Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

An interesting 'coincidence'?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t5oczidvek...33.09.jpg?dl=0
36 Menlove Gardens South
occupant: John Parry Williams

[ColdCaseJury]

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.

Hi - the iron bar was 12" long and as thick as an ordinary candlestick (that is how the cleaner described it) unlikely to produce parallel incisions.

I agree small and large are relative terms... I can only assume the parallel lines were far enough apart to warrant the adjective large by MacFall.

[RodCrosby]

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.

Sounds familiar?

'The presiding judge, Mr Justice Rougier, released his confidential remarks about the trial which revealed that he thought the prosecution case had "fallen decidedly flat". Had he been a member of the jury, he said, he "should be conscious of significant doubt". He was disturbed by "the contrast between the total ruthlessness and pitiless determination of whoever killed Harry and Megan and man who sat in the dock and for four and a half days in the witness box".
...
The killer was an experienced and accurate shot. Mr Jones had no experience with any firearms. There was a lack of forensic science evidence to link Mr Jones to the killing. The murder at close range would have left the killer covered in blood and brain tissue. Police examined Mr Jones's clothes and car and even took washbasins apart to try to find evidence linking him to the killings. He has to wear glasses at all times: police examined the minutest crevices of his glasses but there were no traces of blood or tissue.

The prosecution, Mr Rees argued yesterday, was based on "suspicion, speculation and conjecture . . . '
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/te...g-1306788.html

and...

'It was that very detachment that helped confirm her as a cool, calculating killer in the eyes or the police and the jury. Too blunt and emotionally buttoned up for her own good, her case divided opinion even in her home town.'
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...d-1143113.html

[AmericanSherlock]

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.

Antony,

Considering Lily Hall appears to have been mistaken, I think we can both agree this somewhat reduces the risk of a conspiracy.

Which do you now think is more likely...

That Gordon Parry murdered Julia Wallace
or
That William Wallace murdered Julia Wallace?

Of course, someone else could have. And a conspiracy is still possible, either with WHW as the mastermind. Or with him innocent and Parry and another working together. Or someone or somebodies else altogether.

What I keep coming back to though is, I do not think there is an unlimited list of suspects, since JW would not let in somebody random, or at least that person could not count on the fact she would as part of an elaborate plot. With limited suspects and JW being a bit of a recluse, this does not leave many people outside of Wallace, Parry, Marsden, the Johnstone's etc. To me, WHW remains the most plausible of them, and now that Lily Hall's testimony seems shakier I think we can lower the odds of a conspiracy. Also, of course, the fact that he named them as suspects (Parry, Marsden, and Stan Young) would seem to work against that notion.

Rod suggested that Qualtrough could have been designed to have been someone JW did not know, so that he could get away with a robbery and not be fingered easily, with Parry behind it. And that JW could be counted on to answer if Qualtrough stated his name, I guess the assumption being she would know that WHW was due to meet a man with that name, and let him in to clear up the confusion.

What do you think? I think you might be leaning towards Gordon Parry as the murderer.

I'm struggling coming up with plausible scenarios that don't have WHW at the center of it. But I'm open to it...

One final point: If Gordon Parry saw Wallace's name at the chess club board as had been suggested, then he would see that Wallace had missed several meetings. How could he be sure Wallace would even receive the message?

[ColdCaseJury]

Antony,

Considering Lily Hall appears to have been mistaken, I think we can both agree this somewhat reduces the risk of a conspiracy.

Which do you now think is more likely...

That Gordon Parry murdered Julia Wallace
or
That William Wallace murdered Julia Wallace?

Of course, someone else could have. And a conspiracy is still possible, either with WHW as the mastermind. Or with him innocent and Parry and another working together. Or someone or somebodies else altogether.

