Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the contents of Julia’s stomach. I recalled a conversation that I had with Antony a while ago and he’d reminded me of Professor Keith Simpson who was one of the countries most eminent Forensic Pathologists. He’d placed the time of Julia’s death between 6.00 and 8.00. Stomach contents were not the most accurate way of determining time of death; at least not in 1931.

[WallaceWackedHer]

All Anfield Burglaries ceased , so either the Johnstones were involved ,or the burglars got scared in case they came into the frame. ORRR?........

There are a few other possibilities I guess, like the unknown burglars moving/dying or being jailed for unrelated crimes.

There's also the tiny outlier chance that Wallace and/or Julia were the burglars lmfao

[moste]

All Anfield Burglaries ceased , so either the Johnstones were involved ,or the burglars got scared in case they came into the frame. ORRR?........

[WallaceWackedHer]

It would be good if someone could produce a full research file for the case. No opinions or theories just interviews, testimonies, maps, photos etc

I agree completely, it is a shame such a resource is not available, and that all the evidence and statements are spread out over like 100 books.

Also if he did not lie about when she ate then she couldn't have been killed by Wallace. That is the assertion of Gannon anyway:

According to Julia’s autopsy report, her stomach contained ‘about four ounces of semi-fluid food consisting of currants, raisins and unmasticated lumps of carbohydrate’. According to Wallace’s statement, this was the remains of the meal (tea and scones) he and Julia had had at 6 p.m. If this is so, this could indicate that Julia may have been murdered sometime between 7.30 and 8.30 p.m. (an hour and a half to two and a half hours after her meal), not between 6.30 and 6.45 p.m. If Julia had been murdered between the latter times, the food in her stomach would not have been as broken down by digestive fluids, as the process would have been halted by her death.

Gannon, John. The Killing of Julia Wallace . Amberley Publishing. Kindle Edition.

If he knew stomach contents are checked during autopsy, he may have lied about when she ate so the person conducting the autopsy would come to the same conclusion as Gannon... But if this is true (that Wallace couldn't have killed Julia himself) then who was in a better position to get away unseen than someone on the odd numbered side of Wolverton Street or Richmond Park? FYI I think I mentioned this already - but some very early author (or something) named a suspect "Harris" - which Rod said he believes means Parry. However, there was a Harris living at 79 Richmond Park. I may be wrong on that, because it was in the obituaries some time after the event so he may have moved in. If he was definitely living there at the time though, it might be something to look into... Although I'd still think the Johnstons were perfectly placed, and it has to be said that it is odd they moved out the next day and that Johnston contradicted his statements etc. etc.

Also the disappearance and re-emergence of the cat I think about... Most cases do have a few coincidences so that could be one of them, but I'm not sure and I do tend to try and eliminate elements of coincidence and luck when reasonable. If it was summer it would be far more likely, but in harsh climates cats don't tend to stay away from home. I think it'd be a good way to ensure entry - possibly even for someone Julia didn't know well/at all. Or could Wallace have suspected the cat might make noise if it sensed danger and kept it out of the home for that reason? I am not sure.

It still doesn't make much sense for the Johnstons to visit Phyllis the day before moving in even if John had taken the day off work. If they had done so, I'd expect them to take some of the luggage they claimed they'd already packed with them to save on the load they'd need to take the following day (just as one example)? Did any neighbors know about this supposedly planned move? Solo Wallace probably didn't, or he'd have chosen a different day to kill his wife (Mr. and Mrs. Johnston gone from the home = less people to potentially hear sounds or see things from their window).

And the thing about the postcard is, if Florence didn't know Julia's name she would have signed it Mrs. Wallace I should expect. Also I don't tend to believe people who aren't on a first name basis would send each other postcards about how much fun they're having on vacation. If they were really as distant as claimed, then why are they trading postcards etc?

All Anfield housebreakings ceased after Julia's murder. This could either point towards the Johnstons, or just the burglar(s) being terrified to burgle homes in that area in case they are accused of killing Julia.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Florence certainly knew Julia's name, so John should have known I would think after a decade especially - I thought they could hear so much through the walls haha.

I just don’t think that we can say that WWH. Remember, the postcard was signed J.Wallace. Not Julia.

And if Johnston originally believed Wallace forced the door open, what would make him change his mind? Why was he visiting a relative unexpectedly at 9PM with a 4AM waking job? If he was moving in why not stay the night, it's closer to John's workplace.

What if Johnston had told his bosses that he wouldn’t be in the next day as he was moving house? He may have booked this day off weeksin advance.

As for the stomach contents it was too digested if she had eaten when Wallace claimed. It's in Gannon's book.

I can’t really see how Wallace could have benefitted from lying about when Julia had eaten.

I'm not sure who CT is?

Sorry I was just too lazy to type Conspiracy theorist.

Personally I'd like to see the case files to see if other neighbors corroborate things. 33 and 27 Wolverton specifically.

If William didn't kill her himself (an opinion many people have) then a neighbor is in the perfect position to escape unseen. Blackmailing someone over burglary is also a stronger form of blackmail than what Gannon proposed...

