Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Spitfire]

Wallace went to 25 Menlove Gardens West and the door was answered by one Katie Mather who informed him that no one by the name of Qualtrough lived there. He then speaks to PC James Sargent who was on duty at the junction of Green Lane and Allerton Road and the relevant conversation is recounted in the book which I have on the subject by Ronald Bartle as follows at page 29:

Sargent:He said do you know, or can you tell me, of Menlove Gardens East? I said there is no Menlove Gardens East, there is a Menlove Gardens North, South and West. He said I have been to Menlove Gardens West number twenty five. The person I am looking for does not live there, and the numbers are all EVEN (my emphasis) and I suggested to him that he should try 25 Menlove Avenue.

A quick postcode search indicates that today there are no odd numbers on Menlove Gardens North or South and so I assume there were none in 1931.

Wallace's next calls in his quest were to the post office whence he was directed to a newsagents at 130 Allerton Road, obviously neither establishment was able to assist in finding 25 Menlove Gardens East.

It is not clear (from what I have read) whether an inquiry was made at 25 Menlove Avenue which was only a few yards from the junction with of Menlove Avenue with Menlove Gardens West. But in Wallace's favour if a mistake had been made in taking down the address phoned through by Qualtrough then such mistake would be as likely to relate to the numbering of the house as to the name of the road on which it stood. In which case the sensible thing to do would be to see if there were a record of a Qualtrough living in the area, which is what Wallace seems to have done.

[Limehouse]

He certainly seems to have spoken to a number of people that evening. Good for establishing or strengthening an alibi, I would think?

[Robert]

Richard James Qualtrough was born Jan 31st 1872 in W. Derby (Liverpool) and died in Wallasey 1946. His 1911 census entry gives him as 'shop joiner cabinet works.' I can't pin him down in 1931 but in 1939 he was at 8 Northumberland Terrace, Liverpool, and he is a journeyman joiner.

[Mayerling]

Wallace went to 25 Menlove Gardens West and the door was answered by one Katie Mather who informed him that no one by the name of Qualtrough lived there. He then speaks to PC James Sargent who was on duty at the junction of Green Lane and Allerton Road and the relevant conversation is recounted in the book which I have on the subject by Ronald Bartle as follows at page 29:

Sargent:He said do you know, or can you tell me, of Menlove Gardens East? I said there is no Menlove Gardens East, there is a Menlove Gardens North, South and West. He said I have been to Menlove Gardens West number twenty five. The person I am looking for does not live there, and the numbers are all EVEN (my emphasis) and I suggested to him that he should try 25 Menlove Avenue.

A quick postcode search indicates that today there are no odd numbers on Menlove Gardens North or South and so I assume there were none in 1931.

Wallace's next calls in his quest were to the post office whence he was directed to a newsagents at 130 Allerton Road, obviously neither establishment was able to assist in finding 25 Menlove Gardens East.

It is not clear (from what I have read) whether an inquiry was made at 25 Menlove Avenue which was only a few yards from the junction with of Menlove Avenue with Menlove Gardens West. But in Wallace's favour if a mistake had been made in taking down the address phoned through by Qualtrough then such mistake would be as likely to relate to the numbering of the house as to the name of the road on which it stood. In which case the sensible thing to do would be to see if there were a record of a Qualtrough living in the area, which is what Wallace seems to have done.

In all this time has anybody ever tried to find out why the district planners and land owners never thought of making a Melove Gardens East? In Brooklyn (to add to confusion for drivers going through that borough) there are sets of streets from 1 to 100 that are in the North, in the South, in the West, and in the East. Four sets comprising 400 blocks in the borough. And this one in Liverpool was only one block that could have had a different name in context of the other three.

Jeff

[harry]

The prudential itself could have provided the information that no Menlove Gardens East existed.It dealt with the general public,it had agents covering all areas,it surely had maps of the area.If Wallace didn't know,I would expect him ,on that Tuesday,to have at least asked around his office.There was of course one reason,if he was the killer,why he would not do that.By asking there,and finding it didn't exist,his reason for leaving home that night was gone.He would not be able to set up an alibi.
One other curious item.Why ask for Wallace specifically?.If one wanted insurance surely it didn't matter who the agent was,and one could more easily contact a Prudential office than go the roundabout way it was done.
I know there are two ways to consider that question.Either someone wanted Wallace away from home,or Wallace himself was creating a reason for being away.No one known fits the first way,and that is what the jury had to consider.
So it is not a case of proof beyond reasonable doubt,but belief beyond reasonable doubt,and I do not think the decision was wrong.

