Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[AmericanSherlock]

I think if Parkes' account is accurate, or broadly, accurate, we have to assume that Parry was in a state of mental turmoil when he headed over to the garage, as the enormity of what he'd done-possibly as a result of panic following a botched robbery-began to sink in; someone not really thinking about the consequences of "confessing" to Parkes, or at least not seeing him as a threat, and maybe even considering handing himself in or disappearing abroad.

Ada Pritchard's account is interesting in this respect because, if true, it suggests that Parry had at least confessed to his parents, demonstrating that he had a need to unburden himself. But, like so many things in this case, can her account be regarded as reliable?

Some solid points here.

I was re-considering the psychological profiling of Wallace which both Murphy and Gannon spoke about. Obviously the 2 authors came to differing conclusions, although both ultimately felt Wallace was guilty---Murphy believing he committed the actual crime and Gannon suggesting he was the mastermind who was responsible for its commission.

Murphy builds up an image of a long suffering man filled with minor disappointments and feeling trapped with an elderly wife for whom he cared little. There is some dispute on whether Wallace would have known his wife's true age before marrying her, but if not this could have added to his resentment of her which compounded what was probably a largely ungratifying life. Gannon's chapter of "Family Wipe Out' is pretty well done IMO, he contrasts Wallace with John Emil List who also was said to have suffered from "minor disappointments" and could be seen as a repressed personality in the same way. List thought his wife tricked him into marriage by pretending to be pregnant.

Like Wallace, List was a mild mannered, stoic type who was a professional failure and kept his private resentments bottled up. List would fake going to work everyday, take the train, and then come back after losing his job as an accountant. Wallace worked a thankless job as a door to door agent--as Murphy notes, a job he believed to beneath him and more befitting a younger man who could better bare going out in any weather to collect premiums from belligerent customers. Both men showed no signs before the crime of any sort of criminal behavior whatsoever. I would say one could argue both demonstrated traits and behaviors that could be seen as somewhat lightly on the autistic spectrum, like Asperger's or the like.

Of course, we know that John Emil List was guilty and we do not know whether WHW was or not.

Also, there is a danger in psychological profiling. It doesn't prove anything at all if Wallace was "odd" and often innocuous things can be looked at in a certain light if one is trying to prove a point or cast suspicion on somebody.

I still find it interesting though that Wallace does seem to have the personality that strongly fits a "Family Wipe Out" scenario. Combine this with the actual physical crime having the typical elements of a domestic homicide. and I would say he fits to a tee modern profiling of these sorts of crimes.

Does that prove he did it? Not at all, I would still vote to acquit. Especially with all this suspicious stuff regarding Parry muddying the picture.

But perhaps you can understand the reasons why I feel it was "more likely than not" that Wallace was guilty (whether he committed the actual crime or simply masterminded it.)

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

Do you have any recommended books on the Sheppard case?

Herlock,

This is my favorite book on the case. I find it more unbiased than most, although it does lean in the direction of Sheppard's guilt. (Sort of like James Murphy on Wallace, I feel it effectively mitigates the other evidence that
"proves" the innocence of the husband.)

https://www.amazon.com/Dr-Sam-Sheppard-Trial-Prosecutors/dp/0873387708/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510826560&sr=1-2&keywords=dr+sam+sheppard&dpID=512mF5QVo-L&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

This one is the most well known and is a purposefully biased attempt to exonerate Sam (similar to Goodman's book) Although to be fair, both still deal largely in facts and allow one to make up their own mind.

https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Man-Verdict-Sheppard-Murder/dp/0679457194/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=9QG642VT192DVQ7H5JPF&dpID=41mkoY1NXPL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=detail

[John G]

Some solid points here.

I was re-considering the psychological profiling of Wallace which both Murphy and Gannon spoke about. Obviously the 2 authors came to differing conclusions, although both ultimately felt Wallace was guilty---Murphy believing he committed the actual crime and Gannon suggesting he was the mastermind who was responsible for its commission.

Murphy builds up an image of a long suffering man filled with minor disappointments and feeling trapped with an elderly wife for whom he cared little. There is some dispute on whether Wallace would have known his wife's true age before marrying her, but if not this could have added to his resentment of her which compounded what was probably a largely ungratifying life. Gannon's chapter of "Family Wipe Out' is pretty well done IMO, he contrasts Wallace with John Emil List who also was said to have suffered from "minor disappointments" and could be seen as a repressed personality in the same way. List thought his wife tricked him into marriage by pretending to be pregnant.

Like Wallace, List was a mild mannered, stoic type who was a professional failure and kept his private resentments bottled up. List would fake going to work everyday, take the train, and then come back after losing his job as an accountant. Wallace worked a thankless job as a door to door agent--as Murphy notes, a job he believed to beneath him and more befitting a younger man who could better bare going out in any weather to collect premiums from belligerent customers. Both men showed no signs before the crime of any sort of criminal behavior whatsoever. I would say one could argue both demonstrated traits and behaviors that could be seen as somewhat lightly on the autistic spectrum, like Asperger's or the like.

Of course, we know that John Emil List was guilty and we do not know whether WHW was or not.

Also, there is a danger in psychological profiling. It doesn't prove anything at all if Wallace was "odd" and often innocuous things can be looked at in a certain light if one is trying to prove a point or cast suspicion on somebody.

I still find it interesting though that Wallace does seem to have the personality that strongly fits a "Family Wipe Out" scenario. Combine this with the actual physical crime having the typical elements of a domestic homicide. and I would say he fits to a tee modern profiling of these sorts of crimes.

Does that prove he did it? Not at all, I would still vote to acquit. Especially with all this suspicious stuff regarding Parry muddying the picture.

But perhaps you can understand the reasons why I feel it was "more likely than not" that Wallace was guilty (whether he committed the actual crime or simply masterminded it.)

