Julie Wallace

[sdreid]

Where's the evidence for that theory? When did Marsden die? I do remember seeing a theory sometime back that claimed that Marsden was using Parry's car and committed the murder but I don't know if that theory had the other claims. Wouldn't Wallace's neighbors have seen the two rent boys coming and going?

I still think Wallace did it then hit the road to establish his alibi.

[burkhilly]

It would be unfair to the author if I were to give out too much information, because JG has done a lot of research and there are a few new titbits in the book.

Whilst I do not believe JG's conclusion, and I was disappointed in the book, the disappointment was because there wasn't that definitive reveal of evidence I had hoped for.

I think it highly unlikely that we'll ever have the answer to who killed Julia.

[Marko]

Where's the evidence for that theory? When did Marsden die?

Marsden died on 23rd June 1967 Stan (I actually found out quite a substantial amount of information on Marsden some years ago) I don't want to say much as I am still in the progress of writing the book. I can say that I am sure it will be finished in the next few months. Yes, Richard Waterhouse put a theory forward of contract killing between Wallace, Parry and A.N. Other. Unmitigated drivel of course As I am sure you are aware Stan I made reference to Marsden on this forum with your good self, granger (and others) a few years ago. Obviously a certain individual jumped upon it.

I have to confess I have not read the book (and have no desire to), mainly due to the fact that I don't have to to dismiss it. I completely agree with you Burkhilly - not only are these ridiculous claims utterly degrading to an innocent victim, they are also completely unfounded, as are the claims on two innocent men. Unfortunately some will believe it. What is even worse, some will want to believe it.

[sdreid]

The subject came up on another thread about a potential Wallace Case movie which made me think about casting. The names that came first to mind were Liam Neeson for Wallace, Helen Mirren for Julia and David Radcliffe for Parry. I then wondered if Ms. Mirren might be a little too sexy to play Julia so maybe Shelley Duvall if she can do a decent British accent. Any comments or dream casts of your own?

[John G]

I'd like to suggest the actress Julie T Wallace as an alternative Julia!

[sdreid]

I'd like to suggest the actress Julie T Wallace as an alternative Julia!

She's got a good name for it.

[Mayerling]

I recently visited the National Archives at Kew and copied the complete holdings of Wallace material. I hope to incorporate these into what I have already written. I also managed to view the docu drama from 1975 Who Killed Julia Wallace? I hope to write a chapter on this made for TV programme for inclusion in the book.

You are correct Louisa - unlike some, my book will not have an agenda - something that practically every past Wallace book has been guilty of. Unfortunately this case has become the target of idiotic conspiracy theories by some who are more interested in boosting their own egos than putting a viable case forward. In a letter to me some years ago Jonathan Goodman had this to say: "It is the Wallace Case itself that deserves the praise - not anyone writing about it." It is a pity others (and those using it as a five minute fad, I must add) don't have the same mentality.

Hi Marko,

Jonathan was a friend and mentor to me, and I wish you luck on your book.

[Mayerling]

She's got a good name for it.

This reminds me of how William Thackeray got really upset at a popular singer of the 1830s and 1840s named "Catherine Hayes", whom he erroneously believed named herself for a notorious 18th Century husband murderer (one he wrote a novel about). He was deeply humiliated when Ms Hayes publicly pilloried him because she was born with the name Catherine Hayes!

[John G]

I think we have strayed off topic here, on a thread about the Wallace case in which Wallace was so obviously guilty.

Sorry, Stewart, but I would have to disagree with you there. There's absolute nothing that's obvious about this case.

[miss marple]

How can anyone in the modern age not think Wallace was guilty, when we knew so much more about the psychology of murder. Every move and action Wallace did on the fateful night shows his plan to create an alibi. As a chess player, he was a strategic thinker and was able to plan ahead. Today forensics would have nailed him. His actions appear clumsy today, but at the time they seemed clever, There is an unbroken circumstancial chain linking him to the crime. The only thing we lack is a motive, but we know nothing of the tensions or stress that may have been lurking inside that suburban household which may have been building up for years. I believe him to be an extremely devious ruthless man.
The whole thing was carefully planned from the Qualtrough phonecall and then when at the chess club refusing to look at a map which would have spoiled his alibi for Menlove Gardens East . Making a big fuss on the tram, so he was remembered.
Most tellingingly, going next door when he got home because he wanted witnesses to the death, claiming he could not get in, but miraculously could open the door when the neighbours appeared, then going inside and 'finding the body'. No signs of a breakin or forced entry.

Interestly, Professor John McFall, the forensic expert placed the death of Julia at 6 pm, when Wallace was still in the house, so Wallace would have had time to covered his clothes with his mac, before bashing Julia, then placing the mac under her body and leaving the house an hour later to set up his alibi.
The Professor and police were suspicious of Wallace's calm and collected behaviour as if he were detached.
People felt sorry for Wallace because he was old and quiet and 'a gentleman' which would influence the appeal. No one could believe he was capable of cold blooded murder. Had he been a young working class man on trial I'm sure the appeal would have failed.
Anyway it worked.

