Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[WallaceWackedHer]

"sexually odd" in 1966 [when Parry said it] would be code for homosexual.

But clearly, many geeky, timid men, who are not rampantly heterosexual have been wrongly labelled as such.
It's an easy accusation to make...

Or it may indeed be true. [How Parry would know for certain is an open question]

But many homosexual men have indeed married, and even had children!

I've never heard of murder ensuing from such complications...

I've seen quite a few cases but I'm a bit of a true crime documentary buff. Just recently I saw a case from around the same time period. I believe it was in Australia... A woman was living as a man named George (I think) and would keep her breasts corseted etc. every day. And she got married, for many years.

You may wonder how the **** they had sex or how he/she didn't get caught. But the fact of the matter is he was randomly caught out one day. A few days after she/he murdered the wife to preserve the secret. Lemme see if I can get a link and I'll post it here for you. It's an interesting read.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Here it is, from 1917:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Falleni

There are more basic ones, but that's an enthralling case which I think you'll enjoy.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I'd also like to point out homosexuality laws of the time:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT..._as_an_offence

Being as ill as he was, Wallace may have realized that if Julia told anyone, he could spend the rest of his life in prison, and regrettably felt he had to kill her.

Let's assume the police officer the day before was right about seeing Wallace crying. Maybe she found out and he concocted the whole scheme in almost a spur of the moment fashion to protect himself.

The rumor I read was from a very genuine post in response to Gannon's book on a blog. If I can find it I'll quote it. It was a very genuine seeming post, like it didn't seem like a BS rumor made up for a laugh. And combined with Parry's remarks it makes you wonder.

He appeared to have a symbiotic relationship with his wife. She was too old to want sex and he could pretend he's a straight man while getting around with male lovers. Win win.

I'd also like to point out his reference to a book by "J LAYS 1889" (or whatever the date was). Renowned author John Kirkwood Leys has a novel of that date - with the 9 and 8 switched, called "Under a Mask". I can't find it anywhere, but the title of it makes me think of homosexuality. And would Wallace fudge the name and date of a book he's reading if not on purpose? I propose he could, but it may have been purposefully fudged as a precaution, especially to only put the guy's first initial. It's down to you what you think is more plausible.

The idea proposed that it's an anagram for SLAY J is absolutely preposterous. If anyone can find that book I will pay to buy it unless it's a ridiculous amount. He may also have meant The Lindsays or whatever, but all 3 volumes were 1888. He wrote about this non-existent book shortly before Julia was murdered. Most titles by that author seem to imply murder mystery, murder and romance, or weird sexualities "houseboat mystery", "a sore temptation", "the lawyer's secret", "under a mask" etc.

[RodCrosby]

Yes, I've looked at Leys.

There is a more mundane explanation. We know Wallace was interested in natural history. And advertised in the endpages of his favourite book...

[RodCrosby]

I'd also like to point out homosexuality laws of the time:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT..._as_an_offence

Being as ill as he was, Wallace may have realized that if Julia told anyone, he could spend the rest of his life in prison, and regrettably felt he had to kill her.

i think you're over-dramatising a theory that's based on nothing but a snide comment from Gordon Parry in 1966.

By the 1930s, the penalty was certainly not life imprisonment [months, or perhaps even a fine], and the police could not act on rumours, even assuming any wife would be motivated to make them... People still had to be caught, more or less, in the act.

[WallaceWackedHer]

i think you're over-dramatising a theory that's based on nothing but a snide comment from Gordon Parry in 1966.

By the 1930s, the penalty was certainly not life imprisonment [months, or perhaps even a fine], and the police could not act on rumours, even assuming any wife would be motivated to make them... People still had to be caught, more or less, in the act.

It was moreso based on a more specific comment on a blog I'm unable to locate right now, then I found out Parry had also made suggestive comments. Until you said so, I wasn't sure it was code for homosexual.

There's also other stuff like the fact he was happy to marry such an older woman etc. If not a legal punishment, it certainly wouldn't be good for him to be exposed back in those days. Although legally a gay man could face up to life in prison until 1967 (when I said life, I meant because Wallace may have figured he didn't have long left to live), you seem more educated on the common punishments of those days for gay men. But yeah even without jail it wouldn't be good for him.

It's not totally without credence IMO. I had considered it for some time but didn't want to even mention because it seems ridiculous.

If we believe the officer that Wallace was seen sobbing (not merely dabbing watery eyes), we might come to believe that something happened that day that caused him to need to very quickly come up with something to dispatch her. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Parry and/or Marsden were involved in some way. Or if Parry made the call. Especially given his visit to his girlfriend's pad, unless he was also a local.

I would be slightly surprised if Wallace was TOTALLY innocent because of his odd behavior and some general oddities like his apparent expectation of MGW instead of MGE when Beattie gave the message. I can describe away some though, e.g. he lied on some issues as he felt the truth seemed too incriminating (for example). But overall I find his behavior and tweaks in his story unusual.

And I find the scene of the robbery to be very likely staged by the perpetrator IMO.

Because of the thud the neighbors heard, I might not even like to say Julia was killed before Wallace departed for MGE. Does anyone know what time they said that happened and when Wallace arrived home?

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi WWH,

Back to our evaluation. This is a theory-free examination of the evidence (as far as that is possible). We make one key assumption: the caller is either Parry or Wallace. I placed No. 2 at 5, based on your feedback, because Wallace had fewer options than Parry, but a phone call was a good option for Parry as I explained. Let's move on to the next three for Wallace?

4) A phone call serves him well in setting up an alibi, as he then has someone to corroborate the facts given on the call.

I believe you are saying Wallace had the greater need for the call. I think this is a small pointer to Wallace. Score: 3.

