Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

I have 3 autopsy photos of Julia Wallace on the slab.

Obviously, I will not post the links randomly here, but if anyone is interested you can PM me.

They are not that gory, she looks quite peaceful, and the photos focus on the back of the head injuries.

But obviously it would be disrespectful to post pics of a naked, elderly female murder victim. So I trust you WON'T either, if I share them with you...

[moste]

thanks! interesting. although if Wallace had an accomplice, be it parry or not, why would Wallace still be the one to make the Q call?? that part makes no sense.

Also, if Wallace was Qualtrough and such a lot of planning went into all this, what was the deal with him screwing up the phone call? ,appearing to accomplish making connection with the chess club without paying for it? This had to be part of the plan

[RodCrosby]

Also, if Wallace was Qualtrough and such a lot of planning went into all this, what was the deal with him screwing up the phone call? ,appearing to accomplish making connection with the chess club without paying for it? This had to be part of the plan

yes, to identify the call box, and so put an extra bullet or two in the cylinder, for this round of Wallace's pre-planned nine-rounds-of-russian-roulette "brilliant murder plan"...

Yawn...

[Herlock Sholmes]

There was a fault in the telephone box which was repaired the next day by Leslie Heaton. No real mystery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS,

I am not consciously peddling a myth in relation to the time available to Wallace to commit murder, but simply offering an honest opinion. Even if we accept the time as being 13 minutes- corroborating evidence of the milkboy’s delivery suggests it was probably less- I cannot accept he had time to kill his wife, presumably place the mackintosh underneath her, then clean himself of the blood spray. He was, so far as I know, wearing the same suit all that day so did not have the option of dumping bloodstained clothing along with his murder weapon. Even if we accept the outlandish theory that Wallace stripped naked beneath the mackintosh, there would have been blood on his feet, hands, face and hair. An effective clean up and dressing smartly thereafter would, in my view, not be possible in the time available. It was a master stroke not to use either the bath or sink to wash up in, since the police actually dismantled these to look for evidence of their being used recently. He also had to dump the murder weapon en route to the tram stop, something he did remarkably effectively. A fit young man would not find all this easy to do and we know that Wallace was a chain-smoking, rather frail, middle-aged man.

There are two other problems with the timing. If Wallace was Qualtrough he was leaving too much to chance for such a devilishly clever plan. Julia’s sister was a visitor in the afternoon and it is unlikely that Wallace could have counted on her leaving before he did himself. Wallace would have had the option of killing Julia soon after his return around 6.05pm, but then ran the risk of not being able to answer the door to the milkboy if he was in the middle of his attack. So Wallace really had to await the milkboy and strike as soon as he could afterwards; but instead of arriving at around 6.30pm, which Alan Close claimed he normally did, he came nearer 6.40pm. Since Wallace’s alibi made it essential he was around Menlove Gardens at 7.30pm then his whole masterplan, with the Qualtrough trump card which could never really be played again, was now being crammed into something like a 10 minute period. A cold, calculating, chess- playing killer would have been more likely to abort the plan rather than go through with it.

Cobalt, apologies for jumping back but there was a point I intended to make but I forgot and was reminded about it today.

If we believe that the killer would have been covered in blood (feet, hands, face and hair as you said) then we have to answer one very pertinent question.

If someone else killed Julia they would have taken no precaution against getting blood on their feet, hands, face and hair (and maybe elsewhere.) How then do we explain the complete absence of blood anywhere except around the corpse? The gas jets were turned down and yet there was no blood on them. There was no blood on the walls in the hallway or on any of the doors or the door handles (and this with a kill for at least part of the time walking around a house with the lights out.). And there was no blood on the back gate. None on the carpets either. How likely was this for a killer who took no precautions? For a killer who could have left bloodstains anywhere with impunity (apart from fingerprints of course) this is a rather strange.

