Julie Wallace

[Stewart P Evans]

Start

Hi Stewart. Yes, I've seen that there's a number of Wallace books (most with only a chapter devoted to it), although I've also read how erred and useless many of them are. After Goodman's I will probably read a few written since his book. I think the JonBenet case, which I've read every book on, might be the most frustrating case I've come across thus far (outside of Jack, of course!).
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

This is always a good one to start with, it's the Wyndham-Brown classic of 1933 -

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks for that suggestion, Stewart. Funny how they put all the inner-sleeve blurbs on the cover! Do you have any Wallace memorabilia in your collection?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[babybird67]

hi Stewart

i notice you consider it has been proven he was guilty? Has this come from recent evidence? What is it that makes the case decided in your view?

thanks

[Stewart P Evans]

Guilty

i notice you consider it has been proven he was guilty? Has this come from recent evidence? What is it that makes the case decided in your view?
thanks

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Very Good Book

Here's another very good book on the case, by John Rowland and dated 1949. It is an amazingly similar read to Jonathan Goodman's book.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, Stewart. I like the scissors cutting the noose on the cover of that one. I take it you're not impressed with Goodman's input on this case. He said he was the first to study the trial transcripts and do an exhaustive study. Isn't this his most popular and best-selling book?

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.

[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

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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...

[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