thanks to Hatchett for both drawing my attention to this mystery and for discussing it with me in chat the other evening...
One thing that strikes me about this case is the depiction of Wallace as some kind of masterly analytical chess master and the contemporary inferences drawn from this that he must have had a mind capable of planning and executing the perfect murder. From the brief reading i have done so far, i would question this depiction. From his own accounts and those of his acquaintances at the chess club, it appears that Wallace was not a particularly good chess player, in fact he was quite poor at it.
For example, this is from Jonathan Goodman's The Killing of Julia Wallace:
"He was by no means a regular attender at the club. Looking back, Beattie supposed that he came along about once every fortnight. He had not been at the club since before Christmas. Wallace had once explained, excused, his infrequent appearances by saying that he did not like leaving his wife alone at night. This seemed a reasonable explanation because, although he was a poor chessplayer, he obviously derived much enjoyment from the game."
It has to be said that Wallace had actually won a game the night before the murder and was full of excitement and effervescence regarding his triumph, which suggests to me it was an experience that was not too common for him.
He describes his poor chess playing abilities in a journal entry himself, which reads:
‘6 November 1930. The tournaments [chess] are now up, and I see I am in Class Three [sic]. (This about represents my strength of play.) I suppose I could play better, but I feel it is too much like hard work to go in for chess wholeheartedly: hence my lack of practice keeps me in a state of mediocrity – good enough for a nice game, but not good enough (but no good) for really first-class play.’
These snippets of information are from
I think contemporary depictions of Wallace as fiendishly clever and manipulative because of his prowess at chess were misapprehensions of the time and prejudiced the jury against him. That he played infrequently, and that, when he did play, he did not often win, suggest to me his abilities at chess were over-rated at the time, and perhaps played on by the prosecution to bolster a case based only on circumstantial evidence.
Currently i am on the Wallace was innocent side of the fence, however i have much reading still to do (and have still not yet finished my Hanratty reading!) so no doubt my mind may well change as i gather more information about the case!
Leave a comment: