Checkmate: The Wallace Murder Mystery

[Herlock Sholmes]

I enjoyed the Rippercast. so thanks to everyone involved.

Also, JM, thank you for posting the link to Mango Books. I promptly made use of it.

I’m rather a novice to the Wallace case, as the more discerning students here may have gathered. I’ve been familiar with the outline of the case for decades, but not with all the crucial details, so I’ve been “getting up to speed” on those.. As a result, I’ve been looking to see what books on the topic are (a) truly worth reading and (b) obtainable!

Some books may satisfy both criteria: notably Wyngarde-Brown’s Trial--obviously a key resource, which is also available free on the Web. Some books satisfy neither criterion, such as John Rowland’s 1949 The Wallace Case--interesting historically no doubt, but long since superseded, and unobtainable besides.

Some books satisfy one criterion but not the other. Ronald Bartle’s 2012 The Telephone Murder is still freely available, but probably not worth reading. I gather from reviews that it’s nothing but a rehash of information already available, and riddled with errors besides. What can we say to an author who tells us “Allison” Wildman was a girl? I suspect this book is “a little pot-boiler” and no more.

There’s Jonathan Goodman’s The Killing of Julia Wallace of course--a classic--but I already have his book. And Roger Wilkes, Yseult Bridges and others, all of historical interest, but I dare say there’s nothing new there that hasn’t been summarized or retold by others. I don’t plan to make a lifelong study of the Wallace case, and everything everyone has ever said about it!

At the other end of the scale is James Murphy’s 2001 Murder of Julia Wallace, highly regarded by many for his original research--but currently unavailable at any price, or so it seems. However, I’m gathering now that Murphy’s veracity left something to be desired.

Then there’s John Gannon’s 2012 The Killing of Julia Wallace--echoing Goodman’s title. This has had mixed reviews. Some have criticized it for errors. On the other hand, one serious student of the case called it his “favorite research book”--though he recommended the Kindle edition because it was searchable. Readers are warned to shop around. Amazon.com claims only one copy in stock, a paperback, already selling at a premium for $93.97! Amazon.co.uk is touting a new copy--though only one available--for £18.99.

Bringing this up to date, there’s Tony’s Cold Case Jury book Move to Murder, which I’m sure is well worth reading--criterion (a)--but it’s only “semi”-available, criterion (b), and seems to be out of print already, with only used copies available--after less than two years in publication, despite excellent reviews. In this case it was amazon.com rather than amazon.co.uk who offered the better deal. The UK site is asking £58.99 for a used paperback copy! They were offering a new copy a short while ago, and if anyone is wondering where it went, I was the one who grabbed it. Another complaint is that I’m sure it was the same copy, from a UK outfit called “Cavalier Books,” that was offered on amazon.com but also on amazon.com.uk for a much higher price! So there’s no rule about which site offers the better deals. You have to shop around, that’s all.

The other catch is that the book is not estimated to arrive until some time between the end of February and the middle of March! That’s part of what I mean by “semi-available.” Haven’t they heard of airmail? Gee, even Brunel’s Great Western steamship only took fifteen days to cross the Atlantic back in 1848. You’d think these guys were sending it on the Mayflower, and the rest of the way to Phoenix (where I live) by covered wagon!

Part of the problem seems to be that they haven’t even shipped it yet, when I ordered it in January, so the folks at Cavalier Books really need to pull their finger out. Perhaps they’re well named, since they seem to have a “cavalier” attitude toward their customers.’

Mark Russell’s Checkmate is a different matter. It’s listed on amazon.co.uk, but it’s temporarily out of stock, It’s listed on amazon.com, but at a higher price, and won’t be available until August--as was mentioned on the podcast. So I’m grateful for the referral to Mango Books, which does have it available, and it’s naturally good to support a company that has been supportive in its turn to an author like Mark. Furthermore, their e-mail this morning told me they’d shipped my copy (which I ordered Saturday), so they’re on the ball. Congratulations to Mango Books!

I’ve just looked on a price comparison site Gordon and Foyles are selling Antony’s book at £7.99 with £2.75 p+p.

[Gordon]

I’ve just looked on a price comparison site Gordon and Foyles are selling Antony’s book at £7.99 with £2.75 p+p.

