Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

The Liverpool Police were not the brightest bunch, and not happy to admit their mistakes.

What policeman ever is happy?

[AmericanSherlock]

The Liverpool Police were not the brightest bunch, and not happy to admit their mistakes.

What policeman ever is happy?

Well they probably were turned off Parry as a suspect by the fact that Parry had an alibi!

[John G]

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!

Thanks for the response CCJ, much appreciated. Clearly this is significant, because I can see no logical reason why Wallace would be walking away from Wolverton Street just 5 minutes before be arrived home, which I believe was Rod's point earlier.

Interestingly, in Wyndham-Brown's trial transcript Hall was asked how often she'd seen Wallace and she replied: "Not very often." She also admitted it was "about a week" before she gave her statement to the police. Of course, this increases the probability of misidentification.

Pleased to hear about your updated book, which I will definitely purchase when it becomes available.

[John G]

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

Well, an alibi from a married woman whose husband just happened to be at sea whilst Parry was making his regular visits!

[AmericanSherlock]

Well, an alibi from a married woman whose husband just happened to be at sea whilst Parry was making his regular visits!

Do you think Parry had a sexual relationship with Olivia Brine? Considering she was 39, that is more believable to me than one with the 69 year old JW.

[John G]

Do you think Parry had a sexual relationship with Olivia Brine? Considering she was 39, that is more believable to me than one with the 69 year old JW.

Hi AS,

I think that's perfectly plausible. Parry clearly had an eye for the ladies, and his friendship with Julia demonstrates that age wouldn't have been an issue. Of course, an affair with Brine would make her vulnerable to blackmail or amenable to persuasion.

And as I've noted before, it seems coincidental to me that none of the witnesses noted the specific time Parry left but Parry, Brine and Dennison all give exactly the same estimate: "around 8:30." It's as if there all singing from the same hymn sheet, and that in itself has to be suspicious.

[GUT]

Do you think Parry had a sexual relationship with Olivia Brine? Considering she was 39, that is more believable to me than one with the 69 year old JW.

Why not both??

[AmericanSherlock]

Why not both??

Certainly stranger things have happened, but not sure the 22 year old Parry would be sexually attracted to a 69 year old woman.

[AmericanSherlock]

I've re-read Jonathan Goodman's book carefully and tried to again approach it without prejudice and an open mind.

My issue remains with the incredible coincidence of timing on BOTH nights if Wallace were truly innocent. On the night of the call to the chess club, the timing matches up exactly with when Wallace left his house. Even those who think Wallace was innocent seem to admit that the only plausible explanation left is that the caller was stalking Wallace and made the call as soon as he was out of sight. Otherwise, we are dealing with an incredible coincidence.

Similarly, on the following night--the one of the murder, we see more coincidence. The milk boy is late due to an unforeseen problem with his bike which no one could have predicted. Rather than seeing this as pointing towards Wallace's innocence as some have suggested, I see it in rather the opposite way. If Wallace were truly innocent, it would not matter when he left for Menlove Gardens East, other than to make sure he was on time. You might even expect him to leave around 6:30 or earlier for a lucrative business appointment at a cross town address, the location of which he is not certain. It does not matter if the milk boy has arrived yet or not. Of course, if he is guilty, he cannot afford for the milk boy to come after he has committed the murder..or while he is carrying it out. He has to wait for the milk boy to come, then commit the crime and split for the bogus address. The fact that he left when he did and not just a few minutes earlier, which would exonerate him, is quite the unlucky coincidence for an innocent Wallace, considering the late milk boy. Of course if he's guilty, his behavior makes perfect sense.

Finally, on both the night of the call and the night of the murder, there appears to have been "just enough" time but "barely" for Wallace to have accomplished his goals. That is to say if there was not sufficient time beyond doubt i.e. there simply is not enough time for him to have made the call or committed the murder, then he is exonerated. While there has been contention over the timing being possible, it does not seem definitely impossible and even those who seem to believe WHW innocent, concede the timing was "borderline". (Issues around being free of blood stain, disposal of the weapon etc seem like related, but ultimately separate issues to me) If Wallace had made a tram 10 minutes or more earlier, there would not be much to discuss; he would be plainly innocent. The reason why this is such a celebrated case is because of the ambiguity in the timing. Here is my point above and beyond the timing being possible--if Wallace were guilty, he would seek to make the call and particularly to commit the murder and split as quickly as possible to reach his "alibi" (Arriving at the chess club and being seen at the tram stop.) The timing jibes exactly with that chain of events. If the timing were looser, this would eliminate his supposed "time alibi, but I would feel would jibe more with innocence, as it would appear less perfectly contrived.

Because as it is, everything regarding the timing of the chain of events of both nights lines up precisely with WHW's guilt. The call is placed from a phone box 3 minutes away from his home, 3 minutes after the time he gave himself for leaving. Keep in mind, the call was only traced due to a malfunction that the caller could not foresee. Perhaps, this is why Wallace unwittingly took such a risk. Then, he arrives at the chess club right on time to receive the message.

