Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[sdreid]

The Wallace Case is #9 on the Top 1000+ Classic (over 20 years old) Unsolved Murder list that I'm working on (I'm up #735 at present). Ahead in order are Cleveland Torso, JtR, Texarkana Phantom, Black Dahlia, Jack the Stripper, Original Night Stalker, Boston Strangler and New Orleans Axeman. Zodiac rounds out the top 10. #735 is the Alicia Showalter Reynolds murder from 1996 so even at 735 there's still a high level of intrigue.

[Mayerling]

The Wallace Case is #9 on the Top 1000+ Classic (over 20 years old) Unsolved Murder list that I'm working on (I'm up #735 at present). Ahead in order are Cleveland Torso, JtR, Texarkana Phantom, Black Dahlia, Jack the Stripper, Original Night Stalker, Boston Strangler and New Orleans Axeman. Zodiac rounds out the top 10. #735 is the Alicia Showalter Reynolds murder from 1996 so even at 735 there's still a high level of intrigue.

Stan, are you ever going to publish the entire list?

Jeff

[ColdCaseJury]

The Wallace Case is #9 on the Top 1000+ Classic (over 20 years old) Unsolved Murder list that I'm working on (I'm up #735 at present). Ahead in order are Cleveland Torso, JtR, Texarkana Phantom, Black Dahlia, Jack the Stripper, Original Night Stalker, Boston Strangler and New Orleans Axeman. Zodiac rounds out the top 10. #735 is the Alicia Showalter Reynolds murder from 1996 so even at 735 there's still a high level of intrigue.

This list sounds fascinating. Is it available to peruse? Clearly, Wallace is (for you) the #1 British unsolved case. I note that you do not include two older US cases in your Top Ten: Lizzie Borden and Mary Rogers.

[sdreid]

I'm putting the list up over on Websleuths Jeff and it won't probably be done for a few years yetI'd like to get it up to at least 1035 just to have some spares.

The Border murders are #17 and Rogers is #64. Yes, Wallace is my #1 British murder of a single individual.

[harry]

Graham,
Yes,but we are led to believe that Wallace started out believing that Menlove Gardens East did exist,but he didn't know where,and that in the intervening 24 hours from receiving the message,he didn't attempt to find out.Had he done so,and using the resources available,it would have become apparent,that either Menlove Gardens East didn't exist,or that the phone message had been wrongly interpreted.My opinion is that he did know,he did make the phone call,he knew Menlove Gardens East did not exist but the other two Menloves did.and he built an alibi around that knowledge.
As to not having time to commit the murder and clean up,I believe he had more than sufficient time.
Regards.

[Pcdunn]

Masterminded it, not the actual murderer

I agree - Wallace's behaviour on the night of the murder IS suspicious, although it is far from a conclusive indicator of guilt. It has to be balanced against other evidence, e.g. timings and witness statements.

I think Wallace was intelligent enough to plan everything, from the call (we only have his word for what the supposed client said to him), to letting people know he was looking for a peculiar address, to hiring (or blackmailing) a killer, giving him instructions on putting down the raincoat under the victim (to spare the rug?), to realizing the fellow needed more time to escape when he found the back door locked, and going off to a neighbor to buy it.
Plus, the name of the supposed client, Qualthough (sp.?) was on a business sign on one of Wallace's routes.

Motive? Husbands murdering wives yet making it seem an accident or burglary gone wrong aren't that uncommon, surely.

[Mayerling]

I'm putting the list up over on Websleuths Jeff and it won't probably be done for a few years yetI'd like to get it up to at least 1035 just to have some spares.

The Border murders are #17 and Rogers is #64. Yes, Wallace is my #1 British murder of a single individual.

What did you make the #1 French crime - Stavisky (was he a suicide, and what happened to the magistrate?), or the Dominici - Drummond Murders?

Jeff

[Mayerling]

If one believes William killed Julia earlier than when he went out that evening, there is an interesting, little recalled New England murder from 1916 that bears a bit of a resemblance.

