Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I think that suggests she was attacked not long after Wallace left (or before Wallace left) or she was attacked not long before Wallace returned


    I think it has to be the former. The medical evidence relating to time of death has been criticised, but the early signs of rigor mortis on Julia's body would rule out death shortly before Wallace returned.

    Comment


    • Hi folks,

      Interesting photo of the kitchen table with comments to match.

      I get the impression that the dinner plates haven't been cleaned. Even if that's wrong, they've clearly just been placed back on the table rather than being more properly put away.

      Applying sexist expectations of the 1930s - rather than my own of today - I find that slightly surprising. Wouldn't Julia have been more likely to start tidying things up as soon as Wallace had left the house?

      Best regards,
      OneRound

      Comment


      • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
        I think that suggests she was attacked not long after Wallace left (or before Wallace left) or she was attacked not long before Wallace returned


        I think it has to be the former. The medical evidence relating to time of death has been criticised, but the early signs of rigor mortis on Julia's body would rule out death shortly before Wallace returned.
        Indeed Cobalt. Once you combine with other evidence, I think we can say that Julia was killed earlier in the time slot rather than later. The fire in the kitchen had nearly died out by the time Wallace got home, which suggests it hadn't been tended for an hour or more.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by OneRound View Post
          Hi folks,

          Interesting photo of the kitchen table with comments to match.

          I get the impression that the dinner plates haven't been cleaned. Even if that's wrong, they've clearly just been placed back on the table rather than being more properly put away.

          Applying sexist expectations of the 1930s - rather than my own of today - I find that slightly surprising. Wouldn't Julia have been more likely to start tidying things up as soon as Wallace had left the house?

          Best regards,
          OneRound
          Hi OneRound

          Now you point it out, the dinner plates do look soiled (though it is difficult to be sure). If so, another pointer to an earlier rather than later attack.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ColdCaseJury View Post
            (a) To my knowledge, no one has claimed there was blood all over the room. The killer pulled Julia into the centre of the room by her hair and almost certainly would have had blood on his hands (or gloves), if nothing else.

            (b) Amy Wallace gave a police statement (21.1.31) in which she said she visited Julia at 29 Wolverton Street at 3:30 pm on 20.1.31 and that Julia mentioned the telephone message.

            (c) Wallace said he always lit a match before entering a darkened room. The flare from the match showed the body, he crouched down and then stepped over it to light the gas.
            Thank you for clearing those items up.

            I donít suppose the killer could have struck Julia once ,knocking her to the ground ,then, pulled her by her hair getting no blood on him at all.
            Who came up with this pulling her by the hair stuff anyway?
            At the risk of sounding too gruesome, couldnít a clump of hair come away from the blows to the scalp?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by OneRound View Post
              Hi folks,

              Interesting photo of the kitchen table with comments to match.

              I get the impression that the dinner plates haven't been cleaned. Even if that's wrong, they've clearly just been placed back on the table rather than being more properly put away.

              Applying sexist expectations of the 1930s - rather than my own of today - I find that slightly surprising. Wouldn't Julia have been more likely to start tidying things up as soon as Wallace had left the house?

              Best regards,
              OneRound
              Hi OneRound

              I believe the plates are unwashed and the black marks are possibly currants (from the scones).

              If Wallace was leaving and not expected to return for at least 90 minutes, Julia had a bit more freedom as to when to do the dishes. Wouldn't she have normally cleared away before starting the sewing? Indeed, what is she mending or making? Could it be something urgent or important that took precedence over doing the dishes straight away?

              I'm afraid we are left with yet more conjecture. But I find the image arresting because Julia was called away from this scene at some point by her killer.
              Author of Cold Case Jury books: The Shark Arm Mystery (2020), Poisoned at the Priory (2020), Move to Murder (2018), Death of an Actress (2018), The Green Bicycle Mystery (2017) - "Armchair detectives will be delighted" - Publishers Weekly. And for something completely different - I'm the co-founder of Wow-Vinyl - celebrating the Golden Years of the British Single (1977-85)

              Comment


              • The Fiancial Times appears to be on top of the plates too.
                Regards

                Herlock



                Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  The Fiancial Times appears to be on top of the plates too.
                  My tuppeny worth. That table setup can not possibly be taken as 'how it was', as Wallace found it on arriving at the scene at 8.45 pm.
                  We know don't we, that the scene of the crime ,(and this includes all areas of the house) by modern standards, was infiltrated by outside influences far beyond anything approaching acceptable.
                  I'm even wondering whether the accepted protocol was ,'don't touch anything until the detectives arrive' back then, it certainly didn't seem to apply in this case. Wallace dropping his fag ash all over the place Mrs. Johnstone banking up the coal fire in the kitchen! people touching the body, turning gas mantles taps on . All possibly removing important evidence.
                  No I cant see to much importance to the arrangement of the items on the kitchen table!

