The Murder of Julia Wallace (1931) - Full DPP case files

[OneRound]

I do have the Winifred Duke one I think. I neglected to mention a few on my site. I have all the others you listed.

I think Gustafson is the one I said was a disgrace on my site. If that is the one then yeah, that book is honestly an utter disgrace. She thinks Parry is called Reginald for example, just zero effort leeching off of Wilkes' info.

Wyndham-Brown's online for free so I didn't bother with that. But I have all the rest just not Waterhouse. I also have some weird (maybe unpublished) one. It's a bunch of paper stapled together rather than a book. It doesn't have any new info but still.

Oh and I have magazines, I have the "Murder Can Be Fun" one and some more.

I can watch the old 70s Wallace movie, the Yorkshire TV one, but only watch. Which is annoying. They have a special place you go to view it, copies are illegal.

.
Hi WWH - I would be very grateful if you could set out how it is possible to watch the Yorkshire tv movie. It is of massive and never ending frustration to me that I knew in his final years the actor and lovely man Eric Longworth who played Wallace in this production but only found that out after his death. Consequently, I never discussed the case with him which I would have relished.

Many thanks,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you want to see the movie you have to contact the BFI or something (British Film Institute?). It's basically like the Kew national archives but for film. They have that film there and you can book to go see it.

The Rowland book is decent it's just that 50% or more of it is a retelling of the trial.

Hussey's book might be one of my favourites. It's hard to remember though, I've read so many I forget which ones are which and which ones I liked.

Lustgarten's book is VERY good but there won't be anything new for us in it. I really like that one, really well written.

I’ve got the Hussey book but I know what you mean about forgetting content. It’s why I’d like to make time to re-read all of the books and make notes.

The BFI have an amazing collection but I’ve contacted them in the past. I collect Sherlock Holmes stuff and the BFI have an early version of The Hound Of The Baskervilles that no one can access. They won’t do single copies unfortunately. It’s almost as bad as Andrew Lloyd bloody Webber who owns the rights to some very early silent Holmes movies which he appears to just want to keep to himself! I contacted his company twice but got no response.

Theres also Goodmans novel about the case of course. Well, it’s based on the case but with different locations and names. I do have it but I can’t recall much about it and I only read it a couple of years ago.

[WallaceWackedHer]

i haven’t seen that movie. I didn’t know it was possible to view? Yup, I’ll give Gustafson a miss I think. Rowland is available for just under £30 perhaps I’m tight but..... I might just get it before the next copy is back up to £100.

There are online stuff which you’ll also have like Chess And The Wallace Case.

If you want to see the movie you have to contact the BFI or something (British Film Institute?). It's basically like the Kew national archives but for film. They have that film there and you can book to go see it.

The Rowland book is decent it's just that 50% or more of it is a retelling of the trial.

Hussey's book might be one of my favourites. It's hard to remember though, I've read so many I forget which ones are which and which ones I liked.

Lustgarten's book is VERY good but there won't be anything new for us in it. I really like that one, really well written.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=WallaceWackedHer;
I think Gustafson is the one I said was a disgrace on my site. If that is the one then yeah, that book is honestly an utter disgrace. She thinks Parry is called Reginald for example, just zero effort leeching off of Wilkes' info.

Wyndham-Brown's online for free so I didn't bother with that. But I have all the rest just not Waterhouse. I also have some weird (maybe unpublished) one. It's a bunch of paper stapled together rather than a book. It doesn't have any new info but still.

Oh and I have magazines, I have the "Murder Can Be Fun" one and some more.

I can watch the old 70s Wallace movie, the Yorkshire TV one, but only watch. Which is annoying. They have a special place you go to view it, copies are illegal.

[/QUOTE]

i haven’t seen that movie. I didn’t know it was possible to view? Yup, I’ll give Gustafson a miss I think. Rowland is available for just under £30 perhaps I’m tight but..... I might just get it before the next copy is back up to £100.

There are online stuff which you’ll also have like Chess And The Wallace Case.

ok sod it, I’ve ordered Rowland.

