Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hi Tecs

That’s an interesting point. Julia Wallace, after all, did suffer from a stomach-related illness which might have helped ‘disguise’ poisoning or at least lead medics toward not looking too closely for an alternative cause of death.

I’ve also wondered about an alternative plan. What if Wallace had written himself a letter from Qualtrough and posted it from the Menlove Gardens area. Obviously there was no dna risk at the time. He would have kept and when he explained to the police about where he went that night he could have made a show of looking for the letter ‘hold on, I’m sure that I didn’t throw it away.....ah here it is.’ No chance of his voice being recognised on the phone (if he did make the Qualtrough call?) No one asking how a killler would know about the chess club?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Thanks for posting that John. I look forward to reading through this when I’ve finished the Gannon book. I have to say that, at the moment, the Wallace case is intriguing me more than Jack!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Im only part way through the Gannon book but I’ve been trying think why Parry would commit the murder if he was part of a plan involving Wallace? The financial gain was trivial. Was Parry known to be violent? Wallace knew of Parry’s dishonesty so I wondered if he used this as leverage? Threatening exposure? I can’t see this though as Parry would have argued that he’d made some kind of error/miscalculation. The police mightn’t have even been involved as the Prudential wouldn’t have wanted the negative publicity. So comparing this risk with the risk of the gallows doesn’t add up. There’s also the obvious point that if arrested Parry could have immediately exposed Wallace’s part in the plan.
As it stands, for me, I find it hard to give credence to a plot involving Wallace/Parry/Marsden.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does anyone know if there’s any way of listening to the Wilkes radio broadcast?

[John G]

Im only part way through the Gannon book but I’ve been trying think why Parry would commit the murder if he was part of a plan involving Wallace? The financial gain was trivial. Was Parry known to be violent? Wallace knew of Parry’s dishonesty so I wondered if he used this as leverage? Threatening exposure? I can’t see this though as Parry would have argued that he’d made some kind of error/miscalculation. The police mightn’t have even been involved as the Prudential wouldn’t have wanted the negative publicity. So comparing this risk with the risk of the gallows doesn’t add up. There’s also the obvious point that if arrested Parry could have immediately exposed Wallace’s part in the plan.
As it stands, for me, I find it hard to give credence to a plot involving Wallace/Parry/Marsden.

Hi Herlock,

Rod found this article about Parry: http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/212505469
Apparently he was accused of assaulting a woman, although the article's a bit difficult to read!

I agree with you about Parry: despite Parkes' story, which I consider to be highly questionable, it's difficult to find a motive.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Rod found this article about Parry: http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/212505469
Apparently he was accused of assaulting a woman, although the article's a bit difficult to read!

I agree with you about Parry: despite Parkes' story, which I consider to be highly questionable, it's difficult to find a motive.

Thanks for that John. Interesting article. Seems a bit strange that she had two red marks on her face and yet no signs of violence were found? Parry appears to have been a nasty piece of work but that’s a long way from being a cold hearted murderer.

[John G]

Thanks for that John. Interesting article. Seems a bit strange that she had two red marks on her face and yet no signs of violence were found? Parry appears to have been a nasty piece of work but that’s a long way from being a cold hearted murderer.

Yes, I agree, Herlock. It does appear that Julia was the victim of a cold-blooded murder, struck numerous times, apparently after being taken by surprise- as there were no signs of a struggle, i.e. defensive wounds or an argument or altercation heard by a neighbour.

What motive, therefore, could Parry have for carrying out such a brutal murder? I've speculated that he may have panicked after Julia caught him attempting to steal the insurance money but, as noted previously, that theory runs into problems given the paucity of the collection.

Could Parry have been having an affair with Julia, which could present a personal motive? Well, he was clearly a ladies man, and on the night of the murder he happened to be visiting Olivia Brine, who's husband just happened to be at sea. And, of course, there's the matter of the "musical interludes" he enjoyed with Julia- they're not mentioned in William's diary so he may have been oblivious to what the as going on. However, on balance, considering the considerable age difference-almost half a century-this would seem very unlikely.

Just as,an aside, Antony mentions in his book that the parlour was rarely used and therefore the fact that the fire was lit in that room would seem to indicate she was entertaining a guest, I.e. someone she new.

By the way, do you find it slightly suspicious that Brine, Dennison and Parry all estimate the time he left as "around 8:30"? Could this indicate some form of collusion? I mean, clearly no one checked a clock or anything, but they all give exactly the same estimate. In fact, on this point the exact same words are used by Parry and the two witnesses: "around 8:30."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, I agree, Herlock. It does appear that Julia was the victim of a cold-blooded murder, struck numerous times, apparently after being taken by surprise- as there were no signs of a struggle, i.e. defensive wounds or an argument or altercation heard by a neighbour.

