Julie Wallace

[Tom_Wescott]

Wallace wasn't allowed to stay in his own house. The police had torn it apart and it was uninhabitable. He had to stay somewhere.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Graham]

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

So can you please suggest a plausible motive? The fact that his missus was a stop-at-home is no motive. He himself wasn't exactly a bundle of fun.

I've got no axe to gring one way or the other re: the Wallace Case except that it's interesting as are most murder mysteries.

Graham

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Graham,

There are multiple possibilities as to why a semi-intellectual like Wallace would want to kill his burdensome wife. I'm sure you can think of all the reasons I could. Personally, I think the underlining reason was that he simply wanted the satisfaction of having gotten away with murder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Graham]

Hi Tom,

well, the vast majority of murders are domestic, so I've read, and I guess it can't be ruled out that even someone like WHW could just snap one night and decide he'd had enough of his old lady. But personally I doubt it. I'd have said he was more likely to shut her in the attic for the rest of her life....

As to getting away with murder, he was actually sentenced to death, and statistically, in the UK at least, most appeals against death-sentences in the 20th century failed. And if he did have the satisfaction of committing the perfect murder, he didn't enjoy it for long, did he?

Cheers,

Graham

[Tom_Wescott]

Then who committed this ludicrous murder, complete with 'Qualtrough' call to Wallace's club? Where's the motive for someone else to kill Julia and poorly stage a robbery? To bash her in the head multiple times (as is common with domestic murder but not robbery)? Motive is obviously more important to you than it is to me when the evidence literally only allows for Wallace to have been the killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Graham]

Then who committed this ludicrous murder, complete with 'Qualtrough' call to Wallace's club? Where's the motive for someone else to kill Julia and poorly stage a robbery? To bash her in the head multiple times (as is common with domestic murder but not robbery)? Motive is obviously more important to you than it is to me when the evidence literally only allows for Wallace to have been the killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Good point!

Graham

[Marko]

Then who committed this ludicrous murder, complete with 'Qualtrough' call to Wallace's club? Where's the motive for someone else to kill Julia and poorly stage a robbery? To bash her in the head multiple times (as is common with domestic murder but not robbery)? Motive is obviously more important to you than it is to me when the evidence literally only allows for Wallace to have been the killer.

I can tell you now that I know that people HAVE bludgeoned people to death in cases of robbery, so you are wrong there for a start. There isn't any proof that Wallace took a bus. Even if he did, the bus service in 1931 was unreliable to say the least. Regarding Wallace having affair....Here is a post I recently made on another forum;

Alan Hayhurst claims Wallace more than likely befriended a widow on his rounds, and began a relationship with her. While he is entitled to that opinion, facts don't bear it out. Two points;

1) If Wallace was found guilty, and executed, he wouldn't have had a relationship, except with the hangman.

2) If Wallace was freed (as he was on appeal) he could hardly have indulged in any subsequent relationship without it being public knowledge. I am sure the rumour mongers wouldn't have missed such a opportunity to announce it to the press...

Utterly ludicrous.

Regarding loving a mystery has nothing to do with it. I go by facts, and the fact is, he didn't have time to commit it. Wallace's job in itself was enough of a motive. There were 560 calls on his rounds and every one of them knew he had money in his home and that is without all the others who knew his occupation as well.

Goodman's is still the book on the case.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm afraid I must disagree with every bit of that post, Marko, except regarding Wallace having an extramarital affair. We both seem to agree he did not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Graham]

In my general ignorance of this case, I would ask the following questions:

- is there any evidence that Wallace and his missus ever had any serious fallings out prior to her untimely demise?

- how old was Julia when that famous (somewhat touched up) photo of her was taken, and do we know when it was taken? (The expression on her face in that photo suggests that she'd just sat down on a blancmange...)

- is it a definitely established fact that she was 20+ years older than Wallace?I've only got dear old Uncle Colin Wilson to go on here, and he describes her as a 'young lady' when she met Wallace.

- is it established that Gordon Parry knew the Wallaces?

Only asking...

Graham

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Graham, I'll do my best...

