Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[ColdCaseJury]

Regarding the cash box, what do you think of this theory? A sneak thief removes the cash box whilst Julia is out of the room. He then takes out the notes and pockets them. However, Julia returns unexpectedly, catching him in the act. She calmly asks him to replace the cash box and await the return of her husband; this he agrees to do. Unfortunately for Julia, he changes his mind and decides instead to silence her, before making his getaway.

John G, very possible. It is not the scenario I depict in my reconstruction of Parry and Accomplice theories, but yours would work, too. Possibly the killer was asked to leave, changed his mind when in the hall, grabbed the mackintosh... There are many variations. I think the key aspect of the sneak-thievery is that it explains why the cashbox was replaced. This I cover in my book, of course, giving credit to Hussey, who first suggested it in his Parry theory (1972).

So, the two key theories for the cashbox replacement seem to be:

Sneak-thief who is caught just after the act;

Wallace staging a robbery and (arguably) making a mistake.

[AmericanSherlock]

John G, very possible. It is not the scenario I depict in my reconstruction of Parry and Accomplice theories, but yours would work, too. Possibly the killer was asked to leave, changed his mind when in the hall, grabbed the mackintosh... There are many variations. I think the key aspect of the sneak-thievery is that it explains why the cashbox was replaced. This I cover in my book, of course, giving credit to Hussey, who first suggested it in his Parry theory (1972).

So, the two key theories for the cashbox replacement seem to be:

Sneak-thief who is caught just after the act;

Wallace staging a robbery and (arguably) making a mistake.

Let's assume it was a sneak-thief for the sake of argument. There are 2 and only 2 possibilities--either it is someone Julia knows or it is someone she does not know.

If it is someone she knows (Parry or anyone else she would let in to the house), then the person is going to be caught anyway or best case it will be his word against the Wallaces. But it will be obvious what has happened when William returns home from his fruitless journey and eventually they find that money is missing and put 2 and 2 together. It would seem to me that such a person would have to be willing to kill Julia to ensure getting away with it. Yet the whole point of the sneak theft would be to go undetected and not have to resort to violence. Since Julia was attacked from behind and with the mackintosh etc. it becomes hard to explain this away with the theory that the thief panicked. Where did the weapon come from? Why was Julia calmly putting out the fireplace when murdered and not in close proximity to the cashbox? Indeed, you yourself suggest the killer probably had an opportunity to leave and then changed his mind and came back to lay waste to poor JW. Your original Parry theory had a similar premise behind it. Put simply, if the killer was someone known to Julia, then he had no reason to think he could get away with the sneak theft in the first place. The difference between being caught by her in the moment and suspected later is negligible. Now maybe such a person wasn't thinking clearly and flipped out reflexively upon being caught. But as I will demonstrate in the alternative scenario, regardless of who the killer was, the attack on Julia appears to have been done with at least some momentary forethought; an attempt to hush her rather than a face to face encounter. (Unless of course the killer was Wallace, in which case he certainly had his own motives separate from this dichotomy!)

So what if the killer was someone JW did NOT know? First, we have to theorize on why she would let them in, or at least how such a person could rely on the fact that she would as part of an elaborate plan. This is where the Accomplice theory comes in to play.

Note: It could also work if "Qualtrough" is working alone as well. By passing himself off as "R M Qualtrough", he figures Julia will let him in to clear up the confusion. This is also assuming William will have told Julia about the whole deal, which I think is a fair assumption.

But we have similar problems here. If it is someone Julia does not know, then why is such a person desperate to silence her? Perhaps a spur of the moment freak out could explain it, a panicked rage at being caught. But that is not what the crime scene suggests. It speaks of someone pre-meditating the attack, even if over a minute or two, being asked to leave etc and then changing their mind. Why? Also money WAS taken. So why not, if suspected by JW, just leave if you are unknown to her. Again the crime scene does not imply a direct confrontation where momentary fear or rage could explain it. At most, it seems it was someone who was about to leave and then thought better of it because of the need to silence Julia. This does not mesh with a person unknown to her who has already successfully completed a robbery IMO. Also note nothing more was taken although it could have easily been after she was bludgeoned.

