Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. By the way, does anyone know how long Wallace was inside the house before finding Julia's body? You would expect a terrified husband (particularly after seeing a wrenched off cupboard door) to search at quite a pace, and be very vocal in calling for his wife, as soon as he got into the kitchen in fact. If it was a slow meandering around the home, it is more reasonable to assume staging could have possibly taken place during that search.

After around a minute or two Mr Johnston heard Wallace call out then the light in the middle bedroom flared up. Then a match flickered briefly in the back bedroom. It was only a short time (I’m unsure how long) before Wallace emerged.

As you say though Wallace would have been desperate to find his wife especially after seeing the cupboard door had been wrenched off. This will induce a groan from some quarters but I still think that the fact that Wallace ignored the Parlour (the door being within touching distance) is deeply suspicious behaviour.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Okay so we can assume there was not enough time for any elaborate staging to have taken place.

I do believe the note in that vase had Julia's blood upon it still, but maybe a point to come back to as I'm not sure how to explain it. I think it would have been hard to put the mark on there without noticing, and I do believe Wallace would have pointed out the fact it had already been like that if it was. I don't think it is something that could go unnoticed. Plus the fact it was one note smeared, while it was one £1 note missing from the box also.

I find it more suspicious that money was left in the cash box than anything else when discussing whether this was a robbery. Is there any reason to think nothing of this?

I wonder if all can agree that it makes more sense based on all evidence, that the object of the crime was: Go in > kill Julia > fake/commit robbery (likely fake).

[Herlock Sholmes]

I certainly feel that the robbery was faked and that this was a planned murder (by William.) Supporters of the Accomplice theory though would say that the robbery came first and the killing of Julia was unplanned and a result of being discovered. It’s harder though to conceive of someone else killing Julia intentionally and then attempting to make it look like a robbery gone wrong. Julia and William weren’t exactly ‘party animals.’ They had a very small circle of occaisionally visiting friends. It’s impossible for example to suspect someone like Caird. Why would anyone want Julia dead? It’s not impossible of course but I’d say that it was unlikely.

Two points made against Wallace’s guilt are of course: why did he put the cash box back on the shelf and why didn’t he make a more thorough job of staging a robbery (opening drawers, ransacking Julia’s bag for example?) If guilty was Wallace trying to make it look like it was someone who could have been admitted to the house and who attempted to steal the cash without Julia knowing? In short, Parry. Or was Wallace simply panicked by the fact that a) he’d just murdered his wife, and b) time was tighter than expected due to Alan Close being late? In fairness we have to say, how long would it have taken to open a few drawers and make a mess? Against this of course we have to point out that there was no sign of a break-in and so if Wallace had made a huge mess in an attempt to show that the killer was a burglar how could this burglar have gotten in?

Against the Accomplice of course we have: Why no further search for cash or valuables after the paltry haul? Why turn off the lights? Why no blood outside of the Parlour? Why remove the weapon? Why no one heard or saw anyone at the door talking to Julia? Why was the mackintosh tucked up beneath her body?

Very little is straightforward in this case. If it was we would have nothing to talk about

[WallaceWackedHer]

Well, binge watching true crime documentaries all the time (especially domestic homicide cases on "Deadly Women" - one of the greatest true crime series ever by the way, full Hollywood tier re-enactment!), people do make mistakes. One mistake is all it takes to get caught... I don't think Wallace is someone who would definitely act with the precision of a supercomputer, it's very possible he replaced that box not thinking of the implications.

For example, one of the most common mistakes is the perpetrator trying to make it look like a break in, but smashing the glass from inside rather than from the outside, which these days can be easily determined by forensics. But also a LACK of signs pointing to a forced entry is also a red flag for investigators.

There is no way the robbery came first with only one person in that house. I'm sorry to anyone who thinks otherwise but it is completely implausible. Look at the layout of the house, look at where the kitchen is. There are so many reasons why I would go out on a limb and say it's impossible robber happened first, but here's just a few:

1) If Julia discovered a burglar, why did she make no sound whatsoever?

2) If the burglar was discovered by Julia, why did HE make no sound whatsoever?

3) If Julia discovered a burglar, why did she then decide the best thing to do would be to go into the parlor and relax (the parlor has only one door so you can be cornered in there, PLUS the door to exit the home is RIGHT BY the parlor).

