Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi CCJ,

Do you think there could have been a conspiracy involving Marsden and Parry? Could Marsden have been the killer, and possibly borrowed Parry's car? Could this explain both Parkes' evidence and Parry's alibi?

Could Marsden be the man Wallace was seen talking to by the witness? I wonder if Wallace might not have initially realized the significance of this encounter so, whilst in shock after discovering Julia's body, he fails to mention it. Subsequently, it becomes obvious that Marsden was probably involved, which explains why he latter told the police he was someone Julia would admit to the house, even though they didn't seem to know each other very well. However, he still doesn't mention the encounter to the police because he realizes he is now their number one suspect, and his earlier failure to mention the conversation might seem highly suspicious, i.e. the police might argue he was involved in a conspiracy.

What do you think?

Hi John,

I do not subscribe's to Gannon's theory. For me, it is too speculative. All I am saying is this. Take a look at the whole set of evidence that we have: it is ambiguous and puzzling. For me, everything becomes a little clearer under the assumption of a conspiracy.

For example. Wallace would have the perfect alibi if the murder was committed at 8pm while he was out. This plan makes sense to me. If he kills Julia at 6:40pm, and no matter how fast he operates, he will always be in the frame for murder. But MacFall changes his initial time of death from 8pm to before 6om and - bang! - the alibi is blown. Wallace now has to get other people in the frame for the murder.

This is only one point; there are others. The theory has good explanatory power. And this power is not weakened by not knowing who the conspirators were. And we don't. Just because Parry and Marsden are associated with this case does not imply they are involved. For all we know, Wallace hired someone to kill his wife after he set-up the whole thing up.

However, like all the theories, there are also problems with conspiracy which I am all too happy to acknowledge. For me the irony is this. For this celebrated 'perfect murder' there is no perfect theory that explains it!

[AmericanSherlock]

I have re read the Killing of Julia Wallace by Jonathan Goodman carefully. Do not have enough time presently, so will give in depth analysis later.

I will just say that Jonathan is a wonderful author and the book is a highly entertaining read. I've enjoyed some of his other books and he seems like a perfectly nice, interesting fellow. However, there are conclusions that he makes and assumptions that he just takes for granted that are baffling to me--I wonder how much authors/famous crime writers and general opinion before him being mainly anti-Wallace (thinking Wallace was guilty) impacted him. He says as much in the beginning--noting how most of the opinion was anti-Wallace and how the conclusions he has seen from previous case students were "hair-raising". His book was certainly successful--his work led to Wilkes work, the Radio City presentation etc etc. that really changed the tide. Popular opinion was definitely that Wallace was innocent and Parry guilty since then. Wikipedia even says something like "some convinced of his guilty...most of his innocence"

The tide has swung back a bit with the Murder of Julia Wallace in 2001 by James Murphy and the factual information unearthed there. I think Goodman would be quite surprised to learn: Julia's true age, the fact that Lily Lloyd's alibi was for the night of the phone call not the night of the murder. The fact that Parry did in fact have an alibi for the night of the murder. That Roger Wilkes subscribes to the conspiracy theory. That RWE who accompanied him to confront Parry and who he thanks the most in the beginning credits to his book, recently wrote a book saying Wallace was guilty and the new info from Murphy's 2001 book shows that Parry was innocent.

Of course, Jon can't be blamed for information he didn't know at the time. But I found the book to be quite one-sided. I actually enjoy when an author has an opinion, or at least would feel a bit robbed if one wasn't given (as CCJ gives in his postscript.) However, this should come after a very careful dissection of the facts that is fair and even handed. I felt Goodman was perhaps reactionary to the tide of minds that had written against Wallace--some of them admittedly using questionable logic or reasons; unfortunately however I think JG was guilty himself of some of that.

I will discuss the specific main points and arguments that he makes which he argues "proves" Wallace innocent--a very different thing than just being not guilty as Lustgarten notes in the foreword, in more depth within a future post.

[John G]

Are you John Gannon?

No AS, we just share the same initials!

[Joshua Rogan]

I thought you were John Edward Gammell

[John G]

I thought you were John Edward Gammell

Who's he?

[AmericanSherlock]

I thought you were John Edward Gammell

My favorite movie

[Joshua Rogan]

Who's he?

He is the one.
Kill him.

[John G]

He is the one.
Kill him.

I realize there's been a lot of changes to the law recently, but I'm pretty sure what you're suggesting is still illegal! But then, I could be wrong, I suppose!

[John G]

You know, the more I think about this case the more it becomes apparent that the police didn't have one iota of evidence against William Herbert Wallace. It is frankly outrageous that charges were brought against him in the first place, and evidently the Appeal Court were of the same opinion.

I mean, their desperate efforts to demonstrate that it was even physically possible for him to have committed the crime descended into absolute farce, as evidenced by the infamous "Anfield Harriers" episode.

[ColdCaseJury]

You know, the more I think about this case the more it becomes apparent that the police didn't have one iota of evidence against William Herbert Wallace. It is frankly outrageous that charges were brought against him in the first place, and evidently the Appeal Court were of the same opinion.

I mean, their desperate efforts to demonstrate that it was even physically possible for him to have committed the crime descended into absolute farce, as evidenced by the infamous "Anfield Harriers" episode.

Hi John, the appeal judges judged there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Wallace. I think everyone agrees with this. That does not mean there is no evidence, of course. What is unique in this case, it seems to me, is that people appear to react to some aspect of it - perhaps Wallace's suspicious behaviour at Menlove Gardens, or that he and his wife appeared to be happily married, and then interpret the rest of the evidence accordingly.

