Julie Wallace

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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'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

[Marko]

Strange then that at the trial when MacFall said 4 hours, the Defence did not put to him that he had said 2 hours originally.

Regarding Wallace having an accomplice, wouldn’t he have needed one anyway to make the phone call? Beattie was certain it was not Wallace on the phone, who he was talking to in person shortly afterwards.

I agree Nick - there was a lot the defence team didn't do/say that could have benefited Wallace's case. I am not completely convinced Roland Oliver believed his client was innocent...In his summing up, Oliver told the jury; 'You may think that the accused might have committed the act but on the other hand, it might also be said that it is consistent with somebody else having done it...'. One cannot imagine Edward Marshall Hall defending his client with a statement like this...

There is a possibility that Wallace could have disguised his voice on the telephone although I am not sure about that...

[NickB]

Strange then that at the trial when MacFall said 4 hours, the Defence did not put to him that he had said 2 hours originally.

Regarding Wallace having an accomplice, wouldn’t he have needed one anyway to make the phone call? Beattie was certain it was not Wallace on the phone, who he was talking to in person shortly afterwards.

[Marko]

I’ve read through all those pages! Opinion seems to be heavily in favour of Wallace.

My source for McFall’s evidence at the trial is ‘Verdict in dispute’ by Edgar Lustgarten.

McFall starts by saying “death had taken place at least four hours before”. Later, in response to the judge, he modifies this slightly saying “the woman had been dead about four hours”.

Of course this still put the killing at before 6.30, so Oliver (Counsel for the Defence) points out “If she was alive at half past six, your opinion is wrong”, and McFall responds “Yes”.

Bravo Nick! You deserve a gold medal for trawling through all those pages

Yes, MacFall still stuck to his guns that it was 6.00pm. Believe it or not, some of the prosecution team were convinced that milkboy Close didn't speak to Julia, but to Wallace dressed as Julia!!! How he managed to pass himself off as a woman of 5"2 when he was 6"2 is anybody's guess...

Lustgarten's Verdict in Dispute is a great book.

[Marko]

Hi Tom

Yes, the trial transcript was one of the items amongst the file held at the police hq (I think there is also a copy held at the National Archives at Kew).

Yes Nick, MacFall did say the murder was committed four hours earlier than his arrival (about 6.00pm) but in his first statement he said that it was 2 hours before. Tom re: MacFall -you're right - he thought of himself as a bit of a 'Spilsbury' but he wasn't - the errors in his methods would bear this out...
I have to say that I believe the lion's share of the evidence is as much in favour of Wallace's innocence as his guilt. Don't get me wrong, I am not 100% sure but if I had to fall down on one side, it would be for his innocence. There are some that believe WHW hired a 'contract killer' to do the job...I'm not sure about that one - it would take an immense amount of trust...
The blood spatter was up to 7 feet up the walls in some places.
I also agree with you regarding the police - I don't think they were as incompetent as they were made out. I suppose for 1931, the thought of any forensic/crime scene evidence was not too high on the agenda.

Regards

Mark

[Tom_Wescott]

Mark,

I'm sorry to hear you got ripped off with that police file. Good thing you didn't pay all that money! I would imagine the trial transcript is available publicly somewhere, is it not?

Mark and Nick,

At this juncture, I find there's just too many leaps of logic required to presume Wallace is innocent. The lion's share of evidence and reason points to his guilt. I'll go into that more later, but let me say that based on how the trial was ran, I believe he SHOULD have been found 'Not Guilty'. Although I think he was guilty, I don't think the prosecutor proved their burden and the jury indeed seems to have been biased. I also think McFall had too much faith in his own opinions and therefore much of the medical evidence in this case is useless. Having said that, I don't know that I think the police were as incompetent as Goodman makes them out in his book. Sure they made mistakes, but focusing in on Wallace early in the investigation was not one of them.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[NickB]

I’ve read through all those pages! Opinion seems to be heavily in favour of Wallace.

My source for McFall’s evidence at the trial is ‘Verdict in dispute’ by Edgar Lustgarten.

McFall starts by saying “death had taken place at least four hours before”. Later, in response to the judge, he modifies this slightly saying “the woman had been dead about four hours”.

Of course this still put the killing at before 6.30, so Oliver (Counsel for the Defence) points out “If she was alive at half past six, your opinion is wrong”, and McFall responds “Yes”.

[Marko]

Here's a link to our thread that appears on Yo! Liverpool Forum;

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3494&highlight=Julia+Wallace

Be warned - it is over 70 pages long and has over 700 posts

[Marko]

Hi Tom

I accessed the police file in 2007 through persistence. It was supposed to be £2000 but I didn’t have to pay that (I wouldn’t have done either!). I was slightly disappointed though. The file has been decimated and a lot of the documents are photocopies...Btw I am hoping to write a book on the case…

I am pretty sure Murphy’s The Murder of Julia Wallace will be reprinted by Bluecoat Press. They do reprint editions. If I were you, I would try to locate a copy through the library system or second hand bookshops online. $253 is extreme!!

I agree with you re: MacFall. In truth, he wasn’t that great a pathologist – the lack of taking a body/room temperature at the crime scene bears this out…He also contradicted himself regularly during the case. He changed his opinion more times than Liz Taylor has married . MacFall also claimed that the instrument used was something like a large ‘club’ with a heavy head only to contradict this later…

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.

The part of the mackintosh that was burned had the rings of the fire on it, as did Julia’s skirt. If a guilty Wallace would have handled a bloodstained item the traces of blood would have been there, particularly beneath the fingernails.

You are wrong to claim my entire reason for it depends on the kids – I have many reasons and there are many factors that make me unsure – the kids is just one of them. I also cannot believe the pure random messy method is something that Wallace would have done. The whole thing was fraught with danger. If he wanted to kill his wife, then why didn’t he go on a holiday to a secluded spot and push her over a cliff?

Nick: No. In MacFall’s original statement he claims The death occurred about two hours before I arrived (my italics). MacFall arrived at about 9.50, thereby making it possible that death occurred at that time. I agree totally with you regarding Beattie stating that the voice sounded nothing like Wallace's.

Tom: I am not a great believer in criminal profiling…To me it is not an exact science. It would be dangerous to come to any conclusions because of profiling. We don't know exactly how a homicidal maniac will act.

The possibility of a robbery should not be overlooked. It is possible that somebody could have gained access through several ways:
1) By Julia openly admitting them
2) By duplicate key
3) By sneaking in through the back door. WHW himself said that Julia came to the back door with him. She might have inadvertently left the scullery door open.

Nick you are right - there was a robbery - there was actually £4 missing from the house.

Regards

Mark

[NickB]

An unplanned domestic murder is more likely to result in overkill than a violent burglary, but Wallace (if he did it) pre-planned this murder meticulously.

And although you could claim Wallace staged it, there was a robbery.