Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Tecs]

Dear all.

I've just realised that I may have been a bit harsh on Vincent Burke. He says in the CD I mentioned above he says that he spoke to Alan Close "many years later." Unless he classes up to 9 years as being "many years" then either he was talking to an imposter or the Alan Close who died directing a plane away from a built up area into a field in 1940 was someone else. To be fair I didn't do too much double checking, so the website I saw it on is probably wrong.

regards

tecs

[AmericanSherlock]

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

Tecs,

It's cool to have someone else to discuss this case with Yes, both of your points have been discussed before here. But I'm down to talk it thru again and see if we can agree or agree to disagree

I think 1. is your stronger point. The counter-argument is that the same exact logic would apply to anyone else. If someone wanted Wallace out of the house and was so certain he would be at the club to receive the message, then why not use that night itself for the robbery. Calling up the club and leaving a message for Wallace (that he may or may not receive) for the following night seems an odd way to go about a criminal enterprise as opposed to just committing the crime when one would be confident he was at the chess club. Even if one was confident Wallace would receive the message, he could scarcely be confident Wallace would actually embark on the journey the following night at least when concerned with the certainty that Wallace would be at the club on the Monday night. As an aside, I actually do NOT think anyone could be certain Wallace would be at the club on the Monday night (unless he was being stalked as has been suggested), but this premise is a prerequisite for any plan involving a mastermind other than Wallace, so if you don't grant this, the entire plan falls apart anyway as Wallace even receiving the message is step 1 in any plan that involves a premeditated crime the following night.

On the other hand, I think there are viable reasons why Wallace himself might wish to go about this plan; the introduction of a supposed other suspect "Qualtrough". If he simply committed the crime on Monday night, yes he could use the alibi in the same way he did Tuesday, working fast and trying to seemingly "outpace" reality casting doubt on the timing and being seen soon after at a pre-set time and location (chess club or tram stop both work). but in the case of simply whacking his wife on Monday night, there wouldn't be as much doubt as if there were a mystery suspect introduced. That is qhat the Qualtrough ruse serves to do. Wallace might also figure that if he is confident he has hoaxed Beattie (the man who took the call at the club) with his voice which would be readily apparent to him, that this would create an unshakeable alibi for himself.

In other words, not committing the murder on the Monday but rather setting this whole ruse up and then doing so on the Tuesday makes more sense if Wallace was the killer. It at least seems like a viable option. However, if someone else was guilty and presumably planning a robbery, it makes no sense whatsoever to my eyes. I haven't seen a viable explanation for this apart from convoluted plots involving multiple people (sorry a shot at a former poster here ) If you can think of one, I'd be glad to hear it.

I have seen the idea that perhaps a plotter was simply preoccupied and couldn't carry out the commission of the crime on the Monday, my counterargument is that if they were involved in the call to the club , this would require significant effort, including as most who come down on the side of Wallace's innocence concede, stalking Wallace barring almost an impossible coincidence. (since the call was made right as Wallace according to his own testimony could have been passing the phone box. He claimed he went another way but admitted to leaving home at 7.15 on Monday and the call was made about a 3 minute walk away at 7.18) With such effort and time involved in this hypothetical scenario, it is confounding why such a person wouldn't just take it upon themselves to rob the house and kill JW( whether it was a spur of the moment unplanned thing or not) that night.

As regards to your 2nd point, I think there is a misunderstanding. Wallace himself said he left at 6.45. The only question is precisely when he left after the milk boy's departure. As he caught the tram at 7:06, many put 6.48 or 6.50 at the latest as a plausible leaving time. I always found the whole business of Wallace being unable to complete the journey is such a short time a bit of a confusing argument, since he himself gave a 6:45 time of departure, so suggesting 6:48 instead--a 3 minute difference which would have given him IMO ample time ( Antony believes the milk boy came at 6:38, and I agree evidence suggests it was some time between 6:35 and 6:40), hardly seems like such an insane leap that robs him of the necessary time to complete the journey Now, of course 3 minutes in this context is a large difference but it does seem surprising that this is enough to squabble over and insinuate Wallace did not have time to commit the murder following the milk boy's departure and reach the tram stop at 7:06.

