Julie Wallace

[Tom_Wescott]

It's a pretty all-encompassing statement to say that an author's 'credibility' is transferred to a book when he writes a foreword for that book. I'm not quite sure that I understand the above part of the sentence commencing 'nevertheless...'. What exactly is your point?

It might be all-encompassing, but it's also totally accurate. That's why you and RW-E are asked to do forewords all the time, and not Dr. John Pope de Locksley. Your reputations reflect on the book and increase it's credibility, and therefore sales. The author and the publishers like that. My point with the last statement is that someone might write a foreword for someone else's book, but not necessarily agree with its conclusions, so readers should be aware of that and not expect the book their purchasing to live up to the work put out by the guy writing the foreword. It very well may, but not necessarily.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I can see the point when an established personality produces a foreword for a weak book. It's ethically misleading.

It's a pretty all-encompassing statement to say that an author's 'credibility' is transferred to a book when he writes a foreword for that book.

In the academic environment it can even end up having negative connotations. Currently I'm sitting on the dilemma of if I should ask my German boss (who's an authority on a certain field) to write a foreword for my upcoming book, and I'm hesitating. I'm sure he'll write something beautiful, but do I need to advertize the fact that we're close, and get his numerous enemies on my back? Already due to him (due to a legal dispute he won) I had to change my publisher (which went bankrupt after the legal dispute). And already there's a certain (illustrous in the past, sh*tty today) German University and a certain (very rich and powerful) German organisation with whom I can't do business cuz of him! (For the latter, I have it in mind to attach myself to an additional boss in the future.)
What's hilarious is that if the author happens to be a young woman, there's also the voices “He wrote a brilliant review for her, ergo he's doing her“. But noone really pays attention to such, and at any rate a book will speak for itself.

[Stewart P Evans]

Point

Hi Stewart. As you've seen from the young lady's post, when an author of repute writes a foreword for a book, his credibility is transferred to that book, so it's unfortunate when this results in many people purchasing a book on a subject that's poorly researched or offers a 'conclusion' or premise not based on solid research. Perhaps money is not a motive, so I'll strike that statement from the record, nevertheless my point still stands, which is that because Whittington-Egan (or any author of repute) writes a foreword for a book, it is not always indicative of their belief in the premise put foreword, or an endorsement of the author's veracity.
...
Tom Wescott

Yes, thank you for that, the remark 'pays cash' was ill-advised, ill-considered, unfounded and totally unnecessary.

It's a pretty all-encompassing statement to say that an author's 'credibility' is transferred to a book when he writes a foreword for that book. I'm not quite sure that I understand the above part of the sentence commencing 'nevertheless...'. What exactly is your point?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Stewart. As you've seen from the young lady's post, when an author of repute writes a foreword for a book, his credibility is transferred to that book, so it's unfortunate when this results in many people purchasing a book on a subject that's poorly researched or offers a 'conclusion' or premise not based on solid research. Perhaps money is not a motive, so I'll strike that statement from the record, nevertheless my point still stands, which is that because Whittington-Egan (or any author of repute) writes a foreword for a book, it is not always indicative of their belief in the premise put foreword, or an endorsement of the author's veracity.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Do you know...?

...
As for this Gannon book, I would hope it's a fictionalization of the crime. Richard Whittington-Egan is fully willing to write forewords for crappy books. I think he wrote the foreword for Tom Slemen's Ripper book. It pays cash, don't ya know.
...
Tom Wescott

Do you know Richard Whittington-Egan? Do you know why he writes the forewords for various books? If not I suggest that you do not suggest why he is willing to write certain forewords, nor make (incorrect) suggestions as to why he does.

[louisa]

Hi Tom

You sound almost as cynical as I am!


"I paid well over 100 bucks for mine, and it was (at the time) one of only two copies available anywhere on the internet."

Could you photocopy it for me please? (just kidding)

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Apricot. In case you're not aware, a fellow named Murphy published a book on the case a few years back that is pretty well the be-all, end-all of this 'mystery'. With full access to ALL relevant records, not to mention years of research, he proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Wallace murdered his wife. Unfortunately, this book is very hard to get. I paid well over 100 bucks for mine, and it was (at the time) one of only two copies available anywhere on the internet.