Yes, from a modern perspective Wallace's stoicism does seem odd and, in fairness, even at the time the police took the view that his attitude was not what you would have expected from someone who'd just found is wife brutally murdered.

However, Wallace was born in a different era, and seems to have been the very epitome of the repressed, stiff upper lip Englishman.

Moreover, people who knew the Wallace's well seed to have takeb a different view. For instance, Mr Johnstone stated that, at the murder scene, he seemed to be in shock, and that he eventually broke down and sobbed. Whereas Mrs Johnstone stated at trial that she saw nothing wrong with his demeanour.

In fact, remarkably even Parry, in his statement to the police, said that he regarded them as a "devoted couple." And, of course, he had no reason to lie and every reason to do the opposite as suspicion would surely have focussed on him if Wallace was deemed innocent.

To my mind, the police's investigation was botched from the very beginning, as they continued to pursue Wallace even when Wildman's statement and the forensic evidence seemed to exonerate him. In fact, the case should never have been brought to court, and if must have been an extremely rare occurance for the Court of Appeal to overturn a verdict without further evidence being presented.

Further considering the police's blinkered view of the case, Parry was an obvious alternative suspect, who'd lied about his alibi for the Qualtrough call, and yet, according to CCJ's book, they didn't even bother to check out all of his alibis for the night of the murder, instead accepting the time estimates of a 15 year old boy and a woman who knew Parry well and whose husband happened to be at sea!

That doesn't mean she lied, of course, of even that she was having an affair with Parry, but at the very least the police should surely have considered the possibility and carried out a more thorough investigation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

This is my favorite book on the case. I find it more unbiased than most, although it does lean in the direction of Sheppard's guilt. (Sort of like James Murphy on Wallace, I feel it effectively mitigates the other evidence that
"proves" the innocence of the husband.)

https://www.amazon.com/Dr-Sam-Sheppard-Trial-Prosecutors/dp/0873387708/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510826560&sr=1-2&keywords=dr+sam+sheppard&dpID=512mF5QVo-L&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

This one is the most well known and is a purposefully biased attempt to exonerate Sam (similar to Goodman's book) Although to be fair, both still deal largely in facts and allow one to make up their own mind.

https://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Man-Ver..._&dpSrc=detail

Thanks for that AS

[John G]

Sorry about the obvious predictive text errors etc. in my last post. I was writing quickly and predictive text, or should that be unpredictable text, has got to be one of the world's worst inventions. Or at least, that's my excuse!

[AmericanSherlock]

Yes, from a modern perspective Wallace's stoicism does seem odd and, in fairness, even at the time the police took the view that his attitude was not what you would have expected from someone who'd just found is wife brutally murdered.

However, Wallace was born in a different era, and seems to have been the very epitome of the repressed, stiff upper lip Englishman.

Moreover, people who knew the Wallace's well seed to have takeb a different view. For instance, Mr Johnstone stated that, at the murder scene, he seemed to be in shock, and that he eventually broke down and sobbed. Whereas Mrs Johnstone stated at trial that she saw nothing wrong with his demeanour.

In fact, remarkably even Parry, in his statement to the police, said that he regarded them as a "devoted couple." And, of course, he had no reason to lie and every reason to do the opposite as suspicion would surely have focussed on him if Wallace was deemed innocent.

To my mind, the police's investigation was botched from the very beginning, as they continued to pursue Wallace even when Wildman's statement and the forensic evidence seemed to exonerate him. In fact, the case should never have been brought to court, and if must have been an extremely rare occurance for the Court of Appeal to overturn a verdict without further evidence being presented.

Further considering the police's blinkered view of the case, Parry was an obvious alternative suspect, who'd lied about his alibi for the Qualtrough call, and yet, according to CCJ's book, they didn't even bother to check out all of his alibis for the night of the murder, instead accepting the time estimates of a 15 year old boy and a woman who knew Parry well and whose husband happened to be at sea!

That doesn't mean she lied, of course, of even that she was having an affair with Parry, but at the very least the police should surely have considered the possibility and carried out a more thorough investigation.

Hi, John I agree with most of the points you make here.

However, I would disagree that the case shouldn't have even been brought up against Wallace.

[AmericanSherlock]

Been thinking and considering P.D. James "prank theory" some more. If we forget the ludicrous "Wallace in drag" nonsense, I think it's not as implausible as it might seem at first.

We have many perplexing aspects of the case explained and solved with this theory.

1. A murder that seems to have been an inside job.

2. A call that appears to have come from someone other than Wallace

3. Strong reasons to doubt a conspiracy of multiple people

And then a couple things still there

1. Parkes' testimony

2. Timing factor (Could Wallace have done it/planned for it in the time available, blood, weapon disposal, milk boy etc.)

If you can get past the seeming implausibility or "coincidence" of a prank leading to a murder (not really a coincidence if Wallace exploited it.), then I think there is a decent reason to buy into this theory somewhat or at least give it a modicum of credence.

I don't find the 2 points above dealbreakers, although I'm aware some do. I find Parkes testimony unreliable as well as Dolly Atkinson etc. I think grains of truth could be there but significantly doubt the entire tale. As far as the timing issues, I think there was time especially if you consider Wallace makes his own time frame from A) moment milk boy leaves to B) moment he is seen at tram stop. He will just do everything as quickly as he can. If the milk boy had come at an earlier time, Wallace could have just been seen at the tram also at an earlier time. It would hardly be suspicious to allow more time for a supposedly confusing search for an address.

The containment of the blood in 1 place mainly (a lack of a blood trail or bloody footprints leading out of the place) along with the mackintosh and a missing weapon leads me to believe whoever the killer was, he had a plan and system in place. I would suggest this incriminates Wallace more than an independent killer/thief. If anything, I'm still unconvinced Wallace didn't make the call (or put someone up to it) as he would literally left his house 3 minutes before the call came thru (and was 3 hundred yards away from the call box).