What I keep coming back to though is, I do not think there is an unlimited list of suspects, since JW would not let in somebody random, or at least that person could not count on the fact she would as part of an elaborate plot. With limited suspects and JW being a bit of a recluse, this does not leave many people outside of Wallace, Parry, Marsden, the Johnstone's etc. To me, WHW remains the most plausible of them, and now that Lily Hall's testimony seems shakier I think we can lower the odds of a conspiracy. Also, of course, the fact that he named them as suspects (Parry, Marsden, and Stan Young) would seem to work against that notion.

Rod suggested that Qualtrough could have been designed to have been someone JW did not know, so that he could get away with a robbery and not be fingered easily, with Parry behind it. And that JW could be counted on to answer if Qualtrough stated his name, I guess the assumption being she would know that WHW was due to meet a man with that name, and let him in to clear up the confusion.

What do you think? I think you might be leaning towards Gordon Parry as the murderer.

I'm struggling coming up with plausible scenarios that don't have WHW at the center of it. But I'm open to it...

One final point: If Gordon Parry saw Wallace's name at the chess club board as had been suggested, then he would see that Wallace had missed several meetings. How could he be sure Wallace would even receive the message?

Hi AS

If we assume Hall was mistaken then Wallace Conspiracy is less likely. The crucial question now becomes Parkes. If we assume Parkes was lying (he cannot be mistaken, surely), then that would point to Wallace Alone. With Dolly Atkinson offering contemporaneous support, it is harder to discount Parkes.

Rod's theory is that Parry conspired to steal the insurance money with an accomplice (not a conspiracy to murder), but the accomplice was caught in the act and killed Julia. It makes sense of Parkes testimony and Parry's movements on the night of the murder. It also requires the Qualtrough call (to get Wallace out and the pretext to get the accomplice in). Like all theories it is not perfect - even if Parry knew that Wallace had gone to the club, he could not know that Wallace had received the message (although it is likely) or that he told his wife about Qualtrough (although he might know they discussed everything). But it has explanatory power while conflicting with few points of evidence (i.e. Hall's testimony is one such point) and is more plausible than Gannon's. I know you will have intelligent questions e.g. why was Julia killed in the parlour if the money was kept in the kitchen? And so on. But, working with Rod, I am leaving some things for my book!

I genuinely do not know which verdict I will choose until I finish the book.

A.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS

If we assume Hall was mistaken then Wallace Conspiracy is less likely. The crucial question now becomes Parkes. If we assume Parkes was lying (he cannot be mistaken, surely), then that would point to Wallace Alone. With Dolly Atkinson offering contemporaneous support, it is harder to discount Parkes.

Rod's theory is that Parry conspired to steal the insurance money with an accomplice (not a conspiracy to murder), but the accomplice was caught in the act and killed Julia. It makes sense of Parkes testimony and Parry's movements on the night of the murder. It also requires the Qualtrough call (to get Wallace out and the pretext to get the accomplice in). Like all theories it is not perfect - even if Parry knew that Wallace had gone to the club, he could not know that Wallace had received the message (although it is likely) or that he told his wife about Qualtrough (although he might know they discussed everything). But it has explanatory power while conflicting with few points of evidence (i.e. Hall's testimony is one such point) and is more plausible than Gannon's. I know you will have intelligent questions e.g. why was Julia killed in the parlour if the money was kept in the kitchen? And so on. But, working with Rod, I am leaving some things for my book!

I genuinely do not know which verdict I will choose until I finish the book.

A.

Hi Antony,

Are you working with Rod on the book? Is the e-book still accessible for those who purchased it already? I understand it has been taken off the market, Congratulations on getting an independent publisher !

One important point about Dolly Atkinson, it is not totally clear to me that she verified Parkes exact story at the time, rather that he had said something to her and the others at the time (I concede he had to have, because several people said on the 1981 show that they were prepared to go ahead with their story if Wallace's appeal failed) But the elaborate story about Parry coming to the garage, needing his car washed, saying that could hang me, the glove, the waders etc... (To be fair I think Rod said Parkes simply stated he knew Parry had them, not that he saw Parry was wearing them at the time, although wouldn't it be obvious if he was?!?!)

