Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

Obviously the 4 pounds missing could have been payment, no? To be fair, this seems like a paltry amount for a contract killing. Or maybe like Gannon suggests, the other members of the plot also had motive for JW to be killed, or were blackmailed somehow.

My intuition tells me that Wallace would not have come home on the 20th if working with someone else.

Since the killer in the scenario of WHW being innocent would have been most likely stalking him and then made the call to the chess club, it's hard to imagine why he didn't strike that Monday night, rather than waiting for Tuesday. It doesn't appear he was strapped for time, if he had time to wait for Wallace to show up outside, leave, and then make the call. Once he saw WHW leave and was confident he had left for the chess club, why bother with the call, why not just strike then? Personally, I don't see how he could be confident for sure that WHW was going to the chess club, but if he really was as others suggest (and he would have to have been to rely on the call working anyway) then why this whole ruse for the next night?

The reason I have seen given; that he was not confident JW would let him without the "Qualtrough" pretext again relies on several things that are less than certain:

1. That WHW would get the message and decide to go without consulting a map (he could arguably see the address was wrong and still go and try the others, but the whole idea of him going seems tenuous)

2. That Wallace would tell JW about it and she would remember the name

3. That she would let someone in under that name, when she otherwise wouldn't let someone in. (If she was so out of it, why couldn't "Qualtrough" come up with some other far less unreliable and convoluted subtext to enter the Monday night; he could claim he was an old friend of WHW's etc.)

It also assumes someone intimate with the Wallace's as part of the plot, which is why Parry is fingered as the caller and mastermind. But why wouldn't Parry do it himself, without the whole ruse? WHW himself said Julia would let him in, why couldn't he try to rob JW himself if she was such an easy, clueless target? You could argue Parry would be caught too easily as it would be obvious what happened, but then how could he get someone else to take that risk instead of him? Even if such a person was unknown to JW, I can't imagine he, who would very likely be a face around town, being comfortable with robbing the place and showing his face to JW so obviously. Unless you think this "Qualtrough" was planning to kill, which is pretty unlikely IMO. It seems adding another person to the plot is desperately trying to make the pieces fit, since we know Parry had a reasonable alibi for the night of the murder, yet it seems he made the call.

I still think WHW was guilty.

I've been thinking about this. If Wallace elected not to come home on the 20th what reason could he give. I sense that his job was pretty much 9-5/5:30, at which point he would presumably leave for home. And any change of routine would surely have looked suspicious.

Regarding Parry's alibi. We know he was something of a ladies man, and Olivia Brine had a husband who was conveniently at sea, whilst Parry regularly called at her house! It's therefore clearly possible they were having an affair, which presumably would leave Brine open to possible blackmail from Parry.

[John G]

According to Wikipedia, which I accept is not always accurate, the prosecution solicitor made factually incorrect statements at the committal hearing, which were then widely reported in the press.

It should also be noted that the committal hearing would have been held at the magistrates' court. However, there are no official court transcripts of these hearings.

[AmericanSherlock]

I've been thinking about this. If Wallace elected not to come home on the 20th what reason could he give. I sense that his job was pretty much 9-5/5:30, at which point he would presumably leave for home. And any change of routine would surely have looked suspicious.

Regarding Parry's alibi. We know he was something of a ladies man, and Olivia Brine had a husband who was conveniently at sea, whilst Parry regularly called at her house! It's therefore clearly possible they were having an affair, which presumably would leave Brine open to possible blackmail from Parry.

But then why wouldn't he have just made the appointment at Melove Gardens East for 6 PM instead to give himself an excuse to go straight from work and be seen, have an iron clad alibi etc.?

This is a major point for me, if it weren't in the picture I might lean towards the conspiracy theory. I thought Gannon was onto some good things with that (minus the sex part which was interesting, but wasn't backed with enough evidence.)

[John G]

But then why wouldn't he have just made the appointment at Melove Gardens East for 6 PM instead to give himself an excuse to go straight from work and be seen, have an iron clad alibi etc.?

This is a major point for me, if it weren't in the picture I might lean towards the conspiracy theory. I thought Gannon was onto some good things with that (minus the sex part which was interesting, but wasn't backed with enough evidence.)

Ah yes, I see what you're getting at now. However,what about an hypothetical accomplice, i.e. "Qualtrough"? If Julia was murdered by the accomplice, there may have been a reason, such as establishing an alibi, why he wasn't prepared to strike until later in the evening. And, on that basis, it would certainly arouse suspicion if Wallace tried to avoid going home for several hours after his last regular appointment, i.e. by setting up a string of bogus late evening appointments.

[RodCrosby]

Regarding Parry's alibi. We know he was something of a ladies man, and Olivia Brine had a husband who was conveniently at sea, whilst Parry regularly called at her house! It's therefore clearly possible they were having an affair, which presumably would leave Brine open to possible blackmail from Parry.

I initially considered this, but there is another adult witness [Harold Dennison] who verifies Brine's statement and Parry's presence until 8.30pm completely.

[John G]

I initially considered this, but there is another adult witness [Harold Dennison] who verifies Brine's statement and Parry's presence until 8.30pm completely.

Harold Dennison was only 15 and was a nephew of Brine's. Moreover, as Antony points out in his book, his evidence is somewhat suspect because his statement, as regards the salient point, is identical to his aunt's: "He remained till about 8:30pm when he left."

