy would turn up, so if he planned to kill Julia that evening he knew he had no choice but to wait for Close to deliver the milk and go. I'm sure he'd have preferred the boy to come at his regular time, so he could do the deed as soon as possible after 6pm (instead of fannying about having tea and scones while he waited) and set off for the tram that much earlier, to give a stronger impression of a conscientious salesman leaving himself plenty of time to make a 7.30 appointment with a new customer at an unfamiliar destination.

Love,

Caz
X

Wallace left home no later than 6.49pm. Close originally stated to 3 friends that he called at 6.45pm, which I happen to think is probably true.

Are you saying Wallace killed his wife, and cleaned himself up in 4 minutes?

Sorry if you've already been through this numerous times. You didn't have to reply. I was asking AS.

[caz]

Yes, that is my opinion that it is quite likely Wallace committed the murder and acted alone.

Hi AS,

There may be an intriguing parallel here with the case of Christie and Evans, a couple of decades later. Christie was able to murder Evans's wife Beryl and get away with it for so long because Evans made such an obvious suspect and was all too easy to set up. Who else, after all, was there to suspect at the time?

If Wallace killed his wife, he knew when he first had the idea that he would be the first person under the spotlight - the obvious, and indeed only suspect unless or until the police were given a reason to look closely at someone else. So before he came up with his Qualtrough plan he'd have been on the lookout for someone to fit that bill as closely as possible. Now if I had been in a guilty Wallace's shoes, Parry would have seemed like a gift from heaven. Just as Evans was a gift for Christie.

In both the Christie and Wallace cases, it was the husband who was initially suspected and convicted of his wife's murder. So Wallace was always going to have the tougher job of steering the police towards the other man in the story - in his case, Parry. But although Wallace was rightly set free on appeal, for lack of hard evidence, the police didn't go on to obtain any hard evidence against Parry either.

I was a little taken aback by Wallace's 'thoughts and suspicions' as set out in his life story, serialised in 1932 in John Bull magazine and quoted from in Roger Wilkes's hardback of 1984 [pages 224-7]. While I can understand an innocent man's bitterness and motivation for going into print about the man he believes killed his wife and almost got him hanged for it (without actually naming him), Wallace seems to overdo it with the kind of extraordinary detail that makes it hard to see why he would not have connected all the dots a lot sooner and let the police have chapter and verse about Parry (for Parry it clearly is) and his apparently unique suitability for the task of getting Wallace out of the way with the phone call, getting himself invited into the house by Julia and helping himself to the cash box he knows precisely where to find.

One could almost read it like Wallace is taking us through what he knows about Parry before the murder is committed that will make him such a good bet as a suspect afterwards. Why ever did Wallace trust the man with his wife and his valuables - unless he didn't, and that suited him down to the ground?

Love,

Caz
X

[ColdCaseJury]

.As you previously cleverly noted, if Wallace was working with anyone else, he could have done a FAR better job to seemingly exonerate himself by being AT the chess club when the call was made. This is a HUGE obstacle to anyone who thinks Wallace was working with somebody (ies) else.

I don't want to rake over old ground, but either I've failed to grasp this point or it's not a problem.

1) The presumption in the argument is that Wallace's accomplice made the call, but this is defeasible. Wallace might have set everything up (including making the call) and the accomplice only did the killing.

2) Assuming an accomplice made the call when Wallace was at the club. Gladys Harley would have called out "Phone call for Wallace!", Wallace would have taken the call, come back to the chess table, and then presumably talked about what was said. Fast forward to the police investigation. "We only have your word for what was said on the call, Mr Wallace. We believe there was no Mr Qualtrough calling you, that you made the whole thing up."

The call drops out as irrelevant. Wallace might as well talked at the chess club about getting a note pushed under his door at 29 Wolverton Street, or that someone stopped him in the street and told Wallace to meet him...

In either case, there is no problem as far as I can see.

What have I missed?

[caz]

Wallace left home no later than 6.49pm. Close originally stated to 3 friends that he called at 6.45pm, which I happen to think is probably true.

Are you saying Wallace killed his wife, and cleaned himself up in 4 minutes?

Sorry if you've already been through this numerous times. You didn't have to reply. I was asking AS.

No, I'm not saying Wallace killed her and cleaned himself up in 4 minutes. I have repeatedly said there was not enough evidence to convict him, but we don't know that Close's estimate of the time was accurate, do we?

I am pretty sure AS has been through this before too, and recently. But you have changed the goal posts above because I was actually addressing your point about Wallace 'expecting' the boy earlier, as if that has any bearing on whether he was planning to kill his wife or not. If he was, he had to do the deed as quickly as humanly possible whenever the boy delivered the blasted milk, in order to give himself the best chance of a convincing alibi. If he couldn't have done it in the interval between the milk boy leaving and his own departure, then he didn't do it. But the timing of the milk delivery would not have affected how long he would have taken to commit the crime, only the timing of his own departure afterwards.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I don't want to rake over old ground, but either I've failed to grasp this point or it's not a problem.

1) The presumption in the argument is that Wallace's accomplice made the call, but this is defeasible. Wallace might have set everything up (including making the call) and the accomplice only did the killing.

2) Assuming an accomplice made the call when Wallace was at the club. Gladys Harley would have called out "Phone call for Wallace!", Wallace would have taken the call, come back to the chess table, and then presumably talked about what was said. Fast forward to the police investigation. "We only have your word for what was said on the call, Mr Wallace. We believe there was no Mr Qualtrough calling you, that you made the whole thing up."

The call drops out as irrelevant. Wallace might as well talked at the chess club about getting a note pushed under his door at 29 Wolverton Street, or that someone stopped him in the street and told Wallace to meet him...

In either case, there is no problem as far as I can see.

What have I missed?

Hi CCJ,

From my point of view, if I have a dog I don't bark myself. If I have an accomplice, I get him to make the phone call while I am at the chess club. All he has to do is to ask the person at the other end to pass the message on to Wallace. If that person says he's here, you can give him the message yourself, Wallace says "I'm really sorry but I'm desperate for the loo/I'm thinking out my next move/could you be a dear and ask him what he wants/take down the message for me". It would be rude to refuse a club member who asks nicely. Alternatively, expecting the call to come in, Wallace simply absents himself on hearing the phone ring and locks himself in the loo while his accomplice says he's in a hurry and can't call later and could he please leave the message.

Simple enough for a crafty pair of killers, don't you think?

If 'Qualtrough' was acting alone, however, and wasn't Wallace himself, he had the three-fold problem of not knowing if a) Wallace would actually turn up at the club that evening; b) the message would be given to him; and c) he would be able or willing to respond to it, without discovering beforehand that the address did not exist.

Wallace acting alone would work well enough as long as the people at the club were not used to hearing his voice over a telephone. The wires, even today, do not allow for the human voice to travel to the human ear as if they were in the same room. It's not always easy to recognise a familiar voice if you rarely have occasion to speak on the phone.

Love,

Caz
X