Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I can imagine Wallace as the meticulous type who, by habit and inclination would have put the box back, not wanting the company to think that he wasn’t security conscious.
I can accept the possibility that Wallace didn’t make the call (maybe he would fear that his voice might be recognised no matter how much he tried to disguise it) but, at the moment, I find it difficult to accept that he wasn’t involved. No one else would have had any motive for killing Julia except in the process of a robbery. It appears though that very little effort was made by the murderer to look for cash, especially upstairs. For me, everything points to the fact that the murder was the ultimate objective. And only Wallace could have wanted her dead. Although some said that they seemed happy there’s enough of a suggestion that things weren’t ‘rosy.’ I’m reminded a little of the relationship between Crippen and his wife. If I recall correctly most felt that they were a happy and devoted couple.
I can see me getting a little ‘obsessed’ with this case. I need to learn more first though👍

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a small point from page 79 of Gannon. He makes a point about the rather awkward positioning of the chair nearest the door in the Parlour. His point seems to be that Wallace wouldn’t have been able to open the door, or close it when he left the room. Am I missing something here? It would have been tight but looking at the photograph I’d say that, whilst the door couldn’t have been opened fully, there would have been easily enough room to get in. Edwardian rooms like Victorian ones always appeared cluttered (no minimalist living then). Wallace himself said that it was the usual position for the chair and I can think of no reason why he’d lie about that?
I’d be interested to hear if I’ve misinterpreted here but I can’t understand why Gannon finds the position of this chair significant?

[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.

Hi AS.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read the story and for your kind feedback, I appreciate it and am glad you liked it!

To answer your question, the only real efforts I've made to get anything published was sending the above story to the casebook website and I got no reply at all! Not really success! The problem with the story was that there are so many "in" references that non ripper people just wouldn't get, that I couldn't think of how it would appeal to the general public. When I found the casebook website there was no excuse and I just had to write it down. I do have a few other ideas so one day maybe!

Back to Wallace. Having been in many of those types of houses and rooms, I can vouch that the front parlour as it was called was usually not used except for special occasions, "high days and holidays." People spent most of their time in the kitchen or "back room" usually because of the inconvenience and expense of heating an extra room. I certainly have many, many memories of being in my grandparents' "kitchen" which was actually the room next to the small room which contained the cooker, sink etc and which was itself known as the "back kitchen." Hope you're all still with me! So the fact that she was in that room is indicative of something very slightly out of the ordinary to begin with. In my experience, it would be strange for Wallace and his wife to be in that room together under normal circumstances to begin with. If she was attacked while sorting out the fire then fair enough, but in my opinion it also suggests some sort of visitor who would be shown into the parlour. Neighbours, close friends and family would be entertained in the kitchen, acquaintances in the other room and important visitors or unknown people in the parlour. I saw the reference to clutter and non minimalist living but thinking back, my grandparents' parlour had a table, chairs and a drinks tray, which gives away what the room was mainly used for. Having read that back though, there are holes in everything I've just said! Which is fair enough for such an unusual case.

Putting the box back is a tricky one for Wallace but again I have to ask, "where is the motive?" I agree with the comparison with Crippen, but without a clear motive where are we? That's more along the lines of "The jury should never have found him guilty on the evidence," rather than who actually did it though.

I will probably be going near Liverpool in the next week or two and was wondering, does anybody want any modern day photos of 29 Wolverton St? I can try and get some and post if anyone is interested.

regards

tecs

[Tecs]

Dear all.

Thinking over what I said above, especially the box part, it's not impossible (and I'm sure many of you, especially non Brits, will be saying "you're not serious?") but if an intruder had killed Julia and knew her body was in the front parlour, they may have thought that by putting things back just as it was they may not find her for quite a while. I know it sounds ridiculous but I do know of houses where the parlour door was kept closed and not opened for weeks, possibly months. Of course at some point they would search the whole house and find her, but there are families where if the mother wasn't in the kitchen, she would only be out somewhere and people could sit down and read the paper etc for hours with a body in the front room. I know it sounds mad, but I really can see that happening. That would be the view of a working class person of the time. I did think to myself "then why did Wallace search the parlour so quickly?" but tellingly, he was upper working almost lower middle class and may have had a different outlook.