The fact that there was no blood outside of the Parlour points to three things 1. The killer was staggeringly fortunate (probably Rod’s choice of course) 2. He was very careful - which a killer that wasn’t Wallace had absolutely no need to be. Or 3. A killer who took precautions because he had to and was careful because he needed to be.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In addition. Obviously Wallace needed to be blood free when he left the house. This wouldn’t have been as important for any other killer but he surely wouldn’t have wanted to have been seen in the street covered in blood? Yes it was night time but it might still have been considered a risk when nearing a street lamp. There was nothing preventing our mystery killer from at least washing his hands and face in the back kitchen sink. Maybe even wiping any obvious blood from his clothing. How long would this have taken? A minute or two weighed against the risk of being seen covered in blood? Yet there was no evidence of a clean up and a mystery killer would certainly have had no requirement to clean down a sink.

The lack of blood outside of the Parlour points strongly away from anyone but Wallace.

[cobalt]

No apologies required, HS. I know you as person who is seeking the truth, even in a case almost 90 years old, so your instincts speak strongly for you. I also respect RC, but he comes on here to declare his case, not to discuss it. So, on balance, I find it easier to correspond with yourself.

The collaborator theory voiced today is actually weaker than anything which has gone before. Under this scenario Wallace could have been, as I explained, totally a hostage to fortune to the man who took the bloodied fragments and weapon from his house. That man could have blackmailed him from time immemorial. Wallace was not a man ‘to be beholden to anyone’, as we say in Scotland. He would not have entered into such a one sided contract. A contract which, at any time, allowed his collaborator to turn ‘King’s Evidence’ if things went wrong and not just cheat the gallows but give chapter and verse of how he was approached by Wallace. It is an adolescent scenario in my view, one coming from a person who has watched too many crime movies. Well intentioned, imaginative, but ultimately drivel.

As always, let us start not from preconceptions but from the evidence. There will plenty of scope for our prejudices and biases thereafter. I am no stranger to those, so alert me when I go too far. Wallace had no obvious motive. He had no financial advantage. He had no secret lover. He was a worthy, if perhaps rather boring man. Except he was actually quite interesting to those he was able to get close to. There are mixed accounts of his marital relations, but none of which point towards murder. There was no discernible reason why he should kill his wife in 1931 as opposed to 1921 except that he has allegedly become fed up with her. It is weak reasoning. On that basis there would be few wives left in Great Britain.

If guilty, he left within 10 minutes of the murder, at best. That is agreed by all of us on here. Why did he not use a less bloody method to kill his wife, since it was planned? A neck tie, for example. His bare hands? Why all the blood? His Qaultrough phone call gave him carte blanche for a silent, relatively bloodless, killing, yet he lashed out with some kind of iron bar? We cannot square the circle of a planned, calculated murder along with the savage attack on Julia Wallace any better now than the Liverpool Police did in 1931. We are still stumbling around in the dark.

If there had been no Qaultrough phone call the weight of evidence, in my view, would point to Wallace killing his wife in a, supposedly Victorian, suppressed fit of anger. Which he could have done the night before on his way to the chess club. I don’t buy even that easily, but the phone call makes it a planned murder, which in turn which turn renders the whole Wallace as maniacal attacker beyond credibility.

[ColdCaseJury]

There was a fault in the telephone box which was repaired the next day by Leslie Heaton. No real mystery.

HS, Heaton never mentioned this in his police statement, in his committal hearing testimony and trial testimony. I searched tirelessly for evidence of this fault but found none. One of the earliest sources was Yseult Bridges (unreliable). What is your primary source?

I believe this is one of the myths of the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS, Heaton never mentioned this in his police statement, in his committal hearing testimony and trial testimony. I searched tirelessly for evidence of this fault but found none. One of the earliest sources was Yseult Bridges (unreliable). What is your primary source?

I believe this is one of the myths of the case.

You might be right Antony. I only got it from Murphy so I just find it difficult to believe that hed just make something like that up?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No apologies required, HS. I know you as person who is seeking the truth, even in a case almost 90 years old, so your instincts speak strongly for you. I also respect RC, but he comes on here to declare his case, not to discuss it. So, on balance, I find it easier to correspond with yourself.