But Beattie insists the voice wasn't Wallace and Parry misled people about his whereabouts for the night of the call. A prank call was apparently in character for him as well. And if the 2 worked together, this presents other problems (why didn't Wallace create a better alibi for himself for either night, would he risk being seen meeting up with Parry before, why did he mention Parry as a major suspect right away to police, etc. etc. ?)

So this would be the chain of events :

1. A bored Parry sees Wallace on the 19th while killing time during his girlfriend's music lesson and figures he is on the way to the chess club.

2. As Wallace passes out of sight, Parry decides to make one of his typical prank calls. He wasn't exactly fired because of Wallace but he knows that Wallace did report him and he found the old man to be moralizing, unpleasant, and annoyingly pedantic even after he helped him on his rounds when WHW was sick. RGP has also flirted a bit with Julia who he thinks looks considerably older than her age but is sweet to him. This also is a form of passive aggressiveness to the cold fish Wallace. Parry tried to fiddle with the phone to get a free call. He's thinking of what to say half heartedly. Into his mind pops the name of a girl a friend of a friend knows, who has her 20th birthday tonight. Maybe it was mentioned to him or he heard about in passing and the odd name stuck in his head. He changes 20th to 21st to sound enticing and using the Qualtrough name in the message. He is unsure if the plan will even work in its entirety, but chuckles when Beattie agrees to relay the message. Parry hopes WHW will take the bait the following night although he doesn't really have a way of finding out what will transpire, so he soon forgets about it and idles along bored before barging into Lily's music lesson early...

3. Wallace learns of the call at the chess club and muses over the odd request and an address he isn't sure exists. It is only some time later, after he has left, and after he has won his game that he starts to wonder if he is being set up. Is this just a prank? Wallace is unsure...for a second he considers maybe is it worse than a prank and someone is up to no good--out to rob his house.

Then he starts thinking in depth, recalling how everyone at the chess club knows of the journey the following night. How Beattie relayed the message and would know it wasn't his own voice on the line...an idea pops into his head...

He has been feeling increasingly negative about Julia...he has known for quite awhile--since near the beginning, that she lied about her age and he chose to let it slide, but in the past few years she has become unbearable. She is old, moody, unaffectionate, and a serious drain. A few weeks earlier, she hadn't come home until early in the morning due to a transportation break down. He wondered "had she been hit by a car?" Then he started to think, would he really miss her?

Am I saying I think this is what happened? No, not exactly. But it it as crazy as it might seem at first? I don't think so. I think we have to give it some weight. It would not be a total coincidence.

[caz]

Hi All,

I have finally managed to get up to date with all the posts on this fascinating case, and have thoroughly enjoyed reading them, although I'm rather glad I wasn't around when things got uncomfortably hot for a while back in the summer. I'm sure the regulars here would sooner forget, so I shan't dwell on it for long.

All I will say is that the theory involving Parry and Mr X in a conspiracy to rob and/or murder strikes me as a complete non-starter. If Parry was able to persuade someone unknown to the Wallaces to do the deed, why on earth would he have made the Qualtrough call himself? You don't get a dog to do the biting for you, then do the barking yourself. The advantages of Mr X making the call would have been obvious: his voice wouldn't have been recognised so he could have spoken directly to Wallace, with none of the risks associated with asking a third party to pass on a message, then trusting to luck that Wallace will not only turn up later, but will be given the message and decide to act on it the following night. Not only that, but the caller could have made the business prospect sound more tempting that way, and best of all he could have got Wallace to confirm there and then his intention to keep the appointment. It would have been more difficult to let a potential client down if Wallace had already said yes to Qualtrough over the phone. The other advantage for Parry would have been a solid alibi for both nights, not just the one.

And that brings me to any conspiracy involving Wallace himself. Again, you don't get a dog and bark yourself, so Wallace would surely have given himself two cast-iron alibis for the Monday and Tuesday nights if someone else was doing all the dirty work for him. He'd have made sure he was at the chess club when the call came through. It should have been easy enough for Qualtrough to make Beattie aware of the purpose of his call before asking to speak to Wallace, if this was considered crucial to the plan: "My name is Qualtrough and I have a business proposition I'd like to put to one of your members if he's playing tonight. Which one? Well he works for the Pru and his name is Wallace. Oh, he's there, is he? Good, could you kindly put him on the line please?"

On the Tuesday evening Wallace could easily have timed his departure to coincide with the milk boy's arrival, to make sure he was seen leaving, knowing that his partner in crime would not be arriving until nearer 7.30, when he would be very visibly and fruitlessly searching for the bogus address.

If Wallace acted alone, he knew the police would soon discover that Qualtrough didn't exist, any more than the address did, and would therefore make it their business to try and discover who had made that call. Whoever it was would be a major suspect for the murder, but as the victim's husband, Wallace would automatically be the prime suspect, so it would have been in his interests to have someone in mind as a credible alternative suspect, not only for the murder/robbery, but also for that phone call. I'd suggest Parry as the most obvious fall guy in this scenario. Might that explain the 21st birthday detail? The bogus business proposition had to involve something of the kind, so why not a coming of age policy, in line with Parry's own age and that of his friends and associates? If Parry himself had used this ploy, it was foolish of him to start talking so soon afterwards about 21st parties coming up within his own circle - unless it was only a prank call and he had no idea at that point that he needed to watch what he said or be suspected of murder.

One way I could see Parry making the call as a prank is if he had nothing to do with what happened in the Wallace house the following night, which would explain why he was desperate for an alibi for the Monday while Tuesday was not such a problem. But I find it a stretch that Wallace took advantage of a prank call to set himself up with a bogus alibi so he could finally rid himself of a wife he had secretly grown to resent.

