Julie Wallace

[Marko]

Well, Marko, you've joined the club of Wallace authors. I'm sure your book will be a welcomed edition to the canon. Personally, I think it is probably the ultimate real-life whodunit, although I think the world divides into roughly three camps: one third believe it was definitely Wallace, one third believe it was definitely not Wallace and one third don't know. To this day, I am plagued by doubts. Wallace cannot be eliminated, yet there has to be doubt that he did it. I would welcome your views - and anybody else's - on the following:

a) Mackintosh - does its burnt presence point more to Wallace as the killer or not?
b) Lights and gas off in the parlour - point more to Wallace or not?
c) Phone call - what was said and timing - more to Wallace or not?
d) Phone call - would Wallace risk being seen by someone near to the phone box and potentially by the conductor and passengers getting on the bus by the phone box and not where he said he got on?
e) Blood splatter and heavy staining on the floor - could Wallace bludgeon his wife and not get some blood on him? And, if he did, how problematic would it be to clean himself up in the time he had?

I suspect you cover these points in your book, but we might as well start the debate now.

AMB

Thanks! I'll address your points when I can (y)

[Marko]

Ignoring the obvious...

I just received my copy of Checkmate which I’m looking forward to reading. Congratulations to Mark Loads of new photographs here. Very impressively presented. Worth getting just for the photographs IMO.

Thanks! Hope you enjoy the book!

[RodCrosby]

And the author goes as far as to insinuate Dr. Robert Coope (among others) a liar, just because...yawn... his testimony doesn't suit his pet theory....

Really woeful stuff... No doubt Wallace-ite cranks will lap it up.

[RodCrosby]

Factual errors too, like the Police never had any other suspect than Wallace. They later had Parry, obviously, but, even the day after the murder, they were not looking at Wallace.

"Superintendent Moore told our correspondent that the dead woman's injuries were of such a nature that the murderer could not escape without bearing considerable bloodstains. 'Indeed,' said this officer, 'I should think he would be dripping with blood'"
Belfast Telegraph, 21st January 1931

And we know they sent out officers looking for just such a bloodstained man in shelters, pubs, etc.

"All through the night the Liverpool C.I.D. Flying Squad, assisted by every branch of the police service, have been scouring the Merseyside area for the murderer of Mrs. Julia Wallace..."
Belfast Telegraph, 21st January 1931

[RodCrosby]

OLIVER KC: "What I am putting to you is that everything in that room is consistent with a knock at the front door, and the admission of someone, and the visitor being taken into the parlour ?"

Supt. MOORE: "It is quite possible."

"The evidence is quite consistent with some unknown criminal, for some unknown motive, having got into the house and executed the murder and gone away... If there was an unknown murderer, he has covered up his traces."
Mr. Justice Wright in Rex v Wallace


Lord Justice Branson asked Mr. Hemmerde KC:
''Assuming the murder was not committed by the appellant, what evidence is there that the telephone call was put through by him?"

The Lord Chief Justice asked Mr. Hemmerde KC
"Are you not really saying that if it be assumed that this man committed the murder, other circumstances fit in with that?"

"Suffice it to say that we are not concerned here with suspicion, however grave, or with theories, however ingenious. Section 4 of the Criminal Appeal Act of 1907 provides that the Court of Criminal Appeal shall allow the appeal if they think that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it cannot be supported having regard to the evidence."
Lord Chief Justice Hewart

"The Court will quash a conviction founded on mere suspicion" [headnote]
Court of Criminal Appeal 19 May 1931(1932) 23 Cr. App. R. 32


Why on earth anyone would waste their time writing a book that ignores all of the above, ending in a raging screed of their personal suspicion, assumption, theory, unbacked, now just as in 1931, by any scintilla of evidence, and only their own prejudice and fancy? [a book that has already been (as badly) written by Murphy, Bartle et al) Yawn...

While ignoring, and even attempting to suppress, actual evidence that does point to the Correct Solution?

(just for starters)
Dolly Atkinson
Gordon Atkinson
Harry Bailey Jnr
Ada Cook
Les Hill
Richard Gordon Parry.... “I have promised my father I will never speak about it – not even for two thousand pounds...”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ignoring the obvious...

I just received my copy of Checkmate which I’m looking forward to reading. Congratulations to Mark Loads of new photographs here. Very impressively presented. Worth getting just for the photographs IMO.

[RodCrosby]

Dear, oh dear, oh dear....

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Antony,

It’s been a while since I thought about the case. Every time I have a break from it I feel rusty and it might show from these responses.