At any rate, since WHW gave 6.45 as his leaving time (and he would be incentivized to give as early as possible of a time), there should be no confusion that he left some time after the milk boy left. He probably realized that the time he could have left was bounded by which tram he caught as it would be hard to explain claiming having left at 6:30 but only making such a late tram. (This holds true whether or not he was guilty.)

[NickB]

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.

The Johnsons were just leaving. But Mrs Johnson, in her statement and in court, said that she had heard the knocking at the back door and - by the style of knocking - knew that it was Wallace. Therefore he could have reasonably expected his knocking actions to cause one or both of them to come out anyway and ask him if there was a problem.

[AmericanSherlock]

How's everyone doing?

Antony, Is the book still coming out shortly? I'm looking forward to it.

For those who have a certain theory, what would you say is the strongest piece of evidence that goes against your theory and gives you cause to pause. And then what are your possible explanation(s) to mitigate that? I think this is important with such a confounding case like the Wallace one.

As someone who believes in the sole guilt of WHW, mine is the caller mentioning a 21st birthday party and then Parry saying he spent his evening gathering invites to a 21st birthday party in the police interview. Seemingly a strong coincidence if Parry was not involved at all.

Possible explanations that still maintain my Wallace Alone Hypothesis:

1. Parry made the call as a prank (or WHW talked him into doing it somehow, unwitting as to what was to transpire the following night.)

2. Wallace made the call and this was simply a coincidence. Perhaps it seems less implausible if we consider a daughter's 21st birthday was a common reason to get an insurance policy in those days. Also, the R J Qualtrough in Liverpool at the time had a daughter who had a birthday on January 19 1931, albeit a 20th not a 21st. I doubt 20th could be misheard as 21st on the phone, but it might have sparked the idea in whoever the caller was, particularly if he had briefly studied the person whose name he was using in an attempt to confound while making a hoax call. The desire to have an elaborate, confusing back story might make more sense if the call was part of a murder plot, which could be seen to point slightly towards Wallace as the originator.

3. Wallace made the call and was attempting deliberately to cast suspicion away from himself and onto Parry whom he knew was around that age group. Although this admittedly is not entirely satisfying as it remains suspicious Parry mentioned a 21st birthday party so soon after the call was made, as if it was in the back of his mind. If he was the caller, then obviously this was a slip-up.

[John G]

Hi AS,

My theory would simply be that Parry was involved, either alone or with an accomplice.

However, there are numerous problems. Firstly, we have Parry's "cast iron" alibi, which would seem to rule him out of the actual murder. Of course, he could have had an accomplice, but who would that be? I think Wallace would be very unlikely, as they clearly disliked one another, and Parry would be about the last person Wallace would have trusted.

Then there's Parkes' story, which strongly implicates Parry, at least as an accomplice. However, it was made public decades after the event, by which time Parkes' recall of events may have been highly questionable, and it effectively requires Parry to have been a complete moron.

And I don't see an obvious motive for Parry. I think murder is very unlikely, whlch leaves robbery. However, as Wallace indicated at the trial, it was just about the worse time to commit a robbery as the takings were relatively meagre. In fact, the date of the monthly takings would have been far betterl, and Parry, who had worked Wallace's insurance round on numerous occasions, must surely have known this.

Finally, LillyHall's evidence, if reliable, suggests Wallace was involved with an accomplice. Now, this is intriguing because the alleged sighting was, I believe, at around 8:40, whereas Parry supposedly left the Brine household at about 8:30, so from the perspective of a Wallace/ Parry conspiracy the timings seem to fit.

Nonetheless, for reasons already given, I seriously doubt this pair would have colluded. Moreover, what would be the motive? What would Parry's role have been in this scenario?