Anyway, all those details... it is not clear to me Dolly knew or was told of that at the time, nor anyone else. She did say something about she thinks Parry must have been guilty because "why would he need his car washed that night"(loose paraphrase) or whatever, but a) that could have been from the knowledge she had gained in making the show in 1981, and b) even if Parkes told the story of Parry coming that night to have his car washed at the time, we don't know all the other details that were said then.

It is my opinion that Parkes testimony has significant flaws in it.

I do admit Gordon Parry can not completely escape the umbrella of suspicion when we combine Parkes testimony, the fact he was part of an amateur dramatic society and was said to make prank calls, the fact the caller mentioned a 21st party (Parry being 22 and his girlfriend 20 or 21 at the time), and Parry's shady past and criminal history.

However, for many reasons that I've mentioned ad nauseam, Wallace cannot escape significant suspicion either.

Here's what's interesting to me---either the 2 of them collaborated on the crime, or 1 of them was very unlucky to be such an obvious suspect and have such seemingly incriminating evidence against them out there. I believe WHW looks guilty for many more reasons than just being the husband. In Wallace's case, if he was innocent, he was incredibly unlucky. I think Caz mentioned this before, but Wallace could have been exonerated if he had left before the late Alan Close came. Totally possible if he was truly innocent for a 7:30 meeting across town. Of course, if he was guilty, he COULDN'T leave until Close arrived... The fact is he is still in the frame for the murder...barely...but still there. And then AGAIN the same is true for the night of the call to the chess club. Either Wallace was being stalked or he was INCREDIBLY unlucky.

And it would also follow that if 1 of them were guilty, this party was quite lucky. This may suggest a set-up in that 1 was attempting to make the other seem guilty. Since most of the theories about Parry involve a robbery plot, there would be no need to "frame" Wallace. This hints to me that Wallace was looking to set up Parry as a plausible suspect in his place. Even so, I admit it is not totally clear cut... if my theory is correct... Wallace got some help...he picked a great "rotten apple" in Parry with tons of people willing to vouch for his poor character and the unforeseen "bonus" of John Parkes.

Too convenient of an attempt to explain away Parry's seeming involvement? Perhaps; every solution to this case seems ultimately unsatisfying, but this one makes the most sense to me.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony,

Are you working with Rod on the book? Is the e-book still accessible for those who purchased it already? I understand it has been taken off the market, Congratulations on getting an independent publisher !

One important point about Dolly Atkinson, it is not totally clear to me that she verified Parkes exact story at the time, rather that he had said something to her and the others at the time (I concede he had to have, because several people said on the 1981 show that they were prepared to go ahead with their story if Wallace's appeal failed) But the elaborate story about Parry coming to the garage, needing his car washed, saying that could hang me, the glove, the waders etc... (To be fair I think Rod said Parkes simply stated he knew Parry had them, not that he saw Parry was wearing them at the time, although wouldn't it be obvious if he was?!?!)

Anyway, all those details... it is not clear to me Dolly knew or was told of that at the time, nor anyone else. She did say something about she thinks Parry must have been guilty because "why would he need his car washed that night"(loose paraphrase) or whatever, but a) that could have been from the knowledge she had gained in making the show in 1981, and b) even if Parkes told the story of Parry coming that night to have his car washed at the time, we don't know all the other details that were said then.

It is my opinion that Parkes testimony has significant flaws in it.

I do admit Gordon Parry can not completely escape the umbrella of suspicion when we combine Parkes testimony, the fact he was part of an amateur dramatic society and was said to make prank calls, the fact the caller mentioned a 21st party (Parry being 22 and his girlfriend 20 or 21 at the time), and Parry's shady past and criminal history.

