Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[NickB]

1. A solution to the ‘frenzy vs. planning’ conundrum might be that he had been thinking of a foolproof way to kill her, perhaps as a mental exercise at first, and then put this into practice in a fit of temper. This would only tie in with the theory (that I favour anyway) that Qualtrough was a prank call.

2. Has anyone considered that Wallace did the deed upon his return? If McFall had stuck with his initial estimate of 8pm, isn’t this what the police would have thought most likely? Even Pierce testified that it could be 2 hours either side of 6pm.

So supposing he returned home, discovered something about his wife that sent him into a rage, and put Plan A into operation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd imagine his adrenaline would be pumping like mad, maybe that is why he seemed so "agitated" when searching for Menlove Gardens East? Or maybe he was just frustrated at being lost ...

Your scenario about Wallace having another woman helping him, while seeming far fetched, does "reconcile all the facts" just like Rod Crosby claimed with his bogus theory, so it proves that that is not all that there is to it.

Maybe some of the facts we have are wrong; in fact I'd say this is certainly so.

And while your theory is unlikely, this case is so bizarre, that it might very well have been an elaborate scheme like that which was behind this all!

The 1 thing I am resolute in is the feeling that Wallace was most likely guilty. I just can't shake the combination of his odd behavior and the lack of plausibility of anyone else setting into motion this Menlove Gardens charade with the goal of robbery or murder.

Thanks AS. It was more of an exercise to try and reconcile the difficulties. Obviously there’s no evidence of a Miss X but there’s no evidence of a Mr X either. I’d say that it’s at least better than McFall’s suggestion of Wallace in a dress

[Herlock Sholmes]

So many unknowns!

John mentioned in an earlier post that Wallace wouldn’t have been certain about the direction of the blood spatter. From what I can recall the bulk of it was on the same wall as the sideboard which would have been away from the murderer. And if Wallace did use the mackintosh as a shield, as AS and I both suspect (at the very least it explains its presence) then it’s quite possible that Wallace (if guilty of course ) might have gotten next to no blood on him. Not the picture of a killer dripping with blood. Wallace would then have needed a relatively short time to clean up. He would have felt pleased that that part of the plan had been successful resulting in a little carelessness in missing a small spot of blood which he transfers to the money.

I can’t see the ‘disturbed in the act of stealing’ as being plausible, especially if Parry was the culprit. Therefore who would be likeliest to return the cash box to its shelf? Parry with murderous intent would have no need. Neither would a Mr X (Qualtrough). Or Wallace out of force of habit?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does anyone know if the Roger Wilkes radio broadcasts are available to listen to?

[NickB]

Does anyone know if the Roger Wilkes radio broadcasts are available to listen to?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=411882#post411882

[Herlock Sholmes]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...882#post411882

Thanks for that Nick. I’ve been looking everywhere and they were linked on here all the time

[AmericanSherlock]

1. A solution to the ‘frenzy vs. planning’ conundrum might be that he had been thinking of a foolproof way to kill her, perhaps as a mental exercise at first, and then put this into practice in a fit of temper. This would only tie in with the theory (that I favour anyway) that Qualtrough was a prank call.

2. Has anyone considered that Wallace did the deed upon his return? If McFall had stuck with his initial estimate of 8pm, isn’t this what the police would have thought most likely? Even Pierce testified that it could be 2 hours either side of 6pm.

So supposing he returned home, discovered something about his wife that sent him into a rage, and put Plan A into operation.

Very interesting idea there.

[AmericanSherlock]

So many unknowns!

John mentioned in an earlier post that Wallace wouldn’t have been certain about the direction of the blood spatter. From what I can recall the bulk of it was on the same wall as the sideboard which would have been away from the murderer. And if Wallace did use the mackintosh as a shield, as AS and I both suspect (at the very least it explains its presence) then it’s quite possible that Wallace (if guilty of course ) might have gotten next to no blood on him. Not the picture of a killer dripping with blood. Wallace would then have needed a relatively short time to clean up. He would have felt pleased that that part of the plan had been successful resulting in a little carelessness in missing a small spot of blood which he transfers to the money.

I can’t see the ‘disturbed in the act of stealing’ as being plausible, especially if Parry was the culprit. Therefore who would be likeliest to return the cash box to its shelf? Parry with murderous intent would have no need. Neither would a Mr X (Qualtrough). Or Wallace out of force of habit?