But we don’t have a thing to connect Johnston to any burglaries and even if we did how could Wallace have found out? The Johnston’s would hardly have been having conversations about burglaries at the top of their voices forthe Wallace’s to hear through the wall.

It would be good if someone could produce a full research file for the case. No opinions or theories just interviews, testimonies, maps, photos etc

[moste]

Conspiracy theory/theorist.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Im not at home at the moment WWH and have no books with me (I really should take at least one Wallace book with me when I go anywhere) so you will have to refresh my memory on that point as I can’t recall any controversy over when or what’s Julia had eaten. They’d eaten scones as far as I can recall?

Florence certainly knew Julia's name, so John should have known I would think after a decade especially - I thought they could hear so much through the walls haha. And if Johnston originally believed Wallace forced the door open, what would make him change his mind? Why was he visiting a relative unexpectedly at 9PM with a 4AM waking job? If he was moving in why not stay the night, it's closer to John's workplace.

As for the stomach contents it was too digested if she had eaten when Wallace claimed. It's in Gannon's book.

I'm not sure who CT is?

Personally I'd like to see the case files to see if other neighbors corroborate things. 33 and 27 Wolverton specifically.

If William didn't kill her himself (an opinion many people have) then a neighbor is in the perfect position to escape unseen. Blackmailing someone over burglary is also a stronger form of blackmail than what Gannon proposed...

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
What do you make of her stomach contents? Did Wallace anticipate that factor and lie about when Julia had eaten?

Im not at home at the moment WWH and have no books with me (I really should take at least one Wallace book with me when I go anywhere) so you will have to refresh my memory on that point as I can’t recall any controversy over when or what’s Julia had eaten. They’d eaten scones as far as I can recall?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Parry about the call alibi, Wallace about many things (too many to list), Mr. Johnston about Wallace coming to him at quarter to nine and having to "force the back door open" to gain entry, Mrs. Johnston and Wallace unable to decide which of them said "whatever have they used?", Mr. Johnston's incredible claim of not knowing Julia's name, Mrs. Johnston saying Wallace knocking on the back door at night was usual so they didn't pay any attention to it...

Why do all of these people fudge their stories or make false statements?

I just think that people can get things mistaken especially under a difficult situation. This is why I am very wary of saying that someone actually lied when there could be an innocent explanation. You’re not a conspiracy theorist WWH so I’m certainly not accusing you of anything but I just make the point that as you know CT’s feed on this kind of thing so I think that we have to be cautious and think “is there an alternative, less sinister, explanation? It still might be one that we don’t accept though.for eg.

Johnston saying that Wallace had to force the back door - maybe with Wallace fumbling around? He may have even appeared to have his shoulder to the door as he was ‘trying’ to open it and this led Johnston to think that he’d shouldered it to get it open.

Mr Johnston’s claim of not knowing Julia’s name - I think that’s perfectly believable in more formal times. How much opportunity would he have had of talking to Julia? He was at work all day. Recall that the postcard was signed J. Wallace. If they knew each other better then she would surely have written Julia?

Mrs Johnston saying the Wallace knocking on the back door was normal - I just think that she was saying that it was a normal knock as opposed to a loud, frantic one and so it set off no alarm bells for them.

Im not saying that your interpretations are wrong. Just that there can often be simple explanations. Especially when things are relayed by word of mouth under trying or stressful circumstances.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. If the mack was a shield rather than worn then Wallace would be a complete FOOL to use his own jacket. It also seems implausible. The splatter suggests (apparently) that it was actually worn by the attacker. That's just what forensics suggested. They're no longer alive to quiz then further on this sadly, but that was the suggestion

But this is why I believe that Wallace pushed the mackintosh underneath Julia’s body. He believe that by bunching it up and then placing it beneath her body, where there was also blood that had come from the head wounds, that the blood spatter would become smeared so as to not resemble blood spatter. He was probably just hoping that the police would decide that Julia was just carrying the coat when the attacker struck.

[WallaceWackedHer]

To be honest if it could ever be conclusively proven that the killer wore the mackintosh then I’d say that it was pretty much case closed......Wallace guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The Accomplice theory would go because a spur-of-the-moment killer wouldn’t have taken any form of precaution and for me it’s pretty much impossible to envisage anyone having any reason to set out to kill Julia except for Wallace (or someone who killed her on Wallace’s behalf.)

As I said in an earlier post, if the killer had thrown the mackintosh over Julia and then delivered the blows then there would have been no blood spatter in the room. All those that were there said that there was.

The forensic team (I think both MacFall and one of the others) pointed out the stain on the sleeve. MacFall suggested the bloodied hand touched that sleeve to remove the jacket.

And yes, I agree, the accomplice theory is obviously completely impossible on so many levels. If she was slaughtered in the kitchen and neighbors heard screaming then it'd be clear she'd caught a burglar and been attacked.

Being in the parlor AND killed in absolute silence? With Arthur literally a tiny wall apart from the parlor as well as the whole Johnston household claiming they could easily hear sounds next door? IMO it is completely impossible. (Like 1% odds at most, so may as well be considered an absolutely impossible solution).