                  Comment


                  • That's before we consider the cat which at some point was on Wallace's knee when detectives were there. It could have been up nibbling some left overs.

                    According to the Johnston theory, the cat was 'catnapped' by the neighbours for a couple of days to lure Julia away from her house, yet it seemed to reappear readily enough amongst the activity.

                    Comment


                    • I’d like to ask three connected questions. Without meaning any disrespect to any other posters the answer is likeliest to come from either Rod or Antony from their research. It’s not a ‘aha’ moment or proof of anything it’s just a curiosity.

                      On the Monday night Wallace was saying that he went to the tram stop in Breck Road near to the junction of Belmont Road. He would have walked to the end of Richmond Park where there was a tram stop and then turned left into Breck Road. He would then have passed another stop next to Pendennis Street on the left before arriving at the stop near the junction.

                      Where these two stops pick-up points for the Monday night tram that would have taken Wallace to the chess club?

                      If so, why do we think that Wallace walked past two stops to get to the one near the junction?

                      Was the stop near to the junction a point on the route where the fair became cheaper giving Wallace a reason for walking past the two closer stops?
                      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 01-14-2019, 03:18 PM. Reason: Spelling error
                      Regards

                      Herlock



                      Chairman of the National Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To The Old Established Theories.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by cobalt View Post
                        That's before we consider the cat which at some point was on Wallace's knee when detectives were there. It could have been up nibbling some left overs.

                        According to the Johnston theory, the cat was 'catnapped' by the neighbours for a couple of days to lure Julia away from her house, yet it seemed to reappear readily enough amongst the activity.
                        I know and hey! who was it that said' 'when passing through the outer kitchen/scullery, Wallace was seen to be cutting up meat to feed the Pus!'
                        Don't tell me let me guess. Nobody knows what one will do in situations like these!

                        Comment


                        • I gave a plausible possible explanation.
                          Wallace was an avid walker, like many people in 1931. Maybe he just didn't like hanging around at bus/tram stops if there was no need to...
                          https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=960
                          Last edited by RodCrosby; 01-14-2019, 03:52 PM.
                          "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
                          Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
                          The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
                          https://www.dropbox.com/s/s0jpn0kyuq...heory.pdf?dl=0

                          Compendium of Resources
                          https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by moste View Post
                            Thank you for clearing those items up.

                            I don’t suppose the killer could have struck Julia once ,knocking her to the ground ,then, pulled her by her hair getting no blood on him at all.
                            Who came up with this pulling her by the hair stuff anyway?
                            At the risk of sounding too gruesome, couldn’t a clump of hair come away from the blows to the scalp?
                            One further thing , CCJ quote:
                            (b) (Amy Wallace gave a police statement (21.1.31) in which she said she visited Julia at 29 Wolverton Street at 3:30 pm on 20.1.31 and that Julia mentioned the telephone message.)
                            Why do you suppose Amy wasn't brought to court to testify for the defence , Julias demeanour, etc? After all Amy was the last person to talk in any degree to the deceased not counting the man charged with her murder of course .

                            Comment


                            • Not sure how Julia's demeanour (as evaluated by Amy) some three hours before her murder could throw any light on who killed her...
                              "I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely where fact may lead me..."
                              Sherlock Holmes, in The Adventure of The Reigate Squires
                              The Accomplice Theory - 'on balance, the best explanation for one of the most puzzling murder cases in British criminal history' - Move to Murder, 2018
                              https://www.dropbox.com/s/s0jpn0kyuq...heory.pdf?dl=0

                              Compendium of Resources
                              https://forum.casebook.org/forum/soc...882#post650882

                              Comment


                              • Not sure how Julia's demeanour (as evaluated by Amy) some three hours before her murder could throw any light on who killed her.

                                Well, if Julia had been expressing fears about her husband's increasing irritation and short temper we can assume the prosecution would have had her as star witness.

                                On the contrary her statement pointed in Wallace's favour, so Moste is correct in questioning why the defence did not call her. Especially to counteract the rather dubious police testimony that Wallace was seen walking around the streets distressed and tearful three hours before the murder. I say dubious, since none of the clients he visited around that time noticed anything out of the ordinary.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X