Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I was just looking at one of the archived areas and found a short Wallace Case thread excerpt. This is a quote from Stewart Evans (for those that don’t know, well-known Ripper author/researcher, ex-police Officer, true crime expert and collector and friend of Jonathon Goodman:


    ““““””I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that I think the murder was committed by Wallace and that Parry had nothing to do with the events surrounding the murder at all.””””””

    Ive always liked Stewart Evans
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 02-10-2019, 11:51 AM.
    Regards

    Herlock






    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

      Didn't Lily Lloyd confirm Parry's alibi at the time but retract this some years later. If my memory is correct, we don't know who was lying and who was telling the truth.

      In case I misremembered, or we nevertheless consider it much more likely that Parry was lying, this would allow Parry the time to make the call. If he did make the call, then the reason for lying is obvious. If he did not make the call, he may have lied because he was up to no good somwhere else. But even if his actions that night were perfectly innocent, he probably just wanted to distance himself from the crime. Not a great lie, but then CCJ has already demonstrated Parry's penchant for lying.
      Hi Eten,

      It was suggested that Lily Lloyd, I believe a couple of years at least after the crime and just after she and Parry had split up, claimed to have given Parry a false alibi for the Tuesday night (something she allegedly told Wallace’s solicitor who had trouble recalling the details when asked about in when he was extremely old.) Goodman found her years later but she wouldn’t comment on the case. The problem was of course that her ‘alibi’ was irrelevant as it only covered a period much later in the evening. Now if Olivia Brine had gone on record with the same admission it would have been....interesting.
      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 02-10-2019, 11:52 AM.
      Regards

      Herlock






      "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

        I feel he and many others could have had motive. Julia was a horrific character. She wet the bed every night while wearing diapers, lied about her age, pretended she was from some rich French family despite being born from peasants, accused her ACTUALLY ill husband of faking sickness to not go to work, and did not bother to clean the house - all while thinking she was too good for him. Julia's own family disowned her. They didn't even attend her funeral. And Wallace had to be MARRIED to that... A 50 year old man with sexual desires and an incontinent 70 year old witch who clearly did not put out (she was described by autospy experts or w.e. as being "virginal").

        Makes you wonder if Julia wasn't giving Wallace sexual satisfaction, then who was?
        ....

        With a more thorough trial they could have had a more sound conviction. I wouldn't like to hang him even if guilty though. Clearly she had it coming to her.
        I'm sorry. Did you just put down in writing that because a woman is old, ill and doesn't put out, she deserves to be murdered? I mean you get old and you have it coming to you, because you don't gratify your husband any more. Did you just write that down?

        Oh and one more question: Are you mentally ill and if so, are you on medication to treat it?


        Let all Oz be agreed;
        I'm Wicked through and through.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ally View Post

          I'm sorry. Did you just put down in writing that because a woman is old, ill and doesn't put out, she deserves to be murdered? I mean you get old and you have it coming to you, because you don't gratify your husband any more. Did you just write that down?

          Oh and one more question: Are you mentally ill and if so, are you on medication to treat it?
          No she didn't deserve to die I'm being dramatic, and it has nothing to do with her not putting out anyway. That point was more about exploring the possibility Wallace was getting sexual satisfaction through other avenues, which if Julia had discovered, may have led to the events.

          But what I mean is, she sounds like a truly horrible person and I could understand what a nightmare it might have been to be trapped in a marriage with her. Remember her own family disowned her, that's how bad she was. I could empathize with his situation. I'd rather give him life in prison.

          I'm not big on the death penalty. I find it okay if it's like, some sick bastard abducts a random person and murders them for fun. Or if someone kills their own children or innocent parents etc... But say a woman murderd an abusive husband, or vice versa (similar to Wallace. I could empathize with him feeling trapped and desperate with this awful woman) it doesn't sit right with me. JMO.

          Comment


          • Wallace likewise sounds like a truly terrible person and what a nightmare it would be to trapped in a marriage with him. And yet, this was a situation they both chose to be in and which they spent the better part of two decades in. And as to what a "supposed nightmare" she was, these accounts come from...who? Wallace himself? Because men who murder their wives have excellent and clear vision as to their character and don't at all twist and distort things to their own benefit? As for her "own family disowning her, due to "how terrible" she was, something I genuinely don't give a crap about even if true, WALLACE had a choice in marrying her, and staying with her, and taking her "abuse". This was not today, he could have beat the living crap out of her nightly and no one would have batted an eye. And regardless of what, nagging, being incontinent and old, are not criteria for "she had it coming". And your putting your spin on her personality from a remove of almost a hundred years to justify "she had it coming" is ludicrous and absurd.

