Courtesy of John Gannon.
GED, that page is weak. Your co author Mark R wrote a book with the right conclusion (Wallace did it),…
Thanks for the insightful comments. Did you ever speak to the officers working the case back then? I believe it…
Also, a deliberate and narcissistic false narrative next to the header on the homepage of this site. ''How Liverpool police…
Wallace no more killed his wife because he was a gremlin looking murderer than he killed his wife because the…
Hey, thanks for posting. I'm glad you and your daughter were able to enjoy this case. I think there wasn't…
I do have a question about the twelveth photo. This picture strikes me as a bit odd. In her morgue picture and a description, it shows and tells that one of her arms was underneath her and stretching out to the opposite side, while the other arm is stretched out normally. The twelveth photo does not appear to fit this description of the photo, nor the text description. My question is, is this a recreation of the scene? If not, has the body been possibly moved before the picture? Could this description of the body’s position possibly be incorrect, or could it be that it is only a recreation? I am working on this case with a friend of mine. Any answers will be appreciated. Please and thank you.
– G.K
The photo shows Mrs Wallace’s right arm by her side and her left arm stretched out almost at a right angle to her body. The photo was taken after Wallace, Mrs Johnston, Inspector Moore, and Dr McFall the pathologist had each raised one of Julia’s arms to check for pulse and assess body temperature. It is probable the arm was not replaced exactly in its original position. I thing we can rule out a recreation of the scene or movement of the body itself.
The macintosh was originally partly under the side of the body but was taken up for examination, again by Inspector Moore. It was replaced slightly away from the body which is not its original position.
Mrs Johnston on seeing these photos did remark that the scene appeared to be “staged” but this was not referring to the position of the body but to certain items of furniture which seemed to be in a different position to what she remembered.
Great to have you as a new contributor to this forum Gracie. I’m surely not alone in hoping to see the results of your work on this intriguing case.
It is hard to see how a planned distraction theft of the Pru’s cash by someone who Mrs Wallace admitted to the house could have succeeded. The cash is in the box at ~6 pm that Tuesday. Wallace returns home from his Menlove Gardens trip at 8.45. Julia mentions either on his return or the following morning that during his absence she had a surprise visit from Mr X (and companion?) who they both know otherwise they would not have been admitted to the house. Wallace goes to the box for cash prior to leaving for work that morning and finds it empty. Julia is beyond suspicion so it can only be the surprise visitor(s) who have taken it. How did they hope to get away with it ?
You are certainly not alone. My good friend has brought this case to my attention and I have been researching ever since. It would definitely make sense that her arm would have been placed down differently. Though I believe it may be an unprofessional move if it did occur, as usually, people who arrive on the scene will try their hardest to leave the body and likely evidence in its original, untampered state. I will continue to look over the evidence and pay close attention to hard details. This case, like many of its time, were carelessly handled, most likely leading to an inconclusion. Thank you for your input!
-G.K.
Mike. In reply to your query above as to how would a visit from Mr X, let’s in fact say Mr Q for a robbery hope to get away with it. Well quite easily, they even got away with murder. Had the murder not happened, Q would still have got away with it – Unless Julia could identify him and therefore that is what resulted in the murder.
GED, this is horribly circular reasoning. You must be able to see this. We don’t know he “got away with murder” (Mr. X) in the same we don’t know whether or not Wallace “fell for the call” (went on a genuine journey looking for a bogus address.)
These kinds of statements are presuppositional and assume the conclusion; you are smuggling in your conclusion and presenting it as a logical thread that is part of the narrative. These facts are up for dispute. Either Wallace is guilty or he isn’t. If he is, then Mr. X didn’t get away with anything.
This is like high school logic guys.
The bathroom photographs show a bath whose unhygienic condition perhaps backs up those who described Julia as “dirty”. Compare that to how Wallace describes his housekeeping skills in the John Bull set of articles. It’s a tenuous supposition but might the general state of the house be something that had a slow, corrosive effect on how he perceived his marriage?
Yeah the guy killed his wife because the place was messy … lol
What is up with the aspie theories this case attracts?
Bottom line: he was a gremlin looking murderer with an aging wife and in poor health who did what murderers do when it’s expedient for them. That’s it.
Wallace no more killed his wife because he was a gremlin looking murderer than he killed his wife because the bath was dirty. As the trial judge and the appeal judges conceded, there was no evidence against Wallace at all. Verdict. Innocent.
https://inacityliving.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-wallace-murder-case.html
Also, a deliberate and narcissistic false narrative next to the header on the homepage of this site.
”How Liverpool police solved one of the world’s most baffling murder mysteries.”
Officially the case has never been solved and is still a cold and open case though the Police say they are looking for nobody else in the matter.
They felt they had their man and he is dead anyway but in law ‘their man’ was found to have not a shred of evidence against him and only circumstantial and some fabricated evidence that ‘he could’ have done it, just as could anyone else.
Thanks for the insightful comments. Did you ever speak to the officers working the case back then? I believe it was a case of the OJ Simpson thing, the guilty murderer who killed his wife (ex wife for OJ) got away with it (although OJ was not convicted to begin with) so they just leave it as that… Not looking for anyone else…
Maybe innercityliving (ina city?) should have a comments section and you can discuss your time growing up in the 30s and the real sentiment from the time. Could be valuable.
GED, that page is weak. Your co author Mark R wrote a book with the right conclusion (Wallace did it), so he disagrees with you, but I think we can both agree like James Murphy his book was poor. Garbage stuff.
Wallace did this crime with high likelihood. When the reasons that are disclusive are examined, we can see that that they are BS (timings, distance, blood etc for both nights). All the reasons he “couldn’t have done it” are complete nonsense so he has to rise to the top of the suspect list. Without weird theories and subsequent non contemporary authors like Jonathan Goodman etc. clouding judgement and with the full case files that show Parry’s alibi, the picture is complete.
Its authors trying to make a buck tricking you, the Parry and friend theory is one of the worst I’ve ever seen; a doubt a crime has ever been committed like that in human history. A convoluted two day plot with multiple moving parts creates many more questions than answers. Wallace doing it alone is simple and makes sense. He fits the profile of a spouse killer extremely well in many facets as does William and Julia’s entire relationship fit domicide extremely well if you look at similar cases. We don’t need to stretch for complex 1 in 100 million answers, when the answer is plain.
Maybe it’s not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but it’s more or less done and dusted.