It only works if you place two people in the home, one distracting Julia in the parlor. That's the only conceivable way it could even potentially have happened. There are still problems though.

If the mack was a shield rather than worn then Wallace would be a complete FOOL to use his own jacket. It also seems implausible. The splatter suggests (apparently) that it was actually worn by the attacker. That's just what forensics suggested. They're no longer alive to quiz then further on this sadly, but that was the suggestion.

And I know about the spray. That's the issue I have. I don't think he could have left so squeaky clean in 10 minutes, I just can't see it. And if he did he CERTAINLY couldn't have envisioned that he'd not be completely drenched if he'd simply worn the jacket. Throwing a covering over her, yeah, for sure... But wearing a mack, too much spray in my view. It wouldn't be anything like Carrie, but a tiny stain anywhere on any of his clothing is enough to send him to his death, any noticeable blood mark on his face or hair as well... He only had 10 minutes remember and has to be SPOTLESS.

Also it's asserted by those who believe Wallace had someone else kill Julia that he used blackmail to get them to do it. There's also a discrepancy in the Pru cash but I don't think it was enough to hire a killer. Unless he had a large amount of savings... But in the case of blackmail, I'd think he knew who had burgled 19 Wolverton Street (and probably the other homes in the neighbourhood) and used that as blackmail. I would suggest Mr. Johnston is "suspect"... Wallace, Parry, and both Johnstons AFAIK are the only people who have lied or got their stories mixed...

Parry about the call alibi, Wallace about many things (too many to list), Mr. Johnston about Wallace coming to him at quarter to nine and having to "force the back door open" to gain entry, Mrs. Johnston and Wallace unable to decide which of them said "whatever have they used?", Mr. Johnston's incredible claim of not knowing Julia's name, Mrs. Johnston saying Wallace knocking on the back door at night was usual so they didn't pay any attention to it...

Why do all of these people fudge their stories or make false statements?

What do you make of her stomach contents? Did Wallace anticipate that factor and lie about when Julia had eaten?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But essentially, this is why I suspect a neighbor may have been involved, as they could carry out the attack and get back into their home unseen with relative ease. With such flimsy splatter protection, the idea Wallace did it himself and got out so squeaky clean in 10 minutes becomes hard to accept... And Julia's stomach contents suggest a later time of death (IF Wallace told the truth about when they ate - which we can't know!)... Plus the fact rigor was determined based on the FAKE age of the woman, and we can expect it to set in faster in a more elderly woman.

I certainly find it hard to accept that Wallace would even ask neighbours, that he barely knew, to kill his wife. Especially in such a brutal way. If we talk about luck then how lucky would Wallace have been as someone who wanted his wife dead to discover that he’d been living for all those years next door to such a brutal and cold-blooded couple.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
We can surmise from the forensic suggestions that this was a relatively bloody affair, with stained shoes/feet, hands/gloves, jacket, and - it was said - likely the face and possibly hair of the man. Wallace left that home impeccably clean, not even benzidine could detect anything on any of his garments (not sure if they tested ALL clothing in his home)... But you see the bloodier the attack, and the more steps he needs to take before heading for the tram, the less and less likely it becomes that he had enough time to carry out the attack.

The problem is that this assumption has always been made. I believe that this was far from certain if Wallace took precautions. He might have planned for a clean-up in the back kitchen sink but found that he’d avoided blood. By wearing the Mack or using it as a shield (and possible a pair of gloves) I’m absolutely convinced that Wallace could have killed Julia with only his face (or even half of his face) on view. Remember, even Wallace himself mentioned that the killer might have used the mackintosh as a shield. So if we at least accept the possibility that Wallace could have killed Julia without being drenched head to toe in blood like Carrie (as some appear to suggest) then there is absolutely no physical objection to Wallace being the killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We also learn from the experts that the killer supposedly wiped his shoes on the rug. This is also important because you wouldn't think that wiping your feet on the rug could get ALL traces of blood off of the bottom of the shoe. I'm not sure if the suggestion is accurate as nothing at all is tracked out of the room, so if it did happen again we can expect either the attacker donned or removed shoes after the attack.

Thats a good point. There was no blood outside of the Parlour except for the stain on the notes and the clot on the toilet bowl. Unless the killer rather clumsily trod in the pool of blood around Julia’s head, and the evidence pretty much shows that this wasn’t true, then it’s hard to see how he got blood on the bottom of his shoes. Maybe any smearing on the carpet came from a different source? Could the killer have been getting excess blood from a pair of gloves or even the weapon?

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be honest if it could ever be conclusively proven that the killer wore the mackintosh then I’d say that it was pretty much case closed......Wallace guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The Accomplice theory would go because a spur-of-the-moment killer wouldn’t have taken any form of precaution and for me it’s pretty much impossible to envisage anyone having any reason to set out to kill Julia except for Wallace (or someone who killed her on Wallace’s behalf.)

As I said in an earlier post, if the killer had thrown the mackintosh over Julia and then delivered the blows then there would have been no blood spatter in the room. All those that were there said that there was.