However, for many reasons that I've mentioned ad nauseam, Wallace cannot escape significant suspicion either.

Here's what's interesting to me---either the 2 of them collaborated on the crime, or 1 of them was very unlucky to be such an obvious suspect and have such seemingly incriminating evidence against them out there. I believe WHW looks guilty for many more reasons than just being the husband. In Wallace's case, if he was innocent, he was incredibly unlucky. I think Caz mentioned this before, but Wallace could have been exonerated if he had left before the late Alan Close came. Totally possible if he was truly innocent for a 7:30 meeting across town. Of course, if he was guilty, he COULDN'T leave until Close arrived... The fact is he is still in the frame for the murder...barely...but still there. And then AGAIN the same is true for the night of the call to the chess club. Either Wallace was being stalked or he was INCREDIBLY unlucky.

And it would also follow that if 1 of them were guilty, this party was quite lucky. This may suggest a set-up in that 1 was attempting to make the other seem guilty. Since most of the theories about Parry involve a robbery plot, there would be no need to "frame" Wallace. This hints to me that Wallace was looking to set up Parry as a plausible suspect in his place. Even so, I admit it is not totally clear cut... if my theory is correct... Wallace got some help...he picked a great "rotten apple" in Parry with tons of people willing to vouch for his poor character and the unforeseen "bonus" of John Parkes.

Too convenient of an attempt to explain away Parry's seeming involvement? Perhaps; every solution to this case seems ultimately unsatisfying, but this one makes the most sense to me.

AS,

Let's assume Wallace was incredibly unlucky, for the moment. This would explain why there are not many cases like this, and why it appears Wallace is killer yet there be no direct evidence linking him to the crime. For Wallace, it looks as though everything is too bad to be true. So, there needs to be a good explanation for this improbable bad luck.

Let's take the call. You have long pointed out it is suspicious that it is just possible Wallace made the call and, if it was someone else, why didn't they make the call at 7:30pm rather than 7:15pm? We don't know. But balance this with the fact that we know Parry misled the police about his whereabouts at the time of the call, and by an "incredible" coincidence turns up at Lily Lloyd's a few minutes later. Which is the more suspicious? Wallace having the possibility of making the call, or Parry misleading the police about where he was at that very time?

I'm working with Rod on a chapter of my book - I will be reconstructing and analysing his theory.

[RodCrosby]

AS, listen to Dolly Atkinson at 27 minutes in...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jv4vtb239o...lence.mp3?dl=0

Also listen to Leslie Williamson at 10m 20s on the phone-in.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ai4l8m284g...%20In.mp3?dl=0
Amazingly, Williamson was part of Parry's 'alibi' for the night of the murder, but no-one in 1981 knew this !! [Parry's police statement was not published until many years later, in Murphy's 2001 book for the first time, I think]

Parry had no fewer than FIVE 'alibis' for an half-hour period, between approx 8.30pm and 9.00pm on the night of the murder, and the Police only checked the first and the last [Brine and Lloyd].

Having listened again to Leslie Williamson, do you think Parry called between 8.30pm and 9.00pm on the night of the murder "for about 10 minutes"... to receive an invitation to Leslie's 21st birthday party?

[AmericanSherlock]

AS,

Let's assume Wallace was incredibly unlucky, for the moment. This would explain why there are not many cases like this, and why it appears Wallace is killer yet there be no direct evidence linking him to the crime. For Wallace, it looks as though everything is too bad to be true. So, there needs to be a good explanation for this improbable bad luck.

Let's take the call. You have long pointed out it is suspicious that it is just possible Wallace made the call and, if it was someone else, why didn't they make the call at 7:30pm rather than 7:15pm? We don't know. But balance this with the fact that we know Parry misled the police about his whereabouts at the time of the call, and by an "incredible" coincidence turns up at Lily Lloyd's a few minutes later. Which is the more suspicious? Wallace having the possibility of making the call, or Parry misleading the police about where he was at that very time?

