Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

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

Hi John, I was surprised to learn that Mark R. the creator of that site (along with Ged Fagan), apparently has switched to believing in Wallace's guilt. He gave a positive review of Murphy's book on Amazon and it amounted to him basically believing the case was closed. For years, he maintained one could not say one way or another, and actually seemed to lean toward's Wallace innocence if anything, saying nobody could explain to him how WHW avoided blood splatter.

[AmericanSherlock]

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

The serial killer theory seems very strong, considering all the other murders were committed on March 19th as well! But then, what about the DNA evidence?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Thanks for the information AS. I really wish that I still had the Murphy book but I need space for more books so some just had to go

[AmericanSherlock]

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

Hi tecs, I'm going on a train later today and I will have some time to check out your story and give feedback.

You are correct the police tried to work back Alan Close (the milkboy)'s time from an initial time of 6:45. 6:31 was the final time he agreed to. Unfortunately whenever that level of police corruption happens, it casts the entire prosecution's case in doubt.

However, there is evidence suggesting the time was a bit after 6:35. 2 other milk boys James Wildman and Douglas Metcalf both claimed they saw Close on the steps of 29 Wolverton at around 6:37. Wildman claims he saw the church clock reading 6:35 a couple minutes before. The time of 6:38, which the OP of this thread settled on in his book is as good as any as a time for when Close departed from the Wallace house. Neither of these 2 were manipulated by the police.

[John G]

Hi John, I was surprised to learn that Mark R. the creator of that site (along with Ged Fagan), apparently has switched to believing in Wallace's guilt. He gave a positive review of Murphy's book on Amazon and it amounted to him basically believing the case was closed. For years, he maintained one could not say one way or another, and actually seemed to lean toward's Wallace innocence if anything, saying nobody could explain to him how WHW avoided blood splatter.

Thst a huge surprise, especially as I thought that, if anything, the site leaned away from Wallace being guilty.

[AmericanSherlock]

Thst a huge surprise, especially as I thought that, if anything, the site leaned away from Wallace being guilty.

It also seemed that way to me. Quite odd.

[John G]

The serial killer theory seems very strong, considering all the other murders were committed on March 19th as well! But then, what about the DNA evidence?

Yes, I agree, especially as everything apart from the DNA points awsy from Razell: lack of sufficient time, CCTV evidence etc. I think the defence team have suggested that the blood may have been planted, given that nothing was detected during the first two forensic examinations. This seems a bit unlikely to me, and where would the police have obtained blood matching the profile of the "victim"?

It may have been a partial profile: this type of evidence is controversial as it relies on the subjective opinion of the forensic expert. But then in that case, where did the blood come from, assuming it wasn't the "victim's"?

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, I agree, especially as everything apart from the DNA points awsy from Razell: lack of sufficient time, CCTV evidence etc. I think the defence team have suggested that the blood may have been planted, given that nothing was detected during the first two forensic examinations. This seems a bit unlikely to me, and where would the police have obtained blood matching the profile of the "victim"?

It may have been a partial profile: this type of evidence is controversial as it relies on the subjective opinion of the forensic expert. But then in that case, where did the blood come from, assuming it wasn't the "victim's"?

Is there the possibility of Razzell working together with this serial killer in the same way that a conspiracy would resolve many of the nagging doubts of the Wallace case?

But then like the Wallace case, a conspiracy theory might leave you with more problems than you started out with, particularly as the date followed the pattern of the other serial crimes. This would be odd if Razzell was the mastermind and not Halliwell. Also, hard to come up with a stronger motive for Glyn than for the obsessive, proven evil and psychotic Chris.

[John G]

Is there the possibility of Razzell working together with this serial killer in the same way that a conspiracy would resolve many of the nagging doubts of the Wallace case?

But then like the Wallace case, a conspiracy theory might leave you with more problems than you started out with, particularly as the date followed the pattern of the other serial crimes. This would be odd if Razzell was the mastermind and not Halliwell. Also, hard to come up with a stronger motive for Glyn than for the obsessive, proven evil and psychotic Chris.

