The attack on Swedish housewife Mrs Meike Dalal on Thursday, September 7th 1961

[caz]

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet....Trial_djvu.txt

Hi, Caz, I tracked down the full trial transcript for William Herbert

Wallace, for anyone interested.

Just watched the film on youtube 'The man from the Pru', quite good I

thought, well acted, how faithful to the true events, not too sure. They

seemed to struggle with the complexity's of the case, still, difficult to bring

everything together in an hour and a half movie, I should imagine.

(I would think it impossible to even attempt a film on the travesty of the

hanging of James Hanratty, they would probably need a ten week mini

series.)

Glad you enjoyed James Murphy's version of events surrounding the Wallace

case. I've sent off for the version recommended by Ansonman 'The final

verdict' by Roger Wilkes.$7. 75 including postage used, good condition.

I guess this should have gone onto the dedicated thread alluded to by Rod

Crosby. Oh well.

Cheers moste.

I watched 'The Man from the Pru' recently too, and thought it was quite well done. I also enjoyed Roger Wilkes's book on the case.

Time to go back to the A6 I think. I have about thirty pages to catch up with on the 'Rebooted' thread.

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

Many thanks for your replies, chaps.

James Murphy's was the last book I read on the Wallace case and I thought it was very good. Not sure I'll bother with John Gannon's. Even if you catch your killer, motive can be the most difficult nut to crack.

Love,

Caz
X

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.220695/2015.220695.The-Trial_djvu.txt

Hi, Caz, I tracked down the full trial transcript for William Herbert

Wallace, for anyone interested.

Just watched the film on youtube 'The man from the Pru', quite good I

thought, well acted, how faithful to the true events, not too sure. They

seemed to struggle with the complexity's of the case, still, difficult to bring

everything together in an hour and a half movie, I should imagine.

(I would think it impossible to even attempt a film on the travesty of the

hanging of James Hanratty, they would probably need a ten week mini

series.)

Glad you enjoyed James Murphy's version of events surrounding the Wallace

case. I've sent off for the version recommended by Ansonman 'The final

verdict' by Roger Wilkes.$7. 75 including postage used, good condition.

I guess this should have gone onto the dedicated thread alluded to by Rod

Crosby. Oh well.

[caz]

Many thanks for your replies, chaps.

James Murphy's was the last book I read on the Wallace case and I thought it was very good. Not sure I'll bother with John Gannon's. Even if you catch your killer, motive can be the most difficult nut to crack.

Love,

Caz
X

[ansonman]

My recollection of Gannon's book is that it was claimed that Parry and or Marsden committed the murder at the instigation of Wallace who wanted rid of his wife. Gannon's theory was that Julia paid Parry and or Marsden for sexual services and this was one of the reasons Wallace wanted Julia dispatched. It was not claimed that Julia was paid for sex.

You may well be right as it's a while since I read it. Either way, whether she paid them or they paid her for sex, I find about as credible as Valerie Storie's identification of Hanratty as her attacker.

For my money, the best book on the Wallace case is Roger Wilkes "Wallace The Final Verdict". Not only does he put forward a thoroughly credible case for who did it, but he also has witness testimony to support same. I still have tape recordings of the Radio City broadcasts that Wilkes kindly sent to me at the time and they make for compelling listening.
Ansonman

[Spitfire]

Hi Caz,

He says that she was killed by her husband, the motive was jealousy and that this was a result of Julia Wallace being paid for sexual favours by Parry and another guy called Marsden. She was 67 years old, for goodness sake.
Need I say more?

An excellent book on the case, though difficult yo get hold of, is by James Murphy. I believe he is the first writer to discover she was considerably older than her husband and others were led to believe.

Best regards,
Ansonman

My recollection of Gannon's book is that it was claimed that Parry and or Marsden committed the murder at the instigation of Wallace who wanted rid of his wife. Gannon's theory was that Julia paid Parry and or Marsden for sexual services and this was one of the reasons Wallace wanted Julia dispatched. It was not claimed that Julia was paid for sex.

[ansonman]

Hi Ansonman,

I just noticed this post of yours. If you happen to see this, could you expand on your comment regarding John Gannon's book on the Wallace case? I haven't read this one and don't particularly want to if his take on the killer's motive is too far fetched. Why does he say Julia was killed and who is his suspect?

Many thanks.

And apologies to all for being off topic.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

He says that she was killed by her husband, the motive was jealousy and that this was a result of Julia Wallace being paid for sexual favours by Parry and another guy called Marsden. She was 67 years old, for goodness sake.
Need I say more?

An excellent book on the case, though difficult yo get hold of, is by James Murphy. I believe he is the first writer to discover she was considerably older than her husband and others were led to believe.

Best regards,
Ansonman

[RodCrosby]

And apologies to all for being off topic.

Hi caz

you know there's a dedicated thread - which is hotting up!

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9701&page=100

[caz]

Hi Ansonman,

I just noticed this post of yours. If you happen to see this, could you expand on your comment regarding John Gannon's book on the Wallace case? I haven't read this one and don't particularly want to if his take on the killer's motive is too far fetched. Why does he say Julia was killed and who is his suspect?

Many thanks.

And apologies to all for being off topic.

