Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[ColdCaseJury]

By the way, in an earlier post CCJ points out that there is no documented evidence that the police tested the drains or sink for blood. Do you think this significantly strengthens the case against Wallace?

Hi John G, the answer to your question is, in my view, "not necessarily".

If the police were negligent, and did not test, then the probability that Wallace was guilty rises a small amount; this can be debated. There was certainly no obvious blood trace on Wallace, however, and his clothes were tested using Benzidine.

As I'm sure you know, the police were not statutorily obliged to pass on ALL evidence in the UK until 1996. If the police tested the nailbrush and drains, found negative results (i.e. no blood) which they interpreted as a non-result and did not report the findings, they would have hidden evidence that almost certainly would have cleared Wallace.

The fact that there is no documented evidence of testing is consistent with both possibilities. In my updated book, I describe something interesting about the chain of evidence regarding the nailbrush...

[John G]

Hi John G, the answer to your question is, in my view, "not necessarily".

If the police were negligent, and did not test, then the probability that Wallace was guilty rises a small amount; this can be debated. There was certainly no obvious blood trace on Wallace, however, and his clothes were tested using Benzidine.

As I'm sure you know, the police were not statutorily obliged to pass on ALL evidence in the UK until 1996. If the police tested the nailbrush and drains, found negative results (i.e. no blood) which they interpreted as a non-result and did not report the findings, they would have hidden evidence that almost certainly would have cleared Wallace.

The fact that there is no documented evidence of testing is consistent with both possibilities. In my updated book, I describe something interesting about the chain of evidence regarding the nailbrush...

Thanks for the reply CCJ. Personally I would say moderately rather than a small amount. However, it certainly would be inexplicable if they didn't at least test the sinks, especially when considering the police's case and the fact that the clothing was tested.

Really looking forward to your next book. By the way, have you considered including a section or, say, the odd paragraph, on the fallibility of witness statements and of memory over significant periods of time? I am, of course, thinking particularly about the validity of Parkes' subsequent public testimony. Of course, this would offer a different perspective from the simple alternative, did Parkes lie or was he telling the truth.

[John G]

Hi John G, the answer to your question is, in my view, "not necessarily".

If the police were negligent, and did not test, then the probability that Wallace was guilty rises a small amount; this can be debated. There was certainly no obvious blood trace on Wallace, however, and his clothes were tested using Benzidine.

As I'm sure you know, the police were not statutorily obliged to pass on ALL evidence in the UK until 1996. If the police tested the nailbrush and drains, found negative results (i.e. no blood) which they interpreted as a non-result and did not report the findings, they would have hidden evidence that almost certainly would have cleared Wallace.

The fact that there is no documented evidence of testing is consistent with both possibilities. In my updated book, I describe something interesting about the chain of evidence regarding the nailbrush...

Hi CCJ,

According to the Inner City site, Parry's vehicle was forensically tested. Is there any evidence of this?

[AmericanSherlock]

Thanks for the reply CCJ. Personally I would say moderately rather than a small amount. However, it certainly would be inexplicable if they didn't at least test the sinks, especially when considering the police's case and the fact that the clothing was tested.

Really looking forward to your next book. By the way, have you considered including a section or, say, the odd paragraph, on the fallibility of witness statements and of memory over significant periods of time? I am, of course, thinking particularly about the validity of Parkes' subsequent public testimony. Of course, this would offer a different perspective from the simple alternative, did Parkes lie or was he telling the truth.

Hi John, I'm in agreement with you that if this were true, it would moderately raise the probability of Wallace's guilt.

Simply because the 2 major factors that supposedly mitigate his guilt were 1. timing. 2. lack of blood on his person.

Clearly these 2 go together somewhat, but if one of them is negated I think this has to raise the probability of his guilt somewhat.

We may have to reconsider the timing. Is 12-ish minutes enough to do what was required of WHW if he was the murderer? I don't think it is unreasonable to surmise that if he was the killer, then 1. he would not act until the milk boy had left and 2. he would act very shortly following the milk boy's departure. This is especially true as the milk was delivered later than expected and Wallace would want to get the plan underway for the putative meeting time across town of 7:30 to be in frame. (The issue of the timing of the milk boy and the unforessen circumstances that led to his being late--a bicycle malfunction (and implications about how this would affect WHW's hypothetical plan) is another subject which has been dissected and debated ad nauseam already here))

What is not up for debate imo is that if Wallace was the killer, he acted in around 10 minutes, perhaps a bit over that, but not by much. If he was able to wash, this eliminates complicated theories about how he might have gotten rid of blood splatter.

