Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

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.

Hi CCJ,

In your book you publish Olivia Brine's testimony. At the beginning she says , "Just before last Christmas he[Parry] commenced calling with my nephew William Denison." Is this the same nephew as Harold Denison?

[AmericanSherlock]

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.

Kate sounded rather gruff, wanting to get back to her radio

You are correct, almost everything in this case could be seen in 2 ways. It is by FAR the greatest and most fascinating murder mystery ever (imo). Like a real life episode of Columbo.

1 point, if Wallace were truly flustered when looking for the address and his actions were desperation and not contrived, then why did he seem to start this desperate act ON the way starting right on the tram and then with the policeman...he seemed to be going mad looking for the address from the get-go, before he was even "lost". Why? If he really was that confused because he didn't know where he was going, then why allow such little time for a 7:30 appointment and leave without consulting a map etc.? That really sticks out to me, the desperate act from the very start.

Edited to add: By desperate I mean the way in which he asked again and again and the language he used, careful to mention he had been summoned there, that he didn't know where it was and how funny it was etc. Basically announcing his whole story to everyone; out of character for this reserved, stoic Man from the Pru. Seems contrived... Just a strange act, rather than simply asking "Do you know where Menlove Gardens East is?" Maybe if he had been constantly told it didn't exist, it wouldn't be surprising if he told 1 person "But I was called to an appointment here". What he did went above and beyond a normal fruitless journey, and I think you may agree that his actions on the journey were highly suspicious and self-incriminating.

To me it matches more with an inexperienced, guilty man than a flustered, awkward man.

I'm happy we all don't have the same opinion to be honest. It makes discussion more interesting.

[John G]

Kate sounded rather gruff, wanting to get back to her radio

You are correct, almost everything in this case could be seen in 2 ways. It is by FAR the greatest and most fascinating murder mystery ever (imo). Like a real life episode of Columbo.

1 point, if Wallace were truly flustered when looking for the address and his actions were desperation and not contrived, then why did he seem to start this desperate act ON the way starting right on the tram and then with the policeman...he seemed to be going mad looking for the address from the get-go, before he was even "lost". Why? If he really was that confused because he didn't know where he was going, then why allow such little time for a 7:30 appointment and leave without consulting a map etc.? That really sticks out to me, the desperate act from the very start.

Edited to add: By desperate I mean the way in which he asked again and again and the language he used, careful to mention he had been summoned there, that he didn't know where it was and how funny it was etc. Basically announcing his whole story to everyone; out of character for this reserved, stoic Man from the Pru. Seems contrived... Just a strange act, rather than simply asking "Do you know where Menlove Gardens East is?" Maybe if he had been constantly told it didn't exist, it wouldn't be surprising if he told 1 person "But I was called to an appointment here". What he did went above and beyond a normal fruitless journey, and I think you may agree that his actions on the journey were highly suspicious and self-incriminating.

To me it matches more with an inexperienced, guilty man than a flustered, awkward man.

I'm happy we all don't have the same opinion to be honest. It makes discussion more interesting.

Hi AS,

But he did say right from the beginning that he wasn't sure if he was going to attend the appointment, despite the prospect of a nice commission. Might this fact, coupled with his increasing agitation as he tried to find the address, indicate that he suspected he was being tricked?

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

But he did say right from the beginning that he wasn't sure if he was going to attend the appointment, despite the prospect of a nice commission. Might this fact, coupled with his increasing agitation as he tried to find the address, indicate that he suspected he was being tricked?

That certainly could be possible, but if he was suspicious from the get go, then why not check a map etc. before leaving, and considering he didn't, why leave so late? He only got to the area on time for the appointment if he knew exactly where he was going.

[AmericanSherlock]

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.

Good point, however Wallace's timing is even more directly suspicious. You could argue both being in the frame could hint at the Parry seeing Wallace leave for the chess club, then calling right after. But then again, Parry could have simply lied knowing he didn't have a perfect alibi while under heavy suspicion. There is no way to know if he had known the facts of the case a bit...i.e. when the call was made etc. or how the police approached the interview...what they told him etc. (the preceding part that was off record when he was first hauled in) If he wasn't told any specifics, then lying to change the timing for the night of the call would obviously be incriminating.

[AmericanSherlock]

We all agree if the caller was not Wallace that he must have stalked him and called as soon as he was out of sight, to make sure he was going to the club (and was not there yet). We also all seem to agree that the caller could not be sure that Wallace got the message, but he could be reasonably sure he was on the way to the chess club in this scenario. Why not go then and rob Julia? I think Antony has said sometimes real life can get in the way (not the tidy, clipped maze of fiction). But if the caller was indeed Parry as many suspect, then assuming Lily Lloyd and her mom were even telling the truth, he had nothing serious planned, he stopped in randomly in the middle of a musical lesson. It appears he could have robbed Julia that night if he had wanted to.

