Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

Anyhow, I spent a pleasant afternoon with Antony (CCJ) today at a Liverpool Police station going through the Wallace file...
Some stuff "missing" (Parry's statement and those of his alibi witnesses), but we worked out where these must be (PRO, Kew, London). No earthshattering discoveries, but a couple of little points I'd not heard of before.
e.g. Florence Johnston saying in her statement that before she and her husband went out and encountered Wallace in the alley, she heard a knock at the back door of Number 29, and she knew it was Wallace, as it sounded just the way he always knocked.

On the way home I stopped off at my local library and took some snaps of the Liverpool "Kelly's" Directory, compiled in December 1930.

Front pages

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wqupi6mc8qn2fze/2017-03-16%2016.24.06.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9sg1tz96yodchd0/2017-03-16%2016.24.30.jpg?dl=0

Qualtroughs

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4wbc9ivmx0z8ts6/2017-03-16%2016.21.41.jpg?dl=0

Wallace

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wkj85w91rsfv2c5/2017-03-16%2016.22.57.jpg?dl=0

Wolverton Street

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6gk9suma5cnywu2/2017-03-16%2016.31.52.jpg?dl=0

Menlove Gardens

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bdfujfdrtis9l1i/2017-03-16%2016.25.30.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yyq4mqzaxr1irg6/2017-03-16%2016.39.47.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t5oczidvek0ha3b/2017-03-16%2016.33.09.jpg?dl=0

Mr. Parry Snr.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/msu5kt6v1l2ncfd/2017-03-16%2016.41.12.jpg?dl=0

[AmericanSherlock]

Anyhow, I spent a pleasant afternoon with Antony (CCJ) today at a Liverpool Police station going through the Wallace file...
Some stuff "missing" (Parry's statement and those of his alibi witnesses), but we worked out where these must be (PRO, Kew, London). No earthshattering discoveries, but a couple of little points I'd not heard of before.
e.g. Florence Johnston saying in her statement that before she and her husband went out and encountered Wallace in the alley, she heard a knock at the back door of Number 29, and she knew it was Wallace, as it sounded just the way he always knocked.

On the way home I stopped off at my local library and took some snaps of the Liverpool "Kelly's" Directory, compiled in December 1930.

Front pages

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wqupi6mc8qn2fze/2017-03-16%2016.24.06.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9sg1tz96yodchd0/2017-03-16%2016.24.30.jpg?dl=0

Qualtroughs

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4wbc9ivmx0z8ts6/2017-03-16%2016.21.41.jpg?dl=0

Wallace

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wkj85w91rsfv2c5/2017-03-16%2016.22.57.jpg?dl=0

Wolverton Street

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6gk9suma5cnywu2/2017-03-16%2016.31.52.jpg?dl=0

Menlove Gardens

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bdfujfdrtis9l1i/2017-03-16%2016.25.30.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yyq4mqzaxr1irg6/2017-03-16%2016.39.47.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t5oczidvek0ha3b/2017-03-16%2016.33.09.jpg?dl=0

Mr. Parry Snr.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/msu5kt6v1l...41.12.jpg?dl=0

Hi Rod, thanks for this. Great stuff here.

Would love to meet either 1 of you or anyone here for a pint. Give me a shout if you're ever in the states.

[ColdCaseJury]

`What is interesting is that the evidence, such as it was, could support either the prosecution or the defence depending on how you chose to look at it.′
(P. D. James in The Murder Room, through character Conrad Ackroyd).

Which means that no one of sound mind could find beyond a reasonable doubt Wallace guilty. Of course, that is not the interesting question to me nor for Cold Case Jury. What most likely happened?

[AmericanSherlock]

Which means that no one of sound mind could find beyond a reasonable doubt Wallace guilty. Of course, that is not the interesting question to me nor for Cold Case Jury. What most likely happened?

Alan Close killed Julia...he rằng again after his rounds when he saw Wallace leave. He was sick of never getting a tip.

[AmericanSherlock]

A point about the phone call... it is has been suggested that Wallace wouldn't take the risk that Beattie would recognize his voice, or that someone would see him make the call....but you have to remember he has a "free shot" at it. We know what happened the following night, so we view the call as part of an unbroken, interconnected chain of events. However, if Wallace ran into anyone right outside the phone box, or if Beattie made a comment when he got to the club "That wasn't you having a laugh was it mate?" or something like that, he could easily scrap the plan.

