Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

Macfall's evidence has Julia just getting up from lighting the gas fire when she is attacked or leaning forward while sitting in the armchair. It is not likely she was holding the mackintosh while lighting the fire. Possibly she may have had it on her lap while sitting in the armchair - but it is not easy to think why she would be there with the mackintosh on her lap if she was in the room with Wallace. Its my bias, but I think the mackintosh and skirt burning happened as one event.

If you are correct about the killer being Wallace and he was using the coat as a shield in the way you previously described, do you think it is possible it got caught under Julia as she fell trapping it against the fire, with her skirt getting singed and the mackintosh getting burnt at the same time.

Yes Eten, I’ve mentioned this before. If Wallace was looking in the mirror straightening his tie and Julia stood to his left and passed him his coat he just reaches down, picks up the bar and strikes a blow. He may even have had the bar in this pocket. Julia then falls against the fire whilst still holding the coat causing the singeing to the coat and her skirt simultaneously.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn’t it also, at least a bit strange, that in this narrow terraced street where neighbours on both sides spoke of hearing the Wallace’s door closing that very night, that no one saw or heard the man allegedly posing as Qualtrough? He would have knocked the front door and it would have taken say a minute to explain the situation to Julia before she agreed to let him in. No neighbours across the narrow street saw anyone either.

[RodCrosby]

Before Rod comes in, no doubt with some pertinent points, I think it is undeniable that the evidence against Parry is no more convincing than the evidence against Wallace.

Less so in fact, since we can be certain that Wallace was actually in the house close to the time Julia died and as a husband had a motive recognised throughout human history, however indistinct.

BTW, I think Wallace was innocent and had a terrible wrong done to him. But I am interested in analysis and evaluation of evidence, not mere information.

There was no evidence against Wallace. We know that because
a) the Court of Appeal quashed his conviction, which, under law, they could not have done if there was any evidence, and the specific interjections of Branson LJ and Hewart LCJ indicate that conclusively.
b) (hopefully) our own analytical abilities would agree with the above, and admit there was nothing inconsistent with Wallace being a victim of circumstance (and poor Police work). All the theories and suspicions we may have don't alter that.
c) although not evidence, we could add that the theory Wallace did it is so intrinsically implausible (requiring him to survive nine-rounds-of-russian-roulette after resolving to proceed with such a plan in the first place) that rationality impels us to look for any sign of a more plausible solution.

Happily, and unsurprisingly, there is a considerable amount of actual circumstantial evidence (circumstantial evidence is often the only evidence, and the best evidence) for another solution.

a) Parry was spotted by Wallace in the chess room itself in November 1930. "He wasn't playing chess", noted Wallace, dryly.
b) according to Lloyd, Parry made a flying visit only minutes after the phone call, the phone box being a mere two minute drive from her home.
c) according to Lloyd, Parry later returned, after an unexplained 8-mile jaunt into central Liverpool to a point close to the chess club.
d) Parry lied to the Police all about b) & c)
e) according to Lloyd and Parry himself, Parry was thinking about a "21st birthday" party on the night of the murder. The hoax caller to the Chess Club had also stressed a "21st birthday" the night before. Parry was a known actor and scammer, both in and out of phone boxes.
f) Parry's movements on the murder night - shortly after the murder - bear hallmarks of deception (independent forensic linguistic practitioners list factors that can be applied to his statement), or are implausible or unsupported. Parry's statement nevertheless indicates he was out and about in his car between 8.30pm and 9.00pm on the murder night, 'accumulating' 3 unsupported alibis.
g) Parkes, supported in part by Dolly Atkinson, indicates that Parry made an agitated visit to Atkinson's garage, late on the murder night, desperate to have his car washed.
h) Mrs. Ada Cook gave a signed statement that Parry's parents had attempted to enlist her parents in smuggling Parry out of the country, immediately after the murder.
i) In 1966, Parry indicated to Goodman that he could say more, but would not - "not for £2000" - and that he had promised his father he would not, while also indicating he kept an eye on developments in the Wallace case.

