Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[ColdCaseJury]

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?

Hi AS.

This is a good argument against Parry Alone. I think I pointed out in my e-book, Parry did not need to make the Qualtrough call if his intention was to pop round and rob and/or murder Julia. However much you are unpersuaded by Rod's theory, Parry Accomplice does explain the need for the call and why the robbery could not happen on the night of the call. The theory has flaws just like any other, but it does explain some key points of evidence.

For me, a good theory must explain the reason for the call. It also must explain why the cash box was replaced. There are other points, but taking the last: if Wallace planned this murder so carefully, how did he make such a big blunder with the cash box? Why did he not pull open a few drawers to make it appear that the kitchen had been searched, if not ransacked? Surely, the robbery was key to his alibi.

BTW, the disarranged hats and clothes in the front bedroom were not done by Wallace but by Julia. It makes no sense for Wallace to mess around with a few bits of his wife's clothing in a spare bedroom, unless you adhere to the Wallace-in-drag theory

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS.

This is a good argument against Parry Alone. I think I pointed out in my e-book, Parry did not need to make the Qualtrough call if his intention was to pop round and rob and/or murder Julia. However much you are unpersuaded by Rod's theory, Parry Accomplice does explain the need for the call and why the robbery could not happen on the night of the call. The theory has flaws just like any other, but it does explain some key points of evidence.

For me, a good theory must explain the reason for the call. It also must explain why the cash box was replaced. There are other points, but taking the last: if Wallace planned this murder so carefully, how did he make such a big blunder with the cash box? Why did he not pull open a few drawers to make it appear that the kitchen had been searched, if not ransacked? Surely, the robbery was key to his alibi.

BTW, the disarranged hats and clothes in the front bedroom were not done by Wallace but by Julia. It makes no sense for Wallace to mess around with a few bits of his wife's clothing in a spare bedroom, unless you adhere to the Wallace-in-drag theory

Hi Antony,

This would also jibe with Parry calling Wallace "sexually odd"

In all seriousness, I think the murder scene looks more like a planned murder and staged robbery than anything else. This is to say that the flip-side of your point holds more weight IMO. Why did a thief replace the cash-box? Why didn't a thief take more before or after JW was killed? Why was Julia killed in a different location from where the theft took place? These are more pressing questions to me than "Why didn't Wallace stage it better?"

If WHW was indeed the killer then he couldn't stage anything beforehand; he would be in shock with his adrenaline pumping after he committed the murder of his wife for 18 years. His nerves would also be frayed waiting for the late milk boy to come and go and he would want to act quickly and get the hell out of there. His main focus would be his appearance and the timing. I could easily see him replacing the cash box without thinking and doing a poor job of a staged robbery.

If Parry or someone else was the killer ("Qualtrough") then what sense does the crime scene make? Nothing else taken although there was ample opportunity to do so (jewelry, JW's handbag, the roll of notes etc), and a measly 4 pounds was the loot. Let's say thereason why is the killer panicked. But then why was he able to replace the cash box? If the robbery happened AFTER JW was killed, then this was a pre-meditated murder. We all seem to agree it was not. If it happened before, then how was the thief confident enough to put the lid back on and put it back on the high shelf? It implies that in this scenario that a thief was confident he would not be caught and that he comitted the robbery smoothly. So how did JW catch him and create a scenario where he felt he had to silence her? Rod's explanation that coins were spilled which JW noticed, besides seeming like a case of "trying to fit the facts to your theory", doesn't explain why she was killed in a different location, from behind, with no sign of a struggle at all.

Did the killer have an iron bar with him when he came in? How could he expect to arrive with that and only committ a robbery? If the plan really was murder from the get go, then how did Parry talk someone else into doing it instead of doing it himself? And considering how ambiguous it was that WHW would even go for the appointment or (even if they watched and saw him leave), when he would abandon it and come back, a very risky plan indeed. One that doesn't make much sense. This is why we all seem to think this was not a pre-meditated murder if WHW wasn't the guilty party (unless he hired someone to do it, in which case he was still "guilty" by proxy.)