The collaborator theory voiced today is actually weaker than anything which has gone before. Under this scenario Wallace could have been, as I explained, totally a hostage to fortune to the man who took the bloodied fragments and weapon from his house. That man could have blackmailed him from time immemorial. Wallace was not a man ‘to be beholden to anyone’, as we say in Scotland. He would not have entered into such a one sided contract. A contract which, at any time, allowed his collaborator to turn ‘King’s Evidence’ if things went wrong and not just cheat the gallows but give chapter and verse of how he was approached by Wallace. It is an adolescent scenario in my view, one coming from a person who has watched too many crime movies. Well intentioned, imaginative, but ultimately drivel.

I don’t think that we can be certain what Wallace would have done in that situation Cobalt. Would a collaberator have tried blackmailing Wallace after the event when Wallace could have threatened to implicate him more closely. He could have said that the guy actually killed Julia for him. Would he have risked that? I can’t see it. We could also add that Wallace was a man that would have had good reason to believe that he wasn’t in for a long life so an element of fatalism might have entered his thinking. We could ask why would Parry’s accomplice have agreed to take 100% of the risks while Parry spent the evening in safety? I think the collaberator theory is no more or less believable that the Accomplice theory.

And by the way I rarely watch movies and I tend to leave the drivel to Rod.

As always, let us start not from preconceptions but from the evidence. There will plenty of scope for our prejudices and biases thereafter. I am no stranger to those, so alert me when I go too far. Wallace had no obvious motive. He had no financial advantage. He had no secret lover. He was a worthy, if perhaps rather boring man. Except he was actually quite interesting to those he was able to get close to. There are mixed accounts of his marital relations, but none of which point towards murder. There was no discernible reason why he should kill his wife in 1931 as opposed to 1921 except that he has allegedly become fed up with her. It is weak reasoning. On that basis there would be few wives left in Great Britain.

Sorry Cobalt But this just isn’t weak reasoning. The entire history of crime Is replete with murder cases where a seemingly meek, mild and decent man kills his wife. We can’t say that he couldn’t have had a motive because the motive wasn’t blatantly apparent before the crime. Motives can remain hidden. Men have killed there wives for the most insignificant of reasons. Again I’ll mention Wilson (who spent three weeks living with them) Curwen (a Doctor who regularly nursed them.) Mather (an ex-colleague Of Williams) and Amy (Williams sister-In-law.) These opinions should carry more weight than casual acquaintances like the Johnston’s. Or very occaisional visitors to the house like the Cairds. Yet in a typically twisted defend Wallace at any cost way, it’s the other way around!

If guilty, he left within 10 minutes of the murder, at best. That is agreed by all of us on here. Why did he not use a less bloody method to kill his wife, since it was planned? A neck tie, for example. His bare hands? Why all the blood? His Qaultrough phone call gave him carte blanche for a silent, relatively bloodless, killing, yet he lashed out with some kind of iron bar? We cannot square the circle of a planned, calculated murder along with the savage attack on Julia Wallace any better now than the Liverpool Police did in 1931. We are still stumbling around in the dark.

Maybe Wallace was worried that he wouldn’t have the strength to strangle Julia and that she might have screamed out. Better a heavy iron bar which was at least more likely to knock her unconscious after the first blow. There is no circle to square.

If there had been no Qaultrough phone call the weight of evidence, in my view, would point to Wallace killing his wife in a, supposedly Victorian, suppressed fit of anger. Which he could have done the night before on his way to the chess club. I don’t buy even that easily, but the phone call makes it a planned murder, which in turn which turn renders the whole Wallace as maniacal attacker beyond credibility.


