If Wallace didn't do it, who did?"" Goodman's exhaustive investigation, published in Britain in 1969, doesn't have much of an answer for that Liverpool catch-phrase question of 1931, but he has strong arguments for the innocence of William Wallace, the alleged wife-basher who was convicted by a willful jury and freed by an appalled Lord Chief Justice. Alibi timetables, delayed rigor mortis, a mysterious phone call, and sexual innuendoes--the Wallace case has everything, and Goodman covers the killing, the trial, press coverage, public opinion, personalities, and the social milieu with dramatic details that are relentless but neither sensationalized nor heaped up for effect. With an incompetent police force, a perverse, opinionated medical examiner, and a ""Carrollesque"" defending/prosecuting pair, there's more in dispute than mere facts, and Goodman has had enough sensitivity to cross-reference the minutiae of evidence with psychological insights and enough diligence to return to original sources, documents, and witnesses. He even played a trick on a friend to simulate and substantiate the likelihood of Wallace's wild-goose-chase alibi. Such efforts have been rewarded, since this is true crime at its best, the definitive study of the case that's famous for the first guarantee of defense funding by a union (the Prudential Staff Union), and for the trial query: ""Were you accustomed to [playing the violin] when you were naked in a mackintosh?