Obviously I should have looked at Foyle's! Unfortunately it's a bit late now, and they also say the book is out of stock. Bu thanks for the tip anyway, Herlock!

[Ven]

Obviously I should have looked at Foyle's! Unfortunately it's a bit late now, and they also say the book is out of stock. Bu thanks for the tip anyway, Herlock!

Hey Gordon,

the other option is to check out https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/ , an old poster that has a lot of original docs etc... and his own theories

[Ven]

Just watched the video/podcast of the new book... hell guys, we should do our own!! who's in for a zoom call (recorded) to discuss the case?

[jmenges]

As discussed on the podcast:

The photo of Wallace reading 'Great Murder Mysteries' by Guy Logan, the 1931 book was the first to publish an account of his wife's murder. This photograph accompanied Wallace's John Bull article in 1932. Courtesy of Mark Russell.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

As discussed on the podcast:

The photo of Wallace reading 'Great Murder Mysteries' by Guy Logan, the 1931 book was the first to publish an account of his wife's murder. This photograph accompanied Wallace's John Bull article in 1932. Courtesy of Mark Russell.

JM

I’ve got the John Bull articles but I’d never paid any attention to the book.

[Gordon]

Hey Gordon,

the other option is to check out https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/ , an old poster that has a lot of original docs etc... and his own theories

Yes,I stumbled across that Web site last Saturday while googling around. Tons of good information on there.

[Gordon]

Isn't that one of the most important questions: that of a two year old: why?

In a prior post I listed
- he was gay and Julia was about to out him (no evidence apart from an off remark that he was sexually odd - more likely into whipping)
- Julia was declining and becoming an embarrassment
- he wanted to live with someone else (but when he could, he didn't)
- he wanted freedom to grow roses (sorry that is his joke)

I didn't include
- because he had found out Julia had lied about her age

Since Wallace was an adult, a stoic, and not given to undue emotion.
And why would it matter? He was no longer young so having an aging wife would not in itself be embarrassing and anyway he rarely socialised.
I suppose if Wallace had longed for children, and Julia gave him assurance that it was still possible, only to have all attempts end in failure to produce issue...
But he wasn't Wallace VIII.
It is a plot from a very entertaining Agatha Christie story, involving rubella IIRC.
And as a motive for murder, I reckon that's where it belongs.
HTH
Dupin

Yes indeed, Dupin, anything is possible, and it can be argued either way!

Despite Julia’s “frailty” and presumed hypochondria, Wallace was sicker than she was--and fatally declining, as it turned out. Rather than her being a burden to him, I’d say that made him more dependent on Julia than ever. Her death was a far greater loss to him than any likely gain.

I’m more doubtful than ever about James Murphy’s claim of Julia’s advanced age, since I discovered that Murphy had falsified information in his book. This wasn’t a result of the podcast. It was because I was digging around on Saturday for books about the Wallace case that are worth reading. I learned on another Web site that it’s Antony Brown who “outed” Murphy in his Cold Case Jury book. It really is annoying, and seems so unnecessary for Murphy to “make up” information. I realize authors can be selective in the evidence they choose to present, above all in how they interpret it. And of course any author can make mistakes, or state something they believe to be true when it isn’t. But Murphy, I understand, did a load of research when the case files were first opened, and had a wealth of material to make a great book. Why he needed to substitute fictitious passages of his own here and there I have no idea. Nor do I know whether he did so to support any particular theory, or how far his substitutions might have altered readers’ view of reality about the case.

Tom Wescott said on the podcast that when he read Murphy’s book, it was “Game Over” as far as he was concerned. But if Murphy’s work can’t be trusted, is it really “Game Over”?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes indeed, Dupin, anything is possible, and it can be argued either way!

Despite Julia’s “frailty” and presumed hypochondria, Wallace was sicker than she was--and fatally declining, as it turned out. Rather than her being a burden to him, I’d say that made him more dependent on Julia than ever. Her death was a far greater loss to him than any likely gain.

