Date unknown, an American speaker poses the following to Goodman. Video not yet available but transcription below:
1. Do you consider it odd, that neither Wallace nor any of his chess playing friends, questioned that not only was it possible for Qualtrough to KNOW Wallace played chess, but also as to where and when he played chess.
2. In your book, you indicated that Beattie assumed – before answering the call from Qualtrough – that it was probably in the nature of Wallace’s business. Now, why would he assume that?
3. Why didn’t Wallace simply look up Qualtrough’s telephone number, and was there such a thing as an unlisted telephone number in 1931?
4. What do you suppose happened to the kitchen poker? It remains an enigma to this day, because it was never found.
5. Why didn’t Hubert Moore take Parkes’ statement concerning Parry seriously.
6. I’ve got the impression that Wallace did not have any truly close friends, I believe his best friend was his wife, do you agree?
7. Do you think Lord Hewart would have felt better about the appeal, if Oliver had put forth the motion at the conclusion of the case for the prosecution, to have the charges dropped for lack of evidence.
8. What do you make of the mackintosh?
9. Is it your opinion that Wallace was a frustrated intellectual?
10. Why, after 16 years of loyal service, was Wallace never promoted?
11. It is my opinion, that MacFall, despite his rather lofty reputation, was not at the time of the Wallace trial, a particularly competent forensic pathologist. He failed to take notes, he did not take which at the time was considered the best test for pinpointing time of death – rectal temperature. He contradicted himself, and in general seemed a very confused man. Do you agree?
12. What a pathetic witness Miss Hall was. You would have thought the prosecution could have done a much better job of coaching her.
13. Raymond Chandler made a number of comments on the Wallace case, the most bizarre being: “It’s impossible to believe that Wallace murdered his wife, it’s also impossible to believe that anybody else could have murdered her.” Having arrived at this most startling conclusions, we are left with the inescapable impression, that Mrs. Wallace somehow managed to commit suicide by repeatedly tapping a heavy blunt instrument upon her head with sufficient force to render her dead.
14. Jon, do you have an opinion as to why Lord Hewart took such a long time to render his decision? I think because he believed in the jury system to such a fanatical degree, that for him to dismiss a jury verdict was akin to extracting teeth.
15. Leslie Walsh made a statement to Roger Wilkes, that to me defies comprehension. Walsh stated that it was his belief that the milk boy Close, did not speak to Mrs. Wallace on the murder night, but Mr. Wallace wearing one of his wife’s dresses. Now Wilkes countered this by saying that Mr. Wallace was well over a foot taller than his wife, wore glasses and had a moustache. Walsh brushed this aside and said “well it was dark and anyway the encounter lasted only a few seconds.” I can only assume that Mr. Walsh was either joking at the time he made these comments, or was suffering from some form of insanity.
16. I don’t believe that Parry, if he was the murderer, intended to kill Julia Wallace. I think his sole intention was to steal the money. Now, making sure not to leave any incriminating evidence (such as fingerprints), and hoping that nobody saw him either enter or leave the Wallace home, it would simply boil down to her word against his. No evidence, no case.
17. P.C. Rothwell’s testimony is so ridiculous, it’s not worth commenting on – so I don’t know why I did.
18 to 31. (Unrelated to Wallace).
32. A very lengthy description of the David Hendricks case, referenced later in relation to Wallace.
33. (Unrelated to Wallace).
34. Jon I would like to ask of you one last question about the Wallace case: In your opinion, how is it possible for Wallace to be tried, convicted, and sentenced to death, on what amounted to nothing more than mere speculation. How did this mockery of justice take place.
AUDIO TAPE TURNS OVER
—
“Jon according to a BBC dramatization about the Wallace case, I now understand that Qualt-Row, and not Qual-Truff, is the correct pronunciation of his name.”
Proceeds to list parallels between the Wallace and David Hendricks case, referencing a book titled “Reasonable Doubt” by Steve Vogel:
. In the Wallace case no blood was found in the murder room, except for a single spot of blood found on the lavatory pan in the Wallace bathroom. Hendricks case, no blood except in the murder rooms, with the exception of a single smear of blood found on a sink in one of the Hendricks’s bathrooms.
. Both Wallace and Hendricks were accused of staging a robbery.
. Both men were accused of pre-arranging an alibi.
. Both judges in the trial did not believe guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
. The time element is crucial to both cases.
. Both Wallace and Hendricks displayed very little emotion, which did not help their case.
. Both Wallace and Hendricks directly accused people that they knew of committing the murders.
. Lily Hall testified she saw Wallace talking to some man shortly before he arrived home, which Wallace vehemently denied. Hendricks was supposedly seen by two men leave his home on the night of the murders at ~9 PM and Hendricks denied it.
. Both men were gone over from head to toe but police found no trace of physical evidence to link them to the murders.
. Both Wallace and Hendricks were accused of what the prosecution thought were “inappropriate remarks”.
. The telephone played a major role in both cases.
. In both cases there was no physical or direct evidence whatsoever.
. Both Wallace and Hendricks were convicted on what amounted to basically nothing more than speculation.
. Wallace and Hendricks were both released, Wallace on appeal and Hendricks after a second trial.
“I believe Wallace to be completely innocent, but with Hendricks, I just don’t know.”