I'm working with Rod on a chapter of my book - I will be reconstructing and analysing his theory.

Hi Antony,

I agree that there is a possibility Wallace was simply very unlucky and that many coincidences and many of his own actions led to him being a very strong suspect besides being innocent. This would, as you said, explain the uniqueness of this famous case as the main struggle with it is that despite questionable timing and lack of blood and other suspects like Parry, it still seems Wallace HAD to have been involved.

I agree in the specific example you gave that there is more reason to believe Parry made the call...in other words it is more suspicious that he lied about his whereabouts than that the timing of the calling allowed for Wallace to just have been in the frame.

The thing is on a macro level, there are many, many examples of coincidences and oddities that implicate Wallace... him being in the frame for both nights, and so unlucky if innocent where a few minutes here or there could have exonerated him. He could have easily not been at the chess club Monday night, could have easily consulted a map or not gone at all.

And then his odd and bizarre behavior that exceeded normal frustration of a fruitless journey; seemingly alibi setting even before he was lost, making his presence known and obvious. All very out of character for this stoic "Man from the Pru".

If he was innocent, then how unlucky all this happened, including his own actions, to make him look so very guilty! One by one, they can be explained...and there is a counterargument to each. For example, one could argue maybe Parry was stalking Wallace and saw him leave for the chess club, then made the call himself. This would ensure that Wallace was going to the chess club, and would not be there yet to receive the message, and explain the suspicious timing. But there are so many of these points that need explaining to exonerate Wallace.

I believe Justice Wright speaking about the case years later referred to them as numerous "probanda" that seemed to indicate Wallace's guilt, but that since there was a possible counter to each one, even though the presence of them all together strongly suggested Wallace's guilt, they could not be used to determine beyond reasonable doubt the ultimate probandum of guilt. Wright who summed up for acquittal agreed with the reversal but thought Wallace was probably guilty as his "alibi was too good to be true" This is where I land.

An obvious conclusion that would explain everything would be that Wallace and Parry worked together, but the problems with that have been stated previously.

[AmericanSherlock]

AS, listen to Dolly Atkinson at 27 minutes in...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jv4vtb239o...lence.mp3?dl=0

Also listen to Leslie Williamson at 10m 20s on the phone-in.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ai4l8m284g...%20In.mp3?dl=0
Amazingly, Williamson was part of Parry's 'alibi' for the night of the murder, but no-one in 1981 knew this !! [Parry's police statement was not published until many years later, in Murphy's 2001 book for the first time, I think]

Parry had no fewer than FIVE 'alibis' for an half-hour period, between approx 8.30pm and 9.00pm on the night of the murder, and the Police only checked the first and the last [Brine and Lloyd].

Having listened again to Leslie Williamson, do you think Parry called between 8.30pm and 9.00pm on the night of the murder "for about 10 minutes"... to receive an invitation to Leslie's 21st birthday party?

Hi Rod, thanks for this.

I agree that this is definitely suspicious, and we know Parry lied about his whereabouts on the night of the call, so it's not a surprise he may have lied or embellished his alibi for the night of the murder. However, I don't think we can discount his entire alibi from Olivia Brine. I believe you don't either since your theory is Parry picked up his accomplice but didn't commit the actual murder himself, and was only expecting a robbery to take place.

I still don't think Wallace can be dismissed from the cloud of suspicion as easily as you do. There are too many coincidences and unlikely things we would have to accept to believe he was not involved.

[RodCrosby]

Hi AS.

Wallace WAS involved...

He was involved as the initial target of the crime, and remained involved until his tragic death as secondary victim of the crime.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS.

Wallace WAS involved...

He was involved as the initial target of the crime, and remained involved until his tragic death as secondary victim of the crime.