I’m more doubtful than ever about James Murphy’s claim of Julia’s advanced age, since I discovered that Murphy had falsified information in his book. This wasn’t a result of the podcast. It was because I was digging around on Saturday for books about the Wallace case that are worth reading. I learned on another Web site that it’s Antony Brown who “outed” Murphy in his Cold Case Jury book. It really is annoying, and seems so unnecessary for Murphy to “make up” information. I realize authors can be selective in the evidence they choose to present, above all in how they interpret it. And of course any author can make mistakes, or state something they believe to be true when it isn’t. But Murphy, I understand, did a load of research when the case files were first opened, and had a wealth of material to make a great book. Why he needed to substitute fictitious passages of his own here and there I have no idea. Nor do I know whether he did so to support any particular theory, or how far his substitutions might have altered readers’ view of reality about the case.

Tom Wescott said on the podcast that when he read Murphy’s book, it was “Game Over” as far as he was concerned. But if Murphy’s work can’t be trusted, is it really “Game Over”?

Mark also said that he had a copy of Julia’s birth certificate which shows that she was actually born in 1861 so there really can’t be any doubt about her age.

[Gordon]

Mark also said that he had a copy of Julia’s birth certificate which shows that she was actually born in 1861 so there really can’t be any doubt about her age.

I have no doubt at all, Herlock, that there was a Julia Dennis born in East Harlsey in 1861, and Mark has her birth certificate right there in his hands. So, no doubt, did James Murphy. But how do we know it was the same Julia Dennis? That’s what I’m skeptical about.

A Julia Dennis was recorded in the 1891 census living in Woodlesfield in Yorkshire. She was 28 years old and a governess to a family named Smith. She gave her birthplace as Northallerton, which is the nearest large town to East Harlsey, so she was probably the same Julia Dennis on that birth certificate. But whether she was Wallace’s Julia is another question.

There were other Julia Dennises around, in Yorkshire alone. One lived at Sculcoates near Hull, registered in the 1881 census as a domestic servant, aged 19, who might have been the same--except that she was recorded as being born in Derbyshire! The 1871 census records a Julia “Dinnes” (which could be a mistake for “Dennis”), 9 years old, the granddaughter of one Richard Marriner, and born in East Sproxton, which isn’t far from East Harlsey. So she was born around 1861 in the same area--but the chances are she’s a different Julia altogether--though very possibly a relative to the East Harlsey Julia, since families so often remained settled in the same area back then. The 1901 and 1911 censuses show a Julia Dennis living in Kiveton Park, near Sheffield, but she was born around 1893, so she was a different Julia Dennis. However, there were a few of them around. On the podcast, Mark mention a Jane Dennis aged 32 who lived at Dragon Parade in Harrogate on the 1911 census. He seemed to be suggesting this was actually Wallace’s Julia, and it’s tempting to think so since the town was right and her age corresponded to how old Wallace thought Julia was. However, the name is different, I don’t know of any evidence that Julia ever lived at Dragon Parade, and this Jane Dennis claimed she was born at Hexham in Sussex--which is odd, since Hexham is in Northumberland. Anyway I expect she was a different person altogether.

Anyway I question how anyone can be sure that this East Harlsey Julia was Wallace’s Julia. If Murphy spoke with her family, I doubt very much whether they’d have her birth certificate in their possession, or necessarily know where and when she was born, that far back. I don’t have my grandparents’ birth certificates, for instance. And Julia wasn’t even their direct ancestor, since she had no children. Ths 1861 Julia might have been an older cousin or other relative living in the same region.

[Joshua Rogan]

this Jane Dennis claimed she was born at Hexham in Sussex--which is odd, since Hexham is in Northumberland.

Henham, perhaps?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have no doubt at all, Herlock, that there was a Julia Dennis born in East Harlsey in 1861, and Mark has her birth certificate right there in his hands. So, no doubt, did James Murphy. But how do we know it was the same Julia Dennis? That’s what I’m skeptical about.

A Julia Dennis was recorded in the 1891 census living in Woodlesfield in Yorkshire. She was 28 years old and a governess to a family named Smith. She gave her birthplace as Northallerton, which is the nearest large town to East Harlsey, so she was probably the same Julia Dennis on that birth certificate. But whether she was Wallace’s Julia is another question.