If there was any way he could have killed her on the spur of the moment, I could believe that something might have happened when he got home from work that evening to make him snap. Maybe he hadn't quite decided whether to keep the Qualtrough appointment or not, but she was nagging him about leaving her on her own for two nights on the trot, when they had both been ill, and not caring if she lived or died. He could have agreed initially not to go - anything for a quiet life - then thought "bugger it, she's not going to dictate to me any longer", whereupon he bashed her head in almost before he realised what he was doing. Then he'd have had no choice but to clean up as best he could and leg it out of the house to keep the appointment after all and hope it would give him an alibi. I do find it suspicious that the money found upstairs was the same as the amount missing from the cash box.

Another scenario would be that someone from Julia's past had been lurking around, hoping for an opportunity to catch her on her own, to settle some old score. One night he saw the milk boy come and go, then saw Wallace leave with a briefcase, not knowing where he was going or when he might be back, but not too worried because what he had come for would not take long. Julia knew him instantly and let him in, perhaps not sensing any real danger, or just not wanting to risk a scene on the doorstep, and not expecting her husband back for an hour or two. But then how to explain the robbery, staged or intended?

I just don't see the two events - the phone call and the need or desire to kill Julia - being entirely coincidental. But if Parry made the call, I think someone else most probably committed the murder, and both acted alone. The call would merely have allowed for the murder to be committed in Wallace's absence - actual or supposed.

I don't find Parkes a remotely credible - or indeed creditable - witness. If he saw and heard everything he claimed he did, half a century later, he was a very wicked person if he didn't go to the police with the whole story, as soon as he made the connection with the murder, but meekly watched and waited to see if Wallace would be convicted of a capital crime which Parry had virtually admitted to committing himself.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Mr Jones (an ex-workmate and 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.’

Hi HS,

That is very interesting, given that Wallace was going out on business the night his wife was murdered, having been out playing chess the night before. Neither of them had been well and one can only imagine how Julia might have reacted on being left alone a second night if she did hate 'the business' and would have given him no assistance. Doesn't that rather conflict with the suggestion that she'd have let anyone in, if she knew they were connected with hubby's business? Or that they only had to say their name was Qualtrough, and she would have been ready with the tea and scones and polite conversation?

Love,

Caz
X

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi All,

I have finally managed to get up to date with all the posts on this fascinating case, and have thoroughly enjoyed reading them, although I'm rather glad I wasn't around when things got uncomfortably hot for a while back in the summer. I'm sure the regulars here would sooner forget, so I shan't dwell on it for long.

All I will say is that the theory involving Parry and Mr X in a conspiracy to rob and/or murder strikes me as a complete non-starter. If Parry was able to persuade someone unknown to the Wallaces to do the deed, why on earth would he have made the Qualtrough call himself? You don't get a dog to do the biting for you, then do the barking yourself. The advantages of Mr X making the call would have been obvious: his voice wouldn't have been recognised so he could have spoken directly to Wallace, with none of the risks associated with asking a third party to pass on a message, then trusting to luck that Wallace will not only turn up later, but will be given the message and decide to act on it the following night. Not only that, but the caller could have made the business prospect sound more tempting that way, and best of all he could have got Wallace to confirm there and then his intention to keep the appointment. It would have been more difficult to let a potential client down if Wallace had already said yes to Qualtrough over the phone. The other advantage for Parry would have been a solid alibi for both nights, not just the one.

And that brings me to any conspiracy involving Wallace himself. Again, you don't get a dog and bark yourself, so Wallace would surely have given himself two cast-iron alibis for the Monday and Tuesday nights if someone else was doing all the dirty work for him. He'd have made sure he was at the chess club when the call came through. It should have been easy enough for Qualtrough to make Beattie aware of the purpose of his call before asking to speak to Wallace, if this was considered crucial to the plan: "My name is Qualtrough and I have a business proposition I'd like to put to one of your members if he's playing tonight. Which one? Well he works for the Pru and his name is Wallace. Oh, he's there, is he? Good, could you kindly put him on the line please?"

On the Tuesday evening Wallace could easily have timed his departure to coincide with the milk boy's arrival, to make sure he was seen leaving, knowing that his partner in crime would not be arriving until nearer 7.30, when he would be very visibly and fruitlessly searching for the bogus address.

If Wallace acted alone, he knew the police would soon discover that Qualtrough didn't exist, any more than the address did, and would therefore make it their business to try and discover who had made that call. Whoever it was would be a major suspect for the murder, but as the victim's husband, Wallace would automatically be the prime suspect, so it would have been in his interests to have someone in mind as a credible alternative suspect, not only for the murder/robbery, but also for that phone call. I'd suggest Parry as the most obvious fall guy in this scenario. Might that explain the 21st birthday detail? The bogus business proposition had to involve something of the kind, so why not a coming of age policy, in line with Parry's own age and that of his friends and associates? If Parry himself had used this ploy, it was foolish of him to start talking so soon afterwards about 21st parties coming up within his own circle - unless it was only a prank call and he had no idea at that point that he needed to watch what he said or be suspected of murder.

One way I could see Parry making the call as a prank is if he had nothing to do with what happened in the Wallace house the following night, which would explain why he was desperate for an alibi for the Monday while Tuesday was not such a problem. But I find it a stretch that Wallace took advantage of a prank call to set himself up with a bogus alibi so he could finally rid himself of a wife he had secretly grown to resent.

If there was any way he could have killed her on the spur of the moment, I could believe that something might have happened when he got home from work that evening to make him snap. Maybe he hadn't quite decided whether to keep the Qualtrough appointment or not, but she was nagging him about leaving her on her own for two nights on the trot, when they had both been ill, and not caring if she lived or died. He could have agreed initially not to go - anything for a quiet life - then thought "bugger it, she's not going to dictate to me any longer", whereupon he bashed her head in almost before he realised what he was doing. Then he'd have had no choice but to clean up as best he could and leg it out of the house to keep the appointment after all and hope it would give him an alibi. I do find it suspicious that the money found upstairs was the same as the amount missing from the cash box.

