Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[John G]

AS, given we have the following theories (there are others):

Wallace (Wallace killer, Wallace caller)
Prank (Wallace killer, Parry caller)

then we do have to look at the evidence for the killer and caller separately to differentiate between the two. If you are certain that Parry was the caller then you are also certain that the Wallace theory is false. However, we are not dealing with certainties. So, if you think Parry is the caller you increase the probability of Prank and reduce probability of Wallace (in proportion to the strength of evidence), but there may be other evidence that reduces the probability of Prank (which I think is true by the way), leaving Wallace as the most likely scenario of the two (remember, there are other theories). However, if you are consistent, you would have to say that your belief in Wallace is not as strong as it was because you have doubts about who made the call (which is also true, it appears, from your previous posts).

The only position of which I am certain is that you cannot be certain in the Wallace case!

You're absolutely right CCJ. Personally, I've changed my mind a number of times as regards the most plausible scenario. At the moment I'm thinking you may be correct as regards the significance of Lily Hall's evidence. Of course, it implies the involvement of Wallace, something I'd previously rejected. However, as I noted in an earlier post, whatever the solution to this mystery happens to be, it has to be something pretty implausible, if not very implausible!

[ColdCaseJury]

You're absolutely right CCJ. Personally, I've changed my mind a number of times as regards the most plausible scenario. At the moment I'm thinking you may be correct as regards the significance of Lily Hall's evidence. Of course, it implies the involvement of Wallace, something I'd previously rejected. However, as I noted in an earlier post, whatever the solution to this mystery happens to be, it has to be something pretty implausible, if not very implausible!

Hi John

I go into Lily Hall's evidence quite a bit in my updated book. In the end, I have suspended judgement (exactly as Mr Justice Wright did) but I agree it is important. If you accept Hall's evidence, as John Gannon does, then it transforms the case. But would Wallace involve others in a scheme to assassinate his wife? And was the assassin a stranger to Julia who called himself Qualtrough to get into the house?

[AmericanSherlock]

AS, given we have the following theories (there are others):

Wallace (Wallace killer, Wallace caller)
Prank (Wallace killer, Parry caller)

then we do have to look at the evidence for the killer and caller separately to differentiate between the two. If you are certain that Parry was the caller then you are also certain that the Wallace theory is false. However, we are not dealing with certainties. So, if you think Parry is the caller you increase the probability of Prank and reduce probability of Wallace (in proportion to the strength of evidence), but there may be other evidence that reduces the probability of Prank (which I think is true by the way), leaving Wallace as the most likely scenario of the two (remember, there are other theories). However, if you are consistent, you would have to say that your belief in Wallace is not as strong as it was because you have doubts about who made the call (which is also true, it appears, from your previous posts).

The only position of which I am certain is that you cannot be certain in the Wallace case!

Yes, I would say my belief that it was Wallace Alone is not as strong as it once was, although I still think that's the best answer.

My issue with a conspiracy, which may fit the facts, is I can't get past Wallace not creating a better alibi for himself by going straight from work on the 20th---why not make the Qualtrough appointment for 6:30 if Wallace was working with someone else?

If he had hired someone else to kill Julia, perhaps "Qualtrough", then he could have seemingly exonerated himself by not returning home at all. Nevermind the issues of the night of the call, where if he had hired someone else, he could have been AT the club when it came thru. We had disagreed on the vitalness of this point, but I think the night of the murder point is even stronger evidence against a conspiracy.

Otherwise, the "group effort" theory would seem to check many boxes!

Credit to CAZ for both points!

[AmericanSherlock]

I could imagine him being a traditionalist, so probably a phone with a lead on it!

Yeah I guess he's not the type to have a mobile data plan.

[John G]

Hi John

I go into Lily Hall's evidence quite a bit in my updated book. In the end, I have suspended judgement (exactly as Mr Justice Wright did) but I agree it is important. If you accept Hall's evidence, as John Gannon does, then it transforms the case. But would Wallace involve others in a scheme to assassinate his wife? And was the assassin a stranger to Julia who called himself Qualtrough to get into the house?

Hi CCJ,

Thanks, and I'm really looking forward to your updated book. Wallace trusting a co-conspirator is certainly problematic, particularly if that person was Parry. Of course, as the murder was committed during the period of The Great Depression he may simply have hired someone who was desperate for money. It would be risky, but considering Wallace was terminally ill anyway, he may have thought he had little to lose.

The difficulty, however, is the Qualtrough ruse. Why not come up with a more effective plan, which is what AS has pointed out? I mean, he could have given himself a cast iron alibi if he'd arranged for his co-conspirator to commit the robbery/murder during the day, i.e. whilst he was at work.