Believe me, as crazy as it sounds, there were houses where you could have hidden a dead body for weeks until somebody noticed the smell and everything in place and parlour door shut equalled everything fine full stop.

regards

tecs

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AS.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read the story and for your kind feedback, I appreciate it and am glad you liked it!

To answer your question, the only real efforts I've made to get anything published was sending the above story to the casebook website and I got no reply at all! Not really success! The problem with the story was that there are so many "in" references that non ripper people just wouldn't get, that I couldn't think of how it would appeal to the general public. When I found the casebook website there was no excuse and I just had to write it down. I do have a few other ideas so one day maybe!

Back to Wallace. Having been in many of those types of houses and rooms, I can vouch that the front parlour as it was called was usually not used except for special occasions, "high days and holidays." People spent most of their time in the kitchen or "back room" usually because of the inconvenience and expense of heating an extra room. I certainly have many, many memories of being in my grandparents' "kitchen" which was actually the room next to the small room which contained the cooker, sink etc and which was itself known as the "back kitchen." Hope you're all still with me! So the fact that she was in that room is indicative of something very slightly out of the ordinary to begin with. In my experience, it would be strange for Wallace and his wife to be in that room together under normal circumstances to begin with. If she was attacked while sorting out the fire then fair enough, but in my opinion it also suggests some sort of visitor who would be shown into the parlour. Neighbours, close friends and family would be entertained in the kitchen, acquaintances in the other room and important visitors or unknown people in the parlour. I saw the reference to clutter and non minimalist living but thinking back, my grandparents' parlour had a table, chairs and a drinks tray, which gives away what the room was mainly used for. Having read that back though, there are holes in everything I've just said! Which is fair enough for such an unusual case.

Putting the box back is a tricky one for Wallace but again I have to ask, "where is the motive?" I agree with the comparison with Crippen, but without a clear motive where are we? That's more along the lines of "The jury should never have found him guilty on the evidence," rather than who actually did it though.

I will probably be going near Liverpool in the next week or two and was wondering, does anybody want any modern day photos of 29 Wolverton St? I can try and get some and post if anyone is interested.

regards

tecs

Hi Tecs,

Your comments certainly ring a bell with me. My parents live in a normal house with a normal kitchen. My dad though (who is 79) still calls it the ‘back kitchen.’ This is just from the kind of house that he grew up in.
I agree that the Parlour would be a ‘special occaision’ room or a room where an important guest would be taken so it does raise the question of why she was in there. Maybe she was playing the piano? Maybe the killer asked her to play while they ‘waited’ for her husband to return? He could have heard her playing while he was at the door?
I’m sure that any photographs of sites relevant to the case would be welcomed by all. Personally I’d like to see the spot where the phone box stood.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dear all.

Thinking over what I said above, especially the box part, it's not impossible (and I'm sure many of you, especially non Brits, will be saying "you're not serious?") but if an intruder had killed Julia and knew her body was in the front parlour, they may have thought that by putting things back just as it was they may not find her for quite a while. I know it sounds ridiculous but I do know of houses where the parlour door was kept closed and not opened for weeks, possibly months. Of course at some point they would search the whole house and find her, but there are families where if the mother wasn't in the kitchen, she would only be out somewhere and people could sit down and read the paper etc for hours with a body in the front room. I know it sounds mad, but I really can see that happening. That would be the view of a working class person of the time. I did think to myself "then why did Wallace search the parlour so quickly?" but tellingly, he was upper working almost lower middle class and may have had a different outlook.

Believe me, as crazy as it sounds, there were houses where you could have hidden a dead body for weeks until somebody noticed the smell and everything in place and parlour door shut equalled everything fine full stop.

regards

tecs

I know what you’re saying Tecs but when Wallace got home he’d have been certain that Julia wouldn’t have gone out (especially at night) and would have checked all the downstairs rooms first. If it had happened during the day he may have thought ‘maybe she’s gone shopping,’ and there could have been a significant delay in finding her body.