That Beattie relayed the information without suspicion would be all the verification Wallace needed to know he was in the clear and go thru with the plan.

[RodCrosby]

A point about the phone call... it is has been suggested that Wallace wouldn't take the risk that Beattie would recognize his voice, or that someone would see him make the call....but you have to remember he has a "free shot" at it. We know what happened the following night, so we view the call as part of an unbroken, interconnected chain of events. However, if Wallace ran into anyone right outside the phone box, or if Beattie made a comment when he got to the club "That wasn't you having a laugh was it mate?" or something like that, he could easily scrap the plan.

That Beattie relayed the information without suspicion would be all the verification Wallace needed to know he was in the clear and go thru with the plan.

Perhaps, but that is assuming Beattie thought the call was entirely innocuous and had no reason to give it much thought.

Once the seriousness of the situation became apparent, and that the call was in fact a prelude to murder, how could Wallace know that, on reflection, Beattie would not wilt under intense interview and cross-examination, and concede that he could not be certain it was not Wallace?

I believe Beattie's unshakeability on the point was the single critical factor which saved Wallace's neck at the Court of Appeal.

But who in their right mind would risk all upon such an contingency?

[RodCrosby]

Some medical information on Urinary Incontinence

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2013/0415/p543.html

"Stress... 24 to 45 percent in women older than 30 years... Loss of small amount of urine during physical activity or intra-abdominal pressure (coughing, sneezing, jumping, lifting, exercise); can occur with minimal activity, such as walking or rising from a chair

Urge... 31 percent in women older than 75 years... Bladder contractions may also be stimulated by a change in body position (i.e., from supine to upright) or with sensory stimulation (e.g., running water, hand washing, cold weather, arriving at the front door)"

What then were the chances of this elderly woman, already recovering from a cold, on this cold winter's night, rising from her chair, opening her front door, to receive an unexpected guest, then having an episode which necessitated her visiting the toilet, giving the guest - as he expected - his opportunity to steal from the cashbox?

[AmericanSherlock]

Some medical information on Urinary Incontinence

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2013/0415/p543.html

"Stress... 24 to 45 percent in women older than 30 years... Loss of small amount of urine during physical activity or intra-abdominal pressure (coughing, sneezing, jumping, lifting, exercise); can occur with minimal activity, such as walking or rising from a chair

Urge... 31 percent in women older than 75 years... Bladder contractions may also be stimulated by a change in body position (i.e., from supine to upright) or with sensory stimulation (e.g., running water, hand washing, cold weather, arriving at the front door)"

What then were the chances of this elderly woman, already recovering from a cold, on this cold winter's night, rising from her chair, opening her front door, to receive an unexpected guest, then having an episode which necessitated her visiting the toilet, giving the guest - as he expected - his opportunity to steal from the cashbox?

Rod,

If "Qualtrough" had his opportunity to steal from the cashbox and was then caught and had to kill Julia, why was she attacked with her back to her killer, seemingly having just lit the fire, and with no defensive wounds?

Furthermore, you asked how could Wallace count on various factors in planning the murder, do you think counting on Julia needing to use the bathroom was a surefire bet? It might be morbidly humorous to think so , but doubt someone would plan a robbery on that.

And where did the iron bar come from? If "Qualtrough" brought it in the house with him, then he must have been prepared to use it...it would be cumbersome and he would have to hide it at first to not alarm suspicion while judging if it needed to be used or not. This seems unlikely to me. If he found the weapon in the house and picked it up in a rage or desperation to silence Julia, then her positioning facing away from her attacker, and the lack of a struggle is even more baffling.

I think Julia Wallace was an intended murder victim.

[AmericanSherlock]

Perhaps, but that is assuming Beattie thought the call was entirely innocuous and had no reason to give it much thought.

Once the seriousness of the situation became apparent, and that the call was in fact a prelude to murder, how could Wallace know that, on reflection, Beattie would not wilt under intense interview and cross-examination, and concede that he could not be certain it was not Wallace?

I believe Beattie's unshakeability on the point was the single critical factor which saved Wallace's neck at the Court of Appeal.

But who in their right mind would risk all upon such an contingency?

Well the thing is if Wallace was in fact the killer, he would have had to come up with a clever plan. There would be no avoiding risk entirely.

I've seen it argued that whoever killed Julia, whether it was Wallace or it was someone else (not hired by Wallace)...that in either case, it was to the killer's advantage to kill Julia on the Monday night, when it was known Wallace would be at the club.

