Julie Wallace

[louisa]

Thanks for that, Phil, a very interesting post.

[apricot]

Evenin' All,

I have always wanted to believe in Wallace's innocence, but the thing I can never quite get my head round is, if the reason for the 'phone call was to make sure Wallace was out the way so he could rob the house, what was the motive in the murderous attack on Julia? If he knew so much about Wallace's life and hobbies etc, surely he would have known he was married and his wife was likely to be at home, also I think it's generally excepted that if a burglar is disturbed they do a runner, perhaps a shove out the way but not a sustained attack, why would they risk the rope?

Just my tuppence worth!

[louisa]

Hi Apricot - your tuppence worth is appreciated. Good to see you.

The robbery (and possibly the murder) was pre-meditated and have taken some planning. A knowledge of the Wallace's routine (and household layout) must have been known to the murderer. If the murderer was Parry then he knew all about the Wallaces and their habits and went to the Wallace house that evening with robbery - and possibly murder - in mind. The murderer knew enough to know where the money was kept and even replaced the money box back on it's high shelf, with it's lid replaced. This detail makes one think that Wallace was the culprit, replacing the money box out of habit.

It's these little details that are so perplexing - the whys and wherefors - and make this case so fascinating.

[apricot]

Hi Louisa,

It's also odd that the money in the jar in the bedroom wasn't taken although it was smeared with blood and all the gaslights were out so would a burglar seach for loot in the dark? But mainly the pure savagery of the attack makes it seem like pent up hatred so therefore very personal!

KR Angie

[louisa]

The money in the bedroom jar was smeared with blood because Wallace had removed it himself in the presence of a policeman. He had remembered that some money was kept in the jar and wanted to see if it was all still there. Wallace had already touched Julia's body by this time, hence the blood on his hands.

Yes I agree that a frenzied attack is usually perpetrated by somebody with pent up feelings of aggression. Who knows what lay under the calm exterior of William Herbert Wallace?

[apricot]

Hi Louisa,

Thanks for clearing that up for me, that's one less thing for me to wonder about!

Do you think Parry is a viable suspect? I used to but now have my doubts, would be interested in your opinion.

KR Angie

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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!

[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!

[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]

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

[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