[John G]

I just thought I'd post this link for anyone who's interested: https://glynrazzell.org.uk/case-overview/

It concerns the Glyn Razzell case, involving a man serving a life sentence for murder. However, it's almost as intiguing as the Wallace case: although DNA evidence appears to implicate Razzell, just about everything else, including cctv evidence, suggests he couldn't be responsible. In fact, no body has ever been found-the "victim" just disappeared.

Maybe an idea for Antony's next book!

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

My theory would simply be that Parry was involved, either alone or with an accomplice.

However, there are numerous problems. Firstly, we have Parry's "cast iron" alibi, which would seem to rule him out of the actual murder. Of course, he could have had an accomplice, but who would that be? I think Wallace would be very unlikely, as they clearly disliked one another, and Parry would be about the last person Wallace would have trusted.

Then there's Parkes' story, which strongly implicates Parry, at least as an accomplice. However, it was made public decades after the event, by which time Parkes' recall of events may have been highly questionable, and it effectively requires Parry to have been a complete moron.

And I don't see an obvious motive for Parry. I think murder is very unlikely, whlch leaves robbery. However, as Wallace indicated at the trial, it was just about the worse time to commit a robbery as the takings were relatively meagre. In fact, the date of the monthly takings would have been far betterl, and Parry, who had worked Wallace's insurance round on numerous occasions, must surely have known this.

Finally, LillyHall's evidence, if reliable, suggests Wallace was involved with an accomplice. Now, this is intriguing because the alleged sighting was, I believe, at around 8:40, whereas Parry supposedly left the Brine household at about 8:30, so from the perspective of a Wallace/ Parry conspiracy the timings seem to fit.

Nonetheless, for reasons already given, I seriously doubt this pair would have colluded. Moreover, what would be the motive? What would Parry's role have been in this scenario?

Hi John, interesting because the times also fit on the night of the call. Wallace leaves 7:15 on his own accord from his home 400 yards from the phone box. The call is made at 7:18 and there is seemingly suspicious evidence linking Parry to the call. Either Wallace made it himself, Parry was stalking him and saw him pass and go, or intriguingly the 2 are working together which accounts for why both seem linked to the call. As we know Parry lied about where he was on the night of the call and is in the frame for it, showing up at Lily Lloyd's and interrupting her piano lesson awhile later.

However, as you know, I have numerous problems with the conspiracy theory.

[AmericanSherlock]

I just thought I'd post this link for anyone who's interested: https://glynrazzell.org.uk/case-overview/

It concerns the Glyn Razzell case, involving a man serving a life sentence for murder. However, it's almost as intiguing as the Wallace case: although DNA evidence appears to implicate Razzell, just about everything else, including cctv evidence, suggests he couldn't be responsible. In fact, no body has ever been found-the "victim" just disappeared.

Maybe an idea for Antony's next book!

Interesting case thanks for introducing it to me.

I can see strong parallels with the Wallace case.

[Tecs]

Tecs,

It's cool to have someone else to discuss this case with Yes, both of your points have been discussed before here. But I'm down to talk it thru again and see if we can agree or agree to disagree

I think 1. is your stronger point. The counter-argument is that the same exact logic would apply to anyone else. If someone wanted Wallace out of the house and was so certain he would be at the club to receive the message, then why not use that night itself for the robbery. Calling up the club and leaving a message for Wallace (that he may or may not receive) for the following night seems an odd way to go about a criminal enterprise as opposed to just committing the crime when one would be confident he was at the chess club. Even if one was confident Wallace would receive the message, he could scarcely be confident Wallace would actually embark on the journey the following night at least when concerned with the certainty that Wallace would be at the club on the Monday night. As an aside, I actually do NOT think anyone could be certain Wallace would be at the club on the Monday night (unless he was being stalked as has been suggested), but this premise is a prerequisite for any plan involving a mastermind other than Wallace, so if you don't grant this, the entire plan falls apart anyway as Wallace even receiving the message is step 1 in any plan that involves a premeditated crime the following night.