The added satsifaction of hoaxing Wallace seems a shaky explanation, when the plan was far from a sure thing vs a sure thing that night.

I also certainly do not find it plausible that Parry was planning to murder Julia and frame Wallace, although that would be another explanation.

Rod's explanation that Parry needed the Qualtrough ruse to enlist another unknown that Julia would let in but not be able to finger does not past muster for me, perhaps it does for you.

Finally, it could be argued that Wallace and Parry were working together, and WHW briefly met Parry to brief him on exactly what to say in the call. I have already expressed my problems with a conspiracy and do not favor this theory (and the 2 meeting would be a risk), but it does certainly seem odd the 2 are both in the frame for the call so clearly.

[John G]

We all agree if the caller was not Wallace that he must have stalked him and called as soon as he was out of sight, to make sure he was going to the club (and was not there yet). We also all seem to agree that the caller could not be sure that Wallace got the message, but he could be reasonably sure he was on the way to the chess club in this scenario. Why not go then and rob Julia? I think Antony has said sometimes real life can get in the way (not the tidy, clipped maze of fiction). But if the caller was indeed Parry as many suspect, then assuming Lily Lloyd and her mom were even telling the truth, he had nothing serious planned, he stopped in randomly in the middle of a musical lesson. It appears he could have robbed Julia that night if he had wanted to.

The added satsifaction of hoaxing Wallace seems a shaky explanation, when the plan was far from a sure thing vs a sure thing that night.

I also certainly do not find it plausible that Parry was planning to murder Julia and frame Wallace, although that would be another explanation.

Rod's explanation that Parry needed the Qualtrough ruse to enlist another unknown that Julia would let in but not be able to finger does not past muster for me, perhaps it does for you.

Finally, it could be argued that Wallace and Parry were working together, and WHW briefly met Parry to brief him on exactly what to say in the call. I have already expressed my problems with a conspiracy and do not favor this theory (and the 2 meeting would be a risk), but it does certainly seem odd the 2 are both in the frame for the call so clearly.

If Parry was involved then the timing of the crime makes sense. Thus, during the trial a superintendent for the insurance company revealed that the weekly takings would normally be remitted on a Wednesday. Therefore anyone familiar with Wallace's round, as Parry was, would expect him to have the bulk of the cash by Tuesday evening-this was acknowledged in the trial by the superintendent. Of course, Tuesday evening is when the murder took place and, according to the superintendent, the sum that Wallace might collect in the week would be from £50 to over £100, a considerable amount at the time.

[AmericanSherlock]

If Parry was involved then the timing of the crime makes sense. Thus, during the trial a superintendent for the insurance company revealed that the weekly takings would normally be remitted on a Wednesday. Therefore anyone familiar with Wallace's round, as Parry was, would expect him to have the bulk of the cash by Tuesday evening-this was acknowledged in the trial by the superintendent. Of course, Tuesday evening is when the murder took place and, according to the superintendent, the sum that Wallace might collect in the week would be from £50 to over £100, a considerable amount at the time.

Hi John, good points. Wasn't there a point made before about the reason there wasn't that much money there was that it was only monthly (every 4 weeks) when the bulk was paid in? Wouldn't Parry know this?

[John G]

That certainly could be possible, but if he was suspicious from the get go, then why not check a map etc. before leaving, and considering he didn't, why leave so late? He only got to the area on time for the appointment if he knew exactly where he was going.

I think under the circumstances he left as early as he possibly could. Thus, his last call wasn't until 5:15 and, according to the client, he left shortly before 6:00. He then arrived home at around 6:05, and not unreasonably had a light tea. This left him just enough time to collect the Qualtrough documentation, have a wash and change his collar before leaving his house at 6:45 to collect the tram.

[John G]

Hi John, good points. Wasn't there a point made before about the reason there wasn't that much money there was that it was only monthly (every 4 weeks) when the bulk was paid in? Wouldn't Parry know this?

Thanks AS. Yes, I have certainly read that on this particular week only the weekly collections were due, not monthly, although this doesn't seem to have been referred to during the trial. Of course, a major factor that affected the takings was that Wallace had only just returned to work after a bout of flu, something Parry may have been unaware of.

Interestingly, the superintendent also said that he would have expected £30 to have been collected on this particular week, although that would have included Wednesday morning's takings. This would have Bern equivalent to £1881 in today's money, quite a significant sum.

It also strikes me that Parry was leading quite a flashy lifestyle. For instance, he owned a car at a time when car ownership in the UK was uncommon. I therefore think it possible that he could have got himself into serious debt with a moneylender that needed to be urgently repaid.

