Julie Wallace

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Nick, and thanks for that piece of info. According to the FBI and their manual on criminal behavior, blunt force trauma is exceedingly rare in burglaries, but is one of the most common types of murder seen in domestic homicide. The blunt force trauma and overkill seen on Julia is classic domestic homicide. But how many burglars do you know break in (with leaving no evidence of a break in), brutally beat a woman to death with an iron bar they pick up in the room, hide the iron bar behind the fire place, and leave...latching the door behind them...without actually robbing the place. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NickB]

Dr MacFall examined the body at 10.10 and thought the death had occurred about four hours previously. It was a Professor of Pathology who suggested the death happened after 7.00.

For me the frenzied nature of the murder does not fit Wallace. This would mean he calmly planned the murder in advance then, as soon as the milkman left, turned into a frenzy to commit it and then returned to being calm.

It seems to me more likely that a highly strung robber committed it. Bear in mind the chess captain said it had “certainly not” been Wallace on the phone.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Mark, thanks for the reply. I did in fact go searching on here for your earlier posts and found none. Shame about that crash! I'm impressed that you have so much material on the case. How did you come about getting the police file and trial transcript? I'd love of a copy of that myself! On a side note, is there anywhere I can get a copy of the 2001 book 'The Murder of Julia Wallace' at a relatively decent price? Amazon is selling it for $253, which is absurd for such a recent book.

Regarding your post, I'm afraid I can't lend any credence to Dr. McFall's findings as they relate to time of death. I agree with Goodman that his performance was deficient at best, criminally negligent at worst. I also agree that the jury were biased and that Wallace didn't get a fair trial and should have been found not guilty. And this even though I believe he was in fact guilty!

[/quote] Wallace said himself there was no iron bar.[/quote]

The maid said there was an iron bar in the parlor that was missing. This very iron bar later showed up in that very room. The fact that Wallace denied the existence of this bar is suspicious as hell. Like I said, the only logical conclusion is that it was the murder weapon. And if it was the murder weapon, then Wallace had to be the killer. There would be no rust in the wounds if the killer were striking the macintosh.

I find it very hard to swallow that the portion of the macintosh over Julia's shoulder should get burned while she was wearing it, but not her clothes underneath, her flesh, or hair. What I see happening in this room is the destruction of evidence by someone who could not take the evidence out of the house with him.

I'm not at all convinced by the evidence of the children. Your entire reason for finding Wallace innocent rests on two kids who may or may not be telling the truth. If we remove Close from the equation, Wallace has no exculpatory evidence, and by your own admission you'd see him as guilty.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Marko]

I haven't had access to the computer until now. Apologies for the delay. Btw, I made literally countless posts on this forum but they were lost when the forum 'crashed' a few years ago. I don't think they have been recovered and unfortunately I never made copies.

I have to say that I have read practically everything about this case. I have every book on the subject. I also have the complete Police File, trial transcript and almost every newspaper cutting from the day and I am still not sure either way!! I lean to the side of Wallace's innocence though.

In reply to your points;

1). Regarding the iron bar - . I wouldn't believe too much about the iron bar being situated behind the fireplace. The place was stripped after the murder and I'm sure an iron bar wouldn't have escaped the notices of the police. Yes, the maid says that there was an iron bar. This isn't enough to convict somebody of murder. a) She might have been mistaken. b) Wallace said himself there was no iron bar. The bar was supposed to have been rusty, yet there was no sign of any 'rust' in the wounds of Mrs Wallace.

2) It is highly unlikely that Wallace wore the mackintosh - the burns on it were consistent with Julia having it thrown around her shoulders and fallen onto the fire. McFall agreed with this. There were also burn marks on Julia's skirt. MacFall in fact stated that the body had been dead 'two hours' before he arrived. In other words at 7.45. Wallace at this time was on Allerton Road 4 miles away.

3) Time factor - there was roughly a pint and a half of blood spilled. It is inconceivable that the murderer would have eluded blood spatter. The bath and bathroom appliances were tested and found to have not been used. There was no blood on Wallace's person/clothing. Close said he was at number 29 Wolverton Street at a quarter to seven. Elsie Wright, Kenneth Caird and Douglas Metcalf all claimed that Close said it was a 'quarter to seven'. James Allison Wildman claimed it was about 6.37-38 that he saw Close on the Wallace doorstep. Wallace had to get to the corner of Smithdown Place at no later than 7.06, thereby making it almost impossible to get to the specified place in such a time. I have timed all these things myself, and it seems highly improbable that WHW could have committed such an action. The Holy Trinity Church clock was certainly not wrong - it had been set on the friday before. It was this clock that Wildman had seen on his newspaper round.

