Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

Hello Rod,

It's an interesting story but something thst holds low evidential value. I mean, in complex cases such as this coincidences abound, particularly if you look hard enough.

Thus, I know you reject any involvement by Wallace, so what of Lily Hall's evidence? For instance, I seriously doubt that she lied to the extent of giving evidence under oath anf under cross examination, particularly as she may have been implicating an innocent man.

But if she was mistaken that means, despite Wallace's distinctive appearance, she must have observed a Wallace lookalike, who just happened to be in more or less the exact place, at the exact time, you would have expected Wallace to be on his return home from the fruitless Qualtrough appointment.

In 1931 there were approximately 200,000 households in Liverpool. Around 450 of these were headed by someone named Parry. Menlove Gardens had 57 households. The question is:-
What were the chances that Menlove Gardens contained, not just any old Parry, but probably the wealthiest Parry in the city, and the address then featured prominently in a crime, in which a prime suspect, a known financial scammer, had the same surname, purely by coincidence? I'd be interested to see your calculations...

The Thomas Parry in Menlove Gardens was the executor of a trust fund, and this information was publicly available in Kelly's Directory. It is at least possible that this prominent and successful Parry attracted the curiosity of Richard Gordon Parry (perhaps with a view to a scam), and his strange address reconnoitred, and its features memorised. Not proved, I accept, but a tantalising reasonable possibility nonetheless, which has lain in plain sight since 1931 until noticed by me.

As for Lily Hall's evidence, I am content, as Mr. Justice Wright was, to "put it aside." The idea that a complicit Wallace would supposedly rendezvous with the killer on literally the threshold of the crime, immediately after its execution, is ludicrous on its face. To be told what exactly? "Aye, the deed is done"...or "sorry, I messed up, she's still alive." - either outcome a complicit Wallace would already be prepared for with equanimity...

Furthermore, an innocent - or for that matter a guilty - Wallace would have no reason to lie about a purely innocent encounter with a passing stranger, if it actually occurred, in the expectation that the stranger would in time come forward. Hall didn't make a good witness on the stand, and the reasonable inference is that she was mistaken (perhaps genuinely) about what she claimed she saw, or was coached by the Police, desperate to nail some tiny inconsistency in Wallace's otherwise impeccable testimony.

As for Brine, people having clandestine affairs usually "get down to business" at their secret assignations. They don't usually sit around with young family members, and a visitor to the household, smoking cigarettes and chatting for three hours about nothing in particular. Denison (who was 16, not 15) may or may not have had a watch. He almost certainly didn't need one, as every household in those days had a clock on the mantlepiece which went "tick-tock", and even chimed!

"Their statements are consistent, so they must have lied" won't fly either, as they are written in Police-speak, which is to be expected, and they would have had no reason to lie, since it is extremely improbable that Brine and Parry were having an affair, not least for the reasons I have given above...

[RodCrosby]

I've created some videos reconstructing the crime.

Firstly, Richmond Park where Lily Hall claimed to have seen Wallace on Tuesday 20th January 1931.

This was also the route (from the entry at the top of Wolverton Street) that Wallace said he took to the tram stop for the Chess Club on Monday 19th January 1931.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8wNZWYSW1uvYU1taG1Tblh6RnM/view?usp=sharing

[John G]

In 1931 there were approximately 200,000 households in Liverpool. Around 450 of these were headed by someone named Parry. Menlove Gardens had 57 households. The question is:-
What were the chances that Menlove Gardens contained, not just any old Parry, but probably the wealthiest Parry in the city, and the address then featured prominently in a crime, in which a prime suspect, a known financial scammer, had the same surname, purely by coincidence? I'd be interested to see your calculations...

The Thomas Parry in Menlove Gardens was the executor of a trust fund, and this information was publicly available in Kelly's Directory. It is at least possible that this prominent and successful Parry attracted the curiosity of Richard Gordon Parry (perhaps with a view to a scam), and his strange address reconnoitred, and its features memorised. Not proved, I accept, but a tantalising reasonable possibility nonetheless, which has lain in plain sight since 1931 until noticed by me.