Another scenario would be that someone from Julia's past had been lurking around, hoping for an opportunity to catch her on her own, to settle some old score. One night he saw the milk boy come and go, then saw Wallace leave with a briefcase, not knowing where he was going or when he might be back, but not too worried because what he had come for would not take long. Julia knew him instantly and let him in, perhaps not sensing any real danger, or just not wanting to risk a scene on the doorstep, and not expecting her husband back for an hour or two. But then how to explain the robbery, staged or intended?

I just don't see the two events - the phone call and the need or desire to kill Julia - being entirely coincidental. But if Parry made the call, I think someone else most probably committed the murder, and both acted alone. The call would merely have allowed for the murder to be committed in Wallace's absence - actual or supposed.

I don't find Parkes a remotely credible - or indeed creditable - witness. If he saw and heard everything he claimed he did, half a century later, he was a very wicked person if he didn't go to the police with the whole story, as soon as he made the connection with the murder, but meekly watched and waited to see if Wallace would be convicted of a capital crime which Parry had virtually admitted to committing himself.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz,

Great to have you back posting about this case. I totally agree with your point about Parry and Mr. X and the implausibility of that theory. You also make exceedingly strong points about the unlikelihood that Wallace worked with anyone else, considering the fact that he could have created a far stronger alibi for himself for BOTH nights. These are original points I have never heard anywhere else, perhaps you should become a writer! You are putting to shame the Jonathan Goodmans of this world!

I also recall your comparison with the tragic Christie/Evans case and it does seem to me Wallace had Parry in mind as a suspect in a similar fashion that Christie noticed Evans would be a great fall guy. It seems to me people will often play devil's advocate for no good reason, and I can't believe that on the Christie case board, people were actually arguing that Evans could have been guilty. Not to mention the authors who have argued such. Quite disgraceful to blacken the name of a man quite clearly wrongfully executed to advance nebulous theories. What in the hell are the odds two stranglers existed in the same apartment at the same time? Short of video or dna evidence proving otherwise, the fact that Christie was a proven serial killer and strangler outweighs any mild circumstantial "evidence" against Evans. It is seriously scary that people can be so stupid IMO

I mention this because I notice a similar attitude of righteousness that I feel in saying Evans was certainly innocent towards Wallace by some writers (Goodman) and in fact posters on this very board I would say the 2 cases are totally different however and note that :

1. I am not saying Wallace should have been convicted (I do not believe the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt against anyone)

2. There is nothing remotely similar that exonerates Wallace (compared to Evans obviously being all but exonerated when we consider the proof of Christie's crimes) Parkes rubbish story has been vivisected quite artfully by you and others so I won't go into it except to note that apparently 70 (!) people falsely confessed to the crime in the days after, and a similar story about hearing the Johnstones (next door neighbors) have a sort of confession, where John Johnstone at his death bed confessed to family was advanced by the joker Tom Slemen who spoke to a man who claimed to have overheard it. A relative who was there at the time threatened to sue, saying no such confession took place and Slemen slithered away! My point being that hearsay stories such as this are extremely common and must be taken with a large grain of salt especially when advanced decades after the fact! As you note, if Parkes was actually truthful, then he was a morally repugnant twit if he did not come forward at the time!

3. There are in fact strong pointers towards Wallace. I won't reiterate all of them, just a couple for brevity's sake

He on his own accord left his home at 7:15 to head to the chess club. He would have or could have (he claims he went in a different direction) passed the phone booth at exactly the time the call was placed of 7:18. One can only conclude he either made the call himself or someone was stalking him and made the call as soon as he disappeared. This seems a very odd way of going about a criminal enterprise if that was indeed the goal at the time. If it was Parry who was the culprit as many suggest and he was working with someone else and knew of Wallace's attendance at the chess club, he would want to wait for Wallace to get there and have the other person SPEAK with Wallace to ensure the plan would be more likely to be followed up upon by Wallace. As you cleverly note, it would be a disadvantage for Parry to make the call himself if he had someone else involved in the plot.

If it was Parry alone who made the call as part of a criminal plot, then he would indeed want to make the call before Wallace arrived to not run the risk of having to speak with him and have his voice recognized. The problem with this however is if Parry was "working alone", we have to consider that he has a solid alibi for the following night, the night of the murder. People can try to pick holes in this all they would like, but he was with 3 people (a 39 year old woman and 2 teenagers) until 8:30 according to them. Their story was unwavering. Also, as recent books on the case have noted Parry was examined down to the seams of his clothes and under his fingernails, and that along with his cast iron alibi is why he was exonerated, not some nebulous sense of police corruption as has been floated around there. The alibi in question is for the night of the call, NOT the night of the murder and this was conflated stupidly by Jonathan Goodman as well as the Man from the Pru movie.

I still think Wallace killed his wife and planned to do so. However, I do not rule out the possibility of him snapping as you suggest and the call having been an unrelated prank etc. However, there is something about this crime that smacks of planning to me. Julia was attacked from behind, and I would suggest Wallace would have a lesser chance of avoiding blood, disposing of the weapon etc. if he hadn't planned it. However, for those who suggest the general difficulty of the cleanup/blood splatter points away from Wallace overall, please note that whoever the killer was it looks like he had some method to avoid significant blood splattering as there was NOT a trail of blood leading towards the door as one might expect. Another hint at a planned homicide?! I think there is an outside shot Parry could have made the call, but even if I knew he did, I would doubt he killed Julia Wallace or was part of a plan that resulted in that. There are multiple possibilities here, including Wallace coercing parry to make the call on some false pretext.