[John G]

Here's something to consider. What if Wallace asks his co-conspirator to commit the deed during the day, whilst he's at work, but he refuses, arguing that it would be too risky, I.e because it would be light and there might be lots of people about?

He therefore insists on a time of around 8:00 pm, when it would be relatively dark and presumably the neighbourhood would be a lot quieter. This compels Wallace to come up with the makeshift Qualtrough plan.

[AmericanSherlock]

Here's something to consider. What if Wallace asks his co-conspirator to commit the deed during the day, whilst he's at work, but he refuses, arguing that it would be too risky, I.e because it would be light and there might be lots of people about?

He therefore insists on a time of around 8:00 pm, when it would be relatively dark and presumably the neighbourhood would be a lot quieter. This compels Wallace to come up with the makeshift Qualtrough plan.

This is a good point.

If I were to play devil's advocate to my own point against a conspiracy, I would say that maybe as you said Wallace felt he didn't have much to lose. Perhaps, we are over thinking the perfect crime and he was simply willing to take risks or not be as thorough as someone else might be. Especially, if for some reason it was more comfortable for him to come home first. Maybe he figured if the voice on the line to the chess club wasn't his (as Beattie vouched for) that he would already be exonerated and wanted to come home to ensure control over the siituation, make sure to instruct Julia to open the door to a visitor etc etc.

Sun set would be around 4:30 in late January in Liverpool, so virtual total darkness around 5. If the hired killer worked during the day, then maybe around 7:30 or 8 was the best he could do.

But there is another problem! The milk boy! With a 7:30 appointment and the milk boy running late, why not leave before the milk boy came and be seen out around the time the milk boy was there (or only a few minutes later), which would make it obvious Wallace couldn't have been the killer directly.

Again, perhaps this is a detail looked over by WHW, especially since he expected the milk boy at a too early to help his cause few minutes past 6. Hard to say.

[John G]

Maybe a small point, but at the trial Wallace stated that he knew there was a Menlove Avenue. Now, he might not have known that the Menlove Garden estate was tucked in behind Menlove Avenue (which is what the main A road was referred to as it crossed the residential estate), but it suggests he had an idea of the general location and this could explain why he felt no need to consult a map.

[AmericanSherlock]

Maybe a small point, but at the trial Wallace stated that he knew there was a Menlove Avenue. Now, he might not have known that the Menlove Garden estate was tucked in behind Menlove Avenue (which is what the main A road was referred to as it crossed the residential estate), but it suggests he had an idea of the general location and this could explain why he felt no need to consult a map.

Yes but he discussed it at the chess club the night before, so I never thought he didn't have a good idea of the area (even though he intimated as much) Also, as I pointed out Crewe's house was nearby.

What was interesting is he didn't know specifically where Menlove Gardens East was or precisely where he was headed as he demonstrated in discussing it the night before and by asking on the journey starting with the tram driver , just the general idea of where it would be. Perhaps he thought he would easily find it. (If he was innocent, then clearly this is what happened.)

[John G]

Yes but he discussed it at the chess club the night before, so I never thought he didn't have a good idea of the area (even though he intimated as much) Also, as I pointed out Crewe's house was nearby.

What was interesting is he didn't know specifically where Menlove Gardens East was or precisely where he was headed as he demonstrated in discussing it the night before and by asking on the journey starting with the tram driver , just the general idea of where it would be. Perhaps he thought he would easily find it. (If he was innocent, then clearly this is what happened.)

Hi AS,

You're correct, of course, that Crewe's house was very close by, as depicted on the map that I linked. However, if he'd care to look in the direction of the Menlove estate he'd have seen a large main road, assuming there were no buildings or bends in the road to obscure his view. However, he would have had no reason to know that the part of this road that crossed the estate was referred to as Menlove Avenue. Nor that the Menlove Estate was behind this road.

[John G]

I'm starting to think that a "robbery gone wrong" is much less plausible as a scenario than a planned murder. Thus, Wallace made this statement during the trial about the monthly collections:

" Three weeks out of four, the amount may be anything between £30 and £40; each fourth week it may be anything between, say, £80 and £100. It may be more on occasions."

However, on the day of the murder he estimated that he'd collected only £14 (this is partially explained by the fact that he'd been ill on the Saturday because of the flu, therefore there were no collections on that day.)

And out of that £14, he'd had to pay out about £10 in sickness benefits, leaving only about £4 net.

It therefore seems obvious that this was just about the worst possible time to commit a robbery, and therefore a robbery orchestrated by Wallace makes no sense.

What about a robbery committed without Wallace's involvement? Surely in that case the perpetrator would be incensed about the paucity of the expected windfall. He might, for instance, have refused to believe that there was so little in the way of takings, and demanded that Julia tell him where the rest of the money was.