The lack of blood tracks leading out of the parlor is very critical in my opinion. For all the talk of "how could Wallace possibly have avoided blood splatter/not used the drains/cleaned up in the time he had", it is clear SOMEONE had some system for limiting blood spray. There were marks on the wall up to 7 feet high yes, but the blood was also contained largely in one pool. The killer clearly had a method to avoid getting blood on him, particularly his shoes/boots/pants.This STRONGLY implies pre-meditation IMO. Regardless of how much time an independent killer would have had compared to Wallace (I see this argument frequently, that "Qualtrough" would have more time and could have obviously gotten rid of the weapon easier at his leisure) NONE of this explains how a killer avoided traipsing blood everywhere if the blood was such a mess. For the people who insist it's impossible that someone could avoid being contaminated and regard it is a silly and implausible scenario, I would suggest that the alternative implicates Wallace more, when we consider the only other possibility hints at a calculated effort.

We have 1 of 2 options

1. The blood mess wasn't as significant as people like to make out and not prohibitive

2. The killer had some technique for avoiding this (as possibly evidenced by lack of blood in places you would expect to find it).

(Of course it could be a combination of both)

Option 1 negates one of the major obstacles to Wallace's cadidacy as the killer, Option 2 actually increases the likelihood that he is the killer.

[John G]

It wouldn't matter how long Close stayed nor would it shorten the time frame. The time frame begins when Close leaves and he can take as long as he wants (within reason). The time frame is only close AFTER the fact looking back on it. The only time constraint he has is the loose one of being in the Menlove area for show around 7:30.

Nonetheless, I think your overarching point is good...one point I have made in the past is that blunt force head/face trauma is EXTREMELY common in spousal homicide and extremely UNCOMMON in other sorts of crimes, including home invasions/botched robberies. I've contrasted the Wallace case with the Sam Sheppard one to point out that there are some strong similarities IMO, in both cases one could argue the accused was guilty and poorly staged a robbery/home invasion and in both cases there was blunt force trauma that is extremely consistent with domestic homicide.

The critical point you make is, that unlike the Sheppard murder which was almost certainly a spur of the moment crime, if Wallace was guilty it appears he PLANNED it. That probably lowers the commonality of blunt force trauma in this type of crime. And as you point out, it seems on the face of it a risky thing for Wallace to PLAN out.

My arguments would still be this: if Wallace was guilty, he clearly planned this murder carefully. Perhaps ailing with a couple years left to live, he wanted to devise "the perfect murder." Methods such as poisoning or strangulation would probably immediately arouse suspicion onto him (as well as being plebeian and simple.) Why not devise a "genius" plot, complete with a mysterious fictitious "Qualtrough", a hoax phone call, and try to divert suspicion onto the sticky-fingered lad that Wallace had seen flirting with his Missus. To make it look like a thief had committed the crime, posioning or strangulation wouldn't make sense. A high strung robber, panicking would have limited choices to attack. If he had a weapon, he could attack, but it would create noise Wallace couldn't afford to risk. The best bet for him would be blunt force trauma causing immediate death. This would be the most effective combination of instant death, a surprise attack, and no noise. Also, blunt force trauma is extremely common in domestic homicide because of the personal nature of it--the resentment that has built up over the years etc. Let's not understimate that angle of it.

Does this scenario seem far fetched that Wallace could have conceived and done all of this, and gotten rid of the weapon or somehow hid it in plain sight, avoided or cleaned blood splatter without using the drains by somehow using the macintosh or thru some other method and made his way on his journey? Somewhat, but I'd argue the other explanations are even less plausible.

For example, we both agree Parry would have to have been an idiot to go to Parkes and confess. But if we discount that, what evidence is there really linking him to the crime? He HAD an alibi for the night of the murder with 3 separate people. His clothes were examined down to the seams in his pants, underneath his fingernails etc. The police were satisfied and cleared him.

Even if we explain this away and somehow put him in the picture, what happened then? What weapon did he use? Did he bring one with him? If not, where did he get it? Unless we think he planned this murder and aimed to frame Wallace for it in a soap-opera esque evil mastermind plan, the murder must have happened in a spur of the moment rage at being denied money or a burst of fear at being caught stealing. What did he do, pick up a random bar lying around and bash her head in while still in a rage or panic? How come she was in a different room from the cash-box which was replaced, with her back to anyone else, seemingly attending to the fireplace?