I do not think it is fair to suggest as I've seen before in other discussions on the case that he did not or would not have washed, because he would have guessed the drains/sink etc would be checked (even if they weren't.) All this would prove is that somebody washed blood off himself, but not the identity of the person. Clearly, it could be argued to weaken Wallace's defense contrasted with if the drains/sink were reported to have not been used, but he might have thought there to be little choice. In addition, I surmise that if he was indeed guilty, he was erroneously relying on certain factors to exonerate him (the fact he would have known by then he had successfully hoaxed Beattie, the suspect of Parry he would be sure to raise, the entire Menlove Gardens jaunt set up perfectly in his mind etc.)

I find the state of the bathroom upstairs very interesting. As was noted there was money upstairs in sight of the bathroom not taken. Perhaps a guilty Wallace couldn't bring himself to rob his own money? Now, there is no proof that the murderer used the bathroom, but it seems likely to me. There has been a lot of debate about the blood clot on the lavatory pan...the crime scene was badly compromised by the police...but my intuition tells me it is more probable than not that the killer deposited the blood clot. If the murderer was someone other than Wallace, would they not want to wash themselves a bit before leaving? It seems to me that whoever the killer was, blood was likely washed off. I have noted before the lack of blood being traipsed around leads me to believe that the murder was pre-meditated, and that perhaps Wallace somehow evaded spatter to a large degree. I don't deny that this isn't still problematic with a murder where blood reached 7 feet high on the walls. So, it is an important factor to know if it is now a possibility that blood could have been washed off.

Let's go back to scenarios of another killer. Even if it was someone with a car, wouldn't they risk being seen by even 1 person covered in blood? If the killer was an accomplice of Parry's without a car who was planning on meeting Parry later and threw the glove in his car, then wouldn't they too risk being seen by someone walking away from 29 Wolverton? They would be hanged if seen covered in blood by anybody. Therefore, it seems to me that such a person would want to wash briefly, even if to splash their face. Then we have the blood clot on the pan. And finally the money not taken in plain sight of the bathroom. Why would a thug working with Parry wash up but not take money that was right there. (In addition to several other sources of money, jewelry on Julia etc). Of course the insurance takings that would have to be taken to imitate an elaborate robbery plot were taken. (this is also the only thing which Wallace would not have to cover the loss of himself).

Back on subject, if we have no evidence or proof the drains were tested, it becomes solely a matter of timing as the last strongly mitigating factor against Wallace's guilt. Is 10 to 12 mintues enough to do it? He would have had to start soon after the milk boy left, knowing he had set up the 7:30 meeting. But the exact time he left wouldn't matter a couple minutes 1 way-or the other. As Murphy noted, he makes his time-frame as he goes. Similar to other aspects of the case, The quesion therefore is not "would he have taken that risk/ would he have cut it that tight with time to believe he could do it in 10-12 minutes" (as he acts as fast as he can but is really under no exact time pressure. It is only in retrospect that we view this as an unbroken chain of events. The question is "Is 10 to 12 minutes a reasonable amount of time in which he could have done all of what was required for his guilt?" Nothing more about motives or plans etc. is necessary to analyze regarding the time factor. At least in my view.

I do continue to believe WHW was guilty. I also continue to think he should not have been convicted and that the reversal of the verdict was correct. I think his guilt is more likely than any other scenario though. And also I would re-iterate I believe its likelihood to be (significantly) above 50 percent.

I would say however the excellent points made here by John G and Antony and others have caused some wavering. I'm not as sure as I once was.

[AmericanSherlock]

A thought about the caller mentioning the "21st birthday". The fact that Parry not only was of that age range, but was securing a birthday party that night, and mentioned it in his statement 2 nights later seems highly suspicious. I strongly suspect Wallce himself, but this is a problem I concede. The best I could come up with besides coincidence and a girl's 21st being a common type of policy is Wallace trying to frame Parry, but this is admittedly a stretch.

However, I can see from earlier on this thread, Antony mentioned there was in fact a Qualtrough whose daughter had a 20th birthday on January 19 1931, the night of the call. This is a VERY strong coincidence to me, stronger than the fact that Parry mentioned getting an invitation to a 21st birthday. Unless Parry knew this Qualtrough's daughter being of roughly the same age (I wonder if that was looked into), I don't think it points more one way or the other to Wallace or Parry. I think it could be argued if Wallace came up with the Qualtrough hoax and wanted to mimic a hoax, he might study the man a bit and come up with the idea of the hoax upon finding out his daughter had a birthday that night. Was there a directory at that time or a census one could look into if one was so inclined? Anyway, 20th might be misheard as 21st. Or perhaps the caller just changed it to the more milestone sounding 21st. Not that the caller could ever hope to implicate Qualtrough himself, but it would be a good part of the plot to mimic a hoaxer who was using personal info from someone he knew named Qualtrough.