The argument goes that if the killer was someone else, if he was confident enough Wallace would be at the club to receive the message the Monday night, then why not rob/kill Julia that night?

And if the killer was Wallace himself, why not just kill Julia that night with the chess club as alibi? Obviously if Wallace was the killer, he couldn't really create a perfect alibi for himself, since as I've said before one can't "outpace reality". The risk he would have to take was there would be doubt--reasonable doubt as to the timing... there is no reason the argument goes that the fixed chess club time of 7:45 couldn't be used just as well as a 7:30 appointment the next night to meet Qualtrough?

So why go to all the trouble of the Qualtrough call business? Here is another thing that smacks of Wallace's guilt to me...I agree if the killer was NOT Wallace then there is no advantage to not trying to commit the robbery on the Monday night. A possible extra day of insurance takings doesn't seem to me to pass muster as a plausible reason, not when it would not be even known if Wallace would go the following night, and yet the caller if not Wallace had to be confident enough that Wallace was at the chess club on the Monday night to receive the message in the first place. (And as an aside I don't see how he could be outside of stalking Wallace, which seems implausible, which is another reason I think the caller was Wallace himself.)

However, if the caller/killer was Wallace, then it actually does make sense to me. Because, the Qualtrough business, at least in his mind, would created the reasonable doubt of another suspect. It also allowed him to have the 7:30 time across town at a strange address, and have a shot at strengthening his alibi (if he acted fast, soon after Alan Close came and could verify seeing Julia alive, which was expected a little after 6) and was seen around town at the tram stop at 6:30 or so...he'd have a much better reason for being out at that time.

If he commits the murder on the Monday night before the chess club, he doesn't have a reason to be out early for a 7:45 chess club, the address of which he was familiar. He would lose the "reasonable doubt" Close could possibly provide him by seeing Julia alive, shortly before Wallace would be seen by Liverpudlians out on his journey.

The fact that Close was late due to his bike malfunctioning does not change this as Close's arrival, whenever it is, is point A and point B is the time when Wallace is 1st seen at the tram stop. The difference between these two times is the critical aspect; nothing else.

[RodCrosby]

Rod,

If "Qualtrough" had his opportunity to steal from the cashbox and was then caught and had to kill Julia, why was she attacked with her back to her killer, seemingly having just lit the fire, and with no defensive wounds?

Furthermore, you asked how could Wallace count on various factors in planning the murder, do you think counting on Julia needing to use the bathroom was a surefire bet? It might be morbidly humorous to think so , but doubt someone would plan a robbery on that.

And where did the iron bar come from? If "Qualtrough" brought it in the house with him, then he must have been prepared to use it...it would be cumbersome and he would have to hide it at first to not alarm suspicion while judging if it needed to be used or not. This seems unlikely to me. If he found the weapon in the house and picked it up in a rage or desperation to silence Julia, then her positioning facing away from her attacker, and the lack of a struggle is even more baffling.

I think Julia Wallace was an intended murder victim.

The idea she was attacked while lighting the fire was put forward by Oliver KC. McFall, while conceding it was possible, had stated his own view that Julia was attacked while sitting on the chair to the left of the fireplace, and the evidence is more suggestive of that. There was no bloodstaining in the right corner of the room, near the window and chaise-longue, to the right of the fireplace, where the valve for the gas fire was. The bloodstains were mostly to the left of the fireplace, behind the left chair, with some between the door and the piano.

It becomes less doubtful if the visitor - or the planner of the crime - was an intimate acquaintance of the Wallaces, and had observed her frequent need to urinate on many previous occasions. Also, the visitor had a backup, if Julia didn't perform as expected. He could ask to use the toilet, giving him another opportunity to leave the parlour and effect a robbery in the middle kitchen. A commonplace ruse, found in many similar crimes.

The evidence is suggestive that a bar from the fireplace was used, and taken away by the killer, which if correct tends to indicate the killing was a spur of the moment thing.

[AmericanSherlock]

The idea she was attacked while lighting the fire was put forward by Oliver KC. McFall, while conceding it was possible, had stated his own view that Julia was attacked while sitting on the chair to the left of the fireplace, and the evidence is more suggestive of that. There was no bloodstaining in the right corner of the room, near the window and chaise-longue, to the right of the fireplace, where the valve for the gas fire was. The bloodstains were mostly to the left of the fireplace, behind the left chair, with some between the door and the piano.

