Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Time to gather his thoughts make sense.

It seems as though the Johnston's coming out of their home was totally unforeseen, and therefore if he did do it, perhaps the unexpected event rattled him a bit. On the other hand, given the time of night and the lights being turned out, it would make sense for his sick wife to be in bed. Still - you would expect him to make a lot of commotion as soon as that back door opened and he saw the cabinet door ripped off etc. and already thought there was a criminal in the home, not slink around silently and slowly, calling out weakly "Julia?" a couple of times lol.

It’s also worth wondering why Wallace, thinking that there might be someone inside the house, didn’t ask Mr Johnston to accompany him inside?

[etenguy]

The pace of this thread is still like a fast flowing river. How many is a "frenzy of blows" (sounds like a good collective noun to me). Do you accept MacFall's trial testimony of 11 blows or his written post mortem report of 3-4?

Mackintosh was burnt bottom right. Another poster suggested it was an unlikely coincidence that the mackintosh and the skirt were burnt separately. This sounds plausible to me, at least, but what does this suggest happened?

I am inclined to believe his testimony under oath of 11 blows delivered in a frenzy, one before she fell and ten in the position her head was found (which was corroborated by brain matter in the vicinity). It is interesting to note the first blow, (if I understand MacFall's testimony correctly - and he could have been clearer), was to the front of her head and the blow was delivered in an upward motion sending the blood upward and over the violin case and wall.

I would very much support the notion that it would be an unlikely coincidence that the mackintosh and the skirt were burnt separately.

Taking all MacFall's and William Robert's testimony together, the best picture of the attack I can speculate is that Julia was struck as she was getting up from lighting the fire and fell forward onto the fire, burning the side of her skirt and the bottom of the mackintosh. How the mackintosh got into that position is, in my view, that it was caught under her as she fell, most likely been worn or held by the killer. If she had worn the mackintosh over her shoulders, the mackintosh would be behind her and unlikely to be burnt at the bottom (more likely at the waist) but if the killer has the mackintosh and had struck her as I describe, the bottom of the mackintosh could easily have been caught under her as she fell forward. The killer would then have pushed Julia off the fire, put out the flames before reigning down the remaining blows and finally pushing the mackintosh slightly under her right shoulder (though why he would do that I do not know).

[moste]

hi wwH


I don't see a lot of unusual behavior with Wallace I only really see one, but for me its a wopper. The business about not knowing the bar and poker were missing, and the fact that his maid had to bring it up to police. out of everything he said and did-this really stands out to me.

Isn't it the case though that , they were not missing to his knowledge , only when the police had talked to the maid ?

[ColdCaseJury]

I am inclined to believe his testimony under oath of 11 blows delivered in a frenzy, one before she fell and ten in the position her head was found (which was corroborated by brain matter in the vicinity). It is interesting to note the first blow, (if I understand MacFall's testimony correctly - and he could have been clearer), was to the front of her head and the blow was delivered in an upward motion sending the blood upward and over the violin case and wall.

MacFall changed his written opinion of 3-4 blows from a large-headed instrument to 11 blows without explanation or known reason. He was never quizzed about the change possibly because the defence team never saw the original post mortem document.

Forgive my devilish sense of mischief, etenguy, but are you also inclined to believe MacFall's testimony under oath that the time of death was before 6pm, a change of opinion without explanation or known reason from his written opinion that it was about 8pm? I'm sure you don't. But this does lead to a genuine problem: on what grounds do you accept a Macfall opinion rather than its self-contradictory?

Personally, I tend believe MacFall's earlier opinion before he started fitting facts to the police case. However, as time of death is always an estimate, I accept that 8pm can genuinely be challenged. BTW, 3-4 blows can be delivered with hatred.

[etenguy]

MacFall changed his written opinion of 3-4 blows from a large-headed instrument to 11 blows without explanation or known reason. He was never quizzed about the change possibly because the defence team never saw the original post mortem document.

Forgive my devilish sense of mischief, etenguy, but are you also inclined to believe MacFall's testimony under oath that the time of death was before 6pm, a change of opinion without explanation or known reason from his written opinion that it was about 8pm? I'm sure you don't. But this does lead to a genuine problem: on what grounds do you accept a Macfall opinion rather than its self-contradictory?