[Ginger]

The prudential itself could have provided the information that no Menlove Gardens East existed.It dealt with the general public,it had agents covering all areas,it surely had maps of the area.If Wallace didn't know,I would expect him ,on that Tuesday,to have at least asked around his office.

Did Wallace go into the office every day? I've always had the impression (possibly incorrect) that his job consisted of walking about town collecting dues, and selling insurance to people when he saw the chance. I'd thought he normally went to the office only twice a week (Saturday and Monday) to turn in his take.

[ColdCaseJury]

I know there are two ways to consider that question.Either someone wanted Wallace away from home,or Wallace himself was creating a reason for being away.No one known fits the first way,and that is what the jury had to consider. So it is not a case of proof beyond reasonable doubt,but belief beyond reasonable doubt,and I do not think the decision was wrong.

Harry, this is not correct. In an English court of law the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the case has been made out against the defendant. The instruction is never - if a case has not been made out that someone else did it, then find the defendant guilty.

I suggest there are three questions that decide the verdict in this case, in terms of what most likely happened (a different burden of proof).

1) Who do you think made the Qualtrough call? Parry or Wallace? These are the two canonical suspects.

2) Do you think Wallace had sufficient time to commit the murder? Yes or No?

3) Do you think Olivia Brine told the truth in providing Parry's alibi for the night of the murder. Yes or No?

All these questions are discussed in my book. There is a verdict reckoner on my site (under the Evidence File for this case), that takes your answers to these questions and suggests the most consistent verdict, based on your views and in terms of the four verdicts available.

[Graham]

Hmmm.....(rubbing jaw and closing one eye).....

I did a bit more reading last night. It seems that Wallace was not as frequent a visitor to the chess-club at the City Cafe as I thought. In fact, according to what I read, he hadn't been there since before the previous Christmas. However, there was apparently a bulletin-board at the Club on which was a notice regarding a match on 19th January and a list of the players involved, including W H Wallace. Anyone who was in the Cafe at any time could read this notice. So, as I now see it:

- 'Qualtrough' had been to the Cafe and seen the match list planned for 19th January;

or:

- someone had told 'Qualtrough', either deliberately or in passing, that Wallace would be in the Club on the 19th January; that 'someone' could of course have been Wallace himself;

or:

- 'Qualtrough' was Wallace himself.

I'm prepared to be well and truly savaged now, as like CCJ I also dislike the word 'conspiracy' when used in the context of a domestic murder.......

Graham

[Spitfire]

However, there was apparently a bulletin-board at the Club on which was a notice regarding a match on 19th January and a list of the players involved, including W H Wallace. Anyone who was in the Cafe at any time could read this notice. So, as I now see it:

F


From page 68 of Murderer Scot-Free by Robert F. Hussey

‘Now Hemmerde had also made a great point in his opening speech about Wallace alone “knowing” that he would be at the Chess Club that Monday night. And again, on this point, Oliver scored cleanly. First, he brought out in cross-examination of the waitress that the club’s schedule of matches (including Wallace’s name) had for weeks been posted in plain sight on the bulletin board of the café. Next, in cross-examining Beattie, he proceeded to bring out that Beattie had fully expected Wallace to turn up at 7.45 on the 19th and had told Qualtrough so on the phone, since that was the thoroughly well-known club hour for the start of “championship” matches. Finally he produced (Exhibit 54 see above) a photograph of the bulletin board scheduling the matches. As Oliver finished, Hemmerde’s overconfident statement that “nobody but Wallace knew” must have been looking rather the worse for abrasive wear. The judge later intimated as much.’

Looking at Exhibit 54 it is apparent that the fixture list also served as a results board, with the result of the matches being shown by a W for a win, L for a loss and D for a draw. It is not clear when the photograph was taken as none of the fixtures for 5 January seem to have any results recorded. It is clear that the last time Wallace played a match was on 10 November 1930 when he lost to Lampitt (Number 3). He did not turn up for the fixtures on 24 November and 8 December, Wallace did not have a match scheduled for 15 December. None of matches scheduled for 5 January 1931 appear to have the results recorded.