It becomes less doubtful if the visitor - or the planner of the crime - was an intimate acquaintance of the Wallaces, and had observed her frequent need to urinate on many previous occasions. Also, the visitor had a backup, if Julia didn't perform as expected. He could ask to use the toilet, giving him another opportunity to leave the parlour and effect a robbery in the middle kitchen. A commonplace ruse, found in many similar crimes.

The evidence is suggestive that a bar from the fireplace was used, and taken away by the killer, which if correct tends to indicate the killing was a spur of the moment thing.

If she was seated, then that completely goes against the idea that she caught "Qualtrough" stealing from her and a struggle ensued (also none of this changes the fact that there were no physical signs of a struggle and that she was struck from behind).

Additionally, if the killer found the bar in the fireplace as you suggest, did a seated Julia just let him walk past her and diddle around the fireplace for it, before he whacked her?

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that Wallace was guilty.

[RodCrosby]

If she was seated, then that completely goes against the idea that she caught "Qualtrough" stealing from her and a struggle ensued (also none of this changes the fact that there were no physical signs of a struggle and that she was struck from behind).

Additionally, if the killer found the bar in the fireplace as you suggest, did a seated Julia just let him walk past her and diddle around the fireplace for it, before he whacked her?

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that Wallace was guilty.

Julia was an elderly, "frail" woman. There wouldn't be much of a struggle. There is evidence she was grabbed by the arm, in any case. If her killer had just "seen red", grabbed the bar and brained her, it would be all over in a flash, surely?

McFall seemed adamant that the fatal initial blow was struck while Julia was facing her killer. The wounds to the back of the head were administered while she was prone on the floor.

Wallace was a victim of a miscarriage of justice, thankfully rectified in time. Miscarriages occur regularly. In our own time, cases such as Jonathan Jones and Sheila Bowler - to mention just two - bear this out, and share some similarities with the Wallace case.

Wallace had no time, no motive, no forensics, no weapon - whereas none of these snags apply to an alternative killer.

[ColdCaseJury]

The more I think about this case, the more convinced I am that Wallace was guilty.

Hi AS, it's good to have you back discussing this case again. WRT to your comment above, it also follows that you are more convinced that John Parkes and Dolly Atkinson lied about Parry's late night visit to the garage. Similarly, that Lily Hall was mistaken (as you believe Wallace acted alone). On the latter, you may be on stronger ground. After examining the original statements and depositions again, Hall saw one of the two men head down Richmond Park while the other went into the entry by the Church Institute. This means that both men walked AWAY from the entry to Wolverton Street, which Wallace would have used (and said he used). Not proof, of course, but grounds for thinking neither man was Wallace.

[ColdCaseJury]

Frenzied Attack?

Having taken another look at the original police and DPP files, I have discovered an inconsistency in MacFall's evidence. In the Autopsy report, he states:

I am of the opinion that death was due to fracture of the skull by someone striking the deceased three or four times with terrific force with a hard large-headed instrument.

He found ten incised wounds which had burst the scalp in parallel lines, hence his inference to a large headed instrument (i.e. one that would leave several parallel lines in the scalp per blow). In his deposition and trial testimony, he says 11 blows were struck by a iron bar (i.e. a small headed instrument).

I suggest MacFall was adjusting his interpretation of the evidence to fit the police case. What if the murder weapon was a large-headed instrument all along?

[Joshua Rogan]

Having taken another look at the original police and DPP files, I have discovered an inconsistency in MacFall's evidence. In the Autopsy report, he states:

I am of the opinion that death was due to fracture of the skull by someone striking the deceased three or four times with terrific force with a hard large-headed instrument.

He found ten incised wounds which had burst the scalp in parallel lines, hence his inference to a large headed instrument (i.e. one that would leave several parallel lines in the scalp per blow). In his deposition and trial testimony, he says 11 blows were struck by a iron bar (i.e. a small headed instrument).

I suggest MacFall was adjusting his interpretation of the evidence to fit the police case. What if the murder weapon was a large-headed instrument all along?

Hi CCJ
I'm not sure I follow your point here....why do you say an iron bar is a small headed instrument? Doesn't that depend on the particular iron bar in question - are the dimensions of the bar from the fireplace known?
And why would a large headed instrument leave "several" parallel lines per blow but not a small headed one (assuming they were the same shape)? Surely a large one would simply leave them further apart.