What motive, therefore, could Parry have for carrying out such a brutal murder? I've speculated that he may have panicked after Julia caught him attempting to steal the insurance money but, as noted previously, that theory runs into problems given the paucity of the collection.

Could Parry have been having an affair with Julia, which could present a personal motive? Well, he was clearly a ladies man, and on the night of the murder he happened to be visiting Olivia Brine, who's husband just happened to be at sea. And, of course, there's the matter of the "musical interludes" he enjoyed with Julia- they're not mentioned in William's diary so he may have been oblivious to what the as going on. However, on balance, considering the considerable age difference-almost half a century-this would seem very unlikely.

Just as,an aside, Antony mentions in his book that the parlour was rarely used and therefore the fact that the fire was lit in that room would seem to indicate she was entertaining a guest, I.e. someone she new.

By the way, do you find it slightly suspicious that Brine, Dennison and Parry all estimate the time he left as "around 8:30"? Could this indicate some form of collusion? I mean, clearly no one checked a clock or anything, but they all give exactly the same estimate. In fact, on this point the exact same words are used by Parry and the two witnesses: "around 8:30."

The time could be viewed as suspicious (coached by Parry?) I’m on page 120 go Gannon so I just trying to familiarise myself with Who was where and when. I can see me re-reading this book.

The lit fire is definately curious. It could indicate that Julia was entertaining someone but I suppose that it could equally just mean that she felt like playing the piano but the room was cold. The presence of the mackintosh is niggling at my brain at the moment. I’ve been trying to think of a scenario that would explain why she would have his coat in the Parlour? To be honest I’m struggling to come up with one.

I suppose that the amount of blows could signify how vicious the murderer was or could it have been more of a panic? Did he just keep raining blows until she stopped moving but in the panic of the moment didn’t know when to stop?

I agree that a Parry/Julia dalliance is unlikely. Unless Parry saw some kind of financial gain to be had and Julia was flattered by the attention of a younger man?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve been trying to think of a scenario to explain the presence of the mackintosh in the Parlour.
What had the weather been like?
I was wondering if Wallace’s mackintosh was wet and so Julia had lit a fire in the Parlour and hung the coat over a chair to dry? She let the murderer in and after a while went into the Parlour to move the now dry coat. She took it from the chair but the murderer followed her in, continuing their conversation, and struck while she was still holding it?
I’m unsure to say the least

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve been trying to think of a scenario to explain the presence of the mackintosh in the Parlour.
What had the weather been like?
I was wondering if Wallace’s mackintosh was wet and so Julia had lit a fire in the Parlour and hung the coat over a chair to dry? She let the murderer in and after a while went into the Parlour to move the now dry coat. She took it from the chair but the murderer followed her in, continuing their conversation, and struck while she was still holding it?
I’m unsure to say the least

Then again, if that was the case it would indicate that Julia was in the habit of drying clothes in there and Wallace, obviously would know that. Neither a guilty or an innocent Wallace, when asked about the presence of the mackintosh, would have any motive for not telling the police that Julia was in the habit of drying clothes in there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a few thoughts on a motive.
Although the Wallace’s were said to be happy there’s enough to suggest that it wasn’t the happiest of marriages. I certainly get the impression that it was a dry, joyless arrangement. This could have given Wallace a motive for ‘wanting out.’ I wonder if there was a trigger point though? Could Wallace, in the course of sorting out their personal finances, have discovered his wife’s true age? Seeing that all life held in store for him was, in his fifties, to be taking care of an incontinent 70 odd year old woman might have pushed him nearer to the edge.
I’m unsure about anything in this case but Wallace appears to be the only one with a feasible, possible motive. I really can’t connect Marsden to the case (the sexual angle seems unlikely in the extreme.) Robbery seems unlikely too. Why put the money box back on the high shelf? Why no ransacking of the upstairs rooms looking for cash? The phone call and the murder must to be connected and surely no one would go to that level of planning just for £4 and the risk of the gallows? I also can’t think it likely that Parry or Marsden could have been blackmailed into killing Julia.
As it stands Wallace seems the likeliest suspect for me..

[AmericanSherlock]

Just a few thoughts on a motive.
Although the Wallace’s were said to be happy there’s enough to suggest that it wasn’t the happiest of marriages. I certainly get the impression that it was a dry, joyless arrangement. This could have given Wallace a motive for ‘wanting out.’ I wonder if there was a trigger point though? Could Wallace, in the course of sorting out their personal finances, have discovered his wife’s true age? Seeing that all life held in store for him was, in his fifties, to be taking care of an incontinent 70 odd year old woman might have pushed him nearer to the edge.
I’m unsure about anything in this case but Wallace appears to be the only one with a feasible, possible motive. I really can’t connect Marsden to the case (the sexual angle seems unlikely in the extreme.) Robbery seems unlikely too. Why put the money box back on the high shelf? Why no ransacking of the upstairs rooms looking for cash? The phone call and the murder must to be connected and surely no one would go to that level of planning just for £4 and the risk of the gallows? I also can’t think it likely that Parry or Marsden could have been blackmailed into killing Julia.
As it stands Wallace seems the likeliest suspect for me..