One aspect of this case that none of us can ignore, whatever theory we hold, is that a murdered woman is more likely to be killed by a partner or ex-partner than anyone else. The problem with applying that statistic is that we do not know the relationship between, say, Julia and Parry, or whether Julia had a ex-partner (we know nothing about her life during the years c1875 and c1905).

[louisa]

I've just been reading about some old murders and one of them made me think of the Wallace murder.

Christopher Brendan McCormack was a 49 year old painter who lived with his wife, their daughter and her family and eight lodgers.

They seemed to be blissfully happy. Nobody - not one of the people who knew them or lived with them ever heard the couple quarrel.

Yet.....Mrs. McCormack was found blugeoned many times with a heavy blunt instrument, plus there had been an attempt to strangle her.

Cutting a long story short - her husband admitted to killing her. He said he could not take her perpetual nagging. Whenever they were alone she would start - nag nag nag. She obviously did not raise her voice because nobody else heard her.

So...my point is that even the most even tempered of men who seem outwardly calm can harbour a searing intense hatred.

The difference of course is that Wallace planned his murder carefully. Or we presume he did.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HHo7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT131&lpg=PT131&dq=CHRISTOPHER+BRENDAN+MCCORMACK&source=bl&ots=jpyhOS_-ZR&sig=2OsSMTESiZJhMyEWo3s7pI2cDAs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQs4jyi_7QAhXKCcAKHa6XDmcQ6AEIOTAK#v=onepage&q=CHRISTOPHER%20BRENDAN%20MCCORMACK&f=false

[John G]

I've just been reading about some old murders and one of them made me think of the Wallace murder.

Christopher Brendan McCormack was a 49 year old painter who lived with his wife, their daughter and her family and eight lodgers.

They seemed to be blissfully happy. Nobody - not one of the people who knew them or lived with them ever heard the couple quarrel.

Yet.....Mrs. McCormack was found blugeoned many times with a heavy blunt instrument, plus there had been an attempt to strangle her.

Cutting a long story short - her husband admitted to killing her. He said he could not take her perpetual nagging. Whenever they were alone she would start - nag nag nag. She obviously did not raise her voice because nobody else heard her.

So...my point is that even the most even tempered of men who seem outwardly calm can harbour a searing intense hatred.

The difference of course is that Wallace planned his murder carefully. Or we presume he did.


https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ORMACK&f=false

Hi Louisa,

Well, I would say that Wallace planning the murder depends on accepting the police argument: that being a mediocre amateur chess player is sufficientevidence for someone being a Professor Moriarty criminal mastermind!

[John G]

Hi John, the appeal judges judged there was no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Wallace. I think everyone agrees with this. That does not mean there is no evidence, of course. What is unique in this case, it seems to me, is that people appear to react to some aspect of it - perhaps Wallace's suspicious behaviour at Menlove Gardens, or that he and his wife appeared to be happily married, and then interpret the rest of the evidence accordingly.

One aspect of this case that none of us can ignore, whatever theory we hold, is that a murdered woman is more likely to be killed by a partner or ex-partner than anyone else. The problem with applying that statistic is that we do not know the relationship between, say, Julia and Parry, or whether Julia had a ex-partner (we know nothing about her life during the years c1875 and c1905).

Hi CCJ,

Thanks for the reply. I'll respond in more detail when I have more time. However, as regards a murdered woman being more likely to be killed by a partner, as someone once said, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Of course, I accept that it would be perfectly natural for the police to focus on the husband initially. However, they then seemed to ignore all the relevant facts, preferring instead to take extraordinary, and somewhat bizarre, steps to try and prove his guilt.

Thus, the infamous "Anfield Harriers" attempted to recreate his journey to the tram stops. However, as I've noted, this turned into a complete farce as younger, and much fitter, officers were observed sprinting for the tram. Furthermore, regarding timings, the very dubious evidence of Alan Close was clearly preferred to that of James Wildman, despite the fact that the former clearly lied, whilst the latter at least consulted a clock.

And I don't consider Wallace's behaviour to be particularly suspicious. For instance, it seems to me that it's perfectly reasonable for him to have concerns about the Qualtrough appointment; in fact, I think he probably suspected from the start that the Qualtrough call was probably a hoax, or at least that Beattie had written down the wrong address: Wallace initially recorded it as Menlove Gardens West before being corrected by Beattie.

And it must have been disconcerting that two local Allerton residents whom he consulted-James Beattie and Edgar Bertram-had both never heard of Menlove Gardens East.

Of course, he'd travelled to the local area previously to visit Joseph Crewe's address, where he took violin lessons. However, this was two years previously. And wasn't this area known locally as the "Allerton Maze"?

Moreover, as I noted in my reply to Louisa, the police attempted to portray Wallace as some sort of Moriarty figure. However, he then apparently, and inexplicably, transforms into the world's stupidest criminal by admitting that he visited Joseph Crewe's address to seek directions-he was out at the cinema-thereby effectively confirming that he had at least some knowledge of the area!

And, as regards the accumulation of albis, isn't Parry's conduct in this respect at least equally suspicious, considering how many alibis he acquired after leaving Olivia Brine's residence?

[Joshua Rogan]

where he took violent lessons

No wonder the police thought he was guilty!

Edit: Spoilsport!

[John G]

No wonder the police thought he was guilty!

Edit: Spoilsport!

You've jumped the gun! You'll note my original draft has been updated, making this post completely redundant.