[Charles Daniels]

Antony,

Regarding suspects. There is always the possibility that Julia had a secret lover, who was not one of the 15 people named by Wallace. Indeed, it's possible they conspired to get Wallace out of the house that evening so they could be together. This individual could then have murdered Julia and staged a robbery.

There was a long period of Julia's life where there isn't a clear picture of what was happening with her. Isn't that correct?

[John G]

There was a long period of Julia's life where there isn't a clear picture of what was happening with her. Isn't that correct?

Yes, indeed. In fact, not much is known about her at all prior to the marriage with William. And, of course, she even lied about her age at the time of her marriage and subsequently: her marriage certificate states she was 37 when she was actually almost 53.

[Charles Daniels]

Yes, indeed. In fact, not much is known about her at all prior to the marriage with William. And, of course, she even lied about her age at the time of her marriage and subsequently: her marriage certificate states she was 37 when she was actually almost 53.

Well then, I can't help but see another possibility here.

If we accept Wallace's testimony that she would only answer the door for someone she knew.

Then we obviously have a pretty wide opened door here for Julia to know very many people whom were unknown to Wallace.

One of these people from her past could have called up the chess club to get Wallace out of the way and to confront Julia.

Perhaps an old abusive lover?

[AmericanSherlock]

Well then, I can't help but see another possibility here.

If we accept Wallace's testimony that she would only answer the door for someone she knew.

Then we obviously have a pretty wide opened door here for Julia to know very many people whom were unknown to Wallace.

One of these people from her past could have called up the chess club to get Wallace out of the way and to confront Julia.

Perhaps an old abusive lover?

Hi Charles, I continue to believe WHW was guilty with moderate conviction, but of the other possibilities this is probably my favorite. The operators also said the caller sounded like an old man. This could obviously mean it was Wallace himself or Parry faking his voice, but I always thought that was interesting.

Julia appeared to be an odd character. Not only did she fudge her age by 15 years but none of her family attended her wedding or funeral. As has been said here, we know little of her past or relationships she may have had or possibly was running away from.

[Charles Daniels]

Hi Charles, I continue to believe WHW was guilty with moderate conviction, but of the other possibilities this is probably my favorite. The operators also said the caller sounded like an old man. This could obviously mean it was Wallace himself or Parry faking his voice, but I always thought that was interesting.

Julia appeared to be an odd character. Not only did she fudge her age by 15 years but none of her family attended her wedding or funeral. As has been said here, we know little of her past or relationships she may have had or possibly was running away from.

Well this is fascinating.

Surely if she had become so completely estranged from her family that they couldn't be bothered to lay her to rest after her murder .... then that hints at a much darker past than the cute little closed scenario that often gets explored.

[John G]

Here's an interesting point. At the trial Wallace stated that the bedroom light was turned down when he arrived home, even though he said it was left on when he left. In fact, he stated, "We always left it on if either of us went upstairs in the evening to wash or do anything; the gas was never turned out, it was left on."

Had Julia been entertaining in the bedroom?

[John G]

Wallace also stated that his wife would admit someone calling themselves Qualtrough:

Roland Oliver QC: "Looking at it now, if someone did come and gave the name 'Qualtrough' to your wife on that night, do you think she would have let him in?"

Wallace: "Seeing I had gone to meet a Mr Qualtrough, I think she would, because she new all about the business."

[AmericanSherlock]

Wallace also stated that his wife would admit someone calling themselves Qualtrough:

Roland Oliver QC: "Looking at it now, if someone did come and gave the name 'Qualtrough' to your wife on that night, do you think she would have let him in?"

Wallace: "Seeing I had gone to meet a Mr Qualtrough, I think she would, because she new all about the business."

hi John, what do you think of the idea of Wallace telling Julia all about the business himself to make sure she would admit Qualtrough (since he set up the murder himself)? Is that what you are getting at?

[AmericanSherlock]

Well this is fascinating.

Surely if she had become so completely estranged from her family that they couldn't be bothered to lay her to rest after her murder .... then that hints at a much darker past than the cute little closed scenario that often gets explored.