Regards

Mark

[Tom_Wescott]

I've said it before on countless occasions (so much so that I'm now bored repeating it) but not one Wallaceite has ever convinced me how he managed to do it in the time and the fact that the bath had not been used and there was no bloodstaining on WHW person/clothing.

Since you're not going to reply, I'll go ahead and address your area of concern. It doesn't seem all that mysterious to me. Julia was found on the parlour floor with her head bashed in. The maid, who had last visited the house a week before, noticed that an iron rod was missing from the parlour. This rod was about a foot long and thick as a candle. Dr. McFall said this was consistent with the wounds received by Julia. A few years after the murder, Wallace had moved out and the new tenants went to convert the house from gas to electric. They removed the front of the fireplace and found tucked behind it this missing iron bar. It's inconceivable that the bar, on its own volition, found it's way into this tiny space, all by itself, in the 7 days from when it was last witnessed by the maid and when Julia was murdered. it's only logical to conclude it was the murder weapon. Since no burglar wound have had the inclination or opportunity to hide it in such a place, we have to conclude that Wallace himself did it. Had the juries and public been aware of all this in 1931, there would have been no doubt in their minds as to his guilt.

As to how Wallace escaped becoming bloody, there must be a number of viable explanations. One that came to my mind that I feel is a very likely explanation has to do with Wallace's macintosh found partially burned under the body of Julia. There's no good reason she was wearing this macintosh on her own, so its presence there is mysterious unless we consider it as part of the crime itself. Wallace, for whatever reason, hit Julia over the head with the bar. She fell to the floor, dead or unconscious. Wallace went for his macintosh, placed it over her head, and proceeded to beat her violently, the macintosh protecting him from becoming bloody. The telltale portion of the macintosh that bore the blow marks was placed in the fire to burn away the evidence. It was then placed under her shoulders and the bar was hidden behind the fireplace hearth. He then split to take part in his Menlove Gardens alibi.

Anyway, these are the thoughts that occurred to me while reading Goodman's book. Any criticisms or thoughts would be appreciated.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Marko,

I apologize for boring you, but if you've posted in depth about your reasoning elsewhere on the boards, perhaps you wouldn't mind providing me a link or copy and pasting those posts here so you don't have to retype them? I am interested to know why you're convinced of Wallace's innocence in relation to the time element. There is, after all, quite a big difference between being not convinced of his guilt and believing him innocent of the crime. I find that building a case based on time element alone is dangerous, since there's too many variables. Some of the witnesses (such as Close) changed their mind regarding the time, other witnesses weren't sure, others were sure but the timepieces they worked from could have been wrong, etc. In short, what I'm saying is that Wallace certainly had plenty of time in which to commit the murder, steady himself, and go about his way.

Babybird,

Jonathan Goodman argued feverishly in defense of Wallace, but I believe he was relatively fair in presenting enough evidence that a reader could make up his own mind. It's really nothing more than a domestic homicide case, with the intrigue of the 'mysterious phone call' thrown in the mix.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[babybird67]

Having read Goodman's book, I find the biggest mystery about the Wallace case is how so many people can believe Wallace was innocent.

Hi Tom

i haven't read any books on Wallace yet, but have read about the case on the internet. The point i would like to make is a general one though.

I think it is vital to set a book, of any sort, within its context. I have been reading the books on the Hanratty case recently, and if you read Foot or Woffinden, you would come away with exactly the same impression...Hanratty was innocent, and how on earth could anybody think or believe otherwise? It's not until you read a more balanced account, such as Miller, that you see some of the evidence in a different light...for example, Hanratty choosing to drive his girlfriend down to Bedford on the one month anniversary of the crime and having sex with her in the back of his car....re-living some of the events of that night? Showing a connection with Bedford that he apparently didn't have according to some? Similar things pop up in regard to his search for Tarleton Road in Liverpool...why spend an inordinately long time seeking directions, hopping on buses when he did not really know where he was going, when we know he habitually used taxis? It would have made more sense for him to pop into a taxi and give the driver the address and just be taken there.