There were other Julia Dennises around, in Yorkshire alone. One lived at Sculcoates near Hull, registered in the 1881 census as a domestic servant, aged 19, who might have been the same--except that she was recorded as being born in Derbyshire! The 1871 census records a Julia “Dinnes” (which could be a mistake for “Dennis”), 9 years old, the granddaughter of one Richard Marriner, and born in East Sproxton, which isn’t far from East Harlsey. So she was born around 1861 in the same area--but the chances are she’s a different Julia altogether--though very possibly a relative to the East Harlsey Julia, since families so often remained settled in the same area back then. The 1901 and 1911 censuses show a Julia Dennis living in Kiveton Park, near Sheffield, but she was born around 1893, so she was a different Julia Dennis. However, there were a few of them around. On the podcast, Mark mention a Jane Dennis aged 32 who lived at Dragon Parade in Harrogate on the 1911 census. He seemed to be suggesting this was actually Wallace’s Julia, and it’s tempting to think so since the town was right and her age corresponded to how old Wallace thought Julia was. However, the name is different, I don’t know of any evidence that Julia ever lived at Dragon Parade, and this Jane Dennis claimed she was born at Hexham in Sussex--which is odd, since Hexham is in Northumberland. Anyway I expect she was a different person altogether.

Anyway I question how anyone can be sure that this East Harlsey Julia was Wallace’s Julia. If Murphy spoke with her family, I doubt very much whether they’d have her birth certificate in their possession, or necessarily know where and when she was born, that far back. I don’t have my grandparents’ birth certificates, for instance. And Julia wasn’t even their direct ancestor, since she had no children. Ths 1861 Julia might have been an older cousin or other relative living in the same region.

I don’t have an answer Gordon but the birth certificate would have had her parents name on and place of birth. So if those facts matched up?

Julia was a strange woman. She lied about her age, her parents and even where she was born. She was estranged from her family and none of them attended the funeral. Her sister appeared only to be interested in her fur coat and her brother only got in touch about her money. I don’t think that all was as it appeared in the Wallace household. I think it was a sterile, loveless marriage. Who knows, maybe Wallace discovered something about her past and it was the straw that broke the camels back?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can anyone recall reading somewhere in the case about Wallace suffering from depression? I’m certain I’m not imagining this by the way.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There was an interesting letter sent to Hector Munro which said:


Re the man Wallace that you are defending.
I am informed & I believe
that the West Lancs Mental
Board can confirm re that
Mrs Wallace at one time tried
to have her husband declared
insane.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Diary entries starting 1928 (these aren’t the quotes I was looking for though)

[Jan 8 Sunday: Feeling of depression. Cannot settle.]

[Jan 16 Monday: Nerves and temperament.]

[Mar 19 Monday: Had a day of deep depression, cold on kidney

[Mar 29 Thursday: Invalid for years a great worry and care.

[Apr 10 Tuesday: Dislike of work job uncongenial.

[Aug 17 Monday: 51st Birthday, little to show for 50 odd years

1930

25 March 1930: Julia reminds me today it was fifteen years ago yesterday since we were married. Well, I don’t think either of us regrets the step. We seem to have pulled well together, and I think we both get as much pleasure and contentment out of life as most people. Our only trouble is that of millions more, shortage of £ s d

[Oct. 24th: Reference to Mental trouble.]

15 December 1930: On arriving home, found that Julia had not returned. I waited until nearly 1 a.m., then thinking something surely must have happened, went off to the Anfield Road police station to see if there was any report of any accident to hand. None. So went back home and found that she had just turned up. It seems a laundry van had been smashed up on the railway line, the train derailed, and the line blocked. Julia waited at Southport Station until after ten o’clock and she had apparently no hope of getting a train she decided to take a bus. She arrived in Liverpool at 12.30 and reached home at 1. It was a relief to know she was safe and sound, for I was getting apprehensive, feeling she might have been run over by a motor car or something.

.....

Only two entries before Julia’s murder appear remotely affectionate and those aren’t exactly brimming. Very affectionate after the murder though.

Do the first 6 entries sound like the contented man that some try to portray William as? The rest of the entries are a deluge of illnesses.

Im sorry but to quote another Scouser...happy marriage my arse.