Given all of the above, and the evidence presented from the crime plan, and the crime scene itself, what can be abduced as the most plausible solution?

[Abby Normal]

Isn’t it also, at least a bit strange, that in this narrow terraced street where neighbours on both sides spoke of hearing the Wallace’s door closing that very night, that no one saw or heard the man allegedly posing as Qualtrough? He would have knocked the front door and it would have taken say a minute to explain the situation to Julia before she agreed to let him in. No neighbours across the narrow street saw anyone either.

Yes that no one saw or heard anyone coming to the door or stranger acting suspicious around there house or leaving is one of the biggest pointers to wallace IMHO.

[RodCrosby]

Yes Eten, I’ve mentioned this before. If Wallace was looking in the mirror straightening his tie and Julia stood to his left and passed him his coat he just reaches down, picks up the bar and strikes a blow. He may even have had the bar in this pocket. Julia then falls against the fire whilst still holding the coat causing the singeing to the coat and her skirt simultaneously.

So you also admit to a scenario where another killer could have done the same.
Julia attacked while holding the mac...

For the record, I don't think there is any evidence that Julia possessed a mac of her own (or at least no evidence as to where it might be)

We also know there was no light in the hall where Wallace's mac hung.

[RodCrosby]

Yes that no one saw or heard anyone coming to the door or stranger acting suspicious around there house or leaving is one of the biggest pointers to wallace IMHO.

In which case there would be no "unknown intruder" class of murders.
But we know there is such a class...

[Abby Normal]

Cobalt,

I believe that not only did Wallace have enough time to do what he needed to do I believe that he had time to spare.

If Close left at 6.40 (and in a scenario that Antony was going through with me we have him leaving at 6.37) Wallace has a ten minutes. I believe that when Julia closed the door on Close Wallace could easily have been leaving by the back door 6 or 7 minutes later.

I think that people tend to see Wallace acting as if he was underwater.

Wallace empties the cash box before the murder. He could easily have pulled off the cupboard door too. That’s the staging done. Although he had time to do these things after Julia was dead.

Julia closes the door, Wallace calls to Julia from the Parlour to bring him his mackintosh. He knocks Julia down with one blow, puts a pair of gloves and the mackintosh and finishes the job. He pushes the mackintosh underneath Julia’s body.2 minutes tops.

He then wraps the weapon in some paper then puts on his coat, turns down the gaslights and leaves. The actual, physical actions wouldn’t have taken long.

If we assume a man planned a robbery and knew that there were time constraints then it’s reasonable to assume that he would have made at least some provision for not getting blood on him. It’s only if we assume that Wallace got covered in blood that timings get tight. It’s also not unthinkable that Wallace might also have had a little good fortune, in not getting blood on his face for example.

You mention no unusual behaviour. Even though none of us would say that Wallace’s rather cold, unemotional demeanour is enough to brand him guilty many would still say that it was slightly unusual. The way that he almost scientifically examined her for example. His behaviour when searching for MGE is considered strange by many and I think reasonably so. The fact that Wallace lied to Beattie and Caird. The way he didn’t mention Crewe straight away. The door that refused to let him in for the first time ever on that particular night then opened when the Johnston’s appeared. The fact that Wallace, supposedly worried for his wife’s safety, walks past a door of a room within touching distance and proceeds to check his laboratory (surely the least likely room in the house to expect Julia to be in.)

The calculating plan hardly speaks of Parry whose previous crimes amounted to lifting money from an insurance round and hoping that no one would notice.

Yes the murder was brutal. But that speaks more of a more personal motive. If Wallace made a plan to kill his wife, after a build up of resentment and growing ill-feeling, he might have intended only one or two blows. More might have been required and then any hatred could have come flooding out resulting as it did.

A sneak-thief, accepting the risk of possible identification from the outset, would surely have been more likely to have just left if discovered?

Parry’s actions on the Tuesday night just don’t speak of a man taking part in a plan.