Could author bias be responsible for your impression that it is a closed case? Are there aspects of the case Goodman emphasises and other aspects he downplays? Like I said, i still don't know a great deal about the Wallace case, but the general point of author bias is pertinent here i think. I'd like to know what you think, whether your mind changes perhaps, after having read any other books on the case? I have already changed my mind several times as i learn more about it!

best wishes

[Marko]

Having read Goodman's book, I find the biggest mystery about the Wallace case is how so many people can believe Wallace was innocent. I was disappointed at how transparent this supposedly 'inpenetrable' mystery is. The best reason I can give for so many people thinking Wallace is innocent is that they want to believe he's innocent, because he was such a nice, sweet old guy. And I don't doubt for a minute that he was nice and sweet. But he just happened to be a nice, sweet old guy who one day killed his wife. All the marks of a domestic homicide are there. This case is like the British version of the Dr. Sam Sheppard case, except that Sheppard was nowhere near the sympathetic character Wallace was.

This particular correspondent doesn't believe that Wallace was innocent due to the fact that he was deemed to be 'a nice guy'. I go by facts - and the fact is that there is considerable doubt to Wallace's guilt. The general public at the time didn't think he was deemed a nice guy. In fact, most thought he was rather aloof and there was a prejudice against him in some circles with regard to his interests - chess, science etc... There are more points in Wallace's favour than against him. I've said it before on countless occasions (so much so that I'm now bored repeating it) but not one Wallaceite has ever convinced me how he managed to do it in the time and the fact that the bath had not been used and there was no bloodstaining on WHW person/clothing.
As a supporter of victims and victim support nothing would please me better than the killer being brought to justice (at least in name). I'm just not convinced on the evidence...

[Tom_Wescott]

Having read Goodman's book, I find the biggest mystery about the Wallace case is how so many people can believe Wallace was innocent. I was disappointed at how transparent this supposedly 'inpenetrable' mystery is. The best reason I can give for so many people thinking Wallace is innocent is that they want to believe he's innocent, because he was such a nice, sweet old guy. And I don't doubt for a minute that he was nice and sweet. But he just happened to be a nice, sweet old guy who one day killed his wife. All the marks of a domestic homicide are there. This case is like the British version of the Dr. Sam Sheppard case, except that Sheppard was nowhere near the sympathetic character Wallace was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I read on the internet today that your friend and mine, Tom Slemen, made a claim to have solved the Wallace case. He said that Mr. Johnston next door was the murderer and confessed as much on his deathbed. Of course, it's all nonsense, and Slemen was almost sued by members of the family who were present when Johnston died.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[sdreid]

I recently came across a theory that Mr. Marsden borrowed Parry's car and did it.

To reiterate, I am now slightly on the side that Wallace did it due to the neighbor not hearing a knock, or anything else, after Close.

[Marko]

Goodman said he was the first to study the trial transcripts and do an exhaustive study.
Tom Wescott

I accessed the Wallace File at Merseyside Police in 2007 and have read the full trial transcript. There was nothing in the file that convinced me it was Wallace and having read practically everything regarding this case I am still not 100% he was the murderer.

[Marko]

I understand the jury found him guilty, however, this was overturned at appeal because, in my understanding, there had not been sufficient evidence to rule him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I am new to the case so if i have any details incorrect, i am happy to be corrected.

You are quite right babybird. There are still many who don't believe WHW committed the murder and it certainly isn't generally regarded that he did it. In the 78 years since the murder there is still no concrete evidence that Wallace committed the killing. The idea that Wallace committed the killing then took a bath is ludicrous; 1) He didn't have enough time. 2) The bath hadn't been used. As for the assumption by Wallaceites that he could have evaded blood spatter is another ludicrous suggestion. There's a saying; Nothing bleeds like a head wound...

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Baby. I'm not yet familiar with Wallace's trial, but Lizzie and OJ were found not guilty although it's rather obvious they were. But absolute guilt could not be proved.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[babybird67]

hi Stewart

My actual wording was that there was little doubt that Wallace did it. The jury did find him guilty, the verdict was overturned on an early appeal case. As for proven guilty, well you have to read all the evidence and decide if you agree with the jury that found him guilty.

I was interested in what factors led you to your view that there is little doubt that Wallace was guilty.

I understand the jury found him guilty, however, this was overturned at appeal because, in my understanding, there had not been sufficient evidence to rule him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I am new to the case so if i have any details incorrect, i am happy to be corrected.

I find the case fascinating because of the ambivalent nature of the evidence...and i was interested in what factors had been instrumental in your conclusion that Wallace was guilty.