As for Lily Hall's evidence, I am content, as Mr. Justice Wright was, to "put it aside." The idea that a complicit Wallace would supposedly rendezvous with the killer on literally the threshold of the crime, immediately after its execution, is ludicrous on its face. To be told what exactly? "Aye, the deed is done"...or "sorry, I messed up, she's still alive." - either outcome a complicit Wallace would already be prepared for with equanimity...

Furthermore, an innocent - or for that matter a guilty - Wallace would have no reason to lie about a purely innocent encounter with a passing stranger, if it actually occurred, in the expectation that the stranger would in time come forward. Hall didn't make a good witness on the stand, and the reasonable inference is that she was mistaken (perhaps genuinely) about what she claimed she saw, or was coached by the Police, desperate to nail some tiny inconsistency in Wallace's otherwise impeccable testimony.

As for Brine, people having clandestine affairs usually "get down to business" at their secret assignations. They don't usually sit around with young family members, and a visitor to the household, smoking cigarettes and chatting for three hours about nothing in particular. Denison (who was 16, not 15) may or may not have had a watch. He almost certainly didn't need one, as every household in those days had a clock on the mantlepiece which went "tick-tock", and even chimed!

"Their statements are consistent, so they must have lied" won't fly either, as they are written in Police-speak, which is to be expected, and they would have had no reason to lie, since it is extremely improbable that Brine and Parry were having an affair, not least for the reasons I have given above...

It's surprisingly easy to discover huge coincidences when you're the one determining the criteria: for instance, three important witnesses, by a huge coincidence, all happened to glance at the same clock at a crucial moment: Close, Hall and Wildman.

Regarding Lily Hall's evidence, it's quite obvious that, when summing up, Wright J fell into error as I shall now demonstrate it great detail.

Thus, Wright J acknowledges that Hall, "No doubt [said] what she thinks she saw." However, he adds "It was night, and there is no special reason, apparently, why Miss Hall should have made these observations, or even regard to the time that she should be accurate."

But this is what Hall said in her statement:

"I looked at the Holy Trinity clock. Which is near the tram stop, and saw it was then 8:30. I walked straight home along Richmond Park and as I was passing the entry leading from Richmond Park to the middle of Wolverton Street, I saw the man I know as Mr Wallace talking to another man I do not know...When I got into our house,, our clock was just turned 8:40 pm but it is always five minutes fast. It takes me no more than three minutes to walk from the tram stop to our house."

There is therefore every reason to suppose that Hall accurately fixed the time. Moreover, as regards it being night time, she pointed out in her evidence that there was a light, something the judge appears to have inexplicably disregarded. As for the observations, she saw two men, one of whom she recognized, having a chat. Why is it remarkable that she wouldn't subsequently note and remember this simple sighting?

And here's another thing. Whose evidence do you think is likely to be more reliable? A witness who came forward within days of the murder, and who was prepared to give evidence under oath and allow herself to be subjected to a rigorous cross examination, without hesitation or confusion-unlike Alan Close, for example, a witness who got hopelessly confused when subjected to cross examination. Or a "witness" who decides it would be prudent not to give evidence in court under oath, and not to allow himself to be subjected to cross examination, but nonetheless, almost half a century later, after the individual who could have contradicted him has died, and at a time when his memory must have been decidedly hazy, decides to tell his story to the media. It's not a difficult choice, is it?

Furthermore, it's absolutely untenable to argue that Hall was coached by the police, not that you have any evidence for this anyway. The reason is this: if the jury accepted Hall's evidence, which implies that Wallace acted not alone, but with an accomplice, then the they would have had no choice but to acquit, as this scenario contradicts the prosecution argument that Wallace acted alone.

As for Wallace meeting an accomplice immediately after the execution of a crime, that is not an argument that can be made out. For instance, we have no idea as to what time Julia was killed. As Wright J alluded to in his summing up, the medical testimony on this point was all over the place, with contradictory conclusions. This led him to give this advice to the jury: " You may think that [time of death] is evidence from which you can derive no assistance in considering that aspect of it, and you must act upon other considerations."