On the other hand, I think there are viable reasons why Wallace himself might wish to go about this plan; the introduction of a supposed other suspect "Qualtrough". If he simply committed the crime on Monday night, yes he could use the alibi in the same way he did Tuesday, working fast and trying to seemingly "outpace" reality casting doubt on the timing and being seen soon after at a pre-set time and location (chess club or tram stop both work). but in the case of simply whacking his wife on Monday night, there wouldn't be as much doubt as if there were a mystery suspect introduced. That is qhat the Qualtrough ruse serves to do. Wallace might also figure that if he is confident he has hoaxed Beattie (the man who took the call at the club) with his voice which would be readily apparent to him, that this would create an unshakeable alibi for himself.

In other words, not committing the murder on the Monday but rather setting this whole ruse up and then doing so on the Tuesday makes more sense if Wallace was the killer. It at least seems like a viable option. However, if someone else was guilty and presumably planning a robbery, it makes no sense whatsoever to my eyes. I haven't seen a viable explanation for this apart from convoluted plots involving multiple people (sorry a shot at a former poster here ) If you can think of one, I'd be glad to hear it.

I have seen the idea that perhaps a plotter was simply preoccupied and couldn't carry out the commission of the crime on the Monday, my counterargument is that if they were involved in the call to the club , this would require significant effort, including as most who come down on the side of Wallace's innocence concede, stalking Wallace barring almost an impossible coincidence. (since the call was made right as Wallace according to his own testimony could have been passing the phone box. He claimed he went another way but admitted to leaving home at 7.15 on Monday and the call was made about a 3 minute walk away at 7.18) With such effort and time involved in this hypothetical scenario, it is confounding why such a person wouldn't just take it upon themselves to rob the house and kill JW( whether it was a spur of the moment unplanned thing or not) that night.

As regards to your 2nd point, I think there is a misunderstanding. Wallace himself said he left at 6.45. The only question is precisely when he left after the milk boy's departure. As he caught the tram at 7:06, many put 6.48 or 6.50 at the latest as a plausible leaving time. I always found the whole business of Wallace being unable to complete the journey is such a short time a bit of a confusing argument, since he himself gave a 6:45 time of departure, so suggesting 6:48 instead--a 3 minute difference which would have given him IMO ample time ( Antony believes the milk boy came at 6:38, and I agree evidence suggests it was some time between 6:35 and 6:40), hardly seems like such an insane leap that robs him of the necessary time to complete the journey Now, of course 3 minutes in this context is a large difference but it does seem surprising that this is enough to squabble over and insinuate Wallace did not have time to commit the murder following the milk boy's departure and reach the tram stop at 7:06.

At any rate, since WHW gave 6.45 as his leaving time (and he would be incentivized to give as early as possible of a time), there should be no confusion that he left some time after the milk boy left. He probably realized that the time he could have left was bounded by which tram he caught as it would be hard to explain claiming having left at 6:30 but only making such a late tram. (This holds true whether or not he was guilty.)

Hi AS, great to speak to you and happy to discuss the case, although I am rusty on it! 20 years ago I could have reeled off chapter and verse but I'll try and do my best off the top of my head!

I accept what you say re point one and can't add much.

Re point two, the main thing that I was aware of was that the pathologist, admittedly haphazardly, said that time of death was six pm. Wallace saying he left at 6.45 therefore left plenty of time for him to have done the whole deed. At that point he was in a sticky situation. Then the milk boy walks into the Bridewell and says that he had spoken with Julia at around 6.40ish (I know this time is uncertain) In turn another witness says he saw the milk boy talking to Julia at around that time. So, suddenly, Wallace only has a matter of minutes as we know that to get to the tram stop (and I have done the walk myself!) when he did, he must have left at the time he said he did. I thought that that was the big inference from the milk boy's evidence or have I got that wrong? The extra bit that I added was that the milk boy made no reference to Wallace himself and vice versa. That says to me that either

1. He left before the milk boy arrived and so is de facto innocent.

2. He was inside the house getting ready and had no knowledge of the milk boy's visit which seems unlikely in such a small house, no radio, TV etc to distract him would he really have not heard his wife chatting on the doorstep? It's possible of course, but I used to live in a similar house/area and you always seemed to know what was going on. It's not like he was in the East wing! If he had heard them talking then that is a huge assistance to him but he never mentioned it?

