Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another question is why did Wallace on entering the house go straight upstairs to look for his wife? This wasn’t a mansion. How many downstairs rooms were there? Three I think. Surely most (if not all) would have checked the downstairs rooms first? Why did he check his lab (the Johnston’s saw a light go on) ? Surely he wouldn’t have expected Julia to be in there?
I’m not saying that this proves his guilt but for me this is suspicious behaviour.

[AmericanSherlock]

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.

It seems in the states we don't have as voluminous of a true crime section. Or perhaps, American murder is not as interesting as British murder! I also have been dabbling in different books, just finished reading RFK Jr.s "FRAMED" about Michael Skakel who was convicted of murdering his neighbor Martha Moxley, when both were 15 in 1975. He was sentenced to 20 to life, released in 2013 on appeal citing lack of adequate representation and is in the process of being sent back to prison with appeals going back and forth. It is a mess...

I am intimately familiar with this case as I know the area and some of the peripheral people involved well (although not enough to prejudice me, I think )

I tend to agree with the author's conclusion that Michael Skakel was most likely innocent and certainly should not have been convicted. The book itself is a marvel IMO, one of the most thorough dissections of a case I have ever read.

The author is Skakel's cousin and he gives a full disclosure; the book is intended to exonerate his cousin and he is absolutely biased in that direction but I think as he says "the facts speak for themselves."

Perhaps, you might want to check that out, next? It is probably the best American case where the guilt of the main suspect is in serious doubt since Sam Sheppard IMO.

[RodCrosby]

Another question is why did Wallace on entering the house go straight upstairs to look for his wife? This wasn’t a mansion. How many downstairs rooms were there? Three I think. Surely most (if not all) would have checked the downstairs rooms first? Why did he check his lab (the Johnston’s saw a light go on) ? Surely he wouldn’t have expected Julia to be in there?
I’m not saying that this proves his guilt but for me this is suspicious behaviour.

As the least-used room in the house, it would be logical to look in the parlour last...

Poor old Wallace just can't win, can he?

No doubt if he'd gone there first people would be popping up to say "Ha-haaa! Guilty!!!"

[Herlock Sholmes]

It seems in the states we don't have as voluminous of a true crime section. Or perhaps, American murder is not as interesting as British murder! I also have been dabbling in different books, just finished reading RFK Jr.s "FRAMED" about Michael Skakel who was convicted of murdering his neighbor Martha Moxley, when both were 15 in 1975. He was sentenced to 20 to life, released in 2013 on appeal citing lack of adequate representation and is in the process of being sent back to prison with appeals going back and forth. It is a mess...

I am intimately familiar with this case as I know the area and some of the peripheral people involved well (although not enough to prejudice me, I think )

I tend to agree with the author's conclusion that Michael Skakel was most likely innocent and certainly should not have been convicted. The book itself is a marvel IMO, one of the most thorough dissections of a case I have ever read.

The author is Skakel's cousin and he gives a full disclosure; the book is intended to exonerate his cousin and he is absolutely biased in that direction but I think as he says "the facts speak for themselves."

Perhaps, you might want to check that out, next? It is probably the best American case where the guilt of the main suspect is in serious doubt since Sam Sheppard IMO.

Cheers AS, I’ve made a note.

I know that I sound like a convinced ‘Wallace did it’ man but I’m still finding it hard to completely exonerate him in my own mind. Another example is the blood smeared note in the vase upstairs. It’s unthinkable that a killer who ‘stole’ cash would pick up the notes in the vase then put them back. It’s surely equally unlikely that a policeman would search with blood on his hands then transfer it without knowing. As the amount of cash in the vase was at least approximately the same amount that was supposedly in the cash box then the likeliest scenario must be that Wallace in staging a robbery (and let’s remember, why would a robber empty a cash box then considerately return it to its high shelf?) took the money from the cash box, not realising he had a bit of blood still on his hand, put the cash upstairs. I can’t think of a reasonable alternative.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As the least-used room in the house, it would be logical to look in the parlour last...

Poor old Wallace just can't win, can he?

No doubt if he'd gone there first people would be popping up to say "Ha-haaa! Guilty!!!"

So he enters the house desperate to find his wife and doesn’t check a room that it would have taken, at best, 5 seconds to look into.

He checked his lab before it and she probably never went in there! So the ‘least used room’ explaination falls flat.

[AmericanSherlock]

Cheers AS, I’ve made a note.