But if the killer didn't come with an iron bar, where did he get it from? IF he had it in his car, did JW threaten him to leave and he left, leaving the door unlocked, grabbed an iron bar from the trunk (assuming as a thief he had one), came BACK in and hit her over the head to silence her? With her away facing away from, lighting or putting out the fireplace? Does that sound likely to you? In Rod's theory, isn't the entire point that "Qualtrough" would be unknown to JW, so she couldn't finger him. If JW wasn't murdered, the Wallace's would realize a robbery had taken place anyway; that's the whole reason why Rod thinks Parry needed someone else who couldn't be identified by JW. (Personally, I still think this person would be taking a huge risk if he was a resident of Liverpool). But if this person was okay with taking that risk, then what difference does it make if he was caught, why not just speed away? His risk of being identified would be the same either way, since the Wallaces would notice a theft in any case evenetually.

The only explanation is that the thief was stunned in the moment and freaked out. But then the iron bar had to have been in the house. Where did it come from? Was it luck that it ws right there for the thief to use before he could think better of it and jet away? Why didn't Wallace mention possible murder weapons? If it was the iron bar that may or may not have existed behind the fireplace, then how did a thief easily get it, pick it up, and bash JW over the head from behind the fireplace, and behind her. With her head turned, no marks on her body or signs of struggle other than the head wounds? Rod's explanation of her being "spun around" looks to me again another case of trying to "fit the facts to the theory". And in any case if her back was to the killer, why didn't he just leave with his loot? (He didn't end up taking anymore after she was killed anyway!) Again, his odds of being identified would be the SAME either way! The only explanation is a panic after a confrontation/struggle which does NOT seem to be the case.

[John G]

Hi Antony,

This would also jibe with Parry calling Wallace "sexually odd"

In all seriousness, I think the murder scene looks more like a planned murder and staged robbery than anything else. This is to say that the flip-side of your point holds more weight IMO. Why did a thief replace the cash-box? Why didn't a thief take more before or after JW was killed? Why was Julia killed in a different location from where the theft took place? These are more pressing questions to me than "Why didn't Wallace stage it better?"

If WHW was indeed the killer then he couldn't stage anything beforehand; he would be in shock with his adrenaline pumping after he committed the murder of his wife for 18 years. His nerves would also be frayed waiting for the late milk boy to come and go and he would want to act quickly and get the hell out of there. His main focus would be his appearance and the timing. I could easily see him replacing the cash box without thinking and doing a poor job of a staged robbery.

If Parry or someone else was the killer ("Qualtrough") then what sense does the crime scene make? Nothing else taken although there was ample opportunity to do so (jewelry, JW's handbag, the roll of notes etc), and a measly 4 pounds was the loot. Let's say thereason why is the killer panicked. But then why was he able to replace the cash box? If the robbery happened AFTER JW was killed, then this was a pre-meditated murder. We all seem to agree it was not. If it happened before, then how was the thief confident enough to put the lid back on and put it back on the high shelf? It implies that in this scenario that a thief was confident he would not be caught and that he comitted the robbery smoothly. So how did JW catch him and create a scenario where he felt he had to silence her? Rod's explanation that coins were spilled which JW noticed, besides seeming like a case of "trying to fit the facts to your theory", doesn't explain why she was killed in a different location, from behind, with no sign of a struggle at all.

Did the killer have an iron bar with him when he came in? How could he expect to arrive with that and only committ a robbery? If the plan really was murder from the get go, then how did Parry talk someone else into doing it instead of doing it himself? And considering how ambiguous it was that WHW would even go for the appointment or (even if they watched and saw him leave), when he would abandon it and come back, a very risky plan indeed. One that doesn't make much sense. This is why we all seem to think this was not a pre-meditated murder if WHW wasn't the guilty party (unless he hired someone to do it, in which case he was still "guilty" by proxy.)