I would also question as to whether he even possessed a watch, particularly as other younger involved in the inquiry-Hall, Wildman, Close-don't appear to have.

[RodCrosby]

Harold Dennison was only 15 and was a nephew of Brine's. Moreover, as Antony points out in his book, his evidence is somewhat suspect because his statement, as regards the salient point, is identical to his aunt's: "He remained till about 8:30pm when he left."

I would also question as to whether he even possessed a watch, particularly as other younger involved in the inquiry-Hall, Wildman, Close-don't appear to have.

Denison [correct-spelling, my previous bad] was 16. I've checked, and his birth was registered in late 1914.

No matter. I accept the timings may be a little fuzzy, but he must have been there that night. There was a 13-year old also present, and a visitor, Miss Plant.

[John G]

Denison [correct-spelling, my previous bad] was 16. I've checked, and his birth was registered in late 1914.

No matter. I accept the timings may be a little fuzzy, but he must have been there that night. There was a 13-year old also present, and a visitor, Miss Plant.

Yes, I've no doubt Parry was there for some period, but he may have lied about the timings, just as he did for his Qualtrough alibi. In other words, it's possible he left significantly earlier than he stated, as I've previously argued.

The other witness was Brine's daughter Savona, who didn't give a statement, although I doubt she'd have been prepared to contradict her mother.

[RodCrosby]

Harold Dennison was only 15 and was a nephew of Brine's. Moreover, as Antony points out in his book, his evidence is somewhat suspect because his statement, as regards the salient point, is identical to his aunt's: "He remained till about 8:30pm when he left."

I wouldn't read too much into that. It's standard Police procedure to ask questions, then draft up the statement in their words mostly, then ask you to read it and sign it.

[John G]

I wouldn't read too much into that. It's standard Police procedure to ask questions, then draft up the statement in their words mostly, then ask you to read it and sign it.

This may have happened. Nonetheless, Parry, Brine and Denison all give time estimates, suggesting they hadn't consulted a watch or clock but, somewhat conveniently, they all give the same estimate: around 8:30pm.

[John G]

This is an excerpt of the Wallace trial that was posted on another thread: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet....Trial_djvu.txt

It refers to Hall's evidence, and in this version she does say that she saw the two men as they parted: one went straight along towards Breck Road, whilst the other went down the entry to Richmond Park, although she couldn't say which one went down the entry and which one went towards Breck Road.

[John G]

I've just been reading more of the trial transcript from Wyndham-Brown's book. When Dr McFall gives his evidence he notes that there was projected blood on the outside of the left sleeve of the Macintosh. That lead him to conclude that, "either there had been a spurting of blood or a splashing of blood in front, presumably by someone who had it on." He goes on to explain that he meant a "spurt of blood in front of the Macintosh" and then "on to the Macintosh."

[ColdCaseJury]

According to Hall's statement, reproduced in Anthony's book, she doesn't mention seeing the men walk anywhere.

The question of how Wallace could have afforded a hit man is clearly valid, proving that nothing is simple about this case.

Could he have been misappropriating the insurance money? If he elected to do this I can imagine he would do a better job than Parry.

Lily Hall mentions the men walking away in the trial transcript. In my updated book I will publish an abridged account all of Hall's relevant evidence - statements, committal hearing and trial.

I have been speaking to John Gannon about Hall's evidence. Gannon remains convinced that, according to Hall, one of the men walked towards Wolverton Street. I believe Hall said the opposite, based on the same evidence set. I will publish the relevant evidence and let the Cold Case Jury decide on this one!

[ansonman]

In answer to the original question posed by this thread, I do not think Wallace was guilty and I base my belief in his innocence on the evidence obtained by Roger Wilkes, as broadcast in the Radio City programmes "Who killed Julia" and written in his excellent book "Wallace the final verdict".

For me, the testimony of Parkes 50 years after the event but supported by persons who recalled hearing this evidence at the time, is absolutely damning and leaves me in no doubt whatsoever that Parry was the murderer. I do not buy into the theory that he was an accomplice.

Listening to the tape recording of Parkes's testimony is to listen to a man who is telling the truth. For me, the big question is why was Superintendent Moore's response to the evidence of Parkes curt and dismissive "You must have made a mistake".

I have been acquainted with the Wallace case for more than 40 years and have read most of the books on the case. There is absolutely no question in my mind that Wallace was innocent and Parry guilty. The bigger question, e, is why did the police dismiss Parkes evidence?

Ansonman

[AmericanSherlock]

In answer to the original question posed by this thread, I do not think Wallace was guilty and I base my belief in his innocence on the evidence obtained by Roger Wilkes, as broadcast in the Radio City programmes "Who killed Julia" and written in his excellent book "Wallace the final verdict".

For me, the testimony of Parkes 50 years after the event but supported by persons who recalled hearing this evidence at the time, is absolutely damning and leaves me in no doubt whatsoever that Parry was the murderer. I do not buy into the theory that he was an accomplice.

Listening to the tape recording of Parkes's testimony is to listen to a man who is telling the truth. For me, the big question is why was Superintendent Moore's response to the evidence of Parkes curt and dismissive "You must have made a mistake".

I have been acquainted with the Wallace case for more than 40 years and have read most of the books on the case. There is absolutely no question in my mind that Wallace was innocent and Parry guilty. The bigger question, e, is why did the police dismiss Parkes evidence?

Ansonman

Hi, one reason might be that Parry had an alibi for the night of the murder Just an outside crazy thought