Personally, I tend believe MacFall's earlier opinion before he started fitting facts to the police case. However, as time of death is always an estimate, I accept that 8pm can genuinely be challenged. BTW, 3-4 blows can be delivered with hatred.

I find Macfall an unreliable expert who is overly confident in his opinions. He comes across as a bit superior. I find William Robert's more convincing and even minded. Earlier I suggested 8.00pm was the latest time of death, influenced more by Robert's opinion than MacFall's (but concede the difficulty with the methods used). When MacFall talks about the head injuries, he does seem to have a basis for his opinion. However, the whole exchange about Wallace's sanity does make me uncomfortable and you may be right in suggesting MacFall's testimony was (perhaps unconciously) tainted by his view on Wallace's innocence or guilt.

[RMQualtrough]

I want to award CCJ and RodCrosby an award for most insane theory.

They can come to 25 Menlove Gardens East to collect it

[cobalt]

When discussing the details of the attack on Julia Wallace there is ample reason to see Wallace as the guilty party. Had Wallace lashed out in a moment of fury, then clumsily staged a burglary, that would hold some water. However we need to keep the whole attack in context.

The imbroglio of the Qualtrough phone call means that Wallace, if guilty, must have planned the attack. Yet the Q phone call only serves to give him an alibi for around 90 minutes, a shorter time span than provided by the chess club or indeed his activities on any other working day. The Q call was in this respect totally unnecessary, ran the risk of Wallace being seen in a phone box or his voice recognised, and its red herring potential was swiftly dismissed by police enquiries. Why bother constructing an alibi around Menlove Gardens when he could have established a better one as part of his weekly house visits? Or the chess club for that matter. Far from being a stroke of genius, the Q call is more an albatross around Wallace’s neck.

The brutal method of murder was not in keeping with what we know of Wallace’s character, and given the very narrow time slot chosen by him (assuming the milk delivery was part of his schedule) ran the risk of blood being later found about his person.

Disposal of the murder weapon must have been extremely well planned, but Wallace had little opportunity to deviate from the most direct route from his house to catch the first tram, and the police searched the surrounding area. He could, admittedly, have dumped the weapon during his peregrinations around Menlove Gardens, but if the weapon were to turn up in that vicinity then he was pretty much bang-to-rights.

The difficulty with the house doors on his return does not speak of very great planning either. The bolted front door was smart enough, explaining why he became suspicious of something being wrong. But surely better then to have the back door unlocked, or even a little ajar, as part of his narrative. He could not have anticipated the neighbours appearing so his was, in theory, the only account which was going to be available.

If Wallace was indeed guilty, then the appearance of his neighbours was a terrific piece of good luck. He was able to enter the property in their presence, ‘discover’ the body along with them and send the husband for the police. His original plan must have been for him to do these things alone, so was much weaker than what transpired.

That’s a lot of luck for Wallace’s perfectly planned murder: the milkboy arriving just in the nick of time; the lack of minute blood particles being sprayed on to his clothes; being able to hide the murder weapon so successfully; the neighbours appearing at just the right moment.

[cobalt]

I want to award CCJ and RodCrosby an award for most insane theory.

They can come to 25 Menlove Gardens East to collect it

Don't go. I think it may be a hoax.

[RMQualtrough]

When discussing the details of the attack on Julia Wallace there is ample reason to see Wallace as the guilty party. Had Wallace lashed out in a moment of fury, then clumsily staged a burglary, that would hold some water. However we need to keep the whole attack in context.

The imbroglio of the Qualtrough phone call means that Wallace, if guilty, must have planned the attack. Yet the Q phone call only serves to give him an alibi for around 90 minutes, a shorter time span than provided by the chess club or indeed his activities on any other working day. The Q call was in this respect totally unnecessary, ran the risk of Wallace being seen in a phone box or his voice recognised, and its red herring potential was swiftly dismissed by police enquiries. Why bother constructing an alibi around Menlove Gardens when he could have established a better one as part of his weekly house visits? Or the chess club for that matter. Far from being a stroke of genius, the Q call is more an albatross around Wallace’s neck.