Like most parts of the case, this could be seen in 2 opposite ways.

Does this make the coincidental possibility of Parry not being the caller but mentioning securing a 21st birthday that night in his police statement, and the fact that "Qualtrough" also mentioned it more plausible in your eyes?

[John G]

A thought about the caller mentioning the "21st birthday". The fact that Parry not only was of that age range, but was securing a birthday party that night, and mentioned it in his statement 2 nights later seems highly suspicious. I strongly suspect Wallce himself, but this is a problem I concede. The best I could come up with besides coincidence and a girl's 21st being a common type of policy is Wallace trying to frame Parry, but this is admittedly a stretch.

However, I can see from earlier on this thread, Antony mentioned there was in fact a Qualtrough whose daughter had a 20th birthday on January 19 1931, the night of the call. This is a VERY strong coincidence to me, stronger than the fact that Parry mentioned getting an invitation to a 21st birthday. Unless Parry knew this Qualtrough's daughter being of roughly the same age (I wonder if that was looked into), I don't think it points more one way or the other to Wallace or Parry. I think it could be argued if Wallace came up with the Qualtrough hoax and wanted to mimic a hoax, he might study the man a bit and come up with the idea of the hoax upon finding out his daughter had a birthday that night. Was there a directory at that time or a census one could look into if one was so inclined? Anyway, 20th might be misheard as 21st. Or perhaps the caller just changed it to the more milestone sounding 21st. Not that the caller could ever hope to implicate Qualtrough himself, but it would be a good part of the plot to mimic a hoaxer who was using personal info from someone he knew named Qualtrough.

Like most parts of the case, this could be seen in 2 opposite ways.

Does this make the coincidental possibility of Parry not being the caller but mentioning securing a 21st birthday that night in his police statement, and the fact that "Qualtrough" also mentioned it more plausible in your eyes?

I think this is a bit of a red herring. As far as I'm aware neither Parry or Wallace were acquainted with this Qualtrough. Moreover, I don't see our "twentieth " could be misheard for "twenty-first" as they sound fundamentally different.

[AmericanSherlock]

I think this is a bit of a red herring. As far as I'm aware neither Parry or Wallace were acquainted with this Qualtrough. Moreover, I don't see our "twentieth " could be misheard for "twenty-first" as they sound fundamentally different.

Do you think that then the fact the caller mentioned 21st points strongly to Parry as the caller?

[John G]

Do you think that then the fact the caller mentioned 21st points strongly to Parry as the caller?

I would say only modestly. Thus, as far as I'm aware there's no proven link between Parry and anyone called Qualtrough, which would be much more damning. And the fact that Parry had been invited to a twenty-First birthday may simply be coincidental.

[AmericanSherlock]

I would say only modestly. Thus, as far as I'm aware there's no proven link between Parry and anyone called Qualtrough, which would be much more damning. And the fact that Parry had been invited to a twenty-First birthday may simply be coincidental.

A small point in favor of WHW being the caller in my view: If WHW was the caller, he had no choice but to call exactly when the call came thru (Leaving at 7:15 for the chess club)

If someone else was, he could have called at any time, unless of course he stalked Wallace.

[ColdCaseJury]

A small point in favor of WHW being the caller in my view: If WHW was the caller, he had no choice but to call exactly when the call came thru (Leaving at 7:15 for the chess club)

If someone else was, he could have called at any time, unless of course he stalked Wallace.

I would say these cancel out: Parry saw Wallace leave (walked or hopped in his car) and went to the call box. Wallace walked to call box. It was a 3'50" walk from No. 29, but nothing hinges on this fact.

Perhaps the choice of phone box is more significant. Wallace could choose from any call box in central Liverpool (near to the tram stop). Calling from North John Street might have been risky - chance he is seen by a fellow chess player. By the same logic, the Anfield kiosk is even more riskier - seen by someone locally who knows him. Moore said it was the location of the call box that was the decisive factor in arresting Wallace.

Parry could possibly have other choices of call box too. But he was headed to Lily Lloyd's where he turned up around 7:30pm. So, given this fact, he used a phone box near to Wallace's home and en route to Lloyd's. Anfield 1631 ticks all the boxes.