We can also add things like - why would a sneak thief bother turning off the lights in a strange house? We can come up with a reasonable reason for Wallace doing it though.

I can’t see any evidence for Parry’s involvement. Parkes testimony is not believable in my opinion.

I agree that I wouldn’t send Wallace to the gallows on the available evidence. But out of the available suspects/theories I’d go for Wallace 90% (I’ve said 95% in the past)

I agree.
He had plenty of time. How long does it take to beat someones brains out? And he obviously had everything planned out ahead of time and knew he was going to strike as soon as the milk boy left. Only seconds to beat her to death, a minute or two to clean up and skidaddle.

[Abby Normal]

In which case there would be no "unknown intruder" class of murders.
But we know there is such a class...

Hi rod
Of course there are. But they are often seen by witnesses.
So in this case it was an outside intruder who just wasnt seen, including parry/accomplice, or another unsub(which i actually think is possible more so than most here) or it was wallace.

So logically no one, not a peep, from witnesses that anyone outside was around points in the direction because there wasnt one, hence wallace.

And i would add similarily no sign of forced entry...

[RodCrosby]

I agree.
He had plenty of time. How long does it take to beat someones brains out? And he obviously had everything planned out ahead of time and knew he was going to strike as soon as the milk boy left. Only seconds to beat her to death, a minute or two to clean up and skidaddle.

How could Wallace know - assuming he was capable of such a traceless murderous feat (a HUGE ask in itself) - that the milk-boy would arrive at a time which permitted Wallace to also arrive at the corner of Menlove Gardens West at exactly the same time an innocent Wallace would have arrived?

Or, if he didn't know (obviously), what are the chances that events just fell that way?

Moreover, what are the chances someone would plan an 'alibi' on events just happening to fall that way - else he would have no alibi at all?

[Oh, and we know that at least 8 other rounds of russian-roulette are required for this scheme to work]

What are the chances of someone planning [and getting away with] a murder which depends on nine-rounds-of-russian-roulette?

[moste]

Cobalt, the questions that have been asked for the last 90 years are why was the mackintosh in the Parlour and how did it end up bunched up beneath Julia. A plausible explaination for these two questions could point us in the right direction.

For me everything points to the fact that it was put there deliberately. How could Julia, with it over her shoulders, fall onto her front and get the coat underneath her? If she was holding it she would surely have just dropped it or got it at best partially beneath her. These explanations don’t work.

So we can then ask - would the accomplice have put it there on purpose? For what conceivable reason?

Finally, would Wallace have a reason for doing so. I think yes. If, as I believe, he used the coat as protection against blood spatter, he would have been concerned that the police having seen the blood spatter might have suspected how the coat had been used. He therefore pushes it under Julia’s body where a pool of blood is gathering. By bunching it up it would also serve to smudge and smear the effects of the spatter.

And so, if the mackintosh got there unintentially, there’s no logical explanation for how. If it was put there intentionally only Wallace would have had a possible reason for doing so.

I am on board with the suggestion that the Mac was used as a shield, however I do fail to see how just throwing the Mac on the floor after the deed goes anywhere towards incriminating Wallace.

[Abby Normal]

I am on board with the suggestion that the Mac was used as a shield, however I do fail to see how just throwing the Mac on the floor after the deed goes anywhere towards incriminating Wallace.

Hi moste
Because if wallace was the killer and he was wearing the mac over his suit to sheild from blood, the blood splatter on the mac would obviously point to a murderer wearing the mac, pointing to wallace. So he pushed the blood spattered mac under her and into the pool of her blood to obsfucate the mac having blood spatter on it.

[moste]

Hi moste
Because if wallace was the killer and he was wearing the mac over his suit to sheild from blood, the blood splatter on the mac would obviously point to a murderer wearing the mac, pointing to wallace. So he pushed the blood spattered mac under her and into the pool of her blood to obsfucate the mac having blood spatter on it.