[WallaceWackedHer]

We all tend to assume that the singeing on Julia’s skirt was done at the time of the murder but might it not be a bit of a red herring? Perhaps it got singed at another time and if she only ever intended to wear it around the house.....

I genuinely don’t see the cat as important. I think that someone has simply done a bit of imaginative thinking.

I think it was, because the scorch marks are horizontal matching the grid of the fireplace. So unless she had fallen into it previously... It seems highly likely it was done at the time.

The cat might be imaginative thinking, but you have to wonder by WHO. Because what sort of person could know something so weird and unknown, as well as the cat's name that I've never seen anywhere before.

It's like something you can't make up almost. It'd be like someone coming forward saying something about the missing wood chopper that was found. It's like the kind of thing where it's so obscure, that the only people who could ever come out with it would be those utterly OBSESSED with the case, or someone who knew the Wallaces personally.

I think John might have truly said it but is delirious with dementia. Or I think "Stan" might be putting something out there that he knows, and just being like ohhh yeah Johnston said it.

See what I mean?

That's why I think it's important. Not so much because of the theory, but due to the fact that someone even KNOWS that fact. If it was like, a well known fact it'd be like "meh", but when it's soooo out there and unknown you have to take it seriously.

Honestly as much badmouthing as Slemen gets, I will say to you that I have personally been able to verify every single claim in his book (ones ONLY in his book not others). For example the robbed home was #19 and the homeowner WAS Samuel Shotton and he WAS a postman.

There really WAS a Dan (whatever his last name is, I put it in my prior post) who worked as a ship joiner living at 30 Menlove Gardens... Just it's Menlove South not West so a little mistake there.

I think I verified Johnston's late-life address too.

So when I keep constantly doubting the guy and time after time it's showing me he's actually telling the truth, it makes me wonder if some of the other things I doubt him on (such as the crime scene at 19 having a targeted strike on savings from a pot and the pot put back) are also true.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Ive never seen a copy for sale to be honest but you appear to have read it? Where have you seen it?

I don’t have the Rowland book because whenever I’ve seen it for sale it’s always been around £100! I don’t have a copy of the Hargrave Lee Adam book only the online version, likewise Lusgarten, and I don’t have Wyndham Brown, Brophy or Moreland or Gustafson. There’s one book that I notice you don’t mention on the site (I don’t have it either) it’s Six Trials by Winifred Duke? There’s a section on Wallace.

Maybe I’ll get around to buying the ones that I don’t have?

I do have the Winifred Duke one I think. I neglected to mention a few on my site. I have all the others you listed.

I think Gustafson is the one I said was a disgrace on my site. If that is the one then yeah, that book is honestly an utter disgrace. She thinks Parry is called Reginald for example, just zero effort leeching off of Wilkes' info.

Wyndham-Brown's online for free so I didn't bother with that. But I have all the rest just not Waterhouse. I also have some weird (maybe unpublished) one. It's a bunch of paper stapled together rather than a book. It doesn't have any new info but still.

Oh and I have magazines, I have the "Murder Can Be Fun" one and some more.

I can watch the old 70s Wallace movie, the Yorkshire TV one, but only watch. Which is annoying. They have a special place you go to view it, copies are illegal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd REALLY like to crack two codes:

First the mackintosh and burning. I want to crack the exact series of events, where Julia was first struck, how she fell into the fire, what was done with the jacket, etc.

Secondly the cat.

I feel like I'm the only person on the planet who thinks that such a weird, obscure fact as the cat being missing being mentioned decades later (something so rarely known that it appeared only in passing in a single newspaper article that wasn't even a local Liverpool one) warrants close attention... There's no way some random person who's not obsessed-tier familiar with the case, or knew the Wallaces very well, could have said such a thing... And the story of how it was used - rather than this person just overlooking it like everyone else - well it's so elaborate and obscure, it strikes me as something you wouldn't just come up with on the spot.

We all tend to assume that the singeing on Julia’s skirt was done at the time of the murder but might it not be a bit of a red herring? Perhaps it got singed at another time and if she only ever intended to wear it around the house.....

I genuinely don’t see the cat as important. I think that someone has simply done a bit of imaginative thinking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And yeah that's basically what Waterhouse suggested in The Insurance Man (the only publication I don't own), and I think it's very strong.