[AmericanSherlock]

Thanks AS. Yes, I have certainly read that on this particular week only the weekly collections were due, not monthly, although this doesn't seem to have been referred to during the trial. Of course, a major factor that affected the takings was that Wallace had only just returned to work after a bout of flu, something Parry may have been unaware of.

Interestingly, the superintendent also said that he would have expected £30 to have been collected on this particular week, although that would have included Wednesday morning's takings. This would have Bern equivalent to £1881 in today's money, quite a significant sum.

It also strikes me that Parry was leading quite a flashy lifestyle. For instance, he owned a car at a time when car ownership in the UK was uncommon. I therefore think it possible that he could have got himself into serious debt with a moneylender that needed to be urgently repaid.

Interesting, do you think Parry could have gone there with the intention to murder JW? I've never bought the "get Wallace out of the way, and distract the elderly lady" in order to commit robbery as a plausible plot. JW wasn't quite senile I don't think and would have to have been dealt with. But I find the pre-meditated murder hard to believe.

[AmericanSherlock]

I think under the circumstances he left as early as he possibly could. Thus, his last call wasn't until 5:15 and, according to the client, he left shortly before 6:00. He then arrived home at around 6:05, and not unreasonably had a light tea. This left him just enough time to collect the Qualtrough documentation, have a wash and change his collar before leaving his house at 6:45 to collect the tram.

Would the drains being checked and apparently having been "not used" meant that he did not shower? In either case, I think you are right it's not totally unreasonable that his departure time could be naturally consistent with innocence.

However, it still strikes me that he was barely on time, reaching the neighborhood when you might expect if he had had the exact address. Combine that without consulting a map and you would think he would allow more time to be on time for a business appointment whose location he only had a rough idea and the whole business was already shrouded in mystery and confusion.

[John G]

Interesting, do you think Parry could have gone there with the intention to murder JW? I've never bought the "get Wallace out of the way, and distract the elderly lady" in order to commit robbery as a plausible plot. JW wasn't quite senile I don't think and would have to have been dealt with. But I find the pre-meditated murder hard to believe.

I doubt very much that even a scoundrel like Parry would have had the intention of committing a cold-blooded murder. However, as noted he certainly knew how to charm the ladies, even to the extent of continuing to visit Julia, on occasion enjoying musical interludes, after the incident of the misappropriated insurance money, which must surely have caused difficulties for her husband.

Therefore, I have little doubt that the arrogant Parry would have been very confident in his ability to steal the money by stealth or, at the very least, he would have expected to be able to talk/charm his way out of trouble if caught.

Nonetheless, let's say he was caught in the act and Julia, somewhat unexpectedly, threatened to inform her husband. I cannot at all imagine that Parry would have reacted too well to such an unexpected turn in events, as evidenced by Leslie Williamson's assertion, in the radio broadcast link Rod provided, that Parry had a "dual personality"and a "viscous character".

[John G]

Just looking again at the statements of Brine and Denison, and a number of things strike be as significant. Thus, Brine states that she'd known Parry for about 2 years-increasing the likelihood of an affair, or at least the possibility she would cover for him- and she further points out that Parry had been visiting her with Denison since "just before last Christmas." Now, why would Parry have struck up an apparent friendship with a 16 year old boy? Could it be that his role was akin to that of "chaperone", to assuage local rumours? Particularly as Brine's husband happened to be away at sea?

We also know that on at least one occasion Parry arrived without Denison in tow: on the evening of the murder he timed his arrival as being just after 5:30, whereas Denison didn't arrive until 6:00pm.

And curiously, according to Brine Parry arrived "at about 5:00pm to 5:30pm". In other words, the earlier estimate must have been out by at least 30 minutes, so who's to say her estimate of the time he left might not be wrong by a similar, or greater, margin?

It's also interesting that she's clearly fairly uncertain of the time Parry arrived, compared with the time he left-where she allows for no margin-even though both were estimates.

And then there's the date of the statements. Both Brine's and Denison's statements are dated the 26th January, almost a week after the murder. In contrast even Lily Hall's statement was given a day earlier, the 25th, even though she freely admitted that she delayed about a week before coming forward (and presumably after such a delay her relocation of the timings might not be as reliable.)

What was the reason for such a lengthy delay? Could it be that Parry had quite a lot of convincing to do?

[John G]

Would the drains being checked and apparently having been "not used" meant that he did not shower? In either case, I think you are right it's not totally unreasonable that his departure time could be naturally consistent with innocence.

However, it still strikes me that he was barely on time, reaching the neighborhood when you might expect if he had had the exact address. Combine that without consulting a map and you would think he would allow more time to be on time for a business appointment whose location he only had a rough idea and the whole business was already shrouded in mystery and confusion.

Perhaps Wallace was torn between on one hand meeting a tight schedule, and on the other the prospect of a hefty commission. This would explain why he equivocated when initially informed of the call.