But if the killer didn't come with an iron bar, where did he get it from? IF he had it in his car, did JW threaten him to leave and he left, leaving the door unlocked, grabbed an iron bar from the trunk (assuming as a thief he had one), came BACK in and hit her over the head to silence her? With her away facing away from, lighting or putting out the fireplace? Does that sound likely to you? In Rod's theory, isn't the entire point that "Qualtrough" would be unknown to JW, so she couldn't finger him. If JW wasn't murdered, the Wallace's would realize a robbery had taken place anyway; that's the whole reason why Rod thinks Parry needed someone else who couldn't be identified by JW. (Personally, I still think this person would be taking a huge risk if he was a resident of Liverpool). But if this person was okay with taking that risk, then what difference does it make if he was caught, why not just speed away? His risk of being identified would be the same either way, since the Wallaces would notice a theft in any case evenetually.

The only explanation is that the thief was stunned in the moment and freaked out. But then the iron bar had to have been in the house. Where did it come from? Was it luck that it ws right there for the thief to use before he could think better of it and jet away? Why didn't Wallace mention possible murder weapons? If it was the iron bar that may or may not have existed behind the fireplace, then how did a thief easily get it, pick it up, and bash JW over the head from behind the fireplace, and behind her. With her head turned, no marks on her body or signs of struggle other than the head wounds? Rod's explanation of her being "spun around" looks to me again another case of trying to "fit the facts to the theory". And in any case if her back was to the killer, why didn't he just leave with his loot? (He didn't end up taking anymore after she was killed anyway!) Again, his odds of being identified would be the SAME either way! The only explanation is a panic after a confrontation/struggle which does NOT seem to be the case.

In respect of the cash box, the frayed nerves argument would apply equality to Parry if murder wasn't his intention. And who is to say that Julia didn't replace the box herself after catching Parry in the act? Afterwards Parry begs Julia not to tell her husband, but she refuses, which makes him angry and desperate.

Relatively little money was taken. However, as I've noted previously, if Parry was unaware that Wallace had missed several collection days with the flu then the date of the robbery, from his perspective, makes perfect sense.

Regarding murder weapon? Wasn't a poker missing? And as I've also noted previously, who's to say Parry might not have carried a weapon such as a cosh for "personal protection"?

Was there ample opportunity to steal other items? In the theory I proposed Parry arrived at around 8:00pm, placing him under severe time pressure considering Wallace's likely return time. Moreover, if murder wasn't the intention, Parry would probably be in a state of panic and desperate to flee the scene as soon as possible.

And what of the money in the bedroom? Wallace was accompanied when he checked on the money in the dish, meaning that he could easily have put it in his pocket and then claimed it had been stolen. However, instead he informed Johnson that the money hadn't been taken, which is hardly consistent with the "staged" robbery scenario.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Antony,I think the murder scene looks more like a planned murder and staged robbery than anything else. This is to say that the flip-side of your point holds more weight IMO. Why did a thief replace the cash-box? Why didn't a thief take more before or after JW was killed? Why was Julia killed in a different location from where the theft took place? These are more pressing questions to me than "Why didn't Wallace stage it better?"

If WHW was indeed the killer then he couldn't stage anything beforehand; he would be in shock with his adrenaline pumping after he committed the murder of his wife for 18 years. His nerves would also be frayed waiting for the late milk boy to come and go and he would want to act quickly and get the hell out of there. His main focus would be his appearance and the timing. I could easily see him replacing the cash box without thinking and doing a poor job of a staged robbery.

AS,

Yes, real-life (milk boy being late, panic) can always intrude. But if WHW planned this, making a call and disguising his voice superbly, executing an almost forensic flawless murder by using a mackintosh and cleaning up, why would he stage the robbery so poorly?

To me the replacement of the cash box possibly suggests a sneaky crime... that the cash box was replaced (the intent was to make it look like nothing had been taken) but then the thief was caught by Julia.

Listening to the Wilkes radio broadcasts, Charles St Hill (a famous pathologist involved in the Moors Murders case) says that the Benzidine test is more sensitive than tests used now (or at least in 1981). He says, if blood was in a bath or washed down a drain, the test would reveal its presence.

