Julie Wallace

[apricot]

Hi Louisa,

Indeed I have The Riddle of Birdhurst Rise, in fact it was the very first true crime book I ever bought! Totally agree, for me it is the definative account of the mystery, I don't know if you've read the Diane Jane book, if you haven't, I shouldn't bother, it's one of those that when you read the conclusion you think to yourself, WHAT? Heavens to Betsy, some people have an amazing imagination.

I also wouldn't add my name on a foreword to a book I didn't believe in, for the reasons you state.
KR Angie

[louisa]

I actually took Diane Janes to task over her book. I sent her an email telling her that I totally disagreed with her theories. I was very polite though.

She sent me a reply that covered SIX pages! I still have it. She sounded quite annoyed and tried to justify her theories, but she still didn't manage to convince me of anything other than she wanted to put a new 'slant' on an old case, however ridiculous.

She completely lost me when she gave her theory about the old lady - Violet Sidney - committing suicide (after watching her beloved daughter, Vera, die in agony only a few weeks prior) - by taking some powdered arsenic (which Diane Janes states she probably kept in her face powder box) - then pouring the powder into her medicine bottle (difficult) - then pouring it onto a teaspoon, then into a glass and drinking it - is preposterous. If Mrs. Sidney was going to poison herself with arsenic she would have just put the powder in a glass of water....wouldn't she?

Her other theories were bonkers as well imo.

[apricot]

My, my, Louisa, you must have ruffled her feathers, six page reply!! Trying to defend the indefensible, eh?

When you say her other theories are bonkers too, does that mean you've read her book I think it's called Edwardian Murder or something like, believe it's about the Luard / Dickman cases, if so am intrigued to know her "take" on that.

Seems to me there doesn't seem to be one classic case that hasn't been the subject of at least one conspiracy theory or miscarriage of justice debate.

KR Angie

[louisa]

So true, Apricot, so true.

No, I meant that I don't agree with Diane Jane's other theories regarding what she says about the previous deaths in the Croydon Poisonings.

I've read about the Luard case (and it's quite an interesting one) but I didn't know Diane J had written a book about it. I don't think I'll bother with it.

[Marko]

In any famous murder case there are always writers who want to make money out of a fresh slant - a new theory on the case - even if that theory is a preposterous one.

I recently visited the National Archives at Kew and copied the complete holdings of Wallace material. I hope to incorporate these into what I have already written. I also managed to view the docu drama from 1975 Who Killed Julia Wallace? I hope to write a chapter on this made for TV programme for inclusion in the book.

You are correct Louisa - unlike some, my book will not have an agenda - something that practically every past Wallace book has been guilty of. Unfortunately this case has become the target of idiotic conspiracy theories by some who are more interested in boosting their own egos than putting a viable case forward. In a letter to me some years ago Jonathan Goodman had this to say: "It is the Wallace Case itself that deserves the praise - not anyone writing about it." It is a pity others (and those using it as a five minute fad, I must add) don't have the same mentality.

[Marko]

I believe that Mark Russell is working on a book as well.

Very true Stan - for nigh on seven years now! Hopefully complete next year.

[apricot]

So true, Apricot, so true.

No, I meant that I don't agree with Diane Jane's other theories regarding what she says about the previous deaths in the Croydon Poisonings.

I've read about the Luard case (and it's quite an interesting one) but I didn't know Diane J had written a book about it. I don't think I'll bother with it.

My misunderstanding Louisa, I didn't know of her book on the Luard case 'til I looked her up on Amazon, one can only imagine what her conclusion is!

I have read a bit about the case, nothing in depth though, just the odd chapter in anthologies, certainly seems another intriguing one though!

KR Angie

[louisa]

It just goes to show that if an author damages their credibility with a book full of daft theories, then people are going to boycott other books by that same author.

I'm also wondering what her theories are in the Luard case. I'm going to try and find a review of it.

[burkhilly]

I for one can't for for Mark's book.

[Marko]

I for one can't for for Mark's book.

Thanks Burkhilly. I just hope I can do the case justice.

[louisa]

He'll be sending us all free copies of course.

[Marko]

He'll be sending us all free copies of course.

More than likely - they probably won't sell

[burkhilly]

Mark you are so knowledgable about the case - I just know you'll do justice to it. I will buy your book and hopefully learn more!

[louisa]

More than likely - they probably won't sell

I'm sure I'll be buying one. (Unless I can borrow Burkhilly's copy )

[burkhilly]

Bumping this thread to ask who's read John Gannon's book, released last month?

Read no further, because I'm going to reveal JG's theory of what happened.




Basically Mr Wallace blackmailed Parry and Marsden into becoming involved in the murder of his wife. Parry made the phone call, and Marsden battered poor Julia to death. The two young men were blackmailed because Julia had been paying them for sexual favours, and Wallace said he's reveal this information if they didn't help him. (Marsden apparently was about to marry into a wealthy family.)

I find this theory to be absolutely ridiculous and disrespectful to an elderly lady. I was very disappointed in the conclusion the author made.

The question remains "Who Killed Julia Wallace".