In a New Hampshire town on a lake in 1916 lived one Frederick Small, who was married, and who had benefitted in a divorce settlement a few years earlier regarding an earlier marriage (no fatality in that one). Small had few friends in the area he worked in, but he plans to go to Boston for a weekend combining business and pleasure with one of his neighbors. He had called for a wagon to transport himself and his baggage to the train station, and when the wagon showed up to take him he stood in the doorway of his home and yelled, "Good-bye!". Then he boarded the wagon and was taken to the train.

Five hours later he and his neighbor had arrived in Boston, went to a hotel, and then conducted the business, and then went out for dinner and a movie. All of this, including a post card he mailed home to his wife that included the time (he told his companion, "My wife and I are always very precise on these matters.") set up a really impressive alibi. He needed one, as he had constructed a machine that within a couple of hours was to set fire to his home, burning it and the strangled corpse of his wife up so he would not be under suspicion. By the way, when he got the "bad news" (and made a show of his horror), he suddenly stopped crying and asked his companion if the local life insurance salesman would act quickly regarding the policy!

It turned out he was not clever enough. The fire-making machine did work, but the machine only burned enough of the house to cause the floor above where the machine was to burn and collapse - Mrs. Small's body plummetted down into the basement, and some flooding by the lake the house was next to protected the corpse, so that evidence of the strangling death was found.

At his trial, Small called the driver of the wagon as a witness, claiming he saw Mrs. Small come out and hug, kiss, and good-bye to Small before he left. Remember, all Small did was to yell, "Good-bye!" into the house through the open door. This attempt at implanting images of faked movements by the victim did not work with the wagon driver.

Frederick Small was executed in 1917 for the murder of his wife.

There is an account of the case in Edmund Pearson's, "Five Murders".

Jeff

[ColdCaseJury]

"to hiring (or blackmailing) a killer, giving him instructions on putting down the raincoat under the victim (to spare the rug?), to realizing the fellow needed more time to escape when he found the back door locked, and going off to a neighbor to buy it."

Clearly, you believe Julia Wallace was killed as part of a conspiracy i.e. Wallace involved others in executing his plan. This is one of the four verdicts you can bring in Move to Murder.

[ColdCaseJury]

My opinion is that he did know,he did make the phone call,he knew Menlove Gardens East did not exist but the other two Menloves did.and he built an alibi around that knowledge.

He certainly knew that THREE addresses in Menlove Gardens existed - North, South and West. Given this, is it so unreasonable for someone to assume there was also an East? Other people at the chess club thought so. No one said: it does not exist.

As for the phone call the previous night (19 January 1931), I cover this extensively in my book. It is possible that Wallace made the call and arrived at his chess club by 7:45pm (where he was seen by James Caird), but the timings stack up far better if he left the house at 7:15pm and took the tram by Belmont Road, as he said he did.

Further, why did Parry mislead the police as to his whereabouts at the time of the call? Of course, you cannot know the answer to this - there might be an innocent explanation. But surely an unprejudiced mind will hold Parry's misinformation on the night of the call just as suspicious as any of Wallace's behaviour on the night of the murder.

Of course, Parry and Wallace might BOTH have been involved in the crime. Most people seem to believe it is either Wallace acting alone or someone else acting alone. This is a mistake.

As for timings, I agree it is possible to everything alleged of Wallace in about ten minutes. But Wallace had to do everything at lightning speed AND not leave a trace of blood in the bath or any sink that could be detected by the Benzidine test. That is a far harder ask.

[Graham]

As I said recently, I haven't read a huge amount on the Wallace Case, but what I have read by various commentators seems to me to indicate that Wallace may have been an odd and even devious individual, but I honestly doubt that he was capable of murder, either by his own hand or with the connivance of others.

There doesn't seem to be any tangible evidence that his marriage was unhappy - it may have become boring, but is that a motive for murder? However, no-one can possibly know what went on behind the closed doors of that terrace house in Wolverton Crescent.