Still, it's interesting that you now consider it "ludicrous on it's face", that an assailant would rendezvous with an accomplice on the "threshold of a crime", as that's pretty sums up your own theory in a nutshell! At least no one could accuse you of a lack of objectivity in this regard.

As for Brine, I seriously doubt that Parry had been regularly visiting her household for several months because he'd struck up a friendship with 16 year old Denison or 13 year-old school girl Savona. And who knows how many times he may have visited this women, whose husband was conveniently away at sea, when Savona was at school and without Denison in tow. In fact, even on the night in question he [Denison] arrived an hour after Parry.

Regarding the clock, regardless of whether it chimed or went "tick tock" no one was paying any attention to it anyway. Not Brine, who could only say Parry left "about 8:30." Not Parry, who could only say he left "about 8:30". Not Denison, who could only say Parry left "about 8:30."

As for the possibility of these not being verbatim accounts, well that just implies police negligence, as does the fact that they failed to check any of Parry's other numerous "alibis" for the evening, which was a bit remiss don't you think, considering he gave a false alibi for the Qualtrough call?

[John G]

Let's reflect on the murder from the perspective of Wallace being the killer. Firstly, I think for this scenario to be remotely possible it had to be meticulously planned-if it wasn't then I think we really are entering the realm of fantasy.

Thus, he had to plan the alibis-Close and the Qualtrough call; and in respect of the later, he may have had to spend many hours practicing disguising his voice so that no one at the chess club would recognize him.

He had to plan how to complete all the elements in a ridiculously short time frame. He had to decide how to effectively dispose of the murder weapon, and how he was going to avoid getting even a drop of blood on his person.

However, why then did he choose just about the most risky method for carrying out the murder? I mean, as Wallace pointed out himself, he could have used his knowledge of chemistry to administer poison and make the death appear to be one of natural cause.

And why is the signature element of overkill apparent? To put it crudely, surely Julia couldn't have been that difficult to kill. However, according to forensics she msy have bern struck up to eleven times by a perpetrator who may have been in an absolute frenzy. From the perspective of any planned assault, let alone one carried our by Wallace, it makes absolutely no sense at all, considering that with each blow the assailant risked getting blood on his person, something Wallace would have been desperate to avoid.

And even if Wallace decided his wife should be murdered by violent means, having rejected the poison option, why not simply strangle or suffocate her? After all, both of these alternatives would have been infinitely preferable to a blunt instrument: Wallace wouldn't have had to worry about the blood or how to dispose of the murder weapon.

It therefore seems to me that, which ever way you look at it, evena planned murder makes no sense from Wallace's perspective.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a thought.

On the night of the murder, when Wallace was searching for the non-existent Menlove Gardens East, he eventually went into a newsagents to check a directory which told him that the address didn’t exist. When Wallace was given the message by Beattie they asked around the club and no one had heard specifically of Menlove Gardens East. Wallace was an intelligent man and we get the impression of him as an efficient, meticulous, well organised one too.
Why then didn’t he simply check a directory during the day of the murder? He would have wanted to plan his journey after all. He could have gone into any number of post offices or newsagents and he could have also asked people that he spoke to during the day.
Obviously this doesn’t prove his guilt but it seems a bit out of character for the kind of person Wallace appeared to be.

[RodCrosby]

People in the club attempted to give Wallace directions. No-one said "it doesn't exist." [They might well have done, as some lived in the vicinity - again tending to point away from murderous plan of Wallace's, hingeing on such a contingency...]

Goodman and others have replicated the hoax on their friends, with identical results...

[AmericanSherlock]

People in the club attempted to give Wallace directions. No-one said "it doesn't exist." [They might well have done, as some lived in the vicinity - again tending to point away from murderous plan of Wallace's, hingeing on such a contingency...]

Goodman and others have replicated the hoax on their friends, with identical results...