Love,

Caz
X

[ansonman]

Hi Caz,

Since going off topic seems to be the vogue at the moment I was interested in your reference to the Wallace case. I got in touch with Roger Wilkes shortly after his book was published and he was kind enough to send me tapes of the "Who Killed Julia" recordings broadcast on Radio City in 1981.

In particular, the interview with John Parkes, on his death bed, comes across as particularly convincing, so far as his pointing the finger at Parry is concerned.

You're probably aware that since then, three more books on the case have been published. "The Murder of Julia Wallace" by James Murphy is extremely well researched and one of the best on the case. John Gannon's "The Killing of Julia Wallace" is also well researched but his take on why the murderer did it is too far fetched for me. Finally "The Telephone Murder" by Ronald Bartle is atrocious. Written by a retired barrister and magistrate who should have known better, it is a very trying read. Pun intended.

Regards,

Ansonman

[caz]

RIGHT, that's it . All back to the reboot thread until serious information concerning Mrs. Dalal shows up!

Will do, moste. I need to catch up with that thread anyway.

But just before I go...

As is your wont you have chosen to twist another poster's [this time Tony]words to suit your own agenda. You have even forgotten what you've written in a recent post where you claim that Tony said blue eyes can only ever be pale.

I never intended to twist anyone's words, SH. I genuinely thought that because Tony asserted that dark eyes can never be blue, he was also implying that blue eyes can never be described as dark. Very many apologies to the absent Tony for so wickedly misrepresenting him. I am more than happy to acknowledge - and indeed, from personal experience - that blue eyes are not uniformly pale and can sometimes appear dark, or any shade in between, depending on the lighting conditions and pupil size.

By strange coincidence, my current bedtime reading is the book on the Wallace case by Roger Wilkes, where on page 175 he quotes the late, much admired Richard Whittington-Egan coming out with a frankly shocking generalisation, which stopped me in my tracks. Writing up a doorstep encounter with Richard Gordon Parry, whom RWE suspected at the time of being responsible for killing Julia Wallace back in 1931, he included this description:

'His eyes, which are of that bold blue which is traditionally associated with "sex-maniacs" are penetrating and alternately shifty and too-candid'.

I laughed out loud and when my husband asked what was so funny I read the offending sentence to him. He laughed too and said, "So I'm a sex maniac, am I?"

And then it hit me. I have been staring into eyes of the boldest blue for the last five years. And they can appear both pale or deep blue at different times, because in bright light the pupils go like pinpricks, while in very little light they are dilated. I asked hubby if this was right (from his half a century of looking in mirrors ), or was I guilty of confirmation bias? Knowing that he never agrees with me "for a quiet life", but much prefers a "heated debate", especially when it relates to my interest in true crime, I was not expecting him to readily confirm my observation, but he did.

Last word (I sincerely hope) on the subject of Valerie's blue-eyed rapist is that she used the words 'large' and 'staring', in addition to 'icy', and at one point mentioned 'his face staring through me'. RWE could not have summed this up better using his own word, 'penetrating'. What I have not seen quoted anywhere yet is Valerie stating the eyes were 'brown', or anything other than blue, or insisting on the shade, which would have been a tall order for anyone to distinguish in the circumstances, even with perfect vision. The shade of blue would have appeared different in passing car headlights or in the darkness of the back of the car, so it's meaningless to call her an unreliable witness on that count. She knew the eyes were blue, which is what really matters. They would have looked cold too, considering the complete lack of mercy he showed Valerie. He never meant to leave her alive, did he?

Love,

Caz
X

[moste]

Just setting the record straight, that's all.

Now, what on earth leads you to suspect that this thread has been deliberately hi-jacked? Presumably by one of the nasty people who think Hanratty did it? And if so, for what purpose, pray?

Graham

RIGHT, that's it . All back to the reboot thread until serious information concerning Mrs. Dalal shows up!

[Graham]

Just setting the record straight, that's all.

Now, what on earth leads you to suspect that this thread has been deliberately hi-jacked? Presumably by one of the nasty people who think Hanratty did it? And if so, for what purpose, pray?

Graham

[Sherlock Houses]

Well now, the very title of this thread contains a mistake made by.....da-daaah! Yes, Mr SH himself!

Graham

PS: and this thread has gone a little, er, off-thread, what?

Such childishness from an alleged mature poster. What an absolute whopper I made by innocently describing Mrs Dalal as Swedish instead of German. And what a huge difference it makes, lol.

PS. This thread got sabotaged a long time ago despite me trying to get it on track again. I can't help but wonder if it was deliberately side-tracked.

[Graham]

Wrong yet again caz

Well now, the very title of this thread contains a mistake made by.....da-daaah! Yes, Mr SH himself!

Graham

PS: and this thread has gone a little, er, off-thread, what?

[Graham]

Tony was an honest bloke, he was not an inventor and made it quite clear whenever he was jesting

Well, he didn't make it very clear in this particular instance.

Have you not considered the possibility that Tony had access to the full trial transcript and was quoting from it ?

Stone me, SH, of course I considered that possibility, and not just me, either. He wouldn't have been the only poster with a transcript, but as no-one else came on to support what he said, I (and others) are now of the opinion that he had invented that exchange possibly for reasons per my previous post. And in retrospect, had Hanratty genuinely identified the hankie as his, then this would have incriminated him even further; but as neither Woffinden, Foot nor Miller refer to this, then I am now content that it was an exchange that never actually took place in court.

Graham