I know that I sound like a convinced ‘Wallace did it’ man but I’m still finding it hard to completely exonerate him in my own mind. Another example is the blood smeared note in the vase upstairs. It’s unthinkable that a killer who ‘stole’ cash would pick up the notes in the vase then put them back. It’s surely equally unlikely that a policeman would search with blood on his hands then transfer it without knowing. As the amount of cash in the vase was at least approximately the same amount that was supposedly in the cash box then the likeliest scenario must be that Wallace in staging a robbery (and let’s remember, why would a robber empty a cash box then considerately return it to its high shelf?) took the money from the cash box, not realising he had a bit of blood still on his hand, put the cash upstairs. I can’t think of a reasonable alternative.

Also consider Julia's handbag with money in it and jewelry on her were left untouched. I agree with you...I see the points against Wallace's candidacy that some others have pointed out, but there is too much that smacks of an insidde job/planned murder and does not jibe with a robbery gone wrong scenario. The blood clot on the lavatory pan has also never been satisfactorily explained, just the "a police man must have left it there" excuse, which as you point out, is also unsatisfactory for explaining the blood smeared notes. And if a robber was up there in the first place, why not take the money?!?

The box being replaced as well---another indicator of who was behind this IMO. Also Julia struck from behind with no struggle. And if it was a robber, where did he get the weapon? Did he bring it with him? That doesn't make sense to me, but if not, why did he bring it away with him? If fingerprinting was the issue, fine...but proponents of that theory have suggested a glove was used...

I just can't reconcile all this with some high strung robber.

[RodCrosby]

Speaking of "stalking", over the years various writers have claimed that either:-
a) it was impossible for anyone to stalk Wallace leaving home for the chess club, or
b) it could only be achieved by loitering conspicuously at one or two particular alley junctions near Wolverton Street.

They are, of course, WRONG. It was the easiest thing to do, and THIS is how it was done...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8wNZWYSW1uvc0ZRN0Z4dzhINFU/view

[AmericanSherlock]

Speaking of "stalking", over the years various writers have claimed that either:-
a) it was impossible for anyone to stalk Wallace leaving home for the chess club, or
b) it could only be achieved by loitering conspicuously at one or two particular alley junctions near Wolverton Street.

They are, of course, WRONG. It was the easiest thing to do, and this is how it was done...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8w...Z4dzhINFU/view

Show me 1 person who said it was IMPOSSIBLE. The point is it seems IMPROBABLE someone would go to that trouble on both nights as would be necessary for this type of plan. Dodgy videos in your car don't change the facts of this case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can’t argue that it was possible Rod. It doesn’t mean that it happened though. Parry knew when Wallace went out to work. He knew that Julia would have allowed him inside (if we believe Wallace) Why the need for the Phonecall? He could have gone in when Wallace was out on his afternoon route. The only explaination could be darkness. The phonecall, to me at least, speaks of an alibi rather than a necessary plan.

[RodCrosby]

So he enters the house desperate to find his wife and doesn’t check a room that it would have taken, at best, 5 seconds to look into.

He checked his lab before it and she probably never went in there! So the ‘least used room’ explaination falls flat.

Have you forgotten that the lights were off in the parlour? [Yes, obviously ]
And once upstairs, Wallace would naturally check all rooms, before visiting the darkened parlour last.

Nice try, but you can't convict a man solely with prejudice and wrong-thinking...

[AmericanSherlock]

Have you forgotten that the lights were off in the parlour? [Yes, obviously ]
And once upstairs, Wallace would naturally check all rooms, before visiting the darkened parlour last.

Nice try, but you can't convict a man solely with prejudice and wrong-thinking...

Did he say convict? More strawmenning and false equivalences from you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you forgotten that the lights were off in the parlour? [Yes, obviously ]
And once upstairs, Wallace would naturally check all rooms, before visiting the darkened parlour last.

Nice try, but you can't convict a man solely with prejudice and wrong-thinking...

So you’re saying that Wallace knew that she was dead?

Why would he need a light? He opens the door and says “Julia are you in there?” Or even easier, he opens the door, sees that the lights are off, and thinks ‘ok, she’s not in there I’ll check upstairs.’

This isn’t prejudice or wrong thinking it’s common sense. All the lights weren’t on upstairs but up he went nevertheless. Probably thinking ‘I better check the lab in case Julia fancied a bit of experimentation before supper!’

It would have been totally normal and sensible to check the downstairs rooms first.