With regard to the phone-call from 'Mr Qualtrough', I can only suggest that it was either a set-up, or had been mis-heard by Samuel Beattie. If it was a set-up, and Mr Beattie noted down the details correctly, then I can only think it was to get Wallace out of his house at a particular time for whatever reason. But all this is obvious. What I still can't get my head around is why go to such lengths? For example, it was probably widely known among his acquaintances, and one assumes that Parry is included, that Wallace went to his chess-club fairly regularly in the evening, leaving Julia alone in the house. If Parry or anyone else wished to enter the house while Wallace was out, surely all he had to do was knock the door which I assume Julia would answer.

It seems highly suspicious that Wallace made quite a show of trying to find the non-existent street, to the extent of asking a bus-conductor, a policeman, and someone in a shop where he asked to borrow a map. If he wasn't in the process of constructing an alibi, then what was he up to? This is where I have difficulty - reconciling the devious Wallace who seemed to be constructing an alibi, and the Wallace who seems to me was incapable of harming a fly. Maybe he really did fool the lot of us.

One other little suspicion does enter my mind - did Julia have a lover? A extra-marital affair that Wallace never knew about and which went rather spectacularly wrong? Maybe she was a bit long in the tooth for such goings-on, but who knows?

After his acquittal, did Wallace, in the short time left to him, behave like a man who literally got away with murder? It doesn't seem so to me. His employer treated him very sympathetically, and he made a serious effort to return to pick up his life once more.

As for Parry, I still feel that there is a huge question-mark hovering over his presence in the case.

Sorry for the length of this post.

Graham

[harry]

Three Menloves it was,and which Wallace knew of,suggesting he was familiar enough with the district to know there was not an East Menlove?
Now even if a true address had been given,and the true occupants named,he could have called and been told there was some mistake.However this would have reduced the time he needed to be away.So who did the extra time benefit,Wallace or Parry?
Or some one else?
Why did Wallace need the bath or the sink? there was a simpler and quicker method,which needed little preparation or cleaning,and,if as suggested he was clothed only in the Mac ,there was little blood evidence to dispose of.
One report I read,and the only one I am aware of to report so,has a trace of blood being found in the toilet,which,if true,goes along with my line of thinking,the bath and the sink are of no consequence.

[MsWeatherwax]

One other little suspicion does enter my mind - did Julia have a lover? A extra-marital affair that Wallace never knew about and which went rather spectacularly wrong? Maybe she was a bit long in the tooth for such goings-on, but who knows?

Graham

No such thing as too old for such goings-on Graham. I seem to remember a case fairly recently where a man murdered his wife after discovering she had been involved in multiple affairs and she was in her late 60's.

[sdreid]

What did you make the #1 French crime - Stavisky (was he a suicide, and what happened to the magistrate?), or the Dominici - Drummond Murders?

Jeff

Hi Jeff-Actually, Gregory Villemin is the highest French murder on my list.

[ColdCaseJury]

Three Menloves it was,and which Wallace knew of,suggesting he was familiar enough with the district to know there was not an East Menlove?
Now even if a true address had been given,and the true occupants named,he could have called and been told there was some mistake.However this would have reduced the time he needed to be away.So who did the extra time benefit,Wallace or Parry?
Or some one else?
Why did Wallace need the bath or the sink? there was a simpler and quicker method,which needed little preparation or cleaning,and,if as suggested he was clothed only in the Mac ,there was little blood evidence to dispose of.
One report I read,and the only one I am aware of to report so,has a trace of blood being found in the toilet,which,if true,goes along with my line of thinking,the bath and the sink are of no consequence.

If you know that there is a West, North and South of a particular road, it does not follow that you know there is NO East. At least two people at the chess club were in the position of knowing about West but did not know whether or not there was an East.

The murderer of Julia Wallace would have had blood splatter on his hands, face, head, lower legs and feet (even if he was wearing a mackintosh). He would have needed to wash or change clothes. This is why, if it were Wallace, he would have had to have used a sink or the bath. The drop of blood (which could have been crime scene contamination) was found on the toilet in the bathroom.