However, this would surely have involved a major altercation, with raised voices at the very least, and possibly signs of struggle. However, there is no evidence for any kind of struggle, and the neighbours heard nothing. It would therefore seem that robbery as the prime motive is unlikely.

[AmericanSherlock]

I'm starting to think that a "robbery gone wrong" is much less plausible as a scenario than a planned murder. Thus, Wallace made this statement during the trial about the monthly collections:

" Three weeks out of four, the amount may be anything between £30 and £40; each fourth week it may be anything between, say, £80 and £100. It may be more on occasions."

However, on the day of the murder he estimated that he'd collected only £14 (this is partially explained by the fact that he'd been ill on the Saturday because of the flu, therefore there were no collections on that day.)

And out of that £14, he'd had to pay out about £10 in sickness benefits, leaving only about £4 net.

It therefore seems obvious that this was just about the worst possible time to commit a robbery, and therefore a robbery orchestrated by Wallace makes no sense.

What about a robbery committed without Wallace's involvement? Surely in that case the perpetrator would be incensed about the paucity of the expected windfall. He might, for instance, have refused to believe that there was so little in the way of takings, and demanded that Julia tell him where the rest of the money was.

However, this would surely have involved a major altercation, with raised voices at the very least, and possibly signs of struggle. However, there is no evidence for any kind of struggle, and the neighbours heard nothing. It would therefore seem that robbery as the prime motive is unlikely.

Yes John, I agree entirely. Excellent points.

This implicates Wallace strongly, because if it was a planned murder, it seems he either did it himself or hired other(s) to.

If he wasn't involved, it is difficult to suppose why someone else would plan the murder separate from Wallace. It seems unlikely to me Julia would have something on someone else that would make them feel they had to kill her.

John Gannon's scenario is believable and plausible in abstract, but that of course involves Wallace and he is the one doing the blackmailing. Perhaps we should examine his idea more minus the sexual aspect, which is entertaining but unproven. My objection about Wallace creating a better alibi for himself if he had the benefit of working with other(s) still stands though.

I also think someone like Parry killing Julia just for the hell of it and trying to frame Wallace as Man From the Pru and Jonathan Goodman suggests is extremely unlikely.

[John G]

Yes John, I agree entirely. Excellent points.

This implicates Wallace strongly, because if it was a planned murder, it seems he either did it himself or hired other(s) to.

If he wasn't involved, it is difficult to suppose why someone else would plan the murder separate from Wallace. It seems unlikely to me Julia would have something on someone else that would make them feel they had to kill her.

John Gannon's scenario is believable and plausible in abstract, but that of course involves Wallace and he is the one doing the blackmailing. Perhaps we should examine his idea more minus the sexual aspect, which is entertaining but unproven. My objection about Wallace creating a better alibi for himself if he had the benefit of working with other(s) still stands though.

I also think someone like Parry killing Julia just for the hell of it and trying to frame Wallace as Man From the Pru and Jonathan Goodman suggests is extremely unlikely.

Regarding the alibi, to a certain extent Wallace was limited by his appointment schedule. Thus, he didn't leave his last appointment until 5:50. It could therefore be argued that this left him just enough time to get home, have a light tea, gather his documents together, and leave for the Qualtrough appointment.

One option would have been to go straight to the Qualtrough appointment, after his last regular appointment, without returning home. If he was involved it certainly would have allowed him to construct a better alibi. However, he simply may not have thought of this option, particularly if it was a hastily drawn up plan. I mean, it's only just occurred to me and I've been thinking about the case for months! Furthermore, as noted previously, I perceive Wallace as a traditionalist, and as such he may have been unwilling to forgo his tea whatever the circumstances!

I agree that Parry murdering Julia is extremely problematic. For instance, even if she'd caught him with his fingers in the money tin he could have just passed it off as a misunderstanding. In any event, it would only be Julia's word against his. Parry would have to have been psychotic to brutally murder Julia in these circumstances.

[John G]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before. At the trial Wallace stated that the light had been turned down in his bedroom, even though he distinctly remembered leaving it left on when he left for the Qualtrough appointment. Could this suggest, at least as a possibility, that Julia had been "entertaining" in the bedroom?

[AmericanSherlock]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before. At the trial Wallace stated that the light had been turned down in his bedroom, even though he distinctly remembered leaving it left on when he left for the Qualtrough appointment. Could this suggest, at least as a possibility, that Julia had been "entertaining" in the bedroom?

By entertaining, do you mean a friend or sexual partner she was expecting? Or somebody who showed up unexpectedly.

If she was expecting someone that she didn't Wallace to know about, she must have had it arragned quickly after she found out about Wallace's Qualtrough journey Monday night/Tuesday morning and hope for the visit to last not longer than 2 hours or so.