Julie Wallace

[Tom_Wescott]

I've read all the Gordon Parry books (just finished Wilkes last week), and while I admit the theory is compelling, if you step back and evaluate the actual evidence against Parry, you'll find there is none. The theory that he pulled his car up and went up to the door wearing an oilcloth cape, waist high galoshes, and a single glove cracks me up. He then drives from the murder scene to a garage he'd been kicked out of for stealing and proceeds to have a guy who doesn't like him clean out his car, confessing to the murder all the meanwhile. If all of this is true then he deserves his freedom for having gotten away with the most poorly committed murder on record.

If it comes down to Wallace or Parry (and it certainly seems to), then I find it remarkable that nowadays more people are for Parry as the guilty party than Wallace. Mind-blowing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[sdreid]

No doubt that Parry was the number one suspect up until recently but there seems to be some movement back away from him. I switched back to Wallace about a year ago.

[Tom_Wescott]

I received recently James Murphy's book. He must have went to the Andrew Cook school of how to market your book, because he put a colorized version of Julia Wallace's corpse on the cover. Very distasteful. I hope the book itself offers more restraint.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Marko]

I have read Murphy's book a few times. I annotated (and read it again) over the last week and I have never been convinced. I think it is more an exercise in blinding with science than finding of facts. A lot of CSI and profiling, which I don't think are exact sciences and the crime scenes were heavily contaminated with police/medical and other presences to render them almost useless...Saying that, Murphy makes some valid and excellent points but I am not convinced regarding the time factor. I also believe the suggestion that Wallace took a bath in the time is ludicrous. There were no traces the bath had been used...also MacFall's and Pierce's idea that Wallace could have avoided blood spatter - this I also believe is a ridiculous suggestion...
I have always thought 'Q' using Box 1627 to be in Wallace's favour. Why he (Wallace) would use a phone in the Anfield area beggars belief. Murphy claims that Wallace had no choice but to use the Rochester Road call-box as it was 'dark and isolated' then goes on to say that Wallace couldn't use a call box near the chess club as it would be suspicious if he was seen...This is contradictory. Surely there was more chance of Wallace being recognised in his own area than one less conspicuous with him?
__________________

[Tom_Wescott]

Marko,

Of course, there's the very real possibility, given that it's 1931, that Wallace didn't anticipate the call being traced. He may not even have known that was possible with a public phone.
As for not being spattered with blood, that's also not altogether difficult. Lizzie Borden did it as have many others. Wallace was a smart man. To plan this murder wouldn't have taken much time or effort. A few fabricated diaries, a phone call, and a jaunt about Liverpool.
I haven't read the Murphy book yet. Three Wallace tomes in a row and I needed a break! I'm on the last 100 pages of a Hall-Mills murder book and then I'll read Murphy. I agree with you about the whole profiling nonsense. I rolled my eyes when I realized that was a big part of his argument.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Marko]

Marko,

Of course, there's the very real possibility, given that it's 1931, that Wallace didn't anticipate the call being traced. He may not even have known that was possible with a public phone.

Wallace gave lectures in science/chemistry at the Liverpool Technical College for five years in the early-mid 1920's. He was also a subscriber to scientific magazines. As you say in the next paragraph, Wallace was a smart man. I think he could have known there was a possibility the call could have been traced. Qualtrough made his first call at 7.15. Then his second at 7.17. Then finally put through proper at 7.20. That the call WAS traced is proof that it COULD be traced and I am sure Wallace could have known the possibilities of this...It would seem suicidal for WHW to use a phone box in the vicinity of his home. He was known in the area and at 6 "2 rather noticable. Anybody could have been walking past the box or even been waiting to use it.

As for not being spattered with blood, that's also not altogether difficult. Lizzie Borden did it as have many others. Wallace was a smart man. To plan this murder wouldn't have taken much time or effort. A few fabricated diaries, a phone call, and a jaunt about Liverpool.

It is altogether difficult in such a confined space, and especially considering the bath had not been used. There would have been traces on him/his clothing. To plan a murder so convoluted would also seem to be suicidal to Wallace. I have always believed that the messy, possibly error-strewn method would not have been the way Wallace would have committed it. It makes no sense for him to go to those lengths when there are far easier (and less messy) ways of killing. Yes, others have killed and got rid of bloodstained evidence but probably not in the time and manner Wallace was supposed to have done it.

[HollyDolly]

Julia Wallace

I really haven't read too much on the case, mainly what was in true crime anthologies were they list several cases. And certainly not whole books devoted to the case.
Has anyone looked into the possibilty of the killer being a relative?
I don't think the Wallaces had children. But they could have had nieces or nephews with whom they were in contact,especially Julia.

Maybe this nephew or even cousin came to her to borrow money.
Maybe she refused to loan this person any, or the amount she gave them just wasn't enough, so they got angry and killed her.
Do we know if she or Wallace had brothers or sisters?

[Tom_Wescott]

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,

Tom Wescott

[HollyDolly]

Thanks Tom.I'll have to put in an interlibrary loan for the book.
I didn't think that julia Wallace was in her 50s. I thought she and her husband were the same age, or that she might have been in her late 60s,if younger than him.

[Tom_Wescott]

Wallace was 20 years younger than his wife. This was not known until Murphy's book appeared in 2000.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[looby64]

I still can't make my mind up on this case, I read Roger Wilkes book The Final Verdict which was very interesting.
First off I thought Wallace had set up the phone call and false meeting and convinced myself he was guilty, then I changed my mind, if I go by my gut feeling I feel he's innocent.
I am now reading James Murphys book so will see how I feel after that.
Looby64

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[Graham]

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

[Tom_Wescott]

She was a sickly 72 year old simpleton. His motive for having married her is more of a mystery to me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Graham]

She was a sickly 72 year old simpleton. His motive for having married her is more of a mystery to me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

And yet, according to Colin Wilson (in whom I must admit I don't always place a whole lot of confidence) Julia Wallace was well-read, spoke French, played the piano and was an excellent artist. So she was 20-odd years older than he - is that a reason for him to kill her? If so, I'd hazard a guess and say that the streets of the Western World must be littered with the corpses of cast-off elderly ladies - which, of course, they are not.

You must do better than that, Tom.

Graham