I think the possible suspects list is limited in a way because I think she would only let in someone she knew or someone calling themselves Qualtrough. But since we don't know who these people are or who "Qualtrough" was if he existed, from our POV it is unlimited. Does that make sense?

[John G]

hi John, what do you think of the idea of Wallace telling Julia all about the business himself to make sure she would admit Qualtrough (since he set up the murder himself)? Is that what you are getting at?

Hi AS,

I was thinking more on the lines of what suspects could be included or excluded. For instance, didn't Wallace provide a list of people Julia would admit? Now, on the face of it, unless Wallace was responsible himself, and as there was no sign of forced entry, then the odds must be strong that the killer is on that list, unless a secret lover was involved. However, if Julia would have simply admitted anyone calling themselves Qualtrough then we're effectively back to square one, as the killer need not have been someone on Wallace's list.

[John G]

hi John, what do you think of the idea of Wallace telling Julia all about the business himself to make sure she would admit Qualtrough (since he set up the murder himself)? Is that what you are getting at?

Hi AS,

I think the idea of Wallace being involved in a conspiracy involving the Qualtrough ruse is too convoluted, effectively going back to the the police argument that Wallace was some sort of evil genius simply because he was an average chess player. And if that was the plot, I don't think Wallace would have drawn attention to it by conceding in court that Julia would admit anyone calling themselves Qualtrough.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

I think the idea of Wallace being involved in a conspiracy involving the Qualtrough ruse is too convoluted, effectively going back to the the police argument that Wallace was some sort of evil genius simply because he was an average chess player. And if that was the plot, I don't think Wallace would have drawn attention to it by conceding in court that Julia would admit anyone calling themselves Qualtrough.

I agree...that makes sense to me. I think Wallace if guilty could have said that in court to draw attention to the possibility of "Qualtrough" as the killer. But I also concede that it is absolutely possible and even probable JW would have let in a Qualtrough if he really did exist. And if innocent it would also make sense for Wallace to draw attention to that possibility!

More ambiguity in this case!

[Tecs]

Dear all.

I haven't read through all of the posts so apologies if I'm repeating what others have said.

I've been interested in this case for many years and have visited Wolverton street and timed the walk that Wallace made to get to the tram stop myself.

So many weird elements to this case but there were two key points that I always thought spoke volumes even though they are both very far from being a "smoking gun" or whatever the opposite of that is!

1. Why would he go through such a ridiculous pantomime to establish an alibi when he could have used his visits to the chess club as a perfectly good alibi on its own?

2. I have seen that some people have said that the neighbours were approached by Wallace himself but in the versions I have read, they just happened to be leaving at the time Wallace was trying his back door. If this version is correct then he couldn't possibly have guaranteed that and his behaviour appears to have fitted that of a puzzled man eventually gaining access and discovering his wife dead.

Also, Wallace said that he never saw anyone hanging around. This suggests to me that if anything he may have left the house even earlier than he said as we know the milk boy, Alan Close, was talking to Julia at around 6.40. If Wallace had left after that he surely would have mentioned him as he could verify that he (Wallace) left the house with his wife perfectly well. I know some people say that Alan Close changed his timings and told the court it was 6.30, but it does seem that he did that under pressure from the Police.

The Police behaviour was appalling and the lead investigator, Moore ignored evidence that could have helped Wallace and twisted anything that wouldn't. I'm only surprised that some conspiracy theorist hasn't put a theory forward suggesting Wallace was silenced for knowing something, when you consider the behaviour of the Police and pathologist who went out of their way to put Wallace in the frame.

Never finding the murder weapon despite huge searches is significant too as he would have had to dispose of it somewhere en route.

Finally, anyone from the North West might know this, there was a great criminologist called Vincent Burke who appeared often on local radio and TV discussing historical North West murders. He did a very good CD of this case and if anyone can suggest how I could get it onto casebook, I'd be happy to try. Can't guarantee just how 100% accurate it is (e.g. he ponders if Alan Close was still alive when it's easily available on the internet that he died, a hero, in the war.) unless Vincent knows more and that's a mistake?

regards

Tecs