Ive never seen a copy for sale to be honest but you appear to have read it? Where have you seen it?

I don’t have the Rowland book because whenever I’ve seen it for sale it’s always been around £100! I don’t have a copy of the Hargrave Lee Adam book only the online version, likewise Lusgarten, and I don’t have Wyndham Brown, Brophy or Moreland or Gustafson. There’s one book that I notice you don’t mention on the site (I don’t have it either) it’s Six Trials by Winifred Duke? There’s a section on Wallace.

Three that you don’t mention WWH are The Telephone Murder by Ronald Bartle. I have this one. I think that he is a Barrister or Solicitor and I don’t recall any details but he goes for Wallace, I seem to recall disagreeing with some stuff that he wrote though. Another to re-read maybe.

The Anatomy Of Murder by Dorothy L Sayers and Murder In Merseyside by Sleman’s.

Maybe I’ll get around to buying the ones that I don’t have?

Wyndham Brown £252 on Amazon. I think not....

I’ve just ordered the Lustgarten for £10.85

[WallaceWackedHer]

Did you just say that he might have done it?

I was going to suggest a name change to WallaceDidntWackHer but maybe it could be the even longer WallaceMightHaveWackedHer?
Id love to see the response from Admin if you told them that you wanted to change your name to...

WallaceMightHaveWackedHerButItsFarMoreLikelyToHave BeenAnAccompliceOfRichardGordonParry.

Doesn’t have much of a ring to it though but it’s certainly better than WallaceInADress

~

Perhaps one thing that we can all be guilty of at times is, in a genuine effort to get at the truth, over-thinking. People can of course plan things yet make mis-judgments and mistakes. They might do something that appears illogical to us but there was a reason for it at the time that we’re unaware of 90 years later.

Youre absolutely right of course that more questions could have been asked; lines could have been perused more vigorously. In court and by the police.

Well I have ranked Waterhouse and Gannon's general idea pretty highly. I don't think it works as well from a standpoint of logic, but of course there is a chance I am creating a perfect fit for the puzzle when the reality is that it's not such a perfect fit. I mean it is a possibility.

Solo Wallace I only have so low based on the pure fact that out of everything in the case I most firmly believe that Gordon called - so you can see why I have no choice but to put anything with that as the basis towards the upper ends of my possibility tiers. I can't and never will accept his falsification of an alibi is a mistake. Commonly alibis are faked because the person is covering an affair, but seeing he gave Lily Lloyd's name as who he was with I don't think that's the case here... If he'd been re-questioned and admitted to falsifying the alibi because he had been committing another crime at the time, he would have been charged like the other thief who admitted to that.

I think something quite simple, would be say... Wallace has Gordon call, he bashes his wife's head in, then he dumps everything on Gordon. The evidence in favour of another man in ANY scenario - Gordon or otherwise (but I'm sure it's Gordon for many reasons, Parkes, parents trying to have him smuggled away, cryptic comments to Goodman implying he knows something, Lily admitting to pushing back his alibi time for him - there's just a LOT).

And yeah that's basically what Waterhouse suggested in The Insurance Man (the only publication I don't own), and I think it's very strong.

I DO think a lot of aspects of the case lead to a conclusion of innocence, however... It's one of those things where it's like "he COULD have done it... but that doesn't mean he DID do it". That evidence in my view is more salient than him doing some silly things like not checking a map........ Though we have to be fair, maps at the time were not always up to date, since new roads were built and atlases came out what - yearly?... Or being dumb enough to fall for it despite not recognizing the name (I think he was meant to).

So yeah...

I'd REALLY like to crack two codes:

First the mackintosh and burning. I want to crack the exact series of events, where Julia was first struck, how she fell into the fire, what was done with the jacket, etc.

Secondly the cat.