Another point: the Johnstones claimed to have heard the milk boy come but heard no other visitors or knocks at the door.

I think your point about Wallace sussing out Parry, the shady wide boy who had stolen from the Pru, as a perfect potential fall guy in the vein of John Christie and Timothy Evans was very clever!

[John G]

Hi All,

I have finally managed to get up to date with all the posts on this fascinating case, and have thoroughly enjoyed reading them, although I'm rather glad I wasn't around when things got uncomfortably hot for a while back in the summer. I'm sure the regulars here would sooner forget, so I shan't dwell on it for long.

All I will say is that the theory involving Parry and Mr X in a conspiracy to rob and/or murder strikes me as a complete non-starter. If Parry was able to persuade someone unknown to the Wallaces to do the deed, why on earth would he have made the Qualtrough call himself? You don't get a dog to do the biting for you, then do the barking yourself. The advantages of Mr X making the call would have been obvious: his voice wouldn't have been recognised so he could have spoken directly to Wallace, with none of the risks associated with asking a third party to pass on a message, then trusting to luck that Wallace will not only turn up later, but will be given the message and decide to act on it the following night. Not only that, but the caller could have made the business prospect sound more tempting that way, and best of all he could have got Wallace to confirm there and then his intention to keep the appointment. It would have been more difficult to let a potential client down if Wallace had already said yes to Qualtrough over the phone. The other advantage for Parry would have been a solid alibi for both nights, not just the one.

And that brings me to any conspiracy involving Wallace himself. Again, you don't get a dog and bark yourself, so Wallace would surely have given himself two cast-iron alibis for the Monday and Tuesday nights if someone else was doing all the dirty work for him. He'd have made sure he was at the chess club when the call came through. It should have been easy enough for Qualtrough to make Beattie aware of the purpose of his call before asking to speak to Wallace, if this was considered crucial to the plan: "My name is Qualtrough and I have a business proposition I'd like to put to one of your members if he's playing tonight. Which one? Well he works for the Pru and his name is Wallace. Oh, he's there, is he? Good, could you kindly put him on the line please?"

On the Tuesday evening Wallace could easily have timed his departure to coincide with the milk boy's arrival, to make sure he was seen leaving, knowing that his partner in crime would not be arriving until nearer 7.30, when he would be very visibly and fruitlessly searching for the bogus address.

If Wallace acted alone, he knew the police would soon discover that Qualtrough didn't exist, any more than the address did, and would therefore make it their business to try and discover who had made that call. Whoever it was would be a major suspect for the murder, but as the victim's husband, Wallace would automatically be the prime suspect, so it would have been in his interests to have someone in mind as a credible alternative suspect, not only for the murder/robbery, but also for that phone call. I'd suggest Parry as the most obvious fall guy in this scenario. Might that explain the 21st birthday detail? The bogus business proposition had to involve something of the kind, so why not a coming of age policy, in line with Parry's own age and that of his friends and associates? If Parry himself had used this ploy, it was foolish of him to start talking so soon afterwards about 21st parties coming up within his own circle - unless it was only a prank call and he had no idea at that point that he needed to watch what he said or be suspected of murder.

One way I could see Parry making the call as a prank is if he had nothing to do with what happened in the Wallace house the following night, which would explain why he was desperate for an alibi for the Monday while Tuesday was not such a problem. But I find it a stretch that Wallace took advantage of a prank call to set himself up with a bogus alibi so he could finally rid himself of a wife he had secretly grown to resent.

If there was any way he could have killed her on the spur of the moment, I could believe that something might have happened when he got home from work that evening to make him snap. Maybe he hadn't quite decided whether to keep the Qualtrough appointment or not, but she was nagging him about leaving her on her own for two nights on the trot, when they had both been ill, and not caring if she lived or died. He could have agreed initially not to go - anything for a quiet life - then thought "bugger it, she's not going to dictate to me any longer", whereupon he bashed her head in almost before he realised what he was doing. Then he'd have had no choice but to clean up as best he could and leg it out of the house to keep the appointment after all and hope it would give him an alibi. I do find it suspicious that the money found upstairs was the same as the amount missing from the cash box.

Another scenario would be that someone from Julia's past had been lurking around, hoping for an opportunity to catch her on her own, to settle some old score. One night he saw the milk boy come and go, then saw Wallace leave with a briefcase, not knowing where he was going or when he might be back, but not too worried because what he had come for would not take long. Julia knew him instantly and let him in, perhaps not sensing any real danger, or just not wanting to risk a scene on the doorstep, and not expecting her husband back for an hour or two. But then how to explain the robbery, staged or intended?

I just don't see the two events - the phone call and the need or desire to kill Julia - being entirely coincidental. But if Parry made the call, I think someone else most probably committed the murder, and both acted alone. The call would merely have allowed for the murder to be committed in Wallace's absence - actual or supposed.

I don't find Parkes a remotely credible - or indeed creditable - witness. If he saw and heard everything he claimed he did, half a century later, he was a very wicked person if he didn't go to the police with the whole story, as soon as he made the connection with the murder, but meekly watched and waited to see if Wallace would be convicted of a capital crime which Parry had virtually admitted to committing himself.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Welcome back! Some very good analysis. I particularly agree with your point about the issue of the robbery if someone from Julia's past is to be considered.

In respect of Wallace, I think the issue of motive is the least of the problems regarding his candidacy. As you suggest, he might have just snapped over some issue-a moment of madness instantly regretted.

But, of course, there are far bigger problems. Firstly, based upon Wildman's evidence I doubt he would have had sufficient time.