The brutal method of murder was not in keeping with what we know of Wallace’s character, and given the very narrow time slot chosen by him (assuming the milk delivery was part of his schedule) ran the risk of blood being later found about his person.

Disposal of the murder weapon must have been extremely well planned, but Wallace had little opportunity to deviate from the most direct route from his house to catch the first tram, and the police searched the surrounding area. He could, admittedly, have dumped the weapon during his peregrinations around Menlove Gardens, but if the weapon were to turn up in that vicinity then he was pretty much bang-to-rights.

The difficulty with the house doors on his return does not speak of very great planning either. The bolted front door was smart enough, explaining why he became suspicious of something being wrong. But surely better then to have the back door unlocked, or even a little ajar, as part of his narrative. He could not have anticipated the neighbours appearing so his was, in theory, the only account which was going to be available.

If Wallace was indeed guilty, then the appearance of his neighbours was a terrific piece of good luck. He was able to enter the property in their presence, ‘discover’ the body along with them and send the husband for the police. His original plan must have been for him to do these things alone, so was much weaker than what transpired.

That’s a lot of luck for Wallace’s perfectly planned murder: the milkboy arriving just in the nick of time; the lack of minute blood particles being sprayed on to his clothes; being able to hide the murder weapon so successfully; the neighbours appearing at just the right moment.

Hi Cobalt,

you raise some very good points.

I will just address the ones I immediately disagree with for hopefully polite debate.

I disagree with the Q call, on the surface it is harder for me to see why a caller would need the ruse, rather than going that night (if they were sure he was at the chess club to receive it, which I don't think they would be---another problem, but anyway they necessarily must have for in this theory).

Wallace could just be trying to introduce an "alternate suspect".

I see the call only helping him (in theory even if it backfired) . It created a mysterious hoaxer suspect.

As far as the milk boy , he may have viewed him as an obstacle to overcome rather than an alibi. I dont think he could hope for a perfect alibi because if he is the killer he can't outpace the reality of his crime. Again, the introduction of another suspect helps him.

Yes, he would have had to take risks. Whoever the killer was did.

As far as the milk boy another point, is if Wallace was the killer he could only leave a bit after the milk boy came and gone (he cant act until said time). If he was innocent, he can leave at any time. He does not know where he is going exactly. One could forgive him for leaving at 6:30 or 6:40 to allow a little extra time. If he was seen on the tram at say 6:55 ---there is nothing to talk about, he is innocent. Instead he is seen with just enough time to put him in the frame.

The neighbors were there on his arrival That's a fact. It is mixing prior and posterior probabilities to think this makes Wallace's candidacy as the killer less likely because it would be amazing luck for him. Maybe you meant he couldn't rely on that, which I agree. Although perhaps he could try the locks ruse , claim he was locked out and ring their door to have them help in get in/check things out.

Your disposal of weapon is the strongest point which I will address in a subsequent post.

[WallaceWackedHer]

When discussing the details of the attack on Julia Wallace there is ample reason to see Wallace as the guilty party. Had Wallace lashed out in a moment of fury, then clumsily staged a burglary, that would hold some water. However we need to keep the whole attack in context.

The imbroglio of the Qualtrough phone call means that Wallace, if guilty, must have planned the attack. Yet the Q phone call only serves to give him an alibi for around 90 minutes, a shorter time span than provided by the chess club or indeed his activities on any other working day. The Q call was in this respect totally unnecessary, ran the risk of Wallace being seen in a phone box or his voice recognised, and its red herring potential was swiftly dismissed by police enquiries. Why bother constructing an alibi around Menlove Gardens when he could have established a better one as part of his weekly house visits? Or the chess club for that matter. Far from being a stroke of genius, the Q call is more an albatross around Wallace’s neck.

The brutal method of murder was not in keeping with what we know of Wallace’s character, and given the very narrow time slot chosen by him (assuming the milk delivery was part of his schedule) ran the risk of blood being later found about his person.