And then finally, why was so little money taken? I can understand that perhaps if Parry had freaked out and bashed her head in, he might panic and want to get out of there, but apart from the money upstairs where the blood smear was (I concede it is debatable if the killer went upstairs), there was also the roll of pound notes, Julia's handbag, and jewelry on her body. None of that was taken. If the killer really was in a panic, you would expect a frenzy, yet the crime scene seems the work of someone calm, clear headed, and in control. There is no track of blood leading away from the parlor, no bloody footprints tracked out of the house, no sign of struggle.

Also the combination of the cash-box being replaced and Julia being in another room facing the fireplace implies to me that the killing did not happen due to an immediate "temper" or "caught in the act" moment.

I don't think any of this jibes with Parry being denied money, getting angry over it, and deciding to whack her (in which case he would have taken all of the other money/valuables there), nor with Parry being caught stealing and freaking out due to fear (in which case we would more likely see a frenzied scene or some sort of struggle etc.) The control of the scene also implied pre planning to me as does the macintosh. I think it is very likely the macintosh was used in an attempt to shield blood splatter.

Julia Wallace was an intended victim IMO.

Cui Bono?

Hi AS,

But the salient issue os how much time would Wallace have had in reality. I suggested a maximum of 11 minutes, but that isn't realistic if considered objectively.

Thus, 11 minutes would mean that he arrived at the tram stop just as the tram stopping; that Close left immediately after being seen by Wildman: that Wallace then launched an immediate attack on the doorstep, which we know didn't happen.

So, if he arrives at the trsm stop s couple of minutes early we're down to 9 minutes. Then we've got to shave off time for Close to finish his conversation with Julia and to walk back into the house. Even then William couldn't have launched an immediate attack as he has to wait for the right moment to catch her by suprise. And it's reasonable to speculate that he would have needed additional time to undress and put on the Macintosh.

As a consequence, we could be taking about less than 5 minures to complete all the components of the crime, which I don't think is remotely enough time.

You rightly point out that if Wallace was responsible then the crime would have to be planned carefully. However, everything suggests to me that this was an impulsive act, particularly as regards the method used and the presence of overkill, which makes no sense from the perspective of a killer who has considered his options and realises that, at the very least, he must avoid blood splatter.

I agree that there are many problems with Parry's as an alternative candidate, but at least in his case the crime wouldn't have been in impossible, and with Parkes' account we have some substansive evidence, as weak and problamatic as it is.

[John G]

1. A solution to the ‘frenzy vs. planning’ conundrum might be that he had been thinking of a foolproof way to kill her, perhaps as a mental exercise at first, and then put this into practice in a fit of temper. This would only tie in with the theory (that I favour anyway) that Qualtrough was a prank call.

2. Has anyone considered that Wallace did the deed upon his return? If McFall had stuck with his initial estimate of 8pm, isn’t this what the police would have thought most likely? Even Pierce testified that it could be 2 hours either side of 6pm.

So supposing he returned home, discovered something about his wife that sent him into a rage, and put Plan A into operation.

Except we know Wallace must have arrived home at around the time he said he did based upon his return tram journey. And that would have given him a matter of seconds to carry out all the components of the crime prior to alerting the neighbour, which isn't realistic.

[John G]

So many unknowns!

John mentioned in an earlier post that Wallace wouldn’t have been certain about the direction of the blood spatter. From what I can recall the bulk of it was on the same wall as the sideboard which would have been away from the murderer. And if Wallace did use the mackintosh as a shield, as AS and I both suspect (at the very least it explains its presence) then it’s quite possible that Wallace (if guilty of course ) might have gotten next to no blood on him. Not the picture of a killer dripping with blood. Wallace would then have needed a relatively short time to clean up. He would have felt pleased that that part of the plan had been successful resulting in a little carelessness in missing a small spot of blood which he transfers to the money.

I can’t see the ‘disturbed in the act of stealing’ as being plausible, especially if Parry was the culprit. Therefore who would be likeliest to return the cash box to its shelf? Parry with murderous intent would have no need. Neither would a Mr X (Qualtrough). Or Wallace out of force of habit?

We have to go by the forensic evidence. Every single forensic expert, including the prosecution's own experts, agreed that the killer must have had some blood on his person. I'm afraid there's no getting away from that.

And Wallace had no blood on his person or his clothing, neither was there any blood in the sinks or drains.

Therefore, as things stand, it would have been physically impossible for Wallace to have committed the murder.