Secondly, as things stand, the forensic evidence effectively rules him out and I don't see a way around that. Thus, if he was naked under the coat, as the police argued (and that would imply an organised murder rather than a temporarily loss of control)he would still have got some blood on his hands, feet and face, considering Julia was subjected to a frenzied attack-struck up to eleven times- and even the police's own forensic experts accepted this, which is why I argued the case should never have been brought to court. And if he attempted to wash of the blood traces would have been detected in the sink and drains-the test carried out could detect the equivalent of one fifty-thousanth of a tea spoonful of blood.

Thirdly, what did he do with the murder weapon? If left in the house it would have been discovered. If taken away, where did he dispose of it considering the extensive police search? And he's hardly going to leave the house carrying an iron bar caked in blood and gore! And if he hides the weapon under his clothing, then that clothing is going to be stained, which it wasn't.

As for Parry, I consider him a far more viable candidate as I shall discuss when I have more time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi AS/Caz,

I’ve been having a ‘Wallace break’ recently because it’s such a frustrating (but fascinating) Case. I was in a second hand book shop today and saw a copy of the Wilkes book for £2 so here we go again.

By the way AS I also picked up Mockery Of Justice on the Sheppard Case)

Some excellent points made as ever.

I still find it hard to see Wallace as not being involved. I don’t have any books to hand but I was thinking about the char woman. Didn’t she say that there was a poker missing? This, if correct, would surely have to count against Wallace as anyone else entering the house with the intention of murder would surely bring his own weapon and not rely on finding something suitable?
The statement of the police officer (Rothwell?) who said that he’d seen Wallace looking distressed and crying is curious. He actually knew Wallace so it’s unlikely that he could have been mistaken so then why would he lie? Was this Wallace the tortured, guilt-ridden, soon-to-be-Murderer?
I realise that I’m just making random points here Even though I feel that Wallace was guilty in at least some way I still wonder about the phone call. If I was making that call, to a club that I was a member of, I’d be more than a little nervous that no matter how much I disguised my voice someone might have said ‘well I suppose that it might have sounded a little like Mr Wallace.’
On to the Wilkes book and more frustration

[John G]

Hi All,

I have finally managed to get up to date with all the posts on this fascinating case, and have thoroughly enjoyed reading them, although I'm rather glad I wasn't around when things got uncomfortably hot for a while back in the summer. I'm sure the regulars here would sooner forget, so I shan't dwell on it for long.

All I will say is that the theory involving Parry and Mr X in a conspiracy to rob and/or murder strikes me as a complete non-starter. If Parry was able to persuade someone unknown to the Wallaces to do the deed, why on earth would he have made the Qualtrough call himself? You don't get a dog to do the biting for you, then do the barking yourself. The advantages of Mr X making the call would have been obvious: his voice wouldn't have been recognised so he could have spoken directly to Wallace, with none of the risks associated with asking a third party to pass on a message, then trusting to luck that Wallace will not only turn up later, but will be given the message and decide to act on it the following night. Not only that, but the caller could have made the business prospect sound more tempting that way, and best of all he could have got Wallace to confirm there and then his intention to keep the appointment. It would have been more difficult to let a potential client down if Wallace had already said yes to Qualtrough over the phone. The other advantage for Parry would have been a solid alibi for both nights, not just the one.

And that brings me to any conspiracy involving Wallace himself. Again, you don't get a dog and bark yourself, so Wallace would surely have given himself two cast-iron alibis for the Monday and Tuesday nights if someone else was doing all the dirty work for him. He'd have made sure he was at the chess club when the call came through. It should have been easy enough for Qualtrough to make Beattie aware of the purpose of his call before asking to speak to Wallace, if this was considered crucial to the plan: "My name is Qualtrough and I have a business proposition I'd like to put to one of your members if he's playing tonight. Which one? Well he works for the Pru and his name is Wallace. Oh, he's there, is he? Good, could you kindly put him on the line please?"

On the Tuesday evening Wallace could easily have timed his departure to coincide with the milk boy's arrival, to make sure he was seen leaving, knowing that his partner in crime would not be arriving until nearer 7.30, when he would be very visibly and fruitlessly searching for the bogus address.

If Wallace acted alone, he knew the police would soon discover that Qualtrough didn't exist, any more than the address did, and would therefore make it their business to try and discover who had made that call. Whoever it was would be a major suspect for the murder, but as the victim's husband, Wallace would automatically be the prime suspect, so it would have been in his interests to have someone in mind as a credible alternative suspect, not only for the murder/robbery, but also for that phone call. I'd suggest Parry as the most obvious fall guy in this scenario. Might that explain the 21st birthday detail? The bogus business proposition had to involve something of the kind, so why not a coming of age policy, in line with Parry's own age and that of his friends and associates? If Parry himself had used this ploy, it was foolish of him to start talking so soon afterwards about 21st parties coming up within his own circle - unless it was only a prank call and he had no idea at that point that he needed to watch what he said or be suspected of murder.

One way I could see Parry making the call as a prank is if he had nothing to do with what happened in the Wallace house the following night, which would explain why he was desperate for an alibi for the Monday while Tuesday was not such a problem. But I find it a stretch that Wallace took advantage of a prank call to set himself up with a bogus alibi so he could finally rid himself of a wife he had secretly grown to resent.

If there was any way he could have killed her on the spur of the moment, I could believe that something might have happened when he got home from work that evening to make him snap. Maybe he hadn't quite decided whether to keep the Qualtrough appointment or not, but she was nagging him about leaving her on her own for two nights on the trot, when they had both been ill, and not caring if she lived or died. He could have agreed initially not to go - anything for a quiet life - then thought "bugger it, she's not going to dictate to me any longer", whereupon he bashed her head in almost before he realised what he was doing. Then he'd have had no choice but to clean up as best he could and leg it out of the house to keep the appointment after all and hope it would give him an alibi. I do find it suspicious that the money found upstairs was the same as the amount missing from the cash box.

