Julie Wallace

[sdreid]

I believe Wallace's first inference was against a chap name Marsden. Why did he switch his assertion to Parry. Did the first guy have too good an alibi? Now, throw in Johnston. I tend to think Wallace did it but there are at least five possibles including a random attack.

[burkhilly]

Visited Anfield Cemetary a couple of weeks ago, on a planned walk. A facinating and very historical place. I saw the Wallace grave, very plain and poignant. Someone had left a few silk flowers.

I believe that Mr Wallace was innocent and therefore felt very sad to see the grave of two people who according to everything I have read were an inoffensive couple, whose lives were destroyed by a horrible and violent crime.

[Marko]

This is a case from my neck of the woods. Have a look at Yo Liverpool. There's lots of knowledge on one of the threads. Worth a look at, although I think someone who posts on this forum, posts on the Yo Liverpool forum.

Yes burkhilly. The Yo! Julia Wallace thread is excellent. A lot more sensible discussion (and fair minded). As far as I know, a lot of the correspondents on Yo! are well read on the case.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Burk. I've read that thread. Lot of great people, but they seem to think more than they actually do, because they're way off base factually.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[burkhilly]

This is a case from my neck of the woods. Have a look at Yo Liverpool. There's lots of knowledge on one of the threads. Worth a look at, although I think someone who posts on this forum, posts on the Yo Liverpool forum.

[looby64]

I am currently reading James Murphys book and have read Roger Wilkes Wallace the final verdict. I feel it is important to read different authors views
and can make up my mind (as much as possible) whos version I can agree with.
X Looby

[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...

[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]

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

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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.