Yes, I think Razell band Halliwell working together has many problems. For instance, they would presumably have completely different motives. Moreover, it doesn't really explain the blood evidence in the boot of the vehicle: why would an accomplice effectively implicate Razell by using his vehicle, or the vehicle he had access to? Why would Razell agree to such a plan?

Although it sounds far fetched, is it possible that Linda staged her disappearance, setting up Glyn. Thus, she had a history of mental illness and had disappeared before, although she took the children with her. Plus, there's evidence that she was planning to move abroad. Then there's the long standing friend, who claimed to have seen her, whilst driving a vehicle, the day after she disappeared, and that Linda didn't look pleased to see her.

What I find the most fascinating issue, however, is the conflicting hard evidence. Thus, on one hand there's the DNA evidence, which seems to strongly implicate Razell. But on the other hand, CCTV evidence would seem to exonerate him, as the car wasn't picked up by cameras on any of the possible routes that he could have taken.

[Tecs]

Hi tecs, I'm going on a train later today and I will have some time to check out your story and give feedback.

You are correct the police tried to work back Alan Close (the milkboy)'s time from an initial time of 6:45. 6:31 was the final time he agreed to. Unfortunately whenever that level of police corruption happens, it casts the entire prosecution's case in doubt.

However, there is evidence suggesting the time was a bit after 6:35. 2 other milk boys James Wildman and Douglas Metcalf both claimed they saw Close on the steps of 29 Wolverton at around 6:37. Wildman claims he saw the church clock reading 6:35 a couple minutes before. The time of 6:38, which the OP of this thread settled on in his book is as good as any as a time for when Close departed from the Wallace house. Neither of these 2 were manipulated by the police.

Hi AS.

Thanks for the clarifications. Regarding my point re Wallace leaving before or after Close, which do you think is more likely and what inferences would you draw from your guess?

Enjoy your train journey!

regards

tecs

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS.

Thanks for the clarifications. Regarding my point re Wallace leaving before or after Close, which do you think is more likely and what inferences would you draw from your guess?

Enjoy your train journey!

regards

tecs

Just finished your story, I really enjoyed it. I liked the twist at the end, very cool. Harrison is my dog's name Have you ever thought of trying to get your writing published? I enjoy historical fiction so it was right up my alley.

I think the milk boy left a few minutes before Wallace left. The question is how long exactly and would that be prohibitive of the possibility of him being the murderer. Another thing is all 3 of them were on the block several minutes before and indeed 2 of them relayed being next door and seeing Close go over to 29 Wolverton etc. They would have seen Wallace leave if he had left any time in the few minutes before Close was at the door IMO. He almost certainly left after, but the question is how much after? 5 minutes would not be enough time. 10 minutes in my judgement, might be.

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, I think Razell band Halliwell working together has many problems. For instance, they would presumably have completely different motives. Moreover, it doesn't really explain the blood evidence in the boot of the vehicle: why would an accomplice effectively implicate Razell by using his vehicle, or the vehicle he had access to? Why would Razell agree to such a plan?

Although it sounds far fetched, is it possible that Linda staged her disappearance, setting up Glyn. Thus, she had a history of mental illness and had disappeared before, although she took the children with her. Plus, there's evidence that she was planning to move abroad. Then there's the long standing friend, who claimed to have seen her, whilst driving a vehicle, the day after she disappeared, and that Linda didn't look pleased to see her.

What I find the most fascinating issue, however, is the conflicting hard evidence. Thus, on one hand there's the DNA evidence, which seems to strongly implicate Razell. But on the other hand, CCTV evidence would seem to exonerate him, as the car wasn't picked up by cameras on any of the possible routes that he could have taken.

Linda staging her own disappearance occurred to me, but the DNA evidence is confusing. Even more confusing it the serial killer angle, what an odd coincidence about the dates etc. if he wasn't involved. If so, I can't imagine he would purposefully implicate himself as part of a plan working with Linda. Hard to know what to make of it.