            You make claims like: her family disowned her because she was so terrible. Really, what is the actual evidence of that. Maybe she estranged herself from them. You are spinning fantasy and putting your interpretation on someone else's life, when in reality you don't know jack crap about it or the inner workings of it.

            On the one hand you describe Wallace as being a potent virile man who wanted sex and was frustrated by the lack from his dried up prune of a wife, on the other he becomes a poor ill man whose wife nagged him because he couldn't sustain steady work. Which is it? The potent virile man frustrated by his wife, or the poor invalid nagged beyond endurance?

            Wallace was not a victim of his marriage. He had way more of a choice and opportunity in his circumstances than his wife did. And by all accounts, if she was a shrill, arrogant witch, then Wallace himself was a perfect compliment to her. Didn't someone remark at his trial that people with as unpleasant personalities as he had should never be allowed to testify in their own defense? Wallace was not some poor put-upon man without hope and with nowhere to turn in his desperate hour of need.

            She did not have it coming.

            Let all Oz be agreed;
            I'm Wicked through and through.

            Comment


            • Yeah I already said perhaps it was a bit crass to say that. I don't think people deserve death for being mean. I would still only give a life sentence.

              If they're both so bad though, it certainly calls into question the supposed "ideal" marriage they had. I had heard Wallace was a mean and bitter man... Their doctor said neither of them gave a **** when the other was ill.

              I don't think Wallace knew her age when he married her. The marriage certificate puts her age much younger than reality.

              My idea of Julia based on what I've read is that she is a liar and a fantasist, a commoner pretending she is from a wealthy French family and 20 years younger than reality, and an uncaring slob by any standards who made it clear to all who would hear it that she felt she was too good for her husband.

              Wallace himself kinda had delusions of grandeur. A failure unlike his brother who liked to pose himself as some sort of genius and thought his career was beneath him. Is it really such a stretch of the imagination to consider he might have been involved in his wife's death?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                I was just looking at one of the archived areas and found a short Wallace Case thread excerpt. This is a quote from Stewart Evans (for those that don’t know, well-known Ripper author/researcher, ex-police Officer, true crime expert and collector and friend of Jonathon Goodman:


                ““““””I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that I think the murder was committed by Wallace and that Parry had nothing to do with the events surrounding the murder at all.””””””

                Ive always liked Stewart Evans
                Hi Herlock.

                Do you happen to know? Did Goodman ever change his mind about Wallace's innocence, or did he stick to his guns?

                I am of the rather boring opinion that the answer to this mystery is far from certain, and that perhaps the various "solutions" offered up over the years say more about the individual theorist themselves than about what actually happened that night. Maybe it's partially genetic; some are born Blue, some are born Red. Some are born Parry, others are born Wallace. I tend to give a lot of weight to 'character,' and so I don't dismiss Parry. Intellectually, however, I can readily understand why many want to pin it on the amateur chemist.

                I also used to think that "Ripperologists" were a rough, overly opinionated lot. Then I started reading this thread. Now I realize they are ***** cats. I wouldn't turn my back on anyone on this thread if a fireplace poker was within 200 yards. Cheers


                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                  I am of the rather boring opinion that the answer to this mystery is far from certain,
                  Hi RJ - I think frustrating, rather than boring, opinion and one which most posters, I think, share. I have splinters from sitting on the fence so long, but have fallen onto the side of the garden which suggests it was more likely Wallace than Parry.

                  Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                  I also used to think that "Ripperologists" were a rough, overly opinionated lot. Then I started reading this thread. Now I realize they are ***** cats. I wouldn't turn my back on anyone on this thread if a fireplace poker was within 200 yards. Cheers.
                  I am assuming that the five asterisks say ***** (if that comes up with 5 asterisks, I will know that ***** is not considered a slang word for cat on this site). But you are correct, this case seems to raise more intense passions than the JtR threads.

                  Comment


                  • I think the JTR case sucks because it's unsolveable IMO. Until Scotland Yard release the case files (which they refuse to), it can't be solved. It could literally be ANYONE, any random person. Could even be someone not even ever named as a suspect, who nobody had even really heard of... Like Joe Bloggs down the lane...

                    On the other hand, the Wallace case is solveable. Not to the point where it's enough proof to prosecute someone, but enough to where it's like "yeah you almost definitely had a hand in it you bastard". The odds it's a totally unknown person are much lower.
                    Last edited by WallaceWackedHer; 02-10-2019, 03:00 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                      Hi Herlock.