I feel like I'm the only person on the planet who thinks that such a weird, obscure fact as the cat being missing being mentioned decades later (something so rarely known that it appeared only in passing in a single newspaper article that wasn't even a local Liverpool one) warrants close attention... There's no way some random person who's not obsessed-tier familiar with the case, or knew the Wallaces very well, could have said such a thing... And the story of how it was used - rather than this person just overlooking it like everyone else - well it's so elaborate and obscure, it strikes me as something you wouldn't just come up with on the spot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The trial is decent but for me I wish certain witnesses had been asked certain questions which they weren't. Especially William. I wish they would have asked him what he meant by saying he's a stranger in the district, for example.

Some of the "wtf" things he said or did he cleared up quite well in court, but there's many they missed. They got him to explain why he asked Beattie for the time, and the cop.

I would not much bother about the cop he time checked with, one of his regular clients said he did it all the time as habit and had they called her as a witness she could have explained that.

I also wish the Johnstons were questioned more about the thuds. That didn't even come up IIRC?

And I wish Lily Hall had been questioned more. She is questioned rather hard but the statement is SO important it deserved more digging.

And I wish they asked William exactly how long that cat had been missing...

---

It is possible he did it and I'm just being too logical of course. Maybe the answer isn't so perfectly logical as I'm painting a picture of.

Maybe William's just dumb. Maybe he wasn't trying to beat a clock because he didn't really care (hence no mention of Alan).

Maybe that jacket, he attempted to burn on the fireplace but it failed and he incinerated everything else in the KITCHEN stove.

It's possible he could have done it. Just would have to mean he's a little stupid, a terrible planner, etc. among other things. But then how many convicted killers do we find who are essentially dumb as a rock... Oh but still make no mistake that Gordon called...

I'm basically giving a solution that ties up every single aspect of the case into a perfectly neat little package that makes the most logical sense, but true crime doesn't always work that way.

Did you just say that he might have done it?

I was going to suggest a name change to WallaceDidntWackHer but maybe it could be the even longer WallaceMightHaveWackedHer?
Id love to see the response from Admin if you told them that you wanted to change your name to...

WallaceMightHaveWackedHerButItsFarMoreLikelyToHave BeenAnAccompliceOfRichardGordonParry.

Doesn’t have much of a ring to it though but it’s certainly better than WallaceInADress

~

Perhaps one thing that we can all be guilty of at times is, in a genuine effort to get at the truth, over-thinking. People can of course plan things yet make mis-judgments and mistakes. They might do something that appears illogical to us but there was a reason for it at the time that we’re unaware of 90 years later.

Youre absolutely right of course that more questions could have been asked; lines could have been perused more vigorously. In court and by the police.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cheers, Herlock.

Something else I would recommend on the A6 is the Court of Appeal's judgement from May 2002. I can't attach from here but it's readily available on the net. Surprisingly readable and not too long - just over 200 fairly short paragraphs. It summarises key prosecution and defence arguments pretty well even if I don't always agree with the conclusions that the Court reaches.

I do though understand your concern about whether you can cope with another case. What helps me is that I shamelessly cop out of posting on the Ripper threads! I suspect though that I'm in danger of being sucked in on the Bamber case.

Apologies for going off topic. By way of recompense, I must start to read the full Wallace Court transcript as unearthed by WWH and recently reproduced here.

Best regards,
OneRound

Its well worth a read. I keep meaning to have a full re-read again. It’s good to see the actual documents (especially in full) that WWH took the time and effort to photograph and post. He’s saved any potential future an author a couple of days work at least.

Ill make a note to have a look at the A6 Court Of Appeal. I could do with having a year of doing nothing but reading (it still wouldn’t be long enough though.) as I also keep meaning to read the Wallace case books that I have.

I know what you mean about the Bamber case. A friend of mine has been interested for years and is convinced that he’s innocent. There’s plenty on here to make you wonder although you’ve probably already seen it. It’s a wonder there isn’t a thread. I bought their book on Kindle but....you’ve guessed it....haven’t gotten around to reading it yet.

https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/

[WallaceWackedHer]

Tom Slemen vindicated again:

I have just discovered that John Sharpe Johnston did indeed have a friend who lived at 30 Menlove Gardens South (Slemen puts it as West, it's South), named Dan Roberts (Daniel Eric Roberts).

So far every single claim in his retelling of the story I have been able to verify. I think it's only right that I point out this finding.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Cheers, Herlock.

