Julie Wallace

[Marko]

I have to confess to only a passing interest in the Wallace Case, and also I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but could someone please let me know what could be the possible motive for Wallace bumping off his wife?
Cheers,
Graham

It is not so much why he killed her Graham. I find the method used preposterous. I'm sure if WHW would have murdered her he would have done so in some other less messy, less error-strewn manner.

We have been discussing this case on our Liverpool thread for years. It has a daunting 80-odd pages though!!

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3494

[Marko]

[QUOTE=Tom_Wescott;117071]Hi Holly,

The police investigated relatives, but she had very few in the area and none with motive or opportunity.
There's really only one well-researched on the case and that's 'The Murder of Julia Wallace' by James Murphy. I just finished it and was blown away by Murphy's research. All the books from Goodman on were absolutely chockful of errors, and it were these errors that the authors built their case from. Murphy puts all these to rest and presents much new information, such as the fact that Mrs. Wallace was in her 70s, not 50s. Also the fact that Lily Loyd was never part of Gordon Parry's alibi and that his alibi proves he could not have been the killer.

Marko states the bath was never used, but this does not appear to have been the case at all. Wallace did kill his wife and he did clean up. I recommend you read only the Murphy book on the case. He's the only author to ever have done his homework.

Yours truly,



Oh dear...another that has been influenced by Murphy's book. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion but I can tell you now, there are mistakes in Murphy's book, and an incredible amount of what he writes is sheer speculation. I annotated my copy of it a few months ago and while he makes some great points he also makes some convenient lapses. I have read EVERY book on this case countless times and have never been influenced by any of them. All authors have an agenda, and a natural bias. The definitive Wallace book has not been written. Goodman came close, and it is still the cornerstone book of the case but like all the others, it is not neutral.
The idea that the bath was not used IS the case. Test showed that it HADN'T been used. It is highly unlikely that WHW had the time to commit the murder and all the other things that had to be done. If you read closely, Murphy himself claims that his theory might seem 'far-fetched.' Not one writer has ever convinced me how Wallace evaded blood spatter and I'm afraid they never will.
It is completely unfair to say that the other writers didn't do their homework. You fail to recognise the fact that the police file was not open to view when Goodman, Wilkes et al wrote their books. In fact Wilkes persisted tirelessly to gain access but to no avail...
She was 17 years older than Wallace (69 at death). I fail to see what bearing that has on the case. I'm sure Wallace would have known her actual age.

[looby64]

Hi Looby,

I believe you will be very impressed with Murphy's research. It's a shame he didn't choose a better cover and a more inspired title for the book. It's even more a shame that there are some many copies available of the inferior books and virtually no copies of Murphy's. I paid almost $100 for mine recently, and that was the cheapest of only two copies available for sale on the internet.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom, I have just started this book and I am engrossed immediately, I had to borrow it from my local library.

Thanks Looby

[Tom_Wescott]

Graham,

Go read Murphy's book and all your questions will be answered.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Graham]

You say he lacked any emotional depth, but it seems he was highly delighted when he won a chess-game at his club against a Mr McCartney, shortly before the death of his wife.

I happen to be a Stoic, but I'm not at this time contemplating the murder of anyone.

Your explanation is far too simplistic.

And where is the evidence that Mrs Wallace was 'sickly'?

Graham

[Tom_Wescott]

Not really. Motive does not need to be proved, Graham. It's not important when the evidence is as strong as it is against Wallace. He's the only one who could have committed that murder. And you failed to notice I said she was sickly. She was a constant burden to him. The man was a student of Stoicism and lacked any emotional depth. To kill someone would be far easier for a person such as that than it would be for you or me. You can't judge all people by the same scale. What appears trivial to you or I is the end of the world to someone else.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Graham]

She was a sickly 72 year old simpleton. His motive for having married her is more of a mystery to me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

And yet, according to Colin Wilson (in whom I must admit I don't always place a whole lot of confidence) Julia Wallace was well-read, spoke French, played the piano and was an excellent artist. So she was 20-odd years older than he - is that a reason for him to kill her? If so, I'd hazard a guess and say that the streets of the Western World must be littered with the corpses of cast-off elderly ladies - which, of course, they are not.

You must do better than that, Tom.

Graham

[Tom_Wescott]

She was a sickly 72 year old simpleton. His motive for having married her is more of a mystery to me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Graham]

I have to confess to only a passing interest in the Wallace Case, and also I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but could someone please let me know what could be the possible motive for Wallace bumping off his wife?

Cheers,

Graham

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Looby,

I believe you will be very impressed with Murphy's research. It's a shame he didn't choose a better cover and a more inspired title for the book. It's even more a shame that there are some many copies available of the inferior books and virtually no copies of Murphy's. I paid almost $100 for mine recently, and that was the cheapest of only two copies available for sale on the internet.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[looby64]

I still can't make my mind up on this case, I read Roger Wilkes book The Final Verdict which was very interesting.
First off I thought Wallace had set up the phone call and false meeting and convinced myself he was guilty, then I changed my mind, if I go by my gut feeling I feel he's innocent.
I am now reading James Murphys book so will see how I feel after that.
Looby64

[Tom_Wescott]

Wallace was 20 years younger than his wife. This was not known until Murphy's book appeared in 2000.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[HollyDolly]

Thanks Tom.I'll have to put in an interlibrary loan for the book.
I didn't think that julia Wallace was in her 50s. I thought she and her husband were the same age, or that she might have been in her late 60s,if younger than him.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Holly,

The police investigated relatives, but she had very few in the area and none with motive or opportunity.
There's really only one well-researched on the case and that's 'The Murder of Julia Wallace' by James Murphy. I just finished it and was blown away by Murphy's research. All the books from Goodman on were absolutely chockful of errors, and it were these errors that the authors built their case from. Murphy puts all these to rest and presents much new information, such as the fact that Mrs. Wallace was in her 70s, not 50s. Also the fact that Lily Loyd was never part of Gordon Parry's alibi and that his alibi proves he could not have been the killer.

Marko states the bath was never used, but this does not appear to have been the case at all. Wallace did kill his wife and he did clean up. I recommend you read only the Murphy book on the case. He's the only author to ever have done his homework.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[HollyDolly]

Julia Wallace

I really haven't read too much on the case, mainly what was in true crime anthologies were they list several cases. And certainly not whole books devoted to the case.
Has anyone looked into the possibilty of the killer being a relative?
I don't think the Wallaces had children. But they could have had nieces or nephews with whom they were in contact,especially Julia.

Maybe this nephew or even cousin came to her to borrow money.
Maybe she refused to loan this person any, or the amount she gave them just wasn't enough, so they got angry and killed her.
Do we know if she or Wallace had brothers or sisters?