3. A third option I've missed!

He either leaves before or after the milk boy. Before means innocent. After means he only has a few minutes to commit the murder as we know the latest he must have left.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Police cajole him into saying he saw Julia earlier than he originally said? Off the top of my head but didn't he originally say it was around quarter to but the Police tried to get him to say it was nearer half past? I have heard that but can't think of the source off the top of my head.

I think it's possible that Wallace left just before the milk boy arrived which explains why neither mentioned the other and almost certainly puts Wallace in the clear (as the actual killer)

If you've read my previous posts on JTR you may have seen that I'm not keen on making huge changes years later i.e. turning witnesses into suspects etc. Wallace seems to have been a very ordinary man with no criminal record before or after, their marriage seemed perfectly happy, there appears to be no motive at all and almost everyone, friends, neighbors, employer, the judge, the court of appeal thought he was innocent. The only ones that didn't were, substantially and crucially, the Police and the jury!

If it looks like a duck etc

It is a very strange case.

Ps, could I take the liberty of asking you to give any feedback on the short story I did please? I tried to get it on the Casebook creative writing bit but got no reply ever unfortunately so I just did it on the message boards. I think if you search under threads I've created you will find one called short story by tecs.

Many thanks

regards

tecs

[John G]

Interesting case thanks for introducing it to me.

I can see strong parallels with the Wallace case.

Thanks AS. It's certainly an intriguing case. Taking CCJ's approach I see three alternatives. Firstly, Razzell is guilty, based upon the dna evidence. Secondly, the "victim" faked their abduction and implicated Razell, based upon possible witness sightings and the fact that she'd been researching relocating. Thirdly, and most interestingly, the involvement of a serial killer! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...convicted.html

[Herlock Sholmes]

Guys, a bit of advice please. I’ve read one book on the Wallace case (I can’t recall the author and I no longer have it) and a couple of articles. It’s an intriguing case.
Could you recommend some of the better books on the case please?

Thanks

[John G]

Guys, a bit of advice please. I’ve read one book on the Wallace case (I can’t recall the author and I no longer have it) and a couple of articles. It’s an intriguing case.
Could you recommend some of the better books on the case please?

Thanks

Hi Herlock,

Antony's recent book, Move to Murder, is excellent. By far the best website, in my opinion, is Inner City Living, which presents a comprehensive view of the case and the various theories: http://inacityliving.blogspot.co.uk/...-case.html?m=1

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Antony's recent book, Move to Murder, is excellent. By far the best website, in my opinion, is Inner City Living, which presents a comprehensive view of the case and the various theories: http://inacityliving.blogspot.co.uk/...-case.html?m=1

Thanks for that John. I’ll have a look.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry John. What’s Anthony’s full name and book title please?

BTW I’ve just seen the book that I used to own on eBay. It’s the one by Murphy.

[AmericanSherlock]

Guys, a bit of advice please. I’ve read one book on the Wallace case (I can’t recall the author and I no longer have it) and a couple of articles. It’s an intriguing case.
Could you recommend some of the better books on the case please?

Thanks

The book you read, The Murder of Julia Wallace by James Murphy is the best book arguing in favor of Wallace's guilt.

The Killing of Julia Wallace by Jonathan Goodman is the best arguing for Wallace's innocence and probably the most well known work.

The Killing of Julia Wallace by John Gannon has the most sheer information on the case.

Move to Murder Series (The Wallace Case edition) by the thread creator here, Antony Matthew Brown presents all theories in 1 and represents the most up to date thought on the case. A new version is coming out shortly.