I really don’t get this. What you are in effect saying is that part of Wallace’s plan was to inflict several blows. Wallace probably thought that 2 or 3 blows might have been enough and so we then have the possibility that more blows might have been required and the fact that any pent up rage could have come pouring out as he struck the blows resulting in overkill. This has happened before in crime Cobalt. “”I didn’t mean to hit her so many times your honour.””

I think the collaberator theory (although only done as an excercise in creating a possible scenario) is as plausible as the Accomplice theory. But of course not as convincing as the overwhelmingly likeliest scenario. That William Wallace killed Julia. There is not a single, smidgeon of evidence that disproves this.

[ColdCaseJury]

You might be right Antony. I only got it from Murphy so I just find it difficult to believe that hed just make something like that up?

No, he didn't make it up, but I think the earliest reference is Bridges, who was notorious for doing just that. Heaton gives three statements (including testimony) and does not once mention he made repairs at the call box, even though he did mention the broken light bulb!

Robertson said the call was logged as NO REPLY and both Kelly and Alfreds said the same thing in their statements. Yet, Harley said the phone did not ring. Hence, I suspect, if there was a fault, it was at BANK not at ANFIELD. But this does not explain what was SAID by Qualtrough in the call box, which I explore in my book (Chapter 6).

[ColdCaseJury]

I have 3 autopsy photos of Julia Wallace on the slab.

Obviously, I will not post the links randomly here, but if anyone is interested you can PM me.

They are not that gory, she looks quite peaceful, and the photos focus on the back of the head injuries.

But obviously it would be disrespectful to post pics of a naked, elderly female murder victim. So I trust you WON'T either, if I share them with you...

The cropped versions are in Gannon, of course. The Liverpool Police are very sensitive about these images, so great care is required. I did not want to publish any of them - in fact, it was seeing these photographs that made me write "The Indignities of Murder" as the epilogue in my book.

[moste]

HS, Heaton never mentioned this in his police statement, in his committal hearing testimony and trial testimony. I searched tirelessly for evidence of this fault but found none. One of the earliest sources was Yseult Bridges (unreliable). What is your primary source?

I believe this is one of the myths of the case.

Yes, this is quite easily explained. The logged fault with the telephone box in Anfield was attended to by the GPO engineer, after the customer complained "Ive lost my Tuppence" He will have simply tested the system using coins and checking connections , and will have wrote this visit up as a service call. He will have been in no doubt , as we are not, that there was ever anything wrong with the 'extremely reliable telecommunication system' of the day. What would the police have made of the two possible scenarios : (a) The caller to the chess club tried to rip off the GPO or (b) The caller wanted to draw attention to the use of that specific phone box.
N.B. Pre STD systems, growing up in the 50s, we would rarely pass a phone box without going in and pressing button B one in a hundred or so would cough up 4 pennies. For 4 pence you could buy a ' Palm Toffee Bar' ( the chocolate covered ones.)

[ColdCaseJury]

Yes, this is quite easily explained. The logged fault with the telephone box in Anfield was attended to by the GPO engineer, after the customer complained "Ive lost my Tuppence" He will have simply tested the system using coins and checking connections , and will have wrote this visit up as a service call. He will have been in no doubt , as we are not, that there was ever anything wrong with the 'extremely reliable telecommunication system' of the day. What would the police have made of the two possible scenarios : (a) The caller to the chess club tried to rip off the GPO or (b) The caller wanted to draw attention to the use of that specific phone box.
N.B. Pre STD systems, growing up in the 50s, we would rarely pass a phone box without going in and pressing button B one in a hundred or so would cough up 4 pennies. For 4 pence you could buy a ' Palm Toffee Bar' ( the chocolate covered ones.)

For (b), see my earlier post #1937.

[moste]

For (b), see my earlier post #1937.

Ok since the new format Im not getting post numbers. I'm on a 2 year old Ipad which is much better than my 12 year old PC! But still
Not too happy. Anyway could you or someone remind me , did Wallace say on his death bed ' we won didn't we' ?, Is there serious proof of this? And who was he talking to? Thanks.