In light of Murphy's masterful work, there are two kinds of people still discussing the Wallace case as though it were a mystery, those who haven't read Murphy's book, and idiots.

As for this Gannon book, I would hope it's a fictionalization of the crime. Richard Whittington-Egan is fully willing to write forewords for crappy books. I think he wrote the foreword for Tom Slemen's Ripper book. It pays cash, don't ya know.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[apricot]

That is so true! What I find interesting is that he has full case files from the proscecution and all Hector Munro's defence files, which the police wouldn't allow Roger Wilkes, incidently, he has reviewed the book very favourably and Richard Whittington- Egan has written the foreword, so it may have some merit, if only more fodder for argument!

KR Angie

[louisa]

In any famous murder case there are always writers who want to make money out of a fresh slant - a new theory on the case - even if that theory is a preposterous one.

Regarding the new book, I won't be placing my order until I read some reviews about it.

[apricot]

Have just discovered that a new book by John Gannon is being released Jan 29th, synopsis sounds intriguing to say the least,William Wallace paying a hitman and Parry as the 'phone caller and getaway driver!

Needless to say have put my pre-order in!

[apricot]

Hi Angie

I've read two books on the case (plus the Murder Casebook). The Killing of Julia Wallace is a good book (and I recommend it) by Jonathan Goodman. He thinks that Parry was the murderer.

Parry had the type of psychotic personality to commit a murder of this kind. He could have been lurking in the alley (at the junction of the alley where he would be able to see part of Wolverton Street) to see when Wallace left his house. Julia would have let him in because she knew him well (as an acquaintance of the couple). Parry had an alibi - he said he was with his girlfriend at the time of the murder, and she backed him up. However, in later years the girlfriend went to the police and stated that Parry had not been with her at the time of the murder. Parry had asked her to lie.

I still don't rule Wallace out as the murderer though but I think that Parry is more likely.

i
Hi Louisa,

I read Jonathan Goodman's book a few years ago and found his conclusions very plausable, I think if I remember correctly, he went to Parry's house and confronted him with his theory, bet that was an interesting conversation!

Totally agree about the iron bar, why would he remove it?

Curiouser and curiouser!

[louisa]

Yes the iron bar is a bit of a mystery but I'm a bit sceptical about it. Why wouldn't Wallace leave it there, beside the body?

[Bridewell]

The Presence of The "Non-Existent" Bar

Hi Tom


As I stated in an earlier post, Goodman’s presumption of the iron bar behind the fireplace was based on workers some time after the killing. I think James Murphy states in TMOJW that the whole room (fireplace and all) was stripped and no bar was found. I agree with him on that – I cannot believe such an item would escape the police. I also cannot believe for the life of me that a guilty Wallace would leave the weapon at the scene. It defies belief.



Regards

Mark

I haven't read anything on this case recently, although I do recall doing so some time ago. If the story about a later occupant finding an iron bar is genuine, then I have to think Wallace guilty. The fact that the police gutted the place and found nothing does not prove this story false. The best place for a murderer to hide a weapon, yet keep it under his own control, is somewhere already searched by the police. If the bar which Wallace claimed never to have existed had been hidden elsewhere and returned to the house, as the circumstances would suggest, it is strongly indicative of guilt.

[kidtwist]

I'm inclined to believe Wallace was the murderer. I read Goodman's book and it's excellent, but I disagree with his conclusion. I think that Wallace did everything he could to create an alibi for himself, and it ultimately worked.

Mark

[louisa]

Hi Angie

I've read two books on the case (plus the Murder Casebook). The Killing of Julia Wallace is a good book (and I recommend it) by Jonathan Goodman. He thinks that Parry was the murderer.

Parry had the type of psychotic personality to commit a murder of this kind. He could have been lurking in the alley (at the junction of the alley where he would be able to see part of Wolverton Street) to see when Wallace left his house. Julia would have let him in because she knew him well (as an acquaintance of the couple). Parry had an alibi - he said he was with his girlfriend at the time of the murder, and she backed him up. However, in later years the girlfriend went to the police and stated that Parry had not been with her at the time of the murder. Parry had asked her to lie.

I still don't rule Wallace out as the murderer though but I think that Parry is more likely.