Herlock, I agree entirely with all your points here. It's difficult for me to see how someone else could have been responsible for this whole plot.

[John G]

I don't think there's any evidence for concluding that the Wallace's marriage was joyless. The fact is, both Julia and William were born in the Victorian period, when people were conditioned to be much more restrained in there emotions than today (William was clearly very stoical). Modern standards are therefore not applicable.

As William wrote in his diary, "I always thought that a man showed himself a better man if he could face adversity without flinching. That's what I did at my trial. And the result was that, instead of giving me credit for my fortitude in awful circumstances, people pointed to it as evidence of my guilt."

Incidentally, Wallace also points out that if he'd wanted to my kill his wife then, "I have been a teacher of science and chemistry, and at the time of the tragedy I had at my command, even in my house, materials that by which with a score of methods her end could have been brought about painlessly and without attracting suspicion."

To my mind, this is a very persuasive argument. If Wallace did murder his wife I think it had to be unplanned. The problem is, the blood evidence, and time restraints, effectively rule him out, at least as a sole perpetrator, and if the murder was it unplanned it makes it even more impossible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think there's any evidence for concluding that the Wallace's marriage was joyless. The fact is, both Julia and William were born in the Victorian period, when people were conditioned to be much more restrained in there emotions than today (William was clearly very stoical). Modern standards are therefore not applicable.

As William wrote in his diary, "I always thought that a man showed himself a better man if he could face adversity without flinching. That's what I did at my trial. And the result was that, instead of giving me credit for my fortitude in awful circumstances, people pointed to it as evidence of my guilt."

Incidentally, Wallace also points out that if he'd wanted to my kill his wife then, "I have been a teacher of science and chemistry, and at the time of the tragedy I had at my command, even in my house, materials that by which with a score of methods her end could have been brought about painlessly and without attracting suspicion."

To my mind, this is a very persuasive argument. If Wallace did murder his wife I think it had to be unplanned. The problem is, the blood evidence, and time restraints, effectively rule him out, at least as a sole perpetrator, and if the murder was it unplanned it makes it even more impossible.

Hi John,

Even taking in your very valid point about the Wallace’s being of an era where people were more reserved and emotions were held in check it’s difficult to dismiss these 3 opinions:
Mrs Florence Mary Wilson who had nursed Wallace for 3 weeks through a bout of pneumonia - the Wallace’s were ‘a very peculiar couple...their attitude toward each other appeared to be strained [and] the feeling of sympathy and confidence which one usually found existing between a man and wife appeared to be entirely absent.’ She went on to say ‘relations between them were not those of a normal couple, and they were certainly not the ‘happy and devoted couple’ as described by other people.’
Mr Jones (an ex-workmate any friend of Wallace’s - described Julia as ‘a proud and peculiar woman who thought she had lowered herself by marrying an insurance agent. She hated the business and would not give assistance to her husband.’
Dr Louis Curwen [family doctor] - he had ‘attended to both the accused and his wife at their home fairly often during the past five years. Since the death of Mrs Wallace he had considered their attitude towards each other and had come to the conclusion, from his observations, that they did not lead the happy and harmonious life that outsiders supposed that they did.’

I can’t recall the name of the Wallace’s servant so I can’t identify her from the index but didn’t she also have some less than complementary things to say about the Wallace’s relationship? Didn’t Wallace also hint at some tit for tat behaviour after he’d recovered from an illness? Julia taking to her bed?

I just think that there’s enough there to suggest an unhappy marriage.

You’re right John that Wallace could have used poison. He was an intelligent man though and would surely have appreciated the risks of poison being detected. Especially if no other explaination for Julia’s death might have been to hand. If any suspicion was raised, even if Wallace got rid of all of his chemistry equipment and chemicals, isn’t it possible that someone might have informed the police of Wallace’s interest in Chemistry? And obviously to poison someone you need to be close to them (access to food and drink etc.) Wallace would have been the obvious suspect.

If the murder was unplanned John then surely the Qualtrough phone call has to be considered the most outrageous piece of good fortune for Wallace. Surely it has to be connected to the murder and therefore the crime (whoever struck the fatal blows) had to have been planned?

No doubt that time was tight. We can’t be certain if the murderer could have avoided blood or not. I’m not sure of much in this case but as it stands I find it hard to see any scenario where Wallace isn’t involved in some way.