So it would logically follow then , If Parry was the killer and he was wearing the mac over his suit to shield from blood,the blood splatter on the mac would obviously point to a murderer wearing the mac,pointing to Parry.You see what I mean, it doesn't take us anywhere does it? Unless Parrys access to the mac on the hook in the hall was not available to him.
The blood splatter on the mac doesn't incriminate one individual over another ,does it ? Just trying to see it from an impartial prospective, like the police would,

[etenguy]

So it would logically follow then , If Parry was the killer and he was wearing the mac over his suit to shield from blood,the blood splatter on the mac would obviously point to a murderer wearing the mac,pointing to Parry.You see what I mean, it doesn't take us anywhere does it? Unless Parrys access to the mac on the hook in the hall was not available to him.
The blood splatter on the mac doesn't incriminate one individual over another ,does it ? Just trying to see it from an impartial prospective, like the police would,

Hi Moste - I agree with you. The mackintosh, its use and how it got to be placed under the body does not help us narrow down who committed the murder. I agree with Herlock that the mackintosh was likely used to shield the killer from blood and that it would have blood splattered on it. I also agree with you that blood splatter on the mackintosh could equally point to Wallace or the Qualtrough killer. neither has a strong motive for putting the mac under the body. But someone did - I don't think it accidentally found its way there because of the burning and the contortions required for it to fall that way.


What I think the use of the mackintosh tells us is that the murder was likely planned. This was not someone lashing out in rage or fear of detection on the spur of the moment. When in that emotional state you are unlikely to start thinking about the consequences of lashing out and how to mitigate against them. In this sense, I think the mackintosh being there at all does suggest that Wallace was the more likely mackintosh wearer.

[OneRound]

HS,

As you can appreciate I am pretty much in the Rod Crosby camp. However his unpleasant manner on this forum has perhaps inspired me to see other aspects of the evidence. That said, I - and others- are perhaps doing him a favour by testing what he believes is a cast iron scenario, by identifying weaknesses in his case. If his is a robust case it, unlike him, will welcome robust scrutiny. Einstein, a man of considerable intellect almost on a par with Rod Crosby, always welcomed challenges to his theories, which is maybe why they have stood the test of time for the best part of a century. Maybe Rod’s theories will as well.

In short, Wallace’s guilt dissolves on the evidence of the milkboy. The timing is too improbable. Not impossible I accept, but beyond what most of us would accept, especially for a planned murder. No time. No bloodstains. No unusual behaviour. I have said earlier that if there had been no Qualtrough phone call then I could more easily buy into the modern, anti-Victorian mindset by which Wallace was a repressed man who lashed at his wife in a moment of madness. That, to our self-satisfied culture, has a certain logic to it; and the attack was frenzied enough. Except that the phone call suggests premeditation and a less bloody method of execution. And that is before we consider the character of Wallace himself. The murder plan was cold and calculated, yet the execution was frenzied. This is hard to take in.

Wallace’s guilt was assumed by the police, partly due lack of evidence, so they resorted to the familiar trope of husband or person who discovers the body. Wallace was both, so he was the obvious target. It’s a weak case and was rightly dismissed. The problem I have is with anyone suggesting another killer, which from what I have read so far strikes me as equally unlikely.

Hi Cobalt - I very much go along with you that Wallace didn't kill his wife himself. However, I do find some of his behaviour odd in the times before, during and after the murder. That doesn't mean he played any part at all but it does make me wonder.

I fully accept your point in an earlier post questioning why a collaborator of Wallace would be prepared to kill Julia. I readily acknowledge that - together with the question as to how Wallace got to know and trust him - is a significant weakness in the ''Wallace with a Collaborator'' theory.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Harry D]

The collaboration theory is fanciful piffle. As if the milquetoast Wallace had the connections to hire a hitman to brain his old lady. I think it's a vain attempt to reconcile Wallace's guilt with the timings. i.e. If Wallace was too pressed for time to commit the murder and cover his tracks, it stands to reason he hired someone else to do it.