Disposal of the murder weapon must have been extremely well planned, but Wallace had little opportunity to deviate from the most direct route from his house to catch the first tram, and the police searched the surrounding area. He could, admittedly, have dumped the weapon during his peregrinations around Menlove Gardens, but if the weapon were to turn up in that vicinity then he was pretty much bang-to-rights.

The difficulty with the house doors on his return does not speak of very great planning either. The bolted front door was smart enough, explaining why he became suspicious of something being wrong. But surely better then to have the back door unlocked, or even a little ajar, as part of his narrative. He could not have anticipated the neighbours appearing so his was, in theory, the only account which was going to be available.

If Wallace was indeed guilty, then the appearance of his neighbours was a terrific piece of good luck. He was able to enter the property in their presence, ‘discover’ the body along with them and send the husband for the police. His original plan must have been for him to do these things alone, so was much weaker than what transpired.

That’s a lot of luck for Wallace’s perfectly planned murder: the milkboy arriving just in the nick of time; the lack of minute blood particles being sprayed on to his clothes; being able to hide the murder weapon so successfully; the neighbours appearing at just the right moment.

There wasn't really detection of minute particles going on back then, just visible blood staining. Forensics were very poor, not the identication of nearly sub-atomic tissue cells we see happening today.

DNA evidence didn't even exist at the time IIRC, just the entire field was quite archaic in general.

If the murder weapon from his home was used, I think it was wrapped to avoid blood. Wallace was thinking nobody would ever know the items in question were ever there, mainly the iron bar he claims to have never seen before in his life, so he probably wouldn't have minded disposing of it anywhere convenient. He didn't know the maid would point out the absence.

Did he even act alone though? It seems he could have, but then the sighting by Lily Hall (paired with his hesitation and odd answer when asked by police if he spoke to anyone on the ride home - before even knowing of Hall's testimony), seems to cast doubt on him having worked alone.

I'd also like to point out, there's no proof that Wallace was at home alone with Julia before he left for MGE. And no proof that a similar scheme to what Rod suggested had occurred, but with murder as the primary motive.

If we rule out the idea of a burglary - which we kinda can based on the impossibility of its silence and several other factors - and focus on this being a crime motivated by murder (carried out by the perp himself, or a second hired/blackmailed party), then we must consider why she was killed, or who may have done it. The husband is the obvious answer but it doesn't mean it's the right one (though his faltering testimony and strange behaviors suggest so). It very well could have been reasons unknown to any of us or any of the detectives at the time, and a person unknown to any of us.

[WallaceWackedHer]

As for the blood, the crime scene is mysterious in its complete lack of blood for such a brutal slaying via blunt trauma. In crime scene photos, I can't even see the "spray" on the walls they talk about.

It's so clean it's like a showroom in there lol, with a perfectly neat skull wound and just a single, relatively well contained pool of blood.

Has anyone considered the chance the mack may have been planted as a red herring as well? Another false clue to lead police in the wrong direction, like creating the non existent address and caller.

[WallaceWackedHer]

I found this extract from the trial:

And remember, not only had the thief, if it was a thief, the murderer who had come there, for some reason killed this woman, but he had taken down from 7 ft. 2 ins. high a cash-box with a broken lid, he had left in it a dollar bill, and had taken some other things (if anyone knows what other things please elaborate - probably means the iron bar etc), and apparently, having gone upstairs, had put the same amount of money in a vase on the mantelpiece, which does not look very much as though his object was robbery.

Did everyone know this already?

I think it would be better to narrow down the motive to murder or intentional framing of Wallace (likely as some kind of revenge tactic? He was an insurance agent after all). It's not just because of the above.

If it was a framing, it may be someone familiar with switchboards (or who worked as a switchboard operator) and purposefully had the call logged at the booth near Wallace's home, and purposefully made the "robbery" look as staged as possible.

If someone tried to frame him, it may not necessarily have been to seek revenge on Wallace, perhaps the person hated Julia and wanted police to direct their attention to the husband to avoid them looking at other potential suspects who may have reason to kill her.

---

I'll also add. The lack of blood on Lizzie Borden was used as defence in her trial. Now it is said she probably wore something like an apron to protect her undergarments, and washed off her hands. She would have had to have done this VERY quickly after murdering her stepmother, as she then came to see her father very shortly after, free of blood.