- Yes

- Not sure

- More like 18 years older than Wallace.

- Yes, there's absolutely no question that Gordon Parry knew the Wallaces. Wallace himself tried to cast suspicion on Parry, although he was very subtle about it. Lord knows if I thought the man had killed my wife, I would not have been subtle about it! Parry has a strong alibi (not known until 2000, so absent from all books but Murphys).

Since the Wallace case came down to only two men, Wallace and Parry, and we can now confidently exonerate Parry, where does that leave us? I'm afraid it is romantic wishful thinking to say that Wallace was innocent.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Graham]

I see.

So what was, if known, the nature of the Wallaces' falling-out? (I hope it wasn't over who had really left the blancmange on the best armchair...)

How was her age established?

What was Parry's alibi, apparently not known until 2000?

Again, only asking.

Graham

[Tom_Wescott]

Graham,

I don't have Murphy's book in front of me. He's the only author to publish solid and extensive research on the Wallace case. All other authors built their cases from sand. Best I can say from memory is that Lily Loyd was not Parry's alibi, as Goodman and subsequent authors wrote, and that Parry could not have made the Qualtrough call.
As for the Wallaces, visitors to the house noted how cold they were to each other and how Wallace was indifferent to Julia's health. That was from their doctor.
Murphy's book definitely needs a reissue. He is to Wallace what Stewart Evans is to Ripperology, whereas Goodman is more like Farson or Cullen. Good for their day, but outdated and irrelevant now.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Marko]

Graham

There is absolutely no evidence that Wallace and Julia had any falling out prior to her demise. Curwen's claim was in his words 'After having thought about it I have come to the conclusion that they didn't get on'. Dear oh dear. This after the murder. Obviously biased post-murder. He never mentioned it before...

My guess would be that Julia was in her 30's-40's when that portrait was taken of her.

She was 17 years older than Wallace. I have her birth certificate.

Yes, Parry knew the Wallace's. He said so himself. He collected on Wallace's round for a time in 1928.

I find it amusing that some regard Murphy as the be all and end all. It is also interesting to note that he quotes a lot of Goodman's facts. It does seem such a sad fact that some can be influenced by books that aren't 100% correct. There are still an incredible amount of facts in favour of Wallace, it is just that some don't want to recognise them...

I have to say that I am not a big fan of the Ripper case. There seems to be a plethora of self-appointed opinionated experts...

Hope this is of help
Mark

[Graham]

I have to say that I am not a big fan of the Ripper case. There seems to be a plethora of self-appointed opinionated experts...

I can see that I'm going to have to do some reading about the Wallace Case.
I've read Jonathan Goodman on other subjects, and have to say that he seems to know what he's talking about.

The thing about the Ripper Case is that there are so few known, absolute facts. Anyone can get up and have a good rant about his/her theory. Take 'em or leave 'em. The Wallace Case seems to me to be similar to my own favourites, the A6 Case and The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case - a whole lot of historical fact is known about them, but there are still plenty of unanswered questions and it's not possible to 'make up' any additional information. It's more a question of interpretation of the known facts.

Graham

[Marko]

I've read Jonathan Goodman on other subjects, and have to say that he seems to know what he's talking about.

The thing about the Ripper Case is that there are so few known, absolute facts. Anyone can get up and have a good rant about his/her theory. Take 'em or leave 'em. The Wallace Case seems to me to be similar to my own favourites, the A6 Case and The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case - a whole lot of historical fact is known about them, but there are still plenty of unanswered questions and it's not possible to 'make up' any additional information. It's more a question of interpretation of the known facts.

Graham

I agree Graham. It seems quite a thing now to put the boot into Goodman, but the man unearthed some excellent facts regarding the Wallace Case. Sure, as Tom says he made mistakes, but what author hasn't? I think we will find that a lot of our so-called 'experts' will have made mistakes, and their works will, one day be outdated but that doesn't mean they aren't worthy pieces of work. Who would have thought that Crippen was innocent? Now it seems that after DNA testing the remains found at Hilldrop Crescent were NOT Belle Elmore's...