Even if we totally ignore the blood evidence, I see no way that he could have effectively have got rid of the murder weapon, so this fact also exonerates him.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hi AS,

But the salient issue os how much time would Wallace have had in reality. I suggested a maximum of 11 minutes, but that isn't realistic if considered objectively.

Thus, 11 minutes would mean that he arrived at the tram stop just as the tram stopping; that Close left immediately after being seen by Wildman: that Wallace then launched an immediate attack on the doorstep, which we know didn't happen.

So, if he arrives at the trsm stop s couple of minutes early we're down to 9 minutes. Then we've got to shave off time for Close to finish his conversation with Julia and to walk back into the house. Even then William couldn't have launched an immediate attack as he has to wait for the right moment to catch her by suprise. And it's reasonable to speculate that he would have needed additional time to undress and put on the Macintosh.

As a consequence, we could be taking about less than 5 minures to complete all the components of the crime, which I don't think is remotely enough time.

You rightly point out that if Wallace was responsible then the crime would have to be planned carefully. However, everything suggests to me that this was an impulsive act, particularly as regards the method used and the presence of overkill, which makes no sense from the perspective of a killer who has considered his options and realises that, at the very least, he must avoid blood splatter.

I agree that there are many problems with Parry's as an alternative candidate, but at least in his case the crime wouldn't have been in impossible, and with Parkes' account we have some substansive evidence, as weak and problamatic as it is.

You've made strong points here. If it was truly impossible for Wallace to have committed the crime, let's say he literally would have to have been at two places at once or Julia Wallace was seen verified alive at 6:45 (instead of the confusion between 6:45 and 6:31 and ultimate settling on 6:37 ish) then I would concede Wallace had to be at least innocent of committing the actual murder himself.

It would be then stupid to argue "I can't explain for sure how he did it, but I just sense he did" in the face of incontrovertible proof he did not. I often suspect this is how strong believers in Wallace's proven innocence (Jonathan Goodman and yourself (both John G's ) view the case.

The issue is I do not believe there is that sort of proof that exonerates Wallace in the same way you do. I see the timing as tight, but not prohibitive . In regards to the blood, I can imagine a few ways in which he could have shielded himself, although they would take some careful pre planning which might seem far fetched to some (naked wearing raincoat etc). The mackintosh intrigues me. Is it impossible he could have killed JW, packed dirty or soiled clothes and the weapon in a duffel bag sort of thing and had some clever place to get rid of it or hide it that he had thought out before hand? Whoever got rid of the weapon and the bloody clothes/shoes that many insist had to have been soiled did a good enough job that they were never found. I do concede that obviously if the killer was not Wallace, he was working with more time and options at his disposal. I would also add I find the overkill which would have been risky in regards to mess for Wallace less of an unlikely "mistake (Wallace letting rage take over), then another killer freaking out and attacking JW with her head turned to him using an object he picked up around the house in a different room from where the money was anyway.

If one truly believes, it was simply impossible for Wallace to be clean on his journey without showering or washing before (as the drains were found to have not been used), then there is not much to talk about is there? He's innocent case closed.

I don't mean you particularly but I notice some derision towards suggestions of Wallace avoiding blood, like it is totally ludicrous. Again if this is truly the case what is even the mystery surrounding this? I have heard conflicting takes on the blood matter even on the Radio City Broadcast. I understand why the assumption would be blood would contaminate everything. But again, I have heard no explanation for why there was no blood leading out of the room, how did the killer manage this if there was blood all over the place that would have definitely messed him up?

Put in other words, if I were to come up with a specific scenario of how Wallace could have done it, it might sound reaching and unlikely in the face of evidence to the contrary, but I simply don't see anything prohibitive that would now allow him to have possibly committed the murder. I feel this is a bit of an unfair burden on my side of the argument, because any scenario involving anyone in this case besides being only a guess, would probably seem fraught with problems in this confusing and muddled case. Also, one's particular scenario could be incorrect, but the guilty party could still have been the right one and committed the crime in a different way.

I think as you said before, whatever happened must have been extraordinary. I can't exonerate Wallace in the way I could if he actually physically could not have committed the murder (for ex. if JW was seen alive at 6:50 or Wallace had left before the milk boy came)

And I find the setup and facts of the case on a mental level to point towards planning and towards Wallace. There is nothing prohibitive enough that sways that in my mind. Any scenario I could come up with involving another murderer would be more far fetched than Wallace being the killer. To say it in a different way, I don't think there is any kind of proof that Wallace couldn't have done it in the way that you believe. If it becomes possible, then I think that he is the most likely suspect by far.