I don't think so

Also needing an explanation as has been stated before if someone other than Wallace was the murderer in a failed robbery attempt:

1. No defensive wounds

2. No sign of a struggle

3. Money not in the room where Julia was killed

4. JW appears to have been struck before she knew what hit her , likely either lighting the fire or putting it out. A strong sign of an assassin.

I understand you've presented alternatives to these, but they have not swayed me yet.

Also, jewelry on Julia not taken, money upstairs not taken. It is debatable if the killer ever went upstairs although if he did, that could explain the blood clot (might have been deposited by the police later, but also could have been by the killer. If the killer was Wallace, maybe he couldn't have brought himself to take his own money.)

Cash lid replaced and put back on the high shelf...

[RodCrosby]

AS

1,2,4. It was accepted forensically that Julia was a an elderly, frail, small, ill woman who was attacked [almost certainly by a younger male] with a hard iron implement which killed her in a single blow. The 'lighting-the-fire' theory was put forward by Wallace's Defence, and the forensics don't really support it.

3 and [5] "cash lid replaced", etc.
Which is exactly what we would expect from a thief who had entered the house on a pretext, with the intent to steal from the box in the kitchen while Julia's back was turned, and leave on another pretext before her husband arrived home.

Unfortunately he was clumsy, and spilled the loose coins on the hearth as he snatched the notes, before replacing the box on the shelf. Julia noticed the coins, and smelt a rat, and confronted her visitor in some way, leading to her death.

Why was he clumsy?

Over to John Parkes... "It was a thumb, and all fingers..."

Q.
E.
D.

I solved the Wallace Case.

[AmericanSherlock]

AS

1,2,4. It was accepted forensically that Julia was a an elderly, frail, small, ill woman who was attacked [almost certainly by a younger male] with a hard iron implement which killed her in a single blow. The 'lighting-the-fire' theory was put forward by Wallace's Defence, and the forensics don't really support it.

3 and [5] "cash lid replaced", etc.
Which is exactly what we would expect from a thief who had entered the house on a pretext, with the intent to steal from the box in the kitchen while Julia's back was turned, and leave on another pretext before her husband arrived home.

Unfortunately he was clumsy, and spilled the loose coins on the hearth as he snatched the notes, before replacing the box on the shelf. Julia noticed the coins, and smelt a rat, and confronted her visitor in some way, leading to her death.

Why was he clumsy?

Over to John Parkes... "It was a thumb, and all fingers..."

Q.
E.
D.

I solved the Wallace Case.

Your point to explain the replacing of the lid--that the robbery occurred before when Julia wasn't present--and that she only noticed the robbery after, due to spilled coins is a decent one (although based on conjecture)

I still see no explanation for my other points.

Were the robbers Parry and/or Qualtrough stalking Wallace both the night of the phone call to the club and the night of the murder? How did they know he would even get the message? If Parry got the idea from seeing Wallace's name on the calendar, he would see Wallace had missed meetings.

If the man who murdered JW and arrived posing as Qualtrough was someone unknown to JW (and you suggest he had to be, so he could claim to be Qualtrough and have her let him in), then how did he know what Wallace looked like? If he was unknown to JW, it would be probable he was unknown to WHW as well. I ask because wouldn't somebody want to keep watch to make WHW even left at all for the appointment (of course how could they even be sure he wasn't just stepping out). And Parry was supposedly at the Brine's, unless you think that alibi is totally false.

Even if Parry was there what did he do, stalk out the area with "Qualtrough" to make sure Wallace was gone, trust that he wouldn't be coming back and then give "Qualtrough" his blessing for the robbery and split?

Still too many questions, not to mention all the suspicious points towards Wallace.

As far as solving the case, you've put forth an interesting theory, but I could not call it solved. If you really think so, I would suggest unsarcastically that you should write your own book.

[RodCrosby]

Incidentally, Wyndham-Brown's 1933 "The Trial of William Herbert Wallace" is now freely available on the Internet Archive.

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet....ge/n3/mode/2up

My original copy cost £150.