The murder of Julia Wallace in Liverpool in 1931 has fascinated people for over eighty years. Raymond Chandler was one of many crime novelists who was puzzled as to where the truth lay. Dorothy L. Sayers and John Dickson Carr were among the others, and Sayers wrote an important essay about the case, included in the Detection Club book Anatomy of Murder. John Rhode wrote two novels which drew on aspects of the case, and more recently John Hutton wrote an excellent novel inspired by it. Now it is the turn of Sayers' admirer P.D.James, herself a doyenne of the Detection Club, to investigate - and the outcome of her own detective work has appeared in The Sunday Times today.
First, a brief recap on the main facts. William Herbert Wallace was a middle aged, respectable and apparently happily married insurance agent who received a telephone message at the Chess Club where he played, from a prospective new client, R.M. Qualtrough. Wallace was asked to call at Qualtrough's home the following evening. He duly et out, but the address given to him did not exist. When he returned home, he found his wife dead. She had been battered to death. Wallace was found guilty and sentenced to death, but reprieved on appeal. However, he died not long after being released from prison.
Research undertaken by Jonathan Goodman and Roger Wilkes seemed to establish that the actual killer was a man called Parry.However,P.D.James has cast doubt on this conclusion. To follow her detailed reasoning, one has to read her essay very carefully(and it is behind a paywall). I think it's a truly fascinating piece of work.
The question she has presented us with is this - was Wallace in fact guilty, after all? She thinks he was. I think it's marvellous that she has reinvestigated the case, and her essay is intensely readable, as you would expect. Even for those who are not true crime fans, it's an engrossing mystery. I want to reflect on P.D. James' arguments before coming to any conclusions - that's the lawyer in me, I guess! - but I must say that my instinctive view is that I still believe Wallace was innocent. Anthony Berkeley said of the Crippen case (I'm paraphrasing, but only slightly) that a man "does not become a fiend overnight", and I think he was right. The psychological profile of Wallace doesn't seem to me to be that of a murderer, and there are one or two other aspects of the latest theory that don't instantly convince me. But - the debate is now reopened, and I would be extremely interested to know what others think about this enduring and extraordinary puzzle.
13 comments:
A good starter for four! Pleased to see you have taken up the challenge P D James is a formidable opponent
Ah, not an opponent but a fellow seeker after truth, I like to think! I really do find the mystery fascinating and hope you do too.
I must say that I concur with Jonathan Goodman's conclusion that Wallace was innocent of the crime. I'm a bit less certain of the alternative suspect he proposes, but it's a much stronger case than the one the presented against Wallace, IMO.
Hi Patrick. Yes, there are several questions to answer in this case, including the issue of motive. Why would Wallace want to kill Julia? If he did, it seems to have come out of the blue.
How to explain the milk boy's crucial evidence that he saw Julia alive when the police insist she was already dead. PD James says the boy saw Wallace in drag not Julia - if so he would have had dress up while the boy was waiting on the doorstep - the boy would surely have remembered that.
Jake, I must admit that I'm struggling with the drag theory too.
Has anyone suggested the obvious - that the killer (Wallace ) placed the mac (found under her head but unexplained heretofore ) over Julias head before clubbing her to death - hence no blood on him or on the weapon when found.
PD James theory is good
The case was solved back in 2000 with the publication of the definitive account on the case, The Murder of Julia Wallace by James Murphy(Bluecoat Press. Like other well known writers, Dorothly L Sayers and Raymond Chandler, PD James gives an "armchair" account, and failed to visit the scene of the crime, tucked away in a warren of streets and alleyway. Such a visit is essential to a complete understanding of the complexities of the case.
seamas o'murchu
Wrong. The murder was not solved by anybody, despite several authors claims to have done so. Police solve murders, not writers. Either investigative ones or the armchair variety. The murder remains the same mystery it was in 1931 - the reason it continues to fascinate.
Seamas, Anon - an interesting debate. There are of course some cases where the police thought they'd solved a mystery, only for it to turn out later they had not, sometimes as a result of good investigative work by non police detectives. Whether a visit to the scene is essential, I'm unsure, but I can see that it would sometimes help.
Today marks the 83rd anniversary of the murder of Julia Wallace and the truth of the mystery remains as fascinating and unsolved today as it always has.
Very timely comment, Richard, thanks!
Neither Wallace or Parry committed thbe crime Martin and co. It was from other hands
Post a Comment