The main point if Wallace was guilty was this was a plan that would take him to another neighborhood some distance away from home and cast doubt on whether or not he could have committed the crime. The bogus address may or may not be important and it is not impossible the caller made a mistake and meant to say West instead of East. Or Beattie misheard it. As Murphy notes, Wallace initially says "West" and was corrected to "East" by Beattie when hearing about the call and the address...

It doesn't really matter, because the call was bogus either way, there was no Mr. Qualtrough looking for an insurance policy anywhere. And even if Wallace meant to say East as it was relayed to him, your argument that he wouldn't hinge a plan on such a contingency of it not existing is flimsy when you consider he could have claimed to have gone searching for it anyway. I personally wouldn't bother in such a situation, as the call would probably seem like a prank, but Wallace could have easily overthought the perfect murder. And if he did consult a directory and found out the address did not exist and wanted to hunt for it anyway (and not forfeit a possible hefty commission), you would expect him to have left much earlier than he did, allowing for searching time. Of course if he was guilty, he could not leave until the milk boy had come and gone...

If in Wallace's shoes as I said, the call would seem like a prank/not worth it to me (Wallace apparently made 100s of calls on the day of the murder) but if I really was hard up and thought the "girls 21st" could be promising, then I certainly would allow more time or have more knowledge of where I was going and not just start asking desperately on trams with the timing tight.

Wallace's actions the night of the murder were deeply suspicious.

As far as Goodman, his replication of the hoax is about as convincing as your Parry Accomplice Theory.

First of all, Wallace is working with everything on his side. He knows that if he is recognized at all, if Beattie for a second says "who is this?...Wallace??" or if he shows even an ounce of suspicion at the club when relaying the message to Wallace, then WHW can scrap the plan. He has nothing to lose by trying it. The set-up and the context are also completely in his favor as it would be very weird to imagine Wallace calling himself on a business matter.

Second of all, phone lines were very different back in 1931 compared to whenever Goodman tried this (60 or 70s). Particularly an old phone booth on a wintry night calling more of a slight acquaintance than a friend who would have no reason to suspect it's you.

Very, very different from Goodman putting apple slices in his mouth and mumbling to his friend, who recognized him. Also Goodman said he tried the bogus address business and all his friends fell for it--again very, very different from getting a random odd sounding call and going on supposed business without checking the address or allowing proper time etc. etc.

[AmericanSherlock]

On the night of the murder, when Wallace was searching for the non-existent Menlove Gardens East, he eventually went into a newsagents to check a directory which told him that the address didn’t exist. When Wallace was given the message by Beattie they asked around the club and no one had heard specifically of Menlove Gardens East. Wallace was an intelligent man and we get the impression of him as an efficient, meticulous, well organised one too.
Why then didn’t he simply check a directory during the day of the murder? He would have wanted to plan his journey after all. He could have gone into any number of post offices or newsagents and he could have also asked people that he spoke to during the day.
Obviously this doesn’t prove his guilt but it seems a bit out of character for the kind of person Wallace appeared to be.

I concur completely. Wallace's actions were extremely odd at best, deeply suspicious and implicating at worst.

How are you enjoying the Sheppard book, my friend ?

[AmericanSherlock]

It's surprisingly easy to discover huge coincidences when you're the one determining the criteria: for instance, three important witnesses, by a huge coincidence, all happened to glance at the same clock at a crucial moment: Close, Hall and Wildman.

Regarding Lily Hall's evidence, it's quite obvious that, when summing up, Wright J fell into error as I shall now demonstrate it great detail.

Thus, Wright J acknowledges that Hall, "No doubt [said] what she thinks she saw." However, he adds "It was night, and there is no special reason, apparently, why Miss Hall should have made these observations, or even regard to the time that she should be accurate."

But this is what Hall said in her statement:

"I looked at the Holy Trinity clock. Which is near the tram stop, and saw it was then 8:30. I walked straight home along Richmond Park and as I was passing the entry leading from Richmond Park to the middle of Wolverton Street, I saw the man I know as Mr Wallace talking to another man I do not know...When I got into our house,, our clock was just turned 8:40 pm but it is always five minutes fast. It takes me no more than three minutes to walk from the tram stop to our house."