Anyone looking at the notice board would probably conclude that although Wallace had a match, the chances were that he would not show. Indeed Mr Chandler who was due to play Wallace probably thought the same and did not show, leaving Wallace to play McCartney one of the outstanding matches.

I believe that Parry was a member of a dramatic group which used the same City Cafe premises and so would have been in a position to see the notice board.

[caz]

Hi All,

The problem I have with Wallace setting up an alibi for himself and getting someone else to kill his wife in his absence is that he would surely have done a better job with the timing and not allowed himself the tiniest window in which to be accused of doing the deed himself. That would have been the whole point of the exercise if there was any such conspiracy, yet I still get a strong whiff of careful planning.

Whoever did it was very lucky and/or very clever to escape the full force of the law, and that so rarely happens if the spouse is behind it.

Love,

Caz
X

[harry]

CCJ,
I have been trying to put my views in a general sort of way to avoid getting into arguments,but I will answer your post directly to you.
(1) I believe Wallace made the call.
(2) I have answered that point,and shown a way it could be accomplished,so yes I do believe Wallace had time.
(3) Yes,but even if she didn't how does it matter.Parry cannot be linked to the Wallace home that night.
Yes the onus is on the prosecution,but the deliberations and findings are in the hands of the jury.How,excepting by belief,do you think the jury reached it's verdict of guilty.
Ginger,
Never mind whether Wallace attended the office every day,on that particular day,not knowing of an address,it w as a place where he could obtain information.It was company business,he had an obligation to try.Quite a few leads to prspective customers came via the office,so it was in the interests of the agents to attend regularly.
Regards.

[Graham]

Hi Spitfire,

I got my info a few years ago from "Chess News", which I believe is a regular feature in www.chessbase.com. The author of this particular edition, Edward Winter, also notes that Samuel Beattie had known Wallace for about 8 years, nearly as long as Wallace had been a member of the club. Beattie said that Wallace was shy and reserved at first, but when one got to know him he was actually a very pleasant person. Given this, I feel certain that had it been Wallace himself who made the phone-call, Beattie would have recognised his voice. Unless, of course, Wallace included mimicry among his many other talents.

It was mentioned above that if someone wished to contact an insurance company, best to go direct to the head office. This reminded me of a small incident in the 1950's, when I was a boy. My mother insured with The Royal London, and made her premium payments on the doorstep to the local collector, who lived nearby. On the one occasion when she needed to make a claim, even though she could have phoned the head office, she called the collector who visited shortly afterwards and sorted everything out for her on the spot. That's how things were done in those days, before the impersonal internet came along. So maybe nothing out-of-the-ordinary in a customer or prospective customer phoning Wallace direct.

Graham

[Robert]

I don't know what the truth of the matter is, but I will say one thing : as a chess player the last thing I would want would be someone phoning me while I was deep in cogitations.

[ColdCaseJury]

The problem I have with Wallace setting up an alibi for himself and getting someone else to kill his wife in his absence is that he would surely have done a better job with the timing and not allowed himself the tiniest window in which to be accused of doing the deed himself.X

IF someone else killed Julia, then the time of the murder was between 6:45pm and 8:45pm. And what if MacFall stuck to his original time of death as 8pm? Surely, the alibi would have been watertight?

[ColdCaseJury]

CCJ,
I have been trying to put my views in a general sort of way to avoid getting into arguments,but I will answer your post directly to you.
(1) I believe Wallace made the call.
(2) I have answered that point,and shown a way it could be accomplished,so yes I do believe Wallace had time.
(3) Yes,but even if she didn't how does it matter.Parry cannot be linked to the Wallace home that night.
Yes the onus is on the prosecution,but the deliberations and findings are in the hands of the jury.How,excepting by belief,do you think the jury reached it's verdict of guilty.

Hi Harry, one point of fact. Parry's alibi for the night of the murder came from Olivia Brine. If she in fact told a lie, then Parry has no alibi for both the night of the call (see earlier post) and no alibi for the night of the murder. Logically this matters if you answer PARRY to Q1 AND NO to Q2.

Clearly, your views are consistent with believing Wallace was most likely guilty. I have no problem with this, although I think the balance of evidence for [1] and [2] points more away from Wallace. Even if this is accepted, it does not follow that Wallace was not involved in the crime.