[RodCrosby]

Can’t argue that it was possible Rod. It doesn’t mean that it happened though. Parry knew when Wallace went out to work. He knew that Julia would have allowed him inside (if we believe Wallace) Why the need for the Phonecall? He could have gone in when Wallace was out on his afternoon route. The only explaination could be darkness. The phonecall, to me at least, speaks of an alibi rather than a necessary plan.

a) Parry wanted the money.
b) The chess tournament was an opportunity too good to miss to lure Wallace away. 19th/20th January was in fact the last possible opportunity.
c) But Parry knew he could not enter the house and steal.
d) Therefore he recruited an accomplice, to split the proceeds 50/50.
e) "Qualtrough" was chosen to be memorable, as it would be the "open-sesame" to 29 Wolverton Street for the accomplice...
f) The accomplice killed Julia when rumbled, after rifling and replacing the cash-box, as planned, while her back was turned.
g) Parry rendezvoused with the accomplice as planned, as is deduced from his statement of his movements between 8.30pm and 9.00pm.
h) The accomplice's bar and glove were left in Parry's car, causing him to panic and seek the assistance of John Parkes.

Despite all the tiresome "noise" and gnashing of teeth, no-one has yet put so much as a dent in the theory, either evidentially or logically.

Therefore it is the solution to the Wallace Case...

[Herlock Sholmes]

a) Parry wanted the money.

Many people would have wanted money but it doesn’t mean that they would bludgeon a defenceless woman 11 times and risk the gallows for it.

b) The chess tournament was an opportunity too good to miss to lure Wallace away. 19th/20th January was in fact the last possible opportunity.

He didn’t need to ‘lure’ him away. He knew when Wallace was out on his rounds. Easy.

c) But Parry knew he could not enter the house and steal.

But if you believe that Wallace was innocent then you must believe that he was honest? He said that Julia would have let him in.

d) Therefore he recruited an accomplice, to split the proceeds 50/50.

Not a smidgeon of evidence for that.

e) "Qualtrough" was chosen to be memorable, as it would be the "open-sesame" to 29 Wolverton Street for the accomplice...

No need for an ‘open sesame’

f) The accomplice killed Julia when rumbled, after rifling and replacing the cash-box, as planned, while her back was turned.

So Julia caught the robber in the kitchen then took him back into the Parlour for a chat? This is nonesense because it means that he tried to steal without being caught. Impossible! If he’d have stolen the cash do you really think that he would have left without ‘silencing’ Julia? Come on.

g) Parry rendezvoused with the accomplice as planned, as is deduced from his statement of his movements between 8.30pm and 9.00pm.

Again, no evidence of an accomplice.

h) The accomplice's bar and glove were left in Parry's car, causing him to panic and seek the assistance of John Parkes.

And this guy who has just put his neck in the noose goes to a garage and pretty much tells Parkes wahat he’s done! How stupid was Parry?

Despite all the tiresome "noise" and gnashing of teeth, no-one has yet put so much as a dent in the theory, either evidentially or logically.

Therefore it is the solution to the Wallace Case...

No it’s not.

This case has baffled experts for years. It’s amazing that you can be so confident that you’ve ‘solved it,’ I’m not certain that Wallace was guilty but he certainly gave a good impression with his strange behaviour. A calm and reasoned approach is required and even then the solution isn’t apparent. You seem to be desperate to be the one that’s cracked it. Many Ripperologist with ‘suspects’ make the same noises I’m afraid.

[RodCrosby]

So you’re saying that Wallace knew that she was dead?

Why would he need a light? He opens the door and says “Julia are you in there?” Or even easier, he opens the door, sees that the lights are off, and thinks ‘ok, she’s not in there I’ll check upstairs.’

This isn’t prejudice or wrong thinking it’s common sense. All the lights weren’t on upstairs but up he went nevertheless. Probably thinking ‘I better check the lab in case Julia fancied a bit of experimentation before supper!’

It would have been totally normal and sensible to check the downstairs rooms first.

Have you ever looked or called for anyone in a darkened, rarely-used room before checking more likely possibilities? Thought not...
There were two bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs. Checking the lab, while upstairs, was reasonable and rational before heading for the only remaining possible room downstairs...

Of course Wallace didn't know his wife was dead! He was an innocent man, and every action of his is consistent with innocence [aside from the sheer impossibility of him committing the deed]
...

OLIVER: What I am putting to you is that everything in that
room is consistent with a knock at the front door, and the
admission of someone, and the visitor being taken into
the parlour ?
Supt. MOORE: It is quite possible.
...

OLIVER: When you say you think it was six o’clock, it might
have been four o’clock in the afternoon or might have
been eight o’clock ? — And there were other factors as
well.
So it follows she might have met her death at any hour
within this time that night ?

Dr. PIERCE: Yes.
....

Mr. Justice WRIGHT: ...the evidence is quite consistent with some unknown criminal, for some unknown motive,
having got into the house and executed the murder and gone away.