5) Unless staking out his home (a possibility), the caller couldn't have known Wallace would definitely go to the chess club. Agree. This has to be a pointer to Wallace. Score: 6.

6) The voice was described as "older". This is the one I've added, not least because I included in my book, but also HS draws attention to this fact. I've done some research on voice-only determination of age. We are good at inferring young people by their voices alone; the younger the person the more easily we can tell age by the voice (especially children). This effect tends to vanish if the speaker is age 30 or above (we are also good at determining age by listening to the voices of people aged 65 or more). However, the key aural cue in some studies appears to be that younger people speak more quickly (remember Qualtrough spoke rapidly and confidently). Also, according to at least one study, disguising your voice to sound older is relatively easily and effective: "Apparently individuals can also effectively disguise their voices to influence perceived age; when individuals were asked to manipulate their voices in attempt to sound older than they were, Lass et al., (1982) found that age estimates were consistent with the intended disguise." So, I am prepared to give a score here that points to Wallace but it cannot be that high. Score 3.

What's your view?

[etenguy]

i think you're over-dramatising a theory that's based on nothing but a snide comment from Gordon Parry in 1966.

By the 1930s, the penalty was certainly not life imprisonment [months, or perhaps even a fine], and the police could not act on rumours, even assuming any wife would be motivated to make them... People still had to be caught, more or less, in the act.

Hi Rod - I think you dismiss this too lightly. A prosecution may or may not have followed if Julia told the police, they may have pursued. Certainly blackmailers made good money from homosexual men in the 30s (and right up to the late 60s - the film victim ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_(1961_film) ) was made in 1961). It was not just the prosecution Wallace had to fear if he was homosexual and had been caught out - it was ridicule, attack, loss of his job and being shunned. If there was evidence that Wallace was homosexual and Julia was threatening to expose him, it provides an incredibly strong motive for murder. It would also supply him with a willing collaborator if he were in a relationship with a man. Parry's statement on its own is insufficient for us to be sure.

[RodCrosby]

If...if...if...if...

There are a million wild theories we could come up with.

Not a shred of evidence for any of them.

[ColdCaseJury]

Hi Rod - I think you dismiss this too lightly. A prosecution may or may not have followed if Julia told the police, they may have pursued. Certainly blackmailers made good money from homosexual men in the 30s (and right up to the late 60s - the film victim ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_(1961_film) ) was made in 1961). It was not just the prosecution Wallace had to fear if he was homosexual and had been caught out - it was ridicule, attack, loss of his job and being shunned. If there was evidence that Wallace was homosexual and Julia was threatening to expose him, it provides an incredibly strong motive for murder. It would also supply him with a willing collaborator if he were in a relationship with a man. Parry's statement on its own is insufficient for us to be sure.

Yes, it would have been a motive for sure. But then I must point out there were also rumours that Wallace had another woman, and some of these suggested it was his sister-in-law no less. Now that would have been a scandal, too. In a case like this - then as today - rumours fly. Some may have a grain of sand of truth, some are just malicious gossip. Unfortunately, we have no way to tell now. All we can say is this: If Wallace killed his wife then he had a motive. But that's not very helpful, I know!

[cobalt]

I am struggling to think of what possible motive Julia Wallace would have to expose her husband were he homosexual. She would presumably have known or become aware of this at some point in the marriage, and there was just as much social shame in her situation as there would have been in Wallace's. That is before we consider the affect it would have had on her financial life.

[ColdCaseJury]

I am struggling to think of what possible motive Julia Wallace would have to expose her husband were he homosexual. She would presumably have known or become aware of this at some point in the marriage, and there was just as much social shame in her situation as there would have been in Wallace's. That is before we consider the affect it would have had on her financial life.

A good point, cobalt. How many married women throughout history have found themselves in this position (say pre-1950)? A huge number in total, I would imagine, and the marriage was usually the cover for the man, wasn't it? Sex might have been the motive for Wallace, as I said, but it is speculation.

[etenguy]

Yes, it would have been a motive for sure. But then I must point out there were also rumours that Wallace had another woman, and some of these suggested it was his sister-in-law no less. Now that would have been a scandal, too. In a case like this - then as today - rumours fly. Some may have a grain of sand of truth, some are just malicious gossip. Unfortunately, we have no way to tell now. All we can say is this: If Wallace killed his wife then he had a motive. But that's not very helpful, I know!

Indeed. I don't put this forward as a theory as the only evidence is Parry's comment. My post was just to challenge Rod's suggestion that it would not be sufficiently serious as to lead to a motive for murder - which may not have been quite what Rod meant.

[etenguy]

A good point, cobalt. How many married women throughout history have found themselves in this position (say pre-1950)? A huge number in total, I would imagine, and the marriage was usually the cover for the man, wasn't it? Sex might have been the motive for Wallace, as I said, but it is speculation.

Indeed again - not putting this forward except as a thought exercise, a wife may cover for sexual misconduct, but might be less tolerant of a romantic relationship. If she found out he was regularly seeing a man it may push her over the edge.

[moste]

I am struggling to think of what possible motive Julia Wallace would have to expose her husband were he homosexual. She would presumably have known or become aware of this at some point in the marriage, and there was just as much social shame in her situation as there would have been in Wallace's. That is before we consider the affect it would have had on her financial life.

Yes, Rod made that assessment a while ago, when I alluded to the possibility that he murdered her because she found him out,
I wonder now though about Wallace weeping in the street witnessed by the police officer. ' Had he just left his lover and told him/her that Julia was on to them, with the heated exchange that would likely ensue?
On his diary entries Just considering ,It would be a good tool for confounding theories of his sexual activities,