                      Do you happen to know? Did Goodman ever change his mind about Wallace's innocence, or did he stick to his guns?

                      I am of the rather boring opinion that the answer to this mystery is far from certain, and that perhaps the various "solutions" offered up over the years say more about the individual theorist themselves than about what actually happened that night. Maybe it's partially genetic; some are born Blue, some are born Red. Some are born Parry, others are born Wallace. I tend to give a lot of weight to 'character,' and so I don't dismiss Parry. Intellectually, however, I can readily understand why many want to pin it on the amateur chemist.

                      I also used to think that "Ripperologists" were a rough, overly opinionated lot. Then I started reading this thread. Now I realize they are ***** cats. I wouldn't turn my back on anyone on this thread if a fireplace poker was within 200 yards. Cheers

                      Hi Roger,

                      As far as I know Goodman stuck to Parry for the rest of his life.

                      I certainly agree that the solution is far from certain. Personally I don’t think it will ever be solved to anything approaching a consensus view unless new evidence surfaces or someone spots something that we’ve all missed. We should all guard against over-confidence. Everyone pretty much knows my opinion but I’d never claim that it’s case solved. We weigh up and interpret in our own way. Some aspects are potentially significant to some but not to others (Wallace avoiding the Parlour being one case in point.)

                      You would certainly be safe with me whether there was a poker or not but the case does invite ‘heated’ debate for some reason. I have no issue discussing any aspect of the case or any theory or accepting other viewpoints. The only two things that rankle are when someone says ‘I have solved the case’ then proceeds to twist and turn every aspect to fit; refusing to even admit the possibility of doubts. And also when people mention an opinion as if it’s an established fact. Like when a poster says something like “we know that Wallace can be eliminated because he wouldn’t have had enough time and so....”
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Hi Roger,

                        As far as I know Goodman stuck to Parry for the rest of his life.

                        I certainly agree that the solution is far from certain. Personally I don’t think it will ever be solved to anything approaching a consensus view unless new evidence surfaces or someone spots something that we’ve all missed. We should all guard against over-confidence. Everyone pretty much knows my opinion but I’d never claim that it’s case solved. We weigh up and interpret in our own way. Some aspects are potentially significant to some but not to others (Wallace avoiding the Parlour being one case in point.)

                        You would certainly be safe with me whether there was a poker or not but the case does invite ‘heated’ debate for some reason. I have no issue discussing any aspect of the case or any theory or accepting other viewpoints. The only two things that rankle are when someone says ‘I have solved the case’ then proceeds to twist and turn every aspect to fit; refusing to even admit the possibility of doubts. And also when people mention an opinion as if it’s an established fact. Like when a poster says something like “we know that Wallace can be eliminated because he wouldn’t have had enough time and so....”
                        A very fair, reasonable view Herlock. When things have quietened down a bit, we can finish debating the call, why I think it so important (because this is being missed by many posters, imo) and then move on to the evidence that I believe are the strongest pointers to Wallace's guilt (hint: if you can wear that). How does that sound?

                        And just to be clear. I've never said that case was solved (I don't think you were saying that of me, BTW). In fact, I probably harbour more doubts about the case than many others on this forum. Also, the jury poll is not fixed as one poster desperately alleges. When the original e-book was published, the jury poll (on a smaller sample) was 45% that Parry alone was the guilty party. Next came Wallace and Conspiracy on, roughly, 25% each. Now with an added theory, Wallace, Parry and Accomplice are all level on, roughly, 30%.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
                          we can finish debating the call
                          Parry made the call. Now let's go back to the scene of the crime.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                            Parry made the call. Now let's go back to the scene of the crime.
                            Hi WWH,

                            If Parry made the call, the Wallace Theory (i.e. Wallace acted alone) is certainly false.

                            So, for you, the Wallace theory is false, leaving four theories on the table (Parry, Conspiracy, Accomplice and Prank).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post

                              Hi WWH,

                              If Parry made the call, the Wallace Theory (i.e. Wallace acted alone) is certainly false.

                              So, for you, the Wallace theory is false, leaving four theories on the table (Parry, Conspiracy, Accomplice and Prank).
                              Yeah alright, so let's discuss the scene of the crime.

                              Would you like to give a full explanation of the events you think transpired between the hours of 6 pm and 8.30 pm on the day of the murder as of this moment in time?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post

                                Parry made the call. Now let's go back to the scene of the crime.
                                I am not sure this has been established, but have nothing to add to the posts already made on this subject at this point.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X