** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[NickB]

Thanks for the update.

Mark Russell also changed his mind to guilty before (or perhaps while) writing his 'Checkmate' book, but I never heard why. When I bought his book I was hoping for a 'Eureka!' moment.

I wouldn't describe any of those 3 reasons as definitely clinching it, but if there is a tendency for people looking into the case in detail to change their view from innocent to guilty that might be an argument in itself.

In a way I don't want a consensus to form because the idea that his guilt is finely balanced (in my mind anyway) is part of the case's attraction!

[Abby Normal]

Well I didn’t expect to be posing on a Wallace thread again but I’m only posting for a specificreason. Many of you will remember two former Wallace case posters on here… American Sherlock and WallaceWackedHer (both no longer members) WWH went on to create the superb site The Julia Wallace Murder Foundation. He continued to research the case in depth with other contributors (American Sherlock being one) I recommend the site to anyone.

https://www.williamherbertwallace.com/

American Sherlock always favoured a guilty Wallace (like myself) but may have moved away from that solution (I’m unsure) over the years and WallaceWackedHer became firmly convinced of Wallace’s innocence. Sadly, debates became, shall we say, heated?

Recently I looked on the site and got the impression that WallaceWackedHer’s position might have changed but I didn’t have time to read enough so I could have got a mistaken impression so I emailed American Sherlock. He replied to tell me that both he and WallaceWackedHer are now convinced of Wallace’s guilt. He quoted 3 of the reasons for the change of position:


1. The Benzidine test was not a reliable means of testing in terms of accuracy, was rarely used or presented in trials at the time and was not widely known to be something that could catch a criminal out. Wallace would have known this.

2. The chess start time as per a notice board that is on the site was 7:30, not 7:45. If a caller who read the board based their actions on that (Parry for example), then they would see this and a stake out time of Wallace leaving his house at 7:15 or later on the 19th wouldn’t make sense. Also there have been arguments that Wallace could not have been late at all, even a minute for the 7:45 start time. He himself says he arrived there at 7:45 so if the actual time was 7:30, clearly this rule was not “strictly adhered to” as many have claimed.

3. The locks pantomime; It’s hard to say for sure but all sources I’ve found or Calum contacted can offer no reason besides chance for the locks issue that night; promises by Antony to show otherwise were never followed up on. So we are to believe it is just a coincidence on this one very night his wife is murdered he has issues getting in enough to make a fuss so the neighbors come over and discover the body with him? I don’t think so.

The emboldening is my own as this is a point that I used to make strongly and regularly.

I don’t think that the case will ever be conclusively solved. There will always be doubt. I haven’t read anything about the case for a few years now so I’m totally rusty but it will always be an intriguing case. Apart from the ripper case no murder case can touch it as far as mystery and intrigue is concerned in my opinion.

yeah re your boldened point. its murder 101 to set it up so someone one else finds the body or you find with other people. for me its also a little too convenient that on the night of the murder hes locked out. yeah right.

[cobalt]

If Wallace was guilty he had clearly planned out the murder of his wife beforehand, and that would include his finding her body in the company of his neighbours. The locks on the doors is a suspicious element for sure.

But why not kill her earlier in the evening? Wallace had a decent biological knowledge and would have understood estimated times of death per pathology. But he did not have to restrict himself to such a tight time period, from what I can recall. The 'Wallace was guilty' theory has him committing the murder, cleaning himself up and then exiting on his fool's errand all within 10 or 15 minutes? For such a well planned murder- one for which he was eventually acquitted- it does not really fit in terms of planning. What if the milk delivery boy who testified to seeing Julia Wallace had arrived even later? Would he have aborted the plan in perpetuity?