4) If the burglar was discovered and decided to kill Julia, he was in the kitchen, why not grab a knife? Instead he chases her through the house like a Scooby Doo episode before picking up her husband's mackintosh, walking into the parlor, and by sheer chance stumbling upon a giant iron bar to bludgeon her with... A bar Wallace claimed even he had never seen in his entire life.

5) Oh and again I stress: ALL events after the burglar was discovered to Julia being bludgeoned happened without a single sound, like a silent movie.

---

I could literally go on and on and on. I could write an entire novel on why this WASN'T a robbery -> murder unless two people were in the home. And even then it seems dodgy. Like Julia is okay with some guy who's a stranger to her coming into the parlor wearing Wallace's mackintosh and picking up that bar? Like yeah, that's not suspicious at all lmao... Not for a second do I buy Julia used it to warm herself up. Would YOU wear a mackintosh, something ridiculously uncomfortable, as a bodywarmer? Obviously she would have had her own jackets at the very least, or a blanket, or cardigan, or SOMETHING. The idea of her putting the mack around her shoulders is almost as ridiculous as saying like, she wrapped a pair of jeans around her neck. But that's the smallest point amongst a sea of ridiculousness that proves she died first.

[etenguy]

Well, binge watching true crime documentaries all the time (especially domestic homicide cases on "Deadly Women" - one of the greatest true crime series ever by the way, full Hollywood tier re-enactment!), people do make mistakes. One mistake is all it takes to get caught... I don't think Wallace is someone who would definitely act with the precision of a supercomputer, it's very possible he replaced that box not thinking of the implications.

For example, one of the most common mistakes is the perpetrator trying to make it look like a break in, but smashing the glass from inside rather than from the outside, which these days can be easily determined by forensics. But also a LACK of signs pointing to a forced entry is also a red flag for investigators.

You are aware I believe robbery is unlikely as the motive for this crime. Nevertheless, Wallace had both of these points covered. The Qualtrough set up provides a reason to believe entry was not forced, but that Julia had invited her assailant into the house. The suggestion he wanted the police to arrive at (assuming he was guilty) was that Julia was entertaining a guest (hence the murder taking place in the parlour) who was a sneak thief (hence explaining the return of the cash box to its original position) but that something went wrong, leading the thief to kill her. We may or may not find that compelling, but I believe the replacing of the cash box was intentional. The clothes burning, suggesting a lit fire, may also have been deliberate to reinforce this scenario.

There is no way the robbery came first with only one person in that house. I'm sorry to anyone who thinks otherwise but it is completely implausible. Look at the layout of the house, look at where the kitchen is. There are so many reasons why I would go out on a limb and say it's impossible robber happened first, but here's just a few:

1) If Julia discovered a burglar, why did she make no sound whatsoever?

2) If the burglar was discovered by Julia, why did HE make no sound whatsoever?

All we can say is that no-one reported hearing any noise, not that none was made. But even if we assume there were no screams or shouts, what else may have happened? We could suggest a number of possible scenarios, they would be speculative with no evidence to support them, but since we cannot know for sure what transpired, we cannot rule them out either.

A possible scenario might be that the fire had been lit before Julia excused herself to go upstairs (maybe to use the toilet). The thief commited the burglary while she was out of the parlour. He returns the cash box to the shelf, dropping a couple of coins on the hearth as he hears the flush and rushes back to the parlour before Julia returns, ready to make excuses to leave.

3) If Julia discovered a burglar, why did she then decide the best thing to do would be to go into the parlor and relax (the parlor has only one door so you can be cornered in there, PLUS the door to exit the home is RIGHT BY the parlor).

Julia comes back into the parlour and notices money in the thief's hands, or sticking out of his pocket. She doesn't jump to the conclusion that he stole the money, but the thief thinks he's been caught out. As the penny drops for Julia, he notices her face and that she is about to scream. He's been caught red handed. He notices the iron bar by the fire, makes a grab for it pushing Julia onto the fire as he does so. He picks up the bar and whacks her as she is getting up. She is out cold, but maybe not dead. He has got some blood on him, spots the mackintosh (or perhaps had seen it on his way into the parlour) and decides to wear it to protect himself from any further blood stains before he whacks her again to make sure she is dead. Standing over her, he catches the right hand corner of the mackintosh on the fire. He pats out the mackintosh and turns off the gas jet before reigning down more blows. He takes off the mackintosh, uses it to clean his hands and any obvious signs of blood before leaving it where it was found.