Another scenario would be that someone from Julia's past had been lurking around, hoping for an opportunity to catch her on her own, to settle some old score. One night he saw the milk boy come and go, then saw Wallace leave with a briefcase, not knowing where he was going or when he might be back, but not too worried because what he had come for would not take long. Julia knew him instantly and let him in, perhaps not sensing any real danger, or just not wanting to risk a scene on the doorstep, and not expecting her husband back for an hour or two. But then how to explain the robbery, staged or intended?

I just don't see the two events - the phone call and the need or desire to kill Julia - being entirely coincidental. But if Parry made the call, I think someone else most probably committed the murder, and both acted alone. The call would merely have allowed for the murder to be committed in Wallace's absence - actual or supposed.

I don't find Parkes a remotely credible - or indeed creditable - witness. If he saw and heard everything he claimed he did, half a century later, he was a very wicked person if he didn't go to the police with the whole story, as soon as he made the connection with the murder, but meekly watched and waited to see if Wallace would be convicted of a capital crime which Parry had virtually admitted to committing himself.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes, it's very strange that Parkes didn't come forward until after the trial, if in fact he came forward at all. Nonetheless, I do find Dolly Atkinson's and Leslie Williamson's comments intriguing. I mean, at the very least it seems to conform that Parkes' story was circulated amongst the Atkinson family at a very earlier stage; in other word, it wasn't something he simply dreamt up half a century later. And then there's the fact that Dolly Atkinson is unequivocal in her support of Parkes, believing that he wouldn't have lied, which is important because she was presumably in a position to know what sort of character he was in the 1930s, i.e. whether he had a reputation for fanciful story telling.

Of course, Parkes claimed that his failure to come forward was on the advice of his boss. I find this plausible, as I could imagine younger Parkes being guided by the older man.

And then there's the issue of whether Parkes, or at least the younger Parkes, had the wit to totally make up such an elaborate story and, personally, I doubt that he did.

However, none of this really explains the garage owners advice, or why no one else in the Atkinson family elected to come forward at an earlier stage. Perhaps, though, there's a way out of this conundrum. As I've noted before, I doubt Parkes could have remembered such detailed events with absolute clarity almost half a century later, human memory doesn't work like that. Therefore, maybe the discussion he had with Parry was less damning then he subsequently recalls, whilst still leaving Parkes the impression that Parry was confessing, albeit in a more oblique manner, to a murder.

[John G]

Just pondering a little more on Parkes's failure to notify the police of the conversation with Parry at an earlier stage, i.e. before the end of the trial!

Firstly, I could certainly believe that he would have sought advice from his boss first, which is what he claimed to have done. After all, it would have been just Parkes' word against Parry's, and the younger Parkes may not have been a very confident lad.

I can also understand why Atkinson would have had reservations: as noted, it was just Parkes' word against Parry's, and even in 1980 Parkes doesn't exactly come across as an articulate speaker! In contrast, Parry was no doubt much more worldly-wise as well as having a reputation for deceitfullness-in other words, he knew how to lie well!

Parkes may also have been scared of Parry and what he might do, as evidenced by Atkinson's advice to vary his route to work.

Nonetheless, considering what was at stake-a man's life-reporting Parry's virtual confession, at an early stage, must surely have taken priority.

One reason why perhaps it didn't I have already noted-Parry's "confession" may have been given in much more oblique terms than Parkes subsequently remembered it.

Another possibility is that Parkes misremembered the timing of the discussion. For instance, if Parry had spoken to Parkes, say, several days after the murder then the account becomes a lot less damning: we could then speculate that Parry was simply winding-up a guliable Parkes-maybe it had happened before-and that's what Atkinson also may have suspected.

[caz]

Thanks for the welcome back and the positive responses, AS and John. Much appreciated.

I agree with you, John, that whatever Parkes thought he recalled, there must have been something holding him back from reporting everything as soon as possible after the event. Now it might have been that his initial suspicion about Parry only really grew into something more substantial with the passing of time, due to his memory playing tricks by adding details or backdating the incident, similar to confirmation bias. But I can see why he might simply have been too scared to grass up a man who would have had him for breakfast if he really was a brutal killer!

I also agree with AS that if Wallace didn't make the Qualtrough call himself, then the person who did was presumably watching and waiting for him to pass by on his way to the chess club. The point of using that particular phone box would then have been to allow suspicion to fall on Wallace himself, not only due to its proximity to his house and the neat timing, but also because he wouldn't have an alibi for when the call was received at the club. The caller would need to have been someone reasonably familiar with Wallace's nocturnal habits, or there'd have been no guarantee he was going to the club to play that night, and not going somewhere else entirely, for business or pleasure. Even when he did turn up, there'd have been no guarantee he'd be given the message or would act on it. It would require the caller to go through the same ritual the following night, watching and waiting for Wallace to leave home before leaping into action and hoping he wouldn't return too soon. It does suggest there was a risk that Wallace would have recognised Qualtrough's voice if he had been at the club to take the call himself.

I still find the plan too complex and convoluted if it was someone like Parry, who knew the Wallaces, and he only intended to pinch the takings from the cash box, possibly imagining he could get away with this without Julia noticing. Or was he hoping to charm, or threaten her, into letting him take the cash and saying nothing to her husband, who might not like the idea of Parry being invited into the parlour in his absence? But obviously something went seriously wrong if he decided he'd have to kill her but was able to strike without her sensing the danger.

And we come back to Parry apparently having an even sounder alibi than Wallace for the Tuesday night!

On balance, I still come back to Wallace acting alone as slightly less impossible than every other theory I've read about to date. But absolutely his original conviction was unsafe, considering the lack of proof and the tiny window of opportunity, not to mention the missing murder weapon and where all the blood went. You can't convict someone for murder on the basis that it's nearly always the spouse and you have nobody else with the means, motive and opportunity.

Love,

Caz
X