[Tecs]

Hi Tecs,

Your comments certainly ring a bell with me. My parents live in a normal house with a normal kitchen. My dad though (who is 79) still calls it the ‘back kitchen.’ This is just from the kind of house that he grew up in.
I agree that the Parlour would be a ‘special occaision’ room or a room where an important guest would be taken so it does raise the question of why she was in there. Maybe she was playing the piano? Maybe the killer asked her to play while they ‘waited’ for her husband to return? He could have heard her playing while he was at the door?
I’m sure that any photographs of sites relevant to the case would be welcomed by all. Personally I’d like to see the spot where the phone box stood.

Hi Herlock

Thanks for the reply. I'll try and get photos of Wolverton St and the place where the phone box was.

regards

tecs

[Tecs]

I know what you’re saying Tecs but when Wallace got home he’d have been certain that Julia wouldn’t have gone out (especially at night) and would have checked all the downstairs rooms first. If it had happened during the day he may have thought ‘maybe she’s gone shopping,’ and there could have been a significant delay in finding her body.

Hi again!

You are correct and I'd completely forgotten about the piano which is a good reason for her to be in there.

I was thinking more about what an intruder may have thought. I agree Wallace would have done as he did but someone else, thinking about how things go on in their own house, may have thought that the parlour wouldn't be gone into for a while, just like in their own house.

The more I think about it the more it seems unlikely to me that Wallace would have attacked her in that room. It just seems odd?

Thanks for backing up a bit of what I was saying by the way, I was starting to think I was going a bit far with all the parlour stuff!

regards

tecs

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi again!

You are correct and I'd completely forgotten about the piano which is a good reason for her to be in there.

I was thinking more about what an intruder may have thought. I agree Wallace would have done as he did but someone else, thinking about how things go on in their own house, may have thought that the parlour wouldn't be gone into for a while, just like in their own house.

The more I think about it the more it seems unlikely to me that Wallace would have attacked her in that room. It just seems odd?

Thanks for backing up a bit of what I was saying by the way, I was starting to think I was going a bit far with all the parlour stuff!

regards

tecs

That’s a good point. I was thinking in terms of Wallace but a stranger wouldn’t necessarily think the same. If his own wife for example occasionally popped next door for a cup of tea and a chat with a neighbour? He would have no way of knowing her habits and might think that Wallace might say ‘give it half an hour to see if she comes back,’ although I see no advantage for the murderer in delaying the discovery of the body?
At the moment the most intriguing and mystifying part of the Parlour crime scene for me is the presence of Wallace’s mackintosh. Why would she have the mackintosh in the Parlour? As it was burnt it appears that she may have been holding it when the initial attack commenced and it got dropped or dragged in the fire? How did it get tucked under her body?
Anyone got a time machine?

[Tecs]

That’s a good point. I was thinking in terms of Wallace but a stranger wouldn’t necessarily think the same. If his own wife for example occasionally popped next door for a cup of tea and a chat with a neighbour? He would have no way of knowing her habits and might think that Wallace might say ‘give it half an hour to see if she comes back,’ although I see no advantage for the murderer in delaying the discovery of the body?
At the moment the most intriguing and mystifying part of the Parlour crime scene for me is the presence of Wallace’s mackintosh. Why would she have the mackintosh in the Parlour? As it was burnt it appears that she may have been holding it when the initial attack commenced and it got dropped or dragged in the fire? How did it get tucked under her body?
Anyone got a time machine?

Hi Herlock.

That's exactly the point I was trying to get across in the original post. It's working backwards but if we look at it from the point of view of it being an intruder then he may have thought that with the body being in the parlour (by chance probably) then closing the door could mean the body wasn't found for a while, buying him some time. Based on his own experiences of "nobody will look in there until they're really worried if it's anything like our house."

As to what could be gained, simply time. Time to get away, clean up, dispose of anything he needed to and maybe even sort out an alibi.

