Julie Wallace

[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]

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]

Graham,

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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

[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.

[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

[Graham]

Hi Marko,

I asked about a plausible motive for WHW because in my opinion there isn't one! Not that I'm at all well-read about this case, but it seems to me that WHW had no reason whatsoever to kill his wife. To suggest that he did so because she was 20-odd years older than he is both ridiculous and immature.
But someone killed her, obviously...

By the way, WHW was the dead spit of Neville Chamberlain!

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

Marko,

I spent a pleasant hour last night leafing through the Wallace blog on YoLiverpool, per your link. Interesting (and very baffling).

Mind, its 80 pages pale into insignificance compared with the 500 just pegged up on the A6 Case thread on this forum.

Cheers,

Graham

[Marko]

Hi Marko,

I asked about a plausible motive for WHW because in my opinion there isn't one! Not that I'm at all well-read about this case, but it seems to me that WHW had no reason whatsoever to kill his wife. To suggest that he did so because she was 20-odd years older than he is both ridiculous and immature.
But someone killed her, obviously...

By the way, WHW was the dead spit of Neville Chamberlain!

Yes Graham. I'm with you re: motive. I have to laugh at 'Wallaceites' (those who believe Wallace guilty) when they say 'you don't need a motive to murder' and that is true. But it also applies to anybody else. The problem is, they then put some of the most ridiculous theories forward as to why Wallace would have committed it and say nobody else had any reason to murder Mrs. Wallace... Chamberlain:

Marko,

I spent a pleasant hour last night leafing through the Wallace blog on YoLiverpool, per your link. Interesting (and very baffling).

Mind, its 80 pages pale into insignificance compared with the 500 just pegged up on the A6 Case thread on this forum.

Cheers,

Graham

Thanks for that as well Graham. I have to say that I don't get time to read all the posts. I am currently writing a book on the Wallace Case and hope to get it done this year (finally!!).

Best regards

Mark

[Tom_Wescott]

Marko,

Perhaps it was unfair for me to say that Goodman, et al didn't do their homework if they were refused access to pertinent info. Of course, my point that all books prior to Murphy's are therefore rubbish still stands. The case against Parry absolutely disappears, and the case against Parry was the sole reason for questioning Wallace's guilt. That and the false notion that Wallace couldn't have made the phone call. Goodman tried to put Wallace on a tram, when in fact he took the much quicker bus, leaving plenty of time to make the Qualtrough call and get to the club. There really should be no doubt that Wallace was guilty. The fact that there is can only be proof of wishful thinking.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Gideon Fell]

Guilty

Wallace was guilty of course, but some people just love a mystery.

[Tom_Wescott]

Marko and Graham,

Julia lived at home. She went almost nowhere and knew almost no one. When he wasn't working, Wallace was home with his wife. Pray tell, who other than Wallace would have had motive for killing Julia? The case against Parry has been shattered, so who does that leave but Wallace?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Gideon Fell]

Marko and Graham,
Julia lived at home. She went almost nowhere and knew almost no one. When he wasn't working, Wallace was home with his wife. Pray tell, who other than Wallace would have had motive for killing Julia? The case against Parry has been shattered, so who does that leave but Wallace?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

...who was having an affair, probably with his sister in law.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Gideon. There's no evidence at all that Wallace was having an affair. I think it was more personal than that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Gideon Fell]

Hi Gideon. There's no evidence at all that Wallace was having an affair. I think it was more personal than that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

It doesn't get more personal than that. Wallace went to stay with her after the murder.