This is not a decisive factor. I do suggest the 21st birthday is a modest pointer in believing Parry more likely made the call, however. In fact, I list 5 for Parry and 4 for Wallace.

[John G]

If the caller wasn't Wallace they had limited opportunities for arranging the bogus meeting. They could contact his employer, however, both Marsden and Parry had worked for the Prudential so their voices might be recognized. Moreover, how frequently did Wallace check in with the main office, considering that he was essentially a door-to-door salesman?

The chess club was the only other viable option, but this also presented problems. Thus, phone too early and the perpetrator risked the message being forgotten, or misremembered, thereby not being effectively passed on. Furthermore, Wallace wasn't a reliable attendee, therefore it would make sense for them to observe him on the night of the match, otherwise their was the obvious possibility that Wallace wouldn't receive the message.

[AmericanSherlock]

I would say these cancel out: Parry saw Wallace leave (walked or hopped in his car) and went to the call box. Wallace walked to call box. It was a 3'50" walk from No. 29, but nothing hinges on this fact.

Perhaps the choice of phone box is more significant. Wallace could choose from any call box in central Liverpool (near to the tram stop). Calling from North John Street might have been risky - chance he is seen by a fellow chess player. By the same logic, the Anfield kiosk is even more riskier - seen by someone locally who knows him. Moore said it was the location of the call box that was the decisive factor in arresting Wallace.

Parry could possibly have other choices of call box too. But he was headed to Lily Lloyd's where he turned up around 7:30pm. So, given this fact, he used a phone box near to Wallace's home and en route to Lloyd's. Anfield 1631 ticks all the boxes.

This is not a decisive factor. I do suggest the 21st birthday is a modest pointer in believing Parry more likely made the call, however. In fact, I list 5 for Parry and 4 for Wallace.

Yes I agree with you, the location of the call box seems more critical than the timing upon reflection.

[John G]

Regarding the Qualtrough call. I've just been looking at CCJ's book, and mention is made of three factors which I think point to Parry having made the call. Firstly, he was a member of an amateur dramatics society, so disguising his voice shouldn't have been a problem. Secondly, the amdram society met in the same cafe as the chess club this giving Parry an ideal opportunity to check the dates when Wallace was down to play. Thirdly, as has been discussed before, he lied about his whereabouts at the time of the call, claiming he'd been with his girlfriend between 5:30 and 8:30, when he actually arrived at 7:35, minutes after the call had been made.

[AmericanSherlock]

The problem for me is it seems it would take someone to go out of their way to stalk Wallace, wait for him to leave, and then call. Had the person tried this ruse before? It seems not because the chess club never received a prior call...but if not, the caller got lucky since the one and only night he called was the night Wallace showed up to the club, received the message, and fell for the trap hook, line, and sinker. Keep in mind Wallace has missed the last few meetings...

Perhaps the caller had tried the watching and stalking before and Wallace had not left home so he did not call the chess club? But then this would imply a lengthy and complicated plot. If it was for a prank, it seems too convoluted. If it was truly to engage in a criminal enterprise, it seems too unreliable.

One theory could be that Parry killing time before visiting Lily (she said in her statement he came during a music lesson she was giving which was sacrilege, perhaps he wasnt due until 8 and bored) happened to see Wallace leave by chance and decided to prank the old codger who he harbored a minor grudge towards. He figured WHW must be headed to the chess club he's seen the postings of and has a laugh while diddling the phone to try to get his money back.

It is only some time later, perhaps that night, perhaps even on the 20th that he realizes it is a good opportunity to hit up Julia for cash or try to rob her. A twist on the PD James theory with the "pranker" as guilty, but perhaps he didn't plan it out like that to even be a robbery, let alone a murder. This might explain why parts of the theory don't make sense to us.

Of course, the problem is Parry's alibi the following night. I guess this is where the theory of an accomplice comes in. But then that implies a lengthy pre planned plot, which I again find hard to wrap my brain around for aforementioned reasons. And If the call really was a spur of the moment thing, then I doubt Parry could find a willing accomplice to do the dirty work in such short notice.

[NickB]

AS,

To me the logical conclusion of your ponderings is that a Parry prank call was followed by an unconnected visitor.

When I suggested this before you said that would be too much of a co-incidence. But if it wasn’t Wallace, does there need to be a causal link between the phone call and the murder?

I think the trouble is we want there to be a causal link because it makes the case far more interesting.