4) If the burglar was discovered and decided to kill Julia, he was in the kitchen, why not grab a knife? Instead he chases her through the house like a Scooby Doo episode before picking up her husband's mackintosh, walking into the parlor, and by sheer chance stumbling upon a giant iron bar to bludgeon her with... A bar Wallace claimed even he had never seen in his entire life.

See above.

5) Oh and again I stress: ALL events after the burglar was discovered to Julia being bludgeoned happened without a single sound, like a silent movie.

See above

---

I could literally go on and on and on. I could write an entire novel on why this WASN'T a robbery -> murder unless two people were in the home. And even then it seems dodgy. Like Julia is okay with some guy who's a stranger to her coming into the parlor wearing Wallace's mackintosh and picking up that bar? Like yeah, that's not suspicious at all lmao... Not for a second do I buy Julia used it to warm herself up. Would YOU wear a mackintosh, something ridiculously uncomfortable, as a bodywarmer? Obviously she would have had her own jackets at the very least, or a blanket, or cardigan, or SOMETHING. The idea of her putting the mack around her shoulders is almost as ridiculous as saying like, she wrapped a pair of jeans around her neck. But that's the smallest point amongst a sea of ridiculousness that proves she died first.

He decides to see if there is anything else he can take and half heartedly searches a couple of rooms. The burglar is not not thinking straight, he's just killed someone. He is too preoccupied with the murder to notice the money in the vase or Julia's bag. He soon gives up and flees.

I only suggest the above scenario to caution against being too certain that the murder was planned and it wasn't a robbery gone wrong. I'm sure you can pick holes with the scenario, but we could probably refine in light of any you find. I still believe that the intended crime was murder, but playing devil's advocate, I think we have to leave open the possibility it was a bungled robbery turned murder.

[WallaceWackedHer]

^ You see, the theory has the same issue as all other burglary theories. The second it gets to the actual murder, it all falls apart into extreme implausibility.

It is mostly reliant on the noise first and foremost that I don't believe it. But also the bit about the bar. Are we to believe the killer was wearing her husband's mackintosh? That's obviously going to weird her out a lot. And picking up an iron bar etc? I think we can say with almost total certainty that Julia wasn't expecting to be attacked, and that it happened suddenly and without warning. No sign of struggle, no sound, no nothing.

I am just now reading John Gannon's book. I do not know where these authors get this information. There is like 100000 pages of extra detail compared to what can be found out about it online from any resource. Is this all in the full case file or something? Where can I get access to ALL the facts without author "spin"?

Probably after reading through the entirety of this I will have a completely different opinion on various events. For example, this book explains that Julia's bedsheet was on the kitchen table. This is not information found anywhere else, and now I do think that the "disturbance" in the front room was her own doing.

They also have more detail about Lily Hall. She picked Wallace out of a police lineup, proving that she really DID know him by sight, and saw him talking to a man between 79 and 81 Richmond Park (look on Google street view, you'll see the entry way) which leads to the back of Wallace's house.

Lily Hall and the officer who claimed to have seen Wallace crying, their testimony is essentially ignored, but IMO should be given a lot more weight. If they ARE right, then Lily Hall's testimony in particular is absolutely damning... And the officer was insistent that Wallace looked bereaved not just dabbing his eyes with cold. He passed by him very close, I don't think anyone could mistake grief with that. Lily Hall's testimony is given extra weight also by Wallace's obvious hesitation and evasiveness when being asked if he had spoken to anyone on his way home before the trial.

I will have to read through this book to learn more about the case. The information online is woefully inadequate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s always best to read books covering different viewpoints. Lots of the extra info comes from authors (like Antony) getting access to police files etc. I enjoyed Gannon’s book but do go for his solution. If I had to suggest 5 ‘must read’ books I’d say Goodman, Wilkes ( you can get them for around £10 each), Murphy (£20+) Gannon and Antony’s.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s always best to read books covering different viewpoints. Lots of the extra info comes from authors (like Antony) getting access to police files etc. I enjoyed Gannon’s book but do go for his solution. If I had to suggest 5 ‘must read’ books I’d say Goodman, Wilkes ( you can get them for around £10 each), Murphy (£20+) Gannon and Antony’s.