Something else I would recommend on the A6 is the Court of Appeal's judgement from May 2002. I can't attach from here but it's readily available on the net. Surprisingly readable and not too long - just over 200 fairly short paragraphs. It summarises key prosecution and defence arguments pretty well even if I don't always agree with the conclusions that the Court reaches.

I do though understand your concern about whether you can cope with another case. What helps me is that I shamelessly cop out of posting on the Ripper threads! I suspect though that I'm in danger of being sucked in on the Bamber case.

Apologies for going off topic. By way of recompense, I must start to read the full Wallace Court transcript as unearthed by WWH and recently reproduced here.

Best regards,
OneRound

The trial is decent but for me I wish certain witnesses had been asked certain questions which they weren't. Especially William. I wish they would have asked him what he meant by saying he's a stranger in the district, for example.

Some of the "wtf" things he said or did he cleared up quite well in court, but there's many they missed. They got him to explain why he asked Beattie for the time, and the cop.

I would not much bother about the cop he time checked with, one of his regular clients said he did it all the time as habit and had they called her as a witness she could have explained that.

I also wish the Johnstons were questioned more about the thuds. That didn't even come up IIRC?

And I wish Lily Hall had been questioned more. She is questioned rather hard but the statement is SO important it deserved more digging.

And I wish they asked William exactly how long that cat had been missing...

---

It is possible he did it and I'm just being too logical of course. Maybe the answer isn't so perfectly logical as I'm painting a picture of.

Maybe William's just dumb. Maybe he wasn't trying to beat a clock because he didn't really care (hence no mention of Alan).

Maybe that jacket, he attempted to burn on the fireplace but it failed and he incinerated everything else in the KITCHEN stove.

It's possible he could have done it. Just would have to mean he's a little stupid, a terrible planner, etc. among other things. But then how many convicted killers do we find who are essentially dumb as a rock... Oh but still make no mistake that Gordon called...

I'm basically giving a solution that ties up every single aspect of the case into a perfectly neat little package that makes the most logical sense, but true crime doesn't always work that way.

[OneRound]

Hi OneRound

It is. I’ve only read two books on the A6. Foot and Woffinden (I have the Razen book on kindle but haven’t gotten around to it yet) and obviously they’re both for Hanratty’s innocence so my lack of knowledge of the case makes my opinion next to worthless but mine is that if the DNA didn’t exist I’d say there was at least some doubt on whether he was guilty and as DNA evidence obviously wasn’t available at the time I would have voted not guilty. DNA says guilty though. I’m really interested in the case but I don’t know whether my brain could stand up to the Ripper, the Wallace case and the A6 at the same time?

Cheers, Herlock.

Something else I would recommend on the A6 is the Court of Appeal's judgement from May 2002. I can't attach from here but it's readily available on the net. Surprisingly readable and not too long - just over 200 fairly short paragraphs. It summarises key prosecution and defence arguments pretty well even if I don't always agree with the conclusions that the Court reaches.

I do though understand your concern about whether you can cope with another case. What helps me is that I shamelessly cop out of posting on the Ripper threads! I suspect though that I'm in danger of being sucked in on the Bamber case.

Apologies for going off topic. By way of recompense, I must start to read the full Wallace Court transcript as unearthed by WWH and recently reproduced here.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock - I've tunnelled out for a while at least. Strange that so many here believe Wallace did it but shouldn't have been found guilty whilst over on the A6 thread I seem to be in a minority of one in supporting Hanratty's guilt but not his conviction.

Thanks for your follow up and reasoning about the lights.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hi OneRound

It is. I’ve only read two books on the A6. Foot and Woffinden (I have the Razen book on kindle but haven’t gotten around to it yet) and obviously they’re both for Hanratty’s innocence so my lack of knowledge of the case makes my opinion next to worthless but mine is that if the DNA didn’t exist I’d say there was at least some doubt on whether he was guilty and as DNA evidence obviously wasn’t available at the time I would have voted not guilty. DNA says guilty though. I’m really interested in the case but I don’t know whether my brain could stand up to the Ripper, the Wallace case and the A6 at the same time?