On the night of the murder, he leaves after the milk boy comes, even though the milk boy is 30 or so minutes late due to unforeseen issues. He has to leave after the milk boy comes if he is guilty; it doesn't matter if he is innocent. Apparently unconcerned with being on time, the punctual Wallace then finally leaves around 12 minutes after the milk boy has left. Just enough time to jibe with the killing, but nary a few minutes more. Again if he's guilty--he has to work as quickly as possible and split. If he's innocent, none of that matters, just the loose timing of a 7:30 meeting across town--but he didn't seem that bothered to be on time or to consult a map anyway.

Everything fits perfectly and what an awful unfortunate coincidence if he was truly innocent.

Where am I going wrong here?

[RodCrosby]

AS, you're going wrong because you ignore the 'massaging' of the evidence by the Police, without which you would have no 'coincidences' to agonize over.

a) No effort was made to track Wallace's movements on the Monday - or if there was, the Police knew better than to reveal their findings, which means they can only have been favourable to Wallace.

b) MacFall and the milk boy magically altered their evidence to put Wallace in the frame for the Tuesday night.

[John G]

I've been reading the trial transcript again, particularly as regards the blood evidence. Thus, Dr McFall pointed out that blood had been spurting all round the room, and as a consequence there were blood spots on the walls, the furniture, both sides of the Macintosh, the violin case, even the piano. In such circumstances it would have been inevitable that the perpetrator would have got blood stains on his person but, of course no blood was found on any of Wallace's clothing when he was examined, nor in the sinks, bath or drains-even at the microscopic level-indicating that it had not been washed off in the house. Therefore, I would submit that the blood evidence alone should be sufficient to exonerate Wallace.

Regarding, the phone call. It should be remembered that Parry arrived at his girlfriend's within minutes of the call being made, and then subsequently lied to the police about his arrival time. To my mind this is just far too much of a coincidence, particularly when you also consider Parkes' evidence concerning Parry's history of making hoax phone calls.

[AmericanSherlock]

See following post.

[AmericanSherlock]

AS, you're going wrong because you ignore the 'massaging' of the evidence by the Police, without which you would have no 'coincidences' to agonize over.

a) No effort was made to track Wallace's movements on the Monday - or if there was, the Police knew better than to reveal their findings, which means they can only have been favourable to Wallace.

b) MacFall and the milk boy magically altered their evidence to put Wallace in the frame for the Tuesday night.

Hi Rod

A) I agree re Monday, but I doubt that was because they did check it out and it was favorable to Wallace; if anything could possibly be shown favorable to Wallace, his counsel would surely have mentioned it. I think we must accept the evidence is ambiguous for the Monday night.

B) It is plain to me that the milk boy did not come at 6:30 nor did he come at 6:45. I agree with Antony's 6:38 estimate. Macfall was clearly wrong as well, his original opinion of 6 PM was impossible. I have no problem discounting his evidence. I still see a lot of coincidence with the timing on both nights coupled with all the factors that would be needed to make this work if WHW were trully innocent.

Nevertheless, it is hard to deny that the evidence seems to point more to Parry having made the call than Wallace. Glad to admit when I'm wrong, but I still strongly think Wallace was the killer, or involved in some capacity.

A very confounding case to say the least.

[ColdCaseJury]

Persistence or Alibi

AS,

You are an indefatigable proponent of Wallace's guilt and have advanced some of the best arguments I've seen for this position. This does not mean, after everything is evaluated, that I agree with you.

I'm now updating my MS for Move to Murder. I have re-read Kate Mather's statement (she lived at 25 Menlove Gardens West). Here is the extract from my first draft:

---

7:35pm. Wallace walked down Menlove Gardens West carefully noting the number of each house, a task he found difficult in the dark. He identified No. 19 but thereafter all the houses had names. He counted off the next three to be sure he had arrived at No. 25, which was called ‘Brierley’. He knocked on the door and a smartly-dressed woman answered. “Good evening,” he said, raising his trilby. “Is there a Mr Qualtrough at this address?”

“No, no one of that name lives here,” replied Kate Mather.

“I am looking for Menlove Gardens East. They tell me there isn’t any.”

“Well, I’ve never heard of it, to be honest.”

“Are there any other gardens about here?”

Mather frowned. “No, I don’t think so. Who told you there was an East?”

“I’ve had a message on the telephone. It’s funny, isn’t it, that there is no East?”

“Well, I’m sorry I cannot help. I listening to the radio, so if you don’t mind…”

---

So, twice Wallace states he knows there is no East - he had been told this by Sidney Green a few minutes before. Yet, he still goes on searching.

So what's going on? Wallace was either establishing an alibi knowing full well that the address did not exist, or was showing the dogged determination of someone who had spent half an hour traveling in the hope of securing a big commission.

I know what you will say (!), but it is an interesting exchange because it shows that most evidence in this case can be interpreted two ways. I think the key to the case is focusing on the small subset that points to once conclusion rather than the other.

[John G]

Regarding Harold Dennison, I still feel that CCJ makes an excellent point in his book when highlighting the crucial part of his testimony that accords exactly with his aunt's: "He remained till about 8:30pm when he left."

In any event, Dennison was clearly uncertain about the exact time, implying that he hadn't consulted a timepiece, and in such circumstances, is it likely that he would have been prepared to contradict his aunt's account? Consider also the full implications of such a decision: He may have been required to give evidence that undermined the statement of his close relative whilst under oath and subject to cross examination.