Ps. Re time machine, Harrison's got one!

regards

tecs

[Tecs]

Hi Herlock,

I've just realised the reference to Harrison probably made no sense to you. Apologies it was American Sherlock I was thinking of who read the story.

But while I'm here I did have another thought. I'm sure it's been discussed previously but I'll have to mention it again. Wallace used to lecture part time in Chemistry (my subject co-incidentally) at Liverpool technical college. I know that drugs and chemicals were not as freely available as the Victorian age but there were still more around than today, so surely somebody with his knowledge could have found a much easier and simpler way to get rid of his wife?

Instead of the Qualtrough nonsense, wild goose chase and then highly visible murder, he could have just slipped something into her tea? A little research could have found several compounds that would do the job. When I was at University the labs were stocked with all sorts of things and it would be the easiest thing ever to take a bit home. Put some Antimony in her tea and over a period of months she becomes sicker and weaker and then succumbs. Doting husband gets to show how much he cares and then grieves when she passes. Just like Severin Klosowski! He got away with it twice before the Police got him on his final victim, too late for her sadly.

The only objection in my mind is that he may have surmised that suspicious Police may find out about the Chemistry knowledge, put two and two together and perform an autopsy. But why would the Police be suspicious? And anyway, if not Antimony, which they probably wouldn't find in a simple autopsy, there must have been something he could get hold of that couldn't be found?

So much easier.

regards,

tecs

[John G]

I've posted this before, but for anyone who hasn't seen it here is a link to the full text of Wallace's trial: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet....Trial_djvu.txt

I've found it an extremely good resource, especially as it highlights many of the issues. For instance, when cross examined Wallace reveals how relatively little insurance takings there were compared with a good or average week: this, of course, creates problems for Parry as the suspect, with robbery the motive, as he should have been aware of this, considering that he covered Wallace's round on a number of occasions.

[John G]

Again, if you haven't seen this before Rod posted a link to a series of radio broadcasts, where Parkes' story, seriously implicating Parry, is discussed, I.e. by Dolly Atkinson: see Post 863.

[AmericanSherlock]

I've posted this before, but for anyone who hasn't seen it here is a link to the full text of Wallace's trial: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet....Trial_djvu.txt

I've found it an extremely good resource, especially as it highlights many of the issues. For instance, when cross examined Wallace reveals how relatively little insurance takings there were compared with a good or average week: this, of course, creates problems for Parry as the suspect, with robbery the motive, as he should have been aware of this, considering that he covered Wallace's round on a number of occasions.

Hi John,

if you were forced to pick 1 of 2 options:

1. Wallace was guilty of the murder of his wife in some capacity (whether he committed the murder himself or orchestrated a conspiracy)

2. Wallace was innocent

Which would you choose?

[John G]

Hi John,

if you were forced to pick 1 of 2 options:

1. Wallace was guilty of the murder of his wife in some capacity (whether he committed the murder himself or orchestrated a conspiracy)

2. Wallace was innocent

Which would you choose?

Hi AS,

That's an interesting question, and difficult to answer.

Firstly, I don't think Wallace could have acted alone: Wildman's evidence suggests that he didn't have nearly enough time; and the forensic evidence would seem to rule him out completely, i.e as no blood was detected on his clothing, the sinks or the drains.

As for Wallace working with someone, Lilly Hall's evidence provides evidential support-she, of course, claimed to have seen Wallace talking to a man at a time that would have coincided with his return home. However, she took almost a week to come forward, it was a fairly dark night, and she admitted that she'd never spoken to Wallace.

Moreover, who would Wallace have trusted to carry out a murder? Surely not Parry, a man he clearly disliked, and who had a reputation for dishonesty-to the extent of misappropriating the insurance money when covering Wallace's round. And why would Parry agree to commit such an act?

If the motive was robbery then this creates problems because, as Wallace indicated during the trial, it was just about the worse time to carry out a robbery due to the paucity of the takings.

That said, no other theory makes sense either, so I think that a conspiracy involving Wallace is as likely as any other theory/scenario!