The bath was dry. There was no presence of blood in the bath or the house drains. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the killer did not wash in the house. WHW must have had some blood splatter on him (this is not to say he was covered in blood). Yet, there was not a spot on him and the house was clean.

The forensic evidence points to his innocence, whatever we might say about his behaviour or state of mind.

[AmericanSherlock]

If I were going to go with any theory other than Wallace alone, it would be a conspiracy. I like Gannon's idea, minus the sex part (which would be cool in a soap opera way if true, but who knows)

[AmericanSherlock]

AS,

Yes, real-life (milk boy being late, panic) can always intrude. But if WHW planned this, making a call and disguising his voice superbly, executing an almost forensic flawless murder by using a mackintosh and cleaning up, why would he stage the robbery so poorly?

To me the replacement of the cash box possibly suggests a sneaky crime... that the cash box was replaced (the intent was to make it look like nothing had been taken) but then the thief was caught by Julia.

Listening to the Wilkes radio broadcasts, Charles St Hill (a famous pathologist involved in the Moors Murders case) says that the Benzidine test is more sensitive than tests used now (or at least in 1981). He says, if blood was in a bath or washed down a drain, the test would reveal its presence.

The bath was dry. There was no presence of blood in the bath or the house drains. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the killer did not wash in the house. WHW must have had some blood splatter on him (this is not to say he was covered in blood). Yet, there was not a spot on him and the house was clean.

The forensic evidence points to his innocence, whatever we might say about his behaviour or state of mind.

Hi Antony,

I'm surprised to see you put this so cut and dry. I guess Wallace Alone is not a plausible one of 4 theories anymore in your view. Also, if you believe the evidence points to a sneaky robbery as you said, then the conspiracy masterminded by Wallace is ruled out and he is totally innocent. Seems like Rod persuaded you! Oh dear...

[John G]

As a brief note, the Benzidine test is not currently used in most countries because benzidine has been found to be a carcinogenic.

[Harry D]

I think Wallace was guilty. How convenient that someone called BEFORE he got to the chess club, and how convenient that he wasted time looking around for that bogus address, making sure that he was seen by several witnesses (including a copper). Obviously the actions of a man creating an alibi. Also, based on pure statistics he was most likely the murderer.

[John G]

I think Wallace was guilty. How convenient that someone called BEFORE he got to the chess club, and how convenient that he wasted time looking around for that bogus address, making sure that he was seen by several witnesses (including a copper). Obviously the actions of a man creating an alibi. Also, based on pure statistics he was most likely the murderer.

Okay, what did he do with the murder weapon? What about the forensic evidence, which pretty much rules Wallace out? After all, it's difficult to argue with science.

As for the Qualtrough call, it was made a few minutes before Parry, who apparently history of making hoax calls, turned up at his girlfriend's. He then lied about the time he arrived at his girlfriend's in order to establish can false alibi.

[AmericanSherlock]

I think Wallace was guilty. How convenient that someone called BEFORE he got to the chess club, and how convenient that he wasted time looking around for that bogus address, making sure that he was seen by several witnesses (including a copper). Obviously the actions of a man creating an alibi. Also, based on pure statistics he was most likely the murderer.

I agree with this !

[AmericanSherlock]

Okay, what did he do with the murder weapon? What about the forensic evidence, which pretty much rules Wallace out? After all, it's difficult to argue with science.

As for the Qualtrough call, it was made a few minutes before Parry, who apparently history of making hoax calls, turned up at his girlfriend's. He then lied about the time he arrived at his girlfriend's in order to establish can false alibi.

1. That's the biggest disagreement. If you think it was plainly impossible for Wallace to commit the crime, then that's all there is to say. I do not agree with this. The drains may have been tested, what about the toilet water being used to wash off some blood and then flushed? The clot there is interesting to me, while the police admitted they don't know who deposited it (they themselves could have), it strikes me that it was more likely than not JW's blood deposited by the killer. Too bad there was no DNA. Let's also not forget that there was not a trail of blood from the body ..no blood tracks. How did a highly strung robber who snapped manage to do this? What do we make of the macintosh in this scenario???