Of course, this is the opposite of the legal system where one is presumed innocent and has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, however I am simply trying to determine what is "most likely" to have happened.

I have said before if I were a juror, I would vote "acquit"

But as an impartial observer, I would argue he was most likely guilty.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have to go by the forensic evidence. Every single forensic expert, including the prosecution's own experts, agreed that the killer must have had some blood on his person. I'm afraid there's no getting away from that.

And Wallace had no blood on his person or his clothing, neither was there any blood in the sinks or drains.

Therefore, as things stand, it would have been physically impossible for Wallace to have committed the murder.

Even if we totally ignore the blood evidence, I see no way that he could have effectively have got rid of the murder weapon, so this fact also exonerates him.

No one can argue with that John but, as far as I know, not one of them considered the option that Wallace used the mackintosh as a shield over his arm. After all has anyone as yet come up with a plausible explaination as to what Julia was doing with it in the Parlour? Wallace might only have gotten blood on his hands and maybe a speck or two on his face requiring a fairly quick wash? I just don’t think that the experts ‘some blood’ can be equated with ‘covered in blood.’

On the disposal of the weapon. We surely can’t exonerate Wallace on the grounds that no weapon was found. Is it impossible that the police simply missed the hiding place? Wallace (again, if guilty ) would have walked the area probably considering his plan and he may have seen what he considered the ideal hiding place for a weapon? In the Goodman book I recall that he mentions later occupants finding an iron bar right at the back of the fire grate. Couldn’t Wallace have washed the blood from the weapon, quickly dried it and then push it right to the back of the grate out of sight? Also, is it impossible that after the murder Wallace might have pushed the weapon to the bottom of someone’s dustbin?

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Wallace revealed the information in an exchange with his defence barrister at the trial:

Roland Oliver: "Had you told your wife that evening when you went out at a quarter to seven where you were going."

Wallace: "Yes"

Oliver: "Or told her the evening before."

Wallace: " She knew all about it. As a matter of fact we had discussed it during the day, and it is really because we discussed it that I finally decided to go."

Oliver: "She wanted you to go?"

Wallace: "Yes she thought it might be worthwhile."

Oliver: "It was a long way, four miles, but it might be something worth having?"

Wallace: "Yes."

Oliver: "Had you told her the man's name and where you were going?"

Wallace: "Yes, everything about it. I might say I never made a decision, if I was in a difficulty, without conferring with my wife on any point."

The information can be found in a transcript of the trial, which I have found to be an excellent resource, at para 182. Here is the link if you haven't already got it: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet....Trial_djvu.txt

Cheers, John. That's very helpful.

I still don't think it fits very well with the vague plans Julia outlined for Amy Wallace that same afternoon, as if she had little idea of who Wallace was seeing and why - unless of course Amy had only been half listening and could only give a vague account herself.

Also, Wallace appears to duck Oliver's question of whether he told Julia 'the evening before'. Was he afraid of letting something slip if he spoke of the Monday night in this context? If he killed her he had to keep his story straight about Julia not inviting strangers in while alone at night, so if he hadn't mentioned Qualtrough to her by name, or why going all that way to see this particular stranger would be worthwhile, the question would have been be why she'd have let the presumed killer in. He's suggesting that she not only approved of him going, but actively encouraged him to do so, and that he might have decided against it if not for her. Is this his way of dealing with genuine but misplaced guilt for having left her to her fate, or is he seeking to shift the blame onto her for more cynical reasons?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

“Death would take place practically immediately with the first blow. The other ten blows would be struck when the head lay on the floor.”

Thanks for that, Nick. There is, however, no doubt that Julia had been subjected to a brutal attack. An artery was severed, and on the furniture blood spots reached seven feet in height.

I don't think that amending the number of blows delivered helped the prosecution case, quite the reverse. For instance, if Julia was struck eleven times, in a frenzied attack, it's difficult to see how the killer wouldn't be drenched in blood.

Hi Chaps,

Doesn't the blood quickly stop flowing when death occurs? Was the artery severed with that first, fatal blow? How much blood realistically would still have been spraying out with each subsequent blow, and in which direction - towards the killer? I don't know enough about such things but was Julia herself 'drenched in blood' apart from in the immediate area of the head wounds?

Whoever the killer was, he managed to avoid dripping blood everywhere on his escape route, which must surely allow for not much of the liquid red stuff ending up on him.

Love,

Caz
X