There is therefore every reason to suppose that Hall accurately fixed the time. Moreover, as regards it being night time, she pointed out in her evidence that there was a light, something the judge appears to have inexplicably disregarded. As for the observations, she saw two men, one of whom she recognized, having a chat. Why is it remarkable that she wouldn't subsequently note and remember this simple sighting?

And here's another thing. Whose evidence do you think is likely to be more reliable? A witness who came forward within days of the murder, and who was prepared to give evidence under oath and allow herself to be subjected to a rigorous cross examination, without hesitation or confusion-unlike Alan Close, for example, a witness who got hopelessly confused when subjected to cross examination. Or a "witness" who decides it would be prudent not to give evidence in court under oath, and not to allow himself to be subjected to cross examination, but nonetheless, almost half a century later, after the individual who could have contradicted him has died, and at a time when his memory must have been decidedly hazy, decides to tell his story to the media. It's not a difficult choice, is it?

Furthermore, it's absolutely untenable to argue that Hall was coached by the police, not that you have any evidence for this anyway. The reason is this: if the jury accepted Hall's evidence, which implies that Wallace acted not alone, but with an accomplice, then the they would have had no choice but to acquit, as this scenario contradicts the prosecution argument that Wallace acted alone.

As for Wallace meeting an accomplice immediately after the execution of a crime, that is not an argument that can be made out. For instance, we have no idea as to what time Julia was killed. As Wright J alluded to in his summing up, the medical testimony on this point was all over the place, with contradictory conclusions. This led him to give this advice to the jury: " You may think that [time of death] is evidence from which you can derive no assistance in considering that aspect of it, and you must act upon other considerations."

Still, it's interesting that you now consider it "ludicrous on it's face", that an assailant would rendezvous with an accomplice on the "threshold of a crime", as that's pretty sums up your own theory in a nutshell! At least no one could accuse you of a lack of objectivity in this regard.

As for Brine, I seriously doubt that Parry had been regularly visiting her household for several months because he'd struck up a friendship with 16 year old Denison or 13 year-old school girl Savona. And who knows how many times he may have visited this women, whose husband was conveniently away at sea, when Savona was at school and without Denison in tow. In fact, even on the night in question he [Denison] arrived an hour after Parry.

Regarding the clock, regardless of whether it chimed or went "tick tock" no one was paying any attention to it anyway. Not Brine, who could only say Parry left "about 8:30." Not Parry, who could only say he left "about 8:30". Not Denison, who could only say Parry left "about 8:30."

As for the possibility of these not being verbatim accounts, well that just implies police negligence, as does the fact that they failed to check any of Parry's other numerous "alibis" for the evening, which was a bit remiss don't you think, considering he gave a false alibi for the Qualtrough call?

John, I agree totally, we need more than this level of "coincidence" to point towards anybody. Particularly, in a case rife with them and as you point out if one is looking thru a certain lens, one can come up with all sorts of this type of nonsense. (Look at some of the Ripper theories based on weird conspiracies stemming from "coincidences!"). I would hope I am never judged by a jury of my peers that buy into this type of stuff!

To address your other points you made in the next post, I think you raise some good thoughts and things to overcome if one believes in Wallace's guilt, or at least in his sole guilt.

I think we have agreed to disagree in the past about the timing and the blood.

As far as the easier methods of killing Julia, I would just suggest that other methods would not have the added appeal of casting doubt onto an unknown suspect. I think if Wallace was guilty, he was actively trying to make other(s) seem guilty which would obviously help his case, but also as CAZ suggests, he could have had a particular man in mind.

[AmericanSherlock]

Ah, well of course Parry - having drama connections - would have made sure to have a Mr Y in place, who was a Wallace lookalike, so any nosey female like Lily Hall would genuinely believe she had spotted him talking to a man [Mr X], leaving Parry to play hide the sausage for hours with the comely Mrs Brine.

Seriously though, I do think Parry would have been able to come up with a much sounder alibi for himself if he had someone else doing the really dirty work. He'd know when Mr X planned to knock on Julia's door, so why not spend the next hour or so in a pub a good way away, nursing a half of mild if he didn't want to spend more than he hoped to make from the robbery?