2. We only have Parkes word on this 50 years later who knew all the details of the case and was trying to peg Parry for the crime. Parkes suggests some stuff that we know is bunk and I don't consider his testimony very reliable. It's hard for me to fathom Parry showing up to a car wash with a bloody glove saying "that could hang me" .

[John G]

1. That's the biggest disagreement. If you think it was plainly impossible for Wallace to commit the crime, then that's all there is to say. I do not agree with this. The drains may have been tested, what about the toilet water being used to wash off some blood and then flushed? The clot there is interesting to me, while the police admitted they don't know who deposited it (they themselves could have), it strikes me that it was more likely than not JW's blood deposited by the killer. Too bad there was no DNA. Let's also not forget that there was not a trail of blood from the body ..no blood tracks. How did a highly strung robber who snapped manage to do this? What do we make of the macintosh in this scenario???

2. We only have Parkes word on this 50 years later who knew all the details of the case and was trying to peg Parry for the crime. Parkes suggests some stuff that we know is bunk and I don't consider his testimony very reliable. It's hard for me to fathom Parry showing up to a car wash with a bloody glove saying "that could hang me" .

But if the toilet was flushed then the blood would have ended up in the drains, which of course were tested. Moreover, the idea that Wallace would have used the toilet to wash blood off himself alludes to the police argument that he was some sort of criminal genius, which I consider a fanciful notion.

Moreover, Dr McFall conceded that the perpetrator, if naked under the Macintosh, would still have blood on his legs, face and left hand (and he would have got further blood on himself when he lifted the victims head and shoulders to place the Macintosh under the body.) Not only would this take a significant amount of time to completely wash off, which Wallace didn't have, it would be ridiculously impractical to, say, wash off blood from the legs in the toilet.

It's true that blood wasn't traipsed through the house. However Dr McFall argued that the killer could have wiped his boots in the hearth rug, i.e. to avoid leaving boot prints.

Regarding Parkes' evidence, I agree that it is hard to believe Parry would have incriminated himself to such a degree. However, if he was seriously stressed, and maybe regretting his actions, who knows?

[Harry D]

Hoax calls only work if you speak to the person you're hoaxing. What if Wallace had ignored the message and went straight home? In your scenario he might have caught Parry in the act. But no, instead there was a readymade alibi waiting for Wallace when he got to the chess club.

[John G]

Hoax calls only work if you speak to the person you're hoaxing. What if Wallace had ignored the message and went straight home? In your scenario he might have caught Parry in the act. But no, instead there was a readymade alibi waiting for Wallace when he got to the chess club.

Not if Parry was involved in the crime, i.e. if the purpose of the Qualtrough ruse was to get Wallace out of the house in order to effect a robbery (he was a bit of a charmer and still on good terms with Julia, and therefore might have considered that she could be easily distracted whilst he stole the takings. Additionally, sending Wallace off on a fool's errand whilst he committed a robbery might have seemed amusing to him (it would also be a means of revenge for Wallace reporting the misappropriation.)

And he might not have wanted to speak to Wallace directly in case he recognized his voice.

[ColdCaseJury]

[/B]
Hi Antony,

I'm surprised to see you put this so cut and dry. I guess Wallace Alone is not a plausible one of 4 theories anymore in your view. Also, if you believe the evidence points to a sneaky robbery as you said, then the conspiracy masterminded by Wallace is ruled out and he is totally innocent. Seems like Rod persuaded you! Oh dear...

Hi AS,

I said it is a pointer to his innocence. An experienced pathologist riles out his guilt on this basis. Also, I note for he first time in our long discussion on this fascinating case, AS, you have led with an ad hominen argument and completely ignored the point about the importance of the forensic evidence. However, I note later you said Wallace might have used the toilet to clean himself. But as John G correctly pointed out the drains were tested, and Charles St Hill (the pathologist) said it would have been found.