[John G]

Hi John,

Even taking in your very valid point about the Wallace’s being of an era where people were more reserved and emotions were held in check it’s difficult to dismiss these 3 opinions:
Mrs Florence Mary Wilson who had nursed Wallace for 3 weeks through a bout of pneumonia - the Wallace’s were ‘a very peculiar couple...their attitude toward each other appeared to be strained [and] the feeling of sympathy and confidence which one usually found existing between a man and wife appeared to be entirely absent.’ She went on to say ‘relations between them were not those of a normal couple, and they were certainly not the ‘happy and devoted couple’ as described by other people.’
Mr Jones (an ex-workmate any friend of Wallace’s - described Julia as ‘a proud and peculiar woman who thought she had lowered herself by marrying an insurance agent. She hated the business and would not give assistance to her husband.’
Dr Louis Curwen [family doctor] - he had ‘attended to both the accused and his wife at their home fairly often during the past five years. Since the death of Mrs Wallace he had considered their attitude towards each other and had come to the conclusion, from his observations, that they did not lead the happy and harmonious life that outsiders supposed that they did.’

I can’t recall the name of the Wallace’s servant so I can’t identify her from the index but didn’t she also have some less than complementary things to say about the Wallace’s relationship? Didn’t Wallace also hint at some tit for tat behaviour after he’d recovered from an illness? Julia taking to her bed?

I just think that there’s enough there to suggest an unhappy marriage.

You’re right John that Wallace could have used poison. He was an intelligent man though and would surely have appreciated the risks of poison being detected. Especially if no other explaination for Julia’s death might have been to hand. If any suspicion was raised, even if Wallace got rid of all of his chemistry equipment and chemicals, isn’t it possible that someone might have informed the police of Wallace’s interest in Chemistry? And obviously to poison someone you need to be close to them (access to food and drink etc.) Wallace would have been the obvious suspect.

If the murder was unplanned John then surely the Qualtrough phone call has to be considered the most outrageous piece of good fortune for Wallace. Surely it has to be connected to the murder and therefore the crime (whoever struck the fatal blows) had to have been planned?

No doubt that time was tight. We can’t be certain if the murderer could have avoided blood or not. I’m not sure of much in this case but as it stands I find it hard to see any scenario where Wallace isn’t involved in some way.

Hi Herlock,

The observations made by people who knew the Wallace's are interesting, but what do they amount to? The usual kind of tittle-tattle that you would expect when someone's been accused of murdering his wife-and the nurse hardly seemed to know the couple well at all, visiting for just three weeks during strained circumstances.

The fact is no one who knew the couple well suggested there was any serious marital discord-not even Parry , who described them as a "devoted couple", or the next door neighbours.

However, we need to focus on the most important argument: could Wallace have physically committed the murder? The answer to that question I think has to be no, although that doesn't rule out a possible accomplice based on Hall's evidence.

Thus, if you accept Wildman's timings, which I do, it would be practically impossible for Wallace to have committed the murder, washed away all forensic traces, staged a robbery, dressed himself, and then to have taken a steady walk to the tram There simply wasn't enough time.

However, if that's not problematic enough, the forensic evidence effectively exonerates him. The sinks, drains, towels and Wallace's clothing were subjected to the Benzidine blood test-a test even more accurate than modern tests-and not a microscopic sample of blood was detected. And Charles St Hill, the pathologist, said blood would have been found (this is hardly surprising considering that even the prosecution's forensic experts acknowledged that the perpetrator would have got some blood on his person.

Regarding Parry, I accept that the Qualtrough call is highly important, and in this respect Parry is by far the most likely person to have made it: He belonged to an amateur dramatics group, had a history of making hoax calls (according to Parkes) and lied about his alibi for the call.

And what of his alibi for the time of the murder? What does it amount to? Parry, Brine and Dennison all suspiciously say he'd left at "around 8:30." However, Parry had known Brine for two years, and her husband was at sea; it's therefore possible that they were having an affair and Parry blackmailed her. As for Dennison, he was related to Brine, so may have been persuaded to go along with things. Moreover, how did he know it was "around 8:30"? Did he even possess a watch? Wildman and Close, who were of a similar age, didn't, a Close didn't seem to have a clue what time he delivered the milk at, despite the delivery being part of his regular round. Maybe Dennison just simply agreed with Olivia and Gordon because he wasn't really sure and he had no reason to doubt them.

And what of Parkes' evidence? It deeply implicates Parry and I don't believe he completely lied, particularly as Dolly Atkinson and Gordon Williamson offer support (although I think he probably exaggerated). Maybe Parry didn't intend murder and decided to unburden himself to someone he didn't perceive as a threat.