The stepmom was hit with a HATCHET 18 times (!). The father Andrew was hit 11 times, to the point where you literally cannot even discern where any features of his face are.

---

By the way, I propose an attempt was made to burn the mackintosh, and it was actually the mackintosh which partially burned Julia's skirt (the mack was much more severely burned).

[Herlock Sholmes]

MacFall changed his written opinion of 3-4 blows from a large-headed instrument to 11 blows without explanation or known reason. He was never quizzed about the change possibly because the defence team never saw the original post mortem document.

Forgive my devilish sense of mischief, etenguy, but are you also inclined to believe MacFall's testimony under oath that the time of death was before 6pm, a change of opinion without explanation or known reason from his written opinion that it was about 8pm? I'm sure you don't. But this does lead to a genuine problem: on what grounds do you accept a Macfall opinion rather than its self-contradictory?

Personally, I tend believe MacFall's earlier opinion before he started fitting facts to the police case. However, as time of death is always an estimate, I accept that 8pm can genuinely be challenged. BTW, 3-4 blows can be delivered with hatred.

Antony, I don’t have your book with me as I post this so I’ll have to check later. But...

wasnt McFall’s ‘3-4 blows’ in response to being asked how many blows would it have taken to have killed Julia? So is it impossible that he was actually saying ‘3 or 4 blows to actually kill her but the other 7 or 8 blows were just unnecessary viciousness?’

[ColdCaseJury]

Antony, I don’t have your book with me as I post this so I’ll have to check later. But...

wasnt McFall’s ‘3-4 blows’ in response to being asked how many blows would it have taken to have killed Julia? So is it impossible that he was actually saying ‘3 or 4 blows to actually kill her but the other 7 or 8 blows were just unnecessary viciousness?’

No the "3-4 blows from a large headed instrument" is in the written post-mortem report (p. 188). The 8pm time is in a second written report. In the witness box, he said he was definite there were 12 blows, then corrected himself to say 11; and he infamously asserted that time of death was 6pm or before.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The imbroglio of the Qualtrough phone call means that Wallace, if guilty, must have planned the attack. Yet the Q phone call only serves to give him an alibi for around 90 minutes, a shorter time span than provided by the chess club or indeed his activities on any other working day. The Q call was in this respect totally unnecessary, ran the risk of Wallace being seen in a phone box or his voice recognised, and its red herring potential was swiftly dismissed by police enquiries. Why bother constructing an alibi around Menlove Gardens when he could have established a better one as part of his weekly house visits? Or the chess club for that matter. Far from being a stroke of genius, the Q call is more an albatross around Wallace’s neck.

You know my opinion on the case by now Cobalt but, as I’ve always said, there are always doubts. The most difficult one is probably the point that you make about the risk of Wallace being seen making the phone call or simply being near to the phone box or even getting on the at the nearby tram stop. I guess that all we can say about a situation where none of us were there is that we can’t know for certain how busy the area was on that particular night. Whether by using the small triangular garden Wallace felt that he could increase his chances of remaining unseen. Also it was dark and no one was actually looking for Wallace. Yes he was tall and thin but he wasn’t exactly wearing a Batman costume No matter the planning there was always going to be risks.

As far as the plan was concerned I think that Wallace might have felt it important to create tangible evidence of a real culprit which he achieved by having Beattie hear the voice of Qualtrough. In making it appear that the culprit actually knew where the cash box was (by replacing it) and that the culprit knew the best day financially to rob Wallace and that the killer was admitted by a reticence Julia I’ve always felt it entirely possible that Wallace had Parry in mind as a possible scapegoat. Wallace had nothing to lose by pointing the finger at Parry and when we look at his ‘list’ of people that Julia would have let in we find just the names and occupations of the others, the name and a short description of Marsden and pretty much an essay on Parry. There’s no doubt who Wallace ‘has his money on.’ All Wallace needed (and didn’t get) was for Parry to have had either no alibi, one provided by one of his dodgy mates which could have been challenged or one from Lily alone where they might have said ‘well she would give you an alibi wouldntshe?’