1. We need a reason for the presence of the mackintosh and the two suggestions are either that Amy wore it against the cold or that it was used in the murder. So could she have worn it against the cold? Possibly but there are objections. Why didn’t she simply wear her own coat which would have been on the same hooks as William’s and which was probably warmer than a mackintosh which is simply made to keep rain out and not warmth in? Why didn’t she bother with a coat when she actually went outside and to the gate to see William off? If, as is suggested, she wore it over her shoulders how did she manage to fall onto her front with the mackintosh bunched up beneath her? The best suggestion was probably WWH’s that as it set on fire the killer stamped it out then pulled the body onto it but would it have bunched up as it did? I don’t see it really. The alternative is that it was used in the murder. It would be an unlikely tool for an unplanned murder but not for a planned one. So I believe that it was used by the murder and I think that the likeliest murderer was William (you’ll all be surprised to hear.)
2. I can see no sensible reason why a spur of the moment killer, who didn’t even have a minute to spare to make a search for cash and valuables, would have wasted time turning off lights. Wallace, if guilty, planned on ‘discovering’ the body. He possibly wanted to have a check around before doing this to make sure that he’d made no blunders. If someone had knocked the door but received no reply the lights being off might have convinced the visitor that there was no one in. Yes they could have told the police and they would have known that Julia was already dead but there was nothing he could have done to prevent an unwanted caller. If the lights were on and there was no reply the caller might have become concerned and called the police resulting in Julia being discovered before William got back. This isn’t a massively strong point of course but I think it’s far more likely than another killer wasting time then leaving himself in an unfamiliar house in the pitch dark.
3. The timing would pretty much match the exact time that William would have reached the box had he gone there. The fact that the killer asked for Wallace’s address favours, for me, a guilty Wallace. How more suspicious would the call have sounded if someone was told Wallace’s address and then asks for him to go to MGE? Only Wallace knew that no one at the club apart from Caird knew his address. Only Wallace knew that Caird wouldn’t have arrived by the time of the call. The phone plan could easily have not worked for a Mr X. I think that I’ve previously listed 8 or 9 ways. None of these issues exist for a guilty Wallace. Only he knew that he’d definitely take the bait and go on his trek the following evening.
4. This is the biggest issue for me when considering a guilty Wallace. Being seen near the phone box or getting on the tram near the phone box or being seen already on the tram by someone getting on at the stop at the top of Richmond Park. I have no real solution to this one. Wallace could have still bailed out though if he’d thought it was too risky. Perhaps he felt that he’d planned well enough and that his defence could simply say that anyone that might have seen him was mistaken? For eg, a Tram Conductor might have been asked “what reason did you have for remembering exactly where this man got on?” Or “can you remember every passenger and where they got on?” Wallace might also have taken a slightly fatalistic view. He knew that he probably didn’t have many years left so he might have accepted the risk as unavoidable but manageable.
5. I don’t think we can be certain how much random blood spatter he would have got on him. We’ve seen cases where it’s been assumed that the killer would have been covered and yet it turns out that he wasn’t. I think a kneeling Wallace, wearing the mackintosh, is only vulnerable to his hands and face. If he’d kneeled on the left side of Julia’s prone body it’s noticeable that there was no blood spatter behind him in the direction of the window so unless we assume that every drop of blood was almost magnetically attracted to William’s body this lack might tell us that not much, if any, blood went in that direction. A few spots on the face would have been little problem. A cloth, maybe dampened, then used to wrap the weapon for example. Let’s also not forget that if William had got a lot of blood on his hands and face he was free to have used the sink without incriminating himself. This might have been what he expected to have had to have done but he just got lucky. Murderers can be lucky

[ColdCaseJury]

My book is out on 20th January 2021 - the 90th anniversary of the murder.

https://mangobooks.co.uk/products/ch...murder-mystery

Well, Marko, you've joined the club of Wallace authors. I'm sure your book will be a welcomed edition to the canon. Personally, I think it is probably the ultimate real-life whodunit, although I think the world divides into roughly three camps: one third believe it was definitely Wallace, one third believe it was definitely not Wallace and one third don't know. To this day, I am plagued by doubts. Wallace cannot be eliminated, yet there has to be doubt that he did it. I would welcome your views - and anybody else's - on the following:

a) Mackintosh - does its burnt presence point more to Wallace as the killer or not?
b) Lights and gas off in the parlour - point more to Wallace or not?
c) Phone call - what was said and timing - more to Wallace or not?
d) Phone call - would Wallace risk being seen by someone near to the phone box and potentially by the conductor and passengers getting on the bus by the phone box and not where he said he got on?
e) Blood splatter and heavy staining on the floor - could Wallace bludgeon his wife and not get some blood on him? And, if he did, how problematic would it be to clean himself up in the time he had?

I suspect you cover these points in your book, but we might as well start the debate now.

AMB

[Marko]

Ordered and looking forward to reading it, good read eagerly anticipated

Thank you
Steve

Thank you Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whoa there!

There's a danger of another Wallace thread breaking out here! Think of the children! Why won't somebody please just think of the children!

(Good luck with the book, by the way.)

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Whoa there!

There's a danger of another Wallace thread breaking out here! Think of the children! Why won't somebody please just think of the children!

(Good luck with the book, by the way.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed Herlock - and perhaps some insights from the records concerning Parkes and how his statement was viewed/treated. His statement, as unlikely as it sounds, does throw a spanner in the works for those, like me, who have reached the conclusion that Wallace was most likely involved in the murder.

I think that Parkes is problematic whichever way you lean Eten but I take your point. What I find strange is when people still point to Parry as the killer, largely due to Parkes, and yet ignore/dismiss his alibi for the night of the murder.

[etenguy]

It will be interesting to read Mark’s take and preferred solution.

Indeed Herlock - and perhaps some insights from the records concerning Parkes and how his statement was viewed/treated. His statement, as unlikely as it sounds, does throw a spanner in the works for those, like me, who have reached the conclusion that Wallace was most likely involved in the murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It will be interesting to read Mark’s take and preferred solution.