The CCTV evidence interests me because I have never heard of it being used in that way (instead of looking up footage of a specific place in a time window to confirm an event happened, looking up all possible places in a time window to prove an event did NOT happen). It does seem fairly conclusive. Hard to see how that doesn't create at least reasonable doubt as to Glyn's guilt.

I used to think Jeremy Bamber was a possible miscarriage of justice, but the more I know about it the more I think he was likely guilty.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well I’m a little nervous dipping my toes into a discussion on the Wallace case when everyone on here has such an in-depth understanding. The Murphy book is the only one that I’ve read on the case and that was a few years ago (I no longer have the book.)
I’ve just got the John Gannon book and I’m on page 71 so perhaps I should wait until I’ve finished. I have a few thoughts but I think that I’ll just mention this one. It’s a small point and is probably addressed further on in the book but here goes...

On page 71 we have Wallace entering the kitchen with the Johnston’s. Johnston asks ‘is there anything missing?’ Wallace reaches down a cash box from on top of the bookshelves and informs him that there’s around £4 missing.’

My question is...would a thief have taken the cash, after murdering Julia, and then make the effort to put the box back on the shelf? There was surely no point? This has to point to Wallace’s involvement for me?

[AmericanSherlock]

Well I’m a little nervous dipping my toes into a discussion on the Wallace case when everyone on here has such an in-depth understanding. The Murphy book is the only one that I’ve read on the case and that was a few years ago (I no longer have the book.)
I’ve just got the John Gannon book and I’m on page 71 so perhaps I should wait until I’ve finished. I have a few thoughts but I think that I’ll just mention this one. It’s a small point and is probably addressed further on in the book but here goes...

On page 71 we have Wallace entering the kitchen with the Johnston’s. Johnston asks ‘is there anything missing?’ Wallace reaches down a cash box from on top of the bookshelves and informs him that there’s around £4 missing.’

My question is...would a thief have taken the cash, after murdering Julia, and then make the effort to put the box back on the shelf? There was surely no point? This has to point to Wallace’s involvement for me?

Herlock,

this is a great point. It is one I have oft considered to be strongly suggestive of Wallace's guilt. I just can't see why a highly strung thief caught in the act would replace the cash box back on the high shelf after bashing JW's brains in.

It makes more sense that Wallace would do this out of habit. Obviously, this would be an error for him to do so and incriminating, but it is not hard to imagine him making a mistake under such circumstances. Combine this with the fact that Julia was struck from behind while apparently putting out the fireplace, and we are looking at an assassin (as James Murphy puts it) and who gains from that?

The suggestion that the murder of JW was premeditated by someone other than WHW and the culprit was looking to frame Wallace seems highly unlikely.

The strongest piece of evidence pointing away from Wallace would be the phone call where a 21st birthday party is mentioned. (Caller says he wants to arrange something for his "girl's" 21st.) Parry had a girlfriend 20 years old and most suspiciously told the police in his statement the following night that he had spent the evening getting invites to a "21st birthday".

On the other hand, the caller was said to sound like an old man. A 21st birthday was a common reason for a policy for one's daughter (which girl probably meant in this context.) And the Qualtrough in question had a daughter who was celebrating a birthday that very night of January 19 1931, albeit a 20th not a 21st but that could have put the idea in the mind of anyone who had gone to the trouble of researching the person he was using for the ruse.

I still believe the bulk of the evidence points more towards Wallace himself.

[Harry D]

Linda staging her own disappearance occurred to me, but the DNA evidence is confusing. Even more confusing it the serial killer angle, what an odd coincidence about the dates etc. if he wasn't involved. If so, I can't imagine he would purposefully implicate himself as part of a plan working with Linda. Hard to know what to make of it.

I would say that the husband is guilty. A marital breakdown, the wife gone without a trace, and her blood found in the boot of the car. I don't have an in-depth knowledge of the case but based on those basic facts it certainly screams of a spousal homicide. As for the friend who reportedly saw Linda driving a different car, we all know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously shaky. She might very well have been mistaken in her identification.