That should read “do not go for his solution” of course.

[WallaceWackedHer]

That should read “do not go for his solution” of course.

Yeah I can get the eBook versions pretty cheap which is good. I actually do buy into the accomplice idea personally. I'll have to do more research though.

I would prefer if there was a totally unbiased book that didn't even give a theory, just laid out all the facts. Some of those authors spin things to suit their theory, like I think Murphy says the milk boy came at 6:30 for example lol. Gannon's book seems boring but absolutely chock full of facts. I'll get hold of all of them anyway.

[WallaceWackedHer]

How do the authors get these files, do I have to call Merseyside police and request a copy of the case files?

[Herlock Sholmes]

How do the authors get these files, do I have to call Merseyside police and request a copy of the case files?

I’m unsure how they go about it but there’s the Freedom Of Information Act of course. Antony would be able tell you. Rod may have seen the files too as he’s been researching the case for some time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah I can get the eBook versions pretty cheap which is good. I actually do buy into the accomplice idea personally. I'll have to do more research though.

I would prefer if there was a totally unbiased book that didn't even give a theory, just laid out all the facts. Some of those authors spin things to suit their theory, like I think Murphy says the milk boy came at 6:30 for example lol. Gannon's book seems boring but absolutely chock full of facts. I'll get hold of all of them anyway.

No book is without fault of course. I don’t agree with Murphy’s suggestion that Wallace washed himself down in the bath but I still think he got the culprit right though. The Accomplice theory doesn’t work for me but everyone has their own take. It’s the only other possibility though. Wallace or accomplice for me. Parry should be eliminated. Burglar/Housebreaker can be eliminated too as there were no signs of forced entry.

Im waiting for someone to suggest suicide!

[WallaceWackedHer]

No book is without fault of course. I don’t agree with Murphy’s suggestion that Wallace washed himself down in the bath but I still think he got the culprit right though. The Accomplice theory doesn’t work for me but everyone has their own take. It’s the only other possibility though. Wallace or accomplice for me. Parry should be eliminated. Burglar/Housebreaker can be eliminated too as there were no signs of forced entry.

Im waiting for someone to suggest suicide!

Haha at the last part!

Can you imagine she legit had a fit and smashed her head off the fireplace multiple times? Looool.

I also eliminate burglary but not due to no forced entry (the idea is that someone came over saying they are Qualtrough)... Now it could also have been an aquaintance who she admitted who wanted to burgle the home. For me it starts to fall apart later than the entry... For me it falls apart at the suggestion that Julia had caught the burglar, because it's quite obvious she wasn't expecting the attack. Especially if she caught him in the kitchen or whatever, then it's even worse.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You will have to cleat this up for me. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. You said that you eliminate burglary and in brackets you say that you mean someone gaining entrance by saying that they are Qualtrough. That’s the essence of the Accomplice theory and in post #2334 you said that you do buyinto the Accomplice theory?

This is probably down to wording and I’ve misunderstood your meaning? Blame a year of discussing this case

[WallaceWackedHer]

You will have to cleat this up for me. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. You said that you eliminate burglary and in brackets you say that you mean someone gaining entrance by saying that they are Qualtrough. That’s the essence of the Accomplice theory and in post #2334 you said that you do buyinto the Accomplice theory?

This is probably down to wording and I’ve misunderstood your meaning? Blame a year of discussing this case

I can believe an altered version of Rod's theory where the motive is murder.

In other words, someone who wanted Julia dead had "Qualtrough" admitted into the home to kill her.

I don't buy that it was a burglary at all. IMO it was really obviously staged...

By the way I'm about 200 pages into Gannon's book. A few things stood out to me... First of all that Lily Hall's testimony gave a description of what Wallace was wearing, which matched perfectly with what others who saw him that night had described him as wearing. Is there any reason this shouldn't hugely corroborate the accuracy of this sighting?

Also apparently the timings of the trams to the chess club were taken, and given when the call came in at the booth, it was apparently shown that it would have been impossible for Wallace to have arrived at the chess club at 7:45 that night (or whenever it was, I forget). And that Caird knew Wallace's address - and it appeared meticulously timed so that Caird would not be there in order to supply the address. The significance of why the caller would need to request the address is unknown to me.