Miss Marple

[Mayerling]

How can anyone in the modern age not think Wallace was guilty, when we knew so much more about the psychology of murder. Every move and action Wallace did on the fateful night shows his plan to create an alibi. As a chess player, he was a strategic thinker and was able to plan ahead. Today forensics would have nailed him. His actions appear clumsy today, but at the time they seemed clever, There is an unbroken circumstancial chain linking him to the crime. The only thing we lack is a motive, but we know nothing of the tensions or stress that may have been lurking inside that suburban household which may have been building up for years. I believe him to be an extremely devious ruthless man.
The whole thing was carefully planned from the Qualtrough phonecall and then when at the chess club refusing to look at a map which would have spoiled his alibi for Menlove Gardens East . Making a big fuss on the tram, so he was remembered.
Most tellingingly, going next door when he got home because he wanted witnesses to the death, claiming he could not get in, but miraculously could open the door when the neighbours appeared, then going inside and 'finding the body'. No signs of a breakin or forced entry.

Interestly, Professor John McFall, the forensic expert placed the death of Julia at 6 pm, when Wallace was still in the house, so Wallace would have had time to covered his clothes with his mac, before bashing Julia, then placing the mac under her body and leaving the house an hour later to set up his alibi.
The Professor and police were suspicious of Wallace's calm and collected behaviour as if he were detached.
People felt sorry for Wallace because he was old and quiet and 'a gentleman' which would influence the appeal. No one could believe he was capable of cold blooded murder. Had he been a young working class man on trial I'm sure the appeal would have failed.
Anyway it worked.

Miss Marple

He could have done it Miss Marple, but he might not have. That's the whole problem about the Wallace Case. I like to play chess, and it does make one think of steps ahead, but it makes one so careful it also prevents somebody from openly inviting arrest, trial, and possible conviction for murder due to the somewhat wobbly rationale that "I'll create an alibi!". In fact had Wallace created an alibi and just lied when he said he got home, he'd probably would have had more instant success deflecting suspicion - how many people who are potential suspects carry around weird alibis like his?

It didn't work very well with the jury for that matter.

Jeff

[miss marple]

HI Mayerling

No one else could have done it in the timescale. There was no break in, no robbery and if a burgler or Parry gained access and battered Julia why would they place the mac under the body and why kill Julia, if burgery was the object? If it was a spontanous battering a burgler would have left the body in situ and scarpered not moved the body and placed the bloody mac under the body. The only reason for the bloody mac was if Wallace had it on when he was killing her.
The problem with this case was lack of apparent motive and Wallace's respectiblity, without the forensic evidence and DNA that would be available today the evidence was just circumstancial. I think the fake break in scenario would have been spotted today.
I think Wallace could plan ahead, but he was over thinking, his focus was narrow, and he became obsessed concentrating on the detail of his carefully planned alibi without considering other aspects such as time of death. I think in his mind ALIBI was the only important thing. even if that elaboration was not necessary, he could have hung around the chess club all evening.
The nature of the Alibi, its detail and Wallace's detachment does make me wonder whether he was on the autistic spectrum, maybe with aspberger's syndrome.
I thinka lot of of people like to see conspiracy theories in this case but if one looks at the facts, its quite straightfoward.

Regards Miss Maple

[Rosella]

I don't believe in conspiracy theories either. Certainly not Perry, Wallace and another man in combination murdering Julia as was put forward in one book on the case.

Wallace may have been a murderer, for some motive which has escaped everyone since 1931. However, doesn't the timing of the milk boy's call on Julia make it extremely difficult for a sick man like Wallace to murder, then clean up, dress and catch that tram to Menlove Gardens, though?

[miss marple]

The newsboy was not regarded as reliable.if the timings of the death were between 6 and 6.30 Wallace did it . No one else could have done it . The police thought he was naked under the mac. He could been wearing underwear. How long would it take to batter a frail old woman? A couple of minutes? Then take off the mac lay it by the fire push the body on to it, put on trousers shirt tie jacket coat. 10 mins maybe or less. Leave house.

It is the perfect murder, and my gut feel is that Wallace did it, there was something about the man. The case has parallels with that of John Selby Watson, the respectable Victorian Schoolmaster who, in his sixties battered his wife of many years to death in a fit of rage.1871. I think it was the first time balence of mind disturbed was used as a defence. There was a lot going on under the surface in both these marriages, but I think Wallace planned the death of his wife.
Beryl Bainbridge wrote a marvellous novel about the Watson marriage called Watson's Apology.

Miss Marple

[Graham]

I'm not widely read concerning the Wallace Case, but I've always felt that (a) there was insufficient motive for Wallace to do her in, and (b) he just doesn't strike me as a man capable of battering another human being to death. Poison, I feel, would have been his weapon of choice for such a deed. He was an odd bod, certainly, but I just don't see him as a cold-blooded killer. Which is not to say that he could well have got someone else to do the deed on his behalf, but why would he want Julia dead? I've also thought that the evidence given by his neighbours was dodgy, not because of any sinister reason, but it was either simply wrong or misunderstood. And of course there was the evidence of the blood-stained gloves in Parry's car, seen by the garage-hand who pressure-washed it shortly after the murder. Whatever the gain was from killing Julia, it couldn't have amounted to much - she had her foibles as did Wallace and as do all of us, but I just cannot see that Wallace killed her, or had her killed, for revenge or gain or both.

I don't think this case will ever be solved.

Graham