Love,

Caz
X

Another solid point and one in line with you reasoning for being skeptical of Wallace working with others---surely he could have come up with a better alibi for himself on both the night of the call and the night of the murder if that were the case.

Similarly, if Parry had his Mr. X. doing the dirty work, then he could have made sure to be seen drinking and partying it up across town.

Playing hide the sausage with a cougar isn't as good of an alibi, as fun as it may be

A conspiracy doesn't make sense. Either Wallace acted alone or someone else did. My money is on Wallace.

[RodCrosby]

Lol. Wallace was well in time for his appointment. He had no reason to leave earlier, as he knew vaguely, and had been told exactly where Menlove Gardens were.

Even the tram conductor, Thompson, who put Wallace off at Menlove Gardens West told him that "Menlove Gardens East is probably in that direction...

Such basic ignorance of the facts renders further discussion pointless, once again, as I suspected.

Btw, my theory has been reviewed by police officers and crime writers. I have no doubt it will be generally accepted by reasonable, intelligent people as the final solution to the Wallace mystery. Watch this space...

[AmericanSherlock]

Lol. Wallace was well in time for his appointment. He had no reason to leave earlier, as he knew vaguely, and had been told exactly where Menlove Gardens were.

Even the tram conductor, Thompson, who put Wallace off at Menlove Gardens West told him that "Menlove Gardens East is probably in that direction...

Such basic ignorance of the facts renders further discussion pointless, once again, as I suspected.

Btw, my theory has been reviewed by police officers and crime writers. I have no doubt it will be generally accepted by reasonable, intelligent people as the final solution to the Wallace mystery. Watch this space...

If one goes on your Wikipedia page, one would see it is an embarrassment. Filled with you arguing with people and getting flagged and warned left, right, and center for the same ugly behavior you have displayed in this thread. You clearly have issues from a social standpoint. Perhaps you are on the spectrum a bit?

I have yet to have met or even heard of one person who concurs with your opinion, much less views it as the "Final solution to the Wallace Mystery".

Nevertheless, in the beginning I treated your theory with some respect as a possible, although unlikely scenario. You do not return the same respect to others and seem intent on bullying them into agreeing with you, otherwise they are subject to derisive and unpleasant taunts. It appears you are incapable of agreeing to disagree on any point. You also do not respond well to others giving you back a small dose of the same medicine you vomit out everywhere and inflict on others.

Whenever you come on this thread it ruins and kills discussion, just like the numerous blogs and wikipedia articles where you have been warned and people turned against you. It is not for no reason, my friend. Why do you think it keeps happening? Perhaps try to solve that mystery instead of the Wallace Case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I concur completely. Wallace's actions were extremely odd at best, deeply suspicious and implicating at worst.

How are you enjoying the Sheppard book, my friend ?

Hi AS,

I’ve done my usual trick of jumping from one book to another. I was in the second hand book shop that I got the Wilkes book from last week and I saw the Goodman book. The owner said that he hadn’t put any new books in the true crime section so I must have missed it last week. Anyway I’m reading the Goodman then it’s back to the Sheppard. Not enough hours in the day!
I’ve just ordered In The Wake Of The Butcher (recommended to me by Howard Brown on the Forum) I’ve also been watching the Zodiac series on the History Channel So I’ve also ordered a Zodiac book.

[RodCrosby]

Oh gawd, now I have a stalker....

[AmericanSherlock]

Oh gawd, now I have a stalker....

Trust me, I have better things to do than "stalk" an awkward old man with personality disorders. You yourself linked blogs where you posted and you posted under this same moniker under. the TALK section of the Wallace Case in Wikipedia

Don't dodge my point. Look at what you wrote verbatim. "I have no doubt it will be generally accepted by reasonable, intelligent people as the final solution to the Wallace mystery." So anyone who doesn't accept your far out there proposal 100 percent is neither reasonable, nor intelligent, huh? That certainly seems to be the attitude you have displayed here. Thanks for putting it out there, so we can all see where you stand.